Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. They've tried to keep
Speaker 1: it under wrapped, but some Democrats are letting it slip
Speaker 1: that they intend retribution. If they take the House. They
Speaker 1: will do more than obstruct Trump. They will try to
Speaker 1: exact political revenge. That and also the showdown at the
Speaker 1: border between the pro caravan and pro border security side
Speaker 1: that were coming up on the buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American, You're a great American. Again the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins, no say to you. We have an
Speaker 1: election November six. This is big. This may be the
Speaker 1: most important one that you've ever had to experience. This
Speaker 1: is the midterm election. And oftentimes people only vote in
Speaker 1: the presidential election because they don't think this is important enough.
Speaker 1: But this is absolutely important. That's all the insurance covertes,
Speaker 1: that's all the banks, and so of course the CEOs
Speaker 1: of the banks now is saying what can we do
Speaker 1: to stop vaccine waters because if she gets in, she's
Speaker 1: gonna give us a bad time. I have not forgotten you.
Speaker 1: Four clothes on our houses. I've forgot forgotten that you
Speaker 1: undermine our community. I have not forgotten that you sold
Speaker 1: us those exotic products, had a sign on the line
Speaker 1: for junk and from mess that we could not afford.
Speaker 1: And in doing that, I have people who are on
Speaker 1: the homeless, who have never gotten back into a home.
Speaker 1: What am I gonna do to you? What I'm gonna
Speaker 1: do to you is fair. I gonna do to you
Speaker 1: what you did to us. Retribution, promised by Congresswoman Maxine
Speaker 1: Waters there at an event earlier this week. Maxine Water
Speaker 1: is the California congress froomen. She she believes that she
Speaker 1: will be the have the chairmanship of the Financial Services
Speaker 1: Committee in the House. That's when she only a very
Speaker 1: powerful role on economic matters and looking at the banks
Speaker 1: and insurance companies, and she wants there to be payback.
Speaker 1: She is saying here she wants to go after the bank.
Speaker 1: She wants to go after business, go after corporations. Still
Speaker 1: upset about the financial downturn in two thousand and nine,
Speaker 1: almost ten years ago. Now she's she's saying that there's
Speaker 1: gonna be there's gonna be health to pay. This is
Speaker 1: a reminder, my friends, and welcome to the bucks and
Speaker 1: show This is a reminder of exactly why we should
Speaker 1: all be concerned going into this midterm election. The left
Speaker 1: is not playing this game the same way that we are.
Speaker 1: They don't approach these issues with the same perspective about
Speaker 1: what is Is this really just all about good governance
Speaker 1: and how do we let the American people achieve maximum
Speaker 1: freedom and and live without the the yoke of an
Speaker 1: of an oppressive state on their shoulders. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: no no. They want to get into power so they
Speaker 1: can get their's and they can take out all their
Speaker 1: frustrations on the rest of us. That's the that's the
Speaker 1: whole point from the Democrats. They will do things that
Speaker 1: are destructive to the economy, that are bad policy, that
Speaker 1: hurt the majority of American people, but it'll feel good
Speaker 1: when they do it. They like doing it. That is
Speaker 1: the motivation, the only motivation they need for a lot
Speaker 1: of this economic redistribution. Raising taxes were the most important
Speaker 1: things that Barack Obama ever said was that, you know,
Speaker 1: raising taxes, you know we should do it because you
Speaker 1: know it's it's it's the right thing to do. And
Speaker 1: also this notion of paying your fair share, even if
Speaker 1: it's bad economics, you see even if it hurts the economy,
Speaker 1: which hurts it hurts everybody. Democrats like to do this
Speaker 1: stuff because so much of their political appeal is built
Speaker 1: on resentment and envy and victimhood. Everybody has frustrations in life.
Speaker 1: Everybody has their shortcomings, has the things that have gone
Speaker 1: against them. Some of it is our own poor decision making, right.
Speaker 1: Some of it is stuff that just could have gone
Speaker 1: either way and we didn't get lucky. We all have that.
Speaker 1: We all feel that way about any number of things
Speaker 1: in our lives. Every person listening to the show, you know,
Speaker 1: knows that. But Democrats tell you, oh no, no, the
Speaker 1: the things in your life that are frustrations for you,
Speaker 1: the things that have not gone the way you have
Speaker 1: wanted them to, there's a reason for that, and you
Speaker 1: are not the reason. Your decisions, your choices are are
Speaker 1: not in any way responsible for the problems that you
Speaker 1: face as an individual or that the country face. Is
Speaker 1: now overall meaning that are collective decision making about things
Speaker 1: like government spending and about whether we are a rule
Speaker 1: of law country, for example, in the issue of immigration.
Speaker 1: None of that is the issue. Is the bad people
Speaker 1: who are doing bad things, and we're going to come
Speaker 1: into power and we're going to punish them. That's the
Speaker 1: whole point. Remember Trump came into into office saying He's
Speaker 1: going to make America great again. The Democrats want to
Speaker 1: take the House so they can make America pay again.
Speaker 1: They want to make the American people that they don't
Speaker 1: feel that they represent, that are on their side, that
Speaker 1: aren't part of this progressive, transformative agenda for America. They
Speaker 1: want to exact punishment. They want to make them, you know,
Speaker 1: feel what it's like to be on the wrong side
Speaker 1: of the Democrat political apparatus. And this is also where
Speaker 1: after remind you that Democrats all they really have to
Speaker 1: do to be an effective alternative, an opposition party, the
Speaker 1: Republican Party, all they really have to do is not
Speaker 1: be crazy, and they can't do it. These are not
Speaker 1: people that can be trusted with power. These are individuals.
Speaker 1: These are political groups on the left that have a
Speaker 1: very destructive sense of justice, that do not adhere to
Speaker 1: universally applied principle, that believe that everything is subjective, everything
Speaker 1: is up for debate discussion, and the way you've solved
Speaker 1: that debated discussion is with brute force, political or otherwise
Speaker 1: you know, you don't like what someone says, d platform them,
Speaker 1: you don't like the politics they espouse, Investigate them, maybe
Speaker 1: throw them in prison. This is the stuff that you have.
Speaker 1: And we should all just be very clear that the
Speaker 1: point of the of the Democrats taking the House for
Speaker 1: the next two years is really only gonna be one
Speaker 1: thing and one thing only, and that is to try
Speaker 1: and tear down Trump in his administration. That's gonna be it.
Speaker 1: They will there. There will be no broad based solutions,
Speaker 1: no effort at bipartisan activity or any of that. It's
Speaker 1: not even that's that's ridiculous. As far as Democrats are concerned,
Speaker 1: this is not gonna happen. We're gonna see one committee
Speaker 1: hearing after another about it, or go back to Russia
Speaker 1: collusion and Trump, and they're gonna dive into Trump's finances
Speaker 1: and where's where's Trump's tag returns and what you know
Speaker 1: and and to you and me, this is counterproductive, it's
Speaker 1: an abusive power. It's crazy. But just listen to Maxine Waters.
Speaker 1: She's gonna go after He's gonna punish the banks. She's
Speaker 1: gonna do to the banks what they did to what
Speaker 1: I mean, all this stuff, right, it's just this is
Speaker 1: about revenge. Political revenge. That's gonna be a primary motivator
Speaker 1: against Trump for them. That's what it's all gonna be about.
Speaker 1: They are angry that they doesn't matter. The country has
Speaker 1: done really well last years. They don't care. They are
Speaker 1: angry that Trump has been in charge. They're angry the
Speaker 1: Republicans have had the House in the Senate and they
Speaker 1: want payback. Some of that payback, by the way, will
Speaker 1: be financial. I mean they're gonna try to do whatever
Speaker 1: they can to bankrupt their political opponents with endless investigations,
Speaker 1: including criminal investigations, of whatever it is that they can concoct.
Speaker 1: I mean, if they could make most of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party believe the Russia collusion fairy tale, I mean, they
Speaker 1: can can conjure up anything, and there's nothing that's really
Speaker 1: beyond the scope of their machinations. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the primary focus will be of Russia collusion. We gotta
Speaker 1: see what what Mueller comes out with it his final report.
Speaker 1: No matter what what the report says, they're going to
Speaker 1: claim that it justifies all their delusions and hysteria around this.
Speaker 1: So no matter what the final papers have written on them,
Speaker 1: that Mueller releases to the public. We're gonna be told, Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. See it just it just proves the Russia collusion.
Speaker 1: It just proves that this was really happening. We just
Speaker 1: don't necessarily have all the evidence, but it's all there,
Speaker 1: you see, it's all there. I really hope that we
Speaker 1: have a surprise coming on Tuesday. I really hope that
Speaker 1: enough Americans listening to this show and all across the
Speaker 1: country understand the stakes and understand that there's one party
Speaker 1: that is serious about governance, not perfect, makes mistakes, rented.
Speaker 1: There's one party that has an adult view of the
Speaker 1: world and another party that is a bunch of screaming,
Speaker 1: crying babies. And that party is the Democrat Party. And
Speaker 1: that party will do things that hurt the entire country
Speaker 1: but will feel good. They are planning a two year
Speaker 1: long political tantrum if they take the House. I hope
Speaker 1: to God the American people can stop them from getting
Speaker 1: the power they need to do that. At this very moment,
Speaker 1: large well organized caravans of migrants are marching towards our
Speaker 1: southern border. Some people call it an invasion. It's like
Speaker 1: an invasion. They have violently overrun the Mexican border. You
Speaker 1: saw that two days ago. These are tough people in
Speaker 1: many cases, a lot of young men, strong men, and
Speaker 1: a lot of men that maybe we don't want in
Speaker 1: our country. But again we'll find that out through the
Speaker 1: legal process. But they've overrun the Mexican police, and they've
Speaker 1: overrun and hurt badly Mexican soldiers. So this isn't an
Speaker 1: innocent group of people. There's a large number of people
Speaker 1: that are tough. They've injured, they've attacked, and the Mexican
Speaker 1: police and military has actually suffered. And I appreciate what
Speaker 1: Mexico is trying to do. I hope not. I hope
Speaker 1: it's the military. I hope, I hope there won't be that.
Speaker 1: But I will tell you this, anybody throwing stones, rocks
Speaker 1: like they did to Mexico and the Mexican military, Mexican police,
Speaker 1: where they badly hurt police and soldiers of Mexico, we
Speaker 1: will consider that a firearm because there's not much difference
Speaker 1: when you get hit in the face with a rock, which,
Speaker 1: as you know, it was very violent a few days ago,
Speaker 1: very very violent. That break in. It was a break in,
Speaker 1: it a country. They broke into Mexico and you look
Speaker 1: at what's happening in Guatemala. Just to mention Guatemala along
Speaker 1: with El Salvador and Honduras, it's disgraceful that those countries
Speaker 1: aren't able to stop this because they should be able
Speaker 1: to stop it before it starts. And the United States
Speaker 1: pays them a fortune, and we're looking at not doing
Speaker 1: that anymore, because why should we be doing that when
Speaker 1: they do nothing for us. President Trump speaking in very
Speaker 1: strong terms there about this caravan. You know, he's making
Speaker 1: some points that can't be avoided if you pay attention
Speaker 1: to what's going on the news. The caravan did overrun
Speaker 1: offense line. The caravan has thrown rocks at police and
Speaker 1: has engaged in violent behavior. I spoke to a friend
Speaker 1: as a journalist, and she was telling me that when
Speaker 1: she was down with the caravan, that there were guys
Speaker 1: with MS thirteen tattoos that were proudly showing them off
Speaker 1: to her. But you know what we're told, there's there's nothing,
Speaker 1: no no concern, nothing to see here, no worries. It's
Speaker 1: all gonna be just fine. It's all gonna be great.
Speaker 1: When we bring in this entire group of people and
Speaker 1: invite even more to come in and more and more. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm sure President Trump is gonna get a lot of heat,
Speaker 1: a lot of pushback for saying that will treat a rock.
Speaker 1: Uh Like did he say like a firearm or like
Speaker 1: a weapon? I gotta go back and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: I gotta back and check that part out. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: he said we'll consider that a firearm. He's gonna get
Speaker 1: a lot of pushback on that. But then again, there
Speaker 1: does have to be some rule. There do have to
Speaker 1: be some rules of engagement for what do you do
Speaker 1: when a mob has pulled together and are engaging in
Speaker 1: violent behavior against the police. I mean, you know, in
Speaker 1: this case be border patrol and customs, but you know,
Speaker 1: you might have to have a situation where you do
Speaker 1: some crowd dispersal. You might have to have a situation
Speaker 1: where you're not able to just you know, ask politely
Speaker 1: and say okay, you know, and now we're going to
Speaker 1: affect some arrests. It's just not gonna fly. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna work. And I think Trump is prepared for that
Speaker 1: because I think that the left here is planning to
Speaker 1: make a real, a real debacle occur at the border.
Speaker 1: You know, there are absolutely organizers involved with this. We
Speaker 1: don't really know who or to what degree, but look
Speaker 1: at what was done with Hamas and with the Palestinians
Speaker 1: Israelis at that border fence in Gaza. There were casualties
Speaker 1: that were taken there, and initially there was all this
Speaker 1: reporting about how, oh, it's just innocent civilians. You guys
Speaker 1: will probably remember this. Oh they're all in Distan civilies.
Speaker 1: That's what the media was saying. And then Israel released
Speaker 1: you know that the forty some odd or fifty some
Speaker 1: odd guys that were killed were known Hamas operatives who
Speaker 1: were in the process of trying to storm that fence.
Speaker 1: Now they were they were had been there for weeks.
Speaker 1: There were other people. There are people who weren't a
Speaker 1: Moss operatives. And I'm certainly not advocating for the military
Speaker 1: or border patrol to engage in violence against people that
Speaker 1: just show up at the border want to turn themselves in.
