Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Well, it's almost the
Speaker 1: eleventh hour for funding the government, and it looks like
Speaker 1: the shutdown may happen. President Trump has rallied Republicans are
Speaker 1: now going on offense. Are we going to get the wall?
Speaker 1: Are we willing to fight for that? And more? Coming
Speaker 1: up on The buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again The buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: SETIA analysts. Remember then on June sixteenth, when I announced
Speaker 1: that I was running for president, and I came down
Speaker 1: the escalator and I brought up for the first time
Speaker 1: illegal immigration, and I said, we got to build a wall.
Speaker 1: And everybody said, Oh, that's crazy, that's crazy. We will
Speaker 1: build a wall, We will build a wall. Oh, we're
Speaker 1: gonna build a wall. All right. The wall is peanuts.
Speaker 1: It's peanuts compared to what we're talking about. Who's gonna
Speaker 1: pay for the wall? Mexico they'll pay it. We won't
Speaker 1: pay for the wall. And I want you to tell
Speaker 1: that to mister Trump. I said, yes, tell him that
Speaker 1: the wall just got ten feet taller. Okay, tell him,
Speaker 1: tell him. It's a vital tool. It's an important tool.
Speaker 1: It's maybe the most important tool that they can think of.
Speaker 1: We're gonna build the wall. We have no choice. Build
Speaker 1: that wall, build that wall, build that wall, build that wall,
Speaker 1: build that wall, build that wall, build that wall, build
Speaker 1: that wall. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. I just
Speaker 1: wanted us all to soak that all in for a
Speaker 1: moment here. Was there any ambiguity, was there any hesitation,
Speaker 1: any mealy mouth talking out of both sides of the mouth?
Speaker 1: Stuff from President Trump about the wall. No, build the
Speaker 1: wall at the rallies, build the wall. The promise that
Speaker 1: he made, the promise that elevated him ahead of a
Speaker 1: lot of other possible Republican contenders. It was immigration, not
Speaker 1: really trade, not really anything else, immigration that first catapulted
Speaker 1: Trump to the very top of the list of Republican candidates.
Speaker 1: It was immigration, willingness to discuss it honestly and openly
Speaker 1: without fear of political correctness and the backlash from It
Speaker 1: was immigration that brought so many people to come out
Speaker 1: and vote for Trump, despite the fact that he had
Speaker 1: no political background. That he has not by any means
Speaker 1: a policy wonk that he can be a bit. Course
Speaker 1: he is rough on the rough around the edges, and
Speaker 1: so on and so forth. The President made a promise,
Speaker 1: a promise that could not have been more clear, that
Speaker 1: he repeated more than probably any other line at his rallies,
Speaker 1: and darn it, this president today realize, whether he knew
Speaker 1: all long or not, I don't know, realize that he
Speaker 1: better keep that promise. And as of right now as
Speaker 1: I go on air, it looks like he will. Looks
Speaker 1: like he's going to try to do so. President spoke
Speaker 1: today about this and went on the record once again
Speaker 1: that they're better be funding for a border wall or else.
Speaker 1: This is not This continuing resolution to fund the government
Speaker 1: is not going to happen, and yes there will be
Speaker 1: a shutdown a play eighteen. I've made my position very clear.
Speaker 1: Any measure that funds the government must include border security.
Speaker 1: Has to not for political purposes, but for a country,
Speaker 1: for the safety of our community. This is not merely
Speaker 1: my campaign promise. This is the promise every lawmaker man.
Speaker 1: It is the solemn promise to protect and defend the
Speaker 1: United States of America, and it is our sacred obligation.
Speaker 1: We have no choice. We have no choice, the President says.
Speaker 1: You see, I take the President at his word. I
Speaker 1: believe that this is a man who understands that it's
Speaker 1: what you say and whether you follow through on that
Speaker 1: or not on the issues that matter, that determines who
Speaker 1: you are as a politician, who you are as a man. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he inflates things sometime. Sure, he's got quite an ego.
Speaker 1: All that stuff is true, You're not You're not unaware
Speaker 1: of that. Neither am I would I say the things
Speaker 1: that Trump says? Would I go about my personal life
Speaker 1: for the way Trump has? No? But this is about
Speaker 1: execution for the commander in chief, executing on the vision,
Speaker 1: executing on the agenda, the promises that he made, and
Speaker 1: a wall has to be a part of that. There's
Speaker 1: no way around it. And that's why I think does
Speaker 1: the willingness to fight here is going to speak volumes
Speaker 1: and make no mistake, twenty twenty hangs in the balance
Speaker 1: right now. What happens over the next few days will
Speaker 1: be something that we talk about for many months and
Speaker 1: even years to come. This is the moment. It's not
Speaker 1: going to get better when Nancy Pelosi Speaker the House.
Speaker 1: It's not going to get better. As Republicans have to
Speaker 1: face another election cycle. Now is the time have the debate,
Speaker 1: have the argument for the American people. And you know
Speaker 1: what A big part of that debate is walls work.
Speaker 1: I heard, you know earlier today. I keep hearing this
Speaker 1: along the walls don't work. And I want to say,
Speaker 1: how do they come to that conclusion? President Trump says,
Speaker 1: the walls workplace seventeen. I am asking Congress to defend
Speaker 1: the border of our nation for tiny fraction, tiny fraction
Speaker 1: of the cost. Essential to border security is a powerful
Speaker 1: physical barrier. Walls work, whether we like it or not.
Speaker 1: They work better than anything in Israel. Ninety nine point
Speaker 1: nine percent successful illegal immigration drives down wages for the
Speaker 1: neediest Americans. No one who calls themselves a progressive should
Speaker 1: support illegal immigration. Open voters hurts poor Americans more than
Speaker 1: anyone else in our society. In life, there are certain
Speaker 1: principles worth fighting for, Principles that are more important than politics, party,
Speaker 1: or personal convenience to safety and security and sovereignty of
Speaker 1: the United States is the most important principle of all. Safety, security,
Speaker 1: sovereignty of the people the United States. This is a
Speaker 1: core issue for this republic. This is central and essential.
Speaker 1: When I hear politicians, Democrats, leftists, and yes, some weak Republicans,
Speaker 1: when I hear them saying that we don't have five
Speaker 1: billion dollars to the wall, I want to ask, well,
Speaker 1: what do we have five billion dollars for? At this point?
Speaker 1: Let's look at the other things we're spending money on
Speaker 1: as a country. I mean, what has been the expansion
Speaker 1: in welfare programs since the Obama years to today? Where
Speaker 1: are we giving people money? You lose eighty billion dollars
Speaker 1: a year in Medicare fraud. Medicare and Medicaid fraud, they
Speaker 1: estimate eighty billion. We don't have five billion dollars to
Speaker 1: get a wall built. And this idea that the wall
Speaker 1: is going to be perfect is nonsense. If you have
Speaker 1: a lock on your door, you're not saying that somebody
Speaker 1: with a sledgehammer can't get through your front door. You're
Speaker 1: not saying it's going to keep out a squat team,
Speaker 1: and you're not even saying that the burglar can't find
Speaker 1: a way to maybe get through your window. Right. All
Speaker 1: you're saying is I'm gonna make it harder. I'm not
Speaker 1: going to allow somebody to just get into my home
Speaker 1: without effort, and therefore maybe give me some critical seconds
Speaker 1: if they try to break in my front door to
Speaker 1: get to a firearm, to call the police to take shelter.
Speaker 1: You know, that's why you have a lock. Now, a
Speaker 1: lock is not perfect. But if you didn't have a
Speaker 1: lock on your front door, I know some of you
Speaker 1: probably live in parts the country were like Buck, I
Speaker 1: don't need a lock. But for most of the rest
Speaker 1: of us, you probably have a lock on the door.
Speaker 1: And it's because it's a sound security measure. A wall
Speaker 1: in certain places is a sound security measure. It is
Speaker 1: helpful to the process of preventing people from entering the
Speaker 1: United States, including cartels and drug runners and you know
Speaker 1: cicarios hit men for the various cartels, including them, preventing
Speaker 1: them from coming into the country, as well as illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants who are violating our sovereignty and our laws. Because
Speaker 1: as Trump understands, and Democrats have abandoned this by the way,
Speaker 1: they used to pretend that they were serious about this.
Speaker 1: But you know, therefore, any border security measure, as long
Speaker 1: as it doesn't give us a secure border place sixteen.
Speaker 1: Every nation has not only the right but the absolute
Speaker 1: duty to protect its borders and its citizens. A nation
Speaker 1: without borders is a nation not at all. Without borders,
Speaker 1: we have the reign of chaos, crime, cartels, and believe
Speaker 1: it or not, coyotes. I will not surrender this nation
Speaker 1: to the whims of criminal organizations who pray on the vulnerable,
Speaker 1: who hurt women and children, and has spread human misery
Speaker 1: and suffering. There are very real costs to the continued
Speaker 1: lawlessness at our border, and the lawlessness and law breaking
Speaker 1: that is abetted by the Democrats in this country. In
Speaker 1: the interior of the US, the sanctuary city policies, the
Speaker 1: all these different legal activist groups running around suing everyone
Speaker 1: and anyone who tries to enforce immigration law, making sure
Speaker 1: that those who come to the country illegally have even
Speaker 1: more resources at their disposal to evade law enforcement. Enough
Speaker 1: is enough. No other country would be expected to accept this.
Speaker 1: Why should we? No other country says, yes, just show up,
Speaker 1: do what you want, don't worry about it. We owe
Speaker 1: it to you. We owe it to you. Why exactly
Speaker 1: we owe illegals what? The Democrats have embraced this as
Speaker 1: an all out struggle for power, so they don't care
Speaker 1: what the real consequences are to the country. They don't
Speaker 1: care about the long term implications other than this is votes,
Speaker 1: This is an ever enlarging government bureaucracy, and this is
Speaker 1: power power for the left, which is the one thing
Speaker 1: they are certain that they want always and at all times.
Speaker 1: So I'm pleased that the president right now, and this
Speaker 1: could change. You know, I'll be on air with you tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We'll have to see that. Tomorrow night is the deadline.
Speaker 1: This could change. I you know, yesterday you heard me
Speaker 1: on this show. I support the president. I was very
Speaker 1: unhappy with the stance that he was going to sign
Speaker 1: this continuing resolution. And the word got out. The word
Speaker 1: got out. You know, now people know Trump knows he heard,
Speaker 1: and I've been in communication with people that have said that.
Speaker 1: You know, the president is paying very close attention to
Speaker 1: certain voices on this one, and it did not go
Speaker 1: unnoticed that some of his strongest supporters, with the largest platforms,
Speaker 1: we're saying that this was an unacceptable sell out of
Speaker 1: the bass. I said it yesterday and Rising I said
Speaker 1: it yesterday on this show too. Selling out the base
Speaker 1: can't do it. Can't do it because I'm not here
Speaker 1: to support a person as some cult of personality. I'm
Speaker 1: here to talk about ideas and to talk about action
Speaker 1: that will make this a better country and will make
Speaker 1: people here safer, happier, and more prosperous. We're about results,
Speaker 1: trying to push for results, convincing people of how to
Speaker 1: get to them. And the result we were was a wall.
Speaker 1: We weren't promised a little bit of extra extra paint
Speaker 1: and you know, speckle and whatever else they gotta put
Speaker 1: on the old wall. A new wall, a new barrier,
Speaker 1: a new fence, secure the border. Look at the ramifications
Speaker 1: that will have for the rest of immigration policy. Look
Speaker 1: at how that will change many of the dynamics about
Speaker 1: interior enforcement and just restoring the rule of law in
Speaker 1: this country. I have some other breaking news that I
Speaker 1: have to share with you here, and that is it
Speaker 1: wasn't to know we're going to talk about this until
Speaker 1: we went on air. Secretary Defense Maddis has resigned. Not
Speaker 1: effective immediately. He's going to wait until a successful transition
Speaker 1: with a new Secretary Defense and the Joint Chiefs of
Speaker 1: Staff Chairman can come in. But Secretary of Defense Maddis
Speaker 1: is out. And it's not because he was tired of
Speaker 1: the long hours. I'll get into the details of that
Speaker 1: and more coming up. The President said, what the what
Speaker 1: the Senate sent over is just kicking the ball, just
Speaker 1: kicking a can down the road. We want to solve
Speaker 1: this problem. We want to make sure we keep the
Speaker 1: government open, and we're gonna work to have that done
Speaker 1: and get something happening. Everyone knows the old line fool
Speaker 1: me once, shame on you, fool me twice, shame on me.
Speaker 1: But we're gonna have to change that line. We're gonna
Speaker 1: need a new one. The new line should be fool
Speaker 1: the American people four times. Shame on Congress. Remember what
Speaker 1: we did March right the March big omnibus spending bill.
Speaker 1: We said, oh no, we're not gonna put the border
Speaker 1: wall funding on this bill because we're gonna do it
Speaker 1: in September. Then we get the September Wait, wait a minute,
Speaker 1: we're not gonna put it on this bill because we're
Speaker 1: gonna do it on December seventh, and then December sevenths.
Speaker 1: Come a wait a minute, we're not gonna put the
Speaker 1: We're not gon to keep our promise. We're not going
Speaker 1: to put the border funding wall money on that built.
Speaker 1: And what do we learn today. Now they're talking about
Speaker 1: kicking it to February eighth. You've got to be kidding me. Yep,
Speaker 1: he's right, he's right. How many times do they get
Speaker 1: to pull the same manuver? This is why I'm usually
Speaker 1: so cynical about the whole Oh, we'll fight the next time.
Speaker 1: Talk you know, it's always we'll fight the next time.
Speaker 1: What about this time? What about getting the wall? Now?
Speaker 1: We have the Secure Offence Act passing two thousand and six,
Speaker 1: bipartisan bill. We used to agree that stopping illegal immigration
Speaker 1: was good, but Democrats see the writing on the wall.
Speaker 1: They realize over the long term, illegal immigration benefits them,
Speaker 1: benefits their base, their party, their power. They don't want
Speaker 1: this to stop, so we have there's no common ground
Speaker 1: to be reached with the left on the issue of
Speaker 1: border security. They are not in favor of it. In fact,
Speaker 1: if anything, the only the only reason they want anyone
Speaker 1: to stop and check in is so they can eventually
Speaker 1: register for their state benefits i e. Welfare programs. Democrats
Speaker 1: are all in favor of it, right, taking from you,
Speaker 1: taking from the taxpayers, giving to people that just God
Speaker 1: here we are supposed to be. It seems according to
Speaker 1: the left the world's soup kitchen, and unfortunately, over time
Speaker 1: that has real costs and real consequences to our political
Speaker 1: cohesion and to the sense that a lot of people
Speaker 1: have at the government is just constantly being dishonest with them.
Speaker 1: You know, it isn't an amazing we have on the
Speaker 1: one hand, all these people who are just so rule
Speaker 1: of law when it comes to the Logan Act, when
Speaker 1: it comes to the Emolument's clause, when it comes to
Speaker 1: Federal Election Commission regulation and disclosure requirements, ooh, you know,
Speaker 1: they're really really up on all of that, you know,
Speaker 1: the Hatch Act, the Logan Act. You know, they talk
Speaker 1: about all these things that they they're strict when when
Speaker 1: that benefits something they want. But on immigration, which also
Speaker 1: includes I would note a lot of document fraud, a
Speaker 1: lot of tax fraud, a lot of you know, just
Speaker 1: go down the list. No, when with illegal immigration, the
Speaker 1: law doesn't matter anymore, The law doesn't really count. There's
Speaker 1: really two sets of laws for citizens and non citizens.
Speaker 1: And it's an unacceptable state of affairs, and it's not
Speaker 1: going to get any better. In fact, it's only going
Speaker 1: to get worse. The time to deal with this problem
Speaker 1: is now I'm glad that Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows
Speaker 1: and a few others understand it. And thankfully the president. Look,
Speaker 1: I get it. He wants he wants to go on
Speaker 1: Christmas break. He wants me to his family. The guy's
Speaker 1: got a lot, got a lot on his shoulders. But
Speaker 1: now is the time. Vescholi is also getting in on
Speaker 1: the action. You're playing nineteen. We're gonna move today to
Speaker 1: add language to the bill that the Senate sent over
Speaker 1: on government funding to add five billion dollars to the wall,
Speaker 1: as well as the disaster relief funding that's been agreed
Speaker 1: upon by both the House and Senate for the hurricanes
Speaker 1: and the wildfires. So we'll move that later on today.
Speaker 1: This is about secure in America's border. Let's see if
Speaker 1: we can do it. We're about to enter a fight here,
Speaker 1: and we voted for Trump because he's a fighter. I
Speaker 1: expect him to roll up the sleeves and throw down
Speaker 1: on this one. He promised a wall. I want that wall,
Speaker 1: and I'm not going to forget it one way or
Speaker 1: the other. Let's talk about General Maddis resigning. When we
Speaker 1: come back from the spring, General Maddis has resigned. This
Speaker 1: is a surprise. Obviously, this was not anticipated, and this
Speaker 1: comes at a time when there's already a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of concern over the president's decision to remove
Speaker 1: troops from Syria, which i'll talk to you about in
Speaker 1: some detail in the next hour, as well as the
Speaker 1: possibility of removing troops from other theaters of war. General
Speaker 1: Maddis has decided that he's not going to be part
Speaker 1: of this. He's actually written a resignation letter, and I'll
Speaker 1: give you some of the most important parts of that
Speaker 1: in a moment. But this administration has, let's be honest,
Speaker 1: had a number of very prominent individuals who, well they
Speaker 1: are very people in very prominent roles who were not
Speaker 1: up to the task. There are some people who lasted
Speaker 1: a matter of days in very senior executive branch positions.
Speaker 1: There has been turnover is always high in the White House,
Speaker 1: but this White House is exceptionally high when it comes
Speaker 1: to turnover. Again. President Trump has always said that he
Speaker 1: is non traditional, that he is going to have to
Speaker 1: break some things in the establishment. It's going to be difficult,
Speaker 1: that's going to be messy. So I think we should
Speaker 1: give him some leeway for that. And I'm certainly willing
Speaker 1: to do that. But there have only been a few
Speaker 1: people in the administration who I think could be said
Speaker 1: to receive universal respect. Doesn't mean everyone likes them or
Speaker 1: agrees with them, but you know, near universal respect perhaps,
Speaker 1: but broadly generally speaking individuals who are impeccable in their
Speaker 1: credentials and are men or women of real skill, integrity, honor,
Speaker 1: and who are true public servants. And I think Mattis
Speaker 1: very much falls in that category. I knew of Mattis
Speaker 1: from when he was commanding in the Iraq Theater of Operations,
Speaker 1: and you know, the stories about him were things that
Speaker 1: people would tell each other, and they were always said
Speaker 1: with a certain pride. You know that the stories about
Speaker 1: about General Maddis, and some of you probably know the
Speaker 1: one where he's he sat down with some you know,
Speaker 1: tribal elders. I think it was in Iraq and he said,
Speaker 1: you know, I didn't bring And whether this is an
Speaker 1: apocryphal quote or not, I don't know. I mean this
Speaker 1: as people say. You know, Maddis said, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: basically I did not bring my artillery. I did not
Speaker 1: come here for war, you know, And I'm begging you
Speaker 1: with tears in my eyes. Do not mess with me,
Speaker 1: because I will take any of you out if you do.
Speaker 1: You know, I mean, he was that was more or
Speaker 1: less the story. You know. The General Maddis was like,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm a man who wants peace and stability, but
Speaker 1: if you mess with me, things will get really ugly,
Speaker 1: really fast. People call them mad dog Maddis. Obviously he's
Speaker 1: got all these different nicknames, and he's going to be
Speaker 1: leaving the administration. Let me read to you from some
Speaker 1: of his resignation letter here. Dear mister President, I have
Speaker 1: been privileged to serve as our country's twenty six Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense, which has allowed me to serve alongside our
Speaker 1: men and women of the Department in defense of our
Speaker 1: citizens and our ideals. I am proud of the progress
Speaker 1: that has been made over the last two years on
Speaker 1: some of the key goals articulated in our National Defense Strategy,
Speaker 1: putting the Department on a more sound budgetary footing, improving
Speaker 1: readiness and lethality in our forces, and reforming the Department's
Speaker 1: business practices for greater performance. Our troops continue to provide
Speaker 1: the capabilities needed to prevail in conflict and sustain strong
Speaker 1: US global influence. I believe we must be resolute and
Speaker 1: unambiguous in our approach to countries whose strategic interests are
Speaker 1: increasingly intentioned with ours. It is clear that China and Russia,
Speaker 1: for example, want to shape a world consistent with their
Speaker 1: authoritarian model, gaining veto over other nations economic, diplomatic, and
Speaker 1: security decisions to promote their own interests at the expense
Speaker 1: of their neighbors, America and our allies. That is why
Speaker 1: I mean we must use all the tools of American
Speaker 1: power to provide for the common defense. My views on
Speaker 1: treating allies with respect and also being clear eyed about
Speaker 1: both malign actors and strategic competitors are strongly held and
Speaker 1: informed by over four decades of immersion in these issues.
Speaker 1: We must do everything possible to advance an international order
Speaker 1: that is most conducive to our security, prosperity, and values.
Speaker 1: And we are strengthened in this effort by the solidarity
Speaker 1: of our alliances. Because you have the right to a
Speaker 1: Secretary of Defense whose views are better aligned with yours
Speaker 1: on these and other subjects, I believe it is right
Speaker 1: for me to step down from my position. The end
Speaker 1: date for my tenure is February twenty eight, twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: a date that should allow us, if time, for a
Speaker 1: successor to be nominated and confirmed, as well as to
Speaker 1: make sure the Department's interests are properly articulated and protected
Speaker 1: at upcoming events, to include Congressional posture hearings and the
Speaker 1: NATO Defense Ministerial Meeting in February. Further, that a full
Speaker 1: transition to a new Secretary of Defense occurs well in
Speaker 1: advance of the transition of Chairman of the Joint Chiefs
Speaker 1: of Staff in September, to ensure stability within the Department.
Speaker 1: I pledge my full effort to a smooth transition that
Speaker 1: ensures the needs and interests of two point one five
Speaker 1: million service members and seven hundred thirty two and seventy
Speaker 1: nine Department of Defense civilians, so that they receive undistracted
Speaker 1: attention to the Department at all times, so that they
Speaker 1: can fulfill their critical round the clock mission to protect
Speaker 1: the American people. I very much appreciate this opportunity to
Speaker 1: serve the nation and our men and women in uniform,
Speaker 1: Signed General John Mattis. James Mattis, sorry, said John my
Speaker 1: bed Uh. This is a This is not a departure
Speaker 1: that I think anybody's going to think is a good idea. Well,
Speaker 1: maybe some people will. Mattis was one of those figures
Speaker 1: in the administration that people look to and said, there's
Speaker 1: a steady hand there and somebody who really knows the job. Now,
Speaker 1: there are two point one five million service members. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of people out there with military skills
Speaker 1: and experience in this country and strategic wisdom knowledge that
Speaker 1: would be fantastic secretaries of Defense, no question about it.
Speaker 1: And I have a lot of faith at President Trump
Speaker 1: for this role in particular, will be sure to find
Speaker 1: someone who is an excellent pick. But this does come
Speaker 1: at a time when the opponents of this administration are
Speaker 1: going to pounce on this and say, see, even Maddis
Speaker 1: wasn't willing to stick it out. Even Maddis had had enough,
Speaker 1: and that will cause some damage to the administration. It's
Speaker 1: going to be something that I don't think stretches on
Speaker 1: for that long. But given the political sensitivity of the
Speaker 1: moment right now, with a shut down the wall and
Speaker 1: the Muller investigation grinding on, this is not a particularly
Speaker 1: helpful story for the administration. That said, I do have
Speaker 1: to just note as an aside that to do this,
Speaker 1: to decide that you can no longer in good you know,
Speaker 1: in good faith, align yourself at the policy of the president,
Speaker 1: and to say I'm just going to step down, mister President,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for the honor opportunity, and I'm
Speaker 1: going to make sure this is a smooth transition. To
Speaker 1: resign in this way is the honorable thing to do.
Speaker 1: And I can't remember the last time a cabinet level
Speaker 1: official did this. I can't remember, maybe with a with
Speaker 1: a scandal, but just to offer a resignation in this
Speaker 1: way because they disagree with the policy administration. So you know,
Speaker 1: Maddis is a man of honor and this was the
Speaker 1: honorable thing he felt for him to do in the circumstances.
Speaker 1: Where does this go next, We'll have to see. But
Speaker 1: now the Syria decision has even more pressure on it.
Speaker 1: I'll go into detail about the pluses and minuses of
Speaker 1: pulling troops out of Syria in the next hour. Be
Speaker 1: right back as Republican from the suburbs. It would definitely
Speaker 1: hurt the Republican Party politically. We would be blamed for this,
Speaker 1: maybe not in the States that the freedom Carkers represents.
Speaker 1: But I can tell you in the states where the
Speaker 1: suburban areas, this is a bad issue out of the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty elections. They should keep that in mind. You
Speaker 1: got Congressman King there saying, oh, no Republicans get blamed
Speaker 1: for the show down? Well is that true? And also
Speaker 1: how much should we care? What are the politics at
Speaker 1: play here? We got an expert joining us, Harlan Hill.
Speaker 1: He's a political consultant. You also see him frequently on
Speaker 1: Fox News and he will be guest hosting this show
Speaker 1: next week, the one and only Harlan Hill. Good to
Speaker 1: have you on, sir, Great to be with you. Buck.
Speaker 1: What do you make of this? Man? I mean, here
Speaker 1: we are, you know, looks like we're actually we were
Speaker 1: heading into a shotdown, then we weren't. Now we are again.
Speaker 1: Is this the right move? Where's the GOP on this?
Speaker 1: I mean, just break it down? Yeah. So look, it's
Speaker 1: so simple. I mean, for two years, we've had the House,
Speaker 1: we had the Senate, and then we've had a president
Speaker 1: that was ready and willing to sign any funding for
Speaker 1: the wall, for any border security that Republicans would send
Speaker 1: his way. And for two years, modern Republicans have advocated
Speaker 1: their responsibility and their electoral mandate to send the president
Speaker 1: a build a sign on this issue. We've gotten some
Speaker 1: measly funding here and there, but by and large haven't
Speaker 1: been fulfilling what voters sent them to Washington to do
Speaker 1: on this issue. And the President said earlier this year
Speaker 1: that if you know, next time we have one of
Speaker 1: these shutdown fights, I'm gonna put my foot down and
Speaker 1: if I have to take responsibility for the shutdown to
Speaker 1: get border security funding, I'm willing to do it. And
Speaker 1: what we saw this morning is the President's following through
Speaker 1: with his promise of the American people that he's going
Speaker 1: to take his electoral mandate very seriously. And it's simple.
Speaker 1: He can't back down on the wall. It is one
Speaker 1: of the core tenets of the twenty sixteen Trump Revolution,
Speaker 1: and voters expect him to deliver on this. And so
Speaker 1: now's the time, because frankly, it's not going to get
Speaker 1: any easier with Nancy Pelosi as Speaker next year to
Speaker 1: get any sort of border security funding. And so now
Speaker 1: is our opportunity, and Republicans across the board you need
Speaker 1: to step up, and if that means we'll we have
Speaker 1: to incurse some short term pain through a shutdown, so
Speaker 1: be it. That's that's that's the reality we're living in.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're game is out for me a little
Speaker 1: bit here. If so, let's say we do go into
Speaker 1: a shutdown midnight on Friday, Uh, what then should the
Speaker 1: administration be doing? And what does what does success look like?
Speaker 1: I mean, can you foresee a future in which there are,
Speaker 1: in fact a few billion dollars earmark for wall construction?
Speaker 1: Or I just feel like Democrats know that to give
Speaker 1: Trump the ability to to follow through on that promise
Speaker 1: would be an enormous uh, an enormous wind at his
Speaker 1: back going into twenty twenty. So I feel like they'll
Speaker 1: do anything to stop him. But you know, how do
Speaker 1: you see this playing out? Well, you know, let's play
Speaker 1: the calendar to our advantage. If this means that House
Speaker 1: and Senate Democrats need to stay in Washington, UM to
Speaker 1: you know, head off a Republican vote on this, then
Speaker 1: make them stay through the Christmas break. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: that's you know, that's the option that we have. UM
Speaker 1: And did you see did you see some of the
Speaker 1: politicians today? I think one of them was what's her
Speaker 1: name from up in Maine, who was like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: we might actually have to work on the twenty on
Speaker 1: the twenty second, like, yeah, a lot of I'm working
Speaker 1: on the twenty six. I mean, I got all kinds
Speaker 1: of stuff I gotta do. Yeah, I mean, look, you
Speaker 1: guys have kicked out the can down the road for
Speaker 1: two years on this issue. Now it's the time to
Speaker 1: step up. And if you've got to work, the American
Speaker 1: people have got no sympathy for you, whether you're a
Speaker 1: Democrat or Republican, okay, because they're out there busting there
Speaker 1: behinds every day to make ends, meeting to deliver for
Speaker 1: their bosses. Now it's the time for Congress to deliver
Speaker 1: to their bosses, the American people. And so let's keep them.
Speaker 1: If they've got to see in Washington to vote on this.
Speaker 1: If Democrats in the Senate needs to stay in Washington
Speaker 1: to filibuster this because that's what we're up against, because
Speaker 1: we need sixty votes in the Senate, then then so
Speaker 1: be it and make them do it. Let's run the
Speaker 1: clock out however long this takes. But we need to
Speaker 1: We need leadership in the House and the Senate to
Speaker 1: step up and do what's needed. And if that means
Speaker 1: that they've got to, you know, forego some political expedients,
Speaker 1: you know what, that's fine. Let's show the American people
Speaker 1: how serious of an issue this is and that we're
Speaker 1: gonna do whatever it takes to fix this problem. It's
Speaker 1: an issue of national security. You know, Harlan, We're going
Speaker 1: into a divided government scenario in twenty nineteen, first time
Speaker 1: that President Trump is going to be facing this. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, you're you're in close contact with the White House.
Speaker 1: I know you're you're talking to folks over there on
Speaker 1: a regular basis. What is the strategy? I mean, how
Speaker 1: where does the president think that he might be able
Speaker 1: to make some gains? Uh, obviously they're gonna they're gonna
Speaker 1: have to play a lot of defense with all the
Speaker 1: investigations and just the the conspiracy theories and the nuttiness
Speaker 1: that's going to come out of the Democrat led House
Speaker 1: of Representatives. And we know this, they've already told this.
Speaker 1: That's that's essentially what's going to happen. But what can
Speaker 1: you tell us about you know, what Trump, what Team
Speaker 1: Trump is going to try to do in twenty nineteen,
Speaker 1: and and what does a successful twenty nineteen look like,
Speaker 1: well the president, I think it's always functioned the best
Speaker 1: when he doesn't maybe inflate the guidance of some of
Speaker 1: his advisors and he relies on his instincts. And we
Speaker 1: saw that play out this week with the troop withdrawal
Speaker 1: in Syria, and from the rumors that are being reported
Speaker 1: by both the Wall Street Journal and CNN this afternoon,
Speaker 1: it looks like he's going to be withdrawing troops from
Speaker 1: Afghanistan as well. Potentially, that's the rumor that's gone around,
Speaker 1: and you know, that flies in the face of what
Speaker 1: a lot of his his advisors have suggested, but it
Speaker 1: fulfills another core promise of the Trump presidency. I think
Speaker 1: that we're going to continue to see this version of
Speaker 1: President Trump in going into twenty nineteen. You know, he's
Speaker 1: the gloves are off. You know, we're not going to
Speaker 1: worry too much about, you know, the short term political consequences.
Speaker 1: We're going to just focus on fulfilling the promises of
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. And because you know, that's ultimately why he's
Speaker 1: in the White House. He had he had a list
Speaker 1: of promises that gave him an electoral mandate when he
Speaker 1: won and I think the voter is going into twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: all the sixty plus million voters that the cast of
Speaker 1: ballot for President Trump are going to want to see
Speaker 1: him deliver across all those fronts. And there's there's some
Speaker 1: real opportunity for us to cut through and find some
Speaker 1: commonality with Democrats in the House of the Senate, whether
Speaker 1: it's on infrastructure or healthcare or some other issues. You know,
Speaker 1: the wall is a more complicated issue that I don't
Speaker 1: think that we're going to get Republican times sorry Democrats
Speaker 1: to come to the table on. But I think that
Speaker 1: the President will threate the needle and find, um, you know,
Speaker 1: some things to work with Democrats on if they're willing participants,
Speaker 1: if they're going to be willing partners at the table.
Speaker 1: And that's really the question. If the President gets the wall,
Speaker 1: I think he's in very good shape for twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: Do you have concerns though about twenty twenty if the
Speaker 1: President doesn't get the wall? Harlan, The President's got to
Speaker 1: deliver on it, and he knows and that's why he's
Speaker 1: That's why he he's willing to take responsibility for the shutdown.
Speaker 1: I mean, this poses an existential threat to his election
Speaker 1: prospects going into twenty twenty. He knows, he knows that
Speaker 1: he's got to deliver on the wall materially, not you know,
Speaker 1: one hundred miles you're there. He's got to deliver on
Speaker 1: it in some real way to appease his voters because
Speaker 1: the base is frustrated and he understands that. I understand that.
Speaker 1: So we've reached the point of no return. Now is
Speaker 1: the time to deliver on it one way or another
Speaker 1: at all costs, and that's what he's doing. Harlan Hill,
Speaker 1: everybody political consultant. You can follow him on Twitter. Also
Speaker 1: very excited to have him in next week for a
Speaker 1: full show here on the bucks X and Show. Harlan,
Speaker 1: have a very merry Christmas, my friend, and we'll be
Speaker 1: talking to you next week. Merry Christmas, Thank you team.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. But now you've probably heard me
Speaker 1: talking about snippy dot com. It's a new social media
Speaker 1: site that isn't going to give third parties access to
Speaker 1: your private chats. He isn't going to shadow ban you,
Speaker 1: none of the left wing nonsense, just pure unadulterated First
Speaker 1: Amendment expression on a digital platform. Snippy dot com is
Speaker 1: a place where thousands of my listeners are now having
Speaker 1: open and honest conversations and just sharing information and thoughts.
Speaker 1: Thousands of you have joint snippy dot com, and I
Speaker 1: hope thousands more will go and look at it once again.
Speaker 1: It's an unbiased social media platform that's all about conversation
Speaker 1: and community, and it's totally free to join. You have
Speaker 1: nothing to lose. Go just check it out for yourself.
Speaker 1: Sign up today. All you do is give them your email,
Speaker 1: set up the account you want. You're good to go.
Speaker 1: Let your opinion matter. No shadow banning and no suppression
Speaker 1: of conservative thought ever. Now, with an updated user interface
Speaker 1: and exciting new features, also available in the Apple App
Speaker 1: Store and now available for Android, Snippy is your new
Speaker 1: alternative social media. We have continued to manage the investigation
Speaker 1: as we have in the past, and it's being handled appropriately.
Speaker 1: It's Bob Mueller or Rod Rosenstein or Matt Whittaker or
Speaker 1: Bill Barr that investigation. It's going to be handled appropriately
Speaker 1: by the Permanent Adjustice. The investigation is being conducted in
Speaker 1: accordance with the Department of Regulation, and nothing anybody says
Speaker 1: is going to affect that so I believe that investigation
Speaker 1: is being handled appropriately under the existing department regulations. So
Speaker 1: there's all this consternation now from the left. That was
Speaker 1: Rosenstein there talking about this at the DOJ, about Bill Barr,
Speaker 1: about Matt Whittaker. Let's break this down, because they show
Speaker 1: who they really are in this process. We get a
Speaker 1: real understanding of the liberal mentality throughout all of this
Speaker 1: because they're not being I mean, they're not honest players
Speaker 1: in this, and they don't have any consistency. There's no
Speaker 1: principle on display. Let me explain. Let's start with Matt Whittaker. Okay,
Speaker 1: Whittaker is the acting Attorney General, and the big problem
Speaker 1: they have with him is that, as we all know,
Speaker 1: the Mueller probe just grinds on continues to be a
Speaker 1: dark cloud hanging over the Trump administration, bankrupting people, prosecuting
Speaker 1: people for trivial crimes, pretending that crimes that have never
Speaker 1: been prosecuted or are rarely prosecuted, or all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: huge deals because of Trump, you know, I mean, the
Speaker 1: selective prosecution that's been on display in the last two
Speaker 1: years has been insidious. This is the most clear period
Speaker 1: in my memory that we've seen that the left operates
Speaker 1: with a double standard of justice, that anytime a Republican
Speaker 1: can have the law used against him by those within
Speaker 1: the government bureaucracy, it somehow happens. And on the other side,
Speaker 1: with Democrats, they always get the benefit of the doubt,
Speaker 1: or they just get a get out of jail free car.
Speaker 1: I mean the case of Hillary, it's a get out
Speaker 1: of Joe free card. But with Whittaker, they're very upset
Speaker 1: because he had said in private life he had been
Speaker 1: critical of the Muller probe and it said that, you know,
Speaker 1: it would be possible to defund it. They were saying, oh,
Speaker 1: this is terrible. Now Trump, unlike all the presidents before him,
Speaker 1: Trump would not be allowed to have an acting cabinet
Speaker 1: level official while he while he got a new one
Speaker 1: in place, because they were just essentially changing the rules
Speaker 1: all of a sudden. You know, you could only have
Speaker 1: somebody who already had the advice and consent of the
Speaker 1: Senate in that role. It just it just didn't make
Speaker 1: any sense. You notice how it kind of fell away,
Speaker 1: And now it looks like Whittaker is in fact going
Speaker 1: to be the act is the acting Attorny general and
Speaker 1: they've got this guy. Did I say Bill Barr? I
Speaker 1: might have said Bob Bar Bill Barr, who is slated
Speaker 1: to be the next attorney general. Now, Bill Barr is
Speaker 1: a guy that when Trump nominated him, and this is
Speaker 1: why you have all this uh that this anger coming
Speaker 1: out of lives late in the game here. When Trump
Speaker 1: nominated him, it was like, okay, well, you know, he
Speaker 1: had been the attorney general under the Bush a under
Speaker 1: a previous Bush administration, and he is a very well
Speaker 1: respected guy in terms of his ethics, his jurisprudence, and
Speaker 1: you know, he's just a guy who the establishment could
Speaker 1: not tear apart. Okay, He's a guy that the establishment
Speaker 1: was not in a role and the Democrats could not
Speaker 1: credibly point to and say that he's he's some sort
Speaker 1: of Trump outlier because he had served successfully in the
Speaker 1: in the Bush administration. So you know, this is a
Speaker 1: guy who there's nothing they can say about him that
Speaker 1: does not show what their true feelings are, which is
Speaker 1: that they know this, I mean deep down where they
Speaker 1: say it out loud or not, they know that Muller
Speaker 1: is a weapon against Trump. That Muller's top people, Weissman
Speaker 1: and others. They are weapons against Trump, and this is
Speaker 1: the most effective opposition they could muster against Trump. It's
Speaker 1: not at the it's not at the ballot box. You know,
Speaker 1: they couldn't take the Senate in the midterms. It's it's
Speaker 1: it's not going to be I think, at the ballot
Speaker 1: box even in twenty twenty. They're trying to use the
Speaker 1: law to get for them. And really it's not even
Speaker 1: the law. It's the prosecutor's office that's different. The law
Speaker 1: would require the usage of principle, the application of legal principle,
Speaker 1: which I would be in favor of. But no, they're
Speaker 1: looking for the application of prosecutorial discretion in their favor,
Speaker 1: which is a different thing. Right. They're hoping that essentially
Speaker 1: the prosecutor offices can be harnessed in an anti Trump crusade.
Speaker 1: And that's why the special prosecutors so so useful for them.
Speaker 1: I mean, do we do we not see a pattern?
Speaker 1: Ear folks, just stepping back from all this for a second.
Speaker 1: You know, Trump beats Hillary and oh, it's because of
Speaker 1: Russia and because Trump cheated Bush beat score. Oh it's
Speaker 1: because of the Supreme Court in Florida, and they cheated
Speaker 1: We don't pull the they cheated card in presidential elections.
Speaker 1: We just say, all right, you know, Romney lost, McCain lost.
Speaker 1: We are willing to be big boys and girls about this.
Speaker 1: With the left, there's always an excuse. There's always always
Speaker 1: because of voter suppression. Where was the voter suppression happening somewhere?
Speaker 1: Why are you so racist and xenophobic? Why do you
Speaker 1: hate everything? It's well, that's not really an argument you're making, right,
Speaker 1: They're just they're just throwing emotions out there and slandering
Speaker 1: half of the country because half the country does not
Speaker 1: agree with them about what the government should be doing
Speaker 1: and about the relationship between citizenship, citizen rather and the government.
Speaker 1: But now now Barr is coming up for there's coming
Speaker 1: up for criticism because he wrote a memo, a memo
Speaker 1: that said it was a nineteenth page meal that he
Speaker 1: submitted unsolicited to Department of Justice in which he said, Okay,
Speaker 1: look the obstruction construction that Mueller is working under. Here
Speaker 1: this idea that it would be possible for Trump to
Speaker 1: obstruct the Department of Justice by firing someone than he
Speaker 1: can fire for any reason or no reason. This is
Speaker 1: very important. He has a constitutional right to fire he
Speaker 1: had one and has one to fire James Comy from
Speaker 1: being the FBI director because he does not like Comy's tie,
Speaker 1: which there are much better reasons not to like Comy,
Speaker 1: but he could do that. So how are you going
Speaker 1: to say that someone is obstructing justice by firing someone
Speaker 1: that they can fire for any reason. You know, he's
Speaker 1: he's correct, he is correct, and he also has a problem.
Speaker 1: You know, this is all this this unsolicited memo that
Speaker 1: he sent to the Justice Department. You know, he has
Speaker 1: a problem with this notion that they can create a
Speaker 1: legal protection for somebody within the Department of Justice that
Speaker 1: would make them unfirable, that Congress could do that. No,
Speaker 1: you cannot do that. That that is violating the separation
Speaker 1: of powers. But because he has these good faith legal
Speaker 1: objections to what's going on that he voiced, now they're
Speaker 1: saying that that he's They're gonna say he's an unfit
Speaker 1: attorney general. Meanwhile, we all know that if he had
Speaker 1: said the special Counsel is doing great work, it's it's fantastic,
Speaker 1: and Muller is above reproach, they would say that that's
Speaker 1: all fine, But isn't that unfair to the administration in
Speaker 1: some way. Right, Well, why is it that any criticism
Speaker 1: of what the Democrats like must be recused or is
Speaker 1: recusal worthy? But support of things that they like, support
Speaker 1: of their position is just what is what is right?
Speaker 1: You know that that's what needs to be. That's the
Speaker 1: way things should be. And we all with Whittaker. Speaking
Speaker 1: of recusal, there's a story out today in the Washington
Speaker 1: Post that says, remember, he's just the acting Attorney General.
Speaker 1: Barr is supposed to replace him when he can get
Speaker 1: sent a confirmation in the new year, and there's gonna
Speaker 1: be oh, get ready for you know, I am Spartak
Speaker 1: is Part two with Corey Booker. I mean, there's gonna
Speaker 1: be a lot of grandstanding from the Democrats there. They're
Speaker 1: gonna really strutting their stuff. But Whittaker isn't recusing himself
Speaker 1: from the Russia collusion probe, and Democrats are all upset
Speaker 1: about that. Meanwhile, I'm sitting here saying they have nothing
Speaker 1: to be upset about in any in any normal universe,
Speaker 1: because there is absolutely nothing, absolutely nothing that Whittaker is
Speaker 1: going to do that would shut down this or or
Speaker 1: will stop this. At this point, it's too late in
Speaker 1: the game. But special counsels can drag on for years
Speaker 1: and years and years, you know, just looking and looking
Speaker 1: and looking. I mean, this is what prosecutors do. This
Speaker 1: is the prosecutorial mindset. So when a DOJ official has
Speaker 1: opinions that don't line up with what Democrats want, there's
Speaker 1: a problem. It's unethical. They're not allowed to hold that
Speaker 1: different opinion, but apply the law. This is the same
Speaker 1: thing you see with Supreme Court nominees. There's no litmus
Speaker 1: test that Democrats have for Supreme Court nominees except you
Speaker 1: have to be pro abortion. You have to uphold the
Speaker 1: moral and legal monstrosity that has Roe v. Wade. But
Speaker 1: but there's no litmus tests. There's no ideological test for
Speaker 1: Supreme Court nominees. We're seeing an ideological test for the
Speaker 1: Attorney General. And the ideological test is you have to
Speaker 1: be supportive of the insane Russia collusion conspiracy theory. You
Speaker 1: have to be supportive of Muller's bare knuckle, take no prisoners,
Speaker 1: highly politicized tactics. You have to be totally fine with
Speaker 1: Sally Yates and McCabe and Comy coming up with completely
Speaker 1: bizarre interpretations of law and circumstances to go after people
Speaker 1: like General Flynn with the Logan Act or by saying
Speaker 1: that he had been compromised, so now the Russians might
Speaker 1: be able to blackmail Aman. And this was idiocy, idiocy
Speaker 1: from these people. But you know, that's the way it is.
Speaker 1: When democrats like it the person in power, you know,
Speaker 1: when they like what the person in power thinks, they're
Speaker 1: they're fit for the job. When they don't like something
Speaker 1: that the person that's going to be in power or
Speaker 1: have prosecutorial discretion says, then they're unfit for the job.
Speaker 1: You see, that's what they say. Then they're unfit. And
Speaker 1: then just reminds me of a of a dispute that
Speaker 1: I've been having for the last day or so on Twitter,
Speaker 1: the whole bunch of different journos and lawyers and so
Speaker 1: called NATZEC experts national security experts. I just keep saying,
Speaker 1: and this is not this is not a complicated or
Speaker 1: controversial point of view, but I know this to be
Speaker 1: true and feel very strongly about it, that they that
Speaker 1: nobody should subject themselves to FBI questioning without counsel, essentially
Speaker 1: without having a lawyer present, or at least getting a
Speaker 1: lawyer's advice about what's going on. No one should do that.
Speaker 1: It is unwise. And you get all these people coming
Speaker 1: out and we'll work, Oh, why are you making excuses
Speaker 1: for Flynn? And it's so stupid. Why are you doing that?
Speaker 1: Or just don't look, just don't lie, just don't lie.
Speaker 1: I say to them, Well, if the answers just don't lie,
Speaker 1: why does anybody have a lawyer when they go for
Speaker 1: an interrogation with the FBI? Just don't lie. Maybe there's
Speaker 1: something else that they should be aware of, which is
Speaker 1: that the FBI, because of the nature of what they're
Speaker 1: doing and the power they have, is a threat to
Speaker 1: people who intend to tell the truth but can get
Speaker 1: caught up in the heat of the moment in an interrogation,
Speaker 1: can have a memory lapse, And the amount of faith
Speaker 1: and trust that liberals all of a sudden give to
Speaker 1: these institutions of law enforcement the federal level that have
Speaker 1: so much power is jaw dropping. Keep in mind, the
Speaker 1: only record of the Flynn conversation we have is what
Speaker 1: the FBI says it is. And now they're saying it,
Speaker 1: you know how, many months after the fact, but it's
Speaker 1: it's now controversial. They hate Flynn and Trump so much
Speaker 1: that me saying get a lawyer, don't talk to the FBI,
Speaker 1: which any defense attorney in the country who is not
Speaker 1: a complete moron will tell you is sound advice. They
Speaker 1: come after me, they pile on and they say, oh,
Speaker 1: you're you're one of those lackeys for Flynn. No telling everybody.
Speaker 1: Don't speak to the FBI without a lawyer, don't try
Speaker 1: to get cute. Don't think that you're going to be
Speaker 1: doing some great public service if they are interrogating you
Speaker 1: have a lawyer. President, This is sound advice. Do not
Speaker 1: listen to the idiots out there that think that this
Speaker 1: is about General Flynn. Flynt just raises the issue. It's
Speaker 1: a bigger issue, and it's one that you will be
Speaker 1: very well served if you listen to me on Well,
Speaker 1: this is a very bold move for President Trump. It's
Speaker 1: exactly what he promised the American people. In fact, it's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons he won the election, that said
Speaker 1: he's different than so many Republicans that want to be
Speaker 1: everywhere all the time around the world, that they want
Speaker 1: us to be the world's policeman, that every war on
Speaker 1: the planet, we've got to have our soldiers involved with
Speaker 1: President Trump said he was going to treat America first,
Speaker 1: and so I think bringing some of that money home,
Speaker 1: whether it goes towards border security, whether it goes towards
Speaker 1: building bridges and roads in our country. See, I think
Speaker 1: there are a lot of independent voters, a lot of
Speaker 1: people in the middle and these states that President Trump won, Ohio, Pennsylvania, Wisconsin,
Speaker 1: these are states had no other Republican one because they
Speaker 1: want to be at war everywhere all the time. President
Speaker 1: Trump said, We're going to fight when we have to,
Speaker 1: but when we win, we're gonna come home. It's an
Speaker 1: incredibly bold maneuver. All of the naysayers in Washington will
Speaker 1: be against him. But guess what if you ask the
Speaker 1: American people, this is why President Trump won the election.
Speaker 1: I couldn't agree more with the president's decision. Look, by definition,
Speaker 1: this is the opposite of an Obama decision. Obama got
Speaker 1: us involved. Trump's taken us out. Congress has never declared
Speaker 1: war or authorize the use of military force in Syria.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't be there anyway. The pullout from Syria getting
Speaker 1: a lot of attention, and I have to say I
Speaker 1: was a little bit concerned initially that this was, if
Speaker 1: not intentionally, at least in reality, distracting from the discussion
Speaker 1: that we need to be having about the shutdown and
Speaker 1: the border wall. Right, that all of a sudden there
Speaker 1: was all this focus on what's going on in and
Speaker 1: around Rocca instead of what's going on you know, in
Speaker 1: and around uh, you know, Laredo and the different sectors
Speaker 1: of of the of the border. Um. Well, I was
Speaker 1: just trying to think of some place I couldn't think
Speaker 1: of anywhere with an R along the border of the
Speaker 1: off the fly, and I know Laredo is you know,
Speaker 1: you're like, why why do you go to that one? Buck?
Speaker 1: I don't know. It just came to mind because I
Speaker 1: probably should have said, what's what, John, what's the the
Speaker 1: city that's across from Warez. That's the one I was
Speaker 1: trying to think of, you know, what's across from you know,
Speaker 1: the one that's right there? Isn't that? Uh? El Paso?
Speaker 1: I don't know El Paso? Thank you, John, you know
Speaker 1: good Man, good man. Um. But there's been all this
Speaker 1: focus on Syria. So I want to in the in
Speaker 1: the spirit of giving you as as much worthwhile information
Speaker 1: as I can. I mean, I want to tell you
Speaker 1: what the the upside is of pulling out of Syria
Speaker 1: and the downside as a pulling out of Syria. But
Speaker 1: I'll start with the with the upside of it. And
Speaker 1: I think that there he had two Senators Mike Lee
Speaker 1: and Rampaul, who were saying that just on a on
Speaker 1: a principle level, we shouldn't be involved in endless conflicts
Speaker 1: all over the world, in places where there has been
Speaker 1: no congressional authorization and in places where or you know,
Speaker 1: us interests are are limited at best. And right now,
Speaker 1: I understand it's easy to it's easy enough to look
Speaker 1: at what's going on in Syria and to say, you
Speaker 1: know what, the truth is that in Syria, you know,
Speaker 1: we're we're not taking a lot of casualties, we're not
Speaker 1: doing a ton of frontline combat. I mean, I know
Speaker 1: there's stuff going on with special operations, but we're you know,
Speaker 1: it's not like we're moving division level units around in theater.
Speaker 1: And so it's easy to start to think, well, this,
Speaker 1: this is relatively low cost, at least in terms of
Speaker 1: our soul or getting wounded or killed, which is the
Speaker 1: single most important consideration about these kinds of deployments that
Speaker 1: we should have. And I just remind everyone that all
Speaker 1: it takes is one big truck bomb to get parked
Speaker 1: or you know, driven into a facility with US troops,
Speaker 1: and you could lose one hundred, two hundred five hundred
Speaker 1: troops in one day. I mean, that has happened before.
Speaker 1: Think back to Reagan's intervention in Lebanon, right next door
Speaker 1: to Syria in the Levant, and Reagan ended up pulling out.
Speaker 1: We're like, you know what this is. This is a
Speaker 1: nasty civil war. This is not our thing where we're out.
Speaker 1: And I think that under the circumstances, he made the
Speaker 1: right move. We could always make a case to stay forever.
Speaker 1: You know, we could always make the case that American
Speaker 1: troops will make a country safer than it would otherwise be.
Speaker 1: We can make a case that it would make it
Speaker 1: less likely for a vacuum to be filled by nefarious
Speaker 1: outside actors. And I want to I'm going to continue
Speaker 1: on with this in in just a moment to he
Speaker 1: so stay with me. This is a huge strategic mistake
Speaker 1: that I hope the President is willing to reconsider, and
Speaker 1: if he does not, I believe with some degree of
Speaker 1: confidence that he'll come to regret this decision. I mean, clearly,
Speaker 1: we're repeating the Obama mistake of premature withdrawal, which got
Speaker 1: us ISIS. It is a misstatement to say that ISIS
Speaker 1: is defeated in Syria. What is accurate is we have
Speaker 1: destroyed their safe haven in Rocca, and we have now
Speaker 1: taken down a town of Hajiene, which we ISIS put
Speaker 1: up a fight for over two months, which demonstrates their
Speaker 1: determination and resilience, and they have there's remnants of ISIS
Speaker 1: still in the area. In my judgment, we need to
Speaker 1: stick to it and finish the job, all right. So
Speaker 1: let's get to the other side of this, this Syria
Speaker 1: withdrawal decision, and that is the possibility that this will
Speaker 1: lead to a rebound with the Islamic State and then
Speaker 1: we'll be dealing with the nightmare once again of a
Speaker 1: caliphate that, remember, wasn't just a threat to the region,
Speaker 1: but very quickly turned into a launch pad for international
Speaker 1: terrorist attacks, including some of the mass casualty attacks that
Speaker 1: happened in Europe and the inspiration for mass casualty attacks
Speaker 1: like the one in San Bernardino, California, the one at
Speaker 1: the Pulse nightclub in Florida, here on US soil. That
Speaker 1: beacon of jihad in Syria that the Islamic State formed
Speaker 1: had a very bloody cost, well outside of the Syrian
Speaker 1: theater of operations. So I understand that threat in that concern.
Speaker 1: That's the primary reason that I think people are worried
Speaker 1: about US pulling out from Syria too quickly. Now, I
Speaker 1: do believe that it would be possible to phase out,
Speaker 1: and that's what the President may say. Right he said
Speaker 1: all right, we're pulling out. I think he's going to
Speaker 1: revisit this and say, we are pulling out, but we'll
Speaker 1: give this, you know, two months to get down by
Speaker 1: a thousand, another, you know, month to get down by
Speaker 1: five hundred. I think he's going to do a phased withdrawal.
Speaker 1: I don't believe. And this is just my it's just
Speaker 1: my gut. I don't believe that he's going to say
Speaker 1: all right, everybody, you're out of there, You're you're done,
Speaker 1: because there could be some some bad ramifications to that,
Speaker 1: which is what we're talking about now. Right on the
Speaker 1: plus side, we shouldn't be fight uh, you know, we
Speaker 1: we've done a lot to defeat the Islamic state, this
Speaker 1: and this is there's a lot of debate about this
Speaker 1: because the President said, you know, we've defeated ISIS, and
Speaker 1: now you've got all these people who are coming out
Speaker 1: of the woodwork and saying, no, we haven't defeated IIS. Yes.
Speaker 1: The estimate of the standing strength of the Islamic States
Speaker 1: fighters about twenty to thirty thousand, which is pretty close
Speaker 1: to what it was at the start of the blitz.
Speaker 1: Creek into a rock from Syria nextdoor buy the Islamics State,
Speaker 1: but the territory is much smaller, which means their ability
Speaker 1: to draw upon resources and to terrorize civilian populations as
Speaker 1: much less than it was. They are a much more
Speaker 1: contained threat than they were. And if if defeat is eradication,
Speaker 1: I'm here to tell you that we're never going to
Speaker 1: get there. I mean not in any reasonable timeframe. If
Speaker 1: the defeat of the Islamic State is something that we
Speaker 1: could only we could only claim when there is nobody
Speaker 1: who is an adherent of ISIS and its ideology left,
Speaker 1: when everyone has either been captured, killed, taken off the
Speaker 1: battlefield one way or another. Then we're going to be
Speaker 1: fighting in Syria for the next twenty years. So that's
Speaker 1: that's say, you know that that's an unrealistic definition of
Speaker 1: what success in Syria would be. That's an unrealistic version.
Speaker 1: And we have taken Roca other capital, and this has
Speaker 1: been done large because of the Kurds. Now there's another
Speaker 1: component of this. I mean, you've got the vacuum issue.
Speaker 1: What would happen if we pull out too quickly and
Speaker 1: then all of a sudden there's space for ices to
Speaker 1: rearm and re equip and start terrorizing villages in the area,
Speaker 1: taking back territory. But keep in mind they have ASSAD
Speaker 1: and Russia and Iran backing ASSAD also pressuring the Islamic State,
Speaker 1: so it's not like they would just be able to
Speaker 1: overrun the whole country. The Syrian Defense Force Syrian Defense Forces,
Speaker 1: the SDP is about seventy thousand people right now. I mean,
Speaker 1: they've got a considerable fighting force that's had a lot
Speaker 1: of US assistance and military tutelage, so that is hopefully
Speaker 1: able to keep things from boiling over in Syria. But
Speaker 1: then there's there's an additional layer. Right talking about Syria,
Speaker 1: talking to the civil War, there's a lot of complexity here.
Speaker 1: There's an additional layer, and that is. How does Turkey
Speaker 1: are so called NATO ally right? I mean they're an
Speaker 1: ally kind of Turkey. Uh. People who've been listening for
Speaker 1: a long time. No, I've had I've had problems with
Speaker 1: the Turkish government, Turkish regime for a very long time.
Speaker 1: The Turks have been They're not quite at the Pakistan
Speaker 1: level of friend of me, but they're trending in that direction.
Speaker 1: I mean, they do some things that are helpful, they
Speaker 1: do a lot of things that are not helpful, and
Speaker 1: they are far too cozy with Islamists and extremists in
Speaker 1: the whole region. So and they have and they have
Speaker 1: grandiose ambitions for Turkish regional hegemony. Don't don't think they don't.
Speaker 1: The Turks have a very high opinion of their importance
Speaker 1: to the to the Mid East, and to the Mediterranean basin.
Speaker 1: But Lindsey Graham and Bob Corker raised another concern here,
Speaker 1: and it's about Turkey. Play play clip five. Iran's gonna
Speaker 1: be really happy and the Isis folks have got a
Speaker 1: shot in the arm and Turkey is licking their chops.
Speaker 1: If you're an American who believes that we need keep
Speaker 1: the war over there, not here, bad day for you.
Speaker 1: I think we're all just in shock that we would
Speaker 1: leave the FDF hanging, the Kurds and others who've been
Speaker 1: doing what they're doing, to leave them to basically Assad
Speaker 1: and to Turkey. Now. I have a degree of a
Speaker 1: particular degree of respect and even some nostalgia for my
Speaker 1: time with the Kurds, and I know that the Kurdish
Speaker 1: people have been allies to the US in Iraq and
Speaker 1: now in Syria when we really needed allies on the
Speaker 1: ground in the region, and the Kurds will fight bravely.
Speaker 1: The Kurds have been operating a civilized sector of Iraq
Speaker 1: even through the worst parts of the insurgency. I mean,
Speaker 1: you could go to Kurdistan, which is not officially a place,
Speaker 1: but it might as well be. You spend time in
Speaker 1: places like Urbil or Sulimania, and you might as well.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Church would like this. We might as
Speaker 1: well be in Turkey in terms of safety and you know,
Speaker 1: the overall feeling of the place. And that's a testament
Speaker 1: to the Kurdish people. They've been very strong counter terrorism
Speaker 1: allies with us. They've been doing a lot for us
Speaker 1: for a very long time. And I think we have
Speaker 1: a debt of honor to the Kurdish people, and the
Speaker 1: Turks hate the Kurds. This stretches back for many decades.
Speaker 1: It's a longstanding ethnic and cultural conflict. And there's been
Speaker 1: a Turkish separatist I mean a Kurdish separatist movement in
Speaker 1: southern Turkey that's claimed many thousands of lives over the
Speaker 1: over decades fighting against them. The you know, the PKK,
Speaker 1: they're kind of a Marxist separatist group, and the Turks
Speaker 1: are just get apoplectic about them. They say they're terrorists,
Speaker 1: just like any other terrorist group. Meanwhile, the militia that
Speaker 1: we're fighting with on the ground in Syria, the Turks
Speaker 1: say it is essentially this this Turkish, this Turkish i'm sorry,
Speaker 1: Kurdish terrorist group. We say, no, that's not fair, and
Speaker 1: and these guys are doing great fighting against the Islamic State.
Speaker 1: So there is this concern that the Turks, if we
Speaker 1: don't have US troops there, the Turks are just going
Speaker 1: to come in and have a real incursion and kill
Speaker 1: a lot of our Kurdish friends on the ground. And
Speaker 1: I find that unacceptable. But if we don't have US
Speaker 1: troops there, because here's the thing the Turks launch an
Speaker 1: air strike at a at a US Kurdish base in
Speaker 1: Syria and they kill some of our people, they have
Speaker 1: a massive problem on their hands and they know that.
Speaker 1: And you know, the next time a Turkish plane flies
Speaker 1: over Syrian sky, it's it's probably not gonna let's just say,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna land as planned. The Turks know that.
Speaker 1: So that's you know, that's the the bulwark, that's the
Speaker 1: safety measure that's in place there for a Kurdish allies.
Speaker 1: If we pull out US troops. Now, now the Turks
Speaker 1: all of a sudden might say, you know what, yeah,
Speaker 1: America is going to complain about it. But as long
Speaker 1: as we don't kill any of their people on the ground,
Speaker 1: if we're just killing Kurds, that's our problem. We care
Speaker 1: about it more. And you know, Er Towan is a
Speaker 1: very unsteady allies. So so I understand that concern, and
Speaker 1: I'm very sympathetic to that concern because I think that
Speaker 1: we show you know, we show allies one because of honor,
Speaker 1: but also because of the optics of it to the
Speaker 1: rest of our allies in the region around the world.
Speaker 1: How we treat them matters, you know, what we do
Speaker 1: to our allies, real allies that are doing fighting, they're
Speaker 1: taking losses, fighting side by side with our people. It
Speaker 1: matters how we treat them. So that that that's a
Speaker 1: that's a that's a sticky issue, that's a complicating factor
Speaker 1: in this whole Syria withdrawal issue. And you know, then
Speaker 1: you've got Rubio and Graham who are just completely utterly
Speaker 1: opposed to this and say it's a horrible idea. Play eight.
Speaker 1: I believe it is a catastrophic mistake that will have
Speaker 1: grave consequences for the United States, for our interests, and
Speaker 1: for our allies in the months and years to come.
Speaker 1: To those who say we have defeated ISIS in Syria,
Speaker 1: that is a inaccurate statement. They have been hurt, they
Speaker 1: have been degraded. And I give the President all the
Speaker 1: credit in the world for changing our policies regarding the
Speaker 1: fight against ISIS, but I will not buy into the
Speaker 1: narrative that they have been defeated in Syria Iraq. Defeat
Speaker 1: is not something you're really going to see with an
Speaker 1: insurgency like this. Suppression and stabilization is what you should
Speaker 1: be shooting for. I think that Trump is right on
Speaker 1: the strategy. I think he might be wrong on the timing,
Speaker 1: meaning we should begin to think about withdrawing US troops
Speaker 1: from Syria and put in place how that's going to happen.
Speaker 1: That's it, and people should know that that's going to happen.
Speaker 1: You know, the people that are involved there should understand
Speaker 1: that they're going to be coming home, and we will
Speaker 1: have troops next door in Iraq. If things really spile
Speaker 1: out of control, we get five thousand troops in Iraq,
Speaker 1: can launch air strikes, can go all kinds of things.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure that even if we officially withdraw, we'll
Speaker 1: probably have some some folks left behind to work with
Speaker 1: our allies that just aren't particularly publicized in Syria. But
Speaker 1: Trump is right to stop this mentality of we're going
Speaker 1: to be in these countries forever. We got other things
Speaker 1: to do, other places to have our people. We should
Speaker 1: not fall into this trap of endless war in countless places.
Speaker 1: So maybe give it a couple more months. I think
Speaker 1: Trump may do that, but by and large, we do
Speaker 1: need to come out of Syria. And he's getting bad advice.
Speaker 1: They know that he's promised not once, not twice, but
Speaker 1: three different times that he would get border wall funding.
Speaker 1: And here we are about to punt, and I would
Speaker 1: argue it's not a punt. A punt actually helps improve
Speaker 1: the field advantage. This is a fumble, and we need
Speaker 1: to make sure that the President stays firm. And a
Speaker 1: lot of people are very nervous this morning about whether
Speaker 1: the President will cave or not. We failed, we fumbled,
Speaker 1: and I can tell you that the President was exactly
Speaker 1: right on this. I talked to the President a week
Speaker 1: ago and he says, Mark, what we need to do
Speaker 1: is go ahead and pass something out of the House.
Speaker 1: I got on the phone that morning, I talked to
Speaker 1: Leader McCarthy, I talked to Speaker Ryan. I said, let's
Speaker 1: go ahead and fund the wall. Whether it's five billion
Speaker 1: or twenty five billion, let's go ahead and pass something
Speaker 1: out of the House. And you know what we heard
Speaker 1: from that nothing. We have more than twenty nine more
Speaker 1: Republicans than Democrats. Last week, we could have passed and
Speaker 1: we didn't. Could have passed it and didn't missed opportunities.
Speaker 1: You know. The the truth is that you never want
Speaker 1: to do what your enemy wants you to do. And
Speaker 1: I know people say, oh, Puck, don't call the Democrats enemies,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean. You don't do what your
Speaker 1: opponent wants you to do if you plan on winning.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats, sure as heck, do not want Trump
Speaker 1: to get that wall because they know that if he
Speaker 1: gets the wall, twenty twenty becomes a replay of twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: And if that happens, and you add the actual construction,
Speaker 1: the ongoing construction of a wall into that situation, absence
Speaker 1: some you know, horrific economic situation or you know who knows,
Speaker 1: But in a in all likelihood, Trump will coast to victory.
Speaker 1: Trump will probably even you know, I don't know what
Speaker 1: other states he'd pick up, but he might even win
Speaker 1: everything he won in twenty sixteen, and add a couple
Speaker 1: more into the mix. Certainly, certainly feasible, could certainly happen
Speaker 1: that way. So that's why, you know, this is not
Speaker 1: the time to get weak, kneed. This is not the
Speaker 1: time for spines to go like jellyfish. And I think
Speaker 1: Mark Mark Meadows understands that, and he knows that this
Speaker 1: is this is the time to have this fight, and
Speaker 1: that border security really matters. You know, We're just I
Speaker 1: was just talking about about Syria, and I I can't
Speaker 1: help but notice how many people whose whose role in
Speaker 1: public life is to try and inform people and analyze
Speaker 1: what's going on with our government, and they they are
Speaker 1: so much more concerned with Syria and the you know,
Speaker 1: the threat to you know, our our allies in the region,
Speaker 1: the threat to Israel, net Store, the Iranian expansion that
Speaker 1: would occur if we so much more concerned about that
Speaker 1: than what is going on at our border. And I
Speaker 1: keep hitting on these points about look at what the
Speaker 1: cartel activity is doing, Look at all the deaths. You know,
Speaker 1: for every person that dies of a drug overdose, there
Speaker 1: are a number of people whose lives are shattered, family members, spouses, children,
Speaker 1: lives are shattered, you know, mothers and fathers that are
Speaker 1: now walking around bearing those emotional, those psychological scars. Their
Speaker 1: lives are never the same. I mean, the cost of
Speaker 1: the situation the border to the American people is so
Speaker 1: much greater than the stakes for what's happening in Syria.
Speaker 1: And yet we're told that funding for Syria is a
Speaker 1: funding for the wall. Rather, funding for the border is
Speaker 1: a distraction, staying the course in Syria, staying the course
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan too. That's more important than what's going on
Speaker 1: on our own self border that's affecting lives across the
Speaker 1: country every day, economically, politically, national security. I also have
Speaker 1: seen this, this rumor that's getting some play today that
Speaker 1: Trump also wants to pull troops out of Afghanistan. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you something, we are not going to win
Speaker 1: the war in Afghanistan. If we think we're going to
Speaker 1: eradicate the Taliban, It's never happening. It's not happening. So
Speaker 1: the choices are status quo occupation for all time, essentially
Speaker 1: established major military base or bases there and just keep
Speaker 1: keep US troops there on an ongoing basis, or come home.
Speaker 1: Those are the choice. There is no victory over the
Speaker 1: Taliban not going to happen. Trump is willing to make
Speaker 1: tough choices on this, I think, and it may take
Speaker 1: someone as immune to the criticism of elites as Trump
Speaker 1: to finally do what so many of his predecessors said
Speaker 1: they would do, draw down these wars and did not.
Speaker 1: Another rough week for Facebook and Twitter has had a
Speaker 1: bad month. Guess what, folks, The word is out. Social
Speaker 1: media platforms are biased and they are left leaning. They're
Speaker 1: run by progressives who don't think that you should be
Speaker 1: able to say and think what you want. Snippy dot
Speaker 1: com has none of those problems. Snappy dot com is
Speaker 1: a new social media platform that is all about conversation
Speaker 1: and community. Thousands of my listeners have already joined Snippy
Speaker 1: and they're expressing their opinions every day. You should join them.
Speaker 1: It is completely free. This is a free service, free product,
Speaker 1: free to post, free to start your account, so you've
Speaker 1: got nothing to lose and a lot to gain. You
Speaker 1: may find that Snippy is now your favorite place to
Speaker 1: engage other like minded patriots snippy dot com. Just go
Speaker 1: to the website check it out for yourself. No shadow
Speaker 1: banning and no suppression of conservative thought ever. Now with
Speaker 1: an updated user interface and exciting new features, also available
Speaker 1: in the Apple App Store and now available for Android,
Speaker 1: snippy dot com is your new alternative social media. Thirty
Speaker 1: six year old Gustavo Garcia a career criminal, a violent
Speaker 1: offender with priors and two deportations. Now instead the law
Speaker 1: forced him to release Garcia, leading to this two dead
Speaker 1: a car chase, and a shootout with police. Please stick
Speaker 1: up these high on drugs on Friday. Seeing his prior
Speaker 1: deportations I issued a detainer, but ten hours later the
Speaker 1: sheriff released him because the sanctuary law banned him from
Speaker 1: honoring that entertainer released where we stole three hundred rounds
Speaker 1: of ammunition, shot six, killed two, then injured three more
Speaker 1: before dying in a car chase, none of which would
Speaker 1: have happened, says the sheriff without this law that prohibited
Speaker 1: him from communicating with Ice. When a criminal alien is
Speaker 1: released has been removed from our hands. And because of that,
Speaker 1: our county was shot up by a violent criminal. They
Speaker 1: could have easily been prevented had we had the opportunity
Speaker 1: to reach out to our fellow counterparts. You mean that
Speaker 1: sanctuary city policies come with a cost. Illegal immigration isn't
Speaker 1: just about an endless flow of hard working, god fearing
Speaker 1: valedictorians that if you don't want here, you are a
Speaker 1: heartless evil heathen. What a surprise? Well what does this
Speaker 1: tell us? What should we be disgusted when it comes
Speaker 1: to immigration in the border. I want to bring somebody
Speaker 1: on who's down in Texas so he can give us
Speaker 1: his perspective on things. The one and only Jesse Kelly.
Speaker 1: He is a former Marine also former Congressional candidate, and
Speaker 1: he hosts a wonderful radio show himself on nine fifty
Speaker 1: KPRC in Houston, the Jesse Kelly Show. Jesse, good to
Speaker 1: have you back. It's great to be here man. And
Speaker 1: it is extra bad, extra horrible when somebody who's not
Speaker 1: supposed to be here does something terrible to a citizen
Speaker 1: in this country, multiple citizens. And it's extra extra bad
Speaker 1: when you realize that we actually had him, we had
Speaker 1: him in our hands, and insane liberal laws kicked him
Speaker 1: right back out on the street to kill again. And
Speaker 1: none of these people are ever held accountable for what
Speaker 1: they do. Well, that's that's exactly where we're want to
Speaker 1: go of this is that I keep trying to to
Speaker 1: hammer this point that liberals start with a fundamentally false
Speaker 1: premise on illegal immigration, and that is that there is
Speaker 1: no downside to this, and it's it's a it's astonishing,
Speaker 1: Jesse because when you when you push them on specific issues,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, you'll get them to admit You'll get
Speaker 1: them to admit that, Okay, sure, there are some MS
Speaker 1: thirteen members that come into the country, there's some drug
Speaker 1: cartel activity, but they always start from this premise of
Speaker 1: no, no no, no, this is this is a good thing.
Speaker 1: And then when you look at sanctuary city policy, you
Speaker 1: look at what's going on at the border day in
Speaker 1: and day out with people who are coming in in
Speaker 1: abusing the system, claiming asylum who shouldn't get it. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of costs here, and yet the other
Speaker 1: side never even discusses the costs. I mean, you'll notice this.
Speaker 1: You never hear Democrats say, you know what, you're right,
Speaker 1: it's putting a strain on some communities to have so
Speaker 1: many illegal immigrants coming in. It's hurting Americans who are
Speaker 1: dying by the tens of thousands now from opioid overdoses,
Speaker 1: which are overwhelmingly drugs from the cartels. They don't even
Speaker 1: start from a place of honesty in this conversation. They
Speaker 1: don't because honest, if they were honest about it, you'd
Speaker 1: know you have to secure a border. That's not even
Speaker 1: a Republican or Democrats, or at least it used to nap.
Speaker 1: I mean, people seem to forget like in the sixties
Speaker 1: and the sifties and sixties and before that, both parties
Speaker 1: were strong border security parties. This is not the normal
Speaker 1: Democrat party. This party is just simply gone in saying
Speaker 1: every country in the history of the world has acknowledged
Speaker 1: they have to secure a border, a border as part
Speaker 1: of what makes you a sovereign nation. Only this modern
Speaker 1: day insane Democrat party has gone this routed. It's sad.
Speaker 1: It's sad to see because it's really an impossible win.
Speaker 1: It makes it impossible to ever get any real border
Speaker 1: security when you're constantly fighting half the country who wants
Speaker 1: the border wide open. And I was just watching earlier
Speaker 1: today to see it's just so I could keep tabs
Speaker 1: on what's going on with Congress and this possible shutdown,
Speaker 1: and Shepherd Smith was on his show and he just
Speaker 1: just dropped casually in his conversation with one of his guests,
Speaker 1: he goes, well, experts say waltz don't work. And I
Speaker 1: keep hearing this from people as though this is a
Speaker 1: different Like the science is settled. Walls don't work. I
Speaker 1: have personally been told by the head of Border Patrol,
Speaker 1: by the head of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, that a
Speaker 1: wall would be very helpful. So do you who are
Speaker 1: these experts? I mean, are we just talking about you know,
Speaker 1: open borders activists and people that are are funded by
Speaker 1: you know, the Open Society Foundation, Like, who are these
Speaker 1: border experts that say walls don't work? I see a
Speaker 1: plaud him because he found the same experts. This is
Speaker 1: the Obama model. Obama used to do this all the
Speaker 1: time of Well, all the experts say that I'm eleven
Speaker 1: feet tall and bulletproof, and nobody ever would ask him. Okay,
Speaker 1: which expert? That's not nearly all the experts Saying walls
Speaker 1: don't work is the dumbest thing in the history of mankind,
Speaker 1: because every single society in the history of the world
Speaker 1: has had some sort of wall and barrier, specifically because
Speaker 1: they worked. If they stopped working, I'm pretty sure humanity
Speaker 1: would have stopped using them about five thousand years ago. Yeah,
Speaker 1: walled cities were really the basis of modern civilization for
Speaker 1: a long time. So yes, it is true. People could
Speaker 1: storm the walls, they could use battering rams, they could
Speaker 1: tunnel under them. But they were like, you know what,
Speaker 1: We're gonna give up this whole wall idea. This isn't working.
Speaker 1: It is crazy, and that's the next route they go,
Speaker 1: and it makes their original arguments sound even worse when
Speaker 1: they say, well they'll ladder over them. Well, no, one said,
Speaker 1: it's full proof. I mean, of course, you create new
Speaker 1: obstacles for them, and people do have to understand the
Speaker 1: walls are critical in the urban areas. Yeah, they're fine
Speaker 1: in the rural areas, but normally the border patrol has
Speaker 1: time to respond to the rural area. In the urban areas,
Speaker 1: you have to have a physical barrier. Otherwise one state crossed,
Speaker 1: they melt into the population and they are gone. If
Speaker 1: you do not have some sort of serious physical wall, fence,
Speaker 1: triple fence, whatever you want to call it, in an
Speaker 1: urban area, you cannot secure the border ever, can't be done.
Speaker 1: I mean, Jesse, how long how long a driver are
Speaker 1: you from the border right now? I mean you're down
Speaker 1: you're actually in a border state, really the primary border state.
Speaker 1: You know how long are taking to get down there?
Speaker 1: I've four hours from the border, and I ran for
Speaker 1: Congress back in Tucson, where I was an hour and
Speaker 1: a half two hours from the border, and I've because
Speaker 1: of that run for office, I've spent plenty of time
Speaker 1: on the border and meeting with border patrol and so on.
Speaker 1: So yeah, it's I've done enough border time to know
Speaker 1: you'd you'd be really really sad if you saw the
Speaker 1: way we protect this country we had. Yeah, that's I
Speaker 1: was gonna say. I'm sure you've been to the areas
Speaker 1: where it's like, hey, here's the border, and you could
Speaker 1: take a photo and it's just there's nothing there. There
Speaker 1: is that you've seen. Everybody's seen, I'm assuming savent Private
Speaker 1: Saving Private Ryan, and you've seen those basically steel beam
Speaker 1: X looking things on the beaches when they land at Normandy.
Speaker 1: I am not exaggerating. That is what consists of a
Speaker 1: border fence in several areas of at least the Tucson
Speaker 1: sector of the border, because we would have to go
Speaker 1: down there and tour it, and there'll just be miles
Speaker 1: for a mile as far as you could see that
Speaker 1: you or I or a two year old child could
Speaker 1: get through in a half a second. It's not even
Speaker 1: a barrier. I don't know why you don't just hold
Speaker 1: up a welcome sign, Jesse, very important question for your
Speaker 1: switching gears for a second here, what is the best
Speaker 1: season of Narco so farking of the Border. It's got
Speaker 1: to be the original. Now, I love the new Narcos
Speaker 1: Mexico because the Mexican cartel thing really, really fascinates, maybe
Speaker 1: because people who don't understand how new the idea of
Speaker 1: a Mexican cartel is. There have always been drugs there,
Speaker 1: and they have always been crime and corruption, but really
Speaker 1: an organized cartel did not start until the eighties there
Speaker 1: when they decided that that was a great place they
Speaker 1: could they could be powerful by running all the Colombian
Speaker 1: cokes through Mexico. So I love the new Narcos Mexico,
Speaker 1: but the original one with Pablo Escobar. I eat up
Speaker 1: editing cartel, and Pablo Escobar is just a fascinating human being. Well,
Speaker 1: you know the reason the Mexican cartel was so the
Speaker 1: cartel's plural were so successful. And I keep trying to
Speaker 1: remind people that last year was the most violent year
Speaker 1: in Mexico's modern history for murders. So the cartel activity
Speaker 1: is sky high. It's because there's so much money being
Speaker 1: made off of well, a bunch of different drugs, mostly
Speaker 1: heroin and synthetic the synthetic variants the opioids that they make.
Speaker 1: And the reason they can get into the countries because
Speaker 1: we got an unsecured border. It's a lot easier to
Speaker 1: bring it across the border than it is to fly
Speaker 1: it in from Cartajeno or from Metaean or wherever. And
Speaker 1: so you know, it just goes to show you that,
Speaker 1: in a sense, the drug war, the market has spoken,
Speaker 1: our southern border is our week underbelly. Because that's why
Speaker 1: the Mexican cartels are so powerful. Ride And it's funny
Speaker 1: you brought that up, because the reason they are so powerful,
Speaker 1: the reason they became the trafficking area, was because we
Speaker 1: shut down Cuba. Cuba was the place where we were
Speaker 1: hauling in almost all the cocaine the United States was consuming,
Speaker 1: especially in the nineteen seventies. Everybody's seen, you know, Miami
Speaker 1: bias with the drug boats and stuff. I mean that
Speaker 1: was real. Miami is built on cocaine money. That is,
Speaker 1: it's for real. And we found a way to lock
Speaker 1: it down. And they looked around and say, well, wait
Speaker 1: a minute, why would we mess around with floating in
Speaker 1: the Caribbean and the boats and the coast guard, but
Speaker 1: we should just walking right across the southern border. These
Speaker 1: idiots don't even guard the border. Yep. So Jessee, before
Speaker 1: we let you go, because it's obviously about to be Christmas.
Speaker 1: What is Christmas celebration like in the Kelly Household. What
Speaker 1: do you guys do do you do? You have your kids?
Speaker 1: You know, do lots of push ups? You guys watch football?
Speaker 1: What do you guys do you know? It's as unexciting
Speaker 1: now and laid back has ever seen. I always did
Speaker 1: the thing when I was a kid of it was
Speaker 1: just me, my sister, my folks, laid back. But since
Speaker 1: I've been married, I've had to do the marriage you're
Speaker 1: gonna you're gonna experience this pal, I've had to do
Speaker 1: them married and married with kids thing where one year
Speaker 1: you have to fly back to where her parents are.
Speaker 1: The next year of your pigeon. It's in Christmas just
Speaker 1: sucks where you're traveling all the time. Last year, I've
Speaker 1: put my foot down no more. We wake up kiddo's
Speaker 1: open presence. Dada drinks a cup of coffee with some
Speaker 1: musky inside of it. We eat sent him and rolls
Speaker 1: and then we do a movie because, no doubt, because
Speaker 1: of the movies on Christmas Day and all the good
Speaker 1: movies are out. We picked a movie and we go
Speaker 1: around noon or one what do you do you know
Speaker 1: what the movie is gonna be already this year an aquaman.
Speaker 1: We already I have Look, I have kids, so I'm
Speaker 1: limited to anything basically PG or roughly PG thirteen. So
Speaker 1: Aquaman Aquaman, all right? You know it made like two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million dollars in China. By the way, Well,
Speaker 1: any superhero movie makes big money now because it's to
Speaker 1: be honest, it's one of the only movies that one
Speaker 1: parents can take their kids do. And two you don't
Speaker 1: get browbeaten with any politics of any kind, not left,
Speaker 1: not right. You just go and just enjoy some dumb
Speaker 1: explosions and whatnot and walk out. It's just enjoyable what
Speaker 1: a movie is supposed to be. And what is the
Speaker 1: proper food to eat on Christmas Day? Well, Buck, you
Speaker 1: know I'm pretty classy, so I'll probably pick up a
Speaker 1: little Caesar's pizza. Maybe it was some crazy bread as well.
Speaker 1: I have no doubt we're going to be eating steak
Speaker 1: at some point in time. Don't waste your time with
Speaker 1: ham or turkey. Evil, that's a lie. You say you'd
Speaker 1: rather have ham or a turkey over steak, you're a
Speaker 1: ball faced. Later, Wow, he's calling out. He's calling out
Speaker 1: the roast ham, folks, or the baked ham. Sorry, I
Speaker 1: keep saying roast ham, baked ham, baked all right, United
Speaker 1: States of America would look at a baked ham and
Speaker 1: a sizzling prime rib and picked the bake cam. No,
Speaker 1: but Jesse Kelly controversial but truthtelling as always Jesse Kelly.
Speaker 1: Everybody listened to him nine fifty KPRC in Houston. You
Speaker 1: can also follow him on Twitter. Look for his stuff
Speaker 1: on the Federalist Jesse, Merry Christmas to you and yours.
Speaker 1: My friend will talk to you in the new year.
Speaker 1: Merry Christmas for brother. You know, after I just talked
Speaker 1: to Jesse Kelly there, I remembered I had an exchange
Speaker 1: with one of these border bizarros or earlier today. You
Speaker 1: may be familiar with someone by the name of Max
Speaker 1: Boot these days only because he is a quote former
Speaker 1: conservative who is now an unhinged Trump hater. In fact,
Speaker 1: he is such a Trump hater that on my show
Speaker 1: where I am a conservative and sitting next to me
Speaker 1: is a wonderful lady named Crystal who is very liberal.
Speaker 1: He thought that both of us because we asked him
Speaker 1: real questions must be in his words, trump VOTs, using
Speaker 1: Trump talking points to undercut his arguments. Meanwhile, I mean
Speaker 1: this guy's having essentially a public breakdown in front of
Speaker 1: the nation because he's no longer that important, what, however
Speaker 1: important he thought he was before when he was writing
Speaker 1: articles for various neo conservative causes and publications. Now, as
Speaker 1: a Trump hater who has defected to the left, he's
Speaker 1: going to find that he's only useful to them for
Speaker 1: a short period of time and only as a weapon
Speaker 1: against Trump. But he appeared on my show this morning
Speaker 1: for his book, The Corrosion of Conservatism, and we got
Speaker 1: to talking about the border. Now. I want you to
Speaker 1: pay very close attention to this exchange, and just notice
Speaker 1: does he answer the questions, does he even try to
Speaker 1: deal with the substance, or does he become smug and
Speaker 1: condescending despite the fact that his knowledge of immigration in
Speaker 1: the border is apparently very lacking, play it well. In
Speaker 1: the first place, there is not a crisis at our
Speaker 1: southern border. Illegal immigration is down eighty percent from the
Speaker 1: year two thousand. It is much lower than it was then.
Speaker 1: Ousters not have hes okay, there's no crisis, because he
Speaker 1: says immigration was at was a lot higher. Illegal immigration
Speaker 1: was a lot higher twenty years ago. It's like, okay, Dufus.
Speaker 1: Let's let's take this piece by piece. First of all,
Speaker 1: illegal immigration via overstays of visas is at half a
Speaker 1: million a year, so you've got to count that into
Speaker 1: whatever figure you think you're giving me. And last month
Speaker 1: there were sixteen thousand family units, about fifty or sixty
Speaker 1: thousand people that showed up at the border who were
Speaker 1: claiming asylum. They are not counted as illegals yet because
Speaker 1: they are legally going through the process unless they are
Speaker 1: in fact caught entering the country illegal, if they turned
Speaker 1: themselves into a poor ati entry, they're not counted. But
Speaker 1: more to the point, we already have he says, twelve
Speaker 1: or thirteen million, at least he got that one a
Speaker 1: little closer. It's more like twenty million. So we were
Speaker 1: already even flooded with illegal immigrants for almost the last
Speaker 1: well you call it the last thirty years, since the
Speaker 1: last amnesty, the last twenty years plus. And so now
Speaker 1: the argument is, well there used to be more. That
Speaker 1: doesn't seem like a very good argument at all to me.
Speaker 1: But keep playing it, John, And we do not have
Speaker 1: a crisis. We should certainly have borders security. Nobody argues
Speaker 1: for open borders that's a myth that Donald Trump puts
Speaker 1: out there. Pause, hold on. People argue for open borders
Speaker 1: all the time. I know libertarians who argue for open borders.
Speaker 1: I spoke to activists on the street protesting Stephen Miller
Speaker 1: who were straight up saying they want open borders. Keep playing.
Speaker 1: We need to have as a path to legalization for
Speaker 1: the twelve to thirteen million illegal immigrants already in this
Speaker 1: country because nobody's going to remove them, including Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and I think we need to have continue with border security,
Speaker 1: maybe strengthen it a bit. Although the wall is a
Speaker 1: farcical idea that would waste tens of billions of dollars
Speaker 1: that we don't have. So should we tear down the
Speaker 1: wall in San Diego where the caravan was recently essentially
Speaker 1: parked and stopped? Should we get rid of that wall too? Well, again,
Speaker 1: you're you're making things up. There's not really a wall
Speaker 1: in in San Diego. There is a small sector there's
Speaker 1: a border barrier that keeps people, very small border barrier
Speaker 1: in in San Diego, which is not related to Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's to two things. Pause here, Notice how I mean
Speaker 1: I'm referred to a wall. Yeah, it's a triple layer fence.
Speaker 1: It's a barrier. I mean, that's just that's just sophistry, right,
Speaker 1: He's just being a pain. This guy is a total jerk.
Speaker 1: By the way, here's the reason that so many people
Speaker 1: hate Conservatism, guys like him, who aren't particularly eloquent or
Speaker 1: interesting and don't have nearly as wide a knowledge base
Speaker 1: as they seem to think they do. But yeah, so
Speaker 1: he wants to play semantics games with wall versus fence.
Speaker 1: That's really useful. And then he says it has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Trump. That's obviously not the point. The
Speaker 1: point is he says a wall is farcicle. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 1: wall in the San Diego sector has dropped illegal crossing
Speaker 1: ninety keep playing it. Phony promises to build a wall
Speaker 1: along the entire length of I just want to know
Speaker 1: why that's worth a billion dollars. Well, a wall here,
Speaker 1: let me explain it to you in simple terms. You
Speaker 1: can have appropriate barriers in certain and in certain places,
Speaker 1: maybe the appropriate barrier is a wall. But what Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was peddling was nonsense to suggest that. Here. Okay,
Speaker 1: now we're back to Trump. This guy's unhinged. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying there's a wall that works in one place, Why
Speaker 1: are you saying a wall's a farcical idea? In other places?
Speaker 1: No one's saying it's all going to be built at once. Anyway,
Speaker 1: this guy's a perfect example of it. Thinks he's smart,
Speaker 1: is actually a clown, is snide, and is a laughing
Speaker 1: now on both sides. So Max boot you got booted, son.
Speaker 1: I've gotten pretty used to the President tweeting out some
Speaker 1: things that you you wouldn't necessarily expect the President of
Speaker 1: the United States to tweet. You know, I've definitely seen
Speaker 1: my fair share of things now from this president that
Speaker 1: I go, oh wow, that is a thing that he
Speaker 1: just shared on the Twitter. Who knew? Who knew that
Speaker 1: such a thing could happen with the leader of the
Speaker 1: free world. But this one today was what are those fun?
Speaker 1: Reminders of the fact that this president had quite a
Speaker 1: quite a life as a celebrity before he became the
Speaker 1: president of the United States. This was from President Trump's
Speaker 1: own Twitter account, a throwback Thursday video clip he shared
Speaker 1: of him singing at the Emmys with Molly Malay play
Speaker 1: it the far living is the life for me? Let's
Speaker 1: spread out so far? And why keep being hot? Just
Speaker 1: give me that countryside. That was President Trump singing, It's amazing,
Speaker 1: you know. I was just talking to some colleagues today
Speaker 1: about this at the Hill and how no matter what
Speaker 1: you think of the president at how much you like
Speaker 1: the President's policies, ideas, demeanor or dislike it, he is
Speaker 1: in the whole situation is amazing and we do live
Speaker 1: in And I guess this is also what are those
Speaker 1: rare times we're all stop and say, for all the
Speaker 1: problems that we have, for all the things that we
Speaker 1: talk about on this show that are very real concerns, issues,
Speaker 1: things to tackle and fix, we are living in a
Speaker 1: period of amazing prosperity and relative peace. I was thinking
Speaker 1: today as I was all my way to the office
Speaker 1: very early in the morning, and I will lie I
Speaker 1: was having a little pity party in my head for
Speaker 1: woe is me. It's five am. I didn't get to
Speaker 1: sleep until past midnight. I'm tired, it's cold, it's still
Speaker 1: dark outside. And I thought, well, I'm going into a
Speaker 1: TV studio a few blocks from the White House in Washington, DC.
Speaker 1: And if this had been a different time period, I
Speaker 1: could have say been a few days into the Battle
Speaker 1: of the Bulch, which sure many of you recall, was
Speaker 1: a World War two battle that was during the freezing
Speaker 1: cold winter December sixteenth, nineteen forty four, and the Nazis
Speaker 1: last ditch major offensive to try and turn the tide
Speaker 1: of World War Two in the Western Front. And I
Speaker 1: remember interviewing a couple of survivors of the Battle of
Speaker 1: the Bolt and just how they couldn't get warm. They
Speaker 1: were cold all the time, and there was always a
Speaker 1: thread of German artillery, German shelling, and that's what they
Speaker 1: were living with there today. So while I'm not generally
Speaker 1: somebody who says, you know, things could be worse, you
Speaker 1: could get eaten by a shark, which is technically true,
Speaker 1: we are living in an amazing time, a very interesting time,
Speaker 1: but also one in which we've had incredible prosperity. And
Speaker 1: this country, for all of the all of the issues
Speaker 1: that need to be fixed, in all of the areas
Speaker 1: of fear and injustice and problems that we have, this
Speaker 1: is an amazing time to be an American and we
Speaker 1: haven't been saddled with a major global conflict. So I
Speaker 1: just would note that we should all be a little
Speaker 1: thankful as we go into Christmas even though I know
Speaker 1: it's not Thanksgiving. You know what I mean, Team, it's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. I can just feel that Christmas
Speaker 1: spirit in the air. Team, it is, it is here,
Speaker 1: it is upon us. We are in the home stretch.
Speaker 1: Soon we will be celebrating in whatever way we choose
Speaker 1: to celebrate. Man, Christmas, Tom, it is here. I'm so excited.
Speaker 1: I'm going to sleep, I'm going to eat, I'm going
Speaker 1: to be with friends and family. And it's been it's
Speaker 1: been quite a year, quite a year. And then on
Speaker 1: New Year's Eve, I had this amazing plan that I
Speaker 1: want to share with you. New Year's Eve, I'm going
Speaker 1: to just eat a really nice dinner and watch some
Speaker 1: stuff on TV, and go to sleep around eleven o'clock.
Speaker 1: That's my idea. Miss Molly's on board for it too.
Speaker 1: That's my idea of a perfect New Year's Eve. I
Speaker 1: do not get all wrapped up. If you're going to
Speaker 1: a party, I hope you have a great time. I've
Speaker 1: just been to so many New Year's Eve parties, and
Speaker 1: I think that, second only to prom in high school,
Speaker 1: New Year's Eve is the most overhyped and most disappointing
Speaker 1: night that exists in American culture. But let's get to
Speaker 1: your roll call thoughts. Mesa. First up, Hey Buck, I've
Speaker 1: been listening to your show and bits and pieces for
Speaker 1: about a year. I catch it on my way home
Speaker 1: from work around eight pm on talk radio. I'm just
Speaker 1: now figuring out that your show is a podcast and
Speaker 1: now I listen to the whole show during the day
Speaker 1: while I drive my ups truck. I'm just curious if
Speaker 1: you record it live. If so, what time, If not,
Speaker 1: what time and where do you release it? Right now,
Speaker 1: I'm listening on iHeartRadio and usually checking throughout the day
Speaker 1: to see if it's up yet. Sorry for the questions.
Speaker 1: Love your show, Mesa, Well, you know, Mesa, what it
Speaker 1: is is. The show is a live show, but there's
Speaker 1: a podcast of the show that's up after and sometimes
Speaker 1: I'm able to do a little bit of the show,
Speaker 1: maybe some interviews here or there in advance, but the
Speaker 1: whole show is on a podcast that you can listen
Speaker 1: to every day, and the podcast should go up a
Speaker 1: little bit earlier than the show finishes. In your market,
Speaker 1: it depends on where you are, but we should have
Speaker 1: the show up most nights by about oh eight pm
Speaker 1: Eastern on the whole show, and we're trying to get
Speaker 1: it out earlier and earlier. Marie, thank you for listening,
Speaker 1: by the way, I hope you enjoy the podcast. Marie writes,
Speaker 1: already awake and listening to last night's podcast. Agree also
Speaker 1: sad about the wall and Trump dropping the ball. Tonight,
Speaker 1: while we listen and wrap gifts, we're gonna have a
Speaker 1: little drinking game and take a shot of Spike eggnog
Speaker 1: every time you say, never forget at Scooter Libby. Aha, Oh,
Speaker 1: you're right, Marie. I am particularly irascible about the way
Speaker 1: that Scooter Libby was treated by the last special counsel. Seriously,
Speaker 1: he's important to you. Was the injustice against him something
Speaker 1: that gave you a heart for exposing wrongdoing? Inquiring minds
Speaker 1: want to know, you know, Marie, I had to deal
Speaker 1: with the internal investigative bureaucracy in a few different ways
Speaker 1: during my time at the CIA and then at the NYPD.
Speaker 1: And there is this mentality for those who are lifelong
Speaker 1: bureaucrats that they do some great service by harassing and
Speaker 1: even sometimes terrorizing and destroying the careers of good public servants. Now,
Speaker 1: I was never on the wrong side of regulations or
Speaker 1: certainly the law at either institution. But I know what
Speaker 1: it's like when for political reasons, you get dragged in
Speaker 1: the middle of something and people are trying to make
Speaker 1: a name for themselves and they forget that there's a
Speaker 1: process in place, but the end goal of that process
Speaker 1: is supposed to be justice, and just the process itself
Speaker 1: is not the end in and of itself. So that's
Speaker 1: I think, one way of And then also the lies
Speaker 1: around the whole Scooter Libby thing and people that were
Speaker 1: saying that he was a trader and that he'd sold
Speaker 1: out his country and there was no evidence for that whatsoever.
Speaker 1: And people still to this day, including journalists some of
Speaker 1: whom I've come across who claimed to have covered this
Speaker 1: case specifically, they think that Scooter would betrayed his country
Speaker 1: and lied. It's really hard to betray your country by
Speaker 1: outing someone who was outed by somebody else in a
Speaker 1: newspaper that has nothing to do with you, right, that
Speaker 1: would be It's a difficult thing to do, you know.
Speaker 1: It's a difficult thing to be the one who spills
Speaker 1: the beans when the beans were already spilled by somebody else,
Speaker 1: not by you. So I think that's a pretty straightforward
Speaker 1: rundown of of why it is that I feel that way,
Speaker 1: and also just a fits Gerrold went after Conrad Black,
Speaker 1: he went after Scooter Libby. I mean, these there's a
Speaker 1: lot of these sanctimonious democrats in prosecutors trappings who go
Speaker 1: on these very high end, very high level political hunting expeditions,
Speaker 1: and it's a disgrace and it makes me not trust
Speaker 1: the Justice Department, which is supposed to be the institution
Speaker 1: that I think we all, after the military, perhaps all
Speaker 1: have the most faith in its fairness, and I have
Speaker 1: almost no faith in the DJ when it comes to
Speaker 1: dealing with highly sensitive political cases. I'm not talking about
Speaker 1: drugs and murders and things like that. They can handle
Speaker 1: that stuff just fine. Fortunately, there's not much of a
Speaker 1: pro murder constituency out there, so it's not a political issue.
Speaker 1: But there is certainly a food fight that is underway
Speaker 1: right now over using corruption charges as a means of
Speaker 1: settling electoral scores, and I just I find that really
Speaker 1: disturbed being and it bothers me to no end. But
Speaker 1: you know, I've told you before about the case that
Speaker 1: I was involved in, and I can't get into the specifics,
Speaker 1: but where someone who wasn't guilty of any terrorists wrongdoing
Speaker 1: and was a few people removed from an actual, an
Speaker 1: actual bad guy, they were thinking about going after him.
Speaker 1: This is on the law enforcement side for a mortgage fraud.
Speaker 1: And the guy was functionally illiterate and had actually paid
Speaker 1: all of the you know, all of the mortgage debt
Speaker 1: on the product, or was paying it off on time,
Speaker 1: and essentially was a straw purchaser or straw mortgage purchaser
Speaker 1: for somebody else. And they were thinking about, you know,
Speaker 1: sending him away for ten years, or at least charging
Speaker 1: him where he could. He wouldn't have gotten ten years,
Speaker 1: but they would have charged him with a ten year offense.
Speaker 1: And I just realized that people get so close to
Speaker 1: the bureaucracy, and they become so enmeshed in their day
Speaker 1: to day and in their mission that they sometimes forget that,
Speaker 1: you know, there are human beings involved here. And it's
Speaker 1: not just because it's the Christmas season, but every season
Speaker 1: we should remember compassion and kindness and mercy. These are
Speaker 1: things that should never be discarded. These are not traits,
Speaker 1: these are not ways of being that, Oh I'm just
Speaker 1: I'm just a man doing a job should eliminate your
Speaker 1: sense of decency to your fellow human beings, and mercy
Speaker 1: and compassion certainly go along with that. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is one of the reasons why I in a very
Speaker 1: different way. This is a much less serious thing. But
Speaker 1: I try not to go after people so much on Twitter,
Speaker 1: even though people come after me all the time. I
Speaker 1: try to make it about issues and things and thoughts,
Speaker 1: because I take no joy out of out of being
Speaker 1: nasty to people. Some people, you know, you need you
Speaker 1: need to tune up a little bit, need to give
Speaker 1: them a little verbal slap around. But for the most part,
Speaker 1: I try to avoid. I don't like dragging people who
Speaker 1: have said something stupid on Twitter. I don't like dragging
Speaker 1: them as a person what they say, sure, but them
Speaker 1: as a person. You know. I don't make fun of
Speaker 1: people's appearance. I mean, I put these these are guidelines
Speaker 1: in place, and I'm not saying I'm perfect, and I
Speaker 1: certainly fall short of it sometimes, but we've it's important
Speaker 1: to maintain or at least have those guidelines. You know,
Speaker 1: don't make fun of your political opponents appearance, don't go
Speaker 1: after you know their family, or make light of personal tragedy.
Speaker 1: Or you know, these are important things for all of us,
Speaker 1: at least I believe. Richie writes, Buck, you're a good guy.
Speaker 1: Stay away from the scooters and out of communist West Hollywood. Also,
Speaker 1: make sure you watch the original Battlestar galact Galactica Middle
Speaker 1: mini series. It's not completely necessary for enjoyment, but I
Speaker 1: think it's important for the totality of the Battlestar Galactica experience. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I don't see you as a sci fi type, and
Speaker 1: I bet you probably know nothing of the original ABC series,
Speaker 1: but one can hope. You know, Richie, I'm actually I
Speaker 1: just finished the Battlestar Galactica mini series. I finally figured
Speaker 1: out what I had missed and I was able to
Speaker 1: watch it, and I so far really enjoy it. You know,
Speaker 1: I think some of the some of the CGI and
Speaker 1: the graphics are a little hokey, you know, they're a
Speaker 1: little bit, a little bit b team. But the writing
Speaker 1: and the acting is all pretty pretty solid. The writing
Speaker 1: is very solid. Some of the acting I think can
Speaker 1: be a little wooden, but overall, I gotta say it's good.
Speaker 1: It's an interesting it's an interesting concept, and I'm enjoying
Speaker 1: it and I'm hoping to make it all the way through.
Speaker 1: Gerald and Leslie, Hey Buck, I'm a big fan. I
Speaker 1: always listening to your podcast and heard you wanted to
Speaker 1: hear from Facebook peeps. I just wanted to say I
Speaker 1: love the show. You're definitely going to be the next
Speaker 1: Rush Limball. I've been listening to him since I was eighteen.
Speaker 1: I'm forty four now. I appreciate your perspective, your eighties
Speaker 1: movie likes, and the fact that you like to cook
Speaker 1: me too. Thanks for being you well. Thank you Gerald
Speaker 1: and Leslie. I'm assuming that's from I don't know, actually
Speaker 1: it could be from Gerald or Leslie, but it's very
Speaker 1: very kind of you. Thanks for your words about you know,
Speaker 1: saying that I'll be that I could ever be, even
Speaker 1: in the same conversation as Rush Limball, as like telling
Speaker 1: a you know, a young NBA player that he could
Speaker 1: one day be like Michael Jordan or Rush Limball, I mean,
Speaker 1: or or Rush Limball or Lebron James. But that's very
Speaker 1: very kind of you. I appreciate it, and thank you
Speaker 1: so much for listening to the show. And we've got
Speaker 1: we've got a lot of a lot of years a
Speaker 1: great show ahead, so if you've enjoyed it this far,
Speaker 1: strap in because the ride's gonna be awesome. Ted rights Buck,
Speaker 1: first time messaging anybody on the radio, but I have
Speaker 1: to get this off my chest. I originally began listening
Speaker 1: to you after hearing you on Rush. Plus, I'm tired
Speaker 1: of listening conservatives hosts who feel compelled to scream over
Speaker 1: the airways with their outrage. I turned them off. Overall,
Speaker 1: your program and format are informative and thought provoking. Increasingly, however,
Speaker 1: I'm turning you off as you talk a particular issue
Speaker 1: to death, overtalk your analysis, and drone on enough already
Speaker 1: it is exasperating. Maybe picking up the pace would help.
Speaker 1: I'd also listen. I also refuse to listen to the
Speaker 1: Godfather when he subs for you. In my opinion, hardly
Speaker 1: anyone more boring to listen to. I will continue to
Speaker 1: listen for now, Ted. Well, Ted, I'll try to mix
Speaker 1: it up a little bit more for you, buddy. How
Speaker 1: about that? You know, some days it's a slow new cycle.
Speaker 1: Some days I try to get deep into the bowels
Speaker 1: of an issue, which I think people can either find
Speaker 1: interesting or they can find it to be you know,
Speaker 1: too too much. You know, TMI, as the kids say,
Speaker 1: But I do try to mix up the topics a lot.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think we cover a lot of ground
Speaker 1: over the three hours of the show. You know, these days,
Speaker 1: I'll be honest with you, man, I'm I get tired
Speaker 1: of having to talk about the Muller probe. I think
Speaker 1: that in a sense, I'm kind of hostage to the
Speaker 1: new cycle in that regard, because it is what is
Speaker 1: out there and being talked about. It is affecting and
Speaker 1: directing the political conversation, but there's generally not that much
Speaker 1: new stuff going on with it, and so you end
Speaker 1: up slicing the onion pretty thin. But look, you're listener,
Speaker 1: you are sending me a critique in good faith. I
Speaker 1: appreciate it. All of you who listen, every one of you.
Speaker 1: You're the reason that I have this dream job of
Speaker 1: having a radio show, and so your thoughts are always appreciated,
Speaker 1: and that includes I have made. I can't even tell
Speaker 1: you how many adjustments I've made countless adjustments to this
Speaker 1: show over the years, because somebody will write me and
Speaker 1: they'll say, you know, I'd like you to do this
Speaker 1: a little more, or that a little more, a little
Speaker 1: less of this and I read it and I realize, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, that criticism is right. So single individuals have
Speaker 1: written me either email or Facebook and gotten me to
Speaker 1: make adjustments to the show. So I don't want you
Speaker 1: to think that I'm not paying attention. I am paying attention.
Speaker 1: You know. For example, on impressions, there's some that you
Speaker 1: guys like, some that you're not as into, and you
Speaker 1: like them in pretty small doses, like a little bit
Speaker 1: of spice here and there. So I've scaled that back
Speaker 1: over the years as a result of audience feedback, because
Speaker 1: your feedback really does matter. I do this show for
Speaker 1: all of you who are listening, which reminds me tomorrow
Speaker 1: is going to be my last show of twenty eighteen,
Speaker 1: so send in your thoughts on Facebook. And also, we're
Speaker 1: gonna open up the line so I can talk to
Speaker 1: you all, and maybe some of you want to wish
Speaker 1: me a happy birthday, so get ready for that. Tomorrow.
Speaker 1: We're gonna open up the lines, take a bunch of calls,
Speaker 1: and I'm gonna have a whole bunch of fun. So
Speaker 1: I will see you then, or at least i'll talk
Speaker 1: to you then, She'll tie. I've got a conservative alternative
Speaker 1: to all those lib email services out there. I patriots
Speaker 1: dot us. You see, ipatriots dot us doesn't share your
Speaker 1: data with third parties without your permission. It doesn't violate
Speaker 1: your privacy and scan your emails and do all this
Speaker 1: stuff and push liberal agenda items with whatever money they're making. No, No.
Speaker 1: Ipatriots dot us is a secure, private email server that
Speaker 1: includes more of what you want without all the ads
Speaker 1: and spam. You'll get thirty gigs at cloud storage, larger
Speaker 1: attachment sizes, and much more. Your email and files are
Speaker 1: safe with ipatriots premium anti virus, anti spam encryption. They
Speaker 1: won't sell your information or support liberal items out there.
Speaker 1: That's the stuff that you just don't care about. All right,
Speaker 1: You want the best email service, checkout ipatriots dot us.
Speaker 1: It's compatible with most mobile devices. Show your patriot. Go
Speaker 1: to ipatriots dot us now, choose your membership and input
Speaker 1: your desired email address during checkout. Enter promo code buck
Speaker 1: when you go to ipatriots dot us now for ten
Speaker 1: percent savings during your first year of membership