Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Democrats are trying to
Speaker 1: outdo one another by pushing crazier and crazier ideas to
Speaker 1: the American public. We'll talk about that. Plus Republicans seem
Speaker 1: to be turning on Trump when it comes to tariffs
Speaker 1: at our southern border and Mexico. We'll get into all
Speaker 1: the ways and more coming up on the Buck section Show.
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. He's a great guy, no Ericans
Speaker 1: faced huge challenges before World War Two, put a man
Speaker 1: out on the moon. This environmental catastrophe bearing down on
Speaker 1: us maybe the biggest challenge yet. But how do we
Speaker 1: beat it? How do we beat it? We do it
Speaker 1: by what we've always done as Americans. We invest in science,
Speaker 1: in innovation, and in American workers. That's how we're gonna do.
Speaker 1: We walk out one. We need to make sure that
Speaker 1: housing is being legislated. How do we feel right? What
Speaker 1: does that mean? What it means is that Howard assets
Speaker 1: and horribility and Howard guarantee to having a hole potable
Speaker 1: four someone else's privileged to earn ad We've already had
Speaker 1: five just this year. Five black transgender women kill violently
Speaker 1: in twenty nineteen. So rags, it must it must, it
Speaker 1: must end, and the fastest way to end it is
Speaker 1: end the Trump administration. Welcome to the buck Sex, and
Speaker 1: show just a little taste here of how the Democrats
Speaker 1: are crazy. Democrats are pushing ideas there with climate change
Speaker 1: and access to housing. You got Ocazio Cortez, you had
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warrenson stuff, and these are these are unserious ideas,
Speaker 1: but they are pushed as though this is the future
Speaker 1: of this country. And then Joe Biden talking about a tragedy,
Speaker 1: the five numerous tragedies, five people being killed, which is terrible.
Speaker 1: What does that have to do with Trump? Has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Trump, Absolutely nothing to do with Trump.
Speaker 1: But someone dies somewhere. It's very sad, it's very bad.
Speaker 1: Maybe you can make some kind of argument about a
Speaker 1: rise in discrimin nation and a hateful rhetoric, and there
Speaker 1: you go. You have your transition to Trump. These are
Speaker 1: the most prominent Democrats, among the most prominent democrats in
Speaker 1: the country right now, and the stuff they talk about
Speaker 1: is either insane on its own or insane in how
Speaker 1: it is the fault of Donald Trump. Everything is Trump's fault.
Speaker 1: That's one of the defining traits of Trump to arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: Everything that's bad in existence can be blamed on Trump.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is just find that little transition.
Speaker 1: Today is the anniversary of Detail'll speak more about that
Speaker 1: later on in the show. But World War two, Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren says, not as big a challenge as climate change.
Speaker 1: I mean this, my friends, those of you listening all
Speaker 1: across the country and listening on podcasts, and how can
Speaker 1: anyone say that and not feel like a total moron?
Speaker 1: I think that's fair to ask. How could you say
Speaker 1: that climate change is a eager challenge? Then a global war,
Speaker 1: a true or a conflagration that included a holocaust of
Speaker 1: six million Jews, eleven million human beings murdered in the
Speaker 1: Nazi concentration camps, sixty million people soldiers and civilians killed
Speaker 1: throughout the forty five to sixty million, depending on the
Speaker 1: estimate that you want to go with the rise of
Speaker 1: true fascism not OMG. Trump tweeted something mean He's thouch
Speaker 1: a fascist, the rise of actual totalitarianism, which then led
Speaker 1: to another totalitarianism staring at the rest of the world
Speaker 1: with nuclear weapons by the way of the Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: But that's not as big a challenge as climate change.
Speaker 1: This woman taught at Harvard. People, Okay, let's really take
Speaker 1: a step back for a moment. This is an Ivy
Speaker 1: League law professor. And what she says, she'll be there'll
Speaker 1: be she knows uproarious applause for saying something that is
Speaker 1: just utterly fatuous and feckless and stupid. Democrats are talking
Speaker 1: about all these things they want to do, none of
Speaker 1: which they really want to do. And the whole pitch
Speaker 1: is that they're the adults that Trump is the baby.
Speaker 1: Trump is the one who doesn't understand anything. Meanwhile, all
Speaker 1: the things that they talk about are just that talk.
Speaker 1: They're never really going to get the Green New Deal through,
Speaker 1: at least not the way that they've talked about it
Speaker 1: up to this point. I can't figure out if they
Speaker 1: want to impeach the president. It's a moral duty, but
Speaker 1: we don't know if we're going to do it. I
Speaker 1: thought it was a moral duty, but you see, Democrats
Speaker 1: don't really what moral duty means. I suppose it means
Speaker 1: it's the thing that you are to do, irrespective of
Speaker 1: whether it feels good or helps you out, or it's
Speaker 1: a question of morality. And then o'casio cortez jumping and
Speaker 1: housing as a human right? What does that mean? Housing
Speaker 1: is a human right? How much housing? Where? What degree
Speaker 1: of housing? Who pays for it? And she says that
Speaker 1: access a very kind of coded word in democrats circles. Access.
Speaker 1: Access means you give me what I want, means you
Speaker 1: pay for it, that's access. If you don't pay for it,
Speaker 1: If you don't give to me what I want, I
Speaker 1: don't have access anymore. Well, it's really just a code
Speaker 1: word for the socialist style redistribution of wealth, isn't it
Speaker 1: in so many cases and so many different arenas, and
Speaker 1: access is more important than the right of someone to
Speaker 1: make a profit. Okay, So then there just won't be
Speaker 1: people building new homes in areas, you know, because they
Speaker 1: have families to feed to the builders, the construction workers,
Speaker 1: you know. Okazio Cortez is deeply and shockingly ignorant of
Speaker 1: how economics works, which is funny because she has an
Speaker 1: economics degree. But you know from bu I'm sure that
Speaker 1: they studied a lot of a lot of marks. And
Speaker 1: then in some ways the most absurd, the most underhanded,
Speaker 1: Joe Biden, who is just desperate to establish his credibility
Speaker 1: with the left wing base because he knows he has
Speaker 1: the establishment right now. He knows that the DNC and
Speaker 1: the Democrat machinery is already behind him, so he says
Speaker 1: that the fastest way to end the problem of black
Speaker 1: transgender women being targeted is to get rid of Trump.
Speaker 1: I would be fascinated. And if we had a real
Speaker 1: press corps that wasn't just a there weren't just a
Speaker 1: bunch of lapdogs for Democrats either trying to get in
Speaker 1: power or who are in power, they would ask questions like,
Speaker 1: what does Trump have to do with five murders of
Speaker 1: transgender minority women in this country? Exactly what is that?
Speaker 1: And have there never been murders of transgender minority in
Speaker 1: the past? Of course not. And is every murder of
Speaker 1: any person terrible or tragic? Yes, of course it is.
Speaker 1: What is the tide to Trump? What is this? How
Speaker 1: can he say this again? How can just like with
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, how can Joe Biden speak these words and
Speaker 1: not feel like a moron. Well, I mean Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, I think is a fraud, but a savvy one.
Speaker 1: I just don't think Biden's very smart. I never have,
Speaker 1: I never have, and he certainly doesn't make me think
Speaker 1: he's any smarter when he unveils his speaking of the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal, speaking of Elizabeth Warren telling us that
Speaker 1: climate change is a bigger, a bigger challenge than World
Speaker 1: War two, sang it on the on the D Day anniversary.
Speaker 1: Here is what Biden says about climate change, play too.
Speaker 1: We take trastic action right now to dress the climate
Speaker 1: to the aster facing the nation in our world four
Speaker 1: severe storms and droughts, rising sea levels, warming temperatures, shrinking
Speaker 1: snow cover and ice sheets. It's already happening, and science
Speaker 1: tells us that how we act or fail back in
Speaker 1: the next twelve years will determine the very livability of
Speaker 1: our planners. Yet today becausident Trump denies the evidence in
Speaker 1: front of his own eyes, hides climate science produced by
Speaker 1: his own administration, and actively works to roll back with
Speaker 1: progress we've already made. You can't be a person of
Speaker 1: any judgment or wisdom or historical knowledge and believe what
Speaker 1: Joe Biden just said. It's not possible. Maybe you can
Speaker 1: be smart, you can be quick witted, but you cannot
Speaker 1: be a person of good judgment and think that what
Speaker 1: Joe Biden said is is intelligent drastic action to address
Speaker 1: the climate disaster? What climate disaster? What is the disaster?
Speaker 1: Where is this disaster happening? The rising sea levels? Where
Speaker 1: in Florida, no California, no New York, no, where is
Speaker 1: this happening? I would I would like to know what
Speaker 1: the heck Joe Biden thinks he's talking about. Now. I
Speaker 1: understand that this is for an ad and he's been
Speaker 1: this has been written for him by other people. But
Speaker 1: we are seeing now what the other side is offering
Speaker 1: up as a in their view, a kind of antidote
Speaker 1: to Trump is hm. They view this as a necessary
Speaker 1: corrective for America, and the stuff they are putting out
Speaker 1: there is utterly nuts. And if journalists were really doing
Speaker 1: their job, they would ask real questions about all of this,
Speaker 1: But they don't. They all buy into climate change because
Speaker 1: it's a it's a it's a psychological fashion. It's a
Speaker 1: way of showing how smart and cool you are, and
Speaker 1: how much you care, man, and how much you're part
Speaker 1: of the team, and you're like this existential purpose where
Speaker 1: all the good people are with you, and it's just idiocy.
Speaker 1: What do they think that I want to drown, that
Speaker 1: I don't want future generations to have food to eat
Speaker 1: or water to drink, or we're all gonna be underwater.
Speaker 1: And of course, but this is how can anyone say
Speaker 1: this stuff and not feel dumb? This is a pretty
Speaker 1: scary place to be, isn't it. Ah, And they think
Speaker 1: Trump is the problem. They're all you know, Trump's are
Speaker 1: over in the UK right now and they're trying to
Speaker 1: come up with different ways to make it sound like
Speaker 1: this is a disaster. Did you see him and his
Speaker 1: children and they're just walking around like they own the
Speaker 1: place in Buckingham Palace and the hysteria. It's exhausting. I
Speaker 1: can't imagine getting as upset over nothing as Libs get
Speaker 1: upset over everything. When it comes to Trump, everything is
Speaker 1: a disaster. Everything requires draft stick action or else. The
Speaker 1: livability of the planet, as Joe Biden said, maybe at risk.
Speaker 1: And I don't just mean the climate change stuff. I
Speaker 1: mean his tweets, the way he talks to reporters the
Speaker 1: way he speaks about the Mayor of London and Megan Markle.
Speaker 1: Who the heck cares about Megan Markle? And I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna say it, I don't give a rotten crumpet about
Speaker 1: the British royal family. And I do not understand any
Speaker 1: Americans who do. You're entitled to it, but I don't
Speaker 1: get it. Who the heck cares? I mean, is it
Speaker 1: is really the the Anglo the Anglo version of like
Speaker 1: the Kardashians or something. At this point, it's just I know,
Speaker 1: it holds them together in history and all this whatever. Yeah,
Speaker 1: the Kardashians hold us together. You know who cares? Some
Speaker 1: of you who are spitting out whatever you're drinking right now,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm saying. I mean, this is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: But instead of just focusing on the substance and covering
Speaker 1: Trump's visit there as a head of state and man
Speaker 1: it meeting with other other important officials the UK, though
Speaker 1: I think Boris Johnson apparently refused a meeting with her.
Speaker 1: What's up with that? Boris? Trump should have known better
Speaker 1: than to reach out of his hand to that guy.
Speaker 1: He's always seemed like a bit of a bit of
Speaker 1: a loose cannon. But the ideas that we're hearing on
Speaker 1: this side tell us a lot about what's coming. The
Speaker 1: ideas that we are while the president's over there are
Speaker 1: meeting with the Queen of England and the build the bergs,
Speaker 1: the illuminati just kidding, he's not doing that? Or is he?
Speaker 1: While he's over there doing the stuff that he's doing.
Speaker 1: Over here, we're hearing all these Democrats run around and
Speaker 1: I'm at a point now or I think that we
Speaker 1: have to be wartime conservatives and just say I'm not
Speaker 1: going to pretend that these ideas are normal and rational.
Speaker 1: They think that because they think that we're crazy. They
Speaker 1: think you're crazy because you don't believe that someone saying
Speaker 1: that access to housing is a human right? What does
Speaker 1: that mean that the government can can script you into
Speaker 1: building homes for people that don't have jobs and don't
Speaker 1: have any resources. I mean, where does that access stop
Speaker 1: and start? That World War two is not as big
Speaker 1: a challenge as dealing with climate change. This is this
Speaker 1: is from the party that wants to be in power.
Speaker 1: My friends, remember that going forward. Remember that. And we've
Speaker 1: got more on the immigration situation. I got a lot
Speaker 1: for your team, so stick around. I will be back
Speaker 1: in just a moment. My empathy and my sympathy is
Speaker 1: with the families who've had to flee the deadliest countries
Speaker 1: on the face of the planet, who are met with
Speaker 1: the greatest cruelty and in humanity in this country's history.
Speaker 1: We have the capacity to be able to take care
Speaker 1: of those families. Betjo is also somebody who blathers on
Speaker 1: like a moron without any real pushback from the media.
Speaker 1: Since we're talking about how Democrats just say all this
Speaker 1: stuff and this is this is idiotic. You know. You
Speaker 1: you can say that you don't think that a wall
Speaker 1: at the border is going to work as well as
Speaker 1: Trump says, but it will work. It's not an iotic.
