Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Green New Deal
Speaker 1: is an amazing idea, except the Democrats themselves don't want
Speaker 1: to implement it apparently. We'll talk about the latest shenanigans
Speaker 1: from the far left in this country, and also some
Speaker 1: updates on the Jose Smallett mega hoax and the border
Speaker 1: situation is spiraling out of control. That are more coming
Speaker 1: up for you on the Buck Sexton Show. This is
Speaker 1: the buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission is
Speaker 1: to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no
Speaker 1: mistake American. Bring You're a great American again. The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No year ago,
Speaker 1: I was waiting interesting in a taco shop in downtown Manhattan.
Speaker 1: I just got health insurance for the first time a
Speaker 1: month ago. This is not an elitist issue. Tell that
Speaker 1: to the families in Flint whose kids have their blood
Speaker 1: is ascending in lead levels, their brains are damaged for
Speaker 1: the rest of their lives. Called them elitist. You're telling
Speaker 1: them that those kids are trying to get on a
Speaker 1: plane to Davos. People are dying. They are dying. And
Speaker 1: the response across the other side of the aisle is
Speaker 1: to introduce an amendment five minutes before a hearing in
Speaker 1: a markup. This is serious. This should not be a
Speaker 1: partisan issue. Welcome to the buck, Sex and show everybody
Speaker 1: there you had the day factor. A leader of the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, twenty eight year old Alexandria Ocasio Cortez or
Speaker 1: is she twenty seven? I can't remember lecturing us on
Speaker 1: how people are dying. That's what's at stake with her
Speaker 1: Green New Deal nonsense, that people are dying. She says, well,
Speaker 1: first of all, of course, people are dying all of
Speaker 1: the world. That's that happens. But I think what she
Speaker 1: means is if we don't take action as laid out
Speaker 1: in this Green New Deal, this massive template of environ
Speaker 1: Oh she's twenty nine, thanks producer Michael was a year
Speaker 1: off environmental socialism. Right. If we don't jump down that
Speaker 1: rabbit hole, if we don't decide that that's the way
Speaker 1: we're gonna go, then then we are responsible. Then we
Speaker 1: have the blood of people on our hands, because as
Speaker 1: she says, people are dying. That is the claim that
Speaker 1: she makes. That is what we are supposed to be
Speaker 1: acting on. But if that were the case, what I
Speaker 1: would present to you is, shouldn't Democrats and take every
Speaker 1: opportunity right away to take action on this issue. Shouldn't
Speaker 1: the Democrats move as quickly as they can to push
Speaker 1: as far as they can on the issue of the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal. Oh but that's right. When Mitch McConnell
Speaker 1: holds a vote, keep in mind that there's not going
Speaker 1: to be any real legislation that goes forward between now
Speaker 1: in the election, because no major policy legislation at least,
Speaker 1: I don't think infrastructure is going to happen because you've
Speaker 1: got a divided a divided Congress. Right, so we all
Speaker 1: know this. We're all big boys and girls, we understand this.
Speaker 1: But Mitch McConnell says, Okay, you guys love your Green
Speaker 1: New Deals so much. I've got an idea. Let's vote
Speaker 1: on your Green New Deal. And so they had this
Speaker 1: vote and Republicans all voted one way and the Democrats
Speaker 1: voted in the Senate voted present. Now why is this
Speaker 1: so telling? Why is this important? And give give Cocaine
Speaker 1: Mitch some credit. He knows And if you don't know
Speaker 1: why we call him Cocaine Mitch's because one of his
Speaker 1: competitors in a Senate race ransom crazy commercial about how
Speaker 1: some company he owned somewhere, somehow someone found cocaine somewhere.
Speaker 1: It's it's insane, but it's kind of become an insider
Speaker 1: a nickname for him in DC. And it's funny because
Speaker 1: he's he's the least cocaine like guy I think you
Speaker 1: could ever find. But but Mitch McConnell knows. The Democrats
Speaker 1: love the Green New Deal to appeal to their base,
Speaker 1: so that billionaire mega donors, guys like Tom Steyer and
Speaker 1: others who are all into this Green New Deal lunacy
Speaker 1: because it's it's I'm here to tell you, the same
Speaker 1: people that believe that Russia Trump collusion was real and
Speaker 1: we're sure of it, are sure about the Green New Deal.
Speaker 1: And I was right on that, and you were right
Speaker 1: on that. We're gonna be right on this one too.
Speaker 1: We are right on this one too. They have lost it.
Speaker 1: They do not understand the reality of the world around them,
Speaker 1: and they have replaced it with this existential threat of
Speaker 1: we must embrace tis twenty nine year old o'casio Cortez's
Speaker 1: vision of the economy and government, or else we're all
Speaker 1: going to die. If you look at some of the
Speaker 1: specifics in the Green New Deal, you realize that they're
Speaker 1: foolish beyond belief. I mean even Congressman Sean Duffy, who
Speaker 1: actually had I had a drink with I was gonna
Speaker 1: say a beer, but you all know I can't drink beer.
Speaker 1: I had a drink with him a few weeks back,
Speaker 1: and we televise it, so I'm not like I'm speaking
Speaker 1: out of school. And he pointed out that you know,
Speaker 1: this Green New Deal, you better be a fancy Palo
Speaker 1: Alto type if you're really going to do this, because
Speaker 1: it's gonna be very expensive. Play twelve. The Green New
Speaker 1: Deal is one that if you're a rich liberal from
Speaker 1: maybe in New York or California, it sounds great because
Speaker 1: you can afford to retrofit your home or build a
Speaker 1: new home that has a zero emissions that's energy efficient,
Speaker 1: affordable and safe. Yeah for you, it's great for you.
Speaker 1: It's a producer. Mike ask a great question. Do we
Speaker 1: think do we think that Okazia Cortez knows what country
Speaker 1: Davos is in that because she's heard people be like, oh, Davo,
Speaker 1: it's like all the fancy people and there are private
Speaker 1: jets go to Davaos. Does she know where Davos is,
Speaker 1: I would mike. If I get the chance, I'll ask her. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I get that. If she thinks it's in Connecticut or something.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, Davos, Connecticut's lovely this time of year. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think. I think. I think you raised a good one.
Speaker 1: So you know this is this is though, if you're well,
Speaker 1: why does this matter? It matters because of this, because
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal is really just about the left
Speaker 1: wing base getting fire hired up, getting those donations, rolling
Speaker 1: the demagoguery of the left on all these different issues
Speaker 1: brought under this false existential threat of climate change, and
Speaker 1: it gives them an ability to pretend to have serious
Speaker 1: and transformational ideas when they really don't. What do the
Speaker 1: Libs really want? Medicare for all and the Green New Deal, Well,
Speaker 1: Medicare for all is just expanding an already existing but
Speaker 1: unsustainable and far too expensive government program and in the
Speaker 1: process eliminating the private health insurance market, which is a
Speaker 1: disastrous idea and people don't want. And the Green New
Speaker 1: Deal is kind of whatever they say it is, but
Speaker 1: they don't want to be held to it. They don't
Speaker 1: want to be asked questions about it. They just want
Speaker 1: to talk about it when they want to, whether it's
Speaker 1: Warren or Corey Booker or Kamala Harris or you name it.
Speaker 1: They just want to be able to say the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal is so important, so they get applause from
Speaker 1: the far left. But they don't want to be asked
Speaker 1: questions like okay, what trade offs will you make for
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal? How serious are you really about
Speaker 1: this Green New Deal? They don't want to answer questions.
Speaker 1: They don't want to have to be pushed on matters
Speaker 1: of policy. They just want the credit for standing tall
Speaker 1: and saving the world and all this other complete nonsense.
Speaker 1: I mean, it is just transparent garbage from them. But
Speaker 1: this is what liberals get used to. They get used
Speaker 1: to a talking point that they can run around with
Speaker 1: and feel like they're so brave and tall and wonderful.
Speaker 1: And the moment that you say, well, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: what do you really what do you really mean by that?
Speaker 1: They go, oh my gosh, why are you so terrible?
Speaker 1: Why do you want to help all the oil and
Speaker 1: gas companies while people are dying out there? AOC stupid
Speaker 1: but powerful and dangerous to this country? Don't forget it.
Speaker 1: Just because he has not been criminally indicted for collusion
Speaker 1: doesn't mean he has conducted colluding types of behavior with
Speaker 1: the Russians. I agree with Bob Mueller. I accept his
Speaker 1: report that the President did not commit criminal collusion. But
Speaker 1: if the best day of his presidency is that he's
Speaker 1: not been indicted for criminal collusion, we still have problems.
Speaker 1: Let's see the full report as soon as possible with
Speaker 1: the president immediately. I love it. Man. Representative Swalwell there,
Speaker 1: who is one of these guys who's look, he got
Speaker 1: very well known on this issue. He's become famous because
Speaker 1: of collusion. He's one of the collusion conspiracy theorists out there.
Speaker 1: But Representative Swalwell is you know, he's out there and
Speaker 1: he's sticking to his guns on this. Man. Oh my gosh.
Speaker 1: Just because just because there was a criminal collusion, it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that there wasn't you know collusion. First of all,
Speaker 1: collusion is not even a crime, it's criminal conspiracy. And yes,
Speaker 1: if Bob Muller, after all this stuff that he went through,
Speaker 1: after all the stuff that he put the Trump administration through,
Speaker 1: if he did not find a criminal conspiracy, any normal
Speaker 1: person needs to admit, no, there wasn't one. This would
Speaker 1: not be a hard thing to figure out. This would
Speaker 1: not be difficult, by the way, And anyone who takes
Speaker 1: a step back and says, if we're talking about a
Speaker 1: button buttoned up or buttoned down on whichever one makes
Speaker 1: more sense there. But if we're talking about somebody who
Speaker 1: is going to run a very well oiled machine and
Speaker 1: a ship with no leaks, trust me that the Trump
Speaker 1: campaign is not that thing. The Trump campaign colluding with
Speaker 1: Russia and not leaving a giant Neon pink sign as
Speaker 1: a trail is not possible, all right. You know, I
Speaker 1: talked to Carter Page today for quite a while. He
Speaker 1: was on set with us for about twenty minutes, and
Speaker 1: you know, I really like, you know, he's a very
Speaker 1: nice guy. He's quirky, for sure, He's kind of a
Speaker 1: weird dude, but I mean that in a nice way,
Speaker 1: like he's just an unusual guy. And the fact that
Speaker 1: he I remember when those stories broke about Carter Page
Speaker 1: a possible Russian asset that anyone at the FBI, and
Speaker 1: they knew Carter Page he had helped him on a
Speaker 1: previous on previous issue, previous case anyone who thought that
Speaker 1: carter Page was, you know, a Russian asset should be
Speaker 1: removed from a position of authority right away. I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy, there is no chance, I was a no chance,
Speaker 1: No normal rational person could ever think for a second
Speaker 1: that Carter Page was in fact a Russian spy. Like
Speaker 1: you talked to this guy for a minute, and it
Speaker 1: is so transparently ridiculous. But you know, they still they
Speaker 1: were clinging to it. They were still, you know, trying
Speaker 1: to trying to make a go of it somehow. And
Speaker 1: he was the justification for the FISA warring. He was
Speaker 1: the guy that was supposed to be the one that
Speaker 1: was going to bring this all together. And he's suing now,
Speaker 1: he's suing the DNC for defamation. I hope he has
Speaker 1: other court fights ahead, and I hope he wins them,
Speaker 1: because he should. People were calling this guy a traitor.
Speaker 1: What a horrible thing to be said about somebody who
Speaker 1: did nothing wrong, nothing wrong. I mean, nobody believes Carter
Speaker 1: Page did anything wrong. You know, nobody thinks that he
Speaker 1: committed any kind of crime. There's not even an allegation
Speaker 1: of a crime. But they used the most powerful surveillance
Speaker 1: tools in the United States government's arsenal on him. The
Speaker 1: Obama administration certainly got aggressive. And as we were discussing yesterday,
Speaker 1: these were Obama officials, Obama appointees. Does anybody really think
Speaker 1: that Obama did not know about this? Did anybody really
Speaker 1: think that this did not make its way all the
Speaker 1: way up to that? Look, Trump said it yesterday. They
Speaker 1: had to know. They had to know. It's just not feasible.
Speaker 1: It's not credible that they would not have known about this, right,
Speaker 1: and that means that there was an opening for people
Speaker 1: at the very top of a national security hierarchy. There
Speaker 1: was an opening for them to engage in dirty politics.
Speaker 1: And I think what we see is they took it.
Speaker 1: They went with that opening. They decided that, yeah, you
Speaker 1: know what, that's probably probably the thing to do here.
Speaker 1: That's what they did. And will there be accountability for
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think so. I wish I could
Speaker 1: say otherwise, but I don't think so. That said, I
Speaker 1: also believe very strongly that we should look because if
Speaker 1: there's not at least a fear of future accountability, the
Speaker 1: next round of Democrats will do this again. Look at
Speaker 1: how successful they were this time around. I mean if
Speaker 1: things had gone a little differently, maybe they would have
Speaker 1: stopped President Trump. You know, maybe they would have been
Speaker 1: able to throw the election or create some political pressure
Speaker 1: that was just so powerful that Trump doesn't matter that
Speaker 1: he is personally up for staying in the fight. It
Speaker 1: would have forced him out of office. And even at
Speaker 1: this point you have Swallowell, it'll not backing down on collusion.
