Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Join the conversation
Speaker 1: and message Buck on Facebook, Instagram, or email Team Bucket
Speaker 1: iHeartMedia dot com. He may read it on the show.
Speaker 1: We go through this cycle over and over again. There
Speaker 1: was a mass shooting, and immediately there's an effort to
Speaker 1: try to use this to try to exploit the crisis
Speaker 1: for political points. I can't tell you how many people
Speaker 1: I had already just in my own world of social
Speaker 1: media and trying to share thoughts and opinions. I was
Speaker 1: referring to Governor Christine Nomes transgender bill in South Dakota,
Speaker 1: and I had all these comments about how why won't
Speaker 1: you talk about the quote Trump supporter? End quote? They
Speaker 1: would say, who just engaged in a mass shooting? The
Speaker 1: white supremacist Trump supporter that engaged in a mass shooting.
Speaker 1: There was no evidence whatsoever to support that that was
Speaker 1: what happened. There was none when this was being said
Speaker 1: last night, and yet they went with it anyway. They
Speaker 1: decided that it was too useful in this moment of
Speaker 1: heightened emotions and sense of crisis to bash political opponents
Speaker 1: who weren't even talking necessarily about this awful incident. And
Speaker 1: this is what you see people that leverage the Internet
Speaker 1: for their own power. That you social media as a weapon,
Speaker 1: and unfortunately the social media companies themselves are increasingly a
Speaker 1: political weapon. They use this to silence those ideas groups,
Speaker 1: those individuals who they view as outside of the mainstream
Speaker 1: or somehow opposed to the dominant democrat consensus. But you
Speaker 1: can do something about this. When you anonymize your connection,
Speaker 1: you can serve the Internet freely without wondering who's going
Speaker 1: to get a hold of your search history or your
Speaker 1: viewing habits, or what they'll do with that information. Because
Speaker 1: what they have now, who knows what it will be
Speaker 1: in five years, how much more they're going to go.
Speaker 1: You know, China has a social credit system in place
Speaker 1: that makes determinations about you based upon what you do online,
Speaker 1: what apartment you can rent or house you can buy,
Speaker 1: and all sorts of information down to the very granular.
Speaker 1: We have even better technology here if it's turned against us,
Speaker 1: So take technology into your hands to take action against this.
Speaker 1: That's what you can do with Express VPN. When you
Speaker 1: search for something online, you watch a video, you click
Speaker 1: a link, you know that the big tech companies can
Speaker 1: trace you using that device. Is unique IP address. But
Speaker 1: when I use Express VPN, these companies can't see my
Speaker 1: IP address at all. My identity is anonymized by a
Speaker 1: secure VPN server and my data is encrypted for maximum protection.
Speaker 1: Besides hiding all my Internet activity, what I like most
Speaker 1: about Express VPN is how easy it is to use.
Speaker 1: Stop handing over your data to big tech companies in
Speaker 1: the government. Defend your rights with the VPN I trust
Speaker 1: for online protection. Visit Express vpn dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: That's Express vpn dot com slash buck. You'll get three
Speaker 1: months of extra protection free Express vpn dot com slash buck.
Speaker 1: A horrific mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado at a grocery store,
Speaker 1: and what do they do right away? What do they
Speaker 1: decide must happen? Politicization? We can't even wait for the
Speaker 1: basic facts to come out. We can't even know the
Speaker 1: person's name. And already I can tell you last night,
Speaker 1: all over the place, there were charges flying about how
Speaker 1: this must be a white supremacist, it must be a
Speaker 1: Trump supporter. Maybe it was somebody from the Capitol Hill riot.
Speaker 1: The stuff that was being said and shared, including from
Speaker 1: people who work in media and are supposed to have
Speaker 1: some ethics supposed to have some standards. Was appalling. And
Speaker 1: now today we find out more information and we can
Speaker 1: see that the people who were or jump to conclusions,
Speaker 1: they don't care. It doesn't matter. It felt good for
Speaker 1: them in the initial stages to bludgeon their political opponents
Speaker 1: for something that has nothing to do with them. It
Speaker 1: was gratifying for leftists to use this tragedy as an
Speaker 1: opportunity to push their agenda. And we keep going through this.
Speaker 1: It stretches back years. It stretches back to the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: to Sandy Hook, to terrible incidents mass shootings before that,
Speaker 1: to Columbined and we come to the same Democrat claims
Speaker 1: that are rooted in emotion and demonizing people who are
Speaker 1: lawful gun owners who believe in the Second Amendment to
Speaker 1: advance a political agenda. Eventually, they don't win. Usually they
Speaker 1: back off of this issue because people learn that what
Speaker 1: they're recommending would not have prevented the incident at hand,
Speaker 1: and in fact, would do very little, if anything, to
Speaker 1: help anyone when it comes to gun violence. But ultimately,
Speaker 1: this is about the underlying philosophy of Democrats wanting to
Speaker 1: disarm you, all of you everyone. They do not believe
Speaker 1: that individuals should be able to own weapons in defense
Speaker 1: of themselves and as a defense against tyranny from the state.
Speaker 1: They do not believe in it, and everything that they
Speaker 1: say other than that is just incrementalism to that same end,
Speaker 1: trying to take guns out of the hands of people
Speaker 1: who are law abiding and who do nothing wrong, not
Speaker 1: only with those fires, nothing wrong in general. But first
Speaker 1: let's get to the facts as we know them, the
Speaker 1: details of this case. This is the Bolder police Chief
Speaker 1: Maris Harold earlier today play nineteen forty pm on Monday,
Speaker 1: regarding the suspect. At approximately to forty pm on Monday
Speaker 1: March twenty, officers were dispatched to King's Supers on Tablemasa Drive.
Speaker 1: Officers arrived on the scene within minutes and immediately entered
Speaker 1: the store and engaged the suspect. There was this exchange
Speaker 1: of gunfire which such best was shot. No other officers
Speaker 1: were injured. The suspect was taken into custody at three
Speaker 1: twenty eight pm. He was transported to the hospital for treatment.
Speaker 1: Now in stable condition. This suspect has been identified as
Speaker 1: a mod ALYSSA twenty one of our Vada. He has
Speaker 1: been charged with ten counts of murder in the first
Speaker 1: degree and will be shortly transported the bull to County jail.
Speaker 1: Ten counts of murder in the first degree. Is this
Speaker 1: an act of terror? I saw people insisting that it
Speaker 1: was before we knew anything about the shooter. I saw
Speaker 1: Democrats leaping on this as an opportunity to push an
Speaker 1: agenda that this is somehow tied to Trump everything that
Speaker 1: is awful. These people are mentally, absolutely committed to the
Speaker 1: notion that anything that is awful and terrible and bad
Speaker 1: can be put on Donald Trump. He's the ultimate boogeyman,
Speaker 1: and they won't let it go. It has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with Trump, and no intelligent, honest person would say otherwise.
Speaker 1: But they were It's all over the internet last night,
Speaker 1: all of the commentariat, you know, the commentators on the left.
Speaker 1: That's what they were saying. That's what they were telling people.
Speaker 1: And we now know that the individual Ahmad, I've seen
Speaker 1: it said and spelled two different ways, but his first
Speaker 1: name is Ahmad. There's a good chance that what they're
Speaker 1: saying is Alyssa may be an alternative spelling, but it's
Speaker 1: Ahmad al Issa. We don't know anything about this man
Speaker 1: about his mental health as I speak to you now,
Speaker 1: and this is going to be rapidly evolving and changing.
Speaker 1: We're gonna learn about the social media footprint, We're gonna
Speaker 1: learn about what his neighbors and friends and all those
Speaker 1: things are going to I'm in. But one thing you
Speaker 1: have to understand is that the people that try to
Speaker 1: exploit this before they know anything, who sees upon emotion,
Speaker 1: who call the NRA a terrorist organization that was done yesterday,
Speaker 1: who say the NRA should be treated like a crime
Speaker 1: family ordering murders, and the people that say this insane
Speaker 1: stuff when the facts actually come out, if the facts
Speaker 1: largely or entirely contradict the initial narrative, They're not sorry,
Speaker 1: They're not even embarrassed. That's the point. This is about
Speaker 1: the exercise of raw power. This is about exploiting emotions.
Speaker 1: This is about getting people angry at the other so
Speaker 1: that you can get the angry people to do and
Speaker 1: believe what you want them to the same way I've
Speaker 1: told people that you have to have a different a
Speaker 1: different understanding of hypocrisy. The left does not care about
Speaker 1: being hypocritical. They have power. They use it when they
Speaker 1: can enforce different standards, they will just like all autocrats,
Speaker 1: just like all dictatorial regimes, they don't shy away from this.
Speaker 1: They don't view it as a problem. They don't care.
Speaker 1: They just do it because they can, because they get
Speaker 1: away with it. The same thing is true about the
Speaker 1: immediate exploitation of a mass shooting like this. They view
Speaker 1: it as an opportunity for a political agenda and also
Speaker 1: to exercise some of their disdain for the other side,
Speaker 1: use it as an excuse to scream abuse at people
Speaker 1: who they disagree with politically on other things that have
Speaker 1: nothing to do with the actual shooting itself. So they're
Speaker 1: not sorry about this. They don't view this as a
Speaker 1: moment where they should be more honest or they should
Speaker 1: do some introspection. No, when a MSNBC watching New York
Speaker 1: Times reading lib screams at you online and says, see
Speaker 1: another white supremacist Trump supporter shot up a bunch of
Speaker 1: people in Boulder, Colorado, and there's no evidence to support that,
Speaker 1: and we don't have any reasonable connection between between these
Speaker 1: things based on the facts at hand. And then even
Speaker 1: when they're proven to be untrue, they don't care because
Speaker 1: they enjoyed disparaging you. They enjoyed that those moments in
Speaker 1: time when they felt really righteous, really virtuous for trashing you,
Speaker 1: for trashing the millions and millions of Americans who own
Speaker 1: firearms legally across the country and who are a bulwark
Speaker 1: against tyranny and let me say, a tyranny from the
Speaker 1: government that we increasingly should take very seriously. Okay, freedom
Speaker 1: is at the lowest ebb in this country in my lifetime.
Speaker 1: That's a fact, worse than it was after nine eleven.
Speaker 1: Some of the overreaches and some of the you know,
Speaker 1: the government actions there, at least domestically, I'm talking about internally,
Speaker 1: the worst place freedom has been in my lifetime. So
Speaker 1: that's going on forty years, and the Democrats are set
Speaker 1: on doing everything that can while they can to make
Speaker 1: sure that you do not have the right to bear arms.
Speaker 1: They're going as far on this as they possibly can,
Speaker 1: as far as they can get away with it. This
Speaker 1: is why I get so frustrated, because the people that
Speaker 1: have been that spent four years calling for a need
Speaker 1: for greater honesty from let's say, Donald Trump, they come
Speaker 1: into office, the Biden administration, it's just lies all over
Speaker 1: the place, constantly lying to you, lying about their intentions.
Speaker 1: Lying about the numbers at the border. Oh, we'll get
Speaker 1: into that. Lying about a lot of things, things that
Speaker 1: matter to you, okay. Not not lying about a crowd
Speaker 1: eyes or the size of one's hands, or lying of
Speaker 1: you know, all the things that they were they were
Speaker 1: completely apoplectic about in the media when Trump was president.
Speaker 1: Not lying about irrelevancies, not lying about you know, personal
Speaker 1: peccadillos or whatever. No lying about policy in ways that
Speaker 1: affect your life. This is central to what the Democrats do.
Speaker 1: It's central to their whole approach. And we go through this,
Speaker 1: and I heard that Senator Ted Cruz talking about it
Speaker 1: the same thing every time. The n RA is a
Speaker 1: terrorist organization. You know, they trot out some some victims
Speaker 1: of other shootings or people who were near victims of
Speaker 1: other shootings, you know, hog and others, and they try
Speaker 1: to get somebody deep platform who defends a Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: They try to scare some Republican members of Congress into
Speaker 1: abandoning the Second Amendment. And this is the push pull
Speaker 1: every time. Doesn't matter that the policies they proposed wouldn't
Speaker 1: actually make anyone safe or doesn't matter. It's about control
Speaker 1: and about them getting their way deal with it. That's
Speaker 1: what they really think here, Senator chat Cruise talking about
Speaker 1: exactly at this play twenty one and every time there's
Speaker 1: a shooting, we play this ridiculous theater where this committee
Speaker 1: gets together and proposes a bunch of laws that would
Speaker 1: do nothing to stop these murders. Senator from Connecticut just
Speaker 1: said the folks on the other side of the aisle
Speaker 1: have no solutions. While the Senator from Connecticut knows that
Speaker 1: is false, and he knows that's false because Senator Grassley
Speaker 1: and I together introduce legislation Grassley Cruse targeted at violent criminals,
Speaker 1: targeted at felon's, targeted at fugitives, targeted at those with
Speaker 1: serious mental disease, to stop them from getting firearms, to
Speaker 1: put them in prison when they try to illegally buy guns.
Speaker 1: What happens in this committee after every mass shooting is
Speaker 1: Democrats proposed taking away guns from law abiding citizens because
Speaker 1: that's their political objective. But what they propose not only
Speaker 1: does it not reduce, it makes it worse. It makes
Speaker 1: it worse. Here's another point I want to make for
Speaker 1: all of you. A lot of them know that, and
Speaker 1: they don't care. This is about control, This is about power.
Speaker 1: People are upset, they're scared, they're emotional. Democrats see those things,
Speaker 1: They recognize those realities, and it's an opportunity for them.
Speaker 1: You know, in the Congresses you mentioned the House of
Speaker 1: Representatives last week, for the second time, we've passed two
Speaker 1: important initial pieces on gun violence prevention. The problem is
Speaker 1: in the Senate, even with the majority, a slim majority,
Speaker 1: because of the filibuster, it's going to be very, very
Speaker 1: difficult to get anything done. You know, the filibuster to
Speaker 1: many of us is a tool and instrument for government gridlock.
Speaker 1: And we need action, and we need it right away.
Speaker 1: So what are you calling for today, Well, we need
Speaker 1: to do away with the filibuster. You know that. What's
Speaker 1: what's what we're seeing happening in America is Republicans in
Speaker 1: the Senate are more interested in eroding voting laws and
Speaker 1: increasing gun rights when you know, it really should be
Speaker 1: the other way around. We need to look at making
Speaker 1: sure that we have safe communities and that people aren't
Speaker 1: afraid and terrified of going to the grocery store or
Speaker 1: going to a school. And the majority of Americans support
Speaker 1: common sense gun violence prevention legislation. But we can't get
Speaker 1: anything done in the Senate because a majority doesn't rule.
