Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Biden is losing ground,
Speaker 1: and it's because people are seeing who Biden really is.
Speaker 1: Trump has been hitting back at the presumed Democrat nominee,
Speaker 1: and it looks like there's gonna be some scrambling on
Speaker 1: the left for a replacement candidate. We'll get into. That
Speaker 1: was the latest on the border crisis, Trump's dealings with Mexico,
Speaker 1: and also Kirsten Jilla Brand, the most dishonest candidate the
Speaker 1: left is thrown out there. We got that and more
Speaker 1: coming up on The Buck Sexton Show. Bucks Sexton Remission,
Speaker 1: Decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence mag
Speaker 1: No mistake American, Great, You're a great American Again. This
Speaker 1: is the Bucks Sexton Show. Former CIA analysts, I can
Speaker 1: speak for three hours without a phone call. Try doing that. Sometimes.
Speaker 1: The president is literally an existential threat to America for
Speaker 1: three reasons. One, he is a genuine threat to our
Speaker 1: core values. And if you wondered about that, remember what
Speaker 1: happened in Charlottesville. I never thought I'd see that happen
Speaker 1: in my lifetime. Again, you had people come climbing out
Speaker 1: of the fields and from under rocks carrying torches, contorted faces,
Speaker 1: chanting the same anti Semitic bile that was chanted in
Speaker 1: Europe and in Germany in the thirties, same exact language,
Speaker 1: carrying carrying Nazi flags, accompanied by white supremacists accompanied by
Speaker 1: the klu klux Klan. When he was asked to comment
Speaker 1: on it, he said, quote, there were very fine people
Speaker 1: in both groups. No president of United States, Democrat or
Speaker 1: Republican has ever, ever, ever said something like that. Well,
Speaker 1: I heard Biden, who's a loser. I mean, look, Joe
Speaker 1: never got more than one percent, except Obama took him
Speaker 1: off the trash heap, and now it looks like he's failing.
Speaker 1: It looks like his friends from the left are going
Speaker 1: to overtake him pretty soon. But I heard he. You know,
Speaker 1: his whole campaign is to hit Trump. You look at
Speaker 1: what the Obama administration did in terms of the military,
Speaker 1: in terms of security, in terms of other nations, in
Speaker 1: terms of almost everything. Much of it, now, fortunately for everybody,
Speaker 1: year has been overturned. But look, when a man has
Speaker 1: to mention my name seventy six times in the speech,
Speaker 1: that means he's in trouble. Now I have to tell
Speaker 1: you he's a different guy. He looks different than he
Speaker 1: used to. He acts different than he used to. He's
Speaker 1: even slower than he used to be. So I don't know.
Speaker 1: But when he mentions my name that many times, I
Speaker 1: guess I should be complimented. Welcome to the buck Sex
Speaker 1: and show everybody Trump the Biden Phase one. That's where
Speaker 1: we are right now. Trump's got this guy's number. I
Speaker 1: don't think, but I don't care. I know there's this
Speaker 1: polls and all the battleground states and everything else, because
Speaker 1: the media effect right now is to create a lot
Speaker 1: of a lot of buzz and excitement about Joe Biden
Speaker 1: the front runner. Oh, Joe Biden. He's gonna the more
Speaker 1: people know about Joe Biden, those who are at least
Speaker 1: trying to learn anything about him. Right there are some
Speaker 1: Democrats that they would vote for anything over Trump. I
Speaker 1: mean they would vote for a rabid squirrel before they
Speaker 1: would vote for Trump. I mean, they don't care who
Speaker 1: it is or what it is. Anybody but Trump. Democrats
Speaker 1: will vote for that. So that's not really meaningful. But
Speaker 1: for those different states that actually matter in this process,
Speaker 1: where people are going to be their votes are going
Speaker 1: to be up for grabs. The question is do they
Speaker 1: have a compelling reason Ohio, Pennsylvania, Florida, Michigan, Wisconsin, maybe Colorado,
Speaker 1: maybe Nevada. Do they have a reason to vote for
Speaker 1: Biden instead of Trump? And the answer I think is
Speaker 1: quite clearly going to be that Joe Biden doesn't know
Speaker 1: what that reason is. Joe Biden has said that he
Speaker 1: is the most progressive candidate in this race for the
Speaker 1: Democrat nomination. A stupider thing would be hard to say,
Speaker 1: but Biden manages to say even dumber things. He said today.
Speaker 1: I heard him today during a speech say this is
Speaker 1: one of his favorite lines, that President Trump is an
Speaker 1: existential threat to the United States. Literally. He said the
Speaker 1: quote was President Trump is literally an existential threat to
Speaker 1: the United States. It would be hard to think of
Speaker 1: a stupider thing for Joe Biden to say. But like
Speaker 1: the kid who doesn't do any of the homework and
Speaker 1: then makes a fool of himself and the rest of
Speaker 1: the class, but thinks he's fooled everyone, Joe Biden thinks
Speaker 1: he's clever for saying these things. He thinks he's really
Speaker 1: hammering home his point. Trump knows that this is a
Speaker 1: guy that he's already he already he's already got his number.
Speaker 1: His number is one percent, because that's about what he
Speaker 1: was getting back in two thousand and eight. He's the
Speaker 1: mister one percenter. I think that will stick. Joe Biden also,
Speaker 1: and you know, they they said this was an issue
Speaker 1: for Reagan. They've said this is an issue for plenty
Speaker 1: of Republicans. They said it was an issue for John McCain.
Speaker 1: So let's not play this game of oh, that's not nice.
Speaker 1: I watched Joe Biden's speech today. He has slowed down,
Speaker 1: he's he's up there, folks. And as you know, ages
Speaker 1: is an indicator, but it is not everything about somebody's vitality,
Speaker 1: somebody's you know, somebody's energy and focus. You know. I
Speaker 1: mean I think, you know, my my parents both could
Speaker 1: easily be fifteen or twenty years younger than they are.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm very blessed in that way. You know,
Speaker 1: I know plenty of people who are incredibly sharp, incredibly
Speaker 1: with it, and you know, well into their in their
Speaker 1: seventies and their eighties. But are we asking them to
Speaker 1: be president for four maybe eight years? You better be
Speaker 1: darn sure that person that you think is you know,
Speaker 1: a really vital and energetic sixty something year old is
Speaker 1: going to have eight years of really pique physical and mental,
Speaker 1: you know, ability and agility in order to fill those responsibilities.
Speaker 1: And Trump, I don't think anybody thinks Trump isn't full
Speaker 1: of energy. I mean what he did. I know that
Speaker 1: I'm taking us back a little. Hear what Trump did
Speaker 1: with those rallies, multiple rallies in one day, day after day,
Speaker 1: standing up and just just going off. I mean, he
Speaker 1: is in a sense, and I'm not saying he's a
Speaker 1: genius like Einstein or something, but he is a kind
Speaker 1: of political genius. He has a he has a gift
Speaker 1: for the performance aspects and the communication aspects of politics
Speaker 1: that the reason he won the presidency, and the energy
Speaker 1: required to display those gifts is enormous. And this is
Speaker 1: why when he called Jeb blow energy, Yeah, that really
Speaker 1: that really hit hard because it was true. Jeb was
Speaker 1: you know, please clap, you know, I just it wasn't there.
Speaker 1: There wasn't this vitality. There wasn't this sense of of
Speaker 1: of of growth and a kind of ferocity of focus
Speaker 1: and and and the agenda and the momentum of everything
Speaker 1: that he was doing and saying with Biden, today. You know,
Speaker 1: look looked like he was fading, folks. I'm it's true,
Speaker 1: it's real. It looked like he was a guy who
Speaker 1: probably should be thinking about some other pursuits at this point.
Speaker 1: And the media just like they did with Hillary when she,
Speaker 1: you know, was sick that day and flopped into the
Speaker 1: and I mean it's really just completely lost and just
Speaker 1: flopped in the back of are and they made up
Speaker 1: something about how she had had a fever or something.
Speaker 1: But you know, okay, seems relevant, doesn't. The same people
Speaker 1: who will tell you with diagnosing the president via some hack,
Speaker 1: some total quack that will say, oh, it will go
Speaker 1: on CNN. That's the favorite place for it. They'll put
Speaker 1: somebody on set and oh, I I'm a psychiatrist or psychologist,
Speaker 1: and I think President Trump is crazy, so he can't
Speaker 1: be president anymore. Let's invote the twenty fifth Amendment because
Speaker 1: he's crazy. Why is he crazy? Oh, because we say so.
Speaker 1: They'll say that he's out of they will say that
Speaker 1: he is truly that President Trump is out of his mind.
Speaker 1: And they also make a big deal of his They
Speaker 1: make look, they make fun of Trump's wait all the time.
Speaker 1: They talk about how he's obees and how you know
Speaker 1: that they have no there are no boundaries when it
Speaker 1: comes to Trump. They'll trashman anyway that they can, and
Speaker 1: it's really disgusting and horrible. But the media does it
Speaker 1: all the time. You know, they said the things I
Speaker 1: have not forgotten. I have not forgotten things they said
Speaker 1: about Trump and his daughter. People that think that they're
Speaker 1: serious journalists just covering the news he's just presenting disgusting
Speaker 1: should be ashamed of themselves for many many years to come,
Speaker 1: regardless of who's the president. It should be ashamed for
Speaker 1: the insinuations they made about Trump and his family members.
Speaker 1: They should be ashamed for trying to tear Trump down
Speaker 1: and get his family members thrown in prison. These people
Speaker 1: are an abomination. They call themselves journalists, but they're actually
Speaker 1: just appalling. But if Trump's wait and mental state and
Speaker 1: age and all these things are fair game for the
Speaker 1: media to go at all the time, I think Biden
Speaker 1: has lost a step. I think that's real. I think
Speaker 1: that's true. It's apparent you see it. I don't think
Speaker 1: that people will say, well, Buck, the guy's been through
Speaker 1: a lot. Okay, he's been through a lot, doesn't have
Speaker 1: to be president. We don't need Joe Biden to be president.
Speaker 1: We didn't need him in two thousand and eight. We
Speaker 1: don't need him now. I think the only person who
Speaker 1: really needs Joe Biden to be president is Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: You know. And he didn't run the last time, even
Speaker 1: though we know he kind of wanted to, and there
Speaker 1: was that that whole story, and I just want to
Speaker 1: make sure I get that. I'll go back and read
Speaker 1: the details so I don't miss this. But you know
Speaker 1: that I believe he said his son's dying wish was
Speaker 1: that he would that he would run, and that was
Speaker 1: leaked to the media. But we're supposed to believe that
Speaker 1: it was organic and that it wasn't leaked. Of course
Speaker 1: it was leaked. Biden is the quintessential politician. Everything about
Speaker 1: this guy is what do the polls say? What do
Speaker 1: I have to say? What do I do now to win?
Speaker 1: You know, if you were casting somebody to be the
Speaker 1: shifty only aginis, I think one of you had to
Speaker 1: teach me the proper way to say that word. I've
Speaker 1: learned a lot of words by reading them and looking
Speaker 1: at the definition, so I haven't always heard them. But
Speaker 1: then then again, when I learned them properly. You hear
Speaker 1: them on this show, you probably don't hear them in
Speaker 1: any other show, just saying Russian, little dirt off my shoulder.
Speaker 1: But Biden is that he is that He's that guy,
Speaker 1: the one politician out there that makes other politicians seem
Speaker 1: a little bit more connected and a little a little
Speaker 1: more relatable, because Biden's a political machine, always has been.
Speaker 1: And then there are the other issues that come up,
Speaker 1: not just his age and his energy and the lack
Speaker 1: of a why why vote for Joe Biden? Exactly? Well?
Speaker 1: What is what is he going to do for America?
Speaker 1: What does he bring the table for all of his
Speaker 1: stuff about how he's going to speak differently than Trump
Speaker 1: and be more presidential? Really, the guy who has said
Speaker 1: that to black Americans that the you know it said
Speaker 1: said to an audience that that you know Republicans wanted
Speaker 1: to put quote put y'all back in chains. I remember that.
Speaker 1: I was Joe Biden. Remember Joe Biden who said that
Speaker 1: you can't go into a what was it a seven
Speaker 1: eleven without and made his whole comment about South South
Speaker 1: Asian Americans and Americans of South Asian descent. Media always
Speaker 1: say Oh, that's just Joe being Joe. Yeah. They've said
Speaker 1: that a lot about a lot of things, haven't they.
Speaker 1: But then sometimes the truth actually comes out, like Biden
Speaker 1: has a weird, creepy, touchy sniffed the back of your
Speaker 1: head problem. And now we've got Trump and Biden in Iowa.
Speaker 1: So that's why there's a lot of focus on this
Speaker 1: today because you got the two campaigns. You got the
Speaker 1: Lanisters and the Starks in Iowa today, and some Iowa
Speaker 1: voters had some choice words about Biden and what they
Speaker 1: think is really going on here. Play fourteen. Now, Look,
Speaker 1: Nancy is a mess. The Democratic Party is a mess.
Speaker 1: They're doing everything they can to win the election in
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. They are guilty of many crimes, many many crimes.
Speaker 1: What they've done, they're guilty of many many crimes, and
Speaker 1: hopefully in a short period of time that'll be seen.
Speaker 1: They should never have done what they've done. And all
Speaker 1: they do is waste time on these investigations where there's
Speaker 1: no obstruction, no collusion, no nothing. And in the meantime
Speaker 1: they can get a border deal done, they can't do
Speaker 1: anything we need. In addition to the great deal with Mexico,
Speaker 1: we need them to work on illegal immigration, on lower
Speaker 1: drug prices, on infrastructure, and they're not doing anything. They
Speaker 1: are they've come to a hall. Okay, so that was
Speaker 1: the wrong clip, but it was still a great clip.
