Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Is Trump out maneuvering
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi in the midst of this shutdown? Or are
Speaker 1: the impending problems in airports and elsewhere going to force
Speaker 1: the Republicans to finally reopen the government. We'll talk about that,
Speaker 1: plus the crisis in Venezuela. What should the US do?
Speaker 1: What do we think of what we've done so far?
Speaker 1: I'll break all that down for you and more coming
Speaker 1: up on The Buck Sexton Show. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American.
Speaker 1: Let you're a great American again. The Buck Sexton Show begins. No,
Speaker 1: we have to have border security. We have to have
Speaker 1: a wall. In order to have border security. You cannot
Speaker 1: have border security without a wall. I mean, we can
Speaker 1: play games and we can talk about technology, we can
Speaker 1: talk about drones flying around. You know, right now formed
Speaker 1: is an eight thousand person caravan and the caravan is
Speaker 1: heading our way. Congratulations, we have another one. We stopped
Speaker 1: the first one, we stopped the second one. We didn't
Speaker 1: have a wall in those areas. It would have been
Speaker 1: very hard to stop them. We have the military, and
Speaker 1: we have the border patrol. They've done an incredible job,
Speaker 1: and Ice has done an incredible job all over the country. Frankly,
Speaker 1: welcome the Buck Sexton show. President Trump's dead. It's strong
Speaker 1: on this one, not backing down, not giving up. And
Speaker 1: it looks like some people, at least on the Democrat side,
Speaker 1: are a little bit concerned about where all of this
Speaker 1: is going a little bit worried that there's at least
Speaker 1: a possibility that maybe Nancy Pelosi getting into this spitting match,
Speaker 1: shall we say, with Trump was not so wise after all.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's in fact the case that Nancy Pelosi has
Speaker 1: has overplayed her hand a little bit here, acting in
Speaker 1: a clearly imperious fashion toward the president, which, whatever you
Speaker 1: think of Trump's tactics up to this point, I think
Speaker 1: Pelosi has acquitted herself very poorly in all of this.
Speaker 1: And I really, I have to say, I've really enjoyed
Speaker 1: some of Trump's barbs directed at Democrats like Pelosi, but
Speaker 1: there are some who are saying, hold on a second, there,
Speaker 1: there could be a problem here. There could in fact
Speaker 1: be an issue. This was from Maggie Haberman last night
Speaker 1: on Twitter. She wrote that the white House believes Pelosi
Speaker 1: has aired in getting into a tactical fight with Trump
Speaker 1: that involves testing who can kick more dirt. I think
Speaker 1: that there's truth to that, you know. I think that
Speaker 1: the Democrats are used to republic aikins, who the moment
Speaker 1: you start to get a little nastier, they go, oh, no,
Speaker 1: don't hit me, you know, don't don't be so rough,
Speaker 1: and they kind of run away. Trump doesn't do that.
Speaker 1: He leans in, He says, give me your best shot.
Speaker 1: And I think I think that if nothing else, the
Speaker 1: debate over the fence, let's just start. Let's just start
Speaker 1: saying the fence so that they don't they don't have this,
Speaker 1: you know, this talking pot anymore about oh he said
Speaker 1: a wool will fine the fence. I'm hearing people now
Speaker 1: who are saying, okay, okay, fine, fine, we all know
Speaker 1: that offence is is gonna work. That was kind of
Speaker 1: what we'll give up. We'll give that up. That was
Speaker 1: kind of a dumb thing that we were saying, offense
Speaker 1: is gonna work. But let's just reopen the government then
Speaker 1: we'll get the fence built. WHOA a whole lot of second.
Speaker 1: We've heard for over two years now, that the notion
Speaker 1: of a fence at our southern border. Democrats, demagogues on TV,
Speaker 1: left wing pundits and anchors and journos and all the rest,
Speaker 1: they have been saying that offense at our southern border
Speaker 1: is foolish, racist, immoral, all that stuff. Now, if you
Speaker 1: pay a little closer attention, you'll hear people say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe there'll be some funding for a wall
Speaker 1: for offense. You know, later on we'll do a little
Speaker 1: more offensing. Yeah, yeah, fine, maybe our walls don't work.
Speaker 1: Talking point isn't quite as brilliant as we thought it was,
Speaker 1: But this is remarkable. Until about five minutes ago, it
Speaker 1: feels like all you gotta do is go on CNN
Speaker 1: and be like, walls don't work, and everybody goes, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, you're right, gosh, walls don't work and water
Speaker 1: isn't wet. These are really intelligent things to say. But
Speaker 1: sure enough, as we look into this a little more,
Speaker 1: we find that Trump has made in roads in this
Speaker 1: national discussion in a way that I think should at
Speaker 1: least we should give him credit for it. At least
Speaker 1: now I can say it. I'll play you some We
Speaker 1: have some audio of a never Trumper that was arguing
Speaker 1: the boarder with me earlier. Today, it's making the rounds
Speaker 1: on social media. You'll want to hear some of it.
Speaker 1: But you know, as as I see here and think
Speaker 1: about the discussions about the boarder that have happened in
Speaker 1: the past in public, you can no longer get away
Speaker 1: with just saying that the offense is stupid. Offense doesn't work.
Speaker 1: You know, if you show me a ten foot wall,
Speaker 1: I'll show you an eleven foot ladder that you've been
Speaker 1: hearing for how long? Things like that, and people who
Speaker 1: say it think that they're smart for saying it. They
Speaker 1: think that this is a really wise that they've come
Speaker 1: up with some witty retort they've got, They've got Trump
Speaker 1: cornered on this whole wall thing, and it's just it's idiocy.
Speaker 1: It's so very very dumb. I wonder if Senator Lindsey
Speaker 1: Graham is correct on this woman. He says that he
Speaker 1: thinks that Nancy Pelosi is not only misunderstanding her position
Speaker 1: visa VI Trump in this debate, but could be a
Speaker 1: problem in the longer term for the Democrats on this
Speaker 1: play fifteen, Please, Nancy Pelosi has become a nightmare for
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. She seems unreasonable. She seems to have
Speaker 1: a dislike for the president that is hurting the country.
Speaker 1: And this idea of not letting the president speak is
Speaker 1: really overplaying your hands, it is. You know, she does
Speaker 1: not look like a seasoned and well adjusted statesman or
Speaker 1: states person on this one. She comes across as somebody
Speaker 1: who is taking a lot of this all very personally
Speaker 1: and is trying to find any way she can just
Speaker 1: stick a thumb in the President's eye. And people are
Speaker 1: looking at the issue and saying, well, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: why is it so hard for you guys to give
Speaker 1: some money for fencing at our southern border? Why is
Speaker 1: that so unthinkable? Think of all the stuff that all
Speaker 1: the money that you know is wasted by the government
Speaker 1: on a regular basis on nonsense stuff. This is important,
Speaker 1: and yet they can't find the money for this. Democrats,
Speaker 1: for the first you know, the only things that Democrats
Speaker 1: don't want to fond apparently are the military beyond a
Speaker 1: you know, minimal amounts and defense, or rather, I could
Speaker 1: put in you this way, the only expenses the Democrats
Speaker 1: really seem to complain about are the military and the fence.
Speaker 1: I don't know what else. They complain about everything else
Speaker 1: they want. The government is spending the taxpayers money. But
Speaker 1: I do think that the problem that looms here for
Speaker 1: the Republicans and for Trump is that the situation at
Speaker 1: the airports is about to get bad. TSA and all
Speaker 1: this stuff, you know, and man that the journal journalists,
Speaker 1: I can tell you, they are just waiting in the
Speaker 1: wings to swoop in on this whole situation. And they
Speaker 1: really look journalists have gotten their teeth kicked in the
Speaker 1: last week. They really have. Although you see that producer Mike,
Speaker 1: you see that that Acosta has has a book coming out.
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta has got a book coming out. It's called like, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, speaking Truth in the Era of Trump or
Speaker 1: some nonsense. I can't I believe he's not calling a
Speaker 1: dear diary. I just think that that's a miss. Anyway.
Speaker 1: This is one of the great myths of our of
Speaker 1: our time, is that journalists in this country are in danger.
Speaker 1: Oh no, they're journalists. Oh it's such a dangerous job.
Speaker 1: I think I told some of you that the Committee
Speaker 1: to Protect Journalists reached out to make I wrote an
Speaker 1: editorial about how not dangerous. I'm not saying there are
Speaker 1: aren't countries where it is dangerous. There are America is
Speaker 1: not one of them. You basically have two shootings of
Speaker 1: journalists in the last thirty years, and you know about
Speaker 1: both of them. One was at the paper in your Baltimore.
Speaker 1: The other was the live stream shooting that you know.
Speaker 1: These are just two disturbed individuals. Yeah. You There have
Speaker 1: also been shootings in the postal buy postal workers against
Speaker 1: their colleagues and by any number of different Yeah, they're
Speaker 1: bad people out there. Journalists are not in jeoparding this country.
Speaker 1: No one is stopping them from doing their job. No
Speaker 1: one is stopping them from saying whether they want to
Speaker 1: say when this is a fantasy. They might as well
Speaker 1: be submitting fan fiction written about themselves. Oh wait, that's
Speaker 1: what Jim Acosta is doing. Man, that guy. You know
Speaker 1: what's funny is that I know enough about him from
Speaker 1: people that work with him too. It's not like he
Speaker 1: thinks this is some great calm that he's running and
Speaker 1: he's just lining his pockets. I could kind of have
Speaker 1: a little bit of yeah, you know, I get it,
Speaker 1: it's got bills to pay. No, I think he really
Speaker 1: believes that he's a First Amendment martyr and that it's
Speaker 1: necessary for the health of our republic that we all
Speaker 1: hear from Jim Acosta. But how he speaks truth to power.
Speaker 1: I have the book for you, by the way, what
Speaker 1: is the name of the book? It's awesome. The Enemy
Speaker 1: of the People. A dangerous time to tell the truth
Speaker 1: in America. Oh my god, Yeah, I can't believe. A
Speaker 1: dangerous time to tell the truth in America. A dangerous
Speaker 1: how Acosta dangerous? How he's more famous and richer and
Speaker 1: more more beloved by the CNN LIB audience than he's
Speaker 1: ever been. So you know what does he even Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, He's the gift that keeps on giving. He's
Speaker 1: incredible in that way. But there is a speaking of
Speaker 1: CNN nice transition here. There is a CNN exclusive story
Speaker 1: just came out right as we went on air. So
Speaker 1: you're getting this hot off the presses or whatever, or
Speaker 1: off the digital stuff on the screen. The White House
Speaker 1: is preparing a draft proclamation for President Donald Trump to
Speaker 1: declare a national emergency along the southern border, and has
Speaker 1: identified more than seven billion dollars in potential funds for
Speaker 1: his signature border wall should he go that route. According
Speaker 1: to internal documents reviewed by CNN. Hopefully CNN's actually seeing
Speaker 1: the documents or else this is going to look pretty bad.
Speaker 1: Trump is not ruled out using his authority to declare
Speaker 1: a national emergency and direct the Defense Department to construct
Speaker 1: a border wall. As Congress and the White House fight
Speaker 1: over a deal to end the government shutdown. While Trump's
Speaker 1: advice just remain divided on the issue, the White House
Speaker 1: has been moving forward with alternative plans that would buy
Speaker 1: pass Congress. I think this is the right move. There's
Speaker 1: a Congressional statute that says that he's allowed to do this.
Speaker 1: It's you know, see, here's the problem that I know
Speaker 1: we run into. People say, Buck, what about the next
Speaker 1: president who comes along, who's a Democrat I wants to
Speaker 1: declare a state of emergency. Do you do any of
Speaker 1: you think that the next president who can't get his
Speaker 1: or her way, who's a left wing Democrat, which just
Speaker 1: means a Democrat, is going to shy away from declaring
Speaker 1: a state of emergency if he or she feels it
Speaker 1: useful to them because Trump didn't do it. Do you
Speaker 1: think this will stop them from using this authority? Obama
Speaker 1: said how many times I don't have the authority to
Speaker 1: go alone publicly in front of the whole country. I
Speaker 1: don't have the authority to go alone on DOCCA. I
Speaker 1: need Congress to do something. Congress was like, nope, what
Speaker 1: did Obama do? Did he did he sit around and
Speaker 1: mope and say, oh, I don't I don't have the
Speaker 1: power on the authority to this. No, we all know it.
Speaker 1: Obama did. He said, Okay, I'm just gonna do what
Speaker 1: I want. Guess what now, I say, I have the
Speaker 1: authority DOCCA. It happens not only that, but then when
Speaker 1: Trump comes along, it says, well, if Obama had the
Speaker 1: authority to enact DOCCA, I as president must have the
Speaker 1: authority to unenact DOCCA. And a court says no, A
Speaker 1: court says no, it's you know, heads Dems win, tails,
Speaker 1: we lose. That's not a good that's not a good
Speaker 1: look for the judiciary, for the presidency, for anything. But
Speaker 1: that's where we are. So that's why that argument. Although
Speaker 1: I'm aware of it, and it's a it's a real point,
Speaker 1: I'm not discounting it. I don't find it as persuasive
Speaker 1: as some of my conservative peers because I know Democrats
Speaker 1: they have a lust for power, and they love to
Speaker 1: wield power and rub the faces of conservatives and of
Speaker 1: Republicans in it when they do so, and do a
Speaker 1: lot of in your face. So you think by Trump
Speaker 1: walking away from a state of emergency, they won't try
Speaker 1: that with and keep in mind, yeah, and then that
Speaker 1: president will probably have it go through the courts. You know,
Speaker 1: if a Democrat comes along, it's this, there's a climate
Speaker 1: change or our Second Amendment emergency, and I'm gonna seize
Speaker 1: all your Yeah, you know, you know what stops Democrats
Speaker 1: from saying they're gonna seize all our guns though they
Speaker 1: know that they can't. Ultimately they know they can't. They
Speaker 1: like to talk about it sometimes maybe a little amongst themselves,
Speaker 1: but it's not gonna happen, and they know that. So
Speaker 1: a state of emergency may may be declared here pretty soon,
Speaker 1: my guests would be Monday at this point, based on
Speaker 1: what we're seeing here in the reporting. Because they're gonna
Speaker 1: miss another pay cycle tomorrow. You're gonna hear a lot
Speaker 1: more stories about federal employees who can't pay the bills,
Speaker 1: can't you know, can't handle the mortgage or deal with
Speaker 1: any of the stuff that's come up. Now, and I'm
Speaker 1: not being dismissive of that. I know that that's a
Speaker 1: financial hardship and that's real. And then the Republicans are
Speaker 1: gonna say okay, or at least Trump is gonna say,
Speaker 1: all right, I'm gonna go for it. And then what's
Speaker 1: interesting is that the only coequal branch with the presidency
Speaker 1: is the Supreme Courts. So what happens if the president says,
Speaker 1: I'm the commander in chief, there's a security emergency, We're
Speaker 1: building this wall, and a federal judge says no, and
Speaker 1: the president says, um, how are you allowed to stop
Speaker 1: me on this? I'm just putting it out there. I'm
Speaker 1: just putting it out there. Does a federal judge I
Speaker 1: think they're gonna they're gonna do what. They're gonna issue
Speaker 1: a an arrest warrant for contempt against the President of
Speaker 1: the United States because he's ordering the military to build
Speaker 1: a fence somewhere, you know, And maybe we should call
Speaker 1: their bluff on this a little bit, you know what, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's gonna go into the court's fine. How does it?