Speaker 1: It's the filibuster that rules. Oh look at that. It's
Speaker 1: so convenient, isn't it. You know, the Democrats want to
Speaker 1: get rid of the filibuster. They want to steamroll the Republicans.
Speaker 1: They're looking for any opportunity to do this, and sure enough,
Speaker 1: this mass shooting in Boulder, Colorado is yet another another excuse,
Speaker 1: another attempt to dramatically change the way the United States
Speaker 1: Senate operates. Remember they use the filibuster against Republicans on
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Then it was fine, then it was important.
Speaker 1: It was the system, you see, it was our sacred institutions.
Speaker 1: What do I keep telling you? This is about the
Speaker 1: raw exercise of power. Right, when I am weak, I
Speaker 1: ask for freedom because it is according to your principles.
Speaker 1: When I am strong, I demand obedience because it is
Speaker 1: according to my principles. That's how the Democrats do politics
Speaker 1: all the time. So this notion that there are rules
Speaker 1: that we can expect them to abide by if they
Speaker 1: can get away with breaking them, there are principles that
Speaker 1: we share with them that they won't abandon it. The
Speaker 1: first sign of it being inconvenient, You won't you might
Speaker 1: want to drop that entirely. They just don't have the
Speaker 1: ability to do some of these things. That's what stops them.
Speaker 1: They don't have the actual raw power. They know that
Speaker 1: the backlash would be too much for them. But here
Speaker 1: we are at Think of all the reasons they've given
Speaker 1: so far, and I'm talking about members of Congress, those
Speaker 1: who are involved in the process. Think of all the
Speaker 1: different ways that they've said to us, we need to
Speaker 1: get rid of the filibuster. They've said it's because in
Speaker 1: favor of HR one, for changing elections dramatically federalizing elections
Speaker 1: and getting rid of essentially all elections. Safeguards DC statehood.
Speaker 1: That's another big one. We got to get to DC statehood.
Speaker 1: They get rid of the filibuster for amnesty. Of course,
Speaker 1: that's I think the most likely place they'll do it. Ambassy. Now,
Speaker 1: let's get rid of the filibuster for gun control. Anything
Speaker 1: Democrats want to do, you'll notice, is a justification for
Speaker 1: getting rid of the filibuster if Republicans won't go along.
Speaker 1: What was one of the favorite lines of Obama for
Speaker 1: his eight years as president, The Republicans are obstructing which
Speaker 1: was just a fancy way of saying Republicans won't do
Speaker 1: what I say, and that's bad. No, you can disagree,
Speaker 1: you can try to persuade, but the other political party
Speaker 1: not just not just conceding, not just deciding that they
Speaker 1: no longer stand for anything. That's not the expectation that
Speaker 1: anyone should have in this country. But this is where
Speaker 1: we are. But understand this too. The emotionally driven Democrat
Speaker 1: party is going to use the emotions of this moment
Speaker 1: where people are very upsets, very saddening. I know, the
Speaker 1: police officer was killed in the Boulder shooting at the
Speaker 1: grocery store, and you know he had seven kids. You
Speaker 1: had nine other people just going to get groceries killed,
Speaker 1: two in the parking lot, eight inside. It's it's horrible,
Speaker 1: it's absolutely terrible. And yet instead of seeing this for
Speaker 1: what it is and waiting to learn whether there even
Speaker 1: is a law that you could pass. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: illegal to murder people, it's illegal to go into a
Speaker 1: store with a gun, it's illegal. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: things that I'm sure we're illegal here. But the impulse
Speaker 1: to pass a law from the authoritarian Democrat mindset isn't
Speaker 1: really so much to protect us. It's to add to
Speaker 1: their own power, because they're smart enough to figure out
Speaker 1: this isn't actually the laws. They talk about a background
Speaker 1: check system, for example, that's what they say now here.
Speaker 1: Here's the Colorado AG. Colorado unfortunately has a lot of
Speaker 1: very left wing people in high office. Play five. We
Speaker 1: in Colorado have a background check law, but if people
Speaker 1: go to surrounding states, they can get a weapon without
Speaker 1: having a background check. That is a common sense measure
Speaker 1: that's supported by overwhelming majorities. The fact that we didn't
Speaker 1: get such a law after prior mass shootings is hard
Speaker 1: to understand. We need a federal law. I know that
Speaker 1: our members of Commerce from Colorado have run on this issue,
Speaker 1: are committed to this issue. We need a national background
Speaker 1: check law because otherwise people can go to surrounding states
Speaker 1: and get a weapon without having to go through a
Speaker 1: background check. Which makes sense, get a weapon without having
Speaker 1: to go through a background check. They really want to
Speaker 1: pass this national background check law universal background checks, which
Speaker 1: would mean that for any private transfer you would have
Speaker 1: to go to a federal a federal federally licensed dealer.
Speaker 1: Would also mean in some versions of the bill that
Speaker 1: even if you were to lend a shotgun, let's say,
Speaker 1: to a friend to go hunt it for the weekend,
Speaker 1: you got to you got to go to a licensed
Speaker 1: firearms dealer first to run the background check system. Who
Speaker 1: thinks this is really going to stop crime? Somebody who
Speaker 1: wants to be a mass murderer or a mass shooter,
Speaker 1: First of all, a lot of the time they would
Speaker 1: pass a background check, which we know has also happens
Speaker 1: that kind of all, they're willing to either steal or
Speaker 1: illegally get a firearm. And it's not hard to do
Speaker 1: with over three hundred million firearms in circulation already in
Speaker 1: the United States. Not difficult. So what does this really do?
Speaker 1: Ninety nine percent of people are just going to be
Speaker 1: you know who go through this changed bill situation, are
Speaker 1: just going to be harassed. Doesn't stop anyone who's bad
Speaker 1: from doing anything bad. Well, remember that what happened was
Speaker 1: that President Trump spent four years dismantling the process in
Speaker 1: presidents or President Trump spent four years dismantling the peaceful,
Speaker 1: orderly process of allowing people to apply for asylum. For example,
Speaker 1: he cut funding to the Northern Triangle countries. Here, he
Speaker 1: cut funding and shut down offices where immigrants could actually
Speaker 1: apply for asylum and their home countries without coming to
Speaker 1: the border. And so, you know, I'm very confident that
Speaker 1: President Biden is doing everything that he can. But frankly,
Speaker 1: he's cleaning up a mess that was left here there
Speaker 1: by President Trump and his systematic and inhumane attacks on
Speaker 1: the immigration system. Blah blah blah. Just a bunch of nonsense,
Speaker 1: Just a bunch of nonsense, Senator Duckworth. There are many
Speaker 1: many others who were saying the same stuff. This is babel, Okay,
Speaker 1: we all know what's happening here, but they're just trying
Speaker 1: they're trying to convince you that the southern border, which
Speaker 1: is in crisis, which is looking like it's going to
Speaker 1: have more illegal migrants crossing than what you had in
Speaker 1: the during the Obama crisis and the Trump crisis combined,
Speaker 1: the worst the border has been in twenty years, according
Speaker 1: to people I know who devote their lives to immigration
Speaker 1: issues and trying to secure our border. And they're telling
Speaker 1: you that this is Trump's fault because he dismantled the
Speaker 1: orderly process. It wasn't an orderly process. Senator Duckworth, trying
Speaker 1: to debate this. I would love you. You know what,
Speaker 1: Let's let we'll put it out there. She can come
Speaker 1: on the show. We can debate this. How orderly the
Speaker 1: process was. I was down there at the border. I
Speaker 1: saw how orderly the asylum process was. It was dozens,
Speaker 1: if not hundreds of people at a time showing up,
Speaker 1: waving down border patrol and then gaming the system and
Speaker 1: staying in the country and not showing up for immigration hearings.
Speaker 1: And even if they do show up, they probably get
Speaker 1: to stay anyway. All you have to do is get
Speaker 1: into the country. That's the whole game. Get out of custody,
Speaker 1: get into the country, and you're home free. We know it,
Speaker 1: we've been through it, we've seen it. But they pretend
Speaker 1: this system was working well before. That's the part of
Speaker 1: this that to me is just it's so obviously false.
Speaker 1: But they don't care. I know, not everyone gets to spend,
Speaker 1: you know, or should spend. And I don't recommend this.
Speaker 1: Hours and hours a day reading all this stuff. I
Speaker 1: have to do that. That's my job. So when I
Speaker 1: see this, it's amazing to me because in my head
Speaker 1: I'm thinking, nobody who understands what has been happening at
Speaker 1: the southern border for the last ten years, never mind
Speaker 1: the last three or four years. Would ever say that
Speaker 1: it was an orderly process that Trump destroyed. That's a
Speaker 1: laughably stupid statement. I mean, it really screams ignorance of
Speaker 1: what's going on. But it's actually worse than ignorance, because
Speaker 1: I think it's it's malicious. It's lies. She's lying to
Speaker 1: you about this, or rather giving you an assessment of
Speaker 1: the situation that is so fundamentally flawed that the best
Speaker 1: you can say for it is she is doing this
Speaker 1: on purpose for political reasons. Protecting good old Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is what this is really all about. We're two months
Speaker 1: into the presidency, and what do you get. Open borders
Speaker 1: Joe right away. Open borders Joe. They can do whatever
Speaker 1: they want, They can say whatever they want about this,
Speaker 1: to try to confuse things, to try to make you
Speaker 1: think that that's not what's really going on. Joe Biden
Speaker 1: is the cause of this crisis. And to say that
Speaker 1: this is orderly is just a huge lie. Another part
Speaker 1: of this that I want to get to, you had
Speaker 1: majorca speaking of the lies around this. You had Mayorcas,
Speaker 1: who's the DHS chief, go on TV over the weekend,
Speaker 1: did the Sunday shows. We played a bunch of the
Speaker 1: clips for you yesterday from this and MAJORCA said, we're
Speaker 1: turning families away, and that, to me, that's such a
Speaker 1: classically disingenuous lie. And the initial reporting that I had
Speaker 1: heard or that I had read was that it was
Speaker 1: about sixty percent that were being led into United States
Speaker 1: family units now, which is what most of the surge is.
Speaker 1: It's the surge is family units and unaccompanied miners. There
Speaker 1: is not a huge surge of single adult males coming
Speaker 1: to the border. It's family units and unaccompanied miners. That's
Speaker 1: what's driving this giant increase in the numbers. Why is
Speaker 1: that Because they know the system and they're exploiting seems
Speaker 1: cracks in our system, and they're in some cases, you know,
Speaker 1: selling custody of their children to the They're selling their
Speaker 1: children into the hands of the cartels, entrusting the cartels
Speaker 1: to get into the border. There's this awful, awful statistics.
Speaker 1: There are awful statistics about the amount of sexual abuse
Speaker 1: that the children suffer. Because this is a long journey
Speaker 1: to go from Honduras to the US Mexico border. They're
Speaker 1: not hopping on a flight and getting out after a
Speaker 1: couple of hours. I mean they're traveling overland. So this
Speaker 1: journey with that the caravans go through, for example, from Honduras,
Speaker 1: from Guatemala, from El Salvador, this takes weeks. And yet
Speaker 1: they tell us, may Orcus tells us that families are
Speaker 1: being turned away. And I said, the initial figure you'll
Speaker 1: remember if you listen to go back and check me yesterday,
Speaker 1: I said, and the Axios figure that that had initially
Speaker 1: been been used is um was was over sixty percent.
Speaker 1: I spoke to uh Art Arthur yesterday, the Center for
Speaker 1: Immigration Studies, and we talked to him. He said, he
Speaker 1: said he had also read that the figure was this.
Speaker 1: He's an immigration expert. The figure was over sixty percent
Speaker 1: of families. And I kept asking him. I kept saying
Speaker 1: to him in that interview, well, why is it only
Speaker 1: sixty Why is it? That doesn't make sense to me.
Speaker 1: There's there's no way that even though that's a lot, right,
Speaker 1: that's a pretty good your odds are pretty good. Sixty percent.
Speaker 1: You get to stay in America forever, and and remember
Speaker 1: you get expelled, you can just come back. Because this
Speaker 1: Biden administration is not gonna have a problem. He just
Speaker 1: try it again, So you know your odds are really
Speaker 1: good if you come twice. But I said to you,
Speaker 1: I don't I don't believe. And I was talking on
Speaker 1: the first TV yesterday about this with Art Arthur. I said,
Speaker 1: I and I just have a hard time believing that
Speaker 1: forty percent of families are getting turned away. Know on
Speaker 1: what grounds? Well, guess what amember I told you yesterday. Also,
Speaker 1: I said, they say it's in the sixties, I believe
Speaker 1: it's more like seventy or eighty. You can, it'd be fun.
Speaker 1: Go back. If you're listening on radio, you can go
Speaker 1: back and listen to the Buck Sexton podcast. It's on
Speaker 1: the iHeart app. It's in the podcast Apple podcast store.
Speaker 1: Go back and listen to the first part of the
Speaker 1: show where I talk about this. Because I said, they
Speaker 1: say it's over sixty, I bet it's more like eighty.
Speaker 1: Guess what comes out today Axios story. According to Byron
Speaker 1: York here, the Biden administration in the last week expelled
Speaker 1: thirteen percent of migrant families in the past week. So
Speaker 1: when Mayorcas goes on TV and says we are expelling families,
Speaker 1: the reason he leaves out the number, which was a
Speaker 1: huge tale. It's very obvious what's going on here to
Speaker 1: anybody who understands these Democrats and how they play the
Speaker 1: game is eighty seven percent of families are staying in
Speaker 1: the United States. Let into the US, and they're home free.
Speaker 1: This is the cause of the crisis. Eighty seven percent
Speaker 1: of families in the last week. One hundred percent really
Speaker 1: of children. I mean maybe it's ninety nine percent, but
Speaker 1: unaccompanied miners are led in the United States. That's an
Speaker 1: open border, folks. That's as much an open border as
Speaker 1: anybody's ever seen anywhere really in the modern world, when
Speaker 1: we have some border enforcement. I mean, this is crazy.
Speaker 1: Eighty seven percent of families get to stay, the whole
Speaker 1: family unit. This adds up. This makes sense. This I believe.
