Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom Hunt. It's the Shift Show
Speaker 1: today on Capitol Hill. The open impeachment hearing is upon us. Also,
Speaker 1: could there be a secret Senate trial ballot? What's going
Speaker 1: on with Durham meeting with Downer? The cartels are making
Speaker 1: opioid synthetics, webcams at the border statement from the Northwestern
Speaker 1: Dean Warrens Well tax ten, oh so much more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the bus Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence,
Speaker 1: magnor mistake American, You're a great American Again the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No, welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sex and shure everybody, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being here. Man. We have a lot to get
Speaker 1: to today, because it is the Shift Show, as people
Speaker 1: are calling it, aptly named aptly titled Adam Schiff running
Speaker 1: the Circus as the New York Post depicted it on
Speaker 1: their cover this morning, The circus up on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: The whole thing is really quite absurd, quite obvious, quite transparent,
Speaker 1: and yet here we are supposed to be transfixed by
Speaker 1: what is the most clear and in my opinion, the
Speaker 1: irrefutable partisan employ the Democrats have launched since the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion nonsense of a few years ago. And yet here
Speaker 1: we are being told that this is our democracy at stake,
Speaker 1: the republic itself is at risk. You have a very
Speaker 1: basic argument that the Republicans have, which is that this
Speaker 1: is all just garbage. And then you have these ornate
Speaker 1: theories that keep shifting and changing, shifty shift. The language
Speaker 1: is always being addressed, adopted, changed, altered, replaced. I tell you,
Speaker 1: my friends, if you were to steal a car, somebody
Speaker 1: would say, if they were going to bring charges against you,
Speaker 1: that this person is guilty of auto theft. It wouldn't
Speaker 1: be this person is guilty of auto theft. No, actually,
Speaker 1: this person's guilty of interfering in interstate automotive commerce. No, actually,
Speaker 1: this person created a danger to passers by with the
Speaker 1: illegal transport of a vehicle not owned by him. No,
Speaker 1: it's pretty straightforward. When someone commits a crime. What the
Speaker 1: crime is? Right? You say it, this person did this thing.
Speaker 1: If Trump had really broken the law, isn't it obvious
Speaker 1: that they wouldn't have to concoct a new legal theory
Speaker 1: just defying his impeachment every week? What is it? This week,
Speaker 1: What was it last week, what was it the week before?
Speaker 1: Just go through a timeline of this, and what you
Speaker 1: see is that they keep changing the rules, changing the game,
Speaker 1: and also changing the very allegations that they are making.
Speaker 1: Initially we heard, and don't let this to slip slip
Speaker 1: down the memory hole. Initially we heard that this was
Speaker 1: an election interference issue, and they even went as far
Speaker 1: as to say that this was a campaign finance issue,
Speaker 1: essentially trying to tie what happened here, they say with
Speaker 1: Trump and Ukraine and Zelenski and the phone call back
Speaker 1: to the earlier charges that they had already made about
Speaker 1: a thing of value at Trump Tower. Oh, that was
Speaker 1: election campaign violation. Oh, and then there was also the
Speaker 1: effort to use this Stormy Daniel situation. That was election
Speaker 1: campaign violation. They've tried this before, and they're going back
Speaker 1: to these areas on purpose. The problem with the initial
Speaker 1: allegation was that any normal rational person would say, hold
Speaker 1: on a second. If a president doing a thing, asking
Speaker 1: a foreign leader to do a thing that would benefit
Speaker 1: him politically, is a thing of value from a foreign actor,
Speaker 1: then isn't every intelligent presidential act of foreign policy involving
Speaker 1: an interlocutor, wouldn't wouldn't at all be a campaign finance
Speaker 1: violation benefits the campaign makes him look good doing this
Speaker 1: for his own purposes. They couldn't stay with that, But
Speaker 1: that was initially what they were going with with this
Speaker 1: whistle blower. They were trying to create the basis of
Speaker 1: a criminal complaint. And then they started to use this
Speaker 1: language of the quid pro quo, which is in this
Speaker 1: case Latin for Democrats want you to be really scared. Oh,
Speaker 1: quid pro quo. It is true. Unfortunately, the way Mulvaney
Speaker 1: set it up when he had that somewhat disastrous interview
Speaker 1: a few weeks ago, I think what he said was accurate.
Speaker 1: He just didn't understand the politics around it, that foreign
Speaker 1: policy is built on quid pro quos. Do this thing,
Speaker 1: or we won't give you aid. In fact, I believe
Speaker 1: earlier this week the Trump administration began to investigate or
Speaker 1: began to put forward a policy of cutting off foreign
Speaker 1: aid to countries that don't have religious freedom. Great, give
Speaker 1: religious freedom to your people that were not giving you
Speaker 1: foreign aid. That's you know what that is. That's a
Speaker 1: quid pro quote. Well, he heard this all the time
Speaker 1: from people and that was then the talking point, because
Speaker 1: once they had established that there was some kind of
Speaker 1: a quid pro quo, then it was very likely thereafter
Speaker 1: that they would try to also change the legal language,
Speaker 1: also change whatever the charge may be on the basis
Speaker 1: of what we've established the quid pro quote, which goes
Speaker 1: into discussions of fraud, extortion, bribery, you know that on
Speaker 1: That's where we are now. Now we're hearing about this
Speaker 1: as a bribe or extorting a foreign ally, this is
Speaker 1: very important most Americans, and just go around and ask
Speaker 1: any of them. Don't really get all that excited or
Speaker 1: care that much about whether you know, this Ukrainian guy
Speaker 1: talking to that Ukrainian guy talking to this administration official
Speaker 1: who talked to that administration official thought that there should
Speaker 1: be an investigation. There wasn't an investigation. The javelins where
Speaker 1: I mean it all starts to get okay, I mean,
Speaker 1: this is just foreign part, Like what do we why
Speaker 1: are we really supposed to care that much? I mean,
Speaker 1: just from the perspective of a casual observer. And what
Speaker 1: ends up happening is that people have to latch on.
Speaker 1: The Democrats have to put forward certain things that sound
Speaker 1: ominous and this is not new, This is not a
Speaker 1: new tactic. That's why bribery, extortion, crimes against the Constitution.
Speaker 1: They're saying these things, but then they're not actually able
Speaker 1: to prove any of them. But they're just hoping that
Speaker 1: the repetition of the words in the context of an impeachment,
Speaker 1: an impeachment proceeding will be enough that there'll be some
Speaker 1: support from their side, for some support from people outside
Speaker 1: of their base for this, which I don't really think
Speaker 1: is going to happen. But they're just justifying this along
Speaker 1: the way with the choice of scary sounding words that
Speaker 1: they use. And this should be a reminder also of
Speaker 1: what they did during Russia collusion. Why didn't they initially
Speaker 1: say it was conspiracy, which is a federal criminal charge. Well,
Speaker 1: because conspiracy, as it is written in the statutes, there
Speaker 1: are certain elements that you have to be able to
Speaker 1: prove to it. They didn't want it to be about
Speaker 1: having to prove the elements of an actual crime with
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. They wanted it to be it looks bad,
Speaker 1: it's a maybe it's a crime, or maybe it's a
Speaker 1: political transgression. So that was why collusion gave them more
Speaker 1: room more leeway. Okay, you didn't actually take an affirmative
Speaker 1: step in a conspiracy, so we can't actually say it's
Speaker 1: a conspiracy. You didn't actually do the thing that we
Speaker 1: are saying you did, but you kind of wanted to
Speaker 1: and you benefited from it even though you didn't do anything.
Speaker 1: So that seems a collusion. We'll call it collusion, even
Speaker 1: though there is a real crime of collusion, usually has
Speaker 1: to do with companies that are price fixing. But then
Speaker 1: that wasn't enough, and then they moved to treason. They
Speaker 1: started saying, well, the president, oh, and we're hearing that again,
Speaker 1: betraying the constitutions. What they're saying betraying the constitution is
Speaker 1: the verbiage of today. But back during the Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: this is now just Ukraine collusion. This is two point zero.
Speaker 1: Back during Russia collusion, we would hear about treason that
Speaker 1: the president committed. And then some people said, well, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, there's actually a deaf NISI to treason.
Speaker 1: I know that that gets a lot of attention. That's
Speaker 1: a buzzword, but you can't just throw that around because
Speaker 1: people know what treason is. So can we come up
Speaker 1: with something else? Oh, and then it was obstruction, then
Speaker 1: it was obstruction. They keep switching the crime. They never
Speaker 1: can prove the crime. And so instead of saying, maybe
Speaker 1: we should stop just accusing this president of criminal acts
Speaker 1: that he has not committed and beat him at the
Speaker 1: ballot box, which the Democrats are very worried about doing
Speaker 1: because they have weak candidates and the Democratic Party has
Speaker 1: lost its mind, they just say, let's go on to
Speaker 1: the next one. Let's just move on to the next allegation.
Speaker 1: They don't have to prove anything, they don't have to
Speaker 1: actually answer to their own side, because no matter how
Speaker 1: crazy what they say may be, no matter how outlandished
Speaker 1: the allegation against Trump, as long as it is anti Trump.
Speaker 1: The people who hate Trump, who vote for Democrats, who
Speaker 1: watch MSNBC and CNN and read the New York Times,
Speaker 1: the Washington Post and others, they give them an a
Speaker 1: for effort. You didn't get Trump this time, maybe you'll
Speaker 1: get them next time. Let's come up with something else.
Speaker 1: They're going after his taxes, saying he's a tax cheat.
Speaker 1: They would after they're going after him on the emolument's clause.
Speaker 1: They wanted to use the twenty fifth Amendment. It says though,
Speaker 1: the Democrats, instead of trying to make their case for
Speaker 1: other American people shouldn't trust them with power, have all
Speaker 1: just sat around in a room with lawbooks and had
Speaker 1: a bunch of very unethical lawyers saying, well, maybe we
Speaker 1: could take this law and stretch it and find a
Speaker 1: way to pretend that the president violated this one. This
Speaker 1: is the way that they are approaching the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 1: not making a case the American people, but trying to
Speaker 1: pretend that they have a criminal case to make against him,
Speaker 1: to make against the president. And then every time it
Speaker 1: falls apart, they fall back on well, where it's really
Speaker 1: a political issue, it's a political crime, and then they
Speaker 1: find an other one. They act like he's broken the law.
Speaker 1: Oh no, we can't prove that. Turns out he didn't
Speaker 1: break the law. Well, what he did is bad bad
Speaker 1: faith when it comes to the Constitution and our democracies
Speaker 1: undermining our institutions. One thing that people are saying today
Speaker 1: who are reading between the lines a little bit looking closely,
Speaker 1: that the deep state in a sense is also on
Speaker 1: display on trial here for everyone else to see. Notice
Speaker 1: how the Democrats will put forward from the testimony this morning,
Speaker 1: they will put forward their witnesses, and their witnesses can
Speaker 1: talk about, well, my father did this amazing thing for
Speaker 1: the country, and that and my grandfather and my great
Speaker 1: great great grandfather, and you know, my family has been
Speaker 1: serving this country selflessly since the revolution. And I have
Speaker 1: no that's great, sure whatever, that that's all fine, Except
Speaker 1: why is it that the backstory intended to give the
Speaker 1: appearance of gravitas of a political selfless service to country
Speaker 1: in order to give additional weight to the allegations that
Speaker 1: these Democrat only called witnesses are going to give against
Speaker 1: the president. Why is it that is necessary or worthwhile
Speaker 1: for the American people to hear about these people their backgrounds,
Speaker 1: so that we are so that they are more credible
Speaker 1: as witnesses. But we cannot hear from the whistleblower. And
Speaker 1: in fact, the whistleblower's identity is to be kept a
Speaker 1: secret because his motivations to light the match that has
Speaker 1: led to this absurd conflagration, his motivation is irrelevant. That's
Speaker 1: where they keep telling us the underlying facts are true,
Speaker 1: regardless of what the underlying facts. We know what the
Speaker 1: underlying facts are, the motivation for bringing the allegation is
Speaker 1: really everything. In fact, there never should have been a
Speaker 1: whistleblower complaint because he's not a whistleblower and this isn't
Speaker 1: within his purview as somebody working for the federal government.
Speaker 1: But as I've told you, they have to protect that
Speaker 1: scan Am as long as they can. And as they
Speaker 1: get deeper into this impeachment process, then it won't really
Speaker 1: matter all that much. They'll have all these people on
Speaker 1: the record saying effectively with the whistleblowers initial allegation. And
Speaker 1: I still sit here, and perhaps I'm the I feel
Speaker 1: like I'm a lone man on the island saying this,
Speaker 1: but certainly a lone man on Manhattan Island saying it
Speaker 1: these days. Although Hannity's uptown, so I guess there are
Speaker 1: other people here, other people who here on the island.
Speaker 1: But there's nothing there's nothing wrong, meaning there's no violation
Speaker 1: what the president did. You cannot like it. It's bare knuckle.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to pretend that there isn't a dual
Speaker 1: justification for what he did, but no violation. There's no crime. Certainly,
Speaker 1: And as the Democrats walk around pretending to care so
Speaker 1: much about the Constitution and the rule of law. Just
Speaker 1: remember something. All these Democrats today on Capitol Hill are
Speaker 1: ranting about the rule of law and duty to the Constitution,
Speaker 1: but never forget that they were just fine with Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton violating the Espionage Act over a hundred times with recklessness,
Speaker 1: which is specified in the statute. And they couldn't care
Speaker 1: less because she was their candidate and she was going
Speaker 1: to be in power, and that is all that mattered.
