Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The border crisis is
Speaker 1: spiraling completely out of control. We have more numbers, more data,
Speaker 1: more information. And oh, by the way, the Democrats were
Speaker 1: lying their faces off about this until today. We'll get
Speaker 1: into that and also the latest on the fight over
Speaker 1: ilhan Omar's anti Semitism, the fight to prevent this country
Speaker 1: from becoming socialist, and oh so much more coming up
Speaker 1: on The Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show where the mission where mission is to decode what
Speaker 1: really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, you're
Speaker 1: a great American. Again, the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's
Speaker 1: a great guy. No, Welcome to the Buck Sex and
Speaker 1: Show everybody. Great to have you joining me here today.
Speaker 1: Although I do not come with particularly inspiring news about
Speaker 1: what's happening in this country, though it's stuff that you
Speaker 1: have to know. That's why I know a lot of
Speaker 1: you come in you listen to this show because I'm
Speaker 1: going to tell you what you need to hear. I'll
Speaker 1: tell you what's really going on, what's really happening in
Speaker 1: this country. Okay, I have been speaking the last few days.
Speaker 1: To see your folks all the way down also within
Speaker 1: the command chain at Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and at
Speaker 1: border patrol. And let me just tell you right now,
Speaker 1: we've got a big, big problem. We've got a big
Speaker 1: problem happening right now at our southern border, and it's
Speaker 1: just going to get worse. It's going to be a
Speaker 1: situation where if we don't get a handle on this
Speaker 1: right now, it's going to be too late. You're going
Speaker 1: to have a flood of a million this year, a
Speaker 1: million next year, I mean, and how much by the
Speaker 1: think of all the family reunification stuff that's going to
Speaker 1: happen to it is out of control. And if you
Speaker 1: don't think that my word on this is enough for you.
Speaker 1: And we have the Secretary of Homeland Security DHS Kirsten Nielsen,
Speaker 1: who's out there saying more or less what I'm telling you,
Speaker 1: which is that if we don't get a handle on this,
Speaker 1: if we don't stop sticking our heads in the sand
Speaker 1: and pretending like this problem isn't happening as a country,
Speaker 1: it's just going to be too late. We're just going
Speaker 1: to be in a circumstance that we can't pull ourselves
Speaker 1: out of. Here. Is Nielsen talking about this earlier today
Speaker 1: play clip ten. Illegal immigration is simply spiraling out of
Speaker 1: control in threatening public safety and national security. We face
Speaker 1: a crisis, a real, serious and sustained crisis at our borders.
Speaker 1: We have tens of thousands of illegal aliens arriving at
Speaker 1: our doorstep every month. We have drugs, criminals, and violence
Speaker 1: spilling into our country every week. And we have smugglers
Speaker 1: and traffickers profiting from human misery every single day by
Speaker 1: exploiting people who are seeking a better life, deceiving them
Speaker 1: about our laws, and fueling everything from sexual slavery to
Speaker 1: child exploitation to the smuggling of illicit goods. It's really
Speaker 1: not a crisis. It is a lot of crises. It
Speaker 1: is crisis pile, the top crisis that affects cities across
Speaker 1: the country. It's not just about the border. This isn't abstract.
Speaker 1: This is the drugs that are flooding into a lot
Speaker 1: of small and medium sized cities across the country and
Speaker 1: killing tens of thousands of Americans. It is the strain
Speaker 1: on resources. I was seeing that they're expecting I think
Speaker 1: forty thousand illegal aliens to be admitted to US hospitals
Speaker 1: as soon as they go to the border and then
Speaker 1: they go straight to the hospital for medical care. So
Speaker 1: just remember that the next time. You know, unfortunately, if
Speaker 1: you put like a nail through your hand or something,
Speaker 1: you have to go to the er. When you're waiting,
Speaker 1: just understand that they're gonna be people there that are
Speaker 1: getting their first line medical care who are legal aliens
Speaker 1: who came into the country in violation of our laws,
Speaker 1: and they're going to get seen. You're gonna pay for it,
Speaker 1: and you get to wait, especially if you live along
Speaker 1: the border. That's what's going to happen in forty thousand people.
Speaker 1: They expect they're gonna have to go into it for
Speaker 1: hospital visits, for medical care. And I'll keep in mind
Speaker 1: they're generally not necessarily emergencies, but they take them to
Speaker 1: hospitals because they've got to get them seen quickly because
Speaker 1: they can't hold them. They're not allowed to hold them
Speaker 1: if they have children with them. Much longer now, much
Speaker 1: longer than I think it's a couple of days. Remember,
Speaker 1: there'll be nobody left in guatemal at this rate, they said,
Speaker 1: quoting somebody in the Washington Post. Early this week. Everyone's
Speaker 1: realized this that the crisis is out of Control, Immigrations
Speaker 1: and Customs Enforcement. Border patrol are absolutely overwhelmed. They have
Speaker 1: incidents where a hundred people and this has happened dozens
Speaker 1: and dozens of times this year. One hundred people show
Speaker 1: up at the board and say, hey, here we are now.
Speaker 1: Put us on buses, feed us, give us medical care,
Speaker 1: and then within a couple of days, let us let
Speaker 1: us free in the United States, never to be seen
Speaker 1: again by any US authority. That's our system right now.
Speaker 1: I'm not exaggerating it. I'm not taking out a context.
Speaker 1: That is what is happening right now. Remember, I mean,
Speaker 1: you look at Honduras, Guatemala, El Salvador, you look at
Speaker 1: what's going on in these countries, and you understand that
Speaker 1: as more people figure this out, we are going to
Speaker 1: have an even bigger problem. It's seventy thousand migrants last month,
Speaker 1: they're expecting one hundred thousand this month. And I spoke
Speaker 1: to a chief of Border patrol law enforcement operations today
Speaker 1: on camera, off camera, and he's just saying that there's
Speaker 1: no penalty for this, there's nothing, there's no downside that
Speaker 1: comes from people coming to the border and doing a
Speaker 1: play clip seven. So without a consequence without being able
Speaker 1: to deliver a consequence to these individuals for illegally crossing
Speaker 1: our borders. The Border Patrol has no reason to expect
Speaker 1: that this trend will decrease. In fact, we believe it
Speaker 1: will increase. Why wouldn't it increase. All if you do
Speaker 1: is show up with a kid, or show up and
Speaker 1: claim credible fear, and you're in. It's almost hard to
Speaker 1: believe that our system is as foolish and open to
Speaker 1: exploitation as it is. I mean, we are being scammed
Speaker 1: on a massive and systematic level, and as a citizen,
Speaker 1: I mean, you should probably sit around feeling pretty angry
Speaker 1: about it. I'll be honest with you. I know I am.
Speaker 1: You know Lindsey Graham, who's not particularly strong on the border,
Speaker 1: but he at least understands some of these numbers that
Speaker 1: have come out recently. Play clip eight. They're about forty
Speaker 1: five thousand bed spaces. We're on track to apprehend in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen six hundred and forty thousand illegal immigrants. Do
Speaker 1: the math. If you're an unaccompanied miner and you make
Speaker 1: it to America after twenty days, the Boarder Patrol hands
Speaker 1: you over the labor HHS and only two percent of
Speaker 1: unaccompanied miners ever go back to the country where they
Speaker 1: came from. It's just stunning the amount of people coming,
Speaker 1: particularly families, and the reason they come. As we've got
Speaker 1: some pretty broken loss, very important distinction that I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about which doesn't come up often in
Speaker 1: the discourse and the media about this. The illegal immigration
Speaker 1: we're seeing now is much worse from a process and
Speaker 1: a system's perspective than what we were doing with ever
Speaker 1: from Mexico because you cannot quickly deport people who come
Speaker 1: illegally from Central America. You can't just kick them out
Speaker 1: into Mexico if they're not Mexican nationals. It's a much
Speaker 1: harder and longer process. So when caravans from Honduras or
Speaker 1: Guatemala get to the US border, unlike Mexican predominantly Mexican
Speaker 1: illegal immigration in the nineties and early two thousands, they didn't.
Speaker 1: They could have been deported within a day sent back
Speaker 1: to Mexico. That was happening all the time in large numbers.
Speaker 1: These Central American migrants, if they get to the border,
Speaker 1: they are home free. They're in this country because you
Speaker 1: cannot immediately deport to for the con higuous countries of
Speaker 1: Mexico and Canada that have US that have borders with
Speaker 1: the United States, we can't just take citizens foreign nationals
Speaker 1: from other countries and say, well, now it's Mexico's problem.
Speaker 1: We won't do that. So when people come here that
Speaker 1: arn't from Mexico or Canada, it automatically slows down the
Speaker 1: process and makes it much harder, which means that all
Speaker 1: you have to do if you're from Guatemala, Honduras, El Salvador,
Speaker 1: maybe soon Venezuela. I asked the border chief about that today.
Speaker 1: He said, yeah, they're really worried about Venezuela. People said, oh,
Speaker 1: the caravans will never make it. It's too far. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's called a bus or a train or both. The
Speaker 1: last round of caravans made it from Central America Venezuela.
Speaker 1: It's not that far, it's not that unthinkable, and it's
Speaker 1: not going to stop. And this is what now everyone's
Speaker 1: starting to realize. This isn't a sometime problem, this is
Speaker 1: a ur immigration system is now truly broken, and it
Speaker 1: is absolutely a crisis. We'll get into more of this
Speaker 1: team up in just a moment. Stay with me. Yesterday
Speaker 1: we announced that the numbers of apprehension at our southern
Speaker 1: border have spiked again substantially. Since Lay last year. We
Speaker 1: have been seeing fifty to sixty thousand migrants arrive at
Speaker 1: our southern border each month, but in February we saw
Speaker 1: thirty percent jump over the previous month, with agents apprehending
Speaker 1: or encountering nearly seventy five thousand aliens. This is an
Speaker 1: eighty percent increase over the same time last year, and
Speaker 1: I report today that CBP is forecasting the problem will
Speaker 1: get even worse this spring as the weather warms up.
Speaker 1: The projections are dire. The agency is now on track
Speaker 1: to apprehend more migrants crossing illegally in the first six
Speaker 1: months of this fiscal year than the entirety of f
Speaker 1: y seventeen, and at the current pace, we are on
Speaker 1: track to encounter close to one million illegal aliens at
Speaker 1: our southern border this year. Our capacity is already severely restrained,
Speaker 1: but these increase is will overwhelm the system entirely. Overwhelm
Speaker 1: the system entirely. This is not an accident. I've been
Speaker 1: saying it here to you on the show. Is straight
Speaker 1: out of the Olenski playbook. Find out what their rules
Speaker 1: are forget about what good faith or integrity would tell
Speaker 1: you to do. Exploit the seams in their system, overwhelm
Speaker 1: their system, bring it down. You can make a case
Speaker 1: right now and with Trump as the president, that we
Speaker 1: are more in danger of becoming a true open borders
Speaker 1: country than we ever have before, which is a very
Speaker 1: discouraging thing to have to say, but it is true.
Speaker 1: Unless the law changes, this is going to continue. It's
Speaker 1: going to get worse. They have to look at this
Speaker 1: from the perspective of the politicians who are going to
Speaker 1: be making calculates, and as we know, they make calculations
Speaker 1: mostly to benefit themselves and their careers. And you know
Speaker 1: if they're going to leave their their lobbying fees that
Speaker 1: they'll get on the outside. With twelve million illegals in
Speaker 1: the country officially, more like twenty or thirty in reality,
Speaker 1: and now with another million or so planned to come
Speaker 1: in this year or expected to come in this year,
Speaker 1: does anyone think that there will be a surge in
Speaker 1: political courage on this issue. We are way behind where
Speaker 1: we should be right now, and the political gravity is
Speaker 1: unfortunately pulling us further and further in the direction of
Speaker 1: being a de facto open border state. That is just
Speaker 1: the truth, an open border state where if you show
Speaker 1: up and you want to be in this country and
Speaker 1: you don't have you know, you don't immediately set off
Speaker 1: alarmed as being a terrorist or something else. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're going to get to stay here. You're going to
Speaker 1: get to stay here. And this brings me to the
Speaker 1: fundamental differences between how Democrats and Republicans see this issue.
Speaker 1: Although not all Republicans, some Republicans are terrible on this.
Speaker 1: Sovereignty is that really a thing that the left believes in.
Speaker 1: We need to push them on this and we need
Speaker 1: to understand why we think sovereignty matters. You know, yes
Speaker 1: there are claims. I think it wasn't a Reagan right.
Speaker 1: If you don't have borders, you don't have a country.
Speaker 1: This has been known for a long time. But why
Speaker 1: is that the case? Well, if we can't control who
Speaker 1: is in this family, so to speak, that we call America,
Speaker 1: then what is America? What is this idea? Is it
Speaker 1: just power? Is it just force systems that are in place?
Speaker 1: There's nothing about the American people. Because the American people
Speaker 1: are would be changing all the time without any respect
Speaker 1: for the very systems that are in place to determine
Speaker 1: who's an American. So does sovereignty matter? I think the
Speaker 1: answer for Democrats is no, sovereignty doesn't matter. All that
Speaker 1: matters to them is that they want more votes. They
Speaker 1: want more dependable Democrat voters, people who are going to
Speaker 1: be very easily co opted into the intersectional social justice,
Speaker 1: racially divided country that the Democrats want, because that's what
Speaker 1: their coalition is built on, that's how they want to
Speaker 1: control people. So there's that component of it. Is sovereignty
Speaker 1: something that is even desirable from a Democrat point of view?
