Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Taxes, taxes, taxes. It
Speaker 1: used to be Russia, Russia, Russia, but now the Democrats
Speaker 1: are obsessed with seeing President Trump's tax return stretching back
Speaker 1: for six years. Is this just a tactic of delay
Speaker 1: until they can finally get their hands on the full
Speaker 1: Muller Report? What do they think will be in this plut?
Speaker 1: The border is a catastrophe. It is getting worse. Democrats
Speaker 1: are telling us what they really think, at least some
Speaker 1: of them are, which is that they want open borders.
Speaker 1: What can we do about it? And Stacy Abrams making
Speaker 1: some unfounded and deeply divisive and inflammatory claims. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about what she's got going on coming up on The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. Buck Sexton Remission, decoding the news and
Speaker 1: disseminating information with actionable intelligence, No mistake, American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American again. This is the bucks Sexton Show. Former
Speaker 1: CIA analysts, I can speak for three hours without a
Speaker 1: phone poll. Try doing that sometimes it is buck Sexton. No,
Speaker 1: it's something The President is certainly still keeping that option
Speaker 1: on the table. And as he said, as a number
Speaker 1: of us have talked about over the last several days,
Speaker 1: this is certainly not the president's first choice. But Democrats
Speaker 1: at this point, their unwillingness to do anything has left
Speaker 1: the president with very little option. Thousands of people that
Speaker 1: are illegally pouring into this country that are really putting
Speaker 1: national security at risk, and it's irresponsible the way that
Speaker 1: that has been ignored by Democrats in Congress, and this
Speaker 1: president is not going to allow that to continue. If
Speaker 1: he has to close the border, he will, but that's
Speaker 1: certainly not his top choice. Welcome to the buck Section show, everybody,
Speaker 1: Sarah Huckaby Sanders there part of the slow down and
Speaker 1: the threat to shut down the border. I have been
Speaker 1: very clear on this with you. I've brought on experts,
Speaker 1: I've been talking offline to them as much as I can.
Speaker 1: And the shutdown border, I've been saying, it's not gonna
Speaker 1: get this situation fixed even if you did shut down
Speaker 1: the border. And I know there's this we have a
Speaker 1: sense of raging against the helplessness of knowing there's a crisis,
Speaker 1: knowing there's a catastrophe, and not being able to do
Speaker 1: anything about it. And even our elected officials in our
Speaker 1: own government seems unable or unwilling to do anything about it.
Speaker 1: So when Trump says, well, I'll shut down the border entirely,
Speaker 1: I can understand that initial reaction of okay, good, he's
Speaker 1: doing something. Take action better than suffering in silence. But
Speaker 1: now it seems that they have walked that back, and
Speaker 1: it's because of exactly what I said to you, which
Speaker 1: is that this is not going to be an effective
Speaker 1: tactic for handling this. This is not going to get
Speaker 1: the president what he wants. It's folk, but it has
Speaker 1: It's not a total loss. It focuses the national conversation
Speaker 1: on the issue. It shows the seriousness with which he's
Speaker 1: approaching it, and it shows that he is willing to
Speaker 1: try anything and everything to get this under control. And
Speaker 1: his political opponents, meanwhile, the Democrats, are on the complete
Speaker 1: opposite side of this. They do not want to fix
Speaker 1: this problem. This problem benefits them. They do not want
Speaker 1: the President to be successful in ending this massive migrant flow.
Speaker 1: They prefer the migrant flow to continue. Now, the presidents saying,
Speaker 1: the White House is saying with him that they're going
Speaker 1: to give Mexico a one year warning. And he also
Speaker 1: has said that instead of closing the border, he might
Speaker 1: just put a tariff on car So you could also
Speaker 1: say that this isn't a walk back so much. Is
Speaker 1: it's a negotiation? All right, Well, if you're not gonna
Speaker 1: if the government and if the Democrats won't support a
Speaker 1: closing on the border, what about putting a tariff on cars?
Speaker 1: What about a tariff on cars that cross our southern
Speaker 1: border and then use that money specifically to fund additional
Speaker 1: border patrol and border patrol facilities. Now, I think that's
Speaker 1: a pretty good idea, except remember the overflow issue and
Speaker 1: the processing issue is one component of this. But we
Speaker 1: don't just want to process people more efficiently who are
Speaker 1: going to abuse the asylum to get into the country. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: we want to stop them from getting into the country
Speaker 1: and stop coming and lying about the credible fear that
Speaker 1: they have so that they can be in the country.
Speaker 1: We're not just trying to make this a smoother transition
Speaker 1: for illegal aliens coming into the country. We're trying to
Speaker 1: stop illegal aliens from coming into the country's And that's
Speaker 1: where we have this break with the Democrats on this.
Speaker 1: And we'll talk more about immigration the second hour. But
Speaker 1: I just didn't I wanted to note that the initial
Speaker 1: my initial sense of this, the White House now shares,
Speaker 1: and so they're on the same page that I was
Speaker 1: on a few days ago, which is shutting down the border.
Speaker 1: It's not going to do It doesn't handle the problem.
Speaker 1: You could shut down the border, you still have people
Speaker 1: that cross illegally, you still have to arrest, attain them,
Speaker 1: and then process them. So even if they're remember they're
Speaker 1: not going through legal ports of entry to begin with.
Speaker 1: So I mean to shut down the border doesn't do
Speaker 1: anything for them, doesn't do anything to them. All it
Speaker 1: does is maybe give you leverage with the government of
Speaker 1: Mexico and the Central American governments involved here. But they're
Speaker 1: just going to say their hands are tied and you
Speaker 1: know they can't do anything, and that's exactly what they're doing.
Speaker 1: But I want to just switch for a moment here too.
Speaker 1: The most bizarre obsession that liberals have other than Trump's
Speaker 1: tax I mean, other than Trump's Russia collusion that didn't happen,
Speaker 1: and that is a fantasy, and that is Trump's taxes.
Speaker 1: We have never seen I see people that are apparently reasonable,
Speaker 1: well adjusted human beings who when you bring up Trump's taxes,
Speaker 1: they all of a sudden think that this is the
Speaker 1: most important thing that we could ever, we could ever
Speaker 1: see or find out about. You have Pelosi today saying
Speaker 1: that they're the Congress is going to demand these they
Speaker 1: want Trump's taxes, and then they're going to leak it.
Speaker 1: And you know, one problem I have in this whole
Speaker 1: get Trump effort is that the federal bureaucracy is not
Speaker 1: very interested in finding leakers of sensitive and sometimes classified
Speaker 1: information that hurts the president. Where are those prosecutions? Not
Speaker 1: that hard? Not that hard to find out who leak
Speaker 1: General Flynn's phone called the Washington Post? You know, not
Speaker 1: that hard to figure out these things if you want to.
Speaker 1: I think we all know that the people that are
Speaker 1: generally in those positions, the career bureaucrats, tend to be Democrats.
Speaker 1: And even if you have a room full of three
Speaker 1: or four Republicans at the bureau or the DOJ, guess what,
Speaker 1: one Democrat in that room will shut the whole thing down,
Speaker 1: because they're true believers. Back to Pelosi for a moment here.
Speaker 1: Her desire is for Trump's taxes. That's what needs to happen.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get Trump's taxes, and then all will be
Speaker 1: right with the world. Play five, No, Well, the law exist.
Speaker 1: The law is very clear, the law says, and I'll
Speaker 1: read it too. The law says of that upon written
Speaker 1: requests from the Chairman of the Committee on Ways and
Speaker 1: Means or the Chairman of the Finance or the Chairman
Speaker 1: Joint Committee on Taxation, that would be either one of
Speaker 1: those other two. But anyway, the Secretary of shall furnish
Speaker 1: shall mountain They should could shell or furnish such committee
Speaker 1: with any return or return information specified in such request.
Speaker 1: Isn't it interesting how Democrats when they want to are
Speaker 1: all of a sudden legal literalists. The law is the law.
Speaker 1: Every word of the law is to be followed to
Speaker 1: the letter of the law. What about immigration, folks, What
Speaker 1: about all that stuff about how if you're in the
Speaker 1: country illegally you are to be deported to your country
Speaker 1: of origin. Where is that? I could read that statute out.
Speaker 1: It's pretty clear, pretty cut and dry. No. A Pelosi
Speaker 1: doesn't like that one though. And once you start going
Speaker 1: with oh, this is what the law says about the IRS,
Speaker 1: you get down that rabbit hole. Even the IRS doesn't
Speaker 1: know what the IRS code really says in some respects,
Speaker 1: so I gotta remember that. But they really really want
Speaker 1: Trump's taxes. Sarah Huckaby Sanders is giving the White House's
Speaker 1: explanation of this year's which she said play six. As
Speaker 1: the President said yesterday, while his taxes continue to be
Speaker 1: under audit, he doesn't anticipate that changing at any point
Speaker 1: anytime soon, and therefore doesn't have any intention to release
Speaker 1: those returns. But let's not forget grand that the president
Speaker 1: filled out hundreds of pages in a financial disclosure. You
Speaker 1: can see a broad range of the president's business investments,
Speaker 1: all of the different financial interests through that extensive and
Speaker 1: very exhaustive financial disclosure form that you have to fill
Speaker 1: out in order to work in the government, in order
Speaker 1: to run for president, and he's done that. It gives
Speaker 1: you a very good picture of just how successful he
Speaker 1: was as a businessman, and I think it should answer
Speaker 1: all of the questions that anybody might have about his
Speaker 1: financial dealings. I have a question, what the heck do
Speaker 1: democrats think they're really gonna find? What do they think
Speaker 1: is going to show up in these tax returns? You know,
Speaker 1: I remember when Barack Obama's transcripts were an issue, and
Speaker 1: hearing from all these Democrats how school records are sacred.
Speaker 1: You could never there's privacy involved, you know, you know
Speaker 1: what that was all about. And I was very consistent
Speaker 1: on this. It wasn't Barack Obama. I do not believe
Speaker 1: that he was a foreign student or any of this
Speaker 1: stuff that people have said. I don't know, but you
Speaker 1: would have can you went to Occidental College and what
Speaker 1: the eighties and no offense. Anybody went to Occidental. But
Speaker 1: it's not an elite institution. And I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: sound like some person who cares about that stuff, because
Speaker 1: some of you get mad at me if I do.
Speaker 1: But I'm just it's not an elite institution. Then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden he goes to Columbia and then he's
Speaker 1: the head of Harvard Law Review. It happens real fast.
Speaker 1: And the reason that they didn't want to release Barack
Speaker 1: Obama's transcript from Columbius he was probably a you know,
Speaker 1: B minus C plus kind of student, you know, really mediocre,
Speaker 1: middle of the pack kind of student. That's it. And
Speaker 1: you could say, well, Buck, why would they care so
Speaker 1: much about that? Oh, because the mythology around Obama was
Speaker 1: that he was there, and there were people that were
Speaker 1: saying this that he was the most brilliant president in
Speaker 1: the history of the United States, that there's nobody else.
Speaker 1: And you could make an argument to me, and I
Speaker 1: would actually be more than willing to hear it, about
Speaker 1: how grades are not really a reflection of one's intellectual ability.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of other stuff that goes into it,
Speaker 1: work ethic, do you care or do you you know?
Speaker 1: You know what school are you in, what curriculum are
Speaker 1: you doing. That's all true. There's a lot of subjectivity
Speaker 1: in it. But just the the the notion that Obama
Speaker 1: wasn't the super genius to save all humanity, as reflected
Speaker 1: in his college records, would have been too much for
Speaker 1: Democrats to bear. So Obama, unlike other presidents, never and
Speaker 1: people challenge me on this and say, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: never released his college transcripts, never kept those secret. Oh
Speaker 1: and those never leaked. Huh, Yeah, nobody could sneak into
Speaker 1: that uper top secret Columbia University, you know, computer system
Speaker 1: and find those. But you've already had some of Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns, which is illegal, leak some of it, and
Speaker 1: you know, the moment that the Congress gets their hands
Speaker 1: on the full Trump tax return, you know that it
Speaker 1: will leak. Of course, it will leak. That's why they
Speaker 1: want it so very badly. But what do they think
Speaker 1: is in here? This is my guess, And I think
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't want to release it just because they want
Speaker 1: it so badly now and he looks at them and
Speaker 1: just and his contempt for the media is probably my
Speaker 1: favorite thing about the man. I mean, his contempt for
Speaker 1: the mainstream media is for me, Trump's single most endearing quality.
Speaker 1: You know that, and his ability to destroy people with
Speaker 1: funny nicknames is the is the most entertaining thing about
Speaker 1: the guy. So he won't give it to them because
Speaker 1: they're so just oh, they're so desperate for it. But
Speaker 1: he also I think recognizes that what they want to
Speaker 1: do is pull apart all of his business dealings, and
Speaker 1: they may try to if they have more information about,
Speaker 1: you know, his tax returns, they may try to go
Speaker 1: after sources of income that he has. They may because
Speaker 1: this is how democrats do things. I mean, they boycott,
Speaker 1: they destroy, they take down that. They may try to
Speaker 1: shame his any business partners that he has that they're
Speaker 1: not aware of. They will use this as essentially state
Speaker 1: mandated because the IRS forces you to give this information.