Speaker 1: Remember the Democrats, power is what matters. One week after that,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump would have the now infamous July twenty fifth
Speaker 1: phone call with Ukrainian President Zelenski. During that call, Trump
Speaker 1: complained that the US relationship with Ukraine had not been reciprocal. Later,
Speaker 1: Zelenski thanks Trump for his support in the area of
Speaker 1: defense and says that Ukraine is ready to purchase more Javelins,
Speaker 1: an anti tank weapon that was among the most important
Speaker 1: deterrence a further Russian military action. Trump's immediate response, I
Speaker 1: would like you to do us a favor. Though, Trump
Speaker 1: then requested that Zelinsky investigate the discredited twenty sixteen Crown
Speaker 1: Strike conspiracy theory and even more ominously ominously look into
Speaker 1: the bidens. Neither of these investigations was in the US
Speaker 1: national interest, and neither was part of the official preparatory
Speaker 1: material for the call. Both, however, we're in Donald Trump's
Speaker 1: personal interest. Guess what, Adam Schiff doesn't get to determine
Speaker 1: what the national interest is when it comes to foreign policy,
Speaker 1: donald Trump does. It does not matter that Adam shift
Speaker 1: doesn't like what Donald Trump says. It does not matter
Speaker 1: that all these Democrats in Congress do not like what
Speaker 1: he said. It is not a violation worthy of impeachment
Speaker 1: or worthy of any of this to do something that
Speaker 1: Democrats don't like. But they are the same way that
Speaker 1: they have been criminalizing political differences with Republicans for years,
Speaker 1: and we sit there and take it. You know, you
Speaker 1: want the Romneyite McCain's style Republican Party. Just let Republicans
Speaker 1: get pros aecuted for stuff while Democrats get away with everything.
Speaker 1: That was what we were told we had to do
Speaker 1: for a long time. That's just sit back and take it.
Speaker 1: Scott Walker, Bob McDonnell, Rick Perry, Chris Christie got on
Speaker 1: the list. All these Republicans getting prosecuted for things that
Speaker 1: they didn't even do, things that weren't even crimes. But everybody,
Speaker 1: you know everyone Scott Walker was investigated, not actually indicted.
Speaker 1: They were trying to get him, desperately trying to get him.
Speaker 1: And the biggest one of all, President Trump investigated for
Speaker 1: over two years by a special counsel for something that
Speaker 1: the special counsel had to know within the first thirty
Speaker 1: days of the investigation, was completely bogus. But grind that
Speaker 1: process on us, that machinery of the deep state, the
Speaker 1: federal bureaucracy that just oh, they all believe so strongly
Speaker 1: they're doing all this great stuff the American people. Here
Speaker 1: are a few things. The federal government is way too big.
Speaker 1: The federal government is way too powerful. There are too
Speaker 1: many federal employees, they cost too much money, they don't
Speaker 1: do enough work, and they think they're much more important
Speaker 1: than they are. That is generally true across the federal government.
Speaker 1: It is especially true of the State Department. Let me
Speaker 1: tell you, you'll see some of that on display today.
Speaker 1: That's for sure. They think that they know better than
Speaker 1: the president and therefore they have some extra constitutional right
Speaker 1: to interfere with the president. We've seen this happen, We've
Speaker 1: seen this continue to happen. And the response that we're
Speaker 1: told the president should have is just take all this
Speaker 1: incoming and never do anything back national interests. You know
Speaker 1: what I think is in the national interest finding out
Speaker 1: if there was anything strange going on with CrowdStrike? Why
Speaker 1: are Ukrainian back companies the only company that looks at
Speaker 1: the DNC servers. The FBI doesn't look at the servers
Speaker 1: the Democratic National Committee during an election year when they're hacked,
Speaker 1: and we were supposed to think that that's not strange.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to believe that that's just fine. It's kind
Speaker 1: of like how we're supposed to believe that a rumor
Speaker 1: allegedly passed on in a bar to George Papadopoulos is
Speaker 1: enough to justify an FBI investigation of a presidential candidate
Speaker 1: when it's Trump but a vice president. So I'm getting
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars a month from an ultra corrupt Ukrainian
Speaker 1: natural gas company that's assumed to be just fine. Debunk conspiracy,
Speaker 1: they say, because it's Joe Biden and he's a Democrat. Oh,
Speaker 1: isn't a weird how that happens? These are the questions
Speaker 1: we must ask an answer without rancor if we can,
Speaker 1: without delay, regardless and without party favor and without prejudice,
Speaker 1: if we are true to our responsibilities. Benjamin Franklin was
Speaker 1: asked what kind of a country America was to become
Speaker 1: a republic. He answered, if you can keep it. The
Speaker 1: fundamental issue raised by the impeachment in Korey into Donald J.
Speaker 1: Trump is can we keep it? Isn't it great to
Speaker 1: have Adam Schiff telling us about the vision of the founders?
Speaker 1: It doesn't just make you feel warm and fuzzy to
Speaker 1: have this sleazy, dishonest lib prosecutor, now of course in
Speaker 1: Congress telling us about how it's a republican we can
Speaker 1: keep it. Meanwhile, he is spearheading the effort once again
Speaker 1: after Russia collusion. Wow, what a coincidence. There's another vague,
Speaker 1: bit ominous, but vague conspiracy that means Donald Trump can't
Speaker 1: be president anymore. The first one didn't work, but now
Speaker 1: there's another one, a different one. I ask you to
Speaker 1: just approach this as a rational person. What's more likely
Speaker 1: that they keep concocting, they keep constructing, fabricating these narratives
Speaker 1: to end the Trump presidency, or that Trump really does
Speaker 1: manage to engage in these nefarious, multifaceted international plots that
Speaker 1: are egregious violations of the constitution, treason perhaps even, but
Speaker 1: they never get proven, they never actually go anywhere, nothing
Speaker 1: even happens as a result of them, as we see
Speaker 1: here in Ukraine. But we are told that this is
Speaker 1: the worst thing that a president has perhaps ever done
Speaker 1: in the country. This is absurd. If you just look
Speaker 1: at this like a normal person, you understand right away
Speaker 1: this is absurd. But they're not going to back down.
Speaker 1: They're not going to back away. They'd prefer the continuation
Speaker 1: of what has been their most effective resistance tactics so far,
Speaker 1: which is just to continue to flood the air waves
Speaker 1: with nonsense, conspiracy theories about the president, to use the
Speaker 1: federal bureaucracy against the president, to call for deep state
Speaker 1: elements from within the government to speak out against the
Speaker 1: president and use their privileged access and positions to do it.
Speaker 1: And with each failure, we are told, forget about what
Speaker 1: we said before. Now we've really got him. Forget about
Speaker 1: the fact that we lied to you about that other
Speaker 1: thing about Russia collusion, or about obstruction, or about whatever
Speaker 1: about the emolument's clause, about the twenty fifth Amendment, about
Speaker 1: you know that we've created all of this frenzy. The
Speaker 1: next this time it's real. This time he has violated
Speaker 1: his oath to the Constitution and must be removed from office.
Speaker 1: Only deranged people or or really stupid people at this
Speaker 1: point can accept this. I mean that there is no
Speaker 1: explanation for this other than they are full of it
Speaker 1: and they're crazy. There's nothing more. There's nothing more that
Speaker 1: really can be said about how is it that Trump
Speaker 1: is at the same time the most incompetent, unfit president
Speaker 1: in history, just a bumbling buffoon, if you will. And
Speaker 1: yet on the other side of this, he never manages
Speaker 1: to get caught doing the really bad thing that they
Speaker 1: say that he was doing. They have to have people say, well,
Speaker 1: it isn't really the violation, isn't really the crime that
Speaker 1: we've said it is. But if you look at it
Speaker 1: from this angle, you know it's it. Is it this
Speaker 1: color or that color? You know? Is the dress blue
Speaker 1: or is the dress gold? I mean, this is what
Speaker 1: we keep doing with Trump, according to the Libs, And
Speaker 1: there's no accountability for it on their side because, as
Speaker 1: I said, they don't care. They don't care about the
Speaker 1: things that they profess matters so much they don't care
Speaker 1: about the sanctity of our democracy, about about the institutions.
Speaker 1: They only care about institutions when they serve their interests,
Speaker 1: the interests of left wing power. That's it. They don't care.
Speaker 1: That's why when the Supreme Court doesn't go their way,
Speaker 1: they're like, yeah, let's just add a few more seats
Speaker 1: onto it. That's why when the electoral College doesn't give
Speaker 1: them the end result, they want, Oh, let's abolish the
Speaker 1: electoral college. When the Constitution says things that even they
Speaker 1: can't get around, it's well, the constitution's really old. Maybe
Speaker 1: we should just forget about it, or we can't know
Speaker 1: what it really means, or it was corrupt from its origins,
Speaker 1: or whatever it may be. There is no institution at
Speaker 1: the left will not throw under the bus at the
Speaker 1: first sign of any obstruction of their agenda, the first
Speaker 1: sign of any trouble, if it's a speed bump for them,
Speaker 1: it goes under the bus. By the way, Shift in
Speaker 1: one of his best moments, This was great today play
Speaker 1: twenty two. This is Adam Shift talking. Do you anticipate
Speaker 1: when we might vote on the ability to have the
Speaker 1: whistleblower in front of us? Something new of the four
Speaker 1: hundred thirty five members of Congress, you are the only
Speaker 1: member who knows who that individual is, and your staff
Speaker 1: is the only staff of any member of Congresses had
Speaker 1: a chance to talk with that individual. We would like
Speaker 1: that opportunity. I mean, when might that happen in this
Speaker 1: proceeding today? First, as a gentleman knows that's a false statement.
Speaker 1: I do not know the identity of the whistle blower,
Speaker 1: and I'm determined to make sure that identity is protected.
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff is telling you that he doesn't know the
Speaker 1: identity of the whistle blower. Really, we know the whistle
Speaker 1: blower met with Adam Schiff's staff. How is that supposed
Speaker 1: to work? So staffers that work for Adam Schiff met
Speaker 1: with this person, and Adam Schiff who who does have
Speaker 1: access to classified information? And he's like, no, no no, no,
Speaker 1: I don't want to know who this person is. How
Speaker 1: could he know if the whistle blower is credible at all?
Speaker 1: He's gonna take the word of his staffers entirely on this.
Speaker 1: He's gonna leave that decision making, leave himself vulnerable to
Speaker 1: what would happen if he ran with this thing and
Speaker 1: it turned out to be a forest, which I think
Speaker 1: we're going to find out it is in terms of
Speaker 1: who the whistle blower is and what just a clear
Speaker 1: Democrat partisan and the media, by the way, the lie
Speaker 1: of omission here that the media is engaged in by
Speaker 1: not not just sharing the name of the alleged whistleblower
Speaker 1: and background, but their unwillingness to try to dig, define,
Speaker 1: to confirm. It's the single most important bit of information
Speaker 1: in the country right now when it comes to the
Speaker 1: news cycle. They don't care, no obligation to get to
Speaker 1: the truth. And that's why the media is broken. It
Speaker 1: has been overtaken. You others there are I think you know,
Speaker 1: on a recent survey of colleges across the country, there
Speaker 1: were more self in the social sciences. There were more
Speaker 1: self described socialists and Marxists by a factor of three,
Speaker 1: I think, than there were Republicans on college campuses in America.
Speaker 1: That same phenomenon of just how did this place become
Speaker 1: such a political political monoculture where everyone thinks the same,
Speaker 1: it's just this echo chamber of left wing nonsense. That
Speaker 1: same phenomenon existing journalism. See. The only reason we don't
Speaker 1: know all this is because journalists say Oh, I won't.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to share my political affiliation. I know
Speaker 1: what their political affiliation is. It's ninety ninety five percent
Speaker 1: Democrats and including far left radical let's you know, Viva
Speaker 1: la revolution Democrats. And yet here we are. Oh no,
Speaker 1: they're just presenting us with the facts. They don't want
Speaker 1: to present us with the facts of the whistle blower.
Speaker 1: Does any person in America believe that Adam Schiff doesn't
Speaker 1: know the identity of the whistle blower? Really? Does anyone
Speaker 1: really think that's plausible? He doesn't know. Now, why would
Speaker 1: he say that, Because they're going to fight to make
Speaker 1: sure that Republican members of the House who do have
Speaker 1: access to classified information, remember the whistle they're acting like
Speaker 1: the whistleblower is the is the nuclear codes to the
Speaker 1: you know, the nuclear football that travels with the president
Speaker 1: who cares. So there's a whistleblower statute. He doesn't even
Speaker 1: qualify into the statute, And the statute says explicitly that
Speaker 1: they can decide if they think it's going to come
Speaker 1: out anyway, that they're going to tell people who the
Speaker 1: whistle blower is. You know, this isn't We're not We're
Speaker 1: not talking about somebody who's you know, I mean, anyone
Speaker 1: in public life these days can claim their life is
Speaker 1: in jeopardy. I mean, that's all bullcrap. I saw see
Speaker 1: and oh, this person is going to be so much
Speaker 1: under threat. This person is going to have a fat
Speaker 1: CNN contract and a book deal by by the end
Speaker 1: of the year. You watch whose life is in jeopardy? Though,
Speaker 1: anybody who speaks out on any of these issues gets
Speaker 1: death threats, and every person I know in conservative media,
Speaker 1: their families get threatened. We don't get to walk around like,
Speaker 1: excuse me, you can't criticize me. I've had psychotic leftists
Speaker 1: get up in my face before I went to a
Speaker 1: party and scream epithets at me. That doesn't work right.
