Speaker 1: Look, hiring is tough, right, It's very competitive right now.
Speaker 1: You've got to move fast. You want to get to
Speaker 1: the best people and you don't want to waste a
Speaker 1: lot of time. But a place where growing businesses can
Speaker 1: go to connect with the most qualified candidates is zip recruiter.
Speaker 1: Go to zip recruiter dot com, slash sexton and you'll
Speaker 1: see for yourself. You can use a free trial there.
Speaker 1: It'll connect you to over a hundred of the web's
Speaker 1: leading job boards. They have a powerful matching technology that
Speaker 1: will make sure that the thousands of resumes that you
Speaker 1: get access to will be scanned through so you'll get
Speaker 1: exactly the right people with the right experience for your
Speaker 1: job search. Folks, we used zip recruiter here to hire
Speaker 1: people for The Hill dot com and we've gotten great hires.
Speaker 1: These are now my colleagues and friends, and they came
Speaker 1: courtesy of zip Recruiter. It's no wonder that zip recruiter
Speaker 1: is the highest rated hiring site in America. Try for yourself.
Speaker 1: My listeners can try zip recruiter for free. That's right,
Speaker 1: totally free. Go to zip recruiter dot com, slash sexton.
Speaker 1: That's zip recruiter dot com. Slash Sexton for this exclusive
Speaker 1: offer zip recruiter dot com slash Sexton the Smartest way
Speaker 1: to hire You are entering the freedom hunt. The Democrats
Speaker 1: extremism on immigration and could be a big problem for
Speaker 1: them going into the upcoming midterm election. We'll talk about that.
Speaker 1: Plus President Trump has announced Space Force, very exciting stuff
Speaker 1: we will discuss, and a deep dive into just how
Speaker 1: deep Senator Diane Feinstein's ties to China go. Here's a hand.
Speaker 1: It's not just that spy that we need to worry about.
Speaker 1: There's a whole lot more coming up on The Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the Buck Sexton Show where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American Ready, you're a great
Speaker 1: American Again. The Buck Sexton Show begins analys No. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the Buck section Show. Everybody. Great to have you
Speaker 1: here with me Scaturday. I'd be able to address you
Speaker 1: as always from the Swamp is swamp tastic here. It's
Speaker 1: that kind of swampy noess where you walk outside and
Speaker 1: you feel like you're swimming, and then you realize you're
Speaker 1: just swimming in yourself because it's so sweaty and so gross,
Speaker 1: and you'd like to think that maybe you're gliding through
Speaker 1: the air, but no, you're actually just a glistening, greasy
Speaker 1: mess walking around the streets of swampy DC, surrounded by
Speaker 1: lobbyists and creatures of the government's terrifying thing. At least
Speaker 1: I get to come in here. This this is, uh,
Speaker 1: this is my happy place. I think we can't call
Speaker 1: it a safe space because that would be snowflake like.
Speaker 1: No producer Mike has given thumbs down. This is my
Speaker 1: happy place. The Freedom Hunt, my friends. So let's uh,
Speaker 1: let's discuss what we're gonna be hitting today on the show. Well, actually,
Speaker 1: I'll just get right into it. Immigration is a topic
Speaker 1: that you'll notice Democrats don't really have a specific policy
Speaker 1: that they want to push. It's much more a question
Speaker 1: of posturing, right. It's it's a way of achieving cheap
Speaker 1: virtue of virtue signaling without having any uh challenges to
Speaker 1: to overcome with that any without any skin in the game,
Speaker 1: without making any tough choices. You just get to say,
Speaker 1: you know, America is a nation of immigrants. Look at
Speaker 1: the poem on the bottom of the Statue of Liberty
Speaker 1: and you're like, well, that's not that's not enough, and
Speaker 1: you might start to say things like have you ever
Speaker 1: considered random pajama boy liberal that a lot of other
Speaker 1: countries have immigration policies that you would inherently consider to
Speaker 1: be perhaps racist, was inophobic because they meaning other countries
Speaker 1: pretty much every other country on the planet, at least
Speaker 1: every other country that anybody wants to go to. They
Speaker 1: take the approach of what can we do that is
Speaker 1: of greatest benefit, what can we do that is of
Speaker 1: greatest benefit for our people, not what can we do
Speaker 1: that would make us seem the most charitable. The posturing
Speaker 1: of Democrats on immigration is largely premise upon is largely
Speaker 1: built upon America as a soup kitchen for the world's
Speaker 1: needy and a job's program for those who are going
Speaker 1: to need additional assistance. That's how Democrats approach this. Right,
Speaker 1: we we are a place where anyone can seek shelter
Speaker 1: from the storm of the rest of the world, which
Speaker 1: sounds really nice, but when you're twenty trillion dollars in
Speaker 1: debt and now running close to a trillion dollars a
Speaker 1: year even under Republican president, and when you have a
Speaker 1: political culture as well as just a culture, culture to
Speaker 1: maintain an uphold when assimilation is supposed to be the
Speaker 1: bed of your immigration policy, not a a series of
Speaker 1: Balkanized mini states within the United States. That's when you
Speaker 1: really need to stop and think, hold on what is
Speaker 1: going on here? And when you hear what the left
Speaker 1: is saying right now, it should be troubling to every American.
Speaker 1: I mean, going into this mid term, understand that they
Speaker 1: will be pushing for amnesty. They will be pushing for
Speaker 1: that and nothing else on immigration. They do not want
Speaker 1: to secure border. In fact, what the Obama administration accomplished
Speaker 1: through really deceit in the second term. In obama second
Speaker 1: term at the border was to appear to be acting
Speaker 1: within some semblance of the law, but really to create
Speaker 1: a massive, intentional open door policy for people who arrived
Speaker 1: with children and then leave that problem for the Trump
Speaker 1: administration to clean up and get yelled at and oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, all the talking points come flying out about
Speaker 1: how they're so you know, so mean, so cruel, so hartless.
Speaker 1: There you're separating children. Oh but Obama separated children too,
Speaker 1: Did you know that, No he didn't, Well, yes he did.
Speaker 1: How many of the children that are showing up at
Speaker 1: the border in fact, unaccompanying the first place. Where are
Speaker 1: those parents? By the way, dude, you know, do we
Speaker 1: ever get to address that component here? You're gonna send
Speaker 1: your kid or allow your kid to travel through Mexico unaccompanied,
Speaker 1: perhaps enlist the services of a coyote, a human trafficker
Speaker 1: to get them into the country, putting children. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is child and danger mint folks. You don't hear
Speaker 1: people saying that, do you. They're endangering children by allowing
Speaker 1: them to do this at the border, and the United
Speaker 1: States in our very I think undervalued in this moment.
Speaker 1: Benevolence at the border is taking people in, feeding them,
Speaker 1: clothing them, housing them, may king sure that they are
Speaker 1: they have medical care. And we're now to be called
Speaker 1: Nazis for this, and and I don't mean that that
Speaker 1: I'm not exaggerating their exaggeration. They are saying this. As
Speaker 1: I've told you before, my own boss, former boss at
Speaker 1: the CIA, Mike Hayden, someone I knew to be a
Speaker 1: pretty smart and squared away guy at the time, has
Speaker 1: just lost it. He is suffering from Trump derangement syndrome,
Speaker 1: tweeting out photos of concentration camps and saying that's what's
Speaker 1: going on the border. But you see the problem with
Speaker 1: the Democrats taking these positions and posing in this way
Speaker 1: as some kind of moral champion without having to make
Speaker 1: any difficult choices on immigration, is that they keep upping
Speaker 1: the anti for each other as well. They will say
Speaker 1: more and more inflammatory, inflammatory and untrue things about what's
Speaker 1: really happening at the border. They will ramp up the
Speaker 1: rhetoric about how Trump is a racist and a xenophobe,
Speaker 1: and his policies are all out you know, keeping America
Speaker 1: or making America white. And you know, this is what
Speaker 1: they'll say, This is what the rhetoric turns into, and
Speaker 1: nothing really sounds too crazy for them. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: I didn't get a chance to mention this to you,
Speaker 1: but there was a a play performed out in Los
Speaker 1: Angeles last week where they had the It was the
Speaker 1: Diary of Ann Frank, something I'm sure you're all familiar with,
Speaker 1: right and Frank in Amsterdam. She was a Jewish teenager
Speaker 1: who with her family was hiding from the Nazis and
Speaker 1: wrote a diary and then I mean it does not
Speaker 1: does not have a happy ending. Um. They did that
Speaker 1: play in Los Angeles, but instead of Nazis, it was
Speaker 1: ICE agents. How many of you have seen major news
Speaker 1: coverage of what's going on in Portland last week. I've
Speaker 1: talked to you about the encampment and the feces, and
Speaker 1: the assaults on officers, the dock sing of ICE officers.
Speaker 1: These are a tax on federal agents. Folks. You know,
Speaker 1: we're all supposed to be worried about Jim Acosta as
Speaker 1: he stares into the mirror, mirror, mirror on the wall.
Speaker 1: Who is the handsomest Acosta of all? Oh? Man, I'm
Speaker 1: just a journalist. Man, I'm just doing my job, trying
Speaker 1: to speak truth to power. Sure, y'all, buddy, that's cute.
Speaker 1: It's a clever, little little pose you've taken. We're supposed
Speaker 1: to be worried about the civility towards Acosta. Meanwhile, you've
Speaker 1: got ICE officers being threatened and menaced and harassed for
Speaker 1: doing their jobs in Portland, Oregon, very little media coverage
Speaker 1: of this. You have journalists being assaulted for covering the
Speaker 1: insanity of the anti ICE protests because they don't want
Speaker 1: people to really know the truth. They just want to
Speaker 1: share it on their own little anarchist live streams, and
Speaker 1: we will get into some more of the rhetoric that
Speaker 1: we're hearing from people, um the Morning Joe Show, which
Speaker 1: I just I would be wondering at some point other
Speaker 1: than uh, you know, hair products and pastel sweaters, Like
Speaker 1: what does Joe Scarborough stand for right now? I don't know.
Speaker 1: I couldn't tell you what the answer is, other than
Speaker 1: it feels like he stands for Joe Scarborough. I don't
Speaker 1: know the man. I just know his work. Never met him,
Speaker 1: never talked to him, don't care to. But you know
Speaker 1: he doesn't care to talk to me. Who cares? Uh?
Speaker 1: But his work is embarrassing these days on television. I
Speaker 1: see what's going on there, and you know, others call him,
Speaker 1: have have cute names for him, which I can't repeat
Speaker 1: because it's their name for him, not mine. But he
Speaker 1: had on his show a professor who has who is
Speaker 1: making here? It sounds like to me some kind of
Speaker 1: comparison between slavery, the issue of slavery, and Ice putting
Speaker 1: this on the same moral plane. You've got to hear
Speaker 1: this play clip three. I want to ask a question
Speaker 1: about the moral crisis that Ice has put the nation
Speaker 1: at particularly eighteen fifty there was the Fugitive Slave Law.
Speaker 1: And because the Fugitive Slave Law did what it did,
Speaker 1: suddenly the issue of slavery was nationalized. It wasn't just
Speaker 1: in the South. Now, it was a moral question that
Speaker 1: even Emerson had to confront in Massachusetts. So now we
Speaker 1: have Ice, the crisis of Ice. We have people trying
Speaker 1: to protect their family members from being snatched from them,
Speaker 1: this fear that you talked about. How has ice, this
Speaker 1: two increase of jail transfers, the increase in the rest,
Speaker 1: How has this created a kind of moral crisis that
Speaker 1: is nationalized now, a nationalized moral crisis on the same plane,
Speaker 1: or at least spoken of in the same paragraph as slavery.
Speaker 1: That's what you're hearing now on cable news shows with
Speaker 1: supposed experts and political analysts. I've got an idea. If
Speaker 1: you don't want to be separated from your family at
Speaker 1: the border, don't illegally cross into the United States at
Speaker 1: the border. You know, this is what they What they
Speaker 1: don't tell you is that a a majority of the
Speaker 1: people who are being first of all, the majority of
Speaker 1: the youths in detention by immigrations and Customs enforcement are
Speaker 1: arriving unaccompanied. You don't hear that many places, do you
Speaker 1: not exactly great parenting going on in some of these situations,
Speaker 1: is there, but you know, not allowed to say that.
Speaker 1: And then when you add to it that they're crossing
Speaker 1: illegally in the country. It's illegal for anyone to cross
Speaker 1: outside of a port of entry. They're trying, folks to
Speaker 1: sneak in, getting caught and then saying, yeah, I want asylum,
Speaker 1: Give me asylum, because I've been told that if you say, oh,
Speaker 1: my country is too violent, I might get asylum here.
Speaker 1: Why don't we even have an immigration pology to show
Speaker 1: up save it from Central America and say that you
Speaker 1: want asylum? You don't. How many do you have any
Speaker 1: papers and documents? Not I don't have any because you
Speaker 1: know MS thir team stole them from me. Oh, I
Speaker 1: guess we have to let you into the country and
Speaker 1: hopefully we'll see you in five years for your court date.
Speaker 1: That is the reality of immigration at the southern border
Speaker 1: right now. You might say to yourself, a buck that
Speaker 1: doesn't see and like much of a policy at all.
Speaker 1: And also, are we allowed to have There's some fundamental
Speaker 1: philosophical questions that democrats do not get pushed on, and
Speaker 1: I keep saying that this is the conversation we should
Speaker 1: really have. I want to ask democrats who can't squirm
Speaker 1: out of answering it, who should who who shouldn't be
Speaker 1: allowed to stay in this country. I want to know
Speaker 1: what what person that's arrived in the United States in
Speaker 1: the last year and and is illegal in this country
Speaker 1: they would be okay with us sending home? Is it
Speaker 1: just rapists and murderers that are they're allowed to be
Speaker 1: expelled from the country because if that is how they feel,
Speaker 1: then they are officially for open borders. How many of
Speaker 1: you even saw the headline from DHS that you had
Speaker 1: six hundred thousand visa overstays last year alone. Now a
Speaker 1: good portion of those are students, but a lot of
Speaker 1: them aren't. And by the way those students, maybe some
Speaker 1: of them decide they just want to stay as well.
Speaker 1: But for those who aren't students, those who come here
Speaker 1: and decide to just blend into the rest of the
Speaker 1: country and forget about the fact that they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to be here as permanent residents. Think of how easy
Speaker 1: this is if six hundred thousand visa overstays came to
Speaker 1: the country last year, and you start adding this up,
Speaker 1: let's say only a fraction of them planning to stay forever. Well,
Speaker 1: that's at least maybe let's call it a hundred two
Speaker 1: hundred thousand a year that are just and they're not
Speaker 1: coming through the southern border. They're just flying in staying,
Speaker 1: which is also why I'm sorry, I do not believe
Speaker 1: the number eleven million. They've kept it the same for
Speaker 1: as long as they have because they realize that the
Speaker 1: American people knew the full extent of what has happened
Speaker 1: in this country with illegal immigration, they would freak out,
Speaker 1: and rightly so it's more like fifteen to twenty million.
Speaker 1: And I've argued with some immigration hawks on this, but
Speaker 1: it just doesn't make sense. I'm sorry. People are not
Speaker 1: going back to Mexico by the million ends. It's not happening.
Speaker 1: And when you look at the numbers, you've got hundreds
Speaker 1: and hundreds of thousands of illegal crossings year in and
Speaker 1: year out. They're not illegal crossing because they, you know,
Speaker 1: want to make a quick trip to Costco. Democrats do
Speaker 1: not have answers. They have moral postures. They are unwilling
Speaker 1: to be pushed on these issues to to give real answers,
Speaker 1: because if they were sharing their real answers with the
Speaker 1: American people there, we would there be a political revolt
Speaker 1: against them. Well, you're just I've even gotten We've got
Speaker 1: so much more here from what they've been saying about Ice,
Speaker 1: and there's just craziness, folks. So we're really gonna dive
Speaker 1: in immigration this hour. By the way, my friend Ben
Speaker 1: Weinarten will be joining us later on the show. He's
Speaker 1: done some great work on Feinstein and her ties to China.
Speaker 1: So and we've also got David Harsan you joining and
Speaker 1: we'll talk to him about d platforming and these First
Speaker 1: Amendment battles. So I might talk to him and then
Speaker 1: come back to some of this immigration stuff. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: got a lot. Here's I like it when I get
Speaker 1: to just determine what matters instead of, oh, here's a
Speaker 1: blaring headline. We in the hut, my friends, we'd like
Speaker 1: to roll up the sleeves and take Okam's razor like
Speaker 1: a chainsawt of the nonsense. We'll be right back as sent.
Speaker 1: You wary city, Yeah, assent, you wary city. Yeah, assent
Speaker 1: you wary city. Yeah, that's the mayor of Philadelphia. We
Speaker 1: played there for a couple of times. You could really
Speaker 1: hear it. Jim Kenny, who is who is who is
Speaker 1: literally dancing in that clip and you could hear him
Speaker 1: singing excited, how excited he is that Philadelphia is a
Speaker 1: sanctuary city. And you know, as as people like like
Speaker 1: this guy, who are supposed to be government officials who
Speaker 1: first and foremost will protect their constituents, keep in mind
Speaker 1: that this is what this is what the other side
Speaker 1: of a sanctuary city is. Here is DHS Secretary of
Speaker 1: Kyrsten Nielsen on what happened in Philadelphia recently, playlip five.
Speaker 1: It could have been prevented, and it should have been prevented.
Speaker 1: We owe the American people better. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: a perfect example of when jurisdictions decide not to cooperate
Speaker 1: with federal law enforcement, we put our communities at risk.
Speaker 1: I mean, what that required was that the men and
Speaker 1: women of DHS go back into community at their own
Speaker 1: risk and the risk of the community where the criminal
Speaker 1: is to try to reinterdict and detain that person. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. So what she's referring to is a is
Speaker 1: a child rapist there, a child rapist who because Philadelphia
Speaker 1: is a sanctuary city, was able to slip through the cracks.
Speaker 1: Here's the story on Fox News, the Justice Department highlighted
Speaker 1: the case of child rapist wand Ramon Vasquez, who just
Speaker 1: pleaded guilty to illegal re entry. The illegal immigrant from
Speaker 1: Honduras previously was in Philadelphia custody on local charges back
Speaker 1: but when those charges were dropped a year later, city
Speaker 1: officials ignored an ice detainer. Vasquez was later arrested and
Speaker 1: convicted for raping a child and unlawful sexual contact with
Speaker 1: a minor. He's been serving between eight and twenty years
Speaker 1: in prison. So Philadelphia decided to be a sanctuary city.
Speaker 1: And Philadelphia on top of that, now I should have
Speaker 1: on its conscience, the mayor Kennedy should have on their
Speaker 1: conscience that they released as a matter of policy, is
Speaker 1: one Ramone Vasquez instead of honoring a federal law enforcement
Speaker 1: request to hey, hold on that guy, We're coming to
Speaker 1: get him. Is no, no, no, Let's let him go
Speaker 1: folks because they are a sanctuary city, right you heard
Speaker 1: that guy. They're so excited about it. It's such a
Speaker 1: great thing. And that criminal raped a little girl afterwards,
Speaker 1: something that will want her for the rest of her
Speaker 1: life and her family and those who love her and
Speaker 1: those around her. But you know, we're a nation of immigrants,
Speaker 1: right like we we shouldn't actually obey federal law. This
Speaker 1: is what we were up against. Liberals who are un
Speaker 1: serious about what immigration policy really is. They're un serious
Speaker 1: about rule of law, and they do not care about
Speaker 1: the negative side effects of their open arms, open door,
Speaker 1: open borders policy because it makes them feel good, you see,
Speaker 1: because they're not the ones that stuffer the consequences, and
Speaker 1: they get to act like they just care so much.
Speaker 1: And if you don't agree with them, well that's because,
Speaker 1: my friends, because you're not nice like they are. He's
Speaker 1: holding the line for America, Buck Sexton his back team.
Speaker 1: I want to take a quick break from talking about
Speaker 1: immigration and switched to the fight for the First Amendment,
Speaker 1: which is underway right now in ways that I think
Speaker 1: people are just beginning to grasp. We've got somebody's been
Speaker 1: very thoughtful on this issue. And uh, I didn't even
Speaker 1: say on the front lines of the fight for First
Speaker 1: Amendment freedom. It's a lot of literation. Though. David Harsani
Speaker 1: is with us. He is a senior senior writer at
Speaker 1: the federalist and also the author of First Freedom Arrived
Speaker 1: through America's enduring history with the gun. David, great to
Speaker 1: have you. Thanks for having me. Always a pleasure. So
Speaker 1: you've got this piece. I caught my attention right today.
Speaker 1: Social media giants shouldn't be arbiters of appropriate speech. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I I would love to think that this
Speaker 1: is gonna catch on, David, but I'm really worried that
Speaker 1: liberals have now awoken to the power they have, that
Speaker 1: the wokenus is going to be something that is now
Speaker 1: pushing the social media platforms to just start playing favorites
Speaker 1: and you and I know that conservatives are gonna lose
Speaker 1: this one, right, I mean, and that's why it's complicated.
Speaker 1: I mean, if you believe in a lot of people
Speaker 1: in my Twitter feed and elsewhere, I hear you know,
Speaker 1: arguing that we should you know that Twitter and Google
Speaker 1: and uh, you know, Facebook or like utilities and they
Speaker 1: need to be fair. And it reminds me of sort
Speaker 1: of the fairness doctrine or something like that. I think
Speaker 1: it's a bad idea because in the end, liberals always
Speaker 1: use the power of the state better than conservatives, and
Speaker 1: you're gonna end up losing that. That's besides the whole
Speaker 1: idea of having the state involved in speech in the
Speaker 1: first place. Um. On the other hand, we already see
Speaker 1: the sort of thing going on where liberals, for instance,
Speaker 1: go after the n r A. You know, if you
Speaker 1: start calling people terrorists and then you ask Apple to
Speaker 1: take them off their platform, then it's it's really what
Speaker 1: you're doing, Alex Jones and so forth. I'm not comparing
Speaker 1: Alex Jones to the n r A. I'm saying that
Speaker 1: liberals compare them to each other. And that's the problem.
Speaker 1: They they conflate those two sorts of things because in
Speaker 1: the end they really want to go after mainstream conservatives
Speaker 1: and and this whole notion of conversational health. By the way,
Speaker 1: No Dorsey, who's the CEO of Twitter. He's been kind
Speaker 1: later to this one than some of the others, but
Speaker 1: he's the the quote conversational health guy. Either. That's if
Speaker 1: that catches on, that's a terrifying phrase. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, it's you know, there's this thing where where,
Speaker 1: for instance, let's just say anti semitism, so I'm Jewish,
Speaker 1: I get some of that on Twitter, and you know,
Speaker 1: we start treating words as if it's the same thing
Speaker 1: as someone not giving me a job because I'm Jewish. Here,
Speaker 1: I'm saying, we treat you, know, so you can hear
Speaker 1: something bad and you can push the mute button or
Speaker 1: the block button. Um, I don't, you know. I just
Speaker 1: don't understand why we start when, or when we started
Speaker 1: treating speech as if it was some kind of assault
Speaker 1: or terrorism. I'm sorry, I get offended quite often. I
Speaker 1: just turn it off or muted or or or just
Speaker 1: deal with it. We've become this nation where we can't
Speaker 1: hear anything we don't like. I don't. I've never clicked
Speaker 1: on an info war Zounds Jones link in my life,
Speaker 1: I don't think. And my life was going on fine.
Speaker 1: I don't really care about him or that channel, but
Speaker 1: I do care that that we're going to have billionaire
Speaker 1: CEOs deciding what speech is acceptable for people to hear.
Speaker 1: I mean, they can do it, but I don't. I
Speaker 1: just don't think it's the right thing because then now
Speaker 1: they put themselves into a position where they have to
Speaker 1: sort of be adjudicate every kind of word and speech
Speaker 1: and in sight and and it just seems like a
Speaker 1: slippery slope. Even though I know that's sort of cliche. Well,
Speaker 1: I I keep saying, or keep seeing rather these notifications
Speaker 1: that fellow conservatives get for essentially a complaint being lodged
Speaker 1: against them, and they'll show the tweet and they'll show
Speaker 1: the message from Twitter, and to me, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is just it's a it's intimidation. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: obviously just meant to to put people on notice that
Speaker 1: you know, we're gonna try, We're gonna keep taking shots
Speaker 1: at your ability to be on these platforms if you're
Speaker 1: a conservative, even if they're frivolous, until we hit one
Speaker 1: and knock you off. And that's going to be in
Speaker 1: the back of your mind every time you want to
Speaker 1: share a thought on something right. And you know, and
Speaker 1: in some sense, your livelihood or many people's livelihood, is
Speaker 1: tied to their social media presence. And then if you
Speaker 1: can threaten that, you can sort of cow the mento
Speaker 1: not saying things that they might believe. Um, And it's
Speaker 1: just a bad you know, it's just a bad future.
Speaker 1: And I think at least Conning, you know, we also
Speaker 1: hear so much about David about how Russian interference in
Speaker 1: the election, and you know, I think you've been very
Speaker 1: sober minded about this. You know, some people have just
Speaker 1: completely lost their minds, including some conservatives that I that
Speaker 1: I like as people, but just think they something's really happened,
Speaker 1: like they've had a break with reality. But when you
Speaker 1: look at at how how minimal that was in terms
Speaker 1: of the actual that the amount of Facebook accounts that
Speaker 1: we're really getting viewed and the amount of dollars spent
Speaker 1: on Facebook ads and stuff, and then you compare it
Speaker 1: to you've got a bunch of yeah, they're they're they're companies.
Speaker 1: These are the private sector, at the public sector, but
Speaker 1: you've got a bunch of companies run by essentially evangelist progressives,
Speaker 1: I mean really on social issues, hardcore progressives who are
Speaker 1: not only able to influence the conversation, they can do
Speaker 1: it in ways that we don't even get to know about.
Speaker 1: It can all be based on algorithms and kind of
Speaker 1: obscure terms of service. You know what happened if you
Speaker 1: lose that debate with Twitter when they take away your
Speaker 1: entire account. The answer is you've got nothing right and
Speaker 1: it's it is scary, and you know, going back to
Speaker 1: the to the whole Russian thing. I you know, I'm
Speaker 1: of two minds. I care very much that Russia tries
Speaker 1: to meddle in our election. I also don't care very
Speaker 1: much that they're doing it because it doesn't affect my
Speaker 1: life at all. I vote anyway. I want hearing something
Speaker 1: or seeing something. They're a mind control raised and the
Speaker 1: idea that we should be you know, so you know
Speaker 1: that that they're stealing an election because they have you know,
Speaker 1: spent and adds to Facebook. I mean, it's just laughable,
Speaker 1: and they know it's laughable. In my opinion, I think
Speaker 1: some people have lost their minds. I think a lot
Speaker 1: of these people are just cynical and know what they're doing.
Speaker 1: As far as Twitter, again, I mean, it's it's a
Speaker 1: dangerous thing here. I I believe in let's say, free
Speaker 1: markets and capitalism. I believe that they'll be if if
Speaker 1: you push people out, there'll be on a marketplace and
Speaker 1: someone else will uh create something for them. But Twitter
Speaker 1: has become such a sort of wide ranging uh platform,
Speaker 1: especially for people in in in the political world, that
Speaker 1: it is kind of scary. So hopefully, because there are
Speaker 1: many conservatives in the world, Twitter won't scare them away.
Speaker 1: But I think that that's why I worry that just
Speaker 1: even taking a step towards you know, this Alex Jones
Speaker 1: thing and deep platforming him is on YouTube for instance,
Speaker 1: this problem because um, not because Alex Jones is a conservative,
Speaker 1: but because these people call everyone white supremacist liberals. So
Speaker 1: to them, that was my next that was my next
Speaker 1: point to you, David. And it's it's like you're it's
Speaker 1: like you're, you know, living rent free in my head already. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: you're you're already on the inside here. I just gotta
Speaker 1: tell you. I can't help but notice that this whole
Speaker 1: movement of deep platforming speech equals violence, which will also
Speaker 1: hear a lot, especially in the campus speech debates. But
Speaker 1: speech is tantamount to or equals violence. Deep platforming is
Speaker 1: a legitimate form of uh, you know of essentially, you know,
Speaker 1: disapproving of somebody's words or thoughts. And also the expansion
Speaker 1: of the term white supremacist to essentially include anything that
Speaker 1: would upset people in the comments section of Daily Co's
Speaker 1: or the Huffington Post. I mean, white supremacy has been
Speaker 1: expanded beyond recognition now as a term. I don't think
Speaker 1: that's an accident. It's not an accident. They've been doing
Speaker 1: this for years. I mean, they've been conflating on purpose
Speaker 1: mainstream conservative views, which are are are liberal, small l
Speaker 1: and mostly um you know about the Constitution, about smaller government,
Speaker 1: what have you with, you know, fascism, nazi whatever, racism,
Speaker 1: white supremacy, and so of course if if they're getting
Speaker 1: rid of hate speech, that that would be next. I mean,
Speaker 1: I've you have writers in Slate or The New Yorker
Speaker 1: who accused every Trump voter of being a white supremacist
Speaker 1: or motivated by race. Um. But it's funny to me
Speaker 1: in a sense, or is ironic at least, that anyone
Speaker 1: who says that speech is violence is basically peddling an
Speaker 1: authoritarian idea because one speech is violence. You can limit
Speaker 1: speech because violence is something that's illegal and hurts others.
Speaker 1: Or you can use violence, as anti FUA does in
Speaker 1: response to speech you don't like, because they've already started
Speaker 1: the violence. Right. So it's a dangerous and it's actually
Speaker 1: a very stupid idea, But mostly it's an authoritarian idea,
Speaker 1: and that leads leads to two people being able to
Speaker 1: to ban speech and and and create you know, hate
Speaker 1: speech laws and all kinds of ridiculous things that not
Speaker 1: only undermine free expression, but but but are used to
Speaker 1: just silence people that you don't like. And that's exactly
Speaker 1: what they're doing. Now. Another thing they do that people
Speaker 1: don't talk about so often is that by calling everyone
Speaker 1: a white supremacist, they're actually giving cover to real white supremacists,
Speaker 1: which I think are a small, very small fringe group.