Speaker 1: How does Trump lose in the courts on this issue?
Speaker 1: He says, as an emergency, there's a statute that says
Speaker 1: the president may declaring an emergency. He would have border
Speaker 1: patrol and Immigrations and Customs enforcement to back him up
Speaker 1: on this that there is an emergency. So what exactly
Speaker 1: is going to be the rationale? Oh, because Congress hasn't
Speaker 1: appropriate of these funds. Well, that's why there's the statute
Speaker 1: that says that he can declare state of emergency. I
Speaker 1: you know, Trump people, forget Trump one on the so
Speaker 1: called Muslim band. He won on that, and I told
Speaker 1: you he was going to win on that because he
Speaker 1: had the authority as the commander in chief to do that.
Speaker 1: And all these so called legal experts, you know, the
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Tubins of the world at CNN and these others,
Speaker 1: they were all saying, oh, no, no, no, you know,
Speaker 1: he can't do this, he can't do this, because that's
Speaker 1: what their audience wanted to hear. But it wasn't true.
Speaker 1: Buck doesn't even have a law degree. And I'm a
Speaker 1: better legal analyst than these libs who go on TV
Speaker 1: to talk about this stuff. Trust me, I'm right a
Speaker 1: lot more than they are. Pay attention. You'll see we
Speaker 1: got more coming up. Stay with me. The State of
Speaker 1: the Union, speech has been canceled by Nancy Philosy because
Speaker 1: she doesn't want to hear the truth. She doesn't want
Speaker 1: the American public to hear what's going on, and she's
Speaker 1: afraid of the truth and the super left Democrats, the
Speaker 1: radic old Democrats. What's going on in that party is shocking.
Speaker 1: I know many people that we're Democrats are this switching
Speaker 1: over right now, this switching over quickly. So I hope
Speaker 1: they know what they're doing for their party. So far
Speaker 1: they haven't. Nancy Pelosi is getting such a pass from
Speaker 1: the media on stuff. It's astonishing. First of all, for
Speaker 1: a third time, you have House Democrats that have decided
Speaker 1: they will not allow GOP efforts to actually pay federal
Speaker 1: workers during the shotdown to go through. They don't care
Speaker 1: these just like the Democrats with everything, They don't care
Speaker 1: that federal workers aren't getting paid. Really, they care that
Speaker 1: it looks like Republicans are big, mean meanings because federal
Speaker 1: workers are not getting paid. Nancy Pelosi is not losing
Speaker 1: sleep at night because Coast Guard and Border patrol are
Speaker 1: not getting paid. Trust me, all she and her little
Speaker 1: Democrat cohorts care about is that enough Americans are going Okay, well,
Speaker 1: I watched the news, and the news says the Republicans
Speaker 1: are responsible for those you know what about who's forget
Speaker 1: about who's responsible for the shutdown? Who's right in this debate?
Speaker 1: Who is correct the Republicans of the Democrats. Is there
Speaker 1: a crisis at the border? Yes? Would a fence help,
Speaker 1: among other things that Trump has laid out in a
Speaker 1: comprehensive and very serious proposal. Yes. Is it fully within
Speaker 1: the authority of the United States government to take these
Speaker 1: actions and try to secure the border? Yes? So why
Speaker 1: do we have to sit around and go, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it's the Republicans fall. The Democrats are the ones that
Speaker 1: are immigration extremist. They're making no sense in any of
Speaker 1: this stuff. They keep, you know, they keep hiding the ball,
Speaker 1: moving the football, doing all that stuff all the time.
Speaker 1: When you look at the substance of the issue, who
Speaker 1: is correct? And the truth is that the Republican Party
Speaker 1: is correct. Trump is correct. He makes a lot more
Speaker 1: sense on the board of the Nancy Pelosi does I
Speaker 1: can tell you that, but I think we all know
Speaker 1: where this is head. It's probably heading to an emergency declaration.
Speaker 1: And Democrats are gonna say that Trump is literally worse
Speaker 1: than Hitler. And the Ninth Circuit's gonna enjoy this, and
Speaker 1: they're gonna say, sorry, he can't do or are they're
Speaker 1: gonna put a stay on it or whatever. I shouldn't
Speaker 1: have made that lawyer comment. Now I'm like, Yeah, what's
Speaker 1: the legal language I gotta use here. They're gonna put
Speaker 1: a stop to it until it can go make its
Speaker 1: way through the courts, and that's where we'll be. But
Speaker 1: you know, give give Trump credit if he takes this
Speaker 1: thing all the way. He's taking this thing all the way.
Speaker 1: And I think his base, his voters are going to remember,
Speaker 1: and they're also gonna remember the Democrats on immigration are
Speaker 1: a bunch of liars. Ah, Yes, never Trumpers. There's a
Speaker 1: whole set of conservatives in the media and across the
Speaker 1: country that refer to themselves with pride as never Trump.
Speaker 1: And I've always said from the beginning of this never
Speaker 1: saying that. I know that sounds simplistic, but it's true.
Speaker 1: You know, you just don't know. And beyond that, what
Speaker 1: I see is that there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: who have adopted many of the what they think of
Speaker 1: as the as the cultural and ideological attributes of conservatism
Speaker 1: without actually caring about what's happening to conservatism and conservative
Speaker 1: causes conservative action. Right, So you know, people who think
Speaker 1: that they're carrying on the legacy of William F. Buckley
Speaker 1: by deciding that, you know, they should smoke a cob
Speaker 1: pipe where boat shoose and speak with kind of a
Speaker 1: fancy account about things instead of well, are we are
Speaker 1: we getting conservative judges? Are we getting lower tax rates?
Speaker 1: Are we getting less of regulation? Are we getting a
Speaker 1: foreign policy that focuses on American needs beyond the needs
Speaker 1: of foreign countries? Are we securing the border? You know,
Speaker 1: the reality of the of the implementation of ideas is
Speaker 1: irrelevant to them. It's just the going through the motions, right,
Speaker 1: It's it's the facade of conservatism, the veneer of conservatism
Speaker 1: in place of conservative action. And that then brings me
Speaker 1: to the little exchange that I had today with mister
Speaker 1: Charlie Sikes, who apparently used to have a radio show
Speaker 1: and not one that I ever listened to or heard of,
Speaker 1: but he came on my show Rising this morning. He
Speaker 1: is very very much a never trumper, and we talked
Speaker 1: a bit about the wall, the fence, the border, and
Speaker 1: there were some remarkable take us. By the way, I
Speaker 1: would recommend you to watch the whole clip. It's on
Speaker 1: Facebook right now. You got to Facebook dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton. It's also on YouTube, so you should be
Speaker 1: But the easiest ways to just go on my Facebook page.
Speaker 1: You'll see it there. And I want to walk you
Speaker 1: through some of what's gone on here. UM play play
Speaker 1: clip eleven. But why do you hit all a Donald
Speaker 1: Trump's feed when the Democrats are being completely intransient? I
Speaker 1: mean a year ago they were talking about twenty billion
Speaker 1: dollars of funding for border security in the wall, and
Speaker 1: now they're saying, we won't give you a dollar, not
Speaker 1: a dollar well, okay, saying that though, well, that's actually
Speaker 1: what Nancy Pelosi said recently. I mean, I don't know
Speaker 1: where she's today. She said, no, not a dollar wall. Okay. Well,
Speaker 1: that they've offered billions of dollars for board of Secure
Speaker 1: thousand and six, the Secure Fence Act passes, Chuck tchumers
Speaker 1: talking about twenty or fifteen billion dollars for border security overall,
Speaker 1: which would have included upgraded fence again security. So I'm
Speaker 1: just worrying. I mean, as you obviously don't like the
Speaker 1: President like what he's doing. But all of your eyers
Speaker 1: seem to go toward the Republicans and toward Trump on
Speaker 1: this and not toward the Democrats, who obviously don't want
Speaker 1: a secure border. I mean, that's clear. See that's that's
Speaker 1: just that's just that's just demogragu ry. How is that
Speaker 1: because of course they want to secure. We all wanted,
Speaker 1: we all, we all wanted by the way, the way
Speaker 1: you want to secure. Yes, they want a lot came
Speaker 1: back up for helping. Fuck, this is this is where
Speaker 1: it just all at all starts to go here. Democrats
Speaker 1: wanted to secure. Do you think Nancy Pelosi wants to
Speaker 1: secure border where people really just cannot get any illegally?
Speaker 1: Why do they object every time? You think that they
Speaker 1: want to shut down the magnet to bring people into
Speaker 1: this country, which would mean e verify, workplace verification, and
Speaker 1: internal enforcement of immigration laws, which means deportations of people.
Speaker 1: Do do you think that Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer and
Speaker 1: the Democrats want the eighty to ninety percent of the
Speaker 1: family units that will not get asylum in this country.
Speaker 1: Therefore they are illegal, They are not allowed to be here,
Speaker 1: and they will not show up for their hearings. This
Speaker 1: means they should be deported. Do you think that they
Speaker 1: support that? Now? Of course not. You know, these never
Speaker 1: trumpers are on Pelosi and Schumer's side on immigration. Whether
Speaker 1: it's this guy Sykes who's really smug and annoying and unimpressive. Um,
Speaker 1: I was told that actually, you know, he's one of
Speaker 1: these guys also always always bashes the president for his
Speaker 1: you know, moral turpitude, and you know the guys. This
Speaker 1: guy himself has been married three times and each each
Speaker 1: marriage has apparently ended in a tourist affair. That that's
Speaker 1: what I was told. So you know, I'm look, I'm
Speaker 1: not one to judge, but I will judge one who
Speaker 1: should not be one to judge, and that is this guy. Um.
Speaker 1: We had we had more going on here though that
Speaker 1: I wanted to get into a play clip. Nine. We
Speaker 1: have this shutdown over the non existent wall, which the
Speaker 1: President has already caved on. I mean, there is no wall.
Speaker 1: He's he's he's changed his position on all of that,
Speaker 1: you know, and position on that mean well, because we're
Speaker 1: not building a two thousand mile concrete barrier. Um, we're
Speaker 1: now down. This is all just not over a relatively
Speaker 1: small area. Um, but last two years, when somebody like
Speaker 1: me said, you know, you're not going to build a
Speaker 1: two thousand mile concrete barrier along the border, we were
Speaker 1: accused of being cuts and globalists and for open borders.
Speaker 1: And now the president is saying this. He's winning defense
Speaker 1: debate though, which is a big change. I mean, anybody
Speaker 1: who knows anything about the boy order now knows that
Speaker 1: the fence out. Oh well people will know anything about
Speaker 1: the border. No, the fence works. I mean that's no
Speaker 1: longer up for discussion. Yeah, this is but see this
Speaker 1: is what I mean. Well, you know he's switched on
Speaker 1: the wall. Yeah, he switched from a wall to a fence.
Speaker 1: What what sort of semantic baby ish nonsense is this? Okay,
Speaker 1: he hasn't caved on this is so stupid. He hasn't
Speaker 1: caved on the concept of a barrier or whether you
Speaker 1: call it a wall or a fence. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is crazy, This is crazy. Well this is what you
Speaker 1: get from from the never Trump or squad. And then
Speaker 1: things got a little more interesting. Play twelve. Do you
Speaker 1: think the border is important? Do you think the border
Speaker 1: security is something that's worth Yeah? I didn't care. I
Speaker 1: mean they passed along two thousand and six, saying you're
Speaker 1: gonna do this right, never funded it. Now here we are.
Speaker 1: There is a crisis of the border. Whether it's a
Speaker 1: big crisis or a little crisis we could argue about,
Speaker 1: but it's a major problem. There is no crisis of
Speaker 1: the border. Yeah, but there is no There's no crisis
Speaker 1: at the border that we cannot handle. There's lots of
Speaker 1: ways of securing the border without engaging in the kind
Speaker 1: of crude, reductionist fiction that Donald Trump has engaged in
Speaker 1: saying I'm gonna build this big, beautiful wall that Mexico
Speaker 1: is going to pay for it because buck betiful irishes.
Speaker 1: He has had to change his position on what the wall.
Speaker 1: It's a fence, maybe it's maybe it's not a wall.
Speaker 1: Now we're saying it's a barrier. But this is a
Speaker 1: position that anybody who's known about the border in any
Speaker 1: real sense has known should happen for a long time.
Speaker 1: They passed Congress passed along two thousand and six. I
Speaker 1: need to do this. Trump has finally gotten this thing
Speaker 1: to where it's close to maybe happening. And we're going
Speaker 1: to criticize him because Mexico is not paying for it,
Speaker 1: isn't a much more important issue that there's actually the
Speaker 1: possibility of getting the wall that we even before we're
Speaker 1: gonna get You know, this is I'm trying to have
Speaker 1: a conversation like a normal person. What really matters here,
Speaker 1: that we're gonna get a barrier, that we're gonna get
Speaker 1: a fence, that we're trying to do what should be done.
Speaker 1: And he's saying, oh, this reductionist fiction of the wall
Speaker 1: the Mexico this is all distraction. Border patrol and rations
Speaker 1: and customs enforcement want a wall. Anyone who knows anything
Speaker 1: about the border knows that we should have a barrier offense.
Speaker 1: So wall, it doesn't matter. Something physical there to prevent
Speaker 1: illegal entry into the country in areas where that is effective,
Speaker 1: which is a lot of areas that are still open.
Speaker 1: So what is this guy even talking about. By the
Speaker 1: way he went on, he says during the interview, you
Speaker 1: gotta watch it. You know, there shouldn't be a wall.
Speaker 1: There should be a wall. Trump is ikey. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, I just wish there were none of the
Speaker 1: balls and strikes crowd on Trump. Some great people, they're honest,
Speaker 1: they're smart. I'm fine with it. The never Trump squad.
Speaker 1: I don't know anybody who knows what the heck they're
Speaker 1: talking anymore. It's just all bunk, it's all nonsense. Here
Speaker 1: it is a wealth tax. It was only a matter
Speaker 1: of time, my friends. It's not surprising at all, but
Speaker 1: here it is. Elizabeth Warren apparently didn't have time to
Speaker 1: hang out with Nathan Phillips at the Indigenous People's March.
Speaker 1: I'm a little disappointed personally. I kind of would have
Speaker 1: liked to have seen Elizabeth Warren, you know, suit up
Speaker 1: and then uh and go to the list, go to
Speaker 1: the Indigenous People's March, you know, because she's one one
Speaker 1: and twenty fourth Native American. I think she's got to
Speaker 1: represent that tiny, infinite, testimal fraction of herself that could
Speaker 1: any way be described as Native American. I think she
Speaker 1: needs to really, you know, say it loud and say
Speaker 1: it proud on her Native American heritage. But she isn't
Speaker 1: going away. There's a part of me I almost I
Speaker 1: almost find myself respecting it. And I can't say I
Speaker 1: do respect, but I almost respect her resilience because resilience
Speaker 1: is an incredibly important character trait. I mean, as I
Speaker 1: get a little older and see a little bit more
Speaker 1: in life and actually feel like I know some things now.
Speaker 1: It's I mean, I thought I knew a lot of
Speaker 1: twenty seven, I didn't know squat. I know a lot
Speaker 1: more at thirty seven. I think at forty seven, I'll
Speaker 1: probably think I'm, you know, some kind of savant. But anyway,
Speaker 1: I didn't know any twenty seven. I've learned a lot
Speaker 1: since then. Resilience is key, being able to bounce back,
Speaker 1: and and so that part of me that really just
Speaker 1: respects that human quality that Elizabeth Warren with a straight face,
Speaker 1: thinks there is any universe in which she is going
Speaker 1: to successfully run for the presidency and she's going to
Speaker 1: stick it out and stay in. This is wow. It
Speaker 1: truly is wow. But she's got some tricks up her sleeve.
Speaker 1: You know, she does have a few things. She doesn't
Speaker 1: have a few cards to play and attacks that goes
Speaker 1: after very wealthy Americans, you know, to really dig in
Speaker 1: deep to the envy, the envy quotient here to you
Speaker 1: whose class warfare as a central campaign theme, and promise
Speaker 1: really that she's going to soap the rich, She's gonna
Speaker 1: take him, take him down. It's powerful stuff. It works
Speaker 1: very well. It works very well. It worked very well
Speaker 1: for Chavez and Majuro in Venezuela, which we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about in the third hour of the show, worked
Speaker 1: really well for them. Didn't work out well for the
Speaker 1: Venezuelan people, unfortunately, didn't work out well for those who
Speaker 1: had to live with the consequences of empowering demagogues who
Speaker 1: became despots. And by the way, usually despots start out
Speaker 1: as demagogues. Worth noting. I also love the definition of
Speaker 1: a demagogue as a person who says things he knows
Speaker 1: to be untrue to a room full of people he
Speaker 1: knows to be idiots. That's that's a pretty good working
Speaker 1: definition of a of a demagogue. I think that's no.
Speaker 1: I don't want to see if I give the wrong
Speaker 1: attribution on a quote. I know you you, This is
Speaker 1: a very I gotta always do my homework and then
Speaker 1: something before this show because this audience is you guys.
Speaker 1: I know late, I gotta make a correction later on
Speaker 1: in the show. Came into our inbox on something so
Speaker 1: nothing nothing flies by this team. I use the past
Speaker 1: plu perfect improperly, and all of a sudden, you know,
Speaker 1: things go, things go wrong. But Elizabeth Ward is proposing
Speaker 1: a wealth tax. Ah, here we are. Here's really this
Speaker 1: sweet spot of the social justice left. And I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you, because I'm always honest with you, that this
Speaker 1: is going to be. This is this is a powerful idea,
Speaker 1: and it's powerful idea for a few reasons. But let
Speaker 1: me just first tell you what the idea is. It's,
Speaker 1: according to the Washington Washington Post, a wealth tax on
Speaker 1: those with more than fifty million dollars. He says this
Speaker 1: is to combat soaring wealth inequality. The tax would hit
Speaker 1: those above fifty million with a two percent wealth tax
Speaker 1: and those above one billion with a three percent wealth tax,
Speaker 1: and that this is supposed to raise two point seven
Speaker 1: five trillion dollars over the course of ten years. Now
Speaker 1: here's where this is going to be. Here's where this
Speaker 1: is gonna be tricky, folks. And I'm not gonna lie
Speaker 1: to you about this. If you're really going to talk
Speaker 1: about inequality and what is fair, a wealth tax is
Speaker 1: actually much more fair than an income tax. And you
Speaker 1: know I cannot tell a lie. A wealth tax makes
Speaker 1: a lot more sense. Think of it this way. If
Speaker 1: somebody with a million dollars in the bank and the
Speaker 1: numbers here, I'm just using them because they're easy, right,
Speaker 1: But somebody with a million dollars in the bank makes
Speaker 1: fifty thousand dollars a year in unearned or rather, you know,
Speaker 1: investment incomes and say unearned it's earned. Sorry, I know
Speaker 1: that was a little I threw myself a flag there.
Speaker 1: That sounded a little aoc like. You know, it's it's
Speaker 1: unearned because like you didn't like, like work really hard,
Speaker 1: like and at coffee shop to make it. I get it. Fine,
Speaker 1: But if you make off of investment income fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars because you have a million dollars in the bank
Speaker 1: and you've got a five percent municipal bond, let's say
Speaker 1: it's like Bucks breaking out the green eye shade. Here,
Speaker 1: let's break down the numbers, and then you work really
Speaker 1: hard at your job, whatever job you have across a gun,
Speaker 1: you make fifty thousand dollars. To treat that income as
Speaker 1: though it has the same impact on your life is nonsensical.
Speaker 1: It's just true, right, you know, to tell it's for
Speaker 1: somebody who has a million dollars in the bank to
Speaker 1: live off a fifty thousand dollars, which you know most
Speaker 1: people the million dollars in the bank wouldn't be happy
Speaker 1: to do that. But you know, if they want to
Speaker 1: live off fifty thousand dollars a year, they can. But
Speaker 1: to act like the financial pressures and financial reality of
Speaker 1: somebody who makes fifty thousand dollars a year is the
Speaker 1: same as somebody who is getting fifty thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: year from the assets they have. This is why a
Speaker 1: wealth tax. Actually you start to say, hmm, interesting. Now,
Speaker 1: the way that the way that people always get around
Speaker 1: this is what if your wealth is what if your
Speaker 1: wealth is tied up in real estate or investments, or
Speaker 1: you're not liquid in that percentage? And how do you
Speaker 1: assess I mean, if you have if you've got a
Speaker 1: ten million dollar home, is it really a seven million
Speaker 1: dollar home? I mean, you know there, I understand there's
Speaker 1: a lot of implementation problems at all, but I am
Speaker 1: just saying from a political perspective, this is going to
Speaker 1: be a pretty potent idea. This is going to rally
Speaker 1: the left because people can sit there and say to themselves, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second. You know, if one person has
Speaker 1: ten million dollars in the bank and they make one
Speaker 1: hundred grand, and another person has fifty dollars in the
Speaker 1: bank and bank and they make a hundred grand. Treating
Speaker 1: that income the same way is unfair. It just is.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, this is an income tax is
Speaker 1: really not dealing with the separation between people, because the
Speaker 1: biggest problem that most folks have is just making enough
Speaker 1: to sustain themselves, pay their bills and not fall into debt.
Speaker 1: Once you get out of that trap, then you know,
Speaker 1: money has a very different once you have enough to
Speaker 1: cover the bills and to take care of your lifestyle
Speaker 1: for you know, for the foreseeable money doesn't have quite
Speaker 1: the same value. Right, what is this diminishing marginal utility?
Speaker 1: I mean, we could talk more about that another time.
Speaker 1: But the Warren wealth tax here is going to have
Speaker 1: a really this is this is not something that we
Speaker 1: can just sort of laugh at and forget about, because
Speaker 1: it's going to be powerful. Because finally, the big problem
Speaker 1: of Democrats have in the past with the income tax
Speaker 1: is that to say that somebody should be let's even
Speaker 1: say somebody who makes two hundred and fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a year or you know, five hundred thousand dollars a year,
Speaker 1: they should be taxed the same way as somebody who
Speaker 1: makes fifty million the same percentage. Why who came up
Speaker 1: with that idea? You know, why is that fair? You know?
Speaker 1: It really just turns into a fairness game. Look, this
Speaker 1: is why I'm want a flat tax. I do not
Speaker 1: believe in all this graduated income tax stuff. I think
Speaker 1: it's it's nonsense. There's so many ways of people cheat,
Speaker 1: and so many loopholes and all this other stuff. But
Speaker 1: if we're really going to talk about what's fair, a
Speaker 1: wealth tax is more fair than an income tax. So
Speaker 1: I don't agree with Warren on this. It's a disastrous idea,
Speaker 1: a lot of problems with it. Can't really implement it.
Speaker 1: But to make the case to be the class warfare
Speaker 1: warrior extraordinaire Warren, Uh, she makes some prize some folks
Speaker 1: here introducing a new conservative alternative to all those liberal
Speaker 1: email services out there. I patriots dot us. Look, if
Speaker 1: you're concerned about your current email service, your privacy and
Speaker 1: its protection, Patriots dot us is a great option for you.
Speaker 1: It's secure in private, includes all the good stuff without
Speaker 1: all the email ads and spam you get with some
Speaker 1: of those other servers. Your files are going to be
Speaker 1: safe with ipatriots premium anti virus, anti spam two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty six bit encryption. Ipatriots dot us isn't going
Speaker 1: to sell your information or support liberal agenda items like
Speaker 1: most of those other free email providers. And I patriots
Speaker 1: dot us is compatible with most mobile devices iPhone, iPad, Android,
Speaker 1: Windows Mobile, and BlackBerry. It works on any Windows or
Speaker 1: Mac computer. So show your a Patriot with your email.
Speaker 1: Go to ipatriots dot us now, choose your membership program
Speaker 1: and input your desired ipatriots email address. During checkout, enter
Speaker 1: promo code buck. That's buck for ten percent savings during
Speaker 1: your first year of membership. And I want to pass
Speaker 1: this year a constitutional amendment that writes into the Constitution
Speaker 1: a pro Asian protecting a woman's right to control a
Speaker 1: wrong reproductive health. We'll pass it next year, we'll put
Speaker 1: it on the ballot, we'll right it into the constitution.
Speaker 1: So that was a Governor Cuomo, whom usually I have
Speaker 1: a lot of fun mocking, but this is as serious
Speaker 1: matter as we will ever talk about on this show,
Speaker 1: and probably ever talk about on any show. And then
Speaker 1: at the end there that was just also the people
Speaker 1: in the New York States Senate Chamber. The Democrats who
Speaker 1: after legalizing abortion at any point in a pregnancy, for
Speaker 1: any reason, any pregnancy up to the moment of conception,
Speaker 1: we're giving a standing ovation. You know, I go back
Speaker 1: and forth between outrage at these people and feeling deeply
Speaker 1: sorry for them and really wondering what's gone wrong with
Speaker 1: their souls. I can understand the good faith questions that
Speaker 1: people have about about the life issue in certain ways
Speaker 1: and at certain times, right, I mean, I can understand that.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, let's have a debate over you know,
Speaker 1: is it the moment of conception? Is it? Is it?
Speaker 1: You know, when when it can feel pain or whatever.
Speaker 1: I think it's the moment of conception. I think science
Speaker 1: supports that. But the more important point here is just
Speaker 1: that's not where the left wing Democrat party even wants
Speaker 1: to have a discussion. That that doesn't really matter, That
Speaker 1: that's just for the sake of creating a smoke screen
Speaker 1: and making it seem like the pro life movement somehow
Speaker 1: extreme and and out of the mainstream. And you know,
Speaker 1: you don't you can't trust them on these things. You
Speaker 1: don't know what they're going to say about these things
Speaker 1: because they're just radicals, which of course all of this
Speaker 1: is untrue. In fact, that the pro life movement is
Speaker 1: over just so incredibly decent and thoughtful and full of
Speaker 1: people that really do just want to support life, which
Speaker 1: is as important to cause as exists in the world.
Speaker 1: And they do. They march for life, they fight for life,
Speaker 1: and they do so with dignity and decency. But when
Speaker 1: we're now supposed to have a discussion with people who
Speaker 1: are standing and cheering for this, they don't do this
Speaker 1: and skulk in the corner and have a sense of
Speaker 1: shame that they are passing policy that without question would
Speaker 1: allow for a baby at term to be terminated. It
Speaker 1: is no it is now in the Health Code, it
Speaker 1: is no longer in the legal Code. It is not
Speaker 1: an exaggeration to say that this is satanic and that
Speaker 1: this is the greatest moral sta on this country since slavery.
