Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump cuts off
Speaker 1: aid to countries in Central America that he says aren't
Speaker 1: doing enough to prevent the migrant invasion from continuing. There's
Speaker 1: also the possibility of shutting down our southern border. Is
Speaker 1: this the answer? And what should Trump do next? That
Speaker 1: and Moore coming up from the buck Sexton Show. Bucks
Speaker 1: Sexton Remission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistake American great, You're a great American again.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show. A former CIA analysts, OK,
Speaker 1: I can speak for three hours without a phone call.
Speaker 1: Try doing that sometime. S No till Mexico is tough.
Speaker 1: They can stop them, but they chose not to. Now
Speaker 1: are they're going to stop them? And if they don't
Speaker 1: stop them with closing the border, they'll close it and
Speaker 1: we'll keep it close for a long time. I'm not
Speaker 1: playing games. Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Trump said
Speaker 1: he's not playing games. The border is a crisis. You've
Speaker 1: got caravans on the way, You've got thousands and thousands
Speaker 1: a day surrendering at the border, trying to abuse our system,
Speaker 1: doing everything in their power to make sure that they
Speaker 1: can stay in this country. I saw pregnant women showing
Speaker 1: up some look to be third trimester pregnant last week
Speaker 1: in El Paso. They know they're gonna have a US
Speaker 1: citizen child. That this is a scam, folks, it's not right.
Speaker 1: What's going on. These individuals are enriching the cartels. They
Speaker 1: are posing a threat to themselves by putting them by
Speaker 1: putting themselves in these situations, and certainly they're children aren't
Speaker 1: risk as well. They're skipping the immigration line, are completely
Speaker 1: flouting our immigration laws. And it's just too much. It's wrong.
Speaker 1: It has to stop. And the president is now considering
Speaker 1: some pretty dramatic measures like shutting down the border, which
Speaker 1: I know, all the all the millennials out there, you
Speaker 1: can just write the avocado toast chokes yourself. But people
Speaker 1: now are very concerned because basically all avocados in the
Speaker 1: US come from Mexico, and so if you shut down
Speaker 1: the border, there's going to be a massive avocado shortage
Speaker 1: that occurs. But the border can't wait anymore. This is
Speaker 1: not sustainable. You can have border patrol saying that they're overwhelmed,
Speaker 1: that they're at the breaking point, and the Democrats are
Speaker 1: just sitting on the sidelines, really cheering this whole thing on.
Speaker 1: They think this is great. If nothing else, it certainly
Speaker 1: makes Trump's case that he is the man for border security,
Speaker 1: that the wall and the building of the wall is
Speaker 1: going to be a game changer. It certainly makes that
Speaker 1: more difficult. We are in the midst of an illegal
Speaker 1: immigration tsunami, the likes of which the country has really
Speaker 1: never seen before. Yes, the numbers in the early two
Speaker 1: and the nineties were higher, although we're getting close to
Speaker 1: those numbers, but those were almost entirely single male Mexican migrants,
Speaker 1: many of whom were just coming into the US for
Speaker 1: seasonal work, and who were deported rapidly. We're quickly deported
Speaker 1: back in to Mexico. That is not what is going
Speaker 1: on here. That's not what's happening. You have people that
Speaker 1: are coming into the US claiming asylum, many times defensive asylums.
Speaker 1: So you have to this is important. People say, Buck,
Speaker 1: why are they being apprehended if they're just going to
Speaker 1: claim asylum, Because their first move is to just try
Speaker 1: to get into the US. In many cases they try
Speaker 1: to many of them try to sneak in, or they
Speaker 1: try to come in between points ports of entry, which
Speaker 1: is not legal. That's why they're apprehended. They are arrested
Speaker 1: because no one is allowed to just go into the
Speaker 1: US not through a port of entry. You have to
Speaker 1: go through a legal port of entry. But if you
Speaker 1: do get in, guess what you're Here's then why even
Speaker 1: go through the few days of processing? Why put yourself
Speaker 1: through that? So you get two shots. You can try
Speaker 1: to come in between the ports of entry illegally, and
Speaker 1: you can then if you get caught, claim defensive asylum,
Speaker 1: not showing up at a port of entry and saying, hey,
Speaker 1: I want to claim asylum. That's the way you're supposed
Speaker 1: to do it. But keep in mind they're also being
Speaker 1: coached to lie about why they should get asylum. Trump
Speaker 1: gets that this is a scam and he's got to
Speaker 1: do something now, you know. The threat to close down
Speaker 1: the border is a very contentious, but Kelly and Conway,
Speaker 1: for example, says that it's not an idle threat. Play
Speaker 1: fifteen certainly isn't a bluff. You can take the president seriously,
Speaker 1: and we have never seen a surge like this. It's
Speaker 1: coming from the Northern Triangle Company. So many of those
Speaker 1: kids are already separated by their parents from their parents
Speaker 1: before they even arrive here. It's Secretary Nielsen saying, we're
Speaker 1: in a meltdown. We're at the breaking point. It's not
Speaker 1: a bluff, she says. And we are at the breaking point.
Speaker 1: And the border patrol guys that I'm seeing are like, look,
Speaker 1: I can't this is what they're telling me last week.
Speaker 1: Can't do my job the way I'm supposed to do it.
Speaker 1: I can't tell you that the cartels aren't smuggling in drugs.
Speaker 1: After there's a surrender of one hundred people in one place,
Speaker 1: and we got to get them all through transportation, got
Speaker 1: to get them checked out medically, got to make sure
Speaker 1: they're okay and make sure everyone's safe. And you know,
Speaker 1: it ties down all manpower, all resources. It's gonna be
Speaker 1: over one hundred thousand for last for this past month
Speaker 1: in March. They're going to publish the number in the
Speaker 1: next week or so. You're gonna see and when you're
Speaker 1: at over one hundred thousand, I mean that's crisis level.
Speaker 1: Sovereignty is a necessary component for a functioning nation state.
Speaker 1: If you do not have sovereignty, which includes control over
Speaker 1: who comes and goes over who is a citizen and
Speaker 1: who is not. You don't really have a country, you
Speaker 1: have something else, and we are sliding into that state
Speaker 1: of affairs of quasi sovereignty. We have a quasi open
Speaker 1: border right now. If you show up with a kid
Speaker 1: and you know what to say, the border for all
Speaker 1: intents and purposes is open. You will get into the country.
Speaker 1: You will get into the country faster right now if
Speaker 1: you show up with a child at the southern border
Speaker 1: from a non contiguous a campy Mexican because I'll just
Speaker 1: they will deport you back to Mexico. But from a
Speaker 1: non contiguous country, So those so called Northern triangle countries Hondura,
Speaker 1: sal Salvador, Guatemala, if you are from one of those countries,
Speaker 1: or maybe even from some countries further south that there's
Speaker 1: concerned there might be a surge of migrants making a
Speaker 1: web From Venezuela, I saw two Cubans arrested wearing big
Speaker 1: American matching American flag t shirts. They know the score,
Speaker 1: they know what's going on. People are coming from all over.
Speaker 1: Why put yourself through the process, Why fill out all
Speaker 1: the paperwork and all the time and the waiting. You know,
Speaker 1: we need to have a national conversation. I mean, there
Speaker 1: needs to be a focus on what is happening down
Speaker 1: at the southern border because we didn't vote for this.
Speaker 1: This is not what the law says, this is not
Speaker 1: what we voted for, and ultimately, the immigration system is
Speaker 1: supposed to benefit the people here. We are not you know,
Speaker 1: America is not a soup kitchen. We are not the
Speaker 1: world's charity. We are a country. And if a country
Speaker 1: cannot control its borders, it ceases to be a country.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is foundational stuff for a nation state.
Speaker 1: And Democrats have no interest whatsoever in handling this problem
Speaker 1: in any serious way. They keep saying we need more
Speaker 1: resources down there, well, just to process more of the
Speaker 1: people that are showing up, lying, claiming asylum and staying
Speaker 1: inside the country. The really contentious part of this is
Speaker 1: going to be Okay, we need to have more resources
Speaker 1: in the immigration courts, and we need to clarify. Congress
Speaker 1: needs to clarify who qualifies for asylum. You have to
Speaker 1: be able to prove, not just tell a story. Prove
Speaker 1: to a judge that you have a credible fear of
Speaker 1: political persecution. Not my neighborhood is crappy, not my country
Speaker 1: is dysfunctional, and not I want a better job. None
Speaker 1: of those things make someone a bad person. I don't
Speaker 1: have any animus toward people that come to America for
Speaker 1: those reasons and abuse our process. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: come legally, great, welcome. But if you're abusing the process
Speaker 1: for those reasons, I understand why people do that, but
Speaker 1: it's not okay. They're not supposed to be entering the
Speaker 1: United States. And this lawlessness is just going to get
Speaker 1: more lawlessness. There's going to be greater calls for amnesty.
Speaker 1: There's going to be a massive push in the demot
Speaker 1: Just wait for it. In the twenty twenty election. Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to run on on amnesty, and that lights
Speaker 1: out for the Republican Party if they win and they
Speaker 1: get that and they have enough of a majority in
Speaker 1: the House and the Senate to pass it, and I'm
Speaker 1: not even sure Republicans will hold the line against them
Speaker 1: at that point. And if you amnesty twenty twenty five
Speaker 1: million people in this country who came here illegally for
Speaker 1: no other reason than the Democrat Party is going to
Speaker 1: be the party of amnesty. It's all going to be
Speaker 1: to the benefit of the Democrat party right there, they're
Speaker 1: going to vote Democrat. I mean, if you were given
Speaker 1: legal status by one party, you now, this is like
Speaker 1: rent control in New York. People are single issue voters
Speaker 1: because anyone wants to touch my run control. If you
Speaker 1: live in New York City, it's so expensive, you know
Speaker 1: that that's the most important thing to anyone. Well, if
Speaker 1: you get citizenship or even just permanent legal status from
Speaker 1: one political party, you're understandably going to be a single
Speaker 1: issue voter for that party, and probably your children and
Speaker 1: your children's children, because you're going to view that as
Speaker 1: you know, your American story. Now, so the violation of
Speaker 1: law will have been rewarded on a massive scale. And
Speaker 1: what we are in the middle of, as I said,
Speaker 1: is a tsunami of illegal entry in the United States
Speaker 1: under the Trump administration. I mean, if this is happening
Speaker 1: under Trump, what do you think it's gonna be like
Speaker 1: under a Warrant administration or a Batteau administration, or you
Speaker 1: know whomever. These Democrats are basically all open borders. Now.
Speaker 1: They do not want enforcement, They do not want laws
Speaker 1: on the books to be treated like laws. And so
Speaker 1: what recourse does Trump really have you know, I wrote
Speaker 1: an article today in The Hill and I said, you know,
Speaker 1: Congress has to act. That's true, I'm right, But I
Speaker 1: know Congress isn't going to They don't want to take
Speaker 1: a tough vote on this. And it's you know, it's
Speaker 1: not just a question of it being a tough vote,
Speaker 1: because there are some political ramifications. There's also social ramifications
Speaker 1: for it. You know, there's also at some level and
Speaker 1: understand side of this issue, people are going to look
Speaker 1: at you differently, They're going to think of you differently.
Speaker 1: And a lot of these politicians, you know, especially on
Speaker 1: the right, they like to be liked, and it's not
Speaker 1: going to make them happy. It's not going to make
Speaker 1: them feel warm and fuzzy if all of a sudden
Speaker 1: they are voting for something that would result in a
Speaker 1: lot of legal processes and in deportation. But you see,
Speaker 1: this is where it all breaks down. If you don't
Speaker 1: believe that people that are led into the country claiming
Speaker 1: asylum and don't get asylum should be deported, you do
Speaker 1: not believe in immigration laws. So Democrats, you say, well,
Speaker 1: you know, they should get their process. They should get
Speaker 1: their process, And I say, okay. At the end, of
Speaker 1: the process. When over ninety percent of them don't get asylum,
Speaker 1: what should happen they get to stay. That's an open border.
Speaker 1: We are accepting a massive, not just loophole, but a
Speaker 1: massive hole in our immigration system that is not going
Speaker 1: to be filled, that will remain open, and that makes
Speaker 1: a mockery of the rest of our legal process at
Speaker 1: the border. The border is in a state of slow collapse.
Speaker 1: More and more people are going to come, and we
Speaker 1: have no means right now of stopping them. The President
Speaker 1: shutting down the border, that's an extreme measure, folks. There
Speaker 1: will be economic ramifications of that that. That's not something
Speaker 1: that I want to see happen. Remember that means you're
Speaker 1: shutting down commerce. I mean you're preventing people from being
Speaker 1: able to people go back and forth to work across
Speaker 1: the southern border. People come in to go shopping. When
Speaker 1: I was an All Passo, they told me that the
Speaker 1: one of the outlet malls there, they asked him a
Speaker 1: twenty million dollars of spending there over the course of
Speaker 1: a year is from Mexicans who are who legally crossed
Speaker 1: a shop there. I mean, you're gonna you're gonna hurt
Speaker 1: a lot of businesses, and yes, you're probably gonna run
Speaker 1: out of avocados. So this is a finally now a
Speaker 1: top priority issue that's getting the attention, and I knew
Speaker 1: it would. I mean, I've been telling you the numbers
Speaker 1: are going to speak for themselves. That's in some way here.