Speaker 1: But still you're giving them cover. And meanwhile, you're not
Speaker 1: even talking about the other side, which has plenty of
Speaker 1: its own, you know, radicals and extremists. Yeah, I think
Speaker 1: that this is This is also one moment where I say,
Speaker 1: there there are all these I know about them. They're
Speaker 1: all these they were going to do these kind of
Speaker 1: retrospect is. And people are talking a bit about the
Speaker 1: one year anniversary of Charlottesville, and I think there's just
Speaker 1: a permit given for this another you know, white nationalist
Speaker 1: rally or whatever the case, whatever they're calling it. And
Speaker 1: these are losers. Nobody likes them, they can't get jobs anywhere,
Speaker 1: they're reviled. Their safety is under real threat whenever they
Speaker 1: appear in public. But we're supposed to think that this
Speaker 1: is a threat to the American body politics. I mean
Speaker 1: It's just it's just exaggerated nonsense. I mean, yeah, there's
Speaker 1: what every listen. They can't get a few hundred people
Speaker 1: nationally together one one time in Portland lately everyone was
Speaker 1: I have fifty people showed up. It is so ridiculous.
Speaker 1: You know, they the media or the mainstream media gives
Speaker 1: them so much attention that it blows you know, they
Speaker 1: they're scaremongering with the attention that they give this small group. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: they ignore that there you know, are far con lovers
Speaker 1: leading the Women's March movement. That doesn't matter. But these
Speaker 1: few no knicks in Charlottesville wherever they're gonna be next,
Speaker 1: are going to be given so much attention that it's
Speaker 1: it's it's preposterous. Why because they want to make it
Speaker 1: seem like you know, Trump has has sort of you know,
Speaker 1: given cover to this movement and allows them to exist
Speaker 1: because he said something stupid once. It's just it's really
Speaker 1: demented and skewed, and it really you know, I'm sure
Speaker 1: there are people walking around and you know in in
Speaker 1: liberal city, you know, a liberal city somewhere who actually
Speaker 1: believe that out in in America there are a bunch
Speaker 1: of Nazis walking around all the time. This is a
Speaker 1: little a little bit of a of a switch up, David.
Speaker 1: Before we let you go, and everyone, by the way,
Speaker 1: check out David's book, you know, an Amazon first freedom
Speaker 1: Ride through America's enduring history with the gun. Uh, David,
Speaker 1: are you a little surprised at the at the Acosta
Speaker 1: ing of the media meeting that you've got all these
Speaker 1: journalists now, who are just you know, Oh, I'm just
Speaker 1: so under threat, you know, I'm hearing people just say like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, I received a death threat recently, which
Speaker 1: is bad. But like every conservative I know has received
Speaker 1: death threats. I've received threats from people like this is
Speaker 1: not some like what is this all of a sudden? Yeah,
Speaker 1: first amount is very important, except people can't jure a
Speaker 1: reporter in the First Amendment becomes a threat to their safety.
Speaker 1: Of course, I don't want anything to happen to any reporters,
Speaker 1: but I think they seem to forget that a Bernie
Speaker 1: fan tried to take out the entire Republican leadership in
Speaker 1: a baseball field in Alexandria not long ago. And treating
Speaker 1: political violence or the threat of it as if as
Speaker 1: if lest the journalists see themselves as soldiers is a movement,
Speaker 1: and uh, they're so sanctimonious about it that people are
Speaker 1: sick of it. So they in Acosta, for instance, who
Speaker 1: acts like, you know, I don't know, like like he's
Speaker 1: the story all the time. He can't be surprised when
Speaker 1: people making the story, you know. So yeah, I mean
Speaker 1: you know why, because the incentive for journalists now is
Speaker 1: not to be a good journalist whose name isn't doesn't appear.
Speaker 1: The incentive is and then you listen, I'm a pundant,
Speaker 1: so I get it. But the incentive is to have
Speaker 1: an opinion, and they do more and more openly because
Speaker 1: that makes them stars. And they're in our little universe here.
Speaker 1: And do you think do you think that the that
Speaker 1: the It's not just CNN, but that's the one that
Speaker 1: comes to mind the most. I think, actually they're they're
Speaker 1: the Washington Post in New York Times. Also in this
Speaker 1: category of of we are a nonpartisan, objective news organization,
Speaker 1: that model instead of just saying, look like we're a
Speaker 1: liberal paper or we're a liberal network or whatever. Do
Speaker 1: you think that that's finally going away? I see the
Speaker 1: first real cracks in this. Yeah, I mean, I hope.
Speaker 1: So for a long time I've advocated that people should
Speaker 1: just be open about their political uh positions or where
Speaker 1: they stand ideologically, because we can just read their stuff.
Speaker 1: It doesn't make it untrue, it doesn't make it wrong.
Speaker 1: It might even make it right. Or in the sense
Speaker 1: that I know where you're coming from, I know who
Speaker 1: you're after, and there's nothing wrong with that. And this way,
Speaker 1: we can have reporters on staff if you want that
Speaker 1: even that out, or we can have newspapers that you
Speaker 1: want that even that out. For instance, you know, the
Speaker 1: Koch brothers or whoever. All these big donors get tons
Speaker 1: of money to politicians and two movements into think tanks.
Speaker 1: They should be buying media outlets and newspapers and evening
Speaker 1: out the media bias, and we should just be open
Speaker 1: about it. When I was growing up, we bought newspapers.
Speaker 1: We knew what every newspaper was really about, right and uh, well,
Speaker 1: I mean I had I had Raheemed Kassama last week.
Speaker 1: Who's Who's British and he's just like in the UK,
Speaker 1: you know, the newspapers are affiliated with specific political parties.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's not it wasn't it that way
Speaker 1: in at the found and you know in the right
Speaker 1: America was that way as well. I mean, but it
Speaker 1: was much worse than it is today. Even so, Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's crazy anyway, it's I don't know if it's healthier,
Speaker 1: but I think that this is not working this way
Speaker 1: because it is not good for the Republic. It's not
Speaker 1: good for our democratic institutions to have a media that's
Speaker 1: not trusted by most people. I agree, David Harsani. Everybody
Speaker 1: check out as late ast the Federalist. David, thanks for
Speaker 1: stopping by the Freedom Hunt. Thanks for having me same.
Speaker 1: We have a much more common went a little along there.
Speaker 1: I do want to finish up our discussion about immigration.
Speaker 1: We've also got some updates on the situation with the
Speaker 1: Mullard probe, and we'll talk a little Maniford. Although you know,
Speaker 1: I keep saying the manaphort things not as interesting as
Speaker 1: people want to pretend it is. Got a phenomenal deep
Speaker 1: dive coming up with Ben Weingarten about China spy ties
Speaker 1: to Diane fine Stein. You are going to want to
Speaker 1: stick around for that. I'm telling you won't hear it
Speaker 1: anywhere else, and it's really important stuff. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: It's time to hear from one of the dumbest governors
Speaker 1: in America, perhaps in the history of America, which is
Speaker 1: a place that has a history. Governor Cuomo on Ice,
Speaker 1: play clip fall, please, I will do nothing cooperatively with ICE.
Speaker 1: I have sent sent them letters asking for an investigation.
Speaker 1: I have said if they do any criminal acts which
Speaker 1: a police force can do, we will take criminal action
Speaker 1: against ICE because I believe they are politically motivated. I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy's is not just a moral but he's scary.
Speaker 1: He is This is the governor, folks, who is the
Speaker 1: top law enforcement official of one of the biggest, most
Speaker 1: important states in the country, at least economically speaking. Um,
Speaker 1: who is its actually threatening federal law enforcement officers just
Speaker 1: saying you know, I got my eyes on you. What
Speaker 1: do you ever say this about the FBI? Mean FBI
Speaker 1: guys would be like, really, Cuomo, you want to you
Speaker 1: want us to look at some of your associates, You
Speaker 1: want to look at some of your dealings. Go look
Speaker 1: at the Moreland Commission, folks. There's a whole corruption commission
Speaker 1: set up in New York State that just kind of
Speaker 1: got shut down. What happened? Oh? It was getting a
Speaker 1: little too close to home. Didn't wasn't allowed to finish.
Speaker 1: It wasn't allowed to finish. But but Cuomo is so
Speaker 1: shameless that he is not just willing to throw Ice
Speaker 1: under the bus here, He's willing to go beyond that
Speaker 1: and threaten them, like he will have state troopers. First
Speaker 1: of all, I mean, I know law enforcement, It's the
Speaker 1: last thing in the world they want to do. Is
Speaker 1: you know, he'd have a mutiny on his hands. Okay,
Speaker 1: there's no way, but he makes it sound like he's
Speaker 1: gonna have state troopers going and kick down the door
Speaker 1: of an ICE office. And you know, really cause a
Speaker 1: problem here, folks, because what they're doing is politically motivated.
Speaker 1: They are carrying out the law. You imbecile. How is
Speaker 1: it politically motivated? What what does that even mean? And
Speaker 1: you know, when you have somebody of Cuomo's stature taking
Speaker 1: this kind of tone, the downstream effects. I mean, anybody
Speaker 1: listening would have to think, Wow, this guy, this guy
Speaker 1: is is is Look, he's what he's saying is dangerous.
Speaker 1: Why would other people, Why would constituents in his home
Speaker 1: state of New York I think that Ice is to
Speaker 1: be trusted or to be taken seriously. You know this,
Speaker 1: this demonization of of immigration enforcement in this country is
Speaker 1: is really it's really disgraceful, and it reminds me so
Speaker 1: much of what was going on with the Black Lives
Speaker 1: Matter movement? Wherefore reasons of political convenience Democrats and the media.
Speaker 1: But I repeat myself, we're running with this just false
Speaker 1: and destructive narrative that American police officer is black, white,
Speaker 1: any color you could think of our racists who murder
Speaker 1: black men for sport. That was the narrative. They can
Speaker 1: tell you that it was about reforming police. But I
Speaker 1: was there, man, I heard what was going on. That's
Speaker 1: not true. And now it's a immigrations and customs enforcement
Speaker 1: are you know Nazis hunting down people. It's just appalling.
Speaker 1: The FBI says that home title FAFT is one of
Speaker 1: the fastest growing crimes out there. And look, you've got
Speaker 1: to brace yourself because if you've ever had your credit
Speaker 1: card stolen, it is nothing compared to the hell you're
Speaker 1: in floor once an identity thief takes control of your
Speaker 1: home's title. You know, everything is stored online these days,
Speaker 1: including your home's title, and that means the bad guys
Speaker 1: can get to you and get to it just through
Speaker 1: cyber means, all right, Domestic and international bad guys they
Speaker 1: hunt down American homeowners because they know we've got a
Speaker 1: lot of equity in our homes. I saw a an
Speaker 1: example of this where they walked me through how easy
Speaker 1: it would be for the bad guys to steal my
Speaker 1: family homes title and take loans against it. Folks, it
Speaker 1: is chilling how quickly it is of they can be
Speaker 1: done for just pennies a day. Home title Lock protects
Speaker 1: my most viable asset, my family's home registered. Now for
Speaker 1: a free analysis and discover if your home's title has
Speaker 1: been compromised. That's a sixty dollar value for free. Visit
Speaker 1: home title lock dot com again. That's home title lock
Speaker 1: dot com. Buck Sexton Permission 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. Analysts,
Speaker 1: no welcome back team. We got a lot to discuss.
Speaker 1: I wanted to take some calls in the last hour,
Speaker 1: but I got a little carried away talking to David Harsani.
Speaker 1: I've always really liked Harsani he's a good guy. You know.
Speaker 1: He worked at The Blaze for a short while. Actually,
Speaker 1: I remember for that, and he kind of did a
Speaker 1: little early mentoring in my editorial writing career. He's he's
Speaker 1: just a good dude, very very smart guy and very
Speaker 1: humble about it. Um. But I went along with him
Speaker 1: and we had some calls up, so I wanted to
Speaker 1: get to them because the lines lit up because I know,
Speaker 1: you guys, we care about immigration, right, you don't care
Speaker 1: that much about manifests ostrich coat although it was really ugly,
Speaker 1: you don't producing Marke I gotta tell you about. And
Speaker 1: I'm gonna feel a little wimpy telling you this a
Speaker 1: little story for you guys. So as you know, I
Speaker 1: love milk, Okay, I think of myself as something of
Speaker 1: a milk kind of store. Um. I have told you
Speaker 1: some truisms like soy milk is something that you should
Speaker 1: not even clean your bathtub with. And in the words
Speaker 1: of Ron Swanson, skim milk is water that is lying
Speaker 1: about being milk. Go whole, whole or nothing, baby, you know.
Speaker 1: And if your lactose intolerant, okay, I'll make some exceptions.
Speaker 1: Almond or coconut are acceptable. But those are juices, not milks.
Speaker 1: If we're gonna be although actually I think coconut, maybe
Speaker 1: I throw a flag on that. We'll see. But there's
Speaker 1: a guy in my office can name names. Somebody I
Speaker 1: know in the in the office building will say it's
Speaker 1: broadening out a little bit, and he drinks raw milk.
Speaker 1: And I'm thinking to myself, this has got to be
Speaker 1: like the dom peri yon of milk, that the good stuff,
Speaker 1: you know, the the top tier. This is the top
Speaker 1: shelf of milk because it is unpasteurized and unhomogenized, and
Speaker 1: you know, straight from the cow baby, straight from the utter.
Speaker 1: And I'm a city as you know, I'm a city slicker.
Speaker 1: I'm a city boy, and I think I figure, you
Speaker 1: know what I've got, I've got years and years of
Speaker 1: whole milk drinking under my belt. I'll even you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna lie to you folks. Sometimes I even
Speaker 1: but a little bit of half and half in a
Speaker 1: cup and have a little bit of that. You know
Speaker 1: what I mean? You only live once. Maybe I'm not
Speaker 1: gonna live that long because of cholesterol and fat, but
Speaker 1: nonetheless you only live once. So I this guy would
Speaker 1: say for us you want to you want to try it,
Speaker 1: And I also don't want to make to see him like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not like he's holding out his holding
Speaker 1: out his trench coat and saying, you know, I got
Speaker 1: the good stuff, you know, the raw milk. You know
Speaker 1: what do you need? I got what you need, the
Speaker 1: raw milk. So I said, all right, I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: be a whimp about this, and I drink and dude,
Speaker 1: I had I had some raw milk. I'm gonna tell
Speaker 1: you something. It was delicious. It was incredible. It was
Speaker 1: kind of almost like drinking yogurt, but it tasted like milk,
Speaker 1: and it was so good. And now my stomach has
Speaker 1: been making noises and cramping and things all day. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not it's not Montezuma's revenge. It's like Amish Gunderson's revenge. Man,
Speaker 1: I am proof. It's rough. Yeah, I learned my lesson. Dude,
Speaker 1: I learned my lesson. Buck buck needs pasteurized, and him iaginized,
Speaker 1: I can't. I can't handle the real stuff. Man. I'm
Speaker 1: a little disappointed to myself. So that was my one
Speaker 1: and only experiment with drinking drinking raw milk straight from
Speaker 1: the utter. I mean, I was thinking that after this
Speaker 1: I would be like, yeah, heading out to the farm myself,
Speaker 1: learned how to do it my own two hands. Nope, nope,
Speaker 1: give me the give me the mass produced stuff right
Speaker 1: out of you know, right out of cost car or whatever.
Speaker 1: That's how I wanted. All right. That was That was
Speaker 1: my little adventure with raw milk for the day. Folks.
Speaker 1: I don't know if if any of you have had
Speaker 1: it differently. Good for you. I'm gonna get all these
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get all these faceic messages. By the way,
Speaker 1: you're such a whimp city boy, and you know what,
Speaker 1: maybe that's true. But I gave it a shot, folks.
Speaker 1: I gave it a shot. All right. We got Lonnie
Speaker 1: in West Virginia on the line. What's up, Lonnie? OHI botch,
Speaker 1: How you doing, brother? I'm good man. Good to hear
Speaker 1: from you. Hey. Um, you know, if I if I
Speaker 1: knowingly harvard a fugitive for somebody that was run up
Speaker 1: from the law, I'll be arrested. What I not? I
Speaker 1: believe so harboring a fugitive is in factor. So Governor
Speaker 1: Cuomo and all these mayors of these cities do knowingly
Speaker 1: let fugitives go or people that I said I have
Speaker 1: to be request Why can't they be arrested? Why can't
Speaker 1: we send somebody in there. Uh now it's gonna stick.
Speaker 1: But put the cups on him, take him out and
Speaker 1: show him. You can't do that. You're under the list,
Speaker 1: you knowingly. But the fugitives or somebody who broke the law, well,
Speaker 1: you know, there have been some enforcement actions. I forget him,
Speaker 1: what states, but ICE has gone into a few places
Speaker 1: in the last twenty four hours to go after employers,
Speaker 1: and uh, you know I I I think that that's
Speaker 1: a step in the right direction, because you gotta go
Speaker 1: after employers too. But I mean to your point about
Speaker 1: sanctuary city jurisdictions, Lonnie, there are you are you heard
Speaker 1: the government new York. He's threatening just put to sick
Speaker 1: his law enforcement, you know, his essentially use his police
Speaker 1: powers in the state of New York against federal law enforcement.
Speaker 1: This is crazy. I can't do that. Who's got the
Speaker 1: upper hands state? You know? I mean, I don't agains.
Speaker 1: It depends on the circumstances here. I mean in terms
Speaker 1: of who's got the upper in terms of the law,
Speaker 1: it's obviously the federal that you know, the FEDS do here.
Speaker 1: Immigration is the province of the federal government. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just well understood. There's really no question about that, um.
Speaker 1: But to try and impede, I mean, you're right, this
Speaker 1: does start to feel, Lonnie. You're getting to a very
Speaker 1: important point here. It starts to feel more than just
Speaker 1: disrespect for the rule of law and lawlessness to actually
Speaker 1: being criminal obstruction of the law. You know, and what
Speaker 1: we hear about, oh Trump tweeted this or Trump free that.
Speaker 1: At what point is a federal law or a state uh,
Speaker 1: you know, state politician threatening to use law enforce and
Speaker 1: power or threaten or for example, tipping off illegals that
Speaker 1: there's a raid coming. At what point is that actually criminal?
Speaker 1: At what point is that obstruction? If you start to
Speaker 1: want to ask these questions at least so, I think
Speaker 1: you raise a very interesting one. I don't have a
Speaker 1: clear answer for you, but I appreciate you calling in
Speaker 1: my friend, and you're fired up about it. I am too.
Speaker 1: Thank you. Lonnie West Virginia dex In texts also known
Speaker 1: as San Antonio, Texas dex what's up, hey, when you
Speaker 1: come down here to Texas, why don't you get yourself
Speaker 1: a pair of those Ostrich boots. You can buy them
Speaker 1: there in Austin when you get there. I like that idea. Anyway,
Speaker 1: That's about what I called. UM. I called to let
Speaker 1: you know that back in the seventies, Uh, the New
Speaker 1: York State tried to disarm US park police, which are
Speaker 1: different than park rangers, are actually seederal law enforcement officers,
Speaker 1: and they were using the Sullivan Act as their justification,
Speaker 1: which has been around since plot Nan King eleven or so.
Speaker 1: And UH. They failed. They failed miserably because the US
Speaker 1: law enforcement officers had premises over state and local or
Speaker 1: primacy however you want to call it. Uh. And so
Speaker 1: they failed miserably in court. But it did go to court.
Speaker 1: I didn't. That's a very interesting back story. I do
Speaker 1: know a bit about the Sulivan Act, because it's the
Speaker 1: reason why if you're called with an ilegal firem in
Speaker 1: New York you're facing mandatory prison time, which sucks. But yeah,
Speaker 1: I I don't know that backstory. That's really interesting. I
Speaker 1: believe it. By the way, I mean, New York is
Speaker 1: is final aratically. New York City is fanatically anti gun.
Speaker 1: New York City is so anti gun decks that and
Speaker 1: I feel badly for people I know in the NYPD
Speaker 1: who have had to do this, because you know, they're
Speaker 1: carrying out orders, but they should never be given this order.
Speaker 1: New York has um has arrested people who were transiting
Speaker 1: via flight through New York City if they're connecting, flight
Speaker 1: was canceled and they had to un check and then
Speaker 1: re check a handgun. All of us have been illegally
Speaker 1: by the way, they have arrested people for a legal
Speaker 1: handgun position possession of New York City because they did
Speaker 1: not have a New York City permit while they were
Speaker 1: transitting through the airport. They've actually done that. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's how bad they are on this issue. So I
Speaker 1: can believe that they would go after you know, everybody
Speaker 1: and anybody including I want to look up the backstory here.
Speaker 1: Why why were they trying to disarm part police? By
Speaker 1: the way, what was the rationale? Well, okay, the rationale
Speaker 1: was mostly New York City, was well right, that's where
Speaker 1: that's where all the bad because in the rest of
Speaker 1: New York State, by the way, you know, you can
Speaker 1: have a shotgun, you could have a rifle. It's really
Speaker 1: New York City where they're just gun free zone wannabees, right.
Speaker 1: What they what they had was the park police were
Speaker 1: transiting back and forth from UH Liberty Island where the
Speaker 1: Statue of Liberty is in the harbor. But that's the
Speaker 1: only part there that is actually U S Park, UH
Speaker 1: Service Land, and so they were arguing that you could
Speaker 1: not have your weapon when you were off the park.
Speaker 1: But because they are federal law enforcement officers, their jurisdiction
Speaker 1: extends to all fifty states and the territories of the
Speaker 1: United States, So it doesn't matter where they are, they
Speaker 1: still have jurisdiction and their four authority. And so it
Speaker 1: ultimately it ended up I think going to federal court,
Speaker 1: even to the Apollo Court. I don't think New York
Speaker 1: took it to the Supreme Court. But they lost, they
Speaker 1: lost miserably. And uh so the Sullivan Act was for
Speaker 1: that aspect of it. They could not enforce it on
Speaker 1: UH federal law enforcement. But think if they've been successful there,
Speaker 1: then they could have said the same thing about U. S. Marshals, right, yeah,
Speaker 1: or or you know, FBI if they weren't on federal premises,
Speaker 1: if they weren't on federal land and you know, in
Speaker 1: some capacity or in a federal office. Then then they
Speaker 1: could force them to be disarmed too. It's crazy, but
Speaker 1: by the you know, decks, that was actually what now
Speaker 1: I think about it. D C v Heller was about
Speaker 1: a guy who was licensed, I believe as a security
Speaker 1: guard to carry a firearm in d C but wasn't
Speaker 1: allowed to bring it to his home. So that's how
Speaker 1: crazy some of these That's how crazy some of these
Speaker 1: situations got Dex shields. Ye, always a great call man,
Speaker 1: Thanks for calling in, very very very eloquent, very good
Speaker 1: radio voice too. I feel like Dex must in a
Speaker 1: former life, or maybe in a future life, that would
Speaker 1: be a radio host for Scott. Scott guy's got pipes,
Speaker 1: as we say in the business, des got game. Uh.
Speaker 1: Julie in Clarksville, Tennessee. Hello, Julie, hey buck she'll hie hey,
Speaker 1: I hear you had some tummy troubles. Raw milk just
Speaker 1: not sit with me the way I thought I would.
Speaker 1: You know, tough stuff. It was cow milk right? Oh yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: it was from mook. I gotta care for you. What
Speaker 1: goat milk? Raw? Goat milk? Really is it? Why is that?
Speaker 1: Just like less? Well? But why is the goat milk better.
Speaker 1: I mean, I actually like the taste of goat milk
Speaker 1: a lot. Well, we raised dairy goats and that's all
Speaker 1: we drink, and it's got a smaller milk molecule and
Speaker 1: it's great for people who are lactose intolerant. We swear
Speaker 1: by it. That's really yeah, give it. I will tell you.
Speaker 1: My grandparents had a place in in in the Hudson Valley,
Speaker 1: New York, and right down from them was a goat farm.
Speaker 1: And when I was a kid, I get so excited
Speaker 1: in the springtime to go down and try to try
Speaker 1: to hang out with the baby baby goats are awesome.
Speaker 1: Like I always wanted a baby goat as a pet,
Speaker 1: but I didn't really wanted to grow up. And apparently
Speaker 1: you can't just have them when their babies. They grow up.
Speaker 1: They do grow up, but they have quite a personality.
Speaker 1: And if you grew up, if they grew up with
Speaker 1: you around them, they're still they're like they're like dogs,
Speaker 1: they're rate and yeah, and it really you won't you
Speaker 1: won't be like um, being difficult to be around, because
Speaker 1: I'm sure you're your full pleasantries today. Yeah I'm not great.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to I'm trying to keep it all together here.
Speaker 1: But Julie, thank you for calling it, thanks for the advice,
Speaker 1: and as we said, shield Tie, I gotta talk to
Speaker 1: you more about so. I know we ran the we
Speaker 1: ran some calls in there. I know there's more coming in,
Speaker 1: but let me um. I want to get to actually
Speaker 1: my my old colleague, uh well, an old colleague of mine.
Speaker 1: It's something very interesting. I've been talking about these uh
Speaker 1: anti ice protests out in Portland. Someone's covering them. Finally
Speaker 1: we'll get to that, and then perhaps a bit on
Speaker 1: the you. I'm trying to stay away from the Mulla
Speaker 1: probe stuff because I feel like it's I feel like
Speaker 1: it's so overplayed and overdone. There's some little updates we
Speaker 1: might get to, but you know, I'm not just running
Speaker 1: off into that if i can avoid it. And the
Speaker 1: stuff I've got for you with Ben Weingarten on China
Speaker 1: and fine Stein's ties to China. I you know, there's
Speaker 1: some days where I can tell you I just don't
Speaker 1: think you're gonna hear this anywhere else, and then it's
Speaker 1: really important, really interesting, uh really interesting stuff. So that'll
Speaker 1: be right at the top of the third hour. So
Speaker 1: with that eight four four to eight to five eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred buck, don't forget freedom on podcast.
Speaker 1: We're planning to release one tomorrow. It would be very exciting.
Speaker 1: I don't know on what or how exactly yet, but
Speaker 1: I'm working on it. And uh, last week's was with
Speaker 1: a him Kassam, which is a lot of fun. I've
Speaker 1: got a great guest I think line up for next week,
Speaker 1: but I want to announce until it's a percent and
Speaker 1: uh yeah, don't forget that. We'll be pack Coffee is
Speaker 1: a constant in my life. And if you've ever found
Speaker 1: yourself wincing at the weak taste of coffee from one
Speaker 1: of those left leaning comedy brands, guess what. You don't
Speaker 1: ever have to deal with that nonsense again. Drink the
Speaker 1: most delicious stuff you can currently get, and support an awesome, veteran,
Speaker 1: inspired and operated, patriotic company in the process, Black Rifle Coffee.
Speaker 1: I am a coffee club member. I get it delivered
Speaker 1: to my door every month and back. Now I just
Speaker 1: got them to start delivering it to my office too, folks.
Speaker 1: That's how much I love Black Rifle, as well as
Speaker 1: my colleagues. We don't want to touch any of the
Speaker 1: other cake cups here. They just want Black Rifle. Also,
Speaker 1: if you're somebody likes to do it yourself with either
Speaker 1: ground or whole beans, they can send that to you too.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee joined the Coffee or diet Revolution. Visit
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck receiving fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off your order. Everybody listening to this or go check
Speaker 1: it out Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck for
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off. This will become your coffee company if
Speaker 1: you give him a shot. You So, my old colleague
Speaker 1: from The Blaze, Tommy Laren, was out in Portland's and
Speaker 1: she was asking questions, you know, about this Occupy ICE protests.
Speaker 1: Remember they they've they've dusted off the old Occupy political
Speaker 1: mob ballization effort. Remember Occupy Wall Street and then Occupy
Speaker 1: this and Occupy that and occupy all this different stuff.
Speaker 1: And you know, Tommy Laren was out there asking what
Speaker 1: to the residents of Portland's think about what Occupy ICE
Speaker 1: has been doing. Which remember this is the one that
Speaker 1: has you know, feces and needles and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: And they're camping out outside of an Immigrations and Customs
Speaker 1: Enforcement Office. There's been violence, there's been anti fuss stuff
Speaker 1: going on here. It's a mess, a mess, journalists attack,
Speaker 1: very little news coverage of this. Here's what the Here
Speaker 1: the answers that Tommy was able to get play nineteen.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've seen the last couple of weeks,
Speaker 1: but your city has been kind of home to some protesting,
Speaker 1: some controversy, a lot of surrounding. Your mayor and you
Speaker 1: occupy ICE movement. Familiar with any of that? What do
Speaker 1: you think about it? I think that they should be
Speaker 1: able to protest. Do you think that Portland's got more
Speaker 1: militants in the last year two years? I'll just say crazy, crazy.
Speaker 1: We have a real from with immigration. There's no simple
Speaker 1: answers here. Do you think that abolishing ICE is a
Speaker 1: step in the right direction. I think we have to
Speaker 1: look at our entire immigration policy. Our policy has failed.
Speaker 1: Do you think that the protesting on either side has
Speaker 1: gotten out of hand for sure? What do you think
Speaker 1: it's about. Do you think it's about really standing up
Speaker 1: for rights or is it about getting attention? What do
Speaker 1: you think the goal? I don't know. I think people
Speaker 1: have like a lot of personal events. We want to
Speaker 1: be like personal warriors or something and social justice warriors
Speaker 1: maybe for sure on both sides though Fox News, Yeah
Speaker 1: you're eater two but I'm nice. Doesn't matter your honey,
Speaker 1: I don't care. You just don't like Fox News. No,
Speaker 1: but this Fox News is nothing but a budget capitalist sides.
Speaker 1: There you go Portland. I mean, I know they've got
Speaker 1: out of town or the Unfortunately, the only views that
Speaker 1: are being projected out your extremist views, and so you
Speaker 1: get extremist reactions, and that's why you get extreme behavior
Speaker 1: of people coming up to you and clipping you off.
Speaker 1: Do you think a lot of the people in Portland
Speaker 1: are miss informed us to what Ice actually does. They
Speaker 1: just think about the kids coming over with the law
Speaker 1: or whatever. They don't think about the corruption that's coming
Speaker 1: in the drug dealers. Go to any of the occupied
Speaker 1: ICE protests, depending on what my work there, you go.