Speaker 1: What's Trump got out the Democrats? Why don't we do this?
Speaker 1: I an idea. We're gonna take a little moment here,
Speaker 1: catch our breath, team, get get get dialed in for
Speaker 1: what's coming next year. We've got more on this Iowa showdown.
Speaker 1: We will find this clip of Iowa voters and what
Speaker 1: they think of Joe Biden and some of his weird behavior.
Speaker 1: We will get into some more of the latest on
Speaker 1: why I don't think he's Biden's a compelling candidate, and
Speaker 1: how the Democrats are already realizing this and there will
Speaker 1: be a moment of panic. We were approaching the Democrat
Speaker 1: moment of panic on this, but then Bernie Sanders, what
Speaker 1: has he really got in the bank? And I think
Speaker 1: he's more. I think he's got greater vitality. I think
Speaker 1: he's more. He seems more energetic and more focused than Biden.
Speaker 1: I will see, even though I believe he's all than Biden,
Speaker 1: I have to check that. I'm pretty sure he is.
Speaker 1: But I think Bernie's you know, he's got He's got
Speaker 1: plenty of plenty energy and plenty of focus. Right now,
Speaker 1: I just think he's focused on the wrong things, like
Speaker 1: you know, bringing us, letting us party like it's Moscow
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy nine or something. I don't think that's a
Speaker 1: good idea. And then we've got Kirsten Gillibrand to discuss
Speaker 1: as well. Wow, she is. She is rocketing up my
Speaker 1: list of the worst Democrats out there, I've got to
Speaker 1: tell you. So we'll get into that a much more.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Something that has really bothered me about
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is the way that he has responded to
Speaker 1: the allegations by women. Some men in the group are
Speaker 1: turned off by the same issue. I didn't like his
Speaker 1: idea that, okay, it's okay to just go up to
Speaker 1: a woman smell her hair and say, I mean, who,
Speaker 1: come on, who does that? Come on? Who does that?
Speaker 1: It's a fair question, isn't it. Who Who does that?
Speaker 1: Joe Biden apparently and thought it was normal for a
Speaker 1: long time. And it's also more than anything else for me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's weird, okay. But another important thing is that the
Speaker 1: media was complicit in making that not an issue. They saw,
Speaker 1: they were there when Biden did all those weird things.
Speaker 1: None of the never asked any questions. A media that
Speaker 1: is hyper sensitive to the patriarchy and making sure that
Speaker 1: women's equality is foremost on everyone's mind all the time,
Speaker 1: never thought, you know, maybe that maybe he shouldn't get
Speaker 1: so handsy with people all the time. And not even
Speaker 1: just a little handsy, I mean the whole sniffing, the
Speaker 1: kissing the top of the head and sniffing the head thing.
Speaker 1: Not something that normal people would do, and in the
Speaker 1: situations that he did it, but he was Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: and it was important to the media at the time
Speaker 1: that he was able to be Obama's stalwart right hand man,
Speaker 1: and so they made it all fine. They didn't make
Speaker 1: an issue of it. Trump is saying that he would
Speaker 1: rather run against Biden than anybody else play sixteen. No,
Speaker 1: I'd rather run against I think Biden than anybody. I
Speaker 1: think he's the weakest mentally, and I like running against
Speaker 1: people that are weak mentally. I think Joe is the
Speaker 1: weakest up here. The other ones have much more energy.
Speaker 1: I don't agree with their policies, but I think Joe
Speaker 1: is a man who was I call him one percent
Speaker 1: Joe because came along, he didn't do very well. That's true.
Speaker 1: I think that's where he's gonna be. He's gonna be
Speaker 1: at some point history is going to be too much.
Speaker 1: There'll be too many people that recognize that Joe Biden
Speaker 1: was never really the candidate that Democrats now are pretending
Speaker 1: he is. And then there's going to be an opening, folks.
Speaker 1: There's a reason you have this mass of Democrats that
Speaker 1: are out there looking for their looking for their chance.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't see Bernie Sanders. Maybe now is
Speaker 1: we'll a getting the prediction game a little bit. I
Speaker 1: don't see Bernie Sanders surging. I don't see Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: going to the top of the pack. Yeah. I don't
Speaker 1: see that he's gonna stay where he is because his
Speaker 1: support is pretty baked in. The only threat to Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders is from Elizabeth Warren, who has been surging, and
Speaker 1: she could take the Bernie lane. You know, these different
Speaker 1: candidates have lanes that they will be able to run in.
Speaker 1: I think that she could take the Bernie lane, and
Speaker 1: she's making some headway there, she really is. But the
Speaker 1: establishment Democrat Lane. That's what could be open as soon
Speaker 1: as they come to this recognition that Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: just not enough, not going to be able to do it,
Speaker 1: not gonna do it, not prudent, And maybe who's it
Speaker 1: going to be? Kamala Harris, Corey, Booker, Buddha Judge. If
Speaker 1: you're asking me right now as Biden drops, who is
Speaker 1: going to who's gonna rise up the ranks the fastest?
Speaker 1: I think, I think the I think it's got to
Speaker 1: be May repeat which I know you're talking about an
Speaker 1: outlier candidate here, but I think May Repeats more likely
Speaker 1: to you know, he's got the he's got a you know,
Speaker 1: a resume that people aren't going to be able to
Speaker 1: to scoff at. And he does bring diversity the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party is very concerned with. And that's what I think
Speaker 1: might happen here, Folks. I'm telling you Biden's not going
Speaker 1: to make it through the summer as the front runner,
Speaker 1: Mark my words. He's not going to make it through
Speaker 1: the summer as the front runner. That that I'm I'm
Speaker 1: confident in, and my prediction is wrong. We will just
Speaker 1: edit it out of the podcast and nobody will ever
Speaker 1: know that it happened. Let's talk about Berney coming up.
Speaker 1: What I mean by democratic socialism is creating a government
Speaker 1: that works for everybody, not controlled, either legislatively or politically,
Speaker 1: by a handful of very wealthy people. Now, you know,
Speaker 1: one of my favorite question to ask is about Democrats,
Speaker 1: but about anything, is what does he or she mean?
Speaker 1: What is this person? It's it's not just what they said,
Speaker 1: it's what are they trying to say? And here you
Speaker 1: have Bernie Sanders, who is is still this beloved figure
Speaker 1: in progressive circles, and he does at least have the
Speaker 1: courage of his convictions to say what he wants to
Speaker 1: do on a policy level. You know, he wants to
Speaker 1: be college, free college, He wants to free this free
Speaker 1: that somebody else will pay for it, all this stuff,
Speaker 1: all these things, and Bernie Sanders gets away as a result,
Speaker 1: I think, with just spewing nonsense all the time. A
Speaker 1: government that works for everyone? What is now you could say, buck,
Speaker 1: that's just that's just a slogan. But but is it
Speaker 1: that's not supposed to just be a thing that's said
Speaker 1: to get people into a government. Well maybe it is,
Speaker 1: I don't know. But a government where tureveryone. How how
Speaker 1: you know? He says this, And I would like to
Speaker 1: drill a little bit deeper into this. What is the
Speaker 1: government and why do we think that the governments supposed
Speaker 1: to work for everybody we we work for? Do we
Speaker 1: mean like in your employee, or do we mean that
Speaker 1: it's most to function properly? Because if anyone thinks that
Speaker 1: the government is really that that government employees think of
Speaker 1: themselves as your your employees, you the American people, it's
Speaker 1: often not really the case. They think that they are
Speaker 1: are providing a service and a role, that we need
Speaker 1: them and we're lucky to have them. They do not
Speaker 1: they know, public servants have gotten a very grandiose view
Speaker 1: of themselves in recent decades. I'm just telling you I
Speaker 1: used to be one. I know, I know, I speak
Speaker 1: of what I know, but that the government also belongs
Speaker 1: to a few billionaires like like like what? Like how? Who?
Speaker 1: This is just all? This is all pifle. This is
Speaker 1: not in any way intellectually serious stuff that he offers up.
Speaker 1: And you know, the talking points about these issues. You know,
Speaker 1: people would say, well buck, what about Trump and make
Speaker 1: America great again? Into this? I say, okay, Trump was
Speaker 1: said he wanted to fight political correctness, and he has
Speaker 1: and does. And it's pretty clear that means. That means
Speaker 1: when people say you can't say that, he says, actually,
Speaker 1: I can, and I'm going to and you can't stop me.
Speaker 1: Trump said he wanted to build a wall. He's tried.
Speaker 1: He's fighting for that. He's pushed different things. He's tried
Speaker 1: to end DOCCA. You know, that was a real idea.
Speaker 1: Those are real things that he's trying to do that
Speaker 1: he has been doing. He wanted to deregulate so the
Speaker 1: economy would grow. He has done that masterfully. It's one
Speaker 1: of the best things about this administration, the deregulation. He
Speaker 1: was gonna cut taxes. He did. Now that's pretty standard
Speaker 1: Republican fair, but he did cut taxes. He's gonna repeal
Speaker 1: and places Obamacare. That didn't really happen as plan, but
Speaker 1: you know, they're making some headway on prescription drug coverage.
Speaker 1: And there were real ideas behind that campaign. We're not
Speaker 1: going to fight stupid wars in the Middle East. We
Speaker 1: haven't fought a stupid war in the Middle East because
Speaker 1: of Trump yet, unlike his two predecessors. So there were
Speaker 1: real ideas. You know, with with Bernie Sanders. I feel
Speaker 1: like a lot of what he says and a lot
Speaker 1: of what people get excited about, you know, the real
Speaker 1: policy proposals he puts forward are never going to happen,
Speaker 1: and the things that he repeats all the time don't
Speaker 1: really mean anything. Here's here's to give you a sense
Speaker 1: of what I'm talking about. You know, free college for
Speaker 1: all that's never gonna happen. You're never gonna find a
Speaker 1: way to pay for it. It's not gonna happen. Single
Speaker 1: payer is also not going to happen. These are things
Speaker 1: that just won't happen. And those are the ideas that
Speaker 1: he's putting forward, and the more general statements that he makes,
Speaker 1: I don't even know what he's trying to what he's
Speaker 1: trying to make happen in the country, things like, oh,
Speaker 1: the govern's gonna work for everybody. It's not going to
Speaker 1: belong to the billionaires anymore, the billionaire class, the millionaires,
Speaker 1: the billionaires. I mean, this is the the broken record
Speaker 1: of Bernie Sanders. Millionaires of billionaires. Woko wok up, woko
Speaker 1: wok up. Millionaires and billionaires woo wok up, woko wok up.
Speaker 1: You know, like the scratching on the that was the
Speaker 1: that was me doing in scratch with the vinyl. You know,
Speaker 1: DJ Buck No, nobody, nobody, nobody's with me on this one. Fine, whatever,
Speaker 1: But yeah, Bernie's just saying a lot of stuff that
Speaker 1: when you really think about it, it's kind of just
Speaker 1: balder dash. It's malarkey speaking of malarkey. The queen of malarkey,
Speaker 1: on economic issues, on social on really everything. Alexandria Ocasio
Speaker 1: Cortez AOC also the name of a French restaurant that
Speaker 1: I very much enjoyed in New York City. Uh, different
Speaker 1: kind of AOC. AOC has had to defend being a
Speaker 1: socialist who wants a little more cash for herself. Oh wow,
Speaker 1: look at this, but a shock. AOC was asked about
Speaker 1: how she makes one hundred and seventy four thousand dollars
Speaker 1: years nice. That's a nice salary. That's good stuff. Members
Speaker 1: of Congress paid pretty well, one hundred and seventy four grand.
Speaker 1: I could use one hundred and seventy four grand salad.
Speaker 1: It sounds like fun, sounds like a good thing. I
Speaker 1: definitely when I was Ao Ao ses Age, I was
Speaker 1: not making one hundred and seventy four k, that's for sure,
Speaker 1: and I think I was making like a third of that,
Speaker 1: And she says that, you know, this is the way
Speaker 1: it should be. But people are asking some questions. I
Speaker 1: got some questions for AOC play eleven. We should be
Speaker 1: fighting for a fifteen dollars minimum wage pegged to inflation,
Speaker 1: so that everybody in the United States with a salary
Speaker 1: with a wage gets a cost of living increase. Members
Speaker 1: of Congress, retail workers, everybody should get a cost of
Speaker 1: living increases to accommodate for the changes in our economy.
Speaker 1: You can vote against pay increases all you want. It's
Speaker 1: in my opinion, voting against a pay voting against a
Speaker 1: it's not even like a raise. It's a cost of
Speaker 1: living adjust. Forty five hundred dollars is like not even
Speaker 1: a raise, it's a cost of living. Guy jots bad,
Speaker 1: Like everybody should get like more money for all their things,
Speaker 1: because like more money for people who are doing jobs.
Speaker 1: Jobs are like so hard and they're like really upsetting
Speaker 1: to like have to do them. So everybody's just get
Speaker 1: like more money. Look, you can say, oh back, come on,
Speaker 1: some one member Congress. Probably the most from a media
Speaker 1: and news perspective in terms of being able to set
Speaker 1: the agenda for the news cycle. AOC is probably the
Speaker 1: most powerful member Congress right now. And she like doesn't
Speaker 1: understand like the basics of economics or like how like
Speaker 1: you can't just be like everyone gets a raise because
Speaker 1: like raises are good, because they'll be like downside to this,
Speaker 1: like people will get fired and businesses will go under
Speaker 1: her and doesn't think about that stuff. Though oh Man left.
Speaker 1: They love some AOC, that's for sure, but she has
Speaker 1: trouble with the numbers now. Even if Democrats accepted my
Speaker 1: assessment of Biden, their their front runner, their their flavor
Speaker 1: of the of the not just the month of the
Speaker 1: quarter of perhaps the first two quarters of the year.
