Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The twenty twenty battle
Speaker 1: lines are drawn socialism versus capitalism, Sanders and others versus Trump.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is now in the mix. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: what this means for the conversation for the presidential election
Speaker 1: coming up, and also updates on McCabe's tour of trying
Speaker 1: to reevaluate and redo his reputation and Jesse Smollett. We
Speaker 1: got updates on that too coming up on The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Mag Noo, mistake America, You're a great American Again.
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show begins now. First of all, I
Speaker 1: wanted to let the people to say Vermont know about
Speaker 1: this first. And what I promised to do is as
Speaker 1: I go around the country is to take the values
Speaker 1: that all of us in Vermont are proud of, belief injustice,
Speaker 1: in community, in grassroots politics and town meetings. That's what
Speaker 1: I'm going to carry all over this country. I think
Speaker 1: the current ocument of the White House is an embarrassment
Speaker 1: to our country. I think he is a pathological lawyer.
Speaker 1: Every day he is telling one lay or another, and
Speaker 1: it gives me no pleasure to say that. But I
Speaker 1: also think he is a racist, a sexist, a homophobe,
Speaker 1: a xenophobe, somebody who is gaining cheap political points by
Speaker 1: trying to pick on minorities off an undocumented immigrants. Bernie
Speaker 1: Standers is running out, that's right. First of I think
Speaker 1: he missed his time. But I like Bernie because he's
Speaker 1: he is one person that you know on trade, he
Speaker 1: sort of would agree on trade. I'm being very tough
Speaker 1: on trade. He would solf and trade. The problem is
Speaker 1: he doesn't know what to do about it. We're doing
Speaker 1: something very spectacular on trade. But I wish Bernie well.
Speaker 1: It'll be interesting to see how he does. I think
Speaker 1: what happened to Bernie maybe was not so nice. I
Speaker 1: think he was taking advantage of he ran great four
Speaker 1: years ago and he was not treated with respect by Clinton,
Speaker 1: and that was too bad. I thought what happened to
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders four years ago was quite sad as it
Speaker 1: pertains to our country. So we'll see how he does.
Speaker 1: You get a lot of people running, but only one
Speaker 1: person's going to win. I hope you know who that
Speaker 1: person is. Good bye, everybody. Oh yeah, welcome to the
Speaker 1: Buck Saxon Show. Everybody. President Trump never lacking in confidence,
Speaker 1: and you can tell he doesn't even phaze him that Bernie.
Speaker 1: And I don't like this version of Bernie. I like
Speaker 1: the one who's all the millionaires and the billionaires and
Speaker 1: we're gonna make everybody can free this and free that.
Speaker 1: Then it's gonna be unicorns and rainbows. It's gonna be amazing,
Speaker 1: and only super rich people are gonna pay. I don't
Speaker 1: like the Bernie that's talking about how Trump is so
Speaker 1: evil and bad and that's not fun Bernie. And unfortunately
Speaker 1: that's where the Democratic Party is, and you get a
Speaker 1: sense of one Trump realizes that they're just gonna throw
Speaker 1: so much it's not even worth him responding all that
Speaker 1: much to it. Although I know the Trumpster is gonna
Speaker 1: he's gonna put out some haymakers on Twitter. Here, he's
Speaker 1: gonna he's gonna lay down the lay down the pain
Speaker 1: on Twitter for bat candidates as he as he deems fit.
Speaker 1: But there's also this little crossover between and I remember
Speaker 1: it from the primary, between Bernie Sanders and Trump voters.
Speaker 1: Because the Democratic Party on trade and on immigration has
Speaker 1: has sold out the working class, and Bernie Sanders knows this.
Speaker 1: And it's really the far left of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: that supports Bernie Sanders that on this one issue has
Speaker 1: a whole lot more sense than the establishment than the
Speaker 1: kind of Hillary Clinton. Now Corey Booker, Kamela Harris Wing
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party, Kamela, by the way, came out.
Speaker 1: She was asked about this straight up. Are are you,
Speaker 1: because she's a top contender on the Democrat side, are
Speaker 1: you a socialist? Here is what she said, Play fifteen.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders describes himself as a Democratic socialist to compete
Speaker 1: in New Hampshire in the Democratic primary, Jeff to move
Speaker 1: more toward the Democratic socialist part of the party. Well,
Speaker 1: the people of New Hampshire will tell me what's required
Speaker 1: to compete in New Hampshire. But I will tell you
Speaker 1: I am not a Democratic socialist. Also, I think that
Speaker 1: answer is kind of weird that people will tell you
Speaker 1: what is required to compete there. No, I think you
Speaker 1: tell them what your ideas are and then they vote.
Speaker 1: I don't think that. I think that she got a
Speaker 1: little but I digress. But she's not a Democratic socialist.
Speaker 1: He says, Well, that's interesting because her party is a
Speaker 1: party of democratic socialism. This is what people don't want
Speaker 1: to say in the media. They don't want to go there,
Speaker 1: but it has happened. I think that Bernie Sanders as
Speaker 1: much as he's probably too old to be doing this
Speaker 1: or why is that so wrong to say there's a
Speaker 1: constitutional restriction on being too young to run for president.
Speaker 1: I know we don't have one for being too old,
Speaker 1: but I also think the founding fathers probably never foresaw
Speaker 1: somebody who is going to be eighty in their first
Speaker 1: year as president. I don't think they thought that was
Speaker 1: a thing. But why is it? Why is that unfair?
Speaker 1: It wasn't an unfair conversation. It hasn't been an unfair
Speaker 1: conversation in previous elections. And I think that Sanders is
Speaker 1: right at the if not beyond the red line, right
Speaker 1: at the red line, for there's a certain degree of
Speaker 1: energy and just day to day vitality that you're going
Speaker 1: to need to do this job. And Sanders may have
Speaker 1: missed his window. In fact, I think that Sanders feels
Speaker 1: from his supporters a a push into the into the
Speaker 1: race because they know that Warren is a non starter.
Speaker 1: Warren was supposed to pick up the torch, you know,
Speaker 1: take up the mantle of Bernie Sanders going into twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's gonna happen. I think I think
Speaker 1: Warren is Her brand is just too damaged. It's too silly.
Speaker 1: Corey Booker with his IRB Spartacus. You know, the Democrats,
Speaker 1: they may they may warm up to him. I think
Speaker 1: that Corey Booker and producer Mike we can mark this
Speaker 1: one down. If you're asking me right now, who's gonna
Speaker 1: win the Democratic nomination, I think it's Corey Booker. Really,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna chi, yeah, yeah, I'm gonna change this a
Speaker 1: bunch of times, and we'll play whichever prediction is right
Speaker 1: down the line, and we'll just pretend like the other
Speaker 1: ones didn't happen, because you know radio. But right now,
Speaker 1: if somebody, somebody tried to turn nail me down, I'd
Speaker 1: I'd say Corey book He's got the media, the elite left,
Speaker 1: the establishment, they all like him. And I think that
Speaker 1: he could play reasonably well in Pennsylvania, in Ohio, in
Speaker 1: those states. So you know, Kamala Harris just doesn't have
Speaker 1: the doesn't have the retail politics skills. He pulled ahead
Speaker 1: of Hillary. For you who Hillary, I said, Booker, He's
Speaker 1: pulled ahead of Hillary. Huh in your hollow. I'm starting
Speaker 1: to walk. I'm starting to walk back from my She's
Speaker 1: running again. I think it's too crazy, even for her.
Speaker 1: Although you see that there's a crazy I don't put
Speaker 1: anything past the Clinton Michael. You know they they actually
Speaker 1: have a speaking engagement. I think in DC and I
Speaker 1: saw this. It could I didn't verify this, this could
Speaker 1: be fake, but you can get a I'm being serious.
Speaker 1: I did see a flyer for how you can get
Speaker 1: a great deal to go here Bill and Hillary Clinton speak.
Speaker 1: The tickets are they are originally two hundred dollars and
Speaker 1: now they're like one hundred and fifty or something, right,
Speaker 1: So they're gonna have to bust people in. They're gonna
Speaker 1: pay them. Yeah, No, no one cares anymore. The Clinton say.
Speaker 1: This is why that when people talk about Trump and
Speaker 1: Moscow and the tower and all this stuff, the Clinton
Speaker 1: corruption is so brazen and so outlandish and so obvious
Speaker 1: that all these people, all these journo firefighter types out
Speaker 1: there in the journalist world who act like they care
Speaker 1: so much about conflicts of interest and the emoluments clause.
Speaker 1: The Clintons ran a multi billion dollar influenced peddling empire
Speaker 1: out of the open, pretending that it was a charity
Speaker 1: and the press had no interest in digging into what
Speaker 1: was really going on here. Fifty million dollars spent on
Speaker 1: private jet travel, a private jet travel for the Clinton Foundation.
Speaker 1: Fifty million. You know, nobody, nobody, uh can fly commercial.
Speaker 1: They oft to fly private, the Clinton Foundation anyway, don't
Speaker 1: even don't even get me started. I mean, that's why
Speaker 1: the people that are making all this noise about Trump
Speaker 1: and his dealings overseas, and at least Trump's running a
Speaker 1: business where people get a product, they buy an apartment,
Speaker 1: or they buy a stake or whatever it is. With
Speaker 1: the Clintons, you buy the perception of power. That's all
Speaker 1: that they were selling. But let me get back into
Speaker 1: the Democrat race here, because you know, Kamala Harris is
Speaker 1: making this calculation that the Democratic Party is not yet
Speaker 1: a fully owned subsidiary of Bernie ink and the whole
Speaker 1: left wing democratic socialism wave. And I think she's wrong,
Speaker 1: and I think Bernie Sanders recognizes this, which sets up
Speaker 1: a truly a truly and I mean this word a
Speaker 1: people overuse it epic, but an epic political showdown in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty over the future of the country. This is
Speaker 1: not John Carrey versus George Bush, which was kind of,
Speaker 1: let's be honest, kind of a potato potato. I know
Speaker 1: people are gonna get mad at me for saying that
Speaker 1: it's reality. This is Do you want a capitalist who
Speaker 1: approaches day to day issues with common sense the way
Speaker 1: a normal person would President Trump? Or do you want
Speaker 1: a pie in this guy democratic socialist who thinks climate
Speaker 1: change is an urgent national security threat, that redistributing wealth
Speaker 1: makes people wealthier and it makes the country wealthier. And
Speaker 1: that's a real choice. And whether it's Bernie Sanders or
Speaker 1: another Democrat, I think that sanders Ism has one in
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party and it's not just going to be
Speaker 1: for the primary. I think that we are facing a
Speaker 1: question as a nation as to whether we are going
Speaker 1: to become a socialist country. Now Trump has stated, thank
Speaker 1: Hammin's We're never going to be a socialist country, and
Speaker 1: I hope he's right, and I know he's fired up
Speaker 1: about this. But let's understand that Bernie, Hillary and Bernie
Speaker 1: in that line election that was meaningful for what the
Speaker 1: opposition is going to be that we face. Hillary represented
Speaker 1: that old Democrat party of the media props you up
Speaker 1: a lot of pay to play, a lot of access
Speaker 1: the establishment, and kind of this rickety, unsteady coalition of
Speaker 1: all these different groups identity politics groups and all the
Speaker 1: rest of it unions, and Hillary was just sitting atop
Speaker 1: of that. Sandersism for the country is socialism is massive
Speaker 1: government spending is crippling you and your business with taxation
Speaker 1: and regulation, all with the promise that what you're going
Speaker 1: to get they call it Medicare for all. But let
Speaker 1: me tell you something, we'll be lucky if it's even
Speaker 1: Medicaid for all. And anyone with any familiarity about the
Speaker 1: Medicaid program knows you do not want to be on
Speaker 1: it if you have a choice. Doctors don't take it.
Speaker 1: Top hospitals won't see you. There is a cost to
Speaker 1: this that the Democrats that the Bernie Sanders wing will
Speaker 1: not tell you about. They pretend that this is all
Speaker 1: just going to be better if it wasn't, because if
Speaker 1: it wasn't for those greedy, mean capitalist Wall Streeters Republicans.
Speaker 1: Even the Wall Street is a Democrat stronghold now they
Speaker 1: don't like the Wall Street is a Democrat subsidiary now.
Speaker 1: But I think Goldman Sachs was the single biggest contributor
Speaker 1: to Hillary Clinton. I forget the exact staff, but it
Speaker 1: was one of the biggest contributors to Hillary Clinton's campaign
Speaker 1: of any private company might have been number one. But
Speaker 1: Bernie's Bernie's approach here is going to be the Democrat approach.
Speaker 1: So even if Sanders is too old, even if he
Speaker 1: can't win, even if he's not able to get through
Speaker 1: this incredible field of clowns that the Democrats have put forward,
Speaker 1: his ideology I think is going to be the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party's ideology. Play eighteen. Many of the ideas that I
Speaker 1: talked about, Medicare for all, raising the minimum wage to
Speaker 1: fifteen dollars an hour, making public colleges and universities tuition free,
Speaker 1: all of those ideas. People say, oh, Bernie, they're so radical,
Speaker 1: they are extremely American. People just won't accept those ideas. Well,
Speaker 1: you know what's happened to over three years. All of
Speaker 1: those ideas and many more and now part of the
Speaker 1: political mainstream. They are part of the Democratic Party mainstream.
Speaker 1: That is not a point that can be refuted. The
Speaker 1: Democrats have embraced this stuff. They have. They have seen
Speaker 1: the twenty two trillion dollars in debt. They've seen government
Speaker 1: in action over the course of decades to bloat, the corruption,
Speaker 1: the waste, to fraud, the abuse to spending, the regulations,
Speaker 1: the crushed dreams of business, businesses and entrepreneurs and innovators.
Speaker 1: And they've seen all that. And their answer is more taxation,
Speaker 1: more regulation, a bigger state, heavier chains on all of us.
Speaker 1: That's their answer to this. And I think if we
Speaker 1: just look around our own hemisphere, we see what can
Speaker 1: happen when a government of social justice warriors decides that
Speaker 1: the wealth should be redistributed first and foremost, that is
Speaker 1: the single most important thing that the government can do.
Speaker 1: This does not end well for us, my friends. This
Speaker 1: means also that not only is four more years of
Speaker 1: Trump going to be at stake, with all of his
Speaker 1: policies and promises and an agenda that I very much
Speaker 1: support and have signed on for for a long time now,
Speaker 1: but also the choice is not Trump or your run
Speaker 1: of the mill democrat. The choice is Trump or socialism.
Speaker 1: That's what we face. That is what has been said
Speaker 1: in motion right now, so get ready for the fight,
Speaker 1: my friends. We'll be right back. And so as the
Speaker 1: United States stands up for democracy in Venezuela, we reaffirm
Speaker 1: the solidarity with the long suffering people of Cuba and
Speaker 1: Nick Ruckle and people everywhere living under socialists and communistry.
Speaker 1: And to those who would try to impose socialism on
Speaker 1: the United States, we again deliver a very simple message.
Speaker 1: America will never be a socialist country. We are born
Speaker 1: free and we will stay free now and forever. I
Speaker 1: certainly hope the President's right. I know he'll do his
Speaker 1: part to fight so that he is. But we are
Speaker 1: at a at a real moment of us as a nation,
Speaker 1: as a people, the tide of socialism is rising. Yes,
Speaker 1: there is at least an opportunity here for the entire
Speaker 1: Western hemisphere to look at what's going on in South
Speaker 1: America and say, okay, well, clearly Venezuela has gone down
Speaker 1: a very wrong path. But you only need you only
Speaker 1: need one administration to come along in this country and
Speaker 1: impose reckless socialist policies and do a tremendous amount of damage,
Speaker 1: damage that I don't know if we ever really recovered
Speaker 1: from as a country. Keep in mind, China is becoming
Speaker 1: a near peer competitor. Some would argue it already is
Speaker 1: a near peer competitor. It's got a lot more people
Speaker 1: than us, it has some advantages built in with its
Speaker 1: industrial capacity because of well obviously the lack of environmental
Speaker 1: regulations and it's predatory trade practices. So I don't think
Speaker 1: that America can be asleep at the wheel as an
Speaker 1: economic powerhouse for eight years without suffering real consequences. You
Speaker 1: put somebody like Bernie Sanders and o'cazio Quartez is too young,
Speaker 1: I know, But why is she getting so much attention?
Speaker 1: Why is it that the left is holding up this
Speaker 1: absolute ignoramus as the premier Democrat voice in the nation,
Speaker 1: which has been the case for the last couple of months.
Speaker 1: Ocazio Quartez has more sway. I think she I saw
Speaker 1: something that said that she might be in the top
Speaker 1: five most interacted with Twitter accounts in the world, of
Speaker 1: all of them, I know, I think she's in the
Speaker 1: top ten for sure. It might have been the top five.
Speaker 1: O'casio Cortez has greater cultural media and political sway than
Speaker 1: anybody else in the party right now, and she doesn't
Speaker 1: know a thing about a thing. She just represents the trappings,
Speaker 1: the appearance, the facade of a socialist future, which is
Speaker 1: why she is so wildly popular with the left in
Speaker 1: this country that thinks that now that we don't have
Speaker 1: some major war on the horizon, and we're wealthy, and
Speaker 1: things have been going well in this country for at
Speaker 1: least a couple of years, but overall, obviously for decades,
Speaker 1: things that have been going very well in America financially.
Speaker 1: Now is the time for them to say, you know what,
Speaker 1: let's just put the brakes on all that and let's
Speaker 1: fundamentally bar from Obama here, fundamentally transform not just the
Speaker 1: way the American economy operates, but the purpose of the
Speaker 1: American economy, which is not to create wealth, but in
Speaker 1: a Sanders socialist dystopia, it will be to redistribute it.
Speaker 1: He's holding the line for America. Bug Sexton is back,
Speaker 1: Can you be a democratic socialist and a capitalist? Well,
Speaker 1: I think it depends on your interpretation. So there are
Speaker 1: some democratic socialists that would say absolutely not. There are
Speaker 1: other people that are democratic socialists that would say, I
Speaker 1: think it's possible. What are you I think it's possible?
Speaker 1: I think you say do. So I'm a capitalist, but
Speaker 1: I don't say that. Okay, you know, if anything, I
Speaker 1: would say, I'm I believe in in a democratic economy.
Speaker 1: But gotcha. But the but is there so so in
Speaker 1: some ways, whether it's you're coming from say Elizabeth Warren's
Speaker 1: perspective where she says, you know, she says things like,
Speaker 1: I'm a capitalist, but we need to have hard rules
Speaker 1: for the game. What does the private sector do better
Speaker 1: than you know that the private Look, government should stay
Speaker 1: out of X because the private sector does that better. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think there's a lot of things. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of consumer goods where the private sector works. And by
Speaker 1: the way, if it's important to delineate that just because
Speaker 1: you're in the private sector does it. You can be
Speaker 1: in the private sector and be a democratically socialist business.
Speaker 1: Worker cooperatives are a perfect example of that. Okay, So yeah,
Speaker 1: you gotta. I just wanted to give you a sense
Speaker 1: of what the Democratic Party it gets excited about and
Speaker 1: you're hearing it there now. I also go back and
Speaker 1: forth as to how much I want to just go yeah,
Speaker 1: like I mean like it totally like democratic and I
Speaker 1: know that anybody can do that. So it's a little
Speaker 1: bit of fun once in a while. But I do
Speaker 1: think we have to take this seriously. Even to call
Speaker 1: them ideas, and to take these ideas seriously might be
Speaker 1: giving them too much credit in a sense, because it's
Speaker 1: really more emotions. It's really more an impulse, a feeling
Speaker 1: of if only we were able to have the government
Speaker 1: making more decisions, there would be less poverty in America.
Speaker 1: There would be more fairness, which is a very easy
Speaker 1: to abuse term, which we will remember with Obama. Pay
Speaker 1: fair share, right, You're gonna pay your fair share. That
Speaker 1: was always the pitch from Obama himself, and the Democrats
Speaker 1: are embracing this emotion based economics, which I think is
Speaker 1: very troubling because it is superficially appealing. If you think
Speaker 1: about this, Yeah, you know, I feel badly when I
Speaker 1: see a poor person on the street. Really, if if
Speaker 1: we just pay a little bit higher taxes we want
Speaker 1: to have poor people on the streets. The answer to
Speaker 1: that is no. But you can see how people if
Speaker 1: they're told this enough, and if they're told that climate
Speaker 1: change is an existential threat to the nation, that all
Speaker 1: these things that the Democrats have the advantage of a
Speaker 1: media apparatus that just pushes the propaganda all the time.
Speaker 1: It's easy for someone who's just trying to live his
Speaker 1: or her life and go through their day to day
Speaker 1: to say, yeah, you know, Sweden's not so bad, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe Bertie Sanders should run for mayor of Sweden,
Speaker 1: but or mayor of Stockholm. But he's running for president
Speaker 1: of the United States. It's a different job. We are
Speaker 1: different than these other countries because of the underlying philosophy
Speaker 1: we have about the relationship between citizen and state and
Speaker 1: the boundaries the individual rights that we all enjoy that
Speaker 1: the state cannot cross. Once it's all about what's good
Speaker 1: for the collective, then it's just a question of who's
Speaker 1: in power to determine what that collective good may be. Democrats,
Speaker 1: of course, view this as them If they're in power,
Speaker 1: they know what's the best for all of us, and
Speaker 1: so what that means they're going to do to you
Speaker 1: as an individual doesn't really matter. This is where you
Speaker 1: get into the troubling and eventually catastrophic deterioration of individual
Speaker 1: rights that happens in a statist society when the state
Speaker 1: makes all determinations, makes all decisions for you, this leads
Speaker 1: down pathways that are very dark in our history, I mean,
Speaker 1: and in recent history. I mean, you just look at
Speaker 1: the history of the twentieth century and you don't want
Speaker 1: and I'm not just saying, oh, Nazi Germany and the
Speaker 1: Soviet you get no. No No, I mean, look at any
Speaker 1: country that's gone increasingly that has left the direction of
Speaker 1: free markets and freedom and gone toward state control authoritarianism.
Speaker 1: And people say, well, Buck, look at China, and they says, yeah,
Speaker 1: China has become more and more free market. China was
Speaker 1: a dogmatic communist state that is now a kind of
Speaker 1: communist capitalist hybrid. You know, it's an authoritarian state based
Speaker 1: on an economic model of really almost mercantilism too, especially
Speaker 1: when you look at what it's doing abroad. So if
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about these matters, we should at
Speaker 1: least try to do so with some accuracy, if we
Speaker 1: can't even get into specificity. But o'casio cortez I doesn't
Speaker 1: know about any of this stuff. All she knows is
Speaker 1: there are people who are upset, they feel like they're
Speaker 1: left out. There's a concentration of wealth in what feels
Speaker 1: like very few hands, even though the overall concentration of
Speaker 1: wealth for the American people is much greater than it was,
Speaker 1: and that the two income trap, which is something I
Speaker 1: want to address again on this show. That's a problem.
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of a lot of things to
Speaker 1: unpack in that. It is true that people were able
Speaker 1: to raise at least in the American middle class. You
Speaker 1: were able to raise a family on one income more
Speaker 1: comfortably in the fifties than you could today. But there's
Speaker 1: a lot to look at as to why that's the
Speaker 1: case and what government policies today and then influence those economics. Remember,
Speaker 1: we do not exist. We are not a free market country.
Speaker 1: We aspire to free market, we aspire to be a
Speaker 1: purely capitalist society, but there's a lot of regulation and
Speaker 1: politics and red tape and government intrusion in the marketplace.
Speaker 1: You know, it would be fascinating if I could just
Speaker 1: get an answer to whether o'casio Cortez has read Hyak
Speaker 1: The Road to Serfdom. In fact, I would even take
Speaker 1: it a step further. I would want to know of
Speaker 1: marks and angles. There are so many people you find
Speaker 1: on the left that borrow their ideas, they borrow liberally
Speaker 1: from marks and angles. But do they really understand the text,
Speaker 1: Have they really learned to history, Do they know what
Speaker 1: the heck they're talking about, or do they just pick
Speaker 1: and choose the parts of it that they think will
Speaker 1: get them applause from Slate and Vox and the New
Speaker 1: York Times editorial page and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: I think that there's very little understanding on the left
Speaker 1: of the mechanisms of state control in the economy. They
Speaker 1: just know that power is good. They're the good people.
Speaker 1: If they're in power, good things will happen. And the
Speaker 1: only people that will will suffer are the enemies of
Speaker 1: the left, the rich, white male patriarchy. That's that's essentially
Speaker 1: the enemy, the enemy. And if you fall into any
Speaker 1: of those categories, male, rich, white, you know there there's
Speaker 1: criticism that comes along just with that. Even if you're
Speaker 1: poor and white and male, you're part of the patriarchy.
Speaker 1: You're part of this of this hierarchy. Even if you're
Speaker 1: you know, if you're a minority who is conservative, you're
Speaker 1: part somehow you're you're also part of this hierarchy of oppression.
Speaker 1: But we have to take these ideas seriously. They are
Speaker 1: popular in a vacuum they're popular when people first hear
Speaker 1: about them. If you want free healthcare, yeah, I want
Speaker 1: free healthcare. Sounds great. Well, do you know what you're
Speaker 1: gonna pay for that free healthcare? No, no idea someone
Speaker 1: else is gonna pay. Not true. That is a lie
Speaker 1: they always tell us about Trump slies. I want to
Speaker 1: make sure that we focus on and we spread the
Speaker 1: truth across the country about the lies that the left
Speaker 1: relies on for its political philosophy to work, that the
Speaker 1: left needs as part of its foundation, those lies, the
Speaker 1: lies of socialism. We will stay on that. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. Maduro is not a Venezuelan patriot. He is
Speaker 1: a Cuban puppet. That's what he is. We seek a
Speaker 1: peaceful transition of power, but all options are open. If
Speaker 1: you choose this path, you will find no safe heart,
Speaker 1: no easy exit, and no way out. You will lose everything. Yo,
Speaker 1: there you have Trump. There you have Trump talking about
Speaker 1: what's going on in Venezuela, which you made. Say to yourself, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, how much do we really care about what's
Speaker 1: happening in Venezuela. It's not our country, it's there, it's
Speaker 1: you know, for them to figure out for them to deal. Well,
Speaker 1: there's obviously a tie into what we see going on
Speaker 1: in this country right now, because while the Democrats here
Speaker 1: like to talk a lot about the socialism as it
Speaker 1: is practiced in countries like Norway and Denmark and Sweden,
Speaker 1: socialism in our own hemisphere has a long and storied
Speaker 1: history of catastrophic failure, and Venezuela is just the most
Speaker 1: noticeable current example of that failure. But there are many
Speaker 1: others as well. Cuba, for example. You look at the
Speaker 1: friends that the Majuro regime has, and one thing that
Speaker 1: binds them together is they are left wing socialist dictatorships
Speaker 1: or quasi dictatorships. I mean, you look at what's going
Speaker 1: on in Nicaragua. That's what binds them together. That they
Speaker 1: have essentially embraced an economic philosophy and economic system that
Speaker 1: just does not work. And when you start to extrapolate
Speaker 1: from a situation in Venezuela for what's going on in
Speaker 1: this country, I know that democrats are gonna, oh, they're
Speaker 1: gonna say, you know, it's so unfair and look at well,
Speaker 1: look at Denmark. Don't look at Venezuela. Denmark has very
Speaker 1: high taxes in the middle class. They're not going to
Speaker 1: be able to get around this. Denmark is not a
Speaker 1: country where the state has a tremendous amount of control
Speaker 1: over the economy. The state just provide services in response
Speaker 1: or you know, resulting from or that that are only
Speaker 1: possible because of very high income taxes on everybody. So
Speaker 1: that's that's the model that they talk about, is only
Speaker 1: possible if the middle class in this country pays sixty
Speaker 1: percent income tax. What you have in Venezuela is when
Speaker 1: you add social justice into the mix, right, the social
Speaker 1: justice rhetoric of class warfare, of different you know, ethnicities
Speaker 1: being lumped together by the state, treated differently because of
Speaker 1: the state. Look at the native populations in Venezuela. Look
Speaker 1: at the way that you know, there's different ethnic conflict
Speaker 1: and different ethnic back and forth in Venezuela, just like you.
Speaker 1: Every country in the world has this, and it's just
Speaker 1: a question of degree. There's always some sense of a
Speaker 1: class structure that's in place of different ethnicities within that country.
Speaker 1: Even if you know they're all speaking a similar language,
Speaker 1: with the same language either there's still are these breakdowns.
Speaker 1: But Venezuela has some of these similarities with the left
Speaker 1: in America that we need to be very aware of,
Speaker 1: and also the way that Democrats approach governance, the way
Speaker 1: that democrats view setting prices, for example, for determining what
Speaker 1: you can pay. That was one of the big downfalls
Speaker 1: for the Venezuela and E comedy was that the Venezuelan
Speaker 1: government said, there are greedy profiteers who are making too
Speaker 1: much money by producing home appliances. So Maduro's regime came
Speaker 1: along and said, okay, if you're selling appliances, now you
Speaker 1: have to sell them for this amount of the equivalent
Speaker 1: of dollars, right, whatever, whatever the Venezuelan paso is, you
Speaker 1: have to sell it for this amount. And the problem
Speaker 1: with that is, well, now these factories or these businesses
Speaker 1: that are importing and selling can make a profit. Well,
Speaker 1: now it's you must be greedy. So we'll just take
Speaker 1: over your factory and the government will run it. This
Speaker 1: is Chavez did this, Venduro did this. That's really getting
Speaker 1: closer to true socialism, which is government control of the
Speaker 1: means of production as well as the distribution of goods.
Speaker 1: You don't have this in Denmark, in Sweden, in Norway,
Speaker 1: in fact, in those countries, not only do you have
Speaker 1: a very high tax burden on all citizens everybody. You
Speaker 1: also have a pretty les a fair economy when it
Speaker 1: comes to businesses, meaning that they're allowed to operate in
Speaker 1: ways that are very free market based. They have to
Speaker 1: pay high taxes, but they are allowed to innovate, they
Speaker 1: are allowed to operate with less regulation even than our
Speaker 1: own economy. I know, people, and look, there are differences
Speaker 1: between Norway, Sweden, and Denmark were throwing them all in.
Speaker 1: I know this is true of Denmark and anybody who
Speaker 1: spends any time studying their economy. So if we're going
Speaker 1: to make an apples to apples comparison about different components
Speaker 1: of an economy today, let's do that. Let's see what
Speaker 1: went wrong in Venezuela, because there are lessons for our
Speaker 1: own economy. And it's not enough to just say, well,
Speaker 1: they did socialism badly. Sweden does socialism right? Well, how
Speaker 1: does Sweden do it right? If you even believe that,
Speaker 1: how do Sweden provide social services in the way that
Speaker 1: it does that are as effective as it does? And
Speaker 1: what did Venezuela do wrong? And what you find is
Speaker 1: that the American left, we already are much closer to
Speaker 1: Sweden and much closer to Norway than the Libs are
Speaker 1: willing to admit. We already have fifty percent of healthcare spending, folks,
Speaker 1: fifty percent when you add Medicare and Medicaid and all
Speaker 1: these other and the VA and all these other programs,
Speaker 1: is government spending. So when we talk about Medicare for all,
Speaker 1: you know, when you look at the amount of money
Speaker 1: that's already going through the system, the government plays a
Speaker 1: huge role in that. It's government spending. And they're really
Speaker 1: just talking about closing it up all together and making
Speaker 1: the government a charge of all of it, going to
Speaker 1: a single payer system. But we're pretty close to that
Speaker 1: as it is, and we have healthcare costs spiraling out
Speaker 1: of control and delivery of services feels like it's getting
Speaker 1: worse and slower, at least to me, in the last
Speaker 1: five years. I do think that I think the healthcare
Speaker 1: system has gotten worse in the last five years, and
Speaker 1: that's just from my own experience in it, in dealing
Speaker 1: with it. And they could tell me Obamacare has made
Speaker 1: it better. I don't believe they, being Democrats, I don't
Speaker 1: believe them. And I could point to all the different studies,
Speaker 1: in all the different ways that they're wrong, But for them,
Speaker 1: it's really more about what they view as fair to
Speaker 1: borrow from Bernie Sands, it's about pana facie. So they
Speaker 1: want people to do what is fair, not necessarily what
Speaker 1: is most efficient, what is the smartest, what is the
Speaker 1: best thing for our economy? And this is why the
Speaker 1: Venezuela example right now, and that's why Trump is focusing
Speaker 1: in on it. Yes, I think he's going to get
Speaker 1: a foreign policy win in dealing with Venezuela. That's a
Speaker 1: part of this, no question about it. But I also
Speaker 1: think that by highlighting Venezuela and what has happened there,
Speaker 1: it shows us it is a cautionary tale for a
Speaker 1: government that had the best intentions or at least use
Speaker 1: the kind of he eric that would appeal to a
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders rally. And this is why there's some Bernie bros.
Speaker 1: Out there. The only people you see who are defending
Speaker 1: Maduro is the far left in this country. The only
Speaker 1: people who say that we shouldn't meddle, we shouldn't be
Speaker 1: involved in this at all that I see at least
Speaker 1: are far left Democrats because they have a kind of
Speaker 1: fellow traveler sympathy for the efforts of the Chavista revolution
Speaker 1: and how it has now been taken on by Maduro.
Speaker 1: They feel like they're trying. They tried really hard to
Speaker 1: make it better. They just failed. But there's a sympathy
Speaker 1: on the left for this because the idea of an
Speaker 1: economy that is too stratified, the elites getting richer and
Speaker 1: doing better all the time, and the and the working
Speaker 1: class just getting the raw into this deal and all
Speaker 1: this this is right out of the social justice playbook
Speaker 1: in this country. And so this is why there's also
Speaker 1: much less talking the press about how people are starving
Speaker 1: right now in Venezuela and it's a catastrophe, it's a
Speaker 1: failed state, and yet not nearly as much focus on
Speaker 1: this as, for example, the media's outrage over Jesse Smollett,
Speaker 1: which we're going to follow up and talk more about
Speaker 1: later on in this show. So stay right there, team,
Speaker 1: we'll be back. Team. I like to bring you perspectives
Speaker 1: from people who actually understand what's going on at the border,
Speaker 1: and that sometimes involves actually going to the border. We
Speaker 1: have somebody who's been doing some great work all this
Speaker 1: issue for quite a while. John Davidson of the Federalist
Speaker 1: joins US now. He's a senior correspondent for the Federalist.
Speaker 1: He has an excellent piece why a wall alone can't
Speaker 1: fix the emergency on the US border. He was just
Speaker 1: down in El Paso, Texas looking at this issue last week. John,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for making the time for us. Thanks
Speaker 1: for having me. All right, So tell me what you know.
Speaker 1: Anybody who I think understands the borders, who knows that
Speaker 1: a wall is it is not a panacea. It is
Speaker 1: a piece in a larger puzzle. And your written piece
Speaker 1: here you identify what else needs to be done, what
Speaker 1: the rest of the problem set looks like. Here, tell
Speaker 1: me a bit about what's going on with migrants and
Speaker 1: families that are coming to claim asylum and their view
Speaker 1: of the border right now. Sure, the simplest way to
Speaker 1: put it is that we don't have a border crisis
Speaker 1: or a border security crisis. We have an asylum crisis.
Speaker 1: So the vast majority of the problems coming from the
Speaker 1: border right now, besides the problems of drugs and cartel activity,
Speaker 1: which has been going on for years and years. But
Speaker 1: what's new is the Central American families and unaccompanied miners
Speaker 1: that are showing up and turning themselves in to the
Speaker 1: border patrol and claiming asylum. There's no amount of border security,
Speaker 1: of border fencing, of more border patrol agents, of technology
Speaker 1: that can style that because it's not a problem with
Speaker 1: our physical infrastructure, our physical security. It's a problem with
Speaker 1: our policy infrastructure. It is a problem with our laws
Speaker 1: because when these families and unaccompanied minors show up on
Speaker 1: the south side of a border fence and turn themselves
Speaker 1: into the border patrol, it's not a security question. The
Speaker 1: wall is not stopping them from doing that. And I
Speaker 1: think that's what gets lost in our debate. A lot
Speaker 1: of times people think on the right, a lot of
Speaker 1: people think, well, we need more more physical barriers, we
Speaker 1: need more at border security and border agents, so that
Speaker 1: we may need those things, but we don't need those
Speaker 1: things to stop people who are coming here to claim asylum. One.
Speaker 1: I've actually done the exercise John of speaking to senior
Speaker 1: people in Immigrations and Customs enforcement and saying, Okay, let's
Speaker 1: let's do this thought experiment. I show up at the border,
Speaker 1: I say the following, and my intention is to stay
Speaker 1: in the United States, and I go through this process.
Speaker 1: If I have base acknowledge of what the process is
Speaker 1: and I say the right things, What are the chances
Speaker 1: that I will be released without without any meaningful monitoring
Speaker 1: or accountability in the United States right now? And they've
Speaker 1: told me it's one hundred percent, which I think people
Speaker 1: need to understand that if people show up as a
Speaker 1: family unit at the border and they understand, as you
Speaker 1: point out, the legalities of the system right now, they
Speaker 1: have a sure shot of being released in the US
Speaker 1: interior unless they have a criminal record or a known
Speaker 1: cartel member or something. That's right. That's right. And the
Speaker 1: people who do have criminal records and know that that's
Speaker 1: not going to work for them, those are the people
Speaker 1: who are crossing trying to cross the border without being detected.
Speaker 1: But that's a very small number compared to the people
Speaker 1: who are crossing the border who want to be detected.
Speaker 1: And here's another thing to keep in mind. But I
Speaker 1: don't know that a lot of Americans who haven't been
Speaker 1: to the border realized this. The border walls, the fencing
Speaker 1: is not on the border. It's entirely withinside the United States.
Speaker 1: It's on US soil. So the northern side of the
Speaker 1: fences on US soil, on the southern side of the
Speaker 1: fences on the US soil. And that's for very practical reasons.
Speaker 1: Border patrol agents have to be able to access both sides.
Speaker 1: Oftentimes they set atop of levy. They need to be
Speaker 1: able to clear debris and do maintenance. So the fences
Speaker 1: on US soil. So if you show up on the
Speaker 1: south side of the fence, you've already entered illegally into
Speaker 1: the United States. Okay, you already here, and you're going
Speaker 1: to be taken into custody. If you have children with
Speaker 1: you and you know what to say, you're absolutely right,
Speaker 1: and the Border patrol people you spoke with are absolutely right.
Speaker 1: It's almost certain you're going to be released after a
Speaker 1: few days, with an appointment to appear before an immigration judge,
Speaker 1: maybe an ankle monitor around your ankle, and then sent
Speaker 1: off to go wherever it is that you're going to.
Speaker 1: And I have to tell you as well, every single
Speaker 1: adult I've talked to you on the border who's crossed
Speaker 1: in has a place they're going somewhere in the United States.
Speaker 1: It could be they're going to all points in the
Speaker 1: United States. They know people that have networks in place.
Speaker 1: Some people already have jobs lined up. And if you
Speaker 1: talk to them long enough, they'll tell you that they're
Speaker 1: coming here to work and send money home to the
Speaker 1: rest of their family that's back in Central America. Which right,
Speaker 1: and I always try to tell everyone will listen. This
Speaker 1: doesn't make anybody a bad person, but it does mean
Speaker 1: that the immigration laws that we have are being exploited.
Speaker 1: Because asylum is supposed to be for people that cannot
Speaker 1: be in their home country because they're likely to be
Speaker 1: tortured and or killed. It's not I want a better job,
Speaker 1: because if it's I want a better job, then we
Speaker 1: effectively have open borders. Now now, yeah, absolutely right. You
Speaker 1: can hardly blame these people for trying to get into
Speaker 1: the United States. They're trying to do right by their children.
Speaker 1: They're trying to get ahead. If I were in their position,
Speaker 1: I would probably do the same. And if I knew
Speaker 1: that there were holes in the immigration an asylum system
Speaker 1: that could be exploited, I would probably exploit them. I
Speaker 1: think it's important to note that the countries they're coming from, Honduras,
Speaker 1: El Salvado or Guatemala are often dangerous places. They're impoverished,
Speaker 1: But very few of these people are going to meet
Speaker 1: the definition of a political asylum, political assilee or a
Speaker 1: resugee that we have in US law, and the vast
Speaker 1: majority of them do not get asylum status. If you
Speaker 1: look at the rates at which asylum is granted to
Speaker 1: its people in this country, it's a small number. But nevertheless,
Speaker 1: they know if they claim a credible fear and if
Speaker 1: they begin the asylum proceedings, and they can get into
Speaker 1: the country and be released on their own recognisance. And
Speaker 1: that's what's happening in mass and it's tying up all
Speaker 1: the time and resources of the border patrol agents all
Speaker 1: along the US Texas border. Pretty much all they do
Speaker 1: now is pick large groups of people up and transport
Speaker 1: them and process them, and all the other things the
Speaker 1: border patrol is supposed to be doing fall by the wayside.
Speaker 1: We're speaking of John Davidson. He's a senior correspondent for
Speaker 1: The Federalist. Tell me about the part of your piece
Speaker 1: for you where you get into the dangers here, because
Speaker 1: I think that that's all been overlooked by much of
Speaker 1: the media that just finds the whole crossing process. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people in the press are just
Speaker 1: favorable to people coming into the country using the asylum laws.
Speaker 1: However they can. I think that they don't see anything
Speaker 1: bothersome about this. But even if one takes the position
Speaker 1: that we should just let in whoever wants to come in,
Speaker 1: there are risks with the system right now. Safety risks,
Speaker 1: that's right. There's significant safety risks to traveling over the
Speaker 1: border with children, you know, and some of these are
Speaker 1: small children as well, toddlers. Even I saw a number
Speaker 1: of people with toddlers with four or five six year
Speaker 1: old kids, and then teenagers who are traveling by themselves,
Speaker 1: and it is dangerous, especially the farther you get from
Speaker 1: urban centers and populated areas. And what they are finding
Speaker 1: now are that some of the most remote border stations
Speaker 1: out in the New Mexico Boothill are having these very
Speaker 1: large groups. In some cases, hundreds of people emerge from
Speaker 1: the desert and turn themselves in mass into border patrol
Speaker 1: forward operating basis that may only have four or five
Speaker 1: border agents on hand. Well, that presents a huge logistical
Speaker 1: challenge for those agents, in part because they have to
Speaker 1: assess the condition of hundreds of people that have just
Speaker 1: shown up in the middle of the night, in the
Speaker 1: middle of the desert, when it's in the forties or
Speaker 1: in the thirties. It's very cold. They have no idea
Speaker 1: how long these people have been traveling for, they have
Speaker 1: no idea what condition they're in. And then they have
Speaker 1: to wait hours and hours to get transport out there,
Speaker 1: to transport them to facilities that can process them, that
Speaker 1: can house them, that can feed them and assess their
Speaker 1: medical needs. And this is why we had two children
Speaker 1: die in December who showed up at remote New Mexico
Speaker 1: border patrol stations. You know, by the time they realized
Speaker 1: something was wrong, it was too late, you know. And
Speaker 1: again I think this comes from a lack of understanding
Speaker 1: what the borders actually like. It's very remote in places,
Speaker 1: that's very dangerous walking across miles of desert for days,
Speaker 1: sometimes weeks. These people have been traveling and showing up
Speaker 1: in the middle of the night is a dangerous thing
Speaker 1: to subject children to. And it's a wonder we haven't
Speaker 1: had more tragedies on the border than we have given
Speaker 1: the volume of people they're showing up. Now, speak to
Speaker 1: me about how the Mexican drug cartels play into the
Speaker 1: play into this whole situation and the human smuggling component. Yeah,
Speaker 1: a lot of times that's something that Americans don't connect.
Speaker 1: The entire cross border migrant phenomenon is being directed and
Speaker 1: controlled and profited off of by Mexican drug cartels. The
Speaker 1: cartels are not really drug cartels anymore. They are highly
Speaker 1: sophisticated international criminal organizations with unlimited resources at their disposal,
Speaker 1: and they have figured out a way over the past
Speaker 1: decade or so to monetize illegal immigration and human smuggling.
Speaker 1: So every person who crosses the border, whether it's an
Speaker 1: adult or a teenager or a child, has to pay
Speaker 1: a certain amount of money, anywhere from two to six
Speaker 1: or seven thousand dollars. Now, when you have thousands of
Speaker 1: people coming across the border every day, last Monday, we
Speaker 1: had eighteen one hundred people cross and turn themselves in,
Speaker 1: traveling in family units. Every single one of those people
Speaker 1: paid between two and six thousand dollars a person. Let's
Speaker 1: say the average was four thousand dollars. Well, that's more
Speaker 1: than seven million dollars that went into smugglers hands just
Speaker 1: last Monday. That is all money that is controlled and
Speaker 1: funneled into the drug cartels that are profiting off of
Speaker 1: this cross border traffic and facilitating it and encouraging it.
Speaker 1: It's actually a lot easier away for them to make
Speaker 1: money than trafficking drugs, and they're engaging in it for
Speaker 1: the same reason. It's profit and there's a lot of
Speaker 1: profit to be made. I really also thought it was
Speaker 1: important for context here the quote in your piece of
Speaker 1: that according to the DA the financial resources of the
Speaker 1: four cartels put together, if they were a country, the
Speaker 1: financial resources of the four Mexican drug cartels would be
Speaker 1: one of the top ten richest countries in the world. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's amazingactly, and I don't think people quite realize that.
Speaker 1: You know, we're not the only actors on the border.
Speaker 1: We have border patrol agents, we have customs and border
Speaker 1: protection officers. In some places, we have you know, the
Speaker 1: US Army, we have local law enforcement. But on the
Speaker 1: south side of the border, you have profit driven organizations
Speaker 1: that have enormous incentives to get people up to and
Speaker 1: across the border and to get illegal drugs across the border.
Speaker 1: And they are very sophisticated. They are have twenty four
Speaker 1: to seven operations all up and down the border, and
Speaker 1: not just on the south side of the border. They
Speaker 1: have networks and people on the north side of the
Speaker 1: border and all throughout the United States. And I think
Speaker 1: that you can't think about and talk about and debate
Speaker 1: the migrant crisis problem without talking about the role of
Speaker 1: the cartels, and very few media outlets will leave it
Speaker 1: acknowledge that the cartels are playing a role. John, before
Speaker 1: I let you go, I know this is quite a
Speaker 1: thing to drop at the end of interview. But how
Speaker 1: do we fix this? Well, I think we have to
Speaker 1: stop focusing on a border wall, and we need to
Speaker 1: start looking at how we fix our asylum laws, how
Speaker 1: we streamline our asylum and immigration laws, and how we
Speaker 1: kind of rationalize them and tailor them to fit the
Speaker 1: challenges that we're actually facing. I agree that we need
Speaker 1: more border security in some places to stop illegal drugs
Speaker 1: and to stop people coming in who are trying to
Speaker 1: evade border patrol. But the crisis is really about these
Speaker 1: families that are turning themselves in in mass and a
Speaker 1: wall is not going to fix that. We need book
Speaker 1: and it's going to be I mean for this year,
Speaker 1: based on the numbers I'm saying, we're talking about hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of people. Yeah, that's right. This year. If
Speaker 1: if this keeps going the way it's been going the
Speaker 1: first couple of months of the year. This year will
Speaker 1: be by far the biggest year for families and teenagers
Speaker 1: turning themselves in. Yeah, everybody, this problem is only going
Speaker 1: to keep getting bigger and bigger, so we're gonna keep
Speaker 1: following it. John Davidson, Man, great work. Really appreciated your peace.
Speaker 1: Everyone should go read it on the Federalist dot com. John,
Speaker 1: thanks so much, Man, Come back anytime. Thanks for having
Speaker 1: me team. We'll be right back. AARP is a well
Speaker 1: known organization for seniors, but what's not nearly as well
Speaker 1: known is that it's pretty left wing. And do you
Speaker 1: want to belong to a progressive organization that fought tooth
Speaker 1: and nail for a government run healthcare system and that
Speaker 1: scripted portions of White House speech is behind closed doors
Speaker 1: under the Obama administration to help the passage of Obamacare. No,
Speaker 1: that's why you want amac. AMAC was founded by an
Speaker 1: Air Force veteran and is all all about getting you
Speaker 1: value and discounts while also supporting what you care about.
Speaker 1: Making this country safe for future generations when it comes
Speaker 1: to our entitlement programs, when it comes to border protection,
Speaker 1: when it comes to our economy, that's what you believe,
Speaker 1: and that's what AMAC believes. And stand with AMAC as
Speaker 1: they fight the good fight. Join right now at AMAC
Speaker 1: dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us slash buck.
Speaker 1: AMAC is better, better for you, better for America. That
Speaker 1: was on the president's mind. Then the President made those
Speaker 1: public comments that you've referenced both on NBC and to
Speaker 1: the Russians, which has captured in the Oval Office. Put together,
Speaker 1: these circumstances were artakable facts that indicated that a crime
Speaker 1: may have been committed. President may have been engaged in
Speaker 1: obstruction of justice in the firing of Jim Comey. I
Speaker 1: don't believe there is a crisis of confidence in the
Speaker 1: leadership of the FBI. I suppose there's somewhat self serving,
Speaker 1: and I apologize for that. You know, it was completely
Speaker 1: within the President's authority to take the steps that he did.
Speaker 1: We all understand that McCabe is very shady, folks. The
Speaker 1: more he goes on this book tour, the former acting
Speaker 1: FBI director, the more we see a slimy self dealing
Speaker 1: deep stater in action and it doesn't hold up. It
Speaker 1: doesn't make sense. I'm not surprised that this guy is
Speaker 1: facing federal charges for lying to his own home agency
Speaker 1: to the Bureau, because this stuff does this stuff does
Speaker 1: not add up. I mean. He was also asked about
Speaker 1: whether or not, or rather, why is it that his
Speaker 1: firing or the firing rather of Komi. Why is it
Speaker 1: that Rowenstein, for example, was part of this. Rosenstein was
Speaker 1: part of firing Komy. But then McCabe and Rosenstein and
Speaker 1: all these other guys are completely freaked out when Komy
Speaker 1: gets fired. Rosenstein wrote a letter to get Komy fired.
Speaker 1: Just does anyone want to dig in on this a
Speaker 1: little bit? Also on the issue of sourcing, And this
Speaker 1: is what I was thinking about a moment ago. McCabe
Speaker 1: was asked today. I think it was on the view
Speaker 1: about whether he had ever been a source for The
Speaker 1: New York Times on any of these things. And you know,
Speaker 1: he was pushed on this issue. And the problem is
Speaker 1: that Komy has already said that he never authorized anyone.
Speaker 1: Comey said he never authorized any to be a source
Speaker 1: on these issues to the press. McCabe says that he
Speaker 1: is authorized to interact with the press, and when pushed
Speaker 1: on that, McCabe says, well, I don't know why Komy's
Speaker 1: recollection is different from mine. This is what he said.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know why we have a different recollection.
Speaker 1: And he was under a lot of stress, and he
Speaker 1: was really tired and had a lot going on at
Speaker 1: the time. Now, to anybody listening, this should be a
Speaker 1: slap in the face because we've seen that the FBI,
Speaker 1: the Special Counsel, they don't make allowances for I was
Speaker 1: really tired. They don't make allowances for you know, I
Speaker 1: had a lot going on, and I told you the
Speaker 1: wrong thing. No, what happened. What happened was you got prosecuted.
Speaker 1: Right if you said something that was untrue, that was
Speaker 1: or the facts were contradictory to your recollection. If you're
Speaker 1: a papadopolis, if you're any of these guys, you go
Speaker 1: to prison, they prosecute you. So why should the standard
Speaker 1: for the people making those decisions be different. Why should
Speaker 1: we accept that McCabe and Komy and others should be
Speaker 1: allowed to throw everyday citizens, normal folks in prison for
Speaker 1: being tired and misremembering. You know, and where are all
Speaker 1: the truth the truth sleuths out there that we've been
Speaker 1: hearing from. Oh, you know, why did this Trump person lie?
Speaker 1: Why did that Trump person lie, you know, why did
Speaker 1: Roger Stone or why did General Flynn or Papadappas they
Speaker 1: get on these guys, And I keep saying, first of all,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're talking without a lawyer present to
Speaker 1: any of these FBI guys and they want to jam
Speaker 1: you up, they can. They'll find a way. That's their job,
Speaker 1: that's what they do. So start with that. And then, well,
Speaker 1: when you're doing interrogation for hours at a time and
Speaker 1: there are people that are trying to trip you up
Speaker 1: and trying to get you to lie about something unimportant
Speaker 1: that you may legitimately misremember, and then aren't going to
Speaker 1: give you the benefit of the doubt, Guess what, It's
Speaker 1: not hard to prosecute you for lying. But why McCabe
Speaker 1: and Comey should escape that same standard of justice. I
Speaker 1: would like someone to try and explain that one. I
Speaker 1: would like someone to take the position that there isn't
Speaker 1: an obvious double standard at work here, because there is.
Speaker 1: Because there was rot. There was an infestation of a
Speaker 1: status bureaucrat mentality at the very top of the FBI
Speaker 1: and the DOJ. They viewed Trump as a threat to
Speaker 1: the established order, and they thought of themselves as the mandarins,
Speaker 1: you know, as the big important cogs in the bureaucratic machine.
Speaker 1: They viewed themselves as the guaranteurs of that machinery, and
Speaker 1: Trump was a threat to it, so they tried to
Speaker 1: take them out. We got more on this coming up.
Speaker 1: The purpose of the briefing was to let our congressional
Speaker 1: leadership know exactly what we've been doing opening a case
Speaker 1: of this nature, not something that an FBI director, not
Speaker 1: something that an acting FBI director do by yourself. Did
Speaker 1: anyone object? That's the important part here, Savannah. No one objected,
Speaker 1: not on legal grounds, not on constitutional grounds, and not
Speaker 1: based on the fact well that's insane. So McCabe in
Speaker 1: his tour, which a lot of people are pointing out,
Speaker 1: seems to be in some way an effort to avoid
Speaker 1: prosecution himself, because he's just getting as much of the
Speaker 1: anti Trump sympathy lined up as he possibly can. Right,
Speaker 1: and if he gets enough people to come along and say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe he made some mistakes, but the real
Speaker 1: problem is that evil Donald Trump, then he thinks that
Speaker 1: he'll escape the prosecution that he so clearly deserves. I mean,
Speaker 1: he lied, he lied under oath about a matter of
Speaker 1: importance to the government. That is what the statute says.
Speaker 1: And he's put a lot of people in prison for
Speaker 1: doing just that. So if other people go to prison
Speaker 1: for you know, if other people go to prison for this,
Speaker 1: he should go to prison for this. But McCabe is
Speaker 1: out there trying to do his very best to throw
Speaker 1: up all these different smoke screens. But there he was
Speaker 1: talking to Savannah Guthrie about how when he told congress
Speaker 1: national leadership that there was a Trump probe, none of them,
Speaker 1: none of them had an issue with it. Well, that
Speaker 1: just shows what a bunch of deferential whimps we're talking
Speaker 1: about here. That just shows that the Gang of eight, right,
Speaker 1: the congressional leadership that people preferred to, was the gang
Speaker 1: of eight. We're willing to let the FBI run in
Speaker 1: operation that should have had far higher bars to clear.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is insane. The whole thing is just nuts,
Speaker 1: just incredible. And you know when you look at it
Speaker 1: now and you say to yourself, well, hold on, how
Speaker 1: do they justify this along the way McCabe claims in
Speaker 1: this past week, McCabe claims that, yeah, you know, we
Speaker 1: did this because of Coomy getting fired. But the robe
Speaker 1: was opened long before then. And hold on a second,
Speaker 1: I thought the probe was about Russia Trump collusion. Now
Speaker 1: they're saying it's about Comy getting fired. But the Trump
Speaker 1: Russia collusion had started, not the Mueller Special Council, but
Speaker 1: the investigation into Trump started months and months and months
Speaker 1: before that. The timeline does not add up. McCabe is lying.
Speaker 1: There are some instances you can point to you where
Speaker 1: either McCabe or Comy is lying, either McCabe or Rosenstein
Speaker 1: is lying, or maybe all of them are lying. But
Speaker 1: these are people that are supposed to be held to
Speaker 1: the very highest standard of veracity. These are individuals that
Speaker 1: have had a lot of government power and prosecutorial investigative power,
Speaker 1: depending on whether they're on the FBI or DJ side,
Speaker 1: and we cannot make allowances for their political score settling.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Unacceptable, absolutely unacceptable. McCabe is not doing himself,
Speaker 1: in my view, not doing himself any favors. He is
Speaker 1: making a lot of mistakes out there right now, and
Speaker 1: he just looks like a like a surly, slimy, dishonest
Speaker 1: Washington insider in this whole process. And people can tell me, oh,
Speaker 1: you know this person, you know worked for decades and
Speaker 1: was a good public servant. You know who els worked
Speaker 1: for decades was a public servant, Aldred James until he
Speaker 1: wasn't anymore. Now, I'm not saying that McCabe as a trader,
Speaker 1: but just enough of this. Well, this person worked in
Speaker 1: the government for a long time. Guess what. A lot
Speaker 1: of people work for the government a long time, in fact,
Speaker 1: millions of them. So the I worked in the government
Speaker 1: for a long time thing is not enough to give
Speaker 1: you the ability to operate under a separate set of laws.
Speaker 1: You know. It's it's not enough for you to just say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I tried really hard on all this other stuff,
Speaker 1: so I'm not going to be held responsible here. McCabe
Speaker 1: is also making claims that are just are just flatly untrue.
Speaker 1: So even if there's not going to be any legal
Speaker 1: ramifications for that, you know, he's out there on this
Speaker 1: book tour. The threat, by the way, not very subtle,
Speaker 1: is he. And it's it's perfectly lined up here. You know,
Speaker 1: Comy's whole higher loyalty. I'm James Comey and I just
Speaker 1: love America more than everybody. That's why James Comy has
Speaker 1: to be at the center of every major political investigation
Speaker 1: because he loves America so much. Please. And then with McCabe,
Speaker 1: it's the threat, yes, because we all know that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is the threat. How zactly is he a threat?
Speaker 1: What's the terrible thing that he's done? Why are we
Speaker 1: supposed to think that all this investigation of Donald Trump
Speaker 1: was justified based on what? They don't answer this question.
Speaker 1: They never have an answer for this question. But that's
Speaker 1: because they're lying. Here here McCabe talked about how he's
Speaker 1: filing a lawsuit about his very richly deserved firing. Here's
Speaker 1: what he said, Plate twelve. I was fired because I
Speaker 1: opened a case against the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: I read the Inspector General's report that suggests the Inspector
Speaker 1: General is in on it and firing you for a
Speaker 1: basically making up a pretext to fire you. Is that
Speaker 1: what you're suggesting? Here's what I can tell you. I
Speaker 1: read that report very closely myself. I've been writing and
Speaker 1: reading investigative reports for over twenty years, and that report
Speaker 1: was not like anything I have ever read before. An
Speaker 1: investigative report includes all of the evidence. It includes all
Speaker 1: of the information, not just those facts that support the
Speaker 1: conclusion that you'd like to draw. So I have big
Speaker 1: problems with that report. I disagree with the conclusions they drew,
Speaker 1: and that is something that I'll be raising in a
Speaker 1: civil lawsuit that I'll be bringing against the Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: So I just need to get this straight. When McCabe,
Speaker 1: when Comy and McCabe want the FBI to be perfect
Speaker 1: and beyond reproach and a wonderful institution, and no one's
Speaker 1: allowed to criticize it, which is to accept that. But
Speaker 1: when the FBI's own internal processes finds that McCabe should
Speaker 1: be fired, and fired right before I think twenty four
Speaker 1: hours before he could have qualified for his pension, then
Speaker 1: the FBI is subject to criticism. Then we can all
Speaker 1: look at the FBI and say, well, hold on a minute,
Speaker 1: maybe there's something else going on here. I'm sorry, but
Speaker 1: just doesn't wash that dog won't hunt. This is not
Speaker 1: based on an objective view of the circumstances. This is
Speaker 1: McCabe changing the narrative as fits his own needs about
Speaker 1: the FBI, about the Inspector General, about the Russia Trump
Speaker 1: collusion probe, about all of it, all of it. These
Speaker 1: were bad actors, and we see this now, bad actors
Speaker 1: in the FBI, bad actors in the DJ. You know,
Speaker 1: the left used to have a whole vendetta against law enforcement.
Speaker 1: You know, j Erica Hoover was this boogeyman, and the
Speaker 1: CIA and the Church Commission and all these different things
Speaker 1: that you learn in you know, vox dot com training programs.
Speaker 1: You know, this is what you learn if you're going
Speaker 1: to be an MSNBC host. The only history of America
Speaker 1: that you're allowed to know if you work at MSNBC
Speaker 1: for the past, you know, fifty years is Watergates, Iran Contra,
Speaker 1: and you know things like the Church Committee, here is
Speaker 1: the CIA, and that the FBI was bad. I mean
Speaker 1: that that's really the only stuff, other than the social
Speaker 1: justice stuff that you're allowed to know about American history.
Speaker 1: So the left used to have all these criticisms of
Speaker 1: the FBI and the CIA, the intelligence community. I worked
Speaker 1: in the intelligence community. I was a CIA analyst in
Speaker 1: the Iraq Office, So I have a particular sensitivity to Oh,
Speaker 1: lawmakers will just dump on us as though you know
Speaker 1: all of us who worked there, and I'd enjoy it
Speaker 1: until after the Iraq War started. So I definitely can't
Speaker 1: have any responsibility for that, But all of us who
Speaker 1: worked there don't know anything or jerks or clowns though
Speaker 1: you know they were doing that. Pelosi and company were
Speaker 1: saying the CIA was engaged in torture, that people should
Speaker 1: be prosecuted for this. But now John Brennan, Comy McCabe,
Speaker 1: all of them are our heroes to the left because
Speaker 1: they've been very useful modes of attack against Trump. That's it,
Speaker 1: and that's all you really have to be. And I
Speaker 1: just think that McCabe, he's showing us exactly who he
Speaker 1: is in this whole process, which is somebody who it's frightened.
Speaker 1: We should all be frightened that McCabe was in the
Speaker 1: positions of authority that he was in for as long
Speaker 1: as he was. That this was a guy who was
Speaker 1: making decisions that ruined people's lives. You know, his discretion
Speaker 1: during investigations, his discretion about reports as an FBI agent
Speaker 1: making his way up the ranks. This is not somebody
Speaker 1: that I think was fair in his outlook, based on
Speaker 1: the way he's conducted himself once he got into the
Speaker 1: upper reaches of powers. So I'd be very concerned about
Speaker 1: this individual, and I'd be very concerned about the Democrats
Speaker 1: being crazy as well. Here is Congressman I've never heard
Speaker 1: of this guy before, Garamendi, who is just just losing
Speaker 1: his mind over the threat. Remember the book that McCabe
Speaker 1: wrote is the Threat. Now we're for us to think
Speaker 1: that Trump is a threat. Yeah, he's a threat to
Speaker 1: socialism and the CNN clowns. He's not a real threat
Speaker 1: to anything that's important. Plick looked forward. I think that
Speaker 1: what we have here as a president is totally out
Speaker 1: of control. He doesn't want to listen to his intelligence
Speaker 1: community at all. He'd rather listen to Putin. That was
Speaker 1: part of what was in the McCabe interview, and it
Speaker 1: appears to be over and over again that he's more,
Speaker 1: when more than willing to listen to Putin and the
Speaker 1: Russians than he is to his own intelligence people. It
Speaker 1: is an extraordinarily serious problem of national security when the
Speaker 1: president refuses to accept the information from the intelligence community.
Speaker 1: We just have to hope and pray that nothing serious
Speaker 1: is going to take place. I don't know, I just
Speaker 1: take a deep breath and pray, because this man is
Speaker 1: totally out of control and putting our nation in serious jeopardy.
Speaker 1: How in what way this Democrat congressman is a loon,
Speaker 1: a loon totally out of control because because of what
Speaker 1: what has he done that's out of control? What has
Speaker 1: he done that we're all supposed to be so worried about.
Speaker 1: They they're such they're in such hysterics all the time.
Speaker 1: The amount of the world is ending pearl clutching from Democrats.
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm becoming immune to it. I can't even
Speaker 1: I can't even bring myself to want to spend time
Speaker 1: ridiculing it the way I used to, because it's just
Speaker 1: so ridiculous. Nobody who's been paying attention to want to
Speaker 1: take any of this seriously. Nobody who has been operating
Speaker 1: from a perspective of trying to get to the truth
Speaker 1: would listen to these people and say, yeay, they sound
Speaker 1: like they're given the president a fair shake. We're extraordinarily
Speaker 1: serious problem not security, because McCabe says that Trump believe
Speaker 1: who believes McCay. McCabe's a known liar and he's trying
Speaker 1: to trash the president with everything he's got. He has
Speaker 1: a personal vendetta. He says that the President mocked his wife.
Speaker 1: He has a personal vendetta against his president. We're supposed
Speaker 1: to take this guy's word for it. I'm not taking
Speaker 1: this word for it, buddy, buddy with Comy, I don't
Speaker 1: think Comy's word for it. Any of these guys, I
Speaker 1: don't think any of their word for it, because they've
Speaker 1: shown themselves to be dirty political insiders. They've shown themselves
Speaker 1: to be people that are a part is an agenda
Speaker 1: in this whole process. So you know, the the McCabe
Speaker 1: cheerleading section is a bunch of whackados. All right. So
Speaker 1: what is going on right now at the White House?
Speaker 1: Obviously a lot of activity with this administration, a lot
Speaker 1: of major policy discussions still underway in the aftermath of
Speaker 1: the declaration of a national emergency. Our man Sager and
Speaker 1: Jetty is in the House, the White House, that is,
Speaker 1: that's right. He is the Daily Callers White House correspondent,
Speaker 1: and he joins us now from the House itself. Mister Sager,
Speaker 1: great to have you back, Hey, thanks for having me
Speaker 1: a book. All right. So you were in the press spray,
Speaker 1: which is insider lingo for a bunch of reporters getting
Speaker 1: to be inside the oval. Right, So you were there
Speaker 1: with the man himself just just before coming on air here,
Speaker 1: What can you tell us about what's going on with
Speaker 1: the with the Trumpster, with the administration, or everything going
Speaker 1: everything going on the White House? Yeah, that's right. Book,
Speaker 1: basically you can be president. Had a bunch of comments today.
Speaker 1: The most surprising was, even though he was signing something
Speaker 1: that was on the Space Policy Directive, he held his
Speaker 1: fire on Bernie Sanders. He actually said that he likes
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. You know that he welcomed his presidential run,
Speaker 1: and he didn't seem particularly phased by it because he
Speaker 1: said that, you know, there's a lot of people running,
Speaker 1: but only one person is going to win, and he said,
Speaker 1: I think you all know who that will be. He
Speaker 1: also made a little he talked a little bit about
Speaker 1: that lawsuit of that California and a bunch of other
Speaker 1: states are filing against the president of the National Emergency Declaration,
Speaker 1: and he said that overall he wasn't particularly worried and
Speaker 1: he thought even in the ninth circuit that he might
Speaker 1: prevail there. Wow, look at that. Trump has got quite
Speaker 1: a bit of optimism, Sager, But that's that's not at
Speaker 1: all surprising. What's the vibe you're getting from the White
Speaker 1: House in terms of how the whole speech over the
Speaker 1: weekend was received, well, overall, the White House is mostly
Speaker 1: just happy to put this matter to bed. You know,
Speaker 1: they had a shutdown for thirty five days that exhausted
Speaker 1: pretty much everybody here. Then we had three weeks of negotiations.
Speaker 1: Things didn't exactly go their way in this negotiation. So
Speaker 1: what they're mostly happy in this point is they got
Speaker 1: their National emergency declaration. They're looking at this as a
Speaker 1: as a minor victory because at least they can tap
Speaker 1: sources of funding without that won't be tied up in
Speaker 1: court because I think approximately five billion dollars of the
Speaker 1: eight billion dollars it's available to them is available without
Speaker 1: the National emergency. So you know, they think that they
Speaker 1: can begin construction on the wall and they can do
Speaker 1: that as soon as soon as they need to, even
Speaker 1: with court challenges. Do you get any sense of what
Speaker 1: that I think a lot of people are, Okay, so
Speaker 1: we've been through this whole wall fight, we got funding
Speaker 1: now declared an emergency. Why aren't there shovels and jackhammers
Speaker 1: and earthmovers, oh my going on right now at the border. Well,
Speaker 1: what they're with the White House would say, is that
Speaker 1: our US Army Corps of Engineers is already in discussions
Speaker 1: here is the contracts are being being distributed out. But
Speaker 1: you're right, it is a lengthy and it's a long process.
Speaker 1: There's some texts written into those bills, which don't you know,
Speaker 1: which gives some of the towns involved the ability to
Speaker 1: hold up construction on these walls. So it's it's there's
Speaker 1: a lot of different moving parts, and it's basically any
Speaker 1: regular government operation anything else going on White House world Saga.
Speaker 1: The folks listening across the country should be aware of
Speaker 1: things that are on the horizon. Anything that you think
Speaker 1: that we're going to be hearing from the President himself
Speaker 1: on in the next few days that we should be
Speaker 1: aware of. Well, you know what's what The major thing
Speaker 1: that this building is focused on right now is the
Speaker 1: upcoming summit with Chairman Kim Jongoon and Hanoi next week.
Speaker 1: That's all eyes are looking on that. The President himself
Speaker 1: began his discussion today when we're talking about we're talking
Speaker 1: about Kim Jong un and the expectations for the summit.
Speaker 1: So that is the main priority. That's the main thing
Speaker 1: that everybody's focused on. That's obviously one of those things
Speaker 1: where the whole world kind of holds its breath and
Speaker 1: watches is such an extraordinary thing happens? Saga and Jet
Speaker 1: everybody calling us in from the White House. He is
Speaker 1: the daily Callers White House correspondent and Sager just just
Speaker 1: so we know, do you do you ever like get
Speaker 1: to hang with Jim Acosta? Like, do you guys you know,
Speaker 1: ever ever share pencils or anything? What? What's the what's
Speaker 1: the spree of corelike over there these days the White House?
Speaker 1: For the people in the pool, you know, I would
Speaker 1: tell you it's it's chilly, but there's a level of
Speaker 1: personal respect that that happens there. You know, we stand
Speaker 1: next to each other from time to time before we
Speaker 1: go into two events, exchange pleasantries. That's uh, that's that's
Speaker 1: as far as we can take it. So he can
Speaker 1: be pleasant. Okay, that's good to know. Is there anybody
Speaker 1: who's like the bad boy or the bad girl of
Speaker 1: the of the White House press pool? You know, give
Speaker 1: us give us a little insider peak here, Sagar. Oh man,
Speaker 1: I I if I gave you that, then I don't
Speaker 1: think I'll get invite into all the fancy parties. So
Speaker 1: until then, I think I think I'm gonna keep my
Speaker 1: mouth shut on that. You're you're a smart man with
Speaker 1: a long and illustrious media career ahead of you. Joan,
Speaker 1: never let the radio hosts get information you don't want
Speaker 1: to give. Sager and Jetty, everybody, check out what he's
Speaker 1: got up on the Daily Caller dot com. Also, you
Speaker 1: can follow him on Twitter, and you need to figure
Speaker 1: out how to spell his name. But other than that,
Speaker 1: it is just like it sounds, Sager and Jetty, mister Sager,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us, my friend always
Speaker 1: gonna and thank you also for all your work on
Speaker 1: Rising recently. You've been fantastic. Oh, thank you, Buck, and
Speaker 1: thank you for having me. Man. All right, we'll talk
Speaker 1: to you soon, everybody from the White House. Saga and
Speaker 1: Jetty given us the up to date. What's what, We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. There are many indications of a hate
Speaker 1: crime here. They are looking for two suspects who are
Speaker 1: apparently wearing Make America Great Again hats, so that has
Speaker 1: not yet been officially confirmed. We don't know what happened
Speaker 1: to Jesse, but what we do know is that racism
Speaker 1: is alive and well in this country. There is real
Speaker 1: evidence of people who have done these crimes who cite
Speaker 1: that the president has fire that the fact that reportedly
Speaker 1: said this is Maga country adds to sort of the
Speaker 1: the atmosphere of menace that African Americans in particular and
Speaker 1: people of color in general have felt since the advent
Speaker 1: of the Trump administration, and the media has really cast
Speaker 1: so much doubt on his story, which I find so
Speaker 1: personally offensive that a gay black man is targeted and
Speaker 1: then suddenly he becomes the victim of people's disbelieveing. It's outrageous,
Speaker 1: outrageous that people would disbelieve somebody lying like this in
Speaker 1: such obvious and ridiculous fashion. And I do think that
Speaker 1: there needs to be a reckoning for the media, and
Speaker 1: it's only going to come if we continue hammer at
Speaker 1: their biases and just the big this model too, the
Speaker 1: Jesse small thing shows us, I think, beyond any doubt,
Speaker 1: and you could point to a lot of other circumstances
Speaker 1: where this is also the case. But they run with
Speaker 1: the they run with the narrative they like, They drive
Speaker 1: as much traffic, as many clicks and get as many
Speaker 1: views as they can, and then they just feel like
Speaker 1: they'll clean up the mess afterward. They don't seem to
Speaker 1: understand our national media. I would know Chicago media has
Speaker 1: acquitted itself well on this whole thing. Local Chicago media,
Speaker 1: CBS Chicago, they were, oh, I don't know, doing reporting
Speaker 1: talking to police sources following up on the investigation. It's
Speaker 1: the national media, the CNNs and the New York Times.
Speaker 1: And that wasn't the view. What's the like the kind
Speaker 1: of bootleg version of the view on the other you
Speaker 1: know what I'm talking about, guys, it's the other show
Speaker 1: with a bunch of ladies around a table in the
Speaker 1: middle of the day, the talk. There's a there's an
Speaker 1: what's the talk? Brandon? No Brandon? Well because the Sharon
Speaker 1: Osbourne and Osbourne because Ozzie, where are you? Oz see?
Speaker 1: I got a shit in Osbourne? Right? Kind of good?
Speaker 1: It's not bad, thank you? Oh see? Does it wan't
Speaker 1: to watch me on this? Okay? Else? But the the
Speaker 1: truth is that there's there's that show as well, and
Speaker 1: I think that's where we played that one clip where
Speaker 1: they're just oh, it's just like terrible. They don't believe
Speaker 1: jose Smollett. It's so upsetting. God, I was obviously a
Speaker 1: liar I knew he was a liar. That's why, That's
Speaker 1: why I really dug in here. I know some nights
Speaker 1: your probably team, you're like, Buck, why are you doing
Speaker 1: a j Smollett update? And I just wanted to make
Speaker 1: sure that we all follow this at every step of
Speaker 1: the way, that we're like, this didn't happen. Another thing
Speaker 1: to indicate this didn't happen. And and now everyone turns
Speaker 1: around and says, oh, but but how could we have
Speaker 1: known it was? It was so credible and believable. Uh,
Speaker 1: turns out it was neither credible nor believable. And the
Speaker 1: people that are dumb enough to or rather are so
Speaker 1: stupid that they can't tell the difference should be held accountable. Oh,
Speaker 1: speaking of people that, from what we know from the
Speaker 1: public record, had issues figuring out what's really going on here,
Speaker 1: we got two Democrat candidates that really waited on this one.
Speaker 1: We got a little before and after for you of
Speaker 1: Booker and Harris play clip one and Senator Coy. Booker
Speaker 1: said the vicious attack when actor Jesse was an attempt
Speaker 1: at modern day lynching. Kamala Harris calling the attack and
Speaker 1: attempted modern day lynching, which tweet tweet about saying that
Speaker 1: it is a modern day lynching. That sorry, jam okay.
Speaker 1: So I will say this about that case. I think
Speaker 1: that the facts are still unfolding, and I'm very concerned
Speaker 1: about act. Well, the information is still coming out, and
Speaker 1: I'm going to withhold until all the information actually comes
Speaker 1: out from on the record source. Is we know in
Speaker 1: America that diggoted and biased attacks are on the rise. Oh,
Speaker 1: there we go, transition to the narrative you want after
Speaker 1: you've already run with a false narrative about this event.
Speaker 1: I would note that there's more trouble on the horizon
Speaker 1: for Jesse Smollett. Here this courtesy of The New York Post. Today,
Speaker 1: the FEDS are probing whether Jesse Smollett was involved in
Speaker 1: sending a suspicious letter to himself a week before the
Speaker 1: alleged hate attack in Chicago that has now been called
Speaker 1: into question. The FBI, US Postal Inspection Services are investigating
Speaker 1: the claim by brothers A. Bimbola and Ali Binjo assundai
Speaker 1: Ro that Smollett played a role in the letter delivered
Speaker 1: to Fox's studio in January twenty second. The word mago
Speaker 1: was written in red letters across the envelope and it
Speaker 1: had nasty racial slurs and stuff in it. Let me
Speaker 1: just note that if that is true, if he used
Speaker 1: the male Oh, that's right, then it becomes a federal issue.
Speaker 1: Jose Smollett did not think this one through. Did not
Speaker 1: really give this one the attention that it deserved. As
Speaker 1: somebody who's going to engage in a hoax, you would
Speaker 1: think that it would be better off for him to
Speaker 1: at least understand the legal ramifications of what he's doing.
Speaker 1: But I don't think he did. I don't think he
Speaker 1: thought this one through. Meanwhile, said Ed bride Stelter. The
Speaker 1: job it is, as Dallas said that the videos a
Speaker 1: great job that I had a show at ceded to
Speaker 1: talk about. How great, said Ed, is that how I
Speaker 1: looked like Jeff Ducker, but maybe a few more cheeseburgers
Speaker 1: and play clip three here. About the rush to judge,
Speaker 1: there was a rush to judgment. I think it was
Speaker 1: mostly in the celebrity press and among activists and among
Speaker 1: Twitter people. I think it was a really careful reporting
Speaker 1: by news organizations, but it all gets lumped in together
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. I'll get slumped together
Speaker 1: in the minds of many people who now look at
Speaker 1: this and say what went wrong here? And obviously, at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, what went wrong is that
Speaker 1: he may have made it up, and ultimately that's his responsibility.
Speaker 1: I thank god. The little rug is that Ceded had
Speaker 1: a lot of news cabbage of this with that thing
Speaker 1: alleged or that thing that guy. I look at Brian
Speaker 1: Stelter and I think to myself, anything is possible in
Speaker 1: this business. You know. I try to take something, I
Speaker 1: try to take something positive from it. I'm like, oh,
Speaker 1: if Brian Stelter can have a show on any cable
Speaker 1: network and be treated with deference and respect throughout the
Speaker 1: media industry as a result of that, then it must
Speaker 1: be possible for any of us to get a show
Speaker 1: on a cable network. So we got that going for us,
Speaker 1: which is nice. But his point here about the reporting
Speaker 1: on this, I think is is just incorrect. I just
Speaker 1: think he's I think he's wrong, and it's very obvious why.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you look, you will see that there
Speaker 1: were a lot of not just news stories, but it's
Speaker 1: the newsroom and then they switch to the analysis. And
Speaker 1: this is why the bias matters so much. If the
Speaker 1: Washington Post on the front page, can run Josie Smallett
Speaker 1: was attacked, and then run seven editorials right next to
Speaker 1: it about how this is terrible and racist and everything else.
Speaker 1: They understand the propaganda effect that that's going to have
Speaker 1: on their audience, and the lack of skepticism from the
Speaker 1: newsroom then just becomes amplified in all of the analysis
Speaker 1: and perspective and all these different ways of essentially saying
Speaker 1: punditry without calling it punditry when they're they're openly activists
Speaker 1: instead of just activists without being honest about that fact.
Speaker 1: But the show Empire, which I have never seen, by
Speaker 1: the way, I do not know if it's a good
Speaker 1: show or not. I know it made a big splash,
Speaker 1: it had a lot of ratings for a while, But
Speaker 1: the show Empire is from what I understand, writing him
Speaker 1: or cutting him out of episodes, they're already so they're
Speaker 1: getting this is when you start to see what people
Speaker 1: really think, right when their money and their reputations on
Speaker 1: the line. Sure, I know that the showrunner for Empire
Speaker 1: gave some kind of statement of support here for for Smallett,
Speaker 1: But when when you see the show decide that they're
Speaker 1: going to cut back on this guy and they're going
Speaker 1: to take a different approach. Then then it's pretty clear,
Speaker 1: at least clear to me, that we're talking about somebody
Speaker 1: who is expected to continue his fall from grace. I
Speaker 1: don't think anybody believes that there's a what could the
Speaker 1: explanation be at this point that all the reports from
Speaker 1: all the police sources were wrong. I mean, think about
Speaker 1: this one. I believe that what we're in the midst
Speaker 1: of right now is an intentional campaign of delay from
Speaker 1: not just smaller than his team. That's obvious and that's
Speaker 1: to be expected, but from the press. I think they
Speaker 1: just want to lay off this for a few days
Speaker 1: and let some of the heat come out of the topic,
Speaker 1: let it let it seem a little less ridiculous that
Speaker 1: they weren't showing the due skepticism that they should have,
Speaker 1: and then they'll probably in a week say, yeah, it
Speaker 1: turns out the whole thing was a hoax. Fine, they
Speaker 1: move on to something else. That's the way they do this.
Speaker 1: I have a question for you, actually buck on this. Yes,
Speaker 1: there's actually there's two ways this can go. This guy
Speaker 1: can either come clean or he can dig in and
Speaker 1: double down and go deeper into it. Which way do
Speaker 1: you think he's gonna go. That's a very interesting question,
Speaker 1: because what I think he's going to do is try
Speaker 1: to go somewhere in between where he's gonna just hope
Speaker 1: that the police aren't going to try to bring charges,
Speaker 1: the idea of being that they can't prove that what
Speaker 1: he said is untrue. But because he brought so what
Speaker 1: I think he'd like to do is say people don't
Speaker 1: understand my truth and this is a teachable moment, and
Speaker 1: just protect himself with the social justice jargon and kind
Speaker 1: of move on. The problem is because he brought other
Speaker 1: people into this, right, I think that's you know, like
Speaker 1: I said, if you had just written a swastika on
Speaker 1: his door, even if nobody believed that, or you go
Speaker 1: to put a noose on his door, even if nobody
Speaker 1: had believed that he was really targeted, it's very It
Speaker 1: would be very hard unless they had video of him,
Speaker 1: to prove that he did it to himself. This is
Speaker 1: a different situation. He brought third parties into it, and
Speaker 1: if they're willing to tell the police under you know,
Speaker 1: in a scorn statement, that he conspired with them to
Speaker 1: do this, I think one he I think they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to bring charges against them. I don't see how
Speaker 1: they can get around that. So and at that point,
Speaker 1: he's gonna have to plead guilty to avoid the legal punishment.
Speaker 1: So as much as he'd like to dig in, I mean,
Speaker 1: I see where you're going with that. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he's going to have that option, right, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: But you know, I've been right on this one so far.
Speaker 1: So we'll see what ends up happening. But the jussee
Speaker 1: Smollett almost certain hoax. Almost there were ninety nine percent
Speaker 1: sure it's a hoax, folks, right, continue, So we'll have
Speaker 1: more for you as it goes on. Global Verification Network
Speaker 1: is the only dual certified veteran owned background investigation and
Speaker 1: vetting company. And this is a company that is all
Speaker 1: about making sure that your needs are met in this space.
Speaker 1: So whatever size company you have, large or small, give
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network a call. If you have somebody that
Speaker 1: already does your background checks, see a Global Verification can
Speaker 1: beat them on price or beat them on the quality
Speaker 1: of the work that they do. Because I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: I think they can call eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine that's eight seven, seven, six nine,
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine. Make sure you tell them
Speaker 1: you heard about them on the Buck Sexton Show. Also
Speaker 1: go to MYGBN dot com if you want to do
Speaker 1: the online route. That's m y g VN dot com.
Speaker 1: They are federally certified as a veteran owned small business
Speaker 1: and no data or client information is ever offshore. It's
Speaker 1: all done here in the States, unlike a lot of
Speaker 1: their competitors. So check out Global Verification Network and leave
Speaker 1: no stone unturned. It's time to get a little conversation
Speaker 1: going with our friend Rahim Kasam everybody you know him
Speaker 1: from Raheem Kasam dot com, Fox News, author of the
Speaker 1: book No Go Zones and general gentlemen about town here
Speaker 1: in DC. Very plugged in knows what's what mister Raheem.
Speaker 1: Great to have you back, Hey, thanks for having me book.
Speaker 1: So you brought this story to my attention about Isis
Speaker 1: brides who want to return to their home countries. And
Speaker 1: there's hundreds of them right now who are in custody
Speaker 1: in these Kurdish detention camps in Syria. What's going on here? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's been a big story dominating the news cycle in
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom for the past week, and actually a
Speaker 1: US version has just popped up today. Also, look the
Speaker 1: long story short is this a couple of years ago.
Speaker 1: People will remember that there were defectors you might call them,
Speaker 1: from the United States and the United Kingdom all over
Speaker 1: European fact, to the Islamic States, to the Isis Caliphate.
Speaker 1: A lot of those defectors included young women in their
Speaker 1: mid to late teens that had been lured over there
Speaker 1: by propaganda videos and who spent the last couple of
Speaker 1: years propagandaizing against the West, calling for attacks on westerners,
Speaker 1: attacks on the US homeland, attacks on the United Kingdom,
Speaker 1: and attacks on our soldiers. Now it's not going so well,
Speaker 1: I would add, in a large part of thanks to
Speaker 1: the actions of President Trump and this administration. It's not
Speaker 1: going so well for the Islamic Caliphate. These women having
Speaker 1: lost a lot of their spouses, and I say a
Speaker 1: lot of their spouses. Some of them have been married
Speaker 1: to two or three or four different ISIS fighters over
Speaker 1: the last couple of years. Now they want to return
Speaker 1: to the United States or the United Kingdom. And actually
Speaker 1: our two different nations are taking two quite different approaches
Speaker 1: to handling these would be returnees. And how so what's
Speaker 1: the UK doing, what's the US doing? Well, I'm glad
Speaker 1: you asked. Well, the United Kingdom has effectively said, of
Speaker 1: this one Shamima Begham that because she is a dual
Speaker 1: nationality citizen of the United Kingdom and Bangladesh, the Home
Speaker 1: Office in the United Kingdom effectively our sort of Home
Speaker 1: department in state department, or sort of rolled into one,
Speaker 1: they have removed her UK citizenship. As of today, she
Speaker 1: is now no longer the United Kingdom citizen and therefore
Speaker 1: cannot claim the sanctuary and the United Kingdom cannot claim
Speaker 1: welfare in the United Kingdom, cannot claim asylum or to
Speaker 1: return to the United Kingdom. President Trump's administration is taking
Speaker 1: a different tack on this. What the US is saying
Speaker 1: is that sure, you can come back, and you will
Speaker 1: be tried and you will be sent to prison for
Speaker 1: effectively defecting and fighting for a terrorist organization that was
Speaker 1: anti anti United States and anti Western And so, you know,
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting the way the way these two
Speaker 1: nations are dealing with these things. President Trump's saying more
Speaker 1: European nations especially need to take back their itist fighters
Speaker 1: and prosecute them to the fullest extent of the law,
Speaker 1: while near the United Kingdom and other European nations are
Speaker 1: trying to trying to keep them out because actually the
Speaker 1: publics in those countries don't want them to come back
Speaker 1: in and live at the taxpayer of behest in prisons
Speaker 1: and then be released into society. You ten, fifteen, twenty
Speaker 1: years in advance. Raheem Kassam, everybody check out Raheim Kassam
Speaker 1: dot com for his latest writing and you'll also see
Speaker 1: him popping up on Fox and of course on this show,
Speaker 1: where he also is a very highly regarded guest host
Speaker 1: A Raheem h what do you think at switching gears
Speaker 1: here for a moment, we got a couple of minutes.
Speaker 1: What do you think about the emergency declaration? How did
Speaker 1: Trump play now that we've got a little more information
Speaker 1: to work with here? How did Trump play this whole
Speaker 1: border situation, this whole negotiation Now, I'm not terribly well,
Speaker 1: I'm afraid similarly to how the midterms were played out. Look,
Speaker 1: unfortunately President Trump, and you know, some would argue that
Speaker 1: this is a good thing, but I think unfortunately for
Speaker 1: some of the more maga oriented people President Trump does
Speaker 1: listen to some of the people in the goop political establishment,
Speaker 1: some of the never Trumpers, even the Mitch McConnell's of
Speaker 1: the world, so and so forth, and they those guys
Speaker 1: don't really want to go toe to toe with the Democrats.
Speaker 1: They like to compromise. They're quite big fans of open borders.
Speaker 1: They're not quite sure where the party is going to
Speaker 1: go post Trump, and so they're just sort of biding
Speaker 1: their time and trying to tap him along. I think
Speaker 1: that's what happened in this circumstance, because I think the
Speaker 1: compromise that was reached with the Democrats there was no
Speaker 1: form of compromise at all. In fact, you know, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi might as well have been dancing and screaming from
Speaker 1: the rooftops when she saw the bill that the Republicans
Speaker 1: have now agreed to that the President has agreed to sign.
Speaker 1: And it also did the president great damage because shutting
Speaker 1: down the government is one thing. Shutting down the government
Speaker 1: for a record amount of time, it's something that a
Speaker 1: lot of Americans were in the end paying attention to,
Speaker 1: and I don't necessarily think it did him any personal harm.
Speaker 1: But what it did do is sort of underscore the
Speaker 1: fact that he didn't get anything really from doing that.
Speaker 1: They don't mind to shut down here or there if
Speaker 1: it achieved something, but I don't think much was really achieved.
Speaker 1: And I have to say, I think the emergency should
Speaker 1: have come a lot sooner, and I think it's a
Speaker 1: disappointment to a lot of people that it had to
Speaker 1: It had to go him for that long before he
Speaker 1: got there. Always good to hear from Rahem on this stuff, folks,
Speaker 1: is Raheem has been He may be the most maga
Speaker 1: loving brit of any brit on the planet, but he
Speaker 1: calls it like he sees it, So you know, I
Speaker 1: tend to agree with on this one. I don't think
Speaker 1: that Yeah who you and who? Me and Nigel Forge
Speaker 1: constantly follow Yeah, well well I'll have you guys. I'll
Speaker 1: have you guys. Arm wrestle at Sea Packer. We can
Speaker 1: see who's the most maga loving brit there. But Rahim Kassam,
Speaker 1: everybody check out his ladies. He'll be feeling on this
Speaker 1: show soon. And you can also go to Rahem Kasam
Speaker 1: dot com and follow him on Twitter. Rahe Man, thanks
Speaker 1: for stopping by the Hut. Thank you, Katie. I wanted
Speaker 1: to wish you a happy President's Day. You know what
Speaker 1: is George Washington's day here? Washington Day here in New York,
Speaker 1: unlike the rest of the country, because George Washington native
Speaker 1: son of New York, big up, big New Yorker, that's right,
Speaker 1: East Coast. He was known as an East Coast one.
Speaker 1: He was a It was New York's big papa. Okay,
Speaker 1: that was a couple of MSNBC anchors. Producer, Mike, is
Speaker 1: that like a millennial thing? Can you translate this for me?
Speaker 1: Native son of New York? Pretty sure? George Washington's from Virginia. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm one hundred percent shores from Virginia. Yeah, I thought so.
Speaker 1: They apparently were not. Una. I'm gonna go out and
Speaker 1: say this right now, man, if if we did a
Speaker 1: civics test, you know how recently they said that I
Speaker 1: think like thirty percent of people that they pulled who
Speaker 1: are American citizens were able to pass the citizenship test,
Speaker 1: and it might even be less than that. But if
Speaker 1: we did a basic American history test of left wing
Speaker 1: news anchors, I think people would be utterly appalled. I
Speaker 1: think that they would be shocked and appalled in a
Speaker 1: way where they would they would no longer even if
Speaker 1: they were Democrats, they would no longer be able to
Speaker 1: watch these people on TV. I mean, you'll never be
Speaker 1: able to see this through one way or the other.
Speaker 1: But I really believe that in my heart of Heart's like,
Speaker 1: if you ask Katie Turr to tell me, just just
Speaker 1: go through the most Beatie, where did the British finally surrender?
Speaker 1: Do America? Like, we just go through the most grade
Speaker 1: school level stuff, I think that they would get crushed.
Speaker 1: I really do. Yeah, man, I mean that's I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not even the history buff. I mean, I'm a
Speaker 1: novice when it comes to this stuff. But I'm sitting
Speaker 1: there watching that and I'm like, I knew in like
Speaker 1: three seconds. I'm like, oh my god, I'm what are
Speaker 1: you serious? And she's telling me what to think every day. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's astonishing well the way, speaking of people
Speaker 1: who don't know anything, we're telling us what to think.
Speaker 1: Amy Klobisher is still out there, somehow thinking that she
Speaker 1: should be running for president, which I think just the
Speaker 1: delusion that she is of the mind that she should
Speaker 1: run for president in and of itself is kind of disqualifying.
Speaker 1: But I think that the notion that she has any
Speaker 1: real shot at this is crazy town. But she's out
Speaker 1: there and oh she's yeah the heartland, Yeah, don't you know.
Speaker 1: And she talked about gun control. Because if you're going
Speaker 1: to be a left wing Democrat who has any prayer
Speaker 1: of getting through even doing well in the primary, never
Speaker 1: mind winning the Democrat primary, you've got to be a
Speaker 1: gun grabber. And for somebody from Minnesota to be a
Speaker 1: gun grabber, I guess it surprises me just because I
Speaker 1: know about all the hunting and fishing in Minnesota and
Speaker 1: I used to do some of that myself. But she
Speaker 1: doesn't have a basic understanding, it seems to me, of
Speaker 1: the Second Amendment play clip fourteen. Like New Hampshire, Minnesota
Speaker 1: is a state that values the outdoors. We value hunting
Speaker 1: and fishing. And so I come at it from a
Speaker 1: little different place than some of my colleagues that are
Speaker 1: running for this office, and that I always look at
Speaker 1: every proposal and say, would this hurt my uncle Dick
Speaker 1: in the deer stand? And I would say that these
Speaker 1: common sense proposals in front of us do not. I
Speaker 1: don't see banning assault weapons, right, I don't think that
Speaker 1: in the deer stand has no idea what she's talking about.
Speaker 1: The Second Amendment is not, never was, and never will
Speaker 1: be about hunting. Hunting and the ability to have firearms
Speaker 1: for hunting is a nice byproduct of the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: But the Second Amendment is not about hunting. It is
Speaker 1: about the right of the citizen rate to keep and
Speaker 1: bear arms as a check against government tyranny. Now lips
Speaker 1: can laugh about that all they want. That is why
Speaker 1: it exists. That is why there is a second Hamdment
Speaker 1: and the right to defend oneself, defend one's home, defend
Speaker 1: one's hearth, all that stuff. So it is absolutely not
Speaker 1: about the right to go shoot, you know, whitetailed deer
Speaker 1: and pheasants and things like that. I'm actually going sporting
Speaker 1: clay shooting on Sunday, I'll have you know, So there's that.
Speaker 1: I have a problem though, when I go sporting clay shooting,
Speaker 1: I am I'm cross dominant, and so my left eye
Speaker 1: is my dominant eye, even though I'm right handed, and
Speaker 1: so I have to deal with being a cross dominant shooter,
Speaker 1: which for sporting clays is really annoying because you have
Speaker 1: to either you can either become a left handed shooter
Speaker 1: with along. It doesn't matter with pistol because you can
Speaker 1: just tilt your head and the pistol. That's why I've
Speaker 1: always been a pistol shooting is my favorite. But if
Speaker 1: you're a cross eyed dominant shooter and you're going after
Speaker 1: sporting clays or you're going bird hunting, you need to
Speaker 1: with the shotgun. You need to compensate and either go
Speaker 1: left handed or or you know, close one eye and
Speaker 1: use your other eye. And it's just a it's another thing.
Speaker 1: But you don't even know about my problems. So it's
Speaker 1: gonna be fun though on Sunday, for sure. But Amy
Speaker 1: Klobischer doesn't really understand that gun control is not about hunting.
Speaker 1: So once again we have libs that want to control
Speaker 1: aspects of our lives without understanding those aspects in any
Speaker 1: meaningful sense. They just know that control is appealing to them.
Speaker 1: Telling us what to do is appealing to them, and
Speaker 1: that is that is all that they think they have
Speaker 1: to know. And they know that also the left wing
Speaker 1: gun grabbers get excited about this stuff. So even though
Speaker 1: the chance of any legislation happening I think is small,
Speaker 1: it's always there. And if they could they would outlaw
Speaker 1: all semi automatic rifles. Just remember that, which would affect
Speaker 1: Uncle Dick in the Deer Standard. By the way, it's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. Roll call time. Oh yeah, roll call.
Speaker 1: I gotta get excited about it every time because roll
Speaker 1: call is oh so much fun. Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: We have first up, Lucinda. Lucinda wrote into Facebook dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck Sexton, and here's what Lucinda has to say.
Speaker 1: I was listening to talk about the two movies you
Speaker 1: watched last weekend. I will probably wait to see into
Speaker 1: the Spider verse. However, I did see The Witch, and
Speaker 1: I'm traumatized from it. Perhaps I should not have watched
Speaker 1: it myself, but it is everything scary that I can imagine.
Speaker 1: I'm actually a little sorry I watched it. If you
Speaker 1: can handle devil goat stuff, I recommend it. The only
Speaker 1: other movie that I'm sorry I watched was Rosemary's Baby.
Speaker 1: I really do enjoy listening to you. You give me
Speaker 1: hope that not everyone has gone crazy. Shields Well, First
Speaker 1: of all, Lucinda, cool name. Always nice to have an
Speaker 1: unusual and memorable name, says the guy named buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: Buckman Sexton. For those who like to come after me
Speaker 1: on Twitter for having a weird name. It's Buckman. It's
Speaker 1: a family name. As for the movies. As for the
Speaker 1: movies that I have recommended and that we are, well,
Speaker 1: I should say I don't even know if I really
Speaker 1: recommended them so much as I just mentioned them. Brandon,
Speaker 1: have you seen Let me ask you, have you seen
Speaker 1: The Witch? I have? Scary, right, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: it's well done for the genre. You're you're talking to
Speaker 1: somebody who's insensitized. I've watched all the eighties horror, some
Speaker 1: of the most you know, human centipede kind of movies.
Speaker 1: It was so it was all right, It's not super
Speaker 1: violent or like slash or stuff, but it is. It's creepy.
Speaker 1: But it was my horror opinion for whatever that means,
Speaker 1: a little overhyped, but it was still it was good.
Speaker 1: Look at you, hey, when it comes to horror, to
Speaker 1: be honest, what makes the hair stand up on the
Speaker 1: back of Brandon's neck for a movie? All right? That's
Speaker 1: what I want to know. What what what gets it
Speaker 1: done for you? It's got to be I think original
Speaker 1: and just like maybe a little bit kind of real
Speaker 1: that like movie dude, I know, I thought you were asking. Okay, hmmm,
Speaker 1: let me think about that. Well, I will tell you
Speaker 1: my favorite movie of all times, Killer Killer Clowns from
Speaker 1: out of Space. Wow, have you ever seed? Is Mike
Speaker 1: there to make fun of you in person? Because that
Speaker 1: was an amazing revelation he stepped up. That's really a movie.
Speaker 1: Ye oh my god. They have popcorn guns and they
Speaker 1: suck blood out of crazy straws out of these cotton
Speaker 1: candy cocoons. It's that's insane, dude. I don't even know
Speaker 1: how you do it. I'll just say this, man, I'll
Speaker 1: just I did see I did one see lepre Con
Speaker 1: five LEPrecon in the hood hood and I saw a
Speaker 1: LEPrecon I think it was four LEPrecon in space, which
Speaker 1: was another one, and I'm lec it is dude. When
Speaker 1: when Wayne in Wayne's World two did the whole LEPrecon thing,
Speaker 1: I it did really stick with me, because yeah, it
Speaker 1: was Anyway, I'm just saying, if you're somebody like me
Speaker 1: who thinks that the whole demonic possession thing is scary,
Speaker 1: you will find The Witch to be a scary movie.
Speaker 1: It is bleak as well, though it's relentless, like there's
Speaker 1: nothing happy or funny or pretty in the movie. It's
Speaker 1: pretty much just one long ride and like one long
Speaker 1: descent into hell. Anyway, Lucinda, I'm sorry that you got
Speaker 1: creeped out by it. I did warn you, but you
Speaker 1: had seen it before I told you. I think as
Speaker 1: for next on, role called Randy Rights, Don Williams, Hank Williams,
Speaker 1: Merle Haggard, and I don't know why, but nobody has
Speaker 1: said Wayland Jennings, and that gives me the sads. I'm
Speaker 1: assuming Randy, this is for my country music playlist. Now,
Speaker 1: I will say, guys, my country music playlist is pretty
Speaker 1: full right now, so I appreciate all the advice. I
Speaker 1: did ask for a team shout out of country music
Speaker 1: suggestions that said I got like a hundred songs in
Speaker 1: my playlists, So I'm good. I'm good right now. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. We will, you know, move on to other
Speaker 1: Maybe I should ask for stock tips from the team
Speaker 1: or something, you know, I should. I should, Really, what
Speaker 1: do you call it when you use every crowd crowdsource?
Speaker 1: I should crowdsource all kinds of things because the people
Speaker 1: who listen to this show are full of incredible knowledge
Speaker 1: about all kinds of stuff Kimberly Rights. Wonder if Jesse
Speaker 1: or Jesse rather that was me. I misread that was
Speaker 1: in cahoots with Booker and Harris to get publicity for
Speaker 1: their anti lynching bill. Harris's buddy buddy with the entire
Speaker 1: Juss family. Huh, what did I don't know anything? Lynching bill?
Speaker 1: Is this? I assumed that lynching. Kamela Harris's anti lynching
Speaker 1: bill gets a second chance at becoming law. Well, this
Speaker 1: is okay, okay, you know what. Instead of just saying
Speaker 1: I don't know, team, I'm gonna I'm gonna bring us
Speaker 1: all up to speed here because I did not know
Speaker 1: about this. So let's see what it says. Senator Kamala
Speaker 1: Kamela Harris's effort to make lynching a federal crime received
Speaker 1: new life Thursday when the Senate unanimously passed her bill
Speaker 1: to outlaw it. The bill, which is co authored by
Speaker 1: two other African Americans in the Senate, Democrat Corey Booker,
Speaker 1: New Jersey, Republican Tim Scott of South Carolina, unanimously passed
Speaker 1: the Senate late last year, but the House did not
Speaker 1: take it up before the Congressional Senate ended and the
Speaker 1: bill session ended and U and the bill died. The
Speaker 1: Senate pass Harris's legislation this again Thursday. With Democrats in
Speaker 1: control of the House. It stands a strong chance of
Speaker 1: making to President Trump's desk. It criminalized criminal It criminalizes
Speaker 1: attacks based on gender, sexual orientation, gender identity, or disability
Speaker 1: if they involve crossing state lines or are facilitated by
Speaker 1: the internet, phone, or mail. Isn't that stuff already all illegal?
Speaker 1: I'm just sort of confused. I feel like this is
Speaker 1: one of these laws that is outlawing stuff that's already illegal.
Speaker 1: But yeah, of course everybody's everybody is anti lynching, But
Speaker 1: lynching involves vigilante hate crime essentially, right, it's it's and
Speaker 1: it can be a murder, so it will be a
Speaker 1: hate crime murder. I just don't understand the specifics of
Speaker 1: what this makes illegal or makes a federal crime that's
Speaker 1: not really already a federal crime. But I'd have to
Speaker 1: look into the bill. But yeah, you guys are right
Speaker 1: that are bringing up the anti lynching bill. This is
Speaker 1: a thing, and it's one that I just learned about now.
Speaker 1: So thank you for bring him to my attention. Robert
Speaker 1: writes Buck, I love your show. One bit of criticism, Oh,
Speaker 1: I can't stand the lame analogies. Nine times out of ten,
Speaker 1: the topic discussed is not needed analogy unless you have
Speaker 1: a few random lefties listening. I'm guessing your audience does
Speaker 1: not need all the analogies to get the point. I
Speaker 1: listen on KLBJ, and you are by far the best
Speaker 1: show in the last ten years in this time slot.
Speaker 1: That said, I don't want to I don't want another analogy,
Speaker 1: or I'm gonna go okay, okay, all right, Robert, Robert, Buddy,
Speaker 1: loud and clear, loud and clear, I'm gonna take I'm
Speaker 1: gonna I'm gonna back off on, back off on the analogy.
Speaker 1: Sometimes the analogy comes from a place of me trying
Speaker 1: to kind of collect my thoughts. As much as it
Speaker 1: is to explain something to folks who are listening, it's
Speaker 1: a way to consolidate my own thinking. I do think
Speaker 1: that the analogies, for example, about the wall and a
Speaker 1: lock on a door, can be helpful, but you know
Speaker 1: it's not worth overplaying it. That said, I will, out
Speaker 1: of deference to you and our wonderful KLBJ Austin audience,
Speaker 1: I will avoid unnecessary analogies, but give me some credit.
Speaker 1: I also avoid as much as anybody can that speaks
Speaker 1: for three hours without a script, I avoid filler words
Speaker 1: pretty well, pretty I'm not saying I'm perfect. Some of
Speaker 1: you say, you say like and I mean and yes,
Speaker 1: I know, But if you listen to another radio show
Speaker 1: and you listen to this radio show, I will just
Speaker 1: tell you that my transcript has a lot less yeah
Speaker 1: like I mean like yeah, I mean like a lot
Speaker 1: of that out there and the rest of radio land.
Speaker 1: Just I'm just saying, just saying, give credit where its due.
Speaker 1: Brent writes, watching you live on Shannon Bream, get it,
Speaker 1: Buck Root rooting for you. Well, thank you so much, Brent,
Speaker 1: appreciate that. I had fun last night. I was with
Speaker 1: my my buddy Charlie Kirk from Turning Point You essay,
Speaker 1: was also on the libs must Run and Hide in
Speaker 1: Fear when Buck and Charlie are on the same segment
Speaker 1: at the same time. Leonard, right, Your Robert O'Rourke isn't bad,
Speaker 1: but it needs to be breathier. Also observe his speech cadence.
Speaker 1: He pauses breathlessly about every six to eight words. He
Speaker 1: sort of he sort of does this thing where he's
Speaker 1: just like so excited when he's talking and it's like
Speaker 1: he just worked out, but he didn't. No. I agree
Speaker 1: that my O'Rourke is pretty good. We all know that,
Speaker 1: all right. My Beaeto is pretty decent. But I can
Speaker 1: certainly work in a little bit. Sometimes it sounds a
Speaker 1: little too much like the guy from Napoleon Dynamite, and
Speaker 1: I know that, but he kind of reminds me of
Speaker 1: that guy. And impersonation often you peg it to somebody
Speaker 1: that is a more extreme version of the person that
Speaker 1: you're trying to impersonate. Christine right talking about AOC. She
Speaker 1: wants me to pay the taxes, not her. Well, Christine,
Speaker 1: that is true. She does not want to pay the
Speaker 1: taxes herself. She wants everybody else. This is trueho lives
Speaker 1: in general. Though they want other people to have to
Speaker 1: pick up the bill, they do not want to pick
Speaker 1: up the bill themselves. Susanne Ryan's hey, Buck, I love
Speaker 1: your show. Susan, we love you. Thank you for listening.
Speaker 1: She's a podcast listener. She writes, My question is ken
Speaker 1: and will they be able to prosecute or do something
Speaker 1: about Smolette creating a false hate crime? And false statement.
Speaker 1: I mean, at least get him to pay back some
Speaker 1: of the taxpayers money wasted. Shields I sue, sue shield
Speaker 1: tie to you. And yes, they can do something about this.
Speaker 1: I don't know if they will. They should, but I
Speaker 1: think that there's going to be because the media is
Speaker 1: gonna run interference and they're gonna back off as I
Speaker 1: think that there's going to be a real effort to say, well,
Speaker 1: he suffered enough and let's not make him suffer more
Speaker 1: and all that kind of stuff, And I just I
Speaker 1: would rather that not be the case. But we will
Speaker 1: have to see. But Susan, because I think it's important.
Speaker 1: I think it sends a very bad message if somebody
Speaker 1: can get away with doing what he did in the
Speaker 1: way that he did it, the egregious planned out nature
Speaker 1: of it too, and the drain on resources, the drain
Speaker 1: on resources that comes as a result of this. So
Speaker 1: you've got it. If you're not going to draw a
Speaker 1: line in the sand on this one, if you're not
Speaker 1: going to try and hold someone accountable for a FAKEK
Speaker 1: crime in this instance, when are you going to do it? All? Right, team,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be this episode of The Buck Sex Did
Speaker 1: Show Thank you so much for listening and honor. A
Speaker 1: privilege and a pleasure to have you hanging out with
Speaker 1: me in the hut. I got a lot more in
Speaker 1: mind already for the rest of the week, so be
Speaker 1: sure to tune in. However you tune in, talk to
Speaker 1: you tomorrow, Shields High,