Speaker 1: The tariff war with Mexico could in fact be on
Speaker 1: my friends, This is in addition to what Trump is
Speaker 1: trying with China. We will talk about whether this is
Speaker 1: the right policy move, could it help finally secure the border.
Speaker 1: Plus Bernie Sanders says that the Soviet Union was bad,
Speaker 1: but isn't that kind of new for him because didn't
Speaker 1: he go there. We've got that, plus Biden's plagiarism and
Speaker 1: a whole lot more coming up on The Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: And we've been working with decades from Mexico to be
Speaker 1: equal partners to resolve this problem, and they've remained on
Speaker 1: the sidelines from day one. They only have about one
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty miles of chunk point of the border
Speaker 1: that they need to enforce, and we have two thousand.
Speaker 1: We need Mexico to do to do three things. We
Speaker 1: need them to do their interdiction along their border, We
Speaker 1: need them to attack and target the TCOs that are
Speaker 1: profiting from this, and we need them to be partners
Speaker 1: with respect of the side them process. I think that
Speaker 1: this pressure is going to bring them to the table
Speaker 1: and get them closer to doing what they should be doing.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody fight over the
Speaker 1: border is heating up. How much is for sure at
Speaker 1: this point? Do you have Republicans who are getting a
Speaker 1: little bit a little auntie, a little concerned about what
Speaker 1: the economic implications will be from this possible tariff and
Speaker 1: tariff escalation that will come. It starts next week five
Speaker 1: percent on all goods from Mexico into this country, driving
Speaker 1: hundreds of billions of dollars of goods overall, and that
Speaker 1: will only go up from there, right, it will be
Speaker 1: even more. This is a heck of a lot more.
Speaker 1: Three hundred and fifty billion dollars a year of Mexican
Speaker 1: imports is what we're dealing with here. So five percent
Speaker 1: and then ten percent and then fifteen percents a lot
Speaker 1: of money. And this is in addition to what Trump
Speaker 1: has already taken on with tariffs against China to try
Speaker 1: to force China to the table on ending its unfair
Speaker 1: predatory trading practices, intellectual property theft, all other things. And
Speaker 1: I do believe the President has largely on the substance,
Speaker 1: won that argument as to whether we should confront China
Speaker 1: before Trump came along. Oh no, we can't do that
Speaker 1: trade war. Oh it's terrible now and says, well, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, what have the Chinese really been doing?
Speaker 1: And what does the future look like if we don't
Speaker 1: take a different posture when it comes to China. But
Speaker 1: now he's looking at Mexico and it's like, all right,
Speaker 1: maybe we're the tariffs there too. I do have a
Speaker 1: little bit of a concern that tariffs now are the
Speaker 1: hammer and that Trump sees everything because he's got that
Speaker 1: hammer as a nail. But maybe this does work, and
Speaker 1: it certainly would work better if Republicans didn't at the
Speaker 1: first sign of any friction, of any political and economic
Speaker 1: cost suggest this is now the Senate Republicans who at
Speaker 1: a lot of chrony capitalist, quasi open borders donor class
Speaker 1: Republicans in the Senate, that's where you find a lot
Speaker 1: of them, and they get very concerned about this and
Speaker 1: what it would mean, what it would mean for their
Speaker 1: reelection prospects, I think, and also it would have a
Speaker 1: negative impact on some businesses, and there will be some
Speaker 1: economic pain that comes from this. I don't think there's
Speaker 1: any question about that. But there's another aspect of this
Speaker 1: that we have to think about, and that is what
Speaker 1: is acceptable right now? What is an acceptable future for
Speaker 1: us when it comes to the border. I mean you
Speaker 1: had Mark Morgan there to start off the segment here
Speaker 1: talking about how Mexico can do more than it is
Speaker 1: doing to help us out on this and should do more.
Speaker 1: He says, there needs to be interdiction along the more
Speaker 1: interdiction along the border, attack the criminal organizations, and be
Speaker 1: partners in the asylum process. How many months now have
Speaker 1: I been saying to you and Mexico needs to become
Speaker 1: a safe third country and we need an agreement with
Speaker 1: them to be a safe third country, meaning that anyone
Speaker 1: who wants to get asylum in this country would show
Speaker 1: up here, present themselves, but stay on the Mexican side
Speaker 1: of the US Mexico border and have their process adjudicated
Speaker 1: without them disappearing into the American interior, without the enormous
Speaker 1: magnet that exists right now for fraud, for lawbreaking, and
Speaker 1: for making a mockery of our immigration process by either
Speaker 1: presenting oneself as a family unit when that's not the case,
Speaker 1: or just knowing that as a family unit, if you
Speaker 1: come to the border, you're going to be released into
Speaker 1: the American interior, and then there will be no real effort,
Speaker 1: no real accountability to track you down afterwards. If this
Speaker 1: doesn't change, then our situation at the border will not change.
Speaker 1: It will only continue at one hundred thousand plus a
Speaker 1: month coming into this country, and we will not have
Speaker 1: a border that anybody could seriously consider secure. It's not
Speaker 1: secure right now. It's the worst that it has been
Speaker 1: in a very long time. Completely overwhelmed, is what you're hearing.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the description from the border patrol has
Speaker 1: been for weeks. Arrests have surged to a seven year
Speaker 1: high while these talks with Mexico are going on. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: but I have a tough time believing that we could
Speaker 1: be at a point where we're setting records right now,
Speaker 1: after all the attention to this issue has gotten and
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, more than one hundred and forty four thousand,
Speaker 1: two hundred migrants according to the the New York Times. Here
Speaker 1: we're taken into custody by Customs and Border Protection along
Speaker 1: the southwestern border in May. That is a thirty two
Speaker 1: percent increase, the highest monthly in seven years. Most crossed
Speaker 1: the border illegally. Ten percent arrived without the proper documents
Speaker 1: at ports of entry, so they are crossing. These are
Speaker 1: all illegal crossings, one hundred and forty four thousand illegal
Speaker 1: crossings that resulted in people to being taken into custody.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, almost all of them were illegal crossings. And
Speaker 1: then you had about one in ten are in custody
Speaker 1: because they don't have the right documents when they showed
Speaker 1: up at a port of entry. So this problem is
Speaker 1: even worse than worse than people who have been trying
Speaker 1: to get the alarm alarm bells wrong. Realize, one hundred
Speaker 1: and forty four thousand, we're gonna be We're gonna be
Speaker 1: over well over a million for the year if this
Speaker 1: keeps up, one hundred and forty four thousand people showing up,
Speaker 1: not going through the normal And keep in mind, we
Speaker 1: already have through the legal immigration process a million people
Speaker 1: a year who are going to be brought into the
Speaker 1: American family. Personally, we have a million people a year
Speaker 1: who will be staying in this country forever. And that's legal,
Speaker 1: and that's fine. But I'm just saying, you know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot that our immigration system is already handling and
Speaker 1: dealing with that you're going to add on to it. Now,
Speaker 1: almost one hundred and fifty thousand people illegally crossing a
Speaker 1: month is just indicative of how completely out of control
Speaker 1: the situation is. Who can afford who can better afford
Speaker 1: in this trade dispute now that Trump is or this
Speaker 1: this fight over a possible tariff implementation, Who can better
Speaker 1: afford this price tag us for them? We have been
Speaker 1: led to believe, I think, and this is from the
Speaker 1: go along to get along swamp culture in DC. We
Speaker 1: were led to believe that when it comes to foreign relations,
Speaker 1: America should never it's bullying if we use leverage against
Speaker 1: a country that's not an oppositional country, or that's not
Speaker 1: North Korea or Russia or something, but you know, any
Speaker 1: other country we deal with, especially a neighbor like Mexico,
Speaker 1: it bullying if we say we're going to need you
Speaker 1: to do this or else to this. I say, this
Speaker 1: is negotiation. In any negotiation, there are good things you
Speaker 1: can offer, and there are things you can offer that
Speaker 1: aren't so good. You could say you do this, or
Speaker 1: I'll do that, or you do this, or I'll do
Speaker 1: this other thing that you don't want me to do.
Speaker 1: That's how this goes. We've been asking the Mexican government
Speaker 1: for a long time to help us more on this problem.
Speaker 1: We've been trying to get them to be more constructive partners,
Speaker 1: but they don't want to do that. Maybe they don't
Speaker 1: want to spend the resources, maybe they don't want to
Speaker 1: handle this. But the Mexican government can do a whole
Speaker 1: lot more. And we know this. Lindsey Graham I think
Speaker 1: is a spot on here when he says that they
Speaker 1: should become a third safe country. We should have that
Speaker 1: agreement in place, and the other things that we see
Speaker 1: going on with the buses and everything else, that all
Speaker 1: has to stop. Play clip nine. Ask Mexico to do
Speaker 1: two or three things that they're not doing that wouldn't
Speaker 1: matter help us. Make sure you apply for asylum in
Speaker 1: Mexico or Central America, not the United States. Stop giving
Speaker 1: them buses to get to our border. A few things
Speaker 1: you could do would help the problem. And if they'll
Speaker 1: do those few things, we won't do tariffs. But if
Speaker 1: they refuse to help us, what options do we have?
Speaker 1: Refuse to help us? What options do we have? There
Speaker 1: are things on the books I'll have you know if
Speaker 1: you if you really want to go deep in the
Speaker 1: weeds and immigration, there are things like any country that
Speaker 1: does not take back those that we are trying to deport.
Speaker 1: We can suspend all visas. This is currently on the
Speaker 1: books for immigration. We can suspend all visas from that country.
Speaker 1: I'm sure if the Trump administration did that with any
Speaker 1: of these Central American states, we'd be told that it's horrible.
Speaker 1: And look what they said when we cut off aid.
Speaker 1: We're not allowed to invoke and this is the liberal
Speaker 1: mentality on the immigration crisis. We are not allowed to
Speaker 1: invoke consequences. We're not allowed to cause consequences for anyone
Speaker 1: in this process. We cannot punish people that cross illegally.
Speaker 1: We cannot punish dates that will not stop those from
Speaker 1: crossing illegally Mexico. We cannot punish Central American countries that
Speaker 1: are allowing this outflow from their own territory into Mexico.
Speaker 1: It's no one's fault. No one is allowed to suffer
Speaker 1: anything as a result, suffer any consequences because of this.
Speaker 1: And if we as a sovereign nation, try to re
Speaker 1: establish our sovereignty in some meaningful sense, if we're trying
Speaker 1: to take any action that would deal with you, now
Speaker 1: going on one hundred and fifty thousand a month illegally
Speaker 1: crossing into the country. We're bad the we're the bad
Speaker 1: guys here. They're saying it. Oh, Trump, this tiff, this
Speaker 1: teriff issue is just showing how, you know, how he
Speaker 1: doesn't really understand the economics self. No, I think he
Speaker 1: does understand the economics involved. What does it cost the
Speaker 1: country right now to have this problem of illegal immigration.
Speaker 1: What is the cost in healthcare and schools, in the
Speaker 1: processing of all these people by the federal government, the
Speaker 1: court time, the lawyers that I'll be appointed in a
Speaker 1: Washington Post. Biggest story in the Washington Post front page
Speaker 1: is HHS canceling English classes and legal aid for unaccompanied
Speaker 1: child migrants in shelters. Let's understand what's happening here. Every
Speaker 1: unaccompanied migrant child that is currently in federal government custody
Speaker 1: was sent by adults who know that they are exploiting
Speaker 1: the system. So this is a direct response to what
Speaker 1: we have going right now, which is trying to do
Speaker 1: everything we can to make them as comfortable as possible
Speaker 1: and to release them to a sponsor family somewhere in
Speaker 1: the United States. But this is not this is not
Speaker 1: what's supposed to happen. You're not supposed to take your
Speaker 1: kid from some other country, send them to the US
Speaker 1: border and say okay, you take care of him now
Speaker 1: until we can find somewhere else for that person to go.
Speaker 1: There are budgetary constraints, and the budgetary constraints now are
Speaker 1: affecting some soccer programs that they've set up for unaccompanied migrants,
Speaker 1: for schooling programs. Look, I don't blame these kids. It's
Speaker 1: not about punishing the kids. But Congress needs to do
Speaker 1: more here to stop this from happen. The answer can't
Speaker 1: be yeah, we are running a giant education and entertainment
Speaker 1: facility for anyone who wants to send their child to America,
Speaker 1: not through the legitimate process, and to put them in
Speaker 1: the hands of coyotes, to put them in positions where
Speaker 1: they are enriching the cartels, and then again no one
Speaker 1: suffers any consequences. If you were a Central American who
Speaker 1: wanted to come to America right now, why not do it?
Speaker 1: Nothing bad is gonna I mean nothing bad is going
Speaker 1: to happen to you from the American government. Bad things
Speaker 1: gonna happen because of the coyotes and the transfer across
Speaker 1: cartel controlled territory. Are we allowed to do anything to
Speaker 1: Mexico to comply. I re allowed to do anything to
Speaker 1: get some of these other countries that are taking money
Speaker 1: from US. That's right, taxpayers sending them checks. I see here.
Speaker 1: Guatemala says it's working with the US to tighten its
Speaker 1: borders and try to break up these caravans. Well, it's
Speaker 1: it's about time. It's about time, and it maybe is
Speaker 1: only happening because they see that if we're willing to
Speaker 1: take steps against Mexico, that we'll have some economic consequences
Speaker 1: in political pain in this country too. Tariffs are not
Speaker 1: going to be pain free. But if we're willing to
Speaker 1: do that, then maybe we're going to do more about
Speaker 1: the Central American countries where a lot of these margarets
Speaker 1: are coming from. But this is as a major issue.