Speaker 1: It's good to be Biden. It was Biden even before
Speaker 1: he was running. They're all so set on this guy,
Speaker 1: even if they agreed with me, And there are some Democrats.
Speaker 1: In fact, I spoke earlier today to Governor Patterson, who
Speaker 1: is a Democrat from New York. He was a governor
Speaker 1: of New York State for a while. I spoke to
Speaker 1: him on a radio show they had me on as
Speaker 1: a guest. It was hosted by my friend Joe Concha
Speaker 1: and Governor Patterson for the day, and I think that
Speaker 1: what he said about Biden, he largely agreed with me
Speaker 1: that Biden's a much weaker candidate than a lot of
Speaker 1: people realize that. When he says things like he's the
Speaker 1: most progressive candidate in the race, it's like he doesn't
Speaker 1: know what progressive means. Or maybe that's the most charitable
Speaker 1: interpretation we can come up with. But Biden might be
Speaker 1: their only shot because when you look around at the
Speaker 1: rest of the field, and if he's the only shot,
Speaker 1: they're gonna lose. Biden has their only shot, means they
Speaker 1: got no shot. But if you look around the rest
Speaker 1: of the field, Wow, it is If I were a Democrat,
Speaker 1: I would be very discouraged. You have Kirsten Gillibrand, and
Speaker 1: she's rising up the ranks for me of the most
Speaker 1: intellectually odious of all of these Democrat candidates. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's rapidly becoming the one that I just find to
Speaker 1: be the biggest phony, the biggest faker. As I have said,
Speaker 1: Gilla brand exists, so that Warren is not the most
Speaker 1: inauthentic candidate in the race. So I guess in that way,
Speaker 1: Jilla Brand is playing a role. But whereas at least
Speaker 1: with Hillary Clinton, and you know that Jilla Brand is
Speaker 1: trying to write also a senator from New York, and
Speaker 1: I think she's very much trying to mold herself in
Speaker 1: the Hillary esque path. You know, is trying to go
Speaker 1: in where you breaking that glass ceiling woman candidate all this.
Speaker 1: But Hillary, you knew that she had no core conviction
Speaker 1: and was totally disingenuous. But that's because her beliefs were
Speaker 1: up for the highest bidder that you know, you could
Speaker 1: rent Hillary's powers as a politician as long as you
Speaker 1: were going to write her and her foundation or her
Speaker 1: husband really big checks to show up and give a
Speaker 1: prepared speech that somebody else wrote for her. You could
Speaker 1: push her in whatever direction you wanted based on that.
Speaker 1: So you knew that, you know, with Hillary, her disingenuousness
Speaker 1: was transactional in nature. With Jilla Brand, I start to
Speaker 1: think that maybe she likes to be a phony for
Speaker 1: the sake of phoniness. Maybe Jilla Brand is intellectually dishonest
Speaker 1: for the kicks that she gets from being intellectually dishonest.
Speaker 1: This is somebody who has gone from being very favorable
Speaker 1: to gun rights because she needed to be to run
Speaker 1: on that part of New York. Denouncing the n RAYS
Speaker 1: the worst organization in America. A lot of these democrats
Speaker 1: I would know, big phonies, but Jillibrand also is on
Speaker 1: the issues. Strikes me as not only did she do
Speaker 1: that whole thing gay rights. You know where she was
Speaker 1: dancing and had the shirt on and everything. You've seen
Speaker 1: the video, it was amazing. If you haven't seen the video,
Speaker 1: it's really quick, you've just got to. You gotta find
Speaker 1: it on Facebook or on Twitter, you know gay rights.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, that's she happened to just be dancing with
Speaker 1: her gay right shirt on and someone just happened to
Speaker 1: be videotaping her when she yelled out gay rights. She
Speaker 1: is she is very intellectually dishonest. She says things that
Speaker 1: I don't think she really believes, but it doesn't matter,
Speaker 1: and she doesn't care. She's she knows what she thinks
Speaker 1: she's supposed to say to get what she's trying to get.
Speaker 1: And you know, she she had this for this shocking
Speaker 1: formulation today of comparing people who are comparing judges who
Speaker 1: would be pro life, and how that's just we can't
Speaker 1: tolerate that as a belief anymore to a judge who
Speaker 1: would be a racist, for example, and what is outside
Speaker 1: acceptable discourse. Effectively, we're getting a window into Kirsten Jilabrand's
Speaker 1: Overton window play clip twenty three. I think there's some
Speaker 1: issues that have such moral clarity that we have as
Speaker 1: a society decided that the other side is not acceptable.
Speaker 1: Imagine saying that it's okay to appoint a judge who's
Speaker 1: racist or antisemitic or homophobic, telling asking someone to appoint
Speaker 1: someone who takes away basic human rights of any group
Speaker 1: of people in America. I think that we are We've
Speaker 1: I don't think those are political issues anymore, and so
Speaker 1: I believe that for all of these issues, they are
Speaker 1: not issues that there is a fair other side. There
Speaker 1: is no moral equivalency when you come to racism, and
Speaker 1: I do not believe there's a moral equivalency when it
Speaker 1: comes to changing laws that NY women reproductive freedom. Oh look,
Speaker 1: well she just managed there. At the end, Here is
Speaker 1: a senator from New York who wants to be the
Speaker 1: next president the United States who's saying that a judge
Speaker 1: who is a racist is as unacceptable as a judge
Speaker 1: that say would be in favor of protecting life in
Speaker 1: the womb. And there's she said, no moral equivalency. But
Speaker 1: there is what she's really saying, and this is a
Speaker 1: common formulation among the left, among liberals, is there is
Speaker 1: no other side. You should not even acknowledge another side
Speaker 1: to these issues. You should you should stamp them out.
Speaker 1: You should eradicate them, not allow them to have their say,
Speaker 1: kick them out of the public square, destroy them, boycott them,
Speaker 1: imprison them if you have to. This reminds me of
Speaker 1: the left's approach to Masterpiece cake Shop, which i'll talk
Speaker 1: to you more about later this week. There's another lawsuit there.
Speaker 1: And the left's approach to dealing with people of your
Speaker 1: traditional Christian belief is because because it seems that the
Speaker 1: LGBT community on the left is so oppressed at this
Speaker 1: stage of the game still that there is a concerted
Speaker 1: effort with a media cheering it on, to ruin this
Speaker 1: guy's life and bankrupt him because he did not want
Speaker 1: to write things on a cake that he did not believe.
Speaker 1: That's quite a standard of what constitutes oppression in American society.
Speaker 1: But that's a conversation we'll have to have later. On
Speaker 1: in the week. Jilla Brand, though, shows you who she
Speaker 1: really is here. She thinks that anybody who is pro
Speaker 1: life is morally on the same plane Tantamount two might
Speaker 1: as well be a Nazi, a KKK member, or a bigot.
Speaker 1: Now is she so stupid as to really think that's
Speaker 1: a position that she could hold and defend? I don't
Speaker 1: think so. But does she feel like that's a good
Speaker 1: way to establish is her bona fidez with the far
Speaker 1: left radical Democrat base? Now? Yeah, I think so. And
Speaker 1: that's why she says it. It's for the effect. She
Speaker 1: doesn't really believe it, but she knows that it will
Speaker 1: send a signal to those that she hopes will vote
Speaker 1: for her and support her that she's with them in
Speaker 1: whatever way that she can be. I'm with her with Hillary?
Speaker 1: Remember that? Wow? What a that was In many ways
Speaker 1: a microcosep for Hillary's entire campaign boring, uninspiring, and just worthless.
Speaker 1: In fact, that could be the mantra for Gillibrand's campaign, boring,
Speaker 1: uninspiring and generally worthless. So as much as I sit
Speaker 1: here in judgment of how Joe Biden is not some
Speaker 1: fantastic candidate, which we all know, and I've been you know,
Speaker 1: I've been consistent on this one all along. I did
Speaker 1: get I thought maybe the left could hold up Betomania
Speaker 1: a little longer and a little more so. I might
Speaker 1: have overshot on that one. I just like was going
Speaker 1: to just bring the whole country together and play a
Speaker 1: song for them, because I'm the guy at the fraternity
Speaker 1: party who always has an acoustic guitar. And I'm just
Speaker 1: friends with your girlfriend, but I want to sing her
Speaker 1: a song. But I don't want you to be in
Speaker 1: the room when I sing it. But we're just friends,
Speaker 1: you know what I'm talking about. He's that guy. He's
Speaker 1: that guy. Yeah, I over I overshot on Beddo a
Speaker 1: little bit. But on Biden, I've been ride along. He's Trump.
Speaker 1: It's almost like Trump listens to this show. I've been
Speaker 1: saying Biden was a was a one percent or I've
Speaker 1: been saying that guy I could never get above one percent.
Speaker 1: Now he's going to be president. It's ridiculous. I went
Speaker 1: to Hey, and I could go on this Biden stuff
Speaker 1: all day. I went to hear when I was still
Speaker 1: in the CI, I went to hear his speech, you know,
Speaker 1: as a private citizen. I went to hear a few candidates,
Speaker 1: and it was like Biden, Kucinich, and some other guy
Speaker 1: that nobody remembers. That's who was showing up because and
Speaker 1: it was like you could get fifty people in a
Speaker 1: room and it was an accomplishment because nobody cared Biden
Speaker 1: was in Kucinich territory when he ran before on his
Speaker 1: own as a candidate. Now now the Democrats think that
Speaker 1: he's become because he was the vice president. I mean,
Speaker 1: let's be honest, anybody could be the vice president. Oh
Speaker 1: they really The job description is to have a beating
Speaker 1: heart in case of That's basically the job description. And
Speaker 1: now they're telling us that Biden's but it's maybe he's better.
Speaker 1: Is he better than Jilla Brand? Yeah? I think so.
Speaker 1: Her name Kirstin Jill is it Gilla Brand or Jilla Brand,
Speaker 1: Kirstin or Kristin. Her name is tough man. Her name
Speaker 1: is tough. And that's not the only that's not my
Speaker 1: only objection to her, because people make fun of names
Speaker 1: are dumb. I will say that, but her name is
Speaker 1: hard to say. We'll be right back said that. When
Speaker 1: you think of it, Mexico is doing more for the
Speaker 1: United states as of now than Congress and then the
Speaker 1: specifically the Democrats. They have to get direct together. They
Speaker 1: have to work and get something done because you've got
Speaker 1: a tremendous problem at the border if people pouring in
Speaker 1: and it means crime, it means drugs, it means so
Speaker 1: many other things. Well, it's really simple, and the Democrats
Speaker 1: are doing absolutely nothing while the Mexicans are stepping up
Speaker 1: working with the President to try and stop the illegal
Speaker 1: flow of immigrants coming into the country. Democrats in Congress
Speaker 1: for the longest time refuse to even acknowledge the fact
Speaker 1: there was a problem. Now we're starting to see them
Speaker 1: acknowledge there was a problem, but doing absolutely nothing to
Speaker 1: fix it, which may even be worse now they know
Speaker 1: there's a problem and they still do nothing. They're so
Speaker 1: focused on attacking this president and trying to beat him
Speaker 1: up because they have no message, they have no agenda,
Speaker 1: that they can't even look at the real problems we
Speaker 1: have and do anything to try to fix them. If
Speaker 1: we had a real press corps, meaning that people that
Speaker 1: call themselves journalists view their role as getting the facts,
Speaker 1: speaking truth to power, holding power accountable. All the things
Speaker 1: that journalists pretend they are that they are not overwhelmingly,
Speaker 1: not all of them, but most a vast majority of them.
Speaker 1: If we had a real press corps, you know what
Speaker 1: question would be asked of Democrats? Not what do you
Speaker 1: think about Trump's handling of the border? No, no, no no,
Speaker 1: What should be asked of all the Democrat candidates for
Speaker 1: president so that the American people can really know what's
Speaker 1: going on here? What's gonna be asked? What should be
Speaker 1: done about the border? What actions would you, as president
Speaker 1: take that are different from and better than whatever Trump
Speaker 1: has done so far? And that would be very interesting,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it? Because Democrats their first instinct, and this is
Speaker 1: it's a form of a it's almost like Turette's that
Speaker 1: they can't control it. There's a reactionary feeling that they
Speaker 1: have whenever they have an opportunity to talk about anything
Speaker 1: that they can relate to Trump, it just Trump bad,
Speaker 1: Trump bad Orange man. That they cannot help it, and
Speaker 1: that would be their first reaction is that Trump is
Speaker 1: terrible and he's done all these horrible things, and oh
Speaker 1: here here's um Joe Biden doing exactly that. Played twenty two.
Speaker 1: This is a guy who does everything to separate and
Speaker 1: frighten people. It's about fear and loathing. It's about what
Speaker 1: he calls people, the names he calls them. No president
Speaker 1: has done something like that for God's sake. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's bizarre and it's damaging, and so I think he's
Speaker 1: genuinely a threat to our core values and he's a
Speaker 1: threat to our standing in the world. On the D
Speaker 1: Day ceremonies, the D Day ceremonies, it was astounding to
Speaker 1: me that he was tweeting attacks on everybody, from the
Speaker 1: Mayor of London to bet Middler. He found time to
Speaker 1: go after bet Middler, for God's sake, in the middle
Speaker 1: of the D Day ceremonies for real, not a joke. Okay,
Speaker 1: these people also all go after him all the time.