Speaker 1: So look, not a lot of not a lot of
Speaker 1: insightful answers there from the residents of Bortland. But I'm
Speaker 1: just amazed that anybody who's asked, do you think that
Speaker 1: I should be abolished doesn't immediately jump out and say,
Speaker 1: uh no, that's that's moronic, right. People will you know,
Speaker 1: immigration possis failed, and uh, you know, I got to
Speaker 1: sit down with the the head of Border Patrol and
Speaker 1: the interview was going to air tomorrow and she has
Speaker 1: just been named today. She was acting head. Now she's
Speaker 1: the head of Border Patrol and is the first ever
Speaker 1: female to hold that hold that position. And it's a
Speaker 1: really good interview. I mean, go check it out at
Speaker 1: hill dot TV, Slash Rising. It'll be on tomorrow morning.
Speaker 1: But I was able to ask her, um. I was
Speaker 1: able to ask her about a lot of things that
Speaker 1: you're gonna want to hear the details of. But one
Speaker 1: that really sticks out is I said, will you've been
Speaker 1: in border patrol? And she says, she's worked under four
Speaker 1: different presidents, right, so some presidents last eight years, so
Speaker 1: you know a long time. It's been decades in border patrol.
Speaker 1: And this woman is all about law enforcement. I mean
Speaker 1: you'll see she is straight up l e top to bottom.
Speaker 1: And I said, you you know, you hear about the
Speaker 1: wall and people keep saying that a wall will not work.
Speaker 1: What do you say, You've been on the border doing
Speaker 1: border patrol work for twenty some odd years and without
Speaker 1: missing a beach. She goes, you know, it will very much,
Speaker 1: very much. Uh, the wall will will help. I mean,
Speaker 1: no question, a wall will help. So how is it
Speaker 1: that all these journal types can run and saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: we're all so dumb. It's not gonna help anything. Let's
Speaker 1: not gonna holp Anything's like all the experts say, all
Speaker 1: the experts say, a wall, it's not gonna help. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: here is a pretty high level expert who has spent
Speaker 1: her whole career on this issue, and she didn't say,
Speaker 1: like a wall, I'm not sure and then not really
Speaker 1: clear to me. It depends on how you do it.
Speaker 1: Is it a barrier, Bobby blah? No, she says a
Speaker 1: wall will help, So what's the delay all about that? Right?
Speaker 1: And and then why you know this is where I
Speaker 1: get to what is really fake news? Then, folks? How
Speaker 1: comes so many media outlets are able to get away
Speaker 1: with peddling this narrative that everyone basically agrees except Trump
Speaker 1: and the crazy Trump supporters that a wall won't do anything.
Speaker 1: The head of Border Patrol on TV on My show,
Speaker 1: looking at me with no uncertainty whatsoever, says a wall
Speaker 1: will help a lot. So why haven't we built a
Speaker 1: wall yet? Why won't Congress fund this. They have nowhere
Speaker 1: answers for you. You know, Congress is about his articulate
Speaker 1: on immigration. For the most part of some of those
Speaker 1: people in Portland's we're just like gal like whatever depends
Speaker 1: on what work is, Like Occupy Ice. It's such insanity.
Speaker 1: We've got much more team. Stay with me. He's back
Speaker 1: with you now, because when it comes to the fight
Speaker 1: for truth, the fuck never stops. Let's a call from
Speaker 1: John in Atlanta. Hey, John, Hey, what's up buddy? Yes, sir,
Speaker 1: podcast Minion checking in. All right, good to hear from you.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Good to talk to you. So. Um, I
Speaker 1: was gonna talk about the press being the enemy of
Speaker 1: the people, but we were just talking about with ice
Speaker 1: and border crossings and everything. It made me. It reminded
Speaker 1: me of a point that I always wanted to make
Speaker 1: to you, which is this. This might sound hyperbolic, but
Speaker 1: the people are advocating for the open borders and not
Speaker 1: separating you know, children from a parents. You can make
Speaker 1: good taste that they're basically advocating child rape, right. And
Speaker 1: I know that sounds hyperbolic, but here's why. If you
Speaker 1: you know how stats work with the FBI, Like when
Speaker 1: you look at a murder rate, it's whatever, it's five
Speaker 1: point five per hundred thousand in the United States. Yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: so the rape rate in a place like Condors is
Speaker 1: probably forty per hundred thousands or maybe, I mean, I
Speaker 1: have no idea, but okay, okay, So where are we
Speaker 1: going somewhere around it? Well, the children, the girls that
Speaker 1: get transported by these coyotes, the rape rate is somewhere around.
Speaker 1: It's very high. There's a lot of sexual abuse by
Speaker 1: the coyotes against part against female miners. That's true. Yeah, right, right,
Speaker 1: So it's that is not even the highest rates in Honduras.
Speaker 1: Don't approach that. So by offering the incentive for them
Speaker 1: to get across the border and maybe get in and
Speaker 1: not have any kind of a wa all, you're basically
Speaker 1: putting them at a rate of potential rape that's probably
Speaker 1: a thousand times higher than what it would be in
Speaker 1: a place like I mean, I've got I I'm kind
Speaker 1: of following you here, but I also want to I don't.
Speaker 1: I mean, you're you're just pulling numbers, and I have
Speaker 1: no idea if those sounds high to me, But I
Speaker 1: don't know, and I wish I had had a chance
Speaker 1: to ask the Border Patrol chief about this one. Uh,
Speaker 1: And I think it's important that we advocate. There's a
Speaker 1: difference between putting somebody in position where they're at a
Speaker 1: higher risk for something and and also advocating specifically for
Speaker 1: that thing to happen to them. So I do think
Speaker 1: we need to separate those two things. But so you're
Speaker 1: saying that by by creating this look, But Obama and
Speaker 1: his team thought they were doing the the you know,
Speaker 1: the warmhearted thing and also the politically very expedient thing,
Speaker 1: which I think is much bigger than the warmhearted part
Speaker 1: of it, by allowing anybody with a child to come
Speaker 1: to the U. S. Border and basically say let me in.
Speaker 1: I got a kid and we're fleeing something. And that
Speaker 1: has led to a whole lot more both kids, unaccompanied
Speaker 1: and accompanied miners coming to the border, and some of
Speaker 1: those unaccompanied kids in particular have been subjected to sexual abuse,
Speaker 1: which that's been documented too. So yeah, there are those
Speaker 1: are the unintended but very nasty and terrible consequences of
Speaker 1: the lawlessness really that the Obama administration was pushing for.
Speaker 1: So is that I mean, am I touching on all
Speaker 1: the areas of this that you're trying to hit her.
Speaker 1: Am I missing something? No? I think you are. The
Speaker 1: number I got a seventies. I believe that came from
Speaker 1: an amnesty in the National Report, So I'm not pulling
Speaker 1: it out of the thin air. It's somewhere in that
Speaker 1: range and you can look it up. But the other
Speaker 1: thing is this. Do you know the woman with the
Speaker 1: daughter that was photoshopped on the Time magazine next to
Speaker 1: Trump as if she was separated. Yeah, of course, yeah
Speaker 1: she was. She wasn't separated. No, No, she spent about
Speaker 1: five thousand dollars, right, yeah, uh, okay, you pay a
Speaker 1: county five thousand dollars. Now, let's do the currency conversion
Speaker 1: of what a person in the United States makes in
Speaker 1: a given a year versus what someone in Honduras makes.
Speaker 1: So when of that five thousand dollars translates to like
Speaker 1: maybe thirty five or forty thousand for an American citizens. Now,
Speaker 1: if if there's a wall and a much stronger presence
Speaker 1: on the border, you are now disincentivized from spending that
Speaker 1: kind of money. That's right. And the money, the money
Speaker 1: is only worth it if you have a very The
Speaker 1: money is only worth it if you have a very
Speaker 1: high expectation that you will successfully get in the United States,
Speaker 1: which is why the money, which is why these guys
Speaker 1: are getting paid. By the way, I would also like
Speaker 1: to add into this, John, that this has led to
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars, by any calculation, going directly
Speaker 1: into the hands of vicious Mexican drug cartels that are
Speaker 1: involved in human smuggling, child sexual predation, UH smuggling heroin
Speaker 1: and fentinel into American communities that are killing thousands and
Speaker 1: thousands of people. So that's another unintended or set and
Speaker 1: dairy consequence of this whole pipeline of illegals essentially coming
Speaker 1: into the country. But John, I gotta leave it there
Speaker 1: for now. I do appreciate you calling in. Um, let's
Speaker 1: get to uh, you know, I spent much time this. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm actually thinking we're gonna go Mueller free today. I
Speaker 1: don't really think there's much well almost Mueller free. Maybe
Speaker 1: I I overpromised with that one, but I think that
Speaker 1: there's not much need to get into Muller's Mueller case today.
Speaker 1: I think it's just so overdone. You know that. MSNBC
Speaker 1: last night, Matt out I saw some commentary and this,
Speaker 1: and I want to check it out for myself. I look,
Speaker 1: I don't get I don't get the whole MSNBC stick
Speaker 1: in general, but matt Ow in particular likes to do
Speaker 1: this thing where it's, yeah, I have this thing, it's
Speaker 1: this amazing thing. And Stephen Colbert actually made fun of
Speaker 1: her for it last night, although he you know, when
Speaker 1: liberals make fun of liberals, it's always like, but he's
Speaker 1: making fun of each other with love. But she does this,
Speaker 1: She does have this whole like I have in my hand,
Speaker 1: the most amazing document. It's the most amazing thing. Once
Speaker 1: you see it, it will change your world. And then
Speaker 1: you know, she does that for like twenty minutes and
Speaker 1: then you're like, this is an interesting you know, this
Speaker 1: document sucks. She did that with Trump's tax returns. That
Speaker 1: was the really famous time. But she also had this
Speaker 1: whole thing last night with Devin you know, Devin Newness,
Speaker 1: when he's at a private fundraiser, well actually say things
Speaker 1: that are critical of Donald Trump. Yeah, so so what
Speaker 1: who cares? Devin Newness, you know, said that he thinks
Speaker 1: Trump's tweets sometimes there aren't so great. Uh. They try
Speaker 1: to make this see him like it's a scandal. Folks,
Speaker 1: the things that Newness was saying at this fundraiser, Well,
Speaker 1: of course you're not progressive surreptitiously tape people, you know,
Speaker 1: because they're scummy and underhanded, and that's what they do.
Speaker 1: And look, but it's fine. Any congressman who's got three
Speaker 1: brain cells to rub together knows that if you're in
Speaker 1: any kind of a public four, we gotta assume you're
Speaker 1: being taped. Right, what you're saying, you have to assume
Speaker 1: somebody may be taping it. You're not saying crazy. But
Speaker 1: they were trying to make it seem like it was
Speaker 1: such a big deal. That's because they hate Newness. They
Speaker 1: have there's a little bit of of a second you know,
Speaker 1: there's Trump de arrangement center, but then there's also the
Speaker 1: secondary order effects secondary effects of that where people in
Speaker 1: Trump's orbit also that there's a derangement that people have
Speaker 1: towards them, and you know, there's kind of a little
Speaker 1: a B Team Newness derangement syndrome, you know, a JV
Speaker 1: level derangement syndrome, and that's on display because here's what
Speaker 1: was said at this event where you know, and this
Speaker 1: is madow. Oh my gosh, when you hear Newness criticizing Trump,
Speaker 1: it's going to rock your world. It's like, no, it's
Speaker 1: not here, play at play clips sixteen. So there, so
Speaker 1: it's like your class catch Trump to situation where Ready
Speaker 1: puts us in such a tough president, which is really
Speaker 1: the days that's five by the way, I mean, we
Speaker 1: have to keep all we have the he's saying, we
Speaker 1: gotta keep the majority. I know you can hear that
Speaker 1: the plates clanking with the silver, which is always I've
Speaker 1: given speeches at luncheon's. That's always the problem. You gotta
Speaker 1: clink clink, clink, clink clink, and especially with the audio,
Speaker 1: it's drives you mad if you want to ever listen
Speaker 1: to it afterwards. But so Noonas is saying, yeah, we
Speaker 1: we gotta we gotta protect, we gotta protect the majority
Speaker 1: in the House because the only way they're ever gonna
Speaker 1: get any answers about what really has going on with
Speaker 1: the Muller probe. And also that the first we know
Speaker 1: there's the Democrat there're been a little quiet about it
Speaker 1: now that they're being a little coy, a little sly
Speaker 1: because they know that if Trump doesn't have a House
Speaker 1: a Republican majority, they're gonna impeach them, but they're being
Speaker 1: quiet about it right now because they'd rather run these
Speaker 1: kind of stealth Democrat candidates and the Connor Lamb model. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I I served in the military and and
Speaker 1: personally pro life, and but I'm gonna vote Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: nine percent of the time and I'm a pro union, leftist,
Speaker 1: redistributionist Democrat. You know that's what you get going on. Oh,
Speaker 1: you know, I care more about the middle class and healthcare.
Speaker 1: And but I really I asked, you think that Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders has got some great ideas. That's the kind of
Speaker 1: Democrat candidate they want to run, and they don't want
Speaker 1: the Republican base. Two really have it at front of
Speaker 1: their minds that impeachment is what's gonna follow here if
Speaker 1: Trump does not have a majority in the House to
Speaker 1: protect him. So, but I just I listened to I
Speaker 1: thought there must have been oh my gosh, Nudas must
Speaker 1: have said something bad. Matter has secret audio from a
Speaker 1: progressive activist that is gone to blow your mind. No
Speaker 1: it doesn't, it's not import at all. It didn't matter
Speaker 1: one bit. Uh And all right, I said, no, mother's stuff.
Speaker 1: But there's one thing. There's one thing I wanted to
Speaker 1: throw in here, which is that I like the Rudy's
Speaker 1: out there making the case. I don't know if he's
Speaker 1: the best lawyer to handle this, but he's probably the
Speaker 1: best spokesman to handle this in many ways. Here's Rudy
Speaker 1: said about the Mueller inventor. I know a little Muller
Speaker 1: stuff for real quick place seven. What do we need
Speaker 1: to know? That this is a totally illegitimate investigation based
Speaker 1: on a report, a dossier that was paid for by
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton and the Democrats. Probably the biggest illegality so far,
Speaker 1: the biggest collusions so far, completely made up, completely made up,
Speaker 1: uh led to nothing except several fraudulent fighter wires. I've
Speaker 1: never been involved in in an investigation on either side
Speaker 1: that's more illegitimate than this one. Where's a sense of
Speaker 1: justice on the part of Mueller, on the part of
Speaker 1: the Justice Department. And at some point you got to
Speaker 1: say the irregularities, the double standard, the way in which
Speaker 1: people who hate Trump will put into primary positions of
Speaker 1: our yep, I let Rudy have the last word on
Speaker 1: that for today. We'll be right back. They can play
Speaker 1: politics all they want. What we know is it was
Speaker 1: a bad deal. We wanted to get out of the deal,
Speaker 1: and we did that. And now they're paying the price
Speaker 1: by one having all of the business that they were
Speaker 1: getting with all of the countries in the European Union
Speaker 1: and otherwise to drop, but they're also getting the sanctions,
Speaker 1: which is going to suffocate them. The goal of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration is to pull out of a lousy deal
Speaker 1: with a single purpose in mind is to create a
Speaker 1: much better deal. And that's what this is all about.
Speaker 1: So we're imposing sanctions on the Iranians in a way
Speaker 1: that we had once before when we had the initial
Speaker 1: deal in place before the nuclear deal. Tough sanctions. Here's
Speaker 1: what I think is going to happen. Listen, these sanctions
Speaker 1: will really take its toll on the Iranians. The du
Speaker 1: was trying to keep their countries in this thing. They
Speaker 1: used intimidation and coercion. But at the end of the day,
Speaker 1: I mean, seriously, Iran's economy is four billion dollars U
Speaker 1: s economy is has just tapped twenty trillion. Are these
Speaker 1: countries really gonna continue to ron and lose that trading
Speaker 1: with the United States? Which the Trump administration is fully
Speaker 1: prepared to do. Look, Iran has a choice to make,
Speaker 1: and this is what the Trump administration is forcing on them.
Speaker 1: And the choices not get all the goodies and keep
Speaker 1: your nuclear program. The choice is verifiable end to all
Speaker 1: nuclear program and related material and activity, and a change
Speaker 1: in aggressive belligerent behavior. I mean, folks, the Iranians have
Speaker 1: us blood on their hands. They have the blood of
Speaker 1: our service members on their hands. They just to show
Speaker 1: chaos and just be destructive, just be sadists. We're sending
Speaker 1: e f p s, exposedly formed penetrators across the border
Speaker 1: from Iran into Iraq and puncturing the holes of our
Speaker 1: armored vehicles and maiming and killing our soldiers in Iraq.
Speaker 1: We're trying to stabilize that hell hole. Alright, So the
Speaker 1: I mean, the Iranian regime isn't just sponsoring terror in
Speaker 1: some vague sense. They have the blood of American service
Speaker 1: members on their hands. And enough is enough with these
Speaker 1: enough is enough with this tyranny in this country, Okay,
Speaker 1: in in in the Iranian state, we need to finally
Speaker 1: demand that they change course or we're just gonna bring
Speaker 1: their economy to its knees. We were doing that by
Speaker 1: the way, Obama threw them a lifeline. Obama decided that
Speaker 1: it was better to work with the Iranians than to
Speaker 1: force the Iranians to stop doing the bad things they
Speaker 1: were doing, you know, I mean with with Obama, it
Speaker 1: was always you know, he's got he's got the best
Speaker 1: hand in the world in the sense that he sits
Speaker 1: down at the poker table with the American military at
Speaker 1: his back. He sits down as the commander in chief
Speaker 1: of the most fearsome and awesome military machine on the planet,
Speaker 1: the biggest economy in the history of the world, and
Speaker 1: he's like, Oh, what can I do to make you?
Speaker 1: Guy is happy? No, that is not how he should
Speaker 1: have been negotiating. I also want to talk to you
Speaker 1: about what's going on in Iran, I mean in Yemen.
Speaker 1: So Yemen is the biggest humanitarian crisis in the world
Speaker 1: right now. I've talked to you a bit about it
Speaker 1: here in the show. It doesn't get much attention. I know,
Speaker 1: Yemen is far off and not a place that you
Speaker 1: necessarily think is going to be hind the list of
Speaker 1: US national security concerns, but it does have a very
Speaker 1: active al kind of franchise, one that has tried to
Speaker 1: target US aviation of the past, one that has I've
Speaker 1: been very active in what we call external external terrorist plotting,
Speaker 1: which means coming after us and our allies anywhere and
Speaker 1: everywhere around the world. Um and and now Yemen is
Speaker 1: finally in the headlines because of a terrible tragedy. Here's
Speaker 1: the reporting on it from New York Times. An air
Speaker 1: strike from the Saudi led coalition struck a school bus
Speaker 1: in northern Yemen on Thursday and killed dozens of people,
Speaker 1: many of them children, according to local medical officials. Uh
Speaker 1: the attack sent a flood of victims to overwhelm the
Speaker 1: hospital struggling to cope, and what the United Nations can
Speaker 1: ssiders one of the world's worst humanitarian crises. The coalitionstead
Speaker 1: it had hit missile launchers and called the attack a
Speaker 1: legitimate military operation, but the attack and the justification for
Speaker 1: it were condemned and drew new attention to the tremendous
Speaker 1: human toll of the war in Yemen. Yeah, this war
Speaker 1: is grinding on. It's it's terrible. We are backing the
Speaker 1: saudiast here and the Saudias are engaged in this air
Speaker 1: campaign and they're they're essentially the air force for the
Speaker 1: recognized National Government of Yemen. But it's a complete mess.
Speaker 1: And and this is where I have to say, you know,
Speaker 1: with all the sanctimony you hear from journalists, I would
Speaker 1: want to say, especially from the you know, the MSNBC,
Speaker 1: CNN network News corridor, I want to know, why are
Speaker 1: we not hearing more about Yemen? Why haven't they been
Speaker 1: leading news broadcast with this story. If they really do
Speaker 1: care about U. S Foreign policy, which based on what
Speaker 1: we saw at Helsinki and Trump, oh my gosh, if
Speaker 1: they really care about humanitarian goals and to stop up
Speaker 1: suffering or at least limits suffering, and to bring public
Speaker 1: attention to crises, you might have millions of people starving
Speaker 1: to death in eighteen folks. I mean, this is right now,
Speaker 1: this is real, and you they still are just gonna
Speaker 1: run all these stories about Stormy Daniels and Avanati and
Speaker 1: all this other crap. So much sanctimony from these journals,
Speaker 1: And I guess they would say, if you really push them, well, buck,
Speaker 1: you know, we have to cover stories that get ratings. Well,
Speaker 1: if you're covering stories because it's about ratings and not
Speaker 1: about your mission, not about telling us what what is
Speaker 1: really important in the world. You don't get to then
Speaker 1: hold yourselves up as the guardians of truth. You don't
Speaker 1: get to talk about the necessary role you play in
Speaker 1: informing the public based on what is necessary for them.
Speaker 1: You're just an entertainment outlet. You're an entertainment outlet that's
Speaker 1: posing as something else. And I think that the Yemen
Speaker 1: stories yet another time when we could stop and say
Speaker 1: to ourselves, you know what, they can be posers as
Speaker 1: much as they want, but we don't have to go
Speaker 1: along with the pretense that their objective journals anymore, because
Speaker 1: they'd much rather tell us about Stormy and Avanati than
Speaker 1: about the massive humanitarian crisis that has continuing to unfold
Speaker 1: in Yemen. Our three coming up here, we've got to
Speaker 1: talk about China and the connections to Finstein and the
Speaker 1: spy that was near her. We've got that and uh
Speaker 1: much more, Teams, so stay with me. It's all about
Speaker 1: China infiltrating the office of a very powerful democrat in
Speaker 1: Diane Feinstein. It turns out her longtime staff for Russell Lowe,
Speaker 1: who was a driver then also liaison to the Asian
Speaker 1: American community in California visited relatives overseas several years ago
Speaker 1: and became acquainted on the trip with someone who was
Speaker 1: connected to the People's Republic of China's Ministry of State Security.
Speaker 1: Five years ago, FBI it Didn't showed up at Finstein's
Speaker 1: office in d C and revealed her staffer was under
Speaker 1: investigation for possibly spying for China. So why haven't you
Speaker 1: heard a lot more about this? I know that was
Speaker 1: a little Fox News audio right that was at Henry
Speaker 1: over at Fox talking about Diane fine Stein's Chinese spy
Speaker 1: who was driving around for twenty years or so. You're
Speaker 1: not hearing much about this. Well, we've got somebody who
Speaker 1: wants to dive into this with us and uh talk
Speaker 1: a bit about what's really going on here. We have
Speaker 1: Ben wine Garden with us. He is the host of
Speaker 1: The Big Ideas podcast with Ben Weinegarten, also a senior
Speaker 1: contributor at the Federalists's got a piece up there right now,
Speaker 1: Senator Diane fine Steins ties to China go way deeper
Speaker 1: than an alleged office spy. Mr Weingarten, good to have you, sir,
Speaker 1: fuck It's always a pleasure, and thanks so much for
Speaker 1: having me. Ben and I were colleagues the Blaze. By
Speaker 1: the way, he was one of the very smart people there.
Speaker 1: So I'm glad that he's still willing to be my
Speaker 1: friend later on because it makes me feel like I
Speaker 1: must have been one of the smart people there too. Ben,
Speaker 1: let's get into my friend. What what's going on here
Speaker 1: with fine stunt? Yeah, So this story about the alleged
Speaker 1: Chinese spy Russell Lowe really caught my eye because we
Speaker 1: talk all the time. The narrative is all about Russian meadowing,
Speaker 1: and there's no doubt that Russian intelligence is devious and
Speaker 1: they do all sorts of things to try to subvert us,
Speaker 1: try to influence people, etcetera. But China's security apparatus and
Speaker 1: their intelligence apparatus also poses a massive threat. One of
Speaker 1: the things that's not really talked about during the Obama
Speaker 1: years the fact that there was a hack of the
Speaker 1: Office of Personnel Management, the US government documentation on over
Speaker 1: twenty million federal employees and applicants for federal jobs. And
Speaker 1: basically what China did was they stole all of the
Speaker 1: most sensitive information that people put in their applications so
Speaker 1: that the government can actually vet their backgrounds and see
Speaker 1: if they could potentially be compromised by a foreign power.
Speaker 1: This is something that you know well based upon your
Speaker 1: experience and intelligence. China also destroyed America's spying network essentially
Speaker 1: on their soil during the two thousand tens. So we're
Speaker 1: great disadvantage intelligence wise with China. And here you have
Speaker 1: the attempt, and it seems like an actual Chinese buy in.
Speaker 1: Diane fine Stein employee employee as of five years ago.
Speaker 1: She had worked with him for twenty years. Most recently
Speaker 1: it appears he was listed as an office director. So
Speaker 1: it's not just not just some driver. But oh, by
Speaker 1: the way, even if it was just a driver, he
Speaker 1: could do a hell of a lot of damage because
Speaker 1: Diane Finstein was the chairman of the Senate Select Intelligence Committee,
Speaker 1: which means she had access and she was dealing daily
Speaker 1: for several years with the most sensitive, classified, top secret
Speaker 1: kind of information which poses a massive threat to US.
Speaker 1: So when I heard this story, what I wanted to
Speaker 1: do was look at what further ties does fine Stein
Speaker 1: have to China? And what I found was just staggering. Now,
Speaker 1: there there's some there's some stuff here that I think
Speaker 1: also people need to need to hear for for background.
Speaker 1: I mean, you start off your piece on the federals
Speaker 1: here with quote I sometimes say that in my last life,
Speaker 1: maybe I was Chinese and quote that's from Senator Diane
Speaker 1: fin Stein. She's got some deep ties and advocacy when
Speaker 1: it comes to Communist China. Yeah, absolutely unbelievable. So when
Speaker 1: I started digging into fine Stein's Chinese background to see
Speaker 1: if this was just one isolated attempt, what I found
Speaker 1: were three major things. One, Diane Finstein and her husband
Speaker 1: have been tied very closely to the most senior ranks
Speaker 1: of the Chinese Communist Party for the last forty years,
Speaker 1: basically since we opened diplomatic relations with China. Number Two,
Speaker 1: fine Stein, in terms of her political positions, has taken
Speaker 1: a very pro China policy in terms of expanding trade
Speaker 1: and allowing them to enter all of the different commercial
Speaker 1: bodies that have allowed China and enabled China to become
Speaker 1: a dominant economic power. At the same time, she's taken
Speaker 1: a very devish position when it comes to military relations
Speaker 1: to China, and she's apologized in the most sickening of
Speaker 1: ways for China as human rights violations, trying to whitewash
Speaker 1: things like Tienamen Square for example, just horrific. But then
Speaker 1: the last piece to all of this, which really ties
Speaker 1: it together, is the fact that Einstein's husband, who is
Speaker 1: a very very successful investor, perhaps not coincidentally, has seen
Speaker 1: his investments in China swell, and that's swelling, that appreciation
Speaker 1: and the profits associated with those investments have occurred alongside
Speaker 1: his wife taking a very pro Chinese position. And oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, he's had access to the very senior
Speaker 1: members of the Chinese Communist Party that she has had,
Speaker 1: because he's taken many trips with her over the years
Speaker 1: to meet with dignitaries on the Chinese side. So you
Speaker 1: have the potentially a spy, you have very pro Chinese policy,
Speaker 1: and then you have a massive business conflict of interest.
Speaker 1: So this could potentially be a real collusion story. And
Speaker 1: I don't want to politicize it in that way, but
Speaker 1: it's a broader problem than any one administration or any
Speaker 1: one senator. Then you write in his piece, very good piece,
Speaker 1: and the Federalist that I would recommend to anybody who's
Speaker 1: got time to read up on this. For the last
Speaker 1: forty years, no politician in America has arguably maintained a deeper,
Speaker 1: more longstanding, and friendlier relationship with China at the highest
Speaker 1: levels of its ruling Communist Party than fine Stein. It
Speaker 1: dates back to the opening of US Chinese diplomatic relations
Speaker 1: in ninety nine. And I feel like nobody knows this.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know you're writing this, and I'm glad
Speaker 1: you're getting the word out here, but this is not
Speaker 1: a part of the coverage. It's like, oh, some Chinese
Speaker 1: guy that was kind of near fin Stein, you know,
Speaker 1: nb D. That's really what the media vibe is on this.
Speaker 1: It is really amazing. And that relationship started when San
Speaker 1: Francisco entered into what's called a sister city relationship with Shanghai,
Speaker 1: so basically they opened up diplomatic relations, started to open
Speaker 1: up some commercial relations, and fine Stein was the one
Speaker 1: who spearheaded that because she was the mayor of San
Speaker 1: Francisco in the way seventies or rather early eighties, the
Speaker 1: mayor of Shanghai at that time, so her counterpart is
Speaker 1: an official is less. His name is jangs Amen. He
Speaker 1: ended up rising from Mayor of Shanghai to ultimately Premier
Speaker 1: General Secretary of the Communist Party, so essentially the equivalent
Speaker 1: of Jijinping. He held three of the top leadership positions
Speaker 1: you could have in the Communist Party, so he was,
Speaker 1: for all intense purposes, the leader of China subsequently in
Speaker 1: his career, and Diane Feinstein maintained very close relationships to
Speaker 1: him throughout that rise. She served as an intermediary between
Speaker 1: the Bill Clinton White House and the Chinese when Jang's
Speaker 1: Amen was leading as a Premier of China. So she
Speaker 1: has been tied to the most senior levels for a
Speaker 1: long time. And what's staggering when you start to look
Speaker 1: at the history is that she talks seemingly in glowing
Speaker 1: terms about how she was invited to China, she and
Speaker 1: her husband and was one of the first people to
Speaker 1: die in the room that Mao z A Dong died
Speaker 1: in and lived in, as if that's some great accomplishment. Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, these are an enemy power. Essentially, mauz
Speaker 1: Dong was a mass murderer, so what you know, the
Speaker 1: fact that she didn't potentially see that they were sort
Speaker 1: of buttering her up and working her over these years
Speaker 1: apparently is kind of an amazing thing. And there's also
Speaker 1: writing about how, you know, she invited Jang's aim In
Speaker 1: when he was mayored to San Francisco, had him over
Speaker 1: for Thanksgiving, apparently was dancing with him. And this is
Speaker 1: really reminiscent of something that the Soviet Union did. The
Speaker 1: Soviet Union allegedly had ted Kennedy to a Soviet wedding
Speaker 1: that was staged and took pictures of him dancing and
Speaker 1: celebrating with Soviet counterparts. It's a very similar thing, a
Speaker 1: parallel between the Russians and the Chinese. And it's all
Speaker 1: right out there. I mean, this is open source. I
Speaker 1: saite articles from the l A Times from nine nine seven,
Speaker 1: two thousand. The list goes on and on in terms
Speaker 1: of these connections, and it's just a very troubling, more
Speaker 1: than troubling, disturbing thing when you see a U. S.