Speaker 1: But I worry that the left is gonna try to
Speaker 1: create a real spectacle here. They're they're gonna make a scene.
Speaker 1: They're gonna they want footage of people that have been hurt,
Speaker 1: and they want there to be bloodshed at the border.
Speaker 1: Because think about what the narrative then becomes. Then it's
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, we've militarized the border. We're so racist,
Speaker 1: were so terrible. You know, you got to think about
Speaker 1: what the other side is willing to do here, what
Speaker 1: lengths they're willing to go to, And I think there's
Speaker 1: very little that stands in the way of them right
Speaker 1: now when it comes to really dangerous and destructive uh plotting.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that from it from the perspective
Speaker 1: of the kind of things that they're saying. And you know,
Speaker 1: they've referred to what goes on to the border with
Speaker 1: the detention of some immigrants as concentration camps. Well, if
Speaker 1: you think of the anti fascist resistance, which they do,
Speaker 1: and you think that the government is setting up concentration
Speaker 1: camps at our border, which they say, wouldn't you be
Speaker 1: willing to do some pretty extreme stuff in order to
Speaker 1: shake things up down to the border and show that
Speaker 1: the good guys and gals, so to speak, are the
Speaker 1: ones who just want to let everybody in, Let everybody in.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be great for this country. No other country
Speaker 1: does that, but that is their plan. That is the plan. Increasingly,
Speaker 1: so what the rules of engagement will be for US forces,
Speaker 1: all US personnel down at the border. That is going
Speaker 1: to be a very interesting topic. I think, assuming the
Speaker 1: caravan gets all the way to the border, assuming that
Speaker 1: its numbers are still large, and that there's this aggressive element.
Speaker 1: Look there, there are a lot of women and childre
Speaker 1: I'm sure they're going to turn themselves in to the
Speaker 1: first facility, the first border patrol agent they can. That's
Speaker 1: their plan, that's been the plan all along. But this
Speaker 1: other element, these other individuals. You know, what happens if
Speaker 1: had a port of entry you have five hundred military
Speaker 1: age males who you know, they're not they don't have
Speaker 1: to have weapons, but they just decided that they're going
Speaker 1: to try to overrun that checkpoint. What happens if there
Speaker 1: and I mean literally overrunning, I mean they're actually just
Speaker 1: gonna you know, run across, run through you know we
Speaker 1: we think we have enough border patrol agents they they're
Speaker 1: gonna be able to tackle everybody. And think about what
Speaker 1: a scene that would cause. This is what it means
Speaker 1: to to think ahead in these scenarios, because this is
Speaker 1: you know people, Look, people are desperate, they're being exploited.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of anger and rage in this country.
Speaker 1: And the one area, in the one area of our
Speaker 1: politics in the last nine months where the left really
Speaker 1: felt like they were making headway with the American people
Speaker 1: and that they were essentially on the winning side of
Speaker 1: a major political issue. The one place was separation of
Speaker 1: families at the southern border. The video, the audio, the
Speaker 1: images of that the people in intended. Yeah, I know
Speaker 1: Obama did similar stuff, but that doesn't matter. This is
Speaker 1: what they're thinking about. Where was the Where was the
Speaker 1: most effective propaganda opportunity for the minute was at the
Speaker 1: southern border. It was it was separating those families. So
Speaker 1: you know that they want more of that. They want
Speaker 1: to create this showdown. Remember, Trump's not behind the caravan.
Speaker 1: Other people are. Trump's responding to the caravan. So we
Speaker 1: gotta try to think like the other side is thinking. Here,
Speaker 1: If making it easy to be an illegal alien isn't enough,
Speaker 1: how about offering a reward for being an illegal immigrant? No,
Speaker 1: no same country would do that. Right. Guess again, if
Speaker 1: you break our laws by entering this country without permission
Speaker 1: and give birth to a child, we reward that child
Speaker 1: with US citizenship. And the Democrats want to continue giving
Speaker 1: automatic birthright citizenship to every child born to an illegal allea.
Speaker 1: Hundreds of thousands of illegal immigrant children are made automatic
Speaker 1: citizens every year because of this crazy policy, and they
Speaker 1: are all made instantly eligible for every privilege and benefit
Speaker 1: of American citizenship. Back before the Democrat Party went crazy,
Speaker 1: they also opposed this practice. Harry Reid said, no sane country, quote,
Speaker 1: no sane country would grant automatic citizenship to the children
Speaker 1: of illegal immigrants. That's what he said, that's before he
Speaker 1: went crazy. Trump's right. I know it's not the first
Speaker 1: time I've said that here on the show, but he's correct.
Speaker 1: The idea that any country would have written laws that
Speaker 1: would benefit people for breaking laws, that is exactly what
Speaker 1: we're talking about here here. We know at the fourteenth
Speaker 1: Amendment was about making sure that slaves and the children
Speaker 1: of slaves, freed slaves, you know, former slaves in this country, um,
Speaker 1: would have their full constitutional rights and citizenship. That's what
Speaker 1: the fourteenth Amendment was about. We know that. We know
Speaker 1: that had nothing to do with oh, I just got
Speaker 1: here on a plane or you know, across the southern
Speaker 1: border from a foreign country. I'm gonna have a kid
Speaker 1: here now, and that person will be a citizen. We
Speaker 1: know that was never the intent. But when you go
Speaker 1: beyond even just what the words were thought to me
Speaker 1: at the time, think about what is at stake today
Speaker 1: and what the other side is suggesting here. They're saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, even if people are going to exploit our
Speaker 1: laws and take advantage of our of our kindness and
Speaker 1: compassion as a country, we we shouldn't deter that. That
Speaker 1: seems mean. That's one of the things about the immigration
Speaker 1: debate that I don't think it's nearly enough attention, and
Speaker 1: that is that our compassion as a country is often
Speaker 1: used against us. Our desire to be inclusive, to be kind,
Speaker 1: to be helpful to people all over the world is
Speaker 1: used by people that want to uh engage in all
Speaker 1: kinds of demagoguery to say, Okay, well, if you're so compassionate,
Speaker 1: if you're such a good person, why don't you bring
Speaker 1: in another you know, another million? You know, why don't
Speaker 1: you bring in another caravan? Why do you make any
Speaker 1: Why do you complain about this at all? And the
Speaker 1: American people, I really think when they know this issue,
Speaker 1: when they understand these stakes and what's going on here,
Speaker 1: I really think that they are on the President's side.
Speaker 1: I mean, for example, he he spoke about border security
Speaker 1: this last night play clip nine. Democrats want open borders,
Speaker 1: and they want to invite aravan after caravan into our country,
Speaker 1: which springs crime upon crime. If you want high taxes
Speaker 1: and high crime, vote for the Democrats, vote for the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Do they not want to bring more caravans into this country?
Speaker 1: That's a think that's I think a very fair question
Speaker 1: and one that you won't hear. Many libs asked, why
Speaker 1: why stopping just this one caravan? In fact, here here's
Speaker 1: an idea. Why don't we just tell anyone who wants
Speaker 1: to come to the Unit States from Honduras, Hey, your
Speaker 1: country is really violent. We know that you're abusing asylum
Speaker 1: laws to really do what is an economically economically based
Speaker 1: relocation leaving Honduras for the United States. But why don't
Speaker 1: we just give an open an open call anybody from
Speaker 1: Honduras wants to come to American just get to come
Speaker 1: and stay. Now. I think that's terrible idea, obviously, but
Speaker 1: I want to know why Democrats think that's a terrible idea.
Speaker 1: By the way, they wouldn't say it's a terrible idea.
Speaker 1: They would just say, oh, that's not what the issue.
Speaker 1: You know, they always dance around this. The fundamental question
Speaker 1: that Libs will not answer is who does not get
Speaker 1: to stay those gold criminals? Criminals look, okay, fine, if
Speaker 1: you're a criminal, will deport you. If you're a dangerous criminal,
Speaker 1: will will deport you. Although even then sometimes liberals get
Speaker 1: a little a little squishy. It's easy for gonna talk
Speaker 1: a big tough game and how they wanted to port
Speaker 1: all the criminals. But when you actually, when when push
Speaker 1: comes to shove, you know they're not exactly Russian out
Speaker 1: there to do it. They've got a lot of excuses.
Speaker 1: Think about the guy who was responsible for shooting Kate Steinley.
Speaker 1: He've been deported seven times, I think, got right back
Speaker 1: into the country. No one ever enforced the law on
Speaker 1: the books about how do you get deported more than once?
Speaker 1: It turns into a felony. Now, they didn't want to
Speaker 1: be mean and didn't want to do that. Instead, what
Speaker 1: they just say is, oh, well, Republicans are racist. I say, well, okay,
Speaker 1: let's stop talking about whether Republicans are racist or not,
Speaker 1: just for a moment. If the caravan had seventy thousand people,
Speaker 1: should be let it in. If the caravan had seven
Speaker 1: thousand people, should be letting how many Americans right now
Speaker 1: even know that sixteen thousand families just last month presented
Speaker 1: themselves at port of entries and at the southern border
Speaker 1: to go through the asylum program. Sixteen thousand. So let's
Speaker 1: say there's an average of an average of three people
Speaker 1: in those family units, although who really knows, I'm just
Speaker 1: making up that number. That seems like a fair number
Speaker 1: could be four. But let's say there's an average of three,
Speaker 1: and you're talking about roughly fifty thousand people last month
Speaker 1: alone showed up at the southern border. Remember it's eleven
Speaker 1: it's eleven million. I will note the former acting director
Speaker 1: of ICE under Obama. I had him as a guest
Speaker 1: on Rising today, and he said, it's at least eleven
Speaker 1: point two million. That's that's the terminology that he's at least,
Speaker 1: which is a very gentle way of letting everybody know
Speaker 1: it's more than eleven million. It's a lot more than
Speaker 1: eleven million. I think that the government actually is unwilling
Speaker 1: to ever really get that in there. They don't want
Speaker 1: to have that information. They don't want to know because
Speaker 1: if the American people were ever definitively told that twenty
Speaker 1: million illegal aliens have yes infiltrated almost entirely across our
Speaker 1: southern border the last twenty years or so, thirty years,
Speaker 1: whatever the time frame we want to use is. I
Speaker 1: think that people would be disgusted with their government. I
Speaker 1: think that there would be a real political revolt against
Speaker 1: the elites and against our master political class here in America.
Speaker 1: We would just say, you know what, that's enough. So
Speaker 1: they don't want that true. They don't want that information
Speaker 1: to to ever get out there. They would prefer that
Speaker 1: we live in this gray zone, this gray area, and
Speaker 1: that's that's where it is right now. I mean, we
Speaker 1: we don't really know how many people are here. We
Speaker 1: don't really know what's going on. But one of the
Speaker 1: Trump will do is he'll actually make the case about
Speaker 1: how there's some downside illegal immigration. So they won't remember lives,
Speaker 1: won't tell you who can't stay. They also won't say
Speaker 1: what's the what's the bad part about illegal immigration? They
Speaker 1: won't even discuss it. They want to talk about it. Well,
Speaker 1: fortunately for us, Trump will play Clift twenty. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: play cliftent. There's a lot of feeling about the horrors
Speaker 1: of the illegal immigration problem. What people think, They're just
Speaker 1: gonna come into our country and take over our country,
Speaker 1: and it's just not gonna happen. We're not gonna let
Speaker 1: that happen. But the Democrats want to let that happen.
Speaker 1: It's crazy, never gonna do. Want to let that happen
Speaker 1: because it benefits them from an electoral perspective, and that's
Speaker 1: all that really matters to them. They care first and
Speaker 1: foremost about their power, and that drives all of the
Speaker 1: immigration discussion for them. It's not about compassion, it's not
Speaker 1: being nicer than Republicans. It's about lying and demagoguery and
Speaker 1: virtue signaling, all in an effort to acquire more power.
Speaker 1: For the progressive left, that is their immigration policy. Do
Speaker 1: not forget it. Yeah, the support that we provide to
Speaker 1: the Secretary for Homeland Security is practical support based on
Speaker 1: the request from the Commissioner of custom to border police.
Speaker 1: And so we don't we don't do stunts in this department,
Speaker 1: thank you. We don't do stunts. Secretary Defense Mattis says,
Speaker 1: Does this mean that Led liberals will now finally back
Speaker 1: off that talking point and I've been hearing for all, well,
Speaker 1: all this week and all last week for sure, that
Speaker 1: all this stuff about immigration is Trump's fault. He's he's
Speaker 1: playing politics here. First of all, I'm pretty sure Trump
Speaker 1: didn't arrange the caravan okay, that that we could probably
Speaker 1: all agree on across America. Trump was not like, Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna I'm gonna come up with this for a
Speaker 1: caravan and then I'm gonna just talk about it a
Speaker 1: lot on TV. I know what liberals really are upset about,
Speaker 1: in part with all care event situations, they would much
Speaker 1: rather talk about the pipe bomber and and try to
Speaker 1: score political points off of that if they could that.
Speaker 1: They much preferred that narrative and that news cycle to
Speaker 1: what we've got going on right now where there's a
Speaker 1: major policy issue and there's a really important difference between
Speaker 1: the two parties on this one. And that's why when
Speaker 1: you when you look at this, you know that Democrats,
Speaker 1: I think get a little nervous about the whole thing.
