Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The whispers across DC
Speaker 1: get louder with every passing hour that the Mulla report
Speaker 1: could drop as soon as tomorrow. Do we believe them?
Speaker 1: And what would that mean? Plus the border is now
Speaker 1: so overwhelmed that Immigrations and Customs enforcement are having to
Speaker 1: just release families. That's right, let them right through Indian
Speaker 1: tier of the United States. And also the universal Basic
Speaker 1: income another trojan horse towards socialism. That and more coming
Speaker 1: up on The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again. The buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: Analyst remember Bro the VD, he's a great guy. No,
Speaker 1: but I don't alleon no collision. I have no idea
Speaker 1: what it's going to be released. It's interesting that a
Speaker 1: man gets appointed by a deputy. He writes a report. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know, never figured that one out man gets appointed
Speaker 1: by a deputy. He writes a report. I had the
Speaker 1: greatest electoral victory, one of them the history of our country.
Speaker 1: Tremendous success, tens of millions of voters and now somebody's
Speaker 1: going to write a report who never got to vote.
Speaker 1: So we'll see what the report says. Let's see if
Speaker 1: it's fair. I have no idea what it's going to
Speaker 1: be released. Welcome to the buck, Sex and show everybody.
Speaker 1: Great to have you here with me. As always, I'm
Speaker 1: here in the swamp and oh it's feeling swampy. We're
Speaker 1: being told there are whispers all over the place in
Speaker 1: the Hill newsroom my various sources inside the federal government
Speaker 1: that we are, you know, t minus forty eight hours
Speaker 1: from the Muller Report dropping and the Muller Probe, the
Speaker 1: Special Council ending. I do not know if it's true, though,
Speaker 1: because I've been told for weeks now this is about
Speaker 1: to happen, and from people who would know, and they
Speaker 1: keep telling me. When I asked them, hold on a second.
Speaker 1: You told me that this was going to happen. You
Speaker 1: told me that this was about to about to finally
Speaker 1: wrap up, And they say, well, it was, but then
Speaker 1: they moved it back. It was, but then all of
Speaker 1: a sudden there was some reason why they could not
Speaker 1: do it anymore. Be very very interesting to see how
Speaker 1: the different parties here in the biggest political drama really
Speaker 1: in the world for the last two years, certainly in America,
Speaker 1: And I guess you could argue that that means in
Speaker 1: the world how they react to this. And I want
Speaker 1: to know what the White House response will be, because
Speaker 1: they must be chomping at the bit to get to
Speaker 1: just crush all of the liars and the haters and
Speaker 1: the nonsense that's out there and dragging this country through
Speaker 1: this nightmare. And for what we've seen now so much
Speaker 1: that I think years ago Americans would have thought impossible.
Speaker 1: We've seen an FBI that was infiltrated at the highest
Speaker 1: level by deep state partisans who wanted to override the
Speaker 1: will of the American people. We have seen the usage
Speaker 1: of FISA, which when I was in the intelligence community
Speaker 1: that was considered, you know, a highly sensitive tool only
Speaker 1: meant for the most important national security purpose. We've seen
Speaker 1: FISA deployed against Carter Page on a fishing expedition that
Speaker 1: brought nothing. We've seen the abuse of some of the
Speaker 1: most intrusive and sensitive tools that our government has, the
Speaker 1: shredding of the Constitution in the process, all because a
Speaker 1: bunch of people who had worked for government, perhaps for
Speaker 1: too long, thought that Hillary Clinton really really deserved to win,
Speaker 1: and that Donald Trump was a threat to the Republic
Speaker 1: because you know, he writes some snarky tweets and he's
Speaker 1: been married three times or something. I mean, it's not
Speaker 1: even ever really clear. Oh, and they say he's crazy.
Speaker 1: He's a billionaire, he's been wildly successful and he's now president,
Speaker 1: but he's crazy. You know. I saw an interview with McCabe,
Speaker 1: who is so slimy. He just reminds me of these
Speaker 1: guys that I used to work with in the CIA
Speaker 1: who were in the internal security side, and you sit
Speaker 1: down with them and they weren't on your team and
Speaker 1: they were just looking. They were just looking too, as
Speaker 1: we used to say in the business, just to do
Speaker 1: somebody dirty, I mean, just to break him down, ruin
Speaker 1: their career, just get a scalp, because that's how they
Speaker 1: advanced themselves. You know, McCabe is one of these institutionalists,
Speaker 1: you know, he's the he's the the Hall Monitor on steroids.
Speaker 1: The fact that that guy was FBI director acting director
Speaker 1: for a while is is appalling. And he was sitting
Speaker 1: there talking to Bill Maher on the Bill Maher Show,
Speaker 1: who for all my criticisms of mar I will say
Speaker 1: he at least believes in the First Amendment, and liberals
Speaker 1: need to stop being babies and telling people they can't
Speaker 1: talk and they can't say anything. I gave him credit
Speaker 1: for that. He's good on that, and he's good on
Speaker 1: radical Islam. He's terrible on everything else, but he is
Speaker 1: good on those two issues. Uh the but but McCabe
Speaker 1: was sitting there and it was just such a kind
Speaker 1: of a mealy mouth pandering interview where you know, Bill Maher,
Speaker 1: who was a believer in the Russian insanity and you know,
Speaker 1: thinks that Donald trum must included with Russia and runs
Speaker 1: with all this stuff, is saying, you know, is it
Speaker 1: possible the Russians? Really? You know, what, did do the
Speaker 1: Russians have something on him? Did they full trade the campaign?
Speaker 1: And McCabe, instead of saying, look, that didn't happen, keeps going, well,
Speaker 1: it's it's possible. You know, at this stage, that's still
Speaker 1: what they're clinging to. It's possible. And when he was
Speaker 1: asked about Hillary Clinton's emails, he just stuck with this
Speaker 1: line that no person would have brought charges against Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton for that. I'm sorry. There was a guy who
Speaker 1: took a photo on a submarine on his phone that
Speaker 1: nobody saw, and that he deleted anyone. They sent him
Speaker 1: to prison for a year, violation of classification protocols. Right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is such bull and that
Speaker 1: that McCabe would go on TV and act like there
Speaker 1: was nothing really to the Hillary investigation, and you know,
Speaker 1: and politics didn't play a role in the decision. We're
Speaker 1: not all idiots. We've seen them. They're exposed. And that's
Speaker 1: what I really want to get to. Even if the
Speaker 1: Muller probe goes on for another six months, we know
Speaker 1: who we're dealing with. Now, we know what the other
Speaker 1: side is all about, and we have to reassess at
Speaker 1: some level. We have to adapt, even places where we
Speaker 1: thought that being an American meant something more than just
Speaker 1: petty partisanship. Right, even at those institutions like the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice, where we would really like to believe it's
Speaker 1: not all about d or R, It's about America. That's
Speaker 1: a naive position. Now when there's politics involved, you know
Speaker 1: that you can't trust the other side to respect the institution,
Speaker 1: the process, the law, good faith, goodwill, good sense, none
Speaker 1: of it. Trump understands this he's gonna have a lot,
Speaker 1: you know, he's gonna have a lot to say about
Speaker 1: Muller in particular Play twelve. I know nothing about it.
Speaker 1: I know that he's conflicted, and I know that his
Speaker 1: best friend is called me it's a bad cop. And
Speaker 1: I know that there are other things. Obviously, you know,
Speaker 1: I had a business transaction with him that I've reported
Speaker 1: many times that people don't talk about. But I had
Speaker 1: a nasty business transaction with him, and other things. I
Speaker 1: know that he put thirteen highly conflicted and you know,
Speaker 1: very angry. I call them angry democrats in so you know,
Speaker 1: so what it is. Now, let's see whether or not
Speaker 1: it's legit. You know better than anybody there's no collusion.
Speaker 1: There was no collusion, there was no obstruction, there was
Speaker 1: no nothing. That's all. I am almost certain that is
Speaker 1: all going to be proven absolutely true in the Muller problem. Mean,
Speaker 1: I'm as certain as you can be without actually having
Speaker 1: the report in your hands and able to read it.
Speaker 1: And that's that's going to be certainly a moment of
Speaker 1: truth for the country, won't We've been waiting for for
Speaker 1: a long time, and with the fact we've been through this,
Speaker 1: I think about all the hours we've spent on this
Speaker 1: show going through the different iterations of you know, the
Speaker 1: Muller investigation here, and they're the people they've prosecuted, you know,
Speaker 1: going after Roger Stone and Papadopoulos, and the hatred and
Speaker 1: the just the bile that they spew at Paul Manaphor
Speaker 1: people calling him a traitor. You know, the guy's you know,
Speaker 1: he's a little a little sleazy in his business dealings,
Speaker 1: but he's not a traitor. He didn't betray his he
Speaker 1: didn't betray his country. People say that are idiots. They
Speaker 1: don't know what they're talking about. The guy just wanted
Speaker 1: to be, you know, even richer than he was and
Speaker 1: didn't pay his taxes. It makes him a tax cheat,
Speaker 1: doesn't make him and look, I'll say it a bit,
Speaker 1: a tax cheat doesn't make you a bad guy. It
Speaker 1: makes you a tax cheat. And we got to enforce
Speaker 1: the law. But you know, i'd still have lunch with
Speaker 1: a tax cheat. I would say, oh, I can't, I
Speaker 1: can't even discuss anything with you, sir. I'm appaulled to
Speaker 1: being your very presence. They want him to die in prison.
Speaker 1: I want him to be treated like some kind of
Speaker 1: an animal. You know, in a cage by himself for
Speaker 1: the rest of his days. Guy is seventy years old.
Speaker 1: All this hatred fanned by a wildly, wildly irresponsible media.
Speaker 1: You know, even Ted Copple is like, look the major
Speaker 1: media outlets, they've gone nuts when it comes to Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't even know what to say. There's Ted Copple
Speaker 1: play for I'm terribly concerned that when you talk about
Speaker 1: the New York Times, cities characters, when you talk about
Speaker 1: the Washington Posts, we're talking about organizations that I believe
Speaker 1: have in fact decided as organizations the dog j Trump
Speaker 1: is bad for the Hub States. Absolutely true. They are
Speaker 1: as organizations CNN, the New York Times, the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: They are part of the resistance to this president. They
Speaker 1: are devoted to it. They work tirelessly, effortlessly or well,
Speaker 1: not effortlessly. Tirelessly. Effortlessly would be a different thing. Tirelessly
Speaker 1: toward destroying this presidency. If they could help bring down
Speaker 1: his family members and have some of them sent to prison,
Speaker 1: they would. They have no shame whatsoever in how partisan
Speaker 1: they are. And unfortunately, even though we may finally get
Speaker 1: some clarity here on them, all our probe, we may not.
Speaker 1: I mean, I might be talking about this in a month. Up,
Speaker 1: It's gonna be any day now, any day until you know,
Speaker 1: you don't know, you know A done, I don't. But
Speaker 1: there will have to come a time when we realize
Speaker 1: that the media needs to basically be rebuilt from scratch.
Speaker 1: That that's going to occur. I don't know when exactly,
Speaker 1: but we will reach a point in which it's no
Speaker 1: longer possible to vertend that these people are merchants of truth.
Speaker 1: They are. I said it here on this show, and
Speaker 1: I heard it get picked up elsewhere. Not enemies up
Speaker 1: the people, but enemies of the truth. They absolutely are.
Speaker 1: And now as we reach this hopefully latter stage of
Speaker 1: the problem Muller investigation, you have to also do an
Speaker 1: accounting of how successful they've really been. And it pains
Speaker 1: me to say that. It makes me mad to have
Speaker 1: to say that, But think of all the legal fees
Speaker 1: the Times spent not on messaging about the border, about healthcare,
Speaker 1: about growing the economy, about winning the trade dispute with China,
Speaker 1: instead of a media and a republican apparatus focus on
Speaker 1: those issues which could benefit the lives of the people
Speaker 1: in this country. In real ways. We have had to say, no,
Speaker 1: the President's not a Russian trader. No, only crazy people
Speaker 1: believe that the Russians help them steal the election. But unfortunately,
Speaker 1: there are like tens of millions of crazy people running around,
Speaker 1: and there's a very powerful still mainstream media that was
Speaker 1: able to leverage that feeling of sore loserism among the
Speaker 1: pro Hillary and pro Bernie contingents and to weaponize it
Speaker 1: into a kind of mass hysteria. And that mass hysteria
Speaker 1: alone has been an anchor on the Trump administration. It
Speaker 1: has slowed it down. It has made life more difficult
Speaker 1: for Trump and for all those around him. And it's
Speaker 1: just it's a crime for which there will never be justice.
Speaker 1: What was done to Trump is a crime for which
Speaker 1: there will never be justice, and that is disappointing, to
Speaker 1: say the least. Even if this pro bands, I do
Speaker 1: not believe that there will be hell to pay for
Speaker 1: those that will be shown. People like McCabe and Comby
Speaker 1: and who knows who else Rosenstein shown to be political
Speaker 1: players who put themselves in this enter of a food
Speaker 1: fight that they really started and then pretended to have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with, and has done real damage in
Speaker 1: this country to our ability to talk to each other
Speaker 1: about politics, for one, I mean, it's never been more
Speaker 1: heated right now. I mean the left has gone completely insane.
Speaker 1: It's very difficult to speak to anybody who is truly
Speaker 1: a Democrat, true believer about any of this stuff because
Speaker 1: a lot of them have been saying that the president's
Speaker 1: a trader. I mean, how do you have a conversation
Speaker 1: with somebody who believes that. Where is the common ground
Speaker 1: you find with someone who walks around thinking that the
Speaker 1: President United States betrayed his country, sold out his country
Speaker 1: on behalf of Vladimir Putin, CNN, MSNBC, all these places
Speaker 1: where they say that it's just madness. Is the madness
Speaker 1: going to end this week? No? But well we at
Speaker 1: least maybe end one major chapter of it. I certainly
Speaker 1: hope so a team, I cannot make any promises. We
Speaker 1: will discuss the universal basic income this hower. I meant
Speaker 1: to get to that yesterday. Andrew Yang, this kind of
Speaker 1: out of nowhere Democrat presidential hopeful, has made it one
Speaker 1: of his major policy policy proposals, and it's a it's interesting.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm not saying it's a good idea, but
Speaker 1: it's an interesting idea, and it has a lot of
Speaker 1: different facets to it. I meant to get to it yesterday.
Speaker 1: I got so wrapped up in other topics. We didn't
Speaker 1: get to it yesterday. We will get to it um.
Speaker 1: And also we've got some updates on immigration and the
Speaker 1: benefits of rejection. I want to give you a I
Speaker 1: want to rally you to the cause of being rejected.
Speaker 1: That's coming later on the show. Stay with me. I
Speaker 1: don't mind. I mean, frankly, I told the house, if
Speaker 1: you want let him see it again. I say, a
Speaker 1: deputy because of the fact that the Attorney General didn't
Speaker 1: have the courage to do it himself. A deputy that's
Speaker 1: appointed appoint to another Manda right a report explain that
Speaker 1: because my voters don't get it. Yeah, he's right. You know,
Speaker 1: we've had Annie McCarthy on the show and he said
Speaker 1: that he doesn't even think that the Mueller probe was
Speaker 1: properly constituted. From the beginning, it never established a crime
Speaker 1: that it was investigating. It just said, so people have
Speaker 1: a theory about something that maybe happened, not a crime though,
Speaker 1: just like a theory about Russia doing something maybe and
Speaker 1: let's just look around. It was a counter intelligence investigation
Speaker 1: that took on a life of its own, and counterintelligence
Speaker 1: investigations are supposed to be very clearly confined to the
Speaker 1: national security realm and not a weapon of politics. But
Speaker 1: that's what happened. So yes, I think the Muller Report
Speaker 1: should be made public. I think the people do have
Speaker 1: a right to see. I think we should see what
Speaker 1: is in the Mula report, and that means at least
Speaker 1: the sections of it that aren't going to be heavily redacted.
Speaker 1: I want to see it. And I'm just gonna prepare
Speaker 1: you all for this. Though, no matter what, no matter
Speaker 1: what it says, no matter what is in fact in
Speaker 1: the Mulla Report, Democrats will try to claim some form
Speaker 1: of victory. They'd be like, yes, we are the champions.
Speaker 1: You know it did a great job. They're gonna be
Speaker 1: like the kid that stands up in front of the
Speaker 1: class to recite the poem and only gets out the
Speaker 1: title and then says d end and sits down and
Speaker 1: smiles and thinks that they've done a great job. That
Speaker 1: will be Democrats with the Maula Report. They it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what's in there, they're gonna claim victory. By the way,
Speaker 1: just because we're having some fun with the Trumpster today. Man,
Speaker 1: here's what he said about Kelly and Conway's husband, which
Speaker 1: it was a pretty it was a pretty wow moment.
Speaker 1: Play thirteen. Well, I don't know him. Yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: know him. He's a whack job, there's no question about it.
Speaker 1: But I really don't know him. I think he's doing
Speaker 1: a tremendous disservice to a wonderful wife. Kelly Anne is
Speaker 1: a wonderful woman, and I call him mister Kelly in
Speaker 1: the fact is that he's doing a tremendous disservice to
Speaker 1: a wife and family. She's a wonderful woman, wonderful woman.
Speaker 1: And Trump, Hey, he's loyal to his people, even if
Speaker 1: it means he gets into a family feud. What can
Speaker 1: I tell you? Universal basic income, it's a very interesting idea.
Speaker 1: It's also a quick bridge to a much larger state
Speaker 1: and to redistribution and socialism. Democrats are putting it out there.
Speaker 1: I think it's going to get traction. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: that and then we'll talk immigration. Stay with me. I'm
Speaker 1: proposing that we declare a dividend of a thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a month for every American adult starting at EGT. That's
Speaker 1: a universal basic income. Yes, proposed the universal basic income,
Speaker 1: which I rebranded the Freedom Dividend because it tests better
Speaker 1: with more Americans with the word freedom in it. A
Speaker 1: universal based income is a policy where every citizen in
Speaker 1: a country it's a certain amount of money, free and
Speaker 1: clear to do whatever they want. So my plan, the
Speaker 1: Freedom Dividend, would give every American adult a thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a month twelve thousand dollars a year is during at
Speaker 1: age eighteen. This would create millions of jobs around the
Speaker 1: country and would allow families and individuals to help manage
Speaker 1: this historic transition that we're in. I believe that every
Speaker 1: American adult at the age of eighteen should get a
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a month, free and clear from the government
Speaker 1: to do whatever they want. For working hot right, oh,
Speaker 1: for being a citizen of this great country. Universal basic income. Folks,
Speaker 1: you're gonna be hearing more about it. The cool kids
Speaker 1: call it that you be not to be confused with
Speaker 1: ub forty rid rid wine. Yeah, d wine, that was terrible.
Speaker 1: I know that's horrible. Please don't stop listening to the
Speaker 1: radio show. Now, that was youb forty though right, at
Speaker 1: least I got that correct. Yeah, I like I like
Speaker 1: my UB forty. But UBI universal Basic Income has been
Speaker 1: endorsed by many on the left. It does have some
Speaker 1: interesting support on the right, which I will get to.
Speaker 1: The basics of it are pretty straightforward, instead of just
Speaker 1: the welfare state that provides services to people generally, although
Speaker 1: food stamps is really money for food. There as some
Speaker 1: limitations of what you can do with it, but instead
Speaker 1: of a voucher system a thing else, they just straight
Speaker 1: up give you money. A thousand dollars a month was
Speaker 1: the number that Andrew yangmember. He's a Democrat who is
Speaker 1: going to be on the stage, folks. He's going to
Speaker 1: make it onto the initial primary debate stage. He's got
Speaker 1: enough donations and enough support that he's someone you're going
Speaker 1: to hear from. But the idea of the universal basic
Speaker 1: income is that it's just a more efficient way to
Speaker 1: create a safety net for every every person in your country,
Speaker 1: and that it's far less of an onerous bureaucracy than
Speaker 1: which you usually would have with a well with a
Speaker 1: welfare program, which is what this is. Although very quickly
Speaker 1: the UBI can be called the UBI, the UBI will
Speaker 1: be considered an entitlement right that you earn it just
Speaker 1: by being alive, is what people will think. There are
Speaker 1: there are some interesting Oh wait, Mike has the financial
Speaker 1: breakdown on this? Mike, come on, tell me, what are
Speaker 1: you talking about? What do you mean the financial breakdown? So,
Speaker 1: according to the two eighteen US census, there are two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty three point eight million citizens over eighteen
Speaker 1: years old. So costwise, that would cost US two one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty three point eight billion a month and
Speaker 1: over three trillion a year if he got what he wanted. Yeah,
Speaker 1: see that seems pretty expensive to me. So I think
Speaker 1: what he'd have to do would be it would be
Speaker 1: means tested, so you'd have to have its thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a month if you make under a certain amount of money,
Speaker 1: that's my guess, and they probably have a phase in period,
Speaker 1: so if you make you know, a certain amount, you
Speaker 1: get a five hundred and then it. But you know,
Speaker 1: Alaska has done this for those listed up in Alaska.
Speaker 1: Alaska in fact, does have something similar to a universal
Speaker 1: basic income, where every resident since nineteen eighty two, out
Speaker 1: of oil revenues, has gotten from a few hundred to
Speaker 1: a couple of thousand dollars a year, you know, just
Speaker 1: no strings attached, just kind of handed to people. The
Speaker 1: advocates of the universal basic income will point to Milton
Speaker 1: Friedman and Martin Luther King Junior, for example, as those
Speaker 1: who supported a basic income structure. Peter Teel has supported it,
Speaker 1: and others who are worried about the coming automation revolution
Speaker 1: that's going to create a mass structural unemployment that's not
Speaker 1: gonna that's not going to be able to be placed
Speaker 1: with other jobs. Essentially AI making so many jobs obsolete
Speaker 1: that you're going to have a huge no one knows
Speaker 1: what the number is, but a huge chunk of the
Speaker 1: workforce just permanently out of work, and so you'll need
Speaker 1: to give them some form of income so they can
Speaker 1: buy products and services and keep the economy going. And
Speaker 1: you know, it does have some support on the left
Speaker 1: on the right, and Mike points out that if you
Speaker 1: did this for everybody would be insanely expensive. But even
Speaker 1: if you only did it for a relatively small porch
Speaker 1: of the country, mean, we already have a trillion dollars
Speaker 1: a year welfare state when you add up Medicaid, food stamps.
Speaker 1: You know, a child the health insurance program and all
Speaker 1: all these different Section eight housing. You've got a trillion
Speaker 1: dollars a year welfare state as it is in America.
Speaker 1: We are much closer. And this is kind of a
Speaker 1: sobering thought, but I think I gotta tell you that things,
Speaker 1: even when they're sobering, we are much closer to European
Speaker 1: style welfare state than a lot of people realize. In
Speaker 1: some ways, we're actually further along the road than some
Speaker 1: of these European states are. I've mentioned to you that
Speaker 1: the Nordic states Denmark, Sweden, Norway have more business friendly
Speaker 1: regulations at the federal level in a lot of ways
Speaker 1: than we do. They had lower tax rates at the
Speaker 1: federal level for corporations, not for individuals, than we have
Speaker 1: had at least I think. I think Denmark definitely does.
Speaker 1: Don't quote me on Norway and Sweden until Trump came
Speaker 1: along and past that corporate tax cut. But universal basic
Speaker 1: income is one of these ideas that gets us closer
Speaker 1: to a change relationship between citizen and state. And he's
Speaker 1: going to get more attention is going to get And
Speaker 1: by the way, yeah, he supported Mike is telling me
Speaker 1: that MLK supported a guaranteed minimum income, so you know,
Speaker 1: these are different. The point is people have thought about this.
Speaker 1: It's going to be a much larger piece of the
Speaker 1: Democrat debate, I think than anyone's hearing right now, because
Speaker 1: there's a real sense that the government owes citizens a
Speaker 1: certain standard of living now and that this is the
Speaker 1: this is the best way to do it would just
Speaker 1: be to give people money. And when you're spending a
Speaker 1: trillion dollars a year more than you're taking in an income,
Speaker 1: adding another trillion dollars a year the national debt, people
Speaker 1: start to think, well, at least at least now they'll
Speaker 1: be a lot of money sloshing around. That'll be a
Speaker 1: good thing. But you know, they also say this is
Speaker 1: a way of really creating some kind of a utopia.
Speaker 1: And that's what you got with o'casio Cortez and she's
Speaker 1: saying there'll be more time for art. And you know,
Speaker 1: when AI structurally changes the employment picture in this country
Speaker 1: so that you have people that are that aren't going
Speaker 1: to get jobs ever again, really that aren't really going
Speaker 1: to be able to participate in labor for us. I
Speaker 1: think that's probably exaggerated, but there are certainly people now
Speaker 1: who will say that we are so productive as a
Speaker 1: society that we can have this, and this is just
Speaker 1: the cost of maintaining a robust and healthy society. And
Speaker 1: essentially the very productive you know, the Googles and the
Speaker 1: facebooks and the Walmarts and all these major companies. There's
Speaker 1: so much wealth that is created that to siphon off
Speaker 1: a portion of it to give to people as a
Speaker 1: ubi is a good idea. I understand it. It's easy
Speaker 1: to dismiss this and just say this is, you know,
Speaker 1: comy claptrap and it's not going anywhere. I think that
Speaker 1: this is going to get a lot of serious attention
Speaker 1: from Democrats because it's an expansion of the welfare state.
Speaker 1: And then you know what happens. It starts at a thousand,
Speaker 1: and what do you think happens after that? Oh, that's right.
Speaker 1: They're gonna want to be two thousand a month or
Speaker 1: fifteen hundred a month, and then it's just going to
Speaker 1: keep going up and up from there. Once you tell
Speaker 1: every American whether they work or not, whether they try
Speaker 1: to work or not, no matter what age they are,
Speaker 1: I guess as long as they're in Once you tell
Speaker 1: them that the government owes them at check every month,
Speaker 1: free and clear. Then the debate becomes how big should
Speaker 1: that check be? And the people that are reliant on
Speaker 1: that check aren't going to care about the drag on
Speaker 1: the overall economy and productivity. They aren't going to care
Speaker 1: about the change and the relationship between citizen and state.
Speaker 1: They're just going to say, I want that check to
Speaker 1: be bigger. And those people will also go and they'll vote,
Speaker 1: and they'll vote down anybody who says we need to
Speaker 1: get rid of this system. In fact, you know what
Speaker 1: they'll do. This is just like out of Democrat playbook.
Speaker 1: They'll vote for anybody who says, let's make the ubi
Speaker 1: even bigger. This is a trojan horse toward socialism. To
Speaker 1: my friends, you just have to look at it through
Speaker 1: the long term. If they're conservative, if they're Republicans, if
Speaker 1: they're in a certain group, there's discrimination and big discrimination.
Speaker 1: So something's happening with those groups of folks that are
Speaker 1: running Facebook and Google and Twitter, and I do think
Speaker 1: we have to get to the bottom of it. He's right,
Speaker 1: He's right. And at the hill where I work, Donald
Speaker 1: Trump Junior wrote a piece that I wanted to share
Speaker 1: with you on what's going on here with big tech.
Speaker 1: It's titled Conservatives face a Tough fight. A is big
Speaker 1: tech censorship expands and he goes into some of the
Speaker 1: details here that censorship of conservatives, this is es Donald
Speaker 1: Trump junior piece in the Hill, becomes evermore flagrant and avert.
Speaker 1: The old arguments about protecting the sanctity of the modern
Speaker 1: public square are now in valid. Our right to freely
Speaker 1: engage in public discourse through speech is undersustained attack, necessitating
Speaker 1: a vigorous defense against the major social media and internet platforms.
Speaker 1: From shadow bands on Facebook and Twitter, to demonetization of
Speaker 1: YouTube videos to pulled ads for Republican candidates at the
Speaker 1: critical junctures of election campaigns. The list of violations against
Speaker 1: the online practices speech of conservatives is long. It's true,
Speaker 1: and finally, it is a situation where we can expect
Speaker 1: there to at least be some honesty in the conversation.
Speaker 1: Right even a year ago, maybe eighteen months ago, they
Speaker 1: would say, oh, there's this is a conservative myth. There's
Speaker 1: no shadow banning. There's no, yes, there is. I know
Speaker 1: people who have been suspended. I know people have been
Speaker 1: shadow banned. And for those of you who don't engage
Speaker 1: in social media in this way and don't really care.
Speaker 1: This is all about This is all about the next generation.
Speaker 1: This is about controlling the narrative today to some degree,
Speaker 1: but even more so in five years and ten years,
Speaker 1: and brainwashing people by determining what they can see without
Speaker 1: letting them even know that editorial decisions are being made.
Speaker 1: In many ways, social media censorship is more pernicious than
Speaker 1: the bias of the big mainstream media because at least
Speaker 1: with the New York Times, yeah, they they they will
Speaker 1: skew it far left, and they're not honest about what
Speaker 1: they do in that regard. And you know, I mean,
Speaker 1: CNN will do fake news, but at least you know
Speaker 1: it's CNN. At least you know it's coming from CNN.
Speaker 1: So you can start from a place of, well, you know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna take this with a grain of salt because
Speaker 1: we know that CNN is full of it sometimes, right,
Speaker 1: So that's one component of this. But with social media censorship,
Speaker 1: you're just whatever comes into your feed is whatever comes
Speaker 1: into your feed. You know, for a lot of people
Speaker 1: who are not spending their days like I am, just
Speaker 1: researching and going through all the different you know, sources
Speaker 1: and news stories and all the rest of it. And
Speaker 1: you're you're whether you're on Facebook or for those the
Speaker 1: small percentage of this audience because generally speaking, talk radio
Speaker 1: on it is not very active on Twitter. Just let
Speaker 1: you know that, which I'm hoping to start to change, folks.
Speaker 1: Gott gotta get more and more you on Twitter follow
Speaker 1: Buck Sex than on Twitter tweet at me, say hi.
Speaker 1: But that censorship. You don't even know what's happening. So
Speaker 1: you're just assuming that whatever pops into your feet is
Speaker 1: the most the most red story, the most credible source,
Speaker 1: the most you know, the most reliable accounting of events.
Speaker 1: And when that's happening day in and day out, the
Speaker 1: effect of the rutinization of the propaganda is profound. It
Speaker 1: changes the way you think about things. I mean to
Speaker 1: take this like an advertising model. You know, they don't
Speaker 1: have a Coca Cola banner that pops up on your
Speaker 1: computer screen because they think that you're just gonna buy
Speaker 1: You're gonna go right away and buy Coca. Though there's
Speaker 1: some of that direct response advertising on the Internet these days,
Speaker 1: for sure, but generally, I mean, they want Coca Cola
Speaker 1: banners up on places because they want you to see
Speaker 1: Coca cola. Then when you see it again and again
Speaker 1: and again. The idea being when you're in a store,
Speaker 1: when you're thinking about what you're gonna drink, guess what
Speaker 1: you're gonna drink Coca Cola. Well, if the Internet giants
Speaker 1: can just tweak the algorithms to set them up so
Speaker 1: that left wing sources are going to get higher placement,
Speaker 1: will be treated with you, they'll be a more revered
Speaker 1: source of information than guess what. That's going to have
Speaker 1: an effect on what people read and how they think
Speaker 1: about these issues, and going forward, it's going to alter
Speaker 1: the national conversation on the most important issues to all
Speaker 1: of us. Donald Trump Junior goes on here in this
Speaker 1: piece in the Hill quote, I certainly had my suspicions
Speaker 1: confirmed when Instagram, which is owned by Facebook, accidentally censored
Speaker 1: a post I made regarding the just Smollett hoax, which
Speaker 1: consequently led me led to me hearing from hundreds of
Speaker 1: my followers about they've been having problems seeing, liking, or
Speaker 1: being able to interact with my posts. Many of them
Speaker 1: even claim that they've had to repeatedly refollow me as
Speaker 1: Instagram keeps unfollowing me on their accounts While nothing about
Speaker 1: big tech censorship of conservatives truly surprises me anymore, it's
Speaker 1: still chilling to see the proof for yourself. If it
Speaker 1: can happen to me, the son of the president, with
Speaker 1: millions of followers on social media, just think about how
Speaker 1: bad it must be for conservatives with smaller followings and
Speaker 1: those who don't have the soapbox or media reach to
Speaker 1: push back when they're being targeted. You know that This
Speaker 1: reminds me of how many of us rallied around my
Speaker 1: friend Jesse Kelly when he got banned from Twitter, and
Speaker 1: how the editor in chief of The Daily Caller recently
Speaker 1: was kicked off a Twitter for or suspended for tweeting
Speaker 1: the phrase learn to code. You know what I mean.
Speaker 1: The left, they can whine about this and say it's
Speaker 1: not happening as much they want. It is happening to
Speaker 1: people that I know. And this is so much more
Speaker 1: important than Russian interference in the election. Is liberal collusion
Speaker 1: behind the scenes at the biggest social media platforms to
Speaker 1: alter what people think and for the election, and to
Speaker 1: change minds to shape perception. I mean, the only places
Speaker 1: like Google and Facebook and Twitter are really able now
Speaker 1: because of their market share and the power of those platforms.
Speaker 1: They are able to do information operations against the American people,
Speaker 1: and they're able to hide it from us very very well.
Speaker 1: And their wildly profitable companies making especially Google and Facebook,
Speaker 1: making a tremendous amount of cash billions and billions and
Speaker 1: billions and profits every year. They are the biggest ATM
Speaker 1: machines on the planet in many ways. I mean, the
Speaker 1: only thing that rivals them are the biggest oil companies.
Speaker 1: And they're able to do all this while pretending to
Speaker 1: be platforms for free speech and fair debate and discussion.
Speaker 1: And it's time that we call them to account. It's
Speaker 1: time that we do more to expose the truth here.
Speaker 1: You know that the president is supposed to You know,
Speaker 1: this issue is getting a lot of attention. I believe
Speaker 1: tomorrow the President is going to be signing an executive
Speaker 1: order that tells college campuses that they have to institute
Speaker 1: the First Amendment. You know, we are in the middle
Speaker 1: of a major battle with the social media platforms, with
Speaker 1: college campus censorship, a major battle for the heart and
Speaker 1: soul of the First Amendment and conservatism. To my surprise
Speaker 1: at some level, but it certainly makes me happy. Conservatism
Speaker 1: is rallying here and seems to be rising to the
Speaker 1: challenge somewhat. Because if they can control the conversation, we
Speaker 1: will lose the debate. If they can control the parameters
Speaker 1: and the platforms, we're dumb before we even start. So
Speaker 1: that's why it's important that we fight on this. When
Speaker 1: it comes to buying wine, most people selections have nothing
Speaker 1: to do with taste, you know. They usually just base
Speaker 1: decisions on which bottle looks the coolest or what's on sale. Thankfully,
Speaker 1: now there's First Leaf, the wine club that makes it
Speaker 1: easy to discover new wines that you'll love. First Leaf
Speaker 1: has created a club experience that I'm a part of now.
Speaker 1: By the way, it's customized to you by rating the
Speaker 1: wines that you receive like I have, First Leaf determines
Speaker 1: your likes and dislikes, and then it has a custom
Speaker 1: algorithm and a professionally trained wine called Sierra's Team that
Speaker 1: will only send you the wine that you love. So
Speaker 1: if you're like me, if you like drinking wine but
Speaker 1: you're not a wine snob, you don't know a lot
Speaker 1: about wine and you want to just get different recommendations
Speaker 1: of delicious and very well priced stuff and sent right
Speaker 1: to you and you learn about it, you learn what
Speaker 1: you like. Try first Leaf. Sign up with my link
Speaker 1: and you'll get an exclusive intro offer six bottles of
Speaker 1: wine for only twenty nine ninety five plus free shipping.
Speaker 1: Just go to try first leaf dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's six bottles of wine only twenty nine five. Try
Speaker 1: first leaf dot com slash buck. It wasn't until the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit decided once again. In the Ninth Circuit, in
Speaker 1: contrast to every other circuit in the country, they decide
Speaker 1: to reinterpret the law to say no if they get
Speaker 1: relief from a prisoner or a jail and ice closes
Speaker 1: and finds them that they're required a bond hearing, or
Speaker 1: if they would have gotten straight out of jail and
Speaker 1: then our because they wouldn't have got a bond hearing,
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit overturned, you know, they put it on
Speaker 1: his head. Supreme Court said, no, we're going to go
Speaker 1: back the way it should be supposed to be. This
Speaker 1: isn't just for every criminal amien out there. This is
Speaker 1: there's a specified type of criminal and an aggravated feelies.
Speaker 1: We're talking about people convicted of serious crimes like rape, murder,
Speaker 1: armed robbie, sexual assault. These people shouldn't be free walking
Speaker 1: our communities anyways. Number one, they're in the country illegally,
Speaker 1: and number two their public safety threat were the Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuit rule on this. We got to put this in context. Now,
Speaker 1: who's in the Ninth Circuit California, Oregon, the state of
Speaker 1: Washington all heavy sanctuary states. These are these are states
Speaker 1: where criminal alians are released out to the public, criminals,
Speaker 1: public safety threats, rather than turning over the ICE. So
Speaker 1: this decision was devastating in these states and made it
Speaker 1: much more dangerous not only for our communities but for
Speaker 1: ICE officers who could have got custy in the jail.
Speaker 1: But now, because of the same sort of city policies,
Speaker 1: they have to locate these people in their community, in
Speaker 1: their homes, on their turf, where they have access to
Speaker 1: who knows what weapons. This is a huge win from
Speaker 1: the menum winners. It keeps them a little safer. There's
Speaker 1: Tom home and weighing in on what I told you
Speaker 1: about yesterday. Supreme Court saying, no, no rule of law
Speaker 1: still matters when it comes to immigration. You don't get
Speaker 1: to just rewrite it. Ninth Circuit Court of appeals because
Speaker 1: you prefer a different outcome. That's not how the law
Speaker 1: is supposed to work. So it's a win. As I said,
Speaker 1: and as Tom says, and I always like to check
Speaker 1: him with Tom whant to see him over at Fox News.
Speaker 1: We exchanged thoughts on immigration, and I'm looking forward to
Speaker 1: getting a whole lot of time on the ground in
Speaker 1: El Paso next week. I'm gonna be right there in
Speaker 1: the midst of all this craziness at the border, because
Speaker 1: while we did get a victory from the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: in terms of immigration enforcement and rule of law, the
Speaker 1: system is overwhelmed and it's about to burst. It's just
Speaker 1: in a free fall right now. This is from the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal today. The Trump administration plans to start
Speaker 1: pulling back on a controversial plank of US immigration policy
Speaker 1: in a busy border region, saying Tuesday will stop sending
Speaker 1: some migrant families who illegally cross the border in Texas's
Speaker 1: Rio Grande Valley to jail or Rio Grande? Do we
Speaker 1: say Rio Grande? Yeah? Rio Grande? My bad? The Rio
Speaker 1: grand Which one? Is it? Anybody, Bueller, Brandon, Mike? What
Speaker 1: do we say? Do we say? Grand? Right? This is America,
Speaker 1: the Rio Grande St. Louis or Saint Louis. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that in Texas, who's listening to this is like, fuck,
Speaker 1: you're such a city slicker, get get it together. Well,
Speaker 1: I'll know next week because I'll be down there in
Speaker 1: the valley of the Grand River. Anyway, Starting this week,
Speaker 1: hundreds of families caught each day in that area are
Speaker 1: being released by border patrol agents instead of being handed
Speaker 1: over to Immigration and Customs and forrestment for potentially longer detention.
Speaker 1: The exact numbers will depend on how many there is
Speaker 1: room for and ice detention facilities, which have filled up
Speaker 1: as a recorded volume of families are crossing the border.
Speaker 1: The officials said they're making the change because of crowding
Speaker 1: and safety concerns. End quote, guys, this is overwhelming the system.
Speaker 1: That is what is going on here. That is explicitly
Speaker 1: and clearly what is happening. They are overwhelming the system.
Speaker 1: This is intentional. This is a strategy. They know that
Speaker 1: they're because the word gets out. I mean, look, I'm
Speaker 1: reading it out of one of the biggest newspapers in
Speaker 1: the country. The word is out. It travels very fast
Speaker 1: online and you know, you have these different not not
Speaker 1: just within the migrant groups themselves, but you have different
Speaker 1: communities of activists and legal aid teams that all they
Speaker 1: want to do is find ways to make sure that
Speaker 1: illegal aliens can stay in America forever, and anyone who
Speaker 1: shows up who's illegal will stay as long as as
Speaker 1: as he or she wants to that. That is their purpose.
Speaker 1: And border patrol is at a point now where they're
Speaker 1: just saying, look, we can't continue to even hold them
Speaker 1: on a short term basis down in Texas because we
Speaker 1: don't have the facilities for them. We just don't. We're
Speaker 1: not We're not able to do it. They have clearly
Speaker 1: overwhelmed the system. And you know, I've been saying this
Speaker 1: was going to happen. I mean, it's been in the
Speaker 1: process of happening. Now here we are where it could
Speaker 1: not be any more obvious that the system is at
Speaker 1: a breaking point. And do Democrats have anything, Do they
Speaker 1: have any solutions for this? No, because they're on board
Speaker 1: for this, they are in favor of the current situation.
Speaker 1: In fact, here here's a Kirsten Gillibrand just giving it
Speaker 1: away that the plan here the Democrat plan, and this
Speaker 1: is the plan to destroy the Republican Party because we'll
Speaker 1: never be able to compete in another election if they
Speaker 1: get their way with this. The Democrat plan is to
Speaker 1: legalize and then and then register for benefits and then
Speaker 1: register to vote all of the illegals in the country.
Speaker 1: This is This is Kirston Jillibrand when he's not lifting
Speaker 1: her eight pound weights with a with a T shirt on.
Speaker 1: Do you see that? Today? She was trying to do
Speaker 1: the whole I'm hip, look at me do social media.
Speaker 1: Here's what she says about illegal immigration. Play clip one.
Speaker 1: So what will I do? I have a lot of ideas. First,
Speaker 1: we need comprehensive immigration reform. If you were in this,
Speaker 1: do you pay into social Security, to pay your taxes,
Speaker 1: to pay into the local school system, and to have
Speaker 1: a pathways That must happen. This is one of the
Speaker 1: most oft repeated lies of the amnesty crowd. They say, well,
Speaker 1: we just want to we just want to make them
Speaker 1: legal because then they'll pay into all these programs. Right then, No, no, no,
Speaker 1: that's not what's going to Overwhelmingly, illegal immigrants would owe
Speaker 1: nothing in federal income taxes if they were here illegally.
Speaker 1: They don't make enough money, they might pay some you know,
Speaker 1: some taxes along the way, but they would be net beneficiaries.
Speaker 1: In fact, one of the problems that came up with
Speaker 1: the Gang of Eight bill for amnesty, remember Marco Rubio
Speaker 1: and those other senators back in the Obama administration, was
Speaker 1: that they wanted retroactive tax filing, and illegals under that,
Speaker 1: under that system would have been getting a check. They
Speaker 1: begetting a check from the government for missing out on
Speaker 1: some of the large ess from Uncle Sam that comes
Speaker 1: to you if you make under a certain amount of
Speaker 1: money that they could be that's right, they could be
Speaker 1: getting they would be getting paid for having been illegals
Speaker 1: here by the government. We have a twenty two trillion
Speaker 1: dollars national debt, all right, that's from the Americans that
Speaker 1: are already here from assistant that we have the spending
Speaker 1: that we've done, mostly entitlement spending, some war spending to
Speaker 1: twenty two trillion dollars. You think bringing in more people
Speaker 1: who are much more likely as a percentage of the
Speaker 1: general population to be reliant upon welfare benefits about fifty percent.
Speaker 1: And by the way, the people will say that I
Speaker 1: legal Limrans don't get welfare that they're all They just
Speaker 1: it's so hard. There's so many lives, Yes, they do.
Speaker 1: All there has to be is one. If there's a
Speaker 1: household headed by the run by an a legal limerrant,
Speaker 1: but there's one child that is born in the States
Speaker 1: who's a citizen, then everybody else the household is going
Speaker 1: to benefit from the bet from the welfare payments to
Speaker 1: that child as as a citizen child in this country.
Speaker 1: So and and and they the adult in charge of
Speaker 1: them gets to apply for it. And there's a whole system.
Speaker 1: It's just scam after scam after scam, and then all
Speaker 1: the lines around it. But with the system overwhelmed the
Speaker 1: way that it is, the Democrats have no incentive to
Speaker 1: try to change anything. In fact, I think a fourth
Speaker 1: a fourth illegal alien in custody just passed away, just died.
Speaker 1: And do you know what that's going to turn into. Um,
Speaker 1: that's going to turn into a rallying cry for people
Speaker 1: who are upset at how Immigrations and Customs Enforcement handles
Speaker 1: those that are in their custody. They're going to say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's terrible. You remember you had former your government officials
Speaker 1: like Mike Hayden used to be my boss, the CIA
Speaker 1: comparing our border patrol, immigrations and customs enforcement agents to Nazis.
Speaker 1: And remember abolish ice. That was just last summer. So
Speaker 1: now that you've had another person died, they're showing up
Speaker 1: in mass Our system is not meant to handle this.
Speaker 1: They know that, and they're showing up in these very
Speaker 1: large numbers specifically because they know that they can't be processed.
Speaker 1: But because they can't be processed, then they also can't
Speaker 1: necessarily be given entirely adequate medical screening and medical care
Speaker 1: right away, because it's not the Red Cross on the border,
Speaker 1: it's border patrol. But we're gonna be told, oh, they're
Speaker 1: so nasty and they're terrible, and how could they do
Speaker 1: this and all this other stuff. That's what they're gonna say,
Speaker 1: and it's just going to be an emotional argument, bereft
Speaker 1: of reason. Don't you just love it when you find
Speaker 1: a one hundred dollar bill inside a jacket you haven't
Speaker 1: used for ages. It's an incredible feeling. Right you find
Speaker 1: hundreds of dollars maybe sitting in a cab or in
Speaker 1: boxes or in your attic. You know that could come
Speaker 1: from the old four oh one k paperwork You have
Speaker 1: from that job before the last one. You know you
Speaker 1: forgot about it, right, But that money is sitting there
Speaker 1: in that four oh one k gathering financial dust. It
Speaker 1: could be doing a lot more for you in a
Speaker 1: precious metals IRA. My friends at Noble Gold can see
Speaker 1: if you qualify, and they'll do all the heavy lifting
Speaker 1: for you. Could make you a lot and cost you nothing.
Speaker 1: So please give Noble Gold a call by going to
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six four six five three four seven,
Speaker 1: or text my name Buck to five eleven, five eleven
Speaker 1: and receive their free Investor's Guide plus for all qualified
Speaker 1: iras about twenty thousand dollars. They'll include a complementary rare
Speaker 1: graded Morgan silver dollar valued at one hundred and fifty dollars.
Speaker 1: So please text Buck Buck to five eleven, five eleven.
Speaker 1: We'll call eight seven seven six four six five three
Speaker 1: four seven. Individual results may vary invest wise, standard text
Speaker 1: rates may apply. There will be some who will say
Speaker 1: that the SAW stems from climate change, but the truth
Speaker 1: is that the water challenges have been around for generations
Speaker 1: and are causing immediate deaths annually. Areas of the world
Speaker 1: have struggled with water availability for centuries and these struggles
Speaker 1: are due to access, geography, infrastructure, and technology or lack thereof.
Speaker 1: That's EPA chief Wheeler Andrew Wheeler, who has said, and
Speaker 1: this is of course getting the environmental is completely freaked out,
Speaker 1: said today in a testimony that water quality around the
Speaker 1: world is a much bigger crisis than climate change. And
Speaker 1: this comes when we're all supposed to be so focused
Speaker 1: on the Green New Deal, right, the big trojan horse
Speaker 1: for socialism, the Green New Deal has people talking about
Speaker 1: changing out all fossil fuels and dramatically shifting how we
Speaker 1: do things with our economy. Meanwhile, there are other issues,
Speaker 1: and you know, right now you have, for example, the
Speaker 1: flooding in the Midwest, terrible flooding. And you know, do
Speaker 1: our friends out in kfab in an Omaha thoughts and
Speaker 1: prayers to everybody out in the state of Nebraska. We
Speaker 1: hope you all are doing all right and they're getting
Speaker 1: you all the assistance that you need, and that the
Speaker 1: waters are receding. But people are saying that that's climate change,
Speaker 1: and that's just not true. There there have been floods
Speaker 1: for you know, look at the Bible, folks, right, there
Speaker 1: have been floods for as long as people have been
Speaker 1: writing in books and longer actually, so you know, flooding
Speaker 1: is just a natural It's a natural disaster in some cases,
Speaker 1: but it's a natural cycle that occurs in different parts world.
Speaker 1: Always has, always will. And this impulse to point to
Speaker 1: every bad thing that happens on our environmental level and
Speaker 1: try to blame climate change for it, climate change for
Speaker 1: it is just not rooted in logic, reason or facts.
Speaker 1: This is this is an emotional an emotional impulse. It
Speaker 1: is driven by the desire that people have to feel
Speaker 1: like they are part of a group that understands this
Speaker 1: problem and is taking the proper action on it. But
Speaker 1: you know, the truth is also that while we're so
Speaker 1: focused on things like the Green New Deal, there are
Speaker 1: much more important things out there that you know, environmentalists
Speaker 1: could be looking at that EPA could be working on
Speaker 1: Play seventeen. As the administrator of the USCPA, I believe
Speaker 1: that water issues are the largest and most immediate environmental
Speaker 1: and public health issue affecting the world right now. By
Speaker 1: water issues, I mean primarily clean and safe drinking water,
Speaker 1: marine litter, and water infrastructure. It's absolutely true a thousand
Speaker 1: children a day die worldwide because of unsafe drinking water.
Speaker 1: A thousand kids a day are dying. A lot of
Speaker 1: them are dying from you know, just bacteria that's very
Speaker 1: easy to eliminate in a drinking water system, but they
Speaker 1: don't have they don't have access to it, and they
Speaker 1: don't have access to the antibiotics to treat the infections
Speaker 1: typhus and cholera and all these different things, all these
Speaker 1: water borne illnesses that you can get. Um. He said
Speaker 1: that most of the threats from climate change are fifty
Speaker 1: to seventy five years out. He's right, yeah, Well, will
Speaker 1: there maybe be some additional climate disruptions in fifty to
Speaker 1: seventy five years? Yeah, I think that's that sounds that's
Speaker 1: not going to be the end of the world. It's
Speaker 1: and I mean this, it is literally not going to
Speaker 1: be the end of the world, which some people think
Speaker 1: it is. But you know, this is why for all
Speaker 1: the virtue signaling of the climate change obsessed left, there's
Speaker 1: a cost to that lunacy. There there are costs to
Speaker 1: their insanity, as in, you don't have unlimited resources, unlimited
Speaker 1: time and energy to approach all different minds of problems.
Speaker 1: You know. It's it's not like you can just say,
Speaker 1: oh well, there's there's plenty to go around in terms
Speaker 1: of the with the EPA and that the problems that
Speaker 1: they can tackle. No, the focus on climate change, the
Speaker 1: way that it has consumed a place like the EPA
Speaker 1: and all the court fights, and you know, that takes
Speaker 1: away from imminent, very real problems about things like drinking
Speaker 1: water here in this country. You know, what happened in Flint,
Speaker 1: Michigan is terrible. It is terrible that people were being
Speaker 1: effectively poisoned by their drinking water in an American city,
Speaker 1: you know, in in our current era there I've I've
Speaker 1: read whole a whole study and in depth study of
Speaker 1: how the projects and I know we're we're down, We're
Speaker 1: on w R Ando in New Orleans, UM. But you
Speaker 1: know the New Orleans some of the New Orleans housing
Speaker 1: projects have terrible lead contamination problems, you know, and those
Speaker 1: have long lasting ramifications for kids who are drinking that
Speaker 1: in their water. And you know, it's it's bad for
Speaker 1: the it's bad for the kids. It's bad for the
Speaker 1: kids kids. And that's happening in this country. You know,
Speaker 1: I think one place where conservatives can make a lot
Speaker 1: of headways to say you know, can you stop with
Speaker 1: your old climate change closes, forest fires and all this
Speaker 1: other nonsense, because there's there's a real need for conservation,
Speaker 1: there's a real need for clean drinking water. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm all for clean air, clean water. You know, I
Speaker 1: do not want pollution. I just don't buy into this
Speaker 1: catastrophist vision of the world coming to an end because
Speaker 1: of CO two, which is a tiny percentage of atmospheric
Speaker 1: gas to begin with, and is a naturally occurring and
Speaker 1: necessary gas. It's not like we're just it's not like
Speaker 1: we're creating CO two and there was no CO two before.
Speaker 1: But the virtue signaling is not without its own costs,
Speaker 1: And I think that's the biggest single takeaway here. You know,
Speaker 1: if liberals were serious about dealing with environmental issues that
Speaker 1: impact people right now today, and if they wanted to
Speaker 1: save lives, if they want to improve lives, they would
Speaker 1: back up a guy like Wheeler at the EPA who's
Speaker 1: saying that clean drinking water is the biggest single crisis
Speaker 1: because people are dying from not having clean drinking water
Speaker 1: all of the world, and they're getting very sick. And
Speaker 1: over the long term, you could say some are some
Speaker 1: are dying in this country because of that issue. And
Speaker 1: you know, this is really one of the marks of
Speaker 1: civilization as I see them, in the marks of civilization
Speaker 1: that you can always you always know what kind of
Speaker 1: country you're dealing with based on two things. You know,
Speaker 1: you know one of them. I always tell you how
Speaker 1: does a country deal with its trash? And then also
Speaker 1: can you drink the water? If a nation state has
Speaker 1: clean streets for them most part, I'm everyplace has, you know,
Speaker 1: trash dumps here and there, and but but if a
Speaker 1: nation state deals well with its refuse and you can
Speaker 1: drink the water out of the tap, you're you're you're
Speaker 1: in an advanced country. I mean, it's it's it's fool proof, basically,
Speaker 1: I mean, you're in a sophisticated, well off, and well
Speaker 1: ordered nation state. If there's trash everywhere and you can't
Speaker 1: drink the water, you got problems. You got problems. And
Speaker 1: given the technology that exists and the global wealth that's
Speaker 1: out there, there should be fewer and fewer countries that
Speaker 1: have filth all over the streets and filthy water that
Speaker 1: little kids are drinking. But we're not making as much
Speaker 1: progress on this as we can notice how the EPA
Speaker 1: director is getting slammed by the left for this because
Speaker 1: they think it takes away from the much more important
Speaker 1: threat of climate change, which they're delusional. I mean, they're crazy,
Speaker 1: But that's the problem with dealing crazy peoples. It's hard
Speaker 1: to reason with them. I wouldn't entertain that the only
Speaker 1: reason is that they're doing that as they want to
Speaker 1: try and catch up. So if they can't catch up
Speaker 1: through the ballot box by winning an election, they want
Speaker 1: to try doing it in a different way. Now, we
Speaker 1: would have no interest in that whatsoever. It will never happen.
Speaker 1: It won't happen. I guarantee it won't happen for six years.
Speaker 1: I think that it's I'm open to the discussion. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's no question that the popular vote has been diminished
Speaker 1: in terms of making the final decision about who's the
Speaker 1: president of United States, and we need to deal with that.
Speaker 1: So I'm open to the discussion. That is where the
Speaker 1: Democrats are right now, open to a discussion about kicking
Speaker 1: at the load bearing walls of our governmental system just
Speaker 1: to sort of see what happens. And you know, we
Speaker 1: talked about this a little yesterday. I've been thinking more
Speaker 1: about it for the last twenty four hours because it
Speaker 1: really is so brazen what they're doing. It's so obvious
Speaker 1: that this is yet another attempt at a power grab.
Speaker 1: But it's not likely at all to happen. So why
Speaker 1: else do they do it? Well, Because here's the real
Speaker 1: message of Democrats going out there saying, we need to
Speaker 1: change this system. We need to change these different points
Speaker 1: in the system where we have not gotten our way.
Speaker 1: It's that it's illegitimate when they don't get their way,
Speaker 1: and they reinforce this at every turn that the left
Speaker 1: believes that when the government does not deliver to them
Speaker 1: what they want, it cannot be a function of the
Speaker 1: failure of their arguments. It cannot be that maybe they
Speaker 1: were wrong. It has to be a systemic failure from
Speaker 1: within the system itself. It has to be a shortcoming
Speaker 1: of the process. Right, the institutions that they rely on
Speaker 1: need to be reformed so that they can get what
Speaker 1: they want. But it really all does go back to
Speaker 1: this point of illegitimacy as well. They simply do not
Speaker 1: accept that outcomes that government outcomes that they disagree with
Speaker 1: are something that they should have to live with. You know,
Speaker 1: it's never we lost, though they never take the l
Speaker 1: it's never we take that loss. We're going to regroup
Speaker 1: and the next time around will do better. It's we
Speaker 1: need to find a way to make sure that we
Speaker 1: have nothing but w's on our scoreboard, even if we
Speaker 1: have to cheat, even if we have to pay off
Speaker 1: the reps. And that has been pretty pretty open um.
Speaker 1: And I think it's also only possible because not only
Speaker 1: do they think that the the system outcomes that they
Speaker 1: disagree with are inherently illegitimate, they also think that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is an entirely illegitimate president. And that all ties
Speaker 1: in as well. You know that the system that presented
Speaker 1: them with Donald Trump as the winner of the election
Speaker 1: has to be corrupt, must be reformed, and you know,
Speaker 1: then you look at the Supreme Court's the same thing.
Speaker 1: I mean, Drsh that Drsh. We should have him on radio,
Speaker 1: And I've had him on Rising many times, and I
Speaker 1: never think to say, hey, pressed Dirsh, do you want
Speaker 1: to come on radio? Although when he does Rising, sometimes
Speaker 1: he shows up. He skypes from his office at Harvard,
Speaker 1: and sometimes he shows up and he's all like like,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, I'm gonna have my jacket on. He's
Speaker 1: I don't have much time here, and he's very Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's curmudgedly. I'm not gonna I'm not gonna lie to
Speaker 1: you guys. He's curmudgingly. But other times he's like, well,
Speaker 1: let's let's have a conversation about the constitution and rule
Speaker 1: of law in this country. Like he's really engaged. So
Speaker 1: I never know which dirsh I'm going to get, and
Speaker 1: when I get the latter one, sometimes like, hey, why
Speaker 1: don't you come on my radio show? Everyone who does
Speaker 1: rising who's not a complete communist, uh, wants to come
Speaker 1: on my radio show. So that that's a pretty easy
Speaker 1: thing to do. I'll be on. I'm I'm a little
Speaker 1: uh what's the word, I'm a little selfish with your time. Team.
Speaker 1: I don't I don't like to share the team's time
Speaker 1: very much. As you've noticed. I know there are a
Speaker 1: lot of radio hosts. When I talk to people to
Speaker 1: say how many how many guests do you have on
Speaker 1: a day, I say, I'm one maybe or two some days,
Speaker 1: but I like to have it. Some days we have to,
Speaker 1: you know, we'll have four guest songs. We just feel
Speaker 1: like having a wide ranging conversation with a bunch of folks,
Speaker 1: and a lot of other days, no guests are any guests.
Speaker 1: I have so much to talk to you about. There's
Speaker 1: so much going on the world. So I'm just I'm
Speaker 1: just a different a different cat in that sense. But
Speaker 1: the Dirsh speaking of a different dude. The Dirsh this
Speaker 1: is what he said about Supreme Court tampering, that the
Speaker 1: Democrats are more than flirting with I mean, they're they're
Speaker 1: really trying to push this idea play five. Well, it's
Speaker 1: a terrible idea, and it just increases the politicization of
Speaker 1: our highest court. The highest Court is supposed to be
Speaker 1: a neutral, objective, nonpartisan institution. As the Chief Justice has said,
Speaker 1: there are no Republican justices or Democratic justices. That's really
Speaker 1: a wish rather than a reality. We the American people,
Speaker 1: have to demand that both parties leave politics out of
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court. So I think it would probably be
Speaker 1: a good thing to have only nine justices. Every idea
Speaker 1: seems worse than previous idea, isn't worse than the status quo.
Speaker 1: We may in the end have to just struggle to
Speaker 1: maintain the current law, because fixing it may produce more
Speaker 1: problems than the problems that currently exist. He's just straight
Speaker 1: up saying it. The plan to pack the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: is a terrible idea, and everybody should understand it's a
Speaker 1: terrible idea. And that they would even they would even
Speaker 1: float this out there just shows you. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a recklessness right now at the heart of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: There's a recklessness. There's a sense that whatever they have
Speaker 1: to say and do in the moment, they'll do. And
Speaker 1: nothing is you know, outside of nothing's outside the realm
Speaker 1: of possibility, whether it's completely reforming critical parts of our
Speaker 1: constitutional order or changing up the Supreme Court. Who can
Speaker 1: vote in elections fell in sixteen year olds, foreigners, Oh,
Speaker 1: just give it time. They're gonna want illegals. They're gonna
Speaker 1: want to legals voting folks. I mean, they're gonna try
Speaker 1: to say that they should legalize them first. But if
Speaker 1: liberals had their way, I mean, this should be a
Speaker 1: fascinating poll, if you could do it right. You know
Speaker 1: what percentage of Liberals believe that if it could be,
Speaker 1: if it could be made legal tomorrow, illegal aliens should
Speaker 1: be allowed to vote in federal elections. A majority of Democrats,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, would say yes. And I think I
Speaker 1: think seventy to eighty percent of them would say yes.
Speaker 1: I think a strong they would. Their claim would be there,
Speaker 1: They're just people too, They're in our country. They should
Speaker 1: have a say in governance. It's the same argument that
Speaker 1: they make at the local level about these these town
Speaker 1: councils or city councils, places like San Francisco school board elections,
Speaker 1: where they're already saying pretty openly that they think that
Speaker 1: illegals should vote. I mean, and they've tried to pass
Speaker 1: legislation to that effect. One thing we got to keep
Speaker 1: in mind here is also the economy. I just wanted
Speaker 1: to get the actually, you know what we don't have? Yeah,
Speaker 1: we now, we'dn't have time for that right now. See,
Speaker 1: I'm running around with too much stuff we'll have to save.
Speaker 1: Because here's here's my theory, which I'll dive in. Let
Speaker 1: me let me use this as a teaser moment which
Speaker 1: we'll dive into tomorrow. My theory is that if the
Speaker 1: economy is strong, Trump wins in twenty twenty, no question.
Speaker 1: If the economy is shaky, it could be close. If
Speaker 1: the economy hits a rough patch, I think you're going
Speaker 1: to see the rise of socialism in this country, I
Speaker 1: really do. You're going to see someone who is a socialist,
Speaker 1: perhaps an all button name and maybe with Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: in name as well as an ex president United States.
Speaker 1: So we have to look at the cyclical nature of
Speaker 1: where the economy is right now, on what the debt
Speaker 1: means for us. But maybe we'll do a little more
Speaker 1: of that. But that's the outlier that I think you
Speaker 1: determine everything. So put a pin in that one team.
Speaker 1: We will come back to that on tomorrow. Stay tuned.
Speaker 1: I'm very unhappy that he didn't repeal and replace Obamacare.
Speaker 1: As you know, he campaigned in repealing and replacing Obamacare
Speaker 1: for years, and then he got to a vote and
Speaker 1: he said thumbs down, and our country would have saved
Speaker 1: a trillion dollars and we would have had great healthcare.
Speaker 1: So he campaigned, he told us hours before that he
Speaker 1: was going to repeal and replace, and then for some reason,
Speaker 1: I think I understand the reason he ended up going
Speaker 1: thumbs up. And frankly, had we even known that, I
Speaker 1: think we would have gotten to vote because we could
Speaker 1: have gotten somebody else. So I think that's disgraceful. Plus
Speaker 1: there are other things I was never a fan of
Speaker 1: John McCain, and I never will be. How pathetic that
Speaker 1: fifty Republican senators have said nothing about this incredibly disgraceful
Speaker 1: performance by the President about John McCain, about their long
Speaker 1: time colleague John McCain. They are all such unbelievable cowards
Speaker 1: because they're afraid of Republican primaries. Yeah, we don't need
Speaker 1: to take advice about how to keep our own house
Speaker 1: clean for the Republicans here and how to tidy up
Speaker 1: ourselves from Jeffrey Tubin over at CNN. We got it, Thanks, buddy.
Speaker 1: We don't We don't need your help. We don't need
Speaker 1: your help at all. I find this whole. There's a
Speaker 1: couple of big stories today that aren't big stories at all,
Speaker 1: but the media is making them into much bigger things.
Speaker 1: And one of them is this is this ongoing feud
Speaker 1: with John McCain and President Trump. And now of course
Speaker 1: John McCain's passed away and uh and full disclosure. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm a I'm a friend and uh uh and
Speaker 1: somebody who respects his his daughter. But I'm speaking about
Speaker 1: John McCain now in his professional and legislative capacity, in
Speaker 1: terms of his record and the ongoing situation with President Trump,
Speaker 1: where what I see happening here is that Democrats love
Speaker 1: Their favorite thing about John McCain is to use him
Speaker 1: and his own UH disputes with the Republican Party as
Speaker 1: a club to bludgeon other Republicans with UH. And there's
Speaker 1: this this sense of of a forced homage that you
Speaker 1: always have to pay to John McCain as a Republican,
Speaker 1: and Democrats like to just wield that as a weapon
Speaker 1: against against individuals. You know, are you are you, you know,
Speaker 1: saying that his service was not as honorable and of
Speaker 1: course not. But you know, I will note and the
Speaker 1: veterans here listening, I'd be very curious to know what
Speaker 1: their opinions are of this John McCain situation. But you know,
Speaker 1: there are a lot there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: that serve very honorably in Vietnam. You know, we have
Speaker 1: a lot of Vietnam vets who put their lives on
Speaker 1: the line, who took bullets, who were wounded, you know,
Speaker 1: and obviously over fifty thousand didn't even come home. Are
Speaker 1: they all for the rest of their professional lives in
Speaker 1: if they're in public life, are they all beyond reproach
Speaker 1: for whatever they do. You know, I do think there's
Speaker 1: a disingenuousness with Democrats where they you know, they know
Speaker 1: that John McCain was Look, he was an unreliable, unreliable
Speaker 1: partner with conservatism, there's no question about it, and turned
Speaker 1: his back on conservatism and the right at key points.
Speaker 1: I mean, McCain find goal was a terrible law that
Speaker 1: he co sponsored, terrible law, and then at the last
Speaker 1: minute to abandon his fellow Republicans on the issue of
Speaker 1: the Obamacare repeal. And I think that that was that
Speaker 1: was personal spite in place of national level politics and
Speaker 1: responsibility to the people of Arizona and to the people
Speaker 1: of the United States more broadly. I think that John
Speaker 1: McCain wanted to wanted to take a slap at President Trump,
Speaker 1: and he was successful, But at what cost to how
Speaker 1: many millions of people that were affected by that healthcare decision?
Speaker 1: You know, as people now will sit in waiting rooms
Speaker 1: wondering if they'll be able to afford the visit, wondering
Speaker 1: if they'll be able to get into the waiting room
Speaker 1: in time, wondering if they'll be able to afford their medication.
Speaker 1: All the different problems, all the different shortcomings of our
Speaker 1: system of medicine in this country. I'm not saying there
Speaker 1: would have been some cure all with the skinny repeal bill.
Speaker 1: It wasn't perfect what they were trying to do, but
Speaker 1: it would have been better. And McCain stood in the
Speaker 1: way of that. And I think that he did that
Speaker 1: for personal reasons, and I think that we're absolutely allowed
Speaker 1: to disagree with him on that. And I don't like this, uh,
Speaker 1: this forced worship of anyone on policy matters, on matter
Speaker 1: you know, because of their because of their previous service
Speaker 1: to the country. You know, Look, I'm not trying to
Speaker 1: say that John McCain was a strong man, but you
Speaker 1: look at a lot of strong men around the globe
Speaker 1: and a lot of dictators, and you know, they served
Speaker 1: in their militaries, right, I mean, you know, just because
Speaker 1: you serve in the military doesn't mean you cannot be
Speaker 1: criticized on policy matters or what you do after you're
Speaker 1: in the military. And look, Democrats know this. They're just
Speaker 1: they're just playing they're they're they're just playing cynical politics
Speaker 1: with this by trying to turn Trump and McCain. You know,
Speaker 1: McCain posthumously against him. Now that all said, do I
Speaker 1: think that Trump should take the take de bait with
Speaker 1: this and and say all the stuff about McCain. No,
Speaker 1: I think it's a waste. I also think, and this
Speaker 1: was the other story today that and look, you can
Speaker 1: tell I'm not a fan of McCain in the legislative
Speaker 1: side of things at all. I do not think that
Speaker 1: as a senator he made a lot of good choices.
Speaker 1: And I think that his senate campaign, I mean, his
Speaker 1: presidential campaign was a disaster for the Republican Party that
Speaker 1: led to eight years of Obama. So I do not
Speaker 1: think that he that his professional life should be on
Speaker 1: approach at all. I don't think that Trump should get
Speaker 1: into this, you know, mudslinging. It just doesn't really matter.
Speaker 1: But look, Trump is who he is, and he's he's
Speaker 1: gonna punch back, and he's not gonna take any guff
Speaker 1: In case you to know this, he hasn't liked John
Speaker 1: McCain for the last twenty years. I mean, he's never
Speaker 1: liked this guy. Some people just don't like each other.
Speaker 1: You may even pick up from listening to the show
Speaker 1: enough that there are some individuals in media that I
Speaker 1: just don't like him and they don't like me. We
Speaker 1: just don't like each other, you know, and there's not
Speaker 1: even necessarily a great reason for it. You know, people,
Speaker 1: you know, people are like animals, you know, an animals
Speaker 1: sometimes in the wild will kind of you know, the
Speaker 1: kind of smell each other and decide we're gonna fight this.
Speaker 1: We're gonna fight to the death, you know. And it's
Speaker 1: just the way it is. You know. Sometimes the two
Speaker 1: tigers just walk past each other silently in the jungle.
Speaker 1: Sometimes they fight until one of them bleeds out and
Speaker 1: the other one slowly bleeds out, you know. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's that's just the that's just nature maybe. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just the way that it is. And with people
Speaker 1: with massive egos, which I mean John McCain had a
Speaker 1: huge ego, I mean, make no mistake about it. Is
Speaker 1: it as big as Drump's probably not, And can you argue,
Speaker 1: of course, you know, whose ego is more earned? I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not even gonna go there, um, but this is
Speaker 1: this is what the Democrats love to hold up John
Speaker 1: McCain because they know that when Republicans, when Republicans say,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, but but McCain didn't do this
Speaker 1: or that that would have helped us, or McCain was
Speaker 1: a problem here, they go, oh, you're disrespecting his milit
Speaker 1: So your Republicans don't really support the military. When we
Speaker 1: all know that if you had to pick, if you
Speaker 1: have to pick one political party in this country that
Speaker 1: is truly and honestly supportive of the military, it's going
Speaker 1: to be the Republicans. It's not going to be the
Speaker 1: code pink far left, who are a bunch of imperialists
Speaker 1: and you know, we bomb civilians indiscriminately for no reason
Speaker 1: all the time. Democrats, all right, It's going to be
Speaker 1: the Republicans that are the party that supports the military.
