Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt from collusion to obstruction.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are moving on now that the Muller probe
Speaker 1: isn't going to give them the end of the Trump
Speaker 1: presidency that they have been promising themselves. Will dig into
Speaker 1: how this dishonesty on the left will unfold, plus all
Speaker 1: of the latest from the Green New Deal. The nonsense continues,
Speaker 1: and what does Rent Control teach us about why the
Speaker 1: left is always wrong on economics? That and more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins the set. Do you think the
Speaker 1: President of structed justice? Yes? I do. If it's very
Speaker 1: clear that the President instructed justice. It's very clear. Eleven
Speaker 1: hundred times he referred to them investigation as a witch hunt.
Speaker 1: He tried to he fired, he tried to protect the
Speaker 1: Flynn from being investigated by the by the FBI. He
Speaker 1: fired Comy in order to stop the Russian thing. As
Speaker 1: he told NBC News, he's intimidated witnesses in public. If
Speaker 1: that's the case, then is the decision not to pursue
Speaker 1: impeachment right now, simply political if you believe he obstructed justice.
Speaker 1: No publicans spent two years shielding the president from any
Speaker 1: proper accountability. It's our job to protect the rule of law,
Speaker 1: that's our core function. And to do that, we are
Speaker 1: going to initiate investigations into abuses of power, into a
Speaker 1: corruption of justice, into a corruption and into construction of justice.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you something, the real obstruction is the
Speaker 1: Democrats who are obstructing this presidency. Welcome to the buck
Speaker 1: sex and show everybody. I mean, I know we start
Speaker 1: off with that the Nadler over in Congress, but we're
Speaker 1: already there, folks, We're already there. They know that Muller
Speaker 1: doesn't have them, doesn't have collusion. They know it. They
Speaker 1: know it. And so now all of the obvious, dishonest
Speaker 1: and ridiculous walk backs, changing the subject, smoke screens, all
Speaker 1: this stuff. They're all going to try to evade any
Speaker 1: account of accountability. On the media side and on the
Speaker 1: political side, they're just going to march on to the
Speaker 1: next thing. Oh, it wasn't really Russia collusion we were
Speaker 1: worried about. It was Trump's finances. We were worried about
Speaker 1: all this time. It was the collusion of the deals
Speaker 1: that he did back in the eighties or something. These
Speaker 1: people have no honor. You have to remember, they have
Speaker 1: no honor, They have no integrity. They just view this
Speaker 1: as a street fight and whatever they have to do
Speaker 1: to when they will. There's so much going on here, folks.
Speaker 1: There's so much that you're going to see in the
Speaker 1: next few weeks. Assuming the Muller probe ends as is
Speaker 1: expected this month, that much we can say. It's supposed
Speaker 1: to end this month, according to all the reporting I've
Speaker 1: heard from sources in DC that would know that it
Speaker 1: is going to end soon, and that there'll be a
Speaker 1: report that's given to the Attorney General bar and he
Speaker 1: will then be able to make a determination about what
Speaker 1: will happen with that report. So we know that it's
Speaker 1: supposed to kind out. They could reopen stuff, and you know,
Speaker 1: until it's done. Yeah, yeah, it ain't over until the
Speaker 1: fat Lady sings. Fine, but the Left has to prepare
Speaker 1: the ground too. They can't just wait for the inevitable
Speaker 1: disappointment among their friend ze partisans about this collusion situation.
Speaker 1: That there is no collusion, that Trump has been right
Speaker 1: all along, and I working through this problem together for
Speaker 1: two years. Have not been wrong one time on a
Speaker 1: matter involving Russia collusion. Not once. Not one time I
Speaker 1: had to say, oh, you know that thing, uh that
Speaker 1: I thought was true about collusion, Guys, I I got
Speaker 1: that one wrong, you know, not once. How many times
Speaker 1: have different pundits, analyst, newspapers, you name it said, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, Don Junior is gonna go to prison any
Speaker 1: day now. Oh, it's just a matter of time before
Speaker 1: the other shoe drops, you know, Oh, there's there's they've
Speaker 1: got him on the Trump Tower thing, they're gonna press charted,
Speaker 1: you know, whatever it is. How many times have we
Speaker 1: been told this wrong? Wrong, wrong, wrong all along? That's
Speaker 1: what the Democrats have been, That's what their little media
Speaker 1: lackeys have been. I'm usually somebody who takes the position
Speaker 1: that being wrong, that having bad judgment on a matter
Speaker 1: of politics, is something that we should leave open to. Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe somebody made a mistake, you know, so that we
Speaker 1: should leave the door open, and people saying I was wrong,
Speaker 1: I admit it, and you move on from there. But
Speaker 1: in this case, given the depth and breadth of the
Speaker 1: effort to destroy this presidency with an obviously phony narrative,
Speaker 1: with a phony dossier paid for by the Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: d NC. Given all the factors that we've seen here
Speaker 1: and the viciousness with which they have gone after people
Speaker 1: in Trump's orbit, defamed people that tried to, like me,
Speaker 1: stand up for the president on this one, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: I can't let all of that pass. And so the outlets,
Speaker 1: places like CNN that have been responsible for spreading this
Speaker 1: garbage all this time, they should have to pay a price.
Speaker 1: And the price is that we don't ever take them
Speaker 1: seriously again. They should be considered unsious news organizations, partisan, biased, dishonest.
Speaker 1: And if you think that that's excessive at this point,
Speaker 1: here's a little vignette. Know, CNN has this whole crew
Speaker 1: of national security experts. They call them Apparently if you
Speaker 1: work in the federal government and you are an employee
Speaker 1: of certain agencies, even if you have no particular knowledge
Speaker 1: or judgment or expertise, they can call you an expert.
Speaker 1: But a lawyer named Vinagrad was on CNN and this
Speaker 1: is the kind of stuff I mean, This is a
Speaker 1: perfect example of what we've been hearing. Major networks, major newspapers,
Speaker 1: saying and writing about the president for two years on
Speaker 1: this Russia clusia nonsense. This is an example of what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about, playclib one. His statement makes me sick
Speaker 1: on a personal level. Preserving our heritage, reclaiming our heritage.
Speaker 1: That sounds a lot like a certain leader that killed
Speaker 1: members of my family in about six million other Jews
Speaker 1: in the nineteen forties. This whole sea pack speech. How
Speaker 1: many pieces parts of President Putin's to do list was
Speaker 1: President Trump trying to accomplish today? He denigrated our institution,
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, and the US Congress. He spread
Speaker 1: misinformation and conspiracy theories. He undermined the credibility of several
Speaker 1: of our institutions. He's sowed divisions, He's sowed confusion. He
Speaker 1: was speaking to his base, but he was also saying
Speaker 1: things that really look like Vladimir Putin scripted his speech.
Speaker 1: That's a national security expert at CNN, folks, that's what
Speaker 1: they call her. I mean, she's actually an idiot, but
Speaker 1: a national security expert. Comparing Trump to I mean, she
Speaker 1: is the trifecta. Trump is basically Hitler who killed six
Speaker 1: million Jews in the Holocaust, doing everything Putin wants him
Speaker 1: to do. Looks like Putin scripted his speech and undermined institutions.
Speaker 1: I mean, she's hitting all the usual bs, collusion talking points,
Speaker 1: making a fool of herself, and also on her point
Speaker 1: that Trump mentioning heritage, you know, reminds her of somebody
Speaker 1: else who talked about heritage. Hitler. Here's somebody that talked
Speaker 1: about heritage in a public speech. Play clip two. It's
Speaker 1: time to stand up, it's time to fight back, it's
Speaker 1: time to reclaim our heritage, and it's time and we
Speaker 1: are ready. We are looking for this fight. The future
Speaker 1: of our country depends on it. Oh my gosh, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden said he wants to reclaim our heritage. She's like,
Speaker 1: he's like Hitler. I don't call people idiots lightly. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that there are people that that really do
Speaker 1: need they do need to be put in check, that
Speaker 1: they do need to be called out because what they're
Speaker 1: doing is destructive and they're making fools of themselves. There
Speaker 1: are people on the left that I have respect for,
Speaker 1: at least on an intellectual level and on a personal level.
Speaker 1: There are there are plenty of leftists that I like
Speaker 1: and think are smart. I think they're wrong, but I
Speaker 1: can I can deal with that. The people at CNN
Speaker 1: puts on air are dishonest, imbeciles to talk about this issue.
Speaker 1: Dishonest imbeciles. I've put out a request on Twitter and
Speaker 1: getting a bit of attention. I've said, who wants to
Speaker 1: debate Russia collusion with me? Find me a Find me
Speaker 1: a leftist of some with some following and stature. Right,
Speaker 1: it can't be some guy and some you know, living
Speaker 1: in grandma's basement somewhere. But find me a leftist who's
Speaker 1: on TV or who has a platform, who has been
Speaker 1: talking about Russia collusion along. Who wants to debate what's
Speaker 1: really happened here and what's the remarkables. I had some
Speaker 1: some professor from the University of who gives a crap
Speaker 1: APU decided that who wrote a book called proof of Collusion?
Speaker 1: And he's like, I'm not even I can't debate you
Speaker 1: on this because to debate your position that the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion is a hoax is like is like talking to
Speaker 1: an anti vaxer or a you know, I think, or
Speaker 1: a flat earther. Okay, so Mueller isn't going to prove collusion.
Speaker 1: They know it that's why they're all worried. And by
Speaker 1: the way, if Mueller was going to prove collusion, trust me,
Speaker 1: they'd be prepping with CNN and the stories and they'd
Speaker 1: all be they're trying to walk away from this thing
Speaker 1: as quietly as they can in the media. But Mueller
Speaker 1: can't prove collusion. But this random third tier professor, he's
Speaker 1: already proven collusion, you see. And if you disagree with them,
Speaker 1: you're a flat earth. This is going to be the
Speaker 1: way that they treat this because they can't handle it.
Speaker 1: The the recognition that these people who all think they're
Speaker 1: so smart, Oh, all these oh how could you not
Speaker 1: understand that Trump worked with Russia in some plot to
Speaker 1: steal the emails and that this turned the election? And
Speaker 1: these people are insane. But they think they're so smart
Speaker 1: and they understand that unless they do a lot of
Speaker 1: you know, figuring out how to how to you know,
Speaker 1: bob and weave here and there, move here, move there,
Speaker 1: change the narrative, move on to obstruction, you see, that's
Speaker 1: what they're going to do. Unless they do that, there
Speaker 1: might be a reckoning. People might actually say, why did
Speaker 1: you get this so wrong? Person who thinks that he
Speaker 1: or she is actually a genius, when in reality they're
Speaker 1: not very bright. They're probably middle to middle to uh,
Speaker 1: you know, bottom third of the intellectual pack of America.
Speaker 1: Like what, why did you get this one so wrong?
Speaker 1: How could you have been so wrong all along? They
Speaker 1: need to avoid that because there are people who's in time,
Speaker 1: they're they're the credible of their careers hang in the balance,
Speaker 1: and there's just the beginning of some recognition here that
Speaker 1: that's what's going on. So what are they going to do.
Speaker 1: They're going to say that Trump obstructed justice and just
Speaker 1: shift the investigation and engage in lawfare. Today they sent
Speaker 1: out what was it eighty seven different people getting requests
Speaker 1: for documents from the House Judiciary Committee, which the Democrats
Speaker 1: now run. I mean, they're just they're going to drown
Speaker 1: people in paperwork. They're going to ruin people with legal bills.
Speaker 1: This is what the Democrat and they're going to call
Speaker 1: it oversight and use a lot of flowery words about
Speaker 1: all respecting our constitution because people are a nightmare or
Speaker 1: these Democrats are despicable. They should if they were honest people,
Speaker 1: they'd say, wow, maybe maybe you know, sure, we can
Speaker 1: oppose Trump on policy maybe this whole rush of thing.
Speaker 1: Maybe we were wrong on this one, maybe we did
Speaker 1: get ahead of the facts. It's we're thinking, oh no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's not what they want to do. That's not where
Speaker 1: they want to go with this. They're gonna say that
Speaker 1: it's obstruction. You see. I mean we started the show
Speaker 1: listening to Nadler, who was not an impressive guy, but
Speaker 1: he's a political fighter. He's gonna try to you know,
Speaker 1: he's gonna try to score some hits on the President
Speaker 1: and his people. For sure. Nadler is saying that obstruction
Speaker 1: is the President calling this a witch hunt. So I
Speaker 1: just want I just now want to be clear. They
Speaker 1: think if you take someone like Nadler at his word,
Speaker 1: the Democrats should be able to run a wildly partisan, destructive,
Speaker 1: out of control, unconstitutional, not founded in any actual crime,
Speaker 1: special counsel. And the President of the United States, who
Speaker 1: is the target of this ridiculous fraud, the target of
Speaker 1: this hoax. The President is supposed to be silent, you
Speaker 1: see while this is happening, can't say anything about this
Speaker 1: investing Asian because that's obstruction. He's the commander in chief,
Speaker 1: he's supposed to just sit there quietly and take it.
Speaker 1: If you listen to now they're the answers. Yes, these
Speaker 1: people are absolutely off their rockers nuts. And now because
Speaker 1: of enough, Oh Trump is so mean and he's terrible.
Speaker 1: You know, enough people voted. You know, oh Trump is
Speaker 1: so racist and sexist and all these the Democrats have
Speaker 1: control in the House. You know, the media is a
Speaker 1: very powerful tool and managed to convince enough people foolishly
Speaker 1: to give the Democrats power. Look what the Democrats are
Speaker 1: doing with just a taste of power. A bunch of
Speaker 1: radical socialist lunatics. And now they're weaponizing the government apparatus
Speaker 1: against the President of the United States while he's in
Speaker 1: office under the flimsiest of pretexts. After doing this for
Speaker 1: two years on Russia collusion, when they got nothing, I
Speaker 1: have not yet begun to fight today, my friends, I've
Speaker 1: got much more for you. Stay with me. The effective
Speaker 1: impeachment is to overturn the popular will of the voters.
Speaker 1: We must not overturn an election and remove a president
Speaker 1: from office except to defend our system of government or
Speaker 1: our constitutional liberties against the dire threat, and we must
Speaker 1: not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people.
Speaker 1: There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment, or an
Speaker 1: impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and
Speaker 1: opposed by the other. Such an impeachment will produce the
Speaker 1: divisiveness and bitterness in our politics for years to come,
Speaker 1: and we'll call into question the very legitimacy of our
Speaker 1: political institutions. You may have the votes, you may have
Speaker 1: the muscle, but you do not have the legitimacy of
Speaker 1: a national consensus or of a constitutional imperative. This partisan
Speaker 1: coup deta will go down in infamy in the history
Speaker 1: of this nation. Wow, Nadler really opposed to impeaching president
Speaker 1: for oh oh, that was Jerry Nadler in nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: eight when Bill Clinton was on the hot seat. So
Speaker 1: I just want to know what change between nineteen ninety
Speaker 1: eight when impeachment should not be a partisan tool to
Speaker 1: overturned the popular will of the voters, and now when
Speaker 1: we know that they're going to try to slow build
Speaker 1: up to impeachment. They're essentially going to put Trump's administration
Speaker 1: through the meat grinder or see what comes out the
Speaker 1: other side, and then decide then decide if they're going
Speaker 1: to go full force on impeachment. But this is all
Speaker 1: supposed to be a constant testing of the water. They're
Speaker 1: gonna slowly turn up the heat. Turn up the heat,
Speaker 1: see what they're doing. That's going to be the plan.
Speaker 1: I do think by the way they end up impeaching
Speaker 1: the president, I think that that's where we're heading. There.
Speaker 1: Absolutely unhinged base is going to demand it. There's no
Speaker 1: way around it. There's not some reasonable Democrat party that
Speaker 1: all of a sudden is going to come forward. And
Speaker 1: that's why I think it's it's important we all know
Speaker 1: that this is what we're up against. Folks. They're gonna lie,
Speaker 1: They're gonna do whatever they have to do in order
Speaker 1: to destroy this president and to ruin him and impeachment,
Speaker 1: even if it is counterproductive for Democrats, They're willing to
Speaker 1: do it because they want to. I really believe that
Speaker 1: as well. Usually politicians, they're they're only real interest is
Speaker 1: self interest, as we just see most of the time.
Speaker 1: But with these Democrats right now, I think a lot
Speaker 1: of them have taken on hatred for President Trump. They
Speaker 1: really really do hate him. Fortunately we have Trump around
Speaker 1: who will fight back in this whole process. I like
Speaker 1: this one shifty shift. I'd never heard this before. This
Speaker 1: was at spac Place seventeen. These people are sick. I
Speaker 1: saw a little shifty shift yesterday. Now it's the first
Speaker 1: time he went into a meeting and he said, we're
Speaker 1: going to look into his finance. I said, where did
Speaker 1: that come from? He always talked about Russia, collusion with Russia,
Speaker 1: the collusion delusion. The collusion delusion is real, folks. It's
Speaker 1: not going away either. More for you on where the
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to take this in the waning days
Speaker 1: of the Muller Paluza. Oh no, you mean Saint Muller
Speaker 1: is not going to give the Democrats the end of
Speaker 1: the Trump presidency. How will they ever handle it? Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: they've got plans. I'll tell you what they are on
Speaker 1: the other side of the break. So now we're waiting
Speaker 1: for a report and we'll find out whether or not
Speaker 1: and who we're dealing with. We're waiting for a report
Speaker 1: by people that weren't elected, and now we have people
Speaker 1: that lost. And unfortunately, you put the wrong people in
Speaker 1: a couple of positions, and they leave people for a
Speaker 1: long time that shouldn't be there, and all of a
Speaker 1: sudden they're trying to take you out with both. Okay,
Speaker 1: the notion that we're talking about, the notion that there's
Speaker 1: no evidence is just factually wrong. Just in the public domain,
Speaker 1: there are literally reams and realms of evidence of Russian
Speaker 1: outreach the Trump officials, and clear interest from Trump officials,
Speaker 1: including the president's own son, welcoming the opportunity to get
Speaker 1: dirt on Hillary. Circumstantial evidence, as opposed to direct evidence,
Speaker 1: is what you go back and forth on that. I
Speaker 1: think one of the things, and I don't claim to
Speaker 1: be a legal expert by any means, but folks who
Speaker 1: I've talked to have been in the prosecutorial business, have said,
Speaker 1: you know, when you're looking at conspiracies, it is almost
Speaker 1: always based upon a pattern of circumstantial evidence. Bracy, Okay,
Speaker 1: these people are absolutely out of their minds, and it's
Speaker 1: because their reputations hanging the balance, and they know that
Speaker 1: their power is at risk here because if nobody believes
Speaker 1: them anymore, how are they going to stay in power?
Speaker 1: How are they going to be important? That was Senator
Speaker 1: Mark Warner obviously falling up after Trump is just like
Speaker 1: these people are just completely full of it, and Trump
Speaker 1: is right. But Senator Mark Warner. There, this is a
Speaker 1: novel approach. Oh, collusion has already been proven. What there's
Speaker 1: already proof of collusion where I'm sorry, taking a meeting
Speaker 1: with a Russian person who says that she has she
Speaker 1: has information that would be damaging to Hillary Clinton? You
Speaker 1: think that's collusion? I need to understand that, because, by
Speaker 1: the way, if that's collusion, then what has the mother
Speaker 1: probe been doing all this time? No information was exchanged
Speaker 1: at this meeting. Let's change the character a little bit here,
Speaker 1: So you're gonna tell me that if the Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: campaign had a oh, I don't know, a British guy
Speaker 1: approached them, who remember that's a foreigner. I know. Oh,
Speaker 1: Russia is supposed to scare us so much, Brits or
Speaker 1: foreigners too. British guy approached them and he's like, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm an investigative journalist and uh, I've got
Speaker 1: some incredible information on Donald Trump that's gonna sink his candidacy.
Speaker 1: Are they they they're gonna not take that meeting if
Speaker 1: they have some you know, basically, or you know, no
Speaker 1: one's gonna take that meeting in the Hillary Clinton campaign
Speaker 1: or do they think we're all morons? I guess they do.
Speaker 1: They're wrong, but they must believe this because I mean,
Speaker 1: this is pathetic. We're back to the Trump Tower meeting
Speaker 1: where no information was exchanged and nothing happened. And when
Speaker 1: you look also at the connections that vezel Nitskaya, this
Speaker 1: Russian woman has, you know, you know her background, it
Speaker 1: looks like a setup. The whole thing looks like a setup.
Speaker 1: She's gonna show up to this meeting. I set up
Speaker 1: against the Trump campaign. You're gonna set up in this sitting.
Speaker 1: This meeting doesn't have any information on Hillary, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to claim she also wanted to talk about the
Speaker 1: Magnitsky Act. I think Fusion, GPS or Perkins Koe and
Speaker 1: one of them was, I forget what it is. You know,
Speaker 1: it's tough to keep all this stuff straight. They were
Speaker 1: involved in trying to get lobby I think it was
Speaker 1: Perkins Koe. They're trying to get rid of the Magnitsky Act.
Speaker 1: I forget some one of them was. But there's some
Speaker 1: shady stuff and in her you know that that goes
Speaker 1: to her motivations for this meeting. But that's the collusion. Well,
Speaker 1: here's here's a surprise for Mark Warner. I don't give
Speaker 1: a crap about that meeting. I don't think it was
Speaker 1: I mean it might have been unwise to take under
Speaker 1: the circumstances, because there was nothing that happened, and it
Speaker 1: opened them up to all this lunacy. But nothing happened,
Speaker 1: and who cares. And under the circumstances, I can understand
Speaker 1: why somebody would have taken the meeting. They keep saying, oh,
Speaker 1: Vesilandskaya with ties to Russia. Everybody has ties to Russian intelligence.
Speaker 1: Everybody in Russia has an uncle named Yuri, that knows
Speaker 1: somebody that knows somebody who's in the f s B.
Speaker 1: You know, I mean this ties to Russian intelligence. They
Speaker 1: didn't sit down and have a meeting with the Russian
Speaker 1: ambassador for opposition information. And I think it's fair to
Speaker 1: ask that's not criminal either. So what exactly someone needs
Speaker 1: to explain to me? Mark Warner. See, then, never debate
Speaker 1: this stuff in the open, And that's why this has
Speaker 1: been so damaging the credibility of the media. None of
Speaker 1: these people ever subject themselves to opposing points of view,
Speaker 1: none of them will ever allow themselves to be cross
Speaker 1: examined on this stuff. So so Mark Warner Senator Mark
Speaker 1: Warner Virginia explained to me, this riddle me. This chief
Speaker 1: taking a meeting with a Russian to find out if
Speaker 1: there's opposition information about Hillary Clinton or her campaign. That
Speaker 1: is a horrible, unpardonable sin. But paying through a cutout, officially,
Speaker 1: your campaign paying through a cutout a foreigner, Christopher Steele,
Speaker 1: to use foreign swords Russians, to compile a completely BS
Speaker 1: dossier that you then, using Democrat allies in the government apparatus,
Speaker 1: launder through the intelligence community to get FISA warrants, started
Speaker 1: to spy on the campaign and Americans who had done
Speaker 1: nothing wrong. You think that's not a problem. I mean,
Speaker 1: do you think he has an answer? Oh, but you
Speaker 1: know Bud, you know Brennan and and Comy, and these
Speaker 1: are the great amer No, they're not. These people are clowns.
Speaker 1: They are partisans. They were drunk with their own power.
Speaker 1: They thought they were this special pratorian guard for the
Speaker 1: federal bureaucracy here in DC, and they got caught with
Speaker 1: their hands in the cookie jar, and their reputations have
Speaker 1: taken the hit that they deserve. They should be thought
Speaker 1: of as the partisan hacks that they are. Comy McCabe,
Speaker 1: struck page, Brannan Clapper, go down the list, all of them, Yates,
Speaker 1: all of them. Oh, but they were in senior government positions.
Speaker 1: Like that's supposed to mean something to me. I don't care.
Speaker 1: Having a senior government position doesn't mean you're beyond never
Speaker 1: my criticism. You're you're beyond prosecution, You're beyond the ethical
Speaker 1: boundaries that the rest of us would expect. Of course,
Speaker 1: not Eric could. They're they're they're corrupt kings, stretching back
Speaker 1: for as far as there have been kings. I mean
Speaker 1: this notion that will you know, James Comy was such
Speaker 1: an honest fellow, and you know the FISA process. They
Speaker 1: would never abuse that. Oh oh okay. See I was
Speaker 1: in the CIA when the Libs hated it, and all
Speaker 1: I ever heard about was torture and rendition and all
Speaker 1: these terrible things. That's all the Libs are talking about,
Speaker 1: how terrible, and they they wanted to procute, they wanted
Speaker 1: to prosecute some of my colleagues, send them to prison
Speaker 1: for fighting the war on terror. Now, you can agree
Speaker 1: or disagree with whether or not their tactics are right
Speaker 1: or wrong, but let's not pretend that Libs think that
Speaker 1: just because you have a senior position in a national
Speaker 1: security organization of the government that you can have you know,
Speaker 1: made made a big mistake Mark Warner. You know, Mark
Speaker 1: Warner was on Meet the Press. So obviously he won't
Speaker 1: get any real pushback from from Chuck Todd because they're
Speaker 1: all in on this. This has been great. They by
Speaker 1: the way, they have monetized this. I think you need
Speaker 1: to remember that too. Not only have the Democrats been
Speaker 1: using this in order to try to stop Trump's presidency,
Speaker 1: because if Trump had been allowed to do what he
Speaker 1: wanted to do without this investigation, because this is really cheating.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not this is not political opposition,
Speaker 1: this is not making. This is dirty tricks, underhanded stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, this is like, yeah, sure we had a vote,
Speaker 1: but you know we were burning some of the ballots
Speaker 1: that we didn't like. You know that that's not democracy, right,
Speaker 1: That's not what's supposed to happen here. So when you
Speaker 1: look now at what they've done, they've been able to
Speaker 1: slow down this present. They've been able to scare away
Speaker 1: a lot of good people from working for the administration
Speaker 1: all of us, and many of them have made themselves
Speaker 1: richer and more famous in the process. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta has created a brand of just being a
Speaker 1: overly hairsprayed idiot who makes a mockery of himself in
Speaker 1: his hashtag resistance moments in front of the the administration because
Speaker 1: he's a journal Oh, all these journals. Oh, it's so
Speaker 1: scary to be a journalist in America, you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: every death is a tragedy, folks. We've been like five
Speaker 1: journalists killed on the job in the last thirty years.
Speaker 1: Thirty years basically as long as I've been alive, there
Speaker 1: have been five journalist killed in America. But oh, my gosh,
Speaker 1: Trump is terrify all the journalists. It's so scary to
Speaker 1: be a journalist. Now. These people have absolutely no shame,
Speaker 1: and they're going to insist on avoiding accountability in every
Speaker 1: way that they can, and they're going to move on
Speaker 1: to this additional fairy tale of obstruction. Let's think with
Speaker 1: us for a moment. I mean, you have congressmen who
Speaker 1: are already saying that Trump opposing the investigation of him
Speaker 1: and those around him, and saying that he does not
Speaker 1: agree with it. Is he supposed to say he does
Speaker 1: agree with it. I mean, this is really you know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna we're gonna put the witch out in the
Speaker 1: middle of the lake. We're gonna tie rocks to her.
Speaker 1: If she drowns, then we know that. You know. If
Speaker 1: if she drowns, then clearly she's innocent. And if she
Speaker 1: doesn't drown, well then she's a witch. And then we'll
Speaker 1: have to burn her at the stake. Thanks. Right, What
Speaker 1: is Trump's supposed to say? Here, you're right, I've been
Speaker 1: guilty all along. You got me? Oh no, he's not guilty.
Speaker 1: So that's what he's been telling people. And yet that
Speaker 1: alone is you that's some kind of evidence of wrong.
Speaker 1: I mean this it has been exhausting, has it? And
Speaker 1: now that we're getting now that we're getting close to
Speaker 1: not even really the truth, because the truth would be
Speaker 1: McCabe federally prosecuted for lying, Comy prosecuted for official misconduct.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, the truth would be Hillary prosecuted. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, Hillary prosecuted for violating the Espionage Act over
Speaker 1: one hundred times. That's what That's what real justice would
Speaker 1: look like. I'm not saying we're going to get justice,
Speaker 1: because we know in this country, unfortunately there are two
Speaker 1: tiered There's a two tiered justice system, one for Democrats
Speaker 1: and one for Republicans. But at least we will be
Speaker 1: approaching the end of this collusion nightmare and all the
Speaker 1: nonsense around it from the Mullar probe perspective, and the
Speaker 1: Democrats are going to act like nothing has happened, nothing changes,
Speaker 1: The plan is still the same. That's what they're gonna do.
Speaker 1: They're gonna now run additional investigations as though they could
Speaker 1: find out between now in election day. What Muller was
Speaker 1: a team of Democrat seasoned, vicious prosecutors, by the way,
Speaker 1: I mean, these are these are people that did not
Speaker 1: give anyone an inch. Nobody got the benefit of the
Speaker 1: doubt with these guys. That was a Republican. Where's Tony
Speaker 1: Podesta by the way, you know the guy that's tied
Speaker 1: to clinton close confidant, John Podesta, guy ran Clinton's campaign.
Speaker 1: Remember how he was involved in lobbying overseas same organizations
Speaker 1: at Manafort. Do we where's his Faraoh registration charge? I
Speaker 1: could go through this all day. General Flynn gets charged
Speaker 1: for lying about a non crime. Why shouldn't FBI Acting
Speaker 1: director McCabe get charged for lying about misconduct while in office.
Speaker 1: Anyone want to try to answer that one for me?
Speaker 1: How many times do we have to see this despair?
Speaker 1: It's despicable, it's despicable, But they don't plan on changing
Speaker 1: anything here. They they are digging in and they are
Speaker 1: doubling down, and it's it's it's obviously very very troubling.
Speaker 1: But we need to understand that we have to continue
Speaker 1: to fight because even when this Muller probe finally comes
Speaker 1: to a conclusion, they're not gonna stop. Trey Goudy, by
Speaker 1: the way, it said that, you know this is just
Speaker 1: all like we all know that, right, it's all politics.
Speaker 1: I let's hear from Trey play five. Remember when Natler
Speaker 1: and Shift didn't want to interfere with ongoing investigations. Does
Speaker 1: anybody remember that they no longer have that concern? So
Speaker 1: this is all about twenty twenty and they can ask
Speaker 1: for it, but the President's got really smart lawyers, and
Speaker 1: I'd be shocked if they produced it. Well, they sent
Speaker 1: out to the eighty seven request for Joe. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're just gonna They're gonna flood the zone with investigative requests.
Speaker 1: They're going to flood the zone with legal bills for
Speaker 1: everybody around Trump. These people, it's all just sore loserism
Speaker 1: about Hillary in twenty sixteen for a lot of them.
Speaker 1: You gotta remember this, and this includes people like Comey too.
Speaker 1: They were expecting eight glorious years of being close to
Speaker 1: the decrepid part of power that was going to be
Speaker 1: the Clinton administration. That's what they thought they were owed.
Speaker 1: A lot of people had to pretend that Hillary was likable,
Speaker 1: that Hillary wasn't a sociopathic grasper, a greedy, lying, manipulative
Speaker 1: you know, they all had to sort of just pretend.
Speaker 1: But the point was they were going to get eight
Speaker 1: years of Queen Hillary, you know, yeay queen, and they
Speaker 1: were going to get all the all the trappings of
Speaker 1: power and wealth that came along with it, and then
Speaker 1: Trump stole it from them. And they're not going to
Speaker 1: let that go because now, who knows the next Democrat
Speaker 1: nominee is going to be. Even of twenty twenty works
Speaker 1: out for the Democrats, which I don't think it will.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of left wing Democrats, or I
Speaker 1: should say, pardon me, not, a lot of establishment Democrats
Speaker 1: who cannot will not forgive what they feel was stolen
Speaker 1: from them, because you see, they're really important people, they're
Speaker 1: really powerful. There are kind of people that go on
Speaker 1: TV and say collusions already been proven. How do you
Speaker 1: not know? Yeah, those people, they're not going to change anything.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. So while he's talking collusion, collusion, collusion,
Speaker 1: I think in oversight we should be talking about taxes,
Speaker 1: taxi taxes, and his bank accounting, bank accounts, his bank account,
Speaker 1: his financial statement, statement statements, because that's where I think,
Speaker 1: actually some of the most troubling practices are with direct
Speaker 1: relevance to the American people under the scope of oversight.
Speaker 1: The good news for us is that aoc there o'cazio
Speaker 1: Cortez is too dumb to high the plan, and the
Speaker 1: plan is, although it is obvious what the plan is
Speaker 1: to be fair, to essentially engage in an IRS style,
Speaker 1: all in audit of everything a president has ever done,
Speaker 1: all of his personal finances, all of his bank accounts, everything.
Speaker 1: Just investigate him and when he was a private individual
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. Just investigate everything. Now, what I would want
Speaker 1: to point out is that the people that are telling
Speaker 1: you and have been telling you for two years now,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, Trump is undermining your institutions. How can
Speaker 1: any American have any faith in Congress as an institution
Speaker 1: in our government right now as an institution if the
Speaker 1: response that we're going to see from elected officials when
Speaker 1: they don't agree with someone is to just conduct a
Speaker 1: fishing expedition of everything in their life. And now you
Speaker 1: might say, Buck, that's what politic be is No, no no, no,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about using subpoena power the law. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about the use of the force of government to pry
Speaker 1: into someone's life. Never mind the you know we've they've
Speaker 1: already tried everything. They already tried their October surprise with
Speaker 1: the Billy Bush tape and all that they've done, all that,
Speaker 1: we've already been through all that. Now it's going to
Speaker 1: be seize his records, seize his bank account, seize his taxes,
Speaker 1: and we all know those are going to get leaked, right,
Speaker 1: we all know it. This is the way the Democrats
Speaker 1: play the game. It's dirty. But there you have to remember,
Speaker 1: there are zealots. They are radicals. Now the Democrats have
Speaker 1: radicalized as a party. And that's why what would stop
Speaker 1: normal people from acting in this way won't stop them.
Speaker 1: Because they think that they are on a mission from
Speaker 1: Gaia or you know, Mother Earth or whatever they pray to.
Speaker 1: We've got more coming up, teams. Stay with me. It
Speaker 1: is really tough to hire people. You got a tight
Speaker 1: turnaround the deadline. You gotta get it done. You don't
Speaker 1: want to lose out by not having somebody in that
Speaker 1: necessary role. When we were hiring the best people in
Speaker 1: the business for Hill TV, what did I do? Zip
Speaker 1: recruiter and that's what you should do to zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com. Slash buck lets you go right to it
Speaker 1: and you won't waste time because zip recruiter has powerful
Speaker 1: matching technology that's going to scan thousands of resumes for
Speaker 1: you and will send your job to over a hundred
Speaker 1: of the web's leading job boards, and as an application
Speaker 1: comes in, zip Recruiter analyzes each one in spotlights the
Speaker 1: top Candidas. You'll never miss a great match. I've got
Speaker 1: fantastic colleagues today that we found. Using my zip recruiter account,
Speaker 1: my listeners can try zip recruiter for free at this
Speaker 1: exclusive web address, zip recruiter dot com slash buck. That's
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Zip recruiter dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck because Zip recruiter is simply the smartest way
Speaker 1: to hire. And when I look at what's happening on
Speaker 1: the other side, I encourage it. I say, no, no,
Speaker 1: I think the New Green Deal or whatever the hell
Speaker 1: they call it, the Green New Deal, right, green New Deal,
Speaker 1: I encourage it. I think I think it's really something
Speaker 1: that they should promote. It is something that we should
Speaker 1: laugh at, although we also have to take it seriously.
Speaker 1: It is worthy of mockery. But just because you mock
Speaker 1: something does not mean that it can't be a problem. Right.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think that satire and mockery are very important,
Speaker 1: very potent, and necessary political weapons. But I would also
Speaker 1: say that, yeah, we need to we need to have foam.
Speaker 1: All we talk about the Green New Deal, but we
Speaker 1: need to be aware that this could become our reality
Speaker 1: much more quickly than I think a lot of folks realize.
Speaker 1: Because it is a It is a cult, and I
Speaker 1: really mean that. I mean, this is not a normal
Speaker 1: people are not normal when they talk about the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal. They do not approach this from the perspective
Speaker 1: of let's have a rational discussion. It's why don't you
Speaker 1: want the earth to survive? And they completely freak out,
Speaker 1: and they lie about it a lot. But before I
Speaker 1: get to the freak out chorus on the Green New Deal,
Speaker 1: we should at least establish that this is where you
Speaker 1: see the Democrats embracing socialism really across the board. Every
Speaker 1: major Democrat candidate for president right now has signed on
Speaker 1: for the Green New Deal, every single one of them.
Speaker 1: The Green New Deal is socialism, make no mistake about it.
Speaker 1: That is what the Green New Deal is. And Kirsten Jillibrand,
Speaker 1: who is a big fake Aphonian, a liar, she can
Speaker 1: say as much as he wants about this, Well, she
Speaker 1: doesn't really know very much about anything, but she is
Speaker 1: now claiming that the Green New Deal is something Republicans
Speaker 1: can go for. I mean, I don't know if she's
Speaker 1: not smart or delusional or what, but play glibble looven.
Speaker 1: So you think there's coming ground on a Green New
Speaker 1: Deal in medic You think you can get Republican votes
Speaker 1: for that? Yes, modern republicans can. I tell you why,
Speaker 1: because I believe it. So the Green New Deal is
Speaker 1: three things. These are not new ideas. It is infrastructure,
Speaker 1: which is widely bipartisan. More money for mass transit, more
Speaker 1: money for electrocrids, more money for rural water supplies, roads, bridges, everything.
Speaker 1: The second piece of the Green New Deal is jobs.
Speaker 1: It's all about training people to do win solar to
Speaker 1: your thermal hydropower, biofuels, and we do that in New York.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Green New Deal. If it's going to
Speaker 1: involve infrastructure spending that the Green New Deal would be
Speaker 1: okay with, is going to be the biggest waste of money,
Speaker 1: the biggest boondoggle, the biggest fraud of a public works
Speaker 1: project in the history of the planet. Keep in mind
Speaker 1: that if we were to really take these people seriously
Speaker 1: and do what they want us to do, without a
Speaker 1: replacement for for fossil fuels in our economy, which we
Speaker 1: do not have, not only would the economy screech to
Speaker 1: a halt, you would also have people starving. I mean,
Speaker 1: fossil fuels are necessary for the production of food, for
Speaker 1: the transport of food. I mean. The level of catastrophe
Speaker 1: that we would have to endure to go to a
Speaker 1: net zero carbon emission society is astonishing. It's the kind
Speaker 1: of thing that only a zealot, that only a radical
Speaker 1: could push for. But that's what they're doing, and I
Speaker 1: think that it's important that everyone understand what we're up
Speaker 1: against here. The Green New Deal is a religion of
Speaker 1: the left. These are people who want to inflict themselves. Remember,
Speaker 1: it's not religious belief in the sense that this is
Speaker 1: their spirituality, that's private, that's personal, that guides their own lives.
Speaker 1: In fact, one of the defining characteristics of the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal is the hypocrisy of the high priests and
Speaker 1: priestesses of it, as we see from o'cazio Cortez and
Speaker 1: the New York Post piece on her that says that
Speaker 1: you know she's her head quarter is real close to
Speaker 1: a subway. It doesn't take the subway. It spends a
Speaker 1: lot of money on ubers and flies instead of takes
Speaker 1: the train from New York to DC whenever she can.
Speaker 1: So you know, she's not talking the talk and walking
Speaker 1: the walk. Or maybe she's talking the talk, but she's
Speaker 1: not walking the you know what I mean. However, that
Speaker 1: foom and wants can't get fooled again, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm saying. But this is a this is a left
Speaker 1: wing religious belief, and there is no room for heresy.
Speaker 1: You will be made to believe too. You will be
Speaker 1: made to live under the mandates of these Green New
Speaker 1: Deal high priests and priestesses too. That's what makes this
Speaker 1: so aggressive and so problematic for all the rest of us.
Speaker 1: If you know, it's one thing for like think of
Speaker 1: this like vegans, Vegans can be pretty radical. Vegans can
Speaker 1: be pretty intense. I'm not saying all the minute. Thirdlier
Speaker 1: vegan listening to the show, I'm not necessarily something. You
Speaker 1: just think it's healthy, and that's cool. And look, I
Speaker 1: got no problem with vegans. People want to eat what
Speaker 1: they want to eat. That's fine. You know, I probably
Speaker 1: eat too much high fat and cheese and things like
Speaker 1: you know, everyone, you know, these are our own personal choices.
Speaker 1: But imagine a vegan who came into Oh, you know
Speaker 1: who's a vegan, Corey Booker. It's all you need to
Speaker 1: know about him, it's all you need to know. Can't
Speaker 1: can't trust them, uh guy, guys like, oh, I can't
Speaker 1: eat bacon, and I can't can't trust them. But imagine
Speaker 1: a vegan that said that you have to live the
Speaker 1: same lifestyle that they do. That is kind of like
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal people, except they don't want to
Speaker 1: live a vegan lifestyle. They just want you to live
Speaker 1: a vegan lifestyle. That's right. They want to take this
Speaker 1: steak out of your mouth while they're sitting there chomping
Speaker 1: on a ribbi right in front of you. No, I'm
Speaker 1: not a violent hand, but that might push even the
Speaker 1: most even tempered of us to take matters into their
Speaker 1: own hands. You take the ribbi out of my mouth
Speaker 1: and you eat it in front of me, We're gonna
Speaker 1: have problems. But that's imagine the the kind of extremism
Speaker 1: and evangelism of a vegan, but they're not going to
Speaker 1: actually do it. Only you get to live that lifestyle.
Speaker 1: That's what the Green New Deal is. That's how this
Speaker 1: is is so different. And if you have any doubts
Speaker 1: about whether this is it's fair to call this a
Speaker 1: religious belief, remember there there and there's all kinds of
Speaker 1: you know, Satanism is a religious belief. You know, the
Speaker 1: Thuggy Cult of India was a religious belief. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of religious beliefs out there. Right. Just because something's
Speaker 1: a religion doesn't mean that we have that's another fallacy.
Speaker 1: Just because it's a religion, I have to respect it.
Speaker 1: False I do not. I do not have to respect
Speaker 1: it just because it's a religion, Because if that were
Speaker 1: the case, the Church of the Flying Postafarian or the
Speaker 1: Flying spaghetti Strainer or whatever it is, I'd have to
Speaker 1: respect that religion too, and I don't. But in case
Speaker 1: you had any doubts, you are now seeing an increase
Speaker 1: in these movements of people and just seeing more public
Speaker 1: commentary from people who are saying that they're so afraid,
Speaker 1: they're so afraid of what the future holds because of
Speaker 1: climate change of stea, that they won't even have kids
Speaker 1: play clip twenty one. Our planet isn't a kind of collapse.
Speaker 1: The natural world is collapsing around us, and that's actually
Speaker 1: happening right now. And I'm so disappointed by the response
Speaker 1: by our authorities to this crisis and so freaked out
Speaker 1: by it everything I've read that I've basically last year,
Speaker 1: I came to the decision that I couldn't bring a
Speaker 1: child into that, and you have come to the same conclusion, Alice, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I have. I'm I mean, each day for me is struggle,
Speaker 1: I really do. Just I'm so depressed and that has
Speaker 1: led to just a fear that I've never felt before.
Speaker 1: And my decision for being on birth strike, and mostly
Speaker 1: has come from not wanting to pass that fear onto
Speaker 1: someone else. If we're in this situation now, you know,
Speaker 1: even since my parents had me, we've destroyed sixty percent
Speaker 1: of life on this planet. What would that be like
Speaker 1: when my child's my age, will there be ten percent left.
Speaker 1: That's not just to do with being, you know, a
Speaker 1: nature of what life enthusiasts like I am. That's actually
Speaker 1: that's dangerous as well. Yeah, it's like I can't bring
Speaker 1: kids into the world because you know, climate change and
Speaker 1: we're losing all these species, and if we don't have
Speaker 1: an ample supply of delve to smell in the natural
Speaker 1: habitat in the Simi Valley of California, I just feel like, look,
Speaker 1: it's just not worth it anymore. Yeah, so I needed
Speaker 1: four thousand brown m and M's or Rosie wouldn't go
Speaker 1: on stage that night. I managed to take care of
Speaker 1: the target with a can of mace, but the shopkeeper
Speaker 1: in her sum was a different story altogether. All right,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, So, but those people are crazy, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: they're they're actually nuts. I can't have a baby. I'm
Speaker 1: on birthstrike. I've never heard of that before. Birth strike
Speaker 1: they're they're on birth strike because of the Green New Deal,
Speaker 1: because of how dangerous the world is going to be
Speaker 1: going I'm sorry, because of the lack of a Green
Speaker 1: New Deal, because of how dangerous the world's gonna because
Speaker 1: a climate change. Really, these are adults, folks. These are
Speaker 1: people that at least ostensibly can read and write and think.
Speaker 1: And not only are they truly some of them, I
Speaker 1: mean I do believe that a lot of them. This
Speaker 1: is just a political mobilization tool. It's classic Alinsky. Once
Speaker 1: you mobilize a people on pollution, then you have them
Speaker 1: to mobile lies on corruption, then you have the mobilize
Speaker 1: them on racism. You know, once you get people all
Speaker 1: riled up about one thing, it's very easy to move
Speaker 1: them onto another thing. And so this is essentially a
Speaker 1: mobilization tactic. But the Green New Deal is really at
Speaker 1: its core for those who are the high priests and priestesses.
Speaker 1: I don't think they really, I don't think they're the
Speaker 1: true believers. The true believers are those women who are like, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just you know, I just don't want to have
Speaker 1: a baby because it's like one degree centigrade. It might
Speaker 1: be like one point two degree centigrade in a hundred years,
Speaker 1: And what will my child think if it's point two
Speaker 1: degree centigrade warmer on a global average based on incredibly
Speaker 1: inaccurate data of measuring global temperature. My child just couldn't
Speaker 1: handle it, right. And plus he'll be like really old,
Speaker 1: like he'll be like a hundred and he'll be very
Speaker 1: warm all the time, right, I mean, you know she's
Speaker 1: got a point there, right. But the high priests and
Speaker 1: priestesses of climate change, they they don't view this really
Speaker 1: as saving the planet. They view this as controlling the planet.
Speaker 1: The Green New Deal is all about the implementation of
Speaker 1: socialism and control. The Green New Deal is not at
Speaker 1: its core for the people that are running it, for
Speaker 1: the people. It's like the Communist Party, right, think about
Speaker 1: the Commnist Party in the Soviet Union. Were there some
Speaker 1: true believers you know, was well, Trotzky was, but that's
Speaker 1: why they put an ice axe in his head, you know,
Speaker 1: lett in him. We're that true believers, yeah, but we're
Speaker 1: most of the polite borrow early on really just people
Speaker 1: that realize that they were in the power loop and
Speaker 1: that they just needed to keep this thing going, to
Speaker 1: keep the con going. Yep, that's what the Green New
Speaker 1: Deal is. It's really about control. And people would argue
Speaker 1: that a lot of religions are about control, and that
Speaker 1: that's actually been at the heart of much of a
Speaker 1: religious belief for a very long time. And now we're
Speaker 1: getting into a deeper theological conversation than I had intended.
Speaker 1: But in this case, in this instant, they are emotionalizing
Speaker 1: the topic with religious fervor of climate change hist area,
Speaker 1: people are convinced they shouldn't have babies. People are convinced
Speaker 1: that they should tell ten year olds the world's gonna
Speaker 1: end in ten years or twelve years. And if you
Speaker 1: by the way SNL, you know I rarely give an
Speaker 1: SNL shout out. The Dianne Feinstein clip they did on
Speaker 1: SNL is actually pretty funny, so I would recommend you
Speaker 1: go check it out. It's on YouTube, just type in
Speaker 1: and search for it. But they're terrifying small children. They
Speaker 1: are willing to destroy our economy, but they will be
Speaker 1: in control, and they know that that is ultimately the
Speaker 1: single most important thing them because control is power. Control
Speaker 1: is just a form of power. So if you are
Speaker 1: a power obsessed lib, the best way to get the
Speaker 1: society you want that will be full on socialism without
Speaker 1: calling it that. Just get this green new deal in action.
Speaker 1: When do you want to spot that burglar when he's
Speaker 1: casing your home or after he's in? Ask John whose
Speaker 1: Blink camera alerted him to burglars trying to break in
Speaker 1: while he and his family were home, or Shannon who's
Speaker 1: Blink camera caught a thief stealing packages. Both times Blink
Speaker 1: video clips were sent to police to help convict the crooks.
Speaker 1: And in a moment, I'll tell you how to get
Speaker 1: twenty percent off all Blink Outdoor XD camera systems. Blink
Speaker 1: motion activated indoor and outdoor cameras are wire free, They
Speaker 1: set up in minutes and run on two lithium batteries
Speaker 1: that last up to two years, and blinks Live Feed
Speaker 1: option lets you monitor your home and check in on
Speaker 1: kids and pets from anywhere using your Blink smartphone app.
Speaker 1: No contracts, no subscriptions, totally affordable and right now Blink
Speaker 1: Outdoor XT camera systems or an impressive twenty percent off,
Speaker 1: but hurry. This sale ends March sixteenth at midnight Eastern.
Speaker 1: Visit blink protect dot com slash sale blink protect dot
Speaker 1: Com slash sale again. Blink protect dot com slash sale.
Speaker 1: This is a time, my friends, when fundamental rights, civic virtue,
Speaker 1: freedom of the press, the rule of law, truth, facts
Speaker 1: and reason are under assault. Hello, did you miss me?
Speaker 1: Hillary's back back and as charming as ever. I don't
Speaker 1: know what what it's going to take for Hillary to
Speaker 1: step out of the public eye. Oh she can't. She
Speaker 1: can't help herself. I will say, I'm a little disappointed
Speaker 1: because there was a there was a time, and I
Speaker 1: said it on the show many times, there was a
Speaker 1: time when I really did, I really did believe that
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton was going to run again. And I'm I'm
Speaker 1: I will admit when I'm wrong, folks. Hello, I will
Speaker 1: admit when I'm wrong. And I think that Hillary is
Speaker 1: this time. I think she's probably not running. That's right,
Speaker 1: all right, Maybe she's not running. Fine, I might have
Speaker 1: gotten I might have gotten this one wrong. Um, I
Speaker 1: might have gotten this one wrong. But Hillary is still
Speaker 1: gonna be out there. So I don't think that you're
Speaker 1: gonna have a Hillary free twenty twenty because she's gonna
Speaker 1: she's gonna be a surrogate. She can't help herself. She
Speaker 1: has to be near the near the spotlight in some capacity.
Speaker 1: Oh wait wait, I I forgot to get to this.
Speaker 1: Mazie Herono, I think the dumbest person in the Senate, right,
Speaker 1: I give her that. I give her that title. There
Speaker 1: are some others that are very close. It's a tough call,
Speaker 1: but I think Mazie Herono is in fact the dumb
Speaker 1: person in the Senate. She had some thoughts on climate
Speaker 1: change too. Play clip nineteen. Can tell me what you
Speaker 1: were saying about. Were trying to get rid of air
Speaker 1: travel and I said, well, that's gonna make it hard
Speaker 1: for Hawaii. But what with a Green New Deal stands
Speaker 1: for is the a recognition that climate of change is happening,
Speaker 1: not sticking our head in the sand. So it's really
Speaker 1: crazy at Trump and all his minions and his ilk
Speaker 1: who think that global warming and climate change is not
Speaker 1: happening and they'd rather just stick their heads in the sand.
Speaker 1: They offer absolutely zero in terms of what they would propose,
Speaker 1: So all they can do is lock an attack, And
Speaker 1: I think that is a crazy position because they are
Speaker 1: denying the science behind climate change. Yeah, we mock and
Speaker 1: attack it because it should be mocked, an attack because
Speaker 1: it's idiocy. I just want to note that, you know,
Speaker 1: Senator Horrono, I think that she really, you know, she's
Speaker 1: she really came through here, folks, She really did. Because
Speaker 1: if you recall when the Green New Deal was initially
Speaker 1: came out, Maizie Horono was the one who got a
Speaker 1: little bit of attention for saying, well, if we eliminate
Speaker 1: air travel, that will make things hard for Hawaii. Right
Speaker 1: she said that, And it was one of these you know,
Speaker 1: broken clock right twice a day scenarios where you go,
Speaker 1: whoa look at Mazie Heron no smarter than o'cazio Cortez. Right,
Speaker 1: she she understands something that apparently a leading luminary of
Speaker 1: sorts on the left does not understand. And yeah, but
Speaker 1: then but then she decided to walk it back a
Speaker 1: little bit. Then she decided sure enough that she had
Speaker 1: given a little help to the Republicans by being saying
Speaker 1: for a moment by accident, nonetheless, and she just want
Speaker 1: us to know, oh no, no, no, sen Senator heronos
Speaker 1: in fact a straight up idiot, and she regrets that
Speaker 1: moment where she said something accidentally that was insightful or intelligent,
Speaker 1: And she would like the left and the Democrats to
Speaker 1: know that she is still a full a full law
Speaker 1: and imbecile and does not have anything to add to
Speaker 1: this discussion worthwhile at all. Opposing the Green New Deal
Speaker 1: is not crazy. What's crazy is is, or rather, the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal is not crazy, Opposing it is so
Speaker 1: so there's so there's that speaking of one thing, you know,
Speaker 1: I will miss this back to the Hillary thing for
Speaker 1: a moment that we will have the Trumpster going full
Speaker 1: on mockery of Hillary, which which would have been great,
Speaker 1: but at least we will have the Trumpster mocking Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: who's so very very richly deserves it. Play. This was
Speaker 1: him at Seapac Play twenty. I should have saved the
Speaker 1: Polka hunt this thing for another year because I've destroyed
Speaker 1: her political career and now I won't get a chance
Speaker 1: to run against her, and I would have loved it.
Speaker 1: We gotta you know, I don't want to knock out
Speaker 1: all of the good stuff and end up with somebody
Speaker 1: that's actually got talent. That would be terr Yeah. I
Speaker 1: think you know that the Trumpster's got a point here.
Speaker 1: He is single handedly forced Elizabeth Warren, or brought Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren to just take her political her political chances the
Speaker 1: presidency and essentially liked them on fire just because she
Speaker 1: was so rattled by Trump messing with her. So it's
Speaker 1: one of Trump's magic. It's one of Trump's super ours, folks.
Speaker 1: He really gets under libs skin. Let's talk about rent control?
Speaker 1: Shall we now? Hold on a second? Don't even think
Speaker 1: about skipping past this segment because you're like, oh, buck,
Speaker 1: I don't have rent control in my area. I don't
Speaker 1: really care. Rent control is becoming a more popular idea.
Speaker 1: It's usually associated with New York City, which is why
Speaker 1: I know quite a bit about it, including from friends
Speaker 1: of mine who have rent control departments. But now we
Speaker 1: have whole states, whole states that are thinking about going
Speaker 1: rent controlled in terms of housing. And this is one
Speaker 1: of these moments where we can really look at what
Speaker 1: progressives are proposing and doing. What government intervention does? You know?
Speaker 1: This is a rubber meets the road moment for why
Speaker 1: conservatives are right and liberals are wrong on an issue
Speaker 1: of economics that really affects me's lives, all right, And
Speaker 1: that's what that This piece by Mark Hamingway is a
Speaker 1: great writer. It's in the Wall Street Journal, Oregon's progressive
Speaker 1: politicians want rent control for all. Is really an interesting
Speaker 1: read because this is the first time. As I mentioned,
Speaker 1: Oregon is going to be the first state to have
Speaker 1: statewide rent control. Now what that what that means in
Speaker 1: this context is that there can only be a certain
Speaker 1: a certain cap on rent, a certain cap on rent
Speaker 1: that you can't go above as somebody who is a landlord. Now,
Speaker 1: this is in response to rising prices, so see, and
Speaker 1: this is this is a perfect think about how this
Speaker 1: works in this case and apply to so many other
Speaker 1: things that libs do. Right, they see a problem, they
Speaker 1: don't think about what's caused the problem, and their immediate
Speaker 1: knee jerk reaction is to try and fix the problem
Speaker 1: with government mandates, with government intervention, community organizers, agitators, left
Speaker 1: wing groups, all this stuff. They all start picketing and
Speaker 1: saying it's not fair, we need more housing, it's not fair.
Speaker 1: You know. They do all this stuff instead of saying, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, Why does Portland, for example, have
Speaker 1: the highest i'm sorry, the second highest rent increase on
Speaker 1: average in twenty sixteen and twenty seventeen. Why don't have
Speaker 1: the second highest of any city in the country after
Speaker 1: Seattle why is there's such a housing shortage? Right? This
Speaker 1: is basic economics, This is supply and demand. Why does
Speaker 1: Portland have a housing shortage? Folks, that's the real question.
Speaker 1: This is where the economics should kick in. Now, what
Speaker 1: liberals do is they come at this from the other side.
Speaker 1: They come at it and they say, well, hold on,
Speaker 1: a second, housing is too expensive, So let's just make
Speaker 1: howing less expensive. Let's just mandate that you can't charge
Speaker 1: as much. And this is not going to make the
Speaker 1: problem any better. In fact, this is going to make
Speaker 1: it worse, as we all know. But libs never learn
Speaker 1: their lessons. Let's take a step back. Why does the
Speaker 1: state of Oregon have overall, but in particular Portland, but
Speaker 1: why does it have these problems? Well because of policies
Speaker 1: instituted by the government quote smart growth policies back in
Speaker 1: the nineteen seventies that put urban growth boundaries around cities
Speaker 1: in an effort to stop them from having what is
Speaker 1: called urban sprawl. So what this means is that they
Speaker 1: look at a city and these are city planners, which
Speaker 1: by the way, is a form of central planning. They
Speaker 1: have these city planners who come together and they say, well,
Speaker 1: we don't want the city of such and such to
Speaker 1: be any bigger than this, And they draw lines on
Speaker 1: the MA and outside of those lines you cannot zone
Speaker 1: for certain kinds of development. So, for example, you can't
Speaker 1: build outside those lines a tall apartment building that would
Speaker 1: be cost effective. You could only maybe do you farming communes,
Speaker 1: or maybe build a single family home or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: But they are intruding on the market because they don't
Speaker 1: like urban sprawl. This was just a thing in the
Speaker 1: nineteen seventies which a lot of people say, isn't that
Speaker 1: just natural growth of a city, But they don't like
Speaker 1: urban sprawl. So that led to in Portland in particular,
Speaker 1: there are being disparities because where you are on the
Speaker 1: urban sprawl line could be the difference between, as Hemingway
Speaker 1: points out in his piece here, whether your property is
Speaker 1: worth one hundred and eighty thousand dollars for an acre
Speaker 1: or across the street. Folks, based on where these lines
Speaker 1: were drawn across the street sixteen thousand dollars an acre.
Speaker 1: How could the same neighborhood have such a you know,
Speaker 1: as one of them a toxic waste up. No one
Speaker 1: of them is a place where you can develop land,
Speaker 1: and another one is a place where you can't because
Speaker 1: that a one urban sprawl. So this means that developers,
Speaker 1: guess what, developers don't want to come in and deal
Speaker 1: with this. There's also a lot of red tape on
Speaker 1: top of it, where you have a lot of expense
Speaker 1: that's put on top of building apartments at homes in
Speaker 1: a city like Oregon that are just bureaucratic expenses. This
Speaker 1: is from this piece. Systems and development charges and permit
Speaker 1: fees for even a five hundred square foot unit in
Speaker 1: the city of Eugene, Oregon are close to about twenty
Speaker 1: thousand dollars per unit. That's just all red tape expense.
Speaker 1: That's just you know, the city inspectors coming in and
Speaker 1: got to this and got to do that, and just
Speaker 1: people getting involved in this that are extraneous and in
Speaker 1: fact just drive up the prices, just make it harder
Speaker 1: for people to be able to get housing. Because this
Speaker 1: is Affordability is a function of the market. Affordability is
Speaker 1: not in fact something that you will achieve with government mandates.
Speaker 1: And as I've told you before, and this is I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that Portland's going to turn into Venezuela or Eugene, Oregon,
Speaker 1: or Tacoma, Washington, or any of these places. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that, but price controls were one of the primary
Speaker 1: mechanisms instituted in Venezuela to create the descent into a
Speaker 1: failed state, economic catastrophe and all the chaos we see.
Speaker 1: The price controls in Venezuela were pretty straightforward. There's not
Speaker 1: enough of X product, let's call it. Let's say microwaves.
Speaker 1: There aren't enough microwaves for everybody in Venezuela to go
Speaker 1: around right now. So instead of trying to deal with
Speaker 1: that through a market incentives what they did, or by
Speaker 1: liberalizing their markets or lowering tariffs on the product or
Speaker 1: whatever it. Maybe they said, well, now you can only
Speaker 1: charge one hundred dollars. Well that's actually pretty expensive microwave,
Speaker 1: but whatever, you only charge twenty dollars for your microwave. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what, the people making microwaves can't make any money.
Speaker 1: See what do they do? They stop importing microwaves. That's
Speaker 1: what's happening with housing in a rent controlled environment. They're
Speaker 1: driving up the cost with mandates, and then they mandate
Speaker 1: that the cost get driven down. This is straight out
Speaker 1: of the road to serfdom. Baby, this is Hyak coming
Speaker 1: at you with all the truth. What does Hyeke say
Speaker 1: in the road to serfdom? Every government intrusion is going
Speaker 1: to be followed by more government intrusions because they create,
Speaker 1: they create dislocations of capital and sound investment. And then
Speaker 1: the the response to that from the people that did
Speaker 1: in the first place is always going to be, oh, well,
Speaker 1: let's fix that with more dislocations of capital and unsound investment.
Speaker 1: That's what happens, that's what gets done. And then you
Speaker 1: add on to this the lack of because remember affordable housing, folks,
Speaker 1: You're going to hear it a lot from Sanders and o'cazio,
Speaker 1: Cortez and all these you know, you're a lot of
Speaker 1: affordable housing talk, a lot of that going on. You
Speaker 1: know what all that's going to mean is the government
Speaker 1: either subsidizing developers, which just means the tax dollars are
Speaker 1: going to this, or it's going to mean that they
Speaker 1: institute rent control policies. Rent control in New York drives
Speaker 1: up prices for everybody who is not covered by rent control.
Speaker 1: But in New York, the problem is that there are
Speaker 1: all these there's a million people in New York City
Speaker 1: who are directly affected, meaning they were one of their
Speaker 1: family members is in a rent controlled unit of some kind.
Speaker 1: And so when you try to change that, if you're
Speaker 1: in the New York City New York City Council, guess what,
Speaker 1: you got a million people that'll show up and make
Speaker 1: sure you lose. They are single because housing is so
Speaker 1: expensive in New York City. They're single issue voters on
Speaker 1: rent control. But that's just chronyism, folks, It's just chronyism.
Speaker 1: Just people that are getting something that they're not entitled to,
Speaker 1: that are defending it through the political process. But that's
Speaker 1: what cronies do. You're going to see more of this,
Speaker 1: but see see it's a perfect illustration of how the
Speaker 1: left does not understand the root cause of a problem
Speaker 1: and in fact just makes it worse. They make the
Speaker 1: problems worse. Oh, by the way, as if that wasn't enough,
Speaker 1: there are left wing activist groups that make this a
Speaker 1: function of who wants who wants to guess. Remember in
Speaker 1: Venezuela they do price controls, and then what's the way
Speaker 1: that they they double down on this. Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: that's right. Social justice, social justice, that's what they are
Speaker 1: trying to accomplish here. Go back to this piece in
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal by Mark Hemingway quote. Rather than
Speaker 1: address the lack of housing supply, legislators have seized on
Speaker 1: rent control and feisty left wing groups like Portland Tenants
Speaker 1: United dominate grassroots politics in Oregon. Over the past few years.
Speaker 1: The group's divisive founder, a professor named Margot Black, has
Speaker 1: become a political force. PTU has organized rent strikes and
Speaker 1: picket lines against landlord seeking rent increases and push the
Speaker 1: legislature to adopt drastic rent controls. Homegrown Oregonians tend to
Speaker 1: be white and racist, she said during a twenty seventeen
Speaker 1: television interview. I think the faster they can get out
Speaker 1: of the landlord business, the better. The PTU imploded last
Speaker 1: year in parodic fashion. Miss Black was forced to step
Speaker 1: down as a leader of the group for allowing, among
Speaker 1: other things, a PTU organizer to sing this land is
Speaker 1: our land over the objection of the group's Native American
Speaker 1: racial equity tregner. Well, that might seem absurd. Ptu's persistent
Speaker 1: agitation is largely responsible for making rent control a dominant
Speaker 1: issue in Portland politics. Folks, this is what happens. This
Speaker 1: is a microcosm of progressive urban politics at work. What
Speaker 1: do they do. They create a problem with government regulation,
Speaker 1: They try to address the problem with government price controls,
Speaker 1: more mandates, and then when that doesn't work, they just
Speaker 1: say it's the bad, greedy people responding to these government
Speaker 1: incentives in rational fashion. They're the problem. And you know
Speaker 1: what happens. Then the builders, the developers, they say, I'm
Speaker 1: going to spend my money elsewhere. I don't want to
Speaker 1: deal with this madhouse in Portland, and housing is even
Speaker 1: more in short supply. It's like the anatomy of the
Speaker 1: left on economics here in one and one fell swoop.
Speaker 1: So see, it tells you a lot about how the left. Thanks.
Speaker 1: I hope you enjoyed our little foray into Portland and
Speaker 1: Eugene and other places in Oregon in their real estate situation.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. So I think I have a
Speaker 1: long history in civil rights activism. In nineteen eighty eight,
Speaker 1: I was one of the few white public officials who
Speaker 1: supported Jesse Jackson for President of the United States, and
Speaker 1: they end up winning. For month, I think if you
Speaker 1: look at my record in terms of civil rights and
Speaker 1: other areas, you will find that it is consistently a
Speaker 1: very very strong work. Any legislation we can point to, well,
Speaker 1: legislation that benefits African Americans, but not specifically, you know, legislation.
Speaker 1: Oh but the you know, I'm a I'm a civil
Speaker 1: rights hero, but I didn't actually pass through the legislation.
Speaker 1: Oh just you know, I want to talk about social justice.
Speaker 1: And you know, Bernie gets away with a lot because
Speaker 1: he comes across as this somewhat likable, kookie professor guy
Speaker 1: from New York, even though he's not a professor. He's
Speaker 1: been a guy living off the public, public dime for
Speaker 1: his entire adult life. But he's really not very impressive.
Speaker 1: I watched and we didn't really pull any audio from
Speaker 1: it because it was all the same. You know, the
Speaker 1: millionaires and the billionaires are gonna pay for this, and
Speaker 1: they're gonna pay for that. And we're gonna have free
Speaker 1: college like every industrialized country in the world. We're gonna
Speaker 1: have great healthcare, you're gonna have no more debt. You're
Speaker 1: gonna have unicorns and magic plumb fairies giving you all
Speaker 1: the sweet treats you want. I mean, it's the usual thing.
Speaker 1: A lot of Also, how Trump is. I thought it
Speaker 1: was interesting he said that Trump is divisive, and Trump
Speaker 1: is the guy who's separating people. Meanwhile, Democrats whole platform
Speaker 1: is based on intersectionality, which is just how you assess
Speaker 1: and how you rank and handle different groups that oppress
Speaker 1: each other. I mean, that is what intersectionality is. But
Speaker 1: Democrats accused us of, or rather Trump of being the
Speaker 1: divisive one. I think that's kind of rich. But you know,
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, I think right now, if you had to
Speaker 1: say who's going to be the nominee, a lot of
Speaker 1: people would put their money on Sanders. A lot of
Speaker 1: people would say that Sanders is going to come through
Speaker 1: this Democratic which is already what it is that twelve
Speaker 1: candidates already, I think. I mean, it's crazy how many
Speaker 1: candidates there are the Democrat Party right now. It's just crazy.
Speaker 1: A lot of them are just complete, you know nothing
Speaker 1: burger candidates as well. I saw this guy today, John
Speaker 1: Hickenlooper from Colorado. I would say, I haven't really have really,
Speaker 1: you know, heard of this guy much before, and I
Speaker 1: was like, where have I heard about him? The biggest
Speaker 1: knock on him, from what I understand, is that he's
Speaker 1: not a total communist and can be somewhat reasonable, and
Speaker 1: everyone's like, whoa, you can't win a Democratic primary if
Speaker 1: you're gonna be in any way reasonable or normal. But
Speaker 1: then I realized that the most famous thing about him
Speaker 1: is that he likes to pull this this trick where
Speaker 1: he'll drink water to prove that something is clean. He
Speaker 1: drank he drank fracking fluid back in twenty thirteen to
Speaker 1: show that it was safer than the critics were saying.
Speaker 1: But he also after a major environmental disaster on the
Speaker 1: Animous River, he drank a bottle of water from the river.
Speaker 1: But turns out he put a water purification tablet in
Speaker 1: it beforehand and waited thirty minutes for that to take effects.
Speaker 1: So I don't know about that one, but I don't
Speaker 1: know if we can give you the give you a
Speaker 1: pass on that. And then of course he got the
Speaker 1: other one, the other great hope of the Democrats, Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, and Trump's already got his numbers somewhat where.
Speaker 1: But Joe Biden's a total mediocrity, all right. Nothing about
Speaker 1: him is impressive, nothing about him is inspiring. He's just
Speaker 1: a classic Democrat machine politician. And there's just he's just
Speaker 1: got nothing. I mean, you know, and without the media
Speaker 1: running cover for all this stupid comments. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't think that you're gonna have the same ability for
Speaker 1: him to just pretend like, oh, that's just Joeb and Joe.
Speaker 1: But I see today the New York Post is saying
Speaker 1: that you know who might run if Biden doesn't run.
Speaker 1: The governor of New York himself, Quomo, who many people
Speaker 1: say does not have three entire brain cells to rub together.
Speaker 1: But perhaps he can borrow a half a brain cell
Speaker 1: from Biden and maybe a brain cell or two from
Speaker 1: Ocasio QUOTEZ and make a full I don't know how
Speaker 1: big the number is, but brain cells enough to run
Speaker 1: for Democrat. That's right, Cuomo might run. Look, there are
Speaker 1: some great benefits to being a senior, right You get
Speaker 1: some discounts on things. You also have the option to
Speaker 1: join an organization of like minded seniors who are going
Speaker 1: to make sure that the country is moving in the
Speaker 1: right direction. You might have heard of the AARP, But
Speaker 1: guess what, the AARP does not achieve that for you.
Speaker 1: The AARP is actually very left wing. That's why I
Speaker 1: recommend AMAC for seniors. All Right, So if you're a
Speaker 1: senior listening to this, Trust me, you need to go
Speaker 1: check out AMAC. It was founded by an Air Force veteran,
Speaker 1: and it is the conservative alternative to AARP. You get
Speaker 1: all kinds of great benefits and value if you're a member.
Speaker 1: But also you're going to be supporting conservative policies like
Speaker 1: a secure border, like dealing with the debt, fixing social
Speaker 1: security for future generations. Stand with AMAC as they fight
Speaker 1: the good fight. Become a member today, Join right now
Speaker 1: at AMAC dot us slash buck again. Am AC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. AMACK is better, better for you, better
Speaker 1: for America. Maduro is not a Venezuelan patriot. He is
Speaker 1: a Cuban puppet. That's what he is. We seek a
Speaker 1: peaceful transition of power, but all options are open. If
Speaker 1: you choose this path, you will find no safe harbor,
Speaker 1: no easy exit, and no way out. You will lose
Speaker 1: everything that was President Trump at CEPAC over the weekend
Speaker 1: talking about what's going on in Venezuela. We have a
Speaker 1: friend of mine, an ex burnt on Latin America, joining
Speaker 1: us now from the Heritage Foundation. Anna Rosa Quintana is
Speaker 1: with us, so you can tell us what's going on
Speaker 1: right now with Venezuela and also Cuba, which has gotten
Speaker 1: into the mix. And thanks so much for calling in. Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. Okay, so let's just start with
Speaker 1: Trump is now tightening the Cuba embargo because Cuba's helping Venezuela.
Speaker 1: Can you walk us through the Venezuela Cuba situation here?
Speaker 1: I mean, the best way of understanding the relationship between
Speaker 1: both countries is Venezuela has exported to Cuba and has
Speaker 1: kept up the Cuban government alive through oil and through
Speaker 1: petro dollars and Cuba and exchange has provided Venezuela with
Speaker 1: a police state, which is why you have not seen
Speaker 1: the level of defections that should be normally be seen
Speaker 1: in a country with such a dire humanitarian crisis. I mean,
Speaker 1: because the police state and the I mean just the
Speaker 1: counterintelligence system that exists withinside of Venezuela. It's the same
Speaker 1: reason why the Castro regime has survived for sixty years. Well,
Speaker 1: they were and they were trained by the KGB, and
Speaker 1: so that's so everyone should keep in mind that the
Speaker 1: Soviet KGB trained the Castro regime secret intelligence, which has
Speaker 1: now trained Venezuela's secret intelligence. So there's that exactly exactly,
Speaker 1: and Maduro is a product of that. I mean, Maduro
Speaker 1: is not somebody who is a savvy politician or who
Speaker 1: knows the US political I mean not at all. Maduro
Speaker 1: is a thug, and he's a thug who is a
Speaker 1: Soviet trained thug. I mean, he's a diehard Castro apologist.
Speaker 1: He's obsessed with the Cuban government, obsessed with the Castro Revolution,
Speaker 1: just like how Hugo Chavez was. So, you know, and
Speaker 1: I keep seeing this recurring criticism on the left and
Speaker 1: from some pretty big voices, including Representative Ilhan Omar, who's
Speaker 1: in trouble for some other stuff she's been saying recently,
Speaker 1: But you see it from her. You see it a
Speaker 1: lot from Glenn Greenwald, who on some issues I think
Speaker 1: is very sound. That is thinking on this one I
Speaker 1: think is pretty far off. I listened to a podcast
Speaker 1: with Army SKay Hill. You know, you have some of
Speaker 1: these very well known leftist American thinkers and writers who
Speaker 1: keep saying that we are engaged in a coup in
Speaker 1: Venezuela and that we're making the same mistake that we've
Speaker 1: made for decades in intervening in Venezuela. I wanted your
Speaker 1: take on that whole line of thinking. Listen, the only
Speaker 1: intervention that's happening in Venezuela, and that's been happening for
Speaker 1: the last twenty years, is the Cuban, Russian, Chinese intervention.
Speaker 1: And they all have various different objectives. Right, Cuba has
Speaker 1: only survived. The cash regime has only survived because they've
Speaker 1: they've been like leeches, right, they've like sucked their teeth
Speaker 1: into a foreign country that's had more resources than they've had.
Speaker 1: You know, before it was a Soviet Union and then
Speaker 1: and now it's Venezuela, and it's you know, and now
Speaker 1: you look at Russia. Russia has political objectives inside of
Speaker 1: Venezuela because you know, Venezuela is a country that's in
Speaker 1: the Western Hemisphere, and now Russia can be a powerbroker
Speaker 1: in the future of Venezuela, a country that the United
Speaker 1: States has deep and strategic interest in. And China. Again,
Speaker 1: China's economic interest in expanding their presence in the Western
Speaker 1: Hemisphere is very well known. There's no there is zero
Speaker 1: in terms of interventionism. In fact, it's the opposite. The
Speaker 1: United States and over fifty countries this is what I
Speaker 1: think is so critical. Here's over fifty countries and it's
Speaker 1: the majority of the Western hemisphere. This is something that
Speaker 1: is unprecedented. You've never seen the majority of Latin America
Speaker 1: unite behind anything. They've never united against the cast regime.
Speaker 1: And the Castra regime has been around since nineteen fifty nine.
Speaker 1: Yet the majority of the Western hemisphere has said enough
Speaker 1: is enough. The Madure regime as a dictatorship. These guys
Speaker 1: are drug traffickers, these guys are thugs. We need to
Speaker 1: get rid of them. Now, what do you say to
Speaker 1: the criticism from the same some of the same folks.
Speaker 1: But you're doing such a good job with the other criticism.
Speaker 1: I want to throw this at you too, that well,
Speaker 1: why Maduro? Why Maduro? When we're friends with the Saudis,
Speaker 1: We're friends with the Chinese, you know, you know, we
Speaker 1: do business with some pretty bad people around the world.
Speaker 1: To the left is saying, I'm like, I think it's
Speaker 1: a smoke screen, But I want to know what way,
Speaker 1: what do you think? Look, I think one of the
Speaker 1: United States does not have a cookie cutter foreign policy, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's times where the United States has to
Speaker 1: put aside principles in terms of greater national security interest. Right,
Speaker 1: But when it comes to Venezuela, you have to look
Speaker 1: at it from the perspective of one Venezuela. The Venezuelan
Speaker 1: government and high ranking officials within the Venezuelan government are
Speaker 1: well known drug traffickers. I mean, and now I'm not
Speaker 1: talking about like small amounts like these guys are deeply
Speaker 1: involved with Mexican drug cartels. These guys are deeply involved
Speaker 1: with Columbia's terrorist organizations. And we have to remember Venezuela
Speaker 1: and Colombia share a very long border. Colombia is the
Speaker 1: United States is largest foreign aid recipient. So when we
Speaker 1: look in, Columbia is also the country that is the
Speaker 1: largest cocaine producing country in the entire world. So when
Speaker 1: we start thinking about, all right, the United States still
Speaker 1: has a massive cocaine problem. Right. We have an opioid crisis,
Speaker 1: that's for sure, but we still have a huge cocaine problem.
Speaker 1: So we look at the Venezuelan government's criminality, and there's
Speaker 1: a US body count that's directly associated with that. That's one. Two.
Speaker 1: You look at the refugee exodus, You've had over three
Speaker 1: million Venezuelans who've left the country. If that number continues,
Speaker 1: there's thirty two million Venezuela, thirty two million Venezuelans left
Speaker 1: behind in the country. If the political crisis, the economic crisis,
Speaker 1: the humanitarian crisis, if that continues, that is going to
Speaker 1: destabilize the rest of its neighboring countries. Colombia has already
Speaker 1: received nearly two million Venezuelans who have permanently stayed inside
Speaker 1: of that country. Over fifty thousand leave the country every
Speaker 1: single day and are transiting through Ecuador, through Peru, through
Speaker 1: all of these other countries. Imagine if the United States,
Speaker 1: imagine if Mexico, for example, is having a humanitarian crisis,
Speaker 1: and we have one point five million or two million
Speaker 1: Venezus Mexicans that enter our country and permanently resettle here
Speaker 1: within a time span of like four or five years,
Speaker 1: that'll completely distable. Exactly. It is our problem is it's
Speaker 1: our problem. It's a huge problem, right, And that's the thing.
Speaker 1: And I mean, there's just so many other factors here,
Speaker 1: and it's just like, guys, what's happening in Venezuela directly
Speaker 1: impacts US national security interests. What is keeping Maduro from
Speaker 1: toppling at this point. And you know, without getting too
Speaker 1: far into this from the American side, what should the US,
Speaker 1: what should the Trump administration were doing? Look, so, the
Speaker 1: Venezuelans have been really great about keeping this police state
Speaker 1: in place, right, and Maduro has over the last twenty years,
Speaker 1: they've been able to consolidate the levers of power under
Speaker 1: their control. They control the food distribution systems, they control
Speaker 1: the electoral authorities, they control just everything. And also they
Speaker 1: have such high ranking the high ranking government officials. I mean,
Speaker 1: they've just benefited so greatly and are just so deeply
Speaker 1: entrenched from corruption, whether it's drug trafficking, food trafficking, you know,
Speaker 1: making money off of embezzling from the oil industry. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just the corruption has just been rampant, right. So
Speaker 1: it's obviously clear why these guys have not defected because
Speaker 1: they really have no other options in life. It's either
Speaker 1: being a corrupt government official or just you know, spending
Speaker 1: the rest of their days in either Russia or Havanah.
Speaker 1: And so that's why we haven't seen those really high
Speaker 1: level defections. But I mean, there's been nearly six hundred
Speaker 1: soldiers who have defected putting their families at risk. I
Speaker 1: think that's that's pretty significant, the fact that six hundred
Speaker 1: soldiers have risked the lives of their families because now
Speaker 1: what happens is now these guys have crossed over into Columbia.
Speaker 1: Their families can be arrested, they can be imprisoned, they
Speaker 1: can be tortured, and that's probably what's happening to them
Speaker 1: right now. And that's why we haven't seen the high
Speaker 1: level of defections that you know, that should be that
Speaker 1: people are, you know, thinking that should be seen. But
Speaker 1: the momentum and the time is not on maduro side.
Speaker 1: I mean where Venezuela is right now in comparison to
Speaker 1: where it was three four months ago, I mean there's
Speaker 1: a strong momentum against Maduro and really time is not
Speaker 1: on his side. And in terms of what the US
Speaker 1: should be doing, I think it's not just what the
Speaker 1: US should be doing, it's what the international community out
Speaker 1: of be doing. You have the over fifty countries that
Speaker 1: recognize Guido. These guys ought to be making sure that
Speaker 1: only Guido has access to Venezuela's reserves abroad, if he
Speaker 1: is the interim president, if he is a legal legitimate
Speaker 1: President Maduro should not be able to access one single
Speaker 1: penny of Venezuelan state reserves. That's one two. I think
Speaker 1: every country and in that entire coalition ought to be
Speaker 1: ready to name, to publicly shame all of the Venezuelan Maduros,
Speaker 1: the Madurou regimes, families, their affiliates, their enablers within their
Speaker 1: respective countries, because there will be a day where they
Speaker 1: should no longer be allowed to enjoy living luxuriously in Spain.
Speaker 1: Also their illicit money. I know other governments should be
Speaker 1: working to seize this money as well. The US has
Speaker 1: sanctioned nearly two hundred some odd Venezuelan government officials. I mean,
Speaker 1: Trump has just gone sanctioning crazy, like he's just been
Speaker 1: such a rock star at this. He's really hit these
Speaker 1: guys where it hurts, and they only care about their
Speaker 1: pocket bucks. Other countries ought to be reciprocating and doing
Speaker 1: the same. All right, Anakinzana from Heritage, great stuff. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us to share your expertise.
Speaker 1: And we'll have more on this and we'll follow up
Speaker 1: with you soon. All right, talk to you soon, same,
Speaker 1: We've got more coming up. Stay with me. Background checks
Speaker 1: are an essential part of bringing people into your organization
Speaker 1: that you can trust and that are going to be productive,
Speaker 1: solid employees right away. You gotta have background checks done. Also,
Speaker 1: you might need some vetting for a company you're going
Speaker 1: to work with, and that's why you need people you
Speaker 1: can trust to do that work for you. That's Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network. Global Verification Network is the only dual certified
Speaker 1: and veteran owned background investigation and vetting company. They don't
Speaker 1: ever offshore their information. They don't ever offshore the work
Speaker 1: they're doing for you or send it overseas a lot
Speaker 1: of the other people in this space do. If you
Speaker 1: want a company based in America, made in America, and
Speaker 1: that does their work in America when it comes to
Speaker 1: any investigations in vetting, you want Global Verification Network, call
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine
Speaker 1: again that's eight seven seven six nine five one one
Speaker 1: seven nine. Or go to MYGVN dot com again, that's
Speaker 1: MYGVN dot com. Grifting. This idea of grifting, what is it?
Speaker 1: What does it mean? Why is it? Why is it
Speaker 1: coming up so often these days? Well, it's basically this
Speaker 1: idea of exploiting global people to sell something to raise
Speaker 1: your brand awareness. And I think it's coming up because, well,
Speaker 1: look brand Seapack has always been a representation of where
Speaker 1: the Republican Party is, where it's going, and I'm not
Speaker 1: sure it was ever at this place for intellectual discourse
Speaker 1: of some people will say, but it has in recent
Speaker 1: years become more like Trump. It's a celebration of Trump.
Speaker 1: And so you see a lot of grifters, people throwing
Speaker 1: red meat rhetoric out at crowds to raise their brand.
Speaker 1: Guys like Charlie Kirk, Diamond and Silk Michelle Malkin. Those
Speaker 1: are the people there, and they are selling books off
Speaker 1: in at Seapack. They're trying to get subscriptions to their organizations,
Speaker 1: and so you know, it's no longer any pretense of
Speaker 1: discussing intellectual philosophy about conservative movements. It's now about really
Speaker 1: raising a brand, owning the libs and selling your books
Speaker 1: to these people. Hey, guys like Dan Bondino, I mean
Speaker 1: that is absolute bullcrap, but of course it's it's CNN
Speaker 1: talking about Sepack. It is absolute garbage. Now, are there
Speaker 1: some red meat fire up the base speeches that happened
Speaker 1: in Seapack on the main stage. Of course there are,
Speaker 1: but there should be. There are very few events that
Speaker 1: occur in the United States where you show up and
Speaker 1: conservative media is well represented, never mind the dominant force.
Speaker 1: And you know, this was the first time I had
Speaker 1: participated in Spack as a speaker. It's the first time
Speaker 1: I'd really ever been to Seapack in its modern narration.
Speaker 1: I haven't been in ten years. I just popped into
Speaker 1: hear Rush Limbaugh speak back in two thousand and seven.
Speaker 1: But this idea that there was no intellectual discourse at seatback.
Speaker 1: And first of all, whether you agree with with me
Speaker 1: or you agree with Mark Tison on our Syria exchange,
Speaker 1: I represent the get out of Syria point of view
Speaker 1: with as much background and knowledge as as anybody on
Speaker 1: that issue. Not to sound a little bit pompous, but
Speaker 1: it's true, at least in the media. In the media,
Speaker 1: I'm not there's a difference between people who are working
Speaker 1: the issue in the government side still but from the
Speaker 1: media perspective. And Mark Tison represents the neocon point of
Speaker 1: view as well as anybody. And we really got into it,
Speaker 1: and you know he is I disagree with them, but
Speaker 1: he's very well read and he's he's eloquent from his
Speaker 1: point of view and is certainly not lacking in knowledge
Speaker 1: on the subject matter. Neither am I. And yes, that
Speaker 1: was just one, but I also did a breakout panel
Speaker 1: with Bill Gertz of the Free Beacon and a congressman
Speaker 1: from actually from four Wayne. The congressman's from four Wayne, Indiana.
Speaker 1: WHOA WHOA in the House? That's right. If you're listening
Speaker 1: on WHOA Whoa better come to talk tank who WO listeners.
Speaker 1: It's in April, middle of April. Check it out. Go
Speaker 1: to your who WOA website. Tommy larn and Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: We're gonna bring down the house. It's gonna be amazing.
Speaker 1: But that discussion that I had with them in this
Speaker 1: in the side panel, where were there about one hundred
Speaker 1: people or so, maybe seventy five people in the room,
Speaker 1: we really got in depth on cyber war and critical
Speaker 1: infrastructure and these are people that understand the threat of
Speaker 1: cyber espionage. And I mean it was a very high
Speaker 1: level discussion. Gordon Chang did a speech that was not
Speaker 1: even standing room only. People were sitting on the floor
Speaker 1: and standing to hear about how we're doing with China trade.
Speaker 1: And I mean, so so this this idea that Seapack
Speaker 1: it's just all buffoons and owned the Libs that you know,
Speaker 1: this is the caricature, But really Seepack also fills this
Speaker 1: very interesting position in our media culture because for a
Speaker 1: lot of DC journos, it's almost like a trip to
Speaker 1: the zoo to go to Sepack. They see all these
Speaker 1: different people that are their conservative counterparts, and they don't
Speaker 1: socially interact with them very much. They don't work at
Speaker 1: outlets where they spend time around conservatives, and you know,
Speaker 1: they won't go on Fox News, they won't talk to
Speaker 1: people who work in talk radio like I do. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just the reality of it. You know, I live
Speaker 1: here in DC and I have constant interaction with people
Speaker 1: from obviously the Hill where I work, but from the
Speaker 1: Washington Examine or the Daily Call or the Free Beacon,
Speaker 1: Fox News. You're gonna go on the list. I never
Speaker 1: see any CNN people. I never see them professional and
Speaker 1: never see them socially because they won't they won't be
Speaker 1: around our ilk. They don't consider people and this is
Speaker 1: the dirty secret of the media. They don't consider conservatives
Speaker 1: to really be colleagues. They think that conservatives at best,
Speaker 1: at best are some kind of you know exhibit. Like
Speaker 1: I said, it's almost like conservatives were like the menagerie.
Speaker 1: You know, Oh, we have got a couple of conservatives here.
Speaker 1: Look at the conservatives. Look at the way they eat,
Speaker 1: Look at the way they interact with each other. You know,
Speaker 1: we're a spectacle, an oddity. They think that what they
Speaker 1: do is media, what we do is conservative media. They
Speaker 1: don't understand that they just represent a lib coastal smug
Speaker 1: elite point of view, and we represent the other half
Speaker 1: of the country that's a little known group called the
Speaker 1: other half of America, and share a point of view
Speaker 1: that maybe they should learn something about. But this also
Speaker 1: brings me to how, you know, liberals don't understand what
Speaker 1: conservatives think or how they think. They really don't. I
Speaker 1: know what liberals think. I can make their arguments for them.
Speaker 1: I understand very well what they really believe. And I
Speaker 1: can't tell you how many liberals I come across who
Speaker 1: when whenever, whenever it comes to conservative points of view,
Speaker 1: they really fall on this. Oh it's all performance theater.
Speaker 1: Oh it's all it's all a con. These people don't
Speaker 1: really Conservatives don't really believe this stuff. And I sit
Speaker 1: around and say, I socialize with I spend time with
Speaker 1: lots of conservatives in media, many of whom you hear
Speaker 1: on this show. We really believe this stuff. We go out,
Speaker 1: we drink, we eat, we hang out together, and we
Speaker 1: still talk about this stuff and we really believe it.
Speaker 1: It's not a con it's not a grift. But I
Speaker 1: guess that's really from the from the left wing perspective,
Speaker 1: they would prefer, they would prefer the possibility of us
Speaker 1: just being frauds instead of having to engage with our ideas.
Speaker 1: And also they like that they get to slander us
Speaker 1: as frauds without having to provide any evidence or support
Speaker 1: for that. And then there's just one more thing. And
Speaker 1: I went to a couple of parties at Spack where
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of prominent conservatives were there,
Speaker 1: and you know, I was talking to former spec ops
Speaker 1: guys that have started that have started their own media
Speaker 1: company and I'm hoping to do their show soon, and
Speaker 1: they had just we had such a fun time, so
Speaker 1: many good people at Speck. But there were these little
Speaker 1: smug lib reporters kind of skulking about. And I don't
Speaker 1: mean it's one thing to skulk about in the you know,
Speaker 1: in the back of the main stage room, because you
Speaker 1: know they're pressed. They're they're covering the event, and we
Speaker 1: want them to cover the event. And yes, there's gonna
Speaker 1: be stuff like the Bullwork, which is a crap publication
Speaker 1: that's just a bunch of bitter people that aren't relevant anymore.
Speaker 1: Hiring an anti abortion communist to cover people at spack
Speaker 1: for a supposedly conservative magazine. That actually happened, But you
Speaker 1: know what I saw happening, And this is just tells
Speaker 1: you who these people are on the left. Yeah, these
Speaker 1: reporters that were going to social events and you could
Speaker 1: tell they're you know, people are drinking and they're talking,
Speaker 1: and they're just looking for a conservative doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be a public figure to say something that they can
Speaker 1: vote out of context, to trash seapack. That's what they're
Speaker 1: there for. They're there not to cover it as journalists,
Speaker 1: but to do opo research. And that's why why this
Speaker 1: discussion it's bad, bad Stelter that maybe they are just cants.
Speaker 1: Maybe that was making that Stelter, you only have your
Speaker 1: job because you're a lib suck up who looks like
Speaker 1: the guy who runs CNN. So there's that we reject
Speaker 1: oppressive speech, coats, censorship, political correctness, and every other attempt
Speaker 1: by the hard left to stop people from challenging ridiculous
Speaker 1: and dangerous ideas. Instead, we believe in free speech. Many
Speaker 1: emergency declarations have been used to protect people in far
Speaker 1: away nations. Now we are protecting fine, our people. You,
Speaker 1: our people. So Trump is pro free speech, which liberals
Speaker 1: increasingly can't say that they are the most interesting takeaway
Speaker 1: from his Seapack speech when I was there at all
Speaker 1: the seapack well, actually I cannot tell why I was
Speaker 1: at home during trump Seapack speech. I was watching it.
Speaker 1: I did watch it, but I had had a late
Speaker 1: night the night before at Seepack, and so I decided
Speaker 1: to get some sleep and rest up. Because the Secret
Speaker 1: Service requirements with it, you had to be there very
Speaker 1: early in order to get close to the Trumpster when
Speaker 1: he's doing the speech. So he said that he's thinking
Speaker 1: about pulling federal funding for universities that will not commit
Speaker 1: to free speech. And what I think is so funny
Speaker 1: is that automatically liberals hear this and they go, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, how will you have universities be speech police,
Speaker 1: and I have to laugh and say, Okay, first of all,
Speaker 1: they already do do that. They just do it in
Speaker 1: favor of libs. They just do it to the benefit
Speaker 1: of the left. But they're already policing speech. So all
Speaker 1: that we're trying to do is say, can you police
Speaker 1: speech to make sure that it is free? Essentially, don't
Speaker 1: police it? How about that you are policing it now
Speaker 1: in favor of the left. How about you just don't
Speaker 1: do that thing? As liberals are all, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: what will we ever do? How will the universities know
Speaker 1: what free They think about this? The left takes the
Speaker 1: position that it's hard for the universities for colleges to
Speaker 1: know what free speeches. If colleges can't figure out what
Speaker 1: free speeches, then I think we really need to rethink
Speaker 1: what's going on in colleges as a very a very
Speaker 1: general and sweeping way, like what would you say you
Speaker 1: do here colleges. I think it's a very very important
Speaker 1: idea for Trump to push out there, and to keep
Speaker 1: in mind that, you know, Obama and his administration really
Speaker 1: one of the most just despicable things that they did,
Speaker 1: or at least we're thinking about doing. They at one
Speaker 1: point threatened to pull federal funding for schools. That's right,
Speaker 1: Department of Education funding for schools that if a state
Speaker 1: would not enact their insane transgender policy of twelve year olds,
Speaker 1: you know, showering with twelve year old twelve year old
Speaker 1: boys showering at twelve year old girls because they feel
Speaker 1: like a girl. That's what the Obama administration. Yeah, this
Speaker 1: was a real thing. The threatened to pull federal funding.
Speaker 1: So I think pulling federal funding for schools that refused
Speaker 1: to be free speech supportive, I'm fine with that. I
Speaker 1: don't see what the problem is. And people say, oh,
Speaker 1: they can't implement this, I just I point out, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second. What about Title nine? Why why
Speaker 1: is it that wrestling and lacrosse and other programs at
Speaker 1: school's crew men's crew, which I did in college, they've
Speaker 1: been decimated across the country. Why is that? Oh, because
Speaker 1: you need parity for men's and women's sports, even though
Speaker 1: men generally care more about playing sports at a college
Speaker 1: level than women do. Don't tell anybody. Look, you can
Speaker 1: yell at me by the percentages, it's i't People get
Speaker 1: mad when I said by the percentage is it's just true.
Speaker 1: It's just true. Doesn't mean you shouldn't have women's sports.
Speaker 1: But interest from men in playing college sports is higher
Speaker 1: than interest in women. It's just a fact. But you
Speaker 1: have to have parody in the fun day anyway. Schools
Speaker 1: enforce all kinds of Title nine, including the kangaroo courts
Speaker 1: over sexual assault where the accused has no rights. The
Speaker 1: federal government uses Title nine and the removal of funding
Speaker 1: under Tunnel nine as the way to, you know, implement
Speaker 1: all that. So trust me, if they want to, if
Speaker 1: they decide that they want to get compliance here on
Speaker 1: that free speech is important, they can get it. There's
Speaker 1: no problem. There's no shortage or ways they can make
Speaker 1: this happen. So don't believe a laugh when they're, uh, gosh,
Speaker 1: how can they have the free speech? I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's really not that hard. And if universities camp be
Speaker 1: beacons or free speech, well where can we have that?
Speaker 1: But as we know, this is what was it in June.
Speaker 1: When I am When I am weak, I played by
Speaker 1: your rules because it favors because it favors me. When
Speaker 1: I'm strong, I played by my rules because it favors me.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's that's essentially the left on college campuses.
Speaker 1: I've got that quote. You know that was a paraphrase,
Speaker 1: but you know it's a good quote. It's from Dune.
Speaker 1: There's a book I should probably read at some point. Hey,
Speaker 1: Team Buck, it's time for roll call. I just want
Speaker 1: to say it thank you to all members of Team
Speaker 1: Buck who came out to see pack and said hello.
Speaker 1: We got to chat, take photos. A couple of people
Speaker 1: had me signed things, which was which was fun. So
Speaker 1: thank you so much for making that happen. Good to
Speaker 1: see all of you, and I hope you enjoyed my
Speaker 1: debate with a very hardcore neo con We definitely got
Speaker 1: into it over what should be done on the question
Speaker 1: of Syria. So if you got a chance to see that,
Speaker 1: I think you saw. I wish we had about another
Speaker 1: twenty minutes, but we made the best use of our
Speaker 1: time on the maid main stage that I think we
Speaker 1: could have under the circumstances. So let's get to it.
Speaker 1: We have first up here Harry who writes, oh this
Speaker 1: is Facebook dot com slash buck sex and if you
Speaker 1: want to be a part of this parte Hi Buck.
Speaker 1: I read Mary Hudson's essay on Teaching in New York.
Speaker 1: I never found it on your Facebook page, by the way,
Speaker 1: But then again, I'm a ludd Eye. No, Harry, I'm
Speaker 1: a luddite because I forgot to put on the Facebook page.
Speaker 1: That's my bad. The last two paragraphs sum it up perfectly.
Speaker 1: If lower or no standards are set, they will be met.
Speaker 1: My generation may have been one of the last ones
Speaker 1: to get a genuinely good general education before racial integration,
Speaker 1: which I'm not saying necessarily a bad thing unless coupled
Speaker 1: with lowered expectations across the board. That seems to have happened,
Speaker 1: and all the leftist nonsense took hold. Even my sister
Speaker 1: tears behind me had an inferior schooling. I believe we
Speaker 1: had a couple of young friends mid twenties that seemed
Speaker 1: to know very little. I fear the leftists have won
Speaker 1: by producing a population of functional illiterates, incapable of critical
Speaker 1: thought shield tie Harry, Harry, I don't know. Is that
Speaker 1: all a quote from her article? I can't tell if
Speaker 1: what's yours and what's from that Mary Hudson essay on
Speaker 1: Teaching in New York. By the way, I would just
Speaker 1: say that the article's really good and I should. John
Speaker 1: will remind me to put it up now. I invited
Speaker 1: her on the show and she didn't come on the show,
Speaker 1: And as producer Mike pointed out, it's probably because she's
Speaker 1: a liberal, because she has a PhD in French literature,
Speaker 1: which just doesn't sound like a very conservative resume to me.
Speaker 1: So not that you can't be a conservative and have
Speaker 1: a PhD in French literature, but it's unlikely, I think.
Speaker 1: But she just had out enough with the school system
Speaker 1: and with the most fascinating part of that essay is
Speaker 1: the attitude, the attitude that these kids in a high
Speaker 1: school level are owed something and even though they don't
Speaker 1: do their homework, they don't do any work, they don't
Speaker 1: have any respect, they don't have any discipline. They're all
Speaker 1: going to get to go to four year colleges. It's
Speaker 1: not how it works. And by the way, even if
Speaker 1: they could theoretically go as in the funds were made
Speaker 1: available to them, that may not be a good idea.
Speaker 1: So it's a very good essay and I will try
Speaker 1: to remember to share it. Garrett right, It's been a
Speaker 1: podcast listened for nearly four years. And share a show
Speaker 1: as much as I can. Thank you so much for
Speaker 1: taking a stand about the evils of abortion. My question
Speaker 1: is what does the two thousand and two Born Alive
Speaker 1: Infant Protection Act not accomplish that necessitated the bill blocked
Speaker 1: by Democrats last week? Love the Show, Garrett. Garrett a
Speaker 1: very good question, and I'm not sure I have the
Speaker 1: one correct answer on it, So I would just say
Speaker 1: that before I tell you that I think that this
Speaker 1: bill added criminal penalties for the doctor for not for
Speaker 1: not taking action to save the bait or to give
Speaker 1: the baby medical care. But it's a fair point. I
Speaker 1: would need to compare the two bills. I would need
Speaker 1: to compare them and see what's in them. Man, I
Speaker 1: have not done that. Michael rides Heyblock. I was watching
Speaker 1: Fox News today. They were saying how legalizing marijuana and
Speaker 1: prostitution is a bad idea. However, the drug war is
Speaker 1: the worst idea as a country we've ever had, and
Speaker 1: laws against prostitution don't stop. They just make things worse.
Speaker 1: Now I'm going to run out and vote for those
Speaker 1: crazy Democrats because of this, but I just might stay home.
Speaker 1: I think continue to advocate for the criminalization of victim's
Speaker 1: crimes a bad idea for Republicans. What do you think
Speaker 1: shields High? You know, Michael, I think that legalizing marijuana
Speaker 1: is probably the lesser of two evils. I think that
Speaker 1: legalizing marijuana is probably the way to go. I certainly
Speaker 1: don't think that people should spend any time in prison
Speaker 1: or have their lives ruined for personal use of marijuana.
Speaker 1: I mean, I feel very strongly about that. And as
Speaker 1: to prostitution, you know, it's a very it's a very
Speaker 1: sad thing that anybody would be in that position. And
Speaker 1: the line, as we've seen from some news reports recently,
Speaker 1: between prostitution and human trafficking, right, somebody who's essentially forced
Speaker 1: into prostitution can be a pretty thin one. I think
Speaker 1: that as a moral society, it's very hard to have
Speaker 1: prostitution be legal. I really do. And this is look,
Speaker 1: this is this is core libertarian debate stuff, and libertarians
Speaker 1: are obviously very into pushing to decriminalize victimless crimes. I
Speaker 1: would just say that marijuana is not a dangerous enough
Speaker 1: substance to be treated as a Schedule one drug. That's
Speaker 1: just that's just anti science. I don't know how else
Speaker 1: to put it. You know, alcohol is I think an
Speaker 1: obviously more dangerous substance in large quantities than marijuana is.
Speaker 1: Um so the science I think, and among other things,
Speaker 1: as legalizing marijuana is gonna do. But you know, prostitution,
Speaker 1: I just can't. I know, people do it. I know
Speaker 1: they say, oh, it's the oldest profession and all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and you know what's the line between some of these
Speaker 1: They have all these websites now where you you have,
Speaker 1: you know, an arrangement or the the they call it,
Speaker 1: like the girlfriend experience or any things where someone you're
Speaker 1: not explicitly exchanging money for sex, but the person expects
Speaker 1: to be. You know, you're a sugar daddy, right, you're
Speaker 1: signing up to so you're going to take care of them,
Speaker 1: and that means paying their bills and giving them money
Speaker 1: for things. And obviously the implication is that there will
Speaker 1: be a physical relationship. You know that is that illegal?
Speaker 1: You know? I don't think so, but you start to
Speaker 1: see it gets a little gray. But now I've been
Speaker 1: talking about prostitution way longer than I intended. Er in rights, Hey,
Speaker 1: a quick question for you. I'm working a little project.
Speaker 1: I'm wondered how you would define conservatism. Thanks well, Conservatism
Speaker 1: is the act of conserving, and in this case, I
Speaker 1: think it would be using history to conserve the wisdom
Speaker 1: that we have learned in the past of limited government, constitutionalism,
Speaker 1: natural law. And yeah, that's a pretty good that's a
Speaker 1: pretty good off the cuff definition of conservatism. Seth rights
Speaker 1: Ben Wine Garden Kickbot on Friday. Well, set that makes
Speaker 1: me happy to hear. Ben is an old friend and
Speaker 1: a very very smart and a good guy, and I
Speaker 1: do get a lot of positive feedback about him on
Speaker 1: the show. And like I always say, I want the
Speaker 1: best guest host possible because I want you to listen
Speaker 1: every night. I don't ever want there to be a night,
Speaker 1: whether you're listening live or listening on the podcast where
Speaker 1: you say, ah, you know, I'm not gonna tune anything
Speaker 1: because Buck's not there and so and so. No, No,
Speaker 1: I want you to listen every night. So that means,
Speaker 1: like I get the best guest host that I can. Wayne, Wayne,
Speaker 1: I'm on, I can't remember the words that song I
Speaker 1: was gonna go into the Hey, Wayne, isn't that is
Speaker 1: that Nirvana? John? I know I'm singing that's Nirvana? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 1: And isn't that it's Wayne right. This isn't one of
Speaker 1: the things where I have the lyrics wrong, is it
Speaker 1: that would be? Is it really I'm wrong? I thought
Speaker 1: it's yelling Wayne? Do I Did I just do that
Speaker 1: on air? Did I just get the lyrics wrong? Go
Speaker 1: a Nirvana song? You know what I'm talking about? All right?
Speaker 1: Whatever I like, I'm gonna tell you something. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get a lot of heat for this one. Maybe. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't know if anyone who cares anymore.
Speaker 1: I just think Nirvana is overrated. I just think Nirvana
Speaker 1: is not that great. You know, people get so excited
Speaker 1: the nineties about Nirvana, and I think kind of sounds
Speaker 1: like a lot of other bands and the music is yeah,
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't really like that drop. So
Speaker 1: we're gonna we're gonna have to get that one. That
Speaker 1: was producer Mike put that one in, and it's not
Speaker 1: it's not for me. But see, I'm obviously in a
Speaker 1: curmudgeonly mood right now. So there's that. Katherine with a
Speaker 1: why this is meant for roll call? Great show? Buck.
Speaker 1: My question for you is have you read the book
Speaker 1: The Human Factor by Ishmael Jones. It is written by
Speaker 1: a former CIA officer who says the agency has bloated
Speaker 1: and bureaucratically corrupt. You agree with his conclusions. Also, have
Speaker 1: you read The Fate of Nations by Sir John Glub
Speaker 1: Thanks for your response, Catherine. I have read The Human
Speaker 1: Factor by Ishmael Jones. He is right on some of
Speaker 1: his broad conclusions about the agency being bloated and bureaucratic.
Speaker 1: That is true. The book itself is very boring, so
Speaker 1: I didn't I can't say that it's something I would recommend,
Speaker 1: but as somebody who was in the agency, yes, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of a lot of bloat, a lot of waste,
Speaker 1: a lot of sloth and bureaucratic nonsense. And there's really
Speaker 1: no question about that. Oh and the other one, the
Speaker 1: Fate of Nations, I have not read that. I'm almost
Speaker 1: done with the Last City of the Monkey God, which
Speaker 1: is kind of an adventure book. It's a true story.
Speaker 1: It's about finding the city in Honduras. In this area,
Speaker 1: Mosquitia of Honduras is very the kind of most unexplored
Speaker 1: part of Honduras. I wish I could tell you that
Speaker 1: I really liked it, but you know, it's a lot
Speaker 1: of like, oh, the dangerous snakes we gotta be you know,
Speaker 1: I feel like I'm reading a book that's kind of
Speaker 1: a bad version of The Crocodile Hunter, because yeah, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of dangerous snakes. Okay, but now you're just
Speaker 1: telling me more about Look, I haven't finished the books,
Speaker 1: so maybe it gets better. But there's a lot of like, yeah,
Speaker 1: and then we saw this really old stone that could
Speaker 1: have been an altar for religious stuff. Oh, tell me
Speaker 1: more about the old stone. It's not that awesome. It's
Speaker 1: not that awesome. Andrei's writes buck your seat pack debate
Speaker 1: was masterful on Syria. It was truly painful to hear.
Speaker 1: I was in the Pentagon when the planes hit on
Speaker 1: nine to eleven. Why do people do this? Do they
Speaker 1: think it adds to their credibility? You're a patient and
Speaker 1: thoughtful dude. I know it's rough. Keep spreading freedom of knowledge.
Speaker 1: It's not only your passion we appreciate, but a gift
Speaker 1: for us. All well, Andrea's man, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: And shields how to you? It is very very kind
Speaker 1: of you. And yeah, I think I think I was
Speaker 1: able to explain my position well at the debate. Oh
Speaker 1: we got another one in here, Philip rights Hey Buck
Speaker 1: Shields High outstanding performance at SEAPAC on the Syria topic.
Speaker 1: You smoke, Teason. You made the most poignant point on
Speaker 1: the number of deployments required to fight them wherever they are.
Speaker 1: Professional think tankers have run our form for far too long. Yeah, Phil,
Speaker 1: I think that they just also never learned the lesson,
Speaker 1: and that's frustrating because they don't really they don't really
Speaker 1: carry the burdens, and they just do not learn those lessons.
Speaker 1: So I gotta find the clip of that SPAC debate
Speaker 1: so I can post it on Facebook. I'll try to
Speaker 1: do that sometime this week. Thank you so much team
Speaker 1: as always for joining me here in the Freedom Hunt
Speaker 1: and honor and a privilege, indeed a pleasure as well.
Speaker 1: Every day this week coming to you live from DC
Speaker 1: from the Freedom Hunt. So I will talk to you tomorrow,
Speaker 1: same time, same place, Shields High. The only truly great, patriotic,
Speaker 1: amazing way to start your day is with a delicious
Speaker 1: cup of black Rifle coffee. It's what I do every day.
Speaker 1: I'm really into Silence or Smooth or Freedom Blend, but honestly,
Speaker 1: they've got so many delicious varieties of coffee. You just
Speaker 1: got to go and check them out yourself. I've got
Speaker 1: everybody at a Hill TV drinking this stuff. I got
Speaker 1: the guys in the Freedom Hunt in New York drinking
Speaker 1: Black Rifle. We all love it. It's delicious coffee, and
Speaker 1: it's a company founded by veterans that gives a lot
Speaker 1: back to the veteran first responder community. So while liberals
Speaker 1: are threatened to further tax you're a hard earned money
Speaker 1: with their nonsense green energy socialist crap. How about some
Speaker 1: Black Rifle coffee to fuel the fight for freedom. And
Speaker 1: by the way, Black Rifle is upping their offer to
Speaker 1: twenty percent off. Now, I mean this is a great deal. Folks.
Speaker 1: Take advantage by visiting Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: and receive twenty percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for twenty percent off again, Black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck