Speaker 1: This is Buck's first thoughts, the news you need to
Speaker 1: get for your day in forty five minutes. Make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe on the iHeart app before wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. We go through this cycle over and over again.
Speaker 1: There's a mass shooting, and immediately there's an effort to
Speaker 1: try to use this to try to exploit the crisis
Speaker 1: for political points. I can't tell you how many people
Speaker 1: I had already just in my own world of social
Speaker 1: media and trying to share thoughts and opinions. I was
Speaker 1: referring to Governor Christine Nome's transgender bill in South Dakota,
Speaker 1: and I had all these comments about how why won't
Speaker 1: you talk about the quote Trump supporter end quote? They
Speaker 1: would say, who just engaged in a mass shooting? The
Speaker 1: white supremacist Trump supporter that engaged in a mass shooting.
Speaker 1: There was no evidence whatsoever to support that that was
Speaker 1: what happened. There was none when this was being said
Speaker 1: last night, and yet they went with it anyway. They
Speaker 1: decided that it was too useful in this moment of
Speaker 1: heightened emotions and sense of crisis to bash political opponents
Speaker 1: who weren't even talking necessarily about this awful incident, and
Speaker 1: this is what you see people that leverage the Internet
Speaker 1: for their own power. That you social media as a weapon,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately the social media companies themselves are increasingly a
Speaker 1: political weapon. They use this to silence those ideas groups,
Speaker 1: those individuals who they view as outside of the mainstream
Speaker 1: or somehow opposed to the dominant democrat consensus. But you
Speaker 1: can do something about this. When you anonymize your connection,
Speaker 1: you can serve the Internet freely without wondering who's going
Speaker 1: to get a hold of your search history or your
Speaker 1: viewing habits, or what they'll do with that information. Because
Speaker 1: what they have now, who knows what it will be
Speaker 1: in five years, how much more in depth they're going to.
Speaker 1: You know, China has a social credit system in place
Speaker 1: that makes determinations about you based upon what you do online,
Speaker 1: what apartment you can rent or house you can buy,
Speaker 1: and all sorts of information down to the very granular.
Speaker 1: We have even better technology here if it's turned against us,
Speaker 1: So take technology into your hands to take action against this.
Speaker 1: That's what you can do with express VPN. When you
Speaker 1: search for something online, you watch a video, you click
Speaker 1: a link. You know that the big tech companies can
Speaker 1: trace you using that device is unique IP address. But
Speaker 1: when I use Express VPN, these companies can't see my
Speaker 1: IP address at all. My identity is anonymized by a
Speaker 1: secure VPN server and my data is encrypted for maximum protection.
Speaker 1: Besides hiding all my Internet activity, what I like most
Speaker 1: about Express VPN is how easy it is to use.
Speaker 1: Stop handing over your data to big tech companies in
Speaker 1: the government. Defend your rights with the VPN I trust
Speaker 1: for online protection. Visit Express vpn dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's Express vpn dot com slash buck. You'll get three
Speaker 1: months of extra protection free Express vpn dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: A horrific mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado at a grocery store,
Speaker 1: and what do they do right away? What do they
Speaker 1: decide must happen? Politicization? We can't even wait for the
Speaker 1: basic facts to come out. We can't even know the
Speaker 1: person's name. And already I can tell you last night,
Speaker 1: all over the place, there were charges flying about how
Speaker 1: this must be a white supremacist, it must be a
Speaker 1: Trump supporter, maybe it was somebody from the Capitol Hill riot.
Speaker 1: The stuff that was being said and shared, including from
Speaker 1: people who work in media and are supposed to have
Speaker 1: some ethics, supposed to have some standards. Was appalling. And
Speaker 1: now today we find out more information and we can
Speaker 1: see that the people who were wrong or up to conclusions,
Speaker 1: they don't care. It doesn't matter. It felt good for
Speaker 1: them in the initial stages to bludgeon their political opponents
Speaker 1: for something that has nothing to do with them. It
Speaker 1: was gratifying for leftists to use this tragedy as an
Speaker 1: opportunity to push their agenda. And we keep going through this.
Speaker 1: It stretches back years. It stretches back to the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: to Sandy Hook, to terrible incidents mass shootings before that,
Speaker 1: to Columbined and we come to the same Democrat claims
Speaker 1: that are rooted in emotion and demonizing people who are
Speaker 1: lawful gun owners who believe in the Second Amendment to
Speaker 1: advance a political agenda. Eventually, they don't win. Usually they
Speaker 1: back off of this issue because people learn that what
Speaker 1: they're recommending would not have prevented the incident at hand,
Speaker 1: and in fact, would do very little, if anything, to
Speaker 1: help anyone when it comes to gun violence. But ultimately,
Speaker 1: this is about the underlying philosophy of Democrats wanting to
Speaker 1: disarm you, all of you everyone. They do not believe
Speaker 1: that individuals should be able to own weapons in defense
Speaker 1: of themselves and as a defense against tyranny from the state.
Speaker 1: They do not believe in it, and everything that they
Speaker 1: say other than that is just incrementalism to that same end,
Speaker 1: trying to take guns out of the hands of people
Speaker 1: who are law abiding and who do nothing wrong, not
Speaker 1: only with those fires, nothing wrong in general. But first,
Speaker 1: let's get to the facts as we know them, the
Speaker 1: details of this case. This is the Bolder Police Chief
Speaker 1: Marius Harold earlier today play nineteen forty pm on Monday,
Speaker 1: regarding the suspect. At approximately to forty pm on Monday
Speaker 1: March twenty second, officers were dispatched to King's Supers on
Speaker 1: Tablemasa Drive. Officers arrived on the scene within minutes and
Speaker 1: immediately entered the store and engaged the suspect. There was
Speaker 1: this exchange of gunfire which such Best was shot. No
Speaker 1: other officers were injured. The suspect was taken into custody
Speaker 1: at three twenty eight pm. He was transported to the
Speaker 1: hospital for treatment. Now in stable condition. This suspect has
Speaker 1: been identified as a mod alyssa twenty one of our Vada.
Speaker 1: He has been charged with ten counts of murder in
Speaker 1: the first degree and will should be shortly transported the
Speaker 1: bull to county jail. Ten counts of murder in the
Speaker 1: first degree. Is this an act of terror? I saw
Speaker 1: people insisting that it was before we knew anything about
Speaker 1: the shooter. I saw Democrats leaping on this as an
Speaker 1: opportunity to push an agenda that this is somehow tied
Speaker 1: to Trump everything that is awful. These people are mentally,
Speaker 1: absolutely committed to the notion that anything that is awful
Speaker 1: and terrible and bad can be put on Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: He's the ultimate boogeyman, and they won't let it go.
Speaker 1: It has nothing to do with Trump, and no intelligent,
Speaker 1: honest person would say otherwise. But they were. It was
Speaker 1: all over the internet last night, all of the commentariat,
Speaker 1: you know, the commentators on the left. That's what they
Speaker 1: were saying. That's what they were telling people. And we
Speaker 1: now know that the individual Ahmad, I've seen it said
Speaker 1: and spelled two different ways, but his first name is Ahmad.
Speaker 1: There's a good chance that what they're saying is Alyssa.
Speaker 1: May be an alternative spelling, but it's Ahmad al Issa.
Speaker 1: We don't know anything about this man, about his mental
Speaker 1: health as I speak to you now, and this is
Speaker 1: going to be rapidly evolving and changing. We're going to
Speaker 1: learn about the social media footprint, We're going to learn
Speaker 1: about what his neighbors and friends, and all those things
Speaker 1: are going to come in. But one thing you have
Speaker 1: to understand is that the people that try to exploit
Speaker 1: this before they know anything, who sees upon emotion, who
Speaker 1: call the NRA a terrorist organization that was done yesterday,
Speaker 1: who say the NRA should be treated like a crime
Speaker 1: family ordering murders, and the people that say this insane
Speaker 1: stuff when the facts actually come out, if the facts
Speaker 1: largely or entirely contradict the initial narrative, they're not sorry,
Speaker 1: They're not even embarrassed. That's the point. This is about
Speaker 1: the exercise of raw power. This is about exploiting emotions.
Speaker 1: This is about getting people angry at the other so
Speaker 1: that you can get the angry people to do and
Speaker 1: believe what you want them to the same way I've
Speaker 1: told people that you have to have a different, a
Speaker 1: different understanding of hypocrisy. The Left does not care about
Speaker 1: being hypocritical when they have power, or they use it
Speaker 1: when they can enforce different standards, they will, just like
Speaker 1: all autocrats, just like all dictatorial regimes. They don't shy
Speaker 1: away from this. They don't view it as a problem.
Speaker 1: They don't care. They just do it because they can,
Speaker 1: because they get away with it. The same thing is
Speaker 1: true about the immediate exploitation of a mass shooting like this.
Speaker 1: They view it as an opportunity for a political agenda
Speaker 1: and also to exercise some of their disdain for the
Speaker 1: other side, use it as an excuse to scream abuse
Speaker 1: at people who they disagree with politically on other things
Speaker 1: that have nothing to do with the actual shooting itself.
Speaker 1: So they're not sorry about this. They don't view this
Speaker 1: as a moment where they should be more honest or
Speaker 1: they should do some introspection. No, when a MSNBC watching
Speaker 1: New York Times reading lib screams that you will online
Speaker 1: and says, see another white supremacist Trump supporter shot up
Speaker 1: a bunch of people in Boulder, Colorado, and there's no
Speaker 1: evidence to support that, and we don't have any reasonable
Speaker 1: connection between between these things based on the facts at hand.
Speaker 1: And then even when they're proven to be untrue, they
Speaker 1: don't care because they enjoyed disparaging you. They enjoyed that
Speaker 1: those moments in time when they felt really righteous, really virtuous,
Speaker 1: for trashing you, for trashing the millions and millions of
Speaker 1: Americans who own firearms legally across the country and who
Speaker 1: are a bulwark against tyranny and let me say, a
Speaker 1: tyranny from the government that we increasingly should take very seriously. Okay,
Speaker 1: freedom is at the lowest ebb in this country in
Speaker 1: my lifetime. That's a fact, worse than it was after
Speaker 1: nine to eleven with some of the old overreaches and
Speaker 1: some of the you know, the government actions there, at
Speaker 1: least domestically, I'm talking about internally, the worst place freedom
Speaker 1: has been in my lifetime. So that's going on forty years,
Speaker 1: and the Democrats are set on doing everything that can
Speaker 1: while they can to make sure that you do not
Speaker 1: have the right to bear arms. They're going as far
Speaker 1: on this as they possibly can, as far as they
Speaker 1: can get away with it. This is why I get
Speaker 1: so frustrated, because the people that have been that spent
Speaker 1: four years calling for a need for greater honesty from
Speaker 1: let's say, Donald Trump, they come into office, the Biden administration.
Speaker 1: It's just lies all over the place, constantly lying to you,
Speaker 1: lying about their intentions, lying about the numbers at the border. Oh,
Speaker 1: we'll get into that, lying about a lot of things,
Speaker 1: things that matter to you, Okay. Not not lying about
Speaker 1: a crowd size or the size of one's hands, or
Speaker 1: lying of you know, all the things that they were
Speaker 1: they were completely apoplectic about in the media when Trump
Speaker 1: was president. Not lying about irrelevancies, not lying about uh,
Speaker 1: you know, personal peccadillos or whatever. No lying about policy
Speaker 1: in ways that affect your life. This is central to
Speaker 1: what the Democrats do. It's central to their whole approach.
Speaker 1: And we go through this and I heard Senator Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz talking about it the same thing every time. The
Speaker 1: n RA is a terrorist organization. You know. They trot
Speaker 1: out some some victims of other shootings or people who
Speaker 1: were near victims of other shootings, you know, hog and others,
Speaker 1: and they try to get somebody deep platform who defends
Speaker 1: a Second Amendment. They try to scare some Republican members
Speaker 1: of Congress into abandoning the Second Amendment. And this is
Speaker 1: the push pull every time. Doesn't matter that the policies
Speaker 1: they proposed wouldn't actually make anyone safe or doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: It's about control and about them getting their way. Deal
Speaker 1: with it. That's what they really think here, Senator chat
Speaker 1: Cruise talking about exactly this play twenty one, and every
Speaker 1: time there's a shooting, we play this ridiculous theater where
Speaker 1: this committee gets together and proposes a bunch of laws
Speaker 1: that would do nothing to stop these murders. Senator from
Speaker 1: Connecticut just said the folks on the other side of
Speaker 1: the aisle have no solutions, while the Senator from Connecticut
Speaker 1: knows that is false, and he knows that's false because
Speaker 1: Senator Grassley and I together introduce legislation Grassley Cruse targeted
Speaker 1: at violent criminals, targeted at felon's, targeted at fugitives, targeted
Speaker 1: at those with serious mental disease, to stop them from
Speaker 1: getting firearms, to put them in prison when they try
Speaker 1: to illegally buy guns. What happens in this committee after
Speaker 1: every mass shooting is Democrats proposed taking away guns from
Speaker 1: law abiding citizens because that's their political objective. But what
Speaker 1: they propose not only does it not reduce crime, it
Speaker 1: makes it worse. It makes it worse. Here's another point
Speaker 1: I want to make for all of you. A lot
Speaker 1: of them know that, and they don't care. This is
Speaker 1: about control, this is about power. People are upset, they're scared,
Speaker 1: they're emotional. Democrats see those things, They recognize those realities,
Speaker 1: and it's an opportunity for them. You know, in the
Speaker 1: Congresses you mentioned the House of Representatives last week, for
Speaker 1: the second time, we've passed two important initial pieces on
Speaker 1: gun violence prevention. The problem is in the Senate, even
Speaker 1: with the majority, a slim majority, because of the filibuster,
Speaker 1: it's going to be very, very difficult to get anything done.