Speaker 1: And I think the answer is they won't say this,
Speaker 1: but I do think the answer is no, they don't
Speaker 1: find it to be desirable. They think it's unnecessary. Sovereignty
Speaker 1: is unnecessary. And then you get into the other question,
Speaker 1: which is given that is illegal immigration a problem? And
Speaker 1: I could cite all kinds of evidence, and I think
Speaker 1: I have done so on the show at some length
Speaker 1: to show that for Democrats, no, they don't think illegal
Speaker 1: immigration is a problem. It's not something that they think
Speaker 1: is an issue for which any response is needed other
Speaker 1: than managing it and trying to leverage it, trying to
Speaker 1: benefit from it. Democrats don't get upset at the idea
Speaker 1: of somebody sneaking into this country and just staying here
Speaker 1: and working and doing it. You know, Meanwhile, if you
Speaker 1: decide not to pay your taxes, you're a bad American.
Speaker 1: You're a bad person. Your taxes mean nothing to this
Speaker 1: country as an individual, nothing. You are taking an eyedropper
Speaker 1: and you know, dropping some water in the ocean, it
Speaker 1: means nothing. But if you don't pay your taxes, you're
Speaker 1: gonna go to prison. You're a bad person. If you
Speaker 1: come into this country illegally, you're actually, according to Democrats,
Speaker 1: better than an American. They are really, they're kind of
Speaker 1: super Americans. The new Americans to the left that are
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants. They don't have to go through the legal process,
Speaker 1: they don't have to be legal Americans. They're better than Americans.
Speaker 1: This is what they've been saying. I'm making it up.
Speaker 1: You've heard them, lower crime rates than native born Americans,
Speaker 1: work harder than native born Americans, do jobs native bord
Speaker 1: Americans won't do. So they don't oppose illegal immigration, which
Speaker 1: means that we do not have partners in this and
Speaker 1: all they have to do. And this is what's truly.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. I don't have a lot of sweet, sweet
Speaker 1: things to say about the immigration situation right now. I
Speaker 1: don't have a lot of positive thinking on this one.
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you what's going on, and I'm talking
Speaker 1: to people at the very top of the immigration enforcement
Speaker 1: food chain now on a regular basis. This is not good.
Speaker 1: But they the Democrats, clearly favor continued illegal immigration, and
Speaker 1: all they have to do is hang onto the status quo.
Speaker 1: The status quo is that this is going to keep
Speaker 1: going and going and going. There'll be more of this,
Speaker 1: more people come into the country, and they'll figure out
Speaker 1: when they get here very quickly that there's one party
Speaker 1: that thinks that we have laws and sovereignty and an
Speaker 1: immigration system that should be respected, the Republican Party, and
Speaker 1: even that is shaky, and even Republicans on this one
Speaker 1: are a little shaky. And then you have another party
Speaker 1: that's like, no, the more of the meritors come, come
Speaker 1: here ever you want, just make sure you register Democrat
Speaker 1: and we sign you up for the welfare roles as
Speaker 1: quickly as possible so that the evil, rich, capitalist, bad
Speaker 1: Republicans can pay for everything. Even though as we know,
Speaker 1: you know, there's more, the Democrats have more than their
Speaker 1: fair share of the super rich. So this is the
Speaker 1: circumstance right now. They just have to be in transigent
Speaker 1: into nothing. Doing nothing favors the Democrats de facto open
Speaker 1: borders desires. And one thing that we know that government
Speaker 1: is really good at when it wants to is just sloth,
Speaker 1: do nothing, status quo. Well, the continuation of the status
Speaker 1: quo at our southern border is going to be a
Speaker 1: massive flood of not just a million this year, It's
Speaker 1: going to be a million this year. It's going to
Speaker 1: be a million next year. It's going to keep happening
Speaker 1: and happening and happening. It will transform this country while
Speaker 1: President Trump is still in office. That is stark, but
Speaker 1: that is the truth. I'll be right back. It is
Speaker 1: absolutely abhorrent that Democrats are still refusing to acknowledge the
Speaker 1: crisis on the border, particularly when Barack Obama himself even
Speaker 1: called it a crisis in twenty fourteen. We know exactly
Speaker 1: what it is, and it's time they start doing their
Speaker 1: jobs and actually fixing it. They should follow the president
Speaker 1: he is actually leading. If Congress didn't want him to
Speaker 1: declare a national emergency, they should have done their jobs
Speaker 1: and actually fix the problem. Look, there has been so
Speaker 1: much dishonesty in the last few months over what's happening
Speaker 1: at the border, and the border like abortion, which we'll
Speaker 1: talk about later on in the show, is one of
Speaker 1: these areas where the media have just been propagandists for
Speaker 1: all that is wrong and bad and undrew and false.
Speaker 1: You've been lied to you about immigration for so long,
Speaker 1: so many hims I have too. I we have been
Speaker 1: lied to about immigration so much that it is hard
Speaker 1: to keep track. Let me give you a couple of
Speaker 1: I think particularly worthwhile examples here. One is, we finally
Speaker 1: and it's because of Trump, because of the Trump administration,
Speaker 1: but we finally reached a point where when people would
Speaker 1: say walts don't work, wals don't work, we could say
Speaker 1: that is the dumbest thing a human being could say
Speaker 1: about this issue. Of course, wall work, walls work in
Speaker 1: a variety of context. This is like saying a wheel
Speaker 1: doesn't work. It's so dumb that when you think about it,
Speaker 1: it's amazing that anybody could say that publicly think they're
Speaker 1: winning a debate with it, and that you had so
Speaker 1: many people repeating this. I would talk to Libs. They'd say, well,
Speaker 1: the experts say, they would say, the experts say, walls
Speaker 1: don't work. Thankfully I have the access and the contacts
Speaker 1: now to be able to talk to the experts on
Speaker 1: immigration in the border and to go see it for
Speaker 1: myself and yeah, walls work, obviously, So you were lying
Speaker 1: to about that, and they have finally, although they'll probably
Speaker 1: go back and pretend like, you know, nothing ever happened
Speaker 1: and we didn't find out anything. They finally now I
Speaker 1: think we'll have to step away from that chant of
Speaker 1: stupidity in arguments to bleep that. Like the sheep in
Speaker 1: animal farm, they no longer will be able to get
Speaker 1: away with that walls don't work. Legs good, two legs bad.
Speaker 1: They won't be able to do that. But we see
Speaker 1: another issue where they were just lying, and unfortunately they
Speaker 1: did it to some effect because even some Republicans defected
Speaker 1: on this one, and that was that there's no crisis
Speaker 1: at the border. There's no crisis at the border. This
Speaker 1: is a patently falsely. This is something that never should
Speaker 1: have been uttered by any serious person in this country
Speaker 1: because the border is now just a series of crises.
Speaker 1: There are many crises going on in the border. One
Speaker 1: thing that I've noticed that happens is you have Democrats
Speaker 1: now that will say, well, it's a it's a it's
Speaker 1: not a crisis, it's a humanitarian crisis. I'm sorry, that's
Speaker 1: a crisis. You know, this to be like saying it's
Speaker 1: not chicken, it's araake chicken. Pretty sure, it's still chicken.
Speaker 1: You know, they really just get so wrapped around saying
Speaker 1: things that they hear other leftists say that they never
Speaker 1: really spent any time thinking about what am I really
Speaker 1: what claim am I really making? Right? So, oh, it's
Speaker 1: not it's not a Creati's a humanitarian crisis. Well no,
Speaker 1: it's also a security crisis. So that's not even a
Speaker 1: true statement. But you know, to say that it's not
Speaker 1: a crisis at all, it's just it's just a lie.
Speaker 1: It's a lie. They've been lying about this. And then
Speaker 1: underneath that lie or a couple of others. The one
Speaker 1: that annoyed me the most, and this was deployed and
Speaker 1: this was a talking point that I it almost felt
Speaker 1: like this must have been emailed out by the DNC
Speaker 1: and you know, the the left wing intelligentsia such as
Speaker 1: they are, right the Pajama Boy Mafia came together and
Speaker 1: came up with, Oh, what we need to do is
Speaker 1: tell everybody that the number of illegal crossings is historically,
Speaker 1: by historical standards, not really that high. So this isn't
Speaker 1: really that big a deal. You know, you'd hear that
Speaker 1: they'd say the number. In fact, you had Democrats saying
Speaker 1: the numbers are at historic lows. This is like saying,
Speaker 1: three months after nine to eleven, you know, we've had
Speaker 1: very little terrorism in this country if you exclude nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, Well, that's a really useful the usefulay to
Speaker 1: look at it, isn't it. Because what they've done now
Speaker 1: is say, oh, the number of illegals in this country
Speaker 1: right now, or the number of people that are coming
Speaker 1: into the country illegally isn't as bad as it was
Speaker 1: in two thousand and five or in the nineteen nineties.
Speaker 1: So that means that it's not bad. That's not true
Speaker 1: on every level. I mean that's in many ways it's
Speaker 1: worse than what it was, and you know, as I've
Speaker 1: been telling you, worse than one it was in the nineties.
Speaker 1: But also now you know we're on track to get
Speaker 1: a million crossings this year. I mean a million people
Speaker 1: that are entering the United States, not through the standard
Speaker 1: immigration system. So but that was another lie. Right, there's
Speaker 1: not a crisis. The numbers aren't really that high. Walls
Speaker 1: don't work, these are these are It's just lie after
Speaker 1: lie after lie. They just don't care as long as
Speaker 1: they had their talking points in order so that when
Speaker 1: Trump declared a national emergency, which this manifestly is, it
Speaker 1: could not be more clear that we are dealing with
Speaker 1: a national emergency. Public opinion wouldn't be solidly behind Trump
Speaker 1: on this one. This was a propaganda fight, and unfortunately
Speaker 1: the Democrats got a fair amount of mileingche out of
Speaker 1: their lies. But I mean, I heard that lie about
Speaker 1: about how the numbers really aren't that high from I
Speaker 1: heard it all over the place. Oh yeah, seventy thousand
Speaker 1: a month last month, that's not high. It's supposed to
Speaker 1: be a hundred thousand this month. That's not high. But
Speaker 1: it worked, you know, it worked. Just this is just
Speaker 1: what the Democrats do. It. It's like the approach with Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: They knew that all the stories were going to fall
Speaker 1: apart and that those women were either liars or had
Speaker 1: just honestly a screw loose and that they knew that
Speaker 1: it wasn't going to stand up, but it didn't matter
Speaker 1: because they were trying to achieve something, which was to
Speaker 1: block his nomination to the Supreme Court. So by the
Speaker 1: time the truth came out because they are not truthful people,
Speaker 1: because they don't have any integrity to protect, didn't matter.
Speaker 1: It served its purpose. Unfortunately, what has happened now is
Speaker 1: the Democrats have convinced enough people, including some Republicans, that
Speaker 1: this isn't a national emergency, or this isn't a good
Speaker 1: usage of the president's national emergency powers, when this is
Speaker 1: the best usage of the president's national emergency powers that
Speaker 1: I can think of off the top of my head,
Speaker 1: other than you know, natural disaster relief, and you know,
Speaker 1: this is turning into a disaster. As much as Democrats
Speaker 1: may may wish that were not the case, it is
Speaker 1: the case. And I'm hoping that there'll be some accountability
Speaker 1: at the ballot box for this in twenty twenty, although
Speaker 1: I know between now and then it's a it feels
Speaker 1: like a lifetime. It is a lifetime in politics. But
Speaker 1: they've been they've been so just full of it on
Speaker 1: this issue, and it's been frustrating to see how little,
Speaker 1: you know, how little headweight we really made. Because I
Speaker 1: can't I can't avoid the conclusion that this is not
Speaker 1: the secure border that President Trump promise. I'm sorry, it
Speaker 1: is not. We are at Obama levels of illegal crossings
Speaker 1: right now. We are at um, you know, the illegal
Speaker 1: immigration equivalent of def kan too. And this is happening
Speaker 1: under the Trump presidency, the guy who ran on build
Speaker 1: the wall and secure the border and give border patrol.
Speaker 1: And this is where we are. I'm not saying clearly,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying we give up, but I can't help
Speaker 1: it say that this is It is discouraging. This is discouraging.
Speaker 1: There's no way around that. You know, it would be dishonest.
Speaker 1: It's impossible. It is impossible to sit here and tell
Speaker 1: you that we should be this is where we should
Speaker 1: be on the immigration issue right now. I thought we'd
Speaker 1: be talking about, you know, trying to fix healthcare and
Speaker 1: you know, bringing the troops home, and there are a
Speaker 1: lot of things that I want to right now, this
Speaker 1: is the biggest issue in the country and President Trump
Speaker 1: needs to do a lot more because right now we're
Speaker 1: not getting it done. Smugglers and traffickers have caught on
Speaker 1: realizing that the outdated laws, lack of resources, and bad
Speaker 1: purchasicians effectively give them a free ticket into America. The
Speaker 1: flow of families and children has become a flood. In
Speaker 1: the past five years, we have seen a six hundred
Speaker 1: and twenty percent increase in families or those posing as
Speaker 1: families apprehended at the border. And of great concern to
Speaker 1: me is that the children are being used as pawns
Speaker 1: to get into our country. We have encountered in cycling
Speaker 1: recycling rings where innocent young people are used multiple times
Speaker 1: to help aliens gain illegal entry. That's a secretary of
Speaker 1: DHS Nielsen saying that kids are at the heart of
Speaker 1: this problem right now, because kids are being used by adults,
Speaker 1: including by the cartels, by human smuggling networks, in order
Speaker 1: to gain entry into this country. Now, a lot of
Speaker 1: the kids are members of family units, but we are
Speaker 1: not supposed to have a system where if you have
Speaker 1: a kid you get to just come to America. That
Speaker 1: is now the system that we have. And by creating
Speaker 1: this enormous magnet effect, because kids are so valuable in
Speaker 1: this process, it just means that there are even more
Speaker 1: people who are going to bring children along for what
Speaker 1: is still a very dangerous journey. They're going through cartel
Speaker 1: controlled territory, they are often exposed to the the elements,
Speaker 1: and obviously there's a tremendous amount of sexual assault that
Speaker 1: occurs as well, So for young females who are making
Speaker 1: this journey, that's always a major concern. But what we're
Speaker 1: going to see happening now is that the Democrats, who
Speaker 1: buy their policies, have encouraged this. The Democrats are encouraging
Speaker 1: this to continue happening. They have no problem with adults
Speaker 1: using kids as a skip the line maneuver at our
Speaker 1: southern border to get into this country scott free, free
Speaker 1: and clear. Democrats have no problem with us. I have
Speaker 1: yet to hear a Democrat who has an issue with this.