Speaker 1: This is state mandated APPO research. Trump says he's under
Speaker 1: audit and doesn't want to release it when he's under audit,
Speaker 1: And you know, I don't I don't know, and I'm
Speaker 1: being honest with you, I don't know how credible of
Speaker 1: an explanation that really is. I think that there would
Speaker 1: be some questions about the guy's net worth and who
Speaker 1: the heck cares whether he's worth a billion dollars or
Speaker 1: eight billion dollars. He's got a lot of money and
Speaker 1: doesn't have to worry about money. So there's this childish desire,
Speaker 1: I think, among many in the media and the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party to just find something here to make fun of Trump.
Speaker 1: You know, look at the orange man with the silly hair,
Speaker 1: who's not as rich as he says he is. That's
Speaker 1: really what this and that the press is so dug
Speaker 1: in on this. Remember, the IRS already has The federal
Speaker 1: government not only already has his tax returns, they are
Speaker 1: auditing him. The IRS is going through and checking through
Speaker 1: his tax returns. The only reason Congress wants this is
Speaker 1: to leak it and make a political issue out of it,
Speaker 1: and leaking it is illegal, and they don't care. See
Speaker 1: Pelosi will point to the law and say the laws,
Speaker 1: the laws, the law. But then when we turn around
Speaker 1: and say, hold on a second, who leak these tax returns?
Speaker 1: They'll be like, well, you know, it's in the public interest,
Speaker 1: and I guess we'll never you know, we may never
Speaker 1: know where that came from. It's also predictable, isn't it.
Speaker 1: Democrats in there lack of principles. At least there's a
Speaker 1: consistency there. And because Democrats are consistent in their lack
Speaker 1: of principle, they're also very predictable, which is one of
Speaker 1: the fun things that I get to do on the
Speaker 1: show is tell you what they're going to do next.
Speaker 1: And those you who listen to the show enough, no,
Speaker 1: I tend to be right because I know the other side.
Speaker 1: We will get deeper into immigration coming up here. And
Speaker 1: also some of what Stacy Abrams, who is a possible
Speaker 1: possible Senate and then maybe even a presidential candidate. She
Speaker 1: says she might not declare it till very very late,
Speaker 1: but what she's saying, if you want to talk about
Speaker 1: undermining democracy and undermining institutions, Stacy Abrams is really in
Speaker 1: a class by herself right now. Just won't concede the
Speaker 1: election that she lost just won't do it. That strikes
Speaker 1: me as troubling. We'll get into that and maybe a
Speaker 1: little creepy Joe Biden time, stay with me. Babbler is
Speaker 1: completely distorting our government. This is not an enforcement agency.
Speaker 1: A congressional committee don't get to look at my tax
Speaker 1: return or UI TA. The IRS is gonna have to
Speaker 1: resist it because it'd be totally illegal. There's no basis
Speaker 1: for it, and they're not the Irs. They don't investigate
Speaker 1: tax fraud or tax irregularities or tax mistakes. Everybody got
Speaker 1: all upset with Nixon did this. This is horrendous. If Congress,
Speaker 1: if these politicians in Congress can get their hands on
Speaker 1: people's tax returns, you know they Democrats and they we
Speaker 1: have to Republicans tax returns. What if we become It
Speaker 1: has to be resisted. The president has to resist this
Speaker 1: for the good of all of us, because otherwise they
Speaker 1: get immediate person who's too far right, they'll go after
Speaker 1: their tax returns. Yep, Rudy's solely right here. If they
Speaker 1: can get Trump's tax returns, they can get any of
Speaker 1: your tax returns, and they will one by one, high
Speaker 1: profile target by high profile target on the right they
Speaker 1: will take people down. He might say, buck, but I
Speaker 1: pay all my taxes. I'm yeah. But they'll they'll look
Speaker 1: at every deduction you've taken and they'll they'll question why
Speaker 1: you don't do more teritable or did you do all
Speaker 1: the charitable giving you said you did, or you know,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of sensitive stuff that goes into people.
Speaker 1: They'll see your liabilities, you know, They'll see what you owe,
Speaker 1: They'll see it. They'll see all kinds of things, see
Speaker 1: your losses in the stock market. They'll see your I
Speaker 1: don't know if gambling losses, going your tax return, but
Speaker 1: they're gonna know a lot about you. It should surprise
Speaker 1: nobody that when Democrats get the opportunity to use the
Speaker 1: most intrusive instrument of the federal government short of the
Speaker 1: f behind the dj which they've done for two years
Speaker 1: against Trump, now they're going to number two on the list,
Speaker 1: which is the irs. Weaponizing government bureaucracy. This is what
Speaker 1: democrats do, weaponizing the state for the purposes of status
Speaker 1: to control. That's what's happening here. Just like under the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, tea party groups all of a sudden or
Speaker 1: get all this scrutiny and getting blocked and singled out.
Speaker 1: When was the last time you heard of a scandal
Speaker 1: where a left wing or liberals were being targeted by
Speaker 1: the Highrs unjustly. I can't think of one. So this
Speaker 1: is what they do. They force you, under threat of
Speaker 1: imprisonment to give the government information and then Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: decides that you need more information from the IRS. We're
Speaker 1: just gonna take it. We're just gonna get it. It's appalling.
Speaker 1: We got more coming up, teams, stay with me. Democrats
Speaker 1: continue to show day in and day out that they're
Speaker 1: nothing but sore losers. At some point they have to
Speaker 1: realize that they have been beat by President Trump in
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election. They're getting beat by him day
Speaker 1: in and day out on issues that actually matter, and
Speaker 1: I think they're a sad excuse for a political party
Speaker 1: right now. And at some point they have to decide
Speaker 1: that they want to actually govern and they actually want
Speaker 1: to change things and make America better and join the
Speaker 1: President in those efforts. I feel like Sarah Huckabee Sanders
Speaker 1: has gotten even more fierce, and I mean that in
Speaker 1: the best way. Yeah, she's really kind of lean into
Speaker 1: this now, and she's just like bring it with the
Speaker 1: press all the time, and I like that she just
Speaker 1: says it the way it is. She's like, look, they're
Speaker 1: just sore losers. They are. They're just a bunch of
Speaker 1: sore losers. And so many of the Democrat media really
Speaker 1: invest themselves in the political process in a way where
Speaker 1: they're desperate to have their beliefs reflected back to them
Speaker 1: from the power structure. Because they're not intellectually secure enough
Speaker 1: to know whether what they believe is true. They just
Speaker 1: feel that it's really true, and they need to have
Speaker 1: somebody in the White House who's telling them, yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: you're right. Everything you think is good. And that's why
Speaker 1: they can't really deal with this. But you know, this
Speaker 1: is all in response to the the Mulla Report, even
Speaker 1: more damaging than or just more damaging than what we've
Speaker 1: been told so far. How is that going Let's just
Speaker 1: let's unpack this for a moment. How is that going
Speaker 1: to work, folks? No charges against the president, no additional
Speaker 1: indictments after two year long investigation. That is where it is.
Speaker 1: That that is the determination, the final dispensation. It's going
Speaker 1: to be worse. It's even worse than people thought. It's
Speaker 1: even how how could that, you know, never mind should
Speaker 1: how could that even theoretically be the case? Oh, I
Speaker 1: think I told you yesterday. They're going to do two things,
Speaker 1: and Mike, we should we should mark this down for
Speaker 1: when it happens. All right, this will be one of
Speaker 1: these things where I say, we're going to play back
Speaker 1: their prediction. They're going to be two lines of attack.
Speaker 1: When the report drops, they're going to say that whatever's redacted,
Speaker 1: that's where the juicy stuff is, that's where the collusion happened,
Speaker 1: the black lines that we can't read. And then the
Speaker 1: other part of it will be they'll find something in
Speaker 1: the report that, while not criminal, they'll say is essentially
Speaker 1: tant amount too and they're gonna use very tortured language
Speaker 1: to do it. Tant amount to a high crime and misdemeanor,
Speaker 1: and therefore the president should be impeached. I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: on this. I do not believe that they've given up
Speaker 1: on impeachment for the president. I keep saying this. Then again,
Speaker 1: I'm also not entirely convinced that Hillary Clinton's not going
Speaker 1: to run, which I know is hellow, but I know
Speaker 1: it's sounds crazy, But you know, she's she just it's
Speaker 1: an outlier prediction. I mean, I'm betting. If I'm betting
Speaker 1: on Hillary to run, it's like I'm betting on the
Speaker 1: horse that you know looks like it could be. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's not gonna not even gonna place or show
Speaker 1: or how does that, Mike, I haven't been in the
Speaker 1: track in a long time. It's not even coming the
Speaker 1: top three, right, I'm taking a long shot bet, but
Speaker 1: I think it's a bet I might take big Hillary.
Speaker 1: With this this crop of Democrat candidates, that there's no
Speaker 1: front runner, there's no one who really stands out as
Speaker 1: the one that you know is electable, or any of that.
Speaker 1: You know, they might just say, especially if they go
Speaker 1: with the impeachment route, because then Hillary becomes part of
Speaker 1: the narrative where they will undo the unjust result of
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen election. The only way to restore justice
Speaker 1: if you believe that Trump stole that election, is to
Speaker 1: em place Queen Hillary on the throne. Yes, Queen Hillary,
Speaker 1: that's what they're gonna say. Mueller's team is Mueller's work
Speaker 1: rather is not yet done, in the sense that Democrats
Speaker 1: are hoping to squeeze more out of it. It's the
Speaker 1: only thing I'll not that also keeps some of them
Speaker 1: from criticizing him even more harshly. It is obvious is
Speaker 1: that Muller was very aggressive with all the people around Trump,
Speaker 1: was very aggressively trying to get Trump. But it wasn't
Speaker 1: enough for the Democrats because they're crazy. Giuliani, Rudy Giuliani,
Speaker 1: who I've been fortunate enough to sit down with a
Speaker 1: few times in the last couple of months to talk
Speaker 1: to him about this whole case. Here's what he says
Speaker 1: about this whole the situation right now of the Mueller
Speaker 1: Report and the team and where it's all going Play nine.
Speaker 1: It makes the point that we've been making for two years.
Speaker 1: Despite all of the media reports about how holy and
Speaker 1: sanctimonious the Muller team is, there are a bunch of sneaking,
Speaker 1: unethical leakers, and they are rapid Democrats who hate the
Speaker 1: President of the United States. And I can't tell you
Speaker 1: how much false information they leaked during the course of
Speaker 1: the investigation, how many people were going to be indicted
Speaker 1: that didn't get indicted, how many blockbusters were there, starting
Speaker 1: with Papadopoulos and ending with Cohen, who turns out to
Speaker 1: be a serial liar. How could you have any confidence
Speaker 1: in this? This is why a full accounting of what
Speaker 1: the Muller team did, not just the full report, but
Speaker 1: the full accounting of how they got the investigation going
Speaker 1: and started that needs to happen. Komy, you can sense
Speaker 1: that sanctimonious giraffe Comy is a little bit on edge.
Speaker 1: I do think that he has some recognition of the
Speaker 1: fact that if they go back and look at what
Speaker 1: really happened in the FBI under his watch and the
Speaker 1: politicized decisions that were made and how all that went down,
Speaker 1: that things could think could not be so great for
Speaker 1: the gymster. I think that he might find himself in
Speaker 1: in some rough seas very quickly, Which is why we
Speaker 1: should look into this, which is why we should absolutely
Speaker 1: do everything that we can to hold them to account,
Speaker 1: to find some way to get us closer to real justice,
Speaker 1: which would be in end to all these witch hunt
Speaker 1: tactics and some final accounting of what really happened here
Speaker 1: and how the investigation got going and who was behind
Speaker 1: it and what they were really trying to do. We
Speaker 1: deserve that after two years of being dragged through all this.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I want them all report to come out.
Speaker 1: It's going to come out. You know, it's not going
Speaker 1: to be some bombshell. There'll probably be something. Like I said,
Speaker 1: they will be focused on the redactions, and we'll be
Speaker 1: focused on something that they say means the president's a
Speaker 1: bad guy, even if it's not criminal. That's where this
Speaker 1: is all heading. Mark my words. Team, we're back in
Speaker 1: just a moment. You can't shame me into pretending that
Speaker 1: what happened should have happened. Because in the state of Georgia,
Speaker 1: black people faced hour long lines up to four hours
Speaker 1: waiting to cast their ballots. Fifty three thousand people were
Speaker 1: held hostage by a system that a federal judge was
Speaker 1: racially discriminatory. Fifty three thousand people, ninety percent of whom
Speaker 1: were people of color, seventy percent of whom were black.
Speaker 1: I live in a state where one and a half
Speaker 1: million people got purged, including six hundred thousand right before
Speaker 1: my opponent threw his name into the ring. They rejected
Speaker 1: absentee ballast at an unheard of rate. And so, in
Speaker 1: response to what I believe was a stolen election, and
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they stole it from me, they stole
Speaker 1: it from the voters of Georgia. I cannot prove empirically
Speaker 1: that I would have won, but we'll never know, because,
Speaker 1: you see, voter suppression is as old as a merit.
Speaker 1: She's playing with fire here, folks. That's Stacy Abrams at
Speaker 1: the National Action Network conference. National Action Network, of course,
Speaker 1: the organization run by Al Sharpton aka the Reverend Al Sharpton,
Speaker 1: a man who's of integrity and odious record. I'm sure
Speaker 1: you don't need me to go into much detail about
Speaker 1: We've got Stacey Abrams here straight up saying that the
Speaker 1: election in Georgia was the gubernatorial election was stolen from her,
Speaker 1: stolen from her. She will not concede that Republican Brian
Speaker 1: Kemp defeated her, even at this stage of the game.
Speaker 1: The election was back in November. It's April, and even
Speaker 1: though she claims that there were, you know, fifty four
Speaker 1: thousand votes that should have encountered or weren't counted, she
Speaker 1: lost by more than that fifty four thousand votes, So
Speaker 1: you know, she would have lost no matter. There's there's
Speaker 1: no scenario mathematically in which she doesn't lose, based on
Speaker 1: what the rules are and everything that we see. But
Speaker 1: this is what democrats do. You know. I'm sorry, but
Speaker 1: it's another instance of how they don't have principles. They
Speaker 1: just have feeling and a desire for power. Because we
Speaker 1: heard this, all this stuff about right before the presidential
Speaker 1: election in twenty sixteen, how Trump wasn't going to accept
Speaker 1: the results and Hillary never accepted the results. And now
Speaker 1: here we and we were told that was undermining our democracy,
Speaker 1: and people are just repeating this mindlessly. Oh, they're undermining democracy. There,
Speaker 1: undermining democracy. What does that even mean? Now they're doing that,
Speaker 1: Are they undermining democracy? Oh? No, of course not when
Speaker 1: they say an election was stolen. What they're doing is
Speaker 1: bolstering democracy. They're making it stronger, They're making it more robust.
Speaker 1: Stacy Abrams thinks that she's going to run for president,
Speaker 1: that's what people are saying, and she or she may
Speaker 1: run for a Senate seat again in Georgia, people now
Speaker 1: can be entirely constructs of the media and win higher office.
Speaker 1: We know this. That is part of the power of
Speaker 1: the media still has. Stacy Abrams has yet to win
Speaker 1: elected office, and yet she has given the imprimater of
Speaker 1: the mainstream media in such a way that she's considered
Speaker 1: a serious candidate for any office, including the presidency, even
Speaker 1: without ever showing the ability to win anything. And this
Speaker 1: is very divisive rhetoric. She's using about this gubernatorial election,
Speaker 1: very clearly saying that it was racist, it was racist,
Speaker 1: and intent racist and outcome. Better be prepared for more
Speaker 1: of this, you better expect going into twenty twenty. You know,
Speaker 1: they've been a little quiet. The left is backed off.
Speaker 1: The Trump is a you know, basically a grand Wizard
Speaker 1: of the KKK, and the you know, the White House
Speaker 1: is operated by neo Nazis now and I mean they've
Speaker 1: they've they haven't reputated it, to be sure, and I'm
Speaker 1: and I'm not even saying that they don't still here
Speaker 1: and there bring it up, but that's going to be
Speaker 1: very main point of attack. You're gonna hear a lot
Speaker 1: of that from the Democrats, that Trump is an evil,
Speaker 1: terrible racist, a bad, bad man, because that's just one
Speaker 1: of the things that they know will make some people
Speaker 1: cheapish to vote for Trump, because you know, no one
Speaker 1: wants to vote for a racist. The fact that Trump
Speaker 1: is not a racist, and I think any fair minded
Speaker 1: person could be convinced of that. On the facts does
Speaker 1: not change that there will be this perception, this social perception,
Speaker 1: that to vote for Trump is to cast a vote
Speaker 1: for a racially divisive and therefore unacceptable figure. And so
Speaker 1: the swing voters in Ohio, Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Florida, that's
Speaker 1: what the Democrats are targeting here. That's really the whole game.
Speaker 1: It's it's amazing that the whole election comes down to that,
Speaker 1: But that's what will happen, almost almost assuredly. But Stacy
Speaker 1: Abrams is getting such a pass on all of this.
Speaker 1: You know, For just one point that I wanted to
Speaker 1: make here before we move on to something else, she says,
Speaker 1: black people faced hour long lines, up to four hours
Speaker 1: waiting to cast their ballots. Also, a lot of not
Speaker 1: black people were waiting in those same lines. The line
Speaker 1: there was no segregated line voting or anything like that.
Speaker 1: There are people of all different ethnicities and backgrounds voting.
Speaker 1: I actually spoke today. I interviewed a congressman on Rising
Speaker 1: who represents a majority minority district and he's a Republican.
Speaker 1: But there are lots of folks that were in those lines.
Speaker 1: And long election lines are not some unique thing for
Speaker 1: Georgia and those districts I would note where you had
Speaker 1: a higher percentage of African Americans waiting in those lines.
Speaker 1: Those elections are run by at the county level. Democrats
Speaker 1: are the ones that are in charge of that. Democrats
Speaker 1: are the ones that are setting up those elections. So
Speaker 1: who's doing the suppression there? I mean, what this? This
Speaker 1: is just demagoguery that she's offering them. This is pure
Speaker 1: and utter demagoguery, and no one calls her out on it.
Speaker 1: It's just like with Alexandriocazio Cortes. She's allowed to say
Speaker 1: whatever nonsense pops into her mind and they will find
Speaker 1: some way to clean it up and make it seem
Speaker 1: like it's not so bad, or or they'll just ignore
Speaker 1: it altogether. They will not challenge these people. They will
Speaker 1: not challenge the favorite Democrats on the left, whether it's Betto,
Speaker 1: Robert o'rouric, Robert Francis, o'cazio, Cortes, Stacy Abrams. They don't
Speaker 1: get asked the hard questions. And you know, I know
Speaker 1: we're going to talk about Biden later on in the show.
Speaker 1: I know because I determine what we do on the show.
Speaker 1: But what's happened to Biden is he's just getting put
Speaker 1: out to pasture by the radical left that's taken over
Speaker 1: his party. That's why it's there's so much traction behind this,
Speaker 1: you know, sniffing, touching, feely feely stuff, other than the
Speaker 1: fact that it is creepy. But this is coming from
Speaker 1: within his own party. This is from the left because
Speaker 1: the the most whacko progressives have really overtaken the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: And that's yet another another symptom of it. The Biden
Speaker 1: situation right now is indicative of the power that the
Speaker 1: woke social justice left has in the Democrat Party apparatus overall.
Speaker 1: And it's also why someone like Howard Schultz, former CEO
Speaker 1: of Starbucks. Oh, I know, he's doing a town hall
Speaker 1: tonight at Fox News, and good for him for being
Speaker 1: willing to sit down with you know, I again, I've
Speaker 1: I've never seen Martha mccallumber Brett Bear ask an unfair question.
Speaker 1: I've seen all the other you know, the CNN, MSNBC anchors,
Speaker 1: They've all asked unfair questions. I've never seen Martha or
Speaker 1: Brett ask a question that I thought was out of
Speaker 1: bounds or I'm not saying it hasn't happened. I just
Speaker 1: have never seen it. But I do think that's indicative
Speaker 1: of how fair minded they are with the questions they ask.
Speaker 1: But Schultz just realizes that, you know, you can't have
Speaker 1: a twenty nine year old former bartender with a not
Speaker 1: even a tenuous grasp of economics, a non existent grasp
Speaker 1: of economics in o'casio Quartez. You can't have her reorganizing
Speaker 1: a few trillion dollars of the economy. You just can't
Speaker 1: do it. This is a terrible idea. And say what
Speaker 1: you will about Schultz's politics, I'm sure he's a nut
Speaker 1: job on climate change and all kinds of stuff. He
Speaker 1: does understand how to read a profit and loss statement.
Speaker 1: He does know how to read a balance sheet, which
Speaker 1: really separates him from a lot of the progressive left
Speaker 1: these days. You just think that it's all just a question.
Speaker 1: If you will it, it will be the way you
Speaker 1: want it. It's not the way the world works. It's
Speaker 1: not the way it's going to work either, no matter
Speaker 1: who's in power. But so this we'll see what ends
Speaker 1: up happening here with Stacy Abrams, I'll talk to you
Speaker 1: more about Joe Biden later on in the show. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll save creepy Joe today for for hour three. I
Speaker 1: don't think we have to dive too deep into that
Speaker 1: one right now. It's he's got his video out. If
Speaker 1: he could say that nothing has happened, I'm sure he would,
Speaker 1: but it's really hard and there's video and there's photos.
Speaker 1: You're not really it's not alleged at that point, is it.
Speaker 1: I mean that's why al frank look al frankin's all.
Speaker 1: The only reason he was toast was because there was
Speaker 1: photo of him groping somebody. If it was just an allegation,
Speaker 1: they would have let him stay. There's photos of Biden
Speaker 1: being a creepy, gropy weirdo. We got more coming up.
Speaker 1: There's absolutely a crisis on the border, without a doubt.
Speaker 1: There's a national security crisis, there's a humanitarian crisis, and
Speaker 1: there's what we like to call policy crisis. You can
Speaker 1: ask any expert from anyone that has vidicated their life
Speaker 1: to board security security of this country. They will tell
Speaker 1: you that we're almost beyond crisis. We are immigration system
Speaker 1: is near failure, near failure. It's interesting that you had
Speaker 1: there the acting Chief of Border Patrol in the Laredo
Speaker 1: sectors say that because the first line of my piece
Speaker 1: last week on the Hill dot com reporting on the
Speaker 1: border was the immigration system is at the border is failing.
Speaker 1: This is failure. This is not a system that is
Speaker 1: just having some has some kinks that need to be
Speaker 1: worked out. This is heading toward catastrophe. In fact, the
Speaker 1: acting ICE director described as the ICE director is describing
Speaker 1: it as a meltdown. I know you can make some
Speaker 1: jokes with that, but it's a very serious issue. Play thirteen.
Speaker 1: It's a It's an absolute crisis down there. It has
Speaker 1: humanitarian aspects, it has border security aspects. This policy can't continue.
Speaker 1: He talked about the overcrowding, the systems in a meltdown.
Speaker 1: It's just getting worse day by day. CPP reported yesterday
Speaker 1: they have over twelve thousand people in custody. We're maxed
Speaker 1: out in ICE capacity. We're looking for more detention beds
Speaker 1: across the country. The system is over flowing. Nearly one
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty thousand families released into the interior the
Speaker 1: United States just since December of last year, So the
Speaker 1: systems in a meltdown. One hundred and thirty thousand families
Speaker 1: that means at a minimum, at a minimum, since December
Speaker 1: two hundred and sixty thousand people who are not legally
Speaker 1: entitled to be in this country and will not receive asylum,
Speaker 1: but will just stay in the country as illegals. They
Speaker 1: are now here for good. And some of you're probably
Speaker 1: seeing buckets. It's more than that. Yeah, some of them
Speaker 1: are showing up because I saw it three four kids
Speaker 1: with them. You're having adult males with three or four children.
Speaker 1: They show up with adult females three or four children. So,
Speaker 1: you know, a rough a rough estimate, it's probably two
Speaker 1: point five would be a fair guest for how many
Speaker 1: numerically speaking or coming across. I know, there's not such
Speaker 1: a thing as you know, half a person, but you know,
Speaker 1: you probably have a little over two on average. So
Speaker 1: you know, let's call it three hundred thousand, three hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people led into the country, maybe three fifty. That's
Speaker 1: a lot, folks, that's a lot. And then that's being
Speaker 1: added to the pool of twenty million they're already in
Speaker 1: the country illegally. You know, when when is it? You know,
Speaker 1: I like to step back and ask, when can we
Speaker 1: all agree that it's it's actually too much. When is
Speaker 1: it apparent that this is no longer a sustainable and
Speaker 1: acceptable way forward. You know, at what point in this
Speaker 1: whole process are we allowed to look at the Democrats
Speaker 1: and say, okay, do you guys at least are you
Speaker 1: are you with us now? Do you agree now that
Speaker 1: this is too much? Do you agree that we really
Speaker 1: have reached this point? And I don't think that they
Speaker 1: have an answer how much is too much? There's no
Speaker 1: such thing. They don't think there is such a thing.
Speaker 1: I also want to know, you know, as I'm someone
Speaker 1: who's currently dealing with the very labyrinthine visa process of
Speaker 1: going to a foreign country and just filling paperwork with
Speaker 1: more paperwork, with more paperwork, I want to know the
Speaker 1: people that are stuck in the legal immigration process right now.
Speaker 1: I wonder how they feel about this. I wonder how
Speaker 1: those who have been playing the rule, playing by the rules,
Speaker 1: and trying to come into this country the right way
Speaker 1: and spend a lot of time and a lot of
Speaker 1: money they could just I wonder if they would take
Speaker 1: the deal of well, I'll just show up at the border,
Speaker 1: I'll be processed. Gotta have a kid with you, but
Speaker 1: I'll get processed within forty eight hours and I'll be
Speaker 1: letting the American interior and no one. I'll never have
Speaker 1: to worry about this again. If I ever run into
Speaker 1: a problem, I just tell Immigration, I'm waiting for my
Speaker 1: court date. I'm waiting for my court date. After four
Speaker 1: or five years, are waiting for your court date? You
Speaker 1: know what, It's not going to be a court date.
Speaker 1: There's going to be amnesty. That's where this is all
Speaker 1: heading right now. We are not heading for a secure border.
Speaker 1: We are heading for amnesty. And some on the left
Speaker 1: are being honest about this. When leftists tell you who
Speaker 1: they are, you should listen. And you're hearing voices now
Speaker 1: who are coming forward because they think the political winds
Speaker 1: have shifted in their favor. You're hearing voices who are
Speaker 1: coming forward specifically to advocate for decriminalization of illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: which is just a fancy way of saying open borders.
