Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The shutdown continues and
Speaker 1: with it the Pelosi and Trump showdown. Who got the
Speaker 1: better side of it? Today? We'll get into that and
Speaker 1: also more on the Covington High School kids. The media
Speaker 1: refuses to learn its lesson. They continue to spread falsehoods
Speaker 1: and lies. We will tear those apart. And an update
Speaker 1: on what's going on with the China trade war and
Speaker 1: a Supreme Court case that could have a huge impact
Speaker 1: on gun rights across the country. That are more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again, the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts remember of the nimbdected no
Speaker 1: that not only is the President holding the American people
Speaker 1: in America's workers hostage, He's holding the Republicans in the
Speaker 1: Congress of the United States hostage. Not all of them.
Speaker 1: Some of them understand what it means in the lives
Speaker 1: of American people. We hope that more of them will.
Speaker 1: Congressional Democrats support smart, effective border security, but we do
Speaker 1: not support the president holding the health, safety, and paychecks
Speaker 1: of the American people hostage again to a campaign applause line.
Speaker 1: There is serious and justified concern that this president would
Speaker 1: shut down the government anytime he does not get his
Speaker 1: way legislatively. That is why we must hold the line.
Speaker 1: The State of the Union speech has been canceled by
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi because she doesn't want to hear the truth.
Speaker 1: She doesn't want the American public to hear what's going on.
Speaker 1: She's afraid of the truth and the super left Democrats,
Speaker 1: the radical Democrats. What's going on in that party is shocking.
Speaker 1: I know many people that were Democrats are the switching
Speaker 1: over right now, the switching over quickly. So I hope
Speaker 1: they know what they're doing for their party. So far
Speaker 1: they haven't. If you know, I won the Senate, meaning
Speaker 1: we won the Senate all together, but we had no
Speaker 1: credit for that, they don't talk about that. They talk
Speaker 1: about the House. So welcome to the buck sex and
Speaker 1: show everybody. This is turning into quite the back and
Speaker 1: forth between Nancy Pelosi and Speaker Pelosi and President Trump
Speaker 1: as I understand it, the shutdown began, Pelosi extended the invite.
Speaker 1: Trump said, okay, yeah, I'll take the invite to give
Speaker 1: the see of the Union. And then Pelosi had some
Speaker 1: nonsense about how there wouldn't be you know, secret service
Speaker 1: protection or something, and that was just that was just crap.
Speaker 1: And then okay, then the invite was. Trump said yeah,
Speaker 1: I'll take that invite, and then Pelosi's like, psych, no
Speaker 1: invite for you. Do you remember do you remember that
Speaker 1: Brandon a mike when people should go psych? People don't
Speaker 1: really do that anymore. Oh God, I miss the nineties.
Speaker 1: So this is going to continue on for quite a while.
Speaker 1: This is not going to end anytime soon, I think,
Speaker 1: and I know that there are poles that will tell
Speaker 1: me that I'm wrong, but I don't care. I know
Speaker 1: more than poles said every political analyst ever. I think
Speaker 1: Pelosi's losing here. I think the Democrats are losing because
Speaker 1: they don't really have an argument. Their argument is effectively
Speaker 1: slogans and talking points. And the longer people hear about this,
Speaker 1: the longer I think we can look at this and
Speaker 1: all understand that they don't really care about border security.
Speaker 1: It's not about the money. It's just about the Amocrats
Speaker 1: not wanting to give Trump a win. That's all it is.
Speaker 1: Or that's eighty percent of a twenty percent of is
Speaker 1: they just want to keep the flow of illegals coming
Speaker 1: into the country. But most of it is they just
Speaker 1: know that a Trump administration that could go into twenty
Speaker 1: twenty saying, see, we keep our promises, and we kept
Speaker 1: our biggest and most profound promise during the campaign, trip
Speaker 1: Trump will be unstoppable. Kamala Harris, Come on, Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: please you go down the list. They got nothing, Kirsten Gillibrand,
Speaker 1: no way. This guy out of South Bend, Indiana, he
Speaker 1: just threw his hat in the ring. It's a joke.
Speaker 1: There's no way. But there are gonna be a lot
Speaker 1: of candidates. And look, the Republicans have candidates soon never
Speaker 1: got above a few percentage points. So I'm not saying
Speaker 1: that this is on just one side. But you look
Speaker 1: at this, They're not even running their first tier establishment democrat.
Speaker 1: It's really Kamala Harris. Fine, Corey Booker, Yes, but and
Speaker 1: he hasn't thrown his hat, and yet he will. Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: I think Elizabeth Warren may have self destructed in one
Speaker 1: one fell swoop more than any politician in recent memory.
Speaker 1: I think that she's done. I just don't believe that
Speaker 1: the American people are gonna say, yeah, you're one one
Speaker 1: and twenty fourth Native Americans, so that's like basically Native American. Sure,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that, and I think that they'll create
Speaker 1: real problems for themselves if they essentially legitimize racial fraud,
Speaker 1: which is what she engaged in. But with Pelosi and
Speaker 1: with Trump though, she hasn't had to deal with someone
Speaker 1: like Trump before, and I think it's really unnerving. I've
Speaker 1: seen some pundits say, oh, Trump has never had to
Speaker 1: deal with somebody like Nancy Pelosi before, a woman in
Speaker 1: such a powerful position. And I don't think the Trump
Speaker 1: is the one that's unnerved by this at all. I
Speaker 1: think that he understood, he responded, He responded that, or
Speaker 1: responded rather to people who were saying, you've got to
Speaker 1: follow through on this promise, and the promise was that
Speaker 1: he would build a wall. The more people learned about
Speaker 1: a wall, the more clear it is that Trump was
Speaker 1: right on that all along. And isn't that worth just
Speaker 1: taking a moment to think about. We have been told
Speaker 1: by Democrats for three years now, right, all of Trump's
Speaker 1: time running for office, as in running for the general
Speaker 1: and the primary. But We've been told for all that
Speaker 1: and since he's been president that a wall is it's dumb,
Speaker 1: it doesn't make any sense, it won't work, it's you know,
Speaker 1: all this stuff. We hear all this stuff all the
Speaker 1: time about the wall, and yet now that we are
Speaker 1: looking at the wall, the fence doesn't matter. Trump was
Speaker 1: right all along. He was right on that. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have a trade expert later on in the
Speaker 1: show about Trump and China and his willingness to confront
Speaker 1: China on trade, and what you're gonna hear is effectively
Speaker 1: is very similar, and that all the experts were saying, Oh, no,
Speaker 1: you can't do anything about China. That's terrible. Trade war,
Speaker 1: trade war, so bad, free trade, free trade. These are slogans.
Speaker 1: China needs to be dealt with on these issues because
Speaker 1: China's acting badly at our expense. The southern border is
Speaker 1: not secure, but the areas that have been largely secured
Speaker 1: have sufficient resources, and usually that means offense. Why is
Speaker 1: it that Trump was the only one who was willing
Speaker 1: to say these things? Though, you know, I would note
Speaker 1: that with all seventeen Republican candidates, maybe Ted Cruz toward
Speaker 1: the end in a last ditch effort. By the way,
Speaker 1: it is not true. Some of you are gonna are
Speaker 1: gonna laugh him. It is not true that Ted Cruz
Speaker 1: inspired me to grow a beard. That rumor has been started.
Speaker 1: I will put that put that to bed right now.
Speaker 1: Although I do think that it's a good thing, and
Speaker 1: that he is he looks a little he looks a
Speaker 1: little like His beard is kind of I don't know
Speaker 1: if it's like Civil War general or Wolverine more, but
Speaker 1: it's it's more statesmanlike. I think the Cruise beard. And
Speaker 1: next time I see Senator Cruz, I'll give him a
Speaker 1: high five for the beard. But he wasn't really pushing
Speaker 1: the wall the way Trump was. Only Trump was pushing
Speaker 1: this wall. And Ann Coulter and her bocadio sumhar. You
Speaker 1: got to give Anne credit. I mean, Anne is somebody
Speaker 1: recently described and to me as not even a pundit
Speaker 1: and is like her own country, which I thought was
Speaker 1: really funny. And I'm sure Ane would appreciate that. She's
Speaker 1: got a good sense of humor. But you know, she
Speaker 1: very much gave the president prucer. Mike is saying he
Speaker 1: definitely looks more like Wolverine. I agree he is. It's
Speaker 1: more wolverine like that cruise beard, you know, And now
Speaker 1: you feel like he's a little more rough and tumble.
Speaker 1: When when he wears that Carhart jacket for the photo op,
Speaker 1: you're like, oh, that's not the first time Senator Cruz
Speaker 1: has put on that jacket. You guys all know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. Uh, you know, the beard is a
Speaker 1: good look for him. I'm still not sure about my
Speaker 1: own beer, but it's I'm not going to be solop
Speaker 1: cystic like a millennial and talk about the beard, at
Speaker 1: least till the end of the show when we talk
Speaker 1: about other solopsistic millennials. I don't think millennials know what
Speaker 1: that word means. That's why I use it, Producer Mike.
Speaker 1: I exposed them. I expose their millennial ignorance. On the left.
Speaker 1: Solops is in the center of the You are the
Speaker 1: center of the universe. That is what the word means,
Speaker 1: um like sool like the sun. You are the center
Speaker 1: of the universe, so I or maybe it's the center
Speaker 1: of the solar system whatever. I think that Trump is
Speaker 1: doing well on this one, but I do like to
Speaker 1: look at the at the big ideas this administration has
Speaker 1: been pushing and at least we're having a full hearing
Speaker 1: of them. And I think it's amazing to watch how
Speaker 1: the more knowledge we have on these things. I mean,
Speaker 1: I routinely crushed libs when I debate the wall or
Speaker 1: the border with them Ian They don't even want to
Speaker 1: talk about it anymore because the facts and the reality
Speaker 1: is on the side of people who say there is
Speaker 1: a problem, a wall would help and we need to
Speaker 1: do something about it, and all the actual experts agree
Speaker 1: with that. So Pelosi saying this is just a campaign
Speaker 1: promise is Pelosi doing what she always does, which is
Speaker 1: just politics without much much of a boost of IQ
Speaker 1: injected into it. I mean, this is just whatever she
Speaker 1: has to say to try and outmaneuver Trump, and she's
Speaker 1: never dealt with a Republican like him before. Other Republicans
Speaker 1: would have caved already. And you all know, because I
Speaker 1: was saying on the show, when I thought that Trump
Speaker 1: wasn't even going to have this fight, I was furious.
Speaker 1: I was furious. I came on the show when we
Speaker 1: thought it was going to be just okay, He's going
Speaker 1: to sign this thing, and I was curious. And Trump
Speaker 1: listened to people who like me. I mean, he was
Speaker 1: I think listening yes to Anne and to Rush and
Speaker 1: to people that have a voice that he should by
Speaker 1: the way, he should listen to. I think it's so
Speaker 1: funny because oh, it's terrible these people were in the country.
Speaker 1: What we would rather have the president take the advice
Speaker 1: of overpaid political consultants, you know, polsters and people that
Speaker 1: are just creatures of the Beltway. Why why do they
Speaker 1: have some great wisdom or knowledge that the president should
Speaker 1: be listening to. But all this possibility of a State
Speaker 1: of the Union address, um, I like that they're considering
Speaker 1: alternative venues for it. I think that that's that's a
Speaker 1: good move. I do have some concerns about the way
Speaker 1: that this all ends, is that the airports essentially become
Speaker 1: a complete, a complete nightmare co compleat disaster. I think
Speaker 1: that there's a real possibility that if you have widespread
Speaker 1: tsa sick outs where they're just not showing up, which
Speaker 1: people are already saying, it's gone up. By the way,
Speaker 1: I think the the rate for last week a year ago,
Speaker 1: when they were doing a comparison was you know, one
Speaker 1: percent or two percent, we're out, and this it was
Speaker 1: five or something. It wasn't some huge number, but it's
Speaker 1: going to get bigger that the Republicans finally say all right,
Speaker 1: that's too much, than they cave. And at that point,
Speaker 1: for Trump to declare a national emergency to get it done,
Speaker 1: you know that would that would also be something that
Speaker 1: comes with its own set of consequences. And I do
Speaker 1: get when you have someone like Ocasio Cortez saying something
Speaker 1: as fundamentally stupid and really demented as twelve years from now,
Speaker 1: the world is going to end if we don't have
Speaker 1: a green new deal and tackle climate change, and people
Speaker 1: cheer for this and clap like that's something that any
Speaker 1: normal human being should be saying. It does worry me
Speaker 1: that the president's declaring a national emergency based upon their
Speaker 1: judgment unless it is really, really, really clear. I do
Speaker 1: think the border is a national emergency, but I know
Speaker 1: that if that press is set by this president, heaven
Speaker 1: forbid the next time we have a Democrat, and it's
Speaker 1: you know, probably going to be twenty twenty four, and
Speaker 1: it looks like it might be President o'cazio Cortez. I
Speaker 1: know she doesn't know anything, but liberals don't care. They
Speaker 1: don't care. You guys can look at me like I'm crazy.
Speaker 1: They just do not care that she doesn't know anything
Speaker 1: sounds right though they liked the whole package. She's, you know,
Speaker 1: a socialist and she owns it, and they're all into it.
Speaker 1: So twenty twenty four here we come. I'm feeling very
Speaker 1: confident about Trump's chances in twenty twenty. I know that
Speaker 1: can all change, but Special Counsel's not going to take
Speaker 1: him down no way. And the media's credibility is worse
Speaker 1: than it was the first time around when he ran.
Speaker 1: He's gonna just be able to pummel them and it
Speaker 1: will be highly amusing and very much deserved. And the
Speaker 1: economy strong made a lot of good decisions, great on judges.
Speaker 1: Although you know, a friend of mine brought up recently,
Speaker 1: what about the possibility of from a strategic juror's prudence perspective,
Speaker 1: Supreme Court Thomas retiring deciding that he's going to retire
Speaker 1: and allow Trump in the next twelve months to replace
Speaker 1: Justice Thomas. Now, I don't you know, it's going to
Speaker 1: be a harder replace Justice Thomas with somebody that is
Speaker 1: of that caliber and that kind of truly conservative constitutional
Speaker 1: constitutionally sound approach, but it might be a good idea.
Speaker 1: Get that Supreme Court really conservative. I mean, we should
Speaker 1: just go all in on this. This notion of the
Speaker 1: era of pretending like we're all going to agree on
Speaker 1: a centrist Merritt Garland like candidate. That's a that's a
Speaker 1: laugh because the centrist always go for the Libs and
Speaker 1: we know this. I can't even trust, we can't even
Speaker 1: trust John Roberts. You mark my words. Before Trump's administration
Speaker 1: is out, John Roberts is going to deal a crushing
Speaker 1: blow to constitutional concern Britism with at least one, if
Speaker 1: not a couple of decisions where you sit there and say,
Speaker 1: has this guy been reading out of the communist manifesto?