Speaker 1: Just because there's not an indictment doesn't mean there wasn't collusion, sure, buddy,
Speaker 1: So why was their collusion? Exactly? Give me now that
Speaker 1: we know see they used to say, oh, just wait
Speaker 1: for the Maula report, that's where the evidence is going
Speaker 1: to be. Now that we have the Malla report and
Speaker 1: there's no evidence, I'm just wondering, when do we get
Speaker 1: to find out what this evidence is? Right? The evidence
Speaker 1: is it in the Muller report, but it's somewhere else.
Speaker 1: There's there's some other evidence of collusion somewhere. Who who
Speaker 1: believes this stuff? And speaking of holding the other side accountable?
Speaker 1: You know Rudy whom I also got to hang out
Speaker 1: this week, got a great photo of it. I saw
Speaker 1: him in the Greenham last night at Fox. I saw
Speaker 1: him a few days ago on rising. You know, Rudy
Speaker 1: and I were hanging out. Um, Rudy takes a different
Speaker 1: approach to Muller than everybody else as well. Play clip eleven.
Speaker 1: Not that he acted honorably, I would have to disagree with.
Speaker 1: I thought their treatment of Mantafort was way over the top.
Speaker 1: I think that shouldn't be allowed. We have been fed
Speaker 1: this whole story for so long that Mueller is amazing,
Speaker 1: and Mueller is the guy that you know, you know
Speaker 1: you can you know you can count on, and that
Speaker 1: he acts so honorably all the time, and he's such
Speaker 1: a wonderful human being and all this stuff. We've been
Speaker 1: fed this whole thing, But why is that true? Has
Speaker 1: had they an't even ever stopped to think maybe that,
Speaker 1: you know, Mueller hates Trump the same way that now I.
Speaker 1: Just because he didn't have the evidence to indict him
Speaker 1: doesn't mean he doesn't hate him. M Mueller might have
Speaker 1: disliked Trump the same way that Peter Struck or James
Speaker 1: Comey or you know, these guys, these very these very
Speaker 1: uptight FBI guys at the top of the bureau. They're
Speaker 1: not gonna like a guy like Trump. You know, they
Speaker 1: don't like guys that break the rules and live life
Speaker 1: their own way and all that. They don't like that
Speaker 1: rogue behavior. Trust me, I don't like that stuff at
Speaker 1: the CIA either. The line that he threw in there
Speaker 1: about maybe you know, we're not going to exonerate him
Speaker 1: we're not gonna not exonerate him on on the issue
Speaker 1: of obstruction that was that was there was a bitterness
Speaker 1: in that. That was meant to be a kind of
Speaker 1: poison pill left behind in that report. So and the
Speaker 1: way they've treated mana Ford who's rudy told me he's
Speaker 1: in solitary confinement. That's crazy. Keeping this old man in
Speaker 1: solitary confinement. What purpose does that serve? Because they think
Speaker 1: that he might have done some window stampering. He needs
Speaker 1: to be commuted right now, commuted sentence to time served,
Speaker 1: you know, and let out a prison, let him back
Speaker 1: with his family, and and let me be very clear
Speaker 1: about this general, Michael Flynn should be out of all
Speaker 1: legal jeopardy forthwith. He should be pardoned. They ambushed him,
Speaker 1: They abused the professional courtesy that he extended to the
Speaker 1: FBI under the false pretenses of an investigation. A logan
Speaker 1: act to take down a decorated American warrior. No, not
Speaker 1: on my watch. General Flynn should be pardoned. I'll do
Speaker 1: everything I can to get that word out and far.
Speaker 1: I'm going to get the word President Trump. I know
Speaker 1: he's hearing it from other people, but I want to
Speaker 1: get it to him myself, because General Flynn needs to
Speaker 1: be pardoned. We'll have more for you coming up. He's
Speaker 1: a person, He's a person that brought this forward. Now
Speaker 1: I remind you all. He goes back to also a letter.
Speaker 1: The evidence came forward, a grand jury saw the evidence,
Speaker 1: realized this was a host a hoes on the city,
Speaker 1: a hoe on hate, friends, a host of people of
Speaker 1: good values. That's right, is without a doubt, a whitewasher
Speaker 1: justice and sends a clear message that if you're in
Speaker 1: a position of influence and power, you'll get treated one way.
Speaker 1: Other people will be treated another way. Mister Smollett is
Speaker 1: still saying that he is innocent, still running down the
Speaker 1: Chicago Police Department. How dare him? How dare him? This
Speaker 1: is an unbelievable not just whitewasher justice. This is a
Speaker 1: person now who's been let off scott free, with no
Speaker 1: sense of accountability of the moral and ethical raw of
Speaker 1: his actions. Not only that Jesse Smollett Folks is thinking
Speaker 1: about suing the city of Chicago. I saw today. This
Speaker 1: is appalling, but this is what happens when you get
Speaker 1: somebody who's a very connected, protected special treatment democrat in
Speaker 1: the Chicago machine politics machinery. It kind of lost my
Speaker 1: you know what I meant. This is from Fox News today.
Speaker 1: Chicago police came out swinging Wednesday, released the full sixty
Speaker 1: one page investigative report and he alleged Jesse Smollett hate
Speaker 1: crime hoax, one day after charges against the Empire Star
Speaker 1: were dramatically dropped. About an hour after the department released
Speaker 1: a file, Chicago police portly became subject of a court
Speaker 1: order from that barred them from releasing further files, even
Speaker 1: though they were widely available online. Yeah. The dismissal of
Speaker 1: charges against Smollett over the allegitactor with swift backlash. The
Speaker 1: police file, some of which were redacted to remove witness
Speaker 1: names and personal information, laid out steps taken by detectives
Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of what happened on the
Speaker 1: night of January twenty ninth. The report revealed new details
Speaker 1: about the police obtaining a search warrant for Smolett's iCloud
Speaker 1: account and then sharing the data with the FBI. The
Speaker 1: report also provided fresh details about the thirty five hundred
Speaker 1: dollar check that Smolette wrote able Osandi ro and Ola
Speaker 1: Bingo Osandero. The brothers claimed they were paid to carry
Speaker 1: out the attack on Smolette, those Smolets, that the money
Speaker 1: was just personal training. This is I mean, I knew
Speaker 1: this was going to happen, and that's it should happen.
Speaker 1: They should get I mean, somebody obviously needs they need
Speaker 1: to disleak all this stuff. This needs to just be
Speaker 1: aired out entirely, that this smug, sanctimonious, self righteous little
Speaker 1: punk Jesse Smolette is now doing the whole I was
Speaker 1: always truthful and I'm going to fight for justice. And
Speaker 1: you know, liberals get better heroes. Really, yeah, I just
Speaker 1: just stop putting people forward for all the rest of
Speaker 1: us to think are so great into worship and everything
Speaker 1: who are just awful. You know, just get better heroes.
Speaker 1: That's really one of the takeaways I have from all this.
Speaker 1: The st the Smallette situation is just such a classic case.
Speaker 1: And you know, we know what else annoys me too
Speaker 1: about this is that of all these people that this
Speaker 1: happens are so well, you know other people. You know,
Speaker 1: this happens all the day, all the time, except it
Speaker 1: happens to people with white privilege. No, it doesn't. This
Speaker 1: does not happen all the time. You do not get
Speaker 1: people who say that don't know what the heck you
Speaker 1: are talking? What the heck they're talking about? Right? That
Speaker 1: is just not true. That is not true. You do
Speaker 1: not have a grand jury bring down an initial indictment
Speaker 1: of seventeen felony counts and then without anybody being involved,
Speaker 1: they're talking about anything, all of a sudden, the prosecutor
Speaker 1: drops all charges, does not inform the investigative agency, and
Speaker 1: has the court seal the proceedings right away, so no
Speaker 1: one gets to see anything, and no anything. I mean this,
Speaker 1: It could not be a more obvious hit. What happened here?
Speaker 1: And yes there's Look, there's a connection into the Obama
Speaker 1: power structure in Chicago, and you and Michelle Obama's chief
Speaker 1: of staff, who there are now calls for a federal
Speaker 1: investigation of her weighing in here. And this is the
Speaker 1: Chicago way. You know that this guy is a smolette,
Speaker 1: is connected and he's done events with the Obama's and
Speaker 1: you know, he is very much part of the Chicago
Speaker 1: power structure. So it's just a it's just amazing. It's
Speaker 1: it's amazing that this person holds any kind of public trust.
Speaker 1: Is also just mind boggling that this this prosecutor Fox
Speaker 1: is her last name fo x x, and this is
Speaker 1: utterly mind boggling that this that this happened the way
Speaker 1: that it did, that that Jesse Smollett is able to
Speaker 1: walk away, and that he's so dumb as to claim
Speaker 1: that this is vindication for him. M Yeah, the files
Speaker 1: this morning were the last ones that we're gonna get
Speaker 1: from the cops because yesterday's ordered to seal the docs
Speaker 1: initially was believed to not apply to the city of Chicago,
Speaker 1: but now there's an updated order. So they made sure
Speaker 1: that this is a shutdown a shutdown can be. They
Speaker 1: don't want anyone to know because this guy's a Hoaxter.
Speaker 1: We're not idiots, We're not idiots. Chicago authorities also I
Speaker 1: see here, according to a Townhall dot com or shocked
Speaker 1: because the case file has from their records database like
Speaker 1: it never existed. They made this thing. Nobody has this
Speaker 1: kind of power in the justice system. They have made
Speaker 1: this thing actually disappear. They didn't make it just kind
Speaker 1: of go away or not that big of a thing.
Speaker 1: They made this disappear. It's like it never happened. Apparently
Speaker 1: the Assistant States Attorney's office in Chicago is asking employees
Speaker 1: for other examples like this. They sent this out this
Speaker 1: according to my friend Emily Zanati, he has been covering
Speaker 1: this very closely over the Daily Wire. We are looking
Speaker 1: for examples of cases felony preferable where, in exercising our discretion,
Speaker 1: we've entered into verbal agreements with defense attorneys to dismiss
Speaker 1: charges if conditions were met. Please ask your assays that
Speaker 1: they have examples of these type of dispositions, and when
Speaker 1: work with them to figure out what case it was
Speaker 1: done on. Nobody's in trouble. We're looking for further examples
Speaker 1: of how we as prosecutors. Yeah, that's right. They're desperate
Speaker 1: to try to find some way to make it seem
Speaker 1: like this wasn't the most special kind of justice imaginable
Speaker 1: for Jesse Smollett. That's what they were doing here, That's
Speaker 1: what this is really all about. And I just I
Speaker 1: just have to say you know what, what a what
Speaker 1: a horrendous example. This is for really everybody about what
Speaker 1: really goes on in our justice system and how the
Speaker 1: way that you can abuse it if you happen to
Speaker 1: be connected and if you happen to be powerful. I mean,
Speaker 1: there should be so much shame here, But obviously there's
Speaker 1: there's no shame from Jesse Smollett. He is out there lecturing,
Speaker 1: lecturing all the rest of us about this and acting
Speaker 1: like he's done nothing wrong. Look, I'm just glad team.
Speaker 1: We were right. We were right all along. You know,
Speaker 1: we were right about this one. We were right when
Speaker 1: we were saying that he's a liar and this was
Speaker 1: a hoax. And here we are here, we are now
Speaker 1: finally able to say that the justice system looks terrible
Speaker 1: and it isn't. It is not, in fact just quote
Speaker 1: rich white guys who get away with murder. And it's
Speaker 1: not just O. J. Simpson. There are people that get
Speaker 1: away with all kinds of shenanigas. Now did Justse Smallett?
Speaker 1: Is what he did the worst thing ever now I know,
Speaker 1: should he be punished. Absolutely? He denigrated hate crimes in
Speaker 1: this process. He lied and lied and lied, and we
Speaker 1: were told many times during the Russia collusion investigation that
Speaker 1: lying is a very serious crime, and what he's done overall,
Speaker 1: I think we could just say, is a terrible abuse
Speaker 1: of police resources and also hurts the public's faith in
Speaker 1: the Chicago Police Department. I mean, all of these things
Speaker 1: are real problems. All of these things are unacceptable. So
Speaker 1: I just think that it's time that somebody try to
Speaker 1: hold just so small at too account for some of
Speaker 1: this stuff. That would be quite excellent. I talked to
Speaker 1: him just a few minutes ago, the president, and he said,
Speaker 1: let it out. There'll be some things in there I
Speaker 1: think will be interesting in terms of conversations. But the
Speaker 1: bottom line here is at Muller has looked at this
Speaker 1: for two and a half years. He's concluded that no
Speaker 1: one on the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians and
Speaker 1: that the facts regarding obstruction were insufficient for him to
Speaker 1: make a decision. Therefore, there is no way you could
Speaker 1: prosecute a case if the prosecutor is unsure. No way
Speaker 1: you could prosecute a case the prosecutors unsure. Okay, that's true.
Speaker 1: This report though, this report needs to come out, my friends,
Speaker 1: This report needs to come out because we need to
Speaker 1: stop hearing the libs whine about how, oh, well the
Speaker 1: report was out there, we'd see the real truth of
Speaker 1: the Yeah, we get it all right enough enough, we
Speaker 1: know we know the game they're playing, and we don't
Speaker 1: like it, which is going to be, oh, we can't
Speaker 1: say anything now. Let's just let's avoid the reckoning that
Speaker 1: should occur. Let's avoid the reckoning that should happen, because
Speaker 1: we're going to say that we need to see this report,
Speaker 1: and the American people are going to be told that
Speaker 1: they need to wait. Just you need to wait on
Speaker 1: this thing. You know, it's just just give it some
Speaker 1: time and then we'll really be able to dig into it. No, no,
Speaker 1: we already you know the bar They were lying about
Speaker 1: this as soon as the initial judgment came out, saying, well,
Speaker 1: Barr couldn't have read this thing. Actually Barr had three
Speaker 1: weeks to read it. But that was cute that they
Speaker 1: had that initial, that initial reaction to it, that initial
Speaker 1: attempt at trying to justify why it was unacceptable that
Speaker 1: bar oh oh, or they do this. This is the
Speaker 1: latest from Nancy Pelosi that Bill Barr himself can't be
Speaker 1: trusted on an interpretation by Attorney general who is appointed
Speaker 1: for a particular job to make sure the president is
Speaker 1: above the law. We need to see the report. So
Speaker 1: that's my message to our members. I mean, just what
Speaker 1: a slander? What a slander? You know that that's why
Speaker 1: this guy was appointed to make sure the presidents above bah.
