Speaker 1: For decades, credit cards have been telling us buy it
Speaker 1: now and pay for it later with interest, despite your
Speaker 1: best intentions, that interest can get out of control fast.
Speaker 1: With lending Club, you can consolidate your debt or payoff
Speaker 1: credit cards with one fixed monthly payment. Since two thousand
Speaker 1: and seven, lending Club has helped millions of people regain
Speaker 1: control of their finances with affordable, fixed rate personal loans.
Speaker 1: No trips to a bank, no high interest credit cards.
Speaker 1: Just go to lending club dot com. Tell them about
Speaker 1: yourself and how much you want to borrow, pick the
Speaker 1: terms that are right for you, and if you're approved,
Speaker 1: your loan is automatically deposited into your bank account in
Speaker 1: as little as a few days. Lending Club is the
Speaker 1: number one peer to peer lending platform with over thirty
Speaker 1: five billion loans issued. Go to lending club dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck, check your rate in minutes and borrow up
Speaker 1: to forty thousand dollars. That's lending club dot com slash buck,
Speaker 1: lending Club dot com slash buck all loans made by
Speaker 1: web bank member f D I C Equal Housing lender.
Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt metaphor guilty Cohen takes
Speaker 1: a deal also, I suppose we could say guilty, and
Speaker 1: what does all of this mean for the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: Presidents Talking tonight, we'll get into that and much more
Speaker 1: coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This is the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to
Speaker 1: decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake
Speaker 1: American grant You're a great American Again the buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show begins. However, he would like to thank John Challis
Speaker 1: for granting him a fair trial, Thank the jury for
Speaker 1: their very long and hard fought deliberations. He is evaluating
Speaker 1: all of his options at this point. Thank you everyone. Today,
Speaker 1: as you heard, Michael Golan pled guilty to eight felony charges.
Speaker 1: Five of those dealt with tax evasion for the years
Speaker 1: two thousand and twelve through two thousand and sixteen, in
Speaker 1: which he failed to report approximately four point one million
Speaker 1: dollars in reported income. Approximately two point five of that
Speaker 1: money was from interest payments from a personal loan that
Speaker 1: he failed to report. Approximately one point three million dollars
Speaker 1: of that money was from the operation of his taxi
Speaker 1: medallion business. Approximately one hundred thousand dollars of that money
Speaker 1: was from brokerage commissions and over two hundred thousand dollars
Speaker 1: was from consulting fees. That's over four point three million
Speaker 1: dollars over five year period, which translates into a loss
Speaker 1: to the United States Treasury of approximately one point three
Speaker 1: million dollars. In addition, in count six, Mr Cohen played
Speaker 1: guilty to making false statements to a financial institution in
Speaker 1: connection with an application for a home equity line of credit.
Speaker 1: In that application, he failed to disclose more than fourteen
Speaker 1: million dollars in debt that he had, and as a
Speaker 1: results of that concealment, he obtained that five dollar line
Speaker 1: of credit, which he would not have been entitled to
Speaker 1: had he been candid and honest. But very sad about that.
Speaker 1: It doesn't involve me, but I still feel, you know,
Speaker 1: it's a very sad thing that happened. This has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Russian collusion. Just started as Russian collusion.
Speaker 1: This has absolutely nothing to do there's a witch hunt
Speaker 1: and it's a disgrace, but this has nothing to do
Speaker 1: what they started out looking for Russians involved in our campaign.
Speaker 1: There were done. I feel very badly for a manta
Speaker 1: for it. Again. He worked for Bob Toh. He worked
Speaker 1: for Ronald Reagan, He worked for many, many people, and
Speaker 1: that's the way it ends up. And it was not
Speaker 1: the original mission, believe me, it was. There was something
Speaker 1: very much different, so had nothing to do with Russian collusion.
Speaker 1: We continue the witch Thank you very much. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Bucks Exton Show. We continue the witch hunt. The
Speaker 1: President says, h And that's certainly true. It's a fascinating
Speaker 1: and I would tell you, folks, a very unsettling thing
Speaker 1: to see what has happened here in these two trials,
Speaker 1: or at least one trial and one set of set
Speaker 1: of charges, one immediant trial. And I want to break
Speaker 1: these down. And you know the details of them are
Speaker 1: not all that important in terms of at least the charges, right,
Speaker 1: the the details of what they hit. And you'll you'll
Speaker 1: notice that that one the prosecutor who was stating what
Speaker 1: what Cohen did, he kept saying, you a four million
Speaker 1: dollars of hitting it, And well, it's one million dollars
Speaker 1: that the the federal government did not get their hands on.
Speaker 1: It's one million dollars that is really at issue here.
Speaker 1: That was there cut, That was Uncle Sam's cut from
Speaker 1: what at least from what I can gather um and
Speaker 1: on Manafort. They got him on uh eight counts, ten counts,
Speaker 1: there was a there was a mistrial. I couldn't tell
Speaker 1: on ten of the counts. Now, a lot of people
Speaker 1: are gonna look at this as is already the case.
Speaker 1: I see here on CNN a slightly celebratory tone. A
Speaker 1: lot of people are now gonna run and talk about
Speaker 1: how everyone who's around Trump is a crook. And I
Speaker 1: would like to start with some very very important, let's say,
Speaker 1: basic assumptions that we should all have here before we
Speaker 1: get into all this. I know people are gonna say,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, look what this proves. And first of all,
Speaker 1: proves nothing about Russia collusion or the election, nothing, absolutely nothing.
Speaker 1: The President's right about that. But what I can't tell
Speaker 1: you was this. If you had taken a team of ferocious,
Speaker 1: ideologically driven federal prosecutors and given them unfettered authority to
Speaker 1: pull whatever records they want, to pull anyone they want
Speaker 1: under oath, and essentially to go get scalps, and you
Speaker 1: had unleashed that group a manner, I mean, a Mueller
Speaker 1: like squad on a Hillary Clinton and her immediate circle. Okay,
Speaker 1: I no serious person could convince me that you would
Speaker 1: not find tax problems, financial impropriety, uh, you know, failure
Speaker 1: to register as a foreign agent. A lot of these
Speaker 1: things that come up with Manafort and with Cohen you
Speaker 1: would see in similar fashion with Hillary and her And
Speaker 1: in fact, I think Hillary herself, quite honestly, if you
Speaker 1: if you were to shake the tree vigorously long enough,
Speaker 1: things would fall down. That would be criminal in nature. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and some of you are saying, well, buck, also,
Speaker 1: you don't have to shake any tree because she violated
Speaker 1: classification protocol so that she could maintain um maintain. And
Speaker 1: you know, people always forget this. I think this is
Speaker 1: important to remember. And I know this is where I
Speaker 1: I get a lot of trouble from my liberal friends.
Speaker 1: Why are you talking about Hillary when it's man of no?
Speaker 1: Because it matters? It really They can call it what
Speaker 1: about is M? All they want, but this really does
Speaker 1: matter because the worst thing you can have is what
Speaker 1: about is M? In the justice system? They say, it's
Speaker 1: what about is M from pundits and people that go
Speaker 1: on the news, But what about is M? When it
Speaker 1: comes to the justice system, meaning you know, well, what
Speaker 1: about this thing? But not what about that thing? When
Speaker 1: people are treated differently based on their connections, their political affiliations. Uh,
Speaker 1: that is incredibly destructive. And you were talking about undermining institutions.
Speaker 1: When Republicans can count up getting the harshest possible treatment
Speaker 1: from federal prosecutors and Democrats know that they will be
Speaker 1: treated as leniently as they possibly can. We have a
Speaker 1: very we're entering a very dark period in our country.
Speaker 1: And with Hillary and those around her, it was obvious
Speaker 1: to anybody who was paying attention that she was getting
Speaker 1: special treatment. Um that yes, she broke laws. But also
Speaker 1: if you were to dig into the Clinton Foundation and
Speaker 1: what they were doing, there was clear impropriety there and
Speaker 1: they just weren't willing to see it or take action
Speaker 1: on it. With Trump, you see the opposite. You know,
Speaker 1: with with Trump, you see an effort to do everything possible,
Speaker 1: and the prosecutors, prosecutors arsenal that the tool kits that
Speaker 1: they have arsenal sounds scarier, will stay with that the
Speaker 1: arsenal raw uh to take to take people down. This
Speaker 1: is different, folks. This is distinct from what we've seen
Speaker 1: with others, and and and there there's some other things
Speaker 1: that just just some general feelings on this that I have.
Speaker 1: One of them is that any American should here that
Speaker 1: Maniford And maybe I'll talk about with the co and stuff,
Speaker 1: and I want to focus on a manaph for a second.
Speaker 1: Any American should here that Manaford faced for in some
Speaker 1: of the specific accounts. Right, he had eighteen counts against him,
Speaker 1: ten of them mistrial, eight of them found guilty. That
Speaker 1: on some of those counts in which he was found guilty,
Speaker 1: one infraction and we're talking about tax infractions could be
Speaker 1: punishable by up to thirty years in federal prison. And
Speaker 1: I understand what the argument is here, right folks, people
Speaker 1: will say, oh, but he'll never get that, Okay, But
Speaker 1: what kind of country are we live again where you could,
Speaker 1: even in theory, go to prison for thirty years based
Speaker 1: on not letting the federal government steal even more of
Speaker 1: your stuff. I always think that's important to remember with
Speaker 1: these tax fraud cases too. You know, uh, the the
Speaker 1: notion is that, well, you're not paying any taxes. No,
Speaker 1: it's that you didn't pay all of your taxes. You're
Speaker 1: still paying taxes. You know, you're still contributing the federal
Speaker 1: government's still taking money from you. Just a question of
Speaker 1: did they get their full cut or not? And I
Speaker 1: know that you know, the country would cease to run
Speaker 1: if nobody paid their taxes. And you know some of
Speaker 1: you're gonna tell me, well, buck, we had no federal
Speaker 1: income tax until the twentieth century. I know that's all true,
Speaker 1: and I wish we could go back to that, although
Speaker 1: I don't think there's any really serious effort right now
Speaker 1: to get us there. Um, But in the meantime we
Speaker 1: we would have a serious financial crisis on our hands.
Speaker 1: And people don't pay their taxes. Okay, fine, thirty years though,
Speaker 1: three zero one count. Think of any person, you know,
Speaker 1: Think of the worst boss, the most lumberg like boss.
Speaker 1: They have to come in here on Sunday, you know,
Speaker 1: the worst boss you've ever had, the worst neighbor or whatever,
Speaker 1: somebody just drove you nuts. And if they got caught
Speaker 1: on one on one count of tax evasion, would you
Speaker 1: think it was just to send them away for thirty years?
Speaker 1: What is that all about? You know, we have this
Speaker 1: system of a federal prosecution where so much is in
Speaker 1: favor of the prosecutors at this point, I mean, you
Speaker 1: effectively gamble away your entire life if you even want
Speaker 1: to try and protest your innytance that look. I yeah,
Speaker 1: I think Manufort, sure, I think he's guilty. Of course,
Speaker 1: do I think that he violated the law? Yes, to
Speaker 1: the law matter, sure of course. But with Democrats, is
Speaker 1: it fair to say the law is the law? Certainly
Speaker 1: not the case when it comes to legal immigrants. You know,
Speaker 1: when when I always bring up how Democrats feel about
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, which is the laws don't count, I will
Speaker 1: talk to you also about you know, taxes, and the
Speaker 1: same case can be made. Right. You can say about
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants, come on, they just want to be here,
Speaker 1: They just want their piece of the dream. You can
Speaker 1: say about Paul man Effort, well, he's contributing to the economy,
Speaker 1: and you know he he didn't hurt anybody. And it
Speaker 1: doesn't it doesn't financially matter to the federal government that
Speaker 1: one person did not pay you know, whatever it was,
Speaker 1: millions of dollars of tacts. It makes no difference whatsoever,
Speaker 1: zero difference. But we punish him because we believe in
Speaker 1: a rule of law. With legal immigration, you'll notice that
Speaker 1: logic does not apply anymore. The law is no longer
Speaker 1: the law. The law is some kind of a of
Speaker 1: a suggestion. It's it's something that changes based on the
Speaker 1: whims of the Democrat mob. And that's that's another that's
Speaker 1: another part of this I think is important focus on.
Speaker 1: And and finally there's this. I know there's some there's
Speaker 1: celebration out there among people who hate Trump, their celebration
Speaker 1: out there among people that really just want to see suffering,
Speaker 1: among those who were even for a short time as
Speaker 1: mana for it was a short timer for he was
Speaker 1: fired on the Trump campaign. Um, but they they really
Speaker 1: like to joy ride in this man's in this man's downfall.
Speaker 1: And I would just say that that is unseemly, folks,
Speaker 1: it really is. You know that we're not talking about
Speaker 1: a a psycho killer. We're not talking about a rapist, murderer,
Speaker 1: somebody who's you know, beneath contempt. We're talking about a
Speaker 1: guy who's greedy, who was was shady and his business dealings,
Speaker 1: and who is only let's all be clear about this,
Speaker 1: only now facing the rest of his life, possibly in prison.
Speaker 1: That's right. He could spend the I mean, he might
Speaker 1: get an eight ten twelve years sentence. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe he'll get out and have some time, but
Speaker 1: he could get a lot more than that too, but
Speaker 1: I think he faces over eighty years, which is also,
Speaker 1: let's all be honest, insane, eighty years. I mean he
Speaker 1: should have to make financial restitution, pay a fine, and
Speaker 1: be banned from, you know, the the industry he was in,
Speaker 1: and you know, do a lot of chair already work
Speaker 1: like I actually go volunteer and help people. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's lock them away for eighty years. Why is that
Speaker 1: even on the books? Why should that even be possible.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of celebration out there right now,
Speaker 1: the folks because a guy who had worked for other
Speaker 1: administrations you won't hear much about that, who was kind
Speaker 1: of a political insider, a political player here in d C.
Speaker 1: And obviously abroad, he got jammed up on a tax
Speaker 1: fraud case. Look at how far we've gone from Russia
Speaker 1: collusion and the sanctity of our elections. We now have
Speaker 1: journalists who can barely hide their glee at some you know,
Speaker 1: political gun for hire basically who didn't pay his taxes.
Speaker 1: And this is supposed to make us sleep more soundly
Speaker 1: at night. I just I you know this, This is
Speaker 1: this has become a focus of the Trump deranged in
Speaker 1: ways that tell us much more about them then it
Speaker 1: tells us about Russia collusion or Trump or anthing else
Speaker 1: going on here. I want to talk to us about
Speaker 1: the coe and stuff. I know Trump is gonna be
Speaker 1: speaking uh in a little bit as well his rally
Speaker 1: to night. I'm sure it's gonna be It's gonna be fascinating.
Speaker 1: So that will pick up some of that live if
Speaker 1: we can eight four four nine hundred to eight to
Speaker 1: five eight four four nine hundred Buck also send me
Speaker 1: your thoughts on Facebook, Facebook dot com, slash buck sexty.
Speaker 1: The lines are lit. Team. So let's get to some
Speaker 1: of our wonderful callers. Here. We have John in Mississippi. Hey, John, Buck,
Speaker 1: how are you. I'm good, Thanks for calling in good?
Speaker 1: Um yeah, so what uh? What disturbed me is that
Speaker 1: he could get thirty years in prison at doubt that
Speaker 1: he will, but he could. And yet on one count,
Speaker 1: by the way, John, not to interrupt you, but one
Speaker 1: count he was charged with eighteen counts. Amazing. So we
Speaker 1: routinely let murder, rapists and people who commit our robbery
Speaker 1: out in a fraction of the time that they're supposed
Speaker 1: to serve. Is ironic. Well, yes, and you know, there's
Speaker 1: actually a pretty clear movement john on the left to
Speaker 1: suggest that, you know, financial crimes because of white privilege,
Speaker 1: for example, financial crimes are less harshly punished and are
Speaker 1: just as bad and therefore should be punished as harshly
Speaker 1: as people who are violent. You know. So, so a
Speaker 1: violent criminal, uh, you know, a gang banger who you know,
Speaker 1: shoots a gun off at somebody and is guilty of
Speaker 1: attempted murder should serve you know, about the same amount
Speaker 1: of time as somebody who owes the federal government more
Speaker 1: tax money. I mean, there are people on the left
Speaker 1: will tell you that that's what justice would look like,
Speaker 1: that that happens. Well, the government has to uh scare
Speaker 1: the populace into submission, um, you know, with with a
Speaker 1: with a sentence like that. Uh. They are trying to
Speaker 1: send a message that you don't mess with the government,
Speaker 1: and that's why they are so there. I think the
Speaker 1: government is terrified of things like cryptocurrency and bitcoin because
Speaker 1: they can't control it and they know it, and they're
Speaker 1: probably behind price manipulation of the bitcoin market and all
Speaker 1: that stuff right now. Um, but yeah, they're they're they're
Speaker 1: really not your friends. No, they are not your friend.
Speaker 1: As I like to tell people, be very clear on that,
Speaker 1: the government is not your friend. So John, thank you
Speaker 1: very much for calling him, and I appreciate it. Shieldsaye
Speaker 1: Brent in New Mexico. Hey, Brent about shill time man Shields. Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: on a note on that, I guess it goes to
Speaker 1: show you the difference between being charged by the federal
Speaker 1: government by your state government. I mean, the state is
Speaker 1: the one who handles your murder charge, but if the
Speaker 1: federal government gets involved on a tax evasion thing, it's
Speaker 1: a whole another ballpark. Right. Oh yeah, I mean the
Speaker 1: federal secutors. Remember, you have to there's mandatory minimums, you
Speaker 1: have to serve your full sentence, there's no parole, and
Speaker 1: the resources that federal prosecutors have are way bigger and
Speaker 1: better than usually what you'll get against a district attorney. Yes, sir, well,
Speaker 1: I kind of jumped the gun on the Cohen thing,
Speaker 1: but I didn't hear it your monologue, but I was
Speaker 1: reading in my Twitter feeding and I won't drop names
Speaker 1: on the reporters who were saying it. But rumor has
Speaker 1: it the Cohen might plead down to a campaign finance
Speaker 1: charge and if that happens told that implicate Trump? Or
Speaker 1: do you think that there is something that's seriously be
Speaker 1: concerned about it? You think that they're just talking. I
Speaker 1: think that's that's a perfect segue to where I was
Speaker 1: gonna go here, which I wanted to start with, focus
Speaker 1: on mana fort Uh, and then get to the Cohen situation.
Speaker 1: I have to wonder also, I don't mean to be
Speaker 1: conspiratorial here, Brent, but you know that the timing of
Speaker 1: this maybe if you're Cohen, do you you know you
Speaker 1: did they plan this? It's it seems a little coincidental.
Speaker 1: I guess it could be a coincidence. I can't say
Speaker 1: it it's not, but that this happens on the same day,
Speaker 1: doesn't that strike anybody? Is maybe somebody well, I think
Speaker 1: that the most likely situation is that Cohen maybe wanted
Speaker 1: to get this over with the same day that Manaford
Speaker 1: got his skill. I don't know, it's it's definitely something
Speaker 1: that I'm taking note of. We will talk about Cohen though,
Speaker 1: and what is going to happen with him, and whether
Speaker 1: or not, to your question, Brent, he's a possible problem
Speaker 1: for Trump. We'll talk about that in in just a
Speaker 1: few moments here coming up after this break eight four four, Buck,
Speaker 1: if you want to chat eight four two way to five,
Speaker 1: will be right back. He's holding the line for America.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton his back. So we were speaking before about
Speaker 1: the uh Cohen situation, or sorry, the Manaford situation, and
Speaker 1: now we should speak about the Cohin situation a bit
Speaker 1: um my Michael Colin was president's lawyer, is close confidante.
Speaker 1: Some people in a in a nod to the Godfather
Speaker 1: and other mafia pop culture referred him as a consoliary.
Speaker 1: So we all know you don't pronounce the G, so
Speaker 1: it's not a consigliary. Um. But Michael Cohen, who is
Speaker 1: the president's personal attorney, has admitted to charges felony charges,
Speaker 1: including federal campaign finance law violations by arranging hush money
Speaker 1: payments to adult film star Stormy Daniels and former Playboar
Speaker 1: model Kara mcdougalll at the direction of then candidate Trump.
Speaker 1: Um In total, Coin pleaded guilty to five counts of
Speaker 1: tax evasion, one count of making false statements to a
Speaker 1: financial institution, one count of willfully causing an unlawful corporate contribution,
Speaker 1: and one count of making an excessive campaign contribution. Cohen
Speaker 1: could receive who wants to guess, who wants to guess?
Speaker 1: He You you heard those charges right, basically finance stuff
Speaker 1: like moving moving around some money to different things for
Speaker 1: the purposes of enriching himself or for political reasons. Five
Speaker 1: years in prison, ten years in prison, try sixty five
Speaker 1: years in prison if convicted on all charges. Wow, that's
Speaker 1: what he could have received. His plea deal says he
Speaker 1: will not challenge a sentence between forty six and sixty
Speaker 1: three months, so four. Basically he's looking at four or
Speaker 1: four or five years. Uh. And the deal does not
Speaker 1: involve a cooperation a group with federal prosecutors, so he
Speaker 1: could be He's gonna be sentenced on December twelve, So
Speaker 1: Cohen could go away for four He's gonna go away
Speaker 1: for four years, folks, for this four years. Uh, and
Speaker 1: he's not cooperating, which people are gonna point it this
Speaker 1: and say, well, what does that really mean about whether
Speaker 1: he's any risk to the president. This brings me to
Speaker 1: what my my esteemed call or a few moments ago,
Speaker 1: I was asking about I don't think Trump, I don't
Speaker 1: think Cohen has anything on the president but understand, folks,
Speaker 1: that this is all about the president to the Democrats,
Speaker 1: is isn't about some individuals who didn't pay their taxes
Speaker 1: or did shady things in their businesses. Anything that anyone
Speaker 1: does around Trump, or that they did years before they
Speaker 1: were around Trump in the case of Manafort, anything that
Speaker 1: they did that is wrong. The media will try to
Speaker 1: find a way to place at a Trump's feet. It's
Speaker 1: Trump's fault. Trump is the cause of the problem. Trump
Speaker 1: is the reason that these issues happen. Now. I know
Speaker 1: that's not rational, it's not reasonable, but this is what
Speaker 1: they believe. And you need to understand that that's really
Speaker 1: the takeaway here, and you can don't have to take
Speaker 1: my word for it. We've got a member of Congress,
Speaker 1: for example, Democrat, what is it, u Castro, John I mean, Mike, Yes, yes,
Speaker 1: Representative Castro. Here's what he says about this place. Seventeen today,
Speaker 1: we witnessed the President United States go from the fine
Speaker 1: pan into the fire, moveing not just from political liability
Speaker 1: for a bad situation with Russia, collusion and so forth,
Speaker 1: to perhaps legal liability. Now and the question has come
Speaker 1: up a few times about what the Congress will do
Speaker 1: and I can't say for sure what the Congress will do,
Speaker 1: but I believe that the Judiciary Committee in both the
Speaker 1: House and the Senate should take this this issue up
Speaker 1: immediately and should start to hold hearings about exactly what happened. Uh,
Speaker 1: Call in the folks who could coroborate what the president
Speaker 1: may have done according to Michael Cohen. Call in the
Speaker 1: people from American media, the man who owns the Inquirer,
Speaker 1: for example, and corroborate what was said by Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1: The president's personal lawyer, somebody who has kept his secrets,
Speaker 1: somebody who has been not just a lawyer but a
Speaker 1: confidant to this president, has made very serious allegations about
Speaker 1: the president's behavior. Has nothing to do with the Russia, folks,
Speaker 1: nothing at all. This is all about Stormy Daniels and
Speaker 1: h that other woman that Trump had the alleged actually
Speaker 1: Karen McDougal, But Karr McDougall right. Here here's what the
Speaker 1: report is on Fox News about this from this is
Speaker 1: Cohen's attorney, Lanny Davis, whom I interviewed a few weeks
Speaker 1: ago about this very issue. Here's what he says. Now
Speaker 1: that the guilty plea has been handed in quote. This
Speaker 1: is Michael fulfilling his promise made on July two to
Speaker 1: put his family and country first and tell the truth
Speaker 1: about Donald Trump. Today, he stood up and testified under
Speaker 1: oath that Donald Trump directed him to commit a crime
Speaker 1: by making payments to two women for the principal purpose
Speaker 1: of influencing an election. If those payments were a crime
Speaker 1: for Michael Cohen, then why wouldn't they be a crime
Speaker 1: for Donald Trump? Uh? Now, this is on so many levels, folks.
Speaker 1: You have you have to dig a little bit below
Speaker 1: what what they're offering you up here, as as the
Speaker 1: main headlines everything else. Because first of all, Cohen is
Speaker 1: Trump's lawyer, so someone is supposed to know if this
Speaker 1: is going to be a violation of law. A woman
Speaker 1: think that it would be Cohen and not the client.
Speaker 1: So start with that. And usually a lawyer who takes
Speaker 1: his client's direction to violate the law is in a
Speaker 1: weird spot to say, well, it's because I was told
Speaker 1: to Well, your job is to know the law and
Speaker 1: to be an officer of the court, even if you're
Speaker 1: in private practice, you're not supposed to violate the law. Um.
Speaker 1: And then this notion of the principal purpose of influencing
Speaker 1: an election. You could say this, folks, about anything if
Speaker 1: this is now the definition of influencing an election. Giving
Speaker 1: Donald Trump a tissue to blow his nose before he
Speaker 1: goes on stage is an a legal campaign contribution. And
Speaker 1: this is crazy repose of influencing an election. And he's
Speaker 1: trying to He's paying off people who are blackmailing him
Speaker 1: over a personal issue that I would know it also,
Speaker 1: I don't think would have had the least bit of
Speaker 1: actual effect on his election. I mean, maybe they didn't
Speaker 1: know that at the time it but but they're expanding
Speaker 1: these definitions. I mean that they're making sure that their
Speaker 1: interpretation of all legal matters is as negative and creates
Speaker 1: as much jeopardy for Trump as possible. And you know,
Speaker 1: there's no innocent until proven guilty on their minds here.
Speaker 1: There's no sense of fair play or what's right for
Speaker 1: the country, or what's what's decent treatment for for Trump?
Speaker 1: Are of the circumstances. This is all being taken as
Speaker 1: evidence of Trump commited Trump himself committed a crime. I
Speaker 1: think we're quite clear here that what's going to happen
Speaker 1: is there's going to be impeachment. What's going to happen
Speaker 1: is the Democrats, regardless of what comes out of all
Speaker 1: these investigations, and you know, all of Mueller's horses and
Speaker 1: all of Mueller's men and all the stuff that's going
Speaker 1: on here, Democrats are going to try to impeach the
Speaker 1: president of United States, period. And think of what that's
Speaker 1: going to do to the country. Think of how well
Speaker 1: things are going right now. We are in in uh
Speaker 1: an incredible period of booming economic growth. We're not at
Speaker 1: we're not involved in some massive unnecessary war overseas. We
Speaker 1: feel like we're not getting lectures all the time from
Speaker 1: our own government about how we're insufficient and inapt and
Speaker 1: not good enough and disappointing him. You know, you know,
Speaker 1: with Obama, he was always you were disappointing him America.
Speaker 1: Just disappointing Obama gets annoying, gets old. That whole employ
Speaker 1: was was tiresome from the beginning. With Trump, he's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: we're gonna fix some things. Here are the things we're
Speaker 1: gonna fix. We're gonna do this, We're gonna speak about
Speaker 1: things about normal people, speak about things. We're gonna stop
Speaker 1: the poll tested rigid you know, cyborg like conversation that
Speaker 1: politicians think they have to engage in order to win elections.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna speak to people the way people speak,
Speaker 1: and approach issues the way a normal person who wants
Speaker 1: to fix them would, and not do everything as though
Speaker 1: you're scared or you know, you don't know which way
Speaker 1: is up, which weighs down, what's right and what's wrong.
Speaker 1: You're just gonna try to fix problems and make things
Speaker 1: better for America. I mean, I know it sounds very simplistic,
Speaker 1: but it's also very powerful, and that approach has been
Speaker 1: so powerful, and the Democrats can't beat him on the messaging,
Speaker 1: so they're trying to beat him by twisting and weaponizing
Speaker 1: the law. I've worked on criminal cases, I've been an
Speaker 1: investigator on counter terrorism cases. But I can tell you
Speaker 1: that if a trained group of investigators, particularly i you're
Speaker 1: getting federal prosecutors involved, wants to get you, they're probably
Speaker 1: going to be able to if they really want to.
Speaker 1: They will find if you're involved in business dealings, if
Speaker 1: you're a high profile person, who is you know, dealing
Speaker 1: with incoming from a whole different variety of places all
Speaker 1: the time, they'll find a way there's usually a way,
Speaker 1: and what we've seen here is that attitude has been
Speaker 1: taken against the sitting president United States by the other side.
Speaker 1: There's also another, you know, so so I just I
Speaker 1: want to note that before I get to another very
Speaker 1: important point, because this is this is what the Democrats
Speaker 1: come up with. They have to remove. They can't beat
Speaker 1: Trump on the merits, so they have to say he
Speaker 1: didn't win the election. He's crazy, he he and he cheated.
Speaker 1: You know, he's mentally unfit for office, even though he's
Speaker 1: doing a great job in office. He's you know, the
Speaker 1: worst president ever, even though he would crush any Democrat
Speaker 1: who ran again. If we held an election tomorrow against
Speaker 1: any Democrat right now in the field, Trump would win.
Speaker 1: I bet all that, I bet all the money I
Speaker 1: have on it, which would hundreds of dollars would be
Speaker 1: at stake, right But I'm telling you that's what would happen,
Speaker 1: despite what they tell us about Trump all the time,
Speaker 1: despite the way that they frame these issues. And then
Speaker 1: there's another and this is the one that that really
Speaker 1: bothers me. Um, you know, other than that they can't
Speaker 1: beat him on messaging, that can't beat him politically. So
Speaker 1: they're trying to beat him legally. They're they're engaging in
Speaker 1: a form of politicized lawfare against this president. They have
Speaker 1: made it very clear to anyone who feels like there's
Speaker 1: finally been some headway. May there's finally been in roads
Speaker 1: against the establishment against call it the swamp if you want,
Speaker 1: whatever it may be, against our our journalists and and
Speaker 1: politician ruling class. You know, our political elites elite because
Speaker 1: they think they are not because they actually are. That
Speaker 1: this is now going to be held up as the
Speaker 1: example of what happens when you step out of line.
Speaker 1: If you step out of line and you try to
Speaker 1: assist Trump, you try to be around Trump you want
Speaker 1: to be, You're gonna get chased out of restaurants, You're
Speaker 1: gonna get attacked in public, sometimes physically. You're gonna be
Speaker 1: called horrible things. You're gonna have your sponsors boycotted, and
Speaker 1: you're also gonna have prosecutors who go after you. Does
Speaker 1: anyone think if Cohen was not involved with Trump, he
Speaker 1: would he would be facing four years in prison right now.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that makes it did, right, but I
Speaker 1: we're really gonna just dig into this. We should does
Speaker 1: anyone think many for it would be facing over eighty
Speaker 1: years in prison if he was not Trump's former campaign chairman.
Speaker 1: Of course not. This is all about said It's it's
Speaker 1: all about score settling and sending messages. The score settling
Speaker 1: is the media is angry. They're angry because they felt
Speaker 1: like they had to choke down a lot of you know,
Speaker 1: ready for her. Hillary is great crap and they know it,
Speaker 1: and they felt debased by it, and they and they
Speaker 1: should because it was disgraceful what they did. But they're
Speaker 1: angry about that. But they choked out all that, Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: Hillary is actually an honest, ethical, good person. Because they
Speaker 1: thought that there would be a White House for eight
Speaker 1: years or they would all have, you know, lots of
Speaker 1: entree and you know, the the cool kid, the good
Speaker 1: guy team would be in the White House, just like
Speaker 1: they were for eight years in the Obama administration, and
Speaker 1: it was gonna be the pinnacle of their careers. Same
Speaker 1: for a lot of senior government officials, including ones that
Speaker 1: are signing letters now against Trump and everything else. They
Speaker 1: thought that, you know, their their ship was coming into ports,
Speaker 1: so to speak, and Trump scuttled it. So they're angry
Speaker 1: and they want to settle scores, just like this happened
Speaker 1: with Bush as well. They went after Scooter Libby, they
Speaker 1: were trying to go after Karl Rovee. They weaponized the law.
Speaker 1: This is how the left plays the game, folks. They
Speaker 1: are a little tyrants. They don't want to beat you
Speaker 1: in a debate. They don't want to bring you over
Speaker 1: their side. This is not a good faith political back
Speaker 1: and forth. This is they want to crush us. They
Speaker 1: have no scruples, they have no principles. They'll do anything
Speaker 1: that they can. Now, should Maniford and Cohen make it
Speaker 1: so easy for them, No, they should not. But understand
Speaker 1: that this is only happening because of Trump. And it's
Speaker 1: not the end of it either. You know that there
Speaker 1: are going to be more efforts to bring charges, to
Speaker 1: use the law as a tool of politics, no matter
Speaker 1: who destroys, and no matter what the wreckage left behind.
Speaker 1: Maybe and just think of this, you know, Democrats pretend
Speaker 1: that Trump is such a divider and he's so negative,
Speaker 1: he's so bad for us and all this other stuff.
Speaker 1: How divided does the country feel if the president that
Speaker 1: you know, over sixty million of us voted for, including me,
Speaker 1: all right, and I cast my vote for this guy,
Speaker 1: I throw my support behind it before the election, and
Speaker 1: you know, each month I feel like he's doing an
Speaker 1: even better job. If that president is not just be
Speaker 1: sent by h removal proceedings by the or rather impeachment
Speaker 1: proceedings by the Congress, but then perhaps it becomes an
Speaker 1: issue of the Senate will try. You know, Democrats, senators
Speaker 1: will try to take him out of office through removal proceedings.
Speaker 1: If they get now, they'll never get there. I know
Speaker 1: it's two thirds and all the rest of it, but
Speaker 1: that will be a a thing you will hear from
Speaker 1: some Democrats, I think in the future if if things
Speaker 1: keep going this dire action. You want to talk about
Speaker 1: a country that's not united. They're trying to because they
Speaker 1: are sore losers, because their babies, because they won't accept
Speaker 1: the world as it is. They won't accept that their
Speaker 1: ideas stink. Democrats are just gonna find some way to
Speaker 1: stop the Trump presidency. They won't just lie it happened,
Speaker 1: they won't judge him based in the results. They'll find
Speaker 1: some way to stop it. You want to talk about
Speaker 1: a country that's gonna be divided. I'm actually frightened about
Speaker 1: what the country feels like if they manage to stop
Speaker 1: the presidency in some way, not at the ballot box,
Speaker 1: because that's really their goaliere, folks, that is their goal.
Speaker 1: They think this is Nixon Part two. They think they're
Speaker 1: gonna find a way. They're gonna probably pressure him to resign.
Speaker 1: Eight four four nine Buck Team eight four four two
Speaker 1: five will be right back. As far as the diplomatic
Speaker 1: side and the leveraging of saying sans, there isn't much
Speaker 1: more to do than what you see as far as
Speaker 1: the trajectory coming out of the administration and Congress. You
Speaker 1: see the response as related to the use of violation
Speaker 1: of what is international law using chemical biological weapons as
Speaker 1: we saw in UK where innocent UK civilians either lost
Speaker 1: their lives or were injured. What is announced today has
Speaker 1: to do with Russia supplying support to North Korea. Now,
Speaker 1: as far as the trajectory that we're on is one
Speaker 1: that that is getting towards cutting off diplomatic relations towards Russia,
Speaker 1: cutting off exports to Russia. We have already seenior implementation
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks back of cutting off the US
Speaker 1: national security sensitive technologies to Russia, and now so we're
Speaker 1: on a trajectory towards cutting off access to the American
Speaker 1: banking system. So I think there are arguments to be
Speaker 1: made that perhaps more sanctions aren't the way to go.
Speaker 1: Sanctions are sort of the stick, and the question is
Speaker 1: what is the carrot um. I would say that one
Speaker 1: of the carrots might be considering whether or not we
Speaker 1: continue to insist that Ukraine and Georgia be a NATO UM.
Speaker 1: I think that if you really wanted to influence Russia's behavior,
Speaker 1: and you were talking in a one to one basis
Speaker 1: with Russia, and you were to have some sort of agreement,
Speaker 1: I think in agreement not to have Ukraine and Georgia
Speaker 1: NATO might lead to less conflict. In both Ukraine and Georgia.
Speaker 1: There is the argument that they're much of the uh
Speaker 1: the military conflict and fomating a military conflict is because
Speaker 1: they do seriously fear and worry and are concerned and
Speaker 1: are opposed to having them in NATO. What if our
Speaker 1: posture against Russia is actually becoming too aggressive, folks, because
Speaker 1: of Trump's arrangement syndrome. What if, in the leftist frenzy
Speaker 1: to seem tough against Russia, we've actually moved the Overton
Speaker 1: window of a Russia policy discussion way too far toward conflict.
Speaker 1: This is something that serious people are noting and thinking
Speaker 1: about and concerned about right now, something we'll keep an
Speaker 1: eye on here on the show. Every person who applies
Speaker 1: for a job with you is presenting all kinds of information. Right.
Speaker 1: Everyone that you're thinking about renting a property out to
Speaker 1: has also given you details on their background and everything else. Right.
Speaker 1: But if you want somebody that can double check all
Speaker 1: that information, which is absolutely critical for your business, You've
Speaker 1: got to have somebody you can trust who treats each
Speaker 1: case as critical and who is all about the details
Speaker 1: and doing it all here in America. That's Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network is the only duel, certified, veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company. They're headquartered in Chicago. They've
Speaker 1: got offices throughout the country and everything is done here.
Speaker 1: A lot of the uptigators folks will send your work
Speaker 1: to be done overseas. Think of like a call center,
Speaker 1: but for sensitive personnel information. Right, if you've got a question,
Speaker 1: they can't help you. You want Global verification. You want
Speaker 1: Americans and vets on this case. Call eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five nine that eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five seven nine, or go to my GVN dot com.
Speaker 1: Governor Cuomo came out here in New York an event
Speaker 1: and said that the slogan make America Great Again has
Speaker 1: flawed because it applies in America was great at some point.
Speaker 1: So we've been asking people their take. Do you think
Speaker 1: America has ever been truly great? I don't believe America
Speaker 1: has been great for all folks ever, even today, I
Speaker 1: would have to agree with Governor Cuomo. Can you point
Speaker 1: to a time or do you think there was a
Speaker 1: time when America was great? I mean not particularly the
Speaker 1: idea that there was a once great America is, you know,
Speaker 1: pointing towards this false sense of nationalism that you know
Speaker 1: what is talking about white America. You know, it's it's
Speaker 1: not great. I think it has been great for straight
Speaker 1: white men for a very long time. Do you think
Speaker 1: that there is a time you can point to where
Speaker 1: America was great? I don't know, honestly, mm hmm, that's
Speaker 1: go on. Um, not great, but like there was definitely
Speaker 1: some progress, and I think we're just to regret going
Speaker 1: through a Christian hounity. It was never really great. But
Speaker 1: we do do like great things sometimes, like we fix
Speaker 1: a lot of problems, but it's never just been wholly great.
Speaker 1: Was American exceptionalism taught in the classroom? Where do you
Speaker 1: know what that is? No? No, it was not. No,
Speaker 1: I do not. And is that a phrase that you're
Speaker 1: familiar with. I've never heard it before. I personally wasn't
Speaker 1: taught American exceptionalism because I went to a very like
Speaker 1: fourthinking liberal school here in the city. I don't think
Speaker 1: i've heard that room before a class. They've never heard
Speaker 1: of American exceptionalism, folks, And I certainly don't believe that
Speaker 1: America has been great in the past. Welcome back the box.
Speaker 1: Actually show that was we got. We got some millennial
Speaker 1: in the street interviews today. That's always fun to run,
Speaker 1: especially this time of year. And producer Mike who who
Speaker 1: was that again? That was a Cabit Phillips from campus Reform?
Speaker 1: I was campus reform. Okay, they're walking around asking millennials
Speaker 1: what happens after? Isn't there a new thing now? Is it? Zennials?
Speaker 1: Is that what people are calling it? That's a lame name.
Speaker 1: We've got to come up with a better name. I
Speaker 1: don't think zennials is a good enough name for whatever
Speaker 1: is below millennials, right, younger than millennials, because millennia, it
Speaker 1: can't be millennials forever. Everyone gets their generation or two
Speaker 1: right then anyone. So they're asking them about this and
Speaker 1: and this is all spurred on by what Cuomo said,
Speaker 1: which was that nobody needs a buzuka to kill a
Speaker 1: three toad sloth. Oh no, that was a different speech
Speaker 1: he gave. The speech he gave was, you know, America
Speaker 1: was never great. And when he said it, a lot
Speaker 1: of people immediately recognize this for what it was, which
Speaker 1: was a clear political blunder. Right, people have I think
Speaker 1: of an obvious understanding that you don't usually when you're
Speaker 1: running for high office in America, especially with someone like
Speaker 1: Cuomo who thinks one day he may be president of
Speaker 1: the United States of America, assuming those states are still America,
Speaker 1: and of which is also in there between those two words.
Speaker 1: But you know this guy who oh they're calling a
Speaker 1: generation Z. What Yeah, that's what I'm ready Generation Z.
Speaker 1: First of all, it sounds like a bad, a bad
Speaker 1: zombie movie. Which let me ask you this, Mike, what
Speaker 1: is the best What is the best zombie movie? Of
Speaker 1: all time. That's a good question, because you know, I
Speaker 1: was not into zombie anything at all until very recently. Um,
Speaker 1: I started watching Walking Down and I thought it was
Speaker 1: pretty good. So I'm not the best subject to go
Speaker 1: to on that, but um, all right, Brandon, can you
Speaker 1: save your Can you save your colleague? Here? Before he
Speaker 1: gets a code read from Afar, what is the best
Speaker 1: zombie movie? The best zombie movie is trained to Boustan,
Speaker 1: a Japanese horror movie. I knows South Korean Japanese zombie film. Okay,
Speaker 1: you just blew my mind there, producer, Brandon. That's some
Speaker 1: next level stuff you just pulled out. What is this about?
Speaker 1: You asked a horror fan. That's what happened. Oh, I
Speaker 1: didn't even know. Look what we stumbled a paw in here, folks,
Speaker 1: You've got an in house expert. That's what I like
Speaker 1: to hear. It's on Netflix. Check it out Trained to Busin.
Speaker 1: Is it actually pretty good? Yeah? Yeah, Tona is still
Speaker 1: one of the best bombie films I've seen in a
Speaker 1: long time. Okay, I will check it out because I
Speaker 1: like Dawn of the Dead, which is the I think
Speaker 1: it's a George Ramarro one. Right when they're in the mall.
Speaker 1: That's my favorite one. I think that's the best one.
Speaker 1: It's very well done. I liked, uh twenty eight days later,
Speaker 1: I thought twenty eight weeks later. It was a little week,
Speaker 1: but I thought days later. I actually I lied, I
Speaker 1: actually do like I saw that. I like that one.
Speaker 1: As soon as you said that, I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: I saw that. Yeah, exactly exact, producer, Mike, I got
Speaker 1: your back. Don't worry about it. So, uh you got
Speaker 1: all this? How did I even get on on talking about, Oh,
Speaker 1: millennials are generation Z? It does sound like that. What
Speaker 1: was the Brad There's a Brad Pitt zombie movie with
Speaker 1: something Z world war Z there. It is, so millennials
Speaker 1: are that age. Millennials, of course, are now getting further
Speaker 1: along in the you know, the the indoctrination um because
Speaker 1: I think that the schools have gone further left. I
Speaker 1: know campuses have gone further left, and progressives feel like
Speaker 1: they've been winning the culture war for quite some time
Speaker 1: here that they really do feel like they are, um,
Speaker 1: I think close to the ultimate victory in the culture war.
Speaker 1: And that's uh, that's reflected in the educational curriculums of
Speaker 1: particularly the universities, but also at the lower levels of
Speaker 1: these different schools, and that that that they walk around
Speaker 1: and say that, you know, they don't think America is great.
Speaker 1: This is why I actually feel almost not sorry for Cuomo,
Speaker 1: but you know, I kind of know why he would
Speaker 1: say that, because you don't want to say that publicly,
Speaker 1: but you want, you are left wing supporters, to think
Speaker 1: you believe that it is really an article of faith
Speaker 1: at this point that the American left thinks that this country,
Speaker 1: this country, which is the greatest, most wealthy, most powerful,
Speaker 1: freest country in the history of the world, is not
Speaker 1: that great. This is a big difference. This is also
Speaker 1: what we saw on display with Obama. He made his
Speaker 1: comment about how you know, he thinks that, you know,
Speaker 1: there's American exceptions in the same way that Greeks believe
Speaker 1: in Greek exceptionalism. Essentially, the nullification of American exceptionalism was
Speaker 1: a belief held by the President of the United States
Speaker 1: for eight years, which is President Obama himself. Uh. And
Speaker 1: and in leftist democrat ideology in this country, there's a
Speaker 1: very clear especially in the way in the way that
Speaker 1: they talk about our history. And yeah, of course we
Speaker 1: have their terrible parts of our history. We do have
Speaker 1: to confront them. We have to be honest about them
Speaker 1: and learn about them and know what they were. Um.
Speaker 1: But they take all they take all of that out
Speaker 1: of its historical context, judge it by the standards of today,
Speaker 1: and then think of themselves as somehow elevated by denigrating America,
Speaker 1: constantly putting themselves in a superior position to the America
Speaker 1: that existed before them, and their ideology. You know, they
Speaker 1: think that they're the ones that will you know, bring
Speaker 1: out the bring about the America that that is in
Speaker 1: fact great right, the America that we should all be
Speaker 1: proud of. That can only happen when the left finally
Speaker 1: gets When the left finally gets their way, that's really
Speaker 1: all that they care about the other the day folks,
Speaker 1: the left gets their way, um and and they will
Speaker 1: do whatever they have to, whatever they can in that
Speaker 1: and that whole process. You know, I know that today's
Speaker 1: a day when there's a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: gloating from the left because of these uh, these Trump associates,
Speaker 1: or and some and at least in the case of Manaford,
Speaker 1: a former Trump associate, that's going down. But they don't
Speaker 1: think at all about the cost here long term. They
Speaker 1: don't think about what this really does. You know that
Speaker 1: they complain about how Trump pollutes are our politics, and
Speaker 1: how his rhetoric is so out of line everything else. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: I think anybody who's observing the way the left plays
Speaker 1: the game now has to feel like they are zero sum.
Speaker 1: They are no holds barred, and they do not care
Speaker 1: what carnage or destruction they leave in their wake as
Speaker 1: long as they're the ones power calling the shots in
Speaker 1: this country. Because remember, if you really are in charge here,
Speaker 1: you're in charge of a lot more than just here.
Speaker 1: You know, America is the global driver on a number
Speaker 1: of in a number of ways, and a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of different fronts. And so the lust for power that
Speaker 1: the left fields in this country is really transnational and
Speaker 1: global in scope. It's not just limited to any one state,
Speaker 1: or or even all fifty states. And and today is
Speaker 1: a day when you see that they are playing a
Speaker 1: blood sport. And this is why you need somebody like
Speaker 1: Trump who's in office. You need somebody who is going
Speaker 1: to fight back, is going to push back against all
Speaker 1: the nonsense and all of the lies and the tactics
Speaker 1: that they will deploy. They will do anything, They will
Speaker 1: lock people up because they don't like them. They will
Speaker 1: ruin people's lives for opposing them and feel righteous in
Speaker 1: doing so. Speaking of the Left is going to be
Speaker 1: making an appearance here in the show in just a moment,
Speaker 1: because she's gonna be making an appearance, well, lots of
Speaker 1: them across the country. I'll explain in just a moment.
Speaker 1: If you've ever found yourself wincing at the week taste
Speaker 1: of coffee from those commie corporate brands, you probably thought,
Speaker 1: I wish they spent less time on meaningless bias training,
Speaker 1: bathroom policy reforms, and other things that defy common sense,
Speaker 1: and more time on their coffee. You know what, folks,
Speaker 1: that's why you need Black Rifle coffee. I drink Black
Speaker 1: Rifle every day. It's how I start each day. I'm
Speaker 1: a cake cup guy, probably because I'm a little lazy
Speaker 1: and I don't really want to necessarily have to use
Speaker 1: a French press or get beans or get ground beans.
Speaker 1: But you can do that too. Black Rifle coffee has
Speaker 1: it all for you, all right. You also have great
Speaker 1: gear T shirts and hats. Become a member of their
Speaker 1: Coffee Club. It'll get delivered to you every month. I
Speaker 1: just got my delivery for September, so I'm good to go.
Speaker 1: I've got all the black Rifle I need. It comes
Speaker 1: to my door, and I have all of the delicious
Speaker 1: flavors that I want. And just go on the website.
Speaker 1: You'll see for yourself. Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck received fifteen percent off your order. That's Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck. You know, team,
Speaker 1: I started to think that maybe things aren't gonna be
Speaker 1: so great for the Republicans going to this mid term.
Speaker 1: I start to worry that the media and they're just
Speaker 1: relentless assaults on Trump and everybody around him, has has taken,
Speaker 1: has had enough effect, has had enough of an impact that,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe we will lose the House. And then
Speaker 1: I see a bit of uh good news coming our
Speaker 1: way courtesy of the One and Only hat who is
Speaker 1: headlining d n some d n C fundraisers. Now, this
Speaker 1: this is from CNNA Hillary Clinton. We'll headline three fundraisers
Speaker 1: for the Democratic National Committee the coming months in San Francisco, Chicago,
Speaker 1: and New York. The fundraisers, despite likely being closed to
Speaker 1: the press, will amount to the most public political step
Speaker 1: Clinton has taken since ending her tour promoting her memoir
Speaker 1: What Happened About Presidential Election. She's remained active on Twitter,
Speaker 1: and her political organization has donated to a host of
Speaker 1: Democratic House candidates. She's yet to head light of public
Speaker 1: event for candidate Hillary's back, Folks. And here's my theory
Speaker 1: on this. I think she thinks she's running again. And
Speaker 1: I know you think I'm crazy for saying that. I
Speaker 1: know somebody like Buck, don't say it. Say it ain't
Speaker 1: so Buck, No, this cannot be. It cannot be. Oh,
Speaker 1: but I think it is. I think it most definitely is.
Speaker 1: I think that in her mind. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: means she will get the chance to run. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying that there's a very good chance that she thinks
Speaker 1: she's going to run again. And that's why she's out
Speaker 1: there doing this. Because if you're Hillary, why otherwise, why
Speaker 1: would you be out there subjecting yourself people like me
Speaker 1: who are gonna go what happened everywhere you show up?
Speaker 1: You know, why put yourself back into this political meat
Speaker 1: grind or you're worth over a hundred million dollars. You've
Speaker 1: got more money than you ever know what to do
Speaker 1: with from giving speeches, also known as selling access and influence.
Speaker 1: But she's got all this money, you know, why not
Speaker 1: just kick back and write some books and you know,
Speaker 1: be a she's a grandma, be a grandma. You know,
Speaker 1: did do those other norm do those normal human being
Speaker 1: things that people do? What do you have to go
Speaker 1: back out in the political spotlight? I think the most
Speaker 1: likely answer is that in her mind, she thinks that
Speaker 1: she's going to be the canton. By default, she'll be
Speaker 1: the candidate again, and it depends on what comes out
Speaker 1: of the Muther probe. Right, you see, this is the narrative, folks.
Speaker 1: Let let me walk you through this. It's Hillary is
Speaker 1: the only one who can set right the wrong that
Speaker 1: was done to the American people by Trump and the Russians.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be the storyline if not that Donald Trump
Speaker 1: gets currently charged, That's not gonna happen. If Mueller writes
Speaker 1: a report for the Muller Probe that says that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was in some way guilty of obstruction of the
Speaker 1: Russia probe, even if there's no criminal referral attached to it.
Speaker 1: But if he submits it so that the House will
Speaker 1: create impeachment, then the narrative from Hillary and a left
Speaker 1: will be see, he had to obstruct because he could
Speaker 1: not allow us to get to the truth which we
Speaker 1: still have not gotten to, which is that he did
Speaker 1: collude with the Russians. This is what they're gonna say.
Speaker 1: And the only way to make this right is at
Speaker 1: the ballot box and to make Hillary finally our president.
Speaker 1: I'm ready for her. I mean, that's folks. I really
Speaker 1: think that's what in her mind and some of her
Speaker 1: handlers and some of the people around her. I think
Speaker 1: that's what's going on here. I do think that there
Speaker 1: is a a belief, uh, you know who else is
Speaker 1: gonna be Biden? I mean Trump already could Biden on
Speaker 1: the size. But Biden was a dime a dozen politician
Speaker 1: that Obama put in the role of VP because you know,
Speaker 1: he kind of needed somebody, needed somebody who wasn't going
Speaker 1: to overshadow him in any way, who wasn't going to
Speaker 1: really be a challenge to Obama's stature or authority. And
Speaker 1: you know what, I guess would give him some some
Speaker 1: experienced grabby toss like I don't know. I mean, I've
Speaker 1: heard Biden speak. I was fun the guy, deeply, deeply unimpressive.
Speaker 1: But there's another possibility here, because I'm trying to walk
Speaker 1: through all these things because I want Hillary out there.
Speaker 1: I want Hillary Clinton to be reminding the American voter
Speaker 1: of what they could have had, which is me, which
Speaker 1: is Hillary Clinton out there talking to them about how
Speaker 1: much she cares about them and just being a particularly
Speaker 1: inept and uh chrony ist klectocratic politician. I want her
Speaker 1: out there because I want people to remember, this is
Speaker 1: what they could have had. Um. But then there's the
Speaker 1: other possibility, and this brings me back to why she's
Speaker 1: doing it. There's one that maybe she's doing it because
Speaker 1: she thinks she's going to be by default the Canada,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be Burnie. Guys, think about this. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna be Bernie, it's not gonna be Biden. I think
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren would get chewed up in a national national
Speaker 1: presidential election. And I think uh Kamala Harris is just
Speaker 1: not ready for that level of prime time either. Maybe
Speaker 1: a VP slot, so who then you know, maybe Hillary
Speaker 1: says only I'll only be present for one term, and
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris would be my VP. You know, we'll be
Speaker 1: ready for both of her, so to speak, or both
Speaker 1: of the ladies. Um, that's that's one option that I
Speaker 1: could see happening here. Because the Democrats have nothing right now,
Speaker 1: no bench, nobody. I think they really also maybe hope
Speaker 1: that some big celebrity, someone like the Rock or Oprah
Speaker 1: steps in and runs. That they viewed that as maybe
Speaker 1: the only possible real uh you know, counteractive or or
Speaker 1: you know, counter reaction against Trump that would be successful.
Speaker 1: But then there's this other as other alternative that popped
Speaker 1: into my feed today. Oh man, I've by the way,
Speaker 1: I have called this from the start. I have known
Speaker 1: that this was a very serious likelihood from the beginning.
Speaker 1: And that is and this is reported by Fox News
Speaker 1: well as other outlets that Chelsea Clinton, oh that's right, folks,
Speaker 1: says she's a definite maybe to run for office. Now
Speaker 1: you know my feelings on on dynasties, and in fact,
Speaker 1: you know my feelings on nepotism. You know, I I
Speaker 1: think nepotism is generally a bad thing for high government officials.
Speaker 1: I cannot tell a lie and and also I think
Speaker 1: dynasties are a terrible thing for this country politically. It's
Speaker 1: just the whole the notion that we need to go
Speaker 1: with whoever has the last name and the family connections
Speaker 1: to run for higher office is it should be offensive
Speaker 1: to all of us. I mean, it should feel like
Speaker 1: a slap in the face to our republic. Uh. And
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton, look, Bush, Clinton, Kennedy. We don't need
Speaker 1: any of them anymore, all right. There's plenty of ways
Speaker 1: for folks to get out their message. There are plenty
Speaker 1: of opportunities for anyone to make their case the American people.
Speaker 1: It should not be relying your last name. But but
Speaker 1: Chelsea Clinton in particular, it just strikes me. I mean,
Speaker 1: if her mother was entitled and presumptuous about he was
Speaker 1: gonna shouldn't be gonna be the next president, that Chelsea
Speaker 1: would step into the breach here, that Chelsea be the
Speaker 1: one who thinks that she should. You know, you want
Speaker 1: to ask her a very simple question. Why because you
Speaker 1: went to a bunch of different fancy schools. All the
Speaker 1: children of rich celebrity politicians go to fancy schools. It's
Speaker 1: not hard for you to get in. They'll take you
Speaker 1: just based on your last name. Do we really need
Speaker 1: more of that? We need more coasting on the last name.
Speaker 1: Never mind the fact that every time I've ever seen
Speaker 1: her giving a speech or doing anything in public, it's
Speaker 1: been deeply underwhelming. I mean, you should really go back
Speaker 1: and watch. I know I like to pick on this,
Speaker 1: but it's it was particularly bad. Go back and watch
Speaker 1: what was happening, What she was like when what happened, sorry,
Speaker 1: what she was like on air. When she was doing
Speaker 1: hits for what was the Rockefeller Center or something or whatever.
Speaker 1: It's called the you know, thirty Rockefeller. I think it
Speaker 1: was some show, not thirty Rock. That's a different It
Speaker 1: was called something or other where she was doing interviews
Speaker 1: for the NBC for NBC and they paid her a
Speaker 1: huge sum of money, like six or seven hundred thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: She did a couple of interviews, almost terrible at them.
Speaker 1: I just resent that there are so many people in
Speaker 1: the country that seemed to think that having Clinton as
Speaker 1: a last name is still an asset too. Really at
Speaker 1: this point. That's so we'll see, but that maybe why
Speaker 1: Hillary is out there. She's trying to pave the way
Speaker 1: for Chelsea. Uh and Chelsea running for president, as far
Speaker 1: as I'm concerned, is another would be a great thing
Speaker 1: for the Republican Party because she has less political of
Speaker 1: even then her mother, which is a hard thing to
Speaker 1: pull off. This is all about coal at all costs.
Speaker 1: It's about looking backwards to see how we can revive
Speaker 1: coal again and making false promises to those folks that
Speaker 1: the President is going to talk to tonight, as if
Speaker 1: we can look to the future as the only country
Speaker 1: in the world who's doing this, looking at coal as
Speaker 1: the future instead of understanding that the future is about
Speaker 1: clean air, The future is about clean energy. The future
Speaker 1: is about addressing the challenge of climate change, which is
Speaker 1: really the most significant public health challenge that we face.
Speaker 1: This is a big day the the unvaliant of our
Speaker 1: Affordable Clean Energy Rule. What this rule will do will
Speaker 1: set guidelines for the States to then work with utilities
Speaker 1: around the country to make sure that every utility makes
Speaker 1: reductions on their CEO two emissions going forward. It's very
Speaker 1: different from the Obama approach was very much a command
Speaker 1: to control approach, where they dictated to all the states
Speaker 1: what they had to do. We're actually be working cooperatively
Speaker 1: with the states in this it's not a rollback, it's
Speaker 1: a it's an overhaul because the Obama regulation it never
Speaker 1: took effect because the Supreme Court did take the unprecedented
Speaker 1: action of issuing the stay. We're using the laws that
Speaker 1: Congress gave us, and we've moved forward with this new approach,
Speaker 1: which we believe is legally sound and can be implemented
Speaker 1: across the country and it will provide protections for all
Speaker 1: Americans as well as lower in electricity rates. The battle
Speaker 1: with the environmentalist wackos is underway, my friends. We played
Speaker 1: there to two different sound bite three. One of them
Speaker 1: was from the former Obama e PA chief Gina McCarthy,
Speaker 1: and the other the gentleman has spoke rad after that
Speaker 1: was from Andrew Wheeler, who is the acting e p
Speaker 1: A administrator today. Big battle Brewer right now having to
Speaker 1: do with what they're calling the we can of Obama
Speaker 1: era regulations. Notice the uses of that term. There's a
Speaker 1: judgment in that when they say that he is that
Speaker 1: that that Trump is weakening Obama's regulations. What they're saying
Speaker 1: is making the country more dangerous and making the environment
Speaker 1: more dangerous, and and it's a bad thing obviously, right
Speaker 1: you weaken something that's strong, weaken something that's good, why
Speaker 1: not just say change or we're not say fix a
Speaker 1: just reform. Even you won't see any coverage of this
Speaker 1: that suggests that the Obama team is I'm sorry that
Speaker 1: the Trump team is reforming the Obama era regulations. You
Speaker 1: will only see stuff that suggests that this is a
Speaker 1: terrible you know, slashing and burning of all of the
Speaker 1: great things that Obama did. And I would just note,
Speaker 1: if the things that Obama was doing on the environment
Speaker 1: were so great, we we probably should have heard or
Speaker 1: we probably should have had them via Congress instead of
Speaker 1: what we did have, which was the Obama administration jamming
Speaker 1: this down our throats the executive action. Now, let's let
Speaker 1: me give you some of the details here. I don't
Speaker 1: want to just keep this at the the general the
Speaker 1: general level, because you know, and the left is gonna
Speaker 1: fight this tooth and nail. There's about two percent of
Speaker 1: the country that really cares about climate change. And that
Speaker 1: two percent wants you to think that six of the
Speaker 1: country really cares about climate change, and they are they
Speaker 1: are desperate to make everyone else think that other people
Speaker 1: think this is a big issue. You know, to make
Speaker 1: this a a a prominent national campaign that's all about
Speaker 1: you know this and this challenge to to the future.
Speaker 1: You heard what was it named Gina McCarthy there, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: not Gina McCarthy. Yes, it was Gina McCarthy, who was
Speaker 1: the former eph d funder Obama saying that climate change
Speaker 1: is the greatest public health challenge of our time. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know what's a bigger public health challenge and climate change?
Speaker 1: Sixty thousand, seventy thousand people you're dying from opioid overdose.
Speaker 1: That's a that's a much more imminent challenge, isn't it
Speaker 1: a public health challenge? You know? So that's another point
Speaker 1: here that you shouldn't you shouldn't lose sight of. It's
Speaker 1: not just oh, we can do the environment and all
Speaker 1: these other things. The people who are true environmentalist zealots
Speaker 1: are not looking to make minor changes. They're not looking
Speaker 1: to engage in, you know, relatively small regulatory fixes. They
Speaker 1: want sweeping reform, and they want to do it under
Speaker 1: the guise of this is an imminent issue of saving
Speaker 1: the planet, and whatever we have to sacrifice in order
Speaker 1: to get there, we should do. They are extremists by definition.
Speaker 1: All right, this is now turning into another one of
Speaker 1: these hashtag resistance fights. I would not that California Attorney
Speaker 1: General Javier Best Sarah has said that his state is
Speaker 1: going to Trump. You know, they just keep taking everything
Speaker 1: into the courts, folks. That's the that's the way the
Speaker 1: left goes. Nothing can be done by this commander in chief.
Speaker 1: At the left doesn't like without the threat of a lawsuit.
Speaker 1: They have zero respect at all for for his power.
Speaker 1: And you know that there is such a thing as
Speaker 1: being overly litigious. You know, you can basically sue anyone
Speaker 1: for anything. Doesn't mean they'll have any any merit in court.
Speaker 1: But this is really the equivalent of what the Democrats
Speaker 1: are doing against Trump is the equivalent of a of
Speaker 1: a malicious lawsuit. You know, they are maliciously and intentionally
Speaker 1: just trying to come up the works, trying to jam
Speaker 1: up the Trump agenda as much as they can. So
Speaker 1: but what is this whole thing about. But Sarah said,
Speaker 1: the state's gonna suit Trump over a plan that was
Speaker 1: released today to weaken carbon dioxide emission limits on power plants.
Speaker 1: My friends, carbon dioxide is a naturally occurring gas in
Speaker 1: our in our atmosphere. UM carbon dioxide is in fact
Speaker 1: all around us. It makes up a very small part
Speaker 1: of the overall atmosphere. I would know nitrogen, oxygen and
Speaker 1: oxygen are much more of the UM, you know, much
Speaker 1: more of the atmosphere. And the notion that this is
Speaker 1: a pollutant, though, I mean, it is not an overstatement
Speaker 1: to say that this is how the Left regulates air,
Speaker 1: not air quality per se, just air. Because CEO two
Speaker 1: is to say it's a pollutant is like saying water
Speaker 1: is a pollutant. Water and high concentrations is very dangerous.
Speaker 1: Water can be quite destructive. Water can kill as we
Speaker 1: know from tsunamis and and flash floods. Water can kill
Speaker 1: thousands of people. Water can be very dangerous. Are we
Speaker 1: going to regulate water as a as a pollutant? Though?
Speaker 1: That would be crazy. Their plans to regulate CEO two
Speaker 1: are equally insane. But that's what the Obama aministration was
Speaker 1: trying to do. Uh and and to make coal, of
Speaker 1: course even more expensive and less less of a possible.
Speaker 1: It's not a huge job creator anyway. I mean, you
Speaker 1: know that there's really the whole coal plant issue just
Speaker 1: became a proxy for the overall battle with the environmentalists
Speaker 1: on the left because they don't mind costing people jobs
Speaker 1: and increasing misery and some pretty hard hit parts of
Speaker 1: the country for no reason other than to scratch this
Speaker 1: itch they have over feeling like they're environmentalists that are
Speaker 1: saving the planet. And oh, by the way, the new
Speaker 1: regulations because it would make cars, it would change the
Speaker 1: fuel emission standards going forward, and it would make cars
Speaker 1: cheaper because it would freeze in place fuel emission standards
Speaker 1: that have been there for a long time. They estimate
Speaker 1: that could say that alone could save a thousand lives
Speaker 1: a year because newer cars are safer, and those newer cars,
Speaker 1: people are more they're more survivable in them in the
Speaker 1: event of a crash. So they're they're they are quite
Speaker 1: quite literally costing line lives here with their intransigence over
Speaker 1: the issue of environmentalism and CEO two and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's CEO two from power plants. Never mind
Speaker 1: what's going on in China and the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: I mean, they don't care a whit about all this stuff.
Speaker 1: But we're supposed to have these artificial constraints put on
Speaker 1: our economy. We're supposed to be the ones that are
Speaker 1: sitting around, you know, worried about the planet melting down
Speaker 1: because of this. It's just complete and utter nonsense. And
Speaker 1: I'm glad that Trump administration is taking the fight to
Speaker 1: the looney left on their environmentalist fantasies. It needs to
Speaker 1: be done. So that was some audio from a rally
Speaker 1: where uh, tens of thousands of Muslims got together at
Speaker 1: Vikings Stadium in Minnesota to h to celebrate d ed
Speaker 1: al Uddha, which is a different holiday than d I'll
Speaker 1: fitter uh. And and this is one of these times
Speaker 1: when I'm you know, I just gotta tell you, you know,
Speaker 1: very few what that that talk about this or or
Speaker 1: that will say, oh, well, it's great, you know, happy
Speaker 1: d al Uddha. The people that they don't seem to
Speaker 1: know that. Usually the celebration evolves slitting the throats of
Speaker 1: animals and then the drained carcass gets kind of hung
Speaker 1: up in the air. Uh. And it's all about the
Speaker 1: the commemoration of the incident in the Old Testament where
Speaker 1: Abraham is supposed to sacrifice his son Isaac and at
Speaker 1: the last moment does not and kills a goat instead.
Speaker 1: But so that they slipped the throats of animals. You know,
Speaker 1: you know what makes me think about this today, for one,
Speaker 1: is we we don't really speak about Islam and radical
Speaker 1: Islam that much anymore in the news cycle. And it's
Speaker 1: I think you got to say, well, one, certainly Trump
Speaker 1: is president, and that's different from what we had had
Speaker 1: before in terms of foreign policy and US policy against terrorism,
Speaker 1: and so that that's a change. I think that's only
Speaker 1: that's only fair fair to say, um. But but also
Speaker 1: given the given the social media guidelines that are under
Speaker 1: so much discussion right now, given what we're being told
Speaker 1: about how hate speech is going to be increasingly regulated
Speaker 1: by these massive social platforms like Facebook and Twitter and others,
Speaker 1: what happens with Islam? Because you know that there's some
Speaker 1: very particular things about the Islamic faith that that's separated
Speaker 1: from other faiths. One of him is that it it
Speaker 1: demands and anybody who challenges this or or you know what,
Speaker 1: wants to to to quibble with me on this one,
Speaker 1: we can run a quick we can run a quick experiment, right.
Speaker 1: It demands obedience to some of its tenants, even from
Speaker 1: non Muslims. What I mean by this is that if
Speaker 1: you blaspheme the prophet Muhammad, even if you are not
Speaker 1: a Muslim, your life is in jeopardy. And everyone understands
Speaker 1: that your life could be in jeopardy, people will threatened
Speaker 1: to kill you. It's the only major religion I know
Speaker 1: of where for a mere statement, there's a credible threat
Speaker 1: against your life. It's the only one. There's there's no
Speaker 1: other religion where you can just make a statement of
Speaker 1: of your opinion on something and you would likely have
Speaker 1: to have a protection detail traveling around with you. Right,
Speaker 1: So there's something distinct about the Islamic faith in that regard.
Speaker 1: And then beyond that, what do we what do we
Speaker 1: make of criticism of Islam in a in a country
Speaker 1: where we have because of these propaganda groups like care
Speaker 1: and others that counsel on American Islamic relations, and there's
Speaker 1: there's a bunch of them out there, all funded by
Speaker 1: you know, the Middle East, and through cutouts and everything else,
Speaker 1: they've created this notion of islamaphobia, and they've tried to
Speaker 1: conflate racism with criticism of Islam. I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I have absolutely no faith whatsoever in the social media
Speaker 1: platforms ability to discern what is legitimate criticism of Islam.
Speaker 1: But let's say even criticism of of the d al
Speaker 1: d al Uda or al Adha, sorry whatever, close enough
Speaker 1: festival you know what what about that? I mean, at
Speaker 1: what point do you find yourself in in in hot
Speaker 1: water for hate speech merely because you want to discuss
Speaker 1: what's going on? You know, is the festival of sacrifice? Okay,
Speaker 1: that's what it's all about. It's and it's about you know, Abraham,
Speaker 1: As I said, Abraham was going to sacrifice his son,
Speaker 1: he gave him a ram instead. And yes, the's parts
Speaker 1: of this where they're supposed to give to the poor
Speaker 1: and the needy and give to relatives, but they usually
Speaker 1: slit animals throats. Enrich that that is the traditional practice here.
Speaker 1: So if I were a big peta person, if I
Speaker 1: were a big peta matter. Oh but wait wait, this
Speaker 1: is a total total digression for a second. But I
Speaker 1: just I couldn't help I couldn't help it. I mentioned Peter.
Speaker 1: I have to mention this. Now. Nibisco, speaking of Peter,
Speaker 1: has changed its barnum animal crackers so that they're no
Speaker 1: longer in cages. That's right. Now, Peter did not like
Speaker 1: the way that animal crackers. The animals were actually in
Speaker 1: cages um or in in in a circus, so they
Speaker 1: changed it now to allow the animals to be free
Speaker 1: of the cages because they don't want I mean, I guess, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I guess this is what Peter does with
Speaker 1: its time. I mean, I hate animal cruelty, and I
Speaker 1: get irrationally angry and think irrationally violent thoughts when I
Speaker 1: know that anyone's been cruel to a dog. But I
Speaker 1: don't know. I didn't know that we had to change
Speaker 1: the animal crackers yet, I don't know that Peter really
Speaker 1: had to fight, had to fight this fight. But you know,
Speaker 1: they don't want them in cages. So now you're animal crackers, folks.
Speaker 1: If you eat those, they're no longer in in uh
Speaker 1: circus cases. But so on Islam and and UH and
Speaker 1: with Peter. If you were a a big animal rights
Speaker 1: activist and you say that the sacrifice during either is
Speaker 1: UH is barbaric, are you engaged in hate speech or
Speaker 1: are you just criticizing a practice that you think is
Speaker 1: out of step with modern times and should not be
Speaker 1: you know, should not be acceptable on us soil. This
Speaker 1: is gonna you know, because I'm we've been quiet with Islam.
Speaker 1: Here are quiet in terms of criticism or discussion of
Speaker 1: Islam in the news media for a little while. It's
Speaker 1: really gone down substantially, and I do think that it's
Speaker 1: worth noting that this will not hold. There will come
Speaker 1: a time at which we have to talk about Islam
Speaker 1: more often and more openly. And social media is going
Speaker 1: to be an issue. Uh, there is absolutely, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: there is absolutely going to be a crackdown on criticism
Speaker 1: of Islam on platforms like Facebook and Twitter. And that's
Speaker 1: gonna get really nasty. That's gonna get intense the place
Speaker 1: where I b oyther Way see it happening right now.
Speaker 1: And this is why I have zero faith in the
Speaker 1: you know, the the social media outlets policing themselves. And look,
Speaker 1: Trump is all over this. I and everybody realizes this
Speaker 1: is a big issue. But the way that I know
Speaker 1: this is gonna be a problem is is on transgender rights,
Speaker 1: because they're gonna do this whole thing of if you
Speaker 1: don't use the pronoun that somebody's transgender wants, if if
Speaker 1: you believe that that's you know that that that's inaccurate.
Speaker 1: As I do, I mean, it's an inaccurate thing to
Speaker 1: say someone as a he who's a she or she
Speaker 1: who's a heat. It's just inaccurate. I'm trying to be
Speaker 1: mean to anybody. But gender is a real thing and
Speaker 1: it is not a malleable concept. And if they're gonna
Speaker 1: say it's a malleable concept, well then I need only
Speaker 1: people who have a physical gender genetic abnormality to be
Speaker 1: claiming to be non gender binary. But I think that
Speaker 1: that's how they get people even more people kicked off.
Speaker 1: They're going to use the the language of transgender rights
Speaker 1: and can saying that it's a civil rights movement to
Speaker 1: say that opposition to that is hate speech or opposition
Speaker 1: to using preferred pronoun by transgender individuals as hate speech.
Speaker 1: But with Islam too, I mean, these are two very
Speaker 1: contentious areas where I mean, I can assure you that
Speaker 1: you know, whether it's Jack Dorsey at Twitter or Mark
Speaker 1: Zuckerberg at Facebook, these guys are not going to uh
Speaker 1: side with the folks who are are on the free
Speaker 1: speech side of this equation. As this becomes more heated,
Speaker 1: as this go, as we go further down the line here,
Speaker 1: we are in for a massive and continuing First Amendment
Speaker 1: battle in the digital world, and it's one that right now.
Speaker 1: The other side we have right on our side, but
Speaker 1: the other side has all the platforms. Here's what I
Speaker 1: love about simply Safe. They worry about all the stuff
Speaker 1: when it comes to home security system, so I have
Speaker 1: to worry a whole lot less. These are detail oriented
Speaker 1: folks at simply Safe, and that's why they've become a
Speaker 1: billion dollar company, folks, that's right, billion with a B.
Speaker 1: They know what it is to have to worry about
Speaker 1: people's homes. They know what it is to have to
Speaker 1: try to deal with all the different problems of a
Speaker 1: false center or you know, a false positive, a sense
Speaker 1: are going off. They've got it all covered. The simply
Speaker 1: Safe system is so easy to use and install. I've
Speaker 1: got one at home, and let me tell you, you
Speaker 1: won't even notice it's there except when you need it,
Speaker 1: you know, because then you can use the app, you
Speaker 1: can connect to it remotely, and if you lose WiFi, folks,
Speaker 1: or you lose power, guess what, the simply Safe system
Speaker 1: keeps working. Protect your home today. Visit simply Safe dot
Speaker 1: com s buck. That's simply safe dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: I can get the best security system in the business.
Speaker 1: No contracts a month for monitoring simply safe dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck. Welcome back to the Freedom Hat team. Here's
Speaker 1: a story I doubt you'll see highlighted by that many
Speaker 1: mainstream media outlets, they would much rather talk about manaforts
Speaker 1: guilty verdict. They'd much rather talk about the plea deal
Speaker 1: that Michael Cohen has reached. Uh, And they do not
Speaker 1: want to spend time talking to you about this one. Uh.
Speaker 1: The MS thirteen gang member who has pleaded guilty in
Speaker 1: a quadruple murder highlighted by Trump. This is from the
Speaker 1: New York Times. After Jose Portillo crossed into the United
Speaker 1: States illegally, he settled on Long Island and sought to
Speaker 1: join the same gang MS thirteen that was terrorizing his
Speaker 1: hometown in Al Salvador. On April eleven, seventeen, authorities say
Speaker 1: he took part in executing four Latino young Latino men
Speaker 1: in the woods behind a Central Icelip New York soccer field,
Speaker 1: a sensational crime that drew national attention and became a
Speaker 1: rallying cry in President Trump's crackdown on illegal immigration. Mr Portillo,
Speaker 1: who is seventeen years old folks involved in a quadruple murder,
Speaker 1: pleaded guilty on Monday to federal racketeering charges and for
Speaker 1: his role in the four murders. According to prosecutors, authorities
Speaker 1: initially charged him with a juvenile along with nine other
Speaker 1: gang members and the murder of the four young men,
Speaker 1: but even though Portillo was just shy of sixteen years
Speaker 1: old the time and the killings, the judge in the
Speaker 1: case decided he should be charged as an adult because
Speaker 1: of the se area the crime. Damn straight. So what
Speaker 1: is it about this now? First of all, this case,
Speaker 1: as was mentioned at the top, and that was all
Speaker 1: from the New York Times reported this. By the way,
Speaker 1: this case was one that got a lot of national attention.
Speaker 1: Trump made sure that it got a lot of national attention,
Speaker 1: and there was a sense that, you know, this is
Speaker 1: what's happening. Finally, there there was the ability to talk
Speaker 1: about what's really going on in some of these communities
Speaker 1: where you have this influx of illegal immigrants. Because they're
Speaker 1: always telling us, Oh, it's the the they're just the dreamers,
Speaker 1: you know. They're always telling is, oh, this is all
Speaker 1: people who just want to come to this country. And
Speaker 1: work hard, and we're supposed to accept that as the
Speaker 1: real you know, the real situation. I'm not allowed to
Speaker 1: ask any questions. In fact, if you ask questions, they
Speaker 1: start to say you're probably racist. But but then you
Speaker 1: look at the other side of this, Well, if you're
Speaker 1: going to give me the upside of what it means
Speaker 1: to have these in the upside of what it means
Speaker 1: to have these uh people coming into the country, either
Speaker 1: illegally or claiming refugee status or however it is that
Speaker 1: they got here, can't we speak openly and honestly about
Speaker 1: the downside? Isn't that a a part of this process
Speaker 1: as well? And the answer the media gives you a
Speaker 1: course is no, you are not allowed to do that.
Speaker 1: You are absolutely uh prohibited from discussing these cases. And
Speaker 1: if you do, you know, and what I mean discussing them,
Speaker 1: it's all about how you discussed them too, Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: the New York Times is saying that this gang quadruple
Speaker 1: murder happened, but they're not framing the narrative in such
Speaker 1: a way that this is a direct result of the
Speaker 1: Obama administration's immigration policy. When it came to if you
Speaker 1: come from Central America open door policy. That's what happened.
Speaker 1: So countries like Al Salvador from which we get MS thirteen,
Speaker 1: although I know it was Salvadoran refugees in California actually
Speaker 1: who formed the group initially, but now it's main base
Speaker 1: of operations is in Al Salvador. But when else Al
Speaker 1: Salvadoran's come into this country through the Obama adinistration policy
Speaker 1: and they kill people, We're not supposed to talk about
Speaker 1: the policy, and you know how how this could be
Speaker 1: affected by policy, or how policy has affected the situation.
Speaker 1: We're just supposed to be quiet. Ex app that you know,
Speaker 1: our betters no more than us on this one, or
Speaker 1: listen to our betters on the issue of of immigration,
Speaker 1: and any question will be met with the nastiest kind
Speaker 1: of insinuations about you know, not liking brown people, or
Speaker 1: not liking people from you know, other countries, and all
Speaker 1: all of the usual moral blackmail that the left engages in.
Speaker 1: But in this case, people should And by the way,
Speaker 1: the New York Times coverage of the case that I'm
Speaker 1: reading from here is it probably five d words, very short,
Speaker 1: very short. Um They seventeen murders, by the way, committed
Speaker 1: in Suffolk County alone, which is one county in New
Speaker 1: York State, from January six January April of Okay, seventeen murders,
Speaker 1: folks in a part of the country that's not known
Speaker 1: for being particularly rough, for violent. That's a lot. You
Speaker 1: start to wonder, I mean, how many, Kate Steinley's, how
Speaker 1: many cases like this where you have a a quadruple,
Speaker 1: a brutal, quadruple homicide of young teenagers. This this is
Speaker 1: because of decisions that are made at the policy level
Speaker 1: by the Obama administration and bi sanctuary cities to turn
Speaker 1: a blind eye to all this. And oh, oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, not not for I don't want to skip
Speaker 1: past this either. It was very sad. Investigators today found
Speaker 1: the body of Molly Tibbots. She is dead. She'd been
Speaker 1: missing for a month after she went for a jog.
Speaker 1: She was in Ohio, Iowa college student and in custody
Speaker 1: right now that they haven't said all that much, but
Speaker 1: in custody they have somebody who is quote subject to
Speaker 1: a federal immigration detainer. You know what that means, folks.
Speaker 1: I mean you're seeing that in some of the headlines.
Speaker 1: Subject to immigration detainer is what it says. In the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. Do you know what that means? Illegal alien? Okay,
Speaker 1: so we might have to add Molly tibbots to the
Speaker 1: UH the body count of people brutally murdered by legal
Speaker 1: aliens in this country, who remember, should have never been
Speaker 1: in the country in the first place. You know, the
Speaker 1: position on this should be, we should have zero zero
Speaker 1: illegal aliens murdering people, because we should have zero illegal
Speaker 1: aliens right there. We we shouldn't have to suffer any
Speaker 1: consequences from this because there shouldn't be anybody that could
Speaker 1: cause these kinds of terrible issues. You know, there's and
Speaker 1: and then. But back to m S thirteen for a second.
Speaker 1: Earlier in the week, there's another story. I was shocked
Speaker 1: the hell little attention to God. And it's that investigators
Speaker 1: who follow MS their team very closely, which you know
Speaker 1: Trump has been. Trump has taken m S thir teen
Speaker 1: UH as as serious, well more seriously really than anybody.
Speaker 1: Trump is is absolutely dedicated as a president to raising
Speaker 1: awareness about and and tackling issue of m S thirteen
Speaker 1: gang violence. But m S thirteen is is in the
Speaker 1: process right now trying to find a way to organize itself.
Speaker 1: That's right, m S. Thirteen wants to mimic the more
Speaker 1: structured Mexican drug cartels and even organized crime along the
Speaker 1: lines of what you've seen with the Italian mafia, the
Speaker 1: Russian mafia and others. And this is what's going on
Speaker 1: right now in that movement. And it's in part because
Speaker 1: these franchises have grown. Why have these m S franchises grown, folks,
Speaker 1: They're not growing with new recruits who are coming here
Speaker 1: from Vietnam. They're not growing with new recruits who are
Speaker 1: showing up here from you know, Italy. M S. Thirteen
Speaker 1: is growing because of the influx of Central American immigrants,
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants and refugees into this country. And now we
Speaker 1: have this problem where we could have a a multinational
Speaker 1: gang that is involved in horrific violence, the kind of
Speaker 1: violence that investigators will tell you, you know that that
Speaker 1: career law enforcement will tell you. Some of those other
Speaker 1: groups now try to avoid because it just brings brings
Speaker 1: unnecessary attention to them. M S. Thirteinas a group that
Speaker 1: uses machetes intentionally because they want their you know, their enemies,
Speaker 1: they want their opposition to be terrified of them. They
Speaker 1: want to be known as the most brutal, the most vicious,
Speaker 1: the most cutthroat, and so the headlines that they get
Speaker 1: from these incidents isn't bad for business in their eyes,
Speaker 1: it's in fact the cost of doing business. It's how
Speaker 1: they want to do their business, which is very different
Speaker 1: from what you see from any of the other UH
Speaker 1: organized crime groups out there, who yes, engage in horrific
Speaker 1: violence and they're bad guys too, but they at least
Speaker 1: understand that on us soil, this kind of attention is
Speaker 1: is a problem for their interests of making money. It
Speaker 1: brings look, it brings greater law enforcement scrutiny. So you
Speaker 1: got I m S. Thirteen trying to organize. You've got
Speaker 1: Molly Tibbitts possibly murdered by a I mean she she
Speaker 1: has been found dead. She was murdered, but possibly murdered
Speaker 1: by an a legal alien. And you have the possibility
Speaker 1: of h or and you have this other case rather
Speaker 1: in Long Island of four people who were murdered I m. S. Thirteen.
Speaker 1: So you know this, I wish the media would spend
Speaker 1: more time on this than than uh. Michael Lavinati, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think this is a more pressing issue. But you know,
Speaker 1: they've got left wingers to play kate. The FBI calls
Speaker 1: home title theft one of the fastest growing crimes out there.
Speaker 1: Brace yourself because having your credit card stolen is nothing
Speaker 1: compared to the hell you're in for once that identity
Speaker 1: thief takes control of your home's title. Look, everything is
Speaker 1: online these days. I've seen how this can happen. I've
Speaker 1: seen a demonstration of how home title theft occurs. They
Speaker 1: take you off your home's title online, they replace you
Speaker 1: with an alias, and then they borrow every penny they
Speaker 1: can using your homes equity, and they stick you with
Speaker 1: the payments. You're not going to know about this until
Speaker 1: you get a late notice and identity theft programs do
Speaker 1: not protect you. Only Home title locks safeguards you're a
Speaker 1: home's title from cyber thieves and hackers. For just pennies
Speaker 1: a day, Home Title Lock protects my most viable asset,
Speaker 1: my family's home. Register now for a free analysis and
Speaker 1: discover if your home's title has been compromised. That's a
Speaker 1: sixty dollar value. Free Visit home title lock dot com
Speaker 1: again just pennies and protect your home at home title
Speaker 1: lock dot com. Are you familiar at all with a
Speaker 1: little thing called socialism. Yes, what do you think about it?
Speaker 1: I love it social What do you love about it?
Speaker 1: I like to social life with everybody. No, not social
Speaker 1: I socialism. I'm not really sure what socialism actually is.
Speaker 1: So socialism is basically an economic system and where everybody's equal,
Speaker 1: there's no rich and there's no Oh no, I guess
Speaker 1: it's kind of like what Cuba does. I'm not quite
Speaker 1: so clear on these doctors socialism, but I think it's
Speaker 1: important that it isn't just every man for himself. I
Speaker 1: don't know, because socialism has worked in some places, still
Speaker 1: trying to find where socialism work. Don't you know the
Speaker 1: difference between a democrat and a socialist? Honestly? No, how
Speaker 1: do you feel about socialism? Sir? It's great to have
Speaker 1: I just got back from here four weeks in Europe.
Speaker 1: Free healthcare, good schools. It's wonderful. Free, free everything you
Speaker 1: think that we have to pay for. Reason Pool just
Speaker 1: came out saying that democrats now view socialism more favorably
Speaker 1: than they view capitalism. What are your thoughts? Uh, it
Speaker 1: doesn't make any sense. Socialism is ridiculous. I'm for it.
Speaker 1: I am for it because I think everybody should have
Speaker 1: a fair opportunity for health care, and um, yeah, does
Speaker 1: fair mean free? Fair means free. Do you hear any
Speaker 1: of your friends talking about socialism? Nope, they don't talk
Speaker 1: about politics at all. Nope. Who Bernie Sanders is, Yes,
Speaker 1: he believes in socialism. Bernie Sanders supporter. I don't like
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, so why not anything not Donald Donald Trump
Speaker 1: is Okay? Yep. There are some Democrats mostly who believes
Speaker 1: socialism should replace capitalism. Do you think that's ever going
Speaker 1: to happen? Personally? I do not think that's ever gonna happen.
Speaker 1: I think capitalism is fantastic. It gives every American an
Speaker 1: opportunity to earn an income, each an individual. So there
Speaker 1: you have my old friend and colleague, Tommy Laren for
Speaker 1: for Fox News there going around and asking people. I
Speaker 1: believe out in l A. It could have been in
Speaker 1: New York, though you get the same answers in either place.
Speaker 1: Though I don't know. In New York we read books,
Speaker 1: we know a little more than in l A. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's I'm just kidding, l A. I love you. I'm
Speaker 1: I'm actually coming out to see you in a few days.
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, wonderful. I'm just bitter because you have better weather,
Speaker 1: among other things. But this is more of a question,
Speaker 1: or more important question then it might seem at first,
Speaker 1: because when you actually dig into it, it's not entirely
Speaker 1: clear to me why or how Alexandria Ocasio Cortez, how
Speaker 1: she define socialism? Is she a socialist? These are all
Speaker 1: these are all things that we don't really have particularly
Speaker 1: you know, good good answers too, because she does not
Speaker 1: really know what a soul shalist is, she tweeted out
Speaker 1: over the weekend. And I know the people like to say,
Speaker 1: why are we picking on her? Well, the left said
Speaker 1: that she was the future of the Democratic Party. Basically,
Speaker 1: some very prominent people on the left have been saying that.
Speaker 1: So that makes it completely legitimate to discuss who is
Speaker 1: this person that we are supposed to believe is a
Speaker 1: remarkably you know, talented politician of the future. And she
Speaker 1: shared uh on her Twitter account the following This is
Speaker 1: Alexandria Alexandria Ocasio Cortez back home after a lovely few
Speaker 1: days off, enjoying us examples of democratic socialism like Acadian
Speaker 1: National Park, Cafe co Ops. Definitely the top five breakfast
Speaker 1: sandwich I've ever had, supporting worker owned businesses, and a
Speaker 1: planned parenthood helping people per usual. None of these could
Speaker 1: be described by anybody who knows what socialism is as socialism.
Speaker 1: Not a single one of these things is socialism. But
Speaker 1: she describes it as democratic socialism. And what is happening here, folks,
Speaker 1: is a corruption of language. And this is very important.
Speaker 1: What they're really saying now, what's happening on the left
Speaker 1: is they're trying to create or they're trying to to
Speaker 1: change our conceptions around what certain words really mean. Socialism
Speaker 1: has for a very long time had a very negative
Speaker 1: connotation in American political discourse because socialism leads to lead
Speaker 1: directly to communism and the Soviet Union and the Iron
Speaker 1: Curtain and the Cold War and all those terrible things
Speaker 1: in the twentieth century. Mean, the threat of extermination for
Speaker 1: the United States was a direct consequence of the rotten
Speaker 1: ideology of socialism right taken to its ultimate ends or
Speaker 1: its ultimate conclusion, which is always when fully implemented. It's
Speaker 1: not that it's not implemented properly, and that's the problem.
Speaker 1: When socialism is fully implemented, the end result is misery, shortage,
Speaker 1: lines for toilet paper, lines for bread, and human suffering
Speaker 1: and degradation. That's what happens. That's what socialism brings people.
Speaker 1: That's what that's what it it offers up for you.
Speaker 1: But what you're seeing is this is how fascism has
Speaker 1: been fashioned into a club that the left will use
Speaker 1: to beat anybody they can with right just you know,
Speaker 1: if they don't like your idea, you're a fascist, that
Speaker 1: they will say that. You know, extremism on the right
Speaker 1: is fascism, where's extremism on the left is communism. It's
Speaker 1: not true. Fascism and communism are heresies from the same
Speaker 1: socialist tree. There there's nothing about fascism that is conservative,
Speaker 1: and therefore there's nothing about fascism that you can reasonably
Speaker 1: are credibly placed on the right. On the right, you
Speaker 1: could say nationalism in some ways, which can be a
Speaker 1: component of fascism, is is more right wing. But to
Speaker 1: say that fascism as an ideology is on the right
Speaker 1: is just false. But they've fascism has just become a
Speaker 1: term of general disparagement. In fact, there's a movie from
Speaker 1: back in the eighties called bar I think it's called
Speaker 1: Barcelona and or maybe I'm getting confused with another movie.
Speaker 1: But it's a guy. He's visiting a he's visiting his friend,
Speaker 1: and he's in the Navy, and he's an American and
Speaker 1: he's visiting his friend in Spain. So I know that's
Speaker 1: it's definitely I'm in the right place. I just can't
Speaker 1: remember if I have the movie exactly right. But he
Speaker 1: walks around and Spaniards sneer at him and call him
Speaker 1: and call him a fascist because he's American, and I
Speaker 1: just remember this was this was a general term of
Speaker 1: disparagement for a while, and lefties in Europe would call
Speaker 1: anybody who opposed a very progressive socialist government policy, they
Speaker 1: call him a fascist as as a term of disparagement.
Speaker 1: What's happening in this country now is that socialism is
Speaker 1: coming to me and just things that the democratic socialism
Speaker 1: is stuff people like, and that the left is saying
Speaker 1: that democratic socialism is just the distillation of the good
Speaker 1: parts of socialism without any of the bad parts. So
Speaker 1: democratic socialism, you see, is free healthcare. Democratic socialism is
Speaker 1: you know, greater rights for workers and unionization, and democratic
Speaker 1: socialism is free school, free college. Um, what they don't
Speaker 1: talk to you about then, is well, doesn't leave behind
Speaker 1: government control of the means of production, because that's really
Speaker 1: what socialism is. Does it not involve? That doesn't involve
Speaker 1: incredibly high levels of taxation? How high and what should
Speaker 1: our expectations be for how long those how long we
Speaker 1: can go with those taxes before our economy implodes? So
Speaker 1: this is what they're doing. They're changing socialism. They're trying
Speaker 1: to make socialism sound cool, and it no longer is
Speaker 1: really clear. It means by the way planned parent and
Speaker 1: has has just flatly nothing to do with socialism or
Speaker 1: anything else. And that's just a a scam and a
Speaker 1: slaughter house. But it's not to say that socialism is just.
Speaker 1: But this is what I mean. Anything that the left
Speaker 1: likes is socialism. Now. That's what they're saying democratic socialism,
Speaker 1: and they use that to kind of deflect away from it. Um.
Speaker 1: But they're trying to change our perception of what the
Speaker 1: word means. And it's happening right now, and it's because
Speaker 1: the left has run out of ideas other than go
Speaker 1: hard left. You know, the Democrats have only one move
Speaker 1: that they can make from a policy perspective in their
Speaker 1: minds at this point. Other than talking about the is
Speaker 1: ms and racism and sexism and all that, and that
Speaker 1: is too, uh, move toward a government mandated government business
Speaker 1: structures and redistribution of wealth on a massive scale, and
Speaker 1: an enormous welfare state and the taxes that come along
Speaker 1: with that, which would be ruinous for our economy and
Speaker 1: for all of us. But this is what they're promising
Speaker 1: in the meantime, this is what they're saying is going
Speaker 1: to happen, and this is what is You know, if
Speaker 1: you get people like Ocasio Cortez in office, I think
Speaker 1: you can expect. But just watch how they try to
Speaker 1: change this definition. It's very important. You were seeing in
Speaker 1: real time, uh, the redefinition of socialism happening by the
Speaker 1: left to mean whatever they like and anything that's bad
Speaker 1: they say is not socialism. You know, I love this
Speaker 1: story about public school hypocrisy. It's one that I've talked
Speaker 1: to you about before, but in this case, in this instance,
Speaker 1: it's one that I think is is particularly worth talking
Speaker 1: to you about. So so here's what here's what I
Speaker 1: end up happening. This is not the first time, by
Speaker 1: the way, this has gone on in New York, but
Speaker 1: there is a school in New York City that is
Speaker 1: in a very very progressive, very very progressive area called
Speaker 1: Park Slope, right, and they this has got to be
Speaker 1: the single most strong liberal stronghold in Brooklyn, maybe the
Speaker 1: whole city. I mean, you live in Park slow because
Speaker 1: you are a a well off hipster, probably a hipster
Speaker 1: with a family. So it's a little older than say Williamsburg. Anyway,
Speaker 1: this is like a Hillary Obama really even a Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders stronghold in New York. And they have a school
Speaker 1: that's a very a very good school. But it turns
Speaker 1: out that the Park Slope Public School is overwhelmingly white, right,
Speaker 1: And there are all these Libs that send their kids
Speaker 1: to this school, the District fifteen school I believe it
Speaker 1: is yes District fifteen Middle school, and there's an admissions process,
Speaker 1: and they are now saying that, well, you know, we
Speaker 1: have these other schools in the city that have already
Speaker 1: gone through this process of changing their admissions criteria so
Speaker 1: that there's a greater diversity right there. Some are calling
Speaker 1: us a radical diversity plan. But here's the big shock
Speaker 1: of all shocks, folks, when these libs find out in
Speaker 1: Park Slope, I'm telling you this is plus Democrat territory.
Speaker 1: This is a hard left, deep blue part of not
Speaker 1: just any city, but of New York City. When they
Speaker 1: found out about this, the parents once again lose their minds.
Speaker 1: And they've done this in other cases too. They did
Speaker 1: this in a similar situation at a place called Dumbo
Speaker 1: in New York where there was also a a substantial
Speaker 1: you know, there was one school, one public school, that
Speaker 1: was really strong and it was overwhelmingly white, and there
Speaker 1: was another public school that was struggling terribly and it
Speaker 1: was overwhelmingly minority. So in that case, in the Dumbo
Speaker 1: neighborhood of broken guess what the libs were all like,
Speaker 1: we don't wanna, we don't want to mix and match
Speaker 1: the students from the different schools. Well, now asked forward
Speaker 1: a couple of years, and here we are in the
Speaker 1: same situation where you have a school that is overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: white that's doing very well, and a school that is
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly minority is doing very poorly. And the parents of
Speaker 1: those kids, despite the fact that I bet if you,
Speaker 1: if you were to pull them, they all think their woke,
Speaker 1: you know, they all uh, they all read the Huffington's
Speaker 1: Post and Slate dot Com and they watch MSNBC. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's the audience talking about here. They don't want their
Speaker 1: kids to go to a school that has to go
Speaker 1: through this diversity program. They don't want their kids to
Speaker 1: have to do this. And this is what's particularly interesting
Speaker 1: about this case, other than the obvious, the obvious hypocrisy. Um,
Speaker 1: they had these meetings. Um, they had these meetings where
Speaker 1: they showed them video from the the civil rights era,
Speaker 1: And essentially we're saying that if they opposed this, it's
Speaker 1: like there here, here we go. In a June twenty
Speaker 1: community presentation, a slide show and report prepared by a
Speaker 1: Department of Education consultant compared efforts to enact the changes
Speaker 1: to civil rights struggles during the nineteen fifties and sixties.
Speaker 1: Images in the report include a banner headline on the
Speaker 1: US Supreme Court barring racial segregation in public schools. It's
Speaker 1: followed by a photo showing two smiling black girls holding signs,
Speaker 1: one reading integration is an education. The next photo shows
Speaker 1: an angry mob of white women would sign such as
Speaker 1: save Segregation vote, and a scowling white boy waving a
Speaker 1: sign reading all I want for Christmas is a clean
Speaker 1: white school end quote. One Park Slope mom this is
Speaker 1: now again from the New York post piece, whose fifth
Speaker 1: grader would be affected by the diversity plan, said she
Speaker 1: was galled because it suggested any critique would be pain
Speaker 1: in the worst possible light. If you're opposed to this plan,
Speaker 1: you're a racist. From nine fifty is Alabama, the mom complained, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, social justice. These people always end up that
Speaker 1: the social justice wars always end up coming after their
Speaker 1: own right. It's just inevitable. They can't help it because
Speaker 1: that's the notion. I mean, that's the the the foundation
Speaker 1: of their ideology is that it's always having to look
Speaker 1: for new people to go on offense against. You have
Speaker 1: to find new people to claim are the oppressors. And
Speaker 1: I just thought, I I just I get get enough
Speaker 1: of this because I know Brooklyn pretty well, and I
Speaker 1: know the people who live in Brooklyn, and this is
Speaker 1: a classic case. This is similar, folks, to what would
Speaker 1: happen if let's say you were able to tell all
Speaker 1: of the different uh CNN anchors that their kids would
Speaker 1: have to go to a failing minority public school instead
Speaker 1: of the fancy private school or the fancy public school.
Speaker 1: Even that they go to and what their responses would
Speaker 1: be in This is why I keep telling that hypocrisy
Speaker 1: is is a defining characteristic of the Democratic Party. It
Speaker 1: really truly is. You know, I think there's no way
Speaker 1: around it. There's no way to get around it other
Speaker 1: than just to be honest about it. Democrats are all
Speaker 1: about hypocrisy because they have no there's no underlying principles
Speaker 1: of their ideology. Uh. And when it comes to schools,
Speaker 1: they love to talk about diversity and multiculturalism, but the
Speaker 1: moment they actually have to expose themselves were more importantly
Speaker 1: to them, their children to a multicultural ideology. We we
Speaker 1: hear about, we hear about the problems, right, We we
Speaker 1: hear about, Oh, well that's not that's not fair, and
Speaker 1: that's not for my kid, and that's not what should happen.
Speaker 1: And you know, meanwhile the rest of us sit around say, so,
Speaker 1: good for everyone else's kids, but yours. Right, that's the
Speaker 1: liberal montra when it comes to diversity and multiculturalism, good
Speaker 1: for everybody else. You know, they don't want to sacrifice
Speaker 1: their kids, folks, and their futures. They want to sacrifice
Speaker 1: yours by putting them in a situation and where the
Speaker 1: academic environment may suffer. Maybe it doesn't, but maybe it does.
Speaker 1: And they don't want to take that risk, but they
Speaker 1: want your kids to take that risk. Ah. Yes, this
Speaker 1: is this is liberalism one O one on display in Brooklyn,
Speaker 1: and it's true in the rest of the country as well.
Speaker 1: Whenever you get into some elite liberal enclave, roll Call
Speaker 1: is coming up. Dame Buck, It's time for roll Call.
Speaker 1: All right, it's my favorite part of the show. I
Speaker 1: like to say that because I'm hoping that you all
Speaker 1: feel like it's your favorite part of the show. To
Speaker 1: the roll call segments. Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: if you want to be a part of roll Call
Speaker 1: because it is so much fun. All right, let's get
Speaker 1: to it. Patrick rights, Buck mustard is the best compliment
Speaker 1: to fries. You could do a yellow mustard mayo, kitchen
Speaker 1: a oli and be onto something great shields high. Uh. Well, Patrick,
Speaker 1: I can't say that I agree with you. I think
Speaker 1: that mayo with fries is simply the best. And I
Speaker 1: know that that makes me not really American, and I
Speaker 1: know that some of you are gonna get mad at
Speaker 1: me when I tell you that. I also think it's
Speaker 1: a terrible thing that the Eagles have now surpassed Thriller
Speaker 1: as the most popular in terms of purchases album of
Speaker 1: all time. Because I know that that's an unpopular position.
Speaker 1: But you know what, I'm just here to speak the truth, folks.
Speaker 1: I'm not here to be loved. That's actually not true.
Speaker 1: I work in media. I think I am here to
Speaker 1: be loved. Actually, so forget that. I need to speak
Speaker 1: the truth and be loved or or at least be
Speaker 1: somewhat respected enough that people will listen. I don't know
Speaker 1: something like that. That sounds good. Let's just go for that.
Speaker 1: But Patrick, I'm a I'm a Mayo guy, and I
Speaker 1: can't change. I can't change who I am. Catch up,
Speaker 1: I'm okay with. I just think that I had too
Speaker 1: much ketchup growing up. It's probably move on another thing now, uh,
Speaker 1: Adam Rights, I would love to see you in the
Speaker 1: team play this game on Facebook Live. You will have
Speaker 1: to play Jack Burton. Of course, the big trouble in
Speaker 1: Little China game, Adam, I did not know that was
Speaker 1: a thing. So okay, there we have it. Harry writes
Speaker 1: Shields high Buck. Please do not call the denizens of
Speaker 1: DC swampers. Some of my Cajun ancestors were swampers who
Speaker 1: made a living trapping, hunting, and harvesting from the Louisiana swamps,
Speaker 1: a poor but honest life. Well, Harry, what do we
Speaker 1: what do we call then, the residents of the d
Speaker 1: C swamp? What's a better term for them? I believe
Speaker 1: our friend, the formidable Dan Bongino refers to them as
Speaker 1: swamp rats, which certainly brings with it the negative connotation
Speaker 1: that we may be seeking with our discussion of said swamp.
Speaker 1: But this is an interesting and interesting question opposed here.
Speaker 1: What do we do about the swampers that are not
Speaker 1: actually d C folks? We don't want to make them
Speaker 1: think that we are in any way speaking pejordi about them.
Speaker 1: But yeah, thank you Harry for right and in good
Speaker 1: good to hear from you. Cool beard by the way,
Speaker 1: good beard from Harry. See, I can see everyone's photos
Speaker 1: and then, right, it's a nice little fun advantage here
Speaker 1: of the royal I get to see these folks. Eric Readsbuck,
Speaker 1: do you think it's possible that Rosenstein is giving the
Speaker 1: administration information about all the others? It is? It is
Speaker 1: all about self preservation. That's the only reason I could
Speaker 1: think of for them to keep him around. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I gotta be honest with the Eric. I don't know
Speaker 1: really what Rosenstein's motivation is right now, other than obviously
Speaker 1: to keep himself out of trouble. But I couldn't tell
Speaker 1: you definitively what I think Rosenstein's game is here. I
Speaker 1: think that Rosenstein is somebody who views the institution of
Speaker 1: the d o J. Remember my conversation with Kim Strassel
Speaker 1: of The Wall Street Journal yesterday. I think Rosenstein thinks
Speaker 1: of himself in terms of, you know, being a per
Speaker 1: chector of the d o J, you know, protecting the
Speaker 1: legacy of the Department of Justice, and he'll go to
Speaker 1: great length to do that. I don't know what beyond
Speaker 1: that motivates am. I generally government bureaucrats just want to
Speaker 1: get their paycheck, go home, and not be bothered. So
Speaker 1: it's tough to always read into There are clearly zealots,
Speaker 1: right There are people like Struck, and I would argue
Speaker 1: Bruce Orr and Sally Yates who are very ideologically uh
Speaker 1: you know, firm in certain ways, um, very ideologically uh
Speaker 1: you know set, but in their progressive ways. Of course,
Speaker 1: John writes Buck good show yesterday. I enjoyed being on.
Speaker 1: I like what you two are building. Look, John, thank
Speaker 1: you you are a guest on Rising and you wrote
Speaker 1: me this note. I didn't realize it till now, so
Speaker 1: I'm gonna write back to you. Thank you John. Great.
Speaker 1: See this is real time, folks. Great to have you. Um. So,
Speaker 1: next up we have Stephen writes, why have you got
Speaker 1: to remind us Michiganders of Jenny g this early in
Speaker 1: the morning. If I get in trouble for being drunk
Speaker 1: at work, I blame you. I don't know if you
Speaker 1: can blame me. If I get in trouble of being
Speaker 1: drunk at work, I blame you. She was really Detroit's
Speaker 1: and Lansing's and Flint's governor, not Michigan's shields high. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, steven years ago I went to a a speech.
Speaker 1: I gave a speech in central Michigan, like, if Michigan
Speaker 1: is your hand, right, if Michigan is a is a
Speaker 1: mitten or a glove, right in the dead center of
Speaker 1: the palm. I gave a speech right there. I think
Speaker 1: it was Hanna Stoga and it was very red. I
Speaker 1: mean in terms of politics. People there were great, great Americans,
Speaker 1: love the outdoors, love this country, and staunch conservatives. So
Speaker 1: I know, Michigan, it's like all these states, folks. You
Speaker 1: get into some of the cities, you think, Wow, everybody's
Speaker 1: a liberal, and then you get out into the into
Speaker 1: the country side, out in some of the outer lying suburbs,
Speaker 1: You're like, Wow, everybody's a conservative. I guess it's all
Speaker 1: gonna be okay. Alice writes, calling liberals leftist properly implies
Speaker 1: they are in ism like socialism and communism. God bless
Speaker 1: you well, Alice, thank you, and uh, I appreciate your
Speaker 1: analysis here. Pete writes, really great show, buck, glad you
Speaker 1: showed up here in Naples, Florida on Fox News Radio
Speaker 1: this year. You're insightful commentary and the way you think
Speaker 1: before you speak or so refreshing. You're a bright star
Speaker 1: in a world full of deranged libs. Thanks and shields
Speaker 1: high from Pete. Pete, Well, thank you. Uh, look, I
Speaker 1: appreciate any any advice and and uh, what's the word
Speaker 1: I'm looking for, encouragement. I appreciate any appreciation. Now any
Speaker 1: encouragement is is really great, so and it really means
Speaker 1: a lot to me. So thank you. Very much for that. Um,
Speaker 1: what do we have here, Marcus? Right? Uh? Mud is
Speaker 1: a poor man film. Mud is a poor man's not
Speaker 1: sec replacement for Buck sex did He's just been yelling
Speaker 1: on TV al Pacino Style for twelve months. Sad Well, Marcus,
Speaker 1: I can't say I disagree with you, So thank you
Speaker 1: very much for writing in Michael buck original red Eye
Speaker 1: fan here. I heard someone gave you negative feedback on
Speaker 1: your impressions on Monday's roll Call. I love the impressions,
Speaker 1: especially Hillary Warren Wilhelm and Angela Merkele. I usually laugh
Speaker 1: out loud when you surprise us with them. Don't stop
Speaker 1: shields high, Michael, Well, thank you, Michael, team Team Buck,
Speaker 1: is you know lifting me up today? I gotta tell
Speaker 1: you I've actually it's one of these days where I
Speaker 1: just I've had kind of a rough day. So it's
Speaker 1: nice to hear from all of you. Makes the day
Speaker 1: a whole lot better. Um, and thank you for all that.
Speaker 1: You are all much much appreciated, as you know, very
Speaker 1: much appreciated, And I'm glad you like the impressions. And hello,
Speaker 1: so does Hillary. So does Hillary, as does kys of Philhem. Hello, Yah,
Speaker 1: I really I want to open up like a little
Speaker 1: German sweet shop, just so I can stand there at
Speaker 1: the counter and say like, hello, everyone, would you like
Speaker 1: to try my Berlina Monica Rights. Hey, Buck, I had
Speaker 1: an epiphany of what the left wants. They want everything
Speaker 1: to be completely free by taking all of everyone's money,
Speaker 1: and then they decide who gets how much free stuff
Speaker 1: based on your support for their causes. Well, Monica, that's
Speaker 1: I think that's also called the way that they viewed taxes.
Speaker 1: So you you're definitely onto something. So there is that, Noel,
Speaker 1: She'll tie. You were talking about barbecue in Austin recently.
Speaker 1: As a resident of the area, I would like to
Speaker 1: suggest the original Salt Lick Barbecue in Driftwood. It's delicious. Also,
Speaker 1: if you don't feel like traveling but it is worth it,
Speaker 1: try Smokey Mose Barbecue Perk pork Loin. They have several
Speaker 1: locations throughout the Austin area. Keep up the Austinate awesomeness, Noel, Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, Noell, And that sounds great, And yeah, Austin
Speaker 1: is is high on my list, like I said, of
Speaker 1: places I want to get to and also where I
Speaker 1: want to have some kind of a team. Buck meet up.
Speaker 1: We can plan on that hopefully, uh in the near
Speaker 1: in the near issue future, Rebecca. Well, here we go, Buck.
Speaker 1: I have a college aged brother and sister and their spouses,
Speaker 1: and they're so indoctrinated into progressive ideology it makes me sick.
Speaker 1: Riddle me this. How could a person scream about the
Speaker 1: line corrupt government, especially the military one second, and then
Speaker 1: screw about how the government should regulate everything on the
Speaker 1: market A direct quote, not a strong man? Uh? Yeah, Well, Rebecca, Remember,
Speaker 1: hypocrisy is, as I say, a defining characteristic of modern liberalism.
Speaker 1: So they have no problem with hypocrisy because they realize
Speaker 1: that it can be useful in the short term. When
Speaker 1: you're not worried about the erosion of principle, you're not
Speaker 1: bound by those principles. And that's something you always got
Speaker 1: to keep in mind when you're thinking about the liberal
Speaker 1: mindset here, Matt right, Buck, have you ever considered Raymond
Speaker 1: Ibraheim as a guest? I read as al Qaeda reader
Speaker 1: several years ago. It was a translation of messages that
Speaker 1: al Qaida released in the media, then went along with
Speaker 1: their software tone videos released to the West. I'd like
Speaker 1: to hear more from him. And think your views on
Speaker 1: Islamism would be sympatico Shields High Matt, Matt, I would
Speaker 1: certainly consider. I don't know Raymond's work off hand, but
Speaker 1: if you say he's interesting, I'll have producer Mike check
Speaker 1: him out. Seem that's gonna be it for the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt for today. Don't forget speaking of the Freedom but
Speaker 1: you can download the recent weeks podcasts Going to the Buck,
Speaker 1: Sex and Feet on iTunes. You'll see them there. They
Speaker 1: are evergreen, which means they're always good to listen to.
Speaker 1: Until next time, my friends, Shield Hi,