Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The Democrats are kicking
Speaker 1: it off with a debate tonight. Going to be a
Speaker 1: bunch of second tier scrubs for the most part, but
Speaker 1: we'll talk about how they're going to position themselves. What
Speaker 1: messages the looney left will present, bust the showdown at
Speaker 1: the border. Let's take a little trip down memory lane.
Speaker 1: What did Obama used to say about this stuff? And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, whatever happened to there is no crisis?
Speaker 1: Got that? And much more coming up on The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. Buck Sexton Remission, decoding the news and disseminating
Speaker 1: information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a
Speaker 1: great American again. This is the buck Sexton Show. At
Speaker 1: CIA Analysts. OK, I can speak for three hours without
Speaker 1: a phone call. Try doing that sometime. I will be
Speaker 1: bulled without the bull. Hey, everybody, We're at Chema's in
Speaker 1: El Paso getting a haircut. This is about the closest
Speaker 1: I'll probably ever have in my life to an I
Speaker 1: am Spartac this moment. Hold on a second, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: get me Abut my name's Joe Biden. I'm running for
Speaker 1: in this case, running for Pressian stage look me over.
Speaker 1: I feel like we should see help out if not
Speaker 1: vote for the other person. I think it's so appropriate
Speaker 1: that you gave us all the same T shirt because
Speaker 1: I believe our candidates are a part of the Avengers.
Speaker 1: We're here to save America the Republicans. That's the hunger game.
Speaker 1: Welcome to the buck Sex and Show. Everybody gave me
Speaker 1: a little taste of the Democrat Party there. Whoo. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's real, a real bunch of misfits running around here
Speaker 1: saying they should be president. We've got the debate coming
Speaker 1: up tonight. Hopefully I'll be in a mood in a
Speaker 1: position to live tweet some of it, so those of
Speaker 1: you who are on Twitter, we'll get some of that
Speaker 1: action going. But it'll be fun to watch the Democrats
Speaker 1: try to outlefty each other. That's what this is going
Speaker 1: to turn into. I'm gonna try to outlifty one another
Speaker 1: because these are the candidates who, with a couple of exceptions,
Speaker 1: are real progressive long shots. There is no real chance
Speaker 1: that they're gonna win anything. And here's the lineup, just
Speaker 1: so we're all on the same page. You got Corey Booker.
Speaker 1: I am Spartacus, Bill Deblasio, also known as Kaiserville Halm
Speaker 1: Deblasio because that's what's his name. Growing up, It's was
Speaker 1: Varnville gut and Targe. He changed his name to Bill
Speaker 1: de Blasio Julian Castro because he thinks he should run
Speaker 1: John Delaney. How many of you could think of anything
Speaker 1: John Delaney has ever done. I will tell you I
Speaker 1: actually interviewed John Delaney. Doesn't seem like a bad guy
Speaker 1: and not completely insane left wing guy, but that means
Speaker 1: he's got no chance. The funny thing is for the
Speaker 1: Democrats right now, unless you are wacko, you're really not
Speaker 1: of interest to them. It can't be. Hey, I live
Speaker 1: in the real world. I've done some successful things. I'm
Speaker 1: a little socially liberal but physically conservative and believe in
Speaker 1: strong national defense. Those people are now called Republicans. Some
Speaker 1: people are called moderate Republicans. There are no Democrats anymore
Speaker 1: like that, not serious ones, not Democrats that have any
Speaker 1: real sway in the Party's John Delaney's out there. Tulsie Gabbard,
Speaker 1: whom I like, if nothing else, because so many, so
Speaker 1: many in the Democrat establishment just hate her, have a
Speaker 1: real problem with her. They really try to trash her
Speaker 1: with the whole Assad visit and meeting with him. Now,
Speaker 1: I like some things about Tulsie Gabbard, and no, not
Speaker 1: just that she's cool and she serves and she's from Hawaii,
Speaker 1: although I do like all those things too, there's some
Speaker 1: stuff about Dulsie Gabbert that is appealing on a policy level.
Speaker 1: I think that she understands that we shouldn't have any
Speaker 1: more Mid East Wars. For example, that's good news Jay
Speaker 1: Insley is running Hi, I'm Jay Insley, Like, who even
Speaker 1: knows where that's all about? Amy Klobaschar If I'm maybe Klobaschar.
Speaker 1: I stand up on stage and I have a big salad,
Speaker 1: not a normal size salad, not a side salad. I
Speaker 1: have a big salad, and I ask someone the audience
Speaker 1: to give me a really well used comb or hairbrush.
Speaker 1: I know it's gross, and I'd say that I left
Speaker 1: my fork at home, and I'm just gonna go for
Speaker 1: it and just stand on National TV and just eat
Speaker 1: that salad with the used comb, because we know that's
Speaker 1: how Amy Klobaschar likes to roll. And I would throw
Speaker 1: it at some one of the front row and say,
Speaker 1: get me a water Classic Klobuchar, Betso O'Rourke, Um, but yeah,
Speaker 1: Betso is like he's like so upset about all the
Speaker 1: things because like he's not nearly as like famous as
Speaker 1: doing one the polls as he should be. Robert Francius
Speaker 1: is also what people are calling him, which is like
Speaker 1: so mean. Bett O'Rourke is probably gonna be I'm gonna
Speaker 1: make a little prediction. I'm gonna make a little prediction either.
Speaker 1: The two people have come out of this tonight. Everything
Speaker 1: was like, well, they're the winner, as if there's a winner,
Speaker 1: Beto O'Rourke and Elizabeth Warren. The Beto O'Rourke is gonna
Speaker 1: I think he's gonna get a little bit of a
Speaker 1: wind here and then I think he's gonna fade away again.
Speaker 1: But people are gonna go, oh, yeah, that guy. He
Speaker 1: kind of looks like, you know, a nineties what do
Speaker 1: you call them, singer songwriter guy? You know? Yeah, I
Speaker 1: put it in bad and I was like an opera
Speaker 1: on the Upper West Side of Manhattan, and now I
Speaker 1: want to run the country. And then Tim Ryan, who
Speaker 1: who even knows what this guy is or what he's
Speaker 1: doing or anything else. And then of course Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: The only double digit candidate tonight is Elizabeth Warren, whom
Speaker 1: there's a part of me. I know you're gonna get
Speaker 1: mad at me, but there's a part of me it
Speaker 1: has a little bit of a like, Wow, she's still
Speaker 1: in this. This is serious. She's not going away. She's
Speaker 1: like the unself aware super lib terminator who just does
Speaker 1: She does not feel pain or sadness or remorse, and
Speaker 1: she absolutely will not stop until you admit she's Native American.
Speaker 1: I mean, she just doesn't go away. That DNA results
Speaker 1: thing was the most unnecessary own goal I've ever seen
Speaker 1: in American politics. It was the most random and errassing
Speaker 1: are you kidding me? Thing? That any because it's just
Speaker 1: there's no reason for it. I mean, how could she
Speaker 1: think that being one one and twenty fourth uh native
Speaker 1: American was good? Anyway? We know what. We all know this, right.
Speaker 1: But but now she's she's fighting out for the Bernie lane.
Speaker 1: And I gotta tell you, you you know, you gotta keep
Speaker 1: in mind, even if she doesn't win, if she becomes
Speaker 1: the progressive candidate of choice, I think if the Democrats
Speaker 1: are smart, whoever they're front runner and eventual nominee turns
Speaker 1: out to be. They'll want to co opt, want to
Speaker 1: bring in a the the progressive candidate as the VEEP,
Speaker 1: So Elizabeth Warren becomes a very attractive VEEP candidate for
Speaker 1: whoever the nominee is here for the Democrats, even if
Speaker 1: you know, obviously, if she doesn't win and she doesn't
Speaker 1: get there herself, tomorrow we'll talk about the other lineup.
Speaker 1: But you got Biden, Bennett, Buddha, Judge, Gillibrand, Harris Hyck
Speaker 1: and Luper Sanders, Swallowell, Williamson and Yang. But tonight really
Speaker 1: kind of a pretty lame crew tonight. Not not a
Speaker 1: lot of interesting people to see on the stage. I mean,
Speaker 1: build a Blasio. I think a lot of you will
Speaker 1: watch that just and say, wow, I'm glad I don't
Speaker 1: live in New York City. I can't believe that guy's
Speaker 1: in charge. The guy's the mayor of the largest city
Speaker 1: it is. It is amazing, It's amazing. And you know,
Speaker 1: with Corey Booker, every time I see this guy, every
Speaker 1: time he is on TV and doing his thing, and
Speaker 1: what I end up thinking to myself is I understand
Speaker 1: why he's He's just he's just not gonna win. It's
Speaker 1: just not gonna happen. There's something that always seems a
Speaker 1: little desperate, a little you know, come on like me.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm the guy that you should like. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm cool, I'm great, I'm you know. I say
Speaker 1: all the right things, and it just doesn't translate. I
Speaker 1: really don't. I really don't think it'll be there for him.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's gonna work. I might be wrong
Speaker 1: about Betto. That's the one that I that I'm kind
Speaker 1: of a little bit out on a limp four because
Speaker 1: he's just had such a bad go here. He's done
Speaker 1: so much damage to his own brand by being a weirdo.
Speaker 1: And they know Elizabeth Warren. But here's what's great about tonight,
Speaker 1: other than just going through all these different Kenny, here's
Speaker 1: what's great about tonight. It'll be for all of us
Speaker 1: who voted for Trump. For all of us who, even
Speaker 1: if we didn't vote for Trump, are thinking about who
Speaker 1: to vote for. Now you will see a collection of
Speaker 1: deeply un serious, in many cases, clownlike buffoons on this
Speaker 1: stage trying to appeal to the move on dot Org,
Speaker 1: Daily Cost, Huffpostvox, dot com, readers of the world, and
Speaker 1: in doing so will look utterly foolish, completely ridiculous to
Speaker 1: anyone who cares about how the real world works. You know,
Speaker 1: you're gonna have talk tonight, I'm sure about the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal, and you're gonna have to talk about the debt,
Speaker 1: you know, the the debt forgiveness program, or you know,
Speaker 1: just erasing student loans. They're just really erasing them. It's
Speaker 1: not even call it forgiveness. Makes it sound much more
Speaker 1: structured and reasonable than it is. You have some of
Speaker 1: those things, oh, you know, you won't get, you won't
Speaker 1: get you won't get a tough question on abortion. And
Speaker 1: this is what is so different about the way the
Speaker 1: left and the right media deals with these things is
Speaker 1: that conservatives because when the Republican Party has a an
Speaker 1: election going on, we end up having to go to
Speaker 1: these liberal outlets where people like John Harwood and Jake
Speaker 1: Kapper and Stephanopolis, who are all Democrat operatives, total frauds.
Speaker 1: They get to ask questions and the last questions that
Speaker 1: will do damage to the Republican going forward, right, the
Speaker 1: last things like do you want to get rid of
Speaker 1: birth control? Or the last things that you know, whatever
Speaker 1: it is, do you want to outlaw birth control. Remember
Speaker 1: that with Mitt Romney, nobody will trying to outlaw birth control. Oh,
Speaker 1: but that becomes a sound bite. The Democrats will not
Speaker 1: be asked any questions that could come back to haunt them.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, that's what you'll see tonight, and just
Speaker 1: just pay attention for that. If you're looking for a
Speaker 1: little more, a little more of a down in the weeds,
Speaker 1: look at this. They will be trying to outdo on
Speaker 1: each other from the far left. But this will be
Speaker 1: a reminder tonight to all the serious people of America
Speaker 1: who aren't just pure idealogues and believe in all this
Speaker 1: leftist nonsense. Tonight will be a reminder that the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party has completely lost its mind, that the stuff they
Speaker 1: talk about is on serious, that the folk folk kai focuses.
Speaker 1: The things they choose to focus on are overwhelmingly things
Speaker 1: that will never happen, that are a waste of everyone's time,
Speaker 1: that are a waste of them even really talking about.
Speaker 1: But it just gets the far left so fired up. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: we're just gonna become socialists. I certainly hope not not
Speaker 1: on my watch, not if I have anything to say
Speaker 1: about it. But it's gonna be a mess up there tonight, folks.
Speaker 1: It'll be a very interesting scene, such small sound bites,
Speaker 1: and they'll be very rapid fire. You have just such
Speaker 1: a crowded debate stage. So my predictions for whatever that's
Speaker 1: worth is, you know, O'Rourke and Warren come out of
Speaker 1: this thing. I think Corey Booker fades after this. I
Speaker 1: think he's probably he's probably gonna be done, not right away,
Speaker 1: but he's not gonna last that long. But the Democrats
Speaker 1: are crazy. That's what tonight is a reminder they just
Speaker 1: they're not serious anymore. This isn't the Democratic Party of
Speaker 1: ten years ago. It's not the Democratic Party you grew
Speaker 1: up with. This is some far left, social justice obsessed,
Speaker 1: intersectional socialist Democrat mess. That's what you're gonna see tonight.
Speaker 1: So so in that sense, it'll be interesting. I know
Speaker 1: that the President's planning on watching, and I would really
Speaker 1: hope the President would be willing to live tweeted. I
Speaker 1: think that would be fantastic, But I don't know. Some
Speaker 1: i'ma telling him not to do that. Team are going
Speaker 1: a lot more coming up here. We will we will
Speaker 1: be looking into the status of the crisis at the
Speaker 1: border because there is now some supplemental funding in place.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that and oh so many other things
Speaker 1: coming up on the buck Sex and Show. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: Speaking of leftist stupidity, this is one of my favorite
Speaker 1: things to talk about. As you know, Alexandria Ocasio Cortez
Speaker 1: may have had her dumbest tweet of all time, which
Speaker 1: pretty much makes it the Mona Lisa of stupid tweets.
Speaker 1: It is a masterpiece of you seed manifique. It is
Speaker 1: the most stupid thing I have read it in a
Speaker 1: long time. But first I have to give you the
Speaker 1: background on it. You're saying, fuck no, don't tease me
Speaker 1: like that, tell me about the dumbest thing she's ever tweeted.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, First we need the backstory. So there's
Speaker 1: this site called Wayfair, which hasn't I've actually bought some
Speaker 1: stuff from Wayfair before. Has has some nice stuff you buy.
Speaker 1: It's like, uh, is it kind of like Mike? Is
Speaker 1: it like a fancier IKEA? Is that fair to say? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I would say so. I'm not too familiar with it.
Speaker 1: I other commercials, but yeah, that sothing that makes sense
Speaker 1: to me. Yeah, it's it's like it's like Ikea when
Speaker 1: you've paid off a little bit of your student loans. Okay,
Speaker 1: So Wayfair has had a walkout now and up in
Speaker 1: Copley Square in Boston. They've had a walk out because
Speaker 1: they're upset when they found out that their company has
Speaker 1: a contract for mattresses, furnishing mattresses to a detention center
Speaker 1: for migrants at the US Mexico border. Now you have
Speaker 1: hundreds of employees signed a letter saying that Wayfair has
Speaker 1: a contract for two hundred thousand dollars with the furniture
Speaker 1: mostly mattressism what I understand with health and human services
Speaker 1: that will be distributed to a facility in Carrizo Springs
Speaker 1: in Texas. And the Wayfair employees have gotten very upset
Speaker 1: about this, and they've said, we believe the current accents
Speaker 1: of the United States and their contractors at the southern
Speaker 1: border do not represent an ethical business partnership Wayfair should
Speaker 1: choose to be part of, and so they had this
Speaker 1: walk out. Let's understand this for a second, shall we.
Speaker 1: This is a company that is creating furniture, including beds
Speaker 1: to sleep on for people in the detention centers. One
Speaker 1: of the biggest criticisms of these detention centers is that
Speaker 1: they are not well stocked enough with things like mattresses
Speaker 1: and food, and that is one of the biggest criticism,
Speaker 1: that they're not nice enough, that they're not you know,
Speaker 1: there's not enough life support stuff there and creature comforts.
Speaker 1: So Wayfair employees and in a fit of self righteousness,
Speaker 1: are walking out because they don't want their company to
Speaker 1: provide the very beds that immigrant kids at the border
Speaker 1: who are crossing with their families could sleep on. How
Speaker 1: how stupid can people be that they rather them sleep
Speaker 1: on the floor. I've seen the detention facility at El
Speaker 1: Paso and look, it's not nice. It's not a cozy
Speaker 1: place to be, and border patrol guys are bringing blankets
Speaker 1: and pillows and trying to make it better for the
Speaker 1: kids because there's no budget for it, because if run
Speaker 1: out of money because they're so inundated with all these
Speaker 1: illegals crossing. So they think the way Wayfair employees think
Speaker 1: that the that the way to handle this is to
Speaker 1: make it harder for a company because other companies not
Speaker 1: gonna go. I don't know if I want that contract.
Speaker 1: So they don't want actresses for the kids. What's the
Speaker 1: point of that idiots. Oh, speaking of idiots is where
Speaker 1: AOC comes in. This is the dumbest tweet that I've
Speaker 1: seen her put out. Maybe ever. Wayfare workers couldn't stomach
Speaker 1: that they were making beds to cage children. AOC, do
Speaker 1: you know how beds work? Do you understand the function
Speaker 1: of a bed? It doesn't cage people. They asked the
Speaker 1: company ceo to stop, she wrote here. Ceo said no,
Speaker 1: tomorrow they're walking out. This is what solidarity looks like,
Speaker 1: a reminder that everyday people have real power as long
Speaker 1: as they're brave enough to use it. This is moron stuff.
Speaker 1: This is a government contract to make things better for
Speaker 1: the kids at the border, to make sure that people
Speaker 1: that are detained, the families that are detained have nice
Speaker 1: beds to sleep on where they can be comfortable and safe,
Speaker 1: and everyone's okay as they get processed, as they scam
Speaker 1: our system by the way, and they think that this
Speaker 1: is good. To shut this down, I mean, maybe what
Speaker 1: we're saying yesterday is true, if not just politicians, but
Speaker 1: a lot of other Americans too. They liked the misery
Speaker 1: at the border. They want to see the misery at
Speaker 1: the border. Better to have something to blame Trump for
Speaker 1: and scream about as a concentration camp and worse than
Speaker 1: the Nazis and all these stupid things. They say, better
Speaker 1: to have that than to deal with the problem, make
Speaker 1: people comfortable, make sure they're safe, and process them in
Speaker 1: the most effective and humanely possible. So with the Democrats,
Speaker 1: this is the Democrats are really all about self righteousness
Speaker 1: and power the suffering of people. They just use that
Speaker 1: as a tool. And they're also just really dumb a
Speaker 1: lot of the time, which is what happened here. Bad
Speaker 1: stuff wayfair mort of troll rescues have risen from forty
Speaker 1: four individuals all of last year to over four hundred
Speaker 1: so far this year. Smugglers are often placing children and
Speaker 1: nothing more than makeshift raft or on pool toys to
Speaker 1: cross the dangerous Rande River. That's what's going on here. Overwhelmed,
Speaker 1: overwhelmed border patrol. And you've got Chuck Schumer. We'll talk
Speaker 1: more about this in the next hour. Just how the
Speaker 1: depths they're willing to go to here to make a
Speaker 1: political point. Chuck Schumer displaying on the Senate floor this
Speaker 1: photo that went viral of two migrants that drowned there
Speaker 1: let's understand this. This is in no way something that
Speaker 1: should be put at the feet of our men and
Speaker 1: women of border patrol. We've seen a very similar photo.
Speaker 1: You will recall during the migrant surge into Europe when
Speaker 1: you had all these Muslim migrants from the Middle East
Speaker 1: and North Africa who were just who were flooding into
Speaker 1: into Europe and there was a boy who was found drowned.
Speaker 1: And these are dangerous processes when we tell people you
Speaker 1: can't come into the country and they decide they're coming anyway,
Speaker 1: and they're gonna break our laws and they're go to
Speaker 1: go through avenues and engage with the criminal element because
Speaker 1: that's what you're doing when you're paying off cartels. There
Speaker 1: are going to be bad things that happen. That's a tragedy.
Speaker 1: These kids shouldn't be put in this position, but their
Speaker 1: parents shouldn't be putting them in this position. That's a
Speaker 1: part of this as well. There is a human responsibility
Speaker 1: here that goes beyond whether we're processing people for their
Speaker 1: asylum hearings fast enough. Parents who are putting their children
Speaker 1: in this situation are putting them at risk. And for
Speaker 1: those of you who are thinking, well, buck can you
Speaker 1: really say that, I'm pretty much quoting Obama from a
Speaker 1: few years ago. And we'll play that for you a
Speaker 1: little later on in the show. And we're really going
Speaker 1: to look at how the Democrats used to talk about
Speaker 1: this issue and now that the political winds have shifted,
Speaker 1: the way they talk about this issue now it's very different.
Speaker 1: It is very different. They've abandoned previously held positions that
Speaker 1: were central central to immigration policy. Now it's all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, it's like they were just kidding, all well,
Speaker 1: it was all really a head fake. I mean, it
Speaker 1: really wasn't true. They were saying these things in the
Speaker 1: hopes of achieving an eventual amnesty. But I mean, Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer showing photos of drowned children, this is what we
Speaker 1: expect from Democrats making this about how anyone who wants
Speaker 1: to enforce our immigration laws is more or less responsible
Speaker 1: for drowning children in the rio grand that's what he's saying.
Speaker 1: You have a man here and his twenty three month
Speaker 1: old daughter who who were drowning here they tried to
Speaker 1: cross and look, it's terrible, but it's not our fault.
Speaker 1: This is not the this is just the truth. It's
Speaker 1: not our fault. It's not the West government's fault. It's
Speaker 1: not the American people's fault. These individuals who are coming
Speaker 1: to the border now they know that what they're doing
Speaker 1: is breaking the law. They know it's wrong. Now, you
Speaker 1: had Brian Hastings, a border patrol who have interviewed many times.
Speaker 1: A good guy. You know, he's just he's a law
Speaker 1: enforcement guy. He just wants to do right by people
Speaker 1: and wants to serve his country and enforce the laws.
Speaker 1: He's talking to. All the rescues they're doing, I mean,
Speaker 1: Border patrol is bending over backwards. I've been out there
Speaker 1: with them. I've seen it to do everything they can
Speaker 1: to keep all these kids safe. If someone gets in
Speaker 1: trouble out there, you know, they end up doing rescue missions.
Speaker 1: They do rescue missions because people get dehydrated, they get
Speaker 1: overheated out in the desert. I heard a really a
Speaker 1: tough story from border patrol agent about somebody that tried
Speaker 1: to jump off one of the very high fences and
Speaker 1: had essentially a double compound fracture with their kneecaps going
Speaker 1: through their knees. I mean, you know, there's bad stuff
Speaker 1: that happens when people are trying to come. This is
Speaker 1: all through illegal immigration, folks, This is what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: You know, no one is drowning because they're waiting in
Speaker 1: line at a port of entry. All right, This is
Speaker 1: all the result of illegal immigration. And then the question
Speaker 1: or the conversation should turn to how do we stop
Speaker 1: illegal immigration from occurring? Instead, what Democrats do is Republicans
Speaker 1: are big, mean meanings because they want to stop this.
Speaker 1: And look what's happening. Because you won't be open borders,
Speaker 1: people will drown when they come here. This is the
Speaker 1: moral blackmail they engage in. Now. Just it's indecent, it's unfair,
Speaker 1: but be prepared for a lot more of this. Democrats
Speaker 1: have one speed on immigration now, and that speed is
Speaker 1: reckless demagoguery, absolutely reckless. That is what they will be doing,
Speaker 1: speaking about who defends life and who's trying to save lives.
Speaker 1: President Trump was at the Faith in Freedom Coalition today
Speaker 1: and he spoke on this issue of life. And now
Speaker 1: I know that there are a lot of particularly a
Speaker 1: religious and practicing Christians, who have their concerns about Trump's
Speaker 1: personal behavior understandably, so I do not make excuses for it.
Speaker 1: I do not pretend that there's not reason to be
Speaker 1: at least extending a kind of one eyebrow up at
Speaker 1: Trump on a lot of the stuff that he's done
Speaker 1: in the past. But I also think that that's put
Speaker 1: in the context of how much am I really supposed
Speaker 1: to care when he's a politician and he is pushing
Speaker 1: for an agenda that I agree with? And Trump reminded
Speaker 1: us today of how important it is to have somebody
Speaker 1: in the role that he currently fulfills who defends religious
Speaker 1: freedom and also is in his own way defending life.
Speaker 1: By appointing conservative constitutionalist judges, for example, he is making
Speaker 1: it more likely and we are starting to see that
Speaker 1: this could become a reality sooner than later, that there
Speaker 1: will be limitations put on abortion, that there will be
Speaker 1: some stop to the abortion on demand industry, or at
Speaker 1: least some outer limits to the abortion on demand industry
Speaker 1: that has grown and grown and grown for decades. So Trump,
Speaker 1: without being a perfect person and none of us are perfect,
Speaker 1: is in fact acting in his public persona as the
Speaker 1: commander in chief and as the chief executive of the
Speaker 1: United States government. He is acting as a defender of life,
Speaker 1: a defender against the Democrats insanity on this issue. Play eleven.
Speaker 1: We're preserving our country's vital tradition of faith based adoption,
Speaker 1: and we're proudly defending the sanctity of life. Unfortunately, Democrat
Speaker 1: politicians have become increasingly hostile to pro life Americans who
Speaker 1: want to help more children find a loving home and
Speaker 1: share their dreams with the world. Virtually every top Democrat
Speaker 1: lawmaker now supports taxpayer funded abortion right up to the
Speaker 1: moment of birth. And by the way, if you watched
Speaker 1: Virginia the governor after the moment of birth, that was
Speaker 1: something that nobody That was something that nobody heard of before.
Speaker 1: Is that a lie? It's not a lie. Democrats get
Speaker 1: so upset whenever someone brings us up. The audio is
Speaker 1: very clear, it's very obvious what he's talking about. Ralph Northam,
Speaker 1: who's an MD, forget about do no harm. Ralph Northam
Speaker 1: made it quite clear that he thought that the law
Speaker 1: should say that if somebody wants to have an abortion,
Speaker 1: even if the baby survives the abortion procedure, which does happen,
Speaker 1: then that baby should be able to be terminated if
Speaker 1: that's what the mother wants. It's horrifying. Trump is not
Speaker 1: those people. He's not one of them. It's a nice
Speaker 1: reminder of it. And we'll see if this comes up tonight.
Speaker 1: I doubt it will, but we got more on this.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. There is no right to defy aggression
Speaker 1: of subpoena. The White House might asserts some privilege, but
Speaker 1: when they revealed this the information to Muller and even
Speaker 1: to private attorneys, they waved the privilege. So I think
Speaker 1: he'll answer the questions that are put to him because
Speaker 1: it's a civic duty to do so, and he's an
Speaker 1: upstanding a prosecutor. Well, the irony is that precisely what
Speaker 1: Nabler wants to ask Muller about. Muller can't answer. He
Speaker 1: can't answer any questions about why he didn't recommend prosecuting
Speaker 1: President Trump, why he didn't recommend prosecuting people who weren't prosecuted.
Speaker 1: Justice Department regulations in traditions say he wants a prosecuted
Speaker 1: decides not to prosecute. That's it. He keeps his mouth shut.
Speaker 1: What he can answer questions about is what's not necessarily
Speaker 1: in the report, namely the Steel dossier, the failure to
Speaker 1: properly inform the FISA court, the reasons why certain people
Speaker 1: were put on his Investigating Committee. Those are all appropriate.
Speaker 1: So in the end, I think the Democrats are going
Speaker 1: to see this backfire. The questions they want to answer
Speaker 1: Muller will never answer, But the questions the Republicans want
Speaker 1: to ask, Muller will have to answer because he won't
Speaker 1: have any privilege or any restrictions on what he can say.
Speaker 1: So I think there's gonna backfire on the Democrat. I
Speaker 1: think the dirsh is correct. Big news yesterday that Mueller's
Speaker 1: gonna test on July. Will come back to this in
Speaker 1: the next hour. I'm gonna have a little some more
Speaker 1: thoughts on this one for you, but I just wanted
Speaker 1: to touch on this for a moment here. First of all,
Speaker 1: the idea that he wasn't going to testify, that Mueller
Speaker 1: wasn't going to testify, its crazy. Of course he should testify.
Speaker 1: What's the point of all this? How can you have
Speaker 1: any hearings on the Hill and pretend they're serious and
Speaker 1: it's not gonna result in this guy giving answers about anything.
Speaker 1: But beyond that, I think that Trump is I believe
Speaker 1: that he's been holding in reserve the declassification of some
Speaker 1: of the stuff, specifically the Fiser, the FISA warrants. And
Speaker 1: because that's just when that stuff finally drops, it's gonna
Speaker 1: drop like an anvil. When that finally happens, people are
Speaker 1: gonna say, oh my gosh, this was such a we
Speaker 1: already know it to set up. It'll be the proof
Speaker 1: of the setup. It'll be a beyond a reasonable doubt
Speaker 1: proof that this was all along a get Trump operation,
Speaker 1: it was not conducted in good faith, and that Muller
Speaker 1: was supposed to just be the he was supposed to
Speaker 1: be the man who finished it all off. He was
Speaker 1: gonna be the one who finally ended this Trump nightmare
Speaker 1: for all the Libs and all the bitter never Trump Republicans.
Speaker 1: That was Muller's real job. And this is why he
Speaker 1: was set up by Comy to do this. This is
Speaker 1: why you had Rosenstein, these DJ people, they were all
Speaker 1: trying to find a way and Rosenstein, you know, in
Speaker 1: the background when all this stuff is going on, and
Speaker 1: they just didn't have the goods. They just couldn't make
Speaker 1: it happen. It wasn't there. They didn't have the goods
Speaker 1: because it didn't happen, and they can't completely fabricate evidence.
Speaker 1: They can come up with all these novel legal theories
Speaker 1: and interpretation in order to try to justify the fantasy
Speaker 1: that Trump broke the law, that maybe he should be prosecuted,
Speaker 1: maybe he will be prosecuted. But it's just nonsense. It
Speaker 1: was always nonsense, you know. And Trump is going to
Speaker 1: get some opportunities here to fight back, which I think
Speaker 1: is excellent. For one, he points out that the whole
Speaker 1: Struck in Page situation, where was Muller on all this stuff?
Speaker 1: Play twelve? He terminated the emails, He terminated all of
Speaker 1: the stuff between Struck and Page. You know, sung Robert
Speaker 1: Mueller terminated their text messages together, he would he terminated them.
Speaker 1: They're gone, and that's illegal, that's a crime. Saying that
Speaker 1: he tried to cover up what happened or didn't didn't
Speaker 1: want to get some information. There's some information that lives
Speaker 1: and others they have no interest in gathering, and it's
Speaker 1: always information that would be exculpatory or better official for
Speaker 1: Trump or show just how depraved and dishonest the deep
Speaker 1: state aligned against him really is. And then there's just
Speaker 1: the broader question here too, when does this does this
Speaker 1: ever end? Will there come a point at which there
Speaker 1: is no longer a an appetite in the in the
Speaker 1: at least for the public, and also in American politics,
Speaker 1: because there's what the public cares about, and there's what
Speaker 1: the DC swamp cares about. It's not always the same
Speaker 1: thing at all. Are you ever going to get to
Speaker 1: a point where this can finally go away? I would
Speaker 1: like us to just get some answers, and maybe Mueller's
Speaker 1: testimony will be helpful to that end, some answers so
Speaker 1: that we can walk away from this. This has been
Speaker 1: such a monumental waste. It has slowed and hampered and
Speaker 1: hobbled the presidency by by design, this was what the
Speaker 1: Democrats wanted all along. It has made President Trump's job
Speaker 1: more difficult. It has cost a tremendous amount of resources.
Speaker 1: But also it's taken up a lot of the public's
Speaker 1: time and thought processes that could have been spent focused
Speaker 1: on more important things. You know, we still have a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of real demons to fight out there.
Speaker 1: You know, we got cancer to cure, we got a
Speaker 1: debt we have to handle. We got a lot of
Speaker 1: things to to really look at, and this was not
Speaker 1: one of them. And it's not okay that a bunch
Speaker 1: of sore, loser, bitter, angry Democrats, not just the angry
Speaker 1: Democrats on the Muller team, but across the board, across
Speaker 1: the country. I feel like they should drag us all
Speaker 1: through their ongoing nervous breakdown because that's really what Trump
Speaker 1: forced out of the Democratic Party. They the Democrats, had
Speaker 1: a mass nervous breakdown because of Trump, and then there
Speaker 1: were all these these spasms and all this craziness from
Speaker 1: them because of it. When is enough enough? They really
Speaker 1: do need to just get a grip. So I agree
Speaker 1: with the President. It needs it needs to end. Enough
Speaker 1: is enough. One of the things just to note here
Speaker 1: is that Democrats are going to be out making their
Speaker 1: case tonight for why a bunch of people that have
Speaker 1: basically no chance of becoming president should should be in
Speaker 1: the race. Even Elizabeth Warren, sure she might be able
Speaker 1: to make her with but the rest of these Democrats
Speaker 1: have no chance. I mean, this is the this is
Speaker 1: the also ran category before the race is even over.
Speaker 1: But remember one of the early on one of the
Speaker 1: decisions that a lot of conservatives who were uncomfortable with
Speaker 1: some of Trump's personal ways and style made was one
Speaker 1: of the decisions that we came to was that for
Speaker 1: judges alone, there's a huge benefit to Trump being in office.
Speaker 1: He was at the Faith in Freedom Coalition today and
Speaker 1: Trump gave the people listening, and I hope his base
Speaker 1: was paying attention. I hope people that voted for Trump
Speaker 1: and we're holding their nose when they did it, who
Speaker 1: were conservatives. I hope they heard this too. We'll talk
Speaker 1: about how, you know, we're doing some important stuff on
Speaker 1: the courts here, and keep in mind that the crazy left,
Speaker 1: which is getting crazier all the time, they've got their
Speaker 1: own version of the judges that they want, and because
Speaker 1: of Trump, that's not happening. Played ten. My administration has
Speaker 1: also taken historic action to protect Americans' rights enshrined into Constitution.
Speaker 1: Democrats are determined to pack the courts with radical left
Speaker 1: judges who will impose their own far left of views
Speaker 1: on the American people. That is why I will soon
Speaker 1: appoint my one hundred and forty fifth judge to interpret
Speaker 1: the Constitution as that I've heard Trump say this. I
Speaker 1: believe he told me this, if I remember correct in
Speaker 1: our interview back in October, that no president except for
Speaker 1: George Washington, has a higher percentage overall of appointees to
Speaker 1: the federal bench. So Washington has him beat. But after
Speaker 1: George Washington, it's Donald Trump. And the judges that he's
Speaker 1: put forward have been the judges that we would have
Speaker 1: wanted from any conservative. This is a promise kept. There
Speaker 1: are some areas or we're gonna have to take a
Speaker 1: real look at what Trump doesn't mean I'm gonna change
Speaker 1: my support for him, but it does mean we have
Speaker 1: to look at what hasn't worked yet, what has to
Speaker 1: be the focus, how well he'll shape the message going
Speaker 1: forward so that we can believe that he really will
Speaker 1: be able to achieve all those promises. But on judges,
Speaker 1: Trump has been in a plus And anytime you think that, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I don't really like his tweets or anything else, just
Speaker 1: think about what would you like to have a little
Speaker 1: army of Ruth Bader Ginsburg's in their early forties being
Speaker 1: put on the federal bench across the country. That's what
Speaker 1: you'd have if Hillary had won. This is a manufactured
Speaker 1: crisis at the heart of the whole thing, our whole
Speaker 1: bunch of lies. We have a president who will go
Speaker 1: on TV tonight and why and why and why? So
Speaker 1: more there's a manufactured crisis. Wouldn't we be there because
Speaker 1: it was a crisis. They were being overrun. You know,
Speaker 1: there's something manufactured about this. There's no crisis. He's some
Speaker 1: manufactural crisis. He's taking eight hundred thousand federal employees hostage
Speaker 1: so he can get his vanity wall. This whole thing
Speaker 1: is absurd. It is a completely manufactured, you know, appeal
Speaker 1: to the ugliest sentiments. And then frankly, you know, I
Speaker 1: wonder about our complicity and just talking about this. It's
Speaker 1: complete and utter nonsense, trying to solve a problem that
Speaker 1: in fact doesn't exist because there's zero net illegal immigration
Speaker 1: coming across the southern border. They're playing the public, you
Speaker 1: for suckers. That was all this year, my friends from Democrats.
Speaker 1: That's right now everyone's saying, oh my gosh, we're operating
Speaker 1: concentration camps at the order according to libs, the crazy
Speaker 1: ones or the craziest ones. But a few months ago
Speaker 1: it was a manufactured crisis, as in Trump was creating it,
Speaker 1: as if Donald Trump was showing up in Honduras and
Speaker 1: running around saying, hey, I've got a great idea. Make
Speaker 1: your way all the way up through Mexico and borrow
Speaker 1: a kid if you don't have one, or show up
Speaker 1: with your kid at the US Mexico border, present yourself
Speaker 1: and say that you want asylum, and just say whatever
Speaker 1: you have to say this day in the country, and
Speaker 1: then you're home free. Manufactured by whom is the question
Speaker 1: that is going to be the real issue. Manufactured how
Speaker 1: who is the manufacturer of this? And now we go
Speaker 1: to oh, you mean that it's not manufactured at all?
Speaker 1: This is quite real. This is a major problem. Oh
Speaker 1: wait here, just in case some of the greatest hits
Speaker 1: this from this year, folks got We're on track because
Speaker 1: I've been warning you month after month and going down
Speaker 1: to the border and doing reporting from the field month
Speaker 1: after month. We're on track to now have a million
Speaker 1: illegal aliens coming to the country this year. A few
Speaker 1: months ago, Jim Accost was down to the border doing
Speaker 1: this play five. And here are some of the steel
Speaker 1: slats that the President's been talking about right here, as
Speaker 1: you can see, yes, you can't see through these slats
Speaker 1: to the other side of the US Mexico border. But
Speaker 1: as we're walking along here, we're not seeing any kind
Speaker 1: of imminent danger. There are no migrants trying to rush
Speaker 1: toward this fence here in the McCallan, Texas area. As
Speaker 1: a matter of fact, there are some other businesses behind
Speaker 1: me along this highway. There's a gas station, Burger king,
Speaker 1: and so on, but no sign of the national emergency
Speaker 1: that the president has been talking about. As a matter
Speaker 1: of fact, it's pretty tranquil down here. Not a fact,
Speaker 1: it's pretty tranquil. I can feel the wind rustling through
Speaker 1: all the hairspray in my hair, and it's great down here.
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta says, that's funny because I went to the
Speaker 1: border twice and I saw rests happening all the time. Okay,
Speaker 1: the rests were happening constantly at the border, surrenders, arrests,
Speaker 1: you name it, right, that's what was going on at
Speaker 1: our southern border. But Jim acostas, oh, there's no danger,
Speaker 1: there's no migrants here. What's well, what's the problem, man,
Speaker 1: It's all fine. I'll just just so dishonest. So many
Speaker 1: liars among those that go on TV and make this
Speaker 1: case to you. They have no absolutely no accountability for
Speaker 1: what they've said in the past, no interest whatsoever in
Speaker 1: going back and figuring out why they got it so wrong.
Speaker 1: But I want to take it before I get into
Speaker 1: what they're saying. Now. I want to know this. Why
Speaker 1: is it that President Obama is not the president anymore?
Speaker 1: I understand this, but why is it that when he
Speaker 1: was saying certain things when he was the president and
Speaker 1: there was a unaccompanied youth migrant crisis at our southern
Speaker 1: border started under Obama, he could say things like this
Speaker 1: and Democrats had no problem with it at play seventeen
Speaker 1: These kids don't make it and may have been waylaid
Speaker 1: into sex trafficking or killed because they fell off a train.
Speaker 1: We have no way of tracking them. So that is
Speaker 1: our direct message to the families in Central America, do
Speaker 1: not send your children to the borders. If they do
Speaker 1: make it, they'll get sent back. More importantly, they may
Speaker 1: not make it. Oh so inhumane, Obama. They're seeking asylum.
Speaker 1: Don't you understand putting them in cages? What is wrong
Speaker 1: with you? Obama? No, they didn't say that at all.
Speaker 1: They're like, oh, what's Obama? So? Yeah, sure he was
Speaker 1: saying they'll get sent back. This is why it's so
Speaker 1: hard to have a discussion with the Democrats about immigration,
Speaker 1: because until about five minutes ago, they at least used
Speaker 1: to say they wanted the same things we did. Not
Speaker 1: all of them, but a lot of them. Until five
Speaker 1: minutes ago, the president, who was a Democrat, was willing
Speaker 1: to deport people and did at least take some measures
Speaker 1: to have deterrence. Because if you have no deterrence, if
Speaker 1: you have no enforcement of law, if there's no penalty
Speaker 1: for breaking the law, you don't have a law. You
Speaker 1: have a suggestion. That's all gone now now the Democrats
Speaker 1: are just trying to outdo one another with degrees of crazy.
Speaker 1: Now they're just spinning off the planet all the time,
Speaker 1: saying stuff that makes no sense. And thankfully President Trump
Speaker 1: is on it, understands what the opposition really is going
Speaker 1: for here and is willing to say this is all
Speaker 1: about Democrats wanting open borders. Now they've boxed themselves in.
Speaker 1: There's no way. There's no way for them to be
Speaker 1: opposed to open borders because they're unwilling to go along
Speaker 1: with any enforcement measures. So if they won't help close
Speaker 1: the borders, guess what, they only have one option left,
Speaker 1: and Trump is right to call them out for play one.
Speaker 1: We don't need anybody if they If the Democrats would
Speaker 1: get rid of the loopholes. They call loopholes for a reason.
Speaker 1: They're loopholes. They're loopholes to come into the country. If
Speaker 1: the Democrats would get rid of the loopholes and would
Speaker 1: fix asylum, it would take an hour. We could sit down,
Speaker 1: we could make a deal. They refuse to do it.
Speaker 1: They want open borders. He's right, we have a near
Speaker 1: open border right now. All you have to do is
Speaker 1: not be from Mexico, get to Mexico, show up at
Speaker 1: our southern border. You'll be processed quickly. If you have
Speaker 1: a kid with you and you're good, and that's pretty
Speaker 1: much it. That's all you need. Beyond that, you're home free.
Speaker 1: You're good to go. Trump is saying that Democrats could
Speaker 1: make this whole thing stop, They could make this go away.
Speaker 1: They don't want to make it go away. See this
Speaker 1: is where this is where the rubber really meets the row.
Speaker 1: They have no interest. Their political incentives aren't aligned with
Speaker 1: the rule of law here. They don't care what's really happening. Now,
Speaker 1: just keep in mind that President Trump says these things
Speaker 1: and they call him horrible things. I mean horrible things
Speaker 1: because especially because of his position on immigration, and you
Speaker 1: have that imbecile ilhan Omar, who will find out, I
Speaker 1: guess soon enough, whether she actually married her brother or not.
Speaker 1: We have ilhan Omar who is saying stuff like this
Speaker 1: play eighteen and so we're here to say, in this country,
Speaker 1: we are no longer going to stand for a synophobic
Speaker 1: tyrant to continuously reign terror on our communities, a xenophobic tyrant,
Speaker 1: reigning terror. I don't know. I wouldn't use that word,
Speaker 1: reigning terror on communities, a xenophobic tyrant. This is coming
Speaker 1: from a woman who's a Somali immigrant who's now a
Speaker 1: member of Congress and loves to get away with saying
Speaker 1: lots of anti Semitic stuff, right, But they call him
Speaker 1: his unophobic tyrant, mostly because of his immigration positions. Now
Speaker 1: we don't have to get into how overwrought and a
Speaker 1: nonsensical ilhan Omar's positions are. That's this is why the
Speaker 1: left tries so hard to defend her, because she says,
Speaker 1: with so many in the left really believe, but aren't
Speaker 1: so dumb as to say out loud. So there's this
Speaker 1: u it's kind of internal defense mechanism that people have.
Speaker 1: Oh ilhan Omar, you know she's don't beat up on her,
Speaker 1: don't say mean things about her. It's because that the
Speaker 1: crazy stuff she says about Trump, Libs love it. They
Speaker 1: love it. They wish they could run around saying that.
Speaker 1: But if they're not an immigrant from Somalia who's a
Speaker 1: Muslim and a female, they won't get away with quite
Speaker 1: the same amount of crazy that she does. And so
Speaker 1: they just prefer that she's out there and able to
Speaker 1: use that that special protection to just go after Trump
Speaker 1: at will. Trump understands that they want open borders, and
Speaker 1: that's why he keeps calling them out. I just would
Speaker 1: want to know what either someone should ask these Democrats
Speaker 1: if Obama was a xenophobic tyrant, if Obama was hateful
Speaker 1: toward Latin Americans, Mexicans, Central Americans, if he was a
Speaker 1: really bad guy, because Obama used to say so. And
Speaker 1: this is not a what about this is the most
Speaker 1: recent president, folks. This is when the Democrats were in power.
Speaker 1: They want to be in power again. When they were
Speaker 1: in power just a few years ago, the guy that
Speaker 1: was running things for them used to say stuff like
Speaker 1: this about immigration. Play too. We've had five million undocumented
Speaker 1: workers come over the borders since George Bush took office.
Speaker 1: It has become an extraordinary problem. And the reasoningly American
Speaker 1: people are concerned is because they are seeing their own
Speaker 1: economic positions slip away. And oftentimes employers are exploiting these
Speaker 1: undocumented workers. They're not paying the minimum wage, they're not
Speaker 1: observing worker safety laws. And so what we have to
Speaker 1: do is create a comprehensive solution to the problem. Now,
Speaker 1: I have already stated that as president, I will make
Speaker 1: sure that we finally have the kind of border security
Speaker 1: that we need. That's step number one. Step number two
Speaker 1: is to take on employers. Right now, they an employer
Speaker 1: has more of a chance of getting hit by lightning,
Speaker 1: then they prosecuted for hiring an undocumented worker. That has
Speaker 1: to change him. That was candidate Obama, Folks, Does he
Speaker 1: sound like he could? Are you going to hear that
Speaker 1: from any of the Democrats running in the debate? Toneditor
Speaker 1: tomorrow night, prosecuting employers for hiring illegals, strengthening security at
Speaker 1: the border to keep people out, talking about the economic
Speaker 1: consequences of competition for jobs that comes from illegals, the
Speaker 1: exploitation of illegals by employers not paying them minimum wage,
Speaker 1: and are you going to hear that from any Democrat.
Speaker 1: This is the guy that was present for eight years
Speaker 1: with the Democratic Party behind him. We're not the ones
Speaker 1: that have changed. They have changed. We're not the ones
Speaker 1: that have gone crazy. The Democrats have gone crazy. When
Speaker 1: we could have an adult discussion about immigration, they were
Speaker 1: much closer to where the Republican Party is now. But
Speaker 1: what happened as they've just decided to go off the
Speaker 1: deep end and be like, yeah, whatever, everyone, anyone can
Speaker 1: stay as long as they vote Democrat. As long as
Speaker 1: they vote Democrat and sign up for grievance politics one
Speaker 1: oh one identity politics through the lens of social justice,
Speaker 1: and start lecturing Americans as soon as they come here.
Speaker 1: The first thing that we want from immigrants is to
Speaker 1: start getting lectures about how we don't treat our immigrants
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants rather well enough, and that the reason those
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants had to leave their countries was because of
Speaker 1: the bad things that America has done all over the world. Right,
Speaker 1: whether it's climate change I told you about yesterday, or
Speaker 1: some war or some something, or you know, we supported
Speaker 1: a regime fifty years ago. You know, whatever it is,
Speaker 1: there's always some excuse. It's never these countries just have
Speaker 1: problems because the people who live in them need to
Speaker 1: get their act together. That that's never the problem. It's
Speaker 1: always America's fault. It's always our fault. It's very frustrating,
Speaker 1: it's very frustrating. But I think it's important to illustrate
Speaker 1: how much they have changed, because they have changed dramatically.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party is in an entirely different universe on
Speaker 1: immigration from where it used to be. And so that's
Speaker 1: why we should all take a step back and say,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, who are the crazy ones on
Speaker 1: this issue? They call us uenophobic and tyrants and racist
Speaker 1: and all this. Well, if that's the case, the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party in Barack Obama were effectively xenophobic and racist and
Speaker 1: tyrants until about you know, two years ago. What change? Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, they're not in power, and the left, the
Speaker 1: radical left, seize power within their party, which is another
Speaker 1: important dynamic. Herrecter. We got more coming up. All of this.
Speaker 1: This whole mess is manufactured. It's a manufactured crisis, a
Speaker 1: non crisis at the border. That's really not fooling anybody.
Speaker 1: People may think it's a crisis crisis, they know it's
Speaker 1: not a crisis. That's all for political expediency, that's all
Speaker 1: for getting what they want, that's all for saving this. Presidents,
Speaker 1: we're in what are we stupid? A manufactured emergency all
Speaker 1: to camp a campaign promise that the majority of Americans
Speaker 1: don't want you to keep. What kind of emergency is that? If? However,
Speaker 1: John Lemon, I'd avoid the question about stupidity. Do you
Speaker 1: think that he is going to be held accountable by
Speaker 1: any of his audience? For that was earlier this year.
Speaker 1: I mean, the crisis, let's keep in mind, hasn't changed.
Speaker 1: It's gotten maybe worse in terms of numbers, but it's
Speaker 1: been the same crisis for months. The board of Patrol facilities,
Speaker 1: and Immigration and Customs enforcement, the loopholes and the law.
Speaker 1: This has been going on for months, stretching back well
Speaker 1: into last last summer. They were saying it wasn't a crisis,
Speaker 1: It wasn't a crisis when the American people were focused
Speaker 1: on budget negotiations and when Trump was trying to get
Speaker 1: them and we remember went to a whole government shutdown
Speaker 1: of this when Trump wanted funding for a wall and
Speaker 1: Trump wanted to what are the Democrat do? They lied,
Speaker 1: They lied about the crisis, said there was no crisis
Speaker 1: when it was politically necessary for them, and now they
Speaker 1: turn around an acca like, oh, Trump's not doing enough
Speaker 1: and he's terrible and he's a monster, and all this
Speaker 1: stuff they say, they have no shame, no shame at all.
Speaker 1: And you want an example of exactly what I'm talking about,
Speaker 1: here's Chuck Schumer using a photo of a dead child
Speaker 1: on the floor, on the floor of the Senate. He's
Speaker 1: putting up this photo to make some political point. Here's
Speaker 1: what Chuck Schumer says. Fifteen, These are not drug dealers.
Speaker 1: President Trump, I want you to look at this photo.
Speaker 1: These are not drug dealers or vagrants or criminals. They
Speaker 1: are people simply fleeing a horrible situation in their home
Speaker 1: country for a better life, holding up a photo of
Speaker 1: a dead child as a prop on the floor of
Speaker 1: the Senate, as though, what those of us who believe
Speaker 1: that we shouldn't just let anyone come to the country
Speaker 1: who wants to come into the country are bad people
Speaker 1: who don't care about dead children? Is this really is
Speaker 1: a corollary to my rule about you always need to
Speaker 1: be careful of anyone who claims that they're doing it
Speaker 1: for the children. Also be very skeptical whenever a politician,
Speaker 1: especially a Democrat politician, says to you, if you don't
Speaker 1: agree with me, you don't care about dead children. They
Speaker 1: do this with gun control all the time. Oh, you
Speaker 1: don't agree that we should ban all semi automatic rifles,
Speaker 1: You don't care about dead kids. They stand on the
Speaker 1: graves of dead children, lecture us on policy that has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with dead children, and they take, you'll note,
Speaker 1: no responsibility for keeping the situation as it is. They
Speaker 1: take no responsibility for the fact that they could change
Speaker 1: the laws, send the emergency supplemental funding of the border
Speaker 1: right away instead of delaying on it, to close the loopholes,
Speaker 1: make the asylum process what it's supposed to be, which
Speaker 1: is for people who are fleeing persecution, not economic migrants
Speaker 1: pretending to flee violence. Do they take any of the
Speaker 1: responsibility for the women who are or raped as a
Speaker 1: result of being entrusted to coyotes to bring them to
Speaker 1: the border. Do the Democrats feel any guilt over that?
