Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Federal prosecutors are charging
Speaker 1: dozens of people with a massive college admission scheme to cheat.
Speaker 1: Oh my, this is going to be pretty incredible. We
Speaker 1: get into the details, folks. You want to hear about this?
Speaker 1: What does it say about the elites in our society
Speaker 1: and the so called meritocracy of the university? Who got
Speaker 1: that for you? Plus the border, the damn's love of socialism,
Speaker 1: and so much more coming up on The buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Mag no mistake, America. You're a great American Again the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy? Did buck Sexton? Now?
Speaker 1: A central defendant in the scheme, WILLIAMS. Singer will plead
Speaker 1: guilty today to charges of racketeering, conspiracy, money laundering, conspiracy,
Speaker 1: conspiracy to defraud the United States, and obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: Between roughly twenty eleven and twenty eighteen, wealthy parents paid
Speaker 1: Singer about twenty five million dollars in total to guarantee
Speaker 1: their children's admission to elite schools, including Yale, Georgetown, Stanford,
Speaker 1: the University of Southern California, the University of Texas UCLA,
Speaker 1: and Wake Forest. Beyond enriching himself, Singer used that money
Speaker 1: to bribe college officials, Division one coaches, college exam administrators,
Speaker 1: all to secure admission for the children of his clients,
Speaker 1: not on their merits, but through fraud. Singers Foundation purported
Speaker 1: to be a charitable organization, but was actually a front
Speaker 1: Singer used to launder the money that parents paid him,
Speaker 1: of which you would then take a portion and dole
Speaker 1: it out his bribes. Two coaches and others. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton show Man. I love it when we
Speaker 1: get a story that we can really sink our teeth
Speaker 1: into that is not Russia COLLUSI. It is not one
Speaker 1: of these things that we've been covering, you know, day
Speaker 1: in and day out for a couple of years now,
Speaker 1: and this is one of them. This is pretty incredible stuff,
Speaker 1: and there's some important lessons to take from all this,
Speaker 1: just just to give you a sense we're talking about here.
Speaker 1: So college admissions, as we know, are hyper competitive. Those
Speaker 1: of you who have kids, you know these days, and
Speaker 1: I don't have kids, so I gotta take your word
Speaker 1: for it. But now these days it's like you're you're
Speaker 1: getting them out of diapers and already you got to
Speaker 1: think about like, oh are they going to prep for
Speaker 1: the SATs? You know, it's just turned into this arms
Speaker 1: race and it's out of control. And let me just
Speaker 1: say to you that from what I have now seen
Speaker 1: from I can't speak really as much of the generation
Speaker 1: above me. I think that the credentialing system of the university,
Speaker 1: which is all it is the university now, is a
Speaker 1: credentialing system. It doesn't there is no guarantee of your
Speaker 1: level of education. Where you go to school does not
Speaker 1: mean you are smart, does not mean that you have
Speaker 1: some great background that anything. I have personal and professional
Speaker 1: experience with brilliant people who went to community college or
Speaker 1: went to no college. And I have personal and professional
Speaker 1: experience with people who went to Harvard, Princeton, Stanford, Gale,
Speaker 1: you name it, who were pompous idiots. So it's a
Speaker 1: credentialing system because it's all we got, really, But when
Speaker 1: you dig into it a little more, what you find
Speaker 1: out is that it is imperfect at best, way beyond imperfect.
Speaker 1: And that's when you look at legacy admissions, affirmative action admissions,
Speaker 1: college athletics recruiting. You know, there's all these different ways
Speaker 1: people get in being the best oboist in Northern Alaska.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's a lot of ways that you can
Speaker 1: get into these schools, and a lot of them that
Speaker 1: do not involve being what you would think of as
Speaker 1: the most academically capable. And remember, and don't even get
Speaker 1: me started on this whole world. We need to have
Speaker 1: athletic recruiting. Why these aren't minor league sports teams? Who cares?
Speaker 1: These are educational facilities. I mean, when you think about
Speaker 1: all the money and all the stuff that's going into
Speaker 1: the and I know people love their college sports, but
Speaker 1: they should be treated as minor league minor league team
Speaker 1: and people should get paid. But we'll get into that
Speaker 1: discussion another time. So let's get into this though, this
Speaker 1: massive fraud that involves that's right. An actress that I
Speaker 1: have a certain fondness for Laurie Laughlin from Full House.
Speaker 1: She is among one of those charge those of you
Speaker 1: who around my age. I don't care what you say
Speaker 1: you've seen full House, all right, actresses Felicity Huffman of
Speaker 1: Desperate Housewives, I can honestly say I have never seen
Speaker 1: a full episode of that show. I have seen clips,
Speaker 1: I've never watched a full episode. I do not have
Speaker 1: to turn into my man. Card and Lori Laughlin from
Speaker 1: Full House, they are among those who are charged. It's
Speaker 1: a twenty five million dollar fraud where people were finding
Speaker 1: ways to cheat to get their kids into college. Now,
Speaker 1: the ways that they cheated were pretty amazing. Aunt Becky
Speaker 1: from Full House, that's Lory Laughlin paid five hundred thousand
Speaker 1: dollars in bribes, according to this indictment, and created fake
Speaker 1: photos of their daughter as a rowing competitive crew star
Speaker 1: to get into USC. First of all, I mean, I
Speaker 1: didn't know that it it was that competitive to get into USC.
Speaker 1: And I'm not trying to be a jerk. I just
Speaker 1: five hundred grand seems like a lot. But beyond that,
Speaker 1: I rode crew. So I just think it's funny that
Speaker 1: somebody is photo shopping. I mean, this was this was
Speaker 1: a an intentional fraud, photo shopping their kids so that
Speaker 1: they can get into school. I mean, this would be
Speaker 1: like me saying I'm in a world class climber and
Speaker 1: just photoshopping a photo of buck with the swoop. Probably
Speaker 1: have to put a helmet on there, you know, at
Speaker 1: the top of kill him and Jaro or something. And yeah,
Speaker 1: producer Mike is like five hundred k. The kid must
Speaker 1: have not been so bright because that's a high price
Speaker 1: for for usc. But you know, all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: I m a climber and kill him and jar I
Speaker 1: mean you you really have to look at some of
Speaker 1: the stuff that these people were doing. It's amazing. There
Speaker 1: was a coach women's soccer coach at Yale. It took
Speaker 1: four hundred thousand dollars because one of the scams was
Speaker 1: to pay off a coach. I mean, this is all
Speaker 1: a big A lot of it was bribery. Some of
Speaker 1: it was cheating on test taking and but but a
Speaker 1: lot of it was bribery driven. So this one, you know,
Speaker 1: this this one coaching group, this one person that was
Speaker 1: at the heart of all this, the operation. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: paid admission test administrators and so people would change the
Speaker 1: scores they got. Oh I didn't get a twelve hundred,
Speaker 1: I got a fifteen fifty on the SAT. They would say, right,
Speaker 1: that's pretty easy. It's changed the number. It's just cook
Speaker 1: the books. They would pay students to take the test
Speaker 1: for somebody else. That's another scam that they've pulled. But
Speaker 1: some of my favorites involved the coaches, because all the
Speaker 1: coach has to do is say, oh, this is a
Speaker 1: I want to recruit this person for an athletic team,
Speaker 1: and that depending on the sport, like women soccer at Yale.
Speaker 1: It's probably not enough to just wave you in, but
Speaker 1: it's going to help a lot. Coach took four hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars for that. Now, you know, you look at
Speaker 1: this and you say to yourself. First of all, people
Speaker 1: really want their kids to get Oh. Another one, they
Speaker 1: really want their kids to get in the school. But
Speaker 1: a media executive from Nevada allegedly created a a photo
Speaker 1: of her son as a pole vaulting champion to get
Speaker 1: him into USC. I mean, this is amazing. Yes, my
Speaker 1: son is a world champion pole vaulter and really wants
Speaker 1: to go to USC. Meanwhile, the kids never pole vaulted
Speaker 1: in his life. Another one. It has to do with
Speaker 1: phony learning disabilities. Oh and my friends, I can tell
Speaker 1: you from New York City this was rampant when I
Speaker 1: was in high school, absolutely rampant. I knew so many
Speaker 1: people who were pino good ish students, mediocre to good
Speaker 1: students at private schools in New York City in high
Speaker 1: school where you know, the arms race to get into
Speaker 1: an IVY or something like an IVY was just this
Speaker 1: was existential for people. I have to get into an
Speaker 1: IVY except Cornell because Cornell's an IVY. But it doesn't
Speaker 1: really count. WHOA take that one. And I know the
Speaker 1: Cornell people, they always come at me and they call,
Speaker 1: you know, come at me. I know. I know. Amerst
Speaker 1: isn't good. Amerst isn't as good as Williams. See, we
Speaker 1: can all play these games. But they set up these
Speaker 1: fake learning disabilities so they would have untimed testing and
Speaker 1: then also have other provisions made for them. But here's
Speaker 1: the beauty of the untimed testing system for people with
Speaker 1: fake and those of you who have real learning disabilities.
Speaker 1: I'm not talking about you and I and you're listening
Speaker 1: right now to a nationally syndicated radio host who was
Speaker 1: bottom of his class in grammar school until about the
Speaker 1: fifth or sixth grade and had had a speech impediment.
Speaker 1: So trust me, I need an additional work, additional help.
Speaker 1: I needed, you know, after school tutoring. I needed speech therapy.
Speaker 1: So I'm all for making sure that everybody gets their
Speaker 1: fullest chance and that. But I'm talking with people that
Speaker 1: are faking again. I mean, imagine if I was going
Speaker 1: around as a little kid pretending to have a speech
Speaker 1: impediment so that I get out of certain classes. That's
Speaker 1: what these people are doing. And we're talking about millions
Speaker 1: and millions of dollars. Now do I really care about
Speaker 1: any of this in the sense that shouldn't even really
Speaker 1: go to prison for this? I mean, it is a fraud,
Speaker 1: But you're defrauding college admissions processes? Is that a criminal act?
Speaker 1: You know? If I submit a resume that's embellished for
Speaker 1: a job and I get that job and I'm doing
Speaker 1: the job pretty well, do they have the right to
Speaker 1: throw me in prison because I lie to get the job.
Speaker 1: You know, I do have a level of discomfort with that,
Speaker 1: because some of these people are facing like really serious
Speaker 1: federal charges conspiracy, fraud. But the bigger takeaway from all
Speaker 1: of this, The bigger takeaway from all this is that
Speaker 1: one our our society is just far too obsessed with
Speaker 1: the brand names of these schools and all of that.
Speaker 1: Right that we need to stop thinking that where you
Speaker 1: go to college determinents. First of all, even people that
Speaker 1: go to fancy schools will tell you that where you
Speaker 1: go to grad school, it's much more important where you're
Speaker 1: going to undergrad anyway, and that a lot of people
Speaker 1: should think much more about going to a solid state
Speaker 1: school program for undergrad and then go for if they
Speaker 1: want to get that next credential. You know, you really
Speaker 1: want to shoot for the stars for grad school. But
Speaker 1: even that, people taking a lot of debt. And I
Speaker 1: speak to with somebody who is in the media, one
Speaker 1: because I love it, but I'm not part of me
Speaker 1: is also I just didn't want to take on a
Speaker 1: couple of hundred thousand dollars a loans to go to
Speaker 1: business school. I want to do that. I want to
Speaker 1: get paid, i want to work. I want to grow
Speaker 1: as as an employee and as a as a professional person.
Speaker 1: I'm not looking to take on a lot of debt
Speaker 1: because I wasn't really show it anyway. So on the
Speaker 1: one hand, we need to just stop this. And you
Speaker 1: know that I've been saying this for a long time.
Speaker 1: This is not new. But the obsession with brand value
Speaker 1: in these schools, it's just too much because it's not
Speaker 1: even true. I mean, there are people who buy their
Speaker 1: way and this is what you're seeing here. They buy
Speaker 1: their way into these schools. They get in because of
Speaker 1: affirmative action rules, because of legacy rules. Although no one
Speaker 1: ever likes to hear this, the legacy admits generally have
Speaker 1: near the same SAT scores as the overall admitted class.
Speaker 1: They just get a nod. People don't like to hear
Speaker 1: that because they like to think that, oh, that's what
Speaker 1: the you know, the the affluent, you know, the rich kids,
Speaker 1: that's their version of affirmative action. You always hear kind
Speaker 1: of not really, I'm not saying the legacy is okay,
Speaker 1: but at least that's more transactional. Speaking of transactional, also
Speaker 1: to the point about this not being that criminal, I
Speaker 1: gotta say, you know that you can get into it.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many of you know this or not.
Speaker 1: I know this because I knew people that their families
Speaker 1: did this for them. You can write a check and
Speaker 1: get into Harvard. This is well understood, and it costs
Speaker 1: you think a few million dollars essentially, but you do
Speaker 1: it through the Advancement Office. You do it in a
Speaker 1: way that it's a gentlemanly bribe. Really, what's happened here
Speaker 1: is the colleges have been cut out of it, and
Speaker 1: other people are getting you know, the athletic coach has
Speaker 1: taken the cut instead of the advancement office and then
Speaker 1: putting your name on some room of a library right
Speaker 1: for four or five million bucks. I mean you could
Speaker 1: have You could send an illiterate to Harvard if you've
Speaker 1: got a big enough checkbook. It's true, it's true. But
Speaker 1: then there's the part of this I think you're really
Speaker 1: you all see this too, and you know where I'm going.
Speaker 1: The whole notion we have in this country that we
Speaker 1: should be taking orders from and listening to this cast
Speaker 1: of elites, and that their elitism comes from this credentialing system.
Speaker 1: This has been called into question for a while, but
Speaker 1: now we really see that they're not as special as
Speaker 1: they think they are. They're not as amazing, brilliant, wise
Speaker 1: worthy as we were all led to believe. In fact,
Speaker 1: I think one of the greatest destabilizing factors in the
Speaker 1: developed world right now, in the first world in the West,
Speaker 1: is that because of the Internet and our instantaneous exposure
Speaker 1: to the thoughts and acts and ideas of each other,
Speaker 1: which can come with some certainly some drawbacks, we now
Speaker 1: see that these are not This isn't some cast of
Speaker 1: elites that should be running the country. That every individual
Speaker 1: should be judged on his or her merits, not where
Speaker 1: where they went to school, what names are associated with them.
Speaker 1: That's not who we want to be making our decisions,
Speaker 1: and that the elites are not nearly as skillful and adept,
Speaker 1: not just at running this country, but at driving our culture,
Speaker 1: at being involved in the most important ways, in those
Speaker 1: aspects of life that we all have to live by
Speaker 1: without getting a say in. Really, so the whole system
Speaker 1: is up for question right now. The whole system is
Speaker 1: up for debate. And I know that this is just
Speaker 1: one case of this fraud, but I assure you this
Speaker 1: is not the only one. And in many ways this
Speaker 1: has been going on for a long time, and yet
Speaker 1: we are all still supposed to bow. Oh, you have
Speaker 1: a PhD in you know, women's in gender studies from Yale.
Speaker 1: You must be really smart. No, no, not true. And
Speaker 1: I definitely don't want you to just run the country
Speaker 1: because of that. Maybe you're smart, maybe you're not. Kind
Speaker 1: of all depends. I've got some more details on this
Speaker 1: and much more coming up. Team stay with me, So
Speaker 1: you know, you look at so many of the people
Speaker 1: that are at the upper echelons of government, and in
Speaker 1: increasingly it's been the case in finance for a while,
Speaker 1: and you see that there are all these people that
Speaker 1: they're big claim to fame is where they went to school.
Speaker 1: This is where I also get to say, and this
Speaker 1: is never popular, but you know, for the boomers out there,
Speaker 1: getting into Harvard today is statistically about ten times harder
Speaker 1: I think than getting into Harvard in the nineteen sixties,
Speaker 1: just in terms of the numbers of applications and the
Speaker 1: overall percentages, both the testing percentages and the percentages of
Speaker 1: those who get in. So these now have become this
Speaker 1: is all a globalized marketplace. Our schools are a global commodity.
Speaker 1: People from Shanghai and people from you know, Dhaka want
Speaker 1: to go to Harvard in Stanford and Yale and apparently USC.
Speaker 1: I know, I'm I'm gonna get some USC. I'm just kidding.
Speaker 1: USC is great. It's great school. I know. Although it
Speaker 1: was funny, I can't, I cannot tell a lie. There
Speaker 1: was a whole thing about how the federal government, in
Speaker 1: this indictment laid out, you know, in order to you know,
Speaker 1: because they will establish the different players in the indictment.
Speaker 1: And they had this listing of all the schools and
Speaker 1: it was, you know, Stanford University, a very selective private university,
Speaker 1: Yale University a very select or, highly selective private university,
Speaker 1: Georgetown University, a highly selective private university. USC a private university.
Speaker 1: That actually happened in the Actually, oh no, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: It wasn't USC. I'm sorry, USC. I'm messing with you
Speaker 1: too much. It was you. You see, San Diego was
Speaker 1: the one that I think got got the got dunked
Speaker 1: on accidentally by the federal government. UC San Diego all College.
Speaker 1: That's what they That's what they said. It was pretty funny.
Speaker 1: They didn't meet it that way. They didn't mean it
Speaker 1: that way, I'm sure, but it was. It was pretty amusing.
Speaker 1: But this is this is forcing a very necessary conversation
Speaker 1: about you know, we need to stop thinking that these
Speaker 1: schools are producing the leaders of the future and all
Speaker 1: this stuff, that there's this elitism and sorting that goes
Speaker 1: on at the top universities has become almost fetishized by
Speaker 1: our system. And I don't know what. I can't tell
Speaker 1: you what it means to go to one of these
Speaker 1: schools that all these people were paying millions of dollars.
Speaker 1: Lots of people that go to them don't have very
Speaker 1: successful careers and don't end up being very happy, and
Speaker 1: plenty of people that don't go to fancy schools or
Speaker 1: college at all end up being very happy and doing great.
Speaker 1: So it is always up to the individual. But this
Speaker 1: just goes to show you how competitive and out of
Speaker 1: whack the system is. Right now, he's holding the line
Speaker 1: for America. Buck Sexton is back. The central and most
Speaker 1: serious question in this investigation, the reason Robert Mueller started it,
Speaker 1: is did the current president of the United States assist
Speaker 1: the Kremlin in an attack on our democracy? And if
Speaker 1: Mueller after two years, comes back and says I don't
Speaker 1: have the evidence to support that charge, that's a reckoning.
Speaker 1: That's a reckoning for progressives and Democrats who hope that
Speaker 1: Muller would essentially erase the twenty sixteen election. It's a
Speaker 1: reckoning for the media. It's a reckoning around the country if,
Speaker 1: in fact, after all this time, there was no collusion. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a reckoning, your darn right, it is. So I'm
Speaker 1: hearing that there's a little bit of a delay from
Speaker 1: the DOJ in finalizing the Muller report has to do
Speaker 1: with a senior DJ employee who doesn't want to They
Speaker 1: want to wait till he's gone to release the report,
Speaker 1: but they don't want to He doesn't want to leave
Speaker 1: until the report's been released. So there's a little bit
Speaker 1: of a chicken and egg issue here with when this
Speaker 1: thing's going to come out, because some of the people
Speaker 1: at the DJ are not gonna look so good with
Speaker 1: all of this. But I want to tell you, the
Speaker 1: more I thought about it after our show yesterday, the
Speaker 1: more clear it is to me that I think they're
Speaker 1: going to impeach Trump. I'm sorry, I'm not buying this.
Speaker 1: Oh no, we're not going to peach him. I think
Speaker 1: this is a head fake. And let me tell you why.
Speaker 1: They have been telling us the president is a traitor.
Speaker 1: They have been telling us the president is a racist,
Speaker 1: who supports neo Nazis, who supports white nationalists, who has
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted dozens of women. I mean, they have so
Speaker 1: many horrific allegations against this president that is it is
Speaker 1: truly hard to keep track of them. It's hard to understand,
Speaker 1: you know, it's hard to remember all of them at
Speaker 1: any given time, and now now they're going to say
Speaker 1: that they want to be reasonable. No, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: They just don't want to be accused of verdict first
Speaker 1: trial later. They don't want it to be obvious from
Speaker 1: their own statements that they've been ready to take down
Speaker 1: Trump all along. And I have some voices to add
Speaker 1: into the mix here to that end, and that and
Speaker 1: that essentially what it would tell us if the Mulla
Speaker 1: report comes out doesn't have anything and they impeach him,
Speaker 1: and we know they're going to impeach him without finding
Speaker 1: anything new already and their other investigations, it just means
Speaker 1: that they were always going to impeach him, which doesn't
Speaker 1: look good for them. It does not look like they
Speaker 1: are being honest, which they are not. Obviously they're a
Speaker 1: bunch of lying lunatics. But it makes it too clear
Speaker 1: they're not being honest in this whole process. And that's
Speaker 1: where I think you should That's where our friend Andy
Speaker 1: McCarthy comes in play five Pelosi to carry the message
Speaker 1: to the public that no, no, no, we're not here
Speaker 1: just to impeach Trump. While that's going on under the
Speaker 1: radar Madler's Committee and Shift's committee will go about the
Speaker 1: business of trying to dig into anything that could conceivably,
Speaker 1: in their minds be a high crime and misdemeanor. Yeah,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, you've got Pelosi saying, oh, no,
Speaker 1: there's not going to be there's not going to be impeachment,
Speaker 1: and we're not going to go through that process even
Speaker 1: though we could. But yet you have all these other
Speaker 1: investigations going on. So this is just disingenuous. I mean,
Speaker 1: it is very obvious what's going on here. They're trying
Speaker 1: to one hedge their bets because what if they really
Speaker 1: don't get anything at all from these other investigations. And two,
Speaker 1: they have to make it seem like they are respecting
Speaker 1: the process and going through the process and not just
Speaker 1: jumping to the conclusion that they want at the end
Speaker 1: of the process. They have to make it seem like
Speaker 1: this is a real investigation and not just a political
Speaker 1: which hunt, which is what it has been all along.
Speaker 1: And that's where Maxine Waters, for example, is, let's just say,
Speaker 1: to be kind too straightforward in how she views this
Speaker 1: to I think tell the party line correctly, and she
Speaker 1: says that they're already there with what they need to get.
Speaker 1: Trump play for but I believe that we have everything
Speaker 1: that it needs to basically impeach him. Yeah, I believe that,
Speaker 1: and you're absolutely right. We're depending on mister Muller, depending
Speaker 1: on mister Mueller. But where we have everything we need
Speaker 1: to impeach him, well, which is it? I need to
Speaker 1: know which one of those things? Is what the Democrats
Speaker 1: are actually saying here, Because if they have everything they
Speaker 1: need them, then they're not depending on mister Muller, that's
Speaker 1: pretty clear. But if they're waiting for Muller's report, that
Speaker 1: means that they should respect the end result of the
Speaker 1: Muller report if there is nothing to nothing to go
Speaker 1: on for impeachment purposes, which I think everyone is pretty
Speaker 1: much now expecting. And I just think it's amazing. There's
Speaker 1: this whole industry of people the last two years on TV,
Speaker 1: not so much on radio because thank Hevin's Conservative still
Speaker 1: are dominant in radio, but on TV and the newspapers
Speaker 1: and books too, people have written whole books on collusion
Speaker 1: saying that you know that there was collusion, and how
Speaker 1: do you write a book on a fantasy but call
Speaker 1: it nonfiction? Well, what happens to their credibility? When do
Speaker 1: we have a full accounting, and I would say a reckoning.
Speaker 1: And ABC's Terry Moran at the start of the segment
Speaker 1: called that are reckoning for all of the falsehoods, all
Speaker 1: the lies, and the real damage that has been done
Speaker 1: to our faith in the government institution. That everyone who
Speaker 1: says our institutions are being undermined by Trump. No, No,
Speaker 1: they've been really undermined by the anti Trump resistance. I
Speaker 1: mean the anti Trump left. When it comes to Trump
Speaker 1: decided to burn the village down to save it. That's
Speaker 1: what they've done to the DOJ, to our federal government.
Speaker 1: They have gone scorched earth. And now they're going to
Speaker 1: have a turn and look and realize that, no, they
Speaker 1: didn't save anything. So they're they're looking to establish the
Speaker 1: new narrative here and that's where that's where the hesitation
Speaker 1: on pulling the trigger on impeachment comes from. They have
Speaker 1: to make it seem like they have not entirely made
Speaker 1: up their minds. But I'm here to tell you that
Speaker 1: they have made up their minds. I really do believe
Speaker 1: that they will impeach this president, and I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be on the Stormy Daniels payoff. I really do.
Speaker 1: They're going to say that that's a campaign finance violation,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna they're gonna go with it, and they'll
Speaker 1: throw in some other stuff too. But that's that's the
Speaker 1: way I see this playing out, that the left is
Speaker 1: too crazy to be saying on this issue. That's where
Speaker 1: I come down. We'll see if I'm right, but I
Speaker 1: think they're too crazy to be seen. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: It all is part of the Trump derangement syndrome, which
Speaker 1: has replaced policy making in the hearts and souls of
Speaker 1: most of the Democrats, and that's the problem that they have.
Speaker 1: I think this explains xanrear kaisil Cortez's statements that she
Speaker 1: has made, and half the Democrats are making these statements
Speaker 1: as well. But what really is troubling now, though, is
Speaker 1: how socialism has found a happy home inside a major
Speaker 1: American political party's leadership and it has become the dog
Speaker 1: wagging the tail. That's the problem. The Democrats have the
Speaker 1: hatred for Trump, the ideology, and if anything's going to
Speaker 1: boost the president as reelection, it's going to be the
Speaker 1: Democrats more than anything. This is the counter argument to
Speaker 1: whether or not they will impeach, that the obvious and
Speaker 1: unrestrained hatred of the Democrats as the primary animating force
Speaker 1: of their twenty twenty hopes right, essentially Trump hatred. He's
Speaker 1: going to be what the party is first and foremost
Speaker 1: interested in, right that that's really what That's what they're
Speaker 1: going to be selling, is that they hate Trump. That
Speaker 1: makes the base. I think that makes and I shouldn't
Speaker 1: say the base, that just makes everyone who voted for
Speaker 1: Trump think these other people are not serious. Trump has
Speaker 1: been imperfect. Trump has gotten into fights publicly that I
Speaker 1: don't think he needed to, and that we're unwise. He
Speaker 1: has surrounded himself with very sketchy people at very key
Speaker 1: and very key positions. There's no there's no question about this.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is just what's happened. And
Speaker 1: we can talk about why that's happened another time, but
Speaker 1: that is what has happened with the Trump administration. But
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of good The policies of the
Speaker 1: administration on deregulation, tax cuts, the major policies the administration
Speaker 1: and these things are on point. I think he's doing
Speaker 1: a good job and I'm I am thankful, and we
Speaker 1: have to remember this. I'm thankful every day that we
Speaker 1: have a President Trump instead of President Hillary Clinton. I
Speaker 1: couldn't be in this town. I couldn't live in DC
Speaker 1: under a Clinton administration, under a Hillary Clinton administrator, any
Speaker 1: Clinton administration for that matter, right, I just couldn't do it.
Speaker 1: I could not be in a position where I sit
Speaker 1: around and have to hear from all these different people
Speaker 1: about how how great she is and how amazing she is,
Speaker 1: when all we all know that it's a fraud, that
Speaker 1: it's a lot that she's one. She's a fantastic example hollow.