Speaker 1: They will say, oh, they're just seeking asylum. Now they're not.
Speaker 1: These aren't as siles. These are migrants. These people want
Speaker 1: to come to America, and yeah, a lot of them
Speaker 1: want to come to America because we have and pretty
Speaker 1: sweet welfare benefits and a lot of organizations that exist
Speaker 1: specifically to cater to the needs of illegal aliens, legal
Speaker 1: aid organizations and all kinds of stuff. Now, I mean,
Speaker 1: we have an entire illegal alien infrastructure in this country,
Speaker 1: and now we have increasingly illegal aliens who are demanding
Speaker 1: more things and city and state governments who are giving
Speaker 1: it to them. So, I mean, it's the incentives here
Speaker 1: are very clear for people to try to get into
Speaker 1: this country from what they call the Northern Triangle of
Speaker 1: Central America Honduras. Is that Honduras, El Salvador and Guatemala,
Speaker 1: or Honduras, Guatemala and Nicaragua close enough. Those countries are
Speaker 1: all pretty much what we're talking about right now. But
Speaker 1: you're going to hear a lot of emotional stuff from
Speaker 1: the Democrats about how this is about children and how
Speaker 1: dare you and you're so terrible. They are going to
Speaker 1: hammer Trump and all of the agencies involved here for
Speaker 1: the family separation policy at the border last summer. Now,
Speaker 1: let me say that the family separation policy was initially
Speaker 1: implemented with an idea that we need to convince people
Speaker 1: to stop showing up at the border with kids because
Speaker 1: they know they'll be let in if they have kids,
Speaker 1: and they overwhelm the system and they create risks for
Speaker 1: those children, and they're also cheating the system in the process.
Speaker 1: Because this is not what, this is, not how this
Speaker 1: is meant to go. So that's why they did family separation. Now,
Speaker 1: the human reality of separating parents from their children. Obviously,
Speaker 1: this was a terrible look for the administration. They backed
Speaker 1: off of it, but they understood one thing that Democrats
Speaker 1: don't understand. If you don't shut off the benefits, if
Speaker 1: you don't stop this from being a successful plan, more
Speaker 1: and more people are going to use this plan. And
Speaker 1: the only people right now who can change it are Congress,
Speaker 1: and they're not planning to do anything about this. In fact,
Speaker 1: what we know is that the Congress is going to
Speaker 1: spend a lot of time, you know, pounding their chests
Speaker 1: about how much they care about people, you know, fleeing
Speaker 1: oppression and fleeing violins, and that these are asylum seekers.
Speaker 1: It's just like they're leaving a you know, the Syrian
Speaker 1: Civil War or something. That's what you're gonna hear, and
Speaker 1: you're gonna hear a lot of grandstanding, as we did
Speaker 1: today over the issue of children and family separation. So
Speaker 1: here is an example of that from Congresswoman Barragan, who
Speaker 1: I've never heard of before, but she was yelling at
Speaker 1: DHS Secretary Nielsen play clip twelve. So in the meantime,
Speaker 1: you didn't do anything at all, and you let kids
Speaker 1: be separated without tracking them. Do you know how outrageous
Speaker 1: status amount of secretary? You have no feeling, no compassion,
Speaker 1: no empathy. Here, My heart breaks for the system that
Speaker 1: we have. It does not allow us to help vulnerable
Speaker 1: populations as soon in their journey as we need to
Speaker 1: help them. There is nothing humane about a system that
Speaker 1: contemplates what we see today, that contemplates sixty thousand children
Speaker 1: coming across the border unaccompanied. Now, let me tell you
Speaker 1: the system that we have, the flaws in this system
Speaker 1: right now that are being exploited on a massive scale.
Speaker 1: Those flaws are the responsibility of Congress. It's really not
Speaker 1: DHS's fault at all. It's not Border Patrol's fault at all.
Speaker 1: It's not Immigration and Customs Enforcement's fault. It's Congress's fault.
Speaker 1: They are the ones that have left enough leeway in
Speaker 1: the laws for then immigration judges who are, from what
Speaker 1: I can see a lot of them, basically commies. I mean,
Speaker 1: just way far left open borders advocates, Because what better
Speaker 1: way to be an open borders advocate than to be
Speaker 1: an immigration judge, and what better way to get your
Speaker 1: ideology to really matter than to just say, uh, keep
Speaker 1: on come and keep on letting them stay, bring them in.
Speaker 1: But the truth is the system is broken because of Congress.
Speaker 1: It's because they refuse to do anything about the laws
Speaker 1: that encourage people to bring their children here, that people
Speaker 1: keep bringing their children here and then they overwhelm the system.
Speaker 1: And it's just so easy for members of Congress like
Speaker 1: Brigan to sit there and harangue Nielsen of DHS and
Speaker 1: act like this is somehow the fault of these federal
Speaker 1: employees that are just doing what they are supposed to
Speaker 1: be doing in this system, when what we really have
Speaker 1: here is the Democrats. And it started with Obama. It
Speaker 1: started with the way that they were enforcing and not
Speaker 1: enforcing law at the border. And they open this store
Speaker 1: a little bit. Now it's been blasted off the hinges.
Speaker 1: Now we are expecting a true flood and there is
Speaker 1: nothing that we can do, nothing that legally can be
Speaker 1: done without Congress acting, that will stop this. So they
Speaker 1: can yell about kids and separation all this stuff as
Speaker 1: much as they want. At the end of the day,
Speaker 1: the real problem here is in fact our immigration laws,
Speaker 1: and that they have Finally, the left and the open
Speaker 1: borders advocates, they've found a loophole that they've exploited so
Speaker 1: much that they have broken the system. The one constant
Speaker 1: in my day other than love of freedom is love
Speaker 1: of black rifle coffee. My friends, It's an American institution
Speaker 1: to start your day with the most patriotic, freedom loving
Speaker 1: coffee ever. That's why I always get it kicking with
Speaker 1: black rifle. And I've got people in my office drinking it. Now,
Speaker 1: I've got my colleagues drinking at my family drinks it.
Speaker 1: It's delicious coffee, whole bunch of different blends you can
Speaker 1: pick from, and man, it's got a nice cake. If
Speaker 1: you're like me and you like a bit of the
Speaker 1: caffeine in the morning, black rifle get you fired up.
Speaker 1: Plus they give a portion of their sales to veteran
Speaker 1: first responder causes. Forget whatever other coffee you're drinking, you
Speaker 1: need to drink black rifle coffee. Get with the good stuff.
Speaker 1: While liberals threatened to further tax you're hard earned money
Speaker 1: with their socialism, black Rifle coffee is fueling the fight
Speaker 1: for freedom by upping their offer get this to twenty
Speaker 1: percent off. Take advantage by visiting Black Riflecoffee dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck and receive twenty percent off your entire order. Again,
Speaker 1: that's Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck for twenty percent off.
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash Buck. Putting socialism on trial,
Speaker 1: and I'm going to convict it as well. This business
Speaker 1: about fairness and income redistribution and socialism, this is just
Speaker 1: a smokescreen. The democrats are playing a recession card. The
Speaker 1: rest of the country is in prosperity. Facts. Before I
Speaker 1: was a Marxist, I was an empiricist, and I stayed
Speaker 1: in empiricist and with a passing years, I simply as
Speaker 1: I looked into more and more things, I saw the
Speaker 1: difference between reality and the rhetoric. Unfortunately, so many people today,
Speaker 1: including in the leading universities, don't pay much attention to evidence.
Speaker 1: When you see people starving in Venezuela and fleeing into
Speaker 1: neighboring countries and realize that this is a country that
Speaker 1: once had the world's largest oil reserves, you realize that
Speaker 1: they've ruined a very good prospect with ideas that sounded good,
Speaker 1: but didn't turn out well. Ideas that sound good but
Speaker 1: are disastrous. That's really the defining characteristic of socialism. It
Speaker 1: always sounds good. And I think that voices like doctor
Speaker 1: Thomas soul there who can speak to the really the
Speaker 1: underlying ideology that's at work here, the beliefs, the things
Speaker 1: that are held to be true about it that are untrue,
Speaker 1: the root fallacies of socialism. That's where we have to go. Now.
Speaker 1: It's not enough to just say socialism stinks and look
Speaker 1: at Venezuela. No, we have to publicly, and I think,
Speaker 1: with some wisdom and some skill, pull apart these ideas
Speaker 1: because we are much closer, you know, with the Okazio
Speaker 1: Cortes rise and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren, we are
Speaker 1: much closer to a socialist future than I think most
Speaker 1: of us on the right realize. We are twenty two
Speaker 1: trillion dollars in debt. There is going to be a reset.
Speaker 1: It's going to happen, folks, It's going to happen. There
Speaker 1: will be an economic downturn that could be a depression,
Speaker 1: that could be a catastrophe. We just simply don't know.
Speaker 1: Remember that right before the crash of two thousand and eight.
Speaker 1: In two thousand and seven, everyone thought that our economy
Speaker 1: was invincible, the housing market was bulletproof, everything was perfect
Speaker 1: and great and wonderful and fine. And then oh, we
Speaker 1: almost lost the global economy that was a decade ago,
Speaker 1: that was not even just within a living memory, that
Speaker 1: was not long ago. And we didn't deal with the
Speaker 1: many of these structural, the underlying problems. The banks are
Speaker 1: still very, very big. Our debt, however, has gotten much
Speaker 1: much bigger. The only way we've been able to forestall
Speaker 1: the inevitable pain is by coming up with some essentially
Speaker 1: zero interest rate, zero interest rate future, and that's not
Speaker 1: sustainable forever. And what we're going to see is as
Speaker 1: we get higher and higher, deeper and deeper, there's going
Speaker 1: to be consequences. And I bring this up not just
Speaker 1: because I'm disappointed that Conservatism has largely abandoned fiscal responsibility,
Speaker 1: because we have we have. I do you ever hear,
Speaker 1: for all the nice things that Trump does and says,
Speaker 1: and for all the stuff that I really appreciate this
Speaker 1: president for, when was the last time you really heard
Speaker 1: a rousing speech about how the debt is out of
Speaker 1: control and this is going to break us, and I
Speaker 1: don't want to scare you. Maybe I do a little bit.
Speaker 1: But the history of fiat currency, a currency that is
Speaker 1: not actually tied to anything other than a government promised
Speaker 1: to pay something, is very consistent in one way, and
Speaker 1: that is the history of fiat currency is that eventually
Speaker 1: the government always takes actions that make it worth zero.
Speaker 1: Eventually fiat currency goes to zero, it collapses. And we
Speaker 1: think right now that because we have the global reserve
Speaker 1: currency and we're American, we're the best. We kick butt
Speaker 1: rah rah all that stuff. Yes, that's true, But twenty
Speaker 1: two trillion dollars in debt is a lot of money.
Speaker 1: And under the Obama administration, I think, although I'd have
Speaker 1: to check this, I think that more was added to
Speaker 1: the national debt than if you added up every president
Speaker 1: before Obama combined. That is true. Trump is responsible only.
Speaker 1: That is true. Thank you, Mike. I figured that's true.
Speaker 1: Usually when I say things like that, I'm right. So
Speaker 1: now we have a Republican president, we have a prosperous economy.
Speaker 1: Things are pretty good. We got a guy who's a
Speaker 1: realist and a capitalist, thank heavens. But he has to
Speaker 1: spend some of his political capital to come up with
Speaker 1: a way to tackle this problem, to begin to bend
Speaker 1: the curve in the other direction, because right now the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal and cow farts and no air travel
Speaker 1: and like, yeah, like I'm just really big on thos
Speaker 1: fom media. My name is Alec and like I'm the
Speaker 1: most powerful democrat because I'm just like more powerful than
Speaker 1: I'm man, and like whatever we can do that, we
Speaker 1: can make fun of it, and I do, and that's
Speaker 1: all fine, But it's not nearly as funny nor is
Speaker 1: it as easy to brush aside. If all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: people are by the millions losing their jobs, losing their homes.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's obviously catastrophic and horrible. What I'm saying
Speaker 1: is socialism isn't isn't something you make fun of them,
Speaker 1: Because what happens when people become fearful? What happens when
Speaker 1: the economy that they think that they have known, the
Speaker 1: one that has been there been an anchor of stability
Speaker 1: in their lives. Right, I know the US dollars going
Speaker 1: to maintain value. I know the US stock market and
Speaker 1: the housing market, and you know these are these are
Speaker 1: things that are just always going to be working in
Speaker 1: my favor, I do. I do things right, I play
Speaker 1: by the rules. I will build I will build security,
Speaker 1: and I will build prosperity for myself. Right that Look,
Speaker 1: this is the American dream, right, folks. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: what it is. If that is taken away from millions,
Speaker 1: perhaps tens of millions of Americans, and it can happen
Speaker 1: very It almost happened in two thousand and eight. It
Speaker 1: can happen very easily. And once it begins to happen,
Speaker 1: it's impossible to shut it off. Then, when people are
Speaker 1: fearful and angry and feel like they have been screwed
Speaker 1: over by the system, when someone comes along and says,
Speaker 1: you're right the rich people, Because let's be honest, our
Speaker 1: system is basically still run by rich people. It is
Speaker 1: the plutocrats. They do make they do make the decisions.