Speaker 1: I think democrats get uh concerned that if people realize
Speaker 1: just how much the Democrats are willing to essentially abandon
Speaker 1: rule of law here because they're so favorable toward a
Speaker 1: leal immigration, then there could be some real consequences for
Speaker 1: them on the ballot box. Um. And and that's and
Speaker 1: I debate debate Libs on immigration all the time, and
Speaker 1: I'm just always it's always your mark to me how
Speaker 1: they don't even stop to the very basics when it
Speaker 1: comes to, well, what is my position really mean? If
Speaker 1: I take it, if I go all the way to
Speaker 1: the logical conclusion of what I'm saying, If immigration is
Speaker 1: always good, if all immigration, including illegal immigration, is good,
Speaker 1: if it makes us richer, if it, why not have
Speaker 1: open borders? I don't really get. And by the way,
Speaker 1: they'll say, oh, no, we don't want open borders. We
Speaker 1: need to know who's coming. Okay, if you just have
Speaker 1: a way station essentially at the border and ports of
Speaker 1: entry where people come and go and you note they're coming,
Speaker 1: but no one is denied entry unless there are you know,
Speaker 1: major security risk. But if no one's really denied entry,
Speaker 1: that's open borders. So if immigrants only contribute to the economy,
Speaker 1: if immigrants only make our country stronger, and I mean
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants now, um, well, well, there would be no
Speaker 1: such thing as the legal immigrants we had open borders, right,
Speaker 1: if anyone. But but if people coming and going, if
Speaker 1: that only was good, if there was no drawback to
Speaker 1: this whatsoever, why not just have open borders. They don't
Speaker 1: like the phrase open borders, but I'm pretty sure they're
Speaker 1: favorable to the reality if we could get there. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, Trump Mattis was talking about how the military
Speaker 1: is gonna be assisting at the border, and you know,
Speaker 1: I think Trump is really is really planning to take
Speaker 1: action here and and to do it, you know, not
Speaker 1: just to send the troops down, but he understands that
Speaker 1: this if this caravan whatever, however much of the caravan
Speaker 1: actually gets the border, if they're letting the interier of
Speaker 1: the United States and then there's no interier enforcement, I
Speaker 1: think they people are going to be upset about this
Speaker 1: because they're gonna realize that our laws the border are
Speaker 1: kind of a joke and none of it can really
Speaker 1: be taken seriously. So Trump has to take action, and
Speaker 1: that's why he's saying there's also there's not gonna be
Speaker 1: catch and release play big changes of a couple of
Speaker 1: days ago where going to no longer release, We're gonna catch,
Speaker 1: We're not going to release, They're going to stay with
Speaker 1: us until the deportation hearing or the asylum hearing takes place,
Speaker 1: so we're not releasing them into the community. We have
Speaker 1: millions of people that over the years have been released
Speaker 1: into the community. They never show up for the trials,
Speaker 1: they never come back, they've never seen again. And those people,
Speaker 1: they know who they are, and we know a lot
Speaker 1: of where they are, who they are, and those people
Speaker 1: will be deported directly deported. A lot of scams being
Speaker 1: run on the American people, and I think we're all
Speaker 1: tired of it. And this is one thing the President recognizes.
Speaker 1: We are all sick of the way that we've been
Speaker 1: lied to by the media on this issue and the
Speaker 1: way that these is always presented as oh no. The
Speaker 1: process is that they get to claim a sound the
Speaker 1: process is well, the end result of that process, as
Speaker 1: we all know, is what the President described, which is
Speaker 1: that people get led into the interior of the United
Speaker 1: States and then it's all over. It doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: what the system decides, they're gonna stay. And you see
Speaker 1: all these different issues that are coming up the Trump
Speaker 1: is bringing up on imgres, they're all linked anchor babies
Speaker 1: and citizenship. It's linked to you know, abusing things like
Speaker 1: asylum laws, which you're linked to security at the border,
Speaker 1: which are linked to whether our foreign partners places countries
Speaker 1: like Mexico are really working with us to try and
Speaker 1: stem the flow of illegal immirance into the country, which
Speaker 1: you know, but it all eventually points back to the
Speaker 1: Democrats who prefer to live in America where the rule
Speaker 1: of law is not respected. By the way, what one
Speaker 1: thing that I wanted to know to your about, well,
Speaker 1: I still can, um, remember what a big deal the
Speaker 1: Kashogi killing was. Remember when we were told that that
Speaker 1: was a huge moral stain on our country and it
Speaker 1: was terrible. And you know what happened there Kaushogi, by
Speaker 1: the way, Uh, you know, it was almost certainly ordered
Speaker 1: murdered by Mohammed ben Solomon, the head of the effective
Speaker 1: head of Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince. I heard so
Speaker 1: many liberals walking around on air saying that we need
Speaker 1: to take dramatic action against Saudi Arabia. We wanna do
Speaker 1: all these things that will teach the Saudis a lesson.
Speaker 1: And yet you don't need that much better anymore. Um.
Speaker 1: The Crown Prince is going to retain power. There's not
Speaker 1: gonna be any major response to speak, at least nothing
Speaker 1: that I've seen. So that then that then raises the
Speaker 1: question why isn't the media more focused on this right now?
Speaker 1: And it's because they used the brutal murder and uh,
Speaker 1: the torture and murder of a journalist in a foreign country,
Speaker 1: in a foreign consulate. They used that first and foremost
Speaker 1: as an op as an opportunity to bash President Trump,
Speaker 1: and they did it, and they did it and it
Speaker 1: wasn't though useful for the purposes of the mid terms
Speaker 1: anymore so by by complaining about Trump and his response
Speaker 1: to the Koshogi murder is cathartic for journalists, they like
Speaker 1: they just they like to attack Trump, and it was
Speaker 1: way to attack Trump, but they had to back off
Speaker 1: of it because they had to switch to something else. Yes,
Speaker 1: there were news that there was a major news events
Speaker 1: that that we're filling in the gaps, But even more
Speaker 1: than that, at the end of the day, American people
Speaker 1: just don't care that much. You know, the journal class
Speaker 1: here in d c. And and in New York they
Speaker 1: care a whole lot more about the Koshogi murder than
Speaker 1: you're average American who's not gonna say, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to vote for this congressman who's saying
Speaker 1: we should lower taxes and increase you know, economic opportunity
Speaker 1: in in my state or in my district, because you know,
Speaker 1: I don't like what Trump did on that Kashogi th
Speaker 1: But it just goes to show you that that all
Speaker 1: that outrage and all the oh my gosh, Trump's not
Speaker 1: doing not doing enough, that only matters until it's inconvenient
Speaker 1: for Democrats, and then all of a sudden we have
Speaker 1: to move to some other, some other stores, some other
Speaker 1: way of attacking the president. I just I would get
Speaker 1: exhausted doing nothing but bashing the government of the United States.
Speaker 1: As as somebody who worked in the media, I would
Speaker 1: get exhausted. Um And I remember Guy worked in Obama
Speaker 1: years in media, and yeah, we criticized Obama up, but
Speaker 1: we talked about a lot of other things too. The
Speaker 1: obsession with Trump is like nothing else I've ever seen.
Speaker 1: So much of your life is online these days, and
Speaker 1: what if you're doing your most sensitive financial transactions, what
Speaker 1: if you're exchanging information with loved ones, do you really
Speaker 1: want that to just be out there for anybody to
Speaker 1: access and use? For whatever purposes they want. You're being
Speaker 1: tracked online by social media sites and marketing companies, and
Speaker 1: if you're using public WiFi, well you're putting yourself at
Speaker 1: risk in all kinds of ways. That's why you need
Speaker 1: Express vpn. Express vpn has easy to use apps that
Speaker 1: run seamlessly in the background of my computer, phone and tablet,
Speaker 1: and turning on Express vpn protection takes only one click,
Speaker 1: costs less than seven dollars a month. Give yourself peace
Speaker 1: of mind, protect your data all right. I've been trained
Speaker 1: in security matters. I can tell you you want to
Speaker 1: make sure you are safe and not sorry. That's where
Speaker 1: express vpn comes in. You can protect all your online
Speaker 1: activity today and get three months free with a one
Speaker 1: year package at express vpn dot com slash buck. Again,
Speaker 1: that's Express vpn dot com slash buck. Yesterday's visit to
Speaker 1: Pittsburgh was about coming together as a nation to comfort
Speaker 1: and to heal. After this day of unity and togetherness,
Speaker 1: I came home and sadly turned on the news and
Speaker 1: watched as the far left media once it in use
Speaker 1: tragedy to sow anger and division. Sadly, they took a
Speaker 1: small group of protesters far away from where we were
Speaker 1: because we could not have been treated better, the first
Speaker 1: Lady in myself, but we're representing the presidency, and they
Speaker 1: did everything in their power to try to play it
Speaker 1: up and push people apart. That's what's happening there, pushing
Speaker 1: people apart. It was fake and it was make believe
Speaker 1: what they said. I came home look forward to seeing
Speaker 1: it and it was sad. And when we talk about division,
Speaker 1: this is a big part of the division right there.
Speaker 1: Trump went to Pittsburgh to try and help the nation heal.
Speaker 1: The media covered Pittsburgh in such a way that they
Speaker 1: were trying to so further division, make things worse for
Speaker 1: the country. And that's why I just have no tolerance
Speaker 1: for sitting for for hearing these these media organizations individuals,
Speaker 1: you know, all these big fancy journo type sitting around
Speaker 1: complaining about Trump's overheated rhetoric, and oh, how could Trump
Speaker 1: say that, that's so so he's so wrong, it's so terrible.
Speaker 1: The guy's going to essentially pay respects at a city
Speaker 1: that is going through a mass funeral for eleven Jewish Americans,
Speaker 1: eleven of our Jewish brothers and sisters in the city
Speaker 1: of Pittsburgh, and they try to make this a big
Speaker 1: political thing, you know that they're covering these protests. They
Speaker 1: The New York Times is writing about this group a
Speaker 1: Sorrow's son founded political Action committee, and they called it
Speaker 1: quote Jewish leaders in the city of Pittsburgh, and they
Speaker 1: were clearly misrepresenting how this was, what what the intent
Speaker 1: behind it was, how it was received. Yesterday we had
Speaker 1: that to see and actually we we have just just
Speaker 1: played again for a second, just to remind everybody what
Speaker 1: was it like at the hospital. Remember they said, oh,
Speaker 1: President Trump not welcome all these different stories. Here's what
Speaker 1: it sounded like when the President actually got there and
Speaker 1: saw people that were dealing with the aftermath of this
Speaker 1: play eight. Thank you President. You know, I thought about
Speaker 1: that yesterday when we heard a we've heard of this,
Speaker 1: that's yeah, you get the idea. But I thought about
Speaker 1: it because you know, I was a I was a
Speaker 1: very I was a very strong critic of Barack Obama's
Speaker 1: for all eight years, and I think that Barack Obama's
Speaker 1: policies did a lot of harm to the country, and
Speaker 1: I think that he actually in many ways made our
Speaker 1: political division far far worse. He was not even remotely
Speaker 1: a uniter or a healer. That was all a lie.
Speaker 1: And that's what that's how he ran to start. At
Speaker 1: least Trump never ran on saying, Hey, I'm gonna make
Speaker 1: everybody like me. I mean Obama originally was you know,
Speaker 1: I'm the what is it. There's no red white or
Speaker 1: there's no red America or blue America. There's only the
Speaker 1: United States of America. I mean stuff like that. And
Speaker 1: you know that that was really a bill of good
Speaker 1: that we were sold by the Obama administration that said,
Speaker 1: if you know, President Obama were to show up in
Speaker 1: my hometown in New York City, let's say, after we
Speaker 1: had suffered from some kind of a mass shooting event
Speaker 1: like this or something, and he really was just there
Speaker 1: to comfort the families, I would respect that because he
Speaker 1: was our president, he was a commander in chief. And well,
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that I would all of a sudden
Speaker 1: be an Obama supporter. I would respect the move. I
Speaker 1: would I would understand what he's doing. The left, I
Speaker 1: feel like, just has no respect. They have no basic
Speaker 1: sense of decency or good faith when it comes to
Speaker 1: dealing with Trump and with the other side in general
Speaker 1: role and I find it really troubling you. I think
Speaker 1: it's something that we should spend much more time examining
Speaker 1: as a society. I mean, I believe that, uh, they
Speaker 1: have reached a point now where they're so disconnected from
Speaker 1: the truth that they don't even realize that while they
Speaker 1: say they want less division and less anger, they're actually
Speaker 1: making division and anger worse in this country. While they
Speaker 1: say they want the political RHETI director become less overheated
Speaker 1: and less nasty and less you know, full of vile,
Speaker 1: they make it worse with what they're doing. And in fact,
Speaker 1: they really have instigated a lot of this. You know,
Speaker 1: Ari Fleischer um has I feel like he's been getting
Speaker 1: better at TV. You know, he says more interesting things
Speaker 1: in the last six months. Maybe maybe the in the
Speaker 1: Trump era, he's kind of, you know, loosened up the
Speaker 1: collar a little bit and let it rip. But you know,
Speaker 1: I really thought that he he well, he says something
Speaker 1: here that I've said on the show many times. Not
Speaker 1: that I say everything that's worth saying, but you know,
Speaker 1: this is something that I've we've explained here in the Hut.
Speaker 1: But play fifteen, where already gets into the heated rhetoric issue. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the Democrats have to look in the mirror. The words
Speaker 1: that they use, calling calling for the resistance. Boy Connie
Speaker 1: has inaugural, the activities they immediately undertook without even giving
Speaker 1: him a chance, and you know the word resistance. Those
Speaker 1: are the French freedom fighters against the Nazis, against the
Speaker 1: collaborators in France. Are they applying Donald Trump is a Nazi?
Speaker 1: Is Hitler? What about their words? What about their stir
Speaker 1: in the pot? They need to look in the mirror
Speaker 1: before they just attacked Donald Trump. I think they need
Speaker 1: a lot more than that. I think they owe the
Speaker 1: country and apology. I think that the media needs to
Speaker 1: make amends for what they've done. I don't think that
Speaker 1: we should be sympathetic to them when they complain about
Speaker 1: how Trump has treated them and everything else. I think
Speaker 1: we should be disdainful. I think we should have disdain
Speaker 1: for the way the media has made the conversation Arab
Speaker 1: Trump so much worse. They have written think pieces at
Speaker 1: the most prestigious publications in the country, editorials and other
Speaker 1: things about fascism in America, how Trump is bringing about fascism.