Speaker 1: I mean, over one hundred thousand in a month. Think
Speaker 1: of how many people were talking about here who are
Speaker 1: coming in and who are abusing this process. Then this
Speaker 1: doesn't include the million legal citizens in Green Heart Green
Speaker 1: card holders we're going to add to the American family
Speaker 1: this year. I mean, this is in addition to all
Speaker 1: legal immigration. This is an in addition to a half
Speaker 1: a million visa over stays a year. I mean, you
Speaker 1: look at our system and it's a complete mess. Democrats
Speaker 1: have no will to fix it, they don't want to
Speaker 1: fix it, and Republicans don't have the courage to fix it.
Speaker 1: So what are we left with. We're left with a
Speaker 1: system that is heading toward collapse, meaning that there will
Speaker 1: be no person who can seriously say we have immigration
Speaker 1: laws that are enforced and that are meaningful. It's all
Speaker 1: just how you can scam it. You know, it'll turn
Speaker 1: into like the permitting process in East Germany. You know, well,
Speaker 1: what do you got to do here? You know who's
Speaker 1: palms you have to grease? Or what do you have
Speaker 1: to do? The systems are jokes. What I'm saying, it's
Speaker 1: becoming a joke, and Congress is to blame. Shutting down
Speaker 1: the border I don't think fixes the problem, but at
Speaker 1: least it gets us closer to understanding the severity of
Speaker 1: the problem and tackling this with some seriousness. I have
Speaker 1: been sounding the alarm as loudly as I can on
Speaker 1: I have gotten the White House to read stuff I've written.
Speaker 1: I've gotten the President to retweet stuff ever all on
Speaker 1: the border. I was down there last week so I
Speaker 1: could bring you ground truth about what is happening. And
Speaker 1: this is the ground truth. We are in the midst
Speaker 1: of an illegal alien tsunami, and we have no realistic
Speaker 1: plan to stop it right now because the people in
Speaker 1: charge refuse to do their jobs. The people that make
Speaker 1: laws won't change and clarify existing statutes. And now the
Speaker 1: word is really out and you're seeing it reflected in
Speaker 1: the numbers. I've been over over one hundred thousand people.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be over one hundred thousand next month too.
Speaker 1: I mean, once you get to one hundred, one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty, you know, one hundred and seventy five thousand.
Speaker 1: I mean, now you're just talking about it's it's just
Speaker 1: a free for all. We are heading for free for
Speaker 1: all illegal immigration territory. President Trump needs to stop this
Speaker 1: third party Safe agreement with Mexico is one way they've
Speaker 1: got one going. They need to expand it dramatically. We
Speaker 1: need to move infrastructure down to the border. We need
Speaker 1: we need more immigration courts. We need clarity with what
Speaker 1: the immigration courts are going to do. We need expedited
Speaker 1: We need expedited removal proceedings. People that can be quickly deported.
Speaker 1: Countries that won't take those who need to be deported
Speaker 1: should have their visas cut off, because that's what existing
Speaker 1: law says. If you won't take the people we're deporting
Speaker 1: back to you that are yours, you don't get any
Speaker 1: more visas in the United States. We need to enforce
Speaker 1: that law. We did enforce the law. In general, it's
Speaker 1: not happening, and we are dealing with the consequences. Now.
Speaker 1: I've got more on this and creepy Uncle Biden stuff
Speaker 1: to talk about. We got a lot of show my friends.
Speaker 1: I'm coming to you live from Savannah, Georgia. I love
Speaker 1: this town, man. This is a great place. George is
Speaker 1: a great state. But Savannah's Savannahs like this, you know,
Speaker 1: the pretty southern belle of these coastal cities here. All right,
Speaker 1: I gotta go to break. I'm waxing philosophical, But how
Speaker 1: much ilex Savannah. I'll be right back. When the President
Speaker 1: says he's going to close the border, that is a
Speaker 1: totally unrealistic boast on his part. What we need to
Speaker 1: do is focus on what's happening in Central America, where
Speaker 1: three countries are dissembling before our eyes and people are
Speaker 1: desperately coming to the United States. The president's cutting off
Speaker 1: aid to these countries will not solve that problem. Okay,
Speaker 1: so the president's cut off aid. But guess what. The
Speaker 1: aid doesn't do anything for the poor folks in those countries.
Speaker 1: The aid doesn't work. Anybody who knows anything about fourign aid,
Speaker 1: especially countries like Guatemala, Honduras, and Al Salvador, knows it
Speaker 1: doesn't work. It just helps the people in the regime,
Speaker 1: usually the people in place at the top of the pyramid.
Speaker 1: But what is Trump supposed to do so as to
Speaker 1: just sort of keep paying, keep helping out these governments
Speaker 1: when they won't do more to stop these flows. This
Speaker 1: idea that liberals have that we're going to fix desperately
Speaker 1: poor countries like Guatemalan, Honduras. We just need more aid,
Speaker 1: We're going to fix them, that is completely absurd. We
Speaker 1: have no chance of fixing Honduras, nor should we try.
Speaker 1: It's not our problem. We aren't in charge, and you know,
Speaker 1: we always forget that the moment we try to take
Speaker 1: charge in these countries. Oh, we're imperialist and we're interfering. Fine,
Speaker 1: let those countries do what they're gonna do. Let's not
Speaker 1: pretend that it's our fault that they're so dysfunctional. You know,
Speaker 1: go Standino Passo and look across the border at Warez.
Speaker 1: One of them is working really well. The others got
Speaker 1: a lot of problems. All right, it's not our fault
Speaker 1: much more. Coming up, teams, stay with me. When we
Speaker 1: look into our history. When our party was boldest at
Speaker 1: the time of the New Deal, the Great Society, the
Speaker 1: Civil Rights Act, and so on, we had and carried
Speaker 1: supermajorities in the House in the Senate, we carried the presidency.
Speaker 1: They had to amend the Constitution of the United States
Speaker 1: to make sure Roosevelt did not get reelected. And we
Speaker 1: you know, there were so many extraordinary things that were
Speaker 1: happening in that time that were uniting working people. Nice
Speaker 1: try AOC, but we have a fantastic runner up prize
Speaker 1: for you. It is not the case. It is not
Speaker 1: the case that the Constitution was ammanted to prevent FDR
Speaker 1: from being elected. But does anybody on left care when
Speaker 1: AOC just makes stuff up? Does anyone relie? Does it
Speaker 1: bother them? You know, I've seen this after all the
Speaker 1: fact checks of Trump right, fact check Trump has lied
Speaker 1: fifty million times. Fact check Trump lied fifteen thousand times today.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're just such a bunch of little whiny babies,
Speaker 1: you know. Fact check Trump says his hotels are the best. Lie.
Speaker 1: It's like, well, maybe they are the best, how do
Speaker 1: you know? Right, It's ridiculous. They think exaggeration and hyperbole
Speaker 1: and salesmanship need to be fact checked all the time.
Speaker 1: That's one thing that the media does. Unless you're yo, see,
Speaker 1: then you might be morally right even if you're factually wrong.
Speaker 1: That's the way that they look. This is this is
Speaker 1: what they do. There's a dishonesty at the at the
Speaker 1: heart of well, at the heart of the mainstream media's
Speaker 1: daily operations, the way the way that they conduct themselves.
Speaker 1: But she was obviously wrong there. But this was the
Speaker 1: one that I thought was or this is where it
Speaker 1: starts to get even more interesting. Um, when I asked
Speaker 1: if her plan is socialism, listen to what she said
Speaker 1: over the weekend about that. Listen to her response, Play
Speaker 1: three sounds like socialism. That sounds big. No, I'm serious,
Speaker 1: Like that's a big you're talking like up, okay, all right, yes, sir,
Speaker 1: good But but I'm saying not. Everyone applause when they
Speaker 1: hear that, right, they're like, oh my goodness. Yeah, you're
Speaker 1: talking about this huge mobilization. And I'm like, I don't
Speaker 1: trust the government could pull this off. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: here's some here's a couple of issues here. One is
Speaker 1: that you know, if you want to bring up these
Speaker 1: labels and this, that and the other and have that
Speaker 1: whole conversation, that's a whole other thing. But the one
Speaker 1: thing that we can not rebuke, and the one thing
Speaker 1: that we cannot deny is that climate change is a
Speaker 1: problem of market failure and externalities in our economics. This
Speaker 1: does not mean that we change our entire structure of government.
Speaker 1: But what it means is that we need to do
Speaker 1: something something. Yeah, and that is what the solution is about. Blather,
Speaker 1: just lots of blather, meaningless, meaningless phrases strewn together. You know,
Speaker 1: it reminds me of Forgetting Sarah Marshall. There's the character
Speaker 1: Aldus Snow, who's played by that generally unfunny British comedian
Speaker 1: who was actually pretty good and save Forgetting Sarah Marshall though,
Speaker 1: and he does you know, he's a British rocker and
Speaker 1: he has a song who's very self indulgent and very
Speaker 1: new age, and he's a song you know, we've got
Speaker 1: to do something, we got to do something, and it
Speaker 1: just keeps in. That's pretty much what AOC is telling you.
Speaker 1: We gotta do something. It's like do what what does
Speaker 1: that mean? But Alexandroocazio Cortez embodies a kind of emotion
Speaker 1: on the left of there's all this injustice, there's all
Speaker 1: this oppression, and if we just all run at it
Speaker 1: and take this sweeping governmental action, that just throws history aside,
Speaker 1: and you know, then we'll be able to make this
Speaker 1: incredible progress and all this oppression and misery and sadness
Speaker 1: will go away. And this utopianism is the failed is
Speaker 1: the failed promise that we have seen time and again
Speaker 1: in the nineteenth century, the twentieth century, and out of
Speaker 1: the twenty first. This is the central ideological fight of
Speaker 1: our era. Should you have the government just make massive
Speaker 1: decisions for people, all people? Because they say so? It's
Speaker 1: really the basis of authoritarianism too. Why should I do that? Well,
Speaker 1: because force, because we make you, because we know better.
Speaker 1: And then when confronted on the stupidity of ideas, you'll
Speaker 1: see more of what you heard from miss aoc Here, who,
Speaker 1: when asked about this green New Deal proposal, she put
Speaker 1: out that did have an accompanying frequently asked question about
Speaker 1: cal farts in playing travel that was real and they
Speaker 1: pretended it wasn't. What did she do? Oh, In classic
Speaker 1: politician fashion, she decided to throw a staffer, an imaginary staffer,
Speaker 1: under the bus play for it had some things that
Speaker 1: people thought were ridiculous radical, like anyone that was unable
Speaker 1: or unwilling to work would be guaranteed a job. They
Speaker 1: I think you was withdrawn and said it was preliminary,
Speaker 1: a draft. There was a lot of fight about that.
Speaker 1: Do you think you guys rolled it out the right way?
Speaker 1: Did you bring it out any on yourself? What I
Speaker 1: will say is that I definitely had a staff or
Speaker 1: that had a very bad day at work and and
Speaker 1: did release a working draft early. So I get that
Speaker 1: that's what they're seizing on. No, no, no, that I
Speaker 1: know she's twenty nine, but you know, to blame the
Speaker 1: intern basically, which is what she's doing. Oh, I know
Speaker 1: what happened there, intern made a mistake. That thing was
Speaker 1: out for hours, released a working draft. Come on, So
Speaker 1: she's lying. I mean, I don't know if anyone cares
Speaker 1: about that or not, but she she is lying about
Speaker 1: what happened. But she's AOC. So once again, the rules
Speaker 1: are different. The rules change based on how much the
Speaker 1: Democrats like you. And we'll just see if they continue
Speaker 1: to prop her up. I mean, I do think that
Speaker 1: she is a dangerous, a dangerous ignoramus, dangerous in terms
Speaker 1: of policy. But the left is obsessed and they keep
Speaker 1: saying we're obsessed. I'm like, we're not the ones that
Speaker 1: made this person the de facto leader of our party
Speaker 1: real quickly. There's a big focus on Obamacare right now
Speaker 1: from the administration. I just wanted to note that this.
Speaker 1: I'm worried about how Republicans are going to handle this fight.
Speaker 1: Over at CBS, they asked Bernie Sanders about this play
Speaker 1: seven to be fair, center, do you want to replace
Speaker 1: Obamacare too? You want to replace it with better care
Speaker 1: for all this government run government finance programs. So if
Speaker 1: the courts strike down the ACA, does that ultimately help you? No? No, Look, yes,
Speaker 1: Trope has an idea on healthcare. His ideas to throw
Speaker 1: thirty two million Americans off of the health insurance they have,
Speaker 1: doing away with insurance for kids who with twenty sixty
Speaker 1: years of age or younger who are on their parents' plans,
Speaker 1: doing away with the protections that the ACA has for
Speaker 1: pre existing conditions. Margaret, that means if you have cancer,
Speaker 1: all right, yeah you have thought, you get it, Okay.