Speaker 1: So it was Rod Rosenstein in on it too, because
Speaker 1: he signed off on this. And are we supposed to
Speaker 1: believe let's really dig into this for a moment. Are
Speaker 1: we really supposed to believe that Bob Muller, with the
Speaker 1: team of highly trained and motivated prosecutors that he has,
Speaker 1: We're really supposed to believe that Bob Muller is going
Speaker 1: to sit back while the report is mischaracterized by Rosenstein
Speaker 1: and bomb Barr. I mean, does anyone really believe that?
Speaker 1: And I mean does anyone, like does Nancy Pelosi believe that?
Speaker 1: I don't think so. I don't think they're Democrats who
Speaker 1: are that dumb. They may be that dishonest, but I
Speaker 1: don't think they're that dumb. I do believe that there
Speaker 1: are some limitations to what they can convince themselves to believe.
Speaker 1: But you know, we'll have to see, We'll have to see,
Speaker 1: they are, to be sure, scrambling, scrambling to try and
Speaker 1: avoid this becoming an ongoing political liability for them. I mean,
Speaker 1: and they got a little free advice from from Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham on this from play clip nine, my Democratic friends
Speaker 1: to do let this go. There is no grand conspiracy here.
Speaker 1: Mister Barr is a great man. He served this country
Speaker 1: for decades. He's very honorable. He's just telling you what
Speaker 1: Muller found after two and a half years. Now. I'll
Speaker 1: say this. If they don't accept this and they keep
Speaker 1: wanting an outcome in spite of the evidence, they're going
Speaker 1: to get President Trump reelected on this issue alone. I
Speaker 1: wish that were true, meaning that I wish what Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham was saying there was I can't tell you that.
Speaker 1: I think it is true, though, And here's why libs
Speaker 1: are crazy. Maybe that that should I should probably put
Speaker 1: that the top of the show. Welcome the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Lives are crazy. But no, the liberal mind has really
Speaker 1: been broken by Trump. The collective collectivists liberal mind has
Speaker 1: been been fractured into a million little pieces. And wasn't
Speaker 1: that a book, by the way, Brandon, Remember that was
Speaker 1: it wasn't that the book that went on Oprah and
Speaker 1: then the guy wasn't really about him or something? You
Speaker 1: know I'm talking about anyway? Yeah? Right? Is it wasn't
Speaker 1: it called a million a million Little Pieces? I think so.
Speaker 1: I'm thinking of the Park version though, a million little
Speaker 1: fibers with a tally. But that's me. I don't even
Speaker 1: know what that is, dude. But you know, you know,
Speaker 1: you know things that I Yeah, a Million Little Pieces
Speaker 1: a book by James Frey sold as a memoir, later
Speaker 1: sold as semi fictional. Okay, yes, I was right. I
Speaker 1: was right. Anyway, the liberal mind has been shattered by
Speaker 1: by Trump, and so they're not going to care. The savvy,
Speaker 1: the savvy ones among the Libs are not going to
Speaker 1: care that the Muller probe did not work as advertised,
Speaker 1: because the whole point of it was to slow down
Speaker 1: people and to make life difficult for Trump, and and
Speaker 1: in that regard it has worked. So the Muller probe
Speaker 1: unfortunately in a sense here that the bad guys have won.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Muller probe is um, you know, it
Speaker 1: was was victorious in that it was very annoying for
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. But the ones that are true believers
Speaker 1: that really thought all the prudent Kremlin axis of the
Speaker 1: internetal conspiracy and people really believed all that stuff. They're
Speaker 1: not gonna all of a sudden become Trump voters. So
Speaker 1: then what are we talking We're talking about, Okay, the
Speaker 1: swing voters in those oh so important swing states and
Speaker 1: those you're listening to this show in Pennsylvania, what's saw
Speaker 1: Pennsylvania out in Harrisburg area, Pennsylvania and Ohio and you
Speaker 1: know Florida. You know, you know that, Oh you are
Speaker 1: just oh so desirable to those politicians. They can't sweet
Speaker 1: talk you enough in those states. But are are the
Speaker 1: swing voters in those places really gonna care about the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion overreach? I don't think so. I think that's unlikely.
Speaker 1: So it's going to come down to these other issues,
Speaker 1: which I'm gonna talk to you about in the next hour.
Speaker 1: It's going to come down to the economy. Huge, huge
Speaker 1: question no one's really looking at right now is what
Speaker 1: does the economy look like going into the next action.
Speaker 1: Is there a cyclical downturn in the American economy? If
Speaker 1: that happens, we're twenty two trillion in debt. Folks, we
Speaker 1: got over a trillion dollars in student loans. The subprime
Speaker 1: auto loan bubble out there right now is I think
Speaker 1: also over trillion dollars a huge There's huge amounts of
Speaker 1: bad debt, lots and lots of bad debt in the system.
Speaker 1: That stuff comes due and it gets ugly. It gets
Speaker 1: ugly when it does. So, keeping all that in mind,
Speaker 1: what happens if the economy gets bad? Oh, No, one's
Speaker 1: really paying too much attention to that one. I think
Speaker 1: the Democrats and the even the Democrats socialists, or at
Speaker 1: least the Democrats socialist programs like Medicare for all that
Speaker 1: sounds a lot more appealing. But healthcare in general is
Speaker 1: going to be a big issue, a big determining issue.
Speaker 1: You know this. I mean, this is meet and potato stuff.
Speaker 1: This is very straightforward. I think the immigration debate is
Speaker 1: going to be another one that really really matters in
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election. Do I think Russia collision is
Speaker 1: going to matter in twenty twenty as much as we
Speaker 1: won and our week has been a big victory lap folks,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to determine the outcome of
Speaker 1: the next election. I really don't. You're probably familiar with
Speaker 1: the AARP, right, but you know AARP is actually pretty
Speaker 1: left wing, and they fought tooth and nail for a
Speaker 1: government run healthcare system. So if you're a senior out
Speaker 1: there you're listening to this, I got an idea. Try
Speaker 1: the conservative alternative to the AARP. That's AMAC. All right.
Speaker 1: AMAC was founded by an Air Force veteran, Dan Webber
Speaker 1: over a decade ago to represent not only conservative views,
Speaker 1: but policy that's good for America. AMAC advocates for border protection,
Speaker 1: fixing social security, fiscal responsibility, and oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: when you join AMAC, you get discounts on car insurance, hotels,
Speaker 1: roadside assistants, dental plans, even sell service options. So put
Speaker 1: your money where your heart is on this one. Stand
Speaker 1: with AMAC as they fight the good fight by becoming
Speaker 1: a member today. Join right now at AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck that's am ACTUS slash book. Just type that
Speaker 1: into your browser. AMAC dot us slash book. AMAK is better,
Speaker 1: better for you, Better for America. I'm very disappointed and
Speaker 1: vehemently opposed to the administration seeking to invalidate the entire
Speaker 1: Affordable Care Act. Clearly, there are provisions of the law
Speaker 1: that you need to be fixed. The answer is for
Speaker 1: the adfenistration to work with Congress and present a plan
Speaker 1: to replace and fits the law. So Obamacare is a disaster.
Speaker 1: It's too expensive by far, people can't afford it, and
Speaker 1: the deductible is horrible. So the premium scose too much,
Speaker 1: the deductible is horrible. The only difference between now and
Speaker 1: the other administration is that we're administering Obamacare very well.
Speaker 1: So we've made it better. But it's still horrible, no good,
Speaker 1: It's something that we can't live within this country. We're
Speaker 1: going to be the party of great healthcare. And the
Speaker 1: Democrats have let you down. They really let you down.
Speaker 1: Obamacare doesn't work, it's too expensive, it's a disaster for
Speaker 1: our people. We're not going to allow it to go
Speaker 1: the party of healthcare. Trump says, I certainly hope so,
Speaker 1: because healthcare is always in the top three issues, usually
Speaker 1: right behind the economy and jobs in all polling based
Speaker 1: on likely voters across the country. So healthcare is obviously
Speaker 1: really really important to people, and we should not lose
Speaker 1: sight of that. People really care about their healthcare. And
Speaker 1: now there's this court challenge to Obamacare, and look do
Speaker 1: I think that on the merits, this court challenge is
Speaker 1: likely to strike down the rest of Obamacare. Log No,
Speaker 1: I think that's unlikely. However, do I think that Obamacare
Speaker 1: should have been struck down by the Supreme Court back
Speaker 1: in what was the twenty twelve twenty thirteen I can't
Speaker 1: remember now, Yes, Yes, I do. I think that Obamacare
Speaker 1: very much should have lost at the Supreme Court the
Speaker 1: first time around. I do not think the federal government
Speaker 1: has a right to regulate the purchasing of a private product,
Speaker 1: to mandate an end to your inactivity on an issue,
Speaker 1: and I think that they got it wrong on that.
Speaker 1: But as to Obamacare itself, it's very clear that it
Speaker 1: does not work as advertised, that it was rammed through without,
Speaker 1: of course, any bipartisan votes whatsoever, that we were lied to,
Speaker 1: and Obama explicitly lied to us about this, gonna keep
Speaker 1: your doctor, it's gonna be a great healthcare, it's gonna
Speaker 1: be cheaper, They're gonna keep it. No, you will, You
Speaker 1: do not keep you if you like your doctor. You
Speaker 1: did not get to keep your doctor. But even beyond that,
Speaker 1: Obamacare was eventually supposed to be phased in, you know,
Speaker 1: much more broadly through the rest of the healthcare market,
Speaker 1: but they kept just by FIAT. When Kathleen Sibelius and
Speaker 1: you know, whoever else was implementing it under the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: they would say, well, you know, that's going to be
Speaker 1: really unpopular, so we're not going to do that part
Speaker 1: of it. All right, we can't do that. You know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to draw a line on that issue.
Speaker 1: And they were just changing the law as they went along.
Speaker 1: You know, they gave themselves all this discretion, which just
Speaker 1: meant rerunning the law in real time. And that discretion,
Speaker 1: as we have seen, hasn't made the law all that
Speaker 1: much better. It just meant that people weren't dealing with
Speaker 1: the full effects of it. You know, Obamacare got sold
Speaker 1: to us as more healthcare for essentially healthcare for everyone.
Speaker 1: That'll be great and cheap, and what you have is
Speaker 1: healthcare for actually a pretty small segment of the population overall.
Speaker 1: That really is just an expansion of Medicaid, right the
Speaker 1: healthcare welfare system. That's what Obama Care mostly did was said, okay,
Speaker 1: now you qualify for Medicaid two in different states, and
Speaker 1: then in these individual markets, created a subsidy system whereby
Speaker 1: young and healthy people pay more into the individual market
Speaker 1: to subsidize older and sicker people. That's what really has
Speaker 1: happened in the Obamacare market, the parts of the law
Speaker 1: that did not work as intended, or bringing down costs,
Speaker 1: that's just a joke. And giving people quality healthcare. I mean,
Speaker 1: I can tell you, you know, it's hard enough when
Speaker 1: you have pretty decent private health insurance. It's hard enough
Speaker 1: to have healthcare that you can like and you think
Speaker 1: is good. Trust me when I tell you that, going
Speaker 1: into most most doctors offices in New York or Washington,
Speaker 1: DC and saying you and you have an ACA plan,
Speaker 1: you know, an Obamacare plan, You're probably not going to
Speaker 1: get seen. They're probably or at least you're going to
Speaker 1: pay out a pocket and the deductible for out of
Speaker 1: pockets seven thousand dollars. For most people, that's way more
Speaker 1: or than they're going to spend on healthcare in any
Speaker 1: given year. You know, for most Americans, a seven thousand
Speaker 1: dollars deductible is really just what you have is expensive
Speaker 1: catastrophic insurance. So instead of you know, if it were
Speaker 1: free market based, and this is an enormous and complicated
Speaker 1: edition we're gonna keep talking about healthcare, so I'm not
Speaker 1: I can't solve this right now. But you know, if
Speaker 1: you were trying to buy a health insurance plan for yourself,
Speaker 1: if you say, you know what, I'm gonna pay all
Speaker 1: my own health expenses out of pocket, but beyond ten
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a year, meaning if I get really sick
Speaker 1: and I have legitimate health expenses and I want a
Speaker 1: plan that's not going to say, oh, you know, this
Speaker 1: type of cancer isn't covered only this. You know, you
Speaker 1: got a plan that's really going to say if you
Speaker 1: are sick, if there is medical need, beyond ten thousand dollars,
Speaker 1: your insurance kicks in and picks up, you know, in
Speaker 1: ninety percent of it or whatever it may be. You
Speaker 1: could probably get that plan for if you're reasonably young
Speaker 1: and healthy, you know, one hundred bucks a month maybe,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, in a free market I'm just essing,
Speaker 1: but in a free market system, that's probably what would
Speaker 1: you be able to do. But for one hundred bucks
Speaker 1: a month, I mean, the premiums that people are paying
Speaker 1: under Obamacare plans for a family of four outrageous, outrageous,
Speaker 1: and then they have to pay the deducible on top
Speaker 1: of that. So it's not good insurance, it's not to
Speaker 1: get an insurance. And they'll they'll put people forward with
Speaker 1: these stories either of prexisting conditions or that had Obamacare
Speaker 1: and they had a catastrophe, and so then oh, Obamacare
Speaker 1: is so great, but there are better ways that this
Speaker 1: could be done. And this then brings me all so
Speaker 1: to how I am frustrated Republicans have not executed on
Speaker 1: this one. They have not done what they needed to
Speaker 1: do with repeal and replace. We were promised repeal and replace.