Speaker 1: It is commonplace for people who are supposed to be
Speaker 1: luminaries in our society, who are supposed to be, you know,
Speaker 1: the most elite, the most season the most educated, from
Speaker 1: government and from the media to make casual references to
Speaker 1: Trump as a Nazi, And you know, I live but
Speaker 1: a short walk away from the Holocaust Museum, and I
Speaker 1: want to know, what would anybody who's who throws out,
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's Steve Schmidt maybe now the dumbest
Speaker 1: person on TV, I think, actually dumber than Anna Navarro,
Speaker 1: which is which is quite something, and he's in at
Speaker 1: least he's number one. But I would wonder if he
Speaker 1: could walk into the Holocaust Museum, walk around to some
Speaker 1: of those exhibits and then just so casually refer to
Speaker 1: the President United States as a Nazi or a Nazi sympathizer.
Speaker 1: Do they really just not understand the full weight of
Speaker 1: what they're saying. Do they really want to essentially downplay
Speaker 1: what the Nazi regime really did? Six million Jews murdered
Speaker 1: in concentration camps, eleven million people total murdered in concentration camps. Um,
Speaker 1: that's on a scale that shouldn't even be in the
Speaker 1: same universe of conversation as anything Trump has done period.
Speaker 1: In fact, not only is Trump out a Nazi. He's
Speaker 1: actually a freaking great president so far. So they have
Speaker 1: a problem. I mean, they really have a psychological disorder,
Speaker 1: and that's why they're saying a lot of these things.
Speaker 1: But these these notions of the resistance, for example, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that is explicitly to tie anti trumpers to anti
Speaker 1: fascism too. That's right, anti fa in a sense. That's
Speaker 1: what anti fascism or anti fi is is anti fascism.
Speaker 1: And the only fascist that anyone ever thinks of the Nazis. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's Mussolini and Italy. But when people think fascism, they
Speaker 1: think Nazism. And for people to who are anti Trump
Speaker 1: to use that as some kind of rhetorical club to
Speaker 1: just bash the president, and to do so so reckless
Speaker 1: and without any real effort to think about the impact
Speaker 1: those words they're having. And then it turre out electrics
Speaker 1: about how we're so divided. Really, that's what's supposed to
Speaker 1: happen out now now we get to hear about how,
Speaker 1: you know, we need to all be friends. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is what we've had for the media
Speaker 1: for the last few weeks. It's we need to stop
Speaker 1: being mean to each other, you stupid nazi racist. That's
Speaker 1: a summary of what the media CNN, MSNBC, New York Times,
Speaker 1: Washington Post, all the left wing libsites. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: just you know, the real left ones. It's actually interesting
Speaker 1: to read, to read the Nation, you know, or to
Speaker 1: read the huffing in Post, and then to turn on
Speaker 1: the New York Times or read the New York Times
Speaker 1: or turn on CNN, and you're like, what's the difference.
Speaker 1: The answer is really nothing. There's very little difference, very
Speaker 1: little difference in tone, very little difference in ideology and
Speaker 1: in positions. You know, at least the Young Turks, which
Speaker 1: is that online digital thing that's got a very big
Speaker 1: digital audience. I mean, at least they're honest. They're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're basically a bunch of commies. Okay, they say yes,
Speaker 1: they say democratic socialist, but I mean they're far left,
Speaker 1: far left. CNN doesn't even accept that it's left wing.
Speaker 1: And the people that are trying to pose as the
Speaker 1: responsible adults in our political conversations are among the very
Speaker 1: worst offenders when it comes to saying things that are
Speaker 1: completely out of line, completely out of bounds, and that
Speaker 1: haven't obviously deleterious effect on our national political conversation. By
Speaker 1: the way, is that a bucket humor? Is that? I
Speaker 1: feel like that actually a word. I'm making up a
Speaker 1: lot of words these days, but that's a real word, right,
Speaker 1: Thank you, John, John's got my back. I think that's
Speaker 1: a real word. It's a fun word to say. Deleterious. Well, hello,
Speaker 1: what are we having for dinner tonight? It's deleterious, I
Speaker 1: assure you, although that's completely the wrong definition, as you know,
Speaker 1: but um, yeah, So that's I'm glad that we're I'm
Speaker 1: glad that we're at least able to speak to each
Speaker 1: other honestly about here in the hut. The lives are
Speaker 1: making the conversation worse all the time, and when they
Speaker 1: pose as people are trying to make it better. I
Speaker 1: just can't stand it. I just can't. Really drives me nuts.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. You've got to have so much
Speaker 1: trust in your employees, right you know that you're gonna
Speaker 1: be giving them access to you, what's your cyber infrastructure, ease,
Speaker 1: sensitive data, trade secrets, all that stuff. You want to
Speaker 1: make sure that people you can trust, and a big
Speaker 1: part of that is making sure that anyone that you
Speaker 1: hire is who they say they are. Now, most of
Speaker 1: the time you've got no problem, all right, but sometimes
Speaker 1: you will. That's when you need somebody who's a real
Speaker 1: partner in the background investigation and vetting business. Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network is your answer. Whether you're from a huge company
Speaker 1: or a startup, Global Verification can tailor their services to
Speaker 1: your needs. This is the place to go. They have
Speaker 1: risk mitigation experts in office throughout the country. And unlike
Speaker 1: the other guys, they don't offshore, they don't subcontract this
Speaker 1: out to some overseas guys. They do it themselves. Go
Speaker 1: to my g VN dot com. That's my g VN
Speaker 1: dot com or called Global Verification Network at eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine. He's running
Speaker 1: on impeaching the president. You know, I don't know what
Speaker 1: he's thinking about impeachment. I mean, this is a guy
Speaker 1: that took bribes from an undercover FBI agent, took money
Speaker 1: from a lobbyist, did favors for the lobbyists. Maybe we
Speaker 1: should impeach Gilham as mayor of Tallehathi. To be clear
Speaker 1: about this, Uh, I have never in any way compromise
Speaker 1: my values, my morals or the law. I've been elected
Speaker 1: official for fifteen years, and I've been elected repeatedly by
Speaker 1: doing right, not by doing wrong. I don't know what
Speaker 1: is going on in Florida right now. And to the
Speaker 1: Floridians listening to this, I know you are on the
Speaker 1: right side of this issue as in who to vote for.
Speaker 1: But Gillham is a few points ahead of the Santis.
Speaker 1: And this is of all the races that I think
Speaker 1: could go you know, could be a win for the
Speaker 1: Democrats that we're gonna hear oh so much about. It's
Speaker 1: this one. The media is really going to focus in
Speaker 1: the you know, they know that cinema with their whole Yeah,
Speaker 1: like just go like join the Taliban, Like that's not
Speaker 1: that doesn't do well. So Arizona, I think we're good
Speaker 1: with McK sally. Um, I think that I think Heller's
Speaker 1: to win in Nevada. I think that very likely. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I think you very likely have hide Camp.
Speaker 1: She's been done for a long time because of what
Speaker 1: she did with the Kavanaugh thing. Um, so that's gonna
Speaker 1: be a Republican pick up. And I think Joe Donnelly's
Speaker 1: in trouble. Also in Indiana, Joe Donnelly, who I don't
Speaker 1: even like to quote what he said because it's like
Speaker 1: it's so uncomfortable, and the things that he said were
Speaker 1: so yeah, my this person is this person is such
Speaker 1: and such ethnicity, but they do a good job. It's like, wait, what,
Speaker 1: That's not what you're supposed to say, That's not how
Speaker 1: this works. Uh, but yeah, Gilham is points ahead of
Speaker 1: the Santists going into this whole thing. And Florida's you know, Florida, Ohio,
Speaker 1: those are mega contested political states right now on the
Speaker 1: map in These are states that people get really energized about,
Speaker 1: really interested in covering. And if if a Democrat takes Florida,
Speaker 1: we're gonna hear about how oh see, this is the change.
Speaker 1: This is for the governorship obviously, right, but this is
Speaker 1: gonna this is gonna change the game for and Florida
Speaker 1: is gonna go blue now and bla blood. I don't
Speaker 1: know if that's true, but I really just want to
Speaker 1: know who is a persuadable in Florida that really thinks
Speaker 1: that Gilham is gonna be able to deliver on Medicare
Speaker 1: for all. I mean, who are the undecided voters in
Speaker 1: that contest who are looking at these two candidate and saying,
Speaker 1: you know what, I think Florida really needs a lot
Speaker 1: of progressivism, higher taxes, lower economic growth, and inefficient bureaucracy
Speaker 1: telling me what to do. And I just think that
Speaker 1: that's a bad idea. A lot of platitude from this guy. Oh,
Speaker 1: speaking of speaking of platitudes, because I know a lot
Speaker 1: of probably didn't see this interview, I got to sit
Speaker 1: down today with Martin O'Malley, who you will remember. Martin
Speaker 1: O'Malley was that guy who, oh yeah, that's right. He
Speaker 1: also ran for the Democratic nomination and for the presidency,
Speaker 1: right he I think he got one percent of the vote,
Speaker 1: or he was getting he was pulling in about one
Speaker 1: percent as when he was in the primary, and he'd
Speaker 1: be up there on stage with Bernie and Hillary and
Speaker 1: everyone's like, ah, yeah, okay, that's a guy who's on
Speaker 1: stage talking. Man. He sat down today and I asked
Speaker 1: him some very straightforward questions. He's running, by the way,
Speaker 1: I mean, very clear to me, at least he thinks
Speaker 1: he's running. He was pretty bitter about the fact that
Speaker 1: he didn't get more debate time, which just makes him
Speaker 1: sound like a whiner. You can watch the interview, it's
Speaker 1: on It's on you know, Hill dot TV, Slash Rising.
Speaker 1: But I sit there, masses guy questions And if you
Speaker 1: are trying to find a platitudinous politician out of central
Speaker 1: casting who will not answer any questions, who will not
Speaker 1: tell you really anything, you can't do better than Martin
Speaker 1: munt I mean, this guy's were a larger sting that
Speaker 1: we do to real established the roots of our democracy
Speaker 1: and spreading our democratic ideals throughout the country through a
Speaker 1: more equitable and and fair democratic process. And I'm sitting
Speaker 1: I'm like, what the heck are you talking about? It
Speaker 1: was amazing, I mean it was it was boring, but
Speaker 1: it was kind of amazingly boring. This guy is sitting
Speaker 1: there trying to tell me about why he would have
Speaker 1: been a better candidate or why he could have been
Speaker 1: a strong candidate for the presidency against Donald Trump. And
Speaker 1: I'm sitting I'm like, I don't even know what you're
Speaker 1: what you're trying to say, other than just a lot
Speaker 1: of stuff that you think other people want to hear,
Speaker 1: or that you know that sounds smart, and and it was.
Speaker 1: It was a little bit for me. Oh wait, Mike's
Speaker 1: got an update for me in Florida. Here. Florida's that
Speaker 1: Republicans have outvoted Democrats by two percent and absentee so far.
Speaker 1: So that's a good trend because usually they're behind at
Speaker 1: this point. All right, Mike, thank you. That makes me happy.
Speaker 1: Because Santus was mentioned in that are I thought that
Speaker 1: was relevant. He planned that out today because Florida is
Speaker 1: generally traditionally late developing for Republicans, and the fact that
Speaker 1: they are ahead at this point, I think he thinks
Speaker 1: puts them in a good place for election day, and
Speaker 1: they're actually ahead of projections in his point as, So
Speaker 1: I thought that was important. Oh, I mean, I certainly hope.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I mean, the Santist it's not a great candidate.
Speaker 1: I think he'd be fined. I don't think he'd be
Speaker 1: the most compelling guy in the in the history of
Speaker 1: the state of Florida. But you know, look, it is
Speaker 1: an important state and I do hope we pick it up.
Speaker 1: So we'll we'll continue to follow this one pretty closely.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I didn't get a chance to
Speaker 1: mention this before, but we are gonna do uh some
Speaker 1: special hill Dot TV election coverage um Hill dot TV
Speaker 1: election coverage that will be on Tuesday. So right after
Speaker 1: this show, I will be on Hill TV pretty much
Speaker 1: all night. It is gonna be the longest day in
Speaker 1: the history of broadcast for anybody. I'm gonna basically working
Speaker 1: twenty four hours. I don't even know how this is
Speaker 1: supposed to I'm just being don't even not supposed to work.
Speaker 1: I told him them, like, you guys realized I might
Speaker 1: just pass out and MND be gonna feel bad about it,
Speaker 1: like I will pass out on camera at some point,
Speaker 1: And they said, yeah, you know your thought. You'll you'll
Speaker 1: figure it out. But if you want to watch, guys,
Speaker 1: it's totally free. It's all units internet connection. We're gonna
Speaker 1: be streaming it on Facebook on the Hill, so just
Speaker 1: go to the Hill dot com or the Hills Facebook page.
Speaker 1: We'll be streaming the whole thing. You can watch. I'll
Speaker 1: be there to be a lot of great conservative guests,
Speaker 1: some libs too, as we know, it's a both sides show,
Speaker 1: so we get libs and conservatives. But that's gonna be
Speaker 1: from I think eight eastern to midnight this coming Tuesday.
Speaker 1: So if you want to hang out with me for
Speaker 1: election night. I'll be on after this radio show, so
Speaker 1: you can hang out with me from eight eastern to
Speaker 1: midnight on Tuesday. Just go to Hill dot TV or
Speaker 1: the Hill dot Com. It'll be streaming there. The ad
Speaker 1: echoes the notorious night Willim Horton campaign act. It's reminiscent
Speaker 1: of the notorious Willie Horton at Roger Ailes cast a
Speaker 1: long shadow. Roger Ales has died, but he was the
Speaker 1: amount your mind behind. Willy Horton and his acolytes are
Speaker 1: in the White House. This ad is drawing comparison to
Speaker 1: the Willie Horton ad. That Willie Horton ad. What is
Speaker 1: Willie Horton In Spanish? People are comparing this to the
Speaker 1: Willie Horton ad. I called this a Willie Horton redux
Speaker 1: that add Willie Horton. Oh my gosh, what is the
Speaker 1: Willie Horton ad? Folks? What what is the media all
Speaker 1: upset about? At first, they're they're comparing an ad to
Speaker 1: Willie Horton. So why don't we just take a little,
Speaker 1: a little moment here to go back in time and
Speaker 1: look at exactly with what they're what they're saying. Okay,
Speaker 1: so Willie Horton was a he was a murderer, and
Speaker 1: in the presidential campaign, um it became an issue that
Speaker 1: Massachusetts had a furlough program where people who were in
Speaker 1: prison will be let out on furlough. And Willie Horton
Speaker 1: was let out on furlough and he killed somebody, and
Speaker 1: they brought this up in that presidential contest in an ad.
Speaker 1: We actually have the audio of the ad right now,
Speaker 1: Play thirteen, Please Bush and ducacasn crime. Bush supports the
Speaker 1: death penalty for first degree murderers. Du Concas not only
Speaker 1: opposes the death penalty, he allowed first degree murderers to
Speaker 1: have weekend passes from prison. One was Willie Horton, who
Speaker 1: murdered a boy and a robbery, stabbing him nineteen times.
Speaker 1: Despite a life sentence, Horton received ten weekend passes from prison.
Speaker 1: Rton fled, kidnapped a young couple, stabbing the man and
Speaker 1: repeatedly raping his girlfriend weekend prison passes. Ducacas on crime.
Speaker 1: That's a pretty tame ad, isn't it. I mean, what
Speaker 1: is it about that ad that is so upsetting? Whether
Speaker 1: the facts are accurate, it's not a lie, it's all true.
Speaker 1: Think about that for a second. Math choose. It's du Caucus.
Speaker 1: It was a joke of a candidate. Du Caucus supported
Speaker 1: the notion that people should be able to leave the
Speaker 1: prison on weekends furlough. What how would how would anybody
Speaker 1: feel if they were a relative or friend of the
Speaker 1: the raped and murdered individuals that because Willie Horton was
Speaker 1: let out of prison, you know, we're no longer with us?
Speaker 1: What about that? You know, it's just so interesting. This
Speaker 1: is one of these things where the left we yelled this.
Speaker 1: It's just become a talking point and no one ever
Speaker 1: is allowed to think about it or actually come up
Speaker 1: with a historical background of what's happening here, what's really
Speaker 1: going on? And you know this is this is a
Speaker 1: situation where the truth is what the liberals are so
Speaker 1: upset about. The Libs are angry because it was a
Speaker 1: very effective ad that Willie Horton a very effective because
Speaker 1: there was a time when there's a lot of crime
Speaker 1: in the country, and you know, there there's nothing about
Speaker 1: the Democrats on crime in the eighties that anybody is
Speaker 1: gonna really want to talk about. Let me tell you
Speaker 1: that Democrats that a lot of oh it's all about
Speaker 1: root causes and we need to be more gentle with
Speaker 1: like murderers and rapists and figure out why they're so upset.
Speaker 1: And you know, they were really awful on the issue
Speaker 1: of crime. So you know, I just think it's so
Speaker 1: interesting that keeps say, oh, my gosh, it's like Willie Horton. Adah,
Speaker 1: Willie Horton was a convicted rapist and murderer that they
Speaker 1: were letting out of prison. That seems like a pretty
Speaker 1: good thing to point out about your political opponent. There's
Speaker 1: nothing they say, Oh, because Horton is black, it's a
Speaker 1: it's it's a racist ad. Why because you know he's
Speaker 1: got a mug shot. I mean you could see the
Speaker 1: mug shot of him, I think in the ad um.
Speaker 1: But I mean that we played you something like it
Speaker 1: was just an audio ad and so but this is
Speaker 1: in reference to an ad that's running right now, which
Speaker 1: we have the audio of for you. Please play clip eleven.
Speaker 1: Greatly step out of the haulway different break up, Who
Speaker 1: Kill War? You know there's too warm. She says. He
Speaker 1: wants to apply for partum for the felony who committed
Speaker 1: on another attemptive murder. So I know you couldn't really
Speaker 1: pick up that much for him. And the guy's yelling
Speaker 1: about which I killed more? That was an illegal alien
Speaker 1: he was in the country who killed cops. Okay, that's
Speaker 1: a that's a guy who was a cop killer. And
Speaker 1: he's in court. They're telling the judge he wished that
Speaker 1: he had killed more. Now they're they're saying, this is
Speaker 1: it's racist. Why is it racist for them to show
Speaker 1: an I legal alien who who was on the other
Speaker 1: side of this whole spectrum that we're always told is
Speaker 1: it's just everybody who comes to America illegally. We're led
Speaker 1: to believe is a is a soon to be rocket scientist,
Speaker 1: you know, graduated top of his or her class, valedictorians,
Speaker 1: smarter than Americans, better than Americans, harder working than Americans.
Speaker 1: That's that's part of the leftist mantra on immigration, is
Speaker 1: that especially illegal aliens, they're better than we are as people.
Speaker 1: It's not just that they might need more you know,
Speaker 1: that it's a lie that they'll need more benefits. They say,
Speaker 1: it's a lie that they will commit more crime than
Speaker 1: the native born population. They say, whether they always mix
Speaker 1: in immigrants overall into this category, and I'm talking about
Speaker 1: illegal illegal immigrants um, you know. I mean, here's the
Speaker 1: producer might point us out to me, the caravan. There's
Speaker 1: thousands of people in this caravan. We know nothing about
Speaker 1: them at this point other than the videos we see
Speaker 1: and some of the interviews they've given. But the media
Speaker 1: is completely convinced that this caravan is full old of
Speaker 1: future Rhodes scholars and rocket scientists. That's and if we
Speaker 1: don't bring them in, our economy will suffer and we
Speaker 1: are terrible people. For the meat is sure of this.
Speaker 1: Just listen to them and tell you play sixteen. All
Speaker 1: of this for a group of people, a lot of
Speaker 1: whom are mothers and children, who pose no imminent threat
Speaker 1: to the United States called us an invasion. Uh, it
Speaker 1: might be the most pathetic invasion of a country in
Speaker 1: world history, if if this were actually an invasion, But
Speaker 1: of course it's not. Presidents sending troops to the border
Speaker 1: to deal with a caravan that hasn't proven to be violent.
Speaker 1: Stop saying their monsters, they're more mothers than monsters. Don't
Speaker 1: say it. Why don't any of you say that? Now?
Speaker 1: I don't think anyone's calling the monsters. So that's just
Speaker 1: a straw mancy. This is what this is what the
Speaker 1: other side does. They say things that are not are
Speaker 1: not really at the part of the argument on the
Speaker 1: other side, they get up. I mean Obama did this
Speaker 1: all the time. Obama was always at some people, sir,
Speaker 1: where should at all we should be feeding our children
Speaker 1: two monsters? And I say no, watch, let's give them healthcare.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, no one's saying feed our children and monsters.
Speaker 1: What is going on here? This is crazy. But that's
Speaker 1: what the left do is they create strama arguments to
Speaker 1: the side. Actually, I don't think I talked to you
Speaker 1: about this. Um it was a story from a while back.
Speaker 1: But I read this this this testing that they did. Uh,
Speaker 1: this testing that that I forgot. I think maybe it
Speaker 1: was Quilette did this where they asked people on the
Speaker 1: left to say what the right wing argument was for
Speaker 1: something and they completely missed the mark. And when people
Speaker 1: on the right or asked what do liberals think, we
Speaker 1: get it. We know when liberals are asked what do
Speaker 1: conservatives think? They have this this ridiculous, uh, completely exaggerated
Speaker 1: or just playing wrong view of what we think. It's
Speaker 1: not that they it's not even that we're right or wrong,
Speaker 1: but that they don't even know what our positions are.
Speaker 1: Conservatives know what lives believe. Libs don't know what conservatives believe.
Speaker 1: They make it up. They tell us what we believe,
Speaker 1: and they're wrong. They're they're they're not in a position
Speaker 1: to dictate that to us, but they think they are. Um.
Speaker 1: But I just think it's so interesting how much they
Speaker 1: just bleed on. I mean, the Lives just bleed on
Speaker 1: about racism all the time, and and you know, I
Speaker 1: wonder at what point people will just grow tired of
Speaker 1: it once again. I think in the era of Trump,
Speaker 1: there's been this elevation of the rhetoric around race, and
Speaker 1: there's been much much greater focus on it. So perhaps
Speaker 1: now people are not they're not as desensitized to charges
Speaker 1: of racism as they had been for a while. You know,
Speaker 1: when Obama was president and they were still calling you know,
Speaker 1: the liberal media was still calling everybody racist. It's like, Okay,
Speaker 1: well we've had a black president now for six seven
Speaker 1: going on eight years, and a lot of people that
Speaker 1: don't like his policy, he's voted for him. Uh So
Speaker 1: we don't always need to be told that every every
Speaker 1: bit of opposition to Obama was rooted in racism. But
Speaker 1: but that was a that was a ploy that the
Speaker 1: left used many many times. I mean, that was something
Speaker 1: that they clearly, at some level clearly believed. And I
Speaker 1: mean I just note that you know here we or
Speaker 1: whether they believe it or not actually doesn't matter because
Speaker 1: they just knew that it was. It was useful and
Speaker 1: calling people names, calling them racists in particular, is a
Speaker 1: very powerful political tool. But I just don't see anything
Speaker 1: in this in this ad. I mean to call it
Speaker 1: racist to say it's unfair to the illegal alien population
Speaker 1: of this country. By the way, people tell me this
Speaker 1: now they say, don't say legal alien. I look at
Speaker 1: when I say, that is what the Federal Criminal Code says.
Speaker 1: If I can't use the proper legal term for something,
Speaker 1: I need someone to explain to me what the proper
Speaker 1: term is and not the term that they like. I've
Speaker 1: also noticed by the way it's switched from undocumented to unauthorized.
Speaker 1: There's been a switch, folks. Undocumented immigrant has turned to
Speaker 1: unauthorized immigrant. See they're moving it down, they're moving it
Speaker 1: on that pendulum. Uh. They originally it was a legal immigrant.
Speaker 1: Then they don't they don't like the whole illegal component
Speaker 1: of it though, So then they made it undocumented immigrant.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't really sound quite as compelling or quite
Speaker 1: as easy to fix, right, but what about unauthorized immigrant. Well,
Speaker 1: all you need to do then is authorizing. All you
Speaker 1: need to do is authorized them at the government level,
Speaker 1: and now you're fine. Now there's no problem, Now there's
Speaker 1: no crime. That's how they played the game, constantly trying
Speaker 1: to stock the deck by changing the words and calling
Speaker 1: the other side, calling the pro sovereignty pro law side
Speaker 1: of the equation racist. Brian Kemp's getting the support of
Speaker 1: all kinds of working, good people all across Georgia, and
Speaker 1: Stacy Abrams being bankrolled by by Hollywood liberals sending their
Speaker 1: support into the state, and some of them come into
Speaker 1: the state, like I heard Oprah's in town today and
Speaker 1: I heard Will Farrell was going door to door the
Speaker 1: other day. Well, I'd like to remind Stacy and Oprah
Speaker 1: and Will Ferrell I'm kind of a big deal to them.
Speaker 1: I like a little bit of swagger from the vat there.
Speaker 1: Vice President Pence later down, I'm kind of a big
Speaker 1: deal too. My library smells of rich mahogany um I
Speaker 1: but I was looking I think a little bit of
Speaker 1: a little bit of Pence. A little bit of Pence
Speaker 1: swagger is a good thing. And he's out there on
Speaker 1: the campaign intro. Let me just tell you now that
Speaker 1: I will be interviewing the vice president tomorrow in Missouri.
Speaker 1: I will be at the American Conservative Union event in
Speaker 1: Kansas City, Missouri. I'm gonna tell you this right now.
Speaker 1: It is a true thing. See, guys, I I don't
Speaker 1: hide things from you, right I tell you when I've
Speaker 1: got some areas where I need to shape up a
Speaker 1: little bit, and some of you're gonna laugh at me.
Speaker 1: But I did have to have one of my wonderful
Speaker 1: producers at the Hill help me when I said, Okay,
Speaker 1: I think I think these are the flights that we
Speaker 1: should all take with my with my camera crew and stuff.
Speaker 1: I think we should get out there on this flight.
Speaker 1: And she had to tell me, Buck, you're not going
Speaker 1: to Kansas City, Kansas. That's a different thing. You're going
Speaker 1: to Kansas City, Missouri, to which I immediately turned out
Speaker 1: and said, excuse me, Darling. I didn't say that because
Speaker 1: that would be bad, but I said, excuse me, madam.
Speaker 1: Obviously I knew that we'll just take a taxi from
Speaker 1: Kansas City to Kansas City because they must be very
Speaker 1: close to which she had to explain to me. No,
Speaker 1: in fact, Kansas City, Missouri is about three and a
Speaker 1: half hour drive from Kansas City, Kansas. So I had
Speaker 1: to eat a little bit of humble buckpie and recognize
Speaker 1: that my Midwest geography needs a bit of work. My
Speaker 1: mid East geography is excellent, and geography I should spend
Speaker 1: a little more time with the old maps, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, check them out. So that's just a
Speaker 1: little bit of a little bit of honestly time. But no,
Speaker 1: I'm serious that I'm very excited to get a chance
Speaker 1: to talk to Vice President Pence tomorrow. And one thing
Speaker 1: that I was thinking about. One of the reason I
Speaker 1: wanna tell you this is obviously I'm gonna be out tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you at the end of the show, who
Speaker 1: are a very special guest fill in will be because
Speaker 1: we've got a we got a really fun guest host
Speaker 1: on the showw So don't you know, don't be like,
Speaker 1: oh Bucks out tomorrow, I do. No, no, no, You're
Speaker 1: gonna want to hang out on the Freedom Hunt tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We've got a great, great guest house for you. Uh,
Speaker 1: but you know, I wanted to put it out there
Speaker 1: for you that if you want to share a question
Speaker 1: with me and you if you send me a great question,
Speaker 1: I might be able to get into the veep and
Speaker 1: you might get your question asked to the Vice President
Speaker 1: United States. But you got to send it to me tonight.
Speaker 1: So Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton is the best
Speaker 1: place to do that. And you can send it there
Speaker 1: and I'll probably get a whole bunch of different suggestions
Speaker 1: which I really appreciate, and if one of them is
Speaker 1: just just fantastic, I might just have to pose the
Speaker 1: Vice president. I really like the Pence is taking the
Speaker 1: taking the role in this administration that he has. I
Speaker 1: think that he's very loyal to the president, which is
Speaker 1: obviously appreciated by the President. I don't think that he
Speaker 1: ever has a moment where he's thinking about, oh, how
Speaker 1: does this reflect on the Pence brand at the expense
Speaker 1: of the actual president United States. I don't think that
Speaker 1: he's playing, you know, I don't think he's trying to
Speaker 1: play five D chess or whatever and and use um
Speaker 1: use anybody around him or anyone in the White House
Speaker 1: orbit in a way that isn't conducive to the best
Speaker 1: interests of this administration. So I think he's been a
Speaker 1: really steady player, and you know, it's it's impressive. He's
Speaker 1: an impressive guy. So I'm looking forward to getting a
Speaker 1: chance to talk to him tomorrow. And and like I
Speaker 1: was saying, if you're out in Kansas City, Missouri, John,
Speaker 1: do we think is it? I mean, I'm from New York,
Speaker 1: so we all say Missouri. But do people in Missouri?
Speaker 1: Do people in Missouri say Missouri or is? I don't
Speaker 1: nothing that. I don't know either, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: know that. Our listeners, yeah, some of them are certainly
Speaker 1: in Missouri, so they let me let me know. I remember,
Speaker 1: I remember somebody said that my pronunciation of Louisville wasn't bad,
Speaker 1: and I was like, ah, because many years ago I
Speaker 1: actually dated somebody from from Louisville and I say Louisville.
Speaker 1: She was like, that's not how you said, and then
Speaker 1: I got a little better my Louisville. But I don't
Speaker 1: know how you're supposed to say Missouri really if you're
Speaker 1: a local. But I'll figure it out when i'm out there.
Speaker 1: But if you have a chance, I think it's a
Speaker 1: huge it's in an arena, it's in a stadium. Team
Speaker 1: So any of you who are in Missouri, you can
Speaker 1: or in the area at least of of Kansas City, Missouri,
Speaker 1: you can go to this American Conservative and the intervent.
Speaker 1: And I mean I'll be there all day. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be there all day, just walking around talking to folks,
Speaker 1: interviewing the v maybe interviewing some other peeples, doing the thing,
Speaker 1: you know, doing the whole reporter thing. It's funny. And
Speaker 1: I I read a column, I do a three hour
Speaker 1: radio show, I host a TV show. I go out
Speaker 1: there and do you know, field interviews. You know, I'm
Speaker 1: a I'm a buck of all trades. That's how I
Speaker 1: like to think of it. But if you get a
Speaker 1: chance to come up and say hi, tomorrow, I'll be
Speaker 1: out there walking around with the folks at the UH
Speaker 1: High V I think arena or something that's I forget
Speaker 1: what it's called, something like that, but I'll be out
Speaker 1: there and say at the American Serving Univent in Missouri
Speaker 1: tomorrow st not St. Louis, Missouri, buck in uh Kansas City, Missouri.
Speaker 1: So come by and say hi, what the heck happened
Speaker 1: to getting the truth about Kavanaugh, folks, Hold on a second, wait,
Speaker 1: hold the phone. If you recall from about mid September
Speaker 1: to early October, claims about now Supreme Court Justice Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: We're all over the media. It was the biggest story
Speaker 1: in the country. People that I know, left and right,
Speaker 1: we're taking time off from work to watch that hearing,
Speaker 1: both blasi Fords testimony and kavanaughs testimony in its entirety.
Speaker 1: I watched every single minute of it live, except for
Speaker 1: the parts that I had to skip to come to
Speaker 1: this radio show, and then I went back and watched
Speaker 1: the rest of it later. It was a true spectacle,
Speaker 1: and it had the absolute attention of most of the
Speaker 1: country and certainly most of the media for weeks. Well
Speaker 1: whatever happened to it? Though, our friend Molly Hemingway over
Speaker 1: at the Federalists asked this question. She says, if Supreme
Speaker 1: Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh is really a rapist and a
Speaker 1: sexual assailant, as Democrats and the media have claimed, shouldn't
Speaker 1: the story continue to be covered? Um? Shouldn't we continue
Speaker 1: to get, you know, get updates on all of this? Ah? Interesting?
Speaker 1: There is a lot of reason to believe that they
Speaker 1: have stepped away from this, not because they are willing
Speaker 1: to move past the issue of Kavanaugh and not because
Speaker 1: they really are hoping that we can come together and
Speaker 1: heals the country. Here's what I think. I think that
Speaker 1: they understand ultimately that if people started to into which
Speaker 1: is what would happen, especially if there's gonna be some
Speaker 1: allegation of Remember there was there was talk of oh,
Speaker 1: there's no technically no statute of limitation on sex crimes
Speaker 1: in Maryland, so maybe they'll they'll open up a criminal
Speaker 1: case on him. That's what they were saying. That was
Speaker 1: the that was the discussion, and now that's all gone,
Speaker 1: by the way, said but you know, the thing about
Speaker 1: a criminal investigation is that you then also are gonna
Speaker 1: have to have the accuser on the record. You're going
Speaker 1: to have the accuser, um, you know, in a position
Speaker 1: where she's going to have to answer questions about what
Speaker 1: really happened here and the people around her that she
Speaker 1: says might have known. Here's my here's my bottom line
Speaker 1: on this. You're not hearing about the Kavanaugh thing, although
Speaker 1: you might again once the Democrats take the House, but
Speaker 1: that will be a process that they can control. The
Speaker 1: media has stepped away from this because they know that
Speaker 1: if if we look into the particularly sweat Nick claim,
Speaker 1: and I think the Blasi Ford claim, we are going
Speaker 1: to find evidence of foul play. We will find that
Speaker 1: this was uh and I already think that this is
Speaker 1: the case, but I'm saying we'll be able to prove it.
Speaker 1: We would be able to prove that there was dare
Speaker 1: I say, a collusion underway with senior Democrats, the media,
Speaker 1: and some of these accusers in the case of Avanadi
Speaker 1: and sweat Nick, that this was a claim that should
Speaker 1: never have been taken as credible by any ethical lawyer,
Speaker 1: which I know for a lot of you are laughing
Speaker 1: at that very concept. But and you know, we know
Speaker 1: NBC News sat on information that was exculpatory for Um,
Speaker 1: information that was exculpatory for Cavanaugh. This was an all
Speaker 1: out of effort by the media to get a desired
Speaker 1: outcome that we had nothing to do with journalism, with ethics,
Speaker 1: with decency, with the truth, and that's why they have
Speaker 1: let it go. Um. Here's what Molly writes in her piece,
Speaker 1: by the way, which I think is very good, very
Speaker 1: interesting for you to take a moment to read. If
Speaker 1: you can. The Senate Judiciary Committee just made a criminal
Speaker 1: referral of sweat, Nick, and Avanati to the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice for making false claims. After each outlandish claim was made,
Speaker 1: the media would dutifully report that an additional claim had
Speaker 1: been made. One journalist admitted she reported on a story
Speaker 1: that the claimant was unable to substantiate precisely because additional
Speaker 1: claims made the first claim more believable, even leaving aside
Speaker 1: the claim of an underground serial gang rape cartel and
Speaker 1: the New Yorkers kavan accuser Debora Ramirez, who a few
Speaker 1: days after his hearings ended ended claimed to sort of
Speaker 1: recover decades old memories of a Kavanaugh assault and the
Speaker 1: various anonymous and merchantic claims about rapes from Colorado Rhode Island.
Speaker 1: What happened to blasi Ford? Blasi Ford's modeled claim about
Speaker 1: a violent attempt at rape and an undetermined location and
Speaker 1: time in high school could not have been more generously
Speaker 1: treated by online, print, and broadcast media. It was given
Speaker 1: nothing but the most respectful hearing by the media. The
Speaker 1: Washington Post ran a very favorable version of the story
Speaker 1: to break the news see ann Fox News and MSNBC
Speaker 1: all said her claims were credible and that her testimony
Speaker 1: at the reopened Kavanaugh hearing was devastating the Kavanaugh's confirmation case. Obviously,
Speaker 1: the media coverage was misaligned from the political mood of
Speaker 1: the non progressive portion of the country, but it was
Speaker 1: well aligned with the progressive political movement. Do they no
Speaker 1: longer care about Blasi Ford? Huh? And quote there, Molly's
Speaker 1: raising a very interesting question. I thought they wanted the truth, right,
Speaker 1: you can't handle the truth? No, But I thought that
Speaker 1: they we're all about justice here for Blasi Ford. Why
Speaker 1: did they move past this so quickly? You know? Okay,
Speaker 1: so kavanaughs on the Supreme Court that that doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that that does not mean that they can't continue to
Speaker 1: get to the you know, the bottom of this that
Speaker 1: they wanted. The journalists can do whatever they want in
Speaker 1: terms of tracing stories. Oh you know why they you
Speaker 1: know why they toned it down right now? My friends?
Speaker 1: You know, the real answer is because I'm not sure
Speaker 1: they've done with it forever, because they may go back
Speaker 1: to it in order to um you know that they
Speaker 1: may go back to it if they get a majority
Speaker 1: in the House. But the reason they dropped it in
Speaker 1: the in the last few weeks is because it wasn't
Speaker 1: playing well across the country. It became a liability for
Speaker 1: Democrats going into the midrooms. That's why they dropped this
Speaker 1: Blasi forward thing. Um, there's more here for Molly quote.
Speaker 1: We're told that she had no incentive to lie and
Speaker 1: gave up a great deal by coming forward, although one
Speaker 1: journalist has reported on the nearly one million dollars she
Speaker 1: raised from progressive donors. All the media that reports she
Speaker 1: had no incentive to lie. Oh, if you were to
Speaker 1: fully investigator claims, don't they well? Blossy Forward is unclear
Speaker 1: in the precise location the claimed assault. Maryland Police said
Speaker 1: they would fully investigate any allegations brought to them. Has
Speaker 1: that been done? The argument that the multi weeek delay
Speaker 1: in September was insufficient for a proper investigation of her claims.
Speaker 1: If that's true, what has been done in October? Why
Speaker 1: have we heard nothing? Molly just hammers them here because
Speaker 1: then we know that they have no They have no
Speaker 1: answer to this because this was always from the beginning
Speaker 1: a political hit. There was nothing about honor, decency, or
Speaker 1: integrity about it. Certainly not about getting to the truth,
Speaker 1: and the moment that it was no longer necessary as
Speaker 1: a political hit, they dropped the whole thing. They couldn't
Speaker 1: care less, no longer matter to them. That tells you
Speaker 1: a lot, doesn't it. Think back to all the people
Speaker 1: that were acting like this was the most important story
Speaker 1: they had covered in years, This was so essential, so
Speaker 1: so critical, and then think about how they were just
Speaker 1: liars and all this stuff about oh, we need more investigation,
Speaker 1: we need more investigation. All the people who said that
Speaker 1: we're liars, they just want to delay because they wanted
Speaker 1: to derail Kavanaugh's nomination. There's a lot of bias in
Speaker 1: social media sites. You see stories better all the time.