Speaker 1: That that is no exaggeration. That is a i think,
Speaker 1: a moral and ethical fact. And it's also, unfortunately, at
Speaker 1: this point so central to the political and cultural identity
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party that the issue of abortion is
Speaker 1: really an existential issue of power for the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: that they cannot conceive of a world in which finally
Speaker 1: we come to our senses as a country and outlaw
Speaker 1: this barbaric practice and say no more is this going
Speaker 1: to happen. You know, whatever we have to do, however,
Speaker 1: we have to set up you know, more more, you know,
Speaker 1: adoption centers and facilities and more resource you know, whatever,
Speaker 1: we have to do, whatever we have to do as
Speaker 1: a country, so that so that babies are being born,
Speaker 1: so that you don't have circumstances like you do in
Speaker 1: New York City where one in three babies overall as
Speaker 1: being a board, and more babies from the African American
Speaker 1: community are aborted than born. Horrific, horrific statistics. But you know,
Speaker 1: we should get to a place where whatever we have
Speaker 1: to do as a country, we will do to stop
Speaker 1: this practice, to prohibit this. You know, the human race
Speaker 1: existed for a long time, and we've been around a
Speaker 1: long time without people doing abortions at eight months, okay
Speaker 1: or nine months. I mean, we've been around a long time.
Speaker 1: This is not something that is a necessary part of
Speaker 1: our survival. It's not necessary for women's liberation or any
Speaker 1: of the stuff. That's all just brainwashed lies. But what
Speaker 1: I was getting to with the Democrats and how it's
Speaker 1: an existential issue for their power. Is that if we
Speaker 1: move to a place of moral clarity on abortion, there
Speaker 1: will also have to be a reckoning for what the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party has been doing all this time, and the yes,
Speaker 1: you could say, buck but the Democrats supported slavery and
Speaker 1: look where they are now. But there would be a
Speaker 1: period that would last for quite a while where the
Speaker 1: Democrats moralize on how they pretend to care so much
Speaker 1: about the poor, and they pretend to care so much
Speaker 1: about women and minorities and all this stuff that's central
Speaker 1: to their talking points. But if you look at their
Speaker 1: leadership and how the party really governs and functions, I
Speaker 1: think it's self evident that these are nothing more than
Speaker 1: postures that they take for the reason of political popularity.
Speaker 1: They won't want to have to face what they've done,
Speaker 1: and they won't want the American people to finally turn
Speaker 1: around and say, what have you been pushing for all
Speaker 1: this time? What is wrong with you? Which is the
Speaker 1: only question I think that really comes to mind that
Speaker 1: one can even begin to answer in this situation, or
Speaker 1: begin to ask it. Rather, in this situation, what is
Speaker 1: wrong with you? And Andrew Cuomo is from what I
Speaker 1: am told by people who have worked here and around
Speaker 1: him a not a good man. I don't know why
Speaker 1: people in the state of New York, where I'm from
Speaker 1: would vote for somebody like this. I don't understand why
Speaker 1: there's not more of an outrage from the Catholic community.
Speaker 1: You know, where where are the Catholic firebrands? And again,
Speaker 1: I don't leave out Evangelicals and Protestant denominations because of
Speaker 1: any reason other than I'm just that's not what I
Speaker 1: was raised in and I don't know them as well.
Speaker 1: But the Catholic Church is very clear on one thing,
Speaker 1: which is abortion is a is a is a serious sin.
Speaker 1: And why aren't they you know, why aren't they excommunicating
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi? Why aren't they excommunicating Governor Cuomo. I think
Speaker 1: these are completely fair questions. These are people who claim
Speaker 1: to be of the faith, who are pushing for and
Speaker 1: and and then I know there's also a whole, a
Speaker 1: whole line of argument, and I agree with it that
Speaker 1: you know, forget about faith, I mean, forget about the
Speaker 1: the religious component of thiss too. Anybody with a basic
Speaker 1: understanding of science knows that this is life, and life
Speaker 1: that is being extinguished. There are two beings here, there
Speaker 1: are two human lives. There are two people that are
Speaker 1: in this process of mother and baby in womb. There's
Speaker 1: no way around this. This is like the left on
Speaker 1: the gender identity debate, where they pretend that men and
Speaker 1: women there's nothing different about them. But they're wrong. There
Speaker 1: are fundamental physical differences, and they can say that a
Speaker 1: baby in the womb is not a baby, but they're wrong. Scientifically, provably, observably,
Speaker 1: they are wrong. And that then also leads to all
Speaker 1: the other falsehoods around this, the inability that they have
Speaker 1: to speak honestly about the abortion procedure, about what's involved
Speaker 1: in it. So many people I know will say, oh,
Speaker 1: that's not what it is, that's not what happens, and
Speaker 1: then they will have to be told, oh, no, that
Speaker 1: is just that is how barbaric this whole process is.
Speaker 1: That is how wrong this is. And the Left is
Speaker 1: rabid about this, and they celebrate it, as you could
Speaker 1: hear from their standing ovations, and you know, they celebrate
Speaker 1: the idea that remember our tax dollars, your tax dollars,
Speaker 1: A minor going to this too in a sense by
Speaker 1: paying taxes were complicit and I don't know what to
Speaker 1: say about Republicans not defunding Planned Parenthood. You know, I
Speaker 1: cannot begin to make excuses for it. I don't know
Speaker 1: what it's going to take for us to hold them
Speaker 1: accountable for this. This was a promise that was made.
Speaker 1: This is a promise that Trump and the Republicans have
Speaker 1: not delivered on. What was stopping them defund Planned Parenthood?
Speaker 1: How hard is this? They didn't do it. They didn't
Speaker 1: do it, and I worry it's because there are a
Speaker 1: lot of people that like their donations, They like getting
Speaker 1: invited to fancy cocktail parties, they like being thought of
Speaker 1: well by the elite media. And at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, even in defense of unborn life, there's a
Speaker 1: lot of cowardice, even on the right. You know what's
Speaker 1: smart figuring out who you need to hire take your
Speaker 1: business to the next level into nineteen You know what
Speaker 1: else is smart? Starting a new year off strong by
Speaker 1: going to zip recruiter, dot com slash buck to hire
Speaker 1: the right people. Unlike other job sites, zip recruiter finds
Speaker 1: qualified candidates for you. It's powerful matching technology scans thousands
Speaker 1: of resumes to identify people with the right skills education
Speaker 1: and experience and actively invites them to apply to your
Speaker 1: job so you can get qualified candidates fast. That's why
Speaker 1: zip recruiter is rated number one by employers in the
Speaker 1: US and this rating comes from hiring sites on trust
Speaker 1: Pilot with over a thousand reviews. Right now, my listeners
Speaker 1: can try zip recruiter for free at this exclusive web address,
Speaker 1: zip recruiter dot com slash buck. If you love this show,
Speaker 1: show your support for it and for zip recruiter by
Speaker 1: going to zip recruiter dot com slash buck again one
Speaker 1: more time. You can try it totally free, just like
Speaker 1: I did. Zip recruiter dot com, slash buck. Zip recruiter
Speaker 1: is the smartest way to hire. Do you think in
Speaker 1: that confrontation, that encounter that went on and on, should
Speaker 1: you have walked away? He said, yes, he thinks now
Speaker 1: he should have walked away. Do you think, sir, you
Speaker 1: should have walked away. That's what I was trying to do.
Speaker 1: I was trying to walk away. There was a spot,
Speaker 1: there is a place where I could take wire close
Speaker 1: because we were surrounded. We couldn't go right, we couldn't
Speaker 1: go left back, you know. And then that I was
Speaker 1: still in prayer, still singing. And then I was looking
Speaker 1: past the crowd and I took that first step in
Speaker 1: that crowd backed up. I took a second step, and
Speaker 1: crowd started scattering or breaking apart there and I took
Speaker 1: a third part and I actually seen a clear space.
Speaker 1: I said, that's the space, and we started going that way,
Speaker 1: and from somewhere, just from a clear space, a person
Speaker 1: was there. You feel you were blocked, Oh, I was blocked.
Speaker 1: That's a lie. We know that's a lie because we
Speaker 1: have video of the whole encounter. He walked up to
Speaker 1: a bunch of kids, got right in one of their faces,
Speaker 1: found one with a maga hat on, and banged a
Speaker 1: drum as loud as he could. That's what happened. Everything
Speaker 1: else that, in all these other descriptions of it, all
Speaker 1: the other versions of events. Guy's lying. But it shouldn't
Speaker 1: be surprised to anyone because this this individual is in
Speaker 1: fact a liar. Nathan Phillips is somebody who I think
Speaker 1: people should understand is not to be trusted on this account,
Speaker 1: I'm sure on many other accounts as well. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's clearly a weird guy, right, So I would I
Speaker 1: would start with that, and which doesn't mean that he's untruthful,
Speaker 1: but when you add into it all the things that
Speaker 1: he said that are false, that are fake, you have
Speaker 1: to stop and say to yourself, well, hold on just
Speaker 1: a second, what exactly are we Why do we give
Speaker 1: him that this benefit of the doubt? Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: because of his he's a Native American with military service.
Speaker 1: That was the only story they wanted to tell. Kind
Speaker 1: of reminds me remember what the Trayvon thing, when there
Speaker 1: was such an effort and you saw it with with
Speaker 1: Mike Brown too. You have a minority, and you know,
Speaker 1: in the whole Ferguson situation, you have a minority in Ferguson,
Speaker 1: a minority in Where was it, producer, Mike? Where was tripe?
Speaker 1: Was that in Miami? Where was the tripe? I know
Speaker 1: it was Florida? Where was it in Florida? I forget
Speaker 1: now anyway, I think it was in the Miami area,
Speaker 1: but I could be it could be in another So
Speaker 1: it was in Florida. That's all it really matters. But
Speaker 1: there was this very clear media decision to you know,
Speaker 1: depict Trayvon Martin as a twelve year old, and in fact,
Speaker 1: people forget this. It was an NBC reporter or producer
Speaker 1: who changed the audio of that guy Zimmerman, so that
Speaker 1: it sounded like he said something he didn't say, just
Speaker 1: because she thought, you know, for the cause, you know,
Speaker 1: why not, let's just stack the deck on this guy.
Speaker 1: And you know, you had Mike Brown, this photo that
Speaker 1: would show up of him all the time, was him
Speaker 1: in his high school graduation photo. You know, clearly designed
Speaker 1: Miami Gardens, Florida. Yeah, I was right about Treyvon. Okay,
Speaker 1: clearly designed in the case of Mike Brown and Ferguson
Speaker 1: to give the impression that he's some kind of scholar.
Speaker 1: I mean, the guy had just just strong arm robbed
Speaker 1: a store moments before, and then he tried to strong
Speaker 1: arm rob a cop of his gun and it didn't
Speaker 1: work out well for him. This, you know, it reminds
Speaker 1: me of how the media, you know, talks about the
Speaker 1: Covington story. Who look at the Treyvon case, you look
Speaker 1: at the Mike Brown case, and there are people who
Speaker 1: will still say that there are some kind of heroes.
Speaker 1: I saw a Black Lives Matter march in New York
Speaker 1: City where there was a bit there was a car
Speaker 1: you know, almost I think it was a pickup truck
Speaker 1: driving down Sixth Avenue and there was a big placard
Speaker 1: of Mike Brown. And you know, remember Mike Brown, Like
Speaker 1: Mike Brown's some kind of hero Mike Brown. According to
Speaker 1: eyewitness testimony that were included African Americans who lived by
Speaker 1: the way in Saint Louis, and we're there for this
Speaker 1: whole situation, Mike Brown attacked a cop. You know, probably
Speaker 1: didn't like that. The cop, you know, told him to
Speaker 1: get out of the middle of the road and asked
Speaker 1: him if he had just been at a store or whatever,
Speaker 1: and things got things got physical, and he tried to
Speaker 1: charge a police officer. Well you try to charge a
Speaker 1: cop and you're you know, six foot three and two
Speaker 1: hundred and sixty pounds or whatever he was. Guess what,
Speaker 1: It can end very badly. But they will stick to
Speaker 1: the narrative even when it's false because it has emotional impact.
Speaker 1: You see, it emotionally touches people. Even though it's not true,
Speaker 1: it becomes a fiction that is useful. The media will
Speaker 1: do this. They will tell stories to you that are
Speaker 1: useful fiction. And that's why with this guy Nathan Philip Ups,
Speaker 1: you know, he's a Native American he was just there
Speaker 1: peacefully praying. Wasn't doing you know? Also he was demonstrating
Speaker 1: for who what is he? He's standing outside the Lincoln Memorials,
Speaker 1: standing there, and he's part of the Indigenous People's march.
Speaker 1: I mean, what is what was really his purpose? Is
Speaker 1: what I went on this guy as an activist. I'm
Speaker 1: just curious. These are the questions I think a real
Speaker 1: journalist would ask somebody. But instead, you know that they
Speaker 1: present this narrative of a guy who they say, you know,
Speaker 1: his his military service, uh, you know, and a Native
Speaker 1: American background or all you need to know about him,
Speaker 1: and then even his military service becomes a point of
Speaker 1: some contention. Play five. Clear, you served in the Marines
Speaker 1: at the time that Vietnam was going on, but she
Speaker 1: did not serve overseas. What I've always said is I've
Speaker 1: never stepped foot in South Vietnam, and that's I don't care.
Speaker 1: How much care can that be when I come home
Speaker 1: those times I got spin On, actually spin On called
Speaker 1: a baby killer. I'm a Vietnam Times veterrian arnorable discharge. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I gotta Section eight home because I'm a veteran, wartime
Speaker 1: veteran like that arnorable in Deeter. So I have section
Speaker 1: eight home. I have to defer to again defer to
Speaker 1: the veterans and the audience about you know how this
Speaker 1: guy's describing as time. I've always found that that's people
Speaker 1: in the in the different civilian services of the country
Speaker 1: as well overseas. You know, you always want to air
Speaker 1: on the side of downplaying stuff, and you know, I
Speaker 1: certainly wouldn't want to be you know, I was. I
Speaker 1: was in a rock era, you know, desk kicker. It's like,
Speaker 1: what does that mean? You're not a door kicker, You're
Speaker 1: a desk kicker. I mean, what does that? Someone explain
Speaker 1: that one to me? Um very very very strange from
Speaker 1: this guy. But but you know, I just think that
Speaker 1: they're latching onto this and they're they're not They're very
Speaker 1: clearly not going to let it go. And then there's
Speaker 1: one more thing here about the the smirk. This is
Speaker 1: the issue Guthrie. I didn't get this yesterday Guthrie when
Speaker 1: she asked Salmon, the fifteen year old kid, about his face. Here,
Speaker 1: let's just dig into the playcli Bait. I see it
Speaker 1: as a smile saying that this is the best you're
Speaker 1: going to get. Out of me. You won't get any
Speaker 1: further reaction of aggression. And I'm willing to stand here
Speaker 1: as long as you want to hit this strong in
Speaker 1: my face. What some people see as a young kid
Speaker 1: with a smirk on his face. What would you say
Speaker 1: for people who see that and are making a judgment
Speaker 1: about who you are? Well, people who have judged me
Speaker 1: and based off one expression which I wasn't smirking, but
Speaker 1: people have assumed that's what I have and they've gone
Speaker 1: from there to titling me and labeling me as a
Speaker 1: racist person, someone that's disrespectful to adults, which they've had
Speaker 1: to assume so many things to get there without consulting
Speaker 1: anyone that can give them the opposite story. I just
Speaker 1: want to know, look at how how very clearly she is.
Speaker 1: I'm going to get into this more in a moment,
Speaker 1: but the difference in tone, it is so obvious. You know,
Speaker 1: Guthree is very you know, playing the playing the tough
Speaker 1: schoolmarm when it comes to Sandman. But you know, with Phillips,
Speaker 1: the military vet and Native American activists, you know, just
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, we're just so glad you're here. I'm
Speaker 1: just so glad you're safe. After all those terrifying fifteen
Speaker 1: year old high school Catholic boys didn't do anything to you,
Speaker 1: but you know, maybe they could have or something. I've
Speaker 1: never had less respect for the media than I do
Speaker 1: this week, and I'm never going to feel differently about
Speaker 1: them than I do now. A troubling scene many are
Speaker 1: calling a racist played out in Washington yesterday on the
Speaker 1: steps of the Lincoln the morning some students harassing an
Speaker 1: older Native American man of Vietnam vet. The situation came
Speaker 1: to ahead when that young man there, wearing a Make
Speaker 1: America Great Again hat, got right in his face and
Speaker 1: didn't move. The video appears to show dozens of youths
Speaker 1: wearing Make American Great Again hats mocking Native American elder
Speaker 1: in Vietnam veteran Nathan Phillips. Yesterday, a Native American man
Speaker 1: was confronted by young people make America Great hat song.
Speaker 1: There's something wrong with that. Outrage over this now viral
Speaker 1: video showing high school teenagers harassing a Native American elder.
Speaker 1: When you have the kind of anger that we saw
Speaker 1: at the Indigenous People's March where a veteran, a Native
Speaker 1: American man was you had a standoff with students who were,
Speaker 1: you know, mocking him. A crowd of teenagers surrounding a
Speaker 1: Native American elder and other activists. As one smirking high
Speaker 1: school student blocks the elder's path, another man of peace
Speaker 1: stands face to face with Big. We feel that President
Speaker 1: Trump is giving license to some of this behavior, so
Speaker 1: much nonsense, so many lies from a media that does
Speaker 1: not seem to care very much at all, that they
Speaker 1: have put children in a situation where they are now
Speaker 1: receiving threats. They are now their parents have been receiving threats.
Speaker 1: They have to have police at their school. They are
Speaker 1: no longer in a situation where they can just focus
Speaker 1: on their studies and what should be going on in
Speaker 1: their lives. They have to now think about safety and
Speaker 1: the way they never have before. And I keep going
Speaker 1: back to this, they didn't do anything wrong. I don't
Speaker 1: mean that they didn't do anything really big wrong. They
Speaker 1: didn't do anything wrong. And this is why I think
Speaker 1: when I when I wrote earlier in the week about
Speaker 1: when I wrote on the Hill dot com out the
Speaker 1: way that the social media mop can come from anyone,
Speaker 1: can come for anyone. This is so instructive of that
Speaker 1: concept what's happened to the Covington students, And I think
Speaker 1: it's maybe starting to show people that there is a
Speaker 1: need to socially reject this idea that people should just
Speaker 1: get away with piling arm destroying someone's character, ruining their lives,
Speaker 1: ruining their reputation just because they feel like that. That
Speaker 1: should be considered entirely and totally unacceptable in every possible way.
Speaker 1: Because these kids, they didn't get in trouble because they
Speaker 1: were on social media. They got in trouble because they
Speaker 1: were on a school trip. People wrote to me because
Speaker 1: that column that I mentioned Earli the week, it went
Speaker 1: pretty viral. I mean, it got a pretty huge readership,
Speaker 1: which was nice. Thank you all of you, by the way,
Speaker 1: who share my stuff, whether it's you know, when I
Speaker 1: put out too links for the podcast or obviously articles
Speaker 1: that I've written. I'm trying to write every Monday now
Speaker 1: and going forward for a while. But I've I've got
Speaker 1: a heavy load that I have to carry in terms
Speaker 1: of the workload every day. So one thing I thought
Speaker 1: was interesting was how many people came to me with, well,
Speaker 1: the real the answer here is just don't be on
Speaker 1: social media, and no, no, no, no no, No, this isn't.
Speaker 1: Oh gosh, how do you avoid being dragged which is
Speaker 1: what everyone calls it when you get the pylon and
Speaker 1: everyone's trying to destroy you on social media? How do
Speaker 1: you avoid getting dragged on social media if you're using Twitter,
Speaker 1: if you're using Facebook in these places? No, no, this
Speaker 1: is how do you go through life knowing that you
Speaker 1: can do something entirely insignificant and in which you are
Speaker 1: in no way wrong. But because of the social justice left,
Speaker 1: because of the kind of people that really like to
Speaker 1: leap on certain stories, create certain stories, even that fit
Speaker 1: a preconc see view that they have of the world.
Speaker 1: You could be walking to the grocery store and you
Speaker 1: bump into somebody walking in the door, and all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, you turn into a viral meme. You know,
Speaker 1: if you're wearing if you were in a Maga hat,
Speaker 1: you better watch out. I've been thinking for a while
Speaker 1: it would be interesting just to see what the reactions
Speaker 1: were if I were to walk around certain parts of
Speaker 1: DC with a Maga hat on. I'm gonna be honest
Speaker 1: with one of the reasons I haven't done it and
Speaker 1: videotaped it obviously, is because I don't want to have
Speaker 1: to get into a confrontation with a possible physical confrontation
Speaker 1: with something just for wearing the hat. I was very
Speaker 1: disheartened today when on my own panel at the Hill,
Speaker 1: I said that for Lissa Milano, who's Chihuahua almost peeed
Speaker 1: on my foot, that one time, I'll always remember that,
Speaker 1: We'll always have that Alyssa for a Lissa Milano to
Speaker 1: say that the MAGA hat is similar to a KKK
Speaker 1: hood and for some of the people on my panel,
Speaker 1: the panel guests said that he kind of understands that.
Speaker 1: I'm like, no, you can oppose Trump, you can hate
Speaker 1: what he's doing and all that stuff, but let's not
Speaker 1: just completely forget about any reality, any sense of perspective
Speaker 1: or context, you know. And this is where I am.
Speaker 1: I just have media outrage fatigue on all things Trump.
Speaker 1: I mean, I do feel like sometimes if the Trumpster
Speaker 1: did have a really bad day and did something really
Speaker 1: really bad, I'd say, yeah, it's bad. But I don't
Speaker 1: even know how much it would registre with me, because
Speaker 1: I know the media would be saying, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: he's Hitler. No, he's not Hitler, he's not Hitler, and
Speaker 1: they need to stop this nonsense. But putting aside the
Speaker 1: present for second, as you see, that same frenzy and
Speaker 1: that same over zealousness to try to tell certain stories
Speaker 1: about certain kinds of people can affect fifteen year old
Speaker 1: kids on a school trip. It can affect anyone. You
Speaker 1: don't it's not enough to not be a social media user.
Speaker 1: If you leave your house, if you go to work,
Speaker 1: if you have any interaction with the outside world, you
Speaker 1: can be somebody who becomes a social media mem I
Speaker 1: think of. You know, there have been some of these
Speaker 1: cases where someone I think, wouldn't open the door to
Speaker 1: a private apartment building for a group of a group
Speaker 1: of kids, and you know, the person didn't believe they
Speaker 1: lived there or had a reason to be there, and
Speaker 1: that was called And I don't remember the specifics of
Speaker 1: the story, so you know, maybe there was badtech whatever.
Speaker 1: But I'm just saying minor day to day interactions, because
Speaker 1: we all carry the means to both record and transmit
Speaker 1: to the Internet everything that's happening all the time, minor
Speaker 1: day to day interactions can become a national scandal. Even
Speaker 1: if you don't have a Facebook account or a Twitter account.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter if you're just out there doing anything.
Speaker 1: And I think about how, you know, when I was
Speaker 1: at when I was a student at Amherst, there was
Speaker 1: we had this pretty pretty fancy gymnasium, I guess for
Speaker 1: a relatively small school, and wanted to use it. We
Speaker 1: had multiple basketball courts, and you know, it was a
Speaker 1: nice facility, and townies would would show up. And a
Speaker 1: good percentage of the townies, by the way, they weren't
Speaker 1: African American, but they were non white. A few of
Speaker 1: them I think were Filipino, a few of them. There
Speaker 1: were a bunch of different a bunch of different ethnicities
Speaker 1: represented in this group of townies that I'm thinking of
Speaker 1: in particular, and they would show up and they would
Speaker 1: use our facilities. Now, technically they're not allowed to be there.
Speaker 1: And more importantly than just the technicality of them not
Speaker 1: supposed to be on the gymnasium, you know, using the
Speaker 1: facilities that people are paying a lot of money to
Speaker 1: be able to use, is that there's actually a liability.
Speaker 1: So if one of them were to break his ankle,
Speaker 1: he could sue the school and he'd win. Okay, So
Speaker 1: there's a real reason for them not to be there.
Speaker 1: But when the students who were paid, you know, minimum
Speaker 1: wage to sit at the door of the gymnasium, asked
Speaker 1: them for their student IDs. Oh my gosh, there was
Speaker 1: a It was a huge scandal. And how dare they
Speaker 1: because I think out of a group of twelve or
Speaker 1: thirteen townies who were not students, there was one kid
Speaker 1: who actually was a student, and he was a minority. Therefore,
Speaker 1: the fact that all the other kids they asked for
Speaker 1: their IDs who did not have them because they weren't
Speaker 1: supposed to be there, forget about all that. It's just
Speaker 1: the one, the one person who was a student who
Speaker 1: had to show his ID. That became a giant scandal,
Speaker 1: and they wanted to install a wildly expensive I forget
Speaker 1: what it was, but you know it was I think
Speaker 1: in the at least in the tens, maybe even a
Speaker 1: low hundred of thousands of dollars system for swiping and
Speaker 1: all this. Anyway, it's just but I just think of
Speaker 1: these these incidents that I know have happened. Where could
Speaker 1: you imagine if this was caught on video? I mean,
Speaker 1: now you could be you could be in a position
Speaker 1: where you're you're the bad guy. You know, you're you're
Speaker 1: the bad person. You're the person that everybody gets to
Speaker 1: beat up on and say is terrible. And maybe we
Speaker 1: weren't even doing anything wrong, but that doesn't matter because
Speaker 1: the mob comes for you. And that's another part of
Speaker 1: this too. It doesn't matter where the truth is, as
Speaker 1: we see with the kids, I mean, it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: the mob at least as we see with the Covington kids.
Speaker 1: They the people that spread this stuff around. They feel
Speaker 1: righteous even when they're wrong, just like the media. And
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk more about that in a moment here.
Speaker 1: First question, how are you doing? This has been a
Speaker 1: whirlwinds few days for you. You find yourself on the
Speaker 1: front page of every newspaper. How are you doing and
Speaker 1: how are you feeling? Well? I woke up strong this
Speaker 1: morning and with the really positive attitude, and I had
Speaker 1: an opportunity to go and to traditional prayer ceremony, and
Speaker 1: that was the other night yesterday. I woke up with
Speaker 1: all kinds of good feelings in my heart for all
Speaker 1: those who've been been mean to me, I want to
Speaker 1: forgive them. Notice the tone of traditional mainstream media Darling
Speaker 1: Savannah gut three here, Notice the tone. Hey, so I
Speaker 1: just want to say, so, how are you doing? You know,
Speaker 1: how's it going? This is intentional, folks. The tone that
Speaker 1: she takes when interviewing the adult who has led to
Speaker 1: the threatening of the small children, right, or not small children,
Speaker 1: but the children or fifteen years old. The tone she
Speaker 1: takes toward the kids Sandman is much more along the
Speaker 1: lines of a scolding teacher who just wants the student
Speaker 1: to know how he's made it. You know what he's
Speaker 1: done wrong. It's it's not that I'm angry, Nicholas Sandman,
Speaker 1: It's it's that I'm disappointed. That was Savannah Cutthree's tone. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: with Nathan Phillips, she's like, bro, my fellow liberal activist,
Speaker 1: my Native American brother who has suffered so much oppression
Speaker 1: because all Native Americans do. And I want the audience
Speaker 1: to know how much I care. As a good lib
Speaker 1: who is in good standing with the Democratic Party. I
Speaker 1: want them to know how much I care about all
Speaker 1: of this. I want them to know that you know,
Speaker 1: I'm on your side, even though I'm not going to
Speaker 1: say it openly and outright. This guy is a problem.
Speaker 1: This guy is the one who led to kids getting threats.
Speaker 1: He chose to create a weird confrontation. He was banging
Speaker 1: a drum in someone's face, which is very aggressive, and
Speaker 1: she clearly thinks that he's a good guy. And Savannah
Speaker 1: Guthrie is a joke. He's a joke. I don't care,
Speaker 1: it's just true. Might try to be mean. She is not.
Speaker 1: She is not a serious journalist in the sense that
Speaker 1: she has any ethics or integrity and how she approaches this.
Speaker 1: She's a partisan pretending to be a journalist, which is
Speaker 1: the worst kind. You want. You want some examples of
Speaker 1: just what I'm talking about here, play clip eighteen. These
Speaker 1: are all the times that Nathan Phillips attacked Nick Sandman
Speaker 1: in the interview where there was no pushback at all
Speaker 1: from Savannah Guthrie. Play I was upset. I was made
Speaker 1: to sit down and watch it. What was her reaction
Speaker 1: to it? Coached and written up for him? Insincerity, lack
Speaker 1: of responsibility. Well, if there's an apology, there'd be an
Speaker 1: apologie for his own behavior because of the tomahawk chop
Speaker 1: in the mocking. In one of his statements, he did
Speaker 1: say that he was the leader of that. He got
Speaker 1: permission from his school teacher. So there's there's a lot
Speaker 1: of times he could have walked away. You can hear
Speaker 1: him saying, build that wall. All that anger was directed
Speaker 1: at those four individuals, the black Israelites. It was getting
Speaker 1: really explosive. We were surrounded. We couldn't go right, we
Speaker 1: couldn't go left. Back how I was blocked. He has
Speaker 1: a PR firm, so those aren't even his words. If
Speaker 1: he has a PR firm, some sincerity, some sense of
Speaker 1: responsibility for his action. Yeah, they were surrounded, just like
Speaker 1: Phillips was surrounded back in Nam, right, a country he
Speaker 1: never set foot in. But les to refer to himself
Speaker 1: as a Vietnam time as veteran. I'll leave that to
Speaker 1: the vets in the audience. How much that annoys you,
Speaker 1: you know? How how I know some vets who said
Speaker 1: they feel like that's just on the edge of stolen
Speaker 1: valor to say that you are a combat vet in
Speaker 1: a war zone when you never even were in the
Speaker 1: war zone. You are a refrigerator mechanic in the States,
Speaker 1: that you know. I'll leave that to the vets to
Speaker 1: to determine one way or the other. They can be
Speaker 1: the judges of that one. To me, it's it strikes
Speaker 1: me as problematic, But I'm not a vet, So I'll
Speaker 1: pose that one to those who are notice all the
Speaker 1: things he says here. I mean, he's trashing a fifteen
Speaker 1: year old kid. And you know, this guy's a professional activist.
Speaker 1: All he does, this is all he wants. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is probably the best day of his life. Let's
Speaker 1: just also agree on that. Right, he's not getting threats,
Speaker 1: His life hasn't been upended. You know, the media didn't
Speaker 1: didn't start trashing him. In fact, they made it very
Speaker 1: clear they think he's some kind of hero. You know,
Speaker 1: he's the good guy in this whole process. He's the
Speaker 1: one that everyone's supposed to say, oh wow, look at
Speaker 1: look at the terrible MAGA hat wearing white kids that
Speaker 1: have surrounded him, to say that the kids should have
Speaker 1: apologized for what exactly. Salmon didn't do anything. Producer Mike
Speaker 1: is telling me, this guy was also listed as a
Speaker 1: wall three different times, you know, I mean, yeah, take
Speaker 1: that for what it's worth. Salmon didn't do anything wrong.
Speaker 1: So I'm going to need someone to explain to me
Speaker 1: why should an individual apologize when that person did not,
Speaker 1: in fact do anything wrong. You know, why should somebody
Speaker 1: be in a position to say to the whole world
Speaker 1: of the whole country. Oh, I'm so sorry about that.
Speaker 1: I'll never let that happen again. When they didn't do
Speaker 1: anything that should require an apology, you know, I just
Speaker 1: have to say that. Then the media on this has
Speaker 1: somehow managed to be even worse, you know, the BuzzFeed debacle.
Speaker 1: We all said to ourselves, those of us are paying attention. Wow,
Speaker 1: these guys are so anti Trump that they can't they
Speaker 1: just can't shoot straight. I mean, they don't get it right.
Speaker 1: They flop on this one. You could tell the way
Speaker 1: the media was reporting on this, there was very yeah,
Speaker 1: if true, but then there was very little skepticism of this.
Speaker 1: There was a feverish excitement around the possibility of finally
Speaker 1: getting Trump. And Joey Baija says, you know, this is
Speaker 1: what this is, what this is all about. They want
Speaker 1: to get Trump, and anyone who's trying to stand in
Speaker 1: the way of them getting Trump is a problem, and
Speaker 1: they want to take Trump down and that's why they
Speaker 1: jump on these stories. Right, So we know all that,
Speaker 1: But then to tell this false narrative about these fifteen
Speaker 1: year old kids and to create a situation where the
Speaker 1: entirety of the media is then trying to scramble to
Speaker 1: find some justification, right, to find some justification for having
Speaker 1: reported on these kids this way. So that's when you
Speaker 1: get they didn't even tell you about this they I
Speaker 1: think it was NBC News, No Surprise, ran a story
Speaker 1: about how a kid who claimed he wasn't allowed to
Speaker 1: speak at his graduate high school graduation because he was gay.
Speaker 1: I also read it was because he turned in his
Speaker 1: speech late and he missed the deadline, but anyway, says
Speaker 1: he was gay. They quoted him as saying, I'm not
Speaker 1: surprised about what happened at Covington, and that became a
Speaker 1: news story. The kid doesn't even go to Covington. He
Speaker 1: doesn't know anything. He's just some kid from Kentucky who's
Speaker 1: gay and says that he wouldn't be able to speak
Speaker 1: because he's gay. And then he's picking on Covington. Was
Speaker 1: he some kind of Covington expert? This is crazy what's
Speaker 1: going on? But media is pathetic. Well, the big news
Speaker 1: is the US is calling for a UN Security Council
Speaker 1: meeting tomorrow morning to talk about the situation in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: It really seems to be reaching a crisis point between
Speaker 1: the two sides. You have basically two presidents in the
Speaker 1: country of Venezuela, one Maduro elected fraudulently according to the US.
Speaker 1: He's telling US diplomats to get out of the country
Speaker 1: within seventy two hours, that would be by Saturday morning.
Speaker 1: On the other hand, you have the man who's declared
Speaker 1: himself president, Guan Guido. He is saying the US diplomats
Speaker 1: don't need to leave, and the US is saying they're
Speaker 1: going to listen to Guido. The diplomats will not leave.
Speaker 1: All right. The crisis in Venezuela has finally reached a
Speaker 1: tipping point. You heard there a little bit of the
Speaker 1: breakdown on Fox News. Here's what's going on. You have
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of people have flooded the streets in Caracas.
Speaker 1: You have a member of the parliament there who, under
Speaker 1: his constitutional authority, has aimed that there is a vacancy
Speaker 1: in the presidency which he will temporarily fill until new
Speaker 1: elections can happen. His name is Juan Guido. You just
Speaker 1: heard there, and he is saying that the other current president,
Speaker 1: although no longer accepted by the US government as president,
Speaker 1: Nicolas Maduro, is illegitimate. This is in effect, the overthrow
Speaker 1: of the Maduro regime via constitutional and legislative means inside
Speaker 1: of Venezuela. Now, I think this could only be unless
Speaker 1: we get incredibly unlucky. A good thing and a good sign.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, there is very little that we can
Speaker 1: look to here from the regime and think that it
Speaker 1: could get any worse. You know, when you start to
Speaker 1: break down just how horrific the economy is. A million
Speaker 1: percent inflation, folks, That was, which effectively means Venezuelan currency
Speaker 1: has no value. Breadlines, toilet paper lines, shortages of all
Speaker 1: kinds of foodstuffs, products, basic medicine, very treatable diseases have
Speaker 1: been going untreated in Venezuela. People are losing weight, not
Speaker 1: because they're trying to be because they have no choice.
Speaker 1: They're losing weight in an unhealthy fashion. They're losing weight
Speaker 1: in a quasi starvation state because they can't get enough food.
Speaker 1: You have close to twenty thousand murders a year in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: It's a country of only thirty million people. It's the
Speaker 1: size of California population wise. Imagine if there are almost
Speaker 1: twenty thousand murders in California alone, Some of the most
Speaker 1: senior government officials in the Majora regime have been sanctioned
Speaker 1: as drug kingpins, and according to the US Treasury Department,
Speaker 1: have been involved in using Venezuelan government resources in personnel
Speaker 1: to tranship, upload, and offload mass of quantities of cocaine.
Speaker 1: So this is effectively a narco state that we are
Speaker 1: talking about. It has the largest proven oil reserves in
Speaker 1: the world, larger than Saudi Arabia, as you know, but
Speaker 1: it's incredibly poor because of the government mismanagement. Mismanagement's far
Speaker 1: too gentle a word. This is Marxism and action. This
Speaker 1: is socialism unveiled for the whole world to see. True
Speaker 1: socialism where the government can seize the means of production
Speaker 1: and tries to operate the means of production, where the
Speaker 1: government can dictate anything it wants in the market, including
Speaker 1: the prices that otherwise private businesses can set for their products.
Speaker 1: This is what happens when you have a thugocracy that
Speaker 1: uses the wealth gap in a country and yes, the
Speaker 1: envy and the political opportunities that that creates, in order
Speaker 1: to exploit the frustration of the people in a promised
Speaker 1: revolution of the people that turns into nothing more than
Speaker 1: what we always see with these kinds of pseudo revolutionary movements,
Speaker 1: where the fat cats in charge get fatter, the people
Speaker 1: have heavier chains and more prison time ahead of them
Speaker 1: because the state itself becomes a prison. This is what
Speaker 1: Venezuela has turned into in front of the whole world.
Speaker 1: And it's worth noting that liberals were chairing for this
Speaker 1: regime in the Chavez years and hopeful in the Maduro years,
Speaker 1: if not a little bit rooting for it too. That
Speaker 1: the libs back in twenty eleven and twenty twelve at
Speaker 1: the New York Times, the Washington Post and elsewhere, we're
Speaker 1: suggesting that the populist, yes it's not a dirty word
Speaker 1: when they use it about a Marxist, the populist revolutionary
Speaker 1: Bolivarian impulses of first Chavez and then Maduro. Maybe we're
Speaker 1: going to work out just fine. Maybe this would be
Speaker 1: a model for the rest of Latin America. This was
Speaker 1: delusional nonsense from the start. We all should have known.
Speaker 1: We should know that a country that has leaders that
Speaker 1: want to be friends with Cuba and Russia and Turkey
Speaker 1: and every bad actor Iran, every bad actor in the world,
Speaker 1: is a regime that tells you all you need to
Speaker 1: know about it. And when you look back in the
Speaker 1: earlier days of the Chavez regime, remember Majuro was chavez
Speaker 1: Is stooge who took over for him. Chavez used to
Speaker 1: spend up to forty hours a week, yes that's right,
Speaker 1: four zero hours a week doing a television program where
Speaker 1: he would ramble on endlessly about whatever he felt like,
Speaker 1: and would make policy declarations and decide that some businesses
Speaker 1: we're going to get shut down or seized by the
Speaker 1: government during that live program. Chavez was a conspiracy theorist
Speaker 1: who did not believe in bin Laden, did not believe
Speaker 1: that the Earth, rather that the United States had landed
Speaker 1: on the Moon, and at one point had the remains
Speaker 1: of Simon Bolivar interred from the grade they were held
Speaker 1: in in order to run some kind of a test
Speaker 1: to compare himself to the Bolivar. I mean, it's crazy,
Speaker 1: and this country has been destroyed. It has been destroyed.
Speaker 1: It has been taken down to the seventh circle of
Speaker 1: Hell by people who complain about Yankee imperialism, you know,
Speaker 1: American dominance in the Western hemisphere, who say that capitalism
Speaker 1: is the exploitation of the week by those who are
Speaker 1: already in power, who were able to convince a lot
Speaker 1: of people with a pretty minimal level of education and
Speaker 1: resources that their lot was going to get better if
Speaker 1: they just turned over all the power. That and then
Speaker 1: some that their government had to a bunch of thugs,
Speaker 1: a bunch of thugs, and it's a shame what's happened
Speaker 1: to Venezuela. But the US now has backed this new
Speaker 1: Guido presidency and we shall see. Rahim Kasama is going
Speaker 1: to join us the Minister to talk more Venezuela. Stay
Speaker 1: with me. You're probably familiar with AARP, you're someone you
Speaker 1: know might already be a member, But did you know
Speaker 1: that the AARP is actually pretty left wing. They fought
Speaker 1: tooth and nail for a government run healthcare system, and
Speaker 1: really they don't support what you support. I recommend AMAC instead.
Speaker 1: Why AMAC? Well, AMAC actually wants border security. AMAC advocates
Speaker 1: for seniors but also wants to fix social security, so
Speaker 1: it's there for seniors, and you get lots of great
Speaker 1: benefits from membership in AMAC, like discounts on car insurance, hotels,
Speaker 1: roadside assistants, dental plans, all kinds of stuff. So stand
Speaker 1: with AMAC. As they fight the good fight by becoming
Speaker 1: a member today. The benefits are great, but the cause
Speaker 1: is even greater. Tell your family and tell your friends
Speaker 1: join right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's
Speaker 1: am AC dot us slash buck again. AMAC dot us
Speaker 1: slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you, better for America.
Speaker 1: But I will say this, and it's not for me
Speaker 1: to make announcements or even openly speculate. These are decisions
Speaker 1: made by the president. But if any harm should come
Speaker 1: to these diplomats from the United States, I want everybody
Speaker 1: to know that the consequences I believe from this administration
Speaker 1: the Dolompo's will be swift and they'll be decisive. I
Speaker 1: know this for certainty, and I think that message needs
Speaker 1: to be clear well. Marco Rubio saying, if the Maduro
Speaker 1: regime in what could be its last days, although who knows,
Speaker 1: we're to go after the US embassy after giving a
Speaker 1: seventy two seventy two hour deadline for all of our
Speaker 1: diplomats to get out, that the consequences would be swift
Speaker 1: and severe. I don't really know specifically what he means.
Speaker 1: I think we're all assuming he means military intervention of
Speaker 1: some kind to protect our diplomats. But let's get into this,
Speaker 1: shall we. We have our friend Rahim Kassam, Rahim the Dream.
Speaker 1: He is on the phone with us right now. He is,
Speaker 1: of course the author of No Go Zones, author, former
Speaker 1: of advisor to Nigel Farage and Claremont Institute fellow and
Speaker 1: generalman about town. Mister raheem, good to have you back.
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, hey doing, I'm good man. So what do
Speaker 1: you what do you think about what we've done or
Speaker 1: what Trump has done an administration has done so far
Speaker 1: about this, this crisis in Venezuela of you know, two
Speaker 1: presidents only one presidency. Yeah, well, I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: just so people don't wonder why the heck I'm talking
Speaker 1: about Venezuela. I've actually had a lot to do with
Speaker 1: Venezuela in the past five or six years, working closely
Speaker 1: with people like Diego Aria and some other propos of
Speaker 1: figures in the country. And it's and it's a very
Speaker 1: important country as far as the US southern border is concerned.
Speaker 1: It's also a very important country as far as the
Speaker 1: enemies of the West are concerned. I e Iran, Russia
Speaker 1: and further afield too. So those that two ways and
Speaker 1: reasons that I look at this. I don't think the
Speaker 1: southern border for an example. First, you know, we've seen
Speaker 1: hundreds of thousands of Venezuelans fleeing into Mexico and other
Speaker 1: surrounding Central and Latin American countries over the last couple
Speaker 1: of years, and that is obviously, naturally a case of
Speaker 1: the socialist policies and the prendo nature of the Bolvarian,
Speaker 1: Chavez and Madureau governments, respectively. So you have a situation
Speaker 1: where Venezuela has put an amount of strain on Mexico,
Speaker 1: and in turn Mexico then dealing that strain in turn
Speaker 1: to its border with the United States. So from the
Speaker 1: starting point, I think this administration in the United States,
Speaker 1: the Trump administration, recognizes that in order to deal with
Speaker 1: a lot of the sort of refugee and asylum problems
Speaker 1: that are coming up through Southern America, you have to
Speaker 1: deal with what's going on in Venezuela, and so I
Speaker 1: think that is the national security and national interest concern
Speaker 1: of the United States. The second part of it is,
Speaker 1: as I say, the foreign policy element to it. Venezuela's
Speaker 1: under Maduro and Shavas stood with firmly Iran, and the
Speaker 1: non aligned movement around the world, which has played both
Speaker 1: inside the United Nations and as its own force against
Speaker 1: the played growth firmly against the United States, against the
Speaker 1: United States allies such as the State of Israel and
Speaker 1: so on and so forth. And so because I think
Speaker 1: one of this administration's major priorities is also to weaken
Speaker 1: the Arabian regime, helping to topple the current Venezuelan regime
Speaker 1: goes somewhere into doing that too. That we also have
Speaker 1: to consider that this administration, the Trump administration, has for
Speaker 1: a long time said, you know, you don't need boots
Speaker 1: on the ground, you don't need invasions to shape the
Speaker 1: world geo politically and to address either strategic issues, national
Speaker 1: security issues, or indeed humanitarian crises. And once again it
Speaker 1: was seeing the Trump administration as people you and I know, Buck,
Speaker 1: they're using other things in the arsenal to get boost
Speaker 1: things done. Now, the near conservatives of the political establishment
Speaker 1: on the film maybe a little bit mortified by that
Speaker 1: because it sort of proves their entire resondentre incorrect. But
Speaker 1: I think for the rest of the world, it's kind
Speaker 1: of a sigh of relief that you know, we can
Speaker 1: both eradicate and target inequity in the world, but it
Speaker 1: doesn't necessarily require you know, flags draped, dohn coffins coming back,
Speaker 1: or the expenditure of trillions of dollars. We're speaking of
Speaker 1: Rahim Kassam, author No go Zones. You all know him
Speaker 1: from also his very excellent guest hosting here on the
Speaker 1: Bucksaccent Show. What do you think about what what Trump
Speaker 1: has done so far? I was seeing and I always
Speaker 1: have to avoid words words like surprise and shock because
Speaker 1: it's not neither surprising nor shocking that there are some
Speaker 1: liberals who, in their US to just own Drump at
Speaker 1: every opportunity are saying that, you know, it's a terrible
Speaker 1: idea that Trump is backing gui Ido and essentially, you know,
Speaker 1: we're meddling, and this just you know, it's to me
Speaker 1: if there's ever a case for us. We're not intervening militarily,
Speaker 1: we're interviewing diplomatically. I feel like to not interview in
Speaker 1: diplomatic at this point would be to make a choice
Speaker 1: in and of itself. But what do you think about
Speaker 1: the decision making that Trump has done so far? And
Speaker 1: do you have concerns that this is going to lead
Speaker 1: to some kind of US mission creep in Venezuela, because
Speaker 1: I mean, I will say, and I don't want, you know,
Speaker 1: one hundred first airborne landing in Caracas. And I don't
Speaker 1: think anybody else does either. No, that's exactly right. And
Speaker 1: then and nor do I, And I don't think America's
Speaker 1: allies want to be part of anything like that or
Speaker 1: either I don't think that's in the nature of this administration. Look,
Speaker 1: it's it's exactly what you said. You know, the last
Speaker 1: couple of administrations in the United States, the Obama administration
Speaker 1: and the Bush administration, they took no action. And in
Speaker 1: taking no action, they make an active choice. They made
Speaker 1: an active choice that they were quite happy to let
Speaker 1: the Bolvarian Republic under Chavez and under Maduro um not
Speaker 1: just stand, but but but flourish in the sense of
Speaker 1: it's it's it's pincer movement of power over the Venezuelan people.
Speaker 1: US foreign policy is as well as the foreign policy,
Speaker 1: by the way, and this is because this is not
Speaker 1: just a US problem. It's not a US problem per
Speaker 1: se at all, but the foreign policy of the rest
Speaker 1: of the world, including the European Union, the United Kingdom,
Speaker 1: et cetera, et cetera, stood by and watched these guys
Speaker 1: as they as they raped their country of wealth. You know,
Speaker 1: I think, I think the Chavez fammily has something like
Speaker 1: forty billion dollars in their bank accounts at the moment,
Speaker 1: and while the people there were forced to do god
Speaker 1: awful things for basic amenities such as food, water, toilet paper,
Speaker 1: and so forth. Now again, how does that relate to
Speaker 1: the United States And why is that an American problem?
Speaker 1: Strictly speaking, it isn't, but it is a problem once
Speaker 1: the migrant crisis that has gripped Latin America and prove
Speaker 1: Central America up into Mexico and then onto the US
Speaker 1: border becomes a harsh reality. And it has become a
Speaker 1: harsh reality. But you know, you were there last week.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that it's you know, four hundred thousand
Speaker 1: Venezuelans at the US southern border, but it is a
Speaker 1: constituent part of that problem, and it is a constituent
Speaker 1: part of how the Mexicans are dealing with their own
Speaker 1: immigration problems at the moment. Trying to shift a lot
Speaker 1: of the blame and the burden away up to the
Speaker 1: US southern border. So I think this administration has taken
Speaker 1: into account a vast array of things. I don't think
Speaker 1: it's going to have any military intervention in mind here
Speaker 1: apart from perhaps having to evacuate diplomatis the situation worsens,
Speaker 1: But that's not unactive. That's more of a passive thing
Speaker 1: to do and one which you would expect. Um, how
Speaker 1: much can I can I want to ask you a
Speaker 1: question him about just they can avoid it. I want
Speaker 1: to ask you a question about sort of broader Latin
Speaker 1: American political instability and troubles here. How much of of
Speaker 1: the the political dysfunction that this kind of um, a
Speaker 1: kind of of Marxist cycle that keeps cropping up in
Speaker 1: Latin America. Uh, do you think is is really just
Speaker 1: a result of continued and in part because the some
Speaker 1: of the political class in these different countries will will
Speaker 1: use this, they'll find this, but the continued resentment about
Speaker 1: North American history in the region and North what they
Speaker 1: view as a kind of Yankee imperialism, because you know,
Speaker 1: these are countries Venezuela, Mexico, Cuba, Nicaragua that should not
Speaker 1: have by all accounts, all the problems they do. You know,
Speaker 1: they should be a little bit more like Canada, but
Speaker 1: yet they are not. What do you what do you
Speaker 1: think is going on with that? You know, I can't
Speaker 1: speak to the mentality um of of of Latin America.
Speaker 1: But but what I will say is this, there is
Speaker 1: a there is a distinction, UM, you know, some hemispherically
Speaker 1: between the United States and Canada. And let's take the
Speaker 1: United Kingdom. If you were able to sort of draw
Speaker 1: a line across the ATLANTICUM, and then you go south
Speaker 1: of that line, and of course you've got South America,
Speaker 1: and you've got Europe UM, and you've got Europe's homer
Speaker 1: colonies in Africa as well. And the southern part of
Speaker 1: that line is socialistic, welfareistic defers to the state UM,
Speaker 1: doesn't have much concern for either the individual or the
Speaker 1: concept of of of of of human dignity and sovereignty
Speaker 1: as as pertains their government and their constitutions. UM. And
Speaker 1: so I think it's I think it's more of am
Speaker 1: a ligne influence of European welfareism that still plagues South
Speaker 1: America than anything else. And you know what you might
Speaker 1: refer to, well, not what you might refer to. But
Speaker 1: what the left might refer to, as you know, Yankee
Speaker 1: imperialism or so on and so forth, is just what
Speaker 1: we know as the historic and repeated continuation of British liberties,
Speaker 1: common law, um and and you know, human dignity and
Speaker 1: sovereignty over over oneself and one's responsibilities and so Philosophically,
Speaker 1: it's a very interesting delineation that you can draw literally
Speaker 1: physically on a map. But besides that, I'm not sure
Speaker 1: why they haven't snapped out of it. To be fair,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure why either. But Venezuela is going to
Speaker 1: get I think it's gonna get a lot dodgier before
Speaker 1: it gets any better. Our man Rahim Kasama follow him
Speaker 1: on Twitter at Raheem kasamos Rahem Kasam dot com is
Speaker 1: his sight and we'll have more of his projects for
Speaker 1: you to talk about in the new year or as
Speaker 1: the new year keeps going. Raheem, thanks so much for
Speaker 1: making the time, my friend. Thanks much, Team hit A
Speaker 1: quick break will be right back. It's alive. I've never
Speaker 1: seen the original Frankenstunt movie. I just realized this as
Speaker 1: we play that a little clip for you there. But
Speaker 1: that's that's a little special intro. Now, whenever we talk
Speaker 1: about libs and science, it's alive because they're all freaked
Speaker 1: out about it. And climate change is the LIBS science
Speaker 1: topic of today because it really has very little to
Speaker 1: do with science. This is a virtue signaling through the
Speaker 1: prism of perceived scientific consensus. But that's one not a
Speaker 1: thing when it comes to climate change, other than to
Speaker 1: say that climate change exists. But will of course climate
Speaker 1: change exists, right, we can start to reduce this down.
Speaker 1: And yes, the climate is changing, the climate is always changing.
Speaker 1: What would be bizarre is if the climate, given all
Speaker 1: the factors involved, stayed at exactly the same temperature globally
Speaker 1: year in and year out and for all of eternity.
Speaker 1: That that would seem rather strange, wouldn't it. There are
Speaker 1: fluctuations in climate every day, so shouldn't there be fluctuations
Speaker 1: in the average climate every year? But nonetheless, this is
Speaker 1: obviously where they say that, oh, it's about human human involvement,
Speaker 1: a human cause climate change, all this stuff. Humans are there,
Speaker 1: the primary They use a lot of these kind of
Speaker 1: very non scientific words. You'll notice that you know humans
Speaker 1: are a primary cause of climate change. Well, what percentage
Speaker 1: five fifty ninety point zero zero five. Yeah, do I
Speaker 1: think that human beings are probably point zero zero five
Speaker 1: percent of climate change? That sounds about right? Am I
Speaker 1: gonna leave it? Lose any sleep over that? No? But
Speaker 1: you know what's funny, neither or really anybody else NBC News,
Speaker 1: which has covered itself in ignominious stank for the last
Speaker 1: few days way it's been covering the Covington kids situation,
Speaker 1: and NBC News has come out with, well, they're just
Speaker 1: popularizing or publicizing this survey that was done by Hey,
Speaker 1: who cares, I don't know, someplace that does big surveys
Speaker 1: of climate change. And according to the latest poll data,
Speaker 1: seven and ten Americans, or sixty nine percent, say that
Speaker 1: they are somewhat worried about global warming. Twenty nine percent
Speaker 1: say they're very worried. And who wants to bet that
Speaker 1: those are all super libs who think that Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: is just like so smart and like she just totally
Speaker 1: cares about poor people on the climate, and like she
Speaker 1: really wants to make everything better. Yeah, all that stuff,
Speaker 1: But what's really funny is that the upside of this
Speaker 1: for all the rest of us is that guess what, Americans,
Speaker 1: despite the knowledge of climate change. Despite the numbers that
Speaker 1: say that some people healthy portion of the population has
Speaker 1: either some or a lot of concern about it, do
Speaker 1: not want to have to do anything in terms of
Speaker 1: paying more money to deal with it. Oh, what a shock.
Speaker 1: They don't want to you know you have here. The
Speaker 1: surveys showed conditional support for taxing carbon emissions. It found
Speaker 1: support grew if the taxes went to prefer uses, with
Speaker 1: sixty seven percent saying they would approve of the changes
Speaker 1: or charges if the money went to restore forests, etc.
Speaker 1: But the AP survey showed that Americans don't want to
Speaker 1: pay very much to fight climate change. A one dollar
Speaker 1: a month fee was favored by fifty seven percent of
Speaker 1: those surveyed. However, if the monthly charge increased to ten
Speaker 1: dollars a month, just twenty eight percent would be supportive,
Speaker 1: while sixty eight percent would be opposed. Oh, that's right.
Speaker 1: People are really worried about climate change ending the world
Speaker 1: because they think that the science says that except for
Speaker 1: the fact that they're not so worried, they do not
Speaker 1: care enough that they're willing to pay even ten dollars
Speaker 1: a month. That's right, ten dollars a month to deal
Speaker 1: with the problem. So this is why I cannot take
Speaker 1: this seriously the way that Libs want me to. And
Speaker 1: I know that some of them, including lib friends of mine,
Speaker 1: think that I'm just They think I'm nuts on climate change,
Speaker 1: and I just say, what do you not get? They're
Speaker 1: wrong on this over and over again. I'm going to
Speaker 1: be right, Okazio Cortez and her ilk are going to
Speaker 1: be wrong. The World's not going to end in twelve years.
Speaker 1: New York and Florida and California are not going to
Speaker 1: be underwater in twenty I guarantee it. I mean, I
Speaker 1: always tell you I can't predict the future, but there
Speaker 1: are some things I can predict, you know, maybe not
Speaker 1: with one hundred percent certainty, but ninety nine point nine
Speaker 1: and the world is not going to end because of
Speaker 1: climate change in ten years, or in a hundred years
Speaker 1: or a thousand years. I promise you what's not going
Speaker 1: to happen. These people are just self indulgent, virtue signaling wackos.
Speaker 1: There I said, it ain't no party like a Team
Speaker 1: Buck party, because a Team Buck party don't stop. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we got Buck turned up to eleven. It's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. Oh, many wet and rainy day here in DC.
Speaker 1: Hopefully wherever you are across the country, it's quite a
Speaker 1: bit nicer. I did get to interview a congressman from
Speaker 1: San Diego right before he said, well, it's only about
Speaker 1: seventy five degrees here, and he was a Democrat, so
Speaker 1: I had to ask him a question that he didn't
Speaker 1: know the answer to. That was fun during the interview.
Speaker 1: Why do hunter and migrants who just want to flee
Speaker 1: oppression and violence stop in Mexico and then refuse to
Speaker 1: accept asylum and stay in Mexico didn't have didn't have
Speaker 1: an answer for that one. I thought that was interesting,
Speaker 1: which if I were a congressman from border state, I'd
Speaker 1: probably be ready for that one. But it's what he
Speaker 1: got for flaunting is good weather at US. I was
Speaker 1: just talking to an old radio friend and advisor last
Speaker 1: n out of the phone and I said, you know, man,
Speaker 1: you gotta I gotta get out to LA for some
Speaker 1: I want to do some I want to do some
Speaker 1: team buck meetups across the country and especially in warm places.
Speaker 1: Let's let's get to it, you know, And he said,
Speaker 1: maybe we can make it happen in Los Angeles so
Speaker 1: I'm I'm hoping to get out to La soon, certainly
Speaker 1: in March, if not February, and I'm maybe I'll even
Speaker 1: stay out there for quite a way as if I can.
Speaker 1: All Right, roll call time. Not just Buck babbling on
Speaker 1: about nonsense, but Team buck La. Get ready for it.
Speaker 1: The Buck Nato is coming for you, Kurt. First up
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash buck Sex and if you want
Speaker 1: to get in on the action, I watched your interview
Speaker 1: with Charlie Sykes on Rising. I'm sure there must be
Speaker 1: tens of readers who enjoy the bulwork. But what I
Speaker 1: wanted to respond to was Jamal's claim that most illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants are visa overstays. In fact, there are three illegal
Speaker 1: visa entries for every two overstays. That isn't most In
Speaker 1: my book Shields High, Kurt, you know, I actually don't
Speaker 1: know those numbers offhand. I think you are correct, but
Speaker 1: I would have to look into what the specifics are
Speaker 1: about how many there are. Mean, yeah, there's a half
Speaker 1: million visa overstays. I mean I can tell you that
Speaker 1: there were one hundred thousand family units that showed up
Speaker 1: at the border requesting asylum last year, and those family
Speaker 1: units are at least two people, in some cases three
Speaker 1: or four. So that's not any quote illegal crossings because
Speaker 1: when they come into the country, they are in fact
Speaker 1: entering into a legal process by claiming asylum, and then
Speaker 1: eighty percent of them do not show up for there yours,
Speaker 1: Andrew Rights, got to call you out on something. The
Speaker 1: etymology of sollipsism derived from a Latin's sole equal sun.
Speaker 1: My dictionary gives etymology as derived from solos meaning alone.
Speaker 1: I've always thought of soleipsism as the belief that all
Speaker 1: external stimuli are nothing more than a dream. Definitely, not
Speaker 1: that someone is the center of the universe like the sun.
Speaker 1: You are correct, Andrew, and I want to blame whoever
Speaker 1: told me the wrong thing here about soleopsism in terms
Speaker 1: of etymology from a definitional perspective, I am not the
Speaker 1: way I explain the definition is a way that people
Speaker 1: will meaning that you know you think you're the center
Speaker 1: of the universe. Technically, soleopsism as a as a philosophy
Speaker 1: is the ideology that only you or the philosophy I
Speaker 1: should say that only you, your own brain, your own thoughts,
Speaker 1: can exist and you can know nothing else beyond it.
Speaker 1: But if people refer to somebody as being soleopsistic, it's
Speaker 1: it means that they're not thinking about anybody else and
Speaker 1: are Essentially, it's a way of a fancy way of
Speaker 1: saying selfishness. Right. So there you have it here, characterized
Speaker 1: by solopsis and this is from a dictionary dot com,
Speaker 1: the theory that only the self exists. Her treatment of
Speaker 1: philosophy dealt with madness as a complete, self contained, sollipsistic world.
Speaker 1: So it's totally self contained. It's all about you. It's
Speaker 1: also an expansion of what's called the egocentric problem and
Speaker 1: the inability to view reality outside your own perceptions. But yes,
Speaker 1: you're right, soulis not from soul the sun. It's from
Speaker 1: soulis alone. I despise being wrong. I won't say who
Speaker 1: told me this because I told this a long time ago,
Speaker 1: but I was told the wrong thing. Nonetheless, the reward
Speaker 1: is correct. The etymology needed to be corrected, So thank
Speaker 1: you for that, even though now I'm gonna go scream
Speaker 1: into a pillar because I'm mad. Max rights. Hey, there, Buck,
Speaker 1: negotiations over the wall and shutdown don't seem to be
Speaker 1: moving along very quickly. What do you think of the
Speaker 1: idea of Trump saying that his compromise offer has an
Speaker 1: expiration date, say two weeks or so after that he'd
Speaker 1: revised his terms to be less favorable to Democrats, for example,
Speaker 1: more wall funding from and or shorter protection for DACA.
Speaker 1: Enjoying the show, Well, Max, you know he's trying to negotiate.
Speaker 1: He's trying to get them to do something that they
Speaker 1: don't want to do, and you know that involves trying
Speaker 1: to do sometimes position yourself so that you have leverage
Speaker 1: over the other side. I think that the Democrats, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: are better at playing the zero sum, all or nothing
Speaker 1: political game than Republicans are, and maybe maybe even than
Speaker 1: Trump is. I'm I'm not quite sure, but I will
Speaker 1: say that. And Coulter wrote an I think it was
Speaker 1: just published yesterday where she says that what should really
Speaker 1: happen is Trump should just build the wall. Just build
Speaker 1: the wall. Just tell the National Guard, tell the Army
Speaker 1: Corps of Engineers, whoever the specific the specific body, maybe
Speaker 1: tell them to build the wall and make the court
Speaker 1: stop you and then win in court in time to
Speaker 1: be reelected president. That's what That's what I think is
Speaker 1: increasingly likely here. And I think that the other option
Speaker 1: would be for the president to start the government up again.
Speaker 1: Remember he could start the government up and then say, Okay,
Speaker 1: I funded the government. And remember we keep saying this.
Speaker 1: I hate the way we're forced to talk about this.
Speaker 1: Eighty five percent of the government is funded. We are
Speaker 1: talking about fifteen percent of the federal government, and people
Speaker 1: refer to this like it's a catastrophe. So I think
Speaker 1: that there's a real possibility that maybe the government does
Speaker 1: get funded and then Trump says, Okay, we funded the government.
Speaker 1: We've had this discussion. This is nonsense. Democrats are crazy.
Speaker 1: I'm just going to declare a national emergency and funnel
Speaker 1: and not forget fund the wall, just build the wall.
Speaker 1: He's just gonna do it. I think that's very possible.
Speaker 1: So that's how I see this going on. Stanton, excellent
Speaker 1: vid of you taking that rhino Charlie Sykes to town
Speaker 1: on border security. I'm so sick of hearing that it's
Speaker 1: just a strong man argument to say the Left isn't
Speaker 1: for securing our southern border. At some point, Dems will
Speaker 1: need to provide actual proof that they support curbing illegal
Speaker 1: immigration in any way, or they could just publicly acknowledge
Speaker 1: and embrace their open border agenda and save us all
Speaker 1: a lot of time and energy. But whatever, keep up
Speaker 1: the good fight. Buck well, buck, I'm bucking your Stanton,
Speaker 1: Thank you Stanton. And yes, you know Charlie's he's I
Speaker 1: don't mind his you know, I'm happy to talk to
Speaker 1: people about ideas. He's just kind of smug and undeserving
Speaker 1: of his degree of smugness. You know, he's a guy
Speaker 1: who okay, I mean he was hosting a radio show
Speaker 1: before he was now the editor of The Bullwork and
Speaker 1: now he's sitting down talking to me. I mean a
Speaker 1: lot more people listen to this radio show than listen
Speaker 1: to his radio show. We can tell you that. So
Speaker 1: why why the condescension? Like what's what's his based on
Speaker 1: what exactly? And also, I mean you can see his argument.
Speaker 1: He contradicts himself. He's self refuting, but he likes to
Speaker 1: pepper in a lot of and you see this among
Speaker 1: the never Trumpers, the Max Boots, the Bill Crystal, the
Speaker 1: you know name and never Trumper there's always this, Oh,
Speaker 1: you know, let's turn to the facts or I'm sorry
Speaker 1: if I have to use some big words here, like buddy,
Speaker 1: I'll I don't know what to tell you, but no
Speaker 1: one is impressed, and you're not speaking above anyone, You're
Speaker 1: actually speaking below them because you don't know what the
Speaker 1: hell you are talking about. So if you haven't seen
Speaker 1: that video, I think I put it up on Facebook
Speaker 1: before you can check it out there. But we do
Speaker 1: get into the back and forth over this. My colleague Jamal,
Speaker 1: who's a Democrat, let me do most of the interview, fortunately,
Speaker 1: because that was the most interesting thing that could have happened.
Speaker 1: Although having somebody else there, I had to defer my
Speaker 1: time to him a little bit, and I wish you
Speaker 1: it had just been Charlie Sykes. To me, this is
Speaker 1: one of the problems with a left right style show
Speaker 1: is sometimes the left or the right person is pretty
Speaker 1: superfluous in the conversation, just because you know, there are
Speaker 1: times when Christo really wants to fight with Candice Owens
Speaker 1: and I'm just gonna sit there and there's nothing for
Speaker 1: me to do. I mean, I tried to cut it
Speaker 1: in a couple of times, but I couldn't. But with Jamal,
Speaker 1: I thought was so interesting was that Charlie Sykes entirely
Speaker 1: agrees with everything Jamal says about immigration. Jamal's a Democrat,
Speaker 1: So that's fine. But Charlie Sykes says he's a conservative,
Speaker 1: So why is it that the conservative agrees with the
Speaker 1: Democrat on basically everything? And then when I pointed that out,
Speaker 1: he got very hissy about it. But I'm just stating
Speaker 1: the obvious. You know, he might as well be Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi's communications director. I mean, I think Charlie Sykes should
Speaker 1: apply for that job. I think he'd do a good
Speaker 1: job as a spokesperson for a Democrat. And I have
Speaker 1: a feeling that a lot of people that write for
Speaker 1: him at the website that we don't have to give
Speaker 1: another plug to are also in that capacity. So I'm
Speaker 1: fine with people exchanging ideas with me all the time.
Speaker 1: I just there's no need for I'm always polite to
Speaker 1: people until otherwise. Guy doesn't need to be a condescending
Speaker 1: jerk because he's in no position to condescend. That's what
Speaker 1: That's what I think he doesn't understand. And that's same
Speaker 1: with Max Boot, same with these people who are making
Speaker 1: just jackasses of themselves and are not nearly as clever
Speaker 1: or knowledgeable as they think they are, and they're really
Speaker 1: doing a lot of work for Trump by acting in
Speaker 1: this way by being so self indulgent and childish. Here
Speaker 1: we go, Keith, he writes, shields high, Bro, and he
Speaker 1: sent me Nancy Pelosi photoshops with a dunce hat on.
Speaker 1: All right, man, thank you, I appreciate you sending that along. Buck.
Speaker 1: This is Ryan. I think you know banning DDT did
Speaker 1: more harm than good. Perhaps Dad disagrees. He thinks DDT
Speaker 1: was used excessively and persist in the biosphere. Short term benefits,
Speaker 1: long term costs. There's a lesson here, though. The correct
Speaker 1: move would have been to improve pesticides and regular DDT's use.
Speaker 1: But of course the Greenies dropped the band hammer and
Speaker 1: poof malaria. Ryan, I did talk about dd on the
Speaker 1: show a long time ago, so I don't know if
Speaker 1: you're maybe a couple of years behind on the podcast
Speaker 1: or maybe six months behind. But it is an interesting topic,
Speaker 1: so thank you for bringing it up. And yeah, the
Speaker 1: downside of DDT was greatly exaggerated by the environmentalists, and
Speaker 1: a lot of people died from malaria because of it,
Speaker 1: so there's that. Yeah, these these decisions they make, these
Speaker 1: bad decisions that the lefty environmental types make, are not
Speaker 1: without consequence. For the rest of us worth keeping in mind. Tomorrow,
Speaker 1: we got Friday coming up, so maybe we'll be able
Speaker 1: to do a little bit of phone action for those
Speaker 1: of you who want to call in. I think that's
Speaker 1: always fun. When we can do it, we can get
Speaker 1: to it. Until then, I've got to go drinks some
Speaker 1: hot tea because I am sick once again, although hopefully
Speaker 1: not that sick, and I will rally for tomorrow's show,
Speaker 1: so until next time, Team She'll tie