Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. So there's an offer
Speaker 1: on the table. Congress says that they've struck an agreement.
Speaker 1: Is it good enough for President Trump? Is the money
Speaker 1: enough for the border wall? President seems to have two
Speaker 1: minds on this issue. Will break that down. And also
Speaker 1: what about the Obama administration when it came to border patrol. Oh,
Speaker 1: let's have the former chief of Obama's border patrol tell
Speaker 1: us that we're right on all of this stuff that's
Speaker 1: coming up. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, you're a great American. Again,
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show begins. Sexton, No, last year, Quarez
Speaker 1: had one thousand, two hundred murders. El Paso, right next
Speaker 1: door a few feet away, had twenty three murders. Walls work, Actually,
Speaker 1: there's nothing like them for what we're talking about. We
Speaker 1: want to stop drugs, we want to stop traffickers, we
Speaker 1: want to stop criminals from coming in. Walls save lives.
Speaker 1: The amount of money that is here, it would take
Speaker 1: twenty years to complete the wall. So are we going
Speaker 1: to wait for twenty years to stop drug traffickers. Are
Speaker 1: we going to wait for twenty years to stop human trafficking?
Speaker 1: Are we gonna wait twenty years to allow cartels to
Speaker 1: control our southern border? I hope not. We can do
Speaker 1: better than that. We should do better than that. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Buck Sexton Show Live from New York City today,
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hunt packed going back to its roots here NYC. So,
Speaker 1: which is it, folks? Walls work, but not enough money
Speaker 1: for the wall? Wise that? So I want to explain
Speaker 1: that one or try to. We have now gathered all
Speaker 1: the information as a country, had had this debate in public,
Speaker 1: and we know that walls work. But Democrats still don't
Speaker 1: want to sufficiently fund a wall just a little tiny bit,
Speaker 1: A little tiny bit, I mean more than say Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi was going to offer up not long ago when
Speaker 1: she was saying, oh, she would give how much? Was
Speaker 1: it is in a situation which you would accept even
Speaker 1: a dollar of wall funding for this president in order
Speaker 1: to reopen the government a dollar? Hahaha? Nancy? What looks
Speaker 1: like they're giving about a billion times and change that.
Speaker 1: But it's still not enough money. It is not enough money,
Speaker 1: will not build a wall fast enough. The crisis is
Speaker 1: getting works. The system is getting increasingly overloaded. I mentioned
Speaker 1: the very top here. We're gonna have the chief of
Speaker 1: border patrol from the Obama years to join us, and
Speaker 1: then don't don't change that dial. Don't be like, hey,
Speaker 1: well Buck, we don't. We don't need to hear any
Speaker 1: of that. None of this guy's he's a professional. He's
Speaker 1: a practitioner, somebody who did who did the work at
Speaker 1: the border and knows what was going on there. And
Speaker 1: he's gonna come on. I've I've talked to him before.
Speaker 1: I talked him this morning actually on Rising and he's like, look,
Speaker 1: the Democrats are just wrong on this, just they're just
Speaker 1: not telling the truth or they don't know. We need
Speaker 1: a wall. There is a crisis. This is Obama's border
Speaker 1: patrol chief, Okay, under the Obama years. And I'm gonna
Speaker 1: ask him about that in depth. That'll come up the
Speaker 1: next hour. You should definitely stick around for that. There
Speaker 1: there is no more there's no expert group. And I
Speaker 1: heard this so much from the Democrats and from the
Speaker 1: left and the media and all their lackeys on MS
Speaker 1: and CNN and the rest. There is no experts say
Speaker 1: walls don't work. That's a lie. It's alive. I've heard
Speaker 1: so many times, but you know we have to counter
Speaker 1: it repeatedly. If I just tell you, if I come
Speaker 1: on the show and tell you once, well you know
Speaker 1: you're gonna hear it from other people a hundred times.
Speaker 1: At walls don't work. If you watch some of the
Speaker 1: left wing, which I hope you don't do, but if
Speaker 1: you do, that's fine. You know some of the left
Speaker 1: wing cable news channels out there and some of you,
Speaker 1: we're gonna aren't gonna hear me that day on that show.
Speaker 1: You know, we have to fight back. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is a messaging war, so we have to repeatedly shoot
Speaker 1: down their lies because they are lying it is. They
Speaker 1: are mendacious on this issue. Keep doing it. I do think, however,
Speaker 1: the White House is overselling what a win this is.
Speaker 1: It's just it's not enough money. And the options I
Speaker 1: suppose are shut down, which happened, would happen this weekend
Speaker 1: shut down and declare national emergency shut down and try
Speaker 1: to ride it out again, which I don't think the
Speaker 1: administration has a stomach for. And we're just signed this thing,
Speaker 1: and then declare some kind of national emergency and keep
Speaker 1: in mind that there are federal statutes in place already
Speaker 1: that would allow the President of the United States, as
Speaker 1: the commander in chief, to use d D funding to
Speaker 1: construct barriers that would prevent the importation of dangerous and
Speaker 1: illegal substances drugs in the United States. Trump has the
Speaker 1: legal authority to just build a wall, they'd have to
Speaker 1: shift some money around. I kind of like what Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz was saying about having El Chapo pay for it,
Speaker 1: assuming we could seize those assets in Mexico. Wouldn't try
Speaker 1: to challenge that, you know, I don't know, But if
Speaker 1: Mexico try to challenge that, then I would just say, hey, Mexico,
Speaker 1: guess about the twenty billion a year in untaxed remittances
Speaker 1: that you get for your economy. This that cold, hard
Speaker 1: cash it's being sent back to your country from America
Speaker 1: from predominantly not entirely, but from a lot of illegal
Speaker 1: aliens as well as legal ones. That money. We're gonna
Speaker 1: start taxing that. So we we have leverage. We have
Speaker 1: levers that we can use with Mexico on this. But
Speaker 1: I still think that the wall absolutely needs to get built.
Speaker 1: But I wanted to also just take a moment here
Speaker 1: to enjoy. Another phenomenon that is occurring right now, and
Speaker 1: that is Democrats are increasingly triggered by the words of
Speaker 1: the leaders of their own party. Democrats become upset when
Speaker 1: you do really nasty, unfair things to them, like print
Speaker 1: their policy documents, read their quotes, play videos of them
Speaker 1: saying what they believe. This has now become mean. It's
Speaker 1: mean to Ocasio Cortez to talk about what's really in
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal. It's mean to Representative Omar to
Speaker 1: point out what she says and what she thinks on
Speaker 1: foreign policy. I mean, just go down the list. You know,
Speaker 1: these are things that you would think the Democrats would
Speaker 1: be excited. Why aren't they excited to say, take a
Speaker 1: vote on the Green New Deal? I mean. Mitch McConnell,
Speaker 1: known to some of us as Cocaine Mitch, which is
Speaker 1: a joke that I'm sure many of you familiar with,
Speaker 1: has to do a crazy ad that I think ran
Speaker 1: in West Virginia about Mitch McConnell some I'm candidate, and
Speaker 1: it just caught on became a meme. I have it
Speaker 1: on good authority that Mitch McConnell finds that funny. By
Speaker 1: the way that he finds the Cocaine Mitch stuff funny.
Speaker 1: So it's okay. He laughs about it too. But people
Speaker 1: I'll call him Cocaine Mitch, and they do a lot
Speaker 1: of memes like he's Tony Montana from from Scarface. They'll
Speaker 1: they'll photo shop Mitch McConnell's face on a Tony Montana,
Speaker 1: you know. And Mitch McConnell had had this idea that
Speaker 1: I think is great, which is, let's have Democrats senators
Speaker 1: that are especially because there's a lot of Democrats centors
Speaker 1: that are gonna be running for the presidency, let's have them.
Speaker 1: It was Don Blankenship that ran the ad. Nice. Yeah,
Speaker 1: remember that ad Cocaine Mitch. You know, he started just
Speaker 1: mumbling about something about cocaine. Everyone's like what. That was
Speaker 1: one of the craziest ads for any political race that
Speaker 1: anyone's ever seen. That was nuts anyway, So Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: has this idea, we'll hold on a second, let's just
Speaker 1: have people who say, therefore, the Green New Deal as
Speaker 1: it stands right now. And then the media has been
Speaker 1: running all kinds of interference for just how stupid the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal really is. I mean, first of just
Speaker 1: this the grandiose language. This is gonna be a new deal,
Speaker 1: it's all. It's never gonna happen. I mean, I certainly
Speaker 1: hope not. It would destroy the economy, but it's unlikely
Speaker 1: this thing will ever even become a law. But this
Speaker 1: is a get the base fired up tactic from the
Speaker 1: left right. This is the base trying to be all or.
Speaker 1: This is the Democrats rather trying to get their base
Speaker 1: all excited about just how progressive and radical and all
Speaker 1: these new ideas that they have. And Mitch McConnell had
Speaker 1: this crazy idea. His idea was, let's just have these senators,
Speaker 1: the Democrats sentators, vote on this, because if you get
Speaker 1: them on the record voting in favor of this massive
Speaker 1: transformation of the American economy, that makes it harder for
Speaker 1: them later on to say, yeah, you know, I wasn't
Speaker 1: really I wasn't really so down with that whole Green
Speaker 1: New Deal thing. You know, Nancy Pelosi, somebody who talks,
Speaker 1: who talks a big game about climate change because she
Speaker 1: knows that the base likes it. But when you'll notice,
Speaker 1: when the Green New Deal came out, she was like, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's cute. I mean, she wasn't taking it seriously. Tells
Speaker 1: you about how unserious the whole thing was. But I
Speaker 1: like that Mitch now takes the approach of let's just
Speaker 1: let the Democrats be Democrats. Let's show the American people
Speaker 1: what the Democratic Party is really about, which is socialism
Speaker 1: and fanticide, open borders, higher taxes, less economic growth, less
Speaker 1: personal freedom. Let's just let people see this for what
Speaker 1: it is. Because they don't have a Hillary candidate now.
Speaker 1: They don't have some some establishment figure that has been
Speaker 1: propped up and a narrative has been crafted around that
Speaker 1: person of being a centrist, a competent technocrat, all just
Speaker 1: mythology around Hillary. They don't really have that person. Now
Speaker 1: you have a Democrat primary that's looking like it's going
Speaker 1: to be a total free for all. There's really no
Speaker 1: front runner at all at this point, and sometimes this
Speaker 1: takes so I understand sometimes it takes a while to consolidate.
Speaker 1: You look at you know when John Kerry consolidated his lead.
Speaker 1: It happened after the first few states. So we're early
Speaker 1: in this. I understand that I don't want to get
Speaker 1: too far ahead of us. But Democrats in my lifetime
Speaker 1: have never started out with as radical and left wing
Speaker 1: a platform is what you're seeing right now. And I
Speaker 1: think Mitch is right to try to get them on
Speaker 1: the record, you know. I think Mitch is right to
Speaker 1: see that the Democrats shouldn't have to Actually, they should
Speaker 1: have to drink the medicine that they're trying to foist
Speaker 1: on the rest of the American people, and they should
Speaker 1: have to they should have to be users of their
Speaker 1: own products, so to speak. Yeah, you like this Green
Speaker 1: New Deal stuff, go on the record and talk and
Speaker 1: go on the record so that way later on you
Speaker 1: have to defend this, and you can't just pretend that
Speaker 1: this was some passing media fad that had nothing to
Speaker 1: do with anything. Green New Deal is basically crazy. So meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Kirsten Gillibrand, who doesn't seem to know much about anything,
Speaker 1: from what I can gather, she's a big fan of this.
Speaker 1: We want to see a green economy in the next decade,
Speaker 1: not because it's easy, but because it's hard. Part of
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal there's some really important components like
Speaker 1: clean air and clean water as a right, cleaning up
Speaker 1: all these super fun sites and all these brown fields,
Speaker 1: making sure we invest in green technologies and teach young
Speaker 1: people how to build solar panels and do wind turbines
Speaker 1: and geothermal and hydropower and biofuels, like that's important and exciting.
Speaker 1: There's so much opportunity in this bill for economic growth
Speaker 1: and really fixing things that are broken. She just has
Speaker 1: no idea what she's talking about. Doesn't understand how business works,
Speaker 1: doesn't understand how these technologies work. It's just blather. It's
Speaker 1: just nonsense. You're going to teach young people about solar panels?
Speaker 1: What or how did I think? Did you say how
Speaker 1: to make solar panels? That's what it sounded like the meaning.
Speaker 1: But I was like, that will be here. That sounds
Speaker 1: like a fun class. Welcome to solar panel making one
Speaker 1: oh one, where you will be able to make exactly
Speaker 1: one solar panel over the course of the semester. That's
Speaker 1: not a fun class. I don't want to be in
Speaker 1: that class. So these are the Democrats. We are seeing
Speaker 1: who they are, We're seeing what their agenda is for
Speaker 1: the country, and it's you can tell. I think there's
Speaker 1: an exhalation of relief from a lot of people in
Speaker 1: Trump world. It's like, oh, that's right, Look, it's not
Speaker 1: the Trump administration hasn't been perfect, wall hasn't been built.
Speaker 1: There's things that still has to get done. We got
Speaker 1: to hold their feet to the fire, no doubt. But
Speaker 1: at least they're not the Democrats. That's what you've really
Speaker 1: had our last month or so. Is this point in
Speaker 1: time when we all get to remember, Oh, our side
Speaker 1: is at least trying to grapple with reality as it
Speaker 1: is trying to come up with ways to make this
Speaker 1: country better and stronger and all that stuff. Democrats are like,
Speaker 1: let's just pretend that we're in some kind of a
Speaker 1: fantasy land and just make it up as we go along.
Speaker 1: Clean energy, green energy, the jobs. I also I hate
Speaker 1: when politicians say invest in. What that means is take
Speaker 1: money from you, the taxpayer, and direct it to cronies
Speaker 1: and pet projects and things that they just like. Because
Speaker 1: if there's an idea out there, let me tell you,
Speaker 1: I know a lot of people that spend a lot
Speaker 1: of time searching for good investments, and they're actually hard
Speaker 1: to find. You know why that is because when you
Speaker 1: have a really obvious investment out there, would you have
Speaker 1: an obvious investment opportunity? People take it. The reason there's
Speaker 1: not more money flooding into green energy, and there's not
Speaker 1: more independent, free market capitalism based funding for these green
Speaker 1: energy projects. It's because they don't make financial sense. That's
Speaker 1: why the reason you need all these government guarantees, things
Speaker 1: like the Cylindra boondoggle of the Obama era. You will
Speaker 1: call hundreds of millions of dollars of taxpayer guarantees for
Speaker 1: those loans. The reason you need that is because the
Speaker 1: market will not bear what the Democrats say it will
Speaker 1: when it comes to these technologies. They are not cost
Speaker 1: efficient enough, they are not competitive enough. When they are,
Speaker 1: they'll be more of it. They're getting closer, but they're
Speaker 1: not there yet. The biggest problem the Democrats have is
Speaker 1: that they're Democrats. At the end of the day, that's
Speaker 1: the good news for us. We much more coming up.
Speaker 1: Teams stay right there. The President wants to see what
Speaker 1: the final package looks like and he'll make a decision.
Speaker 1: At that point, they're still tinkering and making edits to
Speaker 1: that legislation, and once we see what the final piece
Speaker 1: looks like, the President can make that decision. But you
Speaker 1: can rest assured. The President promised he was going to
Speaker 1: build the wall, and he's going to deliver and this
Speaker 1: has made some progress. Nancy Pelosi said she wasn't going
Speaker 1: to give a dollar for the wall. This has roughly
Speaker 1: one point four billion dollars that'll go towards the wall.
Speaker 1: The whole country knows that we need and knows that
Speaker 1: the president is going to make happen. In total, it
Speaker 1: gives about twenty three billion dollars in border security, which
Speaker 1: is desperately needed. It expands ice versus abolish his ice,
Speaker 1: like we've heard some Democrats talk about in the past.
Speaker 1: So there are some positives in this bill. There are
Speaker 1: some positives, but it's not great, okay, And look, Sarah
Speaker 1: Sanders is there to speak for the White House, and
Speaker 1: she's obviously going to look for the positive in this situation,
Speaker 1: as she should. But it's not great or not. I'm
Speaker 1: not here to tell you, oh, yeah, that's amazing. No,
Speaker 1: it's less money than he would have gotten initially for
Speaker 1: the wall, and or less money we've out in for
Speaker 1: porter security overall. It turns out there is some new
Speaker 1: fencing that is being built the southern border I had
Speaker 1: to do with an earlier appropriation, I think, but it
Speaker 1: is going to get done this year and it is
Speaker 1: going to go up in the It is already going
Speaker 1: up in the Rio Grand sector, but I think it's
Speaker 1: like five miles, so that's not it helps, hey, producer, Mike.
Speaker 1: Every little bit helps, you know what I mean, Every
Speaker 1: little bit helps. But on the other side of this
Speaker 1: equation you have the Democrats, who increasingly now people are
Speaker 1: realizing two very important parts of the immigration debate. One
Speaker 1: is that Wall's work and to say otherwise is stupid
Speaker 1: and a lie. The other part, though, is that Democrats
Speaker 1: are the partner of open borders. They want open borders,
Speaker 1: they believe in this. They love of illegal aliens more
Speaker 1: than they love Americans, based on the sound of what
Speaker 1: they say. Blake clip two. We are fighting for the
Speaker 1: landstanding principle and the landstanding progressive principle, like the people
Speaker 1: who build this country. Standing in this country there where
Speaker 1: black fighting for the people whose hands have built this
Speaker 1: country to be honored and respecting in the United States
Speaker 1: of America. We are here to make sure that all
Speaker 1: the fans recipients become permanent members of United States. Yep,
Speaker 1: that's right. Illegal aliens are the ones building America, you see,
Speaker 1: They're the ones that are building America. We owe them
Speaker 1: legal steps. We owe them citizenship because because they've done
Speaker 1: so much for all of us. See, they take this
Speaker 1: whole dynamic and they flip it around. You would think
Speaker 1: that shouldn't people that are in the country illegally, who've
Speaker 1: been living here in America and benefiting from our services
Speaker 1: in this economy and the safety and security of this country,
Speaker 1: shouldn't they be thankful? No, no, no no, no no. The left,
Speaker 1: the Democrat view on this is that we owe them this,
Speaker 1: that we should be thankful to them, to the illegal
Speaker 1: alien that has been in this country, the millions and
Speaker 1: millions of them for many years. See, it all gets
Speaker 1: completely turned around. This is how the Democratic Party views it.
Speaker 1: Though Okazio Cortez there, as crazy as she sounds, she
Speaker 1: is not an outlier. She is now for Democrats in
Speaker 1: the mainstream, which is there should be a mass amnesty
Speaker 1: and anyone who wants to come to this country legally
Speaker 1: otherwise should be allowed to stay as long as they
Speaker 1: vote Democrat, which we know is very likely that they
Speaker 1: are going to. He's holding the line for America. Buck
Speaker 1: sexty is back. We simply cannot allow people to pour
Speaker 1: into the United States, undetected, undocumented unchecked and illegal aliens
Speaker 1: should not be treated the same as people who entered
Speaker 1: the US legally. We must control our borders, must protect
Speaker 1: our borders. We know that dolls do not save lives, willskins, lives.
Speaker 1: There is no bargain in which we can sacrifice some
Speaker 1: of our humanity to gain a little more security. It's
Speaker 1: just like I just forgot it, like really emotional. And
Speaker 1: to the thirty people who are at my rally, like
Speaker 1: all of you, I just want you to watch my
Speaker 1: Instagram live stream that I'm gonna do later of like
Speaker 1: me making avocado toasts because I'm like really hip millennials
Speaker 1: like me. My name is Beto. Notice how we started
Speaker 1: out there with a bunch of Democrats saying stuff that
Speaker 1: today would be considered super racist, producer Mike super racist.
Speaker 1: Can't treat illegal aliens the way they treat the rest
Speaker 1: of people because we have laws about that stuff. That's terrible,
Speaker 1: mean thing. Chuck Schumer, Chuck Schumer should have to apologize
Speaker 1: for all of this. Of course he won't because it
Speaker 1: wasn't It's actually not racist, right, Democrats knew that then.
Speaker 1: But what has changed since then? What's changed is that
Speaker 1: we've learned more about the immigration issue, because we now
Speaker 1: have an administration that speaks about it without all of
Speaker 1: the propaganda and the talking points just stacked on top
Speaker 1: of itself so that you can't get to any truth.
Speaker 1: You can't get to any honest in the discussion. It's
Speaker 1: all just America is a nation of immigrants. Walls don't work. Immigrants,
Speaker 1: illegal or otherwise are better than Americans, Like, can we
Speaker 1: stop with that? This has been conventional wisdom from the
Speaker 1: left and from the mainstream media for a very long time,
Speaker 1: and now it is finally starting to crumble out. I
Speaker 1: think there's a bit of panic in the media because
Speaker 1: they will eventually have to reckon with the fact that
Speaker 1: the American people do not want continued waves of illegal
Speaker 1: aliens coming into the country, which is why they're going
Speaker 1: to push very hard as soon as possible for a
Speaker 1: mass amnesty. Now. They want a mass amnesty now. They
Speaker 1: want this to be an issue that doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be dealt with really anymore, because it is finished. As
Speaker 1: I've told you many times, once you give permanent status,
Speaker 1: once somebody has a green card or citizenship or whatever
Speaker 1: it is that had been an illegal alien, you're never
Speaker 1: going to be able to turn that around. You're never
Speaker 1: going to be able to make that make that not
Speaker 1: the case. So I do think that there's a point
Speaker 1: in time here where we're either going to cross crossover
Speaker 1: and become a country that all of a sudden take
Speaker 1: sovereignty seriously, a country that believes that it has a
Speaker 1: right to enforce its borders and its immigration laws, or
Speaker 1: else where we are going to just slowly but surely
Speaker 1: have borders that are effectively non existent. They will dissolve,
Speaker 1: they'll become checkpoints, but not borders, meaning you have to
Speaker 1: stop and check in. You have to say, hey, I
Speaker 1: want to come to America. But that's all that it takes.
Speaker 1: I mean, just think of it this way. I still
Speaker 1: have people that will go on TV. I see people
Speaker 1: going on TV and those say it's not illegal to
Speaker 1: claim asylum. This is a really disingenuous talking point, because yes,
Speaker 1: of course it's not illegal to claim asylum. The problem
Speaker 1: is that people are breaking laws in the asylum process. Right.
Speaker 1: Let's say that you had people that were walking into
Speaker 1: a bank and they were when the teller wasn't looking,
Speaker 1: stealing money out of the teller tray, which obviously this
Speaker 1: wouldn't be a very secure bank. But just stay with
Speaker 1: me for this. If you had people that kept going
Speaker 1: on TV saying it's not illegal to walk into a bank,
Speaker 1: you'd say, well, yeah, but that's not the point. The
Speaker 1: point is what happens when they're in the bank. In
Speaker 1: our asylum process, Yeah, it's not illegal to claim asylum.
Speaker 1: It's illegal to lie to try to get asylum, and
Speaker 1: then it's illegal to not show up for your hearing
Speaker 1: where you find out whether or not you qualify for asylum.
Speaker 1: So what they do is that they just repeat these
Speaker 1: things that make it sound like there's no problem, but
Speaker 1: of course there's a problem, and the reason they don't
Speaker 1: want to deal with it is it's really it's a
Speaker 1: combination of they have been told. I mean, the reason
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party has moved so far left on immigration
Speaker 1: is yes, it is first and foremost about power, and
Speaker 1: they understand that this is votes for their party and
Speaker 1: this is going to create a one party supermajority in
Speaker 1: this country for the rest of our lifetimes and probably
Speaker 1: our children and children's lifetimes. If they manage to get
Speaker 1: a mass amnesty for twenty million people, think about what
Speaker 1: that does the electorate. If you have twenty million people
Speaker 1: who demographically vote seventy percent or higher for the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: say goodbye to ever having another Republican president in your lifetime.
Speaker 1: That's what we're talking about. That is what's really at stake,
Speaker 1: which is also why state and federal agencies don't want
Speaker 1: to tell us what the number of illegal aliens are.
Speaker 1: I mean, shouldn't it bother more people that we are
Speaker 1: told that it is. I think now they'll say twelve
Speaker 1: million because it's gotten a little too hard to cling
Speaker 1: to that eleven million. Shouldn't it bother more people that
Speaker 1: the federal government has not only no idea, but has
Speaker 1: clearly an interest in lying about how many illegal aliens
Speaker 1: in the country. No serious. We have the Obama administration's
Speaker 1: head of border patrol joining us in just a few minutes.
Speaker 1: You're gonna, I think, find his conversation with me fascinating.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've talked to him this morning on the Hill,
Speaker 1: and I wanted him come on tonight so you could
Speaker 1: hear from him. Because there's what the people that have
Speaker 1: expertise say about this issue, and then there's what the blathering, chattering,
Speaker 1: you know, claptrap class of the pundits and the media
Speaker 1: and the rest of its say about this, and they
Speaker 1: are not the same thing. They are not the same thing.
Speaker 1: But you know, if we're going to fix this, we
Speaker 1: have to at least start from the premise of, you know, how,
Speaker 1: how are we how big is the problem? And they
Speaker 1: don't want to assess how big the problem is because
Speaker 1: I think they know that there would be outrage one
Speaker 1: about the fact that we've been lied to and the
Speaker 1: government has been so wrong for so long about this,
Speaker 1: that the media has no curiosity about this whatsoever, And
Speaker 1: that a bunch of math whizzes at Yale looked at
Speaker 1: all the available data numbers and came back and said,
Speaker 1: you know what, it's twenty million just based on based
Speaker 1: on the data that we already have, it's got to
Speaker 1: be at least twenty million. And if you think about
Speaker 1: this too, it's it was fifty thousand last month. None
Speaker 1: of them are going back to Honduras. None, I'm going
Speaker 1: back to Mexico or else Salvador or Nicaragua. It's fifty
Speaker 1: thousand a month, twelve months in a year, half a
Speaker 1: million people a year, and that's been for the last
Speaker 1: few years. You're gonna tell me that the number is just, oh,
Speaker 1: it's eleven millie. I mean this, you know. I don't
Speaker 1: mean to harp on this, to plow the same field
Speaker 1: too many times on the issue of the number, but
Speaker 1: it's just indicative of how this whole conversation needs to change.
Speaker 1: I think Trump is trying to change it. There's so
Speaker 1: much dishonest you wrapped into this. There's so much unwillingness
Speaker 1: to confront the truth. And a lot of it comes
Speaker 1: from Republicans too. A lot of it comes from the
Speaker 1: GOP establishment that is completely in the pocket of the
Speaker 1: donor class. That is a real thing. A lot of
Speaker 1: Democrats will criticize that it is true. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of GOOP reps out there. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: Republican politicians who are sellouts to the ideals of their
Speaker 1: party and sellouts even to what they say they stand for.
Speaker 1: I aim to stand for small government, claim to care about,
Speaker 1: you know, people in the working class and those with
Speaker 1: small businesses who are affected by this issue of a
Speaker 1: legal immigration and among many other issues. So we will
Speaker 1: see if this is going to be the moment the
Speaker 1: Trump administration finally gets a win on this. I think
Speaker 1: we've been it's been a little paltry. I'm disappointed in
Speaker 1: what we've had so far. I like the fight, but
Speaker 1: I need to see an administration that is going to
Speaker 1: use the power that it has and make a declaration
Speaker 1: make a declaration right up front, right now of not
Speaker 1: just a declaration of emergency. That's one way to go,
Speaker 1: but the president should just say these are the sectors
Speaker 1: where we've been told by the experts the wall should
Speaker 1: be built. I have statutory authority to do it. I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna start doing it. I'm just gonna start building
Speaker 1: the wall. Let the courts try to shut him down.
Speaker 1: Let's have the American people see how lawfare is the
Speaker 1: response of the Democratic party to democratic elections that don't
Speaker 1: go their way. I got to talk about Ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: coming up. Then we have Obama's border patrol chief joining
Speaker 1: us in a little bit. You'll want to hear that.
Speaker 1: Stick around now to the President, he's calling for Omar
Speaker 1: to get out, and that is interesting because he seemed
Speaker 1: to say something very similar to what Omar said when
Speaker 1: addressing the Republican Jewish Coalition in twenty fifteen. You're not
Speaker 1: going to support me because I don't want your money.
Speaker 1: You want to control your own politician. That's fine. Now
Speaker 1: why is it difference? Is it because Omar's Muslim? And
Speaker 1: where's it his job? Representative Omar's tweets for a disgrace.
Speaker 1: Anti Semitism has no place in the United States Congress
Speaker 1: or anywhere in our country or the free world. Unless
Speaker 1: Representative Omar resigns from Congress a minimum, Democrat leaders should
Speaker 1: remove her from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Isn't that
Speaker 1: just a classic a classic moment there from pro Quoma.
Speaker 1: Way is the same? Different or the same? You've got
Speaker 1: Cuomo over at CNN who is trying to say, oh
Speaker 1: is it what is Yeah? Trump is an anti Semite?
Speaker 1: Is that really he's really gonna go with that one?
Speaker 1: Or Trump said the same thing. Everybody understands that there
Speaker 1: are different interest groups, and there are different public policy
Speaker 1: foundations and packs and think tanks, and that there's money
Speaker 1: involved in these things. They're pushing different ideas. But when
Speaker 1: you are a person who has already been saying things
Speaker 1: about how you think that Israel has hypnotized the world
Speaker 1: as Omar has, and then you say it's all about
Speaker 1: the Benjamin's and you know there's a context. I think
Speaker 1: it's so fascinating. Liberals are the ones who believe that people,
Speaker 1: based on who they are, can't even say certain words,
Speaker 1: not allowed to say certain words. Liberals are the ones
Speaker 1: who believe that every time a person makes any comment,
Speaker 1: who they are ethnically religiously has to be taken into account.
Speaker 1: And the ones who get to judge all of this are,
Speaker 1: of course liberals right the left. They get to determine
Speaker 1: are you allowed to oh, are you allowed to say that? No?
Speaker 1: As buck a buck is a white male, what is
Speaker 1: he allowed to say? Basically nothing except sorry, sorry for
Speaker 1: my privilege. Sorry, that's all I'm really allowed to say.
Speaker 1: But ilhan omar, somebody who comes from the Muslim world
Speaker 1: is a Muslim. Based on the liberal approach to these things,
Speaker 1: when you have somebody who is a Muslim who is
Speaker 1: particularly anti Israel and talks about the money that the
Speaker 1: Jews have that hypnotizes the world, these comments that they
Speaker 1: make one after another, you would say this person has
Speaker 1: a history of and a mindset of anti Semitism. That
Speaker 1: it's it's not as simple as just well, anyone who
Speaker 1: says that any groups use money in politics, everyone's being
Speaker 1: anti Semitic right now, but they erase all contexts rectly.
Speaker 1: To talk to Michael Malice later on about this, because
Speaker 1: this is a very important point that when when liberalsy
Speaker 1: and opening they go, they become hyper literalist. You know,
Speaker 1: every word means exactly what the word means. It doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: There's no jokes or there's no subtlety, there's no nuance,
Speaker 1: there's no context. If that means that they can bash
Speaker 1: the other side, that's what they do, and on their side,
Speaker 1: the words don't even mean what the words say. On
Speaker 1: their side, how Casio Cortez's office didn't put out some
Speaker 1: insanity about cow farts and no airplane travel and the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal. Frequently asked questions, oh no, wait she did.
Speaker 1: They did what we can try to find all these
Speaker 1: ways to well, but it was but no, no, they did,
Speaker 1: and they should have to deal with the consequences of
Speaker 1: that decision making and showing us what they really believe,
Speaker 1: and really just how ignorant they are. It's not even
Speaker 1: about how radical they are, it's how stupid they are.
Speaker 1: That's the problem that Green New Deal. Remember that people saying, oh,
Speaker 1: it's because they're so because radical people say it almost
Speaker 1: sounds like it's revolutionary, like they're being brave. No, they're
Speaker 1: being idiots, are being idiots. Producer Mike, did you know
Speaker 1: that Corey Booker among Yeah, that's right, Spartacus. Among all
Speaker 1: of his flaws, you know, he's a vegan. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: the biggest offensive all I was gonna say. I mean America.
Speaker 1: You know, America is a very very diverse, very welcoming
Speaker 1: place for all kinds of folks. But this country is
Speaker 1: not ready for a vegan president. No way. Could you
Speaker 1: imagine in that debate with Trump and Booker over meat,
Speaker 1: like Trump will come out on the stage with like
Speaker 1: five thousand big Max. And also, I mean, nobody likes
Speaker 1: that guy or gal. That's like, do you realize that
Speaker 1: you're wearing the skin of animals on your feet? Do
Speaker 1: you realize that it's only because of honey beef servitude
Speaker 1: that you can put that honey in your tea? It's like,
Speaker 1: no one likes that person. That cows are Cows are
Speaker 1: being you know, shackled, and their utters are overflowing. I'm like, yeah,
Speaker 1: milk is delicious. Like well, it's I didn't know. I
Speaker 1: didn't know till they that that Booker is a vegan,
Speaker 1: and he's saying that our meat consumption is unsustainable by
Speaker 1: the way he's done, no way. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: things Americans can't agree on right now, but a solid
Speaker 1: majority of us still loves meat. Thank heavens for that.
Speaker 1: This campaign is unsustainable. His campaign is unsustainable. It's not
Speaker 1: it's not going anywhere. I think it's uh. I think
Speaker 1: it's bad, bad shape. But oh wait, Representative Omar though,
Speaker 1: back to this, back to this whole issue is getting
Speaker 1: a lot of attention this week. She is surprised by
Speaker 1: all this she says, which I think is interesting. I've
Speaker 1: stated all of it in my statement apologize today, But
Speaker 1: what have you learned from her comments and the reaction
Speaker 1: from it. I've stated all of it in my statement.
Speaker 1: Be sure that was stated in my statement. Pretty surprised
Speaker 1: by criticism always, are you worried about losing committee assignment? Look,
Speaker 1: she's going with the real defensive pr strategy there, it's
Speaker 1: in my statement. It's in my statement. This is somebody
Speaker 1: who likes to wax philosophical on a whole range of topics.
Speaker 1: But I think she decided that it was time to
Speaker 1: trying to batten down the hatches A little bit. It
Speaker 1: was not it was not going well here. Um, look,
Speaker 1: we all know that ilhan Omar we we we see that.
Speaker 1: Do we have that exchange that she had with with
Speaker 1: Elliott Elliot Abrams that happened, that was interesting, that happened
Speaker 1: today too. And we all know that she's she's very
Speaker 1: left wing and her politics have very left wing, and
Speaker 1: she is a Muslim and is very concerned with the
Speaker 1: state of Israel. And you know, a lot of this
Speaker 1: stuff lines up. We we know enough about people to know,
Speaker 1: you know, the same way that if you are somebody
Speaker 1: who goes to church on Sunday, believes in the right
Speaker 1: to bear arms, believes in in being pro life, you
Speaker 1: know you're going to have other other ideas well, likely
Speaker 1: attached to that. Somebody who hates Israel thinks that APAC
Speaker 1: controls US foreign policy with its money. Uh, and it
Speaker 1: thinks that America was doing terrible things. And you know, well,
Speaker 1: rather the outcome in Al Salvador is a terrible thing,
Speaker 1: and America's in Central America. All the stuff we've done
Speaker 1: is bad. You know, this is left This is left
Speaker 1: wing stuff. So it's not really surprising that you have
Speaker 1: ilhan Omar saying any of this. What is interesting though,
Speaker 1: is the Left they're gonna always try to create a
Speaker 1: different standard for her. She's a minority's female, she's Muslim,
Speaker 1: so that that ticks off three boxes for them, so
Speaker 1: they'll always be more protective of her, give her more
Speaker 1: leeway than they will, say, you know, a white male.
Speaker 1: But she can't even stay within the boundaries of that
Speaker 1: artificial intersectionality based protection. She still manages to go too far.
Speaker 1: And look, she's been condemned by both parties. It's not
Speaker 1: really much here, but you know, this is what happens
Speaker 1: when you have the Democratic Party embracing identity politics so much.
Speaker 1: They just have different standards for different people based on
Speaker 1: where they're from and how they look. Is how Democrats
Speaker 1: do things, which it wasn't the case, but this is
Speaker 1: this is who the Democratic Party has become. We have
Speaker 1: much more common team. I'll be right back, all right.
Speaker 1: So you're ready to bring on somebody new to your business.
Speaker 1: You're all excited, the resume looks good, everything's ready to go. Right.
Speaker 1: Before you can give that person their keycard and give
Speaker 1: them their credentials and make them a part of your business,
Speaker 1: you got to have background checks done. Whatever business you're in,
Speaker 1: large or small, background checks are essential, and that's why
Speaker 1: I tell you to go to the people I trust.
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network. Blobal Verification Network is the only dual
Speaker 1: certified veteran owned background investigation and vetting company. They got
Speaker 1: headquarters in Chicago, but their risk mitigation experts can handle
Speaker 1: cases all across the country. So if you have a
Speaker 1: need for background checks, or if you already have somebody
Speaker 1: doing them, but you don't think it's really working out
Speaker 1: for you, you really should check out my friends at
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network. Just give them a call, tell them
Speaker 1: what you need, and let them walk you through what
Speaker 1: they can do for you. Eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine. That's eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five A nine, Or go to my GVN dot com.
Speaker 1: The numbers are almost twenty three billion dollars, which you
Speaker 1: will report too often. It's about an eight percent increase
Speaker 1: over last year. So if you look at the total
Speaker 1: funding it's over, it's almost up to twenty three billion dollars.
Speaker 1: It's about eight percent higher. The border area is happening,
Speaker 1: it's going to happen at a really rapid pace. We're
Speaker 1: giving out contracts right now, and we're going to have
Speaker 1: a great wall. It's going to be a great, powerful wall.
Speaker 1: People will not be able to get through that wall
Speaker 1: very easily. And I think you see that. I think
Speaker 1: you see it happening. It's very important. It'll also have technology,
Speaker 1: it'll have drones, it'll have everything else we have. If
Speaker 1: you look at the other elements, ICE funding will be complete.
Speaker 1: We have other things happening which people aren't talking about,
Speaker 1: but we've got a lot of funds for a lot
Speaker 1: of other things. There your President Trump updating all of
Speaker 1: us on where the border wall funding fight currently stands.
Speaker 1: I'm going to bring in a voice that I think
Speaker 1: you all need to hear from. This is Mark Morgan.
Speaker 1: He is the former Border Patrol Chief of the Obama administration. Okay,
Speaker 1: so let's just keep in mind this is somebody who
Speaker 1: served under the Obama administration as Border Patrol chief. March one,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for calling in. Thanks Buck, you bet
Speaker 1: all right. Let's start with some of the basics, and
Speaker 1: I want to drill down to the specifics about the
Speaker 1: situation at our southern border, the fence, the wall. But
Speaker 1: stay staying right in the center of your wheelhouse. Here,
Speaker 1: people say the wall doesn't work or fences don't work.
Speaker 1: And U, as somebody who knows the issue inside and out,
Speaker 1: what do you say. I'd say that's completely false, Buck,
Speaker 1: that is a false narrative. And a couple of things
Speaker 1: that think are really important. And I encourage American citizens,
Speaker 1: all your listeners to research this. Two thousand and six
Speaker 1: I bipartisan bill, the Secure Fence Act, both sides of
Speaker 1: the side of the aisle voted for it. It led
Speaker 1: to six hundred and fifty four miles of barrier being built. Yeah,
Speaker 1: let's let's look at the facts. Let's go to Tucson,
Speaker 1: Let's go to um El Paso, San Diego, human Arizona,
Speaker 1: for example, in two thousand and six, when the when
Speaker 1: the barrier started being built, twenty three miles and barrier
Speaker 1: you're threw in some technology and personnel. The illegal immigration
Speaker 1: went from about one hundred and forty one hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty thousand to less than fifteen thousand. Overall crime in
Speaker 1: that area went way down. And I could give you
Speaker 1: a fact after fact after fact. Walls work. And here's
Speaker 1: here's one more important thing is that when when I
Speaker 1: say that, is that it's got to be part of
Speaker 1: a multi layer strategy of infrastructure, the wall, technology and personnel.
Speaker 1: When you put all those in strategical location, absolutely works.
Speaker 1: Data facts say it works. What does it make you?
Speaker 1: What does it make you think? When when you hear
Speaker 1: the way that I mean, look, let's just be honest,
Speaker 1: ding The Democrats have taken a tone about border patrol
Speaker 1: in recent years and about immigrations and customs enforcement, or
Speaker 1: even more recently as we saw this past summer, where
Speaker 1: they say things like ice should be abolished. They indicate
Speaker 1: that the problem that we really have is the men
Speaker 1: and women who are trying to enforce immigration laws. Just
Speaker 1: how do you feel about that? And also when did
Speaker 1: this change happen? I mean, did you can you tell
Speaker 1: me when all of a sudden one of the major
Speaker 1: political parties decided that they were no longer in favor
Speaker 1: of securing the border. Because to be honest, man, I
Speaker 1: don't see how people can make the argument that the
Speaker 1: Polo season the schumers of the world do want to
Speaker 1: secure the border right now? So Buck, I agree, And
Speaker 1: first of all, thank you so much for asking that.
Speaker 1: So I feel okay speaking on behalf of the men
Speaker 1: and women who are risking their lives every single day
Speaker 1: to answer on their behalf. And when somebody says the
Speaker 1: vile things that they say about ICE and about the
Speaker 1: Border Patrol, I am disgusted. It is reckless and is irresponsible. Today,
Speaker 1: one hundred and twenty eight Border Patrol agents have lost
Speaker 1: their lives defending the front lines of this country, trying
Speaker 1: to protect everybody. In the last two years, ICE have
Speaker 1: arrested two hundred and sixty six thousand criminal aliens, one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand assault, thirty thousand sexual crimes, four thousand kidnap,
Speaker 1: these four thousand homicides, remove six thousand gang or non
Speaker 1: suspective gang members, and I could keep going on and on.
Speaker 1: Yet they want to call ICE bile disgusting thing while
Speaker 1: they're out there risking our lives, saving people's lives and
Speaker 1: getting bad people off the streets. It's disgusting, it's reckless,
Speaker 1: and it's got to stop, and we need to call
Speaker 1: them on it. What does Border Patrol need right now?
Speaker 1: I mean, based on the numbers of people that are
Speaker 1: coming to the border now, both coming in through the
Speaker 1: massive asylum loophole that still is there and that Congress
Speaker 1: has to address as well. As all the illegal drug
Speaker 1: smuggling and other other activities, other illicit activities that are
Speaker 1: going on in adding around the border region. What does
Speaker 1: border patrol need right now to get the job done.
Speaker 1: And in terms of the funding we're talking about here
Speaker 1: one point two five billion, is that going to cut it? No,
Speaker 1: So so let's let's take the latter first. So again
Speaker 1: from from a law enforcement border security aspect only, right,
Speaker 1: no politics, I'm not a politician that the one point
Speaker 1: three that the current proposal, as we've heard about, it's
Speaker 1: a failure. It does not get the folks the resources
Speaker 1: they need. Border patrols CDP as a whole, including office
Speaker 1: field operations that makes up a CDP. They've been very
Speaker 1: clear what they need and it's it's been and they've
Speaker 1: been very clear for a long time. As part of
Speaker 1: what they need to shut down the avenue in between
Speaker 1: the ports of entry and secure the ports of entry,
Speaker 1: they need a multilayered strategy of the infrastructure, of technology,
Speaker 1: and personnel. The five point seven which they said they need,
Speaker 1: they prioritize the highest areas and they said, it's very
Speaker 1: clear what we need two hundred and thirty additional miles
Speaker 1: of barrier plus additional technology and additional personnel. That's what
Speaker 1: we need to start making a dent and shutting down
Speaker 1: the cartels. This proposal, to me, all it did was
Speaker 1: continue to make the cartels rich and put our country
Speaker 1: at risk. To Mark Morgan, he was the chief of
Speaker 1: Border Patrol under the Obama administration. Folks, So, well, you're
Speaker 1: hearing people say, oh, it's just it's just Trump's border
Speaker 1: patrol that says that offense would be helpful. No, No,
Speaker 1: it's just practitioners, professionals, people that are supposed to and
Speaker 1: as their mission, secure the border. They're the ones that
Speaker 1: are saying that a fence that barriers more barriers than
Speaker 1: we already have would be helpful. But Mark, if I
Speaker 1: could ask you a bit about the ICE, the immigrations
Speaker 1: and customs enforcement side of this equation, because really, and
Speaker 1: a border patrol in San Diego told me that they
Speaker 1: wished that there was more of a synergy, a bureaucratic
Speaker 1: synergy between ICE and border patrol, and that would just
Speaker 1: make things easier. So that's one point that I thought
Speaker 1: was interesting that they repeatedly made to me. But also
Speaker 1: it's clear that ICE is an important piece of this
Speaker 1: whole immigration equation. And when I see that the Democrats
Speaker 1: want to fund fewer beds for people entertainment, what's that
Speaker 1: all about? Why? Why would Democrats who claim to want
Speaker 1: to secure the border right now along with Republicans, why
Speaker 1: would they want fewer ice attention beds? So, look, this
Speaker 1: is another a great question, and I'm doing my best
Speaker 1: to stay a political book. But but it's impossible for
Speaker 1: me because when you talk about reducing the ice beds,
Speaker 1: there is no conclusion except they want to do two things, right,
Speaker 1: they want to abolish ice via checkbook. By doing that, Look,
Speaker 1: you don't have to be a mathematician. Look if you
Speaker 1: if you reduce the bedspace for ice to detain people,
Speaker 1: and by the way, immigration right, illegal immigration is increasing, Right,
Speaker 1: you don't have to be a mathematician. That is what
Speaker 1: I'm referring to is catching release two point zero. We
Speaker 1: already have catching release one point zero from family units
Speaker 1: uncompanied children because of our asylum laws and floor's decisions
Speaker 1: that once they set one foot on American soil, they're
Speaker 1: allowed into the United States, no questions asked. That's catch
Speaker 1: released one point zero. By reducing the beds, you're forcing
Speaker 1: ice you're gonna force ICE to release people. Right now,
Speaker 1: ICE has forty nine thousand people in detention. Eighty seven
Speaker 1: percent of them have been committed of a crime or
Speaker 1: charged with the crime, and or suspective gang members. That
Speaker 1: is unconsortable. By reducing events, they're going to have to
Speaker 1: they will be forced to let criminals back in the streets.
Speaker 1: So these aren't just and this is I know that
Speaker 1: you're hitting this point home, but just to reiterate for everybody,
Speaker 1: when we're talking about ICE detention beds, there's overwhelmingly these
Speaker 1: are people that are being held for crimes in addition
Speaker 1: to their illegal status, including sixteen hundred murderers, which I
Speaker 1: think is a number that people need to keep in mind.
Speaker 1: I mean, Mark, what was I mean? I just think
Speaker 1: it's interesting to understand the progression here, how we got
Speaker 1: to this point about about the crisis of the border,
Speaker 1: about what's going on at the border. Do you remember
Speaker 1: from an executive prioritization perspective when you were the head
Speaker 1: of Border Patrol and the Obama administration, what decisions were
Speaker 1: made from the top down that you think now, whether
Speaker 1: at the time or in retrospect, we're mistake. Look I
Speaker 1: My goal is not to talk ill. But the fact
Speaker 1: is in twenty sixteen and people, hey, don't listen to me.
Speaker 1: Now go back to my congressional testimony. In twenty and sixteen,
Speaker 1: we were having the humanitarian crisis back to Bend as
Speaker 1: well as well as the nastal security crisis. This isn't
Speaker 1: a new crisis. We've been saying this for a very
Speaker 1: very long time. My perspective is is that we called
Speaker 1: this a national security crisis, we called it humanitarian crisis
Speaker 1: back then, and we have been for a while. In
Speaker 1: my position to answer your question about I feel it
Speaker 1: was ignored. I feel just a general ignoring of the
Speaker 1: issue and not bring it to life. The one thing
Speaker 1: that you can say about this president, and you can
Speaker 1: talk about the style all you want, but he has
Speaker 1: brought greater national tension to this very very critical issue
Speaker 1: for our country than ever before when I was chief,
Speaker 1: I believe it was ignored. And just before we let
Speaker 1: you go, Mark, there's a debate about whether walls work
Speaker 1: or not, which I think is farcical. But and I'm
Speaker 1: glad that you've weighed in as an expert and as
Speaker 1: a practitioner of border security. UM that walls obviously do work,
Speaker 1: but also there's there's an off there's a repeated talking
Speaker 1: point off for pe to talking point among Democrats that
Speaker 1: the crisis is manufactured. There is no crisis. Gavin Newsom,
Speaker 1: the governor California, just said, I think it was yesterday,
Speaker 1: there is no crisis. This is all nonsense. You've used
Speaker 1: the word crisis a lot. What do you say to
Speaker 1: people say there is no crisis? So I think that's
Speaker 1: I was just talking about another call of you about that.
Speaker 1: I mean, what do you say to somebody when when
Speaker 1: you give statistics out about the incredible hundreds and hundreds,
Speaker 1: you know, pounds of narcotic that come in through the
Speaker 1: southwest border. Ninety percent of the heron that leads to
Speaker 1: sixty thousand overdose in the country come from Southwest border.
Speaker 1: People are being human traffic, young women and children are
Speaker 1: being sexually expoited for their live. We have semis thirteen
Speaker 1: porn through our border. Are permitting those cities in our country,
Speaker 1: and we could go on and on and on with
Speaker 1: the staffs. What that tells me is is identity politics.
Speaker 1: They were refusing, refusing to acknowledge the facts, and they'd
Speaker 1: rather they would rather stick to their political party and
Speaker 1: protect their political party more than protect this country. That's
Speaker 1: what that says to me. From a law enforcement border
Speaker 1: security perspective that I know, that's what that tells me. Mark,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for joining us, man. We really really
Speaker 1: do appreciate it. Obama's former chief of Border patrol. Folks,
Speaker 1: you heard it from him. Thanks so much, my friend,
Speaker 1: and thank you for all the work you did. Bet.
Speaker 1: Thanks team. We'll be right back. After warning you every
Speaker 1: day for the last couple of weeks, here we are
Speaker 1: the deadline. Valentine's is here, so you've only got today
Speaker 1: to make this happen. Do it right and win Valentine's
Speaker 1: Team with one eight hundred flowers dot Com. Right now,
Speaker 1: one hundred flowers dot Com has amazing offers on beautiful
Speaker 1: Valentine's bouquets and arrangements starting at twenty nine ninety nine.
Speaker 1: There's still time to have your bouquet delivered on Valentine's Day,
Speaker 1: so you're not too late, but you gotta get going.
Speaker 1: You gotta act today. Make sure you lock in this offer.
Speaker 1: It's only good while supplies last. You have an amazing
Speaker 1: selection of sweets, treats, and bouquets at one eight one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers dot com. To order beautiful and vibrant
Speaker 1: Valentine's bouquet starting at twenty nine ninety nine, just go
Speaker 1: to one eight hundred flowers dot com, click the radio
Speaker 1: icon at enter code buck. Valentine's Day is tomorrow, so
Speaker 1: order today, that's right and save at one eight hundred
Speaker 1: flowers dot com promo code buck one eight hundred flowers
Speaker 1: dot com radio icon promo code buck. They've been investigating
Speaker 1: this Russia hoax for two years, think of it. They've
Speaker 1: interviewed over two hundred people, They've studied hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of documents and pages, and Richard just announced that they
Speaker 1: found no collusion between Donald Trump and Russia. I've had
Speaker 1: the CNN monitor on the in the Freedom Hunt here
Speaker 1: for quite a while now a couple of hours I
Speaker 1: put the SoundOff, obviously a Fox on too, so that
Speaker 1: I don't feel like all hope is lost in the world.
Speaker 1: I have not seen a single story pretty so much.
Speaker 1: Have you seen a single story about how the Senate
Speaker 1: Intel Committee has finished their report no collusion. I just
Speaker 1: haven't seen that story. Somehow, on the Chiron, we're looking
Speaker 1: at the verb a girl across the screen here because
Speaker 1: I've got what a closed captioning there you go, I
Speaker 1: haven't seen it. No, it's non existent. Today I am
Speaker 1: seeing that the judge's decision is they're waiting on whether
Speaker 1: Maniford lied to the Mother team in violation of his
Speaker 1: plea Deal's well, let me ask everybody this, what's a
Speaker 1: bigger story. Maybe maybe Manaford, who is already going to
Speaker 1: prison for a long time, lied in violation of his
Speaker 1: plea deal. Or the fact that the Senate Intel Committee,
Speaker 1: which has access to classified which has the ability to
Speaker 1: subpoena documents, to invest, to investigate, and to interrogate or
Speaker 1: question people that it wants to as witnesses and all
Speaker 1: this that it came out with the report that says, yeah,
Speaker 1: there's no there's no collusion. Sorry, we're not able to
Speaker 1: find it. I think we all know the answer to that.
Speaker 1: But you know, meanwhile, the Washington Post, the maybe this
Speaker 1: thing happened analysis is what they're falling back on. Now.
Speaker 1: This is the Post and an analysis piece, which is
Speaker 1: just a fancy way of saying an editorial that we
Speaker 1: want to try to give more credibility to if there
Speaker 1: was collusion with Russia. Here's where it might have occurred.
Speaker 1: You know, if I were, you know, seven feet tall
Speaker 1: and could jump forty inches, I might be an NBA
Speaker 1: basketball player. But I am neither of those things. So
Speaker 1: why is that something that anyone needs to hear? If
Speaker 1: there was collusion. Here's what might have happened. Well, I
Speaker 1: think about how where this stops. It doesn't not anywhere.
Speaker 1: If Hillary Clinton was essentially running a money laundering operation
Speaker 1: through the Clinton Foundation for herself and her husband and
Speaker 1: selling it. Oh no, that's that actually happened. But we don't.
Speaker 1: We don't have to get too far with the hypotheticals there. This, though,
Speaker 1: is where you're going to see a media that gets
Speaker 1: really nasty and you're going to see them feel really insecure.
Speaker 1: Media's full of a lot of very insecure people to
Speaker 1: begin with, but they know that this is they're running
Speaker 1: out of time. They are running out of time with
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion delusion, and that's why you're starting to
Speaker 1: see this. Well, it's my favorite, really, of all of
Speaker 1: these ridiculous positions they take, is well, maybe we already
Speaker 1: proved Russia collusion. Have you seeing that all we need
Speaker 1: to know about is the Trump Tower meeting. I'm like, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: stop the presses. Somebody called Mueller. He already found it
Speaker 1: a long long time ago. I don't think so, folks,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. But there are there are major
Speaker 1: news organizations that are going to have to hide from
Speaker 1: their their peers in the media, people like me, because
Speaker 1: I will not forget what they have done for the
Speaker 1: last two years, which is light their credibility on fire
Speaker 1: in an effort to pander to the sensibilities of Trump,
Speaker 1: draining an audience that has overcome with Trump's arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: That is the reality of what has been going on here.
Speaker 1: I see that the Senate voted today to put Bill
Speaker 1: Barr through further on in the process, so he's closer.
Speaker 1: He's closer now to being a the new attorney general.
Speaker 1: And I think, look, I think he's going to be
Speaker 1: a very effective attorney general. I think that he'll do
Speaker 1: a good job in the role. But everyone has been
Speaker 1: saying that once there's a new attorney well, these sources
Speaker 1: people have been telling me, once there's a new attorney general,
Speaker 1: that's when you might have the Muller report finally given
Speaker 1: to because it has to go to the Attorney general.
Speaker 1: People have forgotten all along that these are executive branch employees.
Speaker 1: Muller is an executive branch employee. His boss is a
Speaker 1: subordinate of the presidents. So you know, when people keep saying, oh, well,
Speaker 1: did Whittaker, has he been briefed on this? He's supposed
Speaker 1: to be briefed on this. There has been a false conception,
Speaker 1: and it's intentionally created by the media where the Mueller
Speaker 1: probe is this island unto itself that has no accountability
Speaker 1: and no oversight. The possible exception of Rod Rosenstein, who
Speaker 1: is a from what everything I'm told, a bad guy
Speaker 1: and is very anti Trump and very opposed to you know,
Speaker 1: Trump twenty twenty and all that. I mean, he is
Speaker 1: not on forget about being on team Trump. He's just
Speaker 1: not on the straight and narrow here. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: been a partisan actor in this behind the scenes the
Speaker 1: whole time. But they know that when Bill Barr comes along,
Speaker 1: here's a guy who was attorney general, who has a
Speaker 1: very strong record, and they're not gonna be able to
Speaker 1: say that he is. You know, They're not gonna be
Speaker 1: able to come up with some reason to explain how
Speaker 1: he's not qualified, so he's going to become the ag
Speaker 1: and then this whole collusion probe may come to an end,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats are just going to be like kids
Speaker 1: in a grocery store at the at the counter when
Speaker 1: they want to buy bubblegum and mom says no. They're
Speaker 1: just gonna say, you know, I'm gonna hold my breath.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna hold my breath. They're not going to be
Speaker 1: able to engage in any kind of real debate with
Speaker 1: anyone who knows anything about the Mulla probe because or
Speaker 1: about Russia collusion and the Trump administration, because it's all
Speaker 1: over man. I mean, they don't have the goods we've known.
Speaker 1: They haven't had the goods, and people should be held
Speaker 1: to account for this. I mean people in the media
Speaker 1: who were just smug liars and clowns this whole time
Speaker 1: because they hate Trump so much they would say anything. Well,
Speaker 1: now we should say why are you so dumb? We
Speaker 1: should ask a lot of very prominent people in the
Speaker 1: media that question. One thing that I noticed with sexual
Speaker 1: violence is that there are many people who would like
Speaker 1: to glance away from this. But what and who we
Speaker 1: glance away from says so much about what our priorities
Speaker 1: as a society, and it says so much about our
Speaker 1: health and our emotional well being. Don't be afraid to
Speaker 1: see survivors for who they are. That was doctor Vanessa
Speaker 1: Tyson last night. She is one of two women now
Speaker 1: who have come out and on the record, with corroborated
Speaker 1: details and with agreement from all parties involved that there
Speaker 1: was a sexual encounter. She has come out and accused
Speaker 1: the Lieutenant Governor, Justin Fairfax of Virginia of sexual assault,
Speaker 1: of a forcible rape. And do you hear her talking
Speaker 1: about this? And I'm sure a lot of thoughts come
Speaker 1: to mind, but one that comes to mind for me
Speaker 1: is where is the press that made the Me Too
Speaker 1: movement the single biggest story in the country, you know,
Speaker 1: about a year or so ago. Where is the press
Speaker 1: that was trying to use every tool of propaganda and
Speaker 1: character assassination at their disposal to bring down Brett Cavanaugh
Speaker 1: on allegations that were nowhere near the credibility level of
Speaker 1: what has been leveled against Fairfax. See, this is why
Speaker 1: we don't trust the press. This is why you have
Speaker 1: to understand who is presenting you with news, their what
Speaker 1: their background and biases are, and don't believe them when
Speaker 1: they say, oh, the press, we're just the guardians of democracy.
Speaker 1: And Trump is so me when he calls us fake news.
Speaker 1: A lot of them are engaging in fake news. A
Speaker 1: lot of them are propagandists. They are activists for the left.
Speaker 1: They are not journalists. It's a lie. CNN is not
Speaker 1: a journalistic enterprise. It is a wing of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: To say otherwise is a lie. It is the propaganda
Speaker 1: arm of the left, as is MSNBC to say otherwise
Speaker 1: is a lie. New York Times, Washington Post, same thing.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean they don't present facts that are true.
Speaker 1: It doesn't mean they don't do actual reporting. It just
Speaker 1: means the mission is not to inform the public. The
Speaker 1: mission is to influence the public. They don't want you
Speaker 1: to have the information to come to your own conclusions.
Speaker 1: They provide you with information specifically picked and curated and
Speaker 1: presented in such a way that you will come to
Speaker 1: certain conclusions. And one of the ways you know, oh
Speaker 1: this is you see how they cover issues that aren't
Speaker 1: favorable to their ideology. Fairfax is credibly accused twice over
Speaker 1: of in recent memory. You know, sexual assaults against women
Speaker 1: who do have nothing to gain because they won't be
Speaker 1: They're not gonna. I'll tell you this right now. You
Speaker 1: will not see doctor Vanessa Tyson on the cover of
Speaker 1: Time magazine. Ever. Ever, why did you see Christine blasi
Speaker 1: Ford on the cover of Time magazine? Who? By the way,
Speaker 1: what happened to doctor Vanessa Tyson is a felony and
Speaker 1: far worse than what was even alleged to have happened
Speaker 1: with Christine blasi Ford and Brett Kavanaugh, which was essentially
Speaker 1: she claimed to have been have been groped and then
Speaker 1: and ran away, groped by a drunk guy, and then
Speaker 1: she ran away. She all she imputed into this make
Speaker 1: believing counter that at least didn't happen with Brett Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: might have happened with another guy. I've always I've always
Speaker 1: held that that was possible, that maybe she had in
Speaker 1: her mind or for the purposes of telling the story,
Speaker 1: she had replaced whoever did this to her with Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: And if that happened to her, that's that's a very
Speaker 1: bad thing. It's it's very unsettling, it's scary. But it
Speaker 1: wasn't Brett Kavanaugh. But even if an incident had happened
Speaker 1: to her, what happened with what Fairfax is accused to
Speaker 1: have done. He's accused to have also sexually assaulted another
Speaker 1: woman in college and said to her that nobody will
Speaker 1: believe you because you were sexually assaulted by somebody else
Speaker 1: in college and he knew about it. This stuff is true.
Speaker 1: He's a bad guy. I mean, he's a predator, and
Speaker 1: a predator as an adult, not a teenager who allegedly
Speaker 1: got too drunk and was grabbing somebody one night. This
Speaker 1: isn't a whole other stratosphere of seriousness. Where are the
Speaker 1: meat to Where are the meat? Two protesters? Where are
Speaker 1: the marchers where? You know? This is why you can't
Speaker 1: take the left seriously. They don't have principles. They pursue power.
Speaker 1: It's not the same thing. Why do anti war protesters
Speaker 1: disappear when there's a Democrat waging war, say Obama and Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: But when there's a Republican waging war, it's, oh my gosh.
Speaker 1: We should all have to see photos of people in
Speaker 1: caskets into you know, everything possible to emotionalize the issue,
Speaker 1: and it's terrible and a warmonger because they seize on
Speaker 1: specific policies as a means of attacking the political opposition
Speaker 1: and me too. And I was worried about this in
Speaker 1: the beginning. I wouldn't even say I was worried. I
Speaker 1: knew from the beginning it would be weaponized for political purposes,
Speaker 1: and it was, and it was all building toward that
Speaker 1: one shot. They had to stop Brett Kavanaugh from being
Speaker 1: on the Supreme Court for the next thirty or forty years,
Speaker 1: and they overreached. They overreached. I still believe with Kavanaugh's
Speaker 1: incredible defense if he had not had Accuser number two
Speaker 1: who had to ask other people, I don't know if
Speaker 1: this thing happened. I think maybe it happened. Do you
Speaker 1: remember it happening? And everybody said, no, we don't remember
Speaker 1: it happening. That's that's quite an allegation to level. And
Speaker 1: then accuser number three, who was the might as well
Speaker 1: have said that Brett Cavanaugh and you know seven Green
Speaker 1: Space aliens abducted her and abused her, along with you know,
Speaker 1: the Queen of England and Abraham Lincoln. I mean accuser
Speaker 1: number three, sweat Nick was just just a lunatic that
Speaker 1: was exploited by the slimiest lawyer in America, with the
Speaker 1: possible exception of Michael Cohen Abanati, who, let's not forget
Speaker 1: Democrats were talking about how he should run for president
Speaker 1: at one point. That was a thing that was being
Speaker 1: talked about by all of the analysts at sea in
Speaker 1: any other places that Abanati do. Do you remember that
Speaker 1: presidential material? Oh yeah, Politico had him on the cover.
Speaker 1: That's right, total total scum, disgusting. But just remember this
Speaker 1: Vanessa Tyson. There's nothing about her story that doesn't add up.
Speaker 1: There is nothing about the other accuser that has been
Speaker 1: flagged as as you know, the other accusers aren't saying
Speaker 1: I don't know where it happened. I don't know when
Speaker 1: it happened. I don't know how it happened. I just
Speaker 1: know it's this guy that the whole country on the
Speaker 1: left wants to destroy. That was Blasi Ford. This time around,
Speaker 1: it's well, you know, let's just not talk about it.
Speaker 1: And that's but that's how real bias works. They can't
Speaker 1: present you necessarily with completely fake stuff. So what they
Speaker 1: do because that would be self defeating. It's not because
Speaker 1: they're above it, although sometimes they do fake stuff. A
Speaker 1: BuzzFeed story. I mean sometimes they'll run with it. So
Speaker 1: what they do is they make very clear choices about
Speaker 1: how much focused to give something, whether to talk about
Speaker 1: an issue or not, whether to put it on TV
Speaker 1: or not, And that is how they try to shape
Speaker 1: the conversation toward the the laft and towards you know,
Speaker 1: the progressive status ideology that the media is overwhelmingly supportive of.
Speaker 1: But you will not. Oh, by the way, why won't
Speaker 1: they Why won't there be any resignations? Oh, they told
Speaker 1: us why there won't be any resignations? Play clip one.
Speaker 1: You know, Attorney General Herring, who you just brought up,
Speaker 1: also admitted to having Warren blackface at one point. If
Speaker 1: he resigns, the next in line is a Republican senex
Speaker 1: will look at this and say, the calculus to not
Speaker 1: be as harsh on the Attorney General is influenced by that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but I don't think that's actually true. There are senex
Speaker 1: to say this is about the next election, but I
Speaker 1: think it's more about values. We would know from it.
Speaker 1: That was cute, though. No, he shouldn't resign because Democrats
Speaker 1: want power, and that is the only reason that they're
Speaker 1: not calling for his resignation because he's a Democrat. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Is Trump a racist because he put
Speaker 1: the word trail in all caps? Ex guests, friend of mine,
Speaker 1: very witty, very talented fellow, mister Michael Malice tackles this issue.
Speaker 1: In fact, he got right in the middle of this issue.
Speaker 1: He was in the center of the barroom brawl over
Speaker 1: trail and Warren and Trump and oh my, he joins
Speaker 1: us now. He is the host of Nightshade and you're welcome.
Speaker 1: Also author of Dear Reader, the unauthorized biography of Kim
Speaker 1: jung Ill. Thank you so much, my friend. Good to
Speaker 1: have you back. Oh, it's great to be here. Buck.
Speaker 1: All right, so tell folks what happened. Well. President Trump,
Speaker 1: as I'm sure most people heard, had a pretty funny
Speaker 1: tweet directed Elizabeth Warren making fun of her, and he
Speaker 1: ended the tweet by saying, I look forward to seeing
Speaker 1: you on the trail. Trail was all in caps, and
Speaker 1: many people took this, and I think unambiguously as a
Speaker 1: reference to the Trail of Tears, which is when many
Speaker 1: Native Americans were forced to walk a long distance with
Speaker 1: many people who died along the way, and this was
Speaker 1: poking fun at her lies about her Native American heritage. Now,
Speaker 1: as soon as he tweeted that this is this is
Speaker 1: what's kind of funny A long time. I don't know
Speaker 1: about your Twitter strategy. I would quote someone as a reply.
Speaker 1: I thought to myself last seek, what will happen if
Speaker 1: I just reply to someone immediately and it's a big account.
Speaker 1: Well what ended up happening is Donald Trump Junior screencapped
Speaker 1: that whole exchange me and Trump put it on his
Speaker 1: Instagram and just wrote I love my president savage with
Speaker 1: three exclamations. Wait, but what what what? What did you
Speaker 1: write though? Oh, I'm sorry, I wrote the Native American
Speaker 1: genocide continues with another murder from our president. He screencapped
Speaker 1: that he wrote savage. Now, people took that savage to
Speaker 1: be racist as well. That's a very common internet terms
Speaker 1: I'm sure you've used as well, just like saying awesome.
Speaker 1: You know, awesome has a religious meeting, if you want
Speaker 1: to be literal about it. When people say awesome, they're
Speaker 1: not saying divine or something all inspiring. They just mean cool,
Speaker 1: all heck brook loose, you know, people, Because as soon
Speaker 1: as Trump does something that's outside the bounds of what
Speaker 1: has been defined as decent that gives so many people
Speaker 1: an excuse and a reason to lose their minds. And
Speaker 1: the response was exactly the response to what one would
Speaker 1: think would be a far more serious issue, which was
Speaker 1: the supposed separation of children from their parents at the
Speaker 1: border not that long ago. And some folks out there CNN,
Speaker 1: a particularly sanctimonious CNN host, said that the joke was racist, right,
Speaker 1: blatant racism. Jake Jake Tapper took a took a junior
Speaker 1: screencap with my name and my picture and my little
Speaker 1: blue verified checkmark which I like so much, and wrote,
Speaker 1: look what happened here? Trump's has a racist tweet, Someone
Speaker 1: tweets and degrees, and then Junior adds more racism. And
Speaker 1: the point is, I don't expect Jake Tapper to know
Speaker 1: who I am. I don't expect anyway with me who
Speaker 1: I am. But if you're a reporter and you're quoting
Speaker 1: someone and you're saying that they're being blatantly racist, maybe
Speaker 1: a little background and explanation to the audience is called for,
Speaker 1: because that's your job. Because for all intents and purposes,
Speaker 1: I could be a Native American, or I could have
Speaker 1: been quoting somebody else or infinite things. So it's amazing.
Speaker 1: And the thing is, if I were just an average
Speaker 1: citizen and he's like, Okay, this person doesn't matter, which
Speaker 1: is fair, then he should have blurred out my name
Speaker 1: in the face, right because otherwise he's saying this random
Speaker 1: person is a blatant racist, that's calling for dog pile. Well,
Speaker 1: as you know, CNN actually likes to docks or threatened
Speaker 1: to docks, just folks that get on the wrong side
Speaker 1: of them eye if they're not public figures, so that
Speaker 1: that's kind of the way they do business over there.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's a trash bag organization now. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: but I thought, you know, you made a really you
Speaker 1: wrote a piece in The Federalist on federalist dot com
Speaker 1: that called my attention. I thought you made a really
Speaker 1: important point, which is that quote previously the rules. The
Speaker 1: rules are, if it's your team, provide context and nuance
Speaker 1: and assume best intentions. If it's their team, take everything
Speaker 1: at face value in such a way as to make
Speaker 1: them seem to be the acme of awfulness. The fact
Speaker 1: that I was tweeting alongside Trump must mean that I'm
Speaker 1: on their team. Yeah, which is interesting because in fact
Speaker 1: I find your analysis and your wit to be interesting.
Speaker 1: But you are an anarchist. You're not actually conservatives. My
Speaker 1: upcoming book trash as conservatives every chance I get, because
Speaker 1: I think, and I'll give you a reason why that
Speaker 1: you agree with you and Molly hemingware to the best
Speaker 1: conservatisms issue. I think too many conservatives are completely blind
Speaker 1: to just how malevolent the press is. Conservatives, by their nature,
Speaker 1: and this is an essential element of conservatism, tend to
Speaker 1: believe that that what we have can be fixed. If
Speaker 1: it's been around for a long time, there must be
Speaker 1: something to it. It It can be fixed for a reason.
Speaker 1: And it's getting to the point where many conservatives view
Speaker 1: Molly some others. I think the Kavanaugh stuff you started
Speaker 1: to put you guys to the top. I realized these
Speaker 1: aren't mistakes that the press is making. This is far
Speaker 1: deeper than they like the Democrats. If you're talking to
Speaker 1: someone who just likes Democrats, who cares they have their
Speaker 1: point Bee that's valid. This is far more malevolent and
Speaker 1: pernicious than that. And I don't think that they are redeemable.
Speaker 1: This system well, I absolutely agree it and your analysis
Speaker 1: as a stute, because I did see what happened to Kavanaugh. That,
Speaker 1: in terms of what the media did to Kavanaugh and
Speaker 1: what they were attempting to do to Kavanaugh, was in
Speaker 1: my view, not just a declaration of war on our
Speaker 1: whole system of presumption of innocence and due process, but
Speaker 1: a declaration of war on decency itself. And the press
Speaker 1: was giddy over it, and I thought it was the
Speaker 1: most It was really the most disgusting thing I've seen
Speaker 1: in a very very long time. I mean, I could
Speaker 1: say probably even my whole life in some ways, in
Speaker 1: terms of terms of press actions, I think the press
Speaker 1: are worse on capital anything I've ever seen. But I
Speaker 1: just think you know your point about go ahead. If
Speaker 1: they if they believed what they were saying, why have
Speaker 1: they stopped saying it? If all these things are true,
Speaker 1: we have this horrible person in the Supreme Court, why
Speaker 1: would you stop talking about it. They haven't stopped talking
Speaker 1: about Trump and his supposed mystique from four years ago.
Speaker 1: They dropped it like a hot potato because clearly it
Speaker 1: was a mean sinand for them, and once they lost,
Speaker 1: they were moving on something else. It was never sincere.
Speaker 1: By the way, since you got since you waited on
Speaker 1: the Elizabeth Warren thing, where do you think this goes
Speaker 1: for her? I get the sense of Elizabeth Warren just
Speaker 1: can't stop digging, and people are going to make Native
Speaker 1: American jokes and puns and everything for the entirety of
Speaker 1: her effort to run for the presidency. And they're right too.
Speaker 1: And I'll give you some more points that as I
Speaker 1: said this in the article, if Trump had literally killed her,
Speaker 1: that wouldn't be part of the Native American genocide. If
Speaker 1: he had literally killed her and she was actually Native American,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be the Native American genocide. If I, as
Speaker 1: a Jewish person, were shot today at Auschwitz, that wouldn't
Speaker 1: be make me a Holocaust survivor right, So to tie
Speaker 1: in someone who has no Native American blood, who And
Speaker 1: here's the other thing they will tell you you read articles.
Speaker 1: She never leveraged this to further her career. She never ever, ever,
Speaker 1: ever leveraged this. Right, They say this her current job,
Speaker 1: her current job as senator. In twenty twelve, on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail, she was talking about she would be the
Speaker 1: first person with Native American heritage in the Senate from Massachusetts.
Speaker 1: She was positioning herself as an affirmative action higher, a
Speaker 1: diversity higher, and even to this day the job she
Speaker 1: has now she was exploiting this. So it's not about Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe it was an innocent mistake. Let's pretend that that's
Speaker 1: the case. The point is she did exploit that, at
Speaker 1: best innocent mistake to further her career. Michael Malice, everybody
Speaker 1: check out his show, which you can see on How
Speaker 1: Do people Go Find It? Michael? Where do they go
Speaker 1: to find You're Welcome? Is on iTunes or YouTube and
Speaker 1: Nightshades on Compound media dot com. Michael's a very interesting,
Speaker 1: very thoughtful guy. He's funny and can be a little
Speaker 1: bit of a trouble starter, a little of troublemaker. So
Speaker 1: if you check out of stuff, just be aware, buy
Speaker 1: or beware. But mister mall is always good to have
Speaker 1: you all, my friend. We'll talk to you soon. Thanks
Speaker 1: so much, muck seem We've got a big hour three
Speaker 1: coming up. Stay with me. Social media is dominated by
Speaker 1: left wing ideologues these days. The major Silicon Valley platforms
Speaker 1: are so progressive. I have an idea. I can give
Speaker 1: you a place where you can share your thoughts and
Speaker 1: ideas and not worry about all that progressive groupthink and
Speaker 1: shadow banning and all the rest of it. Snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: Snippy dot com is a new social media side. If
Speaker 1: you've checked it out in the past, go back and
Speaker 1: take a look again. Thousands of my listeners have joined
Speaker 1: snippy dot com and they're expressing their opinions and stirring
Speaker 1: up lively conversations. Maybe he's an unbiased social media platform.
Speaker 1: It's all about conversation and community. You can express your
Speaker 1: thoughts and share your conservative opinions or any opinion for
Speaker 1: that matter, and know that you're not going to get
Speaker 1: shadow banned or suspended for no reason, no suppression of
Speaker 1: conservative thought ever. Now with an updated user interface and
Speaker 1: exciting new features, check it out for yourself. Snippy dot
Speaker 1: com again. Snippy dot com no price tag here, totally free.
Speaker 1: Check it out for yourself snippy dot Com. Anti Semitism
Speaker 1: has no place in the United States Congress and Congressman
Speaker 1: Omar is terrible what she said, and I think she
Speaker 1: should either resign from Congress or she should certainly resign
Speaker 1: from the House Foreign Affairs Committee. Representative Ilhan Omar not
Speaker 1: yet out of hot water here for her comments about
Speaker 1: how APAC has a particularly strong hand in our foreign
Speaker 1: policy because it's all about the Benjamin's she has. She
Speaker 1: has apologized, but only sort of apologized. People on the
Speaker 1: left are saying, well, hold on, there's a legitimate foreign
Speaker 1: policy discussion we had here. A lot of other people
Speaker 1: are saying, oh, this is actually just anti semitism and
Speaker 1: it's getting a real foothold in the left. I want
Speaker 1: to talk about this and also Iran and North Korea
Speaker 1: some other hot topics with our next guest, Fred Flights.
Speaker 1: Fred was a CI analyst like yours, truly, he was
Speaker 1: there for nineteen years. He was NSC chief of staff.
Speaker 1: Recently in the Trump administration. Now he was the president
Speaker 1: and CEO of the Center for Security Policy. Fred. Great
Speaker 1: to have you on, sir. Good to be here, sir.
Speaker 1: So let's just start with Omar first, and do you
Speaker 1: think that she should resign? And do you think that
Speaker 1: she's an outlier or is she indicative of a trend
Speaker 1: toward anti Israel and really more pointedly anti Jewish thinking
Speaker 1: along the foreign policy left. I think it is anti
Speaker 1: Jewish and anti Israel thinking on the fig policy left
Speaker 1: shouldn't be on the foreign Affairs Committee. This isn't just
Speaker 1: anti Semitism, this is a real hatred of Israel. This
Speaker 1: is a new effort to delegitimize Israel, to call for
Speaker 1: its destruction, to flood it with Palestinians. This is like
Speaker 1: the latest fake attack by the Palestines and the left
Speaker 1: to ruin American support for Israel and to de legitimizes
Speaker 1: on the national stage. That's why this is so dangerous.
Speaker 1: And sometimes I do interviews on left wing television shows
Speaker 1: and you know, I have a name sounds like it's yours.
Speaker 1: You would believe the anti Semitic attacks against me whatever
Speaker 1: I defend Israel. There's something going on in the left
Speaker 1: and it's very dangerous and that's ugly. So she should
Speaker 1: definitely be taking off the House Point Affairs Committee. You
Speaker 1: would agree with that. I mean, what was Nancy Pelosi thinking,
Speaker 1: you know what? I think she thought she was going
Speaker 1: to stick at the President Trump because of his you know,
Speaker 1: basically Trump has said things about Muslims that that Democrats
Speaker 1: find offensive. So Pelosi put this woman on there. But frankly,
Speaker 1: she was playing with fire because this woman is just
Speaker 1: not ready for prime time and has said repeated things
Speaker 1: that are just really ugly in pretty clearly anti semitic.
Speaker 1: Now let's move on to North Korea. We have this
Speaker 1: upcoming summit, a second summit between President Trump and North
Speaker 1: Korean leadership Kim Jong Un. People on both sides obviously
Speaker 1: view this very differently. For the most part, the sum
Speaker 1: are saying that this is all this is a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of nothing. Others are saying, well, we've
Speaker 1: had real progress. Just I know that you think that
Speaker 1: the President's made real progress. You were at the NSC
Speaker 1: when he was engaged in some of these North Korea talks.
Speaker 1: Just tell us how, I mean, how should we assess this?
Speaker 1: How should we see this? Because clearly you know we're
Speaker 1: not in a great spot with North Korea. But are
Speaker 1: we in a better spot? Well, we've at least paused
Speaker 1: the North Korean nuclear missile progress. There haven't been any
Speaker 1: test since late twenty seventeen. That's significant. There were eighty
Speaker 1: missile tests during the administration. There were four nuclear tests
Speaker 1: twenty missile tests during the first year of the Trump administration.
Speaker 1: This is significant, but look, it could be just a
Speaker 1: blip in history unless there's more. The North Koreans have
Speaker 1: been dragging in their feat. The purpose in the negotiations,
Speaker 1: the purpose of the summit is to get the North
Speaker 1: Koreans to get Leader Kim to agree to basically concrete
Speaker 1: deliverables on how are they going to start implementing what
Speaker 1: Kim agreed to with the last summit in Singapore. So
Speaker 1: how do we do that? I mean, what's what's then
Speaker 1: the way forward? Well, just a meeting between the two
Speaker 1: leaders as a concession, it legitimizes the regime. And we're
Speaker 1: just hoping that this rapport that the President has with Kim,
Speaker 1: and we know he's been bututtering him up lately in
Speaker 1: with various tweets that the President can use as negotiation
Speaker 1: skills to get Kim to agree to at least some
Speaker 1: preliminary preliminary investigation letting inspectors into a military missile site
Speaker 1: and a nuclear test site. Hopefully that will expand into
Speaker 1: greater inspections. We also need to get a full and
Speaker 1: thorough accounting of the Milk Queen w d A missile programs.
Speaker 1: That's going to take more work, but they have to
Speaker 1: start working on that too. Now, tell me about where
Speaker 1: we should where we should be viewing how we should
Speaker 1: view the Iran deal which I know a lot of
Speaker 1: people that were part of the Obama administration get very
Speaker 1: upset about this because they think that it's tearing apart
Speaker 1: Obama's foreign policy legacy. Obviously, you and I don't think
Speaker 1: there's much of a legacy to tear apart. But you
Speaker 1: know that you hear things like they're Iran's violating the deal. No,
Speaker 1: they're not violing the deal, or you know the deal
Speaker 1: is too soft, and that's the problems. What has President
Speaker 1: Trump done in the Iran deal? And or about the
Speaker 1: Iran deal? I know we're out of it, but what
Speaker 1: does that mean and what comes next? Well? I wrote
Speaker 1: a peace in National View recently that's said that eight
Speaker 1: months later, the presidents with twelve from the Iran Deal
Speaker 1: has been a tremendous policy success. We now know that
Speaker 1: the deal was a thought and run was continuing weapons
Speaker 1: related activities. Albadu was an effect by rich and uranium,
Speaker 1: and Iran cheated. We know the Iranians cheated based on
Speaker 1: documents that the Israeli sold from the Runnings early last
Speaker 1: year that showed a secret nuclear site that Iran refused
Speaker 1: to declare, a warehouse ful of nuclear equipment and phizzile
Speaker 1: material that Iran started to empty out once the once
Speaker 1: they found out that these really stole their documents. It
Speaker 1: was a fraud through and through. It was basically a
Speaker 1: legacy agreement, so the abodministration could say they had an
Speaker 1: agreement with Iran. The trumph And administration throw this out.
Speaker 1: Iran is increasingly isolated. We need to do now is
Speaker 1: to focus on denying Iran transfers of nuclear missile technology
Speaker 1: and get all of our allies, especially regional allies who
Speaker 1: were excluded from the Iran du Let's get them lined
Speaker 1: up on the United policy to deal with all of
Speaker 1: the threats posed by Iran. Now, on the Mid East
Speaker 1: side of all this, I guess Mid East and South Asia,
Speaker 1: where do you come down on the discussions recently about
Speaker 1: one US troop presence in Syria and then also a
Speaker 1: draw down, a plan draw down. I believe now in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan a possible peace dealing with the Taliban. Let's start
Speaker 1: with Syria first. How's that going well? The announcement of
Speaker 1: the President made in December was adjusted to pull our
Speaker 1: troops out slower. He listened to his advice as he
Speaker 1: listened to leaders in the region who said that you
Speaker 1: can't pull our troops out that quickly. But I think
Speaker 1: on issues like Syria and Afghanistan, the President is conflicted.
Speaker 1: There are security interests, but he also does not believe
Speaker 1: that US troops should be deployed to these areas indefinitely.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of Americans who agree with that book.
Speaker 1: They think that we've been in Afghanistan too long. The
Speaker 1: New York Times recently ran a major editorial agreeing with Trump.
Speaker 1: Who would have thought that it is time for US
Speaker 1: to get out of Afghanistan. There is some indication there
Speaker 1: are some indications that there's been progress and talks with
Speaker 1: the Talibman that would allow us to start drawing down.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to hold my breath on that, but
Speaker 1: I think there's some truth to that. So basically, it's
Speaker 1: it's a trade off. The President wants to withdraw. He
Speaker 1: doesn't think we should be in these areas indefinitely, Bud.
Speaker 1: He knows his security concerns, So it's a struggle I
Speaker 1: think within his own mind and with his advisors, who
Speaker 1: have a variety of different perspectives. Now you and I
Speaker 1: both come from the intelligence community, Fred, and there's obviously
Speaker 1: been some very high level folks. I mean, I've I've
Speaker 1: interviewed I've interviewed Clapper since he's been out, I've interviewed Hayden,
Speaker 1: and I gotta tell you, Hayden in particular, I find
Speaker 1: his conduct and his commentary about about the President, about
Speaker 1: the administration to be beyond disappointing. One. I just wonder
Speaker 1: what do you think the long term? What do you
Speaker 1: think is there any long term damage from former Intel
Speaker 1: chiefs coming out and just being partisan actors like they're
Speaker 1: all auditioning for an MSNBC show all the time. And
Speaker 1: then also do you think that there's still a lot
Speaker 1: of that going on at the top levels inside the
Speaker 1: community and that's and that it's hurting the presidents still? Well,
Speaker 1: if you think Hayden is disappointing, what do you think
Speaker 1: of John Brennan? Oh, I mean, he's I don't even
Speaker 1: I mean, John Brennan probably should should be brought up
Speaker 1: on charge. He's in a whole other category of awful.
Speaker 1: But you're right, But you know, I'm friends with Mike Hayden.
Speaker 1: I think he has gotten no ret line. Sometimes so
Speaker 1: friendly Brennan is so bad. I don't even notice some
Speaker 1: of the things that Hayden is saying. But you know,
Speaker 1: you're right. Intelligence officials FORMACI directors used to be senior
Speaker 1: statesman and ambassadors for the profession, and they stayed out
Speaker 1: of politics. They were like you know, the gray beards
Speaker 1: who would advise academia and presidents. A CURRENCYI director would
Speaker 1: invite in all his predecessors and consult with them. They'd
Speaker 1: come in quarterly for meetings. Of course, John Brennan doesn't
Speaker 1: come into those meetings anymore because the President took his
Speaker 1: clearance away, which I thought was a great move. That
Speaker 1: we have to get back to the time where FORMERCI
Speaker 1: directors they stay out of politics, they stay off MSNBC,
Speaker 1: and you know they try to serve this country and
Speaker 1: not being political hacks. And what are your Just just
Speaker 1: one more thing for you here, fred As. We only
Speaker 1: got about a minute. But as the Russian investigation scene
Speaker 1: has been coming to a close, is it really going
Speaker 1: to come to a close? It They're gonna drag on forever.
Speaker 1: The Democrats will never coming to it will never come
Speaker 1: to close to the Democrats. The Democrats in the House.
Speaker 1: I think they're going to start this all over again,
Speaker 1: even though I think the President is about to be
Speaker 1: exonerated by the moloprobe. It's just it's always in politics.
Speaker 1: There's no evidence of collusion. I didn't think it was
Speaker 1: from the beginning, and I just think that this is
Speaker 1: just going to go off forever and years from now,
Speaker 1: the presidents out of office is starring into Democrats will
Speaker 1: still keep claiming this collusion, even though they're never going
Speaker 1: to find evidence a team. Fred is right because Fred
Speaker 1: and I agree, So Fred, Fred is right on these
Speaker 1: things because we see this the same way. Fred flights
Speaker 1: everybody presidents CEO of Center for Security Policy, also a
Speaker 1: former CI analysts like myself, my brother from Langley. Fred,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, good to be your Thanks. All right, team, Well,
Speaker 1: I want to talk a little. We didn't get to China. There, China.
Speaker 1: Do we have a come on, you gotta come on,
Speaker 1: you gotta have that one ready, China. There we go, China, China. Okay,
Speaker 1: let's not hey, let's not overdo it. Let's not overdo it.
Speaker 1: That's coming up next, team. There's not much that I
Speaker 1: need to get my day started right, pants, T shirt, shoes,
Speaker 1: good start. But you know what's right up there with it?
Speaker 1: Black rifle coffee because it tastes delicious, so it gives
Speaker 1: me something to look forward to. When I wake up
Speaker 1: in the morning, first thing I do is make my
Speaker 1: cup of Black Rifle coffee well after I put on clothing.
Speaker 1: And it is delicious coffee that is brought to you
Speaker 1: by veterans of the armed forces who are building a
Speaker 1: great American brand. They give back to first responder and
Speaker 1: veteran causes from a part of the proceeds of this,
Speaker 1: So you're doing good. It's tasting good, get delivered right
Speaker 1: to you. Everybody listening should make Black Rifle Coffee their
Speaker 1: coffee of choice. Join the coffee called They'll deliver to
Speaker 1: you every month. Wake up with America's coffee, Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: Visit Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and receive fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash
Speaker 1: buck for fifteen percent off. One more time, Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot Com slash buck for fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: The economy is doing incredibly well. Numbers are really high,
Speaker 1: really good. We have a big team of people, very
Speaker 1: talented people over in China right now negotiating on the
Speaker 1: China deal. It's going along very well. We'll see what happens,
Speaker 1: but I think it's going along very well. They're showing
Speaker 1: us tremendous respect and something which a lot of countries
Speaker 1: didn't use to show the United States to showing us
Speaker 1: respect now, big difference from the old days. I will
Speaker 1: tell you that. So the deal with China is going
Speaker 1: very well. The deal with China presence says going well.
Speaker 1: But we might be in for a bit of a
Speaker 1: delay here. There might be a pushback the March second
Speaker 1: deadline that has been reported on a lot to reach
Speaker 1: a trade deal with China might might get the old Kavo.
Speaker 1: I might decide to push that aside for a little while.
Speaker 1: The US is not supposed to put higher tariffs on
Speaker 1: Chinese goods if the talks with Beijing are going well,
Speaker 1: so we will have to see. It could increase tariffs
Speaker 1: on two hundred billion dollars with Chinese goods to twenty
Speaker 1: five percent from ten percent. And one thing that's really
Speaker 1: been really interesting to see this all play out. I
Speaker 1: just remember, because it wasn't long ago, I remember hearing
Speaker 1: about how what Trump was doing was dangerous, what Trump
Speaker 1: was doing was going to destroy the economy. All this stuff,
Speaker 1: and here we are. Last year, the economy was good,
Speaker 1: it wasn't. The stock market had a rough end of year,
Speaker 1: for sure, but unemployments still very, very low. And the
Speaker 1: only argument that I can hear people make right now
Speaker 1: about What's happened as a result of Trump's overtures to
Speaker 1: China has to do with it would have been even better,
Speaker 1: but it hasn't been bad. And I would note that
Speaker 1: the critics of Trump on trade and it has been
Speaker 1: really bipartisan criticism. And I've tried to bring on experts
Speaker 1: here and reflect expert opinion on trade that you're not
Speaker 1: getting from the mainstream media. You're not getting from people
Speaker 1: that like to just pair at the consensus that there
Speaker 1: has been real headway made here on doing things on
Speaker 1: trade that needed to be done, but that everybody seemed
Speaker 1: to think we're crazy when Trump started to do them.
Speaker 1: You know, now you have this, the US Mexico Canada
Speaker 1: Trade Agreement, and people said, oh, you can't. NAFTA has
Speaker 1: been the cornerstone of blah blah people get all excited
Speaker 1: and all angry because it turns out NAFTA was signed
Speaker 1: before the Internet era, so there was a lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of stuff that needed to be updated and changed,
Speaker 1: and there hasn't been some huge disruption in our trade
Speaker 1: with Mexico or Canada and now on China. China had
Speaker 1: a rough year last year, and it's always interesting to
Speaker 1: see how people assess the Chinese market because it's a
Speaker 1: bit opaque. There's a certain degree of not trusting the
Speaker 1: numbers from the Chinese national government that a lot of
Speaker 1: China watchers I know bring to bring to the situation.
Speaker 1: But you know, their economy was getting hammered last year
Speaker 1: and our economy was doing well. It's because Trump is
Speaker 1: the first president in memory for me who comes along
Speaker 1: and says, we're in a stronger position than China, and
Speaker 1: China's pulling some nonsense. So we're going to get them
Speaker 1: to stop doing the stuff that they've been doing. Intellectual
Speaker 1: property theft, the predatory trade practices visa vi us companies
Speaker 1: that try to base out of China for a while,
Speaker 1: these cooperative corporate agreements that turn into just a siphoning
Speaker 1: of US intellectual property into Chinese companies, all that stuff.
Speaker 1: Trump is like, can't do this anymore. Got to figure
Speaker 1: something out to stop it. And I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: he is there yet. I'm not saying that it has
Speaker 1: been perfect. But to be sure, President Trump has I think,
Speaker 1: defied the critics so far, and on balance looks like
Speaker 1: he knows some stuff that they certainly did not know.
Speaker 1: He's aware of things that they were not aware of,
Speaker 1: or at least he was able to see the situation
Speaker 1: more clearly than they were because people were saying, oh,
Speaker 1: so many of the more learned conservatives that I know
Speaker 1: in the media, oh, free trade, and you say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, free trade is a great idea.
Speaker 1: But this is like saying the answer to everything in
Speaker 1: healthcare is just to say we need a free market
Speaker 1: in healthcare. Okay, that's nice. Fifty percent of the healthcare
Speaker 1: market has already government spending. So to say that the
Speaker 1: answer is just a free market is to say, okay,
Speaker 1: we're so far from a free market right now, and
Speaker 1: in terms of our deal with and to pretend that
Speaker 1: we're in a free market. If we change anything, we're
Speaker 1: losing the free market. That is the root fallacy. Right.
Speaker 1: It's one thing if I say, hey, we need to
Speaker 1: make this change on healthcare and then people say, no, no, buck,
Speaker 1: we can't because we need a free market based healthcare system.
Speaker 1: I'd say, well, well, half the healthcare system is not
Speaker 1: free market, and there's a tremendous amount of regulation. There
Speaker 1: are reasons why drug prices are so high and government interventions.
Speaker 1: So we don't have a free market in healthcare. We
Speaker 1: can try to make it more free and I understand
Speaker 1: that as a principle, but it's not an answer to everything.
Speaker 1: Well just make it free market, okay, Well, how and
Speaker 1: under what auspice is and how do we implement that idea?
Speaker 1: Same thing with free trade. People said, oh, buck, no,
Speaker 1: we need free trade with China. Okay, we don't have
Speaker 1: free trade with China. China has tariffs, and China is
Speaker 1: stealing intellectual property during all kinds of stuff. It's really bad.
Speaker 1: So that's a part of this that I think Trump
Speaker 1: has brought to the forefront, and he doesn't get a
Speaker 1: lot of credit for it. I hope we do get
Speaker 1: some kind of an agreement with China. I think that
Speaker 1: could really be a boost the economy. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: also despite it, Mike, did you see that story yesterday
Speaker 1: about how people are getting less in their tax refunds
Speaker 1: And initially Democrats to borrow their word, they pounced on this, yes,
Speaker 1: because they've kept more of their money, right, it was
Speaker 1: comical they kept more money. But this is the year
Speaker 1: that they will be keeping more money and people will
Speaker 1: have more money to spend as a result of the
Speaker 1: change in the withholding, And so I think we could
Speaker 1: see some good stuff happening, some good stuff happening on
Speaker 1: that front. I saw this story today. People always ask
Speaker 1: me what there is to say about somebody who would
Speaker 1: betray their country and spy for another country. And this
Speaker 1: is a former US intel specialists has been charged with
Speaker 1: spying for Iran. I haven't gotten too deep into the
Speaker 1: details of it, but look, this is the insider threat.
Speaker 1: People are exploited by our enemies and they betray the
Speaker 1: greatest country ever known to man. Assuming this is true,
Speaker 1: these are just allegations at this point. Whether this this
Speaker 1: woman who I think she was worked for the Air
Speaker 1: Force as an intelligence analyst, right, yeah, and she's now
Speaker 1: at large. They don't even I think they're probably hiding somewhere.
Speaker 1: Is she supposed to be in Iranda? We know, I
Speaker 1: don't know where she is, but they're trying to track
Speaker 1: her down. Monica Wit, Monica Wit, and they say that
Speaker 1: she gave away some very sensitive stuff. All I can
Speaker 1: just say is, you know, every society has traders, folks.
Speaker 1: It's going to happen, unfortunately, and hopefully we can limit
Speaker 1: the damage they do on ours. Why anybody would try
Speaker 1: to help the Iranians any American? Remember this is an
Speaker 1: American who has essentially defected and double crossed us to
Speaker 1: help iran You know, betraying America is always a terrible thing,
Speaker 1: but traying America for the Iranians is just even even
Speaker 1: just goes beyond usual treasonto wow treason, and this is nuts.
Speaker 1: But I don't have much on other than that, just
Speaker 1: because I don't know what the programs are, the information is,
Speaker 1: so I can't speak to any of that. But we'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Beaten with a noose around his neck
Speaker 1: and hospitalized. Empire star Jesse Smollett was the victim of
Speaker 1: a vicious racist and homophobic attack, and his attackers hurled
Speaker 1: racial and homophobic slurs. Two people yelled racists and homophobic slurs.
Speaker 1: At only homophobia, We're talking about racism, We're talking about
Speaker 1: hate with steroids. They are looking for two suspects who
Speaker 1: are apparently wearing Make America Great Again hats. The offenders
Speaker 1: uttered this is mega country, Speaker of the House Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi tweeting the racist, homophobic attack on Jesse Smollette is
Speaker 1: an affront where humanity. And Senator Qurey Booker said the
Speaker 1: vicious attack when actor Jesse was an attempted modern day lynching.
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris calling the attack and attempted modern day lynching,
Speaker 1: and I'm so shaken by the story. This is horrible
Speaker 1: to report. This is a horrible story, and this is
Speaker 1: America in twenty nineteen. Man, those media folks are really
Speaker 1: you know, they really believe this. Apparently they believe it. Mike,
Speaker 1: I want to know. I want to know just why
Speaker 1: somebody can't come out and tell me, just tell me
Speaker 1: how it's possible that a guy who says he had
Speaker 1: a racist hate crime happened to him won't turn over
Speaker 1: his phone. And I had people reach out to me,
Speaker 1: by the way, from the media because some of them
Speaker 1: heard the show. They said, Buck, what if he has
Speaker 1: below the belt picks on there? Like they came up
Speaker 1: with these really creative theories for why he wouldn't just
Speaker 1: just to prove people say, why does it matter when
Speaker 1: you tell the police things? They just check off the
Speaker 1: facts because they want that. That's what they do. They're
Speaker 1: doing their investigation, their due diligence on the story, right.
Speaker 1: So okay, he wouldn't give them the phone initially. Now
Speaker 1: he gave them incomplete phone records, redacted phone records, which
Speaker 1: means that clearly he's hiding something from his phone records,
Speaker 1: which is utterly bizarre. Mike, I just want to know,
Speaker 1: is there any reasonable explanation for this that you've heard whatsoever?
Speaker 1: Because I have not, and yet the media still believe
Speaker 1: this guy none whatsoever. I mean, this is completely shady activity.
Speaker 1: I mean the idea also that these two like rednecks
Speaker 1: and maga hats walking around Chicago. By the way, I
Speaker 1: feel like other people would have noticed these guys too.
Speaker 1: Do you say this, I mean in Chicago when they
Speaker 1: went around and ask, Hey, anyone see anything? This is
Speaker 1: Maga Country, not Chicago. I know a lot first of all,
Speaker 1: not Chicago, unless there's another Chicago down south that I'm
Speaker 1: not aware of. I know a lot of Trump supporters, Okay,
Speaker 1: I have never heard a single person say this is
Speaker 1: Maga Country. No, that is so I'm just gonna say it.
Speaker 1: That is something that a person would make up about
Speaker 1: Trump supporters. That is not something a Trump supporter would say.
Speaker 1: You know, people that are really into Trump are not
Speaker 1: gonna say this is maga country. And like you always say,
Speaker 1: like it's something like this when something happens to you,
Speaker 1: like this, it's this, you know, supposedly the terrific. You're
Speaker 1: like really adamant about it. You know, you really come
Speaker 1: out strong, like who knows. But the fact that he
Speaker 1: is not coming out like now that people are doubting him,
Speaker 1: like there's you know, it's been in the media last week,
Speaker 1: people are dying him. He's going radio silent. Like if
Speaker 1: this happened to me and people start doubting me, I'd
Speaker 1: be all up in their face like, oh yeah, no,
Speaker 1: this this happened, this is the way it went down,
Speaker 1: this is where it was, like you just you don't
Speaker 1: you present the facts and you get I would be
Speaker 1: upset of somebody down in my story. I just think
Speaker 1: it's so interesting to the media that the interest in
Speaker 1: this with every passing day, now that now that people
Speaker 1: are people are asking should the police subpoena his phone records,
Speaker 1: which is very easy to do. I mean for phone records.
Speaker 1: I've done phone records subpoenas myself. All it has to
Speaker 1: do is essentially be tied to an investigation. I mean,
Speaker 1: to pull phone records is not a high bar at all.
Speaker 1: And now there are people say no, no no, no, they
Speaker 1: shouldn't do that. Why shouldn't they subpoenas phone records? He
Speaker 1: said he was all on the phone with his manager
Speaker 1: when he got attacked. I think there are people who
Speaker 1: realize this is this is going to turn into. There
Speaker 1: are only two options here that I see. He got
Speaker 1: into a scuffle with somebody that had nothing to do
Speaker 1: with Trump or Mago or any of this stuff, and
Speaker 1: and kind of cooked up this story because he saw
Speaker 1: an opportunity. That's one. But I think the much more
Speaker 1: likely thing is he just this is a national attention grip.
Speaker 1: I don't see what I mean. The third option is
Speaker 1: that this bizarre story happened to this guy and that
Speaker 1: he wants to make the police's job really hard. I
Speaker 1: don't get that. I actually get with option A. I think, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think the first thing he said, I think he
Speaker 1: got in. I think something happened, and I think he
Speaker 1: jaguard the whole thing and that that allows him to
Speaker 1: It's like he's a method actor. He's an actor right now.
Speaker 1: It's like he's in the he got in the mindset
Speaker 1: of what it could be like to be in a
Speaker 1: racial attack when maybe some guy, you know, maybe if
Speaker 1: I had to take a guess, I would say that
Speaker 1: something happened and he was in the wrong and he
Speaker 1: probably wound up losing in a fight or something and
Speaker 1: then got into a scuffle somebody and then made it. Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think. I think because also, by the way, the
Speaker 1: I mean two guys attack you have the ability. I know,
Speaker 1: not that I ever try this out. Do you guys
Speaker 1: attack me on the street and they managed to get
Speaker 1: a noose around my neck, I would be in really
Speaker 1: bad physical shape. I wouldn't have like a tiny shiner
Speaker 1: on my under my left eye, like i'd have like
Speaker 1: a broken nose or joban, you know, because you're gonna
Speaker 1: they could kill you with a noose, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: a noose is not something just like oh wait, hold on,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm attacking you. I want to put this rope
Speaker 1: around your neck that I could strangle you with. Right,
Speaker 1: But I think people leave this out. And he left
Speaker 1: the noose around his neck. Not credible, Not credible. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: see we speak the truth of your team without fear
Speaker 1: or favor. Oh yeah, grab back. Ain't no party like
Speaker 1: a Team Buck party, because a Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we got Buck turned up to eleven. It's time for
Speaker 1: roll Call, an NYC version of roll Call. That's right
Speaker 1: up in New York City, the Big Apple for Valentine's Day.
Speaker 1: Hang out with this, Molly sending here some one hundred
Speaker 1: flowers tomorrow. That's right, that's how we roll. So there
Speaker 1: we have it. I'm it's going to be in the town.
Speaker 1: It's a little cold, Brandon, it's a little cold. I
Speaker 1: was hoping it would be warmer. You know, DC doesn't
Speaker 1: have snow, so this is where. Yeah, there's no snow
Speaker 1: in DC. So this is when I was on the
Speaker 1: trail webisode. Whoa wait a second, even the what is it?
Speaker 1: The three hundred or so miles makes a difference in
Speaker 1: terms of climate? All right, none of you care about that.
Speaker 1: Facebook dot Com, Slashbuck Saxon. I'm just happy to be
Speaker 1: in New York. Facebook dot com, Slashbuck Saxon. We have
Speaker 1: some messages to get to my friends, Tim, Right, so
Speaker 1: what kind of music do you like well, I like
Speaker 1: both kinds country and western. Let's see if you get
Speaker 1: that one. Personally. My musical roots are in rock and
Speaker 1: roll and blues, but in later years I've learned to
Speaker 1: appreciate country music. These are the country music artists I
Speaker 1: would recommend Keith Urban, Brad Paisley, Eric Church, Chris Stapleton
Speaker 1: is awesome, and my personal favorite Sugarland. Please check them out.
Speaker 1: Are you do you listen to country at all? Because
Speaker 1: of the nature of my job, you must. Yeah, because
Speaker 1: you're I mean, you're DJ Brandon, so you got you
Speaker 1: gotta spin disks of all kinds of artists. A lot
Speaker 1: of the iHeart Live concert series feature a lot of
Speaker 1: country artists, so I've become familiar. Do you know any
Speaker 1: of these guys he just brought up here? I'm sure
Speaker 1: Eric Church, I Keith Urban's famous. I know who that
Speaker 1: guy is. Yeah, Eric Church, I think he's done stuff
Speaker 1: with U Metallica. Okay, and Chris Stapleton actually opened up
Speaker 1: for Guns and Roses v GNR. Yeah, this is the
Speaker 1: gun then Roses, Nick Gun and Roses. That's very exciting, dude,
Speaker 1: good things. David Wrights buck watch you on Rising Today.
Speaker 1: Excuse me, watch you on Rising today up set that
Speaker 1: you shaved the beard. I think it makes you look better.
Speaker 1: And it looks like the swoop is getting out of control.
Speaker 1: Let's try. Do you need a haircut? I try to
Speaker 1: get a haircut for what it's worth. I try to
Speaker 1: get a haircut today and I couldn't. I couldn't get
Speaker 1: into the barber. But yeah, the swoop is out of control.
Speaker 1: And I missed the beard too. I came in. Brandon
Speaker 1: has a very high quality beard. DJ Brandon has a
Speaker 1: very good beard, it's true. And I told him about,
Speaker 1: you know, my little clipper shaving incident where I was
Speaker 1: just trying to do a little trim, but you go
Speaker 1: too much. I didn't realize the mustache part of it.
Speaker 1: You can't mess up on like that, like on the
Speaker 1: neckline and stuff. You can make a little bit of
Speaker 1: a little bit of a booboo and it's all right.
Speaker 1: But if you miss the mustache up, like if you,
Speaker 1: you know, clipper, just the center part of your mustache off,
Speaker 1: you're done. You're done. You can't be the guy that's
Speaker 1: miss in the middle of your mustache, right, No, you
Speaker 1: got to do a duover. Yeah, you got it, so
Speaker 1: I'm at duover. I'm a duover face. But that did do.
Speaker 1: The beard is gonna get I'm gonna be like Tom
Speaker 1: Hanks castaway Wilson. Wilson Wilson. You know he's a great actor,
Speaker 1: because did you get a little sad when Wilson's floating away?
Speaker 1: I felt sad that volleyball Wilson Worldson. I was so
Speaker 1: sad he was losing his volleyball. All right. Back to
Speaker 1: this note here from David Crystal Ball looks lovely as always,
Speaker 1: just kind saying, Buck, keep up the good work, Appreciate
Speaker 1: everything you do on radio and TV. Keep fighting the
Speaker 1: good fight shield Hie. Well, David, thank you so much,
Speaker 1: my friend. I appreciate it. Good to talk to you,
Speaker 1: and please keep listening, please keep watching. Chris right, Hi, Buck,
Speaker 1: my name is Chris, and I believe you met my
Speaker 1: mom in San Diego at the Freedom Frontline event. She says,
Speaker 1: thank you for posting on Instagram with her. Well, she
Speaker 1: does not have Facebook, so she's sitting next to me
Speaker 1: right now as I write this. By the way, I'm
Speaker 1: a fan of yours as well. She wanted me to
Speaker 1: tell you to start listening to a country group called
Speaker 1: Old dominion. It's her favorite one as a recent convert
Speaker 1: to country music herself. Thanks for all you do, lonely
Speaker 1: conservatives here in California. Well, Chris Man, great to meet you,
Speaker 1: or at least be in touch with you. And that
Speaker 1: was awesome to meet your mom out in Rancho Santa Fe,
Speaker 1: which I will tell you Rancho Santa Fe is it's
Speaker 1: a nice place. Highly highly recommend if you can get
Speaker 1: a little time out there. I was like, ooh, I could,
Speaker 1: I could get used to this. You're you're within sight
Speaker 1: of the ocean, You're you have the weather of San Diego,
Speaker 1: and it's it's very nice. You know, you only need
Speaker 1: like six or seven million dollars gets you a pretty
Speaker 1: nice house in Rancho Santa Fe from what I understand though,
Speaker 1: So you know, I'm about six or seven million short,
Speaker 1: but I'm working on it, Lou writes, Good evening, Buck.
Speaker 1: The list for country music is Hank Williams, Whalen Jennings,
Speaker 1: Patsy Klein, Charlie Pride, Johnny Cash. The list goes on, brother,
Speaker 1: but that's a great start for you. Shields High. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, Lou, oh and Lu says, he writes,
Speaker 1: oh he listens on KXBF AM nine to seventy in Fairbanks, Alaska.
Speaker 1: What's up, Team Buck Alaska. That's right, stay warm up.
Speaker 1: There a Team Buck Alaska. Stay warm, NJ writes, Bajo
Speaker 1: O'Rourke is the Bobby Newport of national politics in real life,
Speaker 1: Bobby Newport. Bobby Newport thinks that this is a job
Speaker 1: you can just get by marrying a billionaire. Some of
Speaker 1: you who are Parks and Rex super fans will catch this.
Speaker 1: I know you're catching this right now, Bobby Newport. If
Speaker 1: you don't watch Parks and Rec, you think that I'm
Speaker 1: having some kind of a breakdown in here. But that's okay.
Speaker 1: You were in and everyone says this. I don't look
Speaker 1: that much like Adam Scott. This is a lie. This
Speaker 1: is a lie that people tell themselves. Adam Scott is
Speaker 1: like five to three and one hundred and ten pounds.
Speaker 1: I'm working on one hundred and ten pounds part, but
Speaker 1: you know he's halfway there. But yeah, man, good good things,
Speaker 1: good things, Bobby Newport. Keith writes, hasn't anyone, oh my oh,
Speaker 1: hasn't anyone noticed the physical, as well as clownish behavior
Speaker 1: of Adam Schiff visa the Andy Kaufman. I think Shift
Speaker 1: could do a decent rendition of the theme song from
Speaker 1: Mighty Mouse. Here I come to save the day. You know,
Speaker 1: sometimes our listeners are so creative that i'm I must say,
Speaker 1: I don't know what they're talking about. So that one
Speaker 1: went Did any of you catch that one went beyond
Speaker 1: my be on my knowledge? Another Chris got a lot
Speaker 1: of Chris is running in today buck. As I was
Speaker 1: sitting in my favorite chair pondering excessive methane emissions, as
Speaker 1: I'm known to do, I finally came up with the
Speaker 1: planet saving idea. Pilot lights on all farm animals north
Speaker 1: and south, kind of like you see on oil dereks
Speaker 1: and trash dumps. I can already taste the Nobel Prize
Speaker 1: ps avoid the animals coming and going creative, I guess.
Speaker 1: I okay, So there's that Richard rides bug. What up?
Speaker 1: You notice all the barriers keeping one hundred people at
Speaker 1: the Beato rally from the stage. Yeah, it's like it's
Speaker 1: really hard because it's like I just wanted to just
Speaker 1: like like shake everybody's hand at the Beato rally because
Speaker 1: I'm Bett o' rourke. But like there was a fence
Speaker 1: that was in the way and I couldn't even skateboard
Speaker 1: around it, and I really wanted to ruster, Mike, will
Speaker 1: you please come to my rally and be my friend?
Speaker 1: Thank you? That thing was so awkward, so awkward. They
Speaker 1: were like they're like like like fifty people that were there,
Speaker 1: but they just love Betos so much that it like
Speaker 1: is amazing. You know, they had a Trump. They had
Speaker 1: like a monitor in the background with the Trump that
Speaker 1: you could see on it. That did not really go well. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Richard's making fun of the Beato rally too, which you know,
Speaker 1: this guy, people think that he has some kind of No,
Speaker 1: it's all immediate creation. He hasn't actually shown us any
Speaker 1: ability to do anything yet, but people like this stuff.
Speaker 1: Conrad Right's California's bullet train. I think Conrad's a cool name.
Speaker 1: By the way, California's bullet train was being built by
Speaker 1: Diane Feinstein's hubby. I don't know, producer, Mike, do we know?
Speaker 1: But I don't know about that. Is that right? It
Speaker 1: sounds right? No, the bullet train is being built by
Speaker 1: the taxpayer dollars of America. That's well, that's there. We
Speaker 1: go fact check true but I think what he might
Speaker 1: be referring to is that I think Feinstein's hubby owns
Speaker 1: a bunch of land that he just happened to purchase
Speaker 1: that happens to be right near some of the important
Speaker 1: termini or the terminus of the railroad station. That's quite
Speaker 1: a quite a good real estate move to make, if
Speaker 1: you know what's going on. So, but yes, you're right,
Speaker 1: it is the tax bad. They were not. There was
Speaker 1: no private way to spend what was a seventy seven
Speaker 1: billion dollars, yeah, right around there. Eighty billion, Yes, it
Speaker 1: was a billion, not million billion, Yeah it was. It
Speaker 1: was a train wreck. It was indeed a train wreck.
Speaker 1: It's a mobile dumpster fire in a train. Uh, Jordan. Right,
Speaker 1: it's just listening tonight. And since you're trying to get
Speaker 1: customer country music, you should listen to the oldies, nineties
Speaker 1: and earlier, the twangs where it's at. If you listen
Speaker 1: to middle and fourteen Gears, it has that twang. That's
Speaker 1: real country music. Yes, I grew up on country music
Speaker 1: and I'm from Grand Junction, Colorado. Well Shields. How to you, Jordan?
Speaker 1: Thank you? I am. I am keeping a running list
Speaker 1: here from my Spotify. I've got a country music Spotify
Speaker 1: playlist now, and you know that's that's it's getting bigger
Speaker 1: and bigger. I'm listening to more. But I've got a
Speaker 1: punk rock Spotify playlist now. Because I realized Nick Gillespie
Speaker 1: from Reason was on Twitter. You don't one of the libertarians.
Speaker 1: Libertarians have some interesting stuff to say. He was on
Speaker 1: Twitter and he was talking about punk rock, and I said,
Speaker 1: you know, man, I just gotta be honest with you,
Speaker 1: I really don't know punk rock. Like I know who
Speaker 1: the Ramons are. I don't know. I didn't grow up
Speaker 1: in a cave somewhere, but I didn't really understand. I
Speaker 1: hadn't really been exposed too much of the music. And
Speaker 1: I've got the playlist. Punk rock is great, really good stuff. Actually,
Speaker 1: you know, the New York Dolls and the Ramones and
Speaker 1: the sex Pistols and the very very good song and
Speaker 1: who does the Who does the Passenger? That is that
Speaker 1: iggy pop the song the Passenger? You guys, and I'm
Speaker 1: talking about you're you're the culture music aficionadist. I'm the
Speaker 1: I'm the political science dork. Yeah, my brother is really
Speaker 1: in the punk He's talking to the wrong Quinnlin all right, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: because people who like it it's almost like a religion
Speaker 1: to them. I like it, but I just don't. I'm
Speaker 1: not as knowledgeable as other people are. I can get
Speaker 1: into it though. Yeah, well there we have it. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Iggy Pop, I was right. The Passenger Bam. It's a
Speaker 1: great song. Those of you who are looking for something
Speaker 1: to add to your Spotify playlist, go forth and check
Speaker 1: it out. All right, that's gonna be it for today
Speaker 1: show from NYC. Hope you very much enjoy iwa was
Speaker 1: enjoyed talking to all of you. I'm gonna go wander
Speaker 1: the Big Apple, get into some trouble. Should be fun tonight.
Speaker 1: Probably get a stake somewhere. Please do semi your thoughts
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com, slash buck Sex and I will talk
Speaker 1: to you tomorrow from NYC once again, Shield Tie. You're
Speaker 1: probably familiar with AARP. It's a well known organization. But
Speaker 1: you know what's not nearly as well known about it.
Speaker 1: It's pretty liberal, pretty progressive, all about Obamacare, big government statism,
Speaker 1: higher taxes. You don't want that if you want to
Speaker 1: join a seniors organization that represents your values and gets
Speaker 1: you great discounts on stuff, I recommend AMAC. Why AMAC? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, when you join AMAC, you're part of
Speaker 1: the conservative alternative. And wouldn't you rather belong to an
Speaker 1: organization that fights for your values, protecting our borders, enforcing
Speaker 1: common sense immigration laws, supporting small business, and standing up
Speaker 1: for your individual God given freedoms, say the answers, Yes,
Speaker 1: my friends. Plus you get great benefits like discounts on
Speaker 1: hotels and car insurance too. Stand with AMAC as they
Speaker 1: fight the good fight. Come a member of this great
Speaker 1: conservative seniors organization today, Join right now at AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. That's a m AC dot us slash buck.
Speaker 1: AMACK is better, better for you, better for America.