Speaker 1: I didn't believe that sixty was high, but not that high.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, eighty seven percent. That sounds about right. Your
Speaker 1: odds are almost nine out of ten. Then if you
Speaker 1: get to the border, you're a family unit, or you're
Speaker 1: claiming to be a family unit, you're going to be
Speaker 1: released the American interior. That's a really good deal for
Speaker 1: people who want to skip the immigration line and come
Speaker 1: into a country that as rule of law, you know,
Speaker 1: not a lot of corruption. You know, the police aren't
Speaker 1: going to kidnap you and murder you here without incident.
Speaker 1: That stuff happens in Central America. That stuff happens in Mexico. Okay,
Speaker 1: we all know it. We have a better school system,
Speaker 1: better healthcare system. But the people who are arriving, we're
Speaker 1: supposed to have an immigration system for the benefit of America,
Speaker 1: and you are supposed to be able to ask in
Speaker 1: a you know, other countries have merit based immigration systems.
Speaker 1: They give people points, they say, Okay, here's what we think,
Speaker 1: and it's like an admissions process for a college. Well,
Speaker 1: is that and is that inherently racist? Is that wrong?
Speaker 1: Is that bad? Because Canada has one, Australia has one.
Speaker 1: Now those countries also have asylum and refugee programs. But
Speaker 1: this is not really going through the asylum refugee program.
Speaker 1: This is abusing it, and it's dramatically expanding the numbers
Speaker 1: of what we would expect. But that's really what you
Speaker 1: need to know. Majorcas goes on TV and says to you,
Speaker 1: looks the American people through a camera in the eyes
Speaker 1: all across the country and says we are expelling families
Speaker 1: at the border. That's what he said, right, Nine out
Speaker 1: of ten families they're letting right into the US within
Speaker 1: seventy two hours. Does anybody think that this crisis is
Speaker 1: going to go away? Does anybody really think that this
Speaker 1: is going to change anytime soon? No. The reason the
Speaker 1: Democrats are frazzled right now, the reason the Biden administration
Speaker 1: is on defense is because we're actually seeing what's going on.
Speaker 1: We are aware of the situation and the circumstances right
Speaker 1: now because the facilities are overwhelmed, and it's hard to
Speaker 1: hide that. Their challenge isn't isn't there really about what
Speaker 1: the long term implications of this kind of migration are.
Speaker 1: Because they're fun with that. Their problem is Hold on
Speaker 1: a second. If people figure this out when we're telling
Speaker 1: them what to do about immigration down the line, will
Speaker 1: they believe us when we want amnesty? Will they believe
Speaker 1: Democrats when they say they'll be increased enforcement at the border.
Speaker 1: How can you trust anything? DHS Secretary Mayorker says on
Speaker 1: behalf of the bid administration when he makes the highly
Speaker 1: misleading claim that they're turning families away at the border.
Speaker 1: Dot dot dot. Yeah, a few thirteen percent of them
Speaker 1: the last week. The rest of the business of being
Speaker 1: in the Senate basically was just you know, put aside.
Speaker 1: And I think we need to bring back a real
Speaker 1: legislative process. If you thought you had to actually stand
Speaker 1: up and vote on something, you'd actually work to get
Speaker 1: an amendment to change it, as opposed to saying I
Speaker 1: don't even have to think about it. I'm just going
Speaker 1: to show up and I'm going to be part of
Speaker 1: a filibuster that doesn't inspire cooperation. It just keeps people
Speaker 1: in their separate camps. So I think it's going to
Speaker 1: take a little bit of change in order to get
Speaker 1: to where people have to work together. And surprisingly, in
Speaker 1: my own mind, I think, you know, getting rid of
Speaker 1: the filibuster will actually have that result. See totally normal change.
Speaker 1: A process that, when there are Democrats in charge, or
Speaker 1: rather when there are Republicans in charge, is absolutely sacred
Speaker 1: to our institutions and is necessary for defending the rights
Speaker 1: of political the political minority from majoritaryan tyranny and all
Speaker 1: that stuff. And then oh my gosh, democrats are in
Speaker 1: charge and all of a sudden, it's whoa, let's let's
Speaker 1: let's cooperate more. This is like their unity claim Remember
Speaker 1: what the unity claims were like when Biden came into office.
Speaker 1: Unify with us or else better. You better like this
Speaker 1: unity that we're going to enforce upon you, or we're
Speaker 1: coming after you. That was the way it was done.
Speaker 1: That was what they were saying. There was no reaching
Speaker 1: across the aisle to try to find common ground. It
Speaker 1: was the ground that you will find is our ground.
Speaker 1: That's the left. There's no common ground. You want her
Speaker 1: to be common Come where we are and do what
Speaker 1: we tell you. That's reaching across the They're gonna reach
Speaker 1: across the aisle to pull you to their side and
Speaker 1: make you obey. And Hillary, how wow, she's back. Hillary's
Speaker 1: there just to tell you exactly that you know now
Speaker 1: now it's oh, yeah, we should just get rid of
Speaker 1: the filibuster so that Democrats here's what they know. Democrats
Speaker 1: believe and they're there. This is pretty widespread among them
Speaker 1: that they can get or if they can get to
Speaker 1: a place where they get rid of the filibuster and
Speaker 1: they just run the table on legislation. I mean, they
Speaker 1: steamroll the Republicans for the next two years roughly that
Speaker 1: it's it's worth it to them because they can enact
Speaker 1: structural changes that will offset any backlash from their authoritarian madness. Right.
Speaker 1: So yeah, people might say, wow, Democrats are really going
Speaker 1: for broke here, They're really running rough shot. They're using
Speaker 1: the steamroller approach to the political opposition and even changing
Speaker 1: the rules of the game as they're playing it, which
Speaker 1: is what eliminating the filibuster now is all about. But
Speaker 1: the Democrat calculation here, I think people need to understand
Speaker 1: this is, well, if they get HR one, and if
Speaker 1: they get amnesty, and if they get gun control, and
Speaker 1: if they get you go down this list, if they
Speaker 1: get DC statehood, it's worth it. Whatever backlash they're concerned
Speaker 1: about receiving from the other side is worth it. They
Speaker 1: should just accept it. They should just handle it because
Speaker 1: they'll win over the long term. These are structural changes
Speaker 1: to our politics. That's what they're trying to accomplish. That
Speaker 1: they make it so we're in a different political environment
Speaker 1: in this country going forward, not just for an election,
Speaker 1: for all elections. That's the whole point. And Rashida to Leave,
Speaker 1: for example, is out there saying that anyone who opposes
Speaker 1: DC statehood, which is just stacking two Senate votes, among
Speaker 1: other things, stacking two Senate votes in the Democrat column.
Speaker 1: That's why they want it. She's very upset about this
Speaker 1: play fifteen In opposing DC statehood, which is overwhelmingly supported
Speaker 1: by the people of Washington. These representatives and their dark
Speaker 1: money backers over the Heritage Foundation, that's right, are telling
Speaker 1: over seven hundred thousand Americans to sit down, shut up,
Speaker 1: and enjoy this all authoritarian system implemented by a bunch
Speaker 1: of elites who thought it was okay to enslave people
Speaker 1: for their selfish monetary game hundreds of years ago. It
Speaker 1: is shameful that anyone would claim to support democracy and
Speaker 1: freedom and oppose statehood, That anyone would support democracy and
Speaker 1: freedom and oppose statehood here. So when the constitution is
Speaker 1: an argument that Democrats have in their favor on some issue,
Speaker 1: which is rare. But when they when they think they
Speaker 1: can make a constitutional argument, it's our sacred democracy in
Speaker 1: our institutions. When, as is the case here, the founding
Speaker 1: fathers explicitly made clear that DC statehood was not the intent,
Speaker 1: and this is addressed in the Federalist papers. This is
Speaker 1: addressed in our founding during our founding by the great
Speaker 1: minds that were behind our system of government. Then it's oh,
Speaker 1: they're a bunch of former slave owners and we can't. Well,
Speaker 1: who cares what they had to say, Let's make DC
Speaker 1: a state. The principle at work. Whatever democrats want is justified.
Speaker 1: There is no principle. Whatever they want to do, that's
Speaker 1: what they should do. If it enhances their power, if
Speaker 1: they get their way, justify it. After the factor, we
Speaker 1: don't even justify it at all. Just do it. Just
Speaker 1: cram it down the other sides wrote and tell them
Speaker 1: to deal with it. This is the this is the
Speaker 1: Biden approach on a whole range of issues and just
Speaker 1: getting started. What is the latest and what should we
Speaker 1: take from this shooting in Boulder, Colorado, The politics around this,
Speaker 1: and the way that it's already being used by Democrats
Speaker 1: who see this as an opportunity to push an agenda
Speaker 1: while also not caring what the fact that many of
Speaker 1: them jump to conclusions right away on this one and
Speaker 1: we're incorrect. Our friend Kurt Schlichter is with us now
Speaker 1: senior columnists at townhall dot com. Army veteran lawyer and
Speaker 1: guy who knows some things. Mister Schlichter, Good to have
Speaker 1: you back, Good to be here. Buckets. Kind of a
Speaker 1: sad day, but I think it's important that we talk
Speaker 1: about this stuff. I think it is too because I
Speaker 1: was trying to shed some light on the Christy Gnome nonsense.
Speaker 1: And I'll talk to you about that too last night
Speaker 1: on social media because I thought she had an abominable
Speaker 1: showing on Tucker Carlson's Carlson. We'll get to that. We'll
Speaker 1: get to that in a moment. But I say something
Speaker 1: about that. I didn't even I hadn't even said anything
Speaker 1: about the shooting, and Bolt hadn't read about it and
Speaker 1: know about it. I just was following the stories that
Speaker 1: I was following, and I have all these people saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe you should actually spend some time thinking
Speaker 1: about the white supremacist Trump supporter that just shot a
Speaker 1: bunch of people in Boulder, Colorado, as if that in
Speaker 1: any way attached to what I was talking about, which
Speaker 1: is transgender sports in South Dakota. But anyway, that's just
Speaker 1: the way this seems to go. Now we find out
Speaker 1: the guy's name is Ahmad al Issa, and he frequently posted,
Speaker 1: according to journalist Andy No, on social media about Islamophobia
Speaker 1: and depression of him because of his devout Islamic faith.
Speaker 1: I don't know that this goes in the white supremacist
Speaker 1: Trump supporter category, Kurt, I think it's safe to say
Speaker 1: that we should wait until more facts are in. Well,
Speaker 1: you know, if this was a good faith argument instead
Speaker 1: of a blatant power grab and a lie, I would
Speaker 1: agree with you. But of course it's beyond the point.
Speaker 1: It's not even close to the point. Truth is just
Speaker 1: a bourgeois concept, a buck. It doesn't matter. Now. I
Speaker 1: want to be really clear here. A lot of conservatives
Speaker 1: are pointing out the hypocrisy and the lies that have
Speaker 1: been used against them, but this is not We are
Speaker 1: not doing the same thing they are doing. We are
Speaker 1: not blaming all Muslims because this one particular idiot went
Speaker 1: out and did something horrific for which I hope he hangs.
Speaker 1: We are pointing out that the narrative that the left
Speaker 1: attempts to make is a lie. It's an attempt to
Speaker 1: grab power. It doesn't rely on facts, it relies on
Speaker 1: blatant dishonesty, and it is immune to reason. So I
Speaker 1: don't believe in reasoning with them. I believe in mocking them,
Speaker 1: and that's what we're doing. And you know, I think
Speaker 1: normal people we're seeing it. Buck. I think normal people
Speaker 1: are going, yeah, well, they've lied to me again and
Speaker 1: again and again, and this is just the latest one.
Speaker 1: And I'm hoping that this NonStop barage of lies helps
Speaker 1: people wake up. And I see the initial Democrat leadership
Speaker 1: response to this in Congress and you know, the Democrat media,
Speaker 1: and it's all the it's all the stuff that we
Speaker 1: always say, Oh, this, this needs to be the grounds
Speaker 1: for pushing a national, national universal background check, or this
Speaker 1: this shows that you know, Donald Trump's rhetoric, or either
Speaker 1: they do all these things and there's no accountability for
Speaker 1: this now. I mean, no one apologizes, no one cares.
Speaker 1: You know, we learned up. Maybe this guy passed a
Speaker 1: background check. Maybe he actually went in and you know,
Speaker 1: and and actually sat down and bought a gun legally
Speaker 1: through the process, but people didn't know that he was
Speaker 1: a psychopathic, murderous lunatic, and so he managed to buy
Speaker 1: a gun. But they're still saying, oh, background checks, right,
Speaker 1: And if it turns out that I'm right in my prediction,
Speaker 1: I don't know that this guy probably got this gun legally,
Speaker 1: they're still gonna say there needs to be a background
Speaker 1: check system. So you say, well, if the incident is
Speaker 1: not the reason for this new push, why are you
Speaker 1: tying the incident to the political push for background checks
Speaker 1: in the first place. And I think we know the answer,
Speaker 1: but it's worth pointing out for everybody. Well, look, it's
Speaker 1: a fact free environment. Look, we're not going to reason
Speaker 1: our way to convince these people of anything because they're
Speaker 1: not trying to be reasonable. They're trying to exercise power.
Speaker 1: They're trying exercise power by disenfranchising us and disarming us.
Speaker 1: They at the same time they want to defund the police,
Speaker 1: which is just amazing. The idea that the solution to
Speaker 1: terrorist violence is to make ourselves more vulnerable to terrorist
Speaker 1: violence by disarming us is insane. If you're being reasonable,
Speaker 1: if your purpose is to create a nation of serfs,
Speaker 1: then it is a terrific, terrific idea to proceed this
Speaker 1: way because they want us vulnerable, they want us scared,
Speaker 1: they want us unable to defend our liberty and our lives.
Speaker 1: That's what they want. How do I know, because that's
Speaker 1: what they tell me on social media. This isn't a fantasy.
Speaker 1: I'm not drawing conclusions. I'm simply repeating what I hear
Speaker 1: directed against me and other people on social media. They
Speaker 1: like this. They like the idea of us being afraid
Speaker 1: and cowering. Look at what's happened over the last year.
Speaker 1: This whole COVID thing would be blocked inside and terrified.
Speaker 1: This gives them more power, and they like it. I
Speaker 1: think that. And we're speaking of Kurt Schlichter. He's a
Speaker 1: senior columnist at townhall dot com, army veteran lawyer. I think,
Speaker 1: Kurt that now more than ever, I've been saying this
Speaker 1: to people, the idea of the Second Amendment as a
Speaker 1: as a check on government tyranny should be taken very
Speaker 1: You know, it's something that should ever have not been
Speaker 1: taken seriously, but it should be more apparent to us
Speaker 1: why that need exists when you have the government, as
Speaker 1: we've seen for the last twelve months, telling you that
Speaker 1: you cannot go to church, that they will they will.