Speaker 1: What is his problem? But I'm telling you he's an
Speaker 1: institutionalist more than he's a conservative, So you can expect
Speaker 1: that to happen. All right. I got a little more
Speaker 1: on the Pelosi Trump for you, and I know we're
Speaker 1: running out of the time. I've got updates on the
Speaker 1: Covington situation. I'm going to talk to you about the
Speaker 1: truth of the back and forth over Trump China trade.
Speaker 1: We've got to talk to you about a gun case
Speaker 1: Second Amendment guncase out of New York City with big implications,
Speaker 1: going to make fun of the media, Gonna have roll call.
Speaker 1: I've got a phenomenal guest, by the way, on immigration
Speaker 1: coming up in the next hour. He worked out at
Speaker 1: the border as a process in the border region as
Speaker 1: a prosecutor, and man, he's got some great stuff to
Speaker 1: tell you about. That's all coming up together. We'll make
Speaker 1: America more safe by passing common sense legislation to end
Speaker 1: the epidemic of gun violence. But we will make America
Speaker 1: more American by protecting Dreamers and TPS recipients. We will
Speaker 1: make America more just by protecting people with pre existing conditions,
Speaker 1: expanding access to healthcare and lowering the price of prescription drugs,
Speaker 1: and defending Medicare and Medicaid. And we will strengthen our
Speaker 1: democracy by passing the Equality Act, that is an act
Speaker 1: to end discrimination against LGTB community. And that's a Greens.
Speaker 1: It's really a shame what's happening with the Democrats. They've
Speaker 1: become radicalized. They don't want to see crime stuff, which
Speaker 1: we can very easily do on the southern border. And
Speaker 1: it really is a shame what's happening with the Democrats.
Speaker 1: This will go on for a while. Ultimately, the American
Speaker 1: people will have their way because they want to see
Speaker 1: no crime. They want to see what we're doing, like
Speaker 1: today we lowered prescription drug prices first time in fifty is.
Speaker 1: They want to see that. The Democrats would never have
Speaker 1: been able to do that. So we're all working very hard.
Speaker 1: We'll have to respond to it, will respond to it
Speaker 1: in a timely matter. Thank you very much, everybody. I
Speaker 1: like this. I like that we get to hear the
Speaker 1: different agendas. This is politics. You've got Nancy Pelosi who's
Speaker 1: just mumbling some nonsense about common sense gun reform. You know,
Speaker 1: if it's so common sense, you shouldn't have to say it.
Speaker 1: You know that, that to me is a tell. When
Speaker 1: as Trump is saying that, you know, he's got an
Speaker 1: agenda that he wants to follow through on and things
Speaker 1: that would be really beneficial for the American people. Ultimately,
Speaker 1: Pelosi knows that none of her agenda is going through.
Speaker 1: It's not happening. Trump won't allow that to happen because
Speaker 1: he thinks that her ideas are bad. And I think
Speaker 1: her ideas are bad, but I do think that it's
Speaker 1: important for them to be aired out in front of
Speaker 1: all of the at least the American people who are
Speaker 1: paying attention to this. For those Americans who avoid carring
Speaker 1: about politics, I envy them. That's a nice that's a
Speaker 1: nice thing. I guess a political junkie, you can't help it.
Speaker 1: But the shutdow down is going to be a real
Speaker 1: test of wills here. The heat is definitely going to
Speaker 1: get turned up as you have people going longer without paychecks.
Speaker 1: Although I would also know that Pelosi has made it
Speaker 1: very clear she doesn't. You know, this is what Democrats
Speaker 1: do all the time. They pretend to care so much
Speaker 1: about the little guy or little gal who's in a
Speaker 1: rough place and you know, not getting their paycheck. But Pelosi, please,
Speaker 1: she's gonna she's gonna jaunt off on her boondoggle overseas.
Speaker 1: She got she Pelosi got better things to do than
Speaker 1: worry about the TSA employees. I'll be honest with you.
Speaker 1: In her own mind, at least she thinks she does.
Speaker 1: So this Karen, so much about the little guy is
Speaker 1: one of the Democrat's favorite ploys, and it's so full
Speaker 1: of it. Yeah, Nancy Pelosi, she's the everyman or every
Speaker 1: woman Ah Covington, we got to do that. It's coming up.
Speaker 1: Why didn't you walk away? Well, now, I wish I
Speaker 1: would have walked away. I didn't want to be disrespect
Speaker 1: phot to mister Phillips and walk away if he was
Speaker 1: trying to talk to me. What do you think that
Speaker 1: look like? I see it as a smile saying that
Speaker 1: this is the best sure you're going to get out
Speaker 1: of me. You won't get any further reaction of aggression,
Speaker 1: and I'm willing to stand here as long as you
Speaker 1: want to hit the strong in my face. There's something
Speaker 1: aggressive about standing there, standing your ground. You both stood
Speaker 1: your ground and it was like a stair down. What
Speaker 1: do you think of that now when you think about
Speaker 1: that moment, Oh, I would say, missr philis Head is
Speaker 1: right to come up to me. I had my right
Speaker 1: to stay there. Our school was slandered by the African
Speaker 1: Americans who had caught us all sorts of things. Savannah
Speaker 1: Guthrie is a classic mainstream media hack. Nothing. You know,
Speaker 1: she looks the part, she sounds the part. She's played
Speaker 1: the game at NBC or whatever, and now this is
Speaker 1: somebody that we're supposed to take seriously. Reasons I don't know,
Speaker 1: doesn't have any expertise than anything. Wasn't a great wasn't
Speaker 1: a great journalist at a newspaper, doesn't write, doesn't you know?
Speaker 1: It's just she's a she's a TV presenters, basically an actor,
Speaker 1: and she obviously takes the most popular left of center
Speaker 1: view she can on any issue, always right. And I've
Speaker 1: seen enough of her stuff to know that this is
Speaker 1: her stick. It's it's like the Matt Lauer stick, which
Speaker 1: she used to obviously work with an NBC. You know,
Speaker 1: this is what these broadcast news hosts do. They try
Speaker 1: to find a way to seem like they're being fair,
Speaker 1: but it's always a little always a little skewed, isn't
Speaker 1: it to the other side, always pretty clear that they're
Speaker 1: really not interested in being down the middle. And you
Speaker 1: saw that in this exchange. I mean, she's saying, there's
Speaker 1: something aggressive about standing your ground. Why is that aggressive
Speaker 1: if somebody walks over to you, which is what Phillips did.
Speaker 1: Remember this is Nick Sandman, who was the Covington High
Speaker 1: School student who was captured in the most clear footage
Speaker 1: of him is up close where he's with this guy
Speaker 1: Phillips um, Why does Nick salmon, have a dude, Is
Speaker 1: he supposed to run away because a guy walks over
Speaker 1: to him and starts banging a drum in his face?
Speaker 1: That that's so? It's so it's not. Isn't that an
Speaker 1: interesting way to think about this though? The way that
Speaker 1: Savannah Guthree frames this. First of all, she's talking to
Speaker 1: a fifteen year old kid. Okay, he's now doing a
Speaker 1: national news interview, and and she she's you know, don't
Speaker 1: it's aggressive for you to stand there? No. I think
Speaker 1: people would would argue that it's it's insane to think
Speaker 1: that he's supposed to run away. He didn't mean this
Speaker 1: man any harm, He wasn't he had no aggressive And
Speaker 1: then the guy walk up to him banging his drum
Speaker 1: in his face, and he just looked at him aggressive.
Speaker 1: You might say it's defensive, which I think is understandable
Speaker 1: in the circumstances. But to suggest that there was an
Speaker 1: aggression in this um, it's it's bizarre. Really. I think
Speaker 1: it's a very strange thing for Guthrie to ask him.
Speaker 1: But you understand she's she's trying to make sure that
Speaker 1: her mostly live audience thinks that, you know, she's representing
Speaker 1: their view of how he should be questioned. Well, I
Speaker 1: want to know when Phillips is going to be asked
Speaker 1: any questions. And I want to know when the Black
Speaker 1: Israelites who were present will be asked some questions. Where
Speaker 1: is the Oppo research on them? When? When do journalists
Speaker 1: asked the adults, including the adults who were yelling anti
Speaker 1: gay slurs, racist slurs, threatening the students, and just generally
Speaker 1: acting like maniacs. And everyone knows that the Black Israelites
Speaker 1: act this way. I've I have heard the Black Israelites
Speaker 1: up close and personal. Have you ever have you ever
Speaker 1: heard them Brandon? I'm assuming probably many times just in
Speaker 1: the video? Sure, I mean so you've heard them right, yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: on the street in New York there they sit in
Speaker 1: Times Square and they yell crazy things at people, really belligerent,
Speaker 1: nasty things. So when, but when do they have to
Speaker 1: answer any questions about their conduct? Why do we take
Speaker 1: this position? Why is the assumption automatically that it is
Speaker 1: you know, Nick Sandman's issue, It is his problem that
Speaker 1: he has to be the one to deal with this.
Speaker 1: He's the fifteen year old kid. But there's more of this,
Speaker 1: there's more of this where Guthrie just makes it quite
Speaker 1: clear as well that you know, there's some of the
Speaker 1: responsibility here is just the Trump support that's part of
Speaker 1: this play three. Do you think if they weren't wearing
Speaker 1: that hat, this might not have happened, or it might
Speaker 1: have been different. That's possible. But I would have to
Speaker 1: assume what mister Phillis was thinking, and I'd rather let
Speaker 1: him speak from why he came up to your kid's
Speaker 1: doing very well. I would not, you know, knowing, you know,
Speaker 1: don't put words in someone else's mouth. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: I saw today criticism from people in the media about, oh,
Speaker 1: he's obviously had PR teaching on this. Of course he has,
Speaker 1: you know. And please does anyone think that that Sandra
Speaker 1: Sandra Fluke when she was making the rounds, or that
Speaker 1: David Hogg when he was making the rounds, that they
Speaker 1: didn't have immense PR and media assistance and help from
Speaker 1: the left wing apparatus that rallies to young people when
Speaker 1: they find it convenient to do so for political purposes.
Speaker 1: Of course, of course that happened. But she asked him
Speaker 1: if it's if it's the fault of the MAGA hat,
Speaker 1: and there's a bit of a something a little freudying
Speaker 1: about this, because really, this is why when you and
Speaker 1: you add that on to the fact that these are
Speaker 1: all mostly white students from a school that is a
Speaker 1: Catholic institution, and they had just marched for life and
Speaker 1: they are autumn, all those things are stose strikes against
Speaker 1: these students in the eyes of the media. They are
Speaker 1: they just are. I won't get into this, you know,
Speaker 1: later we'll talk about priests and some of the priests
Speaker 1: that have weighed in on this issue. I just I
Speaker 1: don't understand how you can be a Catholic and vote Democrat.
Speaker 1: I really mean, I just don't get it. You know,
Speaker 1: it's the church teaching on abortion could not be any
Speaker 1: more clear. And yet, I mean, the Democratic Party the
Speaker 1: one thing you have to be to be a Democrat.
Speaker 1: No no choice, no wiggle room, nothing. There's no big
Speaker 1: tent for pro life in the Democratic Party. It does
Speaker 1: not exist anymore. And people who pretend that they are
Speaker 1: part of it's a fraud. Wants someone Pelosi wants is
Speaker 1: to be able to abort a baby, you know, when
Speaker 1: it's out of the womb. I mean, it doesn't even
Speaker 1: matter that they're just they are savage on this issue.
Speaker 1: And I don't understand how a Catholic can be okay
Speaker 1: with that. I just I don't. But and I know
Speaker 1: many of you who are listening, who or of other
Speaker 1: denominations also feel that way about you know, whether you're
Speaker 1: a Protestant or' an evangelical UM. But it's it's really
Speaker 1: mind boggling to me. But they don't like these kids
Speaker 1: because of all this. They don't like those kids. They
Speaker 1: don't like these kids for those reasons. And then of
Speaker 1: course they have to take what they're the conclusions that
Speaker 1: they jumped to, the media jumped to. They have to
Speaker 1: ask those questions of these kids, as though that's a
Speaker 1: reasonable or rational thing for anyone to think. There's nothing
Speaker 1: racist about what these kids did. There's nothing racist that
Speaker 1: they said, there's nothing racist in their in their actions.
Speaker 1: They didn't ask for this, they didn't instigate this, and
Speaker 1: they didn't do anything. So why are they being asked
Speaker 1: questions like they did? Um? Play a clip two here?
Speaker 1: Do you think it was a good idea to start
Speaker 1: chanting back at the protesters And the hindsight, I wish
Speaker 1: we had just found another response to wait for buses.
Speaker 1: But at the time, being positive seemed better than letting
Speaker 1: them slander us with all of these things. So I
Speaker 1: wish we could have walked with Did anyone shout any
Speaker 1: insult back or any racial slurs back at the group?
Speaker 1: We're a Catholic schooling. It's not tolerated. They don't tolerate racism,
Speaker 1: and none of my classmates are racist people. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can tell you this, if anyone in my Catholic
Speaker 1: school had yelled at a racial slur, they would have
Speaker 1: been lucky if they didn't get expelled. So, and it's
Speaker 1: this idea, I mean, think about what the media imbeciles
Speaker 1: really think here. Think about Savannah Guthrie. You know, if
Speaker 1: they're multibillion dollar contract to go on TV to do
Speaker 1: a job that a thousand other people could do better,
Speaker 1: but you know, NBC brass likes or whatever. Think about
Speaker 1: what they're suggesting here that at this school for boys
Speaker 1: in Kentucky, somebody could just casually throw out some racial
Speaker 1: There were adults present. There were you know, I'm not
Speaker 1: hall monitors, what do you call them, well, chaperones. There
Speaker 1: were all monitors. They're ready to take action. Skillsness, sir,
Speaker 1: do you'll have a pass? No, but there were adults present,
Speaker 1: and they that never would be okay. There is no
Speaker 1: school in America, no Catholic school in America, to be sure,
Speaker 1: where you could yell out racial slurs at adults strangers nearby,
Speaker 1: and the adults that are there monitoring you would not
Speaker 1: have had an absolute fit over it, and rightly so.
Speaker 1: But just notice that they're getting it. They're asking these questions.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is I mean, Savannah Guthrie is essentially
Speaker 1: asking the kind of questions that in a different context
Speaker 1: people would say. So, you're just asking if their skirt
Speaker 1: was too short? Huh. I know their boys, but you
Speaker 1: get what I'm saying. You know, you're just asking, you know,
Speaker 1: were you asking for it? That's what they thrust of
Speaker 1: this interview with Guthri. I mean, it's it's appalling. It's
Speaker 1: appalling people are doubling down in the media after they've
Speaker 1: been exposed is idiots and frauds on this question. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's why it's such a national news story still. I
Speaker 1: think it's still the biggest news during the country right
Speaker 1: now other than the shutdown. People are really talking about
Speaker 1: this because the media just does not learn their lesson
Speaker 1: and what you realize is that they don't even care.
Speaker 1: They don't care if they get this stuff wrong. They
Speaker 1: have an agenda. They are there to serve a purpose.
Speaker 1: They're there to support, to bolster a point of view
Speaker 1: and use their platforms to do that, and to shut
Speaker 1: down and shout down people that are oppositional to that agenda.
Speaker 1: People like you and me. We're at least almost all.
Speaker 1: I always gotta remember their Democrats listen to you guys,
Speaker 1: do write me. Sometime I was like, I'm a Democrat
Speaker 1: and I like your show. Yeah, send me some Democrat
Speaker 1: messages on Facebook. I like hearing from the stealth Democrats.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to out you Democrats to listen to
Speaker 1: the show. It's cool. You're welcome. Welcome to Team Buck Democrats.
Speaker 1: We're slowly but surely bringing you into the light. It's
Speaker 1: a good thing. We will be back with a little
Speaker 1: more on this Covington update situation, so stay right there.
Speaker 1: I was docked three separate occasions before we posted that video,
Speaker 1: and the threats they've been horrible that I've never heard
Speaker 1: such cruel things wished upon another human being, who ranges
Speaker 1: from getting locked inside of building and burned alive to
Speaker 1: sexually assaulted by the clergy members. It's just awful. This
Speaker 1: is what's happening to these kids. Their private information is
Speaker 1: being put online and people are finding them and reaching
Speaker 1: out them online or however they can. It's saying the
Speaker 1: most horrific things to them. And I have to bring
Speaker 1: this back to this just shows you that the left
Speaker 1: is insane because the reason people hate these kids is
Speaker 1: because of their political beliefs. It is because they are
Speaker 1: progressives who believe all this stuff that they're being told
Speaker 1: about the world is ending in twelve years because of
Speaker 1: climate change, and all ethnic minorities in America are deeply oppressed,
Speaker 1: and essentially white people in America have to make huge
Speaker 1: amends for all the terrible stuff that they're still doing.
Speaker 1: And white male patriarchy is the root of all evil
Speaker 1: in this country. I mean, they believe that stuff. They
Speaker 1: believe that, and so that's why they would then act
Speaker 1: in such completely horrific and insane fashionist threatened kids who
Speaker 1: didn't even do anything. I saw today a thread of
Speaker 1: different and this is all in the you know, the
Speaker 1: online battles that are being waged among the blue checks,
Speaker 1: which you all know is just verified journalists on Twitter,
Speaker 1: but sometimes I'll use blue checks as a shorthand. But
Speaker 1: the Blue checks were fighting about this, and people were
Speaker 1: saying they're trying to draw comparisons between these the Covington
Speaker 1: kids and Trayvon Martin, and I'm like, wait, what I
Speaker 1: actually she heard somebody on Fox News, somebody who I
Speaker 1: know and actually on a personal level, like and I
Speaker 1: won't name her now because I don't want you guys
Speaker 1: to yell at her on Twitter, but she said, you know,
Speaker 1: well you look at Trayvon Martin, and Barack Obama said,
Speaker 1: you know, that would have looked like my son and
Speaker 1: how people and I'm like, wait, why are we talking
Speaker 1: about Trayvon Martin. Trayvon Martin was a six foot tall,
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighty pound eighteen year old who was
Speaker 1: trying to pound somebody's head open on the pavement and
Speaker 1: just happened to be tangling with a guy who was
Speaker 1: a concealed carry permit holder, a weirdo and not a
Speaker 1: good guy. I'm not you know, Zimmerman's not somebody that
Speaker 1: anybody should you know, think he's a hero or a
Speaker 1: good guy. But you know you're gonna back somebody's head
Speaker 1: in the sidewalk. They got a gun, They're gonna shoot you,
Speaker 1: And that's what happened. I just and I'm hearing this.
Speaker 1: I saw some kind of like a third tier pundit.
Speaker 1: I can't remember his name, and I wouldn't say it
Speaker 1: if I could, but over at MSNBC, and this tweet
Speaker 1: went megaviral, I mean, like over one hundred thousand retweets
Speaker 1: and shares and or retweets and likes, and it was
Speaker 1: something along the lines of, you know, white teenager acts badly, Um, oh,
Speaker 1: he's just a kid, Black black teenager acts badly, or
Speaker 1: you know, he's no angel. And I believe it was
Speaker 1: in a reference to Treyvon the Treyvon Martin discussion. But
Speaker 1: even if even if it wasn't, I'm just these kids.
Speaker 1: Why is this all of a sudden a reflection of
Speaker 1: people's you know, racial politics, you know, whatever they think
Speaker 1: the country's racial politics may be. The kids didn't do anything.
Speaker 1: There was no racial incident except for the black adults
Speaker 1: present who were yelling racial slurs at the kids, and
Speaker 1: by the way, yelled the racial slur at a black
Speaker 1: student who was with the Covington kids, which I can't
Speaker 1: repeat on air. But Why do we even talk about
Speaker 1: this like it's some kind of like there was The
Speaker 1: only incident was the media lying about it. But there's
Speaker 1: still this hope. They're still they're so grasping it. Maybe
Speaker 1: there was something they wore. Those maga hats who maga
Speaker 1: hats are, They're triggering for libs. They can't handle it.
Speaker 1: The only people who have suffered here. I would note
Speaker 1: also the adults aren't getting death threats. Meaning Phillips, who
Speaker 1: by the way, did not serve in Vietnam, refers to
Speaker 1: himself as a Vietnam Times Vet. I'm sorry, but if
Speaker 1: you're a VET, you're a VET. God bless and thank
Speaker 1: you for your service. No one should be lying about
Speaker 1: what they did in any job. And to say you
Speaker 1: are a Vietnam Times VET and have the whole media
Speaker 1: saying you're a Vietnam VET has a very specific implication.
Speaker 1: The guy was, from what I understand seeing the records today,
Speaker 1: in a riflry unit for two days state side and
Speaker 1: then served as a refrigerator mechanic. Now logistics people totally honorable.
Speaker 1: I'm not putting that down at all. I'm just saying,
Speaker 1: you know, you don't run around I can tell you
Speaker 1: this from a CIA side. I'm not pretending that I
Speaker 1: was doing dead drops and you know, smuggling people out
Speaker 1: of the country on enduring black ops with unmarked helicopters
Speaker 1: and stuff. No, that's the way that I conduct myself
Speaker 1: in the CIA or about my background. The CIA try
Speaker 1: to be honest about it all the time. I just
Speaker 1: expect people to be honest. That guy's not honest. But
Speaker 1: you know, they're not getting any threats, they're not having
Speaker 1: anything bad happened to them. But here's more of what
Speaker 1: happens to the Covington's dudents, Play five. There have been
Speaker 1: many threats against our lives, against our parents. Some of
Speaker 1: these threats include that we should all be locked in
Speaker 1: the school and sen burnt to the ground, the school
Speaker 1: being bombed, school shooting threats. It's really scary, people threatening
Speaker 1: to bomb and burn down the school. The kids didn't
Speaker 1: do anything. The media and the adults that were president
Speaker 1: this encounter, they're the ones that people should be asking
Speaker 1: some really tough questions too. And you know what, we
Speaker 1: all know that's not going to happen. When do you
Speaker 1: want to spot that burglar when he's actually doing a
Speaker 1: casing of your home, or when he's already broken in. Well,
Speaker 1: ask John because his Blink camera alerted him to burglars
Speaker 1: trying to break in while he and his family were home,
Speaker 1: or Shannon, who's Blink camera caught a thief stealing packages.
Speaker 1: Both times, Blink video clips were sent to police to
Speaker 1: help convict the crooks. Blink motion activated indoor and outdoor
Speaker 1: cameras are wire free, set up in minutes, and run
Speaker 1: on two double A batteries that last up to two years.
Speaker 1: And if you're traveling, Blink's Live feed option lets you
Speaker 1: monitor your home and check in on pets from anywhere
Speaker 1: using the Blink smartphone app. No contracts, no subscriptions, totally affordable,
Speaker 1: and Blink works with Alexa. Blink camera systems make great
Speaker 1: gifts and they're a brilliant way to monitor your package deliveries.
Speaker 1: You know there's a lot of those doorstep thieves are
Speaker 1: around these days. Visit blink protect dot com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: That's blink protect dot com slash Buck one more time,
Speaker 1: b L I n K protect dot com slash Buck.
Speaker 1: Blink is an Amazon company. I'm a gas that he
Speaker 1: voted for a border barrier several times in the past,
Speaker 1: but he doesn't vote for one now I'll be because
Speaker 1: he does not want to give President Trump a win.
Speaker 1: He's putting his political hatred this president over his responsibility
Speaker 1: to protect this nation. He don't need the government reopen
Speaker 1: to negotiate the people at the negotiating table. They're getting
Speaker 1: paid and the Democrats are proposing bills. I reviewed one
Speaker 1: this morning. They want to cut icy tension beds in half,
Speaker 1: which will double the moment catch release, which shows again
Speaker 1: the Democrats are not serious about border security. They want
Speaker 1: open borders, and their bills at their proposing right now
Speaker 1: support that ideology. There you have the former acting director
Speaker 1: of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement saying on National TV what
Speaker 1: I've been saying to you all along, which is that
Speaker 1: the Democrats will not say it, but all of their
Speaker 1: actions point toward they want a state of near open borders. Effectively,
Speaker 1: they do not want illegal immigration to end. It is
Speaker 1: not correct to say that they agree or they share
Speaker 1: our long term goal here. And a major part of
Speaker 1: this is the conversation over the wall. They say that
Speaker 1: walls don't work. That is a stupid been talking point.
Speaker 1: It is untrue. It is obviously untrue. And I told
Speaker 1: you about what's going on at the Tijuana San Diego
Speaker 1: border wall because I was there last week. I want
Speaker 1: to bring somebody who brings another perspective of where the
Speaker 1: wall has worked and how it has worked. Matt Pinsker
Speaker 1: joins US now. He wrote a piece for National Review
Speaker 1: called my Attention, walls work, just ask this community college
Speaker 1: on the southern border. Matt, thanks so much for joining us, man.
Speaker 1: I appreciated your peace and National Review. By the way,
Speaker 1: you're a prosecutor by trade, right well, I was a
Speaker 1: special procesure. I'm actually working now as a defensive train.
Speaker 1: That's really what I do at Hearts is a special
Speaker 1: assignment called up by the Army and assigned to the
Speaker 1: Justice deployment for six months as on the border, handling
Speaker 1: cases thousands of criminal cases for of illegal entry as
Speaker 1: well as cartel activity. When my deployment up, I returned
Speaker 1: home and reopened my wall practice to in criminal defense.
Speaker 1: I spent from one side back to the other. All right, cool,
Speaker 1: So I wanted to talk. I wanted to ask you
Speaker 1: about what you write right on with this piece. Laredo
Speaker 1: Community College solved its illegal immigration problem with an eight
Speaker 1: foot tall, mile long fence set the scene a little bit.
Speaker 1: What do we need to know about Laredo Community College
Speaker 1: where it's located? Why do we why does this come up? Absolutely,
Speaker 1: Laredo Community College is a very picturesque, very beautiful cost
Speaker 1: campus that it first looks like any other college in America,
Speaker 1: very scenic, and unique to it is that is situated
Speaker 1: literally just one hundred one hundred and fifty yards from
Speaker 1: the Rio ground itself, that it is literally right there
Speaker 1: on the border. And just like everywhere else on the
Speaker 1: border around town, they're having problems with illegal immigration and
Speaker 1: cartel activity, which are actually one and the same. But
Speaker 1: multiple times a week they're being phone calls all illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants going through campus. Usually they left people live, but
Speaker 1: there were reported to solve best and other problems. Of course,
Speaker 1: border patrol would chase them through campus. You imagine if
Speaker 1: you're a place of work, multiple times a week you're
Speaker 1: having law enforcement chases of shoots through campus. But yeah,
Speaker 1: even if there wasn't an additional crime, I think it's
Speaker 1: understandable for people that are going to college to have
Speaker 1: the cops chasing down illegals actually right on the campus.
Speaker 1: That might put some people on edge and also there
Speaker 1: are safety risk if the cops have to travel at
Speaker 1: high speed in a car. And I mean there's stuff
Speaker 1: that goes on and here's all really skiff set people
Speaker 1: on edge, the cartels, the blood there see people who
Speaker 1: like isis put up videos of them hacking people apart.
Speaker 1: They were conducting major truck drug transactions on the college
Speaker 1: campus's tennis courts and parking lot. I mean, that's obviously
Speaker 1: a threat to student safety. And what do you fix this?
Speaker 1: Do you put an end to this? They erected just
Speaker 1: a one mile border fence, not at all. It is
Speaker 1: a simple eight foot tall fence. I've been a tall
Speaker 1: fence about just eight but brought iron black posts. They
Speaker 1: split them in just one mile on link and overnight
Speaker 1: it went to practically zero. Is with the illegal immigration
Speaker 1: or cartel activity on campus and it's the other side
Speaker 1: of it. People say, oh, they'll just go around it.
Speaker 1: Well yes, when they go around it, though, creates a
Speaker 1: choke point for a border, but for all to line
Speaker 1: and wait, it redirects its funnels them into a choke point.
Speaker 1: Or if they do try to go over it or
Speaker 1: under it again, it flows them up a couple of minutes.
Speaker 1: But all border patrol needs is a couple extra minutes
Speaker 1: to arrive in time. I mean cameras, motion detectors. The
Speaker 1: only work if you can arrive in time to get
Speaker 1: to stop them. And so many times you know there's
Speaker 1: out on patrol with you, a supporder patrol, and we respond,
Speaker 1: but we couldn't get there in time to stop them
Speaker 1: because a couple of minutes. Talk to anyone in law
Speaker 1: enforce and they'll tell you that they have just a
Speaker 1: two to three extra minutes of response time for a
Speaker 1: situation that'll make all the difference in the world. And
Speaker 1: that's where the fence said. It worked great, and why
Speaker 1: can't the rest of America have the same protection and benefits.
Speaker 1: There's a commune call its What do you think when
Speaker 1: you hear people it's still on TV. You'll have supposedly
Speaker 1: serious journalists talking heads another say walls don't work. Did
Speaker 1: you think that they're just engaging in actively dishonest propaganda
Speaker 1: or they just don't know, or because it's just it
Speaker 1: seems so obvious. And there are all these stories. I
Speaker 1: was at San Diego, you're talking about Laredo, these fences
Speaker 1: that have been up, and maybe we should all just
Speaker 1: start calling it a fence. Now, so people stopped freaking
Speaker 1: out about a wall. They've proven themselves. I just don't
Speaker 1: understand how we're still even how it's still even an
Speaker 1: open question, never mind a talking point for Democrats to
Speaker 1: say we shouldn't do more of this. You know, I
Speaker 1: agree to one hundred percent, like arguing is the earth
Speaker 1: is round or flat? And maybe the best way to
Speaker 1: look at it is you know, one third of Americans
Speaker 1: think nine levels inside job. Well, a third of Americans
Speaker 1: think that the new landing was a hoax. Maybe that's
Speaker 1: just the best place to put it. You know, just
Speaker 1: some people, despite all logic, commonsense and reason, think very
Speaker 1: bizarre positions. And you know that's being charitable. I think
Speaker 1: some people are just being deceptively dishonest. Look at Stevens
Speaker 1: from Schumer from nine years ago and President of Rock
Speaker 1: Obama as well, for him when he was in office
Speaker 1: supporting the wall. Now, I think suddenly flip flops. Come on,
Speaker 1: I don't believe that they actually change their mind about that,
Speaker 1: not for a second. Now, So you were down there
Speaker 1: on the border, and you were working for the government,
Speaker 1: and that role you said as a prosecutor, working alongside
Speaker 1: law enforcement. What do you think about this? You know,
Speaker 1: one of the new I shouldn't say talking points, one
Speaker 1: of the new issues that's come up in the last
Speaker 1: couple weeks. If people say, well, okay, fine, the opioid
Speaker 1: crisis is terrible, we all have to read is terrible.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a national scourage, it's an epidemic. Seventy
Speaker 1: thousand plus people, you're dying. But but but all the
Speaker 1: drugs are coming through ports of entry, so a fence
Speaker 1: doesn't matter. I mean, I just my response to my
Speaker 1: initial response is, first of all, we should do whatever
Speaker 1: we can to make it harder for the cartels in
Speaker 1: general to do what they're doing, including the fencing. So
Speaker 1: anything that raises the cost of doing business and raises
Speaker 1: their failure it is good mine or just to know
Speaker 1: what they're talking about. The reason I can say that
Speaker 1: is I saw with my own eyes because I personally
Speaker 1: handled pieces where people, Yes, sometimes they through three ports
Speaker 1: of entry, other times they try to sneak it across
Speaker 1: other ways. So give an example, we had a case
Speaker 1: involving about three hundred pounds of marijuana that was being
Speaker 1: stuck across the river of you know, over a private
Speaker 1: Leo Ranch. Obviously that's not a ports of entry, and
Speaker 1: that's uh, you know, quite a lot of marijuana coming across.
Speaker 1: Or another example, the Mexican cartels abducted a guy at
Speaker 1: the bus station Laredo and after they beat him a little,
Speaker 1: they dragged him to the border, held a gun to
Speaker 1: his head after and put drugs on him and told
Speaker 1: him to cross the river into America. So the people
Speaker 1: who are saying that they only you know that comes
Speaker 1: across the ports of entry, that's as false. Now, we
Speaker 1: probably catch a lot coming in reports of entry, and
Speaker 1: that's because that's where the law enforcement has said off.
Speaker 1: That's what I keep saying to people. We don't catch
Speaker 1: a truck that goes over the border that no one
Speaker 1: sees exactly it's fresh. I mean, no one knows exactly
Speaker 1: what's coming over. We have some guesses and estimates. But
Speaker 1: the fact that people are making cleans about you know
Speaker 1: what we you can't detect, that's just ridiculous. What do
Speaker 1: you think about the presidents as somebody who was down
Speaker 1: there and actually worked on this onboard of security in
Speaker 1: a professional fashion, what do you think about the President's
Speaker 1: proposal from this past weekend? Pretty on the security side.
Speaker 1: Forget about doctor pretty good to the Democrats. It is
Speaker 1: extremely generous and if under any other circumstances any other president,
Speaker 1: they'd have jumped on in a heartbeat. In fact, that
Speaker 1: some deal I would normally have expected a Democrat to
Speaker 1: offer to the Republicans. Do you get the deal through?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's for everything that they've asked for,
Speaker 1: and then some of you know, I just cannot believe
Speaker 1: that politics are so polarized that they're just not going
Speaker 1: for something that's such a good deal, not just for
Speaker 1: the Democrats, but it's good deal for America. Though. Do
Speaker 1: you have that sense directed When were you down there
Speaker 1: by the way, and what was the roughly speaking, you know,
Speaker 1: day in and day out, how many illegals were crossing
Speaker 1: in your sector? Sure, so I was sounder in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: My deployment ran from July three December, so six months
Speaker 1: you were just down there's a tdy, Oh yeah, got
Speaker 1: that got home for my deployment a few weeks ago,
Speaker 1: and any given day I was prosecuting seventy five to
Speaker 1: two hundred people for illegally and three in America the
Speaker 1: prior day. But here's the real catch. We think we're
Speaker 1: actually only one in three people coming across illegally. Again,
Speaker 1: we don't know what we don't catch, but that's our
Speaker 1: best estiment is rolling catchy one in three. So that
Speaker 1: meant any given day we're having anywhere from maybe two
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty two over six hundred people you're easily
Speaker 1: crossing the border in my sector alone. My sector is
Speaker 1: just a scratch maybe eight percent of the border. If
Speaker 1: that much, this is fascinating. I mean, you had a
Speaker 1: one in three catch rate. You know. San Diego sector
Speaker 1: thinks that they have a nine out of ten catch
Speaker 1: right now because they have full fencing along their entire
Speaker 1: sixteen mile quarter except for a part of it that
Speaker 1: is very rugged. I mean, the terrain is hellish to
Speaker 1: try to get through geta and there are some places
Speaker 1: where a fencer physical barry doesn't make sense because of
Speaker 1: the terrain. But where it does make sense, let's put
Speaker 1: up and here's here's the other part. If we just
Speaker 1: have a ten percent increase in catches across the border
Speaker 1: overall over a ten year period, that's one point two
Speaker 1: million people that would be started from entering. That's an
Speaker 1: a sense where it's only ten percent effectiveness. Can you
Speaker 1: tell me one thing I don't know what is So
Speaker 1: you are a special a federal special prosecutor at the
Speaker 1: border at how does that work? What is that? I've
Speaker 1: never heard of that before? So well at the boarders
Speaker 1: to us of a description nothing official special prosecutor is
Speaker 1: well as a special assistant US attorney as a see
Speaker 1: just in a USA assistant US attorney. The difference, especially
Speaker 1: a special prosecutor or a special assistant US attorney justings
Speaker 1: you're not a regular member of that office, so as
Speaker 1: your listeners may recall. In April twenty eighteen, just Sessions
Speaker 1: announced zero tolerance raw cases of illegal entry into Mario
Speaker 1: would be prosecuted. Now that the reason that was a
Speaker 1: big deals because previously, although entering the USA legally was
Speaker 1: a it was rarely prosecuted. Instead of being handled by
Speaker 1: the Justice Department as a criminal matters, people are just
Speaker 1: deported under catch and release to say okay, we catch
Speaker 1: you coming over and here's your ticket to appear in
Speaker 1: immigration court. In over ninety percent never showed up. So
Speaker 1: they announced the walls on the books. Doesn't matter if
Speaker 1: you agree or disagree with it. The walls on the
Speaker 1: books we're going to enforce it and prosecute people. Now
Speaker 1: that sounds great, it's good common sense, but look, it's
Speaker 1: not what makes sense. It's what your logistics allow. And
Speaker 1: the Justice Department didn't have enough people to prosecute. For example,
Speaker 1: in my area at this nance, say of two to
Speaker 1: twelve new cases to be prostituted every day, it was
Speaker 1: sometimes over one hundred or two hundred. So Matthew, matt,
Speaker 1: this is fascinating. Can we get a quick break and
Speaker 1: come back? I got a couple more questions I really
Speaker 1: want to ask you. Can you give us a few
Speaker 1: more minutes? Absolutely? All right. We're talking to Matt Pinsker
Speaker 1: about his piece up on National Review Walls work. Just
Speaker 1: asking this community college on the southern border. We're coing
Speaker 1: a covering a lot of terrain here. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: You're probably familiar with the AARP. It's a really well
Speaker 1: known organization. But what's not nearly as well known is
Speaker 1: that the aarps pretty left wing. They fought tooth and
Speaker 1: nail for a government run healthcare system, and they wanted
Speaker 1: the passage of Obamacare. So that's why I recommend AMAC. Okay,
Speaker 1: try AMAC instead of AARP. AMAC was founded by an
Speaker 1: Air Force veteran and supports conservative causes across the board.
Speaker 1: Over one point five million Americans have already joined AMAC.
Speaker 1: That number is growing and they're getting all the benefits
Speaker 1: that you'd expect from an organization like this, including discounts
Speaker 1: on insurance, hotels, roadside assistants, dental plans, all kinds of
Speaker 1: good stuff. And they know AMAC is standing for freedom
Speaker 1: and the America that you want. So try the conservative
Speaker 1: alternative here. Become a member of AMAC today. The benefits
Speaker 1: are great, the cause is even greater. Join right now
Speaker 1: at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. All right, So we're back with Matt Pinsker
Speaker 1: here talking about his piece and National Review. He was
Speaker 1: just back in twenty eighteen a special federal special prosecutor
Speaker 1: acting as an AUSA, but he was down at the
Speaker 1: part of the Texas border. Matt, you know, you've touched
Speaker 1: on so many things here, and I just was with
Speaker 1: San Diego Border Patrol last week. So this is an
Speaker 1: area of heightened interest for me, and obviously it's why
Speaker 1: we got the shutdown. Right now, soever, everyone's curious about
Speaker 1: this stuff. I've only got a few minutes. A few
Speaker 1: things I want to ask you about, though. One is
Speaker 1: you mentioned prosecutorial resources. I asked Border Patrol this, and
Speaker 1: I think it's fascinating the answer they gave me. I said,
Speaker 1: wait a second, if you have, as they do, people
Speaker 1: in their thirties claiming to be teenagers so that they
Speaker 1: can be considered an unaccompanied minor, that's actually happened there
Speaker 1: isn't that Or people claiming that a kid is theirs
Speaker 1: when the kid is not actually a family member, aren't
Speaker 1: they covered under one zero zero one? Isn't that lying
Speaker 1: to a federal official about government business that matters or not? Well?
Speaker 1: At once I had to double check the code. That
Speaker 1: can't go off the top of my head on that one,
Speaker 1: but I can't sit is that, Yes, it is a
Speaker 1: little crime to why to federal law enforcement. However, we
Speaker 1: never prosecuted anyone for that because we didn't have the resources.
Speaker 1: And again, if people didn't enter guilty police, then we
Speaker 1: might have done that. But generally everyone, you know, cases
Speaker 1: are open and shut once they realize they're busted, and
Speaker 1: we just letting go this way, If everyone who we
Speaker 1: could charge with a felony was charged with the felony,
Speaker 1: the sired system would grind to a halt. We just
Speaker 1: couldn't do it. I mean, that's why the Army I was,
Speaker 1: I'm an Army judge as getting the Army reserves and
Speaker 1: as assigned to the Justice Department. That's why I have
Speaker 1: a special prosecutors you know, soone from outside the normal office,
Speaker 1: just to help with the work overflow and the overload.
Speaker 1: While they could hire some more people, but even then
Speaker 1: the numbers are so overwhelming, so crushing. That's about for
Speaker 1: every for every case we did prosecute as a felony,
Speaker 1: they're over a hundred that we just did into We
Speaker 1: chose not to for lack of resources. We wanted to.
Speaker 1: And the prosecutors I work where they were outstanding top
Speaker 1: of the why law enforcement or greats. They're dedicated. But
Speaker 1: we're just so overwhelmed and overworked that we actually cut
Speaker 1: deals like that offer misdemeanors instead of felonies. Were else
Speaker 1: in the country people get toelonies, but we had to
Speaker 1: do misseenors. Absolutely offered. So this is fascinating. I want
Speaker 1: to also ask you. I asked and they this was
Speaker 1: you know, off the record, a non attribution and effect,
Speaker 1: but I did ask some border patrol guys. I said, look,
Speaker 1: you guys are telling me numbers here, like last year,
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand roughly I think it was ninety six
Speaker 1: thousand is the actual number. But it's close to one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand family units showed up at the border. Less
Speaker 1: than one percent of them have been deported. Okay, So
Speaker 1: that means that one hundred thousand roughly family units, which
Speaker 1: has got to be a couple hundred thousand people just
Speaker 1: got into the country and are going to stay, not
Speaker 1: show up for their hearings, adding to the illegal population.
Speaker 1: I asked Border patrol, the guys who've been doing this
Speaker 1: for some of them fifteen or twenty years, said, do
Speaker 1: you believe the number is still eleven million after all
Speaker 1: this time, given what you're telling me and what's going
Speaker 1: on year in year out, do you believe the nubers
Speaker 1: eleven million? They laughed and said, absolutely not, but no
Speaker 1: one wants to hear that. What do you think, Oh,
Speaker 1: I agree hundred percent. You know, seeing the numbers, it
Speaker 1: just doesn't make sense that it's only eleven million. I mean,
Speaker 1: we've been told it's eleven million for twenty years now.
Speaker 1: It has to be much higher than that. I think
Speaker 1: that studies. Yeah, they said twenty to by the way,
Speaker 1: they said twenty to thirty is what they would guess,
Speaker 1: and I said, okay, that's that sounds about right. Twenty
Speaker 1: to me sounds about right. And I think they're right
Speaker 1: as well. It's unfortunate and people are saying this doesn't exist,
Speaker 1: isn't a problem, but they're wrong. Yeah it does. I say,
Speaker 1: as someone who literally lived on the border, worked from
Speaker 1: border security, personally prosecuted cases. I hate hearing politicians and
Speaker 1: DC saying that we're making the suffer, we're inventing it.
Speaker 1: But the entire time I was down there, not a
Speaker 1: single congressman sat in the courtroom where I was prosecuting
Speaker 1: over one hundred cases a day. Do they not care?
Speaker 1: Do they not want to know? I mean, if a
Speaker 1: military commander, they didn't get out there in the field,
Speaker 1: they inspect their troops, they participate in feel operations. Yet
Speaker 1: you have the bureaucrats and politicstans DC they even bother
Speaker 1: to make the trip. That's what really sickens me that
Speaker 1: it's astonishing. Man. Well, look, I so appreciate Matt getting
Speaker 1: your perspective. I didn't I really liked your peace on
Speaker 1: what happened at Laredo Community College. I didn't even realize
Speaker 1: that you had been down there in this past year
Speaker 1: in so that just you know, the fresh perspective what's
Speaker 1: going on is so very helpful. Um, thank you first
Speaker 1: of all, thank you for your service, and thank you
Speaker 1: so much for joining us here on the show. Was
Speaker 1: really really instructive. Thank you so much for having me
Speaker 1: appreciate depth you need to share. So nashreview dot com folks,
Speaker 1: where you want to check out his pete. I mean,
Speaker 1: I really enjoyed talking to Matt about this stuff. This
Speaker 1: is just what I keep you know, everyone that I
Speaker 1: talked to who knows stuff and I spent I had.
Speaker 1: I had a pretty you know, really in depth call
Speaker 1: today with more sources and immigrations to the customs Enforcement.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get a piece out on Monday in Hill.
Speaker 1: I'm already working the research. I want the facts out there.
Speaker 1: I want people to know what's really going on. Every
Speaker 1: person who knows the issue in the government, outside of government,
Speaker 1: they all say the same things. We are being scammed,
Speaker 1: the system is overwhelmed. The numbers are way higher than
Speaker 1: anybody realizes. We don't know how many drugs are coming in.
