Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. It is a Monday,
Speaker 1: the twenty ninth of April two thousand and nineteen. My
Speaker 1: name is Raheem Kasam. I'm the global editor in chief
Speaker 1: of human Events dot com. Some of you will remember
Speaker 1: Human Events from being Ronald Reagan's President, Reagan's favorite magazine,
Speaker 1: where we're bringing that website back to life this week
Speaker 1: after a long time on the sidelines. We'll be talking
Speaker 1: to you a little bit about that more later on
Speaker 1: in the show, but I wanted to start off by
Speaker 1: talking about something that I found particularly egregious over the
Speaker 1: past couple of days. And it's really it's ugly head
Speaker 1: once again. And I feel like a lot of people
Speaker 1: aren't paying enough attention to this, but the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: in the United States at the moment, alongside the left
Speaker 1: leaning media, I think, is becoming increasingly and overtly anti Semitic.
Speaker 1: The level of jew hate tread out there on the
Speaker 1: political left, ladies and gentlemen is not just becoming commonplace
Speaker 1: now but actually rather routine and expected of left wing
Speaker 1: politicians and left wing news outlets. There was a cartoon
Speaker 1: you'll remember in the New York Times, in the international
Speaker 1: version of the New York Times this weekend. At least,
Speaker 1: I hope you remember. Everybody should have seen this. Everybody
Speaker 1: should have been paying attention to this this weekend. It
Speaker 1: was an absolutely ghastly cartoon that depicted a blind President
Speaker 1: Trump with a yamaker on a kippah, being led with
Speaker 1: a with a taut leash by his German dashon seeing
Speaker 1: eye dog that resembled Benjamin Nett and Yahoo, the Israeli
Speaker 1: Prime Minister, and in the cartoon, Benjamin Nett and Yahoo
Speaker 1: had a star of David on his dog collar. Now,
Speaker 1: if you're trying to make an assertion that the Israeli
Speaker 1: Prime minister is leading the US president, you could do
Speaker 1: it without or that's Jewish symbolism. You could do it
Speaker 1: without the German dog. You could do it without the
Speaker 1: kipper on Donald Trump's head. But no, they chose, The
Speaker 1: New York Times chose intentionally to lead with with Jewish
Speaker 1: symbolism that would be would be probably well placed in
Speaker 1: the Nazi era newspaper Dishturma. Right, That's that's where that
Speaker 1: sort of offensive symbology historically can be seen. And you
Speaker 1: see it often as well still, and I think a
Speaker 1: lot of people have to pay very close attention to
Speaker 1: this as well. You see it on the sort of
Speaker 1: neo Nazi side of the of the political debate in
Speaker 1: both the United States and indeed in Europe. And you'll
Speaker 1: notice I don't say the extreme right or the far right,
Speaker 1: because I don't believe that Nazis have anything to do
Speaker 1: with the political right. I don't. I think perhaps they
Speaker 1: seek to latch on to us, onto people like me
Speaker 1: who are right wing, but but they have nothing to
Speaker 1: do with us, almost nothing in common. They tend to
Speaker 1: be very socialistic in their economic policies, very totalitarian, and
Speaker 1: a very unlibertarian in their in their social policies. It
Speaker 1: disturbs me deeply because not only did the New York
Speaker 1: Times lead with this cartoon this weekend, they've done it
Speaker 1: again today. There is another cartoon in the New York
Speaker 1: Times International today depicting a selfie stick wielding Benjamin Nett
Speaker 1: in Yahoo with a tablet in his hand as if
Speaker 1: he's coming down from Mount Sinai with a star of
Speaker 1: David on it. Again, and these things are often not contextualized.
Speaker 1: The one that you saw this weekend actually showed something
Speaker 1: that was not related to the article that was underneath
Speaker 1: the cartoon. It was just an offensive cartoon for the
Speaker 1: sake of having an offensive cartoon. It was just due
Speaker 1: hatred for the sake of due hatred. And why am
Speaker 1: I talking about this? Why does a cartoon in the
Speaker 1: New York Times matter on a Monday evening when so
Speaker 1: much else is going on a new cycle? Because I
Speaker 1: tell you what, ladies and gentlemen, the accusations of bigotry
Speaker 1: and racism and xenophobia and all those sorts of things
Speaker 1: have been levied at the political right for so long,
Speaker 1: and I have said for so long, and those of
Speaker 1: you who have listened to me before on this show,
Speaker 1: who've seen my writing before, and who've listened to Buck
Speaker 1: on this show before, you know you will know that
Speaker 1: we don't just outright reject those things. We have said
Speaker 1: time and time again. The left is projecting. It's projecting
Speaker 1: its own disturbing identity politics. It's projecting its own disturbing
Speaker 1: hatred for significant groups in the United States and indeed
Speaker 1: all across Europe and the wider world as well. They
Speaker 1: project what they think onto us and shout bigger, bigger, biggot.
Speaker 1: They are the biggots. Ladies and gentlemen. They've proved it,
Speaker 1: not just once. This weekend. When The New York Times
Speaker 1: didn't apologize, they said, they said they what was it? Regret?
Speaker 1: We expressed regret. It was so sorry. They said it
Speaker 1: found its way in somehow it didn't meet our editorial standards.
Speaker 1: Don't know how it happened, won't happen again. It happened
Speaker 1: again today, happened again two days later. What I'm saying
Speaker 1: to you is this level of political discourse is now
Speaker 1: institutionalized on the political left. And you'll probably notice I
Speaker 1: don't speak with an American accent. I'm from the United Kingdom,
Speaker 1: and in the United Kingdom, the leader of the Opposition
Speaker 1: Party is a chap called Jeremy Corbyn. Now, Jeremy Corbyn
Speaker 1: is an old school Marxist. I mean he is of
Speaker 1: the hard left. He makes Bernie Sanders look like Ron Paul.
Speaker 1: He makes Bernie Sanders looked like a right wing libertarian.
Speaker 1: Jeremy Corbyn has been known to march alongside Hezbollah supporters
Speaker 1: in Trafalgar Square and in Parliament Square on the annual
Speaker 1: Al Kood's Day march. Jeremy Corbyn invited to tea in
Speaker 1: the House of Commons, members of the Irish Republican Army,
Speaker 1: the terrorist faction the IRA, just a few weeks after
Speaker 1: they tried to bomb the British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher
Speaker 1: and half of the cabinet at the Conservative Party conference
Speaker 1: back in the eighties. Jeremy Corbyn has had lunch with
Speaker 1: leaders of Hamas. Jeremy Corbyn has spun for Iranian state
Speaker 1: Television Press TV, and that level of Marxism that has
Speaker 1: at its core, at its core anti Semitism as a
Speaker 1: part and parcel of it, has now found its way
Speaker 1: over to the United States. And I've been warning about
Speaker 1: this for years. We've seen it happen to our politics
Speaker 1: in the United Kingdom, the left pulling further and further
Speaker 1: to left, and they get away with it because media
Speaker 1: outlets not only do not hold them to account, but
Speaker 1: they give them succor and support. Who remember when elan Omar,
Speaker 1: this new congresswoman, was accused of antisemitism, rightfully so, just
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago, almost all of the Democrat
Speaker 1: establishment and everyone in the mainstream media rode to her
Speaker 1: aid they said, no, she's not antisemitic. You're just saying
Speaker 1: that because she's a Muslim, or she's a Somali woman,
Speaker 1: or she's an immigrant, or she's brown. You know, they
Speaker 1: hurled every single thing they could possibly hurl in her
Speaker 1: defense at the people. And they weren't just right wingers,
Speaker 1: by the way. There were still some people on her
Speaker 1: side saying how unacceptable this was. There were still some
Speaker 1: people in the middle saying how unaccept all this was.
Speaker 1: But they hurled at all of us who were objecting
Speaker 1: to her behavior, to Linda Sarsau's behavior, to Lewis Farakhan's behavior,
Speaker 1: to the new political left in the United States behavior.
Speaker 1: They hurled all these things in their defense. And I
Speaker 1: have to tell you, I think that creates an incredibly
Speaker 1: disturbing line of demarcation now, and it's something that we
Speaker 1: have to pay very close attention to because it has
Speaker 1: real world implications. If the political right is supposed to
Speaker 1: own Richard Spencer, if the political right is supposed to
Speaker 1: own Jason Kessler, who is an Obama supporter, by the way,
Speaker 1: who put together that Unite the Right rally in Charlottesville,
Speaker 1: if we have that cross to bear, then the left
Speaker 1: should at least be expected to take action against extremism
Speaker 1: political extremism within their own ranks, and at this point
Speaker 1: in time, ladies and gentlemen, they don't they aren't expected
Speaker 1: to do that. And that is something that I think
Speaker 1: as we are led into the twenty twenty election cycle,
Speaker 1: will become even more prevalent. Remember the Democrat National Convention
Speaker 1: the last time over. On the first day of the
Speaker 1: Democrat National Convention, and by the way, the media matters
Speaker 1: of the world will say, no, no, this is fake news.
Speaker 1: What rahem is about to say, it's not fake news.
Speaker 1: Go and look at it yourself. On the first day
Speaker 1: of the convention, there were more Palestinian flags in that
Speaker 1: convention hall for the DNC than there were American flags.
Speaker 1: Identity politics has gone way to the extreme. The placation
Speaker 1: of the jew hatred that stems from many Middle Eastern
Speaker 1: countries and many North African countries that finds its roots
Speaker 1: in radical or Orthodox Islam is now a mainstay the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party of America. And again it has real world implications.
Speaker 1: The people who are shooting up synagogues out there, the
Speaker 1: people who are burning churches out there, the people who
Speaker 1: are assailing simply because they disagree with somebody's religious perspective.
Speaker 1: They are encouraged by hearing these things from your representatives,
Speaker 1: and they are encouraged by seeing them in your press.
Speaker 1: And that, ladies and gentlemen, is my i suppose opening
Speaker 1: statement for the day. We have a great show for you,
Speaker 1: packed full of great guests. We're going to go really
Speaker 1: around the world today. We're going to talk a little
Speaker 1: bit about what's going on in my home country, the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom. As I'm sure some of you are aware,
Speaker 1: we voted to leave a little thing called the European
Speaker 1: Union a couple of years ago, and it still hasn't happened.
Speaker 1: We've got one of the candidates who are standing for
Speaker 1: an all new part he called the Brexit Party. His
Speaker 1: name is Martin Daubeney. He will be joining us on
Speaker 1: the show. We've got Jason Miller, the former communications director
Speaker 1: for the Trump twenty twenty campaign, will be joining us.
Speaker 1: Jack Persobic of One American News, Terry Schilling the American
Speaker 1: Principles Project, and my business partner, Will Chamberlain, who is
Speaker 1: a great a great lawyer and a great political commentator.
Speaker 1: Some of you may have seen his periscopes and lady
Speaker 1: does on Twitter. He'll be joining us as well, along
Speaker 1: with President Ryan Williams of the Claremont Foundation also, so
Speaker 1: stay tuned. You're not going to want to miss this show.
Speaker 1: Ladies and gentlemen. This is the Buck Sexton Show. I'm
Speaker 1: Raheem Kassam. We'll be right back. Okay, welcome back to
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. My name is Raheem Casalm, the
Speaker 1: global editor in chief of Human Events dot Com. I'm
Speaker 1: very pleased to be joined now by Jason Miller, the
Speaker 1: former senior communications adviser to the Trump campaign and the
Speaker 1: chief spokesman for the Trump's transition team. Jason, thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us. Raheem, thank you so much for having me on.
Speaker 1: I was going to say Buck sounds a little bit
Speaker 1: different today, but I'm kind of digging into action. I
Speaker 1: can only imagine what Buck Sexton doing an impersonation of
Speaker 1: Raheem Gassam would sound like. I'm sure very offensive to everyone. Jason.
Speaker 1: I wanted to ask you. The Trump twenty twenty campaign
Speaker 1: manager Brad Pascal was on the televisions this weekend talking
Speaker 1: about the bigger and better campaign that he foresees for
Speaker 1: next year. Obviously a lot of people are thinking, wow,
Speaker 1: with this Democrat lineup of candidates, it's going to be
Speaker 1: a walk in the park for President Trump, but Brad
Speaker 1: doesn't seem to think so. Brad seems to think, you know,
Speaker 1: they've got to throw everything in the kitchen sink and
Speaker 1: even more at this I wonder if you agree with that,
Speaker 1: and also what you think of his strategy that he
Speaker 1: outlined talking about other sort of states that haven't traditionally
Speaker 1: been in play coming into coming into being battleground states
Speaker 1: next year. So great question. Having been part of President
Speaker 1: Trump's historic twenty sixteen campaign, knowing Brad Parsco and the
Speaker 1: Trump team very well, I think what Brad's doing is
Speaker 1: smart for a couple of reasons. Number one, he's being
Speaker 1: realistic that this is the country is still very divided
Speaker 1: on the partisan basis. And even though President Trump has
Speaker 1: taxes and reduced regulations and fought for better trade deals
Speaker 1: and we're seeing wage growth greater than inflation for the
Speaker 1: first time in a heck of a long time, the
Speaker 1: fact of the matter is is the media is going
Speaker 1: to attack President Trump every single day from now all
Speaker 1: the way up through twenty twenty. So what Brad is
Speaker 1: doing is he's organizing and professionalizing a top shelf campaign
Speaker 1: that's ready to go to battle regardless of whoever the
Speaker 1: Democratic nominee is. There's another important things I think Brad's doing,
Speaker 1: which is recognizing that partisan and demographic shifts in certain
Speaker 1: states are changing the outlook and the prospects for twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: So where you take a look at, say, for example,
Speaker 1: Minnesota in Wisconsin and even Michigan I think will even
Speaker 1: be in better position for President Trump as we go
Speaker 1: into and actually I'd say also Ohio in Florida. I
Speaker 1: think all of those states will be in better position
Speaker 1: for President Trump than they were in twenty sixteen. You
Speaker 1: look at certain states such as Arizona, Texas, North Carolina
Speaker 1: that I think will be a bit tougher going into
Speaker 1: twenty twenty just because of the way folks are moving around.
Speaker 1: And I think it's important that Brad lights that fire
Speaker 1: now and so nobody's asleep at the switch. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: mean in your estimation. Two questions that follow on from
Speaker 1: that in my mind, Number one, what do you make
Speaker 1: of the fundraising capabilities now? Because again I think there
Speaker 1: is a level of complacency out there given the field.
Speaker 1: I mean, what have we got, We've got, We've got
Speaker 1: Pete Butter joke or whatever his name is. We've got
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, We've got Kamala Harris. I mean, Beto is
Speaker 1: just disappeared by the way. Anybody's seen Beto recently or
Speaker 1: I think he had a rally of about twelve people
Speaker 1: the other day or something like that. So there may
Speaker 1: be a level of complacency out there, especially as regards fundraising,
Speaker 1: I think, and I'm concerned a little bit about that.
Speaker 1: And the other question I guess is what do you
Speaker 1: see the campaign issues being. What do you see Brad
Speaker 1: focusing on in terms of policy as we go into
Speaker 1: next year? Another good question here, So with regard to
Speaker 1: the complacency, I completely agree with you on this. Now,
Speaker 1: the good news is is that President Trump is still
Speaker 1: turning out huge crowds and people still show up, and
Speaker 1: I think his base will be energized. But I think
Speaker 1: for so many Trump voters there, I think this is
Speaker 1: part of the reason why we got hit so bad
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen. They feel really good about where things are.
Speaker 1: We're historic lows for unemployment rate, so we're seeing the
Speaker 1: fact that China is actually making moves to come at
Speaker 1: us with a better trade deal. There's a whole long
Speaker 1: way to that actually getting done and being enforced in
Speaker 1: being concrete in finalized here. But the fact of the
Speaker 1: matter is that Trump is winning on so many different
Speaker 1: fronts continue Supreme Court justices that I feel a lot
Speaker 1: of our voters won't just to be honest with I
Speaker 1: think I've gotten really lazy and they think that everything's fine.
Speaker 1: And of course everyone around the country is going to
Speaker 1: recognize the great work that Trump's doing, and so I
Speaker 1: get where I worry about that. I think you're completely
Speaker 1: right there, and that's part of the reason why I
Speaker 1: think it's smart that Parscale is lighting the fire and
Speaker 1: some of these traditional Republican states to get people thinking,
Speaker 1: to get them more, to get them start actually motivated.
Speaker 1: So that's that's smart of him to do. On the
Speaker 1: here is where when we talked about the twenty twenty field,
Speaker 1: and obviously there's news today with Joe Biden doing his
Speaker 1: I guess they call it a rally, but it does
Speaker 1: look like there are many people there in Pittsburgh. I'm
Speaker 1: a bit of a contrarian when it comes to Trump allies.
Speaker 1: I actually think Joe Biden is literally the single best
Speaker 1: nominee that Donald Trump could go up against in the
Speaker 1: general election the best chances of winning. Now, I know
Speaker 1: that might sound a little bit crazy, but hear me
Speaker 1: out for a moment. I think the traditional Washington mindset
Speaker 1: is to look at things in kind of a linear
Speaker 1: ideological construct. Who's the moderate, who's the conservative, who's the liberal?
Speaker 1: Where people? And also in the pure geographic terms. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden was born in Pennsylvania and then spent most of
Speaker 1: his adult life in Delaware and Washington, DC, so he
Speaker 1: might have advantages in different places. I don't look at
Speaker 1: it that at all. I think that what's more important
Speaker 1: here is Jason. Jason, sorry to interrupt you. We're up
Speaker 1: against the break him, but can we can we hold
Speaker 1: you for another quick segments five or ten minutes and
Speaker 1: we'll come back. Okay, we'll be right back. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. We're gonna be back with Jason
Speaker 1: Miller in just a moment. Welcome back to the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is Raheem Kasam guest hosting for Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: And usually when I'm in Bucks Studio, I say I'm
Speaker 1: I'm occupying the Freedom Hut, but I'm not in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hut today. I'm down here in West Palm Beach, Florida,
Speaker 1: causing all sorts of nightmares. Are brilliant producers and engineers
Speaker 1: now all across the East Coast, and I thank them
Speaker 1: for their patients. We are joined back again here by
Speaker 1: Jason Miller, the former spokesman for the Trump Transition Team
Speaker 1: and senior communications of Issa for the Trump twenty sixteen campaign. Jason,
Speaker 1: thanks for holding over before the break. You were talking
Speaker 1: about the targeting that's going on by the Trump twenty
Speaker 1: twenty campaign. You're also talking about why Joe Biden may
Speaker 1: well be the best candidate for Donald Trump to go
Speaker 1: up against. If you wouldn't mind just finishing that thought
Speaker 1: off for me, and then maybe remarking a little bit
Speaker 1: upon what Brad Pascal said this weekend when he said
Speaker 1: the campaign hopes to have one point six million volunteers
Speaker 1: compared to the seven hundred thousand across the country that
Speaker 1: they had in twenty sixteen. Jason actullent well in, thanks
Speaker 1: again for having me. Honraheim Z. The reason why Joe
Speaker 1: Biden will be the perfect opponent for Donald Trump is
Speaker 1: because Donald Trump will be able to point at Joe
Speaker 1: Biden and say, Joe, you have been part of the
Speaker 1: problem in Washington for fifty years. The exact number is
Speaker 1: forty seven, but fifty years. And it's because of career
Speaker 1: politicians like you. Why we're in this mess. We've gotten
Speaker 1: to this problem with illegal immigration, why we've gotten this
Speaker 1: problem on terrible trade deals, while we're at this point
Speaker 1: with ridiculous taxation and spending. If Trump is the change
Speaker 1: agent in the twenty sixteen election, even though he's the incumbent,
Speaker 1: and he's able to make Joe Biden essentially the incumbent
Speaker 1: or the status quo, the old way of doing things,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is going to win the race in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: It gets a bit tougher when you have someone who's
Speaker 1: a blank slate, someone who doesn't have the big record.
Speaker 1: But you literally look at the rally that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: had just this afternoon in Pittsburgh. It's maybe fifty people
Speaker 1: behind him. Whence the last time that Donald Trump had
Speaker 1: an event that didn't have ten thousand people with him.
Speaker 1: There's no energy, known enthusia hasn't for Biden. Many of
Speaker 1: the same problems that Hillary had in twenty sixteen, Biden
Speaker 1: will having twenty twenty. Trump allies who are thinking that
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's the toughest opponent for Trump in the general election.
Speaker 1: Are looking at it through the wrong lens. That's the
Speaker 1: old way of thinking. This is about change versus the
Speaker 1: status quo. Raheem. The other point that you brought up
Speaker 1: about parscial meeting on the volunteers, look, Brad's obviously crunched
Speaker 1: numbers and looked at a lot of these things. But
Speaker 1: ultimately this is going to come down to is President
Speaker 1: Trump and him continuing out there and push his work
Speaker 1: on the immigration issue. We have to do something about
Speaker 1: this crisis at the southern border. We've started on the
Speaker 1: wall construction, but we've got to get a lot more
Speaker 1: done between now and next year. And if President Trump
Speaker 1: is ultimately making good on these campaign promises and continuing
Speaker 1: to keep his base and also independent voters fired up
Speaker 1: and all his side, and he's going to be in
Speaker 1: great shape. But whether it's the one point six million
Speaker 1: volunteers this go around, also, you know whether it's one
Speaker 1: point six or one point four or one point two,
Speaker 1: the most important thing is you have a lot of
Speaker 1: people who don't necessarily get out there in walk neighborhoods
Speaker 1: or who make fant your phone calls. That's great to have,
Speaker 1: but let's not forget that Donald Trump won much of
Speaker 1: the twenty sixteen race with his Twitter account and by
Speaker 1: the fact that he would get up there everyone in
Speaker 1: the debates. And I think that's this skill comes down
Speaker 1: to the most important part of a Trump campaign is
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. We're talking to Jason Miller, the former communications
Speaker 1: advisor for the Trump twenty sixteen campaign and the spokesman
Speaker 1: for the Trump transition team all those years ago. Now, Jason, Jason,
Speaker 1: tell me when you look at these pictures that are
Speaker 1: coming out of Pittsburgh today, this Joe Biden rally. I
Speaker 1: don't know if you have, but I certainly have. I've
Speaker 1: been looking on Twitter for actual pictures of the room
Speaker 1: because they're so tight. The cameras are so tight on
Speaker 1: creepy Joe there that it looks like he could be
Speaker 1: giving a speech to a major venue. It could be
Speaker 1: in a stadium. It sort of looks like a Trump
Speaker 1: rally because they're so tight. It looks like he might have,
Speaker 1: you know, three thousand people behind him in fifteen thousand
Speaker 1: in front of him, and ten thousand to each side.
Speaker 1: But actually, if you zoom out, ladies and gentlemen, if
Speaker 1: you go on Twitter and look at these pictures, and indeed,
Speaker 1: Jason and I will both tweet the pictures out so
Speaker 1: you can see them. Jason, what's your Twitter account at
Speaker 1: Jason Miller in DC. There you go, and we'll show
Speaker 1: you what's going on here, because they've pulled the cameras
Speaker 1: so tight. And this is one of the art forms
Speaker 1: that campaigns use to pretend that they've got bigger support
Speaker 1: than they have. There's probably about one hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: people max in that room, and I would say probably
Speaker 1: about fifty of them in the media and a push
Speaker 1: and a real push if there's something I can't see
Speaker 1: off to the sidelines. There's only two hundred people in
Speaker 1: that room. That room can only fit about two other
Speaker 1: people in there, but a ton of them. A quarter
Speaker 1: of that room is probably media. He's giving a speech
Speaker 1: like he's giving a massive campaign valley. When you see
Speaker 1: what happened to Beato this weekend, Jason, and you see
Speaker 1: what's happening to Biden here not able to draw those crowds.
Speaker 1: What does it portend for twenty twenty for the Democrats. Well,
Speaker 1: this just goes to the point about Biden in the
Speaker 1: lack of enthusiasm and even better, and look, maybe with
Speaker 1: better people got creeped out by the hands and they
Speaker 1: just think he's too goofy now that they've seen him
Speaker 1: once already. But you look at Biden's kick off, and
Speaker 1: they just actually did a slight um if you see
Speaker 1: in there, they did do like one or two pant
Speaker 1: outshots during the during the Biden rally, and you could
Speaker 1: see that there's only about maybe thirty or forty people
Speaker 1: behind him. This just shows that there's no enthusiasm and
Speaker 1: no intensity for these Democratic candidate. I think that's absolutely right.
Speaker 1: Jason Miller, just final thoughts for us before we before
Speaker 1: we let you go, and you're very kind for giving
Speaker 1: us your time today. Tell me just to pivot a
Speaker 1: little bit here. I started the show by talking about
Speaker 1: the the I think what's devastatingly creepy anti semitism that
Speaker 1: you're finding in the New York Times and the political
Speaker 1: left in general right now. Where do you think that's
Speaker 1: coming from and what do you think it says about
Speaker 1: the way that the political left in general is going well.
Speaker 1: I first would want to commend your efforts Raheem to
Speaker 1: call out much of this anti Semitic rhetoric that we've
Speaker 1: seen from the political left and from unfortunately now creeping
Speaker 1: into the news media. I mean, there was a I
Speaker 1: want to read a tweet from Andrew gillom who lost
Speaker 1: the race for governor in Florida, and this was from
Speaker 1: earlier today. Donald Trump Junior had tweeted something and he
Speaker 1: was from a sizing the media on something. And Andrew
Speaker 1: Gillham replied, Junior, seeking approval from Daddy with hate and
Speaker 1: lies after a white nationalist shooting is very on brand.
Speaker 1: Be your own man, Junior. And I was so disgusted
Speaker 1: and a repulse by that someone on the professional left
Speaker 1: would do this. I replied back to him and basically said,
Speaker 1: it was disgusting that he played blame game politics with
Speaker 1: a horrific tragedy like the shooting that we just saw.
Speaker 1: But this is where the political left, as you look
Speaker 1: at Alan Omar with her consistent anti Semitic rhetoric that
Speaker 1: I think it just goes is just absolutely disgusting. But
Speaker 1: the fact that we saw this New York Times cartoon,
Speaker 1: probably the most blatant anti semitic cartoon that I have
Speaker 1: seen in a publication in my professional life. I mean,
Speaker 1: this just goes to show how how out of touch
Speaker 1: with reality many in the media and the professional Democratic
Speaker 1: left is right now. It's just it's completely bonkers. And
Speaker 1: I hope that Jewish voters in the US are starting
Speaker 1: to catch on this and a lot more of them
Speaker 1: come on to President Trump's side going into twenty twenty,
Speaker 1: especially for all the work he's done for Jewish Americans
Speaker 1: and for the state of Israel. But I'm just disgusted
Speaker 1: by what I'm seeing in the media right now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: me too. Jason Miller, once again, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us, give it, give yourself a plug once again.
Speaker 1: Where can people will find you? Read? You? Follow your
Speaker 1: social media absolutely so. The Twitter handle is at Jason
Speaker 1: Miller in DC, and I always have some interesting commentary
Speaker 1: that is out there, So I love thanks, tune in
Speaker 1: to pay attention and raheem actual work filling in for
Speaker 1: Buck today. Thanks so much once again, Jason Miller. There,
Speaker 1: ladies and gentlemen, And I think the prevailing consensus really
Speaker 1: is the Democrat Party is moving in a very very
Speaker 1: well I often say dangerous, but I think it's dark
Speaker 1: and dangerous as well, because some of the things that
Speaker 1: you hear coming out. I mean, like Andrew gillam Is,
Speaker 1: as Jason Miller said just a moment ago, Heckeling, the
Speaker 1: President's son, who has been fantastic in calling out anti semitism,
Speaker 1: tech censorship, been touring the country, you know, really making
Speaker 1: people feel like they are once again and should be
Speaker 1: a governing part of the nation. That's what, in my estimation,
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign did, and that's how I think the
Speaker 1: Trump administration has governed. So you know, when you look
Speaker 1: at what I now call the corbinization again, remember Jeremy
Speaker 1: Corbyn being the leader of the Labor Party in the UK,
Speaker 1: the corbinization of the Democratic Party of America, I just
Speaker 1: wondered to myself, especially when you look at Jewish groups
Speaker 1: in this country. And I speak again from having seen
Speaker 1: it happen in the UK, where so many people in
Speaker 1: the British jury took a step back from supporting the
Speaker 1: Labor Party and actually started to routinely and rightly criticize
Speaker 1: Jeremy Corbyn and the Labor Party for the things that
Speaker 1: it was doing and the people that it was placing
Speaker 1: in positions of power. I think that's going to happen
Speaker 1: here in the US, as well, and I just can't
Speaker 1: see why any practicing Jewish person who has voted Democrat
Speaker 1: all their lives would want to walk into that polling
Speaker 1: station next year and put a mark by the box
Speaker 1: of the party that is promoting people like Eli and Omar.
Speaker 1: Maybe I'm wrong, Maybe maybe you know you're out there
Speaker 1: and you're a Jewish person and you feel like I'm
Speaker 1: saying something incorrect. Why don't you tweet at me? At
Speaker 1: Raheem Kasam, it's r H E E M K A
Speaker 1: S s am. I'm always willing to have the political
Speaker 1: debates and discussions. That's what this country is. That's what
Speaker 1: one of these things, one of the things this country
Speaker 1: is so great for, not like back home, let's say
Speaker 1: in the UK now, where political discourse is significantly throttled,
Speaker 1: where the hammer of the hate speech, what is it,
Speaker 1: the hate speech monitors comes crashing down routinely. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton show. I'm Raheem Kassam, don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1: We're going to be right back. This is an epidemic,
Speaker 1: and we have a president who will not only will
Speaker 1: not acknowledge that we have an epidemic of white nationalists
Speaker 1: terror after New Zealand for just a few people. He's
Speaker 1: providing the mood music for it. That is the reality
Speaker 1: we face. Yeah, I think the President needs to at
Speaker 1: some point look in the mirror and you understand that
Speaker 1: the rhetoric, the words he uses in all of this inflame.
Speaker 1: This about big part of what's going on in America.
Speaker 1: Give permission to the most craziest people in America. And
Speaker 1: it happens in part because there is a climate set
Speaker 1: at the top of unbelievable constant lise and hostility and
Speaker 1: division in this country. The conspiracy theory is cited by
Speaker 1: these neo Nazis in Pittsburgh and New Zealand and now
Speaker 1: outside San Diego. Conspiracy theory Trump never condemned and actually
Speaker 1: seemed to support. And we don't know if it has
Speaker 1: any connection to the politics that's going on, but I mean,
Speaker 1: it would be a stretch to say that it doesn't.
Speaker 1: And remember Donald Trump just over the last two couple
Speaker 1: of days have been defending what he said in Charlottesville,
Speaker 1: and it echoed called back into our memory, right, something
Speaker 1: that just happened not too long ago, what happened in Pittsburgh,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump and all of this hate right as part
Speaker 1: of the environment of the day, and he bears some
Speaker 1: responsibility for the Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: I'm Raheem Kassam broadcasting live out of West Palm Beach today.
Speaker 1: No less, you heard that, right, ladies and gentlemen. You
Speaker 1: heard the media clamoring to blame President Trump for the
Speaker 1: rise in anti Semitism that you're seeing across the country,
Speaker 1: for the rise in political extremism that you're seeing across
Speaker 1: the country. Well, I was raised let me tell you
Speaker 1: something in a Muslim fam so I have no problem
Speaker 1: saying this whatsoever when it comes to things like that,
Speaker 1: when you especially when you look over at Europe, which
Speaker 1: is a harbinger. But what is to come in the
Speaker 1: United States if you are not careful and cautious and
Speaker 1: you don't turf these bums out who are behind this stuff.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you something, A lot of the newfound
Speaker 1: anti Semitism that you're seeing in Europe now is not
Speaker 1: coming from neo Nazis and white supremacists. There is that
Speaker 1: it does exist, but a lot of it is coming
Speaker 1: from Europe's new Muslim communities who, especially those who have
Speaker 1: particularly fundamentalist outlooks, especially those who have particularly fundamentalist overviews
Speaker 1: of the Middle East and the Middle East peace process
Speaker 1: and the Israeli Palestinian issue a lot of it, and
Speaker 1: go away and look at it for yourselves. Don't trust me,
Speaker 1: or trust me, but verify me. Okay, go and look
Speaker 1: at it. You're looking at people on mass of Jewish
Speaker 1: extraction moving out of France, people that I read a
Speaker 1: story the other day in Germany Jewish community leaders saying
Speaker 1: there's no future for Judaism in Germany and they're moving out,
Speaker 1: and they're moving to safer places, safer places like the
Speaker 1: United States, or safer places like Israel, because they simply
Speaker 1: don't trust that the migrant explosion that Europe has faced
Speaker 1: over the last couple of years, especially but over the
Speaker 1: last decade, but really since twenty fifteen, when Chancellor Angelo Merkel,
Speaker 1: remember when the migrant crisis was raging, said come one,
Speaker 1: come all, we can take everybody. They're now seeing a rise,
Speaker 1: distinct rise in anti Semitism. They are now seeing more
Speaker 1: and more synagogues being attacked. We're seeing more and more
Speaker 1: churches being attacked and burned, attacks on priests, attacks on
Speaker 1: Christians all across Europe. At the moment, and believe you me,
Speaker 1: that is what the Democrat Party is inviting here. So
Speaker 1: when I hear there's media talking heads waxing lyrical about
Speaker 1: how President Trump is somehow to blame, you know, this
Speaker 1: is probably one of the most Jewish friendly presidents this
Speaker 1: country's ever seen. His family members are Jewish. He recognized
Speaker 1: the Gallan Heights as Israeli territory, and whatever you think
Speaker 1: of that from a geopolitical perspective, I happen to believe
Speaker 1: it's the right thing to do. But for whatever happens
Speaker 1: from a geopolitical perspective, in your mind, you have to
Speaker 1: admit that that the moving of the embassy from Tel
Speaker 1: Aviv to Jerusalem, and don't forget that wasn't an outrageous
Speaker 1: thing for him to be offering. That was something that
Speaker 1: every president over the last couple of decades has offered.
Speaker 1: The difference being that President Trump actually did it. And
Speaker 1: the New York Times and the Democrat establishment and their
Speaker 1: anti Semitic foot soldiers, they cannot bear it. That's why
Speaker 1: they attack like this. That's why they hide behind CNN
Speaker 1: and MSNBC and Media Matters and all those other places.
Speaker 1: And I'll say this as well, when David Duke endorsed
Speaker 1: President Trump against President Trump's wishes in twenty sixteen, President
Speaker 1: Trump distanced himself. They'd never heard of the guy, don't
Speaker 1: have anything to do with him. When David Duke comes
Speaker 1: out and endorses elin Omar so she's the most important
Speaker 1: member of Congress, nobody in the media wants to talk
Speaker 1: about it. Nobody in the media wants to discuss why
Speaker 1: that relationship is going on there. This is The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. My name is Rahem Kassam, the global editor
Speaker 1: in chief of Human Events dot Com. We're going to
Speaker 1: be right back with more fantastic guests after this break.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to The Buck Sexton Show. My name is
Speaker 1: Raheem Kassam, Broadcasting out of West Palm Beach, guest hosting
Speaker 1: for Buck Sexton today. Mister Sexton on his travels. We
Speaker 1: had a great first hour with Jason Miller and going
Speaker 1: into the twenty twenty campaign and here in the in
Speaker 1: the United States, I want to take you across to
Speaker 1: another campaign now, one that's taking place in Europe. We've
Speaker 1: got Martin Daubeney on the line. I guess, former journalist
Speaker 1: for the Moment turned a political party candidate for the
Speaker 1: Brexit Party. Martin, thank you for joining us here on
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Huge fan. Oh well, the same
Speaker 1: applies Martin. Seriously. I mean, you've spent a long time
Speaker 1: now in the world of journalism. You've you've you've gone
Speaker 1: all around that political commentary, all of that stuff. But
Speaker 1: something's dragged you in to frontline politics. And I'm curious
Speaker 1: because I think we're seeing more of this on both
Speaker 1: sides of the Atlantic at the moment, either ordinary people
Speaker 1: or people who never had political aspirations who are going
Speaker 1: into this. And you're part of this new Brexit Party
Speaker 1: which has been founded by my old buddy in my
Speaker 1: old boss, Nigel Farage. Tell us a little bit about
Speaker 1: what dragged you in and about the Brexit Party. Well,
Speaker 1: I think it's sad to say that I'm absolutely not
Speaker 1: your usual political candidate. I'm the men's magazine editor. Magazine
Speaker 1: called Loaded. We celebrated heads and their ze and men's interests.
Speaker 1: I'm a journalist of twenty five years. I'm the son
Speaker 1: of a coal miner and a teacher. I'm the first
Speaker 1: boy in my family to adver make its university and
Speaker 1: I've been a political commentator in the UK here in
Speaker 1: now for about eight years, and over that time I've
Speaker 1: seen politics literally unraveled before our eyes. Much the same
Speaker 1: has happened on your side of the pond. Politics became broken.
Speaker 1: Donald Trump of course broke politics your side and our
Speaker 1: side politics was broken by Brexit. We saw seventeen point
Speaker 1: four million people, many of them people like myself, you know,
Speaker 1: ordinary hardworking, working class individuals, put their cross in the box,
Speaker 1: at which point we saw our political class absolutely ignore
Speaker 1: them and do everything they possibly go to derail this
Speaker 1: massive outpouring of democracy. Literally every tool that they've had
Speaker 1: at their disposal they have laid down to defeat this.
Speaker 1: They've down, voted, breaks every time, and three years later,
Speaker 1: we are no nearer to getting break it through. And
Speaker 1: that is why Niel Farage kind of come back from
Speaker 1: the wilderness start this new party. Just four weeks ago,
Speaker 1: this party was started and it's got a huge diverse
Speaker 1: array of academics, journalists, fingers, business people, non political class people.
Speaker 1: Many many people in this party have naturally worked in
Speaker 1: politics before, and we've all taken the calling and come
Speaker 1: forward because our politics is broken. Our politicians do not
Speaker 1: want to enact democracy. They are absolutely treating as their
Speaker 1: subjects and not acting as our servants, and I really
Speaker 1: felt that I just had to step up. Well, So
Speaker 1: you speak about this sort of nullification process of Brexit, right,
Speaker 1: You've seen the nullification process of the Donald Trump presidency,
Speaker 1: the Donald Trump election from twenty sixteen in the form
Speaker 1: of the Muller Report and all the delegitimization of his
Speaker 1: presidency that we've seen. We've seen very similar taking place
Speaker 1: with Brexit in the United Kingdom. We've seen Teresa May
Speaker 1: going to Brussels and putting together just a totally crap deal.
Speaker 1: You've had most of Parliament, the majority of Parliament that
Speaker 1: has voted this thing down time and time again. The
Speaker 1: people voted for this, and they didn't just vote for
Speaker 1: this in a majority. They're voted for it, Martin, as
Speaker 1: you said, in a majority in an election, in a referendum.
Speaker 1: There was the largest ever democratic exercise the United Kingdom
Speaker 1: has ever seen. Three years later, the United Kingdom still
Speaker 1: hasn't left. So that means that you are now fighting
Speaker 1: the European parliamentary elections on May the twenty third. Tell
Speaker 1: our American audience off you a little bit about what
Speaker 1: the European parliament is what it does or what it
Speaker 1: doesn't do, and tell us what it means if if
Speaker 1: you get elected, what will you be doing in that
Speaker 1: parliamentary chamber to make sure Brexit happens? Okay, Well, every
Speaker 1: member state of the EU is signed up to its
Speaker 1: same work. It's legislation. The great dividing line of Brexit
Speaker 1: campaign was that most ordinary bricks were getting pretty set
Speaker 1: up of having our laws made in Brussels and not
Speaker 1: out not being self governing, a lack of sovereignty. It
Speaker 1: means that every nation state signs up to common economic plans.
Speaker 1: And also the main thing was open borders, so we
Speaker 1: had an immigration crisis and we didn't have the power
Speaker 1: to do anything about that. All these questions made us asked, well,
Speaker 1: who's really in control? And so the binary choice of
Speaker 1: in all out the European Union happened and seventeen performally
Speaker 1: people voted for it, a big majority of fifty two
Speaker 1: forty eight percent, and ever since then, you know, it's
Speaker 1: been a case of trying to stop it. And of
Speaker 1: course the EU was never going to let the UK
Speaker 1: leave with a decent deal because we all know that
Speaker 1: other nations across the European block are looking to follow suit.
Speaker 1: Will it be the Italians next, you know, the quitterly,
Speaker 1: will it be Frexit the fringe? And so we were
Speaker 1: made an example of a line for that. Our own
Speaker 1: political class voted seventy five to remain. So we can
Speaker 1: see quite straight away that the politicians themselves are voting
Speaker 1: out a step with the people and have done everything
Speaker 1: to stop it. Now, if we get in, is this
Speaker 1: going to be a protest vote or we're going to
Speaker 1: go and cause mayhem or we're going to go and
Speaker 1: try and get involved. I mean, we are unique in
Speaker 1: terms of the postical exercise and as far as we
Speaker 1: will be voting for our own obsolescence, we want to
Speaker 1: join as m EPs a political institution that we want
Speaker 1: to destroy. So it's going to be an interesting journey.
Speaker 1: We are literally Turkey voting for Christmas. But this is
Speaker 1: about more than Brexit. Now, this is not just about
Speaker 1: getting out of the European Union. It's about shining alive
Speaker 1: and a very or found that our political system is broken.
Speaker 1: Democracy has been denied. Seventeen point four million people have
Speaker 1: literally been ignored by our politicians, and I think that
Speaker 1: sends a huge fault line to the very center of
Speaker 1: British politics, and we are seeing the traditional parties being
Speaker 1: decimated at the polls. After just four weeks of US existing,
Speaker 1: we are currently polling six points ahead of Labor and
Speaker 1: a full fifteen points ahead of the in power Conservative Party.
Speaker 1: This is a political revolution, and it's grassroots and it's
Speaker 1: individual donors donating twenty five pounds each. It's a new
Speaker 1: way of sending politics. It's a new way getting involved
Speaker 1: in politics, and I think people want that chain, they
Speaker 1: want this seismic revolution because they're just sick of the
Speaker 1: broken politics that we have. Martin, We've got about two
Speaker 1: minutes left. I'm gonna ask you this, and you don't
Speaker 1: have to slag anyone off there. There's no need to.
Speaker 1: You know. I know there's a animosity between the UK
Speaker 1: Independence Party and the Brexit Party right now, but I
Speaker 1: want people to understand just why Nigel fur I've set
Speaker 1: up this new part because UK was an established vehicle.
Speaker 1: It used to be his party, and people will be
Speaker 1: wondering why is we're heem talking about the Brexit Party. Well,
Speaker 1: the Brexit parties actually, I mean you launched two weeks ago,
Speaker 1: you're already polling at the top in most of the
Speaker 1: polls for the European parliamentary elections. That shows the appetite
Speaker 1: out there. To just tell people a little bit about
Speaker 1: where they can find out more about the Brexit Party,
Speaker 1: what's the web you are, et cetera, et cetera. And
Speaker 1: why the Brexit Party rather than UKIP. Well, there's a
Speaker 1: feeling that UKIT became, shall say, a bit more of
Speaker 1: an extremist party, so it went further to the right.
Speaker 1: It became obsessed with Islam, with with immigration and the
Speaker 1: things that are traditionally kind of thoughted the far right,
Speaker 1: and there was a feeling that we had to do
Speaker 1: something new. Now, this shouldn't be happening, you know, this
Speaker 1: political party shouldn't really exist because Brexit should have been done.
Speaker 1: But there's a feeling when you look at the candidates
Speaker 1: that funding for the Brexit Party. I've been in press
Speaker 1: conference as well. They've been introduced and the press of
Speaker 1: their jaws on the floor because this is a party,
Speaker 1: this sturist, you've been labeled right wing, that has black women,
Speaker 1: black men, gay men, muslim man, you name it. It's
Speaker 1: an incredibly diverse a Marxist they got them a Marxist. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're the Marxist and she class box. She got on
Speaker 1: the platform in London and said, I've got practically nothing
Speaker 1: in common with Nigel Farage. I myself have never voted
Speaker 1: for Nigel Farage. This is not the disciples of Nigelists,
Speaker 1: an entirely fresh new political movement anywhere it can get
Speaker 1: involved by going to the Brexit Party dot org you
Speaker 1: can have a look at what we're doing. And I
Speaker 1: think this is the beginning of something which will sweep
Speaker 1: across Europe, the rise of smaller, leaner, meaner, fighting spirit
Speaker 1: populist parties which aims to take apart the political establishment
Speaker 1: which isn't getting the job done. They're not listening to
Speaker 1: ordinary people and they just ignore everybody, and it feels
Speaker 1: like the great train needs to stop. Well, ladies and
Speaker 1: gentlemen out there, if you want to follow Martin and
Speaker 1: the Brexit Party, make sure you head them over to Twitter.
Speaker 1: You can follow Martin at Martin at Martin Daubney daub
Speaker 1: n E. Why Martin, thank you so much for joining
Speaker 1: us here on the buck Sexton the show plad. Thanks
Speaker 1: your time, and I just want to stress again, ladies
Speaker 1: and gentlemen, that This is about what we've all been
Speaker 1: saying for the last couple of years. This is not
Speaker 1: left versus right anymore. In a lot of our politics,
Speaker 1: this is right versus wrong. And that's why you're seeing
Speaker 1: so many different people from so many different traditions, from
Speaker 1: so many different class backgrounds, from so many different parts
Speaker 1: of the country, and so many different business backgrounds. And
Speaker 1: like Martin said, you've got a Marxist in the Brexit Party,
Speaker 1: you also have business people, you have right wingers, you
Speaker 1: have moderates, you have people who've never been involved in
Speaker 1: politics at all before, all coming together and telling the
Speaker 1: political establishment, enough is enough. We are going to replace you.
Speaker 1: We are going to upset the apple cart. We are
Speaker 1: going to do something that's ever been done in history before.
Speaker 1: And that's why, as you can probably hear from the
Speaker 1: sound of my voice, I'm very excited about it. This
Speaker 1: is the buck Sexton Show. My name is Raheim Gassam.
Speaker 1: We're going to be right back after this break. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the buck Sexton Show. My name is Rahem Gassalm.
Speaker 1: I'm the editor in chief Global editor in Chief. I
Speaker 1: made that my own title, by the way, just to
Speaker 1: upset the globalists. Out there of Human Events dot Com,
Speaker 1: the website that was Reagan's favorite political magazine when it
Speaker 1: was in print during his years in the Oval Office.
Speaker 1: We're bringing it back to life this Wednesday. If you're
Speaker 1: head on over to human Events dot Com you can
Speaker 1: find out more. And in fact, we've got some offers
Speaker 1: on there for people who join us from the outset
Speaker 1: before we actually launch. So you know, once again and
Speaker 1: Buck told me I can do this, by the way
Speaker 1: human events dot Com. I'm joined now by a competitor
Speaker 1: or Human Events by the way Daily Caller writer, a
Speaker 1: friend of mine, Mary Margaret Olahan. Mary Margaret, thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us on the Buck Sexton Show. Thanks for having
Speaker 1: me or him. I wanted to discuss with you because
Speaker 1: actually you're one of my favorite writers in the space
Speaker 1: of conservative women's issues. I wanted to discuss with you.
Speaker 1: This great article in the New York Times this morning
Speaker 1: called where are the socially conservative women in This Fight?
Speaker 1: And it starts with a story about the great late
Speaker 1: Phyllis Schlafley, who actually I think came to Washington, DC
Speaker 1: in the same year that Human Events was founded nineteen
Speaker 1: forty four and started fighting for conservative women and conservative
Speaker 1: women's issues. Mary Margaret tell us a little bit about
Speaker 1: this article and why you think it's so important. Well,
Speaker 1: I found this article really interesting. Become a lot. They
Speaker 1: dive into how when Phillis Slafly first started immersing herself
Speaker 1: in the feminist movement, she tried to stay away from
Speaker 1: this system feminist mentality that so many feminists today have adopted,
Speaker 1: and she instead went for a more equity feminist approach. Um.
Speaker 1: And what I found really interesting about this article is
Speaker 1: they dove into something that Elizabeth Warren actually brought up,
Speaker 1: which is, um, the two what does she call it?
Speaker 1: The two or two inco Yeah? Yeah, And so this
Speaker 1: isn't an idea where once upon a time a family
Speaker 1: could be supported by one income, but now we've fallen
Speaker 1: into this two income trap where two incomes apparently isn't
Speaker 1: enough for a middle class family. And we still have
Speaker 1: these people that want to get married and a mother
Speaker 1: that wants to raise her children, but she can't because
Speaker 1: when this little class can't be supported on one income.
Speaker 1: And Elizabeth Warren actually suggested back in two thousand and
Speaker 1: three that this is because of all the women entering
Speaker 1: the workforce, and she probably would never say that now,
Speaker 1: But um, I think that that idea is actually very true.
Speaker 1: And some of the ideas posed in this article where
Speaker 1: why is it what can we do about women in
Speaker 1: the workforce with out telling them, oh, you shouldn't work
Speaker 1: and degrading them in that way, but also upholding the
Speaker 1: dignity of the family. And UM, I thought it was
Speaker 1: really interesting. She drove into how Tucker Carlson at one
Speaker 1: point said that women weren't getting married because men weren't
Speaker 1: making as much money as they were. Um it was
Speaker 1: a funny idea. It was very interesting, and I don't
Speaker 1: totally disagree with him, But at the same time, it
Speaker 1: seems more to me that there's a cultural phenomenon going
Speaker 1: on where men and women don't look at families the
Speaker 1: same way and they don't appreciate marriage in the same way.
Speaker 1: And you can see this in um, very very strongly
Speaker 1: in the way we approach relationships. Um, I mean, if
Speaker 1: you just look at dating apps in syncratic fingertips exactly,
Speaker 1: I don't don't, I don't need to, That's what I meant.
Speaker 1: But then you bring up a really interesting point there,
Speaker 1: Mary Margaret. I mean the statistics that are borne out
Speaker 1: here and they are reported in this article today as well.
Speaker 1: They're not new statistics, the statistics we know, but they're
Speaker 1: very stark, and I think we should often remind ourselves
Speaker 1: of them. In nineteen sixty, eighty two percent of Americans
Speaker 1: between twenty five and thirty four were married. Even as
Speaker 1: late as two thousand and fifty five percent were In
Speaker 1: twenty thirteen, for the first time, a majority of that
Speaker 1: age block had never married. And the downward trend shows
Speaker 1: no sign of stopping. That doesn't seem to me like
Speaker 1: it boats particularly well for local communities or for societies
Speaker 1: when you consider them written nationally. No, it doesn't at all.
Speaker 1: It's actually very terrifying if you think about that downward spiral.
Speaker 1: Pretty soon we're not going to be seeing much marriage
Speaker 1: at all. And when I think about that for my
Speaker 1: generation or my younger siblings generations, well, that's pretty depressing.
Speaker 1: And I think if you think about how that can
Speaker 1: be addressed, it's not so much in glowering women's salaries
Speaker 1: or raising men's salaries are leveling that playing field. It's
Speaker 1: been recognizing that men and women are not the same,
Speaker 1: and we have never been the same. And to approach
Speaker 1: this situation as if we are the same as to
Speaker 1: approach it destructively, because we're created to be biologically and
Speaker 1: like mentally compatible and that's how we work the best. Wow,
Speaker 1: what a what a bigoted statement you just made their,
Speaker 1: Mary Margaret how day, how day, you suggest that men
Speaker 1: and women are compatible? What a what a crazy thing?
Speaker 1: So look, I mean, all well and good for us
Speaker 1: to understand where the problems lie. Where does the solutions
Speaker 1: come from. I think the solutions come from families themselves.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's a pretty generic thing to say
Speaker 1: that families need to be teaching their children to approach
Speaker 1: marriage and family in less, less materialistic ways, and be
Speaker 1: approaching each other as compatible and complimentary people and not
Speaker 1: as um, you know, someone to be fought with. And
Speaker 1: if we're going to be looking from pered, then we
Speaker 1: should not be fighting and trying to suppress men or
Speaker 1: suppressed women. We should be seeking to compliment each other.
Speaker 1: Mary Margaret Olahan, Um, just tell our audience where they
Speaker 1: can read more of your work, Read your tweets. I
Speaker 1: like to read you in that E is Evie magazine
Speaker 1: as well, Yes, Evie Magazine, Evie Magazine and the Daily
Speaker 1: Colon News Foundations and it's Mary Mark Olohan l h
Speaker 1: a N on Twitter. Is that right? Yes, it is there,
Speaker 1: you go. Well, thank you so much, Mary Margaret for
Speaker 1: joining us here on the buck Sexton Show. Thanks so
Speaker 1: much for having me. And let me tell you, ladies
Speaker 1: and gentlemen at the end of this article in The
Speaker 1: New York Times Today suggest an air to finish Schlafley.
Speaker 1: A socially conservative female voice who can galvanize others could
Speaker 1: help us. She just has to step up. Well, it's
Speaker 1: the likes of Mary Margaret Olahan and her compatriots that
Speaker 1: I've met over the last couple of years in Washington,
Speaker 1: DC and beyond that are doing that very same thing,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a very worthwhile thing to be doing.
Speaker 1: I also want to stay on this subject and talk
Speaker 1: about it with our next guest in just a moment,
Speaker 1: Terry Shilling of the American Principles Project, to get them
Speaker 1: maybe the male perspective on this, and then, of course,
Speaker 1: if time allows, we'll have the other seventy genders represented
Speaker 1: on this show as well. But for now, this is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show. I am Raheemcasum, the global edator
Speaker 1: in chief of human Events dot Com. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. My name is
Speaker 1: Raheim Kassam, the global edator in chief of human Events
Speaker 1: dot com, which is relaunching in just two days time,
Speaker 1: and we hope to have some very very good analysis
Speaker 1: from my next guest, Terry Shilling, is the executive director
Speaker 1: of the American Principles Project and a good friend of
Speaker 1: mine in Washington, DC. Terry, thanks so much for joining
Speaker 1: us on the show here today. Hey, thanks so much
Speaker 1: for having me, Raheim, glad to be here. Well, you
Speaker 1: don't sound that glad. Can you perk up a bit?
Speaker 1: Please listen. I'm very excited. I don't know what analysis
Speaker 1: you're talking about, though. I thought we were going to
Speaker 1: discuss and debate whether or not you're daddy, whether or
Speaker 1: not I'm daddy. We all know I'm daddy, Terry, Terry
Speaker 1: for those of you that don't know, and there's no
Speaker 1: reason you should know. It's making a very esoteric joke
Speaker 1: about a party that I threw at Sepack earlier this year,
Speaker 1: which was really the Human Events. It wasn't the launch party,
Speaker 1: but it was the announcement that we had purchased Human
Speaker 1: Events from Sailing Communications and we were racking our heads
Speaker 1: thinking of what they allowed us, the venue that we had.
Speaker 1: They allowed us to name a cocktail whatever we wanted
Speaker 1: to name it. And my friend Hailey said to me, well,
Speaker 1: why don't we just call it daddy? And I said, well,
Speaker 1: why are we calling it daddy? Why don't we just
Speaker 1: call it Raheem is daddy? That way you'll have all
Speaker 1: these girls going to the bar and having to say,
Speaker 1: what was it again, Terry, raheem is daddy for us?
Speaker 1: By the way, you did? You did? You had a
Speaker 1: lot of reheems in your mouth that night, I'll tell
Speaker 1: you that much, Terry. So much for a wholesome show
Speaker 1: that's got out the window. Um, I trust you to
Speaker 1: bring the tone down, Terry. We were talking about something
Speaker 1: relatively wholesome as well. We were talking about this article
Speaker 1: in the New York Times. Where are the socially conservative
Speaker 1: women in this fight? And now I guess I recognize
Speaker 1: where they are. They don't want to be anywhere near us.
Speaker 1: I mean, I have a totally great, socially considered woman
Speaker 1: that I've been married too for almost ten years now, Raam,
Speaker 1: I mean, speak for yourself. Yeah, what's her name again?
Speaker 1: Your wife, Katie. Katie. That's right, Terry and I just
Speaker 1: like to bust each other's you know what's how is Katie?
Speaker 1: By the way, send send all of our love from
Speaker 1: all of the audience to Katie. Terry. I will, definitely
Speaker 1: I will. But you know what, Katie was actually the
Speaker 1: one that sent me this artcle So I was going
Speaker 1: to say that I should have had Katie or not you.
Speaker 1: She actually is much smarter than I am. You would
Speaker 1: have been better off. Next time we'll do that. She
Speaker 1: can't be that smart. She married you. Boom boom. If
Speaker 1: there was, if there was a way to drop these
Speaker 1: mics in this studio, I would have dropped it right now.
Speaker 1: But unfore the suspended above me. Terry. Let's get to
Speaker 1: the topic at hand. Okay, this article, your wife sent
Speaker 1: it to you, You read it, what do you think? Listen?
Speaker 1: It touches on the main crisis facing the family today.
Speaker 1: Used to be family breakdown, people getting divorced and then
Speaker 1: remarried and leaving kids without a father in the home.
Speaker 1: But now the crisis that America faces is failure of
Speaker 1: families to even form. You're seeing kids graduate college with
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of dollars worth of debt, and then
Speaker 1: they either go into the workforce that they can find
Speaker 1: a job where they even if they do find a job,
Speaker 1: they can't make enough money to even pay their bills.
Speaker 1: But a lot of them actually take a punt and
Speaker 1: go to grad school to make even more money. They
Speaker 1: had find out after that they can't make that much
Speaker 1: more money, and then they end up having to put
Speaker 1: off marriage. And so you know, she points out in there,
Speaker 1: in nineteen sixty of people between twenty five and thirty
Speaker 1: four were married. Well, by twenty thirteen that had fallen
Speaker 1: to less than fifty And so the question is is
Speaker 1: the family important to a society and to a country
Speaker 1: in a nation, And if it is, how do we
Speaker 1: fix this? How do we get more families to form
Speaker 1: and get back to creating the next generation, erasing the
Speaker 1: next citizens? And I think that this article is a
Speaker 1: great way to jump start that conversation. What are we
Speaker 1: taking away from this, because as I mentioned in the
Speaker 1: last segment when we had Mary Margaret on, there's some
Speaker 1: very stock statistics that even surprised me when they would
Speaker 1: put this bluntly about the uptake in terms of marriage
Speaker 1: in the United States. I mean, we can take away
Speaker 1: depression from this article. We can take away a feeling
Speaker 1: of hopelessness. But you and the American Principles Project that
Speaker 1: you run, and a bunch of other groups out there
Speaker 1: are actually trying to do some things to change that.
Speaker 1: I know You've also been looking at what some European
Speaker 1: countries are doing in this regard, and I've had many
Speaker 1: conversations with very senior people in the Hungarian government, for instance,
Speaker 1: about how they are trying not just to encourage people
Speaker 1: to get married, but also to have large families. There's
Speaker 1: also an immigration element to this, is they're not whereby
Speaker 1: you know, the logic that there is being dictated to
Speaker 1: us says, well, we must import hundreds of thousands, if
Speaker 1: not millions of people every year because we're not having
Speaker 1: enough kids. Well how about we just have enough kids.
Speaker 1: No that that's exactly right, raheem. And there are some
Speaker 1: good proposals out there right now in the United States,
Speaker 1: but there's even better ones, I think in countries like
Speaker 1: Poland and also Hungry. As you mentioned one of the
Speaker 1: proposals that I like here in the United States. Let
Speaker 1: me just back up real quick. So the big thing
Speaker 1: that one of the statistics that Helen Andrews dropped is
Speaker 1: that women are happier at home. In a recent survey,
Speaker 1: only seventeen son of mothers with children three or younger
Speaker 1: said that they prefer to work full time. That means
Speaker 1: that eighty three percent of women that have children either
Speaker 1: want to work part time or not work at all.
Speaker 1: That's a big deal. And so what we need to
Speaker 1: focus on is is making it less scary to have children,
Speaker 1: right like, it's a big deal. I mean, look at yourself.
Speaker 1: I mean you're you're the same age as me, and
Speaker 1: you're thirty two, and there's no little routees on the way,
Speaker 1: which I find actually very oppressed. I wish that were
Speaker 1: one hundred and more. Held on a second, you don't
Speaker 1: know that I don't even know that they could be
Speaker 1: out there. I suppose that's part of the problem. No, No,
Speaker 1: that's that's a fair enough point. It's well taken. But
Speaker 1: so we need to do is we need to make
Speaker 1: it easier for people to get married. We need to
Speaker 1: make it have make more sense. But right now, women
Speaker 1: can't find men that make more money to them, let
Speaker 1: alone men that you know, can keep a stable jobs. Now,
Speaker 1: the artist author says that it's because lots of women
Speaker 1: are going into the work force and taking jobs that
Speaker 1: men should be getting. But you know, I'm not going
Speaker 1: to go down that road. But what we need to
Speaker 1: do is make it easier and make it less scary
Speaker 1: to have kids. And one of the ways we can
Speaker 1: do that is through paid family leave. Now there's a
Speaker 1: proposal on the table right now from Senator to Lee
Speaker 1: and Senator Earns that lets parents draw from their social
Speaker 1: security in order to take time off after they have
Speaker 1: a baby. Now, you might not seem like that big
Speaker 1: of a deal, but you know, when you do get
Speaker 1: married and you're talking things over with your spouse, those
Speaker 1: are very tight. You know, it's hard to make ends meets,
Speaker 1: and so having to take eight to twelve weeks off
Speaker 1: to spend time with your baby is a big decision,
Speaker 1: and it takes a lot of people from having kids.
Speaker 1: So by letting people draw from their soul security and
Speaker 1: you know, take some time off spend that really important
Speaker 1: time with their kids, it makes it easier to have kids.
Speaker 1: And then guess what, they figure out, we don't need
Speaker 1: two jobs. Actually, we can just cut a little bit
Speaker 1: here and not go out to dinner as much and
Speaker 1: we'll still be just as happy, and we'll have a
Speaker 1: new little mini raheem around the house. Well, what a
Speaker 1: what a pleasant thought. I think. I think the existing
Speaker 1: rehem is a handful enough, don't you. No, we need
Speaker 1: more of you, especially to shake things up. We need
Speaker 1: to you know, we need to make sure we get
Speaker 1: this Brexit deal done, and we need a ten more
Speaker 1: of you. Well, I'm trying. I try to do every
Speaker 1: I can't do everything, you know, I can't relaunch human
Speaker 1: events and get bregsit done. And you know everybody wants
Speaker 1: me to do everything. Take some responsibility for yourselves for
Speaker 1: goodness sake, exactly, Terry, what's your What's what's your? I
Speaker 1: hope this is going to be your first article for
Speaker 1: us on human events. Yes, I'm actually very excited about that.
Speaker 1: We're we're writing away, um and I think we're gonna
Speaker 1: have some pretty interesting ideas, you know, hungry and uh
Speaker 1: and I believe it's also poem. Um. One of the
Speaker 1: very interesting things that they do is that they venerate moms.
Speaker 1: They venerate women. You know, in this country, we kind
Speaker 1: of look down on moms that stay home with their
Speaker 1: kids and don't have a job. Which is really terrible,
Speaker 1: right because if you look at what moms do that
Speaker 1: stay at home with their kids, they're not serving some
Speaker 1: corporate master or some you know, billionaire and helping that
Speaker 1: billionaire make more billions of dollars. At home, they're raising
Speaker 1: their kids and they're they're making the next generation of Americans.
Speaker 1: It's the most selfless and most humbling job in the
Speaker 1: entire world. In this country would be screwed without these
Speaker 1: stay at home moms. But um, what hungry in Poland
Speaker 1: do is they recognize the importance of these moms. And
Speaker 1: if you have I believe it's if you have four
Speaker 1: kids or more, you get to draw from Social Security
Speaker 1: even if you never paid into it, So you basically
Speaker 1: get a pension at the end of you know your time,
Speaker 1: you know of working and being in that, but you
Speaker 1: can draw from Social Security because the logic is simple.
Speaker 1: You had, you raised four kids who are all now
Speaker 1: paying into the Social Security fund and you're more than
Speaker 1: taking care of here. And it's to incentivize more kids
Speaker 1: is and to make it easier to stay at home
Speaker 1: with your kids. I think it's a really great, great
Speaker 1: idea and I hope to write more about that. Well,
Speaker 1: I think I need is it a great idea, Terry.
Speaker 1: But the statistics are showing that the Hungarian governments policies
Speaker 1: are really working. I mean they've gone from from one
Speaker 1: point one I think children per family and they're up
Speaker 1: to sort of one point six now over the last
Speaker 1: couple of years. And the trajectory is going up and up.
Speaker 1: So for the for the people who say no, doesn't work,
Speaker 1: no point trying it, don't sponsor families with with you know,
Speaker 1: government inducements or anything like that, you can tell them
Speaker 1: to bugger off, because it works, right, it absolutely works.
Speaker 1: The problem though with when it comes to population growth
Speaker 1: or population decline is that there's a lot of momentum
Speaker 1: that goes into those numbers. So you know, after the
Speaker 1: baby boom ended and birth control was kind of starting
Speaker 1: to become mainstream in America, it's several decades for the
Speaker 1: birth rate to fall to normal levels. And and if
Speaker 1: you think of out, it makes sense, right because you know,
Speaker 1: when you're raised in a large family, you're probably going
Speaker 1: to have a large family yourself. You might not have
Speaker 1: as many kids, but you're going to have you know,
Speaker 1: if you come from a family of five, you'll probably
Speaker 1: have three or four and then that next generation. So
Speaker 1: it takes actually a few decades of momentum to slow
Speaker 1: down or speed up. And so the idea that Hungary
Speaker 1: is seeing these results so quickly is very is a
Speaker 1: very big sign of hope that these types of programs
Speaker 1: can help turn things around. Now, Terry, thank you for
Speaker 1: your time. And in exchange for your time, I would
Speaker 1: like to offer you a chance to plug your work
Speaker 1: and your organizations work. Where can people find out more
Speaker 1: about you guys? Oh, very easy. It's American Principles Project
Speaker 1: dot org. And basically what we do is we are
Speaker 1: a pro family organization that works in politics. So think NRA,
Speaker 1: but for the family. So we don't focus on guns,
Speaker 1: We focus on the family. We unelect the bad guys
Speaker 1: and we elect the guys. It's very cool stuff, and
Speaker 1: we helped candidates win. Actually, we found that a pro
Speaker 1: family agenda across the board is what Americans need and
Speaker 1: what they like to vote for. And it's actually, I
Speaker 1: think conservatives the answer to all these big government socialist
Speaker 1: programs at the leftist promoting. Yeah, if you want to,
Speaker 1: if you want to, you know, sup board and get
Speaker 1: involved with a with an organization the AIDS family and
Speaker 1: family matters in the United States. That's that's APP for
Speaker 1: its American Principles project or. Terry Shilling, the executive director,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us today on the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Hey, thanks so much for having me, Raheim.
Speaker 1: We'll talk soon. Alrighty. I think phenomenal article, ladies, gentlemen,
Speaker 1: once again in the New York Times, of all places,
Speaker 1: but written by Helen Andrews, the managing editor of the
Speaker 1: Washington Examiner magazine. If you want to check it out,
Speaker 1: it's called Where of the Social Conservative Women in This Fight?
Speaker 1: My name is Raheim Kassam. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: We're going to be right back. And there is a
Speaker 1: specific problem, as you rightly identify, for women of color
Speaker 1: who are three to four times more likely to die
Speaker 1: in childbirth. And here's the thing, even after we do
Speaker 1: the adjustments for income, for education, this is true across
Speaker 1: the board. This is true for well educated African American women,
Speaker 1: for wealthy African American women. And the best studies that
Speaker 1: I've seen put it down to just one thing, prejudice
Speaker 1: that doctors and nurses don't hear African American women's medical
Speaker 1: issues the same way that they hear the same things
Speaker 1: from white women. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: I'm Rahem Kassam, the editor in chief of human Events
Speaker 1: dot com. That was Elizabeth Warren, one of the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party candidates for president in twenty twenty. You know, we've
Speaker 1: been talking about the issues regarding women in the United States,
Speaker 1: families in the United States, and a whole lot more.
Speaker 1: Over the course of this hour, we had Mary Margaret
Speaker 1: Olahan from Evy Magazine and the Daily Caller, Terry Shilling
Speaker 1: from the American Principles Project, and I wanted to play
Speaker 1: that clip for you there by Elizabeth Warren just sort
Speaker 1: of highlight how far she's tacking now to the left.
Speaker 1: You know, when she wrote The two Income Trap in
Speaker 1: two thousand and four, it actually dealt with why middle
Speaker 1: class mothers and fathers in general are going broke, why
Speaker 1: the family was effectively being economized out of the situation
Speaker 1: or out of what people thought was the ideal, the
Speaker 1: return to having at least one parent who could if
Speaker 1: they wanted to stay at home. Now, Elizabeth Warren, when
Speaker 1: she talks about women's issues, as you can her there,
Speaker 1: it's basically only ever talking about it from the perspective
Speaker 1: of oppression, only ever talking about it from the perspective
Speaker 1: of minority and minority status and identity politics. You know,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, people sometimes don't know this, at least I
Speaker 1: didn't know it until relatively recently. It was actually registered
Speaker 1: as a Republican from nineteen ninety one to nineteen ninety six.
Speaker 1: She voted Republican for a great many years. And you
Speaker 1: can see it in the two parent Trap, sorry, the
Speaker 1: two income Trap, where she talks about that and now
Speaker 1: not so much. And again it takes me back to
Speaker 1: what we were talking about at the beginning of the show,
Speaker 1: the extremism that you now find within the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: They're all trying to leap over one another, to leap
Speaker 1: rogue each other, to run to the left of one another.
Speaker 1: And you've got Joe Biden on stage in Pittsburgh going
Speaker 1: armor Union man. You've got Elizabeth Warren and talking about
Speaker 1: minorities being oppressed in by doctors and nurses now as well,
Speaker 1: it seems like an attack on people who save people's lives.
Speaker 1: And you've got Beto in Pete Botagige. I don't even
Speaker 1: know how to pronounce that anymore. I've heard so many
Speaker 1: different pronunciations of it, and they're all running lefter and
Speaker 1: lefter and lefter, and I gotta tell you it portends
Speaker 1: very poorly, not just for the Democrat Party of America,
Speaker 1: but it pretends very poorly for the American national conversation,
Speaker 1: if you don't mind me saying so that these are
Speaker 1: the conversations that we're having to have now instead of
Speaker 1: the conversations like the ones that I just had with
Speaker 1: Terry Shilling and Mary Margaret Olihan. And actually, you know,
Speaker 1: I started the show by talking about what a disservice
Speaker 1: the New York Times did with its anti Semitic cartoon.
Speaker 1: You've got to give credit where it's due, though, The
Speaker 1: New York Times did a great service in publishing this
Speaker 1: article today on socially conservative women and where, where and
Speaker 1: why and how and when we're going to get a
Speaker 1: new likes of Philish Schlafley in our midst and so
Speaker 1: I think it was very important to talk about those
Speaker 1: things in the next In the next hour, don't go anywhere.
Speaker 1: It's going to be talking to some very very interesting individuals.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk to Jack Pasbic of one American News,
Speaker 1: one of my favorite reporters, and World Chamberlain, my business
Speaker 1: partner at human Events dot Com. We're going to walk
Speaker 1: you through why we're doing what we're doing with that platform.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, don't go anywhere. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. I'm Rahem Kassam. We'll be right back. Welcome
Speaker 1: back to the Buck Sexton Show. My name is Raheem Kassam,
Speaker 1: guest hosting for Buck Sexton today. I am the newly
Speaker 1: minted as Buck once called me, editor in chief, Global
Speaker 1: editor in chief as as my little jab at the
Speaker 1: globalists of Human Events dot Com. I'm glad to be
Speaker 1: joined now by one of my favorite reporters in the world.
Speaker 1: He is a host at One America News, Jack Possobic,
Speaker 1: thanks for joining us, Jack Raean, thanks for having me
Speaker 1: on and our also congratulations on the new side of
Speaker 1: Global editor and congratulations of the launching Human Events. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I really appreciate it. We're just like we're two days
Speaker 1: away now from launching and and and you know, the
Speaker 1: buttocks are clenching more and more by the minute as
Speaker 1: I as I fear that what sort of traffic we're
Speaker 1: going to throw to this site that we've built and
Speaker 1: if it's going to stand up to it and we'll see,
Speaker 1: so very excited about that. Thank you for mentioning it now. Jack,
Speaker 1: you've been here that. Yeah, you have been tweeting furiously,
Speaker 1: even more furiously than usual. Jack. Jack is probably one
Speaker 1: of the highest energy individuals I know. He's the he's
Speaker 1: the diametric opposite of Jeb Bush. Jack, you've been tweeting
Speaker 1: a lot, and for a lot of it was quite
Speaker 1: hard to follow because there's just so much information coming
Speaker 1: out at the moment, and you've been getting really down
Speaker 1: into the nitty gritty regarding Bob Muller, the FAISA process,
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein, Bill bar that whole thing. And you've actually
Speaker 1: reported some really interesting information that I haven't seen anywhere
Speaker 1: else yet about the FBI, the White House, and the
Speaker 1: Secret Service. I'm actually just going to throw the microphone
Speaker 1: over to you and let you talk through what you
Speaker 1: found in recent days, and then if you wouldn't mind
Speaker 1: just commenting on why we're not seeing this kind of
Speaker 1: reporting anywhere else, Jack, Yes, of course, Well, what we're
Speaker 1: first seeing now and this was sort of mentioned in
Speaker 1: a letter by Senator Grassley and Senator Johnson that was
Speaker 1: practically over media were new text messages sent by the
Speaker 1: intraptive pair of lovers, Peter Struck and Lisa Page, who
Speaker 1: ran the Trump investigation, the counterintelligence investigation into President Trump,
Speaker 1: which more e basically into the mulleration. So this is
Speaker 1: and let me take you back a little bit to
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. So we're looking at November twenty sixteen, the
Speaker 1: week immediately following the surprise upset of Donald Trump deceeeding
Speaker 1: that Worklins, and that's November eighth, that takes place, then
Speaker 1: November seventeenth, and we've just seen now new text messages
Speaker 1: that have been released between these two FBI agents and
Speaker 1: what they say in these specific messages. And we've seen
Speaker 1: instances where their exchanges have been released in drips and
Speaker 1: drabs over the past couple of years, in the past
Speaker 1: few months specifically, but these are possibly some of the
Speaker 1: most shocking ones that we've seen thus far, and the
Speaker 1: mainstream media, as usual, is not giving it the coverage
Speaker 1: that it really deserves. I guess they're two interested in
Speaker 1: watching the game of their own season ending right right.
Speaker 1: What it says here at one point is if Katie's
Speaker 1: husband is there see if he can see if there
Speaker 1: are people we can develop for potential relationships. And then
Speaker 1: they go on to talk about a briefing security briefing
Speaker 1: that they planned to make with the incoming Vice president,
Speaker 1: Mike Pence. Well, the information that's come out on this is, so,
Speaker 1: who is Katie's husband? What does this have to do
Speaker 1: with Mike Pence? What does this have to do with
Speaker 1: the FBI? Well, the way it shakes out is this
Speaker 1: Katie refers to an FBI analyst working for Peter Struck
Speaker 1: named Katie Semen, Katie Seemen's husband. Right, So Katie's husband
Speaker 1: is actually a reference to the man who would become
Speaker 1: Mike Pence's Josh Pitcock. And so here we have an
Speaker 1: instance now were the two agents that we're investigating Trump
Speaker 1: are discussing working with Mike Pence's incoming chief of staff
Speaker 1: about potentially developing sources for their investigation. What they're talking
Speaker 1: about is using this familial connection through the analysts being
Speaker 1: married to Pennz's chief of staff, to develop sources at
Speaker 1: this point within the Trump transition team and then possibly
Speaker 1: moving forward even within the White House itself. They're spying
Speaker 1: on the White House essentially spying on the White House. Now,
Speaker 1: that seems like the type of story that should be
Speaker 1: leading the news channels. Any ideas why it isn't, well,
Speaker 1: I think because the news channels have come down so
Speaker 1: hard on this story. A. G. Barr said in a
Speaker 1: conference not too long ago at US Congress that he,
Speaker 1: in his opinion, that the presidential campaign with Donald Trump
Speaker 1: was spied on. However, they really pushed back on that
Speaker 1: labeling of the event, saying, oh, it was merely court
Speaker 1: ordered surveillance. You can't use the word spying, to which
Speaker 1: bar sysiment, why are you equivocating this point spying surveillance?
Speaker 1: It's you know, you know, six one way, half a
Speaker 1: dozen the other. It's the same thing. And it's become
Speaker 1: so politically charged now that they don't want to make
Speaker 1: it look as though Trump may have been right all along.
Speaker 1: When we found out that he was right about the
Speaker 1: wire taps. We now note there was a FIZ investigation
Speaker 1: into Donald Trump's campaign. Now we're hearing that the FBI
Speaker 1: may have even been recruiting sources or had essentially a
Speaker 1: back channel into Mike Pennz's office within the White House itself,
Speaker 1: which would make sense because these are the same FBI
Speaker 1: agents who would later go to Mike Penns when they
Speaker 1: were targeting General Flynn. So it really does seem to
Speaker 1: make sense that there was some kind of relationship that
Speaker 1: the FBI was able to exploit in order to get
Speaker 1: into the White House, especially in those early days of
Speaker 1: the administration. There's a couple of other avenues to explore here.
Speaker 1: None of the questions that are raised on the back
Speaker 1: of this. I mean, obviously we know that WT Attorney
Speaker 1: General Rod Rosenstein handed his resignation in to be effective
Speaker 1: on the eleventh of May. I think that went in
Speaker 1: earlier today, Jack, which seems to be tied to a
Speaker 1: lot of this. But there's also questions to be asked
Speaker 1: as to whether or not the Let's talk Ben Rhodes
Speaker 1: for a second, right, Ben Rose. For people that don't
Speaker 1: know Ben Roads are very very lucky people. Ben Rodes
Speaker 1: is one of the most religious characters in Washington politics.
Speaker 1: The I think he's on some podcast now, but he was.
Speaker 1: He was one of the leading figures in the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: He was the Deputy National Security Adviser. He has been
Speaker 1: very very close to Susan Rice and the President himself.
Speaker 1: Really one of those people, Jack that you might say
Speaker 1: was was behind a lot of their a lot of
Speaker 1: their foreign policy. Ben Rhodes, you were dissecting an interview
Speaker 1: conversation that was had with him about whether or not
Speaker 1: the Obama administration knew and whether Obama himself knew about
Speaker 1: the the what what what? President Trump called the tapping
Speaker 1: of Trump Tower all those years back when and the
Speaker 1: whole media laughed him, and he said, what are you
Speaker 1: talking about? Tapping? Tapping at Trump Tower? And now it
Speaker 1: transpas of course that they were spying on him. What
Speaker 1: do you think Ben's of Ben rhodes testimony in this regard?
Speaker 1: Did he give a particularly compelling case for Obama not
Speaker 1: knowing about this? You know, Ben Rhodes, in that interview
Speaker 1: he just gave. I can't believe he actually sat down
Speaker 1: for that thing. I mean, it looked like he may
Speaker 1: have been drinking. There was a half half an empty
Speaker 1: wine glass on the table next to him, or half full,
Speaker 1: if that's your your shake on it. But he's flurring
Speaker 1: his speech, he can't keep his story straight, and he
Speaker 1: immediately jumps to that Christen's classic Obama administration line of well,
Speaker 1: I'm only just finding this out at the same time
Speaker 1: you are as a private citizen from the US news media.
Speaker 1: It's even so long since I've heard that line be used.
Speaker 1: I almost forgot that. Every single time that was scandal
Speaker 1: erupted within the Obama administration, that was their go to, right,
Speaker 1: So he's just he kind of jumps back to the script,
Speaker 1: his prerecorded statements. But I had a lawyer reach out
Speaker 1: to you at one point and said, boy, I would
Speaker 1: love to be up against this guy in a deposition
Speaker 1: because you can destroy him. First of all, he's he's
Speaker 1: nervous as heck. Then number two is he says they
Speaker 1: had no idea about it. There's just one problem. Ben
Speaker 1: Rhodes was the deputy to who Susan Rice. We already
Speaker 1: know that Susan Rice wrote an email to herself on
Speaker 1: the last day of the Obama administration expressly stating that
Speaker 1: she and Joe Biden and Barack Obama received a briefing
Speaker 1: on the Trump investigation and very specifically about the Steele
Speaker 1: dossier itself and its allegations from James Comey and Saliates,
Speaker 1: who at the time were leading to doj and the FBI.
Speaker 1: So we already have the information that the person that
Speaker 1: you're the deputy too, knew all about this, so you
Speaker 1: probably knew all about it too, Ben Rhodes, And it's
Speaker 1: fantastic to see that now. And just stepping back for
Speaker 1: a second, there is so much fact checking that's going
Speaker 1: on by conservative media. Conservative media is breaking news, human
Speaker 1: events is going to be breaking news and doing so
Speaker 1: much amazing things. Don't don't put the pressure on me. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean to say is that they were in office
Speaker 1: for eight years and never had to deal with any
Speaker 1: type of pushback or any type of adversarial or combat
Speaker 1: or adversarial behavior from the media. Whatever they would say
Speaker 1: the media, and Ben Rhodes has been public about the
Speaker 1: fact that he would outwardly lie to the media, specifically
Speaker 1: about the Iran deal, and they would repeat whatever he said.
Speaker 1: Was it, Ben Rhodes? Did you just say this? Was it?
Speaker 1: Ben Rhodes, who once talked about how stupid journalists were,
Speaker 1: That's exactly what I'm referring to. He would say, we
Speaker 1: would come up with things in national security break yeah,
Speaker 1: and then I would go and tell them to uh,
Speaker 1: you know, I would go because most reporters are typical
Speaker 1: quoting him. At this point, the pirephrasing at least that
Speaker 1: mid twenties. They only have a little bit of campaign.
Speaker 1: Don't really understand how Washington works. He can tell them
Speaker 1: whatever they want, no repeat it, extraordinary stuff. Jack. Just
Speaker 1: in the last sort of thirty to forty five seconds
Speaker 1: that we've got here, where do you see this going?
Speaker 1: How do you see this transpiring? Are you about to
Speaker 1: see major declassifications? And is the Trump administration going to
Speaker 1: start moving on all of these deep states in your
Speaker 1: face states whatever you want to call them, figures who
Speaker 1: appear to have been and I'll say it, behind what
Speaker 1: looks like an unabashed coup attempt. Everything that we've heard
Speaker 1: from the White House in the Oval Office specifically in
Speaker 1: recent days is that the president knows full well the
Speaker 1: amount of political capital that he has right now being
Speaker 1: completely exonerated on the question of collusion and also on
Speaker 1: the secondary question of obstruction, and so he is lying
Speaker 1: in wait and planning on how to really take a
Speaker 1: two pronged effect to number one, go after the people
Speaker 1: who planned this coup, and that's his own words, and
Speaker 1: then number two also use this as a springboard to
Speaker 1: relaunch his campaign essentially for twenty twenty. His reelection campaign.
Speaker 1: So he's trying to find a way to thread the
Speaker 1: needle to do both of those at the same time,
Speaker 1: given the time frames that we're in. And I think that, honestly,
Speaker 1: being on the offense is where Trump is always at
Speaker 1: his best. I also think it's his natural comfort zone,
Speaker 1: and so being on offense in the face of all this, guys,
Speaker 1: you have to realize the more you go against him,
Speaker 1: the stronger you make him. I think that's absolutely right. Jack.
Speaker 1: Just give a plug for yourself. Where can people read you,
Speaker 1: find you watch you? Yeah, the best place is oann
Speaker 1: dot com and we're also available on cloud TV. Please
Speaker 1: catch one American News is If you don't have it,
Speaker 1: contact a cable provider. You can get us. We're on
Speaker 1: with FiOS, were on directdd Ron Rocco as well. And
Speaker 1: Jack at Jack posobic that's p O S O B
Speaker 1: I E C on Twitter? Is that correct? Yes, make
Speaker 1: sure you're following Jack. He's he's in a he's in
Speaker 1: a fight to the death now, in a race to
Speaker 1: the death rather against his good pal Mike Sanovitch to
Speaker 1: see who can get more followers on Twitter. So let's
Speaker 1: let's see Jack over the line we're hashtag team Jack
Speaker 1: over here. Thanks once again to Jack Posobic. This is
Speaker 1: on the Back Show from Beach Today. I'm joined now
Speaker 1: by the president of the Claremont Institute, a fine conservative
Speaker 1: think tank. Ryan Williams, joins us on the line. Ryan,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for being here today. Always my pleasure him.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. Ryan, You and the Claremont Institute
Speaker 1: and the American Mind are undertaking a new series, and
Speaker 1: I understand that there's going to be a presentation about
Speaker 1: this in Washington, d C. This week as well. Defend
Speaker 1: America Defeat Multiculturalism is the name of this fantastic article
Speaker 1: on the American Mind dot org. Would you tell us
Speaker 1: a little bit about it, Ryan, Sure, yeah. We you know,
Speaker 1: we've always been in the education business, the first Principle's
Speaker 1: education business, but we thought the tenor of the times,
Speaker 1: and especially the tenor of the modern left, merited a
Speaker 1: little more of a proactive and political approach. So we're
Speaker 1: we're launching a campaign of sorts between now and the
Speaker 1: twenty twenty presidential election. And the theme really is captured
Speaker 1: in my essay Defend America, Defeat Multiculturalism. And by multiculturalism,
Speaker 1: you know this term was in vogue in the nineties,
Speaker 1: and all the complaints about the ridiculousness of the various
Speaker 1: studies department on campuses. But our argument really is that
Speaker 1: it's it's now spread to the rest of America. It's
Speaker 1: really the animating energy or the animating purpose of the
Speaker 1: modern left, especially at the leading edge of the modern
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, and if they're allowed to to instantiate it
Speaker 1: across the land, it's going to be bad for Americans.
Speaker 1: It's you know, it's the politics of multiculturalism or identity politics.
Speaker 1: In their enforcement arm is political correctness. So what does
Speaker 1: that mean really, Well, the old tradition of the founding
Speaker 1: the founders of America is the belief and individual rights.
Speaker 1: That the new notion and the new multiculturalist notion is
Speaker 1: that there are only group rights and that really democracy
Speaker 1: or republicanism is all about figuring out amongst these groups
Speaker 1: who's been the most oppressed given the history of the West,
Speaker 1: and then allocating resources, prestige, honor, political position according to
Speaker 1: that rubric of oppression that we think this is no way,
Speaker 1: no real way to run a country, rather than leading
Speaker 1: to um, you know, the the uplift of those oppressed
Speaker 1: groups and genuine diversity. It will just lead to the
Speaker 1: division of Americans into Balkanized groups and God for and
Speaker 1: continuing descent into cold and eventually even heart civil war.
Speaker 1: So we thought we really need to argue against this,
Speaker 1: engage the right in this argument, and try to build
Speaker 1: a coalition around the defeat of this pernicious influence in
Speaker 1: the body politics. So that's that's what we're up to
Speaker 1: with the project. And it really is a fantastic essay.
Speaker 1: I've shared it with my Facebook page, with the human
Speaker 1: Events facebook page, on my Twitter feed, everywhere I could
Speaker 1: possibly share it. I love how you summarize things. I'm
Speaker 1: going to read a little passenger and just just ask
Speaker 1: you to elaborate a little bit and maybe how we
Speaker 1: can defeat it as well, rather than just identifying the problem.
Speaker 1: You say. In short, multiculturalism as a worldview, a regime
Speaker 1: in the classical sense, a political and cultural way of
Speaker 1: life wrapped up in one. As an ideology, it stands
Speaker 1: for nearly the opposite of America's national motto. It seeks
Speaker 1: to divide and conquer Americans, making many groups out of
Speaker 1: one citizenry. The modern left accustomed to running the campuses.
Speaker 1: According to the new social dictates of multiculturalism now wants
Speaker 1: to run the world that way. Okay, so we know this.
Speaker 1: I think a lot of the audience will be very
Speaker 1: familiar with this, and I think a lot of Americans
Speaker 1: are necessarily against the idea of multiculturalism. But how do
Speaker 1: you actually rest control back from the left in this regard. Well,
Speaker 1: it's no small task. I mean, you've been toiling in
Speaker 1: these vineyards for years. Well, I mean one place to
Speaker 1: start is to start at the source. This won't happen overnight,
Speaker 1: but we have to go after higher education. Libertarians and
Speaker 1: even a certain species of conservatives have been a little
Speaker 1: queasy about wielding the power of the federal government to
Speaker 1: help bring the colleges into line. But look, we give
Speaker 1: away lots and lots of money to almost every college
Speaker 1: in the country, and especially the elite ones. I don't
Speaker 1: see why we shouldn't start insisting that they stop basically
Speaker 1: engaging in what amounts to seminary work of anti americanism
Speaker 1: on campus, and we can start to change the nature
Speaker 1: of the debate and free some thought up on the campuses.
Speaker 1: That would be a place to start doing it. Of course,
Speaker 1: in line with constitutional dictates, of course, but but you know,
Speaker 1: we give away one hundred billion dollars and change a
Speaker 1: year in substance, to say nothing of the subsidiation of loans.
Speaker 1: So I would start with the campuses and then I would,
Speaker 1: you know, make the argument publicly and build a political
Speaker 1: coalition around it and really start running on it. Ran. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're very pushed for time, but we're gonna yeah, sorry
Speaker 1: about that, but we're gonna feature it on human events
Speaker 1: dot Com later on in the week as well. Ryan
Speaker 1: Williams at the Clamant Institute, thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining us here on the buck Sextons Show. That's great. Thanks, cheers,
Speaker 1: Welcome back to the buck Sexton Show. I'm Rahemcasam, the
Speaker 1: global editor in chief of human events dot Com. I'm
Speaker 1: joined for the next two segments by the publisher of
Speaker 1: human events dot com, my business partner Will and and
Speaker 1: friend Will Chamberlain joins us on the line now. Will,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for taking the time out of
Speaker 1: your fantastic sick live periscopes to join us on the show.
Speaker 1: I appreciate that, Raheem, and I do I do appreciate
Speaker 1: a friend qualifier. I think that's particularly important. I see
Speaker 1: I didn't say in which order it was either in
Speaker 1: no particular order. Ull Will Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein
Speaker 1: resigned earlier today. You have been across this issue in
Speaker 1: quite an impressive way in in recent months. You were
Speaker 1: on the One American News Network o a N just
Speaker 1: last week, I think, talking about the curious way in
Speaker 1: which Attorney General Will Bill bathwarted the advances of Bob
Speaker 1: Muller and Andrew Weissman in the in the in the
Speaker 1: Muller Probe. And there's a fantastic piece of analysis that
Speaker 1: will be going on human events dot com when we
Speaker 1: launch on Wednesday. If people want to read that Will,
Speaker 1: we'll pick it apart and explain it all to you guys,
Speaker 1: because there are really a lot of intricate moving part
Speaker 1: that can quite easily be missed unless you've read the
Speaker 1: entirety of the Miller report, or unless you know you
Speaker 1: are studying this thing day in and day out, and
Speaker 1: that's what Will has been doing. So well, talk to
Speaker 1: us a little bit about the resignation of Rosenstein, what
Speaker 1: you think it means, and where this goes next. Because
Speaker 1: because we had Jack Posobic earlier on in the show,
Speaker 1: and he was talking about spying in the White House
Speaker 1: and the FBI and Lisa Struck and what's Lisa Page
Speaker 1: and Struck and all of that kind of stuff. It's
Speaker 1: so detailed, and there's so much going on behind the
Speaker 1: scenes that people don't see, and that the news networks,
Speaker 1: even the right wing news networks, and not really covering
Speaker 1: or getting to grips with. So why don't you give
Speaker 1: us a little bit of information on what you're seeing
Speaker 1: behind the scenes there. So I think Rob Rosenstein made
Speaker 1: made it clear he wanted to resign a few months ago,
Speaker 1: but when Bill Mark came on that this story has
Speaker 1: been in the news a lot that Bill Barr asked
Speaker 1: Rose and seemed to stay on to help him with
Speaker 1: the fives investigation, how the fives warrant was issued against
Speaker 1: Carter Page. So I think the fact that Rosenstein is
Speaker 1: now resigning demonstrates that Barr has what he needs from Rosenstein,
Speaker 1: because when Rosenstein's back out in the world as a
Speaker 1: private citizen, it's not as simple a process to interview him.
Speaker 1: You know, people have talked about how there's an Inspector
Speaker 1: General investigation going on into the five A case and
Speaker 1: other things. The investor Inspector General rather cannot subpoena individuals
Speaker 1: who are not in the department. They can only ask
Speaker 1: for interviews of people who are still employed. So my
Speaker 1: basic thesis is the real significance of why the Rosenstein
Speaker 1: resignation today is that Barr has no more need for
Speaker 1: him to be there to help him understand what happened
Speaker 1: over the past couple of years. And what does this
Speaker 1: mean for Bar then? I mean, is he really isolated
Speaker 1: now in that position or does this given an opportunity
Speaker 1: to consolidate the AG's office around where he now wants
Speaker 1: to go, right? I mean, I think Bar has been
Speaker 1: in firm control of the AG's office almost from the
Speaker 1: moment he stepped into shoot, stepped into the position. I mean,
Speaker 1: just think about it. Six weeks after he was confirmed,
Speaker 1: the Moller investigation was over, and it was pretty clear
Speaker 1: that the Department of Justice was suddenly under his firm
Speaker 1: control as opposed to underseptions when it seemed like it
Speaker 1: was almost an autonomous agency, completely independent from the Trump
Speaker 1: administration and sometimes hostile to it. So I think I
Speaker 1: think Bar has been in control. But what Rosenstein's resignation
Speaker 1: means is that Bar will now get to appoint his deputy,
Speaker 1: So that will help him further consolidate control over the
Speaker 1: pardon because he'll be able to considently delegate certain functions
Speaker 1: to a handpicked deputy, knowing that that deputy will not
Speaker 1: for his intentions. Well, and what do you make of
Speaker 1: the of the sort of situation as Jack Pisobic explains it,
Speaker 1: in that there appears to have been moved by the
Speaker 1: FBI to even recruit some people from within the White
Speaker 1: House of the Vice President's team to help to help
Speaker 1: spy effectively. Right, I mean that that news itself is shocking.
Speaker 1: I don't think I mean the Rosenstein personally had involvement
Speaker 1: with that. It seems like, I mean, he was made
Speaker 1: deputyag early on and the Trump administration, but doesn't strike
Speaker 1: me as like that person responsible for the spying itself.
Speaker 1: That seems like it was Peter Struck and leads a
Speaker 1: page and you know, slight and maybe Andrew McCabe too,
Speaker 1: but not all the way up to Rosenstein. That why
Speaker 1: do you think it is se go ahead, go ahead? Okay? Well,
Speaker 1: I was that said Rosenstein wasn't really that inclined to
Speaker 1: investigate that stuff. It seemed as though Rosenstein was perfectly
Speaker 1: happy to let the Mueller investigation continue without any sort
Speaker 1: of supervision, but very reluctant to do anything to deal
Speaker 1: with the various scandals that arose out of this pretty
Speaker 1: clear FBI spying. So what do you think the Trump
Speaker 1: administration goes from here? Where does the White House go
Speaker 1: from here? Because quite clearly, whether it's been hyper intentional
Speaker 1: or semi intentional, I think you can't say. You can't
Speaker 1: say it was unintentional. You had to get the warrants,
Speaker 1: you had to do the spy, and you had to
Speaker 1: reach out to those people that Jack was talking us
Speaker 1: through earlier. Where do you think they go knowing that
Speaker 1: really they haven't been able to fully trust a lot
Speaker 1: of the administrative state that they have inherited and that
Speaker 1: have been around them. They now have the ability that
Speaker 1: you have a g barr in there, that you have
Speaker 1: a little bit more semblance of control over that whole process,
Speaker 1: over the departments. But can they trust the people around
Speaker 1: them now? And what will they be doing from a
Speaker 1: political perspective? Do you think over the next couple of
Speaker 1: months declassification of the warrants and all the documentation surrounding them,
Speaker 1: or is this the time to draw the line under it,
Speaker 1: because we're heading into an addiction cycle. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't think I don't think they're going to have like
Speaker 1: discussions about what is the best political move for the
Speaker 1: Trump for Trump's campaign. I don't think that's the kind
Speaker 1: of conversation Bill Barr would be amenable too. Well. I
Speaker 1: think Bill Barr is in Trump's corner. I think he's
Speaker 1: still enough of a lawyer and in an institutionalist about
Speaker 1: DJ that he would, you know, kind of recoil at
Speaker 1: any you know, insinuation that he was going to bring
Speaker 1: a prosecution for political reasons or start the classifying things
Speaker 1: for political reasons. But isn't isn't that exactly what Eric
Speaker 1: Holder used to do. Didn't Eric Holder describe himself as
Speaker 1: Obama's wingman, right? I Mean that's certainly true. And it's
Speaker 1: I mean, when people say and criticize bar for being
Speaker 1: a Trump lackey, it's it's really obvious that these same
Speaker 1: people had nothing to say when Eric Holder was, you know,
Speaker 1: Obama's wing man. They had nothing to say when Lauretta
Speaker 1: Lynch was on the tarmac with Bill Clinton while she
Speaker 1: was nominally investigating his wife. Like all there's you know,
Speaker 1: there's all sorts of shenanigans that have already gone on
Speaker 1: at DJ and you know, I mean at the same time,
Speaker 1: so I mean, and now the Democrats to shoes. On
Speaker 1: the other foot, the Democrats control the House and they
Speaker 1: want to exercise you know, supervision over Bar, but they
Speaker 1: set a lot of precedents that will be easy for
Speaker 1: Bar to exploit. Well. I think as the time goes on,
Speaker 1: and especially over night, people are going to get to
Speaker 1: be getting to grips with this Rosenstein issue. So you know,
Speaker 1: we'll we'll we'll hear more about it, much more about
Speaker 1: it tomorrow and no doubt in the in the weeks
Speaker 1: and months to come as well. When these people have
Speaker 1: left their positions in the Trump administration, for some reason,
Speaker 1: they don't go quietly into the night. I'm sure there's
Speaker 1: a book deal in there somewhere for Rod Rosenstein as well.
Speaker 1: I want to pivot in the last segment that we
Speaker 1: have here on the show today to do a shameless
Speaker 1: segment plugging what you and I have been working on
Speaker 1: for the last couple of months and what launches in
Speaker 1: just two days time. That's Human Events dot Com. It
Speaker 1: was Reagan's favorite magazine when when he was president, he
Speaker 1: credited it with his conversion from liberalism to servitism. It's
Speaker 1: the oldest conservative magazine in the country, seventy five years old,
Speaker 1: and it's been sort of sitting on the shelf, not
Speaker 1: doing an awful lot over the last six years or so.
Speaker 1: And you and I identified that it was both a
Speaker 1: great shame that that was happening to that brand and
Speaker 1: be a great opportunity for something very beautiful to come
Speaker 1: to the conservative media sphere in the form of an
Speaker 1: online magazine and hopefully, you know, one day print where
Speaker 1: we can actually showcase the best of the right. But
Speaker 1: hold hold over the break, Will, and we'll get to
Speaker 1: talking about that in just a moment. This is the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. I'm Raheem Kassam. We're going to be
Speaker 1: right back. Welcome back to the buck Sexton Show. I'm
Speaker 1: Raheem Kassam, Global leterature in chief of human events dot com,
Speaker 1: joined by my colleague Will Chamberlain, the publisher of Human
Speaker 1: Events dot Com. We're going to talk to you guys
Speaker 1: now a little bit about what we're doing with that
Speaker 1: very very well established prestige conservative media brand and hoping
Speaker 1: that you'll come on over and support our work. Will
Speaker 1: take take it away, take the pitch away. So yeah,
Speaker 1: we've purchased Human Events. We locked that down in late February,
Speaker 1: right before Seepack, and we're going to launch on Wednesday.
Speaker 1: I'm extremely excited. I mean, the amount of content that
Speaker 1: you've managed to get together and the quality of the
Speaker 1: contributors that are contributing to the launch day is really
Speaker 1: pretty awesome. So I'm really excited about the content. In
Speaker 1: terms of the vision for what we're doing. There is
Speaker 1: missing on our side, a prestige magazine that a prestide
Speaker 1: digital magazine that can really elevate the discussion for the
Speaker 1: sort of nationalist conservative movement, and I think that Human
Speaker 1: Events is an opportunity to really create that out of
Speaker 1: whole cloth, right. I mean, we have some media outlets
Speaker 1: that are generally inclined towards our side, but many of
Speaker 1: the traditional conservative media outlets are more inclined towards establishment,
Speaker 1: you know, nineteen nineties conservatism than they are to Trump
Speaker 1: in the movement he created. You're talking about what is
Speaker 1: derogatively described as a boomer conservative is nowadays, I think,
Speaker 1: rather than the sort of the muscular nationalistic conservatism, that
Speaker 1: the President Trump stands for, and that we had Ryan
Speaker 1: Williams from the Claremont Institute talking about earlier on in
Speaker 1: the show. You know, when I when I talk about
Speaker 1: it with people, will I always say, look, the left
Speaker 1: has Rolling Stone, it has Vanity Fair, it has The Atlantic,
Speaker 1: all these big, beautiful prestige brands that give a lot
Speaker 1: of legitimacy to the left's arguments. They they lose nice, big,
Speaker 1: pretty pictures. The fonts are all very nice, the arguments
Speaker 1: are very well made. They pump this stuff out and
Speaker 1: you know, to a in a great extent, the younger
Speaker 1: people who are consuming political media and cultural media, they
Speaker 1: look to that as a as a reason by which
Speaker 1: to read something. If this doesn't look good, they don't
Speaker 1: actually want to have much to do with it. And
Speaker 1: you know, you have your on the right, your your
Speaker 1: your news sites like bright Bar and Drudge and all
Speaker 1: these guys. But actually, and and this isn't I'm not
Speaker 1: being derogatory about them at all, but they don't provide
Speaker 1: something that I think the new audience in this area
Speaker 1: is looking for. So I always say, the reason we're
Speaker 1: doing this is because we've left a massive, massive chink
Speaker 1: in our armor here in not providing a very high quality,
Speaker 1: glossy product for people, and not just that. It's not
Speaker 1: just about the look, it's also about coherent philosophy that
Speaker 1: doesn't seek to assume that people are either stupid or
Speaker 1: uneducated not willing to educate themselves. But that also isn't
Speaker 1: too high for lutin. You know, it's not a journal,
Speaker 1: it's not it's not academia, but but it sort of
Speaker 1: merges the two. I suppose I call it, and you've
Speaker 1: heard me call it tabloid intellectualism, right right, And I
Speaker 1: mean I feel like that's partially to our own horns.
Speaker 1: I guess that's sort of our style of politics, in
Speaker 1: our style of commentary, is that you know, there's no
Speaker 1: reason to think that you should be talking to a
Speaker 1: tiny audience of intellectuals, or that only a tiny audience
Speaker 1: of intellectuals cares about content quality and cares about aesthetics.
Speaker 1: Most people do care about those things, and I think
Speaker 1: most people will read thinks that are both of a
Speaker 1: high intellectual quality in terms of making good arguments, and
Speaker 1: I have a high visual quality in terms of being
Speaker 1: aesthetically pleasing and good looking. And I think that that's
Speaker 1: our That's the key opportunity here. If you really do
Speaker 1: create something on our side that is accessible, but smart
Speaker 1: and beautiful as well, then you've got you've got something
Speaker 1: pretty cool that could could really drive a conversation and
Speaker 1: change the narrative for our entire movement. So we announced
Speaker 1: a couple of a couple of weeks ago that we
Speaker 1: have a very difficult conservative media sites to make money
Speaker 1: in advertising. You know, you get boycotted and advertisers come
Speaker 1: under a lot of pressure from the political left to
Speaker 1: advertised with conservative news sites or magazines. So we actually
Speaker 1: set up a membership structure by which to run this website,
Speaker 1: and we are from this point on, or at least
Speaker 1: from like a week ago until a month after launch.
Speaker 1: So so Wednesday is our launch day and then until
Speaker 1: a month after that. We've got this scheme called the
Speaker 1: Founding Fathers scheme where founding members of Human Events you
Speaker 1: can go online right now to human events dot com.
Speaker 1: You can sign up. There's a button there that says
Speaker 1: click here to sign up as a founding father. The
Speaker 1: seventeen dollars and seventy six cents a month, which is
Speaker 1: very small in the grand scheme of what it takes
Speaker 1: to run an entity like this. I mean the Conde
Speaker 1: Nasts and the Vanity Fairs and all those guys. Remember,
Speaker 1: they're running on budgets of tens of millions, if not
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions every year. We're asking people to put
Speaker 1: their hands in their pockets. For seventeen dollars and seventy
Speaker 1: six cents a month, they come on board, and they
Speaker 1: get exclusive access to our private Discord chat channel where
Speaker 1: you can talk to me and Will in real time.
Speaker 1: And I'm actually going to start putting out endorsements by people.
Speaker 1: We've already got two hundred and fifty people in the
Speaker 1: Discord group from people who are finding that really very
Speaker 1: cool to be in a chat with us and learn
Speaker 1: in real time what's going on in DC, what's going
Speaker 1: on in their politics, what's what's about to happen, all
Speaker 1: of that stuff. They get a free sign copy of
Speaker 1: my next book, they get exclusive content, they get exclusive
Speaker 1: emails and offers and all that kind of stuff that
Speaker 1: you would expect, and a whole lot more. We're going
Speaker 1: to be holding parties and meetups and gala dinners and
Speaker 1: all these nice things that you would expect for an
Speaker 1: investment like that. Because I know, well, it sounds like
Speaker 1: a small amount of money for some people. It's also
Speaker 1: a lot of money for some people. But we think
Speaker 1: it's value. We think it's a value proposition. We're always
Speaker 1: complaining on our side that we're not doing enough, we're
Speaker 1: not out there enough, we don't have enough media brands.
Speaker 1: And the fact of the matter is, well, if people
Speaker 1: like you and I don't do it and don't stick
Speaker 1: our heads above the parapets and build this stuff, it's
Speaker 1: just not going to happen, right exactly. And I think
Speaker 1: the key part of why to choose a membership structure
Speaker 1: instead of a subscription or a paywall, right is that
Speaker 1: when you think about you're trying to support. When you're
Speaker 1: supporting a political magazine, you're supporting that magazine because you
Speaker 1: want its ideas to flourish. I mean, unless you're reading
Speaker 1: it to hate read it and you just feel like
Speaker 1: you need to read the content. But in general, the
Speaker 1: way I think about it is, if I'm actually giving
Speaker 1: money to a conservative magazine, it's because I want I
Speaker 1: like the ideas in that magazine, and I want those ideas.
Speaker 1: I want to read those ideas myself. But I also
Speaker 1: want others to read them and be persuaded by them.
Speaker 1: If that's true, then a paywall or a subscription is
Speaker 1: sort of contrary to that concept. Instead of, you know,
Speaker 1: letting your content be free and go viral, you're putting
Speaker 1: a paywall behind it making demanding the people pay to
Speaker 1: see it. And what ends up happening is the content
Speaker 1: itself doesn't go viral. So's having a very good way
Speaker 1: of putting it in now, it's a very good way
Speaker 1: of putting it. Yeah, and soy by doing it this
Speaker 1: way where you are a member, you can interact with
Speaker 1: us in a chat, and the exclusive context is content
Speaker 1: is more personal and sort of like adds as a
Speaker 1: taste of kind of behind the scene type material rather
Speaker 1: than being the kind of material that a political magazine
Speaker 1: is trying to use to put her Absolutely well, you've got,
Speaker 1: we've got We've got twenty seconds left, so I've got
Speaker 1: to wrap up here. But thank you so much for
Speaker 1: joining us. That's Will Chamberlain, the publisher of human events
Speaker 1: dot com, come over, be a founding father, be a
Speaker 1: member of that site. I want to thank our producers
Speaker 1: and our engineers. I want to thank everybody across the
Speaker 1: across the network who's helped us do this broadcast today.
Speaker 1: It's been absolutely fantastic, fantastic guests. My name is Raheim
Speaker 1: Kassam buck Sexton. Back with you shortly. I hope you
Speaker 1: have a very good day.