Speaker 1: But oh, the whistleblower so scary. This guy thinks he's
Speaker 1: saving the republic. I'm sure. I would also say that
Speaker 1: the Washington Examiner, which I believe was the first one
Speaker 1: that I know of, that reported on Eric Sharamello, Who's
Speaker 1: who they reported on it as the whistle blower, and
Speaker 1: they're photo circulating everywhere. The entire world knows who this
Speaker 1: guy allegedly is. If it were you, and if there
Speaker 1: really was such a high price to possibly be paid
Speaker 1: for being the whistle blower. Don't you think you'd be like, Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm not the whistle blower, right, I mean, are we
Speaker 1: allowed to apply common sense and reason to this or
Speaker 1: are we just supposed to swallow whatever nonsense is being
Speaker 1: thrown our way by Adam Schiff and these hyper partisan Democrats.
Speaker 1: They're making a mockery of this process. They're making a
Speaker 1: mockery of the Congress, a mockery of the rule of law,
Speaker 1: of fairness of justice. And as they do it, they
Speaker 1: say they're doing it because they love this country so much.
Speaker 1: It's appalling. It's appalling. Trump is such a horrible president,
Speaker 1: they say. And yet they can't let a free and
Speaker 1: fair vot occur. Why why can't we have a vote?
Speaker 1: Why can't we have an election to determine whether or
Speaker 1: not this president's done a good job. Here's the problem
Speaker 1: that looms the mackam minds of Democrats. They've convinced themselves
Speaker 1: that twenty sixteen was not just an anomaly, but that
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen was unfair, was stolen? Wasn't right now? As
Speaker 1: crazy as Libs are these days, and they have gotten crazier.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's empirical evidence, there's data out of support.
Speaker 1: They've gotten crazier. As crazier as they are. Isn't it
Speaker 1: going to be harder even for the most diehard Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi fan MSNBC watching climate change alarmist thirty seven genders
Speaker 1: adhering leftist, isn't it? Isn't it going to be hard
Speaker 1: for them to explain to themselves how Trump is the
Speaker 1: worst president ever, a threat to the nation, a criminal,
Speaker 1: and could be the end of this republic. But he
Speaker 1: got reelected two terms. I know that they'll come up
Speaker 1: with some Oh he cheated again. I mean that there
Speaker 1: they'll be labs. There's no reason with them at all.
Speaker 1: But there will be some who will have to think,
Speaker 1: what does this mean about their vision for America, their
Speaker 1: view of what this country really is. If they really
Speaker 1: believe that Trump is all the things they say, and
Speaker 1: he manages to beat whatever boring, pandering democrat they put forward,
Speaker 1: what does that mean about their ability to really understand
Speaker 1: what's going on in this country and what America is
Speaker 1: all about. They don't want to have to deal with
Speaker 1: that reckoning. They don't want to have to have that
Speaker 1: that day of of Clarity, and that's why they're trying
Speaker 1: to do everything they can to avoid it. You see,
Speaker 1: impeachment isn't going to result in removal, though there is
Speaker 1: a theory out there I want to get to in
Speaker 1: a second about how it could. I don't think it'll happen,
Speaker 1: but it's interesting and it shows you just more of this.
Speaker 1: Open the rule books, open the law bucks, and find
Speaker 1: some loophole and just exploit it against this president. But
Speaker 1: even if impeachment doesn't work, and if you don't get
Speaker 1: removal afterwards, which I don't think, I mean, you will
Speaker 1: get impeachment, but you won't get removal by the Senate.
Speaker 1: Remember that if this is helpful in preventing Trump from
Speaker 1: getting reelected, it would be just like what Harry Reid
Speaker 1: said about his slander, his false allegation that Mitt Romney
Speaker 1: hadn't paid taxes in ten years. Well it didn't win,
Speaker 1: did he. That's in the background of all of this too.
Speaker 1: They pretend that this process will be a disappointment to
Speaker 1: the left if it doesn't get a removal of the president.
Speaker 1: But we all really know this is just another desperate
Speaker 1: attempt to drag this president down into the mud and
Speaker 1: all of his supporters and see what happens afterwards. That's
Speaker 1: where this really is. The USMCA will create up to
Speaker 1: half a million American jobs and add at least one
Speaker 1: point two percent more to our total GDP, and it
Speaker 1: should be much higher than that. Yet Democrats in Washington
Speaker 1: would rather pursue outrageous hoaxes and delusional witch hunts which
Speaker 1: are going absolutely nowhere. Don't worry about it. Then pass
Speaker 1: the USMCA and deliver real stuff for the American workers.
Speaker 1: Another way that Democrats, unfortunately are winning with all of
Speaker 1: these underhanded tactics, or at least are getting benefit from
Speaker 1: all these underhanded tactics, is that we're not talking about
Speaker 1: what has this president done and what has it meant
Speaker 1: for the American people. What's really going on right now.
Speaker 1: Interestingly enough, you know, one part of this that never
Speaker 1: really seems to get talked about is that the president
Speaker 1: has been willing to stand up to China, and now
Speaker 1: we have protests in Hong Kong where Hong Kongers are
Speaker 1: fighting back against mainland Chinese totalitarianism. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: one led directly to the other, but you have the
Speaker 1: first leader of the free world in decades, who's willing
Speaker 1: to say enough nonsense China. I do think that, even
Speaker 1: if it's a bit subconscious, the willingness of America, the
Speaker 1: beacon of freedom for the rest of the world, to
Speaker 1: say China, knock it off. You are not all powerful
Speaker 1: Chinese Communist Party. Is it possible that influence some of
Speaker 1: the thinking of Hong Kongers who wanted to stand up
Speaker 1: for their own rights and freedom in response to, of course,
Speaker 1: this extradition law that was a violation of the pack
Speaker 1: that the Hong Kong had made with the Chinese government.
Speaker 1: I think it is certainly worth consideration. But let's take
Speaker 1: it home for a second. Forget about forget about that,
Speaker 1: let's look at oh I don't know things that people
Speaker 1: usually in a reelection campaign are told should matter that
Speaker 1: they were told that shouldn't matter in twenty twelve with
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, by the way, because the economy was in
Speaker 1: crappy shape. But you're supposed to vote for Obama because
Speaker 1: you know, he gave a good speech and was a
Speaker 1: charismatic guy. So vote for Obama because of that. Even
Speaker 1: though the economy was the slowest recovery out of a recession,
Speaker 1: since the Great Depression, maybe because of things that the administration,
Speaker 1: the Obama administration did. Meanwhile, the Trump administration, the numbers
Speaker 1: are just booming all over the place. Play clip eight
Speaker 1: if you would please, producer Mark unemployment has recently achieved
Speaker 1: the lowest rate in fifty one years. African American unemployment,
Speaker 1: Hispanic American unemployment, and Asian American unemployment have all reached
Speaker 1: the lowest rates in history. Women's unemployment the best numbers
Speaker 1: in seventy one years. We expect that that number of
Speaker 1: seventy one years, which isn't good compared to the other numbers,
Speaker 1: is it, but women also will soon be historic. We
Speaker 1: think blue collar jobs are leading the way in our
Speaker 1: middle class boom. We've added twenty five thousand mining jobs,
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty eight thousand energy jobs, one point
Speaker 1: two million manufacturing and construction jobs. And manufacturing was supposed
Speaker 1: to be dead in our country. You would need, according
Speaker 1: to a past administration representative at the highest level of
Speaker 1: that past administration, you would need a magic wand to
Speaker 1: bring back manufacturing jobs. Well, we brought them back, and
Speaker 1: we brought them back to over six hundred thousand manufacturing
Speaker 1: jobs as of today. That should matter, not this impeachment garbage.
Speaker 1: After the spectacular implosion of their Russia hoax on July
Speaker 1: twenty fourth, in which they spent years denouncing any Republican
Speaker 1: whoever shook hands with the Russian on July twenty fifth,
Speaker 1: they turned on a dime and now claim the real
Speaker 1: mouthfeasance is publicans dealings with Ukraine and the blink of
Speaker 1: an eye. Were asked to simply forget about Democrats on
Speaker 1: this committee falsely claiming they had more than circumstantial evidence
Speaker 1: of collusion between President Trump and Russians. We should forget
Speaker 1: about them reading fabrications of Trump Russia collusion from the
Speaker 1: Steel Dossier into the congressional record. We should also forget
Speaker 1: about them trying to obtain nude pictures of Trump from
Speaker 1: Russian pranksters who pretended to be Ukrainian officials. We should
Speaker 1: forget about them leak in a false story to see
Speaker 1: an n while he was still testifying to our committee,
Speaker 1: claiming that Donald Trump Junior was colluding with Wiki leagues,
Speaker 1: And forget about countless other deceptions large and small, that
Speaker 1: make them the last people on earth with the credibility
Speaker 1: to hurl more preposterous accusations at their political opponents. And
Speaker 1: yet now here we are we're supposed to take these
Speaker 1: people at face value when they trot out a new
Speaker 1: batch of allegations. But anyone familiar with the democrats scorched
Speaker 1: earth war against President Trump would not be surprised to
Speaker 1: see all the typical signs that this is a carefully
Speaker 1: orchestrated media smear campaign. Devin Newness gets it. How can
Speaker 1: anyone listen to that and not come away saying, Wow,
Speaker 1: Democrats really are insane and they are so dishonest and
Speaker 1: this is all just meant to kneecap a president before
Speaker 1: a reelection a reelection can happen. How can anyone hear
Speaker 1: this and not think that the motives of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: the motivations behind this whole impeachment nonsense, are clear. I
Speaker 1: don't know, folks, I mean, you know, they they keep
Speaker 1: lecturing us on the need to protect our sacred democracy.
Speaker 1: It was like for people who love democracy so much,
Speaker 1: they don't seem to care all that much about voting,
Speaker 1: as in, when people vote and you lose, you are
Speaker 1: to respect that. They do not respect it. They are
Speaker 1: not okay with what happened in twenty sixteen, they have
Speaker 1: not moved on. Here's a noted biased lib journo at CNBC,
Speaker 1: what is his name, John Harwood. He tweets out this
Speaker 1: about the what was going on today that the Ambassador
Speaker 1: Taylor has made clear the effect of Trump's actions was
Speaker 1: to strengthen Vladimir Putin's Russia in its war against Ukraine,
Speaker 1: a US ally struggling to defend itself. One that is
Speaker 1: not true, because the aid got delivered. And oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, the javelin missiles that we're hearing all the
Speaker 1: javelins were compromised or delayed because of Trump trying to
Speaker 1: get answers about an investigation. The Obama administration would not
Speaker 1: give those to the Ukrainians for fear of angering Russia
Speaker 1: too much. So the Obama administration was too wimpy to
Speaker 1: do this thing. Trump comes in and does it. But
Speaker 1: then we are told, oh, because he almost didn't do
Speaker 1: the thing that Obama's administration that Obama himself was too
Speaker 1: wimpy on foreign policy to do, he should be condemned.
Speaker 1: How about praising him for helping the Ukrainians out in
Speaker 1: a way that was meaningful. And then there's a whole
Speaker 1: other level here This is a policy dispute. What the
Speaker 1: Trump administration decides to do visa the Ukraine has a
Speaker 1: built in check and balance, has a built in oversight.
Speaker 1: You know where it's from the voter. You don't like
Speaker 1: what Trump did, vote against him. If you like or
Speaker 1: you know, or if you don't like Trump in general,
Speaker 1: vote against If you like him, vote for him. And
Speaker 1: this is supposed to be very easy, stop, very straightforward,
Speaker 1: but no, No. Pelosi and a classic Democrat tactic, likes
Speaker 1: to tell you the thing that is the most untrue
Speaker 1: and as the most obviously false, they like to assert
Speaker 1: that thing as though it were true. Please play sixteen,
Speaker 1: producer mark if you would. It's coming any second now, sixteen.
Speaker 1: There we go. We are defenders of our democracy. And
Speaker 1: so I'm very prayerful, soughtful, and actually sad today that
Speaker 1: our country has to come to a place where the
Speaker 1: president doesn't understand that Article two does not say that
Speaker 1: he can do whatever he wants, that he is not
Speaker 1: above the law, and that he will be held accountable.
Speaker 1: Defenders of our democracy, they're sad, Oh, so sad that
Speaker 1: we have to impeach the president. It's like so sad.
Speaker 1: We really don't want to. We really don't want to.
