Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The government shutdown continues.
Speaker 1: The showdown over the border wall drags on. President Trump
Speaker 1: made his case last night. The American people will have
Speaker 1: reactions on that for you. Also, our friend Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: is down at the border as speak. We will get
Speaker 1: her to call in to tell us what the border
Speaker 1: patrols actually saying about crime and human smuggling and illegal
Speaker 1: alien intrusions into the country. Plus, is there really a
Speaker 1: movement in academia to suppress facts in the sciences in
Speaker 1: favor of left wing narratives? That in more coming up
Speaker 1: on The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American great, You're
Speaker 1: a great American Again, The buck Sexton Show begins. Former
Speaker 1: CIA analysts. This is a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of
Speaker 1: the heart and a crisis of the soul. Last month,
Speaker 1: twenty thousand migrant children who are illegally brought into the
Speaker 1: United States, a dramatic increase. These children are used as
Speaker 1: human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs. One in
Speaker 1: three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up
Speaker 1: through Mexico. Women are children are the biggest victims by
Speaker 1: far of our broken system. This is the tragic reality
Speaker 1: of a legal immigration on our southern border. This is
Speaker 1: the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end.
Speaker 1: Sounds like a crisis to me. Welcome to the Buck
Speaker 1: Saxon Show. You know, the President had his addressed last
Speaker 1: night right after we went off air. I think it
Speaker 1: was effective. It wasn't much in the way of new
Speaker 1: but it was a straight to the American people explanation
Speaker 1: of why the shutdown is happening and what the fight
Speaker 1: over this border wall is really all about, without going
Speaker 1: through the prism of some media network that's going to
Speaker 1: have an anchor that's putting his or her spin on things.
Speaker 1: The President getting to address the American people on an
Speaker 1: issue of tremendous importance. Even if Libs can't agree that
Speaker 1: there's a crisis at the border, I think that we
Speaker 1: can all agree that immigration is a very important issue
Speaker 1: and there's a lot to be done on it. I
Speaker 1: think that enforcing the law is a really good start.
Speaker 1: The left tends to take a very different active on it.
Speaker 1: They believe that there's a need for well amnesty, and
Speaker 1: I'm not sure what else, which brings me to my
Speaker 1: single biggest takeaway after watching it last night. In the
Speaker 1: very awkward Pelosi Schumer side by side response, classic Pelosi
Speaker 1: and Schumer just stick to the talking points. Nothing, nothing compelling.
Speaker 1: It's amazing that they're such successful politicians, but a lot
Speaker 1: of it is just the fundraising and the wheeling and
Speaker 1: dealing behind the scenes. It's not because either of them
Speaker 1: aren't any way inspiring personalities who show anything in the
Speaker 1: way of public leadership. Maybe they're good at leading their
Speaker 1: caucus or their their majority or minority to do one
Speaker 1: thing or the other. But I came only last night
Speaker 1: just with this very fundamental conclusion, and that is that
Speaker 1: the Democrats are not a posed to illegal immigration. Democrats
Speaker 1: do not have a problem with illegal immigration. Now that's
Speaker 1: different than saying that they will openly advocate in favor
Speaker 1: of explicitly greater numbers of illegal immigrants coming to the country.
Speaker 1: But it's just at every phase, at every stage of
Speaker 1: the immigration debate and of this whole process we're going through,
Speaker 1: Democrats favor the side of the illegal Democrats favor the
Speaker 1: position of people who are in the country and violation
Speaker 1: of our laws. They always take the position that law
Speaker 1: and order is secondary to their emotional and political concerns
Speaker 1: about illegal aliens in the United States. You just go
Speaker 1: down a list of all of the things you see.
Speaker 1: And this is so important because they claim that the
Speaker 1: reason they're post the border wall has to do with
Speaker 1: its lack of efficacy, or has to do with its cost,
Speaker 1: or they go through the motions of having a real
Speaker 1: debate or discussion on this. But the truth is that
Speaker 1: look at everything else that they advocate for when it
Speaker 1: comes to illegal immigrant related issues, and you know what
Speaker 1: you're dealing with. Step away from the issue of the
Speaker 1: wall for a second. On sanctuary cities, where are the Democrats.
Speaker 1: They are in favor of sanctuary cities. They do not
Speaker 1: want to end sanctuary cities. They think that it is
Speaker 1: the right thing to do to have local law enforcement
Speaker 1: refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement to enforce existing
Speaker 1: federal law. There's no question about the laws that are
Speaker 1: being enforced, and the Democrats don't even have the strength
Speaker 1: of their convictions to say that those laws are illegitimate,
Speaker 1: that laws about being an illegal alien should not be
Speaker 1: on the books. No, they'll say those laws are fine,
Speaker 1: but they do not want They do not support local
Speaker 1: and state law enforcement assisting federal law enforcement, hence sanctuary
Speaker 1: city jurisdictions. E verify. One of the most important things
Speaker 1: we could do in the whole immigration debate is make
Speaker 1: it less desirable, less personally profitable for people to violate
Speaker 1: our immigration laws and come to this country. Where do
Speaker 1: Democrats stand on everify? Which would mean that employers would
Speaker 1: have the ability pretty easily to know if somebody was
Speaker 1: legally allowed to work or not. Remember, this is about
Speaker 1: existing law. We're not even trying to change laws. We're
Speaker 1: trying to help act on the laws that are in
Speaker 1: place that this Congress could change. If they were so bad,
Speaker 1: if the laws were so immoral, they could change it.
Speaker 1: They say they'll want to change it. The Democrats certainly
Speaker 1: don't want to change it, and so with e verify,
Speaker 1: the Democrats oppose it. When it comes to interior enforcement,
Speaker 1: who's always in favor of more lenient enforcement when deportations
Speaker 1: are under discussion, Democrats. Democrats are now the party of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens. That's what has happened, and that is a
Speaker 1: remarkable shift from where they were even ten years ago.
Speaker 1: Ten years ago, they were a party that would go
Speaker 1: through the motions on securing the border. They would talk about, how, okay,
Speaker 1: we need to deal with the immigrants, who are the
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants who are already in the country, but we
Speaker 1: should we should take action at the border. You know,
Speaker 1: Obama would would push for deportations. You know, they were
Speaker 1: calling for a little while Obama the deporter in chief.
Speaker 1: Now the reality was they changed the definition of what
Speaker 1: they were counting as a deportation. They essentially cooked the
Speaker 1: books under the Obama administration so that he could see
Speaker 1: tough on the border as a means of having the
Speaker 1: political capital to get amnesty, because that is the motherload,
Speaker 1: that is the holy grail for the Democrats. You get amnesty,
Speaker 1: everything else becomes in your reach. Everything else will go
Speaker 1: toward Stadism and the left and the authoritarian social socialist
Speaker 1: democratic agenda, all of it. That's why the fight over
Speaker 1: this issue is also so important. If you just care
Speaker 1: about limited government, if you if you care about right
Speaker 1: to life, if you care about rule of law, any
Speaker 1: of these things, and you're like, immigration book is not
Speaker 1: you know, I live I live in Montana. I don't
Speaker 1: care that much about immigration. The Canadians don't come, you know,
Speaker 1: come in and droves. I tell you that by changing
Speaker 1: the demographic reality of the United States, the Democrats are
Speaker 1: remaking the political makeup of are electorate, and in doing so,
Speaker 1: they will flip Texas from red to blue. They will
Speaker 1: create a single party state that the Democrats run with
Speaker 1: a ProForma republican opposition. That's the end goal here, and
Speaker 1: that's why it's so important to understand that Democrats are
Speaker 1: not negotiating with us over what works. When it comes
Speaker 1: to border security, Democrats are not in favor of border security.
Speaker 1: They do not want illegal aliens to be kept out.
Speaker 1: They can't openly say it because the American people, by
Speaker 1: a strong majority, are not quite with them on it.
Speaker 1: But the thirty percent of Americans and the latest gallopole
Speaker 1: I saw who identify as liberal, they want illegals. They
Speaker 1: don't care how they get here. The more the marrier
Speaker 1: government will take care of them, taxes on the quote
Speaker 1: rich will be higher. That's the agenda, that's the plan.
Speaker 1: And they cheer on the radical, cultural, linguistic, and demographic
Speaker 1: transformation of this country without understanding that this is combustible stuff.
Speaker 1: That they are doing that. There is no previous example
Speaker 1: that we can point to of a society as large
Speaker 1: and as sophisticated as America at any point in history
Speaker 1: that has had quite such an influx overwhelmingly from one
Speaker 1: linguistic and cultural background, that did not have long term
Speaker 1: deleterious effects on the cohesion of the country in question.
Speaker 1: If you want to, if you want to look back
Speaker 1: at history and see when you've had a massive influx
Speaker 1: of people of a different culture and of a different
Speaker 1: political union, who I'm into one the changes that occur
Speaker 1: over time tend to be ones of disruption and disunity.
Speaker 1: No one thinks about that right now, very much, at
Speaker 1: least because it's still very early in the game. But
Speaker 1: who knows what the long term implications of this will
Speaker 1: be Our history and Libs either don't know this or
Speaker 1: don't care to know it. It's probably a combination of
Speaker 1: both is of immigration with stop immigration and stop that
Speaker 1: allows for the assimilation process. We get, you know, we
Speaker 1: get a wave of immigrants from Germany and then immigration
Speaker 1: levels go down, We get a wave of immigrants from Ireland,
Speaker 1: we get away. You know, this has been the natural immigration.
Speaker 1: It has not just been a million a year legally
Speaker 1: every year, which we don't even really talk about, and
Speaker 1: then you know, a couple of hundred thousand this year,
Speaker 1: a couple of hundred thousand next year illegally on top
Speaker 1: of it. That's the underlying truth of this whole debate.
Speaker 1: Though the Democrats are secretly and it's not really such
Speaker 1: a secret, but at the end of the day, they
Speaker 1: are in favor of illegal immigration in the United States.
Speaker 1: They won't say it, but it's true. And that is
Speaker 1: the big problem that we face now. We are not
Speaker 1: working toward the same goal. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: are not negotiating with Trump over how best to achieve
Speaker 1: border security. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the Democrats
Speaker 1: do not want border security. They don't believe the statistics
Speaker 1: about all the opioids that are coming across illegally into
Speaker 1: the country, or they don't care, they don't believe the
Speaker 1: statistics about all the crimes committed by illegal aliens, or
Speaker 1: they don't care. They don't believe that by shutting down
Speaker 1: the magnet the attraction for people to come into this
Speaker 1: country illegally, you would stop the human smuggling that enriches
Speaker 1: is the cartels, and that results in so much misery
Speaker 1: and despair and death at our southern border. Over decades,
Speaker 1: women being sexually abused and raped young girls by these
Speaker 1: coyotes who are employees of the cartels that cut people's
Speaker 1: heads off and dangle bodies from overpassages to send a
Speaker 1: message to the rest of society. We run this place.
Speaker 1: That's who our enemy is on the other side of
Speaker 1: the border. And Pelosi and Schumer atlet there's no problem.
Speaker 1: All we need to do is just deal with the dreamers,
Speaker 1: just give reward people who broke the law. Everything else
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. Democrats and Republicans on illegal immigration are not
Speaker 1: trying to achieve the same goal. This is not a
Speaker 1: difference in how we get there. This is a difference
Speaker 1: in where we're trying to go. They have sold out
Speaker 1: the sovereignty of this nation and have embraced lawlessness in
Speaker 1: order to achieve power that cannot be taken away from
Speaker 1: them because the reality of the electorate in this country
Speaker 1: will have forever changed. That's the game that they're playing.
Speaker 1: So I hope Trump can hold the line. I hope
Speaker 1: Trump is able to make the case the American people
Speaker 1: he sounds like he's dug in on this one. But
Speaker 1: the heat's getting turned up, as we knew it would.
Speaker 1: People are suffering because of the shutdown. They're not getting
Speaker 1: their paychecks. A lot of federal workers are living paycheck
Speaker 1: to paycheck. I was a federal worker with no savings
Speaker 1: to speak of. I mean, you know, you know, a
Speaker 1: few hundred dollars in the bank, maybe a couple of thousand.
Speaker 1: If I was feeling really flush with cash, and if
Speaker 1: I didn't have my paycheck, I would have been in trouble.
Speaker 1: So I understand the angles and the risks and issues
Speaker 1: involved here, But this is about the future of this country,
Speaker 1: and this is about exposing the Democrat multidecade long operation
Speaker 1: to eradicate sovereignty in favor of a super state that
Speaker 1: will be run by the authoritarian socialist Democrat left. Those
Speaker 1: are pretty high stakes. We'll be right back. You know,
Speaker 1: the fake gifts, the fake news, And I just want
Speaker 1: to tell you said the Republicans are totally unifised. Now,
Speaker 1: if you would ask the same question to the Democrats,
Speaker 1: you let me know, in some of those districts where
Speaker 1: I wan, or that are a little bit more forward sanity,
Speaker 1: you want them to run say we don't want to
Speaker 1: have border security. You got plenty of Democrats that do
Speaker 1: not want to be in this battle. The only reason
Speaker 1: they're against it is because I won the presidents and
Speaker 1: they think they can try and hurt us going into
Speaker 1: the presidency. But that's not going to happen. And we
Speaker 1: don't give up because people we're doing we're doing the
Speaker 1: right thing. Okay, doing the right thing for the country.