Speaker 1: I think Democrats are just still upset that now there's
Speaker 1: a Republican president that doesn't think that manners dictate that
Speaker 1: He just sits there and takes it quietly all the
Speaker 1: time while Pelosi trashes him. Pelosi wishes that he was
Speaker 1: put in prison, knowing that that was going to make
Speaker 1: its way into the press. But yeah, he's supposed to
Speaker 1: sit there quietly. I'm not supposed to have an opinion
Speaker 1: about this. What is Joe Biden's opinion on the border. Notice,
Speaker 1: they like to talk about Trump separates people because they
Speaker 1: always wanted a family The one thing where they've been
Speaker 1: able to get this administration to back down and change
Speaker 1: courses on family separation at the border, and so you'll
Speaker 1: hear a lot more of that. That is where they've
Speaker 1: managed to get Trump to change course on something. Because
Speaker 1: the outrage over that was, oh my gosh, it was
Speaker 1: a level it was a level eleven out of ten.
Speaker 1: I mean, people were completely freaked out about this. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: across the country, people are separated from their children all
Speaker 1: the time, whenever they're put in prison. That happens constantly.
Speaker 1: It's a sad thing, but it is a reality of
Speaker 1: life for a lot of Americans. But if you don't
Speaker 1: believe the crossing in the country illegally is a crime,
Speaker 1: well then you don't think there should be any punishment
Speaker 1: for that crime. That's what Democrats should be asked, is
Speaker 1: illegal immigration wrong? They'll probably say yes because they know
Speaker 1: if they say no, then it would be well, why
Speaker 1: don't you just say then that you're an open borders party,
Speaker 1: So they'll say yes, illegal immigration is wrong, But then
Speaker 1: they should be asked, why is it wrong? What is
Speaker 1: the problem with illegal immigration? They just say, well, we
Speaker 1: have laws. Say okay, but if there's no downside, then
Speaker 1: why do we have that law. You can't let them
Speaker 1: escape with just the pretense of legalism. Right, Oh, well,
Speaker 1: it's bad because there's a law against it. Well why
Speaker 1: is there a law against it? Because if it's not
Speaker 1: bad for any reason beyond the law, we should just
Speaker 1: repeal that law. They won't be able to answer it.
Speaker 1: The Democrats. I've tried this with many Democrats and they
Speaker 1: get very flustered and very angry. Oh well, they they
Speaker 1: do not cause any crime. They are not a drain
Speaker 1: on public resources. They do the jobs Americans won't do that.
Speaker 1: You know, we're a nation of immigrants. They're the same
Speaker 1: as our you know, our parents and grandparents who came
Speaker 1: here legally, et cetera, et cetera. I mean, these are
Speaker 1: all the Democrats talking points, where where is the downside?
Speaker 1: They don't admit there is any downside, So shouldn't they
Speaker 1: have to then admit that they are an open borders,
Speaker 1: open borders political party. If we had a real press
Speaker 1: corps that would be raised, that would be clear. But
Speaker 1: we don't. We have a bunch of Democrat lackeys, generally
Speaker 1: from very mediocre intellectual backgrounds, who run around parroting each
Speaker 1: other and patting each other on the backs for their
Speaker 1: bravery in front of one another. But Lindsay Graham understands
Speaker 1: that we are at a breaking point at the border
Speaker 1: and it's no longer okay to sit back and allow
Speaker 1: the status quo. It hasn't been okay for months, but
Speaker 1: now it's really getting out of control. Here's what the
Speaker 1: Senator has to say, Play twenty four. There has to
Speaker 1: be a breaking point. We've reached the breaking point at
Speaker 1: the border. I can not imagine what it's like to
Speaker 1: go to work every day where half the people are
Speaker 1: dedicating their time to dealing with family members, miners, and
Speaker 1: all that goes with trying to deal with six hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people in your custody. Half of our resources are
Speaker 1: being directed away from border security to dealing with housing
Speaker 1: people and trying to meet their basic health care needs.
Speaker 1: The breaking point has long passed at the border. This
Speaker 1: is not sustainable. It's not fair to those who are
Speaker 1: the uniform of the United States at border patrol, health
Speaker 1: and Human Services, and all the other agencies into the
Speaker 1: NGOs who are helping God bless you. It isn't fair
Speaker 1: to our border patrol. It's not fair to the federal
Speaker 1: officers who are are entrusted with the powers to enforce
Speaker 1: the law. They're being turned into a welfare agency at
Speaker 1: our southern border, which is not what they signed up for.
Speaker 1: That is not the mission that they're supposed to have.
Speaker 1: And I think they're rightly sick of the whole thing.
Speaker 1: I think they're tired of it, and they should be.
Speaker 1: But one of the big hurdles to making any progress
Speaker 1: on this issue is the dishonesty around the way Democrats
Speaker 1: debate on this. Remember, migrant caravans are scare tactic. It's
Speaker 1: all Fox News lying. They said, it's all just meant
Speaker 1: to get support going and turn out the base in
Speaker 1: the election. Oh no, the caravans are shown up now
Speaker 1: all the time. Turns out they do have buses and
Speaker 1: trains in Mexico after all. So that was a lie
Speaker 1: that they were, and it was an obvious lie. But
Speaker 1: that was a lie. And then they said that there
Speaker 1: was no crisis at the border. That was a lie.
Speaker 1: But this is one of the most obvious and annoying lies.
Speaker 1: The Democrats have been telling about the border of this
Speaker 1: whole time. And it came from the testimony of Kevin
Speaker 1: mcaleen in today where the Homeland Security Secretary said that,
Speaker 1: and this was in front of this was Senate testimony
Speaker 1: today that of the so called asylum seekers that are
Speaker 1: crossing at our southern border, that people say they're not illegal,
Speaker 1: they're allowed to seek asylum, ninety percent are skipping their
Speaker 1: court dates. Ninety percent skip their court dates in violation
Speaker 1: of the law and should be deported immediately upon skipping
Speaker 1: that court date. As we know, that's not happening. They're
Speaker 1: at the resources, there's not the political will, but they're
Speaker 1: scamming folks of them are. The fact that they show
Speaker 1: up and say they want asylum and then don't show
Speaker 1: up in court means that this was the plan all along.
Speaker 1: And I knew it was the plan all along. I've
Speaker 1: been telling you it's the plan all along. But Democrats
Speaker 1: and in the media and on Congress, oh no, they're
Speaker 1: going to show up for their court dates. Like we're
Speaker 1: all a bunch of idiots, Like it's not clear what
Speaker 1: the scam is here. You know, this is just sure
Speaker 1: put us all put all these illegals on the honor system,
Speaker 1: that they're going to show up, let them into America,
Speaker 1: but then put them on the honor system and then
Speaker 1: pretend that, oh, yeah, they're gonna they're gonna fulfill their
Speaker 1: end of the bargain. What I mean, are we all
Speaker 1: supposed we're really supposed to be that Democrats think we're
Speaker 1: that dumb or they're just that dishonest. I guess that's
Speaker 1: what it is. They don't show up. It's a scam.
Speaker 1: They're scamming the system. It's very clear that's what is
Speaker 1: happening here. It's been obvious all along, but now we've
Speaker 1: got the numbers. Now you've got the head of DHS
Speaker 1: saying it's folks, these people are lying to border patrol.
Speaker 1: They are lying to skip the line for immigration purposes.
Speaker 1: And then they're going to turn around. And you know what,
Speaker 1: the just get ready for this. What's really going to
Speaker 1: be the moment that you know this is this has
Speaker 1: come all the way around, is when you have demands
Speaker 1: from Central American so called asylum seekers who skipped their
Speaker 1: court date, who lied, who broke the law, who abused
Speaker 1: the system to get what they wanted, which was to
Speaker 1: stay in this country. And then they'll turn around. You
Speaker 1: know what they'll say. They won't say thank you, because
Speaker 1: they'll they'll have been in doctrine or even further by
Speaker 1: the left. They'll be We'll be told that if we
Speaker 1: don't grant them citizenship and amnesty, we're being racist. We're
Speaker 1: being racist. That's when you'll know this whole thing has
Speaker 1: finally reached its conclusion. They lied and lied and lied,
Speaker 1: broke the law, broke the law. Democrats aided and embedded
Speaker 1: this whole process, and then just give it time. They
Speaker 1: will be demanding amnesty and eventual citizenship. And if you
Speaker 1: don't want to give it to them, and you don't
Speaker 1: want to reward their behavior, you're a bad person, You're
Speaker 1: a bigot, you're a xenophobe. That is what the left
Speaker 1: will say. You know, I'm right, this is where this
Speaker 1: is all heading unless Trump can get this thing under
Speaker 1: control and the John Deane's festim John Deane's been a
Speaker 1: loser for many years. So I've been watching him on
Speaker 1: one of the networks that is not exactly Trump oriented,
Speaker 1: and I guess they paid him a lot of money
Speaker 1: over the years. Now, John's been a loser for a
Speaker 1: long time. We know that I think he was disbarred
Speaker 1: and he went to prison. Other than that, he's doing
Speaker 1: a great job. The last time I appeared before your
Speaker 1: committee was July eleventh, nineteen seventy four, during the impeachment
Speaker 1: inquiry of Richard Nixon. In many ways, the Mueller Report
Speaker 1: is to President Trump what the so called Watergate roadmap
Speaker 1: officially titled the Grand Jury Report and Recommendation concerning Transmission
Speaker 1: of Evidence to the House of Representatives was to President
Speaker 1: Richard Nixon. Stated a little differently, Special Council Muller has
Speaker 1: provided this committee with a roadmap. John Deane testified yesterday
Speaker 1: and nobody cared. Folks. I don't even think CNN picked
Speaker 1: up the testimony live, which should tell you a lot
Speaker 1: about how this whole thing was going over. Nobody cared.
Speaker 1: Democrats are so preposterous with this whole obstruction situation today.
Speaker 1: I mean that the latest news is that you have
Speaker 1: some agreement. What is this now that that the House
Speaker 1: votes to hold the House has voted to hold bar
Speaker 1: and McGann in contempt. Somebody's gonna have to come up
Speaker 1: with an explanation as to why the House voting to
Speaker 1: hold Barn McGan in contempt, and Democrats in the House
Speaker 1: aren't even clear they want to subpoena Muller or ask
Speaker 1: for him to testify. This is very straightforward. Anyone involved
Speaker 1: in this process, this so called oversight, we know it's
Speaker 1: just political nonsense on Capitol Hill, But anyone in Congress,
Speaker 1: any Democrat who says that they just want to get answers,
Speaker 1: they want the truth, and they're so concerned about abstruction
Speaker 1: and all this other stuff, and they talk about the
Speaker 1: Muller report a lot, but they don't insist, and I
Speaker 1: mean insist, that Mueller go and answer questions on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: He's the single most important figure in this entire process,
Speaker 1: has more background and more time on the issue than
Speaker 1: anyone else. Yet they only want to put Barr and
Speaker 1: McGann on Capitol Hill for this partisan show trial. They
Speaker 1: don't have any interest in talking to Muller. What else
Speaker 1: do you have to know? What else has to be
Speaker 1: made clear in this process to show just how obviously
Speaker 1: political the whole thing is. There were some fun moments yesterday.
Speaker 1: You had, oh, here we go, by the way, on
Speaker 1: my point about Barr and McGann and the vote in
Speaker 1: the House. Here's John Ratcliffe talking about how this is
Speaker 1: just this is preposterous play. Hey, this this is a
Speaker 1: show vote. This is about trying to save face. This
Speaker 1: is about Jerry Nadler trying to appease a Democratic base
Speaker 1: seventy percent of which says they should try and impeach
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, when seventy percent of the American people say,
Speaker 1: cut the impeachment garbage. Let's get on with infrastructure and
Speaker 1: immigration and all the things that Democrats promised us they
Speaker 1: would do if they were in charge of the House. Yep.
Speaker 1: But instead you have Democrat members of the House acting
Speaker 1: like they're just being respectful of the problem. We're just
Speaker 1: trying to get the facts. We're being respectful of the process. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're being so respectful the process. They're not asking Muller
Speaker 1: to testify at all. And they brought John dene down
Speaker 1: at what does he have to do with anything? I mean,
Speaker 1: who gives a you know what about what John Deane
Speaker 1: has to say. I don't even think Democrats care, but
Speaker 1: the press. I think that the Democrat media is so
Speaker 1: in the ear of the various Democrat members of the
Speaker 1: House that control these committee processes that they must have
Speaker 1: convinced them. Yeah, yeah, that's right. Watergate impeachment, that's what
Speaker 1: you want to go with, that's the ticket. Matt Gates
Speaker 1: was having some fun with this yet as a big
Speaker 1: fat target, and Matt Gates was having some fun with it.
Speaker 1: Yesterday I play seven. We sit today in this hearing
Speaker 1: with the ghost of Christmas past because the Chairman of
Speaker 1: the Committee has gone to the Speaker of the House
Speaker 1: and sought permission to open an impeachment inquiry, but she
Speaker 1: has said no. And so instead of opening the impeachment
Speaker 1: inquiry into Donald Trump, which is what the Chairman wants
Speaker 1: to do and what I presume a majority of Democrats
Speaker 1: want to do, we're here reopening the impeachment inquiry potentially
Speaker 1: into Richard Nixon, sort of playing out our own version
Speaker 1: of that seventies show. And what I really regret it
Speaker 1: is here as a prop You are functionally here as
Speaker 1: a prop because they can't impeach President Trump because seventy
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats want something that's sixty percent of Americans don't.
Speaker 1: So they're in this no win situation. And you sit
Speaker 1: before us here with no knowledge of a single fact
Speaker 1: on the Muller Report, on a hearing entitled lessons from
Speaker 1: the Muller Report. A hearing entitled lessons from the Muller Report,
Speaker 1: and Democrats clearly have no interest in Muller testify. That's
Speaker 1: because Muller would get shredded. This is a big problem
Speaker 1: for Democrats. This is this is an issue that I
Speaker 1: don't know they'll be able to get around and Republicans.
Speaker 1: I think she'd be making a lot more noise about this.