Speaker 1: We already have walls in places. I mean, you look
Speaker 1: at the things that Trump was running on and they're
Speaker 1: real tariffs against China. That's a real thing you can do.
Speaker 1: You can argue whether it's a good idea or not.
Speaker 1: Stuff the Democrats are talking about, it's just nuts, just bunkers.
Speaker 1: World War two not as dangerous or not as challenging
Speaker 1: as climate change, universal housing as a human right. You know,
Speaker 1: the obsession with the Russia stuff, and are we gonna
Speaker 1: on peach? Are we knocking on peach? But just impeach
Speaker 1: them already, get it over with you, your cowards. But
Speaker 1: Peto is saying great that these migrants are being met
Speaker 1: with the greatest cruelty in our country, country's history. Look,
Speaker 1: our country has, like all countries that have been around
Speaker 1: for a few hundred years, engage in some pretty cruel stuff.
Speaker 1: I don't think I need to remind Beto of some
Speaker 1: of the darker moments in US history where we have
Speaker 1: been incredibly cruel to our own people and to other people,
Speaker 1: you know, to them, to our fellow Americans as well
Speaker 1: as the people outside of our borders. The greatest cruelty,
Speaker 1: I mean, just at what point does the exaggeration you know,
Speaker 1: where are all the fact checkers, where is all the
Speaker 1: old one? Gosh, Trump is lying all the time people,
Speaker 1: what is this? Oh that's an opinion? Yeah, you mean
Speaker 1: the stuff that Trump gives all the time, and they
Speaker 1: fact check him on. By the way, PolitiFact, which is
Speaker 1: a joke today, fact check of Obama saying that you
Speaker 1: can buy any gun any time, including online, and said
Speaker 1: that it was mostly it was mostly false. No, no,
Speaker 1: it is pants on fire falls. It is as false
Speaker 1: as false gets. Why why wouldn't they say that Obama
Speaker 1: was you know, liar, liar pants on fire false because
Speaker 1: he's Obama. It doesn't get more false than that. You
Speaker 1: can't buy not anyone can buy any gun any time online.
Speaker 1: That's just a lie. Remember we've talked with this in Brazil.
Speaker 1: But the fact checkers are politicized, the journals are politicized,
Speaker 1: the newspaper are politicized, and they're owned by the left.
Speaker 1: This is the province of the left. If it wasn't
Speaker 1: people like Betto when they say that migrants are being
Speaker 1: met with the greatest cruelty, the greatest cruelty. They spend
Speaker 1: about twenty four hours in detention, get process, get brought food,
Speaker 1: get brought blankets, and medical care, all courtesy of you,
Speaker 1: by the way, the taxpayer, and our brave, hard working
Speaker 1: border patrol. And then they're let in the United States
Speaker 1: where they get whatever else they can get, the greatest
Speaker 1: cruelty in history. I mean, this is where I asked,
Speaker 1: you know, is Betto an idiot? You have to start
Speaker 1: ask this question about democrats fraud or idiot? Democrat fraud
Speaker 1: or idiot, because the stuff they're saying is indefensible. And
Speaker 1: you know where's where's our media, where the firefighters of
Speaker 1: our democracy is supposed to be asking the tough questions.
Speaker 1: We have a real problem at the southern border. All
Speaker 1: Beto wants to talk about is now does anyone even
Speaker 1: care what Betta says? Buck? Oh, totally care, because you
Speaker 1: just have this Beteau voice that you want to use
Speaker 1: on the error. And if you don't at least get
Speaker 1: him to be like somewhat of a factor the election,
Speaker 1: You're not gonna be able to talk like Batou. I know,
Speaker 1: it's like totally a bomberer. Bro makes me so sad.
Speaker 1: More on the immigration thing, Republicans are turning on Trump here,
Speaker 1: I mean with friends like the Republican Party got asked,
Speaker 1: you know what, does Trump even need any enemies? So
Speaker 1: he's got plenty of those. Raheem Kasambil joined to talk
Speaker 1: about the UK because he's got a fancy British accent,
Speaker 1: So who want to hear from him on that? And
Speaker 1: then Democrats destroy private citizens for fun and for politics.
Speaker 1: That's coming up too. If I'm a terrorist, I want
Speaker 1: to come to this country to his harm, I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna buy airline ticket. There's too many checks, too many
Speaker 1: database checks before you get a ticket. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: get a visa because the visa security unit does numerous
Speaker 1: database checks where you get a visa. If I won't
Speaker 1: be a terrorist enter this country, I want to take
Speaker 1: advantage of the border. Now this is in chaos and
Speaker 1: come across the board away. Twelve or twenty other million
Speaker 1: people came to this country. This is a national security crisis.
Speaker 1: And God help us if the wrong people across that
Speaker 1: board because of this chaos, and this country is going
Speaker 1: to go to another nine eleven. No one wants to
Speaker 1: talk about it, but this border is vulnerable, and it's
Speaker 1: a real possibility. The border is not secure. We know this.
Speaker 1: There are huge problems going on at the border. Trump
Speaker 1: is trying to deal with this. Trump is working now
Speaker 1: to get in Mexico to be a real partner in
Speaker 1: this process, and that means that he's going to have
Speaker 1: to use carrots and sticks. He's saying that this is
Speaker 1: an issue that's important enough that it would be worth
Speaker 1: the economic pain, it would be worth the difficulties that
Speaker 1: we would come up against here play clip twenty three.
Speaker 1: But even beyond the laws Mexico shouldn't allow millions of
Speaker 1: people to try and enter our country, and they could
Speaker 1: stop it very quickly, and I think they will, and
Speaker 1: if they won't, to put tariffs on and every month
Speaker 1: those tariffs go from five percent to ten percent, to
Speaker 1: fifteen percent, to twenty and then to twenty five percent.
Speaker 1: And what will happen then is all of those companies
Speaker 1: that have left our country and gone to Mexico are
Speaker 1: going to be coming back to us. And that's okay.
Speaker 1: And yet Republicans are now saying that they will try
Speaker 1: to get a supermajority to thwart the president on this one.
Speaker 1: You know, this is this is a classic moment of
Speaker 1: why the GOP just can't get it done, can't seem
Speaker 1: to figure out how to get accomplished what they promised
Speaker 1: all along. So I I just it's such a frustration.
Speaker 1: You know, Democrats for the most part, when the when
Speaker 1: the part when when the president, when Obama was trying
Speaker 1: to mobilize on something, the Democrats are with him. It's
Speaker 1: a Republicans who stood in the way. Fine, Republicans have
Speaker 1: to worry about their own side, They have to worry
Speaker 1: about getting mccained meeting somebody from within their own ranks. Goes, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm going to decide to be the one that I'm
Speaker 1: not going to go along. I'm more important than this
Speaker 1: cause I'm not going to go along with it. M Okay,
Speaker 1: where does that leave us? Where does that leave us?
Speaker 1: Trump is saying, look, I did tell me that Mexico
Speaker 1: east in control here, doesn't have power. That's not going
Speaker 1: to fly either play twenty two. But I think Mexico
Speaker 1: will step up and do what they should have been done.
Speaker 1: And I don't want to hear that Mexico is run
Speaker 1: by the cartels and the drug lords and the coyotes.
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear about that. A lot of
Speaker 1: people are saying that Mexico has something to prove, but
Speaker 1: I don't want to hear that they're run by the cartels.
Speaker 1: You understand, you report on it all the time, A
Speaker 1: lot of people do. I would be a terrible thing.
Speaker 1: Mexico should step up and stop this onslaught, this invasion
Speaker 1: into our country. Mexico should be helping us here. Mexico
Speaker 1: could be a much stronger partner on this than they
Speaker 1: have been. But we know where the Democrats are on
Speaker 1: this one. They're not on board, They can't do everything
Speaker 1: for Democrats is against solving the border problem. They don't
Speaker 1: want Trump to get a win, especially going into this
Speaker 1: election year. They don't want Trump to look competent on negotiation.
Speaker 1: Imagine if Mexico caved to this tariff, if he had
Speaker 1: a unified GEOP support behind him. Oh, you mean that
Speaker 1: a tariff would get a result that people said it
Speaker 1: could not get. Oh what would that mean for a
Speaker 1: negotiation with China? Wouldn't that then, whether you agree with
Speaker 1: what we're doing with China or not, wouldn't that become
Speaker 1: at least a data point, if not a case study
Speaker 1: for what could be possible if in fact somebody was
Speaker 1: dedicated enough to a negotiation that, yes, involves a bit
Speaker 1: of risk and involves a bit of arm twisting. That's
Speaker 1: what a lot of negotiations do. You know. We seem
Speaker 1: to think that our president should negotiate always in this
Speaker 1: position of how do we make the other side happy?
Speaker 1: We don't want to be too rough, we don't want
Speaker 1: to be too mean. How do we get the other
Speaker 1: side to feel good about this? Trump's version of negotiations. Look,
Speaker 1: this is what I think is a fair deal. If
Speaker 1: you don't do it. This is what's going to happen.
Speaker 1: Different approach, but it's the approach of somebody who hasn't
Speaker 1: been a politician his whole life. It's the approach of
Speaker 1: somebody who's a businessman, who has had to look at
Speaker 1: the bottom line, who's had businesses rise and fall, things
Speaker 1: that work, things that go bankrupt. Dealing in reality, not
Speaker 1: dealing in this you know, ephemeral gobbledegook, messy world of
Speaker 1: politics where you know it is whatever you say it is.
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell, certainly, cocaine Mitch. Sorry, cocaine Mitch. All right,
Speaker 1: pardon me, gotta get his name right, Cocaine Mitch is like, Look,
Speaker 1: Democrats obviously don't want to do anything here either. So
Speaker 1: it's at a minimum Trump taking this action, and then
Speaker 1: if Democrats go along against it, If we could just
Speaker 1: have a unified GOP on this would show the Democrats
Speaker 1: are not just opposed to Trump getting a win, they're
Speaker 1: opposed to the issue being solved. Period. They like, what
Speaker 1: is happening at the border. One hundred thousand plus a month, folks,
Speaker 1: every month, like clockwork now, one hundred thousand, one hundred thousand,
Speaker 1: that's what we're looking at a million for the year.
Speaker 1: We have a president who is in the position he's
Speaker 1: in because he ran on immigration as a hardliner, and
Speaker 1: now this is what we're dealing with. Plate twenty one.
Speaker 1: Cocaine Mitch got some words to the Dems. It's way
Speaker 1: pasttime the president's request for assistant from our government be met.
Speaker 1: I mean, we walked out up here after we did
Speaker 1: this supplemental and the Democrats insisted on taking out of
Speaker 1: the supplemental they just passed in the House yesterday anything
Speaker 1: to address the humanitarian crisis at the border that would
Speaker 1: be funded by Health and Human Services. So look, they
Speaker 1: need to take their heads out of the sand and
Speaker 1: work with us on our side of the border to
Speaker 1: address the humanitarian crisis that their resistance has contributed to.
Speaker 1: Mitch is right, Mitch is right. I know people say
Speaker 1: mitches so establishment on some stuff. He's real strong though.
Speaker 1: He's been great on judges. Give Cocaine Mitchell high five
Speaker 1: on judges. He's been great on judges. He's he's pretty
Speaker 1: good on the border lately too. I gotta say he
Speaker 1: likes to take the fight to the Democrats, just like
Speaker 1: Tony Montana would. Well right back, just how nasty, vindictive
Speaker 1: and crazy are people in the mainstream press. A lot
Speaker 1: of journals, journalists out there, How vicious are they willing
Speaker 1: to be? What do they see as their role in society?
Speaker 1: What do they see as their purpose? They would tell
Speaker 1: you if asked. I'm sure journals, the journalists would tell
Speaker 1: you that they is to bring information to the masses,
Speaker 1: to inform the public, to be guardians of democracy. Oh
Speaker 1: and to speak truth to power. That's one of their favorites.
Speaker 1: It's so self aggrandizing, isn't it. It sounds so good
Speaker 1: speak truth to power. In reality, most journalist caddle power.
Speaker 1: They like to be close to it, They like to
Speaker 1: be around it, they like to touch it, to feel it.
Speaker 1: They'd much prefer to be in the good graces of
Speaker 1: the powerful. And that's one of the reasons that there
Speaker 1: was such outrage when Hillary lost, because there were so
Speaker 1: many journals who felt like eight years of Hillary was
Speaker 1: going to be the crowning period, the crowning achievement of
Speaker 1: their careers. And they had worked long and hard to
Speaker 1: prop up the Clinton reputation, the Clinton name, and they
Speaker 1: were going to finally get to cash in on it.
Speaker 1: But you also see that among the journalist class, there
Speaker 1: is a willingness to be truly nasty, to ruin people,
Speaker 1: to ruin lives, to take away many nights sleep from
Speaker 1: private citizens, to humiliate publicly those who have no power,
Speaker 1: but merely serve as an example, merely serve as the
Speaker 1: cautionary tale that libs want to tell. Essentially, if you
Speaker 1: step out a line, this can happen to you too.
