Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. It's official. Creepy Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has sniffed his way right into the Democratic primary.
Speaker 1: He is now a candidate for president. We'll talk about
Speaker 1: whether this is going to shake things up. We'll be
Speaker 1: much ado about nothing. That and all the rest of
Speaker 1: the news today 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: No mistake, American, You're a great American. Again the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. Everybody get excited. It's Biden time. Who can
Speaker 1: you feel all the electricity in the air. Can you
Speaker 1: feel that hand slowly working its way from the small
Speaker 1: of your back up to your shoulder? And then another
Speaker 1: hand working its way on the other side? Wait? Was it? Was?
Speaker 1: It sliding kind of off the off to the left
Speaker 1: and that's almost your buttocks area. But no, no, now
Speaker 1: the hands moving up, it's going further up the back.
Speaker 1: And are you about to get a BackRub from the
Speaker 1: Vice President of the United States? Did did he just
Speaker 1: sniff you? Joe Biden? Oh man, they're gonna say all
Speaker 1: kinds of things to make that go away. But we
Speaker 1: got the video, folks. He's a weird guy. He's a
Speaker 1: weird guy. Now, look, you you can tell me, you
Speaker 1: can tell me that none of that really matters. And
Speaker 1: I do not pretend to make this a it's it's
Speaker 1: not criminal. He's not a he's not a monster or
Speaker 1: anything that not at all. Okay, we're just having a
Speaker 1: little fun with the fact that he's he's got some
Speaker 1: boundary issues, for sure. I think guy has boundary issues.
Speaker 1: I've worked in many offices for many years, and I
Speaker 1: have yet to have anyone sniff my head or kiss
Speaker 1: the top of my head. Although I don't know, maybe
Speaker 1: I'm just not wearing the right cologne. But Biden is
Speaker 1: in and people are all very very excited about this,
Speaker 1: and on the left, I guess, I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: are they excited about it? Though, that's let's put a
Speaker 1: pin in that for a moment. I'm not sure. I'm
Speaker 1: not convinced that anyone's particularly I don't even think Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is excited about this. He had his launch video though, today,
Speaker 1: which was every bit as sanctimonious and self indulgent as
Speaker 1: you would have expected. It. Will play a bit of
Speaker 1: it for you, play clip three, so you are I
Speaker 1: believe his try look back on four years of this
Speaker 1: president and all the embraces as an aberrant moment in time.
Speaker 1: But if you give Donald Trump eight years from the
Speaker 1: White House, he will forever and fundamentally alter the character
Speaker 1: of this nation. Who we are and I cannot stand
Speaker 1: by and what's that happened? The core values of this
Speaker 1: nation are standing in the world, are very democracy. Everything
Speaker 1: that has made America America is at stake. That's why
Speaker 1: today I'm announcing my candidacy for President of the United States.
Speaker 1: What is he talking about? You know that that those
Speaker 1: are all words strung together to bring certain emotions out
Speaker 1: of the audience. And there's all this grandiosity and you
Speaker 1: can hear the score in the background. America, our democracy
Speaker 1: is at stake. How we had an election? Trump won
Speaker 1: the election. Country is doing well. Things are pretty good.
Speaker 1: What is at stake exactly in terms of the fundamental
Speaker 1: values of this country or what I really would like
Speaker 1: them to articulate this. I'd like Joe Biden to articulate this.
Speaker 1: What are they gonna say is because because Trump FIBs
Speaker 1: about things sometimes, Oh, I'm sorry. Is he the first
Speaker 1: politician who's ever lied? Oh? That's right. Bill Clinton lied
Speaker 1: under oath and didn't get charged for it. Barack Obama
Speaker 1: lied about a healthcare program that might even affected some
Speaker 1: might have been affected, some of you listening to the show.
Speaker 1: You might have lost your plan after Obama intentionally lied
Speaker 1: to you, lie to the American people dozens and dozens
Speaker 1: of times about that. So what exactly is he talking about?
Speaker 1: You know, what do they think they mean? That's what
Speaker 1: you have to ask when you're talking about Democrats. What
Speaker 1: do they think they mean? It's not clear our democracy
Speaker 1: is at stake, the fundamental value, fundamental values. This from
Speaker 1: a man whose party put forward Hillary Clinton in the
Speaker 1: last election, because when I think values, I think Hillary.
Speaker 1: I also think charm and whimsy and pant suits. Democrats
Speaker 1: live in an alternate, alternate universe. They live in a
Speaker 1: world where they really do think that they're the good
Speaker 1: guys against the bad guys. Whereas I think that we
Speaker 1: live in a country that, yeah, has its problems, but
Speaker 1: things are actually going very well. Trump has, by any
Speaker 1: reasonable person's expectation, wildly exceeded the parameters and the predictions
Speaker 1: set for him by the so called political elites, the media,
Speaker 1: the intelligentsia. We were going to be in a huge
Speaker 1: recession nowhere not we were going to be a massive
Speaker 1: national security risk. No. Actually, look, Trump has been better
Speaker 1: as commander in chief all national security than Obama was.
Speaker 1: And I have to tell you then Bush was too.
Speaker 1: Now he wasn't dealt the same hand that Bush was.
Speaker 1: You could, we could, we could quibble on this a
Speaker 1: little bit. Bush nine eleven, the rise of jihadism built
Speaker 1: or really decades before, but just ran a muck under
Speaker 1: the Clinton administration. And then you know, Bush comes into
Speaker 1: office and we are really under assault from an enemy
Speaker 1: that was an existential threat to our society. It was,
Speaker 1: but you got to think about a rock as well
Speaker 1: as Afghanistan and some of the decision making the Bush
Speaker 1: administration had. I think you could very easily argue that
Speaker 1: so far Trump is a better national security president than
Speaker 1: both of his predecessors. In fact, I think to find
Speaker 1: a president who is as sound on the fundamentals. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying he's an expert. You know. Trump doesn't sit around,
Speaker 1: you know, learning the name of the premiere of Batswana
Speaker 1: late at night. Okay, I get it. But if you're
Speaker 1: talking about gut instinct and the fundamentals of what this
Speaker 1: country should try to achieve around the world, and as
Speaker 1: importantly in foreign policy, what it should not try to achieve.
Speaker 1: Trump is better than anyone in his job. Stretching back
Speaker 1: to you'd have to go back to Reagan to find
Speaker 1: some buddy who has the same degree of both love
Speaker 1: for the country and proper gut instincts about how to
Speaker 1: deal with our enemies and how to embolden our allies
Speaker 1: and not make huge mistakes. Not making huge mistakes is
Speaker 1: one of the biggest precepts of any It should be
Speaker 1: one of the biggest principles of any foreign policy in
Speaker 1: any administration. Trump hasn't done it yet. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: he won't, but if he gets this China deal done,
Speaker 1: you got to go into this reelection thing. Hold on
Speaker 1: a second. He was right on the border, and they
Speaker 1: all said that he was crazy and racist. No, Trump
Speaker 1: has been right about the border situation. He hasn't been
Speaker 1: able to fix it yet. But we were being told
Speaker 1: by you know, I haven't forgotten folks, the Gang of
Speaker 1: Ape Bill, the Republican Party. They were all about all
Speaker 1: about trying to convince us that the only answer was amnesty,
Speaker 1: and that amnesty would be a great thing for this
Speaker 1: country and that there wouldn't be future massive inflows of illegals.
Speaker 1: That's where the Republican Party was pre Trump. To his credit,
Speaker 1: Mitt Romney was actually pretty decent on immigration in twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: He was for e verify, he was for self deportation.
Speaker 1: You know, Mitt lately has really ticked me off, not
Speaker 1: just lately, but in the era of Trump. I don't
Speaker 1: know what to say about Mitt. He's gone off the
Speaker 1: deep end. But he wasn't bad in immigration in twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: Check the facts. We'll see yourself. The Republican Party in general, though,
Speaker 1: has been very close to where where the Democrats were
Speaker 1: until recently. On China and trade and tariffs, Trump has
Speaker 1: been correct, despite the overwhelming consensus of the so called
Speaker 1: experts against him. Oh no, we believe in free trade.
Speaker 1: We don't have free trade. China's cheating all the time.
Speaker 1: You know. This is like if we're going into a
Speaker 1: basketball game and everyone keeps saying no, you have to
Speaker 1: play by the rules. You say, well, the other guys
Speaker 1: have eight people on the court. Can can we put
Speaker 1: three more people on our side because they have eight
Speaker 1: people playing the game. Oh no, but we believe in
Speaker 1: five on five basketball, buck, they've got eight people. They've
Speaker 1: got eight people. You know what do we say about that? No?
Speaker 1: Are we believe in five on five? Okay, yeah, that's
Speaker 1: like saying we believe in free trade. You don't have
Speaker 1: free trade. They're cheating. Trump understands. This is Trump up
Speaker 1: late at night, you know, reading Thucidites. No, he is not.
Speaker 1: Do I care when he actually understands very important issues
Speaker 1: of policy better than the people who are up late
Speaker 1: at night with their dog eared copy of a Throusidizes
Speaker 1: Thucidities History of the Peloponnesian War, which I'm looking at
Speaker 1: right now on my desk. That's why it's on my mind. No,
Speaker 1: I think that Trump should get more credit for this.
Speaker 1: Do we think that Joe Biden? Oh, don't worry, we're
Speaker 1: gonna dig more into this. I didn't mean to turn
Speaker 1: this into a Trump alogue. Do we think that Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has better judgment on foreign policy issues? Where where
Speaker 1: has Joe Biden been on the b foreign policy decisions
Speaker 1: at the last thirty years, Someone who was brought into
Speaker 1: the Obama administration as the VP, largely for the appearance
Speaker 1: of a steady hand on foreign policy. I can tell
Speaker 1: you this, Joe Biden on foreign policy has been remarkably,
Speaker 1: remarkably consistent. You must give him credit, folks. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: has been incredibly consistent in that he is always wrong.
Speaker 1: It's amazing to see. So he's quite useful in that way,
Speaker 1: because when there's a tough decision on foreign policy, all
Speaker 1: you have to do is say, well, what does Joe
Speaker 1: Biden want to do, and then do the opposite of
Speaker 1: that thing, and you'll make the right choice. But Biden
Speaker 1: didn't even push that far on his foreign policy credits.
Speaker 1: Today they made it about how this is a fight
Speaker 1: for the soul of the country, and they did this
Speaker 1: video from Charlottesville, the favorite story for liberals to tell
Speaker 1: now about how Trump is literally as bad as Hitler,
Speaker 1: as they say, the worst ever, some kind of demon
Speaker 1: that has seized the White House, taking orders from the
Speaker 1: Kremlin as he eats all the babies across the land
Speaker 1: and brings fire and brimstone to village after village. I mean,
Speaker 1: they have an anti Trump psychosis, and yet here we
Speaker 1: are being offered up Joe Biden as his replacement. Charlottesville,
Speaker 1: he made a video. He made a video where he
Speaker 1: said things like this play four. He said, there were
Speaker 1: quote some very fine people on both sides, very fine
Speaker 1: people on both sides. But those words, the President United
Speaker 1: States assigned a moral equivalence between those spreading hate than
Speaker 1: those of the courage to stand against it. And in
Speaker 1: that moment, I knew the threat to this nation was
Speaker 1: unlike any I had ever seen in my lifetime. The
Speaker 1: threat and will get into the specifics of what is
Speaker 1: a misrepresentation, what is a falsehood that Joe Biden content
Speaker 1: and the media continued to spread this all the time
Speaker 1: as well. But I first want to deal with the
Speaker 1: notion that this is the greatest threat in Joe Biden's lifetime.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is almost seventy, so that means that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is. By Biden's own own assessment, Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: a bigger threat to the United States than the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: bigger threat to the United States than China, bigger threat
Speaker 1: to the United States than Radical Islam, which includes al Qaeda,
Speaker 1: which wanted to and still would like to get a
Speaker 1: weapon of mass destruction to detonate in a US city
Speaker 1: and made efforts in that, and it made efforts in
Speaker 1: the pursuit thereof Donald Trump's a bigger threat than all
Speaker 1: of that. Any person who says that should be laughed
Speaker 1: out of the room. Joe Biden, for all of his
Speaker 1: grinning and glad handing and baby kissing and top of
Speaker 1: head woman kissing that doesn't want him to kiss their head,
Speaker 1: all of that is really a fraud. He is the
Speaker 1: quintessential politician, stands for whatever he needs to stand for
Speaker 1: in the moment to advance his own interest, and pretends
Speaker 1: that he's doing the public a favor. I would much
Speaker 1: rather take the instincts and the swagger and the braggadocio
Speaker 1: of Donald Trump over the pseudo earnestness of a Joe
Speaker 1: Biden any day. Trump says what he thinks, and Trump
Speaker 1: shares a sensibility in this country that we are sick
Speaker 1: of being talked down do and lie do by people
Speaker 1: who think they're smarter than we are, but they actually aren't.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden panders to those people. He panders both to
Speaker 1: the elites who think they're better than you are, and
Speaker 1: he panders to the victimology crowd that thinks The only
Speaker 1: reason that their lives aren't better is because of you.
Speaker 1: Because of you, you churchgoing, gun toting, Bible loving, married,
Speaker 1: likely person. You're the You're not giving enough of your
Speaker 1: money away to the government. You see, you're the problem.
Speaker 1: I want to deal with the central lie here of Trump,
Speaker 1: of Trump's saying that they're the neo Nazis, were the
Speaker 1: same as everybody else, and the essentially that Trump is
Speaker 1: pro neo Nazi. That's a lie. Maybe he was inartful
Speaker 1: in how he was explaining himself at the time, but
Speaker 1: that's a lie. It is a lie. He does not
Speaker 1: have pro Nazi sympathies, and people who say that are
Speaker 1: smearing him. But that's not much of a leap, is it,
Speaker 1: Because people will also saying and continue to including one
Speaker 1: that we'll deal with later on in the show that's
Speaker 1: coming up, people who continue to say that he's a
Speaker 1: Russian asset, a traitor. What is more likely The president
Speaker 1: is a trader, is a race is a sexist, is
Speaker 1: a sexual assaulterer, is mentally incompetent to be president? All
Speaker 1: things that prominent democrats and media talking head say about
Speaker 1: him all the time, or that they're crazy. Here's the answer.
Speaker 1: They are crazy. I watched this very closely, much more
Speaker 1: closely than your people watched it, and you have you
Speaker 1: had a group on one side that was bad, and
Speaker 1: you had a group on the other side that was
Speaker 1: also very violent. And nobody wants to say that, but
Speaker 1: I'll say it right now. You had a group on
Speaker 1: the other side that came charging in without a permit
Speaker 1: and they were very, very violent. I've condemned neo Nazis,
Speaker 1: I've condemned many different groups, but not all of those
Speaker 1: people were Neo Nazis. Believe me, not all of those
Speaker 1: people were white supremacists by any stretch. Those people were
Speaker 1: also there because they will to protest the taking down
Speaker 1: of a statue Robert E. Lee. That is what Trump said.
Speaker 1: That is the full statement. And this this is what
Speaker 1: it's supposed to be evidence of Trump being a horrible racist.
Speaker 1: At worst, Trump had bad information or was wrong that
Speaker 1: some of the people who were a part of this
Speaker 1: clash were really just there because they thought that they
Speaker 1: were part of a protest to take down a Robert E.
Speaker 1: Lee statue. And there are legitimate debates and discussions to
Speaker 1: be had about how we handle the elevation of civil
Speaker 1: war figures from the Confederacy in our current time. But
Speaker 1: there are real debates and discussions. In fact, my friend
Speaker 1: Jared Stepman is writing a book on this that will
Speaker 1: be coming out in a few months on the back
Speaker 1: and forth. And of course now you know they want
Speaker 1: to tear it down Columbus statues. And Trump did not
Speaker 1: say he likes neo Nazis. He condemned neo Nazis. He
Speaker 1: said he condemned theo Nazis in that statement. Okay, I
Speaker 1: know that I know the Trump family, I knew them
Speaker 1: grow up. This notion that Donald Trump is a is
Speaker 1: a neo Nazi, this is just this is just bizarre.
Speaker 1: It's such a lie. It's such a transparent and obvious lie.
Speaker 1: But they say it, but they say it, they do
Speaker 1: it anyway. You know, Trump does not like Neo Nazis.
Speaker 1: Please media, get something else. He condemned them. He says
Speaker 1: they're losers, he says they're bad. But you see, this
Speaker 1: is just they have to find some way to justify
Speaker 1: the frenzied anti Trump hysteria they have. And this now
Speaker 1: manifests itself in Vice President Biden, or former Vice President Biden.
Speaker 1: Apparently he doesn't like that, by the way, you can
Speaker 1: introduce him as former vice President's supposed to call him
Speaker 1: vice president, I think, which is very weird to me.
Speaker 1: That's in the writers for some of his speeches. I
Speaker 1: saw that yesterday. I don't know if he just likes
Speaker 1: to be called uncle Joe, but Joe Biden making this
Speaker 1: a centerpiece of his announcement. The Charlottesville debacle is really
Speaker 1: showing you where the left is going to go. They're
Speaker 1: not going to make some inspired, you know, call to
Speaker 1: national unity and Howard no, no no, no. They're gonna run
Speaker 1: the most dishonest, scorched earth campaign imaginable against Trump to
Speaker 1: try to frighten normal people away from supporting a president
Speaker 1: who has provided and produced results, good results for the country,
Speaker 1: policy solutions that are bearing fruit. You're supposed to forget
Speaker 1: all that and listen to their version of what Trump
Speaker 1: said in Charlottesville. We'll have more on Biden, as you
Speaker 1: can tell. I'm not a Biden person that's coming up.
Speaker 1: He's back with you now, because when it comes to
Speaker 1: the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. Yes, I
Speaker 1: think there's blame on both sides. You look at you
Speaker 1: look at both sides. I think there's blame on both sides.
Speaker 1: And I have no doubt about it, and you don't
Speaker 1: have any doubt about it either. And if you reported
Speaker 1: it accurately, you would say, and you had some very
Speaker 1: bad people in that group, but you also had people
Speaker 1: that were very fine people on both sides. You had
Speaker 1: people in that group. Excuse me, excuse me, I saw
Speaker 1: the same pictures as you did. You had people in
Speaker 1: that group that were there to protest that taking down
Speaker 1: of to them, a very very important statue and the
Speaker 1: renaming of a park from Robert E. Lee to another name.
Speaker 1: So look what Trump is saying, and you know, we
Speaker 1: go back this again. He's saying that people that have
Speaker 1: a problem with Robert le lee statue being taken down
Speaker 1: are not the same necessarily as neo Nazis. He's trying
Speaker 1: to make that separation. He's trying to say, this isn't
Speaker 1: the same thing. He's also saying that some of the
Speaker 1: people that were there as part of Antifa, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: this is this is something the left doesn't understand anymore.
Speaker 1: You aren't allowed, let's say, if you do have the
Speaker 1: Nazis marching and Skoki Illinois, you're not allowed to show
Speaker 1: up with baseball bats and bludging them to death. You're
Speaker 1: actually not allowed to do that. That is not a
Speaker 1: what a civilized society does to speech that it does
Speaker 1: not like, including hate speech, included real hate speech. But
Speaker 1: the left is now abandoned all this, so they they're
Speaker 1: making Charlottesville a centerpiece of this, and they're making things,
Speaker 1: making things up really in many cases about Trump, which
Speaker 1: is that's nothing new at all. One thing I thought
Speaker 1: was interesting is that Biden, let's get back to it,
Speaker 1: let's dig into bidle and more. I'm sorry, I just
Speaker 1: find you know, every time you turn on the TV
Speaker 1: and there's some left wing talking head who's making a
Speaker 1: lot of noise about terrible Trump is their fallbacks, oh Charlottesville.
Speaker 1: And I'm just like, you know, guys, the president, he's
Speaker 1: talked about this so many times, he's a neo Nazis.
Speaker 1: There's nothing about this president that indicates any fondness or
Speaker 1: love for neo Nazis, but they just keep saying it
Speaker 1: because it, for them is necessary to justify the insane
Speaker 1: and frenzied hysteria they have about how as Joe Biden
Speaker 1: would put it, the greatest threat to this country in
Speaker 1: his lifetime seventy years back. Let's do the math there.
Speaker 1: That's quite a while. Is Donald J. Trump? I would
Speaker 1: always want to ask, you know, I just give me
Speaker 1: one second before you what is the terrible thing that
Speaker 1: has happened because of Trump's presidency. It's a really interesting exercise.
Speaker 1: When you ask a psycholib to fill you in on
Speaker 1: this one. What is the really horrible things? They'll probably
Speaker 1: say Charlottesville And okay, I mean, even if he misspoke
Speaker 1: very badly in Charlottesville, no one, you know, this wasn't
Speaker 1: like a war. I mean, we didn't lose thousands of people.
Speaker 1: The economy didn't crap out, we didn't have you know,
Speaker 1: millions of people lose their jobs. What is the terrible
Speaker 1: thing that Trump has done? In fact, in a lot
Speaker 1: of ways, he hasn't been able to do some of
Speaker 1: the things that he would like to do that would
Speaker 1: be great. But he's been a pretty in terms of policy.
Speaker 1: And yeah, I'm just gonna say it. Within the mainstream
Speaker 1: of Republican Party politics. Tax Cut tried to do a
Speaker 1: little trimming around the edges of Obamacare. Did some of
Speaker 1: that not enough? Trying to secure the border. Border security
Speaker 1: is supposed to be a bipartisan thing. What is the
Speaker 1: horrible thing that Trump has done that justifies this insanity
Speaker 1: from from Joe Biden and from everyone else on the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party that suggests that he's the greatest threat. And
Speaker 1: here's a reminder. Now I want to focus on Biden.
Speaker 1: I know, I got a little bit distracted because I
Speaker 1: just I hate all the stuff they say about Trump
Speaker 1: all the time. But here's a this is courtesy your producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's greatest hits. I mean, this is the kind
Speaker 1: of stuff that this guy that we're being told is
Speaker 1: a return to normalcy. This is the other pitch, a
Speaker 1: fight for the soul of the nation and a return
Speaker 1: to normalcy. Play Cliff ten Man, who will be the
Speaker 1: next president of the United States, Barack America, You're gonna
Speaker 1: put you all back in chains. We've got the first
Speaker 1: sort of amazing stream crical American who is articulate and
Speaker 1: bright and clean and Bicican guy. I mean, that's a
Speaker 1: storybrook Is mom lived in in Long Island for ten
Speaker 1: years or so. A God rest her soul and hum
Speaker 1: although she's wait, your mom's still your mom's still alive, Delaware.
Speaker 1: You cannot go to a seven eleven or Duncan Donuts
Speaker 1: unless you have a slight Indian accent. Chuck Graham State
Speaker 1: Senators here, Chuck, stand up, Chuck, let him see it.
Speaker 1: Oh God, love you? What am I talking about? Yeah?
Speaker 1: That last one was and he told the guy who's
Speaker 1: in a wheelchair to stand up if you forgot. Now, look,
Speaker 1: some of these are gaffs. I mean, some of them
Speaker 1: are just Joe Biden being Joe Biden and there and
Speaker 1: their gaffs. Others of them, are you gonna put you
Speaker 1: all back in change? Really irresponsible stuff for him to say.
Speaker 1: But Joe Biden has a long history of being wrong.
Speaker 1: In fact, here's one, you know, you look at I'm
Speaker 1: trying to if I were to try to do this
Speaker 1: off the top of my head, I probably could. Let
Speaker 1: me think for a second. I mean, if you're looking
Speaker 1: for the ways that Joe Biden has been wrong on
Speaker 1: foreign policy, oh, here you go. This. My friend Brett
Speaker 1: Hume over at Fox News pulled this one together. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden was for the nuclear freeze, He was against the
Speaker 1: First Iraq War, for the Second Iraq War, and was
Speaker 1: opposed to ordering the raid that killed Osama bin Laden.
Speaker 1: On that last point. In case you're saying, well, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, buck, was he really no way, no way,
Speaker 1: He'd get that one wrong way, dude. Way. He had
Speaker 1: to make a decision. The president. He went around the
Speaker 1: table with all the senior people, including the choice, the
Speaker 1: chiefs of staff, and he said, I have to make decision.
Speaker 1: What is your opinion? He started the National Security advice
Speaker 1: in the Secretary of State, and he ended with me.
Speaker 1: Every single person in that room headed their bed except
Speaker 1: Leon Panetta. Leon said go. Everyone else said forty nine
Speaker 1: fifty one got to me. He said, Joe, what do
Speaker 1: you think? And I said, you know, I didn't know.
Speaker 1: We had so many economists around the table. I said,
Speaker 1: we owe the man a direct answer. Mister President. My
Speaker 1: suggestion is don't go. We have to do two more
Speaker 1: things to see if he's there. He walked out and said,
Speaker 1: I'll give you my decision, true, Bud, don't go. Do
Speaker 1: the thing that, more than anything else, probably helped I'm
Speaker 1: a win reelection. There you go, Joe Biden for America.
Speaker 1: Everybody the judgment you can't count on. This is a
Speaker 1: this is a Democrat party that is looking to this man.
Speaker 1: Really by default, they are emotionally and increasingly psychologically predisposed
Speaker 1: towards at least a Marxist trajectory for the country, if
Speaker 1: not open Marxism. Right now, they do have this belief
Speaker 1: that the country would be better if it was a
Speaker 1: democratic socialist country, which is just another way of saying
Speaker 1: a socialist country. They are in favor of this, but
Speaker 1: they know that it doesn't sit that well with some
Speaker 1: of their fellow Americans. They know that there's still some hesitation,
Speaker 1: there's some reticence. So they're looking to Biden as well.
Speaker 1: Maybe he becomes the bridge. Maybe Biden poses as a
Speaker 1: return to normalcy, whatever that means, by the way, normalcy
Speaker 1: like how like Obama spending a trillion dollars in a
Speaker 1: stimulus package after the bailout of the banks, and then
Speaker 1: the first thing he decides to do is go through
Speaker 1: a viciously partisan battle over healthcare and pass a massive
Speaker 1: new entitlement without a single Republican vote to support it.
Speaker 1: I mean that that's the kind of normalcy we want
Speaker 1: to return to. Do we want to return to riots
Speaker 1: in major US cities over lies that are being told
Speaker 1: to people about police violence and the systematic nature of
Speaker 1: police hunting young African American men, or do we want
Speaker 1: to return to those lies? When they say return to normalcy,
Speaker 1: I think this is interesting. Who says we want normalcy?
Speaker 1: If normalcy is what we had before, I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not on board for that. In fact, Trump's rise and
Speaker 1: election was in large part a repudiation of what the
Speaker 1: political elites have told us is normalcy. Trump's rise is
Speaker 1: meant to be a slap at those who have pretended
Speaker 1: to be our betters for so long on all these issues,
Speaker 1: to know more than us, to have a greater understanding,
Speaker 1: greater wisdom. This is why when you look even further back,
Speaker 1: you find out that Joe Biden, where's this? Where's our
Speaker 1: throwback with Biden? When he had to drop out because
Speaker 1: up dropped out of the presidential race, Why remember return
Speaker 1: to normalcy? Like you know the ethics and the truth
Speaker 1: telling of politicians past. Who believes this crap? Here's Biden
Speaker 1: back in nineteen eighty seven dropping out of a presidential race.
Speaker 1: Guess what for plagiarism and for lying? Blakelip nine, he
Speaker 1: is the man in the dock for using other people's
Speaker 1: words without credit and being less than truthful about the
Speaker 1: credits he received at law school and at college. I'd
Speaker 1: do it with incredible reluctance, and it makes me angry.
Speaker 1: I'm angry with myself for having been put in a position,
Speaker 1: put myself in the physician, having to make this choice,
Speaker 1: and I am no less frustrated for the environment of
Speaker 1: presidential politics. Be that as it may, I've concluded that
Speaker 1: I will stop being a candidate for president of the
Speaker 1: United States. Because he lied about being in the top
Speaker 1: of his law school class. Turns out he was more
Speaker 1: like the bottom of his law school class, which, if
Speaker 1: you listen to enough Joe Biden's speeches, it is not surprising.
Speaker 1: And speaking of speeches, he also stole a speech from
Speaker 1: a plagiarize a speech from a member of Parliament in
Speaker 1: the UK, and if you hear it, it's it's pretty
Speaker 1: amazing that he was as blatant about it as he was.
Speaker 1: But so is that the return to normalcy. A career politician,
Speaker 1: a career fabricator. What does he bring that is so
Speaker 1: much better than what Trump brings? I really mean that
Speaker 1: a great understanding of the free market, of economics, of
Speaker 1: how to run a business, a better understanding of who
Speaker 1: the good guys and who the bad guys are. I
Speaker 1: don't think that Joe Biden beats Trump on any of
Speaker 1: those fronts, which then raises the question can Biden win? Now,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean is he better? That's not the same thing.
Speaker 1: Can he win? Here's what the esteemed former Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House, Knute Gingrich said in his assessment of that
Speaker 1: place seven. Can he beat President Trump? Well? Conceivably? I mean,
Speaker 1: if the economy would go really bad, if the president
Speaker 1: would have a bad campaign, and you know, you don't know.
Speaker 1: The question is going to be as can the Democrats
Speaker 1: offer an alternative the people decide is better? If it's
Speaker 1: Trump versus perfection, I think President Trump has some problems
Speaker 1: if it's Trump versus the most likely Democrats on their ticket,
Speaker 1: avowing for the things they claim they favor. I think
Speaker 1: he's going to beat him by a surprisingly big margin.
Speaker 1: I think so too. I think that if we if
Speaker 1: the election were held tomorrow, Trump would win against any Democrats.
Speaker 1: I don't care what the polls say. Oh, you mean
Speaker 1: the polls like the ones in the last election, Those polls,
Speaker 1: the ones that the ones that led the New York
Speaker 1: Times to say that Hillary had a ninety seven percent
Speaker 1: chance of winning on election day. Those polls, Yeah, polls
Speaker 1: are just often what the media uses in place of
Speaker 1: real data to support their preconceived political notions, tells them
Speaker 1: what they want to hear, and then allows them to
Speaker 1: spread that out to the rest of the country. Newt
Speaker 1: also continued on here, I thought this was interesting. There
Speaker 1: is a real battle that is underway for the soul
Speaker 1: of the nation. And this makes me think of not
Speaker 1: just the Democrats that we square off against, but also
Speaker 1: many of the Republicans, many of the Republicans who are
Speaker 1: still rabid never Trumpers, who have made common cause with Democrats,
Speaker 1: even though the Democrats have shown us time and again,
Speaker 1: particularly the last year in the Kavanaugh hearing, in the
Speaker 1: post abortion bills, post birth abortion bills that have been
Speaker 1: passed in state houses, they've shown us who they are,
Speaker 1: They've shown us what they're willing to do. And yet
Speaker 1: there are still Republicans who are so holier than thou
Speaker 1: that they would rather work with the ideological enemy than
Speaker 1: accept the imperfection of Trump. I find this position to
Speaker 1: be petulant. Here's what Newte says about this struggle for
Speaker 1: the soul. Place six for sure, I agree with Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: We are in a battle for the soul of the nation.
Speaker 1: You have Democrats now who favor killing babies after they're born.
Speaker 1: You have Democrats who favor allowing terrorists and bombers to
Speaker 1: vote while the while they're in prison. You have Democrats
Speaker 1: who are for open borders, letting anybody in who wants to.
Speaker 1: You have Democrats who want to take away you're right
Speaker 1: to have private health insurance. Let's go down the list.
Speaker 1: This is a fight over the nature of America and
Speaker 1: the future of America, and the difference of the choice
Speaker 1: next year is going to be the widest choice maybe
Speaker 1: in modern times. And I think Biden is going to
Speaker 1: find it difficult to navigate, and he's pretty rapidly going
Speaker 1: to discover there's a much tougher environment for a Democrat
Speaker 1: than it was while Barack Obama was shielding him from
Speaker 1: any kind of hard questions. I think that's true. I
Speaker 1: think that Biden is going to wither under the public scrutiny,
Speaker 1: even though the media will run as much interference for
Speaker 1: him as possible. I think that Biden got a ride
Speaker 1: on Obama's coattails for eight years, and now that Obama. Oh,
Speaker 1: we'll talk about where Obama stands on this. That is
Speaker 1: in itself kind of an instructive moment that's coming up.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. If you are the best choice for
Speaker 1: the Democrats twenty twenty, Why didn't President He doesn't want to.
Speaker 1: Whoever wins this nomination on their own merits. It was
Speaker 1: a little loud there, But just in case you missed that,
Speaker 1: that's Joe Biden saying, oh, he didn't even want Obama
Speaker 1: to endorse him. That's right, the guy that he served
Speaker 1: as VP for for eight years doesn't even want his endorsement. Sure, Biden, Sure,
Speaker 1: I don't think that's I don't think that's what's happened there.
Speaker 1: I think that Obama is savvy enough to know that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is not going to be the savior the
Speaker 1: Democrats are hoping that he is. This this world that
Speaker 1: they think still exists where there's no real opposition to
Speaker 1: the left wing Democrat press, where the American people don't
Speaker 1: have access to the interwebs and YouTube and the statements
Speaker 1: of politicians past that's not coming back, and world where
Speaker 1: Democrat politicians are able to get away with making it
Speaker 1: up as they go along with any without any opposition,
Speaker 1: because the press are just scribes for those in power
Speaker 1: on the left. That's that's not coming back either. So
Speaker 1: Biden's gonna have a much tougher run than I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people on the left right now realize.
Speaker 1: Remember he ran for president, he got like one percent
Speaker 1: of the vote. He was like Kucinich level. I went
Speaker 1: to see a Biden speech here in DC many years
Speaker 1: ago because I just I got invited, and there are
Speaker 1: a bunch of Democrat candidates. I guess this would have
Speaker 1: been two thousand and eight, you know that election, and
Speaker 1: you know Biden. It was like Biden and Kucinich and
Speaker 1: a couple of other people. I can't even remember who
Speaker 1: it was. You know. The the also also also rans,
Speaker 1: and that's where Biden was. I mean, he just kind
Speaker 1: of got picked a VP by default. And now the
Speaker 1: Democrats are picking him as their presidential candidate, perhaps by default,
Speaker 1: and they forget that look what happened with Hillary. Guys
Speaker 1: just trying to ride the establishment to victory because the
Speaker 1: Democrats have such an advantage in media and you know,
Speaker 1: the campuses, and that's not a good strategy. But you
Speaker 1: know what, you know what the strategy is going to
Speaker 1: be you watch China interfered in the election. Just watch
Speaker 1: or Russia interfered again if they lose. That's what they're
Speaker 1: going to say, because they're babies. Let's talk about the
Speaker 1: economy coming up, Stay with me. Democrats in the state
Speaker 1: Senate and House are proposing to raise the top tax
Speaker 1: rate for capital gains, interest income, and dividends from seven
Speaker 1: percent to nine percent. That would make it one of
Speaker 1: the highest in the country. The Greenwich Headfund Association and
Speaker 1: that world, which makes a lot of its income from
Speaker 1: capital gains, already coming out against the tax. The Hedge
Speaker 1: Fund Associations saying, quote in a statement that after five
Speaker 1: tax increases in fifteen years and the new salt limits
Speaker 1: on federal taxes, quote, Connecticut taxpayers, high earners and otherwise
Speaker 1: are paying enough. Just three hundred and fifty families paid
Speaker 1: twelve percent of the state's total incomes income taxes in
Speaker 1: twenty fourteen. That's according to the latest census, and Connecticut
Speaker 1: was the only state in New England to lose population
Speaker 1: between twenty seventeen and twenty eighteen. Let's talk about rich people.
Speaker 1: I've known some in my life. Let's talk about the
Speaker 1: Democrats soak the rich approach to governance and what the
Speaker 1: results of it will actually be. This is central to
Speaker 1: all really, but Biden's campaign pitch, it seems to me
Speaker 1: so far. You certainly with Elizabeth Warren class warrior, Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is the Genghis Khan of class warfare. Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren is the sitting bull of class warfare. You know
Speaker 1: this is do you like that? I like that? You know,
Speaker 1: this is what we see playing out time and again
Speaker 1: with Democrats, that they pretend to be the party of
Speaker 1: the poor and the less fortunate, but there are all
Speaker 1: these billionaires who are liberals, and the moneyed elites on
Speaker 1: the coasts are overwhelming. The role Goldman Sachs donated to
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton I think more that I think there was
Speaker 1: more money from Golden Sacks employees to Hillary than any
Speaker 1: other company anywhere in the country. That might be a
Speaker 1: little bit off, but it's something like that. Don't quote
Speaker 1: me on that one. But the federal government employees, as
Speaker 1: we know, because the Democrats are the party of the
Speaker 1: state and therefore status will always vote for the party
Speaker 1: of the state, and that means bureaucrats overwhelmingly went for
Speaker 1: the Democrat. Yet somehow they are able to keep playing
Speaker 1: this game of what, We're just going to tax the very,
Speaker 1: very rich people and there's not going to be a problem.
Speaker 1: Three hundred and fifty families in the entire state of Connecticut. Now,
Speaker 1: Connecticut's not that big. You know, Texas burps up things
Speaker 1: that are bigger than Connecticut on a regular basis. I
Speaker 1: get it. But it is a state with a couple
Speaker 1: of few million people in it, I think, And that
Speaker 1: three hundred and fifty families are paying twelve percent of
Speaker 1: the state's income taxes gives you a sense of how
Speaker 1: progressive of the state really is, or rather the some
Speaker 1: of the tax rates we have really are. And a
Speaker 1: three point five million the state of Connecticut, pell you know,
Speaker 1: I had, I actually had no. I was going to
Speaker 1: guess two. It's a little bigger than I thought, but
Speaker 1: I knew it was a few million. But so three
Speaker 1: point five million, three hundred and fifty families pay twelve
Speaker 1: percent of the state's income taxes. We already for those
Speaker 1: who are high earners, have a very progressive income tax.
Speaker 1: And when you look at the way that the top
Speaker 1: ten percent carry the overwhelming majority of the income tax bird,
Speaker 1: and you start to say yourself, Okay, what are we
Speaker 1: really trying to accomplish here? You know what is fair?
Speaker 1: What is realistic? And states like Connecticut and New York
Speaker 1: are losing population. You've already seen this in California. Those
Speaker 1: of you you who are listening to the show in Texas
Speaker 1: and Austin, what's up, kobj You guys know that you
Speaker 1: have all these Californians. Hey man, we from California. We
Speaker 1: just brought our vegan sioy latte, and you know they're
Speaker 1: showing up and they want to take the policies of
Speaker 1: California and institute them in Texas. Now you're gonna have
Speaker 1: flight from Connecticut and New York down to Florida. Now,
Speaker 1: in a sense, I think that this, you know, on
Speaker 1: the state by state level, I'm less bothered by it,
Speaker 1: because that's a good thing. We have, federalism. We have
Speaker 1: You can flee your crappily run state and be an
Speaker 1: American and state in America, right, you can do that.
Speaker 1: I somehow only manage to live in incredibly blue states
Speaker 1: run by quasi commies, but nonetheless here we are. But
Speaker 1: you can do that. You can flee, you can and
Speaker 1: that's what's happening now. Some of these very wealthy Blue
Speaker 1: States people in New York and New York and Connecticut
Speaker 1: are going down to Florida. Of course, no surprise. The
Speaker 1: one and only Rush Limball was way ahead of the
Speaker 1: curve on this one, because you don't want to pay
Speaker 1: the taxes. You don't want to deal with the crap
Speaker 1: in New York, you know, you don't want to deal
Speaker 1: with the the soak the rich attitude, which and a
Speaker 1: lot of people that are paying super High Town aren't rich.
Speaker 1: Did they do well? They're working really hard, but they're
Speaker 1: not rich. And the cost of living in these places
Speaker 1: is so much higher. You know, you guys all laugh.
Speaker 1: I mean I sit around that I'm trying to save
Speaker 1: up to get that, you know, four hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: square foot apartment. A lot of you are like buck,
Speaker 1: My laundry room is four hundred, four hundred fifty square feet.
Speaker 1: You know, if you live in South Carolina, Texas, Nevada, Iowa,
Speaker 1: you know you live in parts of Florida, not all
Speaker 1: of Florida. You know, you have real space, you have
Speaker 1: real space. We don't have that in these cities. I mean,
Speaker 1: you pay so much money, but the federal government, and
Speaker 1: this is where the campaigns really matter. The federal government
Speaker 1: having as soaked the rich attitude. That's where things get scary,
Speaker 1: because now you can't go anywhere. Now you're now you're stuck.
Speaker 1: And what we've seen time and again is that the
Speaker 1: Democrats promises to have their their dreams paid for, their
Speaker 1: dream policies paid for by the super rich always had
Speaker 1: has impact on people that are not super rich, and
Speaker 1: it's very negative. And they overpromise and they under deliver,
Speaker 1: and there's something fundamentally unfair about what Bastiat would have
Speaker 1: called plunder and this desire that every every man has
Speaker 1: in a state, in a state where the government has
Speaker 1: too much power. They promise people that they can live
Speaker 1: in this world where every man lives at the expense
Speaker 1: of every other man. It's good politics, right. This is
Speaker 1: the same as saying, well, you don't have to go
Speaker 1: work today, you don't have to work out in the
Speaker 1: field so that you can get your share of the harvest.
Speaker 1: Somebody else would do the work in the field for you.
Speaker 1: Get to just hang out at home, you don't have
Speaker 1: to do anything. That's very compelling. It's also very dangerous,
Speaker 1: goes against human nature and has major social pitfalls that,
Speaker 1: as we know, keep happening time and time again. As
Speaker 1: the Great Larry Kudlow said yesterday, socialism is a loser.
Speaker 1: I really like that. By the way, we might have
Speaker 1: to actually put that, producer, might do you think we
Speaker 1: should work that into the show the show open. I
Speaker 1: feel like that would be kind of fun. Socialism is
Speaker 1: a loser. It would be a good bumper stick or two.
Speaker 1: But it's true. It's true all these promises that are
Speaker 1: being made by Elizabeth Warren and others to get people
Speaker 1: to think that there will be someone else who pays.
Speaker 1: We have a long history of this and it's not true.
Speaker 1: And really, the most pernicious version of this plunder, which
Speaker 1: is what Bastiat called it, the most pernicious version of plunder,
Speaker 1: is intergenerational. This is where we look at the debt,
Speaker 1: which is now twenty two trillion dollars, where all you
Speaker 1: have is our system promising payment at a future date
Speaker 1: that will fall on people not yet old enough to
Speaker 1: tell the system, hey, you can't do that. You're not
Speaker 1: supposed to do that. Democrats are doing this, and then
Speaker 1: some no one takes the debt seriously in this country anymore?
Speaker 1: In politics, I'm sorry, no one, no one's making the
Speaker 1: case right now. You know, maybe Mike League gives a
Speaker 1: speech like a semester I don't know why I went
Speaker 1: semester is not in college. But you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: once a year, there you go, buck. But no one
Speaker 1: really takes the dead seriously. You know when we're gonna
Speaker 1: take it seriously when there's a big panic in the
Speaker 1: financial markets, which people say, oh, that's just Wallstreet. No
Speaker 1: it's not. It's gonna affect Everything's gonna affect your your
Speaker 1: barring costs for your mortgage. It's going to affect the
Speaker 1: value of the dollar that you're using you go buy food.
Speaker 1: It's gonna have ramifications that affect all of us. And
Speaker 1: the problem with waiting for the panic is that it's
Speaker 1: far too late. But you know what, the the Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warrens and the you know the others on the Democrat ticket,
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, you know what they're going to promise. They're
Speaker 1: going to promise that the only reason we're in that
Speaker 1: situation is that the rich people weren't paying their fair share.
Speaker 1: And all you have to do is give the government
Speaker 1: more power, and they'll make sure that the rich people
Speaker 1: pay going forward. This is always their answer. It's like
Speaker 1: they've got a fever and the only prescription is more taxes.
Speaker 1: Class warfare is strong politics for the left, but it's
Speaker 1: bad economics for the country, and it's also unethical the
Speaker 1: way the Democrats want to practice it. But that's what
Speaker 1: we're facing, folks, socialism. It's a loser, or is it.
Speaker 1: They are making and importing and bringing across the border
Speaker 1: illegally thousands of pounds of meth amphetamine, and they're doing
Speaker 1: it with illegal aliens. In fact, one of these guys
Speaker 1: was stopped on four different occasions and it wasn't detained,
Speaker 1: was documented. It was a catching release and self deported
Speaker 1: and came back and self deported and came back. Why
Speaker 1: because that's the drug trade. So when we think we're
Speaker 1: catching them all, when we think there's not a drug problem,
Speaker 1: we're just wrong. There's a massive drug problem at the
Speaker 1: order and you have to you have to keep in
Speaker 1: mind this. The lawlessness of Mexico means that you can
Speaker 1: create illegal drug labs on a much larger scale and
Speaker 1: that you have much less fear of the authorities. Seizing
Speaker 1: that lab and actually really hurting your bottom line as
Speaker 1: a drug organization, you know. So this is where this
Speaker 1: is where the real economics of illegal drugs shows us
Speaker 1: that the Mexican cartels have a huge advantage if you
Speaker 1: build a lab. And this is why meth amphetamine, which
Speaker 1: you know, he's mentioning that the drugs that are coming
Speaker 1: across meth amphetamine is at its highest usage now ever. Ever, ever,
Speaker 1: you know, that's just not something that you hear on
Speaker 1: the news very often, and it's because we're overwhelmed with
Speaker 1: the opioid crisis. But the labs that they're making the
Speaker 1: opioids in, you know, what they have been doing is
Speaker 1: that they bring in the precursor materials from China. And
Speaker 1: now Trump has been working with the Chinese government to
Speaker 1: try to shut that down. Is that really effective or not,
Speaker 1: We'll have to see. They bring over these chemicals in
Speaker 1: industrial quantities, some huge vats, you know, moving on shipping
Speaker 1: in shipping container vessels from China to Mexico. Then they
Speaker 1: set up industrial labs, bringing in real scientists. If you've
Speaker 1: seen breaking Bad, this is pretty much what happens in
Speaker 1: that accept imagine this is happening all over Mexico south
Speaker 1: of our border, and then they make meth, and they
Speaker 1: make opioid. They're synthetically making all this stuff because it's
Speaker 1: so much cheaper and easier than say, you know, cocaine
Speaker 1: is you have to grow at a very specific climate.
Speaker 1: But those labs, those labs aren't going to get touched.
Speaker 1: When was the last time you saw a major news
Speaker 1: story about a huge Mexican drug lab seizure. I mean,
Speaker 1: the cartels are operating all over all over the country,
Speaker 1: importing billions and billions of dollars of drugs into America,
Speaker 1: killing seventy thousand plus Americans a year now with opioid overdoses.
Speaker 1: And do you see a lot of big drug grades
Speaker 1: going on. No, it's our problem, you see, Mexican government's
Speaker 1: got other problems. They're worried about the drugs that are
Speaker 1: moving across the border. That's our problem. They leave that
Speaker 1: for us. And that's why when you when you think
Speaker 1: about how, yeah, you could make meth in this country.
Speaker 1: I know, people make it in the you know, these
Speaker 1: labs that are out in the middle of the desert
Speaker 1: in what do you call them RVs and they you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: there are ways you can do it. But wouldn't you
Speaker 1: want to just get the superpure if you're if you're
Speaker 1: an addict, you want to get the superperre stuff straight
Speaker 1: from the cartels that they're sending over in vast shipments
Speaker 1: all the time. You want to mess with that. And
Speaker 1: if you're going to be if you're going to try
Speaker 1: to be a dealer and compete, it's really easy for
Speaker 1: DEA to swoop in and send you to prison for
Speaker 1: fifty years if you're on American soil. It's not that
Speaker 1: easy if you're running a Mexican drug lab. This is
Speaker 1: the biggest People say, oh, it's not really national security issue.
Speaker 1: This is the biggest problem that we face right now
Speaker 1: on a national security level. The biggest long term challenge
Speaker 1: is China. Sure, I get that, I admit that, of course,
Speaker 1: But the biggest national security threat day to day is
Speaker 1: the cartels and the drugs. Are the cartels rather that
Speaker 1: those are the biggest threats we face, and the drugs
Speaker 1: that are pouring across our border. They're killing Americans every day.
Speaker 1: People are dying from this stuff. It's also why I
Speaker 1: get a little frustrated with the current discourse on non
Speaker 1: violent drug offenders. You always hear this phrase non violent
Speaker 1: drug offenders. Well, non violent drug offenders are sometimes people
Speaker 1: that are selling very dangerous and even deadly illegal substances
Speaker 1: to people. And I think you'd be very hard if
Speaker 1: you sat down with the parents of somebody, say who
Speaker 1: died from a an opioid overdose, and you said, well,
Speaker 1: the person that sold them the drugs knowing that he
Speaker 1: was an addict, knowing that he had a physical and
Speaker 1: psychological dependency that was being exploited, didn't mean any harm
Speaker 1: to come to him, but did put him in that position.
Speaker 1: I doubt you'd feel like you would want to make
Speaker 1: that case about non violent drug offender for the drug dealer.
Speaker 1: So I take marijuana is different. Marijuana is different, just
Speaker 1: like it's different. If you know, if you sell somebody
Speaker 1: a twenty two caliber rifle, it's not the same as
Speaker 1: selling them a stinger missile launcher, right, I mean, these
Speaker 1: aren't the same things. Just because they both make a
Speaker 1: boom and have some very fundamental similarities of being a
Speaker 1: projectile device doesn't mean that they should be treated the
Speaker 1: same way. Although I did have unrising this doctor came
Speaker 1: on who says that there's all this new science that
Speaker 1: says that marijuana causes psychosis and really scary stuff. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't smoke weed, guys. So I gave
Speaker 1: up smoking marijuana so that I could join the CIA.
Speaker 1: And I wasn't somebody who smoked very often. I mean
Speaker 1: a handful of times probably, but I gave it up
Speaker 1: to join the CIA, so that would have been Now,
Speaker 1: it's been twenty years since I've touched any kind of
Speaker 1: a drug. Twenty years for a long time. But I look,
Speaker 1: I think that every time I do a check in
Speaker 1: on what's going on at the border, it feels like
Speaker 1: the situation is even worse, and the press is just
Speaker 1: like they are with Russia collusion, which we talk about
Speaker 1: regularly in the show. They are dug in on making
Speaker 1: sure that they are going to not look terrible on
Speaker 1: this one because they'll lie and lie and lie. But
Speaker 1: as long as they sort of stay with the oh,
Speaker 1: we're just reporting on the humanitarian component of the story,
Speaker 1: and we're just trying to tell people, you know, that
Speaker 1: they need to in all that stuff. As long as
Speaker 1: they're doing that, they feel like they're going to be
Speaker 1: fine in the end. Even though they've told the lies
Speaker 1: about the the caravan was never gonna make it right.
Speaker 1: Now we're looking at what are like fourth or fifth
Speaker 1: major caravan arriving at the border. I don't even know.
Speaker 1: Depends on how you de find caravan. There are three
Speaker 1: or four thousand coming to the border on any given day.
Speaker 1: Ten thousand people showing up at the border. Do you
Speaker 1: know what that's going to do when they get there
Speaker 1: to border patrol manpower. It's going to open giant holes
Speaker 1: in our border security. You know what's going to happen
Speaker 1: after that? Border security is going to deteriorate, and they'll
Speaker 1: be openings for poison to get trucked into this country,
Speaker 1: which is going to kill people in your communities. So
Speaker 1: I mean, in that sense, you know, yes, I guess
Speaker 1: you can't argue because I'm always saying that it's not
Speaker 1: really about it isn't really about the manpower. It's about
Speaker 1: the laws. Because if you just could tell the ten
Speaker 1: thousand sorry, you're not coming to the country, then you
Speaker 1: can deploy the manpower you have for the national security mission.
Speaker 1: But Democrats are are entirely un serious on this issue,
Speaker 1: entirely un serious. They just flatly will not They just
Speaker 1: flatly will not make any good faith effort to try
Speaker 1: and stop the massive illegal alien invasion from continuing. And
Speaker 1: I see it here. I'm in a Washington DC. I'm
Speaker 1: in the swamp. People know about this. Where is the action?
Speaker 1: Every time the administration tries something. Every time Trump, to
Speaker 1: his credit, makes a move to try and get things
Speaker 1: to calm down on the border, Ninth Circuit, Ninth Circuit
Speaker 1: Court shuts him down. It's like he's not even really
Speaker 1: president sometimes. I mean, what is he allowed to do?
Speaker 1: Congress won't really do anything. And we only keep in
Speaker 1: mind Congress never pass the laws that say things like
Speaker 1: you can only help hold people for twenty days Flora's decree.
Speaker 1: That's just from a court. These are court decisions. These
Speaker 1: are unelected bureaucrats, lawyers, which should scare some of us
Speaker 1: who are making decisions based on partisan ideology that affect
Speaker 1: national level policy. It's a big problem. I've been to
Speaker 1: the border twice in the last six months just to
Speaker 1: look at this issue, and every every time I think
Speaker 1: about it, I just it's so frustrating. Because Trump understood
Speaker 1: this problem, He's right. He has raised the discussion to
Speaker 1: a place where we're finally able to talk about this honestly,
Speaker 1: but the action right now to follow through is just
Speaker 1: not there. I wish it weren't the case, but it's
Speaker 1: just not there. When you say, though, you want a
Speaker 1: high wall with a big gate. Yes, a smart gate,
Speaker 1: but a high wall, that's going to sound a lot
Speaker 1: of folks out there. That's where Donald Trump was, well,
Speaker 1: I think you've got to control the border. When you
Speaker 1: have an increase of illegal apprehensions of illegal entries by
Speaker 1: a three hundred and seventy four percent since October, obviously
Speaker 1: you've got a situation where the border security is not sufficient,
Speaker 1: and that's going to drive people who we should want
Speaker 1: to be pro immigration against immigration. Democrats have been willing
Speaker 1: to fund more border security. Okay, I'm for a high
Speaker 1: wall with a big gate, a compassionate, a smart gate
Speaker 1: so we can keep immigration going. But you're not going
Speaker 1: to do that. Well, if people think people can just
Speaker 1: walk into this country, they're not going to support the
Speaker 1: immigration that we need. Even overrated superlib Tom Friedman recognizes
Speaker 1: that what's going on in our southern border right now
Speaker 1: is a disaster. What is happening is the wholesale destruction
Speaker 1: of our immigration system. What is happening is the removal
Speaker 1: of any good faith in discussing going forward what we
Speaker 1: will do with the illegals who are already in the
Speaker 1: country and with future waves of attempted illegal crossing. Democrats
Speaker 1: have fallen into being an open border's party. Tom Friedman
Speaker 1: is he, as I said, very overrated lib journalist. He
Speaker 1: recognizes this because they're running out of room to pretend
Speaker 1: that they really care about all the illegal crossing. In fact,
Speaker 1: what we're seeing it's not just that they don't care
Speaker 1: about the illegal crossings. They care. They like them. They
Speaker 1: like the illegal immigration, They like the crossings that are
Speaker 1: occurring in violation of US law. They want sanctuary cities
Speaker 1: to be even more overflowing with people who are in
Speaker 1: violation of statutes that are still good law in this country.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter how much people say that they're mean or
Speaker 1: they're whatever, you know, until the Congress repeals that. And
Speaker 1: let's just be honest about it. If they removed the
Speaker 1: criminality of illegal status in this country, then we would
Speaker 1: be a straight up open borders country, which does not
Speaker 1: exist in the world. Why are we not allowed to
Speaker 1: have borders in this country? Why is every other country
Speaker 1: on earth that's not in the midst of some kind
Speaker 1: of famine or civil war, and that can't control anything.