Speaker 1: We don't know how many legals are coming in. We
Speaker 1: know that, you know, the border resources are stretched thin
Speaker 1: right now. And yet you know, you churn on CNN
Speaker 1: or you churn on ABC News and they're like, Oh,
Speaker 1: is the border really a crisis? Yes, you imbecults, there's
Speaker 1: a crisis at the border. I mean, I just I
Speaker 1: kind of get the silliest sometimes I talk to people
Speaker 1: about this. Now, they really think that this is a
Speaker 1: tenable situation. We got hundreds of thousands of people at
Speaker 1: a minimum coming into the country illegally, now hundreds of
Speaker 1: thousands last year alone. I mean, you know, what are
Speaker 1: we We're supposed to pretend it's not happening. Yes, that's
Speaker 1: what the media wants us to do. When I see
Speaker 1: the Make America a Great Again hat now, Chris, I
Speaker 1: am triggered. I'm so triggered. Andre. I think in a
Speaker 1: lot of ways our friendship has been compromised by the
Speaker 1: fact that you continue to support this man. The one
Speaker 1: thing I will say to you, to be absolutely fair, is,
Speaker 1: more than anybody else that I know on this network,
Speaker 1: you will regularly take Donald Trump's to task. I don't
Speaker 1: agree with you on this last point, but this make
Speaker 1: America Great Again hat is just as maddening and frustrating
Speaker 1: and triggering for me to look at as a KKK hood. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's a CNN commentator letting you know what passes for
Speaker 1: political insight and commentary over there, the formerly renowned CNN,
Speaker 1: the network for news coverage, and they're putting people in
Speaker 1: the air who say that wearing a make America Great
Speaker 1: Again hat is like looking at a KKK hood. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is really why stop there? Why don't you say
Speaker 1: it's just as bad as a Nazi swastica, which is
Speaker 1: I think a lot of liberals would say that. I
Speaker 1: don't think that they would shy away from that. But
Speaker 1: when you understand that context about our national discussion right now,
Speaker 1: over all these different issues, it really does make quite
Speaker 1: a bit of sense, doesn't it. You know, when you
Speaker 1: see how much they really do, truly and utterly hate
Speaker 1: the opposition. They don't disagree, they don't want to win
Speaker 1: us to their side. They just actively hate Trump and
Speaker 1: all those who support him. This is why they have
Speaker 1: all the fake news. What we're gonna go due to
Speaker 1: a whole whole fake news rundown in the next segment
Speaker 1: that's going to come t the top ten biggest fake
Speaker 1: news stories are going to be coming your way. It's
Speaker 1: a great, great time. We're gonna have some fun with
Speaker 1: that one. But to say that the AMaGA had is
Speaker 1: like a KKK hood. It's it's a dumb and nasty
Speaker 1: thing to say, but I think it's important that we
Speaker 1: hear it because people do believe this. You also had
Speaker 1: Hakim Jeffries who had this to say about the President
Speaker 1: of the United States play thirteen. We have a headter
Speaker 1: in the White House, the Grand Wizard of sixteen Jim
Speaker 1: Crow maybe dead, he's still got some leads and Grand
Speaker 1: Wizard that's a sitting member of Congress who's sang that.
Speaker 1: You have a sitting member of Congress who was referring
Speaker 1: to the President of the United States as the Grand Wizard,
Speaker 1: the KKK leader of the White House and saying that
Speaker 1: while Jim Crow is dead, he has essentially or while
Speaker 1: Jim Crow is gone, you know, there are relatives of
Speaker 1: Jim Crow who are still in place. And it's such
Speaker 1: a horrible thing to say, and you and I might
Speaker 1: obviously want to just push that aside and ignore it
Speaker 1: and say, oh, you know, they're idiots who say things
Speaker 1: all the time. And you know we can't we can't
Speaker 1: get too deep into all the stupid things. If we
Speaker 1: if we took it upon ourselves to repudiate the dumb
Speaker 1: things that are said on CNN on a regular basis,
Speaker 1: that's all we would do. We just spend all day
Speaker 1: being like, no, no, wrong, false, stupid, untrue. But I
Speaker 1: do think it's something we have to take note of
Speaker 1: that there are going to be people, lots of them,
Speaker 1: who hear a congressman saying that Trump is the grand
Speaker 1: Wizard of the KKK. To hear a CNN contributors say
Speaker 1: or CNN whatever panelists pundit that malga hats are like
Speaker 1: KKK hoods. This is really destructive, it's wildly inappropriate, it's
Speaker 1: deeply disingenuous. And yet this is this is what they
Speaker 1: will do. But then I have to note that there
Speaker 1: are just there. There are sometimes when I look and
Speaker 1: I see what's happening with the Catholic Church on a
Speaker 1: lot of issues recently, but on this one in particular
Speaker 1: of the Covington Catholic schoolboys, and you know, there's this
Speaker 1: guy who goes on CNN father Edward Beck, and I've
Speaker 1: never heard of this guy before. Apparently he's a Catholic priest,
Speaker 1: and he said the following on CNN play clip seven.
Speaker 1: The students acted inappropriately. I was raised at a time
Speaker 1: when we were taught respect your elders with regard the hats.
Speaker 1: The hats that they were wearing. The song called Maga
Speaker 1: hats or make American Great hats come with a certain
Speaker 1: political agenda that, in my opinion, can be seen as
Speaker 1: anti Catholic, anti Christian, because abortion is not the only
Speaker 1: pro life issue. What about immigration and the migrants, what
Speaker 1: about capital punishment, what about the environment and climate change,
Speaker 1: and so by wearing that hat, it's saying that you're
Speaker 1: aligning yourself with the political agenda. The students had no
Speaker 1: right to be wearing that hat were a school hat.
Speaker 1: And look, I know there are some there are some
Speaker 1: great There are obviously lots of great priests out there too,
Speaker 1: in the Catholic Church and lots of different Christian denominations.
Speaker 1: But I don't understand how you can have these Catholic
Speaker 1: priests and he noticed that they'd like to do this.
Speaker 1: Let to skip over, well, I mean, being pro life
Speaker 1: is not no. Actually, if you're a Catholic priest, you
Speaker 1: don't get to skip over that one. You don't get
Speaker 1: to say. You know what, let's ignore, let's ignore the
Speaker 1: fact that New York State, too uproarious applause, just made
Speaker 1: it entirely legal to abort a baby at six months,
Speaker 1: which is well passed the viability phase, or at nine
Speaker 1: months if a medical professional deems it to be in
Speaker 1: the interest of the mother. New York State just passed
Speaker 1: a statue saying that abortion all nine months of her pregnancy,
Speaker 1: which is which is just utterly barbaric and it's murder
Speaker 1: and this is insane. And when they passed this one,
Speaker 1: I would note in the New York State Assembly there
Speaker 1: were cheer. There was cheering and clapping because you know,
Speaker 1: this is such a huge breakthrough for women's rights. This
Speaker 1: is one of these issues where also even if even
Speaker 1: if I'm not able to help sway, although I do
Speaker 1: think we have a duty and an obligation to sway
Speaker 1: as many people as we can on this. But even
Speaker 1: if we don't win, the sense of the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: doesn't come our way on this anytime soon, or we're right,
Speaker 1: and that is what matters. And the people who are
Speaker 1: on the wrong side of this one are going to
Speaker 1: have to always live with the consequences of that, and
Speaker 1: I actually feel sorry for them. But for a Catholic
Speaker 1: priest to come out and be like, yeah, let's skip over,
Speaker 1: let's skip over the life issue and let's worry about
Speaker 1: climate change just goes to show you. I mean, these
Speaker 1: guys are now, these guys are activists in a Roman collar.
Speaker 1: They are progressive, left wing activists. For anyone to be
Speaker 1: in the Catholic Church and see these videos and see
Speaker 1: what happened with these kids and have a problem with
Speaker 1: the kids, never mind to say that a maga had
Speaker 1: is anti Catholic. You know what the heck is wrong
Speaker 1: with some of these priests. It really, it obviously really
Speaker 1: annoys me. Although I will say that this guy known
Speaker 1: as the Bishop of the Internet, Bishop Robert Baron, who
Speaker 1: has one point five million likes on Facebook, said that
Speaker 1: the criticism of the of the Kentucky Covington Catholic High
Speaker 1: School was quote satanic, So at least Bishop Robert Baron
Speaker 1: was making some sense on this one. But I just
Speaker 1: see this, this reaction, and I hate this when the
Speaker 1: forces of anti religious bigotry when the forces of pro
Speaker 1: abortion extremism just bring these priests on TV to use
Speaker 1: them as a kind of trojan horse against their own
Speaker 1: side and to say, oh, well, you know, the right
Speaker 1: and Republicans here, what about migrants, And what about the
Speaker 1: migrants are breaking the law and they're effectively if they're
Speaker 1: in the country illegally stealing property from people. Stealing is
Speaker 1: not not biblical, not okay, they are stealing. They are
Speaker 1: accessing benefits that they do not have the right too.
Speaker 1: Oh it too catholic? Ah, I really, I don't know.
Speaker 1: And don't even get me started on some of these Jesuits.
Speaker 1: Some of them are great, but some of them are
Speaker 1: just and I know Jesuits, some of them are just awful,
Speaker 1: awful on the politics. I don't know what their problem is.
Speaker 1: All right, we'll be right back. People admitted they made
Speaker 1: snap judgments before these other facts came in. But isn't
Speaker 1: that we just instantly say that's what it is based
Speaker 1: on what we see in that moment, and then have
Speaker 1: to walk stuff back when it turns out we're wrong.
Speaker 1: Why is that? Why do we keep making the same mistake?
Speaker 1: Because because we're desperate to get Trump out of office.
Speaker 1: You know, sometimes Joy beiha, because with desperate to get
Speaker 1: Trump out of office. You know, sometimes she really she
Speaker 1: really does speak the truth. I don't think she means too,
Speaker 1: but it kind of comes out of her mouth anyway.
Speaker 1: Because we're desperate to get Trump out. That is true.
Speaker 1: That is why you have had not just the Covington debacle.
Speaker 1: I mean, this really brings it all together, the Covington
Speaker 1: media coverage debacle, the BuzzFeed debacle. In fact, there's a
Speaker 1: very good piece and you know, look Glenn Greenwald buyer beware.
Speaker 1: I mean, Glenn Greenwald is somebody who some of his
Speaker 1: stuff you go, wow, that's he's taking a stance that's
Speaker 1: gonna be really unpopular with the left and he's gonna
Speaker 1: take a lot of a lot of heat from it.
Speaker 1: But he's right. And other stuff you're like, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: he's just he's just completely excusing. You know, he's making
Speaker 1: excuses for terrorists. I mean, he's you know, you don't
Speaker 1: always know what you're gonna get with him. You know,
Speaker 1: you don't always know what the you know, what the
Speaker 1: circumstances are of what you're gonna get from Glenn Greenwell
Speaker 1: that's for sure. Some things he's terrible and some things
Speaker 1: he's actually really good. I don't know what else to say.
Speaker 1: But he has a piece on The Intercept, which is
Speaker 1: a very left wing site that again I'm telling you
Speaker 1: you can't trust some of the stuff that's up there.
Speaker 1: It's very agenda driven. But it's the ten and I
Speaker 1: should dig into this for a little bit tomorrow. It's
Speaker 1: the ten biggest media disasters in terms of Russia collusion reporting,
Speaker 1: and it's a really solid read because he lays them out.
Speaker 1: I know some others have done this too, but he
Speaker 1: lays them out, and you see that there's just no
Speaker 1: way to explain the giant egg on face disasters that
Speaker 1: have happened from these major media outlets that here the
Speaker 1: piece here, I just want to pull it up for
Speaker 1: the ten most embarrassing worst US media failures on the
Speaker 1: Trump Russia's story. Number ten that rt hacked into and
Speaker 1: took over c Span. Okay, so you had fortune claimed
Speaker 1: that Russia today hacked it, it took over c Span,
Speaker 1: which is pretty pretty astonishing, and it turns out C
Speaker 1: Span was not hacked. Number nine Russian hackers invaded the US.
Speaker 1: I remember the story US electricity grid to deny Vermonter's
Speaker 1: heat during the winter. The Washington Post ran with that.
Speaker 1: It turned out that there was just some malware that
Speaker 1: was at a facility and a Vermont power plant had
Speaker 1: nothing to do with Russia or the electric grid. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is like it was just a tote on. The
Speaker 1: Washington Post ran with that completely utterly nonsensical story, but
Speaker 1: they went with it. Number eight, a new deranged anonymous
Speaker 1: group declare's mainstream political sights on the left and right
Speaker 1: to be Russian propaganda outlets, and Washington Post outs its
Speaker 1: report to claim massive Kremlin infiltration of the Internet. This
Speaker 1: story I remember very well. It was about the more
Speaker 1: than two hundred websites peddling Russian propaganda with a quote
Speaker 1: combined audience of at least fifteen million, and they were
Speaker 1: viewed two hundred and thirteen million times. They say, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: this is from the intercept piece. Those statistics were provided
Speaker 1: by a new anonymous group that reached those conclusions by
Speaker 1: classifying long, long time well known sites from the Drudge
Speaker 1: Report to truth Out and Naked Capitalism, as well as
Speaker 1: libertarian venues such as antiwar dot com and the Ron
Speaker 1: Paul Institute as Russian propaganda outlets. They just basically saw
Speaker 1: somebody online posted a story and this was The Washington
Speaker 1: Post published it saying that two hundred and thirteen million
Speaker 1: million views of Russian propaganda during the election, based on
Speaker 1: yeah prop or NOTTS monitoring report which was provided the
Speaker 1: Washington Post. They didn't know what who proper not was.
Speaker 1: They had no idea as people were. It's just it's
Speaker 1: just not It was just a complete It was fake news.
Speaker 1: This is fake news. We might as well call it
Speaker 1: what it is. Number seven. I mean, this is delicious,
Speaker 1: isn't It's amazing when you get down to it. Trump
Speaker 1: aid Anthony Scaramucci is involved a much is involved in
Speaker 1: a Russian hedge fund under senate investigation. That was July.
Speaker 1: The whole thing was a lie. CNN retracted the story
Speaker 1: and forced three reporters who published it to resign, effectively
Speaker 1: fired three of their reporters because it was such a
Speaker 1: grotesque editorial debacle. Number six Russia attacked US diplomats at
Speaker 1: the Cuban embassy using a super sophisticated sonic microwave. NBC
Speaker 1: News MSNBC all the we're publishing on the neurological. I
Speaker 1: remember people asking me about this, what do you think
Speaker 1: of the neurological brain injury thing? And I was like,
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean, it sounds bad, but I
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not aware of any special brain injury
Speaker 1: wave weapon that anybody was working on when I was
Speaker 1: in government. Turns out that that story they believe now
Speaker 1: was crickets. A very loud cricket. The Indies short tailed
Speaker 1: cricket was making so much noise that it hurts some
Speaker 1: people's hearing and gave them headaches. That was reported recently
Speaker 1: in the New York Times. The sounds that haunted US
Speaker 1: diplomats in Cuba crickets, according to scientists. Okay, but it
Speaker 1: was a Russian plot. Number five Trump created a secret
Speaker 1: Internet server to covertly communicate with a Russian bank. Slate
Speaker 1: published that false. Totally false. Hillary Clinton, by the way,
Speaker 1: from her official account, shared that piece do you want
Speaker 1: me to keep going? Aren't these amazing? Number four Paul
Speaker 1: Manafort visited Julian Osange three times in the Ecuadorian embassy.
Speaker 1: The Guardian reported on that that's just laughable, laughable. There's
Speaker 1: no way that anybody would be able to go visit
Speaker 1: Julian Assange without security services knowing about it, without am
Speaker 1: I five knowing about it, without London or you know whatever,
Speaker 1: Metropolitan police as well as journalists. But that was a
Speaker 1: bombshell that was just published in November. This is amazing.
Speaker 1: I got a couple more here. Number three, CNN explicitly
Speaker 1: lied about Lanny Davis being its source for a story
Speaker 1: whose substance was also false, that Cohen would testify that
Speaker 1: Trump knew in advance about the Trump Tower meeting. All
Speaker 1: lie and they lied about who the source was to
Speaker 1: protect him and he had lied. Let's see it was
Speaker 1: number two. Robert Muller possesses internal emails and witness interviews
Speaker 1: proving Trump directed Cohen to lie to Congress. That was
Speaker 1: the BuzzFeed story. Well, I thought that would be number one.
Speaker 1: What do we have for number one? Now, I'm really curious.
Speaker 1: What's gonna be done at a drum roll? Number one?
Speaker 1: Here it comes. Donald Trump Junior was offered, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: this is a good one, offered advanced access to the
Speaker 1: wiki leaks, email archives. CNN and MSNBC reported on that.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm sorry, I know I went through that
Speaker 1: whole list, folks, but that's an amazing list. Of those
Speaker 1: are all fake news stories from the biggest news outlets
Speaker 1: in the country CNN, NBC, MSNBC, New York Times, Washington Post,
Speaker 1: fake news like crazy. And you know why they did it.
Speaker 1: You know why it's happening. Joy Behart told us all
Speaker 1: because we hate Trump so much. We have to get
Speaker 1: rid of him. We have to find a way to
Speaker 1: get this president out. If that means lying to people,
Speaker 1: will do it. So there you have it, fake news extravaganza,
Speaker 1: and at least Joy Behar will tell us why there
Speaker 1: is in fact a fake news extravaganza. I think it's
Speaker 1: rather important that we get these details. We've got more
Speaker 1: coming up. Teams, stay with me. The Supreme Court is
Speaker 1: going to review a very very important case when it
Speaker 1: comes to the Second Amendment. This is the first real
Speaker 1: Second Amendment case that will have been heard in ten
Speaker 1: years by Scotus as the cool kids call it. But
Speaker 1: they just agreed on Tuesday to hear this. And it's
Speaker 1: something that is near and dear to my heart, which
Speaker 1: is the gun law in New York City. I mean
Speaker 1: some of the laws regarding guns in New York City,
Speaker 1: specifically whether you can take a handgun. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is crazy. For those of you who live in states
Speaker 1: that actually believe in the Second Amendment, you're going to say,
Speaker 1: or maybe you'll say, Buck, come on, that you must
Speaker 1: have this one wrong. No, No, it turns out that
Speaker 1: this is the case. You can have what's called a
Speaker 1: premise permit in New York City for a handgun now,
Speaker 1: and I know people who have gone through this process.
Speaker 1: I refuse to go through it because it is I
Speaker 1: don't live there anymore. But also it is so onerous, expensive, annoying,
Speaker 1: and there are crazy restrictions on it, like, for example,
Speaker 1: the NYPD has the right now, they don't do this
Speaker 1: all the time, and that's what they always say, Well,
Speaker 1: we won't do that to you unless we have a reason,
Speaker 1: And they say, it's so we can stop people if
Speaker 1: there's a if there's a domestic violence complainer, if we
Speaker 1: have some issue, and you know, we have a little
Speaker 1: more leverage, we can go and do a well visit.
Speaker 1: Based on your ownership of it registered and legal ownership
Speaker 1: of a firearm, they can come to your premise for
Speaker 1: an inspection of how you maintain that firearm. Now, you
Speaker 1: may be saying, Buck, what does that mean, well, in
Speaker 1: New York City, if you have what's called a premise permit,
Speaker 1: which is a permit just to have the handgun in
Speaker 1: your home, it's certainly not a concealed or open carry,
Speaker 1: and there are extreme limitations on where you can even
Speaker 1: take it in the city. But in New York, if
Speaker 1: you are on the list people that owns a gun,
Speaker 1: they can come and want to see your storage of
Speaker 1: that gun. The police can without a warrant, And the
Speaker 1: storage of a handgun has to be get ready for
Speaker 1: this gun with a trigger lock on it in a
Speaker 1: locked box, with ammunition stored separately, also in a locked box.
Speaker 1: So I am not exaggerating when I tell you that
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights in New York City mean that if
Speaker 1: you hear a bump in the night or your window
Speaker 1: panes get crashed by a prowler or whatever. Prowler, oh,
Speaker 1: a prowler. But if that were to happen, you would
Speaker 1: have three locks to go through, and I think they
Speaker 1: have to be combination locks and not key locks, but
Speaker 1: I'm not sure if that stipulation. I think though it
Speaker 1: has to be combination locks. You have three locks to
Speaker 1: go through before you could have a chambered round in
Speaker 1: your legally owned firearm. Think about that one for a moment. Okay,
Speaker 1: you're like, hold on, a second burglar, what You're gonna
Speaker 1: throw your lockbox at him? Where I'm not ready yet?
Speaker 1: Hold on. So the part of this law, though, that's
Speaker 1: being challenged, is that in New York City, once you
Speaker 1: have gotten your premise. By the way, for those of
Speaker 1: you who are like Buck, we don't care about New
Speaker 1: York this the national implications are going to come from US. Okay,
Speaker 1: So wherever you live, I think reading into this, your
Speaker 1: Second Amendment rights could be I'm hoping very positively affected
Speaker 1: by this one, or at least those of you who
Speaker 1: live in gun restrictive states will be positively affected by this.
Speaker 1: In New York City, the NYPD does not allow you.
Speaker 1: It is illegal to take your legally owned handgun outside
Speaker 1: of the city of city limits. It's effectively a premise
Speaker 1: permit only for your premise that is registered with the
Speaker 1: police Department in New York. So let's say you have,
Speaker 1: you know, a second home or you know, let's say
Speaker 1: you want to go visit Grandpa and you want to
Speaker 1: take your gun to the range up. You know, my
Speaker 1: grandparents had had a home in Hudson Valley for many,
Speaker 1: many years, right, which is about two hours where they
Speaker 1: were about two hours north of New York. You know,
Speaker 1: if you want to go up and visit family and
Speaker 1: bring your legal firearm, you're in the same state, but
Speaker 1: you are not allowed to take your legally owned firearm
Speaker 1: or handgun. It's different for handguns and shotguns, but you
Speaker 1: cannot take your handgun outside of the city. You are
Speaker 1: not allowed to take it outside of this thing. I
Speaker 1: think this makes a stipulation between handguns and shotguns. Again.
Speaker 1: The laws are so complicated about the Second Amendment or
Speaker 1: the destruction of it in New York City that I
Speaker 1: have spoken to police officers and even they get confused
Speaker 1: about I've spoken to detectives with many, many years in
Speaker 1: the job. They're like, yeah, I think you might be
Speaker 1: able to get a hunting exception to the premise permit.
Speaker 1: You know, there's all this other stuma. What am I
Speaker 1: gonna go? You know, you're gonna go take a nine
Speaker 1: millimeter and go squirrel hunting. I mean, I know some
Speaker 1: of you are like, yeah, Buck, that's great. You know,
Speaker 1: I think that that's generally not what people are hunting with.
Speaker 1: But here's why the Supreme Court's taking this up. And
Speaker 1: it's a good thing that they are, because in dcv. Heller,
Speaker 1: it was established that the right to bear arms includes
Speaker 1: the right to bear arms in the home. And what
Speaker 1: that meant was that at the time or what brought
Speaker 1: this up, there was a guy who was licensed to
Speaker 1: carry a firearm as a security guard, and he couldn't
Speaker 1: bring his gun home with him, even though he was
Speaker 1: licensed to own and operate that weapon, but only at work.
Speaker 1: Had to leave it in like a locked box and
Speaker 1: locked locker, couldn't bring it home with him, and he
Speaker 1: wanted to bring it home. You know, why, why is
Speaker 1: he Why is this guy banned from having a gun
Speaker 1: at his home when he's allowed to carry a gun
Speaker 1: for his job. And the Supreme Court said, sorry, the
Speaker 1: right to bear arms includes the right to bear arms
Speaker 1: in common usage in your home. The part of this
Speaker 1: that has not been dealt with yet, as many of
Speaker 1: you I'm sure already know, is what about all these
Speaker 1: prohibitions on the transporting of a firearm or all these
Speaker 1: prohibitions on the carrying of a firearm. You know, in
Speaker 1: New York, the way they have it set up, you
Speaker 1: can only transport in a lockbox your legally owned firearm
Speaker 1: to one of I think seven different ranges in the
Speaker 1: New York City area. Yeah, it's only handguns. By the way,
Speaker 1: I was right about that. It's only handguns that are
Speaker 1: unloaded and locked. And this is just this is just
Speaker 1: anti gun animist. It makes no sense. How is it
Speaker 1: a safety issue for you if you're allowed to have
Speaker 1: the gun in New York City and it's in a
Speaker 1: lockbox and it's in the because that's the way it's
Speaker 1: supposed to be transported. How is it a safety issue
Speaker 1: for you to take that gun with you to you know,
Speaker 1: Westchester or upstate New York. You know, go visit a
Speaker 1: friend in Syracuse. The state government has no problem with it,
Speaker 1: So why should the city government have a problem with it.
Speaker 1: Isn't this an un do restriction? Um. It also means,
Speaker 1: by the way, that if somebody breaks into your home,
Speaker 1: and this is brought up, I believe in the in
Speaker 1: the initial brief that you know, there's the possibility of
Speaker 1: the firearm being stolen, so it's it's safer probably to
Speaker 1: have it with you in the lock box and it
Speaker 1: is just leaving your home. Although we could argue about that.
Speaker 1: But the case the Supreme Court is going to hear
Speaker 1: this case next term. I think you could get a
Speaker 1: pretty sweeping, a pretty sweeping decision that you know, if
Speaker 1: if you legally own a firearm, that means the right
Speaker 1: to legally transport the firearm to any place you are
Speaker 1: entitled to have it within the state where you are.
Speaker 1: This also then raises and I don't know how this
Speaker 1: will fact. So they're going to strike down this New
Speaker 1: York prohibition is idiocy. It is idiocy. Okay, it's been
Speaker 1: and you know, unfortunately the you know in the Bloomberg Are,
Speaker 1: in particular, the anti gun animus and the anti gun
Speaker 1: selts were just running amuck. But this could mean that,
Speaker 1: for the first time in a decade, the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: is going to rule in a way that affects gun
Speaker 1: rights more broadly, and it could get into state reciprocity perhaps,
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't think that'll come up in this case,
Speaker 1: but that's what's on the horizon. Why should a state,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is a constitutionally protected right. If you're
Speaker 1: illegal to have a gun in Florida, how is it
Speaker 1: okay for you not to be legal to have a
Speaker 1: gun in Georgia. This is a federal constitutional right right,
Speaker 1: just like voting. You know, they like to play this game,
Speaker 1: but they act like it's not the Constitution. This actually
Speaker 1: is unlike a lot of things liberals talked on the Constitution.
Speaker 1: And the other part of this is also maybe it
Speaker 1: clears the way for some clarity on open and or
Speaker 1: concealed carry and what that will mean. But being able
Speaker 1: to transport your firearm within this state where you legally
Speaker 1: own it without possibly running foul the cops. Supreme Court's
Speaker 1: taken this one on and it's going to be a
Speaker 1: big Second Amendment case for the next term, so keep
Speaker 1: an eye off for that one. Global Verification Network is
Speaker 1: the only dual certified veteran own background investigation and vetting company.
Speaker 1: I trust these guys, and if you're hiring or if
Speaker 1: you own a property and you need to do that
Speaker 1: background check on a person before you lease it out
Speaker 1: to them, really important you do you want to know
Speaker 1: who you're getting into business with. You need Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: You could be a huge company. If you work in
Speaker 1: the HR department and you're looking for somebody to do
Speaker 1: this work that you need done on new hires or
Speaker 1: You could be a startup and you just want to
Speaker 1: make sure you've got someone who can work with a
Speaker 1: program tailored to your needs. Go to MYGVN dot com again,
Speaker 1: that's my GVN dot com. Or call eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine. If you have
Speaker 1: any need for background investigations or vetting, you should call
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network. That's who I would call. Eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine. And Team
Speaker 1: Buck make sure you let them know that you heard
Speaker 1: about Global Verification Network on the Buck Sexton Show. We're
Speaker 1: making progress in negotiating on the grandest scale between the
Speaker 1: two countries. Ever, Okay, we're covering everything technology, theft IP,
Speaker 1: forced transfers, family jewels, cyber intervention, commodities, industrial supplies, financial services, ownership.
Speaker 1: Nothing like this has ever been undertaken. This is good.
Speaker 1: Negotiations are good. That was Larry Cudlow, Senior Economic Advisor
Speaker 1: to the President, talking about what's going on with China.
Speaker 1: I got into this a little bit yesterday, but I
Speaker 1: wanted to add some detail and bring in somebody with
Speaker 1: particular expertise on this subject. So we got our friend
Speaker 1: Derek Scissors back in action. He's a residence scholar at
Speaker 1: the American Enterprise Institute, where he focuses on the Chinese
Speaker 1: and Indian economies and on US economic relations with Asia.
Speaker 1: He's also the chief economists of the China Beige Book. Derek,
Speaker 1: could have you back, try to be back all right, So,
Speaker 1: how are we doing right? Yesterday? I just got into
Speaker 1: a little bit of how Chinese economy is actually quite
Speaker 1: a slowdown right now. There's been some talk of maybe
Speaker 1: relieving some of the tariffs from the UF side of
Speaker 1: the US side of things. There's some indications, at least
Speaker 1: in the White House there's progress. But I want you
Speaker 1: to just give it to a straight Derek. How we
Speaker 1: doing in our trade forward with China? Well, let's start
Speaker 1: with the negotiations. The negotiations are purely political, and what
Speaker 1: I mean by that is we're not going to get
Speaker 1: anything of any value from the Chinese before March first.
Speaker 1: It's impossible, right, it's almost the end of January. We're
Speaker 1: talking about huge purchases if they do that, and huge
Speaker 1: changes in the way they do business if they do that.
Speaker 1: So what we're going to get from the Chinese is
Speaker 1: a bunch of IOUs. Their track record on these is
Speaker 1: poor in my opinion, and the President is going to
Speaker 1: have to make a political decision. Do I think they're
Speaker 1: going to keep most of their promises? They're not going
Speaker 1: to keep all of them not on the table. Do
Speaker 1: I think they're going to keep most of them? And
Speaker 1: it's completely going to be on the basis of what
Speaker 1: he thinks their credibility is. That's why I say it's
Speaker 1: a political decision because nothing will happen economically between now
Speaker 1: and then now in terms of go ahead, go ahead, sorry,
Speaker 1: In terms of the economies, I don't think the trade
Speaker 1: war means that much to either economy. We've got a
Speaker 1: shutdown going on in the US, You've got a very
Speaker 1: strong American labor market according to the last Labor report.
Speaker 1: Those are the kinds of things that matter in the
Speaker 1: United States. And in China they've mishandled their banking system
Speaker 1: and that's what's hurting their growth. Yeah. I was gonna
Speaker 1: ask you that. Why is China? They're the biggest slowdown
Speaker 1: since the nineties, right, So people look at that end, well,
Speaker 1: that's that's significant for them. Yeah, I mean that was
Speaker 1: coming anyway. Basically, you know, people get impatient with economics,
Speaker 1: but but big economies like ours and like the Chinese,
Speaker 1: move slowly. The Chinese barrowd a ton of money to
Speaker 1: get past the global financial crisis. They didn't get anything
Speaker 1: useful out of that money. And so when you run
Speaker 1: up a lot of debt, which unfortunately we're also doing here,
Speaker 1: your economy tends to slowdown because you're not you've you've
Speaker 1: wasted money. You're not get any productive uset of that money.
Speaker 1: They also change their lending policies to focus more on
Speaker 1: state banks lending because it's safer. It is safer, but
Speaker 1: state banks don't know how to lend the high risk,
Speaker 1: high reward customers because they've never had to do that
Speaker 1: because they're still owned. And that means China's getting less
Speaker 1: growth out of it. So it's a it's a long
Speaker 1: term credit problem and a short term credit problem. That's
Speaker 1: where by their economy is slowing down. What are the
Speaker 1: chances in your mind that there is some kind of
Speaker 1: a breakthrough here though, I mean, little Larry could Low
Speaker 1: right before we brought you on, we played we played
Speaker 1: his sound bite where he's saying, look, you know, we're
Speaker 1: covering all these different things, intellectual property theft, and you
Speaker 1: know what do you what do you think. I mean,
Speaker 1: is there any is there any reason for optimism that
Speaker 1: there'll be real progress on this stuff or is it
Speaker 1: just going to kind of continue in this It feels
Speaker 1: kind of like a stalemate. Yeah, I think the steemate
Speaker 1: is much more likely. Again, the President is going to
Speaker 1: have to decide if he wants to say I'm trying
Speaker 1: this deal, and then I would like him to be
Speaker 1: very cautious about it. That's not really his style. I'd
Speaker 1: like him be very cautious about it because I've seen
Speaker 1: other people hype deals with the Chinese and hasn't worked
Speaker 1: out that well. If you're a farmer, if you're selling
Speaker 1: energy to China, if you're bowing, I think you got
Speaker 1: a good chance of having a good year in twenty
Speaker 1: nineteen or into two twenty even because I think we
Speaker 1: are going to sell more to China if we make
Speaker 1: a deal. If you're hoping that China doesn't steal your
Speaker 1: trade secrets and that's not just advanced technology, that's just
Speaker 1: what your company does, and or if you're a worker
Speaker 1: in a company that has trade secrets that are at
Speaker 1: risk from the Chinese, that would hurt the company's competitiveness
Speaker 1: and hurt your salary and your job. I don't think
Speaker 1: you're going to get anything out of this. It's part
Speaker 1: of China's economic model to take things from other people.
Speaker 1: That's been true for a while. So if you're selling
Speaker 1: to China, great, If you're trying to compete with China,
Speaker 1: I'm afraid status quo is the most likely outcome now. Also,
Speaker 1: just from a more general perspective, there's been this consensus
Speaker 1: that Trump is starting this, And I say consensus. You know,
Speaker 1: this is just what's magnified in the media. But they
Speaker 1: always say, oh, all the experts agree that Trump's trade
Speaker 1: war is kind of not just fruitless but crazy. It
Speaker 1: sounds like from what you're telling me that well, even
Speaker 1: if it's not a good idea, it's not nearly people
Speaker 1: say trade war, and I think that the implication is often, well,
Speaker 1: trade wars lead to real wars. And you know, there's
Speaker 1: this this fear of what Trump is trying to do
Speaker 1: visa v. China. But even if it doesn't work, Am
Speaker 1: I right in hearing from you that this is not
Speaker 1: the looming catastrophe that people people have been told it is.
Speaker 1: Or is that a misread? No? I think I think
Speaker 1: they're three things, three ways to talk about the trade
Speaker 1: dispute with China. One of them is negative and two
Speaker 1: of them are possitive. Let's start with the first one.
Speaker 1: We should be having a trade dispute with China. The
Speaker 1: President was right as a candidate and he's right as
Speaker 1: president that we have serious problems with China. You hear
Speaker 1: lots of people saying that, but they never did anything
Speaker 1: about it. So you know, when I hear one of
Speaker 1: my colleagues here or a politicians say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: I obviously China is not a great trade partner, but
Speaker 1: I don't like the president way President's doing things, I'm like, okay,
Speaker 1: that's fair, what would you do. A lot of them
Speaker 1: don't have anything. They say nothing, we got real problems
Speaker 1: with China, but they don't want to do anything about it.
Speaker 1: So President gets credit on that score. The second point
Speaker 1: is the point that you brought up. If you talk
Speaker 1: about how the trade at tensions are impact in the
Speaker 1: United States, it's just not very big. Um. You get business,
Speaker 1: you know, groups who are anti trade war, they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: you know, we lost twenty billion dollars last year to
Speaker 1: the trade conflict. All right, that's not nothing. Don't get
Speaker 1: me wrong. US GDP last year was twenty trillion, so
Speaker 1: that's a thousand times more. We're not, you know, we're
Speaker 1: losing one tenth of one percent of annual economic activity,
Speaker 1: engaging in a conflict we should have engaged in ten
Speaker 1: years ago. So those are the two things where you know,
Speaker 1: the President has been right and the media has been wrong,
Speaker 1: and exactly you know President is right that we need
Speaker 1: to confront the Chinese. The media has been wrong in
Speaker 1: uh in saying this is a disaster for the United
Speaker 1: States because it's not true. And then there was also
Speaker 1: I think a negative that you're going to throw in
Speaker 1: the Still I don't like terroris and I get Matthew
Speaker 1: emails about this whenever I say it. But look what
Speaker 1: I want to do is I want to target the
Speaker 1: Chinese companies who get the most subsidies, because the subsidies
Speaker 1: block American competition with those companies. It makes for the
Speaker 1: famous unlevel playing field, unfair trade. That's Chinese subsidies. I
Speaker 1: want to target those Chinese companies that have received stolen
Speaker 1: intellectual property. In other words, I want to target the
Speaker 1: ones who are doing illegal and harmful things. But tariffs
Speaker 1: target everybody. When we put a tariff, we put a
Speaker 1: tariff on everybody who makes this product coming into the US,
Speaker 1: including a foreign company based in China, including American consumers
Speaker 1: who buy the product. So you know, that's where I
Speaker 1: think the President made a mistake. I understand why I
Speaker 1: did it politically, but I think we're punishing everyone in
Speaker 1: China trade. There are a lot of Chinese companies that
Speaker 1: should be punished, but we're going beyond that, and I
Speaker 1: think that's where the downside. This might be a bit
Speaker 1: of an elementary question, but I don't know, and I
Speaker 1: want to know. Are we able to discern who is
Speaker 1: receiving state subsidies in China? Is that something that we
Speaker 1: have visibility into. Yes, Now are we able to do
Speaker 1: a perfect job of it or know exactly who's received
Speaker 1: stolen trade secrets? No, but we do have. Hey, these
Speaker 1: are the most heavily subsidized companies. We know that. Hey,
Speaker 1: these are examples of companies that receive trade secrets. You know,
Speaker 1: if you're asking me for a perfect list, we cannot
Speaker 1: put together a perfect list. If you're asking me if
Speaker 1: we can target major, important, large Chinese companies and say,
Speaker 1: you guys are guilty either receiving subsidies which make it
Speaker 1: impossible to compete, or about right theft, which is worse. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we can do that, and that's where I would have started.
Speaker 1: And what you know, what you get there is, of
Speaker 1: course the Chinese will try to play a shell game
Speaker 1: and change the companies around who are getting the subsidies
Speaker 1: or who are receiving the stolen ip. But at least
Speaker 1: you're scaring them off the thing that they shouldn't be
Speaker 1: doing if you put tariffs on anyone. If I'm a
Speaker 1: Chinese company that never stole IP and I get a
Speaker 1: tariff anyway, I'm like, well, I might as well steal right.
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm getting punished for all the people who
Speaker 1: did it. Why don't I start doing it. I'm already
Speaker 1: getting hurt by the tariffs. So I think the tariffs
Speaker 1: and the wrong incentives and our partial list of who's
Speaker 1: guilty in China would create the right incentives. Derek scissars everybody,
Speaker 1: and I mean, this is the best way, Derek, you
Speaker 1: actually managed to make trade really interesting. I appreciate that,
Speaker 1: Derek Scissors of AI. Everybody check out of stuff at
Speaker 1: AI dot org. Derek really appreciate it man, glad to
Speaker 1: be on team. Will be right back now. It is
Speaker 1: very rare for me to watch the same topic for
Speaker 1: a documentary twice. But I have to tell you I
Speaker 1: liked the Fire Festival documentary on Netflix so much that
Speaker 1: I went ahead and watched the Fire Festival documentary on Hulu.
Speaker 1: And I find out as I'm sitting here talking to
Speaker 1: you folks that my main man, Brandon DJ Brandon, has
Speaker 1: also at least gone about what Brandon halfway through yeah
Speaker 1: documentary after talking about yesterday, I'm like, what you said,
Speaker 1: Why do I want to watch the same documentary twice?
Speaker 1: But because you said it was better it was different,
Speaker 1: I gave it a chance than I fell asleep. But
Speaker 1: I'll finish it to night. What do you think It
Speaker 1: is a little different, right, It gives you a little
Speaker 1: more of the backstory, more of the backstory. Of course,
Speaker 1: they talk to the main guy, Billy, who does get paid,
Speaker 1: which I think is kind of weird because yeah, but
Speaker 1: they gave they got him to do an interview, and
Speaker 1: you just see what a shady, compulsive liar this guy
Speaker 1: is in real time in the interview. It's pretty amazing,
Speaker 1: it is all he is kind of broken a little
Speaker 1: bit so that, but he deserves it for what he did.
Speaker 1: But they give more of a background into the whole
Speaker 1: millennial thing and how influential, uh, some people could be
Speaker 1: for Instagram and things like that. Yeah, it's amazing. Well,
Speaker 1: I like some of the analysis, and this is what
Speaker 1: for the folks listening who were like, buck stop talking
Speaker 1: about fire festival. Although I'm telling you, if you watch
Speaker 1: the documentary on Netflix or Hulu, you're gonna be it's
Speaker 1: gonna suck you in. The r Kelly documentary A Lifetime
Speaker 1: was also really good. I know I mentioned that, but
Speaker 1: that's really pretty depressing and pretty soul crushing that there's
Speaker 1: somebody who could be so evil and get away with
Speaker 1: it for so long in this country. It's pretty remarkable.
Speaker 1: But it is worth watching this one. Though. You come
Speaker 1: away from you just do you think to yourself, you know,
Speaker 1: we're the first Brandon. I mean, you're you're young, you're
Speaker 1: quite a bit younger than I am, but we're the
Speaker 1: first generation, roughly speaking, that has had this notion of
Speaker 1: the the social media life or the instagrammable life out there.
Speaker 1: And I really do think that it affects people's perceptions
Speaker 1: of themselves and what they want and what they should have.
Speaker 1: You know, now, it's like everyone and they talk about
Speaker 1: this in documentary. Everybody's seeing people who are in their
Speaker 1: twenties looking amazing, and you know all it even puts
Speaker 1: on Instagram as what rand and people on the beach, right,
Speaker 1: They're just everyone's on the beach drinking rose. People, people
Speaker 1: listening to this or like buck, I'm actually out buck
Speaker 1: hunting and like, I'm not at the beach, but you
Speaker 1: know what I mean, you're at the beach too. Sometimes,
Speaker 1: Let's be honest everybody. You know. The point is people
Speaker 1: instagram the best moments of their life and create the
Speaker 1: perception that that is their life when that is not
Speaker 1: their life, right. I mean the people I know who
Speaker 1: are in the selfie game, and I look, I've done
Speaker 1: you know, I've taken with other people. Usually I'm trying
Speaker 1: to just do like random I know media people though,
Speaker 1: men and women who will just be like, hey, I'm
Speaker 1: on set, let me take a photo of myself and
Speaker 1: post it. They do it all the time, and people
Speaker 1: like it. I don't know, Yeah, I don't think if
Speaker 1: you've got other people in the selfie I think, is
Speaker 1: that still a selfie, By the way, isn't it like
Speaker 1: a I remember somebody once said a photo of somebody
Speaker 1: else is called a ue. Um, but what if a
Speaker 1: selfie has more than one person? Shouldn't it be like
Speaker 1: a a delphie or something? You know what I mean?
Speaker 1: A two? Yeah? Two e. Yeah, it's just a picture.
Speaker 1: At a certain point, I can't keep up with the kids. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I can't keep How old are you? I'm thirty five?
Speaker 1: I oh, you're like my age. I thought I thought
Speaker 1: you thirty. You have the bearing of a younger man.
Speaker 1: Thank you. By the way, Oh, you haven't seen it
Speaker 1: because we don't you know you're you're not you're not
Speaker 1: in studio with me right now. Um, I need to
Speaker 1: see because you're a man with a with a legit beard.
Speaker 1: I need you to tell me if you think if
Speaker 1: my beard is going in the right direction. You know,
Speaker 1: did you instagram it? Because I'm looking at it right now.
Speaker 1: You have. I don't think it's I don't think it's
Speaker 1: up on Instagram or see if we're talking with Instagram
Speaker 1: life and I'm like, did you go on my Instagram?