Speaker 1: If we have to make an example of you publicly,
Speaker 1: we will. And there was just one such case over
Speaker 1: the last few days where this guy and I don't
Speaker 1: I won't name him because I don't have to name him.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really matter. This guy who allegedly I believe
Speaker 1: he disputes this, posted a doctored video of Nancy Pelosi's
Speaker 1: seeming drunk and you know, talking about things seeming drunk,
Speaker 1: and it got a lot of attention, a lot of
Speaker 1: shares and everything else. And this is very upseting a
Speaker 1: little because Nancy Pelosi is at least officially the single
Speaker 1: most powerful democrat in America. She's third in line for
Speaker 1: the presidency, and she is not necessarily from a brand perspective,
Speaker 1: Obama is probably the most powerful still, but from a
Speaker 1: power power perspective from getting things done within government. Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi is the number one Democrat right now, and so
Speaker 1: you mess with Pelosi at your peril. That's the message
Speaker 1: the journos want you to have. When was the last
Speaker 1: time you saw an opopiece on Nancy Pelosi? By the way,
Speaker 1: when was the last time you saw journalists really dig
Speaker 1: into her background, her family, wealth her. They are always
Speaker 1: always doing everything they can to run interference for her,
Speaker 1: to prop her up, to make her seem like she
Speaker 1: is the queen of the Democratic Party right now, and
Speaker 1: she's supposed to be untouchable. And this guy violated that precept.
Speaker 1: He violated that hands off order that the journals have
Speaker 1: on Pelosi, who they I think many journalists actually fear her,
Speaker 1: but a lot more suck up to her. So this
Speaker 1: guy posts a video of Pelosi seeming drunk. There are
Speaker 1: other videos of Pelosi where it's just edited and making
Speaker 1: her look like a stumbling fool that's because she does
Speaker 1: stumble a lot, and she sounds foolish. But this one,
Speaker 1: I think was I try to find it, it's been
Speaker 1: taken down. Think about how frustrating that it's been taken
Speaker 1: down on all these different sites taken down off of
Speaker 1: YouTube taken down. I try to find it, couldn't and
Speaker 1: I wanted to see, you know, how heavily edited this
Speaker 1: was and all this other stuff that they talk about.
Speaker 1: So that's where the Daily Beast comes in. The Daily Beast,
Speaker 1: if you don't know, is another one of these websites
Speaker 1: that exist for reasons that I don't even think they
Speaker 1: could articulate. At the Daily Beast. It is indistinguishable in
Speaker 1: its editorial approach the kind of stories from one hundred
Speaker 1: other left wing dot com style sites right all about
Speaker 1: intersectional social justice, advancing liberal agenda items, hates conservatives. That's
Speaker 1: the Daily Beast. It's not advancing anyone's knowledge of anything,
Speaker 1: does a lot of unserious, crappy journalism, and yet it's
Speaker 1: still around because it's well supported by Barry Diller over
Speaker 1: at IAC is a very powerful media magnate. I A.
Speaker 1: C is a huge company, owns match dot com and Tender,
Speaker 1: among other things. So The Daily Beast thought that it
Speaker 1: would be a worthwhile usage of their journos time to
Speaker 1: track down this private individual, who, it turns out, based
Speaker 1: on the story they published, is an unemployed African American
Speaker 1: forklift operator. Lives in the New York area and owns
Speaker 1: a couple of small Facebook pages, and they decided to
Speaker 1: out him, and then felt like they were heroes for
Speaker 1: outing this guy. They thought that they were doing some favor.
Speaker 1: And then to justify this on a journalistic level, because
Speaker 1: really this was just callous and vindictive. But to justify
Speaker 1: going after a private citizen for making a what is
Speaker 1: really a parody video of Nancy Pelosi. And remember the Democrats,
Speaker 1: they wanted us pulled down there. Anderson Cooper was, Oh,
Speaker 1: he was so huffy and upset because Facebook wouldn't take
Speaker 1: down these doctor videos of Pelosi. As if they're supposed
Speaker 1: to be the arbiters of what's posted in good taste
Speaker 1: about politics. Well, liberals do want that, though they do
Speaker 1: want Facebook to do that. The journalists are not First
Speaker 1: Amendment advocates. They want their own First Amendment. They want
Speaker 1: the freedom to say what they want. They don't want
Speaker 1: others to have that freedom. Though, So what did they
Speaker 1: do to say that this was somehow a journalistic endeavor
Speaker 1: outing this person? How did they come upon that? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. They said that this shows that it's not
Speaker 1: just Russia that can engage in it's not just Russia
Speaker 1: who engages in disinformation. So they doxed this guy, right,
Speaker 1: They doxed him, They outed him, put his stuff out there,
Speaker 1: and essentially track down an internet and Internet troll. And
Speaker 1: you know that's what it is, That is what they
Speaker 1: did here. Why would they do that? Why would they
Speaker 1: put this guy in a position now where I'm sure
Speaker 1: he's gotten death threats, his career might be in jeopardy.
Speaker 1: Oh and by the way, the Daily Beast called up
Speaker 1: Facebook and just said, hey, we want to find this guy.
Speaker 1: And Facebook reportedly turned over information about this guy's account
Speaker 1: to help the Daily Beasts identify him. Don't think for
Speaker 1: one second that these social media entities won't play favorites
Speaker 1: and release the information they have in order to trash Republicans, conservatives,
Speaker 1: or anyone who gets in the way of the left,
Speaker 1: anyone who gets in the way of the left wing agenda.
Speaker 1: Don't for one second think then, because you know they will.
Speaker 1: You know that your so called private information will magically
Speaker 1: leak to reporters. It's just a matter of time, trust me,
Speaker 1: until someone's running for office and their Facebook instant messages
Speaker 1: to their now ex wife magically find their way not
Speaker 1: from the ex wife, magically find their way out. And
Speaker 1: you know that in journal land, this surveillance apparatus of
Speaker 1: the social media platforms out there is going to be
Speaker 1: turned for partisan purposes. It's already happening, but this is
Speaker 1: an instance of it. This guy offended Pelosi, went after
Speaker 1: Queen Pelosi, so a well funded, large website hunted him
Speaker 1: down with the help of Facebook, and now this guy's
Speaker 1: life is forever altered, though he says that's not even
Speaker 1: his Rich Lowry over at the New York Posts pointed
Speaker 1: this out too. They cited quote Instagram posts of his
Speaker 1: using an abusive term to refer to a woman who
Speaker 1: allegedly kicked him on the subway, detailed his employment history,
Speaker 1: talked to his ex girlfriend, delved into his guilty plead
Speaker 1: to a domestic domestic violence charge and an outstanding warrant
Speaker 1: for his arrests on a probation violation. They did a
Speaker 1: full on OPO research deep dive into this guy. He's
Speaker 1: not a public figure. Why they do all that? They
Speaker 1: want to send a message to everybody else. You think
Speaker 1: you can just be an anonymous person who makes videos
Speaker 1: that mock democrats. You think you can spread anti Pelosi
Speaker 1: propaganda with impunity just because of the First Amendment and
Speaker 1: oh no, oh no, the big bad Democrat machine will
Speaker 1: come for you. A private person is no longer safe
Speaker 1: from the CNN. Look what they did to the woman
Speaker 1: who had the you know, the Russian Facebook event or
Speaker 1: wherever they went on in her house, stood in her
Speaker 1: front law and confronted her as if she was like
Speaker 1: a bad person, didn't do anything wrong. CNN threatened to
Speaker 1: out somebody that put out some other stuff that they
Speaker 1: didn't like that was, you know, anti left wing. They
Speaker 1: do this all the time. Now. These people are a disgrace.
Speaker 1: I mean, journalists are increasingly vicious little partisans, vicious activists.
Speaker 1: It's like they all work for media matters. It's like
Speaker 1: they all want to be the most woke and destroy
Speaker 1: the most people to show just how dedicated to the
Speaker 1: left wing insanity they really are. Our special relationship is
Speaker 1: grounded in common history, values, customs, culture, language, and laws.
Speaker 1: Seeing the extraordinary alliance between the American and the British people,
Speaker 1: it's the greatest alliance the world has ever known. It
Speaker 1: is this deep special relationship and partnership between the United
Speaker 1: States and the United Kingdom. That ensures our safety and
Speaker 1: security and the safety and security of others around the
Speaker 1: world too. That is a relationship we should cherish. It
Speaker 1: is a relationship we should build on. It is a
Speaker 1: relationship we should be proud of. We love the Brits.
Speaker 1: We know this. In this country, there is there is
Speaker 1: a special relationship between America and the anglosphere. It does
Speaker 1: feel like our cousins, so to speak, in these other countries, Canada,
Speaker 1: the UK, New Zealand, Australia. These are countries where, first
Speaker 1: of all, any American who goes from what I understand,
Speaker 1: feels very immediately welcomed in at home, and culturally it's
Speaker 1: very similar. But we have as a country, we have
Speaker 1: a truly a special relationship with the anglosphere because of
Speaker 1: that of those linguistic and cultural similarities in the shared history.
Speaker 1: Particularly noteworthy I think right now that you have the
Speaker 1: president in the UK and you have Teresa May and
Speaker 1: President Trump saying very exactly what you would expect, but
Speaker 1: nonetheless very strong, very warm words about the relationship between
Speaker 1: these countries on the anniversary of D Day, then there
Speaker 1: are some very worthwhile remembrances analyzes going around today of
Speaker 1: just what it would have been like at that time
Speaker 1: to have been dropped off on a Higgins boat under
Speaker 1: heavy enemy fire. And in the case of what was
Speaker 1: it Paul Duhak, where there's a particularly difficult fight with
Speaker 1: elevated German machine guns and machine gun nests, that first
Speaker 1: scene I think captures it very well in Saving Private Ryan,
Speaker 1: where you have machine gun fire opening up on boats,
Speaker 1: people getting hit left and right. A long, hard slog
Speaker 1: after being csick, which I've always I don't know how
Speaker 1: many you've ever been s sick before, but it is
Speaker 1: debilitating if you think that you're a tough guy and
Speaker 1: you're you know, you're a big tough man or whatever,
Speaker 1: or a lady, and you get seasick and you are
Speaker 1: humbled because you're just beer and it's it's kind of
Speaker 1: like your worst hangover ever, except you didn't earn it.
Speaker 1: There was no fun beforehand. That's kind of what's being seasick,
Speaker 1: but with much greater nausea. Even just thinking about it
Speaker 1: right now, even just thinking about the times I've been seasick,
Speaker 1: makes me start to get a little queasy. But I
Speaker 1: can't I can't even fathom being on one of those
Speaker 1: Higgins boats and going through rough water and getting you know,
Speaker 1: getting seasick along the way, and then getting being told
Speaker 1: sprint a couple of hundred yards across a killing field
Speaker 1: set up specifically with fields of fire just to cut
Speaker 1: down and destroy all all possible soldiers everybody. And to
Speaker 1: have run through that and seeing your your brothers in
Speaker 1: arms getting hit left and right. It's it's a truly
Speaker 1: incredible testament to American bravery, courage under fire. And there's
Speaker 1: a reason why d day an invasion of Normandy has
Speaker 1: such a significance in our history. It's also very significant
Speaker 1: to note that you know, the Brits, the Canadians, they're
Speaker 1: right there with us. The Canadians, I believe, actually took
Speaker 1: one of the very hardest beaches largely on their own.
Speaker 1: It's something I don't want to say if it was
Speaker 1: Juneo or gold or because the World War Two historians
Speaker 1: in this audience blow blow my World War Two skill
Speaker 1: set out of the water. If you want to talk
Speaker 1: about sixteenth century Renaissance wars between the Islamic states and
Speaker 1: the Christian states of Europe, then we can maybe throw down,
Speaker 1: But those the World War Two historians in this audience
Speaker 1: well exceed my knowledge or many of you out there.
Speaker 1: In fact, my friend Emily Zanati over it the Daily Wire,
Speaker 1: who used to have on the show regularly if you
Speaker 1: were recall, she is, I believe an a an actual
Speaker 1: World War two historian rights histories of World War Two.
Speaker 1: But it is the D Day. It is D Day,
Speaker 1: and it's it's worth noting how for these different countries
Speaker 1: like the UK, the relationship is never really in doubt.
Speaker 1: There there is a bond between the United States and
Speaker 1: Britain that I think will be around and be special
Speaker 1: for centuries to come. And it is because of those
Speaker 1: those ties of history, but also the English common law
Speaker 1: that is the basis for our own system of the well.
Speaker 1: We could speak for hours about just all the things
Speaker 1: that we borrow from England is like our great grandfather
Speaker 1: culture or something, you know. I mean, England is a
Speaker 1: country that we've borrowed so much from. So it's with
Speaker 1: that backdrop that I find it's so it's so funny
Speaker 1: that the media is, oh, my gosh, you know, Trump
Speaker 1: is terrible, and look what he's doing in England, and
Speaker 1: how many people could even define can even separate right
Speaker 1: on their heads. The difference in the United Kingdom, Great Britain,
Speaker 1: and well we know England is just the one country
Speaker 1: of England, right, but the United Kingdom versus Great Britain.
Speaker 1: The United Kingdom, I believe is England, Scotland and Northern Ireland.
Speaker 1: Is that, Producer Mike, can you check? Can you fact
Speaker 1: check me on this one? I can't get this one wrong.
Speaker 1: That's the United that's the UK, and then Great Britain
Speaker 1: is like everything. Great Britain's all the stuff that they
Speaker 1: they have, Producer Mike, I need a fact check or
Speaker 1: else I'm got to get yelled at by the very
Speaker 1: high expectations of the Team Buck audience for all things
Speaker 1: when it comes to accuracy. Trump spoke about a possible
Speaker 1: trade deal with the UK that would certainly be an
Speaker 1: interesting if that came came about play Club seven. Please.