Speaker 1: Hillary is a perfect example of someone who has created
Speaker 1: this resume and this these has all these credentials for
Speaker 1: herself that when you really look at it, none of
Speaker 1: it is impressive. It's just all branding. You know, the schools,
Speaker 1: the where she work, the what she's done, it's it's
Speaker 1: all an effort to build a brand. But there's really
Speaker 1: a lot of poor judgment, ethical failings, incompetence. Look at
Speaker 1: the rollout of Hillary Care back in the nineties, and
Speaker 1: this is not somebody who's good at things and has
Speaker 1: skill and expertise in anything other than the promotion of
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton. That's really what her Hillary Clinton's career is
Speaker 1: the self promotion of Hillary Clinton. So she is a Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, she went to Yale Law School, and she
Speaker 1: went to Wellsey before that, and you know, people will
Speaker 1: try to make this case that, Oh and and she
Speaker 1: was a senator and a secretary of State. Well, she
Speaker 1: was only a senator because of who her husband was.
Speaker 1: We all know this. She's moved to New York and
Speaker 1: ran for senator in one and she was only a
Speaker 1: secretary of State because she had been a senator beforehand,
Speaker 1: because of her husband is, because of her last name,
Speaker 1: and because Obama figured that a good way to deal
Speaker 1: with the rival the rivals in the Clinton administration or
Speaker 1: would be Clinton administration, was to co opt her as
Speaker 1: a Secretary of State. It made sense at the time
Speaker 1: for him, but these are almost for her. It's largely
Speaker 1: just a function of being pushed along because of the
Speaker 1: dynastic nature of politics we have right now, which I
Speaker 1: find really annoying and I wish we could get away
Speaker 1: from this, but it's becoming so entrenched that now when
Speaker 1: you when you criticize that politics in this country should
Speaker 1: not be a family business, that people should not just say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: you know, my dad was the governor of such and such.
Speaker 1: So now I'm this, you know, important thing or that
Speaker 1: important thing. You run up into this power structure where
Speaker 1: where people will you know, they'll they'll come at you
Speaker 1: on this because more and more we see that they're
Speaker 1: just famous last names that pop up in politics. And
Speaker 1: when you say things like nepotism is bad and senator
Speaker 1: or president should not be an inherited position in any way,
Speaker 1: you're starting to find that that's an unpopular point of
Speaker 1: view in the corridors of power, which as another disconcerting,
Speaker 1: disconcerting thing that is that is going on, to be sure,
Speaker 1: but all along, you know, the Trump derangement first approach
Speaker 1: of the Democrats, I do think is going to be
Speaker 1: a useful thing for Trump's reelection prospects. I think that
Speaker 1: the hatred of the Democrats because they can't control it.
Speaker 1: You know, they'd like to think that they'll make whyse decisions,
Speaker 1: wise choices on all of this, but really they're going
Speaker 1: to have to deal with the pink hat wearing, you know,
Speaker 1: science and women's march, Antifa loving, lunatic left. There are
Speaker 1: going to be a lot of these different groups that
Speaker 1: will demand in order for them to be the little
Speaker 1: grassroots army of whoever the Democrat candidate's going to be.
Speaker 1: They're going to demand that there is vengeance against Trump
Speaker 1: for all that he's done. Now, there is just one
Speaker 1: little thought exprimer, What has Trump done? Let's really think
Speaker 1: of this for a second. Other than poking the media
Speaker 1: and the eye, which is one of my favorite things
Speaker 1: that he's done because it was necessary and really only
Speaker 1: he could do it the way that he has, what
Speaker 1: has Trump done that justifies this derangement? You know that
Speaker 1: they made such a big deal. They made such a
Speaker 1: big deal about the Muslim ban, for example, which is
Speaker 1: not a Muslim ban, it's a few Muslim countries. It's
Speaker 1: you know, they made a big deal about the Muslim ban. Okay, um,
Speaker 1: well what exactly has resulted from that? Why aren't they
Speaker 1: still so upset about that? I mean, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: said it's it's legal, so we know that they were
Speaker 1: wrong about that, But well, why why have they just
Speaker 1: forgotten about this? Because who does? It really affect very
Speaker 1: few people and it has not been some big deal.
Speaker 1: You know, you go down the list of things that
Speaker 1: they've been so angry about, and you say to yourself,
Speaker 1: would any reasonable person respond the way the left has
Speaker 1: responded in these cases, with just such a level of
Speaker 1: insane fury and hatred. What what? What has Trump done?
Speaker 1: That's Obamacare is still place. Yeah, the individual mandates not there,
Speaker 1: but Obamacare is still the law. The border is worse
Speaker 1: than it was under the Obama administration. It's just true.
Speaker 1: It's not really Trump's fault, but it's true. The border
Speaker 1: is worse. We'll talk more about that in the next hour.
Speaker 1: You know, the economy is doing well, Yeah, okay, he
Speaker 1: gave tax cuts for corporations. Does that really get them
Speaker 1: so upset? What is it? When you look at it,
Speaker 1: It's really just that he challenges their sense. He challenges
Speaker 1: the left sense of their righteousness, and he is an
Speaker 1: impediment to their power. And that's all you have to be.
Speaker 1: You just have to stand in the way of the left.
Speaker 1: You don't have to be an odious person. You don't
Speaker 1: have to be evil or mean or pushing policies that
Speaker 1: they think are particularly problematic in one way or another.
Speaker 1: You just have to be in the way and they
Speaker 1: will want to destroy you. So that's where the Trump
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome really comes from. It's yeah, I mean Trump
Speaker 1: is that particularly difficult for them. It's they just can't
Speaker 1: handle that Trump is who he is and has gotten
Speaker 1: away with what he's gotten away with, and that they
Speaker 1: threw everything at him that they could and have not
Speaker 1: been able to take this guy down. And in that sense,
Speaker 1: he's kind of a beacon of hope to the rest
Speaker 1: of us. I really mean it. You know, if Trump
Speaker 1: can take everything, the left has a special Council probe
Speaker 1: all you know, the exposes the Billy Bush tape, these complex,
Speaker 1: multi fascinated efforts to ruin and destroy him from a
Speaker 1: very powerful left wing apparatus in this country across media
Speaker 1: and politics and academia. And if they haven't been able
Speaker 1: to destroy him, maybe it's possible for us to win.
Speaker 1: Maybe the country doesn't have to be overtaken, especially the
Speaker 1: culture of the country, by the radical left. Maybe we
Speaker 1: don't have to accept that. Maybe it's not inevitable that
Speaker 1: they'll continue to be in control of what they have
Speaker 1: been in control of. You know, young people, we'll see
Speaker 1: the light. Earlier colleges won't be indoctrination factories for reflexive progressivism.
Speaker 1: Hollywood will start to make movies that inspire and that
Speaker 1: people enjoy instead of that preach and preen. Trump is
Speaker 1: at least hope that that could happen. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he'll be able to manage those things during his
Speaker 1: time in office, but at least we know that the
Speaker 1: left's ability to isolate and destroy any target they want.
Speaker 1: It's not one hundred percent because they have not been
Speaker 1: able to do it to Trump yet, and they have tried.
Speaker 1: Got a big hour or two coming up, immigration, the
Speaker 1: expansion of the voter pool. Part of that is through immigration.
Speaker 1: By the way, the Democrats plans for twenty twenty, how
Speaker 1: far left they've gone, and so much more. Team we
Speaker 1: have that in just a moment. Gotta get fired up
Speaker 1: every day. The best way to do it, my friends,
Speaker 1: is with a delicious cup or two of Black Rifle coffee.
Speaker 1: That is how I start my day every day. I
Speaker 1: reach for the most American coffee on the market, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee, which is absolutely delicious. And not only are
Speaker 1: you drinking great coffee when you drink Black Rifle, you
Speaker 1: also are supporting a company that is founded by veterans
Speaker 1: to the Special Operations community. These guys love freedom, they
Speaker 1: love America, and they're building a great American brand with roast.
Speaker 1: To order fresh delicious coffee, all you have to do
Speaker 1: is go to Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck. You'll
Speaker 1: get twenty percent off your order. That's right. While liberals
Speaker 1: are threatening to tax your hard earned money with their socialism,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle is fueling the fight for freedom by upping
Speaker 1: their offer to twenty percent off. Take advantage. Just go
Speaker 1: to Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and receive twenty
Speaker 1: percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: For twenty percent off Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: The focus needs to be on bringing more people to
Speaker 1: not driving them away, not throwing them off the voter rolls.
Speaker 1: We want them when they come here to be fully
Speaker 1: part of our system, and that means not suppressing the
Speaker 1: vote of our newcomers to America. Young people should also
Speaker 1: have a say and who represents them for your consideration.
Speaker 1: Amendment Number one to seven, which would lower the minimum
Speaker 1: voting age in federal elections from eighteen to sixteen years
Speaker 1: of age, restore voting rights to felon who pay their
Speaker 1: debt to society. We must help more Americans to participate
Speaker 1: in their democracy. We need to work to remove barriers
Speaker 1: to voting. You are seeing the left strategy here unfold
Speaker 1: in real time. You are seeing it day by day,
Speaker 1: and it is abundantly clear that the expansion of the
Speaker 1: voter pool is going to be a major push four
Speaker 1: Democrats in twenty one in real and in just rhetorical terms.
Speaker 1: Let me explain. They've moved far left as a party,
Speaker 1: no question about it. Democrats now don't argue with us
Speaker 1: about what the price of certain things should be. They
Speaker 1: want to buy something else Entirely. We are not fighting
Speaker 1: for the same future for this country. We have very
Speaker 1: different visions for what America looks like from from at
Speaker 1: least the far left. You know, it used to be
Speaker 1: that they just wanted, you know, more dollars spent on healthcare,
Speaker 1: and you know, they wanted the systems that we have
Speaker 1: to just grow. But now they're looking for I meaning
Speaker 1: the government systems. Now they're looking for fundamental transformation of
Speaker 1: the relationship between citizen and state under the rubric of
Speaker 1: climate change and with their open borders logic and all
Speaker 1: of these different hard left ideas coming together at one
Speaker 1: time socialism, they want a different country. They think they're
Speaker 1: fighting for a different country now. They're not trying to
Speaker 1: preserve and this is where you can see the breakdown
Speaker 1: between the left and conservatives. We are trying to conserve
Speaker 1: the country that we have based upon the wisdom of
Speaker 1: the past and the knowledge of what is reality in
Speaker 1: our presence. We're not trying to change the world based
Speaker 1: upon a fantasy, a fiction that we've created and have
Speaker 1: sold to enough people to give us power. That's what
Speaker 1: the left does. We say, here's what's happening. Here is
Speaker 1: the truth of this situation or that situation that the
Speaker 1: government has to handle and deal with, and how do
Speaker 1: we best, how do we best, if not solve it,
Speaker 1: at least address the problem or involve ourselves in this fight.
Speaker 1: But Democrats are saying, you know what, maybe we don't
Speaker 1: really do the focus on winning back Let's just say
Speaker 1: what it is. They don't think they can win back
Speaker 1: white we're class voters. With some of the candidates that
Speaker 1: they're putting forward, I do not believe. But they think
Speaker 1: that if they have Elizabeth Warren, for example, she will
Speaker 1: win back previous Obama voters who voted for Trump in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen in states like Pennsylvania and Wisconsin and others.
Speaker 1: I do not believe that they are confident in that.
Speaker 1: And so what are they doing now? They are trying
Speaker 1: to move They're trying to move the goalposts essentially on
Speaker 1: who's able to vote. And now they're trying to figure
Speaker 1: out who's able to vote and change who's able to vote.
Speaker 1: So oh yeah. By the way, Congressman Scott Perry, I
Speaker 1: saw him in DC and he listens to the show sometimes.
Speaker 1: I was very nice of him to say, speaking of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: shout out to Congress and Perry in his office, But
Speaker 1: he looked at the truth thing is, the Democrats feel
Speaker 1: like if they can just change who votes, and they
Speaker 1: can change who wins, and this is what they've been
Speaker 1: doing all along. They want to give felons and non
Speaker 1: citizens and sixteen year olds the right to vote. That's
Speaker 1: not going to make this a country with wiser decision making.
Speaker 1: Let's be clear about this. They don't want to give
Speaker 1: felons back all their rights. You know, they're not saying
Speaker 1: that felons should have gun rights, even for non look
Speaker 1: for violent felons. Yeah, I know. I'm all in agreement
Speaker 1: with you can own a gun if you're a violent felon.
Speaker 1: If you are somebody that was writing dad checks, I
Speaker 1: think you should be allowed to have a firearm. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that, you know, I don't think that
Speaker 1: you should be barred forever for somebody who you know,
Speaker 1: lied to the FBI about a white collar crime. I
Speaker 1: think you should be able to own a firearm. That
Speaker 1: doesn't that doesn't make you a dangerous society. But they
Speaker 1: know that, you know, it's it's not just who it's
Speaker 1: it's not just who counts the votes, but also who
Speaker 1: can vote. That they're very interested in, and winning over
Speaker 1: voters is something that is a little bit more complicated
Speaker 1: for them that they would rather just change the numbers.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at four million felons in Florida
Speaker 1: will be able to vote in the next election. And
Speaker 1: you've already seen the beginning of what I think is
Speaker 1: going to become a more mainstream position. And this I've
Speaker 1: been right on this stuff all along, folks. They are
Speaker 1: going to advocate for illegal aliens to begin to vote
Speaker 1: in local elections across the country, which it would just
Speaker 1: grows the power base of the Democrat left. And they
Speaker 1: also are going to want permanent residence screen card holders
Speaker 1: who cannot vote to be able to vote. They're going
Speaker 1: to try to expand the electorate dramatically, and even if
Speaker 1: they can't do it, you might say, buck, the Republicans
Speaker 1: will never go for that, and they would have to
Speaker 1: be legislation passed. Yeah, but this is where their party
Speaker 1: is headed, because it's all logical from their perspective. I mean,
Speaker 1: they operate from a place of illogic, but it makes
Speaker 1: sense to them. If they don't think there's anything wrong
Speaker 1: with being illegal in this country, if they want all
Speaker 1: the illegals to stay, if they don't think that illegals
Speaker 1: have done anything wrong, why shouldn't illegals be able to vote?
Speaker 1: You know, if there's no difference between somebody in the
Speaker 1: eyes of the Democrat Party right now, there should be
Speaker 1: no difference in the way that government treats somebody who
Speaker 1: just ran across the border from El Salvador, then you
Speaker 1: or I or anybody. I mean, I'm assuming a lot
Speaker 1: of you are listening were born here, and a lot
Speaker 1: of you probably weren't, but most of you were born here,
Speaker 1: You or I who are citizens of this country. The
Speaker 1: Democratic Party has no real preference for us over those
Speaker 1: who have just arrived illegally. Mind you, I'm not talking
Speaker 1: about legal immigrants. That's a different category. We could talk
Speaker 1: about that another time. They don't view illegal immigration as bad. Well,
Speaker 1: if you don't view legal immigration is bad. If in
Speaker 1: fact you want to encourage illegal immigration, why not extend
Speaker 1: more rights to them. The Hillary Clinton campaign website was
Speaker 1: openly advocating for the expansion of Obamacare access in the
Speaker 1: last election to illegal aliens. So they were saying, oh,
Speaker 1: they won't get subsidies, but they should be able to
Speaker 1: get healthcare on the exchanges. Once you get them in
Speaker 1: the exchanges, Who thinks that that there would be state
Speaker 1: action to make up the shortfall and essentially give them,
Speaker 1: give illegal aliens the same subsidies that you get anywhere else.
Speaker 1: You can never, never trust the Democrats to adhere to
Speaker 1: a principle. When there is power at stake, they will
Speaker 1: always find a way to maximize the benefit to them.
Speaker 1: They do not care. They do not care what rights,
Speaker 1: what processes, what history, what they will They will trample
Speaker 1: on all that with a smile, as long as it
Speaker 1: been if it's their political party. I mean, I can't
Speaker 1: think of the last time the Democrats voluntarily held themselves
Speaker 1: back because of oh, I don't know the constitution or
Speaker 1: the law. When they really wanted something. It's not something
Speaker 1: they tend to do. Expanding the voter pool though, this
Speaker 1: is going to be a big agenda item for them
Speaker 1: for twenty twenty. You wait and see, you're there's gonna
Speaker 1: be more noise about this one. Global Verification Network is
Speaker 1: the only dual certified veteran owned background investigation and vetting
Speaker 1: company for all of your background investigation needs. These are
Speaker 1: the people you should go to. They work with startup
Speaker 1: clients all the way up to Fortune one hundred companies,
Speaker 1: and a big differentiator between them and the other companies
Speaker 1: in this space is that Global Verification Network has all
Speaker 1: their people in the US, and all the work and
Speaker 1: all the data storage, everything is done in the US,
Speaker 1: which just gives them greater control and greater security for
Speaker 1: what can be some sensitive processes. Right, you don't want
Speaker 1: this stuff going overseas. You don't know who's looking into that,
Speaker 1: You don't know who in control. Go with my friends
Speaker 1: for all of your background checks, whatever size company you're
Speaker 1: at at Global Verification Network, go to MYGVN dot com. Again,
Speaker 1: that's my GVN dot com or call eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine. Again that's eight
Speaker 1: seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. Tell
Speaker 1: him Buck sex INCENTI we're sitting down here fighting this
Speaker 1: fight on the front line. Whether you agree with him
Speaker 1: or don't, at least we have a president who's supporting
Speaker 1: law enforcement, who is fighting for border security. Cartel will
Speaker 1: they don't have rules they're claimed by. When you say
Speaker 1: there's not a problem, there's out absolutely a problem in
Speaker 1: the cartel has no problem crossing any of those lines.
Speaker 1: Name me one thing that Democratic leadership has offered to
Speaker 1: slow this search down, to save lives crying across the border.
Speaker 1: They have offered no fixes. The only one who's offering
Speaker 1: fixes here is President Trump, and every time he tries something,
Speaker 1: he gets sued. It's true. At least Trump is Trump.
Speaker 1: And I know I've been a little hard on the
Speaker 1: President recently with the border issue, but I think I've
Speaker 1: been fair. But at least we know that the President
Speaker 1: is engaged on this issue and supports law enforcement and would,
Speaker 1: if he had his way, have a secure border. The
Speaker 1: other side, as my buddy Tom Holman points out, there,
Speaker 1: they oppose enforcement at every level. They want looser regulations
Speaker 1: at the border itself. They want looser regulations when it
Speaker 1: comes to immigration courts. They want interpretations of statute that
Speaker 1: will favor illegals, they want interpretation of existing all I
Speaker 1: mean everything that they are doing, Everything that they do
Speaker 1: and believe in here when it comes to the border,
Speaker 1: shows that they would like to have the status quo continue.
Speaker 1: There are nothing they will vote for what they call
Speaker 1: more border security, but it's really just more people to
Speaker 1: be at the border to process those who are showing
Speaker 1: up now. So border patrol is before our very eyes
Speaker 1: right now, folks, being transitioned from a frontline law enforcement
Speaker 1: organization into a kind of international Red Cross and soup
Speaker 1: kitchen for whoever can get via foot by walking to
Speaker 1: our southern border. Border patrol is now increasingly taken off
Speaker 1: the law enforcement job which is necessary for stopping human trafficking,
Speaker 1: ventonel and other drugs being smuggled into the country and
Speaker 1: all kinds of illegal activity that is going on at
Speaker 1: our border right other things getting smuggled in. They're being
Speaker 1: taken off of that mission for what they're now calling
Speaker 1: the humanitarian mission. And the only thing that the Democrats
Speaker 1: are willing to fund. The only thing the Democrats are
Speaker 1: willing to fund when it comes to our border is
Speaker 1: more of the humanitarian mission, meaning people to process. They
Speaker 1: don't want to they don't want to make it easier
Speaker 1: to deport, they don't want to make it easier to
Speaker 1: catch or capture. They want more individuals there to bring
Speaker 1: food and clothing and provide shelter and process in those
Speaker 1: who are showing up. So what they've done is they've
Speaker 1: turned the entire southern border into a massive port of entry. Essentially,
Speaker 1: that's where we are. And this is something that should
Speaker 1: concern everyone in the country because, as I was reading
Speaker 1: yesterday from that piece in The Atlantic, which occasionally has
Speaker 1: some good writing, if we don't have a nation state,
Speaker 1: you know, we don't have elections worthy of the name,
Speaker 1: and our whole country starts to feel like, what's really
Speaker 1: going on here? If we don't have sovereignty, if we
Speaker 1: don't have control over our borders, are we even really
Speaker 1: a country anymore? Are we just slowly becoming something else?
Speaker 1: And not even that slowly. This is where it's important
Speaker 1: that everyone knows that the problem is only going to
Speaker 1: get bigger. We get the National Border Patrol Council President
Speaker 1: Brandon Judd saying the following play eight. If we do
Speaker 1: not get control of the border, we're going to continue
Speaker 1: to see more FETE and al more opioids, more deaths
Speaker 1: here in the United States. We have to control the
Speaker 1: border and these migrants, they're being used as pawns. And
Speaker 1: that's the reason why this is so important. We need
Speaker 1: our politicians to have the political will to say we
Speaker 1: need to secure the border once and for all. We
Speaker 1: do need to secure the border. But if we're going
Speaker 1: to be honest about that, and we are, because this
Speaker 1: is the freedom hunt, we are further from a secure
Speaker 1: border now then we've been in a long time that
Speaker 1: small loophole from the Obama administration about bringing children that
Speaker 1: are from non contiguous country. So it doesn't work if
Speaker 1: you're a Mexican or Canadian, but if you come from
Speaker 1: a non contiguous country and you have a child, and
Speaker 1: the way that that is processed, and especially the speed
Speaker 1: with which those people are processed when they arrive in
Speaker 1: large numbers. They have now found a seam a week
Speaker 1: seemed to exploit in our system, and they are just
Speaker 1: ramming through now as many people as possible. That's an
Speaker 1: insecure border, and we are going to see dramatic consequences
Speaker 1: from this if we do not get this under control.
Speaker 1: This was a piece from CNN, and now I remember recently.
Speaker 1: I mean it was not long ago when if you
Speaker 1: even brought up the possibility of there being disease issues
Speaker 1: with this nearly unrestrained migration that is happening into this country,
Speaker 1: you were a racist and a bad person. Yeah, you're
Speaker 1: a racist and a bad person if you even bring
Speaker 1: this up. More than two thousand people in immigration and
Speaker 1: Customs enforcement custody are being quarantine amid an outbreak of
Speaker 1: months and other Jesus. That's according to CNN, all right,
Speaker 1: two thousand people. It's actually twenty two hundred and eighty
Speaker 1: seven as of March seventh, have a contagious condition including mumps,
Speaker 1: chicken pox, the flu. And that's just what we know about.
Speaker 1: That's what we know about. Once you really dig into this,
Speaker 1: I'm sure you'll find that there are people who have
Speaker 1: other diseases that we get vaccinated against and therefore have
Speaker 1: heard immunity from it. But they don't get vaccinated. Fern
Speaker 1: and Honduras, they don't get vaccinated Fern and el Salvador
Speaker 1: and other countries take this stuff very seriously, and no
Speaker 1: one thinks that they're racist. I think even to be
Speaker 1: in is it. I think in Dubai, if you're going
Speaker 1: to become a citizen, you have to have an HIV test.
Speaker 1: I could be wrong about that. If you're gonna be
Speaker 1: a citizen of the UAE, I think you have to
Speaker 1: have an HIV test. I mean, there are other countries
Speaker 1: health screening for immigrants is considered standard, but in this case,
Speaker 1: because the system is overwhelmed, and because any slowdown at
Speaker 1: the border must be indicative of some right wing fascist, xenophobic,
Speaker 1: you know whatever, whatever, all this stuff that they say.
Speaker 1: Because of all of that, we see them just getting
Speaker 1: processed through faster and faster. And I just want to
Speaker 1: know what are the Libs going to say about this
Speaker 1: When somebody who has a childhood disease that can be lethal,
Speaker 1: let's say, or just it doesn't have to be a child,
Speaker 1: somebody who has a disease for which we generally have
Speaker 1: vaccinations against, and there's someone and someone dies, you know,
Speaker 1: and someone dies of complications, or does the government bear
Speaker 1: responsibility for that, for not protecting the American people from
Speaker 1: this health risk. No one's saying it's not a health
Speaker 1: risk anymore. Two thousand plus now you can say, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: a lot of people get the flu, a lot of Yeah,
Speaker 1: but we're not trying to import more people that have
Speaker 1: mumps chicken box. By the way, there's also in that group.
Speaker 1: And I know this from border patrol. They told me,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, there are there are people that have HIV.
Speaker 1: There are people that have much more even serious health
Speaker 1: conditions as well, which I know people will say, oh buck,
Speaker 1: that can be managed, and yeah, but what about the
Speaker 1: cost of the US healthcare system too. We have immigration
Speaker 1: restrictions in place so that we're not just taking in
Speaker 1: the sick from the rest of the world, so that
Speaker 1: we're not just taking in the poor and those that
Speaker 1: will need welfare from the rest of the world. You know,
Speaker 1: President Trump said, I think it was earlier today that
Speaker 1: we shouldn't be taking people, you know, immigrants, should not
Speaker 1: be relying on welfare. It is already federal regulation in
Speaker 1: the in the in the Federal Code on immigration that
Speaker 1: you cannot be a charge of the state if you're
Speaker 1: going to be an an immigrant in this country who's
Speaker 1: brought who comes in legally and then let's say wants
Speaker 1: to stay for you know, a green card or become
Speaker 1: a permanent resident. You're not allowed to be a charge
Speaker 1: of the state. But no one enforces any of this.
Speaker 1: They don't care because we're lied to all the time.
Speaker 1: They say that immigrants don't get illegal immigrants rather don't
Speaker 1: get welfare benefits. That's just not true. If you have
Speaker 1: a kid, then you get all kinds of welfare benefits.
Speaker 1: So there's a huge incentive to have a kid if
Speaker 1: you're an illegal immigrant in this country as fast as possible,
Speaker 1: and we see a lot of people have acted on
Speaker 1: that incentive. We're not going to fix the border anytime soon,
Speaker 1: but the government has got to get more serious about this.
Speaker 1: The Congress needs to act here. I mean, I've I'm
Speaker 1: in hoping that I'm going to get down to El
Speaker 1: Paso within a month or so and I'll be able
Speaker 1: to see for myself what's going on and bring you
Speaker 1: some more ground truth about it. But this we are
Speaker 1: about to see, first of all, how fake the fake
Speaker 1: news is when it comes to saying that there is
Speaker 1: no crisis. This is a crisis that when people realize
Speaker 1: the magnitude of it. I think there's going to be
Speaker 1: something of a panic. We'll continue to follow, will be
Speaker 1: right back. I'm not allowed to say that, like you
Speaker 1: know or whatever, like whatever psych um like whatever you
Speaker 1: know or whatever, like it's like this like like for
Speaker 1: what you know, like and you know things like that,
Speaker 1: um like it's just like like it's just like you know,
Speaker 1: um like you know and you know, um you know whatever.
Speaker 1: Like it's like because like you know, you know, blah
Speaker 1: blah blah, and I think, um, you know, like you know,
Speaker 1: that's what I'm saying, like close like um, you know,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna get in a lot of trouble when
Speaker 1: I go back to work, like yeah, like you know
Speaker 1: whatever like AOC. There are really two sides to this,
Speaker 1: this equation of dealing with AOC. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: she runs around like the ignoramist that she clearly is,
Speaker 1: and we can sit here and have a little bit
Speaker 1: of fun at her expense, sometimes not in a mean way,
Speaker 1: but in a necessary way. She's a powerful public figure,
Speaker 1: and she's somebody who should be called to account for
Speaker 1: what she does and says. That said, there's also the
Speaker 1: side of this that I find increasingly concerning, and that
Speaker 1: is what if the guardrails when the Democratic Party that
Speaker 1: have traditionally brought them towards something of the center right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not saying that the Democratic Party has
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party has been progressively hence progressive, progressively working
Speaker 1: its way further left for the last well for my lifetime.
Speaker 1: I can just speak to that with some some level
Speaker 1: of expertise or at least personal experience. They've been moving
Speaker 1: hard left for thirty years. I mean since certainly the
Speaker 1: Clinton administration, but in some ways the Clinton administration was
Speaker 1: the beginning of the all out political warfare. Now, but
Speaker 1: even Nixon. You go back to Nixon, they were doing
Speaker 1: the same thing against Nixon. So you know, they've been
Speaker 1: moving further and further left all along, but they at
Speaker 1: least used to have this at the end end of
Speaker 1: the day, we need to win that center of America concept,
Speaker 1: and I think they're they're trying to blow right past that.
Speaker 1: This is why they want to expand the voter pool.
Speaker 1: They want to let sixteen year olds vote, former felons vote,
Speaker 1: a legal aliens vote. They're they're not playing for the
Speaker 1: center anymore. I think that they have concerns and they
Speaker 1: should have concerns that this is going to be a
Speaker 1: you know, this is now a place that they cannot
Speaker 1: return from. They've moved so far left that this is
Speaker 1: where they're going to be. You know. Even Chuck Todd
Speaker 1: running Democrat propaganda over at NBC or MSNBC or both,
Speaker 1: he's saying that Democrats, man, they're really out there. They're
Speaker 1: they're whacked out. Play thirteen. Democrats have spent much of
Speaker 1: the last month wrestling themselves to the ground. They were
Speaker 1: embarrassed over the revelation that Virginia Governor Ralph Northam had
Speaker 1: once dressed in blackface, startled by subsequen accusations of sexual
Speaker 1: assault against Northam's lieutenant Governor, Justin Fairfax, and chronically unsure
Speaker 1: this week over how to handle a comment by freshman
Speaker 1: Democrat elan Omar her Second that many saw as anti Semitic.
Speaker 1: And emerging more progressive cohort of elected Democrats is coming
Speaker 1: into conflict with an older generation of centrists and traditional liberals.
Speaker 1: These two Democratic factions are united and divided. They're united
Speaker 1: about the urgency of defeating President Trump next year, but
Speaker 1: at the same time they are divided, with each side
Speaker 1: seeing the other as the reason mister Trump may wind
Speaker 1: up winning after all, he's right. I hope he's right,
Speaker 1: because the far left stuff is just not where this
Speaker 1: country is. And the media is there, and you see
Speaker 1: this from the way they talk about it. There's a
Speaker 1: kind of glee, a sense that oh, finally we're able
Speaker 1: to push for what we want to push for. Finally
Speaker 1: we're going to get what we've been fighting for all
Speaker 1: this time. But the American people aren't with them on this.
Speaker 1: The American people are not going as far left as
Speaker 1: as AOC, at least not yet. I'm very much a
Speaker 1: believer in my thesis that when we have when the
Speaker 1: economic times get bad, it's a timing issue. If we
Speaker 1: have a big reset before the election, where the economy
Speaker 1: just just has to burn off a lot of excess.
Speaker 1: You know, twenty twenty five percent drop in the stock market,
Speaker 1: which will affect hiring, which will affect a lot of stuff,
Speaker 1: affect people's wealthoughtly, and you know home prices. I mean,
Speaker 1: every everything gets affected. Right. The market is just an indicator.
Speaker 1: If you don't own any stock, it doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: the stock market does not matter to you, to your life.
Speaker 1: But that's when people turn to statism, progressivism, and the
Speaker 1: AOC like ideology of the left. And we should be
Speaker 1: concerned about that because she really does have ingrained in
Speaker 1: her a hostility to capitalism, as we discussed yesterday, I
Speaker 1: mean to free enterprise. She thinks capitalism is irredeemable in
Speaker 1: a corrupt system, and we don't know of a modern
Speaker 1: economic system other than socialism with which we could replace capitalism. Right,
Speaker 1: there's no I don't think that she's suggesting we go
Speaker 1: back to trade and barter. I don't think she wants
Speaker 1: America to be a monarchist, mercantilist state. I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: that the way that she sees the path ahead is
Speaker 1: we either have limited capitalism, which we should. We do
Speaker 1: not have free market capitalism in this country. We do
Speaker 1: not have it. We have some of it, but we
Speaker 1: have a tremendous amount of government regulation, government intrusion to
Speaker 1: the market, chrony capitalism. There's a lot of that stuff
Speaker 1: that goes on too. And that's why as conservatives are
Speaker 1: focus is let's get rid of those constraints. Let's get
Speaker 1: rid of ways that certain people try to help themselves
Speaker 1: line their pockets, essentially cheat using the system to help them. Right,
Speaker 1: big business loves big government. For example, AOC is just
Speaker 1: coming at us with corporations are bad. You know, these
Speaker 1: are our statements of faith on the left. Corporations are bad.
Speaker 1: Dark money is a Republican thing. These are stupid statements,
Speaker 1: but it's a good way to get the mob energized.
Speaker 1: It's a form of affecting community organizing and really rabble rousing.
Speaker 1: And she knows that. I mean, here is an example
Speaker 1: of just AOC airing out hostility to corporations without understanding
Speaker 1: the first thing about which she is talking. Play fourteen.
Speaker 1: Since Wells Fargo financed the building of this pipeline and
Speaker 1: in an environmentally unstable way, why shouldn't the bank be
Speaker 1: held responsible for financing the cleanup of the of the
Speaker 1: disasters from these projects. We were not involved in the
Speaker 1: dancing of the x of the Xcel pipeline. We were
Speaker 1: one of the seventeen or nineteen banks that was involved
Speaker 1: in the financing of the Dakota Access pipeline. Okay, so,
Speaker 1: so Wells Fargo hasn't financed any company associated with the
Speaker 1: Keystone Xcel pipeline. No, I didn't say that. I said
Speaker 1: we're not involved in financing that pipeline specifically. Okay, so
Speaker 1: let's focus on the Dakota Access pipeline. Should Wells Fargo
Speaker 1: be held responsible for the damages incurred by climate change
Speaker 1: due to the financing of fossil fuels and these projects,
Speaker 1: I don't know how you calculate that, congressmant I'm safe
Speaker 1: from spills or when we have to reinvest in infrastructure,
Speaker 1: building sea walls, from the erosion of from the erosion
Speaker 1: of infrastructure, or cleanups wildfires, etc. I'm not aware that
Speaker 1: there's been any of what you described that's occurred. Well
Speaker 1: about the cleanups from the leaks of the Dakota Access pipeline,
Speaker 1: I'm not aware of the leaks associated with the Dakota
Speaker 1: Access pipeline that you're describing. So hypothetically, if there was
Speaker 1: a leak from the Dakota Access pipeline, why shouldn't Wells
Speaker 1: Fargo pay for the cleanup of it? If since it
Speaker 1: paid for the construction of the pipeline itself. Because we
Speaker 1: don't operate the pipeline, we provide financial to the company
Speaker 1: as operating the pipeline, so I know we probably like buckets.
Speaker 1: My ears are bleeding. Why am I listening to this
Speaker 1: this person. She's the day facto leader of the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party right now, full stop. If you're going to have
Speaker 1: you know, Pelosi say something or AOC say something, Guess
Speaker 1: who gets more attention. Guess who moves the needle more.
Speaker 1: It's AOC already all right. As I've been saying, she
Speaker 1: is the Prince Joffrey from Game of Thrones. The Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Everyone is kind of in fear of her, even though
Speaker 1: they know that she has really earned very little in
Speaker 1: terms of respect, has no knowledge, has no idea what
Speaker 1: she's talking about. And that exchange where she can't figure
Speaker 1: out why you wouldn't hold the bank that finances what
Speaker 1: is essentially a construction project liable for any issues that
Speaker 1: come up from the construction project. I mean, think about this.
Speaker 1: If I if I go to the bank and I
Speaker 1: get a loan to build a house, and I build
Speaker 1: the house really poorly, and then I sell it to
Speaker 1: somebody and the house collapses on that person. Is the
Speaker 1: bank that gave me the money that I used to
Speaker 1: go buy material? Are they responsible for it? But only
Speaker 1: a really very stupid person could think that. She thinks that. Now,
Speaker 1: by the way, stupid does not mean not dangerous stupid.
Speaker 1: People can be very powerful. They can be cultural icons,
Speaker 1: they can be dictators, they can you know, power is
Speaker 1: not and maybe this is a theme on the show today.
Speaker 1: Power and influence are not necessarily correlated with skill or
Speaker 1: ability or intelligence. So we need to we need to
Speaker 1: stop associating this person is powerful. Well, well, they must
Speaker 1: be powerful for a good reason. No, they might just
Speaker 1: be powerful. And that's what you have with Okazio Cortez.
Speaker 1: She's just powerful. But she is not knowledgeable, she is
Speaker 1: not wise, she does not have good judgment. And she
Speaker 1: even managed to pack into this questioning of the Wells
Speaker 1: Fargo president and CEO there Tim Sloan, she managed to
Speaker 1: pack into it and also, shouldn't you just pay for
Speaker 1: climate change? All this is is the government seizing control
Speaker 1: of every aspect of your life through this whole climate
Speaker 1: change concept and then also engaging in a massive redistribution
Speaker 1: of wealth in order to save the planet. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a religious belief with forced donations attached to it,
Speaker 1: and they want this to be there's a globle socialism
Speaker 1: component to this. Oh, we're the developed world, so for
Speaker 1: the developing world, we should have to give them money
Speaker 1: because we've polluted so much to get here, and we'll
Speaker 1: help them. We'll pay for their green jobs and their
Speaker 1: green tech. Meanwhile, if you got rid of fossil fuels,
Speaker 1: we have no means. Really interesting. Last night on Tucker Show,
Speaker 1: this guy who was the Canadian we played his audio
Speaker 1: on this show once a while ago. I think he
Speaker 1: was the Green Piece chief in Canada saying that we
Speaker 1: have nothing to replace. How do what works the farm
Speaker 1: equipment that's necessary all over the world to harvest crops
Speaker 1: if not fossil fuel powered combines, tractors, all that stuff.
Speaker 1: Got no answer to that, But they're not thinking about
Speaker 1: what the reality is. They're thinking AOC and others are
Speaker 1: thinking about how they can get the power. They want
Speaker 1: the power. They'll figure out the details later. You want
Speaker 1: to see what that looks like. Do some reading on
Speaker 1: Mao's great lead Forward and not long ago didn't end Well,
Speaker 1: we'll be back. Mean pettiness has overtaken our politics. Sometimes
Speaker 1: it seems like we can't govern ourselves. We even talk
Speaker 1: to one another. If you notice, how can criticize the
Speaker 1: saying anything nice about a Republican folks? This is not
Speaker 1: who we are, That isn't how we got here Joe
Speaker 1: Biden now saying that we need to not be mean
Speaker 1: to each other in politics, that pettiness has overtaken our politics.
Speaker 1: This is the same guy who I think it was
Speaker 1: last week said that Vice President Mike Pence was a
Speaker 1: nice guy, and then, because I forget, I think it
Speaker 1: was Cynthia Nixon said that Pence is very anti gay.
Speaker 1: That Biden walked it back and was like, yeah, you
Speaker 1: know what, you're right. You know, it turns out that
Speaker 1: it turns out that that he's not so nice, that
Speaker 1: Pence is not such a good guy. I guess, or
Speaker 1: you know, he walked it back. I forget how he
Speaker 1: said it, but he essentially said, oh, yeah, you're right.
Speaker 1: I should have thought more about that before I said
Speaker 1: that Pence is a nice guy. Let me tell you something.
Speaker 1: I know people who work for Mike Pence. Everybody thinks
Speaker 1: Pence is a nice guy. Nobody thinks Pence is not
Speaker 1: a nice guy. I've only interviewed him in a professional capacity.
Speaker 1: I can tell you he was a gentleman in dealing
Speaker 1: with me. And you might say, well, Buck, aren't they
Speaker 1: all gentlemen? No, they're not all gentlemen. They're not all
Speaker 1: cool I remember when case It came in. He was like, hey, buddy,
Speaker 1: what's going on. We're going to do an interview here? Yeah,
Speaker 1: what's up? John Kasey rhymes with Basic from Ohio. You know,
Speaker 1: my dad was a mailman. What's the blaze? Why do
Speaker 1: you work? There? Were you sitting here? You're gonna ask
Speaker 1: me some questions? Hey, ho, where do you know? Ka
Speaker 1: Sick was like that friend of yours when you're in
Speaker 1: high school who had the dad who thought he was
Speaker 1: really cool and funny, and he was just painfully lame
Speaker 1: and should have just let you guys hang out and
Speaker 1: knop it all up in your all up in your stuff.
Speaker 1: That's Kasick, you know, the one that you're like, I
Speaker 1: didn't need your comment on that. I don't want your
Speaker 1: comment on that. And thanks for thanks for playing buddy.
Speaker 1: So they're not all. They're all super nice and cool.
Speaker 1: Pence is a nice guy. But but here's really what
Speaker 1: I want to say about this. Biden's calling for us
Speaker 1: to step away from pettiness and politics. And I just
Speaker 1: say that Democrats and the Left really excels at this.
Speaker 1: They excel at being really nasty, really mean. If you
Speaker 1: spend any time on left wing social media. You'll see
Speaker 1: it's just all everyone who's a conservative is a racist, fat, ugly, disgusting, hateful, bigoted, islamophobic,
Speaker 1: anti gay that sale this stuff and you know, ninety
Speaker 1: five percent of the time none of it is true.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're just being vicious, and it's echoed by
Speaker 1: a lot of politicians on the left. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to easily forget. I'm not going to forget anytime soon
Speaker 1: that the left has really been rooting for the president's
Speaker 1: children to go to prison. I've seen a lot of it.
Speaker 1: I've seen them say it. I've seen them talking about
Speaker 1: they want Donald Trump Junior to be indicted. They want
Speaker 1: him And you say backwell, the president would just pardon him,
Speaker 1: not if it's stayed charges, not that they can find
Speaker 1: something in the state of New York to get him
Speaker 1: or Avanca with they've been rooting for that. You want
Speaker 1: to talk about nasty, that's disgusting, That is disgusting. And
Speaker 1: people say, oh, but what about Hillary, Well, Hillary one
Speaker 1: did break the law a lot, and two I was
Speaker 1: always saying that she should have had to plead to
Speaker 1: the charges, but I don't think she would have gotten
Speaker 1: based on the guidelines and the statutes. I don't think
Speaker 1: she would have served a lot of time, and I've
Speaker 1: talked to national security lawyers specifically about that. They agree.
Speaker 1: But in terms of meanness, here's an example. Ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: was asked about her comparison of Obama and Trump, and
Speaker 1: here's what she said, Play eighteen. Just as different when
Speaker 1: it comes to do you think about that? Is silly
Speaker 1: to even think, and equally to is it true that
Speaker 1: you just think that he's more polished than Trump. One
Speaker 1: is human, the other is not. She says, Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: that seems like a reasonable thing for this person to say.
Speaker 1: Ilhan Omar says that Obama's human. Trump is not human.
Speaker 1: If they didn't treat this present the way that they do,
Speaker 1: I would be more willing to dismiss that as maybe
Speaker 1: just a bit of hyperbole. But they do think of
Speaker 1: this president as some terrible atrocity inflicted on the country.
Speaker 1: They do deeply despise him, and I think that they
Speaker 1: even dehumanize him, calling him orange Drum, all the stuff
Speaker 1: they say about Trump, it's it's really meant to make
Speaker 1: him not a person. They never give him credit for
Speaker 1: his family, They never give him credit for the people
Speaker 1: say he's nice, so they're the petty mean ones. Let's
Speaker 1: be clear on the US. If you let it be difficult,
Speaker 1: hiring can be very difficult. You got a lot of
Speaker 1: job side stacks of resumes, all things in the review
Speaker 1: process you don't have to spend your time on. But
Speaker 1: you know what, hiring can actually be really easy, and
Speaker 1: there's only one place you can go and get it
Speaker 1: all done the right way. Zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: We're currently using zip recruiter at the hill where I
Speaker 1: work to try to bring on some of the best
Speaker 1: people because we've had so much success with some of
Speaker 1: my colleagues that we got off of zip recruiter. So
Speaker 1: zip recruiter sends your job to over one hundred of
Speaker 1: the web's leading job boards. But they won't stop there.
Speaker 1: They've got powerful matching technology that'll scan thousands of resumes
Speaker 1: and find the right people with the right experience and
Speaker 1: invite them to apply to your job. Right now, my
Speaker 1: listeners can try zip recruiter for free at this exclusive
Speaker 1: web address, zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. That's zip
Speaker 1: recruiter dot com slash buck. One more time, zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck check it Out team because Zip
Speaker 1: recruiter is simply the smartest way to hire. You are
Speaker 1: now entering the Freedom Hut Title Operation Center. All programs
Speaker 1: must be kept strictly. Need to know Team Buck is
Speaker 1: cleared and ready for the Buck brief. This deterioration in
Speaker 1: Venezuela is really getting scary and or scarier. It's been
Speaker 1: scary for a while, but now I'm I'm concerned that
Speaker 1: we are going to enter the more violent phase of this.
Speaker 1: There's already violence. There are these groups that will at
Speaker 1: a moment's notice hop on motorbikes to go terrorize, terrorize
Speaker 1: the opposition to Maduro. So there's clearly been and there's
Speaker 1: an incredibly high murder rate. But there's thuggery and street
Speaker 1: violence going on in a systemic way, in an intentional
Speaker 1: way in Venezuela, and has been for a while. But
Speaker 1: this now is getting to a place where we've had
Speaker 1: a blackout for an extended period of time, which you
Speaker 1: can imagine, you know, having been in New York City
Speaker 1: at one at one point when there was a blackout
Speaker 1: in part of the city and seeing it from up
Speaker 1: high on a building, up on a rooftop. It is
Speaker 1: an eerie feeling when a city is truly plunged into darkness.
Speaker 1: I cannot imagine what it's like when you're already in
Speaker 1: the violent chaos of the streets of Caracas, when you
Speaker 1: find out that they've been without power. Much of the
Speaker 1: whole country has been without power since Thursday afternoon. And
Speaker 1: now the anti us Bolvarian Revolution BS rhetoric gets trotted
Speaker 1: out by Madureau, who's looking for people to blame for
Speaker 1: this one, because there's a clear desperation. You have photos
Speaker 1: of Venezuelan picking food out of the back of garbage trucks.
Speaker 1: You have people who are looking for runoff from water
Speaker 1: pipes just to get water. There's there's fear that the
Speaker 1: especially with the power outage, because remember power and water
Speaker 1: systems and pumping and if there's a cleaning going on
Speaker 1: as well of the water to make it potable, that
Speaker 1: you lose power, and you lose a lot more than
Speaker 1: just you know, refrigerators and lights. You lose ventilation systems
Speaker 1: and ventilators and hospitals, you lose the ability to pump
Speaker 1: drinking water. You you know, you lose security for important facilities.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, Without power, the world gets no
Speaker 1: matter where you are, very scary, very fast. You can
Speaker 1: imagine that in a circumstance like Venezuela, where you already
Speaker 1: have a country that is in the process of becoming
Speaker 1: an entirely failed state unless there's some kind of intervention
Speaker 1: here from the Guido government. And this is when things,
Speaker 1: you know, with the increase in desperation, I think you
Speaker 1: also have an increase in the possibility of violence, which
Speaker 1: is why you've had the US Embassy declared that it
Speaker 1: will remove all American personnel from the embassy. It was
Speaker 1: just down to a minimal critical personnel staff, but now
Speaker 1: everybody's out. We have put even more pressure on trying
Speaker 1: to cut off Maduro's government from the lifelines that it
Speaker 1: has economic lifelines, primarily Cuba, but also from Russia. We're
Speaker 1: seizing bank accounts, freezing bank accounts, shutting down their finances,
Speaker 1: and I will say that we are taking a pretty
Speaker 1: active role in this. There are dozens of countries that
Speaker 1: want Guido to be in charge of not Maduro, really
Speaker 1: all of Latin America except for Mexico, interestingly enough, because
Speaker 1: it's got this very far left Penneto government. But Mexico, Nicaragua, Cuba,
Speaker 1: maybe one or two other Latin American governments I can't
Speaker 1: think of off the top of my head. They're the
Speaker 1: only ones that don't want Maduro gone. They are still
Speaker 1: sticking by Maduro. They still want and want him to
Speaker 1: be the president of this desperate country. But the US is,
Speaker 1: you know, we're now partnering with Guido in the ouster
Speaker 1: of Maduro, and we should be very clear about that this.
Speaker 1: This has moved beyond just diplomatic recognition and statements of support,
Speaker 1: which I think we're well within our rights to do.
Speaker 1: We are now engaging in I do think it's fair
Speaker 1: to say financial warfare. And I know people are gonna say, oh, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's not that you're going too far that well, when
Speaker 1: you're shutting off all access to funds for a country,
Speaker 1: and we may even I wouldn't be surprised if we
Speaker 1: started going beyond the sanctions on Venezuelan oil and maybe
Speaker 1: even started perhaps shutting off additional sources of revenue into
Speaker 1: the country. So you know, it's it's a very volatile situation.
Speaker 1: And when you've got a blackout happening, oh, we're being
Speaker 1: blamed for the blackout. Of course, the Majuro government is
Speaker 1: saying that it's our fault and that we are the reason,
Speaker 1: and that there's US technology at work here. So you know,
Speaker 1: this is something that is This is going to be
Speaker 1: a test I think for the Trump administration, how welcome
Speaker 1: the handless. They've got Elliott Abrams as the point man
Speaker 1: on this, who is a very savvy guy, but comes
Speaker 1: with a lot of political baggage because of his long
Speaker 1: time working in foreign policy for the United States government.
Speaker 1: And as I said, when when you pull out all
Speaker 1: diplomatic staff from an embassy, that means that you are
Speaker 1: really concerned about two things. One is just retaliation against
Speaker 1: embassy personnel in general, but usually that also means that
Speaker 1: there is a feeling that we would not be able
Speaker 1: to sufficiently protect that embassy in the event of an incident.
Speaker 1: And if you can't count on the host government to
Speaker 1: respect diplomatic community and diplomatic protocol, which we cannot in
Speaker 1: Maduro anymore. I think that's fair to say the contingent
Speaker 1: of marines that they have there to guard the ambassador
Speaker 1: and to guard the embassy staff, that that's not going
Speaker 1: to be enough. They will not be in a position
Speaker 1: to protect that embassy if Maduro decides to seize them.
Speaker 1: And you got Elliot Abrams running around saying that all
Speaker 1: options are on the table. That's a you know, people
Speaker 1: can argue with me on this, we can debate this,
Speaker 1: but all options means all options. And I certainly hope
Speaker 1: that we do not get into a get to a
Speaker 1: place of any kind of military action in Venezuela, which
Speaker 1: would start you know how it goes, folks. It starts small.
Speaker 1: It starts with, Okay, we've got a US and we've
Speaker 1: got some US nationals who are in jeopardy, and we've
Speaker 1: got to go in and get them. And you know,
Speaker 1: these things no one usually at least sometimes, but it's
Speaker 1: rare for zone to say, yeah, let's just add another
Speaker 1: add another military intervention onto the list of things we
Speaker 1: want to do as a country and as a government.
Speaker 1: It starts out usually smaller than that. You know, look
Speaker 1: a look at our intervention in Somalia is a humanitarian
Speaker 1: mission to feed people, and there are other countries involved,
Speaker 1: and as we all know from the black Hawk down incident,
Speaker 1: that can be a lot more than you bargain for.
Speaker 1: So I am now entering a zone of caution here.
Speaker 1: I think I think Trump and his team have done
Speaker 1: the right thing overall, but we cannot be in a
Speaker 1: position where we are responsible for what happens in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: and we certainly don't want to be involved in a
Speaker 1: military any kind of a military escalation because Munduro's back
Speaker 1: is up against the wall and he knows it, and
Speaker 1: there are a lot of people that work for him,
Speaker 1: if you remember, they view this as they view this
Speaker 1: as ride or die. You know, they either stay in
Speaker 1: power and have authority and wealth, or they might be
Speaker 1: spending a long time in a Venezuelan prison, which I'm
Speaker 1: sure is a particularly nasty place to be. So this issue,
Speaker 1: we're going to continue to watch it. But I'm looking
Speaker 1: at this with a bit of trepidation, so we'll stay
Speaker 1: on it. You're probably familiar with AARP. You or someone
Speaker 1: you know might already be a member. But did you
Speaker 1: know that the aa ARP is all about left wing
Speaker 1: politics and they actually lobby for a lot of progressive causes.
Speaker 1: They fought tooth and nail for government on healthcare. You
Speaker 1: know you don't need that. So if you're a senior
Speaker 1: and you want to belong to an organization, that is
Speaker 1: moving policy in a smart conservative direction and gets you
Speaker 1: all kinds of great benefits. Discounts on car insurance, hotels,
Speaker 1: roadside assistants, dental plans, l service options. You need to
Speaker 1: check out my friends at AMAC. Why do I recommend AMAC? Well,
Speaker 1: they bring you all the benefits of AARP, but they
Speaker 1: don't have all the progressive baggage. AMAC was founded by
Speaker 1: an Air Force veteran, and he wants you to spite
Speaker 1: the good fight with him by becoming a member today.
Speaker 1: The benefits are great, but the cause is even greater.
Speaker 1: Join right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's
Speaker 1: am AC dot us slash buck. One more time, AMAC
Speaker 1: dot us slash buck. Oh look at this. Democratic lawmakers
Speaker 1: unveil Journalist Protection Act amid Trump attacks on the media.
Speaker 1: This is from three Democratic lawmakers. They've introduced this Journal's
Speaker 1: Protection Act that will designate certain attacks on those reporting
Speaker 1: the news as a federal crime. Who put this forward?
Speaker 1: Representative Swalwell, Bloomenthal, and Menendez. It was originally introduced by
Speaker 1: Swalwell back in February twenty eighteen. Here's what they say
Speaker 1: about this. The Journalist Protection Act makes it a federal
Speaker 1: crime to intentionally cause bodily harm to a journalist affecting
Speaker 1: interstate or foreign commerce in the course of reporting, or
Speaker 1: in a manner design to intimidate him or her from
Speaker 1: news gathering. For a media organization, it represents a clear
Speaker 1: statement that assaults against people engage in reporting is unacceptable
Speaker 1: and helps ensure law enforcement is able to punish those
Speaker 1: who interfere with news gathering. And this is also obviously
Speaker 1: turned into a talking point against Trump. They're saying they're
Speaker 1: doing this because Trump's climate of extreme hostility toward the
Speaker 1: media needs a response, and that quote. Such antagonistic rhetoric
Speaker 1: encourages others to think, regardless of their views, that violence
Speaker 1: against journalists is more acceptable. This is complete and utter
Speaker 1: bull Trump is not encouraging violence against them. The media
Speaker 1: does not have and oh my gosh, we're being targeted
Speaker 1: violence problem the media. It's full of a bunch of babies. Honestly,
Speaker 1: they're so lucky. And I say this to you, I
Speaker 1: am so lucky every day that I'm able to do
Speaker 1: this show and that I have all of you listening
Speaker 1: to me on one hundred and twenty five stations or
Speaker 1: so across the country, and the whole additional army of
Speaker 1: folks who just listen on the podcast. I am really lucky,
Speaker 1: and it's why I like my job so much. I
Speaker 1: think it's it's a great thing, and I feel very blessed,
Speaker 1: honestly and truly to be able to do this work.
Speaker 1: I do not run around acting like, oh, it's so hard,
Speaker 1: and you know, I've got the left wing trying to
Speaker 1: take me out, take me down, call me names, lie
Speaker 1: about me, and all that stuff happens all the time.
Speaker 1: I don't talk about it that much on the show,
Speaker 1: but yeah, they're always trying to take me out, and
Speaker 1: people within the media business or trying to find conservatives
Speaker 1: like me to make an example of to undermine to
Speaker 1: advance their own careers with. So you know, anyone can
Speaker 1: sit around and a lot of you are probably, yeah, buck,
Speaker 1: guess what, my job's a hard here, and we could
Speaker 1: all sit around talk about all the problems come with
Speaker 1: our respective. That's why they call it work. That's why
Speaker 1: they pay you for it. If it were, you know,
Speaker 1: sitting around eating cream puffs and getting a massage all day,
Speaker 1: which does sound pretty amazing right about now, they probably
Speaker 1: wouldn't pay you for it. You might have to pay
Speaker 1: them for it, so I understand this. I just think
Speaker 1: that journalists are honestly as a class, and that's really
Speaker 1: what they are, and that's how they view themselves. They
Speaker 1: are a Journalism is a personal identity for a lot
Speaker 1: of people, and a lot of them have never had
Speaker 1: another job, which I also think. I think it's bad.
Speaker 1: I think that that's problematic. I think that a lot
Speaker 1: of folks who go right into journalism and have never
Speaker 1: done anything else. Now, they're obviously really good people who
Speaker 1: do that, and you don't have to send me all
Speaker 1: the names of all the great people. I'm sure they're
Speaker 1: amazing people at Fox or Reporters is all they ever done.
Speaker 1: But I think that there's too much of that within
Speaker 1: journalism so that you don't have enough of a real
Speaker 1: life perspective brought into these newsrooms from outside of this enclave.
Speaker 1: And look, ninety percent of journalists or libs, for example, Well,
Speaker 1: if you're if you're a Lib journalist that goes to
Speaker 1: work for only LIB publications, you really don't understand the country.
Speaker 1: You just don't. You haven't had enough interaction with the
Speaker 1: American people who disagree with you or see things differently
Speaker 1: from you. So I think that there's huge structural problems
Speaker 1: in journalism in general. But this idea that they need
Speaker 1: to pass a federal hate crime statute to protect journalists
Speaker 1: for doing their jobs, Well, then who else gets a
Speaker 1: federal hate crime statute? Right? Who? What other employment involves?
Speaker 1: Interstate commerce? Oh? Well, pretty much all commerce based on
Speaker 1: and you know, now we could who's ready for it?
Speaker 1: Who's ready for it? Wickered v. Phil Burne the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case that was one of the greatest travesties of
Speaker 1: constitutional jurisprudence, certainly of the last one hundred or so years.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a it is terrible for it. So
Speaker 1: Wickered v. Filburn for a quick review something you're like, buck,
Speaker 1: I know Wickered v. Filburn No, no no, no, hold on,
Speaker 1: This one will be fun. I'll make it quick. It
Speaker 1: was a case where you had a guy who was
Speaker 1: growing wheat and he didn't want to. So this goes
Speaker 1: right to the heart of the regulatory powers of the
Speaker 1: federal government. This guy was a farmer in Ohio and
Speaker 1: he had twelve acres of wheat beyond what he was
Speaker 1: supposed to under the Agricultural Adjustment Act of nineteen thirty eight,
Speaker 1: and he said, Look, I'm just growing this wheat for myself.
Speaker 1: I'm just growing my own wheat. You know, well, you
Speaker 1: know it's sweat for me. Why does the federal government
Speaker 1: get a say in this? Well, the federal the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court came back with an opinion that said, well, because
Speaker 1: you're not going to be buying wheat on the wheat market,
Speaker 1: and the wheat market is a mule, is an interstate market.
Speaker 1: You are affecting that market by not buying on that
Speaker 1: market because you're making stuff for yourself, So we can
Speaker 1: regulate even with that you're making for your I mean,
Speaker 1: this was essentially the beginning of the federal government's ability
Speaker 1: to regulate almost anything it wants. Um Wickered v. Philburn
Speaker 1: is the the first of the many headed hydra of
Speaker 1: federal overreach which we are becoming more used to. And
Speaker 1: that's not a good thing. I mean, you shouldn't think
Speaker 1: and I shouldn't think that it's normal now that, for example,
Speaker 1: gun crimes can always really be prosecuted as a federal crime.
Speaker 1: And you may now not always always, So don't take
Speaker 1: me literally on that. Take me seriously, but not literally.
Speaker 1: But this is true. Gun crimes that involve you know,
Speaker 1: robbing a liquor store, for example, if the Feds want
Speaker 1: to process prosecute you rather as a federal that as
Speaker 1: a federal crime. There are statutes they can do it.
Speaker 1: Because you're interrupting interstate commerce with the armed robbery. That's
Speaker 1: not the way the federal government's supposed to work. This
Speaker 1: has also led to vast over criminalization, where you have
Speaker 1: they estimate because they don't even know over five thousand
Speaker 1: federal criminal statutes and regulations that have criminal penalties attached
Speaker 1: to them. And that's another really bad thing. When we
Speaker 1: have the federal government how many crimes it can prosecute,
Speaker 1: it should be able to give us an exact number
Speaker 1: and know what is a crime and what is not.
Speaker 1: But instead what we really have is a federal government
Speaker 1: that says, well, you know, it really depends, really depends,
Speaker 1: And to that I just would respond, that's not the
Speaker 1: way it's supposed to be. We started out with three
Speaker 1: three crimes in the constitution, piracy, counterfeiting, treason. Now we've
Speaker 1: got illegal packaging of a fish in plastic instead of
Speaker 1: paper in international waters. We have people who got real
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, who went wandered onto federal land
Speaker 1: and didn't know they're on federal land and found an
Speaker 1: arrowhead and then are being prosecuted because they found essentially
Speaker 1: a really old rock on the ground and it falls
Speaker 1: under a statute about disturbing native artifacts or something. I mean,
Speaker 1: just stuff like that. That all comes from this mentality
Speaker 1: that is exemplified and has been built upon in wickerd v.
Speaker 1: Philburn that allows the federal government to essentially involve itself
Speaker 1: in whatever it wants. So there you have that, my friends.
Speaker 1: I know I went a little bit of a tangent there,
Speaker 1: but I think it's a good one. And as so,
Speaker 1: this obviously shouldn't be a law that anyone passes. This
Speaker 1: is just the Democrats trying to make journalists feel better because,
Speaker 1: you know, here's the other part of it. Journalists are
Speaker 1: used to feeling like the echo chambers, theirs and theirs alone,
Speaker 1: and now that there's all this connectivity with the you know,
Speaker 1: the fifty percent of Americans that journalists despise, they're seeing
Speaker 1: now that, oh, those people can respond back to them.
Speaker 1: And Trump has kicked open the door here by saying
Speaker 1: that you don't have to listen to these people. Some
Speaker 1: of them are good, but some of them are bad.
Speaker 1: Some of them are ethical, but some of them are jerks. Well,
Speaker 1: now that means that we can always ask that question,
Speaker 1: is this just because this person writes for a newspaper
Speaker 1: or is on the television talking about the news, doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that they have some special knowledge, and it certainly
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that they're entitled to our respect. Is See,
Speaker 1: that's really part of what's made journalists so upset. They're
Speaker 1: not so much worried about their physical safety because that's
Speaker 1: just babysh. I mean, journalists are fine. I've told you.
Speaker 1: In the last thirty years, I think five journalists have
Speaker 1: been killed doing their jobs in the United States in
Speaker 1: thirty years. That's according the Committee to Protect Journalists, who
Speaker 1: did not like when I pointed out that that's not
Speaker 1: exactly a terrifying statistic. What they really don't like is
Speaker 1: that their prestige and their place in our society has
Speaker 1: been questioned in a way that they weren't ready for.
Speaker 1: And they they want some federal government odd to the
Speaker 1: fact that journalists are so important to the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: That's what this is really about. The show ain't over yet, folks.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call, Roll call time. Everybody. If
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of it yourself, Facebook,
Speaker 1: dot com, slash buck sex, and that is where I
Speaker 1: recommend you go and let's get to it. Brian writes Buck,
Speaker 1: I appreciated your comments yesterday about what if the Left
Speaker 1: tries to do to you what they are attempting on Tucker.
Speaker 1: You will go out with your shields high now that
Speaker 1: you have a team of Arden patriots behind you that
Speaker 1: have got your back on social media, they try to
Speaker 1: get you on some ignoramous action from your freshman year
Speaker 1: of college. I'm reminded of the one comment that Walter
Speaker 1: says to Donnie at the end of The Big Lebowski,
Speaker 1: The social media outrage clowns are the night nihilists. No, Donnie,
Speaker 1: these men are called nihilists. Hey, Brian, I really appreciate that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's I've been saying it for a long time. It's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why I try to maintain some
Speaker 1: consistency on this issue, among many other issues. At some point,
Speaker 1: someone's going to say that I've done something or said
Speaker 1: something that is problematic from the view of the Left.
Speaker 1: If I've done something that's actually problematic, I will always
Speaker 1: admit it. Apologize for it, and that is just a
Speaker 1: function of honor and integrity. But what I'm saying is
Speaker 1: that the the outrage mob, the media matters. In fact,
Speaker 1: media matters came at me today a little bit, and
Speaker 1: there'll be more of that, I'm sure in the future.
Speaker 1: Media matters comes after me occasionally on Twitter, and you
Speaker 1: know they'll they'll try to take me down. And look,
Speaker 1: as long as the team is with me, I'll always
Speaker 1: be doing a show and I'm not going to back
Speaker 1: down to the outrage mob. And I really hope that
Speaker 1: what we've seen from Tucker changes the standard going forward,
Speaker 1: because this is just nonsense. This this thing of if
Speaker 1: you're a conservative and you say something that's bad a
Speaker 1: long time time and go, or you say something that's
Speaker 1: that's borderline maybe inappropriate, but you know, stuff happens. The
Speaker 1: world's a the world's a contact sport, my friends. Uh,
Speaker 1: you're supposed to just be ruined and destroyed forever. But
Speaker 1: liberals say crazy stuff all the time. You know, Liberals
Speaker 1: do things that you think to yourself, if I ever
Speaker 1: did that, I'd never you know, I'd never work in
Speaker 1: that industry again, and I'd be ignominiously expelled from the
Speaker 1: public square, and it's just at the double standard is
Speaker 1: just too much and I'm sick of it and I
Speaker 1: don't want to live my life by their rules anymore.
Speaker 1: Oh it's tough. You know, people get sponsor pressure and
Speaker 1: then they you know, and then then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: it's a you know, do you want the paycheck or not?
Speaker 1: And you got to remember there's for some people, there's
Speaker 1: real consequences for all this, which is why I hate
Speaker 1: organizations like Media Matters. I mean, they don't they're not
Speaker 1: adding to knowledge, to discourse. They're not I'm using there.
Speaker 1: They don't make people feel better. All they do is
Speaker 1: just they're just out there to destroy. They're out there
Speaker 1: just to light small woodland creatures on fire their own amusement.
Speaker 1: They're disgusting. They're despicable people. And a lot of these
Speaker 1: left wing organizations out there that support them, whether we're
Speaker 1: talking Daily Co's, move on dot org, you know, the
Speaker 1: Young Turks, these different groups that are thinking that this thing.
Speaker 1: I even thin the pod Save America guys are advocating.
Speaker 1: I saw this today. They're advocating for the boycott against Tucker.
Speaker 1: You know, why don't they Why don't they offer to
Speaker 1: have Tucker on their show and debate some of these issues,
Speaker 1: or why don't they actually try to engage and make
Speaker 1: their points good now that they just they just want
Speaker 1: they want their competitors gone. They want people that they
Speaker 1: disagree with destroyed, ruined, humiliated in front of their families.
Speaker 1: You know, I try on this show for the most part. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, occasionally some public personalities are going to come
Speaker 1: in for some criticism and mockery. But I don't make
Speaker 1: fun of people's appearance. And that's one I'm not perfect,
Speaker 1: I know, but I try very hard, you know. I don't,
Speaker 1: you know, visions make fun of anyone's appearance, because I
Speaker 1: just think that's just beneath anybody, And I try to
Speaker 1: keep it on the substance and the ideas. What you
Speaker 1: see now, especially in social media world, is that it's
Speaker 1: always just just trying to destroy the people who are
Speaker 1: it's always ad hominum. They're trying to destroy the message,
Speaker 1: and it's a it's going to be worse in this
Speaker 1: country going forward to unless unless we finally take This
Speaker 1: is what taking a stand means. By the way, it's
Speaker 1: easy to say I take a stand on something and
Speaker 1: then when there's pressure and there's heat, you go, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm not going to take that stand anymore. That stand
Speaker 1: has been fun, but I'm not doing that stand anymore.
Speaker 1: That's that's easy to do when you say that I
Speaker 1: will not bow to the outrage mob, understanding that that
Speaker 1: may come with additional consequences. That's that's taking a stand,
Speaker 1: and that's what That's what Tucker is doing, and that's
Speaker 1: what a lot of other people I think around him
Speaker 1: realize has to be done. And this is all apart
Speaker 1: from the fact that, look, I don't I don't like
Speaker 1: some of the stuff that Tucker said at all. I
Speaker 1: think it's bad. But I don't think that people should
Speaker 1: lose their jobs and careers for saying something here or there,
Speaker 1: especially ten years ago, that is ill thought out, objectionable, wrong,
Speaker 1: any of the above. And yeah, obviously, I also I
Speaker 1: like Tucker and know that he's a good guy. He's
Speaker 1: a good person. He's worked incredibly hard to get where
Speaker 1: he is. He serves a very important role in public discourse.
Speaker 1: He's a warrior for our side. You know that all
Speaker 1: factors into it too, And I think if one of
Speaker 1: my biggest criticisms on the right is that we leave
Speaker 1: our own behind on the battlefield all the time, on
Speaker 1: the battlefield of ideas, we let our people just get
Speaker 1: eaten alive. And then we wonder why we don't have
Speaker 1: more media platforms. We wonder why the left has so
Speaker 1: much institutional dominance in places ranging from newsrooms across the
Speaker 1: country to Hollywood studios, to Netflix, to Google, to Facebook
Speaker 1: to you name it. Well, maybe if the people that
Speaker 1: know what's right actually stand up and fight, we won't
Speaker 1: be in this position. Maybe if the individuals across the
Speaker 1: country who understand that there are principles are at stake
Speaker 1: and that the left will just run us all over,
Speaker 1: they will go volonde rebellion on us if we allow
Speaker 1: them to. Metaphorically speaking, some of you remember that from
Speaker 1: yesterday's show, which actually got a lot of feedback about.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you guys liked a little bit of the
Speaker 1: history of well, the history of that and how it
Speaker 1: affects now. So as you can tell, I mean, I've
Speaker 1: thought a lot about this. I've also gotten a lot
Speaker 1: of heat for standing up for Tucker and now and
Speaker 1: really just standing up for Tucker's right to not lose
Speaker 1: his job or his livelihood because the left wants another scalp.
Speaker 1: You know, I think that that. So now I'm the
Speaker 1: eye of soroon has begun to turn onto me a
Speaker 1: little bit here. So just all you can do is
Speaker 1: be who you are and keep fighting. And that's true
Speaker 1: for all of you listening to this show too. Be
Speaker 1: who are, keep fighting and support the people that fight
Speaker 1: for what you believe in, because they need your support
Speaker 1: now more than ever. Rachel, Hello there, Buck. I thought
Speaker 1: your story on the French Revolution was gruesome and hard
Speaker 1: to listen to. I know that it is necessary to
Speaker 1: know for our children's sake. It's sobering to think that
Speaker 1: this could happen to us, God forbid. On another note,
Speaker 1: I was curious, how are you able to eat girl
Speaker 1: Scout cookie since you have ciliac disease as always Shields
Speaker 1: high or Rachel. Well, Rachel, I didn't discover that I
Speaker 1: had ciliac disease until twenty twelve, I think twenty twelve,
Speaker 1: So I've gone my entire life up until that point
Speaker 1: eating whatever I want, you know, thinking I have no
Speaker 1: allergies or intolerances. As you know, ciliac disease is an
Speaker 1: autoimmune disorder. It's not really an allergy. But so I
Speaker 1: know how all these things taste. So when I talk
Speaker 1: to you about drinking beer, kicking back, eating pizza, oh
Speaker 1: I did that for decades. I know all about that.
Speaker 1: I just can't do it anymore unless I want to
Speaker 1: drink sorghum beer and eat almond flower pizza. Some of
Speaker 1: you will laugh, but almind flower pizza is actually so
Speaker 1: There's that. If you're ever in New York City, the
Speaker 1: best gluten free pizzeria is called Keste, telling you the
Speaker 1: pizzas as good as any other pizza you've had anywhere else.
Speaker 1: My man Bart writes buck, is it not odd how
Speaker 1: the Dems always prioritize Muslims over all the other so
Speaker 1: called victimized minorities. This was made evident by the recent
Speaker 1: bill that was supposed to condemn Omar's anti semitism but
Speaker 1: didn't really. You see the same thing in England, France, Canada,
Speaker 1: and Sweden, where Muslims can bomb concerts, be head soldiers,
Speaker 1: ram trucks in the crowds, and yet avoid widespread condemnation. Worse,
Speaker 1: the government goes into overdrive to try to cover up
Speaker 1: the crimes. I think money is behind it. I suspect
Speaker 1: that all the leftist parties, including the Dems in the USA,
Speaker 1: are receiving billions of dollars in funding from some big
Speaker 1: Persian golf donors. This is being reported all over, nobody
Speaker 1: seems to grasp the sheer magnitude of the problem. Well
Speaker 1: Bart opened up a few things here. One is that
Speaker 1: you remember when you're talking about intersectionality and the way
Speaker 1: the left views competing identity groups and how they factor
Speaker 1: into the power structure. Right, that's what intersectionality is, and
Speaker 1: it's a it's a central concept on the or to
Speaker 1: the progressive left these days. When you see how they
Speaker 1: view things, it really is like they're putting it up
Speaker 1: on a wall, and you get points for different things.
Speaker 1: And so in the case of an ilhan Omar, you
Speaker 1: get points for being Muslim, female and black and being
Speaker 1: a born at born in Africa and then a refugee
Speaker 1: to this country. So you're a particularly protected person as
Speaker 1: a result of that status. And you know, Jews in
Speaker 1: this country and in Israel are considered well off, first world,
Speaker 1: highly educated, and white. And so even though you have
Speaker 1: this long millennia long history of oppression of the Jewish people,
Speaker 1: the intersectional left can't really adopt or can't really fully
Speaker 1: invest itself in viewing Jews as a minority that needs
Speaker 1: protection the same way that other minority groups do, because
Speaker 1: Jews do not fall into an oppressed underclass status in
Speaker 1: this country and in the post well, I was going
Speaker 1: to say, in the post war era of Israel, though,
Speaker 1: Israel is always ready for another conflict if it needs
Speaker 1: to be, But after multiple battles with its Arab neighbors,
Speaker 1: Israel is also considered not the oppressed, but the oppressed
Speaker 1: or in leftist ideology. So that's why they have this
Speaker 1: problem with Omar's anti Semitism. Omar's anti Semitism. They don't
Speaker 1: really want to call it out because they still view
Speaker 1: Omar as first and foremost a a victim, and they
Speaker 1: think that she is more a victim than the Jewish
Speaker 1: people that she obviously harbors some very nasty sentiments about.
Speaker 1: So team, you know what, I'm gonna do a double
Speaker 1: roll call because I know I went on a bit
Speaker 1: of a tangent there, and I've got a whole bunch
Speaker 1: more in the inbox here, So why don't we hit
Speaker 1: just take a quick breath, have that last sip of
Speaker 1: black rifle, although it's kind of late, so unless you
Speaker 1: got to work tonight, I don't know if that's a
Speaker 1: good idea. Coffee tends to keep me up at night.
Speaker 1: Brandon is called. Can you drink coffee late in the evening? No? Yeah,
Speaker 1: wait what, I don't drink coffee at all. You said,
Speaker 1: what I like my energy drinks, which I know are
Speaker 1: bad for you. But oh, you're one of these people
Speaker 1: that's made Monster Energy like one of the most profitable
Speaker 1: stocks to have owned in the last fifteen years. Or
Speaker 1: Monster Monster tastes. I mean, they're not a sponsor, so
Speaker 1: I can say that they taste like battery acid. But
Speaker 1: I might have like a red Bull over two days,
Speaker 1: kind of a red Bull? Really is that? Is that
Speaker 1: you're the one of choice, that's the one you go too. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's because it's I don't know, it's like sipping soda
Speaker 1: or carbonated water. It's nothing like too bad, But I
Speaker 1: don't know. I love the smell of coffee. I just
Speaker 1: don't like the taste. All right, Well, I'm weird. Learn
Speaker 1: something new. Every day. We're gonna we're gonna come right
Speaker 1: back with more role calls. Stay with me, all right?
Speaker 1: So we're back with a second piece of role call. Here.
Speaker 1: We had so much coming into our inbox that I
Speaker 1: figured we could spend a little more time on it,
Speaker 1: and so here we are Brendan right looking ahead at
Speaker 1: twenty twenty four. I believe it is abundantly clear that
Speaker 1: those that have chosen politics as a career choice have
Speaker 1: no intention of advancing the eight year Trump conservative movement. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: the best candidate choices of Shapiro, Kirk, Crowder, or Owens
Speaker 1: won't be old enough to run for presidents. Perhaps Carlson
Speaker 1: Sexon or maybe Adam Carolla are the best choices we have.
Speaker 1: I think the people that have chosen political commentary is
Speaker 1: the only way a conservative message and policy can unapologetic
Speaker 1: be brought to the American people. What do you think? So?
Speaker 1: I think if you're asking me, do we have people
Speaker 1: who are old enough to run for president who are
Speaker 1: really conservative and could carry the message, but aren't part
Speaker 1: of the boomer generation. A lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: individuals would think right away of Dan Crenshaw, who is
Speaker 1: obviously a member of Congress, former Navy seal, very well respected,
Speaker 1: very reasonable in his approach to politics, is and is
Speaker 1: liked by conservatives in the traditional mold, as well as
Speaker 1: the different echelons of Trump world. So I think Dan
Speaker 1: Crenshaw is somebody that you are obviously going to hear
Speaker 1: a lot more about. And I think that he's likely
Speaker 1: the future of the party in a lot of ways.
Speaker 1: And I know that's early to say, but he's certainly
Speaker 1: got all the credentials, and he's got the respect to people,
Speaker 1: and you could tell he's got the persona, the temperament.
Speaker 1: So yeah, I think you're going to see Crenshaw twenty
Speaker 1: twenty four. Yep, I do. I think you are going
Speaker 1: to see Crenshaw twenty twenty four. And I think he's
Speaker 1: going to be a real contender. I've been saying for
Speaker 1: a while on the show, So where are Rhodes Scholar?
Speaker 1: Navy seals? And I know people who are so impressive
Speaker 1: in every respect, and I feel like they don't run
Speaker 1: for office. They just want to go into the private
Speaker 1: sector and have a nice life. But we should get
Speaker 1: more people that have really impressive backgrounds. And I know that,
Speaker 1: you know there's Tom Cotton, went to Harvard Law School,
Speaker 1: was a platoon commander. I think in Afghanistan. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: we get people like that who run for office. But
Speaker 1: Crenshaw is along that mold of you know, a supercommando,
Speaker 1: wounded veteran, really smart guy. I think you went to
Speaker 1: Harvard for not business school, but maybe got a Kennedy
Speaker 1: Kennedy school, So so some people the credentialing system works
Speaker 1: really well. Uh you know, I know I've been talking
Speaker 1: about how the elites are not what they pretend to be.
Speaker 1: But when you're when you're a combat veteran seal who
Speaker 1: then goes to Harvard and becomes congressman. Yeah, no, you've
Speaker 1: You're impressive. That's that's legit. Michael. Right, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, remember those first Saturday shows? I do. I
Speaker 1: remember when I thought you were more libertarian than conservative.
Speaker 1: Since you have become more popular, I have learned the truth.
Speaker 1: You are more conservative than you have than you are libertarian.
Speaker 1: I'm what has been called the conservatarian by your friend
Speaker 1: Charles Cook. So I'm still a big fan of yours.
Speaker 1: I'm just wondering what do you think about this? Have
Speaker 1: you changed? Is it subconscious? Uh? Well, Michael, I think
Speaker 1: that like a lot of people, I evolve as I
Speaker 1: get older and think more about certain issues, and for example,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think that the libertarian approach on some
Speaker 1: stuff is because of the nature and the power of
Speaker 1: the progressive left that we face. It's kind of like
Speaker 1: people who said, oh, well, what Gandhi did with non
Speaker 1: violence worked in India, it would not have worked against
Speaker 1: the Nazis. And I'm not trying to make I know
Speaker 1: anytime you bring in Nazis, you're going way off the rails.
Speaker 1: But the authoritarian left has become much more aggressive and
Speaker 1: authoritarian even over the last five or six years. And
Speaker 1: so while we can sit around saying, hey, let's just
Speaker 1: have hands off with the government, man, no, if we
Speaker 1: don't win the fight and actually have control of the
Speaker 1: government that is making these decisions, they're just going to
Speaker 1: make all these decisions for us. They will be in charge.
Speaker 1: And so it's for me. Yeah, I would say that
Speaker 1: I'm I prefer libertarian. I prefer libertarian policies in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways. But I think that you have to
Speaker 1: take a conservative, a conservative's approach to winning on the
Speaker 1: issues and understanding that you can't sit this stuff out.
Speaker 1: That if you say, oh, we just won't have the
Speaker 1: government involved, what you're going to have is the left
Speaker 1: wing government involved, So you know, it's a little bit
Speaker 1: of a fight fire with fire response, but it's an
Speaker 1: honest response. My friend. That's it for today, Team more
Speaker 1: coming tomorrow, Shields High. You know, it's a great feeling
Speaker 1: when you get that one hundred dollar bill that you
Speaker 1: find stuck inside of jackets that you haven't worn a
Speaker 1: long time. Isn't that amazing? Right? It feels good. Well,
Speaker 1: imagine finding hundreds of dollars in the papers that are
Speaker 1: sitting in your filing cab at desk or boxes in
Speaker 1: your attic. You know it's that old four oh one
Speaker 1: k paperwork from the job before last, the one you
Speaker 1: don't really remember. Well, that money is sitting there gathering
Speaker 1: financial dust. It could be working a lot harder for you.
Speaker 1: My friends at Noble Goold can see if you qualify
Speaker 1: for a Precious Metals IRA and they'll do all the
Speaker 1: heavy lifting for you. This could make you a lot
Speaker 1: and cost you nothing. Give Noble Goold to call at
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six four six five three four seven
Speaker 1: or text my name Buck to five eleven five eleven
Speaker 1: and received their free Investors Guide plus for all qualified
Speaker 1: iras about twenty thousand dollars. They'll also include a complimentary
Speaker 1: rare graded Morgan silver dollar valued at one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty dollars. Go to noblegold Investments dot com or text
Speaker 1: buck to five eleven five eleven, and then individual results
Speaker 1: may vary invest wisely. Standard text rates may apply.