Speaker 1: Mueller is not going to be able to answer certain
Speaker 1: things to anyone's satisfaction. Who knows what's gone on with
Speaker 1: this investigation? You know he's not going to be answered,
Speaker 1: will be able to answer. Why do you change a
Speaker 1: transcript so that it seemed more nefarious than it was
Speaker 1: for your report? Why would you do that? Why would
Speaker 1: you leave out that certain people were sources for the government,
Speaker 1: or why would you you know, there was so much
Speaker 1: obvious editing, and the editing always goes in one direction,
Speaker 1: which is negative for Trump? Why do that? If the
Speaker 1: information about Trump was so brazen and so bad, why
Speaker 1: would you have to effectively fabricate even worse stuff in
Speaker 1: different places and not speak about, say, the dossier, in
Speaker 1: any meaningful sense in the entire report. How can you
Speaker 1: take a report like that seriously? We'll talk about the
Speaker 1: IG report later. My friend Louis Gohmert's going to be joining,
Speaker 1: so we will get into his expectations. I'll tell you this.
Speaker 1: He actually his expectations are pretty low. So we'll ask
Speaker 1: the good congressman why that is. And we'll get to
Speaker 1: that coming up here in just a moment. For a
Speaker 1: long time, for many years, people tried to get what
Speaker 1: we got in a period of a couple of days,
Speaker 1: and they couldn't get it. That's the difference. They couldn't
Speaker 1: get it. So Mexico, we're getting along with them. Great.
Speaker 1: They're moving right now, six thousand soldiers to their southern border.
Speaker 1: Whoever heard of that? Do you think we had that
Speaker 1: two weeks ago? Two weeks ago, I'll tell you what
Speaker 1: we had. We had nothing. And the reason we had
Speaker 1: nothing is because Mexico felt they didn't have to give
Speaker 1: us that. I don't blame them, but this is actually
Speaker 1: ultimately going to be good for Mexico too, and it's
Speaker 1: good for the relationship of Mexico with US. Meanwhile, the
Speaker 1: media is trying to take this victory away from Trump
Speaker 1: exactly as I told you they would. They will not.
Speaker 1: They cannot allow the narrative to get out to grow
Speaker 1: that Trump knows what he's doing, has some real ideas,
Speaker 1: has some ability to negotiate, that all these smarmy libs
Speaker 1: and establishment figures just simply don't have. Oh you mean,
Speaker 1: maybe he managed to do something worth while in this
Speaker 1: Mexico situation, and that he did it despite all the
Speaker 1: so called consensus folks out there who said this was
Speaker 1: a terrible idea. What a surprise. The border is an
Speaker 1: urgent issue, it is a true crisis. Finally Democrats agree
Speaker 1: it's a crisis, but then they just play games with
Speaker 1: what kind of crisis? What kind of crisis is it
Speaker 1: that they are willing to do nothing about? And here's
Speaker 1: the classic sam vinagrat. I don't know where they found her.
Speaker 1: I don't know how this woman managed to become a
Speaker 1: trusted voice on national security over at CNN. I've never
Speaker 1: heard her say anything intelligent on television. Maybe she has.
Speaker 1: I've just never Everything I've ever heard or say was dumb.
Speaker 1: It's kind of like that Asha Rangappa lady from the
Speaker 1: FBI who teaches counterintelligence at Yale or something means nothing
Speaker 1: A lot of these programs are really just holding facilities
Speaker 1: for libs during a Republican administration, and it's all you
Speaker 1: know who you know, and it's a joke. Vinagrad, though,
Speaker 1: has said amonga she accused me once of of tweeting
Speaker 1: like a Russian bot, which I thought was really funny
Speaker 1: on Twitter. Oh yeah, that's right, because it's all because
Speaker 1: you're not a crazy person that thinks that everything is
Speaker 1: Russia related. But her analysis on this is classic CNN.
Speaker 1: You want to get on er at CNN, find a
Speaker 1: way to make Trump the bad guy. Whatever his victory is,
Speaker 1: whatever Trump manages, find a way to make it bad,
Speaker 1: bad Trump, Orange Man bad. That's the mandate. That's what
Speaker 1: you have to do if you're going to go on
Speaker 1: air at CNN. Here is what missus Vinograd has to
Speaker 1: say about Trump's negotiation and tariff imposition threat with Mexico
Speaker 1: Play thirteen. This is rewarding bad behavior. It is positive
Speaker 1: for the US economy and the Mexican economy and the
Speaker 1: global economy that these teriffs are not going to effect. Well,
Speaker 1: what's happened is President Trump acted like a bully and
Speaker 1: the Mexicans. We to do something so that he could
Speaker 1: say that he got a victory. It is likely that
Speaker 1: he will use us as a tool down the road
Speaker 1: because he can say that he got a reward from it.
Speaker 1: Trump is a bully. He'd like such a bully. Yeah, bully.
Speaker 1: These are tools of statecraft. Are we bullying North Korea
Speaker 1: by having dramatic sanctions in place? Again? Are we bullying them?
Speaker 1: Are we just doing something that we should do. Mexico
Speaker 1: could do a lot more to prevent hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of Central Americans from traversing their territory and entering the
Speaker 1: United States. They could do a lot more, So we
Speaker 1: are trying to incentivize them. Trump is trying to incentivize
Speaker 1: them exactly to that end. That's bullying? Or do we
Speaker 1: just let countries do whatever they want to us? We
Speaker 1: let countries treat our relationship as though it is not
Speaker 1: particularly meaningful to them, that our requests for assistance, in
Speaker 1: our request for partnership can be easily ignored and ignored
Speaker 1: with impunity. Is that really how we're supposed to go? Yes,
Speaker 1: it is true that Trump now will view this as
Speaker 1: a tool for other things, and it's going to as
Speaker 1: I said, it will put a little more of a
Speaker 1: wind in his sails on the terif fight with China.
Speaker 1: Here is what he said about that Plate twelve. The
Speaker 1: China deal is going to work out. You know why
Speaker 1: because of tariffs. Because right now China is getting absolutely
Speaker 1: decimated by companies that are leaving China going to other countries,
Speaker 1: including our own, because they don't want to pay the tariffs.
Speaker 1: And in my opinion, based on a lot of effects
Speaker 1: and a lot of knowledge, China is going to make
Speaker 1: a deal because they're going to have to make a deal.
Speaker 1: A lot of countries have changed their habits because they
Speaker 1: know their next without the power of tariffs by the richest,
Speaker 1: most successful country. You know, we picked up trillions of
Speaker 1: dollars in worth since I've been elected. China has lost many,
Speaker 1: many trillions of dollars. They're way behind. They we're going
Speaker 1: to catch us. Had a democrat gotten in, namely the
Speaker 1: one we're talking about, China would have caught us by
Speaker 1: the end of her term. They're nowhere close. They'll never
Speaker 1: catch us. Not with what I'm doing, They'll never catch us.
Speaker 1: We'll see if the President's right or not. Time will tell.
Speaker 1: Is the massive gamble maybe really in some ways the
Speaker 1: biggest gamble of his presidency because he's gone against the consensus.
Speaker 1: People have been saying along, oh, you know, trade war,
Speaker 1: and this is terrible and you can't do this. Well,
Speaker 1: if we get a real deal with China in place,
Speaker 1: which probably won't happen till after Trump's reelection, which I
Speaker 1: am not I'm not getting a lackadaisical about. I'm I'm
Speaker 1: not thinking that it's already done, but feeling good about
Speaker 1: it right now for sure. But if Trump gets a
Speaker 1: deal with China, then he will have managed to defy
Speaker 1: ninety percent plus of the trade and econ experts out
Speaker 1: there and the chattering class and all the people that
Speaker 1: go on TV to talk abo walt it out. The
Speaker 1: bonds today are up there down, the stock price is up,
Speaker 1: it's down. One thing it's funny is if you want
Speaker 1: to hear people that are usually just blathering on about
Speaker 1: nonsense that make political pundits look really smart by comparison,
Speaker 1: turn on some of the financial the financial news networks
Speaker 1: that are out there and just see the yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: all the fear of a dollar and the gold and
Speaker 1: the yen and the this and the that, and that's
Speaker 1: what made the you know, market go up or down.
Speaker 1: They have no idea. The people I know who know
Speaker 1: the markets say these guys have no They just gotta
Speaker 1: say something. They're there to convey the information about the
Speaker 1: stock price, and they say all this other stuff around
Speaker 1: it to make it seem like I mean, they're they're
Speaker 1: almost They're like sports announcers without the entertainment value added.
Speaker 1: You know, you want to know what the score is,
Speaker 1: you want to know what's going on. You don't You
Speaker 1: don't really need to get that in depth about how
Speaker 1: that the person viewing it seems to think that the
Speaker 1: person playing the game is thinking about playing the game.
Speaker 1: But I really do think that Trump on China is
Speaker 1: going to be I think that he's got a real shot.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to tell you it's likely. Look, the
Speaker 1: Chinese government has managed to defy international pressure and expectations
Speaker 1: for a long time. But you know who doesn't know
Speaker 1: anything about China. I think we're quite clear about it
Speaker 1: at this point. You know who is completely and utterly
Speaker 1: clueless on the issue of China, which is not surprising
Speaker 1: because he's been wrong on every major foreign policy issue
Speaker 1: for the last forty years. As was said by former
Speaker 1: Secretary Defense Gates, who had worked for Republican and Democrat administrations,
Speaker 1: and just said this guy Biden doesn't know anything. Biden
Speaker 1: originally said, China, you know, NBD, It's all fine. Now
Speaker 1: Biden's decided to flip the script on that plate twenty
Speaker 1: seven and let's talk a little bit about China, because
Speaker 1: China poses real challenges in the United States and some
Speaker 1: ways a real threat to the United States. But Donald
Speaker 1: Trump is only exacerbating the threat in the danger. But
Speaker 1: the reason I find myself optimistic is that point I've
Speaker 1: been making a long time. If we do we need
Speaker 1: to do at home, if we stand up for American interest,
Speaker 1: if we invest in our people, our live our values,
Speaker 1: and work with our partners, we can outcompete China every
Speaker 1: single solitary day and every other nation in the world.
Speaker 1: This is fantasy land stuff from Biden. Let's just keep
Speaker 1: doing what we're doing and things will beat China. No,
Speaker 1: China is cheating and stealing our intellectual property, and we
Speaker 1: don't have that much of an advantage left over China.
Speaker 1: So no, Biden. This is Biden is buffoonery, consistent, completely
Speaker 1: unrepentant buffoonery. That is his brand. This is what the
Speaker 1: Democrats are offering up as we've been discussing today on
Speaker 1: the show, so no surprise that he has flipped on China.
Speaker 1: All right, team got a special guest joining us now
Speaker 1: Congressman Louie Gomert of the great state of Texas. It's
Speaker 1: actually a great state. I'm not just say next summer
Speaker 1: radio host. Conressmen going great to have you on, sir,
Speaker 1: Always great to be with you, Buck, Thank you. So
Speaker 1: you know you have a slightly contrarian take on the
Speaker 1: IG report. I've been hearing you know. I'm here in
Speaker 1: the swamp where I know you spend a lot of
Speaker 1: your time too, because you have to, you know, Congress
Speaker 1: and all that. But I'm here in the swamp, and
Speaker 1: the people that I'm talking to are saying, oh man,
Speaker 1: when this IG report comes out, it's gonna be all
Speaker 1: of the all of the deep state rats are gonna
Speaker 1: be leaving the sinkin ship, and it's gonna be fire
Speaker 1: and brimstone and justice. And I mean, I'm exaggerating a
Speaker 1: little bit, but it sounds like you think that that
Speaker 1: maybe is a little too that the people's expectations are
Speaker 1: well beyond what they should be for the Inspector General
Speaker 1: report about the Russia investigation origins, What are you seeing?
Speaker 1: What are you thinking about this? Well from the very beginning,
Speaker 1: well say, from at least after I reviewed the horwitz
Speaker 1: Ig reports, as in his role as Inspector General of
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice, he put together about five hundred
Speaker 1: pages of documented bias and prejudice and improprieties by people
Speaker 1: like Peter Struck and Lisa Page and so many others,
Speaker 1: and then concluded at the end, after five hundred pages
Speaker 1: of horrendous conduct and prejudice, he concludes, but none of
Speaker 1: that affected anything to do with these investigations. Well, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: that is outrageous. I told him at the hearing. Look
Speaker 1: the peers that since you gathered about five hundred pages
Speaker 1: of evidence showing how bad the Department of Justice was
Speaker 1: under the Obama administration and things that were doing, then
Speaker 1: you turn around and realize, gee, you're appointed, you were
Speaker 1: picked by democrats. They're going to be livid. So despite
Speaker 1: all the evidence of the contrary, you let them have
Speaker 1: the final verdict that, yeah, although there's all this wrongdoing
Speaker 1: and bad mental processes, none of it affected the outcome
Speaker 1: of any of these Department of Justice investigations and that
Speaker 1: was garbage. And so then I started hearing, just as
Speaker 1: you said, Buck, so many people around here in the
Speaker 1: swamp saying, hey, yeah, well, don't worry though, that was
Speaker 1: just the first one. The second one that has Strock
Speaker 1: and all these other wrongdoers, it's gonna be brutal. They're
Speaker 1: all gonna be prosecuted. And actually, Buck, I'm looking at
Speaker 1: an office of the Inspector General US Department of Justice
Speaker 1: posting as of May twenty nine, twenty nineteen, and it
Speaker 1: doesn't identify by the person, but it says this investigation
Speaker 1: was initiated upon the receipt of information with the FBI
Speaker 1: alleging him then, a then FBI deputy assistant director had
Speaker 1: numerous contacts with members of the media in violation FBI policy. Additionally,
Speaker 1: it was alleged to Dad may have disclosed law enforcement
Speaker 1: or other sensitive information media without authorization. And it goes
Speaker 1: on to say that the Inspector General has now concluded
Speaker 1: that the deputy assistant director that I've been told privately
Speaker 1: it's talking about a guy named Peter Struck. But the
Speaker 1: ig investigation concluded that the deputy assistant director engaged in
Speaker 1: men's conduct when the DAD. One disclosed the media to
Speaker 1: the media. The exists of information that had been filed
Speaker 1: under seal in federal court in violation of eighteen USC.
