Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump was on
Speaker 1: the brink of a military action against Iran and decided
Speaker 1: to bail at the very last moment. We will assess
Speaker 1: whether this was the right move for our commander in chief,
Speaker 1: and also all of the latest on the immigration fight,
Speaker 1: including the possibility of some major raids by immigration and
Speaker 1: customs enforcements starting in a matter of days. Look at
Speaker 1: that and more coming up on The buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American. Again. The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins as I said, how many people
Speaker 1: are going to be killed? Sir? I'd like to get
Speaker 1: back to in that great people, these generals, they said,
Speaker 1: came back, said sir, approximately one hundred and fifty. And
Speaker 1: I thought about it for a second. I said, you
Speaker 1: know what, They shot down an unmanned drone plane whatever
Speaker 1: you want to call it. And here we are sitting
Speaker 1: with one hundred and fifty and dead people that would
Speaker 1: have taken place probably within a half an hour after
Speaker 1: I said go ahead. And I didn't like it. I
Speaker 1: didn't think it was. I didn't think it was proportionate.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sex and show everybody very close
Speaker 1: to the edge there. Last night, as President Trump was
Speaker 1: just on the brink of giving an order for retaliatory
Speaker 1: strikes against targets in Iran. And here's what the President
Speaker 1: tweeted about this. He said, on Monday, they shot down
Speaker 1: an unmanned aerial drone flying the international waters. We were
Speaker 1: cocked and loaded to retaliate last night on three different sites.
Speaker 1: When I asked how many will die? One hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty people, sir was the answer from a general ten
Speaker 1: minutes before the strike. I stopped it not proportionate to
Speaker 1: shooting down and on Mandrone, I'm in no hurry. Our
Speaker 1: military is rebuilt, new and ready to go, by far
Speaker 1: the best in the world. Sanctions are biting and more
Speaker 1: were added last night. Iran can never have nuclear weapons,
Speaker 1: not against the USA and not against the world. This
Speaker 1: is the right decision as I see it. I think
Speaker 1: the President made the right move. I think that we
Speaker 1: are already squeezing the Iranians economically thanks to this administration.
Speaker 1: The Iranians are flailing, and the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps
Speaker 1: and the Guardian Council and the Mullahs. They're looking for
Speaker 1: some way to unite the people such as they can
Speaker 1: be behind the regime. Remember, if we create a narrative
Speaker 1: of the Iranian people lined up against the United States
Speaker 1: because we're coming after them, that is to the benefit
Speaker 1: of the Mullahs. If we were to blow up sites
Speaker 1: and there were civilian casualties, and it's not clear how
Speaker 1: many casualtis exactly there would be, and remember casualty estimate,
Speaker 1: it's just that it's an estimate. It could have been more,
Speaker 1: could have been less. And President made the right move
Speaker 1: in my opinion, It is fascinating to see the way
Speaker 1: that many people are now responding to this. But I'll
Speaker 1: get into that and then the media in just a
Speaker 1: little bit. Here, the president understands the following his base
Speaker 1: Trump voters. We did not give our votes to this
Speaker 1: guy because we wanted him to go and invade another
Speaker 1: country the Middle East. That's just that's just the truth.
Speaker 1: The Trump vote, the Trump movement wasn't about yet another
Speaker 1: Mid East war. It was about you don't have to
Speaker 1: have me tell you, but it was about making America
Speaker 1: great again through a hugely growing and excellent economy, about
Speaker 1: a strong southern border, about an end to overregulation, about
Speaker 1: put an end into political correctness, and an end to
Speaker 1: all the apologizing for America all the time. And there
Speaker 1: were some very clear agenda items for President Trump fixing
Speaker 1: our healthcare, which they have we have not done that.
Speaker 1: We got a little better on prescription drug prices, but
Speaker 1: we are lagging right now on a better healthcare system.
Speaker 1: That is That is also just the truth. Now you
Speaker 1: get into this back and forth, and I remember this.
Speaker 1: I remember the debates from when I was in college
Speaker 1: of the Iraq war. I remember the debates about esc
Speaker 1: eating and the surge in Iraq. When I was at
Speaker 1: the CIA's office on Iraq. I remember the decision to escalate,
Speaker 1: or the early decision to do at a review in
Speaker 1: the escalation in Afghanistan. I was working in the CIA's
Speaker 1: Afghanistan desk when that happened. And these things do tend
Speaker 1: to have a momentum of their own. So while it's
Speaker 1: not it's not correct to say that the different the
Speaker 1: options here are do nothing or all out war. Caution
Speaker 1: in this process is necessary, and I just I deeply
Speaker 1: wish for the American people, I wish for all of
Speaker 1: us that we don't have another war in some other
Speaker 1: country where we are sending just such amazing people, you know,
Speaker 1: family members of ours, loved ones, brothers, sisters, fathers, mothers,
Speaker 1: sending them over there, husbands and spouses that husbands, wives
Speaker 1: sending them over there, and generally for a population that
Speaker 1: will be at least somewhat, if not entirely, ungrateful for
Speaker 1: the effort. By the way, that's certainly that was the
Speaker 1: case in Afghanistan, and certainly in the case in Iraq too.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people that don't really want
Speaker 1: us in those countries. Maybe they want us to stay
Speaker 1: because they know the other guys are worse, But there's
Speaker 1: not a lot of gratitude. You haven't noticed a flowering
Speaker 1: of love for America across the Middle East after these
Speaker 1: wars we fought there. We did depose a tyrant in
Speaker 1: Saddam Hussein. Do you feel like the Arab street has
Speaker 1: decided that we are we are the good guys now? No?
Speaker 1: If anything, I think that the anti American forces point
Speaker 1: to US actions in Iraq and Afghanistan and elsewhere as
Speaker 1: evidence of US as a grave threat to the world.
Speaker 1: We are a threat to world peace. Europeans think this,
Speaker 1: South Americans think this. Countries that should be ideologically and
Speaker 1: dare I even say spiritually aligned with US as nation states.
Speaker 1: They think that what we've done in many of these
Speaker 1: conflict was foolish at best and you know, tyrannical at worst.
Speaker 1: So no more wars in the Middle East for US.
Speaker 1: I mean, if if we have to blow the you
Speaker 1: know what out of the Mullahs by bombing some sights
Speaker 1: here or there, if that's the if it goes to
Speaker 1: that level, of course, I think that's that can be
Speaker 1: the proper decision for President Trump right now, but we're
Speaker 1: not there yet. The Iranians are claiming that they could
Speaker 1: have shot down a manned US aircraft that was nearby
Speaker 1: and instead shot down an unmanned aerial drone. Now, okay,
Speaker 1: the Iranians are saying this because they want to see
Speaker 1: them like they're they're being reasonable in this process. But
Speaker 1: keep in mind, if they had shot down a plane
Speaker 1: with thirty five US soldiers, there would be strikes and
Speaker 1: retaliation that would kill hundreds, probably thousands of Iranians, and
Speaker 1: I would support that you kill our people. We have
Speaker 1: to make a very strong we have to have a
Speaker 1: very strong response. They did not kill our people. It
Speaker 1: is significant that they did not kill our people, and
Speaker 1: we always want to draw that line. So everybody going
Speaker 1: forward knows, you mess with us, you mess with our stuff,
Speaker 1: We're gonna get mad. We're gonna respond. You kill our people,
Speaker 1: we are going to rain hell fire down on you,
Speaker 1: in some cases literally hell fire missiles. So I think
Speaker 1: the Trump Administration's approach right now is the right one.
Speaker 1: We don't have to rush on this. The Iranians are
Speaker 1: the ones with the Our economy is doing great, are
Speaker 1: military huge. The Iranians are the ones that are being
Speaker 1: choked economically. The Iranians the ones that are running out
Speaker 1: of options here. Their threat to shut down the straight
Speaker 1: of hor moves that would that would agitate every major
Speaker 1: power in the world. They'd have the Chinese turn on
Speaker 1: the Russians turn on them, Everybody would turn on them,
Speaker 1: because everybody's access to to that oil in the global
Speaker 1: market matters to them. Every major power matters to them.
Speaker 1: So we wouldn't be alone in that process. The Iranians
Speaker 1: did their worst, and their worst would be terrorist attacks
Speaker 1: through proxies and also through cells. The Iranian terror cells
Speaker 1: spread all over the world. There would be ground fired
Speaker 1: missiles at oil tankers, at other ships. I mean they
Speaker 1: would be able to hit them and destroy them and
Speaker 1: cause ecological disasters. I mean, the Iranians could could do
Speaker 1: those things, and there's not all that much we'd be
Speaker 1: able to do to stop them from doing all of
Speaker 1: that in the meantime, but it would it would then
Speaker 1: mean that we would lay waste to the Iranian state
Speaker 1: of the Iranian military. Ah. But see this is where
Speaker 1: things start to get more complicated. If we have to
Speaker 1: respond with overwhelming force to a major Iranian provocation. That
Speaker 1: overwhelming force is when we have to be very careful about, well,
Speaker 1: what comes next? What are we responsible for If we
Speaker 1: knock out the power grid in Iran, if we take
Speaker 1: out their major military sites and the government is toppled,
Speaker 1: what happens then who's in charge? What is our obligation
Speaker 1: to the the Iranian state? And then you start to feel
Speaker 1: like you're having Iraq and Afghanistan desja vou. We didn't
Speaker 1: do into Afghanistan with the mission of we're going to
Speaker 1: rebuild this country and now it was the Northern Alliance.
Speaker 1: We helped them out kick out, the kick out al Qaida,
Speaker 1: and the Taliban, and I supposed to be all right,
Speaker 1: good luck, guys, thanks for your help, here's your country back,
Speaker 1: see you later. That's not what happened. We've been there
Speaker 1: now for nineteen years. And then Iraq. I don't have
Speaker 1: time to relitigate the Iraq War right now. But was
Speaker 1: that a good move? I originally was convinced that it
Speaker 1: probably was the right move because I thought the outcome
Speaker 1: would be very, very different from what it was. I
Speaker 1: worked on the Iraq desk at the CIA. I could
Speaker 1: tell you there were times when I wasn't sure. Just
Speaker 1: in my own hat, I figured, I'm not even I
Speaker 1: don't even know if we're gonna be able to stay
Speaker 1: if we want to stay. Casualties are mount think so high.
Speaker 1: Insurgency was so out of control, and there were real
Speaker 1: concerns in the US government that we were going to
Speaker 1: have to just pull out and say, all right, well
Speaker 1: this place is a mess, but you know it's on
Speaker 1: you guys, have go to it. We're not dealing with
Speaker 1: this anymore. I just desperately hope that we've learned those lessons.
Speaker 1: I don't want people, I don't want our people over
Speaker 1: there trying to fix someone else's country for them anymore.
Speaker 1: We've done that, and we had a lot that we
Speaker 1: took casualties. We spent a ton of our treasure. It's
Speaker 1: your tax dollars, my tax dollars. Really, more so our
Speaker 1: children and their children's tax dollars. Try to turn the
Speaker 1: lights on in Cobble, try to have clean water in
Speaker 1: Bakuba for what? For whom? People that want to tell
Speaker 1: us to leave their country, that we shouldn't have been
Speaker 1: there in the first place, that we're occupiers, Why should
Speaker 1: we put ourselves in this position? Again, I agree with
Speaker 1: Trump on this. I think his mindset is correct. Trump
Speaker 1: is not a foreign details guy. I would never pretend
Speaker 1: that he is. But on the big issues of what
Speaker 1: needs to be done, what needs to be confronted, or
Speaker 1: where we need to show strength, where we need to
Speaker 1: show you a closed hand or an open hand, he
Speaker 1: gets it. Gets it a lot more than the foreign
Speaker 1: policy group thinkers out there who believe that whatever was
Speaker 1: done in the past by other people, that people said
Speaker 1: we're smart, has to continue to be done even if
Speaker 1: the results are bad. We don't want a war with
Speaker 1: the Row. Nobody wants a war with they're on. Really,
Speaker 1: I think maybe that might be a little too broad
Speaker 1: of a statement. In this country, I think there is
Speaker 1: unfortunately an element that really believes so strongly in regime
Speaker 1: change that they would, if they had their way, push
Speaker 1: us into a major war. And iron I think that
Speaker 1: that exists. Unfortunately, there is an element in this country,
Speaker 1: in the power structure, in the government that really would
Speaker 1: like to see a major US and they're convinced I'm
Speaker 1: sure that, oh no, this time will be different. This time,
Speaker 1: welcome us into the streets and they'll have, you know,
Speaker 1: garlands of flowers for our soldiers, and everything will be great.
Speaker 1: And I'm here to tell you seeing this twice from
Speaker 1: the from the perspective that I could in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: it would be even worse. It would be even worse.
Speaker 1: Iron is a much bigger country than Iraq. For example,
Speaker 1: the just the sheer logistical challenges of dealing with the
Speaker 1: population of seventy or seventy five million instead of twenty
Speaker 1: to twenty five million would be there's just no way
Speaker 1: we want to do this. A lot of Democrats right
Speaker 1: now running around using this as an opportunity to demagogue.
Speaker 1: I do wish that on an issue like this, after
Speaker 1: we've seen what we've seen the Middle East, after we've
Speaker 1: had so many years of heartbreak and casualties and taking
Speaker 1: losses that we just all could put aside. But the
Speaker 1: poll say for a moment and do what it's best
Speaker 1: for the country. But I think that Democrats are so
Speaker 1: deranged on this, and they're so deranged with Trump hatred,
Speaker 1: that they will find a way to criticize. Just watch
Speaker 1: this weekend. They'll criticize the President of the United States
Speaker 1: for being thoughtful, for being prudent, and for taking the
Speaker 1: path of less violence in this one instance with Iran,
Speaker 1: to see if there's a better way forward. They will
Speaker 1: criticize him for it. Generally devish anti US intervention Democrats,
Speaker 1: You'll hear them criticizing him for this, because doing the
Speaker 1: right thing in Iran, even if it's a question of
Speaker 1: whether our troops will be in a harm's way and
Speaker 1: whether lives will be lost. Let's be honest, I've a
Speaker 1: hundred fifty Irani lives. A lot of people would die
Speaker 1: doing the right thing by our country and doing the
Speaker 1: right thing when it comes to human life. Unfortunately, for
Speaker 1: a lot of the left in this country, those are
Speaker 1: secondary considerations to bashing Trump and that's what you're seeing
Speaker 1: with their analysis of this Iran decision. That's how they
Speaker 1: will be talking about it. We have more coming up.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Leron has been gradually escalating their nuclear
Speaker 1: blackmail threats. Remember on May eighth, they threatened to enrich
Speaker 1: uranium to weapons grade levels if they didn't receive sanctions
Speaker 1: relief in two months. That deadline is July eighth. And
Speaker 1: as we all know, they've been launching connectic attacks in
Speaker 1: the Persian Gulf, and so I would expect Iran to
Speaker 1: continue to launch increasingly escalatory attacks if we don't respond,
Speaker 1: that's the risk that we would run. But again, we
Speaker 1: don't want to draw ourselves into run into a war
Speaker 1: that neither of us wants. Launts it, nobody wants it.
Speaker 1: It's just a question of how we avoid it. I
Speaker 1: keep saying nobody, I should say almost nobody. Well, what
Speaker 1: is a that's you know Daniel Hoffman. He's a guy
Speaker 1: who is pretty He's pretty good on the national security side.
Speaker 1: I enjoy I've done segments with him. He's a smart dude.
Speaker 1: A lot of people go on TV have no idea
Speaker 1: what they're talking about with this Dolph Hoffman's not one
Speaker 1: of them. He's solid and it's got a real background
Speaker 1: and it shows on TV. But he spoke also about
Speaker 1: what a a attack would be like in terms of
Speaker 1: one that is commensurate with what has happened to us,
Speaker 1: or what a response should look like. Here's what he
Speaker 1: said in play for We haven't struck yet, but we
Speaker 1: absolutely can. If we were not to strike, that would
Speaker 1: also deliver a very serious message, I think, to Iran
Speaker 1: and then other enemies we face around the world. As
Speaker 1: far as the strike that we might be looking at targets,
Speaker 1: missile sites, radar batteries which it runs IRGC, their Revolutionary
Speaker 1: Guard Corps, which launched the attack on our r Q
Speaker 1: four drone. Would we would hit those those sites as
Speaker 1: a proportional response. I think that would probably make the
Speaker 1: most sense. It doesn't mean that Iran wouldn't themselves then retaliate,
Speaker 1: but that would be a flexible proportional response. Flexible proportional response.
Speaker 1: This really does remind me of the I think it's
Speaker 1: one of the first episodes of the show. Oh no,
Speaker 1: it's actually from the Not it's not from that, it's
Speaker 1: from Don't They have a discussion about this in the
Speaker 1: American President with Michael Douglas where it's about an airstrike
Speaker 1: and he doesn't want to do what it's going to
Speaker 1: kill some guys a night janitor? Or am I thinking
Speaker 1: of President Bartlett from what's it called? What's that show
Speaker 1: called the you know West Wing, Westwick? That's that's where
Speaker 1: President Bartlett is and he says that he doesn't want
Speaker 1: to just take their lunch money or something. Anyway, Look,
Speaker 1: I think the President made the right move. That's the
Speaker 1: bottom line. We'll see what ends up happening here from
Speaker 1: the Iranians. We'll see if the Iranian response is going
Speaker 1: to go even further. It's very possible. Although do they
Speaker 1: really want to play chicken with Trump? I you know,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of things you can say about
Speaker 1: this guy. I don't think getting into a test of
Speaker 1: will with him, a test of resolve for the iranience
Speaker 1: of the mulas is a good idea. I don't believe
Speaker 1: anybody should think that that's a good idea. That's why
Speaker 1: Trump's willingness to Here's how I see it, Trump stepping
Speaker 1: back and saying, you know what, I'm not going to
Speaker 1: throw a punch. You know, you push me, but I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna throw a punch yet. I think that's also
Speaker 1: his way of saying, all right, Ran, if you push
Speaker 1: me again, it's not just going to be a punch,
Speaker 1: it's going to be a lights out fly kick to
Speaker 1: the face. That's what I see Trump doing here, which
Speaker 1: you know, I hope it doesn't come to that. But
Speaker 1: so far he's been good on this. The Democrats are
Speaker 1: going to freak out, though, and say he's bad just
Speaker 1: because he's Trump. We'll get into that in a moment.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. I think the likelihood that this is
Speaker 1: a mistake is remote. Iran knows how to provoke the
Speaker 1: rest of the world. They know how to provoke us.
Speaker 1: They are malevolent actors in that region. It is absolutely
Speaker 1: the case, and it's the reason why I so much
Speaker 1: regret how the President is approaching this recklessly. I mean,
Speaker 1: he should never have torn up the Iran Deeal to
Speaker 1: begin with, which was the nuclear agreement that President Obama
Speaker 1: reached with Iran. It's now we're contending with both his
Speaker 1: blowing up the Iran deal one day, threatening to strike
Speaker 1: Iran the next day, saying that he doesn't want regime
Speaker 1: change in a run, He's sending mix signals. Michael Bennett.
Speaker 1: Who the heck is that guy? Most of you're probably asking,
Speaker 1: He's a Colorado senator, who is all about? Michael Bennett
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. This guy thinks he's running for president. He
Speaker 1: is as boring and milktoast and who is this guy?
Speaker 1: As you're going to find the American politics today. But
Speaker 1: he is doing the usual dance here. It's the one
Speaker 1: the Democrats can be expected to do anytime the issue
Speaker 1: of Iran comes up and the president's approach in national security,
Speaker 1: and that is to say that Oh Obama had it right,
Speaker 1: that the Obama deal was a good deal. There are
Speaker 1: so many ways that is not true, but the one
Speaker 1: that I think is the is the biggest. What should
Speaker 1: have been deal breaker is that there the deal was
Speaker 1: going to end at some point and then you just
Speaker 1: have to have a whole nother deal, And you would
Speaker 1: have had to have a whole another deal. Within Iran
Speaker 1: that was a lot richer and a lot more militarily advanced,
Speaker 1: working on its ballistic missiles. One of that in the treaty,
Speaker 1: spreading its proxy armies around the Middle East, bolstering them,
Speaker 1: getting them to be stronger. None of that covered in
Speaker 1: the treaty. It was really just to kick the can
Speaker 1: down the roade maneuver. It was like, all right, Iran,
Speaker 1: we're gonna let you get access to the international financial
Speaker 1: financial system, let you get a lot wealthier, but in return,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have to wait before you start testing news.
Speaker 1: You're gonna have to wait before you start doing some
Speaker 1: of these things. And that's just it's just it's not
Speaker 1: good folks. It was not a good deal. It really wasn't.
Speaker 1: I mean, and now it's we can look back at
Speaker 1: it perhaps a little more clarity, because it wasn't. It's
Speaker 1: not Obama who's in office, and we're all caught up
Speaker 1: and how the media was always telling us how Obama
Speaker 1: was some super genius move on foreign policy. His administration
Speaker 1: was a disaster, and why would that be surprising. Look
Speaker 1: at the people that he had in charge. You know,
Speaker 1: say what you will about Mike Pompeo, and I think
Speaker 1: he's a really impressive guy. He's a serious person. Though,
Speaker 1: say what you will about John Bolton, and I will
Speaker 1: say a lot, probably in the weeks ahead, I disagree
Speaker 1: with them on some of his approaches. He's a serious person.
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton a secretary of state. What the heck does
Speaker 1: she know about anything? Why would we have expected that
Speaker 1: she would have been able to produce better foreign policy results?
Speaker 1: John Carry, John Carry's a loser. Mary's rich, ladies. You
Speaker 1: think you think he's going to be a great secretary
Speaker 1: of state based on what? What does he know about
Speaker 1: any of this? He's just trying to figure out what
Speaker 1: you know when tea time is in the Nantucket golf
Speaker 1: course or when he can hop on one of those windsurfers. Again,
Speaker 1: he's not an impressive person. It's not a person that's
Speaker 1: going to be able to outstrategize and outthink our enemies
Speaker 1: and inspire our allies to rally to us on tough issues.
Speaker 1: Anyone can handle, this is the thing. Anyone can handle
Speaker 1: the easy stuff. And this is what's so important about
Speaker 1: when you when you look at foreign policy and different administrations,
Speaker 1: and you look at the negotiations that are going on.
Speaker 1: I mean, anybody can sign their name to a climate
Speaker 1: change agreement that has no enforcement mechanisms, doesn't mean anything
Speaker 1: really in the long run. That's self and that's self enforced,
Speaker 1: and that's self paced, and who cares anyone can sign that.
Speaker 1: I feel like they're a big deal. Some of the
Speaker 1: things that the Trump administration has taken on. This is hard.
Speaker 1: Putting tariffs on China and saying that the Chinese don't
Speaker 1: change their behavior, they're gonna face even more tariffs. And
Speaker 1: that's gonna have you reciprocation on our side. They're gonna
Speaker 1: hurt us economically to the degree they can. That's hard.
Speaker 1: That's a tough call to make. And it's on these
Speaker 1: more difficult decisions that you see this democrats, I think
Speaker 1: failing and failing and failing over and over again. Look
Speaker 1: where Probablyicans have failed on some of these stuff too. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: foreign policy does often boil down to the less bad,
Speaker 1: the less bad. Sorry, guys, my voice just keeps I
Speaker 1: have such a bad cold. My voice just keeps breaking.
Speaker 1: So I can't do anything about that. The less bad option.
Speaker 1: I've been drinking tea, I've been trying to take throat
Speaker 1: lows and just whatever. I mean, it's just a miserable cold.
Speaker 1: And I don't know what, you know, I don't know
Speaker 1: what person's drink. I might have borrowed or something, but
Speaker 1: you know, somehow I got a cold here. That's right,
Speaker 1: That's that's the only way it would have happened barring
Speaker 1: their drink. Calm down. Uh, let's see what else we
Speaker 1: have here on Bennett. Oh no, no no, forget about Bennett
Speaker 1: from him and so you know he's he doesn't like
Speaker 1: what what Trump is doing because the Iran deal was
Speaker 1: so good that Obama, which is just stupid. Then you
Speaker 1: also have just in time to make this a totally
Speaker 1: obviously partisan maneuver that has nothing to do really with
Speaker 1: anything you get. Oh, Schumer wants to stick is himself
Speaker 1: into these things by talking about how if he's going
Speaker 1: to go to war, then Trump better check with Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer and the rest of Congress. Play six. Now. I
Speaker 1: told the president that these conflicts have a way of escalating.
Speaker 1: The President may not intend to go to war here,
Speaker 1: but we're worried that he and the administration may bumble
Speaker 1: into a war. We told the room that the Democratic
Speaker 1: position is that Congressional approval must be required before funding
Speaker 1: any conflict in Iran. One of the best ways to
Speaker 1: avoid bumbling into war, a war that nobody wants, is
Speaker 1: to have a robust, open debate and for Congress to
Speaker 1: have a real say. We learned that lesson in the
Speaker 1: runner up to Iraq. The lesson that I learned in
Speaker 1: the run up to Rock is that members of Congress
Speaker 1: didn't really want to have to take a tough vote,
Speaker 1: so they gave the president the authorization. Right, they gave
Speaker 1: the president the authorization for the use of military force,
Speaker 1: but they didn't they didn't vote for a war in
Speaker 1: Rock and voted to give him the ability to do it.
Speaker 1: Let's say, it's kind of like the the Mula routine.
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna I'm not gonna say the president committed obstruction.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna lay it out for you in detail
Speaker 1: that he probably maybe did according to my expansive interpretation
Speaker 1: of the statutes. And I'm going to hand this off
Speaker 1: to the Congress, which is controlled in the House by Democrats,
Speaker 1: give them a little wink and say, yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: run with this one, take this and I take this
Speaker 1: one to the bank. And that's what happened. Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: now saying that he should go to that Trump should
Speaker 1: go to Congress before he goes to war, Well, that's
Speaker 1: making a lot of assumptions. One is that this would
Speaker 1: be a big w war, you know, a war that
Speaker 1: involves major mobilization of troops and possible reconstruction effort, and
Speaker 1: that I don't think we're heading toward that at all.
Speaker 1: I hope not. But if the president's going to fire
Speaker 1: off a bunch of missiles to blow up some things,
Speaker 1: which is what we've been told as the likeliest scenario here,
Speaker 1: then guess what He's just gonna do that. But Chumor
Speaker 1: asserting himself here and asserting the Congress is just it's
Speaker 1: all for show. It's all for show, and the Democrats
Speaker 1: would never want to have to take a toughest on Iron.
Speaker 1: They realize that the biggest problem for them is that
Speaker 1: the Obama administration's foreign policy legacy is effectively gone. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be very hard to argue that the Iran deal
Speaker 1: was a great thing and saved so many lives or
Speaker 1: with such brilliant statesmanship when Trump came in and said, nah,
Speaker 1: it's Iron deal is no good. Now, that also means
Speaker 1: they'll never admit that it was no good, because they'll
Speaker 1: say that Trump ended it before it could be good.
Speaker 1: But at least we want to have to hear libs
Speaker 1: running around talking about how Obama saved the Middle East
Speaker 1: with this deal. If things were to quiet down, there
Speaker 1: in some way, which they haven't at all. Really, Yeah,
Speaker 1: isis is gone, but there's a lot of other real problems.
Speaker 1: So there you have a team. We're gonna get into
Speaker 1: the border and the situation at our southern border, and
Speaker 1: also this h Ice raid that's expected in the next
Speaker 1: few days. This is going to be It's gonna be
Speaker 1: pretty big if this happens, this will set off a
Speaker 1: chance of events, I think where people are going to
Speaker 1: be very very upset on the left with the enforcement
Speaker 1: of law, which is what will be happening here. This
Speaker 1: is a law enforcement operation. It is completely legitimate under
Speaker 1: our law, and yet the left is gonna I don't know,
Speaker 1: you might have people laying down in traffic to stop
Speaker 1: this kind of thing. This is gonna get This is
Speaker 1: gonna get crazy. Let me give you the details and
Speaker 1: a much more on this coming up in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Among the most hypocritical political movements out there, among the
Speaker 1: very most hypocritical is feminists. Now, without getting too deep
Speaker 1: into my very strident criticisms of the modern feminist movement,
Speaker 1: which perhaps that would be a fun show for another day,
Speaker 1: let me just say that one area where you know,
Speaker 1: you know that feminists will just abandon their principles and
Speaker 1: no longer matters to them what's what they've been saying
Speaker 1: and what they care about. No, no no, no, the moment
Speaker 1: a woman is a conservative, or the moment that a
Speaker 1: person who has been treated poorly because they're a woman,
Speaker 1: and as a woman on the right, it doesn't matter anymore,
Speaker 1: they will not come to their defense. You can get
Speaker 1: away with saying things to a conservative female as a
Speaker 1: public official or as a member of the media that
Speaker 1: you would never be able to do to a prominent
Speaker 1: leftist female. I mean, do you think that any of
Speaker 1: the groups that any these feminist groups, the National Organization
Speaker 1: of Women and all these other you know, all they
Speaker 1: really seem to do is call for boycotts and agitate
Speaker 1: people and be annoying. But do you think that any
Speaker 1: of those groups came to Sarah huckeyby Sanders defense when
Speaker 1: her paint, when her appearance, and her the way she talked.
Speaker 1: I mean, she was mocked, just ridiculed by the press
Speaker 1: and by at the White House Correspondence dinner, and then
Speaker 1: when people chase her around and threaten her. Do you
Speaker 1: think that the any of these national women's organizations, No,
Speaker 1: It is a stunning but real thing that leftist females
Speaker 1: somehow think that women that are conservative lose their femaleness,
Speaker 1: the desire to protect them, stand up for them as
Speaker 1: females no longer really, no longer really exists, doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: And I just think about this because of what happened
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill early this week with Hope Hicks, who
Speaker 1: used to be a very close aid and adviser to
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and now President Trump for many years now.
Speaker 1: It goes that's saying Hope Hicks is very, very lovely,
Speaker 1: and I'm a fan of her work, and I think
Speaker 1: we would get along famously, and I believe she's single.
Speaker 1: But that's neither here nor there, because I speak now
Speaker 1: as somebody who is a gentlemanly fellow, and it is
Speaker 1: abhorrent when you hear what Congressman Jerry Nadler did in
Speaker 1: the transcript of this interview with her, where Congress was
Speaker 1: grilling her on you know, it's more of the show
Speaker 1: trial stuff. Let's just get her in front of Congress
Speaker 1: and try to find something embarrassing that we can leak,
Speaker 1: or something embarrassing that we can use in whatever way.
Speaker 1: And Congressman Nadler, whom I've seen photos and Mark I
Speaker 1: don't know if you've seen these or not, but we're
Speaker 1: he sitting down and his pants are like up to
Speaker 1: his neck. I didn't know a human being could wear
Speaker 1: pants that high. I don't know if you know I'm
Speaker 1: talking about. But sounds like photo looks like it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: if the photo looks like it's photoshop. I didn't think
Speaker 1: that anybody would be able to do this. I mean,
Speaker 1: his pants are almost at chin height at least sitting down.
Speaker 1: And I'm all for, you know, wearing him at waist level,
Speaker 1: like you're supposed to not let him sack down. But
Speaker 1: I don't think I go with the chin pants. That's
Speaker 1: a weird deal. But he was talking to Hope Hicks,
Speaker 1: who's also I think now a senior PR person for
Speaker 1: Fox Fox Corporation or one of those things, and referred
Speaker 1: to her three times, according to the transcript, three times
Speaker 1: as miss Lewandowski. Now he might say, who cares, well,
Speaker 1: there's a little something behind that. There had been rumor
Speaker 1: reported in Michael Wolfsbuck as well as elsewhere that Lewandowski,
Speaker 1: who's who is married, by the way, Otherwise, I don't
Speaker 1: I think this would be a kind of a total
Speaker 1: non story, right, I mean, single people do single people things.
Speaker 1: But Lewandowski's married, and that there was allegations, publicly aired
Speaker 1: allegations that there was an affair between Hope Picks and Lewandowski.
Speaker 1: She would have been a single woman, but he was,
Speaker 1: you know, doing what he was doing, or at least
Speaker 1: that's the allegation. I don't know if it's true or not.
Speaker 1: Doesn't really matter to me. What matters to me, I
Speaker 1: mean I shouldn't say it doesn't matter to me, but
Speaker 1: it's not my business right now. Is that Jerry Naller
Speaker 1: was just taking cheap shots at her? And if members
Speaker 1: of Congress had any other prominent female, could you imagine
Speaker 1: if Republican members of Congress had a prominent female who
Speaker 1: had a a let's say, checkered past in when it
Speaker 1: comes to romance, or had slept with a very powerful
Speaker 1: man on her way to the top of the political
Speaker 1: system somewhere, you might have had a prominent member of
Speaker 1: the member. You might even have a woman who in
Speaker 1: her background had had an affair with a married man
Speaker 1: and it was very important for her political career. And
Speaker 1: now she's running for president from the Great State of California. Right,
Speaker 1: you may have had any number of things. And if
Speaker 1: a Republican did that and referred to the alleged affair
Speaker 1: through by using the last name of the male that
Speaker 1: the woman had slept with, you would you would see them.
Speaker 1: And I saw that guy. John Harwood is a total hack.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's one of these guys. Is such a lib.
Speaker 1: It's so obvious. It's obvious when he got to moderate
Speaker 1: the presidential debate. I mean, he's just a super lib.
Speaker 1: You know, Harvard saying, I don't think that. I don't
Speaker 1: think that he called her Lewandowski on purpose. Really three
Speaker 1: he got the namebor on three times and her name
Speaker 1: was never Lewandowski. What does she have to do with
Speaker 1: Cora Lewandowski. Oh that's right, there's that allegation of the affair.
Speaker 1: But so it's just a cheap shot. It's just a
Speaker 1: cheap shot. Express that's what the Dems do in the Congress.
Speaker 1: One other story. They'll put a smile on my face today.
Speaker 1: I like this anyway. Yes, I am. I am here
Speaker 1: to stand for Hope Picks or stand for her. Like
Speaker 1: I said, I'm just I'm a gentleman, and I hope
Speaker 1: she'd be treated appropriately, and I would always treat her appropriately.
Speaker 1: Of course, that's a conversation for another time. Now we
Speaker 1: have in them not forgetting about Jusse Smolette. Don't think
Speaker 1: that I'm going to let this slide. In the Jusse
Speaker 1: Smolett's case, a judge has ordered the appointment of a
Speaker 1: special prosecutor, which means that the Empires star could face charges. Now,
Speaker 1: the reason behind this was at least in part that
Speaker 1: state's attorney Kim Fox to X's on the end of
Speaker 1: her name. Kim Fox recused herself from the case but
Speaker 1: appointed her replacement on the case. You see, that's just
Speaker 1: putting somebody in charge who would do her bidding. That's
Speaker 1: quite obvious. That's a no no. So now the judge
Speaker 1: that is looking at this case has said that quote,
Speaker 1: if there are reasonable grounds to believe that any other
Speaker 1: criminal offense was committed, a special prosecutor may commence the
Speaker 1: prosecution of any crime as may be suspected. That's right,
Speaker 1: Smolette could get prosecuted. Look, he should be prosecuted. He
Speaker 1: should be prosecuted, and he should serve some time in prison,
Speaker 1: not years and years and years, but he should serve.
Speaker 1: These should serve thirty days in prison. That sounds about
Speaker 1: right for what he did. Oh yeah, oh yeah. And
Speaker 1: if nothing else, that smug nonsense he pulled where when
Speaker 1: he knew that they just destroyed the justice system to make,
Speaker 1: you know, make things go away for a little bratt
Speaker 1: Jesse Smollett. Then when he stood outside and said, I
Speaker 1: never did anything wrong. I'm so innocent. That was just
Speaker 1: too much, man, that was just too much. It's just
Speaker 1: it's just wrong. He needs to go down. And I
Speaker 1: think that this may be the special prosecutor. We'll see
Speaker 1: the special prosecutor looking into how this case was handled. Though.
Speaker 1: This is a real way to make a name for
Speaker 1: yourself for somebody who cares about justice and does the
Speaker 1: right thing, which would mean that Jesse's going down. Oh boy,
Speaker 1: if this happens, this is gonna cause quite a ruckus.
Speaker 1: Seeing reporting now of what I had been told by
Speaker 1: some sources here in DC much earlier in the week,
Speaker 1: All right went on Tucker Show to discuss that. And
Speaker 1: it looks like it's all coming together, all coming to
Speaker 1: pass that there's going to be some major ice raids
Speaker 1: starting in just a few days. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement
Speaker 1: officers are going to be gathering up up to two
Speaker 1: thousand families in ten major US cities like Houston, Chicago, Miami,
Speaker 1: Los Angeles. They're gonna be gathering them up and they're
Speaker 1: going to be detaining them and then they are going
Speaker 1: to be deporting them. This is referred to as a
Speaker 1: family op, as a family operation, and the Trump administration
Speaker 1: is likely to send people on these pre dawn raids
Speaker 1: and there's going to be I can assure you of this.
Speaker 1: The coverage of this is going to make it look
Speaker 1: like all of these, all of these efforts at a
Speaker 1: rest will look like the bin laden raid. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're just going to do whatever they have to do.
Speaker 1: Take it it. They'll just do a close up of
Speaker 1: a crying child and change the photograph a little bit
Speaker 1: so that it changed the shading of it so it
Speaker 1: looks like it's, oh, it's this really dark and sinister
Speaker 1: atmosphere that they're in. But they'll do whatever they have
Speaker 1: to do. They're going to make this look like Trump
Speaker 1: is sending out Nazi stormtroopers. You know, this is going
Speaker 1: to be Immigrations and Customs Enforcement as the new SS.
Speaker 1: And is that even an exaggeration at all based on
Speaker 1: what they say about the concentration camps. Maybe they won't
Speaker 1: call the ice officers SS, but they certainly say they
Speaker 1: work for concentration camps. So I don't know what that
Speaker 1: makes them in the eyes of these crazy libs. Two
Speaker 1: thousand families facing deportation that are going to be possibly
Speaker 1: getting picked up and deported, and let's just let's just
Speaker 1: be clear about what's happening here. This is simply the
Speaker 1: enforcement of a law. No one no one is claiming.
Speaker 1: No one makes the claim that these individuals have not
Speaker 1: had their due process, have not broken the law, and
Speaker 1: are not legally supposed to be deported. They are very
Speaker 1: much legally supposed to be deported. So why will there
Speaker 1: be such an outcry here? You know there will be
Speaker 1: the moment they start picking up these individuals, we will
Speaker 1: be told that, you know, Trump is a fascist and
Speaker 1: this is so horrible and unkind and terrible because you
Speaker 1: know the place where the left cannot maneuver anymore, and
Speaker 1: we know what they are, which is open borders zealots.
Speaker 1: The place where that really comes into focus and becomes
Speaker 1: clear is on enforcement of the immigration laws, on issues
Speaker 1: of process and asylum. They can always say, oh, no,
Speaker 1: we're in favor of whatever the process says at the end,
Speaker 1: whatever the process tells us when it's all said and done,
Speaker 1: that's what we're that's what we want. We're good with whatever,
Speaker 1: as long as the process has no we know that
Speaker 1: that's not true. That's just a delaying tactic about what
Speaker 1: they are telling us now or what they will tell us.
Speaker 1: Once you actually see the roundup of these different individuals happening.
Speaker 1: Is oh, my gosh, how could you be so how
Speaker 1: could you be so cruel? How could you be so heartless?
Speaker 1: How could you do this? And Republicans and conservatives will
Speaker 1: look back at them and say, well, this is the law.
Speaker 1: Why why shouldn't we do this if the people that
Speaker 1: are in the country are able to stay because they're
Speaker 1: going through the process, even as illegals and sung in
Speaker 1: many cases, though, don't we have to enforce the end
Speaker 1: state of the process or else it's not a process
Speaker 1: at all. It's just an open invitation to come into
Speaker 1: this country. I mean, right now, there are a million
Speaker 1: immigrants living in the the United States who have active deportation
Speaker 1: orders against them, a million. There are a million people
Speaker 1: here that our legal system that the system we have
Speaker 1: has looked at individually, and the end res it was
Speaker 1: you need to leave. You are not allowed to be
Speaker 1: here anymore. A million. That's it's a lot of people
Speaker 1: that are in addition to the allegedly eleven more like
Speaker 1: twenty million illegals that are in the country overall. There's
Speaker 1: reporting here that DHS Secretary Kevin mcaleen and wants ICE
Speaker 1: to go after a smaller, smaller, more targeted group, wanted
Speaker 1: to find one hundred and fifty families who the taxpayer
Speaker 1: provided with attorneys but who decided to just stop showing
Speaker 1: up to their their court dates and just left, just
Speaker 1: weren't gonna weren't going to go through the process anymore.
Speaker 1: So that tells you something else about the legal population
Speaker 1: I'm dealing with here. You pay your tax dollars, pay
Speaker 1: to give them legal representation, and many of them decide,
Speaker 1: you know what, We're just not even going to go
Speaker 1: through this legal process anymore. Let's just stay. This place
Speaker 1: is better, Let's just stay here. And one another part
Speaker 1: of this that I always find, there's no answer for this.
Speaker 1: You'll never hear anybody explain this, But you know, if
Speaker 1: illegals are treated so badly in this country, man, they
Speaker 1: don't want to go back to wherever they're from. You know,
Speaker 1: if illegals are living in the shadows and things are
Speaker 1: so tough and so rough for them, they certainly have
Speaker 1: a preference for being here. And you'll notice they don't
Speaker 1: stop in Mexico, a country that for a lot of
Speaker 1: these illegals they would share a native language with, share
Speaker 1: a lot of cultural similarities. I'm not trying to offend anybody,
Speaker 1: but from what I understand, there's a lot of cultural
Speaker 1: crossover between you know, Mexico and El Salvador, and Mexico
Speaker 1: and Honduras are much more similar than say Mexico and Japan.
Speaker 1: But a million people waiting for deportation orders in the
Speaker 1: country right now. And as we start to see the
Speaker 1: enforcement process, the enforcement mechanism get kicked up and get
Speaker 1: get going, the libs are going to lose their minds. Now,
Speaker 1: from Trump's perspective, this is good because it will show
Speaker 1: just how extreme the other side and this debate has become.
Speaker 1: I mean that the President will be able to point
Speaker 1: and say, see these libs, they are crazy. We're not
Speaker 1: even going after just illegal illegal immigrants in general in
Speaker 1: the country to deport them. We're going after people that
Speaker 1: have gone through the process and have a deportation order
Speaker 1: outstanding against them. This person must, under our law, be deported.
Speaker 1: Picking those individuals up and trying to send them back
Speaker 1: to their home country. The left is going to go
Speaker 1: completely bonkers, and Trump will have an opportunity then to
Speaker 1: show where he stands on this versus where the Libs stand,
Speaker 1: because there's another another aspect here you have to work in.
Speaker 1: Trump has not succeeded on the merits on the border.
Speaker 1: He has not. That is just a fact. I wish
Speaker 1: it were not so, but it is so. The President
Speaker 1: inherited a dysfunctional border with very poorly constructed laws in
Speaker 1: some cases, and he's done what he can. But there's
Speaker 1: a difference between good faith efforts to fix a problem
Speaker 1: and actually fixing the problem. And he has not fixed
Speaker 1: the border. That's just where we are. He has not
Speaker 1: fixed the border. Now, is it asking too much that
Speaker 1: within a few years of becoming president he'd be able
Speaker 1: to fix a problem that's been getting worse for the
Speaker 1: last thirty years, consistently worse for the last thirty years. No,
Speaker 1: maybe that's not fair, but it does open him up
Speaker 1: to criticism. And we do not have a big wall
Speaker 1: s to Shining Sea. We do not have that. We
Speaker 1: have some additional fencing in places where we already had fence,
Speaker 1: which is helpful, it's certainly good. The people that mock
Speaker 1: that don't know what they're talking about. And the difference
Speaker 1: been having an eight foot tall or six ft tall
Speaker 1: decrepit fence and a twenty foot tall double layer fence
Speaker 1: with all new electronics. And that's a substantial difference. And
Speaker 1: that's what we're getting, these really upgraded fences in areas
Speaker 1: where they really need fence. But he hasn't built a wall,
Speaker 1: he has not constructed that yet. Immigration illegal immigration numbers
Speaker 1: the border are through the roof the highest they've been
Speaker 1: in years. And this is all happening on the watch
Speaker 1: of a president who separated himself from his peer group
Speaker 1: in the Republican primary by saying that he was going
Speaker 1: to get control the borders. So at least by upping
Speaker 1: interior enforcement, he will show that he's taking action that matters,
Speaker 1: and that also will allow for him to juxtapose his
Speaker 1: position on this from the liberals who are just they've
Speaker 1: completely lost on an immigration there. They are unserious about
Speaker 1: anything other than amnesty and open borders. That's what they want.
Speaker 1: January twenty second, twenty fifteen, My sudden, Grant was working
Speaker 1: in a quick trip in Mace, Arizona. An illegal alien
Speaker 1: came in, dumped a jar, changed out on the counter,
Speaker 1: and wanted to buy a pack of cigarettes. Grant went
Speaker 1: to start counting the change. The man said, white, you're
Speaker 1: not going to give me my cigarettes. Moment this man
Speaker 1: produced a gun. Grant gave him the cigarettes, and as
Speaker 1: soon as Grant did, this illegal alien shot my son
Speaker 1: in the face, killing him instantly. These are stories that
Speaker 1: are happening every single day. How many more people need
Speaker 1: to die? How many more people need to overdose for
Speaker 1: Pelosi to come to the table and do her job.
Speaker 1: How many people need to die for Occio Cortez to
Speaker 1: stop her ridiculous rhetoric about concentration camps. Mary Anne and
Speaker 1: I've been fighting for a long time. On their hands,
Speaker 1: our children are worth it, and Mary Anne's right, it's
Speaker 1: blood on their hands. That's an angel. Dad there Steve
Speaker 1: ronnebec talking what happened to his son? I wound illegal
Speaker 1: murdered his son in cold blood. Absolutely no reason whatsoever.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of angel dads and angel moms
Speaker 1: across the country, and I'm glad that their stories get out,
Speaker 1: because if it weren't for the non mainstream media outlets,
Speaker 1: if it weren't for Fox and talk radio and the Internet,
Speaker 1: you would ever hear about angel dads and angel moms.
Speaker 1: The story that we're told about immigration all the time
Speaker 1: in this country is specifically illegal immigration is a fairy tale.
Speaker 1: The story we are told by a majority of the
Speaker 1: media outlets. And in fact, if I were to walk
Speaker 1: in right now and sit down at a conference table
Speaker 1: at CNN, at ABC, at NBC, you name it. If
Speaker 1: I sat down, not at Fox. Although there are people
Speaker 1: at Fox are pretty open borders. There's just it's just
Speaker 1: not a mandate within the whole building that everybody must
Speaker 1: be that way or else they're terrible. They're obviously other
Speaker 1: people at Fox, hosts on air and people who have
Speaker 1: shows who are very in favor of stronger borders and
Speaker 1: the enforcement of our laws. You can't do that at
Speaker 1: these other networks. You can't be that person. If I
Speaker 1: walked in right now to NBC and told them what
Speaker 1: I think about the border, and I know more about
Speaker 1: the border than anybody that they are putting air in
Speaker 1: terms of their hosts by a mile, because I hear
Speaker 1: what they say and their imbeciles. So if they say,
Speaker 1: if I sat down there and told them what I
Speaker 1: think needs to happen the border, what the problems are,
Speaker 1: they would look at me like I was insane, and
Speaker 1: they would think that I was I was a racist
Speaker 1: because I'm white and I want there to be law
Speaker 1: and order at our southern border. And that's enough in
Speaker 1: the eyes of a left to qualify you as a racist.
Speaker 1: You are effectively the moral equivalent of a clan member.
Speaker 1: If you want there to be rule of law at
Speaker 1: our southern border and you're a white person. If you're
Speaker 1: non white you want rule of out the southern border,
Speaker 1: well then you're a sellout, the left says, and you're
Speaker 1: a sellout to your own people. But that's the state
Speaker 1: of play right now. There's a lot of emotional blackmail
Speaker 1: that goes on, a lot of effort to make this
Speaker 1: about everything other than the policy. And this is why
Speaker 1: all these stories you see about, oh, here's an illegal
Speaker 1: who's a valedictorian and is working on this really cool
Speaker 1: summer project. Whether she's gonna build houses or he's gonna
Speaker 1: build houses for you know, other illegals or whatever it is.
Speaker 1: You know, there's there's all this propaganda out there about, oh,
Speaker 1: we're just getting the best and the brightest with the
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants we take in. Now, that's not true of
Speaker 1: the legal immigrants we take in all the time. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying it's never true. Certainly we take in people
Speaker 1: with special skills, and legal immigrants that come to this
Speaker 1: country are doing fantastic things and opening up, you know,
Speaker 1: opening up their businesses and you know, being very law
Speaker 1: abiding and respectful and great, and we welcome legal immigrants.
Speaker 1: But if we're going to be honest about the process,
Speaker 1: the process for legal immigrants is not necessarily and in
Speaker 1: general a majority time is not based on skills. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't like even using words like excellence or you know,
Speaker 1: desirability or something, because you know it can a government
Speaker 1: even really assess all that stuff that well, no, but
Speaker 1: they can assess your your material wealth. They gonna that's
Speaker 1: your skill set somewhat. Those are things that they can do.
Speaker 1: And we have a family reunification or chain migration, depending
Speaker 1: on how you who you ask, and how you want
Speaker 1: to talk about it a chain migration based system where
Speaker 1: if you know people that are already here, then you
Speaker 1: go to the front of the line. And that's what
Speaker 1: most of our immigration system is. But for illegals, what
Speaker 1: has happened? And I know because I've seen just if
Speaker 1: you're a casual watcher of the news for the last
Speaker 1: twenty years, what you see represented for illegal immigrants are
Speaker 1: always these hard working, sweet, kind, law abiding families that
Speaker 1: just want to be here. And that is a reality
Speaker 1: of some illegal immigrants for sure. But if they're going
Speaker 1: to show us that in order to inform the public
Speaker 1: about the policies and immigration laws that we have in place,
Speaker 1: then they also should have to explain what do we
Speaker 1: do or what do we say to people? Like the
Speaker 1: angel Dad started off a segment and it's Steve ronnebec
Speaker 1: the person who killed the Sun should have never been
Speaker 1: in the country. All you have to do is spend
Speaker 1: five seconds doing a Google search for LA counties most
Speaker 1: wanted criminals. Just do that most wanted criminals. You will
Speaker 1: notice some stunning similarities. You'll look and you'll say, wow,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of folks who certainly have Latino parentage.
Speaker 1: They certainly come from Latino background, and when you look
Speaker 1: at their descriptions, you'll find, oh, in the country illegally.
Speaker 1: That's the similarity that's so striking to me. You'll see it.
Speaker 1: Can you read about their backgrounds? Oh, this guy you
Speaker 1: know is a thrice deported illegal and now he's a
Speaker 1: hitman for MS thirteen or something. I mean this, so
Speaker 1: we know that there are there are illegals out there
Speaker 1: who are engaged in a lot of criminals if we
Speaker 1: know this. We know this, but they lie to us
Speaker 1: about it. We know this, but they will not allow
Speaker 1: that to be part of the public conversation. And that's
Speaker 1: why when you have, you know, someone like Steve Ronebet
Speaker 1: come forward to talk about the very painful situation of
Speaker 1: living now in the aftermath of losing a loved one
Speaker 1: to violence at the hands of an illegal alien, I
Speaker 1: just say this needs to be a part of the
Speaker 1: conversation too also. And so that's what the criminal aspect
Speaker 1: of it, that the crime that comes to legal immigration,
Speaker 1: beyond the illegal act itself. I had to explain to
Speaker 1: Solidada O'Brien earlier this week that it is in fact
Speaker 1: illegal to cross the border without authorization, even if you
Speaker 1: were then going to ask for asylum. I'm glad that
Speaker 1: I was able to get Solidada free lesson. But they
Speaker 1: tell you that it won't affect crime at all. Well,
Speaker 1: that just seems entirely unrealistic. That just seems like anybody
Speaker 1: with any with a passing familiarity with the realities of
Speaker 1: the individuals who are coming across the border, a lot
Speaker 1: of them are gonna be very poor, a lot of
Speaker 1: them going to be in a desperate circumstance. We're always
Speaker 1: told by the Libs that they're these precursor ingredients to criminality,
Speaker 1: that it's not just based on whatever the individual does
Speaker 1: or believes, but they're these early ingredients, and they're things
Speaker 1: like poverty and hopelessness and helplessness. That's gonna have a
Speaker 1: lot of illegals that show up. They're gonna be in
Speaker 1: bad circumstances, So of course there's going to be an
Speaker 1: effect on the crime made. And remember, for those of
Speaker 1: us that believe in the enforcement of immigration laws, the
Speaker 1: crime rate from illegals should be zero zero. But then
Speaker 1: you also have the economic consequences of all of this.
Speaker 1: You have, for example, Bernie Sanders saying that you know
Speaker 1: he is going to include in his healthcare plan, he's
Speaker 1: going to give healthcare to illegal aliens, not undocumented. That's
Speaker 1: not a thing illegal aliens. Here's Bernie sang it himself,
Speaker 1: play clip A twelve. We are going to end that
Speaker 1: and create a Medicare for All healthcare system rich guarantees
Speaker 1: healthcare every man, woman, and child, and saves the average
Speaker 1: American substantial sums of money. Senator, would you include the
Speaker 1: eleven million of the commentity absolutely? When I talk about
Speaker 1: healthcare being a human right, last time I heard that
Speaker 1: undocumented people are human beings as well. You better get
Speaker 1: ready to give those human beings a lot of your
Speaker 1: tax dollars. And you better get ready to be told
Speaker 1: that you're gonna have to wait six months to see
Speaker 1: a specialists, maybe a year, not even get to see
Speaker 1: the specialists you want, but you're gonna be paying for illegals.
Speaker 1: Healthcare is you can feel good about yourself at night. Right,
Speaker 1: You'll be able to sleep at night knowing that people
Speaker 1: that broke our laws and aren't even supposed to be
Speaker 1: in the country, they're gonna be getting healthcare. And whatever
Speaker 1: healthcare you get left over with, you can thank Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders for it. There are people who will say it
Speaker 1: feels worse now when we're talking about race, or it's
Speaker 1: just feel like a devisive It sure doesn't feel worse
Speaker 1: than when I grew up in Jim Crow, Alabama. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's drop this notion that we're worse than race
Speaker 1: relations today than we were in the past. Really, that
Speaker 1: means we've made no progress, really, and so I think
Speaker 1: the hyperbole about how much worse it is isn't doing
Speaker 1: us any good. We still have this country is never
Speaker 1: going to be colorfulne we had the initial original sin
Speaker 1: of slavery. It's still with us. So for people who say,
Speaker 1: you know what, it's top down, it starts with the president,
Speaker 1: It starts with the words, oh, come on, all right.
Speaker 1: I would be the first to say we need to
Speaker 1: watch our language about race. We need to watch that.
Speaker 1: We don't use doc whistles to people who but when
Speaker 1: we start saying, oh, you know, it's it's worse today,
Speaker 1: no they or not. Kandie Rice dropping some truth bombs.
Speaker 1: Having heard from Kandy in a little while there, she
Speaker 1: was getting interviewed by an NBC reporter, and this is
Speaker 1: this is always an article of faith on the left
Speaker 1: from all of these journo types. They always believe that
Speaker 1: race relations, if there's a Republican president, race relations have
Speaker 1: to be getting worse. Race relations are deteriorating because of
Speaker 1: Republican Republican policies. Meanwhile, if you look at what the
Speaker 1: president has accomplished and what has been done under his presidency,
Speaker 1: you have six million people off of food staffed. Now.
Speaker 1: Most people on foodstamps are white, which often gets left
Speaker 1: out of these discussions. Most people in the country who
Speaker 1: are poor or white, which is also often left out
Speaker 1: of these discussions. I understand it's the difference betwe an
Speaker 1: aggregate number and and percentage overall of the population, right,
Speaker 1: but still there are many people who are off the
Speaker 1: millions of people are off of food stamps. Black and
Speaker 1: Hispanic unemployment, which is specific to minority communities, obviously are
Speaker 1: at all time lows. And yet we're told all the
Speaker 1: time the Trump is a terrible racist and he's a
Speaker 1: terrible person. And whenever you ask somebody what has he
Speaker 1: done that's so racist and awful, they'll say Charlottesville. And
Speaker 1: to that, I say, if you go back and read
Speaker 1: the transcript, it is very clear they twisted the words
Speaker 1: that he was used in Charlottesville to make it sound
Speaker 1: like he was saying something that he didn't say. If
Speaker 1: you read it in context, it's very clear to me.
Speaker 1: I've gone back and done this many times now. He
Speaker 1: was trying to say that on both sides of the debate,
Speaker 1: there are people to debate over removing statues, not He
Speaker 1: was not saying the tiki torch mob was okay in
Speaker 1: any way, shape or form. That was not what he's
Speaker 1: but that's now. This is now one of these lies
Speaker 1: that you can't you can't ever get around because people
Speaker 1: will shout you down over this. That was not what
Speaker 1: he's saying. I remember people shouting down those of us
Speaker 1: who pointed out that Obama did not call Benghazi a
Speaker 1: terrorist attack. You know, there was some reference oblique reference
Speaker 1: in his statement to an act of terror, and there
Speaker 1: were other terror acts that were mentioned before. He did
Speaker 1: not call it an active terror. He did not definitively
Speaker 1: call an active terror. And people got all the you know,
Speaker 1: got their monocles out to or their reading glasses. That's
Speaker 1: not a monocle, that would be kind of weird. Who
Speaker 1: wants a monocle. They got their reading glasses out to
Speaker 1: make sure they got in the fine print. But they
Speaker 1: just had to keep that lie going as long as
Speaker 1: they needed to for the benefit of benefit of Obama,
Speaker 1: and that's what they did. So I like what Kandi
Speaker 1: says here, which is just don't buy into this. They're
Speaker 1: going to try to tell everybody that race relations have
Speaker 1: gotten so much worse. There were race riots under Obama.
Speaker 1: There were there were people who were murdering cops because
Speaker 1: cops were being called racists so much, and Obama and
Speaker 1: his administration were effectively giving cover to that just complete
Speaker 1: garbage by saying, well, the community has a right to
Speaker 1: be mad and everything else. And then I remember this too,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a lot of race baiting against against
Speaker 1: white people from the left to see if they can
Speaker 1: get somebody to say something stupid or you know, here's
Speaker 1: Joy Behart talking to George will play fifteen. You know,
Speaker 1: the Truck Party seems to be in what they call
Speaker 1: like a white panic, that the demographics have changed so
Speaker 1: rapidly that white people are going to disappear or something,
Speaker 1: and they're in this panic state, I think, And do
Speaker 1: you think that the Republican Party will disappear and become extinct?
Speaker 1: Like the Whig Party eventually, and should they so their
Speaker 1: concerns white panic, she calls it. Could you imagine if
Speaker 1: a daytime network talk show hosts referred to any other
Speaker 1: group in a state of panic about losing power? But no, no,
Speaker 1: white panic is fine for her to mock and make
Speaker 1: fun of. Meanwhile, a lot of these networks, like MSNBC
Speaker 1: and I'm sure they do it at ABC too, openly
Speaker 1: celebrate the changing demographics in this country as though that's
Speaker 1: the right thing. I think we should be neutral about
Speaker 1: demographics because it's just people. I don't think we should
Speaker 1: be cheering for more or less white. I don't understand this.
Speaker 1: Why is it okay to cheer for less white? Should
Speaker 1: be neutral? Just people? Think about that for a moment.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. I'm proud to be here today
Speaker 1: to speak about the State Department's ongoing mission to advance
Speaker 1: international religious freedom. This mission is not just a Trump
Speaker 1: administration priority, it's a deeply personal one. For many years,
Speaker 1: I was a Sunday school teacher and a deacon at
Speaker 1: my church. And that might sound unusual to a lot
Speaker 1: of folks inside the Beltway, but I'm one of millions
Speaker 1: of Americans and billions of people across the world who
Speaker 1: live in a knowledge of a higher power. I often
Speaker 1: humbly reflect on how God's produce has got to meeted
Speaker 1: this office to defend this cause. Think about how as
Speaker 1: an American I've been blessed to enjoy the unfettered exercise
Speaker 1: of religious freedom, our first liberty here in the United States.
Speaker 1: Go into any mosque, any church, any temple in America,
Speaker 1: and you'll hear the same thing. Americans believe that kind
Speaker 1: of intolerance is deeply wrong. That's why the Trump administration
Speaker 1: has promoted religious freedom like never before in our foreign
Speaker 1: policy agenda. Given our own great freedoms, it's a distinctly
Speaker 1: American responsibility stand up for faith in every nation's public square.
Speaker 1: Secretary of State Pompeio, whom I think is one of
Speaker 1: the most impressive figures in the Trump administration, talking there
Speaker 1: about the State part mission of Religious Freedom, spreading religious
Speaker 1: freedom around the world. Now, that's in a lot of
Speaker 1: ways more of a lead by example thing than anything else,
Speaker 1: meaning that by having religious freedom in this country, and
Speaker 1: by creating an environment where pluralism and tolerance and those
Speaker 1: things can exist, and we create a model through us
Speaker 1: the world. It's very unlikely that we'll be able to
Speaker 1: do much through our state department to get the more
Speaker 1: intolerant states to be willing to let people worship freely.
Speaker 1: And you see this repression in countries like Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: and China and where religious freedom is absolutely not the norm,
Speaker 1: where religious repression is the norm. And it's because the state.
Speaker 1: And this is where we get into Stadism and the
Speaker 1: crossover with the left. But the state in a truly
Speaker 1: authoritarian society has to view itself as in place of God.
Speaker 1: The most important relationship in your life life in a
Speaker 1: truly status society is the relationship between you and the state,
Speaker 1: not even with your own family. This is why true
Speaker 1: Marxism and true authoritarianism always try to destroy the family.
Speaker 1: There is this emphasis on eradicating the family bonds. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've said this people before, and I'm always interested when
Speaker 1: they look at me a little funny to say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, as your first loyalty to your country or
Speaker 1: to your families, my first loyalty is to my family,
Speaker 1: meaning that as a human being, your first loyalty is
Speaker 1: to your loved ones. And now how could how could
Speaker 1: family and country be in the conflict. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: if all of a sudden somebody grabbed one of my
Speaker 1: uncles from the US government and wouldn't tell you what
Speaker 1: was going on. They just said, it's for the good
Speaker 1: of the country. Guess what, I'm not going to accept
Speaker 1: that just because the government says so. You know, there
Speaker 1: are plenty of ways that you could extrapolate in your
Speaker 1: in your mind a series of events where you would
Speaker 1: have to make a choice between family and country. And
Speaker 1: I think that, you know, a good country will never
Speaker 1: make you have to make that choice. That's one very
Speaker 1: important part of all this. You know, a good country,
Speaker 1: a country that is that is moral, and that is
Speaker 1: where the rule of law exists and the laws are
Speaker 1: themselves ethical and sound, is a country that's never going
Speaker 1: to force you to make that choice. But your first
Speaker 1: loyalty is to your family, to those that you love.
Speaker 1: And that's why I think it's so interesting that you
Speaker 1: have these efforts, whether it's in East Germany or in
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union or in China today. Even look at
Speaker 1: the one child policy, which they got rid of a
Speaker 1: while ago, but China is still inflicts itself on people's
Speaker 1: social lives with this social credit system. And still is
Speaker 1: very much more involved in your personal relationships than a
Speaker 1: normal government would be. So as I see what's going
Speaker 1: on abroad, I have to also then think about what's
Speaker 1: happening here at home on the religious front, because we
Speaker 1: got problems. We've got problems. There was that seven two
Speaker 1: Supreme Court decision that came down earlier this week. I
Speaker 1: didn't get a chance to talk to you about it,
Speaker 1: but it is about a cross, a war memorial cross.
Speaker 1: It's forty feet tall World War One memorial cross that
Speaker 1: has been on public land in Maryland for almost a
Speaker 1: hundred years, and it was a seven two decision that
Speaker 1: kept this in place. Here's what Justice Samuel Alito said
Speaker 1: about what is known as the Peace Cross. He said
Speaker 1: it has become a prominent community landmark and should be upheld.
Speaker 1: After the First World War, the picture of row after
Speaker 1: row of plain white crosses marking the overseas graves of
Speaker 1: soldiers who had lost their lives in that horrible conflict
Speaker 1: was emblazoned on the minds of Americans at home, and
Speaker 1: the adoption of the cross as the Bladensburg Memorial must
Speaker 1: be viewed in that historical context. Its removal or or
Speaker 1: radical alteration at this date would be seen by many
Speaker 1: not as a neutral act, but as the manifestation of
Speaker 1: a hostility toward religion that has no place in our
Speaker 1: establishment clause traditions. Hostility to religion, what's really being taught
Speaker 1: to it's hostility to Christianity. The American state, because of
Speaker 1: the liberal left, now does have a tendency, does have
Speaker 1: a predilection toward antagonizing and singling out and harassing Christians,
Speaker 1: believing Christians. And this does not exist on the right.
Speaker 1: You do not come across. There are no conservative activist
Speaker 1: groups that want to rip down crash scenes that are
Speaker 1: on a public square that want to rip down is
Speaker 1: this is always from the left. And to just hammer
Speaker 1: that point home, you had Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and
Speaker 1: Sonya Sotomayor as the two dissenting voices on this, Ginsburg
Speaker 1: effectively saying that this is that the government elevates Christianity
Speaker 1: over any other faith tradition by by allowing this to stand.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what Soda Mayor says. Ginsburg is
Speaker 1: the most left wing person on the Senate, I think,
Speaker 1: I mean sorry on this on the Senate, on the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court and Sonia Sotomayor. I just think is the
Speaker 1: I really mean this, She's the least intellectually capable member
Speaker 1: of the Supreme Court. She's not an impressive jurist. She
Speaker 1: does not Her thinking is deeply flawed. And she yeah,
Speaker 1: she's the least impressive. I wouldn't go as so far
Speaker 1: as to say she's dumb, but she is the dumbest
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court. That's just read some of her opinions.
Speaker 1: It's like she sat in the MSNBC green room is like,
Speaker 1: what do you guys think of this? How should I
Speaker 1: write this? There's no rigor to her legal thing whatsoever.
Speaker 1: But this hostility toward Christianity, you know, a war on
Speaker 1: Christianity or war on Christmas people talk about. It's very real,
Speaker 1: and especially in this during with this administration, you see
Speaker 1: the choices that are made that are different choices than
Speaker 1: what we're being made on the Obama administration. Obama, even
Speaker 1: though you get all these Christians, all these different you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of Catholics, obviously Black churches came out in
Speaker 1: droves for Obmama, and there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: who consider themselves very devout Christians who still will vote
Speaker 1: for not just Obama, but any Democrat. And that I
Speaker 1: do throw my hands up in the sky a little
Speaker 1: bit and just say, what is going on here? How
Speaker 1: can you support a political party that believes in abortion
Speaker 1: for all nine months of a pregnancy, that believes there
Speaker 1: are thirty seven genders, that increasingly is willing to advocate
Speaker 1: for things like transgender teens and drag shows for ten
Speaker 1: year olds, and this, this is they're pushing this, This
Speaker 1: is out in the open is now. There were some
Speaker 1: fierce debates on social media that I saw this week
Speaker 1: where you have prominent leftist saying there's nothing wrong with
Speaker 1: dressing up a ten year old in drag and having
Speaker 1: him go to a drag show, you know, dancing sexually
Speaker 1: and and provocatively as a drag queen as a ten
Speaker 1: year old. They'll say this, that there's nothing wrong with that,
Speaker 1: It's just an expression of creativity. Is a real thing.
Speaker 1: I'm not making this up as happening this week. But
Speaker 1: you have all these you know, Democrats who say, oh,
Speaker 1: they're real, they're real Christian, they're going to church on Sunday,
Speaker 1: they really believe in the teachings of Christ. And then
Speaker 1: they they support that kind of stuff. And when you
Speaker 1: push them out, they say, what about what about immigrants?
Speaker 1: And what about social justice? And what about the rich
Speaker 1: and render under Caesar? Or what a Caesar's my friend.
Speaker 1: I do not recall people, or many, many hundreds of years,
Speaker 1: for the first couple of millennia, almost after Jesus's death,
Speaker 1: thinking that the Bible is an exhortation to communism. I
Speaker 1: do not remember that putting a radical elite in charge
Speaker 1: of all aspects of your life, eliminating God. Of course
Speaker 1: there's that part of it too, and putting the state
Speaker 1: in place of God. But the left does want to
Speaker 1: put the state in place of God here, and they
Speaker 1: do have an antagonism toward or they do wish to
Speaker 1: antagonize Christians. And that's also why you had this satanic
Speaker 1: prayer opening what was a city council meeting that's just
Speaker 1: happened in Alaska this week. No one really thinks that
Speaker 1: the Church of Satanism is going to care about this, right.
Speaker 1: It's not that they really think that by being able
Speaker 1: to say this prayer to city council meeting that they're
Speaker 1: going to be more accepted. This is just sticking thumb
Speaker 1: in the eye people that really believe in prayer. It's
Speaker 1: a shame. But just remember this always comes from the left.
Speaker 1: W it's pulled across off a public land, or have
Speaker 1: the Satanic prayer open up a city council meeting, or
Speaker 1: all of the true hatred for Christianity in public policy
Speaker 1: comes from the progressives and from the left, and I
Speaker 1: think that they should be made to answer for that
Speaker 1: more a lot more than they do. Oh one more thing,
Speaker 1: there are so many people that wag their fingers at
Speaker 1: Christians for voting for Trump because Trump has not led
Speaker 1: a perfect life. This is where a lot of you
Speaker 1: wo jump in and say, bakenonymous lead perfect lives. I know,
Speaker 1: but Trump has has particular, has led a particularly what's
Speaker 1: what's the word. You know, he's a somewhat self indulgent,
Speaker 1: lecherous guy, you know. I mean, he's definitely chased a
Speaker 1: lot of women for a long time, have been married
Speaker 1: a lot of times, and all that stuff. And I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm not here to judge. I know you're somebody
Speaker 1: to telling me about that now. I'm just saying that
Speaker 1: those who are Christian who voted for Trump, they were
Speaker 1: voting for the policies of the man in power. They
Speaker 1: were not voting as an doorcement of everything that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump has ever done. And those who made that calculation
Speaker 1: were right. The Trump administration is more favorable to religious
Speaker 1: liberty than what the Democrats had been and would be.
Speaker 1: The Trump administration is a defender of traditional morality through
Speaker 1: public policy, through law. It's not about the individual of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump himself. You know, I sit here and talk
Speaker 1: about David and Bathsheba, right, I mean, people make mistakes,
Speaker 1: people do things. What are the policies you push for?
Speaker 1: And that's also why the Pelosies of the world who
Speaker 1: claim to be believing Catholics, claim to be devout Catholics
Speaker 1: and then act in ways in their professional capacity where
Speaker 1: they have so much power that are completely contrary to
Speaker 1: Church doctrine. They should be excommunicated. I know, people say
Speaker 1: I'm crazy, It's true, they should be I've gotta say
Speaker 1: it is fascinating to watch the Libs in the media
Speaker 1: decide that all of a sudden, Joe Biden is going
Speaker 1: to get some scrutiny. So you had two things that
Speaker 1: were destined to happen. And this is why I've always
Speaker 1: thought that Joe Biden was a weak candidate was very
Speaker 1: unlikely to be the Democrats nominee in the end, because
Speaker 1: he went through a period of eight years where he
Speaker 1: was effectively untouchable. He was Obama's vice president and therefore
Speaker 1: an extension of Obama. And even though he would occasionally
Speaker 1: say something buffoonish and he did not have any particular
Speaker 1: accomplishments and there's nothing too exciting about what he did
Speaker 1: while he was the vice president, he was covered in
Speaker 1: a cloak of invincibility while at least as far as
Speaker 1: the press was concerned, while he was President Barack Obama's
Speaker 1: vice president. But that all has changed now, and I
Speaker 1: think that so much of what has been Biden's advantage
Speaker 1: in the polls has been attributable to all of They
Speaker 1: call it goodwill, but it's really just the positive and
Speaker 1: sometimes fawning media coverage he received as a result of
Speaker 1: being Biden's VP. I'm sorry, Obama's VP. So now he
Speaker 1: has two things happening. One is the media isn't playing
Speaker 1: defense for him all the time, the media is not
Speaker 1: all just on his team. And also the public is
Speaker 1: hearing more about who this guy really is. And those
Speaker 1: are both things that are not good for Joe Biden's
Speaker 1: presidential prospects. Here's David Harsania. He had a Twitter thread
Speaker 1: on this that I thought was really interesting because, well,
Speaker 1: what's ended up happening before I get into this Twitter thread,
Speaker 1: is that you've had people that we're very upset. Corey
Speaker 1: Booker is the one that's most prominent on the list
Speaker 1: by Biden saying that he was willing to work across
Speaker 1: the aisle with or We're sorry, work across political differences
Speaker 1: with segregationists and that things could work very smoothly then,
Speaker 1: and Corey Booker has said that that was deeply offensive
Speaker 1: and that he has big problems with that. Okay, so
Speaker 1: this is a problem in general for lives because these
Speaker 1: standards they set up of what you said thirty or
Speaker 1: fifty years ago, or whatever it may be, we can
Speaker 1: decide at any point in time, for the purposes of
Speaker 1: social justice, that you are no longer allowed to be
Speaker 1: in polite society, that you are no longer considered to
Speaker 1: be somebody who should be respected, that you should be
Speaker 1: punished for your sins of a very very long time ago.
Speaker 1: And that means that anybody in the Democratic Party really,
Speaker 1: at least who's a white male, because I do think
Speaker 1: that there are different sets of rules for anyone who's
Speaker 1: a not a white male. But if you're a white male,
Speaker 1: the left can decide at any point to feed you
Speaker 1: to the lions. And that's one just because they're drunk
Speaker 1: on power, and also because they certainly want to have
Speaker 1: that ability when it comes to their political opposition. So
Speaker 1: they want to feed whatever white male conservatives they want
Speaker 1: you to the lions, so to speak, and they also
Speaker 1: want to be able to do it to Democrats. So
Speaker 1: this is very bad for people like Joe Biden. Here's
Speaker 1: what David Harsanyi pulled together on this. I thought this
Speaker 1: was very interesting. He wrote today, It's been a great
Speaker 1: deal of time reading old Senate transcripts of Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I have a piece coming tomorrow, but here's an amazing
Speaker 1: passage about criminal rehabilitation he made during a committee hearing
Speaker 1: about bussing in nineteen eighty one. So David went back. Harsani,
Speaker 1: our friend here went back and pulled quotes from Joe
Speaker 1: Biden from nineteen eighty one on criminal rehabilitation. Here's what
Speaker 1: Joe Biden used to say. Quote. But sometimes even George
Speaker 1: Wallace is right about some things. One of the things
Speaker 1: that is happening in this country is that the American
Speaker 1: people have given up because we are not very innovative.
Speaker 1: Let me move off bussing to make my point, and
Speaker 1: then I will end my part of it. Let us
Speaker 1: take the death penalty. Everybody wants the death penalty. Now
Speaker 1: we are going to hang everybody. Do you know why
Speaker 1: they want the death penalty? Because stupid sociologists and guys
Speaker 1: like people who sit up here in my job for
Speaker 1: years kept telling them we know how to rehabilitate. They
Speaker 1: do not have the slightest idea how to rehabilitate. Our
Speaker 1: entire criminal justice system is premised on the point that
Speaker 1: you sent in someone based upon the amount of time
Speaker 1: it will take to rehabilitate them. That's not really true.
Speaker 1: But so the American people, because they're basically good like
Speaker 1: most people, in my opinion, went along and said we'll
Speaker 1: buy that, and they bought her for twenty years and
Speaker 1: it does not work. It flat out does not work.
Speaker 1: And I get killed by my liberal constituency for saying it.
Speaker 1: I say, hey, let's forget about rehabilitation. We do not
Speaker 1: know how to do it. Say it, boom tell them,
Speaker 1: because if you don't, you know what is going to happen. Eventually,
Speaker 1: people are going to get so frustrated between liberal sociologists
Speaker 1: and politicians who say, we must rehabilitate our fellow man,
Speaker 1: we must help them. And then they see Richard Speck
Speaker 1: come up for parole even though he did not get it,
Speaker 1: and they say, my god, why should that be so
Speaker 1: Guess what now they only have one or two things
Speaker 1: to choose between. They choose between strom Thurman's you have
Speaker 1: hanged them, and continue business as usual. And David points
Speaker 1: out here that this hearing had zero to do with
Speaker 1: the death penalty or rehabilitation or criminality. So Biden just
Speaker 1: went off on some tangent about the death penalty because
Speaker 1: he felt like it. But that's the Joe Biden that
Speaker 1: used to exist in the Senate. So for Democrats to
Speaker 1: pretend now that he has, oh they just discovered these
Speaker 1: controversial opinions, or oh they've they've just figured out at
Speaker 1: this stage of the game that Biden, when he was
Speaker 1: a Democrat in the Senate, was working with segregationists or
Speaker 1: was willing to work with them on certain legislation. This
Speaker 1: is deeply dishonest from the media. They didn't just figure
Speaker 1: this out. They've known this for a while. They've just
Speaker 1: changed what they want the outcome to be. They've just
Speaker 1: decided that they no longer want to be on team Biden.
Speaker 1: They prefer other candidates, and so they will not give
Speaker 1: him a pass anymore. And so this is why I
Speaker 1: think you're going to see somebody very soon here accelerate
Speaker 1: well behind Biden, well in front of Biden. Rather in
Speaker 1: this whole process. I do believe that is going to happen.
Speaker 1: One other thing that came up in the realm of
Speaker 1: Democrat politicians and things that they're saying that I think
Speaker 1: may or may not be may or may not be accurate.
Speaker 1: Kristen Gillibrand came forward to talk about what's going to
Speaker 1: happen to Trump because of abortion Play sixteen. I think
Speaker 1: if this is a fight the President Trump wants to
Speaker 1: have with America's women, it's a fight he will have,
Speaker 1: and it's a fight he's going to lose because women
Speaker 1: are not going to stand for this. We just flipped
Speaker 1: the House because we were angry enough to get up
Speaker 1: to vote and run for office. If he tries to
Speaker 1: take away our basic reproductive freedom, he will lose the
Speaker 1: presidency as well. Now, I usually would tell you that
Speaker 1: Kirsten jewel Brand is an imbecile, is a phony, is
Speaker 1: not somebody who you should trust or particularly respect. All
Speaker 1: of that is true, but I am concerned that she
Speaker 1: is making a point here that could end up also
Speaker 1: being true. The abortion lobby in this country is feeling
Speaker 1: the heat in a way that it has not in decades.
Speaker 1: Missouri no longer has an open abortion clinic, and this
Speaker 1: is the first time since Roe v. Wade, the Roe
Speaker 1: Vway decision came down that there has been any state
Speaker 1: in the fifty States without at least one abortion clinic
Speaker 1: in operation. What this means is that democrats who are
Speaker 1: all forced to be pro abortion. Now there is no
Speaker 1: such thing as a pro life democrat, not really. People
Speaker 1: who say I'm pro life in my personal life, but
Speaker 1: I'm pro choice publicly those they're pro choice, that that's
Speaker 1: not pro life. That's that's an intellectually untenable and morally
Speaker 1: indefensible position. Quite honestly, if you think something is horrific
Speaker 1: and murder for you to do, you're gonna allow other
Speaker 1: people to do that. But this is this is one
Speaker 1: of these areas that is going to bring the Libs
Speaker 1: to get ugly beyond belief in this next election. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be like it's gonna be like nothing you've ever seen,
Speaker 1: especially if they manage to get and I do think
Speaker 1: they're seeing this as I think they're seeing this as
Speaker 1: a very important component. This is why Elizabeth Warren is
Speaker 1: starting to surge. You've noticed she's going after Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: I think Bernie Sanders campaign said are this week that
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren is getting the backing of corporate interests. So
Speaker 1: the Socialistas are going after each other a little bit,
Speaker 1: but Elizabeth Warren is enticing to Democrats for a lot
Speaker 1: of reasons. One is that she's a woman, and Trump's
Speaker 1: greatest weakness in the states that matter are suburban, college
Speaker 1: educated women. That's where Trumps has real trouble. So I
Speaker 1: think that Jill Brand's got a point there from an
Speaker 1: electoral perspective, that is an area that Trump has to
Speaker 1: really work on and that Trump campaign and Trump surrogates
Speaker 1: need to make sure they're doing a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: outreach and explain, you know, who the president is on
Speaker 1: the issues that matter and why this is about what's
Speaker 1: best for the country. This is not a personal brand
Speaker 1: It's not Oh, I voted for this person, therefore I
Speaker 1: am X. It's not a personal branding exercise. But we
Speaker 1: all need to also dig in and be prepared for
Speaker 1: what the pro abortion forces are going to be willing
Speaker 1: to do in this next election cycle. It's not it.
Speaker 1: It was no small part of the Kavanaugh debacle. It
Speaker 1: was no small part of the count of debacle that
Speaker 1: they tried to take him down because of the threat
Speaker 1: to Rovuwade, and that women were willing to lie, women
Speaker 1: were willing to profane the oath to tell the truth
Speaker 1: and nothing but the truth because they thought it was
Speaker 1: worth it anything to stop Kavanaugh, because anything to save
Speaker 1: rovu Wade. So that mentality you saw of break you,
Speaker 1: break any rules, do anything you have to do, just
Speaker 1: stop Kavanaugh because Roe is on the line. That's going
Speaker 1: to be a major factor in the thinking of the
Speaker 1: left going to this next election, which is scary. It's
Speaker 1: scary because there is a hysteria around this. There are
Speaker 1: women who believe that we're heading toward the Handmaid's Tale.
Speaker 1: There are women who believe that the patriarchy is real
Speaker 1: and they must smash it. With whatever leftist tools they have.
Speaker 1: That's pretty terrifying, crazy stuff. Do you agree with AOC
Speaker 1: that ICE is running to concentration camps on the border.
Speaker 1: There are camps and people would be in and traded.
Speaker 1: This is very simple. I don't even know why this
Speaker 1: is a controversial thing for her to say. We have
Speaker 1: to really truthfully speak about what's taking place. And this
Speaker 1: is why it's really important for us to abolish ICE
Speaker 1: and make sure that we have an agency that is
Speaker 1: accountable to the people, that is dealing with this situation
Speaker 1: in a humane way. There's no there's no way that
Speaker 1: we can allow for kids to be caged in this
Speaker 1: country and children to be separated from their families, and
Speaker 1: people being terrorized in their communities. We have to make
Speaker 1: sure that we are calling it out. And I am
Speaker 1: one hundred percent with Alan wow ilhan Omar there just
Speaker 1: batting a thousand on the worst talking points, the worst
Speaker 1: hot takes on immigration, on ICE, on concentration camps. She
Speaker 1: is in a class by herself of wrong. Uh, it's
Speaker 1: it's it's amazing, but that's where she is. But she's
Speaker 1: also representative of this mentality on the left. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's not this is why when when we when I
Speaker 1: criticize AOC, and I do think that there's a real
Speaker 1: need to measure how much Tommy's been talking about AOC,
Speaker 1: because yeah, like I just like can talk like that,
Speaker 1: and just like I want to just like run all
Speaker 1: the America and like the economy and stuff and like
Speaker 1: free and like social justice and stuff. We can do
Speaker 1: a lot of that. But ultimately, I don't want to
Speaker 1: focus too much on one member of Congress. It's more
Speaker 1: that she is representative that she is in many ways AOC,
Speaker 1: a distillation of the left wing mind and where the
Speaker 1: left of the American Democratic Party is right now. And
Speaker 1: so with that in mind, it's more important to tackle
Speaker 1: her ideology and understand why she thinks what she thinks.
Speaker 1: And I on Omar is writing Lockstaff with her on
Speaker 1: all of this. Ilhan Omar is another far left, social justice,
Speaker 1: identity politics obsessed member of Congress that the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is very protective of. And I think there's a there's
Speaker 1: a part of this that's also just due to the
Speaker 1: hyper sensitivity of the liberal mind as well. I mean
Speaker 1: libs are hyper sensitive in general, that is a true thing.
Speaker 1: And so when you start to you know, criticize some
Speaker 1: of their their favorite people. They completely freak out. That's
Speaker 1: that's understandable. But also they they know that AOC and
Speaker 1: ilhan Omar have many, many, many adherents in the media
Speaker 1: as well as across the country, people who are true
Speaker 1: far leftists. But I like as she just goes, well,
Speaker 1: it's a place where people are being concentrated. So it's
Speaker 1: a concentration camp, okay, ilhan Omar. So I might go
Speaker 1: to a baseball game this weekend. There'll be a lot
Speaker 1: of people there. Is the Nationals baseball game a concentration camp?
Speaker 1: Obviously not, so let's not be complete idiots for the
Speaker 1: sake of trying to defend AOC on the indefense wall.
Speaker 1: It was quite a week with this, and part of
Speaker 1: me was thinking, why do conservatives still talk? Why am
Speaker 1: I still talking about it? But they wouldn't let it go.
Speaker 1: They wouldn't take the l they wouldn't take the loss.
Speaker 1: They kept insisting, insisting that there must be some way
Speaker 1: to make it sound like AOC wasn't being an idiot.
Speaker 1: But she was, and the American people know that. And
Speaker 1: I don't think anybody is going to come up with
Speaker 1: some magic wand to wave over her statements and make
Speaker 1: them seem not stupid. But yeah, the concentration camp comment
Speaker 1: that ilhan Omar said was in its own right, very
Speaker 1: very dumb. There are camps and people are being concentrated.
Speaker 1: Thanks ilhan Omar, really really good. And then she said
Speaker 1: that we have to abolish ICE. This is another talking point.
Speaker 1: This was said all last summer by the left. They
Speaker 1: continue to trot this out sometimes, abolish ICE. What would
Speaker 1: that mean if you want ICE to be abolished, doesn't
Speaker 1: that mean that you want open borders because ICE is
Speaker 1: the body that enforces immigration law. Right. The raids that
Speaker 1: are expected to happen starting very very soon here, just
Speaker 1: a few days, those are ICE raids. So if you
Speaker 1: want ICE gone, oh, it's going to be replaced with
Speaker 1: a different agency. They say, why would that new agency,
Speaker 1: if tasked with enforcing the same laws, be any better.
Speaker 1: And I just can't help but point out that, especially
Speaker 1: in the case of border patrol, you have a very
Speaker 1: large percentage of border patrol that is Hispanic of Hispanic parentage.
Speaker 1: I think it's about twenty five or thirty percent, which
Speaker 1: is a big chunk. And then you have about the
Speaker 1: same percentage I believe our veterans. So you've got a big,
Speaker 1: big group of immigration and cust enforcement would be non white,
Speaker 1: be Latino themselves, and a big group our veterans at
Speaker 1: border patrol, and they are trashed, trashed for being morally
Speaker 1: the equivalent of Nazi prison guards by leftist nut cases.
Speaker 1: And I just think we're all sick of it. I
Speaker 1: just think we would like to have a reasonable adult
Speaker 1: discussion about what to do with the border without these
Speaker 1: crazies running around saying the most inflammatory stuff imaginable because
Speaker 1: this is what they read on Twitter, this is what
Speaker 1: they see on MSNBC. But they've really decided to do
Speaker 1: everything they could for Ilohana Omar this week. It was instructive.
Speaker 1: I mean, it does show us just how willing they
Speaker 1: are to go to the map for her. I think
Speaker 1: that I think you could argue right now that AOC
Speaker 1: because you're in the Democratic primary and you have all
Speaker 1: these different media entities that feel like they have a
Speaker 1: very important role here not to inform the public about this,
Speaker 1: but they want to have their hand on the control switch.
Speaker 1: I mean, they want to be pushing for the winner,
Speaker 1: whoever that may be. And they know that in these
Speaker 1: primaries for the Democrats. In these primary races, the left
Speaker 1: wing base is very important, and so there's an incentive
Speaker 1: for different media outlets that want to have credibility in
Speaker 1: this primary, these left wing outlets to jump forward and
Speaker 1: have their people defend AOC, because even if they look
Speaker 1: stupid to normal people, they look like they're being loyal,
Speaker 1: loyal defenders of the progressive left to the left wing base.
Speaker 1: So there's an incentive in place for There's no question
Speaker 1: there are reasons for the support of Okazio Cortez from
Speaker 1: the left, and that's why this week it was just
Speaker 1: it was mind boggling. What she said was so dumb.
Speaker 1: What so many people said to defender was so dumb.
Speaker 1: Team buck, it's time for roll call. Well, Team, I'm
Speaker 1: living in a world of mint tea and all kinds
Speaker 1: of stuff like that. So eating all the throat lozenges.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but some of your funny because you
Speaker 1: always say that my voice sounds better when I'm a
Speaker 1: little sick. So at least we're getting some special some
Speaker 1: special vocals going on here right now. Yeah, yeah, but yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't know who gets a cold in the middle
Speaker 1: of June. But but I am that person apparently, so
Speaker 1: here I am with quite a quite I know, woe
Speaker 1: is me, woe is me? Quite a sniffle. I'll be fine.
Speaker 1: I know. I'm a big I'm a big baby about
Speaker 1: about being sick, especially when I have this new found
Speaker 1: freedom where I can sleep in the mornings. Trying to
Speaker 1: find a place to move to in New York City,
Speaker 1: my friends, that's also an interesting situation. Let me tell
Speaker 1: you now, it's pretty easy. You just find four hundred
Speaker 1: square feet with very little lights somewhere and you agree
Speaker 1: to give them your firstborn, and then you're good. You're good.
Speaker 1: So there you have it. You know, just give them
Speaker 1: your firstborn. They'll give you four hundred square feet, no amenities,
Speaker 1: no washer, dryer in the unit. A lot of you
Speaker 1: who are living in places across the country where you have,
Speaker 1: oh your home values keep going up, but they're reasonable
Speaker 1: if you want to get into a kind of starter home.
Speaker 1: There are all these other places people live, like Texas,
Speaker 1: for example. You realize the Texas just this year or
Speaker 1: in the last twelve months, has legalized lemonade stands on
Speaker 1: the streets. No more, no more getting your registration card
Speaker 1: for your five year old lemonade stand, legalized beer delivery
Speaker 1: service to your home. That's right, even gluten free beer.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they now have banned red light cameras, which
Speaker 1: is fantastic. That's just a total. It's a tax on drivers.
Speaker 1: It's crazy. Fraud. Telemarketing has in fact been banned in Texas,
Speaker 1: and they've also cut school property taxes. So I'm I
Speaker 1: look at what they do in Texas and I say,
Speaker 1: that's all. That's all great, fantastic, well done Texas. And
Speaker 1: then my career takes me to New York City, which
Speaker 1: ever I know who lives there right now says is
Speaker 1: in a downward spiral. It's still super expensive and fancy,
Speaker 1: but a downward spiral, all right. Facebook dot com, slash
Speaker 1: buck sexton and this is where we get the role
Speaker 1: call action going. You asked what our comfort food was.
Speaker 1: Mine is bourbon. I'm from Kentucky and bourbon has a
Speaker 1: special place here period. I'm not an alcoholic, but after
Speaker 1: a day's hard work or a hard day's work, a
Speaker 1: short glass of bourbon is very relaxing. Let's my brain notes,
Speaker 1: I'm settled down and get some rest. My favorite is
Speaker 1: angels Envy, but it's a little pricey, so I go
Speaker 1: for four roses, which is a little more affordable. You know, Josh,
Speaker 1: I actually have a bottle of four roses here in
Speaker 1: my home, so we have that in common. And as
Speaker 1: you know, I'm all about tequila and mescal. I wish
Speaker 1: that there were RUMs that were worth just drinking on
Speaker 1: their own, and perhaps there are, but I've never come
Speaker 1: across them. I find that rum is really because I
Speaker 1: try to stay away from the grain based spirits. Even
Speaker 1: though this is another one of these moments where I
Speaker 1: tell you that I have all these issues with our
Speaker 1: modern system of medicine, like there are questions that they
Speaker 1: should be able to answer that they can't. So I
Speaker 1: have Celiac disease, which is an autoimmune disorder that means
Speaker 1: that your immune system fires, it attacks every time gluten
Speaker 1: the gluten protein is present in your gas or intestinal
Speaker 1: track in the intestines. And what happens is that through
Speaker 1: that that inflammation that occurs from the firing of the system.
Speaker 1: All the time, these small fingerlike projections along the small
Speaker 1: intestines called the vly, which are very necessary for the
Speaker 1: absorption of nutrients in the food, they erode. They actually
Speaker 1: will disappear from the process of Celiac disease firing your
Speaker 1: immune system up all the time. So when I say
Speaker 1: I stay away from spirits, you can ask ten different
Speaker 1: doctors and get five different answers about can you or
Speaker 1: can you not drink distilled alcohol made from grain. Some
Speaker 1: say that the distillation process removes the gluten protein. Others
Speaker 1: say it's not worth it. It might still happen. It's
Speaker 1: still some of their patients probably still. So the answer is,
Speaker 1: I don't really know. But that's why I drink so
Speaker 1: much tequila mescal because that's from the agave plant. That's
Speaker 1: definitely gluten free. I like Tito's vodka Yeah, Texas, because
Speaker 1: it's made from potatoes, which is also gluten free. Generally
Speaker 1: I drink sake, which is made from right but sometimes
Speaker 1: they'll put a malted barley in with the rice, to
Speaker 1: which I think they're not supposed to do, but it's
Speaker 1: kind of a cheap way of accelerating the process. So,
Speaker 1: you know, gluten can slip into things. But those of
Speaker 1: you that don't have any food allergies, you're lucky. You're lucky.
Speaker 1: It is. I've gotten used to being gluten free, but
Speaker 1: it is not fun, especially because people go, oh, you're
Speaker 1: gluten free, like because you're basically a vegan. No, I
Speaker 1: do not choose this. If I could choose things, I
Speaker 1: would choose to eat Giant Doughey salted pretzels all the
Speaker 1: friggin time. But I can't choose it. It's my genetics.
Speaker 1: We all have our things. My friends. Jeremy, Jeremy spoken, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's not really close, is it. It's gotta be a
Speaker 1: lot lower than that. That was like Jemmies. No, I
Speaker 1: can't do it. I can't do it. Fuck. I don't
Speaker 1: know why you're listening to the radio. If you wanted
Speaker 1: to hear music, you listen new music station. You'll listen
Speaker 1: to a radio talk station to join the fight for
Speaker 1: freedom in this country, you know. So, I'll try to
Speaker 1: stop turning this into karaoke hour, but I get a
Speaker 1: little punchy. I'm gonna blame the cough cough medicine. I
Speaker 1: I took some of the Nike Will last night. There's
Speaker 1: there's sleep. There's sleep when you're tired, and then there's
Speaker 1: like right after you knock backs on that Nike Will sleep.
Speaker 1: It's like it's that sleep where you you drool a
Speaker 1: little bit on yourself, and the middle of night you
Speaker 1: gotta yeah, you wake up a little bit, and then
Speaker 1: you don't care and you just go right back to sleep.
Speaker 1: She's like, I'm sick. What am I gonna do? This
Speaker 1: little drool on me? None of you ever do that?
Speaker 1: Of course, only I. Only I drooled myself when I'm sleeping.
Speaker 1: Jeremy writes Buck. It is true that liberals in general
Speaker 1: aren't funny. Yes, yeah, yeah, Jeremy. Friends of mine who
Speaker 1: lean left often only quote other jokes as being funny,
Speaker 1: while they struggle to make jokes of their own. The
Speaker 1: right is just a more lighthearted bunch. Also, vegan cupcakes
Speaker 1: aren't bad. My wife made them for her vegan cousin.
Speaker 1: They use oil instead of butter and eggs, and they
Speaker 1: honestly aren't half bad. Not enough for me to give
Speaker 1: up eating tasty animals though, No, Jeremy, I there are
Speaker 1: some vegan things that are actually just fine. You know,
Speaker 1: there's some vegan foods you can eat where you're really
Speaker 1: not sacrificing very much at all. And so I'm very
Speaker 1: honest about this stuff. Not confections, I guess you call
Speaker 1: them a baked goods. You can get great vegan baked goods.
Speaker 1: There's great vegan chocolate chip cookies. I know you're saying false,
Speaker 1: but I'm telling you it's true. People. I'm the one
Speaker 1: who always lives in all these blue Kamie places. Trust me.
Speaker 1: I know, I know the food scene here in the
Speaker 1: in the lib dystopias. That's the one thing I do.
Speaker 1: It's the one thing I like about lib dystopias. They
Speaker 1: do have good food. I know you've got great food
Speaker 1: in other parts of the country too, I know, I know.
Speaker 1: But vegan vegan you can make really good stuff. It's
Speaker 1: the entrees that without are vegan that don't do it
Speaker 1: for me. I mean, I just think you just need
Speaker 1: protein if you're eating entres. I don't and I never
Speaker 1: wish favored from that. People say, oh, I, but the
Speaker 1: way I cook the portobello mushroom with like the oyster
Speaker 1: sauce and just like all these other like really good
Speaker 1: herbs and no, it tastes like a mushroom, which is
Speaker 1: great as a side for my RIBI I do not
Speaker 1: want just mushroom. Mushroom makes me think where is my steak?
Speaker 1: But yeah, you're right about vegan cupcakes. And yeah, in
Speaker 1: terms of the right being funny, you know, we've also
Speaker 1: very much had to deal with being made fun of
Speaker 1: and our ideas being mocked constantly. You know, I can't
Speaker 1: tell you how many times, and watching a show and
Speaker 1: I'm like, oh, there's a cheap shot at Republicans are up.
Speaker 1: There's a cheap shot at the right. Happens all the time,
Speaker 1: and so you just learn to be a little more
Speaker 1: cool about things. But the funniest people, I know, because
Speaker 1: in a cultural sense, you are much more countercultural if
Speaker 1: you're a Republican. Now, you just are in an American
Speaker 1: cultural sense when you talk about pop culture, music, Hollywood.
Speaker 1: And so if you want to be a little provocative,
Speaker 1: the left is not provocative. They're just disgusting. They just
Speaker 1: say all the same things. They think shocking people is provocation.
Speaker 1: But I mean, if you want to be thoughtfully provocative,
Speaker 1: it all comes from the right now. And this is
Speaker 1: why so many people have been drawn to the intellectual
Speaker 1: dark web and Jordan Peterson and other people who are
Speaker 1: willing to tackle these difficult ideas. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: we tackle difficult ideas here on this show on a
Speaker 1: regular basis, And I think that if there were enough
Speaker 1: libs who listen to this show who are in bad intention.
Speaker 1: They could probably jump on me for some of the
Speaker 1: things that I talk about. But that'll happen. That'll happen.
Speaker 1: But as long as all of you keep listening, it's
Speaker 1: it's all fine. So it doesn't matter they I'm untouchable
Speaker 1: audience as long as you make me untouchable. So there
Speaker 1: you go. Lowell Right's is usual great job. I have
Speaker 1: an idea the problem you have with the podcast, like
Speaker 1: iHeart and other free providers, that they use ads to
Speaker 1: pay for their services, have producer Mike put tones where
Speaker 1: you want them in sort of promo so they can
Speaker 1: coordinate when you want them to do ad insertions. Just
Speaker 1: my opinion, put some of your own commercials for the
Speaker 1: companies you have contracts with, so I'll help you pay
Speaker 1: for some of your media growth. Would also love for
Speaker 1: you to find a way to do your own news
Speaker 1: report like ABC does on standard radio stations. I know
Speaker 1: it's a lot of work, but another product to post
Speaker 1: and insert on your podcast as well. I also think
Speaker 1: listener to myself would subscribe to a voluntary subscription to
Speaker 1: assist in the growth of your media company. Shields High. Well, well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, man. I really do appreciate the
Speaker 1: support and the ideas, and I do think that we
Speaker 1: will launch. I think what's going to happen is that
Speaker 1: Shields High will come back as a It'll be a
Speaker 1: history and more deep dive stuff, and it'll come back
Speaker 1: as a paid subscription podcast, just because that makes it
Speaker 1: worthwhile for me to put in the effort in the
Speaker 1: time to do it. And you know, it's not like
Speaker 1: no one's going to go broke because they're paying three
Speaker 1: dollars a month for a subscription for a weekly podcast
Speaker 1: that's got really cool stuff and audio effects in it.
Speaker 1: So that's the plan. That's what we got going on.
Speaker 1: All right, We're gonna come back with more Role Call
Speaker 1: at a moment. Stay with me. The show ain't over yet, folks.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll Call, right rights, Hey book, great show.
Speaker 1: For some time, there was part of me that was
Speaker 1: skeptical of your devish stance on war with Iran. I mean,
Speaker 1: if we want to one day have a non Islamist Iran,
Speaker 1: there are only so many ways that can happen. War
Speaker 1: is one, and if it's not seriously seen as an option,
Speaker 1: is all this saber rattling by Trump a bluff, but
Speaker 1: I think you've sold me on the reality of militarism
Speaker 1: In this regard. International posturing is one thing. Privately, America's
Speaker 1: leadership needs to have faith there's another way to neutralize
Speaker 1: Iran's Mullahs. I mean, put aside the nation's appetite for
Speaker 1: war logistics tactics. We're gonna make mistakes. Tell me, do
Speaker 1: you ever feel safe in a humvey? I read those
Speaker 1: things were never meant to be frontline patrol vehicles, spear
Speaker 1: tipping our convoys, laying down fire support. They were glorified
Speaker 1: hum good enough for Arnie, but we use them as
Speaker 1: armored cars when they're really thin skid utility transports. Our
Speaker 1: Humphies were getting knocked out in droves. Rumsfell As, I
Speaker 1: recall said, you go to war with the army you have,
Speaker 1: and that was that. Keep up the good instincts, Buck,
Speaker 1: I think you're right on this well, Ryan, I really
Speaker 1: appreciate that, and it's the sign of a sound and
Speaker 1: worthwhile mind for someone to be open to changing their
Speaker 1: opinion on a matter like this, which is clearly very complicated.
Speaker 1: I mean, there are very real reasons to advocate for
Speaker 1: a more bellicose posture toward Iran. And there are certainly
Speaker 1: very real reasons why I'm saying why I have been saying,
Speaker 1: for example, that we need to be very careful he
Speaker 1: I want to back off. I have been around enough
Speaker 1: in the war zones, you know, seeing enough of what
Speaker 1: the military has been doing, no enough from the intel side.
Speaker 1: And one thing about my perch in the CIA that
Speaker 1: was really interesting and useful is the access I had
Speaker 1: to information if I wanted to find it, meaning if
Speaker 1: I was willing to look for in the various databases
Speaker 1: and places where it was held, was astounding, and I
Speaker 1: did spend it was really the best preparation imaginable for
Speaker 1: a career in media. Quite honestly, for a career as
Speaker 1: radio talk show host. I spent six years of my
Speaker 1: life reading all day long. Basically, what did I really
Speaker 1: what it was? What was my main skill set as
Speaker 1: a CIA officer? What was my main day to day
Speaker 1: activity reading? It's not sexy, it's not James Baum with
Speaker 1: exploding cuff links. It's not you know, lasers and international supermodels.
Speaker 1: Although that's coming later, folks. Thanks to you. If the
Speaker 1: show keeps growing, we'll get there. But it was it
Speaker 1: was reading all day long. That's all I did. I
Speaker 1: mean there were other things too, Yes, there was some
Speaker 1: machine gun training and explosives and stuff, but my job
Speaker 1: really was reading and being being an information super nerd.
Speaker 1: And so when I did that in Iraq and Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: I did have a very i think, a very sound
Speaker 1: view of what was going on was really going on
Speaker 1: in those countries, which is why I've been saying to
Speaker 1: you on the show that Afghanistan is effectively a war
Speaker 1: we can't win. I've been saying it for all the
Speaker 1: time that I've been on air, at least as long
Speaker 1: as I can remember. And that caution in these matters
Speaker 1: when we're dealing with the Middle East. You know, could
Speaker 1: we break and rebuild a European country that shared a
Speaker 1: lot of our values culture? And yeah, I mean I'm
Speaker 1: not suggesting we ever do that again, but I think
Speaker 1: we could do that. Can we break and rebuild some
Speaker 1: of these Middle Eastern countries with all the different factions?
Speaker 1: And I think the answer is quite honestly no, and
Speaker 1: we shouldn't try, and it's not worth doing. It's not
Speaker 1: worth trying. So and you might tell me, well, Buck
Speaker 1: with Iran. We're not going to try regime change, We're
Speaker 1: not going to try to rebuild the right. It always
Speaker 1: starts with smaller overtures. You know, there's always a let's
Speaker 1: just take steps in that direction mentality, and then things
Speaker 1: tend to get bigger. And no, I'm not somebody it
Speaker 1: screams Gulf of Tonkin incident every time something happens. But
Speaker 1: you know, if we hit the Iranians hard, they're probably
Speaker 1: gonna want to hit us back. So yeah, we'll see
Speaker 1: and if they hit us back harder, and then you know,
Speaker 1: this is how escalation happens, folks, This is how escalation happens.
Speaker 1: But I'm very cautious. And here's why I'm cautious. I've
Speaker 1: had to visit a friend of mine and Walter Read
Speaker 1: as I've told you before, who almost got his legs
Speaker 1: sheered off by a by a mortar round that exploded.
Speaker 1: I've I've walked around, I've seen what that's like. We
Speaker 1: better be damn sure if we're gonna put, honestly the
Speaker 1: bravest among us in harm's way again for something like that,
Speaker 1: we better be damn sure. And I don't think we
Speaker 1: are in Iran don't think we should be Gabrielle. Right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: surprised to hear your newly single sad we're losing you
Speaker 1: to NYC. As a fellow elder millennial, maybe you can
Speaker 1: enlighten me. Where do conservative gentlemen hang out around here?
Speaker 1: Dating in the swamp is rough shield tie, Gabrielle or Gabrielle. Gabrielle,
Speaker 1: I got a really the answer for you. Trump International Hotel, Darlin.
Speaker 1: Come on check it out. That's where you'll find the
Speaker 1: right wing men of DC gathered, especially on Tuesdays. They
Speaker 1: call it Trump Tuesday. I will not be there. Well, no,
Speaker 1: I probably won't be there this Tuesday. I will definitely
Speaker 1: be there the following Tuesday. So if you want to
Speaker 1: see and I, there will be lots of right wing
Speaker 1: men there. I last time I was there, I was
Speaker 1: hanging out with an SF guy, actually SF guy, an
Speaker 1: Air Force guy, a bunch of people I know from
Speaker 1: conservative media. Usually my guys Harlan Hill and Raheem Kassam
Speaker 1: are always trying to get me to drink more than
Speaker 1: I should. There's a whole squad that hangs out over there.
Speaker 1: So Gabrielle, come on down. Trump International hotel just in
Speaker 1: the main lobby. You'll meet all kinds of conservative dudes there,
Speaker 1: and like I said, I'm usually there on Tuesdays. I
Speaker 1: won't be there this coming Tuesday, but I'll be there
Speaker 1: the Tuesday after that and Corme and say hi, all right,
Speaker 1: team Wow, my voice just completely failed me there. I
Speaker 1: have a fantastic week and hopefully by Monday I'll be healthy.
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you then Shi'll tie