Speaker 1: The President says he feels like Republicans are unified. I
Speaker 1: hope he's right, because this is a fight that doesn't
Speaker 1: look like it's gonna end anytime soon. There were some
Speaker 1: meetings today. President when met with folks on Capitol Hill,
Speaker 1: we got some different versions of how that whole went
Speaker 1: played twenty one. Okay, Nancy, if we opened the government
Speaker 1: up in thirty days, could we have border security. She
Speaker 1: raised her hand and said no, not at all. The
Speaker 1: President calmly said, I guess he's still not wanting to
Speaker 1: deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the President just got up
Speaker 1: and walked down. He asked a speaker, Pelosi, will you
Speaker 1: agree to my walls? She said no, and he just
Speaker 1: got up and said, then we have nothing to discuss.
Speaker 1: And he just walked down again. We saw a temper tantrum.
Speaker 1: A temper tantrum. Schumer says, hmm, I have a hard
Speaker 1: time just taking Chuck's word for it. Is there anybody
Speaker 1: else who might be able to shed some light on
Speaker 1: just what went on at this effort by the President
Speaker 1: today to move things forward on a negotiation to get
Speaker 1: security for the border and get the rest of the
Speaker 1: federal government back open play twenty two. President literally called
Speaker 1: the question. He said, if I opened up the government quickly,
Speaker 1: would you agreed a border security and a wall. The
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House said no, And at that point,
Speaker 1: I think the President thought there was no longer any
Speaker 1: reason to be talking at this meeting. I had the
Speaker 1: president plan and he walked out. Well, the President walked
Speaker 1: into the room passed out candy. It was true, but
Speaker 1: I don't I don't recall him ever raising his voice
Speaker 1: or slamming his hand. Yeah, that's the Pence version of
Speaker 1: events there, I will take I will take Pence's say
Speaker 1: on this one over Schumer. That much is for sure.
Speaker 1: And I think that there's a real sense that you
Speaker 1: know that the Democrats. I am I am hoping, I
Speaker 1: am hoping they will suffer the consequences of all the
Speaker 1: all the lies and all the falsehoods that they have
Speaker 1: been peddling around this border issue. I'm also hoping to
Speaker 1: get to the border next week, so we'll see. I
Speaker 1: might I might have to be away from the freedom
Speaker 1: hunt for a day. Oh no, if that happens, But
Speaker 1: I will let you know, and we'll get one of
Speaker 1: our great hosts to step in if that's the case.
Speaker 1: But I want to get down there, talk to border patrols,
Speaker 1: see the fans, see the wall, see what's going on myself.
Speaker 1: So we're hoping to make that a thing. But Sarah
Speaker 1: Carter is there right now, and we'll talk to her
Speaker 1: about that coming up in just a bit. So the
Speaker 1: President continues to fear monger, and he makes up the facts.
Speaker 1: This is a president's you see, that's in crisis. In
Speaker 1: no way did the president speech last night makeup persuasive
Speaker 1: or even a new case for an exorbitantly expensive border wall,
Speaker 1: a wall that the President guaranteed would be paid by Mexico.
Speaker 1: He says, I ran on this, Yeah, he ran on it,
Speaker 1: saying Mexico would pay for it. Federal workers will not
Speaker 1: be receiving their paychecks and what that means in their
Speaker 1: lives is tragic in terms of their credit rating, paying
Speaker 1: their mortgage, paying their rent, paying their card payment, paying
Speaker 1: their children's tuish and the rest. The President seems to
Speaker 1: be insensitive to that. He thinks maybe they could just
Speaker 1: ask their father for more money, but they can't. But
Speaker 1: they can't, and we think that the collateral damage that
Speaker 1: he is causing, well, I'm going to yield to the
Speaker 1: leader to talk about that, but I would say this,
Speaker 1: if you don't understand financial insecurity, then you would have
Speaker 1: a policy that takes pride in saying I'm going to
Speaker 1: keep government shut down for months, for years unless you
Speaker 1: totally a break to my position. You know, Pelosi there
Speaker 1: took a little shot at Trump saying he'd ask his
Speaker 1: dad for money. You know, I mean Nancy somebody who
Speaker 1: can ask her rich husband for money anytime she needs it.
Speaker 1: You know, she didn't make that thirty million dollars she's got,
Speaker 1: So I think Nancy needs to cooler jets there on
Speaker 1: the going after family money thing. All right, let's let's
Speaker 1: start with that Nancy Pelosi, woman of the people. All
Speaker 1: of a sudden, it's pretty astonishing. And if she really
Speaker 1: cared so much about these workers who were going without
Speaker 1: pay for a period of time. Her and Chuck could
Speaker 1: turn this whole thing around and just put out funding
Speaker 1: for a border wall. Think of all of the nonsense
Speaker 1: that this country has spent money on, and it's and
Speaker 1: it's a pretty enraging experiment to do it. I mean,
Speaker 1: think of all this stuff that the federal government has
Speaker 1: wasted money on over the years. And now now we're
Speaker 1: being told is that the wall is too expensive. That's
Speaker 1: a that's just not a real criticism here. The wall
Speaker 1: is not too expensive. The wall will work, and whether
Speaker 1: it's a wall or a barrier, it's just a distraction.
Speaker 1: And to say that there's not a crisis of the border,
Speaker 1: I mean that that is I think the dumbest thing
Speaker 1: to say, because now we're just arguing over what constitutes
Speaker 1: a crisis. When Democrats all summer were saying that a
Speaker 1: crisis was occurring at the border because of all these
Speaker 1: families showing up that we're supposed to just let into
Speaker 1: the country. Here's Nicole Wallace, who is uh, you know,
Speaker 1: feathering her nest with the paychecks from MSNBC by being
Speaker 1: a rabbit anti trumper. I don't know what her well,
Speaker 1: I do know what her promise. She wants to be
Speaker 1: on MSNBC, and that's you know, that's who sign under paychecks.
Speaker 1: But she says the crisis, this is somebody worked for
Speaker 1: the Bush administration. She says, the crisis a scam. Plane nine.
Speaker 1: I think that they're there there. I think there are
Speaker 1: half a dozen things that were wrong, falsehoods, lies, um
Speaker 1: and and you talked about a lot of them before
Speaker 1: the speech and went to some of them now. But
Speaker 1: the big scam of the whole address was that there's
Speaker 1: a crisis. There's not a crisis. Pretty sure there is
Speaker 1: a crisis. I'm pretty sure that we should stop listening
Speaker 1: to people that say there isn't a crisis when we
Speaker 1: all know that there is. And this then brings me
Speaker 1: also to the fake fact check apparatus that the liberal
Speaker 1: media has. They keep on saying that they're gonna fact
Speaker 1: check the present. They're all fact checking the present. I mean,
Speaker 1: here's the Associated Press with a fake fact check. Trump
Speaker 1: said Democrats will not fund border security, but that is
Speaker 1: not true. Democrats did pass money for border security, but
Speaker 1: at one point three billion dollars, funding was much lower
Speaker 1: the present requested and did not pay for a wall. Yeah, well,
Speaker 1: this is not a fact check associated press. This is
Speaker 1: a subjective assessment of what funding border security means. Right.
Speaker 1: You know, if I say that you know you won't
Speaker 1: give me a down payment for a house, and you say, well,
Speaker 1: here's a dollar, go by, you know, go find a
Speaker 1: house where you could make a down payment for a dollar.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm I'm going to make the assessment you're
Speaker 1: not giving me a down payment for a house. You
Speaker 1: could claim that you are, but this is a this
Speaker 1: is a dispute over how you define a down payment
Speaker 1: for a house, right, same thing with funding border security.
Speaker 1: So you can argue as to whether or not it's
Speaker 1: it's it's fair to say, but it's not a fact check.
Speaker 1: It's not a fact check. When the president says they
Speaker 1: won't fund border security, he believes that continuing what we're
Speaker 1: doing now is not funding border security. They're not funding it,
Speaker 1: they're not funding a wall, they're not funding things that
Speaker 1: are necessary for security at the border. And and there's
Speaker 1: so many others where they claim to be doing a
Speaker 1: fact check, and really what they're just doing is a
Speaker 1: lib check, as in, he's not being liberal. So we're
Speaker 1: going to be a check on him, So why not
Speaker 1: sign the other bills though, so some of these workers
Speaker 1: can get paid? The government should do that. Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: do you think I should do that? John? I mean
Speaker 1: it's for me. Did I watch your one sided reporting?
Speaker 1: Do you think I should do that? Hey? John? Not seriously, John,
Speaker 1: do you think I should just signed? Well, the argument is,
Speaker 1: help me tell me I should just signed. I'm saying
Speaker 1: that if you sign that these workers can start getting paid,
Speaker 1: the government can. So you would do that if you
Speaker 1: were in my position, you do that. I'm not in
Speaker 1: your position. I'm asking you. If you've got something, I'm
Speaker 1: asking you, would you do that if you were in
Speaker 1: my position, because if you would do that, you should
Speaker 1: never be in this position because you'd never get anything done.
Speaker 1: Good Bye, everybody, Thank you very much, Go home the mommy.
Speaker 1: The President basically says that, go home the mommy. We
Speaker 1: have that as a drop. I think that's always fun.
Speaker 1: That's pretty much what he did there to ABC's John Carl.
Speaker 1: Let me just notice the way that they asked the
Speaker 1: president questions, have you have you heard any have you
Speaker 1: heard any Democrats get asked, Hey, why don't you just
Speaker 1: give the president money to try to see if he
Speaker 1: can make the border more secure. It's a good use
Speaker 1: of taxpayer dollars, and the reward could greatly outweigh any
Speaker 1: of the drawbacks. What why don't you You don't hear
Speaker 1: them ask that question? Right? Yeah, they all go to
Speaker 1: the accost A school of journalism. Excuse me, mister president,
Speaker 1: are you gonna lie? Are you a liar? Like that's
Speaker 1: a real question, Like that's journalism, That's that's bringing us,
Speaker 1: that's bringing us necessary information to be informed citizens. People
Speaker 1: are deeply, deeply unimpressive, but nonetheless they've managed to maneuver
Speaker 1: their way into the the privileged reaches of the of
Speaker 1: the news media. Which is, the more time I spend
Speaker 1: in media, the more unimpressive I find most of the
Speaker 1: people that work in the upper echelon of the mainstream media.
Speaker 1: That you know, the big story. I didn't spend time
Speaker 1: on it yesterday. Libs were obviously very fired up about
Speaker 1: this one, and and I just wanted to spend some
Speaker 1: time on Well, there's really truly two parts of it.
Speaker 1: It's the Mueller probe component and then the Rosenstein rosen
Speaker 1: Stein situation. And you know, I had some meetings recently
Speaker 1: with a whole bunch of senior folks, very senior folks
Speaker 1: at the Department of Justice. Got to talk to them
Speaker 1: about everything that's going on over there, because you know,
Speaker 1: I'm here in the swamp, so I might as well
Speaker 1: make use to the fact that I'm just I'm just
Speaker 1: down the street. I can get to I can get
Speaker 1: to DJ. I can have lunch with Rosenstein if he
Speaker 1: gave me five minutes notice, you know, I could get
Speaker 1: there no problem, hop on one of those little nerdy
Speaker 1: electric scooters that everybody has in DC. Now that's right.
Speaker 1: They're dorky looking, but they really really are convenient. I
Speaker 1: can neither confirm nor deny that I ride green energy
Speaker 1: friendly electric scooter in DC. I can't. I can't tell
Speaker 1: you one way or the other. Maybe maybe you do,
Speaker 1: maybe I don't, probably do. But Mana fort now because
Speaker 1: of what we are told is an error by his
Speaker 1: legal team, the same legal team that's managed to advise
Speaker 1: him through a process where he's had a plea bargain
Speaker 1: get effectively tore up by the prosecution because they say
Speaker 1: he violated it. I mean, maybe it's all Manafort's fault,
Speaker 1: but I gotta start to think, you know, this guy
Speaker 1: might not have the best the best lawyers in the world.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're very expensive, but all lawyers are expensive.
Speaker 1: If you ever have to deal with them, you find
Speaker 1: that out pretty quickly. Here's the law in the short
Speaker 1: of it. They're saying now in this filing that Manafort's
Speaker 1: own lawyers put out that that the special Counsel Robert
Speaker 1: Muller's team has said that Manafort lied about sharing polling
Speaker 1: data with Klimnick, who is tied to Russian intelligence Constantin Calimnick,
Speaker 1: who's a Russian Ukrainian businessman, and he's already been charged
Speaker 1: with tampering with potential witnesses. So we're being told that
Speaker 1: that this guy who's a Russian Ukrainian with ties to
Speaker 1: Russian intel. If you're a billionaire in Russia, by the way,
Speaker 1: you have ties to intel. I mean their country is
Speaker 1: run by an intelligence officer. A lot of the most
Speaker 1: powerful figures in the Russian government are former intelligence officers.
Speaker 1: And really, you know, people make jokes here about how
Speaker 1: you know, once you're you know, once you're in the
Speaker 1: intel community, you're always you know, once you're CIA, you're
Speaker 1: always CIA. In the US that's not true. You know,
Speaker 1: you're once you're out, you're out. You're out of the family.
Speaker 1: You have no contact, no connections, nothing. Uh. The Russian
Speaker 1: model is a little more. Yeah, once you've been KGB,
Speaker 1: your role as KIGB. Once you're in the KGB, the
Speaker 1: want leave. So that and I've mentioned before this book
Speaker 1: that I recommend. It's a it's a good book called
Speaker 1: The New Nobility, which was about how with the collapse
Speaker 1: of the Soviet Union, the intelligence apparatus very much transitioned
Speaker 1: into being the heads of the Russian mafia state. You know,
Speaker 1: because the intel guys had both info and the muscle
Speaker 1: to take action based on that very sensitive info. So
Speaker 1: they were in a very they were in a favorable
Speaker 1: position to seize the state industries that were then privatized
Speaker 1: and be near that if they didn't own or you know,
Speaker 1: if they weren't the primary beneficiary, they were at least
Speaker 1: able to get their cut and become very powerful. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that's just a little bit of context for this whole
Speaker 1: tie to Russian intelligence thing. But Calimnick is probably he's
Speaker 1: been indicted, he's never going to face prosecution. He's in Russia.
Speaker 1: The Russians are never going to turn him over. But
Speaker 1: the long and the short of it is that they're
Speaker 1: saying that Manafort gave this polling data to the Russians,
Speaker 1: So this is collusion, and I just say, okay, let's
Speaker 1: just let's just start with some basics here. Number one,
Speaker 1: it is in no way, in no interpretation of law,
Speaker 1: a violation of any statute to give information that is
Speaker 1: polling data, which is generally very public information anyway, although
Speaker 1: for campaigns sometimes they'll keep it because I think there's
Speaker 1: an information advantage to it. But you know, this is
Speaker 1: sharing an internal campaign an assessment essentially with an outside observer.
Speaker 1: There's nothing illegal about this, so start with that. So, oh,
Speaker 1: this is a big story of the New York Times,
Speaker 1: number one New York Times story I think yesterday, other
Speaker 1: than probably updates on the shutdown, this is their number
Speaker 1: one breaking news item. And it's not illegal. Lying about
Speaker 1: it may be illegal, but lying about anything that is material,
Speaker 1: which if you're looking at the Muller probe material is
Speaker 1: whatever the heck they say it is. Lying about anything
Speaker 1: can be illegal, so that that doesn't really matter. That's
Speaker 1: not particularly relevant. It's not an illegal act. So we're
Speaker 1: starting with that, and then you get into Okay, So
Speaker 1: the theory here is that Maniford, and I've already heard
Speaker 1: this from libs all day today because I work with libs,
Speaker 1: the theory is that the Manifort effort was to share
Speaker 1: information so the Russians could more accurately target the election
Speaker 1: via Facebook. So that's why they're pulling I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: let's just take a step back for a moment. Even
Speaker 1: if that were true, meaning that he thought that giving
Speaker 1: the you know that he passed along information to the
Speaker 1: Russians because the Russians wanted to have a better understanding
Speaker 1: of American politics. That wouldn't be illegal or even really problematic. Right,
Speaker 1: There's a lot of ways that he might have given
Speaker 1: this information over to a Russian that he had known
Speaker 1: for years and worked with for a very long time. Look,
Speaker 1: Manaphort's a shady, sketchy guy. He's going to prison for
Speaker 1: a long time. I'm not in the Promnaphort camp. I'm
Speaker 1: not here to your fen Menaphor. I'm just saying, though,
Speaker 1: is this illegal or in any way tied to Donald Trump?
Speaker 1: You know? Was he acting as somebody who was trying
Speaker 1: to impress a very wealthy Russian associate. Was he sharing
Speaker 1: the information to say, hey, look we're actually we're doing
Speaker 1: really well. We might actually win this thing. And that
Speaker 1: there were ongoing discussions between people who were trying to
Speaker 1: be intermediaries of the Russian state with members of the
Speaker 1: Trump team in the campaign at self is not problematic.
Speaker 1: People Obama and his team were flying all over the
Speaker 1: world and meeting with all kinds of people from all
Speaker 1: different countries. You know, there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: that try to build relationships with incoming possible administration, certainly
Speaker 1: with the incoming administration. But they try to make all
Speaker 1: of this through through the context they put it in,
Speaker 1: through the way that they frame these issues. They make
Speaker 1: it seem as nefarious as possible. Maybe it's a little shady,
Speaker 1: They make it seem like it's the shadiest thing ever.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's a little bit of bad judgment. They make
Speaker 1: it seem like it's being a traitor, being a horrible,
Speaker 1: vile crime against the nation. And I think we've just
Speaker 1: seen that this hysteria is true of you know, of
Speaker 1: the left and of liberals, you know, at every stage
Speaker 1: of this whole Muller probe. So I don't see this
Speaker 1: Manafort sharing polling data issue as being nearly as explosive.
Speaker 1: People are saying, this is the most evidence we've had
Speaker 1: yet of collusion. There's no evidence of actual collision. There's
Speaker 1: evidence that he gave polling data a Russian buddy of his. Okay,
Speaker 1: so what he gave? So what does that mean that
Speaker 1: the American people, you know, like Trump in the following states?
Speaker 1: Now you see, because even if that's true, and even
Speaker 1: if the Russians tried to act on that information, guess what.
Speaker 1: The notion that the Russians would be able to tip
Speaker 1: the election one way or the other based upon the
Speaker 1: amount of Facebook activity they did is laughable. This is
Speaker 1: this is where the delusion is. Forget them about about
Speaker 1: everything else for a moment, the exaggeration of the power.
Speaker 1: They knew about the Russian effort when Hillary was winning,
Speaker 1: they didn't say anything because they knew that they or
Speaker 1: they rather they thought they were sure that Hillary was
Speaker 1: going to win. Do you think they would have been
Speaker 1: quiet about this and they run up to the election
Speaker 1: if they really believe that there was any realistic possibility
Speaker 1: that some Facebook accounts could throw the think of all
Speaker 1: the efforts and by the way, as you know, and
Speaker 1: I haven't spoken about on the show. There's there's some
Speaker 1: lib groups that in the Roy Moore Senate race did
Speaker 1: false flag operations. This has now come out. I should
Speaker 1: probably talk about this tomorrow. There are libs, including some
Speaker 1: with ties to billionaires, Liberal American billionaires, who ran false
Speaker 1: flags in the Roy Moore Senate race. And we're just
Speaker 1: supposed to sort of skip past as like, oh, I
Speaker 1: guess that's not a big deal. So the Manafoord thing
Speaker 1: once again exaggerated. We don't know the full context. We
Speaker 1: don't know even how much. I mean, was it one pole?
Speaker 1: Was it? Donald Trump is running neck and neck with
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. That's like a news item. You'd share that
Speaker 1: with anybody. You know, how specific was the polling, what
Speaker 1: were the poles? And what was the context of the conversation?
Speaker 1: Without knowing that, we don't know anything except that Manaford's
Speaker 1: lawyers are apparently a bunch of bozos. And then there's
Speaker 1: just just quickly before we we're gonna have Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: joining in just a moment, and you know she is,
Speaker 1: I mean, she is all in this. She's calling in
Speaker 1: to us from the southern border. I mean, she's down
Speaker 1: there in the Rio Grande Valley right now. And I said, look, Sarah,
Speaker 1: and you get to a place where you have good
Speaker 1: enough cell reception where you can call in. She's gonna
Speaker 1: tell us some really interesting stories about what she's seeing
Speaker 1: and hearing from being down there. And then so we'll
Speaker 1: have her join us for a hot wash of all that.
Speaker 1: And uh, but I have to talk briefly just about
Speaker 1: this Rosenstein thing. We were being told yesterday Rosenstein is
Speaker 1: going to resign. Oh my gosh, Rosenstein. It was all this,
Speaker 1: this big flurry of fear from the left on all
Speaker 1: this stuff. Now we're told, oh no, Rosenstein's not going
Speaker 1: to resign until after them all the report, which means
Speaker 1: he's going to be in place probably all year. So
Speaker 1: much ado about absolutely nothing. But the left shows once
Speaker 1: again that they think that Rosenstein's their guy, and he's
Speaker 1: in on this effort to politically destroy Trump using the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice and the Special Council. That's all there
Speaker 1: is to it. So there you have all you need
Speaker 1: to know on that. Let's talk to Sarah Carter coming
Speaker 1: up here in just a moment. Stay with me. You're
Speaker 1: probably familiar with AARP, you or someone you know might
Speaker 1: already be a member, but did you know that the
Speaker 1: aar P is really left wing. See that's why I
Speaker 1: recommend AMAC. Why AMAC well. AMAC was founded by an
Speaker 1: Air Force veteran, and it is all about supporting the
Speaker 1: values and policies that you do. They are advocates for
Speaker 1: border security, they are advocates for fixing social security. They
Speaker 1: are advocates for seniors when it comes to all conservative
Speaker 1: policies and aspects of life. And you get all the
Speaker 1: benefits of AARP. So you know, put your money where
Speaker 1: your heart is on this one. Stand with AMAC as
Speaker 1: they fight the good fight. By becoming a member today,
Speaker 1: the benefits are great, the cause is even greater. Tell
Speaker 1: your family and friends join right now at AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. That's am AC dot us slash buck,
Speaker 1: am AC dot us slash buck. It's better for America.
Speaker 1: AMAC is better for you. Team. I want to bring
Speaker 1: you some ground truth from a situation at the border,
Speaker 1: and for that we turn to our friend, invest negative
Speaker 1: journalist Fox News contributor Sarah Carter. You can read her
Speaker 1: work at Sarah A Carter dot com. She is down
Speaker 1: in the Rio Grand Valley right now. Sarah, thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. What are you looking at
Speaker 1: down there right on the border. Well, my main focus,
Speaker 1: and it's always been as the national security aspects that
Speaker 1: you know along the nearly two thousand mile a porous
Speaker 1: border between the United States and Mexico, and really focusing
Speaker 1: in on the Rio Grand Dalley sector in Texas, because
Speaker 1: while everybody's paying attention to everything going on in California,
Speaker 1: people have somehow forgotten about the rest of the border,
Speaker 1: and the McCallen sector is really important. I was here
Speaker 1: in twenty fourteen when hundreds and then thousands of Unda
Speaker 1: Company miners made their way across the Rio Grand Dalley.
Speaker 1: It was really incredible. I was there in an area
Speaker 1: private property along the Rio along the river where people
Speaker 1: were just crossing and grows. So I thought, why not
Speaker 1: take a chance, come out, Derek, and come see what's
Speaker 1: going on, especially now since it's such an important topic
Speaker 1: and it's the central focus of the administration. So I
Speaker 1: went out early this morning with some law enforce beneficials
Speaker 1: and a private resident whose family actually owns the property
Speaker 1: on the Rio Grand River. He called himselves Junior, and
Speaker 1: I gave me permission to go on his property and
Speaker 1: literally within ten minutes buck of sitting out just watching
Speaker 1: the river, looking at the fast terrain. You know, it's
Speaker 1: a pretty sparse there's nobody around. I see two gentlemen
Speaker 1: coming in my direction, and at first I thought, maybe,
Speaker 1: you know, they were Christians. I thought maybe their border control,
Speaker 1: maybe their ci depends. I keep looking and as they
Speaker 1: see me, they start putting their hands up in the air.
Speaker 1: They're turning themselves into me. I had to explain to them.
Speaker 1: I thought they spoke Spanish. So I began talking to
Speaker 1: them in Spanish, asking them, you know, telling them I'm
Speaker 1: a reporter, telling them and I'm not at immigration or
Speaker 1: border patrol that I'd like to talk to them, that
Speaker 1: they could put their hands down, and they still wouldn't
Speaker 1: do it. So at that point I realized, as they
Speaker 1: got closer that they were not Spanish speaking. They weren't
Speaker 1: from Central America or from Mexico. They were from some
Speaker 1: other country, and so I spoke to them in English.
Speaker 1: They told me they were from Bangladesh. This is very
Speaker 1: interesting what they call otms. Other than Mexican. These are
Speaker 1: special interest aliens. They call them sias. Both of them
Speaker 1: were from Bangladesh. The little English that they spoke. They
Speaker 1: told me that traveled for three months, paid a trafficker
Speaker 1: over sixteen thousand dollars a piece to move them from
Speaker 1: Bangladesh through Dubai to Brazil, up through Central America and
Speaker 1: then through Mexico to be grouped by me when they
Speaker 1: crossed the border into the United States. In fact, they
Speaker 1: had no idea that they were even in the United
Speaker 1: States when they saw me. They just didn't even know
Speaker 1: where they We're at at that moment. So can I
Speaker 1: just kind of just try to try to put this
Speaker 1: in a little context for a second, Sarah, You go out,
Speaker 1: as you've spent a lot of time on the border
Speaker 1: in the past, and you're a fluent Spanish speaker. You
Speaker 1: go out on the border, you see some people that
Speaker 1: are clearly crossing over from the other side. They don't
Speaker 1: speak Spanish. Turns out they came all the way from
Speaker 1: Bangladesh and made their way up through South America and
Speaker 1: across the US Mexico border and had already made it
Speaker 1: onto our side. It doesn't sound like it's that hard
Speaker 1: to do this. No, it's not. And this is the point,
Speaker 1: this is the reason why I've been so focused on
Speaker 1: the border now for more than words covering this topic.
Speaker 1: This is new. You know, every time a new administration
Speaker 1: takes office and we hear about the border, and everybody
Speaker 1: talks about resolving the crisis. Let's resolve this crisis, and
Speaker 1: then we hear the political backbiting and fighting over it.
Speaker 1: There's a border right there, people are crossing it. If
Speaker 1: I hadn't run into these guys, I don't even know
Speaker 1: Border patrol would have run into them. Because remember they're
Speaker 1: preparing here the tal infector for the president's arrival tomorrow
Speaker 1: here to discuss this. They're gonna have to talk about
Speaker 1: this topic. So here you have two special interest aliens.