Speaker 1: So this is what I just want to I want
Speaker 1: to warn Republicans about it. I'm worried about this that
Speaker 1: they are going to go into this fight once again
Speaker 1: and they're going to be a bunch of nerds from
Speaker 1: think tanks about it and say, oh, they could bring
Speaker 1: that class by markets. You're gonna be up against two things,
Speaker 1: pre existing conditions and a whole lot of people got
Speaker 1: insurance through Obamacare basically for free through medicaid. What is
Speaker 1: your answer to that? And Trump and the Republicans need
Speaker 1: an answer that sounds good. I'm not trying to make
Speaker 1: this a superficial thing, but it needs to sound good
Speaker 1: to people or the Democrats are going to win on
Speaker 1: this thing again. In my ideal world, I'd want him
Speaker 1: to resign. The Virginia people need to know who it
Speaker 1: is that they elected. They need to know. I think
Speaker 1: the Virginia people, the voters of Virginia, have a right
Speaker 1: to know. You know, both my story and Meredith's story, right,
Speaker 1: I think there should be a public hearing. That was
Speaker 1: Vanessa Tyson, doctor Vanessa Tyson, the accuser of Justin Fairfax,
Speaker 1: who is Lieutenant governor of Virginia. She was talking to
Speaker 1: Gail King there and she wants Fairfax to resign. I
Speaker 1: mean she told her her story in in some you know,
Speaker 1: gut punching kind of detail. I mean, it's not a
Speaker 1: not a thing that anybody can listen to and not
Speaker 1: feel upset by you know, here, here's just just some
Speaker 1: of what the description is here. Here's Vanessa Tyson or
Speaker 1: this lieutenant governor is a Democrat in Virginia. And this
Speaker 1: is in the Meeto era when we have Democrat Democrats,
Speaker 1: the ones who have set up this standard that you know,
Speaker 1: women have a right to be believed. That is their standard.
Speaker 1: Now I don't agree with the way that they set
Speaker 1: up and use that standard, and I certainly don't agree
Speaker 1: with the hypocrisy based on politics around that standard. But
Speaker 1: it really is accusers have a right to be believed.
Speaker 1: If it's an eminent, if it's an enemy of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party or a Republican, if an accuser accuses a Democrat, whoa, whoa,
Speaker 1: then we need due process. See, I'm in favor because
Speaker 1: it's a principle. It's not just a game that I'm playing.
Speaker 1: I'm in favor of due process for all accused, of
Speaker 1: all political parties. That's what principled people do. Those who
Speaker 1: just want to play politics, they look at the D
Speaker 1: or the R or they make they make their decision
Speaker 1: about whether somebody has a right to defend himself or herself.
Speaker 1: This is gonna be a little tough to here, but
Speaker 1: he is. This is what was aired in this interview
Speaker 1: with Gail King Vanessa Tyson describing the assault. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, we heard Blasi Ford. She gave testimony. She's
Speaker 1: considered a hero, she's like Woman of the Year for
Speaker 1: all these things. She was lionized by the media, and
Speaker 1: I think she was a liar. I think Blasi Ford
Speaker 1: is a liar. She might be delusional. I think she
Speaker 1: maybe believes what she said, but that doesn't make it true.
Speaker 1: It's not the same thing I find Vanessa Tyson and
Speaker 1: people would accuse me of this, and I understand they'd say, oh, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's so convenient because it does fit into this political
Speaker 1: you know, you like Havanall you well, I actually don't
Speaker 1: have anything against Fairfax. I mean, he's a Democrat, but
Speaker 1: I don't know anything about him. I don't know what
Speaker 1: he does. I don't really know. I think he went
Speaker 1: to Columbia law school and he's lieutenant governor in Virginia,
Speaker 1: and that's what I know about the guy, really, and
Speaker 1: not a whole lot beyond that. I don't spend a
Speaker 1: lot of time thinking about Virginia state politics because I
Speaker 1: live in the Communist enclave of Washington, d C. But
Speaker 1: I find Vanessa Tyson entirely credible. Here is her, and
Speaker 1: you know you'll hear it for yourself. This is what
Speaker 1: she she said when describing assault play eighteen. And guides
Speaker 1: me towards the bed and we're still kissing, right and
Speaker 1: it's completely consensual. He guides me to the bed and
Speaker 1: then you know, he sits down on the bed and
Speaker 1: what happens from there, you know, we start kissing lying down,
Speaker 1: but on the very edge of the bed. Okay, so
Speaker 1: I'm following, and then what happens. We're kissing lying down
Speaker 1: and we're kissing like so our heads are level with
Speaker 1: each other. And then it was like my neck didn't work.
Speaker 1: What do you mean? It was like I couldn't I
Speaker 1: couldn't feel my neck, I couldn't hold my head up.
Speaker 1: He's using his hand on the back of my neck,
Speaker 1: and I still didn't know what was going wrong. I
Speaker 1: thought there was something wrong with my neck, and he's
Speaker 1: pushing down and pushing down, and I couldn't hold my
Speaker 1: neck up and I didn't know what was going on.
Speaker 1: I honestly didn't know what was going on. And then
Speaker 1: the next thing I know, like my head is like
Speaker 1: literally in his crotch, and I'm choking and gagging. You know,
Speaker 1: I couldn't say anything because I'm choking and gagging. Horrifying,
Speaker 1: absolutely horrifying. It sounds entirely credible to me. There was
Speaker 1: a at what started as a consensual sexual encounter. So
Speaker 1: this isn't an I wasn't there, I was never in
Speaker 1: that city situation. This is a was it consensual or not? Situation? Right?
Speaker 1: That's those are usually the two ways that these kinds
Speaker 1: of sexual assault accusations, Those are two pathways they tend
Speaker 1: to go down. She sounds entirely credible. Where are all
Speaker 1: I mean, I just have to ask the question, where
Speaker 1: are all the feminists who are outraged? Where are all
Speaker 1: the leftist organizations that are demanding that this man the
Speaker 1: lieutenant governor of Virginia. He's an African American politician, you know,
Speaker 1: Ivy League educated guy, right, Where are the people demanding
Speaker 1: that he resigned? Now, I'm not saying that I agree
Speaker 1: with that, per se, because it is very it's very
Speaker 1: tricky when you get into is an allegation itself enough
Speaker 1: for you to lose your career, lose your reputation, I
Speaker 1: believe in due process. What is due process when there
Speaker 1: won't be a criminal seating. It's a very very fair,
Speaker 1: a very fair question. It's a fair question to ask um.
Speaker 1: But I just can't help but note the stunning hypocrisy
Speaker 1: here around what is considered okay for a Democrat to remain.
Speaker 1: He's going to remain in office. You know, initially there
Speaker 1: were some people calling for him to step down. By
Speaker 1: the way, there's more than one accuser too, so you
Speaker 1: know that that also, as you all you can do
Speaker 1: is try to gauge this yourself. Either there's no one's
Speaker 1: gonna present, there's no evidence to present beyond the testimony
Speaker 1: there's or their stories. It's really not testimony is not
Speaker 1: under oath yet, but there's nothing. All you have is
Speaker 1: his word and her word. But when you have another
Speaker 1: woman as well, with a kind of similar story that
Speaker 1: also shows this guy or alleges that this guy is
Speaker 1: a vindictive, forceful predator, really, I mean, that's that's what
Speaker 1: is being alleged here. When you have another woman willing
Speaker 1: to come out and say that, I mean, I think
Speaker 1: you have to factor that into you have to factor
Speaker 1: that into the whether you believe him column. Or not.
Speaker 1: And you know, I think these women are highly credible.
Speaker 1: So what do we do about that? What are the
Speaker 1: Democrats gonna do? What they're gonna do? Nothing. Remember, Fairfax
Speaker 1: is tied into this whole Virginia political debacle of Northam
Speaker 1: in the black face and you know Herring in black
Speaker 1: face two and Harring said Northam should resign, and then
Speaker 1: a few days later he goes, why I wore black
Speaker 1: face ones too? I think at a party. Northam says
Speaker 1: it wasn't even him wearing the black face. So Northam
Speaker 1: is a liar and a pathetic one of that, and
Speaker 1: Fairfax gets accused of sexual assault that same week. I
Speaker 1: would also note that there are I've heard there's some
Speaker 1: people that are very involved in Virginia politics. They think
Speaker 1: that it was Democrats that leaked the or rather that
Speaker 1: helped push the Fairfax story to the forefront. You know
Speaker 1: that that that opo was kind of out there, Democrats
Speaker 1: knew about it, and that Northam or Herring probably Northam
Speaker 1: decided to feed Fairfax to the Lions to save himself.
Speaker 1: But all three of them have stayed in all all three,
Speaker 1: no resignations, no one steps down. Just remember that is
Speaker 1: how the Democrats play the game. They do not care
Speaker 1: how blatantly, how egregiously they violate the standards that they
Speaker 1: pretend to hold for themselves. They just want power. It
Speaker 1: is all about the acquisition, maintenance, and utilization of power.
Speaker 1: I find these women highly credible when it comes to Fairfax,
Speaker 1: and I find the way that he's conducting himself to
Speaker 1: be very questionable. So they're credible and he's questionable. In
Speaker 1: the aftermath of these allegations that Democrats aren't unified in
Speaker 1: calling for him to step down, it just goes to
Speaker 1: show you that me too for them has always been
Speaker 1: at the political level, something that they intended to weaponize
Speaker 1: against the opposition and give a pass to their own
Speaker 1: when they can. When they can, you have a pass
Speaker 1: their own on. But I have not forgotten about the
Speaker 1: political debacle in Virginia, and we will continue to keep
Speaker 1: an eye on that one speaking political debacles, Joe Biden
Speaker 1: or just a debacle Joe Biden, creepy Uncle Joe. It
Speaker 1: turns out, and this should not be surprising. I've been
Speaker 1: saying that as soon as the protection of the media
Speaker 1: is taken off Biden, people are going to see him
Speaker 1: for what he really is, and we're starting to see
Speaker 1: at least a little bit of it, which is that
Speaker 1: Sky's got some boundary issues. To put it mildly, that's
Speaker 1: coming up next. I have no reason not to believe her.
Speaker 1: I believe Lucy Flores, and Joe Biden needs to give
Speaker 1: an answer. Her point is absolutely right. It is not
Speaker 1: acceptable that when a woman goes to work or is
Speaker 1: in any kind of environment that she feels anything less
Speaker 1: than comfortable and safe. It's very disconcerting. Him have to
Speaker 1: be heard, and we shouldn't start by believing them. So
Speaker 1: you have bad weekend for Joe Biden. Joe Biden is
Speaker 1: a political mediocrity, and not to be mean, but I
Speaker 1: think intellectual mediocrity as well. And if he's going to
Speaker 1: run the you know, if he wants to be leader
Speaker 1: of the free world, I think we're allowed to judge
Speaker 1: these things harshly. And I will not an impressive guy,
Speaker 1: a very calculating, sleazy switch whenever he has to for
Speaker 1: whatever reason. Kind of politician I mean, not a man
Speaker 1: of particular principle or character. And people I know who
Speaker 1: have worked with him and around him do not have
Speaker 1: positive things to say about his character. But the media
Speaker 1: was willing to cover for him for years. Why because
Speaker 1: he was Obama's wingman. Right, he was Obama's number two,
Speaker 1: and Obama was if you were a liberal journalist, if
Speaker 1: you're a believing Democrat, Obama was the greatest thing to
Speaker 1: have happened to any country in the history of the world.
Speaker 1: Obama did all those amazing things like give us the
Speaker 1: crappy Obamacare plan, and there were anti cop riots where
Speaker 1: neighborhoods were burned down, and the Syria was a total disaster,
Speaker 1: and every foreign policy challenge he touched he made worse.
Speaker 1: And the economy was the slowest growth out of a
Speaker 1: recession since the Great Depression. And right, but Obama was amazing.
Speaker 1: He was a messiah, So you couldn't get away with
Speaker 1: criticizing his number two, Joe Biden. But all along I've
Speaker 1: You'll notice you'll remember this because I've been saying it
Speaker 1: in recent weeks. Biden's just not impressive. And there's a
Speaker 1: lot of stuff that, if it weren't for the mediat
Speaker 1: desire to run cover for him, would be problematic for
Speaker 1: any other politician. And it has been well known for years.
Speaker 1: People have been writing articles about it. People are very
Speaker 1: aware of it that Biden is kind of a creepster,
Speaker 1: that there's something little off about him, but the way
Speaker 1: that he interacts with and approaches and touches women isn't normal. Well, now,
Speaker 1: a woman who was running for office a Democrat and
Speaker 1: I think she's running for lieutenant governor. Producer Mike, let
Speaker 1: me know if I'm getting any of these details wrong. Mike.
Speaker 1: Mike is always don't worry, guys. Mike is always there
Speaker 1: to throw a flag if I go off the rails
Speaker 1: and start saying anything that's you know that's not true.
Speaker 1: You know, like when I tell people that mayonnaise is
Speaker 1: better on French fries than catch up, Like Mike is
Speaker 1: there to throw a flag and tell me that I'm
Speaker 1: not American anymore. So he's got your back. Like Mike
Speaker 1: is the he is the ombudsman of American nous on
Speaker 1: this show and doesn't let me get to uh. I
Speaker 1: do have to say, ayonnaise is not the worst thing
Speaker 1: in the world exactly, dude. See it's not It's not like,
Speaker 1: you know, it's not an either or situation. I just
Speaker 1: think that mayonnaise is superior to catch up as a
Speaker 1: something for French fries. But especially the fancy burghers joints
Speaker 1: to give you, like the mayonnaise flavors in it and stuff. Yeah,
Speaker 1: oh you mean aoli, Yes, I sir, don't don't don't,
Speaker 1: don't tempt me. I'm gonna start. I'm gonna eat some ayo.
Speaker 1: I gotta find some anyole. I'll make my own and
Speaker 1: eat something a break heare, So, my Mike is there
Speaker 1: to make sure that that I get the details. Writer,
Speaker 1: So let me let me go in a little bit
Speaker 1: of what happened? All right? Why did Biden have such
Speaker 1: a bad weekend? He hasn't even announced yet for the presidency,
Speaker 1: he's not even in the game yet. But here we
Speaker 1: are being told that that Biden's well, seeing that Biden's
Speaker 1: having a rough time. And you got all these Democrats
Speaker 1: that have have come forward saying that they believe this woman.