Speaker 1: These people are so these Democrats are so disingenuous. They
Speaker 1: talk to all of us like we're so idiots, and
Speaker 1: if we don't see through them, we are idiots. And
Speaker 1: that's true anywhere anyone across the country. If you can't
Speaker 1: see that Nancy Pelosi's a fraud and a liar, and
Speaker 1: that Chiff is a disgrace and an unethical clown, I
Speaker 1: don't know what to say other than not very bright,
Speaker 1: not very bright, or if you understand all those things,
Speaker 1: which I think is true of a lot of Democrats,
Speaker 1: you do recognize that those things are true. But Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Chiff are effective weapons against the right and against
Speaker 1: conservatism because they have no scruples, because there's nothing that
Speaker 1: is effective that they are unwilling to do. Well, then
Speaker 1: you're just embracing the very gutter politics that you pretend
Speaker 1: not to like. On the other side, you pretend not
Speaker 1: to like. When Donald Trump plays a little rough, plays
Speaker 1: a little tough with the opposition, Oh, he's coursening the discourse,
Speaker 1: they say, as they threaten to throw Trump's family in
Speaker 1: prison and to prosecute him when he leaves office, and
Speaker 1: that reminds me there is a theory going around right now,
Speaker 1: and I don't think it will happen, but I would
Speaker 1: just note that it's another instance of trying to use
Speaker 1: the rules as a weapon against the president, try to
Speaker 1: craft rules regulations in the government that will hurt specifically
Speaker 1: this president. That the Senate when it has the trials,
Speaker 1: you know, the Senate has to have two thirds majority
Speaker 1: to remove of two thirds majority of the members, president
Speaker 1: can remove the president from office after articles of impeachment
Speaker 1: are presented, but it's very open ended in the Constitution
Speaker 1: just says It just says that the Chief Justice of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court will preside and there might be one
Speaker 1: or two other other than they vote tally specific so
Speaker 1: the rest of the trial and the Senate has kind
Speaker 1: of left up the Senate members to the side. So
Speaker 1: it is at least theoretically possible that Mitch McConnell I
Speaker 1: don't think would ever allow this, but it's theoretically possible
Speaker 1: that they could have a secret Senate that this is.
Speaker 1: This is at least the conspiracy rumor whatever you want
Speaker 1: to call the idea that is floating around on the
Speaker 1: internet that they would have a secret ballot and that
Speaker 1: if there were a secret ballot to remove the president
Speaker 1: of the Senate, that a lot of Republicans would go
Speaker 1: along with it and then would then make Vice President
Speaker 1: Pence president of the United States. It's an interesting idea
Speaker 1: because I will say that there are a lot of
Speaker 1: Republican senators who I think secretly do despise Trump, not
Speaker 1: because of his policies, but they just don't like the man.
Speaker 1: They don't like who he is, what he stands for,
Speaker 1: and also what his ascension means about them. They thought
Speaker 1: that they know. There are a lot of Republicans, especially
Speaker 1: the ones who are who are occasionally thrown a few
Speaker 1: scraps from the table at the New York Times, occasionally
Speaker 1: given some of the leftovers at the Washington Post with
Speaker 1: a little little pat on the head. There are some
Speaker 1: Republicans who fall into that category who really don't like
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump has come along and shown that you
Speaker 1: don't have to be that way. You don't have to
Speaker 1: take the scraps from the Democrat media's table, you don't
Speaker 1: have to play nicey nice with them all the time
Speaker 1: while they're spitting in your face. You can actually try
Speaker 1: to fight back, and if you don't fight back. That's
Speaker 1: a choice you're making. And if you're a whimpy Republican
Speaker 1: who refuses to stand up for the values of your
Speaker 1: own side, well then maybe that's on you. Right. They
Speaker 1: don't like that. Do I think that they would vote
Speaker 1: to remove I don't know. They won't get to a
Speaker 1: secret ballot because I think the outcry would be too much.
Speaker 1: They would recognize that. I mean, I think that it's
Speaker 1: some way that might be the end of the Republican
Speaker 1: Party if they if Mitch McConnell and the Senate and
Speaker 1: their Senate majority said yeah, let's have a secret balloty
Speaker 1: get rid of Trump. I mean, you're not going to
Speaker 1: have accountability for that vote. So it's never going to happen.
Speaker 1: But it does raise some interesting some interesting dynamics even
Speaker 1: in the Republican side. Look, there's still a lot of
Speaker 1: never Trumpers, and there are some people who are secret
Speaker 1: never trumpers, right, so they never signed on. They never said,
Speaker 1: you know what, I was wrong about this guy. I'm
Speaker 1: going to get on board and help and push for
Speaker 1: the agenda. They've just said yeah, yeah, sure, sure, I
Speaker 1: like him, and in back channel, yeah he's terrible. Let's
Speaker 1: leak some stuff about him, and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: that in Congress and across the Republican Party. There's no
Speaker 1: question about it. There still a lot of bruised egos
Speaker 1: on the Republican side from the twenty sixteen election when
Speaker 1: Trump just thumped all of his competitors. But right now
Speaker 1: it is, as Senator Durban says, up to the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives play clip fourteen, Well, I don't know if
Speaker 1: it'll be proved in one day. It could be accumulation
Speaker 1: of evidence people who are credible and understand that the
Speaker 1: Republicans on the committee are going to be cross examining
Speaker 1: each of these witnesses in terms of their credibility. But
Speaker 1: I think it was up to the House of Representatives
Speaker 1: to make this decision as to whether they go forward
Speaker 1: in these articles of impeachment. And I think they have
Speaker 1: to establish an abuse of power by the president to
Speaker 1: do that, establish an abuse of power by the president.
Speaker 1: To do that, they are creating a faux legalistic mechanism
Speaker 1: for the punishment of policy differences. That is what is
Speaker 1: happening here. That's what's really going on. So make no
Speaker 1: mistake about it. Well, let's talk about Democrat Kennedy's for saying,
Speaker 1: let's switch it up a little bit. And I feel
Speaker 1: like we've we've had a little too much talk about
Speaker 1: the impeachment already today. I feel like people need to
Speaker 1: understand that impeachment is. It gets boring really fast. So
Speaker 1: there's some other stuff, other things that I wanted to
Speaker 1: get to, like, for example, a laship with warrants out
Speaker 1: there on the campaign track talking about how billionaires they
Speaker 1: didn't know, they didn't do great thing, They didn't build
Speaker 1: new companies and employ thousands of people. No, they're just
Speaker 1: taken from mainstream, just doing all kinds of dash day thinks.
Speaker 1: But when Elizabeth Warren tries to connect with voters, that's
Speaker 1: what all of a sudden you have. I'm gonna get
Speaker 1: me a beer. Oh really, I'm sure she's just cracking
Speaker 1: back a bud any night of the week, just hanging out,
Speaker 1: just one of the folks, one of the multi millionaire,
Speaker 1: tenured law professor at Harvard, Fake Native American folks out there.
Speaker 1: But she this was a great bow. But she got asked,
Speaker 1: what does she now? Look she's she's a lady who
Speaker 1: is up in her ears. She could just say, look,
Speaker 1: I don't I go for walks when I work out.
Speaker 1: I didn't ask her to what she we're gonna Fortunately
Speaker 1: she didn't say yeah, like I do a lot of
Speaker 1: CrossFit or something. But they asked Elizabeth Warren and one
Speaker 1: of these, oh, let's have a lighter moment with this candidate.
Speaker 1: What does she work out too? And this was just
Speaker 1: this was just great. Play clib one favorite song to
Speaker 1: work out too? Anything from Patsy Clin, Patsy Klin, favorite
Speaker 1: pa who works out to Patsy Klein. I don't even
Speaker 1: think you'd go for a walk listening to Patsy Cline necessarily.
Speaker 1: I'm crazy. Can you play? Are you allowed to play?
Speaker 1: Play for like five more seconds? Okay? I mean here,
Speaker 1: here's what I'm trying to tell you. My friend producer Bark,
Speaker 1: I think that this is another moment where Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: is so incapable of having a normal, normal human conversation
Speaker 1: that she just sort of panicked and just thought of
Speaker 1: something instead of just saying like I don't listen anything
Speaker 1: on her workout or I don't really work out you
Speaker 1: Patsy Kline. There's just no one listens to Patsy Cline
Speaker 1: when they work out. It's it bad that I didn't
Speaker 1: even know who Patsy Cline was. It's probably the first
Speaker 1: time I've ever heard her. When I just played that,
Speaker 1: I kind of want to do. Maybe I'll do like
Speaker 1: the different Democrat candidates sing Patsy klines. We could do
Speaker 1: like Bernie crazy, crazy, fulfilling, so lonely like that, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean? You have a lot of the
Speaker 1: Democrats sing things. Yeah, let's because they're they're, you know,
Speaker 1: a happy bunch. I guess I don't know. Would betto
Speaker 1: come back just to sing yo, I'm crazy crazy for
Speaker 1: feeling so blue. Yeah, you're not as good at singing
Speaker 1: in better voice. You can't really singing better, But I
Speaker 1: think I think your vocal chords would seize up most likely,
Speaker 1: or at least they should. Oh, speaking of vocal chords.
Speaker 1: Season A season GOP, Hello, Well we're not done. We're
Speaker 1: not done here. This was great. I had to have
Speaker 1: producer Mark Chase this one down because I was just
Speaker 1: thinking to myself, no way, this audio really exists, folks.
Speaker 1: I I you know that, you know Hillary Clinton, what happened?
Speaker 1: You know that. For a long time now, I've been
Speaker 1: one of the people saying it it's crazy fulfilling. So
Speaker 1: vote no. No, it's crazy, uh that she would ever
Speaker 1: consider running again for president. But she's considering running. I'm
Speaker 1: telling you she can't give it up. It's who she is.
Speaker 1: She thought she was put on this earth to run
Speaker 1: for president. I thought she was she was here in
Speaker 1: this world to run for president. So if there's another opportunity,
Speaker 1: and if you really believe that the Democrats had the
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen election stolen from you, what better way to
Speaker 1: put right the universe, to make right the wrongs of
Speaker 1: the past than to have Hillary Clinton br your consensus
Speaker 1: Democrat candidate third times a charm for Hillary run for
Speaker 1: president consensus candidate in twenty sixteen. We found her on
Speaker 1: the BBC. Hello, Yes, Hillary Clinton, we think you actually
Speaker 1: should be president of the United States. To BBC where
Speaker 1: everyone talks like this, which makes them inherently smarter. If
Speaker 1: you have this accent, you must be smarter. It's not true.
Speaker 1: By the way, here's what you said. I had to
Speaker 1: produce your mark for tracking this one down last night
Speaker 1: late wake three. Are you going to run again? No?
Speaker 1: Not no, I'm that is that is one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: So in a few days, I'm not going to open
Speaker 1: my newspaper. Well, you know, I never say never to
Speaker 1: anything that a few days. I know it's way past time,
Speaker 1: but you know I I look, I think all the
Speaker 1: time about what kind of president I would have been,
Speaker 1: and what I would have done differently, and what I
Speaker 1: think it would have meant to our country in the world. Um,
Speaker 1: So of course I think about it. I think about
Speaker 1: it all the time, being you know, being able to
Speaker 1: do that. And look, whoever wins next time is going
Speaker 1: to have a big task trying to fix everything that's
Speaker 1: been broken. Bill Clinson, your dad, your husband, didn't rule
Speaker 1: it out last month when talking to Georgetown, he said,
Speaker 1: I can't rule it out, So you are ruling out. Well, look,
Speaker 1: I as I say never, never, never say never. Um
Speaker 1: And I will certainly tell you I'm under enormous pressure
Speaker 1: from many, many, many people to think about it. But
Speaker 1: as of this moment, sitting here and this studio talking
Speaker 1: to you, that is absolutely not in my plans. That
Speaker 1: is absolutely not a denial. Folks, Notice how she kind
Speaker 1: of was dancing. Oh no, I'm not. I'm not thinking
Speaker 1: about that right now. I mean, I am getting pressure
Speaker 1: from a lot of people. I am being told by
Speaker 1: people across the country that perhaps I should run, But
Speaker 1: I'm not saying I'm gonna run or am I. I mean,
Speaker 1: she can't help herself. She you know, why why can't
Speaker 1: she say never? Here's an easy one. Am I ever
Speaker 1: going to run for president? No? The answer is never.
Speaker 1: It's never gonna happen. Okay, And at this point, should
Speaker 1: I be or should producer Mark be a more likely
Speaker 1: presidential Kennedy in the same world than Hillary Clinton. Yes,
Speaker 1: it's nuts that she would run for president again again,
Speaker 1: but uh, maybe I have to contradict myself here for
Speaker 1: a second. Is it really that nuts go into a
Speaker 1: convention to unify the Democratic Party? I'm sure I don't
Speaker 1: even know what it is, and you have to beget
Speaker 1: into the party, you know, rule books and machinery. But
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's a way last minute, if they wanted to,
Speaker 1: they could replace whatever candidate they have, or replace the
Speaker 1: candidates that they have, and just Hillary becomes the consensus
Speaker 1: candidate once again. She was the consensus candidate last time around.
Speaker 1: Pretty much except for Putty Well did not get a
Speaker 1: fair shake, which is true, he did not get a
Speaker 1: fair shake from the DNC, And there's never really been
Speaker 1: any accounting for that. But as a result of the
Speaker 1: Wiki leaks disclosures, we knew a little more about that
Speaker 1: than we would have otherwise. But we already pretty much
Speaker 1: knew that the Democratic Party was in the tank for Hillary.
Speaker 1: So that's not any real surprise. But is Hillary going
Speaker 1: to run? That we're still here and that she can't,
Speaker 1: She cannot tell you, Yeah, I'm not running, tells you
Speaker 1: a lot, speaks volumes about it, doesn't it. Yeah, she's
Speaker 1: thinking about it, folks. I'm sure you're going to see
Speaker 1: some articles about how they would But the way it
Speaker 1: would have to be is that she wouldn't run. They
Speaker 1: would draft her. The Democratic Party would would pull it
Speaker 1: like the like the old Roman general that has to
Speaker 1: be pulled out of retirement to save the republic. They
Speaker 1: would take Hillary and make her make her run for
Speaker 1: the good of the country. That would be the Democrat storyline.
Speaker 1: I think it's quite striking from a British perspective going
Speaker 1: through this book that, as I understand, in case I've
Speaker 1: made a terrible error, who you haven't included Margaret Thatcher?
Speaker 1: Was there a row about that? Did you think to
Speaker 1: include her? Because surely she comes to mind with gutsy woman.
Speaker 1: Even if you didn't like her, well, she does, but
Speaker 1: she doesn't fit the other part of the definition in
Speaker 1: our opinion, which really is knocking down barriers for others
Speaker 1: and trying to make a positive difference. I think the
Speaker 1: record is mixed with her. I thought she was incredible strong.
Speaker 1: I remember taking Chelsea to see her in the Parliament
Speaker 1: when she was Prime Minister and we were visiting, so
Speaker 1: I had, you know, a lot of understanding of what
Speaker 1: it took, and I thought it was clever of her to,
Speaker 1: you know, really try to mold herself to be more
Speaker 1: acceptable in terms of everything from hairstyle and speaking style
Speaker 1: to clothing style. All right, Hillary has done all that too,
Speaker 1: Just for the record, go back and look at the
Speaker 1: transformations that Hillary's gone through over time. And I don't
Speaker 1: begrudge anybody in politics either. They're going to be judged
Speaker 1: on their appearance, how they dress, how their hairs. But
Speaker 1: I mean, let's not let's let's just be honest. Every
Speaker 1: politician does that. So that's a weird thing for her to.
Speaker 1: I didn't understand why she'd really had that in accept
Speaker 1: if it's a backhanded way to say, yeah, well, she
Speaker 1: just did what she had to do to be one
Speaker 1: of those big, bad evil conservatives. You're talking, you're writing
Speaker 1: a book about gutsy women, and you're gonna hedge on
Speaker 1: Margaret Sure, the Iron Lady. Really Hillary, Oh of course
Speaker 1: the answers, yeah really, because the book Gutsy Women is
Speaker 1: all about, I think, paving the way for the next
Speaker 1: phase of the Clinton dynasty, which is going to be
Speaker 1: Chelsea Clinton. What has Chelsea Clinton ever done that as
Speaker 1: gutsy other than just be Chelsea Clinton. I don't know
Speaker 1: what to say other than I do not like political dynasties.
Speaker 1: I wish I wish we would stop, folks. And it's
Speaker 1: a it's a bipartisan thing. I understand it. I know
Speaker 1: that this is you know, Bush Bush, and people are
Speaker 1: already thinking it's going to be Trump Trump, and people
Speaker 1: are thinking that it should be you know, Chelsea Clinton,
Speaker 1: and then it should be you know, or maybe Michelle
Speaker 1: Obama or one of the Obama children when they're when
Speaker 1: the young girls are older. I mean no, no, there
Speaker 1: is there is no like, you know, inherited trait of
Speaker 1: I'm a great politician because my mom or my dad
Speaker 1: was a politician. No, we need to stop doing this.
Speaker 1: It makes us, It makes our country look unsophisticated politically.
Speaker 1: We have three hundred and twenty million people we gotta
Speaker 1: keep you know, Oh, let's go job. Let's vote for
Speaker 1: Jeb a third Bush for president. Really the only people
Speaker 1: in the country we can vote for president named Bush. Well,
Speaker 1: as we know, please clap didn't really work out well,
Speaker 1: it was close. I really I don't know what I
Speaker 1: could do to get you know, we need term limits
Speaker 1: and we need an end of dynasties. Now, when I
Speaker 1: see an end of dynasty, I'm not saying you can
Speaker 1: outlaw it, but I just mean we should stop this.
Speaker 1: We do have a public look, it's a little bit
Speaker 1: of like a longing for monarchy, a little bit of
Speaker 1: a longing for people to be um, you know, for
Speaker 1: for the comfortable powers that be to continue to be
Speaker 1: the powers that be. I don't like this. I am.
Speaker 1: I am anti monarchy, I'm anti dynasty, and I think
Speaker 1: that everybody else should be too. I think that's a
Speaker 1: pretty easy one to justify. But all right, oh wait,
Speaker 1: speaking of an iron lady Margaret Thatcher, who probably has
Speaker 1: the best known quote about socialism of all time, which
Speaker 1: is that the problem with socialism is that you eventually
Speaker 1: run out of other people's money. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: they hate her just for that line alone. I think
Speaker 1: the left will forever hate Margaret Thatcher because she just
Speaker 1: nailed them in one sentence in a way that they
Speaker 1: can never escape from. You know, it just distilled the
Speaker 1: essential fallacy of socialism down into one line, into essentially
Speaker 1: a bumper sticker, kind of a long bumper sticker. But
Speaker 1: it depends on how bigger car is. I don't know
Speaker 1: if I'll fit on your priest, but it might fit
Speaker 1: on a pickup truck. Um. Here is just a little
Speaker 1: little collection of some of the Remember we're talking the Clintons,
Speaker 1: we're talking gutsy women, Iron Lady, Margaret Thatcher. They're a
Speaker 1: little little wishy washy on that one. Here's the Iron
Speaker 1: Lady played. Whether is discord harmony? Maybe being truth where
Speaker 1: there is doubt, maybe bring faith, and where there is despair,
Speaker 1: maybe bring hope. And to all of British people, howsoever
Speaker 1: they voted, May I say this, now that the election
Speaker 1: is over, May we get together and strive to serve
Speaker 1: and strengthen the country of which we're so proud to be.
Speaker 1: Apart to those waiting with bated breaths for that favorite
Speaker 1: media catchphrase, the you turn. I have only one thing
Speaker 1: to say, you turn if you want to. The ladies
Speaker 1: not for turning. And that's I mean, that's just a
Speaker 1: little I mean, we could you could have just we
Speaker 1: could sit here for half an hour. The Margaret Thatcher's
Speaker 1: greatest hits. I mean, that lady, she was a badass.
Speaker 1: She really was a very strong prime minister and a
Speaker 1: very important time in the United Kingdom. And yet the
Speaker 1: left in this country just knows instinctively. You know, if
Speaker 1: if if you ask your your average college campus student
Speaker 1: who was who was a better leader? Che Guvara or
Speaker 1: Margaret Thatcher, guaranteed your average college student, if you walked around,
Speaker 1: would say to you, Oh yeah, che Guvara, way way
Speaker 1: more important, more charismatic, more you know. Oh yeah, they
Speaker 1: don't even know any They don't know anything about Thatcher.
Speaker 1: They don't even about the Falkland War, than anything about
Speaker 1: the labor strikes, and no, no, nothing, you know nothing
Speaker 1: about that. All they know is that you're bad because
Speaker 1: that's your conservative and not a friend to the socialist,
Speaker 1: collectivist left. And that's all that they think that they
Speaker 1: have to know. That's all they've been told, and they
Speaker 1: don't need to know any more than that. Oh, we
Speaker 1: will get to the there's a little follow up to
Speaker 1: Northwestern Universities nonsense from from yesterday, which was truly stunning.
Speaker 1: But I wanted to switch gears a little and talk
Speaker 1: to you about the situation of the dreamers and President
Speaker 1: Trump has upset some people with his tweet where he
Speaker 1: said that there'd be a deal for Dreamers, notably my
Speaker 1: friend Ann Coulter. She's not happy with this. I think
Speaker 1: she said Trump has to go in a tweet as
Speaker 1: a result. The political reality is that if you're going
Speaker 1: to get anything really done on immigration, the dreamers are
Speaker 1: the best bargaining chip for it. Now, does that mean
Speaker 1: that there's no case to be made that Dreamers should
Speaker 1: not be getting some protected status or some you know,
Speaker 1: additional benefit, even though it's not their fault. Look, I've
Speaker 1: said this before on air and been saying it for years.
Speaker 1: If you if your parents engage in a let's say,
Speaker 1: you know, a stock fraud. No one Stone's dying as
Speaker 1: a result of this or any but you're not. They
Speaker 1: engage in a stock fraud and they buy a nice
Speaker 1: little house that you're living in as a kid with
Speaker 1: money from a stock fraud. Is it fair that the
Speaker 1: government's going to come take your parents away and take
Speaker 1: that house. It is not fair not to you as
Speaker 1: a kid. But is that what the law says? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it is what the law says, because would it be
Speaker 1: fair for them to keep the ill gotten proceeds for
Speaker 1: the kid? Maybe the parents go, but the kid gets
Speaker 1: to stay in the house. Nope. So there is an
Speaker 1: argument be made that the benefit that dreamers get, even
Speaker 1: though it is not agreeve they And also there are
Speaker 1: a lot of them that are going to claim they
Speaker 1: were brought here at an age that's younger than they did.
Speaker 1: But put that aside for a moment. Even if what
Speaker 1: they say, if what they say is all accurate, I
Speaker 1: would just respond by saying that, yeah, it's it's highly
Speaker 1: I'm highly sympathetic to people being punished for something that's
Speaker 1: not of their doing but of their parents doing. But
Speaker 1: that happens in this country all the time. We put
Speaker 1: people in prison routinely in this country to the tremendous
Speaker 1: detriment of their children. I'm really in a lot of wise.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you want to especially if I mean
Speaker 1: think of like a single parent household. I mean, what
Speaker 1: happens then the kid's hand over the state. But in
Speaker 1: any household, when the state incarcerates a parent, you can
Speaker 1: argue this is doing tremendous It's obvious, just tremendous harm
Speaker 1: to that child. Child is clearly being punished for something
Speaker 1: that is not of that child's doing. Are we just
Speaker 1: going to not put anyone in prison as a kid?
Speaker 1: I ask you these questions in earnest. You know, then
Speaker 1: you have to start, you have to start looking. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's the dreamers. It's not their fault, but a lot
Speaker 1: of things that aren't people's faults go against them as
Speaker 1: a matter of law. And this is just the reality
Speaker 1: of it. Nancy Pelosi, on the other hand, is out
Speaker 1: there telling people that they should be proud that they
Speaker 1: broke the law, that this is a good thing. Play
Speaker 1: clip five. Please thank you for bringing us all together
Speaker 1: so that we can say thank you to our dreamers
Speaker 1: for America, making America more American with their hopes, optimism, courage,
Speaker 1: determination to make the future better for their families, and
Speaker 1: that for that we are grateful to their parents. Please
Speaker 1: thank your parents for us. As was mentioned, by Antonio
Speaker 1: for giving us the opportunity to have you in our country.
Speaker 1: Thank parents for breaking immigration law. To all the legal
Speaker 1: immigrants out there listening to shar right now, I'm waring,
Speaker 1: how does that strike you? How does that sound to you?
Speaker 1: Those of you that did what you were supposed to do,
Speaker 1: obeyed the rules, obeyed federal immigration law, went through a
Speaker 1: lot of hassle, a lot of time, a lot of money,
Speaker 1: a lot of effort to mean the country legally, to
Speaker 1: have the Speaker of the House, the most powerful elected
Speaker 1: Democrat in the country right now say that it's a
Speaker 1: great thing that these parents stole for their children what
Speaker 1: you had to work for. How does that How does
Speaker 1: that make you feel? I mean, I have some guesses.
Speaker 1: I'm going to assume it's pretty darn frustrating. And then,
Speaker 1: just as an American, as a citizen, as somebody who
Speaker 1: is called upon, under threat of force by the federal
Speaker 1: government to pay outrageous rates of taxation, to obey all
Speaker 1: kinds of laws that I think are garbage, but I
Speaker 1: do because I'm going to be a law abiding American.
Speaker 1: But to then be told by a person who works
Speaker 1: for the legislative branch at the highest level that writes
Speaker 1: our laws. Thank you, people who violated our laws. You
Speaker 1: are the greatest of Americans. And these are the same
Speaker 1: people who, when it comes to Trump, are always telling
Speaker 1: us about the threat to the rule of law and
Speaker 1: undermining it. Undermine rule of law all the time. They
Speaker 1: have no problem with it. I don't care laws. They
Speaker 1: don't like our laws to be ignored. Laws that get
Speaker 1: in their way, like the espionage actor Hillary, are to
Speaker 1: be cast aside. This is what really starts to pull
Speaker 1: apart at a society. I mean, I've said this before.
Speaker 1: It is not in fact, if you if you're looking
Speaker 1: for what will what really starts to constitute a tyranny.
Speaker 1: It is not the draconian enforcement of universally applicable law.
Speaker 1: Essentially the law is really strict, but it's applied against
Speaker 1: everybody equally. A society can actually handle that. A society, though,
Speaker 1: on which there's the capricious enforcement of law. You get prosecuted,
Speaker 1: you don't, you get thrown in prison, you don't based
Speaker 1: on political or religious or any other affiliation. That's a
Speaker 1: society that's heading for big problems. And Democrats are largely
Speaker 1: embracing that hypocrisy, that divergence has become acceptable to them.
Speaker 1: In fact, that divergence has become an advantage to them,
Speaker 1: And we see it now playing out on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: We see it with the Mullar probe and the way
Speaker 1: that they cover up for Democrats all the time, the
Speaker 1: way that they are unable to see how much they
Speaker 1: have perverted the justice system, and the pursuit of the
Speaker 1: power that they so desperately crave because they're so certain
Speaker 1: that they know better than you about what to do
Speaker 1: once they're in power, and they can make choices for
Speaker 1: you in your life that are better than the choices
Speaker 1: that you can make. And that's the role the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party really thinks that should play in American life, the
Speaker 1: decider for you for all of us, which is a
Speaker 1: scary thing when you listen to people like Schiff and
Speaker 1: Pelosi and many, many, many other Democrats in the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives who not only seem disingenuous and dishonest, but
Speaker 1: not very smart, which is in some ways the scariest.
Speaker 1: Are the Mexican cartels a national security threat to us?
Speaker 1: Of course, the answer is yes, how big of a
Speaker 1: threat are they? Well, I'm telling you right now, there
Speaker 1: is a conspiracy of silence in the media about what's
Speaker 1: really going on, not just with the scope and the
Speaker 1: devastation of the opioid epidemic across the country, because it
Speaker 1: does not affect favored victimized constituencies of the progressive left,
Speaker 1: so it can't really be something that we all need
Speaker 1: to worry about. In fact, it has heard a lot
Speaker 1: of red areas of states, and therefore there's just a
Speaker 1: less of an interest in the media, despite the fact
Speaker 1: that it is a plague that is taking tens of
Speaker 1: thousands of lives every year. Here's a story from the
Speaker 1: Washington Post today that does not give context that I'm
Speaker 1: going to give you. She bought what looked like a
Speaker 1: percocet pill. Now her alleged dealer is charged with murder
Speaker 1: on authorities say. Authorities say Pete Arrington sold percocet pills
Speaker 1: to two women at a restaurant in Germantown, Maryland. One
Speaker 1: woman went home, squallowed a single tablet, and then fifteen
Speaker 1: minutes had passed out. Her boyfriend called nine one one.
Speaker 1: Paramedics revived her with doses of nax loan and took
Speaker 1: her to a hospital. She survived. The second woman also
Speaker 1: went home alone took a single tablet. She was not
Speaker 1: found till hours later, slumped in bed. She was cold
Speaker 1: and stiff. She was obviously gone. The pills the women took,
Speaker 1: police say, were stamped and marked as percocet, a brand
Speaker 1: named pain Medication, but they were faced and contain FENTONYL,
Speaker 1: a synthetic opioid fifty times more powerful than heroin. And
Speaker 1: with that, in the eyes of Montgomery County police, who
Speaker 1: have arrested and charge him, renders Arrington's actions a homicide.
Speaker 1: My friends, this fellow, mister Arrington, he did not make
Speaker 1: this pill. This pill was made to look like it
Speaker 1: came from Big Farmer, which we know the left hates
Speaker 1: because it's capitalism and Big Farmer has done some very
Speaker 1: bad things. Do you know who's making these pills that
Speaker 1: look like pharmaceutical grade perkis at oxycotton water, the Mexican
Speaker 1: drug cartels. I know this because I was told by
Speaker 1: a very senior DA officer about this. You can also
Speaker 1: read about it if you want online. There are studies
Speaker 1: about what's happening right now. How do they even know?
Speaker 1: How do they know how much of this is out there? Well,
Speaker 1: let's think about this for a moment. Shall we We
Speaker 1: have tens of thousands of people you're dying from drug overdoses.
Speaker 1: We have pharmaceutical companies getting su out of existence. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're going bankrupt, their multi billion dollar fines, are having
Speaker 1: to pay criminal charges being brought. So doctors, and I
Speaker 1: know because I just spoke to a friend of mine
Speaker 1: a week ago about this, who's a doctor. Doctors are
Speaker 1: terrified to overprescribe any of this medication that's all been
Speaker 1: clamped down, and yet we still have sixty seventy thousand
Speaker 1: people you're dying. Well, the cartels have flooded our streets
Speaker 1: with pills that are made to seem like they are
Speaker 1: pharmaceutical grade, when really they are cheap and dangerous fentanyl
Speaker 1: and fentanyl if you take it, is far far higher
Speaker 1: risk than say, taking a perkose set. Even illicitly taking
Speaker 1: a percose set. You don't know what the dosage is,
Speaker 1: you don't know what the chemical composition really is of
Speaker 1: this thing you're taking. But if the dealer in Maryland,
Speaker 1: who perhaps didn't even know that he was selling fake
Speaker 1: perkos set, is to be charged with murder, what do
Speaker 1: we say of the Mexican cartels that are making these
Speaker 1: pills in vats in Mexico, bringing them across our porous
Speaker 1: border and then hiding amongst the illegal alien community in
Speaker 1: various cities and selling it to people, and those people
Speaker 1: are dying. The cartels are guilty of murdering thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands of Americans every year under the laws that I
Speaker 1: am telling you about right now. There's a story that
Speaker 1: you're not going to hear the mainstream media talk about.
Speaker 1: Isn't that a shock? It's not really a shock at all, Timbuk,
Speaker 1: I want to tell you about a big story from Russia.
Speaker 1: These caper worthy of Oshina Levin. He's astonishing about the cat.
Speaker 1: These replaced by a cat because of regulation on the
Speaker 1: Aeroflot airline. This is amazing. This is a stupid story
Speaker 1: that I'm gonna tell you what because you're gonna like it.
Speaker 1: So there's a cat, and in fact is a fat
Speaker 1: cat that was told Well, let me let me back
Speaker 1: up for a second. A guy named Victor or sorry
Speaker 1: McHale Gallian decided that he was going to bring his
Speaker 1: cat with him from Moscow to Vladivostok on the Pacific
Speaker 1: coast of Russia. Food, and he had a fat cat,
Speaker 1: and literally a cat that is fat, not like you know,
Speaker 1: a rich person. I mean like a cat that had
Speaker 1: had too many cans of tuna, as we are wont
Speaker 1: to do in this time of year, by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, no judgments, no judgments. But the cat was
Speaker 1: too big, too zaftig, full bodied if you will. For
Speaker 1: Russian National airline Aeroflot, they had a twenty pound weight
Speaker 1: limit on cats in the cabin and the guy didn't
Speaker 1: want to put little Victor, who was the name of
Speaker 1: the cat, even the whole of the airplane you pulled
Speaker 1: to hold the airplane, that's viticles in Russia, it's like
Speaker 1: a cat cat icicle even though, and then you have
Speaker 1: to thaw the cat that's vitabed. So they didn't know
Speaker 1: what to do here. They didn't know what to do
Speaker 1: this guy. And this has been all, by the way,
Speaker 1: confirmed by the airline. It is now the stuff of
Speaker 1: social media legend. And the airline took sanction against this
Speaker 1: guy because of it. So they weighed his cat and
Speaker 1: his cat was found too fat, and so what do
Speaker 1: you do? He doesn't want to not be able to
Speaker 1: Fly's eight hours of Love The Vustuck, which I hear
Speaker 1: is lovely this time of year if you like, you know,
Speaker 1: being a human icicle. And so he found he went
Speaker 1: to social media and Moscow and asked for help finding
Speaker 1: a cat that looked like Victor but wasn't Victor and
Speaker 1: was under the twenty pound way because Victor was twenty
Speaker 1: two pounds. So even if you put Victor in like
Speaker 1: a little trash bag and had him running on the
Speaker 1: treadmill like people do it and they're trying to make
Speaker 1: wait for wrestling, it's not to get down below he
Speaker 1: is that gonna lose two pounds in a day. So
Speaker 1: they got a cat that looked like Victor, and they
Speaker 1: went through with the aeroflood station and they weighed the cat.
Speaker 1: The cat seemed the cat was under the twenty pound
Speaker 1: weight limit. And then this guy switched out in the
Speaker 1: terminal because this was the baggage claim area had to do.
Speaker 1: This switched out to the terminal the impost body double
Speaker 1: cat for Victor. He's vere fret, cut too much caviare
Speaker 1: and managed to carry chubby Victor in the first class
Speaker 1: area in his carrier and not under the plane. You'd
Speaker 1: think that this would be happily ever after. But Aeroflot
Speaker 1: was not amused, so they took because of very regulation
Speaker 1: in Moscow and the raw show you can do these things,
Speaker 1: so they took I think they said two hundred and
Speaker 1: seventy thousand miles. This guy had accrued all of his
Speaker 1: frequent flyermunt miles on air float, which I'm sure is
Speaker 1: one of the worst, probably one of the worst airlines
Speaker 1: in the world, I'm guessing is run by the Russians.
Speaker 1: But all of all of those miles are gone. They
Speaker 1: took away all his miles because he violated policy, so
Speaker 1: they are very upset. But to this it just just
Speaker 1: pruducer Mark. When need these time to get your fat
Speaker 1: cat in the first cluss lounge, I would like to
Speaker 1: say all is fair in love, war and fat cat transportation, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, he keeps doing what he thought was right
Speaker 1: for his pet. I'd go to extreme lengths Daunley's dog, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, is way over the weight lifts. You
Speaker 1: know they're building weight limits. I shouldn't even say this,
Speaker 1: but my parents know that there's some buildings they couldn't
Speaker 1: live in, not because the breed of dog is unacceptable,
Speaker 1: because there's an anti you know, there's a breed list
Speaker 1: for shot buildings in New York. But she's over the
Speaker 1: weight limit out of New York buildings yet, what a
Speaker 1: twenty pound dog? Usually something like that. Too much, a
Speaker 1: little too much Thanksgiving turkey early. You know, it can
Speaker 1: happen sometimes. But a dog, it's got a little extra,
Speaker 1: you know, come on, dogs only live once. It's not
Speaker 1: a big deal. But anyway, this is this is the
Speaker 1: story now and it's making me miss commye Bear too.
Speaker 1: So maybe we'll have to bring back that character here
Speaker 1: on the show. But this is a fun story at
Speaker 1: a Russian um. What else did I have for you today,
Speaker 1: my friends? I have so much I'd like to get to.
Speaker 1: Oh out of the United Kingdom. We have a story
Speaker 1: of some people who are doing education about gender issues
Speaker 1: and this is a video that has been circulating online
Speaker 1: and they have children, small children who have been told
Speaker 1: things that well, i'll let you say, factually challenged, but
Speaker 1: have become very in vogue right now. This is from
Speaker 1: this was just making the rounds on social I'm seeing
Speaker 1: everybody's commenting on this. This is now part of the
Speaker 1: effort to teach children that gender and sex are different things.
Speaker 1: Or there's no separation. A producer mark, pull this clip,
Speaker 1: please play. Hi, I'm needing a sex educator, and I'm
Speaker 1: eva a sex I use the pronounced sheet and her
Speaker 1: because I'm a woman and when I was your age,
Speaker 1: I used to be a girl. Gender is how you
Speaker 1: feel on the inside about whether you're a boy or
Speaker 1: a girl, a man or a woman. If you're an
Speaker 1: a binary, feel like neither or both. People can also
Speaker 1: be fluid, feel more like female or male on a
Speaker 1: based on a different day or time. It's really an individual. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: everyone born with a volva is a girl too or
Speaker 1: false or not. Everybody is sure and that makes sense.
Speaker 1: But our genitals actually don't determine our gender. So some
Speaker 1: people are born with volvo's can be boys. I'll learn
Speaker 1: a little bit more about gender. We actually have an
Speaker 1: extra special visitor too successful. I have been through the
Speaker 1: spectrum if we were to say a spectrum of so
Speaker 1: I just I mean that that clip goes on for
Speaker 1: quite some time. They asked a room full of what
Speaker 1: looked like about maybe seven or eight year olds. True
Speaker 1: or false, everybody born with a volva is a woman.
Speaker 1: I am here to make sure that we are all
Speaker 1: on the same page. Folks, it is true that everybody
Speaker 1: born with they evolva is a woman, is female, is
Speaker 1: of the female gender. This is a fact. Facts first,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what people feel like. Things are what they are,
Speaker 1: Situations are as reality dictates. They're trying to teach kids
Speaker 1: this nonsense now, And look, I know that this always
Speaker 1: gets caught up in you know, should anybody ever be
Speaker 1: rude or discriminatory or or unkind to somebody who's transgender
Speaker 1: or gender flood? Of course not. But then again, as
Speaker 1: as ethical moral people, we understand that you should never
Speaker 1: be unkind rude to anybody for no reason, you know,
Speaker 1: for no good reason. Ever, it doesn't matter who the
Speaker 1: person is, but that certainly extends to if somebody has
Speaker 1: gender transition issues or whatever. I mean, you treat everybody
Speaker 1: with with the kindness and decency that you would want
Speaker 1: for yourself and for your own family. That said, policy
Speaker 1: has to be rooted in some reality. And when you're
Speaker 1: talking about policy matters, you've been talking about also education.
Speaker 1: We need to educate people with what is true, what
Speaker 1: are facts, And that is not happening here. It is.
Speaker 1: It is the case that for a vast majority of
Speaker 1: the human population. Your genitalia. Of course, your genitalia dictates
Speaker 1: your sex, and also your genitalia dictates your gender identity. Now,
Speaker 1: there are some instances there's there are people who are
Speaker 1: intersex formerly known as hermaphrodites. There are some biological irregularities
Speaker 1: that can occur where it can be a little more
Speaker 1: complicated than that. But that's not the claim that's being
Speaker 1: made here. The claim that was made is actually your
Speaker 1: gender can change depending on the time of day. How
Speaker 1: can gender be a real thing if your gender can switch?
Speaker 1: How is gender a construct worthy of discussion even if
Speaker 1: your gender can change in a given day. I feel
Speaker 1: this is what these so called expert instructors are for children,
Speaker 1: are saying, if I can be a woman in the morning,
Speaker 1: a man in the afternoon, and not quite sure in
Speaker 1: the evening, what does that mean about the way society
Speaker 1: is supposed to react to me? And are we really
Speaker 1: now supposed to say no more separation of the sexes
Speaker 1: into bathrooms because who knows, really what somebody might You
Speaker 1: might walk into the man drum and feel like a
Speaker 1: woman and want to You know, this is absurd, It
Speaker 1: not even makes any sense. What are you even talking about?
Speaker 1: What is the what is the purpose of all this?
Speaker 1: But I really do believe that ultimately, I mean I
Speaker 1: ask what the purposes? I think I know what the
Speaker 1: purpose is. The eradication of gender roles is very much
Speaker 1: in line with statist collectivist ideology, that you eradicate gender
Speaker 1: roles and all human being you know, that you create
Speaker 1: a radical equality where all human beings just become functionaries
Speaker 1: of the state, a kind of superstate, and the family
Speaker 1: no longer matters, gender no longer matters. All these normative
Speaker 1: concepts around us that also very much influence our relationships
Speaker 1: with human beings, which are always more important than our
Speaker 1: relationship to the state. I don't care who you are.
Speaker 1: My family is more important to me than any government,
Speaker 1: true true fact, true story. You know, my loved ones
Speaker 1: are the most dear thing in the world to me.
Speaker 1: And so when you break down those bonds and you
Speaker 1: you eliminate them by saying, well, I mean, there's no
Speaker 1: such there's no different between men and women, there's no
Speaker 1: particular you know, marriage can be between a man and
Speaker 1: any number of women or any You know that we're
Speaker 1: heading toward that, by the way, where we are going
Speaker 1: to start to have more open discussions. That's why they're
Speaker 1: doing these stories about polyamory and polyandry and these different things.
Speaker 1: We are going to head into that direction. So the
Speaker 1: institution of marriage is going to be changed to the
Speaker 1: point where it's effectively just a contract like any other contract,
Speaker 1: nothing special to it or about it. We are also
Speaker 1: heading into a phase where men and women are not
Speaker 1: even are not going to be treated as distinct for
Speaker 1: the purposes of sports, for the purposes of bathroom segregation.
Speaker 1: I mean there, we're just all these things. Why why
Speaker 1: is there such an investment in the left? One is
Speaker 1: they're drunk with social power. Because the left is very
Speaker 1: successfully harnessed victimization as a tool to get compliance from
Speaker 1: their political opponents. So they claim victim's status, and victimization
Speaker 1: is very effective, particularly against people who are moral and
Speaker 1: considerate and decent, meaning you know, I don't want anyone
Speaker 1: to feel bad. I don't want anyone to be discriminated
Speaker 1: against or attacked. And so if somebody comes to me
Speaker 1: and says that they are oppressed, well my initial instinct is, well,
Speaker 1: we want to make sure you're not oppressed. That's not right. Well,
Speaker 1: then that that is abused. They pull even more on
Speaker 1: that thread until eventually it's not I'm oppressed, will you
Speaker 1: help me? It's I'm oppressed, do what I say. And
Speaker 1: that's the transition that we've seen with the left. Right
Speaker 1: now it's I'm I'm oppressed. Therefore I get to dictate
Speaker 1: to you, the oppressor, what will happen now going forward.
Speaker 1: It's a way of shifting the balance, the intersectional view
Speaker 1: of the balance of power in society. So this is
Speaker 1: how you have people who otherwise seem sane and normal saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: men should be able to biological males. We have to
Speaker 1: say that, right, men should be able to compete in
Speaker 1: women's sports. I know, I'm that wasn't some super athlete,
Speaker 1: but I could tell you. I mean, having played sports.
Speaker 1: We sometimes would do mixed athletic teams male and female
Speaker 1: when I was in college, including the different female varsity athletes,
Speaker 1: and we would have scrimmages and things. And you know,
Speaker 1: everybody knows that men are generally bigger, stronger, faster, Right,
Speaker 1: This is a it's a function of biology, not every
Speaker 1: man against every woman. But you know, we we also
Speaker 1: have to understand that at some level society is built
Speaker 1: with policies in place for what is true in the
Speaker 1: vat in the vast majority of cases, you know what
Speaker 1: is true in the in the aggregate. You know it's
Speaker 1: at some point you're just going to we have to
Speaker 1: understand that these are these rules are going to be
Speaker 1: somewhat in perfect, but it doesn't mean we have to
Speaker 1: get rid of all of these rules. And this is where,
Speaker 1: for example, the issue of intersects comes up, where somebody
Speaker 1: does have biological a biological lack of distinction between mail,
Speaker 1: but even intersects people by the way, I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: not I've read about this a bit. I'm not a
Speaker 1: super expert on this, but none of the people making
Speaker 1: any of these policies are either. I would just know.
Speaker 1: It's like the people that yell at you about climate
Speaker 1: change and you're like, explain the process of photosynthesis, super scientists, like,
Speaker 1: just walk me through that one. Oh what temperature? Excuse me, climatologist,
Speaker 1: waterbes out there? What temperature does water boil? That? Can
Speaker 1: we start with that before you start lecture? As all
Speaker 1: all the science so I don't want to tell the
Speaker 1: climate change alarmis all the time. Read a book. Read
Speaker 1: a book, and not an al Gore book, like a real,
Speaker 1: a book written by somebody who knows something, that would
Speaker 1: be a good place to start. But this propagandizing to
Speaker 1: our children is only going to get worse, and it's
Speaker 1: going to become it's going to become official policy from
Speaker 1: a Department of education on down. And you're going to
Speaker 1: be fighting about this in your school boards for a
Speaker 1: long time. Why children who in many cases, in many
Speaker 1: cases know very little about sexuality and you know, the
Speaker 1: human body in terms of being instructed on this, why
Speaker 1: they have to be lectured literally be lectured to in
Speaker 1: a classroom about intersects and all the different genders and
Speaker 1: gender identity. And they're just propagandizing to young kids. You know,
Speaker 1: just give it time, they'll they'll be The Left will
Speaker 1: will create a somebody who is like a Gretta Thornberg
Speaker 1: in the elevation of a very young person to be
Speaker 1: a global icon for a political issue. They will have
Speaker 1: that soon, for they're looking for it. I believe right
Speaker 1: now somebody who's you know, fourteen, fifteen years old, who
Speaker 1: is going to be the spokesperson child for transgender issues
Speaker 1: that if you criticize what is being said or this
Speaker 1: person is your child bashing anti trans bigot. They will
Speaker 1: do this. Just give it, just give it some time.
Speaker 1: They're preparing for that next, I think. And here it
Speaker 1: is the statement from Dean Charles Whittaker of the Northwestern
Speaker 1: University on what has transpired here where Northwestern, the college
Speaker 1: paper that they have their the Daily, had to apologize
Speaker 1: for the crime of committing journalism. I'm serious, that is
Speaker 1: why they had to apologize, being a bunch of journals
Speaker 1: who actually did their job by showing a protest at
Speaker 1: a Jeff Session speaking event. Here we have the statement
Speaker 1: from Dean Charles Wicker. Journalists have a heady responsibility performing
Speaker 1: the role as authors of the first draft of history,
Speaker 1: the term that the late Washington Post president and publisher
Speaker 1: Philip Graham's credit with coming to describe our work. Journalists
Speaker 1: often put themselves at great risks, not only to expose
Speaker 1: malfeasance and injustice, but also to hold the mirror up
Speaker 1: to society. Let me be perfectly clear, the coverage by
Speaker 1: the Daily Northwestern of the protests coming from the recent
Speaker 1: appearance on campus by former Attorney General Jeff Sessions was
Speaker 1: in no way beyond the bounds of fair, responsible journalism.
Speaker 1: The Daily Northwestern is an independent, state run, sorry, student
Speaker 1: run publication. As the dean of McDill, where many of
Speaker 1: these young student journalists are trained, I am deeply troubled
Speaker 1: by the vicious bullying and badgering that the students responsible
Speaker 1: for the coverage have enjured for the sin of doing journalism.
Speaker 1: One interesting point to throw into the mix here, because
Speaker 1: the editor in chief and all the people work for
Speaker 1: the paper were given a lot of grief, I mean,
Speaker 1: rightfully so about their message. It turns out that one
Speaker 1: of the reasons, one of the reasons that they wrote
Speaker 1: that groveling We're so sorry we did the journalism thing
Speaker 1: letter is because they were being threatened by maniacs. That's right,
Speaker 1: my friends. One of the reasons that they had to say, sorry,
Speaker 1: we won't do that whole we're journalists who won't do
Speaker 1: that whole journalism thing again is that their fellow students
Speaker 1: were coming after them and in some cases threatening violence
Speaker 1: against them and just being completely insane. So I do
Speaker 1: think that's additional context that's good to know here. Like
Speaker 1: soft butter on warm toast, time to spread some freedom
Speaker 1: coast to coast. It's time for roll call Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck Sexton for all your roll call needs
Speaker 1: or team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot com. Great to get a
Speaker 1: chance to talk to all you folks on the roll call.
Speaker 1: You know you know I love how the roll call rolls.
Speaker 1: Let's start with my man, Derek. Hey Buck, I just
Speaker 1: want to say that I'm an African American who voted
Speaker 1: for President Trump in twenty sixteen and will again in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. I'm doing this in good faith that I
Speaker 1: won't let my great grandfather down rest his soul. He
Speaker 1: was a civil rights era minister. When Hillary Clinton, not
Speaker 1: that I've ever voted for her, said fall in line,
Speaker 1: that was the last straw for me to ever consider
Speaker 1: myself a Democrat. I walked away, and I've not been
Speaker 1: happier as a deplorable Shields High All right, man, Well, Derek,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you're gonna vote for Trump again. It's good
Speaker 1: to hear from somebody from from your background that feels
Speaker 1: so strongly that way. So thank you so much for
Speaker 1: writing in. I do appreciate it. Hold on a second, um,
Speaker 1: let me see Michelle. Right, Dear Buck, I up put
Speaker 1: on your take on the Atlantic article. I thought it
Speaker 1: was important should be widely distributed. Shield time, Michelle. Thank you, Michelle.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. Yeah, that Atlantic article, it's really worth reading.
Speaker 1: I did post it on Facebook. I know. Sometimes I
Speaker 1: say that and then producer Marcaster remind me of a a
Speaker 1: day later. You know, you promised the audience you're gonna
Speaker 1: do something, then you didn't do it. I'm like, damn it, Buck,
Speaker 1: get it together, Buck. But we did do that. Actually,
Speaker 1: so that is important and I think it's really worth
Speaker 1: listening to for all the folks out there. Debora. Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I enjoy listening to your show in the evening on
Speaker 1: WCBM in Baltimore. I just wanted to say that I'm
Speaker 1: sort of surprised you talk about Netflix so much. I
Speaker 1: gave mine up because the company hired the Obamas to
Speaker 1: provide programming content. They also hired Susan Rice for their
Speaker 1: board of directors. So Netflix and I got a divorce.
Speaker 1: Shields high. Keep up the good work, Debra, Thank you
Speaker 1: so much for listening. Great to have folks from WCBM
Speaker 1: Baltimore to be joining in in the mix here. Look,
Speaker 1: Netflix has some good programming. Netflix is a platform in
Speaker 1: a lot of cases for already done programming show. For example,
Speaker 1: I watched the show Friends sometimes I know, I know,
Speaker 1: make fun of me. I deserve it, but that's just
Speaker 1: a license that Netflix has to have that show on
Speaker 1: their platform. They don't create it. Some of the Netflix
Speaker 1: specific shows have been good. I will not I will
Speaker 1: not take credit away for that. The Narcos show is
Speaker 1: very good. There's other stuff that's been very good. But yes,
Speaker 1: there's a clear left wing Netflix tilts, no question about it.
Speaker 1: You saw this with the Bill Nye the Science Guy Show,
Speaker 1: which was unwatchable. And I don't mean like I disagree
Speaker 1: with the Poleman that's a given. I mean just it
Speaker 1: was terrible. It wasn't good. You know, John Stewart was
Speaker 1: a left wing propagandist at The Daily Show. No, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's obvious, but he was good at it. He was
Speaker 1: an effective left because he was kind of funny, and
Speaker 1: he was kind of entertaining, sometimes very funny, even though
Speaker 1: he was always he's pushing an alternate reality of Democrats
Speaker 1: are always so wise and smart and great for the
Speaker 1: most part, and you know Republicans are are evil, racist idiots.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean Netflix is biased, no question, but
Speaker 1: it's not It's not easy to just get around it. Entirely,
Speaker 1: and a lot of Look, a lot of the cable
Speaker 1: channels are very left wing. HBO is very left wing.
Speaker 1: HBO is very very left wing. Pablo hey Buck, I
Speaker 1: was watching the impeachment hearings. I realized all they have
Speaker 1: so far as two guys that had an opinion of
Speaker 1: what happened between other people in the administration. I really
Speaker 1: believe they feel left out. I stopped watching for the
Speaker 1: Republicans got to question, but I really think Haraldo found
Speaker 1: more on al Capone's safe shield's eye. Yeah, man, just
Speaker 1: wasn't that much. I mean, and people are going to
Speaker 1: try to make a big deal of it, because they
Speaker 1: the leftists who hate Trump are going to say, oh,
Speaker 1: this is proving that, you know, everything we've said about
Speaker 1: Trump is true. Blah blah blah. Nope, it's not. It's
Speaker 1: not proving that they're they're gonna say that no matter what,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. You could have every witness the Democrats
Speaker 1: call I'll get up there on the on the stand
Speaker 1: and be like, you want to hear the most annoying
Speaker 1: sound in the world, And I just do that the
Speaker 1: whole time. They say, oh my gosh, it's brilliant. It's
Speaker 1: brilliant what the Democrats have been saying about All right,
Speaker 1: what these witnesses rather, they're Democrats, But what they've been
Speaker 1: saying about Trump. Remember, my friends, the State Department has
Speaker 1: pretty similar politics to your average university faculty lounge. Left wing,
Speaker 1: very left wing place. Let's see here, John Buck. I
Speaker 1: voted for Trump in twenty sixteen for many reasons, not
Speaker 1: one of them included being influenced by Russia. I've loved
Speaker 1: the job he's done so far. There have been a
Speaker 1: few shortcomings, but overall, he's done a better job than
Speaker 1: most presidents have done in decades. After hearing Shift this
Speaker 1: morning blabbering with his incoherent thoughts on impeachment, I became
Speaker 1: very enthused, more than I was in twenty sixteen to
Speaker 1: vote for the president in twenty twenty. I wish the
Speaker 1: election were today. The Dems have sunk their own ship
Speaker 1: with this unjust impeachment battle. Can't wait to see how
Speaker 1: many House seats we pick up next year. Love the show, shields,
Speaker 1: Hi well, John, Love hearing from you, my man. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much. And uh, I mean, I hope you're
Speaker 1: right about how this is gonna backfire on the democrats.
Speaker 1: I can't say that. I'm entirely confident that that's the case.
Speaker 1: I think so, But I don't make I don't like
Speaker 1: to make promises to this audience that I I can't keep.
Speaker 1: I don't want to write checks my body can't cash. Well,
Speaker 1: movie producer, Mark no idea? Are you kidding me? Dude?
Speaker 1: I'm really bad at movie quotes. I mean you've seen
Speaker 1: Top Gun though, right, you've not comment? You have not
Speaker 1: seen Top Gun? Are you a Soviet spy? How did
Speaker 1: you sneak? Yeah? I haven't seen. Yeah, they sent a
Speaker 1: spy to infiltrate the buck Sexton show. Well it would
Speaker 1: make sense, wouldn't it, because we're single handedly defending the
Speaker 1: front lines of freedom here obviously. Yeah that's right. Um,
Speaker 1: all right, wow nor Top Gun? Have you seen Ghostbusters? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Of course, Okay, I just want to make sure. I
Speaker 1: got a little worried there for a second. It's like,
Speaker 1: I mean, you might we might have to go right now,
Speaker 1: like go do a viewer right now. If you have
Speaker 1: not seen you've never seen the Mighty Ducks. But would
Speaker 1: I like the Mighty Ducks? Come on, it's Amelio Estevez,
Speaker 1: So how good could it really? Be. That's when he
Speaker 1: was great. That was at his best. Yes, I mean
Speaker 1: I guess maybe, um, but the Top Gun remake does not.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I think it's coming out next year.
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure when it's coming out. But Top
Speaker 1: Gun is a movie that should not have been remade.
Speaker 1: Richard Happy, Who's your Hellos? Disney Plus is great. The
Speaker 1: Mandalorian Show is so much fun. As an animator, the
Speaker 1: animated film of the best two D animation is The
Speaker 1: Song of the South. I look past the insensitive parts
Speaker 1: because the animation is incredible. I've never even heard of
Speaker 1: this thing. Still, check out The Mandalorian and read Harry
Speaker 1: Potter Shields High. All right, I never heard of that before.
Speaker 1: But fair enough. Let's see here. Have been watching Kelly
Speaker 1: and you on the first It's great to see you
Speaker 1: back on the tube. One more thing. I've been listening
Speaker 1: and watching you since The Real News on GBTV days.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Kelly. I appreciate that. That was
Speaker 1: a great show. I Missreal News man. We should I
Speaker 1: like there was. The discussion on that show among conservatives
Speaker 1: was very It was just very high level and they
Speaker 1: had we had great guests and a lot of them
Speaker 1: going on to be big deals in conservative media. But
Speaker 1: that was a lot of fun, Danna, right, she sent
Speaker 1: me a link. Okay, so I'm not gonna get to
Speaker 1: that right now, Jason. Here we go, hey Buck. I'm
Speaker 1: thirty six years old, and as long as I can remember,
Speaker 1: the left have been trying to divide this country by race, ethnicity, religion, gender, ideology,
Speaker 1: and so on. And now they're shocked the country is divided.
Speaker 1: The left talks about a possible coming civil war, and
Speaker 1: they blame the right. My biggest fear of their actions
Speaker 1: has been the very real possibility of Valkanization of the country.
Speaker 1: And we divide the people up that much, then yes,
Speaker 1: political violence is far more likely to happen. They've slapped
Speaker 1: at the non leftist for so many years, and now
Speaker 1: that people are pushing back, but they lament the lack
Speaker 1: of civility. I don't know how the nation starts to
Speaker 1: come back together. I just know won't happen under democrats
Speaker 1: who are destroying our common history, symbols and bonds, the
Speaker 1: ones that the citizens of this of this nation were
Speaker 1: united on. All Right, here we go, Matthew. Hey Buck
Speaker 1: just had to reach out and to tell you. The
Speaker 1: last ten years of traveling salesman, I found myself consuming
Speaker 1: day in and day out hours of live talk radio.
Speaker 1: I started a new job in construction. Unfortunately, cannot listen
Speaker 1: to the same amount of time I used to. The
Speaker 1: Freedom Hut, though, is how I start each one of
Speaker 1: my days now when I rise and shine at four
Speaker 1: am due to my household chores. I'm glad to have
Speaker 1: found you, to be honest, I've only been a listener
Speaker 1: for about a year. However, You're straight forward, logical way
Speaker 1: of describing the day's events cuts through a lot of
Speaker 1: hyperbole that other talk shows have. Keep up the good work.
Speaker 1: I try to spread the buck squad as much as
Speaker 1: I can. Shield's High, Matthew. Matthew, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: Shields side of you too. I really do appreciate that.
Speaker 1: It's very kind of you, and I am honored to
Speaker 1: keep you company during your chores. That's you know, that's
Speaker 1: an important thing to make sure that's as fun as
Speaker 1: it can be. All right, let's see what we got here.
Speaker 1: I've got to I want to get to the Let's
Speaker 1: get to some of the emails, shall we. All right,
Speaker 1: now we're back, and now we're getting into the email inbox,
Speaker 1: so we we have Andre's You're right, thanks for keeping
Speaker 1: us safe and warm in the past. Your pronunciation of
Speaker 1: my name has been spot on. What you've been reading
Speaker 1: is the phonetic spelling of my name. The actual spelling
Speaker 1: is Andre's a Latvian name. All right, cool, being genetically
Speaker 1: German and Mexican having a Latvian name, resulting in many
Speaker 1: asking where are you from? My favorite response my mother
Speaker 1: shields high. Andre's all right, man. Thanks, Yeah, good, good stuff,
Speaker 1: Terry writes, testing the email, Terry test successful. Put more
Speaker 1: in the next email. Don Rights, Yeah, it's done from
Speaker 1: Lower Alabama. Thanks bucking Mark, Well, Don, thank you for
Speaker 1: writing it, even if just to say thank you, We
Speaker 1: we appreciate it. John Wright, Buck, I love the show, John,
Speaker 1: the show loves you. Can't wait till the swamp is drained.
Speaker 1: That makes two of us. David Rights from Baltimore, Maryland,
Speaker 1: where the president of the whole USA is hosting the
Speaker 1: only loyal opposition left. Keep the faith, keep fighting. Um,
Speaker 1: all right, Dave, I don't really know what's I don't
Speaker 1: really know what that was all about, what that's going
Speaker 1: on there, but fair enough, Phil, Hey, Mark and back
Speaker 1: you both are mighty good right up there, the best
Speaker 1: of all in my listening time, I do want to
Speaker 1: mention the last week there's a message about General Maddis
Speaker 1: and his books. Blah blah blah. Okay, Sember five, Phil,
Speaker 1: thank you, Phil, appreciate it. And then I'm sorry, but
Speaker 1: I think I'm stepping into some of the older emails
Speaker 1: here Brackton, congratulations and getting a grown up email. Yep,
Speaker 1: that's a really old one. All right. So somehow I've
Speaker 1: like uploaded the wrong the wrong email. I gotta do
Speaker 1: a whole producer Mark, fix it, Producer Mark, I gotta do.
Speaker 1: I really need to teach you how to get to
Speaker 1: the unready emails. No, because that would mean that I'm
Speaker 1: an incompetent host to scroll to the top of your
Speaker 1: email in battle that some problem. I have to like
Speaker 1: reset the computer thing you whatever. All right, back to
Speaker 1: the Facebook emails, Producer Mark will fix this later. That's whenever,
Speaker 1: whenever anything goes wrong, it's go producer Mark help. All right,
Speaker 1: here we go, Robert hey Buck. If mass shooting victims
Speaker 1: can sue a gunmaker for legally selling a gun to
Speaker 1: a woman, so her who was murdered when her mental
Speaker 1: her mental health impaired son could steal it. Can I
Speaker 1: sue GM when a drunk priest runs a red light
Speaker 1: in his car and mangles my mother in a crosswalk?
Speaker 1: Can I sue Pepsi and Briar's ice cream for obesity
Speaker 1: when I never measured out a normal recommended serving? Backdoor?
Speaker 1: Gun denial is tyranny, Robert, look, man, it's it's it's
Speaker 1: it's wrong that they are going to sue gun manufactures
Speaker 1: what people illegally do with guns. It's wrong. Remember that
Speaker 1: there's something different about the pharmaceutical companies in the opioid epidemic.
Speaker 1: The opioid epidemic, they were putting out information that was
Speaker 1: false to people. They were falsely telling them that these
Speaker 1: are not addictive. Oxyconton's not addictive. That is a huge lie,
Speaker 1: a very dangerous one. Gun manufacturers aren't saying a gun
Speaker 1: can't kill anyone, don't worry about it, you know, or
Speaker 1: criminals don't use guns or whatever. So it's it's completely wrong.
Speaker 1: But the anti gun hysteria, as you know, is a
Speaker 1: very strong force on the left, and unfortune, that's not
Speaker 1: going to change anytime soon. Brian rights Hey, bucking Mark
Speaker 1: on hundred percent agree on Lady in the Tramp and
Speaker 1: Robin Hood see Brian's a Very Smart Fellow, being some
Speaker 1: of the best animated movies of their time. So sad
Speaker 1: on the cancel culture would love to see the scared
Speaker 1: Northwestern students who are triggered by Jeff Sessions have to
Speaker 1: sit through the classic Police Academy movies. My favorite one's
Speaker 1: Growing Up or Airplane. They may have to be committed afterwards.
Speaker 1: You still have to watch Disney's Coco. It is the
Speaker 1: best since Beauty and the Beast, all the best, guys, Mark,
Speaker 1: do you know this Disney's Coco? Is that a that
Speaker 1: a movie? Yes, I've heard of it. I have not
Speaker 1: seen it, though. I think it's the latest in like
Speaker 1: the Disney Princesses, I want to say, like a newer
Speaker 1: one and there's there's there's uh what was that? There
Speaker 1: was Mulan which was in China. Yes, Muana was fairly recent.
Speaker 1: That was with the Rock And what was the one
Speaker 1: that was in Hawaii that was Muana? I'm pretty yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's the Okay, yeah, that's from all. Okay, I haven't
Speaker 1: seen it. I've had to seen that. I haven't seen
Speaker 1: that I might have to, just so I can understand
Speaker 1: the cultural references. Frozen. I haven't seen that either, but
Speaker 1: Frozen two's coming up, and I know I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: forced to go watch that. Yeah, so I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to go see regular Frozen. So I get a little
Speaker 1: mini Marks running around. It's gonna be married, buddy. Watch
Speaker 1: all of these again. We're gonna be going all the little,
Speaker 1: you know, kid movies. I'm gonna be going to Disney World,
Speaker 1: but not for fun. We don't even know what baby
Speaker 1: Shark is, do you? Oh? I know, and I hate
Speaker 1: it now now that you just saw those two words,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be stuck in my head. That's right all day.
Speaker 1: Thank you get inside producer Marks. That's right. But yeah,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have to actually sit there while your kids
Speaker 1: are singing the baby Sharks. That's all right, And I'll
Speaker 1: be Uncle Buck, which thank you John Candy for ruining
Speaker 1: that for me forever. There's no coming back from the
Speaker 1: We have to be Uncle James. I think it's got
Speaker 1: to be Uncle James. James is my first name. For
Speaker 1: those who listening, you didn't know that Buck is part
Speaker 1: of my middle name. So there is that let's see
Speaker 1: what we have. We got a little more coming our way.
Speaker 1: Jay I was speaking of James. He writes pretty sad
Speaker 1: and left, tells us to get an education, but get
Speaker 1: all upset over the former ag Jeff Sessions and photos.
Speaker 1: Education is not what it seems to be nowadays. Seems
Speaker 1: to me they teach you how to be offended about
Speaker 1: everything and be weak minded. I'm glad I did not
Speaker 1: go to college. I don't want to be offended over
Speaker 1: everything and not weak minded. You are my education and
Speaker 1: a few other conservative commentators. Shields High from w g
Speaker 1: Y Albany are a wonderful affiliate up in Albany. Will
Speaker 1: James thank you so much, man. I'm very honored to
Speaker 1: be part of your education, your day day education process
Speaker 1: and it is an honor and a team that's going
Speaker 1: to be it for the show today. Hope you're enjoying
Speaker 1: it if you're watching it on Pluto channel two forty
Speaker 1: eight on the Pluto TV app. The first is the
Speaker 1: channel Bucks Exton and Jesse Kelly and assorted other amazing
Speaker 1: people coming in just a matter of months, so please
Speaker 1: start watching us on Pluto TV. Also the podcast iHeart Media,
Speaker 1: iHeartRadio app rather or on iTunes. Tomorrow we talk more
Speaker 1: Shield's Hot