Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Democrats are showing
Speaker 1: us who they are, and it does not look good
Speaker 1: if you believe in capitalism, free markets, and individual responsibility
Speaker 1: and ingenuity. Ocasio Cortez seems to be the voice of
Speaker 1: the far left. And then there's this all of a
Speaker 1: sudden Schultz coming out causing some problems for them that
Speaker 1: are more coming up on the Buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission
Speaker 1: is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make
Speaker 1: no mistake American, You're a great American. Again the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. No, Welcome to the Buck Sex and Show. Everybody,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for being here, Thank you for
Speaker 1: joining me. It is always an honor of privilege and
Speaker 1: a pleasure. We're going to cover a lot of ground
Speaker 1: that down the show. We'll talk about ending wars and
Speaker 1: how Republicans seem to have a real problem with that
Speaker 1: and Democrats only have a problem with it when a
Speaker 1: Republican president wants to do it. That's not a surprise.
Speaker 1: Whatever Trump is for, they are against. And then we'll
Speaker 1: also be joined by a senior former senior DA officer
Speaker 1: about this huge fentanyl bus at the border, and just
Speaker 1: what can we do about the fentanyl, the fight against
Speaker 1: fencyl and all these opioid overdoses. That's that'll be a
Speaker 1: really interesting conversation. And I have to talk about some
Speaker 1: of the latest lunacy from MSNBC and what they're putting
Speaker 1: out there in the Russia collusion conspiracy theories. They just
Speaker 1: won't they won't give it up. They just won't stop.
Speaker 1: Every day, I feel like it's the same Rachel Maddow's
Speaker 1: show in particularly or whatever I've seen it, which is
Speaker 1: pretty infrequent, but it's the same show every night. It's
Speaker 1: something something Russia, blah blah, Trump, twenty fifth Amendment, impeachment, Russia, Russia.
Speaker 1: I don't know how people watch this stuff so much.
Speaker 1: I don't know who is watching this. It's so stupid people.
Speaker 1: The people watching are not learning anything. It's not worth
Speaker 1: their time. It's not true, but here we are. What
Speaker 1: is true, though, is that the Democrats have gotten this
Speaker 1: this unexpected and rude awakening from Schultz, a former CEO
Speaker 1: of Starbucks, who is along with Michael Bloomberg, trying to
Speaker 1: speak some sense to the Democratic Party, and the good
Speaker 1: news for us, my fellow conservatives, is that the Democrats
Speaker 1: don't want to hear it. They don't want to take
Speaker 1: this sound fiscal advice from two people who do know
Speaker 1: how to run a business. You say what you will
Speaker 1: about Mike Bloomberg, say what you will about Schultz. They
Speaker 1: know how to run a business, an incredibly effective, large
Speaker 1: profitable business. And you've got to you've got to have
Speaker 1: respect for that, right, I mean, you've got to be
Speaker 1: able to look at what Howard Schultz has accomplished and say, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: here's a guy who does have a real skill set,
Speaker 1: a skill set that's not just demagoguery and telling stupid
Speaker 1: people what they want to hear and then you know,
Speaker 1: capitalizing on intersectional politics and identity politics and all the
Speaker 1: rest of it. But but can really do something. I mean,
Speaker 1: you are seeing now this happened today. People who are
Speaker 1: trying to say that Schultz is not self made grew
Speaker 1: up in a housing project. He's not self made because
Speaker 1: the housing project, you see is paid forward taxpayer dollars,
Speaker 1: and therefore he lived in subsidized housing. So it's not
Speaker 1: true to call himself made. He is community made. He
Speaker 1: is community made. Who does that begin to remind you
Speaker 1: of who does that start to sound a little bit
Speaker 1: like in terms of that approach to individual achievement. Play sixteen.
Speaker 1: If you were successful, somebody along the line gave you
Speaker 1: some help. There was a great teacher somewhere in your life.
Speaker 1: Somebody helped to create this unbelievable American system that we
Speaker 1: had that allowed you to thrive. Somebody invest in roads
Speaker 1: and bridges. If you've got a business that you didn't
Speaker 1: build that, somebody else made that happen. If you've got
Speaker 1: a business you didn't build that, somebody else made that happen. Obama,
Speaker 1: you see, he encapsulated the left wing socialist Democrat Party
Speaker 1: mantra in one moment, in a way that is timeless,
Speaker 1: because that's what they really think. They don't believe an
Speaker 1: individual excellence and achievement and the meritocracy. That's all nonsense
Speaker 1: to them. It's all collective action, state intervention. And that's
Speaker 1: why Schultz has been such a shake up for them.
Speaker 1: That's what they don't like to hear this stuff about
Speaker 1: a guy who brought himself up and did all this,
Speaker 1: did all this on his own. They said, no, you
Speaker 1: didn't do it on your own. We did it for you,
Speaker 1: and therefore we can tell you what to think, what
Speaker 1: to say. Your success is our success, Your success is
Speaker 1: collective success. This is a recipe for the destruction of
Speaker 1: the system that has brought so much incredible wealth to
Speaker 1: this country. It's hard to fathom what it would have
Speaker 1: been like in the world today if there had not
Speaker 1: been an America leading the way for free markets, free enterprise, capitalism,
Speaker 1: individual rights, rule of law. Democrats are willing to throw
Speaker 1: that all in the bonfire of their progressive lunacy if
Speaker 1: need be. That's why they're talking about taxes in this way.
Speaker 1: They don't think the money is yours in the first place.
Speaker 1: Taxes aren't the government taking from you. Taxes are what
Speaker 1: you are allowed to get from the government. Scholtzen Blueberg
Speaker 1: disagree play too. When I see Elizabeth Warren come out
Speaker 1: with a ridiculous plan of taxing wealthy people, assert tax
Speaker 1: of two percent because it makes a good headline, this
Speaker 1: is what's wrong. I mean, you can't just attack these
Speaker 1: things in a punitive way by punishing people. Number One,
Speaker 1: I think the constitution lets you impose income taxes only,
Speaker 1: so it probably is unconstitutional. Number Two, I don't know
Speaker 1: of any country that has done that people earn money
Speaker 1: to pay their taxes and then they don't have to
Speaker 1: expect the government to come back and take some of
Speaker 1: it away. You know, Mike Bloomberg on a lot of things,
Speaker 1: he's terrible. At least he understands what a stupid idea
Speaker 1: it is to try and institute this wealth tax. Although
Speaker 1: in principle, from a fairness perspective, it is more fair.
Speaker 1: It is more fair than an income tax, that is true,
Speaker 1: but you'd never be able to do it. But they're
Speaker 1: not in the doing things game, the Democrats. They're in
Speaker 1: the just say whatever you got to say to get
Speaker 1: power game, and they're not in the celebrating individual achievement
Speaker 1: frame of mind. They want to talk about all the
Speaker 1: things that the Democrat programs and government assistance and all
Speaker 1: that has done. Because if it was a collective achievement,
Speaker 1: if Howard Schultz pulled himself up out of poverty because
Speaker 1: of all the great things that left wing activist groups
Speaker 1: have achieved with government programs or government housing, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: then whatever he has we should be able to take
Speaker 1: from him. Whatever wealth he has is at our leave.
Speaker 1: We let him have it, right, We being the collective
Speaker 1: of the progressive status left. This is disconcerting. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is going right. They were not expecting to have,
Speaker 1: I think at this time, one the open advocacy for
Speaker 1: infanticide by Democrats and two of the most major states
Speaker 1: in the country. And two this unexpected challenge to core
Speaker 1: left wing Democrat beliefs, that being that you can't just
Speaker 1: tax people into oblivion and pretend like you don't have
Speaker 1: to understand a balance sheet and costs and the ingo
Speaker 1: the outgo and what's happening in a business. Those are
Speaker 1: important factors in how you would run the government too.
Speaker 1: But you know, you didn't build that. Howard Schultz didn't
Speaker 1: make himself. The people that put together the project, that
Speaker 1: took the taxes to fund it, they made him. I
Speaker 1: also want today say that anyone who scrubs a toilet
Speaker 1: works harder than Howard Schultze ever has. I'll tell you
Speaker 1: I've scrubbed a lot of toilets. It's harder to run
Speaker 1: Starbucks and it is to scrub a toilet. All right,
Speaker 1: So the left needs to get a grip here. They're
Speaker 1: kind of you know, rise up working class routine is
Speaker 1: not gonna last very long unless they get tethered to
Speaker 1: reality real soon and we will be right back as women.
Speaker 1: That the pay gap and the wage gap is an
Speaker 1: injustice that persists through secrecy, and it's an injustice that
Speaker 1: persists to the present day. The Paycheck Fairness Act addresses,
Speaker 1: among many things, two very critical ones. One is that
Speaker 1: we cannot ask for salary history and pay people depending
Speaker 1: on their salary history any more anymore, because it is
Speaker 1: time we pay people what they are worth and not
Speaker 1: how little they are desperate enough to accept. And that
Speaker 1: has nothing to do with their history. It has everything
Speaker 1: to do with what they are worth today. This woman,
Speaker 1: Okazia Cortez, is a just wild ignoramus on the economy
Speaker 1: and really it doesn't know anything, does not know anything,
Speaker 1: and it's becoming more and more apparent all the time.
Speaker 1: And I tweeted out today it's obvious to me that
Speaker 1: she's overpaid. Whatever she's making in Congress, it's too much.
Speaker 1: But how would how would this be instituted? The notion
Speaker 1: of a Paycheck Fairness app Act, And that the wage
Speaker 1: gap is this injustice. The wage gap between men and
Speaker 1: women is a myth. It's a myth. Libs keep talking
Speaker 1: about it. They pretend to care about science and facts.
Speaker 1: There is no wage gap. If there were a wage gap,
Speaker 1: which you would find is in jobs where they're are
Speaker 1: that there's really very little difference in the quality of
Speaker 1: the employee, you would have whole companies where all they
Speaker 1: want to do is hire women. Because if you could
Speaker 1: save twenty percent, So I think it's over twenty percent.
Speaker 1: They say it's seventy Mike, what are the seventy seven
Speaker 1: cents on a dollar? I think was it twenty three
Speaker 1: percent something like that. That's, you know, whatever the myth is.
Speaker 1: I think the myth probably changes every time, but I
Speaker 1: think it's inn seventy seven or seventy two cents on
Speaker 1: the dollar. For every every dollar manner and have you
Speaker 1: could save twenty or thirty percent on your labor costs
Speaker 1: for a business, you'd have a massive advantage. A lot
Speaker 1: of businesses which people who have never run any or
Speaker 1: don't know anyone who runs them, run on a pretty
Speaker 1: pretty narrow margin. You know, there are some businesses where
Speaker 1: it's a razor thin margin, and the idea that you'd
Speaker 1: be able to just come along and say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: this person should get paid X because well because what
Speaker 1: because what? How how will you even know her? Thing
Speaker 1: about how you shouldn't be able to ask for somebody's
Speaker 1: salary history. I say to that a whole On a second,
Speaker 1: isn't that an indicator of their what they have been
Speaker 1: valued at in other workplaces for similar work? I mean,
Speaker 1: isn't it relevant to the discussion. I don't think it
Speaker 1: determines your whole you know, I don't think it terms
Speaker 1: your whole worth. But this all comes from the lie
Speaker 1: that people like to be told that they're not making
Speaker 1: as much money as they think they should because somebody
Speaker 1: else is holding them back for an unfair reason. And
Speaker 1: life is not fair, business is not fair. That's all true.
Speaker 1: We can start from that proposition. But it's not all
Speaker 1: because somebody is a man or a woman or any
Speaker 1: of these things. It's all more complicated than that. I mean.
Speaker 1: But to pass a paycheck Fairness Act, this is just
Speaker 1: going to be a huge invitation for all kinds of
Speaker 1: lawsuits and for people to essentially come up with excuses for,
Speaker 1: you know, why they don't negotiate well for themselves. But
Speaker 1: I can tell you negotiating as somebody who has had
Speaker 1: a negotiate a fair amount of his own employment contracts recently,
Speaker 1: Negotiating deals requires not just judgment, but a little bit
Speaker 1: of you've got to have some self confidence and also
Speaker 1: a little tinge of assertiveness, not aggression, but assertiveness. It's
Speaker 1: a skill. There's a reason why people who are very
Speaker 1: good negotiators are paid for that. And obviously President Trump
Speaker 1: takes a tremendous amount of pride in what he views
Speaker 1: as his unparalleled skills of negotiation. Right, it is a skill.
Speaker 1: It's not just something that anyone can do. And because
Speaker 1: of the assertiveness factor as well, you're always going to
Speaker 1: have people who are a little better at getting that
Speaker 1: higher solider than somebody else because they're willing to look,
Speaker 1: are they willing to walk away from the job. Are
Speaker 1: they willing to say that they have another they have
Speaker 1: another offer when they do? Yeah, seventy two cents in
Speaker 1: the dollar. Proucer, Mike semi Hero. It varies, but that's
Speaker 1: kind of considered the average. That's a massive savings. If
Speaker 1: a man and a woman are equally qualified for a job,
Speaker 1: and the only reason that you would hire the man
Speaker 1: is because of a man. Anybody who's a capitalist with
Speaker 1: an IQ over fifty would say, I'm just gonna hire women.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna save almost thirty percent on my labor costs.
Speaker 1: It's not that simple. Does not work that way, And
Speaker 1: this is where you start to get into that conversation
Speaker 1: and a lot of people, including someone the right that
Speaker 1: I don't like to hear, which is, you know, men
Speaker 1: and women also make different decisions. This is reflected in
Speaker 1: how people say, oh, well, women are relegated to dominance
Speaker 1: in lower paying jobs. That's not true. Yes, there are
Speaker 1: a lot of women who are in nursing. There are
Speaker 1: a lot of women who are in elementary school teaching.
Speaker 1: That's true, and that's great. There are also women who
Speaker 1: outnumber men by a pretty wide margin in the veterinary field,
Speaker 1: which you make really good money. I mean, vets can
Speaker 1: some ways have a better deal than a lot of doctors.
Speaker 1: Do you make really good money? Is that because there's
Speaker 1: anti male sexism in the veterinary field? Though, it's because
Speaker 1: women are more drawn to that field than men are,
Speaker 1: because biology matters, you know. This is this is when
Speaker 1: you start to have to look at the cold hard
Speaker 1: facts of existence in the world as it is, not
Speaker 1: as liberals would like to pretend that it is. It's
Speaker 1: so much easier to say that someone else is the
Speaker 1: cause of Look, I have so many frustrations in life.
Speaker 1: I have frustrations day to day. I have frustrations. You know,
Speaker 1: this show should be on every single radio station in
Speaker 1: the country. That hasn't happened yet. You know, I got frustrate.
Speaker 1: Everyone's got their frustrations, right. But it's easier, and it's
Speaker 1: understandable why we take take this approach. It's easier to
Speaker 1: be told that the frustrations that you have, the feelings
Speaker 1: you have of you know, either coming up short, or
Speaker 1: it's not enough or whatever, all of that. It's easier
Speaker 1: for that to feel like it is the result of
Speaker 1: some externality. Somebody else is taking away what is truly
Speaker 1: what should be you, or someone is taking away what
Speaker 1: you would rightfully get if it were not for them.
Speaker 1: You know, you didn't build that, right You didn't build that.
Speaker 1: Everybody built it. Therefore we all should get a piece
Speaker 1: of it. We all sho be able to take someone
Speaker 1: from you because you only have it because we gave
Speaker 1: it to you. That's one very effective way of politically
Speaker 1: capitalizing on envy, telling a massive people that, Okay, you
Speaker 1: don't like your job, you don't like your You know,
Speaker 1: you don't like your station in life, you don't like
Speaker 1: how things are going. It's not because of any choices
Speaker 1: you made. And it's not because maybe you just haven't
Speaker 1: been that lucky yet and needed to stay in the fight.
Speaker 1: Somebody else is the reason for this. There, close mindedness,
Speaker 1: their bigotry, their sexism, there or whatever, that's the reason
Speaker 1: why you don't have that's a seductive argument. We want
Speaker 1: to believe these things because it is much harder to
Speaker 1: sell correct which requires self honesty. That's a much more
Speaker 1: challenging thing people to do, and that's not sexy to sell.
Speaker 1: And politics, folks, people don't like to hear really personal responsibility.
Speaker 1: They don't like to hear life is. And I've said
Speaker 1: this to people that are very close to me recently.
Speaker 1: You know, the older I get, the more I realize
Speaker 1: we are all just a compilation of our choices. We
Speaker 1: are a compilation of our choices. Who you are as
Speaker 1: a person is just really you are all the choices
Speaker 1: you have made throughout life, better for worse. That's what
Speaker 1: you know. How you treat people, how you treat yourself,
Speaker 1: how you go about your day to day everything you
Speaker 1: are just your choices, your actions and your words, your choices.
Speaker 1: But if a politician come along and say, oh no,
Speaker 1: that's not true. You're you're having these problems. You have
Speaker 1: these frustrations because of someone else. This is why socialism
Speaker 1: is so potent because of this, because socialism both pretends
Speaker 1: to have the answers to all of your ills and
Speaker 1: frustrations and pretend to be able to solve them in
Speaker 1: a way that's going to be more more reultan more prosperity,
Speaker 1: and be more fair and better for everybody. So why
Speaker 1: wouldn't you sell it? Why wouldn't you buy into this?
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't you want to be a part of this? Right?
Speaker 1: Socialism is appealing psychologically. That's why it's so important that
Speaker 1: we pull it apart and tackle this based on the
Speaker 1: substance and only mock it insofar as we have to,
Speaker 1: or because we have to have a little fun when
Speaker 1: AOC is talking. More coming up and we can all
Speaker 1: almost every single person this country can acknowledge some privilege
Speaker 1: of some type. You know, I'm a cisgendered woman. I
Speaker 1: will never know the trauma of feeling like I'm not
Speaker 1: born in the right body, and that that is a
Speaker 1: privilege that I have, no matter how poor my family
Speaker 1: was when I was born. But it's really hard for
Speaker 1: some people to admit that they you know, it's part
Speaker 1: of this weird American dream mythology that we have that
Speaker 1: for a lot of in a lot of circumstances, isn't
Speaker 1: as true, or isn't as clearly communicated as we like
Speaker 1: for it to be, or we wish it were there.
Speaker 1: You go more aoc Okazio Cortez in action here saying
Speaker 1: things that kind of sounds smart, at least to liberals,
Speaker 1: but when you drill down into them a little bit,
Speaker 1: when when you look just beneath that surface levels, it's
Speaker 1: complete silliness. It has no real meaning. Or rather, we
Speaker 1: can start from the proposition of ask what does that mean?
Speaker 1: She acknowledges her privilege because she was born sis gendered. Essentially,
Speaker 1: what she's saying is, because I'm not suffering from gender dysphoria,
Speaker 1: I have a privilege that I have to acknowledge. Now,
Speaker 1: let's just start with this. Where does it end? Where
Speaker 1: does privilege end? Is there attractive people privilege? Because I
Speaker 1: think that for people that I know who are really
Speaker 1: good looking, that makes their life easier than anything else
Speaker 1: possible except for maybe, you know, having a lot of
Speaker 1: family money. And maybe some people would even take being
Speaker 1: really really good looking over having a lot of family money.
Speaker 1: But the people that I know, we're really good looking.
Speaker 1: Life is that? Is that a form of privilege that
Speaker 1: has to be accounted for in political and social interactions?
Speaker 1: Where does this stop? Do I have to acknowledge my
Speaker 1: privilege because I don't suffer from multiple personality disorder? I
Speaker 1: do have that. I do not suffer from multiple personality disorder,
Speaker 1: which is a very rare condition as it turns out,
Speaker 1: But I don't have that, So am I privileged? The
Speaker 1: transgender community is, as a percentage of this country, very small,
Speaker 1: but we talk about it a lot, don't we mean,
Speaker 1: the Democrats and the media have very clear and very
Speaker 1: obvious agendas when it comes to the not just the
Speaker 1: LGBTQ community, but specifically the trans community. Now gets a
Speaker 1: lot of attention, and this is now trendy. It is
Speaker 1: fashionable to say that being born cisgendered, which just means
Speaker 1: you are either male or female. That's what cis gender is.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you I got a bigger I got a
Speaker 1: bigger actual functional vocabulary than ninety nine percent a leftist
Speaker 1: that I meet, And I'm just not saying a hundred
Speaker 1: percent that don't want to sound conceited, but it's actually
Speaker 1: one hundred percent. I had to learn what the word
Speaker 1: cisgendered meant two years ago. I said, what what is this? Cisgendered?
Speaker 1: All of a sudden. But this is important to the
Speaker 1: left because talking about privilege in any context, it is
Speaker 1: really just a function of acknowledging the victim status of
Speaker 1: someone else. And victim status is used by leftists, by
Speaker 1: democrats in this country to transfer power from some groups
Speaker 1: to others, because when you're a victim, you can make
Speaker 1: a claim on your oppressor. So if you are a
Speaker 1: victim of society because of the way you look, the
Speaker 1: way you sound, the way you you know, your sexual orientation,
Speaker 1: whatever it may be, the left then uses that and
Speaker 1: it's it's especially effective against moral and decent people who
Speaker 1: you know, want to do right by others and can
Speaker 1: get guilted into things. It's particularly effective with them. But
Speaker 1: they can transfer power then to these oppressed groups because
Speaker 1: we owe it to them. It is owed to you
Speaker 1: to have special legislation that protects you in this way
Speaker 1: or that way, it is owed to you that we
Speaker 1: change our tradition of free speech so that the words
Speaker 1: we use do not offend people within a certain community
Speaker 1: or any of the rest of it. This is a
Speaker 1: core ludacy. I mean, this is why Trump was able
Speaker 1: to win the You know, he doesn't talk about it
Speaker 1: as much anymore, which I find a little frustrating. But
Speaker 1: political correctness, which he used to call out by name,
Speaker 1: is stifling, and people with any sense are really sick
Speaker 1: of it. Just don't don't want to hear any more
Speaker 1: of the nonsense from the PC police. Think that the
Speaker 1: entire thing is completely overdone now and and is hurting
Speaker 1: our culture. As I've discussed with you, it hurts comedy,
Speaker 1: it hurts television and entertainment, and you know, just it
Speaker 1: hurts our ability to discuss things. I'm not just saying
Speaker 1: this because it's a lazy way of saying I could
Speaker 1: say even funny or something I do on this show,
Speaker 1: But there are a lot of times when there's a
Speaker 1: joke that I want to make and I know I
Speaker 1: can't make it because even if you're okay with it,
Speaker 1: all it takes is one smarmy lib in the audience
Speaker 1: who happens to be tuning in and then they want
Speaker 1: to make some big thing and they write an email
Speaker 1: to this you know, organization, and you know, then I
Speaker 1: got all kinds of problems. But one other thing here
Speaker 1: is on this competing categories of these competing categories of oppression,
Speaker 1: which is what the and this is all intersectionality. This
Speaker 1: is all just a discussion really of intersectionality. And Okazi
Speaker 1: Courtez saying that she's privileged because she assist gendered. What
Speaker 1: are we supposed to really do with that? You know,
Speaker 1: I asked before, what does it mean? What do we do?
Speaker 1: What action are we supposed to take? Is it really
Speaker 1: enough for it's just to walk around and say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, I recognize my privilege, and I recognize it,
Speaker 1: so then I oh, our songs are okay, that's it. No,
Speaker 1: they must want something with this. They must be asking
Speaker 1: for people to recognize their privilege because they're at least
Speaker 1: trying to get a change in behavior and probably to
Speaker 1: bully people into either abandoning their own politics or adopting
Speaker 1: the politics of the left. How would you measure this?
Speaker 1: How would you gauge this? Okay, I'm very fortunate in
Speaker 1: life because I am sis gender. Does that mean that
Speaker 1: when I go up for a job against a transgender person,
Speaker 1: that person should get that job? Is that? I think
Speaker 1: there are a lot of lives would say yes. I
Speaker 1: would note, and I mean this, if you were trying
Speaker 1: to find a surefire way for your kid who might
Speaker 1: just be on the bubble to get into you know,
Speaker 1: Harvard or Yale or one of these places, if they're
Speaker 1: close enough, if your son or daughter were close enough,
Speaker 1: I'd say, have them apply as some kind of trans
Speaker 1: rights activists. The school will take him. The school will
Speaker 1: take him. It sounds like kind of a privilege to
Speaker 1: me to be treated specially to be given special consideration
Speaker 1: by the media and now increasingly by the government. But yeah,
Speaker 1: that's she. It is a trendy thing to say I
Speaker 1: have to recognize being sis gendered as privileged. No, it's
Speaker 1: just recognizing your biology, which is in fact male or female.
Speaker 1: Smart border security is not overly reliant on physical barriers.
Speaker 1: There's not going to be any more money in the
Speaker 1: in the legislation. What did you say today, Congress is
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter what Congress does. I knew that he
Speaker 1: wanted it all to himself. I mean, really, a president
Speaker 1: who wants to have Congress to be completely irrelevant, and
Speaker 1: how we meet the needs of the American people. Now,
Speaker 1: to everybody who's wondering how this movie ends, it ends
Speaker 1: this way. We're going to build a wall one way
Speaker 1: or the other. I just talked to the President ten
Speaker 1: minutes before I came up. The President's not doing anything crazy.
Speaker 1: What's crazy is that they're fighting him after having voted
Speaker 1: the way they did in the past. Who's right? Will
Speaker 1: there be a wall or not? Will this wall get
Speaker 1: done or at least get started and really get up
Speaker 1: and running. I don't know. Team. I can't tell you that.
Speaker 1: I have a real good prediction to make here. I
Speaker 1: think that this goes to a national emergency declaration. Trump
Speaker 1: tells the military to build a wall, build a fence,
Speaker 1: and he is enjoined by probably the Ninth Circuit immediately,
Speaker 1: and that stops him. And then this makes its way through,
Speaker 1: and then I suppose the Supreme Court in maybe a year,
Speaker 1: a year and a half, whenever it's going to be,
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court will have its say. I do think
Speaker 1: that Trump will win. I think that the Statute about
Speaker 1: a National emergency clearly makes clearly gives the president authority
Speaker 1: from the Congress by its own passage of legislation to
Speaker 1: do that, to do this kind of thing. But you know,
Speaker 1: Pelosi is managing to position herself here as somebody who
Speaker 1: is and and just a complete anti wall extremist. Not
Speaker 1: a dollar from the wall, no money in the wall
Speaker 1: in the legislation for a wall. Why why don't why
Speaker 1: don't people ask her about this? Why isn't she being
Speaker 1: asked to defend why that is? And notice that she's
Speaker 1: also she's such a dishonest and just prototypical politician in
Speaker 1: all the worst way to meet the needs of the
Speaker 1: American people. Please, Nancy, let's slow your role with them.
Speaker 1: Meet the needs of the American people, all right, You
Speaker 1: and your party don't believe in enforcing our borders. They
Speaker 1: definitely don't believe in interior enforcement, which doesn't get talked
Speaker 1: about at all. I mean that they are not in
Speaker 1: favor of finding illegals and deporting them to their home countries,
Speaker 1: which is what the law currently on the books that
Speaker 1: Congress has pass says. They've given funding for fences and
Speaker 1: walls in the or fences, walls, whatever it was in
Speaker 1: the past, and now they've walked away from it entirely
Speaker 1: and said that this is crazy. The walls that are
Speaker 1: in plays work very well, the upgraded walls work incredibly well.
Speaker 1: So I just don't think she really has She doesn't
Speaker 1: have an honest argument to make, and so what you
Speaker 1: get from her is just shameless, shameless demagoguery. And that
Speaker 1: is the way of Nancy Pelosi. The shutdown is probably
Speaker 1: not going to happen because we're going to get to
Speaker 1: shut downtown time and everyone is going to say, all right,
Speaker 1: Trump ended the last shutdown. We know Democrats aren't going
Speaker 1: to be one be the ones who cave this time around.
Speaker 1: So with that being the case, why not just go
Speaker 1: right to a national emergency and start building this offense.
Speaker 1: Trump does that. I think he's he's in very very
Speaker 1: good shape for twenty twenty, and I think that he
Speaker 1: will eventually be able to build a lot of that wall.
Speaker 1: Lindsey Graham is interesting enough because he's not really all
Speaker 1: that hawkish on the border. He's not somebody who is
Speaker 1: particularly anti illegal immigration, and for him to sort of
Speaker 1: be out there taking the message to the people that
Speaker 1: Trump is all in on this and this is going
Speaker 1: to happen I'd say I was a little bit. I
Speaker 1: was a little bit surprised, not a lot, but a
Speaker 1: little bit, and we will have to see how it goes.
Speaker 1: By the way, there's also a care. I mean there's
Speaker 1: the wall. I mean Trump gave this press conference today.
Speaker 1: There's there's the wall, and there's the caravan. And these
Speaker 1: are really important, really important issues that need to be
Speaker 1: tackled playlif twenty. But we pay hundreds of millions of
Speaker 1: dollars to Guatemala, Honduras and El Salvadora, and then they
Speaker 1: have caravans leaving that country coming up here. And by
Speaker 1: the way, if you go to Tijuana and you take
Speaker 1: down that wall, you will have so many people coming
Speaker 1: into our country that Nancy Pelosi won't be begging for
Speaker 1: a wall. Nancy Pelosi be begging for WALLI says, I
Speaker 1: don't buy that, because Nancy Pelosi likes a legal immigration.
Speaker 1: She is favorable to a legal immigration. But we do
Speaker 1: give a lot of this money to Guatemala, Honduras, to
Speaker 1: El Salvador. We give them foreign aid. And you know,
Speaker 1: those countries are not going to be any less teaming
Speaker 1: with people who want to get out because the countries
Speaker 1: are really bad shape, which means that what we do
Speaker 1: at the border now is going to have ramifications for many,
Speaker 1: many months down the line. There will be consequences to
Speaker 1: decisions about a silent today that affect what's going on
Speaker 1: in this country years from now, because immigration has long
Speaker 1: term impacts, and these caravans that are coming up, we're
Speaker 1: going to find out. I think that the caravans, one,
Speaker 1: we're obviously coordinate with a lot of international NGOs, but
Speaker 1: also that these caravans are being planned as a regular thing.
Speaker 1: They say they do it because of safety and numbers
Speaker 1: and it's a way of avoiding paying the smugglers fee.
Speaker 1: But I also think that this is an idea that
Speaker 1: came to them from outside, outside forces and said why
Speaker 1: don't you guys do this? And that's how we got here.
Speaker 1: So we need a fence to help stop people from
Speaker 1: being able to just march into the country in caravan fashion.
Speaker 1: We also need it, and we're going to talk to
Speaker 1: a d Age in the later on in the show,
Speaker 1: we'll talk to him about what's going on with ports
Speaker 1: of entry with the ability to find drugs. A huge,
Speaker 1: huge fentanel seizure that occurred today, you know, the human
Speaker 1: trafficking is a major problem, a major concern. Here's what
Speaker 1: Trump said about today during a brief q and a
Speaker 1: with the press, Play twenty two. Open borders are very
Speaker 1: bad for our country. Crime comes in drugs, human traffic
Speaker 1: in so many things. But let's talk about human trafficking.
Speaker 1: You can't bring women or children through a port of
Speaker 1: entry where you have people looking into the back of
Speaker 1: a car, a van, a truck. It has to go
Speaker 1: out into the open areas where they drive into our
Speaker 1: country like there's no problem. And that's exactly what they do.
Speaker 1: They get off the main drag or the main road,
Speaker 1: they make a right or left, and then they come
Speaker 1: right into our country. They go through areas where there
Speaker 1: is nobody. We need a border wall. If we don't
Speaker 1: have a wall to stop them, nothing's going to stop them.
Speaker 1: This isn't about technology, and this isn't about politics. This
Speaker 1: is about practicality, and it's about security for our nation.
Speaker 1: Democrats love to talk about how they want drones for
Speaker 1: the border. I was at the left. Okay, let's say
Speaker 1: you had let's say you had drones all over the border.
Speaker 1: I mean, you had a drone, you know, everywhere when
Speaker 1: you needed it. All the drone tells you is that
Speaker 1: there are people crossing illegally. You can't continue to surveil them,
Speaker 1: especially if they get into an urban or even a
Speaker 1: suburban area. You can't continue your drones surveillance endlessly and
Speaker 1: if you don't have the resources on the ground to
Speaker 1: stop members. It's not just that people are crossing legally,
Speaker 1: it's the speed of the crossing. Does jumping the fence
Speaker 1: and getting the states, or you know, does running the
Speaker 1: US Mexico border take you three or four minutes and
Speaker 1: you know, considerable exertion, or is getting into America as
Speaker 1: simple as hopping into a vehicle, you know, going real
Speaker 1: fast over the border because there's nothing to block you,
Speaker 1: and then somebody tells you to get out, and then
Speaker 1: you make a run for it and you're long gone
Speaker 1: before border which will ever arrives. You know, these are
Speaker 1: the complexities of the border debate that don't get reflected
Speaker 1: at all in the media is talking about it and
Speaker 1: the media's coverage of how this all operates. But when
Speaker 1: he's talking about human trafficking, he makes a very good point,
Speaker 1: which is also that these human trafficking organizations that's you know,
Speaker 1: they're not. They're not great at doing false, false paperwork
Speaker 1: to try to get somebody in America. Right, they're not.
Speaker 1: They're not forging, at least not that I'm aware of.
Speaker 1: They're not forging passports for people for for human trafficking operations.
Speaker 1: So the human traffickers are bringing people across the border illegally,
Speaker 1: and they know that every time they do that, they're
Speaker 1: taking some degree of risk. But you're not going to
Speaker 1: go to a port of entry where they can check
Speaker 1: ID and say sorry, you're not going to get in here.
Speaker 1: So this is what the fence ties into so many
Speaker 1: other things. You know, if I if I said to
Speaker 1: you that you know you need a roof on your
Speaker 1: house because you don't have a roof yet, and you said, no,
Speaker 1: I don't need a roof, And I said, no you
Speaker 1: And he said, well, why do you need a roof?
Speaker 1: And I said, well, it's gonna keep it's gonna let
Speaker 1: your house be warmer when you want it to be warmer.
Speaker 1: It will also keep water and rain and you know
Speaker 1: the elements, it'll keep wild animals out of it. All
Speaker 1: these different things. You have, all these different reasons you
Speaker 1: really need a roof. Say well, Buck, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. That sounds like a lot of different
Speaker 1: stuff that's not gonna so the roof. What you're saying
Speaker 1: is the roof is not going to solve all my problems.
Speaker 1: That's kind of what Democrats do. We say, well, this
Speaker 1: is a necessary improvement that will affect a lot of
Speaker 1: other things. And the Laft says, well, if it's not
Speaker 1: going to be perfect and fix everything, it's not worth doing.
Speaker 1: And this is just not this is not discussing in
Speaker 1: good faith. But we've got a lot coming up here
Speaker 1: in our two teams, so stay with me. Global Verification
Speaker 1: Network is the only dual certified and veteran owned background
Speaker 1: investigation and vetting company out there. Okay, they are federally
Speaker 1: certified as a veteran owned small business. I know the
Speaker 1: CEO personally. He's a great guy. He cares very much
Speaker 1: about giving the best customer service and the most efficient
Speaker 1: and accurate results possible for all of your background investigation needs.
Speaker 1: These are risk mitigation experts who really specialize in making
Speaker 1: sure that whatever your size business, they can tailor a
Speaker 1: program to you so your background checks are done, not
Speaker 1: something you ever have to worry about again, and any
Speaker 1: vetting you need. They can get that covered too. Really
Speaker 1: important for hiring, really important for any property that you
Speaker 1: may be leasing out to somebody. Go to MYGBN dot com.
Speaker 1: Everything you'll need is right there on the site again
Speaker 1: m y GVN dot com or call eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine. That's eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine. Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: Leave no stone unturned. You often talk about the diversity
Speaker 1: of viewpoints and the Democratic Caucus. There are pro life
Speaker 1: democrats in your group. Considering the comments from Governor Northam
Speaker 1: the yesterday, how does that make it harder for ProLife
Speaker 1: democrats in the party? Does that cause problems? I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I just don't know what he said yesterday. Are you
Speaker 1: going to ask a new question or is it the
Speaker 1: same old Sam? Notice how Pelosi there, I got a
Speaker 1: little testy, a little testy, And it's because she didn't
Speaker 1: like being asked that question. Because while Pelosi is an
Speaker 1: abortion a pro abortion extremist, because she has a far
Speaker 1: left Lib Democrat. The whole edifice of abortion on demand
Speaker 1: for nine months of the pregnancy is really only possible
Speaker 1: if people don't have to answer questions, don't have to
Speaker 1: tell the truth, and the American people don't know what's
Speaker 1: going on. It's very important for Pelosi and her whole
Speaker 1: gang on the left to always use these words like
Speaker 1: choice to obscure what's really going on, to avoid discussing
Speaker 1: the details of what the policies they support do legalize.
Speaker 1: And I was pleased to see the outrage yesterday at
Speaker 1: Virginia Governor Ralph Ralph Northam because what he said was
Speaker 1: one of the more horrific things I've heard any public
Speaker 1: officials say in a very long time. But then the
Speaker 1: spin machines went to work. I'm sure you have the usuals,
Speaker 1: and you have Media Matters for America coming out to
Speaker 1: try to defend north I mean, Media Matters is a
Speaker 1: place where I do not respect the people that work there.
Speaker 1: I think that if if you work for Media Matters,
Speaker 1: which was founded by David Brock, it's it's only exists
Speaker 1: as a tax advantage five O one C three left
Speaker 1: wing hit organization on conservatives. That's all Media Matters does.
Speaker 1: It's written pieces about me, it's you know, posting stuff
Speaker 1: about me in the past, and and it's it's a
Speaker 1: trash bag organization. And any person of decency and honor
Speaker 1: would choose not to work there. So media people who
Speaker 1: work at move on dot org to activists, a lot
Speaker 1: of bad people there. These are places where there's a
Speaker 1: lot of bad people. They of course leapt to the
Speaker 1: defense of Ralph Northam and tried to rewrite and and
Speaker 1: re reposition what he said so that it wasn't just
Speaker 1: an open and blatant endorsement of in fantasize, which it was.
Speaker 1: That's what it was. And in one of the most
Speaker 1: incredible ever versions of this, Republicans pounce. Idea. You know,
Speaker 1: this is this is the the classic liberal propaganda technique
Speaker 1: for different for different newspapers. And what they do is
Speaker 1: they say, you know, whenever a Democrat does something wrong
Speaker 1: and Republicans pointed out to them, they say, Republicans pounce.
Speaker 1: That's always the that's always the description. Republicans pounce. It's never, oh,
Speaker 1: this person as a Democrat did something bad that people
Speaker 1: are rightfully calling out. It's reblicant. So here's here's an
Speaker 1: example of this though. The woman that we heard yesterday,
Speaker 1: the Virginia delegate who talked about who has asked the
Speaker 1: question in the Virginia State House about whether a baby
Speaker 1: could be killed up to the moment of birth, meaning
Speaker 1: that of the mother's giving birth the baby's coming out
Speaker 1: of the birth canal under the law. And people say, oh,
Speaker 1: this would never happen. That does not matter, and who
Speaker 1: knows if that's even true under the law. Would it
Speaker 1: be legal to do this? Okay, you could tell me, Buck,
Speaker 1: it's legal to go out and kill a hundred people.
Speaker 1: If you kill a hundred people, it's obviously murder if
Speaker 1: you kill one person, But if you kill a hundred
Speaker 1: people will create a loophole. You could tell me, oh, well,
Speaker 1: but no one's gonna go kill one hundred people for
Speaker 1: no reason, Buck, And I'd say, yeah, but why is it?
Speaker 1: First of all, who knows if that's true? And second
Speaker 1: of all, why is it legal? Why would we make
Speaker 1: a murder legal? Doesn't make any sense. This Delegate Kathy Tran,
Speaker 1: who was on the floor. She was wanting to answer
Speaker 1: the question. The Washington Post wrote about this, and this
Speaker 1: is their headline. Okay, until this week, Delegate Kathy Tran
Speaker 1: was known for nursing her daughter on the House floor.
Speaker 1: Now Republicans are calling her a baby killer. The problem
Speaker 1: is not you see from the Washington Post perspective. The
Speaker 1: problem is not that a woman got up and said
Speaker 1: that killing a baby that is being born is in
Speaker 1: fact legal under the bill that she was trying to support.
Speaker 1: The problem is the big, mean Republicans who said that
Speaker 1: that is what she said, and this is Soviet style propaganda.
Speaker 1: This is as dishonest as and this is not an
Speaker 1: opinion piece. This is supposed to be a news piece
Speaker 1: in politics on the Washington Post. Now Republicans are calling
Speaker 1: her a baby killer. Well, they're probably calling her a
Speaker 1: baby killer because she wants to make it legal to
Speaker 1: kill babies. Also reminds me of how people were now.
Speaker 1: They were trying to defend Northam by saying, because it's
Speaker 1: got a lot of attention. I was. I was pleased
Speaker 1: to see that I was not the only one who
Speaker 1: was completely outraged by this yesterday. But in order to
Speaker 1: try to make what Northam said not quite as bad,
Speaker 1: you know, to make it not quite as as grotesque
Speaker 1: and distasteful and immoral and horrific, what they've said is, oh, well,
Speaker 1: he was only talking about babies with extreme when he said,
Speaker 1: you know, keep it comfortable while it's been delivered, and
Speaker 1: then figure out what to do. With it. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's chilling even to just say and just
Speaker 1: remember what he said. But now they're trying to tell us, oh,
Speaker 1: it's only for babies that have extreme birth defects. That
Speaker 1: was the way that they went today with you A
Speaker 1: planned parenthood jumped into action, all these different all these
Speaker 1: different left wing just awful, awful organization, and that's not true.
Speaker 1: Turns out that a large percentage of babies, for example,
Speaker 1: with Down syndrome are aborted, and in a lot of
Speaker 1: cases you can't tell the baby has Down syndrome until
Speaker 1: many months into the pregnancy. So this idea that nobody's
Speaker 1: ever going to just say I'm going to you know,
Speaker 1: the law says I can do this, I'm going to
Speaker 1: do this is not accurate. I'm just glad that the
Speaker 1: people were holding the Democrats to some account. I also said,
Speaker 1: people say, oh, it's only two states, it's not the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. This is this is just disingenuous and stupid stuff.
Speaker 1: But when people are desperate, when they're desperate to believe
Speaker 1: that what they what they have said, or what they
Speaker 1: support is not a terrible and immoral thing, they'll just
Speaker 1: say whatever they have to say. I mean, they'll do
Speaker 1: whatever they have to do. And that's where that's where
Speaker 1: Pelosi comes in. You know, that's where Pelosi is saying, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know what he said. I think I think
Speaker 1: she's lying. I think Nancy Pelosi is lying about not
Speaker 1: knowing what Ralph Northam said. But she wants to dodge
Speaker 1: the question and just hope it goes away. I got
Speaker 1: one other thing I want to bring up for all
Speaker 1: of you before we change the topic. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: talk more about abortion today, but I wanted to. I
Speaker 1: wanted to follow up on yesterday's conversation. Where are all
Speaker 1: of these sanctimonious Christians? Where are all these sanctimonies Christians?
Speaker 1: A lot of anti Trump evangelicals, for example, anti Trump Catholics,
Speaker 1: where are they on this? You know they I've been
Speaker 1: hearing them make all this noise about how evangelicals you know,
Speaker 1: care about climate change too. There's not a lot of them.
Speaker 1: I know it's a small minority, but I hear these,
Speaker 1: these these loud voices. Evangelicals care about climate change. Evangelicals
Speaker 1: believe in in you know, a nation of immigrants. That's
Speaker 1: what I'm is. Where are they on this? Where are
Speaker 1: they those same voices, those authors, those those spokespersons for
Speaker 1: their in their mind at least their denomination, their faith
Speaker 1: who go on TV. If they don't speak out on this,
Speaker 1: they have no credibility on any of those other issues.
Speaker 1: You know, if there's a point to a prominent Catholic,
Speaker 1: whether in the clergy or in the media or somebody
Speaker 1: who does media, if that person does not speak out
Speaker 1: against what's going on right now in the legislature, what
Speaker 1: was passed in New York and what is being passed
Speaker 1: in Virginia, they are frauds. They're frauds, and so I
Speaker 1: won't I think that's something that we all do need
Speaker 1: to remember going forward when they lecture us about how
Speaker 1: you know Trump said Trump said uncouth things about women
Speaker 1: on a tape once. A lot of people have heard
Speaker 1: of the aa ARP. And you might already be a member,
Speaker 1: or somebody you know might be a member. But did
Speaker 1: you know that the AAARP is basically the Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: of senior political organizations? Right, it's all about government control
Speaker 1: of your healthcare, bigger taxes on middle class Americans. You
Speaker 1: don't want any of that stuff. How about I give
Speaker 1: you all the benefits of the AARP, but none of
Speaker 1: the progressive nonsense. I recommend AMAC. Why AMAC Well. AMAC
Speaker 1: is a great value for its members, discounts on car insurance, hotels,
Speaker 1: roadside assistance, and your investment in AMAC allows AMAC to
Speaker 1: act for policy that is good for America and that
Speaker 1: is in line with your values. Join the Conservative Alternative.
Speaker 1: Join AMAC, stand with them as they fight the good fight.
Speaker 1: Become a member today, Join right now at AMAC dot
Speaker 1: us slash buck. That's am AC dot us slash buck.
Speaker 1: AMAC is better, better for you, better for America. And
Speaker 1: this isn't everybody. And I don't want to generalize the crowd,
Speaker 1: but I mean, you do. You see a lot of
Speaker 1: like angry faces, people that their sole purpose is to
Speaker 1: find the gotcha moment, to catch you. Their job is
Speaker 1: not to get information, which is what the briefing is
Speaker 1: supposed to be, it's to trip you up. We think
Speaker 1: we have an amazing story to tell. We're not afraid
Speaker 1: to take tough questions, but we want to make sure
Speaker 1: that it's productive and that it's not for the purpose
Speaker 1: of destroying the president, distorting the message, or destroying the messenger.
Speaker 1: As we go through that process, Sarah Huckaby Sanders explaining
Speaker 1: there why they're not doing quite as many press conferences
Speaker 1: as they used to. And I understand, I understand exactly
Speaker 1: why I think all of you do too. It's not
Speaker 1: about getting information. It just turns into a roast session
Speaker 1: for the lib audience that's watching and reading a lot
Speaker 1: of these outlets. And this is why the acosta ing
Speaker 1: of the White House press briefing has really brought about
Speaker 1: its demise. This just relentless crazy grandstanding from people who
Speaker 1: then turned around and act like, oh, well, I didn't
Speaker 1: do this, I didn't do anything that was that bad.
Speaker 1: And I'm just trying to push them and get quick no,
Speaker 1: you're not. We know that, we know what you're doing.
Speaker 1: We know what you're doing. You are trying to make
Speaker 1: a name for yourself. You're trying to get attention for yourself,
Speaker 1: and the way to do it is by going after
Speaker 1: the administration. The hostility that you show to anybody attached
Speaker 1: to this administration is a way of building bona fidez
Speaker 1: on the left. And unfortunately, we still have an overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: left wing dominated media apparatus, and they have just beclowned
Speaker 1: themselves over the course of the Trump presidency in that
Speaker 1: In that sense, I actually like this. I like that
Speaker 1: we see April Ryan and Acosta and others being so
Speaker 1: obviously respectful to White House people that are trying to
Speaker 1: give you know, trying to give messaging to the press corps.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is about the flow of information from
Speaker 1: the White House of the press that the press is
Speaker 1: not really needed the way that it used to be.
Speaker 1: This is what is I know, this is really an athema.
Speaker 1: They don't want to hear this or the Washington Post.
Speaker 1: They're saying, oh, we need the press now more than ever.
Speaker 1: It's not really true. What you need are people that
Speaker 1: are getting information and sharing information who are trustworthy. But
Speaker 1: you don't have to be a journalist to be able
Speaker 1: to do that. And journalists in general, I think are
Speaker 1: way too full of themselves. I mean, they have this
Speaker 1: whole notion that without them democracy would cease to function.
Speaker 1: Anybody walking around now with a smartphone and a cell
Speaker 1: phone or Wi Fi connection is essentially able to be
Speaker 1: an instantaneous publisher of news and information, and a lot
Speaker 1: of people are exactly that. But you know, the White
Speaker 1: House could just put out put out its statements, but
Speaker 1: its policy to answer these the questions. The questions are
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly partisan, right, they are partisan attacks against the White House.
Speaker 1: So what's what's the point of this? You usually are
Speaker 1: seeing a focus during these hearings, are not hearing, sorry,
Speaker 1: during these briefings, hearings, briefings that's all blending together, a
Speaker 1: focus on questions that are not meant to illuminate anything
Speaker 1: for the benefit of the American people, but are meant
Speaker 1: to be an attack of some kind all the administration,
Speaker 1: are meant to undermine and beat down the administration in
Speaker 1: the public eye. So I totally understand why they're just
Speaker 1: they're sick of it. And I think that if nothing else,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration has forever changed the way that the
Speaker 1: national press is going to be viewed by the American people.
Speaker 1: And that's a good thing because those of us who
Speaker 1: work in it know, and those of us who have
Speaker 1: spent time in these newsrooms have a full understanding of
Speaker 1: just how conceited a lot of these national journals are,
Speaker 1: and also how vote both incredibly arrogant and deeply insecure
Speaker 1: they are at the same time. Because the whole profession
Speaker 1: has gone through a lot of change, and they they
Speaker 1: have created this mythology which doesn't exist. I mean, I
Speaker 1: keep saying this, but it's really true. In the UK,
Speaker 1: journalists traditionally have been kind of viewed as as you know,
Speaker 1: people who are a little bit of scoundrels. You know.
Speaker 1: The newspaper Masthead itself may be very respected, but the
Speaker 1: journalists are usually fast talking, heavy drinking. And there's this
Speaker 1: kind of romanticized but also unromantic view in the UK
Speaker 1: of journalists throughout the twentieth century, and in the US
Speaker 1: we have this whole thing of journalists are almost their
Speaker 1: own They really do think of themselves as almost their
Speaker 1: own branch of government, you know. And you go back
Speaker 1: to the days of the American Founding and when you know,
Speaker 1: people that were utilizing the printing press were so essentially
Speaker 1: you mean, you think of Thomas Payne, you think of
Speaker 1: some of these really you know, the American Aurora with
Speaker 1: what Benjamin Benjamin Bach I think. You know, you look
Speaker 1: at these different papers that had such a big role
Speaker 1: in the in the in the founding and in getting
Speaker 1: the word out about what was going on with the
Speaker 1: revolution and in the early days of the Continental Congress.
Speaker 1: But journalists haven't involved with the times. I mean, they
Speaker 1: still cling to this idea today that they are a
Speaker 1: necessary bullwork against power. It's funny because the clowns that
Speaker 1: right for that crappy website. The bullwork definitely think of
Speaker 1: themselves this way. That's that never Trump thing where you
Speaker 1: got Charlie Sykes. I mean, I just my thing about
Speaker 1: my conversation with Charlie Sykes was he came on my
Speaker 1: show and he was just he was hostile in a
Speaker 1: smug way without when it wasn't necessary. And I just
Speaker 1: I just don't like that. I don't like that. You know,
Speaker 1: I have a pretty relaxed and somewhat irreverent way of
Speaker 1: talking to people, both on set and offset a lot
Speaker 1: of the time, particularly Off said, and I don't I
Speaker 1: don't like any of this unearned arrogance that a lot
Speaker 1: of journalists bring the table and the bulwark in those guys.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, psychs is not I mean stuff he writes,
Speaker 1: it is not good stuff. He says, it's not smart.
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't know. One of you told me.
Speaker 1: Somebody wrote me a message saying you used to listen
Speaker 1: to him in wisconsonant On radio, and it was it
Speaker 1: really was that an interesting show. I don't be shocked.
Speaker 1: But this notion of the journalists are the people that
Speaker 1: present us with the information we need them. Without them,
Speaker 1: we would all be information starved or this is this
Speaker 1: is preposterous. I think the truth is that we probably
Speaker 1: have too many journalists in this country. We have too
Speaker 1: many people that are operating in this in this field
Speaker 1: and in this realm and not being honest. But what
Speaker 1: is they're trying to do, not understanding what the value
Speaker 1: is of their platform, and just hoping to cling to
Speaker 1: some older model where they're you know, one of the
Speaker 1: reasons that they always they always complain about institutions and
Speaker 1: how Trump is undermining institutions is because to journalists, the
Speaker 1: most important institution should probably in the United States is
Speaker 1: the free press. Now I could, I would actually say
Speaker 1: that that's a true statement, except a free press is
Speaker 1: not lib media outlets that have been an operation for
Speaker 1: you know, whether anywhere from one hundred years to a year.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, that's not what a free press is.
Speaker 1: A free press is you and I can say whatever
Speaker 1: we want, write whatever we want, and share information and
Speaker 1: criticize the government openly without government action. A free press
Speaker 1: is not synonymous with the New York Times. That's not
Speaker 1: a thing. And that's where the journals, I think, run
Speaker 1: into a a bit of trouble with reality because they
Speaker 1: are not a free press. There's plenty of press out there,
Speaker 1: There's plenty of different people that are publishing and sharing information,
Speaker 1: and as long as the government doesn't creckt down on
Speaker 1: that will be in good shape. So I think that
Speaker 1: the White as to taking the right movie. You're also
Speaker 1: going to see a big increase in the surrogate operations,
Speaker 1: and I mean the campaign, the Trump campaign is going
Speaker 1: to be largely running a lot of the information out
Speaker 1: there to American people instead of Sarah Hugaby Sanders getting
Speaker 1: abused by these imbeciles from CNN and NPR and elsewhere.
Speaker 1: So that's what I see happening. Let's talk. I will
Speaker 1: talk to you about, well a little more about dumb
Speaker 1: people in politics, but then we will discuss This resolution
Speaker 1: in the Senate has to do with what's going on
Speaker 1: in Syria and Iraq and Afghanistan. You know, the intelligence
Speaker 1: community put out this report, nothing really that, nothing really
Speaker 1: that new groundbreaking, you're interesting in it, But the Senate's
Speaker 1: using this now to do a little bit of you
Speaker 1: know telling us what they think that Trump administrations should
Speaker 1: be doing on foreign policy. Well, we'll break that down
Speaker 1: for you. Basically, they don't want to end the wars.
Speaker 1: I got a problem with that. The people are doing
Speaker 1: the shouting, almost universally, are the same people who said
Speaker 1: Joe Biden shouldn't run because it was Hillary Clinton's turn.
Speaker 1: And they're the same people who put their thumb on
Speaker 1: the scale for Hillary Clinton against Bernie Sanders because he
Speaker 1: couldn't win, and they guaranteed us Donald Trump would never
Speaker 1: be elected. Say, when you look at where the race
Speaker 1: is right now, Hillary Clintons going to be elected the
Speaker 1: forty fifth president of the United States, I think they
Speaker 1: need to spend some serious time preparing concession speech. The
Speaker 1: magnitude of the electoral catastrophe for Republicans that is upon
Speaker 1: them just really can't be overstated. The presidential race is
Speaker 1: effectively over. Hillary and Rotten Clinton will be the forty
Speaker 1: fifth President of the United States. Chuck Shermer will be
Speaker 1: the majority leader of the United States Senate. And the
Speaker 1: only question that's still up in the air, what's the
Speaker 1: over under on the electoral college victory for Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: I think she's trending over four hundred, trending over four hundred. Yes,
Speaker 1: so Democrats take the Senate. Yes, Democrats the House. The
Speaker 1: first person who addresses Hillary Clinton on Tuesday Night is
Speaker 1: Madam President elect. That matters is Donald Trump. Steve Schmidt
Speaker 1: might be the dumbest person on cable news. Steve Schmidt
Speaker 1: might in fact be the dumb you heard there. He's
Speaker 1: saying the same people saying this and that of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: now we're saying the wrong things about the election before. Right,
Speaker 1: the same people who were acting like they had all
Speaker 1: this insidery knowledge and they were the ones that really
Speaker 1: knew what was going on, those people are now telling
Speaker 1: you who's gonna win the Democratic primary. Meanwhile, Steve Schmidt
Speaker 1: made an imbecile of himself on TV. I mean, this
Speaker 1: guy ran the McCain campaign, and I knew that, you know,
Speaker 1: even before I was in media apology, I knew that
Speaker 1: he was bad news because he's the only one. He's
Speaker 1: played by Woody Harrelson in the HBO movie about called
Speaker 1: Game Change, about the Sarah Palin period of the McCain campaign,
Speaker 1: and he's the only one that has made to look
Speaker 1: good in that, which means that he clearly talked to
Speaker 1: all the Lib journalists and tried to cover his butt
Speaker 1: and was making friends with people. And he goes on
Speaker 1: the Real Time Bill Maher show and he says stupid
Speaker 1: things there. He's just not a very smarter or ethical guy.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've heard from people that worked on that
Speaker 1: campaign that he's just he was a constant leaker, constantly
Speaker 1: out for himself, didn't have any good ideas, you know.
Speaker 1: And then afterwards, after then that campaign was very poorly run.
Speaker 1: The McCain campaign was poorly run and got annihilated by Obama.
Speaker 1: I mean, it wasn't even close. McCain got crushed by
Speaker 1: President Obama. And now he's going on TV and he's
Speaker 1: acting like he's somebody who can actually see the future.
Speaker 1: And I just feel like sometimes it's important to point
Speaker 1: out that these people, a lot of them, would go
Speaker 1: on TV, especially these political consultant types, are frauds, their phonies.
Speaker 1: They don't really know anything, they're not smart, they don't
Speaker 1: bring much to a conversation of anything. But that's not
Speaker 1: even the dumbest thing that was said on MSNMEC in
Speaker 1: the last twenty four hours. In fact, the dumbest and
Speaker 1: perhaps craziest thing said on MSNBC in the last twenty
Speaker 1: four hours comes from their number one, most highly paid,
Speaker 1: most revered television talent, Rachel Maddow, everybody who people talk
Speaker 1: about on the left like she's some kind of a
Speaker 1: god now because she's been able to beat Fox in
Speaker 1: the ratings certain nights, which is the left is, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, it's so amazing, you can beat Fox in
Speaker 1: the ratings. But you know, you turn on MSNBC, turn
Speaker 1: on CNN, you're put in this weird loop of an alternate,
Speaker 1: alternate universe where Russia collusion is the single most important
Speaker 1: thing that has ever been discussed ever in any universe,
Speaker 1: in any world ever. And this though last night was
Speaker 1: just the most desperate Let's take cold weather and may
Speaker 1: get a Russian plot or a Russia a possible Russian
Speaker 1: conspiracy I've ever heard in my life. And this is
Speaker 1: an embarrassed but you should hear it. Plate twenty three
Speaker 1: National Intelligence telling us all in unclassified form, in black
Speaker 1: and white, China and Russia can do this today now
Speaker 1: whenever they want to. In other words, we're relying on
Speaker 1: their good graces that they're not. And it is like
Speaker 1: negative fifty degrees in the Dakotas Right now, What would
Speaker 1: happen if Russia killed the power in Fargo today? Right?
Speaker 1: What would happen if all of the natural gas lines
Speaker 1: that serve as Sioux Falls just poofed on the coldest
Speaker 1: day in recent memory and it wasn't in our power
Speaker 1: whether or not to turn them back on. I mean,
Speaker 1: what would you do if you lost heat indefinitely as
Speaker 1: the act of a foreign power on the same day
Speaker 1: the temperature in your front yard matched the temperature in Antarctica?
Speaker 1: I mean, what would you and your family do? What
Speaker 1: if Russia, when it's so cold outside, shuts off our
Speaker 1: natural gas? This is crazy and you will be thinking yourself, Fuck,
Speaker 1: why would you even It's just such a dumb thing
Speaker 1: to say. Why is she even going? Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: because Russia fear mongering of any kind, even bizarre, detached
Speaker 1: from reality. Russia fear mongering that is catnet for the
Speaker 1: MSNBC audience. They can't get enough Russia fear mongering. Really
Speaker 1: the dumbest thing I've heard in a long time. But
Speaker 1: there you go, more of that coming your way. My
Speaker 1: amendment would acknowledge the plain fact that al Qaida Isis
Speaker 1: and their affiliates in Syria and Afghanistan continue to pose
Speaker 1: a sirious threat to us here at home, and recognize
Speaker 1: the danger of a precipitous withdrawal from either conflict. You know,
Speaker 1: I support the President on this. I think to call
Speaker 1: it a precipitous withdrawal after seventeen years is ludicrous. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've been there seventeen years. We need to learn as
Speaker 1: a country how to declare victory. We've got been law,
Speaker 1: we disrupted the people who attacked us. I was all
Speaker 1: for that. I think we need to continue to have
Speaker 1: surveillance of the region, but I don't think we have
Speaker 1: to have soldiers there forever. We have to learn how
Speaker 1: to declare victory. And frankly, I'm with President Trump in
Speaker 1: the sense that we're spending fifty one billion dollars a
Speaker 1: year in Afghanistan. Let's spend some of that money at home.
Speaker 1: We'd have plenty of money for a wall if we
Speaker 1: weren't building roads, bridges and everything else, gas stations, hotels.
Speaker 1: We're building fifty one billion dollars worth of stuff in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan every year. I'm for spending that money here at home.
Speaker 1: It's disheartening to me that the GOP establishment, led by
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell here is so opposed to ending endless war.
Speaker 1: And sure enough you have there are lunatics out there
Speaker 1: like Max Boot who are saying, we need to view
Speaker 1: this as a hundred year long conflict and so we
Speaker 1: just should accept that we're gonna have troops in these
Speaker 1: countries for a hundred years. No, we don't need to
Speaker 1: accept that. Look, I'm the more I look at some
Speaker 1: of our military employments and places even like South Korea
Speaker 1: and Okinawa, and we got military and so many places
Speaker 1: all of the world. I don't think we need to
Speaker 1: have quite the deployments that we do. I don't think
Speaker 1: we need to have quite as many soldiers in as
Speaker 1: many places as we do. And the fact that the
Speaker 1: GOP still has this very obvious hesitancy to scale down
Speaker 1: combat zone deployments in places where you know we should
Speaker 1: be able to answer. Let me walk through the systematically.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna try to take some of the partisanship and
Speaker 1: the people, oh I'm right now, you're a right, and
Speaker 1: all that stuff out of us. You can apply with
Speaker 1: these very important questions of where we have military deployed
Speaker 1: in a combat So and you can apply some very
Speaker 1: straightforward frameworks for how to think about this. Here's one,
Speaker 1: what is the US national security interest of this deployment? Now,
Speaker 1: if the US national security interest starts to fall very
Speaker 1: quickly into a discussion of well, we've been there and
Speaker 1: we need to show leadership and we need to make smart,
Speaker 1: we need to do smart diploma. See and you know
Speaker 1: a lot of kind of buzzwords and honestly a lot
Speaker 1: of bs, it's a bad sign. The answer to what
Speaker 1: is the US national security interests should be a very clear,
Speaker 1: straightforward and that's not just what's the security interest, because
Speaker 1: we're not supposed to be sitting around saying, well, if
Speaker 1: we stay in Afghanistan, it will help the remnants of
Speaker 1: the Northern Alliance, you know, the the Tajiks and the
Speaker 1: Uzbeks and Hazaras, who are you know, the back mone
Speaker 1: of the Northern Alliance. It'll help them stabilize the country
Speaker 1: against malign Taliban influence from the Pashtun regions in the
Speaker 1: south and the east. Now that's their national security interests,
Speaker 1: I mean our national national security interest. What's in our interest?
Speaker 1: And if it's, oh, we can't leave because the missions
Speaker 1: not dumb. Well, then I'll say, we'll explain to me
Speaker 1: what the mission is again. You know, you have to
Speaker 1: avoid a tautology. You have to avoid going in, going
Speaker 1: after these foreign policy questions with essentially a series of
Speaker 1: more questions. You know, we should be there because it
Speaker 1: sounds strategy to be there. Okay, why does it sound strategy, Well,
Speaker 1: because we think that there's you know, there's a long
Speaker 1: term benefit to the region for stability. Okay, why is
Speaker 1: that long term benefits for stability in the region in
Speaker 1: our interest? You know, you keep chasing the answers with
Speaker 1: more questions, and I know it can be kind of
Speaker 1: a frustrating experience maybe, but I think it's a really
Speaker 1: important one because we should expect that those in our leadership,
Speaker 1: in our government who are sending young men and women
Speaker 1: into places where they're not you know, they're not just
Speaker 1: under some threat. They are still taking casualties. People are dying,
Speaker 1: people are being killed in these places. And you also
Speaker 1: add into that the cost. I'm amazed at how many, honestly,
Speaker 1: how many conservatives I know who are not anti Trump
Speaker 1: but but very critical of Trump, who think that, you know,
Speaker 1: having a few thousand guys in the middle of the
Speaker 1: Syrian desert. Is you know, no big deal of the
Speaker 1: the cost of bringing in you know on c. One
Speaker 1: thirties or however else is that the cost of bringing
Speaker 1: in the equipment of material is is amazingly high. This
Speaker 1: is not an inexpensive thing to do to set up
Speaker 1: two thousand American troops in a hostile foreign country that's
Speaker 1: in the midst of a civil war and keep them,
Speaker 1: keep them secure and supplied and able to take the
Speaker 1: fight to the enemy. This is not a minor thing.
Speaker 1: This is This is very This is a challenging and
Speaker 1: expensive thing, certainly expensive. So you ask these questions though
Speaker 1: it and you you find yourself getting very unsatisfactory answers.
Speaker 1: You know, in the case of Syria, which you know
Speaker 1: I amount and I said that I opposed the somewhat
Speaker 1: establishment conservative view on this, that oh, we have to
Speaker 1: stay there because the fight against ISIS is not over all, right,
Speaker 1: That's that's an interesting concept. The fight against ISIS is
Speaker 1: never going to be over. Isis is gehotism. It's just
Speaker 1: the iteration of a Gehottest idea that has spread around
Speaker 1: the globe to tens of millions of people. Now not
Speaker 1: tens of millions of them are our terrorists are gehottest.
Speaker 1: But they do believe in some version of a caliphate
Speaker 1: or a time will come when there will be a caliphate.
Speaker 1: And if we're going to be in Syria until Isis
Speaker 1: is entirely eradicated, we're going to be in Syria forever.
Speaker 1: That's so we need to understand what the standards are
Speaker 1: that are being applied here. If we're going to be
Speaker 1: in Syria until Isis is no longer, no longer is
Speaker 1: this in that country, we are going to be there forever,
Speaker 1: all right? If we're now you take this to it
Speaker 1: another level of the Syria conflict. We're there to counterbalance
Speaker 1: a lot of people say this and they think they're
Speaker 1: very clever and very wise when they say it, and
Speaker 1: they're wrong. So we're there to counterbalance Iranian and Russian
Speaker 1: actions in Syria. How are we going to do that? Exactly?
Speaker 1: They're flying in men and material whenever they want. We're
Speaker 1: not shooting their plans out of this guy. We're not shooting.
Speaker 1: We're not at war with the Assad regime. We're not.
Speaker 1: People liked it. People I think sometimes get confused and
Speaker 1: see think that we're in a war with the Assaud regime.
Speaker 1: We're not at war with the Assaud regime, So how
Speaker 1: are we going to counterbalance because we're gonna have Americans there?
Speaker 1: You think assad is going to play more nicely inside
Speaker 1: his own Country's killed five hundred thousand of his own people,
Speaker 1: or five hundred thousand people have been killed in it
Speaker 1: in his war for him maintaining power. We don't have
Speaker 1: that kind of sway, and we shouldn't. We shouldn't. So
Speaker 1: if we're there to counterbalance Iran and Russia, unless we're
Speaker 1: willing to go to war, unless we're willing to go
Speaker 1: to war with Iran and Russia over the Syria issue,
Speaker 1: that's a fan to see and we will be there forever.
Speaker 1: Here's another one, and this is the one that you
Speaker 1: really have to think about. And I think that I've
Speaker 1: thought more about it, and I came to this one.
Speaker 1: The Kurds. We've been very concerned about the Kurds, understandably
Speaker 1: so they've been good allies in this fight against the
Speaker 1: Islamic State, and we should, as a matter of principle,
Speaker 1: as a matter of honor, want to take care of
Speaker 1: our allies. We're worried about the Turks, which also brings
Speaker 1: up this question of Turkeys a NATO allies. So why
Speaker 1: is it that we have to be so worried about
Speaker 1: a NATO ally going after another one of our allies.
Speaker 1: We've asked them very clearly, don't do that, Okay, So
Speaker 1: then we go to this other level. All right, fine,
Speaker 1: we want to make sure that the Turks won't attack
Speaker 1: the Kurds. That means we have to stay forever. And
Speaker 1: when I stay forever, I mean no one knows what
Speaker 1: the worlds can look like in a one hundred years,
Speaker 1: but that means, you know, we're there for the next decade, easily,
Speaker 1: maybe the next few decades, because the Turkish Kurdish conflict
Speaker 1: predates this whole mess in Syria by well decades and
Speaker 1: really centuries actually, I mean these are ethnic conflicts as
Speaker 1: much as they are ideological and state level conflicts. The
Speaker 1: Turkic people against the Kurdish people, who have both been
Speaker 1: in the region for a very very long time. So
Speaker 1: you know, that's just in the sirial question. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can break this down on any number of different
Speaker 1: foreign policy challenges or foreign policy issues, but you see
Speaker 1: what I mean, you have to be able to answer
Speaker 1: these simple questions. And I do not believe that the
Speaker 1: Republicans who are in favor of continued war in these
Speaker 1: places have sufficient answers for these questions. I just don't
Speaker 1: believe it. I just don't think they've thought through it enough.
Speaker 1: I think that they haven't really given a given what
Speaker 1: they need to in terms of review of what has
Speaker 1: gone on here in the past and what the likelihood
Speaker 1: is of it changing in the future. I really, I
Speaker 1: really would like to see us and the war in
Speaker 1: Afghanistan and the warr's here now when we or the
Speaker 1: war in Syria and in a rock by the way,
Speaker 1: is there a chance that the Taliban, if this deal
Speaker 1: that we've apparently struck with them, that this might lead
Speaker 1: to the Taliban seizing power and being a major problem. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there is. There is that real possibility. But is that
Speaker 1: possibility going to be there at this point no matter
Speaker 1: what we do? Yes? I mean, it's just enough. It's enough.
Speaker 1: We have been at war since I was a soft
Speaker 1: more in college. We've been at war. This country has
Speaker 1: had troops in active combat zones for my entire adult life.
Speaker 1: And I'm looking at forty here pretty soon. So what
Speaker 1: does that say? You know, I think of Marcus Aurelius
Speaker 1: in that that scene. He was the actor he's actually
Speaker 1: passed away. He was a great actor and does a
Speaker 1: great job in the movie Glad to Eat, where he says,
Speaker 1: you know, Maximus, you know we've had what is it,
Speaker 1: you know, two years of peace in twenty or you
Speaker 1: know whatever. I forget what the breakdown is. But he's like,
Speaker 1: I just I wanted all the means something, and you know,
Speaker 1: I brought the sword nothing more. And you know, you
Speaker 1: just think, why do we Why should we accept that
Speaker 1: we live in a state of perpetual military conflict. That's
Speaker 1: not the way this is supposed to be. And I
Speaker 1: know there are all these arguments about counterinsurgency and counter
Speaker 1: radicalism and all these things. No, I think we've had enough.
Speaker 1: I think these wars should end, and even if they
Speaker 1: end on terms that we don't like. We're not leaving
Speaker 1: because our soldiers lost. We're not leaving because our military
Speaker 1: was defeated. We're leaving because we don't have anything that
Speaker 1: we really need to do there anymore. And also it's
Speaker 1: really just not our problem, and we need to be
Speaker 1: able to say that. So I disagree with McConnell here,
Speaker 1: and I think that Ran Paul is much closer to
Speaker 1: the mark. If you're in a relationship a couple of
Speaker 1: important dates that you know they require roses right Birthdays,
Speaker 1: anniversaries and Valentines, which is right around the corner. So
Speaker 1: when you're looking for the biggest and best quality roses
Speaker 1: out there, please check out my friends at one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com. Right now you can get eighteen
Speaker 1: red roses for twenty nine ninety nine or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four red roses for only ten bucks more. This
Speaker 1: is a great offer from one eight hundred flowers eighteen
Speaker 1: red roses for twenty nine ninety nine or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four red roses only ten dollars more. You pick
Speaker 1: your delivery date when you call win one hundred flowers,
Speaker 1: They will handle the rest. It is so easy when
Speaker 1: it comes to life special occasions, do it the right way.
Speaker 1: I do, and I don't settle for anything less than
Speaker 1: my rose authority one eight hundred flowers dot com. To
Speaker 1: order eighteen red roses for twenty nine ninety nine or
Speaker 1: upgrade to twenty four red roses, go to one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com click that radio icon and enter
Speaker 1: the promo code Buck. That's one eight hundred flowers dot
Speaker 1: Com radio icon promo code buck hurry offer expires today.
Speaker 1: They might tunnel from the border to those drainage pipes
Speaker 1: and try to get around this main channel gates to
Speaker 1: dig around them. So that's why we have to have
Speaker 1: agents underground patrolling all the pipes. A lot of ways
Speaker 1: that drug smugglers and the cartels try to get stuff
Speaker 1: across our border. Tunnels is one of the ways. Tunnels
Speaker 1: are expensive. Getting through open territory where there's no border
Speaker 1: patrol and no border fence. That's another way. And then
Speaker 1: of course there's ports of entry. What's the reality of
Speaker 1: trying to make this more difficult for the cartels and
Speaker 1: prevent this poison from pouring into our country, which as
Speaker 1: we know, is killing tens of thousands of Americans now
Speaker 1: a year. We have somebody who can really answer these questions.
Speaker 1: We're joined by Derek Maltz, who's a former agent in
Speaker 1: charge of DA's Special Operations Division. Derek, thank you for
Speaker 1: giving us your time, Hey Buck, thank you very much
Speaker 1: for having me on the show. I look forward to
Speaker 1: the conversation. So today, Hey, fentanyl was seized by border
Speaker 1: patrol in what is being called a record bust, and
Speaker 1: the amount of fentanyl here was was very high. It
Speaker 1: was one hundred and fourteen kilos of fentanyl, a kilo
Speaker 1: of fentanyl, pills, one hundred and seventy nine kilos of
Speaker 1: methamphetamine and in a tractor trailer. So this was at
Speaker 1: a port of entry. This has become a contentious part
Speaker 1: of the discussion of bord of security. Reason line, Derek,
Speaker 1: what's going on right now? How are the cartels getting
Speaker 1: stuff through the ports of entry? Okay, So first of all, Buck,
Speaker 1: let me just explain something with that fentinel seizure. The
Speaker 1: public must understand that one kilogram of fentanyl can kill
Speaker 1: five hundred thousand people. So it's been reported that this
Speaker 1: particular seizure could have killed fifty seven million people based
Speaker 1: on the fact that two milligrams can kill an adult. Now,
Speaker 1: to answer you a question, I mean, obviously, the cartels
Speaker 1: are running a multi billion dollar enterprise and they're going
Speaker 1: to continue to blitch this country with their poison because
Speaker 1: there's a huge demand. So the country must focus on
Speaker 1: educating the public and the kids and everybody else regarding
Speaker 1: the dangers of these new chemicals. Because it's not like
Speaker 1: the old days where somebody smoke in some marijuana that
Speaker 1: has a very low THHC contact. You're talking about synthetic
Speaker 1: drugs that are made in labs in China. And the
Speaker 1: other thing that the public doesn't realize is there's a
Speaker 1: very dangerous relationship growing between the Chinese organizations and the
Speaker 1: Mexican cartels. Now, the scary part, book, is the cartels
Speaker 1: all throughout a country. They're in every one of our cities.
Speaker 1: They're in over fifty countries. So the Chinese not only
Speaker 1: are they making the chemicals to produce fent at all,
Speaker 1: but they also are sending toun quantities of precursors into
Speaker 1: Mexico to the ports. That's how they're making all this
Speaker 1: industrial quantities of meThe enemy. So you have a situation
Speaker 1: where as long as this demand, there's going to be
Speaker 1: ways to get it in the country. Now everyone talks
Speaker 1: about the southern border, but what people are not talking
Speaker 1: about is go back into the eighties with Miami and
Speaker 1: the Caribbean islands. They already have opened up some of
Speaker 1: those smuggling routes. Book, because they're smart, they know the
Speaker 1: US government is focused on the Southwest border, so they're
Speaker 1: pushing people over through the Caribbean and drugs. But on
Speaker 1: your question regarding the port of entry, one of the
Speaker 1: things the public doesn't understand is if there was a wall,
Speaker 1: the wall itself is not going to stop drugs smuggling.
Speaker 1: But what it's going to do is it's going to
Speaker 1: be able to focus resources from border patrol at the
Speaker 1: port of entries with the latest and greatest technology to screening.
Speaker 1: They can then do a better job and looking at
Speaker 1: every tractor trailer, every car, and they can do a
Speaker 1: much better job figuring out who these people are coming
Speaker 1: into our country. Right now, they're all over there. It's
Speaker 1: like the Wild West on the desert, I mean, on
Speaker 1: the on the border, and they can't keep up with it.
Speaker 1: It's just too the magnitude is too high. So what
Speaker 1: should we be doing then? I mean, how you know
Speaker 1: you're telling me they're using different routes, are going back
Speaker 1: to the old kind of the old eighties Kane route
Speaker 1: right of through the Caribbean and then up into Florida.
Speaker 1: It feels like wherever we apply more research and this
Speaker 1: is a broader drug war question than just a border question.
Speaker 1: But Fentonel killed over seventy thousand America, or I should
Speaker 1: say Opioid's killed over seventy thousand Americans last year and overdoses.
Speaker 1: Some percentage of that is obviously prescription drugs, which I
Speaker 1: know DEA has been cracking down on that too, and
Speaker 1: over prescribing of medications. A lot of it is illegal stuff.
Speaker 1: The cartels are making pills that look like pharmaceutical pills
Speaker 1: because it's an easier to sell them on the street.
Speaker 1: So what do we do here? I mean, were you
Speaker 1: were involved in trying to trying to stop this scourge.
Speaker 1: Some people look at look at they say, you know,
Speaker 1: we just can't win this fight. What do you say? Okay?
Speaker 1: So I say, go talk to the parents that of
Speaker 1: burying their kids because of a dying of fentanyl. So
Speaker 1: you've got to continue to fight. Law enforcement is one
Speaker 1: part of it. We have a much bigger problem. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: after nine to eleven, our US government completely neglected the
Speaker 1: drug educationist is the commercials, they the role models from
Speaker 1: the public, you know, media and the sports. They should
Speaker 1: have been doing way more education to the kids in
Speaker 1: middle school and elementary school to get them understanding the
Speaker 1: dangers of the stuff. The kids unfortunately thought, you know,
Speaker 1: taking mommy's prescription out of the medicine cabinet was fine
Speaker 1: because the doctor prescribed it. So there was the messaging
Speaker 1: was terrible, and unfortunately our country in Washington, they focus
Speaker 1: on the problem of the day instead of looking at
Speaker 1: long term strategies. They should have been educating the kids.
Speaker 1: Now we have like a runaway train, Buck, because we
Speaker 1: have a lot of catching up to do on the
Speaker 1: education side. But here's the thing. What nobody really talks
Speaker 1: about either, is that this is a very global issue.
Speaker 1: So now like we were very involved with the HESBLA
Speaker 1: and the cocaine cartels in Mexico and the millions of
Speaker 1: dollars a month that we're making, U sending money out
Speaker 1: of the out of the US in the used car
Speaker 1: businesses to support Iran, to support HESBLA. So you know what, Buck,
Speaker 1: this is a much larger issue than people in Washington understand.
Speaker 1: You have terrorists increasingly turning to crime and criminal networks
Speaker 1: for their funding, and drug trafficking is generating four hundred
Speaker 1: billion dollars a year according to the UN. So we
Speaker 1: have to do a better job with all our international partners.
Speaker 1: We have to do a better job internally. You know, Buck,
Speaker 1: I know this is no surprise to you because I
Speaker 1: know your background. But in America, we're still not sharing
Speaker 1: information across the agencies on these different threats. We have
Speaker 1: silos all over the place. We're losing leadership in different
Speaker 1: government agencies that are not holding people accountable. So until
Speaker 1: we start doing some of that stuff and fixing the
Speaker 1: broken systems, you know, we're going to continue to have
Speaker 1: massive problems. Now, the good news is we have seen
Speaker 1: a lot better cooperation, We have seen some more successes.
Speaker 1: But honestly, Buck, because the demand is so high, the
Speaker 1: cartels are going to just keep pumping it. So that's
Speaker 1: why I've been very vocal recently that I think at
Speaker 1: this point in our country's history, we need to seriously
Speaker 1: consider designating the cartels as terrorists. Because the State Department
Speaker 1: has some criteria, and I reviewed this criteria very closely,
Speaker 1: and I don't see anything in that criteria that would
Speaker 1: prohibit prohibit the US of declaring them perish. If we
Speaker 1: declare them terrorists, then we can do a lot more
Speaker 1: with the US power that we have and some of
Speaker 1: the authorities that we have in the different agencies. This
Speaker 1: is not a law enforcement issue alone. Law enforcement has
Speaker 1: done a great job. They're out there working their butts
Speaker 1: off day in and day out the border patrol. They're
Speaker 1: very dedicated. They're not at home at their dinner table
Speaker 1: with their family. But the thing is, Buck, we have
Speaker 1: a way more comprehensive problem, and unfortunately, the sad part
Speaker 1: is that the politics get in the way. They're get
Speaker 1: into play because it's it's not about, like you know,
Speaker 1: keeping people out of a country, it's about keeping people alive.
Speaker 1: We're speaking to Derek Maulty is a former agent in
Speaker 1: charge of DA Drug Enforcement Administration Special Operations Division. Derek
Speaker 1: is the Mexican government as serious as it needs to
Speaker 1: be when it comes to fighting on the cartels. Buck,
Speaker 1: did you read the news yesterday? The president, the new
Speaker 1: president has basically said there is no war on drugs
Speaker 1: and he's no longer going to go let the military
Speaker 1: folks go after the bad guys. Now you know why that? Yeah? Sorry,
Speaker 1: go ahead, yes. So So basically, Buck, the successes we've
Speaker 1: had in Mexico is because of the brave marines that
Speaker 1: have gone out captured Chappo twice. They've killed or captured
Speaker 1: some of the high value targets for years for the
Speaker 1: DBA and Homeland Security in Mexico. The problem is now
Speaker 1: this president is going to take them out of the fight.
Speaker 1: So guess what. Now we're back to the corrupt federal police.
Speaker 1: If you saw some of the testimony in the Chappo
Speaker 1: Guzman case, it's mind boggling. The levels of corruption at
Speaker 1: the president level, at the high level officials in the
Speaker 1: Mexican government. It's beyond what I even knew, Buck And honestly,
Speaker 1: people say, oh, well, they're cooperatives, they're just making stuff up. No,
Speaker 1: they're not making it up because their stories are corroborated.
Speaker 1: And you know what, it's very very sad, and the
Speaker 1: country now has to re valuate how do we want
Speaker 1: to deal day to day with Mexico. I mean, there
Speaker 1: was some testimony in that federal court in New York
Speaker 1: about the Choppo trial, which you brought up, that suggested
Speaker 1: that the drug the drug cartel corruption in Mexico goes
Speaker 1: all the way up to the very top of the government. Yeah. Allegedly,
Speaker 1: last Mexican president received one hundred million dollars from Chopo's organization,
Speaker 1: the Cineloo cartel. They wanted to he wanted two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty million, but they settled on one hundred million.
Speaker 1: And there was some other really detailed testimony about some
Speaker 1: of the other high level officials. And you know what
Speaker 1: I've been hearing about. That's the years when I was
Speaker 1: running a special operations division. We were helping to coordinate
Speaker 1: and synchronize the efforts of thirty different participating agencies around
Speaker 1: the world and around the country, and we used to
Speaker 1: always get, you know, compromised in Mexico. Like so even
Speaker 1: in the Choppo case, you know, I was, I was
Speaker 1: still on the job when we captured him the first
Speaker 1: time in February of twenty fourteen, after he escaped from
Speaker 1: his house in the sewer system and everything like that.
Speaker 1: But what people don't realize, all the efforts to catch
Speaker 1: a chapel prior to that will compromise because the week's
Speaker 1: and the corruption and so you can't do this unless
Speaker 1: you have the cooperation from the law enforcement and the
Speaker 1: leadership in these different countries. So we have to we
Speaker 1: have a serious complex challenge ahead to figure out how
Speaker 1: do we best deal with our neighbors on the southern border,
Speaker 1: because it's getting really, really difficult and then you look
Speaker 1: at all these caravans and these people coming from Honduras,
Speaker 1: and the MS thirteen and these other problems coming into
Speaker 1: our country, and then the financial bird into our citizens.
Speaker 1: It's really really scary. Is this one one more for you, Derek?
Speaker 1: Is this is this the worst that the drug epidemic,
Speaker 1: any drug epidemic has been in this country? Well, from
Speaker 1: my opinion, yes, because here's why. Right now, the statistics
Speaker 1: are very misleading on the centinel and opioid desks. You
Speaker 1: know why because because nack Can is saving people every
Speaker 1: single day all over America. The first responders are a
Speaker 1: ministering nack Can. Now people are going out to CBS
Speaker 1: in Walgreens and they're buying their own knock Can, so
Speaker 1: they're not dying from this stuff because they have this
Speaker 1: awesome medicine, this knock Can. But here's the thing. We
Speaker 1: have now a meth crisis that no one really is
Speaker 1: even talking about in the national news. But like I said,
Speaker 1: China is sending chemicals to Mexican cartels and they're no
Speaker 1: longer producing one or two pounds at the time buck,
Speaker 1: They're producing hundreds and thousands, hundreds of pounds and then
Speaker 1: thousands of pounds. When I was a young agent, if
Speaker 1: he sees one pounds of meth in the country, it
Speaker 1: was a big case. Now there's season hundreds of pounds
Speaker 1: of meths. It's just mind boggling and yes, to answer
Speaker 1: your question, in my view, it's so out of control,
Speaker 1: and it's partially to blame on a lot of people.
Speaker 1: But here's the bottom line. I don't want to blame
Speaker 1: the previous people. I want to make it better for
Speaker 1: the future. And right now we have a serious issue.
Speaker 1: People are just not focusing in on how significant. It's
Speaker 1: not a health issue, it's a national crisis. It's a
Speaker 1: national security issue. Well that's why we got you here
Speaker 1: on the show, so we can get people here are
Speaker 1: the true and pay attention. Lurs are tapping into these
Speaker 1: funds buck every day. I know Derek Mault's former DA
Speaker 1: Special Operations Division chief. Derek really appreciate your time that day, sir,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Thank you. Keep up the good work, buddy, team,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Hiring can be really time consuming.
Speaker 1: You know you posed on a couple of different sites.
Speaker 1: Are you getting the best people? Are you making the
Speaker 1: best use of your time? Job sites that send you
Speaker 1: a lot of the wrong resumes. They're not smart. That's
Speaker 1: why you should do the smart thing and go to
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Unlike other job sites,
Speaker 1: zip recruiter finds qualified candidates for you. It's powerful matching
Speaker 1: technology scans thousands of resumes to identify people with the
Speaker 1: right skills, education, and experience, and actively invites them to
Speaker 1: apply to your job, so you get qualified candidates fast.
Speaker 1: It's no wonder that zip recruiter is rated number one
Speaker 1: by employers in the US. This rating comes from hiring
Speaker 1: sites on trust Pilot with over a thousand reviews, and
Speaker 1: right now my listeners can try zip recruiter for free
Speaker 1: at this exclusive web address, zip recruiter dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: If you love this show, show your support to it
Speaker 1: and zip recruiter by going to zip recruiter dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck. That's zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Because
Speaker 1: zip recruiter is the smartest way to hire. Well, it's cold.
Speaker 1: It's very cold. It's brutal. It's the coldest I've ever been.
Speaker 1: I think the word cold is not a proper way
Speaker 1: to define it. It's just unbelievably cold, and it's hard
Speaker 1: to take a breath in, expecting my lungs a little bit.
Speaker 1: There's not enough flaes for this kind of cold unless
Speaker 1: you're prepared to go to the Arctic. That's pretty freezy.
Speaker 1: Nothing that I haven't been through before. But you know,
Speaker 1: it's all good. It's just part of living in Minnesota.
Speaker 1: We like get called up here. I remember when I
Speaker 1: was in Alaska and I asked people in Anchorage, which
Speaker 1: I know, We've got a wonderful station up there in
Speaker 1: Anchorage right now. It carries the show. I remember I
Speaker 1: was up in Alaska and they heard from more than
Speaker 1: one person. I was like, how cold is it here
Speaker 1: in the winter. They said, well, it's not as cold
Speaker 1: as Minnesota. It turns out Minnesota is the coldest state
Speaker 1: in the country. But right now there's a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of very very cold states. Producer Mike, what was the
Speaker 1: what was the record today? I know it got into
Speaker 1: like the negative negative thirty territory in some places. Is
Speaker 1: that the coldest I saw was negative thirty or thirty
Speaker 1: one in Chicago. In Rockford, Illinois, Yeah, this is where
Speaker 1: you know a couple of things here. First of all,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, here you go Rockford Illinois. We actually have
Speaker 1: a little sound from that plicklip eight. Well, for starters,
Speaker 1: I want to give a shout out to Rockford, Illinois,
Speaker 1: which hit their all time cold record temperature according to
Speaker 1: the National Weather Service negative thirty last night. That record
Speaker 1: stood since nineteen eighty two. That's pretty cold. It was
Speaker 1: about ten degrees here in DC, and my walk home
Speaker 1: I could be like an idiot, left my gloves and
Speaker 1: in the wrong coat, and so when I walked home
Speaker 1: I could barely feel my hands. I thought it was funny.
Speaker 1: There's some people decided that today was an opportunity to
Speaker 1: make some kind of a political statement of sorts over Well,
Speaker 1: you did have whereas it? Let's see, Elizabeth Warren, did
Speaker 1: we have? Yeah, here we go. Our children and grandchildren
Speaker 1: should grow up in a world where they can breathe
Speaker 1: the air and drink the water and go outside without
Speaker 1: risking their lives in extreme temperatures. It's time to protect
Speaker 1: our planet and pass a green new deal. Oh it's
Speaker 1: really cold outside. Past my stupid socialist energy program that's
Speaker 1: going to make the country much poorer and much crappier.
Speaker 1: This is what libs do. I take advantage of every
Speaker 1: opportunity to push stupid ideas. But this was interesting. I
Speaker 1: wasn't expected, you know. I interviewed Governor Matt Baban and
Speaker 1: I don't know a few months back, and I thought
Speaker 1: he was very very slick fellow, very very polished, very smooth,
Speaker 1: and he decided to take an interesting approach to the
Speaker 1: whole freeze freezing of America situation. I play clip one
Speaker 1: by the way, you'll be up. You'll be up late
Speaker 1: tonight with your kids because there's no school again. It's again,
Speaker 1: you know, now we cancel school for cold. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's deep freeze. A serious bit is come on now,
Speaker 1: I mean it. There's no ice going with it or
Speaker 1: any snow. I mean, what happens to America. We're getting
Speaker 1: soft terry, We're getting soft hosts a lot of money
Speaker 1: to heat those classrooms. Do you think they're not heating
Speaker 1: them anyway? You would like to think so. As a taxpayer,
Speaker 1: we would like to think so. But again, I do
Speaker 1: appreciate it's it's better to air on the side of
Speaker 1: being safe and I and I'm being only slightly facetious,
Speaker 1: but it does concern me a little bit that in
Speaker 1: America on this and any number of other fronts. We're
Speaker 1: sending messages to our young people that if life is hard,
Speaker 1: you can curl up in the fetal position somewhere in
Speaker 1: a warm place and just wait till it stops being hard.
Speaker 1: And that just isn't reality. Look at him, Yeah, exactly.
Speaker 1: Matt Devan is calling out people who don't want to
Speaker 1: go to school because it's too cold outside. If it
Speaker 1: were just a little cold, i'd understand. I think negative
Speaker 1: thirty though that probably that does make things a little
Speaker 1: bit harder. But I don't know. I mean, unless the
Speaker 1: travel is more dangerous and they can't and the heating
Speaker 1: system in the school can hill, which I'm sure it can.
Speaker 1: Maybe maybe he's got a point, Maybe he's onto something.
Speaker 1: This reminds me also, if I think I mentioned recently
Speaker 1: on the show that I had read I recommended to
Speaker 1: my dad that he read Endurance about the Shackleton Voyage
Speaker 1: Ernest Shackleton's voyage to the Antarctic Antarctic continent, and the
Speaker 1: idea was that he was going to cross Antarctica on land.
Speaker 1: Never even got close spoiler alert, things go bad. And
Speaker 1: that book is one of these books where you gotta
Speaker 1: get into a little bit once you get into it,
Speaker 1: it's so messed up and so harsh and so surreal
Speaker 1: what these guys go through. That it's a great it's
Speaker 1: a great eight book. And you're reading is like, man,
Speaker 1: wherever I am, I am so lucky not to be
Speaker 1: subsisting on seal blubber and trying to keep my toes
Speaker 1: from like actually breaking off because they're so frost bitten.
Speaker 1: You know. It's it was intense, man, that book. It's
Speaker 1: from I think nineteen fourteen was when they right right
Speaker 1: at the at the beginning of World War One is
Speaker 1: when they take off for this voyage. And it's a
Speaker 1: timeless classic. It's a great book. I would really really
Speaker 1: recommend it to you. But that's all about you know,
Speaker 1: how long could you last living on an ice flow
Speaker 1: in arctic or antarctic temperatures? And the answer is you
Speaker 1: could last longer than you think, as long as you
Speaker 1: got a nice, good supply a whale blubber or seal blubber,
Speaker 1: which I'm currently trying to shed my seal blubber by
Speaker 1: eating a little healthier and getting the gym. But you know,
Speaker 1: as long as you got some of that, you're pretty
Speaker 1: much good to go. Man, you can and and some
Speaker 1: shelter and some fire making ability, but not exactly fun fun.
Speaker 1: So read the Shackling Voyage and stay warm. If you're
Speaker 1: out there listening to to one of those colder parts
Speaker 1: the country, Stay warm, team. We'll be right back. Stray
Speaker 1: about that story up the Active Empire who was much
Speaker 1: attacked with racist and that I can tell you who's horrible.
Speaker 1: I've seen it last night. I think that's horrible. It
Speaker 1: doesn't get worse as far as I'm concerned. So that
Speaker 1: was President Trump talking about this case that's gotten a
Speaker 1: fair amount of national media attention of this guy named
Speaker 1: Jesse Smollett. Now, in case you haven't heard of this before,
Speaker 1: let me tell you what's going on. You're Jesse Smollett
Speaker 1: was allegedly attacked around two am last Tuesday morning, and
Speaker 1: the story was that guys walked up to him. He
Speaker 1: said he was on the phone when he was attacked,
Speaker 1: and he was on the phone with his manager. I
Speaker 1: never heard of this guy, just smaller before. But anyway,
Speaker 1: he's on the phone his manager. He says he's attacked.
Speaker 1: His manager corroborates this and he said that a guy
Speaker 1: or I'm sorry, two guys came up to him and
Speaker 1: placed a noose around his neck, and I guess they
Speaker 1: they punched him, he said. And there are two suspects
Speaker 1: where filmed in a different camera, sitting on a bench,
Speaker 1: but on opposite sides from where Small it was. Look
Speaker 1: you read through the details. I can't. I don't want
Speaker 1: to read through the whole all of it right now,
Speaker 1: but you're read through the details, and it just is
Speaker 1: one of these cases where I can't tell you that
Speaker 1: this is a fraud, but I can tell you that
Speaker 1: it is certainly suspect based on a few things. There
Speaker 1: is the possibility that I would have to come back
Speaker 1: on this show in a week and say, I guess
Speaker 1: there were two random guys who yelled Maga Nation and
Speaker 1: put and punched a guy and then put a loose
Speaker 1: noose that they happened to just carry around with them
Speaker 1: around his neck. That is possible. I cannot tell you
Speaker 1: there's no way that that happened. But what I can
Speaker 1: tell you, though, is that some of the fact pattern
Speaker 1: here is a little bit suspicious. For example, the individual here,
Speaker 1: Jesse Smollett, was attacked at two am, but police were
Speaker 1: not called until two thirty five am and he was
Speaker 1: in his apartment, and I believe an associate that he
Speaker 1: was with called the police at two forty two, or
Speaker 1: rather officers arrived at two forty two, but his associate
Speaker 1: was with him, So there's quite a lag. Now you
Speaker 1: could say maybe he was he was shook up up
Speaker 1: and he was very, very concerned and rattled and all that. Again,
Speaker 1: I can't tell you. I'm not saying he's lying. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I am saying this is a national news story, though,
Speaker 1: and there are some things that don't really add up.
Speaker 1: He also still had this rope noose. This actor he's
Speaker 1: from the show Empire, if some of you may be
Speaker 1: familiar with that show. He still had the noose around
Speaker 1: his neck when the police arrived, which also just strikes
Speaker 1: me as as a very odd thing. If somebody forced
Speaker 1: a noose around your neck and assaulted you, and then
Speaker 1: you went home, would you just sit there with the
Speaker 1: noose around your neck for forty five minutes? I can't
Speaker 1: say impossible, but strikes me as very strange. And then also,
Speaker 1: and they have all the surveillance footage a police have
Speaker 1: gone through, and none of the surveillance footage shows any
Speaker 1: kind of assault taking place. A lot of surveillance cameras
Speaker 1: around where this happened, none of them show an assault
Speaker 1: taking place, so that's interesting to me. And then one
Speaker 1: more thing here. Smallletts said that he was on the
Speaker 1: phone with his manager, Brandon z Moore, and the police said, okay,
Speaker 1: since you were on the phone with your manager during
Speaker 1: this incident, give us your phone just so we can
Speaker 1: verify as part of the story what you're saying here.
Speaker 1: This is this is standard police worker when you give
Speaker 1: them facts to work off of and then they want
Speaker 1: to verify those facts. Here's something that's very strange. Jessie
Speaker 1: Smalllett wouldn't give the police his phone. Now, I'm sure
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of people that would want
Speaker 1: to come up with explanations for this, of maybe he
Speaker 1: had a privacy issue or something. But if you had
Speaker 1: been attacked and the police were verifying your story and
Speaker 1: they just wanted to look at your phone and your
Speaker 1: call log and see if it matched up with what
Speaker 1: you said, and then you didn't give the police your phone,
Speaker 1: I could tell you the cops would be pretty suspicious.
Speaker 1: And we also know that in this country, the left
Speaker 1: has created an environment where if you are in a
Speaker 1: victim category and something happens to you, or you say
Speaker 1: something happens to you and it turns out to not
Speaker 1: be true, they will give you a pass for what
Speaker 1: they call raising awareness. Is this another hate crime hoax
Speaker 1: that will be covered up with raising awareness or is
Speaker 1: this a real, bizarre and terrible attack. I don't know,
Speaker 1: but I can't tell you. I'm less confident in this
Speaker 1: being real than President Trump was when he answered that
Speaker 1: question the presser today. The show ain't over yet, folks.
Speaker 1: Here's where you take over keeping it real. Team Buck,
Speaker 1: It's time for roll Call. Roll Call. It is the
Speaker 1: time for the role of the call. Thank you all
Speaker 1: for writing in and being so helpful in this process,
Speaker 1: telling me what's going on with the show, what you like,
Speaker 1: what your thoughts are. Which eight for dinner last night?
Speaker 1: John starts us off here, Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: If you want in on roll call, John writes. Wednesday's
Speaker 1: reference was to animal Farm. John, you are correct, four
Speaker 1: legs good, two legs bad. That is from roll of
Speaker 1: that stuff from Roll Call. It's from Animal Farm, another
Speaker 1: masterpiece of the most What are the most important books
Speaker 1: that a young person I think can read? And I
Speaker 1: mean nineteen eighty four is in a list of I
Speaker 1: think you could make of Maybe people would say one
Speaker 1: hundred books, but really ten books that you absolutely have
Speaker 1: to have read to have an understanding of the Western world.
Speaker 1: I think four is in that category, and certainly the
Speaker 1: contemporary Western World. And Animal Farm is a great book.
Speaker 1: And it's a quick read, so well worth. It's incredibly
Speaker 1: insightful about the nature of communism and authoritarianism, so it's
Speaker 1: worth it to go back. It's a good weekend read.
Speaker 1: You'll you'll read the whole thing in a day, Dave writes,
Speaker 1: buck Shields High. To me, AOC's comments on the rich
Speaker 1: are even more disturbing than you suggested. Her anti billionaire
Speaker 1: stance boils down to one thing. She's anti individual liberty
Speaker 1: and self determination. Under her ideology, certain levels of success
Speaker 1: and accomplishment are simply not allowed, and no discussion about
Speaker 1: how much good someone could do with the billions they
Speaker 1: create is considered. Being dumb enough to think bakers have
Speaker 1: an unfair share of pie is one thing, but this
Speaker 1: increasingly popular opinion on the left has graduated from pure
Speaker 1: ignorance to evil despotism, which touches on another topic from
Speaker 1: last night's show. Why does the left opposed Israel? It's
Speaker 1: simple because Christians are for it. Dave. As for your
Speaker 1: point about the popularity of the class warfare ideology of
Speaker 1: Ocazio Cortez and Warren and Bernie Sanders, I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not like Occasio Cortes is the only one. This is
Speaker 1: something that people on the left, which means the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party increasingly believes it is disturbing. It is disturbing because
Speaker 1: it shows an ignorance of how our economy works, but also,
Speaker 1: I think a disregard for understanding. It's not just that
Speaker 1: they don't know, it's that they don't care that they
Speaker 1: don't know because it feels good. It feels good to
Speaker 1: talk about how bad the billionaires are, right. It feels
Speaker 1: good for people to put themselves in a position where
Speaker 1: they can look down on those that they feel like
Speaker 1: have been looking down on them just because of their
Speaker 1: wealth or their status in society. And v is very powerful.
Speaker 1: I have been saying it for a long time. Envy
Speaker 1: is a very powerful political tool, really political weapon, and
Speaker 1: it is at the heart of the Democrat Democrat coalition
Speaker 1: and their project for retaking the White House. Adam writes,
Speaker 1: the reference was animal farm shields high. All right, Adam,
Speaker 1: you got it too, Well done, sir, well done, Philip
Speaker 1: Shield tabuck. The push for acceptance of ultra late term
Speaker 1: abortions is merely to desensitize us too evil. Over time,
Speaker 1: more and more vile things will be considered normal until
Speaker 1: such time as cannibalism is no longer taboo, and just
Speaker 1: when the food runs out soylent green phill in Montana, Philip,
Speaker 1: we have been desensitized. I think that's obviously and clearly
Speaker 1: the case. We have been desensitized when it comes to
Speaker 1: babies and what's being done to babies, the stuff that
Speaker 1: was not just under discussion, that was being proposed as
Speaker 1: law in Virginia and is law in New York State.
Speaker 1: It is in infanticide. We have to call things what
Speaker 1: they are. And this reminds me why I get so
Speaker 1: agitated and so obstinate on calling people who are men
Speaker 1: women and using the wrong pronouns. I don't like and
Speaker 1: I'm not okay with, and will not go along with
Speaker 1: the embrace of falsehood, even simple falsehoods, even simple falsehoods.
Speaker 1: You know, this is something in a in a totalitarian society,
Speaker 1: one of one of the marks of a totalitarian society
Speaker 1: is that everybody just to avoid, just to avoid the
Speaker 1: possibility of reprisals from the state against them, they don't
Speaker 1: just say things that are big things that are untrue.
Speaker 1: They start to say little things that are untrue as well,
Speaker 1: meaning that they'll just say whatever the regime tells them
Speaker 1: about everything. You know, your shoelaces are the best shoelaces
Speaker 1: anyone's ever made in the world. And people start walking
Speaker 1: around saying, yes, my shoelaces are the best shoelaces, not
Speaker 1: because they believe it, because they're afraid if they don't
Speaker 1: say it, they'll get in trouble. So that's something that
Speaker 1: I think that this reminds me of you. You give
Speaker 1: up a part of yourself, You give up something very
Speaker 1: important in your core when you're willing to say things
Speaker 1: are true that are not true and essentially embrace some
Speaker 1: kind of alternate reality because people in the power structure
Speaker 1: tell you too. So, Mike writes, as a former quarreling,
Speaker 1: I believe Robert McCoy would be a valuable resource for
Speaker 1: you on North and South Korea. Here's his latest publication,
Speaker 1: all Right, I've never I've never heard of this guy,
Speaker 1: but I will. I'll check it out. Thanks for standing along, Richard.
Speaker 1: I use my cast box as my go to podcast player.
Speaker 1: Listen to you warn there for well over the past year,
Speaker 1: and they have everything including Shield Shut and Freedom Hut
Speaker 1: You Jesse and Sean are just a hoot. I really
Speaker 1: really listen to both shows when I need an emotional
Speaker 1: boost Doctor doctor Rick. Well, thanks doctor Rick. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: want to do another Jesse and Sean show. That was fun,
Speaker 1: you know, and we got a lot of a lot
Speaker 1: of people downloaded that and that just we just did
Speaker 1: that for you know, for kicks. We just did that
Speaker 1: for fun. So I'd be happy to do that one.
Speaker 1: I do that again with those guys. I really don't
Speaker 1: want to get them all in the same place. Let's
Speaker 1: see what we have here morning, listening to your Kamala
Speaker 1: the Radical good Insight. Additionally, I am the machine the best.
Speaker 1: I share that as often as possible, So I guess
Speaker 1: andres you know that I'm the Machine is h is
Speaker 1: from a comedian. If you type in I'm the Machine
Speaker 1: in YouTube, you'll be able to see this guy's you
Speaker 1: know what I'll do it for, so you don't because
Speaker 1: I'm here Team I. I live to serve you. I
Speaker 1: am here to serve your adio needs. And so I'll
Speaker 1: tell you who the guy is that is I Am
Speaker 1: the Machine. Bert Kreischer does a stand up thing and
Speaker 1: you'll see him when you go on YouTube. His Russian
Speaker 1: Mafia's story is very funny. I highly recommend it, and
Speaker 1: now you'll all know the I'm the Machine reference. Travis,
Speaker 1: I listened to the podcast on Stitcher daily of absolutely
Speaker 1: zero issue downloading and listening. I just finished listening to
Speaker 1: barbaric Democrats pushing in fanticide. At the end, I heard
Speaker 1: you read another listener's message saying he listens on Stitcher
Speaker 1: and couldn't listen. Thought you might know not everyone's having issues. Hey, Travis,
Speaker 1: I'll take it man. Thank you. I appreciate that. I
Speaker 1: much prefer people being able to listen to this show.
Speaker 1: That we work very hard to put together every day
Speaker 1: and pull together, so it's important that the technology works.
Speaker 1: Thank you for letting me know. Steve writes, excellent show tonight.
Speaker 1: I love how you cover so many topics and issues
Speaker 1: every night. Got two conservative friends that started listening to
Speaker 1: you since Monday. Steve Man, you get a high five.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. That means that means the world
Speaker 1: you certainly didn't disappoint and people gather the thoughts pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: Shields high Steve, that's awesome man. Thank you when your
Speaker 1: dog's really cute in the photo. And I appreciate you
Speaker 1: passing along. Passing along word to your friends. The single
Speaker 1: most most helpful thing that everybody, everybody can do for
Speaker 1: this show. Just tell a friend be like, hell, did
Speaker 1: you listen to podcast? You gotta just add the Bucksaction
Speaker 1: Show to your podcast lineup and see what they have
Speaker 1: to say. We got rev who writes, I'm an avid
Speaker 1: listener in Mobile, Alabama. Or no, this is Lonnie. Sorry,
Speaker 1: I listened to part of your show. Unfortunately, your program
Speaker 1: is sometimes cut short by something something called the Pelicans
Speaker 1: Football Talk or something like that. What I would like
Speaker 1: to know is is there a station in my area
Speaker 1: that won't preempt your show? Lonnie? Lonnie? Yeah, It's called
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, which is free. Or you can
Speaker 1: also download the podcast on iTunes, which means you can't
Speaker 1: listen live, but you can listen right after the show.
Speaker 1: But the iHeart app if you download that to your
Speaker 1: smartphone and type in the Buck Saxton Show. And it's
Speaker 1: just it's just a stream there that you can listen
Speaker 1: live anytime you want. So if if your if your
Speaker 1: local station, it is preempting me for some BS sports show. Uh,
Speaker 1: just get around them by listening on the on the
Speaker 1: iHeart app All right, there you go. Um. Jim rights
Speaker 1: a collar to Mark Levin just before you came on
Speaker 1: and said this is nothing less than human sacrifice to
Speaker 1: Satan and paganism. I used to live in Annandale, Virginia,
Speaker 1: and I was born in Long Island, New York. I'm
Speaker 1: surprised about Virginia. Jim. It's it's a horrible thing that
Speaker 1: they're doing. And I will say I appreciate that this
Speaker 1: audience from what I'm gathering at the feedback, I know
Speaker 1: that talking about a boor shit and these issues is
Speaker 1: heavy and that people everyone's got enough of a burden
Speaker 1: to carry with their day to day and I want
Speaker 1: them to come to this show and know they're gonna
Speaker 1: learn stuff, but they're also going to be able to
Speaker 1: relax a bit. I mean, we talked about's important and
Speaker 1: there's some degree of an intellectual mobilization that we do
Speaker 1: here every day together but I also don't want people
Speaker 1: to get sad or too bummed out listening to any
Speaker 1: part of the show that said some things are too
Speaker 1: important and we just got to do it, And yesterday
Speaker 1: I thought was one of them. So the sense I'm
Speaker 1: getting from any of you is that you understood that,
Speaker 1: and you appreciate that, and I always try to balance
Speaker 1: it out as best as I can. Karen's hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: the news today of your podcast is truly disturbing. The
Speaker 1: infanticide issues right up there with people who used to
Speaker 1: burn their babies in the arms of Baal and the
Speaker 1: reason the children of Israel ended up going into slavery.
Speaker 1: We need to remember that as Christians and as a
Speaker 1: Christian nation, are we truly willing to sacrifice ourselves? Truly scary?
Speaker 1: I guess Obama's right. We are into Christian nation. Karen, Well, Karen,
Speaker 1: don't give up quite yet. This country is still an
Speaker 1: amazing place and it is still a predominantly Christian place,
Speaker 1: and it is too it's great benefit that that is
Speaker 1: the case. So let's just hope that we can keep
Speaker 1: fighting back in and do what is do. It is
Speaker 1: right not just for our country but for God as well. Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna close up shopping the Hut tonight. Team with that,
Speaker 1: I will talk to you tomorrow from ny See until
Speaker 1: next time. Shield's High Morning Coffee is an American institution,
Speaker 1: my friends, and when it comes to starting my day
Speaker 1: off right, I reach for the most American pro freedom,
Speaker 1: pro veteran coffee in the world, Black Rifle Coffee. I
Speaker 1: start off every day with Black Rifle Coffee. I spread
Speaker 1: it to guys in my office. I want to get
Speaker 1: them fired up for a good day in the office.
Speaker 1: I throw them a couple of cake cups. They throw
Speaker 1: them in the machine bam or off to the races.
Speaker 1: It is so delicious. I'm gonna tell you it's got
Speaker 1: a real kick to it too. It'll it'll get you
Speaker 1: up and running fast. Black Rifle also gives a portion
Speaker 1: of their sales to veteran and first responder causes. And
Speaker 1: they've got a coffee club that makes things easy. Just
Speaker 1: pick your blend and they'll ship the coffee right to
Speaker 1: your door. Wake up every day with America's coffee, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: and receive fifteen percent off your order. That's Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee dot Com slash buck for fifteen percent off. Again,
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck for fifteen percent off.
Speaker 1: This is the coffee you want to drink. Check it
Speaker 1: out Team