Speaker 1: And oh there's a second woman too. We'll get to that.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that for sure. That this woman, Lucy Flores,
Speaker 1: who was running for I think it was lieutenant govern
Speaker 1: in Nevada, was and Biden showed up. And look, it's
Speaker 1: tough to get anybody excited. I had a friend run
Speaker 1: for a lieutenant governor. Recently in Idaho. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: it's tough to get people excited about the lieutenant governor's ticket.
Speaker 1: So when when the Vice pre of the United States
Speaker 1: is going to show up on the stump and help
Speaker 1: you out, it's exciting, right, So Lucy Flores is told, oh,
Speaker 1: we will Biden show up at this event and try
Speaker 1: to give you the Biden boost, And she described what
Speaker 1: this is while he's vice president. Folks, this isn't like
Speaker 1: back at a fraternity party in the eighties that no
Speaker 1: one has any memory of or whatever. This is just
Speaker 1: a few years back on the Obama presidency. And Lucy
Speaker 1: Flores wrote, she first wrote an arcle. Now she's been
Speaker 1: giving interviews about this. What it was like dealing with
Speaker 1: creepy Joe Biden. Play ten. Let's go back to that
Speaker 1: day in November twenty fourteen, the Vice President Biden has
Speaker 1: come to Nevada her campaign event. You're running for lieutenant governor.
Speaker 1: You're both backstage waiting to go on stage. What happened next, Well,
Speaker 1: it happened also suddenly it's you know, anyone who's ever
Speaker 1: been at a rally recognizes that there is just chaos.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of energy that everyone's running back and forth.
Speaker 1: Eva Longoria was there. We were all lined up next
Speaker 1: to the stage. Eva was in front of me, Joe
Speaker 1: Biden is behind me. I'm kind of preparing myself to
Speaker 1: give these remarks. It's the very last days before the election,
Speaker 1: and very unexpectedly and out of nowhere, I feel Joe
Speaker 1: Biden put his hands on my shoulders, get up very
Speaker 1: close to me from behind, lean in, smell my hair,
Speaker 1: and then plant a slow kiss on the top of
Speaker 1: my head. It was shocking because you don't expect that
Speaker 1: kind of intimate behavior. You don't expect that kind of
Speaker 1: intimacy from someone so powerful and someone who you just
Speaker 1: have no relationship whatsoever, to touch you and to feel
Speaker 1: you and to be so close to you in that way. Wow, Mike,
Speaker 1: I know the answer this question, but that's want to
Speaker 1: get on the record. Have you ever, or has any
Speaker 1: guy that you respect and know in a workplace environment
Speaker 1: gone up to a female colleague sniffed her hand and
Speaker 1: kissed her head. Uh yeah, no, that's a no, yeah,
Speaker 1: not unless the bet was, hey, watch me go get
Speaker 1: punched in the face or fired right exactly, Like if
Speaker 1: someone's like, hey, Buck, I'll give you a million dollars
Speaker 1: because you're gonna get fired. Uh, you know you maybe
Speaker 1: you think about it short of that. Uh, this is
Speaker 1: wildly inappropriate. I mean, look, it's not it's not sexual assault.
Speaker 1: People that are that's it's not a I mean you
Speaker 1: might be able to say it's some kind of a
Speaker 1: simple assault or something. It's not a criminal it's it's
Speaker 1: not a criminal matter. It's a creepy matter. It's very
Speaker 1: very creepy. But this has been known now, there's a
Speaker 1: whole montage out there. There's people that have done some
Speaker 1: research on this. There's a a video that the Daily
Speaker 1: Caller was sending around today of Biden talking. I didn't
Speaker 1: even know what that what he's talking to woman about.
Speaker 1: But he meets some woman, shakes her hand and then
Speaker 1: like goes to touch her cheek with his hand, like
Speaker 1: to like kind of you know, feel her face a
Speaker 1: little bit or something. And it's so weird. And he
Speaker 1: does this, and there are all these photos of him
Speaker 1: where he's doing this like nuzzling into females who are
Speaker 1: leaning away from him thing, and it's just creepy. It
Speaker 1: is creepy. I'm sorry, it's not okay. There's something weird.
Speaker 1: This guy's missing some part of you know, normalcy that
Speaker 1: would tell you don't do that stuff. And yet still
Speaker 1: because Biden is the number one, according to the polls,
Speaker 1: Democrat to run for the presidency, he is the choice
Speaker 1: of the establishment. It is Obama nostalgia that is pushing
Speaker 1: Biden to the front of the Democrat pack. But because
Speaker 1: of that you have people like Mika over at MSNBC
Speaker 1: who will say bizarre things to try to defend this
Speaker 1: weirdo play eleven. There's a lot of things I know
Speaker 1: about Joe Biden. I've known him for a long time.
Speaker 1: He is extremely affectionate, extremely flirtatious in a completely safe way.
Speaker 1: I am sure that somebody can misconstrue something he's done,
Speaker 1: but as much as I can know what's in anyone's heart,
Speaker 1: I don't think that there's a bad intent on his
Speaker 1: part at all. I mean, Mika just made this worse,
Speaker 1: by the way, and I think she could tell as
Speaker 1: she's saying, she goes he is extremely extreme, extremely extremely
Speaker 1: extremely flirtatious in a gets up real close to you
Speaker 1: and like nibbles on your ear and whisper sweet nothings
Speaker 1: into it right in front of your husband as you're
Speaker 1: about to take the stage running for office kind of
Speaker 1: kind of way. But it's not creepy though, No, it's
Speaker 1: it's normal ear nibbling, whispering, nuzzling stuff. Totally, yeah, totally totally.
Speaker 1: She did not help him with that. Extremely flirtatious in
Speaker 1: a completely completely safe way. What does that even mean?
Speaker 1: And why would anyone describe? How could anyone just scribe
Speaker 1: the vice president of the United States as extremely flirtatious
Speaker 1: and people think that's normal. That is not normal. Okay,
Speaker 1: that is not a normal situation. And this was known, folks.
Speaker 1: You know, there are two stories here really simultaneously. One
Speaker 1: is Biden's a creepy weirdo that's being established, which you know,
Speaker 1: I think people should know. I just think they should know.
Speaker 1: And the other, especially given oh my gosh, all the
Speaker 1: stories about Trump and he's aggressive with women and the
Speaker 1: whole the Billy Bush tape, and you know, they try
Speaker 1: to they try to take the presidency from Trump because
Speaker 1: he is a very much an alpha kind of guy
Speaker 1: who you know, goes for it. He goes for the kids,
Speaker 1: you know, he leaves, he goes for it. But he's
Speaker 1: not you know, Trump is in like holding you know,
Speaker 1: twelve year olds too close and nuzzling into their ears
Speaker 1: that he doesn't know. I mean, it's just weird, man,
Speaker 1: that's just weird. But the medium malpractice component of this
Speaker 1: is its own story, and it's just a reminder of
Speaker 1: what we're dealing with. These people have no ethics, no
Speaker 1: honesty about how they report all these people or what
Speaker 1: they're doing. It's all just for show. They're trying to
Speaker 1: get their team to win. And they've been covering the
Speaker 1: stuff up for Biden for years from Biden for years.
Speaker 1: It's known that Biden, for example, at his home in Delaware,
Speaker 1: like to go swimming naked. That's right. They call it
Speaker 1: the full Biden. They'd like to go swimming naked in
Speaker 1: front of female secret Service agents. Okay, so he would
Speaker 1: just strip down to you know, strip down to nothing
Speaker 1: but pure, unadulterated, pure Biden. And I know you're like, oh,
Speaker 1: buck stop, I can't, I can't, I can't help you.
Speaker 1: You're that visual image. I cannot take it out of
Speaker 1: your brain. It isn't there now, and you are stuck
Speaker 1: with it. There's nothing I can do. I'm sorry. That's
Speaker 1: those are the break for today. But just imagine for
Speaker 1: a second when I have a little sister that I
Speaker 1: just I just think is the most amazing, amazing little
Speaker 1: sister on the planet. And if she were in the
Speaker 1: Secret Service, all right, just by way of comparison, and
Speaker 1: Biden would strip down totally naked in front of her,
Speaker 1: I'd have a problem with that. I wouldn't think that,
Speaker 1: you know. And if I were married and my wife
Speaker 1: were in the Secret Service and she had to watch
Speaker 1: some guys stripped down totally naked and go swimming, I'd
Speaker 1: have a problem with that too. It is unprofessional. This
Speaker 1: guy doesn't understand boundaries, is a weirdo. But the media
Speaker 1: has just been covering this up. Media has been pretending
Speaker 1: that this isn't real, that this isn't the thing, nothing
Speaker 1: to worry about, But it is. It's gross and it's wrong,
Speaker 1: and this is just the beginning. For those of you're
Speaker 1: like Buck, I don't even care. All we did get
Speaker 1: to talk about naked Biden swimming for a while, so
Speaker 1: you're welcome. But you know, the truth is that there's
Speaker 1: gonna be other stuff that comes out about Biden. I
Speaker 1: think it's also going to come out about some of
Speaker 1: his family dealings. By the way, or the dealings of
Speaker 1: some people in his family. You've seen some of that
Speaker 1: reporting from my colleagues at the Hill, or at least
Speaker 1: some of that is coming out, I'm not sure when
Speaker 1: The reality here is that Biden is a deeply unimpressive
Speaker 1: guy who just was in the right place at the
Speaker 1: right time and got lucky with Obama, got lucky. He
Speaker 1: was the default choice. And that's it. And the problem
Speaker 1: is the media. You know, the only reason we're hearing
Speaker 1: about this now, and Flores says this the woman, the
Speaker 1: first woman who accused him. The only reason you're hearing
Speaker 1: about now is because the politics of the situation have changed.
Speaker 1: If Biden were far and away the choice of the day,
Speaker 1: if he were the Hillary of twenty twenty, Lucy Flores
Speaker 1: I think, by her own admission, would not have come
Speaker 1: out and said anything because she says that this is
Speaker 1: a political decision. He says that she weighed this out,
Speaker 1: and you know, she really thought about it, and you know,
Speaker 1: given that he's not necessarily the best candidate for the Democrats,
Speaker 1: she was willing to come out and speak the truth
Speaker 1: on this one. So there are other motivations at play
Speaker 1: here with this information coming out. It should be noted
Speaker 1: that I think the Democrat establishment and the media would
Speaker 1: have covered for Biden on this, and we wouldn't know
Speaker 1: anything about this if it weren't the case, or rather,
Speaker 1: if Biden were the far and away lead for the
Speaker 1: Democrats to be their nominee in twenty twenty. But because
Speaker 1: he's a little bit expendable and maybe maybe some people
Speaker 1: want to push him out of the way, push him
Speaker 1: out away for Booker, for Harris, for the burn, give
Speaker 1: him a chef, get him out of the way. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. So producer Mike sent me this as
Speaker 1: I was on air. Mike, what's the there's a second accuser? Now,
Speaker 1: what can you tell me about this one? Yeah? It
Speaker 1: just popped up on vox. There was a second woman,
Speaker 1: as he said, who came out in said creepy, Joe
Speaker 1: has inappropriately touched her. Is it more? Do we know
Speaker 1: if it's more? Oh, it's on Politico now too. Second
Speaker 1: woman behind accusation here, let's see what you're here. I'll
Speaker 1: a Connecticut woman accused Joe Biden of touching her inappropriately
Speaker 1: while she was volunteering and a political fundraiser in two
Speaker 1: thousand and nine. Amy Lapos forty three, told The Heart
Speaker 1: for Current on Monday that Biden pulled her close to
Speaker 1: him to rub noses while she was quorking in a phraser,
Speaker 1: what the heck is that Biden's giving? Biden's giving political volunteers.
Speaker 1: I believe it. Some people have referred to it as
Speaker 1: an Eskimo kiss. Yeah, I mean, or is it an
Speaker 1: Inuit kiss? No offense. I'm just saying, this is rubbing noses.
Speaker 1: And the picture that I saw when the story broke,
Speaker 1: I was looking at it on zero Hedge as well.
Speaker 1: If it's the picture of the girl who has made
Speaker 1: the accusation and she looks absolutely like horrified into picture
Speaker 1: with him, oh my gosh. Quote it wasn't sexual, but
Speaker 1: he did grab me by the head, Lapo said, he
Speaker 1: put his hand around my neck and pulled me in
Speaker 1: to rub noses with me. When he was pulling me in,
Speaker 1: I thought he was going to kiss me on the mouth. Wow. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's let's see. What do they say here to make
Speaker 1: this go away? What are the what are the libs?
Speaker 1: The libs are running defense for this? What are they saying?
Speaker 1: A Biden spokesman, This is all according to Politico issued
Speaker 1: a blistering statement Monday morning, calling interpretations of these resurfacing
Speaker 1: photos ugly urban legends, pointing to statements by those well, no,
Speaker 1: they're photos, man, I don't think. I don't think it's
Speaker 1: an urban legend. If there's a photo. I think if
Speaker 1: there's a photo, then that's called evidence or proof, and
Speaker 1: then you can believe something even more so because you
Speaker 1: have proof of it. Man, I nose to nose to
Speaker 1: nose kiss, I don't even know if like, I don't
Speaker 1: even know if you knows the nose kiss your girlfriend
Speaker 1: without letting her know what's going on. It's just like,
Speaker 1: that's a that's a really weird one. I didn't know
Speaker 1: if Biden did that. Now, folks, you could say to me, Buck,
Speaker 1: you know, it's he Maybe he's just a little weird,
Speaker 1: a little little quirky little you know. I actually I
Speaker 1: don't think anything. I don't think any of you are
Speaker 1: saying that it's inappropriate. But I'm just, yeah, that's not
Speaker 1: that big a deal and that it shouldn't be disqualifying.
Speaker 1: What should disqualify him is that he's a buffoon and
Speaker 1: he's he's not somebody that should be in charge of
Speaker 1: this country. In any in any sane world, that's all.
Speaker 1: That's all fine and good. What I would just say
Speaker 1: to that, though, is just think of what else they're
Speaker 1: hiding about Biden and what else we're not allowed to
Speaker 1: know about this guy, and the advantage, the built in
Speaker 1: electoral advantage that Democrats have because of like this or
Speaker 1: there are stories that they would make. They would make
Speaker 1: a water gate out of it. This would be like
Speaker 1: snuggle Gate, like if it were if Biden were Republican
Speaker 1: and be like, oh my god, nobody can feel safe
Speaker 1: snuggling because of Biden's nuzzling. You know, they'd completely blow
Speaker 1: it up, you know, blow this up and make it
Speaker 1: a huge deal. And because he's a Democrat there, they
Speaker 1: didn't talk about it until now. He's disposable because I
Speaker 1: think that they want him gone. He's old, he's white,
Speaker 1: he's male. That's not where the Democrat Party is right now.
Speaker 1: And the people that are supporting him are doing so
Speaker 1: out of a nostalgia for Obama and a sense of electability.
Speaker 1: But as we know from the last election, electability is
Speaker 1: a very dangerous thing to hang your hopes on. Hello,
Speaker 1: she was so electable, wasn't she not? Not really though
Speaker 1: turned out that that was that was what you could
Speaker 1: call an incorrect assumption that was made by many people
Speaker 1: on her behalf. These last two years of some months
Speaker 1: have certainly caused a lot of us to start speaking
Speaker 1: to an inanimate object called a television and to shout
Speaker 1: at that thing. It has caused a lot of us
Speaker 1: to go through individual and group therapy. It has caused
Speaker 1: a lot of us to feel a bit of despair
Speaker 1: and depression and anxiety and fear. That's not normal, that's
Speaker 1: not okay. That was Kamala, Kamala rather Harris, who is
Speaker 1: talking about the psychological breakdown that liberals have had in
Speaker 1: the last two years. You'll you'll note that I've said
Speaker 1: many times that this is a mass hysteria that Trump
Speaker 1: has brought about, a mass psychosis on the left, and
Speaker 1: sometimes they will just admit it, as she did there,
Speaker 1: that this has psychologically broken them, that they simply cannot deal,
Speaker 1: They cannot handle what has really been happening here, what's
Speaker 1: really going on. They create this alternate universe for themselves
Speaker 1: where everything that Trump does is literally worse than Hitler,
Speaker 1: when is in fact nowhere in the same universes anything
Speaker 1: that Hitler has done, but they are going to take
Speaker 1: all that animis that has been funneled into the Russia
Speaker 1: collusion delusion. They're going to take that and now they're
Speaker 1: going to focus it more and more on socialism. I
Speaker 1: think that's that's going to be the transition. That is
Speaker 1: the expectation that we have for this. But it's it's
Speaker 1: also going to be a particularly ugly election because the
Speaker 1: Liberals know that their majority and they've had really even
Speaker 1: though they say Kennedy was a swing vote, I mean,
Speaker 1: they got their way on social issues and just in
Speaker 1: general at the court, on every major Supreme Court case
Speaker 1: that goes to the heart of the culture War stretching
Speaker 1: back now for a long time. Liberals tend to get
Speaker 1: their way. If they don't the first time, they'll get
Speaker 1: at the second time. And that's why over the weekend,
Speaker 1: Trump saying I saw this, this was reported on a
Speaker 1: few places that he's saving Amy Coney Barrett for the
Speaker 1: Ruth Bader Ginsburg seats. I saw that reported over the weekend.
Speaker 1: Understanding that now Trump would, I think he's assuming in
Speaker 1: that scenario that he's got six more years in office,
Speaker 1: which is very let's hope, very likely at that point,
Speaker 1: Ruth Better Ginsberg will be way up there in age.
Speaker 1: I didn't even know, Mike, how old is she? Now
Speaker 1: that's an impress should know that she's you know, Ruth
Speaker 1: Bader Ginsburg, she is eighty six years old. Folks, So
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a Supreme Court justice who's up into
Speaker 1: the nineties. Is she going to be on the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court when she's one hundred? You know? Is there any
Speaker 1: point at which we recognize that that age and the effects,
Speaker 1: the deteriorating effects of age on memory and perhaps even
Speaker 1: on judgment comes into play. I know, I think when
Speaker 1: you're getting up the triple digits, I mean, good on
Speaker 1: you for making it that far, and you know you
Speaker 1: should take a bow and spend a lot of time
Speaker 1: with family and loved ones and enjoy life. But I
Speaker 1: don't know that you should be making policy decisions essentially,
Speaker 1: because that's what the Supreme Court does. Now we can
Speaker 1: all pretend that it's just a court, but we know
Speaker 1: that it does a lot more than that. I don't
Speaker 1: think we can make policy decision or allow policy decisions
Speaker 1: to be possibly influenced by what is really a health issue.
Speaker 1: But Trump said that about Amy Coney barrettor at least
Speaker 1: its reported, he said that knowing that this will drive liberals,
Speaker 1: I mean, if his election caused them to have a
Speaker 1: psychological breakdown, the progressive left will go into a state
Speaker 1: of hysterical self immolation. If Ruth Bader Ginsburg steps down
Speaker 1: from the Court to retire and Trump is able to
Speaker 1: fill her seat with a pretty young and vibrant conservative
Speaker 1: mind like Amy Coney Barrett, I mean, the liberal fury
Speaker 1: on this is going to be something to behold. And
Speaker 1: I do think that ultimately there's that the biggest fear
Speaker 1: the left has of all things is that they will
Speaker 1: not have the seal of approval of the Supreme Court
Speaker 1: for the regime of infanticide through abortion that has existed
Speaker 1: in this country now since Roe v. Wade, and that
Speaker 1: there will be both a policy reckoning and a kind
Speaker 1: of national moral reckoning that comes from, oh, the Supreme
Speaker 1: Court doesn't just say you can do this any time,
Speaker 1: for any reason, whenever you want to. Liberals are going
Speaker 1: to gear up for this fight with everything that they have.
Speaker 1: And I noted that Pete Buddha, judge explained how he
Speaker 1: feels about late. You know, this is the guy who's
Speaker 1: supposed to be. You know, he has served in the military.
Speaker 1: He Rhodes scholar. I think he went to Harvard, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's got some some impressive credentials. He's he's
Speaker 1: openly gay, he's married to a man. I forget the
Speaker 1: guy's name, but I read about him of the Weekend
Speaker 1: and noticeably, though Bernie Sanders and Buddha Judge, this is
Speaker 1: an aside. They're not treated as minorities or as people
Speaker 1: who are a president. Bernie Sanders will be the first
Speaker 1: Jewish president. Buddh Judge would be the first openly gay president.
Speaker 1: But liberals because they're white males. White males are are
Speaker 1: not are not in fashion right now on the left,
Speaker 1: white males are. They're not okay, they're according to the
Speaker 1: leftist media, the Buddha Judge is an extremist own abortion.
Speaker 1: Because to be a Democrat in good standing with the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party, with the far left, you have to be
Speaker 1: you really have no choice. You have to be a
Speaker 1: supporter of this play eight in your support the late
Speaker 1: term abortion legislation that was passing the New York state
Speaker 1: legislature as well as in Virginia. I don't think we
Speaker 1: need more restrictions right now. And you know what I've
Speaker 1: learned non a being at a place where you know,
Speaker 1: a lot of my friends, a lot of my supporters
Speaker 1: even come from a different place than I do, being
Speaker 1: pro choice. I just believe that when a woman is
Speaker 1: in that situation, and when we're talking about some of
Speaker 1: those situations covered by that law, extremely difficult, painful, often
Speaker 1: medically serious situations where life or health of the mother
Speaker 1: is at stake, the involvement of a male government official
Speaker 1: like me is not helpful blather all morally worthless blather
Speaker 1: a male like me. Is that true of any other
Speaker 1: issue of moral or medical consequence. By the way, if
Speaker 1: your doctor walks in the room and says, hey, you
Speaker 1: know you need to have your appendix out, do you say,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, you're a man. I want a female doctor.
Speaker 1: This is idiocy. I think Buddha Judge is probably smart
Speaker 1: enough to know that. But he's also calculating enough to
Speaker 1: realize that the Democrat Left is the party of abortion
Speaker 1: for all nine months, for any reason, for every reason,
Speaker 1: subsidized by the taxpayer, and that is the single most
Speaker 1: important thing for the Left. And that's why if they
Speaker 1: lose a Supreme court they would have to deal with
Speaker 1: in America that now gets to pass judgment on what
Speaker 1: has become the defining issue of progressives in the twentieth
Speaker 1: and the twenty first century post Roe v. Wade. He
Speaker 1: wants it released. But I'm not sure what you're saying.
Speaker 1: The media got wrong. But the media reported what the
Speaker 1: investigation was going on the other than the people in
Speaker 1: the media on the left, not on this network. I
Speaker 1: don't know anybody who got anything wrong. We didn't say
Speaker 1: that there was conspiracy. We said that Mueller was investigating conspiracy.
Speaker 1: So Tapper is delusional. I don't think he's lying there
Speaker 1: on purpose. I think he believes the crap that he
Speaker 1: just said over at CNN. And I don't feel the
Speaker 1: need to just every day dunk on Although it's kind
Speaker 1: of fun sometimes it is fun to just just just
Speaker 1: dunk on their faces. I don't really of the need
Speaker 1: to dunk that hard on the media for a lot
Speaker 1: of their mistakes and the things that have happened with
Speaker 1: regard to Russia, because Russia collusion. Because I've known all along,
Speaker 1: and you've known too, that these people are frauds. Right,
Speaker 1: the Tapper's concept, the Tapper's idea that CNN isn't left
Speaker 1: is laughable. I mean, CNN is the heart of the
Speaker 1: hashtag resistance. On television, CNN tried to go to the
Speaker 1: left of MSNBC on Russia collusion. They put people on
Speaker 1: television regularly and did not challenge them, did not say
Speaker 1: where is your evidence. They put people as quote analysts
Speaker 1: on hard news programs who said, you know that, you
Speaker 1: know the walls were closing in, that the other shoes
Speaker 1: about to drop, that you know all this. At a
Speaker 1: certain point, rampant speculation becomes its own conclusion. The damage
Speaker 1: is done whether you get to that event, whether you're
Speaker 1: correct or not. You know, if I go on air
Speaker 1: every night and say, well, this guy may be a murder, guys,
Speaker 1: we're gonna find out soon. Well, I'm pretty sure he's
Speaker 1: a murderer. I mean, I'm ninety nine percent sure this
Speaker 1: guy is a murder. You say that every night, people
Speaker 1: start to think he's a murderer, and then six months
Speaker 1: later when it turns out that no, actually he it
Speaker 1: wasn't him. It was Colonel Mustard in the silarium with
Speaker 1: a candlestick. You guys, remember that it's a great game
Speaker 1: when people figure that out. It's too late. The damage
Speaker 1: is already done. See, journals are dishonest, they are activists,
Speaker 1: and they refuse to be honest about it because there's
Speaker 1: a power that comes, a power that comes from the
Speaker 1: pretense of neutrality, which is what you get from CNN's
Speaker 1: what you get from the New York Times. This make believe.
Speaker 1: Oh we're we're just reporting the facts, man, Yeah, we're
Speaker 1: just the facts here. No, that is not what is
Speaker 1: going on at these places. That is not their mission,
Speaker 1: that is not how they conduct themselves. It is not
Speaker 1: what they do. They are trying to help one team. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're feeding an audience, but they're feeding an audience of
Speaker 1: people that agree with their left of center ideology. So
Speaker 1: I'm I'm willing to not spend too much of our
Speaker 1: time just you know, doing donuts in the front yard
Speaker 1: of all liberal journals in our four by four. I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't necessarily want to just keep hammering on this,
Speaker 1: but I'm sorry, you know, Tapper, I'm not okay with
Speaker 1: the lie. I don't know anyone who got anything wrong
Speaker 1: he said. I mean he did. He got pretty heavily
Speaker 1: U slammed as he should have on social media for this.
Speaker 1: People got fired from CNN, fired from their jobs, including
Speaker 1: I believe one who was nominated for a whatever journalists
Speaker 1: give themselves, not an Emmy, but the other thing. I don't,
Speaker 1: you know, a pulitzer. There you go, who cares, right,
Speaker 1: but somebody was nominated for a pullets. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: real real journal types were fired from CNN for running
Speaker 1: a recklessly false, of course, anti Trump story, and davers like, oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know, I don't remember anyone got anything wrong.
Speaker 1: They ran story after story, you know, if they're gonna
Speaker 1: play this game too of well, what our what our
Speaker 1: reporters tweet and what our reporters say publicly is not
Speaker 1: the same as what a story is. Well what are
Speaker 1: the lines? There were all kinds of stories. I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, they reported that Coomy was going to testify
Speaker 1: that he never told Trump he was an under investigation,
Speaker 1: and he was on and he did tell Trump that
Speaker 1: he was an under investigation. So you know that was wrong.
Speaker 1: That was a lot. There's there's lists and lists out there,
Speaker 1: but folks, they're trying this is the most feverish effort
Speaker 1: in you know, in American media history, I think, to
Speaker 1: try and rewrite the narrative before anybody can anybody can
Speaker 1: actually put the truth down, you know, to say, oh,
Speaker 1: we we were that surprised by this meeting. This is
Speaker 1: what happening. CNN was like watching a bunch of deranged,
Speaker 1: you know, maniacs running around on TV every night talking
Speaker 1: about how the President's gonna get arrested at any minute.
Speaker 1: And people built careers on this. People made their names
Speaker 1: off of the fake collusion story, and it was fake.
Speaker 1: It was just the dossier. A bunch of people who
Speaker 1: hated Trump, like, okay, let's use this. We got this
Speaker 1: dossier thing, and we're gonna run with it like it's real,
Speaker 1: and we're gonna, you know, trash people based on the
Speaker 1: information in this. We're gonna leak some of it. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's also obvious that it was an OPO effort to
Speaker 1: take down Trump that brought together the worst elements of
Speaker 1: the status left in this country, the media, the deep
Speaker 1: state in the FBI, and the DOJ journey. You know,
Speaker 1: journalism plus permanent bureaucracy equals bad, bad things. I mean,
Speaker 1: those two forces working hand in hand should make everybody
Speaker 1: feel very uncomfortable, and they just have not not a
Speaker 1: trace of humility about any of this, not even a monica,
Speaker 1: not a smidgeon of self doubt as a result of
Speaker 1: this massive I mean, you're Tappers like anybody anything wrong?
Speaker 1: Any you all know there's the show. I mean, I'm
Speaker 1: somebody who I don't know why people don't see through
Speaker 1: what Tapper does more easily some people do. But the
Speaker 1: whole role he plays over at Senas, Oh, I'm the guy.
Speaker 1: You know he asks one real question a month of
Speaker 1: a democrat, not a hard question, just a real question.
Speaker 1: There goes oh Jake. He's the gold standard of journalist.
Speaker 1: The guy's a demo democrat, operative and not a nice
Speaker 1: guy by the way, not a good guy. So why
Speaker 1: is it that people let him or some people let
Speaker 1: him get away? Was saying, well, we don't. I don't
Speaker 1: think we've got anything wrong? Are you kidding me? CNN
Speaker 1: clowned itself going after Trump. I mean they should have
Speaker 1: been honking their fake round red clown noses night after
Speaker 1: night on TV. Hah, A bunch of jokers, And you're
Speaker 1: gonna now walk around with this kind of chin wagon
Speaker 1: like we got everything right. I mean, then you have
Speaker 1: little Brian Stelter over there, which I mean every Time
Speaker 1: producer Mike likes it too. Every time Tucker Carlson calls
Speaker 1: him Jeff Zucker's Unich or CNN's Unich or whatever it is,
Speaker 1: I kind of giggle because you know, it's it's funny
Speaker 1: because it's kind of true. Um, but he's everything. Yeah,
Speaker 1: see it in I think leads Kevin Dista and I
Speaker 1: think to get ahead. And if you're somebody that watches
Speaker 1: CNN and you are a religious CNN viewer, and you
Speaker 1: don't think that you got played, that you don't feel
Speaker 1: dirty and violated intellectually by what CNN has done over
Speaker 1: the last two years. You're just not very smart. I
Speaker 1: don't know what else to say. Or you're just not
Speaker 1: really paying attention, or you're maybe delusion a lot. I
Speaker 1: don't know, but there is no reasonable, good faith way
Speaker 1: to come to come away from CNN's version of the
Speaker 1: Russia collusion thing and and not feel like, wow, they're
Speaker 1: just the whole thing was a fraud. And it's all
Speaker 1: just driven by this anti Trump animust, which is really
Speaker 1: about a lot of it is cultural objection to Trump,
Speaker 1: and Trump is them too. You know, remember how I've
Speaker 1: told you many times that liberals they hate guns. But
Speaker 1: it's really guns are a proxy for gun owners. Guns
Speaker 1: are an unanimate object, and they know that it's not
Speaker 1: going to stop Their proposals won't stop violence. But every
Speaker 1: effort at gun control for a devoted leftist, for a
Speaker 1: true liberal, every time they can push gun control, it's
Speaker 1: it's an opportunity to stick their thumb in the eye
Speaker 1: of the people that aren't like them in this country,
Speaker 1: that don't share their vision the country. People like most
Speaker 1: of you listening to this, who you know, believe in
Speaker 1: traditional Christianity, go to church on Sunday, believe in God,
Speaker 1: believe in you know, stable marriage, believe in morality that
Speaker 1: is not contingent upon all situational ethics. I mean, you
Speaker 1: go down this, you know, believing the right to bear arms,
Speaker 1: believe in American exceptionalism. All of those things are for
Speaker 1: the left to be despised. And so gun owners are
Speaker 1: really what they're trying to get at with their with
Speaker 1: their objections. And I feel like that's the same, you know,
Speaker 1: that's often than the same motivation you see from those
Speaker 1: in the media when when they get so upset about
Speaker 1: about Trump, they really also want want you to they
Speaker 1: despise Trump voters. It's not just they don't like Trump.
Speaker 1: They really don't like the people who vote for Trump.
Speaker 1: And that pushes a lot of there because otherwise it's
Speaker 1: just their maniacs. What is wrong with them? How did
Speaker 1: I know all along, without a single day, without a
Speaker 1: single day of doubt, that the Russia collusion thing was
Speaker 1: going to be a nothing burger? How did I know?
Speaker 1: Because I paid attention? Our three coming up? Why is
Speaker 1: central planning a bad thing as a principle? Why is
Speaker 1: it that we as conservatives saying, you know what, I
Speaker 1: don't want central planning? Why is that so important to
Speaker 1: the conception of the American founding? Why is it that
Speaker 1: we have a system of federalism and local and state
Speaker 1: and then federal government, and there's different overlapping but separate jurisdictions,
Speaker 1: and there's all this, all these different mechanisms of government
Speaker 1: to separate power but also to localized decision making where appropriate. Well,
Speaker 1: it's because collective approaches central planning, which is the core
Speaker 1: of any true program of socialism, never mind communism, but
Speaker 1: any true program of socialism is going to involve a
Speaker 1: lot of central planning. Why is it bad? Well, it's
Speaker 1: because the people that are the central planners, and history
Speaker 1: shows us this time and again are inherently going to
Speaker 1: be forced to make decisions that are out of their depth.
Speaker 1: They will not be accountable rapidly enough and acutely enough
Speaker 1: that those who have to live under their decisions will
Speaker 1: be able to push back effectively enough to stop the
Speaker 1: central planning from being, you know, either misplaced or disastrous.
Speaker 1: I mean sometimes and I want to talk to you,
Speaker 1: but one of those disasters in just a moment. But
Speaker 1: there are reasons why we oppose central planning, and it's
Speaker 1: it's wrong in concept, but it's also wrong or it
Speaker 1: leads to disaster from the perspective of history. You need
Speaker 1: local improvisation. You need local knowledge and responsiveness to stimuli,
Speaker 1: whether you're talking about a market, you're talking about politics.
Speaker 1: You know, if you're hoping that the pothole that is
Speaker 1: in front of your house is going to get fixed
Speaker 1: because it keeps, you know, rip and tires off and
Speaker 1: bending the I was gonna say, bend the radiator, but
Speaker 1: that would be quite a pothole. Bend the axle. There
Speaker 1: we go, bucks car knowledge needs a little work. I
Speaker 1: bend my radiator on that poddle. If you write a
Speaker 1: letter to Washington, DC to fix the pothole in front
Speaker 1: of your house, You're probably gonna wait a really long
Speaker 1: time before that gets fixed. And you know, that's a
Speaker 1: very simple way of explaining why central planning and collectivized
Speaker 1: decision making is by one core authority, right, usually a
Speaker 1: central planning committee, or if you're looking in the context
Speaker 1: of the French Revolution, the Committee on Public Safety One
Speaker 1: are the most horrifically terrifying organizations in in you know,
Speaker 1: European eighteenth century history. Probably the single most terrifying eighteenth
Speaker 1: century European invention. A bunch of lawyers, by the way,
Speaker 1: the Committee on Public Safety that led to literis in France,
Speaker 1: the terror with Robespierre. They're a bunch of progressive lawyers. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they were the ones that were like lop off their heads.
Speaker 1: Actually it was more like, no, you must chepov zr
Speaker 1: head because the revolution must leave on. You know, That's
Speaker 1: that's what they sounded like, very more like Peppi Lapew,
Speaker 1: not like some guy from Boston. Hey, it's Phil lop
Speaker 1: off his head with the guillotine. But central planning is bad.
Speaker 1: Central planning can go awry. Central planning historically results in very,
Speaker 1: very bad outcomes to people who have to live under them.
Speaker 1: And that's why when I hear people who are talking
Speaker 1: about the way that whether it's Elizabeth Warren or Bertie
Speaker 1: Sanders or Okazio Cortez, there seems to be this, oh, well,
Speaker 1: if we just if we allow the centralized decision making
Speaker 1: to happen, everything will be more efficient. You know, that's
Speaker 1: always the promise because they think it's top down. They
Speaker 1: think it's just, oh, I say do this, and then
Speaker 1: that's how it will happen. What they forget is that
Speaker 1: not only in a large enough system, I mean, the
Speaker 1: reason you want to localize decisions, the reason you want
Speaker 1: to talk to your city council about the pothole and
Speaker 1: not the federal government in DC is one. There's just
Speaker 1: decision fatigue too. Can actually have tailored solutions. You're going
Speaker 1: to get just a one size fits all approach when
Speaker 1: it's top down. And three, they don't care if they
Speaker 1: fail you because there are too many you know, the
Speaker 1: problem is too insignificant for the authority charge with it
Speaker 1: to want to do anything about it. So that's just
Speaker 1: philosophically an explanation as to why I'm so opposed, and
Speaker 1: I know most, if not all of you listening are
Speaker 1: so opposed to many of these campaigns and these these
Speaker 1: programs of central planning that are constantly being pushed by
Speaker 1: progressives these days. And I just want to tell you
Speaker 1: the story of the Great Sparrow Campaign. I don't know
Speaker 1: how many of you know this one, some of you might,
Speaker 1: but back in nineteen fifty eight, Mao Mao Zadong had
Speaker 1: pushed his country, had pushed China into this rapid industrialization.
Speaker 1: It would come to be known as the Great Leap Forward. Right,
Speaker 1: So the founding father of what is the People's Republic
Speaker 1: of China thought, you know what we're going to do,
Speaker 1: because China was a desperately poor country. People forget this.
Speaker 1: In my lifetime, China went from in nineteen eighty a
Speaker 1: roughly seventy billion dollars GDP country with a billion person population.
Speaker 1: Seventy billion in GDP, that's shockingly low, to now a
Speaker 1: seven trillion dollar economy. Seven trillion dollars, so it's gone
Speaker 1: up quite a bit over the course of thirty or some.
Speaker 1: Seventy billion to seven trillion is an astronomical leap for
Speaker 1: any economy. To make so, and we'll talk more another
Speaker 1: day about how they've done that, how they managed to
Speaker 1: create all this growth, and how I think US China
Speaker 1: policy has I'm a believe were in the hundred year
Speaker 1: Marathon thesis that the US hasn't really understood what China's
Speaker 1: real goals are and that we miss bar from bush,
Speaker 1: we missunderestimate, we underestimate China at our peril, and I
Speaker 1: think we have been doing that. But back in nineteen
Speaker 1: fifty eight is incredibly poor country, mostly agrarian people were
Speaker 1: just subsistence farmers, and Mao designs that the country needs
Speaker 1: to be pushed through a rapid kind of Chinese industrial
Speaker 1: revolution that's going to happen in a couple of years
Speaker 1: instead of a few decades. And you think of the
Speaker 1: industrial Revolution as it occurred in the West, and it
Speaker 1: took time, and there were processes, and you know, you
Speaker 1: had to build infrastructure, and markets had to get set up,
Speaker 1: and there was exchange of goods, and you enhancements in
Speaker 1: the steam engine and railroads and blah bade blah all that, right,
Speaker 1: that's how it happened. China is just like we're just
Speaker 1: gonna We're just gonna do it man, like, just get
Speaker 1: out of the countryside, I move into the cities. We're
Speaker 1: gonna have this rapid And you can see from a
Speaker 1: central planning perspective, we're talking about now a communist state
Speaker 1: where the expectation, at least of the ruling elites and
Speaker 1: what's being sold to people is that collectivist action is
Speaker 1: what will make everybody better off, wealthier and everything else.
Speaker 1: But from a central planning perspective, it's it seems sensible,
Speaker 1: doesn't it. And these are these are the supposed to
Speaker 1: be the smartest people in the country. Well, what Mao
Speaker 1: after he decided they were going to collectivize agriculture, So
Speaker 1: you're going to set out the agricultures collectives and a
Speaker 1: lot of people are going to move into the cities
Speaker 1: because of the industrialization. Had this four Pests campaign because
Speaker 1: they were worried about human hygiene, which is a real
Speaker 1: which was a real problem right there a lot of
Speaker 1: places that didn't have running water and plumbing. And so
Speaker 1: remember these ideas that they come up with are based
Speaker 1: on real problems and they and they are trying to
Speaker 1: solve them. But the four Pests campaign in China targeted rats, flies,
Speaker 1: and mosquitoes. But you know what else it targeted sparrows. Now,
Speaker 1: you might say, Buck, I've heard you talk smack about
Speaker 1: about mosquitos, which is true. I hate mosquitoes and I
Speaker 1: think we should genetically de engineer them out of existence. Um,
Speaker 1: but you know rats, flies, you get why people don't
Speaker 1: like those, But why sparrows. I mean, but this is
Speaker 1: a this is within well close to now living memory.