Speaker 1: Actually they were in some parts of the country they
Speaker 1: were threatening to arrest you if you gathered with more
Speaker 1: than five family members in your own home, that they
Speaker 1: will arrest you if you try to open your business
Speaker 1: you know, for the crime of wanting to serve food
Speaker 1: to people that are looking to buy it from you,
Speaker 1: that they will take away your freedom, they will destroy
Speaker 1: your business because a bunch of little lab coat tyrants,
Speaker 1: because little Fauci, the fascist says. So that should be
Speaker 1: a wake up call to everybody. And I mean that.
Speaker 1: I mean this government. This government locked people away in
Speaker 1: nursing homes and then filled nursing homes with people with
Speaker 1: COVID in places like New York and New Jersey and
Speaker 1: now we're seeing Michigan. And if you had a problem
Speaker 1: with that, if you were trying to protest against it,
Speaker 1: they were willing to lock you up in jail. That's
Speaker 1: the actual government you're dealing with. An armed citizenry is
Speaker 1: a d to preventing tyranny. However, I mean, it is
Speaker 1: a backstop. It's not had to be new. I guess
Speaker 1: you could arguably say they used once or twice in
Speaker 1: very very small incidents like Athens, Tennessee. We are so
Speaker 1: far now. The fact that we are so far away
Speaker 1: from having to use armed violence to protect our rights
Speaker 1: is not to say that that could never happen, that
Speaker 1: that needs to be there as a final backstop. But Buck,
Speaker 1: We've got a whole bunch of other things. We can still,
Speaker 1: at least at least outside of big blue cities, elect
Speaker 1: representatives who support our interests. We can still appeal to
Speaker 1: the court sometimes will get a fair hearing. All we
Speaker 1: can still speak our mind. Sometimes there are still things
Speaker 1: that we can do and we should be doing. However,
Speaker 1: none of that, The mere fact that we are not
Speaker 1: completely oppressed by net right now does not eliminate the
Speaker 1: fact that that could happen down the road. I believe
Speaker 1: that every healthy, law abiding American adult who is willing
Speaker 1: to bear arms because there's some people are consciousential sly
Speaker 1: object to it, should be armed and ready to defend themselves,
Speaker 1: their family, their community, and their constitution if necessary. I
Speaker 1: lived through the La riots. I saw what happened when
Speaker 1: order broke down. It's not a hypothetical. I had some
Speaker 1: I had some live from some website. You talk about these,
Speaker 1: these these collapses of society, and they never seem to happen. Well,
Speaker 1: I spent three weeks in the streets in Los Angeles
Speaker 1: with an M sixteen. It happens. It's not common. But
Speaker 1: all I can say is an American who was carrying
Speaker 1: in that supermarket yesterday might have been able to stop it. Yes,
Speaker 1: I know an armed police who was shot and killed
Speaker 1: and several others were wounded. The carrying weapons is not
Speaker 1: a one percent guarantee that you will always be victorious
Speaker 1: over a criminal, terrorist, or other violent scumbag, but it
Speaker 1: does give you a fighting chance. And I believe every
Speaker 1: American should do two things. Every American should be able
Speaker 1: to lawfully use violence in the rare, rare occasions it's
Speaker 1: necessary to defend life and liberty. And I believe every
Speaker 1: American should be trained and keep themselves proficient on basic
Speaker 1: life saving techniques. That is our job as citizens, you know,
Speaker 1: buckets like we've given over so much of what it
Speaker 1: means to be an American citizen to other people. We've
Speaker 1: outsourced it to a police, or the EMTs, or the
Speaker 1: teachers or somebody else. But democracy is hard work. Freedom
Speaker 1: is hard work. As citizens, we have to be able
Speaker 1: to stand up and take a personal stand. And that's
Speaker 1: why I believe that every American should have the right
Speaker 1: to keep in bear arms and then includes carrying a
Speaker 1: concealed or open weapon in order to lawfully be able
Speaker 1: to enforce the law and protect the defenseless. We're speaking
Speaker 1: of kirschlichteror Townhall dot com senior columnist and a former
Speaker 1: well he's still a lawyer actually, and an United States
Speaker 1: Army vetter. And yeah, I guess you're a lawyer for life. Kurt.
Speaker 1: Let's let's switch. Let's let's put your lawyer hat on
Speaker 1: here for a moment. To what happened with Christy Nome
Speaker 1: last night. I've been critical of her on social media
Speaker 1: before the Tucker interview. She went on the Tucker Interview
Speaker 1: to say, you know, to say her her side of things.
Speaker 1: I will also point out that the comparisons with Governor
Speaker 1: Ron de Santis of Florida, I think have always been overblown.
Speaker 1: Florida is the fourth largest state in I'm sorry, the
Speaker 1: third largest state actually in the country, and has major
Speaker 1: cities like Miami and Tampa and others. South Dakota, lovely place,
Speaker 1: lovely people, has the population less than the population of
Speaker 1: San Jose, California, and has an actual population density that's
Speaker 1: right along what you'd expect in an island chain in
Speaker 1: the South Pacific. Now, I know a lot of South
Speaker 1: Dakota's love that that's very different. For the purposes of
Speaker 1: dealing with COVID than what you have in Florida. Okay,
Speaker 1: so put that aside for a second. I think people
Speaker 1: were way too Oh she's so great, she's withstanding the pressure.
Speaker 1: It's an entirely read state, and you know there's there's
Speaker 1: eleven people every mile or something, which is totally different.
Speaker 1: Would you get in other places? All right? On this
Speaker 1: transgender bill, which would protect transgender which would protect women
Speaker 1: from competing against transgender males and sports, she claims that
Speaker 1: this is because she can't win a lawsuit against the
Speaker 1: NC double A. That's why she did it. What do
Speaker 1: you make of that claim? Because she she sent it
Speaker 1: back for style revisions or whatever it's called. Right, she
Speaker 1: sent it back down, wouldn't sign it. What do you
Speaker 1: make of this? I think she I think she has
Speaker 1: blown it. I think she has completely screwed this up.
Speaker 1: I think she's destroyed her chances. Now, you and I
Speaker 1: were both at Seapack. I don't know if you met her.
Speaker 1: I met her when she walked through the bar, got
Speaker 1: my picture with her, tiny little thing. I looked like
Speaker 1: incredible bulk next to her, But I was unimpressed. I
Speaker 1: always I don't know, I you know, I was willing
Speaker 1: to give her a hearing. And I understand it's a
Speaker 1: small state. Uh. Maybe she had some good ideas, but
Speaker 1: she made no connection with the activists who were hanging
Speaker 1: out there, and she seemed distinctly uncomfortable with people who
Speaker 1: were you know, ideological. Uh. There's been a lot of
Speaker 1: hype about her. I think, Uh, she has shown here
Speaker 1: that she will roll over under pressure. This idea about well,
Speaker 1: i'd lose a lawsuit, Well, how do you know? How
Speaker 1: do you know what the lawsuit is? Uh? And and
Speaker 1: are you telling me it's not worth fighting for that?
Speaker 1: We just just oh, well, it's gonna be hard. We
Speaker 1: should give in. Sorry. I don't need that as a president.
Speaker 1: I don't need that at all. I think she really
Speaker 1: messed herself up. Uh. And I think it's going to
Speaker 1: take a lot for her to come back and fix it.
Speaker 1: You know, if this bill was terrible, why was she
Speaker 1: not working with the Republicans to fix it before? Or
Speaker 1: what I've said, I mean, this is sometimes you know
Speaker 1: the answer without even getting that deep into the details here, Kurt,
Speaker 1: Because there's no way that you just figured out in
Speaker 1: the last few days that there was this big problem
Speaker 1: of lawsuits men. I mean it's laughable. Anybody believes that
Speaker 1: is being put on. I mean they're being they're being fooled. Well,
Speaker 1: it's like saying, yeah, I mean competent, but in a
Speaker 1: different way because I can't work with my own you know,
Speaker 1: deep bread legislature to get the laws passed that I want.
Speaker 1: That's that's her argument. That's why it's better. I found
Speaker 1: her appearance on Tucker overly rehearsed. Uh smarty too. I
Speaker 1: thought she was smartie, and I don't think Tucker was
Speaker 1: being unfair to her. Yeah, No, it was totally descending.
Speaker 1: I thought Tucker was actually very easy on her. I
Speaker 1: thought he let her talk and talk and talk. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't expect him to be a cross examiner. You know,
Speaker 1: he brings a guest on. They should say what they want,
Speaker 1: he should ask tough questions, which he did. I was
Speaker 1: distinctly unimpressed. And I think she uh, I think she
Speaker 1: believes we're stupid. I think she thinks that we are
Speaker 1: stupid and we're going to take another chap. I've got
Speaker 1: an article on town Hall coming out on her on Thursday,
Speaker 1: and it's not going to be pretty. I'm I'm greatly disappointed.
Speaker 1: But I'm glad too. I'm glad that we found this
Speaker 1: out now instead of being disappointed after we elected her. Look,
Speaker 1: people don't understand why we like Donald Trump. It wasn't
Speaker 1: the TV show. We don't watch that crap. It wasn't
Speaker 1: because he was a nudeological conservative. He was not. It
Speaker 1: wasn't because of his mean tweets. Okay, maybe a little
Speaker 1: about his mean tweets. It was because he stood behind
Speaker 1: us and did what he said he was going to do.
Speaker 1: She said, I'm going to sign this bill, and then
Speaker 1: she changed her mind. Then she folded under pressure to
Speaker 1: Nancy as Amazon, Chambert Commerce corporate interests. You know, she
Speaker 1: wants to be in tight with them. I think you
Speaker 1: can all see what happened here. I think I look.
Speaker 1: I hope that people realize. I hope people realize who
Speaker 1: she really is as a politician. I don't know. It's
Speaker 1: not personal. I don't care, but this is not This
Speaker 1: is not the leader we need. We got to leave
Speaker 1: it there, Kurt, But check out Kurt's column at townhall
Speaker 1: dot com. Mister Schleector, thank you so much, sir, thanks
Speaker 1: for having me. I don't know if you could really
Speaker 1: hear it that clearly, but I wanted you to hear it.
Speaker 1: There's Governor Cuomo to a supporter saying, I'm not going anywhere, Darling.
Speaker 1: By the way, I'm not. I'm not. I think calling
Speaker 1: someone darling like that is that's fine. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: not one of those people that gets upset about that stuff.
Speaker 1: My point here is he's not going anywhere, folks. My
Speaker 1: inclination all along, you know he has with Steward at
Speaker 1: this point. You see what happens is that is that
Speaker 1: the allegations there was there was the surge of allegations
Speaker 1: against him, and really some of the first were the
Speaker 1: most the most serious, the most credible. And then recently
Speaker 1: they've started to get a little more. Oh I heard
Speaker 1: he did a thing to some other person, or he
Speaker 1: said something that I didn't really like, but it wasn't
Speaker 1: really over the line that they've they've lost a little
Speaker 1: bit of of punch with the more read I'm just
Speaker 1: saying with the more morere recent allegations have not been
Speaker 1: as as as you know, intense, and he's also because
Speaker 1: of all this, and it's almost I don't want to
Speaker 1: pretend that this is some plot from the beginning or
Speaker 1: anything else. But it's almost like this was meant to
Speaker 1: save his his governorship because I said, ah, along, the
Speaker 1: bigger problem was that Governor Cuomo failed miserably and catastrophically
Speaker 1: on the issue of the nursing homes. And that was
Speaker 1: that's obvious. Now, that's that's the worst thing that he did.
Speaker 1: But because when those revelations were coming out, I know
Speaker 1: there's still ongoing investigations, but there was this focus of
Speaker 1: the sexual harassment stuff, and the Democrats all said we
Speaker 1: think he should not all of them, but a lot
Speaker 1: of Democrats that we think he should resign. But they
Speaker 1: didn't do anything. This guy manages to just stay where
Speaker 1: he is, the governor of New York manages to just
Speaker 1: stay put for another month or two. He's going to
Speaker 1: be fine. He's going to keep his job. It's it's appalling,
Speaker 1: but it's also kind of amazing. You know, you sit here,
Speaker 1: do you think, hold on a second, that's not the
Speaker 1: way this should go. That's not how this should happen.
Speaker 1: But wow, this guy is shameless and ruthless and durable
Speaker 1: in a way that defies any sense of psychological normalcy.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy just he is the governor and
Speaker 1: always will be in his mind, and there's no changing that.
Speaker 1: And the allegations against him, as true as they all seem,
Speaker 1: and the nursing home disaster, as clear as that now,
Speaker 1: is not enough to get rid of Governor Cuomo. President
Speaker 1: Trump back in action. Haven't really heard much from him
Speaker 1: in a little while. Now he's starting to call into shows,
Speaker 1: He's doing podcasts now. Trump is emerging from a period
Speaker 1: of regrouping, taking a little time to play some golf,
Speaker 1: see some folks after he had been president for four years.
Speaker 1: But this is the beginning I think of a Trump
Speaker 1: led opposition to this Biden and Democrat insanity. Right, this
Speaker 1: is what I've been expecting for some time. Who will
Speaker 1: be kingmaker? They've said, is it going to be Trump?
Speaker 1: Because that's a role that he seems very suited to.
Speaker 1: I believe the answer is yes. I'm not sure the
Speaker 1: President's going to run again. No one's sure other than
Speaker 1: maybe the president, I'm sorry, the former president himself number
Speaker 1: forty five, Donald Trump. But there's a lot that he
Speaker 1: can do and I believe will do to be helpful
Speaker 1: before that. Other than that, And one of the things
Speaker 1: is that he's saying he's going to come back in
Speaker 1: a few months now. This is through one of his
Speaker 1: former senior advisors. He's going to come back with his
Speaker 1: own social media platform. That is a fascinating possibility, and
Speaker 1: it's a necessary one because we know all about the
Speaker 1: censorship that's going on these days, and social media sites
Speaker 1: are openly suppressing points of view that involve being a
Speaker 1: Trump supporter, question lockdowns. I've dealt with this myself. They
Speaker 1: pretended to be open platforms. They're not. They act like
Speaker 1: the op ed section of the New York Times. So
Speaker 1: instead of letting social media sites revoke your right to
Speaker 1: free speech, how about revoking their right to your data. Now,
Speaker 1: you could just deactivate all of your social media accounts,
Speaker 1: but that would be giving the left what they want instead.
Speaker 1: I use Express VPN. When you use Express VPN, it's
Speaker 1: so easy. Just download the app to your phone, very straightforward.
Speaker 1: You anonymize much of your online presence by hiding your
Speaker 1: IP address. That makes your activity more difficult to trace
Speaker 1: and sell to advertisers and Express VP and couldn't be
Speaker 1: easier to set up. You just tap one button on
Speaker 1: your phone or computer and you're protected. Express VPN also
Speaker 1: encrypts one percent of your data to protect you from
Speaker 1: hackers and internet bad guys. It's finally time to say
Speaker 1: no to censorship and take back your online privacy at
Speaker 1: Express vpn dot com slash buck. By visiting my special link,
Speaker 1: you'll get an extra three months free of Express vpn.
Speaker 1: That's Express vpn dot com slash buck Express vpn dot
Speaker 1: com slash buck to protect your data your online activity today.
Speaker 1: So let's hear from President Trump, who is back in
Speaker 1: action play clip one. In order to accomplish the Green
Speaker 1: New Deal nonsense. They're destroying it with Woke. When Shina
Speaker 1: looks at Woke and they see the biggest problem we
Speaker 1: have is doctor Seuss. In the meantime, they're building factories
Speaker 1: and trying to kill us in so many different ways.
Speaker 1: They laugh at us, they think we're so frankly, they
Speaker 1: think our country is when they look at this, when
Speaker 1: our competitors look at what's going on in our country,
Speaker 1: taking down the statues to great heroes and so many
Speaker 1: other things. Now I do it because I want to
Speaker 1: do what's right, and they are destroying our country. And
Speaker 1: the President knows this. Biden administration is just not up
Speaker 1: for the challenge of China, not at all. I think
Speaker 1: it's very clear at this point that they they simply
Speaker 1: have not been They are not prepared for this. They're
Speaker 1: not able to deal with China, and that that really
Speaker 1: came across in the exchange that then Tony blink In,
Speaker 1: the Secretary of State, had up in Alaska with China,
Speaker 1: where China said, you know, you're just not speaking to
Speaker 1: us from a position of strength. You're going to see
Speaker 1: more of that. You're gonna see more disrespect from the
Speaker 1: Chinese government, from the Chinese Communist Party against this Biden
Speaker 1: administration because Biden in the foo les around him don't
Speaker 1: see the world for what it really is. They don't
Speaker 1: understand human nature. They are they're utopianists. They believe that
Speaker 1: if only the government was in charge of more, everything
Speaker 1: would be so much better. It might even be perfect.
Speaker 1: You've just got to hand everything over to the government
Speaker 1: and the right people in charge of the government. That's
Speaker 1: absolutely essential. But the inward problems, the inward looking problems
Speaker 1: in this country, the fractures of our culture, our history,
Speaker 1: or politics, that are all getting so much focused right now.
Speaker 1: It does nothing except weak in the country. When we
Speaker 1: disparage our shared history, when we have these kinds of divisions.
Speaker 1: We don't actually, we don't benefit in any way. There
Speaker 1: are people in this country who benefit because it helps
Speaker 1: them acquire and utilize more power. That's what happens. That
Speaker 1: is the reality of the circumstances of we find ourselves
Speaker 1: in with this wokeness, this absurd notion that if we
Speaker 1: have an ever evolving and hypersensitive political correctness at the
Speaker 1: heart of American culture, politics, and thought, it's gonna make
Speaker 1: this country better, it's gonna make us stronger. No, it
Speaker 1: just has some people tearing us down from the inside,
Speaker 1: you know, from within the American family broadly speaking, and
Speaker 1: China is a beneficiary of this. We have a war
Speaker 1: on merits in this country underway. We have a war
Speaker 1: on objective truth underway in this country. Relativism, collectivism. These
Speaker 1: are ideas that arose the very foundations of the American experiment,
Speaker 1: and the people that control some of the commanding heights
Speaker 1: of our republic, the people that actually run the major institutions,
Speaker 1: not only of government, but of public health as we've seen,
Speaker 1: and of our corporations, major corporations, social media, certainly the
Speaker 1: news media. They are devotees of these ideas. They really
Speaker 1: believe in all of this, and it's very damaging. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's very concerning for the immediate future of this country.
Speaker 1: I mean it's a problem right now. It's only going
Speaker 1: to become a bigger problem in time. And you know,
Speaker 1: Trump is seeing that this is he's correct when he's
Speaker 1: identifying that this is effectively a left wing administration with
Speaker 1: a pseudomoderate at the head. But the decisions that they're
Speaker 1: making across the board, there's no moderation, there's no let's
Speaker 1: do things in a way that Republicans can get on
Speaker 1: board with because it's just objectively good for the country.
Speaker 1: I mean, really really try. I want you to think
Speaker 1: about that what has been because if you say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: the COVID bill, Yeah, the Republicans wanted COVID relief too.
Speaker 1: They didn't want a two trillion dollar bill that had
Speaker 1: a lot of money that had nothing to do with
Speaker 1: COVID relief, so that the problem wasn't the area the
Speaker 1: areas of that bill that actually had to do with
Speaker 1: helping people because of the COVID pandemic. The problem was
Speaker 1: Democrats wanted to use it as a grab bag of
Speaker 1: goodies to hand out to their special interests and their
Speaker 1: own you know, their own political base. That was the
Speaker 1: point of all that. And so Trump is right when
Speaker 1: he talks about this administration. I think people were, We're
Speaker 1: really encouraged to hear from the former president this way,
Speaker 1: and this is a voice that we need more. We
Speaker 1: need more of this in our politics right now. We
Speaker 1: need more of this somebody who's just going to speak
Speaker 1: the truth and let it fly. That's one of the
Speaker 1: things I miss about Trump. It was so refreshing to
Speaker 1: have somebody with a big platform and tens of millions
Speaker 1: of supporters who would say the fake news media or
Speaker 1: a bunch of frauds and jerks, and then they would
Speaker 1: scream and shout, no, he's he's destroying the country, is
Speaker 1: a fascist and was all wise, and what he was
Speaker 1: saying was true, and he would stand and say it again,
Speaker 1: and he would not bend the knee on those issues.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was It was a wonderful thing, and
Speaker 1: I already miss it. But that same voice would be
Speaker 1: good to have now telling the American people that what's
Speaker 1: going on here with this Biden administration is incredibly left wing.
Speaker 1: Here he is Play three, take a look at what's
Speaker 1: coming up and I predicted it all. Now I must
Speaker 1: say I never thought that Biden, and it's not Biden,
Speaker 1: it's other people that are, you know, putting stuff in front.
Speaker 1: But I never thought that. I never thought that Biden
Speaker 1: in a million years, would be worse nobody did, would
Speaker 1: be far worse than Bernie Sanders. This is Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: on steroids. This is what he's doing with all and
Speaker 1: that you haven't seen anything yet. So the Second Amendment
Speaker 1: is going to be obliterated and there's no stopping him
Speaker 1: and our le leadership Mitch isn't strong enough to stop people.
Speaker 1: Never was. It's like one of the big secrets. But
Speaker 1: he had the majority. But now that he's not in
Speaker 1: the majority, he's not doing his thing. He's not doing
Speaker 1: what he should be doing. Now. Bernie Sanders, i think,
Speaker 1: to be fair, would have been a little bit worse
Speaker 1: than Biden on some issues. But here's the difference. I think.
Speaker 1: I think the assessment that it's worse to have Biden
Speaker 1: pushing a left wing agenda than Bernie Sanders pushing it
Speaker 1: is true. And here's why. Bernie Sanders is honest about
Speaker 1: who he is and what he believes. Now that doesn't
Speaker 1: mean that these are good ideas, doesn't mean they wouldn't
Speaker 1: be catastrophic, obviously. But he says I'm a democratic socialist.
Speaker 1: He says I don't like rich people, even though I
Speaker 1: am one. Bernie Sanders, I'm not, but Bernie Sanders is.
Speaker 1: He says he doesn't like rich people. He says he
Speaker 1: wants Wall Street to pay more in taxes and everyone
Speaker 1: else to pay more in taxes who are high earners.
Speaker 1: And he wants free this and free that, free healthcare,
Speaker 1: free college tuition. You know, he wants college college debt
Speaker 1: to be forgiven. He wants all these things. With Biden,
Speaker 1: what you have is somebody who pretends to be a
Speaker 1: moderate elder statesman. With Biden, would you have as somebody
Speaker 1: who pretends that he's a uniter, who's reasonable, who's, you know,
Speaker 1: this sort of grandfatherly figure to the country, but who's
Speaker 1: pushing about eighty percent of what you get from Bernie Sanders.
Speaker 1: So it doesn't really resonate with the American people the
Speaker 1: same way. Oh, this is what left wing politics means.
Speaker 1: This is, you know, the disaster at our southern border.
Speaker 1: And let me also say, I think Bernie Sanders is
Speaker 1: better than Biden on immigration issues, which the Sandernistas would
Speaker 1: hate to hear this, but it's true because at least
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders one is honest about the fact that he
Speaker 1: wants a pathway to citizenship for everybody and always has been,
Speaker 1: and wants amnesty and doesn't pretend that he wants any
Speaker 1: of that, any of that to change. But also he
Speaker 1: thinks that there are problems with continued illegal immigration for
Speaker 1: workers and wages. You know, he was He's a little
Speaker 1: different on the issue immigration than Joe Biden was. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's whatever the Democrat Party wants at any point in time.
Speaker 1: The places where you had some crossover with Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: and Trump even were on trade and on workers wages
Speaker 1: and immigration. Illegal immigration does affect workers' wages. So it's
Speaker 1: a complicated picture, but I think that it would be
Speaker 1: I wish that the election choice had been Bernie Sanders
Speaker 1: versus Donald Trump. Instead, there's this I think that what
Speaker 1: we have is a fundamentally dishonest choice, or we had
Speaker 1: a fundamentally dishonest choice because Joe Biden pretends to be
Speaker 1: something other than that which he is. Oh, and speaking
Speaker 1: of how things are going at the border, here's Trump
Speaker 1: on well, here's Trump on how the media just constantly
Speaker 1: protects him. Play for Yeah, you don't have the same
Speaker 1: people in there. I mean, you might have the same people,
Speaker 1: but it's a whole different it's a whole different set
Speaker 1: of questions. It's ridiculous, the questions that are asking, you know,
Speaker 1: what did you have for dinner? What kind of ice
Speaker 1: cream do you have? As he walks out, they don't.
Speaker 1: They never talk to me that way. And that's okay.
Speaker 1: I had a lot of press conferences. I enjoyed press
Speaker 1: conferences because you get the word out. It's the only
Speaker 1: way to get an honest word out because the press
Speaker 1: is really not a free press. The press is not
Speaker 1: a free press in our country. Okay, So the way
Speaker 1: you get the press out is with press conferences. Now
Speaker 1: he doesn't need him because the press protects him totally.
Speaker 1: It's totally true. The press protects Joe Biden. And it's
Speaker 1: despicable because it's dishonest. You know, I don't hammer people
Speaker 1: in the media who say that they are they are
Speaker 1: Biden supporters and and that they they're honest about that.
Speaker 1: I hammer people who claim to be journalists who are
Speaker 1: obviously Biden supporters and who are lying to your face
Speaker 1: about it all the time. Now, I know Biden's supposed
Speaker 1: to have a press conference on Thursday, He's gonna do
Speaker 1: what he normally does. I'll do the whole you know,
Speaker 1: here am Joe Biden. Um, I'm here to bring the
Speaker 1: country together. And we're gonna listen to the science and
Speaker 1: shot and where's my blankee? You know? I mean that's
Speaker 1: that's what. We know what it's gonna sound. We know
Speaker 1: what it's gonna be. And unless Biden, as I've always said,
Speaker 1: walks out on stage without his pants on, um, you know,
Speaker 1: muttering about how it's time to go, you know, feed
Speaker 1: the baby seals in the zoo or something, they're gonna
Speaker 1: say that he's great, shape, tiptop, no problem, this guy's great.
Speaker 1: You know, you're starting to see people say, yeah, maybe
Speaker 1: they got to have a little bit of a longer
Speaker 1: look at a President Harris situation. Maybe maybe you got
Speaker 1: to start looking at, you know, what's going to happen
Speaker 1: here a few a few years down the line. I
Speaker 1: think it's important we all understand this that they're gonna
Speaker 1: lie about this, no matter what they're gonna lie about
Speaker 1: whether Joe Biden is up for the job, because they've
Speaker 1: lied about that all along. And then even if we
Speaker 1: get to the point where it is clear that that
Speaker 1: the Biden Harris administration is really the Harris Biden administration,
Speaker 1: they'll say nobody could have seen this coming, Nobody could
Speaker 1: have ever known. You know, Joe Biden was tip top
Speaker 1: and he was doing a great job. Total wise, it's
Speaker 1: all propaganda. What's it like to just sit around? I
Speaker 1: wonder for people who work in journalism and be engaged
Speaker 1: in a perpetual fraud. You know, I have my frustrations,
Speaker 1: and you know, being in the media business is not
Speaker 1: not easy. I mean, I'm blessed that I can do it,
Speaker 1: but it's also you know, they're the rough days. But
Speaker 1: at least what I do every day is honest, and
Speaker 1: I take a lot of I take a lot of
Speaker 1: solace in that I guess when things are tough, or
Speaker 1: when things don't don't go my way, or when people
Speaker 1: are writing horrible things to me, whatever. There's a fundamental
Speaker 1: honesty to saying what you think and telling people who
Speaker 1: you are and what you believe. And American journalism is
Speaker 1: rooted in the falsehood that they're not all effectively Democrat partisans,
Speaker 1: and that they're not all just supporting Joe Biden at
Speaker 1: this moment, which they are doing there, and if they're
Speaker 1: not doing it, they're identified as a far right conservative
Speaker 1: pretty much. That's that's the way this works. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: obviously you've heard the presidents say, and you've heard are
Speaker 1: both doctor Fauci and doctor Wilenski say that we believe
Speaker 1: it's a mistake to get rid of mask mandates. Obviously,
Speaker 1: governors have a certain authority there, but so do corporations,
Speaker 1: so do employers, so do individuals. And we're making concerted
Speaker 1: efforts to make sure that people know that whether or
Speaker 1: not there's a mandate in place, people that it's in
Speaker 1: the people's strong interests, strong interest to continue to wear
Speaker 1: a mask until such time as people have had a
Speaker 1: chance to be vaccinated. Until such time, I want to
Speaker 1: be very cool. That's Andy Slavitt, the you know White House,
Speaker 1: you know, one of the White House COVID advisor people,
Speaker 1: until such time as people have had a chance to
Speaker 1: be vaccinated. Now, I want to be very clear about this.