Speaker 1: You know, the filibuster to many of us is a
Speaker 1: tool and instrument for government gridlock. And we need action
Speaker 1: and we need it right away. So what are you
Speaker 1: calling for today, Well, we need to do away with
Speaker 1: the filibuster. You know that. What's what's we're seeing happening
Speaker 1: in America is Republicans in the Senate are more interested
Speaker 1: in eroding voting laws and increasing gun rights when you know,
Speaker 1: it really should be the other way around. We need
Speaker 1: to look at making sure that we have safe communities
Speaker 1: and that people aren't afraid and terrified of going to
Speaker 1: the grocery store or going to a school. And the
Speaker 1: majority of Americans support common sense gun violence prevention legislation.
Speaker 1: But we can't get anything done in the Senate because
Speaker 1: a majority doesn't rule. It's the filibuster that rules. Oh
Speaker 1: look at that. It's so convenient, isn't it. You know,
Speaker 1: the Democrats want to get rid of the filibuster. They
Speaker 1: want to steamroll the Republicans. They're looking for any opportunity
Speaker 1: to do this, and sure enough, this mass shooting in Boulder,
Speaker 1: Colorado is yet another another excuse, another attempt to dramatically
Speaker 1: change the way the United States Senate operates. Remember they
Speaker 1: use the filibuster against Republicans on the Trump administration. Then
Speaker 1: it was fine, then it was important. It was the system,
Speaker 1: you see, it was our sacred institutions. What do I
Speaker 1: keep telling you? This is about the raw exercise of power. Right.
Speaker 1: When I am weak, I ask for freedom because it
Speaker 1: is according to your principles. When I am strong, I
Speaker 1: demand obedience because it is according to my principles. That's
Speaker 1: how the Democrats do politics all the time. So this
Speaker 1: notion that there are rules that we can expect them
Speaker 1: to abide by if they can get away with breaking them.
Speaker 1: There are principles that we share with them that they
Speaker 1: won't abandon it the first sign of it being inconvenient,
Speaker 1: You won't. You might want to drop that entirely. They
Speaker 1: just don't have the ability to do some of these things.
Speaker 1: That's what stops them. They don't have the actual raw power.
Speaker 1: They know that the backlash would be too much for them.
Speaker 1: But here we are at Think of all the reasons
Speaker 1: they've given so far, and I'm talking about members of Congress,
Speaker 1: those who are involved in the process. Think of all
Speaker 1: the different ways that they've said to us, we need
Speaker 1: to get rid of the filibuster. They've said it's because
Speaker 1: in favor of HR one, for changing elections dramatically federalizing
Speaker 1: elections and getting rid of essentially all elections. Safeguards DC statehood.
Speaker 1: That's another big one. We got to get to DC statehood.
Speaker 1: They get rid of the filibuster for amnesty. Of course,
Speaker 1: that's I think the most likely place they'll do it anassy. Now,
Speaker 1: let's get rid of the filibuster for gun control. Anything
Speaker 1: Democrats want to do, you'll notice, is a justification for
Speaker 1: getting rid of the filibuster. If Republicans won't go along.
Speaker 1: What was one of the favorite lines of Obama for
Speaker 1: his eight years as president. The Republicans are obstructing, which
Speaker 1: was just a fancy way of saying Republicans won't do
Speaker 1: what I say, and that's bad. No, you can disagree,
Speaker 1: you can try to persuade. But the other political party
Speaker 1: not just not just conceding, not just deciding that they
Speaker 1: no longer stand for anything. That's not the expectation that
Speaker 1: anyone should have in this country. But this is where
Speaker 1: we are. But understand this too. The emotionally driven Democrat
Speaker 1: Party is going to use the emotions of this moment
Speaker 1: where people are very upsets, very saddening. I know, the
Speaker 1: police officer was killed in the Boulder shooting at the
Speaker 1: grocery store, and you know he had seven kids. You
Speaker 1: had nine other people just going to get groceries killed,
Speaker 1: two in the parking lot, eight inside. It's horrible. It's
Speaker 1: absolutely terrible. And yet instead of seeing this for what
Speaker 1: it is and waiting to learn whether there even is
Speaker 1: a law that you could pass. I mean, it's illegal
Speaker 1: to murder people. It's illegal to go into a store
Speaker 1: with a gun. It's illegal. There's a lot of things
Speaker 1: that I'm sure we're illegal here. But the impulse to
Speaker 1: pass a law. From the authoritarian democrat mindset isn't really
Speaker 1: so much to protect us, it's to add to their
Speaker 1: own power, because they're smart enough to figure out this
Speaker 1: isn't actually the laws. They talk about a background check system,
Speaker 1: for example, that's what they say now here. Here's the
Speaker 1: Colorado AG. Colorado unfortunately has a lot of very left
Speaker 1: wing people in high office. Play five. We and Colorado
Speaker 1: have a background check law. But if people go to
Speaker 1: surrounding states, they can get a weapon without having a
Speaker 1: background check. That is a common sense measure that's supported
Speaker 1: by overwhelming majorities. The fact that we didn't get such
Speaker 1: a law after prior mass shootings is hard to understand.
Speaker 1: We need a federal law. I know that our members
Speaker 1: of Commerce from Colorado have run on this issue, are
Speaker 1: committed to this issue. We need a national background check
Speaker 1: law because otherwise people can go to surrounding states and
Speaker 1: get a weapon without having to go through a background check.
Speaker 1: Which makes sense, get a weapon without having to go
Speaker 1: through a background check. They really want to pass this
Speaker 1: national background check law, universal background checks, which would mean
Speaker 1: that for any private transfer, you would have to go
Speaker 1: to a federal, federal, federally licensed dealer would also mean
Speaker 1: in some versions of the bill that even if you
Speaker 1: were to lend a shotgun, let's say, to a friend
Speaker 1: to go hunting for the weekend, you got to you
Speaker 1: got to go to a licensed firearms dealer first to
Speaker 1: run the background check system. Who thinks this is really
Speaker 1: going to stop crime? Somebody who wants to be a
Speaker 1: mass murderer or a mass shooter, first of all, a
Speaker 1: lot of the time they would pass a background check,
Speaker 1: which we know has also happens that kind of all,
Speaker 1: they're willing to either steal or illegally get a firearm,
Speaker 1: and it's not hard to do with over three hundred
Speaker 1: million firearms in circulation already in the United States. Not difficult.
Speaker 1: So what is really do Ninety nine point nine percent
Speaker 1: of people are just going to be you know who
Speaker 1: go through this changed bill situation, are just going to
Speaker 1: be harassed. Doesn't stop anyone who's bad from doing anything bad. Well,
Speaker 1: remember that what happened was that President Trump spent four
Speaker 1: years dismantling the process in presidents or President Trump spent
Speaker 1: four years dismantling the peaceful, orderly process of allowing people
Speaker 1: to apply for asylum. For example, he cut funding to
Speaker 1: the Northern Triangle countries. Here he cut funding and shut
Speaker 1: down offices where immigrants could actually apply for asylum and
Speaker 1: their home countries without coming to the border. And so,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm very confident that President Biden is doing
Speaker 1: everything that he can. But frankly, he's cleaning up a
Speaker 1: mess that was left here there by President Trump and
Speaker 1: his systematic and inhumane attacks on the immigration system. Blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. Just a bunch of nonsense, Just a bunch
Speaker 1: of nonsense, Senator Duckworth. There are many many others who
Speaker 1: were saying the same stuff. This is babbel. Okay, we
Speaker 1: all know what's happening here, but they're just trying. They're
Speaker 1: trying to convince you that the southern border, which is
Speaker 1: in crisis, which is looking like it's going to have
Speaker 1: more illegal migrants crossing than what you had in the
Speaker 1: during the Obama crisis and the Trump crisis combined, the
Speaker 1: worst the border has been in twenty years, according to
Speaker 1: people I know who devote their lives to immigration issues
Speaker 1: and trying to secure our border. And they're telling you
Speaker 1: that this is Trump's fault because he dismantled the orderly process.
Speaker 1: It wasn't an orderly process. Senator Duckworth trying to debate this,
Speaker 1: I would love you, you know what, let's we'll put
Speaker 1: it out there. She can come on the show. We
Speaker 1: can debate this how orderly the process was. I was
Speaker 1: down there at the border. I saw how orderly the
Speaker 1: asylum process was. It was dozens, if not hundreds of
Speaker 1: people at a time showing up, waving down border patrol
Speaker 1: and then gaming the system and staying in the country
Speaker 1: and not showing up for immigration hearings. And even if
Speaker 1: they do show up, they probably get to stay anyway.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is get into the country.
Speaker 1: That's the whole game. Get out of custody, get into
Speaker 1: the country, and you're home free. We know it, we've
Speaker 1: been through it, we've seen it. But they pretend this
Speaker 1: system was working well before. That's the part of this
Speaker 1: that to me is just it's so obviously false. But
Speaker 1: they don't care. I know, not everyone gets to spend,
Speaker 1: you know, or should spend. And I don't recommend this.
Speaker 1: Hours and hours a day reading all this stuff. I
Speaker 1: have to do that. That's my job. So when I
Speaker 1: see this, it's amazing to me because in my head
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, nobody who understands what has been happening at
Speaker 1: the southern border for the last ten years, never mind
Speaker 1: the last three or four years, would ever say that
Speaker 1: that it was an orderly process that Trump destroyed. That's
Speaker 1: a laughably stupid statement. I mean, it really screams ignorance
Speaker 1: of what's going on. But it's actually worse than ignorance,
Speaker 1: because I think it's it's malicious, it's lies. She's lying
Speaker 1: to you about this, or rather giving you an assessment
Speaker 1: of the situation that is so fundamentally flawed that the
Speaker 1: best you can say for it is she is doing
Speaker 1: this on purpose for political reasons. Protecting good old Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is what this is really all about. We're two
Speaker 1: months into the presidency, and what do you get. Open
Speaker 1: borders Joe right away, Open borders Joe. They can do
Speaker 1: whatever they want, they can say whatever they want about this,
Speaker 1: to try to confuse things, to try to make you
Speaker 1: think that that's not what's really going on. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is the cause of this crisis, and to say that
Speaker 1: this is orderly is just a huge lie. Another part
Speaker 1: of this that I want to get to you had
Speaker 1: Mayorca speaking of the lies around this. You had Mayorcas,
Speaker 1: who's the DHS chief, go on TV over the weekend,
Speaker 1: did the Sunday shows. We played a bunch of the
Speaker 1: clips for you yesterday from this and Majorca said, we're
Speaker 1: turning families away, and that to me, that's such a
Speaker 1: classically disingenuous lie. And the initial reporting that I had
Speaker 1: heard or that I had read was that it was
Speaker 1: about sixty percent that were being led into United States
Speaker 1: family units now, which is what most of the surge is.
Speaker 1: It's the surge is family units and unaccompanied miners. There
Speaker 1: is not a huge surge of single adult males coming
Speaker 1: to the border. It's family units and unaccompanied miners. That's
Speaker 1: what's driving this giant increase in the numbers. Why is
Speaker 1: that Because they know this system and they're exploiting seems
Speaker 1: cracks in our system, and they're in some cases, you know,
Speaker 1: selling custody of their children to the They're selling their
Speaker 1: children into the hands of the cartels, entrusting the cartels
Speaker 1: to get into the border. There's this awful, awful statistics.
Speaker 1: There are awful statistics about the amount of sexual abuse
Speaker 1: that the children suffer. Because this is a long journey
Speaker 1: to go from Honduras to the US Mexico border. They're
Speaker 1: not hopping on a flight and getting out after a
Speaker 1: couple of hours. I mean, they're traveling overland. So this
Speaker 1: journey with that the caravans go through, for example, from Honduras,
Speaker 1: from Guatemala, from El Salvador, this takes weeks. And yet
Speaker 1: they tell us, may orc Us tells us that families
Speaker 1: are being turned away. And I said, the initial figure
Speaker 1: you'll remember if you listen to go back and check
Speaker 1: me yesterday, I said, and the Axios figure that had
Speaker 1: initially been been used is um was was over sixty percent.
Speaker 1: I spoke to uh Art Arthur yesterday, the Center for
Speaker 1: Immigration Studies, and we talked to him. He said, he
Speaker 1: said he had also read that the figure was this,
Speaker 1: he's an immigration expert. The figure was over sixty percent
Speaker 1: of families. And I kept asking him. I kept saying
Speaker 1: to him in that interview, Well, why is it only
Speaker 1: sixty Why is it? That doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 1: There's there's no way that even though that's a lot, right,
Speaker 1: that's a pretty good your odds are pretty good. Sixty percent.
Speaker 1: You get to stay in America forever. And and remember
Speaker 1: you get expelled, you can just come back because this
Speaker 1: Biden administration is not gonna have a problem. He just
Speaker 1: try it again. So you know your odds are really
Speaker 1: good if you come twice. But I said to you,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't believe. And I was talking on
Speaker 1: the First TV yesterday about this with Art Arthur. I said,
Speaker 1: I and I just have a hard time believing that
Speaker 1: forty percent of families are getting turned away, no on
Speaker 1: what grounds. Well, guess what Amember I told you yesterday. Also,
Speaker 1: I said, they say it's in the sixties, I believe
Speaker 1: it's more like seventy or eighty. You can, it'd be fun.
Speaker 1: Go back. If you're listening on radio, you can go
Speaker 1: back and listen to the Buck Sexton podcast. It's on
Speaker 1: the iHeart app. It's in the podcast Apple podcast store.
Speaker 1: Go back and listen to the first part of the
Speaker 1: show where I talk about this. Because I said, they
Speaker 1: say it's over sixty, I bet it's more like eighty percent.
Speaker 1: Guess what comes out today Axios story. According to Byron
Speaker 1: York here, the Biden administration in the last week expelled
Speaker 1: thirteen percent of migrant families in the past week. So
Speaker 1: when Mayorcas goes on TV and says we are expelling families.
Speaker 1: The reason he leaves out the number, which was a
Speaker 1: huge tale. It's very obvious what's going on here to
Speaker 1: anybody who understands these Democrats and how they play the game,
Speaker 1: is eighty seven percent of families are staying in the
Speaker 1: United States. Let into the US and they're home free.
Speaker 1: This is the cause of the crisis. Eighty seven percent
Speaker 1: of families in the last week. One hundred percent really
Speaker 1: of children. I mean maybe it's ninety nine percent, but
Speaker 1: unaccompanied miners are led in the United States. That's an
Speaker 1: open border, folks. That's as much an open border as
Speaker 1: anybody's ever seen anywhere really in the modern world, when
Speaker 1: we have some border enforcement. I mean, this is crazy.
Speaker 1: Eighty seven percent of families get to stay, the whole
Speaker 1: family unit. This adds up. This makes sense. This I believe.
Speaker 1: I didn't believe that sixty was high, but not that high.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, eighty seven percent. That sounds about right. Your
Speaker 1: odds are almost nine out of ten. Then if you
Speaker 1: get to the border, you're a family unit, or you're
Speaker 1: claiming to be a family unit, you're going to be released.
Speaker 1: The American interior. That's a really good deal for people
Speaker 1: who want to skip the immigration line and come into
Speaker 1: a country that has rule law, you know, not a
Speaker 1: lot of corruption. You know, the police aren't going to
Speaker 1: kidnap you and murder you here without incident. That stuff
Speaker 1: happens in Central America. That stuff happens in Mexico. Okay,
Speaker 1: we all know it. We have a better school system,
Speaker 1: better healthcare system. But the people who are arriving, we're
Speaker 1: supposed to have an immigration system for the benefit of America,
Speaker 1: and you are supposed to be able to ask in
Speaker 1: a you know, other countries have merit based immigration systems.
Speaker 1: They give people points, they say, Okay, here's what we think,
Speaker 1: and it's like an admissions process for a college. Well
Speaker 1: is that and is that inherently racist? Is that wrong?
Speaker 1: Is that bad? Because Canada has one, Australia has one. Now,
Speaker 1: those countries also have asylum and refugee programs. But this
Speaker 1: is not really going through the asylum refugee program. This
Speaker 1: is abusing it, and it's dramatically expanding the numbers of
Speaker 1: what we would expect. But that's really what you need
Speaker 1: to know. Majorcas goes on TV and says to you
Speaker 1: looks at the American people through a camera in the
Speaker 1: eyes all across the country and says, we are expelling
Speaker 1: families at the border. That's what he said, right, Nine
Speaker 1: out of ten families they're letting right into the US
Speaker 1: within seventy two hours. Does anybody think that this crisis
Speaker 1: is going to go away? Does anybody really think that
Speaker 1: this is going to change anytime soon? No. The reason
Speaker 1: the Democrats are frazzled right now, the reason the Biden
Speaker 1: administration is on defense is because we're actually seeing what's
Speaker 1: going on. We are aware of the situation and the
Speaker 1: circumstances right now because the facilities are overwhelmed, and it's
Speaker 1: hard to hide that. Their challenge isn't isn't there really
Speaker 1: about what the long term implications of this kind of
Speaker 1: migration are? Because they're fun with that. Their problem is
Speaker 1: Hold on a second. If people figure this out, when
Speaker 1: we're telling them what to do about immigration down the line,
Speaker 1: will they believe us when we want amnesty? Will they
Speaker 1: believe Democrats when they say they'll be increased enforcement at
Speaker 1: the border. How can you trust anything? DHS Secretary of
Speaker 1: Mayorcer says on behalf of the bid administration when he
Speaker 1: makes the highly misleading claim that they're turning families away
Speaker 1: at the border dot dot Yeah, a few thirteen percent
Speaker 1: of them. The last week. The rest of the business
Speaker 1: of being in the Senate basically was just you know,
Speaker 1: put aside. And I think we need to bring back
Speaker 1: a real legislative process. If you thought you had to
Speaker 1: actually stand up and vote on something, you'd actually work
Speaker 1: to get an amendment to change it, as opposed to
Speaker 1: saying I don't even have to think about it. I'm
Speaker 1: just going to show up and I'm going to be
Speaker 1: part of a filibuster that doesn't inspire cooperation. It just
Speaker 1: keeps people in their separate camps. So I think it's
Speaker 1: going to take a little bit of change in order
Speaker 1: to get to where people have to work together. And surprisingly,
Speaker 1: in my own mind, I think, you know, getting rid
Speaker 1: of the filibuster will actually have that result. See totally
Speaker 1: normal change. A process that when there are Democrats in
Speaker 1: charge rather when there are Republicans in charge, is absolutely
Speaker 1: sacred to our institutions and is necessary for defending the
Speaker 1: rights of political the political minority from majoritaryan tyranny and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. And then oh my gosh, Democrats are
Speaker 1: in charge, and all of a sudden, it's whoa, let's
Speaker 1: let's let's cooperate more. This is like their unity claim
Speaker 1: Remember what the unity claims were like when Biden came
Speaker 1: into office. Unify with us or else you better like
Speaker 1: this unity that we're going to enforce upon you, or
Speaker 1: we're coming after you. That was the way it was done.
Speaker 1: That was what they were saying. There was no reaching
Speaker 1: across the aisle to try to find common ground. It
Speaker 1: was the ground that you will find is our ground.
Speaker 1: That's the left's approach. There's no common ground. You want
Speaker 1: it to be common Come where we are and do
Speaker 1: what we tell you. That's reaching across the They're going
Speaker 1: to reach across the aisle to pull you to their
Speaker 1: side and make you obey. And Hillary Hollow she's back.
Speaker 1: Hillary's there just to tell you exactly that you know
Speaker 1: now now it's oh, yeah, we should just get rid
Speaker 1: of the filibuster so that democrats here's what they know.
Speaker 1: Democrats believe and there this is pretty widespread among them
Speaker 1: that they can get or if they can get to
Speaker 1: a place where they get rid of the filibuster and
Speaker 1: they just run the table on legislation. I mean they
Speaker 1: steamroll the Republicans for the next two years roughly that
Speaker 1: it's it's worth it to them because they can enact
Speaker 1: structural changes that will offset any backlash from their authoritarian madness. Right.
Speaker 1: So yeah, people might say, wow, Democrats are really going
Speaker 1: for broke here. They're really running rough shot. They're using
Speaker 1: the steamroller approach to the political opposition and even changing
Speaker 1: the rules of the game as they're playing it, which
Speaker 1: is what elimiting the filibuster now is all about. But
Speaker 1: the Democrat calculation here, I think people need to understand
Speaker 1: this is, well, if they get hr one, and if
Speaker 1: they get amnesty, and if they get gun control, and
Speaker 1: if they get you good on this list, if they
Speaker 1: get DC statehood, it's worth it. Whatever backlash they're concerned
Speaker 1: about receiving from the other side is worth it. They
Speaker 1: should just accept it. They should just handle it because
Speaker 1: they'll win over the long term. These are structural changes
Speaker 1: to our politics. That's what they're trying to accomplish. That
Speaker 1: they make it so we're in a different political environment
Speaker 1: in this country going forward, not just for an election,
Speaker 1: for all elections. That's the whole point. And Rashida to leave.
Speaker 1: For example, is out there saying that anyone who opposes
Speaker 1: DC statehood, which is just stacking two Senate votes, among
Speaker 1: other things, stacking two Senate votes in the Democrat column,
Speaker 1: that's why they want it. She's very upset about this
Speaker 1: play fifteen and opposing DC statehood, which is overwhelmingly supported
Speaker 1: by the people of Washington. These representatives and their dark
Speaker 1: money backers over the Heritage Foundation, that's right, are telling
Speaker 1: over seven hundred thousand Americans to sit down, shut up,
Speaker 1: and enjoy this all authoritarian system implemented by a bunch
Speaker 1: of elites who thought it was okay to enslave people
Speaker 1: for their selfish monetary game hundreds of years ago. It
Speaker 1: is shapeful that anyone would claim to support democracy and
Speaker 1: freedom and oppose statehood, That anyone would support democracy and
Speaker 1: freedom and oppose statehood here. So when the constitution is
Speaker 1: an argument that Democrats have in their favor on some issue,
Speaker 1: which is rare. But when they when they think they
Speaker 1: can make a constitutional argument, it's our sacred democracy in
Speaker 1: our institutions, When as is the case here, the founding
Speaker 1: fathers explicitly made clear that DC statehood was not the intent,
Speaker 1: and this is addressed in the Federalist papers. This is
Speaker 1: addressed in our founding, during our founding by the great
Speaker 1: minds that were behind our system of government. Then it's oh,
Speaker 1: they're a bunch of former slave owners and we can't. Well,
Speaker 1: who cares what they had to say, Let's make DC
Speaker 1: a state. The principle at work. Whatever democrats want is justified.
Speaker 1: There is no principle. Whatever they want to do, that's
Speaker 1: what they should do. If it enhances their power, if
Speaker 1: they get their way, justify it. After the fact, we
Speaker 1: don't even justify at all. Just do it, Just cram
Speaker 1: it down the other side's throat, and how them to
Speaker 1: deal with it. This is the This is the Biden
Speaker 1: approach on a whole range of issues, and just getting started.
Speaker 1: What is the latest and what should we take from
Speaker 1: this shooting in Boulder, Colorado, The politics around this, and
Speaker 1: the way that it's already being used by Democrats who
Speaker 1: see this as an opportunity to push an agenda while
Speaker 1: also not caring about the fact that many of them
Speaker 1: jump to conclusions right away on this one and we're incorrect.
Speaker 1: Our friend Kurt Schlichter is with us now senior columnists
Speaker 1: at Townhall Dot com army veteran lawyer and guy who
Speaker 1: knows some things, mister Schlichter. Good to have you back,
Speaker 1: Good to be here. Buckets. Kind of a sad day,
Speaker 1: but I think it's important that we talk about this stuff.
Speaker 1: I think it is too because I was trying to
Speaker 1: shed some light on the Christie Gnome nonsense. And I'll
Speaker 1: talk to you about that too last night on social
Speaker 1: media because I thought she had an abominable showing on
Speaker 1: Tucker Carlson Carton. We'll get to that. We'll get to
Speaker 1: that in a moment. But I say something about that.
Speaker 1: I didn't even I hadn't even said anything about the shooting,
Speaker 1: and Bolt hadn't read about it and know about it.
Speaker 1: I just was following the stories that I was following,
Speaker 1: and I have all these people saying, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe you should actually spend some time thinking about the
Speaker 1: white supremacist Trump supporter that just shot a bunch of
Speaker 1: people in Boulder, Colorado, as if that in any way
Speaker 1: attached to what I was talking about, which is transgender
Speaker 1: sports in South Dakota. But anyway, that's just the way
Speaker 1: this seems to go. Now we find out the guy's
Speaker 1: name is Ahmad al Issa, and he frequently posted, according
Speaker 1: to journalist Andy No, on social media, about Islamophobia and
Speaker 1: depression of him because of his devout Islamic faith. I
Speaker 1: don't know that this goes in the white supremacist Trump
Speaker 1: supporter category, Kurt, I think it's safe to say that
Speaker 1: we should wait until more facts are in. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: if this was a good faith argument instead of a
Speaker 1: blatant power grab and a lie, I would agree with you.
Speaker 1: But of course it's beyond the point. It's not even
Speaker 1: close to the point. Truth is just a bourgeois concept,
Speaker 1: a buck. It doesn't matter. Now. I want to be
Speaker 1: really clear here. A lot of conservatives are pointing out
Speaker 1: the hypocrisy and the lies that have been used against them,
Speaker 1: But this is not We are not doing the same
Speaker 1: thing they are doing. We are not blaming all Muslims
Speaker 1: because this one particular idiot went out and did something
Speaker 1: horrific for which I hope he hangs. We are pointing
Speaker 1: out that the narrative that the left attempts to make
Speaker 1: is a lie. It's an attempt to grab power. It
Speaker 1: doesn't rely on facts, it relies on blatant dishonesty, and
Speaker 1: it is immune to reason. So I don't believe in
Speaker 1: reasoning with them. I believe in mocking them. And that's
Speaker 1: what we're doing. And you know, I think normal people
Speaker 1: we're seeing a buck. I think normal people are going, yeah, well,
Speaker 1: they've lied to me again and again and again, and
Speaker 1: this is just the latest one. And I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: this NonStop barage of lies helps people wake up. And
Speaker 1: I see the initial Democrat leadership response to this in Congress,
Speaker 1: and you know, the Democrat media, and it's all the
Speaker 1: it's all the stuff that we always say, Oh, this,
Speaker 1: this needs to be the grounds for pushing a national,
Speaker 1: national universal background check, or this this shows that you know,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump's rhetoric or either they do all these things
Speaker 1: and there's no accountability for this now. I mean, no
Speaker 1: one apologizes, no one cares. You know, we learned up.
Speaker 1: Maybe this guy passed a background check. Maybe he actually
Speaker 1: went in and you know, and and actually sat down
Speaker 1: and bought a gun legally through the process, but people
Speaker 1: didn't know that he was a psychopathic, murderous lunatic, and
Speaker 1: so he managed to buy a gun. But they're still saying, oh,
Speaker 1: background checks, right, And if it turns out that I'm
Speaker 1: right in my prediction, I don't know that this guy
Speaker 1: probably out this gun legally, They're still gonna say there
Speaker 1: needs to be a background check system. So you say, well,
Speaker 1: if the incident is not the reason for this new push,
Speaker 1: why are you tying the incident to the political push
Speaker 1: for background checks in the first place? And I think
Speaker 1: we know the answer, but it's worth pointing out for everybody. Well, look,
Speaker 1: it's a fact free environment. Look we're not going to
Speaker 1: reason our way to convince these people of anything because
Speaker 1: they're not trying to be reasonable. They're trying to exercise power.
Speaker 1: They're trying exercise power by disenfranchising us and disarming us.
Speaker 1: They at the same time they want to defund the police,
Speaker 1: which is just amazing. The idea that the solution to
Speaker 1: terrorist violence is to make ourselves more vulnerable to terrorist
Speaker 1: violence by disarming us is insane. If you're being reasonable,
Speaker 1: if your purpose is to create a nation of serfs,
Speaker 1: then it is a terrific, terrific idea to proceed this
Speaker 1: way because they want us vulnerable, they want us scared,
Speaker 1: they want us unable to defend our liberty and our lives.
Speaker 1: That's what they want. How do I know, because that's
Speaker 1: what they tell me on social media. This isn't a fantasy.
Speaker 1: I'm not drawing conclusions. I'm simply repeating what I hear
Speaker 1: directed against me and other people on social media. They
Speaker 1: like this. They like the idea of us being afraid
Speaker 1: and cowering. Look at what's happened over the last year.
Speaker 1: This whole COVID thing would be ble locked inside and terrified.
Speaker 1: This gives them more power, and they like it. I
Speaker 1: think that. And we're speaking of Kurt Schlichter. He's a
Speaker 1: senior columnist at townhall dot com, army veteran lawyer. I think,
Speaker 1: Kurt that now more than ever, I've been saying this
Speaker 1: to people, the idea of the Second Amendments as a
Speaker 1: check on government tyranny should be taken very you know,
Speaker 1: it's something that should ever have not been taken seriously,
Speaker 1: but it should be more apparent to us why that
Speaker 1: need exists when you have the government, as we've seen
Speaker 1: the last twelve months, telling you that you cannot go
Speaker 1: to church, that they will they will. Actually they were
Speaker 1: in some parts of the country they were threatening to
Speaker 1: arrest you if you gathered with more than five family
Speaker 1: members in your own home. That they will arrest you
Speaker 1: if you try to open your business, you know, for
Speaker 1: the crime of wanting to serve food to people that
Speaker 1: are looking to buy it from you. That they will
Speaker 1: take away your freedom, They will destroy your business because
Speaker 1: a bunch of little lab coat tyrants, because little Fauci,
Speaker 1: the fascist says. So that should be a wake up
Speaker 1: call to everybody. And I mean that. I mean this government.
Speaker 1: This government locked people away in nursing homes and then
Speaker 1: filled nursing homes with people with COVID in places like
Speaker 1: New York and New Jersey and now we're seeing Michigan.
Speaker 1: And if you had a problem with that, if you
Speaker 1: were trying to protest against it, they were willing to
Speaker 1: lock you up in jail. That's the actual government you're
Speaker 1: dealing with. An armed citizenry is a d to preventing tyranny, however,
Speaker 1: I mean, it is a backstop. It's not had to
Speaker 1: be in you. I guess you could arguably say they
Speaker 1: used once or twice in very very small incidents like Athens, Tennessee.
Speaker 1: We are so far now. The fact that we are
Speaker 1: so far away from having to use armed violence to
Speaker 1: protect our rights is not to say that that could
Speaker 1: never happen that that needs to be there as a
Speaker 1: final backstop. But Buck, We've got a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: other things. We can still, at least at least outside
Speaker 1: of big blue cities, elect representatives who support our interests.
Speaker 1: We can still appeal to the court, sometimes will get
Speaker 1: a fair hearing. All we can still speak our mind.
Speaker 1: Sometimes there are still things that we can do and
Speaker 1: we should be doing. However, none of that. The mere
Speaker 1: fact that we are not completely oppressed by net right
Speaker 1: now does not eliminate the fact that that could happen
Speaker 1: down the road. I believe that every healthy, law abiding
Speaker 1: American adult who is willing to bear arms because there's
Speaker 1: some people are consciousential sly object to it, should be
Speaker 1: armed and ready to defend themselves, their family, their community,
Speaker 1: and their constitution if necessary. I lived through the La riots.
Speaker 1: I saw what happened when order broke down. It's not
Speaker 1: a hypothetical. I had some I had some live from
Speaker 1: some website. You talk about these, these these collapses of society,
Speaker 1: and they never seem to happen. Well, I spent three
Speaker 1: weeks in the streets in Los Angeles with an M sixteen.
Speaker 1: It happens. It's not common. But all I can say
Speaker 1: is an American who was carrying in that supermarket yesterday
Speaker 1: might have been able to stop it. Yes, I know,
Speaker 1: an armed policeman was shot and killed and several others
Speaker 1: were wounded. The carrying weapons is not a one percent
Speaker 1: guarantee that you will always be victorious over a criminal,
Speaker 1: terrorist or other a violent scumbag, but it does give
Speaker 1: you a fighting chance. And I believe every American should
Speaker 1: do two things. Every American should be able to lawfully
Speaker 1: use violence in the rare, rare occasions it's necessary to
Speaker 1: defend life and liberty. And I believe every American should
Speaker 1: be trained and keep themselves proficient on basic life saving techniques.
Speaker 1: That is our job as citizens, you know, buckets like
Speaker 1: we've given over so much of what it means to
Speaker 1: be an American citizen to other people. We've outsourced it
Speaker 1: to a police or the EMTs, or the teachers or
Speaker 1: somebody else. But democracy is hard work. Freedom is hard work.
Speaker 1: As citizens, we have to be able to stand up
Speaker 1: and take a personal stand. And that's why I believe
Speaker 1: that every American should have the right to keep in
Speaker 1: bear arms and then includes carrying a concealed or open
Speaker 1: weapon in order to lawfully be able to enforce the
Speaker 1: law and protect the defenseless. We're speaking of Kirchlichter, Townhall
Speaker 1: dot com senior columnist and a former well he's still
Speaker 1: a lawyer actually, and an United States Army vetter. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I guess you're a lawyer for life, Kurt. Let's let's switch.
Speaker 1: Let's let's put her lawyer hat on here for a
Speaker 1: moment to what happened with Christy Noum last night. I've
Speaker 1: been critical of her on social media before the Tucker interview.
Speaker 1: She went on the Tucker Interview to say, you know,
Speaker 1: to say her her side of things. I will also
Speaker 1: point out that the comparisons with Governor Ron de Santis
Speaker 1: of Florida, I think have always been overblown. Florida is
Speaker 1: the fourth largest state in I'm sorry, the third largest
Speaker 1: state actually in the country, and has major cities like
Speaker 1: Miami and Tampa and others. South Dakota, lovely place, lovely people,
Speaker 1: has the population less than the population of San Jose, California,
Speaker 1: and has an actual population density that's right along what
Speaker 1: you'd expect in an island chain in the South Pacific. Now,
Speaker 1: I know a lot of South Dakotain's love that. That's
Speaker 1: very different for the purposes of dealing with COVID than
Speaker 1: what you have in Florida. Okay, so put that aside
Speaker 1: for a second. I think people were way too Oh
Speaker 1: she's so great, She's withstanding the pressure. It's an entirely
Speaker 1: red state, and you know there's there's eleven people every
Speaker 1: mile or something, which is totally different when you get
Speaker 1: other places. All right. On this transgender bill, which would
Speaker 1: protect transgender which would protect women from competing against transgender
Speaker 1: males and sports, she claims that this is because she
Speaker 1: can't win a lawsuit against the NC double A. That's
Speaker 1: why she did it. What do you make of that claim?
Speaker 1: Because she she sent it back for style revisions or
Speaker 1: whatever it's called, right, she sent it back down, wouldn't
Speaker 1: sign it. What do you make of this? I think
Speaker 1: she I think she has blown it. I think she
Speaker 1: has completely screwed this up. I think she's destroyed her chances. Now,
Speaker 1: you and I were both at Seaback. I don't know
Speaker 1: if you met her. I met her when she walked
Speaker 1: through the bar, got my picture with her. Tiny little
Speaker 1: thing I loved, like the incredible bulk next to her,
Speaker 1: but I was unimpressed. I always I don't know, I
Speaker 1: you know, I was willing to give her a hearing.
Speaker 1: And I understand it's a small state. Uh. Maybe she
Speaker 1: had some good ideas, but she made no connection with
Speaker 1: the activists who were hanging out there, and she seemed
Speaker 1: distinctly uncomfortable with people who were you know, ideological. Uh.
Speaker 1: There's been a lot of hype about her. I think, Uh,
Speaker 1: she has shown here that she will roll over under pressure.
Speaker 1: This idea about well i'd lose a lawsuit, Well, how
Speaker 1: do you know? How do you know what the lawsuit is? Uh?
Speaker 1: And and are you telling me it's not worth fighting
Speaker 1: for that? We just just oh, well, it's gonna be hard.
Speaker 1: We should give in. Sorry. I don't need that as
Speaker 1: a president. I don't need that at all. I think
Speaker 1: she really messed herself up. Uh. And I think it's
Speaker 1: going to take a lot for her to come back
Speaker 1: and fix it. You know, if this bill was terrible,
Speaker 1: why was she not working with the Republicans to fix
Speaker 1: it before? This is what I've said, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is sometimes you know the answer without even getting that
Speaker 1: deep into the details here, Kurt, Because there's no way
Speaker 1: that you just figured out in the last few days
Speaker 1: that there was this big problem of lawsuits to me,
Speaker 1: and I mean, it's laughable. Anybody believes that is being
Speaker 1: put on. I mean they're being they're being fooled. Well,
Speaker 1: it's like saying, yeah, I mean competent, but in a
Speaker 1: different way, because I can't work with my own you know,
Speaker 1: deep bread legislature to get the laws passed that I want.
Speaker 1: That's that's her argument. That's why it's better. I found
Speaker 1: her appearance on Tucker overly rehearsed. Uh smarmy too. I
Speaker 1: thought she was smartie, and I don't think Tucker was
Speaker 1: being unfair to her. Yeah, No, it was totally descending.
Speaker 1: I thought Tucker was actually very easy on her. I
Speaker 1: thought he let her talk and talk and talk. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't expect him to be a cross examiner. You know,
Speaker 1: he brings a guest on, they should say what they want,
Speaker 1: he should ask tough questions, which he did. I was
Speaker 1: distinctly unimpressed. And I think she uh, I think she
Speaker 1: believes we're stupid. I think she thinks that we are
Speaker 1: stupid and we're going to take another camp. I've got
Speaker 1: an article on town Hall coming out on her on Thursday,
Speaker 1: and it's not going to be pretty. I'm I'm greatly disappointed,
Speaker 1: but I'm glad too. I'm glad that we found this
Speaker 1: out now instead of being disappointed after we elected her. Look,
Speaker 1: people don't understand why we like Donald Trump. It wasn't
Speaker 1: the TV show. We don't watch that crap. It wasn't
Speaker 1: because he was a nudeological conservative. He was not. It
Speaker 1: wasn't because of his mean tweets. Okay, maybe a little
Speaker 1: about his mean tweets. It was because he stood behind
Speaker 1: us and did what he said he was going to do.
Speaker 1: She said, I'm going to sign this bill, and then
Speaker 1: she changed her mind. Then she folded under pressure to
Speaker 1: Nancy AA, Amazon, Chamber Commerce, corporate interests. You know she
Speaker 1: wants to be in tight with them. I think you
Speaker 1: can all see what happened here. I think I look,
Speaker 1: I hope that people realize. I hope people realize who
Speaker 1: she really is as a politician. Now. I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's not personal. I don't care, but this is not
Speaker 1: This is not the leader we need. We got to
Speaker 1: leave it there, Kurt. But check out Kurt's column Attownhall
Speaker 1: dot com. Mister Schleector. Thank you so much, sir, thanks
Speaker 1: for having me