Speaker 1: But it depends on how old we're talking about. But
Speaker 1: you know this is not long ago. When the leader
Speaker 1: of one of the of the largest country on planet
Speaker 1: Earth is like, let's get rid of all the sparrows.
Speaker 1: Tweet tweet, little birds. I want to get rid of them.
Speaker 1: As a side note, the common European house sparrow, for
Speaker 1: those of you who are birdwatchers, I learned this from
Speaker 1: my father, is an invasive species that will kill all
Speaker 1: other songbirds by destroying their eggs in a you know,
Speaker 1: within the vicinity of where these sparrows make their homes.
Speaker 1: So those little, those little suckers are tough, and some
Speaker 1: people decide to get rid of them. But anyway, MAO
Speaker 1: decides to get rid of the sparrows. And the decision
Speaker 1: was that the sparrows were decision was made because sparrows
Speaker 1: eat grain seeds, so the central planners are like, look,
Speaker 1: there's sparrow. There's huge flocks of sparrows. They're very hardy
Speaker 1: species and they're eating or grain seed. So we're gonna
Speaker 1: have a lot more food if we just get all
Speaker 1: the sparrows. And this was a real program that they
Speaker 1: took sparrows that had numbered in the millions in a
Speaker 1: very short time, almost down to extinction. Everybody had this
Speaker 1: was communist propaganda. Everybody had to kill the sparrows, you know,
Speaker 1: top down, imagine Trump going out sparrows. We got to
Speaker 1: kill the sparrows. And this happened. Ideas seem sensible. You
Speaker 1: know what sparrows eat other than grain seed, insects. They
Speaker 1: eat insects, especially in the early stages of their development.
Speaker 1: It's really important if you want to have a good
Speaker 1: artist that you do locusts overrun your fields. You know
Speaker 1: what happens when you kill one of the main predators
Speaker 1: for locusts, you get a plague of locusts, which is
Speaker 1: what happened in China when they killed all the sparrows.
Speaker 1: By nineteen sixty, after two years of this campaign, there
Speaker 1: was mass starvation, and that led to the Great Famine
Speaker 1: in China, which in China you're still not supposed to
Speaker 1: talk about. You're not allowed to talk about it. Estimates
Speaker 1: range twenty five thirty million. I've seen as high as
Speaker 1: forty million, and I think there's even one a story,
Speaker 1: in a revisionist a story, and that says it's up
Speaker 1: to sixty million starved to death. Tens of millions of
Speaker 1: people starved to death in the twentieth century in a
Speaker 1: country with a population that is the largest in the world,
Speaker 1: and it was in no small all part driven by
Speaker 1: central government policy that decided to collectivize all the decision
Speaker 1: making top down and did not allow for local improvisation
Speaker 1: to field conditions or necessary decisions about planting any of that.
Speaker 1: It was you do it this way or else, and
Speaker 1: then the people starved. So the Great Sparrow Campaign, I mean,
Speaker 1: in a sense, it's a reminder of just how stupid
Speaker 1: and how tragic governments that have unfettered power can be
Speaker 1: because they are not responsive the needs of the people,
Speaker 1: and quite frankly, they usually don't care how much destruction
Speaker 1: results from their bad decision making. They are just pleased
Speaker 1: with themselves for being in power in the first place.
Speaker 1: So now you know about the Great Sparrow Campaign, a
Speaker 1: real thing that led to one of the biggest starvations
Speaker 1: in history, and it was killed the birds so they
Speaker 1: stopped eating our seeds. That was the basis of it.
Speaker 1: The President spent a lot of time on using the
Speaker 1: S word socialism and socialist. It was a not too subtle.
Speaker 1: I don't know whether it's a dig or a enhancement.
Speaker 1: I'll let you decide. It's flattered. If you work forty
Speaker 1: hours a week in the wealthiest country in the history
Speaker 1: of the world, you should be earning a living wage
Speaker 1: fifteen bucks an hour. That's what it means. It means
Speaker 1: that we end the international disgrace of the United States
Speaker 1: being the only major country on Earth not to guarantee
Speaker 1: healthcare to all people as a right. We're going to
Speaker 1: make public colleges and universities tuition free. That we have
Speaker 1: a moral obligation to leave a healthy planet to our
Speaker 1: children and grandchildren. We're going to stand up to Trump,
Speaker 1: and we're going to transform our energy system in this
Speaker 1: country away from fossil fuel to energy efficiency and sustainable energies.
Speaker 1: Capitalism without rules is fift capitalism isn't to me is
Speaker 1: it's an ideology of capital. It means that we seek
Speaker 1: and prioritize profit and the accumulation of money above all else,
Speaker 1: and we seek it at any human and environmental cost.
Speaker 1: And to me, that ideology is not sustainable and cannot
Speaker 1: be redeemed. The idea you know, you get the idea,
Speaker 1: you get all this talk about. These are top democrats
Speaker 1: in this country right now, we're just speaking about central planning,
Speaker 1: collectivist decision making. Before this is now mainstream. In fact,
Speaker 1: this is I would argue, in the vanguard or the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, this is where they're going. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is the future for the Democratic Party. They really believe
Speaker 1: in this stuff. And what's I think terrifying for a
Speaker 1: lot of us is at least those of us are
Speaker 1: paying attention the recognition that these people that are talking
Speaker 1: about this stuff, Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Okazio Cortez are
Speaker 1: functionally economic illiterates. They could not walk you through. I mean,
Speaker 1: if I asked, oh, Kazio Cortez, you know this is true.
Speaker 1: But if I asked, Okazio Cortez explained to me what
Speaker 1: the objection to central planning is I assure you she
Speaker 1: could not do it. She would not be able to
Speaker 1: walk you through why people think that central planning is
Speaker 1: generally a bad move for the government, and that with
Speaker 1: very few ideas national defense right because you and that's
Speaker 1: that's always the extreme. You need to be able to
Speaker 1: tell the army to march in this direction and go right.
Speaker 1: There are some places so you don't have to send
Speaker 1: me this book. What about this? Yeah, there are some
Speaker 1: places where you need centralized decision making structure. But even
Speaker 1: within the militaries any of you are in the military, No, Yeah,
Speaker 1: there's a top down structure, but there's a tremendous amount
Speaker 1: of improvisation and authority and decision making beat below the
Speaker 1: top level. You know, the the strategy, the overall war
Speaker 1: aim may be top down, but you know you don't
Speaker 1: have four star general saying no, no no, no, don't go
Speaker 1: left to take that hill, go right, at least generally
Speaker 1: you don't. You don't have that. But they don't even
Speaker 1: understand why their ideas are wrong. And that's something that
Speaker 1: when when I see that going on, I get worried.
Speaker 1: I mean, you had AOC today tweet out this Croissants
Speaker 1: I never know what to do with this one, because
Speaker 1: if you say croissants, you sound a little like a
Speaker 1: little fruit fruit preppy type, you know, with a croissants.
Speaker 1: But she wrote that croissants, that doesn't that sound so anyway?
Speaker 1: At LaGuardia are going for seven dollars a piece. Yet
Speaker 1: some people think getting a whole hour of personal, dedicated
Speaker 1: human labor for fifteen dollars is too expensive. In this
Speaker 1: one tweet taken from today, which was not an April
Speaker 1: Fool's tweet, I mean, I look to make sure she
Speaker 1: didn't say April Fools like am I as it's like
Speaker 1: April Fool's Day, because AOC it's so funny. It just
Speaker 1: shows you the degree of the ignorance that we're dealing
Speaker 1: with here. You know, does she understand, let's break this
Speaker 1: down for a second, to her millions of social media followers,
Speaker 1: does she understand why crappy, stale, super chewy gross croissants
Speaker 1: at LaGuardia Airport are seven dollars. It's not because there's
Speaker 1: a shortage of flower that LaGuardia Airport is facing. It's
Speaker 1: because LaGuardia Airport has a monopoly on the food concessions.
Speaker 1: That you can get after you go through security, because
Speaker 1: there are dudes with guns who are like, you know what,
Speaker 1: you can't bring that through here, although I think you
Speaker 1: can actually these days bring food if you x ray.
Speaker 1: But in general, because they have a forced scarcity, they
Speaker 1: jack up the prices. Does she not understand that, I'm
Speaker 1: not sure that she does. I think that she really
Speaker 1: just doesn't get. You know, why is hotel food so expensive.
Speaker 1: It's not because it's so good. And why is it
Speaker 1: that fifteen dollars is quote too expensive for human labor?
Speaker 1: It's because there are cost inputs. There are market forces
Speaker 1: that either allow a company to stay in business and
Speaker 1: make a profit or not that determine what that wage is.
Speaker 1: The wage is not just whatever somebody says it is.
Speaker 1: And this war on markets that you're seeing, which is
Speaker 1: inherently a war on decentralized decision making, is going to
Speaker 1: get much more focused from the Democrats, and it's incredibly damaging.
Speaker 1: People need to understand why markets work and why markets
Speaker 1: are the reason that you live that we live in
Speaker 1: this incredible luxury as Americans today. They need to understand why,
Speaker 1: not just what the answer is, but how we get
Speaker 1: to the answer. AOC doesn't even know how little she knows.
Speaker 1: A stunning chart that talks about a problem that I
Speaker 1: know some people are going to immediately latch on to
Speaker 1: some of their preferred narratives about you know, Generation X
Speaker 1: or Generation millennial or whatever. But this is this is
Speaker 1: troubling for us as a society. I mean, if we're
Speaker 1: looking at societal health and we're all we're going to
Speaker 1: have an adult discussion here, folks, right, this is not
Speaker 1: going to turn into some other kind of discussion. But
Speaker 1: if we're looking at societal health, the fact that more
Speaker 1: than ever since they've been recording this, Americans are not
Speaker 1: having sex. That's not a good thing. I remember, we're
Speaker 1: talking about American adults, Okay, and about twenty three percent
Speaker 1: of them, nearly one in four, have spent the year
Speaker 1: in a celibate STA eight and there's a much larger
Speaker 1: this is accord of the Washington Post, much larger than expected.
Speaker 1: Number of them were twenty something year old men. Experts
Speaker 1: chord in the Post here who study American betterman habits
Speaker 1: say their number of factors age is one of them. Okay,
Speaker 1: the sixteen older demos is a bigger part of the population.
Speaker 1: The share reporting no sex has been around fifty percent
Speaker 1: for them generally, But it's the other ndage spectrum that's
Speaker 1: really surprising at people. The portion of Americans eighteen to
Speaker 1: twenty nine reporting no sex in the past year has
Speaker 1: more than doubled, more than doubled between twenty eighteen and
Speaker 1: twenty eight and twenty eighteen. It is now twenty three percent.
Speaker 1: So almost one in four American Americans between the age
Speaker 1: of eighteen and twenty nine are not having sex. And
Speaker 1: they're saying that part of this is economically driven, and
Speaker 1: it's overwhelmingly men, by the way, who are the ones.
Speaker 1: So this is not women who are choosing to be
Speaker 1: chased or that that's not what the changes. It's not
Speaker 1: women who are waiting for marriage. It's it's guys. It's
Speaker 1: men who are in their twenties who are essentially what
Speaker 1: they call on the message boards in cells involuntary celibates. Now, look,
Speaker 1: this is a broad this is a broad data set,
Speaker 1: to be sure, but I think that you can see
Speaker 1: some of the trends here. The assault on masculinity, which
Speaker 1: is a very real cultural phenomenon in this country, the
Speaker 1: desire to downplay masculine virtues, and it starts at a
Speaker 1: very young age. You know, they're all this all these
Speaker 1: lies about how like, oh, they only call on boys
Speaker 1: in class that's not true. They actually call on girls
Speaker 1: more in classrooms than on boys. But you know they're
Speaker 1: they're saying that boys are badly behaved from boys just
Speaker 1: behave differently than girls at a young age. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's there's so much about manhood right now that is
Speaker 1: under assault, and it is a concerted social movement from
Speaker 1: the left to undercut masculinity. And I think that that
Speaker 1: is playing out in ways where you know, millennial men
Speaker 1: are living at home more. They don't feel like they
Speaker 1: have as much purpose, they don't feel like they're appreciated,
Speaker 1: they don't feel like they need to be providers for
Speaker 1: And look, I'm a gray beard millennial. I know all
Speaker 1: about this age demo. And we have this culture that
Speaker 1: keeps telling them, you know, don't don't be chivalrous, don't
Speaker 1: be aggressive, don't be sexist. All these different things get
Speaker 1: mixed together. It's no. I mean, you want to treat
Speaker 1: everybody as an individual and with dignity, and you should
Speaker 1: always act with honor and decency. But chivalry is a
Speaker 1: good thing. Masculinity is a good thing. Testosterone is a
Speaker 1: building block of civilization. Maybe that's something that our culture
Speaker 1: needs a reminder of in a lot of ways. That
Speaker 1: testosterone is not some curse. It's not something that you know,
Speaker 1: the X Y chromo chromosomal mix is is not something
Speaker 1: to shy away from. And I do think that you're
Speaker 1: starting to see this, and you know, men and women
Speaker 1: pairing together. Biology is a very powerful force, and our
Speaker 1: society is fighting that in a way that is both
Speaker 1: unwise and certain to lose. But people are going to
Speaker 1: be very unhappy along the way, and I think we're
Speaker 1: seeing that right now. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for
Speaker 1: Roll Call live from Savannah, Georgia. Everybody, that's right down
Speaker 1: here at the w TKS station in Savannah. They very
Speaker 1: kindly allowed the mobile Freedom Hut to get set up.
Speaker 1: I am down here for a conference with my friends
Speaker 1: over at Stansbury Research. So it's lovely where we're staying.
Speaker 1: We're right near Hilton Head, very pretty part of the country. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: Savannah decided to be like forty degrees in April, so
Speaker 1: it is it is really cold outside here. So my plan,
Speaker 1: which initially involved a whole lot of kayaking and outdoorsy
Speaker 1: stuff has been a little bit, but you know, hey,
Speaker 1: means of more time indoors to study up for the show,
Speaker 1: which is which is a good thing. So let's get
Speaker 1: to it, shall we. Facebook dot Com slash Buck Sexton. Man,
Speaker 1: it's at some point I'll be back in the Freedom
Speaker 1: Hudd in DC. That will be nice. It feels like
Speaker 1: it's been a while. A lot a lot of travel lately,
Speaker 1: a lot of travel. Rachel kicking us off today. Hello Buck,
Speaker 1: I just want to give you some encouragement in regard
Speaker 1: to your Lululemon pants. My husband owns two pairs of
Speaker 1: those pants, his favorite being the ABC pants. ABC is
Speaker 1: an acronym and also the reason my husband likes them
Speaker 1: so much. Who cares what brand it is, as long
Speaker 1: as they're comfortable and allow you to get your job
Speaker 1: done with maximum comfort. Thank you for the hard work
Speaker 1: you put in the show every day. She'll tie Rachel
Speaker 1: from where else? California? Rachel, I'm gonna tell you something.
Speaker 1: Your hus, your hubs and I we own the same pants.
Speaker 1: So there you have it. I also own the ABC pants.
Speaker 1: They're very very comfortable. I They're not as manly as
Speaker 1: my five eleven tactical pants, but they are nonetheless very comfortable.
Speaker 1: So there's that. Corey right sending out a wave to
Speaker 1: the freedom hunt as I truck my way through the
Speaker 1: swamp with a load bound for Atlanta. Keep doing what
Speaker 1: you do well, Corey Shield tie to you, my friend,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for reaching out. Good good to
Speaker 1: hear from you. I appreciate it and I hope that
Speaker 1: your load gets there to Atlanta. Very important verse Baby
Speaker 1: Love Commerce. Let's see what we got here, Rich speaking
Speaker 1: of Love Love your podcast via iHeart. Just a note
Speaker 1: at this point in the era of obvious fail of
Speaker 1: higher education, which you often allude to referencing opponent's schooling
Speaker 1: from a fifth tier school, etc. It makes you come
Speaker 1: across a bit preppy when contiguing their ideas. Should suffice. Oh,
Speaker 1: your Bernie impression is far better than Ben Shapiro's. Well,
Speaker 1: I agree with you that my Burnie impression is number one,
Speaker 1: although I do have respect for Ben Shapiro's Bernie it
Speaker 1: is it is solid, mine is mine is just in
Speaker 1: a class by itself. I think of the impressions of
Speaker 1: Bernie as for fifth tier schools. I will tell you something,
Speaker 1: my friend, I try only to do that in cases
Speaker 1: where people are using their credentialing as some kind of
Speaker 1: a rolling pin to whack other people with. You know,
Speaker 1: well I went to this place, so I'm so smart.
Speaker 1: I could have gone to a number of ivy League
Speaker 1: graduate schools. I went to AMers for undergrad None of
Speaker 1: it is is as impressive as people like you to believe.
Speaker 1: And so if I if I air and just say
Speaker 1: someone's for a fifth tier school, because I'm just being
Speaker 1: a little bit of a you know, I'm being a
Speaker 1: little little impish, well then that's on me, and uh
Speaker 1: my bad. But if it's somebody who's like, well, I
Speaker 1: have a PhD from whatever, so I know all about
Speaker 1: this subject, that doesn't necessarily mean anything. And especially if
Speaker 1: they're like, you know, you get this a lot with professors. Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean that's really I think what you're probably alluding to.
Speaker 1: You have these professors that's well, I have a PhD,
Speaker 1: and I I'm a tenured professor of whatever. It's like, well,
Speaker 1: you have a PhD in a subject that not that
Speaker 1: many people really care about, in a school that not
Speaker 1: that many people want to go to. So I don't
Speaker 1: think that national policy discussion should unduly be influenced by
Speaker 1: your professorial wisdom. So that's when I that's when sometimes
Speaker 1: that comes out a little bit. But I'll keep an
Speaker 1: I'll keep an eye on the preppiness. Although I'm a
Speaker 1: little bit preppy. I mean, boat shoes, polo shirts. There's
Speaker 1: just some some stuff that you know, you gotta be
Speaker 1: who you are, right, I mean, at least you know.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't run around with, you know, a
Speaker 1: mohawk and tats all over my arm. It's being like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I'm a Brooklyn hipster. What's up? Although mohawks, mohawks are
Speaker 1: gonna make a comeback some of you right now, although
Speaker 1: it would be cultural appropriation because their name named for
Speaker 1: the mohawk Indians. There will be backlash if the mohawk
Speaker 1: ever does make we'll have to come up with a
Speaker 1: new name for it, like you know, the human, the
Speaker 1: human porcupine or something. They'll have to be a new
Speaker 1: way to describe it. But I'm I'm you're hearing it
Speaker 1: for me. First, I told you CrOx would make a comeback,
Speaker 1: and they did for like a day. And I think
Speaker 1: I think that mohawk as a countercultural hairstyle is going
Speaker 1: to make a comeback. The foehawk was trendy for a
Speaker 1: little while, not to be confused with the outright mohawk, Scotts.
Speaker 1: I typically listen to you through the Blaze iHeartRadio app
Speaker 1: on the Blaze channel. Am I getting you live? Yes, Scott,
Speaker 1: the Blaze Radio app is how you listen. Is how
Speaker 1: you can listen to me live. If you ever want
Speaker 1: to listen in real time, you know, the podcast is
Speaker 1: put up after the show. Sometimes, if we have a
Speaker 1: couple of interviews or something, the podcast might even be
Speaker 1: up a little bit before the show because we might
Speaker 1: have finished a little a little bit earlier. But generally speaking,
Speaker 1: the podcast is post end of show, and the iHeart
Speaker 1: app lets you listen in real time. So yes, you
Speaker 1: should definitely listen on the iHeart Radio app live six
Speaker 1: to nine Eastern anywhere all you folks. All you need
Speaker 1: is either sell service or Wi Fi and you can
Speaker 1: listen to this show live anytime on your smartphone. Just
Speaker 1: remember that it's really easy. You don't have to listen
Speaker 1: on your local station, although we love our local affiliates
Speaker 1: and there's something kind of special about tuning in that way.
Speaker 1: But if you can't. You know, if you're away from
Speaker 1: your home base, away from your local station, you can
Speaker 1: listen on the iHeart radio app. John Rights been a
Speaker 1: fan since the Real News days. Whoa John Original Saturday Squad?
Speaker 1: Then how do we get Trump to act on the border?
Speaker 1: Lots he can do? Takeaway funding for sanctuary cities, stop
Speaker 1: all the welfare programs, stop the flow of money being
Speaker 1: sent back to home countries, shut down the borders, send
Speaker 1: massive amounts of troops at the border. Why aren't we
Speaker 1: still do Why are we still doing this catchum release?
Speaker 1: Is this just a campaign issue? Or now the Muller
Speaker 1: report is out, will things change? John? I like your
Speaker 1: can do attitude, and I appreciate that you actually would
Speaker 1: like to see the border get fixed instead of the
Speaker 1: border just get talked about. But if we're going to
Speaker 1: talk about this, I have to be honest with you
Speaker 1: and tell you that there are problems with the approaches
Speaker 1: you'd like to see, not that so it's not that
Speaker 1: you're wrong, it's just they may not work the way
Speaker 1: you intend them to. For example, if you try to
Speaker 1: take away funding for sanctuary cities, it goes to the courts,
Speaker 1: and guess what the courts are packed with a lot
Speaker 1: of libs, and they will say that you can't take
Speaker 1: away funding from those sanctuary cities. So that's one way
Speaker 1: that you can see this becomes an issue stopping all
Speaker 1: the welfare programs. Technically, illegal aliens should not be able
Speaker 1: to access any welfare programs. Now I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: is reality. I'm just saying that is already the law. See.
Speaker 1: One of the problems who are in run into is
Speaker 1: that when you have mass lawlessness, when you have people
Speaker 1: that are ignoring laws in a systematic fashion, then the
Speaker 1: impulse is to pass more laws to fix the lack
Speaker 1: of attention and enforcement of those initial laws. Will guess
Speaker 1: what lawdon work the first time around, second time around,
Speaker 1: it's probably not going to work either. You could say, well, buck,
Speaker 1: maybe different penalties, different punishment. But remember the reason that
Speaker 1: our immigration laws are not enforced is because there is
Speaker 1: not the political will to enforce them. People don't want
Speaker 1: to make it happen, law enforcement, politicians. You know, it
Speaker 1: depends on where you are. Someplaces law enforcement really wishes
Speaker 1: they can enforce, the politicians won't let them. Other places,
Speaker 1: you get to sanctuary jurisdictions like San Francisco local sheriff.
Speaker 1: He doesn't, you know, he doesn't want you to enforce
Speaker 1: immigration laws. He doesn't want you to enforce those those
Speaker 1: federal statutes. So it really depends. And the one that
Speaker 1: I find the most interesting is you rode here stop
Speaker 1: the flow of money being sent back to home countries.
Speaker 1: I mean, the estimates are that twenty billion with a B,
Speaker 1: and that was some years ago. It's probably closer to
Speaker 1: twenty five or thirty billion now, but it was about
Speaker 1: twenty billion with a B in untaxed remittances get sent
Speaker 1: back to Mexico to help, you know, to help their
Speaker 1: economy essentially. I mean it goes into the into the
Speaker 1: Mexican economy, and that that is a source of very
Speaker 1: important hard currency for that country. And it is a
Speaker 1: place where we have a pressure point. So that that's
Speaker 1: a very that's an interesting idea of shutting down the border.
Speaker 1: That's a little bit of cutting off your nose despite
Speaker 1: your face. The border getting shut down entirely gone. It's
Speaker 1: gonna get challenged immediately by a lot of business interests,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a political loser. And I'm sympathetic
Speaker 1: to the Trump administration's problem here because you know, Obama
Speaker 1: cracked the door open, and then in time, or maybe
Speaker 1: you could say Obama put the crack in the damn
Speaker 1: and over time. Now it's just turned into a massive
Speaker 1: fracture and now a flood. You need to have different
Speaker 1: immigration laws, you need to change the way asylum is done.
Speaker 1: So that's all very, very important. It's there's only so
Speaker 1: much the president can do though, I mean, that's at
Speaker 1: the end of the day. That's where the real problem
Speaker 1: comes about. Here. There's only so much that can be
Speaker 1: done by the President of the United States. And remember,
Speaker 1: he gets challenged. The executive branch gets challenged under this
Speaker 1: administration by the judiciary in a way that's clearly driven
Speaker 1: by the hashtag resistance mentality. It's not real, honest jurisprudential opposition.
Speaker 1: It's anything to stop Orange Man, drum drump bad. That's
Speaker 1: what the judges, especially in the Ninth Circuit, but elsewhere too,
Speaker 1: that is what they're doing. Cindy writes, Yes, Ben has
Speaker 1: a betto and you two should totally do a show together.
Speaker 1: Love your Hillary always makes my daity hear it, love
Speaker 1: the show and shields high. Cindy, Well, thank you, Cindy
Speaker 1: I don't even know if that sounds like Hillary Moore.
Speaker 1: If that's you guys, just know that that's like my
Speaker 1: Hillary noise. It does not sound like her. But you
Speaker 1: know Elizabeth war and it's kind of you know, she's
Speaker 1: just trying to be Likabull. She's almost at Hillary level.
Speaker 1: She's kind of similar. And then there's Betto who just
Speaker 1: like wants the whole country to infuse their desires and hopes. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, that's the way it is, and that's the
Speaker 1: way it was. Uh, let's see what we get here, Chuck,
Speaker 1: look at what Twitter got all upset over. Chuck sent
Speaker 1: me something here. I don't know what that's all about. Uh,
Speaker 1: what's next here, Jeremy, Chico's Tacos is a great place
Speaker 1: to eat if you like pizza dions. This is for
Speaker 1: Al Paso. I get pepperoni with green chili. It's a
Speaker 1: new Mexico thing. There's also some great Mexican restaurants right
Speaker 1: by the border. As always Shields High. You might need
Speaker 1: them in El Paso. Jeremy, Jeremy, thanks for the Rex.
Speaker 1: My friend. I did go to a place called Ellen
Speaker 1: ellen Jay's. I think it was good. It was fun,
Speaker 1: you know, it was. It was nice, kind of bar
Speaker 1: style Mexican food. El Paso cuisine was nice. So we
Speaker 1: got that going for us. All right, Team, that's gonna
Speaker 1: be it for the show today. Thank you so very
Speaker 1: much for being here. We will be back in Savannah
Speaker 1: Live tomorrow, same time, same place as always. She'll tie