Speaker 1: Here is Julian Castro of the Castro Brothers play eleven.
Speaker 1: Instead of building a wall or closing the border, we
Speaker 1: should choose compassion instead of cruelty. The feeling from this
Speaker 1: administration is that we are in a full blown crisis
Speaker 1: and that they are overwhelmed by it. Do you think
Speaker 1: that I don't believe their narrative. I don't believe the BS.
Speaker 1: We should decriminalize people who are coming here crossing the border.
Speaker 1: We need to increase the number of refugees that we
Speaker 1: take into this country. And if we're not careful, if
Speaker 1: we don't get this right, in twenty or thirty years,
Speaker 1: this nation is going to be begging for immigrants to
Speaker 1: come to this country. We're taking in a million immigrants
Speaker 1: a year right now legally. If we don't get this right,
Speaker 1: I mean, everything this guy says is wrong. Everything this
Speaker 1: guy says is a lie. A million a year legally. Folks,
Speaker 1: you know, there is an argument to be made that
Speaker 1: that's actually a lot from an assimilation perspective, And people say, PACA,
Speaker 1: You can't say that. Why Why is endless immigration considered
Speaker 1: a good thing? What other country is doing this? Point
Speaker 1: to me, you show me a prosperous, socially and politically
Speaker 1: cohesive nation state that has an open borders policy or
Speaker 1: a near open borders policy, and you know, show me
Speaker 1: that and then I'll change my mind about this. It
Speaker 1: does not exist. We're the only country in the world
Speaker 1: that is expected to just take in population of immigrant
Speaker 1: after population of immigrant illegal, legal, I mean, just just
Speaker 1: masses and masses of immigrants into the system and not chosen,
Speaker 1: by the way for skills, for abilities. Some of them are,
Speaker 1: I know, but overwhelmingly it's illegals and family reunification, which
Speaker 1: is just chain migration, same thing, right, you know, one
Speaker 1: person gets here and then that's I'm gonna sponsor the
Speaker 1: next ten members of my family to come here. So really,
Speaker 1: when you let one person in some cases you're letting five, six,
Speaker 1: seven people in. That's what ends up happening. And this
Speaker 1: idea that we have to take more asylum seekers or
Speaker 1: rather more refugees, well, we've already taken a few hundred
Speaker 1: thousand of them, and how many are we supposed to take?
Speaker 1: And they're not refugees. They're not refugees. There's just the
Speaker 1: lies that people trot out there so shamelessly. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is somebody who you know, Castro is one of
Speaker 1: the brothers I think is running for president. I think
Speaker 1: it's this one Julian. But you know that they're making
Speaker 1: this case in this way. I mean, this is where
Speaker 1: the Democrats are, This is where the media is. The
Speaker 1: media just loves. They take every opportunity to preen for
Speaker 1: the cameras on the issue of illegal engration. Oh, I
Speaker 1: just we just you know, we need more people to
Speaker 1: do menial labor for us or else what will we ever?
Speaker 1: Do you know, who's going to make sure the country
Speaker 1: club still looks nice. These are the people that are
Speaker 1: going on MSNBC and acting like there's no problem here.
Speaker 1: And you just add this into the list too, of
Speaker 1: what they've lied to you about what they have not
Speaker 1: been willing to tell the American people. The truth about
Speaker 1: the truth is that we have a crisis on our
Speaker 1: southern border. That is the truth. It has been the
Speaker 1: truth for months. It has been obvious four months. And
Speaker 1: yet what's the response you get from Democrats to pretend
Speaker 1: that they can just either ignore it or that now
Speaker 1: that it's too late for them to take action, they
Speaker 1: want to just swoop in and say, you know what,
Speaker 1: let's not fix it. Let's just turn this whole let's
Speaker 1: just flip the whole table over. Let's forget about enforcing
Speaker 1: immigration law. Let let's forget about the rule of law
Speaker 1: at our southern border. Period. Just this story. We're going
Speaker 1: to stay on it because it's not going anywhere except well,
Speaker 1: as I've been telling you, it's going to get worse.
Speaker 1: It is going to get worse. You're gonna have a million.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have a million of legals in the country
Speaker 1: this year during the Trump presidency. I don't I wonder
Speaker 1: what the political ramifications of this will be. I don't
Speaker 1: know if this will be held against Trump by his base,
Speaker 1: or if there'll be a sense that, my gosh, this
Speaker 1: is even worse than we realized. And Trump has been
Speaker 1: right all along because on the border issue he has
Speaker 1: been right. I mean, his instincts are correct, his policy
Speaker 1: choices on this have been the right ones. But the
Speaker 1: judiciaries against them, the media is against them, the Democrats
Speaker 1: are playing defense for illegals all the time. He doesn't
Speaker 1: have enough power to go it alone. So I don't
Speaker 1: know how this gets fixed, and I really firmly believe
Speaker 1: it doesn't get fixed. If the drugs don't stop, Mexico
Speaker 1: can stop them if they want. We're going to tear
Speaker 1: off the cars. The cars are very big, and if
Speaker 1: that doesn't work, we're going to close the border. But
Speaker 1: I think that'll work. That's massive numbers of dollars. So
Speaker 1: if we don't see people apprehended and brought back to
Speaker 1: their countries if we see these massive caravans coming up.
Speaker 1: For the last three days, it hasn't happened since I said,
Speaker 1: we're closing the border. The only thing frankly better but
Speaker 1: less drastic than closing the borders to tear off the
Speaker 1: cars coming in. And I will do it, just like
Speaker 1: you know I will do it. I don't play games.
Speaker 1: We're going to give them a one year warning, and
Speaker 1: if the drugs don't stop or largely stop, we're gonna
Speaker 1: put tariffs on Mexico and products, in particular cars. The
Speaker 1: whole ball game is cars. I don't know this is
Speaker 1: gonna work. I wish I could tell you otherwise I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't see how this is going to work. The
Speaker 1: Mexican government, maybe we'll be willing to divert caravans and
Speaker 1: do some assistance to prevent migrant flows, but they're not
Speaker 1: gonna They couldn't stop all the migrants. Remember, they're being
Speaker 1: suck snuck into the country, or snuck at least to
Speaker 1: the border by the cartels to begin with. They couldn't
Speaker 1: and I think wouldn't try to stop all of that
Speaker 1: I don't believe that they will try to stop all
Speaker 1: of that. And when he says that the drugs have
Speaker 1: got to stop, I mean you know that. I mean,
Speaker 1: the cartels could care less about any of this. In fact,
Speaker 1: even if you were to shut down the border for
Speaker 1: a few days, which I believe is what happened after
Speaker 1: the murder of DA agent Kiki Camarena, which was memorialized
Speaker 1: in the show Narcos season four, I believe that the
Speaker 1: border was close to or more or less shut down
Speaker 1: for a few days. All that does is drive the
Speaker 1: street price off as soon as the spigots are back
Speaker 1: on and the drugs are flowing, because people still want
Speaker 1: their drugs, so you're not going to starve the cartels,
Speaker 1: I mean the cartels. One of the problems back in
Speaker 1: the old days with Pablo Escobar that's been written about
Speaker 1: is they had this issue of spoilage. The cartels had
Speaker 1: to deal with the spoilage issue, not of their product,
Speaker 1: the product they could always move very quickly, of their cash,
Speaker 1: and that they were losing millions of dollars because of
Speaker 1: rats eating these stacks of hundred dollars bills that they
Speaker 1: were just burying underground for the Median cartel. The rats
Speaker 1: were eating the cash. So I do not think that
Speaker 1: you're going to starve the cartels anytime soon. Shutting down
Speaker 1: the border, they'll just mean that they'll find other ways.
Speaker 1: I mean, they get in illegally anyway. It'll be harder
Speaker 1: for the for sure, and that they'll they'll suffer a
Speaker 1: little bit. But I don't think that will stop. You know,
Speaker 1: the other part of me, they'll feels like, well, at
Speaker 1: least Trump is using the leverage that he has and
Speaker 1: is getting serious about this, and it has decided that
Speaker 1: this is not going to be an issue that he
Speaker 1: allows to just linger on as is. You know, you
Speaker 1: want to get Mexico's attention, stop on tax remittances from
Speaker 1: getting sent back into Mexico. You want to get the
Speaker 1: attention of illegals in this country, stop on tax remittances
Speaker 1: from getting sent back to people in the home country.
Speaker 1: You know, we should not be subsidizing other countries economies,
Speaker 1: and that is what we are doing. And people who say,
Speaker 1: oh buck, they you know, the illegals do the jobs
Speaker 1: Americans want to do. There's been so much brainwashing, so
Speaker 1: much propaganda on this issue. What do they think, I mean,
Speaker 1: I just wonder, you know, for many of the illegals
Speaker 1: who are here, who are doing uh, you know, what
Speaker 1: would be menial labor, unskilled labor, whatever the preferred terminology is,
Speaker 1: what happens when those people get into their late sixties,
Speaker 1: early seventies, early eighties, there are millions of them. What
Speaker 1: happens then? Do they get Medicare? Do we add them
Speaker 1: to the Medicare roles? Do they do so we pay
Speaker 1: for all their their healthcare? Is that what's supposed to happen? Um?
Speaker 1: What's their retirement? Do they get Social Security? Some of
Speaker 1: them will have been living here for thirty maybe forty
Speaker 1: years at that point, So do they just get Social
Speaker 1: Security Medicare because they're here? Or what do we do?
Speaker 1: Do we deny them federal benefits as old people? I mean,
Speaker 1: we're we're humane. Americans want people to be okay and
Speaker 1: to be safe, but we're also don't like being taken
Speaker 1: advantage of. Does anyone does any Democrat have a plan? Oh,
Speaker 1: they do have a plan, they just won't say it yet. Amnesty.
Speaker 1: The plan is amnesty. That's it. That's always been the plan.
Speaker 1: Everything else from the Democrats, every other effort, whether it's
Speaker 1: US a quick surge in deportations, additional funding at the border.
Speaker 1: Those are head fakes. Those are chips that they're putting
Speaker 1: on the table so that they can win the whole pot.
Speaker 1: In the whole pot is amnesty. They just want amnesty
Speaker 1: and then and then it's all over, folks, because once
Speaker 1: you amnesty that many people think about the political incentive
Speaker 1: to try to give them the vote. Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to pass that up. No chance they will, no chance.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a test of Trump's deal making.
Speaker 1: And this is going you know, I'll say this for him.
Speaker 1: At least he's flipped over. He's flipped over the log,
Speaker 1: so to speak, so we can see what's underneath. I mean,
Speaker 1: we now realize how corrupt and how rotten the immigration
Speaker 1: system and how much exploitation of it goes on with
Speaker 1: with illegal immigrants. We finally understand this now. I think
Speaker 1: it's taken us a long time to get there, and
Speaker 1: the national conversation has shifted dramatically. I don't want to
Speaker 1: leave out that there's the possibility of a major deal
Speaker 1: with China. Gonna talk about China espionage in the third
Speaker 1: hour that's coming up, and this story out of marrow lago.
Speaker 1: But remember Trump has made one of his signature issues
Speaker 1: getting a major trade deal with China. That'll get them
Speaker 1: to be a more substantive and well scratch substantive, a
Speaker 1: more fair minded trade partner. That's what That's what he's
Speaker 1: trying to do. That's what he's trying to accomplish. Here's
Speaker 1: what the President says about him. It's gotta be a
Speaker 1: good deal. Got to be a good It's gotta be
Speaker 1: a great deal. It's gotta be a great Look, we've
Speaker 1: been losing over many years, four or five six hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year. We're losing a few years ago
Speaker 1: two hundred routine lead to China. We can't do that.
Speaker 1: We're gonna turn it arrests. Gotta be a great deal.
Speaker 1: If it's not a great deal, we're not doing it.
Speaker 1: But it's going very well. It's a very complex deals,
Speaker 1: very big deal. It's one of the biggest deals ever made,
Speaker 1: maybe the biggest deal ever made. It'll be a great
Speaker 1: deal for our farmers, technology, into actual property, theft. Everything
Speaker 1: is covered. There's not a thing that's not covered. We
Speaker 1: could have made a quickie, but we're in a very
Speaker 1: good position. Our economy is way up. China's nut way up.
Speaker 1: Could either make a very good dealer, We're not going
Speaker 1: to make a deal at all. This is not an
Speaker 1: an errant or a throwaway point at all. The fundamental
Speaker 1: problem with Obama's approach to the Iran deal was it
Speaker 1: was get a deal no matter what. Because Trump actually
Speaker 1: knows how to how to get deals and how to negotiate.
Speaker 1: He understands that if you are not willing to walk away,
Speaker 1: you are not negotiating. You are just haggling over the price. Right.
Speaker 1: You need to be able to say I'm not going
Speaker 1: to buy at any price because of X, or I'm
Speaker 1: not going to do this because of why not. Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll do it, so just you know how much do
Speaker 1: you want from me. You don't walk into a used
Speaker 1: car lot and say I'm not leaving here without a car, sir,
Speaker 1: because then they've got you. And that's what Obama did
Speaker 1: with the irandeal. So Trump may not get this China
Speaker 1: deal done, but if he does, I mean it could
Speaker 1: be really momentous to becoming I think you'll see a
Speaker 1: big surge in well, certainly in the markets, but just
Speaker 1: also in confidence in the direction of our economy, and
Speaker 1: this could be a really big win and I hope
Speaker 1: it's the case. And I know that US Trade Representative
Speaker 1: Robert Leitheiser and the Chinese Vice Premier are hammering this
Speaker 1: out this week. But just remember this. They said Trump
Speaker 1: was crazy for even trying this. I mean, they've been
Speaker 1: suggesting all along that Trump had no idea what he's doing.