Speaker 1: Why are we the only country in the world that
Speaker 1: is not allowed to decide who comes and who goes.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm going to China next month. Turns out
Speaker 1: that's going to happen. By the way, we're gonna have
Speaker 1: We're already working on getting a fantastic group of people
Speaker 1: to come in and guest host that week. So get excited.
Speaker 1: But I'm going to China next month. My visa just
Speaker 1: came through. It took I think almost six weeks to
Speaker 1: get a visa. And you know what would have happened
Speaker 1: if I had gotten real pouty and try to just
Speaker 1: get on the plane and show up and China and say, hey,
Speaker 1: I'm here, guys. I know I didn't I didn't obey
Speaker 1: your laws, but they would have said you're going home.
Speaker 1: There wouldn't have been any I wouldn't have you know,
Speaker 1: no one would have cried big tiers me. It wouldn't
Speaker 1: have been a lot of noise like no, sorry, Now
Speaker 1: I know China's a There's a whole other bunch of
Speaker 1: stuff we could talk about with China. But they control
Speaker 1: who comes and who goes absolutely, you know, absolutely, and
Speaker 1: no one questions this. A lot of other things you
Speaker 1: can question about China, but name a country they want
Speaker 1: to control who comes and who goes. You know, this
Speaker 1: gets to the fundamental conception of a state. It is
Speaker 1: it is control of territory, right, it is. We do
Speaker 1: not have extra territorial nation states. We don't have. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm you know. The country of Bucklandia exists, but it's
Speaker 1: it doesn't control any actual land. It's just a country,
Speaker 1: you know in well, I guess the Freedom Hut technically
Speaker 1: falls into this category. It is a country without a
Speaker 1: new land. But conversation for another time, but buck Landia
Speaker 1: is not something that is real. You have to have.
Speaker 1: If you're couldn't have a nation state, you have to
Speaker 1: actually have a place to put it. You have to
Speaker 1: actually have territory, and who is on that territory really matters.
Speaker 1: Nation states used to go to war over land. People
Speaker 1: used to kill each other over who controlled what pieces
Speaker 1: of land. Now you can argue that buck that's barbaric
Speaker 1: and all that other stuff, but this is at the
Speaker 1: very heart of what a country is. Right. I don't
Speaker 1: want to live in America if America is just Rhode Island.
Speaker 1: I like America, the country that controls all fifty states
Speaker 1: as well as a whole bunch of possessions and territories
Speaker 1: and exerts control over them. That's what sovereignty is. The
Speaker 1: Left no longer believes in that kind of sovereignty. But
Speaker 1: what's fascinating is what do they replace it with. What
Speaker 1: are we supposed to have in place of that sovereigny.
Speaker 1: They don't have answers. They don't tell us what we're
Speaker 1: supposed to do. They don't tell us how we are
Speaker 1: to move forward in a borderless society because they don't
Speaker 1: have any answers. But this is also where I get
Speaker 1: so frustrated. And you know, he mentioned their Freedman border security,
Speaker 1: how Democrats will vote for border security. The problem here
Speaker 1: is the interpretation of the laws. It's not you know,
Speaker 1: think of this like a mall, right, It's not that
Speaker 1: we don't have enough mall security guards. It's that the
Speaker 1: mall security guards are being told they can't chase out
Speaker 1: the vandals and the hooligans. It doesn't matter how many
Speaker 1: security guards you have, doesn't matter how much border patrol
Speaker 1: we have. If you can show up lie claim asylum
Speaker 1: and stay in the country. So when they say they'll
Speaker 1: vote for border security, what they're really saying is they
Speaker 1: just want to make the process more streamline and more comfortable.
Speaker 1: They want softer pillows and you better tasting food for
Speaker 1: people that are breaking the law, and that I would
Speaker 1: note if they come as a family and if they're
Speaker 1: only spending two days in custody now. So they just
Speaker 1: want that process to be streamlined, but they want the
Speaker 1: open borders component to stay. Real border security would be
Speaker 1: we have laws, we will enforce them, and that means
Speaker 1: keeping people out. Fundamentally, we have to accept if we're
Speaker 1: going to have a country that has borders, having borders
Speaker 1: means some people can't come in, not everyone gets to play.
Speaker 1: I can't imagine that we'll ever do anything harder than that.
Speaker 1: I'm so proud of our coverage NBCNS. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: the best of the best. The other thing this report
Speaker 1: did is that it really corroborated a lot of good
Speaker 1: journalism that was done time and again, and the smaller report,
Speaker 1: reporting from major news outlets is confirmed in the smaller
Speaker 1: report as being accurate. They think they did a great job, folks.
Speaker 1: The liberal journos instead of understanding that they have wrecked themselves.
Speaker 1: Is this the man who wrecked the BUFFERI at the
Speaker 1: Harrold Club this morning, who disabled an unmarked unit with
Speaker 1: a banana? Any of you who get that, by the way,
Speaker 1: I'll be deeply impressed, because right now you're all thinking,
Speaker 1: what the heck did Buck just say, there's a few
Speaker 1: of you out there across the country, right of the
Speaker 1: hundreds and hundreds of thousands of people listening to show,
Speaker 1: there are a few of you across the country that
Speaker 1: will catch that reference. But I digress. The press thinks
Speaker 1: that they did a fantastic job covering this. Meanwhile, meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the underlying premise of all of their coverage of the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion delusion was false. What's wrong? And they simply
Speaker 1: do not care. This is where you have the analysts,
Speaker 1: the so called analysts who included former senior officials of
Speaker 1: the security apparatus Brannan and Clapper and Komey's little pajama
Speaker 1: boy whatever that guy's name is over at CNN say hey,
Speaker 1: I mean, I gotta tell you not not good advertising
Speaker 1: for the FBI. It's like, hey, pajama boy, put your
Speaker 1: hands up. These people would go on TV, and the
Speaker 1: idea was that they were sharing their deep expertise and
Speaker 1: knowledge on all this subject matter and that they had
Speaker 1: special access. So when they would say, you know, they'd
Speaker 1: have Anderson Cooper, there's new reporting out that. Actually Anderson's
Speaker 1: voice is a little higher than that, but you know
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, you know, there's the reporting out that.
Speaker 1: And they would talk about some news story that's usually
Speaker 1: a leak from somebody in the DOJ or a leak
Speaker 1: or somebody in the White House about some aspect of
Speaker 1: the investigation. And I'm not saying that wasn't always true,
Speaker 1: but they would use you know, sometimes that was accurate,
Speaker 1: sometimes it wasn't, but they would use whatever that news
Speaker 1: story was to just transition right away into the coversation
Speaker 1: about how any minute now they're gonna just they're gonna
Speaker 1: arrest Trump, they're gonna frog march him out of the
Speaker 1: White House. You know, any minute now they're gonna just
Speaker 1: the other shoes gonna drop and blah blah blah. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that's what was going on here, folks. That's what
Speaker 1: was happening. And I just think that it would be
Speaker 1: better if we had some honesty about that from the press.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm not saying that they would give up
Speaker 1: their privileged positions and their incredible perks and the vast
Speaker 1: sums of money that many of them are paid and
Speaker 1: all that. I get that. I don't think that that's
Speaker 1: going to happen, but at least some accountability. And that's
Speaker 1: why there will be no accountabilities we all. As we
Speaker 1: all know, the media thinks not only do they not
Speaker 1: think they did a horrendous job, they think they're doing
Speaker 1: a good job. This is this is gaslighting at a
Speaker 1: nuclear meltdown level. I mean, this is the Chernobyl of
Speaker 1: gaslighting the media is engaged in right now, and they
Speaker 1: don't care that. You and I know they don't care that.
Speaker 1: It couldn't be any more obvious. What a debacle, What
Speaker 1: an anti tree rump lunacy they have peddled. And that's
Speaker 1: why this weekend there's the Washington of the White House
Speaker 1: rather correspondence dinner, and I'm not going and I have
Speaker 1: you know, I work for the Hill. If I had
Speaker 1: wanted to go, I could have gone. I have no
Speaker 1: interest in going. I don't want to be around and
Speaker 1: I obviously have friends in the media, and I even
Speaker 1: have some friends in the liberal media, But by and
Speaker 1: large I think that my see that the media pretends
Speaker 1: that they are a check on power in this country.
Speaker 1: That is there, That is their sales pitch. You know,
Speaker 1: we are here to spread because information now is more
Speaker 1: freely shared and available than ever before. So where journalists
Speaker 1: think that they're really you know, adding value is that
Speaker 1: they are one accurate and two a check on power.
Speaker 1: They speak truth to power. Democracy dies in darkness all
Speaker 1: this stuff. The problem is journalists are really a clique
Speaker 1: of like minded liberals, a bunch of libs who all
Speaker 1: work to cover each other's back and push an agenda
Speaker 1: of activism under the guise of neutral reporting, knowing that
Speaker 1: they have immense power to shape public opinion, and believing
Speaker 1: full well that even though they are lying about what
Speaker 1: they are doing, because they are doing it in the
Speaker 1: service of a righteous cause, making the country more liberal,
Speaker 1: making the country more progressive, they think that they're the
Speaker 1: good guys. I view my role as somebody in the
Speaker 1: media to not just bring you also information and analysis.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do not claim to be a journalist,
Speaker 1: but I like to be a check on what they
Speaker 1: are doing. You know, who will watch the watchers. Well,
Speaker 1: if the media are the watchers, I watch the watchers.
Speaker 1: I know who they are, I know the games they play.
Speaker 1: I'm not impressed by them. In fact, I know much
Speaker 1: more than almost all of them about the subject matter
Speaker 1: that they are reporting on On a regular basis. Journalists
Speaker 1: as a group of people are shockingly intellectually incurious. The
Speaker 1: truth is that most of the journalists that will be
Speaker 1: at the White House Correspondence dinner this weekend, which I've
Speaker 1: been to and the food is bad. You know a
Speaker 1: lot of people there that I just you know, you
Speaker 1: don't really care to see or talk to. And sitting
Speaker 1: at big banquet dinners. I'm just gonna say this because
Speaker 1: I've had to do far too much of them. I like,
Speaker 1: sitting at big banquet dinners is not my thing and
Speaker 1: not something that gets me particularly excited. But some people
Speaker 1: really get into it. I don't know. But you see
Speaker 1: all these journals there and it's really a big self
Speaker 1: congratulation session. Just like journalism, it has a fake pretense.
Speaker 1: The pretense is that they're there to celebrate the greatness
Speaker 1: of journalism and provide scholarships. I mean, this is like
Speaker 1: the Miss America thing with the scholarships. Okay, I'm glad
Speaker 1: they do some of my scholarships, but it's really a
Speaker 1: swimsuit competition, really, right, I mean, or at least it was.
Speaker 1: I think I guess they got rid of the swimsuit
Speaker 1: competition now, but it's it's a beauty pageant that used
Speaker 1: to have a swimsuit competition. I know it does some
Speaker 1: nice charity work. That's great, But you know, Hezbala does
Speaker 1: some nice charity work too. I'm not comparing Miss America
Speaker 1: to Hezbalah. I'm just saying, because you do some nice charity,
Speaker 1: that's gonna get me in trouble. Because you do some
Speaker 1: nice charity work doesn't mean that that's your main mission
Speaker 1: in life. And because the White House Correspondence Association gives
Speaker 1: some journalist, you know, some journalists, not charity work what
Speaker 1: I'm trying to scholarships out, it doesn't mean that the
Speaker 1: big self congratulations session isn't really what this is all about.
Speaker 1: And that's what it is. So I will not be there.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you go back and watch what happened
Speaker 1: last year where Sarah Huckaby Sanders was there, I mean,
Speaker 1: it was really mean and I'm not. I'm not an
Speaker 1: overly sensitive guy, and I know I like people having
Speaker 1: a sense of humor, and I even think people in
Speaker 1: the public eye need to be able to really take it.
Speaker 1: And trust me, I take it all the time. But
Speaker 1: what they did Sarahugaby Sanders, which it was just disrespectful
Speaker 1: and it was it was low and it was wrong,
Speaker 1: and I just don't want to be a part of that.
Speaker 1: I think the press is a disgrace. I do not
Speaker 1: respect most people who work in the press. I think
Speaker 1: most of them are a bunch of self righteous, narcissistic babies.
Speaker 1: I think that, unfortunately, the mentality of many people who
Speaker 1: especially if they go to journalism school, they are indoctrinated
Speaker 1: into this thinking that they are not people that are
Speaker 1: providing a service to the public so much as they
Speaker 1: are the privileged and the elite that are responding to
Speaker 1: a calling that only they can fulfill, which is just
Speaker 1: not the case. Journalism is a profession separated not qualification
Speaker 1: or credential, but by skill and really by connections and
Speaker 1: by playing the game. The greatest skill that a journalist
Speaker 1: can have in the modern American media world is to
Speaker 1: know the right people and to be ruthless behind the
Speaker 1: scenes to get what you want. That's really what separates
Speaker 1: most of the people that you know who are household
Speaker 1: names from the ABC, NBC and most of the people
Speaker 1: that you know are up for these big nightly news jobs.
Speaker 1: There's a thousand people that could do that job and
Speaker 1: many people who do the job even better and for
Speaker 1: far less money. But who do the executives, who do
Speaker 1: the people in the c suite like, who they golf with,
Speaker 1: who are they buddies with? That's who gets the job,
Speaker 1: And then we're supposed to believe that they're the conscience
Speaker 1: of America. I mean, I think that they used to
Speaker 1: call it nerd prom until everyone said, none of you
Speaker 1: think you're nerds, and nerds actually no stuff, So stop
Speaker 1: calling it nerd prom. Your sort of pseudo self deprecation
Speaker 1: is insulting to the rest of America. And I know
Speaker 1: a lot of you are like, oh, buck, we don't
Speaker 1: even care. Who even knew that the White House Correspondence
Speaker 1: dinners this weekend. Good if you didn't know, I'm glad,
Speaker 1: But it is an important moment I think to just
Speaker 1: keep it real and bash these clowns for really what
Speaker 1: it's just going to be a big session where all
Speaker 1: of them sit around and clap for each other and
Speaker 1: talk about how terrible Trump is. Trump is a monster.
Speaker 1: Let me just tell you this as a little anecdote here.
Speaker 1: I asked a very well known journalist who had had
Speaker 1: the Obama administration threatened to send him to prison for
Speaker 1: doing his job. This is a real thing. I asked
Speaker 1: him who was a bigger threat to press freedom the administration?
Speaker 1: The Obama administration that for reporting on information that was classified,
Speaker 1: but he's a journalist that they do that. The obam
Speaker 1: administration was threatening at one point to send him to prison,
Speaker 1: or the Trump administration that has never sent anyone to
Speaker 1: prison for doing their job as a reporter. He said,
Speaker 1: no question, the Trump administration. And I said, you are crazy.
Speaker 1: That is delusional. This is what we're dealing with. Journalists
Speaker 1: won't even stand up for the First Amendment in a
Speaker 1: real way because they hate Trump so much that they'll
Speaker 1: make excuses for the greatest threat to press freedom since
Speaker 1: World War Two in this country, which is the Obama
Speaker 1: administration user of the Espionage Act more than every administration
Speaker 1: before combined. Why don't they talk about that at the
Speaker 1: White House Correspondence dinner a bunch of clowns. Protests rampage
Speaker 1: these days. Some students would like to see limits to
Speaker 1: free speech. Free speech is not hate speech. It's not
Speaker 1: speech that's meant to harm and to deteriorate communities. Campus craziness, folks,
Speaker 1: gotta keep you updated on all the latest. So also
Speaker 1: you know that you can go to take back the
Speaker 1: Campus dot org because you have an action item whenever
Speaker 1: we talk about the campus craziness, and that is that
Speaker 1: you can donate to my friends at the Leadership Institute.
Speaker 1: I got a crazy story for you here. Actually, I
Speaker 1: have somebody who will tell you they're crazy story about
Speaker 1: what they wrote up here on Reason dot com. Our
Speaker 1: friend Robbie Suave is on the show now. He is
Speaker 1: an associate editor at Reason and also has a new
Speaker 1: book out which he will tell you a little bit about.
Speaker 1: But first Robbie telling you at this piece, Williams College
Speaker 1: had students claiming that free speech harms but they said
Speaker 1: even crazier stuff like students were screaming that we were
Speaker 1: trying to kill them. What happened here, my friend, Yeah,
Speaker 1: this is they're claiming that people who want free speech
Speaker 1: on campus, as some of the professors do. They're they're
Speaker 1: hoping that the that the institution Williams College will agree
Speaker 1: to the Chicago Principles, which is this pro free speech
Speaker 1: statement at the University of Chicago started. Many other colleges
Speaker 1: have signed onto it. You know that we're going to
Speaker 1: have controversial speakers, We're going to have free speech because
Speaker 1: we know this makes the campus a better, stronger, more
Speaker 1: intelligent place. These students, you know, this is a small
Speaker 1: subset of an activist minority that is that exists on
Speaker 1: every campus, particularly our lague campuses, that they say no
Speaker 1: having these discussions, having free speech, it harms us. And
Speaker 1: you are literally trying to kill us if you're if
Speaker 1: you're going to allow people on campus who who we
Speaker 1: disagree with. I mean, this is the this is their ideology,
Speaker 1: not of all students, not of most students, but of
Speaker 1: a radical subset that have tremendous power and influence. And
Speaker 1: they got some of the professors to sign off on
Speaker 1: having signed on to the Chicago Principles because they were
Speaker 1: so afraid of offending these students. I you know, people
Speaker 1: misuse the term literally a lot in our in our
Speaker 1: current discourse. As you know, you know, I literally was
Speaker 1: doing something that I wasn't literally doing. Is what you
Speaker 1: hear from people a lot, but here they were, in
Speaker 1: fact saying that that trying to kill them is what
Speaker 1: free speech accomplishes. Can you can you walk me through
Speaker 1: the crazy here? Because this is this is really the
Speaker 1: ultimate extension of the speech equals violence, which is something
Speaker 1: that started on the campus and now has spread into
Speaker 1: the broader culture. But now it's not just speech equals violence,
Speaker 1: it's speech equals you are literally trying to kill me,
Speaker 1: when of course you're not. How do they rationalize or
Speaker 1: to the degree they can explain this thought process on campuses? Yeah,
Speaker 1: So this is this is a major theme of my
Speaker 1: book which is coming out in June, Panic attacking radicals
Speaker 1: to me a Trump. So I interviewed a lot of
Speaker 1: these kinds of students to see where this comes from,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's one of their most important and
Speaker 1: foundational beliefs. I think it comes from having to have
Speaker 1: power in their activist standings. You have to in accordance
Speaker 1: with intersectionality. You have to have, you know, some kind
Speaker 1: of oppressed status. And a way for people who actually
Speaker 1: aren't very oppressed is to have sort of a mental
Speaker 1: health issue, and a weight an mental health issue is
Speaker 1: to be uncomfortable or mostly uncomfortable with language you don't like,
Speaker 1: and that sort of started to be the genesis of it.
Speaker 1: So you have people claiming, they're claiming it in order
Speaker 1: to gain standing in the activist community, that they are
Speaker 1: traumatized and they are triggered and their mental health is
Speaker 1: destroyed by your words and this is a form of violence.
Speaker 1: And this is how you start to erode that very
Speaker 1: important distinction because they'll now they'll say, you know, if
Speaker 1: you're bringing someone a campus, Charles Murray, Heather McDonald, those
Speaker 1: are the some of the conservative speakers who have been
Speaker 1: shut down. You're not just bringing someone whose views they despise,
Speaker 1: but some you're introducing violence against them, which is why
Speaker 1: they think a proper technique is for them to engage.
Speaker 1: Often in shutting down, the speakers are sometimes even defensive
Speaker 1: violence because it's like self defense for them because the
Speaker 1: words are violence themselves. It's this is where it gets
Speaker 1: really scary because you hear this from Antifa as well,
Speaker 1: when they would start to talk about you know, nazi
Speaker 1: punching essentially, and then when you ask them, well, who's
Speaker 1: a Nazi and they say like, well, Ben Shapiro and
Speaker 1: you know, Dave Rubin and Jordan Peterson, and it's like, no,
Speaker 1: they're not even close to being Nazis. So it's a
Speaker 1: it's a little terrifying when you see the way that
Speaker 1: they extend these definite missions and then understand that, as
Speaker 1: you point out, they've if you view speech as violence,
Speaker 1: then you can, in quote self defense, engage in violence
Speaker 1: to shut down speech against you. So really, this is
Speaker 1: just the most tortured logic, an excuse for people to
Speaker 1: act like complete maniacs speech they don't like. But Robbie,
Speaker 1: you know you put it out your book, Panic Attack
Speaker 1: is what it's called, right, which we'll have you back
Speaker 1: on when it's on shelves, But folks, you can probably
Speaker 1: pre order now on Amazon. Robbie, what do administrators say,
Speaker 1: or what are the supposed adults here, many of whom
Speaker 1: have tenure, who are at an institution that ostensibly is
Speaker 1: supposed to be about higher education and higher learning, What
Speaker 1: do they say about shutting down speech because it's literally
Speaker 1: trying to kill people to speak freely about things, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, in theory, the administrators and the professors are
Speaker 1: pro free speech that you know they do not agree
Speaker 1: with these activists, but they're terrified of these students because
Speaker 1: they cause all the problems you would not believe. I've
Speaker 1: talked to so many professors, leftist professors, very leftist center
Speaker 1: professors who are more like ACLU types, who are terrified
Speaker 1: of offending these students because they're gonna get investigated. They're
Speaker 1: gonna get they're gonna get even if they have tenure.
Speaker 1: They're they're you know, they're reliant to some degree on
Speaker 1: course evaluations. They will they will be investigated by the
Speaker 1: Title nine Office for saying something about sex or gender
Speaker 1: that is not conservative. It's it's progressive, but it's an
Speaker 1: older style of progressive that is now somehow out of
Speaker 1: step with something the younger activists decided was through five
Speaker 1: seconds ago. And and they're gonna get in trouble, so
Speaker 1: they're afraid to say anything. They you know, they tell
Speaker 1: me this privately. They say, you cannot tell anyone that
Speaker 1: I told you this. But here's what my students are
Speaker 1: putting me through. Again, not asten, it's not even most students.
Speaker 1: But it only takes a couple to really foundationally change
Speaker 1: the culture. And I'm worried they're going to bring that
Speaker 1: off the campus into the workplace, into tech places, Silicon Valley, etcetera, etcetera.
Speaker 1: I say this is this is fast to me because
Speaker 1: you know, college campus is not only the supposed to
Speaker 1: be incubators of thoughtful discourse, and they are the birthplace
Speaker 1: of the so called free speech movement, which as we
Speaker 1: know now is now the the open censorship movement. But Robbie,
Speaker 1: that there are administrators who are scared of a minority
Speaker 1: of students on campuses just goes to or one. I
Speaker 1: think the cowardice of some of these tenured positions and
Speaker 1: the administrators and the other people that are supposed to
Speaker 1: be maintaining some intellectual vibrancy on these campuses and intellectual honesty.
Speaker 1: But but also, you know, where are the other students
Speaker 1: on campus when it comes to this stuff? Are they
Speaker 1: scared of them too? Are they not willing to say that?
Speaker 1: You know, they don't want to be called racists? And
Speaker 1: what do they say to you? That's exactly what it is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they you know, most of them would like to hear
Speaker 1: an interesting speaker they disagree with um, you know, they
Speaker 1: might they they're somewhere in the middle. You know, some
Speaker 1: of them think, well, if they're going to say something
Speaker 1: really terrible, maybe they shouldn't be here. But they're certainly
Speaker 1: not going to shut down the person. Many of them
Speaker 1: would like to hear, but they're afraid of these activists too.
Speaker 1: And now I've been at events where so this is
Speaker 1: the best way to defeat these activists is when someone
Speaker 1: else in the audience. Oftentimes it is a member of
Speaker 1: the quote unquote marginalized group who's supposedly maligned or is
Speaker 1: you know, literally being killed by the speaker, will stand
Speaker 1: up and say, I would like to hear what whoever
Speaker 1: it is, I would like to hear what they have
Speaker 1: to say. I don't think I agree with it, but
Speaker 1: I would like to hear it. And that sucks a
Speaker 1: lot of authority out of the you know, the people
Speaker 1: who are who are trying to shout him down. So
Speaker 1: when when the mob is confronted, because it doesn't have
Speaker 1: the numbers and it doesn't have the institutional policies on
Speaker 1: its side, in a lot of cases, it actually just
Speaker 1: takes being confronted and they can't they can be stopped,
Speaker 1: they can lose their their you know, they they start
Speaker 1: to they judge the room a little bit. They go, Okay,
Speaker 1: well maybe we're you know, this shutdown is not actually
Speaker 1: going to be successful, so that can work. And I,
Speaker 1: you know, I hope more people are courageous in doing
Speaker 1: that on campuses. Were you? If I can just ask
Speaker 1: Robbie and everyone can check out Robbie's book Panic Attack,
Speaker 1: which is just on the crazy left. Which is one
Speaker 1: problem I have on radio is I needed Thesaurus just
Speaker 1: to come up with all the different ways to say
Speaker 1: crazy psycho, whacko whacka do because a lot of their
Speaker 1: stuff these days, that's the only way you can really
Speaker 1: describe it. But were you yourself and your day, Robbie
Speaker 1: a campus counter revolutionary? Because I definitely want I was.
Speaker 1: I went to the Unarsity of Michigan, where I was
Speaker 1: pretty much a libertarian student the whole time, but I
Speaker 1: worked for the campus paper. I worked with a lot
Speaker 1: of very far left students who I disagreed with on
Speaker 1: almost everything. But but then back then an He's thought
Speaker 1: that long ago, two thousand and six to two thousand
Speaker 1: and ten, they were pro free speech lactist. You know,
Speaker 1: if somebody was going to come on to campus, we
Speaker 1: were going to defend their right to do that. It
Speaker 1: was it was actually there's more likely there was gonna
Speaker 1: be some conservative groups that were going to be offended
Speaker 1: if it was a very provocative speaker, very far someone
Speaker 1: like Bill Ayres or something. But that has just comp
Speaker 1: comletely shifted in the last few years where it has
Speaker 1: become the left has been the is the pro censorship
Speaker 1: movement on campus. It's been extraordinary to watch that change
Speaker 1: happen so quickly, just even since I was on campus.
Speaker 1: Upcoming book Panic Attack author is Robbie Suave and he
Speaker 1: is alone cool cat. You should check out his book.
Speaker 1: Also reason dot com for his latest Robbie always great
Speaker 1: to talk to you, my friend. Congrats and come back
Speaker 1: as soon as the books on shelves. I'd be happy
Speaker 1: to thank you so much. Team will be right back.
Speaker 1: Is it wrong to say that a man can't have
Speaker 1: a baby. Is it wrong to say that a man
Speaker 1: can't be a woman. Well, if you're talking about correctness,
Speaker 1: of course that is correct. These are these are true
Speaker 1: factual statements. But if you're talking about political correctness, well
Speaker 1: then it is considered wrong these days to say that
Speaker 1: a man can have a baby and a man cannot
Speaker 1: be a woman. I have a friend joining now who's
Speaker 1: going to talk about the front lines of this very
Speaker 1: real debate. Folks. This is the amy edge of progressive
Speaker 1: politics right now. This is in the vanguard. Our friend,
Speaker 1: Sir Rob Amari, joins us now. He is op ed
Speaker 1: editor of a New York Post, an author of From
Speaker 1: Fire by Water, My Journey to the Catholic Faith. Sir Rob,
Speaker 1: great to have you, my friend, and I just want
Speaker 1: to know how how did you first become somebody who
Speaker 1: was involved in this debate which the left has turned
Speaker 1: this into debate that a man can't have a baby. Well,
Speaker 1: and most recently because I encountered a story in The
Speaker 1: Guardian and the Daily Mail about a Guardian journalist named
Speaker 1: those named Freddie Connolly. First named Freddie obviously is a
Speaker 1: man's name, who you know, is a subject of this
Speaker 1: documentary premiering at the Rebecca Film Festival in New York,
Speaker 1: that details quote unquote his journey as a man to
Speaker 1: become a baby. What she is is a female to
Speaker 1: male transgender, but biology being what it is, she still
Speaker 1: has a uterus and a capacity to to have a child.
Speaker 1: So it's about his I cringe when I say that
Speaker 1: his quote unquote his journey to pregnancy and childbearing, and
Speaker 1: I just thought, and all the all the news coverage
Speaker 1: was using to his pronoun like he's pregnant, he's this
Speaker 1: and that, and I just I can't stand it. So
Speaker 1: I just sent out a tweet which became kind of viral,
Speaker 1: where I said, we have to be able to say
Speaker 1: basic truth and not fall into this totalitarian trap. Men
Speaker 1: cannot have babies. I repeat, men cannot have babies. And
Speaker 1: people dispute this. I mean, this is what we've come to,
Speaker 1: this crazy place where I've actually seen journalists who work
Speaker 1: for real publications who take the perspective that it is
Speaker 1: and you know, earmuffs for the for the young ones
Speaker 1: out there, but that not just women to have periods.
Speaker 1: This is also an article of faith. Now on the left,
Speaker 1: have you seen this because this is another one. Yes,
Speaker 1: because there are transgender men who have periods because they're
Speaker 1: still their menstruate, because they still have the reproductive organs
Speaker 1: that since time immemorial we've used to determine someone's sex.
Speaker 1: And so they say not all, not all? Uh is
Speaker 1: you know that men can can menstrate? Um? Yes, So
Speaker 1: here's what's really happening in this book about a decade ago.
Speaker 1: As recently as a decade ago, the LGBT groups still
Speaker 1: said that transgender people are born in one sex but
Speaker 1: identify with another. And there is a very small subsection
Speaker 1: of people who have this problem, and it was still
Speaker 1: thought about as as a mental disorder. But as time
Speaker 1: war on, the agenda has become ever more radical, so
Speaker 1: that the trans movement no longer says and I kid
Speaker 1: you not, no longer says so, and so is a
Speaker 1: man who identifies as a woman or a woman who
Speaker 1: identifies as man. No, that person is a man, was
Speaker 1: always a man. And that's the kind of radical by
Speaker 1: the way, you know, mind matter dualism that they trade
Speaker 1: in that you know, my subjective sense that I'm a
Speaker 1: woman overrides everything, to override all we know about biology,
Speaker 1: about chromosomes, about how sex differentiation happens at the motive
Speaker 1: moment of conception with any kind of species like us
Speaker 1: that has sexual dimorphism, All of that is overridden by
Speaker 1: my subjective state. And therefore, if I say I'm not
Speaker 1: so rob and Buck, you have to call me Sabrina.
Speaker 1: You have to call me Sabrina. And not only was
Speaker 1: I not, I was always Sabrina. It's this bizarre kind
Speaker 1: of memory holding. I was always well, this is why
Speaker 1: dead naming. You know what you're talking about, That this
Speaker 1: this concept of dead naming, which right now can get
Speaker 1: you banned from Twitter. I'm sure you know that that's
Speaker 1: that's an official Twitter dick tot that if you dead
Speaker 1: name someone. And I've always wondered people get names wrong
Speaker 1: all the time. People make fun of my kind of
Speaker 1: weird name all the time. I mean, that's this doesn't
Speaker 1: seem like some horrible thing, especially given that you know
Speaker 1: occasionally I will refer to Bradley Manning. Well, I just did,
Speaker 1: but I mean I'll refer to the person now who
Speaker 1: is called Chelsea Manning as Bradley Manning. I'm not doing
Speaker 1: it to put anyone down, but when he stole all
Speaker 1: that stuff, he was Bradley Manning. And yet if you
Speaker 1: do that, it's considered a grave offense. And I think
Speaker 1: you're explaining to me within the transgender community and on
Speaker 1: the left why it's such a grave offense, because it's
Speaker 1: not that there has been a decision made to change
Speaker 1: from say Bradley to Chelsea. It's that Chelsea Manning, according
Speaker 1: to the Left's just revision of reality. Bradley was always Chelsea.
Speaker 1: This is fascinating, Yes, So, I mean this is a
Speaker 1: pretty radical departure from not only obviously what Western tradition
Speaker 1: has handed us down, you know, through through the Judeo
Speaker 1: Christian tradition of genesis. Set genesis aside. This is an
Speaker 1: assault on science. By the way. The thing that's very
Speaker 1: interesting to be is how how often the trans movement
Speaker 1: ends up working against the aims of the at least
Speaker 1: what used to be the aims of the feminist movement. So,
Speaker 1: for example, you have athletes who are born male now
Speaker 1: identify as female, competing against biological women, but because they
Speaker 1: have the stamina and the muscle mass of well male athletes,
Speaker 1: they really dominate the fields that they get into. So
Speaker 1: women's sports gradually becoming to be dominated by men. Now. Pregnancy,
Speaker 1: something that used to be always bound up deeply with
Speaker 1: femininity and what it meant to be a woman, something
Speaker 1: that you and I buck could never experience. There was
Speaker 1: something sacred about that, it's something that women to pride in,
Speaker 1: is now being framed as a male experience because there
Speaker 1: are these so called men who can become pregnant in
Speaker 1: each of these instances this women who take a kind
Speaker 1: of back seat. Now if you open the like top
Speaker 1: women's glossy magazines, the ones that are like the woman
Speaker 1: of the year, often nowadays the woman of the year
Speaker 1: is someone who was born male. So this erasing biological woman,
Speaker 1: it's it's incredible, and it's really it's all just self
Speaker 1: contradiction and really a form of insanity. But sarab as
Speaker 1: always insightful and eloquent stuff from you on this appreciated
Speaker 1: Saraba Mari everybody op ed editor of The New York Post.
Speaker 1: Check out his book From Fire by Water, My Journey
Speaker 1: to the Catholic Faith, and it's Rob. I'd love to
Speaker 1: have you back, you know, maybe next Friday, if you're
Speaker 1: up for it, and I'd like to have a more
Speaker 1: in depth conversation just about your book, because I'm really curious.
Speaker 1: I'd love that buck. Thank you all right, sir, Rob,
Speaker 1: great to talk to you. Team. Cheers, my friend. We've
Speaker 1: got more coming up here. And just just a moment,
Speaker 1: you know, occasionally things get a little spicy on the
Speaker 1: set of Rising it does it does happen, or there
Speaker 1: are moments when I got to bust out the spice
Speaker 1: put some put some hot sauce on it, so to speaking,
Speaker 1: Today was one of those days. I just I just
Speaker 1: kind of had it with a Russia collusion truther who's
Speaker 1: actually a nice guy, and I don't I don't have
Speaker 1: anything against him. I just think he's very, very wrong
Speaker 1: on this. But we'll get to that in a moment.
Speaker 1: There was no indictable conspiracy. There was absolutely collusion, you
Speaker 1: know there was. They took a meeting with the Russians,
Speaker 1: they took the information from the Russians. He called on
Speaker 1: the Russians to release uh, to release the Nier. What
Speaker 1: is your definition of collusion? That would be it taking
Speaker 1: a meeting with somebody. Now we had to take the meeting,
Speaker 1: taking not knowing what they're going to tell your Oh, yes,
Speaker 1: they didn't know what they were going to tell them.
Speaker 1: They knew exactly well they were taking. They didn't give
Speaker 1: the causation of the meeting. They were taking the meeting
Speaker 1: because they were they were they were proffered negative information
Speaker 1: on Hillary Clinton from the Russian government. That it was
Speaker 1: not from the Russian government, from a Russian lawyer. It
Speaker 1: was absolutely from Russian government. I need to know something
Speaker 1: if that's a really bad idea. If that's wrong and
Speaker 1: terrible and nasty, what is it when the DNC pays
Speaker 1: a law firm to hire a foreigner Christopher Steele, who
Speaker 1: was not a US citizen, has no role in US
Speaker 1: election whatsoever, To use Russian subsources in a smear campaign
Speaker 1: that now the New York Times itself says may have
Speaker 1: been a Russian disinformation campaign and run that through the
Speaker 1: FBI and the press in this country. Who bought the
Speaker 1: whole thing holk Line and Sinker first? How is that
Speaker 1: not for interference in the election. I just need to know. Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna answer your question. Yeah, go for it. First
Speaker 1: of all, it was Republicans who hired them that first trap.
Speaker 1: It's true. Is It's just true? It is not. That
Speaker 1: was for a that was a separate contract doing separate work.
Speaker 1: It's for this is like saying that if you hire
Speaker 1: a lawyer to one thing, that somebody else has a
Speaker 1: lawyer later on. It's the same case at the top,
Speaker 1: the same case. Did you read facts Checker yesterday in
Speaker 1: the post they took down They went down every allegation
Speaker 1: in the Steel dossier, and all but one are confirmed
Speaker 1: and The only one that's not confirmed are the videotapes.
Speaker 1: You're kidding me that the Golden Showers, the Golden Showers
Speaker 1: videotapes of the President United States. That's what did I
Speaker 1: just say, that's the one that's not confirmed. How you're
Speaker 1: saying like there's so much wrong here that I'm gonna
Speaker 1: lose my monk Mike Collin, has he been a PROD
Speaker 1: guests or no, we don't really know. We think that
Speaker 1: you're you're in a fantasy You're in a fantasy land
Speaker 1: right now. That's absolute well, fantasyland, baby, that's where the
Speaker 1: Democrats are. That was from Rising today. That was a
Speaker 1: fun one. I gotta say, complete and utter nonsense. I mean,
Speaker 1: just as ridiculous as ridiculous gets. And you know Joe McClane,
Speaker 1: he's he's a smart guy. I'm and I actually I
Speaker 1: like Joe. So I'm not here to to trash Joe
Speaker 1: as as a person. I'm not. But he he suffers
Speaker 1: from trump to arrangement syndrome. I mean, he has a
Speaker 1: he has a problem. It's like I'm sitting there and
Speaker 1: I'm talking to an addict. But instead of him being like, hey,
Speaker 1: like I need my meth man, like, give me my meth.
Speaker 1: He's like, I need my Russia collusion. Man, it's just
Speaker 1: not normal. I mean the things that he's saying. The
Speaker 1: Russian government had nothing to do with the Trump Tower meeting.
Speaker 1: That was a woman who has tiesed She's a Russian
Speaker 1: lawyer who has ties to the Russian government. By the way,
Speaker 1: also has ties to Fusion GPS, which they always leave
Speaker 1: out of this, which is highly shady, very suspect, isn't
Speaker 1: it The very firm that was using the dossier, pulling
Speaker 1: the dossier together and then having it run through our
Speaker 1: own intelligence community. That same firm had hired Natalia Vezelnidskaya
Speaker 1: to work for them to get or was working together
Speaker 1: with regard to Russian sanctions. We're supposed to think that's
Speaker 1: a coincidence, folks. Come on, we're past that, right, I
Speaker 1: know you and I are. But even the Democrats should
Speaker 1: not hold on to that delusion. But they're holding onto
Speaker 1: a lot of delusions also. This just these are the
Speaker 1: talking points though. This was it was like I was
Speaker 1: checking him for Trump to arrangement syndromes. You know, do
Speaker 1: you have a fever, you know, do your reflex his work?
Speaker 1: Are you having, you know, trouble breathing, and like one
Speaker 1: symptom after another from Trump to arrangement syndrome. The Russian
Speaker 1: government did collude with Trump. The Republicans paid for the dossier.
Speaker 1: The dossier is true. I said, can you just admit
Speaker 1: that Michael Cohen under oath that he's never been to
Speaker 1: Prague and even forget what he says under oath unless
Speaker 1: you believe that Michael Cohen's actually a superspy and has
Speaker 1: fake identities that he travels under finding out. I worked
Speaker 1: in law enforcement, I worked in the intelligence community. I
Speaker 1: know this for a fact finding out where someone has
Speaker 1: done international travel when they're a US citizen, if you
Speaker 1: have the proper database and clearance takes about thirty seconds.
Speaker 1: So this is just crazy. I mean, there's no question
Speaker 1: that Michael Cohen has never been to Prague. Never mind
Speaker 1: what he said under oath. We know he's never been
Speaker 1: to Prague, and that was in the dossier. We know
Speaker 1: that there are no quote Golden Showers videos, and that
Speaker 1: was in the dossier. We know that there's so much
Speaker 1: in the dossier that's not true. But they run around
Speaker 1: just saying they repeat the lie enough, you know it's
Speaker 1: four legs good, two legs bad. They repeat the phrase
Speaker 1: enough that no one challenges it, that no one thinks
Speaker 1: more about it anyway. Sometimes he needed a buck slap.
Speaker 1: Joe needed a buck slap today, and I think right
Speaker 1: now he's got a handprint on the left side of
Speaker 1: his face. But it was kind of deserved. Ain't no
Speaker 1: party like a Team Buck party? Because a Team Buck
Speaker 1: party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up to eleven.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. Doesn't that announce your voice
Speaker 1: sound a bit that's our friend Andy who does the
Speaker 1: voice over there. Doesn't it sound a little bit like
Speaker 1: Optimist Prime? What do you think, Mark autobots Unite? Isn't
Speaker 1: that what he says? He does sound like that? He
Speaker 1: does say he sounds a little bit like Optimist Prime.
Speaker 1: Optimist Prime was a badass, sad I liked Optimist back then.
Speaker 1: The cartoons were great. Then they made the movies, and
Speaker 1: movies were not so good. I'm gonna avoid complaining today
Speaker 1: about the fact that there are you know, all these
Speaker 1: people who are going to go see the Avengers whatever,
Speaker 1: Avengers Endless Infinity Ultra Oh, there we go, and Avengers
Speaker 1: Endless in Infinity Ultra end game or whatever it's called.
Speaker 1: There we go, so we'll see, we will see. Um,
Speaker 1: are you gonna go see it? Mark? Or are you
Speaker 1: actually in this? You? Are you like these? All? Right?
Speaker 1: You know what I give? Everyone likes the except I'm
Speaker 1: just a weirdo. Everyone likes these these movies. It's gonna
Speaker 1: make a billion dollars, folks. It's gonna open to like
Speaker 1: a three hundred million dollars weekend in China or something
Speaker 1: crazy like that. And I'm just sitting here like, oh,
Speaker 1: get off my lawn with the Avengers. I don't like it.
Speaker 1: Have you ever even tried to like them? Dude? I Mark,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you of try Man, I've given him a shot.
Speaker 1: I actually thought that the thor movie Ragnarok, who had
Speaker 1: some funny moments. I actually thought that wasn't terrible. But
Speaker 1: some of these Avenger movies there's no plot. It's just
Speaker 1: like weird monsters and then lots of fights in the
Speaker 1: street with you know, the Hulk and the Bye. It's
Speaker 1: just you know, but everyone, I know, everyone, everyone drop
Speaker 1: for everyone. I get it. Yeah, everyone booze me on
Speaker 1: this one. I know. I understand. It's just a lot
Speaker 1: of cgi and not a lot of thoughtful dialogue or acting.
Speaker 1: All right, Marcus, you're gonna save me for myself? Here ah,
Speaker 1: here we go, Marcus writes, whoa, Marcus, This is very long,
Speaker 1: so I can't read this on air, but thank you
Speaker 1: for setting it in and I will read it when
Speaker 1: I am done. Brandon right, Hey, Buck, have you heard
Speaker 1: that Tom Arnold interview he did with Michael Knowles early
Speaker 1: in Michael's podcast, But yes, to Brandon, not Tom. Tom
Speaker 1: Arnold's the other guy. There are people who have completely
Speaker 1: they've completely lost their minds on Russia collusion. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what what you tell them, it doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: the evidence is. This is a conspiracy theory, and conspiracy
Speaker 1: theories are very difficult for people to drop. So that's
Speaker 1: where we are. There you have it, Glenn, right. I
Speaker 1: find it interesting that President Trump drastically reduced the dependent
Speaker 1: class through reducing unemployment and bringing jobs back, and it
Speaker 1: seems the answer to that has been caravans to replenish
Speaker 1: the dependent class. Keep up the good work, Glenn. I
Speaker 1: I've said it before, I'll say it again. There are very,
Speaker 1: very in depth studies that look at the effect of
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, in particular on wages on a state by
Speaker 1: state and really subdistrict by subdistrict of that state, and
Speaker 1: it definitely has an effect and also the long term
Speaker 1: cost to a country of having essentially a predominantly uneducated
Speaker 1: and non English speaking underclass. What happens when they all retire? Folks,
Speaker 1: the forty year old illegal alien gardener or dishwasher, when
Speaker 1: he turned sixty five, he gets Medicare? Yes or no?
Speaker 1: The fifty year old guy who you know mows your lawn,
Speaker 1: does he get Medicare at sixty five? He's not in
Speaker 1: the country legally, he doesn't have legal stuff. There's millions
Speaker 1: of people like this. What happens to them? You know
Speaker 1: what's gonna happen. Democrats, you're gonna say, oh, it's this
Speaker 1: is the necessary and humane thing to do. Well, now
Speaker 1: we're just giving it. Now, they're just taking a lot
Speaker 1: of money from you and giving free healthcare to people
Speaker 1: that we're never supposed to be here. That's what's going
Speaker 1: to happen. That is what is going to happen. But
Speaker 1: nobody wants to listen to me. Well, you want to
Speaker 1: listen to me on this, but none of the Democrats
Speaker 1: want to listen to me on this Richard Rights, You
Speaker 1: are right about Mayor Big Bird. He is a moron.
Speaker 1: It's talking about de Blasia. Yes he's also called Mayor
Speaker 1: Big Bird. Yeah, but he's exactly what NYC deserves. I
Speaker 1: live upstate, and so as long as the idiot voters
Speaker 1: in NYC keep inflicting that criminal, imbecile, lunatic Andrew Cuomo
Speaker 1: on us, they deserve everything they get from their idiot mayor.
Speaker 1: I hope he bankrupts them. Well, I hope you bankrupt yourself, sir,
Speaker 1: because Governor Cuomo has only one speed, and it involves
Speaker 1: yelling and talking down to people as though they're all
Speaker 1: hard of hearing and very stupid. I don't really have
Speaker 1: a Deblasio impression, except he kind of sounds like this,
Speaker 1: and he's just like, I'm just gonna retro fit all
Speaker 1: the buildings because of climate change because my name is
Speaker 1: Bill de Blasio. If you listen to de Blasio clip,
Speaker 1: he kind of sounds like that. I think you think
Speaker 1: I'm playing, but I'm for real. Robert Buck, I am
Speaker 1: praying I misheard you. Please tell me you didn't just
Speaker 1: say When it's love, it's Van Halen's best song. That's
Speaker 1: like saying Joe Scarbrough is your favorite conservative. Ouch the
Speaker 1: range is hot today. Nothing with Sammy Hagar can be
Speaker 1: considered even good. Van Halen Okay, at best, go back
Speaker 1: and listen to van Halen one and two. Love the show? Well, Robert,
Speaker 1: I think your van Halen knowledge likely exceeds my own.
Speaker 1: So I don't know that I'm in a position to
Speaker 1: really challenge you on this. But how do I know?
Speaker 1: When it's love? It can't spread a da oh? That
Speaker 1: part I got, That's all. That's all I've got for
Speaker 1: you on that one. I'm gonna stop. I'm not. I
Speaker 1: was gonna quit while I'm ahead, but I'm actually not
Speaker 1: quitting while I'm ahead, am I I'm in fact, I'm
Speaker 1: in fact way behind. It's kind of sad Andre's cool
Speaker 1: spelling of the name. By the way, San Francisco fecal
Speaker 1: maps are celebrity fecal maps going to do the next thing? Wow,
Speaker 1: this is quite scatological, Andre's. As you know, many of
Speaker 1: our nation wonderful cities were once wonderful sad stuff man
Speaker 1: Shield's high buck. Yeah. What he's referring to, folks in
Speaker 1: case you to know, is that now San Francisco has
Speaker 1: these interactive digital maps of where there is um. I
Speaker 1: don't know what else to say of them, to say
Speaker 1: it human poop on the streets because people are living
Speaker 1: in the streets and guess what, they will as part
Speaker 1: of their normal biological processes, have to expel waste. That
Speaker 1: expulsion of waste manifests itself in you know what, and
Speaker 1: that falls in places all over the street when people
Speaker 1: are not in fact living at homes and have indoor
Speaker 1: plumbing and sewage, etc. Etc. And this is a real
Speaker 1: problem in San Francisco. I've got to tell you all
Speaker 1: it takes with some of these public these public nuisances
Speaker 1: in public hazard situations, is one really nasty outbreak of
Speaker 1: some kind of disease, maybe something we've seen before, maybe
Speaker 1: something we haven't seen before. And everyone's gonna say, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, how could we have allowed people in a
Speaker 1: dense urban environment to live on the streets out running
Speaker 1: water and sanitation. And the answer is, well, we all
Speaker 1: knew it was bad. But the libs are hemia San Francisco,
Speaker 1: just like people like live their truth, man, like whatever
Speaker 1: you know, they're ruining San Francisco. San Francisco is turning
Speaker 1: into like a Latin American country where you have a
Speaker 1: super elite, wealthy class and then everybody else gets to
Speaker 1: wallow in the poop on the streets. It's not good.
Speaker 1: It's not the way it's supposed to be. You know.
Speaker 1: We should have a society that is much more level
Speaker 1: than that, and everyone deserves clean streets in this country
Speaker 1: and Latin American countries that are particularly poor. So next
Speaker 1: up here, Cindy, no need to read this on air, Okay, Cindy,
Speaker 1: I will not, Scott hey Buck. In regards to modern
Speaker 1: beautiful churches, check out Sagrada Familia, the Basilica in Barcelona.
Speaker 1: Construction started in eighteen eighty two and is scheduled to
Speaker 1: finish in twenty twenty six. A centnaria of Gaudie the
Speaker 1: designer chief Architect's death. It's kind of odd looking, but
Speaker 1: beautiful shields high Scott, all that fancy talk. I have
Speaker 1: no idea what that really was. But there you have it.
Speaker 1: There you have it. Let's see what else we have here,
Speaker 1: Roger right buck, In reference to student loan forgiveness, what
Speaker 1: about those who were killed in the wars while serving
Speaker 1: out their service obligation? For ROTC or academy scholarships. What
Speaker 1: are you asking me, should somebody who was killed have
Speaker 1: their loans forgiven? Of course that's but you know, this
Speaker 1: is like saying, well, should people that fight for our
Speaker 1: country get separate healthcare paid for? Yes, that's a that's
Speaker 1: an obligation that we, the people of this country have
Speaker 1: to those who serve in our armed forces. So in
Speaker 1: terms of those who were killed while serving abroad, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: And I'm actually Roger, you might know more about this
Speaker 1: than me. My assumption would be, and perhaps it's a
Speaker 1: wrong assumption, that any debt that you any student loan
Speaker 1: debt that you have, which is a debt to the
Speaker 1: federal government, if you are killed while serving or ROTC
Speaker 1: or academy scholarship, that that would be wiped away right away.
Speaker 1: But I actually don't know. But I'm all for, you know,
Speaker 1: the making good on the promise to our soldiers of
Speaker 1: taking care of them when they're when they're back home,
Speaker 1: and taking care of them when they're overseas. Let's see here.
Speaker 1: But that's interesting, Roger, I don't know about that. I've
Speaker 1: never really thought about. See, this is one of the
Speaker 1: one of the great things about this show is so
Speaker 1: many of you have. You bring your knowledge to what
Speaker 1: I do, and it forces me to have to track
Speaker 1: down a lot and do a lot of research that
Speaker 1: I wouldn't have otherwise done. And it really is a
Speaker 1: a This is a symphony, and we are all playing
Speaker 1: different instruments. I mean, maybe I'm the conductor, but all
Speaker 1: of you, some of you are second violent in. Some
Speaker 1: of you got the tuba. You need a tuba player.
Speaker 1: You can make fun of the tuba player, but that
Speaker 1: guy's got some got some bass, all right, Michael, All right, Buck,
Speaker 1: I am in LA and streaming your show at three
Speaker 1: pm on iHeartRadio. If I miss it, I listened. But
Speaker 1: your show sometimes it's preempted by sports, but it replays
Speaker 1: twenty four seven on iHeart until your next show. Yeah, folks,
Speaker 1: if I'm ever this is important. If I'm ever preempted
Speaker 1: in your This really only from what I understand, tends
Speaker 1: to happen in the LA market because they have some
Speaker 1: huge sports franchises that will sometimes coincide with my show,
Speaker 1: which is not always great for me. But the thing
Speaker 1: you can do is listen on the iHeart app live.
Speaker 1: You can listen live on the iHeart app. The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show is streaming on the iHeart app. You can
Speaker 1: do that anytime you like, so that's what I would
Speaker 1: say you should do. You can always wait for the podcast,
Speaker 1: but if you want to listen in real time, just go.
Speaker 1: And if you don't catch me on your local state
Speaker 1: or if you're out of reach of your local station
Speaker 1: I heeart app, it's just download it and then searched
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show and you can oh and the
Speaker 1: show will just play on a loop there, so even
Speaker 1: if you're not live, you'll hear the show from the
Speaker 1: day before. All right, teen, that's it for today. Fantastic stuff.
Speaker 1: Looking forward to talking to you tomorrow. She'll tie