Speaker 1: But the rich people are the problem. They kept you down,
Speaker 1: They filled their pockets while you were struggling and working
Speaker 1: on you know who, do I start to sound like,
Speaker 1: start to sound like Bernie Sanders right, start to sound
Speaker 1: like Elizabeth Warren, started to sound like the far left
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party? But what is right now? An appealing
Speaker 1: message to mostly left wing wackos who live on the
Speaker 1: coasts and have no connection to economic reality. Sounds a
Speaker 1: lot more compelling to people who live in Indiana and
Speaker 1: Missouri and you know, Alabama, and if they lose their job,
Speaker 1: they lose their house because the US economy creators it's
Speaker 1: it's a rational thing for them to say, well, that
Speaker 1: didn't work. Socialism and this is a very important part
Speaker 1: of the history that they don't teach in schools. Socialism
Speaker 1: that led to the nightmares of Nazism and communism and
Speaker 1: you know, the German Nazi regime, the Soviet Union. They
Speaker 1: were popular. The reason they were able to take power.
Speaker 1: These ideas were popular because of the Great Depression, because
Speaker 1: people said, I've lost everything. This is all a scam,
Speaker 1: this is a sham. So sure, what we need is
Speaker 1: a society that has founded not on individual rights and
Speaker 1: property and the prosperity that comes from hard work that
Speaker 1: you benefit from, but from shared labor, from a collectivist approach.
Speaker 1: It was popular after the Great Depression. That's why it happened.
Speaker 1: That's why and people looked at this. They thought that
Speaker 1: capitalism had failed. That's the only way the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: was able to become what it was. If we head
Speaker 1: down a path of true economic pain doesn't have to
Speaker 1: last that long. I can assure you there will be
Speaker 1: enough people in this country who are fed up and
Speaker 1: who are scared that they turned to the state for salvation,
Speaker 1: and that will mean socialism. And our only real defense
Speaker 1: against this is to educate one another about what socialium
Speaker 1: has been and what it would be in this country.
Speaker 1: So we mock it sometimes, but we have to take
Speaker 1: it very seriously most of the time. We'll be right
Speaker 1: back team. My friend Mark Buckman is the CEO of
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network, and he is building a great American
Speaker 1: company that is veteran owned and operated that does anything
Speaker 1: you need in the background investigation and vetting space. Global
Speaker 1: Verification also differentiates itself from the competition by one giving
Speaker 1: you great customer service. I mean when you call them,
Speaker 1: you're going to get them on the phone and get
Speaker 1: your questions answered right away. And also they don't outsource
Speaker 1: any of the work that they do. Their risk mitigation
Speaker 1: experts handle it all here in the States. So give
Speaker 1: them a call today for your business, any size, large
Speaker 1: or small, to have your background checks done efficiently and quickly.
Speaker 1: Make sure you go to my friends at Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: That's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven
Speaker 1: nine again eight seven seven six nine five one one
Speaker 1: seven nine. Or go to MYGVN dot com again, that's
Speaker 1: my GVN dot com Global Verification Network, Leno Stone unturned.
Speaker 1: I think Robert Mueller wants to be able to conclude
Speaker 1: his work and turn over the investigative threats to the
Speaker 1: southern disis of New York, the Eastern Virginia and other
Speaker 1: jurisdictions as appropriate. As we're coming up to two years,
Speaker 1: so I think he does want to conclude that. I
Speaker 1: wouldn't be surprised if, for example, this week on Friday,
Speaker 1: not knowing anything about it, but Friday is the day
Speaker 1: that the Grandury indictments come down. Brennan, formerly CI director,
Speaker 1: and I say that I almost feel a twinge of
Speaker 1: shame to be associated with an organization in my past
Speaker 1: that that guy could have been in charge of Brennan Clapper.
Speaker 1: Clapper was the DNI. These people have made such mockeries
Speaker 1: of their agencies and of the kind of people that
Speaker 1: are in charge in the intelligence community. But there you
Speaker 1: have Brennan making a little Oh, let's get the MSNBC
Speaker 1: audience excited prediction about how Oh no, he doesn't have
Speaker 1: any inside knowledge. Oh no, of course not, but he
Speaker 1: thinks there might be more indictments coming down on Friday.
Speaker 1: They're going to keep this going until the very very end.
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting. The analysis I saw of this
Speaker 1: today was that there are some now in the left
Speaker 1: wing camp who think that the final, the final act
Speaker 1: of the Muller probe. This is the story they're telling
Speaker 1: themselves so that they can sleep at night. I don't
Speaker 1: believe this, but this is what they're telling themselves, the
Speaker 1: left wingers. They're all dug in on this one. They
Speaker 1: don't want it. They don't want to give it up.
Speaker 1: They don't want to let this go. They think that
Speaker 1: the way this finally ends is that Muller's team indicts
Speaker 1: a member of Trump's family, probably one of his sons,
Speaker 1: and that, you know, that's the way, and then Trump
Speaker 1: will fire Muller and cause this huge Catassephe and these
Speaker 1: people are nuts. And producer Mike is telling me he
Speaker 1: thinks they're gonna keep it going to twenty twenty four.
Speaker 1: I mean, I certainly hope not. I've been all along
Speaker 1: somebody who's said that they're going to keep this thing there.
Speaker 1: They don't want this thing shut down ever, and they
Speaker 1: know that just having it there in the background, grinding away,
Speaker 1: that's the purpose of this. The process is the punishment
Speaker 1: just by having a special counsel that can get all
Speaker 1: these subpoenas and do all this stuff. You know, today
Speaker 1: on Rising I had a congressman a case from Maryland.
Speaker 1: He's on the Judiciary Committee. I can't remember the guy's name.
Speaker 1: A lot of these Democrat congressmen, they just kind of
Speaker 1: blend together in my head because they all say the
Speaker 1: same crap. It's all really a variation of what Jerry
Speaker 1: Nadler said. And I believe my friend Molly Hemingway from
Speaker 1: the Federalist broke this story because she heard him saying
Speaker 1: it on the Ascella train that Oh, no, they're not
Speaker 1: going to say that they're going to impeach and that
Speaker 1: they're going to be doing you know that this is
Speaker 1: building to an impeachment. They're just going to be doing oversight.
Speaker 1: You see, that's what this is. Just oversight. I mean,
Speaker 1: the abuse of the term oversight that you will see
Speaker 1: from Democrats over the next eighteen months or so is
Speaker 1: going to make your head spin. What does oversight have
Speaker 1: to do with seeing what's in Trump's tax returns from
Speaker 1: decades ago? How is that congressional oversight? Is it congressional
Speaker 1: oversight to demand Trump's college transcripts. I don't even I
Speaker 1: don't even know if he's released them. By the way,
Speaker 1: I have no idea. I know that Obama never released
Speaker 1: his college transcripts, and people would always say, book, don't
Speaker 1: bring that up, that's a Birther conspiracy. No, it's not
Speaker 1: a conspiracy because Obama did not and pointedly did not
Speaker 1: release them. John Kerry released his, George W. Bush released his,
Speaker 1: Al Gore released his. You know, go down the list.
Speaker 1: They all released their college transcripts, and yeah, they were
Speaker 1: mediocre students that got into fancy Ivy League schools because
Speaker 1: of whom, you know, because of who daddy was. Usually
Speaker 1: not mommy, but because of who daddy was. That's true,
Speaker 1: George W. Bush, it's true. John Kerry, mean, these guys
Speaker 1: were not intellectual heavyweights at all. And Al Gore same thing.
Speaker 1: I'll have to get a bet her al Gore impersonation.
Speaker 1: I'm working on it. I don't have one that's really
Speaker 1: ready for prime time. I need to listen to more
Speaker 1: about al Gore is kind of a peripheral figure, so
Speaker 1: I don't really have I don't really want to devote
Speaker 1: the time to getting a bet Her al Gore impersonation.
Speaker 1: But Obama didn't release his transcript. I mean people always
Speaker 1: said that they would call this a Birther conspiracy, and
Speaker 1: that because he was a foreign student, that was how
Speaker 1: it was supposed to go. And no, no, I never
Speaker 1: thought that was the case. I just think that you know,
Speaker 1: Obama was a guy who went to Occidental College and
Speaker 1: was a very mediocre student who smoked a lot of
Speaker 1: pot and did other drugs, as he's admitted, and then
Speaker 1: somehow got an Columbia and somehow was on the gout
Speaker 1: into Harvard Law and Harvard Law Review, very very difficult
Speaker 1: position to get without ever really writing or publishing anything.
Speaker 1: And I think what it would have shown is that
Speaker 1: he was a guy who benefited tremendously from affirmative action,
Speaker 1: and that just wasn't supposed to be a part of
Speaker 1: the narrative. You know, this is that's another place where
Speaker 1: democrats get very very testy about things, right, you know,
Speaker 1: affirmative action they'll defend to the hilt, but we can
Speaker 1: never talk about a firmat of action and who benefits
Speaker 1: from it and what it really does. So that was
Speaker 1: why they didn't want to unseal the records of Obama
Speaker 1: in college, because it would have shown that, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think he was probably a you know, I see
Speaker 1: or be minds kind of student, which is fine. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not saying that it would have found
Speaker 1: anything great, but that would have gone against the narrative
Speaker 1: that Obama was some kind of super genius. He was
Speaker 1: a super genius, very spreech. I'm gonna like this, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna run over a prompert, I'm gonna creator Strauman, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna destroy a strong ran strauma because of the media
Speaker 1: says I'm a genius, right, he had all that stuff
Speaker 1: going on, And as we know, the guy wasn't a genius,
Speaker 1: but he was president for eight years and did drive
Speaker 1: the country very far left. We are still dealing with
Speaker 1: the ramifications of Obamas in today. But the point I'm
Speaker 1: making here is that oversight is not I want to
Speaker 1: see what the president had for lunch six years ago.
Speaker 1: You know, I want to know what the president's prom
Speaker 1: date says about him. Now, you know, that's not oversight.
Speaker 1: That's a fishing expedition, which is what the Congress, led
Speaker 1: by the Democrats in the House, now plans to do.
Speaker 1: And I think that Trump needs to fight fire with fire.
Speaker 1: I've always thought that he held back on the declassification
Speaker 1: of the information around the Russia origin, Russia investigation origins,
Speaker 1: as well as the fives abuses and all that. He's
Speaker 1: keeping that for a rainy day because he knows they're
Speaker 1: going to come out on with all this stuff. And
Speaker 1: once people see what a sham, what an absolute sham,
Speaker 1: the FBI's counterintelligence investigation into Trump and the Trump campaign,
Speaker 1: they'll they'll look, they'll probably never believe the FBI and
Speaker 1: a politicized investigation never again. I mean, they'll realize that
Speaker 1: this is an organization that is deeply tainted. But that's
Speaker 1: why I want to ask and producer Mike Gaming the
Speaker 1: heads up here. Yes, Jamie Raskin, it was Congressman Raskin,
Speaker 1: and that's who I interviewed. I just couldn't even remember
Speaker 1: the guy's name. When you ask Raskin, what are you
Speaker 1: trying to accomplish here? It is just harassment. It's just
Speaker 1: find a way to annoy this president into submission to
Speaker 1: make the people around him feel pressure, to make them
Speaker 1: feel like, you know, their day is going to come
Speaker 1: and they're gonna get in trouble and they're gonna have
Speaker 1: to spend crazy amounts of money on lawyers, and you know,
Speaker 1: that's the real purpose of all of this. And so
Speaker 1: they can keep talking about we're doing oversight in the Congress.
Speaker 1: They're not going to pass any laws, they're not going
Speaker 1: to take any worthwhile action. Obviously, I'm very discouraged by
Speaker 1: the fact that I don't think they're going to be
Speaker 1: able to get Congress to pass a law to deal
Speaker 1: with the legitimate, growing and out of control crisis at
Speaker 1: our southern border. We're not going to get Congress to
Speaker 1: do anything on that. So really what the Congress is
Speaker 1: going to do is just more versions of what we've
Speaker 1: already seen, which is harass this president, find a way
Speaker 1: to annoy slow down, you know, stimy President Trump and
Speaker 1: his agenda and his team, and that they're abusing the
Speaker 1: systems and processes processes of government to do this is disgraceful.
Speaker 1: But they're Democrats, So what else do we expect. We're
Speaker 1: talking about Rep. Omar for her anti Semitic statements, she
Speaker 1: has anti Israel positions pro bds, but also keep in
Speaker 1: mind that she's requested leniency for Isis writers, she blamed
Speaker 1: US foreign policy for the al Shabab attack in Kenya,
Speaker 1: she's Promadoro in Venezuela. So for many reasons she shouldn't
Speaker 1: have been appointed to this committee in the first place.
Speaker 1: I've spoken to the House Democrats who are very upset
Speaker 1: with what Congresswoman Omar has said. Many of them have
Speaker 1: stated it publicly. They wanted a resolution that's more strongly worded.
Speaker 1: But the problem is is you have a few freshman Democrats,
Speaker 1: in particular Alexandracatio Cortez and Rashida Talib and even Congresswoman
Speaker 1: Omar leading their party rather than being led by it.
Speaker 1: So how is it that you get such radical left
Speaker 1: wing individuals, not just into Congress, but in the case
Speaker 1: of Ilohan Omar, who's stirred up so much controversy for
Speaker 1: her comments recently, her anti Semitic comments, How is it
Speaker 1: that they get put on them or someone like Omar
Speaker 1: we get put on the House Foreign Affairs Committee trying
Speaker 1: to direct the foreign Paul See of the United States.
Speaker 1: That does tell us something about the direction of the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, doesn't it. But here's where well as you
Speaker 1: know you can you can count the Democrats to engage
Speaker 1: in what about is om and some kind of a
Speaker 1: distraction technique, and they'll they'll always find some way to
Speaker 1: not deal with the issue at hand, to make it
Speaker 1: about something else. Chuck Schumer stepping in right in time
Speaker 1: for that one play clip too. What um Congress Congresswoman
Speaker 1: Omar said, I thought was wrong and hurtful. But I
Speaker 1: also want to say that what happened linking all Muslims
Speaker 1: to the terrorist attack was wrong and hurtful, and both
Speaker 1: should be condemned. There we go. This is always that,
Speaker 1: this is the maneuver. Now when you when you have
Speaker 1: a Democrat who has done something or said something that
Speaker 1: is truly indefensible, you go with the what aboutism right away. Now. Now,
Speaker 1: I don't agree with a lot of the accusations of
Speaker 1: what aboudism that involved, for example, Trump and Hillary, because
Speaker 1: it's not what aboudism to say that the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice treats Democrats differently than Republicans. It's not what aboutism
Speaker 1: to say that if Hillary Clinton had been a Republican
Speaker 1: and not Hillary Clinton. She would have been prosecuted and
Speaker 1: probably had to spend some time in jail for breaking
Speaker 1: the Espionage Act over one hundred different times violating that law.
Speaker 1: That's not what about it. So when they go after
Speaker 1: Trump on a legal issue and I say, well, look
Speaker 1: look at Hillary, that's a look at the disparate justicism,
Speaker 1: that's not what about it. What aboutism is ilan Omar
Speaker 1: said something anti Semitic. But you know some other guy
Speaker 1: some other place and time, who is a Republican said
Speaker 1: something racist or said something bad, or you know, said
Speaker 1: mean things about Muslims. That has nothing to do with anything.
Speaker 1: This is just a distraction technique, pure and simple. But
Speaker 1: now here is where a team you might want to
Speaker 1: huddle in for this one, because this is let's you say,
Speaker 1: this is for the radio audience, which I know is
Speaker 1: obviously not just you know, this isn't a small group folks.
Speaker 1: This is a vast array of people across the country.
Speaker 1: But I always think that we're just sitting in a
Speaker 1: room together chatting. This is where I'll tell you that
Speaker 1: there's a part of this that everyone is aware of
Speaker 1: but doesn't really want to talk about. So I'll talk
Speaker 1: about it for a few minutes. Why would someone like
Speaker 1: Ilhan Omar, who is a member of Congress on the
Speaker 1: Foreign Affairs Committee and has gotten so much media attention,
Speaker 1: why would she clearly have these anti Semitic impulses. Well,
Speaker 1: let's just say that there is a baseline in this
Speaker 1: country of what could be considered anti Semitic anti Jewish views, right,
Speaker 1: meaning that certain things that would be said we would
Speaker 1: consider to be anti Semitic. Just this is our perception
Speaker 1: of it. What I'm here to tell you, and this
Speaker 1: is partially from my time overseas, and then I got
Speaker 1: a little bit more of a glimpse into it in
Speaker 1: this country in a very specific way, is that the
Speaker 1: Muslim world is full of anti Semitism. I mean, if
Speaker 1: you want to find the most widespread, blatant and I
Speaker 1: mean up to and including Nazi caricatures of Jews level
Speaker 1: anti semitism, you're not going to find more of it
Speaker 1: than you will in the anywhere than you will in
Speaker 1: the Muslim world. Now that doesn't that doesn't mean. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's not the same thing as saying that every Muslim
Speaker 1: is anti Semitic or anyother. Of course, not every individual
Speaker 1: as an individual. But when you're looking for places where
Speaker 1: anti Semitism has found not just some cover, but has
Speaker 1: become mainstreamed. I mean, Egypt has had on its biggest
Speaker 1: TV channel, and this was maybe a decade or so ago.
Speaker 1: You know, will A will air a series about the
Speaker 1: protocols of the Elders of Zion. Yes, Hamas is obviously
Speaker 1: a terrorist organization, but the Palestinian authority, I mean Palestinian
Speaker 1: media and press routinely grotesquely caricatures, degrades and debases Jews
Speaker 1: around the world, focused often on is Eel, but also
Speaker 1: just Jews in general. This this happens all over the
Speaker 1: Muslim world. And with the difference is that no one
Speaker 1: thinks twice about it. Really, it doesn't really get shouted
Speaker 1: down or any attention. It's become completely normalized in a
Speaker 1: lot of country And I oh, they'll yell at me
Speaker 1: for this. Speak to speak to your average Iraqi about now.
Speaker 1: And by the way, I'm not saying that they all
Speaker 1: take the most extreme anti that they hate Jews or anything.
Speaker 1: But speak to your average Iraqi, or speak to your
Speaker 1: average Jordanian or average Egyptian. Not one in this country,
Speaker 1: not one who goes on TV in a very expensive
Speaker 1: suit and has a British accent and represents some organization
Speaker 1: that's all about making sure that no one ever criticizes Islam,
Speaker 1: because we know there's a lot of that out there. No, no, no,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about. Speak to somebody from one of these
Speaker 1: countries and say, you know, do you think ask them
Speaker 1: questions about Jewish control of certain organizations or countries or
Speaker 1: whatever it may be, and the answers will often floor
Speaker 1: you because you say, wait, this person seems like such
Speaker 1: a nice person. Why would they think this. Well, it's
Speaker 1: because in a lot of countries anti semitism, and countries
Speaker 1: in the Muslim world, anti Semitism is so prevalent as
Speaker 1: to no one even thinks about it. Now, I told
Speaker 1: you that there was had some experience with this in
Speaker 1: this country, and it has to do with my I
Speaker 1: guess somewhat controversial times. It's only controversial to people that
Speaker 1: you know, hate freedom in America and want the terrorists
Speaker 1: to win. But my time at the NYPD Intelligence Division
Speaker 1: when we would run criminal cases, but a lot of
Speaker 1: the criminal cases for counter terrorist investigations, and these are
Speaker 1: investigations like the Faisal Shazad Time Square bombing, Najiblazazi trying
Speaker 1: to bomb the subways. These are guys who are trained
Speaker 1: by geehottest organizations in South Asia. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: these these are the worst of the worst kind of guys.
Speaker 1: But some of the investigations that you haven't heard of
Speaker 1: took us into mosques. Mosques do not have a get
Speaker 1: out of jail free carb when it comes to criminal activity.
Speaker 1: Just because something place is a mosque does not mean
Speaker 1: that you are not allowed to send informants in there
Speaker 1: if they have a legitimate Now there, of course there
Speaker 1: are civil liberties concerns and religious freedom concerns here. But
Speaker 1: if some guy says he wants to go blow up
Speaker 1: Harold Square, is hanging out in a mosque, and that's
Speaker 1: the best place we can get an informant. Guess what,
Speaker 1: someone someone's gonna be talking to him the mosque. But
Speaker 1: another part of this, and you know you won't, I
Speaker 1: know you won't. This is something that's been People don't
Speaker 1: want to a lot of people don't want to hear this.
Speaker 1: But it was standard because I would sit with some
Speaker 1: of these different assets, you know, informants that would go
Speaker 1: into these mosques, and I would say, if if we
Speaker 1: thought the EMM was radicalized. For example, say, was there
Speaker 1: anything that was, you know, espousing violence or you know,
Speaker 1: you try to get a sense of what's going on
Speaker 1: in the place, because some of these moss by the way,
Speaker 1: are very congregation is very small, but you know, twenty
Speaker 1: or thirty people maybe, and you know what was the
Speaker 1: em I'm saying, And I'm just telling you that the
Speaker 1: amount of anti Semitic stuff that was said in these mosques,
Speaker 1: ranging from criticism of Israeli foreign policy that just was
Speaker 1: a little too a little too strong for it to
Speaker 1: just be about foreign policy, you know, I mean there's
Speaker 1: sometimes it would be a little portaline all the way
Speaker 1: to the most nasty anti Semitic talking about power, talking
Speaker 1: about control, talking about money stuff. And it was it was,
Speaker 1: it was commonplace. It was commonplace. The Islamic world is
Speaker 1: the single greatest source in the world now of anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: That is just reality. Now in an Islamic world has
Speaker 1: one or almost two billion, at one point eight billion people,
Speaker 1: and you know what percentage of that is truly anti Semitic.
Speaker 1: You know, I have no idea, and I'm you know,
Speaker 1: there are tons of Muslims that are absolutely lovely people
Speaker 1: who have no problem with Jews whatsoever and are friends
Speaker 1: with them and married to them. And you know fine,
Speaker 1: but Ilhan Omar's views on Israel, I can tell you
Speaker 1: right now are at the and the ones that everyone's
Speaker 1: calling anti Semitic, and everyone is saying, oh, how could
Speaker 1: she and they're so terrible in a Muslim country which
Speaker 1: she comes you know she comes from. Her background is
Speaker 1: as a as a Somali who came to this country
Speaker 1: in a in a Muslim country, they wouldn't need they
Speaker 1: wouldn't be not only not be considered anti Semitic, they
Speaker 1: wouldn't even be considered particularly critical of Jews or Israel. I.
Speaker 1: Know you won't hear this on other shows. I'm here
Speaker 1: to tell you that is the truth. So so I
Speaker 1: listened to this place because gotta give it to you
Speaker 1: a straight team. You are now entering the Freedom Hottible
Speaker 1: Operation Center. All the programs must be kept strictly. Need
Speaker 1: to know Team Buck is cleared and ready for the
Speaker 1: Buck brief. If they're not willing to do it, then
Speaker 1: I think President Trump has been very clear they're not
Speaker 1: going to get relief from the crushing economic sanctions that
Speaker 1: have been imposed on them, and we'll look at ramping
Speaker 1: those sanctions up. In fact, I would be very disappointed
Speaker 1: if that were happening. It's a very early report. We're
Speaker 1: the ones that put it out, but I would be very,
Speaker 1: very disappointed in Chairman Kim, and I don't think I
Speaker 1: will be. But we'll see what happens. We'll take a look.
Speaker 1: It'll ultimately get solved. This is one of these moments
Speaker 1: where you see the Left rooting against not just the
Speaker 1: interest of America, but the interest of the international order,
Speaker 1: innocent people on the Korean peninsula. Really, humanity takes a
Speaker 1: backseat here to the left desire to own drumf the
Speaker 1: evil Orange Man, bad man Orange Drum. They just hate
Speaker 1: him so much. As I've said to you before, when
Speaker 1: Obama gave the order to get bin Laden, I was
Speaker 1: pleased and proud to be an American and pleased with
Speaker 1: the Obama administration decision and didn't make any you know, oh, well,
Speaker 1: this is bad because it'll help Obama. Nonsense. And now
Speaker 1: here we are where something that clearly would be of
Speaker 1: tremendous benefit to all of humanity. Really, if we could
Speaker 1: find a way to get North Korea off its nuclear
Speaker 1: war footing, which is really what it continues to be on.
Speaker 1: That would be such a big win, and yet you
Speaker 1: can tell there are people who are actively rooting for
Speaker 1: the president to fail on this. Here's the story from
Speaker 1: CNN today speaking of rooting for the president to fail.
Speaker 1: Satellite images appear to show that North Korea has begun
Speaker 1: rebuilding a portion of a facility previously used to test
Speaker 1: long range missile engines, analyst said Tuesday, raising potential questions
Speaker 1: about the future of US North Korea negotiations. The Center
Speaker 1: for Studies Beyond Parallel Project and thirty eight North, both
Speaker 1: respected North Korea monitoring websites, each said it had observed
Speaker 1: activity at the Tongjiang re satellite launch facility, which has
Speaker 1: been dormant since about August of last year and is
Speaker 1: one of the few known missile component development facilities inside
Speaker 1: North Korea. So we have, you know, early on here,
Speaker 1: there's some indication that there's more nuclear activity going on
Speaker 1: North Korea. Now let me just sit and let me
Speaker 1: just state that this could be their version of a bluff, right,
Speaker 1: this could be their version of trying to Trump walked
Speaker 1: away in Hanoi. Trump said, all right, you know you
Speaker 1: you think that you think that we're going to relieve
Speaker 1: the sanctions without concrete steps on your end toward denuclearization
Speaker 1: and verification procedures. I'm out. So how does North Korea respond? Well, now,
Speaker 1: North Korea probably go you know, the Kim Jong un
Speaker 1: goes home, and his military leadership says, well, we need
Speaker 1: to show them that, you know, we mean business too.
Speaker 1: And because they know that we have satellites and there's
Speaker 1: all kinds of monitoring going on in North Korea, right,
Speaker 1: they're very aware of that, and maybe they just ramp
Speaker 1: up a little bit of activity. Maybe they even it's
Speaker 1: not just for show. Maybe they decide we're going to
Speaker 1: restart this facility and we'll use that as a bargaining
Speaker 1: chip the next time we sit down and talk, which
Speaker 1: is believe that that will happen at some point. But
Speaker 1: let's keep in mind here that the standard that Trump
Speaker 1: should be held to for success or failure here is,
Speaker 1: first you look at his predecessors, and every American president
Speaker 1: that had to deal with a nuclear North Korea failed
Speaker 1: to even turn the program around or pause the program
Speaker 1: for any meaningful length of time. They all failed. They
Speaker 1: were all swindled by Kim Jong un and so those
Speaker 1: from the previous administrations who want to say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't know what he's doing, he should do this
Speaker 1: or that. I do have a moment where I have
Speaker 1: to think to myself, why should anyone listen to the
Speaker 1: previous administrations. Trump has lots of advisors on this. He
Speaker 1: has access to the best expertise in the United States
Speaker 1: government and I'm sure in the US in general, probably
Speaker 1: around the world too. So it's not like he can't
Speaker 1: find out what should be done or what the experts think.
