Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump's lawyer Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen begins his testimony today on Capitol Hill. It was
Speaker 1: behind closed doors, but already the speculation about what he's
Speaker 1: gonna say about that Donald is flying fast and furious.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that. But also coming up right now,
Speaker 1: how does socialism come to America? Bernie Standers has a
Speaker 1: plan and the Green New Deal is a big part
Speaker 1: of it. We got that more coming up. This is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, America,
Speaker 1: You're a great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: Remember that climate change is real, is an existential threat
Speaker 1: to our country and the entire planet. The biggest threat
Speaker 1: to our prosperity in this twenty first century is climate change.
Speaker 1: And if we don't have the bravery and the courage
Speaker 1: and the heart and the determination to take it on
Speaker 1: as the most important challenge of our lifetime, then we
Speaker 1: don't care about those children. Climate change is an existential
Speaker 1: threat to us as human beings. The threat is real,
Speaker 1: and it is existential, and we need to take action now.
Speaker 1: And I'm quoting him now America, this is the president.
Speaker 1: America will never be a socialist country. Will that hold
Speaker 1: true if you're elected president? If I am elected president,
Speaker 1: we will have a nation in which all people have
Speaker 1: healthcare as a right, whether Trump likes it or not.
Speaker 1: We are going to make public colleges and universities to
Speaker 1: uition free. We are going to raise the minimum wage
Speaker 1: through to our living wage of at least fifteen bucks
Speaker 1: an hour. And whether Trump likes it or not, when
Speaker 1: I talk about human rights, you know what that also means.
Speaker 1: It means that our kids and grandchildren have the human
Speaker 1: right to grow up in a planet that is healthy
Speaker 1: and habitable. You know, Bernie is serious when he's yelling
Speaker 1: loudly about free this and free that and free everything.
Speaker 1: And welcome to the buck Sexton Show. He's a man
Speaker 1: also from New York buck Sexton, although technically right now
Speaker 1: he's in DC. Why is he lying? Must be? Must
Speaker 1: be because he spends so much time with Trump. Hey, everybody,
Speaker 1: welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Though great to have
Speaker 1: you here. That was intentional the top of the show there, well,
Speaker 1: it always is intentional, but but there was a reason
Speaker 1: why we wanted to play for you. All of the
Speaker 1: hysteria around the Green New Deal and socialism and all
Speaker 1: this stuff. Okay, all of that, and then Bernie anders
Speaker 1: not being willing or a better way to say this,
Speaker 1: Buck speak of the English being unwilling to say that
Speaker 1: this will not be a socialist country. The door was
Speaker 1: wide open there, Burne. You know you had wolf Blitzer
Speaker 1: reading off the Q card like someone who's still working
Speaker 1: on his English. Wolf Blitzer wants to know if this will,
Speaker 1: as Donald Trump says, never be a socialist country. Bernie says,
Speaker 1: a whole bunch of things that sound pretty socialist. So
Speaker 1: on the one hand, you have all this Green New
Speaker 1: Deal lunacy, I mean, crazy talk, existential threat. Oh, let's
Speaker 1: deployed twelve year olds may Mommy told me that unles,
Speaker 1: unless we all take bicycles to work and the cowstop farting,
Speaker 1: we're all gonna die. This is terrible, the telling children
Speaker 1: this stuff. This is twelve year olds, ten year olds.
Speaker 1: I should be thinking about Santa and you know whatever
Speaker 1: games kids that are ten or twelve play. I have
Speaker 1: no idea. I'm starting to turn into that uncle who
Speaker 1: like doesn't never gets the kids the cool presence because
Speaker 1: I just don't know what kids like, you know, whatever
Speaker 1: kids do these days at ten, you know, play sports,
Speaker 1: run outside, you know, go skin your knee, riding a bike,
Speaker 1: you know that kind of stuff. There's a reason why
Speaker 1: we're hearing about all this craziness about the Green New
Speaker 1: Deal and how there needs to be this imminent action,
Speaker 1: immediate severe action on climate change at the same time
Speaker 1: when we're also being told more openly than ever that
Speaker 1: the country needs to be a democratic socialist state, that
Speaker 1: we need a democratic socialist in the White House. Let
Speaker 1: me say this to you. Can you think of a
Speaker 1: better way to get this country to fall into the
Speaker 1: trap of socialism then through the environment and environmental extremism.
Speaker 1: If you were trying to come up with a way
Speaker 1: to make people think that the country is in desperate
Speaker 1: need of a dramatic overhaul of the economy that will
Speaker 1: put the government in charge of basically everything, could you
Speaker 1: do better than to have the entirety of the left
Speaker 1: wing news media apparatus, the Democratic Party, college campuses, Hollywood,
Speaker 1: all of it mobilized behind this idea that we are
Speaker 1: going to be extinct as a species, We are going
Speaker 1: to cease to exist unless we put the government in
Speaker 1: charge of everything everything. That's the beauty for the status
Speaker 1: of climate change hysteria, climate change alarmism. What is not
Speaker 1: in the purview of the government. What can the government?
Speaker 1: The government can tell you what products you can use
Speaker 1: in your business, in your home, what kind of energy
Speaker 1: you can use, how much energy you can use. The
Speaker 1: government can intervene in your day to day habits. The
Speaker 1: government can decide what is too much for you to have.
Speaker 1: Your carbon footprint is too large, your house is too big,
Speaker 1: you have too many cars. Only one car for you,
Speaker 1: Maybe a car that you have to share, maybe a
Speaker 1: prius even sorry, I can't help it. Take digs at
Speaker 1: the prious folks. Sometimes I know, great gas mileage. The
Speaker 1: ugliest car I've ever seen in my life, but great
Speaker 1: gas mileage. This is a perfect You could not think
Speaker 1: of a better plot, really for the left and these
Speaker 1: statists to find a way to make the country not
Speaker 1: just go toward democratic socialism, but put us on a
Speaker 1: pathway to full on socialism where the government has control
Speaker 1: of the means of production as well as the distribution,
Speaker 1: and where there's nothing outside of the government's purview. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind that even failure to follow through on
Speaker 1: the promises that this new green socialist utopia that they're
Speaker 1: telling us about, even when they can't accomplish the emissions
Speaker 1: reductions that they say they will, and even when they
Speaker 1: cannot create millions of green new jobs. I keep hearing this.
Speaker 1: We had a billionaire left winger named Stier come into
Speaker 1: the Hill today. I didn't get to interview him because
Speaker 1: he only wanted to only wanted to talk to my
Speaker 1: co host. But he's saying that unless you take dramatic
Speaker 1: and you know, severe action on climate change, he could
Speaker 1: never support you. Well, what better way could there be
Speaker 1: than to put the government in charge of everything than
Speaker 1: to say that we are going to be extinct unless
Speaker 1: they are in control of all of these things that
Speaker 1: the very very rich of course right now, who are Democrats,
Speaker 1: will get an exemption from all this, the Tom Styars
Speaker 1: of the world, because they're so necessary in their messaging.
Speaker 1: You see, where is the co two in our economy?
Speaker 1: What does what if we are really worried that the
Speaker 1: world is going to end, if we're gonna make ten
Speaker 1: and twelve year olds cry, little kids, grade school kids
Speaker 1: cry as well as teach them to be rude to
Speaker 1: sitting us senators, because we're so desperate to get this
Speaker 1: messaging out there. Where does most of the co two
Speaker 1: worried about come from. The two biggest areas are transportation
Speaker 1: and the creation of energy. Well, if they can control
Speaker 1: transportation and they can control the energy flow, they have
Speaker 1: a stranglehold on the lifeblood of our economic activity. And
Speaker 1: as they are unable to hit the marks that they
Speaker 1: set for themselves, so they'll just say, well, we need
Speaker 1: more control. They're never going to They're never going to
Speaker 1: loosen their grip if they can get this. Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: and the rest of them are serious about this. Occasio Cortez. Yes,
Speaker 1: she is an ignoramus, but we need to take her
Speaker 1: seriously because the damage that she will do to this
Speaker 1: country if her ideology continues to spread is serious. There
Speaker 1: are many democra grants now they won't admit it because
Speaker 1: it's not yet popular, who wish that we would be
Speaker 1: a socialist country. They think we're very, very rich, so
Speaker 1: we don't have to worry about being Venezuela. We're just
Speaker 1: going to be a giant version of Denmark with a
Speaker 1: lot less social cohesion, I might add, and a much
Speaker 1: higher tolerance for corruption and government, government bureaucrats who are
Speaker 1: lethargic at best. These Norwegian country, or rather these Scandinavian countries,
Speaker 1: Norway as a country. These Scandinavian countries are known for
Speaker 1: having more efficient government services than we do, on a
Speaker 1: much smaller scale than we would have to have. And
Speaker 1: they also have much more liberalized economies when it comes
Speaker 1: to the corporate sphere than we do in many ways,
Speaker 1: lower corporate tax burden, oh yes, it's true, much higher
Speaker 1: individual tax burden, but that also is true across the
Speaker 1: middle class. If if, in fact, the Democrats could get
Speaker 1: a presidential candidate through who could make this who could
Speaker 1: make this transformation complete. Remember, Obama promised to fundamentally transform
Speaker 1: the country, and he took us quite a ways in
Speaker 1: that direction. To speak of socialism in the Obama era,
Speaker 1: to speak of Obama Care as merely a stepping stone
Speaker 1: on the way to Medicare for Medicare for all, which
Speaker 1: is really just single pair, that was wrong. It was
Speaker 1: a lie. It was racist. Oh no, actually it was
Speaker 1: all true. It wasn't racist at all, It was just reality.
Speaker 1: Socialism was making its first run on this country under
Speaker 1: the Obama era in a way that was open in
Speaker 1: a way that we could see that was obvious. They
Speaker 1: just weren't calling it that. Now they're calling it that
Speaker 1: and the Green New Deal. The reason there's such an
Speaker 1: emphasis on this, on a plan that is so full
Speaker 1: of holes, that is so potous, guy and silly and
Speaker 1: worthy of ridicule. The reason for this is because it
Speaker 1: is the single best, fastest way now that they've already
Speaker 1: gotten us rolling down the hill towards single payer, towards
Speaker 1: socialized medicine. That's where we're heading because they're not going
Speaker 1: to be able to give the healthcare for the Medicare
Speaker 1: for all is not going to work. They don't have
Speaker 1: the practitioners, they don't have the means of production, if
Speaker 1: you will, in healthcare to fulfill the obligations that they
Speaker 1: want to create for all Americans. They don't have it.
Speaker 1: So what will they then do, Well, now we're just
Speaker 1: going to have to make them all employees of the state.
Speaker 1: They will have to control the means of production of healthcare.
Speaker 1: They'll have to control the hospitals, and then we will
Speaker 1: be in socialized medicine. That is socialized medicine. But how
Speaker 1: do you get the rest of the economy. You create
Speaker 1: a false crisis. That's right, the false climate crisis that
Speaker 1: you say is the single most important thing in the
Speaker 1: world right now, and that's an exaggeration that has taken
Speaker 1: them exactly at their word. The most important problem we
Speaker 1: as human beings as a species face, and the only
Speaker 1: way to tackle it is dramatic increases in government control
Speaker 1: of the most central parts, most central components of the
Speaker 1: rest of our modern economy, energy production and transportation. That's
Speaker 1: where most of the CO two emissions comes from. They
Speaker 1: want to be in charge of our healthcare. They want
Speaker 1: to be in charge of energy production, and then the
Speaker 1: energy used in their production, the manufacturing process. Of course,
Speaker 1: they want to be in charge of the price of goods,
Speaker 1: because a lot of fossil fuels that are used are
Speaker 1: actually in products themselves. And then they want to tell
Speaker 1: us how far we can drive, what we can do
Speaker 1: in terms of transportation, where we can go, what the
Speaker 1: price will be, what the taxes will be. This is
Speaker 1: all about control and control on a pathway toward full
Speaker 1: on socialism that they may never actually get. There is
Speaker 1: not any comfort to us because this is where they
Speaker 1: want to go, and even taking us halfway toward a
Speaker 1: full on socialist state would be incredibly destructive and would
Speaker 1: make us less free, and with that the rest of
Speaker 1: the world would be less free. Because we are still,
Speaker 1: despite all of our flaws and imperfections, the single greatest
Speaker 1: testament ever created to human liberty this country. We've got
Speaker 1: more on socialism Cohen's testimony, Venezuela, North Korea, Trump and Hannoia.
Speaker 1: We got a jam packed show, which is why you
Speaker 1: come here because you know we're going to cover all
Speaker 1: the topics and then some, so stay with me. To you,
Speaker 1: we need to have medicare for all. That's just the
Speaker 1: bottom up. Who of us has not had that situation
Speaker 1: where you got to wait for approval and the doctor says, well,
Speaker 1: I don't know if your insurance company is going to
Speaker 1: cover this. Let's eliminate all of that. Let's move on.
Speaker 1: We've got to critically re examine ICE and its role
Speaker 1: and the way that it is being administered and the
Speaker 1: work it is doing, and we need to probably think
Speaker 1: about starting from scratch. Education is a fundamental right, and
Speaker 1: we will guarantee that right with universal pre K and
Speaker 1: debt free college. We have a history of racism in America,
Speaker 1: so you are for some type. Yes I am, Yes,
Speaker 1: I am. Now that's establishment favorite on the among the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris just citing one after another of these policies
Speaker 1: that Bernie Sanders will be in favor of Medicare for all,
Speaker 1: start from scratch with immigrations and customs enforcements, sociates, single payer,
Speaker 1: open borders, universal pre k, and just paying for everyone school,
Speaker 1: no college debt. Where is this stuff all gonna come
Speaker 1: Where's the money going to come from for all of this?
Speaker 1: Who's going to pay the people that are supposed to
Speaker 1: be delivering these services? So I want to make it
Speaker 1: very clear it's not just aoc Ocazio Cortez and Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: This is now the Democrat Party mainstream. I know today
Speaker 1: there was some talk about whether whether Joe Biden's going
Speaker 1: to get in the race or not, as if we're
Speaker 1: supposed to be excited about this. I mean, who cares?
Speaker 1: But anyway, there's this talk about, oh, is Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: you know, blue collar Joe, Is he gonna throw his
Speaker 1: hat in the ring? And I just if I could say,
Speaker 1: I don't think that Biden really knows how he's going
Speaker 1: to play this, because if he tries to run among
Speaker 1: the Democrats at the stage of the primary as a
Speaker 1: kind of Hillary Clinton esque establishment, you know, corrupt, pay
Speaker 1: to play corporatist, which is what Hillary was. He's not
Speaker 1: going to make it through the primary. But is Joe
Speaker 1: Biden going to sound authentic when he all of a
Speaker 1: sudden is saying free college, you know, free healthcare, all
Speaker 1: this stuff, rebuild ice from scratch. He can't compete with
Speaker 1: the left wing loons here. I don't even think he
Speaker 1: can pretend to be looney and left wing enough to
Speaker 1: be in there to be in contention with some of them.
Speaker 1: But this is now the mainstream. And that's why while
Speaker 1: you and I sit here and say this Green New
Speaker 1: Deal thing, you know, harkening back to FDR, that president
Speaker 1: that we're all supposed to think is so great, even
Speaker 1: though you know, the internment camps and the court packing threats,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of stuff about FDR that somehow
Speaker 1: gets left out of this. Oh that the new that
Speaker 1: the programs you put in place didn't actually save us
Speaker 1: from the Great Depression. That's a good place to start,
Speaker 1: isn't it. But the notion of a Green New Deal
Speaker 1: is not the fringe. This is sent for the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party because the Democrats are not liberal, they are statists,
Speaker 1: they are socialists. They are not the Blues, they are
Speaker 1: the reds. And we are finally seeing this happen. Now.
Speaker 1: Now we are at a tipping point. Let's speak truthfully
Speaker 1: about it. Morning coffee is an American institution. I drink
Speaker 1: it every day and that's why when it comes to
Speaker 1: start in my day right full of freedom, promise and patriotism,
Speaker 1: I reach for the most delicious, most American coffee on
Speaker 1: the market, Black Rifle Coffee. This is how I get
Speaker 1: my day started. I tell you it's delicious coffee, and
Speaker 1: I'm somebody that really cares what is coffee tastes like. Also,
Speaker 1: it's got quite a punch to it. But if you
Speaker 1: want decaff, you can get decaf. Two try Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: This will become your coffee of choice, just like it
Speaker 1: is for me. I get it delivered every month. It's
Speaker 1: roast to order, guaranteed fresh delivered to your door. And
Speaker 1: while liberals threatened to further tax your hard earned money
Speaker 1: with their socialist agenda, Black Rifle Coffee is fueling the
Speaker 1: fight for freedom by upping their offer to twenty percent off.
Speaker 1: It's a great deal. Take advantage by visiting Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck and receive twenty percent off your
Speaker 1: entire order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for
Speaker 1: twenty percent off Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck. We're
Speaker 1: at another inflection point where American justice is either going
Speaker 1: to be indicated or desecrated, and Michael Kohn has answers
Speaker 1: to some of the questions that the American people need
Speaker 1: to know. I just think it's crazy that the first
Speaker 1: witness that the Democrats call to testify before Congress is
Speaker 1: a guy who's been convicted or pled guilty to lying
Speaker 1: to Congress. I mean, it's just crazy. This is about
Speaker 1: trying their best to discredit the President of the United States.
Speaker 1: The Cohen situation unfolds before us right now. Michael Cohen,
Speaker 1: President Trump's personal lawyer, is today he gave testimony about
Speaker 1: well Russia stuff. I guess behind closed doors, and everyone goes, whoo,
Speaker 1: I don't know what it was. Guess what he's already
Speaker 1: had to tell Mueller whatever he knows about that, and
Speaker 1: there was no collusion. He can't make anything up about
Speaker 1: it because there's nothing to make up. It's a whole
Speaker 1: lot of nothing. I think it's interesting how many people
Speaker 1: on the left don't seem to care that what you
Speaker 1: have here is a lawyer testifying against his clients for
Speaker 1: his own purposes. No one seems to think that this
Speaker 1: is particularly bothersome on the left. No, Democrats are just
Speaker 1: just by the principle of this. And I know, oh,
Speaker 1: buck well, don't be don't be naive. Democrats have no
Speaker 1: principles when it comes to the stuff. I understand that,
Speaker 1: but I have to note that there's something. Certainly, there's
Speaker 1: a funky smell when you have somebody's former lawyer who
Speaker 1: is testifying against him in this way. Okay, it's it's
Speaker 1: certainly problematic, to say the least. Annie McCarthy, our buddy,
Speaker 1: just making the rounds on TV because he's one of
Speaker 1: the best analysts out there on this issue. He was saying,
Speaker 1: by the way, Cohen, he's a big liar, as we
Speaker 1: know Play fourteen. If the prosecutors had thought he was
Speaker 1: a valuable, credible witness, they would have completed a cooperation
Speaker 1: agreement with him. They would have gotten over whatever hump
Speaker 1: there was in the negotiations and signed him up as
Speaker 1: a full fledged cooperator. They declined to do that, and
Speaker 1: I have to think they did that because they didn't
Speaker 1: think he was a very useful or valuable witness. Why
Speaker 1: would anyone think that at this point in time we
Speaker 1: would get some kind of a bombshell revelation about Russia
Speaker 1: collusion from Michael Cohen. We've been through so much of
Speaker 1: this nonsense with the Muller pro Cohen has been hit
Speaker 1: with all kinds of legal you know, legal attacks here.
Speaker 1: I mean, as we know Cohen, it's in trouble for lying,
Speaker 1: for not paying his taxes. He's facing I think five
Speaker 1: years in prison. Southern Dishrict of New York went after him.
Speaker 1: There was no Muller cooperation agreement because he's not a
Speaker 1: cooperating witness for Muller, because he has nothing to offer Muller.
Speaker 1: Because Russia collusion is not just a lie, it's a
Speaker 1: stupid it's a stupid idea to begin with. Okay, it's
Speaker 1: not it's not a good lie. It's not even a
Speaker 1: plausible conspiracy. Of course, the Left doesn't care about any
Speaker 1: of that. They just know that it's a way of
Speaker 1: attacking this administration and doing everything possible to try and
Speaker 1: tear Trunk down. What do they think they're really going
Speaker 1: to find out here? Well, we have been told, and
Speaker 1: the left awaits all of this with breathless anticipation. We
Speaker 1: have been told that Michael Cohen may say that Trump
Speaker 1: was shady in his business dealings, and that he said
Speaker 1: things that would be considered racially insensitive or racist. We
Speaker 1: know that Michael Cohen's a liar because he has said
Speaker 1: he's a liar, and he has been prosecuted for lying
Speaker 1: even under oath. We know that he has no ethics
Speaker 1: because he's a lawyer who was taping his client. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is like somebody who's a psychiatrist who would tape
Speaker 1: the person that goes in to see them. I mean
Speaker 1: it's such a violation, such an absolute disgrace, and yet
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen did that, and the Democrats want us to
Speaker 1: believe that now he's going to come forward and just
Speaker 1: share the whole truth and nothing but the truth, because
Speaker 1: he believes so much in so much in this country,
Speaker 1: in our institutions, They say, Michael Cohen, I see here,
Speaker 1: according to CNN, apologized apologize, according to multiple sources, for
Speaker 1: lying to Congress when he was talking to Congress. When
Speaker 1: will the Democrats get it? This is not going to
Speaker 1: be enough. They're not gonna win based on this. They're
Speaker 1: not going to take Trump down because Michael Cohen says
Speaker 1: nasty things about him, says that he's a bad guy,
Speaker 1: a bad business Pardner, any of these things. It's not
Speaker 1: going to get it done. I think that they've at
Speaker 1: least some of them understand this. But what they also
Speaker 1: understand is that they hate this president so much that
Speaker 1: this is really just about scratching an itch for them.
Speaker 1: This is about they have this desire to bring Trump
Speaker 1: down in whatever way they can, however they can, and
Speaker 1: even if it doesn't work for them the long run
Speaker 1: in terms of the twenty twenty election, and I don't
Speaker 1: think it will. I think it is more likely that
Speaker 1: this anti Trump hysteria, as as it relates to Russia
Speaker 1: and the investigations are going to start. People are tired
Speaker 1: of this. I mean I'm tired of it. I wish
Speaker 1: I want us to move past it, just because I
Speaker 1: don't think it's a it's an interesting intellectual exercise anymore.
Speaker 1: I don't think that that even having this debate feels
Speaker 1: like a worthy enterprise. The only reason I do it
Speaker 1: here on the show is because we have to, because
Speaker 1: they won't give up, they won't move past it. They
Speaker 1: are still stuck on this. And that's what the next
Speaker 1: few days are going to be about. Oh, they're going
Speaker 1: to just be reporting with glee. They'll be unable to
Speaker 1: disguise their glee. By and Cohen talk about the payments
Speaker 1: to porn stars, the payments to these or ones a
Speaker 1: porn star, one was a pin up model, different different things,
Speaker 1: but the payments to these women and Trump's business practices,
Speaker 1: and what I think the American people are going to
Speaker 1: come away with is why are we supposed to care
Speaker 1: about this? Even even if some of it is true?
Speaker 1: Does that mean that we want to put the Party
Speaker 1: for the Party of Socialism in fantaside and open borders
Speaker 1: in charge. Let's just say that Trump did some of
Speaker 1: the shady business practices that Michael Cohen, as I'm sure,
Speaker 1: are going to expand upon at length in this hearing
Speaker 1: tomorrow when he's in open testimony. Would you want the
Speaker 1: Party of Occasio Cortez to run the country? Would you
Speaker 1: want the Democrats to be able to take more of
Speaker 1: your money, be able to pursue more disastrous economic and
Speaker 1: immigration and healthcare policies to ally with the me in
Speaker 1: outright delusions like the Green New Deal, the idea that
Speaker 1: then that the world is going to be destroyed unless
Speaker 1: we spend trillions and trillions of dollars on what is
Speaker 1: nothing more than a religion for the left, that transgender
Speaker 1: individuals who compete who are biological males against women have
Speaker 1: no real advantage. I mean, they will just defy common sense, history, logic,
Speaker 1: and rationality in so many ways. But oh oh, but
Speaker 1: you know, we're sending a message because Trump was a
Speaker 1: little bit too rough around the edges and some of
Speaker 1: his business dealings, because Trump was perhaps in a look,
Speaker 1: let's not imperfect husband. Sounds like I'm covering from the guy.
Speaker 1: You know, the guy's been married three times, he's had
Speaker 1: he's had some issues there. We already know this, we
Speaker 1: elected him anyway. I'm not sitting around trying to pass
Speaker 1: moral judgment on all politicians. I'm trying to push for
Speaker 1: the best policies for the country. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people feel the same way about Trump. They see
Speaker 1: what's happening in America right now, and they say, seems
Speaker 1: like things are pretty good, certainly in the right direction.
Speaker 1: Why we want to change this based on what Michael
Speaker 1: Cohen says? The only thing that I can't give you
Speaker 1: an answer to, although Matt Schlap told me today on
Speaker 1: Rising that I forget the word he used, But you know, sketchy,
Speaker 1: bad people. Trump sometimes he does not pick the best people.
Speaker 1: He has picked some very bad, sketchy people and that's
Speaker 1: just a fact. And unfortunately some of that's come back
Speaker 1: to bite him. And that's gonna happen tomorrow with Michael Cohen.
Speaker 1: But he'll move on. Trump will be fine, and the
Speaker 1: media is just gonna get themselves all work up over nothing.
Speaker 1: Why have you stopped short of falling Maduro with Venezuela
Speaker 1: a dictator? Well, I think it's fair to say that
Speaker 1: the last election was undemocratic, but there are still democratic
Speaker 1: operations taking place in that country. The point is what
Speaker 1: I am calling for right now is internationally supervised, free elections.
Speaker 1: And I do find it interesting that Trump is very
Speaker 1: concerned about what goes on in Venezuela. But what about
Speaker 1: the last election that took place in Saudi Arabia. Oh,
Speaker 1: there wasn't any election in Saudi Arabia. Oh, women are
Speaker 1: treated as third class citizens. So I find it interesting
Speaker 1: that Trump is kind of selective as to where he
Speaker 1: is concerned about democracy. My record is to be concerned
Speaker 1: about democracy all over the world. So we've got to
Speaker 1: do everything we can. But at the end of the
Speaker 1: day is going to be the people of Venezuela who
Speaker 1: determine the future of the country. I find it interesting
Speaker 1: that Bernie likes Kami. You see this, you hear this,
Speaker 1: We've played the audio for you. Bernie Sanders has a
Speaker 1: soft spot for commies, for hardcore socialists. He really does.
Speaker 1: He did with the Soviet Union while people were imprisoned, well,
Speaker 1: while the Gulag system was, you know, in operation, while
Speaker 1: you have people getting sent to Siberia and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders talking about breadth Line, thought that bit the
Speaker 1: BRIT's pretty chewy. It's not you know, it's not amazing,
Speaker 1: but you put some salt on it taste okay. But
Speaker 1: he won't call Maduro of Venezuela a dictator. Why he'll
Speaker 1: call Trump. I'm sure if you ask him too, I
Speaker 1: want to be dictator. I mean, he'll say all kinds
Speaker 1: of horrible things about the current President of the United States.
Speaker 1: But he won't say anything terrible about Maduro. He holds
Speaker 1: back on that. I think we should ask the question, why,
Speaker 1: what is it about Maduro that Bernie Sanders has a
Speaker 1: certain fondness for? What is it about Maduro that holds
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders back? And I think we all know Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders has an affinity for not just democratic socialism, but
Speaker 1: all out radical socialism and maybe even up to and
Speaker 1: including communism. There's a record here, folks, there's a record.
Speaker 1: They can say whatever they want now about how Bernie's
Speaker 1: just this cuddly guy from Vermont and he loves Ben
Speaker 1: and Jerry's ice cream, and he's all kooky and funny
Speaker 1: and the crazy professor. Look at all this stuff. At
Speaker 1: the end of the day, Bernie Sanders gets far more upset,
Speaker 1: far more aggravated with President Trump than he ever has
Speaker 1: or ever would, it seems, with Maduro. And let me
Speaker 1: just say that this, oh, look at look at Saudi Arabia. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia is a despotism. That's true, no question about it.
Speaker 1: We all know this. But if we're really going to
Speaker 1: have this conversation, I mean, Saudi Arabia doesn't have people
Speaker 1: who are starving to death. Saudi Arabia doesn't have an
Speaker 1: inflation rate of a million percent. I mean, Venezuela has
Speaker 1: been destroyed as a country, and it has been destroyed
Speaker 1: by people who in their rhetoric, in their political approach,
Speaker 1: mirror a lot of what the Democratic Party in this
Speaker 1: country is trying to do and achieve. That's just what
Speaker 1: is happening. So, you know, Bernie can find all these
Speaker 1: different ways to try and deflect and talk about something
Speaker 1: else and make it sound like, you know, Trump is
Speaker 1: the bad guy here. But we know, we know that
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders thinks that Mduro's problem is just that, you know,
Speaker 1: bad timing and he didn't do it right. Always the
Speaker 1: same excuse with communism, he didn't do it right. I
Speaker 1: think I've told you here on the show before that
Speaker 1: one of the big problems that they had in Venezuela
Speaker 1: was the seizure of companies, the seizure of private assets
Speaker 1: by the government and price controls. The government, under the
Speaker 1: auspices of trying to do things that would help the poor,
Speaker 1: would help their version of the of the working class
Speaker 1: in Venezuela, would go after what they considered to be
Speaker 1: wealthy corporations what were called wealthy corporations at the time,
Speaker 1: and it sounded okay, right, Oh, this this company that
Speaker 1: makes you know that that makes refrigerators, or this company
Speaker 1: that produces some kind of a food stuff. You know,
Speaker 1: they're they're making too much money. Let's just give more
Speaker 1: to the people. I don't think that Bernie Sanders has
Speaker 1: any problem with that at all. In fact, I think
Speaker 1: we know that he still thinks that that's a very important,
Speaker 1: not just from the perspective of what works, but important
Speaker 1: moral act. You know, he's gonna try to take from
Speaker 1: companies in this country to pay for his ideas. Play
Speaker 1: clip eight. Am I going to demand that the wealthy
Speaker 1: and large corporations start paying their fair share of taxes?
Speaker 1: Damn right? I will, all right, and let me give you.
Speaker 1: You know, people say, where are you gonna get the money?
Speaker 1: Where you're gonna get the money? Amazon, owned by the
Speaker 1: wealthiest guy in the world, made five billion dollars last
Speaker 1: gear and profits. Anyone here know how much they paid
Speaker 1: in taxes. That's right, That's why we're gonna begin getting
Speaker 1: the money. Noticetary says begin even though this class warfare
Speaker 1: stuff and this is what they did in Venezuela. Chavez
Speaker 1: would go on TV and say, these rich landowners, these
Speaker 1: rich farmers, these rich manufacturers, we need to take their stuff.
Speaker 1: At first it was we need them to charge less
Speaker 1: for their stuff, and they couldn't make a profit. And
Speaker 1: then when they couldn't create more stuff, Java is in
Speaker 1: the Maduro said well, we'll just take the factory. Now,
Speaker 1: we'll run it. It's ours. How far off is that
Speaker 1: from what Bernie Sanders is saying here, But notice how
Speaker 1: he says, that's where we'll start. As I have told you,
Speaker 1: the money here is really with the middle class. It's
Speaker 1: always with the people. The money in this country is
Speaker 1: with everyday normal folks that are working jobs, that are
Speaker 1: paying their mortgages, that are trying to feed their families.
Speaker 1: That's because there's so many more of them, and they're
Speaker 1: going to try to come up with all these different
Speaker 1: ways to hide how they're taking money from those people.
Speaker 1: But they are, at the end of the day, they
Speaker 1: are going to take money from those people, whether through
Speaker 1: taxation or through rationing of government programs that they've been promised,
Speaker 1: or you name it. There are all these different ways
Speaker 1: that government can't make this stuff happen. There's no magic,
Speaker 1: whether it's Maduro or Sanders, it's just not going to work.
Speaker 1: But people want to believe it, and so they will.
Speaker 1: Socialism is a very real threat now in this country,
Speaker 1: just like it is a threat and it has now
Speaker 1: destroyed Venezuela. We'll talk more about Venezuela and Maduro coming
Speaker 1: up in the show later on. But I've got it.
Speaker 1: I always say this to you, and maybe I'll just
Speaker 1: I'll stop, you know what. Yeah, from now on, I'm
Speaker 1: going to talk to you about about issues of life
Speaker 1: and the pro life cause on the show and not
Speaker 1: say I know that people sometimes it's a little too
Speaker 1: intense for them. But the Democrats just took another swipe
Speaker 1: at life yesterday, and I want to tell you what
Speaker 1: they've done, and I am honestly angry, deeply angry about
Speaker 1: what they've done. We'll be right back. I've been talking
Speaker 1: about snippy dot com a lot here on the show.
Speaker 1: It's a new social media a site that does not
Speaker 1: discriminate against conservative points of view. Well, if you look
Speaker 1: at snippy dot com in the past and you left,
Speaker 1: you need to check it out one more time. Thousands
Speaker 1: and thousands of listeners to this show have joinsnippy dot com.
Speaker 1: They know it's totally free to use, totally free to join,
Speaker 1: and they're expressing their opinions and getting all kinds of
Speaker 1: fiery conversations. Going Snippy is an unbiased social media platform. Look,
Speaker 1: I've had friends who are banned from the big social
Speaker 1: media platforms you've already heard about and you've probably been using.
Speaker 1: Don't let yourself get caught in that trap post and
Speaker 1: engage in a place where freedom of expression is the
Speaker 1: first principal. All right, Snippy's a place where you're free
Speaker 1: to express your thoughts and share your opinions. It is
Speaker 1: totally free to join and open to everyone. So join
Speaker 1: us at snippy dot com. Let your opinion matter, no
Speaker 1: shadow banning and no suppression of conservative thought ever. Again.
Speaker 1: Go to snippy dot com. That's snippy dot com. Start
Speaker 1: your account today. Does Facebook discriminate against conservatives? We know
Speaker 1: the answer to this, but they always turn around and say, oh,
Speaker 1: but it's just a mistake. Oh, it's not really happening
Speaker 1: because of ideology. It's because of the algorithms and all
Speaker 1: the fancy engineering back end blah blah blah, all that stuff.
Speaker 1: Can't be because of a bias against the ride, a
Speaker 1: bias against conservatives as well. I want to bring on
Speaker 1: somebody who can speak from some personal experience to this issue.
Speaker 1: Our buddy Raheim Kasam of raheim kasam dot com, former
Speaker 1: advisor to Nigel Faraj, author of No go Zones. You
Speaker 1: see him all over the place. Rahem also has a
Speaker 1: robust following on Facebook, and he joins us now to
Speaker 1: talk to talk to us about what happened here, Raheem, great,
Speaker 1: great to have you, my friend. What walk us throw here?
Speaker 1: How did you? How did Facebook come after? Rahim? Hey?
Speaker 1: Buck Well, yeah, thanks for having me and letting me
Speaker 1: talk about this. You know, this is something that I
Speaker 1: think a lot of us on the plitic right of
Speaker 1: experienced in recent months and years in fact now, is
Speaker 1: that our opinions are often deleted or our cows throstled
Speaker 1: shadow band, you know, all sorts of mechanisms and algorithms
Speaker 1: and manual interventions that the big social media giants use
Speaker 1: to make sure that conservative thought is suppressed and liberal
Speaker 1: thought and cultural Marxist thought is sort of projected out
Speaker 1: there more. And I woke up this morning to find
Speaker 1: that I had been locked out of my Facebook page,
Speaker 1: my Facebook account, which manages which administers one hundred and
Speaker 1: sixty thousand fans of mine in my own page, And
Speaker 1: of course for somebody like me who makes their living
Speaker 1: by selling books and relying on the donations of ordinary people,
Speaker 1: that's an incredibly scary thing to happen out of nowhere,
Speaker 1: especially when as Facebook did, when they when they don't
Speaker 1: tell you what you know, what you're supposed to have
Speaker 1: done wrong, That's that's what they did to me, and
Speaker 1: that's what they did to a handful of the clouds
Speaker 1: this morning, just full on deletion and no explanation as
Speaker 1: to why. So. So that was the stories that stood
Speaker 1: this morning, luckily for me. But I have friends in
Speaker 1: medium to high places such as yourself, um, and lots
Speaker 1: of people sort of wrote to my rescue by tweeting
Speaker 1: about it, sharing the story that I had been banned.
Speaker 1: Lots of news outlets wrote about it this morning, and
Speaker 1: even the president's son, Donald Trump Junior tweeted multiple times
Speaker 1: about it. And it's a television it's about it today.
Speaker 1: So it's all well and good for me being in
Speaker 1: somewhat of an elite media bubble as we are, but
Speaker 1: for ordinary people. For ordinary conservatives out they're all across
Speaker 1: the Western world who don't have the ability to call
Speaker 1: in favors with people who aren't the subject of news articles.
Speaker 1: When they get their account shut down, it can be
Speaker 1: an incredibly desperate thing if that happens to them, because
Speaker 1: people use these social media platforms not just to air
Speaker 1: their political opinions, but to keep in touch for their
Speaker 1: friends and their family members and to share photos over
Speaker 1: the course of decades, and all of that can go
Speaker 1: in just a heartbeat. And so that's that's why I
Speaker 1: think this is so important. It's all well and good
Speaker 1: for people like me, Bud, but for all the new
Speaker 1: people out there, especially people of a certain age, it
Speaker 1: could really lead to some catastrophic things. How bad do
Speaker 1: you think the problem is with Facebook specifically? I mean,
Speaker 1: I I've wondered, is there one platform that is the
Speaker 1: most anti conservative? What do you think? Well, it's interesting
Speaker 1: they all seem to do it in slightly different ways,
Speaker 1: And I think they all do it in slightly different
Speaker 1: ways because they then share information with each other on
Speaker 1: what the best way to make their own internal liberal
Speaker 1: biases work. Are you know? Google ranks pro abortion posts
Speaker 1: higher in its search results, and it was found to
Speaker 1: be lying about that in congressional testimony, not just a
Speaker 1: couple of months ago. Facebook does mass deletions a lot quicker.
Speaker 1: Twitter shadow bands, which it means which by which I
Speaker 1: mean that they will allow you to post certain things,
Speaker 1: but those things won't necessarily appear in other people's news speeds.
Speaker 1: They just sort of go out into the ether and disappear,
Speaker 1: even to the point where, yeah, it's happened to the
Speaker 1: President of the United States in the last year. So
Speaker 1: they all do it in slightly different way, So I
Speaker 1: wouldn't say that one is necessarily worse than the other.
Speaker 1: I think they're They're all as nefarious as one another
Speaker 1: in this regard. And the fact of the matter is
Speaker 1: that no political figure, sadly on the political right, who
Speaker 1: is in a position to legislate on the matter or
Speaker 1: undo the existing legislation that protects these companies, like the
Speaker 1: provisions in the Communications Decency Act in the United States.
Speaker 1: They're not acting on it. And while I'm delighted that
Speaker 1: Donald Trump Junior is so active about this, he's not
Speaker 1: in a legislative position. And I just wonder what it's
Speaker 1: going to take for conservative politicians to realize that they
Speaker 1: cannot leave it too late for their own constituency, their
Speaker 1: own voters, their own supporters, before they're just completely eradicated
Speaker 1: of social media entirely. What do you think we should do?
Speaker 1: What should be done? Well? So, there are several provisions
Speaker 1: that exist at the moment that protect these firms that
Speaker 1: protect them specially from being thought of as as publications,
Speaker 1: from being thought of as publishers with editors. But they
Speaker 1: are publishers with editors because they decide what content goes up,
Speaker 1: They decide what trends, they decide what goes into the
Speaker 1: algorithms that automate those decisions. So at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, they are just like el is just like
Speaker 1: the New York Times in that regard, and Twitter is
Speaker 1: just like the Daily Caller in that regard. You know,
Speaker 1: they still have people calling the shots on editorial decisions. Now,
Speaker 1: the Communications Decency Act in the US actually protects social
Speaker 1: media firms and says they cannot be thought of as publishers.
Speaker 1: If they're not thought of as publishers, then they get
Speaker 1: away with this because they can't be sued for doing
Speaker 1: this stuff. They can't be sued for what goes on
Speaker 1: the site and they can't be sued for actually banning
Speaker 1: people like me. I would have no case in court
Speaker 1: to make today about that if you remove those provisions
Speaker 1: in the communications business yet, Remember I'm not asking for
Speaker 1: more government interference and actually asking to have governmental interference
Speaker 1: taken away from the industry as it stands right now.
Speaker 1: And if you remove that, you bring ordinary people one
Speaker 1: step closer to holding social media giants to account. Right him,
Speaker 1: becasalm everybody, right him. I've been telling folks that I'll
Speaker 1: be at Seapack this Friday. You're gonna be a seapack?
Speaker 1: Are you speaking? What are you speaking on? And how
Speaker 1: do people find raheem the dream I'll be doing a
Speaker 1: book signing at sea Packet I think five pm on
Speaker 1: the Friday, then speaking on the Saturday at two thirty
Speaker 1: pm on the main stage talking about Brexit, and then
Speaker 1: later on that evening Mike Sernovitch is holding an event
Speaker 1: which I've just agreed to speak out about social media
Speaker 1: biased and he asked me to do that just today.
Speaker 1: So three times that you can come from CB a
Speaker 1: pack and if you can't find me in those places,
Speaker 1: you'll probably safely assume I'm going to be at one
Speaker 1: of the bars. There you go, everybody. If you see Raheem,
Speaker 1: just remember he likes single malt and he likes Scotch
Speaker 1: old enough to order its own scotch. There you go,
Speaker 1: all right, everybody, Rahim Kasam Raighthim. I'll see you at
Speaker 1: Sea Pack Team. We'll be right back. It's hard to
Speaker 1: find the right candidate for that job opening. You've got
Speaker 1: a ton of resumes that will come in from all
Speaker 1: these different sites, and maybe a lot of the resumes
Speaker 1: aren't very good, or maybe you don't get many resumes
Speaker 1: at all because you don't know where to post. Well,
Speaker 1: that's not smart. I got an idea. I want to
Speaker 1: make this easy for you. Go to zip recruiter. That's
Speaker 1: what I've done to hire people, and I've gotten the
Speaker 1: best people. All right, zip recruiter dot com, slash buck.
Speaker 1: There's one place where you can go. We're hiring a simple,
Speaker 1: fast and easy forget about all those other ways. A
Speaker 1: place where businesses will get connected to qualified candidates. And
Speaker 1: that place is zip recruiter dot com slash buck. All right,
Speaker 1: you need to check it out for yourself. Zip recruiter
Speaker 1: sends your job to over one hundred of the web's
Speaker 1: leading boards. They don't stop there. They have powerful matching
Speaker 1: technology too. Zip Recruiter will scan thousands of resumes to
Speaker 1: find the best people. My listeners can try zipp recruiter
Speaker 1: for free at this exclusive web address zip recruiter dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck. That's zip recruiter dot com, slash buck one
Speaker 1: more time, zip recruiter dot com slash buck. We're no
Speaker 1: longer dealing with a normal, traditional Democratic party. We're looking
Speaker 1: at a party that has been dragged so far to
Speaker 1: the left it would have been unrecognizable to folks just
Speaker 1: a few years ago. In nineteen ninety six, Senor Daniel
Speaker 1: Patrick Monahan condemned partial birth abortion by comparing it to infanticide.
Speaker 1: That was a distinguished mainstream Democratic senator from New York
Speaker 1: about twenty years ago, and today today, nine Senate Democrats
Speaker 1: could not even vote to protect babies after they're born,
Speaker 1: and the only explanations they could offer were bizarre euphemisms
Speaker 1: and vague references to issues that have no bearing once
Speaker 1: a child has already been born alive. Mitch McConnell speaking forcefully,
Speaker 1: speaking truthfully about how far left and how completely even
Speaker 1: more and outrageous the Democrat Party has become. You will
Speaker 1: not hear this into you know, we'll not hear this
Speaker 1: on most of the news networks out there. They will
Speaker 1: not be spending time covering this in any detail. And CNN, MSNBC,
Speaker 1: The New York Times, it's treated as as a procedural,
Speaker 1: unimportant vote. It is anything but that. This is a
Speaker 1: day yesterday that should live in infamy for the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party and it should also serve as a clarifying moment
Speaker 1: for the rest of us as to what the other
Speaker 1: side is willing to do, how disgusting and deprave they're
Speaker 1: willing to be, and what it means to be on
Speaker 1: the wrong side of an issue. And dare I say
Speaker 1: the wrong side of history as the Democrats are here,
Speaker 1: the wrong side of morality, the wrong side of God,
Speaker 1: if I may say so. Ben Saas's not one of
Speaker 1: my favorite senators, but that doesn't really matter. People who
Speaker 1: do good things are doing good things. He has right
Speaker 1: on many things. He is right on this issue. Nebraska
Speaker 1: Senator sass A sponsor the Born Alive Abortion Survivors Protection Act,
Speaker 1: And this is a very straightforward bill. You'll notice that
Speaker 1: in many of the writeups of this, and I saw
Speaker 1: this when had happened last night. In many of the
Speaker 1: write ups, they don't link the text of the bill,
Speaker 1: so they can give you whatever interpretation, whatever weasel words
Speaker 1: and distraction terms that they want. They don't want you
Speaker 1: to read the text of the bill. Here's what the
Speaker 1: bill says, give or take, a baby that survives an
Speaker 1: abortion procedure must be given outside of the mother the
Speaker 1: same care that any other baby would under the circumstances,
Speaker 1: or else the doctor will be held criminally liable. Now
Speaker 1: that could not be a more straightforward, more clear moral proposition. Essentially,
Speaker 1: a baby is a baby. Babies deserve to be protected.
Speaker 1: Babies are precious. Babies are life, they are us, they
Speaker 1: are future. There are children, and the law must protect life. Well,
Speaker 1: forty four Democrats in the Senate blocked this bill. They
Speaker 1: blocked this bill because we now have this self imposed
Speaker 1: rule in the Senate that I completely disagree with. It
Speaker 1: is non constitutional. It is self imposed that to get
Speaker 1: anything important done, you need sixty votes. That's not what
Speaker 1: the constitution says, that's not what the Senate's supposed to be.
Speaker 1: Fifty one. It's tough enough to get fifty one on
Speaker 1: the same page. The number is not sixty, but now
Speaker 1: the Senate allows it to be sixty. And on this issue,
Speaker 1: a grave injustice was done because there are forty four
Speaker 1: Democrats who went against this. There were some Republicans. I
Speaker 1: would note, I'm sorry. Democrats are rather who voted with
Speaker 1: the Republicans, a handful of them because they come from
Speaker 1: red states where they want to convince voters that their
Speaker 1: pro life even though really they are part of the
Speaker 1: pro choice movement. Because Democrats are the party of abortion.
Speaker 1: There's no way around this. There's no other way that
Speaker 1: we should try to discuss this. The Democratic Party is
Speaker 1: the party of abortion. Senator Herono, who I say, and
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to be funny, I do think, is
Speaker 1: probably the dumbest person in Congress, certainly close to it.
Speaker 1: But she occasionally says something truthful because she does not
Speaker 1: have the guile, She does not have the intellectual complexity
Speaker 1: to come up with a lie on the spot. And
Speaker 1: she spoke about what the Democrats are favor of and
Speaker 1: what this bill would have done or would have prevented.
Speaker 1: Playclip thirteen. Lets the Senate isn't debating this legislation today
Speaker 1: because there is an epidemic of infasatide in this country.
Speaker 1: There is one. There is not one. There isn't one.
Speaker 1: Maybe that was Freudian, Maybe it wasn't. There is infantside
Speaker 1: going on though in this country as on a massive scale.
Speaker 1: It's just a question of how obvious is the infanticide.
Speaker 1: But then we get into the lies, and this is
Speaker 1: where you have Herrono try to give you one of
Speaker 1: the versions of the Democrat lies. I remember, it's a
Speaker 1: very straightforward bill. A baby that survives an abortion procedure,
Speaker 1: which this folks, I don't want to get into the details.
Speaker 1: It's incredibly graphic, it's horrific, but this does happen. A
Speaker 1: baby that survives an abortion procedure must be cared for
Speaker 1: by the medical professional who's there. The mother's mother had
Speaker 1: no legal liability in this bill. It's just the medical
Speaker 1: providers and to the doctor has to keep the baby alive,
Speaker 1: and that the right to an abortion is not the
Speaker 1: right to a dead baby, even if the baby is
Speaker 1: outside of the mother's womb. That's what this clarifies as
Speaker 1: a matter of law. Senator Harrono try to do the
Speaker 1: usual Democratic deflection play Cliff twelve when you strip away
Speaker 1: the ultra conservative rhetoric, you're left with a very simple
Speaker 1: argument from supporters of this legislation that the or judgment
Speaker 1: of right wing politicians in Washington, DC should supersede a
Speaker 1: medical professionals judgment and a woman's decision. Conservative politicians should
Speaker 1: not be telling doctors how they should care for their patients. Instead,
Speaker 1: women in consultation with their families and doctors are in
Speaker 1: the best position to determine their best course of care.
Speaker 1: Doesn't speak to the bill at all, doesn't deal with
Speaker 1: what's in the bill, just does the usual meandering women
Speaker 1: and doctors in decision making. And I've got news for her.
Speaker 1: It is illegal for doctors to kill their patients. And
Speaker 1: a baby outside the womb, that is breathing, that is
Speaker 1: living on its own, is a human being. It is
Speaker 1: a patient. And that there could be anybody who argues
Speaker 1: otherwise from the Democrat Party just goes to show you
Speaker 1: how grotesque and immoral the Democrats have become. Herono is
Speaker 1: part of this and people, if not in politics, in
Speaker 1: the next life, I can assure you will be held
Speaker 1: accountable for this because this is an offense against the
Speaker 1: most basic human decency. I mean Harono is an imbecile,
Speaker 1: but she's also a dangerous imbecile because she's running cover
Speaker 1: for this barbarity. Senate Democrats couldn't even figure out what
Speaker 1: the proper lie was to tell about this bill. They
Speaker 1: can't be certain should they say that it's already illegal
Speaker 1: or that it shouldn't be illegal? Well, depending on who
Speaker 1: you listen to, depending on whose word you take, it's
Speaker 1: one or the other. But shouldn't it be obvious? Shouldn't
Speaker 1: it be obvious? The deceptive language that the media uses
Speaker 1: by they talk about this is one of these instances
Speaker 1: where you see how deep the bias goes. I mean
Speaker 1: two of the areas where the media is the most
Speaker 1: insanely not just left wing, but but radicalized, I mean
Speaker 1: radicalized even beyond what your average run of the mill
Speaker 1: of Democrat is these days. Guns and abortion. Media is
Speaker 1: absolutely wacko about guns and abortion. They hate guns as
Speaker 1: a class. The media people hate guns, and they are
Speaker 1: in favor of abortion always in any context, in any case.
Speaker 1: They don't care for any reason or no reason. This
Speaker 1: is one of the most horrific things I've ever seen
Speaker 1: in politics. In many ways, it's the most clear, bright
Speaker 1: red line, violation of morality I've ever seen from the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. They have no leg to stand on here.
Speaker 1: There is no two there's no two sides to this argument.
Speaker 1: We are on the right side of this, my friends,
Speaker 1: Stand tall, keep your shield high, and keep fighting. This
Speaker 1: isn't about the border. This is about the constitution of
Speaker 1: the United States. This is not about politics. It's not
Speaker 1: about partisanship. It's about patriotism. We would be delinquent in
Speaker 1: our duties if we did not resist within out, fight
Speaker 1: back to overturn the president's declaration. Delinquent in her duty.
Speaker 1: She says, what a joke, How ridiculous, How ridiculous these
Speaker 1: Democrats are. Oh, they're going to pass a resolution against
Speaker 1: Trump in the wall. I mean, this is just so stupid.
Speaker 1: This is the definition the definitely of just Congress wasting
Speaker 1: everybody's time. I mean, look, it's politics, and I get that,
Speaker 1: but who cares. Yeah, we already know that the House
Speaker 1: Democrats don't agree with the National Emergency Declaration. We already
Speaker 1: know that the Left is a de facto open borders party. Now,
Speaker 1: when you actually dig into this a little bit, though,
Speaker 1: what you see is they're not going to get through this.
Speaker 1: I mean that the president's going to veto it. They're
Speaker 1: not going to be able to make this resolution happen
Speaker 1: or get signed by the president. So what is this
Speaker 1: really all about. It's about Democrats pretending to care all
Speaker 1: of a sudden about executive power. Nancy Pelosi said earlier today,
Speaker 1: our founders had a great vision. They did not want
Speaker 1: a king. This is wrong. We cannot let this proceed now.
Speaker 1: I would be much more minded to hearing their constitutional
Speaker 1: concerns if we had not just seen for eight years
Speaker 1: of the Obama administration far more sweeping use of executive
Speaker 1: authority than anything we've seen in the Trump administration. In fact,
Speaker 1: we are all supposed to accept, for some reason that
Speaker 1: what Obama had the discretion to do, for some as
Speaker 1: of yet unknown reason, Trump does not have the discretion
Speaker 1: to undo. So Obama. According to some federal courts right
Speaker 1: now full of activists, left wing judges, Obama had more
Speaker 1: power as present than Trump does because they liked Obama,
Speaker 1: because they agree with DOCA. I mean, DACA is as
Speaker 1: flagrantly unconstitutional and as much an abusive executive authority as
Speaker 1: anything that you could think of in the last decade,
Speaker 1: Probably the single most obvious one. At least Congress would
Speaker 1: not do what Obama wanted, so he said, I'm just
Speaker 1: going to do it in contravention of existing federal law
Speaker 1: and the stated will of the Congress. In fact, there
Speaker 1: was a time when the press, because they're a bunch
Speaker 1: of disgusting toadies and they were for they were for
Speaker 1: Obama and they still are for the Democratic Party, they
Speaker 1: were writing things that were undermining the very system of
Speaker 1: checks and balances we have because it was stopping Obama
Speaker 1: from doing exactly what he wanted to do. And they
Speaker 1: just can't accept that. They're not okay with that. You know,
Speaker 1: they were saying that maybe we should maybe we shouldn't
Speaker 1: allow the Congress to be intransigent. Remember how much you
Speaker 1: heard about being obstructionist under the Obama years. We would
Speaker 1: always here all obstruction. Obstruction was just a fancy way
Speaker 1: of saying Republicans won't do what Obama is telling them
Speaker 1: to do because they're Republicans and they got elected because
Speaker 1: they said they would oppose Obama. But that was called
Speaker 1: the instruction and obstructionism, and that was unacceptable. You see. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: when the Democrats now stand in the way of Trump's
Speaker 1: agenda at every turn that's considered checks and balances. See,
Speaker 1: this is the game at the media place, this is
Speaker 1: the game at the left is into and I just
Speaker 1: wish that they would establish some degree of honesty and consistency,
Speaker 1: because then I could take them seriously when they talk
Speaker 1: about the Constitution. But when Democrats like Nancy Pelosi talk
Speaker 1: about the Constitution, it's a little bit like when most
Speaker 1: Democrats on the left start to talk about the Bible.
Speaker 1: You know, they sound like they're coming across it in
Speaker 1: the teleprompter for the first time. You know, Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: like my favorite book in the New Testament job you
Speaker 1: know that one, or maybe it was the Old Testament,
Speaker 1: who knows. It's like when they talk about guns. Do
Speaker 1: a lot of Democrats they talk about guns, you know,
Speaker 1: they just want to I just want to ban the
Speaker 1: like Buzuka chain machine gun thingy because it's bad and
Speaker 1: it hurts people sit around. I say, maybe if they
Speaker 1: were so upset about what guns do and about, and
Speaker 1: they had so many problems that they thought could be
Speaker 1: solved with gun control, they would at least learn something
Speaker 1: about guns. But I digress. On this issue of the
Speaker 1: wall and the national emergency that Democrats are pretending this
Speaker 1: is not an emergency. I really hope comes back to
Speaker 1: bite them in twenty twenty. And here's how I think
Speaker 1: it might happen. Right now, they think this is good politics,
Speaker 1: gets their base of crazy people energized, all these left wing,
Speaker 1: you know, angry hippie types who are all for the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal and all this stuff. They get excited
Speaker 1: about this. But here's what's going to happen. Congress is
Speaker 1: not going to take any action on asylum. Congress is
Speaker 1: not going to do anything to deal with the fact
Speaker 1: that we have now a border that has incredibly large loopholes,
Speaker 1: that has all kinds of ways that people can abuse,
Speaker 1: can abuse to get in. So what's gonna happen is
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a year where at the end of
Speaker 1: the year, going to the twenty twenty elections, there will
Speaker 1: be would I would bet five hundred thousand people who
Speaker 1: have crossed into the country illegally or in an asylum
Speaker 1: requests request gambit that is all but certain to be
Speaker 1: fraudulent and fake. So you'll have a half a million
Speaker 1: people who will have crossed, which is starting to get
Speaker 1: back to the numbers of the worst days ever at
Speaker 1: the border. And here's what they won't tell you, but
Speaker 1: I will. The crisis now is worse than it was
Speaker 1: in the early two thousands when they got up to
Speaker 1: a million a year, because the rate of removal of
Speaker 1: those million was very was very high compared to what
Speaker 1: it is now. A lot of people who were crossing
Speaker 1: illegally are being caught and immediately deported during the worst
Speaker 1: times of a crossing at the southern border. Now the
Speaker 1: number who are being quickly processed and turned around for
Speaker 1: deportation is a much lower percentage. So whereas you had
Speaker 1: maybe a million people a year coming into the country then,
Speaker 1: but you had hundreds of thousands of them immediately deported
Speaker 1: now because of changes in the law, because of changes
Speaker 1: in the interpretation of the law by judges, and because
Speaker 1: of the abuse of the asylum process and the fact
Speaker 1: that the courts are so incredibly backlogged. You know, with
Speaker 1: all of that going on, you have a very small
Speaker 1: percentage of these people who are going to be deported,
Speaker 1: which means that the problem, the crisis at the border
Speaker 1: is actually much much worse because now the illegal crossings
Speaker 1: are going to result in permanent illegal aliens in this country.
Speaker 1: They're not going anywhere. So not only is there a
Speaker 1: crisis at the border, based on the numbers we're already seeing,
Speaker 1: by the end of the year, the numbers are going
Speaker 1: to show that this is as bad as it's ever
Speaker 1: been from an overall or at least close to what
Speaker 1: it's been from an overall crossing number. But the number
Speaker 1: or the percentage and number of those who have crossed
Speaker 1: into the country and have been deported is going to
Speaker 1: be so low that we're going to see as we
Speaker 1: have a near open border situation that our southern border
Speaker 1: that anybody who shows up and says they want to
Speaker 1: be in this country and tells a tale and has
Speaker 1: a story is going to be able to stay. And
Speaker 1: that is absolutely a crisis. If you believe in sovereignty,
Speaker 1: if you believe in rule of law, what is happening
Speaker 1: the borders a crisis. And so for the Democrats to
Speaker 1: have gone to all these lengths right now to say
Speaker 1: there is no crisis, I hope I hope that fifty
Speaker 1: one percent or more of the American voting public is
Speaker 1: paying attention and realizes that Democrats are a bunch of
Speaker 1: liars on this issue. They are liars. It is absolutely
Speaker 1: when the press its authority to declare this emergency, it
Speaker 1: is an emergency, and building a wall in areas that
Speaker 1: are particularly susceptible to illegal crossing would help this crisis.
Speaker 1: Effective today, the United States will impose additional sanctions on
Speaker 1: regime officials. These men work to block aid for people
Speaker 1: in need and suppress peaceful protests while they're tyrant danced
Speaker 1: in Caracas. Their actions will not go unpunished. More sanctions
Speaker 1: from the US against Venezuela, trying to get rid of
Speaker 1: this absolute tyrannical jerk Maduro who is just continuing on
Speaker 1: with the stupid policies of his predecessor Chavez. And there's
Speaker 1: obviously so much we could sit here and talk about
Speaker 1: when it comes to what a failed state and a
Speaker 1: catastrophe Venezuela has become. And I think it's it's important
Speaker 1: it did not have to be this way. It did
Speaker 1: not have to come apart like this. Venezuela did not
Speaker 1: suffer from some horrible, unforeseeable financial calamity. Venezuela is not
Speaker 1: trying to recover from some terrible civil war or something
Speaker 1: that the problem of Venezuela is people got into power
Speaker 1: who believe in Marxist doctrine and the redistribution of wealth,
Speaker 1: who embrace class warfare and anti Americanism as an explanation
Speaker 1: for the shortcomings of their country and their countrymen. And
Speaker 1: this is the end result of all of that, all right,
Speaker 1: This is the end result. And I do think that
Speaker 1: we need to strike a careful balance between trying to
Speaker 1: push for the ouster of or help you see this thing,
Speaker 1: even when you start to say it, I know, I'm
Speaker 1: the x CIA guy. So I start talking about coup
Speaker 1: and everyone goes, ooh, coup, and I'm like, look, guys,
Speaker 1: I'm out of that game. I don't know anything. I
Speaker 1: have no idea what's going on at that level. But
Speaker 1: just even discussing helping to get rid of somebody in
Speaker 1: a Central or South American country from the US government
Speaker 1: perspective brings up a lot of history and a lot
Speaker 1: of baggage with it, and I think we're making the
Speaker 1: right call by backing Kwaid. I would also note though,
Speaker 1: that the possibility for there to be some form of overreach, blowback,
Speaker 1: mission creep all that stuff. Essentially we end up getting
Speaker 1: more involved in this than we want to, and that's
Speaker 1: very real. We got a little reminder of that, I
Speaker 1: think yesterday when Jorge Ramos, most well known I think
Speaker 1: for being a Univision anchor and de facto open borders advocate,
Speaker 1: you know, very concerned about illegal immigrants, at least when
Speaker 1: they're Latino illegal immigrants. In general, he seems to have
Speaker 1: less less of a strong position on but he is very,
Speaker 1: very favorable in his coverage and in his analysis and
Speaker 1: all of that to the illegal immigrant Latino population in
Speaker 1: this country for obvious reasons. You know, he's a millionaire
Speaker 1: who lives in Miami, and he can talk all the
Speaker 1: time about how he just wants them to be more
Speaker 1: and more legal aliens in this country. But he was
Speaker 1: detained yesterday after having an interview with Maduro that Maduro
Speaker 1: and his people didn't like very much. Blake clip Ten
Speaker 1: I conducted an interview with Nicolas Mahuro. I ask him
Speaker 1: if I can call him either a precedent or a dictator,
Speaker 1: because as you know, millions of Venezuelans don't consider him
Speaker 1: a president. And then we discussed the reports of torture
Speaker 1: and human rights abuses and political prisoners, and at the
Speaker 1: end I showed him a video that I personally took
Speaker 1: last Sunday of three kids behind a trash truck looking
Speaker 1: for food. He just couldn't stand it. He didn't want
Speaker 1: to continue the interview. He tried to close my iPad
Speaker 1: where I showed him the video, and then he said
Speaker 1: the interview was over. I didn't want to give them
Speaker 1: my cell phone, so they turned off the light of
Speaker 1: the room and a group of agents came in. They
Speaker 1: took forcefully in my backpack, my cell phone, and they
Speaker 1: forced us to give them our pass coals. After two
Speaker 1: hours of being detained because we couldn't leave the palace.
Speaker 1: Two hours of being detained, they allow us to leave
Speaker 1: the presidential Palace. I think we'll never have that. That
Speaker 1: they don't want the world to see what we do now.
Speaker 1: That should send a little bit of a chill down
Speaker 1: your spine. I mean, we are dealing with it. We
Speaker 1: are dealing with a thug government here, and any analysts
Speaker 1: who are down there are taking some risks when they
Speaker 1: sit down, assuming they're going to ask real questions, assuming
Speaker 1: they're going to pose to this guy the reality of
Speaker 1: the country that I mean, he has presented over the
Speaker 1: complete and utter ruination of Venezuela and did not have
Speaker 1: to be this way. But he has been intransigent, and
Speaker 1: he's corrupt, and he's a bad guy. And when you
Speaker 1: ask a bad guy why he is that way, it
Speaker 1: tends not to take it very well. And obviously Mduro
Speaker 1: did not take it well, did not want to have
Speaker 1: to answer these kinds of questions, and so they seized him.
Speaker 1: But I would note, you know, Hory Ramos, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: is he a U. I think he's a US citizen,
Speaker 1: So let's assume he is. Yes, Yes, he is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So Horrey Ramos is a US citizen. You know, you
Speaker 1: grab one of ours, and I'm because we are principal.
Speaker 1: Then we are conservatives and we are Americans. Darn it.
Speaker 1: You know, you grab one of ours, we we unify,
Speaker 1: we are together. You know, Jorge Ramos is one of us.
Speaker 1: He is a US citizen. So you lay a hand
Speaker 1: on jorgey in some foreign country, you're some dictator, some stooge,
Speaker 1: some some squad of of of ruffians. We need the
Speaker 1: full weight and force the United States government to make
Speaker 1: sure that you get out of there. This is what
Speaker 1: I mean by this stuff can get out of hand
Speaker 1: very very quickly. You know, if they had seized our diplomats,
Speaker 1: that's an active war. What if they seize a bunch
Speaker 1: of American citizen journalists, What if Majorro seizes them? Are
Speaker 1: we gonna escalate even further? I think the answer has
Speaker 1: to be yes, you can't touch our people. You know,
Speaker 1: It's like Jack Nicholson in The Departed. There are guys
Speaker 1: he can't hit. And as far as I'm concerned, and
Speaker 1: as far as you know, I think all Americans should
Speaker 1: be concerned. On the world stage, no foreign government is
Speaker 1: able to without obviously legal justification. But no foreign government's
Speaker 1: able to take one of our people, and certainly not
Speaker 1: for an interview. So I gotta tell you on this one,
Speaker 1: I stand with Jorge Man and I'm glad Jores out
Speaker 1: of there, because if we had to send in our
Speaker 1: guys to free him and his team, I'd be all
Speaker 1: for it. A US citizen and I know some of
Speaker 1: you really don't like Jorge, and I get that, but
Speaker 1: a citizen is a citizen. Man, He's one of ours,
Speaker 1: so we got to remember that. But Venezuela, that just
Speaker 1: shows you how quickly this thing can can actually spiral
Speaker 1: out of control. That's what we got to be very careful.
Speaker 1: We want mcduau gone, but we don't want to make
Speaker 1: this our problem. We got enough problems here. Well, look
Speaker 1: at the Democrats in the House and the Green New
Speaker 1: Deal and the lunacy that these people are are pushing for,
Speaker 1: the crazy that they're talking about. We got our hands
Speaker 1: full handling all that stuff. We don't want to be
Speaker 1: in a position where we have to try to deal
Speaker 1: with all the deprivation and destruction inside of Venezuela. Man.
Speaker 1: We do not want another reconstruction mission, so we'll keep
Speaker 1: an eye on it, but we got to keep arms
Speaker 1: length too. The only dual certified veteran owned background investigation
Speaker 1: and vetting company out there is Global Verification Network. You
Speaker 1: need background checks to be done for any business, large
Speaker 1: or small, so give Global Verification a call, even if
Speaker 1: you've already got somebody in the pass who's done your
Speaker 1: background checks. Global Verification Network will give you a more
Speaker 1: competitive price, a program that's tailored to your needs. And
Speaker 1: also they'll make sure that on those cases where you
Speaker 1: really need an answer and you need one fast, they
Speaker 1: will get it done for you. For all your background
Speaker 1: vetting and investigations. This is the place you should go.
Speaker 1: Call eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: Make sure you tell him you heard about him on
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. That's eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine. Or you can just go
Speaker 1: to MYGVN dot com. That's my GVN dot com. Global
Speaker 1: Verification Network never offshores your information, leave no stone unturned.
Speaker 1: Make sure you go with Global Verification Network. You are
Speaker 1: now entering the Freedom Hontical Operation Center. All sensitive programs
Speaker 1: Musky Caps strictly need to know Team Buck is cleared
Speaker 1: and ready for the Buck Brief. It is more likely
Speaker 1: than not that there is a conflict, possibly a full
Speaker 1: blown war with an allerging nuclear power. He is not
Speaker 1: merely being cavalier with a threat about nuclear war. He's
Speaker 1: been cavalier in a way that makes him seem demented.
Speaker 1: These are the messages from a person who is not well,
Speaker 1: from a leader who is not fit for office, after
Speaker 1: a nuclear holocaust, after a million diars. And that's where
Speaker 1: we are. This is not an exaggeration, probably closer to
Speaker 1: an outright war with North Korea. Got a thirty percent
Speaker 1: chance of war. I'd say, from where I sit right now,
Speaker 1: easily construe what he's been saying as a declaration or
Speaker 1: at least a threat of war. What is the ignition
Speaker 1: point for Kimy and Moon's fuse with this provrocative rhetoric.
Speaker 1: Trump's comments about nuclear weapons have experts worried he could
Speaker 1: literally inadvertently trigger a catastrophe. You have reason to be
Speaker 1: scared of a war that could wipe out five hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people. No, I just think he wants to use nukes.
Speaker 1: That's what I think he feels. What a bunch of lunatics.
Speaker 1: That's just giving you a little a little sense of
Speaker 1: what's going on here with the media. As Trump enters
Speaker 1: this moment of high stakes diplomacy in Hanoi. We'll say
Speaker 1: that I never got to when I was in Vietnam,
Speaker 1: only got to Saigan. But I'm sure I know he's
Speaker 1: a very interesting place to visit. So Trump's there right now.
Speaker 1: The media have been saying for a long time that
Speaker 1: he was going to start I mean you heard it.
Speaker 1: They were saying, oh, the risk of nuclear war. They're
Speaker 1: all so concerned about it. Now they're worried that Trump
Speaker 1: is trying too hard to get a piece deal. Whatever
Speaker 1: it is that Trump is doing that is always and
Speaker 1: it always the most awful thing for them. That's the
Speaker 1: thing that they cannot forgive because Trump is the worst.
Speaker 1: In fact, the Libs are so hateful toward Trump that
Speaker 1: you don't ever really pick up that they hate Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un or that they find this character to be odious.
Speaker 1: There was a pretty stark piece today in the Daily
Speaker 1: Mail that broke down some of Kim Jung UN's most
Speaker 1: sadistic hits. This is some Daily Mail. Kim Jong un
Speaker 1: is using barbaric methods to purge officials and cling onto power.
Speaker 1: According to an investigation out of South Korea, the dictator
Speaker 1: has had four hundred and twenty one officials executed in
Speaker 1: exile since seizing power in twenty eleven, with victims being
Speaker 1: fed naked to hunting dogs, blown up with anti aircraft guns,
Speaker 1: burned alive with flamethrowers, and hanged. In some cases, entire
Speaker 1: families of officials have been executed, while others were imprisoned
Speaker 1: in concentration camps and erased from society. Kim is also
Speaker 1: said to have ordered the execution of his own family members,
Speaker 1: including his uncle Jang Song take, who was executed in
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen, and his half brother jong nam, who was
Speaker 1: assassinated at a Malaysian airport in twenty seventeen. Some of
Speaker 1: you probably remember that one's and he had U or
Speaker 1: when the when Kim Jong gun had two female assassins
Speaker 1: go up to Kim Jong un and wipe a nerve
Speaker 1: gas a nerve toxin across his mouth, and the guy
Speaker 1: then died. Pretty brazen attack. But this is who we're
Speaker 1: we're dealing with here. I mean, this is the individual
Speaker 1: that the media spends far less time updating the American
Speaker 1: people on, because I think if they understood just how
Speaker 1: sadistic the regime is and how and how how sadistic
Speaker 1: it has been, then maybe they'd have a greater understanding
Speaker 1: of the status quo. Is not acceptable that US just
Speaker 1: waiting around to see how advanced North Korea's nuclear program
Speaker 1: can get. Uh, that's that's not going to end well
Speaker 1: for anybody, for anyone involved. I do have to say
Speaker 1: that the some of the reporting about Kim Jong gun
Speaker 1: is is kind of interesting. This guy shows up, that's
Speaker 1: not about him being a statistic maniac. This guy shows
Speaker 1: up in an armored train that's traveled two thousand miles
Speaker 1: from the Korean peninsula and he is. It said that
Speaker 1: he might be wearing two inch lifts. So Kim is
Speaker 1: kind of a widow guy. And also, you know, he
Speaker 1: is smoking, which is only interesting because the Washington Post report.
Speaker 1: Since a nationwide anti smoking campaign began a North Korea
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, Kim Jong owen has rarely been seen with
Speaker 1: a cigarette in his hand. But this week, as the
Speaker 1: young North Korean leader made his way to Vietnam, we
Speaker 1: got confirmation he hasn't given up the habit. Japan's TBS
Speaker 1: JNN caught footage of Kim pacing up on the platform
Speaker 1: taking a smoke during his sixty five hour train journey
Speaker 1: from pyeong Yang. So he's a smoker. So I guess
Speaker 1: Obama have that in common. Remember Obama used to smoke cigarettes.
Speaker 1: The media would and not that I care. You know, fine,
Speaker 1: he's a guy smoke cigarettes. The media was always a
Speaker 1: little touchy about it, though, you know, we don't want
Speaker 1: to show anybody that Obama is a smoker. Well, it's
Speaker 1: definitely touchy North Korea for whatever reason. Mike producer Mike
Speaker 1: makes a good point here that they should really like
Speaker 1: Kim Jong un insofar as he's willing to take a
Speaker 1: train two thousand miles. You know, maybe maybe Kim Jong
Speaker 1: un would be on board for the Green New deal
Speaker 1: that makes a train that goes from the continent the
Speaker 1: United States to Hawaii. I suppose that that is possible. Anyway,
Speaker 1: there's a look, there's a lot of pageantry around this,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of media attention, and there are thousands
Speaker 1: of journalists right now who have converged on Hannoy to
Speaker 1: talk about this. I have pretty low expectations, as I've
Speaker 1: been telling you. This is why I'm not leading the
Speaker 1: show with this. I know there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people that are spending probably more time in this than
Speaker 1: I am, But I mean, I just have to say
Speaker 1: that I don't see this. I don't see this resulting
Speaker 1: in any kind of major breakthrough. It's just very unlikely
Speaker 1: that North Korea is going to give up nuclear weapons.
Speaker 1: And I can't help but think that part of this
Speaker 1: is the biggest part of this, is that there's obviously
Speaker 1: a incredibly militaristic outlook from the North Korean State and
Speaker 1: the North Korean state. The propaganda. We always think of
Speaker 1: propaganda as it just affects the people like the masses,
Speaker 1: but in the case of North Korea. How much have
Speaker 1: the leadership bought into this? How much of what we
Speaker 1: were seeing with the North Korean people and the incredibly
Speaker 1: xenophobic and racist caricatures of Americans and of other Asians
Speaker 1: that is fed to the North Korean people on a
Speaker 1: regular basis. How much of that is also internalized by
Speaker 1: at least some of the senior leadership. I think a lot.
Speaker 1: It would be fascinating if I could sit down and
Speaker 1: have an honest, the off the record conversation with any
Speaker 1: world leader. I mean, Kim John Un would be an
Speaker 1: incredibly interesting guy to talk to. You know, he is
Speaker 1: a I mean, he is a mass murderer. So but
Speaker 1: then again, I mean, it would be interesting to sit
Speaker 1: down and talk to a lot of mass murderers. You know,
Speaker 1: what does he really believe? What does he really think?
Speaker 1: He went to boarding school in Switzerland, so he's been
Speaker 1: exposed to the outside world. I know that a lot
Speaker 1: of people were angry at Trump today because he said
Speaker 1: that Kim John Unn doesn't seem like he's messed up
Speaker 1: from his upbring? Is it? Oh? Trump is calling dictators again.
Speaker 1: I just want to say to them, you know, guys,
Speaker 1: he's trying to get a deal done here. He's trying
Speaker 1: to make some headway. Can you just can you let
Speaker 1: Trump operate a little bit without just breathing down his
Speaker 1: neck about everything on this one. He's trying to essentially
Speaker 1: pull off off the near impossible, And if he pulls
Speaker 1: off the near impossible in this case, he will have
Speaker 1: saved likely I don't know when, I don't know what timeframe,
Speaker 1: but it will save hundreds of thousands of lives. You know,
Speaker 1: that's a very likely scenario. Hundreds of thousands of lives saved.
Speaker 1: And I think that when the president has an option
Speaker 1: to do that and is trying to do that, people
Speaker 1: should maybe just back off a tiny, tiny bit. In
Speaker 1: the media, I'm not saying they can't hold him accountable,
Speaker 1: but I'm just saying that they criticize every word. You know,
Speaker 1: they're so hypothet again, they do that with Trump on everything.
Speaker 1: Everything Trump says is terrible. And we'll see what happens
Speaker 1: in this summit. It goes on for a few days,
Speaker 1: Trump will be back. In fact, Trump will be at
Speaker 1: sea pack at the end of the week, so I'm
Speaker 1: sure he'll give some insight there, and I'm guessing I'll
Speaker 1: be there because I'll be at sea pack about how
Speaker 1: this whole week goes. But the summit is going on
Speaker 1: right now. Yesterday on the show, I talked a bit
Speaker 1: about who gets the presumption of innocence and who doesn't,
Speaker 1: and Professor Dershowitz, who himself has had his reputation tarnished
Speaker 1: with allegations, or at least as he has been very
Speaker 1: vociferous in his denunciations of them, these fake allegations. But
Speaker 1: this is a real problem because we as a society
Speaker 1: need to protect the presumption of innocence as something that
Speaker 1: is not political but is a principle. But we also
Speaker 1: don't want to allow the left to get away with
Speaker 1: weaponizing the presumption of innocence and only using it for
Speaker 1: their own side, and whereas our side gets it taken away,
Speaker 1: creating this imbalance. Right, only Democrats get the presumption. We
Speaker 1: do not get the presumption of innocence. And I meant
Speaker 1: to get to the latest Virginia where you know, right
Speaker 1: now you've got Chicago has the r. Kelly trial and
Speaker 1: the Jesse Smalltt situation, or well the arrest of R.
Speaker 1: Kelly and the Jesse Smallet arrest to deal with, and
Speaker 1: I think Ram Emmanuel stepped down from being the mayor,
Speaker 1: and they had an election today there too, what's up
Speaker 1: Windy City, And you know, so they're getting a lot
Speaker 1: of attention there, and you've gotten far less of a
Speaker 1: media focus on what's happening in Virginia, where you had
Speaker 1: this just string of incredibly damaging stories about the top
Speaker 1: three one, two, three count them politicians for the state
Speaker 1: of Virginia, all of whom were in meshon major scandals. Right.
Speaker 1: We had Northam with his black face photo and his yearbook,
Speaker 1: which he lied about and then kind of didn't lie about,
Speaker 1: but still lies about it. And you also have Mark Harring,
Speaker 1: number three guy, who said that Northam should step down
Speaker 1: for his black face photo, but then it came out
Speaker 1: that Harring himself had maybe had black face photos he
Speaker 1: said in the past. But the number two guy, the
Speaker 1: lieutenant governor of the state of Virginia, just in Fairfax,
Speaker 1: he still stands accused of two very serious sex crimes,
Speaker 1: I mean two sexual assaults, and Fairfax doesn't plan on resigning.
Speaker 1: He called for an FBI investigation, and I wish that
Speaker 1: you know, this is one of the legacies of the
Speaker 1: effort to destroy Cavanaugh that I just wish people would
Speaker 1: understand is completely preposterous. The FBI is not the super police.
Speaker 1: You're not just oh, you're not in a position to say, oh,
Speaker 1: something happened that I want to get the definitive answer
Speaker 1: on it's let's just call in the FBI. That's not
Speaker 1: how it works. Okay, the FBI is not the superpolice,
Speaker 1: and people need to stop pretending that they are. But
Speaker 1: this is also what I think Joy read at MSNBC
Speaker 1: when she said that her blog was hacked and that
Speaker 1: homophobic language was used by somebody pretending to be her
Speaker 1: ten years ago on her blog that nobody was reading.
Speaker 1: But I don't think she actually followed the report the FBI,
Speaker 1: So she was pretty sly. She said she wanted an
Speaker 1: FBI investigation, but she didn't actually take it to that
Speaker 1: next step. Just in Fairfax, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, it's
Speaker 1: got two women who have come forward on the record
Speaker 1: to yes, that's right, credibly, that does not that's not
Speaker 1: the same as saying proven but credibly accused him of
Speaker 1: sexual assault. Fairfax went on on offense and then some
Speaker 1: play clip one if we go backwards and we rushed
Speaker 1: the judgment, and we allow for political lynchings without any
Speaker 1: due process, any facts, that the evidence being heard, then
Speaker 1: I think we do a disservice to this very body
Speaker 1: in which we all serve. And I want to stand
Speaker 1: in this moment in the truth, not only which has
Speaker 1: tested my constitution personally, but it's testing the constitution of
Speaker 1: the Comwealth of Virginia and of the United States of America.
Speaker 1: Now I'm I'm a little torn in two directions on
Speaker 1: this issue of Fairfax. And this is an issue really
Speaker 1: for the Democrats more. But just let's understand first and
Speaker 1: foremost that you have three politicians, with two of them
Speaker 1: admitting misconduct that was racist in their past. Whether you
Speaker 1: think they should resign for that or not. But the
Speaker 1: only guy that as of a week ago, looked like
Speaker 1: he might be forced to resign they were going to
Speaker 1: impeach him in the Virginia legislature was justin Fairfax, the
Speaker 1: only African American of the three. That's a bad look
Speaker 1: for the Democrats. So you can start with that, But
Speaker 1: then you go into the dynamics at work here with
Speaker 1: the Fairfax situation, and here's a guy who you know,
Speaker 1: I look, I find his accusers credible. I can't say
Speaker 1: they haven't proven it beyond a reasonable doubt a court
Speaker 1: of law, so there can't be any legal sanctions against
Speaker 1: him yet. But it's sounds to me like these are
Speaker 1: credible accusations. The problem, though, is that this is a
Speaker 1: This is a classic I mean, both of his accusers
Speaker 1: are in he said, she said situations now, unlike in
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh. In the Kavanaugh circumstance, there is an admitted
Speaker 1: There is admitted sexual conduct with both of these accusers.
Speaker 1: He's just saying it was consensual. They're saying it wasn't.
Speaker 1: But this isn't. I don't remember when, I don't remember
Speaker 1: what year, I don't remember remember what house. I don't
Speaker 1: have any facts, I don't have anything back this up.
Speaker 1: Everything about this lines up from what we've seen so far.
Speaker 1: And of course, the media buried these stories and didn't
Speaker 1: want to The Washington Post didn't want to run with
Speaker 1: this story because Fairfax's Democrat and he's an African American,
Speaker 1: and they just weren't interested in in running with the story,
Speaker 1: even though based on the Kavanaugh standard, they would have.
Speaker 1: But I find his accusers credible, But I'm also somebody
Speaker 1: who wants there to be due process, and so my
Speaker 1: cicism of this is, how do we adjudicate in an
Speaker 1: era of sexual assault allegations that have rocked and taken
Speaker 1: down some very powerful people, how do we adjudicate it?
Speaker 1: I mean, if you are a public figure and you're
Speaker 1: accused by somebody of sexual assault, are you just supposed
Speaker 1: to step down? I think the answer has to be no.
Speaker 1: I think there has to be some process. There has
Speaker 1: to be some due process for somebody, like justin Fairfax.
Speaker 1: So there is. There is this part of it. It It
Speaker 1: feels like the guy, as much as I look, I
Speaker 1: believe the women who are accusing him, and it's not
Speaker 1: just because of politics or anything like that. I the stories,
Speaker 1: it all lines up, and the way this guy spoke
Speaker 1: about those women when they accused him, as was initially reported.
Speaker 1: It's just I believe it. That's not the same thing
Speaker 1: as saying it's proven. Though I can't say they've proven anything.
Speaker 1: They could in fact be settling scores against him. This
Speaker 1: could be some kind of a personal vendetta, and I
Speaker 1: cannot rule that out. That's why I believe in a process.
Speaker 1: The other part of me, or the other part of
Speaker 1: this discussion, though that I think we need to just
Speaker 1: keep in mind at some level is that if Fairfax
Speaker 1: was a Republican and these allegations were made, you would
Speaker 1: see NonStop coverage. I mean, MSNBC would probably have a
Speaker 1: timer in the bottom of the screen for all of
Speaker 1: their segments, you know, time elapse since Fairfax allegations without
Speaker 1: a resignation. I mean, they would put so much pressure
Speaker 1: and so much heat on a Republican to resign in
Speaker 1: these circumstances. Now, that doesn't make it right for us
Speaker 1: to do the same thing, but I do think that
Speaker 1: it's it's noteworthy that this double standard now is something
Speaker 1: that we're kind of accepting because we have principles, because
Speaker 1: we have scruples on the right about due process, and
Speaker 1: we don't get caught up in the same degree of
Speaker 1: hysterics around sexual assault allegations and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: Because of all of that, we are vulnerable in a
Speaker 1: way that democrats are not. So, even in a case
Speaker 1: like this where the allegations are very credible, I will
Speaker 1: say that democrats deserve some degree of due process. They
Speaker 1: will not respond in kind. They do not respond to
Speaker 1: my good faith with good faith of their own. They
Speaker 1: like the double standard and are acting to maintain it.
Speaker 1: And the media silence around Fairfax is just more evidence
Speaker 1: of this. So I'm going to continue to follow this story,
Speaker 1: but this is a complicated one. I don't think he's
Speaker 1: going to step down, by the way, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's going to happen. It sounds like the plot of
Speaker 1: a not particularly creative movie, but it apparently happened. There
Speaker 1: was an Amtrak train outside of Eugene, Oregon, on its
Speaker 1: way to Los Angeles, with two hundred people on board,
Speaker 1: and it got stuck in deep snow for over thirty
Speaker 1: six hours. By the way, this definitely could be a
Speaker 1: plot of a movie or a short or something like that,
Speaker 1: because they had all this snow and people got stuck
Speaker 1: for thirty six hours. And I got to tell you
Speaker 1: first of all the stories here, it's pretty cute. Turns
Speaker 1: out that people were telling stories and playing cards and
Speaker 1: there was quote a giant coomb Baya party. They had
Speaker 1: heat and power and food on the train, so they
Speaker 1: weren't cold and they weren't hungry, and you know, everything
Speaker 1: was they could look at their iPads and everything else,
Speaker 1: and they basically had a big snow party or like
Speaker 1: a snow day party on this train with people dancing
Speaker 1: in the aisles playing music. Some guy busted out his ukulele.
Speaker 1: Just happened to have a ukulele and played it for
Speaker 1: the amusement of his fellow passengers. You had twenty students
Speaker 1: from Japan who just happened to be on this train.
Speaker 1: They must have had quite a little adventure, as well
Speaker 1: as a few dozen other college students. So you know,
Speaker 1: it's a nice story, and I think I've got an
Speaker 1: idea for a pretty formulaic movie plot or something, or
Speaker 1: at least episode of a TV show. Stuck on the
Speaker 1: Amtrak train in the snow for thirty six hours. Although
Speaker 1: I can tell you this even with power and heat
Speaker 1: and all that stuff. The infamous Acella Corridor which connects
Speaker 1: New York City and DC and Boston right, so it
Speaker 1: goes from Boston south through New York, through Philadelphia and
Speaker 1: ends in DC. If you had an incident where the
Speaker 1: Ascella train was stuck for thirty six hours and people
Speaker 1: weren't able to get off of it, let me tell
Speaker 1: you something. The Ascella train after about I was gonna
Speaker 1: say three hours would turn into some kind of scene
Speaker 1: from like mad Max with a walking dead, Like everybody
Speaker 1: on that train thinks that they've got really important things
Speaker 1: to do and they need to get moving or right away.
Speaker 1: So the Ascella train is going to be a slightly
Speaker 1: different vibe. I don't think it would have turned into
Speaker 1: a Kumbaya party. And I gotta tell you whatever. I
Speaker 1: have to ride the Ascella fair amount because I go
Speaker 1: back and forth between New York and DC. And you
Speaker 1: gotta pay attention because there's always other journalists on that train.
Speaker 1: So if you're on the phone, as many of you
Speaker 1: know on an Amtrak train and you're like, hey, Bobert's
Speaker 1: going on, what's the ladies with the deal? Or we're
Speaker 1: getting you know, whenever you're talking, everybody on that train
Speaker 1: can pretty much hear you, so you really have to
Speaker 1: pay attention to it. And the food on Amtrak. I
Speaker 1: still don't understand how the food is so bad. They've
Speaker 1: improved some of the non perishables, like at least they
Speaker 1: have better granola bars and potato chips available now, But
Speaker 1: how hard would it be in an era of food
Speaker 1: trucks that show up all over the place and turn
Speaker 1: out gourmet cuisine. How hard would it be to have
Speaker 1: Amtrak food service serve stuff that was slightly above edible.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's really asking too much. I don't
Speaker 1: think it should be considered impossible for us to get
Speaker 1: to a point where Amtrak would be able to serve
Speaker 1: decent food. But I think that if you're stuck in
Speaker 1: snowbanks and outside of Oregon and I guess, I guess
Speaker 1: a rural area, whatever food they give you, I bet
Speaker 1: that frozen HOGI that they've been holding onto in the
Speaker 1: Amtrak food cart for last five or six years, that
Speaker 1: it tasted pretty darn good when it got microwaved. But
Speaker 1: it was a nice little story, and it just reminded
Speaker 1: me of how train travel is the most for me,
Speaker 1: the most preferable and civilized way to get from city
Speaker 1: to city and the East Coast. But that's only because
Speaker 1: we all assume we're not hit any traffic or any problems.
Speaker 1: The moment things start to go bad, people on that train,
Speaker 1: you can just feel the Ascella crew. I don't mean
Speaker 1: that the actual crew, I mean the people who ride
Speaker 1: the Acella. Their blood pressure collectively rises because they're all
Speaker 1: so important and have so much stuff to do. It
Speaker 1: starts to feel very very different vibe. So anyway, nice
Speaker 1: little story out of Oregon. I know we're on a
Speaker 1: great station in Oregon. Shield's hide all of you up
Speaker 1: in the Northwest who listen to the show. We have
Speaker 1: a fantastic role call up. Next show ain't over yet, folks,
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. I just want to mind
Speaker 1: everybody that I will be at Seepack, the Conservative Political
Speaker 1: Action Conference, this Friday. I will be there in the morning,
Speaker 1: and that's the thing you probably want to see. It'll
Speaker 1: be on the main stage a debate over Syria and
Speaker 1: the Trump administration's decision making in Syria. I'll also be
Speaker 1: moderating a panel on cyber warfare in the evening, but
Speaker 1: I think the Syria thing is the thing that's going
Speaker 1: to be the most exciting one. So definitely, if you're
Speaker 1: going to be in the Washington DC area, although technically
Speaker 1: the conference is in Maryland, it's at the Gaylord Convention
Speaker 1: Center in Maryland, with just south of Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: You should definitely come by. And if you see me
Speaker 1: walking the grounds at Seapack, please come up say hi.
Speaker 1: As many members of the team as I can give
Speaker 1: high fives to chat up a little bit get to
Speaker 1: meet the better. So that's this Friday Seapack. I'm hoping
Speaker 1: some young Team Bucks, some Team Buck campus shows up.
Speaker 1: This will be my first year as a media person
Speaker 1: at sea Pack. I went to Seapack as a just
Speaker 1: a person going to see I act to check it out.
Speaker 1: Maybe in two thousand and six or two thousand and seven,
Speaker 1: so it's been over a decade. I was a young
Speaker 1: CIA officer and I just went to patrol the grounds
Speaker 1: at Sepack and see what was going on. So I'll
Speaker 1: be there this year in my capacity as a commentator,
Speaker 1: radio host, all that good stuff. Let's get to your
Speaker 1: roll call thoughts, my friends. Robin first up, So the
Speaker 1: twelve week family leave should it be a federal mandate
Speaker 1: or law? No? Is it beneficial for families? Absolutely? I
Speaker 1: realize you have not had a child or actually given birth.
Speaker 1: It is hard work. It is like your insides running
Speaker 1: a marathon. And then you aren't permitted to sleep, eat,
Speaker 1: or bathe regularly for days. The mother isn't even released
Speaker 1: by medical professionals to drive for four to six weeks,
Speaker 1: depending on the method of delivery. Six weeks is essential.
Speaker 1: Eight weeks is enough to establish a decent milk supply
Speaker 1: and feeding schedule. Twelve weeks is emotionally health Robin. I
Speaker 1: have zero insider expertise on this matter, as I am
Speaker 1: neither a woman who has given birth, nor even a
Speaker 1: father of a child and married to a woman who
Speaker 1: has therefore given birth. So I defer to all of
Speaker 1: your knowledge and expertise on this. But I think you
Speaker 1: you understand My point is not that family leave isn't good.
Speaker 1: It's that mandatory twelve weeks of family leave is going
Speaker 1: to be If that's a federal mandate, that's going to
Speaker 1: be a problem for some businesses. It just is. And
Speaker 1: if it's a federal mandate, dentdal also be concerns about
Speaker 1: hiring women for some small businesses. So you know, there's nothing.
Speaker 1: Nothing in this world is free or easy, my friends,
Speaker 1: There's trade offs all over the place. Rita Right's well, Buck,
Speaker 1: we knew it'll be a difficult year watching dams with
Speaker 1: a bit of power, but it's just begun and they've
Speaker 1: set a new low. I cannot decide if the GOP
Speaker 1: planned it or if they stumbled onto it blindly. But
Speaker 1: between McConnell and sam As, the Dems have been forced
Speaker 1: to expose their creepy little underbellies. All their talking points
Speaker 1: have been reduced to simple yammering if only one child
Speaker 1: is saved, or women's health or separating children, if the
Speaker 1: GOP is smart and ruthless enough to use this AMMO
Speaker 1: shields high. Yeah, Rita's it's appalling and it's something that
Speaker 1: we should not just skip past quickly that Democrats are
Speaker 1: so willing, so very willing to either run interference for,
Speaker 1: put up a smokescreen for, or just openly advocate for infanticide,
Speaker 1: which is what they're doing. They can pretend that it's
Speaker 1: already in the law, but it's not. And if it
Speaker 1: we're already in the law, then why not just pass
Speaker 1: this law to affirm the law already on the books.
Speaker 1: But they know that it will force some very uncomfortable questions,
Speaker 1: as we've been discussing here on the show, if in
Speaker 1: fact there was in the law criminal culpability for the
Speaker 1: destruction of a born fetus also known as a baby.
Speaker 1: And that is why the left. Look, the Left has
Speaker 1: embraced evil and destruction here when it comes to the
Speaker 1: issue of life, and nobody ever wants to believe that
Speaker 1: about themselves, even bad people like to think that there's
Speaker 1: some explanation, there's some justification for their badness, and that's
Speaker 1: what we see happening here with many other proponents of
Speaker 1: his policy on the left. Stephen writes, Buck, your Trey
Speaker 1: Gaudy isn't too bad. Sounds a little bit like the
Speaker 1: chef from the Muppets. You need to go a little
Speaker 1: more gomer Pile, keep up the good workshields high world. Stephen,
Speaker 1: thank you very much for telling me this thing over here.
Speaker 1: The Trey garrity sounds Cadillock Trey gawty. You know, I
Speaker 1: think my Trey Gaudy's kind of close. Guys. I know
Speaker 1: a lot of you in the South say my Trey
Speaker 1: Gauty is terrible, and I respect that, but it's not.
Speaker 1: It's not that far off, all right, it's not. You know, Burke,
Speaker 1: maybe if you spend more time with Trey on the
Speaker 1: television set, you know, doing the green room discussion, having
Speaker 1: a little chit chat. Hen, come on, it sounds a
Speaker 1: little bit. Don't make me start playing Trey Goudy sound bites.
Speaker 1: Know the Congress has the overstart capa build. Come on,
Speaker 1: it's my tray, is not you know what I don't have,
Speaker 1: and I realize that it's a real shortcoming in my
Speaker 1: impersonation repertoire. I don't have a Trump, and I hear
Speaker 1: so many people do bad Trump impressions, and I don't
Speaker 1: want to be yet another bad Trump impression, because you
Speaker 1: really have to work on your Trump and it has
Speaker 1: to be good or else it's it's like a Scottish accent.
Speaker 1: You gotta really think about it and work on it,
Speaker 1: or else you're just hell id if you have what
Speaker 1: my body, Yeah, I think I'm sick. Sick. Come you know,
Speaker 1: you just end up copying Mike Myers from So I
Speaker 1: Married an Axe Murder, which is actually not a bad
Speaker 1: place to start. But you need to work on your
Speaker 1: Scottish accent before you could throw Scottish accent out there.
Speaker 1: And some of you are probably like Buck, whatever happened
Speaker 1: to your character Angus McManus, I haven't forgot. Angus isn't
Speaker 1: dead and buried. I just don't do as many characters
Speaker 1: on this show because I feel like there's a national
Speaker 1: radio audience we got, you know, hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: people listening the show coast to coast. I don't want
Speaker 1: to you know, I feel like I only have so
Speaker 1: much time, and I don't know, maybe I'm talking myself
Speaker 1: into doing some more, some more skits and characters and things.
Speaker 1: Probably a third you know, third hour or the show.
Speaker 1: That's when I tend to loosen it up a little bit,
Speaker 1: change up the topics a bit. You'll still get news
Speaker 1: the day and deep political analysis in the front half
Speaker 1: of the show, but maybe back of the show, maybe
Speaker 1: back in the Schryl Bargners from Room for Trade gallery
Speaker 1: to shore. We're up and maybe right, maybe, hey, your
Speaker 1: trade gallity is terrible. Sixtum get crip lad. Yeah, I know,
Speaker 1: I know. Kristen rights. Yes, we definitely can't agree. It
Speaker 1: should be Kristen and spelled within e. Well, you're darn right,
Speaker 1: Kristen couldn't agree with you more. Oh, oh, I see
Speaker 1: something TJ. Right, Buck, I'm a little disappointed he didn't
Speaker 1: get to sit in on the Governor Colorado interview on
Speaker 1: Rising this morning. The fact that they are potentially nullifying
Speaker 1: their electoral College votes for the majority vote of the
Speaker 1: country is a crying shame. To be consistent, he should
Speaker 1: just hand his governorship over to President Trump, since he
Speaker 1: clearly does not believe in his own states sovereignty and
Speaker 1: its ability to govern and represent itself as part of
Speaker 1: this union. It's not surprising considering the lack of historical
Speaker 1: knowledge in this country of the inability by the left
Speaker 1: to understand the significance of the electoral college and the
Speaker 1: fact that this country is a collection of states that
Speaker 1: represents himselves. But when a governor of one of those
Speaker 1: states cannot comprehend that fact, well, that is truly concerning TJ.
Speaker 1: Just so you know, I didn't duck the interview or
Speaker 1: anything like that. I just wasn't able to do it.
Speaker 1: There was a scheduling conflict. So sometimes on Rising you
Speaker 1: just get my co host on an interview, and other
Speaker 1: times it's just me in an interview because we can't
Speaker 1: make the timing work to get to get the interview
Speaker 1: or interviewee rather there when we're both there. Harry rights,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, Leftists should be careful what they ask for.
Speaker 1: Wouldn't giving wouldn't giving anyone who wants reparations a one
Speaker 1: way ticket out of this country be fulfilling in my memory,
Speaker 1: that's how certain countries reform, you know, Harry, you know
Speaker 1: it's it's a reparations is a concept that people will
Speaker 1: push for. UM. It's a concept that people will discuss.
Speaker 1: They generally speaking don't have UM, they don't have specifics
Speaker 1: in mind, but it does serve the purposes of the
Speaker 1: left of some degree of just stoking more identity politics.
Speaker 1: As we know, that's very, very important to the left.
Speaker 1: Patrick right, it's take the Pain. It's Platoon. She'll tie
Speaker 1: Oss Sully aka Patrick Patrick. You got it, my friend,
Speaker 1: Take the Pain. That's when Tom Berenger, who's playing Barnes
Speaker 1: in Platoon, covers the guy's mouth after he's been wounded.
Speaker 1: You know, I think Tom Berenger's the best part of
Speaker 1: that movie. To be honest with you, I think Platoon
Speaker 1: for me, in retrospect, it's pretty overrated movie. I did
Speaker 1: not think it's the masterpiece that a lot of people
Speaker 1: seem to think it is. But it has some good
Speaker 1: some good sequences, and Barnes is certainly one of the standouts.
Speaker 1: David writes, the irony of the left is that Horey
Speaker 1: Ramos got his own medicine today by the government government
Speaker 1: socialist policies of Venezuela, the same policies he wants here
Speaker 1: in the US. I just wish they had thrown away
Speaker 1: the key. Well, you know, David Jore Ramos is, I
Speaker 1: understand it as a US citizen, So he's one of ours,
Speaker 1: and you can't you can't take one of ours and
Speaker 1: lock them up when they're being a journalist in the
Speaker 1: four country. You know, we we got to take care
Speaker 1: of our own, no matter what their politics are. We
Speaker 1: don't have to take care of other people's according to
Speaker 1: the law, but Democrats disagree with that. But we take
Speaker 1: care of our own. And I believe Hory Ramas is
Speaker 1: a US citizen, which means that he's he's one of ours,
Speaker 1: and we got to go in there and get them
Speaker 1: if we have to go, if need be, need be,
Speaker 1: I'd I'd give the order myself to go in there
Speaker 1: and get Ramos, get Ramos out. So the US citizen
Speaker 1: is a US citizen. James right. The movie quote was
Speaker 1: from Expendables, Jason Statham James, I don't think you're I
Speaker 1: don't know if maybe I quoted the Expendables by accident,
Speaker 1: but that's not the one that's uh, somebody else got it.
Speaker 1: Take the Pain is from is from Platoon, although maybe
Speaker 1: Jason Statham says it in the expendables as well. Paul
Speaker 1: and Carmen, Bravo Bucks Spot today. On so many of
Speaker 1: your comments, I wouldn't know where to begin. Your delivery.
Speaker 1: Many times make me smile, sometimes makes me laugh, and
Speaker 1: other times make me say out loud, right on, keep
Speaker 1: it going well, Paul and Carmen, thank you so much.
Speaker 1: It means a lot to me that there are folks
Speaker 1: out there that really appreciate the show that I'm putting
Speaker 1: on every day and that it brings out these different
Speaker 1: ideas and emotions. I mean, I'm hoping people get fired
Speaker 1: up by this show, learn from this show, want to
Speaker 1: share this show with their friends. That's why I put
Speaker 1: everything I can into it every single day. Like I said, team,
Speaker 1: if you're in the New York I'm sorry forget that
Speaker 1: the DC area not New York Area DC area. This Thursday, Friday,
Speaker 1: Saturday for SPAC, I will be there. Please come check
Speaker 1: it out until tomorrow. Shield's High a RP is well known. Right,
Speaker 1: it's a big organization for seniors. But guess what, Like
Speaker 1: a lot of very big, well known organizations, it's very
Speaker 1: left wing. Wants to support universal healthcare, probably wants support
Speaker 1: all kinds of un virsual programs as a bit of
Speaker 1: a Democrat socialist vibe to it. I got an idea,
Speaker 1: how about AMAC instead. AMAK is the conservative alternative as
Speaker 1: a seniors organization to AARP, and that's why I think
Speaker 1: AMAK is the way to go for you. Over one
Speaker 1: point five million Americans have already joined AMAC, and they're
Speaker 1: getting great value like discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistance.
Speaker 1: But also they're part of an organization that supports conservative
Speaker 1: values and is pushing for policies that will make this
Speaker 1: country great. Stand with AMAC as they fight the good fight.
Speaker 1: Become a member today, Join right now at AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us slash buck. AIMAK
Speaker 1: is better for you, better for America.