Speaker 1: Four or one contempt of court, two provided without authorization
Speaker 1: FBI law Enforcement sensitive information reporters on multiple occasions, and
Speaker 1: three had dozens of official contacts with the media without
Speaker 1: authorization and violation of FBI policy. The OIG or the
Speaker 1: Officer Inspector General found at the deputy assistant. All right, Congress,
Speaker 1: and what's what's the summary version here? What's the what
Speaker 1: happens the OG has OIG has completed this investigation and
Speaker 1: is prosecution of the dad was declined. That's the end. Right,
Speaker 1: So you're saying, I don't think Dad was declined, and
Speaker 1: if that's struck, that man should be doing time for
Speaker 1: what we know of all the manipulations and abuses of
Speaker 1: his office. And so if this is just the beginning
Speaker 1: of what's going to be trickling out from the Inspector General,
Speaker 1: I'm still scared to death for the ongoing little experiment
Speaker 1: and self government we have here now. Congressman, I think
Speaker 1: you're right that it's very unlikely there'll be prosecutions of
Speaker 1: senior government officials. Well, no, there are. I think there
Speaker 1: should be. Well, well, I'm not saying there shouldn't be,
Speaker 1: but I think it is unlikely there will be. But
Speaker 1: I would think that the Inspector General report under Bill Barr,
Speaker 1: who was not in this role before it was Attorney
Speaker 1: General Sessions, who had been sidelined in many ways, will
Speaker 1: at least get closer to the truth, and that that
Speaker 1: truth out in the public's site finally and for the
Speaker 1: first time, may have some really nasty implications for Democrats
Speaker 1: and their whole Russia collusion hoax narrative. Do you think
Speaker 1: that that's true? Are you worried that even that won't
Speaker 1: be If nobody goes to jail, then they will be
Speaker 1: able to just pick up unimpeded. Uh. They will keep
Speaker 1: coming after Trump and his family and anybody that's in
Speaker 1: contact with him. And the only way to stop this
Speaker 1: garbage is for somebody to go to jail. And if
Speaker 1: that's not going to happen, then I'm telling you we're
Speaker 1: just as much trouble as we were before we found
Speaker 1: out about the Russia hopes Congress, before we let you
Speaker 1: get back to actually writing legislation and doing all the
Speaker 1: things that want us to do here in the swamp days,
Speaker 1: it's more stopping or trying to stop, trying to prevent legislation. Sure,
Speaker 1: but but I want to ask you about this deal
Speaker 1: that the President says he has with Mexico and then
Speaker 1: in response to the tariffs. Do you have any insight
Speaker 1: into that for us? You get some people saying there
Speaker 1: it isn't a deal, or there's nothing new, or the
Speaker 1: deal isn't finalized. What's what's going on with this? Well,
Speaker 1: there are some people that were part of the Homeland
Speaker 1: Security before and they did have a very minimal agreement,
Speaker 1: you know, three little entering points where they had some agreements,
Speaker 1: some arrangement with what could be done with Mexico. But
Speaker 1: what has been agreed to is now huge. It's many,
Speaker 1: many multiples of what the prior Homeland Security had and
Speaker 1: it will be a tremendous help. So it's a big deal.
Speaker 1: I know some even Democrats as well as some that
Speaker 1: worked for Christen Nielsen are saying, ah, there's nothing new,
Speaker 1: we had a deal. Now, they didn't have anything like this. Buck.
Speaker 1: This is big, it's new, and it's going to be
Speaker 1: very helpful. Despite the Democrats' best efforts to stop it.
Speaker 1: Congress and Louis Gohmert, everybody down to Texas congreson Gohmert
Speaker 1: always appreciate you coming by the Freedom how thank you
Speaker 1: for making the time for us, sir, my pleasure Buck,
Speaker 1: thank you, all right, team, We'll be right back. And
Speaker 1: I think a lot of this far left political correctness
Speaker 1: is a cancer on progressivism. I think when when you
Speaker 1: talk to Trump supporters, they are not blind to his
Speaker 1: myriad flaws, but one thing they always say is he's
Speaker 1: not politically correct. I don't think you can under overestimate
Speaker 1: how much people have been choking on political correctness and
Speaker 1: hate it. There were two studies about this recently was
Speaker 1: in the New York Times front page story a few
Speaker 1: months ago. It was also in the Atlantic about a
Speaker 1: year ago. The vast majority of liberals in this country
Speaker 1: hate it. They think political correctness has gone way too far.
Speaker 1: No one likes to be living on eggshells. When Bill
Speaker 1: Maher's right, he's right. I mean, he's usually far left
Speaker 1: and wrong, but sometimes he says things that I gotta say,
Speaker 1: make a lot of sense. He's one of the very few,
Speaker 1: and I can't watch the show anymore. Because there's just
Speaker 1: generally the people they have that are supposed to be
Speaker 1: the conservative are usually a joke and they hate Trump,
Speaker 1: and it's really a left wing chorus that all mostly agrees.
Speaker 1: And that's just not I just that's not my thing.
Speaker 1: I don't enjoy watching that. But on radical Islam, in
Speaker 1: the past, mar has been one of the few people
Speaker 1: who's willing to say there's a problem here, there's a
Speaker 1: real problem with this that is unique, you know, the
Speaker 1: problem of radical it's not a racist thing to say
Speaker 1: the problem of radical Islam is different. It is a
Speaker 1: bigger issue than say radical Hinduism or radical Buddhism or
Speaker 1: you know, go down the list radical Christianity in whatever
Speaker 1: form that exists, wherever it exists. Something different about radical Islam,
Speaker 1: I'm more clear and present danger to the world. And
Speaker 1: he was willing to say that and got a lot
Speaker 1: of heat for it. But on political correctness, there are
Speaker 1: a few parts of his formulation that I think are
Speaker 1: worthwhile and he should get credit for saying things that
Speaker 1: are true, Like I hate this thing when left wingers
Speaker 1: act like Trump supporters don't know what Trump's flaws are.
Speaker 1: Not a single person I'm dealing to wage or listening
Speaker 1: to this show is unaware of Trump's marital history. Of
Speaker 1: Trump's braggadocious nature. Is that a word? Is this braggadocio?
Speaker 1: You know whatever? His his braggart like nature, his intemperate
Speaker 1: approach to many different things. Although temperance is something that
Speaker 1: I think he actually shows, he does not. He does
Speaker 1: not drink, but people are aware of it. I don't
Speaker 1: sit here to talk to you about how wonderful everything
Speaker 1: that Trump has ever done is. We don't on the right,
Speaker 1: We do not worship candidates. We like ideas, and now
Speaker 1: conservatives have I think more recently embraced a movement around
Speaker 1: a person. But it is the movement, it's the agenda,
Speaker 1: it's not the individual. I'm not disappointed when Trump says
Speaker 1: something that I'm like, oh, he you know, he got
Speaker 1: a little too personal there or not, because I know
Speaker 1: that that's what he does, and it's He's not perfect,
Speaker 1: but I don't expect him to be so. At least
Speaker 1: Mare admits that because you often have all these evangelical
Speaker 1: Christians they don't even know Trumps. No, they know, but
Speaker 1: they also want a fighter for their side and their freedom,
Speaker 1: and they don't want somebody who's just going to meekly
Speaker 1: go off and say, well, you know, maybe one day
Speaker 1: the left will come and see the light. That's not
Speaker 1: going to happen. So that part of it he gets right.
Speaker 1: But then also on political correctness as a cancer on
Speaker 1: the left, it's absolutely the case. Political correctness is completely
Speaker 1: out of control across the country. I don't even know
Speaker 1: what's acceptable anymore. And I can tell you that I've
Speaker 1: had a few incidents here or there with maybe perhaps
Speaker 1: you know, I won't get into the specifics of it,
Speaker 1: but where someone said, oh, well you can't say that,
Speaker 1: or a buck you know you'll get in trouble for that,
Speaker 1: And I just look at them and said, why the
Speaker 1: things that I say I stand behind percent. There's nothing
Speaker 1: that I've said that on radio or on Twitter. Twitter
Speaker 1: is usually what gets people, and that's what gets me
Speaker 1: in a little bit of a hot water sometimes because
Speaker 1: I gotta throw I gotta throw it down. You know.
Speaker 1: Twitter is a place where, sure you can communicate, but
Speaker 1: it's really a place where it's just hot takes. It's
Speaker 1: just people taking swings at the other side and see
Speaker 1: what resonates. And when you take swings, people get upset
Speaker 1: about it, all right, They get upset and they say
Speaker 1: very nasty things about you. Although I do like the
Speaker 1: the intelligence test that Twitter provides, which is that anybody,
Speaker 1: especially a journal believe it or not, they do this too. Who,
Speaker 1: in response to something I say about politics or life
Speaker 1: or whatever, comes at me with your name is stupid.
Speaker 1: This is a thing that only stupid people think and
Speaker 1: would laugh at. All right, this is something that only
Speaker 1: only a true moron goes your name well, your name
Speaker 1: is funny. Hey, you know, this is something that you
Speaker 1: come across with leftists all the time. But they have
Speaker 1: a childish approach to debate. And one of the reason
Speaker 1: they're so reliant on political correctness is that it's a
Speaker 1: means of shutting down points of view that they don't like.
Speaker 1: You can always find some tie into a politically correct
Speaker 1: narrative on any major issue, especially with the intersectional left
Speaker 1: these days. There's a way to say, you know, if
Speaker 1: nothing else, well, buck, your opinion doesn't count because you're
Speaker 1: a cis gender white Christian male. Well that I guess,
Speaker 1: then I'm my opinion shouldn't matter anymore then, And if
Speaker 1: I disagree with that notion, then I'm a bad person.
Speaker 1: So there are ways to weaponize political correctness in any discussion,
Speaker 1: in any debate, and it is done with a deep
Speaker 1: disingenuousness on a regular basis. Samara recognizes that, and I
Speaker 1: think he deserves credit for recognizing that. He's also somebody
Speaker 1: who has been able to get you know, the fact
Speaker 1: that he thinks political correctness is too much, given that
Speaker 1: he always has the good graces of the left to
Speaker 1: go back to because he's with them on ninety percent
Speaker 1: of stuff, ninety five percent of stuff. But with today's left,
Speaker 1: if you're with them ninety percent of the time, but
Speaker 1: you break with them on five percent and five percent,
Speaker 1: let's say you're either agnostic or in the middle. On
Speaker 1: you get you get on the wrong part of the
Speaker 1: news cycle, they'll want to crush you. They'll want to
Speaker 1: take you down, they'll want to finish you off, just
Speaker 1: to make an example to the others. It's madness. A normal,
Speaker 1: healthy functioning adult does not know, cannot know what the
Speaker 1: true here here, here's here's an example. I'll give you
Speaker 1: an example. I won't say what an organization. I can
Speaker 1: tell you this. It didn't happen as a result of
Speaker 1: it has nothing to do with my radio show or
Speaker 1: or my podcast or the company's involved in that. But
Speaker 1: at a previous employer, I was censured internally for referring
Speaker 1: to a female politician as quote attractive. I'm not kidding attractive.
Speaker 1: Publicly stated that a female politician was attractive, and I
Speaker 1: was told that this was a for some of the
Speaker 1: women at that organization. This was undermining, this was triggering,
Speaker 1: This was and I look at this and I say,
Speaker 1: are we really if when I say Mitt Romney's a
Speaker 1: handsome guy? Am I? You know? It'd be one thing
Speaker 1: if I'm run around calling people ugly, which is just
Speaker 1: a mean thing to do, and people shouldn't do that.
Speaker 1: But if I say Mitt Romney is handsome, am I?
Speaker 1: Am I triggering Mitt Romney? I don't think so. I mean,
Speaker 1: come on, Mitt, Mit is very Mit is very guys, ladies,
Speaker 1: let's admit this. Mit is rather statues because politics may
Speaker 1: have gone kind of weak sauce. But he's at He
Speaker 1: could definitely play the presidents in any Tom Clancy book
Speaker 1: made into a movie that was the old Potomac two
Speaker 1: Step Jack. Sorry, mister President, I don't dance. Although he's
Speaker 1: not nearly his voice is not like that that was
Speaker 1: a little too much like action hero like Stallone and
Speaker 1: Cobra or something, And that's not really how Jack Ryan sounds.
Speaker 1: I love the Jack Ryan character. The Hunt for Red
Speaker 1: October was on recently because it makes analysts in the
Speaker 1: CIA look cool. It's the only movie and the only
Speaker 1: character in history that makes CI analyst. CIA analysts look
Speaker 1: cool is Jack Ryan and the Tom Clancy stuff. Other
Speaker 1: than him, we are always like, excuse me, sir, Like
Speaker 1: excuse me, mister strong military man, can you please carry me?
Speaker 1: I think I wet myself. You know, That's that's how
Speaker 1: CI analysts are depicted in general pop culture. It's not
Speaker 1: it's not nice, it's not fair. It's totally true. In
Speaker 1: the movie Thirteen Hours, haven't even seen in Thirteen Hours
Speaker 1: the the CIA characters in that movie, they're all like, oh,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, I don't know what to do, Like there
Speaker 1: are mean people, the terrorists are coming for it. I'm like,
Speaker 1: why does this guy have an accent? He's American, he
Speaker 1: works in the CIA. I don't know. Why didn't you
Speaker 1: guys what I'm talking If you see that movie. I
Speaker 1: was just speaking to somebody in the milit her recently,
Speaker 1: about this. We were having a good laugh about it
Speaker 1: about how man it was. It was a thirteen hours
Speaker 1: was a great advertisement for XPEC spec ops guys. It
Speaker 1: did not help the CIA's analyst cadre recruiting. Excuse me,
Speaker 1: there are scary man and want to hurt me. I
Speaker 1: don't know how to use my weapon. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of that going on. Back to political correctness though, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I was told that I couldn't say that a female
Speaker 1: politician was attractive and that and that. Initially I was
Speaker 1: told that I had to make an apology, which I refused, uh,
Speaker 1: and then I was told that it would be handled.
Speaker 1: But the people involved, at least one young woman, decided
Speaker 1: to make it, make a real issue of it. And
Speaker 1: this was the real kicker, thought that for that crime,
Speaker 1: I should be fired, and anything short of that was
Speaker 1: insufficient punishment. Now to this, I say, actually, in the
Speaker 1: era of bearded, I'm gonna throw down buck. I don't
Speaker 1: really care anymore. That was kind of funny, right, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get fired from that job, Emma. Some of
Speaker 1: you are probably already figured out what job are talking about,
Speaker 1: But that's okay. We don't have to name names or
Speaker 1: name organizations. But I just thought to myself, Wow, here's
Speaker 1: somebody who is so really indecent and so nasty. She
Speaker 1: doesn't know who I am. I've never met this person,
Speaker 1: by the way, still never never, well, had had one
Speaker 1: interaction with the person that was on set and in
Speaker 1: front of a dozen people and was completely professional and normal.
Speaker 1: Never no other interaction whatsoever. And the comment about attractiveness
Speaker 1: had nothing to do with her. It had to do
Speaker 1: with a politician, a public figure, and the comment was
Speaker 1: she's attractive the public figure. And I just I thought
Speaker 1: to myself, this is where intersectional feminists have gone. Now
Speaker 1: they are They're actually cruel. There's a nastiness that's only
Speaker 1: possible because they're so deeply unhappy and so vicious, and
Speaker 1: they're so ensconced in this politically correct nonsense. You know,
Speaker 1: what if I was about to propose to my fiance
Speaker 1: saving up for a ring or saving up for a house.
Speaker 1: What if I had three kids and that was my
Speaker 1: only means of sustaining myself, I was supposed to get
Speaker 1: I should be fired for my job for saying that
Speaker 1: a woman in public life is attractive. It didn't say
Speaker 1: like a sexy babe with a great you know something
Speaker 1: something I just said attractive? Oh no, I should be
Speaker 1: fired for that. That to me was a particularly noteworthy
Speaker 1: instance of this politically correct nonsense. Run them up because
Speaker 1: it was it was taken somewhat seriously by the authority.
Speaker 1: They had to go through all the motions, and I
Speaker 1: was I was having none of it. I'm go go
Speaker 1: through the motions. It's just ridiculous. You want me to
Speaker 1: you want me to act like I'm I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: what we're going to invest to gate the comment? But
Speaker 1: what do you think this is? If apologizing isn't enough
Speaker 1: and the only the only thing that would satisfy the
Speaker 1: professional blood lust of this vicious little harpy that wants
Speaker 1: people fired for a comment that is completely innocuous. And
Speaker 1: you know, I'm to take this seriously. I'm to take
Speaker 1: this seriously. Wow. Okay, that's the world we live in now,
Speaker 1: right then, And that's certainly the media landscape, isn't it.
Speaker 1: That's certainly the situation we find ourselves in across much
Speaker 1: of corporate America that unreasonable demands are now the norm,
Speaker 1: that unreasonable political correctness is expected, and just as is
Speaker 1: the case with any true tyranny which listeners to this show. No,
Speaker 1: A true tyranny is where you don't know what is
Speaker 1: and is not acceptable because it changes all the time. Right,
Speaker 1: it's the capricious enforcement of ever changing laws and rules,
Speaker 1: not the very strict enforcement of rules, because at least
Speaker 1: you know what to do. When the rules are very strict,
Speaker 1: you can break them or not. People have had enough.
Speaker 1: I've had enough. I have had enough with it. And
Speaker 1: there will be consequences for those of us that decide
Speaker 1: that this is too much and we don't want to
Speaker 1: live with this anymore. There won't really be consequences for
Speaker 1: Bill Maher and so that's why there needs to be
Speaker 1: some while on the one hand, I'm saying, well, we
Speaker 1: need to give him credit, sure, but he will always
Speaker 1: be welcomed back on the left. On the right, they
Speaker 1: want us erase. They want to salt the earth of
Speaker 1: our lives and our careers when we transgress the political
Speaker 1: correct politically correct gods, so to speak. And it's just wrong.
Speaker 1: It is just wrong. And Trump, for all of his flaws,
Speaker 1: although he's been a darn good president, but for all
Speaker 1: of his flaws, personally, he's a warrior on this issue
Speaker 1: and is more effective on it than anyone else. And
Speaker 1: you know why, because he will not bend the knee.
Speaker 1: And that's really what it takes. It takes someone who
Speaker 1: won't bend the knee, and who can't be destroyed because
Speaker 1: he won't. Because he won't bend the knee. It's a
Speaker 1: magical thing that Trump has has managed, and it has
Speaker 1: real implications, real ramifications in the war for freedom of conscience,
Speaker 1: freedom of thought, free speech. Just the fact that Trump
Speaker 1: won't bend to the dictates of the politically correct left
Speaker 1: is a major victory in and of itself. Hillary was
Speaker 1: a terrible candidate, that's absolutely She didn't help the situation
Speaker 1: with the emails in terms of hand and her actions
Speaker 1: absolutely right, and she committed obstruction of justice if now
Speaker 1: Trump did, I think, and much worse fashion. But you know,
Speaker 1: I mean smashing up your ear phones and your hard
Speaker 1: story about it. But it was a bad out. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: I'm not trying to do something Bill Marl love Fest today.
Speaker 1: But he's right again, this gets lost and all the discussions,
Speaker 1: all this gets lost, that it's not an accident, and
Speaker 1: then all the discussions about twenty sixteen and Russia collusion
Speaker 1: and obstruction and all this stuff. Hillary was a terrible candidate.
Speaker 1: Hillary brazenly I mean just the mendacity that she displayed
Speaker 1: with the lies that she told. I mean the way
Speaker 1: that she was willing to just look the American people
Speaker 1: in the eye and say, you know, oh, there's nothing
Speaker 1: to this email. There was nothing classified, there's nothing. She
Speaker 1: lied and lied and lied, and the media were just
Speaker 1: covering for her at every turn. The same media that
Speaker 1: no was why aren't you more upset about Trump when
Speaker 1: he lies? Well, what is Trump lying about exactly is
Speaker 1: that he's the greatest and the smartest and the best.
Speaker 1: We can make our own decisions about that. We don't
Speaker 1: consider that to be a lie. What's he lying about?
Speaker 1: That he makes the best deals? You know? They always
Speaker 1: talk about all of Trump's lies, and then I say
Speaker 1: what's the lie exactly? And then they say something that's
Speaker 1: usually an opinion, or usually them taking an exaggeration or
Speaker 1: a bit of salesmanship from Trump word for word literally,
Speaker 1: which they would never do with any other candidate, but
Speaker 1: they loved to do it with Trump. Hillary lies about
Speaker 1: big stuff. Hillary lies about things that matter, and she
Speaker 1: also clearly obstructed justice, And that tells you everything you
Speaker 1: need to know about the people involved in the email
Speaker 1: investigation of Hillary, who, by the way, were the same
Speaker 1: people at DJ involved in the Trump Russia collusion farce.
Speaker 1: Why was she destroying devices? Why was she deleting emails
Speaker 1: after they were under subpoena. She was destroying evidence. That's
Speaker 1: what that is. If Hillary Clinton were a run of
Speaker 1: the mill accounting firm and she had done the exact
Speaker 1: same stuff that she did in any kind of a
Speaker 1: federal financial fraud investigation, she'd be facing twenty years in prison.
Speaker 1: I'm not exaggerating the statutes that exist under I think
Speaker 1: it's Dodd Frank for destruction of evidence in a financial
Speaker 1: crimes casey of draconian penalties. Hillary didn't suffer any of
Speaker 1: that though. It wasn't even it wasn't even an issue.
Speaker 1: She was never going to be charged. You want to
Speaker 1: talk about above the law. They just ignored Hillary breaking
Speaker 1: the law entirely. They didn't even put it really before
Speaker 1: a serious investigator. The whole point of the investigation was
Speaker 1: to make the thing go away. It was a sham.
Speaker 1: It was a scam. The whole investigation of Hillary's emails
Speaker 1: was never serious. It was a box checking exercise that
Speaker 1: was not going to lead to charges. And unlike Trump,
Speaker 1: she wasn't the president. She was just a person, a
Speaker 1: person who was lying, and a person who was exposed
Speaker 1: for what she really was. She was a terrible candidate.
Speaker 1: She broke the law. She broke the law with the obstruction.
Speaker 1: She broke the law with I mean, that's classic, that's
Speaker 1: textbook obstruction. It's destruction of evidence. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: I got some fake news to talk to you about now, Team.
Speaker 1: This one from the colorinary world. Beyond Meat launches Meteor
Speaker 1: plant based burger. This is the vegetarian protein company that
Speaker 1: has a new version of its industry upsetting burger, which
Speaker 1: they are saying looks, taste and cooks more like beef
Speaker 1: in the original Beyond Burger quote. The new Meteor patty
Speaker 1: has marbling that melts and tenderizes just like beef and
Speaker 1: uses apple extract to deepen the brown color to better
Speaker 1: resemble hamburger meat. According to the press release, the new
Speaker 1: formula uses coconut oil and cocoa butter for a juicier
Speaker 1: mouth feel, and a blend of pea, mung beam and
Speaker 1: rice proteins to give it a more fibrous texture. I
Speaker 1: hate to be the I hate to be the bearer
Speaker 1: of bad news, but there is no such thing as
Speaker 1: a vegetarian meat burger. It does not exist. A vegetarian
Speaker 1: burger cannot be meat, and it cannot in fact be meaty.
Speaker 1: And as somebody who has had to dabble in the
Speaker 1: alternative food section a fair amount because of my siliac disease,
Speaker 1: I will say this every time. The one constant is
Speaker 1: that every time you eat something that they tell you
Speaker 1: is going to taste like meat, that's not meat. You
Speaker 1: know what it tastes like, not meat, Producer Mark, I
Speaker 1: need a ruling on this, Am I correct or not? Sir?
Speaker 1: Have you ever had tofu or sight tan or anything
Speaker 1: that was supposed to taste like meat and thought to yourself, yeah,
Speaker 1: this is basically as good as meat. Not one time,
Speaker 1: never right. And yet you know that wherever you are
Speaker 1: anywhere in this great land of America, that when somebody
Speaker 1: throws a burger meat patty on a grill at a barbecue,
Speaker 1: it's going to be delicious. I mean, it's basically guaranteed
Speaker 1: to be fantastic. But when somebody pulls out of the freezer,
Speaker 1: some meat substitute. It's just it just doesn't get it done. Dude.
Speaker 1: I will tell you this. Actually I went to a
Speaker 1: I won't name it because they're very nice people who
Speaker 1: run and it's a good place. But I went to
Speaker 1: a very highly regarded vegetarian restaurant in New York City,
Speaker 1: and I mean, this place gets rave reviews. And I've
Speaker 1: actually been to a couple of blub in New York.
Speaker 1: Long story sometimes, you know, back in my New York
Speaker 1: City dating days, you know, if if a young if
Speaker 1: a young lady's like I would really like to go
Speaker 1: to a vegetarian place, I'd say, oh, of course, girl,
Speaker 1: that I'm just asking out for the first time. I
Speaker 1: love vegetarian restaurant, so you know, I'd go along. And
Speaker 1: then of course I would suffer the consequences of my
Speaker 1: false of my falsehood. You know, I would have to
Speaker 1: go and sit there and nibble on rabbit food and
Speaker 1: be like, hm, I just loved It's like little mushroom
Speaker 1: paste wrapped in this weird green sort of lettuce looking thing.
Speaker 1: You know. It's just I'll tell you that, the one
Speaker 1: constant I have whenever I've gone to a vegetarian restaurant
Speaker 1: is I leave and doesn't matter how much I eat,
Speaker 1: I am still hungry. I'm still hungry now. I know
Speaker 1: there are ways that we see. I can't eat bread, right,
Speaker 1: so I can't eat the carbs that people eat to
Speaker 1: fill them up at some of these places. So, but
Speaker 1: when you're relying on protein from vegetables and eating things,
Speaker 1: what we ask a vegetarian, what are the foods that
Speaker 1: you can eat that mimic meat, that are supposed to
Speaker 1: be the closest thing to meat. They'll say things like
Speaker 1: a portobello mushroom. To that, I always want to say,
Speaker 1: a portobello mushroom is a nice accoutrement for whatever meat
Speaker 1: I'm eating, you know, cut up your portobellos and put
Speaker 1: them with my chart grilled steak. You know, I'm just
Speaker 1: not somebody that can get excited about mush si tan. Also,
Speaker 1: by the way, I don't I mean they should use
Speaker 1: that to plug holes in plumbing or something. I mean,
Speaker 1: si tan is not something anybody should get to say
Speaker 1: and tofu that's right I have. There are a few
Speaker 1: things team that you know. I hate mosquitos because there's
Speaker 1: no need for them at all. The ecology and birds
Speaker 1: and blah. But no, no, no, there's all there's a
Speaker 1: who knows how many different species of insects we could
Speaker 1: lose mosquitos. All right, one day, when Buck is president,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna do a Biden here and just promise crazy things.
Speaker 1: When Buck is president, I'm going to eradicate all mosquitos.
Speaker 1: I'll make you this promise right now. I will eradicate
Speaker 1: all the mosquitos. That's right. But you know the other
Speaker 1: thing that we could do without is tofu. Tofu is gross.
Speaker 1: There's no need for it, all right. Tofu creates estrogen
Speaker 1: production in men. So yeah, eat that. Tofu feel healthy.
Speaker 1: You're saving the planet. You're slowly growing man boobs. That's
Speaker 1: what tofu does. I'm not trying to be inflammatory, although
Speaker 1: there is some inflammation that will occur as a result
Speaker 1: of the growth of your man boobs from the tofu eating.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying. You don't have to agree with me,
Speaker 1: but I'm right. The show ain't over yet. Keep it
Speaker 1: it real. It's time for roll call Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton. That's how you do roll call. Also
Speaker 1: just with a lot of enthusiasm and lust for life.
Speaker 1: That's how you do roll Call. Remember that song back
Speaker 1: in the nineties, and I guess it's an iggy pop song.
Speaker 1: But it made a return because of trains Spotting, which
Speaker 1: is not a very good movie, but I saw it.
Speaker 1: I've seen a lot of bad movies. John first, up
Speaker 1: here Shields Hie real news fan. Alright, here we go,
Speaker 1: come up the coast. Had a few laughs. Now we're
Speaker 1: seeing California. They're going to start giving benefits to illegals. Start.
Speaker 1: This has been going on for who knows how long.
Speaker 1: This simply is the next layer, or it will become
Speaker 1: that we must give them taxpayer benefits and then the
Speaker 1: right to vote. All of this, of course, was put
Speaker 1: in motion the day they realized Hillary lost. Yeah, there's
Speaker 1: been a lot of stuff given to illegals for a
Speaker 1: long time, but we're always told and we are led
Speaker 1: to believe that that's not true. That's a myth that
Speaker 1: illegals there's no problem, blah blah, they don't get any
Speaker 1: stuff that they're not supposed to. Well, let's just not reality.
Speaker 1: So there, you haven't agree with you on that one.
Speaker 1: But now it's going to be out in the open.
Speaker 1: It'll be official policy, it will be what we are
Speaker 1: told now has to happen that illegals deserve taxpayer funded healthcare.
Speaker 1: And to this, I ask, well, now, if you can
Speaker 1: stay in the country, just if you can get here.
Speaker 1: So if the new Democrat position on these matters is
Speaker 1: if you get here, you can stay, and if you
Speaker 1: can stay, you can get access to taxpayer funded healthcare,
Speaker 1: what is the benefit to being a citizen of this country? Now?
Speaker 1: I really mean that. Start to play that one out
Speaker 1: in your heir. What's the upside if you can get
Speaker 1: state benefits and you don't have to go through the
Speaker 1: immigration process and you're never going to be prosecuted for
Speaker 1: failure to pay taxes because you're an illegal? What is
Speaker 1: it or failure to file taxes? What's the downside of
Speaker 1: being in illegal here versus what's the upside of being
Speaker 1: a citizen. There's some there's some questions worth asking, and
Speaker 1: I think that that's one of the things we do
Speaker 1: here on the show. We ask the questions that are
Speaker 1: worth asking. Adam Right's buck on Friday, after the first break,
Speaker 1: he played a montage of Damn's talking about planned parenthood.
Speaker 1: In the mix was a contraceptive care comment. Do you
Speaker 1: think Producer Mike could pull him away from all the
Speaker 1: ladies long enough to get that full clip might be
Speaker 1: gold Shields High. I'll ask producer Mike. I don't know
Speaker 1: exactly what that clip is, but he's he pulls a
Speaker 1: lot of our montages together. So whenever you need a
Speaker 1: montage that comes from producer Mike, we'll ask him. I
Speaker 1: don't know. You gotta find out, Eric, buck Love the show.
Speaker 1: Part of the massive appeal of your show, along with
Speaker 1: the laser precise analysis and succinct, succinct articulation, apparently it's
Speaker 1: not so succinct or articulate, is richness of content? Why
Speaker 1: so many lib nut job sound bites on Monday Show?
Speaker 1: Hilary Bernie betto book Er Quartet is trying to pull
Speaker 1: my ears off Shields High. Well, Eric, we're in the
Speaker 1: midst of a Democrat primary and we've got to analyze
Speaker 1: what the other side thinks and says, and so that's
Speaker 1: why we put some of the libs, more of the
Speaker 1: libs in the mix than we normally would in terms
Speaker 1: of sound bites. So I'll try to keep that in
Speaker 1: mind though, and make sure that there's not too much
Speaker 1: of that stuff going on, because I agree it can
Speaker 1: sometimes be a little dispiriting when you feel like all
Speaker 1: you're here and is from Betto and burn in the
Speaker 1: whole squad. But it was like, I just want my
Speaker 1: voice to be a part of the montage. And then
Speaker 1: Bernie's like, why can't you just play all the things
Speaker 1: that I'm saying? Why am I not number one? Why
Speaker 1: is Biden at the top of the chalks? This is crazy?
Speaker 1: You know, who else do we have there? I gotta
Speaker 1: think of some other who else can we do a
Speaker 1: good impersonation of? It's running right now? You know? For example,
Speaker 1: is it even is it even theoretically possible to do
Speaker 1: a good hicken Looper impersonation? Does anybody know what hick
Speaker 1: and Looper sounds like? How many of you even know
Speaker 1: what he looks don't google him? How many of you
Speaker 1: even know what he looks like off the top of
Speaker 1: your head? And then there's Bennett. There's a bunch of
Speaker 1: other candidates. Do you do you think you could if
Speaker 1: someone did a perfect in fact, forget about an impersonation.
Speaker 1: I bet they are about half a dozen Democrat candidates
Speaker 1: at least that if I put them on this radio show,
Speaker 1: they're they're audio byte on the show of them talking.
Speaker 1: Not only would many of you not be able to
Speaker 1: and I'm not hooking fun now, that would you not
Speaker 1: know who it was. I wouldn't know who it was.
Speaker 1: Like if the producers played the game of name that Democrat,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be able to do it with a lot
Speaker 1: of them. I wouldn't be able to tell you who's
Speaker 1: I mean Swallwell, we could pick out swallowll. You can
Speaker 1: cut an impression of it's like, well, Hi, I just
Speaker 1: I just sit here and try to tell the men
Speaker 1: of America, No, it's not doesn't sound like swallow at all.
Speaker 1: I know what he sounds like though. He just sounds
Speaker 1: like he just sounds like a beta male nerd. But
Speaker 1: it's not enough. There's not enough grist for the impression
Speaker 1: mill with him. All Right, I got a little bit
Speaker 1: off track there that that can happen to me, James
Speaker 1: writes Buck. They're making kids weak by taking away accomplishments
Speaker 1: and also taking away valedictorian status on schools because the
Speaker 1: Libs cannot handle losing, like how they cannot handle President Trump.
Speaker 1: And the only way what's his face that the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party will win is to impeach President Trump because they
Speaker 1: are weak Trump. All they want to do is cheat.
Speaker 1: You don't learn anything from cheating from WGY. Cobbles Skill,
Speaker 1: cobble skill. Rather, pardon me, New York Shields High. Let's
Speaker 1: play some dodgeball. Well, thank you James for listening on
Speaker 1: WGY in the upstate New York. I always appreciate having
Speaker 1: fellow New Yorkers listening into the show. Mike Right, Hey,
Speaker 1: Buck love the show. Daily podcast listener here, just had
Speaker 1: a thought. If the left wants us to pay for abortions,
Speaker 1: shouldn't we make the case for subsidized gun purchases or
Speaker 1: flat out buy guns for those who can't afford it
Speaker 1: or who want it or need it. Using their logic,
Speaker 1: it seems to me the people's right to protect themselves
Speaker 1: and their families overrides their moral objection to guns, especially
Speaker 1: especially in light of the fact it's actually an amendment
Speaker 1: and not judicial fiat. I'm pretty sure there have been
Speaker 1: more debts caused by abortion than guns in civilian hands
Speaker 1: in the US. Wouldn't really want this to happen, but
Speaker 1: it could be fun. Patrol lives with Shields High. Yeah, Mark.
Speaker 1: People do point this out that if if you have
Speaker 1: a constitutional right to not just an abortion, but a
Speaker 1: constitutional right to someone else paying for your abortion. Then
Speaker 1: why doesn't that constitutional interpretation extend to other things, like,
Speaker 1: for example, the right to keep and bear arms. Can
Speaker 1: I just demand from a state that I want a
Speaker 1: brand new let me think I want who This could
Speaker 1: be fun? I mean, just for starters, A nice Glock
Speaker 1: nineteen would be kind of fun. I could maybe do
Speaker 1: a sig so hour, you know, would be would be cool.
Speaker 1: Maybe a six hour two two six. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of different options that I would I'd be willing maybe
Speaker 1: a Heckler and Coke VP nine that would be kind
Speaker 1: of a fun one, or or an HK forty five.
Speaker 1: I know, there's a whole bunch, and the state can
Speaker 1: just pay for it and send it to me because
Speaker 1: I have a right to bear arms, So that means
Speaker 1: I have a right to have taxpayers send me the
Speaker 1: arms that I have a right to bear. Liberals have
Speaker 1: no real response to this, by the way, other than
Speaker 1: to just get very angry at you and say that
Speaker 1: you're a troglodyte and you hate women. And whenever they
Speaker 1: say this, whenever it lives, accusing you of hating women.
Speaker 1: I just always want to tell them I'm rather fond
Speaker 1: of women. Actually, I think women are great. I don't
Speaker 1: know where you would get this idea, because it's so
Speaker 1: crazy that I don't even know how you could think
Speaker 1: it for a second. But here we are. Let us see,
Speaker 1: shall we There's more. I have to go into the
Speaker 1: unread box under the same ones. Steve. Oh, Steve, this
Speaker 1: is very long, so I cannot read it on AIRB
Speaker 1: Thank you very The anti American left is a cult,
Speaker 1: Steve writes me. Okay, well that may be true, but
Speaker 1: I don't have time to get into the whole thing.
Speaker 1: If you guys want to make it on the roll call,
Speaker 1: you got to keep it about two hundred and fifty
Speaker 1: words or last more like two hundred words, or lasses
Speaker 1: and the sweet spots probably about one hundred and fifty words. Brendan, Right,
Speaker 1: there's a CEO and contempt of court and Charlotte, North
Speaker 1: Carolina for not taking down the US flag if interested
Speaker 1: putting that out there. Being a vet and a deputy,
Speaker 1: this infuriates me. I don't know, Brendan about this story,
Speaker 1: but I will try to pull some stuff on it
Speaker 1: so I know what you are talking about. Thank you
Speaker 1: for bringing it to my attention, Randy rites, what could
Speaker 1: you possibly have against the horse I wrote in on
Speaker 1: regarding the curmudgeon that hates Barbados the other day he
Speaker 1: also called me edit piss what Randy? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know what you're drinking, my friend, but I
Speaker 1: could use a swig right about now. Alan, The Mexican
Speaker 1: delegation meeting with pants while millions of illegals flows in
Speaker 1: reminds me of the Japanese delegation meeting with Secretary of
Speaker 1: State Cordell Hall right up until thirty minutes before the
Speaker 1: attack on Pearl Harbor began. We better call bs. Yeah, Look,
Speaker 1: Mexico doesn't view its interest as aligned with US when
Speaker 1: it comes to preventing illegal immigration. Illegal immigration is our problem,
Speaker 1: and they don't want to make it their problem. And
Speaker 1: they also think that in many ways they benefit from it.
Speaker 1: So they're not a particularly good partner on this one. Now,
Speaker 1: let's see what else we have here. Jason is asking me,
Speaker 1: did you ever finish Dune? It's one of the best
Speaker 1: sci fi books I have ever read. Jason. I got
Speaker 1: a couple of hundred pages left, but you're reminding me
Speaker 1: that I do need to finish it, so I will
Speaker 1: get to that, hopefully this weekend. Fiona. Fiona, you mentioned
Speaker 1: the other day that you've never read any Stephen King.
Speaker 1: While he's not usually for me either, I do highly
Speaker 1: recommend The Stand, the best Stephen King ever. Love your show.
Speaker 1: I've been following you since Real News Fiona up in
Speaker 1: Montana and she has an American flag as her avatar. Fiona,
Speaker 1: thank you so much, and I will put that on
Speaker 1: my list. I have a list of books and a
Speaker 1: list of shows that I keep because otherwise I just
Speaker 1: forget and I never can remember when I have the
Speaker 1: time to add something in the queue. My book stack
Speaker 1: right now is just is just bursting with stuff, and
Speaker 1: I'm getting a little behind. I have not been the lean,
Speaker 1: mean reading machine lately in terms of books. I have
Speaker 1: to read all day for this and for this show,
Speaker 1: news stories, editorials, articles, research, but old school books, I
Speaker 1: have not been churning through them at the speed I'd
Speaker 1: like to, so I'm that does frustrate me. But thank
Speaker 1: you so much for the recommendation about the Stand. I
Speaker 1: will check it out stand in the place where you were.
Speaker 1: You guys, remember that one of the most annoying songs
Speaker 1: of all time. That's right, I said it, one of
Speaker 1: the most annoying of all time. Tomorrow show is going
Speaker 1: to be fantastic. That is a promise that I know
Speaker 1: I can make and keep, so I will talk to
Speaker 1: you then, Team Shields high,