Speaker 1: And I really do believe he's gotten closer to a
Speaker 1: major major agreement here with the Chinese than any of
Speaker 1: his predecessors could have dreamed of. This didn't start with
Speaker 1: Jesse Smollett. This started when we wanted to try and
Speaker 1: make sure that when officers received the battery and the
Speaker 1: performance of their duties, that the felony charges would be placed.
Speaker 1: And we continually had problems getting those charges approved, and
Speaker 1: they were continuously denied, even though that's what the law requires.
Speaker 1: The difficulty that State's Attorney foxes imposing our assistants to
Speaker 1: get us felony charges on dangerous criminals, and many times
Speaker 1: the hoops that we have to go through to try
Speaker 1: to get a felony charge, and then most of the
Speaker 1: time they're either not approved or the charges are dismissing
Speaker 1: court without an officer's opinion without notifying the police agency
Speaker 1: or the police officer themselves. So basically, in essence, she's
Speaker 1: putting criminals back on the street, either during the process
Speaker 1: or not charging them at all, and allowing them to
Speaker 1: go back on the street and commit their crimes again.
Speaker 1: So what we have here are some police chiefs for
Speaker 1: the City of Chicago and its environs who have stepped
Speaker 1: forward to say that they have no confidence in state
Speaker 1: prosecutor our County States Attorney Kim Fox. Here's the Chicago
Speaker 1: Sun Times with the latest. The end of the Jesse
Speaker 1: Smollett prosecution was the straw that broke the camel's back
Speaker 1: for a group of suburban police chiefs set to gather
Speaker 1: Thursday afternoon with members of the Chicago Fraternal Order of
Speaker 1: Police to announce a no confidence vote in the leadership
Speaker 1: of Cook County States Attorney Kim Fox. Dwayne Milemma, head
Speaker 1: of the North Suburban Association of Chiefs of Police representing
Speaker 1: more than thirty departments, said a no confidence vote taken
Speaker 1: Tuesday was unanimous. In a letter sent to Fox, Malemma,
Speaker 1: who is police chief in Park Ridge, expressed concern over
Speaker 1: Prosecutor's refusal to file felony chargers in certain crimes. Quote.
Speaker 1: The abrupt dropping on the sixteen indictments against Empire actor
Speaker 1: Jesse Smillett during an unannounced court hearing is the latest
Speaker 1: and most egregious example of the failure by you and
Speaker 1: your staff to whole defenders accountable. This is quite a
Speaker 1: public mutiny against this prosecutor, because you have to keep
Speaker 1: in mind that police and prosecutors you are working very
Speaker 1: closely together. The department and the distric Attorney's office are
Speaker 1: generally very collegial, and they don't unnecessarily air out this
Speaker 1: kind of dirty laundry. But what Kim Fox did, and
Speaker 1: we all know it's because of connections and person her
Speaker 1: personal feelings about Smallad and her personal feelings about it.
Speaker 1: What Kim Fox did was egregious. To borrow a word
Speaker 1: from the fraternal Chicago Fraternal Order of Police. It was
Speaker 1: just too much. It's too far that the law was
Speaker 1: not going to apply to Jesse Smollett. And then that
Speaker 1: little punk would turn around and suggest that he was
Speaker 1: still innocent, that he has no compunction whatsoever about perpetuating
Speaker 1: this lie, that there's nothing in him that has that
Speaker 1: the dignity and the respect and the self worth to
Speaker 1: take responsibility for what he did and view what had
Speaker 1: happened in terms of the charges getting dismissed for reasons
Speaker 1: of pure bias. I mean, this is just pure bias.
Speaker 1: But instead of thanking his lucky stars and saying, wow,
Speaker 1: I'm this is amazing and I'm so sorry and never
Speaker 1: have it again, he went out and started lecturing us.
Speaker 1: He went out and thought that this was a time
Speaker 1: to say that those who were you know, didn't believe
Speaker 1: him should have And then he's been honest all along.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy's sick. He's really got a problem,
Speaker 1: and that there would be any people in the Democrat
Speaker 1: power structure that would step member. They're not standing behind
Speaker 1: him to say, all right, be lenient on him. They
Speaker 1: want him to get off scott free. They want him
Speaker 1: to suffer no consequence, zero non sequences whatsoever as a
Speaker 1: result of this, at least no legal consequences. And that
Speaker 1: was just too much for these cops. And I'm sure
Speaker 1: that if you were to look into some of the
Speaker 1: other decisions that are being made here by Kim Fox
Speaker 1: based on what these officers are saying, there's you know,
Speaker 1: she's dropping felonies against people that shouldn't shouldn't have the
Speaker 1: felonies dropped, you know. But this is this is where
Speaker 1: you start to get into a social justice element and
Speaker 1: a social justice application of the law. This is where
Speaker 1: you start to hear about how the criminal laws are
Speaker 1: inherently racist or are enforced in racist ways, and therefore
Speaker 1: there needs to be a rebalancing that occurs in the
Speaker 1: prosecutor's offices, and you go down a very dangerous path here.
Speaker 1: You know, there are some things that we should we
Speaker 1: do as a society, and we should as people all
Speaker 1: agree on and laws that prevent murder, assault, rape, theft.
Speaker 1: These are foundational agreements in a civilization, in a society.
Speaker 1: These are things that no matter who you are, where
Speaker 1: you are in a society, you should want the state
Speaker 1: which claims for itself a monopoly on violence, a monopoly
Speaker 1: on force that is a defining characteristic of a state,
Speaker 1: that they will protect us and on these courts. We're
Speaker 1: not talking about campaign finance here. We're not talking about
Speaker 1: you know, tax return issues, uh Trump's tax returns. We're
Speaker 1: talking about those clear cut law enforcement issues, real felonies
Speaker 1: for real criminals. You're not going to enforce those because
Speaker 1: there's a disparate impact on one ethnic group or several
Speaker 1: ethnic groups in society, you're going to start to scale
Speaker 1: back the prosecutions you're doing. This has happened in places.
Speaker 1: This is what's going on. This is what happened in
Speaker 1: Broward County. We are where you have the Marjorie Stoneman
Speaker 1: Douglas shooting. The decision was made that these school discipline
Speaker 1: policies that would result in criminal referrals to police because
Speaker 1: people would bring knives or they would have punched somebody
Speaker 1: or they that was having a two negative an impact
Speaker 1: on minority students, particularly black and Hispanic students, and so
Speaker 1: they wanted to eliminate criminal penalties as a means of
Speaker 1: achieving greater You guessed its social justice and uh, you know, Democrats,
Speaker 1: this is where we have. This is where there's a
Speaker 1: real once again, you know that I mentioned abortion. There's
Speaker 1: someplace we have a real separation. And you know, I
Speaker 1: don't care what skin color somebody is, I don't care
Speaker 1: what religious background, what economic situation they're in. All of us,
Speaker 1: all of us must be held to account for felony
Speaker 1: violations of the law. I mean real felonies, felonies where
Speaker 1: there's a victim, where someone's been hurt, where damage has
Speaker 1: been done, not mallem prohibitum, which is just when the
Speaker 1: state says it's bad, but mallem in say legal terms
Speaker 1: for bad because you know it's bad. Kim Fox, I
Speaker 1: can tell you this is letting people offer things that
Speaker 1: are mallem insay that are bad and you know it's bad.
Speaker 1: But I'm sure it's a lot of drug stuff, but
Speaker 1: people that always you know, I disagree with the notion
Speaker 1: that people shouldn't be held to account for selling illegal
Speaker 1: drugs because even though I believe in marijuana legalization, marijuana,
Speaker 1: marijuana can't kill you, can't do it, can't do it.
Speaker 1: No one's ever overdose, No one's ever died from marijuana.
Speaker 1: People die from cocaine, opioids, heroin all the time, all
Speaker 1: the time. If you're selling those drugs illegally to people,
Speaker 1: you are putting human beings lives at risk. I've had
Speaker 1: to mention before that I'm always a little irked when
Speaker 1: I hear, particularly in the hip hop community, there are
Speaker 1: people that talk about how they used to sell crack
Speaker 1: to make, you know, ends meet, and this is almost
Speaker 1: a point of pride and say, well, when they were
Speaker 1: selling crack, did they ever ask that people they were
Speaker 1: selling crack too? If you know, they ask women that
Speaker 1: bought crack for them, is are you sure you're not pregnant?
Speaker 1: By the way, do they ask women who bought crack?
Speaker 1: You know, are you selling your body or doing other
Speaker 1: really desperate things to get the money for this crack?
Speaker 1: Selling these kinds of addictive drugs is not something that
Speaker 1: should just go unpunished because a lot of people make
Speaker 1: that decision. I'm sorry. And for Kim Fox to have
Speaker 1: the Fraternal Order of Police turn on her like this,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm sure the more you dig into this, you
Speaker 1: just find out that, you know, she's been giving people
Speaker 1: a pass because she's a She's a leftist and a
Speaker 1: social justice true believer. One more point on this. A
Speaker 1: reporter today, I watched the press conference that they gave,
Speaker 1: that the police chiefs gave, and a reporter said, why
Speaker 1: aren't there any black police chiefs on the stage. I
Speaker 1: heard that question asked, and I don't an I don't
Speaker 1: have an answer. And I heard the answer they gave,
Speaker 1: which is that the police chief said everybody was invited.
Speaker 1: Some people showed up, some people didn't. I really hope
Speaker 1: that in the city of Chicago, because I know it's
Speaker 1: not true across the country. I know it wasn't true
Speaker 1: in the NYPD when I worked there. But I hope
Speaker 1: that the city of Chicago now isn't being polarized along
Speaker 1: racial lines where some people think that the law shouldn't
Speaker 1: apply even when they are violations of it, just because
Speaker 1: they view it as hurting their side, hurting the side
Speaker 1: of the left, minorities, Democrats, and so you know, it's
Speaker 1: it's in a sense the OJ effect, Right, Why wasn't
Speaker 1: OJ guilty because of racism? But OJ killed two people?
Speaker 1: So why wasn't OJ guilty because of racism? Is that
Speaker 1: what we're getting at here is Jesse Smolett not just
Speaker 1: not guilty but let off entirely because he's black and
Speaker 1: openly gay and therefore a victim and therefore special. This
Speaker 1: erodes confidence in the justice system. This erodes some of
Speaker 1: the most important things that we agree on as people
Speaker 1: in a society, which is that we're all bound by
Speaker 1: laws and we are all to be held accountable for
Speaker 1: serious violations of law, at least held accountable. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying Smollett should have gone to prison for twenty years.
Speaker 1: The guy should have had to take a guilty plea
Speaker 1: and it should have been on the record what he
Speaker 1: did was wrong, and he should have to pay for
Speaker 1: every cent of that investigation in Chicago and probably spent
Speaker 1: a couple weeks in jail. That would have been what
Speaker 1: I would have given him. We'll be right back. I
Speaker 1: think it's more so that like their students on this
Speaker 1: campus who don't feel comfortable with it, and so then
Speaker 1: it doesn't really matter what other students think if it
Speaker 1: makes some uncomfortable. Colonial is kind of a touchy word. Um,
Speaker 1: I did sign the petition. I do understand that it
Speaker 1: is offensive. Yeah, well, I think the word colonial like
Speaker 1: evokes an image of like white men coming to take
Speaker 1: people's land. Colonial thing is like a little white supremacist.
Speaker 1: It's a little white supremacist. George Washington University. This is
Speaker 1: right here where I am in the swamp in DC.
Speaker 1: One of the most expensive schools in the country. By
Speaker 1: the way, George Washing University is having a bit of
Speaker 1: its own controversy because they want their students are voting
Speaker 1: to remove the colonial's nickname from their school mascot. This
Speaker 1: is where this is where there's an I think an
Speaker 1: important takeaway. These social justice obsessed leftists can only think
Speaker 1: what they think because they have either a very limited
Speaker 1: or very narrow understanding of history. These social justice leftists
Speaker 1: are completely and utterly incapable of telling you, you know,
Speaker 1: colonial history, telling me about the colonial period, tell me
Speaker 1: about colonial societies. You know. If I were to ask them,
Speaker 1: for example, were the Aztecs of colonial people, they would
Speaker 1: say no, of course, not, oh really, because the Aztecs
Speaker 1: enslaved millions of people. Were the Mayans in the New
Speaker 1: World of colonial people? Well, of course they were right.
Speaker 1: They colonized other territories, they took people over the is
Speaker 1: the is the entirety of the Islamic world a colonial project?
Speaker 1: Oh no, buck, that's not. Islam is a non white,
Speaker 1: predominantly non white religion, and they're not, oh really, because
Speaker 1: it was built on expansion, conquest, and conversion, often by
Speaker 1: the sword. All of what is now the Islamic world
Speaker 1: was formerly the non Islamic world, and much of it
Speaker 1: was taken by force. So isn't that a colonial check?
Speaker 1: If they knew anything about radicalism, I think that these
Speaker 1: leftists would understand that in current jehatish propaganda, they refer
Speaker 1: to southern Spain, and I mean on the internet, in
Speaker 1: the chat rooms today among the Jihadis, they'll refer to
Speaker 1: southern Spain as Andalucia because it used to be territory
Speaker 1: of the Caliphate. So that and they have not yet
Speaker 1: given that up. They have an irredentist tendency. They want
Speaker 1: that land back. So and who else is colonialists? I mean,
Speaker 1: when do we go back, When do we go back
Speaker 1: and say, well, they were here, They were here first,
Speaker 1: they have the land first, There are different native peoples.
Speaker 1: One of the reasons why we don't know who conquered
Speaker 1: who is because they didn't have written language, so that
Speaker 1: slows things down. They also hadn't mastered the wheel in
Speaker 1: the New world. But nonetheless, what was I'm just talking
Speaker 1: about the civilis the technological progress, folks, It's just just
Speaker 1: a fact. So what are we to make of this?
Speaker 1: I mean, why is colonial inherently offensive? Because of that?
Speaker 1: So is the entire let's say, fifteenth century to twentieth century.
Speaker 1: Is that just an offensive period of time? I mean
Speaker 1: they don't really think through this. They're stuck in this
Speaker 1: just deeply superficial understanding of history. This is like when
Speaker 1: I try to tell people about the white slave trade,
Speaker 1: meaning the slave trade of whites in the Mediterranean. Oh, buck,
Speaker 1: you know that's not a really it was millions of people,
Speaker 1: lasted hundreds of years in terms of geographic scope and
Speaker 1: raw numbers larger than the trans Atlantic African slave trade.
Speaker 1: You had Muslim corsairs from the coast of North Africa
Speaker 1: all the way to Istanbul itself who would sail as
Speaker 1: far north as Ireland, as far north as Iceland and
Speaker 1: sees people from the coasts bring them to North Africa
Speaker 1: to die in the minds or the women to be
Speaker 1: used in harems as sex slaves. That went on for
Speaker 1: a couple of hundred years. They don't even know the
Speaker 1: full extent of the numbers. Oh, there are whole societies
Speaker 1: that lived in fear and terror of being too close
Speaker 1: to the coast because of that happening. Now, I'm just
Speaker 1: I just think that's an interesting part of history. Oh, it's,
Speaker 1: by the way, why we went to our first foreign war,
Speaker 1: which you know from the recent surgeon interest in the
Speaker 1: Barbary wars in this country. We went to war with
Speaker 1: Islamic states because they wouldn't stop enslaving us. So, you know,
Speaker 1: so we're gonna say this is it's it's offensive, Why
Speaker 1: it's offensive, how it reminds me of you know, Lord
Speaker 1: jeff the mascot from my own school, Amherst, Lord Jeffrey Amherst,
Speaker 1: someone who allegedly gave small smallpox infected blankets to the
Speaker 1: Native Americ But they didn't understand microbiology then, So I
Speaker 1: don't know how they would have known that the blankets
Speaker 1: had smallpox. I just I don't People have said it
Speaker 1: was the first instance of biological warfare recorded. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I need to see the records. But now we're not
Speaker 1: the my college is. You know, we're not the colonials.
Speaker 1: We were the Lord Jeffs who was a colonial overlord.
Speaker 1: So this kind of hits close to home. We're the mastodons.
Speaker 1: Does that that sound like a fat cow? That did
Speaker 1: not sound like a mastodon. I gotta work on my
Speaker 1: mastadon noise. But then again, who knows if a mastodon
Speaker 1: makes a noise in the ice age and there's non around,
Speaker 1: did it happen? Existential? What? All? Right? Our three coming
Speaker 1: up your team in just a moment, we have much
Speaker 1: more coming your way. Stay with me in my career,
Speaker 1: I've always tried to make a human connection. That's my responsibility.
Speaker 1: I think I shake cage, I hug people grabbed men
Speaker 1: in a boom by the shoulders and say you can
Speaker 1: do this, and you our social warms have begun to change,
Speaker 1: They've shifted, and the boundaries of protecting personal space have
Speaker 1: been reset. And I get it. I get it. I
Speaker 1: hear what they're saying. I understand it, and I'll be
Speaker 1: much more mindful. That's my responsibility, my responsibility, and I'll
Speaker 1: meet it. That was the Biden Maya Culpa video that
Speaker 1: he's put out there, Biden deciding that he is not
Speaker 1: really in a position to fight these allegations. He's just
Speaker 1: in a position to say sorry. He's in a position
Speaker 1: to tell people that he's not going to do this
Speaker 1: stuff again. I've tried to be fair to this. I
Speaker 1: know we've covered it a few times here on the show.
Speaker 1: I've tried to be fair to creepy old Joe. It's
Speaker 1: not it's not criminal. Shouldn't we talked about in that way.
Speaker 1: It's not assault, it's and I also I don't like
Speaker 1: this when people say, oh, if you try to hug
Speaker 1: somebody and they don't want to hug. You know, if
Speaker 1: it's an honest mistake, that's not assault, that's just miscommunication, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, there are there are some lines here of
Speaker 1: good faith that we have to maintain. You know, whether
Speaker 1: you're a guy in a first date who leans in
Speaker 1: for a kiss and uh, doesn't work out your way,
Speaker 1: you know, as long as when the person leans away,
Speaker 1: you go, oh sorry, You know, you don't decide to
Speaker 1: or if you're going to hug a colleague because you
Speaker 1: think you're at the hug stage, but you're really just
Speaker 1: at the handshake stage. Ever, Come on, you probably some
Speaker 1: of you aren't huggers. Some of you probably are, but
Speaker 1: you've probably been there, right. I'm always like, uh my,
Speaker 1: there's some people you know you can hug in the office,
Speaker 1: and there are other people you're like, is are we
Speaker 1: are we at the hug level yet? And then if
Speaker 1: you want to be very European, very French, who can
Speaker 1: do that? Is a kiss? Ons a cheek kiss? One
Speaker 1: kiss too? Oh buffet, I gotta go to Paris, man,
Speaker 1: it's been too long. It's been too long. I can't
Speaker 1: have any quests. Song, which is just so disappointing. But
Speaker 1: Biden's obviously got an issue here because the Left is
Speaker 1: able to cover up for a lot. But when you
Speaker 1: become a point of mockery, when you are someone that
Speaker 1: is going to get made fun made fun of in
Speaker 1: a way that they can't make go away, that I
Speaker 1: think is a real drag. And that's that For example,
Speaker 1: with Elizabeth Warren, Elizabeth Warren's hold you know DNA debacle. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know that that wasn't criminal, It wasn't some some
Speaker 1: big deal, It wasn't that she did something terrible. It
Speaker 1: just showed really really bad judgment. And when you're showing
Speaker 1: bad judgment in that way, there are people who won't
Speaker 1: be able to get past the fact that maybe they
Speaker 1: don't want you to have the nuclear codes. You know, Nancy,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is trying to have it both ways here.
Speaker 1: She's still saying, oh, well, what Biden did is not great,
Speaker 1: but it also isn't the worst thing in the world.
Speaker 1: It's well, I'll let let Nancy Pelosi speak for herself.
Speaker 1: Play three. I don't think it's disqualifying, because I don't
Speaker 1: I think it disqualifying as with what your intention is.
Speaker 1: I do think this about communication in general. Beyond this,
Speaker 1: I'm a member of the straight arm club. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm a straight armor. Just pretend you have a cold
Speaker 1: and I have a cold. Yeah, Nancy not exactly the
Speaker 1: warmest person issue, you know, Nancy. Nancy really likes to
Speaker 1: treat everybody like the help I think, and that's that's
Speaker 1: her approach to life. But she's a progressive Democrats as
Speaker 1: she gets away with it. Speaking of progressive Democrats who
Speaker 1: get away with things, ooh, smooth transition, buck. Some of
Speaker 1: you may recall that I interviewed a Lissa Milano, whose
Speaker 1: finest work as an actress came when she was about
Speaker 1: thirteen years old and was in the timeless classic Commando
Speaker 1: starring Arnold Schwarzenegger. But Alyssa Milano is someone who's been
Speaker 1: now and I've just been in movies. Most well known,
Speaker 1: I think for the show Charmed, which is about witches,
Speaker 1: which makes sense. And I sat down to interview it
Speaker 1: at her home. And she didn't realize that I was
Speaker 1: very conservative because I worked for The Hill, which is
Speaker 1: mostly staffed by liberals. And so I sit down with
Speaker 1: her and as I told you, the omen of all
Speaker 1: omens to begin in an interview. We're in this ornate
Speaker 1: living room in this canyon north of Los Angeles, gated community,
Speaker 1: gates on gates on gates, and security guards and the
Speaker 1: whole thing. And I sit down and this decrepit little
Speaker 1: chihuahua comes kind of limping over and urinates. This is right.
Speaker 1: I mean, the cameras were all set up in row urinates,
Speaker 1: you know, about two feet from my foot, just decides
Speaker 1: to just lift it's a little tiny wrinkly leg and
Speaker 1: just let it rip right there. And that was pretty
Speaker 1: much all you need to know about how that interview
Speaker 1: was going to go. You know, I just sat there
Speaker 1: because over the court she's looking at I could tell
Speaker 1: she goes, oh wait, he's he's not really, he's not
Speaker 1: a journal journalist. He's a he's a person who thinks
Speaker 1: and asked questions for himself. That's not I don't like this.
Speaker 1: She did not really enjoy that and complained I was
Speaker 1: entirely professional in that interview. Every question I asked her
Speaker 1: was fair. I didn't interrupt her, and she complained after
Speaker 1: That's why I really don't mind going after a bit
Speaker 1: on the because because that's just cowardice. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: just nonsense. She tried to come. I mean, she trying
Speaker 1: to complain to my bosses, which is hilarious. They could
Speaker 1: care less. Um, and these aren't even my radio bosses,
Speaker 1: who are the ones that I really care what they think? Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, trying to complain at the hill, and you
Speaker 1: know I just said, I'm sorry. You know this is
Speaker 1: not only am I not. I mean, I would never
Speaker 1: even apologize in a million years. But I'm like, I'm
Speaker 1: not even gonna take this seriously. This is just a baby.
Speaker 1: She's just a big baby, but not not particularly bright.
Speaker 1: By the way, if we're if we're gonna have this
Speaker 1: conversation with politics, I'm allowed to say things like that
Speaker 1: because it's true. But she's one of these people who's
Speaker 1: trying to organize a boycott against George Georgia, the state
Speaker 1: that I was just in earlier this week, and State Rep.
Speaker 1: Dominic Larcia had a let him have a testy back
Speaker 1: and forth with her when she's you know, she's down
Speaker 1: in the state of Georgia trying to cause problems. Here's
Speaker 1: because they want to restrict abortion. Good for you, Georgia,
Speaker 1: by the way, good for you. Here's how that wentstrict
Speaker 1: of Georgia. I worked in Georgia. I don't think Georgia.
Speaker 1: There's thirty people out find that do vote in Georgia.
Speaker 1: That I was going to don't interrupt me, that I
Speaker 1: was going to escort in that they wouldn't let me
Speaker 1: escort Georgia. No, but the people that work on my crew,
Speaker 1: the ninety thousand people that the entertainment industry actually employs,
Speaker 1: do so thank you. What's your NA district one? Nothing?
Speaker 1: I just answered. The men voting on what's going on
Speaker 1: inside her uterus? She says, well, what they're really voting
Speaker 1: on is a heartbeat bill that would forbid abortions after
Speaker 1: a fetal heartbeat is detected, because a human being doesn't
Speaker 1: have two hearts. Human being has one heart. So if
Speaker 1: you have two hearts, you know what, you have two
Speaker 1: human beings. So this would be no abortions after six weeks.
Speaker 1: And Alyssa Milano is obviously an abortion radical, I mean,
Speaker 1: believes an abortion for all nine months of a pregnancy,
Speaker 1: for any reason or no reason, and is trying to
Speaker 1: inflict that belief and that as a legal regime on
Speaker 1: the State of Georgia. I hope the state of Georgia
Speaker 1: is able to stand its ground and continue on the
Speaker 1: right path. Here. Yep, Lissa Milano. Not a very good actress,
Speaker 1: not a very good activist, but there you have it.
Speaker 1: She's trying to tell other people what to do in
Speaker 1: their states, and she's running around. This is how unfortunately,
Speaker 1: people that are used to getting a lot of attention,
Speaker 1: especially as they age a little bit, and aren't quite
Speaker 1: as Let's just be honest, this is Hollywood not quite
Speaker 1: as marketable perhaps as they once were. This is a
Speaker 1: way of staying relevant, This is a way of burnishing
Speaker 1: one's brand. And I just wish people would treat this
Speaker 1: with the moral seriousness it deserves and not just use
Speaker 1: it as a grandstanding opportunity. But we're talking about actors
Speaker 1: and actresses here, folks, So that's not going to change.
Speaker 1: This is turning into quite a story here. FEDS are
Speaker 1: investigating possible Chinese spying at Mara Lago and Cindy Yang,
Speaker 1: according to sources. This is published in the Miami Herald today.
Speaker 1: So here's what's going on. He got the FEDS looking
Speaker 1: at the possible Chinese intelligence operation targeting Donald Trump and
Speaker 1: his private Palm Beach club mar Lago. The counterintelligence probe
Speaker 1: was quote turbocharged on Saturday when US Secret Service agents
Speaker 1: arrested a Chinese woman, yu Jing Zang, after they said
Speaker 1: she tried to enter the club with a bevy of
Speaker 1: electronic devices, including a thumb drive infected with malicious malware.
Speaker 1: The ongoing investigation has recently focused on Lee Cindy Yang.
Speaker 1: Yang is a South Florida massage parlor entrepreneur who has
Speaker 1: promoted events at Marlago with ads targeting Chinese business executives
Speaker 1: hoping to gain access to Trump and his family. The investigation,
Speaker 1: spearheaded by the FBI, began before The Herald revealed Yang's
Speaker 1: business of selling access last month, and focused on other
Speaker 1: Chinese nationals doing business in the region. Before her arrest,
Speaker 1: Zang was unknown to federal authorities. Now investigators with the
Speaker 1: FBI Counterintelligence Division South Florida trying to figure out who
Speaker 1: Zang is, whether she's involved in a possible Chinese intelligence mission,
Speaker 1: and whether there are links to Yank social events at
Speaker 1: Trump's Moral Lago. Huh. And this is this is very interesting.
Speaker 1: People are looking at this now and they're wondering what
Speaker 1: the real extent of this espionage, this spying. Maybe you
Speaker 1: know alleged espionage. We don't really know, but here's here's
Speaker 1: what I can what I can tell you without any
Speaker 1: without any doubt, the amount of spying that is going
Speaker 1: on involving China and the United States is mind blowing
Speaker 1: and it's happening all the time. And the Chinese, much
Speaker 1: like during the Cold War and the era of the
Speaker 1: US duking it out with the Soviet Union, the Chinese,
Speaker 1: I think, recognize the stakes and have an understanding of
Speaker 1: what they're trying to accomplish. And we take this view
Speaker 1: as the hedgemon the United States, the one true global
Speaker 1: superpower right now now, we don't want to cause any rifts.
Speaker 1: We don't want to rock the boat. We don't want
Speaker 1: any issues, you know, we just want to honestly get
Speaker 1: along with China if we could, I mean, if the
Speaker 1: US had its way, we would. And because we've been
Speaker 1: doing this, we've been doing this for decades, We've helped
Speaker 1: the Chinese, We've done all kinds stretching back to the eighties.
Speaker 1: And really the Chinese growth explosion has occurred in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: It's really over the course of the last almost forty
Speaker 1: years that they went from a seventy billion to a
Speaker 1: seven trillion dollar economy, and they are now churning out
Speaker 1: products and services and in a way that is I
Speaker 1: think hard to fathom. One of the reasons why I'm
Speaker 1: so interested in going to China is to see this
Speaker 1: for myself. Buck goes to China to be like Nixon
Speaker 1: goes to China, only cooler. But the fact is that
Speaker 1: while we were trying to deal with the Soviets, who
Speaker 1: were our most recent near peer competitor on the global stage,
Speaker 1: they were very aggressive with their espionage efforts against us.
Speaker 1: And in the early stages we did figure it out,
Speaker 1: and my forefathers at the CIA, and you know, this
Speaker 1: was really the whole This is the existence of the
Speaker 1: CIA in the intelligence community for the first fifty or
Speaker 1: so years of their existence was all about combating the Soviets.
Speaker 1: I mean, that was the one and only real concern
Speaker 1: at the highest highest level. And all the different iterations
Speaker 1: of what fighting the Soviets meant, you know, the conflict
Speaker 1: over the Third World, the proxy war is everything from
Speaker 1: Angola to Vietnam, to Cuba to Nicaragua to you name it.
Speaker 1: But we had, at least for the first decade or
Speaker 1: so post World War to this attitude of you know,
Speaker 1: we should try to be friends with the Soviets are intelligentsia,
Speaker 1: our journalists, a lot of people that work at the
Speaker 1: State Department, a lot of people that were up high
Speaker 1: in the government bureaucracy. They really didn't see Russia or
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union at the time as a threat. They
Speaker 1: saw it as a partner that just had to be wooed. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the Soviets were stealing everything from us they possibly could,
Speaker 1: and preparing to overtake and if necessary, eradicate us. And
Speaker 1: I worry that we haven't really learned that lesson in
Speaker 1: our dealings with the Chinese, and the more I see
Speaker 1: in Chinese strategy visa the United States, the more I've
Speaker 1: got to tell you Trump is right on this issue,
Speaker 1: and he does not get enough credit for it. Trump's
Speaker 1: approach to China, which is that we need to get
Speaker 1: into it and get tough and show some teeth on
Speaker 1: this stuff, and stop letting the Chinese stealer intellectual property,
Speaker 1: you know, rip us off on trade and grow rapidly.
Speaker 1: I mean, if tariffs were such an incredibly stupid and
Speaker 1: self defeating idea, Somebody tell me how the Chinese government
Speaker 1: with its state sponsored corporations, which is what it has
Speaker 1: state state enterprises, state sponsored enterprises. Why they've been able
Speaker 1: to become now Fortune one hundred companies, Why they've been
Speaker 1: able to grow at a pace that blows every other
Speaker 1: country in the world really out of the water, every
Speaker 1: other major country. If it was so dumb for them,
Speaker 1: if there was no benefit from what they were doing, well,
Speaker 1: then why have they been so successful and why do
Speaker 1: they keep doing it? Trump instinctually understands. And this is
Speaker 1: where you know he does. This is another place Trump
Speaker 1: does not get credit for because he's Look, he's a shark.
Speaker 1: He's a business shark. And I don't say that in
Speaker 1: a disparaging way. I say it in an objective and
Speaker 1: honest way. You know, he looks for opportunity, and opportunity
Speaker 1: is often getting a better deal than the other guy,
Speaker 1: which doesn't mean that you're cheating him. It just means
Speaker 1: that you are using your leverage. He understands that process.
Speaker 1: He's been doing this for a long time. And some
Speaker 1: people say that he's been too rough in his dealings.
Speaker 1: You know, whaham boo who whatever truth is. Trump sees
Speaker 1: what China's been doing. The United States and he understands
Speaker 1: that in this case the sharks on the other side
Speaker 1: of the table, and that our governments on both sides
Speaker 1: of the Aisle, Republican and Democrats, stretching back decades, have
Speaker 1: taken this approach to China of everything we can do
Speaker 1: to help you, and we will not punish you, We
Speaker 1: will not take real action in response to your aggression,
Speaker 1: to your theft, to all the things that everyone knows
Speaker 1: is going No one denies this is happening, which is
Speaker 1: I think is so fascinating. I mean, no one, no
Speaker 1: one says that this is not a thing. It's just
Speaker 1: a question of how do you respond to this thing?
Speaker 1: How do you respond to what's going on here? And
Speaker 1: administration after administration is said, well, you know, China's an
Speaker 1: important trading partner and it's really a chamber of commerce
Speaker 1: view of how to deal with the Chinese. And now
Speaker 1: we're seeing that there might be some sophisticated or semisophisticated
Speaker 1: spying operation going on involving Mara Lago, that there's I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't know how much I can or should get
Speaker 1: into what is known about the way that governments like
Speaker 1: China operate in terms of their espionage efforts abroad. I mean,
Speaker 1: some of that I think has to be kept kind
Speaker 1: of quiet so the public can't know about all of it.
Speaker 1: But it is widespread. And I don't know what they're
Speaker 1: going to find in this Mara Lago probe, but it's
Speaker 1: not something we should just skip past and assume the
Speaker 1: authorities have a handle on this one. There is still
Speaker 1: I think, a very there's not enough of an imperative.
Speaker 1: There's not a sense of urgency. That's the word I
Speaker 1: was trying to find. There's not enough urgency in dealing
Speaker 1: with the aggressive offensive maneuvers of the Chinese government visa
Speaker 1: of the United States. We still think that we can
Speaker 1: take this, Oh, it'll all just be okay if we're
Speaker 1: nice to them attitude, and that's not going to work.
Speaker 1: Trump is taking a different approach, but we'll see. First
Speaker 1: of all, hopefully Trump has four more years after the
Speaker 1: next two or he's got whatever six more years. But
Speaker 1: if you get a democrat in there is going to
Speaker 1: lie down for China. We may lose whatever advantage we
Speaker 1: have now and never get it back. And I mean that,
Speaker 1: and we better wake up about the Chinese espionage effort
Speaker 1: because it is the most sophisticated, wide reaching theft of
Speaker 1: intellectual property, the most sweeping information grab in the history
Speaker 1: of nation state to nation state spine. There's nothing that
Speaker 1: even comes close to it. The only stuff that you
Speaker 1: could even talk about, really in the same same paragraph
Speaker 1: would be what the Soviets did to us, And what
Speaker 1: the Soviets did to us was extreme during the Cold
Speaker 1: War in terms of theft of information. So we will
Speaker 1: keep an eye on this one team, and I'll have
Speaker 1: more for you as we move along. I don't think
Speaker 1: I ever gave you my final words on the Lost
Speaker 1: City of the Monkey God. I may have mentioned this,
Speaker 1: but it just came up again recently because I was
Speaker 1: thinking about where I might be traveling in the next
Speaker 1: few months, and there was there was one place particularly
Speaker 1: came up that would have required malaria medicine, something that
Speaker 1: I've had to take several times in the past and
Speaker 1: very much want to avoid having to do again. Although
Speaker 1: if it's take the medicine or get malaria, trust me,
Speaker 1: you want to take the medicine. It's The Lost City
Speaker 1: of the Monkey God is about an archaeological expedition to Honduras,
Speaker 1: and it's in the last ten years or so to
Speaker 1: find what was known as a Sidad Blanco, the White city,
Speaker 1: which was a Maya like civilization in an area of
Speaker 1: Honduras called Musquitia, which is incredibly rural, unexplored and almost
Speaker 1: like a lost area of the world. There's really nobody
Speaker 1: who goes in there, with the exception of some drug
Speaker 1: traffickers who might put down in the jungle in their
Speaker 1: trek from South America where the cocaine has grown. Cocaine
Speaker 1: has grown primarily now in Peru, Bolivia, Ecuador, Colombia. Those
Speaker 1: are the main countries, and I think a bit in
Speaker 1: Venezuela too, although we don't have great visibility into that.
Speaker 1: And yes, I know some of your saying, buck, they
Speaker 1: don't grow cocaine. Cocaine is the drug. They grow the
Speaker 1: coca plant, which has been used in native ceremonies, in
Speaker 1: medicine stretching back for hundreds and hundreds of years. Anyway,
Speaker 1: that's back to Honduras where the Lost City of the
Speaker 1: Monkey God, the title of the book, which is a
Speaker 1: very popular book now. It was okay. The most dangerous
Speaker 1: stuff that they faced though in their journey, was the
Speaker 1: the day to day of being in a jungle, which
Speaker 1: is a reminder that the people that always think that, oh,
Speaker 1: if we're just in harmony with nature, like nature just
Speaker 1: wants to be our friend, just wants like take care
Speaker 1: of you, and just they've watched Avatar one time too many.
Speaker 1: Nature is very destructive if you live in a lot
Speaker 1: of natural environments as a human being, if you try
Speaker 1: to do it alone, your chances of survival are quite slim.
Speaker 1: And the jungle is one of the toughest places to
Speaker 1: hack out a living, one of the harder environments in
Speaker 1: which to do that. I mean the deep, dense jungle
Speaker 1: of Honduras. So they have to deal with a fair
Speaker 1: to fair de lance snakes, which are a kind of
Speaker 1: pit viper that are very very deadly, and they have
Speaker 1: a few examples of that in the book when they
Speaker 1: see them. And they're also aggressive. Some snakes, coral snakes,
Speaker 1: for example, are not particularly aggressive. You have to agitate them.
Speaker 1: Other snakes are kind of territorial and come at you
Speaker 1: like the fair de lance. And then there's the scariest thing,
Speaker 1: and this is what always bothers me about going to
Speaker 1: third world countries, is the leashmaniasis, which is a parasite
Speaker 1: that you get through the bite of an infected sand flea,
Speaker 1: and the sand flea puts this parasite in you. And
Speaker 1: leishmaniasis has a few different variants and can be incredibly debilitating.
Speaker 1: It can be deadly, and it can be disfiguring too.
Speaker 1: There's a leashmaniasis strain that some of the people on
Speaker 1: this expedition acquired, including the author, that was very, very
Speaker 1: hard to treat. You can't really eradicate it. You suppress
Speaker 1: the parasites. But if it were to overtake your immune system,
Speaker 1: because the immune system can hold the parasite and check somewhat,
Speaker 1: it eats away at your mucosal lining of your nose,
Speaker 1: your mouth, and essentially your face. And that's they call
Speaker 1: it white leprosy. It's terrifying stuff. I'm trying to avoid.
Speaker 1: You know, I did that, that adventure travel stuff in
Speaker 1: my day. One day I'll tell you guys the Africa stories.
Speaker 1: But I don't know I've I've so far kept my
Speaker 1: Africa adventures to myself, at least having made them very public.
Speaker 1: But the other places I've been, you know, some places
Speaker 1: in a rock, someplaces in Afghanistan you have to worry
Speaker 1: about malaria, But in any third world country. The thing
Speaker 1: that always kept me the most on it just just
Speaker 1: the prospect of getting disease. And so I might be
Speaker 1: traveling to Asia next month. We're trying to get this
Speaker 1: all squared away right now. And I was thinking about
Speaker 1: doing some after I go to to China. I was
Speaker 1: gonna say, maybe I'm gonna go into Cambodia and I
Speaker 1: want to go to Laos and I want to do
Speaker 1: some And then I'm like, yeah, you know what, I
Speaker 1: think I'm gonna go to like Hawaii instead. I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't have the same Maybe maybe I'm just sort
Speaker 1: of I don't know what's happened. I just I used
Speaker 1: to have this this I was gonna say, the travel bug,
Speaker 1: But that's exactly what I don't want. I used to
Speaker 1: have this desire to go to really interesting, crazy places.
Speaker 1: Now I want to go to places where I can
Speaker 1: drink the water out of the tap and the food
Speaker 1: is delicious and everything is clean and safe. I think
Speaker 1: I've gotten whimpier since I left this Cia man. I
Speaker 1: was down of the border. I was thinking, would I
Speaker 1: would I go and travel to Honduras to see what's
Speaker 1: going on with the migrant caravans. Would I do that,
Speaker 1: and I don't think. I don't think these days I'm
Speaker 1: going to rush to do that anymore. So I'll stay
Speaker 1: on the US side of the border for the most part.
Speaker 1: I'd cover the cartels as long as they were in
Speaker 1: cities and places where they actually have good tacos and
Speaker 1: Margarita's roll calls up. Next team, We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. Roll call time, everybody. You
Speaker 1: know what that means. It's time to get into the
Speaker 1: call of the role, one of my very, very favoritest
Speaker 1: parts of the entire show. And I don't know why
Speaker 1: I feel the need to get into radio voice. We
Speaker 1: do roll call, he oh, roll call, everybody. Come on
Speaker 1: down Dude Bob's Waterbed super Imporium for your latest best
Speaker 1: deals on waterbeds. You know I've never been on a waterbed,
Speaker 1: I can tell you. I do know that some leases
Speaker 1: for apartments in urban areas explicitly deny your right to
Speaker 1: have a waterbed, which kind of makes me wish maybe
Speaker 1: I could try a waterbed at some point, but I
Speaker 1: don't think they'd be very comfortable. I just think it
Speaker 1: will be an interesting novelty of sorts. But it's all
Speaker 1: it's all fun and game. So you punch a hole
Speaker 1: in your waterbed and it squirts that water all over
Speaker 1: the place. That's no good, buck, get a grip, all right.
Speaker 1: Tommy is first up here at Douglas Murray The Strange
Speaker 1: Death of Europe. Here's a YouTube clip very relevant to
Speaker 1: our border discussion. Well, Tommy, And by the way, if
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of roll Call Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck sexon, just go to the message icon,
Speaker 1: send me the message and you can get on the show.
Speaker 1: And also, if you're listening to this and you do
Speaker 1: not already, please follow me on Twitter and on Instagram.
Speaker 1: I'm on the gram. Everybody Instagram buck Sex the only
Speaker 1: one that I believe is on Instagram. There can be
Speaker 1: only one. There can be only one, and it's more
Speaker 1: like that, actually, Highlander Tommy. Yes, this is an interesting clip.
Speaker 1: I will take a look at it. I would say
Speaker 1: that if you want a book on the subject, Bruce Bauer,
Speaker 1: I don't know if it's Bauer or Bau or Bawer
Speaker 1: or a book called While Europe Slept. He published it
Speaker 1: quite a while ago, maybe fifteen, oh, no, two thousand
Speaker 1: and six, I would recommend it to you. It's about
Speaker 1: how radical Islam is destroying the West from within, is
Speaker 1: the subtitle, and I think it is a book that
Speaker 1: you would very much appreciate and enjoy. Let's see what
Speaker 1: we have here, Sheldon. Next up, Hey, Buck, great show
Speaker 1: as always. Yes, Uncle Joe is a creepy old man,
Speaker 1: not the biggest problem. Can you please give more details
Speaker 1: about Joe his son and the Ukrainian natural gas company. Well, Sheldon,
Speaker 1: my colleague at the Hill, John Solomon, is the one
Speaker 1: who broke that story. And what I can tell you
Speaker 1: about the story is without pulling up the details in
Speaker 1: front of me right now. Essentially, Biden's son was on
Speaker 1: the board of a Ukrainian gas company. Biden's son and
Speaker 1: a company that or in a maybe a shell corporation
Speaker 1: or some kind of a partnership that he set up,
Speaker 1: was getting really big payouts from this. And that's where
Speaker 1: the graft and the theft of you know, public funds
Speaker 1: and all that. In the former Soviet Union in Russia
Speaker 1: and the former Soviet States, it really occurs around the
Speaker 1: natural resource companies. A lot of these guys who are
Speaker 1: billionaires now who own sports teams in the US and
Speaker 1: in Europe. They made their initial money by the privatization
Speaker 1: of the state industries in the Soviet Union around things like,
Speaker 1: you know, natural gas, oil, you know, iron ore, things
Speaker 1: like that. Whatever, the potassium, whatever the important minerals are
Speaker 1: that they needed in that country. I don't know if
Speaker 1: any That was a very faint borat reference that maybe
Speaker 1: one of you got, but it just sort of came out.
Speaker 1: So I food, Yes, we have the best potassium. Uh yeah, No,
Speaker 1: Uncle Joe's creepy. It's not the end of the world.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to pretend like it's the end of
Speaker 1: the world. I just I talk about it, mostly because
Speaker 1: of the hypocrisy of the media and the fact that
Speaker 1: it's fun to point out that Biden likes to go
Speaker 1: your hair smells so fresh and so clean. So creepy,
Speaker 1: isn't it. It's so creepy when he does it like that. Biden,
Speaker 1: Why are you being so creepy again? Tom My main Man,
Speaker 1: Schiltz Hi Buck love the show and have been a
Speaker 1: faithful listener since I found the show during the primaries,
Speaker 1: But the sudden flood of ads on the app are obnoxious.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's out of your hands but the ads
Speaker 1: have jammed in the middle of a word so times. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I still gonna listen. Keep up the fight, Tom, Your
Speaker 1: voice has been heard on this one, my man, and
Speaker 1: the people that make those decisions listen to the show,
Speaker 1: and we'll make sure that we try to at least.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you that there'll be fewer ads on
Speaker 1: any specific platform, but at least they won't cut off
Speaker 1: the dulcet tones of Buck Sexton's voice. Here everybody my
Speaker 1: apartment smells of rich mahogany. Roger rights final funeral oration
Speaker 1: for Pericles and monologue of Henry the Fifth shot coffee
Speaker 1: out of minos. Thank you, Roger. That's the point. I'd
Speaker 1: like to keep you all on your toes. And you think, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm just listening to Buck. He's gonna talk current events
Speaker 1: and politics and political philosophy, and then whoa, you just
Speaker 1: got crazy. I just snorted some coffee out of my nose.
Speaker 1: Gotta keep you on your toes listening to this show.
Speaker 1: I can't just get all comfy like we're in some
Speaker 1: kind of a you know, one oh one politics class. No,
Speaker 1: that's stuff. Keith next up in the mix here. You're
Speaker 1: absolutely right spring Steen sucks. Keith. You know, you and I,
Speaker 1: my friend, are among the enlightened on this. There are
Speaker 1: so very many other people, and they are entitled to
Speaker 1: their wrong opinion. Who love the Boss? You know? They
Speaker 1: think Boon in the US say ours both. They think
Speaker 1: that that's like a great song, timeless and really pro
Speaker 1: American if you listen to the words, though it is not,
Speaker 1: in fact really a pro American song. And Springsteen has
Speaker 1: the politics of Alyssa Milano and the common touch I
Speaker 1: think is a little overrated with Springsteen too, And the
Speaker 1: guys He's not my thing. He's not my thing. I
Speaker 1: just I know some of you like him. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I know I'm trolling you a little bit with this,
Speaker 1: but you know, then again, if you knew all the
Speaker 1: different music acts that I listened to, you'd make fun
Speaker 1: of You'd make fun of them a lot. So I mean,
Speaker 1: is there some T Swift on my playlist for working out?
Speaker 1: I don't know. Can neither confirm nor deny that information
Speaker 1: is classified and you're not read in to the T
Speaker 1: Swift program. What's up, Jared Jared Wrights? Oh wait, sorry, Jared,
Speaker 1: that one got cut off a little bit. Isn't the
Speaker 1: Zucker style in style? I would say to you, my friend,
Speaker 1: the Zucker style is never in style because Zucker hates
Speaker 1: America and freedom and he likes to unbutton his shirt
Speaker 1: down to his navel to give us a nice open
Speaker 1: view of that stuff that's going on there. Okay, next
Speaker 1: up here in the in the roll call, remember Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck sexton, Michael Buck. I'm afraid of
Speaker 1: the economic strain that closing the border will create, and
Speaker 1: that it won't actually stop the asylum seekers from getting in.
Speaker 1: Is it possible Trump is threatening to close the border
Speaker 1: to get the media to port on the crisis, not
Speaker 1: saying he won't do it and that he's not justified
Speaker 1: to do it. I want Congress to act, but history
Speaker 1: and my cynical side doesn't think they will. I give
Speaker 1: Trump credit for trying to get Congress to act, we
Speaker 1: need to point out that it is really Congress's responsibility
Speaker 1: and the Republicans need to step the hell up and
Speaker 1: back Trump's play shields high. Michael. It is Congress's responsibility,
Speaker 1: but we know they're not going to do anything about it,
Speaker 1: and they won't be held accountable. And one of the
Speaker 1: problems of Congress is that their collective responsibility, and they
Speaker 1: like it that way. That's why they don't like to
Speaker 1: take tough votes. Their collective responsibility is essentially a shield
Speaker 1: against meaningful criticism. So that's something that we have to
Speaker 1: deal with as a society and look at more thoroughly
Speaker 1: in our political system. At lease, Hey, Buck, I was
Speaker 1: just listening to you live from El Paso. I really
Speaker 1: hope you'll post some of your findings. People need to
Speaker 1: know what is really going onto the boarder. Well, at
Speaker 1: least I wrote at The Hill dot com last week.
Speaker 1: If you type in Buck Sexton and the Hill dot com,
Speaker 1: I wrote last week on the border what I saw
Speaker 1: down there. As of now, I should be joining Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson tomorrow night during the eight pm Eastern hour on
Speaker 1: Fox News to talk about what I saw at the border,
Speaker 1: which I think will be a very interesting discussion. Now
Speaker 1: that might change based on the news, so I'll let
Speaker 1: you know tomorrow if that gets canceled. That often happens
Speaker 1: in the news cycle, And I think I may be
Speaker 1: doing Fox and Friends this weekend as well, also on
Speaker 1: the border, so there'll be some opportunities to be to
Speaker 1: get the word out even beyond the Hill and on
Speaker 1: this show, which I appreciate. But the long and the
Speaker 1: short of it is, the border is worse right now
Speaker 1: then it has been probably ever. The border is the
Speaker 1: worse right now it's ever been. If you are somebody
Speaker 1: who does not want illegal entry to happen in the
Speaker 1: United States, if you do not believe that people should
Speaker 1: be able to game the system and stay in the
Speaker 1: US in death, definitely, most likely forever, the border is
Speaker 1: worse than it has ever been. And this is happening
Speaker 1: under a president who ran on completely changing the game
Speaker 1: and finally doing something about the border. So I would
Speaker 1: be lying to you if I didn't say this is disheartening.
Speaker 1: It is disheartening. And I know the President Trump is
Speaker 1: very focused in on this. I know that he is
Speaker 1: trying to find some way to take action, but it
Speaker 1: may be beyond his control right now. And if it
Speaker 1: falls into Congress's lap, we know the Democrats are simply
Speaker 1: not going to be helpful on this. They just have
Speaker 1: no interest in stopping the flow of illegal migrants into
Speaker 1: the country. This has become a central political platform for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. I mean, this is something that really really
Speaker 1: matters to them, that they view that they view their
Speaker 1: party as the champions of immigration and immigration in particular
Speaker 1: from what are predominantly non white countries, because they believe
Speaker 1: that the American people owe the developing world, which is
Speaker 1: generally speaking the developing world as non white majority countries,
Speaker 1: we owe them, and therefore this is payback. This is
Speaker 1: kind of like a global version of reparations. You know,
Speaker 1: the whole world should be able to come into America
Speaker 1: because of the rapaciousness of American capitalism and imperialism. It's
Speaker 1: a crazy ideology they've got, at least, but unfortunately it's
Speaker 1: the one they've got. Tomorrow, We're gonna have a freestyle Fried.
Speaker 1: They might have some friends join in on the show
Speaker 1: just to mix it up, so we'll see how that goes.
Speaker 1: But you know the show is going to be awesome.
Speaker 1: Please do share it with a friend this weekend. How
Speaker 1: about an early Christmas present for mister buck Sex and
Speaker 1: get one friend of yours to download the show. That
Speaker 1: is my biggest favor I can ask if you get
Speaker 1: one person download this radio show and then after it's
Speaker 1: be like, is this not the smartest, most well informed
Speaker 1: radio show or podcast you have heard? And if they
Speaker 1: say yes, then I want to hear about it. If
Speaker 1: they say no, well then let's pretend that it didn't happen.
Speaker 1: But at least get them to listen to it one time.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it for today's show team. Excited to
Speaker 1: talk to you tomorrow, same time, same place. She'll tie