Speaker 1: And you know that Silicon Valley is a bunch of
Speaker 1: leftists running around these days, right, It's run by people
Speaker 1: that don't share your values and beliefs, and they think
Speaker 1: that they have this messianic need to spread progressivism around
Speaker 1: the globe. Well, guess what if you just want a
Speaker 1: place where you can share your thoughts and opinions, do
Speaker 1: what I do. Check out snippy dot com. Snippy dot
Speaker 1: com is a new social media site, totally free to join,
Speaker 1: totally free to use. All you do is set up
Speaker 1: an account and then you can post, follow people, share photos,
Speaker 1: share information, and just get in on the conversation. None
Speaker 1: of the conversational health nonsense you're hearing from Twitter and
Speaker 1: Facebook and these other places. Snippy dot com is a
Speaker 1: place where you or voice is valued, or the conversation
Speaker 1: is free and open. Find like minded folks on a
Speaker 1: whole host of issues, established rapport with people that really
Speaker 1: believe in this country and patriotism. Snippy dot com again,
Speaker 1: s N I P p Y dot com. Now, the
Speaker 1: media may be done with the whole Kavanaugh situation for now,
Speaker 1: but I'm not done. You know that they may have
Speaker 1: decided that it no longer suits their political interests as
Speaker 1: we've been discussing, but I think that it's necessary for
Speaker 1: all of us, and it's necessary for the good of
Speaker 1: the country and certainly for the good of the media
Speaker 1: to enforce some accountability on these people for the debacle
Speaker 1: that they made of this, of this entire confirmation process,
Speaker 1: and and the you know, the media we're front and
Speaker 1: center and all of this. This was uh, one of
Speaker 1: those moments in the in the whole Cavanaugh saga where
Speaker 1: if it was and surrounded with all these other incredibly
Speaker 1: outrageous circumstances. I think people would have made this a
Speaker 1: much bigger news story than than than it was treated
Speaker 1: at the time. But Matt Continetti over at Commentary has
Speaker 1: written a piece on the New Yorkers shocking dereliction, and
Speaker 1: wow does he take them to task. Now. The New Yorker,
Speaker 1: for those of you who don't remember, was where Ronan
Speaker 1: Pharaoh and UH and Jane Mayor decided that they they're
Speaker 1: both writing for The New Yorker, which is a very offensive,
Speaker 1: very highbrow publication. Um, but they decided that they were
Speaker 1: going to throw in their support and Ronan Pharaoh as
Speaker 1: part of this was because we look, Ronan had written
Speaker 1: these big expose s and taken down some people in
Speaker 1: the past. By the way, I want one thing that
Speaker 1: I want to know is how did Ronan Pharaoh come
Speaker 1: up with all this? Are we really believe that Ronan
Speaker 1: Faraoh just was a dogged investigator and just figured out
Speaker 1: this Weinstein stuff himself. I feel like he's gotten more
Speaker 1: help behind the scenes than he's than anybody has UH
Speaker 1: been willing to say publicly yet, which doesn't discredit what
Speaker 1: he's doing. I just think it's interesting that really this
Speaker 1: guy probably the worst, the worst cable news show in
Speaker 1: the history of cable news was the whatever the thing
Speaker 1: was called with Ronan Faro. I mean it was. It
Speaker 1: was an embarrassment, not just to watch, but it was
Speaker 1: an embarrassment for anybody who was within the vicinity of
Speaker 1: the show. Like I feel like the guy delivering FedEx
Speaker 1: packages to the NBC building if he walked past the
Speaker 1: set of Ronan Farao show was probably like, damn, that's rough.
Speaker 1: So uh. But Ronan Faro has become a big, you know,
Speaker 1: household names, celebrity and all this stuff because of his
Speaker 1: reporting on sexual abusers, in in sexual harassers within Hollywood.
Speaker 1: And he put his name on this story. And the
Speaker 1: story was about the second accuser, not sweat Nick. Sweat
Speaker 1: Nick was third um, but this second accuser from from
Speaker 1: college who claimed that there was an effort Ramirez Ramirez
Speaker 1: was was it was Debbie Ramirez that Kavanaugh stuck his
Speaker 1: you know, man part in in her face and she
Speaker 1: swatted it away at some party. And it was so flimsy,
Speaker 1: the entire story and everything behind it, and you know, continent.
Speaker 1: He is not letting, not letting Mayor and Ronan Pharaoh
Speaker 1: here just slide off and and pretend that nothing really happened.
Speaker 1: This is how he starts this piece. He goes, quote,
Speaker 1: let's pretend you're the editor of a magazine. Two of
Speaker 1: your reporters say they've learned of a woman who alleges
Speaker 1: that a prominent man exposed himself to her while the
Speaker 1: two were at a party in a college dorm more
Speaker 1: and thirty years ago. Her story is an ironclad, her
Speaker 1: recollection is hazy because she had been drinking that night.
Speaker 1: She's been asking longtime friends that they have any memory
Speaker 1: of the event and has come up short. The man
Speaker 1: in question denies the allegation. No one seems to have
Speaker 1: any direct knowledge of what the accuser was talking about.
Speaker 1: There was one gentleman who refuses to go on the record,
Speaker 1: who says he heard about the incident from another person
Speaker 1: sometime after it happened. Question, do you run a piece
Speaker 1: without corroborating evidence or do you tell your reporters to
Speaker 1: keep digging. If you chose the second option, congratulations, you
Speaker 1: have better judgment than the editor of The New Yorker,
Speaker 1: As the old campaign ad had it. Yes, the New
Speaker 1: Yorker and quote, I mean you get into some of
Speaker 1: the details here, and the fact that they ran this
Speaker 1: was that this was a political hit that couldn't have
Speaker 1: been any more obvious, that could not have been anymore
Speaker 1: blatant in its partisan intent. And this is something that
Speaker 1: we should not we should not move past. So people say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, there's the fake news. Don't say fake news,
Speaker 1: the press of telling the truth. They just concocted this thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, they crafted out of essentially nothing. They crafted
Speaker 1: a story that had it gone a little bit differently.
Speaker 1: You know, the second accuser, that's always a big o oh,
Speaker 1: there's a second accuser. Now, the third accuser was such
Speaker 1: an obvious lunatic and liar, Julie Sweatnick, that it didn't
Speaker 1: really you know that that that it actually went against
Speaker 1: the anti Kavanaugh crowd. And they can all thank Avanati
Speaker 1: for that one, the scam artist. But the second accuser here,
Speaker 1: this was a really damaging moment back in the whole
Speaker 1: Cavanaugh saga. And and here's how CONTINENTI Puts puts it
Speaker 1: about what happened. Quote, Pharaoh and Mayer were up front
Speaker 1: about the fact that they lack corroboration. The New Yorker
Speaker 1: has not confirmed with other eyewitnesses that Kavanaugh was present
Speaker 1: at the party, they wrote. The magazine contacted several dozen
Speaker 1: classmates of Ramirez and Kavanaugh regarding the incident. Many did
Speaker 1: not respond to interview requests. Others declined to comment or
Speaker 1: said they did not attend or remember the party. The
Speaker 1: exception was an unnamed source who said that he is
Speaker 1: sure that he was told at the time that Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: was the student who exposed himself to Ramirez. If one
Speaker 1: of my Free Beacon writers had come to me with
Speaker 1: these caveats, I would have told her she had zilch.
Speaker 1: Just how weak was this story? The evening it was
Speaker 1: published in the sixteenth paragraph of an article about Ford's
Speaker 1: agreement to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee. Cheryl Stolberg
Speaker 1: and Nicholas Fandos wrote the following in The New York
Speaker 1: Times quote, The Times had interviewed several dozen people of
Speaker 1: the past this week in an attempt to corroborate ramire
Speaker 1: as a story, and could find no one with firsthand knowledge.
Speaker 1: Mr Ramirez herself contacted former Yale classmates, asking if they
Speaker 1: recalled the incident, and told some of them that she
Speaker 1: could not be certain Mr Kavanaugh was the one who
Speaker 1: exposed himself end quote. All right, let's take a step
Speaker 1: back for a minute here, my friends, Not only was
Speaker 1: there no evidence and no corroborating witnesses, they reached out
Speaker 1: to dozens of people, many of whom had already talked
Speaker 1: to Ramirez, none of them remember this incident at all.
Speaker 1: And on top of that, the only belief, the only
Speaker 1: reason for belief for this second kavanac user, the only
Speaker 1: reason that anybody should have even thought for a second
Speaker 1: that this was credible, was this one woman who came
Speaker 1: forward and told this story. And it turns out even
Speaker 1: she wasn't entirely sure that it was Kavanaugh. Think about
Speaker 1: the mentality here for a second, before we even get
Speaker 1: back into the press responsibility. Think about the mentality of
Speaker 1: somebody who, at an incredibly vulnerable point for for an
Speaker 1: individual like Cabinet, was in the public eye in this way,
Speaker 1: she's not even sure, she's not even sure that it's him,
Speaker 1: but she comes forward anyway, and then she goes on
Speaker 1: this whole tracking down somebody to corroborate her, and you know,
Speaker 1: hoping that that somebody's gonna say, yeah, yeah, I remember
Speaker 1: that thing happened, now, you know, There's a part of
Speaker 1: me that wonders, at what stage of this process did
Speaker 1: she maybe stop and think or did she refuse to
Speaker 1: stop and think, Hey, maybe I've got the wrong guy
Speaker 1: and I shouldn't just be part of a pylon here.
Speaker 1: But oh, that's right. It was never really about the truth.
Speaker 1: It was always about destroying somebody who was a threat
Speaker 1: to the right to an abortion. That's it. It was
Speaker 1: never about the truth. It was actually not about sexual
Speaker 1: assault either. For the left, alt aid Lee, the ultimate
Speaker 1: aim of the Kavanaugh ambush was to make sure that
Speaker 1: abortion rights would be protected. Sexual assault was a secondary
Speaker 1: consideration to the closest thing that the Left has to
Speaker 1: a sacrament, which is abortion. Uh, and to their everlasting
Speaker 1: shame and discredit. And they're continuing and obvious moral inferiority
Speaker 1: to conservatism and the Republican Party. There there's no two
Speaker 1: sides to this one. We are we are in a
Speaker 1: morally superior position. We're ethically on the side of righteousness
Speaker 1: on the issue of life, and the Left is on
Speaker 1: the side of evil. And they don't like to think
Speaker 1: of it that way. They don't like to talk of
Speaker 1: it that way. They use all these weasel words and
Speaker 1: all this nonsense to obscure what's really going on, what
Speaker 1: they really support. But we need to have clarity on
Speaker 1: this issue. But that's what was at stake here for
Speaker 1: the left, and that's why they were willing to do this.
Speaker 1: And you know, Ronan Pharaoh, it should be noted, is
Speaker 1: a partisan hack. He's done some good reporting. Lots of
Speaker 1: people have done good reporting. When push came to shove,
Speaker 1: he was willing to sell his credibility to help the movement.
Speaker 1: That's not what journalists do. That is what activists do. Man,
Speaker 1: it does feel kind of like everybody these days getting
Speaker 1: a talk show, you know, it does feel like, Wow,
Speaker 1: everyone's got their own channel going on. There. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of that, you know, because the digital era we
Speaker 1: live in. Um. But this one was a bit of
Speaker 1: a shock. I gotta tell you, this one I did
Speaker 1: not see coming, and usually I got I got pretty
Speaker 1: good sources on this. But some of you will recall
Speaker 1: that I had a very interesting conversation with Mr Carter
Speaker 1: Page not long ago on this set of Rising, and
Speaker 1: we had him for interviews about what happened with this
Speaker 1: whole this this farcical nonsense about how he uh was
Speaker 1: necessary it was necessary to have open FISO surveillance on him.
Speaker 1: And it's just it was just crazy. I mean, the
Speaker 1: whole thing is completely bonkers. And I remember talking to
Speaker 1: this guy and thinking, you know, he seems like just
Speaker 1: a very nice and honestly pretty harmless guy. Now, he
Speaker 1: did go to the Naval Academy. I think he might
Speaker 1: have gone to Harvard for graduate school, so he's also
Speaker 1: he's also smart. But he's a little cookie. He's a
Speaker 1: little bit of an off kilter guy, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean, A little different, very nice. I really like
Speaker 1: talking to Carter Page. I got nothing bad to say
Speaker 1: about him, but he's all, you know, he's a little unusual.
Speaker 1: I did not guess that he would get his own
Speaker 1: show on cable news. This is a surprise, that's right.
Speaker 1: Conservative cable news network one American News has given a
Speaker 1: show to Carter Page. Who will start a new show
Speaker 1: called America in the World with Carter Page. Huh, what
Speaker 1: an interesting turn of events. This is, my friends, I
Speaker 1: do not think I could have seen this one coming.
Speaker 1: I have to wonder now, is pop adoppol is going
Speaker 1: to get a show? And if pop Adopt gets a show,
Speaker 1: then why don't they get a show together. You'd have
Speaker 1: the Page Pop Adopt duo and they could talk about
Speaker 1: how the government cannot be trusted with some of the
Speaker 1: extreme surveillance powers that it has given to itself in
Speaker 1: such a hyper political era. But you know there's another part.
Speaker 1: It feels like, Okay, so I can sit here and
Speaker 1: tell you, wow, Carter Page getting his own cable news show.
Speaker 1: But you think about some of the other people that
Speaker 1: have been given shows over the years, and you've got
Speaker 1: a bunch of real, real misfits. Remember Alec Baldwin. I
Speaker 1: think he's got a show again now. But Alec Baldwin
Speaker 1: had a show on MSNBC for like five minutes. It
Speaker 1: felt like I think he went on some rants in
Speaker 1: the street where he yelled a anti anti gay slur
Speaker 1: or something, if I recall, I have to check back
Speaker 1: on that, but he definitely got fired for some some
Speaker 1: kind of misbehaved here. I think the ratings were also terrible.
Speaker 1: There's a big difference between being an actor where somebody
Speaker 1: else writes the lines for you and having to carry
Speaker 1: your own talk show, and that those these are very
Speaker 1: different things. Um Oh, Elliott Spitzer had his own show
Speaker 1: for a while that was that was quite a debacle
Speaker 1: at CNN, no less, But Carter Page man get his
Speaker 1: own show. So I gotta say, I think there's a
Speaker 1: pretty decent chance that yours truly might at some point
Speaker 1: be a guest host I'm sorry, a guest. Not again,
Speaker 1: well maybe a guest host two, but a guest on
Speaker 1: the Carter Page program. I just wonder what this is
Speaker 1: gonna be? Like? It? What? What? What America's thinking? Carter
Speaker 1: did not strike me as the kind of guy who
Speaker 1: would carry a show by himself. Let me just let
Speaker 1: me just put it that way. But you know, you
Speaker 1: never know. Then again, you look at some of these
Speaker 1: empty suits over at CNN. If you put enough stuff
Speaker 1: on a prompter and you can create That's why I
Speaker 1: love radio. Radio separates you from the frauds. He can't.
Speaker 1: Nobody can fake a radio show for you, especially a
Speaker 1: three hour radio show. You know, some people have a
Speaker 1: lot of guests and a lot of stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: people ask me that, So why don't your work guests
Speaker 1: in radio? I say, because I want to talk to
Speaker 1: I want to talk to my audience. I want to
Speaker 1: talk to my team. Yeah, I've guessed sometimes and sure,
Speaker 1: I mean if there's people that bring particular expertise, but
Speaker 1: I I don't trust anybody to be more considerate and
Speaker 1: respectful of your time than me, and so I always
Speaker 1: feel this obligation to do the show myself, which is
Speaker 1: why I take very very few guests and don't really
Speaker 1: get a whole lot of calls. We had a lot
Speaker 1: of role call, obviously, um, but we we tend to
Speaker 1: get through a lot of segments without hearing from too
Speaker 1: many other guest voices and uh car Carter Page man,
Speaker 1: I I was shocked, That's all I can tell you
Speaker 1: on this one. I was like, Wow, one American News.
Speaker 1: I guess they've really decided that there's enough of an
Speaker 1: interest here and in this whole Russia collusion phenomenon that
Speaker 1: this will somehow sustain its own show. I guess that's
Speaker 1: where we're going. So if Carter will have you, I'll
Speaker 1: be a guest on his show when it launches. Rock
Speaker 1: and Roll. Fellow patriots, we made ours go up to eleven.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. You heard the man, Time
Speaker 1: for your thoughts via roll call one of the best
Speaker 1: times of the day every day. Got to love the
Speaker 1: roll call action, and with that we get right to it,
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com, slash buck Sexton if you want to
Speaker 1: be a part James right. Paul Ryan has and always
Speaker 1: has had a fundamental misunderstanding of the purpose of immigration.
Speaker 1: He is quoted as saying, the purpose of immigration is
Speaker 1: to improve the lot of the immigrant. That is not
Speaker 1: the purpose of immigration. The purpose of immigration is, with
Speaker 1: the okay of the citizenry, to bring in people who
Speaker 1: will improve and benefit the existing society. That is the
Speaker 1: actual purpose of immigration, not to improve a lot of
Speaker 1: the immigrant. Come back with your shielder on it. Keep
Speaker 1: destroying those shield tosses, Brother James, H James that you're correct,
Speaker 1: and it is about it is supposed to be at
Speaker 1: least about making this country better. Our immigration program is
Speaker 1: not supposed to be a kind of welfare program that
Speaker 1: that is not what's supposed to happen. So I I
Speaker 1: agree with you and Paul Ryan on immigration, as I've
Speaker 1: been saying, is really bad. Is not not good on
Speaker 1: the issue immigration at all. But he'll be running a
Speaker 1: think tank soon enough, and I don't know how much
Speaker 1: cable news he'll be doing. He's not particularly interesting on
Speaker 1: cable news. Wayne writes, Hey, it's Wayne, Wayne. Wayne, I
Speaker 1: got you know that song that's no and then no, no,
Speaker 1: nobody nothing Nirvana. Um. I think that's what I think,
Speaker 1: he yells Wayne, although I could be wrong about it,
Speaker 1: Wayne writes, hates me a shield time. My good sir,
Speaker 1: you are aware of the time honored way that people
Speaker 1: fled desperate circumstances and saw a new home. They jumped
Speaker 1: into the greater capacity of the new home line homeland,
Speaker 1: and offered themselves as slavery. Slavery was not imposed on
Speaker 1: captives and their children, was the way that the bankrupt
Speaker 1: or destitute could find employment and security Apart from crime.
Speaker 1: Illegal immigrants can expect one of these outcomes one human
Speaker 1: trafficking to drug trafficking, three, depending on laws and their enforcement,
Speaker 1: oppression and resentment, or four continuing to be manipulated, politically resistant,
Speaker 1: cultural as similar Sian and attempting revolt. All our outcomes
Speaker 1: comparable to that up slaves. What a wonderful opportunity for
Speaker 1: which to leave your home. Well, I don't think they're
Speaker 1: all comparable to slavery. I wouldn't go that far, Um,
Speaker 1: but I think you're definitely gonna have a difficult circumstance
Speaker 1: coming into this country as an illegal alien unless the
Speaker 1: Democrats say that you are no longer illegal, and then
Speaker 1: you can get all the benefits offered up via our
Speaker 1: trillion dollar welfare annually trillion dollars spent on the welfare
Speaker 1: staying in this country. So there you have it. Adam right,
Speaker 1: the movie was Cat's Eye with the ogre and the
Speaker 1: cat defending young Drew Barrymore. Uh, you are correct. That
Speaker 1: is the name of the movie that I used to
Speaker 1: think was scary. I didn't realize Drew Barrymore was in that,
Speaker 1: but the little ogre was a really scary looking little dude.
Speaker 1: I had nightmares about that little ogre back in the day.
Speaker 1: Somebody else writes, Buck, please do not read this on air,
Speaker 1: so I will skip that one. Eric writes Buck, don
Speaker 1: Lemon keeps on running his mouth. He's just sending more
Speaker 1: and more people over to our side. Also, from here
Speaker 1: on out, anytime you're talking about CNN or MSNBC, you
Speaker 1: should refer to them as the radical media. Well, while
Speaker 1: I understand Eric that where you're coming from with this,
Speaker 1: let me just say that I don't want to call
Speaker 1: him the radical media because I don't want it to
Speaker 1: sound like they're still cool and hip. And radical man
Speaker 1: like hey man, radical media man. We we just certainly
Speaker 1: don't want that. So but yes, thank you for sending
Speaker 1: in your thoughts on the Don Lemon controversy this week.
Speaker 1: Don Lemon was never particularly nice to me. I did not,
Speaker 1: do not have fond memories of doing that show back
Speaker 1: in the day, and it was early enough in my
Speaker 1: career that I really was under the miss the miss
Speaker 1: h impression. Is that a word? No, but it's a
Speaker 1: buck is um if it's not a word like degreatory, uh,
Speaker 1: which is also not a word. But I was under
Speaker 1: the mistaken impression that they would reward intelligent conservatism if
Speaker 1: it was done politely and and respectfully. And no, that's
Speaker 1: not really the case. So CNN should be um receiving
Speaker 1: all the criticism that it does from most of the
Speaker 1: people that I see on the right. It deserves the
Speaker 1: criticism for sure. Uh. David writes, Hey, Buck, there's definitely
Speaker 1: a movie where a cat is sitting on somebody's chest
Speaker 1: stealing their breath. Scared the hell out of me when
Speaker 1: I saw it as a kid, great show to night
Speaker 1: take care. Yeah, David, as we interesting than a few
Speaker 1: of you, really remember that that movie was uh cats,
Speaker 1: I so yeah, there you go clothes. It's called cat's eye, sir. Yes,
Speaker 1: another one, this one from Eric. Okay, okay, you guys
Speaker 1: are right. You're right. I get it, I get it.
Speaker 1: Thomas writes, good segment on your show talking about the media.
Speaker 1: Madonna's buck Christina I'm Not Poor has forgotten. Oh I
Speaker 1: get it, like I'm on poor, I'm not poor has
Speaker 1: forgotten as of all the media elites that they're no
Speaker 1: longer exercising journalistic ethics. Of all people, John Stewart has
Speaker 1: to remind them of it, and as usual, they failed
Speaker 1: to comprehend what he says. Keep holding them accountable, Buck,
Speaker 1: good work, shields high well, yes, indeed, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Uh Larry right, Buck, I haven't checked in for a while.
Speaker 1: I just want to let you know I'm still out
Speaker 1: here trying to help rally the troops in southern Oregon.
Speaker 1: Got some good news for a few days ago. You
Speaker 1: are now on our news talk station k c MX
Speaker 1: eight eighty here in Medford in the ten pm to
Speaker 1: one am slot. Before he showed up, the only option
Speaker 1: that slot was Alex Jones. Needless to say, I approve
Speaker 1: of this change. Keep up the great work Shields High Well.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Larry. I'm glad that there's an
Speaker 1: option to listen to me out there in Oregon. I
Speaker 1: would love for there to be even more options to
Speaker 1: listen to me in Oregon. I'm working on it. Man,
Speaker 1: We've gotta going, Jonathan Right, listen to yesterday's podcast, and
Speaker 1: it amazes me how the media thinks they can be
Speaker 1: pro jew yet anti Israel. Maybe they're just rallying behind
Speaker 1: Democrat Jews. Uh, Jonathan. There's always been this split in
Speaker 1: the Jewish communities country between support for Israel and some
Speaker 1: of the conservatism that that often implies, at least in
Speaker 1: terms of national security and geopolitics, and the strong majority
Speaker 1: of American Jews who vote for the Democrat Party, so
Speaker 1: that that really is just continuing on now. Uh, in
Speaker 1: in different ways. Casey Rights, We're both conservative libertarians and
Speaker 1: no hard feelings. Love the show. Buck. Your Friday show
Speaker 1: was talking about the best worst costumes the wife and
Speaker 1: I wanted to share ours. Oh man, you guys have
Speaker 1: great costumes. Casey. You guys are really cute couple, by
Speaker 1: the way, so very cool. Thanks for sending in the pot.
Speaker 1: Dan Rights, um Buck you need to turn your the
Speaker 1: Boston station you're on a turn up the juice. It's
Speaker 1: too low power and hard to catch reliably. Dan, I
Speaker 1: will send them a strongly worded memo requesting politely that
Speaker 1: they turn up the juice a little bit. That mean
Speaker 1: nice gets more wattage at that station. That would be cool. Uh,
Speaker 1: Aaron writes, if you think you're that to call the UH,
Speaker 1: I think you're right. To call the founder of Islam
Speaker 1: merely Mohammed would risk ambiguity, but your critics are also
Speaker 1: right that is wrong to call him the prophet Mohammed.
Speaker 1: I always call him the false prophet Mohammed, which seeds
Speaker 1: no ground to those who would call him a prophet. Well, Aaron,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you are quite the hit over at the
Speaker 1: local mosque. On what else to say, but thank you
Speaker 1: very much for writing in. Keith writes, Buck, your referral
Speaker 1: of Peaky Blinders is spot on, except for not understanding
Speaker 1: the accents. There's a wonderful feature called subtitles that helps
Speaker 1: immediately immensely. The only drawback is my lips get tired
Speaker 1: after one episode. Um m hmm. Some titles. My lips
Speaker 1: get tired after one episode. Oh I guess because you
Speaker 1: mouth the words to yourself as you read them. I don't.
Speaker 1: I didn't really understand that part of it. Glad you're
Speaker 1: enjoying Peaky Blinders, my friend. It is a very very
Speaker 1: well done, very entertaining show. And yes, I told you
Speaker 1: about the about the subtitles, I believe Jar writes excellent
Speaker 1: old school reference with the trust treat comment. We're talking
Speaker 1: about your Rising segment. Thank you, Jar, look at you.
Speaker 1: You caught a movie quote in Rising. You get extra
Speaker 1: points for that, Steve Hey, buck just listening to Friday Show,
Speaker 1: degraatory equals a bucket is um and I love it anyway,
Speaker 1: shield side, Thank you, Steve. It sounds like it's a word,
Speaker 1: so I feel like we should make it a word.
Speaker 1: You know, it's close enough that it should be a word.
Speaker 1: I think, Hannah, Hey, something so funny. It's parents teacher
Speaker 1: conference week at my kids school, and I went yesterday
Speaker 1: my youngest daughter's first grade conference. After all, after all
Speaker 1: of the must have of grades and behavior reports, her
Speaker 1: teacher tells me that my daughter will get excited or
Speaker 1: happy about something and say maga under her breath, maybe
Speaker 1: laugh so hard. I knew you'd think it's funny. You
Speaker 1: have a great weekend, Hannah. I do think that's funny.
Speaker 1: That's great, that's a great story. That's really cute. I
Speaker 1: kind of like that we should just turn Maga into
Speaker 1: a an exclamation of joy, you know, so instead of
Speaker 1: yelling bingo when you win, you're like Maga. You know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying. I think that would be a good
Speaker 1: way to go to him. I want to take a
Speaker 1: personal moment if I can, um tell you a couple
Speaker 1: of things. The first one is that I am gonna
Speaker 1: be out tomorrow, but I have arranged for a very
Speaker 1: special guest to take the Freedom Hut into his control
Speaker 1: for the for the after, for the evening, and that
Speaker 1: will be our friend, Raheem Khasam. So those who who
Speaker 1: always say you want more Raheem tomorrow will be a
Speaker 1: Rahim Kassam athon for three hours here in the Freedom Hut.
Speaker 1: He's gonna he's gonna do a great job. I mean,
Speaker 1: Rahem is a really interesting, insightful guy. Um. And we'll
Speaker 1: obviously have the Godfather Michael Pelca back on soon two
Speaker 1: over the holidays when I need to take some time
Speaker 1: to do things in life. Uh. Speaking about life today,
Speaker 1: November one is my mom's birthday, so I wanted to
Speaker 1: say happy birthday, Mom. You're the greatest mom in the world.
Speaker 1: And for those who listening to the show, I can
Speaker 1: tell you that, especially in the early days of me
Speaker 1: working the media and still more often than I would
Speaker 1: care to admit, my mom is the one who has
Speaker 1: kept my head in the game. And she is somebody
Speaker 1: who listens to this show all the time. She's been
Speaker 1: supporting me every step of the way in a business
Speaker 1: that is just brutal, and she always encouraged me, encourages
Speaker 1: me to keep going and keep doing my best because
Speaker 1: she'll say things like, you know you owe to the team.
Speaker 1: You know, stay in there, make sure you're doing your best,
Speaker 1: do your best show. So she is a fantastic advocate
Speaker 1: for everything that I do here. And I just want
Speaker 1: to say happy birthday, Mom. You look about thirty six,
Speaker 1: so whatever you're doing is amazing in that regard. I
Speaker 1: just want to put that out there and also just
Speaker 1: want to say thank you for always supporting me here
Speaker 1: on the show. I love you very much. Have a
Speaker 1: great birthday, and um I'll be up in New York
Speaker 1: to see you as soon as I can. With that
Speaker 1: team shields high,