Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Get ready for MAGA
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. My friends, President Trump is officially launching his
Speaker 1: reelection campaign down in Orlando, Florida. Tonight, huge rally plan
Speaker 1: going to be a ton of energy, enthusiasm, and Trumpiness
Speaker 1: on display. Also, the President claiming that he will start
Speaker 1: the deportation of millions of illegals next week has Democrats
Speaker 1: on edge. Could this be the turning point in the
Speaker 1: immigration fight? We got that more coming up on the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where
Speaker 1: the mission or mission is to decode what really matters
Speaker 1: with actionable intelligence. Mag Noo, mistake American, You're a great American?
Speaker 1: Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Remember the animated meeting. No,
Speaker 1: welcome to the Buck Sexon Show. Everybody like so much
Speaker 1: for being a man. It's gonna be a big night
Speaker 1: in Orlando, which is exciting for certainly all the folks
Speaker 1: in orlandon I'll be I'll be watching tonight as as
Speaker 1: I can, maybe not live, but I'll be watching the
Speaker 1: entirety of the rallies. I can bring you all the
Speaker 1: latest and greatest on it tomorrow. Man, this is Trump
Speaker 1: in his element. You know the Trump is not going
Speaker 1: to be able to he can he cannot be denied,
Speaker 1: he cannot be contained, cannot be stopped. He is gonna
Speaker 1: be on fire, my friends. And this is going to
Speaker 1: be a reminder or two so many who have seen
Speaker 1: a president who's focused on doing the job, who is
Speaker 1: still trying to gain background that was was lost and
Speaker 1: deal with with all the damaging nonsense of the Muller probe,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, he's trying to trying to get
Speaker 1: a a momentum going here again. But man, tonight, I
Speaker 1: think it's gonna be fantastic. And you've got so many
Speaker 1: people who were already gathered. I saw all this footage
Speaker 1: of folks who were in a they were I think
Speaker 1: they were intense or they had certainly had a lot
Speaker 1: of umbrellasock just pouring rain and they were waiting a
Speaker 1: day in advanced Mike, did you see some of this?
Speaker 1: I mean, people really want to they really want to
Speaker 1: see this Trump rally. That's pretty amazing stuff. So I
Speaker 1: wish I was. I wish I was there as as
Speaker 1: a journalist, and as I'm not a journalist, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, whatever, as a media person, whatever, whatever,
Speaker 1: My people ask me this, what's your job? Said, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm a radio host, but it's I do a
Speaker 1: lot of things. I don't really think journalists weren't on them,
Speaker 1: but I do wish that I was. I was able
Speaker 1: to be there live and just sort of see how
Speaker 1: this goes. But I've got responsibilities up here in the swamp.
Speaker 1: I gotta try to keep the country from collapsing, you know,
Speaker 1: And I've just got some things I gotta do as
Speaker 1: one does. But we'll see what the Trump has in
Speaker 1: store for us tonight and as we go on the here,
Speaker 1: I know there's a lot of a lot of excitement
Speaker 1: in the air about the prospect of Trump finally getting
Speaker 1: out there and making his case the American people. Remember,
Speaker 1: it wasn't Trump's ground game or the RNC apparatus around him.
Speaker 1: It wasn't that there was some campaign staff that was
Speaker 1: writing great speeches or whatever. I mean. Trump managed to
Speaker 1: pull off something that must be described as a political miracle,
Speaker 1: and he carried most of the load on his own shoulders.
Speaker 1: And it was his own political skill, his own energy,
Speaker 1: his own messaging that managed to beat a Hillary campaign
Speaker 1: that was all but as short of victory at least
Speaker 1: that's what we were told. So I am very much
Speaker 1: looking forward to the Trump moments to night. I might
Speaker 1: even go over to the Trump Hotel for a little bit.
Speaker 1: That's right, the emoluments clause. Oh no, well, I'm not
Speaker 1: a foreigners. It's okay. I can spend money at the
Speaker 1: Trump Hotel. I don't think that I can tell the
Speaker 1: president what to do because I go over there and
Speaker 1: have a scotch. Actually, I'm not gonna have a scotch.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you, I'm gonna have some mescal. It's my favorite.
Speaker 1: It's really what I'm into these days. Maybe sometimes to
Speaker 1: kill up at mescal. I've been drinking gin and Tonics
Speaker 1: lately too, which I can tell you sometimes it makes
Speaker 1: me feel like a like a very established lady, like,
Speaker 1: oh git a tonics? I feel. I always think the
Speaker 1: gin and tonics are what would ladies who'd lunch in
Speaker 1: Joe Joe would be drinking. But maybe maybe am I
Speaker 1: think of a mint Julip. I'm probably confusing with him
Speaker 1: in Julip. But gin and tonics are good, you know,
Speaker 1: G and T. Why not? But the big issue that
Speaker 1: looms behind all this, you're like, okay, bucks, So there's
Speaker 1: gonna be a rally tonight. That'll be fun. What do
Speaker 1: we really have to look for here? One the President
Speaker 1: is going to be saying, stay the course on China,
Speaker 1: to stay the course on teris Mother. We're gonna have
Speaker 1: Michael Pillsbury, the author of the Hundred Year Marathon, the
Speaker 1: book that I've read and told you all that is
Speaker 1: worth reading. He's gonna join us later on to give
Speaker 1: us a sense where where he thinks us China strategy
Speaker 1: is well. A nice fulsome robust conversation with Michael Pillsbury.
Speaker 1: I'm looking forward to that, and that's certainly going to
Speaker 1: be part of what Trump talks about. And he's gonna
Speaker 1: take some bows on the economy, as he should. The
Speaker 1: economy is really good. I was. I was on Tucker's show,
Speaker 1: not to pardon me. I'll be on Tucker's show, I
Speaker 1: think tonight. So if you get a chance, you can
Speaker 1: tune in around the eight eastern hour. Should be on
Speaker 1: Tucker's show for a little bit. I live five minutes
Speaker 1: from the Fox News studios. I can pop in and out.
Speaker 1: Believe it or not, it's pretty pretty easy. But I
Speaker 1: should be on Tucker Show tonight. Ale though, it's rolling coverage,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna have you know they got Unfortunately, if
Speaker 1: they're about to put me on air, and then the
Speaker 1: leader of the free world, the President United States, takes
Speaker 1: the stage, I will get bumped. So that may happen.
Speaker 1: It's one of the one of the pitfall of the
Speaker 1: media business that I'm in here is that you know,
Speaker 1: when the President United States is speaking, nobody cares what
Speaker 1: you have to say. Bucks, So you got to just
Speaker 1: step aside and be quiet. But no, I think I
Speaker 1: should be on Tucker Show. I was on Shannon Show
Speaker 1: last night and some guy Democrat strategist person was trying
Speaker 1: to make the case the economy is not good. I
Speaker 1: just kind of had to laugh. Are we we're really
Speaker 1: doing this? We're really going to do this? Well? The
Speaker 1: polling shows that people feel a day that there that
Speaker 1: their bills are higher and their in cub is lower.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, Okay, well, there's what people maybe kind
Speaker 1: of think in some places according to some poll. And
Speaker 1: then there's the cold hard facts. And here's what the
Speaker 1: cold hard facts tell us. The economy is doing very well.
Speaker 1: Unemployment is incredibly low. Black and Hispanic unemployment at historic lows,
Speaker 1: the stock market is strong, which is they was going,
Speaker 1: Oh it's the fatcats the billionaire. Stock marking on the
Speaker 1: stock market is an indicator of company profits and companies
Speaker 1: higher people. Stock markets indicator of how pension plans are
Speaker 1: doing and whether they'll be able to meet the obligations,
Speaker 1: and whether, you know, the snock markets a lot more
Speaker 1: than just you know where I've got. You know, my
Speaker 1: ship has come in and I've got the market beat.
Speaker 1: But your pants are too tight in the seats. Remember
Speaker 1: that guy from Caddy Shacks? Some mean you know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about? I know, Yeah, Judge, what was Judge?
Speaker 1: What's his name? Judge? I know his real name in
Speaker 1: real life? I can't. It's t Night Judge, Yeah, Ted Knight,
Speaker 1: was it? Judge smiles. I think, yeah, I think that's it.
Speaker 1: Judge smiles. Okuy bush Wood, sir, you will never join
Speaker 1: bush Woods. Not while I remember here he's he was
Speaker 1: great Caddy Shack really holds up. Good movie. Uh so
Speaker 1: Trump has to deal with the economy. But anyway, so
Speaker 1: there's this Democrats status guy sit next me on a
Speaker 1: Shannon Show and he's all, you know, yeah, this is that. Look,
Speaker 1: he's got a tough job. I'm not gonna lie try
Speaker 1: to say. My favorite though, is where they go, yes,
Speaker 1: the aspects of the economy that are strong thanks to Obama,
Speaker 1: but the bad things or thanks to trouble. I'm like, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: So now we're gonna try to parse three years after
Speaker 1: Obama leaves off, is what parts of the economy that
Speaker 1: are good, that are Obama? You know, Obama's taking credit
Speaker 1: for versus we all know if the economy did what
Speaker 1: they all said it was gonna do when Trump took office,
Speaker 1: it would all be the Sorry, I just whacked the
Speaker 1: microphone by accident. I got so excited. I hate when
Speaker 1: I do that. It would all be the Trump economy.
Speaker 1: They would they would hang it all around Trump's neck
Speaker 1: if it was. But because it's going into well, they go,
Speaker 1: let's seacondomy. No it's not. It's ridiculous. But the big
Speaker 1: issue and the one we're gonna dive into here for
Speaker 1: a few minutes, and then we'll talk about just the
Speaker 1: general atmospherics going into night and Biden and I thought
Speaker 1: about having a bunch of people from the you know,
Speaker 1: the RNC or the campaign or something. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'd rather talk to you. I've got thoughts. This is
Speaker 1: the freedom hunt. I reigned supreme in here. I'm not
Speaker 1: really I don't feel the need to have some spokesperson
Speaker 1: from such and such Republican whatever come on, because they're
Speaker 1: just gonna tell you stuff that you already know. But
Speaker 1: the big issue is immigration right now, because Trump said
Speaker 1: starting next week, there could be well he said there
Speaker 1: will be even so there could be deportations starting. And
Speaker 1: he said the millions of people who are here illegally,
Speaker 1: they're finally gonna be held to account for breaking the law.
Speaker 1: And these deportations and the whole situation could, let's just say,
Speaker 1: create a frenzy, a complete freak out among Democrats. This
Speaker 1: is going to call their bluff on caring about border security. Well,
Speaker 1: let's take a moment here. Get ready for the fact
Speaker 1: that Trump tonight is you know, everyone, kickback, relax, let
Speaker 1: the good times role. Trump's gonna be given his speech
Speaker 1: tonight in Orlando. It's gonna be fantastic. Let's now look
Speaker 1: more at what he meant by immigration will be enforced.
Speaker 1: There will be the deport of millions of illegals that
Speaker 1: are in this country starting next week. Here's why, here's
Speaker 1: what I'll tell you whether that can actually happen and
Speaker 1: whether this is going to have the intended effect, I
Speaker 1: will tell you all of that, though in just a
Speaker 1: moment US foreign assistance to the Northern Triangle countries of Elsavador, Guatemala,
Speaker 1: and Honduras. We will not provide new funds for programs
Speaker 1: in those countries until we are satisfied the Northern Triangle
Speaker 1: governments are taking concrete actions to reduce the number of
Speaker 1: illegal migrants coming to the US border. Working with Congress,
Speaker 1: we will reprogram those funds to other priorities as appropriate.
Speaker 1: This is consistent with the Presidence direction and with the
Speaker 1: recognition that it is critical that there be sufficient political
Speaker 1: will in these countries to address the problem at its source.
Speaker 1: As Secretary Pompeio has said, these nations have the responsibility
Speaker 1: to take care of the immigration problems in their home country.
Speaker 1: Why is it such a shock to the Libs that
Speaker 1: the United States government now is going to pull back
Speaker 1: funds from countries that are not doing their part in
Speaker 1: helping US deal with the immigration crisis. You know, they say, oh,
Speaker 1: this is gonna make it worse for those countries. Well, no,
Speaker 1: this is what you do when someone does not uphold
Speaker 1: their under the bargain. You know, the way the Libs
Speaker 1: structure this debate or structure this this argument, it's it'll
Speaker 1: be like if I said, okay, well, I'm I'm going
Speaker 1: to the bakery and I'm gonna go buy a loaf
Speaker 1: for bread, and the baker says to me, oh, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm actually not going to sell you a loaf for
Speaker 1: bread because I don't want to. And then I say, okay, well,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to give you money anymore. And then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, you see all these news stories,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, the bakery is gonna have to close
Speaker 1: and it's gonna be terrible, and you know all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and well, yeah, but they also could just do what
Speaker 1: they're supposed to do and then and then the money's
Speaker 1: on again. But it's not supposed to be just you know,
Speaker 1: open ended, and we're supposed to give these places a
Speaker 1: blank check. We're giving them foreign aid. When we ask
Speaker 1: them to help us out on something that's reasonable, which
Speaker 1: they totally can do, then they should do it. But
Speaker 1: you see, this is this is the the I don't know,
Speaker 1: the common sense based brilliance of the Trump approach to things,
Speaker 1: which is, what would a normal person do if face
Speaker 1: with this problem. Let's do that thing in government circles
Speaker 1: and when you're especially when you start talking about libs.
Speaker 1: But never mind that even just in federal bureaucracies and
Speaker 1: the oh my gosh, the State Department. What do you
Speaker 1: mean you're going to take a common sense approach to this.
Speaker 1: There's nuances, there's equities, there's things you have to take
Speaker 1: into account here. Okay, fine, we're the United States. We're
Speaker 1: giving them money. We don't we're giving them taxpayer dollars.
Speaker 1: We don't have to do this, you know, not every
Speaker 1: country just gives other country free money because they feel
Speaker 1: like being good people. We do this, and then, of
Speaker 1: course where we're told that we're the bad guys, right,
Speaker 1: libs and by people in different countries that are taking
Speaker 1: the money. But we're gonna have some of this be
Speaker 1: contingent on a little more cooperation. It does seem like
Speaker 1: now there's a greater attention pay to this than it
Speaker 1: was before, and Trump should get credit for that. The
Speaker 1: Trump administration has gotten really serious about dealing this problem,
Speaker 1: which brings me now to the deportations question. This, my friends,
Speaker 1: I've been calling it from the beginning, and you know
Speaker 1: that if you've been listening to this show, when their
Speaker 1: Libs are really going to freak out is when you
Speaker 1: have aggressive efforts to track down those who are in
Speaker 1: the country illegally, but specifically, and I think there should
Speaker 1: be a prioritization on tracking down anyone who does not
Speaker 1: show for their immigration hearing, who has claimed asylum, people
Speaker 1: who are scamming the system. Anyone who who is in
Speaker 1: that category should be told that they are no longer
Speaker 1: allowed to stay in the country. You're gone because they've
Speaker 1: abused the system. They're the country illegally. The whole agreement
Speaker 1: we have with them being here is when you're asked
Speaker 1: to show up to court to have your asylum claim adjudicated,
Speaker 1: you have to go. If you're going to break that agreement,
Speaker 1: if you're going to break that promise that you're making
Speaker 1: the United States government when you're signing those documents and
Speaker 1: saying you're gonna show up, you have to go. Libs
Speaker 1: are going to lose their minds over this, and they'll
Speaker 1: show us. We will see that the Libs do not
Speaker 1: in fact want immigration law to be enforced. They do
Speaker 1: not believe that the laws mean what they say. They
Speaker 1: think there's some other way we're supposed to interpret all this.
Speaker 1: They think that the lawlessness of systematic, systematic fraud at
Speaker 1: southern border should not be confronted. But Trump is right,
Speaker 1: make this a priority. Make those who have violated immigration
Speaker 1: laws and come to this country. You don't make them
Speaker 1: understand that if you try to defraud our system and
Speaker 1: take advantage. And that's really what one of the things
Speaker 1: that bothers me so much about this, because people are
Speaker 1: taking advantage of the good will of the American people.
Speaker 1: To pretend to be an asylum seeker when you're really
Speaker 1: just an economic migrant is like someone pretending to have,
Speaker 1: you know, a cup in their hand on the street
Speaker 1: because they say they're starving to death and they need food,
Speaker 1: but really they're going to use that money to pay
Speaker 1: down their credit card bill. I'm not saying that that
Speaker 1: you know that that I can't understand or sympathize with
Speaker 1: the need to pay down their credit card bill. But
Speaker 1: if you're telling me it's for food or else they're
Speaker 1: going to starve, that's a different that's a different level
Speaker 1: of severity, and that's playing on my concern for my
Speaker 1: fellow human beings. Asylum is about that. It's about if
Speaker 1: you are in a country that has turned on you
Speaker 1: or the government attorney for whatever reason, we will give
Speaker 1: you safe harbor here. It's not I don't like my
Speaker 1: country because it's poor and dysfunctional. If that were the case,
Speaker 1: we'd have to take hundreds of millions of people into
Speaker 1: this country, no questions asked, completely change what America is
Speaker 1: and who are Americans overnight really, I mean, over a
Speaker 1: very short period of time. If it was just if
Speaker 1: you're poor, you don't want to be in your country.
Speaker 1: You want to come here and go for it. And
Speaker 1: that's what has happened. For countries in walking distance of
Speaker 1: America that are not Mexico, not really walking distance, but
Speaker 1: where you can get here via ground transport, they're abusing
Speaker 1: our system. And Trump is saying enough is enough. I
Speaker 1: have been saying all along that as soon you know,
Speaker 1: because they were playing games six months ago, all these
Speaker 1: libs they're not illegal, they're seeking asylum. They're jitimate asylum seekers.
Speaker 1: Like we're all idiots, right, we know they're not legitimate
Speaker 1: asylum seekers. We know they have no intention of showing up,
Speaker 1: but until they didn't show up. We had to play okay,
Speaker 1: well maybe some of them will, and we got to
Speaker 1: you know, get their due process, even though it's all
Speaker 1: taxpayer funded, and this is not what the system is
Speaker 1: supposed to be doing. Now we're gonna see the Libs
Speaker 1: just do what they always do, which is a band
Speaker 1: in the principles that they pretended to have. The storyline
Speaker 1: a few months ago, even was they deserve their due process.
Speaker 1: They're gonna show up. You can't. You can't tell us
Speaker 1: with certainty that they won't show up. And this was
Speaker 1: a way of taking some of the heat out of
Speaker 1: the moment when the American people were finally focused on
Speaker 1: the massive and systematic fraud that was occurring at our border.
Speaker 1: They said, oh no, they're gonna show up. They're not
Speaker 1: committing fraud. Well, they are breaking the love by being here,
Speaker 1: but they're not committing fraud. Beyond that, yes they are.
Speaker 1: Ninety percent of them are not showing up. Ninety percent
Speaker 1: of them. This was the am all along. And Trump
Speaker 1: is going to hold them to account. And you're going
Speaker 1: to see democrats, and I think most importantly, you're going
Speaker 1: to see a lot of the American people seeing democrats
Speaker 1: unwilling to enforce our laws after they assured us that
Speaker 1: when it comes to rule of law and immigration they're
Speaker 1: on the same page. They just want to do it humanely.
Speaker 1: But they're on the same page. Bull, They're not on
Speaker 1: the same page. Their plan is to continue this lawlessness
Speaker 1: and that eventually get through a massive amnesty that transforms
Speaker 1: America into a one party Democrat controlled state. More on
Speaker 1: all this, friends, coming up in a moment. WHOA, we're
Speaker 1: rocking in the hut. I'll be right back during joy.
Speaker 1: I know you're one of the winds to think of snaive,
Speaker 1: just think we have to work together. The fact of
Speaker 1: the matter is that we can't get a consensus. Nothing
Speaker 1: happens except the abuse of power by the executive zero
Speaker 1: number one, number two. There are certain things where it
Speaker 1: just takes a brass knuckle fight. There's no way to
Speaker 1: do it. And so folks, look, if you start off
Speaker 1: with the notion there's nothing you can do, well, might
Speaker 1: y'all go home, then, man or let's start a real
Speaker 1: physical revolution if you're talking about it, because we have
Speaker 1: to be able to change what we're doing within our system.
Speaker 1: Biden there with a Biden is m let's start a
Speaker 1: real physical revolution. If you're talking about it, what does
Speaker 1: what does that mean? I'm not going to pretend that
Speaker 1: I think Biden is calling for an overthrow of the government.
Speaker 1: But what is a physical revolution? Is that spinning around
Speaker 1: in place real fast? It's physical and you're revolving. What
Speaker 1: is a physical revolution? That's what he said. Look, I'm
Speaker 1: just going based on what the bidenator is putting out there.
Speaker 1: I'm just trying to tell you that Biden is a
Speaker 1: guy who the Democrats are going to find out the
Speaker 1: hard way that he's not there man. Eventually, it's not
Speaker 1: going to work if they think that Biden's going to
Speaker 1: pull them through, but pull through for them, it's just
Speaker 1: not going to happen. I think that I'd even go
Speaker 1: as far as to say that Buddha Judge is a
Speaker 1: better candidate for the left than Biden. You know, here's
Speaker 1: we have Mayor Pete's husband, Chasen. Buddha Judge was talking
Speaker 1: about how he receives all this hateful stuff. Play clip eight.
Speaker 1: I wish I could stand here and tell you that
Speaker 1: all of the responses to my husband running for president
Speaker 1: have either been positive or that the criticisms have simply
Speaker 1: been about his policy decisions. I wish I could tell
Speaker 1: you that every voicemail, email, social media message and text
Speaker 1: I receive isn't hateful, bigoted, or homophobic. I wish I
Speaker 1: could tell you that the world has unequivocally accepted Peter
Speaker 1: and I and our marriage. But I can't, and that's
Speaker 1: why we launch. You know, look, I think anybody that
Speaker 1: writes mayor Pete's husband nasty, you know, bigoted stuff is
Speaker 1: a more on so and people shouldn't do that. They
Speaker 1: shouldn't do that to anybody. But I also just wouldn't
Speaker 1: know that the media, I'm seeing more and more of
Speaker 1: this of how oh the people who get attacked on
Speaker 1: then left, these democrats being attacked by biggot ways and
Speaker 1: hateful ways. Man, this is just there are complete lunatics
Speaker 1: run around on social media all over the place. Doesn't
Speaker 1: matter who you are, if you're making a public case,
Speaker 1: they're saying horrible things to you. Horrible. You should see
Speaker 1: what they say to some of my friends who are
Speaker 1: Second Amendment advocates of people like Daniel lash who I
Speaker 1: used to work with. They hate the people threatened to
Speaker 1: go after her children and just the most horror I
Speaker 1: can't even say something. Most horrific stuff imaginable set them
Speaker 1: all the time. But because if you're a Republican and
Speaker 1: people are threatening your family and they're saying they're gonna
Speaker 1: kill you and they're sailors, terrible stuff, the media just
Speaker 1: has no interest in it. But if you're in a
Speaker 1: protected class and you're a Democrat, then we're all supposed
Speaker 1: to say, oh my gosh, look at how course and
Speaker 1: terrible the country has become. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: course bad people out there. Doesn't excuse any of it.
Speaker 1: And you know, if I had my way, and anybody
Speaker 1: that goes after may or Pete or or his husband
Speaker 1: for their for their sexual you know, their sexuality, for
Speaker 1: their marriage or anything else, should should be told that
Speaker 1: they're you know, terrible. It's a terrible thing to do,
Speaker 1: and they're jerks and um. But there's always this double standard.
Speaker 1: It reminds me of how we remember used to hear
Speaker 1: all the time about all the threats against Obama when
Speaker 1: he was president. You always here, ah, there's this huge
Speaker 1: surgeon threats against Obama. That there's threats against Trump all
Speaker 1: the time. You never you'd never hear about any of them.
Speaker 1: You never hear about this at all, you know, they
Speaker 1: just skip right. Or the threats against people that are
Speaker 1: that support Trump. This is it's just another instance of
Speaker 1: the double standard and the way that rules are applied
Speaker 1: any in an unequal fashion by the press, and the
Speaker 1: rules about you know, decorum and decency in public discourse,
Speaker 1: they should be universally true. I mean, people shouldn't act
Speaker 1: like total savages is toward anybody in politics, toward anybody
Speaker 1: for their sexual orientation or their skin color, anything else,
Speaker 1: or forge you they're idiots all over the place. But
Speaker 1: you really are only told you have to be sympathetic
Speaker 1: when the target of some idiot is a Democrat. You know,
Speaker 1: when the target of somebodia is a Democrat. So get
Speaker 1: ready for a lot more of that. There'll be no
Speaker 1: sympathy from the media for anybody in Trump world who
Speaker 1: is the target of death threats or horrible things, or
Speaker 1: you know, their family has yelled at or someone spits
Speaker 1: on them. But any Democrat in this election that you
Speaker 1: hear bad things about, or that you hear bad things
Speaker 1: have been said to threatened all this and it's gonna
Speaker 1: be a national news story. So even though the left
Speaker 1: is where most of the crazy resides. They're gonna make
Speaker 1: it seem like the right is where all the hate resides.
Speaker 1: And to find your nominee winning Georgia and North Carolina,
Speaker 1: South Carolina, believe it or not. And I believe we
Speaker 1: can win Texas in Florida. If you look at the
Speaker 1: polling data now, doesn't mean it's a marathon. It's a
Speaker 1: long way off. Joe Biden, everybody having his big moment
Speaker 1: here before even launched his campaign, all that one in tonight,
Speaker 1: Biden gets to say whatever he wants, promote, whatever nonsense
Speaker 1: he wants to promote about how he's going to be
Speaker 1: a great fighter, and you know all that, and you know,
Speaker 1: Biden is a week candidate, folks, always has been, always
Speaker 1: will be. Biden is a week candidate. And the Democrats
Speaker 1: are in a secret panic. I don't care what the
Speaker 1: polls say right now. The polls mean nothing. You go back,
Speaker 1: you know Mondale was Mondale was up in his poll,
Speaker 1: and you know there's all these different all these different
Speaker 1: people that are you go back in history who lost
Speaker 1: the election, been huge numbers. But at this point, eighteen
Speaker 1: months out from from actual voting, we're ahead it means nothing.
Speaker 1: So people are Oh, but Bidens are in the polls. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's because the media runs around saying, you know that
Speaker 1: this is necessary for the salvation of our democracy, and
Speaker 1: people hear that enough and there's no real counter narrative
Speaker 1: that they're exposed to, and maybe some of them start
Speaker 1: to believe it. So that's understandable. But Biden's a one
Speaker 1: percent guy. And once Trump opens up at Canna, you
Speaker 1: know what on this guy, I think I can say
Speaker 1: whoop ass on radio? Right, isn't that hell? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I can say whoop ass right. It's a fun thing
Speaker 1: to say. Once Biden opens up. I'm sorry, Trump opens
Speaker 1: up on this guy, You're gonna see that he's just
Speaker 1: he just doesn't have it. You know, this stuff I've
Speaker 1: seen from Biden so far, he really looks like a
Speaker 1: guy who's just way past his prime. Age is not
Speaker 1: the same for everybody I've been saying this. There are
Speaker 1: some people who are seventy who could kick my butt
Speaker 1: outrun me, and you know, do inverted pushups while they're
Speaker 1: making fun of me for being lazy and spending too
Speaker 1: much time prepping for radio and not in the gym.
Speaker 1: There are other seventy year olds who you know, look
Speaker 1: like mobility is a real problem, and it's not clear
Speaker 1: you know how how many healthy year they have left.
Speaker 1: I mean there's a huge gap. You know, seventy isn't
Speaker 1: just seventy or you know, I know they're both right
Speaker 1: around that age. Biden looks old to me, sounds I
Speaker 1: don't mean it looks as just appearance wise, well that's
Speaker 1: a part of it, but I mean he lacks energy,
Speaker 1: low energy. Biden's gonna be a thing you hear from
Speaker 1: from Trump, because it's true. The more people see Biden
Speaker 1: like he's out there now and he's saying he's gonna
Speaker 1: he's gonna win Georgia, North Carolina, South Carolina. I was
Speaker 1: just waiting from the du the Howard Dean, remember that
Speaker 1: producer Mike, Do you remember that when he made that
Speaker 1: noise and then that was the he sounded insane. He
Speaker 1: managed to audio self immolate in one in one moment,
Speaker 1: it just happened. Every everyone saw all that, and they're gonna,
Speaker 1: there's Bays and that Blays and there's Bud. You know,
Speaker 1: he made this bizarre noise and everyone's like, good god, man,
Speaker 1: where do they find this person? Yeah, you know what
Speaker 1: if you if you have this, could you find this
Speaker 1: real quick? If you could. I want to find a
Speaker 1: screech for us, because that's a fun just just a
Speaker 1: little trip down memory lane for everybody. Joe Biden's not
Speaker 1: gonna win Texas. Oh you mean that they can spend
Speaker 1: millions and millions and millions of dollars and celebrity endorsements
Speaker 1: and throw all the media coverage they can at Texas
Speaker 1: and lose. Again, Great, that's what they'll do, and they'll lose.
Speaker 1: Although if amnesty happens, maybe they will. But that's if
Speaker 1: Ambassy happens, the country as we know it is over.
Speaker 1: It becomes a different country. So that's part of why
Speaker 1: it's so important that we have the immigration discussion that
Speaker 1: we are having right now. But look, Biden's out there,
Speaker 1: he's trying to be the front runner, and you know,
Speaker 1: Bernie's right behind him. I would much rather, I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna tell you this, I'd much rather see a Bernie
Speaker 1: Trump race. I think that's a more interesting just as
Speaker 1: a political event. I think that's a more interesting race.
Speaker 1: I think that the discussions I want them to be
Speaker 1: out in the open eye. I don't like that Democrats
Speaker 1: are able to get away with this, Oh we're not
Speaker 1: really the Democratic Socialist Party or all. You know, No, sorry,
Speaker 1: you are. And I want them to have to own it.
Speaker 1: And Bernie for all of his flaws and all of
Speaker 1: the ways that I think that he's dangerous and bad
Speaker 1: for the country. At least Bernie does own that, you know,
Speaker 1: he doesn't run away from that like a little coward.
Speaker 1: He says that he is a Democratic Socialist. And then
Speaker 1: you have all these Democrats who are clinging on to
Speaker 1: Bernie policies. They agree with him on everything. They want
Speaker 1: to be like Bernie. They want to be more like Bernie.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I want to be like Mike.
Speaker 1: I want to you guys remember that commercial Michael Jordan back.
Speaker 1: Yeah that was awesome. Oh yeah you remember, all right? Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: they want to be like I really, man, I've I've
Speaker 1: had some nineties nostalgia going on lately. The nineties were
Speaker 1: the best. Nineties were a great time. So there we
Speaker 1: have it. Uh. Biden was talking about Obamacare a little
Speaker 1: bit here and and trying to give his pitch the
Speaker 1: American people about what might have been or what could
Speaker 1: have been different on that one here here's what but
Speaker 1: I remember these are you're just getting snippets of who
Speaker 1: is Joe Biden. He went through eight years of being
Speaker 1: the guy that was Obama's wingman. That was really all
Speaker 1: we were. I guess tactically Eric Holder thought he was
Speaker 1: Obama's wing man. But you get what I'm saying, eight
Speaker 1: years of Biden getting to play the VP role. Here's
Speaker 1: what Biden really thinks, and here's who he is. You're
Speaker 1: getting it. You're getting a sense of it now too.
Speaker 1: This is what they're doing a healthcare this is what
Speaker 1: they're doing too. You have to go out and beat
Speaker 1: these folks if you don't, if they don't agree with you,
Speaker 1: by making your case, and that's what presidents are supposed
Speaker 1: to do, persuade the public. Last point I'll make remember
Speaker 1: with the Affordable Care Act, because everything landed on President
Speaker 1: Obama's desk, but locust at the time, he had no
Speaker 1: time to explain the Affordable Care Act. Once it got
Speaker 1: started taken away, all of a sudden, we have what
Speaker 1: we call in southern delawaed an older call from all
Speaker 1: those boys. I'm older call saying, oh my god, I'm
Speaker 1: for healthcare. I don't want to take away pre exist conditions,
Speaker 1: I don't, I want to make sure, etc. And so
Speaker 1: you go out and you beat them. Obama had no
Speaker 1: time to explain healthcare. I mean, Obama was out talking
Speaker 1: about healthcare for months and months and months and months.
Speaker 1: The bill was thousands of pages long, folks, How is
Speaker 1: he going to explain thousands of pages? It was never
Speaker 1: gonna happen. It was thousands of pages on purpose, just
Speaker 1: like the tax code is seventy thousand pages, so that
Speaker 1: nobody knowns was in it. Nancy Pelosi told us that
Speaker 1: they needed to pass it to know what's in it.
Speaker 1: They weren't even sure what the law would look like.
Speaker 1: Once it became the law, it was rammed through without
Speaker 1: a single Republican vote. And now they're rerunning the history
Speaker 1: of how we got to Obamacare. Now that the pre
Speaker 1: existing conditions that's I mean, Republicans, you know how you
Speaker 1: allow Democrats to seize the high ground on the preexisting
Speaker 1: conditions thing, which and and don't go out there telling
Speaker 1: everybody that true prexisting conditions is less than one percent
Speaker 1: of the healthcare market. People with true not the way
Speaker 1: that the healthcare system is actually you know, people, I
Speaker 1: know the stories. I had a friend who you know,
Speaker 1: they wouldn't take as tonsils out because they thought it
Speaker 1: was from an infection that happened ten years before with
Speaker 1: a different healthcare company. I mean, I know the insurers
Speaker 1: play games and nonsense, but if we're talking true predisting condition,
Speaker 1: that would put somebody outside the normal healthcare, normal health
Speaker 1: insurance market, because you're not somebody that they're assessing healthcare
Speaker 1: risk for anymore. You are a health care ris because
Speaker 1: you're gonna need a lot of healthcare dollars spent. It's different.
Speaker 1: It's less than one percent of the market. So why
Speaker 1: not just if they if the Republicans have gone to
Speaker 1: American people said, look, insurance is for catastrophe, and if
Speaker 1: you have a true predising condition, you've already been hit
Speaker 1: essentially by a health catastrophe of some kind or at
Speaker 1: least a major health challenge. And we should have a
Speaker 1: set aside where if you get pushed out of the
Speaker 1: healthcare market entirely for a legitimate presising condition, there should
Speaker 1: be funds in place to help that person. Because we
Speaker 1: are a passion and good people and we want to
Speaker 1: take care of each other. You know that that would
Speaker 1: have been not that hard to do, but Republicans didn't
Speaker 1: do it. Didn't do it. Look, folks, we're probably can parties,
Speaker 1: got a lot of problems, a lot of big pharmer
Speaker 1: dollars swishing around. Pharmaceutical companies do get away. I was
Speaker 1: gonna say, get away with murder, but that's that's hits
Speaker 1: a little too close to home in the era of
Speaker 1: the opioid epidemic. But you know, they get away with
Speaker 1: all kinds of stuff, and you know, they abuse patent
Speaker 1: laws to their advantage. And there's a lot, there's a
Speaker 1: lot that needs to be cleaned up. On the medical side, though,
Speaker 1: it didn't get me started on the amount of unnecessary
Speaker 1: surgery that happens in this country. I was talking to
Speaker 1: a friend recently, a very skilled, top, top tier cardiothoracic surgeon,
Speaker 1: and she said that the amount of unnecessary surgery that's
Speaker 1: done in this country, when you really read the studies,
Speaker 1: will blow people's minds. But it's big business, huge, huge industry,
Speaker 1: you know. I mean, here's just one example. You know
Speaker 1: that appendicity. We always have our pendics taken out in
Speaker 1: this country. If you have a really bad appendicitis your
Speaker 1: you know, the word, your pendics is going to burst.
Speaker 1: In Europe, they just treat it with an intravenous antibiotics
Speaker 1: and the outcomes are just as good, if not better.
Speaker 1: We got a lot of people though, they up up.
Speaker 1: It's an easy surgery, take out your appendix, and that's
Speaker 1: a little tiny one. Once you start looking at surgeries
Speaker 1: for uh, you know, dealing with different vein conditions and
Speaker 1: different blood, different issues of the cardiovascular system. Oh man,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of that. But you know, this is
Speaker 1: if we wanted to have a real conversation about healthcare,
Speaker 1: that will be one thing. But Biden just wants to
Speaker 1: boil this all down to, oh, it's about preexisting conditions.
Speaker 1: Obamacare was a whole heck of a lot more than that,
Speaker 1: my friends. It was a lot of taxes, there was
Speaker 1: a lot of redistribution of wealth, a lot of government overreach.
Speaker 1: But if it just turns into the regius, I mean,
Speaker 1: it just turns into a prexisting conditions, it's very popular
Speaker 1: for people. Will they will they want prexisting conditions covered.
Speaker 1: You know, this is not an area where the American
Speaker 1: people want to turn their back on each other. So yeah,
Speaker 1: he's able to he's able to get away with it, folks,
Speaker 1: he's gonna you know, if Trump says we're gonna have
Speaker 1: a healthcare plan the next few months. Can I be
Speaker 1: a little critical here, my friends? Why why don't they
Speaker 1: already have a healthcare plan? Why haven't the Republicans had
Speaker 1: eight years of sang Obama's plans terrible, We couldn't repeal
Speaker 1: in a place, and now we got away three months
Speaker 1: for a healthcare plan? I mean, can we try to
Speaker 1: hold our side a little bit more accountable sometimes? I mean, yeah,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are a bunch of crazy, baby killing commies,
Speaker 1: I get it. But can we do something to get
Speaker 1: our side to be a little more effective? I think
Speaker 1: that would be nice. I think that would be helpful.
Speaker 1: You know. Otherwise, you know, maybe Joe Biden can win
Speaker 1: some of these southern states. I hope it's I will
Speaker 1: say this though on a on a good note, I
Speaker 1: do hope that it's Biden, because Biden Biden is not
Speaker 1: gonna really get it done. Biden won't be able to
Speaker 1: be Trump. I'm very confident in that. Bernie, as crazy
Speaker 1: as it sounds, worries me more than Trump does. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: then Biden does Bernie worries me more because you could
Speaker 1: see people believing that Bernie is an agent of change.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying this is true. I'm just saying that
Speaker 1: perception could be there an agent of change, not beholden
Speaker 1: to special interests, not personally odious the way Hillary Clinton was,
Speaker 1: and has ideas that he pushes for people that seem
Speaker 1: on their you know, on first glance, like they're going
Speaker 1: to be popular their good idea. So I do have
Speaker 1: my concerns about about the burn. I still think Trump wins,
Speaker 1: but with Biden. I mean, I would put money on
Speaker 1: Trump beating Biden. I have no worries about that the
Speaker 1: United States is running concentration camps on our southern border,
Speaker 1: and that is exactly what they are. The fact that
Speaker 1: concentration camps are now an institutionalized practice in the Home
Speaker 1: of the Free is extraordinarily disturbing. Ocasio Cortez saying that
Speaker 1: concentration camps are operating on our southern border. She also
Speaker 1: referred to never again in a I believe in a
Speaker 1: tweet about this, and this caused some problems for the
Speaker 1: left wing Democrat Darling because it's one of the dumbest
Speaker 1: things I've ever heard, and she should know better, but
Speaker 1: she doesn't, and that's troubling on many levels. By way
Speaker 1: of review, the concentration camps she was referring to, or
Speaker 1: the Nazi concentration camps, the Nazi concentration camps involved the
Speaker 1: wholesale slaughter and attempted mass extermination of six million Jews
Speaker 1: eleven million human beings, including I believe two million Polls,
Speaker 1: a million Gypsies, eleven million in those death camps, six
Speaker 1: million Jews of that number gassed, executed, starved, scientifically experimented on.
Speaker 1: I mean, just the most horrific stuff imaginable, a crime
Speaker 1: for which humanity will never fully pay a penance. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just it's it can never be made right what happened.
Speaker 1: And she's comparing that to what is happening right now
Speaker 1: in this country. And she said, that's exactly what they are.
Speaker 1: She didn't say, I'm making an exaggerated point, or I'm
Speaker 1: trying to draw attention to one aspect of this she
Speaker 1: referred to. With concentration camps referred to. Never forget, we
Speaker 1: all know what she was talking about. This isn't a
Speaker 1: dog whistle, This is just a whistle. It's obvious and art.
Speaker 1: Del Queto pointed out that of boarder Patrol said that
Speaker 1: this is just a terror horrible Why a horrible thing
Speaker 1: to say? Play seven. It's disgusting to compare concentration camps
Speaker 1: to what the men and women are doing here protecting
Speaker 1: our country. I mean, in my eyes, honestly, you lose credibility.
Speaker 1: I've had it, you know, up to here with all
Speaker 1: these individuals constantly trying to compare concentration cramps to what
Speaker 1: we're doing. I was just at one of the detention facilities.
Speaker 1: The kids were outside their cell because we have so
Speaker 1: many of them. They were out on the floor, playing puzzles,
Speaker 1: they were watching movies, eating cookies and what have you.
Speaker 1: And it is definitely a slap in the face to
Speaker 1: a lot of these individuals that have family members that
Speaker 1: actually went through concentration camps. I've said it many times,
Speaker 1: some of these people need to crack open a history
Speaker 1: book before they make some comments. They do need to
Speaker 1: crack open a history book. On the left, although I
Speaker 1: think that there's no shortage of people of left, it's
Speaker 1: here who just they don't care about the false the
Speaker 1: falsehood that they spread as long as it is politically
Speaker 1: useful to them as long as this is something that
Speaker 1: they can use as a short term cudgel against their
Speaker 1: peers or against their political opposition, I should say that's
Speaker 1: what they're trying to do. And you know, I've got
Speaker 1: to tell you the blue checks who were rushing to
Speaker 1: defend this today, we're just an embarrassment, including Chris Hayes
Speaker 1: of MSNBC, Julia Yaffi is some left wing journals and
Speaker 1: there they're a whole bunch of them who should just
Speaker 1: be ashamed of what is a completely bizarre and dishonest
Speaker 1: attempt to try and make this sound like it was
Speaker 1: something other than what it was. That AOC wasn't really
Speaker 1: referring to, wasn't really referring to Nazi concentration camps. Concentration
Speaker 1: camps existed before the Nazis. Does anyone think that Okazi
Speaker 1: Cortez was referring to the concentration camps in the Boer
Speaker 1: War in South Africa? No one really believes that, right? Oh? No,
Speaker 1: some do you had a lot? You had? Is some guy?
Speaker 1: Dave Weigel. Dave Weigel from a Washington Post, Chris Hayes,
Speaker 1: Julie Yaffi, Yaffi wrote, hi, actual Jew here who lost
Speaker 1: dozens relatives in the Holocaust. Concentration camps predated the Holocaust,
Speaker 1: for example, the Soviets had them before the Nazis. And
Speaker 1: then she goes down and attacks some of the people
Speaker 1: that are attacking AOC that these people they just can't
Speaker 1: help the fact that they get so upset they make stupid.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is laughable. This is not a serious defense, right,
Speaker 1: they don't really believe this despite everything else. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, Chris Hayes, who is you know, he looks
Speaker 1: like the left wing Brooklyn liberal version of what an
Speaker 1: inner intellectual supposed to look like. But you know what
Speaker 1: he's done here is make himself look like a jackass
Speaker 1: to try to defend AOC, try to defend AOC and
Speaker 1: say that this is somehow not the dumbest things in
Speaker 1: a long time. But it's a joke. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: ridiculous in doing so by trying to make this anything
Speaker 1: other than what it is, which is AOC. Comparing this
Speaker 1: to Nazis, you're just being intellectually dishonest to try and
Speaker 1: cover for her, And that is what is going on.
Speaker 1: That's what's happening here. You know, you've got people saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, concentration camps is an accurate term to use here.
Speaker 1: Those people are morons. The kids that are being held
Speaker 1: in these detention facilities of the border, because I've been
Speaker 1: there and I've seen them too, are held for two
Speaker 1: days max. In a vast majority of cases now their help,
Speaker 1: for two days. They are fed, they receive medical attention,
Speaker 1: they play with toys, they watch movies, and then they're
Speaker 1: sent on their way into the interior the United States.
Speaker 1: By the way, what an astonishing and just stunning series
Speaker 1: of lies that these people will embrace. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: just amazing, all to defend their precious AOC who's just
Speaker 1: an idiot. Yeah, I know she won a political election
Speaker 1: that everyone's oh my gosh, it's amazing. I'm sorry, she's
Speaker 1: just not very smart. They can do whatever they want.
Speaker 1: They can yell at me and tell me that that's
Speaker 1: terrible and mama, let's say that. No, she's just not impressive.
Speaker 1: She's just a classic left wing talking points machine. Doesn't
Speaker 1: really know how the world works, is not thoughtful, can
Speaker 1: engage with the other side, and just believes idiocy about
Speaker 1: how society really functions, about how governance is done. All
Speaker 1: of this. This, This is a woman who would be
Speaker 1: is deeply unimpressive before she runs for office and is
Speaker 1: still deeply unimpressive. I don't care how famous she has
Speaker 1: or everything else, but there's a sensitivity here because because
Speaker 1: she's young and Latino and female and super left wing,
Speaker 1: the left will do everything to defend her. There is
Speaker 1: nothing she can say that is too stupid, that is
Speaker 1: beyond their defense, including a clear reference to concentration camps.
Speaker 1: By the way, Mike Hayden referred to a concentration camps
Speaker 1: for former CIA director, So I'm not AOC is not
Speaker 1: the only one to be an idiot on this, But
Speaker 1: not everybody on the left was rushing to Hayden's defense.
Speaker 1: In fact, most people were saying that that was over
Speaker 1: the line. But this gives you a real sense also
Speaker 1: of what the what the left really thinks of our
Speaker 1: border patrol and immigrations enforcement. If if they're going to
Speaker 1: defend that these are concentration camps, so then our border
Speaker 1: patrol agents working at our southern border are they not?
Speaker 1: Are they concentrate camp guards? Is that a fair thing
Speaker 1: to say? Would they say that to a border patrol
Speaker 1: agent's face. I don't think so, especially you know, the
Speaker 1: Chris Hazes of the world. What is it with these
Speaker 1: the prototype of the left wing media mail is always
Speaker 1: this kind of you know beta. You know, there's always
Speaker 1: these guys, you know, there's wearing skinny ties and walking
Speaker 1: around and talking about how they're male feminists and all
Speaker 1: this stuff. You know, what is that all about? That's
Speaker 1: maybe a conversation for another day. AOC sends something really
Speaker 1: really offensive and dumb, and that's not surprising. But what
Speaker 1: is amazing is just watching how many people on the
Speaker 1: left with big platforms will act like morons. The defender
Speaker 1: freedom freedom, What does it mean to be free? Am
Speaker 1: I free if I graduate college with massive debt? Am
Speaker 1: I free? If I have cancer and cannot afford a
Speaker 1: three hundred thousand dollars life saving drug? Really free? If
Speaker 1: I'm seventy years old and forced to work because I
Speaker 1: don't have the money to retire. Am I free? If
Speaker 1: I'm denied food at school because I have lunched debt?
Speaker 1: This this isn't freedom. This isn't freedom. We have come
Speaker 1: to a clear realization of the fact that true individual
Speaker 1: freedom cannot exist without economic security and independence. Freedom is
Speaker 1: healthcare for all, college for all, jobs for all, white, black, brown, Asian, Indigenous,
Speaker 1: Latin X women, non binary, gay, street ritual or you
Speaker 1: and me demanding justice, economic justice, racial justice, environmental justice.
Speaker 1: Notice how that was put out. That was a commercial
Speaker 1: put up by the Bernie Sanders campaign that forwards the
Speaker 1: root fallacy of democratic socialism for all to hear. And
Speaker 1: it is very open about it, very upfront about it,
Speaker 1: that it is the obligation of the state to provide
Speaker 1: for all of you or needs as determined by the state,
Speaker 1: and that is inclusive of taking from you and from
Speaker 1: me at the state's whim to provide for people under
Speaker 1: this obligation. This is the this is the fundamental problem,
Speaker 1: the root fallacy of what you could, I guess call Sandersism,
Speaker 1: which is now in the democratic socialism that is increasingly
Speaker 1: embraced by the left, by the Democratic Party. Are you
Speaker 1: free if you don't have a job, a home, a
Speaker 1: you know, the doctors that you want to see? If
Speaker 1: you have to work eighty hours a week to buy
Speaker 1: all these is are you free if you have to
Speaker 1: do all those things? Well, what does freedom mean to
Speaker 1: the left if freedom is only possible with a state
Speaker 1: providing for you. Then that means that the state is
Speaker 1: able to give you freedom, and absent the state, there
Speaker 1: is no freedom. That's a I think that's a that's
Speaker 1: a troubling concept. But also they never figure into all
Speaker 1: of this. And this is why, you know, people are
Speaker 1: saying that they like Medicare for all, and I've seen
Speaker 1: the statistics on this, and this is not This is
Speaker 1: not surprising people like Medicare for all because Medicare is
Speaker 1: free stuff that you're told you paid for, but it's
Speaker 1: not true. Most people take out twice what they put it.
Speaker 1: Medicare is the magic piggy bank that you put a
Speaker 1: hundred dollars in and then you take out two hundred
Speaker 1: dollars and just say, oh, well I paid for that.
Speaker 1: No you didn't, you just didn't. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: the truth. Overwhelmingly, people end up taking out more Medicaid
Speaker 1: than they put they put into it. So it's a
Speaker 1: nice idea. People like Medicare for obvious reasons. And you know,
Speaker 1: Medicaid just pays that a fraction of what Medicare, you know,
Speaker 1: reimbursement rates are and that's why a lot of doctors
Speaker 1: won't take Medicaid and we get it. Everyone wants someone
Speaker 1: else to pay for their healthcare. This is really the problem.
Speaker 1: And even those of us with private health insurance, we
Speaker 1: like this, this this idea that you can pay twenty
Speaker 1: dollars as a copan and see any doctor you want.
Speaker 1: You know, I haven't had that in a long time.
Speaker 1: I mean I end up just writing checks to doctors
Speaker 1: now all the time. I have health insurance, and it's
Speaker 1: it doesn't feel like insurance. I don't know. Maybe if
Speaker 1: something catastrophic happened, heaven forbid, But in terms of the
Speaker 1: day to day expense, you got to pay for a
Speaker 1: lot of things. But people like Medicare because well one,
Speaker 1: it's accepted by a lot of doctors. But they also
Speaker 1: don't realize that Medicare for all, for all ages and
Speaker 1: all people, even if that were just an option, would
Speaker 1: mean that you would have changes to your healthcare plan.
Speaker 1: They don't understand. It's not just someone else is going
Speaker 1: to pay for stuff. You wouldn't be able to keep
Speaker 1: your private health insurance. If Medicare for All becomes the norm,
Speaker 1: every business would say no, no no, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: provide healthcare for you. Go go get your Medicare for all,
Speaker 1: go go hook go hook yourself up with that. I mean,
Speaker 1: how many of you listening to this show right now,
Speaker 1: who have your own private health insurance, how many of
Speaker 1: you would willingly switch to an Obamacare plan. I think
Speaker 1: the answer is probably zero, unless you happen to have
Speaker 1: a really bad private health insurance. But I don't even
Speaker 1: know how it could be worse than whatever the Obamacare
Speaker 1: plan is, because you know, you know, there's these basic
Speaker 1: truths keep coming back. There's no such thing as a
Speaker 1: free lunch. Bernie Sanders is promising you a free lunch.
Speaker 1: In fact, in this video he's saying, or rather his
Speaker 1: campaign is promoted, the idea that you deserve to have
Speaker 1: a free actual lunch. You should not have to pay
Speaker 1: for lunch at school. You should not have to worry
Speaker 1: about your home expenses and paying your bills. And look,
Speaker 1: economic anxieties real for everybody. I have economic anxiety. You
Speaker 1: have economic anxiety. But I have no faith whatsoever that
Speaker 1: the state is ever going to be in a position
Speaker 1: to make my economic anxiety go away. In fact, I
Speaker 1: think the state makes it a whole lot worse by
Speaker 1: taking a lot of my money and taxes and promising
Speaker 1: to give me services that never materialize and services that
Speaker 1: I would never want to rely on. But freedom. And
Speaker 1: you know, we discuss often here in the Hut the
Speaker 1: way the left tries to control language, and how it's
Speaker 1: so necessary for their political program to change the way
Speaker 1: we use, the way we define different words, the way
Speaker 1: we use different words. And to say that freedom is
Speaker 1: the state's obligation to provide you with material goods is
Speaker 1: a perversion of freedom. That's not true. The state does
Speaker 1: not have this obligation. It's not up to the state
Speaker 1: to give you the home that you find acceptable. And
Speaker 1: what is even an acceptable home? When when has my
Speaker 1: freedom been achieved? Do I have to work to achieve
Speaker 1: this freedom? Or does the state just give me whatever?
Speaker 1: It's whatever I think it needs to give me. These
Speaker 1: are all very real questions that I think the Sandernistas
Speaker 1: they never wrestle with it. They never deal with the
Speaker 1: reality of what their ideology would do to this country.
Speaker 1: And that economic freedom is inextricably linked to social justice,
Speaker 1: and social justice means racial and gender justice as well,
Speaker 1: and the state then determining what people can get paid,
Speaker 1: how much they should get paid, who they should hire
Speaker 1: on what basis they should make hiring decisions. This is
Speaker 1: how you get closer and closer to a truly socialist system,
Speaker 1: all in the name of providing you with freedom. That's
Speaker 1: what is so disturbing about this is that they are
Speaker 1: there telling you. Bernie Sanders campaign is promising you that
Speaker 1: you will be made more free if you just allow
Speaker 1: the state to take away your freedom's I know that
Speaker 1: that it is self contradictory, that's the point. It is
Speaker 1: self contradictory, but that is their platform. Give up your
Speaker 1: freedom and we will make you free. This is what
Speaker 1: the Soviets promised. I'm saying that we're the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: but just this is what the Soviet constitution promised. You're
Speaker 1: going to have a house to live in, a job
Speaker 1: to do, food to eat. You know, no problem, We're
Speaker 1: two weeks vacation and all kinds of good stuff. And
Speaker 1: the Soviet Constitution never happened. Why did it happen Because
Speaker 1: they had a bad economic system with central planning, with corruption,
Speaker 1: with bureaucrats making economic decisions who had no idea what
Speaker 1: they were doing. That's why it didn't happen. It was
Speaker 1: never gonna happen, not the way they said it was
Speaker 1: but there were a lot of promises made, There were
Speaker 1: a lot of overtures about how there would be a
Speaker 1: worker's paradise. Bernie's campaign here is telling you that if
Speaker 1: you just had Bernie Sanders in charge, this is a
Speaker 1: form of utopianism. They're going to provide for all your needs.
Speaker 1: You're not going to work eighty hours to buy food.
Speaker 1: You're not gonna have trouble paying for your insulin for
Speaker 1: you to survive. You're not gonna They can't. He couldn't
Speaker 1: do this even if he was president. That's what you
Speaker 1: have to remember. It's not even just a function of
Speaker 1: whether this is a good idea to try. It's that
Speaker 1: the government couldn't execute on this if it wanted to,
Speaker 1: it just wouldn't happen. So this is all ultimately a lie.
Speaker 1: But it's a lie that we never seem to be
Speaker 1: able to get past. We never seem to learn the lesson,
Speaker 1: at least the left never learns the lesson in this
Speaker 1: country that socialism is not a good idea. It's been
Speaker 1: our mission since the beginning of this administration to convince
Speaker 1: the Iranian regime not to move forward with their nuclear
Speaker 1: program and not to continue to engage in development of
Speaker 1: their missiles and all the other activities, the malign activities
Speaker 1: that they've been engaged in around the world. That's why
Speaker 1: we put in place the pressure campaign that's now been
Speaker 1: ongoing for a year and a couple of months. It's
Speaker 1: been very effective, and now we need to make sure
Speaker 1: that we continue to do that so that we ultimately
Speaker 1: get the opportunity to convince Iran that it's not in
Speaker 1: their best interests to behave in this way. We all
Speaker 1: have to remember this isn't just two and a half
Speaker 1: years or five years. This is forty years of a
Speaker 1: reigning activity that has led us to this point, this
Speaker 1: moment right here, communicating to Iran that we are there
Speaker 1: to deter aggression. President Trump does not want war, and
Speaker 1: we will continue to communicate that message wall doing the
Speaker 1: things that are necessary to protect American interests in the region.
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Pompeo gave a press conference today. I
Speaker 1: watched it live and you heard a little snippet of
Speaker 1: it there on Iran, and I think he brought a
Speaker 1: very important context, a very important perspective to a lot
Speaker 1: of people right now that are one concerned, and those
Speaker 1: are the people that are taking a fair mind that
Speaker 1: approached so this I can understand concern. But there are
Speaker 1: also those who see this and this is certainly trivil
Speaker 1: out of the media and the Democrats as the moment
Speaker 1: to start screaming about how Trump is a war monger,
Speaker 1: he wants war with Iran, and Pompeo said, definitively Trump
Speaker 1: does not want war with Iran. And I can tell
Speaker 1: you that everyone that I know who either fought or
Speaker 1: assisted the war fighter in Iraq or Afghanistan, everyone that
Speaker 1: I've talked to, thinks that there is absolutely no way
Speaker 1: we should go to war in Iran, and that if
Speaker 1: we do take military action, it should be punitive and
Speaker 1: defensive in nature, which should not be an offensive regime
Speaker 1: change effort at all. And that means no. Can you know,
Speaker 1: because now usure begetting well, well, what does a regime
Speaker 1: change if it looked like you know, you look at
Speaker 1: what happened in Iraq. It didn't start off with it, It
Speaker 1: It didn't start off necessarily. This is the second time
Speaker 1: we went in wasn't about an invasion. It was about
Speaker 1: a no fly zone, and it was about protecting and
Speaker 1: battled minorities and oil sanctions and all these different things,
Speaker 1: but we had military and we had military force in
Speaker 1: place so that that framework would hold. I don't want
Speaker 1: us to go beyond where we already are in terms
Speaker 1: of military posturing or military positioning. I think that we
Speaker 1: have what we need to have, and the administration is
Speaker 1: trying to make it clear to Iran that unlike Trump's predecessor,
Speaker 1: when Trump says right, forget about Obama because everyone knew
Speaker 1: it wasn't true. And that's why the Red That's why
Speaker 1: Obama's failure on the Red Line with Syria with the
Speaker 1: Asad dictatorship was so important because once Obama, in front
Speaker 1: of the whole world, had said, if Asad does anything,
Speaker 1: I will take action, you know, if he does anything
Speaker 1: with regard to chemical weapons, and then he did nothing.
Speaker 1: You know, that's you want talk about cozying up to dictators.
Speaker 1: It certainly makes dictators feel a lot more cozy and
Speaker 1: at home, certainly helps them quite a bit, makes them
Speaker 1: feel like things are going to be more to their liking.
Speaker 1: And once that happened, then to say that all options
Speaker 1: were on the table was just clearly not the case
Speaker 1: with Trump. It's true. I've said before that Trump on
Speaker 1: foreign policy is a little bit like Doc holiday on
Speaker 1: the shotgun in the movie Tombstone. Would they say that,
Speaker 1: you know, they want Doc to be on the street
Speaker 1: Howitzer essentially because he's just crazy enough that he might
Speaker 1: pull and use it pretty fast. And with Trump, that's
Speaker 1: that his foreign policy has had an off balancing effect
Speaker 1: for the bad guys. They're not used to somebody who
Speaker 1: will just call out their leadership and say that, you know,
Speaker 1: military action will follow any provocation. They're not used that.
Speaker 1: They're used to a lot of boiler plate foreign policies
Speaker 1: speak and stuff that they the Irani regime can largely ignore.
Speaker 1: But what we see with Iran as they've been ignoring
Speaker 1: that for forty years. As Pompeo was pointing out, I
Speaker 1: mean this stretches back in nineteen seventy nine and the
Speaker 1: Islamic Revolution in Iran and the way that since then
Speaker 1: the relationship has just been one long series of deteriorations really,
Speaker 1: and that it doesn't have to be this way. You know,
Speaker 1: we don't have to live in a world where there's
Speaker 1: an Iran that says that they're gonna enrich uranium so
Speaker 1: that it's very easy for them to go nuclear. We
Speaker 1: don't have to accept that. Here's what the News spoke
Speaker 1: spokesmen for a spokeswoman for the State Department, Morgan Ortega,
Speaker 1: says about how Iran could just choose to be a
Speaker 1: normal country at play five. I think what we're seeing
Speaker 1: here is really a challenge not only in the JCPO way,
Speaker 1: but really a challenge to the international norms, a challenge
Speaker 1: to the international norms on freedom of navigation and freedom
Speaker 1: of disease. And so we would say to the international
Speaker 1: community that we should not yield to nuclear extortion by
Speaker 1: the Iranian regime. Look, we need to take a realistic
Speaker 1: view of these things. We can't just militarily tell China
Speaker 1: or tell Russia, you know, do this or else. That's
Speaker 1: a very risky business. There are some countries that we
Speaker 1: have to do business with, some countries that sanctions won't
Speaker 1: work on at all. Iran is not one of them.
Speaker 1: Iran is not a very wealthy country, does not have
Speaker 1: a very large military. We don't have to accept an
Speaker 1: Iran that is constantly threatening and blackmailing the international community
Speaker 1: with the claim that it will get nukes soon. We
Speaker 1: do not have to say that that is okay, or
Speaker 1: we don't have to accept that that is the status quo,
Speaker 1: and this administration, unlike previous presidencies, takes the position that
Speaker 1: that's not going to fly anymore. That doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: we go to war, doesn't mean that there's a regime change.
Speaker 1: It does mean that, you know, if the Iranians try
Speaker 1: to shut down the straight of war moves which would
Speaker 1: affect it's not just America, would affect oil for all
Speaker 1: of East Asia. I mean, it's thirty percent of the
Speaker 1: world's twenty to thirty percent of the world's oil reserves
Speaker 1: are going through that one waterway every day. A lot
Speaker 1: of countries care about this, and if the Iranians step
Speaker 1: out of line, there should be massive consequences for them.
Speaker 1: But that's the way we should deal with the Iranians,
Speaker 1: not the Obama administration approach of let's just find a
Speaker 1: way to placate them, Let's make them want to be
Speaker 1: our friends. They don't want to be our friends. The Mullahs,
Speaker 1: the IRGC, the Revolutionary Guard Corps and the Guardian Council
Speaker 1: and all the real power in Iran, they don't want
Speaker 1: to be our friends. And we have to view them
Speaker 1: as people to be defeated. And that's what Trump does.
Speaker 1: We're talking about what we are doing now, and we
Speaker 1: are honoring our oath of office to protect and defend
Speaker 1: the Constitution of the United States. Congress has the right
Speaker 1: to a seek information to honor its oversight responsibilities. We
Speaker 1: will not let him stand in the way of our
Speaker 1: honoring with the bodice. Nancy Pelosi still sticking to the whole. Oh,
Speaker 1: we're just doing oversight, man, This isn't We're not beat
Speaker 1: a bunch of political hacks or anything here. We're just
Speaker 1: just doing a little bit of oversight. You know. It's
Speaker 1: how it's how we get down, it's how we roll.
Speaker 1: We all know that this is highly, highly political, and
Speaker 1: it's really all about politics. It has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with up holding constitution. There, We've already we already had
Speaker 1: a special counsel, We've already been through a two year
Speaker 1: long investigation that was unobstructed, that's right, that had so
Speaker 1: much at its disposal in terms of resources, and was
Speaker 1: led by anti Trump partisans. So what more could a
Speaker 1: sane person ask for? Well, perhaps I go too far.
Speaker 1: Perhaps I'm assuming that we are dealing with saying individuals,
Speaker 1: and we quite obviously are not. But I think that
Speaker 1: the Democrats, and one of the reasons that they've been
Speaker 1: so so slow on all of this, on the impeachment train,
Speaker 1: even though I think I saw Polter that said that
Speaker 1: fifty percent of American voters, you know, think that Trump
Speaker 1: should be impeached or something like that. But I think
Speaker 1: that Democrats maybe have started to realize is that going
Speaker 1: through this process again is, if nothing else, going to
Speaker 1: be a distraction from the messaging that the Democratic Party's
Speaker 1: trying to do on why they should why the American
Speaker 1: voters should go to a Democrat instead of Trump for reelection.
Speaker 1: And there's the concern of the blowback. The people that
Speaker 1: are saying things like Trump should be impeached, they don't.
Speaker 1: They're not ones who necessarily understand that there'll be more investigations,
Speaker 1: more process, ask more of this, more of that. It's
Speaker 1: just going to be this endless saga of nonsense from
Speaker 1: Pelosi and the rest of her crew, and it's not
Speaker 1: going to end with anything with ending happening. I bet
Speaker 1: if you ask the people that are four impeachment of Trump,
Speaker 1: a big chunk of them, I couldn't tell you how many,
Speaker 1: but a big chunk of them think that impeachment means
Speaker 1: he's no longer the president. A big group think that
Speaker 1: there's a real chance that if he's impeached, he could
Speaker 1: be removed from office by the Senate. That would be
Speaker 1: a fun man on the street thing, just to find
Speaker 1: people who want Trump impeach and then ask them, Okay,
Speaker 1: how does he get removed from office? Do you know
Speaker 1: the process? I think you'd find that ninety percent of
Speaker 1: those who want Trump impeach probably couldn't tell you that
Speaker 1: it requires a two thirds vote in the Senate for
Speaker 1: him to be removed from office, and then their file
Speaker 1: off can be how many do you think Hillo will
Speaker 1: be president if he gets removed? How many do you think? What?
Speaker 1: How many of you think Hillary will be the named
Speaker 1: president if he's removed. I guarantee there's a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of think that, Oh for sure, Yeah, yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that's very possible as well. They'll just they assume that
Speaker 1: this makes it all all right all over again. Remember
Speaker 1: this isn't a strange number at all. Fifty percent of voters.
Speaker 1: That's not the same as fifty percent of all Americans,
Speaker 1: fifty percent of voters, because in the last election, fifty
Speaker 1: percent of voters really was. I guess fifty one percent
Speaker 1: voted for Hillary Clinton. So yeah, if you voted for Hillary,
Speaker 1: you want Trump in peach because you're angry because you
Speaker 1: didn't get your way. So this doesn't really mean anything.
Speaker 1: I think the Democrats, and you know, tonight is going
Speaker 1: to be the night when you see Trump being Trump
Speaker 1: again and starting to make the case. But I think
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are in for a route awakening. They've
Speaker 1: had a pretty easy go of it for a while here. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Trump tweets at them and will tell them that they're
Speaker 1: you know, they're lazy or dumb or whatever, and he's right,
Speaker 1: but there hasn't been a concerted effort by Trump to
Speaker 1: tell the American people why they should vote for him again.
Speaker 1: That changes as of tonight, and Trump is a beast
Speaker 1: on the campaign trail. I mean, this guy gets people
Speaker 1: so fired up and does and has such amazing energy.
Speaker 1: I mean, for a guy his age too, to do
Speaker 1: the things that he does is astounding. And that's why
Speaker 1: I think you know that the media, this is gonna
Speaker 1: be something you should you should keep an eye on.
Speaker 1: They are going to be caught flatfooted again because they've
Speaker 1: lived in this echo chamber of Trump is evil. Trump
Speaker 1: is bad. You know, he's not somebody that you can
Speaker 1: not somebody that anybody should listen to or trust, because
Speaker 1: he's worse than Hitler and all the stuff that the
Speaker 1: media tells themselves. And then you have to also remember
Speaker 1: that they don't the media doesn't really understand what most
Speaker 1: people think. That's how you have Chris Matthews, Chris Magic.
Speaker 1: I say, it's just like, who is this guy and
Speaker 1: why is he on t V? Still? Who thinks that
Speaker 1: he's insightful or worth listening to on anything? Yeah, kids, Math, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you guys, young, young, bad man. It's just a it's horrible.
Speaker 1: I guess he's friends with the executives over at MSNBC
Speaker 1: or something and they just gonna keep him there. And
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's why TV is full of such
Speaker 1: it's such a nasty business and full of somebody generally
Speaker 1: very nasty, insecure people, because you can really put anybody
Speaker 1: at some of these places and someone will watch them. Yeah, kids, Math,
Speaker 1: it's good man. It's just just blather. It's just nonsense
Speaker 1: that comes out of Chris Matthew's mouth all the time.
Speaker 1: But he was at a town hall and he was
Speaker 1: really taken aback by people saying, you know what, I
Speaker 1: actually kind of like how Trump does things, play ten
Speaker 1: getting Trump looks out for you. Absolutely he cares about you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think he's honest. I think I don't say anybody
Speaker 1: else want to agree or just sorry, you want to
Speaker 1: say what you think? I look at him, I go
Speaker 1: by faces by kind of docus. I think absolutely the
Speaker 1: President United States cares about all of us because he
Speaker 1: provides opportunities. Look, there's three hundreds of million people in America.
Speaker 1: He doesn't make a relationship with every single one of us,
Speaker 1: but what he does do is create opportunities so then
Speaker 1: we can use our god given talents to go out
Speaker 1: and make a living in this country. And that's where
Speaker 1: we are today. Yeah. OK, that's actually a pretty I
Speaker 1: think it's a pretty astute observation from that random audience
Speaker 1: member that that is really what a lot of Trump
Speaker 1: voters want. They just want a president who is not
Speaker 1: trying to mess with their life, is not trying to
Speaker 1: get in their way, tell them what to do all
Speaker 1: the time. Be a busybody. This is something that is
Speaker 1: unique to democrats, unique to leftists. They are busybodies. They
Speaker 1: are hall monitors. They want to be up in your stuff,
Speaker 1: all of it, all the time. Do this, do that,
Speaker 1: do it this way, not that way, with whatever it
Speaker 1: may be, With what you can eat, with, what kind
Speaker 1: of light bulbs you can use, with how many toilet
Speaker 1: flushes you can get you can get away with with,
Speaker 1: you know, you name it. They are busybodies, and that's
Speaker 1: not good for business, and it's not good for the
Speaker 1: general mental well being of the American people. We'd like
Speaker 1: to be left alone. We like we left our own
Speaker 1: devices as much as possible. We can't harm each other,
Speaker 1: and we have to honor our contracts, and we have
Speaker 1: to obey the law. That's pretty much it. Other than that,
Speaker 1: it should be a real light touch from the government,
Speaker 1: not absent entirely, not non existent. You know, we're not
Speaker 1: going for some libertarian paradise here, because it's never gonna happen.
Speaker 1: But it should be very, very gentle presence in the background. Instead,
Speaker 1: what we have now is a government standing behind you
Speaker 1: all the time telling you do this or else. That's
Speaker 1: not good. That's not good at all. But I'm telling
Speaker 1: you now, the Democrat media apparatus, also known as the
Speaker 1: mainstream media. They have learned nothing. They have learned nothing
Speaker 1: since the last election about connecting with the American people.
Speaker 1: Will understand the American voter. They will be forwarding their
Speaker 1: own perceptions of how this will all work as much
Speaker 1: as they want, as long as they want, they're not
Speaker 1: going to change at all. They're gonna say that, you
Speaker 1: know this, this is, oh what's really going to motivate people?
Speaker 1: As you know Trump's ethics and all the lies and
Speaker 1: Russia collusion. Meanwhile, those who are voting in Ohio and Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: they don't care. They don't care. Why would they care
Speaker 1: about that. They know the media is hyperventilating, hyperventilating about
Speaker 1: all the time. They know that it doesn't it doesn't
Speaker 1: ever lead to anything where it's told, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: look what Trump has done. It's so awful. But it's
Speaker 1: really not as awful as they say it is. They're
Speaker 1: constantly exaggerating. There they cry wolf. We know that that
Speaker 1: is what happens. They cry wolf. So I think that
Speaker 1: Trump is obviously going to have a strong night. Genet,
Speaker 1: when are many of you here that you'll already have
Speaker 1: had a speech. I'm gonna be getting over to watch
Speaker 1: it as soon as I possibly can, but the Trumpster
Speaker 1: is bad action, folks, and the Democrats just don't have
Speaker 1: anybody who can line up against them. They don't have
Speaker 1: anyone who brings the same, the same gusto, the same
Speaker 1: X factor. It just the ability that this president has
Speaker 1: to mobilize people around an idea and to make it
Speaker 1: fun and to make it compelling, and to keep the
Speaker 1: energy up. He is a political phenomenon. There's nobody else
Speaker 1: like him, and I was not somebody that right away
Speaker 1: saw it, and I've been seeing it now for a
Speaker 1: long time in action. So that'll be a nice reminder
Speaker 1: for everyone too, those who voted for Trump and those
Speaker 1: who are thinking about voting for him again, who maybe
Speaker 1: you're on the fence for one reason or another, When
Speaker 1: they see this president doing his thing, I think that
Speaker 1: any doubts they have will be quickly wiped away. At
Speaker 1: least that's what I'm expecting. You are now entering the
Speaker 1: Freedom Operation Center all the program Smusky Caps strictly need
Speaker 1: to know Team Buck is cleared and ready for the
Speaker 1: Buck Brief. United States wants to continue the conversations about
Speaker 1: structural changes regarding intellectual property theft and force technology transfers
Speaker 1: and market openings and tariffs. We're looking for an enforceable
Speaker 1: agreement as we always have. That's absolutely vital, So all
Speaker 1: of those general topics will be on the table. I
Speaker 1: think the market is saying better that they are talking
Speaker 1: than not talking. No results were guaranteed. I think people
Speaker 1: know that, but I think there's a certain joy that
Speaker 1: they're text big stuff coming. When the administration sits down
Speaker 1: with the China at the G twenty President Trump meeting
Speaker 1: with Shiji and Ping. There's a lot of issues and
Speaker 1: people are starting to get a little bit of economic
Speaker 1: anxiety over just where all this trade war stuff is going.
Speaker 1: We've got somebody who can answer this and more tell
Speaker 1: us what's going on here. We have Michael Pillsbury with us,
Speaker 1: Doctor Michael Pillsbury. He's the director of the Center for
Speaker 1: Chinese Strategy at the Hudson Institute and the author of
Speaker 1: the one hundred Year Marathon, which all of you know
Speaker 1: of because I've talked about it here on the show.
Speaker 1: I recommend it to you. We have the author with
Speaker 1: us now, doctor Pillsbury. Great to have you, sir, Hi there.
Speaker 1: Thanks Buck. All right, let's start with what should happen
Speaker 1: at the G twenty. I mean, what's critical going into
Speaker 1: this for the administration to you know, what should they
Speaker 1: try to get it? What can they realistically get out
Speaker 1: of she if anything? Well, the talks broke down and
Speaker 1: the President was quite angry, and then both the comments
Speaker 1: to the press and also when tweets, he explained that
Speaker 1: they just can't accept their reneaking. At the last minute,
Speaker 1: they had one hundred and fifty page draft President said,
Speaker 1: and it looked like he thought he was going to
Speaker 1: be able to get a deal and for some unfort
Speaker 1: reasons that are quite opaque and the topic I wanted
Speaker 1: to debate here in Washington, and the Chinese backed out.
Speaker 1: So the pessimists thought, this is the end of it.
Speaker 1: The Chinese are just not going to make a deal,
Speaker 1: and they already are behaving quite arrogantly, and though there
Speaker 1: the dominant power in the world. So the president's effort
Speaker 1: over the last two weeks has been to get things
Speaker 1: back on track without himself making any concessions. So it
Speaker 1: looks like this phone call that he's talking about this
Speaker 1: morning in his tweet has really saved the day. The
Speaker 1: talks are back in existence. At the minimum, the two
Speaker 1: teams will go back to work discussing the last ten
Speaker 1: percentages it sometimes referred to, which is a lot of
Speaker 1: it's the enforcement and the black in other ways is
Speaker 1: not just words to some kind of enforcement mechanism with
Speaker 1: the review process and possibly additional tariffs. So if the
Speaker 1: Osaka G twenty is like the Buenos Aires G twenty
Speaker 1: meeting December, first, there'll be a dinner or some kind
Speaker 1: of a metal for two or three hours. The two
Speaker 1: presidents with their staff president will talk back and forth
Speaker 1: on outstabbing issue and then try to improve the area
Speaker 1: of agreement and get toward the final version. Let's see,
Speaker 1: that's an optimistic outlook now, because it looks like the
Speaker 1: Hawks in China have really asserted themselves and the president
Speaker 1: she isn't as fully in charge as we all sort
Speaker 1: of thought that the Hawks in China don't really want
Speaker 1: an agreement. One of them came on the radio in
Speaker 1: Beijing just about a month ago saying he does not
Speaker 1: want any agreement with the Americans at all. So we're
Speaker 1: dealing with factions apparently in Beijing, in which one group,
Speaker 1: the so called reformers, actually want this kind of agreement
Speaker 1: because it will increase the power of the free market
Speaker 1: in China will reduce some of the subsidies, will probably
Speaker 1: increase their growth rate. The other side, the kind of maoists,
Speaker 1: if you will, that's what they often call themselves, that
Speaker 1: they love cheer and bao. They want a much more
Speaker 1: state controlled economy. They love what they call the National Champions,
Speaker 1: these huge companies that are some of the largest companies
Speaker 1: in the world now, and the Communist Party basically being
Speaker 1: in all enterprises, so that even a foreign company in
Speaker 1: China has to have a Chinese Communist Party member to
Speaker 1: observe everything. This is what the debatement going on in
Speaker 1: China for many, many decades. The whole thing the Chinese
Speaker 1: created the President Trump is dealing with was created back
Speaker 1: in the early nineteen eighties, this kind of predatory mercantilist
Speaker 1: system where these huge state of enterprises the Chinese called
Speaker 1: the National Champions, they would have not only subsidies, cheap loans,
Speaker 1: but also espionage collected trade secrets given to them to
Speaker 1: help them succeed. So this huge beast, if you wills,
Speaker 1: what President Trump's been taking on. Previous presidents wouldn't do it.
Speaker 1: They were either defeatist or they didn't understand the problem.
Speaker 1: So Osaka in some sense could be a showdown that
Speaker 1: they talks restart, there's some momentum to them and the
Speaker 1: Chinese agree on enforcement mechanisms. How much How much pain
Speaker 1: are the Chinese? How much pain of the Chinese has
Speaker 1: been been taking to their economy because of the Trump
Speaker 1: policy and the tariffs so far? And do you think
Speaker 1: that Trump has both the mindset and also sufficient leverage
Speaker 1: with his team to at least get a have a
Speaker 1: realistic shot of bringing the Chinese to some kind of deal.
Speaker 1: It's a great question. The Chinese perception of how much
Speaker 1: pain they're going through is that they say at zero.
Speaker 1: They say all the pain is going to be on
Speaker 1: the American side. They had a piece yesterday in China
Speaker 1: Daily saying only America will suffer from the trade war
Speaker 1: on our side. We tend to look at objective indicators.
Speaker 1: For example, auto sales have really plummeted since the trade
Speaker 1: talks began, since the terrofts began to be applied. So
Speaker 1: we see these objective indicators that tell us China should
Speaker 1: be feeling pain, but they're claiming that they don't. That's
Speaker 1: part of the problem the president, I think wants to
Speaker 1: go and I support this. He wants to go for
Speaker 1: the full five hundred billion dollars range of Chinese exports
Speaker 1: to our country and put twenty five percent on all
Speaker 1: of it. And even that may not be enough, because
Speaker 1: we're dealing with this machine created in the early eighties that,
Speaker 1: as the President likes to say, the past presidents let
Speaker 1: this happen, even says Obama let them get away with murder.
Speaker 1: So the amount of leverage it will take to get
Speaker 1: China to do major changes in its economic system, I
Speaker 1: think it's going to be pretty high. And we've obviously
Speaker 1: got their attention. They're willing to talk, but the fact
Speaker 1: that they could reneg and essentially stop the talks, that
Speaker 1: shows me that they're still fairly arrogant, floroughly confident that
Speaker 1: they don't have to do what we request. Do you
Speaker 1: think they're just trying to wait things out until they
Speaker 1: figure whether they're going to be dealing with Trump or
Speaker 1: some Democrat going forward? How much dock you put in
Speaker 1: that analysis? I agree with President Trumps that they think
Speaker 1: if they wait him out, will get Joe Biden, who
Speaker 1: was already sort of scoffed at the idea that China
Speaker 1: would ever surpass America. President Trump likes to say that
Speaker 1: they want to surpass us, but it will not happen
Speaker 1: on my watch. And the implication of that is it's
Speaker 1: another president, a weak president, let's say Hillary Clinton or
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, that the Chinese would surpass America. That's the
Speaker 1: vision the President Trump's holding out for what's to stake
Speaker 1: in these talks. I agree with him as a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, but the level of leverage will take to
Speaker 1: make up for these weak presidents the past, and how
Speaker 1: much China has gained on us. I mean even by
Speaker 1: if you look up the CIA factbook, they use purchase
Speaker 1: power parody. They're indicating that China has surpassed on the
Speaker 1: American economy as of about three or four years ago.
Speaker 1: If you lose what if you use what they call
Speaker 1: the currency exchange rate figure, then we are about nineteen
Speaker 1: trillion and they are close to fourteen trillion, so something
Speaker 1: like two thirds of ours size. But they grow twice
Speaker 1: as fast as US. They used to grow four times
Speaker 1: as fast when they were at ten percent a year.
Speaker 1: Now at six or seven percent, there's still double our
Speaker 1: growth rate. So it's a matter of time unless we
Speaker 1: can get them to play fair and give a level
Speaker 1: playing field, as the President likes to say to our
Speaker 1: farmers and our workers. But that's been happening so far.
Speaker 1: We're speaking to doctor Michael Hillsbury, who is at the
Speaker 1: Hudson Institute and the author of One hundred Year Marathon,
Speaker 1: which I have read cover to cover. I recommend to
Speaker 1: all of you listening, if you want to about what's
Speaker 1: going on with China, you do the same. Also want
Speaker 1: to ask you, Michael, what do we need to know
Speaker 1: about these protests in Hong Kong. People are saying a
Speaker 1: couple of million turned out, maybe the largest protests in
Speaker 1: the twenty first century anywhere in the world so far,
Speaker 1: at least that's what I've seen some of the estimates. Say,
Speaker 1: why does this matter so much? And what does it
Speaker 1: tell us about the direction not just of Hong Kong,
Speaker 1: but of China. What it tells us about the direction
Speaker 1: of China is that Chinese who live in Hong Kong,
Speaker 1: who have their own identity in some ways, and they
Speaker 1: have British law, British institutions that are guaranteed to them
Speaker 1: until twenty forty seven, they are saying in large numbers
Speaker 1: that we don't trust the rule of law, the legal system,
Speaker 1: the system of trials up in China. So this new
Speaker 1: proposal that China can come in and sort of arrest
Speaker 1: whoever it wants in Hong Kong and they must be
Speaker 1: extradited immediately to China. By the way, it includes visitors.
Speaker 1: There's foreign visitors by the millions. Also there's eighty five
Speaker 1: thousand Americans who live in Hong Kong. So this new
Speaker 1: law that's demonstrating against we give China a free hand
Speaker 1: to bring anybody back to China. And their claim, of course,
Speaker 1: as you'll get a fair trial. So apparently a two
Speaker 1: million people don't believe they'll get the fair trial if
Speaker 1: they're expedited back to China. That's the issue, and it's
Speaker 1: a vote of no confidence. It's highly embarrassing worldwide to
Speaker 1: Shijin paying and the Chinese leadership. They obviously thought they
Speaker 1: could get away with this, and now it's very amusing
Speaker 1: to me because my book Hunter Dr Marathon, as you know, Buck,
Speaker 1: it's all about deception and the Chinese use of deception.
Speaker 1: Their story had been we have the rule of law
Speaker 1: in China. Hong Kong should welcome this and we support
Speaker 1: it to pull up. Bureau members publicly endorsed it the
Speaker 1: extradition law. Now the Chinese ambassador in London, who used
Speaker 1: to be here in their embassy, he has publicly said, no,
Speaker 1: we never asked for this. You know, this is Carrie
Speaker 1: Lamb's own idea. So they're throwing her under the bus
Speaker 1: because it's so politically unpopular. But I think it's extremely
Speaker 1: significant that Chinese, as close to China as Hong Kong
Speaker 1: Chinese do not believe that the rule of law exists.
Speaker 1: But we'll China get its way eventually on this. I mean,
Speaker 1: how long can Hong Kong resist the second largest economy
Speaker 1: in the world and increasingly one of the largest military
Speaker 1: powers in the world as well. A lot depends on
Speaker 1: this concept of faith and this desire by the Chinese
Speaker 1: Communist Party up in Beijing to portray itself as virtuous, friendly, honest.
Speaker 1: They're trying to sell a deception story. I think that's
Speaker 1: what I argue Jameratha, that there's going to be a
Speaker 1: new Chinese led world order. And under this Chinese led
Speaker 1: world order, yes, they'll have the largest economy by far,
Speaker 1: they'll end up with the largest military forces. But everyone's
Speaker 1: going to be happy. Everyone's going to be attracted to
Speaker 1: the virtue of this new Chinese led world order. It
Speaker 1: will be so much better, they say, than the American
Speaker 1: led world order, which was so unfair and brutal and
Speaker 1: involved invasions not approved by the UN Security Council. So
Speaker 1: this is what they've been pushing now for more than
Speaker 1: ten years, that this new will we're headed to our
Speaker 1: toward is much better than the old American land order.
Speaker 1: When these two million people turned out, it's the kind
Speaker 1: of stab in the back from the Chinese Communist Party's
Speaker 1: point of view. And I think as long as the
Speaker 1: rest of the world pays attention. There was enormous media
Speaker 1: attention to the demonstrations, it means Hong Kong has not
Speaker 1: been abandoned, and the rest of the world still thinks
Speaker 1: that China should agree to its agreement it made with
Speaker 1: the British back in nineteen ninety seven that Hong Kong
Speaker 1: system of government on think called the highest degree of
Speaker 1: autonomy will remain until twenty forty seven. That it's a
Speaker 1: long way to go, but we're gonna have to keep
Speaker 1: watching the situation there thinking probably warning the trainee is
Speaker 1: not to be too heavy handed. Doctor Michael Pillsbury, author
Speaker 1: of The One Hundred Year Marathon, and over at the
Speaker 1: Hudson Institute, where he works on China strategy. Michael, great
Speaker 1: to have you on, sir, appreciate it. We'll have you back.
Speaker 1: Maybe we can discuss the military balance next time. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm merely read about. Bucka. We'll count on it,
Speaker 1: my friend. We'll get into the military balance for sure, everybody.
Speaker 1: We'll be back in just a moment. I'm not been
Speaker 1: out of shape. I'm fine. I'm been out of shape
Speaker 1: for them. These are the first heroes and veterans and
Speaker 1: victims of the great trillions of dollars War on Terror,
Speaker 1: and they're currently still suffering and dying and in terrible need.
Speaker 1: You know, you would think that would be enough to
Speaker 1: get Congress's attention, but apparently it's not. We've spent a
Speaker 1: year compiling bipartisan cosponsors and advocates for this bill, all
Speaker 1: in the hopes that when it finally gets to the
Speaker 1: Great Mitch McConnell's desk, you won't jack us around like
Speaker 1: you've done in the past. So, if you want to
Speaker 1: know why the nine eleven community has been out of shape,
Speaker 1: over these past let's call it eighteen years. Meet with
Speaker 1: them tomorrow as soon as possible, and don't make them
Speaker 1: beg for it. You could pass this thing as a
Speaker 1: standalone bill tomorrow. Meet with them. So John Stewart is
Speaker 1: really pushing this moment here, and I was initially very
Speaker 1: supportive of it because nine to eleven, you know, nine
Speaker 1: eleven first responders, we haven't we have a debt to
Speaker 1: them as Americans, not just as New Yorkers, as Americans,
Speaker 1: and obviously also first responders that were at the Pentagon
Speaker 1: as well. But John Stewart is now going beyond just
Speaker 1: the Congress of the problem to naming specific members of
Speaker 1: Congress and blaming people for things and calling them out
Speaker 1: by name. And I would note that there's not a
Speaker 1: I haven't heard him criticize a Democrat yet, which I
Speaker 1: just this is a thing that happens where someone who
Speaker 1: maybe is on the right track overall, but then it
Speaker 1: starts to get partisan in a way where I think
Speaker 1: it's fair to ask questions Mitch McConnell, who, by the way,
Speaker 1: they've been funded, I mean that the funding is happening,
Speaker 1: And I think I told you on the show though
Speaker 1: I can't remember that. John Stewart's part of his big
Speaker 1: monologue that he gave that got so much attention. He said,
Speaker 1: this room is empty, and it's a disgrace. It's everybody
Speaker 1: in Congress who was supposed to be at that hearing
Speaker 1: was there. It was just it was a bigger room
Speaker 1: than some of their different size congressional hearing rooms. This
Speaker 1: is I read this from somebody who worked in Congress
Speaker 1: for years and years, and so everybody was supposed to
Speaker 1: be there was apparently there from what I understand. So
Speaker 1: John Stewart was just that was a grandstanding moment that
Speaker 1: he was But look, I'm gonna give him some leeway
Speaker 1: if he's gonna grandstand on behalf of people who were
Speaker 1: at nine to eleven doing what they at the world
Speaker 1: trace they're doing what they could. But here's Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: responding to what's starting to feel like a pretty political
Speaker 1: or I should say, partisan criticism Play fourteen. We've never
Speaker 1: left the nine to eleven victims behind, and we won't again.
Speaker 1: Uncomfortable about the way you have been rois front of
Speaker 1: this debate over nine eleven, offers responders, and doest I
Speaker 1: don't know how many times. I can say we've never
Speaker 1: left the nine to eleven victims behind, and we won't again.
Speaker 1: It's something we always say, Carol, any other subject. Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell is saying that this always gets done. It has
Speaker 1: never not gotten done in whatever, So I do get
Speaker 1: Curry at some point, John Stewart, is he upset that
Speaker 1: they that this isn't automatically in the budget every year? Um?
Speaker 1: Is that is? That? Is this supposed to be a
Speaker 1: part of automatic expanding? And I asked that question, not
Speaker 1: rhetorically or in a smarmy way. I ask it honestly.
Speaker 1: I don't really understand what his The room wasn't poorly
Speaker 1: attended when he gave his speech. You have co sponsors
Speaker 1: for the bill like Dan Crenshaw, who's a wounded Navy
Speaker 1: seal and veteran the war in Afghanistan. I mean, you've
Speaker 1: got people that are very much attending to this issue.
Speaker 1: You've got major coast maybe major responsors for the bill.
Speaker 1: No good things that's not gonna pass. The bill is
Speaker 1: gonna pass. They're gonna be funding. So why is he
Speaker 1: calling out Mitch McConnell acting like he doesn't care. There's
Speaker 1: something else going on here, folks. I mean there's something,
Speaker 1: there's some other considerations that are being that are latching
Speaker 1: onto what should be a pure duty and obligation moment,
Speaker 1: which is that we should be helping the first responders.
Speaker 1: But it shouldn't be we helped the first responders. But
Speaker 1: let's also just just bash Mitch McConnell because he's the
Speaker 1: bad guy here. The funding is going through it, it
Speaker 1: always has, so I'd like to know what John Stewart
Speaker 1: is getting so angry at certain individuals about. This was
Speaker 1: a troubling article that I came across today from someone
Speaker 1: who is a PhD I believe a psychologist and or psychiatrist.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure which about the bigotry. This is not
Speaker 1: what it's called, but this is what the article is about.
Speaker 1: It's really the bigotry of trans or rather of cisgender
Speaker 1: heterosexual people against transgender individuals. Now you might be saying, well,
Speaker 1: what is that? But I don't understand, and that's fine
Speaker 1: because it doesn't really make a whole lot of sense
Speaker 1: until you dig into the details. The purpose of this
Speaker 1: article are trans people excluded from the world of dating?
Speaker 1: And it goes into some detail about how for a
Speaker 1: transgender person sexual attraction does not line up with what
Speaker 1: they might want it to be, as in a man
Speaker 1: who decides to be a trans gender woman, which as
Speaker 1: we know, is still not biologically A woman may wish
Speaker 1: to have heterosexual male partners, but heterosexual males speaking as one,
Speaker 1: are overwhelmingly not attracted at all to transgender females. Now,
Speaker 1: the dating world is interesting because it's one of the
Speaker 1: few parts of life where there's an acceptance of You
Speaker 1: get to kind of pick and choose what you want.
Speaker 1: You can pick by religion, you can pick by It's
Speaker 1: a very personalized decision making process that the social justice
Speaker 1: warriors have not yet been able to override. You know,
Speaker 1: as much as they may want people to date a
Speaker 1: non binary, non cisgender, you know, eight hundred pound eskimo,
Speaker 1: you know, as much as they may want people to
Speaker 1: view that as what is sexually attractive and what we
Speaker 1: should all aspire to. People tend to be attracted to
Speaker 1: what whoere And by the way, there is somebody out there,
Speaker 1: I'm sure who this mythological person I've just created, And
Speaker 1: I'm sure there are people who that is their cup
Speaker 1: of tea, and that's great. But we tend to like
Speaker 1: what we like. We tend to be attracted to what
Speaker 1: we're attracted to as people. But what's interesting to me
Speaker 1: is that now within the medical profession there's already this
Speaker 1: early because you know, the most left wing doctors are
Speaker 1: psychiatrists and I'm not making that up, that's that's true.
Speaker 1: There have been studies the most left wing doctors are psychiatrists.
Speaker 1: And what we're finding is that now there's a pressure
Speaker 1: on doctors to try to come up with explanations of
Speaker 1: why transgender women are not attractive to heterosexual men. And
Speaker 1: the answer is because they're not women. It's very straightforward.
Speaker 1: They have different I'm not going to try to beat
Speaker 1: around the you know, be cutesy about this. I'm just
Speaker 1: they have different genitalia. I mean, they are different down below,
Speaker 1: and there's a very basic biological impulse of attraction that
Speaker 1: heterosexual men have. And that we don't find women who
Speaker 1: are trans or sorry, transgender women. Rather, we don't find
Speaker 1: transgender women attractive is exactly what the medical profession should
Speaker 1: expect because they're not women. And that I know you
Speaker 1: say that of oh no, you can't say that they
Speaker 1: are no, no, no, they're not you can say they're
Speaker 1: transgender women, but they are not, in fact just women.
Speaker 1: That's not that's not accurate, that's not true, that's not reality.
Speaker 1: But in this article they get into some really interesting
Speaker 1: social analysis of how this is a problem to be
Speaker 1: over that must be overcome, that there's really a bigotry,
Speaker 1: a sense of um exclusionary feeling toward people who are
Speaker 1: who want to be attractive to heterosexuals, but who themselves
Speaker 1: do not line up in a gender sense with what
Speaker 1: a heterosexual would be attracted to. This should not be complicated,
Speaker 1: doctors should not be befuddled by this, but sure enough
Speaker 1: they are in this piece in psychology today, are trans
Speaker 1: people excluded from the dating world. No, they're not excluded
Speaker 1: at all. But we all live in reality, folks, and
Speaker 1: gender is still real, even if some people want to
Speaker 1: pretend it's not. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Letting it air out a little bit to nice good
Speaker 1: times with the roll call, the roll call, per let
Speaker 1: it speak for itself. Facebook dot com, slash buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: Also you can check in at buck Sexton dot com.
Speaker 1: There is in fact a website with my name or
Speaker 1: that is based on my name, and you can go there,
Speaker 1: you can find your local station. You can download the podcast.
Speaker 1: All kinds of wonderful things happening in the buck Sexton store, dude,
Speaker 1: or buck Sexton website, stores, coming stores coming. Sorry, I
Speaker 1: got too fast, I got ahead of myself. My fault,
Speaker 1: my fault. So good times. Yeah, and by you can
Speaker 1: always just go to Buxxon dot com and you and
Speaker 1: play the podcast from there. So it's very very easy
Speaker 1: those of you who like to listen on demand. And
Speaker 1: that's where I'm at. So see, I'm taking a moment
Speaker 1: to let the whole thing boot up, because sometimes when
Speaker 1: you're doing a live radio show, as you know, it's
Speaker 1: a wild and crazy thing and occasionally it won't exactly
Speaker 1: happen at this be there we go radio time, all right.
Speaker 1: I always appreciate you all writing in. Please, by the way,
Speaker 1: if you have not written in, it's summertime and the
Speaker 1: living's easy. So why don't you write into the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show on Facebook and tell me something good? Damn
Speaker 1: something good? You know, you know how it goes. I
Speaker 1: know I'm gonna mood to that, folks, I'm gonna mood.
Speaker 1: It's amazing what it's like when you've been overtired and
Speaker 1: underslept for about twelve Actually, you know, a lot of
Speaker 1: you are saying, yeah, Buck, it's called being a parent,
Speaker 1: and it lasts longer than a year. I know, I
Speaker 1: don't know how you parents do it. I see people
Speaker 1: that have a dog that's over ten pounds, and I'm like,
Speaker 1: I don't understand how anybody could take on so much responsibility.
Speaker 1: But here we are. I was like, all right, maybe
Speaker 1: I'll get a pet, salamander or something like that. You know,
Speaker 1: something that you can have developed some kind of attachment to,
Speaker 1: but you know, if you forget to feed it for
Speaker 1: a few days, and little little Kermit. I don't know
Speaker 1: why the Salaman name Kermit, but little Kermit passes away.
Speaker 1: No one's gonna no one's gonna think less of you,
Speaker 1: you know, or actually some of you probably would. I
Speaker 1: bet there's some there's some terror pin or there's some
Speaker 1: terrarium fans out there. Mark, you've probably had a terrarium.
Speaker 1: I have not. What kind of pets have you had.
Speaker 1: I've had a dog. So basically, you're saying you're normal
Speaker 1: and more responsible than me, and maybe I should check
Speaker 1: myself before I wreck myself. Okay, Yeah, I think any
Speaker 1: respectable humans should be able to take care of a dog.
Speaker 1: That's probably That's probably fair and probably true. All right,
Speaker 1: let's move on, shall we? Adam Rights? On Friday, you
Speaker 1: mentioned Flash Gordon was from Planet and Mango and General
Speaker 1: Zod came from the Phantom Zone prison for Superman. Oh,
Speaker 1: General zadd came from the Phantom Zone prison. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: I can't keep all my sci fi references straight. Not
Speaker 1: really much of a sci fi guy. Chris and Rights
Speaker 1: just her yesterday's podcast, You're really single? I'm so sorry.
Speaker 1: I really thought miss Molly was the one. Well Christen
Speaker 1: sad or I, but things happen and I wish are
Speaker 1: all the best, and it has been a while, so
Speaker 1: I had to let this sting of things pass a
Speaker 1: little bit. Yes, indeed, so if you ever hear me
Speaker 1: talking about being out and about I am I'm a
Speaker 1: man who was on his own, We'll see the next
Speaker 1: one has to be. I mean, it's time for time
Speaker 1: for Buck to get married and have some kids, because
Speaker 1: oooh man, people are looking at me like, what's up
Speaker 1: with you? You seem nice and normal ish? Where where's
Speaker 1: the kids? Where's the ring? You know? Where's all that? Stuff,
Speaker 1: and I don't have a particularly good answer for them.
Speaker 1: I say, I'm busy spreading freedom, saving the country. Richard writes,
Speaker 1: Buck Happy, who's your hellos? From the third Shift? This
Speaker 1: racial jerrymandering case is crazy crazy. Dems can draw maps
Speaker 1: based on race all the time any day. I live
Speaker 1: in North Carolina where for one hundred and forty years
Speaker 1: the Dems held everything. Look up the old thirteenth distor maps.
Speaker 1: Sometime it's snaked from Charlotte to Durham. How is that
Speaker 1: local representation? Republicans got in and drew their own maps,
Speaker 1: and everyone says it's racist and bemoan that they drew them.
Speaker 1: So Dems will lose, of course they did. If the
Speaker 1: Dems want to win, come up with ideas and win
Speaker 1: in the arena of those ideas, not impose your will
Speaker 1: from activist courts. Somehow Republicans lose. I don't get it.
Speaker 1: Chill time, well, Richard, there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: out there who make bad decisions. So you know there
Speaker 1: are people, for example, who will tell you with a
Speaker 1: straight face that putting chopped up olives and sun dried
Speaker 1: tomato on a pizza or in some kind of aposta
Speaker 1: sauce is a good idea, and I'm just here to
Speaker 1: tell you that that's almost never the case. But there
Speaker 1: are a lot of people who think that's true, just
Speaker 1: like there are still folks out there of the belief
Speaker 1: and I don't know what to say. Oh then just
Speaker 1: to speak the truth about it. There are still people
Speaker 1: in this world who think that Ghostbusters two is a
Speaker 1: good movie. I don't know what to tell them. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I can't. I can't fix that level of
Speaker 1: of wrong. You know, people can just they're allowed to
Speaker 1: be wrong on it, and so they are. That's where
Speaker 1: we are. Let's see, uh, Michael rights Uh. Hold on
Speaker 1: a second. The Chronicle Telegram did a good a pretty
Speaker 1: good job of covering the story from the start. Gibson,
Speaker 1: you have to be more careful with facts. Gibson's unlikely
Speaker 1: to get forty four million dollars. I think I said that, Michael,
Speaker 1: that they got awarded this. That doesn't mean they're going
Speaker 1: to get it. But you don't know. This stuff goes
Speaker 1: into court for a long time, and well, what will
Speaker 1: actually happen, because I have some familiarity with the way
Speaker 1: these settlements tend to work, is they'll end up paying
Speaker 1: a much smaller but immediate fee just to make the
Speaker 1: whole thing go away. But even even if Gibson's got
Speaker 1: a couple of million dollars, that would probably I don't
Speaker 1: know what their legal bills are, but if they got
Speaker 1: a million or two above their legal bills, that would
Speaker 1: be life changing. I think John writes, hey Buck, great hair,
Speaker 1: great show, Don, You're a great American. I apologize for
Speaker 1: coming off as of tuse in the past, trying to
Speaker 1: cramp too much info. That said, on nomenclature, you're very
Speaker 1: good about still calling immigrants illegal aliens. But calling the
Speaker 1: Iran deal a deal isn't appropriate. In my opinion. There
Speaker 1: are no deals with other countries. They are treaties which
Speaker 1: require the approval of Congress. Another example of Obama flouting
Speaker 1: our laws. Interesting, don let me let me chew on
Speaker 1: that one a little bit. I think I understand what
Speaker 1: you're talking about, But yeah, I might have to think
Speaker 1: about that a little bit. But yes, illegal alien is
Speaker 1: the proper legal term, and so I think that is
Speaker 1: the term that we should use. Max hey Buck. Last
Speaker 1: Wednesday in Boston, the last hour the Freedom Hut was obliterated.
Speaker 1: To buy a looney podcast a man, and I don't
Speaker 1: know want to tell you, man, sometimes that just happens
Speaker 1: in places. You know. They're just they're giving her to
Speaker 1: go to see how it does, and they're gathering data
Speaker 1: on the podcast they're putting out on different stations. It's
Speaker 1: above my paygrade. Gina writes, Hello again, Buck, listen to
Speaker 1: you talking about the OJ and Bronco chase. I actually
Speaker 1: lived in Orange County at the time. We're in our
Speaker 1: high rise off Jamboree in California, in Irvine, California, at
Speaker 1: the intersection of a couple of freeways. We're listening to
Speaker 1: your radios and had the lunch from TV on. All
Speaker 1: of a sudden we realize this is only a couple
Speaker 1: of minutes south of us. We all ran over the
Speaker 1: window looking back, probably lamthing to do, but watched as
Speaker 1: it all rolled past. There were already people lining the route,
Speaker 1: so at least we're not alone in our lameness. We
Speaker 1: then listened to the car on our way home, flipped
Speaker 1: on ABC until its conclusion. Crazy. It's been twenty five
Speaker 1: years and we all know he did it shields high.
Speaker 1: Buck Well, Well, Gina, Yeah, I think that's fine that
Speaker 1: you went out to go see the OJ White Bronco
Speaker 1: motorcade as it as it passed. I probably would have
Speaker 1: done the same thing the OJ trial. I really enjoyed
Speaker 1: the People Versus OJ Simpson FX show. If you haven't
Speaker 1: seen that, I do highly recommend it, even if you
Speaker 1: know the OJ story. They do a good job of
Speaker 1: really showing you a lot of the different dynamics. And
Speaker 1: that was I remember that period in time. It was
Speaker 1: really when you started to have more of court TV
Speaker 1: was more of a thing. This reality TV was more
Speaker 1: you know, cable news was really getting going in a
Speaker 1: big way, and it was on non stop. I mean
Speaker 1: everywhere you look. The OJ trial was on all the time.
Speaker 1: It was a fascinating, fascinating period. That's that's for sure.
Speaker 1: Jeremy Rights. President Trump should appoint Cannis Owens. Yes, no,
Speaker 1: I know, I agree President Trump should appointed Candis Owens
Speaker 1: as Press secretary. But en Shell c Richard right, storry
Speaker 1: to hear about you would Miss Molly hope you're doing well, Richard,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. From what I understand, Miss Molly's
Speaker 1: doing just fine, and I'm all right, and we are
Speaker 1: hopefully both going to be leading productive and happy lives
Speaker 1: going forward. And I wish her all the best. She's
Speaker 1: a great girl. Scott, all right, Buck, How feasible would
Speaker 1: it be if Iran continues their attacks for the US
Speaker 1: to launch massive air strikes and take out every non
Speaker 1: Iran military site in a single night, thus making them
Speaker 1: unable to wage war on anyone? Shields High, Scott, You know,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be that feasible unless you start thinking about
Speaker 1: nuclear and we're obviously not thinking about that. That's crazy.
Speaker 1: I don't think that you'd be able to do it.
Speaker 1: I think that you would run out of munitions pretty
Speaker 1: quickly if you tried to do it. I mean you could.
Speaker 1: We could obviously destroy their air force, and we could
Speaker 1: hit them hard enough that they wouldn't really be able
Speaker 1: to wage any kind of offensive war, you know, I
Speaker 1: guess it depends on what the parameters are when you
Speaker 1: say unable to wage war on anyone. We wouldn't be
Speaker 1: able to take out all Iranian ground forces and stop
Speaker 1: them from activating proxy terrorist forces abroad. So there's a
Speaker 1: lot of ways that they would hit back, even if we,
Speaker 1: let's say, took out their entire If we took out
Speaker 1: their entire air force and air defense system, which I
Speaker 1: think we could do pretty easily and pretty quickly. They
Speaker 1: still would be in a position to do asymmetrical warfare
Speaker 1: and things like that in the Middle East. And if
Speaker 1: we ever tried to occupy, well, then we're in that
Speaker 1: nightmare scenario of trying to hold the country together where
Speaker 1: you only need a small member, you only need a
Speaker 1: small percentage of the population, and then the country that
Speaker 1: really doesn't want you to succeed in rebuilding and stabilizing
Speaker 1: for your efforts to be stimied, greatly stimied, Michelle. I
Speaker 1: don't know why I repeat that, stemied, greatly stimied. Michelle writes, anytime, buck,
Speaker 1: if you want to take up a ride up your
Speaker 1: old stomping grounds. There are beautiful and magical hilltowns. The
Speaker 1: Bridge of Flowers in Shelburne Falls, lots of lovely places
Speaker 1: in upper New England. We can talk conservative things and
Speaker 1: how it would change the world for the better. Everybody
Speaker 1: forgets the silly troubles when I pull out my barbies. Okay, thanks, Michelle,
Speaker 1: appreciate the offer. Very nice for you to write and
Speaker 1: to let me know that things are going well up
Speaker 1: in Massachusetts area. So good times, good things, all right,
Speaker 1: Everybody that's gonna be at four. Wait, Steve has one
Speaker 1: thing he wants to throw in here, crazy uncle observation
Speaker 1: the end of Pelosi's recent comments regarding impeachment reminding me
Speaker 1: of a movie quote, these things must be done delicately
Speaker 1: or you hurt the spell. Well, Steve, I have no
Speaker 1: idea what you're talking about, but I appreciate you writting
Speaker 1: in with the quote. Now we're going to close up
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt for the day. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining me. Being with me always a pleasure and
Speaker 1: an honor. Tomorrow we're gonna have the aftermath of the
Speaker 1: trump tastic speech tonight to get into, so that'll be fun.
Speaker 1: Shield tat