Speaker 1: We got more on this team and a whole lot
Speaker 1: more show to talk about, so stay with me. The
Speaker 1: news came that the President had this notion that he
Speaker 1: was going to treat Mexico as an enemy. This is
Speaker 1: dangerous territory. This is not a way to treat a friend.
Speaker 1: It's not a way to deal with immigration, it's not
Speaker 1: a way to deal the humanitarian needs at the border. Okay,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi econ and trade expert Nancy Pelosi tonight at eleven,
Speaker 1: what is the way to deal with Mexico on this?
Speaker 1: What is the way to deal with the humanitarian crisis
Speaker 1: at the border. It's also an illegal immigration crisis. Notice
Speaker 1: that the Democrats always trying to control the language, always
Speaker 1: trying to control the way that we talk about this.
Speaker 1: What do they present? Oh, that's right, it's just humanitarian.
Speaker 1: Because then if you don't fund, you know, English as
Speaker 1: a second language classes for the migrant children, if you're
Speaker 1: not putting them in school, giving them taxpayer funded healthcare,
Speaker 1: and you know, recreational programs and movie showings and all
Speaker 1: these things, you're a terrible person. Meanwhile, we are this
Speaker 1: is a scam. We are being scammed. It is happening
Speaker 1: every day, and it's happening now to the tune of
Speaker 1: almost one hundred and fifty thousand a month. I just
Speaker 1: saw that number today. It's astonishing. And Pelos, she says
Speaker 1: that we're treating Mexico like an enemy. Why does Canada?
Speaker 1: Is Canada treating us like an enemy? Because there are
Speaker 1: some tariffs on the import of US goods into Canada,
Speaker 1: so they can protect some of their own industries. Is
Speaker 1: the EU treating us like an enemy because they have
Speaker 1: tariffs in place to protect some of their industries that
Speaker 1: they think are particularly necessary or sensitive for their own reasons.
Speaker 1: I would just I would like to know where the
Speaker 1: lines are drawn here to call it treating Mexico like
Speaker 1: the enemy. Look, I understand there's a difference. Then there
Speaker 1: should be a difference in how we approach dealing with
Speaker 1: China and how we approach dealing with Mexico on trade.
Speaker 1: But this isn't really that hard, is it. Are we
Speaker 1: asking for anything from the Mexican government that is impossible?
Speaker 1: Are we saying, well, if you don't stop all the
Speaker 1: flow of drugs into this country, which are now killing
Speaker 1: tens of thousands of Americans a year. But look, that's hard,
Speaker 1: that's hard. You know, the cartels are not comply ying
Speaker 1: with the Mexican government by their very definition. They're breaking
Speaker 1: the law. They're going around. Well there's I'm sure plenty
Speaker 1: of collusion with Mexican authorities, but that's another issue. But
Speaker 1: we're saying, is hey, when you have a crowd of
Speaker 1: a thousand Hondurans or Guatemalans who are all marching together
Speaker 1: across the country. Can you not provide them with food
Speaker 1: and shelter and buses and take them right to the
Speaker 1: border and then just say, well, this is your problem, America.
Speaker 1: Can you offer them safe haven in your country and
Speaker 1: play ball this a little bit more so that they're
Speaker 1: not walking into our country? Does that seem unreasonable? Is that?
Speaker 1: Is that an enemy state request? I can assure you
Speaker 1: that if we had one hundred and fifty thousand or
Speaker 1: so illegal crossings at our northern border with Canada, we
Speaker 1: would have some tough words for our Canadian brothers and sisters.
Speaker 1: You know, we would have to say, hey, can you
Speaker 1: guys get a handle on things. If you can't, we're
Speaker 1: gonna have to you know, there's gonna have to be
Speaker 1: some consequences year. But you know, but Pelosi, all the
Speaker 1: Democrats do on this issue is complain about Trump. They
Speaker 1: never have anything to offer that is constructive. They just
Speaker 1: want to sit back and use this as a means
Speaker 1: of bashing the administration, calling him racist, calling him xenophobic,
Speaker 1: and doing everything in their power in the meantime to
Speaker 1: obstruct any meaningful change about the current situation of the border,
Speaker 1: which is it is worse than it has been in
Speaker 1: the last twenty years. Right now, President Trump, who beat
Speaker 1: the Republican field largely by talking tough on immigration and
Speaker 1: making some big promises. The immigration situation at our border
Speaker 1: is worse than it has been in twenty years. What
Speaker 1: is Trump supposed to ignore this? Tariffs? One reason he's
Speaker 1: gone for tariffs is because it's an area where at
Speaker 1: least the Democrats. You don't think some judge from the
Speaker 1: Ninth Circuit is going to come along and say, oh,
Speaker 1: the President can institute tariffs or maybe a judge, well,
Speaker 1: just give it time, we'll be back. We have a
Speaker 1: border situation in the inner station. You have one over here.
Speaker 1: But I hear it's going to work out very well.
Speaker 1: I think it's both going to work out well. It's
Speaker 1: going to work out very well here. And again, both
Speaker 1: the military and the trade is such a big factor
Speaker 1: and we're going to be discussing that very much. So
Speaker 1: it's an honor to be in Ireland with my friend
Speaker 1: and he's doing a great job as your Prime minister.
Speaker 1: They want to avoid a courses, it's going to avoid
Speaker 1: our wall between No, I think you do. I think
Speaker 1: you do. The way it works now is good. You
Speaker 1: want to try and keep it that way. And I
Speaker 1: know that's a big point of contention with respect to
Speaker 1: Brexit as your border, and I'm sure it's going to
Speaker 1: work out. Well. That was an interesting exchange. That was
Speaker 1: Trump there talking to Leo Varadkar, who is the Prime
Speaker 1: Minister of Ireland. So oh sorry, President wait is the
Speaker 1: president of Prime Minister of Ireland. I gotta make sure
Speaker 1: I get this to get this right. It doesn't really
Speaker 1: I'll figure it out in the meantime. Um, but talking
Speaker 1: about the border wall, uh, you have sure enough the
Speaker 1: the Irish Premier. That's a good way to do one.
Speaker 1: You have the Irish Premier who's not liking the idea
Speaker 1: of a h of a wall between Britain and or
Speaker 1: between England and Ireland over over this whole Brexit issue.
Speaker 1: So here here's I just thought that was kind of
Speaker 1: a funny extent. Also strange that you wouldn't think that
Speaker 1: he's the PM. Thank you, producer, Mike. That's what I thought.
Speaker 1: Just making sure. It's tough to keep it all straight
Speaker 1: with all these European places. UH got you know, you
Speaker 1: get the President of France, Matron Missieur mac roll, and
Speaker 1: then you got the PM in the UK, the PM
Speaker 1: in Ireland, but now they don't want walls there. Ireland.
Speaker 1: You know, I've never been, which is interesting because it's
Speaker 1: kind of the mother country for me in a sense.
Speaker 1: I think I'm about half Irish and I've never been
Speaker 1: to it, so I gotta get I gotta work on that.
Speaker 1: I've been to China, I mean to Afghanistan. I've never
Speaker 1: been to Ireland, so I don't know how that's happened.
Speaker 1: But my friends who have spent a lot of time
Speaker 1: they're tell me that it is shockingly left wing and
Speaker 1: its politics, that it is even even for a European country.
Speaker 1: People have told me. I remember hearing a friend of
Speaker 1: mine who did a who studied in Ireland for years.
Speaker 1: He said that Ireland is the Cuba of Europe. That's
Speaker 1: a whoa. That is rough stuff. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's true or not, but I wouldn't think of Leo
Speaker 1: Varadkar as a particularly Irish name. But obviously they've had
Speaker 1: a lot of immigration and folks and different backgrounds going
Speaker 1: to Ireland. All right, let's move on the board of
Speaker 1: situation with the tariffs. Let's see if it gets moving
Speaker 1: from Mexico. If you're asking me for a prediction right now,
Speaker 1: I would think I would think that the likeliest situation
Speaker 1: is that Mexico's gonna try to They don't want this
Speaker 1: to go to effect. We don't want this to go
Speaker 1: into effect. So good chance, in my mind that what
Speaker 1: happens here is the Mexican government says, okay, okay, we'll
Speaker 1: do some stuff, and it gives the Trump administration the
Speaker 1: cover to say, all right, since you're gonna work with us,
Speaker 1: we're gon we're gonna put this on hold. And wouldn't
Speaker 1: that be let's just establish this now so that when
Speaker 1: the media is trying to tell you that Trump is
Speaker 1: terrible and he's so bad and doesn't know anything and
Speaker 1: he's orange and his hair is weird, let's remember that
Speaker 1: if that happens, if Mexico promises and takes some additional
Speaker 1: steps as a result of this, it's a threat. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's an economic threat. But this threat of an implementation
Speaker 1: of a five percent tariff, wouldn't that be Trump making
Speaker 1: a deal? Wouldn't that be successful negotiation from the negotiator
Speaker 1: in chief here? I think the answer has to be yes, right.
Speaker 1: I think we have to see this as a win
Speaker 1: for Trump. So I say this now, maybe it doesn't happen,
Speaker 1: maybe the five percent tariff goes into effect. I say
Speaker 1: this now because Trump, you know, will get no credit
Speaker 1: from the media whatsoever. Even if Mexico blinks, Mexico backs
Speaker 1: down and says, you know what, we'll play ball on this.
Speaker 1: We'll stop some of this inflow into your country of
Speaker 1: illegals keep in money. You know, Mexico has sovereignty too.
Speaker 1: Mexican government, Mexican authorities can do things about people entering
Speaker 1: their country from another country. You know, if you just
Speaker 1: walked into Mexico without permission, guess what they would have
Speaker 1: a problem with that. But no surprise, they haven't taken
Speaker 1: a whole lot of action so far to help us
Speaker 1: in this process. But if Trump gets action out of them,
Speaker 1: just remember it's a win. And very few media outlets
Speaker 1: will tell you that because they're also invested in the
Speaker 1: destruction of this president. Speaking of the destruction of this president,
Speaker 1: you see what I did there, That's what we call smooth,
Speaker 1: smooth turn by a smooth operator. It's a smooth transition
Speaker 1: you have of the constant talk now of impeachment from
Speaker 1: the media. Thanks Muller, We all know what Mueller's press
Speaker 1: conference was really about. It was to light the fuse
Speaker 1: or re light the fuse on impeachment proceedings against the president.
Speaker 1: You still haven't had anybody really define whether Mueller decide
Speaker 1: whether Muller is going to be giving open testimony, which
Speaker 1: he absolutely must do. I do not understand how anyone
Speaker 1: doesn't see this as a necessary You can't let him
Speaker 1: walk out, just have his say and then just bounce.
Speaker 1: Here's the truth. If the Democrats thought that Mueller would
Speaker 1: provide them, and you know this, Muller would provide them
Speaker 1: with a massive bash Trump extravaganza opportunity, and there wasn't
Speaker 1: a risk to them of it majorly backfiring. We would
Speaker 1: have already had Mueller down on Capitol Hill. Oh, they
Speaker 1: would have pushed for it right away at the House,
Speaker 1: the committees, the media would have been a whole circus.
Speaker 1: But there are questions that Muller needs to be asked.
Speaker 1: There are questions that Christopher Steele is apparently going to
Speaker 1: be asked. But we'll see if not, how that happens
Speaker 1: and when that happens. But for Muller, I would like
Speaker 1: to know, at what point did you find out that
Speaker 1: the operations against the Trump campaign was that one that
Speaker 1: the Trump campaig didn't clue with Russia. You start with that,
Speaker 1: When did you know that? And why did you continue
Speaker 1: with this massive, grinding investigation even after it was clear
Speaker 1: there was no collusion. We know the answer to it,
Speaker 1: but I want to get him on the record as
Speaker 1: to why he continued with this. I also want him
Speaker 1: to explain how it is that the official record of
Speaker 1: the origins of the Russia collusion investigation indicate that this
Speaker 1: was all because of Papadopolis and what he said in
Speaker 1: a bar and that's just laughable, and in fact, in
Speaker 1: the Mulla report, I believe it gets wrong that Mifsu
Speaker 1: reached out to They think that Papadopolus reach out to Mitsu,
Speaker 1: but Mifsud reach to Papadopolis first, which makes this much
Speaker 1: more likely to be a dangle, which would change the
Speaker 1: way that it should have been treated by law enforcement.
Speaker 1: If they put somebody near the campaign and planted the
Speaker 1: idea of Hillary's emails getting hacked by the Russians in
Speaker 1: the first place, then that's entrapment. They're trying to avoid this,
Speaker 1: But what we're going to find out is that there
Speaker 1: was entrapment, but we can't. Unfortunately, until we have the
Speaker 1: IG report, we're limited in how much we can fight
Speaker 1: back on some of this. And in the meantime, the
Speaker 1: Democrats are running around with this impeachment narrative, and first
Speaker 1: of all, the media that they're in a frenzy And
Speaker 1: why are they in a frenzy over this? Well, they're
Speaker 1: in a frenzy because their credibility, such as it is,
Speaker 1: has taken a hit. I don't mean their credibility about
Speaker 1: their reporting so much, because that was already You and
Speaker 1: I both know that a lot of these networks are
Speaker 1: anti Trump. They're full of people who are perpetrators of
Speaker 1: a fake news narrative against Trump. Don't ever forget that
Speaker 1: it was the media that first used the term fake
Speaker 1: news to describe how gullible Republicans and Trump supporters were
Speaker 1: with the stuff that was on Facebook, and Trump managed
Speaker 1: to turn that around to say, Yeah, you think that
Speaker 1: we're gullible. You think that our side traffics in falsehood.
Speaker 1: Your side traffics in falsehood all the time and pass
Speaker 1: themselves in the back for it. Your side traffics in
Speaker 1: propaganda and misdirection, and thinks that they are doing a
Speaker 1: great service for the country. They're not even good faith errors,
Speaker 1: they're bad faith errors. And you embrace this part of
Speaker 1: you know, the journals embraced this part of themselves. But
Speaker 1: the problem that the media has to deal with now,
Speaker 1: the anti Trump media, which is just an we always
Speaker 1: go back and forth on this is the media and
Speaker 1: appendage of the Democratic Party. Is the Democratic Party and
Speaker 1: appendage of the media. I think you make the case
Speaker 1: their way, But they promised. I mean, you look at
Speaker 1: someone like Rachel Maddow, her show on MSNBC Night after night.
Speaker 1: The promise of that was and so many people built
Speaker 1: their careers in the last two years on the left
Speaker 1: around there's going to be a moment of Aha, this
Speaker 1: Trump presidency is over. They're gonna get him. If they
Speaker 1: had to lie to get there, that was always okay.
Speaker 1: The people that watch CNN, MSNBC, they're not upset if
Speaker 1: there are fake news stories used to hurt the president.
Speaker 1: That's all part of the effort. In fact, I think
Speaker 1: they'd be upset if they found out that CNN and
Speaker 1: MSNBC and the Washington Post and other places were unwilling
Speaker 1: to bend or even break their standards entirely in order
Speaker 1: to take down this president. After all, they think he's
Speaker 1: a threat to our democracy, they think he's a threat
Speaker 1: to our institutions, clear and present danger to America. Shouldn't
Speaker 1: they be willing to color outside the lines a little
Speaker 1: bit to get this guy. I don't think that the
Speaker 1: CNN audience is, in particular, having spent a lot of
Speaker 1: time over there and having some contact with members of
Speaker 1: that audience through the digital world, they're crazy. I don't
Speaker 1: think that they have a problem at all with the
Speaker 1: fact that CNN has had to fire people for fake
Speaker 1: stories that they've run. They've run with things that were
Speaker 1: big time fake news. They've gotten things wrong, like the
Speaker 1: date of the communications around the around Donald Trump Junior
Speaker 1: and the Trump Tower meeting. There's all kinds of things
Speaker 1: that they just get wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong, wrong.
Speaker 1: As long as it hurts Trump is fine, but wrong.
Speaker 1: And then not giving the goods to the audience, meaning
Speaker 1: the end of the Trump presidency. That's what's so unacceptable
Speaker 1: to them. They've been promising, promising their audience that this
Speaker 1: was all this get Trump effort was going to be
Speaker 1: Watergate two point zero and would result in the destruction
Speaker 1: of this presidency in one way or another, and nothing
Speaker 1: short of that is going to be acceptable to them,
Speaker 1: which is why the media is alloard. They're all on
Speaker 1: board for impeachment, totally believe in it. Playclip three. I'm
Speaker 1: starting a playclip four. Rather, this is the media telling
Speaker 1: you how much there needs to be impeach on playclip four,
Speaker 1: bounting pressure growing calls to start impeachment after Robert Muller
Speaker 1: breaks his two years silence. If the House leadership doesn't
Speaker 1: start hearings now, I believe it's hard to see them
Speaker 1: every doing it in the months ahead. Again, now or never,
Speaker 1: we seem to be moving toward a place where impeachment
Speaker 1: may be inevitable. The damn really seems to be breaking
Speaker 1: wide open. When he was really saying, is Congress has
Speaker 1: a job to do? It was almost a jeopardy question
Speaker 1: the way Robert Muller put it yesterday. There is a
Speaker 1: process other than the criminal justice system to charge a
Speaker 1: sitting president. What's the answer. The answer is impeachment. The
Speaker 1: answer is peachment. I do believe that that in a sense,
Speaker 1: the Democrat aligned media might be giving the Democrat Party
Speaker 1: some bad advice here because they're thinking short term and
Speaker 1: the short term. They just want to have coverage of
Speaker 1: impeachment proceedings. And they feel like if this moves to impeachment,
Speaker 1: no matter what the outcome, the media will have been
Speaker 1: justified in what they've done in the eyes of their
Speaker 1: audience and their supporters and subscribers. And since Trump came
Speaker 1: into office, then then they don't look like they were
Speaker 1: just a bunch of clowns who overpromised, underdelivered, and completely
Speaker 1: debased themselves and their profession, in the profession of journalism
Speaker 1: in the process. They'll say, oh, well, Trump was impeached,
Speaker 1: so we were even if Russia collusion was a farce,
Speaker 1: we were right all along. See, because he got impeached,
Speaker 1: it covers their It covers their backs, so to speak.
Speaker 1: It gives them some professional credibility and some degree of
Speaker 1: relevancy once again, which right now a lot of them
Speaker 1: feel like they're scrambling what have they been doing? What
Speaker 1: was this all about? If not to lead to impeachment. Now,
Speaker 1: Pelosi and the Democrats they gotta think, Okay, but what
Speaker 1: does this really mean? How would this really shake out?
Speaker 1: We'll address that part of it right after the break.
Speaker 1: I travel all the time in the country. Do you
Speaker 1: know most people think that impeachment means you're out of office.
Speaker 1: Did you ever get that feeling or are you just
Speaker 1: in the bubble here? They think that you get impeach,
Speaker 1: you're going and that is completely not true. And I
Speaker 1: may have thought that myself fifty years ago. But you
Speaker 1: get impeach, and it's an indictment. It's an indictment. So
Speaker 1: when you're impeaching somebody, you want to make sure you
Speaker 1: have the strongest possible indictment, because it's not the means
Speaker 1: to the end that people think all you do vote
Speaker 1: to impeach, Bye bye, Bertie. It isn't that She's right,
Speaker 1: It isn't that. First of all, I am a little surprised.
Speaker 1: I feel like, wildly ignorant anti Trump lunatics are Pelosi's base,
Speaker 1: So now all of a sudden there ignorance is a
Speaker 1: problem for her. That's just a surprise to me. But
Speaker 1: she seems a little bit, a little bit upset by that.
Speaker 1: But notice how she says, it's all about having the
Speaker 1: best case possible. Okay, the best case possible. Why Speaker Pelosi,
Speaker 1: if it's not me, it's not a means to an end.
Speaker 1: She seems to suggest, unless you have a really strong case, okay,
Speaker 1: and if she has that really strong case, which some
Speaker 1: Democrats say they already do, and Pelosi, I'm sure tomorrow
Speaker 1: will say, well, our case is really strong, but we
Speaker 1: still have to wait to see if we can make
Speaker 1: it stronger. It's the strongest case ever. But let's let's
Speaker 1: drag this process out and drag her feet on a
Speaker 1: little more to see if it could be the even stronger,
Speaker 1: strongest case Ever's this is babel, it's babel babbling from Pelosi.
Speaker 1: It's not a surprise. But also, there's not going to
Speaker 1: be removal of the president from office. That's not going
Speaker 1: to happen. That's not a part of this. Right. We
Speaker 1: all know that the Republicans in the Senate are not
Speaker 1: gonna go along. I'm gonna have a two thirds majority.
Speaker 1: You're not gonna have a I don't believe you have. Well,
Speaker 1: I hope you wouldn't have a single Republican senator vote
Speaker 1: for removal from office. It'll be a straight party line
Speaker 1: vote from the Democrats. So there is no means to
Speaker 1: an end here, no matter what the whole purpose of
Speaker 1: impeachment and the reason Democrats are talking about it so
Speaker 1: much is because of the optics. It's because of the
Speaker 1: narrative going into the reelection. So who doesn't really understand
Speaker 1: what's happening here, Pelosi are the people that she seems
Speaker 1: to think are too dumb to understand what's happening. They
Speaker 1: want the president of peach so that they can say
Speaker 1: the president was impeached. Impeached is bad. Impeached is a
Speaker 1: mark of disapproval, but it's a political process. It's a
Speaker 1: political check on the president, but a purely partisan impeachment
Speaker 1: that does not result in removal from office. The Democrats
Speaker 1: could get that anytime they want. They could just do it.
Speaker 1: Any majority could impeach any president if they really chose
Speaker 1: to do it. It doesn't it doesn't have meaning beyond that,
Speaker 1: So there will never be a means to an end
Speaker 1: the president is. I don't think anybody believes realistically going
Speaker 1: to be moved or removed from office by the Senate
Speaker 1: a two thirds majority, never mind the fact that the
Speaker 1: Republicans thankfully have a narrow Senate majority right now. So
Speaker 1: what is all this about. It's just power politics playing
Speaker 1: out in front of us. All It's the insanity of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party inflicting itself on the nation once again,
Speaker 1: trying to flail about for some way of evening the odds,
Speaker 1: because they have to do the more savvy ones, and
Speaker 1: Pelosi has air savvy or moments. The more savvy Democrat
Speaker 1: operators here have to know that none of these candidates
Speaker 1: right now that they're putting up have a have a
Speaker 1: prayer of defeating Donald Trump unless they can try to
Speaker 1: stack the deck for their side. And maybe they think
Speaker 1: impeachment is just that Buck Sextons decoding the news and
Speaker 1: disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American, You're
Speaker 1: a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: CIA analysts another battle in the free speech wars unfolding today,
Speaker 1: this one involving mister Stephen Crowder, who I've done his
Speaker 1: show a couple times in the past. Stephen is a conservative,
Speaker 1: is built a very large following on YouTube. He's one
Speaker 1: of the kind of early I think. I can't think
Speaker 1: of many conservatives who became YouTubers earlier than Stephen. He
Speaker 1: got into that game early on and has rightly benefited
Speaker 1: from that foresight. I know Steven's content have been I've
Speaker 1: been a guest on his show. I can't say that
Speaker 1: I know all of his content, all the things that
Speaker 1: he said. I mean, that would be crazy, right. He's
Speaker 1: done probably thousands of shows over the years, but YouTube
Speaker 1: is a major platform for him. And guess what social
Speaker 1: justice warriors want him gone. They want him off deep
Speaker 1: platformed speech equals violence. Oh my gosh, Stephen Crowder is
Speaker 1: so scary. We have to get him kicked off the platform.
Speaker 1: That's where we are right now. And there had been
Speaker 1: a rumblings for the last I'd say the last couple
Speaker 1: of days of how they There was a review going
Speaker 1: on of Crowder, a review going on of whether YouTube
Speaker 1: would kick him off entirely. Yeah, and initially, and this
Speaker 1: was started also because of a I'm trying to remember
Speaker 1: this guy's name. He's from Vox, which is really the
Speaker 1: most left wing, smarmy, whiny, beta male organization in media
Speaker 1: that I'm aware of. I mean, just very a lot
Speaker 1: of sort of pajama boys style, you know, just whiny
Speaker 1: nonsense from Vox, and they're among Vox is almost like parody.
Speaker 1: You read it and you think that really can't be
Speaker 1: the article, is it? I mean, I can't do a
Speaker 1: good job right now at the top of my head
Speaker 1: of coming up with some of the things that Vox
Speaker 1: will write. But you know, do do Disney cartoons all
Speaker 1: perpetuate the white patriarchy in society? You know, they'll they'll
Speaker 1: write things like that all the time. I mean, they
Speaker 1: think that's really helpful for society. You know, they're also
Speaker 1: a big, big proponents at Vox if there's no such
Speaker 1: thing as a non political or non politicized space, and
Speaker 1: so they take it upon themselves to pollute everything with
Speaker 1: their far left politics. You know, Ezra Kleine was I
Speaker 1: think it was a senior person over at Vox, for example,
Speaker 1: and he's he's someone who if you really want to
Speaker 1: take the measure of him, just listen to the debate
Speaker 1: that he had with Sam Harris sometime go on Sam
Speaker 1: Harris's podcast, where you just picked up that Klein was
Speaker 1: a a very smarmy, self righteous and intellectually dishonest individual.
Speaker 1: That was what I took from listening to Sam Harris
Speaker 1: and as Recline go back and forth on the This
Speaker 1: was maybe at least a year ago now, I think.
Speaker 1: But YouTube was looking at Stephen Crowder because of a
Speaker 1: car I believe Carlos Maza, who works at Vox, who
Speaker 1: has tweeted out things like since I started work in Vox,
Speaker 1: Stephen Crowder has been making video after a video debunking
Speaker 1: strike Through. Every single video has included repeated over at
Speaker 1: tax on my sexual orientation and ethnicity, and so he
Speaker 1: had he's complaining, essentially saying that that Crowder, this Vox
Speaker 1: writer says a Crowder is is being anti Hispanic and
Speaker 1: anti gay in making fun of Carlos Maza, whom I
Speaker 1: had never heard about until this controversy. But I feel
Speaker 1: like I probably could guess a lot of his political
Speaker 1: leanings and all that he works for Vox. I mean
Speaker 1: it's basically a COMI I mean, if you work for Vox,
Speaker 1: you're you're to the left of Bernie Sanders, if that's
Speaker 1: even possible, if there's any room on the spectrum to the
Speaker 1: the left of Bernie Sanders, if you work in Vox,
Speaker 1: you're pretty much there. So they went after Crowder, and
Speaker 1: Crowder is, look, he's a you know, I gave Steven's
Speaker 1: always been a very very nice to me when I've
Speaker 1: done a show. I gave him credit for being a
Speaker 1: conservative pioneer on YouTube, somebody who was early among on
Speaker 1: the right to use YouTube as a platform, and they
Speaker 1: want to make it he's a great person for the
Speaker 1: left or trying to make an example of because if
Speaker 1: enough conservatives grow large followings on YouTube, well then it
Speaker 1: becomes a place where we have real clout and where
Speaker 1: we can go and it's an alternative to the current
Speaker 1: valkanization that's happening in the digital space on you know,
Speaker 1: with some of these other channels that are out there
Speaker 1: that well is this you know, is this going to work?
