Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom Hunt. Former anti Trump FBI
Speaker 1: lawyer Lisa Page plays the world's smallest violin designated cartels
Speaker 1: as terrorist organizations. Let's take a ride on the Biden
Speaker 1: Malarkey Express. Judiciary hearing on impeachment coming up this week. Also,
Speaker 1: Newsweek fired a reporter for an anti Trump story the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court. Here's an interesting guncase and much more coming up.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake America, You're a great American Again The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. CIA analysts, remember no, Welcome to
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. Everybody. If you had a fantastic Thanksgiving holiday,
Speaker 1: I know I did, hate a whole lot. You got
Speaker 1: to be careful when you get into the pre main
Speaker 1: meal snacks like my family always does really good meat
Speaker 1: and cheese, board and different dips and things you can
Speaker 1: put away. You can put away a thousand calories just
Speaker 1: on cheese and salami easily if you're not careful. I
Speaker 1: was not careful. So here I am stumbling, waddling in
Speaker 1: and out of the Freedom Hunt. But I will get back,
Speaker 1: get back into a healthier mode. I'm sure all if
Speaker 1: you will too, but it was a great time. I
Speaker 1: trust you all are back rested and ready ready to
Speaker 1: go back into the breach. And so here we go
Speaker 1: because I haven't seen you in a few days, so
Speaker 1: I feel like there's there's no time for me to
Speaker 1: spend a stand on ceremony. We'll do that in the
Speaker 1: third hour. It's what we tend to do. Big stuff
Speaker 1: coming up this week. It's going to be quite interesting,
Speaker 1: a bit of a sprint in the political world from
Speaker 1: here until Christmas Day. Usually things down this time of year,
Speaker 1: but there is a timeline that cannot be ignored, a
Speaker 1: timeline that involves impeachment. And also, as we know, unless
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice changes its mind once again, there
Speaker 1: will be a release of the Inspector General's report on
Speaker 1: FISA abuse next week, which I think will prove right
Speaker 1: people like me all along, But it won't be satisfying
Speaker 1: if you're waiting for this to be the moment that
Speaker 1: people get their come upance. If you think that there
Speaker 1: will be justice delivered out because of this, I think
Speaker 1: you're likely to be disappointed. There'll just be some bureaucrats
Speaker 1: about how maybe it was unprofessional to do this, or
Speaker 1: it was a little sloppy to do that, But no
Speaker 1: one's going to say that this is an egregious violation
Speaker 1: of FBI protocols that could be not just a fireble offense,
Speaker 1: but perhaps even a prosecutable one, because these institutions, these bureaucracies,
Speaker 1: always view themselves as players in this drama, and they
Speaker 1: want to protect their own perks, their prerogatives. They want
Speaker 1: to make sure that the institution lives on beyond the
Speaker 1: mouthfeesians of any one individual, any group of individuals. So
Speaker 1: this is where we are now. I just want to
Speaker 1: be clear on the That's my prediction insofar as I'm
Speaker 1: willing to make a prediction about this. As you know,
Speaker 1: one of my things I'm most certain of is that
Speaker 1: nobody can predict the future. But then you have a
Speaker 1: piece courtesy of the Daily Beast and anti Trump left
Speaker 1: wing garbage heap that you have to wonder, why does
Speaker 1: it even exist? What is the purpose of the Daily Beast?
Speaker 1: As if we don't have enough left wing liberal nonsense
Speaker 1: from The New York Times, The Washington Post, from Slate
Speaker 1: dot com, Huffington Huffington Post, Newsweek, We'll talk about Newsweek later,
Speaker 1: I can't. I can sit here just keep rattling off
Speaker 1: different sites, never mind the true commie stuff like the Nation.
Speaker 1: You have all this left wing garbage being pedled, and
Speaker 1: yet the Daily Beet still exists. And I suppose, I
Speaker 1: suppose it's helpful to be I think they're owned by
Speaker 1: Barry Diller and i AC so you get a billionaire's
Speaker 1: got a lot of money, and that means that you
Speaker 1: can say the same stuff that all the other websites
Speaker 1: run and owned by billionaires who are liberals get to do.
Speaker 1: But the Daily Bees comes out with this piece. Lisa
Speaker 1: Page speaks. She says, there's no fathomable way I have
Speaker 1: committed any crime at all. Striking back is the subheadline here,
Speaker 1: striking back, And this entire piece is supposed to bring
Speaker 1: you to one conclusion that Lisa Page is a victim. Now,
Speaker 1: let's take a moment. Let's go back in time. Shelby
Speaker 1: Lisa Page was a federal prosecutor who worked for the
Speaker 1: worked with the FBI at a very senior level, and
Speaker 1: she exchanged a series of text messages with Peter Struck,
Speaker 1: who was a bizarre individual. If you remember his testimony
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill and also rapidly anti Trump, and they
Speaker 1: on official FBI devices, said all kinds of things about
Speaker 1: how Trump voters were smelly, and that Trump is an
Speaker 1: idiot and he's so blanking stupid, and even went so
Speaker 1: far as to speak of an insurance policy against the president,
Speaker 1: the would be president of the United States, President Donald Trump,
Speaker 1: and at one point wrote that this is in text
Speaker 1: message and this is a matter of record, This is
Speaker 1: not a matter of speculation. Will stop it. That was
Speaker 1: what he said to her in order to calm her
Speaker 1: down at the prospect of Trump winning the election. Now,
Speaker 1: for people in the FBI to have said this on
Speaker 1: official devices would be remarkably stupid, no matter what their
Speaker 1: roles in the FBI. For people who are also engaged
Speaker 1: in an extramarital affair, as these two individuals as we
Speaker 1: know were at the time, is also reckless, deeply stupid,
Speaker 1: and makes you think that these people, Remember, these are
Speaker 1: very senior individuals in the FBI. These are not just
Speaker 1: run of them FBI agents. They're working at headquarters in DC,
Speaker 1: and I guess they figured the rules don't really apply
Speaker 1: to them. But when you add on top of all
Speaker 1: of that that these individuals were deeply and dare I
Speaker 1: say intimately sorry involved in investigating President Trump's campaign at
Speaker 1: the time. When you think about how it was of
Speaker 1: the thousands and thousands of FBI agents, it was Peter
Speaker 1: Struck who was involved not just in the Papadopoulos case,
Speaker 1: but all on the Hillary Clinton email case at least
Speaker 1: a page as well, that it was Peter Struck who
Speaker 1: went in to interview General Flynn during the transition from
Speaker 1: the Obama administration of the Trump administration, and out of
Speaker 1: that what seemed to be a cordial exchange between colleagues,
Speaker 1: you had a federal felony prosecution of a thirty year
Speaker 1: veteran of the United States military and incoming national security advisor.
Speaker 1: My friends, that seems like quite a series of coincidences,
Speaker 1: doesn't It just so happens that these two individuals who
Speaker 1: no question hate Trump and think that he's a threat
Speaker 1: to the republic, are also involved in decision making at
Speaker 1: the highest level that investing that has to do with
Speaker 1: investigating the president or the candidate, depending on the part
Speaker 1: of the timeline we're looking at here, that they hated
Speaker 1: so very much, and now the media is trying to
Speaker 1: prepare the narrative before the Inspector General port that Lisa
Speaker 1: Page is a victim and that every time Trump tweets
Speaker 1: about her it's like a gut punch. Let's just remember this,
Speaker 1: Lisa Page was a federal prosecutor for years. She put
Speaker 1: people in prison. I'm sure in some circumstances it was
Speaker 1: a question of judgment, and she thought that her judgment
Speaker 1: was good enough to ruin someone else's life for perhaps
Speaker 1: a relatively minor infraction. To those who say Lisa Page
Speaker 1: is a victim, which, as we know, the favorite posture
Speaker 1: for the left to try to use your decency, use
Speaker 1: your sense of mercy and kindness against you to win
Speaker 1: political points. Oh look at this poor person. Sure she
Speaker 1: was involved in a deep state coop against Trump, but
Speaker 1: it's very sad what has happened to her? An just
Speaker 1: another honorable public servant caught up in Trump's meanness. That's
Speaker 1: the storyline you're supposed to hear. But I doubt Lisa
Speaker 1: Paige shed any tears for General Michael Flynn when he
Speaker 1: was ruined financially, ruined professionally, and still facing the possibility
Speaker 1: of incarceration for a non crime for nothing. For the
Speaker 1: perception of a lack of candor and a conversation that
Speaker 1: didn't matter, that wasn't illegal, that he thought was with colleagues.
Speaker 1: I mean, how far away is the FBI really from
Speaker 1: sitting down with General Flynn back in the day and saying, hey,
Speaker 1: you know, what did you What was your golf game
Speaker 1: last weekend? Oh? You know I was six over par up.
Speaker 1: You were actually ten over par Let's send you to prison.
Speaker 1: You should be embarrassed. The FB on the DJ should
Speaker 1: be embarrassed about what they continue to do. These federal
Speaker 1: prosectors continue to General Flynn. The claim they make is
Speaker 1: that even though there's more exculpatory evidence than was initially
Speaker 1: presented to Flynn as part of the process, it shouldn't
Speaker 1: matter because he signed a deal saying sorry, if more
Speaker 1: information comes out, if you can prove your innocent later,
Speaker 1: General Flynn, that's too bad for you. The process decides
Speaker 1: that you're done. I don't think Lisa Page is losing
Speaker 1: any sleep about that. I don't think she's concerned about
Speaker 1: the other people caught up in the probe that was
Speaker 1: really started in large part by the machinations of Lisa Page,
Speaker 1: Peter Struck, Andy McCabe, acting FBI Director James Coomy. Remember,
Speaker 1: these are people that hold Comey in high regard. Still,
Speaker 1: she's asked in this article about it. What was it
Speaker 1: like the day that James Comey America's last honorable, decent
Speaker 1: public servant. And the guy's a lanky, sanctimonious weirdo, completely
Speaker 1: lacking in any sense of who he really is, any
Speaker 1: sense of introspection, really does believe his own his own nonsense.
Speaker 1: She thought that it was a terrible day the day
Speaker 1: that Comy got fired. These were people that were very
Speaker 1: high up in the fbon, the DJ drunk on power,
Speaker 1: who thought they knew better than the American voters. These
Speaker 1: are people who have been told that the system that
Speaker 1: they're a part of, this bureaucracy, the unelected fourth branch
Speaker 1: of government, is full of the best and the brightest,
Speaker 1: and then anybody who would challenge that or question that
Speaker 1: is a threat, a threat not just to their own
Speaker 1: sense of how awesome they are, but a threat to
Speaker 1: the republic itself. They are the guardians, you see, this
Speaker 1: is the praetorian guard of not the presidency, but of America. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: none of that is true, and now they are scrambling
Speaker 1: to make sure that the left wing dominance in the
Speaker 1: media is enough that the truth won't come out here,
Speaker 1: really people, it won't seep in that you had a
Speaker 1: number of individuals with the power to do so, who
Speaker 1: I would note were in fact in the executive branch
Speaker 1: when President Obama was calling the shots. It was in
Speaker 1: fact Obama's FBI director. They can tell us all about
Speaker 1: how nonpartisan they are, but partisan positions change. People go
Speaker 1: from Democrat to a Republican and back. People decide that
Speaker 1: they have radicalized, even within our own politics. So what
Speaker 1: somebody was back in the year two thousand doesn't really
Speaker 1: matter to me in the twenty sixteen election, does it.
Speaker 1: But they're going to tell us that she's just a victim,
Speaker 1: that she did nothing wrong, that there's nothing to see here.
Speaker 1: That's a problem because we already have the Inspector General
Speaker 1: writing in twenty eighteen that both Page and Struck caused damage.
Speaker 1: That quote goes to the heart of the FBI's reputation
Speaker 1: for neutral fact finding and political independence. This was the
Speaker 1: Inspector General of the FBI on related but different issues.
Speaker 1: Then you see what her defense is going to be,
Speaker 1: and her defenders who are going to rush to her
Speaker 1: side on this in the media because it all goes
Speaker 1: to the heart of the Russia collusion nonsense. Oh, there
Speaker 1: is all these rumors really about Trump working with the Russians,
Speaker 1: colluding with the Russians to seal the twenty sixteen election.
Speaker 1: They're going to say that she didn't do anything illegal. Well,
Speaker 1: that may be true. I don't believe that they're going
Speaker 1: to find that that she should be prosecuted for anything.
Speaker 1: But what you have to remember is the abuse of
Speaker 1: power something Democrats like to talk about a lot these days.
Speaker 1: The abuse of power is often something that is not illegal.
Speaker 1: There's a reason why judges recused themselves. There's a reason
Speaker 1: why the appearance of corruption for elected members of our
Speaker 1: government is enough for them to have to take action.
Speaker 1: Because this is all premised on the belief of good
Speaker 1: faith that you are conducting your job, you are obeying
Speaker 1: the laws as a person who does not have ulterior motives,
Speaker 1: but who is working for the same purpose as the
Speaker 1: American people, as everyone else, that there is a good
Speaker 1: faith exercise of one's duties. That, my friends, is where
Speaker 1: the FBI has fallen apart. Here, that is where the
Speaker 1: reputational damage is. You would have to be an imbecile
Speaker 1: to think that it doesn't matter, that we shouldn't give
Speaker 1: any consideration to the fact that the most powerful people
Speaker 1: in the Federal Bureau of Investigation were almost psychotically anti
Speaker 1: Trump during the twenty sixteen election, and that there were
Speaker 1: investigations opened on flimsy pretext of rumors here and rumors
Speaker 1: there and press without any consideration whatsoever about what this
Speaker 1: would do if and when the American people found out
Speaker 1: about what was going on here. We already know that
Speaker 1: what a Lisa Page did was wrong. We already in
Speaker 1: a Lisa Page has ethical problems. That's established, same thing
Speaker 1: with Peter Struck, who was fired by the way, from
Speaker 1: the FBI, you were a call. But they want to
Speaker 1: try to get ahead of this. They want to create
Speaker 1: an ulterior, an alternative rather narrative. They want to create
Speaker 1: a storyline that the people that still believe, even after
Speaker 1: the Muller pro that there was Russia collusion, because a
Speaker 1: lot of liberals do that still believe that Trump should
Speaker 1: have been prosecuted for obstruction and the emoluments clause and
Speaker 1: the Stormy Daniels payoff, and they just go to the
Speaker 1: list all these things that never go anywhere and where
Speaker 1: the facts don't end up being on the side of
Speaker 1: the anti Trump loons, they just cling to it. They
Speaker 1: stick with the same narrative. They never change their minds
Speaker 1: because ultimately, this isn't about Trump breaking the law. This
Speaker 1: is about the fact that people don't like this president
Speaker 1: and will find a way to justify that mindset no
Speaker 1: matter what else is going on in the world, no
Speaker 1: matter what the facts may say, and no matter what
Speaker 1: the damage really is to a governing system we have
Speaker 1: that has to operate in good faith or else it
Speaker 1: all does start to crumble. Remember that, as Lisa Page
Speaker 1: is crying big tears and playing the world's smallest violin
Speaker 1: for you in the week ahead, the Democrats, the radical
Speaker 1: left Democrats to do. Let the Democrats decided what I'm
Speaker 1: going to data shut up a year ago that when
Speaker 1: I'm going to NATO. That was the exact time. This
Speaker 1: is one of the most important journeys that we make
Speaker 1: this president, and for them to be doing this and
Speaker 1: saying this and putting an apture on the table, which
Speaker 1: is a hope to start off with. If you know this.
Speaker 1: There was breaking news today the Ukrainian president came out
Speaker 1: and sit very strongly. The President drumpted absolutely nothing wrong.
Speaker 1: That could the case over. But he just came out
Speaker 1: a little while ago and he said President jumpted absolutely
Speaker 1: nothing wrong and that should end everything. But it will
Speaker 1: never edit because they want to do what they want
Speaker 1: to do. They're getting killed in their own district. I
Speaker 1: think it's going to be a tremendous boons for the Republicans.
Speaker 1: Republicans have never ever been so committed as they are
Speaker 1: right now and so united, So it's really a great
Speaker 1: thing in some ways, but in other ways, it's a distrace.
Speaker 1: It's a strange I love when the President just calls
Speaker 1: it out like this. By the way, this is one
Speaker 1: of the reasons why I think this president deserves so
Speaker 1: much support and even leeway in areas where he's not
Speaker 1: doing things exactly what I want him to. You need
Speaker 1: a president who's going to just tell it like it
Speaker 1: is when he's faced with this leftist assault, which is
Speaker 1: what's going on right now. This impeachment is a farce.
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous. Oh you have Nancy Pelosi saying that they're
Speaker 1: trying to remove Trump and it's they're prayerfully, Oh we're
Speaker 1: prayerful about this. We're so sad. It's with a heavy heart.
Speaker 1: Nobody believes that crap, No, not even Nancy Pelosi believes it.
Speaker 1: They've been preparing to do an impeachment against this president
Speaker 1: from the very beginning because they just cannot stand this guy.
Speaker 1: They hate him, They absolutely hate him. And that's where
Speaker 1: this is, that's what this all comes from. So they're
Speaker 1: make believe here about how this is not what they
Speaker 1: want to do. They've wanted to do this all along,
Speaker 1: but it's not going the way that they've been planning.
Speaker 1: That much is for sure. Look, there's no question that
Speaker 1: Democrats are scrambling right now to resurrect this impeachment as
Speaker 1: a process that is going to benefit them in twenty twenty.
Speaker 1: There are real concerns they haven't changed anybody's mind on
Speaker 1: this one. Sure, the Democrat base, the left wing base,
Speaker 1: might like this, that theatricts of Trump is the worst.
Speaker 1: And Ukraine. You know, we found out about Ukraine policy
Speaker 1: as a result of these hearings that President Trump is
Speaker 1: a far better friend to Ukraine than his predecessor, Barack
Speaker 1: Obama was. That President Trump was willing to do something
Speaker 1: that had greater geopolitical risk and was in fact more
Speaker 1: of a slap in the face to putin directly giving arms,
Speaker 1: specifically Javelin anti tank missiles to the Ukrainian military. That
Speaker 1: Trump did all of that and Barack Obama would not
Speaker 1: should tell you everything you need to know about the
Speaker 1: reality of these claim aimes that Trump is horrible and
Speaker 1: he left the Ukrainians they couldn't fight, they couldn't do anything. No,
Speaker 1: Trump was the one who helped them. Obama was the
Speaker 1: one who was too whimpy to do anything about this.
Speaker 1: Let's just look at what the facts of the case are.
Speaker 1: The aid money did get released. Presidents are allowed to
Speaker 1: ask counterparts for information that deals with US national security,
Speaker 1: for information that goes to the heart of the US
Speaker 1: justice system. You know, if there was anything going on
Speaker 1: with election meddling in Ukraine, why not ask you know,
Speaker 1: or if you have any concern about that, why not
Speaker 1: ask Ukrainians where they can find out. That's completely legitimate.
Speaker 1: I've had a different view on this, as you know,
Speaker 1: even from any conservatives all along. But as this plays out,
Speaker 1: this impeachment process. Wednesday, we're going to have open hearings
Speaker 1: in the House Judiciary Committee. Oh well, this is really
Speaker 1: it is really going to be fascinating, isn't it. Here's
Speaker 1: what you should know about this right off the bat.
Speaker 1: They are doing this entire for the purposes of politics,
Speaker 1: and all along telling you that politics plays no role.
Speaker 1: This is the fundamental this is the foundational lie the
Speaker 1: Democrats tell on impeachment. They're dressing it up there, They're putting,
Speaker 1: you know, the special accoutrement. I felt like saying something
Speaker 1: a little French acu trement messieurs of a legal proceeding
Speaker 1: so that it has this addition of gravitas. Now I'm
Speaker 1: going with Latin. I figure, why not mix in some
Speaker 1: foreign languages right now. But they want that addition of
Speaker 1: gravitass from the perception of this as a legal proceeding
Speaker 1: when it's entirely political. They're making up as they go along,
Speaker 1: making it up the whole way. Remember this, my friends.
Speaker 1: In both the lead up to what would have been
Speaker 1: the impeachment of Richard Nixon never forget that one Nixon
Speaker 1: was not impeached, and the impeachment process of Bill Clinton,
Speaker 1: there was independent counsel. There were people brought in outside
Speaker 1: of elected politicians who were supposed to be fact finders.
Speaker 1: That hasn't happened in this process. No. In fact, if anything,
Speaker 1: what Pelosi and Schiff learned is that when you have
Speaker 1: anybody that's doing any fact finding and you can't control
Speaker 1: what facts are at leased and what facts aren't, doesn't
Speaker 1: work out the way you want, ie the Muller probe
Speaker 1: or really the Weissmann probe with Mueller plopped on top
Speaker 1: as a figurehead. The Democrats desperate to take down Trump,
Speaker 1: given full authority and power to do so, I might add,
Speaker 1: and yet they didn't come up with the goods. They
Speaker 1: didn't have the stuff. You had to ask yourself at
Speaker 1: some point the Democrats ever learned the lesson. No, of
Speaker 1: course not, because there's no lesson for them to learn,
Speaker 1: because it's never about Trump's wrongdoing. It's about they hate him.
Speaker 1: They hate the way that he speaks to them. They
Speaker 1: hate that he calls out the lackeys in the media
Speaker 1: who have been doing the bidding of the establishment of
Speaker 1: both Republics and Democrats for decades. They hate it. How
Speaker 1: dare he? These people will never forget this have very
Speaker 1: large and fragile egos, you know, the Peloses and the
Speaker 1: h you know the Stephanopolis Is and the Anderson Coopers
Speaker 1: and the the Shifts and the you know, go to
Speaker 1: that and the Schumers. It very fragile egos. You're not
Speaker 1: you're not allowed. You're not allowed to have somebody with
Speaker 1: a really large megaphone criticize that, ridicule, mock them. This
Speaker 1: is what Trump has been willing to do. This is
Speaker 1: what other people before him, other Republicans, have shied away from.
Speaker 1: Oh no, that's that's too rough. We can't. We can't
Speaker 1: make fun of anybody that's not nice. We won't. We
Speaker 1: can't do that. No, mockery and ridicule are effective weapons,
Speaker 1: weapons that are deployed against the right, against conservatives all
Speaker 1: the time. Maybe Trump learned from his many, many years
Speaker 1: of getting attention in and battling it out in the
Speaker 1: tabloids that when you've got one side that's just throwing
Speaker 1: punches wherever they can, and you want to try to
Speaker 1: play it all mice and the other, guess what you're
Speaker 1: gonna lose. You're gonna lose. But the fact that Trump
Speaker 1: will mock them, make fun of him, that is another
Speaker 1: thing that they cannot a bide. Sure, he's a threat
Speaker 1: to the power structure, that they've been, in many cases
Speaker 1: leeching off of for a long time. Look at Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: you know, I mean, sure, maybe he made me the
Speaker 1: guy impregnated an exotic dancer and wherever it was, And
Speaker 1: you're sure maybe the guy was smoking crack at the
Speaker 1: shadiest strip club in DC because I used to walk
Speaker 1: past it every day on my way to work. It's
Speaker 1: not a place you'd want to hang out. Or maybe
Speaker 1: he was just in there in that strip club reading
Speaker 1: up on how to more efficiently deployed resources within the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian natural gas industry. We don't know who are we
Speaker 1: to judge? And yet Pelosi and Chif and Schumer and
Speaker 1: all the rest of them view Trump as a threat
Speaker 1: to their egos and to their privileges, and to their
Speaker 1: power and to the ability to make millions and millions
Speaker 1: of dollars somehow, just by being in politics, we know
Speaker 1: what their salaries are. Their salaries are not the salaries
Speaker 1: of millionaires. How do they make all of this money?
Speaker 1: How do they become so rich? Oh, you start to
Speaker 1: scratch the surface on that, and they get very upset,
Speaker 1: don't they they do. Indeed, so now we have this
Speaker 1: Judiciary Committee gathering on Wednesday. It's all about politics. It
Speaker 1: has been about politics the entire time, and they're going
Speaker 1: to tell us it's about something else. The sanctity of
Speaker 1: our republic, defending our rights as Americans, and our institutions. Oh,
Speaker 1: we'll get more into institutions later. They talk so much
Speaker 1: about them, and yet they're willing to dispense with them
Speaker 1: the moment they are inconvenient. We should create a list,
Speaker 1: a list of minding characteristics of liberals, progressives. Dare I
Speaker 1: say socialist today in America? Hypocrisy that would certainly be
Speaker 1: very very high up. Sanctimony that would be very high
Speaker 1: on the list. Viciousness, I think increasingly you could argue
Speaker 1: should be very high on that list. Duplicitousness, a belief
Speaker 1: in two sets of rules, one for them and one
Speaker 1: for everybody else. I guess that's just another way of
Speaker 1: saying hypocrisy. But they talk about the institutions, they need
Speaker 1: to protect them, and then they lie to us about
Speaker 1: what they're doing all along. They are claiming right now
Speaker 1: that there is obstruction. Here's a perfect example. You have
Speaker 1: Amy Klobishar is bashing the White House for not playing
Speaker 1: along with this socialist kabuki theater going on on Capitol Hill.
Speaker 1: Please play clips seventeen Producer Brandon, You always like to
Speaker 1: hear more testimony, and maybe that will happen. But I
Speaker 1: think the point that Adam Schiff has made is you
Speaker 1: don't want to allow the administration to play ropaedope with
Speaker 1: the courts and have this delayed and delayed and delay.
Speaker 1: They have to make a decision and they're going to
Speaker 1: move forward. Having additional witnesses is always helpful, and that
Speaker 1: may the President claims he wants everyone to testify, So
Speaker 1: why doesn't he let them testimate? That's why won't he
Speaker 1: just let us harass all of his employees break executive privilege?
Speaker 1: You see, he knows. The President understands what goes on here.
Speaker 1: What would happen if he offered up somebody, even from
Speaker 1: the White House. And by the way, I agree with him,
Speaker 1: he should not. He should not put any stamp of
Speaker 1: approval on this whatsoever. This process is a sham, just
Speaker 1: as the Muller prope was a sham. He's correct when
Speaker 1: he calls it a hoax. Don't don't get it twisted.
Speaker 1: Don't get confused on this. Just based on the fact
Speaker 1: that the media is so desperate because we've seen who
Speaker 1: they are that has been completely exposed for the American people,
Speaker 1: those who are paying attention to being honest. These people
Speaker 1: are partisans, they're activists. Go down. All the major network
Speaker 1: except for Fox, all the major newspapers. They all think
Speaker 1: the same way, they all believe the same things, and
Speaker 1: they've made the same ethical decisions, or should I say,
Speaker 1: they've embraced the same level of dishonest and unethical behavior,
Speaker 1: all because it's helpful for them to try to take
Speaker 1: down Trump. But she says, why won't they testify? Well,
Speaker 1: the moment that they go on Capitol and Hill and
Speaker 1: they say, sorry, that's under executive privilege, and then they
Speaker 1: subpoena more documents. Oh, then that just becomes oh, we
Speaker 1: know what obstruction. If you fight back against the Kafka
Speaker 1: ask efforts to destroy you, you are obstructing. This would
Speaker 1: be like the claim that would be made, well, if
Speaker 1: you ask for a lawyer, you must be guilty. Some
Speaker 1: people will say that, No, just answer all of law
Speaker 1: enforcement's questions. Yeah, you know, like General Flynn. Just answer
Speaker 1: the questions. These people you can trust them. They're operating
Speaker 1: in good faith. They don't have an agenda. Our entire
Speaker 1: system of government, the founders, the vision, all of it
Speaker 1: was based upon competing interests within the government apparatus, limiting
Speaker 1: the powers of the government apparatus, and making sure that
Speaker 1: there would be a balance of powers within it, limit
Speaker 1: what they can do, and make sure that there are
Speaker 1: forces opposing each other within the government so that there's
Speaker 1: not too much consolidation in any one area. Because power
Speaker 1: corrupts people. Power is a seductive it is also corrosive.
Speaker 1: Just to ask Lisa Page, just ask Struck and McCabe
Speaker 1: and Komey and Brennan, and who knows how many other
Speaker 1: senior officials of the Obama administration who thought that they
Speaker 1: were heroes, you see, heroes to this country because of
Speaker 1: what they were willing to do, how they're willing to
Speaker 1: abuse the powers they had to stop Trump from getting elected.
Speaker 1: It should be noted you know who else was quite
Speaker 1: certain that he would be viewed as a hero by
Speaker 1: his country. T Benne mcdarnold. He was sure of it,
Speaker 1: by the way, and there was a case to be
Speaker 1: made by those who believe that America should not be independent. Well,
Speaker 1: he would have ended the war. If you do is
Speaker 1: transfer West Point, and it all think of all the
Speaker 1: lives saved. But he betrayed, He betrayed his people, he
Speaker 1: betrayed his oath, something greater than just the short term
Speaker 1: purposes of his own glory. And now we all know
Speaker 1: how we feel about good old Benedict, don't we. Impeachment
Speaker 1: of a president is an undoing of a national election.
Speaker 1: And one of the reasons we all feel so angry
Speaker 1: about what they are doing is that they are ripping
Speaker 1: from us. They are ripping us under our votes. They
Speaker 1: are telling us that our votes don't count, that the
Speaker 1: election must be set aside. What happened? That was Jerry
Speaker 1: Nadler back in the Clinton impeachment days. I thought, hold on,
Speaker 1: it's like a Jerry Nadler's deal in Congress. And he's
Speaker 1: a big advocate for impeaching Trump and also for wearing
Speaker 1: his pant waste up at his chin, which is quite
Speaker 1: a feat of physics. I would say, I don't know
Speaker 1: how the man does it. I have never seen somebody.
Speaker 1: It's as though his pants also double as overalls, but
Speaker 1: they're not technically overalls, they're just pants, but he like
Speaker 1: hikes them all the way up to his shoulders. It
Speaker 1: is astonish. You know, the guy's got he's got some
Speaker 1: sartorial flair, that is for sure. But what change between
Speaker 1: that and now? What changes that Democrats had no principles
Speaker 1: that they were willing to defend then that they will
Speaker 1: defend now It was just about expedients. This is all
Speaker 1: about about whether or not the people that are entrusted
Speaker 1: with power in our government, I mean ultimate and this
Speaker 1: is really at the heart of impeachment of the mother
Speaker 1: probe of FISA abuse. Are the people that are in
Speaker 1: these positions of power introspect, humble and taking. They're taking
Speaker 1: an approach of good faith to everything that they do.
Speaker 1: Or do they think that they have been chosen, that
Speaker 1: they are special and that when they're in a position
Speaker 1: where they're supposed to faithfully execute their job and obey
Speaker 1: the laws and defend and uphold the Constitution, do they
Speaker 1: think there's a better way to do that that only
Speaker 1: they know and that takes into account that which they
Speaker 1: which they explicitly should reject, which is partisan ends doing
Speaker 1: this because I want one I want this team to
Speaker 1: benefit and I want that team to get hurt. Once
Speaker 1: we have people in the federal apparatus who are doing this.
Speaker 1: Once you have members of the federal prosecutorial ranks, then
Speaker 1: it all starts to crumble. My friends, then we cannot
Speaker 1: trust this system at all, which is why I cannot
Speaker 1: get away from this. I can't leave this behind. They
Speaker 1: have and even begun the work. The left has not
Speaker 1: even started to accept responsibility for what they've really done here.
Speaker 1: They claim to be defending institutions while they destroy them.
Speaker 1: They claim to be upholding the law while they perverted.
Speaker 1: They claim to be acting in non partisan fashion, while
Speaker 1: what they're doing is wildly political, and they hope to
Speaker 1: just beat you down, to crush you with the lies. Well, eventually,
Speaker 1: are they crazy or am I crazy? Are they crazy?
Speaker 1: Or am I crazy? You have all these different media outlets,
Speaker 1: supposedly trusted individuals, those who devote careers to speaking truth
Speaker 1: to power. Lies, They're lying to you. I'm here to
Speaker 1: tell you that they are lying to you. You know
Speaker 1: it though. But one of the reasons why I think
Speaker 1: we have such a fast growing show. While we have
Speaker 1: so many people that come into the Freedom hup with
Speaker 1: us day in and day out. They know that I
Speaker 1: speak the truth to them. I tell them what I know,
Speaker 1: I tell them what I don't know. I tell them
Speaker 1: how I feel. I try to be honest about my
Speaker 1: own shortcomings where I have a bias. And you all
Speaker 1: know that if there was some way that I could
Speaker 1: ban via state power people talking in movie theaters, I
Speaker 1: would do it. I don't know how, but I would
Speaker 1: do it. And I know that's very statist of me.
Speaker 1: And there's other things too, where I all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm not as pro freedom as you know. Freedom
Speaker 1: is my first love, but sometimes I stray or I
Speaker 1: am imperfect. But thankfully I'm a Catholic, so I can
Speaker 1: get away with that. It's important, right, you gotta have
Speaker 1: the but I am indeed imperfect. These people pretend to
Speaker 1: be something that they are not, and that dishonesty is
Speaker 1: at the heart of what's going on with this impeachment process,
Speaker 1: with Pelosi, with all these different Democrats, with members of
Speaker 1: the media who are just are certain, are absolutely certain
Speaker 1: that whatever they have to do along the way to
Speaker 1: defeat President Trump in the twenty twenty election is inherently justified.
Speaker 1: This is the ideology of totalitarianism. It is everything against
Speaker 1: the other thing. Whatever has to be done is fine.
Speaker 1: Whatever you have to destroy along the way was unnecessary
Speaker 1: or expendable. This is what we were up against in
Speaker 1: this election. This is what's happening in the Congress. These
Speaker 1: people that are getting up before you to speak about
Speaker 1: how Trump did this terrible thing, they're frauds. If they
Speaker 1: weren't frauds, and they would say, yeah, you know, we
Speaker 1: hate this president, we want them gone. We don't like
Speaker 1: this thing he did on the Ukraine phone call. But
Speaker 1: it's really not about that. We're just going to say,
Speaker 1: let's make it about that. This is dishonest. They're lying
Speaker 1: to you, and I love how they always complain about
Speaker 1: how much Trump lies. It's stunning stuff. The president of
Speaker 1: the United States is waging a battle against them, but
Speaker 1: they have still yet to win and it drives them insane.
Speaker 1: But don't think that they're going to self correct. They're
Speaker 1: just going to get crazier. And this impeachment process is
Speaker 1: just going to show you that you scored some screaming
Speaker 1: holiday deals last year, but that was a lot of
Speaker 1: expensive stuff sitting there on your porch this year, keep
Speaker 1: a sharp eye and blink before you buy before you
Speaker 1: get anything else. Order the Blink XT two security camera
Speaker 1: to help keep it on your holiday deliveries wherever you are.
Speaker 1: Blinks Black Friday Cyber Monday event is on. It's your
Speaker 1: chance to save a ton and get a free Amazon
Speaker 1: Echo Dot with any purchase of a Blink system while
Speaker 1: supplies last. Blink x T two cameras are wire free,
Speaker 1: set up fast, and run on two double A lithium
Speaker 1: batteries for up to two years. By the way their
Speaker 1: motion actively, these cameras are amazing. You'll get an alert
Speaker 1: and a video clip on your Blink smartphone app whenever
Speaker 1: someone approaches your door. It's incredible. Blinks Black Friday Cyber
Speaker 1: Monday event is on. Save up in twenty eight percent
Speaker 1: on Blink cameras and systems from November twenty eight through
Speaker 1: December second, and get a free Amazon Echo Dot with
Speaker 1: any Blink system while supplies last. Visit blink protect dot
Speaker 1: Com Slash Sale, blink Protect dot Com Slash Sale again,
Speaker 1: Blink Protect dot Com Slash Sale Right Team Buck, Welcome back.
Speaker 1: Let's continue our discussion, shall we of good faith, bad faith?
Speaker 1: And whether or not Democrats have any principles? This will
Speaker 1: be a fun one. They often talk about institutions and
Speaker 1: their need to send sure Trump because of the way
Speaker 1: that he is a threat to our institutions. This is
Speaker 1: an area where they're particularly dishonest. Oh, by the way,
Speaker 1: if they were so serious about the threat to the
Speaker 1: republic that they say is the basis for this impeachment proceeding,
Speaker 1: they don't have time to get Bolton to come speak
Speaker 1: to them. Why is that, Oh, because they have to
Speaker 1: ram this whole thing through in the next few weeks.
Speaker 1: They've got to get this done right away, because if
Speaker 1: they don't, then they know it is very likely that
Speaker 1: there will be Democrats senators who should be on the
Speaker 1: campaign trail, who are actually part of a Senate a
Speaker 1: Senate trial for Trump, after the Democrats in the House
Speaker 1: inevitably vote to impeach it. So we know that that is,
Speaker 1: we know that that is going to happen, and then
Speaker 1: we should ask the question after that. Okay, so now
Speaker 1: what what comes next? What are they going to do? Well,
Speaker 1: they're going to do whatever they have to do in
Speaker 1: order to get this president out of office. That's that's
Speaker 1: the only thing that really matters. But on the institution,
Speaker 1: and those are gonna say that it's obstruction. The White
Speaker 1: House doesn't do everything they say, then that's obstruction. And
Speaker 1: they don't have time to get Bolton though somehow. Okay,
Speaker 1: well that makes no sense to It should make no
Speaker 1: sense to anybody, because it's all it's all garbage. Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: who's just running around making all kinds of promises about
Speaker 1: how the rich are finally gonna pay their fair share.
Speaker 1: Here she is. They're talking about one very important American institution,
Speaker 1: the electoral College. Please play clip for as a presidential candidate,
Speaker 1: what are your thoughts on the electoral College? I want
Speaker 1: to get rid of it. So here's my goal. My
Speaker 1: goal is to get elected and then to be the
Speaker 1: last American president elected by the electoral College. I want
Speaker 1: the second term to be that I got elected by
Speaker 1: direct vote. I'm ready popular vote. I just think this
Speaker 1: is how democracy should work. Call me old fashioned, but
Speaker 1: I think the person who gets the most vote should win.
Speaker 1: I'm in, I'm in. Oh, I just think that the
Speaker 1: person who gets the most votes has to win. Oh. Yes,
Speaker 1: she has so much more of a governance genius than
Speaker 1: you know, Madison, than any of the Framers and anybody
Speaker 1: involved in the constitution. No, no, no, no, Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: has a better idea. Let's just do direct vote. We
Speaker 1: all know why they want this, right, we all know
Speaker 1: why this is even under discussion. What is the purpose
Speaker 1: of abolishing or what is the impetus for abolishing the
Speaker 1: electoral college. Well, it's because they believe that they have
Speaker 1: lost elections unfairly due to the electoral college not understanding that.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're playing a game of basketball, you
Speaker 1: could always argue that you were gonna win, it's just
Speaker 1: the time ran out. But guess what, the game you're
Speaker 1: playing is a timed one, Unlike say a game of tennis,
Speaker 1: where it's about winning a certain number of games to win.
Speaker 1: You don't get to change after the fact and say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, we should have played a different
Speaker 1: game and I would have won that one. And Democrats
Speaker 1: are very very comfortable with this. It's pretty straightforward why
Speaker 1: the electoral college has a role. If you did not
Speaker 1: have an electoral college, well, then you would just have
Speaker 1: the largest population centers in the country become the battleground
Speaker 1: for all politics and and people living in other parts
Speaker 1: of the country US geographic US soil geographic territory. That
Speaker 1: would be all of a sudden, completely extraneous to our politicians.
Speaker 1: That wouldn't really care and those of you who live
Speaker 1: in Montana, in Indiana, in Nebraska, you can get far
Speaker 1: less attention than the coast. You'd essentially have coastal dominance
Speaker 1: of our politics because that's where you have a vast
Speaker 1: majority of the population of this country centered. Right, It's
Speaker 1: really all along the eastern seaboard and along the western seaboard.
Speaker 1: That's where everyone lives, and so that's where everybody would
Speaker 1: be campaigning, and that's where all the decisions for the
Speaker 1: rest of the country would be made. Now, some of
Speaker 1: you feel like, well, look at the media and look
Speaker 1: at DC, and there's already some reality to that being
Speaker 1: what's going on. But I would just say this, Democrats
Speaker 1: claim that they want to bring the country back together.
Speaker 1: You have Joe Biden, for example, walking around saying that
Speaker 1: he wants this country to go back to its ideals
Speaker 1: and a return to normalcy. You have Elizabeth Warren here, though,
Speaker 1: a Democratic candidate who is offering up something that no
Speaker 1: serious person could believe would do anything other than or
Speaker 1: rather would have a result that would not be further
Speaker 1: dividing this country into red and blue, separating urban from rural.
Speaker 1: Some would even go so far as to say if
Speaker 1: you want a divorce of the American right from the
Speaker 1: American left, if you want really an expansion of secessionist
Speaker 1: movements in this country, which would not be the first
Speaker 1: time as we know that that has happened. But if
Speaker 1: you want real secessionist movements, then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: have a federal government that does not care about people
Speaker 1: who live in entire states, entire regions of the country.
Speaker 1: That would not serve the purpose as the Democrats claim
Speaker 1: they want, of bringing us all together, bringing us back
Speaker 1: to a political normal. Know, what they want is power,
Speaker 1: and they'll say whatever they have to along the way
Speaker 1: to get to a place of power. That is the point,
Speaker 1: That is the purpose. That's what they're trying to achieve here.
Speaker 1: Everything else is effectively a waste of time. They don't
Speaker 1: really care. So, yeah, abolished the electoral college. You've also
Speaker 1: heard democrats, I'm not just talking about in the media.
Speaker 1: I'm talking about Democrat politicians talk about what we should
Speaker 1: do with the Supreme Court. If that does not go
Speaker 1: their way, then all of a sudden, court packing is
Speaker 1: a discussion to be had. So they talk about institutions
Speaker 1: and reverence for institutions, and the moment the institution no
Speaker 1: longer serves their purposes, that does not put them in power,
Speaker 1: then that institution is to be gutted or transformed, or
Speaker 1: just dispensed with altogether. And they see no irony in this,
Speaker 1: They see no hypocrisy or lack of principle, because ultimately
Speaker 1: they understand what this is really all about. It is
Speaker 1: about power. Everything else is action. Everything else is is
Speaker 1: preposterous um. You have, For example, I've got to make
Speaker 1: sure I don't scratch my little brand. By the way,
Speaker 1: producer Brandon has A has a really excellent beard. I'm
Speaker 1: trying to get my way up there. Do you think
Speaker 1: that the beard bombs and all those things? Does that
Speaker 1: stuff work? It always just helps grow your beer. I
Speaker 1: was like, am I like A is my face a
Speaker 1: chia pet? Like I don't understand. I mean unless there
Speaker 1: were going to be a sponsor, I don't think they work.
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, if they sponsor me, then they done
Speaker 1: it definitely. Well, yeah, I'll use it until it does work.
Speaker 1: It's like taking propitia for if you're going bald. There's
Speaker 1: no cure for baldness. Either have it or you don't,
Speaker 1: so you either have a manly beard, or you have
Speaker 1: a patchy beard, looks like you're a high school kid. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean sometimes you may have to give it more
Speaker 1: time for it to grow out. You have to commit
Speaker 1: to it. Do you remember Chia pets. By the way,
Speaker 1: of course that commercial. Someone got very rich selling a
Speaker 1: little cheap made in China clay pot. Then you could
Speaker 1: have some weeds grow out of. It's pretty remarkable. I mean,
Speaker 1: I respect to hustle at that point. You know, there's
Speaker 1: always a new character, whether it's a cartoon or someone
Speaker 1: in politics of a you get a cheahead of Trump
Speaker 1: or Obama? Is that a thing? Yeah, oh yeah, I've
Speaker 1: seen commercials for I guess it's still around. So Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has had quite a campaign so far. He is
Speaker 1: completely protected by the media that they don't ask any
Speaker 1: questions about his family. Biden's allowed to be very testy,
Speaker 1: very terset with anybody who does ask any questions about
Speaker 1: his family. His adult children or his adult son, Hunter
Speaker 1: Biden are completely off limits as far as the media
Speaker 1: is concerned. Can't ask any questions about any of this,
Speaker 1: even though not only is Hunter Biden something of a
Speaker 1: of a disaster, and I mean it is kind of sad.
Speaker 1: This guy is such a just such a mess. Although
Speaker 1: he's also a millionaire. Guy's got a lot more money
Speaker 1: than I do, not because he's good at anything. So
Speaker 1: how sad Can you really feel he will need that
Speaker 1: for the alleged well, he's supposed to be making child
Speaker 1: support payments. At some point, I think, so Biden is
Speaker 1: out there talking about how terrible Trump is. You get
Speaker 1: the basics of this, right, he knows the talking points.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's not a very impressive or very smart man.
Speaker 1: This is just the case. This is reality. So he
Speaker 1: goes around and says things like this about how Trump
Speaker 1: is a lie or he's terrible, blahity blah, playclibit. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't think he has any regard none for our laws,
Speaker 1: for the constitution, for a democracy, for the truth. Do
Speaker 1: you ever think you'd see on television from mainstream reporters
Speaker 1: programs about you know, Trump's ten thousand lies or whatever
Speaker 1: it is, I mean, actual program about a president United States?
Speaker 1: Or they'd say we're now going to show you the
Speaker 1: ex number of lives the presidents told you, and our
Speaker 1: children are listening. They're listening, and our silence is complicity.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm not gonna let that happen. At least
Speaker 1: I I'm going to try my best not to let
Speaker 1: that happen, to see to it that he in fact continues.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden is a politician that dumb people feel smart
Speaker 1: for voting for. Yeah, Joe Biden is a politician that
Speaker 1: if you're dumb, you think I voted for him, so
Speaker 1: I'm smart because he says the stuff about truth and
Speaker 1: the Constitution and the stuff and the things, And yet
Speaker 1: when you dig into it a little bit, are really
Speaker 1: the children are watching the fifty I think it's fifteen
Speaker 1: thousand or fourteen thousand lies or whatever. The fourteen thousand
Speaker 1: lies that Trump has told. The children are watching that, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I don't think so. Where are democrats on? The children
Speaker 1: are watching the eight years of the Clinton presidency? Clinton,
Speaker 1: who was a true predator, by the way, and a
Speaker 1: liar and a felon. They wouldn't convict him, they wouldn't
Speaker 1: charge him. But we all know they got committed a felon,
Speaker 1: there isn't no question about it. So where were they
Speaker 1: during all that? As we know? Oh, there were nowhere
Speaker 1: to be found. I would also note that one of
Speaker 1: the problems we have with the Obama administration. One of
Speaker 1: the issues they like to say there were no scandals,
Speaker 1: and then of course we say you then Ghazi in
Speaker 1: Operation fast and Furious, we start talking about all the
Speaker 1: different scandals of the Obama years. You know, the irs,
Speaker 1: targeting of the Tea Party, There's all the stuff that
Speaker 1: happened that they just pretend didn't happen. But also remember
Speaker 1: that you had ninety percent of journalists afraid for their
Speaker 1: careers and deeply ideologically invested in not exposing anything, in
Speaker 1: not unearthing any corruption or anything going on behind closed
Speaker 1: doors that will be unflattering to the president. So remember that,
Speaker 1: as they always tell you all the Obama years, there
Speaker 1: was no there was none of this stuff going on
Speaker 1: during the Obama years. Well, we also had a press
Speaker 1: corps that was completely in Obama's pocket. It was embarrassing,
Speaker 1: it was it was preposterous the whole thing. How do
Speaker 1: we even know what was going on behind closed doors?
Speaker 1: How do we even know what was being said in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office and any given down. There weren't all
Speaker 1: these leaks, There weren't all these deep state operatives, and
Speaker 1: the press was just oh, but the press was worshiping Obama.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's why I remember I came into politics,
Speaker 1: into political media that it was just it was embarrassing.
Speaker 1: It's like, oh, Obama's the greatest, the smartest, the wisest,
Speaker 1: the most wonderful person in the history of all humanity. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: either supposed to be speaking truth to power and maybe
Speaker 1: trying to find out some stuff of note to the
Speaker 1: American people, but that was never really much of a focus.
Speaker 1: I suppose they were much more interested in propping up
Speaker 1: the Obama administration in every way that they could. But
Speaker 1: they're trying to prop up Biden. And here's the problem
Speaker 1: with doing that. Um, Joe Biden's kind of an idiot.
Speaker 1: He's not somebody who would be a national level politician
Speaker 1: were he not the senator from Delaware. No offense Delaware,
Speaker 1: but not a lot of exciting stuff going on over there.
Speaker 1: And he's just managed to stay within the system and
Speaker 1: say whatever he has to say. And he kind of
Speaker 1: sounds like a politician and looks like a politician and
Speaker 1: smiles like a politician. And that's really been his role.
Speaker 1: You know. It's it's not somebody that you think of
Speaker 1: with any important I mean, I think is his greatest
Speaker 1: legislative achievement would have been the Violence against you know,
Speaker 1: the Violence Against Women Act, which is you know, yeah,
Speaker 1: domestic violence should be illegal in every in all fifty states,
Speaker 1: and it is. It shouldn't. It's not a federal crime.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be a federal crime. But Biden had a
Speaker 1: moment here. I'm trying to find do we have Biden
Speaker 1: being super weird because that's the which which which one is? Oh,
Speaker 1: you gotta hold hold one. We're gonna we're gonna get
Speaker 1: this clip for you in a moment. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: I understand it can be a little bit awkward when
Speaker 1: you have to think about life insurance. You don't want
Speaker 1: to have to consider what would be unthinkable, but you
Speaker 1: have to prepare for an uncertain future and make sure
Speaker 1: that your family is safe and secure. I've gone through
Speaker 1: this process myself. It's something you need to do, and
Speaker 1: you should go to the place that makes it easy
Speaker 1: for you, no hassle. That's Ethos Life Insurance. Ethos is
Speaker 1: modern life insurance for people who just don't want to
Speaker 1: waste time with fine print, extra appointments or fees they
Speaker 1: really just can't afford. Ethos has a simple approach. They
Speaker 1: take in this re expertise and they blend it with
Speaker 1: technology so that you can find the right policy to
Speaker 1: protect your loved ones in just a matter of about
Speaker 1: ten minutes, and you can apply online. You should check
Speaker 1: it out for yourself. You'll be taking the first steps
Speaker 1: to ensure that your family has the financial security they
Speaker 1: need in case of the unexpected. This is the responsible
Speaker 1: thing to do. Get a fast, free and personalized quote
Speaker 1: right now at Ethos dot com. That's Ethoslife dot com
Speaker 1: Life insurance that actually fits your life. All right. So Biden,
Speaker 1: who is the frontrunner for the Democrats despite being kind
Speaker 1: of an idiot, He's a front runner for the Democrats. Okay,
Speaker 1: he is at a campaign stop of some kind. He's
Speaker 1: surrounded by a bunch of kids, and I don't even
Speaker 1: I just want you to hear. Remember this is the
Speaker 1: Democrats who complain about Trump, say he's ruining the republic,
Speaker 1: he's destroying this country. We live in a country of
Speaker 1: over three hundred and twenty million people. Will probably about
Speaker 1: three to thirty now, but let's say we live in
Speaker 1: a country of over three hundred and twenty million people,
Speaker 1: and the best person that Democrats can come up with
Speaker 1: to defeat Trump and be the next president I stage,
Speaker 1: because he's gonna be so much better is this guy Plato.
Speaker 1: And by the way, you know, I sit on the
Speaker 1: stand and to get hot, I got a lot of
Speaker 1: I got hairy legs that turned that that that that
Speaker 1: that that turned blond in the sun. And the kids
Speaker 1: used to come up and reach in the pool and
Speaker 1: rub my leg down so it was traded and then
Speaker 1: watched the hair come back up again. They look at it.
Speaker 1: So I learned about roaches. I learned about kids jumping
Speaker 1: on my lap. And I've loved kids jumping on my lap.
Speaker 1: And I tell you what, the men they're not all men.
Speaker 1: The guys I work with down here, and they're all
Speaker 1: guys at the time, they're all good men. Most of
Speaker 1: them made a lawful lot of themselves. And Earl Larkin
Speaker 1: had a rough time. And some of you knew Earl
Speaker 1: if I came back as a public defender. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: my legs got hair on the legs, and the hair
Speaker 1: would sometimes stick up like a porcupine. And then I
Speaker 1: would tell people, because I'm putting on kind of a
Speaker 1: weird politician accent, I would tell the little kids to
Speaker 1: come on and rub the porcupine hair on my legs.
Speaker 1: And then sometimes I look at them like, oh, man,
Speaker 1: did I just make your little hand itch from a
Speaker 1: porcupine hair? I'm a blonde lad. What is this guy
Speaker 1: talking about? Look? Look, I understand I speak for you know,
Speaker 1: three hours a day, you're on radio. I did TV
Speaker 1: and all stuff. Either you misspeak sometimes words come out
Speaker 1: a little bit funny. What does he even think he's saying?
Speaker 1: You know, I remember back in nineteen seventy two and
Speaker 1: I'm here, and you know, I had had a couple
Speaker 1: of a couple of hairs turned gray a little early.
Speaker 1: But you know those hairs are gray. But I remember
Speaker 1: I saw my buddy Bill and he says, you got
Speaker 1: a couple of gray hairs coming out your head. Looks
Speaker 1: a little bit like you're turning into some kind of
Speaker 1: a old man. But you're a young man. Of this
Speaker 1: is blather? What is it? What is he even saying?
Speaker 1: Someone explain this to me. You know, the kids would
Speaker 1: come in and reaching the pool and grab the hair
Speaker 1: on my hairy legs. They put a couple of hairs
Speaker 1: and I'd say, oh, because I want them and make
Speaker 1: them make sure they know who the hairs go out
Speaker 1: when you pull them under the water. Then they jump
Speaker 1: on my lap all the time, and I don't know.
Speaker 1: I just pretend like I'm everybody's grandpa. What is he
Speaker 1: talking to? The Democratic front runner's blabbering like an imbecile?
Speaker 1: Do have any of you even really drunk? Ever sounded
Speaker 1: that weird? I was at Producer Mark's wedding on Saturday.
Speaker 1: I had a couple of mescals or actually tequila, damn
Speaker 1: it not mescal. I had some Tequila's true story, I
Speaker 1: would not have sounded that weird at any point. I
Speaker 1: wasn't like, Hey, I'm out here on the dance floor
Speaker 1: and I got some hair and legs, a little bit
Speaker 1: hair on my chest. I wish I had a little
Speaker 1: more hair in my chest. Who wants to come sit
Speaker 1: on Papa Buck's lap. People have been like, wow, Producer Mark,
Speaker 1: you got a new boss. It's weird. What's going on here?
Speaker 1: The front runner, My friends, I present to you, ladies
Speaker 1: and gentleman, Joe Biden, front runner of the Democratic primary
Speaker 1: right now, far and away. This is the guy they
Speaker 1: want to be leader of the free world. And they
Speaker 1: think you have bad judgment for supporting Trump speaking of
Speaker 1: people who shouldn't be president. And this could really be
Speaker 1: anybody on the Democratic primary or anybody in the Democratic
Speaker 1: Party really these days. But you still have you still
Speaker 1: have Bloomberg, Bloomberg in this mix here with all of
Speaker 1: his billions of dollars and his decent managerial skills, but
Speaker 1: really poor national level policy ideas. The situation in Hong
Speaker 1: Kong continues. You have protesters that are standing up to
Speaker 1: the oppression of the Chinese totalitarian communist government to the mainland.
Speaker 1: They have recognized that solidarity with America is a very
Speaker 1: powerful message, and so they are taking video of them
Speaker 1: singing the US national anthem and waving American flags and
Speaker 1: it is it is heartwarming. Let's let's be honest about that.
Speaker 1: By the way, there's a lot going on in Iran
Speaker 1: right now with suppression of protests and violence, and we
Speaker 1: don't really know because they're shutting down the internet. But oh,
Speaker 1: you mean the Iran that the Obama administration wanted to
Speaker 1: make a deal with because everything was going to be
Speaker 1: fine afterwards. It's absurd. But but just on the China front,
Speaker 1: for a moment, Bloomberg wants to presisd the United States.
Speaker 1: And here's what he had to say about This was
Speaker 1: in an interview with Margaret Hoover over at Ireland. Here's
Speaker 1: me to say about China. Please play it. China is
Speaker 1: doing a lot. Yes, they're still building a bunch of
Speaker 1: qualified power plans. Yes they are, but they are now
Speaker 1: moving plants away from the cities. The Communist Party wants
Speaker 1: to stay in power in China, and they listen to
Speaker 1: the public when the public says, I can breathe. Air
Speaker 1: Shiping is not a dictator. He has to satisfy his
Speaker 1: constituent or he's not going to survive. But he's not
Speaker 1: a dictator. No, he has to He has a constituency
Speaker 1: to umu answer to. Doesn't have a vote, he doesn't
Speaker 1: have a democracy. He doesn't if his advisors gave me
Speaker 1: check on him. Just a revolution. You're not going to
Speaker 1: have a revolution, Nobody say. No government survives without the
Speaker 1: will of the majority of its people. Okay, it's just
Speaker 1: he has to deliver services. The Chinese Communist Party looks
Speaker 1: at Russia and they look for where the Communist Party
Speaker 1: is and they don't find it anymore. And they don't
Speaker 1: want that to happen. I mean the idea that this
Speaker 1: Chinese is responsive to sort of a democratic expression of
Speaker 1: fresh air. I mean, I'm looking at the people in
Speaker 1: Hong Kong. Whether go back and read press the days
Speaker 1: when you have big pollution in Beijing and they're doing
Speaker 1: something about it. That's that's ridiculous. The trouble is you
Speaker 1: can't overnight move cement plants and power plants just outside
Speaker 1: the city that are polluting the air, and you have
Speaker 1: to have their product. So some of it takes time.
Speaker 1: And there's always in government, even governments than what we
Speaker 1: would call a democracy. There's lots of stakeholders who have
Speaker 1: vested interests and they have an impact. And that's why
Speaker 1: if you listen to the young millennials, let's go in
Speaker 1: and solve the problem. We got like the whole interview,
Speaker 1: that's all right, we're going all a little along. But
Speaker 1: the point is Bloomberg is challenged on whether or not
Speaker 1: chij and Ping is a dictator. And by the way,
Speaker 1: everybody who I know and trust who is a true
Speaker 1: China analysts will say that jies and Ping is in
Speaker 1: many ways the biggest dictator in China since Mao. It
Speaker 1: has a more iron grip on things than anyone since
Speaker 1: Mao Maose tongue. So why does Bloomberg take this position? Though?
Speaker 1: You have to remember that China for China in Trump speak,
Speaker 1: China for a lot of leftist liberals democrats in this
Speaker 1: country is alluring in some ways as a system of government.
Speaker 1: They kind of like the way things get done in China,
Speaker 1: because what China does is it centralizes powered authority in
Speaker 1: a few hands, in the hands of a dictatorial elite,
Speaker 1: the Communist Party, about a thousand people in China's Communist
Speaker 1: Party at least who matter, and they make all the
Speaker 1: major decisions for the rest of the country. Liberals like this.
Speaker 1: There are even liberals like Thomas Friedman, the most overrated
Speaker 1: calumnist of all time, who have written openly praising china
Speaker 1: system and saying, see, China's system is better than ours
Speaker 1: for the following reasons. They believe this. They like that
Speaker 1: consolidation of authority and power in the hands of people
Speaker 1: that are the state. Let me tell you this. I
Speaker 1: saw this, and I couldn't really independently verify all of
Speaker 1: where it came from over the weekend, but there was
Speaker 1: a there's a clip that's making the rounds around the
Speaker 1: rounds of a man who is getting interrogated in China.
Speaker 1: He's in this kind of metal metal box, like almost
Speaker 1: like a metal cage around him. It's not a real cage.
Speaker 1: It's it's hard to explain. It's like a medieval torture
Speaker 1: looking chair. But he's sitting there and he's being interrogated
Speaker 1: by the police. And the storyline is that he was
Speaker 1: in a private chat room and said something bad about
Speaker 1: the He made a joke, I think about the traffic
Speaker 1: police who were seizing motorcycles from people for one reason
Speaker 1: or another, and he made some joke about it in
Speaker 1: a private chat room, and all of a sudden, he
Speaker 1: finds himself arrested and now being very aggressively interrogated and
Speaker 1: in this very uncomfortable, very ominous looking chair that he's
Speaker 1: locked into while you have police officers. And what's fascinating
Speaker 1: to me as you watch this play out is here
Speaker 1: these these agents of the state. It's very much like
Speaker 1: what you would expect in the Matrix. You know, it's
Speaker 1: like Agent Smith sitting down with Neo and saying, you know, Neo,
Speaker 1: why mister Anderson. They don't call him Neo. They called
Speaker 1: mister Anderson. I forgot, but yeah, close enough, mister Anderson.
Speaker 1: What is it about your species? You're a virus, mister Anderson, Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Yeah, the boy, the guy's got skills. You
Speaker 1: guys know it. So it's a little bit like that.
Speaker 1: And he sits there and he's getting asked questions like well,
Speaker 1: why what was your purpose? Why would you make fun
Speaker 1: of the police, and the aggressiveness of his interrogators. It
Speaker 1: reminds me of what you get if you make a
Speaker 1: joke and the woke police, so to speak, come for you.
Speaker 1: When the left comes for you, there's no humor, there's
Speaker 1: no forgiveness, there's no mercy. And as I was watching
Speaker 1: this interrogation video that's making the rounds, and again I'm
Speaker 1: assuming it's authenticity. It's been shared by a bunch of
Speaker 1: blue checks that I know on Twitter, you know, but
Speaker 1: I don't. But all I could think of is you
Speaker 1: a reel or fake? This is what liberals wish they
Speaker 1: could do to people guilty of wrong think. How many
Speaker 1: leftists do you think would be perfectly happy if the
Speaker 1: police could pull you in, lock you in some chair,
Speaker 1: and threaten you with imprisonment, already arrest you, threaten you
Speaker 1: with imprisonment because of your wrong think on say, LGBT
Speaker 1: rights issues, on transgender issues. I think a lot of
Speaker 1: liberals would approve of that. We know this. Liberals right
Speaker 1: now are advocating publicly for changes to federal statute so
Speaker 1: that hate speech will be a criminal offense. There was
Speaker 1: what was it students that I forget what the university?
Speaker 1: I think it might have been Yale or I think
Speaker 1: it was in New Haven. But just walking past an
Speaker 1: open windows said said the N word. Were arrested for it.
Speaker 1: Even't call anybody, they just said it. And there are
Speaker 1: liberals who defend this. So called liberals, of course a
Speaker 1: misnomer for them meant to throw us off. The same
Speaker 1: way they lie about what they're really doing and accuse
Speaker 1: the other side of doing it. They lie about who
Speaker 1: they are at a very fundamental level. They are anti liberal.
Speaker 1: They are the least liberal people you will find anywhere,
Speaker 1: and they take on that name as a means of
Speaker 1: confusing the debate in the discussion. Okay, how many liberals
Speaker 1: do you think you know who would be happy to
Speaker 1: have police interrogate people for making jokes that are offensive.
Speaker 1: I think the answer is, unfortunately a lot Angela Mercoal.
Speaker 1: We have this clip Angola not all. We can't play
Speaker 1: it because it's all it's all off Dutchland, it's all
Speaker 1: in German. Yeah, I haven't heard from Anglo Novaldo. She's
Speaker 1: still faring some pantsuits. She thought that Hilary was going
Speaker 1: to be her sister in power and sen oh no.
Speaker 1: Thus Nick Hilary did not wins the election in twenty sixteen.
Speaker 1: It's a sad I would cry. What's Germans don't cry
Speaker 1: at least not Angula. No, no crying for Angula. She
Speaker 1: gave a speech and I don't know we have we
Speaker 1: had the audience thinking about having some fami that because
Speaker 1: it's all you know in German. But she says that
Speaker 1: we have to take away your freedom of speech. This
Speaker 1: was when she was speaking, we have to take away
Speaker 1: your freedom of speech or else society won't be free.
Speaker 1: They are twisting things now into their opposite. This is
Speaker 1: where the left is going. This is the the creeping
Speaker 1: totalitarianism of left wing ideology. The state in place of God,
Speaker 1: the state and control of everything. Your free thoughts and
Speaker 1: free speech are too dangerous. A society is only free
Speaker 1: if everybody in that society agrees that there are no
Speaker 1: harmful thoughts or words out there. Of course will never
Speaker 1: achieve that. But if you set it up with that
Speaker 1: premise that anyone who takes offense, anyone who feels aggrieved
Speaker 1: feels unsafe in leftist parlance, now because of speech that
Speaker 1: they don't like, you always have an excuse to shut
Speaker 1: down those who are trying to share thoughts that you
Speaker 1: think are outside of what is acceptable. And that, by
Speaker 1: the way that set of rules is constantly in flux,
Speaker 1: is constantly changing. It's not even clear what it is exactly.
Speaker 1: You will be able to say tomorrow. They're still making
Speaker 1: it up today. Do you think it would really bother
Speaker 1: liberals if they could have people brought into a police
Speaker 1: station and interrogated for making a anti trans joke, a
Speaker 1: joke that is deemed to be racist. Do you think
Speaker 1: that liberals would really have a problem with that. I
Speaker 1: think that they see what's going on in China, think
Speaker 1: if only we could get something like that here, but
Speaker 1: instead of Shi Jinping, you get to have Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders, and the Democrats in Congress making similar decisions
Speaker 1: about your life. It should be deeply, deeply concerning to
Speaker 1: all of us because the Liberals don't pack away from
Speaker 1: those totalitarians, and they're increasingly embrace it. They like it,
Speaker 1: they like the power. They like to be able to
Speaker 1: tell you what you can do all the time. It
Speaker 1: is all about control. And that's why we have to
Speaker 1: keep an eye on all of these individuals and make
Speaker 1: sure we don't give in to what it is that
Speaker 1: they're telling us we must because otherwise you're gonna have
Speaker 1: weird blonde hair son man Joe Biden, you know, blonde,
Speaker 1: hairy legs, whatever that I can't even remember what it was,
Speaker 1: just so weird. I can't remember what he said. He's
Speaker 1: gonna be running the country, folks. That should not keep
Speaker 1: you safe. And at night, I think to win, there
Speaker 1: are a few things that must be present to win.
Speaker 1: I believe that we must recognize that this issue of
Speaker 1: twenty twenty and this election is so much bigger than
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. It really is, because it's an obvious point
Speaker 1: right when we can go through the list of all
Speaker 1: of the reasons why we're all here right now in
Speaker 1: terms of what is wrong with what's happening in the
Speaker 1: White House. But not only then should we be committed
Speaker 1: to what we need to do to turn the page.
Speaker 1: We also have to think about what we need to
Speaker 1: do to write the next chapter in the history of
Speaker 1: our country. And so in so doing, think about this
Speaker 1: in terms of the challenges before us and our investment
Speaker 1: for our children, if nothing else, in the future of
Speaker 1: our country and in the America we believe in. Yeah,
Speaker 1: listen to Kamala Harris about what we need to do
Speaker 1: to win because not gonna win anything. It's not gonna
Speaker 1: win the primary, not gonna win the election, not gonna win,
Speaker 1: not going to happen. So here we are getting advice
Speaker 1: from somebody who, if anything, does have lessons to teach.
Speaker 1: But the lessons are through Kamala Harris as a political
Speaker 1: cautionary tale of somebody who just doesn't have the skill
Speaker 1: set to do this. And it's because when she talks
Speaker 1: about this, it all comes across as though someone else
Speaker 1: wrote this down for her and handed it to her,
Speaker 1: and now she's just the one sharing the information. Doesn't
Speaker 1: really believe it, doesn't really care. There's no inspiration, there's
Speaker 1: no core, there's no connection. It's just whatever she has
Speaker 1: to say whenever she has to say it. The election
Speaker 1: is so much bigger than Donald Trump Yeah, how so
Speaker 1: maybe the election is going to be bigger than Donald
Speaker 1: Trump insofar as if Trump loses, then we know that
Speaker 1: it's no longer about the results that a politician brings about,
Speaker 1: because the country is better off now than was under
Speaker 1: Barack Obama, just as compare. I mean, obviously everyone comes
Speaker 1: into different points in time, and everyone has it that
Speaker 1: we're all dealta different hand of cards. But you know,
Speaker 1: we can either judge things or not. We can either
Speaker 1: try to make decisions based upon results, or we can
Speaker 1: pretend that all results are the same, a kind of
Speaker 1: political relativism that would render mood any discussion of whether
Speaker 1: one politician will be better or worse than another. I
Speaker 1: don't think that that's a good place for us to
Speaker 1: go as a country. I think that you would all
Speaker 1: agree on that. And then you also have Mayor Pete.
Speaker 1: We've already talked a little about Warren, who wants to Obama.
Speaker 1: I want to abolish the electoral college. Yeah, that's what
Speaker 1: needs to happen in this country. You have Mayor Pete.
Speaker 1: You out there as well, and he's got a problem.
Speaker 1: May Or Peat's problem is that you can't win a
Speaker 1: democratic primary with zero African American support. He has no
Speaker 1: African American supports, So what does he do? Goes around
Speaker 1: trying to trying to get more minority support, including nodding
Speaker 1: enthusiastically while a minority at an event. I don't even
Speaker 1: know what this event was, but a murdered event where
Speaker 1: Buddha Judge. Buddha Judges showed up, says the following play
Speaker 1: Cliff five place. And shouldn't we have some conversation whenever
Speaker 1: people say we call people illegal, aliens and all these
Speaker 1: things that are not human. I'm certainly not Christian. Why
Speaker 1: can't we just own in America that some of the
Speaker 1: people that are trying to come from Mexico, Kia are
Speaker 1: coming back to land we stole. And the reason we
Speaker 1: took the land is because people wanted to keep their slaves.
Speaker 1: I mean, we have to have some historical clarity. Land
Speaker 1: by the Buddha Judge and united. Some of you won't
Speaker 1: be able to see the video, but he was nodding
Speaker 1: along as this guy is saying, this stole the land
Speaker 1: from stole the land from whom all the land? In
Speaker 1: what way and when and how are we supposed to
Speaker 1: make amends for that? Now, this is where you have politicians,
Speaker 1: for example Tron desperate to try to gather more support,
Speaker 1: politicians who are making the claim for why we need reparations.
Speaker 1: In fact, I remember what I was on the Bill Marshall.
Speaker 1: That was a big topic at that time. I was
Speaker 1: at last August hearing all about how reparations should occur.
Speaker 1: And then when people discuss the realities therein and what
Speaker 1: it would really mean and what it would really do
Speaker 1: for the country, then all of a sudden they walk
Speaker 1: away from it. They realize it's not feasible. Mayor p
Speaker 1: here is nodding as a guy says that we stole
Speaker 1: all the I didn't steal anything, whether that was Reverend
Speaker 1: doctor William Jay Barbour the second asking that question of
Speaker 1: Buddha Judge, I didn't steal anything. Neither do you. If
Speaker 1: we were going to be held responsible for the sins
Speaker 1: of ancestors, then we no longer have a legal system
Speaker 1: based on individual rights and human dignity. We have a
Speaker 1: big fight over social justice and victimization in a historical model.
Speaker 1: Designating Mexican drug cartels asked foreign terrorist organizations. This is
Speaker 1: quite a step. President Trump has said that they are
Speaker 1: getting close to doing it. That he wants to do it,
Speaker 1: that it is going to happen. Now, this comes in
Speaker 1: the aftermath of the massacre of the LeBaron family, and
Speaker 1: I would note that when that initially came out, I
Speaker 1: said to you, the fact pattern does not add up
Speaker 1: to mistaken identity. It was not mistaken identity. Now, everyone,
Speaker 1: based on the additional stories that have come out, I think,
Speaker 1: understands that it was a massive assassination of women and
Speaker 1: children by the cartel, So it was not mistaken identity.
Speaker 1: I stand behind that, and I think it looks like
Speaker 1: I was quite correct the day of and even the
Speaker 1: administration was initially going off of reports that said that
Speaker 1: it might have been an accident. Cartel. They were executing
Speaker 1: women and children at close range. They knew exactly what
Speaker 1: was going on, and then they're burning the bodies afterwards.
Speaker 1: Then one of the mothers tried to convince them to stop.
Speaker 1: She came out of the vehicle after being wounded, and
Speaker 1: they killed her. I mean, they knew exactly what they
Speaker 1: were doing, they knew who they were shooting, so we
Speaker 1: should we should all be clear on that. And I
Speaker 1: think that our analysis of that from the opening hours
Speaker 1: after the incident has been proven correct as I would
Speaker 1: have anticipated. But now we look at okay, how do
Speaker 1: we deal with this? How many arrests as the Mexican
Speaker 1: government made of that ambush? I remember, they're US citizens,
Speaker 1: my friends, So these are ours down there who were killed.
Speaker 1: They're dual citizens, but they are US citizens, they have
Speaker 1: US citizenship. Zero arrests from the Mexican government of the
Speaker 1: cartels thus far, are anyone in the cartels responsible for this?
Speaker 1: Think about the message that that sends law and order
Speaker 1: in the country like this, where you have an assassination
Speaker 1: of women and children by heavily armored and men with
Speaker 1: machine guns. Most likely that's that's what the reporting was
Speaker 1: at the time. Certainly heavily armed regardless, and there's no
Speaker 1: arrests because the expectation in Mexico is that there generally
Speaker 1: won't be in arrest because rule of law and law
Speaker 1: and order have broken down in that country. I would
Speaker 1: just want to ask the question. I do have to
Speaker 1: wonder at some point, why is it that when you
Speaker 1: stand as I have on the US Mexico border at
Speaker 1: at San Diego and Tijuana, why is it that on
Speaker 1: the one side of that fence you have order, you
Speaker 1: have rule of law, you have police that are overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: trustworthy and honorable, and you go a couple hundred yards
Speaker 1: over the fence in the other direction and you have
Speaker 1: none of that. Does anyone ever stopping to try to
Speaker 1: answer that question, what exactly causes that difference? I'm not
Speaker 1: allowed to discuss, not allowed to know why. Mexico country
Speaker 1: that's actually quite rich in natural resource horses, that has
Speaker 1: the wealthiest, most benevolent neighbor in the world in America,
Speaker 1: obviously tremendous benefits to the Mexican economy. And now is
Speaker 1: when everyone's like, oh, but the Mexicans have been such
Speaker 1: a benefit of the US economy. Okay, yes, but point being,
Speaker 1: why is Mexico as a country so messed up? People
Speaker 1: would say, oh, the drug war? Bark, Well, it was
Speaker 1: messed up before the drug war, before the production of
Speaker 1: heroin and opioids and cocaine and other things. Where it
Speaker 1: was before the production and distribution was essentially consolidated by
Speaker 1: the Mexican drug cartels. They're the most powerful criminal syndicates
Speaker 1: in the world. Now they have vast amounts of wealth,
Speaker 1: and there are there are people who are very senior
Speaker 1: in these organized crime groups who will engage in the
Speaker 1: worst kinds of depravity and violence imaginable. So the desert
Speaker 1: nation as a foreign terrorist organization, what will this do.
Speaker 1: There will be some immediate leverage on the financial side,
Speaker 1: which is a good thing. The best way to fight
Speaker 1: the cartels will be to seize all of their cash,
Speaker 1: and in fact, I think that the seizure of cartel
Speaker 1: cash should be set up as a means of oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe funding the wall, funding law enforce
Speaker 1: and funding resettlement efforts for those who are seized at
Speaker 1: the border who are not going to be given refugee status,
Speaker 1: you know, pay for the flights back to whatever country
Speaker 1: they came from. A lot of things we could do
Speaker 1: with that money that should be taken should be seized
Speaker 1: from the cartels, so that there's a lot of teeth
Speaker 1: in the policy of a when you designate somebody an FTO.
Speaker 1: On the financial side, there's a lot that can be done.
Speaker 1: So that's good immediately, though, the concerns shift to the
Speaker 1: possibility of US unilateral kinetic action, a fancy way of saying,
Speaker 1: we send who knows, special DA teams, perhaps Special Forces Delta,
Speaker 1: you know, who knows we send them down on occasion
Speaker 1: to pick up or perhaps let's just say pick up
Speaker 1: for our purposes today, take some members of the cartel
Speaker 1: war off the battlefield. Now, I think that that's unlikely
Speaker 1: to happen because of the possible blowback. I don't see
Speaker 1: that happening, but there's a tremendous focus on that. It
Speaker 1: doesn't remind me a bit of the day of the
Speaker 1: Saldado movie. From what was that Cicario two. Ccario one
Speaker 1: was pretty good, a little bleak, a little relentless, but
Speaker 1: pretty entertaining movie, what reasonably well done. Cicario two is
Speaker 1: such a bad movie that I was amazed that anybody
Speaker 1: could read that script and think, yeah, this is a
Speaker 1: good idea. And it takes incredibly rich source material, which
Speaker 1: is the cartel war going on in southern Border, and
Speaker 1: makes it boring and really about human smuggling on a bus.
Speaker 1: And it's just it was horrible. It was a horrible movie.
Speaker 1: People made it really should be embarrassed for the destruction
Speaker 1: of their craft over the course of the two hours.
Speaker 1: Just trash. But there were scenes in that where you
Speaker 1: had drones. For example, I believe arm drones being used
Speaker 1: against the cartel could you foresee that happening. Well, here's
Speaker 1: the problem. If the cartel's turned to the Mexican government,
Speaker 1: it's not clear the Mexican government would win that fight.
Speaker 1: It's even less clear how much separation there is between
Speaker 1: the cartels and the government of Mexico, such that if
Speaker 1: you started really shaking the tree, so to speak, looking
Speaker 1: at funding sources, looking at all kinds of different connections
Speaker 1: along the way, how many politicians would come up clean?
Speaker 1: If you really wanted to know who was getting funded
Speaker 1: by the cartels for elected office in Mexico, would you
Speaker 1: end up with a lot of politicians who, after that
Speaker 1: whole process, look like they really know what's going on
Speaker 1: and they were honest and on the up and up.
Speaker 1: I don't think so. The cartels are having their most
Speaker 1: violent years ever the last two years, over thirty five
Speaker 1: thousand murders. I hate it when they do this thing. Oh,
Speaker 1: there are forty thousand gun debts or thirty five thousand.
Speaker 1: That's our thirty thousand gun debts, I think it is
Speaker 1: in America. Yeah, but over about twenty thousand them are
Speaker 1: suicides and Mexican I'm talking about thirty five thousand murders,
Speaker 1: people killing other people. That's going on right now. You
Speaker 1: have stories that barely even get notice here of Mexican
Speaker 1: marines they're more elite units getting ambushed, of Mexican police
Speaker 1: being overrun, being out gunned routinely by cartel hitmen, in
Speaker 1: many cases, hitmen who have better training and better arms
Speaker 1: than the police. And we know that these cartels have
Speaker 1: billions and billions of dollars at their disposal. So what
Speaker 1: makes us think that they're not at some level really
Speaker 1: running Mexico. We should ask that question, who really runs Mexico?
Speaker 1: Lopez Obrador or the cartels that can shut down a
Speaker 1: city with a phone call, have their gunmen spread all
Speaker 1: around that have the national government backed down from that fight?
Speaker 1: Remember that just happened a few weeks ago. And for
Speaker 1: those who think, oh buck, that's not really even possible
Speaker 1: in a country as corrupt as Mexico's, that's not possible
Speaker 1: that the cartels are the ones behind the scenes really running,
Speaker 1: really running Mexico. Okay, well, keep in mind that in
Speaker 1: Venezuela you have a number of individuals up to I
Speaker 1: believe the vice presidential level. I think it's the vice
Speaker 1: president or the number three guy in Venezuela in the
Speaker 1: Maduro regime is listed by our Treasury Department as a
Speaker 1: drug trafficker. Yeah, that's right. Venezuela is run by narco
Speaker 1: kingpins pretending to be social justice warriors, but they're very
Speaker 1: much involved in the drug trade. That's how they're getting
Speaker 1: hard currency. It's how they're able to continue to pay
Speaker 1: people off and stay in power. So that's just on record.
Speaker 1: You can go see that yourself. It's it's really stunning
Speaker 1: the leadership of a country as a large and sophisticated
Speaker 1: as Venezuela, as a bunch of drug dealers, the people
Speaker 1: in charge running the country. I'm sure mcduro. By the way,
Speaker 1: Maduro probably tries to keep a little you know, he's
Speaker 1: like the guy that never touches the drugs, but he's
Speaker 1: behind the scenes, he's getting a taste. I'm sure they're
Speaker 1: kicking them all kinds of cash. Otherwise, how how could
Speaker 1: you keep people in your administration? Who really raises the
Speaker 1: question why don't we just why isn't Maduro listed as
Speaker 1: a drug kingpin? Probably just because it would be so
Speaker 1: destabilizing as that we'd have to say, well, maybe we
Speaker 1: just got to take this guy off off the battlefield
Speaker 1: and now we're seizing the foreign head of state. So
Speaker 1: you know that gets tricky. But I'm sure Maduro is
Speaker 1: a drug dealer too. Come on, of course, Oh he
Speaker 1: just imagined that the Obama administration you found out and
Speaker 1: Sudde you're gonna be like, oh, Buck, if the Obama
Speaker 1: administration you found out that, you know, Joe Biden or
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi was involved in smuggling large amounts of cocaine,
Speaker 1: I think even I think the Obama administration would have
Speaker 1: had a problem with that. I don't think President Obama
Speaker 1: was like, yeah, you know, they gotta make some cash
Speaker 1: on the side. To his credit, he would not have
Speaker 1: had He would not have had the continuation of those
Speaker 1: people and his employee in Venezuela. You don't have that.
Speaker 1: Venezuela's like, oh yeah, designated as drug kingpins must all
Speaker 1: be lies from those you know, Yankee American types. No way,
Speaker 1: what's really going on in Mexico? Folks? Do we even
Speaker 1: want to know? This is where we start to have
Speaker 1: to ask some really tough questions. So we want to
Speaker 1: get to the bottom of it. Once you start looking
Speaker 1: at the money trails and seeing who the cartels are
Speaker 1: paying off and how where does that stop? What reason
Speaker 1: do we have to believe that you don't have many
Speaker 1: of the most powerful people in the Mexican government who
Speaker 1: are our counterparts in dealing with Mexico on the take,
Speaker 1: given how corrupt this country is, given how completely inept
Speaker 1: its judiciary is, and it's it's I mean, the courts
Speaker 1: in Mexico are sham. It's a joke. Everybody knows this
Speaker 1: law enforcement. This is not a poor county. Mexico is
Speaker 1: not a poor country. I was just in Mexico City
Speaker 1: over the summer. It's a lot of wealth there. You know.
Speaker 1: We have a lot of uneducated, poor Mexican workers who
Speaker 1: have been coming into this country in the last few decades.
Speaker 1: But it's not a poor country. This is not El Salvador.
Speaker 1: So what is it that has let this country continue
Speaker 1: to be just such an exemplar, really of corruption, of
Speaker 1: inept governance. Why is it that no one really expects
Speaker 1: crimes in Mexico to be prosecuted. These are the questions
Speaker 1: that should be asked, is the questions that the Mexican
Speaker 1: government should have to answer. Instead, they're going to get
Speaker 1: all huffy about how oh Americans better not take any
Speaker 1: unilateral action or country. Well, here's the problem with that.
Speaker 1: The cartels are killing thousands of Americans. I'm seeing more people.
Speaker 1: You've heard me say this now for many, many months.
Speaker 1: The cartels are directly responsible for killing Americans. They are
Speaker 1: putting pills on the streets here that are made to
Speaker 1: look like pills that they are not. This is this
Speaker 1: is really no different than if the cartels we're selling
Speaker 1: you know, bootleg vodka and it's really rat poison in
Speaker 1: the vodka in this country. Imagine if the cartels did that,
Speaker 1: and we're killing thousands of people with you know, poison
Speaker 1: laced vodka that they were selling here. And that's more
Speaker 1: or less what they're doing by by putting oxyconton on
Speaker 1: the streets. That's not oxyconton's, it's opioids that they have
Speaker 1: made themselves. You know, it's fentinel that they're saying as oxyconton.
Speaker 1: They're killing thousands of Americans. A lot more Americans are
Speaker 1: being killed by the Mexican drug cartels than have ever
Speaker 1: and killed by the Islamic State, my friends. And look
Speaker 1: at all the expenditure of resources and effort to go
Speaker 1: after isis in Syria. So I think designating them as
Speaker 1: a foreign terrorist organizations are I move? I do, I do,
Speaker 1: And by the way they do. People are saying, oh,
Speaker 1: they're not terrorists, Yes they are. They use violence to
Speaker 1: get state compliance and state to back off of law
Speaker 1: enforcement efforts, and they they've established full control and whole
Speaker 1: regions of Mexico. I mean, of course, they use violence
Speaker 1: for explicitly political lens. It's to turn Mexico into a
Speaker 1: narco state. So it's not like they could separate this
Speaker 1: from politics. It's not just petty street crime. We're trying
Speaker 1: to control the government. They got the government to back
Speaker 1: off of a gunfight with them a few weeks ago.
Speaker 1: Say we're holding the city hostage. But I'm telling you
Speaker 1: the Trump especially if Trump stays in office, Democrats will
Speaker 1: just wimp out on this whole thing, and they won't
Speaker 1: you know, Oh, no, Mexico's perfect. We're anything bad in
Speaker 1: Mexico's the fault of America. That's that's the Democrat line.
Speaker 1: But if you have a Trump administration that comes in
Speaker 1: more years in office and they really pursue this thing,
Speaker 1: I think it's the right thing to do. But a
Speaker 1: lot of people aren't gonna like what we find out
Speaker 1: about the truth of the cartels and the Mexican government
Speaker 1: that much. I am very confident. How many holiday packages
Speaker 1: are you gonna have the deliberty your home? You know
Speaker 1: there's a lot of cool stuff it's going to be
Speaker 1: sitting there without parental supervision. Well, this year, you can
Speaker 1: keep a sharp eye by Blink before you buy. Before
Speaker 1: you order anything else, order the Blink x T two
Speaker 1: security camera to help keep an eye on your holiday
Speaker 1: deliveries wherever you are. Blinks Black Friday Cyber Monday event
Speaker 1: is on. It's your chance to save aton and get
Speaker 1: a free Amazon Echo Dot with a purchase of any
Speaker 1: Blink system while supplies last look. Blink x T two
Speaker 1: cameras are amazing. They're wire free, setup fast, and run
Speaker 1: on two double A lithium batteries for up to two years,
Speaker 1: and their motion activated so you'll know as soon as
Speaker 1: the delivery person approaches your door or anybody else by
Speaker 1: the way, and you've got a two way talk feature
Speaker 1: as well. Blinks Black Friday Cyber Monday event is on.
Speaker 1: Save up twenty eight percent on Blink cameras and systems
Speaker 1: from November twenty eight through December second, and get a
Speaker 1: free Amazon Echo dot with any Blink system while supplies
Speaker 1: last visit blink protect dot Com slash Sale, blink protect
Speaker 1: dot Com slash Sale again, blink Protect dot Com slash Sale.
Speaker 1: Let's talk about Granta Thunberg for a moment here, folks.
Speaker 1: Darren Aronofsky, the director who's made some decent movies in
Speaker 1: some terrible movies. Recently, he wrote in The New York
Speaker 1: Times about how she's the she provides the imagery that
Speaker 1: the climate change movement really needs. Well, you would think
Speaker 1: that argument would be more important than imagery, but that's
Speaker 1: not the case. But Thunberg wrote something just a couple
Speaker 1: of days ago, or had it. I don't know if
Speaker 1: she had it written for her, but she put her
Speaker 1: name on this. And I have to tell you, my friends,
Speaker 1: those of us who say that this is not really
Speaker 1: the climate change, is not really about climate, we have
Speaker 1: all this evidence to point you. We can show you
Speaker 1: time and again that this is about much more than that.
Speaker 1: It is about power. This is what she writes in
Speaker 1: This is Project Syndicate dot Org. I don't know what
Speaker 1: that is. This is Gretith Thrumberg Global Icon now of
Speaker 1: the Climate change movement. Here's what she writes. The climate
Speaker 1: crisis is not just about the environment. It is a
Speaker 1: crisis of human rights, of justice, and of political will.
Speaker 1: Colonial racist, and patriarchal systems of oppression have created and
Speaker 1: fueled it. We need to dismantle them. All Our political
Speaker 1: leaders can no longer shirk their responsibilities. Colonial racist, and
Speaker 1: patriarchal systems of oppression are the reasons for the client.
Speaker 1: I thought it was about science and CO two going
Speaker 1: in there. I thought it was about industry and mechanization
Speaker 1: and the usage of the combustion engine and fossil fuel
Speaker 1: in cars. And it's about no colonial, racist, and patriarchal
Speaker 1: systems of oppression. My friend's climate change is just about socialism.
Speaker 1: That's really what it is. It's ultimately a means of
Speaker 1: empowering the state to engage in the central planning, to
Speaker 1: bring about not just a nation state of radical egalitarianism,
Speaker 1: of radical equality, but to bring about a world of
Speaker 1: radical equality. That to me is deeply disturbing. It should
Speaker 1: be deeply disturbing to all of you. There's another individual.
Speaker 1: I don't know this guy is, but I thought this
Speaker 1: was great. This guy, Zach Canter on Twitter he's a
Speaker 1: blue check. I'm not sure what he does, but he
Speaker 1: wrote this, and I assume in response to this conversation
Speaker 1: about Greta right now and how it's not just about
Speaker 1: climate change, he wrote, one huge drawback of nuclear power
Speaker 1: is that a dozen dismantled systems of oppression, it only
Speaker 1: produces clean energy. This makes it unsuitable for solving the
Speaker 1: climate crisis, which isn't just about the environment. The climate
Speaker 1: crisis is not just about the environment. The left says
Speaker 1: this openly. They tell you this, they speak about this,
Speaker 1: and then when you say, well, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: this is really about climate ors is about other things,
Speaker 1: they say, Oh, how dare you? Don't you care about
Speaker 1: the earth. Don't you care about saving the planet for
Speaker 1: future generations? Oh my god. As I sit around and
Speaker 1: say hold on a second, I'm being told here by
Speaker 1: by an icon in the movement that it's about dismantling
Speaker 1: the patriarchy. What does climate change have to do with
Speaker 1: the patriarchy? Oh well, if climate change is just the
Speaker 1: excuse of hysterics to empower the government in ways that
Speaker 1: nobody would have dreamed of before, do anything it wants
Speaker 1: to do with everything justified under the climate change. Well,
Speaker 1: then you have all the power you need for the
Speaker 1: utopian society that we brought about by the extreme equality
Speaker 1: of the superstate. That's what climate change is really all about.
Speaker 1: New York City has the stupidest gun laws anywhere in
Speaker 1: the country, with the possible exceptions of Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: And Chicago, but I mean New York it could be
Speaker 1: the worst, depends on which specific area. I mean. I'm
Speaker 1: here in the city and it's completely absurd what they
Speaker 1: put you through as a gun owner. And I've got
Speaker 1: to tell you that you see here the way, the dishonest,
Speaker 1: the bad faith way that opponents of the Second Amendment,
Speaker 1: because that's what they are, the bad faith way that
Speaker 1: they do things in left wing enclaves like New York
Speaker 1: that show that they're unserious about the constitution, the law,
Speaker 1: and that they just want to abuse their power when
Speaker 1: they can because they don't like people owning guns. They
Speaker 1: don't like people who own guns. That is all. That
Speaker 1: is all a part of this. Let's just look at
Speaker 1: this case for a month. Here's the way it works
Speaker 1: in New York City. You have to go through a
Speaker 1: process which I keep saying I'm going to go through it.
Speaker 1: I keep getting delayed with life and other things. But
Speaker 1: you go through a process they're going to hand gun
Speaker 1: here that takes about five months, cost five hundred dollars,
Speaker 1: lots of paperwork, lots of background check, a lot lots
Speaker 1: of things going on here. And it's meant to be onerous.
Speaker 1: Now remember Second Amendment. Whatever, you gotta pay big fees,
Speaker 1: you gotta go through all this hassle and everything else.
Speaker 1: Voting if you just have to say, hey, here's an
Speaker 1: idea that I need for pretty much everything else in life,
Speaker 1: but I'm just showing it. That's liberals freak out about that. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's an infringement on the right to vote. What about
Speaker 1: infringements on the right to bear arms? Oh, they don't care.
Speaker 1: That doesn't matter. That doesn't somehow fall into the under
Speaker 1: the rubric of rights. As far as they're concerned, it
Speaker 1: as something else. It is a right to be intentionally
Speaker 1: dismantled and undermine. That's what they do. So the way
Speaker 1: it works in New York is you can you can
Speaker 1: get a premise permit for a handgun. You have the
Speaker 1: premise permit. Now that means you must keep it in
Speaker 1: your home. The handgun in a locked box, a trigger guard,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, a trigger lock on the handgun in the
Speaker 1: locked box, which means it's great if a burglar comes
Speaker 1: or somebody you know is threatening you home invasion, you
Speaker 1: have a very heavy projectile. I'll think of it almost
Speaker 1: like like a paperweight now that you can throw at him,
Speaker 1: because that's about the likelihood that you're gonna be able
Speaker 1: to get to your gun in time and have ammunition
Speaker 1: kept in a separate locked box. That's the rule here
Speaker 1: in New York City. And so then the rule was
Speaker 1: that you could take it in those locked boxes too.
Speaker 1: A desert, so from your home you could transport a
Speaker 1: two a designated gun range. Keep in mind, if you
Speaker 1: break any of these rules, they arrest you, you spend
Speaker 1: your weekend in prison. You're threatened with years in prison
Speaker 1: if in fact they convict you, even for a minor
Speaker 1: violation of this. I mean, New York City is the
Speaker 1: same place where people who were transporting they're illegally owned
Speaker 1: and possessed firearms, but transitting through a New York airport.
Speaker 1: And then if the flight was canceled and you had
Speaker 1: to get your stuff in the New York airport, when
Speaker 1: people came back to that airport to get on the
Speaker 1: flight to get them to the place they were going
Speaker 1: to where they were legally allowed to have that gun.
Speaker 1: New York arrested people for that. New York would arrest
Speaker 1: people for that. Shameful, appalling, and the officers involved in
Speaker 1: that should feel badly about it because it was wrong.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, that gives you a sense of the mentality
Speaker 1: here around guns. So here's what New York did. They said, Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: you can take it to a firearms range in the
Speaker 1: city where I think there's like less than I think
Speaker 1: there's two or three of them the whole city, and
Speaker 1: they're not nice. But you can't take the gun that
Speaker 1: you've gone through all this process with. You cannot transport
Speaker 1: it outside city limits. So New York State, you're not
Speaker 1: allowed to take your gun in New York. So it's
Speaker 1: really like the city of New York owns this gun
Speaker 1: and you're renting it from them, and you can't take
Speaker 1: it outside of New York City. This is absurd. How
Speaker 1: is this the right to bear arms? I mean, just state.
Speaker 1: New York City is in New York State, so you
Speaker 1: can't have reciprocity with the rest of New York State
Speaker 1: with your legally owning Who thinks this is going to
Speaker 1: stop any violence, by the way, or stop anything from going.
Speaker 1: It's just it's idiocy, and it's completely unjustifiable under any
Speaker 1: understanding of the Second Amendment and also just common sense.
Speaker 1: The only people that we're going to get in trouble
Speaker 1: for this were people who you know, were for some
Speaker 1: reason leaving New York City and they tell an officer, Oh,
Speaker 1: you know, I've got this firearm that I'm transporting to
Speaker 1: you know, my house in upstate New York, or I'm
Speaker 1: going to see my grandparents. I want to go shoot
Speaker 1: with them somewhere, you know, in Syracuse or in you know,
Speaker 1: a Dutchess County or wherever. And you know people Albany
Speaker 1: and people will get in trouble with the police for
Speaker 1: telling the monstery what's going on. Because you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to take the gun. They probably would compsicate the gun
Speaker 1: with me. Who knows what else would happen. Not allowed
Speaker 1: to take it outside the city, You're violating a New
Speaker 1: York City law by doing that. That's so stupid, it's
Speaker 1: so absurd. You already have possession of the fire so
Speaker 1: why create this weird city limits violation for the rest
Speaker 1: of the state. Well, it turns out that the libs
Speaker 1: know this is a craped law. The Libs know that
Speaker 1: this was meant to just stick a thumb in the
Speaker 1: eye of legal gun owners, people that want to enjoy
Speaker 1: their second round of rights in New York City. And
Speaker 1: so the moment that a challenge was brought to this,
Speaker 1: a court challenge, they New York City repeal the law.
Speaker 1: Oh sorry, psych didn't mean didn't mean to do that,
Speaker 1: not even willing to defend it. Yeah, Supreme Court heard
Speaker 1: or arguments about this today for about an hour. People
Speaker 1: are saying that, of course the liberals because they're policy people,
Speaker 1: they're not really charges you know, Ginsburg and all the rest.
Speaker 1: They're they're not people that are there you know, kay again,
Speaker 1: and so do my or They're there to give the
Speaker 1: left what they want. That is their role in the court.
Speaker 1: That is the only reason that they are all on
Speaker 1: the court to give the left what they want. They're
Speaker 1: not interpreting the law. They're not. They're they're claiming, now, well,
Speaker 1: this is all this is all moot because New York
Speaker 1: repealed this law. Okay, but you're not supposed to have
Speaker 1: cat and mouse games with the legislature of different states
Speaker 1: or cities. My friends, Okay, you know, I'm imagine for
Speaker 1: a second that you know, New York passed a literacy
Speaker 1: test to vote. Oh, you've got you, We've got to
Speaker 1: have you do a literacy test before you vote. And
Speaker 1: they and then the Supreme Court said, whoa hold on
Speaker 1: a second, that's that's a you can't do that. And
Speaker 1: then New York says, oh, no, it's okay, we're just
Speaker 1: gonna we're gonna repeal that literacy vote test because it's
Speaker 1: in court has said they'll look at it. What's to
Speaker 1: stop them, by the way, from just saying in a
Speaker 1: few months, when the court's not able in the court
Speaker 1: process that those keep on going, Oh, let's put that
Speaker 1: law back in place, let's have that literacy test again
Speaker 1: just in time for the election. Oh, the Supreme Court's
Speaker 1: going to review it. Oh, let's pull that away. This
Speaker 1: is the way that liberals abused process. When I talk
Speaker 1: to you about how they don't do things in good faith,
Speaker 1: this is obviously bad faith. They passed a law. They
Speaker 1: should be willing to stand up for that law against
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court, or they should admit that they were
Speaker 1: in error and say they'll never do this again, which
Speaker 1: they have not done. Of course, the Libs are scared
Speaker 1: here that what they would know, what the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: might do, even though this law is no longer on
Speaker 1: the books, is perhaps way in on whether or not
Speaker 1: the right to bear arms also has to include the
Speaker 1: right to in some capacity transport and keep on your
Speaker 1: person arms. This is what has not been decided, and dcv.
Speaker 1: Heller said that you do have a right, if you're
Speaker 1: a law abiding citizen in the United States, do you
Speaker 1: have the right to have a gun in your home?
Speaker 1: And there cannot be insurmountable restrictions put on this, as
Speaker 1: DC had done, essentially regulating away. You're right, that's what
Speaker 1: they do. This is what the socialists, the status the
Speaker 1: Democrats is what they do all the time. They use
Speaker 1: regulation as a means of replacing legislative fixes that they
Speaker 1: wanted to say, Well, this is the way we're going
Speaker 1: to this is the way this is going to go,
Speaker 1: this is how we're going to do this going forward. So,
Speaker 1: my friends to this, I would just point out that
Speaker 1: you cannot tell me that liberals didn't know that this
Speaker 1: law was stupid and unconstitutional from the start. I hope
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court writes a more sweeping opinion, but they
Speaker 1: may just say, oh, well, I guess there's no law anymore,
Speaker 1: because the conservatives on it might The conservatives on the
Speaker 1: Court might say, although I think we can trust Thomas
Speaker 1: to realize this is just this create it's such a
Speaker 1: bad taste in the mouths of any honest and decent
Speaker 1: American that they're gonna You're gonna have cities pass laws
Speaker 1: that will send people to prison, perhaps, and then the
Speaker 1: moment the Supreme Court's gonna say well, hold on a second,
Speaker 1: they go, oh no, sorry, just kidding. Really, you're going
Speaker 1: to pass laws that you won't You're gonna pass a
Speaker 1: law and keep it as a law until the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court wants to look at it, and then you make
Speaker 1: it go away because you don't want anyone to actually
Speaker 1: take an honest look at what's going on here and
Speaker 1: how unconstitutional and how tyrannical it is. This is how
Speaker 1: liberals operate. Friends, conservatives in the Court will say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it's not a law anymore, so we don't have Essentially,
Speaker 1: there's no standing here. There's no reason for us to
Speaker 1: weigh on this because they've already. But this is just
Speaker 1: understand This is how lives do. What They pass laws
Speaker 1: that they know to be unconstitutional, and they keep them
Speaker 1: in place as laws until they're going to be challenged
Speaker 1: on it. And then to avoid the American people finding
Speaker 1: out whether or not it is constitutional what they did,
Speaker 1: they just say, oh no, we're going to repeal it.
Speaker 1: Bad faith with Democrats do. It's how they operate, bad faith.
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network is the only dual certified, veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company. They are federally certified as
Speaker 1: a vetit own small business and headquartered in Chicago with
Speaker 1: offices throughout the nation. Their risk mitigation experts can work
Speaker 1: with startups all the way up to Fortune one hundred companies,
Speaker 1: and no data or client information is ever offshored. Unlike
Speaker 1: a lot of their competitors, Global Verification Network has all
Speaker 1: employees located throughout the United States and they do not
Speaker 1: outsource or offshore any of the work you give them.
Speaker 1: Give Global Verification Network a call eight seven seven six
Speaker 1: nine five one one seven nine. Again that's eight seven
Speaker 1: seven six nine five one one seven nine. You can
Speaker 1: also go to MYGVN dot Com again. That's MYGVN dot
Speaker 1: Com Global Verification Network for all your background investigation, ending
Speaker 1: vetting needs. Leave no stone, un turn team bucking. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. It is roll calls on everybody.
Speaker 1: I have missed you all. I've missed the roll call
Speaker 1: and I'm excited to get the opportunity to talk to
Speaker 1: you about it now. So fantastic, let's get to it.
Speaker 1: Um Ed right, Hey Buck, where can I get a
Speaker 1: Commie Bear? I watch you on the Blaze way back
Speaker 1: and love the Commie Bear Chistus season. Do you have
Speaker 1: a store? Ed? Commie Bear is currently on injured reserve.
Speaker 1: He's not formally retired, but he hasn't been in the
Speaker 1: game for a little while. I don't know that, especially
Speaker 1: now we have the Pluto TV channel two forty eight,
Speaker 1: the first the best thing on Pluto TV, the free
Speaker 1: app that you should all download for your phones and
Speaker 1: you can watch the show every day. Now that we
Speaker 1: have it, perhaps we should bring back the Bear. I've
Speaker 1: been thinking about it for some time. I'm thinking that
Speaker 1: it would be quite fun, But it's just a question
Speaker 1: of how much more work I can put into things.
Speaker 1: But the answers I don't think we do have a
Speaker 1: store up right now on Buxxon dot com, although I
Speaker 1: should probably check. I'm not aware of us having a prucer, Brandon,
Speaker 1: do we have a store up? Do we know? You
Speaker 1: don't know? Prus Brandon will find out he's in for
Speaker 1: Oh that's right, Producer Mark. Guess what. Right now, while
Speaker 1: we're all freezing our butts off the New York City,
Speaker 1: Pruster Mark is drinking pina coladas on his very well
Speaker 1: deserved honeymoon in Jamaica. I will say it was a
Speaker 1: great wedding, a lot of fun out in Long Island.
Speaker 1: Some Team Buck folks were there. Just just gets to
Speaker 1: the wedding. Anohing new with me. I didn't really know anybody.
Speaker 1: I just walked around, ate some ate some sushi. They
Speaker 1: had a sushi table. I gotta say I like the sushi.
Speaker 1: But when Pruser Mark's wedding was beautiful, him and his
Speaker 1: wife seem like they're having fantastic time. Everything came off
Speaker 1: very very well. So I was really happy for him.
Speaker 1: And right now he's on the beach in Jamaica. I'm
Speaker 1: sure not thinking about us here in the Freedom Hut,
Speaker 1: which is the way it should be. He'll be back
Speaker 1: in two weeks. By the way he's taken off, he's
Speaker 1: gonna enjoy himself. I know, right, Price or Brandon, you
Speaker 1: better be. We gotta keep you healthy, man, because if
Speaker 1: you get sick, we're going to like third string quarterback.
Speaker 1: That's not good. I was worried because of course he
Speaker 1: leaves when he finally gets snow here in New York,
Speaker 1: like he planned it. So I'm like, what if I
Speaker 1: get stuck? What am I gonna do? What is bucking
Speaker 1: to do? These things keep me up at night? You'd
Speaker 1: be a mess in here, man. I can barely. I can't.
Speaker 1: I still have trouble switching from like my DVR, or
Speaker 1: rather from my smart TV to normal cable. This is
Speaker 1: a challenge for me every day. So if you weren't
Speaker 1: in here to do all the things with the screens,
Speaker 1: we'd be in bad shape. Well, if there's a snowstorm,
Speaker 1: I'll go sleep in the studio. It's okay, thank you.
Speaker 1: That's that's the dedication we expect from people to help
Speaker 1: keep the Freedom Hunt running. Sherry, Right, I love the show.
Speaker 1: Listen every another podcast? Yeah yeah, yeah, yeah, yeah, okay,
Speaker 1: thank you, Sherry? Is it Sherry Moncherie or Sherry or
Speaker 1: just sherry could be either one if it's American at Sherry.
Speaker 1: But perhaps we will call out Shelly because she is
Speaker 1: a very fancy. She likes to listen on zip podcast.
Speaker 1: How was the mac and cheese at Producer Mark's wedding?
Speaker 1: We need details? Was a penny pasta elbow pasta cheddar
Speaker 1: cheese and mix of cheese? Is oh sherry? Producer brother
Speaker 1: that I were talking about this and I don't know.
Speaker 1: We're happy that Producer Mark has enjoyed himself on the
Speaker 1: beach right now and working on his tan and being
Speaker 1: a newly married man. It's fantastic. But there was no
Speaker 1: gluten freemac and cheese at that wedding. I asked several
Speaker 1: members of the of the staff who were involved in
Speaker 1: the food service part of this, and they asked the
Speaker 1: head chef and there was never So I don't know
Speaker 1: a little bit of a bait and switch. I had
Speaker 1: gluten freemac and cheese promised, and you don't ended up
Speaker 1: having salmon filet without any sauce. Now, look, the food
Speaker 1: the wedding was great for everybody else. Maybe it's my
Speaker 1: fault that I'm genetically inferior and have celiac disease. That's said.
Speaker 1: My little salmon filet was not gluten freemac and cheese
Speaker 1: and had no sauce. You promised you gluten freemac and cheese.
Speaker 1: We talked about this. I was promised gluten freemac and cheese,
Speaker 1: and did that happen? It did not. We have the tape.
Speaker 1: We do have the tape. We could we could roll
Speaker 1: tape on this one. So it's very clear to me
Speaker 1: this is this is where it's at right now. But
Speaker 1: that's all right. We're you know, I'm not gonna not
Speaker 1: gonna bother producer Mark on his honeymoon about the lack
Speaker 1: of gluten freemac and cheese. But when he comes back
Speaker 1: in a couple of weeks, some of you have to
Speaker 1: remind me when we get Producer Mark back in the
Speaker 1: mix that you promised that to a man, you gotta
Speaker 1: keep that promise. So we might have to have him
Speaker 1: come in with some homemade gluten freemac and cheese for
Speaker 1: the buckster, because you know, perhaps courtesy of now missus Mark,
Speaker 1: maybe she's better in the kitchen or not. I like cooking.
Speaker 1: That was not a sexist comment. Just to be clear,
Speaker 1: Michael write, say, I already benefited from free healthcare, which
Speaker 1: because I reset my elbow. Roll call. All right, Michael,
Speaker 1: thank you. I don't know what we're really talking about here,
Speaker 1: but it was it was fun while it lasted. Robert writes, Dude,
Speaker 1: a meat connoisseur like you ain't had pot roast. Ask
Speaker 1: a butcher to give you a brick of beef to
Speaker 1: slow cook. I often use croc pot with potatoes, carrots
Speaker 1: and sweet onion. You're still young, buck, Yeah, I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I mean a pot roast. I don't
Speaker 1: think I've ever had pot roast. Have you had pot roast?
Speaker 1: Is it good? I'd be one of my favorites, really, student,
Speaker 1: I mean, stewed meat is delicious usually so yeah. I
Speaker 1: mean my grandma used to make it, my mom makes it,
Speaker 1: my girlfriend makes it. I ever had pot roast? Growing
Speaker 1: I think you're missing out. I think I definitely had
Speaker 1: too many boxes of Kraft Macaroni and Cheese though, which
Speaker 1: turns out if you were looking to put on the lbs,
Speaker 1: just have two boxes of Kraft mac and cheese for
Speaker 1: dinner every night. You'll get there real fast, you know.
Speaker 1: I have not had pot roast. Here we go. Oh Paula,
Speaker 1: all right today you said turkeys for Thanksgiving. Ham, it's
Speaker 1: for Christmas. Jesus would never have touched Ham. Just a thought.
Speaker 1: Really like your show, M Paula. I get what you're
Speaker 1: putting down there, but I'm still gonna eat my my
Speaker 1: Ham at that At that time, Ham I am said
Speaker 1: the Buck. Let's see Eric Buck. The morning after last
Speaker 1: Him debate, Kleomashar stated on CNN that the Russians only
Speaker 1: hacked our elections via dumb social media post and they
Speaker 1: attempt to hack voting machines. Can you comment on this, Eric,
Speaker 1: There have been some reports about some like intrusions from
Speaker 1: cyber from malware stuff about the Russians, but no votes
Speaker 1: were changed, and it's all it's just being exaggerated by
Speaker 1: people for political purposes. That's gonna be our first show
Speaker 1: back after Thanksgiving, Guys, Chris is gonna be here before Christmas,
Speaker 1: is gonna be here before you know it. So just
Speaker 1: trapped in because we're gonna have very exciting shows between
Speaker 1: now and then, and also Buck's birthday which comes up
Speaker 1: later this month. Shields Hi