Speaker 1: That is not what we were given. We were told, right,
Speaker 1: We were told that if we were able to get
Speaker 1: a Republican in the White House and get a majority
Speaker 1: in the House and the Senate, that they would and
Speaker 1: they didn't do it. And there's no way around that.
Speaker 1: And I know we could talk about how you know,
Speaker 1: John McCain and the you know, the backstabbing and all this,
Speaker 1: but it didn't happen. And one of my problems for
Speaker 1: that the twenty twenty election is going to be that
Speaker 1: there were opportunities, especially in those first you know, six
Speaker 1: to nine months when Trump was just ma maga all
Speaker 1: up in this place. There were opportunities for the Republican Party,
Speaker 1: for the Republican Congress to take real action on this stuff,
Speaker 1: and they just didn't get it done. They just didn't
Speaker 1: get it done. Now we have to live with that
Speaker 1: and deal with that. Now. I think that if they
Speaker 1: have a plan, well, we really need let's be honest,
Speaker 1: we need trump Care. I mean, we need a holistic
Speaker 1: replacement plan that people understand and that is sold to people,
Speaker 1: because all the Democrats did originally with Obamacare was, oh,
Speaker 1: it's pre existing conditions, and you can stay in your parents'
Speaker 1: health insurance to your twenty six And that was how
Speaker 1: they sold it to people, especially to younger people who
Speaker 1: get the worst part of the Obamacare deal. Young people
Speaker 1: have the worst because they're just subsidizing older, sicker people.
Speaker 1: And that's the plan is specifically set up that way.
Speaker 1: But that it was a compelling sales pitch, and that's
Speaker 1: all they needed, a compelling sales pitch. So we need
Speaker 1: a compelling sales pitch on the right. I if Trump
Speaker 1: wants the Republican Party to be the party of healthcare,
Speaker 1: what does that mean for us? What are we selling
Speaker 1: to our fellow Americans? And how will we make healthcare better. Yeah,
Speaker 1: prescription drug prices, they've been doing that stuff. That's good.
Speaker 1: What else is there? Though? Trump needs to drill down
Speaker 1: into the details. Morning coffee is an American institution. That's
Speaker 1: why when it comes to starting my day, I reach
Speaker 1: for the most American coffee on the market, Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: This is how I get every day started, It's how
Speaker 1: I get my energy going. And it just tastes so delicious.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee should replace whatever other coffee you're drinking
Speaker 1: out there. If you're not already on the Black Rifle
Speaker 1: Coffee Club, I'm telling you you need to join. It
Speaker 1: makes it so easy. They'll ship the coffee right your door,
Speaker 1: and they'll ship it month after month, and you'll be
Speaker 1: supporting a company that is founded by special operations veterans
Speaker 1: that is really into delicious, high quality coffee, and you're
Speaker 1: just going to love everything they do, the branding, the
Speaker 1: T shirts, everything. While liberals threatened to further tax your
Speaker 1: hard earned money with their socialism, Black Rifle Coffee is
Speaker 1: fueling the fight for freedom by upping their offer to
Speaker 1: twenty percent off your first purchase. Take advantage by visiting
Speaker 1: Black Riflecoffee Dot com slash buck and receive twenty percent
Speaker 1: off your order. Again, that's Black Riflecoffee dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck for twenty percent off Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: On Monday and Tuesday, CBP started the day with over
Speaker 1: twelve thousand migrants in our custody. As of this morning,
Speaker 1: that number was thirteen thousand, four hundred. A high number
Speaker 1: for US is four thousand, A crisis level is six thousand.
Speaker 1: On Monday, we saw the highest total of apprehensions and
Speaker 1: encounters in over a decade, with four thousand migrants either
Speaker 1: apprehended or encountered at ports of entry in a single day.
Speaker 1: Yesterday we broke the record again with forty one hundred
Speaker 1: and seventeen forty one hundred people yesterday brought into CBP customs.
Speaker 1: Does anyone want to take the position that this isn't
Speaker 1: a crisis? Does anyone really want to have that debate,
Speaker 1: have that argument with me? I mean, I'm just curious.
Speaker 1: I'd like to know who thinks who thinks that that
Speaker 1: is reasonable at this point? Who thinks that the oh yeah,
Speaker 1: the way that we should talk about what's going with
Speaker 1: the southern border is to just continue to downplay it.
Speaker 1: The border is effectively open. This is on President Trump's watch.
Speaker 1: I don't know who or what I have to do
Speaker 1: here to get more attention from the people that can
Speaker 1: do something about it. And I am reaching out to
Speaker 1: the White House. I am actually trying to get some
Speaker 1: focus on this issue, because this is it's going to
Speaker 1: be worse. Why don't I tell you last month it's
Speaker 1: going to get worse, all right. I do not pretend
Speaker 1: to be no Stradamis. I just understand the reality of
Speaker 1: what's happening there and the trajectory and the politics surrounding
Speaker 1: all of it. And you know, there's a part of
Speaker 1: me that says, well, maybe going into twenty twenty, you're
Speaker 1: going to have at least some understanding from people of
Speaker 1: the fact that if we don't get a handle on
Speaker 1: this thing soon, it's going to overwhelm the system, and
Speaker 1: we are going to have to deal with this as
Speaker 1: as a true crisis in this country for our for
Speaker 1: the overwhelmed public school system. We're going to have in
Speaker 1: some places, for the hospital visits, I mean the bills.
Speaker 1: We're talking about hundreds of thousands now going up to
Speaker 1: a million, people who who are not going to be
Speaker 1: fully legally in the country, but are going to be
Speaker 1: acting like you know, are going to be showing up
Speaker 1: and demanding services, and they're going to need things their
Speaker 1: human beings, they're going to need help. Million peoples. What
Speaker 1: we're on track for this year six thousand migrants in custody,
Speaker 1: he says, is a crisis. They've got over double that
Speaker 1: as of as of today. It's my friends, this this
Speaker 1: is out of control. This is a true crisis. This
Speaker 1: needs there needs to be a change here. Congress has
Speaker 1: to act, They have to do something to address what's
Speaker 1: going on here. You know, El Paso Border Patrol waiter
Speaker 1: and they they said, look, this is you know, this
Speaker 1: is what's going on there. They're just coming right across
Speaker 1: now and we're we're overwhelmed. Play too. The moment they've
Speaker 1: crossed the center, that real grand they have violated our
Speaker 1: law and they've entered the country illegally. We have an
Speaker 1: obligation to interdict anybody or anything that crosses outside of
Speaker 1: the port of entry. Yeah, that's the law. You know.
Speaker 1: There are all these people that during the course of
Speaker 1: the investigation into Russia collusion that would fall on or
Speaker 1: their fall back position was the laws. The law. You know,
Speaker 1: if you lied, even if you lied about something very
Speaker 1: unimportant that nobody cares about, the law is the law, sir.
Speaker 1: And we cannot make you know, we cannot make exceptions
Speaker 1: for people. We cannot allow them to get away with
Speaker 1: breaking the law. Okay, well, what happened to that? When
Speaker 1: it comes to this issue of immigration, if our laws
Speaker 1: on immigration, and this is really the challenge that I
Speaker 1: think should be posed to Democrats. If the immigration laws
Speaker 1: we have are unfair and unjust, If they are, if
Speaker 1: they're just inherently wrong, then Congress and at least the
Speaker 1: Democrats in Congress who take that position, they have an obligation,
Speaker 1: an absolute obligation, to repeal the immigration and laws that
Speaker 1: we currently have and just say we are going to
Speaker 1: be an open border society and then pass laws about
Speaker 1: how you got to you know, check in really quickly
Speaker 1: so people know that you're coming in or you know,
Speaker 1: and we'll tax. They're gonna want to tax things, They're
Speaker 1: gonna you know, that's the thing that the open borders
Speaker 1: left doesn't want people to just they don't just want
Speaker 1: the free flow of people and goods, because they want
Speaker 1: to be able to tax and they want to control,
Speaker 1: They want to count the individuals coming in. They want
Speaker 1: the ability to sort and assess the people that are
Speaker 1: coming into this country. So don't don't think that it's
Speaker 1: going to be just a total free for all, although
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's something the left who believe that would
Speaker 1: be fine too. Oh, there's no worries about terrorism or
Speaker 1: national security. Don't just let anybody in the country wants
Speaker 1: to come into the country, no problem, there's no There's
Speaker 1: not a single person who has been able to explain
Speaker 1: to me how this situation is going to be dealt
Speaker 1: with and how this is going to get any better.
Speaker 1: And a wall is not fix this. A wall helps
Speaker 1: maybe a little bit, and it would help with the
Speaker 1: broader problem of illegal crossings into this country. But the
Speaker 1: people that are showing up right now in al Paso,
Speaker 1: where I'm going tonight, the people who are showing up
Speaker 1: there are the migrants, these illegal aliens. They are seeking
Speaker 1: out US authorities to turn themselves in. They are not
Speaker 1: hiding in the shadows here, They're not trying to avoid detection.
Speaker 1: They're showing up and saying here I am, I want
Speaker 1: my hot meal, and please process me and let me free.
Speaker 1: In the United States and oh, I have a credible
Speaker 1: fear of violence in my home country because of all
Speaker 1: the gangs. Well, if you can have a credible fear
Speaker 1: of gang violence in Honduras, and that means you can
Speaker 1: stay in the United States, the entire country of Honduras,
Speaker 1: because how do you prove that, how do you prove
Speaker 1: that there's a gang on your block that threatens you
Speaker 1: and that we could have two or three million Hondurans
Speaker 1: showing up here saying that why do we even have
Speaker 1: a legal immigration system? If we're going to continue with
Speaker 1: this farce as it is at our southern border, what's
Speaker 1: the point? Why have any of these laws? Why not?
Speaker 1: Why not just say okay, you know what, whoever gets
Speaker 1: here gets here. I mean, this is out of control.
Speaker 1: And then Democrats seem to have no they have no
Speaker 1: problem with this whatsoever. I mean you never I never
Speaker 1: hear Democrats say wow, you got one hundred thousand. And
Speaker 1: it keeps saying people who are allowed to claim asylum, okay,
Speaker 1: but you know what else, people are allowed to be
Speaker 1: deported when they don't get asylum and to be prosecuted
Speaker 1: for lying to federal authorities, which every person who is
Speaker 1: lying to border patrol and lying to Immigration Customs enforcement.
Speaker 1: They're violating that law, same federal law that is used
Speaker 1: to prosecute Papadopolis and Manaford. You know, cannot lie to
Speaker 1: federal officers in the midst of their duties. And you know,
Speaker 1: on a material issue that's never became the u A
Speaker 1: USA is along the southern border. Would tell you if
Speaker 1: illegal aliens are prosecuted for lying to authorities, that's the
Speaker 1: only case that they'd have time to prosecute because they're
Speaker 1: lying all the time, lying about all kinds of stuff,
Speaker 1: lying about who's in their family, why they're coming into
Speaker 1: the country. So this is a crisis of lawlessness. And
Speaker 1: you know, while while we're shifting focus right now, I
Speaker 1: mean that the Trump administration it wants to talk about
Speaker 1: about healthcare. And look, I think healthcare is very important,
Speaker 1: and that's why I spend time on this show discuss again.
Speaker 1: I also think it's where Democrats believe. They think Medicare
Speaker 1: for All is going to deliver them to the Promised
Speaker 1: Land on the twenty twenty election. That's their plan. They
Speaker 1: think that Medicare for All is going to is the
Speaker 1: ace up to sleeve that lets them win, the win
Speaker 1: the whole thing. I really believe that. So we need
Speaker 1: to get our act together on the right with well,
Speaker 1: not only is Obamacare bad, what are we going to do?
Speaker 1: What are we going to replace it with? What do
Speaker 1: we do that's better than Obamacare? What is our response
Speaker 1: that going to be? It can't be some oh, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe this and maybe then. You know, it has to
Speaker 1: be something real. It has to be something substantial. But
Speaker 1: it won't even matter what we do on Obamacare. If
Speaker 1: we don't get the border under control, if we do
Speaker 1: not secure our southern border, our country is going to
Speaker 1: slip away from us, the country that we know. Because
Speaker 1: you change, if you change the demographics of a country
Speaker 1: fast enough, if you change the respect for the rule
Speaker 1: of law in that country fast enough, and the traditions
Speaker 1: and beliefs, and you know, all of that changes. With
Speaker 1: the migration of people, this place will start to feel very,
Speaker 1: very different, and politically it will definitely be different. Right.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you have a few a few million
Speaker 1: a year coming to this country who are all coming
Speaker 1: from one part of the world and are going to
Speaker 1: tend to be invested in a large state apparatus for
Speaker 1: state government support the Republican Party is done. And that's
Speaker 1: the plan here, That is the plan. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: Facebook now has vowed to block white nationalism and separatism
Speaker 1: on its site. Previously a social media giant, According to
Speaker 1: the Wall Street Journal, here was only blocking support for
Speaker 1: white supremacy. This is one of these. At first glance, Okay,
Speaker 1: I think that white nationalism, white separatism are stupid and
Speaker 1: odious ideology. So how could anybody really have a problem
Speaker 1: with this? Right, that's the way that you're usually gonna
Speaker 1: get a first reaction to this or that. That's I
Speaker 1: think for most people going to be there, their their
Speaker 1: immediate takeaway. All Right, So Facebook is we don't want
Speaker 1: them to have you know, cheehattest propaganda online. We don't
Speaker 1: want them to have uh, you know, this kind of
Speaker 1: stuff either. Um. But but here's the here's the problem.
Speaker 1: The problem is that Facebook is going to go well
Speaker 1: beyond the boundaries of just explicit white supremacy. This. All
Speaker 1: you have to do is look at how these social
Speaker 1: media platforms have enacted in the past. They're different bands
Speaker 1: and their different restrictions on things, and and I can
Speaker 1: assure you that Facebook is very much going to uh
Speaker 1: use this and whether you know, I can't tell you
Speaker 1: if it's intentional or not that they're going to abuse
Speaker 1: this this privilege. I can't tell you if that's something
Speaker 1: that they necessarily are are going to uh to do
Speaker 1: you know that they're going to use their editory, their
Speaker 1: editorial ability purposefully to try and go after non white
Speaker 1: supremacist speech or But but what ends up happening here
Speaker 1: inevitably is that the really really bad stuff they say
Speaker 1: they're going to get starts creeping into other stuff too. Like,
Speaker 1: for example, if you're a group that is opposed to
Speaker 1: the mass immigration that is happening at our southern border,
Speaker 1: if you're a group that falls into that category, all
Speaker 1: it takes is for someone like the Southern Poverty Law
Speaker 1: Center for example, which we'll talk about later on the show.
Speaker 1: I've got an update for you on what was really
Speaker 1: going on over there, another massive overfunded left wing scam exposed.
Speaker 1: But the Southern Poverty Law Center for example, can put
Speaker 1: that you as a immigrant or an immigration opponent, that
Speaker 1: you are somebody who is dabbling in white nationalism or
Speaker 1: or whatever it may be. A white nationalism is probably
Speaker 1: the main one that they'd go for. And awlvis on
Speaker 1: your band from Facebook? But are you told that your
Speaker 1: band or are you going to be shadow band? Are
Speaker 1: you going is your account going to be eliminated if
Speaker 1: you're just somebody who for whatever reason is singled down
Speaker 1: this way? Or are you going to just have your
Speaker 1: stuff not appear in the feed? Do you have a
Speaker 1: right to even know that? Facebook's a private company. They
Speaker 1: can decide what feed goes where and who sees what right.
Speaker 1: They have a tremendous amount of power. And this comes
Speaker 1: at a time when the politics are particularly hot right
Speaker 1: now around this issue. Here's what this piece, The Walla
Speaker 1: Street Journal says. Facebook has been under fire globally for
Speaker 1: failing to take sufficient action against hate speech and misinformation
Speaker 1: on its site. Pressure on Facebook is mounting following a
Speaker 1: live stream of the New Zealand mosque massacre, which prompted
Speaker 1: the country's Prime minister to call for overhauling New Zealand's
Speaker 1: social media laws. Social media giant previously only restricted users
Speaker 1: from supporting white supremacy. The company said now it will
Speaker 1: take after talks with academics and civil groups, it as
Speaker 1: a termined white nationalism and separatism can't be separated from
Speaker 1: white supremacy and other hate groups. So white nationalism is
Speaker 1: now going to be banned officially from Facebook's platform. But again,
Speaker 1: I think white nationalism is a stupid and odious ideology.
Speaker 1: But what is going to qualify for the left as
Speaker 1: white nationalism? Look at the way the left uses the
Speaker 1: term white supremacy. Now they will talk about our criminal
Speaker 1: justice system as institutionalized white supremacy. White supremacy has been
Speaker 1: deployed as a term to describe far more than what
Speaker 1: most of us think of, which is, you know guys
Speaker 1: who are aryan neo Nazis with tattoos on their faces,
Speaker 1: and people think of white supremacy and they think of
Speaker 1: something very different than that they tend to think of.
Speaker 1: Or rather, people talk about white supremacy now on the
Speaker 1: left and they think of institutional oppression that's now white supremacy.
Speaker 1: They think of organizations that don't explicitly violate the law
Speaker 1: and don't in their charter or in their actions endorse
Speaker 1: anything that is white supremacist. But if the outcome, again
Speaker 1: going back to our immigration restriction discussion, if the outcome
Speaker 1: is that a disproportionate effect falls upon non white individuals,
Speaker 1: they call that white supremacy. So the way that they
Speaker 1: expand definitions and the way that they play with these words,
Speaker 1: there's in my mind no doubt whatsoever that you will
Speaker 1: see accusations of white supremacy on Facebook for things that
Speaker 1: are clearly not about white supremacy. And if you think
Speaker 1: that I'm getting too far ahead of this, all you
Speaker 1: have to do is think back to things like learn
Speaker 1: to code. Learn to code would get you banned from
Speaker 1: Twitter for a while if you said learn to code.
Speaker 1: Why Because the people who work at Twitter are friends
Speaker 1: with a lot of journo types, and those journo types
Speaker 1: don't like it when people make fun of them when
Speaker 1: they lose their jobs. Meanwhile, journalists love to write these
Speaker 1: kind of yeah, you know, this industry is dying, but
Speaker 1: you know, they should learn to code in another industry,
Speaker 1: they should learn how to be computer programmers. That was
Speaker 1: why the whole learned to code thing came about. But
Speaker 1: that could get you banned from Twitter. Dead naming somebody
Speaker 1: can get you banned from Twitter. Mis Gendering somebody, So
Speaker 1: if someone is actually someone's actually male, and you refer
Speaker 1: to that person as a he instead of a she,
Speaker 1: that can get sanctions against you on Twitter, I think
Speaker 1: on face Book as well, so that's now a form
Speaker 1: of hate speech. Let's be very clear. I mean, this
Speaker 1: whole white supremacy conversation is an extension in the context
Speaker 1: of the social media platforms. It's really an extension of
Speaker 1: the hate speech conversation, which is just they call hate
Speaker 1: speech whatever they don't like. The things that they don't
Speaker 1: like our hate speech. That is the approach that the
Speaker 1: left takes on all of this. They keep changing the boundaries,
Speaker 1: changing the definition so that there's not any good faith. Okay,
Speaker 1: this does cross the line. It's oh no, no, can
Speaker 1: we can the left make the case that something crosses
Speaker 1: the line just in order to silence somebody, to get
Speaker 1: a boycott going to you know, That's that's where this
Speaker 1: all goes. I mean, that's what ends up happening here.
Speaker 1: They're just going to They're going to weaponize this against
Speaker 1: the other side, which is why the left is obsessed
Speaker 1: with speech restriction, because they want to maintain the power
Speaker 1: that they have in society, and they don't want ideas
Speaker 1: out there that they don't like. So they look at
Speaker 1: the very very worst idea say well, we need authority
Speaker 1: to regulate that, and they take it for themselves, whether
Speaker 1: it's private company or in the government side. Now with
Speaker 1: hate speech laws, and then they start expanding, well, okay,
Speaker 1: it's not just the worst stuff. It's the bad stuff,
Speaker 1: and then it's also stuff that we think is really mean. Wait,
Speaker 1: really mean? Isn't hate speech right? There's a difference, there,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Isn't there supposed to be some call to
Speaker 1: violence and some inherent dehumanization And isn't that what hate
Speaker 1: speech is all about? That's explicitly racial in tone and context.
Speaker 1: And oh no, it's just things that left doesn't like.
Speaker 1: This is where this is all heading, and this has
Speaker 1: enormous implications for our national political conversations. Censorship on social
Speaker 1: media platforms is the free speech fight of the future.
Speaker 1: So wait a second, are you telling me that Rachel
Speaker 1: Maddow's ratings bonanza is all over over at ms NBC,
Speaker 1: That Rachel Manou, who perpetuated this fraud of a story
Speaker 1: about Russia collusion, she's having a little bit of a
Speaker 1: tough time. Now. Oh no, we're supposed to feel sorry
Speaker 1: for the situation. Give me a break. This is not
Speaker 1: even close to the kind of consequences that should happened.
Speaker 1: I mean professional consequences that should happen to people who
Speaker 1: were part of this, of this hoax. I mean they
Speaker 1: should lose they should lose credibility. If you can't lose
Speaker 1: credibility if you're a Rachel Maddow over at MSNBC, if
Speaker 1: you can't lose credibility for doing a show night in
Speaker 1: and night out based upon a false premise that you
Speaker 1: were a very large part of perpetuating. If you won't
Speaker 1: lose credibility over that, you don't lose credibility over anything.
Speaker 1: There's nothing you're going to lose credibility over, right, You're
Speaker 1: just you have a built in audience of like trained
Speaker 1: seals that don't care what you say. They just want
Speaker 1: to hear you say something. For those of you who
Speaker 1: are wondering how big of a fall down we're talking
Speaker 1: about here, Mattoo has had either the number one or
Speaker 1: number two rated cable news program for really the last
Speaker 1: certainly the last year or so, and on Monday it
Speaker 1: was down five hundred thousand total viewers. Now, a lot
Speaker 1: of especially the primetime cable views cable news viewing audience,
Speaker 1: they tend to be repeat viewers. They tend be people
Speaker 1: who come back and who you know you can kind
Speaker 1: of count on. And she lost about a half a
Speaker 1: million of them on Monday. Now will a lot of
Speaker 1: them come back? I'm pretty sure that they will. Right,
Speaker 1: But is MSNBC going to be what it was? I mean,
Speaker 1: there were a lot of people who built careers on
Speaker 1: this lie. I mean they advanced themselves. I had some
Speaker 1: guy that who wrote a book called Proof of Collusion,
Speaker 1: some professor from a you know, like a fifth tier
Speaker 1: school up in New Hampshire somewhere, and I offered I
Speaker 1: reached out to him on Twitter. I said, you know,
Speaker 1: why don't we debate this issue publicly? Dave Rubin will
Speaker 1: put us on his show and we can do it there.
Speaker 1: And this guy's like, I would never even talk to you.
Speaker 1: The fact that you even think that this is not real.
Speaker 1: This was a few weeks ago. He got all huffy.
Speaker 1: I'm a best selling author on the issue of collusion
Speaker 1: and a proof of collusion. I mean, this guy is
Speaker 1: an idiot. Yeah, proof of collusion. Good job with that, buddy.
Speaker 1: How exactly is there proof of collusion? Now? You know
Speaker 1: there has to be some consequence for being wrong. You know,
Speaker 1: I don't want this to be like the Wall Street
Speaker 1: bailout situation where banks all of a sudden courtesy of
Speaker 1: the taxpayer and the very politically connected banks, that is,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, it doesn't matter that they were wrong.
Speaker 1: You know, it needs to matter. It needs to matter
Speaker 1: that they were wrong. I know that Trump has got
Speaker 1: a he's got a rally coming up in one of
Speaker 1: it in Michigan. Is that is that today? Oh? No,
Speaker 1: tomorrow night. Yeah, He's got a rally in Michigan tomorrow night.
Speaker 1: That will be interesting, to be sure. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna want to see that, right, I mean, Trump unleashed
Speaker 1: up in Michigan, just letting it rip on this week.
Speaker 1: And there's some rumors now that he may in fact
Speaker 1: attend the White House Correspondence dinner, which I have already said.
Speaker 1: I will not go to the White House Correspondence dinner.
Speaker 1: I'm not attending. I have no interest. It's not something
Speaker 1: that I'm in any way. I do not want any
Speaker 1: part of that. I think the White House Correspondence dinner
Speaker 1: is all about a lot of self congratulation and media
Speaker 1: naval gazing, and I don't like the people in general
Speaker 1: who are there. Yeah, I know, that's right. I work
Speaker 1: in media, but I'm not particularly fond of people in
Speaker 1: the media. I like my fellow conservatives in media, and
Speaker 1: I like some Libs, but a lot of libs I don't.
Speaker 1: But Trump may go there, and that would be really
Speaker 1: Interesting'll be real interesting to see Trump get up there
Speaker 1: on stage and just rip into a press corps that.
Speaker 1: I mean, we know Rachel Maddow as a fraud. I mean,
Speaker 1: we need to we need to say this, and she's
Speaker 1: a fraud. She did what she had to do, she
Speaker 1: thought or she did what she wanted to do in
Speaker 1: order to promote the biggest possible ratings, and she ran
Speaker 1: with this scandal and you know, night in and night out,
Speaker 1: you know, just tapping a little pencil on the table,
Speaker 1: and you know, we're getting closer and closer to Russian collusion.
Speaker 1: I mean, they put people like Malcolm Nance on TV.
Speaker 1: Malcolm Nance does not know what the heck he's talking about.
Speaker 1: I've seen this guy on TV many times. He inflates
Speaker 1: both what he did and his importance in the community
Speaker 1: that I come from the Intel community, and he's just
Speaker 1: full of it and kind of holds himself up as
Speaker 1: this really pompous super smart guy in this issue and
Speaker 1: does not know what the heck he's talking about. Obviously
Speaker 1: we know now the former CI director. People say, Buck,
Speaker 1: you were never CIA director. Yeah, but I'm smarter than
Speaker 1: John Brennan, folks, I can I can assure you of that. Right.
Speaker 1: You can trust mind judgment a lot more than you
Speaker 1: can trust and trust John Brennan's. You know, he was
Speaker 1: like the provost of the university and I was a
Speaker 1: straight a student. You know, it does just because he's
Speaker 1: the provost doesn't mean he knows anything. But all these
Speaker 1: different people there needs to be I mean, the public,
Speaker 1: if the public wants to take itself and its taste
Speaker 1: seriously on the left. I mean, I know that you
Speaker 1: don't need to hear this, right, I mean, how many
Speaker 1: of you watch watch MADO show. I'm guessing not very many.
Speaker 1: But there does need to be a public accounting for
Speaker 1: what's gone on here, and people do need to be
Speaker 1: held to account because it was an appalling disgrace and
Speaker 1: people were completely out of line. There were real consequences
Speaker 1: to this, and there are also a lot of people
Speaker 1: who were, you know, benefiting from this substantially. I mean,
Speaker 1: there are people who were very clearly able to use
Speaker 1: this to their professional advantage. And that's not okay, that's
Speaker 1: not okay. Mataw down a half a million viewers. I
Speaker 1: want to see what the ratings are now for the
Speaker 1: rest of the month on MSNBC. How could you watch MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you this. If some of the biggest
Speaker 1: names on the right, who were big defenders of this,
Speaker 1: if it turned out that what the left said was
Speaker 1: true and that Trump had ordered a criminal conspiracy with
Speaker 1: the Russians, I wouldn't be okay. I would be calling
Speaker 1: for people to be off the air. I'd be saying,
Speaker 1: that's saying that person cannot be trusted anymore, and that's
Speaker 1: just reality. Oh you know me myself, I would have
Speaker 1: to make some some pennants if I had been wrong.
Speaker 1: But I was right. I was right all along, as
Speaker 1: were you. So the other side should not be allowed
Speaker 1: to just escape without without any consequences on this. And
Speaker 1: I just think that the I saw this on the
Speaker 1: on the Drudge Report, that the media gold rush for
Speaker 1: the far left is now over. Well, thank heavens for that. Right,
Speaker 1: immedia gold rush is over. It should be over, and
Speaker 1: I think it's for the best for all of us
Speaker 1: that they're no longer able to do what they have
Speaker 1: been doing, which is just throw gasoline on this fire
Speaker 1: of Russia collusion in the most reckless fashion. We've played
Speaker 1: all these compilations and montages and clips for you this week,
Speaker 1: and you know, you know it's real. You know that
Speaker 1: these individuals, these people who are you know, mega stars
Speaker 1: at these different networks, were just exploiting this whole thing,
Speaker 1: absolutely exploiting again. Mattos at the top of the list.
Speaker 1: She should be considered a joke. But MSNBC is gonna
Speaker 1: keep her because she's their biggest earner. It's all that
Speaker 1: at the end of the day. That's all that really
Speaker 1: matters to them. Who brings into cash. It's not about
Speaker 1: journalistic integrity. That's a joke. I don't care about journalistic integrity.
Speaker 1: Let's not be silly. It's about who brings in the cash.
Speaker 1: Mattaw brings in the cash for them, maybe not as
Speaker 1: much now as before, But these people are frauds, my friends.
Speaker 1: Don't forget it. Don't you just love it when you
Speaker 1: find one hundred dollars bill inside a jacket you haven't
Speaker 1: used for ages. It's a great feeling, right Well, imagine
Speaker 1: finding one hundreds of dollars in the papers that are
Speaker 1: sitting in your filing cabin or in those boxes in
Speaker 1: your attic, you know, from that old four h one
Speaker 1: k paperwork from the job before last, the one you
Speaker 1: forgot about. While that money's just sitting there gathering dust,
Speaker 1: it could be working much harder for you in a
Speaker 1: precious metals IRA. My friends at Noble Goold can see
Speaker 1: if you qualify, and they'll do all the heavy lifting
Speaker 1: for you. Could make you thousands and costs you nothing.
Speaker 1: Give Noble Goal to call at eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: four six five three four seven or text my name
Speaker 1: Buck that's Buck to five eleven, five eleven, and received
Speaker 1: their free Investor's Guide plus for all qualified iras about
Speaker 1: twenty thousand dollars, they'll include a complimentary rare graded Morgan
Speaker 1: silver dollar valued at one hundred and fifty dollars. Go
Speaker 1: to Noblegold Investments dot com or text Buck to five
Speaker 1: eleven five eleven. Individual results may vary invest wisely, standard
Speaker 1: text rates may apply. I think we need different values.
Speaker 1: I believe in the values of this party, that's who
Speaker 1: it is. But I do believe we could adjust the
Speaker 1: way we talk about it just a little bit. And
Speaker 1: it's one of the reasons why you always hear the
Speaker 1: word freedom on my lift. We've allowed our conservative friends
Speaker 1: to give a monopoly on the idea of freedom. Now
Speaker 1: they care about freedom, but they care about the very
Speaker 1: sittment kind of freedom, freedom from freedom from regulation. Yea,
Speaker 1: as though government we're the only thing that can make
Speaker 1: us un freed, all right, But that's not true, isn't he.
Speaker 1: We know that your neighbor can make you un freed.
Speaker 1: Your cable company can make if they're telelengenes. We are.
Speaker 1: May your County Clark can make you unfriend. Mayor Pete
Speaker 1: Buddha Gedge, and those of you who live in Indiana
Speaker 1: the Fort Wayne who wo audience out there, you're probably
Speaker 1: gonna have to correct my pronunciation of this one, so
Speaker 1: you can let me know. But Mayor Pete Bodage is
Speaker 1: somebody who is finally starting to get a little bit
Speaker 1: of traction in this Democrat primary, which is interesting to me.
Speaker 1: He is often being compared to Beto O'Rourke because they're
Speaker 1: both young, telegenic, charismatic guys, so there's there's some superficial similarities.
Speaker 1: But I would say that boodag Edge is actually based
Speaker 1: on his background. Many of you in the Indiana area,
Speaker 1: because he's a South Ben mayor, are going to know
Speaker 1: more about what he's like on policy, and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: have to dig into that a bit more. But on
Speaker 1: a resume only, in a resume only way, Buddha Edge
Speaker 1: is much more impressive than Peto Rourke and that makes
Speaker 1: me think that maybe if he takes Beto's lane here.
Speaker 1: You know, it has been thought for a while that
Speaker 1: the big the big three so to speak, in this
Speaker 1: whole process are going to be veto Biden and Bernie.
Speaker 1: Those are the three bees. Maybe it's going to be Biden,
Speaker 1: Bernie and Bootage Edge, buddhag Edge or mayor Pete as
Speaker 1: it maybe is easier to say as a Rhodes scholar,
Speaker 1: which I'm gonna tell you this and people are gonna say, bok,
Speaker 1: come on. It's true though, being a rood scholar is
Speaker 1: a very political process, and it depends on where you
Speaker 1: are in the country. It's harder to be a RhoD scholar,
Speaker 1: more heditive to be Road scholar from some places than others.
Speaker 1: It's just the truth and the whole Road's process is
Speaker 1: fraught with with political decision making. I mean, there's no
Speaker 1: real way to determine whether somebody is that much better
Speaker 1: a student or more deserving of the roads program than
Speaker 1: than many other people. So trust me, there's all kinds
Speaker 1: of favoritism and horse trading and nonsense that goes on.
Speaker 1: I have a few friends who have been road scholars,
Speaker 1: so I'm just telling you the truth. But he's a
Speaker 1: road scholar, which people get very impressed by. Keep in mind,
Speaker 1: so was Ronan Pharaoh. He Rodan Farah that sounds like
Speaker 1: Brad stelt except Brad Stelter looks like me, but after
Speaker 1: some steroids. And so if you think Ronan Faraoh is
Speaker 1: super impressive on television and media, that's that's up to you.
Speaker 1: But he's also a former Buddha Jedge is a former
Speaker 1: army officer. I believe he served in Afghanistan, So props
Speaker 1: in respect to him for that. You know, that's something
Speaker 1: that is not about politics. It's just about the experience
Speaker 1: and the service to his country. And that makes him,
Speaker 1: to me, somebody who is more formidable in many ways
Speaker 1: than Betto. Betto is just all flash, no substance. Mayor
Speaker 1: pete from a Democrat perspective has got some substance, and
Speaker 1: I'm starting to see people say that he's got a
Speaker 1: little bit flash too. This is going to sound really
Speaker 1: silly and fine, but I just got to tell you
Speaker 1: I do think it's an issue for him that his
Speaker 1: name is so hard to pronounce. People don't really like
Speaker 1: really difficult to pronounce names and politics. But we'll see
Speaker 1: I've been told it's boot edge. Edge is the way
Speaker 1: to say boodh Jedge. So he's making this run. Why
Speaker 1: am I focusing on him right now? Though? One is
Speaker 1: because he might take the betto Lane, So he might
Speaker 1: be a guy that we see a lot more of.
Speaker 1: And I give credit to my WO WO land listeners
Speaker 1: out in Fort Wayne, Indiana, because some of you told
Speaker 1: me last year that this is a guy he's going
Speaker 1: to run for president. He's very progressive. He's obviously got
Speaker 1: a lot of credibility on the left for a bunch
Speaker 1: of reasons. He brings the diversity of being part of
Speaker 1: the LGBTQ community to the table. So there's a lot
Speaker 1: about him that you know, you were already telling me.
Speaker 1: You add this together, and you've got somebody who's gonna run.
Speaker 1: I was like, come on, so a mayor from a
Speaker 1: pretty small city. That seems like a long shot. Well,
Speaker 1: here we are, Here we are. He may be less
Speaker 1: of a long shot than many of us outside of
Speaker 1: Indiana had anticipated. But his opening sound bite there, which
Speaker 1: I know now is probably getting a little you've probably
Speaker 1: forgotten some of it, or he's talking about how we
Speaker 1: need to redefine freedom. I thought that was very interesting
Speaker 1: because it was a real window into a few ways
Speaker 1: that progressives play the game. I mean, there were some
Speaker 1: things that he said and did there that are illuminating
Speaker 1: when it comes to what is it that progressives really
Speaker 1: do and how do they think of themselves. For one,
Speaker 1: the focus on definitional change as a means of getting
Speaker 1: advantage in an argument is essential. This is how we've
Speaker 1: gone from illegal alien to illegal immigrant, to undocumented immigrant
Speaker 1: to now just undocumented person. They change the language because
Speaker 1: it is very important, not just in the course of
Speaker 1: winning debates, but also when people use certain words to
Speaker 1: describe certain things, they are inclined to think about them
Speaker 1: in a specific way. They're inclined to take certain conclusions
Speaker 1: from that. And that's something the left does very very well.
Speaker 1: They control the language. They control the way we discuss
Speaker 1: these matters in these issues. And so that's why saying
Speaker 1: that they want to take freedom, they've taken the word
Speaker 1: liberal and completely flipped it upside down. And now now
Speaker 1: we have to refer to the left in American political
Speaker 1: discourses liberals when they are anti liberal. We conservatives are
Speaker 1: the classical liberals believe in individual human liberty and the
Speaker 1: state's obligation to preserve and defend that. They believe in
Speaker 1: a collective liberty of sorts, which is what he started
Speaker 1: to get into here with this freedom from right when
Speaker 1: he says that, of course he goes right for regulation.
Speaker 1: But why shouldn't we want freedom from undue regulation? Why
Speaker 1: shouldn't we want the government less involved? History shows us
Speaker 1: that the government is not a very efficient manager of
Speaker 1: the day to day tasks of human beings. The government
Speaker 1: does not excel at running economies, and it certainly doesn't
Speaker 1: excel at running your life. And that there are basic
Speaker 1: guidelines that we agree on in society doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: there should be endless guidelines. But he also said that
Speaker 1: you aren't free. For example, if a county clerk, well,
Speaker 1: in that case, it sounds to me like he's saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: the government can be it can infringe upon your freedom.
Speaker 1: So he you know, he moved into the territory of
Speaker 1: I think, refuting really his own point that the government
Speaker 1: is the threat to your freedom. And that is the case.
Speaker 1: The government is the greatest threat to your freedom. It
Speaker 1: is very unlikely that any foreign country is going to
Speaker 1: show up and try to conquer and enslave you in
Speaker 1: your lifetime listening to this, that's very, very unlikely. What
Speaker 1: is not entirely unlikely is that our government will increasingly
Speaker 1: overstep its bounds and become the leviathan that we've all
Speaker 1: been warned about for so long, stretching all the way
Speaker 1: back to the founding, and that it will be too late.
Speaker 1: That is a much more realistic scenario than all of
Speaker 1: a sudden you have to start learning Korean because North
Speaker 1: Korea invades and takes us over, or China or you
Speaker 1: name it. But freedom from is something the left also
Speaker 1: really leaves in because they think that there should be
Speaker 1: freedom from frustration, freedom from failure, freedom from harm, and
Speaker 1: those are all very broad concepts. You might think yourself, well,
Speaker 1: how's that supposed to work. Oh, well, the government's going
Speaker 1: to protect you from all that stuff, don't you see
Speaker 1: the government's going to be the one that steps in
Speaker 1: and make sure that you don't have to deal with
Speaker 1: these these difficult problems, these these issues that present themselves
Speaker 1: to you as just a function of you know, day
Speaker 1: to day life. So that's a big lie. It's one
Speaker 1: I think we all to be very aware of, is
Speaker 1: that you know, the government is not You've heard me
Speaker 1: say before, the government is not your friend. Government's not
Speaker 1: there to give you hugs, and it's not there to
Speaker 1: make you free from sadness and difficulty and challenge. The
Speaker 1: government's supposed to allow you to embrace your own sadness,
Speaker 1: difficulty and challenges on your own and not get in
Speaker 1: your way. That is, when we're talking about politics, what
Speaker 1: freedom is all about. And for Mayor Pete Boutagage to
Speaker 1: start the conversation about changing how we think of freedom
Speaker 1: to fit the status progressive Left's approach. We're not gonna
Speaker 1: let them get away with that team, not anytime soon.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. There's only one dual certified, veteran
Speaker 1: owned background investigation and vetting company out there, and it
Speaker 1: is Global Verification Network. For those of you who either
Speaker 1: work in the HR department of a company or have
Speaker 1: your own company. I'm telling you background checks are essential,
Speaker 1: and you want to work with the best company that
Speaker 1: will get them done efficiently and will tailor their program
Speaker 1: and how they do it to your need. So whatever
Speaker 1: size company you are, from a startup all the way
Speaker 1: up to a fortune one hundred, Global Verification Network can
Speaker 1: come up with all of your solutions and whatever business
Speaker 1: intelligence and vetting you need. They can work with you
Speaker 1: on that too. They are absolute pros. I know the CEO.
Speaker 1: I try him. You can trust him to go to
Speaker 1: MYGVN dot com again, that's my GVN dot com or
Speaker 1: called Global Verification Network at eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine eight seven seven six nine
Speaker 1: five one one seven nine team. I just wanted to
Speaker 1: follow up on a story that I mentioned here on
Speaker 1: the show a few weeks back about the Southern Poverty
Speaker 1: Law Center and how the founder of the Southern Poverty
Speaker 1: Law Center, Morris D's, was summarily dismissed on March fourteenth,
Speaker 1: and just based on the way that they wrote about
Speaker 1: how he was sent packing, I had a feeling you
Speaker 1: will recall. You can always go back and check me
Speaker 1: on these things. I had a feeling that mister D's
Speaker 1: may have had something along the lines of a me
Speaker 1: two problem. Maybe mister D's was a little bit too friendly,
Speaker 1: and he was an older an older man, he was
Speaker 1: too friendly with some of the younger female staff who
Speaker 1: went to work for him. And sure enough that now
Speaker 1: has been reported as the case that it was widely
Speaker 1: known that D's was very aggressive in his hitting on
Speaker 1: young female staff. Mister D's didn't stop to think, maybe
Speaker 1: that these women should not be hit on, and that
Speaker 1: it's inappropriate for a man of his age to be
Speaker 1: making overtures toward women in their in their twenties. How
Speaker 1: this was when remember when he when this guy got fired,
Speaker 1: the statement that they released said the following quote, when
Speaker 1: one of our own fails to meet those standards, no
Speaker 1: matter his or her role in the organization, we take
Speaker 1: it seriously and must take appropriate action, And they immediately
Speaker 1: scrubbed him mister D's from the SPLC website. Now, now
Speaker 1: this is interesting for a number of reasons. One is, yeah,
Speaker 1: I could I was right. I mean I had intonated
Speaker 1: on the show, or I had guessed on the show
Speaker 1: that it was a me too situation. That got this
Speaker 1: guy canned, although apparently there were other things too. He
Speaker 1: the Southern Poverty Law Center, for all of its talk
Speaker 1: about fighting white nationalists and fighting for justice for oppressed minorities,
Speaker 1: it wasn't very good on diversity in its own ranks.
Speaker 1: And this piece in The New Yorker, the Reckoning of
Speaker 1: Morris D's and the Southern Poverty Law Center, that I
Speaker 1: read was quite interesting because it goes into how, really
Speaker 1: the Southern Poverty Law Center is yet another one of
Speaker 1: these institutions that maybe it started out as one thing,
Speaker 1: but over the course of time, because it is a
Speaker 1: it is a left wing organization, it became a kind
Speaker 1: of Khan. It became a massively were funded, I mean
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars. It has an enormous I've
Speaker 1: never seen it or been to it, but I was.
Speaker 1: I've read the descriptions of an enormous glass and steel
Speaker 1: structure down in Alabama that people said looks like the
Speaker 1: Southern Poverty Death Star or something like that. So they
Speaker 1: have all of this money and they're very prolific at fundraising.
Speaker 1: And what this really became was media matters with a better,
Speaker 1: better story, with a kind of better institutional pedigree behind it.
Speaker 1: That's all the Southern Poverty Law Center had become. It
Speaker 1: was a group that would be used to weaponize the
Speaker 1: legacy of fighting for civil rights against in some cases
Speaker 1: mainstream conservatives or Muslims like Modged Nois. I mean they
Speaker 1: they had to pay out millions of dollars in settlements
Speaker 1: to Modged Nois for example. So yeah, they do they
Speaker 1: sue actual white nationalists and go after Area Nation people
Speaker 1: and all that shore. They they do some of that too.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that's the only thing that they did,
Speaker 1: but the organization had clearly become a cash cow for
Speaker 1: a lot of people who were involved in it. And
Speaker 1: it's just yet again one of these places that for
Speaker 1: years I've been saying, So the Property Law Center, you know,
Speaker 1: you just read their publications, you see some of the
Speaker 1: stuff they put out there, and it's very obviously left wing.
Speaker 1: It's not about combating hate so much as it is
Speaker 1: about advancing the cause of the left, which sometimes includes
Speaker 1: combating hate, but sometimes it includes writing articles and putting
Speaker 1: people on lists who don't belong on them because they're
Speaker 1: your political enemies. And that's what the Southern Property Law
Speaker 1: Center had turned into and some of its stuff that
Speaker 1: would it would publish about, you know, right wing extremism
Speaker 1: and the rise of right wing nationalism was just was hyperbolic,
Speaker 1: poorly sourced, ifurst at all, and was meant to create
Speaker 1: this perception because it's good for business of America as
Speaker 1: this very racist country and there's so much racism in America.
Speaker 1: And you know, people also were writing articles like that,
Speaker 1: and I didn't get to them here on the show,
Speaker 1: but after the terrible shooting in New Zealand in the
Speaker 1: mosque with that shooter who killed fifty people, and there
Speaker 1: were people saying that, well, you know America, because a
Speaker 1: lot of lefties in America like to use any opportunity
Speaker 1: to bash this country. They're saying in America exports its
Speaker 1: racism to the rest of the world. This is something
Speaker 1: that you will hear that the white nationalist ideology of
Speaker 1: America has now infected other places. Becomes America is so racist.
Speaker 1: This has become a more widespread belief on the left.
Speaker 1: And anyone who spent time outside of America knows that
Speaker 1: racism in different forms is all over the place. There's
Speaker 1: lots of non white racism in the world, which is
Speaker 1: a shock to so many liberals. I know, what do
Speaker 1: you mean, there's the only but but you know, I
Speaker 1: have a chart and it shows that, you know, white
Speaker 1: males are the bad people and then everybody else is oppressed. No,
Speaker 1: it's not the case in a lot of countries, where
Speaker 1: there is racism based upon the the within that ethnic subgroup,
Speaker 1: the darkness of one's skin, the racism against different ethnicities
Speaker 1: within a country. I can tell you that the Middle East,
Speaker 1: for example, is notorious for anti African racism, and within
Speaker 1: the Islamic world, there's a tremendous amount of anti black
Speaker 1: racism that exists. And you know, you go to countries
Speaker 1: in East Asia and there's racism against people from anywhere
Speaker 1: that's not that country in East Asia, particularly a country
Speaker 1: like Japan. So there's racism all over the world. But
Speaker 1: it's good for business for some people in this country
Speaker 1: to try and convince as many people as possible that
Speaker 1: America is uniquely and disgustingly racist and it's just not true.
Speaker 1: And the Southern Poverty Law Center had become one of
Speaker 1: those organizations. I can't speak to what it was decades ago.
Speaker 1: I only know what it's been for the last ten
Speaker 1: years that I've been paying attention, and I know that
Speaker 1: it's publications are not to be taken at face value
Speaker 1: all the time. There's a lot of politics behind what
Speaker 1: they do, and there's also internally a weird kind of
Speaker 1: cult of the two top guys who are both white males,
Speaker 1: you know, both the top of the oppression pyramid and
Speaker 1: the left. Just you see this time and again. There
Speaker 1: are all these people who are supposed to be warriors
Speaker 1: for social justice, warriors for equality and for diversity, but
Speaker 1: in their own lives they want to be able to
Speaker 1: you know, grab it women without any without any issues
Speaker 1: coming up for them, and they want to be super
Speaker 1: rich and not have to live by the rules that
Speaker 1: the rest of us do. This is the hypocrisy that
Speaker 1: is one of the most appealing components of being a democrat,
Speaker 1: being a leftist is that if you subscribe to their ideology,
Speaker 1: you get the equivalent of indulgences in the old Catholic Church, right,
Speaker 1: you can get away with stuff. Apparently Morris D's couldn't
Speaker 1: get away with all this stuff, and that's why they
Speaker 1: booted him. We will talk a little bit here about
Speaker 1: just a press conference that happened today at the border
Speaker 1: to set up my border trip starting tomorrow and then
Speaker 1: we'll do role call, so I'll be right back. Customs
Speaker 1: and Border Patrol had a press conference today. I didn't
Speaker 1: get nearly the attention that it should have. I'm hoping
Speaker 1: to be a part of shifting the focus here nationally
Speaker 1: if I can, to what's going on at the border.
Speaker 1: But everything that I had assumed was going to be
Speaker 1: the case. All of my expectations. As I am sitting
Speaker 1: here with my bags packed to get down to El
Speaker 1: Paso and see what's going on for myself and spend
Speaker 1: time with Border Patrol, all of my expectations have come
Speaker 1: true and they are overwhelmed. The situation at the border
Speaker 1: is dire. They will have over a hundred thousand illegal
Speaker 1: and inadmissible crossings for the month of March. That puts
Speaker 1: us in the same territory as we were in the
Speaker 1: early two thousands, which was an absolute peak for crossings.
Speaker 1: The only time where there may have been more crossings
Speaker 1: was the nineteen nineties. But in the nineteen nineties, a
Speaker 1: lot of the people who were crossing because the border
Speaker 1: was so open in some places, we're going back and forth,
Speaker 1: and there were far more immediate detentions and removals because
Speaker 1: almost all of the illegal traffic was Mexican nationals. Now
Speaker 1: there are substantial changes to this population that's at the
Speaker 1: southern border compared to that group of Mexican those groups
Speaker 1: of Mexican nationals in the nineties, in the early two thousands.
Speaker 1: These are mostly Central American migrants, and they understand what
Speaker 1: the rules are. They are showing up. They've been told
Speaker 1: by the coyotes and the smugglers that they don't have
Speaker 1: to try to get around border patrol the family units.
Speaker 1: They just need to be taken to border patrol. They
Speaker 1: surrender themselves. They claim that they have credible fear, and
Speaker 1: now border patrol is just letting them go, essentially letting
Speaker 1: them into the interior of the United States. Immigrations and
Speaker 1: Customs enforcement can barely process them. You had Customs and
Speaker 1: Border patrol today say that they're taking people off of
Speaker 1: other missions on the border, like drug interdiction, stopping cartel smuggling,
Speaker 1: including at ports of entry. By the way, to deal
Speaker 1: with the health and the immediate health and physical safety
Speaker 1: risks of some of these migrants who are showing up,
Speaker 1: there's a twenty five hundred person caravan that is making
Speaker 1: its way up from Mexico, a huge group that is
Speaker 1: going to show up and likely surrender itself. My friends,
Speaker 1: this is not going to get better. We are in
Speaker 1: the middle of what is a mass migration from Central
Speaker 1: America into the United States and we do not have
Speaker 1: the political will or the legal framework right now to
Speaker 1: stop it. We are importing hundreds of thousands of people
Speaker 1: that are not being brought into this country for family reunification,
Speaker 1: and they're certainly not being brought into this country for
Speaker 1: their skills and what they will contribute to the economy.
Speaker 1: This is a massive exploitation of the system. Democrats are
Speaker 1: all in favor of this. They will not speak honestly
Speaker 1: about it, but the truth is that if the Democrats
Speaker 1: get their way, they just want this to continue. They
Speaker 1: view this as a step to enlarging the welfare state.
Speaker 1: They think that will be near open border status, and
Speaker 1: especially if the next president comes along and as a Democrat,
Speaker 1: which we always have to take that possibility seriously, they
Speaker 1: will push for amnesty. And that amnesty push is going
Speaker 1: to result in the death of the Republican Party. If
Speaker 1: it is successful, you will not have a party devoted
Speaker 1: to limited government and conservatism and rule of law in
Speaker 1: this country. If Amnesty goes through, you will have America
Speaker 1: go the way of Europe with a social welfare state
Speaker 1: that is the single unifying characteristic of this country. And
Speaker 1: also culturally linguistically in terms of our traditions, that's going
Speaker 1: to put a lot of strain on this country as well.
Speaker 1: But I'm going to tell you everything I can as
Speaker 1: soon as I get down there and spend the day
Speaker 1: with border patrol, and we're really going to try to
Speaker 1: get a lot of frontline information out to you. So
Speaker 1: I'll be talking to you from El Paso, Texas tomorrow
Speaker 1: and Team we'll hit roll call in just a moment.
Speaker 1: Ain't no party like a Team Buck party, Because a
Speaker 1: Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned
Speaker 1: up to eleven. It's time for roll call. That's right,
Speaker 1: roll call before I head on down to the border, everybody,
Speaker 1: last roll call from DC. For a few days, I'll
Speaker 1: be doing the show from El Paso, where the migrant
Speaker 1: crisis is at a a fever pitch right now. I'll
Speaker 1: be doing the show from down there, bringing you some insights.
Speaker 1: And then Friday, I believe we have the Godfather Michael
Speaker 1: Pelka in for me as I make my way back
Speaker 1: into swamp Central. That is the plan, So let's see
Speaker 1: if we can stick to it and keep it. Kragilac
Speaker 1: and Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton, if you want
Speaker 1: to send me your thoughts, your feelings, your witty, whimsical
Speaker 1: observations on life, all that good stuff. Chris. First up,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it be awesome if Trump sued Jessie Smollette for
Speaker 1: using his copyright MAGA to ruin him? Chris? I appreciate
Speaker 1: the creativity in what you're saying. I do not understand
Speaker 1: exactly what you are trying to say, though, so thank
Speaker 1: you for writing it. I guess that would be awesome.
Speaker 1: I don't think that the Trump could do that, though,
Speaker 1: but thank you, Dwayne. We know the Earth isn't flat.
Speaker 1: If it were, the Democrats would have fallen off the
Speaker 1: left edge by now. Booom boom Yeah, Dwayne, you go, Dwayne.
Speaker 1: You don't let anybody tell you your jokes aren't fierce.
Speaker 1: Jokes are fierce. I enjoyed that one. Kimberly Buck, I've
Speaker 1: not heard anyone in this fake Russia mess discussed John
Speaker 1: Roberts if he is overfis a court judges. Is it
Speaker 1: possible he is in on this two? Which is like
Speaker 1: your thoughts, is my guts telling me he's compromised all
Speaker 1: the way back to the Obamacare mess. Just a thought
Speaker 1: keeps running through my head. Kimberly, the FISA courts are
Speaker 1: a different or in a different process, and John Roberts
Speaker 1: is not overseeing the FISA court per se. And I
Speaker 1: don't even know how I'd have to look into how
Speaker 1: oversight of FISI courts is supposed to work. Quite honestly,
Speaker 1: I think there's very little real oversight, if any. So
Speaker 1: you raise an interesting question. Remember it's a secret court,
Speaker 1: so expectations are that there's not going to be a
Speaker 1: lot that goes on there that people get to find
Speaker 1: out about. Alice hey Buck. I'm waiting for someone to
Speaker 1: make the connection that Jesse Smollett's attorney was Mark Geragos,
Speaker 1: who has been named as a a co conspirator in
Speaker 1: the Avanadi Nike extortion case. Connections. Maybe we'll be old
Speaker 1: news by the time you get this, but I think
Speaker 1: it's odd that no one has mentioned it yet. By
Speaker 1: the way, I listen to your podcast every morning. You
Speaker 1: are my ride along in my pocket while I feed
Speaker 1: my horses and do my chores. I value your perspective
Speaker 1: and opinions and love your laugh when you find something
Speaker 1: completely absurd. Thanks for all you do every day, Alice. Well, Alice,
Speaker 1: thank you so much. I appreciate the kind words. And
Speaker 1: as for mark Eric Goes, Yeah, I meant to mention
Speaker 1: that yesterday I think he's been he has been dropped.
Speaker 1: He was a CNN contributor on the legal side, and
Speaker 1: they have said, oh, I think we're going to drop
Speaker 1: this guy because he is now toxic because of what
Speaker 1: has gone on here. So there is that David Shields
Speaker 1: high buck KLBJ Austin listener here, all right, David, give
Speaker 1: them a shout out to all the folks in KLBJ Austen.
Speaker 1: To be honest, small Lett getting away with a hate
Speaker 1: hime is not all that surprising given how Democrats we're
Speaker 1: looking after the Trump exoneration, liberals needed something to knock
Speaker 1: the Mulla report off the headlines, even if it's letting
Speaker 1: a man walk free after framing an entire group of people.
Speaker 1: Don't let them win. Keep talking about Trump's vindication and
Speaker 1: seeking justice for the collusion hoax. Well, David. I really
Speaker 1: appreciate that, because, yeah, I do want to make sure
Speaker 1: that we don't take the pressure off. You know, the
Speaker 1: victory lap is not over and the retribution that should
Speaker 1: be attended to victory laugh. It's just getting started, my friend.
Speaker 1: We are we are just beginning to get that victory
Speaker 1: laugh going on here. So I think it's important we
Speaker 1: keep an eye on that going forward. And I'm going
Speaker 1: to continue to dig into the Russia collusion fiasco from
Speaker 1: the perspective of who tried to make this coup happen,
Speaker 1: and who has been held accountable, and what can we
Speaker 1: do to prevent this from ever happening again, all very
Speaker 1: very important things. Grace Rights, Hey, this is it's actually
Speaker 1: Garrett from East Tennessee. Thank you for your continued coverage
Speaker 1: of the immigration crisis. I know you're possessive of your
Speaker 1: time with the team, but please do have Tom Holman
Speaker 1: on the show. I'd love to hear the two of
Speaker 1: you do a Freedom Hunt special for a whole hour
Speaker 1: segment about the issues surrounding our border. Something you have
Speaker 1: alluded to in your coverage is the incredible cost to
Speaker 1: society that's such a large population of legal immigrants presents,
Speaker 1: But I have never heard anyone paint the picture in
Speaker 1: the context of US state populations. If we have a
Speaker 1: population of twenty to twenty two million illegal immigrants, as
Speaker 1: the mathematicians at Yale tell us, we have a population
Speaker 1: higher than forty seven individual states. Imagine adding the infrastructure
Speaker 1: of the entire state of Florida population about twenty one
Speaker 1: million across the country. And that is what we're going
Speaker 1: to do to accommodate the population increase and maintain the
Speaker 1: operation and function of our society, paying for Florida's roads, freeways, utilities,
Speaker 1: emergency personnel, hospitals, doctors, schools, etc. What number the left
Speaker 1: claims for the whatever number the left claims for the
Speaker 1: legal population, look up the US populations and put it
Speaker 1: in context. Garrett, Well, Garrett, I think you've done a
Speaker 1: very good job of just that for all of us,
Speaker 1: by telling us exactly what's going on here and what
Speaker 1: we need to be aware of when it comes to
Speaker 1: just how much illegal immigration affects this country and what
Speaker 1: the real costs of it may be. So I think
Speaker 1: you're I think you're doing a good job. I think
Speaker 1: you're all over it, my friend. So thank you so much.
Speaker 1: For that, And yeah, it's true, especially if the number
Speaker 1: is twenty two million, as I really do believe it is,
Speaker 1: or I shouldn't say twenty two million. It's over twenty
Speaker 1: was the number of those Yale mathematicians came up with.
Speaker 1: I have no faith whatsoever that the federal government knows
Speaker 1: the real number. And I also know the federal government
Speaker 1: does not want to know the real number. They want
Speaker 1: there to be an before they have to do a
Speaker 1: full count, because once the amnesty comes, then it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what the count is, because you've already decided. We
Speaker 1: will have decided, as the American people, via our representatives,
Speaker 1: that it's time for amnesty. So if it's eleven million
Speaker 1: or twenty million, we're just welcoming more people into our
Speaker 1: American family. And no one is going to feel like
Speaker 1: there's anything there's any particular jeopardy for their careers or
Speaker 1: for their credibility or anything else. And the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: is not going to view it as a liability. Quite
Speaker 1: quite the opposite. They will think that it is a
Speaker 1: massive benefit for them. So there you have it, Gene right,
Speaker 1: Gillibrand carrying on about climate change sounds like a five
Speaker 1: year old crying on the playground at recess. Please, for
Speaker 1: the love of all that's Holly, stop sound bites like
Speaker 1: that shields Hie. Well, you know, Gene, I understand that
Speaker 1: there's there's a balance here between listening to the crazy
Speaker 1: leftists too much and listening to them so that you
Speaker 1: understand what they say and what they really believe. And
Speaker 1: I think we strike a pretty good balance. But you know,
Speaker 1: Jilla Brand really does remind me of a kind of
Speaker 1: young Hillary Clinton. You know, I think that she's somebody
Speaker 1: who will just say anything and do anything to get
Speaker 1: ahead in her political career. She has no ethical core
Speaker 1: to speak of. She's just somebody who really really wants
Speaker 1: to be in power and really wants to be calling
Speaker 1: the shots. And that's why now she says that she's wrong.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you saw this, but Jilla Brand,
Speaker 1: who used to be pretty pro gun because she was
Speaker 1: a congress congresswoman from a part of New York State
Speaker 1: that being pro gun was a smart thing to be,
Speaker 1: now she's miss you know, March for Our Lives, Stop
Speaker 1: the Gun Violence. NRA is bad. You know, whatever she
Speaker 1: has to say, So she is a person I don't
Speaker 1: think we have to worry about as a real presidential contender,
Speaker 1: but she will continue to be an irritation in American
Speaker 1: politics for the foreseeable future. Gene writes, just my opinion,
Speaker 1: but that beard makes you look like Taliban Jean, Come on,
Speaker 1: Taliban man. That's harsh. Not a lot of red bearded
Speaker 1: Taliban guys running around. Look the beard. I don't know
Speaker 1: how long the beard is going to stay. I go
Speaker 1: back and forth on it. So right now though, it's
Speaker 1: finally grown in, so it's not patchy. So I'm enjoying
Speaker 1: that part of it, and I'm definitely gonna keep it
Speaker 1: for a little bit longer. But in these hot DC months,
Speaker 1: I think clean shaven is going to beat out bearded.
Speaker 1: Just I think it's really hard to really hard to
Speaker 1: get excited about having a lot of fur on your
Speaker 1: face when it's in ninety five degrees here with one
Speaker 1: hundred percent humidity. Dotty right, just already talking about Hillary Jr.
Speaker 1: I mean, Kirstency Dottie thinks the same thing I do.
Speaker 1: If she wants to talk about climb it and loss
Speaker 1: of life to fire, what about peshtigo? Oh wait, eighteen
Speaker 1: seventy one was just about the end of the little
Speaker 1: ice age, so I guess that doesn't count shaking my head, Dotty.
Speaker 1: I don't know what peshtigo is, so I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to leave that one up to you. But thanks so
Speaker 1: much for writing in Oh, Harley writes Buck, I gotta
Speaker 1: disagree with this stretchy pants talk. I for one, can't
Speaker 1: stand them. Maybe it's because I'm a barber and their
Speaker 1: short hair clippings get stuck in the elastic and never
Speaker 1: come back out. I wouldn't mind so much if I
Speaker 1: could find some normal pants, but later that I can't
Speaker 1: seem to find any non stretched jeans anywhere. The only
Speaker 1: jeens I can find without elastic are either shapeless masses
Speaker 1: of fabric or jeans that cost two hundred dollars online.
Speaker 1: I hate it. Well, Harley, far be it for me
Speaker 1: to tell you where you should get a good pair
Speaker 1: of jeese, because I honestly don't really I'm not really
Speaker 1: a jeans expert. And as for stretchy pants, I don't
Speaker 1: really know what the best move is there. I think
Speaker 1: you just gotta go with go with the flow, my friends,
Speaker 1: Go with the flow? All right? We got time for
Speaker 1: another one in here, don right, Good evening, Buck shields higher.
Speaker 1: Nice to see the left tucking their tail and running
Speaker 1: on the road of President Trump's reelection test. Studo, brother
Speaker 1: Don down in Louisiana. Oh wait, lower Alabama? Not Callie,
Speaker 1: Wait what I'm confused here, Don, But I get what
Speaker 1: you're saying. Lower Lower Alabama is la oh la lower Alabama.
Speaker 1: Come on, Buck, get sorry, guys, I'm already thinking about
Speaker 1: I got a couple of flights down to El Paso,
Speaker 1: and my mind started to wander a little bit. I'm like,
Speaker 1: what flights am I going to be on? Exactly? Will
Speaker 1: this be like back in the day in the Indiana
Speaker 1: Jones movies, or you get on a flight and there's
Speaker 1: a bunch of chickens flying around and all that stuff.
Speaker 1: Because I'm flying a budget airline, so I don't know
Speaker 1: which budget airline I'm gonna be on. That's right, Buckflies, coach.
Speaker 1: It's how we roll, folks, It's how we roll, stylin.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it for the show today, my friends.
Speaker 1: I'll be talking to you tomorrow from and down on
Speaker 1: the border in ol Paso, Texas. If you have any
Speaker 1: Ol Passo recommendations, by the way, hit me up on
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. I'll be out and
Speaker 1: about and no pass on tomorrow night. Maybe I'll see
Speaker 1: some of you at a bar. Until next time, shield
Speaker 1: hie By. Now you've probably heard me talking about snippy
Speaker 1: dot com, a new social media site. Well, if you've
Speaker 1: looked at snippy dot com and left, look again. Thousands
Speaker 1: of my listeners have joint snippy dot com and they're
Speaker 1: expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy is
Speaker 1: an unbiased social media platform. It's all about conversation and community.
Speaker 1: Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its
Speaker 1: users the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators.
Speaker 1: Just checking the snippy dot com anytime for a quick
Speaker 1: update on politics, sports, current events, you name it. And
Speaker 1: unlike those other social media platforms out there you've heard of,
Speaker 1: Snippy is a place where you don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about shadow banning, left wing speech police or any of
Speaker 1: that stuff. It's totally free to join and open to everyone.
Speaker 1: So check it out for yourself. Join like I have
Speaker 1: and post at snippy dot com again. Snippy dot com,
Speaker 1: no shadow banning, no suppression of conservatism, updated user interface,
Speaker 1: and exciting new features available in the Apple and Google
Speaker 1: app stores. Snippy is your new alternative social media