Speaker 1: Is this going to be a real going concern for
Speaker 1: conservatives stretching for a while, or is it going to
Speaker 1: fold anyway? They put this out there for Crowder that
Speaker 1: they were looking at his stuff, and YouTube came back
Speaker 1: and said, I'm trying to find the actual statement here.
Speaker 1: After Maza's complaint, here we go, Here we go, YouTube
Speaker 1: yesterday said quote, our team spent the last few days
Speaker 1: conducting an in depth review of the videos flagged to us,
Speaker 1: and while we found foul language that was clearly hurtful.
Speaker 1: Oh no, the videos as posted don't violate our policies
Speaker 1: as an open platform. It's crucial for us to allow
Speaker 1: everyone from creators, a journalist to late night TV host
Speaker 1: to express their opinions within the scope of our policies.
Speaker 1: Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don't violate
Speaker 1: our policies, they'll remain on our site. And quote, Now,
Speaker 1: I this is really I think, if they're being honest
Speaker 1: about this, this would be if applied in good faith,
Speaker 1: that there are rules, and if you don't violate the rules,
Speaker 1: you stay on the platform, even if it makes people
Speaker 1: sad on the inside, even if it gives them hurt
Speaker 1: feelings lots of tears. If you don't break clearly defined,
Speaker 1: universally applicable rules on the platform, you don't get kicked
Speaker 1: off the platform. That's from the perspective of what we
Speaker 1: could hope for with Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, any of these
Speaker 1: things Google which owns YouTube, or Alphabet is the parent
Speaker 1: company which owns Google, which owns YouTube. That's the best
Speaker 1: that we can hope for. But continued pressure from Vox
Speaker 1: and other sites, and the left has a much bigger
Speaker 1: megaphone to the heads of Silicon Value than we do
Speaker 1: on the right. They did not let up the pressure
Speaker 1: after this, and they took action against Crowder. Anyway, Oh, Okay,
Speaker 1: so what do they do. They didn't kick him off
Speaker 1: the platform entirely, but they de monetized him. They demonetize him.
Speaker 1: So now, okay, you can still be on YouTube, but
Speaker 1: you just can't use YouTube in a professional capacity to
Speaker 1: make money. You can't use this as something that you
Speaker 1: can partner with YouTube as a content creator for monetization.
Speaker 1: And here's what YouTube said about this update on our
Speaker 1: continued review. We have suspended this channel's monetization. Speaking a
Speaker 1: Crowder's channel, we came to this decision because a pattern
Speaker 1: of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is
Speaker 1: against our YouTube partner program policies. What the heck does
Speaker 1: that mean? Harmed the broader community? Is that code for
Speaker 1: things libs don't like, things the vox commies get upset,
Speaker 1: get a little sad about. I couldn't even tell you
Speaker 1: harmed the broader community. How is it a violation or
Speaker 1: the rules or not? You see what happened here was
Speaker 1: you had a high profile test of whether or not
Speaker 1: YouTube engages in anti conservative viewpoint discrimination. And I'm not,
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, or I'm
Speaker 1: passing no judgment on the specifics of what. First of all,
Speaker 1: I haven't seen or heard what Crawder said. I've seen
Speaker 1: a couple of pull quotes on it, but you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know if some of the stuff he said
Speaker 1: if I'm not passing judgement on one way or the other.
Speaker 1: But YouTube decided when they looked at this that it
Speaker 1: did not violate any of their rules, and that was
Speaker 1: their judgment. Now a day passes, there's media attention on this.
Speaker 1: Clearly the social justice left he is up in arms
Speaker 1: about this decision, and so they come up with the well,
Speaker 1: we'll go with the kind of halfway. We'll split the baby,
Speaker 1: so to speak. Here we will tell Crowder that he
Speaker 1: can stay on the platform, but he has been demonetized,
Speaker 1: so that is taking sanction against him, That is punishing
Speaker 1: him for speech that the left does not like. Now,
Speaker 1: conservatives are all fired up about this, as we should be,
Speaker 1: just as when friends of mine like Raheem Kassam and
Speaker 1: Jesse Kelley and others have been summarily suspended from Twitter
Speaker 1: for things that to me or it's a judgment call
Speaker 1: to begin with, but an incredibly poor judgment call based
Speaker 1: on the kind of things they've been suspended from the past,
Speaker 1: we conservatives rally together, but this is going to continue
Speaker 1: on and I can't say that I really, I really
Speaker 1: feel like we have an answer here. This does remind
Speaker 1: me a little bit of the debate that has been
Speaker 1: roiling conservatism and the right for the last week or
Speaker 1: so about Frenchism, and I guess sarab amari Ism. I
Speaker 1: don't know what we really you know, Frenchism pro or
Speaker 1: khnum or four or against and that, and by the way,
Speaker 1: and I'm not I don't want to try to dig
Speaker 1: too deep into that one right now, because I'm not
Speaker 1: going to represent to David's satisfaction his point of view
Speaker 1: from David French from Nash Review accurately, and I certainly
Speaker 1: wouldn't be able to represent sarab Amari's point of view
Speaker 1: on this. But in very basic summary, it's you know,
Speaker 1: do you do you have to do what you have
Speaker 1: to do to win if you really believe in and
Speaker 1: if you really believe that there are things that are
Speaker 1: important in conservatism that must be implemented and not just
Speaker 1: weight around that hope that one day the other side
Speaker 1: comes to their senses, or do you try to be
Speaker 1: nice and stay within the already agreed power frameworks and
Speaker 1: see if you can just sort of make incremental progress
Speaker 1: toward conservative ents. What do we do with these social
Speaker 1: media platforms? Do we just keep pushing back and saying,
Speaker 1: all right, we know that what you're doing. And this
Speaker 1: is the future of communication, my friends. This is the
Speaker 1: battle that conservatives have been waging a battle against the
Speaker 1: mainstream media since well at least the eighties with Reagan.
Speaker 1: But really, you know, thanks to Rush and some of
Speaker 1: the other big voices out there who gave a voice
Speaker 1: to half of the country, and then the rise of
Speaker 1: Fox News starting in nineteen ninety six, the Drudge Report,
Speaker 1: which has been a mainstay of my Internet reading since
Speaker 1: I was in college. You know, thanks to these alternatives,
Speaker 1: we finally had some balance in the voices in the media.
Speaker 1: But now that you know, the digital world that seemed
Speaker 1: open this up and now it's being closed off again
Speaker 1: because of the dominance of these platforms. These are the
Speaker 1: ways that people get their information online. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: people are not going no one's typing in you know, Patriot, Newscoolstuff,
Speaker 1: dot Com, slash net and persand backslash Patriot. I mean,
Speaker 1: no one's doing that, right, you go. You see what's
Speaker 1: in your Facebook feed, you see what's in your Twitter feed.
Speaker 1: You google a word or two about the news of
Speaker 1: the day, and whatever pops up is what you're going
Speaker 1: to read. So this gives them a massive advantage. And
Speaker 1: who knows how you can even calculate how valuable this
Speaker 1: was for Democrat candidates in the last few elections. You know,
Speaker 1: we're just waking up to this now, We're waking up
Speaker 1: to how pervasive the bias of Silicon Valley is, how
Speaker 1: strongly the left has dominated behind the scenes via algorithms,
Speaker 1: in terms of service and these enforcement procedures. I mean,
Speaker 1: here's one idea. If I got suspended, let's say from Twitter,
Speaker 1: who would I even call? What do you even do?
Speaker 1: Is there is there a phone number? Can I get
Speaker 1: someone on the phone at Twitter that will explain to
Speaker 1: me what's going on? Not that I'm aware of, there's
Speaker 1: no you know, one eight hundred Twitter. So I get
Speaker 1: to send into some anonymous turn someone anonymous service email
Speaker 1: account and hope that someone is going to give me
Speaker 1: a fair shake. There. You know, I don't even know
Speaker 1: what the answers are to these things. But I also
Speaker 1: don't know how we're supposed to continue to engage with
Speaker 1: these platforms in good faith unless they or believing that
Speaker 1: they're engaging with us in good faith, unless that they
Speaker 1: established very clear rules of the road. And in cases
Speaker 1: like this, where it's where it's a close call, or
Speaker 1: rather where it's an important call not a close call,
Speaker 1: it doesn't go against the conservative somehow. This was a
Speaker 1: real test for YouTube. And you know, there's a major
Speaker 1: effort underway right now to get rid of all kinds
Speaker 1: of content from YouTube, and this was the New York
Speaker 1: Times piece. YouTube is removing thousands of videos that push
Speaker 1: quote extreme views now, as is so often the case
Speaker 1: with the debates over censorship and the First Amendment, which
Speaker 1: are some of the most interesting constitutional fights that we've
Speaker 1: had in this country. Where does the First Amendment stop
Speaker 1: and start? What's protected, what's not? And it is it
Speaker 1: is an essential freedom, And yes, we need the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: I mean, we need the Second Amendment to protect the first,
Speaker 1: but we also need the First Amendment to protect the second.
Speaker 1: We need the First Amendment for everything else that's going on.
Speaker 1: Freedom of speech, the liberty to share ideas without prior
Speaker 1: restraint from the government, without punishment from government, entities and
Speaker 1: bodies except in the most clearly defined circumstances, and it's
Speaker 1: easier said than done to clearly define them. This is
Speaker 1: central to our society and it's really one of the
Speaker 1: things that separates us from many other developed countries, not
Speaker 1: just in the West, but around the world, industrialized, wealthy countries.
Speaker 1: We have true freedom of speech. It doesn't really exist
Speaker 1: anywhere else. But when you start to see the the
Speaker 1: capacity for digital censorship grow in this way, meaning that
Speaker 1: you know, an algorithm can shift the public conversation about
Speaker 1: an issue, whether it's immigration or healthcare, or which presidential
Speaker 1: candidate they can shift behind the scenes, you don't even
Speaker 1: know what's going on. You don't know how they're doing
Speaker 1: what they're doing. It's not just like a newspaper that's
Speaker 1: presenting you information. Are you seeing this because it's the
Speaker 1: most relevant search result? Are you seeing it because your
Speaker 1: friends that you agree with want you to see this?
Speaker 1: Why are you being shown these things? Unless we have
Speaker 1: full transparency into that, we're never really going to know
Speaker 1: why we're seeing the information that we are, how it's impacting,
Speaker 1: how it's influencing our view on a whole host of issues.
Speaker 1: And I want to return to this censorship point, because
Speaker 1: that's where this YouTube removing extreme videos. This is something
Speaker 1: we need to watch very very closely because this is
Speaker 1: going to be true across the Internet on all these
Speaker 1: different platforms, and given what we've seen with Crowder, where
Speaker 1: they'll find a way to punish you if your conservative ian,
Speaker 1: if you don't break their rules. Think about where that
Speaker 1: could go next and who could be next in this process.
Speaker 1: I'll have more for you on this in just a moment. YouTube. Facebook.
Speaker 1: They dwarf CNN, the New York Times in not just
Speaker 1: the money that they command in the advertising dollars, in
Speaker 1: their ability to elevate and suppress voices. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: not even close. There's been a massive shift in power
Speaker 1: from these old legacy platforms like the New York Times,
Speaker 1: CNN apparatus and the apparat chicks who work for them,
Speaker 1: to these social media platforms. That's that has happened. It
Speaker 1: is reality now and they're much bigger players in this space.
Speaker 1: These digital platforms are the future of communication. I mean
Speaker 1: they're the present and future of communication. And that's why
Speaker 1: when you see things like this from The New York
Speaker 1: Times about them, we should all be on guard and
Speaker 1: not just and then you see what happens with Stephen
Speaker 1: Crow and other conservatives, fellow conservatives in terms of the
Speaker 1: punishments that are meeted out, the suspensions that all of that.
Speaker 1: We got to be ready. This is this is the
Speaker 1: biggest First Amendment fight in terms of free speech, not
Speaker 1: religious liberty. That's other parts of this that we're going
Speaker 1: to have going forward. New York Times Rights here that
Speaker 1: the companies like YouTube have come under intense criticism for
Speaker 1: their delayed reaction to this spread of hateful and false content.
Speaker 1: At the same time, President Trump and others argue the
Speaker 1: giant tech platforms censor right wing opinions, and the new
Speaker 1: policies put in place by the companies have inflamed those debates. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: they have. Is what is really hateful and false content?
Speaker 1: How could we even engage that? Things like if someone
Speaker 1: says abortion as murder? Is that a hateful comment? Because
Speaker 1: I think a lot of you listening would say, well,
Speaker 1: it's hateful to kill babies. So what is hateful content?
Speaker 1: Illegue immigration is bad and I legal immigrants should be
Speaker 1: punished for breaking the law. Is that hateful content? You
Speaker 1: may say, buck, of course not, But if you ask,
Speaker 1: if you asked a room full of people that work
Speaker 1: for Google or people that work for Facebook, is that hateful?
Speaker 1: I think they would say absolutely. You had none other
Speaker 1: than Anderson Cooper himself be rating someone on air because
Speaker 1: Facebook would not take down a video that was essentially
Speaker 1: a parody video of Nancy Pelosi looking like it looking
Speaker 1: like a clown. That's right, take it down. Deep platform it.
Speaker 1: The mentality that you see from the left on college
Speaker 1: campuses has now found its way, not just in a
Speaker 1: peripheral sense, into the most powerful media platforms and in
Speaker 1: the minds of the most powerful media figures on the left.
Speaker 1: It's at the very top of the power structure. You know,
Speaker 1: you have you know Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg and
Speaker 1: the people that run these platforms. They feel the social
Speaker 1: pressure and they have bought in at some level to
Speaker 1: the construct that the left creates here of a need,
Speaker 1: an immediate need to suppress, suppress, and sensor speech. This
Speaker 1: is going to have very negative consequences for us. Do
Speaker 1: you able to fight back going forward? If they're able
Speaker 1: to just determine what's hateful, what's fake, they get to
Speaker 1: pull down what's fake. Now, is it that going to
Speaker 1: be interesting, considering that they believe every word out of
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's mouth. Donald Trump can say that he had
Speaker 1: a bagel for breakfast and they'll say that it's fake news.
Speaker 1: We're going to let them now determine on these platforms,
Speaker 1: what is the answer. It's gonna have to be government regulation, folks.
Speaker 1: It's gonna have to be wartime conservatives uniting and take
Speaker 1: an action that a whole lot more show teams stay
Speaker 1: with me this day. Have set upon a mighty endeavor,
Speaker 1: a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization,
Speaker 1: and you set free a suffering humanity. When I attended
Speaker 1: the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the D Day landings,
Speaker 1: some thought it might be the last such event. But
Speaker 1: the wartime generation, my generation, is resilient, and I'm delighted
Speaker 1: to be with you in Portsmouth today. A lot of
Speaker 1: pomp and circumstance around the President's visit and time with
Speaker 1: the royal family, which one would expect. And now with
Speaker 1: June sixth, the D Day commemoration, right, I know, today's
Speaker 1: June fits or tomorrow's technically the D Day, the day
Speaker 1: of D Day. But while we look at this and
Speaker 1: we find ourselves one. I think first hearkening back to
Speaker 1: the courage of those who were storming those beaches in
Speaker 1: Normandy and what they did, what they put on the line.
Speaker 1: Many gave their lives for this country. Many Brits, many
Speaker 1: Canadians and some others from some other countries as well,
Speaker 1: gave their lives in that effort, and we have a
Speaker 1: very special relationship with the with the Brits as a
Speaker 1: result that endures to this day. I mean, it's yes,
Speaker 1: it's true. We have all this cultural similarity and this
Speaker 1: connectivity between us and the Brits that stretches back for centuries,
Speaker 1: although not all, not all of the history with Great
Speaker 1: Britain's great we had they did. They did burned down
Speaker 1: our White House at one point, right, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: been some bad stuff. They were impressing our sailors for
Speaker 1: a while and we had to we had to beat
Speaker 1: them in a revolution. But it's cool. We're friends now.
Speaker 1: We love the Brits. In fact, I saw a poll
Speaker 1: today that said that Americans ninety percent of Americans have
Speaker 1: a favorable view of Great Britain, which is about what
Speaker 1: I would have guessed. And then the ten percent I
Speaker 1: think are just curmudgingly. I don't like anybody, you know,
Speaker 1: probably probably hate you know, Barbados, the Bahamas, Vanuatu and
Speaker 1: other like little island paradises that how could you be
Speaker 1: mad at them? But I'm sure there's there's you can
Speaker 1: find ten percent of people that don't like any issue,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what it is. But this should be a
Speaker 1: day when it's maybe just a little bit out of
Speaker 1: favor to trash Trump. You know, we got the D
Speaker 1: Day commemoration. He is the commander in chief. As I
Speaker 1: was telling you yesterday, I think he gets not nearly enough.
Speaker 1: He gets not nearly enough praise or support or recognition
Speaker 1: for being a commander chief who has stayed his hand
Speaker 1: when the two previous commanders in chief really did not
Speaker 1: in many ways, and I think made some enormous strategic
Speaker 1: errors both Obama and Bush. Trump has not made enormous
Speaker 1: strategic errors on national security, has not put large numbers
Speaker 1: of our troops in harms way unnecessarily. But the the patriotism,
Speaker 1: you know, and the water's edge, that whole, that doesn't
Speaker 1: really you know, that that partisanship stops the water's that
Speaker 1: just that's not really true anymore, is it. We've got
Speaker 1: a president on foreign soil, He's still getting people coming
Speaker 1: after him and every way they can at CNN have
Speaker 1: one of their correspondents. I don't know if this is
Speaker 1: just stretching for stretching for time, or if this is
Speaker 1: trying to just pander to the CNN audience, which is
Speaker 1: psychotically anti Trump, psychotically anti Trump. But here's CNN CNN
Speaker 1: correspondent talking about how maybe Trump wants to be king
Speaker 1: himself play seven. Essentially, there are so few people who
Speaker 1: can seemingly inspire that level of respect, that level of
Speaker 1: deference in President Trump. We don't often see that, but
Speaker 1: as you said, the queen, he's always taking a very
Speaker 1: deferential tone. He seems to have a huge amount of
Speaker 1: respect for the institution of the monarchy. Perhaps he likes
Speaker 1: the idea of being a king. I would say that's
Speaker 1: a Freudian slip. But you know, it's just they can't
Speaker 1: help themselves. She's a correspondence, not a pundit. She's supposed
Speaker 1: to just be reporting on the president's visit and that
Speaker 1: he has. You know, these are the are the loops
Speaker 1: that exist in the minds that there's a kind of
Speaker 1: playback loop that exists in the minds of many liberals
Speaker 1: on these issues. And one of the loops is that
Speaker 1: Trump Trump likes authoritarians, supports authoritarians, wants to work with authoritarians.
Speaker 1: You know. That's yeah, that's one of the loops. And
Speaker 1: so when when he's meeting with you know, maybe maybe
Speaker 1: Canada is a closer rally, I don't know. I don't
Speaker 1: want to get in between our Canadian and British brothers
Speaker 1: and sisters on this one. I don't know who's technically
Speaker 1: a close rally the United States. You could make the
Speaker 1: case out of the way, it's probably Canada. But we
Speaker 1: love the Brits too, you know, we can't. We can't
Speaker 1: pick among our children. We love them all equally. But
Speaker 1: you'd think that here he is showing. You know, they
Speaker 1: always say he's not presidential. They always say he doesn't
Speaker 1: give all the due respect, and he says things that
Speaker 1: he shouldn't say. And now he's being respe backfull, not
Speaker 1: of Putin or Kim Jung un. We know they want
Speaker 1: to jump on that and say all kinds of things
Speaker 1: about how, oh, look at what this tells us, and
Speaker 1: he loves dictators, and all this other stuff. We know that, right,
Speaker 1: But he's being respectful of the royal family in one
Speaker 1: of our closest allied countries, and it's indicative in some way,
Speaker 1: according to the CNN report, everyone and maybe he wants
Speaker 1: to be king of Trump's monarchical tendencies, of Trump's desire
Speaker 1: to be an autocrat himself, even though the king in
Speaker 1: the if there was a king in Great Britain, it
Speaker 1: would not be a person of any power authority, So
Speaker 1: why would you want to do that? And I'd be
Speaker 1: only the bet that Trump has. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the real funding is for the Royal family in Britain
Speaker 1: right now, but my sense is that Trump has a
Speaker 1: whole lot more money and certainly a lot more freedom
Speaker 1: and what he can do than I think Great Britain does.
Speaker 1: You know. Also, they did a little bit of a
Speaker 1: clear up on the Megan Markel issue. I mean, Trump
Speaker 1: addressed that again, it was fake news what they did
Speaker 1: that was being spread around in a way that was
Speaker 1: meant to just poison the well of media coverage before
Speaker 1: the president's arrival. He didn't, he didn't go after Megan
Speaker 1: Markel unnecessarily. He just said he didn't realize she had
Speaker 1: said something mean and then he said something nice about her.
Speaker 1: So that was fake news. You know that they want
Speaker 1: to skip past that, but that was indeed fake news. Uh.
Speaker 1: Speaking of fake news, well, I guess it's plagiarism. Isn't
Speaker 1: really fake news. It's fake thinking. It's falsifying your own
Speaker 1: ability and thinking so that people believe you know more
Speaker 1: than you do. Biden's got himself in some trouble. Has
Speaker 1: to do with a Green New Deal. In the environment.
Speaker 1: We always hear that Trump administration is it's so terrible
Speaker 1: from liberals say this, it's so terrible in the environment.
Speaker 1: Trump disagrees with that. Play fifteen. You know, we have
Speaker 1: the cleanest air in the world in the United States
Speaker 1: and gotten better since some president. We have to clete
Speaker 1: this water. It's crystal clean, and I always say I
Speaker 1: want crystal clean to water in air. And so I
Speaker 1: haven't heard his comments, but we do have we're setting
Speaker 1: records environmentally. I think that in part he just says
Speaker 1: this because he knows that it drives liberals insane. One
Speaker 1: of the areas there's a the liberal mind really does
Speaker 1: believe that Republicans, they've been so brainwashed on this issue.
Speaker 1: They think that Republicans don't care about leading the water
Speaker 1: real pollutants, not CO two, which is what you and
Speaker 1: I breathe out. I'm filling the room around me right
Speaker 1: now with CO two, so are you. It's not a pollutant.
Speaker 1: But they have come to believe that they are the
Speaker 1: planet's only hope. That the left, the Green New Deal
Speaker 1: advocates they're the only hope for saving the world. And
Speaker 1: that's not an exaggeration. That is how they view this,
Speaker 1: that they're going to save the world by continuing to
Speaker 1: push with policies that they can't they will never implement themselves,
Speaker 1: will never get through Congress, would be astronomically expensive. But
Speaker 1: it's really more about the psychological posture of Liberals with
Speaker 1: this issue than anything else. They believe much more strongly
Speaker 1: in their own greatness, as indicated by their belief in
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal, than anything that has to do
Speaker 1: with really saving the world. But Trump pointing out that
Speaker 1: there's a lot of good stuff going on with the environment,
Speaker 1: that we're constantly the EPA has not been destroyed. All
Speaker 1: regulation of the environment is not you know, has not
Speaker 1: gone by the wayside. This drives them insane. This is
Speaker 1: a great way of trolling them, because they true believers
Speaker 1: on the left insist, and I've come across them. They
Speaker 1: really do think that you and I, those of us
Speaker 1: who are conservative have no interest or care whatsoever for
Speaker 1: the environment, for conservation and for the world around us.
Speaker 1: What do they base this on, It's not clear climate
Speaker 1: change skepticism, or rather skepticism of the catastrophic implications of
Speaker 1: climate change. Even though we can point to the same
Speaker 1: projections about climate change stretching back for decades being wrong,
Speaker 1: We're still supposed to believe that the people who were
Speaker 1: wrong are going to be right the next time. But
Speaker 1: Biden is trying to make some headway with the left
Speaker 1: on the Green New Deal long climate change, and he
Speaker 1: ran into a little trouble because he borrowed from some
Speaker 1: other some other places in his announcement for his own plan.
Speaker 1: So we will get into that. We all saw about
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders and socialism. It's gonna be fun stick around.
Speaker 1: It's shameful the way we treat it Puerto Rico in
Speaker 1: the Islands. I'm not even sure people in the Presence
Speaker 1: administration knew Puerto Ricans are all citizens. No, I'm not,
Speaker 1: I'm not joking. And so there was this notion that somehow,
Speaker 1: why should we have to make and invest that kind
Speaker 1: of money in dealing with what is a genuine existential crisis.
Speaker 1: An existential crisis, he says, after taking a shot at
Speaker 1: at Puerto Rico. Let me tell you that that's Joe
Speaker 1: Biden who's got his own He's got his own problems.
Speaker 1: This week that the Trump administration has sent billions and
Speaker 1: billions of dollars in disaster relief to to Puerto Rico.
Speaker 1: And while Biden is going to sit there and tell
Speaker 1: us all that this is that, you know, he's making
Speaker 1: fun of them, that making fun of Trump, that his
Speaker 1: people on administration don't know that Puerto Ricans are citizens.
Speaker 1: I would just note that I spoke to the governor
Speaker 1: of Puerto Rico about this issue, and I said, are
Speaker 1: you getting sufficient this? I interviewed him and I said,
Speaker 1: are you getting sufficient funds? Are is the government response?
Speaker 1: The federal government response strong? And he said yes. Now
Speaker 1: there are some issues that should be addressed. One is
Speaker 1: the Jones Act, which is an outdated and really kind
Speaker 1: of really somewhat bizarre statute that says that you know,
Speaker 1: if a ship leaves. I mean, I can't remember the
Speaker 1: specificsm it now, but it has to You can't just
Speaker 1: send a ship from the US to Puerto Rico. It
Speaker 1: has to come from some or a foreign ship has
Speaker 1: to go to a US port first before it goes
Speaker 1: to Puerto Rico. I forget that, but it just means
Speaker 1: that the price of goods is much higher. It also
Speaker 1: was an issue for the relief efforts initially. But you
Speaker 1: can tell that that Biden is not going to be
Speaker 1: a stickler for accuracy, because why should he be. They're
Speaker 1: gonna they're gonna prop him up and say he's great
Speaker 1: no matter what. They're gonna do what they always do,
Speaker 1: which is skip over any inconsistency, any inaccuracy that Biden
Speaker 1: puts forward, and as long as it's negative for Trump,
Speaker 1: they will find a way. They'll find a way to
Speaker 1: make it sound like Biden's more or less on more
Speaker 1: or less on track. But he does have a little
Speaker 1: problem that came up, and this is actually from CNN
Speaker 1: where Biden once again has a plagiarism issue. This is
Speaker 1: the democrats number one candidate. This guy a month ago
Speaker 1: had a sniffing, kissing tops of heads being super inappropriate
Speaker 1: and weird issue, which you'll note Democrats even to meet
Speaker 1: you era not a problem for them. They think he's
Speaker 1: the most electable, so they'll they'll just skip past all that.
Speaker 1: But CNN's John King he was displeased with Biden for
Speaker 1: h this problem that should not have been place sixteen.
Speaker 1: This is a pretty amateur mistake for the front runners
Speaker 1: campaign to make on a substantial policy rollout when they
Speaker 1: had to know when Team Biden got together planning to
Speaker 1: announce his campaign. The one thing they cannot do is
Speaker 1: plagiaris it's lazy, or it's arrogant. And let me flip
Speaker 1: the thing. You would think he would be happy to
Speaker 1: quote progressive groups on his website as they are. They're
Speaker 1: attacking great embrace. This is i'll call this a style issue.
Speaker 1: All this is a leadership issue. This is a comp
Speaker 1: this issue he wants to be present in that states.
Speaker 1: This is a leadership and competence issue. You can't do
Speaker 1: this stuff. You just can't. You do it in our business,
Speaker 1: you get fire. Donald Trump tweeted out plagiarism charge against
Speaker 1: sleepy Joe Biden on his ridiculous climate change plan is
Speaker 1: a big problem. But the corrupt media will save him.
Speaker 1: That's true. His other problem is that he is drawing flies,
Speaker 1: not people to his rallies. Nobody is showing up, I
Speaker 1: mean nobody. You can't win without people. Is this comes
Speaker 1: from Republican National The RNC has been going after Biden
Speaker 1: on this too. The RNC Steve Guests tweeted during his
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty eight campaign, Biden plagiarized campaign speeches from British
Speaker 1: Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock as well as Robert Kennedy.
Speaker 1: During law school, Biden plagiarized too. Likes to plagiarize. This
Speaker 1: is an issue. I would just point out that there
Speaker 1: was there was a a member of the incoming administration
Speaker 1: of the Trump campaign who the left wing media was
Speaker 1: actually CNN went after her for a twenty year old
Speaker 1: plagiarism issue and cause huge problems for her unfairly, and
Speaker 1: this was used to sink an incoming administration official. This
Speaker 1: is not going to sing Biden though, because they're gonna
Speaker 1: just skip past it. They're gonna say, they're gonna say
Speaker 1: that this was It's fine. You know, they'll they'll allow it.
Speaker 1: The groups that he plagiarized from will say no, no,
Speaker 1: even without without giving us official permission, we will give
Speaker 1: retroactive permission to Joe Biden to steal our stuff. Biden
Speaker 1: has said some other really interesting stuff, by the way.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's going really hard here on climate because
Speaker 1: he's trying to find a way to look relevant and
Speaker 1: authentic to the left wing base, because he needs he's
Speaker 1: going to need the base to support him if he's
Speaker 1: gonna beat all these other candidates, be enough just for
Speaker 1: the the establishment of DC, the swamp, the media to
Speaker 1: be with him. He's going to need grassroots activists on
Speaker 1: the left to give him at least some support in
Speaker 1: this process. But you know, the Daily Caller News Foundation
Speaker 1: has looked at a few parts of this report that
Speaker 1: are problematic. Then remember this is Biden's climate change call
Speaker 1: to arms. Not quite as crazy as Elizabeth Warren, who
Speaker 1: says that it might be a greater challenge than World
Speaker 1: War two, but you know, is saying that this is
Speaker 1: something that we have to deal with. Aviation, according to
Speaker 1: the Biden platform that was released on this accounts for
Speaker 1: nearly two percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and that
Speaker 1: portion is expected to increase. Unfortunately, today, a few low
Speaker 1: carbon technologies or fuels have been developed to tackle this challenge.
Speaker 1: The liberal website Vox in January used language that is
Speaker 1: similar to this, right. I mean, these are the different
Speaker 1: the different areas where he just sort of took this.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it's a staffer. I'm sure it's a staffer
Speaker 1: who pulled this stuff together. What's more, it's gonna be
Speaker 1: than anything else, is just the way that Biden is
Speaker 1: going to skate. He's gonna skate on this because he's
Speaker 1: gonna skate on everything. It's gonna be Hillary all over again.
Speaker 1: They think that he is the electable one, and so
Speaker 1: he's the one that they will do everything they can
Speaker 1: to knock all barriers down in favor of. They're gonna
Speaker 1: do whatever they have to to try to help this guy,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna need to do a lot. He's he's
Speaker 1: not a formidable candidate against Donald Trump. He's not. I
Speaker 1: still believe that Bernie Sanders as as crazy as it says.
Speaker 1: We're gonna talk about crazy Bernie and the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: in a minute. I still think that Bernie Sanders is
Speaker 1: a bigger problem than Joe Biden if he gets the nomination. Obviously,
Speaker 1: Soviet Union was in authoritarian society with no democratic rights.
Speaker 1: And I think if you know history, you'll know that
Speaker 1: democratic socialists stood up and fought against that. You can
Speaker 1: look about what existed in the Soviet Union in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: That's not what I'm talking about. Wait a second, why
Speaker 1: is Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders there is talking about
Speaker 1: how the Soviet Union is not a good example of sellers.
Speaker 1: He can't look at that. Let's not forget that Bernie
Speaker 1: wasn't some big critic of Soviet socialism. He went there
Speaker 1: on his honeymoon. Bernie went to the Soviet Union on
Speaker 1: his honeymoon. A bizarre choice. If nothing else, just think
Speaker 1: about the food. I mean, how much borsht can one
Speaker 1: man have on his honeymoon before he wants something else.
Speaker 1: And he was there back in what was the eighties,
Speaker 1: so I can't imagine what that was really like. But
Speaker 1: he and he came back and with his wife. I've
Speaker 1: played the audio for you before on the show. He
Speaker 1: was defending what he saw there. In fact, he was
Speaker 1: glorifying some of what he saw there. It's kind of
Speaker 1: a modern day you know, Walter Duranti, remember the guy
Speaker 1: from it was that the new York Times of Chicago Tribune.
Speaker 1: I think it was the New York Times who went
Speaker 1: over there and didn't want to talk about or didn't
Speaker 1: want to report on the famine in Ukraine, which was
Speaker 1: a forced famine. It was an intentional government policy. These
Speaker 1: people would have no food, they would starve. So I
Speaker 1: believe it's called the Holadamar by the Ukrainians, but I
Speaker 1: might have that wrong. There's a Ukrainian holocaust through the
Speaker 1: famine that the Soviet Union pushed on them, pushed on Ukraine.
Speaker 1: But Bernie is somebody who came back saying nice things
Speaker 1: about the Soviet Union as an adult, and as an
Speaker 1: adult who chose to travel there, So that may bring
Speaker 1: us to all one. He's not honest about his past
Speaker 1: with socialism, which is not surprising at all. But then
Speaker 1: there's also how is it that socialism is still gaining
Speaker 1: in popularity in this country at a time when you
Speaker 1: would think, given the internet access, we have what's happening
Speaker 1: in Venezuela. Oh, and they all pretend like Venezuela is
Speaker 1: not a place that any of them would have ever
Speaker 1: said anything nice about. That's not true. Venezuela is a
Speaker 1: country that, as recently as twenty twelve, you could find
Speaker 1: supportive editorials in the New York Times the Washington Post
Speaker 1: about what Chavez was trying to accomplish in that country.
Speaker 1: They didn't have results really to point to, but they're saying,
Speaker 1: you know, he's he's on the right track, trying the
Speaker 1: right things, doing what he can here. He's doing his
Speaker 1: best to make sure that there's going to be, you know,
Speaker 1: there's going to be a more equitable society in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: But one of the reasons that I think it's becoming
Speaker 1: more popular is that you're one that the media is
Speaker 1: largely supportive of this. Just as during the Soviet Union's era,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of people in academia and the
Speaker 1: media in this country who liked the idea of the
Speaker 1: Soviet I'm not talking about fellow travelers and actual communist penetrations,
Speaker 1: which we did have here and is still a part
Speaker 1: of our history that is completely whitewashed by the left.
Speaker 1: If you have not read Whittaker Chambers Witness, please please
Speaker 1: read that book. There are many others that I would
Speaker 1: blacklisted by history is great. There's there's a lot of
Speaker 1: that's about McCarthy. There's the Venona Project. There's books about
Speaker 1: the Nona that you should read. It's all about the
Speaker 1: penetrations the Soviet Union had of this country. The KGB
Speaker 1: archives that were released as the metrok and archives, you know,
Speaker 1: the Sword of the Shield about the KGB. Highly recommend
Speaker 1: that book. It'll tell you one the extent of the
Speaker 1: operations against us at the hands of the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: but it'll also tell you about how the KGB and
Speaker 1: the Communist Party were much closer to at some point
Speaker 1: going to maybe open war with us than a lot
Speaker 1: of people realize. They were really thinking about it. They
Speaker 1: were they thought we were going to have a first
Speaker 1: strike on them, so they were really considering a first
Speaker 1: strike on us. There's some scary stuff in those archives.
Speaker 1: But why why would anybody not understand the lessons that
Speaker 1: have been learned here? Man? How is it really possible
Speaker 1: that in this at this stage of the game, there
Speaker 1: would be such a lack of understanding of the truth
Speaker 1: of socialism? Well, you know the Daily the Daily Show,
Speaker 1: which is a straight up propaganda show with jokes, so
Speaker 1: sometimes there's funny stuff, but it's it's political propaganda in
Speaker 1: joke form. I did this man on the street kid
Speaker 1: asking people about socialism, and I mean, here's what they said,
Speaker 1: play club eleven. I think socialism is great. I think
Speaker 1: you should definitely help whoever you could at any situation
Speaker 1: for socialism just design to anything that's helping black people out. Okay,
Speaker 1: so your socialism curious? In college? Do you hate billionaires? Bokey? Yeah.
Speaker 1: You look at Jeff Basis, he doesn't look human. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the socialism is one point. I mean I
Speaker 1: don't really know what socialism now. I know you said Buck,
Speaker 1: this isn't a scientific poll. There's a there's a bunch
Speaker 1: of college kids. What do they really know. Well, all
Speaker 1: the polling that we see right now, I mean, if
Speaker 1: you want to talk about scientific polls, shows that there
Speaker 1: is a pretty dramatic increase in support for socialism overall,
Speaker 1: that that people do believe in socialism, they do believe
Speaker 1: that it's something that we should consider more as a country,
Speaker 1: and it's getting close to I think fifty percent support
Speaker 1: among millennials that have to check the most recent polling.
Speaker 1: But part of it is that they don't know what
Speaker 1: it is. They don't really understand that what you have,
Speaker 1: for example, in and I used to joke around that
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is running for the mayor of Stockholm. That's
Speaker 1: not really fair to Stockholm. Stockholm is Sweden. Obviously Stockholm
Speaker 1: is a major city. There is a country that has
Speaker 1: a pretty free market economy. It just has very high
Speaker 1: tax rates in a very large social welfare state. But
Speaker 1: it's not a socialist country. It's not meaningfully socialist in
Speaker 1: many ways. It does not have government called the means
Speaker 1: of production. It's not all state industries. It used to
Speaker 1: be along it used to be back in the seventies.
Speaker 1: But the designation of these as socialist countries is not accurate.
Speaker 1: Venezuela is much closer to a socialist country. And we're
Speaker 1: really looking at this Venezuela where the government was controlling prices.
Speaker 1: And as I've said to you, the price control mechanism
Speaker 1: was one of the reasons that Venezuela failed so rapidly
Speaker 1: and so miserably, because sure, as night follows day, you
Speaker 1: control prices on based on a social justice platform of oh,
Speaker 1: these guys are the greedy capitalists are taking too much
Speaker 1: money from you with their price. Now the price is lower, well,
Speaker 1: then guess what the price is the price because that's
Speaker 1: what the market price was, So then you create a
Speaker 1: black market for things, and then people stop making things
Speaker 1: for the open market, and then the open market starts
Speaker 1: to collapse because people can't buy the things that they're
Speaker 1: trying to that they want to buy, and the producers
Speaker 1: can't make them because the prices are wrong. And then
Speaker 1: the government would step in Venezuela and say, well, now
Speaker 1: we control the factory because you're not making, you know,
Speaker 1: widgets cheaply enough for the Venezuelan people. We're gonna take
Speaker 1: over your widget factory and we're gonna be the ones
Speaker 1: running it and telling people, oh, do you think that
Speaker 1: works out well? And so on and so forth. And
Speaker 1: that's how you have the country with the largest proven
Speaker 1: oil reserves in the world in his state of complete
Speaker 1: economic and financial despair. Though I'll note that Maduro is
Speaker 1: still hanging on. I've been worried all along that this
Speaker 1: guy was going to find some way to cling to power,
Speaker 1: and that's exactly where we are. He is, in fact,
Speaker 1: clinging to power. But kids should at least know that
Speaker 1: the programs that we're talking about in this country, that
Speaker 1: the things that are under discussion, what is socialism and
Speaker 1: what's not. They should be able to distinguish that. And
Speaker 1: you know, medicare for all is not in and of
Speaker 1: itself socialism. It is closer and closer though to socialized medicine.
Speaker 1: It'll put us on a path through socialized medicine. I mean,
Speaker 1: they need to know that. But if all it is
Speaker 1: is helping people, doing nice things for poor people, spreading
Speaker 1: money around from rich people, which is what the common
Speaker 1: conception among millennials and gen z currently is, then social
Speaker 1: is gonna keeping popular. Basically, they don't know what it is.
Speaker 1: The relevance of this dossier is that it was used
Speaker 1: in one FISA application for carter Page. Carter Page is
Speaker 1: one individual in this entire Russia investigation. So I just
Speaker 1: want to point out that this is like one thread.
Speaker 1: The question is which piece of the dossier did they
Speaker 1: rely on. I can tell you that they didn't staple
Speaker 1: the dossier to a cover letter and hand it to
Speaker 1: the court, and was it corroborated? And I think we
Speaker 1: don't know the answers to that questions to those questions
Speaker 1: yet because most of it has been redacted, and the
Speaker 1: IG report should shed more light on those. So that's
Speaker 1: one of the premier defenders of the upper echelon management
Speaker 1: of the FBI that engaged in the deep state coup
Speaker 1: against empty deep state coup against the president. You know,
Speaker 1: that's one of the uh the the foremost bad experts
Speaker 1: and analysts over at seeing an Asher rang Gappa, who
Speaker 1: was at FBI for you know a long time, and
Speaker 1: she's been a mainstay. It's been her. This guy Mud
Speaker 1: who's just completely lost his mind. I actually have met
Speaker 1: him a couple of times and he seemed normal. But
Speaker 1: Trump has broken him like he's broken many other people.
Speaker 1: There's Rangappa, there's Pajama, the FBI Pajama Boy. I don't
Speaker 1: remember his name, but you know who I'm talking about,
Speaker 1: the one that looks like pajama boy and he comes on.
Speaker 1: He's like James Coomey's number one, number one fan. And
Speaker 1: what they do now is they keep on either just
Speaker 1: getting things entirely wrong, which rung Gappa did here. The
Speaker 1: dossier was not used in one FIES application. It was
Speaker 1: used in from what we've already seen for once been released,
Speaker 1: it has been using all of the fives applications. It
Speaker 1: was cited again and again for the extensions. So if
Speaker 1: they had more information, if there was more stuff. You
Speaker 1: would think that they wouldn't have to rely on what
Speaker 1: we now know. And this is not some spin, This
Speaker 1: is not some effort to describe it in a way
Speaker 1: that is inaccurate. It was opposition research paid for by
Speaker 1: the DNC relying on foreign on a foreign intelligence former
Speaker 1: foreign intelligence operative, Christopher Steele, who relied on foreign sources
Speaker 1: of information. I've still never gotten an answer to the question,
Speaker 1: why is it that the meeting that Vezelnisky at Trump
Speaker 1: Tower had with Donald Trump Junior and Mana Ford and
Speaker 1: Jared Cohen. Why was that meeting evidence of some kind
Speaker 1: of treason. It's horrible, It's terrible. He's never start taken
Speaker 1: that meeting. And because it would have been information from
Speaker 1: a foreigner, that's all. It is information from a foreigner
Speaker 1: about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton DNC paid a foreigner
Speaker 1: to get information from other foreigners. And that's okay. No
Speaker 1: one has ever explained that to me. You know, they say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele, he's highly respected. Really, we're I know, now
Speaker 1: we're going to get Steel testifying. That's the ladies. He
Speaker 1: can testify. I gotta see if it's behind what the
Speaker 1: what the specifics of the parameters of the testament, you're
Speaker 1: going to be But Christopher Steele is going to be testifying,
Speaker 1: and we have to find out, okay, well who told
Speaker 1: him on and when we have to get him under oath.
Speaker 1: I wonder if if he is found to lie about
Speaker 1: any of this stuff, do you think that they will
Speaker 1: they will prosecute him. Do you think that there's really
Speaker 1: any realistic possibility that they will hold him accountable if
Speaker 1: he engages in any kind of falsehood up there? No,
Speaker 1: of course not. Just like how Tony Podesta, John Podesta's brother,
Speaker 1: for his foreign engagements and working for foreign governments, is
Speaker 1: going to find himself in no trouble whatsoever. You know,
Speaker 1: he's not going to get in trouble for what he
Speaker 1: did because we have a two tiered justice system. But
Speaker 1: but back to this miss Rangappa, who has once or
Speaker 1: twice crossords with me on Twitter in the past, so
Speaker 1: we've I've never met her, but she is she's in
Speaker 1: a sense remarkable because in a crowded field of clownery,
Speaker 1: Miss Rangapa at CNN as their national security analyst is
Speaker 1: among the most consistently and spectacularly wrong analysts that have
Speaker 1: been on this issue. Period. She has managed to be
Speaker 1: completely off based time and again. But CNN never holds
Speaker 1: anyone to account for this because the purpose of their analysts,
Speaker 1: and this is very important, The purpose of the CNN
Speaker 1: National security analyst are going on TV is not to
Speaker 1: tell you things that are true, is not to tell
Speaker 1: you things that are accurate. It is to promote a
Speaker 1: narrative that is pleasing to CNN's audience. Despite the fact
Speaker 1: that now they've had a think an eighteen percent drop
Speaker 1: in their ratings, they have a narrative they're trying to push.
Speaker 1: This is I believe very personal for CNN top management.
Speaker 1: I think that Zucker views his role now is engaging
Speaker 1: in a kind of massive feud with Trump, and it's
Speaker 1: Trump versus Zucker at some level. And this has been
Speaker 1: personalized in a way that if I were still an
Speaker 1: employee of CNN, which I am certainly not, I would
Speaker 1: find wholly inappropriate and bothersome But being wrong is never
Speaker 1: an issue at cnit See That's what I'm really getting
Speaker 1: at here. I mean, what NAPA said is just factually incorrect.
Speaker 1: Did you think they're going to issue a correction? Maybe
Speaker 1: they'll put it in like the website and no one's
Speaker 1: gonna see it, and no one's gonna care. It doesn't
Speaker 1: matter though, And the other part of this that I
Speaker 1: find so interesting is that you have these former national
Speaker 1: security people, people from my old community in one way
Speaker 1: or another, like Rongappa, CNN, Pajama Boy and Phil mud
Speaker 1: who I know people that like Phil and say he's
Speaker 1: a good guy. So I don't know what's and I'm
Speaker 1: probably being much more charitable about him than he would
Speaker 1: be about me, which is fine, But I don't know
Speaker 1: what's happened to him. But in the Trump era, you know,
Speaker 1: he's the one that was yelling about the blank whole countries,
Speaker 1: and you know, he's from a blank whole country. I
Speaker 1: think he's Irish, so you know, it's not a very
Speaker 1: nice thing to say about Ireland. But you know, you
Speaker 1: look at this and you see that there's there's a
Speaker 1: a fallback position for a lot of these individuals that well,
Speaker 1: the FISA Court had a process with judges signing off
Speaker 1: on stuff, so it's okay. This is never the position
Speaker 1: of the left on any other matter of national security interest.
Speaker 1: This is never the position of the left that because
Speaker 1: there's a there are some internal checks and balances, no
Speaker 1: external watchdogs, A secret government process to spy on people
Speaker 1: is just fine and just fine and dandy. Oh, but
Speaker 1: there was somebody signing off on it. Really, so was
Speaker 1: the left okay with there's somebody signing off on drone strikes,
Speaker 1: so then the drone strikes must just be fine. Well,
Speaker 1: they were fine when Obama was doing them, but before
Speaker 1: or that, that was of course, that was not fine.
Speaker 1: They changed their mind on these things based very much
Speaker 1: on who the individual, Who the individual is, who's making
Speaker 1: the calls, and that's what you have with all these
Speaker 1: institutionalists on the payroll at CNA. They're defending the process
Speaker 1: because the process was used at the FBI and the
Speaker 1: DOJ to get at Trump, the Inspector General port As
Speaker 1: I keep saying, it is going to come out. There
Speaker 1: are going to be people who look very very bad
Speaker 1: and look stupid. I don't know if there's going to
Speaker 1: be any accountability in government. I'm not sure there will be.
Speaker 1: I don't want to overpromise to you and tell you
Speaker 1: that I really believe at this point that those at
Speaker 1: the FBI who stepped out of line, who abused their authority,
Speaker 1: who abused their power, will be held to account because
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that that is true. In fact, I
Speaker 1: doubt very much that that is true. And I can
Speaker 1: also tell you that the people that have been getting
Speaker 1: paid to run around and be mouthpieces for the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion delusion for a long time here, those people will
Speaker 1: also not be punished by the media apparatus because they
Speaker 1: weren't being paid to go on TV and be smart
Speaker 1: and be right. They were paid to give a kind
Speaker 1: of believability, to create of a near of respectability of
Speaker 1: what was a conspiracy theory. And as you know, the
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory was that President Donald Trump worked with the
Speaker 1: Russians to undermine our election, steal the election from Hillary Clinton.
Speaker 1: It's crazy and it needs to keep being set out
Speaker 1: loud because it's so crazy. Rangappa and others over there,
Speaker 1: they're part of the Well, it didn't matter that we
Speaker 1: were wrong, because now let's move to oh that, now,
Speaker 1: let's move to obstruction. The process was weaponized against Trump
Speaker 1: to create the conspiracy theory of Russia collusion, and now
Speaker 1: the process of the process, meaning the investigation of the
Speaker 1: conspiracy theory that's being weaponized against Trump. It's it's never enough,
Speaker 1: that never will be enough because it also was never
Speaker 1: really about the truth. And once that's established, and once
Speaker 1: we understand that, then everything else really makes sense and
Speaker 1: falls into place. I saw some story here about Los Angeles.
Speaker 1: You know, I spend some time reason I like I
Speaker 1: like LA to visit. I don't know, I don't know
Speaker 1: if I could live there or not, just because the traffic.
Speaker 1: I'm a I'm not a car guy. I like, I
Speaker 1: like to be driven. I'm a very much. The ride
Speaker 1: share thing has made LA much better for me. I
Speaker 1: like ubering, and that's right. I believe that you should
Speaker 1: to get Uber riders to get ratings too, not just drivers.
Speaker 1: And I know many of you who disagree with me
Speaker 1: on that. But LA has gotten some more some more
Speaker 1: bad news about city mismanagement, the homelessness problem. I want
Speaker 1: to I want to just touch on that a little
Speaker 1: bit and then we'll get into your favorite time in mind,
Speaker 1: roll call. That's coming up. I was just out in China,
Speaker 1: as many of you know, for a week, and when
Speaker 1: I when I came back, I spent the week in
Speaker 1: Los Angeles and I have to say that the new
Speaker 1: inline here for the day about how the number of
Speaker 1: homeless people's jumped twelve percent across La County and that
Speaker 1: you have nearly sixty thousand homeless living on the streets.
Speaker 1: This is tragic, but it's unsurprising. And California, you know,
Speaker 1: it takes a long time for a place to degrade.
Speaker 1: You know, Rome wasn't built overnight, but it also didn't
Speaker 1: collapse overnight. It took a long series of events, over
Speaker 1: a considerable period of time for everything to finally just
Speaker 1: fall apart. And you know, you start to think, how
Speaker 1: quickly would some of these blue states really just collapse
Speaker 1: if they if they didn't have the federal government backing
Speaker 1: a lot of their programs and giving them all this stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, how quickly would the actual governing decisions of
Speaker 1: some of these blue states turn into a Detroit like
Speaker 1: situation or blue cities? I should say, although states too
Speaker 1: at some level. But you know, California is a place that,
Speaker 1: given its natural resources, it's tremendous beauty. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: you drive along Pacific Coast Highway, you go check out Malibu,
Speaker 1: big sir, These are some of the most beautiful places
Speaker 1: in the United States. Some people would argue some of
Speaker 1: the more beautiful places in the world. And the fact
Speaker 1: that California has the problems that it does here really
Speaker 1: just go to the political monoculture that exists. Now. There
Speaker 1: are I think someone told me there are a million
Speaker 1: a million Republicans, a million registered Republicans in the Los
Speaker 1: Angeles County, either in the county or in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: County and the surrounding areas. But there are Republicans. Ever,
Speaker 1: they're just completely outvoted. I think it's three to one.
Speaker 1: And you have all these policies that are being pushed
Speaker 1: that are just they don't make sense. These are not
Speaker 1: intelligent things to do. And this keeps happening in these
Speaker 1: cities that are very, very blue. There's tremendous mismanagement. This
Speaker 1: is happening in Los Angeles where the homelessness population is exploding,
Speaker 1: And this is happening in San Francisco, where you now
Speaker 1: have the poop patrol for people trying to find human
Speaker 1: feces via apps on the streets so they can avoid
Speaker 1: those areas. I'm here in Baltimore, which has certainly had
Speaker 1: its fair share of problems from mismanagement, continues to be
Speaker 1: plagued by crime. Really one of the only one of
Speaker 1: the only exceptions to this, which is a very large
Speaker 1: blue city. I mean, Chicago had its most violent weekend
Speaker 1: of the year this past weekend. I think fifty people
Speaker 1: were shot something along those lines. But really, the only
Speaker 1: exception to this is New York City, where I'm originally from.
Speaker 1: And I just believe that New York, under you know, Giuliani,
Speaker 1: cleaned it up so that crime wasn't going to be
Speaker 1: a problem. And then you did have a very lucky
Speaker 1: period of tremendous not just investment in the in the
Speaker 1: financial sector and all the employment there, but but global
Speaker 1: investment in New York City. Because New York is a
Speaker 1: truly global city. You've had people from Russia, China, Brazil, India,
Speaker 1: very very wealthy foreign nationals buying incredibly expensive properties, which
Speaker 1: has helped prop up the real estate market more than
Speaker 1: it would have otherwise been. So New York is a
Speaker 1: bit of an anomaly. But all these other places San Francisco,
Speaker 1: Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, New Orleans and just poorly run, man,
Speaker 1: I mean just not run well at all. And you
Speaker 1: see the decisions that are being made, and you can
Speaker 1: tell on the left coast the west coast, people think
Speaker 1: that it's mean to stop homelessness. They think it's it's
Speaker 1: you're being unkind if you try to prevent people from
Speaker 1: living on the streets and being in squalor, even if
Speaker 1: you want to prevent the outbreak of diseases like typhus.
Speaker 1: You know, the things that have been eradicated in the
Speaker 1: general population for a long time. But if you are
Speaker 1: living in unsanitary conditions, you can get so. I feel
Speaker 1: badly for a place like la because there's a lot
Speaker 1: of great people live there, a lot of great Los
Speaker 1: Angelenos listen to this show. But I also feel like
Speaker 1: the country does get to learn something from far left
Speaker 1: management of these cities is incredibly damaging. Roll Calls up next. Hey,
Speaker 1: Team Buck, it's time for roll call. Let's get to
Speaker 1: it Facebook dot Com, slash Buck Sexton, and let's get
Speaker 1: to Kyle who rides Buck heard you want Kennedy talking
Speaker 1: about China. It bothers me that people in this country
Speaker 1: loosely throw around the term fascist at whomever they disagree
Speaker 1: with politically. But if you look at the definition of
Speaker 1: what fascism actually is, I think the twenty first century
Speaker 1: reincarnation is China. I know they call themselves communists, but
Speaker 1: I think their mix of nationalism, state run quasi capitalist enterprises,
Speaker 1: and the Orwellian police state is more fascist than communist
Speaker 1: in its features. I'm not sure there can be a
Speaker 1: deal with a devil like that unless we sacrifice our
Speaker 1: principles and security. But I hope I'm wrong. Churchill warned
Speaker 1: about Hitler in the early thirties, but no one took
Speaker 1: them seriously until the threat was too large to diffuse
Speaker 1: without all out war. We need leaders who understand the
Speaker 1: threat and take it seriously because the target is on
Speaker 1: our backs and the Chinese are practicing their aim. Well.
Speaker 1: You know, I've been reading them more and more of
Speaker 1: these geostrategists of people that have been long time China watchers,
Speaker 1: and they seem pretty united in the idea that China
Speaker 1: is really looking to defeat us or get ahead of
Speaker 1: us economically before we're going to see anything militarily from them.
Speaker 1: And I see your point about how they're not They're
Speaker 1: definitely not really truly communist because the central tenet of
Speaker 1: a of a communist system is economics, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's Marxism, is it's a political and economic system intertwined together,
Speaker 1: or it's really politics directing the entirety of the economy
Speaker 1: for the purposes of redistribution. But whether it's a you know,
Speaker 1: fascist or quasi capitalist, or some new thing we've never seen,
Speaker 1: I think you could probably argue that China is in
Speaker 1: many ways, it's its own, its own political entity, and
Speaker 1: it is unlike anything else that we have ever seen
Speaker 1: in the past. There is a Central Committee, there is
Speaker 1: a Chinese Communist Party, and the Central Committee does control things. Shijinping, though,
Speaker 1: from what I understand, controls the Central Committee, So it's
Speaker 1: a communist dictatorship, it's an individual dictator ship. It's a
Speaker 1: one one party capitalist status enterprise. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: ways you could describe China, but all of them are
Speaker 1: going to be problematic for us going forward. Adam writes book,
Speaker 1: you should do an ad campaign that coincides with the election,
Speaker 1: have a parody of Comrade Commy Bear run for president,
Speaker 1: do all the tropes from the USSR, and help Trump win.
Speaker 1: Shields High well, Adam, I think especially there's a part
Speaker 1: of me that's hoping that Bernie Sanders is going to
Speaker 1: get the nomination, just so then we can bring back
Speaker 1: Commy Bear, which would be a whole lot of fun
Speaker 1: and it would be a really good way for us
Speaker 1: to be able to do some fun commentary and do
Speaker 1: some good things. So we'll see, we'll see what we got.
Speaker 1: Stan writes In Paraguay, a teacher broke a piece of
Speaker 1: chalk while writing on the chalkboard. Trump was blamed because
Speaker 1: of the white chalk. He was also cited for racism. Stan,
Speaker 1: if you're a comedian, do not quit your day job,
Speaker 1: my friend, But I do you. Writing in Nonetheless, Brandon
Speaker 1: writes book Great Show Yesterday. The opening scene in Saving
Speaker 1: Private Ryan's the main reason I joined the Army. I
Speaker 1: was in tears watching it at the age of twenty.
Speaker 1: I always loved my country, but didn't see the need
Speaker 1: to serve her. I thought to myself, what makes me
Speaker 1: so special that I get to enjoy this freedom in
Speaker 1: liberty without any sacrifice of my own. Shortly after watching
Speaker 1: the movie, I went to an Army recruiter in my
Speaker 1: small community college in Saginaw, Michigan. I told the recruiter
Speaker 1: I wanted to do what Ryan did in the movie.
Speaker 1: By the grace of God, it all worked out, and
Speaker 1: I became an airborne infantryman with all with the ACO
Speaker 1: one five O five in the eighty second Airborne Division.
Speaker 1: Today's a very special day for my old unit. One
Speaker 1: day before D Day h minus. It's written on our
Speaker 1: crests our unicrest to remember the men that jumped into
Speaker 1: France one hour before June sixth, nineteen forty four. So
Speaker 1: on June fifth, around twenty three hundred, that's when it happened.
Speaker 1: Thanks for what you do, brother Airborne all the way.
Speaker 1: I think I might say yesterday the anniversary D Day,
Speaker 1: I might have. I know it's June six I just
Speaker 1: got confused as to what day we're what date we
Speaker 1: were on, so apologies for that, but obviously D Day
Speaker 1: is June sixth, which is coming up in a day
Speaker 1: day before today would be the day that you're getting
Speaker 1: loaded onto boats and getting ready to get on the
Speaker 1: planes for the air drop and all the rest of it.
Speaker 1: And we talked about it in some detail yesterday, Michael rites.
Speaker 1: But a couple of things. Glad you're leaving Rising the
Speaker 1: show will leave lose half its audience when you leave.
Speaker 1: Their website. Video playback was horrendous in terms of Uber ratings.
Speaker 1: I'm with you. It's a free market solution to a problem.
Speaker 1: Like all unregulated services in the free market. They only
Speaker 1: get better with time. On baby Trump, I think it's
Speaker 1: kind of cute. Would be the ultimate troll of his
Speaker 1: supporters added a maga hat to it and started bringing
Speaker 1: little Trump baby balloons to the campaign rallies. Someone in
Speaker 1: the audience needs to get on that. Look, if they're
Speaker 1: not all ready selling fat baby Trump merchandise, then they're
Speaker 1: missing out on a big merchandising opportunity. You know, if
Speaker 1: they're not already doing that, I would how many of
Speaker 1: you would buy a little baby Trump blow up for
Speaker 1: the pool? You know? You know how people do those
Speaker 1: things where you know, like a big swan or I
Speaker 1: don't know, whatever it is, you blow up, you throw
Speaker 1: it in the water and then you can you can.
Speaker 1: It's not what is it called a float? I guess
Speaker 1: that would make sense because it's you're floating on it.
Speaker 1: But baby Trump merchandise, fat baby Trump merchandise is definitely
Speaker 1: something that there's an opportunity. And so if they have
Speaker 1: not already trademarked it and just putting it out there,
Speaker 1: you can send me, send me a ten percent cut.
Speaker 1: For the person that actually gets it and starts making it,
Speaker 1: send me my ten percent cut and will consider it
Speaker 1: even Let's see here, John Rights, where are you located
Speaker 1: so far back in the woods? I get TV a
Speaker 1: day late. Well, John, I do the show out of Washington,
Speaker 1: d C. But as I said, I'm in Baltimore tonight
Speaker 1: because sometimes I gotta make moves. I got meetings how
Speaker 1: to do, and that's yeah. I do the show in
Speaker 1: the Swamp, live from the swamp. Jeff Rights, Hey, Buck
Speaker 1: love your show. Listen nightly. By the way, what artist
Speaker 1: and song is your bumper music between segments? Sounds great.
Speaker 1: I'd like to know so I can download it. Thanks
Speaker 1: and have a great day. Well, Jeff, appreciate you writing
Speaker 1: in the bumper music between segments. It comes from a
Speaker 1: music library which we have a commercial license for, so
Speaker 1: I don't even know that there's a band associated with it.
Speaker 1: I think it's just the overall library that we have
Speaker 1: rights too. I couldn't tell you, but I did pick
Speaker 1: out some of the music. So the more upbeat stuff
Speaker 1: tends to come from tends to come from me. We
Speaker 1: are thinking about doing a kind of revamp of the
Speaker 1: music on the show. In general. We're thinking about doing
Speaker 1: some changes to the They call it imaging, which I
Speaker 1: always think is interesting because it's audio, it's not image,
Speaker 1: but the radio imaging may be changing pretty soon. Marissa
Speaker 1: Rights heard roll call. Thank you, Yes, send the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt address and I'll get them sent to you. In
Speaker 1: the male. The beard oils, all right, Marissa, I haven't forgotten.
Speaker 1: We'll get that to you. Although my beard is, as
Speaker 1: some of you noticed, very trimmed down from what it
Speaker 1: used to be. It's much less of a much less
Speaker 1: of an Eric Eric the red Viking beard, and now
Speaker 1: more of a like, Hey, I'm a hipster who makes
Speaker 1: coffee kind of a beard. I don't know if hipster's
Speaker 1: talked that way. I don't know what really happened there, Sarah, Hey,
Speaker 1: Buck really galls mean that Virginia Governor Northam cannot wait
Speaker 1: to kill babies but wants to keep others safe from
Speaker 1: harm by guns. Same old communist socialist agenda shields high. Oh, Sarah,
Speaker 1: I don't know if I have much to add to that.
Speaker 1: Let's see here, dude, this is from Matt. Dude, what
Speaker 1: is the deal? I haven't had to care about the
Speaker 1: British Royal Navy, British Royal family, not Navy, sorry, British
Speaker 1: Royal family since July four, seventeen seventy six. I never
Speaker 1: understand seeing their pictures, all of the tabloids and the
Speaker 1: checkout line I liked, I like Trump would have been
Speaker 1: completely lost if I were asked about the Duchess of Sussex.
Speaker 1: Who who? What? What? Who? Matt. I also, I share
Speaker 1: your confusion here because why anyone cares at all about
Speaker 1: the British royal family is something that I have no
Speaker 1: real Well, I'll say this, people like fairy tales and
Speaker 1: royal families figure heavily in that, and I think for
Speaker 1: I noticed that they're more popular among young women. They
Speaker 1: like Meghan Markle and the Prince Harry and all these guys.
Speaker 1: They're viewed as a kind of ultimate like a classy
Speaker 1: what do you call it, classy reality star. That's what
Speaker 1: the British Royal family is for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: They're like classy reality stars. So maybe that's part of it, um,
Speaker 1: But I couldn't I couldn't speak to it really beyond that.
Speaker 1: Pablo hey Buck, you asked for good shows to watch,
Speaker 1: and just saw this week in a mini series about
Speaker 1: the Central Park five. I thought it was done really
Speaker 1: well and telling the story of this tragedy. Then they
Speaker 1: couldn't help themselves and actually took a jab in the
Speaker 1: summary part of the show. Huh, shields high. I don't
Speaker 1: know what you mean by took a jab in the
Speaker 1: summary part of the show. I would just say this.
Speaker 1: You know, Ann Coulter has done a lot of really
Speaker 1: interesting work on the Central Park five and has pointed
Speaker 1: out that the people that were initially convicted, they confessed,
Speaker 1: and the way that they were all exonerated was essentially
Speaker 1: that their DNA was not the DNA found on the
Speaker 1: woman who was brutally raped and attacked and almost beaten
Speaker 1: to death in the park. But that was always, as
Speaker 1: I understand it, that was always known. It was always
Speaker 1: believed that there was a primary attacker who got away,
Speaker 1: but that did not mean that no one else took
Speaker 1: part in the attack. And for that kind of a
Speaker 1: sexual assault, if anyone takes any part in the attack,
Speaker 1: they are equally guilty as the perpetrator who would have
Speaker 1: left behind his genetic material. So I'm willing to bet
Speaker 1: that if I watch this and then read back over
Speaker 1: the court transcripts of it, and maybe I'll have to
Speaker 1: do that, I will find that this is likely a
Speaker 1: work of some propaganda. But we shall see, we shall see.
Speaker 1: What else do we have here? We have Chris all right,
Speaker 1: buck heard you talking about Stephen King. I grew up
Speaker 1: in the eighties and he was one of the defining
Speaker 1: cultural authors. I read every book up until he got
Speaker 1: hit by a van of the nineties. I think he's
Speaker 1: writing veered off into something after that. I still read
Speaker 1: a number of his books, but he never really recovered
Speaker 1: from the accident. I married my midlife crisis. He wallowed
Speaker 1: in that life threatening accident. Who am I to judge?
Speaker 1: What has always jared me is that all of his
Speaker 1: main characters are unmistakably conservative insane. In other words, the
Speaker 1: heroes of his stories are recognizable as normal. He doesn't
Speaker 1: understand the good guys. He writes about our conservative talk
Speaker 1: about cognitive dissidence. Well, Chris, thanks so much for our
Speaker 1: writing it about Stephen King. I have never read a
Speaker 1: Stephen King book, so I can't really speak to it,
Speaker 1: but thank you very much for giving me your thoughts
Speaker 1: on the matter. All Right, team, that's gonna be it
Speaker 1: for today in the Hut from Baltimore. Get a shout
Speaker 1: out to all the folks listening on WCBM. I hope
Speaker 1: you are enjoying it and we will be back tomorrow
Speaker 1: from the swamp from DC, same time, same place, well,
Speaker 1: I guess different place for me, but same place for you,
Speaker 1: hopefully Shieldsaye