Speaker 1: I think we'll have a very very substantial trade deal.
Speaker 1: It'll be a very fair deal. And I think that
Speaker 1: this is something that your folks want to do, My
Speaker 1: folks want to do, and we want to do, and
Speaker 1: we're going to get into done. I'd just like to
Speaker 1: congratulate you on having done a fantastic job on behalf
Speaker 1: of the people of the United States and It's an
Speaker 1: honor to have worked with you. And I don't know
Speaker 1: exactly what your timing is, but stick around. Let's do
Speaker 1: this deal. Trump wants to do a deal with you.
Speaker 1: Can that'd be great, you know, more even deeper, economicize, more,
Speaker 1: more efficient, more, more prosperity, all kinds of things that
Speaker 1: can be done here. And this doesn't get much focus
Speaker 1: at all. Instead, you have people talking about Trump's comments
Speaker 1: with Megan Markle and all this. This is just nonsense.
Speaker 1: This is a complete distraction from what really matters. And
Speaker 1: you also see this this Trump baby project. I gotta
Speaker 1: I think a trump baby big is kind of funny,
Speaker 1: Like it's cute. It doesn't make me think that Trump
Speaker 1: is a bad guy. It's actually pretty. It's actually pretty endearing.
Speaker 1: I kind of want a Trump baby, you know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. Producer Mike is this blimp? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: love it. I think it's sort of and it's like
Speaker 1: makes him like, I don't know if this the symbolism
Speaker 1: to me is like, hey, here comes President Trump and
Speaker 1: where he's all over you. He's like on top of you.
Speaker 1: I thought it's pretty funny. He kind of looks like
Speaker 1: boss baby. Yeah, you know, I think it's totally backfired
Speaker 1: on him. I think it's totally back front of him too,
Speaker 1: Like I find it enduring. I finally, oh yeah, I look,
Speaker 1: Trump's the giant, you know, But didn't somebody stab the
Speaker 1: blimp or something to destroy it? I did not see that.
Speaker 1: But when it's surprised me, I think someone's I think
Speaker 1: some or someone tried to. It's not hard to find
Speaker 1: a knife around that part of town. I've heard, Oh man,
Speaker 1: look at you, producer Mike Savage. Yeah, that's a lot
Speaker 1: of bad. There's the crime is rising in the UK,
Speaker 1: and they don't want to they don't want to talk
Speaker 1: about that. That's not something that seems to get to.
Speaker 1: And they also had that whole spate of acid attacks
Speaker 1: for all, which is like one of the most horrendous
Speaker 1: things I've ever heard of. Yeah, but but Trump is
Speaker 1: uh is not swayed at all by these protests in
Speaker 1: the UK. Here, here's there's there's a few things here.
Speaker 1: What is what do UK protesters really think they accomplish
Speaker 1: by showing their displeasure with the arrival of Trump? What
Speaker 1: is this supposed to do? I mean, I can't imagine
Speaker 1: thinking that it's a good usage of my time. If
Speaker 1: I were some lib which in the context of the
Speaker 1: UK means you're basically a commy right, If I was
Speaker 1: some COMMI brit and not to be confused with COMMI bear,
Speaker 1: and I decided to go go protest President Trump? Why
Speaker 1: what do I think I'm going? What do I think
Speaker 1: I'm going to accomplish in that whole process? That's really
Speaker 1: what I want to know. What do I think is
Speaker 1: going to come out of this that's going to be
Speaker 1: a good thing, or that's worth anyone's time? That Trump
Speaker 1: is never going to be allowed back in the UK,
Speaker 1: or that it just seems It just seems like such
Speaker 1: a waste to me. And that's why the media is
Speaker 1: focused on it. I think is just they're they're always
Speaker 1: they're always looking for the negative with this president. It's
Speaker 1: it's not enough to oppose him on policy or to
Speaker 1: disagree with his ideas. It's a it's an obsession that
Speaker 1: must be fed constant. The left hatred of Trump is
Speaker 1: a fire that is all consuming. It has to constantly
Speaker 1: be giving more fuel. And the protests in the UK
Speaker 1: as if we're supposed to care about this. I like
Speaker 1: that Trump swats this stuff away play ten. As far
Speaker 1: as the protests, I have to tell you because I
Speaker 1: commented on yesterday we left the Prime Minister, the Queen,
Speaker 1: the royal family, there were thousands of people on the
Speaker 1: streets cheering, and even coming over today there were thousands
Speaker 1: of people cheering. And then I heard that there were protests.
Speaker 1: I said, where are the protests. I don't see any protests.
Speaker 1: I did see a small protest today when I came,
Speaker 1: very small. So a lot of it is fake news,
Speaker 1: I hate to say, but you saw the people waving
Speaker 1: the American flag, waving your flag. It was tremendous spirit
Speaker 1: and love. There was great love. It was an alliance.
Speaker 1: And I didn't see the protests until just a little
Speaker 1: while ago, and it was a very very small group
Speaker 1: of people put in for political reasons. So it was
Speaker 1: fake thank you. When he's calling it fake news, he's
Speaker 1: saying they're exaggerating this, that the coverage of it is
Speaker 1: meant to make it seem like it's a bigger thing
Speaker 1: than it is. And I think that's absolutely true. You know,
Speaker 1: if I were in a city and the well, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't care about heads of state coming from anywhere,
Speaker 1: but if I were in a city and one of
Speaker 1: our a British prime minister showed up, Yeah, I'd be like, oh,
Speaker 1: the Brits. We like the Brits, just like we like
Speaker 1: the Aussies, and we like the Canadians. And you know,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be the particular politics I think of the
Speaker 1: head of state from you look, even if Justin Trude
Speaker 1: when he shows up, I'm like, yeah, he seems like
Speaker 1: a clown, but ladies think he's handsome and whatever. Yeay, yeay.
Speaker 1: Canada we like because they're representative of their country and
Speaker 1: their people, and their policies generally don't really affect us
Speaker 1: all that much. So to have some burning hatred of
Speaker 1: the head of state of an allied country is of
Speaker 1: a closely allied country, it's just a weird position. It's
Speaker 1: just a weird way to approach it. But that is
Speaker 1: sure enough what they what they do. That's what these
Speaker 1: UK protesters with their fat Trump baby and all this stuff,
Speaker 1: and the media focus on these protests. One thing, Producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: thank you for the fact check here. I mean, I
Speaker 1: was right, but I left one off. The UK is England, Scotland,
Speaker 1: Northern Ireland and Wales. That's right. The Welsh, like, what's
Speaker 1: his name? Christian Bale is Welsh. So if you hear
Speaker 1: that funky accent when he's actually speaking the way he
Speaker 1: normally speaks, it's a Welsh accent. And then Great Britain
Speaker 1: is like all this stuff, all the things put together. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's that. So we got Raheem Kassam joining us here
Speaker 1: in a moment. He's gonna give us his take. He's
Speaker 1: a brit so he's give us his take on how
Speaker 1: this whole thing is going. Then we in the third
Speaker 1: hour are going to be talking about some more fantastic topics.
Speaker 1: I'm not even sure what they are yet, but they're
Speaker 1: going to be as they always are, in depth, insightful,
Speaker 1: hopefully entertaining. That's the plan for an excellent third hour
Speaker 1: of the show. So stay right where you are, team,
Speaker 1: we will be right back. I would say, yeah, I
Speaker 1: would think that it will happen, and it probably should happen.
Speaker 1: This is a great, great country and it wants its
Speaker 1: own identity. It wants to have its own borders, it
Speaker 1: wants to run its own affairs. This is a very
Speaker 1: very special place and I think it deserves a special place.
Speaker 1: And I thought maybe for that reason, and for others,
Speaker 1: but that reason it was going to happen. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: think it will happen, and I believe the Prime ministers
Speaker 1: brought it to a very good point where something will
Speaker 1: take place in the NATO distant future. I think she's
Speaker 1: done a very good job. I believe it would be
Speaker 1: good for the country. Yes, there you get President Trump
Speaker 1: talking about what's going on in the UK. He's got
Speaker 1: this big visit to our brothers and sisters across the
Speaker 1: pond over in jolly old England and all the rest.
Speaker 1: We've got our friend Rahim Kassam joining to tell us
Speaker 1: just what's really happening here, what's going on behind the
Speaker 1: scenes and all the rest of it. Raheim, of course,
Speaker 1: is the global editor in chief of Human Events human
Speaker 1: events dot com. For their latest raheem great to have you, sir.
Speaker 1: What do you think about Trump's visit so far? What
Speaker 1: matters here? Well, you know, it's gone rather well, Buck,
Speaker 1: and I think that's much to the chagrin of the
Speaker 1: usual liberal chattering classes on both sides of the Atlantic.
Speaker 1: They all thought that Trump would go for this official
Speaker 1: state visit. Remember that it is the highest profile visit
Speaker 1: you can have with the Queen and at Buckingham Palace
Speaker 1: and all the red carpets rolling out, and I think
Speaker 1: they've thought that he'd fall over and his plants or something.
Speaker 1: The way they were talking about it in advance of
Speaker 1: the trip, and in terms of formality, in terms of
Speaker 1: all the ceremony and the officialdom that surrounds the trip,
Speaker 1: it's been nothing short of a ten out of ten.
Speaker 1: Trump and his entire family have knocked it out of
Speaker 1: the park. The top issues of trade and Brexit and
Speaker 1: NATO and defense spending have all been covered. His board
Speaker 1: agreement on both sides of the Atlantic on those issues.
Speaker 1: So I think we might be seeing a resurgence in
Speaker 1: a sort of UK US special relationship Margaret Thatcher Ronald
Speaker 1: Reagan sense. But of course, as you know, Britain is
Speaker 1: now waiting to see who are Margaret Thatcher might be. Now,
Speaker 1: there was this back and forth with the Mayor of London,
Speaker 1: and Trumps has cut him down to size a few times.
Speaker 1: Here's what he had to say about Sadika. But I
Speaker 1: want to get Raheim your take, because I know you
Speaker 1: know quite a bit about mister Kahan. But here's what
Speaker 1: Trump said, play nine. Well, I think he's been a
Speaker 1: not very good mayor from what I understand, he's done
Speaker 1: a poor job. Crime is up a lot of problems,
Speaker 1: and I don't think he should be criticizing a representative
Speaker 1: of the United States that can do so much good
Speaker 1: for the United Kingdom. We talked about it before. He
Speaker 1: should be positive, not negative. He's a negative force, not
Speaker 1: a positive force. And if you look at what he said,
Speaker 1: he hurts the people of this great country. And I
Speaker 1: think he should actually focus on his job. He'd be
Speaker 1: a lot better if he did that. He could straighten
Speaker 1: out some of the problems that he has and probably
Speaker 1: some of the problems that he's caused. What's the truth
Speaker 1: of Sadiq Khan? Rahim? It's interesting. I mean, you hear
Speaker 1: the presidents say you are not He shouldn't be insulting me,
Speaker 1: he said, he shouldn't be insulting a representative of the
Speaker 1: United States because effectively the president is over there leading
Speaker 1: as America's diplomat in the world, and fields slighted and
Speaker 1: rightly so, over the fact that Sadik Khan has done
Speaker 1: I think now three D videos, several interviews and an
Speaker 1: op ed in his sort of never Trump Vaine of
Speaker 1: trying to stop the President having a successful trip to
Speaker 1: the United Kingdom, and Trump is exactly can write as well,
Speaker 1: Carl not just doing in disservice and disrespect to the
Speaker 1: President and to the country of the United States of America,
Speaker 1: is also doing a disservice to Britain because Britains don't
Speaker 1: want to be represented by Sadikhan. London may have chosen
Speaker 1: Sadikhan as its mayor, but you can get outside of London,
Speaker 1: which is politically demographically very similar to New York City. Actually,
Speaker 1: the respects both to the United States and whomever its
Speaker 1: president may be is actually rather large. Now. Carton himself
Speaker 1: is a former lawyer who has represented nine eleven attackers.
Speaker 1: He represented Louis Farrakhan in his Nation of Islam. Cart
Speaker 1: has been known to be mixed up with a number
Speaker 1: of deeply, deeply divisive groups. Has even recently placed a
Speaker 1: group that is known for female genital installation at the
Speaker 1: front and center of an event in London, and all
Speaker 1: the wildlife, crime and ro already a rave and congestion
Speaker 1: is going up in London. Public policy projects behind schedule
Speaker 1: and over budget. This man has been an absolute unmitigated disaster,
Speaker 1: not just for London, but for the United Kingdom's perception
Speaker 1: on the world stage, because let's face it, most stories
Speaker 1: who go to Britain go to London. Most things that
Speaker 1: you read about when you read about Britain nowadays, somehow
Speaker 1: has something to do with London. So I'm delighted, as
Speaker 1: you say, the President Trump cuts to the far down
Speaker 1: disize and as we all know from what the President
Speaker 1: tweeted the other day, that's a very diminutive size. Indeed,
Speaker 1: Raham Kasan everybody Global eder and chief Human Events human
Speaker 1: events dot Com for more of his latest Raheem's thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining. Thank you. Abu tells us that
Speaker 1: this relationship is in some trouble. I mean, it is ironic.
