Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The showdown between Trump
Speaker 1: and the Democrats at the border continues to heat up.
Speaker 1: There's now a supplemental funding bill that's supposed to help
Speaker 1: the crisis. Democrats seem to be balking at it. What's
Speaker 1: this all about? BLUs? Will Trump strike Iran? Does he
Speaker 1: have the right asked commander in chief to strike around
Speaker 1: without congressional approval. Jesse Smollett video is out showing the
Speaker 1: new still around his neck when cops show up, and oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, the latest Trump accuser seems like she is
Speaker 1: not of sound mind. That a more coming up. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake America, You're a greater America Again the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. Former CIA analysts. Remember the Democrats don't
Speaker 1: want to sign anything, and now I think they're going
Speaker 1: to probably sign this. From what I understand, it's I
Speaker 1: call it humanitarian aid. This isn't even about border. At
Speaker 1: the same time, you see the numbers of way way down.
Speaker 1: Mexico has been really helping us a lot. They have
Speaker 1: very strong immigration laws. They are moving fifteen thousand people
Speaker 1: or sixteen thousand people to our southern border, and they
Speaker 1: move sixteen thousand troops to their southern border, which is
Speaker 1: pretty incredible. And a lot of signs are coming out
Speaker 1: with the cartels and all of the bad folks, the
Speaker 1: coyotes as they call them, and all of the bad
Speaker 1: people that are bringing young children and taking advantage horribly.
Speaker 1: It's a form of slavery. It's horrible what they're doing
Speaker 1: to young children. A lot of that is stopping now
Speaker 1: because of what we're doing and because of what's happening
Speaker 1: on the border. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. The
Speaker 1: board order is at the center of the national conscious
Speaker 1: right now. We are focusing in on this thing. Conscience
Speaker 1: and consciousness. Actually those were both work. We're focusing in
Speaker 1: on this because the photos are coming out from journalists
Speaker 1: who are visiting the different detention facilities where there are
Speaker 1: children being held. The Democrats are demagoguing this issue as
Speaker 1: hard as they possibly can. You have, for example, Representative
Speaker 1: Jeffries claiming that this is a Trump manufactured crisis. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. Trump is the reason that all of these
Speaker 1: people from Central America are showing up at our southern border.
Speaker 1: To game the system, lie and get into the country,
Speaker 1: and then evade immigration enforcement once they're here. Play clip twenty.
Speaker 1: This is a crisis was manufactured by Donald Trump to
Speaker 1: feed the xenophobic beast that he has unleashed on the
Speaker 1: American people. And we need to end it because there
Speaker 1: is no decency as a nation to have these children
Speaker 1: being subjected to these horrific conditions. Does he really think
Speaker 1: that that Trump is the reason for this. It started
Speaker 1: before Trump was even president. Their first surge of unccompanied
Speaker 1: miners happened during the Obama years. In fact, the first
Speaker 1: cages as they call them for children, were built back
Speaker 1: under the Obama years. Some of these facilities. When and
Speaker 1: some of the photos that have been circulating on social media,
Speaker 1: they say, oh, look out terrible it is under Trump. Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out that some of those photos were from
Speaker 1: the Obama era, and you would think that that would
Speaker 1: maybe change the narrative that they put forward a little bit.
Speaker 1: But now this is all about finding a moral high
Speaker 1: ground from which they can spit down on the Trump
Speaker 1: administration and harangue and harass and browbeat any independent voters
Speaker 1: into thinking that voting for Trump is a horrible thing
Speaker 1: to do. Oh, by the way, Trump reminded everyone that
Speaker 1: it was in fact Obama that started this or where
Speaker 1: this whole thing started with the family separation the border
Speaker 1: and children showing off and unaccompanied miners play clip three.
Speaker 1: And it's been that way for a long time or something.
Speaker 1: And President Obama built the cages. Remember when they said
Speaker 1: that I built them, and then it was nineteen fourteen,
Speaker 1: it was twenty fourteen. Just listen for one second, separation,
Speaker 1: President Obama. I took over separation. I'm the one that
Speaker 1: put it together. What's happened though, are the cartels and
Speaker 1: all of these bad people they're using the kids I
Speaker 1: heritage separation from President Obama. President Obama built They call
Speaker 1: him jail cells. They will built. Talk about the opening.
Speaker 1: Now your administration are not doing the recreation. You're not
Speaker 1: even schooling these kids anymore. You've gotten rid of all.
Speaker 1: We're doing a fantastic job under the circumstances. The Democrats
Speaker 1: aren't even approving giving us money. Where is the money?
Speaker 1: Do you know what? The Democrats are holding up the
Speaker 1: humanitarian aid? Democrats don't want this problem to go away.
Speaker 1: That is obvious. Anyone can see that. They don't view
Speaker 1: the end result of it, illegal immigrants being released into
Speaker 1: the country never to be seen again. Most likely they
Speaker 1: will be that is a problem, and they think that
Speaker 1: what's happening right now at the border allows them to
Speaker 1: drown out and shout down anyone who points out that
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is now an open borders party. That's
Speaker 1: where we are now. You want to talk about sanctuary
Speaker 1: city policy. Oh, look what Trump did at the border.
Speaker 1: He's running concentration camps, they say. You want to talk
Speaker 1: about a million illegals filtering into the country, lying breaking
Speaker 1: the law in one year. Oh, how terrible. Look what's
Speaker 1: going on with family separation at the border. You want
Speaker 1: to talk about the resources that are being expended in
Speaker 1: order to try and process this massive surge, and what
Speaker 1: this means for the rule of law, what this means
Speaker 1: for our legal immigration system, for people who are wait, oh,
Speaker 1: how dare you? What about all the children being separated
Speaker 1: at the border. This is what it turns into. This
Speaker 1: is now the favorite talking point. This is the issue
Speaker 1: that the left cares about at the expense of all
Speaker 1: other immigration related issues. And let's not forget that this
Speaker 1: is all the doing of people who are showing up
Speaker 1: knowing what's going on. You know that they have this
Speaker 1: sense in the media that all these people they're they're
Speaker 1: just they're fleeing this violence in Hondred. This is a lie.
Speaker 1: They're not fleeing violence in Honduras, they're not fleeing violence
Speaker 1: in El Salvador. They're fleeing poor countries with crappy economies
Speaker 1: that they don't want to be in anymore. And they
Speaker 1: want to be in America. They want to get access.
Speaker 1: And this is oh, you know, you have to keep
Speaker 1: pushing libs on this stuff because a lie. They'll say,
Speaker 1: illegal immerants don't get welfare benefits. Well, that's not true.
Speaker 1: If there's one US citizen i e. An anchor baby
Speaker 1: or another US citizen who's in a household and there
Speaker 1: is an illegal living there, I guess what they benefit
Speaker 1: from the welfare that that one person is getting. And
Speaker 1: then there was an effort recently to try to change
Speaker 1: the formula of how much they would get so they
Speaker 1: wouldn't get benefits anymore. And the Libs freaked out about
Speaker 1: it because they know that they're getting and that's just
Speaker 1: the legal method of getting benefits. If you're if you're
Speaker 1: an illegal immigrant. At every turn, he or they say things.
Speaker 1: The Left is full of lies on immigration. The caravan
Speaker 1: won't make it to the border. The caravans will stop soon.
Speaker 1: The caravans are full of people that are that are
Speaker 1: claiming asylum, who aren't breaking the law when they come
Speaker 1: into the country. They care, you know, they just lie
Speaker 1: after there's no crisis at the border. They just at
Speaker 1: every turn what they say is false. They'll show up
Speaker 1: for their court hearings, No they won't. We'll deport them
Speaker 1: when they don't show up for their court hearings. No,
Speaker 1: we won't. How can you have a discussion with a
Speaker 1: political party that has shown itself to be so cynical
Speaker 1: and so dishonest on this major issue. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know how we can reach across and work
Speaker 1: with them on this. We have no common ground. We
Speaker 1: are now at a place where the question you must
Speaker 1: ask any Democrat is what is the downside? Don't tell
Speaker 1: me that illegal is illegal, and I'll lack like illegal
Speaker 1: means it's bad because they don't care. What if the
Speaker 1: downside of illegal immigration? Ask them to explain that to you.
Speaker 1: Drain on resources in schools or hospitals, No, they don't
Speaker 1: agree with that violating our sovereignty and overwhelming our ability
Speaker 1: to in certain communities assimilate newcomers. No, they don't agree
Speaker 1: with that adding to crime, even if it's only a
Speaker 1: small percentage of the overall population. No, they don't agree
Speaker 1: with that taking jobs from people that are in this country. No,
Speaker 1: they don't agree with that adding to the welfare roles
Speaker 1: and burdening the American taxpayer. I don't know, you know,
Speaker 1: just go. No, they don't agree with any of that.
Speaker 1: They will Democrats will not accept that there's any downside
Speaker 1: of legal immigration. So then why not have the courage
Speaker 1: of their convictions come forward and just say we do
Speaker 1: not believe that anybody should be excluded anymore unless they're
Speaker 1: like a doctor from a country that you know, has
Speaker 1: a pretty high GDP and really widespread electricity and indoor plumbing. Like,
Speaker 1: we don't want that. We want people that are coming
Speaker 1: here who are impoverished, don't speak English, no connection to
Speaker 1: American cult culture, and just they're just going to show up. Essentially,
Speaker 1: Democrats have a preference for the Third World over a
Speaker 1: merit based immigration system. Okay, well, where does that lead us?
Speaker 1: And why is that a good. How about this? Why
Speaker 1: is that a good idea? In what way does that
Speaker 1: benefit the people already here? Of all races and all backgrounds.
Speaker 1: America is a very diverse place. We take it. A
Speaker 1: million legal immigrants a year. We are far and away
Speaker 1: the champion of the world when it comes to legal
Speaker 1: immigrants living in our country. Nobody else even comes close
Speaker 1: to us in terms of numbers. But it's never enough.
Speaker 1: You know, you say that, hey, a million illegal aliens
Speaker 1: come into the country and this year that feels like
Speaker 1: a bad idea. You're a bigot, you're a bad person. Okay,
Speaker 1: what about ten million illegal Why don't we Where does
Speaker 1: it stop? Democrats have no answers. This is lawlessness. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've finally we've reached the end stage year of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party and immigration where this is the last election
Speaker 1: where they will not be openly for open borders. What
Speaker 1: will happen if they get power in this next election
Speaker 1: is they will say, all right, now it's time for
Speaker 1: the amnesty. And once the amnesty is locked in, then
Speaker 1: they'll just say all right, you know, everybody, everybody who
Speaker 1: wants to come from south of the border, show up,
Speaker 1: just go for it. We'll find a place for you.
Speaker 1: You're the lifeblood of the American economy. In fact, you're
Speaker 1: you're better than Americans if you're not American. This is
Speaker 1: this is the standard talking point. You do the jobs
Speaker 1: Americans won't do. You're more law binding than Americans are.
Speaker 1: You are necessary for you know, bringing up our demographic numbers.
Speaker 1: You know, without you were a negative, you know, population replacement.
Speaker 1: So you know, then the illegal aliens coming to the
Speaker 1: country are better than Americans. This has now become a
Speaker 1: Democrat party talking point. And Democrats accept this because they
Speaker 1: have you know, a lot of Democrats have all this
Speaker 1: white guilt, and they've got all this virtue signaling they
Speaker 1: have to do, and they just sign on for this stuff.
Speaker 1: We're running out of room here to pretend that the
Speaker 1: Democrats or anything other than what I've just said. I
Speaker 1: don't know how much longer are they're gonna be able
Speaker 1: to hold out this sham that they really do want
Speaker 1: enforcement of the wall. We'll be playing some some soundbites
Speaker 1: for you of people like Nancy Pelosi just make it
Speaker 1: clear that they do not want the law to be enforced.
Speaker 1: And that's another place where you can just you can
Speaker 1: as sure as you know day follows night, or as
Speaker 1: it night follows day, at any stage of the enforcement process,
Speaker 1: Democrats will either openly oppose it. For for legal immigration issues,
Speaker 1: either openly oppose it or stone wall foot drag and
Speaker 1: make sure that nothing can be done. There is no
Speaker 1: third option. They are not in favor of this anymore.
Speaker 1: They went through and you might say, well, back, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, during the Obama years, weren't they deporting
Speaker 1: weren't they deporting a large number of people? There was
Speaker 1: a very clear plan that they were going forward with
Speaker 1: essentially what had been continuous policy, which they were deporting
Speaker 1: people could come into the country. But it was all
Speaker 1: so that Obama would be would be criticized as the
Speaker 1: deporter in chief on the one hand, while on the
Speaker 1: other hand, trying to push for a comprehensive quote comprehensive
Speaker 1: immigration reform deal which was just mass amnesty for eleven million,
Speaker 1: probably more like fifteen or twenty million people. And that's
Speaker 1: that's ballgame. After that, it doesn't matter, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: how many people you think you're deporting or we're going
Speaker 1: to deport, because you're going to stop deporting anybody. Then
Speaker 1: it's then it's done. Look at what happens in these cities.
Speaker 1: Look at how the political character has changed of San
Speaker 1: Francisco and Los Angeles and Chicago and New York. They
Speaker 1: are openly defying federal law enforcement requests for assist for information.
Speaker 1: They are obstructing federal law And anybody who didn't do
Speaker 1: that in any of those cities who is an elected
Speaker 1: official would lose their job, no question. And they know
Speaker 1: that it's a big problem. Look immigration, Trump beat the
Speaker 1: Republican field in large part because of his stance at immigration.
Speaker 1: This is the biggest fight he's got on his hands
Speaker 1: right now. And we're not winning this one yet, not
Speaker 1: even close. And he's definitely gonna need four more years
Speaker 1: to follow through on many of the major promises he
Speaker 1: made an immigration. But the Democrats, they're just so dishonest
Speaker 1: on this. I get exasperated with all their lies, with
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Smarmy Schumer and this whole crew and the
Speaker 1: CNN and MSNBC and all these pundits and all these
Speaker 1: people that just they either don't know what they're talking about,
Speaker 1: or they know what they're saying is bullcrap, and they
Speaker 1: don't care because it's of the agenda. The agenda is
Speaker 1: open borders. The agenda is open borders. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: The truth is they don't want to get anything done.
Speaker 1: The Democrats use the race bait, so they are only
Speaker 1: using this for identity politics. So they're going to people
Speaker 1: of Hispanic descent, and then they're saying, all of you, guys,
Speaker 1: we're helping all of you. The Republicans are bad. Trump
Speaker 1: is bad. They're they're trying to demonize Trump. If you
Speaker 1: watch the language and the rhetoric that comes from the left,
Speaker 1: it's scary, really, and you know, hopefully over time people
Speaker 1: of Hispanic descent will will understand that the Democrats are
Speaker 1: only using them. They're not actually trying to help them.
Speaker 1: If they were trying to help them, they would have
Speaker 1: passed a bill already. Commerson Newness gets it. He's correct.
Speaker 1: I mean I was saying, it's pretty obvious, isn't it.
Speaker 1: This is all about identity politics. It's all about the
Speaker 1: Democrats keeping this issue as just a club with which
Speaker 1: they can shamelessly beat the Republicans, who are meanwhile trying
Speaker 1: to do what they can to stop this crisis from
Speaker 1: going right. But they don't, you know, Democrats are standing
Speaker 1: aside crying out how the house is on fire. Republicans
Speaker 1: are saying, all right, let's let's send in the firefighters,
Speaker 1: let's turn on the hoses. And Democrats are running over
Speaker 1: and you know, cutting the hoses and kicking the firefighters
Speaker 1: and then saying, why can't you deal with the crisis,
Speaker 1: Why can't you make this problem with the border go away?
Speaker 1: Well be a lot easier if we had some partners
Speaker 1: in this matter, wouldn't it. Now we've got the Democrats
Speaker 1: finally getting shamed into some kind of action on this. Well,
Speaker 1: when do you ever find Democrats not wanting to spend
Speaker 1: four point five billion dollars of taxpayer money other than
Speaker 1: the military. Obviously they don't want to, you know, that's
Speaker 1: where they draw the line. Additional funding for the military
Speaker 1: Democrats get very worried about. But here we've got political
Speaker 1: reporting that Speaker Pelosi has an eleventh hour deal in
Speaker 1: place with progressives in the Congress on an emergency border
Speaker 1: spending package. This just went up right before we came
Speaker 1: on air, avoiding an embarrassing intra party split and ensuring
Speaker 1: the bill's passage. Top Democrats made several tweaks at the
Speaker 1: contentious four point five billion dollar border funding bill just
Speaker 1: hours before be considered on the floor. All right, so
Speaker 1: this thing is probably gonna get considered. It hasn't gone
Speaker 1: through yet, but it looks like they have four point
Speaker 1: five billion of emergency spending that will avert a funding
Speaker 1: lapse at the Federal Refugee Office. So it has to
Speaker 1: be reconciled though with a sentence version before it can come.
Speaker 1: All right, So there's something going on here. But this
Speaker 1: is only because everyone says. Okay, Democrats, you complain about
Speaker 1: this all day, all the time. You act like this
Speaker 1: is the worst thing ever. Some of your members are
Speaker 1: calling them concentration camps. The border patrol is overwhelmed. This
Speaker 1: is not their job. They're not supposed to deal with this.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm a lot of you live in very
Speaker 1: spacious homes. If I sent a thousand refugees to your house,
Speaker 1: things would get pretty pretty tough pretty quickly, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: just not enough floor space, not enough bathrooms, not enough
Speaker 1: food doesn't make you a bad person. You weren't expecting
Speaker 1: a thousand refugees. You got a house that you're living in.
Speaker 1: These border patrol stations are not meant for a mass
Speaker 1: migration of children, and that's what they're being put through.
Speaker 1: But it's all demagoguery, power politics and lies from the Democrats.
Speaker 1: A little more on Pelosi's enforcement priorities, then we'll talk
Speaker 1: about the Iran situation. Will Trump strike Jesse Smollett is
Speaker 1: a complete moron. We've got things to discuss. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America. Buck Sexton his back.
Speaker 1: When I saw that if the president was going to
Speaker 1: have these rays, I mean, it was so appalling. It's
Speaker 1: outside the circle of civilized human behavior. It will be
Speaker 1: kicking down doors, splitting up families, and the rest of that.
Speaker 1: In addition to the injustices that are happening at the border.
Speaker 1: We have legislation to go forward to address those needs.
Speaker 1: But in terms of interior enforcement, what is the you know,
Speaker 1: what's the point? You know, well, I won't even go
Speaker 1: into what the motivation might be for that. You just
Speaker 1: heard her say it, folks. I'm not making her say this.
Speaker 1: That's Nancy Pelosi. In terms of interior enforcement of our
Speaker 1: immigration laws. What's the point here? You have the most
Speaker 1: powerful Democrat in the country, number three in line for
Speaker 1: the presidency, the speaker of the House of Representatives, saying,
Speaker 1: why should we even enforce immigration laws at all? What's
Speaker 1: the point? Point? We'll see what I've been saying to
Speaker 1: you about the the the single question that tells you
Speaker 1: everything you need to know. It's true. They don't think
Speaker 1: anything is wrong. They don't think there's anything bad about
Speaker 1: illegal immigration. They like illegal immigration. They've had a shift
Speaker 1: in their party entirely. They used to say, oh, it
Speaker 1: was a problem to be managed, but they're kind of
Speaker 1: aut now they're just like, bring it on. The more illegals,
Speaker 1: the better. In terms of interior enforcement, what's the point
Speaker 1: that is what Nancy Pelosi said? You heard her say it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, Nancy, because it's the law, because if
Speaker 1: you don't enforce it, then nobody will obey it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just it's just stunny, you know. In terms of
Speaker 1: laws against burglary, what's the point. They've already stolen this stuff.
Speaker 1: You're never gonna get it. Why should anybody get in trouble?
Speaker 1: What's the point? Oh, here's a better one. In terms
Speaker 1: of tax evasion, what's the point? I'm sorry, does anyone
Speaker 1: want to try to make the case that if you
Speaker 1: or I as individuals didn't pay our taxes, it affects
Speaker 1: anyone or anything in the United States. No, it doesn't
Speaker 1: it I don't know. I mean some of you might
Speaker 1: make a whole lot of money. I don't, but I'm
Speaker 1: telling you it's not gonna matter even if you're really rich.
Speaker 1: So then why enforced that law? Why break up families?
Speaker 1: When you send someone to prison for tax fraud, you
Speaker 1: break up a family. This is Nancy Pelosi, I mean
Speaker 1: just speaking. This is what she really thinks. This is
Speaker 1: who she really is. And then on deportation, here's Nancy
Speaker 1: play five. So and that is really kind of what happened.
Speaker 1: He can't he didn't say what he was going to do,
Speaker 1: but he's the president said, oh, you know, I'll let
Speaker 1: you know. And then two, well, people broke the laws.
Speaker 1: A violation of status is not a reason for deportation.
Speaker 1: That's just not. So that is as wrong as wrong,
Speaker 1: yets Nancy Pelosi. If there is such a thing as wrong.
Speaker 1: What Nancy Pelosi just said there is wrong. If you
Speaker 1: are in the country illegally, you are subject to deportation. Period.
Speaker 1: That is the law. That's the way it is. This
Speaker 1: isn't you know, hey is the voting age eighteen I
Speaker 1: don't know. Maybe it is. Maybe no, it is. It's eighteen, right,
Speaker 1: you gotta be eighteen to vote. I know Democrats want
Speaker 1: to make it twelve so they can get you know,
Speaker 1: toddlers to vote for them if they can. But it's eighteen.
Speaker 1: There's no wiggle room, there's no There are some things
Speaker 1: that just are and to be in this country illegally
Speaker 1: is to be subject to deportation. Under law, a violation
Speaker 1: of status is not a reason for deportation. Wow, they're
Speaker 1: just saying it now. They're just telling you what they
Speaker 1: really think. Now it's all coming out. They're not trying
Speaker 1: to hide it the way they used to or to
Speaker 1: obfuscate or to play games. Now it's just, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: we don't want there to be any enforcement of these laws.
Speaker 1: And then on the border supplement bill that now Pelosi
Speaker 1: may have some agreement with the looney tunes progressives in
Speaker 1: her own party to get something through. Remember this is Republicans.
Speaker 1: This is the Trump administration saying, hey, we got to
Speaker 1: get four point five billion down there, because no one
Speaker 1: is disputing that these facilities are not meant for this
Speaker 1: and that they are overwhelmed. But there are only two
Speaker 1: options here just release release children, just say all right,
Speaker 1: just go, you know, have fun in America. Hopefully someone
Speaker 1: finds you, or hold them until we know what's going on.
Speaker 1: And the first thing would just be open borders, right,
Speaker 1: That's what it's at least open borders for kids. And
Speaker 1: then oh, just think about the stories if something bad
Speaker 1: happened to a child that hadn't been they hadn't vetted
Speaker 1: whether they're going to be released into a true family
Speaker 1: or you know, it's just they're always gonna they're gonna
Speaker 1: trash border patrol. They're gonna trash immigrations and customers and
Speaker 1: for us. But they say abolish ice. They're already saying
Speaker 1: this stuff. But here's what Pelosi says about the Border
Speaker 1: supplement Bill, the Emergency funding Measure Place six. It's for
Speaker 1: the children, the children and children. It's about lifting them
Speaker 1: up in a way that takes them beyond what we
Speaker 1: do today. This is a very strong first step for us,
Speaker 1: very strong first step for us for the children. It's
Speaker 1: very exciting. It's all about the kids. You see. Those
Speaker 1: of you who have been part of Team Buck for
Speaker 1: a long time know that what is one what are
Speaker 1: my rules for politics? Always when someone tells you they
Speaker 1: want to do something just for the children. Be suspicious, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's just for the children, it might be you should
Speaker 1: be suspicious when a politician says it's for the benefit
Speaker 1: of the kids. Ask questions. Trust me, Nancy Pelosi is
Speaker 1: not first and foremost concerned with what's happening to these
Speaker 1: children at the border. What she cares about is what
Speaker 1: does all this mean, How is this affecting public perception,
Speaker 1: and how will that affect the votes that will be
Speaker 1: cast in the next election. Because Pelosi wants to keep
Speaker 1: being speaker. That's the first thing. All the calculations stem
Speaker 1: from that. Everything else's noise. And then you just have
Speaker 1: Democrats who are crazy. Well, there are a lot of that.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of that going on. Governor Insley, who
Speaker 1: is among the least notable and recognizable of a legion
Speaker 1: of Democrat candidates for the presidency at this point or
Speaker 1: for the nominational least for the Democrat Party. Here's what
Speaker 1: he You know, he had a novel way of maybe
Speaker 1: trying to fix this. This is just this is this
Speaker 1: is this is I don't know how much more completely
Speaker 1: off the wall this is going to get, but this
Speaker 1: is getting close. That's right. The problem at our southern border.
Speaker 1: It's not that America is a rich country with a
Speaker 1: very a very robust, trillion dollar welfare state. You know,
Speaker 1: that's not why people want to come here. It's not
Speaker 1: because we have a strong job market. No, No, it's
Speaker 1: climate change. Everything. These people on the left can find
Speaker 1: a way to make anything about climate change. Everything is
Speaker 1: about climate change. They are just completely delusional about this
Speaker 1: play nineteen. You do that once you've remove Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: What's there will continue to be an issue on the
Speaker 1: southern border. What will you do about it? We will
Speaker 1: follow the law which is to allow people to have
Speaker 1: asylum requests. We will provide humane treatment for them and
Speaker 1: not separate children from their parents, which is both inhumane
Speaker 1: and I believe illegal. We will also importantly confront the
Speaker 1: causes of this immigration, one of which is we have
Speaker 1: climate refugees now because the climate crisis is making Central
Speaker 1: America uninhabitable for large parts of people, and Donald Trump
Speaker 1: keeps calling this a climate hoax. We have climate refugees,
Speaker 1: and we have to help give a chance for those
Speaker 1: people to stay in their ancestral homeland. How exactly do
Speaker 1: we have climate refugees? Does someone want to try to
Speaker 1: take a stab at this one. Climate refugees. Now I
Speaker 1: thought it was their fleeing violence. Now this is laughable
Speaker 1: until you realize where this could very quickly go. Oh
Speaker 1: that's right. You know what comes next. Anyone anywhere in
Speaker 1: the world, if they start, if the Democrats can latch
Speaker 1: onto this and get some get some momentum behind this.
Speaker 1: Anyone anywhere in the world, any third world, you know,
Speaker 1: impoverished country with tremendous dysfunction and corruption, Central America, Southeast Asia,
Speaker 1: you know, you name it, sub Saharan Africa, somewhere or
Speaker 1: whatever it is. Anywhere in the world where's tremendous dysfunction
Speaker 1: and poverty. You know what, they'll be able to say, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm going to claim asylum because I'm a climate refugee.
Speaker 1: Right now, maybe that wouldn't fly, give it time. They
Speaker 1: will absolutely go for this. It makes perfect sense, doesn't it.
Speaker 1: If they think the world is ending because a climate change,
Speaker 1: it's our fault. What better way to get what they
Speaker 1: want to shine a light on climate change as this
Speaker 1: existential threat than to say that, oh, see, these people
Speaker 1: are fleeing their home, their their native lands because of
Speaker 1: climate change. They'll say this with a straight face, and
Speaker 1: you're supposed to look at them and not think that
Speaker 1: they have been smoking some really potent stuff. This is
Speaker 1: where we're heading. We're gonna we're gonna enter a phase now,
Speaker 1: I believe where it's going to be climate refugees that
Speaker 1: we're told about, and that we have to open our
Speaker 1: borders to the Third World because the reason that they
Speaker 1: have a drought or you know, they have a bad
Speaker 1: crop or whatever it is, is because of all the
Speaker 1: cot we put in the air. So you see, we
Speaker 1: owe it to them to take them in because we're
Speaker 1: the cause of the refugee crisis globally when any whenever
Speaker 1: someone move, wants to move from their country. Now it's oh,
Speaker 1: my country is poor because of climate change, which America
Speaker 1: is the America caused. I know, to a rational person,
Speaker 1: it just sounds so absurd. You've got a Democrat candidate
Speaker 1: for the presidency who's already saying it. Others will say
Speaker 1: it too. This is they're they're living in this delusion.
Speaker 1: But it's a delusion that's very dangerous because it gives
Speaker 1: them a tremendous amount of power. And but just remember this,
Speaker 1: Pelosi wont enforce immigration laws, doesn't want enforce immigration laws.
Speaker 1: Everything else is just noise. We'll be right back. I
Speaker 1: like the idea of keeping Congress abreast, but I wouldn't
Speaker 1: have to do that. Sure Nancy Pelosi actually said you
Speaker 1: must have Congressional approval. So you disagree with her on
Speaker 1: I disagree. I think most people seem to disagree, but
Speaker 1: I do keeping them they have ideas that intelligent people,
Speaker 1: they'll come up with some thoughts. I actually learned a
Speaker 1: couple of things the other day when we had our
Speaker 1: meeting with Congress, which were I think helpful to me.
Speaker 1: But I do like keeping them abreast, but I don't
Speaker 1: have to do it legally. President saying he can hit
Speaker 1: her on if he wants to, and this president, if
Speaker 1: he believes that's the course that he should take, he'll
Speaker 1: do it. When he says all options are on the table,
Speaker 1: he means it. He also understands that he does not
Speaker 1: want to use the option that takes life on any
Speaker 1: side unless that's really what must be done. And I
Speaker 1: think we should be thankful that we have a commander
Speaker 1: in chief who've used his role as such. You know,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of very unsettling raw jingoistic weirdness
Speaker 1: around Obama and the drone strikes. Ye, I don't know
Speaker 1: if you remember who's it was like Obama was on
Speaker 1: Mount Olympus throwing down lightning bolts at the evildoers. That's
Speaker 1: the way the media treated it. And then you know
Speaker 1: we found out that well, actually drone strikes, Yeah, they
Speaker 1: can be very effective as they're a tool, not a strategy,
Speaker 1: but there there can be collateral damage from don't drone
Speaker 1: strikes just like any other strike, and becoming true reliant
Speaker 1: on them means that you are going to rack up
Speaker 1: a body count of bodies that you don't want to have.
Speaker 1: But the rules all change. This is we live in
Speaker 1: a society now where the did the primary determination about
Speaker 1: anything isn't whether it's right or wrong, whether it breaks
Speaker 1: the rules or not. But the left mind has become
Speaker 1: one that has overtaken with the overarching purpose, and that
Speaker 1: means more than anything else. So if if it helps Obama,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what rules were broken, or doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what standards have to be pushed aside, it is good
Speaker 1: if it hurts Trump today as opposed to when Obama
Speaker 1: is president, then it has to be good if it
Speaker 1: hurts Trump. It must be a good thing. Doesn't matter
Speaker 1: what rules, doesn't matter that judgment based in facts, based
Speaker 1: in pre established norms and standards, That cannot be the
Speaker 1: primary consideration. Not for the left. Two sets of laws,
Speaker 1: two sets of rules. You see it with the Muller probe,
Speaker 1: with Hillary Clinton, with judging Trump's foreign policy, with judging
Speaker 1: you know, just everything. It's always hypocrisy from the left,
Speaker 1: always two sets of rules. But I do think that
Speaker 1: Trump has an understanding of what's at stake right now.
Speaker 1: It's not just the you know, bad news cycle that
Speaker 1: he'll get at with any given decision. He knows this
Speaker 1: is real war and peace stuff. This matters the decisions
Speaker 1: he makes here, and this could lead into a whole
Speaker 1: array of options that we very desperately want to avoid.
Speaker 1: Now they've announced new sanctions yesterday, sanctions that even go
Speaker 1: after some of the very top members of the Iranian regime.
Speaker 1: The Iranians, unsurprisingly are upset about this. Here is Hassan Rohani.
Speaker 1: Remember they used to say that this guy was a moderate,
Speaker 1: That's what they used to say. Yeah, sure, here's Hassan
Speaker 1: Rohani talking about well, really just mocking our White House
Speaker 1: play sixteen Tavon the White House actions mean it's mentally retarded.
Speaker 1: Didn't you say you want to negotiate. Well, if you
Speaker 1: were telling the truth, really want to negotiate, you would
Speaker 1: not put sanctions on our foreign minister. At the same time,
Speaker 1: this shows you're full of lies. Now, I know that
Speaker 1: Iran has a culture with a lot of negotiation that
Speaker 1: goes on. You have the bizarre culture, Souk culture in Arabic.
Speaker 1: You have you know, a lot of merchants and exchange
Speaker 1: of goods and commerce, and this is this is a
Speaker 1: part of the culture stretching back a very long time
Speaker 1: because of Iran's place as on the spice roots and
Speaker 1: as a center of trade and all these different so
Speaker 1: they understand at some level what negotiation means. And no,
Speaker 1: in fact, it does make sense to use leverage in
Speaker 1: a negotiation when you have it. The Trump administration's position
Speaker 1: is very straightforward. In fact, it's so straightforward that you think,
Speaker 1: how could this not have been the position of the
Speaker 1: administration before it. We've got you Iran economically, you are
Speaker 1: being strangled. We're not saying, we're not telling you that
Speaker 1: you can no longer exist as a country. We're not
Speaker 1: even saying you have to change your government. We're just
Speaker 1: saying you have to change the following things. No more
Speaker 1: nuclear weapons and a way that we can ensure that
Speaker 1: will not happen. No more support of terrorist regimes or
Speaker 1: terrorist entities throughout the Middle East, no more ballistic missile program,
Speaker 1: and stop being essentially Iran, stop being crazy. If Iron
Speaker 1: stops being crazy, then they can get the sanctions lifted
Speaker 1: and start making some money and everything can be okay.
Speaker 1: But we're in a position to force them to do this.
Speaker 1: That's the whole point. The Obama administration seemed to think
Speaker 1: that the point of the sanctions was to get to
Speaker 1: get them annoyed enough that they're willing to sit down
Speaker 1: with us, And then the whole point was just to
Speaker 1: get a deal. Even if it's a bad deal. It's
Speaker 1: not the way this was supposed to go. It's not
Speaker 1: the way this was supposed to happen. I hope there
Speaker 1: is no strike, but if the Iranians go beyond the
Speaker 1: enrichment levels that were laid out in that deal, deal
Speaker 1: or no deal doesn't matter. If they go beyond those
Speaker 1: enrichment levels and we know it, that could be a strike.
Speaker 1: And if there's a strike. I don't know where this
Speaker 1: thing goes. I do not want war with Iran, but
Speaker 1: I also know that there are some folks as administration
Speaker 1: who don't feel the same way. I will be completely honest.
Speaker 1: I will disclose my personal stake in this fight because
Speaker 1: I have student loans too, and I think it's so funny.
Speaker 1: A year ago I was waiting tables in a restaurant
Speaker 1: and it was literally easier for me to become the
Speaker 1: youngest woman in American history elected to Congress than it
Speaker 1: is to pay off my student loan. Dat so that
Speaker 1: should tell you everything about the state of our economy
Speaker 1: and the state of quality of life for working people.
Speaker 1: She really is an airhead. She is. I mean, she's
Speaker 1: not the dumbest woman in Congress. That could very easily
Speaker 1: be Maisie Herono or Maxine Waters. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: few that are certainly up there. But she's close. She's close.
Speaker 1: She's a talented rabble rouser and talking points machine. That's
Speaker 1: she does have ability, I'm not saying that. And she
Speaker 1: has a story and a presentation, a personal presentation that
Speaker 1: the Left is almost obsessed with. But she is not
Speaker 1: an intellectual. My friends, and when she says things like
Speaker 1: it is easier when Ocasio Cortez as it is easier
Speaker 1: to become a member of Congress than to pay off
Speaker 1: my student loans. That's like me saying, you know, it
Speaker 1: is it is easier for me to walk down the
Speaker 1: street than it is for me to walk down another street.
Speaker 1: Like what this is? What does that even mean? What
Speaker 1: are you saying? These things have nothing to do with
Speaker 1: each other. They have nothing to do with each other.
Speaker 1: How how could you assess the you know, it was
Speaker 1: harder for me to go to the gym this morning
Speaker 1: than it was for me to apply to college twenty
Speaker 1: years ago. I mean, what this is stupidity. This just
Speaker 1: doesn't But it's just it sounds when she's saying, and
Speaker 1: she thinks that it sounds good. You know, she talked
Speaker 1: about because she's the youngest one record history could elected
Speaker 1: to Congress paying off her student loan debt. Now she
Speaker 1: makes one hundred and basically one hundred and seventy thousand,
Speaker 1: I forget what the exact number is for member of Congress,
Speaker 1: which is very nice salary for somebody who's making a
Speaker 1: lot more money at her age than I did, that's
Speaker 1: for sure. And yet I made the decision not to
Speaker 1: take on student loans because I didn't want to have
Speaker 1: to pay them off. I didn't want to have to
Speaker 1: deal with student loan debt. Now, some people only have
Speaker 1: to deal with that at the college level. Some people
Speaker 1: are at the graduate school level. Other people have to
Speaker 1: deal with at the college level. But you know, there
Speaker 1: has to be skin in the game here for people,
Speaker 1: There has to be a personal interest in good decision making.
Speaker 1: And you see this, this is one of the the
Speaker 1: underlying and foundational falsehoods of contemporary liberal thinking and the
Speaker 1: liberal approach. The leftists in government, they're always trying to
Speaker 1: tell you that if they take choice and responsibility away
Speaker 1: from you, you will be safe from all the bad things.
Speaker 1: So if they make the decisions for you, no bad
Speaker 1: things will happen. That is the promise that That is
Speaker 1: the fundamental falsehood of the leftists in America, of the
Speaker 1: progressive and increasingly, let's just say, what is of the
Speaker 1: socialists in this country. These people are socialists. They can't
Speaker 1: get us to socialism tomorrow, but they want to get
Speaker 1: us to socialism in five, ten, who knows how many years?
Speaker 1: That's the end goal. Line up, what a socialist agenda
Speaker 1: would look like they're for all of it. I think
Speaker 1: this is a great idea. They're all about it. But
Speaker 1: if we have people that are being told you get
Speaker 1: to go to college and somebody else will pay for it,
Speaker 1: then what incentive is there for anybody to not go
Speaker 1: to college? Right? And then you start to say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, what also do we do for
Speaker 1: the people who currently didn't take out loans, which is
Speaker 1: two thirds or two thirds of people don't go to
Speaker 1: undergraduate finish undergraduate programs in this country? Do they get
Speaker 1: some kind of check in the mail? Are they supposed
Speaker 1: to subsidize the educations of people that wanted to take
Speaker 1: out loans? I told you I looked at this choice.
Speaker 1: I looked at loans and loans and loans for as
Speaker 1: far as the eye could see. Or a job. I
Speaker 1: took a job. I had this in front of me. Now,
Speaker 1: if someone had said, oh, buck, run up two hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a debt and we'll just pay it off
Speaker 1: for you, what I have probably taken the Maybe I
Speaker 1: mean the Blaze was an interesting company when it started,
Speaker 1: and I thought I should go work there. But maybe
Speaker 1: I would have taken that deal someone else is paying for.
Speaker 1: You're getting a service. It's the education is a service.
Speaker 1: To say that an education is a right. Now we
Speaker 1: get into the the the foreseeable problem of the you
Speaker 1: have a right to everything mentality right. So, I mean,
Speaker 1: at first you have the government removing choice from you
Speaker 1: and telling you that if you as long as you
Speaker 1: don't have to make any decisions, you'll be fine. As
Speaker 1: long as we make the decisions for you, things will
Speaker 1: be better for you. That's part one, right, And then
Speaker 1: you get Okay, now they're making the choices. Now the
Speaker 1: government has the power to determine things like okay, school
Speaker 1: is going to be free, how much school, how much college?
Speaker 1: Four years? What about grad programs? That's under the under
Speaker 1: the Sanders plan, which is just the you know, Manna
Speaker 1: from Heaven total fantasy land program. Under the Sanders Plan,
Speaker 1: people with with p HD debt will get that paid off.
Speaker 1: Let me let you a little secret, which I know
Speaker 1: from professors, or that I know from professors that I
Speaker 1: became close with when I was in college. Most PhD
Speaker 1: programs are kind of crap. Most PhDs in the humanities
Speaker 1: are just an excuse to hyper specialize in that area.
Speaker 1: Of humanity so that you can teach it at a university. Well,
Speaker 1: there are not that many humanities university position. First, they
Speaker 1: don't open because people get tenure and they never want
Speaker 1: to leave, and it's not that high in demand. Is
Speaker 1: this is not I was gonna say, this is not
Speaker 1: rocket science. This is not rocket science. Rocket science pays
Speaker 1: reasonably well. Engineering math, the stem stuff pays reasonably well.
Speaker 1: It's not I could be a millionaire and there's no
Speaker 1: clear path. The world has become so much more competitive,
Speaker 1: and that's another part of this that we're just starting
Speaker 1: to wrap our minds around the fact that you're not
Speaker 1: competing anymore with just people who live in your area
Speaker 1: for certain jobs, especially when you get into more competitive
Speaker 1: markets and markets that are uh jobs that have a
Speaker 1: true global marketplace for them. Anything you're doing, people say, oh,
Speaker 1: learn to code, Okay, yeah, learn learn to code. That's easy.
Speaker 1: Of course, if you say that to journalists, you get
Speaker 1: kicked off Twitter. Yeah, learned to code, that'll, that'll solve
Speaker 1: all the problems. Um, do the people who say that
Speaker 1: realize that you're going to be competing against coders from Beijing, Mumbai, Tokyo,
Speaker 1: Rio de Janeiro you name it. Did the people that
Speaker 1: you know say that realize that this work can be
Speaker 1: and it's not even really outsource. It can be done
Speaker 1: by people all over the world. And the digital work
Speaker 1: and information based work is more competitive than it has
Speaker 1: ever been because it is more open to people than
Speaker 1: it has ever been around the world. And that has
Speaker 1: pressure on this and you know, there's there's a lot
Speaker 1: of changes going on right now. You know, we we
Speaker 1: have we look back at what's going on with student
Speaker 1: loans and college and the American I mean, the American
Speaker 1: hydrocasing system is very in the span of human history.
Speaker 1: This is a blip on the screen. You know, this
Speaker 1: is very very short. We don't even have much of
Speaker 1: a track record to speak of. You're it's changed dramatically,
Speaker 1: right It used to be all male and now it's
Speaker 1: co ed, and they've changed a lot of it. What
Speaker 1: makes anyone think that we have the system that we're
Speaker 1: supposed to have right now? Anyway, if you ask me
Speaker 1: just realistically, is four years of undergraduate necessary, I would
Speaker 1: say no, it should be two. It's high school and
Speaker 1: then you should do two years beyond that. And I
Speaker 1: think you should do a gap year and you might say, Buckle,
Speaker 1: who are you to come up with this? Well, I'm
Speaker 1: just telling you what I think. Where do this four
Speaker 1: years come from? Why does anyone think that that's the
Speaker 1: way to do? You know, you look at European countries.
Speaker 1: They have different systems in European countries which the liberals
Speaker 1: are obsessed with. They track people and put them into
Speaker 1: different path so that only some people are gonna go
Speaker 1: try to get an advanced degree. They're not encouraging everybody
Speaker 1: to try to be a you know, a basket weaving
Speaker 1: major with a PhD and other kinds of weaving. I
Speaker 1: don't know, pottery or something. I know, I kind I
Speaker 1: kind of lost it there for a second. I was
Speaker 1: sometimes when you reach for that that moment of clever
Speaker 1: and you just fall flat in your I just as
Speaker 1: I'm fond of saying, and old team buck knows this.
Speaker 1: Sometimes you're on ready you belly flop in the shallow
Speaker 1: end of the pool with a really nasty sunburn, and
Speaker 1: you know that just happens. See whenever I say that, though,
Speaker 1: you think about the time you did that when you
Speaker 1: were a kid, and you go, how you remember that
Speaker 1: was rough? You remember that was no fun? All right?
Speaker 1: I've got more on the on the whole student loan daddy. Oh,
Speaker 1: I didn't get into this whole second part of so
Speaker 1: the one is that you don't. It's not about choice
Speaker 1: anymore and responsibility. Now the choice is obvious because you
Speaker 1: have no responsibility. Somebody else will pay for this for you.
Speaker 1: That's that's the way the Libs set this up. But
Speaker 1: then it's okay, how far does it go? When does
Speaker 1: it stop? What's enough? Is it the best schools? Is
Speaker 1: it all schools? We've got more on this loan because
Speaker 1: look the loan story, even if you don't care that
Speaker 1: much about it, though, it's over a trillion dollars, So
Speaker 1: it's a lot of money, folks. This is this big money.
Speaker 1: It's not a little money. It's a big money. Uh.
Speaker 1: If you you dig into this more, you see this
Speaker 1: is really the heart of the whole pitch for twenty
Speaker 1: twenty for the Libs, for the Democrats. We're just gonna
Speaker 1: give you free stuff that other people are gonna pay for.
Speaker 1: You're not gonna pay for it, somebody else will. Well,
Speaker 1: then when somebody else looks around and says, well, who's
Speaker 1: who's the somebody else? Aren't I to somebody else. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you are, that's what that's where the real problem is.
Speaker 1: You know, this is it's all the the the the
Speaker 1: root lie of the Bernie sandersism that has overtaken the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party is that there's tons of money out there
Speaker 1: for everybody to have everything they want. Only the rich
Speaker 1: fat cats who won't notice it being gone, will pay.
Speaker 1: That's a lie. That's a lie. We have more on
Speaker 1: that lie though. In a moment, I was mentoring this
Speaker 1: girl that this young woman, her name was Andrea. She
Speaker 1: was about three or four years younger than me. She
Speaker 1: had gotten into all of these prestigious universities, but she
Speaker 1: was given no student loan assistance, no real students, She
Speaker 1: was given no scholarships. All of her student aid was
Speaker 1: presented to her in the form of loans. And she
Speaker 1: came from a solid middle class family. She was not
Speaker 1: exceedingly wealthy, and so she really she got into her
Speaker 1: dream college. But her dream college offered her no scholarships,
Speaker 1: just loans. Her dream college. My friends, she got into
Speaker 1: her dream college. Who were we to refuse to pay
Speaker 1: for this woman that we don't know's dream college. Did
Speaker 1: somebody get forced to pay for your dream college? Somebody
Speaker 1: get forced to pay for my dream NBA program that
Speaker 1: I didn't go to because it was too expensive, because
Speaker 1: the answer was no. Now, just like anything else, there
Speaker 1: is scarcity in higher education. There are not endless slots
Speaker 1: at Yale. They're not endless spots in the freshman class
Speaker 1: at Stanford. A lot of this is driven by you know,
Speaker 1: academic application stop, but also sports and minority status, and
Speaker 1: there's all these other things that come into play. But
Speaker 1: higher education has become wildly expensive. If you ask any
Speaker 1: of you, I mean some of you who are listening
Speaker 1: to this know what I'm talking about because you're boomers
Speaker 1: and you deal with this. But you know, the tuition
Speaker 1: at elite schools forty years ago, fifty years ago was
Speaker 1: such that if you worked, you know, a summer job
Speaker 1: or two. I mean you, I'm not saying pay for
Speaker 1: all of it, but you make a dent in it
Speaker 1: in a summer job. That the tuition at at ivy
Speaker 1: League schools back in the sixties was like a few
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a semester or a few thousand dollars a year.
Speaker 1: Was not a lot of money. I mean, you'd say buck,
Speaker 1: but it's in flat Yeah, but if you adjusted in
Speaker 1: today's dollars, it's still like fifteen thousand, maybe twenty thousand,
Speaker 1: it's not sixty thousand, which is where it is right now,
Speaker 1: which is insane. And the schools are setting these prices,
Speaker 1: and you know they do all this building of these
Speaker 1: just these massive, really kind of narcissistic buildings, and these
Speaker 1: you know, these libraries and sports complexes and all these things.
Speaker 1: I wish they're spending more money, though it's not really
Speaker 1: the libraries to spend the money. It's on the sports
Speaker 1: complexes and the dormitories, and it's it's all this stuff
Speaker 1: like you're supposed to go to four years of some
Speaker 1: you know, magical wonder camp where your every need is
Speaker 1: catered to. Is you're really just supposed to somewhere and
Speaker 1: study a bunch and read a lot. Which is also
Speaker 1: why I know people yell at me. I think athletic
Speaker 1: recruiting for colleges, for the most part, is insane. It's
Speaker 1: it's just makes no sense. These are not minor league
Speaker 1: sports franchises. Who cares how good the sports teams are,
Speaker 1: oh book, But at schools, I know all of you
Speaker 1: who love your everyone, This is where I get booed
Speaker 1: by ninety percent of folks, But the ten percent who
Speaker 1: really listen to me know that I'm telling I'm speaking
Speaker 1: the truth. I'm not saying we can't have those teams.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying there should be a separate program where
Speaker 1: you get an education while you are a semi pro
Speaker 1: athlete out of college. It should not be this pretense
Speaker 1: that they're student athletes just like everybody else. And now
Speaker 1: why anyway, that's a whole I know it's a whole
Speaker 1: other topic. I just jumped into it. Oh. I know
Speaker 1: who's gonna settle this for us though, The one voice
Speaker 1: of wisdom that we really need on this topic to
Speaker 1: make it all make sense. Iohan Omar is gonna bring
Speaker 1: it all home for you, folks. Play nine. I stand
Speaker 1: before you on behalf of forty five million Americans, five
Speaker 1: million people who feel they can't purchase their first home,
Speaker 1: forty five million people who feel like they can't start
Speaker 1: a family, Forty five million people who have dreams of
Speaker 1: opening up a business or going to public service, but
Speaker 1: are held back by a mountain of debt. They are
Speaker 1: the debt generation. We are told by some politicians that
Speaker 1: this debt is our fault that if we want to
Speaker 1: achieve the American dream, we have to lift ourselves up
Speaker 1: by our bootstraps. Well, we're here today to say student
Speaker 1: debt is not the result of pad choices or behavior.
Speaker 1: It is the result of a system that tells students
Speaker 1: to get an education and go to college in order
Speaker 1: to have a stable life, but then does not provide
Speaker 1: the resources to afford that education. Provide the resources they
Speaker 1: say to afford the education. We also have a big
Speaker 1: social push in this country for homeownership. Is someone going
Speaker 1: to pay your mortgage? I'd like someone. I don't own
Speaker 1: a home. I don't know I'll ever be able to
Speaker 1: own a home. It's very hard to save money in
Speaker 1: New York or DC, very expensive to buy anything here.
Speaker 1: Does somebody else get to pay my mortgage? Because I'm
Speaker 1: in a society where if you're not a homeowner, you're
Speaker 1: really left out in a lot of ways. You're on
Speaker 1: a hamster wheel you can never get off of. Why
Speaker 1: won't someone pay my mortgage? I don't understand. I have
Speaker 1: a human right to live in not just a house
Speaker 1: by the way, by AOC logic, my dream house. So
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not that extravagant, folks, I'm not that crazy,
Speaker 1: Like I just you know, I'd like maybe a couple
Speaker 1: of acres Malibu, direct view of the ocean, small pool,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe fifteen by twenty and three, four bedrooms.
Speaker 1: I'm like, I'm talking, you know, eight ten mill maybe
Speaker 1: that's you know, come on, a taxpayer can that's a
Speaker 1: rounding error for the taxpayer. That's my dream house, though
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about just a house. That's my dream house.
Speaker 1: I want someone to pay for my dream house. That's
Speaker 1: what AOC saying. Somebody should pay for the dream college.
Speaker 1: Now they created a system where anyone can pay for
Speaker 1: their dream college, but then they just have to figure
Speaker 1: out a way to pay off that debt. And now
Speaker 1: they're saying, oh, well, you should be able to get
Speaker 1: that dream, that top level of whatever it is that
Speaker 1: you want, but not have to deal with the responsibility
Speaker 1: of an afterwards. Think about this logic applied to everything else.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to buy a responsible first car. I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna go get a Honda Civic. I'm gonna go
Speaker 1: buy a Maserati. It's my dream car. I deserve that.
Speaker 1: Oh wait, but somebody else should pay for that because
Speaker 1: I mean, I think of how hard I work to
Speaker 1: be able to buy that Maserati. It just goes in
Speaker 1: a circle. This is the destruction of individual responsibility, and
Speaker 1: it is the enlarging of the state at the expense
Speaker 1: of individual responsibility, and the replacement of freedom with the
Speaker 1: promise that the state will hug you and keep you
Speaker 1: warm and safe and make all the problems go away.
Speaker 1: This student loan issue, beyond the trillion plus dollars we're
Speaker 1: talking about, is really ultimately about the nature of citizen
Speaker 1: and state and the extent that the federal government can
Speaker 1: just determine what the market should bear. I was right again.
Speaker 1: Let's just say it. Let's just take a moment. I
Speaker 1: know you were with me on this team. I know
Speaker 1: you supported me on this, and I know you saw
Speaker 1: what I saw. But perhaps I should say we were
Speaker 1: right again. How many times do we go through this exercise.
Speaker 1: Let's take a step back. The kavan auc users very beginning,
Speaker 1: I said, no, not buying it. This is all this
Speaker 1: a smear as a hit job. It's a lie, Jose Smalleett,
Speaker 1: not sorry, not buying it. This is a lie. It's
Speaker 1: a hate crime, hoax. No way when people really believed it.
Speaker 1: It's a national news store. I said, no, I'm not
Speaker 1: not with this. Sorry, doesn't wash. Doesn't make sense? How
Speaker 1: many times we go through this where the media believes
Speaker 1: something and we know they're wrong right away. Why are
Speaker 1: we so much smarter? We, including a lot of you
Speaker 1: who are listening, have very busy lives, lots of stuff
Speaker 1: going on that you don't get to. You know, read
Speaker 1: newspapers for hours on en. I mean that's my job.
Speaker 1: I do this for hours on end. But we know,
Speaker 1: we know that this is crap. How is it that
Speaker 1: CNN doesn't know that it's crap? Why can't they figure oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, because they don't want to figure it out,
Speaker 1: because they don't want the truth, because they don't really care.
Speaker 1: It's all about bashing Trump. E Jean Carol last week
Speaker 1: came out right when she's on a book tour, saying
Speaker 1: that Donald Trump viciously, criminally, feloniously ray uped her in
Speaker 1: the Bergdorf Goodman department store in New York City about
Speaker 1: thirty years ago. She claims that she has a dress
Speaker 1: she's never worn since then, or some kind of a
Speaker 1: coat dress, and claims that this is what happened, and
Speaker 1: even putting aside all the things I said initially, and
Speaker 1: this is how I did, This is how I was
Speaker 1: taught at the CIA to analyze sources is there's there's
Speaker 1: a whole process. As an intelligence officer, you learn how
Speaker 1: do you try to verify? How do you try to
Speaker 1: figure out who you're dealing with because your source matters
Speaker 1: so much, you're just you can't trust their word. You
Speaker 1: have to know more than just what they're presenting you.
Speaker 1: You have to have a context for it, and you
Speaker 1: have to validate information. I thought to myself, well, let's
Speaker 1: just step aside from what's clearly problematic right away, things
Speaker 1: like didn't tell anybody. She says she told two friends,
Speaker 1: but you know who knows, and she didn't tell the police.
Speaker 1: This is thirty years ago. There's no way to verify
Speaker 1: whether she was even in the department store that day.
Speaker 1: There's no way for Trump to disprove this. It's a
Speaker 1: wildly reckless, possibly life and career destroying thing for Trump
Speaker 1: to do. Just it's so out of whack with what
Speaker 1: you would expect from a guy who is, you know,
Speaker 1: a playboy, but not somebody that has ever credibly in
Speaker 1: my opinion from what I have heard, and I might
Speaker 1: be if I'm missing one. Let me know, has never
Speaker 1: credibly been accused of raping anybody, despite all this stuff,
Speaker 1: all this woman and that woman. Okay, if there's so
Speaker 1: many women coming out, what's the one that's really true,
Speaker 1: what's the one that we're supposed to say that one's
Speaker 1: the really believable ones? All this, you know, and they
Speaker 1: use sexual assault and rape interchangeably, which is not the
Speaker 1: same thing. You know, making a pass at a woman
Speaker 1: is not the same thing as actually and legally this
Speaker 1: is true penetrating somebody in their general areas. This is
Speaker 1: their differences here that are always brushed over by the meeting.
Speaker 1: But step aside Mile for a second. I knew Egan
Speaker 1: Carol was crazy because she was sounding like a crazy person. Oh,
Speaker 1: I won't. I wouldn't bring charges against Trump because that
Speaker 1: would be disrespectful to the migrants at the border being raped.
Speaker 1: That's something that a crazy person would say. What has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the other. And she does a
Speaker 1: disservice to the real victims of sexual assault, to the
Speaker 1: real victims of rape, of whom there are far too
Speaker 1: many in America and around the world. By bizarrely politicizing
Speaker 1: what she claims was a horrible rape committed against her,
Speaker 1: which clearly did not happen, but as if that weird.
Speaker 1: And they're also saying that she wished this is the
Speaker 1: interview she had already done. And when I came up
Speaker 1: listened to the show yesterday, I'm not not credible. Don't
Speaker 1: buy I don't. I don't believe this person. I think
Speaker 1: she's lying. And then she gave an interview where she
Speaker 1: said that she wished she had asked Donald Trump for
Speaker 1: his tax returns back then. Ha ha ha. Really 't
Speaker 1: make jokes about this. Victims of sexual assault, and I've
Speaker 1: spoken to the Almon victims of sexual assault that come
Speaker 1: forward with these with very serious allegations. It's a trauma.
Speaker 1: It's not a he he he. Let's make little political
Speaker 1: jokes about a thing. It's not something. It's not funny.
Speaker 1: It's a crime. It's a crime that every red blooded
Speaker 1: American man knows is a disgrace to his manhood, to
Speaker 1: his decency, to his humanity. And yet in this instance,
Speaker 1: this woman is smirking making bizarre comments about this offers
Speaker 1: no real proof. I told you when they brought up
Speaker 1: the DNA and the on the coat. Oh you know,
Speaker 1: she didn't say, yes, you're right, that's a good idea.
Speaker 1: I should do that. She said, I don't know what
Speaker 1: we wouldn't you want to be able to prove this.
Speaker 1: I if this should happened to a friend of mine,
Speaker 1: I would want to I would want to stand by
Speaker 1: her and you know, walk into the precinct with her
Speaker 1: and say let's get this guy right. Ah. But then
Speaker 1: last night the mask really slipped. It was already slipping,
Speaker 1: it fell off entirely. Oh and where did it occur? CNN?
Speaker 1: Of course, CNN the place where if you bashed Trump,
Speaker 1: whether you're stealing from paraplegics like Avanati or you know,
Speaker 1: go down the line, all the slime balls that CNN
Speaker 1: will put on TV that bash Trump doesn't matter because
Speaker 1: it just serves their audience is full of lunatics who
Speaker 1: think that Trump really is this terrible human being that
Speaker 1: needs to be bashed at every second, all the time.
Speaker 1: But Anderson Cooper on his OsO Serious Journalism show had
Speaker 1: eg and Carol on. I wouldn't have her on this
Speaker 1: show unless I was going to be able to interrogate her.
Speaker 1: And has her on, and they're being all treating her
Speaker 1: like she's just this and man, did they step in
Speaker 1: it last night at fake News rus A K A
Speaker 1: c N. And here's e Gene Carroll on the OsO
Speaker 1: Serious Anderson Cooper Show, play ten. I feel like a victim.
Speaker 1: I was not thrown on the ground and ravish, which
Speaker 1: the word rape carries so many sexual connotations. This was
Speaker 1: this was not sexual for it just it it hurts
Speaker 1: it just what it just you know what, I think
Speaker 1: most people think of rape and as a I mean,
Speaker 1: it is a violent assault. To this note, I think
Speaker 1: most people think of rape as being sexy. Let's take
Speaker 1: a short break. Think of the fantasies. We've just take
Speaker 1: a quick break quick if you can Stagram and we'll talk.
Speaker 1: Martin on the other side of you're fascinating to talk to.
Speaker 1: But the Enerson, he can't get to that commercial break
Speaker 1: fast enough. He can't hit the he can't hit the
Speaker 1: aboard button quickly enough. Get me out of your man.
Speaker 1: She just knuked the segment. She did, she nuked that segment. Quote.
Speaker 1: I think most people think of rape as being sexy.
Speaker 1: He panicked there, for Anderson Cooper had a moment a
Speaker 1: little panic there. It goes, oh my god, what has
Speaker 1: she done, because he knows she did it on his show.
Speaker 1: That was a a giant manure pile that had just
Speaker 1: fallen from the sky atop the very prim and proper
Speaker 1: Anderson Cooper. She did it. I think most people think
Speaker 1: of rape as being sexy, think of the fantasies. She says.
Speaker 1: She's supposedly recounting being sexually penetrated against her will by
Speaker 1: a effectively a stranger in a department store, and she's
Speaker 1: talking about how people think rape is sexy and think
Speaker 1: of the fantasies, and then tries to flirt with Anderson
Speaker 1: Cooper as he's desperately trying to bail out of the segments,
Speaker 1: as you know, you're really interesting to talk to, my friends.
Speaker 1: This is a person with problems, and not problems that
Speaker 1: have anything to do with Donald Trump or what he did.
Speaker 1: This reminds me of when they put a very clearly
Speaker 1: disturbed and you know, having a look. I've talked to
Speaker 1: Sam Number before. He's a nice guy, but he was
Speaker 1: clearly in an altered state going on CNN, and they
Speaker 1: just put him on show after show after show, seeing
Speaker 1: how how much crazy he could do. CNN they're parasites
Speaker 1: on the human soul. Now, there's no decency in what
Speaker 1: they do, there's no honor in how they present themselves.
Speaker 1: They're just slime, desperate for importance and ratings and power.
Speaker 1: They're just slime. Donald Trump is a husband, a father,
Speaker 1: a grandfather, president of the United States. They really have
Speaker 1: no problem with putting the equivalent of a crazy bag
Speaker 1: lady who was running around the street with a sign
Speaker 1: that says the world is ending tomorrow. I mean putting
Speaker 1: her on TV to say the presis the United States
Speaker 1: raped her thirty years ago, with no evidence, no proof,
Speaker 1: and no corroboration. They think that that's journalism. This is
Speaker 1: why I have so much contempt for CNN as an organization.
Speaker 1: There are reasons for it. I think it is justified.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think it is increasingly necessary to have
Speaker 1: contempt for them. Why is it that you and I
Speaker 1: knew that E. G. And Carol was full of it,
Speaker 1: and now everyone's backing away from it. Oh, I don't
Speaker 1: know a little. Okay, maybe now let's move on to
Speaker 1: the next one. Why did we know? Why did multi
Speaker 1: billion dollars CNN and the all these other newspapers that
Speaker 1: were covering this and giving her air time on their
Speaker 1: different on the different cable channels. Why couldn't they figure
Speaker 1: this out? But we could. Folks ask that question, and
Speaker 1: we all know what the answer is. The Supreme Will
Speaker 1: you put forward a nominee between now and the election
Speaker 1: if there's an opening out of Supreme Court? Would I
Speaker 1: do that? Of course, you have any recommendation. I have
Speaker 1: a good list. I have a good list already chosen.
Speaker 1: I have a beautiful list of great, very talented people. Absolutely,
Speaker 1: But do you square that with Mark Garland? No. I
Speaker 1: have a lot of respect for Judge Garland. By the way,
Speaker 1: I have to tell you that Trump says he would
Speaker 1: feel a Supreme Court vacancy if one came up before
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election. This was an interview today. It
Speaker 1: was actually The Hill did the interview and my old
Speaker 1: friend and colleague Sagar and Jetty it was doing the
Speaker 1: interview there with a The Hill's White House reporter um
Speaker 1: and they ask about the twenty twenty election and the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court vacancy, which, look, I don't think that this
Speaker 1: is going to come up, but it is an interesting
Speaker 1: exercise in what if. Because the election that we're heading
Speaker 1: into now is going to be I don't say that
Speaker 1: this is the most because every election is the most
Speaker 1: important election in your lifetime. And there's a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of nonsense around us. The election that we
Speaker 1: are heading into in terms of the frenzy on the
Speaker 1: left and the amount of just psychosis that will be
Speaker 1: on display and the people that will be screaming at
Speaker 1: the sky and marching in the streets and saying that
Speaker 1: Trump will literally destroy the world if he wins. Former
Speaker 1: years in office. I mean that it's gonna be like
Speaker 1: nothing we've ever seen before. Because remember when he was
Speaker 1: running against Hillary, Yes, they hated him, but they always
Speaker 1: thought that they were gonna get Like the joke was
Speaker 1: kind of on Trump the whole time because when the
Speaker 1: voting happened, Hillary was just going to crush him. And
Speaker 1: then all of his clownery and all of his nonsense,
Speaker 1: according to the Libs during the campaign, was just gonna
Speaker 1: be that it was gonna be. You know what, We're
Speaker 1: a waste, right, what a joke this guy is. There's
Speaker 1: just no need to take him seriously at all. But
Speaker 1: then he one. So now you've had Trump in office.
Speaker 1: He will have been in office for three years. When
Speaker 1: this campaign is really in full swing, we get into
Speaker 1: the general election and Libs have completely lost their minds.
Speaker 1: I mean, he broke them by winning the election and
Speaker 1: now has just continued to drive them deeper into the
Speaker 1: depths of insanity just by being president, and by being
Speaker 1: a pretty good president too. I mean, they won't ever
Speaker 1: admit that, but you and I know it's the case.
Speaker 1: Presidency's gone well. I have, you know, some complaints about it,
Speaker 1: but I would have complaints about any presidency. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not here to talk about perfection or just be
Speaker 1: a cheerleader for whoever's on my team, but overall it's good.
Speaker 1: I'm also here to be objective and honest about what's
Speaker 1: gone well as much as I possibly can. And they
Speaker 1: hate Trump even more because it's going well. But I
Speaker 1: bring all this up because going into this election cycle
Speaker 1: that we all know will be blonkers from just in
Speaker 1: every way and the way that the left is going
Speaker 1: to set this whole thing up. It will be a
Speaker 1: constant series of hyperbole and crisis and the world is ending,
Speaker 1: the sky is falling, anything anyone to stop Trump. Can
Speaker 1: you imagine, just for a moment, imagine that a liberal
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice. We don't have to speculate as to
Speaker 1: who it is because we don't know. It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: any of the liberals on the Supreme Court, let's say,
Speaker 1: for personal reasons had to step sep aside, you know,
Speaker 1: for health reasons, had to step aside from that role.
Speaker 1: I don't know how the country would be able to
Speaker 1: I mean the Libs, I don't know how they'd handle it.
Speaker 1: I think that there would be there would be people
Speaker 1: rending their garments and actually gnashing their teeth in the streets,
Speaker 1: like we're about to be hit by the space rock
Speaker 1: that would destroy all life. I mean, they would just
Speaker 1: completely lose it. And I know the arguments would be too.
Speaker 1: Oh were but Merrick Garland And there's this agreement about
Speaker 1: an election year. No, really, the agreement is that whoever
Speaker 1: has got the votes has the votes. I think we
Speaker 1: should all stop this pretense that there are binding agreements
Speaker 1: that Senators and members of Congress make to each other
Speaker 1: about the rules that they just come up with. That's
Speaker 1: not really the case, is it. Look this was all
Speaker 1: put in motion by Harry Reid, who decided that they
Speaker 1: were going to just start going bare knuckle to get
Speaker 1: judges through and people said at the time, Okay, if
Speaker 1: they're gonna go, if they're gonna go nuclear option, this
Speaker 1: is gonna become an arms race to get ideologically aligned
Speaker 1: judges on the bench, because we all know how important
Speaker 1: that is and how judges unfortunately play far too large
Speaker 1: a role in this country when it comes to policy
Speaker 1: and lawmaking and everything else. They're supposed to interpret law
Speaker 1: that's supposed to make law. Judges make law a lot
Speaker 1: in this country. Well, with all that stuff going on,
Speaker 1: you can just imagine the arguments they'll make and how
Speaker 1: they'll say, oh, you know, Merrick Garland. They still refer
Speaker 1: to the Kavanaugh seat as a stolen, stolen Supreme Court seat,
Speaker 1: as if it was owed or given to or bequeathed
Speaker 1: to Merrick Garland. And even seeing the recent decision that
Speaker 1: Gorsitch came down with the liberals to say that a
Speaker 1: gun a federal gun statute was too vague, which really
Speaker 1: bothered a lot of the conservatives on the court. Seeing
Speaker 1: the conservatives when they really believe the law is a
Speaker 1: certain way, even if that's not how they're ideological leanings
Speaker 1: would take them, they will go with the liberals on
Speaker 1: the court Liberals tend to just be in lockstep on
Speaker 1: this stuff, on any important policy matter that doesn't commiss
Speaker 1: down at all. Anyway. This is my way of telling
Speaker 1: you that Trump's saying that he'll fill a vacancy before
Speaker 1: twenty twenty doesn't mean all that much right now. But
Speaker 1: if we get to the point where this really happens,
Speaker 1: I don't know, it'll be the It'll be the ultimate
Speaker 1: shark Nado trumpethon world ending. I don't even know what
Speaker 1: you could call it. It would just it would be
Speaker 1: the craziest thing you've ever seen in politics. Because liberals
Speaker 1: will they've already lost their minds. So what's beyond losing
Speaker 1: their minds? What's what's crazier than totally nuts? That's where
Speaker 1: the Libs would go. If a Supreme Court vacancy opened
Speaker 1: up between now an election day and Trump filled it,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. President. Do not agree with their
Speaker 1: artitional parts, Like if Tenny sixteen couple again. They're a
Speaker 1: highly biased political machine um that is bent on never
Speaker 1: letting somebody like Donald Trump come to power again. Now,
Speaker 1: my old organizations top of mind. They've been working on
Speaker 1: it since sixteen to make sure saying I love her,
Speaker 1: but she is very misguided, like that will not make
Speaker 1: all these slaughter that we do will be charged with
Speaker 1: preventing the next situation. That was a senior executive at
Speaker 1: Google who you might have heard there. I know the
Speaker 1: audio was a little tough for a second, but said
Speaker 1: that they want to make sure they don't have another
Speaker 1: Trump like situation. This is a senior Google executive name
Speaker 1: Jen Jeni, and she is caught on audio here. This
Speaker 1: is all from Project Very Toss doing their undercover journalism.
Speaker 1: Jen Jeni of Google said the following. Elizabeth Warren is
Speaker 1: saying we should break up Google, and like, I love her,
Speaker 1: but she's very misguided, like that will not make it better.
Speaker 1: That will make it worse because all these smaller companies
Speaker 1: who don't have the same resource is that we do,
Speaker 1: will be charged with preventing the next Trump situation. It's
Speaker 1: like a small company cannot do that. Gingini is the
Speaker 1: head of the responsible innovation part of Google. That's what
Speaker 1: it's called responsible innovation, which yes, indeed does sound like
Speaker 1: an Orwellian name for department. It's like the department of
Speaker 1: niceness and good people. Why do you have to call
Speaker 1: it that? Responsible innovation of Google that monitors and evaluates
Speaker 1: the implementation of artificial intelligence technologies. And jen I goes
Speaker 1: on in this video which Project very Toss has posted today,
Speaker 1: and I believe I was seeing at least some chatter
Speaker 1: on social media suggesting that this was pull off of YouTube,
Speaker 1: which is owned by Google. So that's in a sense
Speaker 1: not surprising at all. But here's what here's what gingini
Speaker 1: on to say, quote, we all got screwed over in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. Again, it wasn't just us, it was like
Speaker 1: the people got screwed over, the news media got screwed over,
Speaker 1: Like everybody got screwed over. So we're rapidly been like
Speaker 1: what happened there and how do we prevent it from
Speaker 1: happening again. We're also training our algorithms like if twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen happened again, would we have would the outcome be different?
Speaker 1: The algorithms are not neutral. Not only they're not neutral,
Speaker 1: the algorithms are trying to push an agenda. There are
Speaker 1: human beings developing all these behind the scenes. These human
Speaker 1: beings are overwhelmingly progressive. They are left wing in their
Speaker 1: political ideology. They are working for companies that affect everything
Speaker 1: in your day to day life right now, all of
Speaker 1: the commerce that you're engaging in, all the communications, all
Speaker 1: the news, your email. I mean, maybe if you try
Speaker 1: really hard, you can avoid the reach of Google until
Speaker 1: you have to do an Internet search. And what are
Speaker 1: you really gonna go? You gotta go to Yahoo or
Speaker 1: dogpile dot com, ask Jeeves dot com. I remember that
Speaker 1: people thought that was gonna be a really big deal.
Speaker 1: I remember the early days of the internet. Asked Jeeves.
Speaker 1: That was fun. Turns out that now Google has a
Speaker 1: huge dominant share of search, and that is power that
Speaker 1: no other media company really has. When you type in
Speaker 1: anything you want to look up, the first hits that
Speaker 1: come up, and how it's presented to you and what
Speaker 1: is presented to you that determines what your interaction with
Speaker 1: information is A vast majority of the time. I forget
Speaker 1: what the statistics are, but this think about in your
Speaker 1: own data, their life. How often do you go to
Speaker 1: the second page of search results? I mean, unless you're
Speaker 1: really drilling down on something. If you type in, you know,
Speaker 1: barbecue in Austin, Texas, whatever's on that first page is
Speaker 1: probably going to be what you're gonna go check out.
Speaker 1: I know a lot of your like buck, I'm a
Speaker 1: native in Austin because I'm listening on KLBJ and I
Speaker 1: do not need Google to tell me the best barbecue.
Speaker 1: All right, that's fine, But I'm talking about for us
Speaker 1: East Coast folk when we go out to visit, do
Speaker 1: you then go deeper than the first page? Now, of
Speaker 1: course not, you go with whatever that Really it's the
Speaker 1: first few search results that most people focus on, and
Speaker 1: there's this assumption that whatever comes up is what should
Speaker 1: come up. And the truth is that, yeah, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of different metrics, and there's weighted averages and all
Speaker 1: this different stuff that goes into it, all this math
Speaker 1: and fancy fancy engineering, mumbo jumbo and all that. Right,
Speaker 1: but at the end of the day, there are people
Speaker 1: involved in this, and you know, how much of this
Speaker 1: stuff do we have to see before we realize that
Speaker 1: the Saragee Bryn and the other senior Google execs, who
Speaker 1: are they basically having a public cry session after Trump
Speaker 1: won the election and all this other stuff that keeps
Speaker 1: popping up about search engine bias and shadow banning and
Speaker 1: just there's so many ways to stack the deck. And
Speaker 1: the left is obsessed with this because I mean, I
Speaker 1: really do believe that when the arguments of the left
Speaker 1: are made as they are in real language that normal
Speaker 1: people can understand, not coded terms, and you know, oh
Speaker 1: it's all about choice. No, like, let's talk about what
Speaker 1: this really is. When the left has to make its
Speaker 1: case publicly and it can't hide, and it can't obfuscate,
Speaker 1: and it can't cheat, the American people will turn away
Speaker 1: from it. But when the left can have a dominant
Speaker 1: position in the culture, in now, the platforms, in the
Speaker 1: information dissemination, in our day to day instantaneous communication systems,
Speaker 1: when the left can control all of that, think of
Speaker 1: what that means for their ability to push ideas and
Speaker 1: as importantly to suppress ideas. Think about what that means
Speaker 1: when they can determine what the first thing is you
Speaker 1: see about a candidate on any given day. I mean,
Speaker 1: we are going into an election here, We are going
Speaker 1: into an election where the social media game of the
Speaker 1: various candidates is really do or die. I mean, the
Speaker 1: social media stuff is going to determine a large in
Speaker 1: large part who is able to get a bit ahead
Speaker 1: in the Democratic primary, and then of course in the
Speaker 1: general it's going to be a total free for all
Speaker 1: and we have this notion that we cling to, and
Speaker 1: I can understand why. It's just you would assume the
Speaker 1: way it's all been set up. Google's motto is don't
Speaker 1: be evil. And oh man, they're just a bunch of
Speaker 1: fun kids out in Silicon Valley sitting on beanbag chairs
Speaker 1: and getting sushi it's paid for them for lunch, and
Speaker 1: having meditation sessions out on the green. And now these
Speaker 1: are libs. These are progressives with a lot of money
Speaker 1: who are living in the one of the most radical
Speaker 1: left wing echo chamber regions in the country, which is
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley of the San Francisco Bay Area. It's the
Speaker 1: only place, the only metropolitan area in the country that
Speaker 1: by political affiliation, is more liberal than the swamp in Washington, DC,
Speaker 1: where I'm broadcasting to you from right now. And they
Speaker 1: think that they have not just the right and legally
Speaker 1: speaking right now, they do keep that in mind, but
Speaker 1: they believe that they have an obligation to the fundamental
Speaker 1: human rights and the fundamental leftist This is how it
Speaker 1: has to be mentality to make you think certain things
Speaker 1: and to change age your perception of the world around
Speaker 1: you so that it molds to the progressive orthodoxy which
Speaker 1: dominates the Democratic Party and which has had far too
Speaker 1: much leeway in the culture for a very long time,
Speaker 1: and increasingly dominance in the digital media culture. If they
Speaker 1: shut this stuff down, how do we how do we
Speaker 1: even fight back if they start to and how do
Speaker 1: we know what right do we have even to find
Speaker 1: out who Google is trying to help in the next election.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is why when people talk about
Speaker 1: campaign finance and all these ridiculous rules about oh, you know,
Speaker 1: you can only give this much money. It's some arbitrary number.
Speaker 1: You can't give that much money. A CNN is a
Speaker 1: giant in kind donation to the Democratic Party and whichever
Speaker 1: Democrat candidate at any time it decides should be the nominee.
Speaker 1: CNN is a giant, walking, talking Democrat National Committee donation.
Speaker 1: It is just giving money to the DNC, to the
Speaker 1: Democrat apparatus. But that doesn't get counted. When you know
Speaker 1: Anderson Cooper goes on TV at night and is always
Speaker 1: favorable to the Democrats and always nasty to the Republicans,
Speaker 1: undermine and then pretending he's neutral, that doesn't get tabulated.
Speaker 1: That doesn't get there's no cost profit and loss. That's
Speaker 1: done on this. No. Nothing. Now, I'm not suggesting there
Speaker 1: should be, but I'm also not somebody who runs around
Speaker 1: talking about how we need to get the money out
Speaker 1: of politics. We need to get this is we should
Speaker 1: have as much as possible as speech free for all
Speaker 1: out there, and I think the efforts to regulate speech
Speaker 1: generally backfire more than they help. But when you're talking
Speaker 1: about social media in the current era, what you have
Speaker 1: are companies that have the protections of platforms, but the
Speaker 1: politics and the editorial line of publishers, and beyond that,
Speaker 1: they're also dishonest about the fact that they're taking an
Speaker 1: editorial position on this that when they claim that dead naming,
Speaker 1: for example, on Twitter referring to someone who is transgender's
Speaker 1: former name is some horrible act that should be severely punished.
Speaker 1: Where is the where's the pushback on this or what
Speaker 1: can you really do? Well, you can stop okay, sure,
Speaker 1: you can stop using their platform. But this is how
Speaker 1: people communicate now, and this is why you start to say, well,
Speaker 1: could one company have bought up the phone lines and
Speaker 1: then when it came time for the election decided to
Speaker 1: switch off all the phones in areas that look like
Speaker 1: they were going to go republican or you know, is
Speaker 1: that okay? How much control over communications in this country,
Speaker 1: or private companies allowed to have. The FCC does all
Speaker 1: kinds of things. They got to approve mergers. And you've
Speaker 1: noticed they're trying to go after Sinclair again. They're going
Speaker 1: after Sinclair now, they say because of some sports channels
Speaker 1: or something. The Democrats are just targeting Sinclair because they
Speaker 1: don't want to win the debate. They want to be
Speaker 1: the only side in the debate. That's the leftist mentality.
Speaker 1: Why have to even deal with an opposition. It's just
Speaker 1: so much better, so much cleaner, so much easier to
Speaker 1: be the only position. And unless we get it together
Speaker 1: and see what's going on at places like Google right
Speaker 1: now and hold them to account. And yeah, maybe this
Speaker 1: means we either they either get broken up or we
Speaker 1: have to start conservative platforms. It can't mean just sit
Speaker 1: here and try to make the case about how we
Speaker 1: should have neutral, free speech and respect for all sides.
Speaker 1: And because we're just gonna lose on that, they're just
Speaker 1: gonna keep kicking us in the face. That seems to
Speaker 1: be the position. I see have a lot of conservatives
Speaker 1: who are of the never Trump mold, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we'll just make the case and eventually they'll come over
Speaker 1: to us. No they won't. We'll be right back offer anything.
Speaker 1: So that was just a little quick snippet which I'll
Speaker 1: read you the the transcript. Job it. But the Jessie
Speaker 1: Smallette video has come out, and this guy, look I
Speaker 1: have I have. I can tell you I have no
Speaker 1: sympathy whatsoever for this guy, because it's not enough that
Speaker 1: he pulled off the dumbest, most absurd hoax hate crime
Speaker 1: perhaps in the history of hoax hate crimes. It's it's
Speaker 1: not enough that he do that. Then he had the
Speaker 1: the sheer temerity, the gall to stand before the American people,
Speaker 1: in front of the press and hold a kind of
Speaker 1: imprompt impromptu press conference, where after his his friend essentially
Speaker 1: in the US attorney I mean in the state's Attorney's office,
Speaker 1: made this whole thing go away for him. Him, he
Speaker 1: thought it was acceptable to lecture the American people about
Speaker 1: how he didn't do anything wrong and everybody should have
Speaker 1: believed him. And then he knows himself and he knows
Speaker 1: who he is, and and then it was just too much.
Speaker 1: It was oj searching for the real killers after the
Speaker 1: unthinkably stupid verdict that found him not guilty, right, I
Speaker 1: mean it was it was similar in terms of just
Speaker 1: what a brazen, in your face liar. But the good
Speaker 1: news is Jesse Smallt's also an idiot. He's not a
Speaker 1: smart person, and he's not a disciplined person either. It's not,
Speaker 1: from what I can see on this video, a particularly
Speaker 1: good actor. That video has police entering his home. This
Speaker 1: is right after the attack because now the cops have
Speaker 1: let they've let the floodgates open. Man, they want people
Speaker 1: to see as much small let stuff as possible. They
Speaker 1: want everyone to see exactly what's going on here because
Speaker 1: Jesse threw them all onto the bus. You know, he
Speaker 1: was saying that the you know, he told him these lies,
Speaker 1: and they wasted all this time. This is in a
Speaker 1: city with a terrible homicide epidemic in Chicago. You have
Speaker 1: detectives waste over I think one hundred thousand dollars what
Speaker 1: they estimated of time on this case, man hours and
Speaker 1: everything else. And then what it's the system is racist
Speaker 1: and what's the explanation for this afterwards? It's it's absurd, absurd.
Speaker 1: Makes it seem like the cops were out to get him.
Speaker 1: You know, the cops were so sure that he's guilty,
Speaker 1: but they must just really be out and after him.
Speaker 1: So the police entered his home. There you have to
Speaker 1: see this video. It's amazing. I know we're on radio.
Speaker 1: It's I can't show you the video. But they enter
Speaker 1: his home and they say they see him and he's
Speaker 1: standing there looking utterly ridiculous with this noose that's around
Speaker 1: his neck that he left on his neck, that he
Speaker 1: says they put on him, and he says they poured
Speaker 1: bleach on him. And the police enters home. They say,
Speaker 1: do you want to take it off about the about
Speaker 1: the noose. He says, yeah, I do. I just wanted
Speaker 1: you to see it. They poured bleach on me. I
Speaker 1: don't want to be filmed, said the TV star. Those
Speaker 1: are all Those are all quotes from the except for
Speaker 1: the last thing from the video. Okay, if you had
Speaker 1: somebody throw a noose around your neck, I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: that the moment you weren't in that threat situation, you'd
Speaker 1: probably remove the noose from your neck. I don't think
Speaker 1: you'd walk up to your apartment and leave the noose
Speaker 1: on your neck, and that you would tell the cops.
Speaker 1: I wanted you to see it, like, see it on me.
Speaker 1: This is Jessie Duff protest too much about the noose
Speaker 1: that he clearly put around his own neck. Did you
Speaker 1: notice the material of the rope? Buck? Did that seemed
Speaker 1: like a little flimsy to you? Oh? Yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: when you think of a noose, like, there's certain things
Speaker 1: that entered my mind. And when I saw that, I
Speaker 1: was like, it look like shoelaces around his neck. Mike,
Speaker 1: think about how hard you would fight to stop somebody
Speaker 1: from getting a rope around your neck. I mean, theoretically
Speaker 1: this could be a lethal incident, right, I mean some
Speaker 1: of them strangle you. Right, They're gonna get this like loose,
Speaker 1: flimsy rope around you, and you're gonna leave it on
Speaker 1: and the only thing that you have on you is little,
Speaker 1: a little tiny scratch on your face. It was that
Speaker 1: easy to get this noose around your And I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just it's crazy, the whole thing. Man, It's it's
Speaker 1: but you have to the videos amazing because you're like,
Speaker 1: this is it's so stupid. It's hard to believe if
Speaker 1: Jesse Smollett was trying to if he was tasked as
Speaker 1: an acting exercise with coming up with the most absurd
Speaker 1: hate crime hoax possible. Really being in a situation where
Speaker 1: you'd say, there's no way something could be more ridiculous
Speaker 1: than this. I don't think he could do a better
Speaker 1: job than what we saw with this. It is so
Speaker 1: dumb that if you were trying to come up with
Speaker 1: a laughably false hate crime hoax. And yet, folks, how
Speaker 1: you know I said this from the beginning, I'm like, up,
Speaker 1: Jesse small Att, I don't buy it, Jesse small Att updates, Nope,
Speaker 1: doesn't add up. Story doesn't make any sense. And that
Speaker 1: was before we had the video and the tape. We
Speaker 1: knew the full I just knew the story didn't make
Speaker 1: any sense. As soon as you have the additional evidence,
Speaker 1: you realize how incredibly dumb this whole thing was. Media
Speaker 1: went forth, though, just like they went for Eejean Carol,
Speaker 1: because they're either enabled by their Trumped derangement syndrome or
Speaker 1: they're just so blinded by it that Trump arrangement syndrome
Speaker 1: turns the media into idiots. Ilhan Omar has gotten into
Speaker 1: trouble and recent months because of anti Semitic comments, but
Speaker 1: that's not the only thing that is bedeviling the congresswoman
Speaker 1: from Minnesota. There are some very troubling stories that are
Speaker 1: out there right now about a possible marriage fraud scheme
Speaker 1: involving Congresswoman Ilhan Omar. I've been reading about this, but
Speaker 1: not all over this story quite the same way as
Speaker 1: some of the intrepid reporters out there. And we've got
Speaker 1: one of them joining us now to tell us exactly
Speaker 1: what is going on. Tiana Lowe is with us. She's
Speaker 1: a commentary writer for the Washington Examiner. Thank you so much, Tianna.
Speaker 1: Great to have you. Thank you for having me. All Right,
Speaker 1: so walk us through this if you would please. What
Speaker 1: is the backstory here of exactly how ilhan Omar's marriage
Speaker 1: to her brother is a headline that I'm seeing now,
Speaker 1: So okay, what we know is this Alan Omar from
Speaker 1: two thousand and two to two thousand and eight was
Speaker 1: married in a feast tradition to a man named Ahmed Hersey.
Speaker 1: She says that in two thousand and eight they split
Speaker 1: in their faith tradition, and then she married this guy,
Speaker 1: Ahmed Elmi in two thousand and nine. And she says
Speaker 1: that although they did not legally divorce until twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: that they split up in their faith tradition in two
Speaker 1: thousand eleven, and then she reconciled with her first husband. However,
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of mounting evidence over the past
Speaker 1: three years that her marriage with Elmie was sort of
Speaker 1: a sham. So in twenty sixteen, she was originally running
Speaker 1: for state Congress. Local news outlets I think was Alfha
Speaker 1: News of Team screenshots that have since been deleted so
Speaker 1: I couldn't independently verify them that show her and Elmie's
Speaker 1: sort of referring to each other in a sibling like manner,
Speaker 1: and it contradicts what she says in her divorce decree,
Speaker 1: which she says that she had no way of contacting
Speaker 1: Elmie after summer of twenty eleven, but there are screenshots
Speaker 1: that show them in contact in a very friendly and
Speaker 1: casual manner from twenty thirteen twenty fourteen. So what I
Speaker 1: did is I went to Minnesota and I obtained traffic
Speaker 1: and petty misdemeanor violation records from the county courthouse that
Speaker 1: show that she and Hersey both reported living in the
Speaker 1: same Cedar Riverside home from two thousand through two thousand
Speaker 1: and eleven, and she was supposedly married to another guy,
Speaker 1: So it seems like it was a sham marriage. And
Speaker 1: if you believe the screenshop, it's take them at face value.
Speaker 1: They do imply that that Omar and Elmi are related.
Speaker 1: And now I would assume that there would be a
Speaker 1: pretty easy way to make this whole thing go away if,
Speaker 1: in fact, Ilhun Omar had not had not had a
Speaker 1: sham marriage and with her brother. I mean, that's where
Speaker 1: I think people go, way, what's going on here? But
Speaker 1: it's obviously for immigration purposes to try to EVADEI immigration laws.
Speaker 1: Assuming that's the case, why hasn't the Omar camp been
Speaker 1: able to just put this whole thing to bed. This
Speaker 1: shouldn't be hard. So that's the thing. There's a very
Speaker 1: realistic scenario in which a married couple divorces, and because
Speaker 1: the divorces have a couple and ofst and because finance
Speaker 1: and we're tight, that they would maybe still live in
Speaker 1: the same home, because because one person can't afford a
Speaker 1: new property. That if that was the case, they could
Speaker 1: have just come out with out of the story, you know.
Speaker 1: But the fact that she's being this evasive you know.
Speaker 1: So she's rejected to Washington Examiners requests for comment multiple
Speaker 1: times now, and she's she's you know, always sort of
Speaker 1: evaded the issue. She initially when the story first, when
Speaker 1: it first broke on power Line in twenty sixteens, all
Speaker 1: the way back during that Sea campaign, she first just
Speaker 1: accused the blog of engaging in Islam the soopia and
Speaker 1: racism and sexism, only then coming out and clarifying this
Speaker 1: messy timeline. But it's further complicated by the fact she
Speaker 1: also violated federal and state tax flog because she gurrently
Speaker 1: files her taxes in twenty fourteen and twenty fifteen with
Speaker 1: hercy while she was still legally married to another man. HM.
Speaker 1: So there's a tax component of this story too. What
Speaker 1: what do the statute of limitations? Do we know? Would
Speaker 1: that apply here for these for the immigration violation and
Speaker 1: also for the for tax stuff. I think that's a
Speaker 1: pretty long tale on that. Yeah, And the biggest thing
Speaker 1: I sento this does ELI appears that lever of the
Speaker 1: paion's citizenship um in the United States. However, if if
Speaker 1: the screenshots are authentic, and if people can find more evidence,
Speaker 1: it does seem like she Omar could have perjured herself
Speaker 1: during her divorce by saying that she had no means
Speaker 1: of contacting Elmie after two thousand eleven. Then our attempts
Speaker 1: to get eight default divorce in which is basically a
Speaker 1: single party divorce, and it seems like that was not
Speaker 1: the case. Um. Again, all of this wouldn't be fish.
Speaker 1: Marriages are complicated things, and usually I would say that
Speaker 1: someone's personal life, but if a public figure and no
Speaker 1: matter of public concerns, um. In this case, we're talking
Speaker 1: about multiple violations of the law from you know, the
Speaker 1: campaign finance violations, the tax policy violations, the potential purkery curses,
Speaker 1: and then maybe something heard with immigration. And also that's
Speaker 1: the fact that she's lied not only to you know,
Speaker 1: the public, specifically to your own constituents about this. And
Speaker 1: what would we need to have to find out definitively,
Speaker 1: you know, what are the missing pieces of either evidence
Speaker 1: or testimony? What what would you need to know to
Speaker 1: finally nail this thing down? Is there is there something
Speaker 1: that you're hoping to get So it would be interesting
Speaker 1: to see what the North Dakota records say. Offer her
Speaker 1: outlets to report it on the North Dakota records. Um,
Speaker 1: that implied that will also live in together there. I'd
Speaker 1: tendently verify that. But from all of it, um, I mean, honestly,
Speaker 1: it's just a matter of this. There's any way to
Speaker 1: obtune records proven, um, you know, not just screenshots proving
Speaker 1: that she was in contact with Tomie. And it's just
Speaker 1: a it's a difficult thing because you know, until her
Speaker 1: own party and until we have members of immedia start
Speaker 1: oppressing her for answers about this, she could have continue
Speaker 1: to avoid it. All right, Well, Tianolo at the Washington Exam,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for telling us what's going on here.
Speaker 1: If you get some definitive answers, please come back and
Speaker 1: let us know if if in fact, this thing is
Speaker 1: what we think it is. Thank you, all right, team,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. The show ain't over yet, folks,
Speaker 1: keeping it real. It's time for Roll Call up up um,
Speaker 1: all right, team, fantastic to have you here with me
Speaker 1: for Roll Call purposes. As always, Facebook dot com, slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. If you want to be a part of
Speaker 1: Roll Call, that's all you have to do. It is
Speaker 1: very easy, it is very very straightforward. So let's getting
Speaker 1: right to it show? Shall we stan right? The vitamin
Speaker 1: D sweet spot and its relationship to aging. He sent
Speaker 1: me a video and he says that if you want
Speaker 1: the best part, you gotta go check this out. Four
Speaker 1: thousand iu s has been proven in studies to reduce
Speaker 1: genetic aging, has fifteen hundred functions of your body. Seventy
Speaker 1: percent of Americans are deficient in vitamin D. Stan. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you work for the vitamin D lobby
Speaker 1: or what, but you know, I don't know what to
Speaker 1: tell you about this vitamin D situation. I just read
Speaker 1: the studies that are out there. I don't get and
Speaker 1: I don't have any particular knowledge or expertise about this stuff.
Speaker 1: Mesa right buck listening to you talk about the Netflix documentary,
Speaker 1: the way they are, the way they see us, or
Speaker 1: I think it's when they see us. You should watch
Speaker 1: the second episode they find a way to blame Trump.
Speaker 1: I couldn't take it anymore and moved to a different show.
Speaker 1: I tried the movie Slasher, supposed to be a thriller
Speaker 1: about a serial killer, turns out to be a movie
Speaker 1: about how a normal white American family is evil and
Speaker 1: a Muslim family is the victim of the white families
Speaker 1: and oh yeah, there's a serial killer in it. Not
Speaker 1: saying there aren't any evil people in the world of
Speaker 1: any race, but it's so obvious with the media and
Speaker 1: entertainment are trying to do here. Just about had it
Speaker 1: with Netflix. If you can stomach it, try Slasher Well
Speaker 1: after that review, I don't know if that's gonna, you know,
Speaker 1: get me to watch it. I think that's probably unlikely. Angela,
Speaker 1: all right, buck, Hey, I watched the Senate hearing today
Speaker 1: with Google. Do you think this will make a difference
Speaker 1: in our elections and the bias on conservatives? Angela, I
Speaker 1: don't know. I do know. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: radio hosts who will always tell you they do know,
Speaker 1: even when they don't. But I don't know. I think
Speaker 1: that this issue of social media censorship is incredibly complicated.
Speaker 1: There are very strong arguments in different directions about what
Speaker 1: to do about it. I just know we're at a
Speaker 1: huge disadvantage, and if we don't figure this out, or
Speaker 1: if we don't fight back effectively the ways that the
Speaker 1: left will be able to control debate, discussion and politics
Speaker 1: going forward, we can just begin to understand how much
Speaker 1: control they will really have of the dialogue of the
Speaker 1: discourse Steve Right, Hey Buck mentor drop us to you yesterday.
Speaker 1: My favorite rum, it's a touch pricey at forty five
Speaker 1: dollars here up in New Hampshire. More for sipping than
Speaker 1: mixing or just throwing a few back, is ron z
Speaker 1: a ka ron Zakapa. What can I say other than
Speaker 1: damn tasty z a c a p a crafted in Huatemala.
Speaker 1: Zakapa rum is a work of art. All right, I'll
Speaker 1: check this out out. You guys are really coming at
Speaker 1: me with all the rum suggestions here, and let's see
Speaker 1: Steve Bright's quick movie comparison. Gladiator is a great movie.
Speaker 1: Check out. It's nineteen sixty four four runner Fall of
Speaker 1: the Roman Empire. Richard Harris, who played Marcus Aurelius in
Speaker 1: two thousand, was offered the role of Commodus in the
Speaker 1: sixty four movie. Huh yeah, Richard Harris died. I know
Speaker 1: that a few years ago. He was pretty old and
Speaker 1: he was good as Marcus Aurelius. He was also Dumbledore
Speaker 1: initially in the Harry Potter movies, which I've never read
Speaker 1: the Harry Potter books, and I've only seen one Harry
Speaker 1: Potter movie. So all this Harry Potter stuff I've just
Speaker 1: picked up from the culture. I don't have any real
Speaker 1: Potter knowledge. And then as for Commodus in the sixty four,
Speaker 1: it would be very interesting fall of the Roman Empire. Huh.
Speaker 1: I'll have to check it out, Mica. All right, mister Buck,
Speaker 1: thank you for your voice. I look forward to it
Speaker 1: every day. I just wanted to point out that Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi sure got quiet about impeachment. Since the bar report
Speaker 1: has been pushed back until next month, I expect to
Speaker 1: hear more about impeachment about a week before the Bar
Speaker 1: report drops. Speak loud for all of us, because we
Speaker 1: need your voice shield, hie. Mica, Well, thank you so much, Mika.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to speak loudly for everybody. Make sure that
Speaker 1: we get all the important stuff out there. David Rights,
Speaker 1: don't get sidetracked on a Netflix series. Keep up your
Speaker 1: great work on the current events we're facing today. I
Speaker 1: listened to the podcast every day, your spot on take
Speaker 1: Care all right, Dave, Well, thank you. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't think I'm getting two sidetracked on it, but there
Speaker 1: are much broader themes in that Netflix series. When they
Speaker 1: see us or the way they see us or whatever
Speaker 1: it is. It's much more than just that series. It's
Speaker 1: the forty million dollar judgment paid out by the City
Speaker 1: of New York. It's the narrative that the media has
Speaker 1: concocted now of a racist NYPD and the systemic racism
Speaker 1: of it. And that was the real That was the
Speaker 1: real problem in the nineties and the late eighties in
Speaker 1: New York City. Not the horrific murder rate and all
Speaker 1: the rapes and all the burglaries and break ins and
Speaker 1: muggings and beatings. No, the problem was the systemic racism,
Speaker 1: you see, that was the problem. It's a horrible thing,
Speaker 1: the falsehoods that are peddled by the mainstream Media's really
Speaker 1: really is Hey, Buck, this is from Bill regarding your
Speaker 1: radio show on June twenty fourth. You spoke about people
Speaker 1: taking control of their medical needs. You also mentioned changing
Speaker 1: conventional wisdom in the medical field. You should check out
Speaker 1: doctor Varner dot com. His views are extremely similar to yours. Well, Bill,
Speaker 1: I will check him out. I mean, because I'm somebody
Speaker 1: who really I've thought long and hard about this, and
Speaker 1: I've had to deal with the medical system and a
Speaker 1: couple of different capacities in my day, and I'm always
Speaker 1: I'm always astounded when you go to a doctor they
Speaker 1: charge you as a lot of doctors in New York
Speaker 1: don't take insurance, which I don't know how much of
Speaker 1: that you see in other parts of the country, but
Speaker 1: in New York City, the top, a lot of the
Speaker 1: top doctors won't take any insurance. You show up and
Speaker 1: they just they give you a bill and you can
Speaker 1: shibit it to your own insurance. But you'll walk in
Speaker 1: and you'll say, hey, I have you know I had.
Speaker 1: I was getting chronic headaches for a while, for example,
Speaker 1: just horrible debilitating headaches was actually happening for a while
Speaker 1: while I was doing the radio show. But radio is
Speaker 1: always an escape from it. Even when I had the pain,
Speaker 1: and the ability of the medical community to really help
Speaker 1: you and you have debilitating headaches is is just shockingly flimsy.
Speaker 1: I mean, they really don't have much for you. But
Speaker 1: you'll go in and they'll spend seven minutes with you,
Speaker 1: and then you'll get a bill for eight hundred dollars
Speaker 1: or a thousand dollars just to talk to them, and
Speaker 1: they haven't helped you, haven't done anything for you. And
Speaker 1: I know you say, well, Buck, you can't be based
Speaker 1: on whether they cure people or not. You're paying for
Speaker 1: the service, And yeah, but doesn't have to be. Isn't
Speaker 1: there just some sense of professional pride in Hey, I
Speaker 1: want to I want to help people and not just
Speaker 1: take their money because I have this dential And they
Speaker 1: get to wait for thirty minutes to spend five minutes
Speaker 1: with me. After waiting two weeks or a month, they
Speaker 1: get an appointment. You know, isn't there shouldn't it be
Speaker 1: a little bit more than just yeah, give me, give
Speaker 1: me my money, and you know, sorry, you're suffering. I look,
Speaker 1: I think modern medicine has a long, long, steep climb
Speaker 1: ahead of it. I'm way less impressed by it than
Speaker 1: I was when I was growing up. It seems like
Speaker 1: there's very little. There's very little that they well, I
Speaker 1: should say it's very little they can fix. There's a
Speaker 1: lot they can't fix. Though that feels like it should
Speaker 1: be fixable. Let's see here we have. I know I
Speaker 1: have these very antagonistic views of modern medicine. Michelle writes one,
Speaker 1: he's a broad rick. She was the first woman. Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton bit the lip of and raped Jennifer Flowers was
Speaker 1: his girlfriend. The Energizer is his new girlfriend. Sadly, he
Speaker 1: looks like he really really needs a boost right about now.
Speaker 1: Michelle writes about Bill Clinton. Think Jennifer Flowers. I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure she accused him of sexual assault. Michelle and one
Speaker 1: need a broad Rick also accused Let let me see,
Speaker 1: I might I might have that wrong, but I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure she was also somebody that because there was more
Speaker 1: than one there's more than one woman. Yeah, no, she
Speaker 1: also accused him. Bill. Didn't she accuse him of sexual assault? Or?
Speaker 1: Am I crazy? Um? Bill Clinton testified he had a
Speaker 1: sexual kind of Flowers. I'm trying to make sure I
Speaker 1: get this right. Um, oh no, that's I guess. Uh yeah, no,
Speaker 1: you're right. I think it's you're I guess it's um
Speaker 1: I had that. I had that baggards one need a
Speaker 1: broad rick. Jennifer Flowers was his girlfriend. Okay, well that's
Speaker 1: one need a broad rick? All right, Well learn something
Speaker 1: to him? Thank thanks for the correction there, Am I bad? Um? Well? Team? What? Oh?
Speaker 1: Do we have time for one more? Let me see here? Sorry,
Speaker 1: I was doing a little bit of Wikipedia in real
Speaker 1: time there to make sure is Wikipedia even correct. Who
Speaker 1: knows people rely on it way too much because it's
Speaker 1: just so easy. Well, this is this is a long
Speaker 1: Christian passage. Thank you for sending it to me, Laura,
Speaker 1: but I cannot read it on the air up Unfortunately
Speaker 1: we are at time today for the show. I would
Speaker 1: appreciate you all hanging out with me. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Tomorrow we'll have a fantastic show in preparation for the
Speaker 1: Democrat debates. Until then, she'll tie