Speaker 1: Senator so close to people in the highest ranks of
Speaker 1: an adversarial Chinese Communist party and need. One part of
Speaker 1: this ben that I want to highlight for folks is
Speaker 1: that if you're a U. S. Senator, and you're a U. S.
Speaker 1: Senator who sits on the Senate Select Committee on Intelligence,
Speaker 1: which means that you have oversight of the intelligence community,
Speaker 1: so you essentially have access to anything that you want
Speaker 1: in the intel community. I mean, you know you cannot.
Speaker 1: I know this from what I was in the c
Speaker 1: I A. You can lie to a senator if they
Speaker 1: ask you, you can say we can't talk about this here.
Speaker 1: But if you're behind closed doors they ask you, you
Speaker 1: gotta tell them, right, I mean, if you if you're
Speaker 1: in in a classified setting and there is no background
Speaker 1: investigation of senators people, I don't think people know this.
Speaker 1: The President and senators get clearance by virtue of the
Speaker 1: votes given them by the American people. There is no
Speaker 1: background check on a senator. There is no uh inherent
Speaker 1: counter intelligence check on a sitting US senator. They are
Speaker 1: considered to have clearance by virtue of the office. So
Speaker 1: think about that firm. It's it's not just like she's
Speaker 1: a senior government official who's had a five year reoccurring
Speaker 1: background investigation and access to sified. She's somebody who nobody
Speaker 1: was allowed to look into all this time, and given
Speaker 1: her very powerful position on the Democratic Party. I'm willing
Speaker 1: to bet bend that. You know, when you see the
Speaker 1: way that they used any opportunity with Carter Page to
Speaker 1: get a counterintelligence investigation going against Trump associates, including Trump
Speaker 1: himself really by virtue of his connections, and then what's
Speaker 1: going on here with Diane Feinstein. I'm sorry, this stinks. Look,
Speaker 1: I mean if you read the order calling for the
Speaker 1: convening of the Special Council, and you read the language
Speaker 1: and it talks about looking for any links and orchies
Speaker 1: coordination between in that case, the Trump team and the Russians, Well,
Speaker 1: have you applied the same language to all the links
Speaker 1: ties coordination between Diane Feinstein, her staffers, and the Chinese government.
Speaker 1: Then that Special Council would run for ten years. I mean,
Speaker 1: it would be never ending, because you're talking about someone
Speaker 1: who's had relationships with these senior dignitaries on the Chinese
Speaker 1: side for forty years. I mean, it's it's amazing how
Speaker 1: deep it runs. And there's even a Clinton tie into
Speaker 1: this Bill Clinton tie in, which is, as your listeners
Speaker 1: surely know, in n there was there was an investigation
Speaker 1: into illegal Chinese financing of democratic campaigns in an attempt
Speaker 1: to influence the campaigns. This has been written up, i
Speaker 1: think in the Wall Street Journal pretty recently as uh
Speaker 1: kind of Bill Clinton's Russia. So there was illegal financing
Speaker 1: from Chinese individuals linked to senior members of the Communist
Speaker 1: Party and an attempt to influence Bill Clinton and the
Speaker 1: DNC more broadly. And what do you know, one of
Speaker 1: those people who was convicted, one of the biggest bundwers,
Speaker 1: raised three million dollars for the d n C and
Speaker 1: they gave half of it back because they weren't comfortable
Speaker 1: with the source that it ultimately came from. And this
Speaker 1: individual was convicted on raising these funds for felony campaign
Speaker 1: final finance violations. He was actually one of the people
Speaker 1: who attended a fundraiser at the House in n of
Speaker 1: none other than Diane Feinstein. It was Feinstein, Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: and one of the people associated with that, And the
Speaker 1: FBI had warned Diane Feinstein that the Chinese might try
Speaker 1: to make campaign contributions to influence her. This is back
Speaker 1: in nine she was told this by the FBI. So
Speaker 1: there's a long story here, a lot of details that
Speaker 1: I lay out and try to do so in a
Speaker 1: systematic fashion in this article. And I think this is
Speaker 1: just the tip of the iceberg, because this is just
Speaker 1: reporting on open source information that's out there that anyone
Speaker 1: would want to investigate. If there was a Chinese spy
Speaker 1: potentially close to someone as senior as Diane Feinstein, or
Speaker 1: anyone in the federal government for that matter. Ben, really
Speaker 1: first class deep dive that you've pulled together here with
Speaker 1: this piece. Everyone should check it out. We'll share it
Speaker 1: also on Facebook, the Federalist dot com where you go
Speaker 1: for its Senator Diane Feinstein's ties to China go way
Speaker 1: deeper than alleged office spy. Uh. Then, really appreciate you
Speaker 1: joining us, Ben wein garden. Everybody, thank you so much. Alright, team,
Speaker 1: We've got a lot more coming, including a discussion of
Speaker 1: Space Force. Oh yes, the Space Force. I'm telling you
Speaker 1: my that's right, dude. My theme song for Space Force
Speaker 1: is going to become the official like there will be
Speaker 1: the star spangled banner and then they'll be Buck's version
Speaker 1: of Space Force. That's how that's how powerful my Space
Speaker 1: Force theme will be. Stay with me. I got long days, folks.
Speaker 1: I know you do too. If you want a little
Speaker 1: bit of a boost, that little bit of extra punch
Speaker 1: to get you through whatever your next task, mission, or challenge,
Speaker 1: maybe Strike Force Energy is for you. Look, it's delicious
Speaker 1: and it's so easy. It comes in these little packets
Speaker 1: and you mix it in with whatever you want. I
Speaker 1: like to use it in water, but you can put
Speaker 1: it in some lemonade. Put it in uh if you
Speaker 1: want a little bit of Seltzer water. It's delicious in
Speaker 1: any of them. Even throw it in a beer if
Speaker 1: you want summertime kick back, relax, get a little bit
Speaker 1: of a boost going. Strike Force Energy also delivers packets
Speaker 1: of strike Force to military members around the globe. In fact,
Speaker 1: they will match for every packet you buy, they will
Speaker 1: send one to a member of active duty military at
Speaker 1: home and abroad. So please team go check them out
Speaker 1: strike Force Energy dot com and our discount code buck
Speaker 1: at checkout again, that's strike Force Energy dot com discount
Speaker 1: code buck. When you get to the checkout, and make
Speaker 1: sure that uh, you know that everything that you're buying
Speaker 1: it's gonna be mirror image and center troops around the globe. Man,
Speaker 1: do you want to spend a lot of my tax
Speaker 1: money on these proposals that you and Bernie have? Medicare
Speaker 1: for all, college, maybe even housing? How do you pay?
Speaker 1: How do you sell it? So, first of all, the
Speaker 1: thing that we need to realize is people talk about
Speaker 1: the sticker shock of Medicare for all. They do not
Speaker 1: talk about the sticker shock of our of the cost
Speaker 1: of our existing system. Medicare for All is actually much more,
Speaker 1: is actually much cheaper than the current system that we
Speaker 1: pay right now. And let's not forget that. The reason
Speaker 1: that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act is
Speaker 1: because they ruled that each of these monthly payments that
Speaker 1: everyday Americans make is a tax. And so while it
Speaker 1: may not seem like we pay that tax on April
Speaker 1: fifte we pay it every single month, or we do
Speaker 1: pay a tax season if we don't buy, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: these plans off of the exchange. So we're paying for
Speaker 1: this system. We Americans have the sticker shock of healthcare
Speaker 1: as it is. And we're also not talking about is
Speaker 1: why aren't we incorporating the cost of all the funeral
Speaker 1: expenses of those who die because they can't afford access
Speaker 1: to healthcare? That is part of the cost of our system. Yeah, like,
Speaker 1: why are you not talking about like the cost of funerals,
Speaker 1: because like those flyer bouquets are like super expensive and
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, So I was drinking a non fat
Speaker 1: story latte watching Chris Hayes on MSNBC, and I was
Speaker 1: just like that funeral expense that my friends friends great
Speaker 1: grandmother had was like so expensive, and it's like an
Speaker 1: expense that we should think about with healthcare because like
Speaker 1: you know, like the big like the thing where you
Speaker 1: put the person when they're dead is like really expensive. Folks. Folks,
Speaker 1: you know, I'm actually starting to feel I've actually started
Speaker 1: to feel a little bad for me that the Democrats
Speaker 1: have put forward this Occasio Cortez lady as the hope
Speaker 1: of their party. This is this is what they've got
Speaker 1: for us going forward. Here, this is who they offer
Speaker 1: up to to change one five of the U. S economy.
Speaker 1: Everything that she said essentially makes no sense. Her whole
Speaker 1: thing about Obamacare and the tax, Yeah, you pay that
Speaker 1: if you're in the individual market and you choose not
Speaker 1: to buy insurance. And oh, by the way, Republicans have
Speaker 1: wiped this away, right, so you know what when she
Speaker 1: says you're you're paying it every month, it's not clear
Speaker 1: what she's talking about. And everybody who's done any study
Speaker 1: of not just medicare or healthcare, but basic market forces
Speaker 1: will tell you that when people have access to whatever
Speaker 1: they want, if something, they will over use it and
Speaker 1: they will over tax the system, in this case, the
Speaker 1: health care system, by just saying yeah, you know, I'll
Speaker 1: use more of this. I'll go see the specialist right away.
Speaker 1: I'll have this, you know, I'll choose to have this, uh,
Speaker 1: this surgery sooner, or I'll you know, all these different
Speaker 1: things that come on people go to Look. I told
Speaker 1: you that's true. And I was in the er trying
Speaker 1: to get my eye fixed and people were in there
Speaker 1: getting eyeglasses in the r What are you What are
Speaker 1: you doing in here? Oh? Okay, it's a first line
Speaker 1: of care. I see what's going on. So I was.
Speaker 1: I am amazed that she goes on air and says
Speaker 1: the things that she says, But maybe I shouldn't be
Speaker 1: by the way. She was also asked about whether Pelosi
Speaker 1: is the is the true leader of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: Here is Here's what she said, sev you are to
Speaker 1: be successful in the general. We don't want to get
Speaker 1: ahead of ourselves. But if you win and you go
Speaker 1: to Congress, there will be a leader of your caucus.
Speaker 1: Her name is Nancy Pelosi. Do you recognize her as
Speaker 1: the leader for the House Democrat? I think absolutely? Right now?
Speaker 1: You know she she is, She is the leader of No, no,
Speaker 1: she I mean um um speaker or rather leader Pelosi
Speaker 1: hopefully um. You know, we'll see. She's a she's the
Speaker 1: current leader of the party, and I think that the
Speaker 1: party absolutely does have its leadership in the House. We
Speaker 1: have our leadership in in the Senate as well. Would
Speaker 1: you back Pelosi the leader and are in the House. Well,
Speaker 1: I think again, we don't want to get ahead of ourselves.
Speaker 1: As you mentioned, I gotta win my race first, but
Speaker 1: we got to take a look at what's going on. Yeah,
Speaker 1: like she's like the leader of the leadership and the
Speaker 1: leadering of like the leader ishness of the House, and
Speaker 1: like like leadering is like really hard for her, and
Speaker 1: so like yeah, like I think that she's going to
Speaker 1: like leaderize things like really, well, who folks not good?
Speaker 1: Not good from the Democrats. I think Producer Mike secretly
Speaker 1: has a soft spot for Acasio Cortez. No no thumbs down, please, dude.
Speaker 1: I feel like I feel like you get her phone now. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I feel like Producer Mike, we get her phone number
Speaker 1: in the bar or not think twice about it. I'm
Speaker 1: just putting that out there. I don't know Producer Mike's
Speaker 1: got game ladies. All right, we are. We've got a
Speaker 1: whole lot more to talk about, including Space Force, Space Force,
Speaker 1: Party Tom excellent Space Force coming up. The essence of
Speaker 1: the American character is to explore new horizons and to
Speaker 1: tame new frontiers. But our destiny beyond the Earth is
Speaker 1: not only a matter of national identity, but a matter
Speaker 1: of national security. Is so important for our military, and
Speaker 1: today we renew the President's call on the Congress of
Speaker 1: the United States to invest in additional eight billion dollars
Speaker 1: in our space security systems over the next five years.
Speaker 1: The men and women in this department have also taken
Speaker 1: historic steps to secure American leadership in space. At the
Speaker 1: direction of Secretary Matters, the Department of Defense is fielding
Speaker 1: a new generation of jam resistant GPS and communication satellites
Speaker 1: and new missile warning satellites that are smaller, tougher, and
Speaker 1: more maneuverable than ever before. You're only a beginning of
Speaker 1: meeting the rising security threats our nation faces in space
Speaker 1: today and in the future. As President Trump has said
Speaker 1: in his words, it is not enough to merely have
Speaker 1: an American presence in space. We must have American dominance
Speaker 1: in space. And so we will Space Force. Yeah, US
Speaker 1: Space Force. Man, it's gonna be amazing. Just when you
Speaker 1: thought the Trump presidents he couldn't be any more awesome,
Speaker 1: He's coming to you with Space Force also known as
Speaker 1: the United States Space Command the Pentagon and veiled this,
Speaker 1: unveiled the support And originally they said that the Space
Speaker 1: Force should be under the purview of the Air Force.
Speaker 1: But people say that the Air Force doesn't pay enough
Speaker 1: attention to outer space because there's no golf courses and
Speaker 1: out of space. Oh sorry, Air Force, just kidding, just kidding.
Speaker 1: I know you're only allowed to make jokes if you're
Speaker 1: actually in the service, uh, but I do hear even
Speaker 1: when I was in I will tell you this, even
Speaker 1: intelligence analysts make jokes about the Air Force. Sometimes we
Speaker 1: don't make jokes about maybe Army or or Marines, but
Speaker 1: occasionally make Air Force base jokes because the basis like, wow,
Speaker 1: you guys have even nicer basis than us intel nerds, dude,
Speaker 1: and we we've looked for where they put the cappuccino
Speaker 1: machine right away. But I digress. So, look, the space
Speaker 1: situation is is important. And I know I'm being a
Speaker 1: little tongue in cheek about the whole thing. But this
Speaker 1: is not this is not something that we can turn
Speaker 1: a blind eye too. This isn't something that isn't gonna
Speaker 1: become a much bigger she going for. We've we've we
Speaker 1: got a lot of communications technology in space. We're using
Speaker 1: satellites for all kinds of comp technology. We've been using
Speaker 1: it for for surveillance purposes. We have the National Geospatial
Speaker 1: Intelligence uh Center. Um, and you know there's there's some
Speaker 1: very clear or the national did I say National Geospatial
Speaker 1: National Ground Intelligence Center that's part of the h Army
Speaker 1: Intelligence Security Command. Am I Am I wrong about the
Speaker 1: geos whoops? National Ground Intelligence Center? All right? Whatever in JIC, Um,
Speaker 1: maybe I got my I got my stuff wrong. Um. Anyway,
Speaker 1: it's gonna get more. It's gonna become a bigger issue.
Speaker 1: It's gonna become something that we're gonna have to be
Speaker 1: looking at going forward. And I like the Trump is
Speaker 1: on it. I like that is, you know, National Geospatial
Speaker 1: Intelligence Agency. Yeah, all right, I thought I was sorry.
Speaker 1: I stopp was like, my gosh, buck, have you been
Speaker 1: out of the intel community that long? You can't even
Speaker 1: can't even remember the names of these different places. The
Speaker 1: truth is right now. Have you offered me if you
Speaker 1: ever be a lot of money to come up with
Speaker 1: all seventeen intel agencies. Off the top of my head,
Speaker 1: I could do it, but I can't guarantee you I
Speaker 1: could do it. I could probably do it, but I'm
Speaker 1: not sure I could guarantee I could do it. And
Speaker 1: there's some stuff like I n R at State Intelligence
Speaker 1: and research like come on, you're not an intel agency,
Speaker 1: get out of here. Subject matter experts at the State
Speaker 1: Department doesn't count anyway. So this is what this is
Speaker 1: what we got going forward. We've got the UM, We've
Speaker 1: got the Space Force. Space Force, I gotta say, is
Speaker 1: something that I'm excited about. We don't really know where
Speaker 1: it's going. We just know that they're gonna be using
Speaker 1: this for a whole bunch of very important plans go
Speaker 1: for and eventually there will be war fighting that takes
Speaker 1: place in space. I think that much is clear, and
Speaker 1: I believe it. I c B M right goes up
Speaker 1: into the upper atmosphere and satellites. Can you know, puop
Speaker 1: you and shoot the I C B. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I'm not a Once you start getting out of the
Speaker 1: realm of counter terrorism, and counterinsurgency. I just read Ton
Speaker 1: Clancy novels like everybody else. I don't really have a
Speaker 1: particular expertise. I think that's come across the way I'm
Speaker 1: talking to this. I'm just like Space Force. I just
Speaker 1: want to be your force in space. I could do
Speaker 1: this theme song, right, producer, Mike. I could do the
Speaker 1: theme song myself like a one I'm a one man
Speaker 1: band here, not just in terms of the radio show,
Speaker 1: but it terms out everything space face. So yeah, man,
Speaker 1: that's what I've That's what I've got going on. Um,
Speaker 1: looking forward to hearing more about the Space Force, looking
Speaker 1: forward to uh, understanding more of what the plan is
Speaker 1: for for Trump and all the rest of them. Space
Speaker 1: Force all the way. That's what Trump put that on Twitter.
Speaker 1: All right, So I'm not just I'm not the only
Speaker 1: one who's excited about this. It's gonna be fantastic. Okay, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know it has to go through Congress, wom wom.
Speaker 1: I get it. Um, but you got Pentagon officials saying
Speaker 1: that they will make this thing happen. So now this
Speaker 1: will also lead us to have a bunch of big
Speaker 1: nerd fights over what the best of the of the
Speaker 1: Space epic series, whether it's Battlestar Galactica, UM, the various
Speaker 1: Star Trek iterations, the various Star Wars movies, which is
Speaker 1: the greatest of all time. I've had friends tell me
Speaker 1: Battlestar Galactica is the greatest show ever, so I I
Speaker 1: gotta watch it. I gotta embrace my inner nerd and
Speaker 1: check out Battlestar Galactica because Space Force. That's right. It's
Speaker 1: Roll called time. Everybody very exciting to get a chance
Speaker 1: to chat with you about your thoughts, your things, all
Speaker 1: of the above. And uh, don't forget to check out
Speaker 1: last week's Freedom Hunt podcast. It was with Raheim Kassam.
Speaker 1: We had a great discussion about lots and lots of stuff.
Speaker 1: Um and yeah, Facebook dot com, slash buck sexon if
Speaker 1: you want to be a part of Roll Call. First
Speaker 1: up we have Roberto who writes Shield Time Buckman, which
Speaker 1: is technically my name. I agree with the guy that
Speaker 1: requested getting the Rising program as a podcast. Not everybody
Speaker 1: has time to stare at that secure, smug looking face.
Speaker 1: That's secure smugg loo can face. Roberto. We are working
Speaker 1: on it, so thank you very much for that. We
Speaker 1: are on it. Next up here is Jason, uh, Ghostbusters
Speaker 1: was clearly the quote. Granted I've seen that movie a
Speaker 1: hundred times, Phillis already got it. Indeed, Phillis beat you
Speaker 1: to the punch, Jason, But thank you for writing in
Speaker 1: none the less. Adam writes, bad producer Mike August eight
Speaker 1: is missing an eye. Our producer, Mike, you're getting called out.
Speaker 1: And let me now say before producer Mike throws something
Speaker 1: at me, which would take a lot of elbow grease
Speaker 1: because he's in New York and I'm in d c
Speaker 1: Uh it was. It's just a tech glitch, has nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Mike or the team here. The I
Speaker 1: Heart platform for some reason didn't upload. Our podcasts should
Speaker 1: be up now if it's from yesterday. If it is not,
Speaker 1: let us know. And also it's why you always can
Speaker 1: have the backup of Stitcher or SoundCloud. J J writes,
Speaker 1: great show, can't call on lives. I have to listen
Speaker 1: to podcast. But talking about the collusion, is there any
Speaker 1: way you can dive into how much money the Mueller
Speaker 1: Probe has spent on this investigation? Well, j J. The
Speaker 1: Mueller Probe spent in the millions, probably over ten millions
Speaker 1: at this point, although I don't know. I I understand
Speaker 1: that it's frustrating for people because it's a waste of
Speaker 1: taxpayer dollars. But I also would note in all in
Speaker 1: all honesty, that complaining about the cost of the Muller
Speaker 1: probe is probably in or even just pointing out the
Speaker 1: cost of Muller probe is not effective as a means
Speaker 1: of combating its excesses. This is a politically driven situation,
Speaker 1: a politically driven investigation, and we should attack it on
Speaker 1: the merits more than on the cost. I think so.
Speaker 1: But if a fair question you ask, I just don't
Speaker 1: know how effective it is. And if it's just a
Speaker 1: curiosity question, then sure. If it's say, hey, this costs
Speaker 1: a lot, We're gonna have a trillion dollar deficit next year, folks,
Speaker 1: I don't think six million dollars is gonna matter all
Speaker 1: that or ten million dollars gonna matter all that much
Speaker 1: to it erin right, Oh my god, buck so easy.
Speaker 1: Now stay close, stay close. That's right, it is Ghostbusters.
Speaker 1: I know exactly what to do. That's stay close, stay close,
Speaker 1: so exactly as I say, You're ready, ready, get never
Speaker 1: gets old. Ghostbusters a truly truly timeless classic of American cinema. Okay, now,
Speaker 1: who do we have here? Wayne? Wayne is also letting
Speaker 1: you know the the August eighth show did not post
Speaker 1: to I Heart Radio. But I'm er Wayne, I'm sorry
Speaker 1: about that. I don't know what's going on with I Heart.
Speaker 1: I don't know why it does not upload our podcast,
Speaker 1: and we will fix it. But always remember you can
Speaker 1: go on iTunes, or you can go on um stitcher
Speaker 1: dot com and the show posts there as well. Bruce, right,
Speaker 1: your show has rapidly become among my favorites. When you
Speaker 1: start to tell liberals that call in to shut the
Speaker 1: hell up, then you will have caught up to my favorite. Okay, Bruce,
Speaker 1: A little bit different style for me, but thank you
Speaker 1: very much for our writing in. Nonetheless, I do appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Gentry whoa gentry? Oh here we go? Um? But enjoining
Speaker 1: the new show, not so sure about your co host,
Speaker 1: but she seems pleasant enough. I thought I would just
Speaker 1: ask a quick question. I don't think i've heard you
Speaker 1: addressed yet. Why are the Democrats losing their minds about
Speaker 1: the Trump Tower meeting when the entire Russian collusion delusion
Speaker 1: hinges upon information obtained from a foreign national if getting
Speaker 1: info from a foreign national is this huge problem. Do
Speaker 1: they not realize what the dossier is or do they
Speaker 1: think that we're just also stupid that we forgot they
Speaker 1: paid a brit to get supposed Russian intel on the
Speaker 1: president Shields High Gentry, Uh, Gentry, you're you're correct? Where's it?
Speaker 1: Gentry Gentry? You are correct, sir. And that's why they
Speaker 1: were going to have to back off this narrative, you see,
Speaker 1: that ran with it until we came up with the truth,
Speaker 1: which was the only effective counter narrative that was needed here.
Speaker 1: You can't think that getting information from foreign source is
Speaker 1: okay for one candidate but not okay for the other.
Speaker 1: It does not work that way. Um and uh mr
Speaker 1: ms to gentry Gentry, thank you so much. William is
Speaker 1: next here. Uh, your Navy seal guy Brandon is absolutely correct.
Speaker 1: In combat, I always felt the fear afterwards. I guess
Speaker 1: the adrenaline took over during the action. I did have
Speaker 1: good friends that frozen fear during a firefight. I think
Speaker 1: playing football, martial arts, wrestling, and swimming in the ocean
Speaker 1: as a kid helped me, and Daddy taught me to
Speaker 1: always throw the first punch. I'm afraid of heights, yet
Speaker 1: I'm airborne. I'm afraid of spiders and all flying, stinging
Speaker 1: insects and snakes, but I crawl under my house to
Speaker 1: fix things. Conquering fear, You conquered fear, you have a show.
Speaker 1: My biggest fear is public speaking, and and now I
Speaker 1: do it every day. Fear is the greatest enemy. Facing
Speaker 1: fear is what makes you an adult. It makes you
Speaker 1: a great dad or mom, it makes you a great
Speaker 1: business person. Well, William, that's a that's a really inspired
Speaker 1: and powerful note from you, So thank you so much
Speaker 1: for sending that into us here in the Hut. And yeah,
Speaker 1: I look, I've told you many times before that I'm
Speaker 1: out a nationally syndicated radio host who has who has been,
Speaker 1: at different times given the biggest radio platforms in the
Speaker 1: country for three hours at a time. Rush and Hannity
Speaker 1: and Sean I'm sorry, and Glenn, Shan and Hanny are
Speaker 1: the same person. Uh, but I'm somebody who had a
Speaker 1: speech impediment growing up. So overcoming your fears is a
Speaker 1: greatly empowering thing. Overcoming fear is something that will put
Speaker 1: you in good stead for well, once you start doing it,
Speaker 1: I think you want to do it more. And William
Speaker 1: thank you for your service and thank you very much
Speaker 1: for writing in Monica. Right, Hey Buck, great show. Gun
Speaker 1: violence in Chicago. The left says the violence there is
Speaker 1: due to adjacent cities and counties not having enough gun laws.
Speaker 1: Of course, it is because of not enough control. Shields High, Yes, Monica,
Speaker 1: I know. So you know in a city where guns
Speaker 1: are banned, they say it's because of lacks gun laws
Speaker 1: in surrounding counties. But in places like in entire states
Speaker 1: like Vermont, for example, that have very lax gun laws,
Speaker 1: there's almost no crime. Why is that? Why is Vermont
Speaker 1: such an outlier? It's not just Vermont. There are some
Speaker 1: other states you could point to as well. But if
Speaker 1: it really is about the guns on gun control, why
Speaker 1: are there states that have retive, relatively speaking, lacks gun
Speaker 1: restrictions and very very few acts of violence. The left
Speaker 1: does not have answers for this, my friends. They don't
Speaker 1: even pretend to have answers for it. Kyle, next up here,
Speaker 1: Hey Bucks, Shields High. I don't recall you hitting on
Speaker 1: this specific angle, but do you suppose that the current
Speaker 1: push by the left for free college is more of
Speaker 1: an effort of massive indoctrination than just their usual half
Speaker 1: baked wouldn't it be nice, if impractical policy. Think about it,
Speaker 1: if you were offered free college, would you ever turn
Speaker 1: that down? In of a trade school or on the
Speaker 1: job training. It seems to me they have a specific
Speaker 1: strategy in brainwashing countless more future collegiates. Is there any
Speaker 1: merit in this observation? Thanks from Kyle near Seattle. Kyle,
Speaker 1: I think you're onto something. I think that you're actually
Speaker 1: making a various jew point here. Um, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's a primary reason. I do think that they're just
Speaker 1: the free stuff crowd really does just want free stuff.
Speaker 1: But I also believe that if you were to um
Speaker 1: ask them, would they prefer to have a lot of
Speaker 1: people in four year, very expensive undergraduate programs funded by
Speaker 1: the state. The answers, of course yes, because college campuses
Speaker 1: are in fact largely indoctrination centers for left wing ideology
Speaker 1: in this country, the same way that public schools have
Speaker 1: been for a long time, although not as much because
Speaker 1: of the local control of some public schools. But the
Speaker 1: Department of Education has been pushing leftist lines for a very,
Speaker 1: very a long time. So I think you're making a
Speaker 1: very good point, and without my friends, I'm gonna close
Speaker 1: up the Freedom Hut for this episode. Please do share
Speaker 1: it with a friend. The more you guys can do
Speaker 1: to spread this show by word of mouth, the more
Speaker 1: successful and the more we will continue to to grow.
Speaker 1: So that the biggest compliment you can give is to say, hey,
Speaker 1: you should check out this podcast by this guy Buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: I think you'd really enjoy it. So those of you
Speaker 1: who have a chance to do that, I do appreciate it.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. Tomorrow we're gonna have a freestyle Friday.
Speaker 1: Going to be a fantastic show and uh, I'm looking
Speaker 1: forward to it already, teams, So until then, She'll tie.
Speaker 1: When you're hiring somebody for your business or leasing out
Speaker 1: of property that you own, you've got to make sure
Speaker 1: that the people that are coming into your world have
Speaker 1: clean criminal background history, have a clean employment history, and
Speaker 1: also are going to bring all the skills and all
Speaker 1: the things to you that they say that they will. Right,
Speaker 1: you need somebody that can check up on all that,
Speaker 1: do the background investigation and vetting work. Global Verification at
Speaker 1: Work is your answer. Global Verification is the only dual
Speaker 1: certified veteran owned background investigation and vetting company. It is
Speaker 1: headquartered in Chicago and the risk mitigation experts will work
Speaker 1: with companies of any size. Folks, whether you're a start
Speaker 1: up all the way up to a fortune one company,
Speaker 1: give them a call eight seven seven six nine five
Speaker 1: nine eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine,
Speaker 1: or go to my g VN dot com. That's m
Speaker 1: y g v N dot com. Global Verification Network. Leave
Speaker 1: no stone unturned