Speaker 1: They might be good guys, they might not be. I
Speaker 1: don't know. Them crossing the border and just walking into
Speaker 1: the United States. I mean, they're just walking in. They
Speaker 1: just got trafficked all the way from Bangladesh. They somehow,
Speaker 1: according to them, they paid sixteen thousand dollars a piece
Speaker 1: to get here. They went through various other countries and
Speaker 1: they came here. And when I finally got them to
Speaker 1: talk a little bit more, I said, well, why did
Speaker 1: you pick the United States? Obviously they had gone through
Speaker 1: many different countries previously, and said it was political reasons,
Speaker 1: political reasons, and that we're very interesting. A lot of
Speaker 1: the coyotes and the traffickers are really smart right now.
Speaker 1: They're really keen on our rules and on our laws.
Speaker 1: And one of the things that they tell every who
Speaker 1: crosses the border didn't happen in the past. Buck, by
Speaker 1: the way, people weren't aware of this in the pact,
Speaker 1: these asylum claims. So they tell them, you know, apply
Speaker 1: for asylum. Say you're a political prisoner, or say that
Speaker 1: you're a political dissident, or tell them that you're claiming
Speaker 1: asylum or credible fear because you're afraid for your life.
Speaker 1: So people have the same story. And once they make
Speaker 1: that claim, they're here because now they've got to go
Speaker 1: through the court system, and we know the court system
Speaker 1: it's backlogged. So these gentlemen, by the way, we could
Speaker 1: direct them up the road. Border patrol was further ahead
Speaker 1: up the road and didn't meet with them. I did
Speaker 1: find out that border patrol did pick them up. There
Speaker 1: were several other stamily units apparently behind them. Even though
Speaker 1: the men said no, there's nobody else with us, there
Speaker 1: were some family units crossing in that same area, and
Speaker 1: border patrol was able to apprehend them to but it
Speaker 1: just goes to show you. I mean, it was within
Speaker 1: ten minutes of me being along the river alone with
Speaker 1: just two other folks, just as sitting there, that two
Speaker 1: men from Dangladesh were crossing into the United States. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, I was stunned. I was expecting people
Speaker 1: from Central America in Mexico. That's normally the people that
Speaker 1: I run into. So running in to what they can
Speaker 1: to special interest aliens, people from from so far away
Speaker 1: was really kind of stunning. And it just goes to
Speaker 1: show you what a national security risk it is when
Speaker 1: we don't have the resources, when we don't have the manpower,
Speaker 1: and by the way, we don't have the wall, which
Speaker 1: is a necessary part of all of that apparatus. It's
Speaker 1: not just one thing, it's pieces of everything that build
Speaker 1: the security at our border. We're speaking to Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: and she's an investigative journalist, you know her from Fox News.
Speaker 1: Sarah is right now on the US Mexico border in
Speaker 1: the Rio Grand sector. I mean, Sarah, this is pretty
Speaker 1: stunning for the people listening as you are down there
Speaker 1: on the border, that you would just as as you know,
Speaker 1: a person who wants to get some ground truth, go
Speaker 1: and go for a walk to the US Mexico border
Speaker 1: with border patrol, and as you said, in the first
Speaker 1: ten minutes, come across some otm other than Mexican, in
Speaker 1: this case, illegal aliens walking into the country. You know,
Speaker 1: the borders two thousand miles long. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: not you know, if this were a fishing trip, it didn't.
Speaker 1: It didn't take you very long for you to catch fish.
Speaker 1: You know, in ten minutes, you're already bumping into people
Speaker 1: that are illegally entering the United States. And what I
Speaker 1: want to know is you said there were some family
Speaker 1: units that were coming up behind them. Did they just
Speaker 1: walk up to border patrol and do the usual song
Speaker 1: and dance about how they're fleeing violence and oppression in
Speaker 1: Central America and then get brought into the country, right,
Speaker 1: they don't get turned away? Yeah, pretty much, That's exactly
Speaker 1: what happened. So as soon as the family units came in,
Speaker 1: I was told that they had been taken immediately. There
Speaker 1: were two very young miners with the unit. With the
Speaker 1: family unit, they were taken immediately to receive medical attention,
Speaker 1: just to make sure that they were okay. So you
Speaker 1: have to think of the class here too. You know,
Speaker 1: people come across the border, especially like when I met
Speaker 1: the two men from Bangladesh that crossed over. They you know,
Speaker 1: the first thing I asked them, are you okay? Is
Speaker 1: everything okay? Because part of the issues are either they've
Speaker 1: been sick, they've been without water. Luckily, today is a
Speaker 1: really incredibly beautiful day here in the Rio Grand Valley,
Speaker 1: not hot at all. It's about seventy degrees, it's cloudy sky.
Speaker 1: So it's a good time for people to cross, right,
Speaker 1: because if they're going to come across, they're going to
Speaker 1: come across when the weather's good, if there's been a
Speaker 1: little bit of a lull because of the holidays, and
Speaker 1: this usually happened. So honestly, I really was not expecting
Speaker 1: to run into anybody. I didn't know if I would.
Speaker 1: I just took the opportunity to go down there. I've
Speaker 1: spent about four hours down along the border. I also
Speaker 1: talked to a lot of law enforcement officials last night,
Speaker 1: asked them their opinion on a border wall, what they
Speaker 1: believed was necessary to strengthen our national security, if they
Speaker 1: even thought a wall would work. One of the guys
Speaker 1: said something really important to me, and this is a
Speaker 1: very senior law enforcement official. They were actually in California,
Speaker 1: and they said, you know, it was actually a little
Speaker 1: bit boring out in California, other than the fact that
Speaker 1: when the guys climbed the walls and threw rocks at us,
Speaker 1: really pelted our cars with rocks. That was a little dangerous,
Speaker 1: and of course they got out of the way of
Speaker 1: that situation. But they said, the walls there are working,
Speaker 1: and what they do is they divert the traffic so
Speaker 1: that way our resources can be focused on those areas
Speaker 1: that we can't put a wall. Now. Of course, they're
Speaker 1: not planning on putting a wall across the entire United
Speaker 1: States Mexico borders. That's almost impossible because of the terrain,
Speaker 1: because of the river, because of private property, but in
Speaker 1: areas that it's needed most, so that way, border patrol
Speaker 1: ice said other law enforcement agers really focus their resources.
Speaker 1: It's absolutely working and it's necessary, is what they told me.
Speaker 1: And out here along the Rio Grand where you see
Speaker 1: such wide open spaces, and especially when resources are sin,
Speaker 1: when border patrol agents they really can't be at every
Speaker 1: single spot at all the time, and they really don't
Speaker 1: have even the technology still out here. They're still looking
Speaker 1: to put more technology censors than things of that nature
Speaker 1: to catch people as they cross. They don't even have that.
Speaker 1: So you can imagine those are two men from Bangladesh
Speaker 1: that I ran into. How many people have crossed this
Speaker 1: border that they can't even account for. We'll never know
Speaker 1: who they are, how they got in, what their name.
Speaker 1: I mean, we don't know where they go. Sarah, can
Speaker 1: we have to head into a quick network break for ourfiliates.
Speaker 1: Can I hold you and we'll come back. We got
Speaker 1: Sarah Carter on the border right now. We're talking to
Speaker 1: where she's down in the Rio Grand sector. She has
Speaker 1: come into contact with illegal crossings right away. We're going
Speaker 1: to get into more of the border with Sarah Carter
Speaker 1: when we come back. All right, we're back with Sarah Carter,
Speaker 1: investigative journalist, Fox News contributor Sarah A. Carter is where
Speaker 1: her original reporting goes for those of you who want
Speaker 1: to know what story she's breaking on a day to
Speaker 1: day basis. So, Sarah, you're down on the border. You
Speaker 1: know you've been talking about the illegal crossings and border
Speaker 1: patrol perspective on this there's such a hot political debate
Speaker 1: right now around the country about you know, what should
Speaker 1: happen with regard to the border. And we're hearing a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats say, and Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, there
Speaker 1: is no crisis. Well, you just spoke to a lot
Speaker 1: of folks in border patrol. Do they feel like there's
Speaker 1: a crisis. Do they feel like they have the tools
Speaker 1: and the law behind them to do their jobs properly.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you how angry they were when they
Speaker 1: saw Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi on television last night.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you how angry they were. A d
Speaker 1: they just think this is that either they're they're just
Speaker 1: lying to the American public, and I mean, and they are. Look,
Speaker 1: there's a crisis. They're just like President Trump said. And
Speaker 1: it's not just because you know, oh am I agreeing
Speaker 1: with him because he's President Trump. No, not at all.
Speaker 1: I've been covering this since the Bush administration. I've been
Speaker 1: covering the US Mexico border, so I can honestly say
Speaker 1: there is an enormous crisis, not just for the people
Speaker 1: in the United States and the national security implications, but
Speaker 1: what about these young children that are being trafficked. I
Speaker 1: can tell you this. I was talking to one border
Speaker 1: patrol agent who had to treat young children twelve year
Speaker 1: old and a fourteen year old who had been trafficked
Speaker 1: alone into the United States. There. Apparently her mother is
Speaker 1: here and she paid some coyotes to traffick them in.
Speaker 1: The young girl was raped and she had to sleep
Speaker 1: with her smuggler as part of the payment to getting
Speaker 1: into the United States. The boy was sick, she had
Speaker 1: been raped. They had to be taken into for medical care.
Speaker 1: And what happens to these childregn what happens to these
Speaker 1: people who or being trafficked by these criminal organizations. This
Speaker 1: isn't worth a nice ride to the border. This isn't
Speaker 1: a ride in a nice car. These are people that
Speaker 1: are literally abused, some of them abeaten, some of them
Speaker 1: are enslaved. They come here to the United States and
Speaker 1: they have to work off the payments to the drug
Speaker 1: cartels and to trafficking organizations, either as you know in
Speaker 1: the sex industry, or working practically as slaves for for people,
Speaker 1: for households, as maids or landscaping. There is nothing, nothing
Speaker 1: at all about this that is remotely that is remotely.
Speaker 1: Uh you know this this Uh you know, bring us
Speaker 1: your poor, bring us your hungry, bring uster tired. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I hear that. I hear that. And I understand if
Speaker 1: there was a war right now, and there is a
Speaker 1: war going on in Mexico right now. But if there
Speaker 1: was a flood or sub type of great disaster or
Speaker 1: subtype of actual battle where people were and his refugees
Speaker 1: like I saw in Afghanistan and along the border of Pakistan,
Speaker 1: where people really had to flee for their lives immediately,
Speaker 1: then then maybe we could set up some type of situation.
Speaker 1: But right now, we're perpetuating a problem. We are creating
Speaker 1: more of a problem than resolving a problem. We are
Speaker 1: we are perpetuating a crisis because we're allowing the drug
Speaker 1: cartels and these human trafficking organizations to to bring people
Speaker 1: into this country. And because we haven't changed the laws,
Speaker 1: and because we have refused to allow the administration to
Speaker 1: do a job, they're just bringing more and more people in.
Speaker 1: And you know what are border patrol folks telling you
Speaker 1: about about the about the situation of illegal drugs. Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: you can't even imagine. Over here in Rhinosa, which is
Speaker 1: a major city that borders here, the Rio Grand Valley sector,
Speaker 1: the rhinosas in Mexico. Literally gun battles going on in Rhinosa.
Speaker 1: I at a border Betwel agent told me he sat
Speaker 1: there out there not too long ago, listening to a
Speaker 1: gun battle that he said sounded like he was gonna
Speaker 1: back in the war zone in Iraq because he's a veteran,
Speaker 1: and he said, I just couldn't believe it. I couldn't
Speaker 1: believe what was going on. And he said, the amount
Speaker 1: of drugs that get trafficked is incredible. Not only if
Speaker 1: you have the drugs coming through the port of entry.
Speaker 1: You think about the hundreds of billions of dollars that
Speaker 1: some of these drug cartels have a mass right selling
Speaker 1: their contraband. But you have them coming through the port
Speaker 1: of entry. You have other people kneeling the drugs through
Speaker 1: and across the border, and you have miss shift transit
Speaker 1: routes that were trying to connect to our highway systems
Speaker 1: to move these drugs into the United States. And just
Speaker 1: look at what's happened. Look at the increase in sentinel
Speaker 1: coming from China moving through Mexico into the US, not
Speaker 1: just across the border. That's true. It gets moved into
Speaker 1: by plane, by training, by automobile, by whatever you can imagine,
Speaker 1: and by mail itself, you know, comes in. But it's
Speaker 1: killing our children. I mean, it's literally killing our children.
Speaker 1: I go to Ohio, you know, I get the documentary
Speaker 1: not in Vain, and people can see this documentary yet
Speaker 1: not in Vain USA dot com. And we go through
Speaker 1: this with the DA with undercover law enforcement, with families
Speaker 1: who have lost their children, you know, and they're selling contraband, percocet,
Speaker 1: oxycott and you're fame it. It's on our streets. And
Speaker 1: guess what. It's not oxycott, it's not percocet, it's not
Speaker 1: xan x. It's Setinel and heroin pills on our streets.
Speaker 1: And sometimes kids are kids, and it's terrible. But sometimes
Speaker 1: people purchase it thinking they're purchasing on percocet or a zanex.
Speaker 1: They take it for the first time and they're dead.
Speaker 1: And parents have found their children like this. So this
Speaker 1: is a war being waged on our country. We have
Speaker 1: neighbors to ourselves who are dead. Sprit need none of
Speaker 1: us opening the gateways and floodgates for the drug cartels
Speaker 1: and for the criminal organizations, but they're in desperate neither
Speaker 1: of us drawing a line and saying no more. This
Speaker 1: is unacceptable. We're not going to put up with this.
Speaker 1: We're going to work with our southern neighbors, but they've
Speaker 1: got to work with us too before we give them
Speaker 1: another time. We're going to fight for our children's lives,
Speaker 1: and we're going to fight for the lives of these
Speaker 1: children who are being trafficked by these people, by these
Speaker 1: grotesque and heinous people. By the way, and I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that lightly. Oh no, they're they're terrible. Sarah. We're
Speaker 1: gonna We're gonna be leave it there, Sarah Carter down
Speaker 1: on the border right now. Everybody reporting for us. Sarah,
Speaker 1: always great to talk to you, my friend. Stay safe
Speaker 1: down there and tell us, tell us how the rest
Speaker 1: of the trip goes. We'll have you back on soon.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Back. I look forward to it. Team.
Speaker 1: We got a quick break. We'll be right back. She
Speaker 1: is challenging the status quo. I think that's fantastic. I
Speaker 1: think that you know, I used I used to teach before,
Speaker 1: especially before in the last few years, and the thing
Speaker 1: that I always loved about teaching was when you teach.
Speaker 1: It requires you to defend the premise, and it requires
Speaker 1: you to re examine the premise and question is it
Speaker 1: still relevant? It is, it doesn't have impact, does it
Speaker 1: have meaning? And I think that she is introducing bold
Speaker 1: ideas that that should be discussed, and I think it's
Speaker 1: good for the party, if I could think it's good
Speaker 1: for the country. I mean, just just blather there from
Speaker 1: the person that I think is the most likely female
Speaker 1: to be the Democrat nominee for the presidency in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: That's that's Kamala Harris talking about Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. And
Speaker 1: when you dig a little deeper into well, first of all,
Speaker 1: that that's a perfect example of somebody who's learned how
Speaker 1: to speak certain way so as to sound like there's
Speaker 1: thought behind what she's saying, but it's really meaningless. You know,
Speaker 1: she's challenging the premise, No, she's she's advocating policies. Okazio
Speaker 1: Cortez is saying we should have a top marginal tax
Speaker 1: rate of seventy percent, we should have a green new deal,
Speaker 1: we should completely get off all fossil fuel by I
Speaker 1: think twenty thirty, which is just insane. I mean, these
Speaker 1: ideas that they're they're putting out are completely not just
Speaker 1: a bad idea, but they're they're implausible ideas. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's just no way this is going to happen. There's
Speaker 1: there's it's laughable to think that unless we have some
Speaker 1: incredible scientific discovery, you know, maybe somebody figures out this
Speaker 1: is like from a sci fi movie Cold Fusion something
Speaker 1: like that, right, where we just have an endless energy
Speaker 1: source that's created from something that has no carbon footprint.
Speaker 1: I don't know, you don't know who knows, right, Remember
Speaker 1: what my central is, nobody can predict the future. Nobody
Speaker 1: really knows what's going to happen, So don't get too
Speaker 1: caught up in believing the speculation theater that's out there.
Speaker 1: A lot of people like to present themselves as you know,
Speaker 1: experts on what's going to happen in this or that feel,
Speaker 1: but very few of them, very few of them are right,
Speaker 1: and none of them want to be held accountable when
Speaker 1: they're wrong. So, you know, come, Kamala Harris is trying
Speaker 1: to find some way to make it sound like Ocasio
Speaker 1: Cortez knows what the actual's talking about. So so why
Speaker 1: don't we hear from mean Ocasio Cortez, who was giving
Speaker 1: her own response, And I'll be honest with you, it
Speaker 1: was better than the Pelosi Schumer response, which spawned a
Speaker 1: thousand memes. I had a good one last night, so
Speaker 1: those of you who follow me on Twitter know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. I mean, buck memed it up a
Speaker 1: little bit. What's up? But Ocasio Cortez, in her response
Speaker 1: to the President's Addressed of the Nation, said some stuff
Speaker 1: like I mean, like, what're like, we should have a
Speaker 1: green deal on stuff like this? Play it? Yeah. Absolutely.
Speaker 1: I cannot tell you the amount of dysfunction that this
Speaker 1: president is advancing. We now have over one hundred new
Speaker 1: members of this freshman class. I cannot even get laptops
Speaker 1: to my case workers on the ground in the Bronx
Speaker 1: and Queens so they can process the needs of our
Speaker 1: of our constituents. We can't get mortgage applicant, you know,
Speaker 1: we cannot get their their casework started because we can't
Speaker 1: even get laptops in the hands of our district offices.
Speaker 1: Because the President has decided to hold the paychecks of
Speaker 1: everyday Americans hostage so that he can fulfill a campaign
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't even want to call it a promise,
Speaker 1: a campaign fantasy that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of.
Speaker 1: And not only that, but in the actual address, there
Speaker 1: was falsehood after falsehood, and we have to make sure
Speaker 1: that we get our facts straight. Every day, immigrants commit
Speaker 1: crimes at a far lower rate than native born American Pause.
Speaker 1: Here's an important Here's an important lie. Here's an important line.
Speaker 1: Notice that she's talking abou imigrants. The discussion is not
Speaker 1: around immigrants. The discussion is around illegal immigrants. And we
Speaker 1: don't have particularly good statistics on the crime rate of
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants, but from what we can see, you know,
Speaker 1: look at the ten most wanted list for for Los
Speaker 1: Angeles County. You know, just just take a little peak around.
Speaker 1: They don't want to let people know this, but there
Speaker 1: is a lot of crime that comes from illegal immigrants.
Speaker 1: And there should be no crime from illegal immigrants because
Speaker 1: they should not be in the country in the first place.
Speaker 1: But what the Democrats do is conflate. They make it
Speaker 1: seem like it's the same thing to be a legal
Speaker 1: and an illegal immigrant, and it is not. Legal immigrants.
Speaker 1: Great welcome the American family. Proud to have you illegal immigrants.
Speaker 1: You're not supposed to be here. It's a big difference,
Speaker 1: big big difference, all right, keep going trying to refuge
Speaker 1: and seek opportunity in the United States of America with
Speaker 1: nothing but the shirt on their backs are acting more
Speaker 1: American than any person who seeks to keep them out
Speaker 1: ever will be. That is quite a line. The illegals
Speaker 1: who are streaming into this country, the people who are
Speaker 1: showing up at the border with lines that they have
Speaker 1: been told to fool to commit a fraud. Right, they
Speaker 1: are committing fraud by lying to investigators. When you say
Speaker 1: I'm in fear from my life from a gang that's
Speaker 1: going to kill me if I go home, because you've
Speaker 1: been told to say that, that is a lie. Right.
Speaker 1: The same liberals who think, oh, anybody who lies to
Speaker 1: the Mullar probe should go to prison forever, or you know,
Speaker 1: there's all this stuff, those same liberals seem to think
Speaker 1: that lying to border patrol because you want to skip
Speaker 1: the immigration line, you want to skip the millions of
Speaker 1: people who spend a lot of time and money and
Speaker 1: effort to come to this country illegally. Those lies are
Speaker 1: okay because they like those lies. Those lies are no
Speaker 1: problem for the left. In fact, they're they're honorable lies
Speaker 1: if you will. That's that's really what they believe. And
Speaker 1: they go so far here or Aocazio Cortez goes so
Speaker 1: far as should we start calling her AOC? This is
Speaker 1: what everyone's calling her. AOC is the the acronym that
Speaker 1: she's going by now, so um Anyway, AOC is also
Speaker 1: familiar for many of you, I'm sure, as the acronym
Speaker 1: that is used in French for appelacion ygene control appellation
Speaker 1: of controlled origin, which means essentially where this comes from.
Speaker 1: So if you ever see, there's actually a very good
Speaker 1: French bistro that I can recommend to any of you
Speaker 1: who visit New York City in the West Village with
Speaker 1: a beautiful and little known outdoor area called AOC. But
Speaker 1: Alexander Kaza Cortez says, and that was complete non sequitary.
Speaker 1: But something somebody out there app somebody's listening, and they're
Speaker 1: gonna go and they're gonna have a great meal there.
Speaker 1: They'll say, well, I'm glad. In the Buck Sexton show
Speaker 1: he gives good restaurant Rex too. Okasio Cortez says that
Speaker 1: the people that are coming into the country illegally are
Speaker 1: more American than the people who have a problem with
Speaker 1: people coming into the country illegally. Wow, that is that
Speaker 1: is some interesting stuff, isn't it. You know, that really
Speaker 1: does require a bit of mental gymnastics. You know, the
Speaker 1: people that are breaking the law, who aren't American, who
Speaker 1: don't have American passports, who don't have legal permission to
Speaker 1: be here, who do not share our culture because they
Speaker 1: have not been a part of our culture by definition,
Speaker 1: who do not share our language, and a vast majority
Speaker 1: of the cases, they are more American than the people
Speaker 1: that have a problem with this. She was giving voice
Speaker 1: there to a sentiment that is much more widespread among
Speaker 1: Democrats than they want to admit. And that's why I
Speaker 1: like AOC running around saying all this stuff, because she
Speaker 1: is a window into but many many Democrats actually feel,
Speaker 1: which is that they think the Democratic Party now thinks
Speaker 1: largely that illegal aliens are more American than the Americans
Speaker 1: who have problems with illegal aliens. If I didn't say
Speaker 1: that I addressed it way back then in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eight, two thousand and nine, then I would get it.
Speaker 1: But I know I did. Then I readdressed it again.
Speaker 1: Then I went on Ellen and did what I thought
Speaker 1: was addressing it. But the backlash that Ellen received it
Speaker 1: shows me that there is no there is no there
Speaker 1: is no ending to it. If you keep feeding this energy,
Speaker 1: then it's going to grow. You're not getting no more
Speaker 1: my energy from it. I'm not giving no more because
Speaker 1: it showed that it's endless. So I'm not shutting down
Speaker 1: the questions. I hear everything you're saying, but I want
Speaker 1: everybody to know I'm done with it. It's a choice
Speaker 1: that I personally made to say I'm not addressing it anymore.
Speaker 1: And that's not from an angry place. It's just from
Speaker 1: a place of it's never going to really in. I'm
Speaker 1: done with it. So if people choose to continue to
Speaker 1: let it grow, then do what you gotta do. So
Speaker 1: that's Kevin Hart, who's an actor, who's the most recent
Speaker 1: person that I'm aware of to get dragged on social
Speaker 1: media for jokes for things that he said years ago.
Speaker 1: He was supposed to be hosting the Oscars, which is
Speaker 1: still considered a very you know, sought after gig. Obviously,
Speaker 1: even though everybody conservative media in particularly loves to make
Speaker 1: fun of the Oscars. I mean, I'm guilty of as well.
Speaker 1: It's long, it's bloater, it's boring, it's kind of dumb.
Speaker 1: Sometimes there's some entertaining stuff in it. But you know,
Speaker 1: he was supposed to host the Oscars and then he
Speaker 1: had to step down because homophobic comments he made from
Speaker 1: years ago had surfaced. And now you know, Kevin Hart
Speaker 1: is a major black celebrity, and you know, you would
Speaker 1: think that liberal Hollywood would perhaps be willing to accept
Speaker 1: his apology. But what he's found out is what I've
Speaker 1: told you before. You just can't apologize to the outrage
Speaker 1: mobs anymore. You can apologize once insofar as if you
Speaker 1: feel that you are untrue to yourself or that you
Speaker 1: made an error. You know, you can apologize for reasons
Speaker 1: of honor, you know, for reasons of your own moral compass,
Speaker 1: and whatever violations you may feel you you've committed against
Speaker 1: yourself in a sense, you know, if I said something
Speaker 1: five years ago that today I would really regret, you know,
Speaker 1: and I felt that way, I'd say, you, look, I
Speaker 1: shouldn't have said that. But once you've apologized, you've apologized.
Speaker 1: This this idea that you can go around on bended
Speaker 1: knee and beg forgiveness from the social justice left is
Speaker 1: a bad it's a bad idea. You can't beg for
Speaker 1: their forgive us anymore because they just use your request
Speaker 1: for forgiveness as as continued weight to pile on top
Speaker 1: of you. You know, they just use your oh, I'm
Speaker 1: sorry to say, well, let's have another conversation, let's raise
Speaker 1: awareness about this again. And and it's like your confession
Speaker 1: is then used to take you from the rack to
Speaker 1: you know, to the next torture device. That's what they do.
Speaker 1: You know, this is an ongoing social justice inquisition and
Speaker 1: we no longer accept apologies in this culture, which I
Speaker 1: think is is really troubling. You know. And Kevin Hart,
Speaker 1: who is black, I'm sure he's liberal based on some
Speaker 1: of his other stuff I've seen from on Twitter, but
Speaker 1: he's a very famous guy, very successful guy, a multi
Speaker 1: multi millionaire. That he can't ask for forgiveness and get
Speaker 1: it should indicate that for anybody on the right, you're
Speaker 1: just you might as well just stand and take it,
Speaker 1: and that there's really very little benefit from turning yourself
Speaker 1: over onto you turn yourself over to the mercy of
Speaker 1: the social justice warriors court, so to speak. And you
Speaker 1: just find yourself beaten down even more, you find yourself
Speaker 1: being being even more abused than attacked. And I think
Speaker 1: that there's also been a bit of a lag, you know,
Speaker 1: you usually and this maybe is why that Kevin, that
Speaker 1: Kevin Hart situation is is also is a little more
Speaker 1: instructive than some of these other cases. Kevin as a
Speaker 1: as a black American is generally given by the social
Speaker 1: justice left, because of intersectional politics, more leeway to say
Speaker 1: certain things. You know, he he can obviously use words
Speaker 1: that other people can use, but he can also be
Speaker 1: a bit edgier than as we know any you know,
Speaker 1: if you're a white male conservative, you know you have
Speaker 1: to live by a different set of rules than everybody
Speaker 1: else in the country. But that Kevin Hart does not
Speaker 1: have immunity for saying things. And just to be clear,
Speaker 1: I don't remember offhand exactly I mean he said they're homophobic.
Speaker 1: He's apologized. I'm guessing he probably made some gay jokes
Speaker 1: or something some years ago. I don't know how I
Speaker 1: tried to find them. What did he say? That's basically
Speaker 1: what it was. He was joking around, and he's apologized
Speaker 1: that's what he thought was funny. Back the day that
Speaker 1: if he ever had a gay son, he wouldn't want it.
Speaker 1: But he's changed his mind. He's like, that's not my
Speaker 1: philosophy anymore. There we go. Okay, so Brenda, so he's
Speaker 1: you know, so he made that I knew it was
Speaker 1: anti gay. He made some anti gay comments. What was
Speaker 1: this like, five, ten, five six years ago? Here, you
Speaker 1: know ten, I think ten years ago, and they've resurfaced now,
Speaker 1: which is also why I think at some point I
Speaker 1: may just, uh, you know, I may just delete my
Speaker 1: tweet archive and and start fresh, not delete all my followers,
Speaker 1: but just because all it is is it's just now.
Speaker 1: What people do is they sift through all your old
Speaker 1: tweets and try to find something to nail you on.
Speaker 1: And you know, they they have no problems, no qualms
Speaker 1: destroying someone's career, destroying someone's life over what was you know,
Speaker 1: an offhand common years ago. I mean, we've even had
Speaker 1: some of these cases recently where they've gone back into
Speaker 1: wasn't there a guy who was in high school who
Speaker 1: got I mean meaning that when he was in high
Speaker 1: school he said bad stuff and he got in trouble
Speaker 1: at camera? What the story was? Now branded you know
Speaker 1: I'm talking about I'm trying to think. So there was
Speaker 1: there was somebody recently who said some stuff when he
Speaker 1: was in I think as an athlete, and they found
Speaker 1: some again I think it was homophobic stuff from when
Speaker 1: he was in high school and he got in trouble.
Speaker 1: You know, there's there's no end to this. But the
Speaker 1: big change is just that the elite media, left wing culture,
Speaker 1: or the social justice warrior culture in this country no
Speaker 1: longer has room for mercy or forgiveness, even if you
Speaker 1: were in your own generally protected category, because you're considered
Speaker 1: somebody who is discriminated against by the rest of society.
Speaker 1: You know that that that traditionally with the left has
Speaker 1: given you a certain leeway, a certain ability to you know,
Speaker 1: to get away with with, you know, saying or doing
Speaker 1: a bit more than others. That I think is less
Speaker 1: less applicable now. Now it's just anybody who offends the
Speaker 1: social justice left is going to find themselves continuously and
Speaker 1: repeatedly raked over the coals, you know, just getting bashed
Speaker 1: on this stuff. So I can appreciate why, and but
Speaker 1: I will also just say I do not find Kevin
Speaker 1: Hart funny at all. I don't get it. I don't
Speaker 1: think he's particularly talented. I don't understand the appeal at all.
Speaker 1: Not that that really matters here, but just I'm just
Speaker 1: throwing that in there. Brandon, do you like him? You
Speaker 1: can tell me not really, to be honest, it's not
Speaker 1: it's I feel like every joke is the same joke.
Speaker 1: It's all the same kind of he's got a stick.
Speaker 1: It's very limited. He's not a good actor. He's made
Speaker 1: a lot of bad movies. I don't understand it at all.
Speaker 1: But you know, he is very successful, so you gotta
Speaker 1: give him that. He makes too many movies. I think
Speaker 1: in doses he could be funny, but yeah, it's too
Speaker 1: many movies where he does the same thing in every movie.
Speaker 1: But I would I would just say this him saying
Speaker 1: I'm done apologizing. I think he's learned a lesson, which is,
Speaker 1: you know, if you want to, if you apologize once
Speaker 1: because honor demands it, fine, you don't keep apologizing. There's
Speaker 1: no point. All it means is that it gives them
Speaker 1: opportunities to keep just bashing you, making you plead and
Speaker 1: bag and all that. It's just nonsense, and it's just
Speaker 1: gonna show him the Left is really destroying. They're destroying
Speaker 1: not just comedy and comedians, but they're also destroying the
Speaker 1: ability that we all have as a society to forgive.
Speaker 1: It's a new year, and that means some new hiring
Speaker 1: and background checks are necessary part of that whole process.
Speaker 1: That's why you need Global Verification Network to have your back.
Speaker 1: That's right. Global Verification Network is headquartered in Chicago, with
Speaker 1: experts in risk mitigation and background investigation that can take
Speaker 1: up cases across the country. However big or small your
Speaker 1: company may be. Global Verification is the group that you
Speaker 1: want working to get your background checks done, you know,
Speaker 1: especially if there is a particularly sensitive or difficult case.
Speaker 1: These are people that you can trust who really know
Speaker 1: what they're doing. I recommend them. I've used them, and
Speaker 1: I think you should too. Call eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five one one seven nine. When do you do,
Speaker 1: make sure you tell them that you heard about them
Speaker 1: from the Buck Sexton Show. That's eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five one one seven nine. Or go to MYGVN
Speaker 1: dot com again, that's my GVN dot com Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: Leave no stone unturned one of the things I like
Speaker 1: to do on this show because I think very few
Speaker 1: other shows that I'm aware of doing is to read
Speaker 1: academic journals and bring you some of the more interesting
Speaker 1: stuff that's going on, because usually, you know, academic journals
Speaker 1: are very insidery. They don't they don't write about stuff
Speaker 1: that you care about that much in your day to
Speaker 1: day life. Right, they're getting into the weeds on some
Speaker 1: aspect of an obscure work by Heidegger or whomever. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's just it depends on whether we're talking about a
Speaker 1: philosophical journal, political science journal, more of the hard sciences.
Speaker 1: But this I found particularly interesting because it tackles it
Speaker 1: tackles a growing problem that is affecting the way that
Speaker 1: we talk about all kinds of major issues, and it
Speaker 1: has to do with when facts should be keep in
Speaker 1: mind here, facts should be suppressed for the greater good.
Speaker 1: That's the basic thesis here. It's in a journal called
Speaker 1: Issues in Science and Technology. For those of you who
Speaker 1: want to look it up yourself, volume thirty five at
Speaker 1: number one, Fall twenty eighteen, Issues dot Org. I doubt
Speaker 1: any of you have spent much time on I look,
Speaker 1: I hadn't even heard of it until now. I'm not
Speaker 1: pretending like I'm somebody who dives deep into all. There's
Speaker 1: so many of these obscure academic journals, although my favorite
Speaker 1: one was that piece we wrote we didn't write WHOA
Speaker 1: that piece we analyze for you on air about the
Speaker 1: penis as a metaphorical construct and how essentially peni if
Speaker 1: you will or not real, they are just constructs of
Speaker 1: our matt. I mean, it's the whole thing was just
Speaker 1: it was meant to be absurd, but because it used
Speaker 1: anough jargon, it was part of this project to get
Speaker 1: insanely bizarre things written into peer reviewed academic journals. So
Speaker 1: here we are with it with a peer reviewed academic journal,
Speaker 1: and it is taking This is about climate change, and
Speaker 1: it really makes some important, important statements about how it
Speaker 1: is that you can have such suppression within the scientific
Speaker 1: community of what are clearly not even dissenting voices, just
Speaker 1: dissenting facts. You see, this piece doesn't say, for example,
Speaker 1: that this isn't about calling out climate change deniers. It's
Speaker 1: about calling out people who through their scientific research, have
Speaker 1: information present information that is not helpful to the climate
Speaker 1: change alarmism cause. And whether scientists, I'm being totally serious,
Speaker 1: whether scientists in fact have a professional and ethical obligation
Speaker 1: to suppress facts that do not fit into the broader
Speaker 1: narrative of climate change, because even though they are facts
Speaker 1: and not opinions, they are unhelpful. This, for what it's worth,
Speaker 1: is straight out of the Soviet Union. I am somebody
Speaker 1: who has found reading about the Soviet Union to be fascinating,
Speaker 1: particularly the philosophical foundation of data. You know, of how
Speaker 1: the regime justified itself in day to day life, Right,
Speaker 1: how could you have such deprivation in the twentieth century.
Speaker 1: The rest of the world, the capitalist world, is getting
Speaker 1: richer and richer all the time. Things are getting better,
Speaker 1: you know, computers and vaccines and you know, electronics and
Speaker 1: all these things are happening, and the Soviet Union's lagging behind.
Speaker 1: And there's misery, there's deprivation, there's starvation. What's going on. Well,
Speaker 1: one of the ways that you justify, or rather one
Speaker 1: of the ways that you continue with that is to
Speaker 1: suppress censorship with an over suppress rather people through censorship,
Speaker 1: with an overriding conception of what is most necessary area
Speaker 1: in a society, what is the central purpose, the central
Speaker 1: organizing principle for a polity, for a political organization and
Speaker 1: then the Soviet Union. It was the revolution. Now, the
Speaker 1: revolution was the purpose for all things within the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: right actualizing completing the revolution of Lenin and pushing the
Speaker 1: Bolshevik's vision into fruition, no matter what the cost. And
Speaker 1: if you were what they would have termed a subversive,
Speaker 1: if you were opposed that, all they do is call
Speaker 1: you a counter revolutionary and everything else became secondary. All
Speaker 1: they had to do was show that you were opposed
Speaker 1: to the central the central plan central planning of the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union, and you could be you could be destroyed,
Speaker 1: you could be killed, your family could be thrown into
Speaker 1: the gulags and into the gulag system in this in Siberia.
Speaker 1: So that's all you gonna do. Climate change has some
Speaker 1: very similar characteristics within the scientific community, and you see
Speaker 1: it in this piece, in this piece that combines a
Speaker 1: kind of social justice philosophy with the ethics of scientists.
Speaker 1: Let me this is by a guy named Adam Briggle.
Speaker 1: He's a professor in Texas. Whatever. Here's here's what he
Speaker 1: gets into. And I'll give you some of the key
Speaker 1: parts of this, because this explains how you can have
Speaker 1: people say all scientists agree climate change is real and
Speaker 1: an urgent crisis. Well that's not true. Not all scientists agree.
Speaker 1: So well, how do you say that, How do you
Speaker 1: justify that which is just on its faith, that is
Speaker 1: a lie. All scientists do not agree. So why do
Speaker 1: you say that. Well, because the purpose of climate change alarmism,
Speaker 1: sue proceeds the need for accuracy and truth and facts
Speaker 1: in the statements about climate change. This is why it
Speaker 1: is a faith. It is a faith based tradition. That's
Speaker 1: what climate change is. This is this is people who
Speaker 1: think they're too smart for religion believe in the religion
Speaker 1: of climate change. But this is Adam Briggles. Writing in
Speaker 1: nineteen oh five, the scientist Henry Puancare wrote that ethics
Speaker 1: and science have their own domains and should never intersect.
Speaker 1: Even as late as nineteen sixty three, the scientists Richard
Speaker 1: Feynman argue that questions such as should I do this?
Speaker 1: And what is the value of this? Have no place
Speaker 1: in scientific life. Oh, how times have changed. The beginning
Speaker 1: of the nineteen seventies, scientists developed ethics, ethical codes for
Speaker 1: research with human subjects, and explicit norms for the responsible
Speaker 1: conduct of research. Now okay, end quote. That's usually things
Speaker 1: like falsification, fabrication, plagiarism. That's what responsible scientific research is
Speaker 1: supposed to take into account. You can't make it up,
Speaker 1: you can't lie, and you can't steal. Pretty straightforward good
Speaker 1: ethics for scientists to have. But now things have begun
Speaker 1: to change. Researchers in the STEM fields are being asked quote,
Speaker 1: not just to do things right, but to do the
Speaker 1: right things. This is now a recently coined termin science
Speaker 1: called r r I responsible research and innovation. So what
Speaker 1: they're saying here is now you have to apply it.
Speaker 1: And he doesn't use this terminology, but I'm applying this terminology.
Speaker 1: You have to apply social justice, ethics and philosophy to
Speaker 1: science or else the science itself, even if it is accurate,
Speaker 1: even if it is truthful, is problematic and therefore unethical.
Speaker 1: And he goes so far as to go into certain
Speaker 1: certain scientists. He mentions, for example, science policy analyst Roger
Speaker 1: Pielke Junior, published in August twenty eighteen, proclaiming the good
Speaker 1: news about climate change and natural disasters some fifteen years ago.
Speaker 1: This is the author writing, I was a graduate student
Speaker 1: in his class at the University of Colorado when he
Speaker 1: assigned Lumberg's book as our first reading. The lesson I
Speaker 1: took from Pielke back then was that facts are not enough.
Speaker 1: Thus I was surprised to see his op ed counseling
Speaker 1: us to be factful when it comes to climate change.
Speaker 1: He has adopted the view that there are facts on
Speaker 1: one hand and irrational fears on the other, and the
Speaker 1: fact is that despite all the bad news, times have
Speaker 1: never been better. He argues that there is little evidence
Speaker 1: that climate change has made whether more extreme. Indeed, natural
Speaker 1: disasters are claiming fewer than fewer lives than fifty years ago,
Speaker 1: and as a proportion of global gloss domestic product, the
Speaker 1: cost of natural disasters have actually gone down. Folks. This
Speaker 1: is a scientist who say, whoa hold on a second,
Speaker 1: Hold on a minute. Here the stories you hear about
Speaker 1: how the hots are getting hotter, the wets are getting wetter,
Speaker 1: I mean completely exaggerated intellectuals over what's the word I'm
Speaker 1: looking for? What's when a movie's not good and you
Speaker 1: say it's good, producer, I mean DJ Brandon, What do
Speaker 1: you call that? Overrated? There you go, overrated intellectuals, which
Speaker 1: I certainly don't sound like right now. Like Thomas Friedman
Speaker 1: will say, you know that the climate change issue is
Speaker 1: turning storms and natural disasters into getting worse and worse
Speaker 1: all the time, But that's not really the case. In fact,
Speaker 1: if you look at the numbers as a scientist, if
Speaker 1: you look at the data, we are in better shape
Speaker 1: than we were. We are in bettership thanwhere But but
Speaker 1: then you get into some of the some of the
Speaker 1: aspects of this that are that are truly the Soviet
Speaker 1: twang of this approach to science becomes even more apparent
Speaker 1: because the author call somebody out named Roger Pilke Junior
Speaker 1: who wrote for the Wall Street Journal. Roger Pielke responded
Speaker 1: to this call out, and they obviously know each other
Speaker 1: from academic life. I want to I want to take
Speaker 1: you through how this guy who's talking about ethics and
Speaker 1: science and how you you shouldn't provide facts that undermine
Speaker 1: the overall climate change narrative. It's irresponsible to do so,
Speaker 1: even if they're facts. I'll take you a bit deeper
Speaker 1: into this exchange. I find this fascinating, and I hope
Speaker 1: that a lot of you do as well, because this
Speaker 1: is creating the framework for the suppression of facts in
Speaker 1: favor of what the left decides is important and necessary.
Speaker 1: This is this is the framework that they use. You know.
Speaker 1: It's just like the framework they create where speech equals violence.
Speaker 1: Therefore we can shut yet we can shut down what
Speaker 1: you say. You know. That's their underlying justification they have.
Speaker 1: They have this narrative where speech words are essentially violence.
Speaker 1: Therefore shutting down speech that they claim is violence is
Speaker 1: okay because it's not just speech, it's violence, right. This
Speaker 1: is this is the gamesmanship that's behind their censorious efforts.
Speaker 1: A censorious a word, I hope. So it just kind
Speaker 1: of came to me. Sometimes words come to me that
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure words. If it's not a word,
Speaker 1: will make it a word. It's a buckets. I want
Speaker 1: to take you a little deeper into this scientific dispute.
Speaker 1: I I again. I hope you find it as interesting
Speaker 1: as I do. And then we'll get into some role
Speaker 1: call and some other cool stuff. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Should scientists change their findings because there's a more important
Speaker 1: goal than getting to the truth. A lot of scientists
Speaker 1: in the climate change field say yes. As I've noted
Speaker 1: to long time listeners of this show, What climate Change
Speaker 1: alarmists do, with constantly re estimating their figures, with changing
Speaker 1: the numbers being wrong time and time again. You couldn't
Speaker 1: get away with that if you are a microbiologist and
Speaker 1: doing clinical trials for a pharmaceutical, right, you couldn't get
Speaker 1: away with Well, were we think we're about eighty percent certain,
Speaker 1: So let's spend trillions of dollars and dramatically slow economic growth,
Speaker 1: which means more people die of all kinds of diseases,
Speaker 1: more people die, younger die are preventable disease. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's just you look at how much misery is alleviated
Speaker 1: by capitalism that has only been possible. Capitalism is only
Speaker 1: possible because I mean in the way that we know it,
Speaker 1: I should say, but it's only possible at the level
Speaker 1: that we have been enjoying it for the last hundred
Speaker 1: plus years because of fossil fuels. Energy is necessary for
Speaker 1: a modern economy, and the only energy source we have
Speaker 1: that's been worth a damn for the last one hundred
Speaker 1: years has been fossil fuels. It's not solar, it's not wind.
Speaker 1: You know, everyone just needs to get a grip. But
Speaker 1: this this essay, this academic essay about whether or not
Speaker 1: you should whether or not you should suppress certain certain
Speaker 1: facts that come up in the course of a course
Speaker 1: of scientific inquiry is really interesting, especially because one of
Speaker 1: the guys who's called out here, mister Pilki. Pilky writes
Speaker 1: that I wrote in the Wall Street Journal the look,
Speaker 1: this stuff about natural disaster is being worse. It's just
Speaker 1: not true. We just see it more because we have
Speaker 1: a twenty four hour news cycle and everyone has video cameras,
Speaker 1: and you see you actually physically can see the damage
Speaker 1: more and see what's going on. But the damage itself
Speaker 1: is not worse. That's not accurate. I mean, the second
Speaker 1: worst fire in California's history happened in the nineteen thirties.
Speaker 1: I think. So, you know, someone explained that one to me,
Speaker 1: if forest fires are caused by climate change, why was
Speaker 1: the second worst fire in California's history eighty years ago?
Speaker 1: But Pilki responds in fearmongering, in fact mongering. Adam Briggle
Speaker 1: notes that he was a graduate student in one of
Speaker 1: my classes some fifteen years ago. In fact, he was
Speaker 1: much more than that. He remains one of the most
Speaker 1: talented thinkers and writers whom I've had the pleasure to
Speaker 1: teach in my career. So when he writes I read
Speaker 1: with interest. Briggle argues that we should consider augmenting the
Speaker 1: standard definition of research misconduct with a new category, which
Speaker 1: he calls the responsible rhetoric of research triple R. To
Speaker 1: illustrate violations of r R, he cites two researchers whose
Speaker 1: work illustrates irresponsibility. His second example, I'm gonna skip the
Speaker 1: first one, and all the time, Briggle targets me. I've
Speaker 1: long argued that the world has seen a dramatic drop
Speaker 1: in lives lost to disasters, and that as poverty as
Speaker 1: the world has been reduced, the economic toll of disasters
Speaker 1: has not increased as fast as increasing global wealth. This
Speaker 1: is indeed good news. These are hardly controversial views, as
Speaker 1: they are also conclusions of the IPC see the Intergovernmental
Speaker 1: Panel on Climate Change, which you know the UN relies on.
Speaker 1: He has I welcome Briggles disagree with the substance, focus
Speaker 1: or rhetoric of my writing. His sharp mind blah blah
Speaker 1: blah at most research institutions, the penalties for researchers who
Speaker 1: engage in fabrication, falsehood, or plagiars in our severe Briggles
Speaker 1: says the r vex matters and not easy to argue.
Speaker 1: Let me simply point to an article by Lumberg's editor
Speaker 1: Chris Harris. In it, he argues that responsible behavior when
Speaker 1: it comes to publishing views. I have been asked, why
Speaker 1: are you going forward a paper attached with so much controversy. Well,
Speaker 1: that's what we do. Our mission is to put interesting,
Speaker 1: potentially important science into public view after ensuring its quality
Speaker 1: as best we can. After that, efforts at repetition and
Speaker 1: reinterpretation can take place out in the open. That's where
Speaker 1: it belongs, not in an alternative universe where anonymity prevails,
Speaker 1: rumor leaks out, and facts stay hidden. This is the
Speaker 1: essence of science that is up for debate in the
Speaker 1: scientific community. You have people who are saying, if your
Speaker 1: findings don't help the cause, man, you probably shouldn't publish them.
Speaker 1: And you have this guy who's also a scientist, who
Speaker 1: I would not it is not even a climate change
Speaker 1: quote deniers. He believes in a carbon tax. This guy's
Speaker 1: in favor of a lot of these policies. He's just saying, look,
Speaker 1: there's other things to keep in mind here, but he's
Speaker 1: unwilling to completely and utterly suppress inconvenient truths that the
Speaker 1: climate change alarmists don't want to hear. I mean, al
Speaker 1: Gore's movie should be called Convenient Lines, because it's just
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of crap to support his overall thesis
Speaker 1: that's made him incredibly wealthy. I would note, but these
Speaker 1: are the kinds of debates. Yeah, this is like the
Speaker 1: debate around free speech. But this is within the scientific community,
Speaker 1: which we think of as being all about facts, all
Speaker 1: about the scientific method and inquiry and just go where
Speaker 1: the truth of the science leads you. And there are
Speaker 1: efforts being led by the climate change loons who are
Speaker 1: careerists who have this faith based belief the climate change
Speaker 1: is going to destroy the planet or they're just getting
Speaker 1: rich off of propagating that belief. They are advocating for
Speaker 1: a new approach to science in which the facts do
Speaker 1: not matter. The narrative is supreme, just like the revolution
Speaker 1: for the Soviets. Do the social media giants and the
Speaker 1: Internet titans of Silicon Valley did they play dirty? At
Speaker 1: this point largely a rhetorical question. As you know, I've
Speaker 1: been sounding the alarm on this for a long time,
Speaker 1: talking to you about it frequently on this show, and
Speaker 1: we have some very well known case studies now of
Speaker 1: just how bias these immensely powerful and insanely wealthy corporations
Speaker 1: really are. And they are very progressive, they're very left wing,
Speaker 1: and we've just as a nation, I think, in the
Speaker 1: last oh couple of years, woken up to this reality.
Speaker 1: You may recall the case of James Daymore. James Damore
Speaker 1: is a trained scientist who was working for Google, and
Speaker 1: he wrote a very thoughtful and well reasoned internal memo
Speaker 1: at Google about essentially, you know, the differences between men
Speaker 1: and women and groupthink, and he just tried to tackle
Speaker 1: some of the political correctness that was so stifling inside
Speaker 1: of Google's corporate culture, which, as we know, at the
Speaker 1: top of Google's corporate hierarchy of people who are very
Speaker 1: left wing. I mean people that are they'd be comfortable
Speaker 1: hanging out in the Wellesley faculty lounge, no problem, that's
Speaker 1: that's the kind of mentality they have about everything. Well,
Speaker 1: James Damore shared something. Now this is unverified. This is unverified,
Speaker 1: but it's supposedly from a Google insider who remember, James
Speaker 1: Damore was fired. He was fired for sharing a good
Speaker 1: faith memo from within Google, and they got rid of him.
Speaker 1: And this is this is supposed to be. And Daymore
Speaker 1: has now shared this some other big media blue check
Speaker 1: which means you're verified on Twitter. For those who don't know,
Speaker 1: they've shared this too. This is what apparently goes on
Speaker 1: inside of Google. This is a post on Reddit, right,
Speaker 1: which is where the cool Internet people hang out and
Speaker 1: post things. Here here's what he wrote, this supposed insider
Speaker 1: who calls himself tired of lying for Google. I was
Speaker 1: involved in the internal decisions involving James Damore's memo, and
Speaker 1: it's terrible what we did to him. First of all,
Speaker 1: we knew about the memo a month before it went viral.
Speaker 1: HR sent it up the reporting chain when he gave
Speaker 1: it as internal feedback. But we did nothing. There wasn't
Speaker 1: anything we could do except admit to wrongdoing and lying
Speaker 1: to our employees. We just hope that no one else
Speaker 1: would see his document. Unfortunately, the memo started spreading within
Speaker 1: the company. The floodgates opened and previously silent employees started
Speaker 1: talking to quell dissent. We told executives to write their
Speaker 1: employees condemning the memo, manipulating our internal memogen I don't
Speaker 1: know what that is to bias the ratings toward anti
Speaker 1: damore posts. The head of Image is an ally to
Speaker 1: the diversity cause, and gave every manager talking points I
Speaker 1: want to tell their reports about the memo. In all
Speaker 1: our communications, we concentrated on how hurt employees purportedly were
Speaker 1: and diverted attention from Google's discriminatory employment practices and political hegemony,
Speaker 1: never mind the science. We needed to make an example
Speaker 1: of day More. Looking for some excuse to fire him,
Speaker 1: we spied on his phone, Wow and his computer. We
Speaker 1: didn't find anything, although our spying probably made his devices
Speaker 1: unusably slow, preventing him from organizing support within the company.
Speaker 1: When we did fire him, our reputation and integrity took
Speaker 1: a hit, but at least other employees were afraid to
Speaker 1: speak up. This is what I always say. You don't
Speaker 1: have to burn down all the villages, You just have
Speaker 1: to burn down one. Firing him without an NDA was
Speaker 1: a huge risk, though he was a top performer and
Speaker 1: knew too many compromising secrets like Dragonfly, the secret censored
Speaker 1: search project in China. He had all reported several legally
Speaker 1: dubious practices in search that means Google Search that still exists.
Speaker 1: Only God knows why he never leaked at Dragonfly or
Speaker 1: the other issues, but I think it's because he actually
Speaker 1: cared about Google. Our response after we fired him was
Speaker 1: equally disgraceful. We were supposed to have a town hall
Speaker 1: to answer employees questions. However, after questions started coming in
Speaker 1: that we couldn't reasonably answer, we had to cancel it.
Speaker 1: We shifted the blame onto alt right trolls and have
Speaker 1: avoided talking about it openly since then. To control the narrative,
Speaker 1: we planned stories with journalists and flex Google's muscles were
Speaker 1: necessary in exchange for insider access and preferential treatment. All
Speaker 1: we ask for is their loyalty for online media. Google
Speaker 1: ads pay their paycheck, and our search brings their customers,
Speaker 1: so our influence should not be underestimated. We dealt with
Speaker 1: the National Labor Relations Board case in a similar way.
Speaker 1: People are ultimately lazy, So he found a sympathetic lawyer
Speaker 1: in the NLRB and wrote the internal nall or B
Speaker 1: memo for her. No one wanted to spend the effort
Speaker 1: to oppose it, despite it being laughably weak. Then, after
Speaker 1: Daymore dropped his case with the NLRB and fall the
Speaker 1: class action lawsuit we had. The NLRB publicly released the
Speaker 1: memo that they had written for them. Our PR firms
Speaker 1: sent press releases saying the r NLRB rule the firing
Speaker 1: legal which was manufactured BS. All our scheming was over
Speaker 1: the phone, in deleted emails, or through an external PR firm,
Speaker 1: so it was deniable. Now that we forced him into arbitration,
Speaker 1: we're close to screwing him over completely. I can't verify
Speaker 1: that this is accurate. James damore Sharon and he clearly
Speaker 1: thinks it's accurate. Others are shark and they think it's accurate.
Speaker 1: And it all certainly sounds plausible, rings true, and more
Speaker 1: than that, it is the playbook of how these companies
Speaker 1: do this. Whether this person who seems to know a
Speaker 1: whole lot is telling all the truth or not, this
Speaker 1: is the playbook. This is how Google plays dirty. The
Speaker 1: show ain't over yet. It's time for roll call, Row
Speaker 1: call Tom is the best time. I maybe going to
Speaker 1: the border next week. It's not yet decided. I was
Speaker 1: supposed to go a couple of weeks ago. I was
Speaker 1: supposed to go a few months before that. That would
Speaker 1: put me in San Diego. So any any Team Buck
Speaker 1: San Diego who have suggestions about where where can I
Speaker 1: get the best I would like to be cool and
Speaker 1: say the best you know, pet scato tacos or something
Speaker 1: like that, but really I'm just gonna want to know
Speaker 1: where can I get the best New American fair for brunch?
Speaker 1: You know, where can I get my avocado toast with
Speaker 1: gluten free toast of course? But no, seriously, if you
Speaker 1: have any recommendations for San Diego, you know I'm all
Speaker 1: about hearing from Team Buck on that. I always think
Speaker 1: it's funny people who listen to the show who write
Speaker 1: me when they're going to visit New York City. Even
Speaker 1: though I don't live there anymore, it's still my hometown
Speaker 1: because I'm not I am never going to fully accept
Speaker 1: being a swamp creature. But they ask me, you know,
Speaker 1: what would you you know, what would you recommend while
Speaker 1: we're in New York City? And I tend to share
Speaker 1: pretty detailed advice, pretty detailed suggestions for what the best
Speaker 1: way to go about a New York City visited. So
Speaker 1: if you've got some ideas for Buck Takes San Diego,
Speaker 1: by all means, feel free to feel free to share
Speaker 1: and tell me what you think I should do there. La.
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit better than San Diego. I spent
Speaker 1: enough time in La that I kind of know my
Speaker 1: way around, and I have a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of New York refugees in La san Diego, though, is
Speaker 1: this beautiful promised land that is also a bit of
Speaker 1: a mystery to me. So with that, I'm also sometimes
Speaker 1: I should Probably you may be thinking, Buck, maybe you
Speaker 1: should set up the role call before you try to
Speaker 1: do it so you don't have to stall, because when
Speaker 1: you have to stall, the role call sounds like you
Speaker 1: don't know what you're doing, but it's because the computer
Speaker 1: isn't loading. I had my Mac crash today. When a
Speaker 1: Mac crashes, it's like my whole world, My whole world
Speaker 1: comes to a halt. All right, Becky Right. Recently you
Speaker 1: were talking about I think Becky is original Saturday Squad.
Speaker 1: By the way, she's a very unique spelling of her name.
Speaker 1: Recently you were talking about conservative movies to watch, and
Speaker 1: it was a good reminder to watch chap Aquittic. You
Speaker 1: also mentioned that you haven't seen Gosnell. I watched it
Speaker 1: in theaters and I highly recommend it. They told the
Speaker 1: story beautifully and it was shocking, but not as horrific
Speaker 1: as I expected. You will definitely cry. I did, but
Speaker 1: it was a mix of emotions, the resilience of the
Speaker 1: prosecution team, the triumph of getting the conviction, and the
Speaker 1: sadness of all those babies. Please give it a chance, Oh, Becky,
Speaker 1: I want to see it. I just haven't haven't had
Speaker 1: the chance yet to sit down and take the time
Speaker 1: and do it, but I definitely want to see it.
Speaker 1: And I interviewed Nick Searcy. I think on this show,
Speaker 1: definitely on Rising when it came out, and also Chapa Quittic.
Speaker 1: We had chap Aquittic as an advertiser and had them
Speaker 1: on air. I really do believe it's not just lip service.
Speaker 1: I think that it's important for conservatives to try and
Speaker 1: engage more in the cultural sphere and not just seed
Speaker 1: all of the entertainment space movies, TV, music, all of
Speaker 1: it to the progressive left, which is essentially what we've done.
Speaker 1: And we have a very small slice of the media
Speaker 1: that is, of the entertainment media that you could say
Speaker 1: is in any meaningful way not even conservative, just not
Speaker 1: politicized hard left. I would take that as a serious progress.
Speaker 1: All right, now we have Lea who rights Hey Bock
Speaker 1: podcast listener and was listening to Annie McCarthy discussed the
Speaker 1: review by the courts of a declaration of national emergency.
Speaker 1: I looked up the code and it seems to me
Speaker 1: the only way they could review would be basis of
Speaker 1: the legality of the code, not his declaration. What are
Speaker 1: your thoughts, you know, Lee, It really comes down to
Speaker 1: what judges think they can do, often meaning that you know,
Speaker 1: sometimes something should be the The travel ban is a
Speaker 1: perfect example of this, the Hawaii versus Trump administration case
Speaker 1: that came up or the State of Hawaii, where you
Speaker 1: had this one judge who is not just an Obama
Speaker 1: point here, I think an Obama friend who said, oh no,
Speaker 1: Trump can't do the travel band. Well, it turns out
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court had to weigh in and say, actually,
Speaker 1: Trump can do the travel ban. But keep in mind
Speaker 1: that in that whole process the ban was delayed for many,
Speaker 1: many months. Right, So, even when a judge airs, even
Speaker 1: when a judge makes it just makes a mistake in
Speaker 1: their assessment of whether they can or cannot weigh in
Speaker 1: on something. It doesn't doesn't necessarily stop them. You know,
Speaker 1: they still can have the ability to put out at
Speaker 1: an injunction. And that's why I mean, I think there
Speaker 1: needs to be a Supreme Court case that will deal
Speaker 1: with these nationwide injunctions, because effectively what you have is
Speaker 1: lawfare being waged against the administration. Any One federal judge
Speaker 1: can stop you know, administration policy, and you could say, well, well,
Speaker 1: you know, these are coequal branches. There's an argument to
Speaker 1: be made that the President could say, yeah, sorry, I
Speaker 1: don't I don't buy that judges, that's a garbage opinion.
Speaker 1: But once you have the executive branch ignoring a judicial
Speaker 1: branch ruling like that, you know, and then you got
Speaker 1: other problems and people are obviously going to get very
Speaker 1: tense about that. So the answer is, it's complicated. And
Speaker 1: you know, I think that even if they should not
Speaker 1: review something or should not even weigh in on some case,
Speaker 1: the federal courts sometimes will do so anyway, and that
Speaker 1: decision can be at least temporarily binding. Oh rolla cool name,
Speaker 1: hey buck oss in the house. Beards plus itchy equals bad.
Speaker 1: Here's a tip how you can try a beard and
Speaker 1: not die from itchiness after letting the beard grow for
Speaker 1: four days. Use a beard trimmer to cut it down.
Speaker 1: The reason this works is when you shave with a razor,
Speaker 1: it cuts the whiskers at an angle and leaves it sharp.
Speaker 1: When you cut it with a trimmer, it cuts them
Speaker 1: flatter and thus much less itchy. Also invests in a
Speaker 1: high quality beard brush, you'll feel like a super villain
Speaker 1: like this. You'll feel like a super villain petting a
Speaker 1: cat as you brush your silky mane, and it will
Speaker 1: fight any other itches. Shields High Roller has got some
Speaker 1: serious beard knowledge here. You know, Brandon, you're a beard guy.
Speaker 1: Do you agree with Roller's assessment? I was actually just
Speaker 1: telling producer Mike all I use is a is a
Speaker 1: comb uh scissors, and it's it's it's it's soft. It's
Speaker 1: very soft. I was in a physically as a kitten.
Speaker 1: So do you feel like I don't pamper as you
Speaker 1: as you put your cat, in this case, your beard.
Speaker 1: That's I think it was. I was hidden to say
Speaker 1: it like that because it's such a little weird. I agree, Sorry,
Speaker 1: I know That's why I was like stuttering. Is it
Speaker 1: sounded weird? Um? I mean mine is soft? I mean
Speaker 1: people ask if I use oils or anything like that.
Speaker 1: But I mean, you know, I might use you know,
Speaker 1: shampoo in the shower. I keep it clean, but just
Speaker 1: you know, just let it go. You have to go
Speaker 1: through the bad phase to get to the glory. That's
Speaker 1: what needs to happen. It takes a while. You gotta
Speaker 1: push through. Uh, push through. There's no If you're committed
Speaker 1: to the beard, you gotta gotta do a one hundred percent.
Speaker 1: What you're telling me is basically, I gotta I gotta
Speaker 1: my beard. Yeah, gotta earn the beard. Okay, well, fair enough.
Speaker 1: William writes Buck, I love your show. Keep up the
Speaker 1: great work, William. We love you. Keep up the great listening.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for writing into us. Joe, what's up, Joe?
Speaker 1: He just writes, simply dream On by Aerosmith. I assume
Speaker 1: this is in reference to our discussion yesterday of Aerosmith
Speaker 1: having a great body of work without a single great
Speaker 1: defining song. He's saying dream On is the best Aerosmith song.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna need a ruling from DJ Brandon here. What
Speaker 1: do we think? Yeah? I think that's up there. It's
Speaker 1: just interesting that doesn't sound since it's such early Aerosmith.
Speaker 1: It doesn't sound like what we know Stephen Tyler to
Speaker 1: sound like today. So you know what, I think probably
Speaker 1: my favorite Aerosmith song is. And I'm not pretending that
Speaker 1: other people need to share this assessment with me. I
Speaker 1: think I like loving an elevator the most. Okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: don't actually try that because that hurts. A good safety tip.
Speaker 1: Thank you, branded Sandy. Next up here writes I wrote
Speaker 1: this message. For some reason, my Facebook keeps I'm not
Speaker 1: trying to be coy here. My Facebook keeps on crapping
Speaker 1: out on me. I think it's because it knows I'm
Speaker 1: a conservative, and now they've got there, They've got their
Speaker 1: team of little anti conservative ninja's working behind the scenes
Speaker 1: against me. Leanna writes, Hey, Buck, I think President Trump
Speaker 1: should play one of those compilation videos that I've seen
Speaker 1: on Facebook of all the high ranking Dems, including President Obama,
Speaker 1: denouncing illegal immigration and promoting a wall. I realized they
Speaker 1: will say they have evolved since then, but most Americans
Speaker 1: have not seen those old clips, you know, Leanna, I've
Speaker 1: been playing them on this show. I totally agree with you.
Speaker 1: There's a tremendous hypocrisy going on here where now we're
Speaker 1: being told that a wall is racist, a wall won't work.
Speaker 1: But just a few years ago, I'm not even saying
Speaker 1: that Democrats a few years ago, we're saying this the
Speaker 1: actual individual Democrat politicians who said it a few years ago,
Speaker 1: like Chuck Schumer, are now saying that this is crazy
Speaker 1: and there's no reason to ever do this, and it's racist,
Speaker 1: and you know they'll say anything. I mean, these people
Speaker 1: problem with Democrats as they have no honor. They're so
Speaker 1: self righteous that they don't think they have to be
Speaker 1: right in their actions. It's a it's a weird it's
Speaker 1: a weird dichotomy within their brain. You know, they're trying
Speaker 1: to achieve such moral ends that they can have immoral
Speaker 1: acts to get there. Timothy Right, Shields High in Happy
Speaker 1: New Year, you mentioned instant chat or snap Graham. We
Speaker 1: older folks who work for a living don't have time
Speaker 1: for that stuff, like you young whipper snappers. Shields High, Well,
Speaker 1: anyone who's listening. You follow me on Instagram. I post food,
Speaker 1: I post dog pictures, I post pictures of Miss Molly,
Speaker 1: me fun things. So that's a place you can go
Speaker 1: see all that. And with that, I'm going to close
Speaker 1: out the show for it today. Talk to you tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Team Shields High. You know, the left winds about a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff. You can't use the right pronoun anymore
Speaker 1: because there's thirty seven pronouns. You can't figure out what
Speaker 1: we can do about the border, because doing anything about
Speaker 1: the border is mean. They're upset, they're marching around, they're
Speaker 1: yelling about stuff. They want safe spaces. Maybe they just
Speaker 1: need some delicious coffee. So I want to help them
Speaker 1: out by telling them about Black Rifle Coffee. And you
Speaker 1: already know about Black Rifle because this is the best
Speaker 1: coffee you can get anywhere. I drink it every day.
Speaker 1: Every morning I rock out with a steaming hot cup
Speaker 1: of BRC. Black Rifle Coffee is roast to order, guarantees
Speaker 1: you fresh, delicious coffee with every order. They give a
Speaker 1: portion of their sales to veteran and first responder causes,
Speaker 1: and they've got a coffee club that will deliver to you.
Speaker 1: Makes it so easy. Nothing cures a bad attitude quite
Speaker 1: like starting your day with the most American freedom loving
Speaker 1: coffee ever, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Riflecoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck and receive fifteen percent off your order. That's
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck