Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Some fiery testimony from
Speaker 1: Democrats on Capitol Hill about the crisis at the border,
Speaker 1: which they're saying is our fault. Of course. Also the
Speaker 1: Secretary of Labor Alex Acosta, has stepped down. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about why and whether this was the right move. We've
Speaker 1: got that and much more coming up on this freest
Speaker 1: off Friday of the buck Sexton Show. Bucks Sexton Mission,
Speaker 1: decoding the news and disseminating information. Who is actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show. Analysts, I can speak for
Speaker 1: three hours without a phone call. Try doing that sometime.
Speaker 1: It is buck Sexton. No, this is a manufactured crisis
Speaker 1: because cruelty, because the cruelty is manufactured. This is a
Speaker 1: manufactured crisis because there is no need for us to
Speaker 1: do this. There's no need for us to overcrowd and
Speaker 1: to detain and under resource. There is no need for
Speaker 1: us to arrest innocent people and treat them no differently
Speaker 1: than criminals when they are pursuing their basic human rights.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. The efforts of the
Speaker 1: Democrats to make the crisis at the southern border that
Speaker 1: they denied until what feels like about five minutes ago,
Speaker 1: that they lied about for months and months. There's no crisis,
Speaker 1: no problem. Oh, it's just the asylum process plying out,
Speaker 1: why are you so mean, Republicans. That's been the storyline.
Speaker 1: Now they can't ignore the numbers. Now, the facilities are overwhelmed, overflowing.
Speaker 1: Now it is clear that the systematic violation of our
Speaker 1: immigration laws is underway, and that Democrats have no interest
Speaker 1: in enforcement at any stage of this process anymore. They
Speaker 1: want to make it not a crime to cross illegal illegally.
Speaker 1: They want to make it not a crime to lie
Speaker 1: in order to gain the asylum system. They want to
Speaker 1: make it not a crime to stay even if you
Speaker 1: don't get asylum. After you're hearing, at no point, at
Speaker 1: no point in this process, do they give us anything
Speaker 1: that indicates they really want to do what they have
Speaker 1: been saying for years they want to do, which is
Speaker 1: a secure the border. Okazio Cortez has become the spokesperson
Speaker 1: for this narrative on the left. She's become the most
Speaker 1: prominent of the Democrats to stand to stand in front
Speaker 1: of us and browbeat us. The American people, because we're
Speaker 1: not doing enough for the people that have heard. Hey,
Speaker 1: here's the deal. Pay a trafficker to take you to
Speaker 1: the border with a kid, say you're fleeing violence even
Speaker 1: though you're not, and you'll be led into the United States,
Speaker 1: and then just don't show up for your hearing because
Speaker 1: they won't. And you're in America. You're home free, you're
Speaker 1: good to go. And we're not doing enough for those people,
Speaker 1: you see. That's what that's what a Kasia Cortez is saying.
Speaker 1: And it's our fault. We didn't ask these people to
Speaker 1: show up. We didn't we didn't put out some call
Speaker 1: to hey, if you're from Central America, please flood the
Speaker 1: US Mexico border at various sectors. No, they're choosing to
Speaker 1: do this. They're choosing to exploit loopholes in our system.
Speaker 1: And we're the bad people. We're the bad guys. She
Speaker 1: also said that there's nothing criminal what they've done. That's
Speaker 1: that's not true. Stepping onto US soil across the border,
Speaker 1: not at a point of entry, is a violation of
Speaker 1: criminal law. It's a crime because it is a serious
Speaker 1: enough offense against the Ed States government and its sovereignty
Speaker 1: that it has to be more than just a parking ticket.
Speaker 1: They are breaking the law when they do that. And
Speaker 1: you could say, oh, but that seems so harsh. All right, Well,
Speaker 1: if someone wants to go and just walk through your
Speaker 1: front law and every day that they're not hurting you, right,
Speaker 1: they're not. They're not doing anything bad to you. They're
Speaker 1: just gonna walk across your lawn every morning. Why is
Speaker 1: that a problem. It's just a foot on grass, right,
Speaker 1: It's just a foot foot foot grass walking past you.
Speaker 1: They want to do it every day. That's not trespassing,
Speaker 1: that's just taking a shortcut. Oh you mean that. If
Speaker 1: we're going to live in a society with rules and laws,
Speaker 1: we have to enforce those laws. We can't just have
Speaker 1: them and say, well, we're not going to take any
Speaker 1: of that. Seriously, why is it just why is it
Speaker 1: just the case that immigration law gets pushed to the side.
Speaker 1: Why do we not enforce laws about lying because we
Speaker 1: know that people come to the border and they say
Speaker 1: that they're fleeing gang violence, and then when they get
Speaker 1: into further detail, turns out that no, they're not fleeing
Speaker 1: gang violence. They're actually economic migrants. They just forgot to
Speaker 1: stay on message. If you lie to a federal law
Speaker 1: enforcement officer, you're gonna go to prison. If you're an
Speaker 1: illegal alien, you lie, You're just a person fleeing a
Speaker 1: desperate circumstance. I mean, Central America is not in the
Speaker 1: midst of a massive famine or an ethnic cleansing or
Speaker 1: repressive political violence that's killing thousands and thousands of people.
Speaker 1: That that's not happening right now. So what is the
Speaker 1: asylum claim really all about. They're getting ahead of people,
Speaker 1: by the way, who are claiming from other countries refugee
Speaker 1: status and have to go through a process in this
Speaker 1: country who are trying to who are fleeing persecution and violence.
Speaker 1: So they're skipping them in the line. And they're skipping
Speaker 1: millions of people that have been waiting for years and
Speaker 1: paid thousands, perhaps tens of thousands of dollars to come
Speaker 1: to the country illegally. They're all violating this process. Democrats
Speaker 1: have no problem with this whatsoever. They see, They see
Speaker 1: no downside about this. They are now the pro illegal
Speaker 1: immigration party, as they say pro undocumented. They won't even
Speaker 1: say legal immigrant. It's too offensive, you see, to refer
Speaker 1: to these individuals by the legal designation of their conduct
Speaker 1: is somehow morally offensive to Democrats. You know, you're not
Speaker 1: You're not a tax cheat. You're just a delayed government funder.
Speaker 1: We'll get the money from you at some point, but
Speaker 1: we just can't call you a tax cheat if you
Speaker 1: just refuse to ever pay your taxes. Right, delayed government funder.
Speaker 1: That sounds like fun to me. AOC, though, saw this
Speaker 1: as an opportunity to grandstand her favorite thing, get attention
Speaker 1: for herself. I mean, she does strike me as quite
Speaker 1: quite self obsessed and braddy, and I'm not the only one.
Speaker 1: I think Nancy Pelosi would probably agree with me these days.
Speaker 1: She said, it's a manufactured crisis, not manufactured by us.
Speaker 1: What does she want poor to patrol to do. We
Speaker 1: didn't know that a million people over the course of
Speaker 1: this year we're going to show up and say that
Speaker 1: they have to claim asylum when they don't need asylum
Speaker 1: and they don't meet this asylum requirements. We did not
Speaker 1: know that. So it's our fault that we don't have
Speaker 1: the facilities in place. I mean, if ten people show
Speaker 1: up at your house for dinner and you weren't expecting them,
Speaker 1: and you don't have enough food, to make them all
Speaker 1: feel like they were really getting a great meal. Is
Speaker 1: that your fault, because that's what this whole asylum process, folks,
Speaker 1: is based on the goodheartedness of the American people. This
Speaker 1: is us as a political community saying, you know what,
Speaker 1: we are going to take in some people that you know,
Speaker 1: we need to be a beacon of light to the world,
Speaker 1: and we need to be a refuge for people that
Speaker 1: are fleeing oppression. Put in limited numbers, and people have
Speaker 1: to do it legally. But because of that, because the
Speaker 1: charity of the American people, because that's what this is,
Speaker 1: the charity is not indulgent enough for the likes of AOC.
Speaker 1: We're bad people. Now, It's our fault. It's always our fault.
Speaker 1: People send their children to through coyotes, trafficking. God knows
Speaker 1: what's happening to these kids in the way they show
Speaker 1: up on a company, they show up alone to the board.
Speaker 1: It's our fault. It's all our fault. What about the
Speaker 1: Honduran government, About the government of El Salvador, What about
Speaker 1: the Mexican government? Does does does anyone else ever get to say,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe we could get things together a little
Speaker 1: bit more here and be a little less dysfunctional as
Speaker 1: a country. I don't know's you can't say that it's
Speaker 1: always America's fault. I mean, AOC here doesn't mind at
Speaker 1: all demonizing border patrol, which is what she's doing, reminds
Speaker 1: me of what happened when it was convenient, when it
Speaker 1: was politically convenient. Under the Obama administration, there were plenty
Speaker 1: of Democrats and public officials who would go forward and
Speaker 1: throw our cops, local law enforcement under the bus. Their racists,
Speaker 1: their systemic racism. Young black men need to be afraid
Speaker 1: of cops. These are all things that were being said.
Speaker 1: I was at the rallies covering them. I saw what
Speaker 1: I heard myself. What was being said. Pigs in a blanket,
Speaker 1: fry him like bacon. Those were chants at rallies. Right
Speaker 1: when the left decides that it's good to rabble rows
Speaker 1: and mobilize for the cause, they'll say horrible things about cops,
Speaker 1: terrible things about law enforcement. Now I'm saying that about
Speaker 1: those who are involved in law enforcement at our border,
Speaker 1: namely customs and border patrol, immigrations and customs enforcement. AOC
Speaker 1: just slandering them, slandering them left and right. But does
Speaker 1: it while cloaking herself in the in the trappings of
Speaker 1: the ultimate humanitarian, the only one who cares. Yes, she's
Speaker 1: the only one who carries about children. The border patrol
Speaker 1: members who were changing the diapers and feeding them and
Speaker 1: bringing them bottles and taking them to their doctor's appointments
Speaker 1: that are paid for by the taxpayer. By the way,
Speaker 1: the border patrol people doing all that, they're they're the
Speaker 1: bad people. AOC who stands for these kids in her
Speaker 1: super emotional moment, that she's the real hero, not the
Speaker 1: people that are on the front lines taking care of them,
Speaker 1: making sure that they aren't in jeopardy, make sure they
Speaker 1: aren't sick, making sure they aren't being human traffic. They're
Speaker 1: not the people that we should be thankful. We should
Speaker 1: be thankful to AOC because you know she tweets about
Speaker 1: it and she voted against funding for them. Can we
Speaker 1: just throw that in the mix for a second. The
Speaker 1: biggest problem they have is they don't have money for
Speaker 1: all the baby formula and the diapers and the food
Speaker 1: and the clothing and the soccer balls and the TVs
Speaker 1: and the other stuff that they need at these facilities.
Speaker 1: And there's an opportunity to get the money, and AOC
Speaker 1: goes no. She wants to make a point. She doesn't
Speaker 1: vote for it. As a member of Congress. The one thing,
Speaker 1: the power of the purse, what Congress has she votes
Speaker 1: against giving them the money. And then we all realized
Speaker 1: what this is. It's all about her, It's all about grandstanding.
Speaker 1: But here you can hear the kind of stuff that
Speaker 1: she had to say today. When these women tell me
Speaker 1: that they were put into a cell and that their
Speaker 1: sink was not working, and we tested the sink ourselves
Speaker 1: and the sink was not working, and they were told
Speaker 1: to drink out of a toilet bowl, I believed them.
Speaker 1: I believe these women, don't I believe the canker sores
Speaker 1: that I saw in their mouths because they were only
Speaker 1: allowed to be fed unnutritious food. I believed them. When
Speaker 1: they said they were sleeping on concrete floors for two months,
Speaker 1: I believed them. And what was worse about this, mister Chairman,
Speaker 1: was the fact that there were American flags hanging all
Speaker 1: over these facilities, That children being separated from their parents
Speaker 1: in front of an American flag, that women were being
Speaker 1: called these names under an American flag. I'm not allowed
Speaker 1: for this I don't believe it border Patrol told women
Speaker 1: to drink out of toilet. I think that there's there
Speaker 1: are two options here. She as an AOC is lying
Speaker 1: or there might have been a miscommunication ooks. I've talked
Speaker 1: to Border Patrol about this. Even if you're a fluent
Speaker 1: Spanish speaker, particularly in Honduras, the dialect can be so
Speaker 1: different that it's very hard for fluent Spanish speakers to
Speaker 1: be able to communicate with some of the people from
Speaker 1: the outlying villages of Honduras. So when you have a
Speaker 1: contraption that is both a toilet and the bottom and
Speaker 1: then at the top is water, does anyone think that
Speaker 1: it might have been possible that the women from Honduras
Speaker 1: that have showed up here may have misunderstood what Border
Speaker 1: Patrol told them instead of telling them to drink from
Speaker 1: a toilet, does anyone really think that they were told
Speaker 1: to drink from that A member of Border patrols, yeah,
Speaker 1: drink from a toilet. They wouldn't say that. People that
Speaker 1: work in the worst prisons wouldn't say that the prison inmates.
Speaker 1: You're gonna tell me that, you think Border Patrol would
Speaker 1: just say that the women that are there with kids
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I just it's not I can't tell. Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: I wasn't there. It doesn't sound impossible, but doesn't doesn't
Speaker 1: wash for me at all. I don't buy it. And
Speaker 1: the whole thing about the canker stores and unnutritious food.
Speaker 1: No one even knows what causes canker sores. Not to
Speaker 1: get into you Buck's Murk Manual of Health here, but
Speaker 1: canker stores, there's a whole there's like a hundred different
Speaker 1: theories for what they are, and they go away after
Speaker 1: a few days. So I don't know where she came
Speaker 1: up with that, but to me, that's just indicative of
Speaker 1: the fact that she's stretching to find. Oh look at
Speaker 1: the horrible conduct. Are they sleeping directly on concrete for
Speaker 1: two months? Are they sleeping on a mattress on concrete
Speaker 1: if it's a mattress on concrete, Yeah, that's what a
Speaker 1: attention facility is going to be like. Is it supposed
Speaker 1: to be a hotel? What is the acceptable standard? I
Speaker 1: would like to ask the Democrats this too, based on
Speaker 1: everything we've seen. For members of Congress who have been
Speaker 1: down there, who are not pushing a political agenda, there
Speaker 1: is fresh water provided, food provided. I've seen the medical facilities.
Speaker 1: We have DoD setting up medical facilities now at the
Speaker 1: border to help out with this what exactly you know?
Speaker 1: And it's so horrifying. You should see the people that
Speaker 1: show up. They know the whole scam. They show up.
Speaker 1: I've seen them do this. You know, Hey, I mean
Speaker 1: they're saying it in Spanish, but hey, I'm here, I
Speaker 1: want to I want to claim my asylum now. And
Speaker 1: then they basically order around border patrol like all right,
Speaker 1: let's you know, I'm hungry, get me a sandwich. This happens.
Speaker 1: I'm not imagining this. I've been there. They've because they've
Speaker 1: all been told the routine by the Coyotes. They know
Speaker 1: what this is. And yeah, though they're making this trade off,
Speaker 1: you know why. Okay, maybe it's you know, it's not
Speaker 1: great to be in a detention facility for and two
Speaker 1: months is very rare these days. Usually it's a few
Speaker 1: days if you have if you have a kid with you,
Speaker 1: they're just processing you through. But that's really fast compared
Speaker 1: to the people that have waited years and years and
Speaker 1: years in order to come to America. I legally, how
Speaker 1: many people would would take that trade off a few
Speaker 1: days of sleeping on a mattress on the floor and
Speaker 1: having unnutritious food, but medical care and you know, US
Speaker 1: government responsible for your upkeep in order to get into
Speaker 1: the United States forever and never have to go through
Speaker 1: the legal immigration process. I think a lot of people,
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people make that trade off
Speaker 1: because they are making that trade off. So if it
Speaker 1: were concentration camps, as Occasio Cortez says, and yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: does Border Patrol like her? I'm sure they don't because
Speaker 1: Border Patrol has basically been accused of being SS guards
Speaker 1: by her, and she's a disgrace and an idiot. But
Speaker 1: the left loves it. I think this is fantastic. There's
Speaker 1: a political cause here. It doesn't matter what the men
Speaker 1: and women of law enforcement have to go through as
Speaker 1: a result of It doesn't matter if their reputations are ruined.
Speaker 1: If you have people writing about how they should be
Speaker 1: dosed in major newspapers, they should be docs, they should
Speaker 1: be shamed for doing their jobs. Well, I'm here to
Speaker 1: make sure that we know that if anyone's going to
Speaker 1: be shamed, it's the Democrats, it's the left, it's the
Speaker 1: open borders, zealous who don't care about the rule of law,
Speaker 1: and they will lie about the men and women who
Speaker 1: are doing a very tough job on our border right
Speaker 1: now because of people who are making a choice and
Speaker 1: active affirmative choice to violate our laws and to eradicate
Speaker 1: our sovereignty. I've got a lot more. I'll be right back.
Speaker 1: I think Portes is being very disrespectful to somebody that's
Speaker 1: been there a long time. A group of people is
Speaker 1: being very disrespectful to her. And you know what, I
Speaker 1: don't think that Nancy can let that go on. I'm
Speaker 1: looking at this omar from Minnesota, and if one half
Speaker 1: of the things they're saying about her are true, she
Speaker 1: shouldn't even be an offense. But Cortez should treat Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi with respect. She should not be doing what she's doing.
Speaker 1: And I'll tell you something about Nancy Pelosi that you
Speaker 1: know better than I do. She is not a racist. Okay,
Speaker 1: she is not a racist. For them to call her
Speaker 1: a racist is a disgrace. Trump standing up for Pelosi's
Speaker 1: is that's does he standing for her? There? As well?
Speaker 1: Is that to stand for someone who's done the internet?
Speaker 1: When you stand up for them. I don't know if
Speaker 1: you're like her, if you're really defending them standing up
Speaker 1: for Pelosi deciding that AOC is out of line, which
Speaker 1: she clearly is. But I think it is important that
Speaker 1: Democrats once in a while, I get a little taste
Speaker 1: of their own medicine too. If anyone can be called
Speaker 1: a racist without any provocation or cause, then guess what
Speaker 1: anybody can be called a racist? Maybe we want to
Speaker 1: rain that in a little bit as a society. Maybe
Speaker 1: we don't want people just taking upon themselves to slander reputations,
Speaker 1: to ruin people publicly because they can't beat them in
Speaker 1: a real argument. So they say, well, it's because racist
Speaker 1: Pelosi will be fine everyone, because, as we know, Democrats,
Speaker 1: even if they are being racist, which I don't think
Speaker 1: Pelosi is, they are judged by a very different set
Speaker 1: of standards, and they will always be allowed to come
Speaker 1: back into the community of the of the acceptable, of
Speaker 1: the fancy, of the elites. But Trumps standing up for
Speaker 1: Pelosi is it is something you wouldn't have expected this week,
Speaker 1: But sure enough, here we are. He understands that if
Speaker 1: there's one thing that Democrats, well, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: things about Trump that drives them completely insane. But when
Speaker 1: he's just being rational and he's right, and they're acting
Speaker 1: like a bunch of total lunatics, and that's what that
Speaker 1: just aggravates them even more. They get even Crazier's when
Speaker 1: that's the case. Got more on the border and also
Speaker 1: on the census question. Why is it they're fighting the
Speaker 1: senses so hard. We'll get into that later on. We'll
Speaker 1: talk about single payer, why it's a bad idea. SHO
Speaker 1: always stacked my friends. Stick with me. You're fur decriminalizing
Speaker 1: border crossings or one of the people are working hands
Speaker 1: at the debate. Do you agree with AOC that we
Speaker 1: should get rid of DHS altogether. That is not correct.
Speaker 1: I'm not in favor of decriminalizing or not having consequence
Speaker 1: for it. We have to keep let me just be
Speaker 1: very clear. We have to have a secure border. But
Speaker 1: I am in favor of saying that we're not going
Speaker 1: to treat people who are undocumented across the border as criminals.
Speaker 1: That's correct, That is correct. Um. So, she was really
Speaker 1: clear in that she seemed like she was figuring out
Speaker 1: her position in real time on air. There Producer Mike
Speaker 1: I wasn't she was she was sure about how unsure
Speaker 1: she was. Yeah, that's for sure. That was That was
Speaker 1: a pretty amazing moment because she knows here's here's what
Speaker 1: that really was. Democrats are so set on the talking
Speaker 1: points they can't discuss what this issue really means because
Speaker 1: if people found out what the Democrats were for, there
Speaker 1: would be a political revolt against them. So they have
Speaker 1: to just stick with things like, we believe in a
Speaker 1: secure border. Okay, well, what what are you willing to
Speaker 1: do to secure the border? They got nothing on that.
Speaker 1: We believe in a secure border, but we don't want
Speaker 1: to separate families. We don't believe families should be separated. Okay,
Speaker 1: well then does that mean? What does that mean that
Speaker 1: everybody who could brought into these facilities has to be
Speaker 1: released right away because they can't process them fast enough.
Speaker 1: The system is overwhelmed. So that just means that they're
Speaker 1: being led into the country. If you show up with
Speaker 1: a kid, you get let it. Oh no, no no, we
Speaker 1: believe in not separating families. There has to be more
Speaker 1: than that. That's not a substantial enough explanation of what
Speaker 1: they want. It's not even close to being substantial enough.
Speaker 1: But unfortunately, that's that's really the point, it's that they
Speaker 1: don't want it to be clear what they are pushing for.
Speaker 1: They don't want it to be understood what they have
Speaker 1: in mind. They wanted to be about the talking points.
Speaker 1: They wanted to be vague. And that's why Kamala Harris
Speaker 1: here saying, well, you know, no, that's not correct. I'm
Speaker 1: actually for, but I'm kind of not for, but maybe
Speaker 1: i'm a little bit for. They want to decriminalize border crossings,
Speaker 1: why wouldn't someone come here. They want to decriminalize border crossings.
Speaker 1: They don't want anyone to be to be deported. So
Speaker 1: everybody knows that means right, It means that this problem
Speaker 1: is only going to get worse. It's only gonna get worse,
Speaker 1: more people coming from all over the world. This is
Speaker 1: not They also, you know AOC today and her testimony
Speaker 1: as I was watching it, said that it's it's horrible
Speaker 1: that these people get kept in Mexico. I'm sorry, is
Speaker 1: Mexico some kind of a you know, mad Max hellscape?
Speaker 1: People people from Honduras can't hang out in Mexico for
Speaker 1: a few months waiting for their their court date. I mean,
Speaker 1: they speak the same language. It's why is it so terrible.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people, I think one hundred
Speaker 1: and thirty million live in Mexico. They're not all claiming
Speaker 1: refugee status. That seems to me to be just a
Speaker 1: bizarre thing to say, is that it's some it's a
Speaker 1: terrible punishment. You see, according to the Democrats, if you're
Speaker 1: from Central America and you come to the US Mexico
Speaker 1: border and you have to stay in Mexico for a while, well,
Speaker 1: if you're if you're a true asylum seeker, you should
Speaker 1: just be happy that you're safe from the make believe
Speaker 1: threat of violence that they're all claiming to have from
Speaker 1: Honduras or Al Salvador. They're scamming folks, they're scamming the system,
Speaker 1: and I understand there's huge incentive for them to do it.
Speaker 1: But they're lying. They're not fleeing violence. Unless we want
Speaker 1: to claim that all of Honduras and all of Al
Speaker 1: Salvador qualifies for asylum, in which case, welcome to the
Speaker 1: fifty first and fifty second state and throw Guatemalan they're
Speaker 1: two fifty third, because that means the whole country gets
Speaker 1: to be a part of America. Then that means there's
Speaker 1: absolutely nothing nothing that we can do to stop this.
Speaker 1: So which is it? Do you qualify for salami from Mexico?
Speaker 1: But that's why if you're from a Central America rather,
Speaker 1: this is why the raids that are planned are so very,
Speaker 1: very contentious. This is why the raids that are planned
Speaker 1: or I'm concerned going to be a band ended. Once again,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure the president is really willing to really
Speaker 1: willing to follow through on this one. There'll just be
Speaker 1: so many people of the folks, there are Republicans. There
Speaker 1: are Republicans. You can't trust on this stuff. They've they
Speaker 1: just they want to be the nice guy. It's so
Speaker 1: much easier to say, just let everyone come, just let
Speaker 1: everyone be in the country. Come on, we got a
Speaker 1: lot of space. You've ever been you've ever been driving
Speaker 1: around Wyoming, There's space everywhere, right, That's what they'll say.
Speaker 1: What we'll be told, go go driver on Arizona. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of open territory. Yeah, it's open territory. But
Speaker 1: guess what migrants. Migrants aren't aren't they're not pioneers in
Speaker 1: the nineteenth century. They're not showing up in the woods
Speaker 1: and hacking a house out of you know, clearing brush
Speaker 1: they're gonna show up and say, where's my where's my Obamacare?
Speaker 1: Where are my food stamps? Where's my Section eight housing?
Speaker 1: And the Democrats are gonna say, you're right, we owe
Speaker 1: that all to you, taxpayer. Pay more. These people need
Speaker 1: more stuff. You owe it to them because your foreign
Speaker 1: policy ruined their countries. This is this is the narrative.
Speaker 1: This is what is happening right now. Well, I don't
Speaker 1: know Trump. Trump says that they're going to go through
Speaker 1: with these ICE rates. He says it's going to happen.
Speaker 1: There's nothing to be secret about ICE's law enforcements. They're
Speaker 1: great patriots. They have a tough job. Nothing to be
Speaker 1: secret about. If the word gets out, it gets out.
Speaker 1: It starts on Sunday, and they're gonna take people out
Speaker 1: and they're gonna bring them back to their countries. When
Speaker 1: people come into our country, we take those people out
Speaker 1: and we take them out very legally. They all have
Speaker 1: papers and it's a process, and I have an obligation
Speaker 1: to do it. They came in illegally, they go out legally.
Speaker 1: What the Democrats should be doing now is they should
Speaker 1: be changing the loopholes. They should be changing asylum that's
Speaker 1: if they were serious about fixing the situation. I do
Speaker 1: not believe. I do not believe they are serious about
Speaker 1: fixing it. I think that they very much want this
Speaker 1: to continue. But the approach of the Trump administration of
Speaker 1: upping the deportations and having a more aggressive approach going forward,
Speaker 1: that's what has to be done here. Because what you're
Speaker 1: gonna do. And one of the great things about Trump
Speaker 1: is that he forces the other side to make errors.
Speaker 1: He forces them out of their their comfortable, little little
Speaker 1: little hole, and all of a sudden, you can see
Speaker 1: them for what they are. And that's what he does
Speaker 1: to the left day in and day out. Right. They
Speaker 1: freak out at everything he says. He's wait a second,
Speaker 1: what he said wasn't even not only was it not crazy?
Speaker 1: That's what I think the left now is going to
Speaker 1: tell him that he's that he's hitler. Because of this,
Speaker 1: he forces them to show us. He forces the left
Speaker 1: to show us who they really are. And when he
Speaker 1: starts deporting, when the administration is going specifically after individuals
Speaker 1: who have been adjudicated, been through their process, had it
Speaker 1: all done, when he goes through all of them, and
Speaker 1: the Democrats still claim that that is, you know, they
Speaker 1: can't be deported. That's not right. The Democrats still are
Speaker 1: opposing deportation. How can anyone be watching that? How can
Speaker 1: anyone pay attention to it and not think, Oh, the
Speaker 1: Democrats are for open borders. They do not believe what
Speaker 1: they say with the talking points about secure border. They
Speaker 1: don't believe in the rule of law. When it comes
Speaker 1: to immigration. They are kicking the doors open. They want
Speaker 1: the country flooded with migrants from the Third World because
Speaker 1: they want people to be Democrat voters. That's what this
Speaker 1: is all about. I think he was a great labor secretary,
Speaker 1: not a good laborage secretary. He's done a fantastic job.
Speaker 1: He's a friend of everybody in the administration. And I
Speaker 1: got a call this morning early from Alex and I
Speaker 1: think he did a very good job yesterday under a
Speaker 1: lot of pressure. He did a fantastic job, and he
Speaker 1: explained it, and he made a deal that people were
Speaker 1: happy with him. Then twelve years later than I'm happy
Speaker 1: with it. You'll have to figure all of that out,
Speaker 1: but the fact is he has been a fantastic secretary
Speaker 1: of Labor. And Alex called me this morning and he
Speaker 1: wanted to see me, and I actually said, well, we
Speaker 1: have to press right out here, so perhaps you just
Speaker 1: want to say it to the press, but I just
Speaker 1: want to let you know this was him, not me,
Speaker 1: because I'm with him. He was a he's a tremendous talent,
Speaker 1: he's a Hispanic man, he went to Harvard, a great student,
Speaker 1: and in so many ways I just hate what he's
Speaker 1: saying now because we're gonna miss him. There you have
Speaker 1: the announcement of the well from Trump of the resignation
Speaker 1: of Acosto. I think i'd said earlier with hh's he
Speaker 1: was the labor Secretary. I might have said that wrong
Speaker 1: in the radio before, so sorry if I got that
Speaker 1: one messed up. Order on the week. Always like to
Speaker 1: be be factual here on the show, accurate here on
Speaker 1: the show, zero pinocchios on the Bucks Act and show.
Speaker 1: That is what we strive for. But I gotta I've
Speaker 1: got a little bit of mixed emotions about this one.
Speaker 1: I know it's radio, so I'm supposed to say I
Speaker 1: have the answer, and I have the perfect answer, and
Speaker 1: I'm better than all the other radio hosts. Whatever are
Speaker 1: there are other people who do that. I just prefer
Speaker 1: to talk to you like like friends and equals, because
Speaker 1: that's what you are. But you know, this is what happened.
Speaker 1: You gotta the Democrats and the media, I know, I
Speaker 1: repeat myself there. They see this as an opportunity to
Speaker 1: take down a member of the administration's cabinet. Right. They
Speaker 1: see this as Okay, no one really cares who the
Speaker 1: Labor secretary is. But this Epstein story because the Miami
Speaker 1: Herald Investigative reporting on it, they couldn't suppress it anymore.
Speaker 1: So how can they get the most narrow narrative mileage
Speaker 1: out of it? And the way they the way they
Speaker 1: came up with or the answer to that question for
Speaker 1: them was that they would Oh my gosh, I'm seeing
Speaker 1: this now. By the way, the hidden workforce undocumented in America, CNN.
Speaker 1: This is just propaganda, folks, This is this is a
Speaker 1: CNN's running ads for this now. Undocumented is a made up,
Speaker 1: nonsense term. There is a proper term for people who
Speaker 1: are in the country illegally, and it is either a
Speaker 1: legal alien or legal immigrant. They're in violation of a
Speaker 1: law is not called undocumented. A burglar is not an
Speaker 1: unwanted shopper. That's not what we call that you don't
Speaker 1: get to just make up new things because you like something.
Speaker 1: And I'm sorry, you know, we do have to draw
Speaker 1: some lines here. If they want to change the federal
Speaker 1: statutes and have it say undocumented, fine, then I'll start
Speaker 1: saying undocumented. The laws the law, the law says a
Speaker 1: legal alien. But I digress, all right, So Acosta, here
Speaker 1: here's why I feel a little mixed about this. They
Speaker 1: went after the as they went after the story, and
Speaker 1: this is all because of Trump, right, That's why. Or
Speaker 1: they're they're trying to as much as they can hang
Speaker 1: this on the Trump administration, even though Trump comes out
Speaker 1: of this whole situation. Of all the celebrities who hung
Speaker 1: out with them, is there any other celebrity, any other
Speaker 1: because remember at the time, he wasn't a politician, he
Speaker 1: was a celebrity. Is there anyone else who called out
Speaker 1: Epstein and stood up to him and said that, you know,
Speaker 1: you're you're a gross monster, get out of my face.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton never did that, you know, Woody Allen never
Speaker 1: did that. Prince whatever his name is, the other guy,
Speaker 1: that's which one of them? Andrew? Is it Andrew or
Speaker 1: it's one of the princes. I can't I don't know
Speaker 1: who can keep it all straight. One of the princes
Speaker 1: used to hang, yeah, I think it is. But the
Speaker 1: list of celebrities and super long list long. Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: a very long list. But of all of that whole list,
Speaker 1: producer might correct me if I'm wrong. The only one
Speaker 1: who called out Epstein for being a weirdo was Trump,
Speaker 1: So I think that that should at least be a
Speaker 1: prominent part of what we all think of here. I mean,
Speaker 1: Trump was like, get out of here, your your band,
Speaker 1: you're a jerk. I mean, he's not a prosecutor. He's not.
Speaker 1: It's not on him to bring charges or whatever. You know,
Speaker 1: he doesn't. He doesn't know what's going on. But that
Speaker 1: can't be said for Acosta. So as much as as
Speaker 1: much as I know that they really just wanted to
Speaker 1: scalp them administration and they got one. Now we can't.
Speaker 1: We can't defend everybody all the time. There has to
Speaker 1: there has to be accountability. And I know this was
Speaker 1: a long time ago, but I think a Costa makes
Speaker 1: the right move here. He I do believe that he
Speaker 1: probably chose to do this himself. But they were just
Speaker 1: going to keep hammering this and hammering this and hammering this,
Speaker 1: and you know, Labor secretary, this is not the Secretary
Speaker 1: of State. This is not the Secretary of Defense. We
Speaker 1: don't need it. We don't need the distraction. The movement,
Speaker 1: the Trump movement, the Trump White House does not need
Speaker 1: this distraction. And you know, we had ann on yesterday
Speaker 1: and I always have fun, always have fun. It was
Speaker 1: top top five favorite guests for your producer, Mike. Would
Speaker 1: you say, Yeah, She's hilarious. He's the best. She's so
Speaker 1: funny when we're not on radio either, and she generally
Speaker 1: enjoys it. You know, she really does, dude. She's a
Speaker 1: happy warrior. She's she's I'm ever. Everyone knows. I can't
Speaker 1: hide it. I think Coulter's the best. Um. But the
Speaker 1: the truth is, and I was talking about this yesterday
Speaker 1: with a Costa, is that you know, it needed to
Speaker 1: be more. He needed to bring the full indictment. If
Speaker 1: you're going to be a federal prosecutor and you got
Speaker 1: some guy that is engaged in systematic, repeated and egregious
Speaker 1: predation against against young girls, against kids, if you're not
Speaker 1: going to use the full weight of your office against that,
Speaker 1: what what are you going to use the full weight
Speaker 1: of your office against You know, if if you're not
Speaker 1: gonna go for the wo would anyone really have blamed well,
Speaker 1: I was gonna say when anyone blamed a Costa, not
Speaker 1: normal people, but clearly the fact that he was a
Speaker 1: Democrat donor that Epstein was a Democrat donor. You know,
Speaker 1: if he had taken it, you know, if you if
Speaker 1: you take a shout the king, you must not miss
Speaker 1: if he had gone after Epstein with a big indictment
Speaker 1: and for some reason, you know, Epstein had a very
Speaker 1: very sophisticated, very expensive legal team. If that had fallen apart,
Speaker 1: you know, Acosta would have paid the price professionally. But
Speaker 1: that's where I always say, you know, whenever one of
Speaker 1: these bureaucrats is like, yeah, but I couldn't you know,
Speaker 1: if I taking the risk, it would have Yeah. I
Speaker 1: mean tell that to all the all the members of
Speaker 1: the US militarist saw on a Rock and Afghanistan, you know,
Speaker 1: walking around the streets of these dusty villages, trying to
Speaker 1: keep people safe and trying to keep maniacs from song
Speaker 1: people's heads off on video. You know, if they can
Speaker 1: take that risk, A Costa could have taken the risk
Speaker 1: of bringing heavier charges against a big Democrat donor and
Speaker 1: just deal with the consequences. You know. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's too much to expect some degree of professional ethics
Speaker 1: and maybe even a little professional courage from people that
Speaker 1: I've been given a tremendous amount of power to defend
Speaker 1: the defense list. And that's really what would have been
Speaker 1: going on here. These young girls were defenseless. They were
Speaker 1: relying on somebody like Alex Acosta that had come along
Speaker 1: and get some measure of justice for them, and he failed.
Speaker 1: So in that, in that, I think this is the
Speaker 1: right outcome, and I the President, I think handled it
Speaker 1: with class. I think this was that he said that
Speaker 1: Alex did a great job, and you know, this was
Speaker 1: his decision. But it's it has become a distraction. This
Speaker 1: has been handled well. I think the good news is
Speaker 1: that we'll all be able to move past this very soon.
Speaker 1: But I don't want us to move beyond this. There's
Speaker 1: a difference. I want more answers. I don't believe that
Speaker 1: a Costa didn't receive, you know, some pressure to give
Speaker 1: it to give a lenient deal here. I just don't
Speaker 1: believe that. I don't think that that's possible. I think
Speaker 1: that there were people that were pushing for Epstein. I
Speaker 1: know that the Palm Beach District attorney was. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can just tell he cared about the fact that
Speaker 1: this guy was a big Democrat tone or writing big
Speaker 1: checks to people. You know, he still don't know how
Speaker 1: he made his money, and you know, how hard can
Speaker 1: this be to figure out there's something going on here.
Speaker 1: I worry that now that the Democrat media has tried
Speaker 1: to they've tried to sully Trump with this, they haven't
Speaker 1: really succeeded. But I do worry that their next move,
Speaker 1: their next trick, is going to be, well, they're gonna
Speaker 1: move past this and bury it because they don't want
Speaker 1: a situation in which this could blow back on a Democrat.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're Bill Clinton already lied, his office already
Speaker 1: lied about this. No one seems to care. I guess
Speaker 1: because Bill just likes to law about things. He just
Speaker 1: you know, can't remember. Now, He's just you know, wants
Speaker 1: to hang out with all the different ladies and not
Speaker 1: have to ask any questions and you know all that stuff.
Speaker 1: They still kind of protect him. I think that's what's
Speaker 1: going on here. So we will not let this slide.
Speaker 1: Can you believe are you a citizen of the United
Speaker 1: States of America? Sir? You can't ask that question? Why
Speaker 1: because the courts said you can't. We have three very
Speaker 1: unfriendly courts. They fight us all the way. The judges
Speaker 1: don't like us too much, I guess. But think of that, herman,
Speaker 1: Think of that question, are you a citizen? We spend
Speaker 1: This is another thing that's so crazy. Twenty billion dollars
Speaker 1: on a census, twenty billion. They spend twenty billion. They
Speaker 1: said twenty billion. What twenty billion dollars or the census.
Speaker 1: They go through houses, they go up, they ring doorbells,
Speaker 1: they talk to people. How many toilets do they have?
Speaker 1: How many desks do they have? Many beds? What's their
Speaker 1: roof made of? The only thing we can't ask is
Speaker 1: are you a citizen of the United States? No? Is
Speaker 1: this the craziest thing. This is where Trump's real genius
Speaker 1: comes in, because you know, there's there's all these different
Speaker 1: ways to talk about the census question. To talk about
Speaker 1: the census issue, you can make You can make a
Speaker 1: very eloquent case about how it's necessary for the apportionment
Speaker 1: of members that are representatives and maybe for enforcing the
Speaker 1: Voting Rights Act. And there's all these different things that
Speaker 1: you can point to and say, Okay, well this is
Speaker 1: this is yet another reason why we should have the
Speaker 1: citizenship question, or you can just point out how completely bonkers, crazy, absurd.
Speaker 1: This whole situation is where you have a census that
Speaker 1: can ask basically anything. I mean, they ask you know,
Speaker 1: as you say, you know what kind of tile do
Speaker 1: you have in your bathroom? You know how much fruit
Speaker 1: juice do you drink in the morning. They can ask
Speaker 1: any questions they want and all kinds of random government
Speaker 1: just wants data stuff. The government's just asking you to
Speaker 1: tell them stuff about you, so the government knows more
Speaker 1: about the American people and hopefully can govern us better. Right,
Speaker 1: that's what this is all about. And this goes back
Speaker 1: to the founding and it's been around for a long time.
Speaker 1: Some of you probably like, yeah, buck, census, that's right,
Speaker 1: didn't didn't you know Jesus Mary. And if there was
Speaker 1: a sense that's going on, then too, Right, this is
Speaker 1: stuff that that's been around for a very long time.
Speaker 1: Governments want to know how many people are within their borders.
Speaker 1: It's very important for them, so that it's very important
Speaker 1: if you're going to have a real government. So but
Speaker 1: Trump's point here is just think about this. You can
Speaker 1: ask Democrats are okay with really any question other than
Speaker 1: are you a citizen? And this is all about governing
Speaker 1: and about understanding who's in the country, because citizenship doesn't
Speaker 1: really matter to Democrats. It's just bodies. Now, who's here.
Speaker 1: That's all that they care about. They don't really want
Speaker 1: to treat any person differently based on citizenship. But you
Speaker 1: see that that starts to erode the very foundations of
Speaker 1: our polity, That starts to pull apart the American the
Speaker 1: American state, big s state. They got no issues with
Speaker 1: that though, because they figure even if they pull it apart,
Speaker 1: they'll be the ones that have to put it back
Speaker 1: together and they'll be in charge then, and so there's
Speaker 1: no big problem. So you know ag Barr, who's also
Speaker 1: Attorney General, Bill Barr, he's a very straightforward, no nonsense
Speaker 1: kind of guy, and he even says, yeah, look, how
Speaker 1: can anybody really argue with I mean, Democrats are arguing
Speaker 1: to get this against us all over the place. The
Speaker 1: question used to be on the census, but they're still
Speaker 1: arguing against it. It's racist now. I guess it wasn't
Speaker 1: racist until nineteen fifty, but now it's a racist question.
Speaker 1: Congratulations on today's executive order, which will ensure that we
Speaker 1: finally have an accurate understanding of how many citizens and
Speaker 1: non citizens live in our country. As the Supreme Court recognized,
Speaker 1: it would be perfectly lawful for the federal government to
Speaker 1: ask on the census whether individuals are citizens of the
Speaker 1: United States, and it's entirely reasonable to want to know
Speaker 1: how many citizens and non citizens there are in the
Speaker 1: United States. In fact, the federal government has routinely asked
Speaker 1: questions relating to citizens ship ever since the eighteen twenties,
Speaker 1: so this has been around for a very long time.
Speaker 1: Oh but you may be saying, Buck, what executive order?
Speaker 1: Ah see that would like to keep it a little
Speaker 1: bit of suspense. Sometimes we sometimes we switch things around
Speaker 1: a little bit just to see if we can keep
Speaker 1: you on your toes. That's right. Trump issued an executive order.
Speaker 1: Here's here's what's happened. Instead of instead of I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm an extremely stable genius, it's true, extremely stable genius.
Speaker 1: Yep uh. Instead of deciding that he was going to
Speaker 1: use the or that the census will be the vehicle
Speaker 1: for finding out about citizenship status and the number of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens in the country, which we really do want
Speaker 1: to know. We need to know this that that's especially
Speaker 1: if we're going to start making determinations about about who
Speaker 1: to put on a pathway to citizenship, who to give
Speaker 1: ambsty to ambisty to all these things. Don't we need
Speaker 1: to know where we already are in terms of the number,
Speaker 1: because I think it would affect a lot of people
Speaker 1: if they found out that, oh, no, there's not eleven million,
Speaker 1: there's twenty or twenty five million, and we're going to
Speaker 1: add now you know, a few more million a year
Speaker 1: because of our current policies at the southern border. I
Speaker 1: think people should know what they're getting into. I think
Speaker 1: they should know what's really happening and what's happening to
Speaker 1: this country because of the now I would say overt
Speaker 1: assistance of the Democratic Party in the illegal immigration scam.
Speaker 1: But Trump is issuing an executive order that's telling all
Speaker 1: the different government agencies out there, you know what, you
Speaker 1: have to do everything you can to collect information to
Speaker 1: find out who is in this country legally and illegally. Okay,
Speaker 1: I will be issuing an executive order to put this
Speaker 1: very plan into effect immediately. I am here by ordering
Speaker 1: every department and agency in the federal government to provide
Speaker 1: the Department of Commerce with all requested records regarding the
Speaker 1: number of citizens and non citizens in our We will
Speaker 1: be able to ensure the twenty twenty census generates an
Speaker 1: accurate account of how many citizens, non citizens, and illegal
Speaker 1: aliens are in the United States of America. How could
Speaker 1: anyone really have a problem with that? Why would anyone
Speaker 1: oppose that? You know that. You know, Democrats don't like this.
Speaker 1: They're they're very upset at this. Why don't they want
Speaker 1: to know how many legals are in the country. You're
Speaker 1: going to find out that the number is well beyond
Speaker 1: what we've been told in the past. I mean that much.
Speaker 1: I'm quite certain about. And I think that the American
Speaker 1: people will be really, really angry about this. I think
Speaker 1: that there will be a sense that we've been lied
Speaker 1: to by both parties for a long time, because, if
Speaker 1: nothing else, there is a massive failure to enforce the
Speaker 1: law here and a lot of people that deal with
Speaker 1: onerous regulation and taxation and all this different up the laws.
Speaker 1: The law got to do this. The laws the law.
Speaker 1: They look around, they say, hold on a second, why
Speaker 1: is the law not the law when it comes to immigration.
Speaker 1: Why why are we supposed to accept that there's there's
Speaker 1: no issue here, there's nothing, nothing to be concerned about,
Speaker 1: even though there is a massive and systematic and flagrant
Speaker 1: violation of our laws going on on a regular basis.
Speaker 1: But it's not just illegal status. By the way, if
Speaker 1: people really dug into this, and they won't, and because
Speaker 1: so few really want to know, at least no one
Speaker 1: in the government bureaucracy wants to know. It's illegal, it's
Speaker 1: illegal crossing, it's illegal status, it's um document fraud, social
Speaker 1: security fraud, benefits fraud, tax fraud, all this, all of
Speaker 1: the different additional violations and crimes that come from or
Speaker 1: come as an attendant to, in addition to illegal status.
Speaker 1: That that's and this is going on now across the
Speaker 1: country and has been for decades. And you have people
Speaker 1: that do have the power to vote, as I've said,
Speaker 1: who are legally in total to vote, because we've we
Speaker 1: have a Supreme Court opinion that says, if you're born
Speaker 1: in this country and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, it's
Speaker 1: not even really an opinion. I think it's a footnote.
Speaker 1: In a Supreme Court case, we say, if you're born
Speaker 1: in this country, you're a US you're a US national.
Speaker 1: It's really not supposed to be that simple. It's not
Speaker 1: supposed to be if you are born here, because if
Speaker 1: you're a foreign diplomat and you're born here, you're not
Speaker 1: a citizen. If you are born in a foreign country
Speaker 1: and you are a US citizen and you're the children
Speaker 1: of diplomats, for example, you're stationed in Beijing, you're not
Speaker 1: a Chinese citizen. You're a US citizen, and you're born abroad,
Speaker 1: it's not just about the location of where you're born.
Speaker 1: That has That has not been that has not been
Speaker 1: the case. But now you have entire generations who feel
Speaker 1: like their families, in fact, the their story of America
Speaker 1: starts with an illegal crossing. And you have one political
Speaker 1: party that says, that's great, that's wonderful, congratulations on being
Speaker 1: here illegally. Another that says, well, hold on, if nothing else,
Speaker 1: we got to stop this from continuing to happen. It's
Speaker 1: a violation of US sovereignty, and it is undermining the
Speaker 1: processes of immigration and assimilation that we've had in the past.
Speaker 1: The party that's going to tell all those people, hey,
Speaker 1: I know your parents came here illegally, but that's great,
Speaker 1: that's fine. And it's just those mean racist Republicans that
Speaker 1: have a problem with with future illegal crossing. I'm talking
Speaker 1: about the legal crossings that have already happened. They're going
Speaker 1: to vote for the Democrats. They know that this is
Speaker 1: all about power, all about power. It's been about power
Speaker 1: all along. That's what's really happening, that's what's unfolding in
Speaker 1: front of us, and that's why there's such a fight
Speaker 1: over every aspect of immigrations. Democrats don't agree with Republicans
Speaker 1: on anything other than we need bigger, nicer, cleaner facilities
Speaker 1: for the people that are being detained at the border.
Speaker 1: They don't even agree they should be detained, but they
Speaker 1: want bigger, cleaner, nicer facilities courtesy at the US taxpayer,
Speaker 1: more healthcare, you know, more just more resources down there,
Speaker 1: which as we know, they also don't want to add
Speaker 1: any enforcement mechanisms to this, so they're just making it
Speaker 1: increasingly enticing to come into the country illegally. That's that
Speaker 1: is a that's just what is happening right now at
Speaker 1: the border. I don't want us to know how many
Speaker 1: people are here illegally. They don't want to have any
Speaker 1: enforcement mechanism. And this is just now where we are.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's stunning, folks, it really is. The Democrats
Speaker 1: have gone so far left, so hard left on this issue,
Speaker 1: and the next election is going to on immigration that
Speaker 1: I think the next election really is going to be
Speaker 1: the be all end all of whether we have a
Speaker 1: border or not. We will defend the right of the
Speaker 1: American people to know the full facts about the population
Speaker 1: size of citizens and non citizens in America. The Department
Speaker 1: of Commerce sensibly decided to include a citizenship question in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty census, as has been done many, many
Speaker 1: times throughout the history of the United States. Unfortunately, this
Speaker 1: effort was delayed by meritless litigation. As shocking as it
Speaker 1: may be, far left democrats in our country are determined
Speaker 1: to conceal the number of illegal aliens in our midst
Speaker 1: They probably know the number is far greater, much higher
Speaker 1: than anyone would have ever believed before. Maybe that's why
Speaker 1: they fight so hard. This is part of a broader
Speaker 1: left wing effort to erode the rights of the American
Speaker 1: citizen and is very unfair to our country. There you
Speaker 1: have the president who's he sound like, folks. I'm just
Speaker 1: saying it sounds like somebody you all listen to on
Speaker 1: the radio. This is the point, this is what's going
Speaker 1: on here. They do not want us to have the numbers.
Speaker 1: If the number was accurate, if it was eleven million,
Speaker 1: which they always say, what's all the fuss about, that's
Speaker 1: not the number. There's no way, there's no rational way
Speaker 1: to add this all up numerically or otherwise and think, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: sure that's the number. And I don't think so. Speaking
Speaker 1: of of the meritless lawsuits, I'd also note that the president,
Speaker 1: you know, won a lawsuit earlier this week where the
Speaker 1: states of Maryland and what was it? Was it Maryland
Speaker 1: and I can't remember which other state it was. I
Speaker 1: think it was Maryland, And then probably the District of
Speaker 1: Columbia sued the president under the emoluments clause. And here
Speaker 1: here's what the media doesn't want to tell you, doesn't
Speaker 1: want to get into. Not only was this shut down,
Speaker 1: but this was shut down by the by the federal
Speaker 1: judge overseeing it with some degree of prejudice, who was like,
Speaker 1: I don't even think this is a good usage of
Speaker 1: the courts, as in, this is some crap you guys
Speaker 1: are trying to pull here against the president. There is
Speaker 1: no pre there's no precedent for saying that somebody who
Speaker 1: owns a public accommodation is being unduly influenced by foreign
Speaker 1: governments because there are foreign people or members of foreign
Speaker 1: governments who go through that hotel. To put this in
Speaker 1: plain English, you had this, You had the state's attorney
Speaker 1: in Maryland bringing the lawsuit here. Look, this is all
Speaker 1: grandstanding legal nonsense, bringing the lawsuit against President Trump at
Speaker 1: administration saying that because you know, the the US ambassador
Speaker 1: or a Kazakh stand or something or sorry, the Kazack
Speaker 1: ambassador of the United States, that's the direction we're talking about,
Speaker 1: because because the Kazack ambassador might go to the Trump Hotel,
Speaker 1: and you know, Bora may have a glass or two
Speaker 1: a wind at Trump Hotel, and that money, after all
Speaker 1: expenses and everything could pay it does go into the
Speaker 1: general fund of of revenue that the Trump Hotel International Hotel,
Speaker 1: which is a fine establishment where I'm known to have
Speaker 1: a drink myself from time to time that that's unduly
Speaker 1: influencing the president. Now, the same people that are bringing
Speaker 1: these lawsuits, and I mean this, there's the same individuals
Speaker 1: that that support this lawsuit and that are publicly talking
Speaker 1: about all this. Those same folks will look you straight
Speaker 1: in the eye and say that there is no problem whatsoever.
Speaker 1: There is nothing wrong with Bill Clinton getting paid half
Speaker 1: a million dollars for a single speech by a Russian
Speaker 1: state backed bank, which is really the same thing. A
Speaker 1: Russian bank is a state backed bank, right by a
Speaker 1: Russian state bank. While his wife is Secretary of State
Speaker 1: specifically dealing with foreign policy, Bill Clinton got paid half
Speaker 1: a million dollars by a Russian bank. And did you
Speaker 1: see was anyone suing the State Department records and trying
Speaker 1: to cause big to do about what was? The Clintons
Speaker 1: were so corrupt that we were overwhelmed by it. But
Speaker 1: this is not what about is, And that's all that's
Speaker 1: intellectually lazy. This is this is looking at two issues
Speaker 1: and saying, do we have one standard? This is not
Speaker 1: a this is some other thing that I'm trying to
Speaker 1: change the subject to. These are okay, we have two
Speaker 1: similar circumstances. Foreign involved payment to prominent individuals on the
Speaker 1: left and the right. How does the media treat it?
Speaker 1: What is the you know, what is the outcome here?
Speaker 1: And the Clintons were allowed to get away with just
Speaker 1: mind boggling corruption. No one did you? Did you even
Speaker 1: hear of the emoluments clause during the Obama administration when
Speaker 1: Hillary was was Secretary of State? Of course not most
Speaker 1: people learn that the emoluments clause was now because a
Speaker 1: bunch of anti Trump lawyers were like, I've got it.
Speaker 1: I know how he could take up down the emoluments clause. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, guys, just violated the Constitution. I'm also going
Speaker 1: to bring suit against him for treason, iracy, and counterfeitings.
Speaker 1: That's also in the constitution. Did he do any of
Speaker 1: those things? No? But why not just bring the lawsuit?
Speaker 1: It's all Trump arrangement syndrome, folks. A lot of people,
Speaker 1: a lot of people unfortunately in America today have j
Speaker 1: d's and also have TDS. They're lawyers with Trump derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: So that was you know, you hurl us up about
Speaker 1: the emolument's clause. Those states were basically laughed out of
Speaker 1: the courtroom by the judge, like, you guys have got
Speaker 1: to be kidding me. This is not what the founders
Speaker 1: had in mind. So you know, you own a hotel
Speaker 1: and somebody from a foreign country buys a beer there.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean that they're calling the shots on us
Speaker 1: foreign policy. Not everybody is for sale the way the
Speaker 1: Clintons were. The wall is being built. The wall is
Speaker 1: being built. We had a couple of very good decisions.
Speaker 1: We had one bad decision. It's very tough. Again. Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan let us down. Paul Ryan was a terrible speaker. Frankly,
Speaker 1: he was a baby. He didn't know what the hell
Speaker 1: he was doing. Wow, President Trump not messing around. Do
Speaker 1: we have a do we have a Trump slab? We
Speaker 1: gotta come up with like the biggest slab, the most luxurious,
Speaker 1: the most incredible slab, because that was a Trump slab
Speaker 1: that wasn't even a buck slab. He called him, He
Speaker 1: called the forward speaker of the House a baby. I
Speaker 1: guess it's because Paul Ryan has a has a book
Speaker 1: that's coming out where he says things about the things
Speaker 1: about Trump. Um, oh there, oh no, this is I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: In a book. In the book American Carnage This is
Speaker 1: because what happened here. This is the book that's written.
Speaker 1: Tim Alberta of Politico has written this book, and Ryan
Speaker 1: condemns Trump. In the book, says he could not stand
Speaker 1: the idea of another two years the Republican President's our
Speaker 1: retirement as an escape patch. Wow. Ryan's quote is saying,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you he didn't know anything about government. I
Speaker 1: wanted to scold him all the time. Okay, so let's
Speaker 1: let's just play this out for a minute, shall we.
Speaker 1: Team Here's the basics of it, because I think this
Speaker 1: is a very instructive Trump versus the establishment moment. Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan was and I remember this because he was a
Speaker 1: tea party darling for a little while. Everyone said, oh,
Speaker 1: he's the guy. And he did not do very well
Speaker 1: on a debate against Joe Biden back in twenty twelve
Speaker 1: or twenty eleven, whatever he was not that was twenty twelve.
Speaker 1: He was not able to do the things that we
Speaker 1: were all told he was going to do. Now he was,
Speaker 1: he was Speaker of the House. What really is Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan's legacy. You know, he's supposed to be the big
Speaker 1: budget guy. He's going to turn things around with the
Speaker 1: budget When do you think of Paul Ryan? Now, what
Speaker 1: do you think of what was accomplished when he was
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House. You know you talk about nuke Gegrich. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's some stuff when he was Speaker of the House. Right,
Speaker 1: do you think of nuke Genggrich? What do he had
Speaker 1: a balanced trying to balance budget actually went into a surplus.
Speaker 1: I mean, what do we have here? And getting Trump
Speaker 1: to work with him? And triangle I mean to starry
Speaker 1: about Trump Clinton and triangulation and all this stuff. Paul
Speaker 1: Ryan brought what to the table? What did he manage
Speaker 1: to accomment? Now, I've heard, I will say, I've heard
Speaker 1: he's a very nice guy. I don't have any I
Speaker 1: don't have any problem with Paul Ryan. I actually have
Speaker 1: not interviewed him. He's one of the few very senior
Speaker 1: Republican figures, well former Republican figures on the scene whom
Speaker 1: I've never interviewed. But you know, I hear he's a
Speaker 1: good dude. But I think he's way out of line here,
Speaker 1: or at least I think he's out of line in
Speaker 1: this book when he's talking about Trump doesn't know nay
Speaker 1: about government. Okay, let's assume then what Ryan says is true,
Speaker 1: and Trump doesn't know anything about government, Why is Trump
Speaker 1: able to do such a good job. Why is Trump
Speaker 1: clearly a more effective vessel for conservatism than Ryan or
Speaker 1: Romney or any of these guys have been. And how
Speaker 1: do they answer? Do we really care about who would
Speaker 1: win a think knowledge contest? Or do we care about
Speaker 1: who has the policies that do the most for this
Speaker 1: country and that affect you the most in your in
Speaker 1: your life, often by being policies that leave you alone
Speaker 1: more so you can enjoy your life. And the government's
Speaker 1: backing off a little bit. But you know, where where
Speaker 1: does it fall on that? On that spectrum? I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what you really have to look at. Here. Oh,
Speaker 1: we also have the President explaining today in a press
Speaker 1: conference he was Trump was in Fuego today. By the way, Mike,
Speaker 1: you see this, he was, I did. He was in
Speaker 1: using forman was one of his form It was one
Speaker 1: of his days where I was like, we brought presidents
Speaker 1: not messing around. Uh. Here is here is what he
Speaker 1: said about Paul Ryan though during his in Fuego press conference.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna let the president have a go at it.
Speaker 1: Paul Ryan it's not a talent. He wasn't a leader.
Speaker 1: When the people in Freedom and Great Congressman wanted to
Speaker 1: go after the Dems the things that they did very badly,
Speaker 1: he wouldn't give hippe whereas Nancy Pelous he hands him
Speaker 1: out like their cookies. Paul Ryan was a lamed up
Speaker 1: for a long time as speaker. He was unable to
Speaker 1: raise money, he lost control of the House. The only
Speaker 1: success Paul Ryan had was the time that he was
Speaker 1: with me, because we got taxes cut, I got regulation cuts.
Speaker 1: I did that mostly without him. But for Paul Ryan
Speaker 1: to be complaining is pretty amazing. I remember a day
Speaker 1: in Wisconsin, the state that I won, where I stood
Speaker 1: up and made his speech and then I introduced him
Speaker 1: and they bowed him off the stage ten thousand people.
Speaker 1: So for him to be going out and opening his
Speaker 1: mouth is pretty incredible. But maybe he gets paid for that,
Speaker 1: who knows. I just can't imagine being Paul Ryan and
Speaker 1: speaking to a political journalist. I'm assuming that's what happened here,
Speaker 1: speaking badly about the president. I just what purpose of
Speaker 1: the Politico is a left wing site? The guy's a
Speaker 1: left wing journalist writing a book that just meant to
Speaker 1: track Trump. Why feed into that? Why help you know?
Speaker 1: It's It's a little bit like you can criticize a
Speaker 1: family from within the family, but everybody knows the difference
Speaker 1: between talking to a family member in a way where
Speaker 1: you want them to shape up or be a little
Speaker 1: bit better, or be a little more considerate, versus going
Speaker 1: outside the family and trashing a member of your family
Speaker 1: to people are that are outside that circle. These are
Speaker 1: different things. I'm fine with criticizing Trump. I criticize Trump.
Speaker 1: I think that there's plenty of room in this administration
Speaker 1: for improvement. There'll always be room in any administration for improvement.
Speaker 1: That said, I don't understand its mentality. All these former
Speaker 1: Republican officials or even some current ones, not as many
Speaker 1: of these days have of Yeah, let me help the
Speaker 1: cause of conservatism by assisting the enemies of conservatism. This
Speaker 1: is the never Trump mantra. In taking down the administration
Speaker 1: in some way, in undermining administration in some way, you
Speaker 1: do not help your army get better at fighting by
Speaker 1: helping the enemy destroy your army, right, this is this
Speaker 1: logic does not work. And let me also say this,
Speaker 1: Paul Ryan on the border, we're lucky he's not around now.
Speaker 1: Ryan the border, he was terrible on the border. He
Speaker 1: was like a guest worker. The more the merrier, No
Speaker 1: one needs to be deported. Let's create amnesty. They'll pay
Speaker 1: a back pay fine thing or whatever. I mean, it
Speaker 1: was all nonsense. He was basically Marco Rubio in the
Speaker 1: house with the Gang of Gang of eight amnesty. So
Speaker 1: Ryan on the board he's actually worse than that. And
Speaker 1: Ryan on the border was he's really like out of
Speaker 1: the Cato libertarian think tank world, very close to where
Speaker 1: the Democrats are now, and just if you want to
Speaker 1: come in here, you should be able to come in here.
Speaker 1: So at least it's good that Ryan's not messing things
Speaker 1: up with that. It's Friday Team, So sometimes I like
Speaker 1: to just have one of our dear friends, one of
Speaker 1: our team buck insiders, just come and hang out and
Speaker 1: talk about the news of the week and tell us
Speaker 1: what's going on in the world. And I can think
Speaker 1: of few better men, if any, to do exactly that.
Speaker 1: Then the one and only s On Parnell folks, you
Speaker 1: know him because he's in general American badass guy. Was
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. Army ranger wrote a fantastic book Outlaw Platoon.
Speaker 1: I've read a cover to cover, really enjoyed it. Man
Speaker 1: of War is his latest, and there's a special sale
Speaker 1: on it this week two dollars you want to buy
Speaker 1: electronically on Amazon. Man of War is about well, I
Speaker 1: don't know, Sean, you tell me what it's about. This one.
Speaker 1: I haven't gotten to yet. Well, it's a military thriller,
Speaker 1: you know, so I got I got back from Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: I'm like, what if there was a unit that didn't
Speaker 1: have any bureaucratic red tape to adhere to? And what if,
Speaker 1: just what if we could go after high value targets
Speaker 1: and not be encumbered by you know, higher level chains
Speaker 1: of command. And so that is sort of the nucleus
Speaker 1: of this book. And Eric Steele is the operative that
Speaker 1: the book follows. But hopefully there's hopefully there's a reliable, loyal,
Speaker 1: but somewhat nerdy analyst back at Langley name Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: who is there to make sure that all the memos
Speaker 1: are written. The cough is hot, you know, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: you work be in there somewhere. I'm hoping, Well, first
Speaker 1: of all, I've been granted access to be a Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton insider for the show. So in Steel three, which
Speaker 1: I'm writing right now, there is going to be that
Speaker 1: analyt you're you, You're gonna get You're gonna get a
Speaker 1: cameo with your own little special character name in book three. Fantastic,
Speaker 1: That's what I'm talking. You better have a full swoop
Speaker 1: of hair, Sean Parnell. That's all I've got to say
Speaker 1: on that one. All right, So, man of Wars coming,
Speaker 1: I want to ask you, you know a few things
Speaker 1: this week, because you know you're a man who doesn't
Speaker 1: mind showing your patriotism standing up for patriotic causes. What
Speaker 1: do you what do you make and also doesn't mind
Speaker 1: to do it a little bit of mansplaining. What do
Speaker 1: you make of the UH women's national teams or so
Speaker 1: I should say, some players, not all some players and
Speaker 1: the women's national team in the wake of their victory.
Speaker 1: Does it bother you? Do you just ignore it? Do
Speaker 1: you find it? What do you find? I think? Okay,
Speaker 1: so I think that they embody, you know, all all
Speaker 1: of them. Just picture in your mind, just for a second,
Speaker 1: all the male athletes over the last twenty years that
Speaker 1: are the most annoying, the ones that win and rub
Speaker 1: those victories in your faces. They're braggettocious, they're in your faith,
Speaker 1: they're cocky. Uh And to me, some on the women's
Speaker 1: soccer team embody literally all of the worst qualities of
Speaker 1: our least favorite male athletes over the last twenty years.
Speaker 1: And so you know you're watching them, you know how
Speaker 1: they act during this ticker tape parade. I think it
Speaker 1: was in New York City, right buck. They did this
Speaker 1: ticker tape parade for them in New York City with
Speaker 1: the Blasio and stuff, and they're dropping f bombs and
Speaker 1: stuff and swearing and putting this stuff on Instagram. And
Speaker 1: you know, I've got a daughter, an eight year old daughter,
Speaker 1: and I just think to myself, like, well, of course
Speaker 1: I want her to be a champion, and I want
Speaker 1: her to compete intentionally, and I want her to to
Speaker 1: to live the life that she wants with the freedom,
Speaker 1: all the freedom in the world. But I don't want
Speaker 1: her to act like that, because I think that being
Speaker 1: humble is an important quality of any champion. You know,
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that you can't be confident, it doesn't
Speaker 1: mean you can't like her to be in your face
Speaker 1: a little bit um but I also think that being
Speaker 1: humble and self effacing is part of being a champion,
Speaker 1: and so I think that that's a quality right now
Speaker 1: that the women's soccer team lacks a little bit. I
Speaker 1: gotta say, I agree with your a student analysis, and
Speaker 1: I think that's I think it's very fair minded of you. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I want look, I mean, I
Speaker 1: want them to be. I want them to be. I
Speaker 1: wanted them to win, you know. But I think I
Speaker 1: think a perfect microcosum of the point that I'm trying
Speaker 1: to make is that when they were when they when
Speaker 1: they won the World Cup, and they're holding the American
Speaker 1: flag and then they drop it. Now, of course, she
Speaker 1: probably like she was, she's probably worked up. They had
Speaker 1: just one. She probably wasn't making straight. She was excited.
Speaker 1: I give her the grace. I give her the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt to give her grace on that. But
Speaker 1: they dropped the flag to do some dance in front
Speaker 1: of the crowd. I mean, thankfully, another US women's soccer
Speaker 1: player ran and scooped it up and up off the ground.
Speaker 1: But to me, like, while I'm happy that they won, right,
Speaker 1: I'm happy that the US is a champion in that game.
Speaker 1: But it also saddens me to see them treat the
Speaker 1: flag like that, you know, so so happy today, won
Speaker 1: I think they could be a little more classy, I think.
Speaker 1: I think that's for sure. I also think that this
Speaker 1: uh Repino who is saying, you know who's not a
Speaker 1: Rapino fan as producer Mike by the way, he does
Speaker 1: not cuts her, no black, no way, not into it.
Speaker 1: And she makes it all about her all the time.
Speaker 1: She does she and so, so here's what drives me
Speaker 1: crazy that you want to you want to be mainstream,
Speaker 1: but yet you alienate fifty percent of your audience. And
Speaker 1: so no, they're not going to go to the Trump
Speaker 1: White House, but yes they'll they'll hang out with Chuck Chummer.
Speaker 1: So right there shows you that what she's doing is
Speaker 1: politically motivated. It's it's about Democrats for versus Republicans somehow
Speaker 1: now and so, as an athlete, part of your job,
Speaker 1: especially when you're representing the country on a global stage,
Speaker 1: you're representing America to the world. Part of your job,
Speaker 1: I think it's ante and part of your mission in
Speaker 1: charge is to try to be a unifying force for
Speaker 1: the country. That's what sports are. I mean it's escapism
Speaker 1: from politics, I think. And now you've got this sort
Speaker 1: of divisive political culture bleeding into our sports and embodied
Speaker 1: by someone like Rapponent, and it's just I just don't
Speaker 1: want I just think. I just think her actions are
Speaker 1: a repugnant. It's not necessarily what she stands for. It's
Speaker 1: not even her political views that bother me. It's it's
Speaker 1: how he acts when she wins. Now, I'll tell you
Speaker 1: to think about it like this. Think about it like this.
Speaker 1: If the US, if there was a national men's sports team,
Speaker 1: a US men's sports team that was competing globally, and
Speaker 1: they were acting like the US women's soccer team, people
Speaker 1: all over the national media would be saying would be saying,
Speaker 1: this team is out there globally making America look bad,
Speaker 1: but the women's team doesn't have that problem. I also
Speaker 1: think that beating a team fourteen to nothing or whatever
Speaker 1: they did, I think I actually think that was gross.
Speaker 1: And I know some pop will disagree with you. They
Speaker 1: say that the point differential, that that no, that's I'm sorry, yeah,
Speaker 1: they say the point the point differential can be an
Speaker 1: important factor with regards to like breaking ties or playoffs
Speaker 1: spots or seating or whatever. But I agree, I think
Speaker 1: a fourteen goal victory is a little bit is a
Speaker 1: little bit excessive. Um, it just didn't. Just didn't. The
Speaker 1: US women's soccer team lose to a bunch of fourteen
Speaker 1: year olds. That is correct, the under fifteen US national
Speaker 1: team for under under fifteen, there were fourteen year olds
Speaker 1: and thirteen year olds. But Sean, let me let me
Speaker 1: switch to politics here for a second. I'm just wondering,
Speaker 1: who's if you had to, this is gonna be a
Speaker 1: this You're not gonna like this question. If you had
Speaker 1: to pick a Democrat to be your next commander in chief,
Speaker 1: you have no choice. Donald Trump is on another planet.
Speaker 1: Aliens have taken our president, and we have to have
Speaker 1: a Democrat. Who do you pick? This is this is
Speaker 1: an easy one. In fact, you have me nervous there
Speaker 1: for a second when you were asking this question. But
Speaker 1: then it just dawned on me that the answer to
Speaker 1: that question would be Joe Biden. I think, really, I
Speaker 1: think that, well, yeah, I don't. I think that he's,
Speaker 1: in his heart of hearts, a blue dog Democrat that
Speaker 1: really can't find his play, you know, I mean, he's
Speaker 1: on these he's on the stage right now. I don't
Speaker 1: know some of Team Buck is there there, man man
Speaker 1: where they're about to click buy on that Man of
Speaker 1: War book and out there now their fingers hovering over them.
Speaker 1: Somebody he had to think, I'm not like a Biden.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, like I feel like if I went
Speaker 1: into a bar and I had a beer with Biden.
Speaker 1: You're saying he's the least awful. He's the least awful objections,
Speaker 1: by far, the least awful. And I think in his
Speaker 1: heart of hearts he's a blue dog Democrat. He doesn't
Speaker 1: know where the heck he stands among these far left
Speaker 1: uh by the way, these crazy Democratic candidates that are
Speaker 1: all running, all fifty of them. He has no idea
Speaker 1: where he stands. He has no idea, you know. But
Speaker 1: I think in his political heart of hearts he's he's
Speaker 1: a blue dog. You know, he's a conservative. I think,
Speaker 1: I mean conservative as far as Democrats are concerned nowadays.
Speaker 1: All right, we'll take it. Joan Bay, what are the
Speaker 1: chances that you know, you don't decide to write Man
Speaker 1: of War seven and run for office instead? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, Parnell twenty twenty eight, is this going to happen.
Speaker 1: There's no chance. There's no chance I would, you know,
Speaker 1: the great Andrew Bright parts that you know, politics is
Speaker 1: downstream from culture. You know. Part of writing these books, Buck,
Speaker 1: is to affect culture, right. Part part of writing these
Speaker 1: books is to give you know, American kids a pro
Speaker 1: American hero, a pro American protagonist. You know, loves America
Speaker 1: and his value system is such that he believes America
Speaker 1: is worth nying for. He believes in freedom, He's selfless,
Speaker 1: he believes in the sense of duty. And I feel
Speaker 1: like we have to give our kids fictional characters to
Speaker 1: aspire to in order to affect cultural change, mainstream cultural change.
Speaker 1: And it's extraordinarily challenging with some of the stuff that
Speaker 1: Hollywood is putting out right now, but we have to
Speaker 1: take a stab at it. We have to give our
Speaker 1: kids something to aspire aspire too, that is good, that
Speaker 1: is pro American, that is freedom loving. And that's the
Speaker 1: whole I mean, that's the re and why part of
Speaker 1: the reason why I'm writing this book. I'm with you
Speaker 1: on the cultural change, man. That's why I just remember
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton, analyst counter terrorism, working against al Qaeda and
Speaker 1: getting all the ladies just muck Blexton. There you gotta
Speaker 1: go back and forth with a name. Fantastic. Everybody listened
Speaker 1: to Sean Parnell. You should you should really pick up
Speaker 1: Man of War Becaus on this great sale. You should
Speaker 1: also pick up Outlaw Platoon. If you have not already,
Speaker 1: it is on Amazon. Go check it out. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, team, and thank you so much Sean, my friend.
Speaker 1: Have a great weekend. We'll see you soon. Okay, thanks Buck,
Speaker 1: talk you later. All right, we got a big hour
Speaker 1: three on the way. I'm gonna talk to somebody about healthcare.
Speaker 1: WHOA I'm calling nine Bombacare. Think about this. Remember this one.
Speaker 1: If you like your doctor, you can keep your doctor, y'all.
Speaker 1: Remember that one. How about the one? If you like
Speaker 1: your plan, you can keep your plan. We were told
Speaker 1: by the President of the United States premiums were gonna
Speaker 1: go down. You then got more specifics. Premiums will go
Speaker 1: down on average fifteen hundred dollars. He said, deductibles would decline.
Speaker 1: Five false statements right there. Oh, remember this one. They
Speaker 1: told us the website was gonna work. They told us
Speaker 1: the website was secure. Your information would be secure. There.
Speaker 1: They told us that these co ops were wonderful, end
Speaker 1: all be all creations. Twenty three were created. Guess how
Speaker 1: many are still in existence? Four the other nineteen went bankrupt? Oh,
Speaker 1: the other ninth fly They told us. First they told
Speaker 1: us it's not attacked. Then they went to court and
Speaker 1: said it is attack. Now they're saying, no, it's not
Speaker 1: really attacked at all, because you can't at tax hi
Speaker 1: out because individual man dates going and there's no penalty.
Speaker 1: Nine different lies. We were told about Obamacare, and the
Speaker 1: hearing is titled how Trump's efforts? How can you undermine
Speaker 1: something that's already failed? And yet Obamacare still lives? My friends,
Speaker 1: and it's going to be healthcare in general, but Obamacare
Speaker 1: more specifically a central point of debate in the re
Speaker 1: election fight for Trump as well as just Democrats and
Speaker 1: Republicans battling it out. We got an expert on all
Speaker 1: us what the heck is going on, not just with Obamacare,
Speaker 1: but with single payer, which is the way they're now
Speaker 1: saying that it should be fixed. Chris Jacobs with us now.
Speaker 1: He's the founder and CEO of Juniper Research Group, an
Speaker 1: author of the book The Case Against Single Payer. Chris,
Speaker 1: great to have you on, Thanks so much, great to
Speaker 1: be with you, all right, So let's and also, you're
Speaker 1: right for the federalist right. I love the Federalists, I
Speaker 1: love I love giving them a plug. Yeah, give give
Speaker 1: Ben and Shawn and the boys my best. So let's
Speaker 1: let's get to this. The Democrats seem to think that Okay,
Speaker 1: Obamacare's got problems. They've got this far left Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: wing within their own party that seems to be pushing
Speaker 1: very openly now for single payer as the fixed to
Speaker 1: Obamacare or or the next step beyond Obamacare. People tell
Speaker 1: me it's popular, Chris, but I have a feeling you're
Speaker 1: gonna tell me it's not such a great idea. No,
Speaker 1: it's not such a great idea, Buck, And I think
Speaker 1: you're right. Government failed, so the solution is obviously more government. Right.
Speaker 1: That's that's the logic you're you're getting from the left.
Speaker 1: And Congressman Jordan's lead in was actually perfect on this
Speaker 1: because why is is single payer in theory supported by
Speaker 1: the public, Because it's premise on the same false premises
Speaker 1: that were used to sell Obamacare. Bernie Sanders says this
Speaker 1: is Medicare for all. In reality, his single payer bill
Speaker 1: abolishes Medicare. It abolishes the current Medicare program. It's Medicare
Speaker 1: for none. Bernie Sanders goes around saying everybody will save money. Yes,
Speaker 1: you'll pay a little bit more in taxes, but you'll
Speaker 1: save in premiums and cost sharing, etc. There's a study
Speaker 1: three years ago that said under Bernie Sanders plan, seventy
Speaker 1: one percent of people will pay more in taxes. Even
Speaker 1: after eliminating cost sharing. People will pay more. Now how
Speaker 1: much more? I mean? This is and we're speaking in
Speaker 1: such abstract which I know that Democrats Sanders love because
Speaker 1: then it's very hard to pin them down on where
Speaker 1: they're wrong. But my understanding is that if we want
Speaker 1: a Nordic style healthcare system, that we would have not
Speaker 1: just tax increases on the wealthy as a necessity, but
Speaker 1: we would have to if we were going to stay
Speaker 1: somewhere within the realm of our current budgetary realities, we'd
Speaker 1: have to have the middle class pay almost double in taxes.
Speaker 1: I mean, do we have some sense of if we
Speaker 1: did this single payer thing, if they abolish the Medicare
Speaker 1: system and really with it, if they abolish the private
Speaker 1: medical system as it stands in this country, of employer
Speaker 1: provided health insurance. How much more would people will be
Speaker 1: paying as a percentage or do we just have no idea?
Speaker 1: I think you're right, Buck, in terms of a good
Speaker 1: rule of thumb. We've seen multiple studies come out that
Speaker 1: have said that you would have to more than double
Speaker 1: current corporate and individual income tax rates. So whatever your
Speaker 1: listeners are paying to the irs April fifteenth, double it. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's that's some sense of what you would be paying
Speaker 1: in greater taxes under single payer. The other irony of this,
Speaker 1: as you point out, Bernie Sanders is the ranking member
Speaker 1: of the Senate Budget Committee. If he wanted to get
Speaker 1: the Congressional Budget Office to score his bill to say
Speaker 1: how much it would cost, they would prioritize his request.
Speaker 1: Funny that he hasn't requested an estimate of how much
Speaker 1: is bill would cost. Now, let's just the cost piece.
Speaker 1: That's the first thing. And every time Sanders and the
Speaker 1: Sandernistas and AOC and you know, or whoever else. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of the Democrat nominees right now or
Speaker 1: you know contenders, have said that they're in favor of
Speaker 1: some form of single payer. This has become a pretty
Speaker 1: pretty much the Democratic Party's position at least going into
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election. But put aside the costs for
Speaker 1: a moment, because that's what always comes up. What happens
Speaker 1: to the healthcare system? Chris, what can you tell me
Speaker 1: if we go to single payer? What does that do
Speaker 1: to access to doctors and access to hospital and people
Speaker 1: wanted to go into those positions, and you know what,
Speaker 1: what other than the cost piece do we need to
Speaker 1: be aware of? Right, the quality of healthcare would would
Speaker 1: deteriorate significantly. You've seen this week. Um, I had a
Speaker 1: piece at the Federalist actually yesterday that your your listeners
Speaker 1: can can can pull up the idea. The premise behind
Speaker 1: single payer is that doctors will perform more work for
Speaker 1: less money. I don't know about you. I think that's
Speaker 1: a hard sell the most physicians. And so they're gonna
Speaker 1: end up performing more work because everybody's gonna want to
Speaker 1: go to the doctor when it's free, Right, it's free
Speaker 1: and you don't have to pay anything. They're gonna do
Speaker 1: perform more work, they're gonna have less money, and then
Speaker 1: they're going to have more more government red tape to
Speaker 1: deal with. So those doctors that are in their late
Speaker 1: fifties or sixties, they'll say, the heck with this, I'm
Speaker 1: going off fishing. I'm I'm I'm retiring to turn in
Speaker 1: the towel, throwing the towel. Young young people may just
Speaker 1: not going to medicine as a profession. So you're going
Speaker 1: to see very quickly a deterioration of the quality of
Speaker 1: care providing we're speaking of Chris Jacob's, author of the
Speaker 1: new book The Case Against Single Payer. Okay, Chris, Now
Speaker 1: the other part of this. You know, if I were
Speaker 1: debating some of the lefty comic types in the media world,
Speaker 1: they would say, oh, yeah, well, look at the United Kingdom.
Speaker 1: People aren't all dying in the street there and they
Speaker 1: get their healthcare. Look at Canada. What do you say
Speaker 1: to that? Actually, I would say, look at Canada and
Speaker 1: look at the United Kingdom. The quality of care in
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom is very poor. You've had year after
Speaker 1: year lower caps on budget payments to hospital Even the
Speaker 1: Congressional Budget Office, when they released a report on single
Speaker 1: payer earlier this year, didn't include a lot of specifics,
Speaker 1: but the one thing they've said is that the Britain
Speaker 1: has underfunded its health system and as a result, operations
Speaker 1: have gotten canceled a hospitals are overcrowded. Every year, it
Speaker 1: seems there's a winter crisis because Britain doesn't have extra
Speaker 1: hospital beds to deal with the flu. Now we all
Speaker 1: know that the flu comes every winter time. But the
Speaker 1: idea that Britain would have to cancel fifty thousand operations,
Speaker 1: which they canceled in January twenty eighteen. They had to
Speaker 1: cancel fifty thousand operations, postpone them for weeks or months
Speaker 1: because they didn't have beds to put people suffering from
Speaker 1: the flu. We knew that would happen every year, and
Speaker 1: this is what happens when you have chronic underfunding of
Speaker 1: health systems. Canada is the same way. Canada has over
Speaker 1: one million people waiting on lists an average of five
Speaker 1: months to start their treatment. And that's in a popular
Speaker 1: in a country with the population of thirty millions, you're
Speaker 1: talking about three percent of the population of Canada is
Speaker 1: on a waiting list for treatment. That's not healthcare. How
Speaker 1: do the Democrats get us to the point where we
Speaker 1: might actually jump into single payer? Would it have to
Speaker 1: be Did you foresee that there would have to be
Speaker 1: an economic recession and then maybe people would get more scared.
Speaker 1: I mean, what's the mechanism or do you think if
Speaker 1: we had a Democrat administration that came in right now
Speaker 1: and a Democrat controlled Congress, that would they even be
Speaker 1: willing to go for it if they had the legislative
Speaker 1: and executive ability to do it. I think they would.
Speaker 1: I think the other thing is it's just a matter
Speaker 1: of time. Buck. It's not a question from most folks
Speaker 1: on the left do not believe in a private marketplace,
Speaker 1: They do not believe in choice or competition, and say
Speaker 1: that's that's a policy objective that we should pursue. When
Speaker 1: folks like Joe Biden say I don't want to go
Speaker 1: to single payer, what they they're worried about is essentially,
Speaker 1: we can't throw all of these people off their health
Speaker 1: coverage in one fell swoop. That's not to say they
Speaker 1: don't want to throw people off of coverage over time.
Speaker 1: So it's really a tactical debate on the Democratic side
Speaker 1: in terms of how many people can we afford to
Speaker 1: throw off their coverage in one fell swoop, or should
Speaker 1: we do it over time. So what you're going to
Speaker 1: see is, even if they don't put in a single
Speaker 1: payer system right away. They would put in a government
Speaker 1: run plan and then they would sabotage the private marketplace
Speaker 1: to push everybody toward that single payer system over time.
Speaker 1: What can the Republicans do or anybody who believes that
Speaker 1: there should still be something of a free market and healthcare,
Speaker 1: Although obviously, with sixty percent of healthcare spending already coming
Speaker 1: from the government in one form or another, it's increasingly
Speaker 1: feeling like we don't have much of a free market
Speaker 1: a healthcare, but we're holding on to what we've got. Chris,
Speaker 1: what can the Republican Party do? What can conservatives do
Speaker 1: to offer an alternative that people will actually want? Sure?
Speaker 1: And I think that's very important as well. The last
Speaker 1: chapter of my book I outline important principles behind an alternative.
Speaker 1: I think the first thing we need to do is
Speaker 1: reform the insurance markets. We need to come up with
Speaker 1: better solutions for folks with pre existing conditions because the
Speaker 1: status quo is pricing people out of the millions of
Speaker 1: people out of the marketplace. I think we need to
Speaker 1: come up with a more sustainable safety net. You've seen
Speaker 1: the tens of millions of people who are signing up
Speaker 1: for Medicaid expansion, and in many cases they're dropping their
Speaker 1: private coverage to go on the government dime. We have
Speaker 1: to reform the safety net and make it's sustainable for
Speaker 1: the long term. And then the third thing is just
Speaker 1: reforming incentives. Everybody's great at spending somebody else's money, and frankly,
Speaker 1: that's the problem in healthcare. Everybody spends everybody else's money.
Speaker 1: It's why our healthcare costs are out of control. I
Speaker 1: think Congress should do some things to reform those incentives,
Speaker 1: along with the states, to reform our healthcare system and
Speaker 1: get it to something that's more sustainable and more patient
Speaker 1: friendly as opposed to giving more and more power to
Speaker 1: government bureaucrats in the feral government. All right, Chris Jacobs,
Speaker 1: author of the case against Single pay or really appreciate
Speaker 1: your time, sir. Let us know how this all goes.
Speaker 1: Thanks very much for having me team. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Do you think that a bagel shop is really the
Speaker 1: place to take out all of this anger with all
Speaker 1: of these strangers public innocent people around, Why not? What
Speaker 1: do you mean take it out and you acteel like
Speaker 1: I committed miss shooting or something. That guy twice my
Speaker 1: size that women love the bullies attack me. You know what,
Speaker 1: I don't really no offense. I don't really like you
Speaker 1: that much. So this interview is over. I should just
Speaker 1: say that sometime Bruce and Mike be like, hey, I
Speaker 1: don't really like you that much? Does interviews ov? Yeah,
Speaker 1: Donzo explain this to me, sir. So this is an
Speaker 1: update to our very important bagel rage story, which for
Speaker 1: those of you who like your bagel, when you get
Speaker 1: up there and there's no bagels left, the rage can happen.
Speaker 1: Brucer Mark knows what I'm talking about, but Mike, what's yeah, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you could, that's right. Oh, I'd start screaming right, especially
Speaker 1: after a long line on Long Island. I remember when
Speaker 1: I used to eat gluten because I didn't know that
Speaker 1: I had Celiac disease. When I was a kid. It
Speaker 1: was after church. My grandparents used to take us to
Speaker 1: this this place that made warm like fresh out of
Speaker 1: the oven bagels, which I feel like it's hard to
Speaker 1: find that in a lot of places. We go to
Speaker 1: warm up and we let some person because we're feeling
Speaker 1: very you know, we were feeling very Christian. We just
Speaker 1: come out of church as a family, and someone was
Speaker 1: kind of like in line, and we're kind of like, oh,
Speaker 1: you go ahead. The guy goes up there, he's like,
Speaker 1: all right, I'll take two dozen of the cinnamon raising,
Speaker 1: two dozen of the onion, two dozen, clean them out. Dude,
Speaker 1: no bagel, zero bagels left. But we're next in line.
Speaker 1: Zero bagels left. That's what. That's what being a good
Speaker 1: Christian will get you on bagel day. Sometimes rude. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's just rude. But Mike, what's what's the story. So
Speaker 1: this guy's now doing interviews bagel bagel rage man? Yeah,
Speaker 1: so what what did he do? What happened? So his
Speaker 1: name is Chris Morrigan. Um, he got tracked down by
Speaker 1: an Inside Edition and they found him in a parking
Speaker 1: lot because he lives he literally lives in the van
Speaker 1: down by the river. He has a minivan and he
Speaker 1: stays in the of a Delhi in Ba Shore. So
Speaker 1: the Inside Edition found him there, interviewed him and apparently
Speaker 1: has a history of doing these online videos and losing
Speaker 1: his temper. But you know, he was at it again today.
Speaker 1: So but is this now performance theater for this guy?
Speaker 1: Then it's you know, it's because it seemed a little
Speaker 1: too it seemed a little bit great at the time,
Speaker 1: like could anyone really be this wacko? But I don't know.
Speaker 1: He's crazy for sure. How how much thought he's put
Speaker 1: into this to promote himself, I don't know, but he's
Speaker 1: definitely making a name for himself now he's gone viral
Speaker 1: and he's getting interviewed by inside editions. So really, if
Speaker 1: if I want to get a more stations, I just
Speaker 1: see the walk in somewhere just wearing like tidy Whitey's
Speaker 1: and just starts screaming something crazy, be like, oh, I'm
Speaker 1: Vince lowthor Key, Master of Gozer, and just challenge anyone
Speaker 1: in there to a wrestling carriage. People to watch the
Speaker 1: video because it's really funny. The lady interviewing him, he
Speaker 1: literally comes up to her waist. The visual is quite funny. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean there's there's that all right in a band
Speaker 1: down by the river. There you go, dude. SNL SNL
Speaker 1: used to be used to be pretty great. I mean
Speaker 1: I remember when I was like when I was younger,
Speaker 1: and it was a Saturday night and if I wasn't
Speaker 1: out and about getting into trouble, SNL will come on
Speaker 1: like in the in the Chris Farley, Mike Myers, Dana Carvey,
Speaker 1: Era ESNL was fantastic, Yeah, because it was actually a
Speaker 1: comedy show that was amazing you and you know there
Speaker 1: there's there's a story today on on Drudge. I'm trying
Speaker 1: to find where it is. It's saying, oh, yeah, that
Speaker 1: that comedy movies. Did you see this comedy movies are disappearing,
Speaker 1: that there's no more because I've been saying on the
Speaker 1: show for a while that comedy is dead. And here's
Speaker 1: this story. There are those who worry about all blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. In December, I saw he's talking about all
Speaker 1: these different movies. You see he says there there there's
Speaker 1: terrible comedies accounted for appalling and appalling eight percent of
Speaker 1: box office revenue. There are no funny movies being made anymore, dude,
Speaker 1: that's the that's the statistic I was trying to find there.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry about the stumball. I'm like there was a
Speaker 1: play I was trying to read as I was eight
Speaker 1: percent of box That means they're not making comedies. You
Speaker 1: know why because people don't want to be funny anymore.
Speaker 1: They want to be woke. Yeah, I have why because
Speaker 1: people who write comedy movies in Hollywood are liberals, and
Speaker 1: liberals having this sense of humor. So when you're having
Speaker 1: this sense of humor, you really can't write something that's funny.
Speaker 1: I tell people this all the time, and they're like,
Speaker 1: come on, that's just because you like you know, you
Speaker 1: share the idea. The funniest people I know, all of
Speaker 1: them are some form of right of center. They're not
Speaker 1: necessarily Some of the funniest people I know aren't Trump
Speaker 1: people at all, but they're still kind of conservative contrarian types,
Speaker 1: you know, some of them are. It's not it's not
Speaker 1: a Trump thing, although I know some very funny people
Speaker 1: like Trump. But it's just you've become part of the
Speaker 1: counterculture now. You've you know, if you're if you're somebody
Speaker 1: who's in the left, on the left, you you have
Speaker 1: such you have a straight jacket on all the time
Speaker 1: about what you're allowed to say, what you allowed to
Speaker 1: make fun of so and you know that that political
Speaker 1: cress is completely absurd, and they're not afraid to cross
Speaker 1: the line. Yeah, that's right exactly. We're used to saying
Speaker 1: things that are gonna get us in trouble. That's why,
Speaker 1: you know, The really funny show would be if we
Speaker 1: could just establish the like if we could establish a
Speaker 1: show called safe space, but it was a play on
Speaker 1: words where it's like, okay, guys, this is the conservative
Speaker 1: safe space. I can make any jokes that I want
Speaker 1: and I can't get in trouble for it because it's
Speaker 1: the safe space. I like it. This would be an
Speaker 1: amazing show, by the way, would because the funniest stuff
Speaker 1: that I say, unfortunately, is all stuff that I say
Speaker 1: off air that I could never repeat to anybody or
Speaker 1: else I'd get in trouble. So that's the funniest stuff.
Speaker 1: If we could actually just create a show where you
Speaker 1: could do that and call it safe space, which would
Speaker 1: be great. I think I think we're on at other
Speaker 1: bruser Mike even Mark likes that's called curb your Enthusiasm. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: all right, I'll allow it. I'll allow it. But we
Speaker 1: could do an updated version. Larry David, he's getting he's
Speaker 1: getting up there. We'll be right back. The show ain't
Speaker 1: over yet, folks, keeping it real. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: That's right, baby, roll call Tom is the fun time.
Speaker 1: You know how we roll, So all good things, all
Speaker 1: the fun stuff going on in the world right now?
Speaker 1: What is there? What is there to say on this Friday,
Speaker 1: middle of summer, folks, that's right, middle of the summer. Mark,
Speaker 1: What do you got anything exciting going on? Producer Mike,
Speaker 1: Which one of the ladies in Mike's Wheel of Fortune
Speaker 1: came up the lucky winner this weekend? I don't know. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's still it's it's still early on Fridays. Mark. We
Speaker 1: call this op SEC or infosec depending operational security. Uh.
Speaker 1: He doesn't, he doesn't throw the names out of the radio.
Speaker 1: He's too he's too sly for that. It doesn't want
Speaker 1: to give the other girls information. Can't leave a trail
Speaker 1: this day of Instagram and Facebook, you can't. You can't
Speaker 1: start even even first names too much. You know, Yeah,
Speaker 1: my name it might not even be Mike. I don't
Speaker 1: think that hasn't occurred to me before. Their chief you're you're,
Speaker 1: you're a very he's a smooth international man of mystery,
Speaker 1: that producer Mike. All right, so I promised you all,
Speaker 1: I promised you all. Roll call. I will deliver the
Speaker 1: role call. Uh, let's see what we have here to
Speaker 1: kick us off, to get this hardy krak Alakin as
Speaker 1: I said, Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sex and Mike.
Speaker 1: Do we have an email addressed at the website that
Speaker 1: we can set up, by the way, can I'm gonna
Speaker 1: keep just saying it on live radio until we actually
Speaker 1: do that, as we don't have a set up yet.
Speaker 1: But um, we're sort of in between that stuff right now.
Speaker 1: But it'll it'll be happening soon. Men at work, Yeah,
Speaker 1: producer Buck and host Mike. Men at work. You get
Speaker 1: a sign and put it on the door. It's what
Speaker 1: we do, all right, um, Nicolai Nikolai, I like it.
Speaker 1: I must break you shirtless, Jim Freudian slip much. We
Speaker 1: can actually hear your brain realize what you said. Thank
Speaker 1: you for a great laugh. You're the best in the business, sir, Well, Nikolai,
Speaker 1: you have the best taste in the business. So thank
Speaker 1: you so much. I do really appreciate it. It sends
Speaker 1: me off in the weekend with a smile on my face.
Speaker 1: So that's so there you go. That's that's all you need.
Speaker 1: It's all you need to know, all you need to do.
Speaker 1: Michael Buck. I'm now working toward a graduate degree in engineering,
Speaker 1: but I was once an IVY heroin addict and even
Speaker 1: spent time locked up. My story is great. Anyway, my
Speaker 1: experiences have caused me to have what some would say
Speaker 1: are extreme views on the criminal justice system. If it
Speaker 1: were up to me, the inmate population will be reduced
Speaker 1: by a large number and many laws would change. How However,
Speaker 1: even I can see that would biden Buddha judge are
Speaker 1: saying is crazy. They make me seem like a moderate
Speaker 1: on the subject now more than ever. Shields High, Well,
Speaker 1: Michael's thank you first of all for sharing your your
Speaker 1: personal and inspiring story, and good for you for you know,
Speaker 1: people love redemption for a whole bunch of reasons, not
Speaker 1: even just in the whole Christian everlasting life way, but
Speaker 1: that's obviously very important, but in the general comeback story
Speaker 1: sense too. I mean, we all we all know that
Speaker 1: we are flawed, we fail, we stumble, and so anyone
Speaker 1: who dust themselves off and gets back up there and
Speaker 1: gets back into the fight with their shields high is
Speaker 1: somebody that is that should be should be praised for
Speaker 1: that for that act, and should be encouraged and others
Speaker 1: should be encouraged to do the same. As for your
Speaker 1: point on criminal justice reform and letting out, Well, you
Speaker 1: said half of the people in prison I used to
Speaker 1: do and there was a much greater in in this,
Speaker 1: I must say, in the Tea Party years. For whatever reason,
Speaker 1: people seem to have ceased to care, or at least
Speaker 1: there's not as much medium. Maybe people care as much,
Speaker 1: but there's not as much media attention as there used
Speaker 1: to be on this. On the issue of over criminalization,
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's a very fair question to ask,
Speaker 1: should people who have only committed a crime that is
Speaker 1: an administrative offense against the government, right so the only
Speaker 1: victim in a sense is the government and their first
Speaker 1: time offender, should they face prison time? Now I'm speaking
Speaker 1: very broad terms. I know that we'd have to drill
Speaker 1: down into some of this, but there have been people
Speaker 1: who have done studies of our criminal justices and what
Speaker 1: they find is that there are so many criminal statutes
Speaker 1: on the books right now. They're in fact so many
Speaker 1: criminal statutes that no one even knows how many there
Speaker 1: are because it depends on interpretation. It depends on how
Speaker 1: some of the different administrative agencies will use regulative will
Speaker 1: interpret regulatory law that can have criminal penalty. So the
Speaker 1: answer to how many criminal laws are there in America
Speaker 1: is nobody knows, and that's not an acceptable answer. There
Speaker 1: are too many people, too many people out there who
Speaker 1: I think are in prison for things that honestly they
Speaker 1: shouldn't be in prison for at all. That that and
Speaker 1: for me, one person who's in prison who shouldn't be
Speaker 1: in prisons. Too many the more complicated. So these are
Speaker 1: things like people that are that wander onto an Indian
Speaker 1: reservation and try to get looking for arrowheads, not realizing
Speaker 1: where they are, and now all of a suddeny're facing
Speaker 1: two years in federal prison. That was a well known case.
Speaker 1: Or there was snowmobiling, I think, and they went on
Speaker 1: native land by accident. I mean, things like things like that,
Speaker 1: or you know, a Native American reservation, pardon me, things
Speaker 1: like that can sometimes and send people to prison, so
Speaker 1: that's not good. Or I believe in one case, somebody
Speaker 1: was packing they were in the Gulf of Mexico, a
Speaker 1: US fisherman and they packed fish in plastic instead of
Speaker 1: paper or something like that. I mean, it's so absurd
Speaker 1: that you honestly you wouldn't believe it if you read it.
Speaker 1: And now they didn't end up going to prison, but
Speaker 1: they faced criminal penalties with prison time that could have
Speaker 1: been attached to it, So that's too much. The question
Speaker 1: gets much more complicated on drugs because there are there
Speaker 1: are two big parts of the drug debate that I
Speaker 1: think that there's not nearly enough of a focus on. Okay,
Speaker 1: there's a there's a big two big parts of it.
Speaker 1: One I mean in terms of incarceration for people who
Speaker 1: are involved in the illegal drug trade. One is that
Speaker 1: usually if you have a very long drug sentence attached
Speaker 1: to somebody, they're not a first it's usually not always,
Speaker 1: but usually not a first time offender. And also sometimes
Speaker 1: the possession penalty is just the easiest and most readily
Speaker 1: provable felony, so that's what they give them, even though
Speaker 1: they may have been part of a distribution network of
Speaker 1: a drug gang that, let's say, is responsible for a
Speaker 1: whole lot of a whole lot of homicides, murders, bad things.
Speaker 1: So sometimes, you know, so they could have gotten them
Speaker 1: with a racketeering charge. Maybe they could have even got
Speaker 1: them with an attempted murder charge. But if they've got
Speaker 1: enough weight on you, as they say, if they find
Speaker 1: even enough drugs, they just charge the drugs because they
Speaker 1: know that they'll be able to prove that and you're
Speaker 1: going to take a plea deal. So that's one part
Speaker 1: of it, is that so non violent drug offenders, just
Speaker 1: because the offense that they went away for is what's listed,
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that that's actually the only thing the
Speaker 1: person did. And then the other part of this is, folks,
Speaker 1: we've got an opioid epidemic that's killing seventy thousand Americans
Speaker 1: a year. When you're selling illegal drugs to somebody, especially
Speaker 1: drugs that are as powerful as opioids, and I do
Speaker 1: think that there's a difference, right, There's just like there's
Speaker 1: a difference between selling somebody a beer illegally and selling
Speaker 1: them you know, an eight ball of coke? Um? Isn't
Speaker 1: that what they call it? An eight ball? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not really good on these things. So yeah, that's
Speaker 1: what I was trying to do. A little street lingo there,
Speaker 1: you know, some some yeo, some some snow. Now you're
Speaker 1: over my head? Some china white? Is that? Is that what?
Speaker 1: I think? That's from breaking bed? Isn't that what they
Speaker 1: call a breaking bead? Or? Is it is that heroin? Though? No,
Speaker 1: that's heroin, right, don't, yes, but I think China white
Speaker 1: was one of the terms. Yeah, that's a thing, that's
Speaker 1: a thank you. I remember from the some MOLLI that's
Speaker 1: that's ecstasy. That's different. Yes, yeah, I know, I see,
Speaker 1: I'm up on some of the street lingo. But anyway,
Speaker 1: back to the seriousness of this conversation. Um, we have
Speaker 1: a very real epidemic in this country, and people who
Speaker 1: are contributing to that epidemic and and are involved in
Speaker 1: the sale of illegal drugs that can kill people. I
Speaker 1: don't know, I don't know how much we consider that
Speaker 1: to be. It's certainly not a victimless crime. They've started
Speaker 1: to charge people, including those who weren't even involved really
Speaker 1: in commercial, large scale commercial sale of drugs. If someone
Speaker 1: overdoses and you sold them the drugs they overdosed on,
Speaker 1: They've charged people with murder for that. They've even I
Speaker 1: think brought charges again certain doctors for overprescribing drugs. So
Speaker 1: that's where it gets more complicated too. I think if
Speaker 1: you're selling marijuana illegally, especially considering some states now have
Speaker 1: legal I mean, yeah, it is not possible to die
Speaker 1: from marijuana. Believe it or not. It is a fat soluble.
Speaker 1: THHC is a fat soluble drug and no one has
Speaker 1: ever It's not possible to smoke enough of it to
Speaker 1: die from it. And this is not just something that
Speaker 1: a bunch of hippies and Vermont told me. This is
Speaker 1: science that is not true if some of these other drugs.
Speaker 1: So I think that you can work into this a
Speaker 1: schedule that deals with they have, you know, Schedule one,
Speaker 1: Schedule two, that they should redo the drug schedule and
Speaker 1: look at it in terms of seriousness of the substance
Speaker 1: that's being sold and the amount of it. Sorry, I
Speaker 1: got a little deep into the criminal justice debate there
Speaker 1: for a second, but I think it's very important and
Speaker 1: it's one that Republicans can make some headway on going
Speaker 1: into the into the reelection. I'm hoping they ken because
Speaker 1: Trump has done good stuff on this. We'll have a
Speaker 1: moment to catch our breath. We got more amazing role
Speaker 1: Call your fantastic thoughts when we come back, you know, Team,
Speaker 1: I missed some of the some of the original Saturday
Speaker 1: Squad these days. I was thinking about it because I
Speaker 1: used to do the show for the Blaze on Saturday,
Speaker 1: and that was amazing because I it was the whole
Speaker 1: week I was just all pent up with wanting to
Speaker 1: do radio. And then Saturday it was like three hours
Speaker 1: of just unleashed Buck on the radio, and we talked
Speaker 1: about all kinds of stuff, history and philosophy, and a
Speaker 1: lot of it was very in depth and less news
Speaker 1: cycle based. But we had all these great callers. And
Speaker 1: I remember we used to have this lady named Irma,
Speaker 1: who I think told me she was I think she
Speaker 1: said she was eighty either eighty five or eighty eight,
Speaker 1: I can't remember. And Irma I used to call in
Speaker 1: and she h, you know, her family had fled the
Speaker 1: Holocaust in World War Two, and she would get on
Speaker 1: these rants about fascism and it was incredible, and I'm
Speaker 1: just I'm just wondering. I hope Irma's okay and she's
Speaker 1: if she's out there listening. I just want to send
Speaker 1: you a big team buck hug, and there are many
Speaker 1: others out there as well. You know, if you're still
Speaker 1: on the team and I haven't heard from you in
Speaker 1: a while, i'd like to. I'd like to hear what's
Speaker 1: going on. You don't have to call in if you
Speaker 1: don't want to, because we don't do calls as much,
Speaker 1: but send me and send me an email, send me
Speaker 1: a Facebook message, and let me know how things are going.
Speaker 1: So I was just thinking. I was thinking about Irma.
Speaker 1: Some of you who are original Saturday Squad will remember
Speaker 1: she was a fantastic, fantastic lady with a lot of wisdom.
Speaker 1: Um also Laurie from New Jersey, and I'm Laurie from
Speaker 1: New Jersey. Like knew more about the stock market than
Speaker 1: anybody on CNBC. She used to call in. And what
Speaker 1: happened to Laurie from New Jersey? Missing some of the
Speaker 1: old squad? You know these people who are your real
Speaker 1: uh you know og as they said, original original Squad
Speaker 1: oss listeners. They they're they're your friends, and so you
Speaker 1: wonder how they're doing. So I'm wondering how some of
Speaker 1: my original Saturday friends are doing out there. Stoats Unofficial
Speaker 1: Team Buck Wrangler of all Things Stoats. All right, we
Speaker 1: got tim up here. I've been following you since the
Speaker 1: Real News days and I'm a regular podcast listener. I
Speaker 1: hate to be that guy, but the audio levels and
Speaker 1: the podcast are out of control. The levels on your
Speaker 1: Buck's remote feed are almost always extremely low, with everything
Speaker 1: from the studio at a good level. This may not
Speaker 1: be noticed on traditional broadcast stations because they have processing
Speaker 1: to compensate, but it's very bad on the podcast. You
Speaker 1: need some processing either than bucks feed or the whole
Speaker 1: feed to go to the podcast recorder. I'm a broadcast
Speaker 1: engineer willing to offer advice. Shields high, Tim, Well, thank
Speaker 1: you Tim. One of my is is this a thing
Speaker 1: I disagree? You disagree? Yes, Producer Mark disagrees with this.
Speaker 1: I mean he's our he's our engineer. I don't know.
Speaker 1: This is like, well, producer Mark's praying mentis style defeat
Speaker 1: Tim's shoo. I don't know. I don't like people questioning
Speaker 1: my craft. I say, dude, I defer to you all this.
Speaker 1: If you're telling me that the audio on the podcast
Speaker 1: is good, the audio on the podcast is good, I'm
Speaker 1: just saying, um, let's see here. But Tim, thank you nonetheless, man,
Speaker 1: And look, I will I will listen to the podcast.
Speaker 1: It's kind of funny. I'm gonna listen to myself. I
Speaker 1: will listen to the podcast myself, and uh yeah, we
Speaker 1: will get we will get going on that, for sure.
Speaker 1: M Dwayne. I'm among many who believe that Rapino, Omar
Speaker 1: and all those who believe America is such a bad
Speaker 1: play should pack up and find somewhere that's a little
Speaker 1: bit more to their liking. But I guarantee one thing,
Speaker 1: America will forget them long before they forget America. Well, Dwayne,
Speaker 1: I don't think they're going anywhere, but I understand, I
Speaker 1: understand where your head's at. So thank you very much,
Speaker 1: very much for that. Let's see, Irene, I so enjoy
Speaker 1: your program. We don't get you here to seven pm.
Speaker 1: At ten pm. You still seem to always be on
Speaker 1: top of the news though. Thank you for all your service. Well, Irene,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for listening in some of our
Speaker 1: wonderful affiliate markets because they have some local programming or
Speaker 1: there's we can be a little bit delayed, but we
Speaker 1: are doing this show. I mean, when you were hearing
Speaker 1: me at six o'clock every night, I'm at six o'clock Eastern.
Speaker 1: Rather those of you that hear me at six eastern,
Speaker 1: or you can listen on the stream on iHeart Radio
Speaker 1: on the app at six eastern. When you hear me
Speaker 1: on that, that is live. But in some markets it's delayed,
Speaker 1: and then sometimes there's also some catchup or we'll do
Speaker 1: an interview, because for me, getting some people on the
Speaker 1: show is the most important thing. So we'll do an
Speaker 1: interview earlier in the day and we will then air
Speaker 1: it later on. All right, we got another one here,
Speaker 1: we got we got a live one. Kristen rights, Well,
Speaker 1: that is true that many women care about height. I've
Speaker 1: seen very short men with very attractive women. It's all
Speaker 1: about confidence and women are attracted to that. Well, Kristen Darnett,
Speaker 1: I agree, because I always date up. I don't mean
Speaker 1: up is in like I have to scurry up the
Speaker 1: tree because I'm shorter than the lady. I mean date
Speaker 1: up is in. I feel like I date, you know,
Speaker 1: beyond my station in life, at least physically. And it's
Speaker 1: because one thing I do not lack is a tremendous
Speaker 1: a tremendous confidence infused with a perfection of humility. I
Speaker 1: might add, because that's the thing that you can do,
Speaker 1: But no, you're right about confidence though, in all seriousness,
Speaker 1: it is a very important thing. It's very appealing and
Speaker 1: it's very much what I think a lot of when
Speaker 1: people discuss the masculine virtues, which I know the feminists
Speaker 1: and the left now pretend aren't really a thing. Masculine
Speaker 1: virtues are a thing, things like honor, integrity, courage. When
Speaker 1: when people talk about an alpha, I don't think that
Speaker 1: being an alpha means that you have washboard abs and
Speaker 1: you know, have made sure that you have no body
Speaker 1: hair on your chest so all your muscles can show,
Speaker 1: and you go around saying, you know, who wants the fight?
Speaker 1: Do you even lift? Bro? You know, that's that's not
Speaker 1: what I think the masculine virtues are, at least not
Speaker 1: the ones we should pursue in society. But honor, decency, integrity,
Speaker 1: life competence, and with life competence comes a great degree
Speaker 1: of confidence in general, right, Mike, If you want to
Speaker 1: be a guy who's good at life, yeah, man, yeah,
Speaker 1: you gotta win it life. You gotta win it life.
Speaker 1: That doesn't just that's not That's not the same thing
Speaker 1: as saying some us to be financially successful or whatever,
Speaker 1: or I mean to make a lot of money or anything.
Speaker 1: No, no no, no. Life competence is good at dealing with
Speaker 1: the challenges of life and treating people well and doing
Speaker 1: so and conducting oneself honorably. That's life competence. So yeah, basically,
Speaker 1: if you're on an amtrak train, all the lights go
Speaker 1: out and some you know terrorists storm that. You know
Speaker 1: you want bucks X in there. That's all I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you. And he's gonna be in Sean Parnell's novel WHOA.
Speaker 1: All Right, everybody, have a fantastic weekend. Wish who's your
Speaker 1: mic luck on all of his shenanigans, And uh, well,
Speaker 1: Mark's getting married, so he's just gonna have a nice
Speaker 1: pot roast made for him this weekend. He's gonna be fine.
Speaker 1: But that's gonna be That's gonna be it for us
Speaker 1: here in the Hut. We'll see you on Monday.