Speaker 1: He already knows that as long as he does not
Speaker 1: abandon the sanctions, there is really no loss here. We're
Speaker 1: essentially going back to status quo. And I think that's
Speaker 1: an interesting way of setting up what expectations should be.
Speaker 1: You know, yes, Trumps he's a dealmaker. He's got a
Speaker 1: little bit of bluster. He's trying to say, you know,
Speaker 1: he's going to make all this stuff happen with North Korea.
Speaker 1: I think that part of it is his self belief
Speaker 1: is a necessary component of the negotiation process, Right, he
Speaker 1: has to really believe this if he's going to try
Speaker 1: to make this happen. And I also think that he's
Speaker 1: doing a lot of messaging that he hopes the North
Speaker 1: Koreans are picking up on and paying attention to. But
Speaker 1: he also is well aware of the Kim regime lying
Speaker 1: many times in the past and playing all kinds of games.
Speaker 1: And I just think that it's too early to know
Speaker 1: if Trump's overtures here have failed. But even if they fail,
Speaker 1: it is not some great loss. We just go back
Speaker 1: to exactly where we were, although not even really because
Speaker 1: we have no missile launches and we have stronger sanctions
Speaker 1: than before Trump came into office. But we certainly haven't reverted.
Speaker 1: We haven't gone backwards in any meaningful way. That I
Speaker 1: think has to be kept in mind as we move
Speaker 1: forward these nuclear negotiations that the President is going to
Speaker 1: continue to do, and hopefully the left or at least
Speaker 1: more of the left will realize that this isn't a
Speaker 1: Trump thing, this is a humanity thing. We want to
Speaker 1: stop a nuclear North Korea in a possible war. Everybody
Speaker 1: should be on board for that. You know, you may
Speaker 1: have a small four one K from a previous job
Speaker 1: that you have that you set up and you haven't
Speaker 1: done that much with. Guess what, While that old four
Speaker 1: one K paperwork is sitting around collecting dust. It actually
Speaker 1: could be working much harder in a precious metals IRA.
Speaker 1: That's why my friends at Noble Goold can see if
Speaker 1: you qualify and they'll do all the heavy lifting for you.
Speaker 1: They could make you a whole lot of money at
Speaker 1: costs you nothing. So give Noble Goold to call at
Speaker 1: eight seven seven six four six five three four seven,
Speaker 1: or text my name that's Buck the uc K to
Speaker 1: the number five eleven, five eleven. Again text Buck to
Speaker 1: five eleven, five eleven to receive their free totally free
Speaker 1: Investors Guide Plus for all qualified iras about twenty thousand dollars.
Speaker 1: They'll include a rare graded Morgan Silver Dollar totally complimentary,
Speaker 1: valued at one hundred and fifty dollars. Again, text Buck
Speaker 1: to five eleven, five eleven, or go to noble Goold
Speaker 1: Investments dot com. Individual results may vary invest wisely. Standard
Speaker 1: text rates apply. Our social media platform is biased against
Speaker 1: conservatives Facebook Twitter. You've been hearing about this for a while.
Speaker 1: I've been telling you about it for years now, because
Speaker 1: it is, in my opinion, obviously the case. We have
Speaker 1: ample evidence of this, we see it happening at the time. Well,
Speaker 1: we really got a window into it recently when on
Speaker 1: the Joe Rogan podcast, you had Jack Dorsey, the CEO
Speaker 1: of Twitter, a senior executive who works for him, I
Speaker 1: don't remember her name off the top of my head,
Speaker 1: and a fellow named I think Tim Tim cast something
Speaker 1: like that, so his name is Tim. They discussed the
Speaker 1: allegations about Twitter banning conservatives. Now, before you tell me, Buck,
Speaker 1: I'm not on Twitter. I don't care. I'm listening to
Speaker 1: a radio show. You know, Twitter is for other folks
Speaker 1: or whatever, let me just say that that's fine, and
Speaker 1: that that that's totally you know, you're well within your
Speaker 1: rights to feel that way. And I wish some days
Speaker 1: that I didn't have to deal with Twitter. But I
Speaker 1: can tell you that Twitter now does move the political conversation,
Speaker 1: with the president in particular really advancing it as a
Speaker 1: tool of instantaneous communication. Twitter is not something that the
Speaker 1: news media and the political conversation ignores anymore. It just doesn't.
Speaker 1: In fact, the ilhan Omar controversy about anti Semitism really
Speaker 1: got started on Twitter. So major national news stories now
Speaker 1: are the result of what people write, in exchange and
Speaker 1: do on this platform. So it really does matter and
Speaker 1: when we look at how much of an impact television
Speaker 1: and radio and other mediums have had on our perceptions
Speaker 1: in this country. I think there's a very clear case
Speaker 1: to be made that you need to think of social
Speaker 1: media like the new you know, the new version of
Speaker 1: the radio when it came out early on, or of
Speaker 1: television and the way that that was leverage for political purposes.
Speaker 1: You know. Now social media and social media is I
Speaker 1: think even more powerful a lot of ways. But but
Speaker 1: here's and I want to just play the street so
Speaker 1: you can hear. So this is one the Joe Rogan podcast.
Speaker 1: And there was this allegation about learn to code that
Speaker 1: was out there for a while. Right, if you, or
Speaker 1: rather if you said learn to code to somebody, you
Speaker 1: would get banned from Twitter learn to code, which is
Speaker 1: a funny joke, right, And and the reason is the
Speaker 1: funny joke is because a lot of these progressive media
Speaker 1: types when when there's a factory that closes somewhere, or
Speaker 1: when coal miners in West Virginia or you know, doc
Speaker 1: workers in in you know, New Board, Virginia, or you
Speaker 1: know whatever, whenever there's a moment where people lose their
Speaker 1: jobs in what would be considered older industries. There then
Speaker 1: there are all these think pieces from the vox dot
Speaker 1: com beta mail set about how, oh, well people just
Speaker 1: need to prepare for the jobs of the future and
Speaker 1: learn to code. Well, maybe journalists should learn to code.
Speaker 1: That's kind of the turning it around situation. But here
Speaker 1: this discussion with Joe Rogan, these other two Joe Rogan
Speaker 1: the CEO of Twitter, Jack Dorsey and his I don't
Speaker 1: know what she is chief of like how to kick
Speaker 1: conservatives off or play something for you play nineteen. Why
Speaker 1: are people being suspended for tweeting hashtag learned to code? Yep,
Speaker 1: we did some research on this. Yes, we did some
Speaker 1: research on this. So there was a situation and I
Speaker 1: guess about a month ago or so where a number
Speaker 1: of journalists were receiving a variety of tweets, some containing
Speaker 1: learned to code, some containing a bunch of other coded
Speaker 1: language that was wishes of harm. These were thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands of tweets being directed at a handful of journalists.
Speaker 1: And we did some research and what we found was
Speaker 1: a number of the accounts that were engaging in this behavior,
Speaker 1: which is tweeting at the journalists with this either learned
Speaker 1: to code, or things like Day of the Rope and
Speaker 1: other coded language were actually ban invasion accounts. That means
Speaker 1: accounts that been previously suspended. And we also learned that
Speaker 1: there was a targeted campaign being organized off our platform
Speaker 1: to abuse and harass these journalists. That's not true. See
Speaker 1: here's the thing. An activist pause that guy, that guy
Speaker 1: Tim Man. I like that. It comes in there and
Speaker 1: just says it. She just lied her face off there.
Speaker 1: I mean, that was just outrageous because I saw what
Speaker 1: was going on with Twitter in that old situation, and
Speaker 1: I knew people who were getting in trouble. I have
Speaker 1: friends who have been suspended from Twitter, Rahim Kassam, Jesse,
Speaker 1: Kelly Raheema. I guess was Facebook actually, but I know
Speaker 1: people that these are my friends and colleagues get suspended
Speaker 1: from these social media platforms. To say that learn to
Speaker 1: code is also some kind of an implied threat. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just changing around the plain meaning of words. That's
Speaker 1: just saying that words no longer have meeting. We'll just
Speaker 1: say whatever we want about words, and that's now the meeting.
Speaker 1: It's just nuts. Keep going. Though BC wrote that story
Speaker 1: and then lobbied you, you issued an official statement and
Speaker 1: then even the editor in chief of The Daily Caller
Speaker 1: got a suspension for tweeting learned to code at the
Speaker 1: day at the Daily Show. So I have never talked
Speaker 1: to anybody from NBC about this issue, So they no,
Speaker 1: So they report it, don't misrepresent me, they report it.
Speaker 1: The narrative goes far and wide amongst your circles. Then
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, you're seeing high profile conservatives tweeting
Speaker 1: a joke getting suspensions. So again, some of these tweets
Speaker 1: actually contained um death threats, wishes of harm, other coded
Speaker 1: language that we've seen more lies. This woman, the senior
Speaker 1: Twitter executive, is lying to journalists. So it wasn't about
Speaker 1: just the learn to code. It was about the context
Speaker 1: that we were true, that's just not true. The editor
Speaker 1: in chief of the Daily Caller was suspended for tweeting
Speaker 1: nothing but hashtag learned to code. So Tim, can I
Speaker 1: can I finish what I'm saying? Yeah, So we were
Speaker 1: looking at the contexts and what was happening is there
Speaker 1: were journalists receiving hundreds of tweets. Some had death threats,
Speaker 1: some had wishes of harm, some just learned to code.
Speaker 1: And in that particular context, we made a decision. We
Speaker 1: consider this this type of behavior, but dogpiling, which is
Speaker 1: when all of a sudden individuals are getting tons and
Speaker 1: tons of tweets at them, they feel very abused for
Speaker 1: her ass on the platform. Oh so hold on a
Speaker 1: second here, So here you have a senior Twitter executive
Speaker 1: trying to claim that the reason that people like the
Speaker 1: editor in chief of The Daily Caller are getting suspended
Speaker 1: from Twitter for for putting out learned to Code? Is
Speaker 1: it learned to code? Is itself a code for threats
Speaker 1: of harm or violence? This is bull You can kind
Speaker 1: of hear it in her voice, this woman, and she
Speaker 1: knows that. Her argument here is she's, well, we did this,
Speaker 1: and we kind of did this other thing, and we
Speaker 1: did some research on it, and no, no, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: normal people aren't gonna believe you. Do we have more
Speaker 1: in this clip around then? Or oh that was it?
Speaker 1: All right? Well, I mean the whole I think the
Speaker 1: podcast is like three hours long, but that's that's all
Speaker 1: we had for the clip. That's all we need. And
Speaker 1: I mean I would just say this, you know what
Speaker 1: really happened with learned to Code Twitter, which is staffed
Speaker 1: at the top ranks by people who share all of
Speaker 1: the same political ideologies and all the same approach as
Speaker 1: your mainstream journalist types do, right that woke social justice
Speaker 1: left wing garbage thinking. Those people took it upon themselves
Speaker 1: to back up their blue check liberal journo friends who
Speaker 1: had gotten you know, fired from BuzzFeed, which is, as
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson rightly points out, a glorified cat blog for
Speaker 1: unhappy people living in Brooklyn. Absolutely true, by the way,
Speaker 1: I know, people have worked at BuzzFeed, but people got
Speaker 1: fired from BuzzFeed as well as other places, and Twitter
Speaker 1: stepped in to stop people from making fun of journalists
Speaker 1: who in some cases were journalists who had told other
Speaker 1: people to learn to code, you know, had taken that
Speaker 1: point of view that, you know, job losses are inevitable,
Speaker 1: job losses are inevitable in all industries except journalism. Apparently
Speaker 1: that's the way journalists think, even though I think we
Speaker 1: have way too many journals in this country. Nonetheless, it
Speaker 1: was really really an education there to listen to that
Speaker 1: podcast on Joe Rogan Show and see that Twitter is
Speaker 1: is biased against conservatives, make no mistake about it. When
Speaker 1: you want to spot that burglar when he's casing your
Speaker 1: home or after he's already in. Well, you can ask
Speaker 1: John who's Blink camera alerted him to burglars trying to
Speaker 1: break in while he and his family were home, or Shannon,
Speaker 1: whose Blink camera caught a thief stealing packages. Both times,
Speaker 1: Blink video clips were sent to the police to help
Speaker 1: convict the crooks. And in a moment, I'll tell you
Speaker 1: how to get twenty percent off all Blink outdoor XT
Speaker 1: camera systems. Blink Motion Active in and indoor and outdoor
Speaker 1: cameras are wire free, set up in minutes, and run
Speaker 1: on two lithium batteries at last up a two years,
Speaker 1: and Blink's live feed option lets you monitor your home
Speaker 1: and checking on kids and pets from anywhere from your
Speaker 1: Blink smartphone app. No contracts, no subscriptions, totally affordable and
Speaker 1: right now Blink Outdoor XT camera systems are an impressive
Speaker 1: twenty percent off, but hurry this sale end March sixteenth
Speaker 1: at midnight Eastern Visit blink protect dot Com slash sale again.
Speaker 1: Blink Protect dot Com Slash sale. Blink is an Amazon company.
Speaker 1: It works with Alexa. Check it out Blink Protect dot
Speaker 1: Com Slash sale. Oh the lib mainstream media what a
Speaker 1: bunch of clowns, no dignity, no integrity, no backbone, and
Speaker 1: as we know, they're largely just a subsidiary of the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party. Or maybe the Democrat Party is a subsidiary
Speaker 1: of the Lib media. You can go either way on
Speaker 1: this one. But the latest today is that the DNC
Speaker 1: chair Tom Perez has said that Fox News is not
Speaker 1: going to be a media partner for the twenty twenty
Speaker 1: Democratic primary debates. Now here's the statement that he put
Speaker 1: out there. Quote. Remember this is the chair of the DNZ,
Speaker 1: this is the Democrat establishment speaking officially on the record. Quote.
Speaker 1: I believe that a key pathway to victory is to
Speaker 1: continue to expand our electorate and reach all voters. That
Speaker 1: is why I've made it a priority to talk to
Speaker 1: a broad array of potential media partners, including Fox News.
Speaker 1: Recent reporting in The New Yorker on the inappropriate relationship
Speaker 1: between President Trump, his administration and Fox News has led
Speaker 1: me to conclude that the network is not in a
Speaker 1: position to host a fair and neutral debate for our candidates. Therefore,
Speaker 1: Fox News will not serve as a media partner for
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty Democratic primary debates. These people are so ridiculous.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is pathetic. First of all, let's just say,
Speaker 1: let's let's just take this at face value. No honest,
Speaker 1: serious person can say or can say with any credibility,
Speaker 1: any honesty, that Brett Bear and Chris Wallace and you know,
Speaker 1: go down all of the different all of the different
Speaker 1: Fox News anchors, not opinion hosts, Harris Faulkner, I mean,
Speaker 1: and by the way, either the opinion host would do
Speaker 1: a good job hosting a Democrat debate. You know, I
Speaker 1: think that, I mean, the left head would explode, But
Speaker 1: I mean, Tucker Carlson would do a great job as
Speaker 1: one of the anchors of a Democrat debate because he
Speaker 1: really wants to find out what do these people think,
Speaker 1: what do they believe. He's not going to take sides.
Speaker 1: We don't really care which Democrat wins at this point, right,
Speaker 1: We just want to see what they have to say.
Speaker 1: And everybody would know that a conservative anchor who was
Speaker 1: moderating a Democrat debate would be under tremend discrutin and
Speaker 1: so they would they would play fair, and it just
Speaker 1: shows what a bunch of weak, little cowards the Democrats are.
Speaker 1: This is what I would say. They won't debate, you know,
Speaker 1: they won't send their people out from these networks to
Speaker 1: face a not even a hostile just a contradictory opinion
Speaker 1: in public. I mean, I can't find people that will
Speaker 1: debate anywhere these days on the left. All you get
Speaker 1: are the crazy people on Twitter that are like, I
Speaker 1: challenge you to a debate. It's like you have five
Speaker 1: followers and I don't know who you are. So I
Speaker 1: don't think we're gonna like set up a big debate here.
Speaker 1: But the Democrats are a bunch of whimps. They're just
Speaker 1: a bunch of whimps. And that DNC chair Tom Perez
Speaker 1: here would say that Fox News will not serve as
Speaker 1: a moderate because of the cozy relationship. Here's what's even
Speaker 1: more amazing to me. For eight years, the press all
Speaker 1: acted like state media for the Obama administration. And that's
Speaker 1: just obvious. All right. People can pretend some Democrats even
Speaker 1: say no, they were hard on Obama. I'm like, you're delusional, right,
Speaker 1: they were. They were all on team Obama all the time,
Speaker 1: except for Fox and Talk Radio and some other outlets.
Speaker 1: But you know, ninety percent of the media was completely
Speaker 1: in the tank for Obama. And yet now that there
Speaker 1: is one cable news network that has hosts who are
Speaker 1: favorable to President Trump's agenda, and some have very close
Speaker 1: relationships with President Trump, There's no question about that. But
Speaker 1: there's one network, and they think that one network Fox,
Speaker 1: which also I mean, I think the Brett Bear Show,
Speaker 1: for example, for what you'd consider to be a straight
Speaker 1: new show. And I don't think there is such a
Speaker 1: thing really as a straight news show, but I think
Speaker 1: the Brett Bear Show gets as close to a straight
Speaker 1: news show as anything else on TV. And it also
Speaker 1: has really the smartest panels of anything you'll find anywhere
Speaker 1: on TV. I mean not just because I've been on
Speaker 1: the panel a bunch of times, but it really is
Speaker 1: one of the smartest panels you'll get anywhere. I mean,
Speaker 1: Brett Bears Show is a show that I watch when
Speaker 1: I can, and I usual like the DVR because I'm
Speaker 1: obviously on radio. But it's it's a show that does
Speaker 1: the journalism thing for real, and anybody who says otherwise
Speaker 1: is just full of it, all right, So so you
Speaker 1: start with that. I mean, they have high quality anchors
Speaker 1: and high quality programming. And if they say they if
Speaker 1: the Democrats say they want to reach a broader audience
Speaker 1: than just the usual social justice woke lib maniacs, then
Speaker 1: they should want there to be some Fox time with
Speaker 1: the Democrat debates. But you see, Libs have to they
Speaker 1: have to have it their way, or they have to
Speaker 1: go quiet to the principle any one a ham a
Speaker 1: Republican easy to me and why ah Tom Met from
Speaker 1: Fox might have need to bay. There's such a bunch
Speaker 1: of little babies because they don't have to defend their ideas.
Speaker 1: They live in this cosseted, pampered little world where they're
Speaker 1: surrounded with people all the time and the media is
Speaker 1: reinforcing it that they're right. They don't really have to
Speaker 1: think they're just right. And then there's a whole other
Speaker 1: component of this, which in some ways is the even
Speaker 1: stronger argument in this whole situation. Notice not by the way,
Speaker 1: you know, the Republican Republicans had CNN, which is like
Speaker 1: a CNN is like a front for the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: Even they're not so called non partisan anchors. They're a
Speaker 1: bunch of left wing jerks. But I digress. The better
Speaker 1: argument here is that for the Democrat Party to claim
Speaker 1: that Fox, which has none of these kinds of political,
Speaker 1: politicized scandals that Fox can't moderate a debate because of
Speaker 1: what the New Yorker says about it. Oh nope, because
Speaker 1: of the New Yorker describing an inappropriate relationship. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: let's move past that for a second. Here. CBS News
Speaker 1: had its chief anchor run a news story that was
Speaker 1: fake news, folks, dan rather to throw a presidential election,
Speaker 1: all right, CBS had its primary anchor run with laughably
Speaker 1: false documents to throw an election against the Republicans. We
Speaker 1: still allow CB know, we still have CBS moderators at
Speaker 1: debates and stuff. We don't we don't cry about it.
Speaker 1: CNN was caught giving Hillary Clinton questions. All right. A
Speaker 1: CNN on air talent decided to funnel questions to Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton to help her out. You know, you go down
Speaker 1: the list. It's it's astonishing that people would even make
Speaker 1: the people would make this case with it with a
Speaker 1: straight face. It's outrageous that you know, NBC held, I mean,
Speaker 1: we're not idiots, right, NBC held the Billie Bush tape
Speaker 1: until as an October surprise, try to take Trump down
Speaker 1: using offstage open mic, you know, open mic, hit hit piece.
Speaker 1: But NBC is considered a journalistic enterprise, but this is
Speaker 1: the media is no longer in a position to make
Speaker 1: these claims about its objectivity, but they refuse to give
Speaker 1: it up because they don't want to have to actually
Speaker 1: battle it out in the realm of ideas. They like
Speaker 1: their platforms that they already they like the legacy platforms.
Speaker 1: Oh no, we're ABC News. We're not a bunch of
Speaker 1: left wing louns. No, you are, you are. You don't
Speaker 1: see the issues the way half the country does. You
Speaker 1: don't understand half the country. ABC News they have the
Speaker 1: biggest jerk in politics as their chief political a alsothing
Speaker 1: guy's a moron and a loser and a mean person.
Speaker 1: I might even say his name on this radio show
Speaker 1: over at ABC. He's a bad guy though, and makes
Speaker 1: them just makes a complete idiot of himself on Twitter.
Speaker 1: He's locked me on Twitter. So there's that what do
Speaker 1: you everyone? Once he goes, what do you mean? There's
Speaker 1: persecution of Christians in the Middle East, It's ridiculous. It's like,
Speaker 1: are you just you just always an idiot? Chief political
Speaker 1: analysts that ABC News, you know, is one of these
Speaker 1: guys who kind of attached himself to the Bush dynasty
Speaker 1: and was just riding the wave and there's no skills,
Speaker 1: no intelligence, and no decency. But I digress. These people
Speaker 1: are terrible, a lot of them. Not all them looks
Speaker 1: some of them are really nice. I know I'm laying
Speaker 1: in a little hardier. Some of them are okay, but
Speaker 1: a lot of them are complete phonies. And it just
Speaker 1: goes to show you though that you know, the mainstream media,
Speaker 1: for all their talk about being big, smart journals and
Speaker 1: all that, they have to play on their home field,
Speaker 1: in their home turf. Same with Democrats. They can't. They
Speaker 1: can't handle a real battle of ideas. They need an edge,
Speaker 1: they need an advantage. I just think it's pathetic and
Speaker 1: it's annoying. But the Democrats are still delusional on this
Speaker 1: whole issue of non partisan journalism. It does not exist.
Speaker 1: I know that this year there's been more attention on
Speaker 1: the issue of abortion, the separation between left and right
Speaker 1: on abortion than at any time in recent memory, because
Speaker 1: of the bills in Virginia and in New York State,
Speaker 1: my home state. And this is one of those moments
Speaker 1: where you probably have to ask, well, are we getting
Speaker 1: the full story? Like do people really tell us what's
Speaker 1: going on here, And my friend Ben Dominich over at
Speaker 1: The Federalist did a particularly good run through of why
Speaker 1: the abortion discussion as it's presented versus how it is
Speaker 1: for Americans who talk to each other and who are
Speaker 1: living their lives about it, why it seems to be
Speaker 1: so disconnected. And it's because the media is. And I
Speaker 1: don't say this to exaggerate or anything else, but the
Speaker 1: media is a bunch of abortion extremists. Even for people
Speaker 1: who are self described as pro choice, the media is very,
Speaker 1: very extreme. They are at the at the utmost, and
Speaker 1: it's pretty much across the board, which tells you a
Speaker 1: lot about one in the ethical standards and inclinations of
Speaker 1: our major news media, But it also affects so much
Speaker 1: of the coverage. So this is what Ben wrote on
Speaker 1: this quote, there's no single issue on which American media
Speaker 1: opinion is more unrepresentative of public opinion than abortion. And
Speaker 1: he shows this Gallop poll from May of twenty eighteen
Speaker 1: that says the question is Americans who say abortion should
Speaker 1: generally be legal in each trimester by key demographic, and
Speaker 1: it's US adults the first trimester sixty the second trimester
Speaker 1: twenty eight percent the third trimester thirteen percent, Very very
Speaker 1: few Americans think that third trimester abortion for reasons of
Speaker 1: convenience and for reasons of you know, just not wanting
Speaker 1: to have it, all this other stuff that that's not okay.
Speaker 1: Thirteen percent, folks think it's okay. I mean, you're talking
Speaker 1: about almost ninety percent. Almost nine out of ten Americans
Speaker 1: say no third trimester abortions. Ben continues here, Note that
Speaker 1: fewer women than men think abortion should be legal in
Speaker 1: the second and third trimester. Yet how often is a
Speaker 1: pro life woman featured in any national media context. This
Speaker 1: is not an accident. It is intentional, It is directed
Speaker 1: by media hierarchies, and it is the most toxic crackdown
Speaker 1: on a clearly legitimate debate regarding any domestic policy. Imagine
Speaker 1: an issue where only thirteen percent of Americans agree with
Speaker 1: your views, with the views rather espouse in ninety five
Speaker 1: percent of mass media opinion sections. You don't have to
Speaker 1: imagine it, because this is the one. The media's gas
Speaker 1: lighting of the abortion issue is unceasing, deliberate, and for
Speaker 1: all practical purposes, pretends pro life women don't exist. If
Speaker 1: you want to hear from the eighty eight percent. Following
Speaker 1: he gives a whole bunch of names here Es Felcher,
Speaker 1: Molly Hemingway, Emily Jasinski, and a whole bunch of others,
Speaker 1: And then Ben Wright's a good question every news opinion
Speaker 1: organization should be able to answer. How many from the
Speaker 1: eighty eight percent have a voice on your team? How
Speaker 1: often have you ever heard any mainstream media non Fox
Speaker 1: News pundit or news anchor say they oppose third trimester abortion?
Speaker 1: How is that? How is that possible? Right, given the
Speaker 1: realities of the overwhelming majority of the country is opposed
Speaker 1: to a third trime to third trimester abortions, why is
Speaker 1: that not? First of all, how many people even know
Speaker 1: those statistics? You know, you're often led to believe that
Speaker 1: you're in the minority in this country. If you are
Speaker 1: a pro life, you're led to believe that somehow you
Speaker 1: just haven't gotten the memo that all out of the
Speaker 1: other people I've gotten that this is a women's rights
Speaker 1: issue or all this stuff. Well, on this the memo
Speaker 1: should tell people, so to speak, that the country is
Speaker 1: as politically united against a third trimester abortion as they
Speaker 1: are on any issue. I mean, you can get ten
Speaker 1: percent of people that think that America is not really
Speaker 1: a country. Who live in America? I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: once you're down to ten percent, that is a very
Speaker 1: small minority. And how is this representative of media, especially
Speaker 1: with female voices. It's not. This is deliberate because the
Speaker 1: media is dishonest, and it is a class among us
Speaker 1: that is desperate to maintain its power and its relevance,
Speaker 1: and it is very dishonest in the process. The show
Speaker 1: ain't over yet, folks. Here's where you take over, keeping
Speaker 1: it real, Team Buck, It's time for roll call. IM
Speaker 1: gonna get in on some of that roll call action, everybody.
Speaker 1: That's how you do it. Facebook dot Com, slash Buck Sexton,
Speaker 1: send me your thoughts, friends, Americans, countrymen, lend me your
Speaker 1: Facebook messages. Doesn't sound quite as grandiose, does it, tj
Speaker 1: First up, Buck, have you had a chance to listen
Speaker 1: to the Joe Rogan podcast with Timpool, Jack Dorsey and
Speaker 1: his Twitter cohort Vijayagadi Yet? If not, I highly recommend it.
Speaker 1: You should try getting Timpool to come on to see
Speaker 1: if he thinks it was a productive conversation or not.
Speaker 1: He definitely took it to them pretty good A few
Speaker 1: times in the podcast, but I'm not sure if the
Speaker 1: Twitter duo actually cares what he thinks. Anyway, would like
Speaker 1: to see if you can get Tim on radio or rising,
Speaker 1: preferably radio. Thanks so much, TJ. TJ. I have heard
Speaker 1: some clips of it, obviously, but I have not yet
Speaker 1: heard the whole thing. But I'll just say that it's
Speaker 1: much of what I've been telling you all along here.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, this is one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: we partnered with a new social media network on the show,
Speaker 1: Snippy dot Com. I mean, it's because I really believe
Speaker 1: and when I tell you that there's bias on the platforms,
Speaker 1: there's bias on the platforms, and people say, will you
Speaker 1: still use Facebook, book and you still use Twitter? Yes,
Speaker 1: that's because I want to be able to reach audience
Speaker 1: and my fellow Americans, and those are the platforms that exist.
Speaker 1: If there was a platform that was truly neutral, other
Speaker 1: than one that's grown, I mean, obviously we've got our
Speaker 1: sponsor Snippy and I'm posting there, but if there was
Speaker 1: a platform like Twitter, for example, then certainly I think
Speaker 1: a lot of people would move to it just knowing
Speaker 1: that they wouldn't have to deal with what's obviously ideological censorship,
Speaker 1: and that is what is underway. Marina had the next
Speaker 1: one here, she writes, I had the privilege last night
Speaker 1: of attending a pre screening of Captain Marvel with a
Speaker 1: group of women pilots. I did not feel it was
Speaker 1: a man bashing movie or anything against men. I did
Speaker 1: not feel that it was a strictly women power type
Speaker 1: of movie or had a social justice theme. There was
Speaker 1: one scene where a character played by Annette Benning mocked
Speaker 1: the main character, implying she did not have what it
Speaker 1: takes to succeed. That's when they did a flashback to
Speaker 1: her childhood where every time she fell or failed, she
Speaker 1: got back up, ending with her in a flight suit
Speaker 1: getting back up. I didn't see it as an empowering moment,
Speaker 1: but more as a pride in ignoring the naysayers, picking
Speaker 1: yourself up, brushing off the dirt, and trying again. It
Speaker 1: is not an excellent movie, but it's entertaining. It's fun
Speaker 1: looking back at the mid nineties technology and the humor
Speaker 1: played off of that. Lastly, I've not read one review
Speaker 1: that talks about the cat. I think the cat has
Speaker 1: a big role, as many other actors in the movie
Speaker 1: and will no doubt remain a character movies to come. Marina,
Speaker 1: thank you for your review of Captain Marvel. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: I have not seen it, so I will have to
Speaker 1: take your word for all this. And next up we
Speaker 1: have Adam writes Buck, please don't mix Marvel and DC
Speaker 1: superheroes in the same sentence. I love you, man, but
Speaker 1: come on, Shield's Eye, Adam, What did I do that?
Speaker 1: I think I said Captain Captain America and Captain Marvel.
Speaker 1: Probably that's probably what I did, didn't I? Yeah, Yeah
Speaker 1: you did, Buck, Yeah you did, Rob Buck. Wouldn't the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party use emergency powers anyway since it's legal? I
Speaker 1: don't understand the fear Shield's high, Rob Yeah, the Democrats
Speaker 1: will use emergency powers even when it's not legal. And
Speaker 1: then this is why I don't really understand, or rather
Speaker 1: I reject the argument that we're setting some bad precedent,
Speaker 1: that it's going to come back to bite us, and
Speaker 1: oh what are we gonna do? The Democrats are gonna
Speaker 1: exploit it. Now. Democrats are gonna exploit it anyway, folks,
Speaker 1: as in the Democrats will do whatever they can get
Speaker 1: away with in terms of pursuing their agenda on their power.
Speaker 1: They're not going to say, oh, because the Republicans were
Speaker 1: being fair on this one, we're going to be fair too.
Speaker 1: Let's just not how Democrats think about things. Josh rights,
Speaker 1: Captain Marvel was a dude, then they changed it. Also,
Speaker 1: Marvel and DC both have a Captain Marvel. Huh. Interesting,
Speaker 1: But Josh, I thought that was the case. I thought
Speaker 1: they'd offered up Captain Marvel as a woman as a
Speaker 1: recent thing, And I was right. Nirvana is awesome, but
Speaker 1: not a big Guns and Roses fan. So agree to disagree,
Speaker 1: and you still need to check out Tool. Josh, I'm sorry, man,
Speaker 1: Nirvana versus Guns and Roses. I really think you gotta
Speaker 1: go with Guns and Roses. I mean, look to each
Speaker 1: his own, to each his own, man, and that's you know,
Speaker 1: we gotta stay true to that principle. But I really
Speaker 1: do think that it's a better band. But that's just me.
Speaker 1: What do I know? Well, I guess hopefully I know
Speaker 1: some things because I do a radio show and I
Speaker 1: talk about a lot of things for a lot of time.
Speaker 1: Tyler shields Hie. Perhaps another book I could recommend on
Speaker 1: the climate change issue is Inconvenient Facts by Gregory Whitestone.
Speaker 1: He is a geologist who, in the search for is
Speaker 1: global warming making the California wildfire's worse ended up writing
Speaker 1: this book. It gives great information on natural phenomenon leading
Speaker 1: to global warming and the cychnical history of climate change. Tyler,
Speaker 1: I will check that out for sure. We had on
Speaker 1: Rising today the gentleman doctor Rossiter from last night who
Speaker 1: came on the show and is a climate statistician, and
Speaker 1: he was just on fire Man. He was my co
Speaker 1: host one Nita Tolliver, who is a very lovely, very nice,
Speaker 1: very nice lady. I don't think she was prepared for
Speaker 1: the onslought of data that he brought to bear. And
Speaker 1: look he says that he said, I think he said
Speaker 1: this on a radio show last night, but he said,
Speaker 1: I'm rising this morning that Libs will not debate him
Speaker 1: on this, that he keeps making the offer, who wants
Speaker 1: to debate this, and the Libs simply won't do it.
Speaker 1: So with that realization, I mean, how could we think
Speaker 1: that their argument is sound? How can you believe that
Speaker 1: the science is clear and the science speaks for itself
Speaker 1: on this? There we go. I think I think that
Speaker 1: it answers itself. Keith writes, Buck, you got the best
Speaker 1: Bernie imitation. Thank you, Keith, the romainsic. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Hopefully the millionaires and the billionaires will not see this message,
Speaker 1: because they will take all of your money because the gredient.
Speaker 1: They'll fire you because they mean because the billionaires. Christine writes,
Speaker 1: I think we need an audit of how much of
Speaker 1: our tax money the government has spent on investigating the president,
Speaker 1: since they are starting another one. Christina, I would like
Speaker 1: to see that too, But I've got to tell we've
Speaker 1: got a bigger problem than that investigation. We are hitting
Speaker 1: twenty two trillion dollars in debt. We are going to
Speaker 1: be I think over a trillion dollars in terms of
Speaker 1: the deficit for this year alone. I think it's maybe
Speaker 1: eight hundred billion, but it's it's way up there. We're
Speaker 1: spending way too much money in a time of prosperity
Speaker 1: and when things are actually going pretty well. I also
Speaker 1: think that we need to look at the way that
Speaker 1: we measure economic success in progress. I mean, just GDP
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily tell you everything about how things are really going.
Speaker 1: But that's a longer conversation for another time. To be sure,
Speaker 1: Steve right, it's crazy uncle has figured out AOC's problem. No, Steve,
Speaker 1: I can't read that, Steve, I can't read that. On
Speaker 1: the air, Steve, you're Steve. You're being a troublemaker. You're
Speaker 1: being a troublemaker. Daniel Rights, Hey buck love your show, Daniel,
Speaker 1: you have great taste in radio. Many maybe wondering why
Speaker 1: Senate Damns would allow in fanticide. I found this story
Speaker 1: from a Harvard student during a twenty ten ethics class.
Speaker 1: The young man said that the first day of class,
Speaker 1: they were assigned to read and respond to an actual
Speaker 1: case of an aborted child twenty four weeks along who
Speaker 1: was gasping for breath. Twenty minutes later, the nurse at
Speaker 1: this Singapore hospital found a doctor who chose to save
Speaker 1: the baby. Out of fifty students, only the young man
Speaker 1: and three others thought the baby should be saved. The
Speaker 1: other forty six were outraged that the baby was saved.
Speaker 1: Lincoln is credited with saying, the philosophy of the classroom
Speaker 1: in one generation will be the philosophy of government in
Speaker 1: the next. Shields High by the way, this is documented here,
Speaker 1: and he sent me a link to the piece, Daniel.
Speaker 1: This goes back to my thesis advisor and mentor in college,
Speaker 1: professor Hadley Archy's who helped kraft the Born Alive Infant
Speaker 1: Protection Act, which was premised on something that's very straightforward.
Speaker 1: Is the right to an abortion, the right to the procedure,
Speaker 1: or the right to a dead baby, because as we know,
Speaker 1: sometimes the baby survives the abortion procedure, and I don't
Speaker 1: want to get into graphic details of it, but that
Speaker 1: does happen. So in that instance, is an abortion the
Speaker 1: right to a dead baby? Or is an abortion a
Speaker 1: medical procedure that, when completed, if the baby survives, that's
Speaker 1: a baby. Now, we all know the answer to this question.
Speaker 1: But the left and the abortion extremists at logic on
Speaker 1: this is such that they believe that the question needs
Speaker 1: to be left open. At least they do not want
Speaker 1: criminal penalties for somebody who would say, well, you know,
Speaker 1: the baby's probably not going to make it anyway, so
Speaker 1: why give it medical care now, or any number of
Speaker 1: any number of scenarios. And it's truly evil, and it's wrong,
Speaker 1: and it's the great moral separation between left and right
Speaker 1: right now in this country. Denise right, it's deer Buck,
Speaker 1: I just want to say how much I enjoy your podcast.
Speaker 1: I've listened since your days on the Blaze. I don't
Speaker 1: get to listen every day, but when I do, I
Speaker 1: always come away feeling the time was well spent. I've
Speaker 1: learned something of value. My sincere thanks to you and
Speaker 1: your team for all the time and effort you put
Speaker 1: into keeping us informed. Denise, Well, Denise, that's really kind
Speaker 1: of you. Thank you so much for the nice and
Speaker 1: an encouraging note. And it means a lot that people
Speaker 1: across the country appreciate what we do here and the
Speaker 1: show that we put out every day, and a lot
Speaker 1: does go into it. A lot goes into it, So
Speaker 1: thank you very much for that. Dan, Right's your tray
Speaker 1: gouty isn't bad, but like the one listener, it needs
Speaker 1: to be a little more gomer. It has a little
Speaker 1: too much mister me seeks right now. If you don't
Speaker 1: know who that is, you should watch some Rick and
Speaker 1: Morty awfully funny but awfully dirty and rough. Well, Dann,
Speaker 1: I appreciate did you know what you're saying? My tray
Speaker 1: gout is not that bad. It's my tray is. It's
Speaker 1: a little off. I know, but it's sometimes you're not
Speaker 1: I'm shooting here. I'm talking about colleagues and congression. I'm
Speaker 1: getting closer, right, maybe maybe not. Here we go Mark
Speaker 1: rights shields high to pistachio ice cream. Also heard your
Speaker 1: protest about pickles on a burger? How about pickles on
Speaker 1: a pizza? And he sent sent photos. Dude, no pickles
Speaker 1: on pizza. No, we are not savages. We did not
Speaker 1: put pickles on our pizza. All right, there are rules, Benji.
Speaker 1: Longtime listener, first time direct messenger, or been a fan
Speaker 1: since I heard you in the Blaze. Anyway, I agree
Speaker 1: with you on the kids. The leftists that control the
Speaker 1: public education system would vote, or rather would love for
Speaker 1: ten year old kids to vote. The schools would go
Speaker 1: as far as using kids school buses to transport them
Speaker 1: to vote without their parents permission. Keep up the great work, Benji. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, Benji. And yeah, look it's true
Speaker 1: they want little kids who don't know anything and who
Speaker 1: can be programmed and brainwashed to vote, because that's really
Speaker 1: what low information voting is all about, isn't it brainwashing
Speaker 1: people with simplistic terms and slogans and getting them to
Speaker 1: do what you want. It's pretty much the Democratic Party's
Speaker 1: mantra whether you're a kid or an adult, so there's
Speaker 1: that more tomorrow. Team shields high