Speaker 1: And although whenever, whenever you say something like this, you'll
Speaker 1: get the left has a few people in the media
Speaker 1: that that you have served in combat roles, and their
Speaker 1: whole job is to run around and bash anybody who
Speaker 1: points out that, you know, there there is a there
Speaker 1: is a a majority of support in the military for
Speaker 1: the Republican Party. It's just it's just it's just true. Um.
Speaker 1: And then you got this other thing, which I don't
Speaker 1: even know if it's worth it. I know what, I'll
Speaker 1: just just a few seconds on this this whole Kelly
Speaker 1: Ann Conway, George Conway Trump nonsense. What did Trump say
Speaker 1: about the tweet is pretty is pretty funny. I want
Speaker 1: to see if I can, if I can pull this
Speaker 1: one up for you, it says, Hold on a second.
Speaker 1: This is from earlier this morning. George Conway, often referred
Speaker 1: to as mister Kelly Ann Conway by by those who
Speaker 1: know him, is very jealous of his wife's success and
Speaker 1: angry that with her help didn't give that I with
Speaker 1: her help, didn't give him the job he's so desperately wanted.
Speaker 1: I barely know him, but just take a look a
Speaker 1: stone called loser and a husband from hell. You know again,
Speaker 1: I don't really see what the point is here other
Speaker 1: than they're trying to you know, they know they poked
Speaker 1: the present. He's going to slap back. People keep saying
Speaker 1: it's so mean that Trump would say this. Why is
Speaker 1: it okay for George Conway to undermine his wife publicly
Speaker 1: like this by attacking her boss? Does it? The media
Speaker 1: never seems to ask that question. So we just Trump
Speaker 1: is intruding on their relationship. Yeah, yeah, yeah, we get
Speaker 1: the game at their playing folks, And you know what
Speaker 1: we don't like it. Probably familiar with AARP, right, They
Speaker 1: got a big office here in DC. I pass it
Speaker 1: in the swamp and a lot of people are members. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: guess what. AAARP is a seniors organization that pushes a
Speaker 1: lot of left wing progressive causes. That's why I recommend AMAC.
Speaker 1: AMAC is the conservative alternative to the aa ARP. So
Speaker 1: if you're a senior, please join my friends at AMAC.
Speaker 1: They are pushing for policies that you agree with, and
Speaker 1: they're making sure that you're part of an organization that's
Speaker 1: going to get you great value, including discounts on car insurance, hotels,
Speaker 1: roadside assistants, dental plans, even sell phone service options. So
Speaker 1: there's all kinds of benefits. Stand with AMAC as they
Speaker 1: fight the good fight. By becoming a member today. The
Speaker 1: benefits are great, but you know the cause is even greater.
Speaker 1: Join right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's
Speaker 1: am AC dot us slash buck. AMAC is better, better
Speaker 1: for you, better for America. I wouldn't entertain that the
Speaker 1: only reason is that they're doing that is they want
Speaker 1: to try and catch up. So if they can't catch
Speaker 1: up through the ballot box by winning an election, they
Speaker 1: want to try doing it in a different way. Now,
Speaker 1: we would have no interest in that whatsoever. It will
Speaker 1: never happen. It won't happen. I guarantee it won't happen
Speaker 1: for six years. Libs lose and they want to change
Speaker 1: the rules. That seems to be a widespread phenomenon among
Speaker 1: the Democrat would be presidential hopeful type. So what does
Speaker 1: that tell us about their respect for institutions? Also, what's
Speaker 1: going on with the Muller pro pretty much everything. It's
Speaker 1: kind of a kitchen sync segment we got planned for
Speaker 1: you here with my man Sean Davis, who is co
Speaker 1: founder of the Federalist, also fierce in his Twitter game.
Speaker 1: Doesn't let the Libs get away with the nonsense. Sean Davis,
Speaker 1: Great to have you back, sir, great to be here.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me. So do liberals not understand
Speaker 1: why we have an electoral college? I mean, is it
Speaker 1: how much of this is driven by ignorance versus how
Speaker 1: much of this is just the cynicism of we need
Speaker 1: to we need to rig the game so we can
Speaker 1: win next time. I really mean that. Do you think
Speaker 1: that o'casio Cortez understands why the electoral college exists, for example. No,
Speaker 1: I think she's probably trying to get her parents to
Speaker 1: bribe the Electoral College with like a half a million
Speaker 1: dollar donation so she can get admitted to it. I
Speaker 1: hear it's very selective. No. I think the left winners
Speaker 1: care about power. That's all they care about. They don't
Speaker 1: care about the historical tradition, about the very involved in
Speaker 1: deeply thought through debates that the founders had when they
Speaker 1: established our system of government. They only care about power
Speaker 1: and their experience with history while they've been alive, you
Speaker 1: know for the last twenty years or so. Is it
Speaker 1: electoral college bad because Republicans win sometimes with it, So
Speaker 1: they've decided that needs to go. We need to get
Speaker 1: rid of it. We need New York in California picking
Speaker 1: all the winners in the stupid room in flyover Country
Speaker 1: can just deal with it like totalitarian. All they care
Speaker 1: about is the end result, which is accumulating more power. Yep.
Speaker 1: It's almost like Sean was listening to the radio show yesterday,
Speaker 1: because that's my take on this. Too many they'll rig
Speaker 1: the game however they can and feel righteous in doing so,
Speaker 1: whether it's lowering the voting age to sixteen, eliminating the
Speaker 1: Electoral College, packing the Supreme Court. You know, Sean, if
Speaker 1: I had told people a few years ago that the
Speaker 1: Democrat platform going into twenty twenty would be annihilate the
Speaker 1: whole system and remake it in our own status image,
Speaker 1: they would say, Buck, you're being too harsh. Come on,
Speaker 1: don't be that guy. But that's actually what's happening. I mean,
Speaker 1: they've gone so far left that they're about to topple
Speaker 1: over it is well, and recall that this is a
Speaker 1: party that has written into its formal official platform the
Speaker 1: repeal of the First Amendment because they don't like that
Speaker 1: Citizens United gives people the ability to band together and
Speaker 1: of some pool their money and run ads against politicians
Speaker 1: they don't like. See, you've got a party that is
Speaker 1: hostile to the foundational amendment of the American idea, which
Speaker 1: is the ability to speak and vote and as symbol
Speaker 1: and worship how you want. They want to get rid
Speaker 1: of that. We all know they'd knuke the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: maybe even literally if they could. Now. They want to
Speaker 1: get rid of the way that we've elected presidents in
Speaker 1: this country for the entirety of their history. But I
Speaker 1: can promise you that if for some reason, Donald Trump
Speaker 1: were to lose the electoral college in twenty twenty, but
Speaker 1: when the popular vote, they will immediately switch their their
Speaker 1: rationale to own the electoral college is the greatest thing
Speaker 1: since ever in all of nineteen eighty four, we have
Speaker 1: always been at war with East Asia. They will turn
Speaker 1: on a dime and pretend they never had the positions
Speaker 1: that they previously helped. Yeah, they are fond of doing that.
Speaker 1: I've seen them do it in many cases, you know, Sean,
Speaker 1: I think that there's an eerie calm right now and
Speaker 1: based in DC for those of us who are either
Speaker 1: around politicos or journos, there's a sense of any minute now,
Speaker 1: the Muller probe is going to come out. Do you
Speaker 1: have expectations for this thing at this point? Are you in?
Speaker 1: I mean, we're all in waiting, simo, because we don't know.
Speaker 1: But I'm very convinced that the plan from the from
Speaker 1: the Democrats, from CNN and the Washington Post is when
Speaker 1: this report comes out and there's just nothing in it
Speaker 1: to justify the two years of insanity we've been through,
Speaker 1: They're just gonna be like, well, okay, let's get Trump's
Speaker 1: tax returns it's good. They're gonna act like nothing's happened, right.
Speaker 1: I think you're correct, although I'm very skeptical that this
Speaker 1: thing will be wrapping up anytime soon. And I've heard
Speaker 1: all the same rumors. I've read all the same reports.
Speaker 1: You know, the report is in imminent, it's shutting down
Speaker 1: based on what I've seen from this investigation so far,
Speaker 1: which is, uh, you know, rolling up people, lawyers, searching
Speaker 1: through their stuff, attacking Republicans and putting them in prison
Speaker 1: for things that we know the Democrats involved in the
Speaker 1: same thing did, but they're not being charged. I don't
Speaker 1: have any faith that this moler thing is going to
Speaker 1: stop until Trump is out of office. That's my personal view.
Speaker 1: I'm sticking with it until they prove otherwise because I've
Speaker 1: I've grown rather tired of this constant drum beat in
Speaker 1: the media that, oh, it's wrapping up and the report's
Speaker 1: about to come out. I'll believe it when I see it,
Speaker 1: and until then, I don't have any interest in it.
Speaker 1: You know, I was on that train with you until
Speaker 1: very recently, because I've heard now I'm hearing from people
Speaker 1: that are that aren't well. I've heard from people in
Speaker 1: the doj But but they've also told me, yeah, but
Speaker 1: it keeps getting They tell me it's going to be
Speaker 1: the next couple of weeks. Then a couple of weeks
Speaker 1: pass and they say, well, it keeps getting pushed back.
Speaker 1: And I'm like, well, if it's going to keep getting
Speaker 1: pushed back every two weeks for the next fifty two weeks,
Speaker 1: that means it's not going to end this year. So
Speaker 1: you know, I've I was with you in that and
Speaker 1: that until about three months ago, I was saying, I think,
Speaker 1: including here on the show, that my expectation was that
Speaker 1: this would drag all the way through until just before
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election. Well we'll see if these rumors
Speaker 1: now are true or not. But I gotta tell you, man,
Speaker 1: at this point, I think that there's going to have
Speaker 1: to be some kind of a reckoning for people who,
Speaker 1: at a minimum have been saying that the President United
Speaker 1: States committed treason. I mean, the things that we're said
Speaker 1: on CNN, particularly you know, around a year ago, are
Speaker 1: some of the craziest things I've ever heard said about
Speaker 1: about anybody, never mind a president, on national television. And
Speaker 1: I just I don't want to let that go, man.
Speaker 1: I don't want to let them get away with it. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm with you, but I've got some bad news. And
Speaker 1: bad news is that there will be no reckoning because
Speaker 1: half of this country is so bond into this narrative.
Speaker 1: They're so delusional they are not going to let it go.
Speaker 1: We're back to you know, circa two thousand and four,
Speaker 1: two thousand and five Bushlide. People died. Okay, this has
Speaker 1: become such an article of faith among the left to
Speaker 1: explain why Saint Hilary loss that they cannot let it
Speaker 1: go because to let it go would mean that, you
Speaker 1: know what people actually did want Donald Trump, if you
Speaker 1: want it fair and square, and Hillary was actually a
Speaker 1: really crappy candidate. They cannot accept that, so they will
Speaker 1: cling to this fiction regardless of what the actual facts
Speaker 1: show us. What of the candidates right now, who do
Speaker 1: you think is who gives you a little bit of
Speaker 1: a maybe this person is going to put up a
Speaker 1: worthy fight against Trump? Any of them? A few of them,
Speaker 1: I think Biden or Sanders. I think Sanders is an
Speaker 1: especially dangerous opponent from a political perspective because he has
Speaker 1: a very similar message to Trump, which is that the
Speaker 1: game is rigged. You're getting screwed, people are getting rich
Speaker 1: off of you, and I'm going to come in and
Speaker 1: fix the problem. Now, they come at it from very
Speaker 1: different places, with different policy prescriptions to fix that, but
Speaker 1: they have the same message that's targeted kind of to
Speaker 1: the same disaffected blue collar Midwestern worker. And so while
Speaker 1: I think Bernie is cuckoo for Coco puffs, I think
Speaker 1: his brand and his message eats into Trump's base in
Speaker 1: a way that nobody else really does. And on the
Speaker 1: Beto phenomenon, do you think is he the real deal
Speaker 1: from the perspective of could he could go all the way?
Speaker 1: Or you think this is a flash in the pants.
Speaker 1: I mean, he did raise that six million which everyone
Speaker 1: keeps talking about. Yeah, no, I'm completely bored by Robert
Speaker 1: Franciso Rourke. So yeah, everyone's talking about this big fundraising hall.
Speaker 1: He did well. He spent the last two years fundraising.
Speaker 1: So when I saw those numbers, I didn't think, Wow,
Speaker 1: this means so Rourke is a great candidate. I thought,
Speaker 1: oh wow, he spent like one hundred million dollars building
Speaker 1: up a pretty good direct mail list. So now I
Speaker 1: personally think he's a flash in the pan. He's completely
Speaker 1: unimpressive and vapid. But at the same time, I didn't
Speaker 1: think Trump was going to be the nominee and I
Speaker 1: didn't think he was going to be president. So what
Speaker 1: do I know? Yeah, it's very hard and for anyone
Speaker 1: to make predictions that they can put a lot of
Speaker 1: ump behind. Considering how many people that I know who
Speaker 1: think that they are very savvy on political matters, and
Speaker 1: turns out they are. They were quite wrong on the
Speaker 1: Trump phenomenal. Look, I didn't see the Trump phenomenon coming.
Speaker 1: But then again, in retrospect that the idea that that
Speaker 1: Ted Cruz was going to save the Republic, maybe that
Speaker 1: was a little overdone too. So I think some people.
Speaker 1: What bugs me about coverage now is most people in
Speaker 1: the punditory business were wrong about twenty sixteen. And what
Speaker 1: separates them is whether they learned something from being wrong.
Speaker 1: And what I learned is, you know, I'm not so
Speaker 1: great at this prognostication game. I'm not be a lot
Speaker 1: more humble kind of how I look at it. Unfortunately, CNN,
Speaker 1: in The Post and The New York Times and others
Speaker 1: have taken the exact opposite approach, which is they're often wrong,
Speaker 1: but they're never in doubt Sean Davis. Everybody of the
Speaker 1: Federalist go check out what he's up to and all
Speaker 1: the rest of the folks over there among my very
Speaker 1: favoritist of all sites, the Federalist. You should check it
Speaker 1: out at the Federalist dot com. Also follow Sean Davis
Speaker 1: on Twitter for his air you dit but also Sick Burns. Sean,
Speaker 1: thanks so much man, great to have you. Thanks Buck,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Team. Attention all business owners, all
Speaker 1: h R folks out there, human resources people. You probably
Speaker 1: have somebody that does background checks for you, or you're
Speaker 1: gonna need somebody to do background checks for if you
Speaker 1: don't already. Right, That's why I want to tell you
Speaker 1: about Global Verification Network. They're the only dual certified, veteran
Speaker 1: owned background investigation and vetting company. I am personal friends
Speaker 1: with the CEO, Mark Buckman. He's a veteran himself and
Speaker 1: he understands how important it is to get this right
Speaker 1: when it comes to background checks every time, do it efficiently,
Speaker 1: and to make sure that he has a program that
Speaker 1: fits your business large or small, So for your background
Speaker 1: checks wherever you are across the country. Just give a
Speaker 1: call to my friends at Global Verification Network eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven. Please tell me
Speaker 1: you heard about on the Buck Sex and Show so
Speaker 1: they know your team Buck. You can also go to
Speaker 1: MYGVN dot com. Again, that's MYGVN dot com. Get rejected
Speaker 1: a lot. That's my advice to anyone out there who
Speaker 1: is willing to hear it. Get rejected a lot. Learn
Speaker 1: to take no, Learn to take you're not good enough.
Speaker 1: Learn to take nobody wants you, or we don't want you,
Speaker 1: or you're not wanted here, and learn to take it
Speaker 1: in a way where you grow stronger as a result
Speaker 1: of that rejection. There's a piece today in NBC News
Speaker 1: that looks at rejection from an evolutionary biology standpoint. The
Speaker 1: very basic version of their scientific thesis is that rejection,
Speaker 1: the feeling of rejection, causes a physiological response that in
Speaker 1: some ways mimics what you get in the pain centers
Speaker 1: of the body. So I mean reject. When people say
Speaker 1: rejection hurts, it actually does hurt. It actually does create
Speaker 1: a feeling feelings of not just uneased but unwellness, and
Speaker 1: it can create pain in the gut. It can create
Speaker 1: a real sense of something terrible having happened, right, And
Speaker 1: what we're experiencing now in society is because of all
Speaker 1: of our connectivity and the constant sorting and resorting and
Speaker 1: the so called meritocracy that we strive for in some
Speaker 1: parts of life, we have so many more opportunities now
Speaker 1: to get rejected than ever before. Rejected when we reach
Speaker 1: out to somebody for a job, rejected when we reach
Speaker 1: out to somebody electronically, for you know, for a date,
Speaker 1: for a drink, when we apply to college, when we
Speaker 1: just you name it. There's so many ways. Whereas it
Speaker 1: used to be that if you were rejected by your
Speaker 1: peer group, this is the evolutionary biology part of it,
Speaker 1: you might starve to death because if people didn't trust
Speaker 1: you and didn't want to be around you, and you
Speaker 1: didn't have the cooperative hunting going on, you were in
Speaker 1: a lot of trouble. Now you're just getting Now it's
Speaker 1: all psychological. You're bombarded with it. And so this piece
Speaker 1: tries to lay out a bunch of ways that you
Speaker 1: can deal with the pain response in the brain from rejection,
Speaker 1: and it says things like, you know, ask if it
Speaker 1: really matters, remember a rejection often isn't personal. Choose to
Speaker 1: assume the best rather than the worst and get back
Speaker 1: out there. I don't really like the way that they
Speaker 1: try to set this up because I'm I'm a fan
Speaker 1: at this point in my life. A rejection, because you know,
Speaker 1: a rejection really means means you tried, means you're in
Speaker 1: the fight, means that as long as you're not being
Speaker 1: a you know, a lunatic right of it, I'm not suggesting, well,
Speaker 1: ask her out for coffee and then I ask her
Speaker 1: out one hundred more times, because rejection feels so darn good.
Speaker 1: But whether it's applying for a job, applying for college,
Speaker 1: trying to better yourself, and also even this self rejection
Speaker 1: that you can engage in sometimes you know, the the
Speaker 1: idea that you will undermine yourself when you try to go,
Speaker 1: you know, restart working out at the gym, or or
Speaker 1: you want to learn a new language and you know
Speaker 1: you're going to you're you're automatically not good to want
Speaker 1: to do things you're not good at, and there's there
Speaker 1: are reasons for that. You know, we all want to
Speaker 1: do things that we're good at, Like do I want
Speaker 1: to make scrambled eggs, Yes, because my scrambled eggs are amazing.
Speaker 1: But do I want to try and learn Chinese starting tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Probably not, because it's gonna be hard. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to be good at it, but learning to him, learning
Speaker 1: when to embrace that and when to view it as
Speaker 1: almost like the tears in your muscles when you're working out,
Speaker 1: That's what rejection is. It hurts, but it can really
Speaker 1: make you stronger. And I don't believe, by the way,
Speaker 1: for the people I say with Niche, you know, what
Speaker 1: doesn't kill you makes you stronger, it's actually not true.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're if you're in a terrible car
Speaker 1: accident and you know you lose usage of two limbs,
Speaker 1: you're not actually stronger even though you're survived. So, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't think that that's a fair way to view
Speaker 1: these things. But rejection is something that in modern society
Speaker 1: we all have to embrace in our own way and
Speaker 1: learned to get past. And I think it's important. I
Speaker 1: think it's important for kids to learn I'm a better
Speaker 1: person because I was rejected from my early decision college choice,
Speaker 1: which I don't know if I've ever said on the
Speaker 1: show before, not that I care but it was Princeton University.
Speaker 1: They technically deferred me then rejected me. But I was
Speaker 1: rejected by Princeton, the first school that I wanted to
Speaker 1: go to and applied to. That was a good thing.
Speaker 1: It made me think more about who I was and
Speaker 1: how good of a student am I. But do I
Speaker 1: really want to go there? Did I just want the name?
Speaker 1: Was this all just a branding exercise for me? And
Speaker 1: it also allows you to understand other people who have
Speaker 1: dealt with getting rejected. I mean, I was rejected from
Speaker 1: the first school I applied for. I was rejected from Gosh,
Speaker 1: I can't even tell you how many different jobs I
Speaker 1: applied for. Technically, the CIA was the first job I
Speaker 1: applied for and I got it. But while I was
Speaker 1: waiting in case I got some amazing offer, I applied
Speaker 1: for all kinds of jobs. Rejected, rejected, rejected. I was
Speaker 1: rejected by the first girl I ever asked asked out.
Speaker 1: It wasn't really on a date. It was kind of
Speaker 1: for like, you know, burger and a coke, But it
Speaker 1: was in the eighth grade and we were at a
Speaker 1: dance and I asked her if she if she would
Speaker 1: go out with me, which meant, do you want to
Speaker 1: go meet up after school and get a burger and
Speaker 1: a coke? She said, no, straight up, shot down. That's right,
Speaker 1: Buck got shot down. And you know when someone breaks
Speaker 1: up with you, when someone doesn't take your application for
Speaker 1: that job and decide to give you the offer. These
Speaker 1: all are important experiences because life is a series of
Speaker 1: getting over rejections. Really, because you don't need to be taught.
Speaker 1: No one needs to be taught really how to deal
Speaker 1: with success. I mean people say, oh, I'm so rich
Speaker 1: and it's hard to head. Yeah. I mean, like in
Speaker 1: normal circumstances, you know how to deal with joy, you
Speaker 1: know how to deal with things going the way you
Speaker 1: want them too. But the better you can get at rejected.
Speaker 1: I remember I got rejected my first day of high school.
Speaker 1: I tried to sit at a table with and I
Speaker 1: remember thinking like, well, like I've seen enough after school specials,
Speaker 1: Like it's our first day, it's his first day, it's
Speaker 1: my first day. He must want to have company, So
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go sit next to him. Guess what I said?
Speaker 1: Can I sit here? He was all by himself, this
Speaker 1: big kid who later on we did become friends. He
Speaker 1: said no, you're not allowed to sit there. You're not
Speaker 1: welcome to sit there. First day of high school, I
Speaker 1: had no friends in my class. I didn't know anybody,
Speaker 1: and the first person that I asked to sit with
Speaker 1: at lunch told me no. So get rejected, Get out there.
Speaker 1: Whatever it is that you're doing. Don't be a friend,
Speaker 1: you don't try to be rejected, but never shy away
Speaker 1: from it. Don't be afraid of it. And understand that
Speaker 1: every person that you know who is at the top
Speaker 1: of his or her field, who lead the kind of
Speaker 1: life that you would want to emulate, has dealt with
Speaker 1: massive amounts over their lifetime, all added up together of
Speaker 1: rejection and all of its different varieties. So you view
Speaker 1: it like the soreness you get from working out, or
Speaker 1: you know, view it like the fatigue you feel after
Speaker 1: you've run ten miles. Yeah, your body's breaking down. Your
Speaker 1: body doesn't really like that, but it gets stronger. And
Speaker 1: that's one of the most important things. I also see
Speaker 1: for young people in the everybody gets a trophy generation,
Speaker 1: which are millennials, not the graybeard millennials like me, we're hardcore,
Speaker 1: but the younger millennials. They all think that success is
Speaker 1: measured by never failing. If you've never failed, you're not
Speaker 1: trying hard enough. If you've never failed, you're not taking
Speaker 1: enough risks. And evolutionary biology aside, you can learn to
Speaker 1: deal with rejection of all kinds as long as you
Speaker 1: know that you've approached your task with honor and with dignity.
Speaker 1: So I'm a fan of rejection. And that's really what
Speaker 1: I want to tell you. I think you have to
Speaker 1: just look at in the eye and say, you know,
Speaker 1: the check is in the mail. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: I have some very important breaking news to share with
Speaker 1: all of you, but I want to pose it as
Speaker 1: a question to my colleagues here. Uh, Brandon, we'll start
Speaker 1: with you. Although it's producer Mike around or is he?
Speaker 1: Is he socializing? Look at him? Look at him? It's
Speaker 1: not producer Mike Socilaur after all, buddy, Um it is.
Speaker 1: But yeah, yeah, that's true. I mean, you know you
Speaker 1: can manage the show well. Plus I'm just a little
Speaker 1: bitter that everyone listening to the show apparently calls it
Speaker 1: just to talk to you now, because you know everyone
Speaker 1: wants to hang out with Mike. I had the best jot, man,
Speaker 1: I sit here, I'm drinking a smoothie and I get
Speaker 1: to listen to you, and you know, it is an
Speaker 1: amazing It is an amazing gig. I would have to agree.
Speaker 1: So let's let's just let's just get this question out
Speaker 1: of the way. M Brandon, start with you. What is
Speaker 1: the according to the American Kennel Club. It's very important stuff.
Speaker 1: What is the most popular dog breed, not including mixed breeds,
Speaker 1: dog breed of twenty eighteen, uh, Golden retriever, anything like that.
Speaker 1: Very good guests, all right, but not corect What about you, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: I have a dog. I mean, your dog knows one
Speaker 1: of these designer fru fru fancy dogs. I know Cash
Speaker 1: is gonna bite me for saying that, but yeah, you
Speaker 1: don't play hill bark at you though. There you go.
Speaker 1: I would say I would have gone gold. I would,
Speaker 1: let's say, with Brandon said, but since he did it,
Speaker 1: I'll go you got It's very close. No, no, that's
Speaker 1: that's not a bad one. For the twenty eighth year
Speaker 1: in a row, it is the Labrador Retriever. Labs are
Speaker 1: the most popular pure bread dog in the country for
Speaker 1: almost almost three decades. Going now, the other top ten breeds.
Speaker 1: We're pretty much the same, and I'm trying to see
Speaker 1: what we have here. They say that the German shorthaired
Speaker 1: pointer rate was went up. I didn't know what a
Speaker 1: German shorthaired pointer is. Just feel like it's very bossy,
Speaker 1: like I'm German and I'm pointing. And the Yorkshire Terrier
Speaker 1: out of the top ten that or switch ranks with
Speaker 1: a German shorthaired But you know the other ones were
Speaker 1: the German shepherd. This is a top ten dogs by
Speaker 1: popularity in America, the German Shepherd, Golden retriever, French bulldog,
Speaker 1: Standard bulldog, Beagle Poodle, Rottweiler, German shorthaired pointer, and Yorkshire Terrier.
Speaker 1: And that's based on the registration of a million dogs
Speaker 1: and litters each year. Uh. That's look, that's a really
Speaker 1: solid list. By the way, those a lot of my
Speaker 1: favorite dogs are on that list, you guys said. Golden Retriever.
Speaker 1: By the way, that's the number three. So you guys
Speaker 1: are right right in the in the in the hunt
Speaker 1: there French bulldogs. That's what my parents has. I want
Speaker 1: a standard bulldog really badly. But I gotta tell you guys,
Speaker 1: something got a funny you know. My, My, My, wonderful
Speaker 1: co host on Rising has gotten a Bernice Mountain dog,
Speaker 1: which I don't know if you're familiar with that, but
Speaker 1: it is a it is a like a horse, if
Speaker 1: it is a they're very big. I think they're they're
Speaker 1: classific as giant dogs. I mean they're the size of
Speaker 1: like a Great Dane or and it's only a puppy
Speaker 1: that's about seven or eight months old. I think at
Speaker 1: this point I was six or seven months old. But
Speaker 1: Crystal has three kids who are you know, two years old,
Speaker 1: five years old, and ten years old. There so something
Speaker 1: along those lines. And you know, they've got this sweet
Speaker 1: and Bernie's mound dogs are beautiful dogs. I mean they
Speaker 1: look like something out of a story book. They're so cute.
Speaker 1: They're you know, they look like something out of you know,
Speaker 1: Alice in Wonderland or Peter Pan, although I know Peter
Speaker 1: Pan's actually a Saint Bernard, but same idea. They're kind
Speaker 1: of Saint Bernard like. But this dog, it's trying to
Speaker 1: be sweet. It runs around and it just lays the
Speaker 1: kid out of the kids out apparently all the time
Speaker 1: because it jumps up with its big paws and knocks
Speaker 1: them down. And this is where I get into the fierce,
Speaker 1: the fierce debate with some of my fellow dog lovers
Speaker 1: out there who are just like a small dogs not
Speaker 1: a real dog. I'm like, I'm sorry, a dog is
Speaker 1: a dog. They're all canines, and it's a lot for
Speaker 1: a lot of like how big is your dog, Mike?
Speaker 1: What is it? Ten pounds? Fifteen pounds? Yeah, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: exactly right in between there, you know. I mean, if
Speaker 1: your dog gets a little gets a little lippy with you,
Speaker 1: you know, if it gets a little uh, you know,
Speaker 1: if his attitude needs improve it, you can just pick
Speaker 1: him up exactly. You know, my older brother has an
Speaker 1: adorable dog that he rescued, so no one's allowed to
Speaker 1: standing bad about rescue dogs because they rescued it from
Speaker 1: like an alleyway in Texas. But it's a Pomeranian and
Speaker 1: he wears a little diaper around the house. That's hilarious.
Speaker 1: I actually saw it a pet story recently. I didn't
Speaker 1: know that existed. Yeah, people now, people now. It's it's
Speaker 1: increasingly common for the smaller dogs that you know, you
Speaker 1: still need to walk them, and they still need that,
Speaker 1: but you know, just in case they walk around a
Speaker 1: little little, a little dipeyon and they go. And I
Speaker 1: know so many people listening to show are like, I
Speaker 1: have a Rhodesian ridge back and a German shepherd, and
Speaker 1: you know they would never look. I love big dogs too, don't.
Speaker 1: I love all dogs except maybe poodles. I just I can't,
Speaker 1: I know, And and the poodle owners out there get
Speaker 1: so mad at me, but I just something about them.
Speaker 1: I feel like they're judging me. But when you get
Speaker 1: a smaller dog, it's easier. I mean, Mike, you probably
Speaker 1: take yours on the subway with you. Do you get
Speaker 1: one of those little carrying cases for it. I have
Speaker 1: a bag just so I can sneak him into my
Speaker 1: office here. So yeah, hopefully nobody's listening, but that you're
Speaker 1: totally right. It's way easier to carry out, especially when
Speaker 1: you live in a big city. I take him pretty
Speaker 1: try to take him everywhere I go, and it's just, yeah,
Speaker 1: it's way easier. That's where my dream dog is an
Speaker 1: English bulldog, because just big enough the week and wrestle
Speaker 1: a little bit, yeah, but but but slow enough and
Speaker 1: fat enough that like me, he's just gonna want to
Speaker 1: chill out on the couch and not move and you
Speaker 1: know we're just gonna be bud. So yeah, that's my plan.
Speaker 1: That's my struggle right now is getting like a dog
Speaker 1: to be as lazy as me. The struggle is real,
Speaker 1: my man. Speaking of the struggle, you guys know what
Speaker 1: time it is next roll call time. It's coming up. Well, team,
Speaker 1: we've got a busy couple of weeks in the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hut planned. Next week I will be down in El Paso, Texas,
Speaker 1: visiting with members of Border Patrol and also Immigrations and
Speaker 1: Customs Enforcement. We'll be getting together some interviews, bringing you
Speaker 1: ground truth about what's really happening down there. And this
Speaker 1: will be right before the numbers of inadmissible crossings or
Speaker 1: at least for the month, and they were projected last
Speaker 1: month for this month to break one hundred thousand, which
Speaker 1: would put us on pace for a million for the
Speaker 1: year if that continued, which would put us at an
Speaker 1: all time in all time record territory for inadmissible and
Speaker 1: illegal crossings at our southern border. So I think it's
Speaker 1: important to get down there and really see and speak
Speaker 1: the folks on the front lines. That'll be next Thursday
Speaker 1: and Friday. We'll be doing the show from El Paso
Speaker 1: next Thursday Friday, I might because of travel timing, I
Speaker 1: might have to have a sub, but as you know,
Speaker 1: if we have a sub, it'll be a fantastic one.
Speaker 1: And then for the following Monday Tuesday, I will be
Speaker 1: on in Savannah, and I also am thinking I will
Speaker 1: probably be down in Richmond, Virginia soon as well. So
Speaker 1: I've got all all kinds of things going on, which
Speaker 1: doesn't affect the show. I just like to tell you
Speaker 1: that I'm traveling around places, so you don't think that
Speaker 1: I'm just stuck here in the swamp and not getting
Speaker 1: to live life a little bit more. And with that
Speaker 1: it is time for our role call. Emily writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I heard you mentioned the other day that we should
Speaker 1: give Twitter a try. Although I am technically a millennial,
Speaker 1: this was a form of social media I just preferred
Speaker 1: not to deal with. However, I signed up today. I
Speaker 1: was blown away by the list of suggested people to follow.
Speaker 1: It was basically a list of left wing politicians. Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton was the third suggestion. The President wasn't even on
Speaker 1: the list. The amazing thing is that when I selected
Speaker 1: my interests, I did not even include politics. It was
Speaker 1: supposed to be and wellness, wow, I even took a
Speaker 1: little video of the computer screen to prove their complete bias. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I love your show and I appreciate you keeping it
Speaker 1: real for those of paying attention. Not all millennials need
Speaker 1: help tying their shoes shields high. Emily. Well, thank you
Speaker 1: so much, Emily, and I appreciate that you are willing
Speaker 1: to give Twitter a shot because I said, it's an
Speaker 1: important medium these days. So yeah, I'm not surprised at
Speaker 1: all that you have a lot of left wing suggestions
Speaker 1: that pop up right away in your feet. That's more
Speaker 1: or less what I would what I would expect in
Speaker 1: those kinds of circumstances because Twitter is a left leaning medium.
Speaker 1: It just is. The people who run it are leftists,
Speaker 1: the people who overwhelmingly use it are often leftists. I mean,
Speaker 1: the left has made a very deep burrow into the
Speaker 1: heart of the Twitter accracy. Martin Rights. Muller was supposed
Speaker 1: to find Russian collusion and found nothing with Trump. It
Speaker 1: looks like there was plenty of evidence of Russian collusion
Speaker 1: with Hillary and the DNC that was ignored and later
Speaker 1: covered up by Mueller. Isn't that considered obstruction by a
Speaker 1: bad cop. Well, Martin, I certainly agree with you that
Speaker 1: Mueller didn't find Russian collusion. As to whether we will
Speaker 1: hear anything about the obstruction that was, well no, I mean,
Speaker 1: you're essentially saying that the Russia collusion with Hillary and
Speaker 1: the DNC was ignored and covered up by Mueller. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think we have a legal case really to
Speaker 1: make there because it falls in the very broad area
Speaker 1: of the discretion of the bureaucrats involved. So if they're
Speaker 1: allowed to do something, you know, keep in mind, whatever
Speaker 1: a cop stops you, the cop can basically say, oh,
Speaker 1: you were going one hundred and twenty miles an hour,
Speaker 1: you know what, you look like you're having a rough day,
Speaker 1: so I'm not I'm not gonna give you a ticket
Speaker 1: or arrescue. The police generally can't be disciplined for that,
Speaker 1: at least as far as I know. I know that
Speaker 1: they have a lot of discretion, and I know for
Speaker 1: a fact that prosecutors can say, you know what, we're
Speaker 1: just not going to bring this case. We're not going
Speaker 1: to bring these charges. And even if it's really unjust
Speaker 1: for them to not bring charges, there really isn't any
Speaker 1: disciplinary mechanism in place that would come back to bite them.
Speaker 1: But thanks for writing in, Martin Keith Rights and he
Speaker 1: sent me a photo of a whole bunch of cats
Speaker 1: and it's a cat nip den. Huh. Interesting. I'm pretty
Speaker 1: sure I was listening to the Joe Rogan Show with
Speaker 1: Alex Jones, which was a very I rarely have the
Speaker 1: time to listen to anyone else's shows these days, but
Speaker 1: that one I had to check it out, and I'm
Speaker 1: sure I think there was a discussion about like cat ladies,
Speaker 1: old ladies and like you know, diseases of the brain
Speaker 1: from the cats, and they really got into it. So
Speaker 1: that's the thing that happened. Valerie right, still trying to
Speaker 1: catch up on the podcast. On Monday, Richard made a
Speaker 1: comment on what is well read? Why not start a
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt book club? Each month you would suggest a
Speaker 1: different book. You could have a history, fiction, economics, and
Speaker 1: world affairs rotation. Well, Valorie, know, I like to think
Speaker 1: that this radio show in a sense is a book club,
Speaker 1: because it's a I constantly I'm telling you about books
Speaker 1: that either I have read or want to read, that
Speaker 1: have been highly recommended to me. Acagea I'll tell you
Speaker 1: about a book that that stinks. You know, I'm reading
Speaker 1: this Lost City of the Monkey God right now. I've
Speaker 1: got a few books in rotation, but I'm reading The
Speaker 1: Lost City of the Monkey God, and it's I just
Speaker 1: can't get that excited about archaeology. I don't know some
Speaker 1: people really, you know, when you don't have Indiana Jones
Speaker 1: and a bull whip and you know, gunfights and fistfights
Speaker 1: on top of trains and stuff, a lot of archaeology
Speaker 1: is oh, this very important, this this stunning discovery of
Speaker 1: the large earth mound? What was it used for burial
Speaker 1: or other ceremonial purposes five hundred years ago. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying it's not interesting at all. I'm obviously reading the book,
Speaker 1: but you know, I'm not loving it. I'm not loving it.
Speaker 1: And there's a little too much of the guy who
Speaker 1: writes the book, like there's so many dangerous snakes everywhere.
Speaker 1: I'm like, look, dude, as long as you're not getting
Speaker 1: kowala lamidia, you know you're gonna be okay. All right,
Speaker 1: you can handle the fair delance, which is a form
Speaker 1: of a type of pit viper. That's right, Kowala lamidia.
Speaker 1: You got to be careful, folks. It's out there from
Speaker 1: their puddles of little kawala urine. So it's an important
Speaker 1: safety tip for those of you wandering down to Australia sometime.
Speaker 1: Let's see. But if you're looking for a great book recommendation,
Speaker 1: you know, I recently read Endurance about the Shackleton Voyage,
Speaker 1: and I had I knew this story is one of
Speaker 1: these things where I knew the story really well. But man,
Speaker 1: that book is incredible and I recommended it through my dad.
Speaker 1: My dad loved it, So I really really recommend if
Speaker 1: you're looking for something that's just going to be a
Speaker 1: kind of a fun read that's timeless Ernest Shackleton's Voyage
Speaker 1: and the title of the the book is Endurance. I forget
Speaker 1: the author's name, but it's a great it's a great,
Speaker 1: fun and historically accurate read. Tommy. Tommy writes, Buck, take
Speaker 1: a look at that and tell me that media hype
Speaker 1: isn't driving something that will ultimately be a problem for
Speaker 1: a lot of children. He's writing me about transgender activists
Speaker 1: talking to kids. Yeah, I mean, I think this is
Speaker 1: brainwashing for our kids. I think it's really bad. I'm
Speaker 1: very concerned about it. I wish the left would stop
Speaker 1: being so crazy when it comes to I mean, it's
Speaker 1: one thing to promote transgenderism in different ways for adults,
Speaker 1: it's another thing to promote transgenderism to little kids. No
Speaker 1: one out there, there is not a single medical professional
Speaker 1: who can really tell you what the long term effects
Speaker 1: of gender transition hormones for a teenager would be because
Speaker 1: it's such a new practice, so it's not actually really
Speaker 1: feasible for anyone to say, well, in twenty years, you'll
Speaker 1: actually be happy you did this, or you won't have
Speaker 1: a whole slew of severe health risks. And they have
Speaker 1: no idea. They're politicizing not just science, but in this case,
Speaker 1: they're politicizing medicine, which is always really damaging, and it's
Speaker 1: upsetic because people are going to suffer terrible consequences as
Speaker 1: a result of it. Key and little kids may be
Speaker 1: suffering consequences too, Keith writes, the standard Belt color system
Speaker 1: for martial arts is white, yellow, gold, orange, green, blue, purple, brown, red,
Speaker 1: and black. Wow, that's a lot of Belts music. At
Speaker 1: the beginning of the show, I believe you've heard to
Speaker 1: it as dubstep. I searched for thirty minutes and found
Speaker 1: a different found a bunch of different versions. Can you
Speaker 1: give me the infront the version you played. I assume
Speaker 1: it's a dubstep style and has been been performed by
Speaker 1: many artists. Thanks in advance, Keith, Keith. The music that
Speaker 1: we play is licensed music because we don't we don't
Speaker 1: want to pay for you know, it would be fun,
Speaker 1: like if if I could just pick a song that
Speaker 1: we would start out this show with. I don't know,
Speaker 1: it might be, you know, in Living Color, Cult of
Speaker 1: Personality or something. I mean that guitar riff something like that.
Speaker 1: That would be fun, but but that would cost I
Speaker 1: don't know, it would cost the show half a million,
Speaker 1: a million dollars something like that. So instead we have
Speaker 1: license music, which can be good. It can be good,
Speaker 1: but it's produced by these companies that make license. So
Speaker 1: the answer is, my friend, you've got to just go
Speaker 1: to if you get a music licensing access, then you
Speaker 1: can find things like that, but it's not a real
Speaker 1: song that you can download or buy off of if
Speaker 1: it but I like it too, it's actually good dubsteps.
Speaker 1: I'm glad you agree with me. You're huh. Rights Buck
Speaker 1: County is one more that agrees with you regarding athletic scholarships.
Speaker 1: Colleges for academics and sports should be an activity for
Speaker 1: a break from studies. Have the teams, but the players
Speaker 1: should come from the student body that is there to
Speaker 1: get an education. Let football start a minor league like
Speaker 1: baseball and recruit those out of high school that don't
Speaker 1: want to sit in classrooms anymore. Johan, I totally agree.
Speaker 1: I also think you look at athletic careers for people
Speaker 1: that really are going to go pro, and a lot
Speaker 1: of them would be well served to go pro and
Speaker 1: either do part time school off off season or to
Speaker 1: go to school full time. And you know there are
Speaker 1: late twenties, early thirties, there's it's just we need to
Speaker 1: rethink this paradigm that the NC Double A is effectively
Speaker 1: a giant minor league sports franchise that uses college campuses
Speaker 1: as its incubators. It's just not It's just not the
Speaker 1: way that it should be. And I know people get
Speaker 1: very angry at me on this one, but I'm also right.
Speaker 1: So it's fun to be right because I'm right. Team.
Speaker 1: Honor and privilege to have had you with me here
Speaker 1: in the Hut. Thank you so much for listening, Beware
Speaker 1: of angry koalas, and till tomorrow she'll tie