Speaker 1: I just didn't. Yeah, and you have it's from five
Speaker 1: days ago. Your most recent one. No, that's not it's
Speaker 1: it's gotten a bit a bit because I just want
Speaker 1: to know if I look like a tool when I
Speaker 1: go on babe. You know that's really because you know
Speaker 1: you usually I have a three in one rule. If
Speaker 1: three people like something for every one person who doesn't,
Speaker 1: you're usually in pretty good shape. But when it's fifty fifty,
Speaker 1: you know, when people like, look your haircut and it's
Speaker 1: like fifty fifty, that's probably a bad It's probably a
Speaker 1: bad mom. And this is a perfect example of the
Speaker 1: Instagram generation. Here we are two of us, two gray
Speaker 1: beard millennials. I'm actually I actually do have some gray
Speaker 1: in my bed. I saw that? Is that? Is that
Speaker 1: normal that my beard is gray before? Other things are gray? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I get them in weird places, like my sideburns. I
Speaker 1: don't know why. So yeah, the gray is, it's there.
Speaker 1: It's just not coming in like a silver fox yet,
Speaker 1: so it just looks awkward. So yeah, I've got my
Speaker 1: first gray hair. I'm a beard. So now I really
Speaker 1: am a gray beard millennial. But here we are talking
Speaker 1: about Instagram and beards and photos. When you know there
Speaker 1: are clearly there are there are other important things in
Speaker 1: life to be focused on. But the Fire Festival documentary
Speaker 1: does raise some various in questions about what social media
Speaker 1: is doing to all of us and what people value.
Speaker 1: And I will tell you that, you know, it's a
Speaker 1: tool like so many other things, and it can be
Speaker 1: great and it can be a real um really almost
Speaker 1: confine it. You can almost become a slave to social media.
Speaker 1: Because in my business now and Brandon, you have a podcast.
Speaker 1: You know what I'm talking about. You know, you may
Speaker 1: not want to post something ten times a day, but
Speaker 1: the people that are competing with you for eyeballs for years,
Speaker 1: they're posting one hundred times a day. I know exactly
Speaker 1: what you're talking And there are some people in my
Speaker 1: business where I'm like, they're just shameless and they post
Speaker 1: every three seconds, and unless, like I post a little bit,
Speaker 1: I'm just not gonna You know, you know, you lose out.
Speaker 1: I mean, you lose out on opportunities, you lose out
Speaker 1: on audience. So that's a long way of saying, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, check out this. Check out both Fire Festival documentaries.
Speaker 1: All right, roll calls coming up. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, it is the roll call party that we
Speaker 1: have all been waiting for Are you ready to rumbo oh?
Speaker 1: By the way, my mom, I should. I'm gonna steal this.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna post this on the Buck Sexton Facebook. My
Speaker 1: mom has a photo here of Tulula, the family frenchie.
Speaker 1: I just took a little screenshot of it in pink
Speaker 1: polar fleece, walking the streets of NYC. I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to I'm gonna have to share this one. I think
Speaker 1: you guys will realize that we have a very fashionable
Speaker 1: little frenchie in the Sexton family. And it also reminds
Speaker 1: me that I gotta get a dog. But I always
Speaker 1: feel like my family dog is my dog. She says,
Speaker 1: she's a little, a little love bunny. Okay, enough of that.
Speaker 1: I just saw that as I was looking for the
Speaker 1: Facebook page for the show, which I have now too.
Speaker 1: And with that we shall get into all things roll
Speaker 1: call for your listening enjoyment. Like how I stretched these
Speaker 1: things out so I can actually load them up. Adam writes,
Speaker 1: black Panther was vibranium. You made my inner nerd cry
Speaker 1: shields high. That's right. Vibranium unobtanium is the very uncreative
Speaker 1: thing that they come up with for Avatar. That's the
Speaker 1: special substance that the greedy capitalists want in Avatar. Avatar
Speaker 1: is either fern Gully or Dances with Wolves, or both
Speaker 1: a ripoff of either or both of those, depending on
Speaker 1: who you ask. It's definitely a ripoff of Dances with Wolves.
Speaker 1: I mean it's it's just so much of it is
Speaker 1: borrowed from Dances with Wolves. But Adam, you didn't tell
Speaker 1: me if you agree that I'm taking a bold stance
Speaker 1: in favor of all that is good in the arts
Speaker 1: by pointing out that Black Panther is just not a
Speaker 1: good movie, I would. I would offer to you it's
Speaker 1: not in the top five superhero movies of all time.
Speaker 1: And if we are talking about a movie with an
Speaker 1: a movie that is a superhero movie with an African
Speaker 1: American lead, I would tell you that. And I really
Speaker 1: mean this. I think Blade with Wesley Snipes is a
Speaker 1: better overall movie than Black Panther. Blade is really entertaining
Speaker 1: and well done film. I thought it was great. I
Speaker 1: actually owned it on DVD when I was in college.
Speaker 1: So I think Blade is better than Black Panther. I
Speaker 1: know that that's that may be sacrilege to some people.
Speaker 1: But that's just where I come down on it. Timothy writes,
Speaker 1: Buck shields High. This Covington fiasco is a prima fashy case.
Speaker 1: Prima fassy, how do prima fashy? You know, there's so
Speaker 1: many words that I learned from reading and that I
Speaker 1: haven't heard said necessarily. And then I realized, well, I
Speaker 1: know them from reading them, but I don't really know
Speaker 1: them from hearing them. It's a prema fashy case of
Speaker 1: why Dueling needs to be brought back. WHOA, Timothy, That's
Speaker 1: that's pretty intense. Bubba writes, Hey, Buck, I love the show.
Speaker 1: Haven't missed one in over two months, well until less yesterday.
Speaker 1: I'm listening on podcasts with cast box. I thought it
Speaker 1: was fine, but all my other shows download of fine
Speaker 1: yours did not. Please hurry and fix it. I hope
Speaker 1: the Russians had nothing to do with it. I have
Speaker 1: to write a retraction. Never mind, We're good now, Okay, Bubba, Well,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that I'm glad that it wasn't on our end.
Speaker 1: It makes me very sad when people can't listen to
Speaker 1: the show who want to listen to the show, so
Speaker 1: on podcast always let me know if there's if there's
Speaker 1: a problem, and thanks for keeping an eye on it
Speaker 1: and not missing a show in two months. You, sir,
Speaker 1: get a high five. Richard writes Buck, Happy Hoosiers from
Speaker 1: a Yankee man in Southern Land, speaking of your dogs
Speaker 1: in Mexico. Tail. One of the reasons I love John
Speaker 1: Wick is he didn't care if he took his car.
Speaker 1: He didn't care if you robbed him. But they killed
Speaker 1: his dog. When they killed his dog, as Bugs Bunney
Speaker 1: would say, this means war, we meet on the battlefield.
Speaker 1: Except the guard outside the strip club was outside the
Speaker 1: club rather sorry, not serf club. Strip Club. Get your
Speaker 1: mind out of the gutter, Sexton. That was a nice
Speaker 1: touch shield till my friend Scott gets in on this
Speaker 1: party with the following. Dear Buck, regarding your Facebook post
Speaker 1: about Bill o'reiley giving you a hat tip on your column,
Speaker 1: take a second and look back. Brother. You have been
Speaker 1: behind the golden microphone, impressed Glenn Beck enough to have
Speaker 1: a seat at the Blaze, have a show on the Hill,
Speaker 1: and actually had the forty two to say goodbye and
Speaker 1: put CNN in your rear view. Tucker is having you
Speaker 1: on his program frequently, and now Bill o'reiley gives you props,
Speaker 1: you know, Scott, I really appreciate that, man, Thank you.
Speaker 1: It's it's important for those of us who are in
Speaker 1: this crazy conservative media business to be appreciative of the
Speaker 1: blessings and of the breakthroughs. And I really mean this,
Speaker 1: and those of you who have been with me for
Speaker 1: a long time know this. It's because of all of
Speaker 1: you who listen to this show. There were no guarantees
Speaker 1: that anybody would listen to me when I started doing radio.
Speaker 1: We could measure it digitally when I started the Saturday
Speaker 1: three hour show, and we could see that the first
Speaker 1: time I did it, we had people in the teens,
Speaker 1: meaning I had a few dozen that's right, a few
Speaker 1: dozen listeners for my first couple of shows. But thanks
Speaker 1: to the Internet and the word of mouth from those
Speaker 1: initial fans, now we measure this show in the hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands. I generally don't get too much into how
Speaker 1: many people listen, but we measure the show in the
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands in terms of listeners. And I am
Speaker 1: hoping within the next two to three years to be
Speaker 1: measuring the show in the low millions. That's my plan.
Speaker 1: But we are already in the hundreds of thousands of
Speaker 1: people who are listening to the show and getting getting
Speaker 1: up near that seven figure mark very close. So it's
Speaker 1: very meaningful, and it is really just a function the
Speaker 1: fact that the people that listen to this show appreciate
Speaker 1: what it is that I try to do and what
Speaker 1: I put into the show every day, and they know
Speaker 1: that a radio show is a special kind of media medium,
Speaker 1: a radio show is a special kind of platform. It
Speaker 1: really is a movement. It really is a community of
Speaker 1: like minded individuals who come together. But thank you very much,
Speaker 1: Scott for your kind words. And it's been quite a ride.
Speaker 1: And you know, I have some people in my life,
Speaker 1: family and a couple of close friends, but mostly family
Speaker 1: who have pushed me on through some really difficult stuff
Speaker 1: along the way. And I've got to say I am
Speaker 1: very blessed. And it has been an incredible eight years
Speaker 1: so far. Alicia writes, I know you are friends with
Speaker 1: se Cup. Have you addressed the fact that she was
Speaker 1: one of the first conservatives to jump on bashing the
Speaker 1: Covington High School kids and helping spread the false narrative.
Speaker 1: I can tell you, Alicia, that yeah, that is true.
Speaker 1: I am still to this day good friends with see
Speaker 1: Cup and I think she is a great lady, a
Speaker 1: great mom and friend, and she is just like the
Speaker 1: rest of us, not perfect. And she got this one wrong,
Speaker 1: as she has very publicly stated now she has done
Speaker 1: a big mia culpa. She shouldn't have gone just based
Speaker 1: off of the video. And I think she got caught
Speaker 1: up in a little bit of the negativity she feels
Speaker 1: towards Trump and with those Maga hats. But I think
Speaker 1: you should also know that when it comes to gun rights,
Speaker 1: when it comes to being pro life, when it comes
Speaker 1: to limited government and low taxation, a lot of the
Speaker 1: issues that matters to you. See is a fierce defender
Speaker 1: of those things. And she has to walk a very
Speaker 1: fine line over at CNN by being a conservative in
Speaker 1: the mix over there, all right, Next up in the
Speaker 1: queue here we have Jeff, who writes, Buck, do you
Speaker 1: have any recommendations for reading up on the attacks by
Speaker 1: Islamist forces that lead up to and prompted the start
Speaker 1: of the First Crusade? Jeff Original Saturday Squad. You know, Jeff,
Speaker 1: the answer to that is to become familiar with Byzantine
Speaker 1: history or the history of the Eastern Roman Empire, because
Speaker 1: that is what we now think of as the Middle
Speaker 1: East was a large portion of it Christian and Christian
Speaker 1: until the Islamic forces came along and by sword or
Speaker 1: by eradication removed that Christianity. Places that we now think of,
Speaker 1: like Iraq and Syria and Lebanon, there were Christians there
Speaker 1: before there were not, and certainly in Turkey. So that's
Speaker 1: what I would recommend you. I can't say that there's
Speaker 1: a book that comes to mind about the run up
Speaker 1: to that, because it usually takes the form of a
Speaker 1: Byzantine You know, if you learn Byzantine history, you'll learn
Speaker 1: the history. If you go to the end of the
Speaker 1: Byzantine Empire, you'll learn the history of the Islamic conquest.
Speaker 1: So that would be my best recommendation for you. There
Speaker 1: is a Crowley Roger Crowley book fourteen fifty three about
Speaker 1: the Fall of Constantinople that I've very much recommended. It's great.
Speaker 1: I think Crowley's histories are fantastic. I liked his Empires
Speaker 1: of the Sea, which is the run up to Lepanto
Speaker 1: as well as Lepanto, so I highly recommend you check
Speaker 1: out anything by Roger Crowley. He has no idea who
Speaker 1: I am. By the way, he's a British historian. I
Speaker 1: don't think he's I don't think he knows that I've
Speaker 1: probably sold more Roger Crowley books on this show than
Speaker 1: like any other media outlet. Grizzmey, rights, are you on
Speaker 1: radio or TV? I was just wondering, have a great day, well, Grizzmey.
Speaker 1: I'm certainly talking to you if you're listening to this
Speaker 1: on radio one hundred and twenty five plus stations across
Speaker 1: the country. And I am on TV both for digital
Speaker 1: TV at Hill TV, which you can watch at Hill
Speaker 1: dot tv whatever you feel like. And I do Fox
Speaker 1: News a few times a week. So yes, I think
Speaker 1: it's fair to say I am both on TV and
Speaker 1: on radio. And if you go to Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton, you can see some of the clips
Speaker 1: and some of the work that I have done. Keith
Speaker 1: rides Buck, if you have any sources at the White House,
Speaker 1: suggest them to have Trump invite the Covington kid Nick
Speaker 1: to the State of the Union address. He could laud
Speaker 1: the young man for his good behavior in the face
Speaker 1: of some really atrocious assault. Podas could also highlight the
Speaker 1: fake news aspect of the whole event. I like your beard.
Speaker 1: It makes your massive head look smaller. Well, Keith, thank you,
Speaker 1: I appreciate that. And I think that the President's already
Speaker 1: way ahead of us on the optics of the Covington kids.
Speaker 1: They're invited to the White House, and yes, I will
Speaker 1: pass along to my White House contacts that he should
Speaker 1: be at the State of the Union wherever. That is
Speaker 1: all right, that's it in the Freedom How Today team,
Speaker 1: it has been fantastic. It has been an honor, privilege
Speaker 1: and a pleasure talking tomorrow Shield's Eye man. The government
Speaker 1: shut down, politics in a bit of disarray, a lot
Speaker 1: of fighting over the border wall. But I've always got
Speaker 1: a smile on my face. You know why, because I
Speaker 1: know that every morning when I wake up, the first
Speaker 1: thing I get to do is have a delicious cup
Speaker 1: of steamy, delicious, wonderful Black Rifle coffee. Black Rifle coffee
Speaker 1: is simply the best coffee you're going to get anywhere.
Speaker 1: And it's so convenient and easy. You have it sent
Speaker 1: to your door like I do. Become a member of
Speaker 1: their coffee club. They'll just send it to you every month.
Speaker 1: You don't have to worry about buying anymore. Enough to
Speaker 1: worry about going to the store anymore, and you'll get
Speaker 1: delicious roach to order coffee that is guaranteed fresh every
Speaker 1: time it comes to you. And by the way, Black
Speaker 1: Rifle gives a portion of their sales to veteran and
Speaker 1: first responder causes, so nothing cares a bad attitude, my friends.
Speaker 1: Like starting your day the right way with the most American,
Speaker 1: freedom loving patriotic coffee ever, Black Rifle Coffee. Go to
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck you'll get fifteen
Speaker 1: percent off that first order. Go to Black Riflecoffee dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck for fifteen percent off one more time.
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck.