Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Democrats continue, they're
Speaker 1: unfair and obviously partisan impeachment nonsense. There's also a lot
Speaker 1: of anger right now about what the president has done
Speaker 1: in Syria from left and right. I'll break that down
Speaker 1: for you. And does testosterone have anything to do with masculinity?
Speaker 1: Question for the ages coming up on The Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American. Ready, great, You're a great American
Speaker 1: Again The Buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst, He's a great guy.
Speaker 1: Now the impeachment Inquiry. Stay updated, stay in form with
Speaker 1: up to the minute breaking news and analysis. There's only
Speaker 1: one place for it all, cnn dot com slash impeachment.
Speaker 1: Only one place for it all, Impeachment Central of at CNN.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, Look, I like
Speaker 1: that the left, the Libs, they're just being honest about
Speaker 1: this stuff. Now, I prefer it that way. I prefer
Speaker 1: that they would just show us that the impeachment of
Speaker 1: the President of the United States is a game to them,
Speaker 1: It's a sports event. Really, they give us all these
Speaker 1: talking points. They whine constantly about the need to protect
Speaker 1: our sacred institutions, the sanctity of our democracy, and then
Speaker 1: it's hey, let's put the impeachment scoreboard up on the screen.
Speaker 1: Let's see we can impeach this president. Nancy Pelosi changed
Speaker 1: her Twitter avatar last night so that it would show
Speaker 1: her standing up at a meeting with the President of
Speaker 1: the United States on at least allegedly theoretically to discuss Syria,
Speaker 1: and she was pointing her finger at him, and Trump
Speaker 1: said that she was being crazy. That doesn't surprise me
Speaker 1: at all. The Democrats have been quite crazy all along. Here.
Speaker 1: My favorite part about this meeting. To keep in mind now,
Speaker 1: everything that we're discussing about Syria is also very much
Speaker 1: affected by the democrats dishonest impeachment push, and everything that
Speaker 1: we're discussing about impeachment right now is also being added
Speaker 1: to by the whole Syria fiasco, where you have a
Speaker 1: tremendous amount of dishonesty in the discussion from people all
Speaker 1: across the national security apparatus, including a lot of conservatives,
Speaker 1: a lot of Republicans. I think some of them have
Speaker 1: just forgotten the real context for what is happening in Syria.
Speaker 1: I think they don't really understand or aren't remembering clearly
Speaker 1: what happened in that country and what is likely to
Speaker 1: happen in that country if we were to stay. But
Speaker 1: these things now are all very much tied together. My
Speaker 1: favorite moment though, because, as you know, you come to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show to learn to laugh and to
Speaker 1: crush the commies. And my favorite part of the exchange
Speaker 1: between Trump and the Democrats who came to meet him
Speaker 1: at the White House was when you had Chuck Schumer claim, well,
Speaker 1: let's actually, can we hear from Chuck himself on this
Speaker 1: better than me doing an impression of him? Play five? Please?
Speaker 1: How can we let this happen? They didn't have any
Speaker 1: good answer. This is appalling. The President had no plan,
Speaker 1: no real plan for containing ISIS other than relying on
Speaker 1: the Syrians and the Turks. Then why did we spend
Speaker 1: a decade, billions of dollars and lost lives in trying
Speaker 1: to curtail Isis? If on a phone call, on a whim,
Speaker 1: the President is going to undo all of that and
Speaker 1: turn this over to the Turks and the Syrians. I
Speaker 1: would also say one other thing, he was insulting, particularly
Speaker 1: to the speaker. She kept her cool completely, but he
Speaker 1: called her a third rate politician. He said that the
Speaker 1: there are communists involved, and you guys might like that.
Speaker 1: I mean, this was not a dialogue. It was sort
Speaker 1: of a diatribe, a nasty diatribe, not focused on the facts,
Speaker 1: particularly the fact of how to curtail isis a terrorist
Speaker 1: organization that aims to hurt the United States in our homeland. Oh,
Speaker 1: the best part of that, by farce, Trump apparently saying
Speaker 1: that because there are commies involved here, ukamies meaning the
Speaker 1: Democrats might like that. Pkks. I've told you is a
Speaker 1: which you'd consider an old school seventies and eighties Marxist
Speaker 1: separatist organization, terrorist organization. And so Trump worked in a
Speaker 1: little a jab about Democrats being comedies. I'm sorry, that's
Speaker 1: kind of funny. Not as funny as tweeting out a
Speaker 1: nickelback clip with look at this photograph because Joe Biden
Speaker 1: was golfing with a Bisma executive and hunter. Biden after
Speaker 1: telling us that he had never had a conversation about it,
Speaker 1: that there had been no discussion about any of that whatsoever. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess they just talked about their talked about their
Speaker 1: best putters or whatever. I don't know what people talk
Speaker 1: about in golf, but there was another part of this discussion,
Speaker 1: or rather this Chuck Schumer monologue, and I thought was
Speaker 1: worth noting President Obama and just you know, the President
Speaker 1: of the United States did, in fact tweet out this
Speaker 1: morning a quote from me, and the quote it's a
Speaker 1: quote of my tweet. And here's what leader of the
Speaker 1: Free World put out on his Twitter account this morning.
Speaker 1: About five hundred thousand human beings were killed in Syria
Speaker 1: while Barack Obama was president and leading for a political
Speaker 1: settlement to that civil war. Media has been more outraged
Speaker 1: in the last seventy two hours over Syria policy than
Speaker 1: they were at any point during seven years of slaughter,
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton, So that would be that would be me.
Speaker 1: This is the point that we have to remember as
Speaker 1: we discuss all of this, as we discuss everything that's
Speaker 1: going on right now in Syria, the Obama administration made
Speaker 1: a decision not to put any US boots on the
Speaker 1: ground in Syria. That was there. That was their big
Speaker 1: contribution in foreign policy, and in fact, when they were
Speaker 1: challenged on this issue, they fell back on the mantra,
Speaker 1: and it wasn't. It was actually a more profane version
Speaker 1: of this, but don't do stupid stuff. Do you remember that?
Speaker 1: And this came after that, was on Syria. Don't do
Speaker 1: stupid stuff. That's the Obama administration. Even Hillary Clinton herself,
Speaker 1: how she came out and said that that's not an
Speaker 1: organizing principle for foreign policy, A gentle way because remember
Speaker 1: she thought she was going to be the next president
Speaker 1: the United States when she was Secretary of State, saying
Speaker 1: that stuff a gentle way of saying that. The Obama
Speaker 1: team just thinks that they can dress up in action
Speaker 1: as strategic brilliance. So they did nothing while Syria not
Speaker 1: only became the isis a hotbed that then enslaved a
Speaker 1: few million people for years, mass rapes, mass executions, torture,
Speaker 1: attempted genocide against the Kurds. All that happened on Obama's watched.
Speaker 1: And it happened right after Obama decided that we weren't
Speaker 1: going to Remember, we had already broken Iraq. You know,
Speaker 1: you break it, you buy it, right, that was the
Speaker 1: basic I think that was the Colin Powell ism. If
Speaker 1: you break it, you buy it. So we had already
Speaker 1: broken I Rock. We decided we were going to do
Speaker 1: regime change in that country, so we were committed. Once
Speaker 1: you've done that, you're committed. Right, We're not committed, although
Speaker 1: I'll get into this the same way on Syria. But
Speaker 1: the Obama administration didn't do anything worthwhile to stop the
Speaker 1: rise of ISIS. In fact, they went as far the
Speaker 1: ISIS fighters swept through Mosul, a very important city in
Speaker 1: northern Iraq on the Tigris River that was the gateway
Speaker 1: to Syria for I, well, gateway to Iraq for countless
Speaker 1: suicide bombers from Syria during the US the major portion
Speaker 1: of US military occupation of Iraq, and they got within
Speaker 1: what thirty or forty miles or so of Irbil in Kurdistan,
Speaker 1: and at that point when the Islamic State was threatening
Speaker 1: to completely overrun Kurdish cities, which would have led to
Speaker 1: mass atrocities, execution, total destabilization of already shaky Iraq at
Speaker 1: the time. Then Obama goes, all right, we'll do an
Speaker 1: air campaign, but we're gonna do it really slow, and
Speaker 1: a lot of allies. Let's bring in the allies. They'll
Speaker 1: do a lot of the fighting for US. No they won't.
Speaker 1: They'll do a lot of the heavy lifting from the sky. No,
Speaker 1: they won't. And all of a sudden, President Trump takes over.
Speaker 1: The Islamic State goes from a global threat that's supporting
Speaker 1: and propagating ideology that is radicalizing people all the world,
Speaker 1: including here in America, you know, like Omar Matine, the
Speaker 1: Pulse nightclub shooter, and the San Bernardino shooters, and Jihadis
Speaker 1: who see the Islamic State as a clarion call to arms.
Speaker 1: That's all going on. And then Trump comes into office
Speaker 1: and says, I got an idea. Let's just crush Let's
Speaker 1: just crush Isis. Let's just do it, and let's work
Speaker 1: with whoever can get the job done on the ground.
Speaker 1: In this case, it was the Kurds. And after that
Speaker 1: destruction of the Islamic State, the eradication of the leadership
Speaker 1: in or at least chasing them out of Rocca, if
Speaker 1: not taking them out, the President has decided, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: now we have the issue not so much of defeating
Speaker 1: ISIS as just a counter terrorism campaign, but of Syria overall.
Speaker 1: What do we do in Syria? What is our end
Speaker 1: state goal? You have a lot of people who are
Speaker 1: saying things right now that they think sound very smart,
Speaker 1: like well, we should have negotiated, negotiated what exactly that
Speaker 1: all the regional partners would just destroy the Islamic state
Speaker 1: for us. We've been trying to negotiate that for a
Speaker 1: long time. We cannot trust the Turks, we cannot trust
Speaker 1: the Russians, we cannot trust the Iranians, we cannot trust
Speaker 1: the Syrians. So who exactly are we supposed to negotiate
Speaker 1: with now? I'm also seeing a lot of complaints, a
Speaker 1: lot of criticism that the President's plan is too hasty,
Speaker 1: and there are people who are saying that that means
Speaker 1: in of itself that the idea behind it is wrong.
Speaker 1: I disagree, and I know I'm kind of a lone
Speaker 1: voice these days. There's not a lot of people that
Speaker 1: are taking my side on this one, including on the right.
Speaker 1: We have to stop justifying continued US military presence in
Speaker 1: countries where we do not have an immediate national security
Speaker 1: interest and where things are going to continue in a
Speaker 1: state of tension, a state of constant fighting, or just
Speaker 1: get a lot worse and deteriorate. Where have we been
Speaker 1: able to draw down successfully? And as I said, people
Speaker 1: will point to a rock. That's a different case. People
Speaker 1: will point to Afghanistan. Now, I think have greater to
Speaker 1: have a stronger point to make because at Afghanistan we've
Speaker 1: been there for what almost two decades now, and every
Speaker 1: year it's well, conditions on the ground aren't good enough.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, maybe it's not about conditions on the
Speaker 1: ground being good enough. Maybe it's the mission is over.
Speaker 1: Time to come home, or just accept that we're going
Speaker 1: to have permanent military presence in active conflict zones, different
Speaker 1: than having a base in a country at peace, and
Speaker 1: that that's going to be our foreign policy forever, which
Speaker 1: does feel a bit like empire, doesn't it. Let's all
Speaker 1: be honest about that. I am confident that Asad's days
Speaker 1: are numbered, the world will not waver. Assad must go.
Speaker 1: We both agree that Asad needs to go. It is
Speaker 1: just further evidence that Asad has to go, he's no
Speaker 1: longer legitimate, and that he needs to go for the
Speaker 1: sake of the Syrian people. The time has come for
Speaker 1: him to step aside. Assad is on his way out.
Speaker 1: We all need to be thinking about the day after Asad.
Speaker 1: Assad has lost all legitimacy, that his time has passed
Speaker 1: present al Asad is lost legitimacy, that he needs to
Speaker 1: step down. As I have said many times before, Asad
Speaker 1: has lost all legitimacy and Asad must go. And he
Speaker 1: has stated on equivocably that Asad has lost all legitimacy
Speaker 1: and cannot conceivably continue to govern. Beside has lost all
Speaker 1: legitimacy to government. We've also been clear that Asad has
Speaker 1: lost all legitimacy to lead. What we've done is organize
Speaker 1: the international community saying Aside has to go. Look at
Speaker 1: all those democrats, the experts of the Obama Obama himself,
Speaker 1: the experts of the Obama administration telling you that Asad
Speaker 1: must go. Oh, but it's not a question of regime
Speaker 1: change in Syrie. We don't have to stay until there's
Speaker 1: regime teams. Let me tell you this. Without regime change,
Speaker 1: the only real alternative is what is happening now, which
Speaker 1: as we say, all right, we're out. Yeah, we can
Speaker 1: still exert pressure, we can still try to tell whatever
Speaker 1: you want in Turkey as an ally, what however you
Speaker 1: want to describe it. Stop going after the Kurds. Stop
Speaker 1: making things more difficult for everybody in the region because
Speaker 1: of your own domestic political considerations, i e. You hate
Speaker 1: that your people hate the PKK for understandable reasons. We
Speaker 1: don't want to be in a position where we just
Speaker 1: keep on waiting and don't accept that we're waiting for
Speaker 1: something we're never gonna do, which is trying to topple uside.
Speaker 1: We have no interest in that. In fact, one thing,
Speaker 1: one lesson from the Syrian Civil War that people don't
Speaker 1: seem to understand, or the experts I should say, haven't
Speaker 1: taken away from it. What comes after a sad? What
Speaker 1: would be in place of a sad? We're so sure
Speaker 1: that it would not be something along the lines of
Speaker 1: a Taliban in Syria, Chabbat al Nasra, al Qaeda, something
Speaker 1: like that. No, the Islamic State, none of that is
Speaker 1: a concern for us. What are we talking about here.
Speaker 1: We weren't able to get the job done without the
Speaker 1: help of the Kurds because as there was such a
Speaker 1: strong je hottest element in Syria, and one of the
Speaker 1: problems we ran into was trying to arm Syrian Arabs
Speaker 1: to fight against the Islamic State. Guess what they couldn't
Speaker 1: do it without. Now there is about a half I
Speaker 1: think or so of the Syrian Defense forces our Sunni Arabs,
Speaker 1: and then about half of them are Kurds. The SDF
Speaker 1: point here being folks, we only have so many options.
Speaker 1: And the people who are right now the loudest voices
Speaker 1: on how what Trump is doing is terrible sat by
Speaker 1: and did nothing. In fact, in the case of Obama,
Speaker 1: really worse than nothing, because he declared a red line
Speaker 1: and put the full force of the US government behind
Speaker 1: that red line, said if you gas your own people, Assad,
Speaker 1: We're coming after you. Sad gas Syrians. Nothing happened, Nothing
Speaker 1: got a speech from John Carey. Oh my, I'm sure
Speaker 1: all the terrorists were frightened beyond belief. So just remember
Speaker 1: that the people, the Ben Rhodeses and the John Kerries
Speaker 1: and the Barack Obamas, they were wrong on Syria in
Speaker 1: every respect, every day, every major issue. And now they're
Speaker 1: the ones that are telling you, oh, Trump is a disaster,
Speaker 1: He's ruining Syria. People on the coming up in the
Speaker 1: Democrat debate and claiming that the slaughter in Syria is
Speaker 1: Trump's fault. Okay, if you want to say that Trump's
Speaker 1: removal of about fifty US troops, that's what we're talking about. Here,
Speaker 1: by the way, from one area of northern Syria has
Speaker 1: led to dozens, maybe scores, I don't know, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: a few hundred casualties at this point. You could make
Speaker 1: that claim, but then you also have to understand that
Speaker 1: the Obama administration sat by and in fact worse in
Speaker 1: a situation where hundreds of thousands of people were killed,
Speaker 1: international community being led by Obama, leader of the Free World,
Speaker 1: wasn't able to stop it at all. In fact, it
Speaker 1: kept getting worse for the first few years when Obama
Speaker 1: was supposedly handling this and bring this to a political settlement.
Speaker 1: But of course it was the policy of the Obama
Speaker 1: administration that it was regime changed by people say, oh,
Speaker 1: don't talk about Obama, Yeah, because they don't want to
Speaker 1: discuss what happened in Syria. Trump showed up defeated ISIS,
Speaker 1: and it's like, I'm gone. What had happened up to
Speaker 1: that point? How How did ISIS even take all the
Speaker 1: territory that it did, become the force that it was
Speaker 1: because Obama said it was the JV team, Remember JV team,
Speaker 1: nothing serious there. Well, it turned out he was quite wrong.
Speaker 1: The same people, though, who brought you leading from behind
Speaker 1: in Libya, another disastrous regime change war. Let's topple that
Speaker 1: regime wanted to do this in some way in Syria,
Speaker 1: weren't able to make it actually happen. And now they
Speaker 1: walk around telling the president that the voters who put
Speaker 1: him in power to stop doing this regime change, military
Speaker 1: military policy in the Middle East that were they're supposed
Speaker 1: to get ignored now by Trump. The bottom line is
Speaker 1: the reckless decision of this president sends a very clear
Speaker 1: message to those friends and to those partners, and that
Speaker 1: is the American handshake doesn't matter. That we won't be
Speaker 1: there for you when you need us. And that's a
Speaker 1: dangerous message. And I'll make it much harder for us
Speaker 1: to recruit partners, recruit allies, and work with people going
Speaker 1: forward to secure our country. Even after all you have
Speaker 1: seen isis prisoners free at all, the humanitarian disaster. You
Speaker 1: don't have any regret for giving Urniwan the green light
Speaker 1: to invade. I didn't give him a green light. Well
Speaker 1: did you tell the thing as you just you know,
Speaker 1: when you make a statement like that is said deceptive,
Speaker 1: just the opposite of a green light. First of all,
Speaker 1: we had virtually no soldiers that they were mostly gone,
Speaker 1: just a tiny little group, and they would have been
Speaker 1: in harm's ware. You have a massive army on the
Speaker 1: other side of the border. But more importantly, I didn't
Speaker 1: give him a green light. And if anybody saw the letter,
Speaker 1: which can be released very easily, if you'd like, I
Speaker 1: could certainly release it. But I wrote a letter right
Speaker 1: after that conversation, a very powerful letter. There was never
Speaker 1: given a green light. They've been wanting to do that
Speaker 1: for years, and frankly, they've been fighting for many, many years.
Speaker 1: And when you ask a question like that as very deceptive, John,
Speaker 1: it's almost as deceptive as you showing all of the
Speaker 1: bombings taking place in Syria. And it turned out that
Speaker 1: the bombing that you showed on television took place in Kentucky,
Speaker 1: So you know, and I'm not even sure that ABC
Speaker 1: apologize for that, but certainly it was a terrible thing.
Speaker 1: I'm looking at this, I'd say, wow, that's pretty bad.
Speaker 1: And it was in Kentucky, it wasn't in Syrias. So
Speaker 1: I don't know what you're going to do about that,
Speaker 1: but I think abco's an apology. This is where President
Speaker 1: Trump is really at its best. When the media is
Speaker 1: going after him. It's obviously it's obviously partisan. I mean,
Speaker 1: that was a speech disguised as a question. Now, how
Speaker 1: could you do something so terrible? I think that's John
Speaker 1: carl or ABC or I don't know what the guy's
Speaker 1: name is, John something or other. And it points out
Speaker 1: that ab SEE was so desperate to run catastrophic footage
Speaker 1: of what has happened in northern Syria that they actually
Speaker 1: ran an explosives demonstration from a gun range in Kentucky
Speaker 1: on their biggest news shows. That's a That's a pretty
Speaker 1: big whoopsie, isn't it. Why would they make such a
Speaker 1: big mistake like that. There also was a mistake in
Speaker 1: a readout I think it was from either The Washing
Speaker 1: Post the New York Times, where Trump said that they
Speaker 1: basically came out of the meeting thing that Trump claimed
Speaker 1: that Syria is not our problem, but what he said
Speaker 1: was actually the Syrian border on like our border is,
Speaker 1: you know, not our problem. They just they get things
Speaker 1: wrong all the time that bash Trump because they're so desperate,
Speaker 1: desperate to bash the president, and they think that anything
Speaker 1: that bashes the president is inherently good to report, even
Speaker 1: if you have to correct yourself. It serves the purpose.
Speaker 1: This is the retweet and then follow up tweet phenomenon
Speaker 1: of you know, Trump said something that's literally worse than Hitler,
Speaker 1: and then oh, actually Trump didn't say that, And the
Speaker 1: first one gets fifty thousand likes, and the second one retweets,
Speaker 1: and the second one gets five. This is how propaganda works.
Speaker 1: The correction, the editor's note doesn't get anything near what
Speaker 1: the initial allegations and accusations get. And this is a phenomenon.
Speaker 1: Did you ever see this in the Obama years? How
Speaker 1: many major corrections did the New York Times the Washington
Speaker 1: Post have to run when Barack Obama was president, and
Speaker 1: specifically on items not just that dealt with his administration,
Speaker 1: but that we're damaging to Obama. How many times did
Speaker 1: that happen? Oh, the very smart journals want to tell
Speaker 1: us if that's a coincidence. I suppose that's supposed to
Speaker 1: be a coincidence. I think not. But now let's just
Speaker 1: dig a little more into it. And I want to
Speaker 1: get into the impeachment stuff too, and Pelosi and this
Speaker 1: whole thing is such a sham and such a joke.
Speaker 1: It's out of control. But even people who are who
Speaker 1: are crazy and very dishonest can be quite dangerous. And
Speaker 1: one of the great ironies here is that the voices
Speaker 1: in the Democrat Party who have been warning us about
Speaker 1: the threats to our democracy because of Trump for years now,
Speaker 1: they are the ones that are actually threats to our
Speaker 1: most sacred institutions. They're the ones who did not accept
Speaker 1: the results of the twenty sixteen election, did not accept
Speaker 1: the results of the two thousand election either, by the way,
Speaker 1: and are preparing themselves to invalidate the twenty twenty election,
Speaker 1: which Trump, I am very confident is going to win
Speaker 1: even if they impeach him. That's why there's this desperation
Speaker 1: to stop him, to do something, to sully him, to
Speaker 1: ruin him before the American people can make it another decision.
Speaker 1: That desperation is evident, not just in the impeachment frenzy,
Speaker 1: but also in the way they're talking about Syria. A
Speaker 1: few dozen US soldier How many US casualties have there
Speaker 1: been as a result of the move of troops from
Speaker 1: northern Syria? How many? The answer zero? Thank God, the
Speaker 1: answer zero. Okay, So we were supposed to do what
Speaker 1: we're supposed to stay and stay in exactly the positions
Speaker 1: we're in until the Curds say that it's that they've
Speaker 1: worked out a deal with Turkey. The Turks will break
Speaker 1: that deal with the Kurds. The moment that we don't
Speaker 1: have troops there, I think that's if we're just going
Speaker 1: to be realistic about this, and maybe I do need
Speaker 1: to write the article or get the word out there.
Speaker 1: After every military conflict we have made that we as
Speaker 1: a country have made the decision that there's only so
Speaker 1: much we can do, and you know, some people are
Speaker 1: on the wrong side of the dividing line. Some allies
Speaker 1: are gonna have defend or fight for themselves, and that's
Speaker 1: just the way that it is. After every single conflict
Speaker 1: that we fought in recent memory, World War two, Vietnam,
Speaker 1: Korean War, Persian Gulf War one, go through all these conflicts,
Speaker 1: I would want to ask the Obama administration official because
Speaker 1: remember they're they're now the ones that are trying to
Speaker 1: bring down Trump based on both the Ukraine Gate, which
Speaker 1: is just a replay of Russia Gate Ukraine Gate thing,
Speaker 1: and now on his decision to as commander in chief
Speaker 1: withdraw troops from one area of a battlefield a very
Speaker 1: small number of troops. They're acting. They are responding to
Speaker 1: this as though it is of Pearl Harbor esque proportions.
Speaker 1: They are pretending like moving. I've seen the report about
Speaker 1: fifty is what I've seen, and that there'll be a thousand.
Speaker 1: Our troop levels in Syria are down half in about
Speaker 1: the last year. That's the right decision. We do not
Speaker 1: want a few thousand soldiers in Syria because you know
Speaker 1: what happens, my friends, the few thousand soldiers when another
Speaker 1: administration comes along with the political reality changes for a moment,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, it's oh, there's something terrible happening
Speaker 1: in Syria. We need to make it five thousand. Now,
Speaker 1: we need to make it ten thousand. In fact, let's
Speaker 1: go with fifty thousand troops there. And now we're walking
Speaker 1: the streets of Damascus or Humas or Hamma our soldiers,
Speaker 1: and then we're being told we're occupiers and we're having
Speaker 1: our best and bravest Americans ambush and getting blown up
Speaker 1: by IEDs, walking the streets of a country where the
Speaker 1: people either aren't sure if they want them there or
Speaker 1: largely want them to leave, even though they're there to
Speaker 1: protect them. And if they weren't there, they'd probably be
Speaker 1: a genocide. But people are you idiots and they don't understand,
Speaker 1: and they just there's xenophobic. They have their own cultural
Speaker 1: animosities towards us. I mean, this, this is what we've seen.
Speaker 1: How many times does it have to play out in
Speaker 1: the Middle East before we say, you know what, We're
Speaker 1: not going to do this anymore. Why can't we learn
Speaker 1: the lesson? I was in a rock, I was in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: I had access to what the top people in the
Speaker 1: country were since when I was reading on a regular basis,
Speaker 1: I was seeing what was going on at a high level.
Speaker 1: And we just we refuse to learn a lesson. I
Speaker 1: don't know what else to say about this. And people
Speaker 1: who are going to claim, oh, but the Islamic state
Speaker 1: will be resurgent, that's always going to be, that will
Speaker 1: always be possible. Al Qaeda isis operate active cells that
Speaker 1: are currently plotting against the United States in countries all
Speaker 1: over the world, probably a few dozen of them if
Speaker 1: you counted them all up. Are we supposed to just
Speaker 1: put a few thousand troops in those countries too? We're
Speaker 1: just going to keep this thing going where we're going
Speaker 1: to fight and fight and fight all over the world.
Speaker 1: Why why? I mean, look look at the willingness and
Speaker 1: by the way the media is willing to justify sitting
Speaker 1: on the sidelines, largely in Syria. It wasn't entirely true.
Speaker 1: We tried some training of Syrian forces, a total debacle.
Speaker 1: Obama administration, the Pentagon completely fell down on the job
Speaker 1: with that. It's just true. There was no coherent policy
Speaker 1: to stop the Islamic state in Syria under the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: There was a total acceptance of Obama's dithering because he
Speaker 1: didn't want to be Bush. That was the basis of everything.
Speaker 1: Didn't want to be Bush. And now you have Trump saying,
Speaker 1: you know what, I don't want to be Bush either,
Speaker 1: and Democrats are more or less all screaming in unison.
Speaker 1: How dare you not want to be Bush? Only Obama
Speaker 1: gets to make that decision. You don't get to make
Speaker 1: that decision. You're supposed to just continue what Republicans have
Speaker 1: done for decades. Now, get us involved in a foreign
Speaker 1: military expedition that the moment the casualties start mounting, the
Speaker 1: moment that we are pulled into frontline shooting, which would
Speaker 1: happen in Syria at some point if we stayed, I
Speaker 1: am very confident of that. Then one of that happens.
Speaker 1: Then the Democrats say, you don't care about these troops,
Speaker 1: putting them in harm's way. These people, the voices that
Speaker 1: are criticizing Trump from the left on Syria are absolutely feckless.
Speaker 1: This is all about attacking the president. They don't care
Speaker 1: about Syria. If they cared about Syria, I think they
Speaker 1: would have done more while a half a million people
Speaker 1: were being butchered there. Oh, Obama, I didn't want to
Speaker 1: use too much air power though civilian casualties look bad
Speaker 1: for him. You see, he didn't want to hurt his
Speaker 1: poll numbers. But now they care so much about Syria.
Speaker 1: Now they care so much. You want to talk about
Speaker 1: the Kurds and the losses that the Kurds have taken.
Speaker 1: What would the losses have been if Trump hadn't come
Speaker 1: in and said, we are going to help you defeat
Speaker 1: an existential threat within your own country. These long state
Speaker 1: hates the Kurds. So we helped them defeat and beat
Speaker 1: back an enemy that wants their extinction. And now if
Speaker 1: we don't stay there forever and protect them forever. This
Speaker 1: is the worst thing that's been done by the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: This is the thing that I'm seeing so many Republicans
Speaker 1: break ranks on this. We just we won't learn the lesson.
Speaker 1: I don't know what else to say. I don't know
Speaker 1: how many times we can go through this. You know
Speaker 1: you can tell me, Okay, well, we look at the
Speaker 1: troops we have in Afghanistan. To that, I would say,
Speaker 1: first of all, we've lost thousands of soldiers killed in
Speaker 1: action in Afghanistan. We've lost tens of thousands of soldiers
Speaker 1: wounded or had tens of thousand soldiers wounded in I
Speaker 1: rack in Afghanistan. And what's the big benefit? What do
Speaker 1: we have today in Afghanistan that we didn't have in
Speaker 1: October of two thousand and two, or let's say October
Speaker 1: of two thousand and three, to give us a little
Speaker 1: more leeway. The answer is not a whole lot. We
Speaker 1: have a lot more casualties on our side since then,
Speaker 1: billions and billions of dollars of taxpayer dollars spent for this,
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of energy and focus from the United
Speaker 1: States government, the United States military to try to make
Speaker 1: things better in Afghanistan. Has it worked? Oh, but if
Speaker 1: we leave, the whole country is going to crumble. Well,
Speaker 1: you could have made the same argument in two thousand
Speaker 1: and three. So what have we gotten by staying in Iraq?
Speaker 1: It's a slightly different situation because the government has more
Speaker 1: competent forces. We did regime change there as well. But
Speaker 1: we should leave there too, And by the way, I
Speaker 1: think we're going to leave there relatively soon. Something that
Speaker 1: people are not paying attention to. We either change or
Speaker 1: we don't. We either decide it's time to break the
Speaker 1: wheel or we just let it keep on spinning. Trump
Speaker 1: is trying to break it. He's trying to say we're
Speaker 1: not going to continue on this way. Is he the
Speaker 1: most eloquent when he speaks about this? Is he the
Speaker 1: one that makes the case in the words, in the tones,
Speaker 1: and with the illusions that you would expect from somebody
Speaker 1: who's deeply versed in the Middle East and foreign policy.
Speaker 1: Of course not, but those people from the more fancy
Speaker 1: sounding Kissingerian school of foreign policy have not known what
Speaker 1: the heck they are doing. For the last twenty years,
Speaker 1: my entire post collegiate life, I've been listening to people
Speaker 1: tell me about what's going to happen in the Middle East,
Speaker 1: who are supposed to be the smartest and they don't
Speaker 1: know what they're talking about, or rather they're wrong. We'll
Speaker 1: see if Trump can stick to this. By the way,
Speaker 1: I'm not even confident that we're going to be able
Speaker 1: to get the last thousand out of Syria. There's such
Speaker 1: a desire, such a need, it seems, for a lot
Speaker 1: of people to keep soldier. I think one of the
Speaker 1: one of the concerns they have is if we didn't
Speaker 1: keep soldiers there, and if all of a sudden you
Speaker 1: had a circumstance where the Russians, the Iranians, the Syrians
Speaker 1: they were it was left to them to figure out
Speaker 1: what's going to happen in this part of the world,
Speaker 1: and it didn't create some calamity that, oh, what are
Speaker 1: we going to do now? In America? Maybe there would
Speaker 1: have to also be some reflection from the people that
Speaker 1: pushed the war in Iraq, that pushed the regime change
Speaker 1: in Libya, that have pushed all kinds of US military
Speaker 1: adventures around the world, interventions around the world. Was it
Speaker 1: worth it? Did they know what they were doing? Was
Speaker 1: their judgment good? I think the answer is that they can't.
Speaker 1: They can't stomach Trump changing things in Syria because just
Speaker 1: like with China, where we were told a trade war
Speaker 1: is crazy, how could Trump do something so and say no,
Speaker 1: it turns out that he's right to confront China and
Speaker 1: that we were getting scammed. And now that perception has shifted.
Speaker 1: What if we just leave it to other people to
Speaker 1: figure out what's going on in a country in the
Speaker 1: Middle East that has been the site of tremendous bloodshed
Speaker 1: and instability. But if it's not going to be a
Speaker 1: place that we try to rebuild after we have rooted
Speaker 1: out a terrorist group and shattered it, if that works,
Speaker 1: a lot of questions about other things, a lot of
Speaker 1: questions that people in DC don't want to answer. Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, I believe is and it's not comfortable to
Speaker 1: say this about a president, but he is a complete failure,
Speaker 1: A complete failure. Is commander in chief, is most reckless
Speaker 1: and incompetent commander in chief we have ever had, and
Speaker 1: he's failed repeatedly. You know, he doesn't understand. Part of
Speaker 1: it is he's just incompany. No, I really mean, he's
Speaker 1: just incompetent, But he repeatedly fails to foresee the consequences
Speaker 1: of his impulses and their impulses that he has not
Speaker 1: basing any theory, and when the utterly predictable occurs, he
Speaker 1: seems not to care. He blames somebody else. There's always
Speaker 1: somebody else's fault. The buck never stops at his desk
Speaker 1: in his view. First of all, the buck never stops.
Speaker 1: That's right. Second of all, some of you are groaning,
Speaker 1: some of you are high fiving. Depends. Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: an expert in failure and bad judgment, So I do
Speaker 1: think we should at least give him for that. He
Speaker 1: has deep expertise in being wrong on foreign policy every
Speaker 1: major foreign policy decision that he has been involved, and
Speaker 1: he's been wrong for the last forty years. He's just
Speaker 1: wrong all the time. Every idea he has his bad,
Speaker 1: every judgment call he makes his wrong. That's Joe Biden
Speaker 1: for you. I notice how he just says Trump is
Speaker 1: a failure as commander in chief. How where's the failure?
Speaker 1: How does his failure as commander in chief, say, stack
Speaker 1: up with Obama, who decides, for political considerations at home
Speaker 1: to escalate the war in Afghanistan dramatically send our marines
Speaker 1: down to Hellman, tell them they got to clear all
Speaker 1: this stuff out, fight against the Taliban. We start taking
Speaker 1: more casualties. Oh, by the way, the media didn't really
Speaker 1: report on this very much. Did they? More casualties under
Speaker 1: Obama and Afghanistan than at any time under Bush, including
Speaker 1: when we were routing the Taliban out of Afghanistan. Nobody
Speaker 1: seemed to really care very much in the media because,
Speaker 1: you know, the anti war movement under Obama just disappeared,
Speaker 1: and we are told that Rump is the failures commander chief.
Speaker 1: What did Obama achieve with all that? Not looking like
Speaker 1: not looking like he was a whimpy commander in chief?
Speaker 1: That's all that was. It was about perception of President Obama.
Speaker 1: People died. A lot of our people died because Obama
Speaker 1: didn't want to look weak and didn't have a strategy.
Speaker 1: You're gonna hear the president say we walked out. We
Speaker 1: were offended deeply by his treatment of the Speaker of
Speaker 1: the House of Representatives. The President, in my view, has
Speaker 1: created a crisis in the Middle East, a crisis that
Speaker 1: undermines the world's confidence in America. This crisis required a rational,
Speaker 1: reasonable discussion between those of us who have been elected
Speaker 1: by the American people to set policy. Unfortunately, the meeting
Speaker 1: deteriorated into a diatribe, as the leader Schumer has said,
Speaker 1: and a very offensive accusations being made by the President
Speaker 1: of the United States. I have served with six presidents.
Speaker 1: I have been in many, many, many meetings like this.
Speaker 1: Never have I seen a president treats so disrespectfully a
Speaker 1: coequal branch of the government of the United States. All right,
Speaker 1: welcome back to the Bucks acton show Man. The stuff
Speaker 1: that I have to sit through. And I'm sorry that
Speaker 1: sometimes you have to hear some of these looney Democrats
Speaker 1: doing their thing here. Let's just all be very clear
Speaker 1: about this. For any Democrat, any I mean, any Democrat,
Speaker 1: to make claims that the President of the United States,
Speaker 1: who is routinely called a traitor, an imbecile, a false president,
Speaker 1: a pretender to the throne, so to speak, a criminal,
Speaker 1: even a rapist sometimes by Democrats, for any Democrat to say, oh,
Speaker 1: but he's being so mean to us, I'm sorry. I
Speaker 1: can't I can't stomach it. I just can't do it.
Speaker 1: Can't do it. Oh, that's the big problem. That Pelosi
Speaker 1: wasn't being respected enough in that meeting. What was the
Speaker 1: meeting really, for they had already held a vote in
Speaker 1: the House too, and when a lot of Republicans went
Speaker 1: along and look, I'm I'm out on a pretty small
Speaker 1: island here, I'm out on the you know. I think
Speaker 1: that Trump has to just just gut it out and
Speaker 1: push it through and get it done here by getting
Speaker 1: our troops out of out of Syria. I thought that
Speaker 1: a year ago. I thought that, ever, as soon as
Speaker 1: Isis has been eliminated as a territorial caliphate, time to go,
Speaker 1: time to go as fast as is as possible, which
Speaker 1: has been part of what this delay is. But people
Speaker 1: don't want They don't want that to happen. They don't
Speaker 1: want them to go. Keep in mind, we still have
Speaker 1: troops in Iraq, We still have total air dominance in
Speaker 1: this era. If we want it, you know, we can
Speaker 1: still assist and arm the Kurds even further than we
Speaker 1: already have. There's a lot of things we can do
Speaker 1: without US troops on the ground. And people who say, oh,
Speaker 1: but they were not taking casualties there yet, and there's
Speaker 1: not that many troops right that could change the presence
Speaker 1: of US soldiers in a conflict like this is a
Speaker 1: very easy and open invitation for a lot of lawmakers
Speaker 1: and a lot of policy decision makers to say we're
Speaker 1: going to do more. And I just think that that's
Speaker 1: a risk we should not take. And remember I played
Speaker 1: all those Democrats for you who were saying that regime
Speaker 1: change was that that was the goal of the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: They were hoping that the anti Assad forces would effectively
Speaker 1: do the job and then maybe we'd be able to
Speaker 1: create some kind of regional coalition to do this sort
Speaker 1: of multilateral consensus building for a new democratic reality in Syria.
Speaker 1: Blah blah blah, ain't gonna happen. It wasn't gonna happen. Then,
Speaker 1: it's definitely not gonna happen now. But back to this,
Speaker 1: this Pelosi meeting, this was a stunt. I think that
Speaker 1: this should be clear to all of us. This was
Speaker 1: a This was a stunt. The President of the United
Speaker 1: States was sitting down with Democrats who have already made
Speaker 1: up their mind on Syria. I have already made up
Speaker 1: their mind about the president, have made up their mind
Speaker 1: about impeachment. I mean, all all this this whole process
Speaker 1: of impeachment, which, by the way, it's sort of a
Speaker 1: faux legal proceeding, and we can talk more about some
Speaker 1: of the specifics here, but there's not really much of
Speaker 1: a of a framework for it. The Congress decides what
Speaker 1: the processes will be because it's not a criminal proceeding,
Speaker 1: it's not this is just all but there's all a
Speaker 1: political presentation. They're supposed to be some reasonable safeguards in
Speaker 1: the process that so a president will not just get railroaded,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats are insisting, very openly, very blatantly, insisting
Speaker 1: on removing any of those safeguards, so that this just
Speaker 1: becomes the weaponization of what is what should be a
Speaker 1: very last resort of the Congress. They're weaponizing that last
Speaker 1: resort against the president, and I mean using the process
Speaker 1: itself as a weapon. It's not even just the presentation
Speaker 1: of information that is disadvantageous to Donald Trump, it's also, oh,
Speaker 1: let's make sure that the only stuff that gets out
Speaker 1: there is what we want people to hear. Representative Kevin
Speaker 1: McCarthy sees this. I believe for what it is. Producer Mark,
Speaker 1: if you would, we'd like to hear from the good
Speaker 1: the good Congressman play ten. I see a pattern of
Speaker 1: behavior with the Speaker Nancy policy. She storms out of
Speaker 1: another meeting, trying to make an unproductive The other Democrats
Speaker 1: stayed and actually had a very productive meeting. The General
Speaker 1: from the Joint Chiefs with the Secretary of Defense and
Speaker 1: the President in this meeting stated what his number one
Speaker 1: goal is to make sure America's safe. He talked with
Speaker 1: the general, had listened to the plan. Very productive between
Speaker 1: the Democrats who actually stayed in the meeting, so some
Speaker 1: Democrats could stay, but Pelosi had to storm out and
Speaker 1: then used a photo This is just a photo op
Speaker 1: for her. This was a hashtag resistance look at me,
Speaker 1: look at me moment. It's all it was. Pelosi knew
Speaker 1: that there wasn't going to be anything else from this.
Speaker 1: I also saw that some claim the President had called
Speaker 1: her a I think it was a third grade politician,
Speaker 1: but sorry, is a third rate or third grade? They've
Speaker 1: said both third rate, yeah, but initially somebody said third grade.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you that was what they That was what
Speaker 1: they Thought's kind of like Trump the big league or
Speaker 1: big league phenomenon of twenty sixteen. Some of us, it's
Speaker 1: like those those photos you see were something to dresses,
Speaker 1: gold and something. It's uh whatever. The other what was
Speaker 1: the other color? Blue? Is it gold? Thank you producer Mark?
Speaker 1: Is it gold or is it blue? Did you hear
Speaker 1: big Lee or big league with Trump? Someone thought Pelosi
Speaker 1: said third Anyway, she's I mean to say she's a
Speaker 1: She's not a third rate politician. That's not fair, because
Speaker 1: she's been the most powerful Democrat other than Obama, of
Speaker 1: really the last generation. She's a third rate intellect perhaps,
Speaker 1: and not a very ethical or honest person, but she's
Speaker 1: managed to just wield power in that town because I
Speaker 1: think that she's shameless and I think that she'll do
Speaker 1: whatever she has to do, and so in that sense,
Speaker 1: she's really a classic politician. That's what we always think
Speaker 1: of as politicians. I mean, I grew up. I feel
Speaker 1: like we've lost this. I grew up with a deep
Speaker 1: skepticism of elected officials. That was just what was instilled
Speaker 1: in me. I don't know if it was by my
Speaker 1: family mostly or just, but I always thought politicians are liars.
Speaker 1: Is the thing that I used to hear all the time,
Speaker 1: and now I only hear that, Oh, Trump is the liar.
Speaker 1: All the Democrats are so honest, Sure they are, sure
Speaker 1: they are. But Pelosi stormed out of the meeting because
Speaker 1: she wanted a photo op opportunity. And now we have
Speaker 1: the continuation of the most dishonest process imageable what the
Speaker 1: Democrats have done in crafting They won't put it to
Speaker 1: a full house vote. They won't they won't open this
Speaker 1: up and give access to Republican members of the House,
Speaker 1: who you would think should know if what the president
Speaker 1: did is so bad, wouldn't Democrats want Republicans to know
Speaker 1: what's going on so that maybe they could cross party
Speaker 1: lines and vote too. Otherwise it just becomes a big
Speaker 1: exercise in partisan gamesmanship, which is of course what it is,
Speaker 1: but it makes it so obvious, it couldn't be any
Speaker 1: more clear that that's exactly what we are dealing with.
Speaker 1: And so with that, I look then at the process itself. Today.
Speaker 1: You have it's set up as though you were let's
Speaker 1: say you were in a criminal trial. This is not
Speaker 1: a criminal trial, which is important to remember, but if
Speaker 1: you were in a criminal trial, and the prosecutors were
Speaker 1: allowed to call witnesses, no cross examination of witnesses, and
Speaker 1: then the prosecutors were also allowed to pick and choose
Speaker 1: after testimony what the jury would get to hear, because
Speaker 1: the jury would be sequestered during all testimony. In this case,
Speaker 1: the jury is the American people, it's public perception. But
Speaker 1: they're trying to launder the information that they are getting
Speaker 1: about this Ukraine Gate allegation, which I don't look. A
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans have gotten weak in the knees recently.
Speaker 1: A lot of them have started to say, oh, a
Speaker 1: fucking support Trump on this one like this, And I say,
Speaker 1: what exactly is the allegation here? What exactly is the
Speaker 1: allegation again that the President of the United States asked
Speaker 1: a foreign counterpart to look into corruption in this country
Speaker 1: that would negatively affect Joe Biden. You can say, and
Speaker 1: I would agree that that's bare knuckle politics, that's sure.
Speaker 1: But I'm old enough to remember a Carter Page and
Speaker 1: George Papadopolas and General Flynn and the Muller probe and
Speaker 1: Coomy and two years of nothing but scorched earth politics
Speaker 1: from the left. And now I'm supposed to be so
Speaker 1: outraged when the President decides that he's going to play
Speaker 1: rough too. Did he break a law? No, Well, if
Speaker 1: you didn't break a law, what are we talking about? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. Initially they tried to say and you'll remember
Speaker 1: this all fell by the wayside. Initially the accusation was
Speaker 1: that the president had violated campaign finance law. Remember that
Speaker 1: that was right when Ukraine Gate happened. Oh, that was
Speaker 1: the the pretextual will make there's a crime here, there's
Speaker 1: a crime. We need to report on this, because there
Speaker 1: must have been, and to set in motion a narrative
Speaker 1: that this wasn't just about a difference of policy, or
Speaker 1: this wasn't just about a political maneuver that was was rough,
Speaker 1: for sure, was Nune's not playing nice. But to make
Speaker 1: it seem as though there's a justification to believe that
Speaker 1: this would have been in any way criminal, that's simply ridiculous.
Speaker 1: It is. It's just simply absurd. And I have to
Speaker 1: say the media has beclowned itself once again with all
Speaker 1: of this. But I suppose they have no integrity left
Speaker 1: to protect. They decided that they would say that there
Speaker 1: was a campaign finance violation, and then they walked away
Speaker 1: from it because nobody would really believe that, because, as
Speaker 1: I said to you, anything a president does with a
Speaker 1: foreign counterpart that benefits him politically could be considered a
Speaker 1: thing of value that he's getting from a foreign government,
Speaker 1: the government would cease to din't have a president anymore,
Speaker 1: at least not one that does anything in foreign policy.
Speaker 1: Utterly absurd. But what is this really about? The impeachment
Speaker 1: process is crisis theater. That's what the Democrats are trying
Speaker 1: to do here, to create the perception of yet another crisis,
Speaker 1: yet another moment when if you don't go along with
Speaker 1: what they say, if you don't see this as something
Speaker 1: that needs urgent action, action that they, of course are
Speaker 1: allowed to dictate, then you are allowing the president to
Speaker 1: trample on our most sacred institutions. All these phrases that
Speaker 1: are repeated all the time that have just no connection
Speaker 1: whatsoever to what's really going on in America and your life.
Speaker 1: We even heard their Steenny Hoyer, Representative Hoyer saying that
Speaker 1: he was so offended by Trump's actions, as though Trump
Speaker 1: shouldn't be offended by the things that are done to
Speaker 1: him all the time. These people, Nancy Pelosi and these Democrats,
Speaker 1: they'd be if they could put Trump in prison, they
Speaker 1: would find that justified. And if they could throw his
Speaker 1: family members in prison too, they would do that. Do
Speaker 1: any of you doubt that for one second? It's not
Speaker 1: just they disagree with this president. They want to see
Speaker 1: him ruined, destroyed, and humiliated. So he's supposed to sit
Speaker 1: there and play nice. This is what the Mitt Romney's
Speaker 1: of the world never understand. Mitt Romney doesn't really fully
Speaker 1: grasp the nature of the opposition, what they're willing to do,
Speaker 1: and the lengths that they will go to in order
Speaker 1: to get their way. He just doesn't get it. Crisis
Speaker 1: theater from the Democrats is exhausting. They are banking on
Speaker 1: all of you, the banking on the American people deciding
Speaker 1: that they will go along because Trump must have done
Speaker 1: something bad. If the Libs are this freaked out about it,
Speaker 1: he had to do something bad in Ukraine. Fine, I
Speaker 1: guess I'll either stay home or I'll vote for somebody else.
Speaker 1: Don't somebody else. Don't fall for it. Please, this is
Speaker 1: all an absurdity, it really is. The Democrats should be ashamed.
Speaker 1: Of course, they're incapable of shame, and so here we are.
Speaker 1: This is going to be a gigantic undertaking, impeaching the
Speaker 1: president who deserves to be in peace because he's indicted himself,
Speaker 1: and this is a difficult thing for nation to go through.
Speaker 1: This is not you know, we talk about it like, well,
Speaker 1: let's impeach, let's have all these impeachment parties. The fact
Speaker 1: of the matter is it is a I've been through
Speaker 1: two of them, two presidents being impeached, and it's deadly,
Speaker 1: deadly earnest. I mean, they're really going to do the
Speaker 1: sanctimonious were This is really serious, guys, This impeachment's really serious.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is serious. But they're the ones who're
Speaker 1: making a mockery of the whole thing. He's indicted himself.
Speaker 1: Notice the usage of the word indictment as though it's
Speaker 1: a criminal matter. How exactly what do they think that
Speaker 1: they're going to find out? In addition, and I would
Speaker 1: just know that these are the same people back to
Speaker 1: our constant series of crises that we're told we must
Speaker 1: freak out about. These are the same people and Democrats who,
Speaker 1: after the Muller probe, we're claiming, well, you know, we
Speaker 1: could tell we should impeach and based on this, so
Speaker 1: is it the Muller probe and the ten acts of
Speaker 1: obstruction that couldn't say if they were really criminal or not.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm just gonna hand it off. The whole thing, folks.
Speaker 1: It's all a scam, and don't you get get tired
Speaker 1: of it? I get tired of it. And I have
Speaker 1: to do this for work every day. It's all a scam.
Speaker 1: There's no honesty in any of this. There's no integrity.
Speaker 1: No one's respecting the process, No one's concerned about the
Speaker 1: sanctity of our democracy and all that stuff. All these
Speaker 1: phrases you hear from these democrats, it's just they hate
Speaker 1: this president. They hate the political movement that was a
Speaker 1: rebuke of the establishment and the political elites who are
Speaker 1: terrified not just that they would have to deal with
Speaker 1: four more years of Trump, but also what would it
Speaker 1: mean for who they think they are if they're not
Speaker 1: needed the way that they've always been led to believe,
Speaker 1: or that they have led others to believe. If you
Speaker 1: don't have to be somebody who served in the Senate
Speaker 1: for forty years in order to understand some of the
Speaker 1: most important parts of leading a country like this one,
Speaker 1: they just can't stomach it. They cannot accept the possibility
Speaker 1: that this president is a success, that this president will
Speaker 1: continue on for four more years, and that a lot
Speaker 1: of us are willing to deal with some of his
Speaker 1: rough edges, which There are certainly some deal with his
Speaker 1: rough edges, but do so knowing that it's because we
Speaker 1: need a brawler to fight against the thugs of the left.
Speaker 1: We need somebody who's willing to say, not going to
Speaker 1: play by your rules, not going to do things the
Speaker 1: way that you tell me we have to do. The
Speaker 1: Democrats look at Trump right now and they see somebody
Speaker 1: who is an existential threat to what many of them
Speaker 1: have been working for for decades, for their whole lives,
Speaker 1: which is a sense which is effectively an hour switching
Speaker 1: gears a little bit, effectively a transfer of America into
Speaker 1: a full on democratic socialist state where the government has
Speaker 1: even the government's too big right now, spends too much,
Speaker 1: right now, has more authority than it should in your
Speaker 1: day to day life. They want to just max that out.
Speaker 1: They want to take that up to the absolute top
Speaker 1: of the scale. Trump is a threat to that. He's
Speaker 1: not cutting government spending the way that he should, but
Speaker 1: he is still a threat to the left plan of
Speaker 1: a benevolent authoritarianism along the lines of what they have
Speaker 1: in China. I think that's really the dream of many
Speaker 1: leftists in this country. I think we have some more
Speaker 1: evidence to add into my theory that the climate change activists,
Speaker 1: not just in this country but around the world, are
Speaker 1: in fact part of a religious cult, which is why
Speaker 1: they believe in elevating the scientific wisdom of children to
Speaker 1: a global platform, why they want people who don't speak
Speaker 1: the way they want them to speak about the issue
Speaker 1: to be shunned and to be punished, while they'll abandon
Speaker 1: otherwise widely held principles like freedom of speech rune of
Speaker 1: conscience in order to make sure that the preferred the
Speaker 1: preferred version of well their religious belief climate change is
Speaker 1: what has shared The Guardian. This is amazing. The Guardians,
Speaker 1: one of the largest papers in the UK, might might
Speaker 1: be the largest paper in Great Britain, has published It's
Speaker 1: in its style guide section for reporting on climate And
Speaker 1: I know people overuse the term Orwellian, but this is Orwellian.
Speaker 1: If you go back to some of Orwell's most famous essays,
Speaker 1: he speaks at some langue, writes at some length that
Speaker 1: should say about the way that political language is abused
Speaker 1: for purposes that are meant to mislead, to brainwash, to
Speaker 1: downplay certain things, and to elevate others, And that there's
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of dishonesty in political language. I mean,
Speaker 1: I talk to you about this sometimes, in particularly the
Speaker 1: context of immigration undocumented What is that? Where did that
Speaker 1: come from? Well, used to just be illegal immigrant because
Speaker 1: I wanted to be sound like immigrants, but even the
Speaker 1: illegal part of it they didn't like. So then that
Speaker 1: moved from illegal alien the proper legal Federal code term,
Speaker 1: to illegal immigrant, to undocumented immigrant and now just undocumented.
Speaker 1: H I gotta do it is given some documents and
Speaker 1: the problem goes away. Isn't that amazing? So the Guardian
Speaker 1: has published it's It's guidance for climate Change. I thought
Speaker 1: this was great. They now, I mean, it's just so
Speaker 1: so well illustrates exactly what I'm talking about and what
Speaker 1: my contention is with all this climate change is to
Speaker 1: be replaced now, according to the Guardian, that no more
Speaker 1: climate change. Remember it was global warming, wasn't it. Remember
Speaker 1: that I grew up with global warming and then it
Speaker 1: turned into climate change. Well that's not scary enough. So
Speaker 1: now the official guideline of the Guardian newspaper in the
Speaker 1: UK says that it has to now be climate emergency
Speaker 1: or climate crisis. Ah okay, isn't that interesting climate emergency
Speaker 1: or climate crisis because it needs to be scarier sounding,
Speaker 1: and there's an enormous judgment that is baked into that. Right,
Speaker 1: if you say that something is a crisis or an emergency,
Speaker 1: it requires immediate action. They are telling me, this is
Speaker 1: a very large and very storied newspaper that is trying
Speaker 1: to tell not just its own readership in the UK,
Speaker 1: but people read regarding all over the world, that there's
Speaker 1: a crisis of the possibility of one degree or so
Speaker 1: warming celsius over the next fifty to one hundred years,
Speaker 1: based on changes in the CO two composition of the atmosphere,
Speaker 1: which is less than one percent or so of the atmosphere. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what they're well, it's a crisis, it's a catastrophe,
Speaker 1: climate of urgency, are climate crisis. That's how they will
Speaker 1: officially report on this. Now it's no longer called climate change,
Speaker 1: it's climate crisis. They're just saying it's a crisis. You know,
Speaker 1: imagine if they said they couldn't report on healthcare anymore,
Speaker 1: had to be a healthcare crisis. That's the only phrase
Speaker 1: that's allowed. Tremendous value judgment baked into that and also,
Speaker 1: as I've been saying, liberals the leftists, they in a
Speaker 1: world with the Internet and with the much great are
Speaker 1: free sharing of information there's ever been the past, they've
Speaker 1: overused the going to the crisis. Well too many times
Speaker 1: they've gone after, oh, this is a crisis, you have
Speaker 1: to do something, you must do always say because it's
Speaker 1: a crisis. People say, Okay, well, I guess everything is
Speaker 1: a crisis now anything that they want to happen must
Speaker 1: be considered a crisis. Oh and then the other part
Speaker 1: of this for the climate change loons is that climate
Speaker 1: science denier or climate denier is going to be used
Speaker 1: instead of climate skeptic denier or essentially climate deni or
Speaker 1: climate science denier now and denier specifically because they want
Speaker 1: to associate this with people that deny the Holocaust, because
Speaker 1: that's Holocaust denials illegal in some parts of Europe, and
Speaker 1: they want that association. Yeah, you're denying something that's they believe,
Speaker 1: the possible extinction of the human race, and you're preventing
Speaker 1: the world from tackling that problem. I don't know how
Speaker 1: much crazier the Libs really planned to get with all
Speaker 1: of this, but I think it is most certainly going
Speaker 1: most certainly going to get worse. And then we also
Speaker 1: have let's see, whoops, there's some more. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: find what the other items are in here in this
Speaker 1: Guardian thing, greenhouse gas emissions is preferred to carbon emissions
Speaker 1: or carbon dioxide emissions. I mean why, Well, I guess
Speaker 1: that's just because it's wider. And then fish populations instead
Speaker 1: of fish stocks. All right, well that's pretty minor, but
Speaker 1: the other ones are pretty important and meaningful. And it
Speaker 1: also comes at a time when there's a video now
Speaker 1: and this is up on foxnews dot com of climate
Speaker 1: change activists who think that they have the moral high
Speaker 1: ground so firmly under their feet that they would stop
Speaker 1: people from being able to get on commuter trains to
Speaker 1: go to work in the morning in London. So these
Speaker 1: protesters are hopping on top of the trains with their
Speaker 1: signs business as usual equals death, one of the protesters.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't know if it's possible for people
Speaker 1: to be dumber than these individuals. Business as usual equals death.
Speaker 1: The only people who could really believe there's a lot
Speaker 1: of cynical belief and climate change from people who either
Speaker 1: make a lot of money off of it from people
Speaker 1: who use it as a tool for political dominances. It's
Speaker 1: mostly cynics. See, I have too much faith in the
Speaker 1: brain power of the climate change believers to think that
Speaker 1: most of them are just complete morons. But if you
Speaker 1: really think that business as usual equals death for us,
Speaker 1: you're an idiot. I don't know what else to say.
Speaker 1: The world's not gonna end. I just wish that there
Speaker 1: was a way that I could place a bet on this.
Speaker 1: You know, there was the equivalent of a stock exchange
Speaker 1: for crazy climate predictions. I would put and it would
Speaker 1: be in twelve years, is the world past the point
Speaker 1: of no return? Can you prove evidence that this is
Speaker 1: the case? And because remember, if in twelve years we
Speaker 1: haven't done what they say we need to do, then
Speaker 1: it's too late. And so if it's too late in
Speaker 1: twelve years, that would mean that we should just stop
Speaker 1: caring about the climate change CEO two stuff altogether because
Speaker 1: it's too late. I wish there was a way that
Speaker 1: I could just put the largest sum of money I
Speaker 1: could on that note. I would let it sit for
Speaker 1: twelve years on that not being true, and they would
Speaker 1: because in twelve years, you know, what will happen. They'll say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it turns out our prediction was a little bit, a
Speaker 1: little bit off. But now it's in the next it's
Speaker 1: in the next ten years. We're sure this time the
Speaker 1: next ten years. If we don't deal with this, then
Speaker 1: the whole world, then the whole world's gonna end. You know,
Speaker 1: there's this group in the show Parks and Recreation, Parks
Speaker 1: and Recks, A great show. Some people actually say that
Speaker 1: I look like one of the guys from the show,
Speaker 1: and right now we've got producer Brandon nodding at me.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's a handsome and a fellow. I'll take it.
Speaker 1: I mean, I could definitely beat him in a you know,
Speaker 1: steel cage match. But he's a nice He's a nice
Speaker 1: enough fellow, I suppose. But in that show, there's a
Speaker 1: group that holds a and I do recommend go to
Speaker 1: season two, skip season one, and then watch the rest
Speaker 1: of it from season two on. It's on Netflix. Great show.
Speaker 1: But there's a group called the Reasonable Lists, and every
Speaker 1: year they have an end of the world party because
Speaker 1: the world. Now, you might say, why would they call
Speaker 1: themselves the Reasonable Lists? Well, because how could you disagree
Speaker 1: with them? They're so reasonable. That's right. It's a marketing ploy.
Speaker 1: It's kind of a funny one. But every year and
Speaker 1: it becomes a joke on the show, they have their
Speaker 1: the world this ending party, it's the last night of
Speaker 1: the world, and then sure if the world doesn't end,
Speaker 1: and lo and behold when the sun comes up the
Speaker 1: next day and everything is the same, they go, oh, well,
Speaker 1: we've looked again at our magic tablets, and it turns
Speaker 1: out that next year is the year that the world's
Speaker 1: going to end. And they get ready and they throw
Speaker 1: their big end of the World party again. That is
Speaker 1: that is of the same intellectual depth and seriousness as
Speaker 1: the people who think that climate change is going to
Speaker 1: end the world in twelve years. They're absurd. They're absurd,
Speaker 1: or that we will be past the point of no
Speaker 1: return and therefore en route to human extinction. How do
Speaker 1: they know that we won't develop some technology that will
Speaker 1: suck all the co two we want out of the air.
Speaker 1: They don't know that. And that's just one. That's just
Speaker 1: one idea that you can come up with. Hey, I
Speaker 1: don't know anything, folks, it's all absurd, And yet they're
Speaker 1: so spoon fed this crap by the media, and the
Speaker 1: media is all so busy with the virtue signaling of Oh,
Speaker 1: we're going to save the planet, and coming after book
Speaker 1: book is bashing children again. I didn't bash any children,
Speaker 1: It's not true. I just said that it's pathetic and
Speaker 1: disgusting that adults use children to make very complicated political arguments,
Speaker 1: that the adults are too cowardly or dumb to make themselves. Oh,
Speaker 1: it turns out who was it that got the Actually,
Speaker 1: I actually wanted to find this real quick. Somebody got
Speaker 1: the Nobel I believe it was the Prime Minister of
Speaker 1: Was it Ethiopia? I think it was. Let me see
Speaker 1: if I can find that for you real quick. It
Speaker 1: was not young yeah, abbiambed I'm sorry. Was it? Yes,
Speaker 1: Nobel Peace Prize twenty nineteen. So he got it for
Speaker 1: his work to actually do peace and save a lot
Speaker 1: of people, his decisive an issue to resolve the border
Speaker 1: conflict with neighboring Eritrea. Okay, so there you go. A
Speaker 1: guy got the Nobel Peace Prize for actually doing something
Speaker 1: involving peace. That's a step in the right direction. I
Speaker 1: have to tell you. I think that is the right thing.
Speaker 1: At least that has something to do with with something.
Speaker 1: People are calling it the Ethiopian Spring here in the
Speaker 1: New York Times because Ethiopians trying to mend fences with
Speaker 1: air tray. Anyway, I didn't go to Greteth Wunberg and
Speaker 1: people were saying that she was robbed. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: think so. The climate change activists are a very scary
Speaker 1: bunch in some ways because you cannot reason with them,
Speaker 1: you cannot have a rational discussion, and if you try,
Speaker 1: they then just fall back on you must want the
Speaker 1: world and you must not care about the human race.
Speaker 1: And that's why you had these protesters in the UK
Speaker 1: this morning who were standing on trains preventing people from
Speaker 1: getting to work in the morning, and there's some video
Speaker 1: of people who are angry pulling them off the trains
Speaker 1: physically and maybe getting a little rough with them. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, I do not if somebody, let's say,
Speaker 1: was barring me from getting here to their freedom hut
Speaker 1: in the morning because they and they had some sign
Speaker 1: on their chest about how climate change, I mean, climate
Speaker 1: crisis is here, whatever it is, would it be tempting
Speaker 1: up to and including the point where I think I
Speaker 1: would do it, where I just grabbed them and physically
Speaker 1: throw them out of the way of the train door
Speaker 1: so that I could get on. Yes, I do not
Speaker 1: blame these people at all. People have jobs, they have livelihoods,
Speaker 1: they have responsibilities. These little climate change brats think they
Speaker 1: have a right based on this absurd idea, and it's absurd.
Speaker 1: I'll never forget the few times I went on CNN
Speaker 1: and climate change came up and I looked at the
Speaker 1: people on this said, I mean, you guys really believe
Speaker 1: this crap? Are you? Are you serious? You really think
Speaker 1: that this is going to happen. We're all gonna die.
Speaker 1: The people that say we're not all gonna die like
Speaker 1: me were the crazy ones. No, no, no, I think
Speaker 1: the other side are the reasonable lists here. But I
Speaker 1: was hoping at least that protesters will watch what happened
Speaker 1: in these in this train station of people that are
Speaker 1: stopping folks from getting to work in the morning in
Speaker 1: the UK and realize that you're not allowed to do this,
Speaker 1: and allow to shut it down and allow to occupy
Speaker 1: and not a lot to take these illegal measures that
Speaker 1: really affect people. I mean, I get furious people lie
Speaker 1: down in highways and do these things where they block
Speaker 1: people from being able to Could you imagine one just
Speaker 1: little note on this, And I was one pointing this
Speaker 1: out at the time, and I don't think nearly enough
Speaker 1: people paid attention to this. There were MSNBC hosts during
Speaker 1: the Bridge Gates Chris Christy phenomenon, where Chris Christie was
Speaker 1: not found guilty of any wrong doing. There there were
Speaker 1: some of his subordinate people who were stupid and decided
Speaker 1: to create a traffic jam. But there were people going
Speaker 1: on MSNBC saying that there might be a manslaughter charges
Speaker 1: necessary because if the bridgegate traffic resulted in someone getting
Speaker 1: to the hospital later. This is when Chris Christie. This
Speaker 1: is probably I don't know, five six years ago now,
Speaker 1: that would be equivalent to an involuntary manslaughter situation because
Speaker 1: you you cause it. And I think I thought it
Speaker 1: was so interesting because that just was allowed to be
Speaker 1: put out there without anyone else coming out to say,
Speaker 1: what about all these It's always leftists, it's always left
Speaker 1: wing lib protesters that think they can shut down a
Speaker 1: highway that'll block people from getting to work. No one
Speaker 1: ever makes that argument. Now, I think that that argument's
Speaker 1: a tough one to make stick. But the point is
Speaker 1: there's no principle involved here. It's just leftist, whether MSNBC
Speaker 1: or anywhere else, whether it's reporting on climate change, trying
Speaker 1: to advance an agenda. That's what is going on. And
Speaker 1: I think a lot of people are sick of it.
Speaker 1: I know that I am climate change catastrophe, climate change crisis. No, no,
Speaker 1: that's that's not not going to cut it. Folks really
Speaker 1: sad about it is. I pray for the President all
Speaker 1: the time, and I tell him that I pray for
Speaker 1: his safety and this family now to pray for his health.
Speaker 1: But Asi, who was a very serious meltdown on the
Speaker 1: part of the president. I was expressed my appreciation for
Speaker 1: what our troops have done in Syria, and by all
Speaker 1: accounts from the generals, they have just really done the
Speaker 1: job very well. That he's now pulling out the explanation
Speaker 1: for that is what we asked for all members of
Speaker 1: the helps to hear, and that was supposed to be tomorrow,
Speaker 1: but now they then they somehow coomstphoned it today. My
Speaker 1: concern that I expressed to the president is that Russia
Speaker 1: has for a long time always wanted to have a
Speaker 1: foothold in the Middle East, and now he has enabled
Speaker 1: that to happen. Two quick points here, it's wont to
Speaker 1: play out for one anti Pelosi such such smug back
Speaker 1: end and nonsense. Oh, she praised the president because he's crazy,
Speaker 1: is what she's saying. She can't even say she praised
Speaker 1: for him without taking a hit at him. You know,
Speaker 1: she's she's a disgrace, folks, and she really is. Also
Speaker 1: just the stupidity of what she said there. Russia wants
Speaker 1: a foothold in the Middle East. Russia has had a
Speaker 1: naval base in Syria for decades. Nancy and Russia's foothold
Speaker 1: in Syria got a whole lot bigger under wait for it,
Speaker 1: the Obama administration kept us on in power. The Russians
Speaker 1: were able to keep us on in power. Obama do
Speaker 1: a thing about it. But Russia wants a foothold in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. Yea. Russia has a close relationship with
Speaker 1: Syria and a close relationship with Iran. And guess what,
Speaker 1: that's not going to change. But Nancy Pelosi, I swear
Speaker 1: that the media, they just they let her get away
Speaker 1: with anything. Pray present the president might be crazy. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's the president that's crazy. Nancy team. I
Speaker 1: often tell you that the left pretends that they care
Speaker 1: about the sacred democracy that we have, that the institutions
Speaker 1: are under assault from Donald Trump and all the rest.
Speaker 1: But the left says that, and yet they're the ones
Speaker 1: that often are undermining the very institutions they pretend to
Speaker 1: care so much about. Well, there's a fantastic book that
Speaker 1: delves into that, as well as a whole lot of
Speaker 1: other subject matter. At Resistance at All Costs, How Trump
Speaker 1: Haters Are Breaking America is the book. The author is
Speaker 1: our friend Kimberly Strassel from the Wall Street Journal Editorial
Speaker 1: Board's fantastic writer or fantastic lady, Kim. Great to have
Speaker 1: you back, Hi, Buck, is so great to be back.
Speaker 1: So all right, resistance at all costs? What are the costs?
Speaker 1: And how are they resisting? Tell me about this? Okay,
Speaker 1: So the idea of this is, as you said, constantly
Speaker 1: hearing for three years, donald Trump is destroying democracy, undermining
Speaker 1: our institutions. And by the way, let me say, I
Speaker 1: do think Donald Trump is norm breaking in some ways.
Speaker 1: He's certainly in terms of his rhetoric, in terms of
Speaker 1: his tweets, he's a disruptor, but a lot of people
Speaker 1: actually in fact voted for him for that reason. But
Speaker 1: if you step back and you look objectively at institutions
Speaker 1: and at standards and it really important principles in the country,
Speaker 1: it's the other side that is doing the damage. So,
Speaker 1: whether that be the loss of faith in the FBI
Speaker 1: and the Department of Justice because of their investigation into
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign, whether it is the wreckage that is
Speaker 1: now our Senate confirmation process after Brett Kavanaugh, whether it's
Speaker 1: the new use of impeachment as a partisan tool. All right, So,
Speaker 1: I mean, Kim, how unusual is this whole process really?
Speaker 1: I mean, have you seen anything like this before in
Speaker 1: any president that you've ever covered, in terms of the
Speaker 1: way that both the Democratic Party and the media seem
Speaker 1: willing to abandon core principles. I mean, journalists now pretty
Speaker 1: openly in some cases we'll say that it's no longer
Speaker 1: about calling balls and strikes. We got to just call
Speaker 1: strikes against Trump because he's a danger, right exactly. And
Speaker 1: you just put your finger on the biggest reason that
Speaker 1: this is happening. Okay, I think the impulse to break
Speaker 1: rules has been present forever, right, It's just that's part
Speaker 1: of humanity. But We have long relied on these neutral institutions,
Speaker 1: or at least semi neutral institutions, like the press, to
Speaker 1: act as arbiters and to say no, this is not good,
Speaker 1: this is bad. You don't get to you don't get
Speaker 1: to have double standards, etc. The press has abandoned that role,
Speaker 1: and so they have indulged Democrats in all of their behavior.
Speaker 1: There used to be a day when, you know, let's say,
Speaker 1: during the Senate confirmation hearings, that if you came out
Speaker 1: against a Brett Cavanaugh with an uncorroborated accusation, the press
Speaker 1: would say, whoa, whoa, this is not really cricket. Instead,
Speaker 1: they all ran the uncorroborated accusations in the press and
Speaker 1: fan of the flames. And so I think that this
Speaker 1: is simply we've got a problem where the media is
Speaker 1: no longer acting as referee. What is the single institution
Speaker 1: that you think has done the most damage either to
Speaker 1: itself or that Democrats have weaponized and therefore damaged the
Speaker 1: most in the process against Trump. Well, I actually think
Speaker 1: the most serious one is in fact impeachment right now,
Speaker 1: you know, and look it's true, by the way I've
Speaker 1: read the Constitution, you have too. It does not define
Speaker 1: how they have to run impeachment hearings. But there's a
Speaker 1: reason why in the past two times we've done them
Speaker 1: in modern history, that we had a process. We had
Speaker 1: a vote for accountability on the floor of the House,
Speaker 1: and then we had a set of rules, and we
Speaker 1: gave the accused the opportunity to present their own evidence,
Speaker 1: to cross examine witnesses. Instead, we know this is being
Speaker 1: held in secret, behind closed doors, with secret witnesses and
Speaker 1: leaked partial bits of transcripts. And it's why they haven't
Speaker 1: convinced Americans or you know, a majority of Americans, that
Speaker 1: this is the right thing to do. But the reason
Speaker 1: I find this most dangerous is because, as you know,
Speaker 1: once you set a new precedent in Washington, a bad precedent,
Speaker 1: it only goes down from there. And I keep telling
Speaker 1: my liberal friends, do you really want to go here?
Speaker 1: Because let's just imagine Joe Biden wins the election next year,
Speaker 1: but let's also imagine Republicans take back the House. Are
Speaker 1: we going to instantly and immediately file articles of impeachment
Speaker 1: against Joe Biden over his supposed Ukrainian corruption? I mean,
Speaker 1: is this the new standard? So it's I think that's
Speaker 1: a scary thing. Yeah. I also would say President Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't get a lot of credit despite all the chance
Speaker 1: about lock her up. He didn't have the DJ at
Speaker 1: least as far as we know. Go back and look
Speaker 1: at Hillary Clinton's from what we know, pretty flagrant violations
Speaker 1: of law during the campaign with email servers and the
Speaker 1: destruction of evidence. So I think that there has been
Speaker 1: some good faith shown to the process and the peaceful
Speaker 1: transition of power from Trump that has certainly not been
Speaker 1: mirrored on the other side. And I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: one of the concerns that I have, and I'm wondering
Speaker 1: if you tackle just this part of it in the book.
Speaker 1: And by the way, we're speaking to Kim Strassell, the
Speaker 1: book is Resistance at All Costs. How Trump haters are
Speaker 1: breaking America. I mean, I see a pattern here, Kim.
Speaker 1: The two thousand election stolen the electoral College, completely unnecessary
Speaker 1: popular vote, Democrats win it. They pretend like that means
Speaker 1: they really won the election. Twenty sixteen election stolen because
Speaker 1: of Russia Trump collusion that didn't actually happen. I think
Speaker 1: that this is pretty clear undermining of the election itself,
Speaker 1: of course it is. And you know what you're also
Speaker 1: expressing there is a party that is given up on
Speaker 1: trying to do what parties are supposed to do, which
Speaker 1: is to convince Americans of their governing philosophy and then
Speaker 1: win by the rules that we have set out. They
Speaker 1: can't win by those rules, so they are deciding now
Speaker 1: that they're just going to change the rules or break
Speaker 1: the rules. And you know, and that's just some of
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, they're going to stack the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: According to them, they're going to get rid of the filibuster.
Speaker 1: Why don't you try going out there and actually convincing
Speaker 1: more Americans that the agenda you're proposing will be good
Speaker 1: for the country. But you know, just one more thing
Speaker 1: on that point you mentioned about Donald Trump not locking
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton up. One of my favorite chapters the book
Speaker 1: is pointing out that Trump's kind of more disruptive speech
Speaker 1: and tweets aside, if you look out, step back and
Speaker 1: look out at his agencies and his departments. This has
Speaker 1: been one of the more rule bound administrations we've seen
Speaker 1: in quite a long time, and especially by comparison to
Speaker 1: the one that came before it, which ruled by executive
Speaker 1: FIAT and went around Congress and weaponized his Department of Justice.
Speaker 1: Oh and the irs, Yes, and the irs. Yeah, that
Speaker 1: little thing too. Yeah, you know, I mean people love
Speaker 1: to say, like Trump the dictator. I'm sorry, folks, but
Speaker 1: dictators don't reduce the size of federal regulations by one
Speaker 1: third or spend all their political capital putting judges on
Speaker 1: the courts that are dedicated to the Constitution. And they
Speaker 1: also tend not to just accept wildly overbroad universal injunctions
Speaker 1: from any federal judge who was in Obama or Clinton
Speaker 1: appointee of the last twenty years, deciding that the executive
Speaker 1: branch doesn't really get to be the executive branch, which
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, I think the universal injunction problem,
Speaker 1: where one federal judge can just say nope, sorry, the
Speaker 1: president the executive branch can do that is a big problem.
Speaker 1: But even beyond that, Trump respects it every I mean,
Speaker 1: they've respected it, and they keep just saying okay, we'll
Speaker 1: see it appeals or okay, we'll see at the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: and they keep winning. Yeah. I've got a whole chapter
Speaker 1: in the book on the judicial resistance, and it gets
Speaker 1: into that problem you just mentioned. About national injunctions, but
Speaker 1: there are all kinds of other ones too. If you're
Speaker 1: a legal geek, you know all of these judges that
Speaker 1: are also instantly crying constitutional foul. The Supreme Court, you know,
Speaker 1: gives out instructions that says, don't do that, try to
Speaker 1: rule on statutes because it's just too lazy and too easy.
Speaker 1: But you have all of these resistance judges that are
Speaker 1: themselves breaking long standing judicial traditions just in order to
Speaker 1: send a message to Trump. This is happening all over
Speaker 1: the place, and it's doing damage to the country. What
Speaker 1: do you think happens if Trump wins, by the way,
Speaker 1: if he wins again, yeah, well, you know, I would
Speaker 1: love to think that that would be a rebuke to
Speaker 1: these tactics, and that the left would finally step back
Speaker 1: and say, Okay, maybe we need to try to be
Speaker 1: civil and try another approach. But you know what, I'm
Speaker 1: not quite sure I am that optimistic, all right, Kim Strassel,
Speaker 1: everybody resistance at all costs. How Trump haters are breaking America. Kim,
Speaker 1: great to have you, as always, We'll talk to you soon.
Speaker 1: Than ladies and gentlemen, I have a very exciting announcement
Speaker 1: for you from the Justin Trudeau headquarters here in New
Speaker 1: York City. The one and only Barack Obama has indorsed
Speaker 1: Monsieur Trudeau for the Prime Minister of Canada. That's right, folks,
Speaker 1: Justin Trudeau got a bit of an unexpected helping hand
Speaker 1: for his reelection from President Barack Obama, and President Obama
Speaker 1: tweeted out the following I was proud to work with
Speaker 1: Justin Trudeau as president. He's a hard working, effective leader
Speaker 1: who takes on big issues like climate change. The world
Speaker 1: needs his progressive leadership now and I hope our neighbors
Speaker 1: to the north support him for another term. Oh my,
Speaker 1: there is so much going on here, lack for examples.
Speaker 1: The most beloved democrat in America has come out for
Speaker 1: Monsieur Trudeau in Canada. And yeah, I know he doesn't
Speaker 1: sound like that, but we're just gonna pretend that he
Speaker 1: sounds like that because it's more fun than just doing yes.
Speaker 1: I'm Justin Trudeau, I'm Canadian, I'm very polite, and I
Speaker 1: kind of sound like this. I sound like I keep
Speaker 1: you doing an MPR podcast. I'm the best on the
Speaker 1: best ways to make apple Strudel. Oh gosh, it's delicious, eh,
Speaker 1: I know that's kind of more what Trudeau really sounds like.
Speaker 1: But he's a beloved figure on the left because Trudeau,
Speaker 1: well both Obama and Trudeau a beloved and but Trudeau
Speaker 1: in particular exemple of yes, some of the more left
Speaker 1: wing cultural attributes. That makes him a progressive hero of sorts,
Speaker 1: even though as we know, justin Trudeau it is not
Speaker 1: it is not fair to say that Justin Trudeau war
Speaker 1: black face. It is more fair or more accurate to
Speaker 1: say that he had a wearing black face problem that
Speaker 1: was consistent over a number of years. It seems so
Speaker 1: this this was a recurrent thing that he did. Huh.
Speaker 1: And yet the first black president in America's history has
Speaker 1: out of out of nowhere. Really, I mean, you don't
Speaker 1: Barack Obama is not someone that you're hearing from all
Speaker 1: that often on on these issues, decides that he will
Speaker 1: endorse Trudeau as president. Now, I got a few things there.
Speaker 1: First of all, I mean, not that I want to
Speaker 1: be the one that's always playing this. Isn't this foreign
Speaker 1: interference in the election. Wouldn't that be in a Canadian election? Right? Is?
Speaker 1: How would how would libs feel if Vladimir Putin. I mean,
Speaker 1: let's just get to it. If Vladimir Putin came out
Speaker 1: and said, unless you are a very stupid, the whimpy man,
Speaker 1: you will vote for a president Trump, they would lose
Speaker 1: their minds. Even if Trump had nothing to do with it,
Speaker 1: they'd say, oh, it's more collusion, is it really? You know?
Speaker 1: I look, I know that, I know that Barack Obama
Speaker 1: is no longer the president the United States. I get it.
Speaker 1: So he's a private citizen and he's sharing his opinion
Speaker 1: on a foreign election. But you just would think that
Speaker 1: maybe there'll be a little bit more sensitivity right now
Speaker 1: about that issue there than there might have been at
Speaker 1: other times, given how much liberals complain about this. But
Speaker 1: also notice how it's just understood on the left, and
Speaker 1: the American left and the Canadian left are essentially the same,
Speaker 1: I mean, the same ideology. Canadian left is just a
Speaker 1: little more polite and can handle the cold a little
Speaker 1: bit better, But more or less, we're talking about the
Speaker 1: same same belief system that Trudeau was not going to
Speaker 1: be finished by those photos, that he was not going
Speaker 1: to be Remember it's not just that he's not stepping down,
Speaker 1: it's that he could win reelection when those come out,
Speaker 1: and some of you are probably saying, Buck, what about
Speaker 1: Ralph Northam in Virginia? What about some of the other
Speaker 1: Democrats in this country who have gotten away with this?
Speaker 1: And I say, yeah, of course, the hypocrisy is hypocrisy
Speaker 1: is mind blowing. But we all knew. We all knew that,
Speaker 1: despite Trudeau having these photos come out and then the
Speaker 1: almost at really jaw dropping a hard to believe moment
Speaker 1: where he's like, yes, I do not even remember how
Speaker 1: many instances of this there were. It's like, you don't
Speaker 1: even remember how many times you did this. It was
Speaker 1: hard to believe that he said that at a press conference,
Speaker 1: but he did. Okay, and now he's running for president
Speaker 1: looks like he might. I'm sorry, prime minister, prime minister
Speaker 1: or not the president dat he's running for a prime minister,
Speaker 1: and Barack Obama very clearly and strongly endorses him. See,
Speaker 1: if you're on the left, you get taken care of, folks.
Speaker 1: If you are on the left, it is understood it
Speaker 1: is to be expected that you will be held to
Speaker 1: a standard that is different from what you'd be if
Speaker 1: you're a conservative, you're on the right, and that means
Speaker 1: a degree of, if not in vulnerability, certainly second chances
Speaker 1: that somebody else who is of a different political persuasion
Speaker 1: would never ever get Oh and then there's one other
Speaker 1: thing here that I was leaving for last because because
Speaker 1: I want to save the best for last. See that.
Speaker 1: It's like a little bit I haven't sung today on
Speaker 1: the show, and Producer Mark looked like he was getting
Speaker 1: a little sad, and I don't want him to have
Speaker 1: a sad day, so I was like, you could save
Speaker 1: the best for least. You know, you can sing all
Speaker 1: you want tomorrow. Oh, thank you. He's very being very kind.
Speaker 1: It's actually being a little smug because producer Brandon is
Speaker 1: going to be in for him tomorrow, so I know
Speaker 1: what's going on here. I know that goes. But no,
Speaker 1: that was meant a disses. You like to call it.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, yeah, a diss We're gonna Brandon. We want
Speaker 1: to bring that back, by the way, right, it's a
Speaker 1: great word. Disc Oh you got dissed. Now people say
Speaker 1: you got burned. No, no, sorry, that's a sick burn No, no,
Speaker 1: no diss that Really it's fun to say, and it
Speaker 1: definitely is clear what we're talking about. All right, but
Speaker 1: speaking of disses, you guys see that you see what
Speaker 1: I did there? You know who hasn't gotten an endorsement
Speaker 1: for President Obama like what he did for Justin Trudeau
Speaker 1: here on Twitter, Joe Biden, you gotta be thinking, Hold
Speaker 1: on a second. You are, You're the guy who's running
Speaker 1: for president. You're you're leading in the polls, all the polls. Still,
Speaker 1: you were vice president to Barack Obama for eight years
Speaker 1: and you don't get any you don't get any love
Speaker 1: from Obama the way that Trudeau just did. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's really only a couple of ways you could explain this,
Speaker 1: and I'm not sure which one it is. I know
Speaker 1: what the options are, I'm not sure which one it
Speaker 1: really is. But I would say this, it could be
Speaker 1: that Barack Obama really is just first and foremost concerned
Speaker 1: with his own brand and his own legacy and the associates.
Speaker 1: You know, he wants to support Trudeau because Trudeau is
Speaker 1: still a revered figure on the left and people think
Speaker 1: that he's should be the next prime in. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: everyone thinks of what he did. I mean, everybody agrees
Speaker 1: it's bad. It was Yeah, no one's letting but they're
Speaker 1: gonna give him another chance, and they think that he's
Speaker 1: too important. And so Barack Obama's brand is still supportive
Speaker 1: of Trudeau because Trudeau is a man of the left.
Speaker 1: And then the other possibility, and maybe this is it.
Speaker 1: So essentially it's all about Obama. Just he supports who
Speaker 1: wants to supports, doesn't care about anything else. But then
Speaker 1: there's another one one that I think is also worthy
Speaker 1: of our consideration right now, what if Barack Obama, who
Speaker 1: I've always is a smart guy and was a savvy politician.
Speaker 1: You know, I did not like his policies. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff about Obama I didn't like, but I
Speaker 1: the guy want to two terms eight years ram through
Speaker 1: domestic progressive agenda items that people have been dreaming about
Speaker 1: on the left for for decades. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the guy was a formidable adversary. Let's let's give credit
Speaker 1: where a formidable political adversary. Maybe he just realizes that
Speaker 1: Biden can't get it done. Maybe that that's really what
Speaker 1: Maybe that's why he's being quiet. He's like, Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: not gonna win, and he cares enough about his own legacy.
Speaker 1: The policies that he put in place, and maybe he
Speaker 1: even thinks just the country to know that if it's Biden,
Speaker 1: it's actually going to be Trump. But I gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: if I'm Joe Biden I saw that tweet, I would
Speaker 1: be I'd be steamed, my friends steamed, indeed. But good
Speaker 1: for a good day for Trudeaux. I suppose, how do
Speaker 1: you plan to get assault weapons away from people who
Speaker 1: don't want to give them up. It's pretty simple. As
Speaker 1: with any law in this country, we would expect our
Speaker 1: fellow Americans to follow the law. It's one of those
Speaker 1: things that distinguishes us from so much of the rest
Speaker 1: of the world. We're a nation of laws, and no
Speaker 1: person is above the law, no matter how much they
Speaker 1: may disagree with a given law. We also have the
Speaker 1: precedent of Australia, which took the bold step of having
Speaker 1: a mandatory buy back of these AR fifteens and AK
Speaker 1: forty sevens, as you know, weapons that were designed for
Speaker 1: war to kill people on a battlefield, that have no
Speaker 1: use for hunting or self defense in your home, but
Speaker 1: can kill people at a terrifying rate and terrifying numbers
Speaker 1: if left in the hands of civilians. And we've seen
Speaker 1: that in El Paso, in Dayton, in Odessa, throughout this country.
Speaker 1: So this is the right thing to do. And I
Speaker 1: fully expect my fellow Americans to follow the law. You
Speaker 1: expect mass shooters to follow the law. Our fellow Americans
Speaker 1: will follow the law. Yes, and mass shooters in Parkland,
Speaker 1: in El Paso. I could go on for ten minutes.
Speaker 1: They don't follow the law by definition. There are so
Speaker 1: many instances where the proposals that we've made, whether it
Speaker 1: is a universal background check or a red flag law,
Speaker 1: or ending the sale of weapons of war or buying
Speaker 1: those that are out there back, would have stopped many
Speaker 1: of the shootings that we see in a country that
Speaker 1: lose a forty thousand people a year to gun violence.
Speaker 1: Would it stop every single shooting? No, that I was
Speaker 1: an idiot, even CNN knows it. I'll listen to Comarado.
Speaker 1: It's like, but Wayter sackids, I think that a person
Speaker 1: who is a heinous criminal and mass murderer might not
Speaker 1: hand in that I was auld rifle. What what are
Speaker 1: you going to do about that? And bet It's like, look,
Speaker 1: they're Americans, so like they'll totally they'll totally obey because
Speaker 1: it would be it would harsh, my mellow if they didn't,
Speaker 1: and I would be like such so bummed. So here
Speaker 1: we are and she's like, but Betto, you're running as
Speaker 1: a Democrat and you're a moron. Why can't you go
Speaker 1: understand how stupid your proposals. He's like, but but I don't.
Speaker 1: I just like, I just want to. I want to
Speaker 1: bring together the country and bring our hearts together. And
Speaker 1: and he doesn't. By the way, he's number at forty
Speaker 1: it's not even forty thousand, it's not even right. There's
Speaker 1: less than fifteen thousand. The gun crimes are gunms in
Speaker 1: the country a year, including suicides in that which is
Speaker 1: which is preposterous. No one's using Also, no one's using
Speaker 1: gonna sl rife suicide anyway. It's just Beto's an idiot.
Speaker 1: Even Sewn's like a little a little bit. Uh, they've
Speaker 1: lost patience with him. The show ain't over yet, folks,
Speaker 1: keeping it real. It's time for roll call. That one
Speaker 1: always gets me fire. That's the fun. That's the fun
Speaker 1: roll call. There's a lot of good role calls on
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton if you want to
Speaker 1: send me thoughts for the show. Or are very official
Speaker 1: official email team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com. That is
Speaker 1: where you can send that. And with that, my friends,
Speaker 1: let's get to it. We have Mark in Louisiana. Buck,
Speaker 1: I have figured out what is wrong with Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: As you know, l Rushbo calls him plugs due to
Speaker 1: his hair implants. When the plugs were implanted, I think
Speaker 1: more than a few punctured his maninga cockle layer. That
Speaker 1: would explain a lot. Now, okay, all right, thanks man.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what that. What's the mininga cockle layer?
Speaker 1: Is that a that's meninga Coccus is a disease. It
Speaker 1: actually gives you meningitis. Buck knows all the facts, but
Speaker 1: I don't know what the maninga cockle layer is. I
Speaker 1: think I think he's just being funny or trying to
Speaker 1: be funny or something. I didn't know that Biden actually
Speaker 1: wears hair plugs though, but then whatever, you know, I
Speaker 1: don't look. I don't like that. I I do not
Speaker 1: I do not do the h I try to never
Speaker 1: do the make fun of of of anyone, and you know,
Speaker 1: make fun of their appearance thing. I just that's not
Speaker 1: my it's not my way, none of us, none of
Speaker 1: us are above or beyond that. Or I should say
Speaker 1: none of us are beyond that, and so we should
Speaker 1: all be above it. Um, let's see, Brad Right's your
Speaker 1: Warren voice is very good, no doubt, just no. It's
Speaker 1: also a pretty decent Ledger Joker voice. I can't unhear it. Wow,
Speaker 1: my daddy was a daddy was a male man in
Speaker 1: Oklahoma and now here I am. I just want to
Speaker 1: take on Wallster producer. Bradon's a little I pressed. I
Speaker 1: can tell he's like that it does sound like the
Speaker 1: Joker from the Ledger Joker. Yeah right, I just want
Speaker 1: to just rain in Wall Street and it's excellencies. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's disturbing though, because I like the Joker. Yes. Well,
Speaker 1: actually I think I'm gonna go see the Joker movie
Speaker 1: on for I have to go see it. Yeah right,
Speaker 1: you haven't seen it yet. I've heard people say that
Speaker 1: it's really good, which you have to think that that's
Speaker 1: probably high praise because it's going to be automatically judged
Speaker 1: against Heath Ledger's version of the Joker from Batman The
Speaker 1: Darknight The Dark Dark Knight Rises. Right, So if even
Speaker 1: in that context, it's good. It must be a pretty
Speaker 1: good movie. Yeah. I wanted to see it. I had tickets.
Speaker 1: My fiancee got scared and decided she didn't want to
Speaker 1: see it. So now I still haven't seen it. It's upsetting,
Speaker 1: you know. I had someone tell me recently that that
Speaker 1: she had seen like like this, like the ten scariest
Speaker 1: movies ever made, And I was like, I gotta I
Speaker 1: gotta get this list of the ten scariest movies so
Speaker 1: that producer Brandon can tell me if in fact they
Speaker 1: are the ten scariest movies. What was the what was
Speaker 1: the Korean What was the scariest Korean movie? The thing
Speaker 1: that you told me about that one time? He said
Speaker 1: it was a Korean movie. It's the scariest thing you've
Speaker 1: ever seen. I'm trying to think of train to Busan. Yes,
Speaker 1: that's a great zombie movie. Zombie movie, okay, one of
Speaker 1: the best in decades. Really is just original, beautiful shot,
Speaker 1: beautifully shot. Okay, so that's like a good it's actually
Speaker 1: like a good movie for what it is. But it's scary. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's on Netflix. Check it out. Reason really unsaf I'm
Speaker 1: too much of a whim dude. I can't even you know,
Speaker 1: the light. I watched The Strain sometimes on Hulu and
Speaker 1: I have to go like, oh gosh, I can't handle it.
Speaker 1: I wimp out all that stuff. All right, but maybe
Speaker 1: I'll watch Trained to Boost. That's what I was trying
Speaker 1: to think of, Training to booson you. So that Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a great good zombie flick. All right, back to
Speaker 1: our role call here. Um. I still thought, by the
Speaker 1: way the witch was was really scary. And uh, I
Speaker 1: don't know if any of you saw that, but that
Speaker 1: that one gave me nightmares. Um, Jason, just kiddy did
Speaker 1: give me nightmares. That's ounded too whimpy. I shouldn't make
Speaker 1: fun of myself that much. Jason. I can't read your note,
Speaker 1: so oh, that's because it's a form of form email
Speaker 1: that that doesn't that's not He's not that's not the
Speaker 1: real Jason. Uh. Let's see. Your impersonation of Warren reminds
Speaker 1: me of this is from Christopher of Charlie. From Charlie
Speaker 1: on the Chocolate Factory. I don't think that's where I
Speaker 1: like to hate chocolate. Oh gosh, oh I wall Street
Speaker 1: stealing all the chocolate, not leaving any for the children. Yeah,
Speaker 1: sort of. I don't even know what's that Adam Sandler movie. Um,
Speaker 1: I'm somebody who never understood the Adam Sandler appeal. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I'm one of them. I'm an Adam Sandler
Speaker 1: skeptic and I just got groans. I'm an Adam Sandler denier.
Speaker 1: I do not, I do not what is wrong with you?
Speaker 1: I mean, lately he has stunned. But the nineties stuff
Speaker 1: is fantastic. The price is wrong. Um, all right, let's
Speaker 1: see we have next here, Linda right buck oss here.
Speaker 1: In addition to your always insightful commentary, I'm particularly amused
Speaker 1: by your Elizabeth Warred impersonation. Yes it is official now
Speaker 1: where all of people really like. It makes me laugh
Speaker 1: every time. Your take on waiting for her to tell
Speaker 1: some probably false stories belongs on a T shirt. My
Speaker 1: daddy always told me growing up, if you've got two
Speaker 1: roosters in the bar and you take one rooster, you
Speaker 1: know you got an apple pie, not Elizabeth Warren's daddy.
Speaker 1: Congratulations on the first. Thank you for all you do
Speaker 1: and keep saying, no matter what, Producer Mark says, Shields High,
Speaker 1: Linda down in Florida, we got producer Mark and producer
Speaker 1: Brandon in here today. So it's it's basically a freedom
Speaker 1: Hut party. So that's why that's why we'd started the
Speaker 1: first so you guys could be a part of the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hut Party because there ain't no party like it,
Speaker 1: because it don't stop. Uh uh um. Let's see, let's
Speaker 1: see we have Anthony writes book. It is not Beresma,
Speaker 1: which is the issue with Hunter Biden. It is the
Speaker 1: one point eight billion US tax dollars that disappeared from
Speaker 1: the bank owned by the oligarch that owns Beresma. One
Speaker 1: a bet Hunter was hired to deflect an investigation of that.
Speaker 1: And then number two, it is Medicaid for all, not Medicare.
Speaker 1: Medicare is insurance, it has deductibles and co pays. It
Speaker 1: is Medicaid with its lack of choice clinics and waiting lines,
Speaker 1: which is free government care. Other than that, I love
Speaker 1: your show, Oss, Tony, Tony, I have to the second
Speaker 1: thing you're saying. I agree with your point. I've said
Speaker 1: that before that it's not accurate to call it medicare
Speaker 1: because the Medicare has has COPAIS has call sharing, doesn't
Speaker 1: cover everything. There's you know, there's a prescription drug additional
Speaker 1: covers people need for it with Medicare, and you've been
Speaker 1: paying into Medicare your entire adult life, if you've been
Speaker 1: paying taxes, so you're correct. It is actually really more
Speaker 1: accurately described as medicaid for all they would say, but no,
Speaker 1: it'll be on the same pricing scale as Medicare, which
Speaker 1: is why it's Medicare is appealing to people because of
Speaker 1: a good amount. A lot of doctors take Medicare, although
Speaker 1: not as many as some people would want, very few.
Speaker 1: I can tell you this I see a lot of
Speaker 1: us is that I go to here in New York
Speaker 1: City doctors that don't take Medicaid, and some of them
Speaker 1: will also stop taking Medicare patients because they they can't
Speaker 1: pay their bills that they take too many Medicare patients.
Speaker 1: So your point on that as well taken. And then
Speaker 1: I got to look into what you're saying about the
Speaker 1: one point eight billion tax dollars that disappeared from the
Speaker 1: bank the oligarch owned. I'll have to check that out
Speaker 1: and see if in fact what you're saying there makes sense.
Speaker 1: James in Boston, James a great name, technically my first
Speaker 1: name too, so for all the libs who was like,
Speaker 1: your name is Book, You're an idiot. I'm like, you're
Speaker 1: an idiot, my name is not really technically Buck, how
Speaker 1: about that boom in their face, producer Brandon in their face,
Speaker 1: all up in their faces James Rights, Hey, Buck, you're
Speaker 1: absolutely right about Bill Barr. We need his talents to
Speaker 1: continue to serve the country. Political correctness and cancer culture
Speaker 1: are a form of fascism. It is all about control.
Speaker 1: W X Cast Boston will wipe out the last half
Speaker 1: hour of the show, so I'll miss roll call Shields
Speaker 1: high James. No, that's why you must listen on the podcast,
Speaker 1: my Friend, or watch the Pluto TV stream on channel
Speaker 1: two forty eight. The first, the first, That should be
Speaker 1: your first option when you want to watch some conservative
Speaker 1: commentary every day. It's me, It's may Man, Jesse Kelly,
Speaker 1: and some other fantastic people who will be joining in
Speaker 1: on this action soon. Let's see Helloell, hey Buck, great
Speaker 1: start with the new TV show. Do you think you'll
Speaker 1: be working with other radio and conservative personalities. I think
Speaker 1: Raheem Kassam would be a great add to the channel
Speaker 1: and they can get more of views out there. The better,
Speaker 1: the more I think, pardon me, I think the more
Speaker 1: you can get your views out there, that's what you wrote,
Speaker 1: the better off the Conservative Party will being grow. Keep
Speaker 1: up the great work. I really like the new show.
Speaker 1: We thank you so much. Raheim is my main man.
Speaker 1: He's a great guy and I certainly would be very
Speaker 1: happy if he could join us here on the first
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelly, all nine foot three of him, is a
Speaker 1: fantastic individual. He's already here. We are hoping to add
Speaker 1: in some other great people soon. We will be adding
Speaker 1: in some other great people soon. And the powers that
Speaker 1: people watched this show, so they've heard your vote of
Speaker 1: support for mister Rahim Kassam, Brad right and the subject.
Speaker 1: This is all going to bylight Team Bucket. iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 1: These are all emails we'll do. We'll do some Facebook tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Brad Wright's Chinese movie sensors no joke. Remember when the
Speaker 1: Red Dawn remake came out and they switched the invading
Speaker 1: for Us from being Chinese to being North Korean. Not
Speaker 1: that it would have made the movie any less trash
Speaker 1: compared to the original, but it was still a stupid
Speaker 1: pandering movie. Wolverines Shields. I I've only seen part of
Speaker 1: this is I shouldn't admit this. I've only seen part
Speaker 1: of Red Dawn. I couldn't. I was like, I want
Speaker 1: I fell asleep during it, but I was very tired.
Speaker 1: Should I go back producer producer mark and actually watch
Speaker 1: this thing? I think it's one of these cult classics
Speaker 1: that if you haven't already seen it made, would you?
Speaker 1: Would you like to be honest with you, Yeah, I've
Speaker 1: never seen it. Oh well it was before your time,
Speaker 1: exactly before. Yeah, what's it? What's it like to think that,
Speaker 1: you know, Miley Cyrus is the greatest recording artist of
Speaker 1: all time? You know, what are the kids? You're not
Speaker 1: put that in my mouth? What's it like to be
Speaker 1: in that generation? I made Backstreet Boys type of There
Speaker 1: We Go, who Let the Dogs Out? Remember that too?
Speaker 1: That was that was a song, that was a song
Speaker 1: in people that was wild. Yeah. I can't. I can't
Speaker 1: sing it on the air because people have told me
Speaker 1: not to sing. Don writes Good Evening, Buck, What do
Speaker 1: you think? I think Bill barb be an excellent nomination
Speaker 1: buyer president for the next inevitable Supreme Court justice. It
Speaker 1: actually has a ring to it shields High Supreme Court
Speaker 1: Justice bar I agree, he'd be fantastic. They'll never they
Speaker 1: would Well, I was gonna say, they will go all
Speaker 1: the way to defeat any Conservative appointee to the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court for the net for the next slot. The Liberals
Speaker 1: will completely lose their minds over that. So maybe he
Speaker 1: wouldn't be any less likely than some of the others
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways. And so it's not it's
Speaker 1: not the I'll say this, it's not the craziest thing
Speaker 1: I've ever heard another James. I got a different James
Speaker 1: good first hour. Buck, heyy, you're you're killing it on
Speaker 1: Hunter Biden arose by any other name would smell the
Speaker 1: Kords first, see it wouldn't want to be then all, well,
Speaker 1: then that's their problem. I think Trump using sanctions is
Speaker 1: the right move. Stay away from taxes and health without me,
Speaker 1: and you're moving up on the east side, m James. Okay,
Speaker 1: I didn't really I didn't really get that one, Kathy right. Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I'm wondering if you've read the stories from Project Very
Speaker 1: Toss on CNN since on your Monday's show you stay
Speaker 1: did you know stuff about CNN? Maybe it's time to
Speaker 1: share what you know. Also, Where is Commy Bear? Did
Speaker 1: you drink too much vodka and die? I think you'd
Speaker 1: have a lot to say about Ukraine. Call me uncle.
Speaker 1: Yuri has been keeping him away from the show because
Speaker 1: Commy Bert's brown is very important for twenty twenty election socialism, communism.
Speaker 1: We could we could bring the bear. I got him somewhere.
Speaker 1: I don't know where we we could bring the bear back.
Speaker 1: I think he's at home somewhere. Wait, there's an actual bear.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, there was a bear. Oh I've never been
Speaker 1: here for you've never met the bear? All right, I'm
Speaker 1: at the just one of your personalities. No, no, no no,
Speaker 1: I mean, of course, but we might have to bring
Speaker 1: back Commy Bear. I think it's time. That's where we
Speaker 1: tell you all. Thank you so much for listening to
Speaker 1: the show today. Thank you for watching if you're watching
Speaker 1: it on Pluto TV channel two forty eight, which you
Speaker 1: would know if you're watching it, but just in case,
Speaker 1: if you're listening to the podcast, you're like, I want
Speaker 1: to check that out, and it'll be running. You can
Speaker 1: just turn it on. You're either going to see me
Speaker 1: or Jesse Kelly pretty much, so it's a win win,
Speaker 1: So turn on Pluto TV anytime we're going to be
Speaker 1: streaming those shows. You can check out what's going on
Speaker 1: here in the Freedom Hunt. And also I keep asking
Speaker 1: to pass the buck. Tell somebody about the podcast. We
Speaker 1: get it up at three Eastern every day now you
Speaker 1: can listen on iTunes on the iHeart app. And this
Speaker 1: podcast is awesome, So please tell people about it so
Speaker 1: they'll know it's awesome. I'll be talking to you all tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Shields High