Speaker 1: It's sadly ironic that ten years ago we would have
Speaker 1: said that the two most dynamic, strongest democracies in the world,
Speaker 1: where the United States and the United Kingdom, and both
Speaker 1: of us are now an existential crisis. The Brits of course,
Speaker 1: Britain of course because of the possibility of Brexit and
Speaker 1: the uncertainty of what's going to happen in his relationship
Speaker 1: with the Eve of the United States, because of Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and Trump is um we expect our president, any
Speaker 1: president on a ceremonial visit, to represent all Americans with dignity,
Speaker 1: with grace, and the president hasn't done that. This is
Speaker 1: not the way that American presidents act overseas, have acted overseas,
Speaker 1: and frankly, it's embarrassing to see the American president call
Speaker 1: out people in this savage, brutal political tirade of criticizing
Speaker 1: opposition leaders in another allied country. All blather, all claptrap,
Speaker 1: malarkey garbage on MSNBC, which is not surprising to any
Speaker 1: of you. They're from former Ambassador Nick Burns, who's saying
Speaker 1: that both countries. This is the quote. All right, before
Speaker 1: I get too deep into why this guy's an imbecile,
Speaker 1: and I don't care how many languages he speaks, or
Speaker 1: how many fancy countries he lived in an ambassador or whatever,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter. What he says is stupid. His analysis
Speaker 1: is poor countries are an existential crisis. The UK and
Speaker 1: America an existential crisis. And then he goes on to
Speaker 1: say on the American side of this equation, because of
Speaker 1: Trump being embarrassing, that puts US in existential crisis because
Speaker 1: he doesn't act with the presidential dignity that we expect
Speaker 1: overseas because he criticizes an opposition figure. What the president
Speaker 1: can't say that the mayor of London acts like a punk?
Speaker 1: The mayor of London acts like a punk. What's the problem.
Speaker 1: Why can't we have adult conversations and politics? Why can't
Speaker 1: the expectation be in an era where we now have
Speaker 1: constant access to everyone's thoughts via social media and everything
Speaker 1: can be live streamed. And maybe that the time for
Speaker 1: all this boiler plate political non speak speak is past.
Speaker 1: Maybe we should now embrace a future where politicians can
Speaker 1: just tell us what they really think and we expect
Speaker 1: that they will act like human beings and not robots,
Speaker 1: not you know, not cyborgs that are programmed to you know,
Speaker 1: I will speak about my love for America at the
Speaker 1: Constitution like somebody who is not from America. Why he
Speaker 1: said this, This guy that's going on MSNBC to wax
Speaker 1: philosophical about how terrible the relationship. The relationship is great
Speaker 1: in through the UK and in America. You know what,
Speaker 1: we're you know what? And this is I got it.
Speaker 1: A little bit of a of a of a tiff
Speaker 1: today with some of the people on the on the
Speaker 1: panel at Rising because I just get so sick of this.
Speaker 1: We're lowering our stature in the world. We're lowering our
Speaker 1: stature in the world because of Trump. How so has
Speaker 1: Trump invaded? Has Trump invaded a foreign country? With sketchy
Speaker 1: at best rationale and perhaps foolish, foolish ideas about what's
Speaker 1: going to happen? They're the answers, No, are any of
Speaker 1: you listening to this right now? Or are you? Are
Speaker 1: you sitting here? And because of a Trump specific decision
Speaker 1: as commander in chief, you have to worry about, you know, realistically,
Speaker 1: the possibility of casualties affecting friends, loved ones, people from
Speaker 1: your town, people from your family, anything like that. Shouldn't
Speaker 1: that be much more important than Oh, does he bow
Speaker 1: properly to Oh, that's right, He's not supposed to bow.
Speaker 1: He's the president. That was Obama's deal. Obama went around
Speaker 1: bowing apologizing for it. Wasn't apology tour. The media was
Speaker 1: always trying to cover from. It was an apology tour.
Speaker 1: Isn't it more important than on the world stage we
Speaker 1: have a president who is approaching problems from the perspective
Speaker 1: of I represent Mike Country America. I don't represent the
Speaker 1: international community. I'm not part of some cosmopolitanist, one world
Speaker 1: government mentality, and I don't want to do things that
Speaker 1: are really bad for my people. You know. To compare,
Speaker 1: I would say, you compare a Trump to both Obama
Speaker 1: and Bush's foreign policy, and there is no comparison. I mean,
Speaker 1: Obama was a disaster on foreign policy. How does it
Speaker 1: raise our stature to destroy Libya and turn it into
Speaker 1: a for a while, an Isist stronghold. They actually had
Speaker 1: Isist training camps. They're beheading Christians on the beach, you know,
Speaker 1: turn Libya in an Isis stronghold. Now it's like a
Speaker 1: warring militias and who the hell knows what's going to
Speaker 1: happen over there. That was also Hillary Clinton involved in
Speaker 1: that one. By the way, How does it make us
Speaker 1: look good for Obama to sit on his hands and
Speaker 1: do nothing, to take it upon himself to declare a
Speaker 1: redline and see area, and to take the mantle of
Speaker 1: international leadership and and be you know, pushing with the
Speaker 1: United Nations to get some kind of a ceasefire in
Speaker 1: Syria and just fail miserably for years than while a
Speaker 1: half million people die, engage in troop training programs for
Speaker 1: the for the rebellion inside of Syria that are massive failures,
Speaker 1: allow the rise of ISIS, terrorist attacks in Europe, copycat
Speaker 1: attacks in the United States, all this stuff that's happened.
Speaker 1: But Obama raised our stature on the world stage. Why
Speaker 1: because he's because he gave fancy sounding speeches that meant nothing,
Speaker 1: that meant absolutely nothing. Bush. Oh boy, well intentioned, a
Speaker 1: good guy, a patriot, he loves this country, but not
Speaker 1: a strategic thinker, not a guy that really should have
Speaker 1: been in the should have been in the role. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't think he was a bad president, but I
Speaker 1: think he was. He was Okay, he's a mediocre, and
Speaker 1: I don't think we should be shy about saying that either.
Speaker 1: I think most American politicians we should think of as
Speaker 1: mediocre to less than acceptable. We should criticize politicians in
Speaker 1: their roles. We should hold them to account. No, I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm somebody who was very involved in the Bush era
Speaker 1: in terms of foreign policy. You know, thanks to President Bush,
Speaker 1: I ended up in two war zones. So I can
Speaker 1: look at this and say, yeah, those are But this
Speaker 1: talking point year from this guy about how we're an
Speaker 1: existential crisis we look so about in the world stage.
Speaker 1: You're only an existential crisis in America if you're an
Speaker 1: MSNBC watching lib who thinks that having a president who
Speaker 1: goes around saying that America has made all kinds of
Speaker 1: mistakes and done bad things, and it's going to bow
Speaker 1: and scrape and kneel and apologize to everybody. It's gonna
Speaker 1: try to make friends with the Castro regime in Cuba,
Speaker 1: beg Virani and Mullah's, the dictators of Tehran to be
Speaker 1: our buddies. You know, only only those people think were
Speaker 1: in existential crisis. But when you look at what has
Speaker 1: really happened under Trump versus previous presidency so far, to
Speaker 1: say that Trump's foreign policy is reckless and dangerous and
Speaker 1: is undermining our stature is laughable. Is laughable. You know
Speaker 1: what undermines our stature in the world, starting wars that
Speaker 1: we don't win. You know what undermines our stature in
Speaker 1: the world, messing up whole countries and then saying, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: we didn't know this was going to be so hard.
Speaker 1: And that has been a bipartisan a bipartisan failure in
Speaker 1: the mid East and other region stretching back for the
Speaker 1: last twenty years. Medicare for all may sound good, but
Speaker 1: it's actually not good policy, nor is it good politics.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you, I'm telling you a hundred. That's John Delaney.
Speaker 1: I love it, man, that this you know, California Democrat
Speaker 1: Convention thing that they had there. I forget what it's
Speaker 1: called exactly, but this California, you know congregation of Democrats
Speaker 1: that occurred. You had Hick and Loopers say socialist socialism
Speaker 1: is not the answer, boopo, because they love socialism in California. Oh, man,
Speaker 1: sure they do. And then you have John Delaney get
Speaker 1: up there and says Medicare for all is not good
Speaker 1: policy or good politics. He's right, he's trying to help them.
Speaker 1: He's telling them the truth. This is a Democrat speaking
Speaker 1: of Democrats, saying something that is objectively and obviously true,
Speaker 1: and they freak out at him. They do not they
Speaker 1: do not want to hear it. They don't want to
Speaker 1: hear it at all. You know. I interviewed Delaney today.
Speaker 1: Only three more, only three more shows. I was about
Speaker 1: to say, real news. Gosh, that's really a throwback. Only
Speaker 1: three more episodes of Hill TV Rising for me, folks,
Speaker 1: Friday is my last day, So those of you who
Speaker 1: haven't had a chance to catch it yet, you could.
Speaker 1: I don't know, you'll see me looking very sleepy in
Speaker 1: the morning. I've I've pretty much been broken by the
Speaker 1: by the schedule of waking up super early and doing
Speaker 1: this show until nine o'clock at night. But I got
Speaker 1: the chance to speak to John Delaney and speak to
Speaker 1: him about a whole bunch of policies toy on Rising,
Speaker 1: and I have to tell you he's a what he's
Speaker 1: He was a Democrat congressman from Maryland, I think, and
Speaker 1: he's a seems like a reasonable enough guy. I'm sure
Speaker 1: he says crazy stuff about climate change and you know,
Speaker 1: the crazy stuff about a woman's right to choose at
Speaker 1: any moment of the pregnancy up to birth. You know,
Speaker 1: because that's a Democrat. You have to there are certain
Speaker 1: crazy as a Democrat you have to embrace. There's certain
Speaker 1: crazy that there's just no way around, right. You have
Speaker 1: to know that this is the stuff you gotta say
Speaker 1: if you want to be in the Democrat good graces.
Speaker 1: You're you're just gonna have to, you know, go along
Speaker 1: for the ride on this stuff. There's really no way
Speaker 1: around it. But then there are areas where you can
Speaker 1: sort of tell who has ever run a business, or
Speaker 1: knows how to read a balance sheet, or or just
Speaker 1: operates in some version of reality and recognizes a lot
Speaker 1: of Democrat talking points as just that rabble rousing of
Speaker 1: the of the leftist mob, but not not really policy.
Speaker 1: And Delaney kind of strikes me as at least from
Speaker 1: what I got to talk to about today, one of
Speaker 1: those guys. I was very tired this morning, though, so
Speaker 1: I don't even remember much of what I said to him. Yeah. Sorry.
Speaker 1: You know, once you get in the once you get
Speaker 1: in the very latter stages of doing a TV show,
Speaker 1: you're kind of just like, all right, I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: there and then I'm gonna be done. But the interesting
Speaker 1: thing about Delaney saying Medicare for all is not good
Speaker 1: policy or good politics. He's right, let's start with the
Speaker 1: with the policy aspect of it, Medicare for all. How
Speaker 1: is this supposed to work? Well? Medicare is not a
Speaker 1: true single payer system. As I've pointed out before, there's
Speaker 1: cost sharing in Medicare, and if you're going to eliminate
Speaker 1: all of that cost sharing by though, the program would
Speaker 1: become even more expensive than what Medicare is right now.
Speaker 1: And I believe medicare part be people have said is
Speaker 1: effectively effectively run almost like a socialist democratic socialist. But
Speaker 1: that's a perhaps getting too deep in the weeds right now.
Speaker 1: But but Medicare in general, it's very popular with people,
Speaker 1: but it's popular for reasons that are not necessarily always good.
Speaker 1: Like most people who use medicare take out twice what
Speaker 1: they put into it, So it's being built on the
Speaker 1: backs of future generations and higher taxes and lower earnings
Speaker 1: and lesser quality of life financially, at least for future
Speaker 1: generations to pay for Medicare. Now, that's just a fact.
Speaker 1: You're going to expand that though, And you're gonna say
Speaker 1: everyone's gonna be able to get medicare, Okay, Well, then
Speaker 1: do you expand access to doctors? Do you expand the
Speaker 1: medical system itself? Because when people have no skin in
Speaker 1: the game, when they don't have to make decisions where
Speaker 1: am I going to spend my resources? Where am I not?
Speaker 1: I could have had I could have had ankle surgery,
Speaker 1: I could have fixed, I've fixed, I've got a deviated septum.
Speaker 1: I could fix a broken nose. I got a You know,
Speaker 1: I go through a whole whole list of different surgeries
Speaker 1: and procedures and things that I could have that I
Speaker 1: haven't done for one reason or another. But one of
Speaker 1: them is cost. One of them is I didn't want
Speaker 1: to write a check for however many thousands of dollars
Speaker 1: necessarily to have one thing done or another thing done.
Speaker 1: I didn't want to do some of these procedures and fixes,
Speaker 1: And but if it was all getting paid for by
Speaker 1: the state, I might say, yes, sign me up, no
Speaker 1: risk to me. You have to incentivize good choices. And look,
Speaker 1: this is another part of the healthcare system not everye
Speaker 1: wants to talk to talk about. You also have to
Speaker 1: incentivize people trying to be healthy. Now, I know that
Speaker 1: that there are a lot of people that you know.
Speaker 1: This is not saying that if someone gets sick, man,
Speaker 1: I've gotten very sick. I'm not saying that you can
Speaker 1: prevent getting sick. But you know, things like don't go skydiving,
Speaker 1: taking bong rips, eating a giant bucket of general so chicken,
Speaker 1: you know, five times a week, right, I mean, there
Speaker 1: are some things that you probably isn't general, so chicken
Speaker 1: delicious something you probably shouldn't do bad for your health.
Speaker 1: But if you're not going to have to deal with
Speaker 1: the financial consequences of ill health, that's at a macro
Speaker 1: social level, this is not a good idea. That's why
Speaker 1: having other people pay for all of your health careney,
Speaker 1: it's not good. What we should have in this country
Speaker 1: is catastrophic health insurance, right What we should have is
Speaker 1: a tiered catastrophic health insurance system. That's true insurance. We
Speaker 1: should stop thinking that our first expense is going to
Speaker 1: be the car payment and eating out, and start thinking that,
Speaker 1: you know, you've got to put aside some money for
Speaker 1: your reasonable medical expenses and maybe tear it so that
Speaker 1: people that make a certain amount of money, they're catastrophic
Speaker 1: coverage kicks in at this level and other people in
Speaker 1: another amount of money. Just like the tax system, and
Speaker 1: in any legitimate medical expense above X dollars goes, it
Speaker 1: goes into the actual insured you know, that is where
Speaker 1: you dip into the insured pool and you go from there.
Speaker 1: But that's it should be insurance. What we have now
Speaker 1: is just the redistribution of healthcare under the rubric of insurance.
Speaker 1: And that's not that's not what's supposed to happen. That's
Speaker 1: just dishonest. It's not what we're being told it is.
Speaker 1: But that is what it is, this whole ocean that
Speaker 1: you're gonna show up and you're gonna pay twenty dollars
Speaker 1: and see a doctor. It's gonna be a great doctor,
Speaker 1: and that's all you have have to worry about. That's
Speaker 1: just not realistic for everybody. That can't be shared by everyone.
Speaker 1: That's not going to happen. We don't have enough of that.
Speaker 1: We don't have enough resources to do that. People say, yes,
Speaker 1: we do, buck, No, we don't. I know plenty of
Speaker 1: people have to wait long time to see specialists. My
Speaker 1: specialist network in DC right now, and I have health
Speaker 1: insurance stinks. Stinks. Doctors I have access to in DC
Speaker 1: second or third tier and I have health insurance. If
Speaker 1: I've really got a problem, I end up going to
Speaker 1: a doctor that I'm like, look, here's you know, here's
Speaker 1: my visa card. As scary as that is, that's what
Speaker 1: you have to do sometimes. But on the bad politics
Speaker 1: of it, and this is where Delaney's obviously correct. On
Speaker 1: the bad politics side, you're gonna you're gonna take away
Speaker 1: one hundred and fifty million Americans private health insurance plans. Democrats,
Speaker 1: you really think that's you think that's a winning strategy.
Speaker 1: Tell them, sorry, this plan that's seventy percent of you like,
Speaker 1: it's gonna go away and we're gonna put you on
Speaker 1: the government plan. Oh okay, do any of you who
Speaker 1: have private health insurance listening to this wish? Oh? You
Speaker 1: know what? You know what I had? Instead a one
Speaker 1: size fits all mandated by Washington DC federal government healthcare
Speaker 1: plan where there's no one trying to watch out for costs,
Speaker 1: where there's no competition whatsoever for policies for business. It's
Speaker 1: just whatever the government tells me I'm gonna get. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know this is where you start to say, are
Speaker 1: they gonna, you know, hand out vouchers and tell us
Speaker 1: that we also can wait in breadlines? If this is crazy?
Speaker 1: This is crazy because all buck but look at the
Speaker 1: different healthcare. Yeah, there's a healthcare system in Canada. There
Speaker 1: is also a private health insurance market there. And I ask,
Speaker 1: yet again, do you want would you want to be
Speaker 1: really sick? Would you want to be in bad shape?
Speaker 1: In Canada? Or would you rather be really sick in
Speaker 1: the United States? Look at cancer survival rates, and there's
Speaker 1: a number of indicators for how the healthcare system performance
Speaker 1: here versus in other countries. And if you want, if
Speaker 1: you want Nordic government services, well then you better be
Speaker 1: prepared to pay tax rates sixty percent of your income. Everybody,
Speaker 1: everybody you know maybe a cutoff at like twenty grand.
Speaker 1: That's it. Everybody else you know above that SI So
Speaker 1: Delanney's right, but he gets booed for it. That's kind
Speaker 1: of a summation of the modern Democratic Party. If you're right,
Speaker 1: they boo you. We have a moral obligation now to
Speaker 1: investigate this precedent. Impeachment proceedings will give us more legal
Speaker 1: leverage to be able to get the information Congress needs
Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of what his administration has
Speaker 1: done while they're in office. The black and brown community
Speaker 1: is overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment. The Democratic base is
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly in favor of impeachment. The people who aren't are
Speaker 1: kind of white people in the middle right, truck drivers.
Speaker 1: You think that the president will be impeached, or at
Speaker 1: least proceedings will begin in the House at some point,
Speaker 1: but just not right now. Yes, exactly what I feel.
Speaker 1: Only impeachment gives them the leverage and the mechanism necessary
Speaker 1: for us to know exactly what has happened and who
Speaker 1: is responsible for that. I believe that the president deserves
Speaker 1: to be impeached. They all say it. They're all making
Speaker 1: a lot of noise about it. You know, Oh, he's
Speaker 1: got to be impeached, or we've got to use the
Speaker 1: impeachment proceeding. Notice how they go into the process again,
Speaker 1: favorite Democrat trick. Oh, we're not making a decision. We're
Speaker 1: just putting you through the process. We're not going to
Speaker 1: tell you what we're going to do to you. We're
Speaker 1: just going to make sure that you're miserable while we
Speaker 1: figure it out. You know, there's a reason why we have,
Speaker 1: for example, provisions like habeas corpus, and there are legal
Speaker 1: remedies for the government just holding you, just ruining you,
Speaker 1: breaking you while they process you. Right, And that's in
Speaker 1: fact why so much of our constitutional protection is a
Speaker 1: function of process protection. Because people who are in power
Speaker 1: often want to hide their real aim. They don't want
Speaker 1: to tell people what they're doing, and they love being
Speaker 1: able to rely on Oh, it's just the way we're
Speaker 1: just going through what we have to hear it. It
Speaker 1: is just the machinery at work of government, and that way,
Speaker 1: nobody's really responsible. Right, This is how the bureaucracy, for example,
Speaker 1: of a law enforcement agency can become in many ways
Speaker 1: immune to criticism or immune into oversight. Who's really responsible
Speaker 1: at the f behind the DJ for what was done
Speaker 1: to George Papadopoulos and Carter page A, Well, a bunch
Speaker 1: of people are responsible, and nobody's really responsible, and thus
Speaker 1: the system continues on unchanged and without accountability. Who's really
Speaker 1: responsible for pushing impeachment for well, a lot of Democrats
Speaker 1: and no Democrats. They talk about it. They say they
Speaker 1: want to investigate. They say, okay, what is he going
Speaker 1: to be impeached for? Well, they need to figure that out. Still, right,
Speaker 1: is it? What is the old line? I was kept wrong?
Speaker 1: The line from Alison Wonderland. You know, sentence verdict first
Speaker 1: trial later or sentence first trial later. This is what
Speaker 1: the Democrats, This is what the Democrats like to do. Well, well,
Speaker 1: they know he's guilty, and they know that they have
Speaker 1: a moral obligation to punish him for that guilt. But
Speaker 1: they first want to go through a trial because they're
Speaker 1: not going to jump to conclusions. This is what they
Speaker 1: say with a straight face. I mean, this is why
Speaker 1: Democrats are crazy. This, this has become a mental disorder.
Speaker 1: The whole Russia collusion thing really has turned into, you know,
Speaker 1: the equivalent of people who are are flat earthers or
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorists of one kind or another. There are no
Speaker 1: facts that will penetrate the bubble. There are there are
Speaker 1: no ideas that will make them reevaluate what they've already
Speaker 1: been led to or led themselves to believe. I was
Speaker 1: happy to see that there are others. You know, I
Speaker 1: tweeted out a few weeks ago about how if what
Speaker 1: they did to the Trump campaign isn't spying. I need
Speaker 1: to understand then, how the media has been writing about
Speaker 1: the spying on Martin Luther King Junior for a long time,
Speaker 1: and now William mcgern over the Wall Street Journals written
Speaker 1: about the FBI spying. What's it difference between surveillance of
Speaker 1: Carter Page and Martin Luther King. Well, this is so
Speaker 1: important because the reason that the media jumped out of
Speaker 1: their shorts the moment that Attorney General bar said that
Speaker 1: there was spying going on, is because spying has a connotation.
Speaker 1: It's not factually untrue at all. It is spying, spying
Speaker 1: and surveillance. Surveillance is just fancy French word for spying,
Speaker 1: so they all fancy French word for spying, same thing.
Speaker 1: But by saying spying, then it becomes very hard to
Speaker 1: control the narrative. Right then they understand that connotation and
Speaker 1: the flavor of words, the way that words bring about
Speaker 1: certain thoughts, and there are responses that come along with
Speaker 1: hearing them. Democrats know this. I mean, when you're in
Speaker 1: a propaganda fight, you pay very close attention to the
Speaker 1: specifics of the words used. But that's why I find
Speaker 1: it so interesting that the Democrats really tip their hand
Speaker 1: on this instead of immediately saying whatever you want, it
Speaker 1: was legitimate, they really didn't want that word to be
Speaker 1: used because they know about the effect it'll have on
Speaker 1: public perception. And I think Attorney General bar has scored
Speaker 1: some major hits, major hits on these deep state clowns
Speaker 1: by just being very rational and reasonable and not getting
Speaker 1: flustered and working through these you know, still one of
Speaker 1: my favorite things of all times in the press conference
Speaker 1: he had where that reporter chimes in, you guys, remember
Speaker 1: this Attorney General Bars talking about the initial Muel report
Speaker 1: the first press conference he had, and he referred to
Speaker 1: something as unprecedented, and as female reporter, I forget you
Speaker 1: referred to I mean, but like you're just like making
Speaker 1: these judgments and you just referred to what's happened to
Speaker 1: the president as unprecedented, and part goes, is there a
Speaker 1: precedent for it? And she goes no, and he goes, well,
Speaker 1: then it's unprecedented. Yes, that was that, and his line
Speaker 1: everybody he dies is I mean, this guy, he's my
Speaker 1: He is my favorite government official right now. Attorney I'm
Speaker 1: just gonna say an Attorney General Barr is my spirit animal.
Speaker 1: He is number one. He is you know, far and away.
Speaker 1: I'm like, Trump's amazing for what he does too. But
Speaker 1: in terms of everybody who's working for the administration, I mean,
Speaker 1: Pompeo probably comes in for me at number three, but
Speaker 1: bar Is bar is definitely, you know, number number two.
Speaker 1: He's my number one trump Man. And he's not even
Speaker 1: a Trumpster. He's just a guy who understands the bare
Speaker 1: knuckle realities of politics in DC. Isn't gonna get flustered.
Speaker 1: Isn't gonna flee the battlefield. And this is why Adam Schiff,
Speaker 1: that slimy, low life of a congressman, keeps on trying
Speaker 1: to come back at Bar with whatever he can. I mean,
Speaker 1: he called think listen to this, He called him, well, first,
Speaker 1: let's talk about the spying issue. Playclip fively. Only throw
Speaker 1: out terms like spying and pretend he doesn't know just
Speaker 1: how pejorative of that term is. He is a smart
Speaker 1: man and understands exactly how incendiary what his allegation is,
Speaker 1: and it's designed to be. That's that's why he is,
Speaker 1: I think, falling into such legitimate criticism for acting as
Speaker 1: effectively a henchman of the president, henchman of the president.
Speaker 1: Notice notice how shift in that one sound by This
Speaker 1: is classic shifty shift. He criticizes Bar for the usage
Speaker 1: of a term that's pejorative and unnecessary, and then goes
Speaker 1: on to use a completely pejorative and unnecessary term for Bar.
Speaker 1: He could say that he's being you know, he's being
Speaker 1: a partisan for the president, a henchman, you know, for
Speaker 1: the president who henchman of Trump. Yeah, the term spying
Speaker 1: is pejorative because all spying without justifications. Here's one shifty shift.
Speaker 1: If I were spying on Russia right now, is that
Speaker 1: a good thing or a bad thing? Well, if I
Speaker 1: were spying, then I'm spying. If you ask an American buck,
Speaker 1: spying on Russia is probably a good thing. If you
Speaker 1: ask a Russian, they say it's a bad thing. Who's
Speaker 1: really right? Spying exists in this gray area, doesn't it?
Speaker 1: The act itself is neither good nor bad. It has
Speaker 1: to be justified. I know something about this because it
Speaker 1: used to work for a spying agency. And that's where
Speaker 1: the Democrats fall apart. Justify this, then let's establish that
Speaker 1: there was spying because there was now justified all they
Speaker 1: can't and they know this Inspector General report is coming
Speaker 1: out in a matter of weeks, and they know that
Speaker 1: it is going to drop like a piano off the
Speaker 1: proverbial rooftop onto the Russia collusion line. And that's why
Speaker 1: Schiff is going after Bar so hard here play four,
Speaker 1: because they are stonewalling us on just about everything. It
Speaker 1: also means that we might not know unless whistle blower
Speaker 1: step forward, whether Bill Barr is abusing his authority, and
Speaker 1: beyond the fundamental abuse by trying to exonerate the president
Speaker 1: on obstruction of justice. And so we find ourselves, i think,
Speaker 1: for the first time, with an attorney general who really
Speaker 1: is the president's defense lawyer and spokesperson, and who's quite
Speaker 1: good at it and has the veneer of respectability to
Speaker 1: camouflage what he's doing. He is not the sophist that
Speaker 1: Giuliani is. He's much more dangerous, and I think he's
Speaker 1: the second most dangerous man in the country for that reason.
Speaker 1: He's the second greatest man in the government right now.
Speaker 1: I love it. All you have to know about bar
Speaker 1: Is how much the Libs hate him, and how much
Speaker 1: how much he rattles them. Schiff is rattled by this guy,
Speaker 1: and you can hear when he's talking about him, because
Speaker 1: bar smarter than Adam schiff Is. Bar Is a better lawyer.
Speaker 1: Bar is tactically the equal of any of these slimy,
Speaker 1: underhanded Democrats on Capitol Hill. That's why they hate him.
Speaker 1: He's done nothing unethical, nothing wrong. In fact, he's been
Speaker 1: a rock star all along, and yet they say things
Speaker 1: like he's the second most dangerous man in the country,
Speaker 1: dangerous to the Psycholibs. Maybe democratic leadership in the House
Speaker 1: they have a new policy meant to protect incumbents people
Speaker 1: are currently in office. The policy is no challenger to
Speaker 1: that seat, No consultant can work with a challenger to
Speaker 1: that seat. Now. The idea is to help keep the
Speaker 1: people who are in Congress, make them stay in Congress.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem. Two thirds of those people in those
Speaker 1: safe house seats are older, white men. The people who
Speaker 1: are making the challenges often often female, often younger, often
Speaker 1: people of color. So people are looking at this new
Speaker 1: policy and they're thinking, not a good look for the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. Unintended consequences are going to change. Do we
Speaker 1: think that, I don't know. We'll have to stay tuned
Speaker 1: all talking about it tomorrow. White men are everywhere, Tony,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, white men are everywhere. I know. I
Speaker 1: know she was hitting, But in the context of the segment,
Speaker 1: there's a reason she made that joke, and it's because
Speaker 1: notice that reporter that was on CBS talking about how
Speaker 1: there are there's this essentially a white privilege protection racket
Speaker 1: in Congress now, and that it's a bad look for
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party to have in place anything that benefits incumbents.
Speaker 1: I would just like to put something out there for
Speaker 1: the for the left to chew on to think about
Speaker 1: a little bit, maybe just maybe the reason that there
Speaker 1: are all of these different incumbents who are trying to
Speaker 1: pass these rules in the House that will or in
Speaker 1: the Congress that will protect them is just because they
Speaker 1: are people who want to maintain their positions and their power.
Speaker 1: And it's not, in fact a program that is rooted
Speaker 1: in racism. You know. Maybe individuals like their power, like
Speaker 1: their stuff, like to be important no matter who they are,
Speaker 1: and when they have they have an ability to maintain that,
Speaker 1: they will do that. But it's not about skin color,
Speaker 1: you know. They like to make things about race that
Speaker 1: I think quite often, well I think very frequently, it
Speaker 1: actually has nothing to do with race. It's much more
Speaker 1: about class structure or about basic basic power dynamics that
Speaker 1: are not necessarily reflective of any kind of racial thinking.
Speaker 1: But this is also now a this is also a
Speaker 1: problem the Democrats have with their field. You have this
Speaker 1: this party that talks all the time about how it
Speaker 1: is about is so motivated to help minorities and to
Speaker 1: push for you know, better advancement and economic justice and
Speaker 1: social justice and all this stuff, particularly for marginalize and
Speaker 1: undermined groups. And there's a very real question, by the way,
Speaker 1: as to whether in Americans decide today it's really fair
Speaker 1: to call some of these groups undermined and marginal As
Speaker 1: a function of law, there are now quote A press
Speaker 1: groups that have extra legal rights. This is just a fact.
Speaker 1: There is no legal discrimination against some of the groups
Speaker 1: the left US is marginalized, but there is legalized discrimination
Speaker 1: against people not in those groups. And then and when
Speaker 1: you bring this up, you're just part of the patriarchy
Speaker 1: and white privilege and you're a bad person. You're not
Speaker 1: allowed to have a real discussion about it. But there's
Speaker 1: this sense of shame that Democrats have. And it's not
Speaker 1: just this the CBS report I've never seen or heard
Speaker 1: of before. There is this sense of, oh, gosh, you know,
Speaker 1: what are we going to do? We have Biden and
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, two older white males who are leading a
Speaker 1: Democrat field that has a number of minorities, a number
Speaker 1: of women, a number of well one member of the
Speaker 1: LGBT community. So why is that the case within democrats circles?
Speaker 1: If diversity and inclusiveness or inclusion are so important, shouldn't
Speaker 1: democrats lead by example? But then you think we'll hold on.
Speaker 1: Do Democrats lead by example in a lot of other
Speaker 1: areas of public life? Do they lead by example on
Speaker 1: climate change? Do they lead by example on paying more
Speaker 1: to the federal government in taxes than they have to
Speaker 1: because they want because they want to show people that
Speaker 1: that's so important. No, of course not. They like the
Speaker 1: power to force other people to do things that they
Speaker 1: think are good, but they don't want to necessarily be
Speaker 1: included in those who are forced. So they want to
Speaker 1: bash Republicans for being a party of older white males
Speaker 1: and then don't really know what to do when turns
Speaker 1: out there are a lot of Democrats who are very
Speaker 1: powerful who are older white males. There are a lot
Speaker 1: of Democrats who don't want that system to change, largely
Speaker 1: because they're the people who are in power. But yeah,
Speaker 1: what white men are? White men are everywhere? There's there
Speaker 1: is this really kind of pathetic debasing of whiteness that
Speaker 1: a lot of Democrat officials have to go through. Now,
Speaker 1: who are white people like Eric Swalwell, who whoever? We
Speaker 1: played that audio for you and he was saying, well,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, I'm just I understand a privilege. And
Speaker 1: there's some areas I can't understand. And you know, sometimes
Speaker 1: I just the self flagellation, not to be confused, not
Speaker 1: to be confused with flatulation, flagellation that occurs from all
Speaker 1: these democrats. It's it's kind of a pathetic spectacle. But
Speaker 1: it's because ultimately all of this is really nonsense. It
Speaker 1: has no meaning. Even if you talk about white privilege incessantly,
Speaker 1: which democrats these days do, and as I've noted for
Speaker 1: you on this show, that's a relatively recent phenomenon. The
Speaker 1: whole discussion of white privilege is something that we have
Speaker 1: to talk about that's just popped up in last few years.
Speaker 1: The phrase white privilege and the usage of white supremacy
Speaker 1: as a term, something that I've noted, has expanded far beyond.
Speaker 1: You know, when I was growing up, you thought of
Speaker 1: white supremacy as something along the lines of the movie
Speaker 1: American History X and Neo Nazis and shaved Head, you know,
Speaker 1: Jack Boot of Thugs and all that. Oh No, Now,
Speaker 1: white supremacy is too many white guys in the halls
Speaker 1: of Congress. Now white supremacy is you not accepting that
Speaker 1: maybe you haven't earned what you have because you are
Speaker 1: assuming those of you. Some of you who are listening
Speaker 1: are white. Many of you who are listening are white.
Speaker 1: You haven't earned fully what you have because it came
Speaker 1: via white privilege. And if you don't accept that, well
Speaker 1: then you're actually part of the problem. And this is
Speaker 1: the this is the way the argument on the left
Speaker 1: is supposed to go. That part of it is not
Speaker 1: particularly new. I remember being in college and I was
Speaker 1: told that if you work against racism, then you're okay.
Speaker 1: But if you merely sit idly by your presence, your
Speaker 1: mere existence is an enabling of racism. You must join
Speaker 1: with the left. You must be an ally, a term
Speaker 1: they like to use a lot. But older white male Democrats, folks,
Speaker 1: They the Democrats don't know what to do about the
Speaker 1: fact that they still have far too many older white
Speaker 1: males in positions of authority. So I wonder what, I
Speaker 1: wonder what the way forward for them will be. We
Speaker 1: will have to see. I have a feeling that they're
Speaker 1: going to have an older white male who turns out
Speaker 1: to be their nominee. I still think it could be
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders. I know that's crazy. Joe, Look, Joe, Biden's
Speaker 1: gonna lose if it's Joe Biden's gonna lose, So I
Speaker 1: still think it's gonna be Bernie Sanders. But maybe I'm
Speaker 1: you know, maybe I'm getting to be an older white
Speaker 1: male myself, and so my opinion on this, I suppose
Speaker 1: is irrelevant should be pushed aside. I'm just part of
Speaker 1: the white male patriarchy. We'll be right back. Many of
Speaker 1: you who listen to this show know that I can
Speaker 1: be a bit of a skeptic about scientific consensus on
Speaker 1: a number of things. One of the areas, oh gosh,
Speaker 1: don't even get me started, are there's so many of them.
Speaker 1: One of the areas, why don't doctors know more about
Speaker 1: gastro intestinal health, gut flora, the microbiome. They know very
Speaker 1: little about it. It's it's shocking when you talk to
Speaker 1: most mds about what's going on in your gi track
Speaker 1: as somebody who has ciliac. Let me tell you, I'm like, hey,
Speaker 1: why does this thing happen to me? This celiac disease?
Speaker 1: Doctors like I don't know, you know, autoimmune disorders of
Speaker 1: all kinds. Why does the immune system attack itself? We
Speaker 1: don't know. The best they can do is usually give
Speaker 1: people steroids of some kind or try to give them
Speaker 1: something that will dampen the immune response so it stops
Speaker 1: basically eating at the body that it's supposed to be protecting.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of areas where we just don't have
Speaker 1: the kind of knowledge that those of us who look
Speaker 1: at the world around us with our handheld supercomputers and
Speaker 1: our constant you know, photo and video connectivity and man
Speaker 1: on the moon and all this crazy stuff that we
Speaker 1: can do. That was a while ago, I know, but
Speaker 1: or was it? But I'm kidding. I'm kidding. There's no
Speaker 1: man on the moon truth or stuff going on here?
Speaker 1: Or is there? But one area that I always find
Speaker 1: so funny is nutrition and the impact of different foods
Speaker 1: on your health. Is milk good for you depends on
Speaker 1: what day you google? Is milk good for you? Depends
Speaker 1: on what year you're asking. I've told you before about
Speaker 1: how I remember as a kid going to school seeing
Speaker 1: these palettes of disgusting margarine on our lunch tables at
Speaker 1: school and thinking that's not food. Why are they making? Oh,
Speaker 1: because it's better for you than actual butter. Turns out
Speaker 1: that's not true, And then you look back at the
Speaker 1: craze of light and sugar free and fat free, and
Speaker 1: all these different these are all bad bad things. Replacing
Speaker 1: sugar with chemicals that tastes like sugar is almost always
Speaker 1: a bad idea, and removing fat from foods is a
Speaker 1: bad idea. All these things, and now here we have
Speaker 1: another one. You're like, back, why are you getting to
Speaker 1: this today? Here's a study on Yes CNN. So is
Speaker 1: it fake news? Probably? But the study says the following,
Speaker 1: white meat is just as bad for you as red
Speaker 1: beef when it comes to your cholesterol level. I can't
Speaker 1: tell you how many times I've been in a doctor's
Speaker 1: office somewhere or heard a doctor say somewhere, limit your
Speaker 1: red meat, intake eat more, eat more chicken, and eat
Speaker 1: more white meat. You know, don't eat the dark meat
Speaker 1: of the chicken. Don't eat the skin of the chicken.
Speaker 1: It's gonna make you have high cholesterol, or it could
Speaker 1: add to you having high cholesterol. Turns out, eating chicken
Speaker 1: just as bad as eating red meat, according to this study.
Speaker 1: Now is it true, I don't know. Will it be
Speaker 1: true tomorrow? I don't know. But the point here is
Speaker 1: that you kind to kind of make your own choices
Speaker 1: and learn your own stuff about all of this. If
Speaker 1: you're relying on our scientific betters, the wisdom of science
Speaker 1: hashtag science for some of this stuff, you're not going
Speaker 1: to get an answer. You have to read about it yourself.
Speaker 1: You have to figure out what works for you. Eggs,
Speaker 1: for example, I remember being told, oh, no, you can't
Speaker 1: have eggs every day. Why not? Turns out that eggs
Speaker 1: every day does not increase your cholesterol. Really, the worst
Speaker 1: thing for you is sugar. But there are so many
Speaker 1: companies that have that make billions of dollars off of
Speaker 1: products that are largely sugar driven. In sugar basse that
Speaker 1: that's not a message that anybody wants to get out there.
Speaker 1: I mean, that is true. Sugar is very addictive and
Speaker 1: very bad for you, but people don't get told that. Instead,
Speaker 1: we're told, oh, you know, don't eat don't eat the
Speaker 1: fattier cut of red meat. Make sure you just eat
Speaker 1: the part that you don't really want to eat. I
Speaker 1: disagree with all that, but that's right eating chicken, folks.
Speaker 1: Eating chicken can also cause a spike, according to the
Speaker 1: study your cholesterol. I don't think that. I think it's
Speaker 1: amazing at this point, given how much heart disease is
Speaker 1: a major health issue and really still considered. I mean,
Speaker 1: a heart disase and cancer are the two biggest health
Speaker 1: issues in this country, although I think diabetes is getting
Speaker 1: right up there now, type two diabetes, not type one.
Speaker 1: But what we don't know about bodies and about health
Speaker 1: and is it really seems to just always outrank what
Speaker 1: we do know. There's so many important areas where science
Speaker 1: is still in its infancy. And if someone can't answer
Speaker 1: the question at this point whether butter is something you
Speaker 1: should eat, whether red meat, whether whole fat milk. I've
Speaker 1: been drinking whole fat milk for a long time. I
Speaker 1: can tell you I was doing better with whole fat
Speaker 1: milk than it was with skim milk, which, as you know,
Speaker 1: is water that's lying about being milk. Hashtag Ron Swanson
Speaker 1: hashtag roll calls up next, seeing Bud, it's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. It's that time to take a chance, just
Speaker 1: relax and do the role call. Yeah, Facebook dot Com
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton. How many of you even remember Cats Stevens.
Speaker 1: Actually a lot of you probably remember how much better
Speaker 1: than I do. Remember my one of my coaches used
Speaker 1: to say he was a big Cat Stevens fan. He
Speaker 1: said guys, you're at a party. All you gotta do
Speaker 1: is just put on the cat and let the cat purr.
Speaker 1: And I thought that was a cool thing to say
Speaker 1: at the time. Now that I said out loud, it's
Speaker 1: kind of weird, all right, Jane Rights, Hey, Buck, heard
Speaker 1: you say on your show last night you were an
Speaker 1: ancestor of the forgotten founder George Mason. Maybe one of
Speaker 1: the most important He gave us the Bill of Rights.
Speaker 1: That is correct, Jane. He wrote the Virginia Bill of Rights,
Speaker 1: which was largely used as a model for the Bill
Speaker 1: of Rights. And yeah, and I'm sure if my dad's
Speaker 1: listening to the show right now he often listens, he's saying, Buck,
Speaker 1: you're absolutely direct descendant George Mason. Okay, I believe it.
Speaker 1: I just don't really spend a lot of time on
Speaker 1: the ancestry dot com stuff Michael Ryan's Buck. Since we
Speaker 1: know the story Hillary Steel dossier, Muller investigation, shouldn't the
Speaker 1: Democrat candidates be asked what they think about it and
Speaker 1: what they would do. Since they want to be president
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty, they shouldn't get away with pretending it
Speaker 1: didn't happen and supporting Trump impeachment. Get them on the record, Well, Michael,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's hard to get them on the
Speaker 1: record about this. I think they talk about it all
Speaker 1: the time, and they are finding different ways or they're
Speaker 1: trying to find the most effective ways to be the
Speaker 1: most anti Trump and to bash Trump with the most
Speaker 1: the most viciousness that they possibly can. So that's something
Speaker 1: that they are certainly working on, and I don't think
Speaker 1: it's going to be difficult to get them to say that.
Speaker 1: In fact, I think they're going to try to outdo
Speaker 1: one another. Here we go. Marissa writes, Hey, back, my
Speaker 1: husband is a huge fan. You're a household name around here.
Speaker 1: Though I don't get to listen in as often as
Speaker 1: my husband, I always enjoy what you have to share.
Speaker 1: He's told me all about your beard, so I feel
Speaker 1: the need to share with you a product my small
Speaker 1: company makes for the bearded gentleman like yourself. I founded
Speaker 1: Wilder North Botanicals four years ago and formulated to beard oils,
Speaker 1: the Woodsman and the Marine. They smell good, they condition
Speaker 1: your beard, and there were one hundred percent natural and
Speaker 1: cruelty free. And if you're interested to let me know
Speaker 1: where I can send them. Thank you, Marissa. Well, Marissa,
Speaker 1: that sounds great, and I'm happy to send you the
Speaker 1: address of the Freedom hudd and if you want to
Speaker 1: send a couple of those long I'll definitely give them
Speaker 1: a shot. Although I really chopped the beard down today,
Speaker 1: I'll have to post a photo on the Instagram, which
Speaker 1: reminds me. If you're listening to the podcast, follow me
Speaker 1: on the gram the Instagram. Buck Sexton is my handle.
Speaker 1: It's pretty easy. It's a weird name, easy to remember.
Speaker 1: There are other buck Sextons, though, believe it or not,
Speaker 1: I'm not the only one running around out there. Glenn. Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: awesome show. Between you and Rush I get all the
Speaker 1: rational news I need daily. Well, thank you, Glenn. That
Speaker 1: puts me in the most elite company. Could you please
Speaker 1: take some time to evaluate the chances of a Republican
Speaker 1: take back of the House and keep in Congress. Also,
Speaker 1: hope you check out our new app, Parlor, like Twitter,
Speaker 1: but with free speech, no banning. Glenn, I haven't heard
Speaker 1: about Parlor or is it Parlay? You wrote Parlor here.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but I'm guessing it might be Parlay,
Speaker 1: or maybe I'm wrong. I don't know. P A R
Speaker 1: L R or O R as to a Republican take
Speaker 1: back of the House. It's just so hard to assess
Speaker 1: anything accurately right now, I mean, even to do analysis
Speaker 1: of it. The landscape is going to change between now
Speaker 1: an election day in some pretty profound ways. So I
Speaker 1: don't think it. I don't think I can really tell
Speaker 1: you much other than I know that the Senate map
Speaker 1: is going to be somewhat unfavorable for Democrats, which is
Speaker 1: a good thing for Republicans. And in terms of the House,
Speaker 1: look at the economy strong. I think we're in good
Speaker 1: shape because you'll also have Trump atop the ticket, which
Speaker 1: you did not have in the mid term. And generally speaking,
Speaker 1: if you have a president who's presiding over good economy
Speaker 1: and gonna cruise to reelection, I think you're in good
Speaker 1: shape with trying to get the House of Representatives back
Speaker 1: under control. Kathy sent a wow, Hey, Buck, we just
Speaker 1: ditched cable because Hulu now has Foxed News. We save
Speaker 1: a lot by ditching by ditching Google TV. Also, my
Speaker 1: husband and I are original Saturday Team Buck. It was
Speaker 1: seriously the best hours of our Saturdays. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: Good for you for speaking your mind. Always We'll always
Speaker 1: have your back. My husband made those team buck backs
Speaker 1: for a meetup that we left one for you at
Speaker 1: the Blaze studios. Hopefully you got it, Kathy, that is
Speaker 1: so cool, this team buck meet up back. I did
Speaker 1: not get it, unfortunately, so I will call the Blaze
Speaker 1: and demand my team buck bag. That looks really cool
Speaker 1: what you send me. Thank you so much. And man's
Speaker 1: that's an old photo. I was a youth I was
Speaker 1: a youthful, A youthful, A youthful, A youthful young buck
Speaker 1: in that photo. Still youthful. I hope working on it.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, skip rights. It occurs to me that
Speaker 1: even if we violent evil gun owners were to turn
Speaker 1: in all of our guns, we would still be violent,
Speaker 1: evil people, just unarmed. Then they would want to do
Speaker 1: something to intercede in our violent evil and has perhaps
Speaker 1: in turn us in re education camps, and when that failed,
Speaker 1: extermination we'll skip. That's a little intense, my friend. But
Speaker 1: I your initial point there about how you'll still be
Speaker 1: considered violent evil people by leftist that's absolutely true. Your
Speaker 1: gun ownership and support of the Second Amendment is merely
Speaker 1: used as a proxy by your political opponents for why
Speaker 1: you're not a good person because you if you are
Speaker 1: a gun owner and you support the Second Amendment, you
Speaker 1: tend to also be more fiscally conservative. It's likely, but
Speaker 1: not necessarily the case. You're socially conservative. More likely you
Speaker 1: go to church on Sunday, more likely you're married, more
Speaker 1: all these things that they broadly identify with conservatism, and
Speaker 1: it has become a major cultural a defining cultural separation.
Speaker 1: That's so there you have it. Yes, Indeed, Tom rides
Speaker 1: Buck use the term brainless democrat robots not to tell
Speaker 1: you how to do your job, but it's such redundancy
Speaker 1: necessary on air, keep out the otherwise, great work and
Speaker 1: looking forward to more Shields High podcasts. Well, can't a
Speaker 1: robot have an artificial and I don't know an artificial brain?
Speaker 1: Do you guys? Remember Krang from Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles?
Speaker 1: A few of you know what I'm talking about. Very
Speaker 1: few of you though, it was like your brain that
Speaker 1: was going to takeover world and head to short like
Speaker 1: talk to see. He had like a kind of a
Speaker 1: like saliva talking thing craying the brain. I don't know, Okay,
Speaker 1: I know weird, you guys think I'm I am weird.
Speaker 1: I sit and talk to myself basically. Well, I mean
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of you, but I sit and talk
Speaker 1: into a microphone for three hours every day. That's normal people.
Speaker 1: Producer Mike is shaking his head. Yes, right, and normal
Speaker 1: people don't really do that. It's a thing that only
Speaker 1: weird people do. I seem although I was told recently
Speaker 1: that somebody somebody said that the only thing about me
Speaker 1: that they felt like wasn't good for media was that
Speaker 1: I was too nice and too normal. And I took
Speaker 1: that as I took that as a compliment. I'm like, Okay, well,
Speaker 1: I mean, not good for my media career maybe, but
Speaker 1: I'm too nice and too normal. Uh, let's see we
Speaker 1: have But I'm not that nice. I mean, I'm pretty nice,
Speaker 1: not that nice. Caroline writes, Hey, Buck, I've heard you
Speaker 1: downplay the effect of Russia's interference in our election, Whereas
Speaker 1: I agree there is no effect on election. Come, I
Speaker 1: don't think that's the real aim of the Russian interference.
Speaker 1: The Russians weren't trying to get Trump elected as much
Speaker 1: as they were trying to undermine American confidence in our
Speaker 1: governmental system. They exposed corruption at the DNC by showing
Speaker 1: how Hilary had the primary rigged. They so discord among
Speaker 1: American political factions and eroded our belief that we are
Speaker 1: capable of rational self governance. You describe the interference as
Speaker 1: a prank, which it was, but wow, it worked like
Speaker 1: a charm. It has all the trappings of a Russian
Speaker 1: disinformation scheme, which they are infamous for. And I'm sure
Speaker 1: Commybert is laughing up his red sleeve. Thanks for all
Speaker 1: you do. Looking forward to some more history deep dives
Speaker 1: shields High. Carolyn, Well, Carolyn, as to the purpose of
Speaker 1: the Russian interference, I cannot disagree with you. I think
Speaker 1: that you are on track with the overall aim and
Speaker 1: I think that in that way interference and undermine of
Speaker 1: confidence and really also just the exacerbation of the nastiest
Speaker 1: of political divides. All of that, all of that together
Speaker 1: is what is the strategic aim of was the strategic
Speaker 1: aim of the Russian disinformation disinformatzia? Is that right? Or
Speaker 1: is it disinformazia or disinformatzia. I think it's disinformatzia. I
Speaker 1: don't know. I don't speak any of Russian. It's fun
Speaker 1: to pretend, though, and that's that was what they were
Speaker 1: hoping for, which means that the Democrats playing ball with
Speaker 1: all this stuff really and magnifying it and making it worse,
Speaker 1: and that really helps out what the Russians were trying
Speaker 1: to accomplish all along. So I think that we need
Speaker 1: to keep keep that in mind. The Russians, they always
Speaker 1: accused people on the other side of playing into someone's hands.
Speaker 1: You know, Oh, Trump is playing into Putin's hands. Trump
Speaker 1: is playing into Putin's hands. To that, I would just say, well,
Speaker 1: if you look at who was really playing into Russian hands,
Speaker 1: the way that the Democrats reacted to all of this
Speaker 1: is exactly what the Russians would have wanted all along.
Speaker 1: So there you have it. Trump is playing on the
Speaker 1: last day that what Trump is playing into Putin's hand
Speaker 1: because they always freak out about it. Man, Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: so funny, isn't it. Democrats have so much the left
Speaker 1: has so much control over the culture, but the people
Speaker 1: that they put forward in the news and information business
Speaker 1: are generally charmless nerds, you know, take themselves very seriously,
Speaker 1: not very impressive. They're like that they weren't they weren't
Speaker 1: swab enough and appeal like enough to be actors, so
Speaker 1: they figured they'd work at like CBS, eving News or something.
Speaker 1: That's that's the way it works. All right, Let's see
Speaker 1: what we have here. Let's say what we have here
Speaker 1: and in the inbox? Shall we? Oh? Oh, here we go?
Speaker 1: Here we go? Lad Max? Right, Hey, Bucks, sorry about
Speaker 1: the misque. I can help correct your celiac. I enjoy
Speaker 1: the show very much on Amazon Prime. I enjoyed Bosh
Speaker 1: a thinking man show. And if you want to contact
Speaker 1: me here it is Peace and Shields, hie. I can
Speaker 1: help correct your celiac. Well, Max, that would that would
Speaker 1: be quite a magic trick, my friend. So maybe I'll
Speaker 1: have to email you. But if you're if you're gonna
Speaker 1: ask me for my bank account information because you know
Speaker 1: a Nigerian prince who has the secret to a celiac
Speaker 1: disease cure, I don't think I'm gonna give it to you.
Speaker 1: I'm just kidding, buddy. I appreciate the offer, and I'll
Speaker 1: shoot you an email. See what you got in mind.
Speaker 1: As to the rest of the show. I think that's
Speaker 1: gonna be it for today. Team. Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for writing in, for listening, for hanging out I'll be
Speaker 1: with you tomorrow. I'll be with you every day, same time,
Speaker 1: same place, Shields Hi