Speaker 1: They're saying that that they'll have you know, enough doses
Speaker 1: for everybody to have gotten vaccinated, whatever it is, by
Speaker 1: June or July. Do you think that this summer, after
Speaker 1: a couple of months, when it's it's true, that everybody
Speaker 1: in the country will have at least had a fair
Speaker 1: shot to get vaccinated, meaning that if they really want
Speaker 1: to that it's in their power to do so. It's free,
Speaker 1: it's in all communities, all across the country. I really
Speaker 1: think they're gonna say, Okay, everyone's had their chance. Now
Speaker 1: you can have your Now, you can have your your
Speaker 1: freedom and your autonomy back. You can breathe fresh air
Speaker 1: without this mask theatrics going on. I want you to
Speaker 1: remember that I'm saying this now because this is going
Speaker 1: to be one of these buck moments where I say
Speaker 1: to you in July, guess what now they're now they're
Speaker 1: going back on what they told us before. They're moving
Speaker 1: the goal post for the hundredth time. That's what's going
Speaker 1: to happen in this instance. What will be what will
Speaker 1: be the case is that in July they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: it's an equity issue because not enough minorities are vaccinate.
Speaker 1: It's sorry, you got to keep them asking up everywhere.
Speaker 1: Oh it's a you know, it's it's an issue of
Speaker 1: social justice because there's a disproportion and impact on you know,
Speaker 1: communities of of color from the vaccination program hasn't gotten
Speaker 1: in those communities to the same degree. And the truth
Speaker 1: is there's a lot of vaccination hesitancy among people, including
Speaker 1: among people from minority communities. So do we do We
Speaker 1: then have to wait until the bureaucrats are satisfied that
Speaker 1: they've done everything possible to convince people in the minority
Speaker 1: community who haven't gotten vaccinated that they should, because how
Speaker 1: long is that going to take? Never mind, I mean,
Speaker 1: I know there are people listening to this right now.
Speaker 1: We're like, I'm not geting vaccinated, and buck, I know
Speaker 1: there are a lot of you. And if you're relatively
Speaker 1: young and healthy, I think that's you know, first of all,
Speaker 1: it's you're right across the board. It should be you're
Speaker 1: right across the board and trim whether you do this.
Speaker 1: But beyond that, even based on the data on the science,
Speaker 1: you know, if you're young, but you know you have
Speaker 1: to get vaccinated as a protection for other people, they say, oh, okay,
Speaker 1: so now the government could force a needle in your
Speaker 1: arm because of the distant prospect that you may infect
Speaker 1: other people who also have the opportunity to get vaccinated
Speaker 1: and therefore should be protected. But there's some some off chance.
Speaker 1: This is health, this is health policy see Stalinism. All right,
Speaker 1: everyone needs to understand what we're going through here. This
Speaker 1: is unprecedented. What's going on in this country unprecedented, and
Speaker 1: they're making this crap up as they go along, and
Speaker 1: it's disgusting and they've been wrong over and over again.
Speaker 1: I'm just I wanted to go on the record here.
Speaker 1: They're telling you that you should mask up until everyone's
Speaker 1: had a chance to be vaccinated. And then in July,
Speaker 1: when people are saying, come on, let's get rid of
Speaker 1: these dumb ass mandates and lockdowns once and for all,
Speaker 1: they're gonna say, sorry, there's a there's some angle about
Speaker 1: you know, racism or social justice or whatever, and we
Speaker 1: can't get rid of the mass mandates yet. Guarantee you
Speaker 1: that's what's gonna happen. Sarsani time, our friend David Harsani
Speaker 1: with us now from National Review. We're gonna talk filibuster reform,
Speaker 1: we're gonna talk gun control and yes, DC statehood with
Speaker 1: the man who will be writing about and has written
Speaker 1: about all of these things and more. David, great to
Speaker 1: have you. Let's jump right into it with DC statehood opposition.
Speaker 1: I'm now seeing, fascinatingly enough, racist. If you don't want
Speaker 1: DC to be a state, you're racist. Have you seen this? Yeah?
Speaker 1: But I mean everything's racist, right if you disagree with it,
Speaker 1: So that is not the norm. Now. The funny thing
Speaker 1: is as actually that DC has continued, you know, over
Speaker 1: the past few decades, has been less and less African
Speaker 1: American and more and more white. So that argument's fizzle out,
Speaker 1: I think. But I mean there are many many other
Speaker 1: arguments against it. Yeah, let's make some of them, because
Speaker 1: right now there's this whole belief that you know, I'm
Speaker 1: seeing people that are supposed to be intelligent blue check
Speaker 1: types from the liberal media. We're saying, well, you know,
Speaker 1: they didn't know that South Dakota was going to be
Speaker 1: a state either. You know, there's a lot of this stuff.
Speaker 1: This was actually dealt with. I mean, tell everybody, DC
Speaker 1: statehood is not something that the founders left unremarked upon. Actually,
Speaker 1: the founders did know South Dakota was going to be
Speaker 1: a state. They didn't know how it would look like
Speaker 1: or what the name would be, but they made provisions
Speaker 1: in the Constitution to allow for new states. They also
Speaker 1: specifically created the federal district not to be a state.
Speaker 1: It exists, its whole existence is not you know, is
Speaker 1: to not be a state so that you don't have
Speaker 1: There are many reasons for it. You didn't want to
Speaker 1: have a federal government under a state government answering to
Speaker 1: it and being in its own district. You didn't want
Speaker 1: a place that would just accumulate power because you're not
Speaker 1: supposed to have a you know, idea. We don't want
Speaker 1: a permanent political class that we have now, and all
Speaker 1: those reasons, you know, why we don't make it a
Speaker 1: state and why we don't give them a vote, and
Speaker 1: really the whole thing is just a cynical ploy to
Speaker 1: get more senators. That's not going to happen because you
Speaker 1: need to change the constitution to do it. So why
Speaker 1: so much focus on those What do they think they
Speaker 1: accomplished by making so much noise about this right now?
Speaker 1: Because I worry that it's about it's kind of modern
Speaker 1: Bailey argument, or it's you know, okay, fine, maybe we
Speaker 1: won't break the filibuster for DC statehood. Not that that
Speaker 1: as you put not that that even would be what
Speaker 1: has But that's not the point. Okay, fine, we won't
Speaker 1: get this, but maybe we do have to go all
Speaker 1: out for HR one, or we have to break the
Speaker 1: filibuster for amnesty, or is what do you see happening?
Speaker 1: Why are they pushing for this? Yeah, I mean, I
Speaker 1: think that's right. You know. First of all, I think
Speaker 1: they just want to normalize the idea for a long
Speaker 1: term goal. But I also think that they want to
Speaker 1: make Republicans look like they're anti democratic because many of
Speaker 1: them stand off for what's in the Constitution. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's a popular idea. I think you're right that
Speaker 1: it's part of a larger sort of push to you know,
Speaker 1: to you know, to make it look like Republicans always
Speaker 1: saying no to everything. They don't want people to have
Speaker 1: voting rights and all the usual misleading stuff. David Harsani
Speaker 1: with US now. He's at National Review dot com to
Speaker 1: read his latest and David has also written a book.
Speaker 1: David title The book is on guns, First Freedom, First Freedom.
Speaker 1: Now we have another gun control argument upon us, the
Speaker 1: terrible shooting in Atlanta area, and now we have this Boulder,
Speaker 1: Colorado shooting. There's a lot of talk obviously about the
Speaker 1: the not just the politicization around gun control. But last night,
Speaker 1: if anybody spent some time on social media, and I'd
Speaker 1: never recommend before you go to bed reading blue check
Speaker 1: liberal social media stuff on Twitter, because you'll just think
Speaker 1: that the world is coming to an end and we're
Speaker 1: all just getting dumber all the time. But they were
Speaker 1: saying that clearly this is a Trump supporter. Clearly this
Speaker 1: is another white supremacist national white nationalist, and that's turns
Speaker 1: out the guy's a devout Muslim with the first name
Speaker 1: off mad or his name is off mad al Issa.
Speaker 1: And now the whole ship is going to be well,
Speaker 1: maybe we can't get as much out of the white
Speaker 1: nationalist terrorist angle, so it's all gonna be in on
Speaker 1: gun control. They're saying universal background checks, But David, we
Speaker 1: don't even know this. Did this guy pass a background check?
Speaker 1: Bad guys in the past have passed background checks? Yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean I don't know. I don't know how he
Speaker 1: got his gun. They know that they want to incrementally
Speaker 1: take away everyone's gun, so they for them, there's no
Speaker 1: question of how to move forward. For me, I have
Speaker 1: to see how he got his gun before we can
Speaker 1: discuss with any other than you know, in an emotional
Speaker 1: way what to do or what happened or if there's
Speaker 1: anything we can do. So there's nothing you can do
Speaker 1: about it. Is there any real data to support the
Speaker 1: notion that if we had universal background checks, which would
Speaker 1: then have this league, you know, this legal ramification for
Speaker 1: private sale among family members, let's say, or loaning your weapon,
Speaker 1: depending on what actually goes through different versions of the bill.
Speaker 1: You know, if you loaned your weapon to your brother
Speaker 1: in law or something so he could go hunting of
Speaker 1: the weekend. There are versions of universal background checks that
Speaker 1: would be well you have to go to a federally
Speaker 1: licensed firearms dealer to have them run a Knicks check
Speaker 1: on your brother in law, etc. Right, So it's it's
Speaker 1: hugely irritating and harassing for people out there across the board.
Speaker 1: Is there any data to suggest that it would actually
Speaker 1: notably cut down on crime. I'll tell you yes, but
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think so. I think that there
Speaker 1: would be there's a marginal you know, do have marginal effect,
Speaker 1: and even then people will just find a different way.
Speaker 1: Those people and you know, it's just meant, as you said,
Speaker 1: to harass gun owners you know, who have gone through
Speaker 1: a background check, person originally bought that gun, went through
Speaker 1: a background check, giving it to someone for the purpose
Speaker 1: of any crime, as a straw purchase or straw purchase,
Speaker 1: or or illegal to give it to anyone who you
Speaker 1: know is mentally ill, etc. Laws exist for all these things.
Speaker 1: They should be upheld. I am for that, but I'm
Speaker 1: not for creating new laws that inhibit law abiding people
Speaker 1: who need weapons or want weapons. It's a constitutional right
Speaker 1: from getting them. It's that simple. And these tragedies don't
Speaker 1: change my mind on that because I don't believe any
Speaker 1: of the laws that they want will will change it,
Speaker 1: nor do I believe that they're worth it. So, you know,
Speaker 1: but they'll keep coming back with the same exact argument
Speaker 1: every time, no matter what the situation, and vast a
Speaker 1: number of situations like this, you have a young person
Speaker 1: who's mentally ill. Probably I don't know about this case.
Speaker 1: I don't even want to. This guy was running around
Speaker 1: shirtless shooting people in a grocery store. I mean very
Speaker 1: you know. There may be some terrorists motive of some kind,
Speaker 1: we don't know, but I think I mean psychopathy is
Speaker 1: a fair is a fair bet. Yeah. But you'll notice,
Speaker 1: of course that if it was a white person, regardless
Speaker 1: of why they did it or what it is, it
Speaker 1: would be a reflection on the whole country. It would
Speaker 1: be that we're white supremacists, we're racists. The whole country
Speaker 1: is the problem. But now when it's not that narrative,
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, it becomes a very individualistic act.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden, it's going to become about a
Speaker 1: gun control and not anything else. And it's just very
Speaker 1: frustrating that we can't actually have a real conversation about this,
Speaker 1: because this is these are horrifying events. Even though gun
Speaker 1: violence generally has been down over the past thirty years,
Speaker 1: these events are terrifying and we should try to figure
Speaker 1: out ways to help. But all they want to do
Speaker 1: is they have their preconceived notions about guns that they
Speaker 1: just move forward in the same way every time. We're
Speaker 1: speaking of David harsan E got to National Review dot
Speaker 1: com for his latest pieces on this and other topics
Speaker 1: as well, and David filibuster reform. I mean, I gotta
Speaker 1: say I love this. Right, We've we've already got the term.
Speaker 1: We've already got the phrase to make this sound like
Speaker 1: something other than what it is, which is, you know,
Speaker 1: eliminating the filibuster, right, I mean, if I'm if I'm
Speaker 1: trying to erase something from existence, if I put down
Speaker 1: a mouse trap because I don't want a mouse running
Speaker 1: around my house anymore, I'm not doing mouse reform, right,
Speaker 1: like I'm trying to get rid of a thing. And
Speaker 1: to call this filibuster reform because Democrats want a majoritarian
Speaker 1: rule in the Senate, they want to get everything through
Speaker 1: as fast as they can. I mean, it's it's unprincipled,
Speaker 1: but it's it's almost if the stakes weren't so high,
Speaker 1: I'd say it's largely amusing because they just don't care.
Speaker 1: It just it doesn't matter what they said three years ago,
Speaker 1: three months ago about this. It's all about what works now. Right.
Speaker 1: When Democrats want to create a law, they're filling a loophole.
Speaker 1: When they want to destroy law, they are, you know, reform.
Speaker 1: It's reform. So they always have the right words, the
Speaker 1: the extraordinary hutzpah there's another word really for it. Of
Speaker 1: of this, of their argument is it's mind boggling. I mean,
Speaker 1: in twenty eighteen, thirty Democrats and a letter to save
Speaker 1: the filibuster not not not in some abstract way, but
Speaker 1: you know, I'm sorry, in an abstract way as a law,
Speaker 1: and that is some kind of neutral you know, as
Speaker 1: a neutral principle, not as some kind of like trick,
Speaker 1: right supposedly, But now they want to destroy it. They've
Speaker 1: used it five hundred times since twenty fourteen, Republicans haven't
Speaker 1: even used it in years, and they're they're they're claiming
Speaker 1: that Mitch McConnell is causing gridlock. They make this claim
Speaker 1: a week after passing a two trillion dollar bill, like
Speaker 1: what you doesn't even make any sense what they're saying,
Speaker 1: But yet they move forward and the media frames that
Speaker 1: is there in their you know argument, and and this
Speaker 1: is why, um, you know, this is the most dangerous thing,
Speaker 1: in my view of you know, of any law they
Speaker 1: want to pass. This filibuster reform stuff is the most dangerous.
Speaker 1: Do you think that, you know, I have Republican and
Speaker 1: you know, conservative friends in the media, and they all say, oh,
Speaker 1: but you know, Joe Manchild won't go along. Oh but
Speaker 1: so and so I'm not convinced. Actually, I mean, they
Speaker 1: just they passed this one point nine trillion dollars spending bill.
Speaker 1: They made people wait for months and months without any
Speaker 1: of the of the COVID relief they should have been getting,
Speaker 1: so they could do this right. That was the gamble
Speaker 1: they took. They passed Obamacare back in whatever was two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine, two and ten period without a single
Speaker 1: Republican vote. They used the nuclear option on the judicial
Speaker 1: filibuster under Harry Reid. I mean, if I'm looking at
Speaker 1: this over the last ten years, I say, no, I
Speaker 1: think they actually wanted. I think they actually do want
Speaker 1: to get rid of the filibuster. But I have people saying, oh,
Speaker 1: they'll never get there. What do you think? Complicated? Complicated
Speaker 1: question in the sense that I think that they often,
Speaker 1: and this is not just Democrats, which Republicans sometimes act
Speaker 1: as if they have a majority. They think they'll have
Speaker 1: it forever. Um. The problem is here. I think that
Speaker 1: they view it like this, we get rid of the filibuster,
Speaker 1: and we can pass something big, and that once you
Speaker 1: pass something big, it's impossible to pull it back, like Obamacare,
Speaker 1: for instance, So they feel like it's worth it even
Speaker 1: if Republicans come back, because Republicans aren't going to you
Speaker 1: know what what are we're going to pass a marginal
Speaker 1: a marginal tax rate cut or something exactly right, So
Speaker 1: you know, that's how they view it. On the other hand, though,
Speaker 1: I don't know what bill exactly they're going to put
Speaker 1: forward that will you know, get people on board like
Speaker 1: moderates on board to destroy the filibuster? Meaning what bill
Speaker 1: do they don't they have the votes for? Like what
Speaker 1: bill are they at fifty fifty? Like the uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Green New Green Deal or Green New Deal. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not sure they're going to get mansion or cinema
Speaker 1: or anyone else for that. The gun control bill, I
Speaker 1: don't know about that. A tax hike they don't need.
Speaker 1: That's they can use reconciliational. I think it's amnesty. I've
Speaker 1: been saying that all and that's my prediction. I think
Speaker 1: that that's the place where they view it as so
Speaker 1: momentous and such a structural change in American politics that
Speaker 1: it's worth it, all the blowback, all the risk is
Speaker 1: worth it for amnesty. Do you think that may? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, a lot a lot of people say that's dangerous.
Speaker 1: What do you think that's dangerous? Because I think that
Speaker 1: that is as much as the people you know, have
Speaker 1: a good talk on immigration. When you really dive into
Speaker 1: the numbers and polling, people do not like illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: didn't They don't love amnesty and all of that. I
Speaker 1: think if you do that in that way, they'll be
Speaker 1: big blowback. But then there won't be a filibuster left
Speaker 1: and Republicans can pass money for walls and whatever they
Speaker 1: want right with the So we're fifty one, so well,
Speaker 1: you know, and I think Joe Biden, if that happens,
Speaker 1: you see what's happening now on the border, I can't
Speaker 1: imagine people like that. So I don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think that would be dangerous and I don't see
Speaker 1: Mansion going along with something like that. But you know,
Speaker 1: you never know. I mean, he is kind of he
Speaker 1: doesn't really have very strong principles, it seems to me,
Speaker 1: so he can be pushed around a bit. You always
Speaker 1: got that, you know, the induced means for Democrat politicians
Speaker 1: right now, when when it's really important to the to
Speaker 1: the DNC, to the Biden White House to get it done.
Speaker 1: I mean, people got to stop thinking about it's just
Speaker 1: about votes, it's about a board seat on Netflix. You know,
Speaker 1: it's about you know, you know, Fauci's got a book
Speaker 1: that's coming out from Simon and Schuster Children's book This
Speaker 1: uh expected to come out later this spring. David, you
Speaker 1: know I mean this, You know, do the bidding of
Speaker 1: the left become a millionaire? All these people from the
Speaker 1: Obama administration that that went into the Obama administration with
Speaker 1: like less than one hundred thousand dollars in net assets,
Speaker 1: like Jen Psaki, they come back they're multimillionaires. Now, Oh gosh,
Speaker 1: what big benefits? Yeah, I know, but you know they
Speaker 1: care about power in some sense too, so I you
Speaker 1: might be right. I mean, I just think HR one
Speaker 1: people when you say, oh, voting rights, they love it.
Speaker 1: But when you ask them do you think someone should
Speaker 1: show an ID to vote? They are like, you know,
Speaker 1: eighty percent four that. So I think that passing something
Speaker 1: sometimes is easier, But there's big blowack after and that
Speaker 1: could happen with like HR one, which I don't think
Speaker 1: will pass hopefully, or you know, some kind of amnisty
Speaker 1: bill which could be tucked into some bigger bill on immigration,
Speaker 1: it might happen. I don't think, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: have any kind of big, definitive stand here, I think
Speaker 1: you might be right about that, but I think it's
Speaker 1: dangerous for death before I, by way, I agree that
Speaker 1: it is. It is dangerous Democrats because I think also
Speaker 1: already they're seeing the illegal immigration crisis at the border.
Speaker 1: They're thinking about the midterms right now, and I think
Speaker 1: it does look ugly for the House of Representatives for Democrats.
Speaker 1: I think that's I think I think they got an
Speaker 1: issue already and they know it, and they're just they're
Speaker 1: just getting started to that end. Before we let you go, David,
Speaker 1: two months in the Biden presidency worse than you honestly expected,
Speaker 1: about what you expected, or a little better than you expected.
Speaker 1: It's about what I expected. I mean, I maybe it's
Speaker 1: a little worse in the sense that I thought that
Speaker 1: Biden would pull it back to some kind of more
Speaker 1: moderate positions, but obviously he's going full blown, you know,
Speaker 1: left wing agenda items. I think that that's going to
Speaker 1: hurt him in the board of thing. I did not
Speaker 1: expect it, but that you know and probably should have,
Speaker 1: and that I think is going to be something that
Speaker 1: harms them more than they think. Like you mentioned in
Speaker 1: the House races, Democrat Republicans are going to get six
Speaker 1: new districts already, right seats and now you're talking about
Speaker 1: a bunch of seat Arizona on Texas and elsewhere with
Speaker 1: this matters, David Arsani, everybody go to due to a
Speaker 1: National Review dot Com for his latest friend, David David,
Speaker 1: thanks so much, man, good have you? Thank you so.
Speaker 1: First of all, that what you're saying is wrong, that's
Speaker 1: that's a fake narrative. So first of all, when we
Speaker 1: did the first pharmacies that had it were CVS and
Speaker 1: Walgreens and they had a long term care mission. We've
Speaker 1: done almost seventy five percent of the seniors in Palm
Speaker 1: Beach and the reason is because you had the strong
Speaker 1: retail footprint. And it's wrong, it's wrong, it's a fake narrative.
Speaker 1: I just disabused you of the narrative, and you don't
Speaker 1: care about the facts because obviously I laid it out
Speaker 1: for you in a way that is irrefutable, and so
Speaker 1: it's clearly not no, no, no, you're wrong. You're wrong.
Speaker 1: You're wrong, Yes, sir, that is how you have to
Speaker 1: talk to the fake news media. Governor Ron de santists
Speaker 1: putting on a clinic. No, that that's what you have
Speaker 1: to do. You couldn't really hear what the reporter was saying.
Speaker 1: They're very well the press comments. I'll to tell you
Speaker 1: she she went down. They didn't public's you know, supermarkets,
Speaker 1: didn't they donate one hundred thousand dollars to your campaign
Speaker 1: or something like that. The allegation here being that there
Speaker 1: was some favoritism in the vaccination site program meant to
Speaker 1: help Ron de santists, right, specifically, meant meant to help
Speaker 1: Ron de Santists. I'm sorry his donors, and he comes
Speaker 1: back at them and he says, he's like, no, no,
Speaker 1: not true. We've actually done a great job on vaccinations.
Speaker 1: This is bull. I've given you the facts and figures,
Speaker 1: you have the data, and you just can't let them
Speaker 1: do what they're doing, which is they they present themselves
Speaker 1: as journalists, but they're activists. You can tell the people
Speaker 1: in the Democrat aligned media, which is ninety five percent
Speaker 1: of the media. They show up at these press conferences
Speaker 1: and most of them want to get their their little clip,
Speaker 1: the little viral moment that goes on CNN, where they're
Speaker 1: effectively not actually trying to get information, but but posing
Speaker 1: an editorial as though it's a question meant to get
Speaker 1: meant to get data. They're editorializing, and the make believe
Speaker 1: is that they're just trying to get answers. And Rhonda
Speaker 1: Santis is totally right. That is the way you've got
Speaker 1: to handle little fake news media. And that's one of
Speaker 1: the greatest lessons we learned from President Trump. Going on
Speaker 1: offense against against the news media is an absolute necessity.
Speaker 1: You must go on offense against the fake news media
Speaker 1: or else they will be on perpetual offense against you.
Speaker 1: So that's a very important I mean, that's that's a
Speaker 1: critical place for all of this. I think it's essential
Speaker 1: that everyone understand that Republicans going forward need to take
Speaker 1: that attitude, need to say, I'm sorry, what you're saying
Speaker 1: is nonsense. It's bs. I don't you know. We can't
Speaker 1: deal with this this garbage anymore. All right, you don't
Speaker 1: have to give them some fake deference. Now, if a
Speaker 1: journalist shows up and asks a real question and get
Speaker 1: you know, wants a real answer, fine, of course, that's
Speaker 1: why we have press conferences. But the moment somebody's grants it,
Speaker 1: the moment someone's acosta ing and grandstanding under the pretense
Speaker 1: of being a journalist. You got to call it out
Speaker 1: otherwise they get away with the game. Otherwise the fake
Speaker 1: news just continues and in fact gets rewarded for what
Speaker 1: it's doing. Rock and roll, fellow Patriots, It's time for
Speaker 1: roll call producer Mark Man. It is Tuesday, and I
Speaker 1: know you're feeling all right. I got a cold though,
Speaker 1: So if for anyone who was wondering, why did I
Speaker 1: sound a little weird today or why am I kind
Speaker 1: of my voice coming in and out? If I sound
Speaker 1: like I'm I'm not depressed, we're down. I just my
Speaker 1: voice isn't what it normally is because it's all inflamed.
Speaker 1: And you know, I don't. I don't feel good today,
Speaker 1: So I'm just just pushing through. But you're feeling good, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm feeling okay, Okay. I don't think I can host
Speaker 1: the show in your absence though, Yeah, I don't want to.
Speaker 1: I don't want to put that on you. Three hours
Speaker 1: a lot of radio to carry. Well. I feel like
Speaker 1: the audience would tune out when I started talking about sports. Yep,
Speaker 1: I'm not an expert in politics. What am I talking about? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, but there are sports lovers in the audience.
Speaker 1: I feel like, you know, a segment or two, they'd
Speaker 1: think it was fantastic. So if you did it, are
Speaker 1: you hosting the sports topics, because then I don't think
Speaker 1: they would like that very much. No, I'm saying, well,
Speaker 1: you hosting sports topics for a couple of seconds, I
Speaker 1: would work out great. Three hours of sports might be
Speaker 1: a lot. That's always amazing me. I never listened to
Speaker 1: sports talk radio. That's just the fact that people can
Speaker 1: talk about sports for Are there three hour SportsTalk radio shows?
Speaker 1: There is really only one hour. There are five hour
Speaker 1: sports talk shows. You're kidding, No, I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: how like, how is that a think about? Like? How
Speaker 1: is that a thing think about? In a city like
Speaker 1: New York got the Jets, the Giants, the Mets, the Yankees,
Speaker 1: got the basketball teams, You've got the hockey teams. There's
Speaker 1: enough to talk about that's remarkable. And people call in
Speaker 1: and they want to talk about their team. Yeah, every day,
Speaker 1: you know, I just I don't know. I there's a
Speaker 1: part of it feels like I wish I could get
Speaker 1: particularly about college basketball. I wish I cared about college
Speaker 1: basketball with the kind of emotional poll and and and
Speaker 1: involvement and investment. That's what I'm looking for, emotional investment
Speaker 1: that so many other millions of Americans seemed. I mean,
Speaker 1: they look like March madness and college basketball people look
Speaker 1: at me like I'm an alien from outer space because
Speaker 1: I've I've never watched a college basketball game in full ever,
Speaker 1: but really never, Huh. I've never seen a full college bout.
Speaker 1: I've seen in bars when I'm drinking and in my
Speaker 1: single days when I was like trying to actually get
Speaker 1: a girl's phone number or something. I've seen in the
Speaker 1: background and maybe feigned interest so that I looked like
Speaker 1: I was normal and cool. But I know, I've never
Speaker 1: watched a full college about I've always thought, if I
Speaker 1: didn't go to this school, why do I care? Point one?
Speaker 1: And then point two, wouldn't I just watch I've watched
Speaker 1: a lot of NBA games. Why why wouldn't I just
Speaker 1: watch professional basketball? That's what I don't understand. Well, see,
Speaker 1: I will admit I did not watch a single college
Speaker 1: basketball game before the tournament that didn't involve my modern
Speaker 1: Offstra because you know, I don't really care. But when
Speaker 1: the tournament comes in, the games are so exciting, they're
Speaker 1: usually down to the wire. There's very food, few blowouts.
Speaker 1: It's just fun to watch the sport, you know what
Speaker 1: I mean. You know, look, I enjoy watching a basketball game.
Speaker 1: I guess it's just somehow ncable a march madness. It
Speaker 1: it drives these huge ratings and there's this this it's
Speaker 1: a real cultural phenomenon. And I just I'm not I'm
Speaker 1: not criticizing it. I just I don't like it doesn't
Speaker 1: it doesn't land with me. You know, I sort of
Speaker 1: sit here like, I don't. I don't get it. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm to get excited about Gonzaga playing Duke or something.
Speaker 1: I'm like, I didn't go to these schools. I don't care.