Speaker 1: Do the Democrats feel any guilt over the people in
Speaker 1: this country who are killed by legal aliens? Of course not.
Speaker 1: That's why at least Trump will fight back on this stuff.
Speaker 1: I hope. I expect this to be the only time
Speaker 1: that I will speak to you in this manner. I
Speaker 1: am making that decision myself. Any testimony from this office
Speaker 1: would not go beyond our report. It contains our findings
Speaker 1: and analysis and the reasons for the decisions we made.
Speaker 1: We chose those words carefully, and the work speaks for itself. Ah,
Speaker 1: that's not a call you get to make their Muller,
Speaker 1: I've always thought that Muller really exposed himself in that
Speaker 1: press conference. I've always thought that we saw something in
Speaker 1: Bob Muller that really gives us some insight into exactly
Speaker 1: how partisan an anti Trump he really was in this
Speaker 1: whole process. Because this this initial contention that he had
Speaker 1: that he wasn't going to testify, I mean, is he serious?
Speaker 1: Did he really think that was gonna fly? Yeah? Sorry,
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm not I'm not gonna testify. Sorry, and
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna testify. I ran this get Trump operation
Speaker 1: for two years, did a little this and all that,
Speaker 1: you know, but I'm not going to testify. This is
Speaker 1: just idiocy, just nonsense. Why does that anyone think that
Speaker 1: that's an okay thing for Mueller to say or feel
Speaker 1: or thinks it's bizarre. And now yesterday the news broke
Speaker 1: that's okay. Sure it was too blatant, too obvious. Democrats
Speaker 1: could not continue the charade, and so that is why
Speaker 1: they have decided that they will have Mueller testifying. He's
Speaker 1: agreed to testify as of July seventeenth. I think it
Speaker 1: is so this is going to be when we finally
Speaker 1: get to see this guy have to do something that
Speaker 1: he doesn't really want to do. He was given carte blanche,
Speaker 1: He was given a very wide berth to pursue Trump
Speaker 1: in all these different ways. And we know that he's look,
Speaker 1: we know he's anti Trump. We know he wanted to
Speaker 1: take down the Trump administration. None of that is a surprise.
Speaker 1: But he didn't do what he press conferences. He didn't,
Speaker 1: you know, have to stand up there and face the
Speaker 1: music at all. He had that one. It wasn't really
Speaker 1: a press commerce. He just gave a statement and walked
Speaker 1: away and said, oh, sorry, it's over now. And his
Speaker 1: statement was clearly meant to be a handoff to the
Speaker 1: Democrat controlled Congress to say, go impeach the president, which
Speaker 1: was not Mueller's call, which is not his responsibility. Which
Speaker 1: is not an ethical thing for him to have done.
Speaker 1: Why wouldn't Democrats, given how much Saint Muller was supposed
Speaker 1: to save our republic, why wouldn't Democrats have right away
Speaker 1: said we want to have Muller out there. We want
Speaker 1: Muller to testify. Oh, that's right. Republicans will get to
Speaker 1: ask him questions too. And there are questions that when
Speaker 1: Bob Muller testifies next month, we will base just even
Speaker 1: on his willingness to answer the questions. I think learn
Speaker 1: a lot. I'm sure he's gonna try to pull a
Speaker 1: lot off. I can't say that, or I can't talk
Speaker 1: about it. There's a continuing or ongoing investigation, or that's
Speaker 1: classified or something. Because this is gonna be an open session.
Speaker 1: He'll do what he can to stay out of the
Speaker 1: danger areas. But there are just gonna be some questions
Speaker 1: that if he's not willing to answer them, that's the answer.
Speaker 1: That's the only answer you have to hear. If he's
Speaker 1: not willing to address what are enormously important unanswered questions,
Speaker 1: then we know that this was not on the up
Speaker 1: and up. This was funky. There was a funky smell
Speaker 1: emanating from the Muller probe. So that's why when I
Speaker 1: look at this, I say, okay, now finally, oh you Buck,
Speaker 1: what are those What are those questions? Of course? What
Speaker 1: are those questions? Well, for one, how is it that
Speaker 1: the man who is tasked with looking at Russian interference
Speaker 1: in the election seemingly had no interest, and I mean none,
Speaker 1: no interest in getting to the bottom of the origins
Speaker 1: of the Russia collusion theory. How is that possible? How
Speaker 1: is it the case that he just decided to pretend
Speaker 1: that this all started because of Papadopolis and that no,
Speaker 1: it didn't. We all know it didn't. So he skipped
Speaker 1: past all that he didn't think that that was relevant.
Speaker 1: I find that very very hard to believe. All right, well,
Speaker 1: then what's the next what's the next on the list here? Okay,
Speaker 1: the DOSA? Why does the dossier almost not appear at
Speaker 1: all in the Muller probe? Was the dossier a primary
Speaker 1: component of the FISA warrant? Given what we've been finding
Speaker 1: out about the dossier, it's providence and credibility issues early on,
Speaker 1: Why didn't Bob Muller have more interest in how that
Speaker 1: was passed around the top of the dj and used
Speaker 1: to get spying going on a presidential campaign, and then
Speaker 1: this other one too. Why is it that it's that
Speaker 1: Muller's view of what he was doing was that he
Speaker 1: never could have brought charges against the president because he
Speaker 1: campering charge against the sending president. But he would have
Speaker 1: exonerated him if he could, but he can't. Why not
Speaker 1: just say that they wouldn't come to a determination at all?
Speaker 1: This this formulation, and this is where Muller's going to
Speaker 1: have real, real problems because when you see him asked
Speaker 1: about this, it's going to sound and look very political,
Speaker 1: because it was very political because this was the deep state,
Speaker 1: this was the permanent bureaucracy, the ruling class in DC's
Speaker 1: effort to stop Trump and to put a stop to
Speaker 1: this new era we're in where you don't have to
Speaker 1: be a politician, you don't have to do things the
Speaker 1: way the left says you need to do them in
Speaker 1: order to run the power structure. This has been This
Speaker 1: is a threat. Trump poses a threat to people like
Speaker 1: Mueller who are a part of this cadre. That doesn't
Speaker 1: matter who wins the election, It doesn't matter, you know,
Speaker 1: what happens in any given year. They get to make
Speaker 1: very important determinations about your life and about what's going
Speaker 1: to happen in this country. And Trump was a threat
Speaker 1: to well that I think beyond just being a threat
Speaker 1: to it going forward, I think they don't want to
Speaker 1: believe that Trump can be a good president. Not only
Speaker 1: do they think he's illegitimate, it hurts their sense of
Speaker 1: their own importance and their own greatness that this interloper
Speaker 1: Donald Trump can come along and be the commander in
Speaker 1: chief and do this job without having spent years and
Speaker 1: years and years on Capitol Hill, you know, without having
Speaker 1: gone through the political machinery and paid his due, so
Speaker 1: to speak. I do believe it that in the swamp
Speaker 1: here in DC where I'm doing this show right now,
Speaker 1: there's a sense that Donald Trump not only stole the
Speaker 1: election from Hillary just by beating her. I'm not forget
Speaker 1: about whether Russia was involved or not, but that he was.
Speaker 1: It's not okay for someone outside the power structure to
Speaker 1: be in power. And in that way, he's an outsider. Sure,
Speaker 1: he's a billionaire, he's famous all this stuff, but he's
Speaker 1: an outsider in so far is the people that are
Speaker 1: used to calling all the shots and being really important
Speaker 1: and being really powerful in this town, at least in DC.
Speaker 1: They don't consider him legitimate. They don't consider him somebody
Speaker 1: who should be able to be in the role that
Speaker 1: he's in. And Mueller is one of them. Muller is
Speaker 1: somebody like that. And this is why the part is
Speaker 1: an affiliation does not matter nearly as much. The much
Speaker 1: more important designation is a person's a creature of, or
Speaker 1: a an ally of, or someone who deeply believes in
Speaker 1: the bureaucracy and in the permanent governing class that lives
Speaker 1: here in DC. But I don't look, the Muller testimony
Speaker 1: is not going to change a lot of people's minds. People,
Speaker 1: but doesn't matter what Muller could come out and say, yeah,
Speaker 1: I made the whole thing up in Trump's innocent, and
Speaker 1: they still you'd have LIBS MSNBC be like, somebody must
Speaker 1: have gotten Muller drunk before the hearing. We don't like
Speaker 1: what he said, so we'll just discount it all. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's nothing that you can do that'll convince a lot
Speaker 1: of people, millions and millions of rats. The Trump is
Speaker 1: not a trader, he's not the Manurian candidate. The Russians
Speaker 1: aren't running his campaign. There's nothing you can do. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what would happen. They'll they'll believe that no
Speaker 1: matter what, because that belief is comforting to them. Well,
Speaker 1: that said, I think Muther's going to get pushed into
Speaker 1: some corners and I think he has no good answers,
Speaker 1: And that's going to tell us a lot, or at
Speaker 1: least tell us that we've been right bringing a rape
Speaker 1: charge against Trump for this? Why not? I would find
Speaker 1: it disrespectful to the women who are down on the border,
Speaker 1: who are being raped around the clock down there. And
Speaker 1: it was all fairly playful. Oh, it was charming. On
Speaker 1: the counter were these fancy lingerie boxes that they used
Speaker 1: to have back in the nineties. Yeah, you wore laser
Speaker 1: in the nineties, all that joy. Well, he didn't suggest
Speaker 1: that he shouted lingerie. He may have shouted underwear. Okay.
Speaker 1: Were you scared? Were you No? It was too panicked
Speaker 1: to be scared. Okay, totally. And I put my life
Speaker 1: on the line. Do you think that you're going Well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, what do you mean you put
Speaker 1: your life on the line. Well, people have told me
Speaker 1: I have to be careful. You've gotten death threats. I
Speaker 1: am not looking at death threats. I have the idea
Speaker 1: that I'm gonna make him put it on over his pants.
Speaker 1: I'm an archer, I have bows and arrows. You know. Yeah, fine,
Speaker 1: I think there's just too never mind, never mind. I
Speaker 1: think most people think of rape, and as I mean,
Speaker 1: it is a violent assault. To this note, I think
Speaker 1: most people think of raps being sexy. Let's think of
Speaker 1: the fantasies. We've just go take a quick break, if
Speaker 1: you can stack around, and we'll talk. Martin on the
Speaker 1: other side, you're fascinating to talk to. Yeah, Anderson, get
Speaker 1: to that break real fast, buddy. So that's aeg and Carroll,
Speaker 1: who you will note after, I would assume today is
Speaker 1: going to fade off into complete obscurity again, and this
Speaker 1: will just be yet another, yet another time when the
Speaker 1: media saw someone who was temporarily of some use to them,
Speaker 1: and we're willing to dispense with all fairness, all judgment,
Speaker 1: all decency and elevate her so that she was able
Speaker 1: to make heinous, a heinous allegation against the president United States.
Speaker 1: It never occurred to me that this would end Trump's
Speaker 1: presidency or that this would change it, because I always
Speaker 1: knew that this was just not a believable story. As
Speaker 1: soon as I heard the details of the story from
Speaker 1: this person, it did not make any sense. But I
Speaker 1: would also note that this should not become normal for us.
Speaker 1: What I mean is it should not become the standard
Speaker 1: that public figures should be subjected to the Kavanaugh treatment.
Speaker 1: And I worry that while Trump is effectively immune to
Speaker 1: these lies because there have been so many eyes told
Speaker 1: about him, because the sky is falling phenomenon, it has
Speaker 1: become so overwrought in the era of Trump, and these
Speaker 1: people that think that they're going to you know, they're
Speaker 1: going to bring Trump down. They're so completely and blatantly
Speaker 1: partisan that it might not work on President Trump. But
Speaker 1: could you imagine some other Republican candidate or Republican politician
Speaker 1: or just conservative who becomes a little problematic for the
Speaker 1: left in some way and then they decide that they're
Speaker 1: just going to take him down. And all it takes
Speaker 1: is one person, one woman, to step forward with a
Speaker 1: story that doesn't seem credible, with no real corroboration, and
Speaker 1: that's it, because that person may be ruined. Right, Trump's
Speaker 1: invincibility or invulnerability to the lies told about him is
Speaker 1: not a transferable thing. I believe, and that's what has
Speaker 1: me so concerned. So while we brush aside now any
Speaker 1: rational person brushes aside e. G. And Carrol, I really
Speaker 1: do believe. And I'd say this not so much to
Speaker 1: be disparaging as to be analyzing. I think she's I
Speaker 1: think she's got problems. I think she's somebody who's a
Speaker 1: bit disturbed. While she is now going to be cast
Speaker 1: aside because she's no longer useful to the left, they
Speaker 1: allowed her to deeply humiliate herself on national TV and
Speaker 1: gave her really the Avanati treatment, in sofar as they
Speaker 1: were willing to put her on all the different shows
Speaker 1: and give her all of this attention. And you know,
Speaker 1: this doesn't mean that we should just move past it
Speaker 1: and say Okay, no harm, no foul. We do need
Speaker 1: to have a reckoning with what has changed in recent years,
Speaker 1: just like how the Democrats are such liars on immigration.
Speaker 1: I mean that the amount of gas lighting of oh no,
Speaker 1: we were ever we never favored a wall, we never
Speaker 1: favored enforcement, we were never pro deportation. There's no crisis
Speaker 1: of it, all that stuff. Just as that has happened,
Speaker 1: there is no grappling with the Kavanaugh effect and what
Speaker 1: this means for our country going forward. We should not
Speaker 1: be in a position where most people, most men, I
Speaker 1: think right now, would have to believe that if they
Speaker 1: were accused in this way, they would be ruined. Even
Speaker 1: if there was no evidence and plenty of holes in
Speaker 1: the story, the accusation itself is enough. And if there's
Speaker 1: not going to be any attempt at fairness in adjudicating this,
Speaker 1: if it's going to be purely political, and then the
Speaker 1: people who are accused aren't even going to be given
Speaker 1: an opportunity to clear their names. It's just a question
Speaker 1: of how badly the left wants to take any one
Speaker 1: person out before they can be a target and they
Speaker 1: can be ruin. So, you know, I'm not willing to
Speaker 1: just skate past this and say, all right, so she
Speaker 1: didn't manage to destroy Trump with this, We should just
Speaker 1: know we should ask the question why was she treat
Speaker 1: it as credible? What were the parts of the story
Speaker 1: that did not hold together? And how come members of
Speaker 1: the major media organizations weren't able to figure this out?
Speaker 1: CNN just completely disgraces itself on a regular basis. I honestly,
Speaker 1: I think that people are at a point now where
Speaker 1: they should be. There should be a sense of embarrassment
Speaker 1: to work there. I think it's an embarrassing place to
Speaker 1: work now. Now that doesn't mean that everyone who's there
Speaker 1: is a bad person or should be embarrassed, but I
Speaker 1: do think that the organization is in need of I mean,
Speaker 1: they should fire the top leadership across the board, and
Speaker 1: it needs a real reset. And you know the only
Speaker 1: way to do it would be to bring in somebody
Speaker 1: who's a conservative and give them considerable power, not to
Speaker 1: make it a conservative channel necessarily, just to make it
Speaker 1: a channel that's not psycholib crazy time, which is what
Speaker 1: it has turned into. That's because otherwise, how can you
Speaker 1: explain having e G and Carolan and treating her like
Speaker 1: she was was credible in the story. None of it
Speaker 1: ever made sense, and she didn't act like a victim
Speaker 1: of anything when she was on TV, just like Julie Sweatnick.
Speaker 1: Remember that Julie Swetneck. She was never prosecutor, she signed
Speaker 1: an avadavit. She's a liar, she was bearing false witness
Speaker 1: and they never had any any consequences for her whatsoever.
Speaker 1: We need to start looking at this and tell people
Speaker 1: that if you're going to make these allegations, it better
Speaker 1: be very clear that we can't prove that you're just
Speaker 1: straight up lying about this, because that's just it's just unacceptable, folks.
Speaker 1: It's wrong. It's wrong, and it's used to smear you
Speaker 1: and me as well, just because we support Trump. They
Speaker 1: say we're bad people. They use lies to make us
Speaker 1: feel bad. But the good news has we don't feel
Speaker 1: bad because they're lies. They should be sued because what's
Speaker 1: happening with the bias? And now you see with that
Speaker 1: executive yesterday from Google, the hatred for the Republicans, not
Speaker 1: even like, gee, let's let's lean democrat. The hatred and actually,
Speaker 1: you know, I heard that all during my election. It's
Speaker 1: hard that I won. They were swamping us with negative stuff,
Speaker 1: the free speech wars and the digital platforms. My friends,
Speaker 1: this is an issue that is just continuing to heat up.
Speaker 1: Conservatives realize that this is something that we cannot afford
Speaker 1: to sit on the sidelines and just watch go bias.
Speaker 1: But other than just complaining about this, which I tell
Speaker 1: you about these instances of bias, we talked about the
Speaker 1: product very toss investigation yesterday. What can we do about it.
Speaker 1: We have somebody who might have an answer for us
Speaker 1: joining us. Now we have John Mates on the line.
Speaker 1: He is the CEO of Parlor, which is a free
Speaker 1: speech based social media app. John, thanks for giving us
Speaker 1: some time. Thank you. How man, how is Parlor different?
Speaker 1: Tell me what's going on? What is Parlor so people
Speaker 1: can understand this? Yeah, I mean it's it looks and
Speaker 1: feels very similar to other social media platforms you've used
Speaker 1: in the past. The idea is that we are allowing
Speaker 1: for more free speech guidelines as in anything that the
Speaker 1: we base our guidelines off the acc and off of
Speaker 1: and off of Supreme Court cases, So that way it
Speaker 1: allows for an idea of what's allowed close to the Constitution.
Speaker 1: You know, to your point that you had with President Trump.
Speaker 1: You know, the big problem with Twitter is it is
Speaker 1: what I would call a hate haven. It is filled
Speaker 1: with a lot of angry leftists who are very much
Speaker 1: trolling most of any of the prominent individual's threads, and
Speaker 1: they are protected by that social media platform who is biased.
Speaker 1: Big differences were unbiased, and the users get to shape
Speaker 1: their own experience on their own profile. So if you
Speaker 1: don't like what someone has to say on your profile.
Speaker 1: You can moderate out their comments or make sure that
Speaker 1: they can't speak to you anymore. That's kind of the
Speaker 1: general idea, you know, so you don't end up with these,
Speaker 1: you know, basically hate mobs like you have on Twitter
Speaker 1: that that are just spamming you. And then Twitter decides
Speaker 1: which posts to show up closer and which comments to
Speaker 1: prioritize and be prioritize. It's it's really the way social
Speaker 1: media should be done, where you control your own experience.
Speaker 1: So the individual user control is certainly an interesting feature
Speaker 1: different apps and social media platforms have. You can mute people,
Speaker 1: block people, do all kinds of things, right, but it
Speaker 1: sounds like yours is a little bit more in depth
Speaker 1: than that. But how do you when you say that
Speaker 1: there will be guidelines? And this is always where the
Speaker 1: problem comes up, because people who work at Google, people
Speaker 1: who work at Facebook will say, well, we're just protecting
Speaker 1: conversational health, and you know, so we can't have neo
Speaker 1: Nazi saying that people need to be experimated. Hold on
Speaker 1: a second, John, hold on a second, I'm just let
Speaker 1: me And then we always say okay, but then you
Speaker 1: say you can't demonize immigrants, and that's that's the different thing. Right,
Speaker 1: So how do you establish these rules? Well, and that's
Speaker 1: what the constitutions for, right, that's what we're looking at
Speaker 1: our government. What they are saying, in very nice, fluffy
Speaker 1: news speak terms, is that they are going to be
Speaker 1: concerning political ideas based off of what they feel is
Speaker 1: right and wrong. Now, that is immoral and every sense
Speaker 1: of the in every sense of the term. What we're
Speaker 1: doing is just saying, here's the foundation, the same foundation
Speaker 1: of the government's based off of that the FCC allows
Speaker 1: people to talk about on radio and television. You know,
Speaker 1: this is what the government says is okay, so this
Speaker 1: is what you should be able to talk about on
Speaker 1: the Internet. And I feel like that's a really basic premise.
Speaker 1: And then giving you the ability to control your own
Speaker 1: profiles if it's your living room, by not just being
Speaker 1: able to mute block people, but also being able to
Speaker 1: mute and block specific comments, and then training an algorithm
Speaker 1: to help you do that. If you're do so care
Speaker 1: about it so much, then then you can take you know,
Speaker 1: take control control of those tools, something that these guys
Speaker 1: don't want you to do. They don't want you to
Speaker 1: have control over the discussion. They want to be able
Speaker 1: to tell you what's right and wrong because they have
Speaker 1: a moral obligation in their minds to do this. I
Speaker 1: just saw a clip from Tim Cook last night. He
Speaker 1: was talking to a defamatory league and he said in
Speaker 1: his speech, those who have power to do so have
Speaker 1: a moral obligation to step in when people are saying
Speaker 1: things that are wrong. And then he proceeded by saying
Speaker 1: those who do not are sinners. That is from Tim Cook,
Speaker 1: the CEO of Apple. This is what these big tech
Speaker 1: companies want to do. They view is if they view
Speaker 1: your political opinion is wrong, they want to step in
Speaker 1: and censor you. So this is the next thing I
Speaker 1: was going to ask you, which is that somebody who's
Speaker 1: operating in this space. Now, when you look at the
Speaker 1: established entities, you see these stories of bias. We have
Speaker 1: videos of people at Google crying in town halls after
Speaker 1: Trump won, and the top executives acting like a great
Speaker 1: catastrophes befall. In America, you have the James Daymore incident
Speaker 1: where a guy with real training and scientific background is
Speaker 1: trying to get into some issues, some issues of sociology
Speaker 1: and psychology, and they say unacceptable, You're fired. I mean,
Speaker 1: is it as pervasive as we've come to think it
Speaker 1: is on the right. Why why can't these companies get
Speaker 1: a handle on it? Do they not want to get
Speaker 1: a handle on it. The companies don't want to get
Speaker 1: a handle on it. It comes from their upper senior management.
Speaker 1: They are politically biased towards the left to begin with,
Speaker 1: and I'm not talking politically biased to the moderate left.
Speaker 1: They are extreme leftists. On the extreme left. They can
Speaker 1: have totalitary and control of what you say, do and
Speaker 1: how you operate. They hide behind the guidelines of being
Speaker 1: a free market company while they completely monopolize the industry
Speaker 1: and allow only one ideology to thrive. It is anti
Speaker 1: American in every sense the word. And they're doing it
Speaker 1: on purpose because it gives them more power and more
Speaker 1: control and is worse than people think. We were just
Speaker 1: in a big battle with Apple on the last forty
Speaker 1: eight hours. They gave us a notice about two weeks
Speaker 1: ago that they were going to ban us from the
Speaker 1: app store because our content was too controversial, controversial being
Speaker 1: moderate conservatives talking politics. And they pointed to a few
Speaker 1: cases which were not very extreme. Some of them were
Speaker 1: legitimately oversights on our part. Some of them weren't, and
Speaker 1: none of the examples that they were able to provide
Speaker 1: had any any weight to it. No one's you know,
Speaker 1: no one was looking at them. So they are trying
Speaker 1: to get rid of our platform with half a million
Speaker 1: you know, conservative you know, mostly conservative Americans, because it's
Speaker 1: a platform that's going to compete with Twitter, which has
Speaker 1: a complete control by the left and ideology that they support.
Speaker 1: It's morally wrong what they're doing. And so just so
Speaker 1: for everyone listening, your approach, and we're speaking to John Mates,
Speaker 1: who's the CEO of Parlor, which is a free speech app,
Speaker 1: your approach is not okay. The way to deal with
Speaker 1: this is to create a conservative ecosystem or a sort
Speaker 1: of mirror image of what you see with Twitter, which is,
Speaker 1: instead of it being left left bias, you're gonna have
Speaker 1: right bis. You're just saying, no, we're going to create
Speaker 1: an actual free speech platform. And conservatives will like this
Speaker 1: because they don't have it anywhere else. Yeah, it's neutral,
Speaker 1: fair playing ground. I'm not politically biased one way or another.
Speaker 1: I mean, of course everyone has political views, right, but
Speaker 1: my political views have nothing to do with our company.
Speaker 1: We are simply, you know, a tool for those people
Speaker 1: who want to communicate with one another. That's what social
Speaker 1: media should be. What they are now is their publishers,
Speaker 1: and they're hiding behind the curtain of Apple and Google's
Speaker 1: monopoly over the software industry so that no other competitors
Speaker 1: can arise to compete with them. Now, what has to
Speaker 1: happen for your company going forward? I mean, how are
Speaker 1: you guys doing? What are your next steps? Just wondering
Speaker 1: if if we're going to be hearing a lot more
Speaker 1: from you in six or twelve months, and you know,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to download the Parlor app as soon
Speaker 1: as we're done here. I want to um, you know,
Speaker 1: of course, continue to fight against these big tech companies
Speaker 1: who are trying to shut us down. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: actively working to try to shut us down. We're not
Speaker 1: gonna We're not gonna take them. And then we're also
Speaker 1: going to continue to expand out our platform to build
Speaker 1: more and more interesting features to make it more exciting
Speaker 1: for the users. Because these companies haven't innovated in the
Speaker 1: years they've been protected by monopoly status. We've got a
Speaker 1: lot of cool ideas and go into this to help
Speaker 1: users interact with one another and also, you know, hopefully
Speaker 1: one day make money using our platform too, in partner
Speaker 1: with us. I think this is a really cool way
Speaker 1: and it's the s future. Now. I'm sure you've heard
Speaker 1: some conservatives out there who take the approach here that
Speaker 1: you know, if only we just allow a little more time,
Speaker 1: things will even out here. And there's you know, the
Speaker 1: bias isn't really that bad, and they don't want there
Speaker 1: to be a a breakup of Google. They say there's
Speaker 1: there's not really a monopoly for these social media companies.
Speaker 1: I just address that point for me, How are these
Speaker 1: things a monopoly? There is no way. The only reason
Speaker 1: that we exist is because we've got you know, basically,
Speaker 1: we were a threat to them, and I believe that
Speaker 1: Apple tried to shut us down within the last forty
Speaker 1: eight hours. They did. They mean, they told me to
Speaker 1: flat on the phone. They said senior management Apple was
Speaker 1: concerned with your product and they wanted to take it down.
Speaker 1: So that being said, you know, Twitter, Facebook, Instagram, these
Speaker 1: are not monopolies in a traditional sense right because they exist.
Speaker 1: You can compete with them. But if you compete with them,
Speaker 1: their buddies over at Google and Apple will step in
Speaker 1: and censor your product off of their app store. Apple.
Speaker 1: You can only download my app off the app store
Speaker 1: because Apple won't allow me to publish software on anyone's
Speaker 1: phone unless I get their seal of approval. The only
Speaker 1: reason that we weren't taken down yesterday is because we
Speaker 1: were retweeted on Twitter by a prominent individual and it
Speaker 1: got over five hundred thousand views. That's the only reason
Speaker 1: that Apple didn't shut us off yesterday. And I think
Speaker 1: it's unfair to the free market that people can't compete
Speaker 1: with Twitter. People can't compete with Facebook because if they
Speaker 1: try to, Apple will step in and censor that opposition out.
Speaker 1: It's not a traditional free market economy right now. And
Speaker 1: that's what we need. John, mates, everybody's CEO of Parlor.
Speaker 1: We can all download the Parlor app on our own right, yes, yep,
Speaker 1: for now, all right, all right, there we go, John,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much. We really appreciate your perspective on this
Speaker 1: and good luck. Thank you, all right, team, We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. I say, I found this interesting a pole
Speaker 1: here that NPR has put out on Anger in Public.
Speaker 1: This is an important one, I think for all of
Speaker 1: us to keep in mind in the aftermath of the
Speaker 1: debates tonight when I'm sure if you try to weigh
Speaker 1: in and tell people what you think about this or
Speaker 1: they're going to come at you and be completely crazy.
Speaker 1: That's no surprise. Here's this NPR piece, though, Do you
Speaker 1: find yourself getting ticked off more than you used to?
Speaker 1: If the answer is yes, you're not alone. Some eighty
Speaker 1: four percent of people surveyed say that Americans are angrier
Speaker 1: today compared with the generation ago, According to the latest
Speaker 1: NPR IBM Watson Health Poll. When asked about their own feelings,
Speaker 1: forty two percent of those polled said they were angrier
Speaker 1: in the past year than they had been further back
Speaker 1: in time. Anger can have an effect on health. Now
Speaker 1: I understand this. You know, generations love to think what
Speaker 1: they want to think about other generations. I mean, I
Speaker 1: can tell you that what boomers think of millennials is
Speaker 1: pretty well known. What millennials think of boomers is going
Speaker 1: to become more well known as the millennials are the
Speaker 1: ones in control of more of the wealth and media
Speaker 1: and the megaphones in this country. Gen X and Gen Why,
Speaker 1: you guys are already pretty well ensconced and you have
Speaker 1: your own just I wonder what gen X thinks of
Speaker 1: gen why, like, do they make fun of each other?
Speaker 1: Do they talk smack? But people being more angry today
Speaker 1: makes sense to me, and I'll tell you why. Outrage
Speaker 1: is something that generates money, it generates attention, It is
Speaker 1: something that I believe people can become dependent on their
Speaker 1: own way. There's a cycle of outrage addiction that you
Speaker 1: can get into, and it's a way of never really
Speaker 1: focusing on real problems. Let's think about this for a second.
Speaker 1: How often in any given day are you really presented
Speaker 1: with something that's a challenge, it's problem that you should
Speaker 1: just be outraged about. I am outraged, sir? How dare you? Sir?
Speaker 1: How often does that really happen to you? Probably not
Speaker 1: very often. It doesn't happen to me all that often.
Speaker 1: And I did. I did walk into the coffee shop
Speaker 1: this morning and I said, you don't have almond milk? Sir?
Speaker 1: How dare you? Sir? Just like that? And it looked
Speaker 1: at me. They're like, you're not eighty nine years old?
Speaker 1: Why are you saying it like that? But now, really,
Speaker 1: you generally don't have that much that you're dealing with
Speaker 1: day and dad to be outrage, there's frustration, there's issues,
Speaker 1: but outrage is not a helpful emotion, and it really
Speaker 1: should be reserved for things that are worthy of your outrage.
Speaker 1: The problem is that because we now are in this
Speaker 1: hyper connected environment where you have, you're, we're all carrying
Speaker 1: around these supercomputers because that's what they are. We just
Speaker 1: think of them now as phones. They're supercomputers. Folks. If
Speaker 1: you would if a space alien had landed here in
Speaker 1: nineteen eighty and handed you an iPhone, he would have
Speaker 1: been like, take me too early. I mean, you would
Speaker 1: have been mind blown by what this thing can do.
Speaker 1: We have supercomputers, GPS, incredible amounts of data storage and
Speaker 1: fast computing and I just everything. And we've gotten used
Speaker 1: to this in a sense that we don't notice it.
Speaker 1: But that doesn't mean that we have yet as a species,
Speaker 1: as human beings, as animals, because it is in fact true, folks,
Speaker 1: you and me ain't nothing but mammals. This is true.
Speaker 1: We are mammals. So let's do it like they do
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hut, which is to listen, to engage,
Speaker 1: to converse. But when you think about the outrage generation
Speaker 1: systems that are in place now, so much of news
Speaker 1: and social media is outrage base. It's what gets clicks.
Speaker 1: I would offer to you now that it's even a
Speaker 1: bigger part of the news business it used to be.
Speaker 1: If it bleeds, it leads. Now it's if it allows
Speaker 1: you to be angry and sanctimonious, it leads. I mean
Speaker 1: if it allows you to say, oh my gosh, look
Speaker 1: what they've done here. And it's particularly pungent smelling this
Speaker 1: this nonsense on the left. The manure is stacked particularly
Speaker 1: high on the left when it comes to the outrage
Speaker 1: machinery because they have used this for very clear political
Speaker 1: purposes for a long time as well. Look, this does
Speaker 1: exist on both sides. I think that we are as
Speaker 1: a culture. And this is why this poll that says
Speaker 1: that you know this is just this is really not
Speaker 1: a scientific poll in so far as it's just perception based.
Speaker 1: But if ninety percent of people survey I think that
Speaker 1: we're angry now that we are a generation, and go
Speaker 1: I can believe that. I can buy that. I can
Speaker 1: I can co sign on that analysis. Because outrage has
Speaker 1: become commodified. It is a commodity. It is useful to
Speaker 1: other people, and I think it also and this is
Speaker 1: where I was going initially with how often do you
Speaker 1: really you really need to be outraged about something? How
Speaker 1: often does it make sense? I think it's a It's
Speaker 1: become its own form of escapism, you know, escapism. And
Speaker 1: this is why I believe a lot of our entertainment,
Speaker 1: and certainly our social media is driven by this outrage culture.
Speaker 1: Because escapism used to be you want to watch a
Speaker 1: story and the good guys being the bad guys. This
Speaker 1: was reflected in our movies, it was reflected in the
Speaker 1: TV shows we watch. Now you have to you have
Speaker 1: to generate outrage in people about things that are really
Speaker 1: going on or that or at least they believe are
Speaker 1: going on in the world around them in order to
Speaker 1: get their attention. But it's so much easier to walk
Speaker 1: down the street and say I am so opset about
Speaker 1: the patriarchy then it is to walk down the street
Speaker 1: and say, how do I become a better person today?
Speaker 1: It's so much more self gratifying to walk around and
Speaker 1: yelling about how do you realize what Trump said on
Speaker 1: Twitter yesterday? Instead of maybe I should call my sister
Speaker 1: that I haven't spoken to in six years, Maybe I
Speaker 1: should tip people a little bit better and not be
Speaker 1: so stingy when I'm at a restaurant, you know, because
Speaker 1: they're working hard and I should just do the right thing,
Speaker 1: and it's not really gonna matter to me. No, No,
Speaker 1: those are things that people don't want it would you
Speaker 1: want to think about us? Oh my gosh, you really
Speaker 1: so terrible Trump is? He's so terrible. Oh, it's just
Speaker 1: so awful. It's just this, this meritating, this bathing in
Speaker 1: the agony of oh, how could you have to deal
Speaker 1: with how horrible Trump is? This is so self gratifying.
Speaker 1: It is all nonsense. It's such a waste. But it's
Speaker 1: all around us, and social media and our news media
Speaker 1: make this much worse. And I think it's worse now
Speaker 1: that it's ever been. So I do think a lot
Speaker 1: of people are angrier. That's not good. Everybody needs the chill.
Speaker 1: I was just talking to a servant, a friend of
Speaker 1: mine today over lunch, and I said, or you know,
Speaker 1: I guess at least right now, as we're heading into
Speaker 1: this crazy period of the election, it feels like there's
Speaker 1: a bit of a calm. Although after tonight it might
Speaker 1: have dissipated. For well, it might be gone entirely. We'll
Speaker 1: have to see but you know, there's been this lull
Speaker 1: post Muller report before the debates in the primary, and
Speaker 1: I've just been thinking about how it's gonna be insane,
Speaker 1: as I've been telling you the twenty twenty election. You
Speaker 1: know this, You don't need me to tell you that
Speaker 1: it's going to be absolutely, absolutely nuts. But there's been
Speaker 1: a drop off in incidence where things that you had
Speaker 1: seen a year ago, even seven or eight months ago,
Speaker 1: where there were people getting chase out of restaurants for
Speaker 1: being conservative being part of the administration, where there were
Speaker 1: people who were having mobs show up at their homes.
Speaker 1: I've had mobs show up outside of the building I
Speaker 1: live in looking for an administration figure that they wanted
Speaker 1: to harass with banging drums and playing horns. Turns out
Speaker 1: he lives on the other side of the complex, so
Speaker 1: they just annoy me. But this seemed to have dropped
Speaker 1: off a little bit. I don't think that the left
Speaker 1: in any sense has sworn off these tactics of well,
Speaker 1: these just dishonorable tactics, these lunatic approaches to things. But
Speaker 1: I do think, well, I think that you're going to
Speaker 1: see a lot of it. I think you're going to
Speaker 1: see more of it than ever before. But there it
Speaker 1: had been a little bit on pause. Well I said
Speaker 1: that at lunch, and sure enough I get home and
Speaker 1: I see up. Nope, not really on pause. You've got
Speaker 1: a restaurant group now that is putting an employee on
Speaker 1: leave because at Chicago's Aviary cocktail bar, an employee spat
Speaker 1: on Eric Trump, the younger son of Donald Trump. Here's
Speaker 1: what the restaurant group put out last night. An unfortunate
Speaker 1: incident occurred between an employee at the Aviary and Eric Trump.
Speaker 1: We did not witness the incident. We're just beginning to
Speaker 1: learn the details. I mean, how completely disgusting and disgraceful
Speaker 1: as this, And you know, I understand it's just one individual,
Speaker 1: just one person, but it's really not one individual. One
Speaker 1: person that's one person did this, But this is a
Speaker 1: mentality that has much more widespread. I had very tense
Speaker 1: arguments with libs that I know here in DC, with
Speaker 1: a few of them. And I don't mean on air.
Speaker 1: I mean I mean person to person, man to man,
Speaker 1: where they would say, well, if you're going to work
Speaker 1: for this administration, you've got to just accept that people
Speaker 1: are gonna come after you said, no, you don't have
Speaker 1: to just accept that that's crazy. That is crazy, is
Speaker 1: not acceptable at all. And I don't know why anybody
Speaker 1: would think that that's exceptible. Yeah, this is and the
Speaker 1: left has never repudiated this. That's why as we go
Speaker 1: into this election cycle, as we go into what's going
Speaker 1: to be just the most off the wall Democrats acting
Speaker 1: like the world's gonna end unless someone, anyone, beats Trump.
Speaker 1: I think it's really troubling. It's it's mainstream thinking among
Speaker 1: a lot of Libs, among a lot of Democrats. It
Speaker 1: is mainstream thinking that there will be that there's there's
Speaker 1: no real problem with these tactics. They like these tactics.
Speaker 1: They think that they're justified at some level. The true believers,
Speaker 1: you know, the antifaugh types, they're the ones who are
Speaker 1: on the front lines. And I do not know a
Speaker 1: single conservative in media, in politics, in an activism we're organizing,
Speaker 1: who would ever condone spitting on one of the children
Speaker 1: of the of the a member of the first Emiley
Speaker 1: never you know. I mean, I'll tell you this, if
Speaker 1: I saw somebody ever try to spit on the Obama girls,
Speaker 1: I think I'd punched the guy in the face. Really,
Speaker 1: you know, there's just decency, there's just some degree of
Speaker 1: of honor that should be expected from all of us.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter how much you disagree with the politician,
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what you think that, you know, the most
Speaker 1: important thing at the end of the day, the most
Speaker 1: important thing is how each one of us acts in
Speaker 1: our own way, in our own time. That's what matters
Speaker 1: more than anything else. I just this mentality really troubles me,
Speaker 1: really troubles me that this is something that would happen.
Speaker 1: It's not the flock. They've done. They've They've yelled at
Speaker 1: Sarah Huckabee Sanders, they chased Kirsten Nielsen, They've gone outside,
Speaker 1: you know, Tucker Carlson's home, They've gone after Stephen Miller.
Speaker 1: I mean, all this stuff. You know, this doesn't happen
Speaker 1: to leftists. This doesn't happen to Democrat administrations. This is
Speaker 1: a one way street. We get abused this way, they
Speaker 1: don't get abused this way. It's it's just troubling. And
Speaker 1: you know what the other thing is. I mean, Eric Trump,
Speaker 1: I don't know him well, but he's a very is
Speaker 1: very nice guy. You know, I just can't imagine not
Speaker 1: knowing him, having no personal beef with him whatsoever. He's
Speaker 1: just somebody who's the son of a politician you don't like,
Speaker 1: so you spit on as a female employee. Apparently you
Speaker 1: know you spit on him. Are you kidding me? What
Speaker 1: is wrong with people? But I can't even say what's
Speaker 1: wrong with people? What is wrong with libs? Libs need
Speaker 1: to get a grip. Stop being so crazy just because
Speaker 1: you don't get your way, just because you're not as
Speaker 1: special as you thought you were, because you've attached yourself
Speaker 1: to this ideology that you don't even really understand and
Speaker 1: it's not nearly as clever or as good as you
Speaker 1: tell yourself it is. Doesn't mean you get to act
Speaker 1: like Mamiac's. Libs. Get it together, Libs, straighten up, don't
Speaker 1: act like lunatics. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for roll
Speaker 1: Call Facebook dot com. Slash Buck Sexton. If you want
Speaker 1: to be a part of roll Call, which you should,
Speaker 1: because it is oh so much fun and we would
Speaker 1: very much like to talk to you this through this medium,
Speaker 1: and with that we shall get to it. Joe kicks
Speaker 1: us off today. She'll tie a real news fan. All right,
Speaker 1: Very cool, Thank you. Original well, original Real News Squad,
Speaker 1: which I suppose is its own thing. It doesn't have
Speaker 1: a cool acronym like OSS. Though I would suggest watching
Speaker 1: the Harry Potter series. It gets exponentially better than what
Speaker 1: you may think only having watched the first one. I
Speaker 1: will tell you that I will take that under advisement.
Speaker 1: I will not. I cannot tell a lot of Team Buck.
Speaker 1: I do not think that it is likely that I
Speaker 1: will start diving into all things Harry Potter anytime soon.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, I appreciate the suggestion, and I will I
Speaker 1: will take it under advisement. About that, I'll leave it
Speaker 1: at that. I'll take it under advisement for now. And
Speaker 1: let's see here. Should I read the books? Are people
Speaker 1: telling you that too? Are the book's worth reading? Ryan writes,
Speaker 1: whatever happened to the aoc FEC complaints everyone stopped talking
Speaker 1: about it? Well, Ryan, you're correct, and I must admit
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't have an answer for you
Speaker 1: because everyone stopped talking about it. So everyone stops talking
Speaker 1: about it means that people like me and the media
Speaker 1: don't necessarily know what's going on. I think that there
Speaker 1: was My sense was that when they looked into it,
Speaker 1: it was shady what she was doing, but not illegal.
Speaker 1: I think that was the way it came down. But
Speaker 1: I don't don't take that one to the bank. Oh,
Speaker 1: John writes, Buck, you aired on noblegold radio add with
Speaker 1: presence rather than the correct three syllable statement of president.
Speaker 1: Wake up. There's an English language out there, not Washington
Speaker 1: DC Beltway speak. Okay, Sorry, John mispronounced the word I did.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to disappoint you that the Buck makes mistakes.
Speaker 1: Adam bucked. The movie is Doctors Strange Love, not glove
Speaker 1: Shield's Eye. Did I say strange glove? I probably did.
Speaker 1: I probably did. I'm I'm gonna take the heat on
Speaker 1: this one. I probably said that that's the thing that
Speaker 1: I like, we said, and turns out that's not what
Speaker 1: it really is. So that's a thing that I just
Speaker 1: have to say. I got another one wrong. You guys
Speaker 1: really correcting me a lot today. How about Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I love you. You're amazing. Thank you for your radio show.
Speaker 1: It keeps me safe and warm at night. Can someone
Speaker 1: please write me that note today? I need one of those.
Speaker 1: I haven't got one of those in a long time. Richard,
Speaker 1: it seems to me that all these attacks on Trump's
Speaker 1: actions with regard to Iran are providing aid and comfort
Speaker 1: to the enemy. Richard. I appreciate that you don't like
Speaker 1: they're going after the commander in chief in this way,
Speaker 1: but dissent is acceptable under our constitution, under our individual
Speaker 1: liberty and free speech, and so they're allowed to attack
Speaker 1: the president, and we have to defend their right to
Speaker 1: attack the president in words, even if it means that
Speaker 1: they are making his job harder at a very critical
Speaker 1: time in US national security with Iran. Chess in right,
Speaker 1: If Donald Chump Junior does sit down before Congress, I
Speaker 1: would want to see him plead the fifth This would
Speaker 1: make many in Congress immedia claim there chose he has
Speaker 1: something to hide or is guilty. I responded those statements with,
Speaker 1: so you believe that lowest learner and Hillary Clinton are guilt,
Speaker 1: you have something to hide, then sit back and watch
Speaker 1: the verbal gymnastics begin. Well, Chess, and you're right, they
Speaker 1: are going to always be total frauds on this issue,
Speaker 1: meaning that they will the plead the fifth issue is
Speaker 1: great because when someone they like pleads the fifth it
Speaker 1: this was a consta ptutional right, this is our legal
Speaker 1: system built upon a foundation of the blah blah blah
Speaker 1: blah blah. And then when someone they don't like pleads
Speaker 1: the fifth he's guilty. Sir, He's clearly guilty, Chess and
Speaker 1: writes a bit more here in regards to the student
Speaker 1: loan debt payoff, I'd like to know how many and
Speaker 1: how much of these loans were used to pay for
Speaker 1: non school stuff, vacations, cars, TVs, et cetera. I paid
Speaker 1: off my student loan debt. Why is being responsible now
Speaker 1: feeling like a stooge? Yeah, Chess, And I think that
Speaker 1: you signed something when you take out student loans, because
Speaker 1: I did the paperwork and never actually took out the loans.
Speaker 1: But that's how close I was to taking out big
Speaker 1: student loans. I think you signed something that says that
Speaker 1: you'll use it for only educational expenses, but it's not really.
Speaker 1: They don't really monitor it, and if you use those
Speaker 1: funds inappropriate, they can go after you. But I think
Speaker 1: as long as you pay them back on schedule, they don't.
Speaker 1: They tend not to, although I don't know. I have
Speaker 1: no I decided not to take out student loans and
Speaker 1: get an advanced degree, so I don't know as much
Speaker 1: about this as a lot of you listening, Tracy right Buck.
Speaker 1: Where do I go to find conservative talking points on
Speaker 1: current hot button issues like Trump's tax code and climate change?
Speaker 1: My Democrat friends are always telling me the rich don't
Speaker 1: pay any taxes blah blah blah. Of course I can't
Speaker 1: trust Google. Thanks Tracy. Well, Tracy, You're in a good
Speaker 1: place if you're writing to me, because I'm assuming that
Speaker 1: means you listen to the Buck Sexton Show, which is
Speaker 1: the single greatest show of all shows. That's right, I'll
Speaker 1: say it. So you should be listening to this show,
Speaker 1: and I'll give you as much information as like ken,
Speaker 1: and then you can use the information that I'm sharing
Speaker 1: with you through this radio platform so that you can
Speaker 1: then make your lib friends look silly. Is one of
Speaker 1: the fun buy products of listening to the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: When the libs get all up toy, you can be like,
Speaker 1: oh what I heard this on the Buck Sexton Show. Bam,
Speaker 1: dropping it down, Terry right Buck, I'm listening to your
Speaker 1: podcast about the Central Park five. I remember this case.
Speaker 1: The term I remember hearing that the boys used was
Speaker 1: that they would go wilding, meaning they would go crazy
Speaker 1: and attack people like that male jogger and then the female.
Speaker 1: I have not watched the Netflix movie yet. Did that
Speaker 1: term come out? I'm betting no, because it does not
Speaker 1: fit the narrative Shields I from Rhode Island. Hey, Terry Man,
Speaker 1: thanks so much for writing in. Yes, they do use
Speaker 1: the term wilding in the Netflix documentary. They make it
Speaker 1: seem like the police officers have never heard this before,
Speaker 1: and they do this to make it seem like there's
Speaker 1: this big gulf, this divide I think between oh, the
Speaker 1: world of the officers in the world of these oppress
Speaker 1: oppressed minority youths generally speaking, and I've spent a lot
Speaker 1: of time with the NYPD, so um, I know of
Speaker 1: what I speak. The officers who work things like narcotics
Speaker 1: and work gang units and things like that, they are
Speaker 1: very well versed in the language being used on the street.
Speaker 1: They're not like, what does that mean? You know, that's
Speaker 1: not how it goes. But that is what they showed
Speaker 1: in the Netflix show. So there we have it. Uh,
Speaker 1: let's see what is next year. Oh yeah, but yeah,
Speaker 1: they were wild And I always think that's an important
Speaker 1: point too. These these individuals they were engaged in in
Speaker 1: gang violence in the park that night and really hurt people,
Speaker 1: really hurt people other than the jogger. And now they're
Speaker 1: civil rights heroes for this. They're they're icons, they're millionaires,
Speaker 1: they're really I don't know, man, it's a crazy, crazy
Speaker 1: world we live in. Sometimes. Let's see here, don right,
Speaker 1: it's good evening shields high. One day, I'll convince you
Speaker 1: to say that to Studo. So the Dems are about
Speaker 1: to throw themselves to the wolves amongst each other, or
Speaker 1: are they? I still think we have a trojan horse
Speaker 1: in our political system. Surprise, surprise, What are your thoughts?
Speaker 1: As the saying goes, birds of a feather flock together,
Speaker 1: don I don't know really what you're asking me, but
Speaker 1: I appreciate your creative writing style. James, right, buck, All
Speaker 1: the people that accuse someone of rape that turns out
Speaker 1: not to be true should face harsh penalties, as well
Speaker 1: as those who want an abortion who claimed to have
Speaker 1: been rape but found out not to be true. Alabama
Speaker 1: has passed this kind of law. If rape never happened,
Speaker 1: you can face jail time. You can destroy someone's life
Speaker 1: on fake allegations. Well, James, it turns out that there
Speaker 1: are all ready our laws on the books about swearing
Speaker 1: out a false accusation against somebody. Remember this goes this
Speaker 1: is biblical stuff, folks bearing false witness. This is very serious.
Speaker 1: And we because we have this justice system that is
Speaker 1: now supposed to according to these social justice warriors, take
Speaker 1: into account, well, who is the person making the accusation,
Speaker 1: and who's the person who's being accused, and where do
Speaker 1: they fit in the whole hierarchy of a pressure and
Speaker 1: oppressed and all this stuff. No, no, no, no no,
Speaker 1: we did one system of laws, one system of justice
Speaker 1: for all of us, or else it's not worth calling
Speaker 1: it a justice system at all. And I'm I'm a
Speaker 1: strong believer in you should face very severe penalties if
Speaker 1: it can be proven beyond a reasonable doubt that you lied.
Speaker 1: So people who say, but buck, no one will come
Speaker 1: forward allegations that's not true. It's not oh we couldn't
Speaker 1: get the guy that you said did this to you.
Speaker 1: It's oh, we've found out beyond a reasonable doubt, which
Speaker 1: is what our whole justice system is based on, you
Speaker 1: lied about this. That's an entirely different standard than we
Speaker 1: can't prove the person that you've accused is guilty. That's
Speaker 1: you know, it would have to be that the authorities.
Speaker 1: But this does happen. It does happen that there are
Speaker 1: cases where they figure out, oh, this was entirely fabricated.
Speaker 1: The Duke Lacrosse case is one of them. Entirely fabricated.
Speaker 1: A woman lied up being gang raped by a bunch
Speaker 1: of lacrosse players and almost ruin their lives. Became very
Speaker 1: close to ruining their lives. So indeed, let's see what
Speaker 1: we have here. Next up, Martha, can you tell me,
Speaker 1: beside the right to vote, are there any benefits to
Speaker 1: being a US citizen. It's no longer the best passport
Speaker 1: for travel. We're the only country that taxes expats living abroad.
Speaker 1: I think we need to pass a law that citizens
Speaker 1: who willing to give up citizenship to an illegal immigrant
Speaker 1: get a waiver for the exit fee they charge you
Speaker 1: when you give up citizenship. You know, Martha, you raise
Speaker 1: an interesting point, which is, what's you know? Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: you get to vote, But beyond that, I don't know.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of other places where it feels
Speaker 1: like you your citizenship is more highly prized by the
Speaker 1: state that gives it to you. I do think that
Speaker 1: is fair to say all right team that is going
Speaker 1: to be it today here in the Freedom Hut. Thank
Speaker 1: you so much for hanging out. Great to have you
Speaker 1: with me. As always, we'll have some post debate deep
Speaker 1: dive stuff coming your way tomorrow. Happy viewing tonight shield
Speaker 1: tie