Speaker 1: I'm an old man now. I don't know. I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't get it. But what I'm curiously, you didn't
Speaker 1: go to any sporting events when you were in college.
Speaker 1: I I I went no. I mean I had friends
Speaker 1: on teams that I would show up for occasionally and
Speaker 1: watch like a quarter of and then I would usually
Speaker 1: want to go to a party somewhere and I would
Speaker 1: leave um and and for homecoming, I went to the
Speaker 1: parties that were around the field. Like what do you
Speaker 1: call that? When you do the you know, you're in
Speaker 1: the parking lot with the kegs and things. Yeah, usually
Speaker 1: like a homecoming is what it's called. Yeah, no, no,
Speaker 1: what do you call tailgating? Tailgating? Yeah, so I would
Speaker 1: do that. And I think I saw in my four
Speaker 1: years at Amherst College, which is a small D three school,
Speaker 1: and nobody really cares about their sports except amhers versus Williams.
Speaker 1: We're supposed to care about that. I look at them,
Speaker 1: I'm like, why, uh, you know, I always thought the
Speaker 1: football players at my school, I had some some of
Speaker 1: the football players at at my school were my friends.
Speaker 1: Most of them were jerks and I did not like them.
Speaker 1: A few of them were good buddies of mine, and
Speaker 1: I was just kind of laughing. I'm like, they're D three,
Speaker 1: they stink, Like who cares? I don't get it. What's
Speaker 1: why am I supposed to be impressed by this? We're
Speaker 1: not even good at this. We're Division three school to football.
Speaker 1: The quarterback was like my size, Like who cares? Oh,
Speaker 1: I guess quarterbacks aren't that big. But you get what
Speaker 1: I'm saying, Like, it wasn't if you go to Ohio
Speaker 1: State and you go to a football game with one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand people in the stands or whatever. Like I
Speaker 1: could see that big exciting. Yeah I get that, but
Speaker 1: D three level that you're they're basically just playing for fun,
Speaker 1: to do, something to do during college, Yeah, but people
Speaker 1: got so into it. Always be Oh, I was in
Speaker 1: the class of seventy five, and I still come to see,
Speaker 1: you know, amorous versus Williams that sit there, Like why
Speaker 1: who gives anyway? Anyway? I know, I know, it's just
Speaker 1: like I'm barely American. You guys gotta remember I'm from Manhattan,
Speaker 1: which is like not even really America. It's like a
Speaker 1: it's like some little, you know, cosmopolitanist enclave or something.
Speaker 1: You know, it's just a different, different thing. This is
Speaker 1: also why you know, I sit around that I tell people,
Speaker 1: although see, I'm honest about these things. Like there are
Speaker 1: other people that come from New York or come from DC,
Speaker 1: and they pretend, oh yeah, like I work in conservative
Speaker 1: media and I love country music or something. It's really
Speaker 1: I mean, look, country music can be really great, but
Speaker 1: I don't pretend that I'm some big country music buff
Speaker 1: because I think it's going to appeal the fact that
Speaker 1: my radio show is played in a lot of parts
Speaker 1: of the country where country music is really popular. Like
Speaker 1: I respect country music, but I don't know. I guess
Speaker 1: I just like I'm just not a fraud. I think
Speaker 1: that's I don't. I don't like being a phony. So anyway, um,
Speaker 1: let's get to uh where are we here? Okay? Yeah?
Speaker 1: Roll calls? We actually have people sending in roll calls stuff?
Speaker 1: And wait, where are we here? Where? Where did it go?
Speaker 1: Bruce and Mark? Where? Oh? There it is Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton or team buck at. iHeartMedia dot com.
Speaker 1: I send us all your thoughts, all your stuff, and
Speaker 1: with that we will get to it. Chrissie, Right, Wait,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, Ashley, let's do this one. Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I've listened to you for for years, not quite one
Speaker 1: of the original crew, but long enough to be a
Speaker 1: Shield's High chick. I am replanning a COVID wedding currently,
Speaker 1: so I might just have all the emotions going on,
Speaker 1: but I'm so happy to hear you have a new
Speaker 1: lady in your life and I wish you all the happiness. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, Ashley. Yeah, her name is Debrah. It's not
Speaker 1: actually snow Princess. We met right before lockdown, I mean
Speaker 1: a couple a few months before, like, but I mean
Speaker 1: we met like right before the and so we've spent
Speaker 1: my twenty twenty was defined by Deborah and Tolou and
Speaker 1: Talus an animal, and I understand that's a different you know,
Speaker 1: canine companionship is is never not the same thing as
Speaker 1: you know, the person that is your significant other. But
Speaker 1: those are those are my ladies, that those are my
Speaker 1: two ladies for the whole of lockdown, and it really
Speaker 1: help producer. Mark was very fortunate and that he got married.
Speaker 1: What you got married five months before lockdown? Something that
Speaker 1: I got married late November of twenty nineteen, and then
Speaker 1: we went to lockdown in March. Yeah, so let's say December, January, February. Yeah,
Speaker 1: three like three months basically about three months. Wow, look
Speaker 1: at you, just under the wire and you had a
Speaker 1: big wedding with people dancing and enjoying life and not
Speaker 1: quadruple masking with goggles on, terrified of their own shadow.
Speaker 1: Isn't that nice? Yes? I think we would not have
Speaker 1: ended up having a wedding at all if I would
Speaker 1: have had to be with any of the COVID stuff. Yeah, no,
Speaker 1: I mean though the way that they've they've done all
Speaker 1: this stuff. Now you know, they're still telling people they
Speaker 1: don't even think they should be able to do outdoor
Speaker 1: weddings this summer. I'm sitting I'm like, why outdoor is safe?
Speaker 1: What is the problem here? And people are vaccing it?
Speaker 1: Oh my god, I lose I lose my mind. I
Speaker 1: lose my mind? What else to say about it? All right? Alex, Hey,
Speaker 1: bucking Mark, I heard you complaining about being on the
Speaker 1: treadmill with a mask on. Get a peloton and join
Speaker 1: us in the Team Buck group. All the other peloton
Speaker 1: listeners join and tell the other peloton listeners to join
Speaker 1: Team Buck. Lastly, I spent the day yesterday in Manhattan.
Speaker 1: It was beautiful in NYC. My wife and I meandered
Speaker 1: our way from fifty seventh and first to twenty third
Speaker 1: and ninth. I did not wear a mask for the
Speaker 1: entire walk. I wanted to see if anyone was going
Speaker 1: to comment. No one did. Actually saw a good number
Speaker 1: of folks with no mask. Let's let's let's hope this
Speaker 1: is a trend. She'll tie well, Alex, you walk not
Speaker 1: too far from the buck, my friend, So you were
Speaker 1: definitely crossing through my neck of the woods and see
Speaker 1: Team Buck is closer than we even realized, Producer Mark,
Speaker 1: They're not just in our hearts, in our minds, they're
Speaker 1: actually physically around. Yeah, they're everywhere. Yeah they're They're all
Speaker 1: over the place. And as for as for masking on
Speaker 1: this show, that's good to hear the people, I think
Speaker 1: because as the weather gets warmer, you will see more
Speaker 1: mask non compliance outside. It's never even really been clear
Speaker 1: to me because they've always said mask outdoors if you
Speaker 1: can't social distance, okay, Well I just everyone that sees
Speaker 1: me outside should just assume that my plan is to
Speaker 1: social distance, okay, and they can leave me, leave me
Speaker 1: alone and go blank themselves, like they should just assume
Speaker 1: that that's where we are, and that would be my thing.
Speaker 1: Let's see what we get here, Nancy or it's hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I listen to you Tuesday night. I'm in La. The
Speaker 1: station is the Patriot, which I think is affiliated with
Speaker 1: I believe she means KiB but she wrote Kiev in
Speaker 1: here or Kiev as I believe it said in the
Speaker 1: Ukrainian But I don't think I think she right Prus Mark.
Speaker 1: She probably means KiB. Yes, our station in Los Angeles. Correct, yes,
Speaker 1: because otherwise the Petri being affiliated with the station than Kiev.
Speaker 1: I don't know how big a Team Buck Kiev is
Speaker 1: as a station. It's very um does not sound large. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we haven't gotten the syndicating radio outside of America yet.
Speaker 1: We are not, as far as I understand, we are
Speaker 1: not syndicated in Ukraine. Although if there is some Team
Speaker 1: Buck Ukraine out there, and I know, I don't if
Speaker 1: you're a Team Buck born in Ukraine and now live
Speaker 1: in America, you're just Team Buck America wherever you are,
Speaker 1: I mean actual Team Buck in Ukraine right now? Do
Speaker 1: let us know? Because that would be fun. Because we've
Speaker 1: had in the past. We got Team Buck South Korea, Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: Iraq based pretty much anywherehere there's United States military. Germany,
Speaker 1: we got Team Buck FO representing there. We also have
Speaker 1: had on the civilian side, Team Buck Israel. I'm sorry, yeah,
Speaker 1: Team Buck Israel, Team Buck Ireland. Where else have we
Speaker 1: had international folks right in from like Australia. Australia, Yeah,
Speaker 1: English speaking English speaking countries like that, for sure. There's
Speaker 1: some Team Buck Canada. I haven't heard much from them
Speaker 1: in a while. What's up Team Buck Canada. I haven't
Speaker 1: heard from you in a while. What's going on? Uh?
Speaker 1: Getting a little frosty up there? So but yeah, if
Speaker 1: there's Team Bucky Crane, let us know about the masks,
Speaker 1: Nancy Rights. They're saying opening Disneyland that you cannot scream
Speaker 1: or lap when you're on a ride. I just had
Speaker 1: to tell you a loyal fan, thanks, Nancy. Yeah, that's
Speaker 1: this is what happens. I mean, when you're not allowed
Speaker 1: to point out how stupid their rules are, their rules
Speaker 1: get dumber when you just like like a like a
Speaker 1: good little a good little surf right when you mask
Speaker 1: up between bites and you don't challenge how stupid that is,
Speaker 1: then it turns into you're only allowed to chew ten
Speaker 1: times and then you have to mask up regardless. You know.
Speaker 1: Then then they just keep pushing because their attitude is
Speaker 1: no matter how stupid the regulation may be, if there's
Speaker 1: a theoretical possibility it may stop someone from getting COVID,
Speaker 1: it is justified. That's really been their approach all along.
Speaker 1: If it saves just one COVID case, has been the
Speaker 1: way that they've approached this. And this is actually a
Speaker 1: recipe if they were to continue with this. This is
Speaker 1: the recipe for the ruination of the country that we
Speaker 1: live in. More roll call to finish us up here,
Speaker 1: and remember, please go to a Bucksexen dot com. You've
Speaker 1: got a player now for the podcast at the top
Speaker 1: of the page. You can listen to Bucksxton show on
Speaker 1: your smartphone anytime you want. Just go to Bucksexen dot
Speaker 1: com or go to the Apple podcast or the iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: app and you just press the play button. Go find
Speaker 1: the Buck sex and podcast. Please and pass the buck.
Speaker 1: Tell people about it them what's going on here. That's
Speaker 1: the way to make it happen. And we got to
Speaker 1: get the word out, all right. Al Buck on the
Speaker 1: comments of condemnation for Cuomo's alleged acts towards some women
Speaker 1: from Biden, Schumer, and de Blasio, it's just posturing and
Speaker 1: distraction from the more serious situation, which is the nursing
Speaker 1: home debts. Reminds me of a famous Archie Bunker quote.
Speaker 1: Generosity is a great thing, especially when it doesn't cost
Speaker 1: you anything. Onwards, Sir Al, I've been saying I agree
Speaker 1: with you. I've been saying this all along, that the
Speaker 1: focus on the sexual harassment allegations against Cuomo removes a
Speaker 1: lot of the attention, unfortunately, removes a lot of the
Speaker 1: attention from what should get far more of the press,
Speaker 1: certainly attention, which is the lethal stupidity and thuggishness in
Speaker 1: the behavior of Cuomo with regard to the nursing homes
Speaker 1: and the cover up in all of it. That's a
Speaker 1: much bigger scandal. It's awful of that is what happened.
Speaker 1: And they focused on the sexual harassment allegations, which have
Speaker 1: resulted in you know that there's there's I think Cuomo
Speaker 1: is going to end up staying because of that. He's
Speaker 1: managed to live to fight another day as a politician
Speaker 1: because they they met, they turned the whole public's attention
Speaker 1: onto the sexual harassment stuff. And look, it wasn't This
Speaker 1: stuff is bad, but it wasn't at that level where
Speaker 1: it was just truly unsustainable anymore. He was able to
Speaker 1: still say, oh, let's wait for investigation, let's not jump
Speaker 1: to conclusions, let's wait to see what the investigator's fine.
Speaker 1: Right that he was able to do that, and that
Speaker 1: was all it took for him to, you know, stay
Speaker 1: in it, and he is staying in it. He's not
Speaker 1: he's not going anywhere. In my estimation, I think Governor
Speaker 1: Cuomo has managed to make it through this all right. Michael,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, I'm a union pipe fitter in western Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: Have been a fan of yours since your days on
Speaker 1: the Blaze, even though my union towed the party line.
Speaker 1: Myself and a pilot guys and my local voter for
Speaker 1: Trump because we knew what the Left was going to
Speaker 1: do to our industry. Our work is dependent on building
Speaker 1: natural gas fired powerhouses. The contractors have backed out. Well,
Speaker 1: Michael Man, great to have somebody out in Western PA
Speaker 1: who's a union member who listens. I hope you, Michael,
Speaker 1: will get all of your union brothers and sisters to
Speaker 1: please listen to the Buck Section shows. Well, tell them
Speaker 1: they will, I think, enjoy, appreciate, and certainly learn from
Speaker 1: this show, even if their politics don't totally align with mine.
Speaker 1: I think that we do a show that that is
Speaker 1: information dense enough and an analytic enough that even those
Speaker 1: who don't align with me on everything see value in
Speaker 1: hearing the perspective, see value in giving me some of
Speaker 1: their time so they understand the argument from a conservative perspective.
Speaker 1: That's gonna be it for us. Today here though, in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hut, and we've got a lot that I'm
Speaker 1: sure we're gonna have to get to tomorrow, So please
Speaker 1: do spread the word. Oh and give us reviews on
Speaker 1: iTunes in the Apple podcast Store five stars for the
Speaker 1: Buck Saxon Podcast. Please helps us and write a review.
Speaker 1: See you all tomorrow, same time, and place shields high.