Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The left has gone mad.
Speaker 1: They are now supporting an abortion bill in Virginia that
Speaker 1: is nothing short of infanticide. We have to confront this
Speaker 1: evil head on. We'll talk about that and then move
Speaker 1: into a discussion of socialism and single payer healthcare. The
Speaker 1: Democrats are embracing both ideas. We have to fight back
Speaker 1: and win. That's all coming up. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence, Make no mistake America
Speaker 1: American again. The Buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, now, welcome
Speaker 1: to the Buck sex And Show everybody. A lot of
Speaker 1: a lot of things. That covered a lot of policy
Speaker 1: to discuss. We will get into the latest on the
Speaker 1: immigration debate. It was very gratified to see that the
Speaker 1: President shared my editorial from the Hill earlier this week
Speaker 1: on immigration and talking about the the scams and the
Speaker 1: dishonesty around the asylum process, the need for a border wall,
Speaker 1: the crisis at the border. So word word is getting
Speaker 1: out and if you haven't read that piece, I think
Speaker 1: it's worth it's worth your time. And I was very
Speaker 1: I was very pleased that the President was very gratifying.
Speaker 1: The President of the White House official Twitter accounts both
Speaker 1: shared it. We'll also discuss socialism and this this huge,
Speaker 1: huge fight that's coming over Medicare for all, which is
Speaker 1: going to be the central promise other than anti Trump
Speaker 1: is m and getting rid of Trump. Promise of the
Speaker 1: Democrats in twenty twenty is going to be Medicare for all.
Speaker 1: It was originally healthcare coverage for everybody. Now it's just
Speaker 1: going to be healthcare for everybody that somebody else will
Speaker 1: pay for. This is disastrous on a number of levels,
Speaker 1: but it is a very real threat. I do think
Speaker 1: a lot of the conservatives out there think that we
Speaker 1: can just say, haha, socialism, socialism stinks, nobody wants it,
Speaker 1: and that will be sufficient. It will not be sufficient.
Speaker 1: The polls are showing, the conversations are shifting. People are
Speaker 1: fed up with what is a lot of government intrusion
Speaker 1: and distortion in the healthcare market to begin with, and
Speaker 1: then there's this impulse to just say, fine, let's just
Speaker 1: have the government charge of all of it. And this
Speaker 1: all along was why Obamacare was meant to put us
Speaker 1: in this position. All along, this was the goal. We
Speaker 1: knew it. We weren't able to stop them. We're going
Speaker 1: to have to win on the battlefield of ideas. Going
Speaker 1: ahead on this or else. You're just gonna wait, you know,
Speaker 1: eighteen months for the for the hip replacement you need.
Speaker 1: You're gonna wait eight weeks to see a specialist for
Speaker 1: a you know, whatever, whatever infection or problem you have.
Speaker 1: And it's not going to be a very good doctor.
Speaker 1: You can see whoever they, whoever they the government tells
Speaker 1: you to see. That's going to be the reality. But
Speaker 1: I wanted to start with something else today. This is
Speaker 1: this is one of those topics where I feel an
Speaker 1: obligation to talk about it, even though I know that
Speaker 1: it's not necessarily a subject matter that after a long
Speaker 1: day at the office, a lot of people are gonna
Speaker 1: want to dive into and hear about it. And I
Speaker 1: understand that, and look, you know, I do the best
Speaker 1: that I can every single day to make sure that
Speaker 1: I make maximum usage of our time together. I spend
Speaker 1: my whole day preparing for these hours that I get
Speaker 1: with all of you. And so some days the topics
Speaker 1: are going to be hard, hard to talk about it,
Speaker 1: I'm sure hard to listen to. And today is one
Speaker 1: of those days we are confronting evil in this country. Now,
Speaker 1: as a matter of partisan policy, the Democratic Party has
Speaker 1: openly embraced evil. I'm not saying, you know, they're they're
Speaker 1: making bad decisions on some matter of economic policy. I'm
Speaker 1: not I'm saying that they have now crossed over into open,
Speaker 1: clear immorality. Democrats have legalized infanticide. That is not an overstatement.
Speaker 1: That is a straightforward understanding, a straightforward application of the
Speaker 1: laws that they are supporting, first in the state of
Speaker 1: in the state of New York, and then today we
Speaker 1: find out more in the state of Virginia. This cannot
Speaker 1: be allowed to stand. This cannot continue. This is a
Speaker 1: stain on this country. It is the single greatest moral
Speaker 1: stain on this country. Today you have Governor Ralph Northam
Speaker 1: of Virginia who was on a radio show today and
Speaker 1: it was one of the more chilling interviews of any
Speaker 1: kind I have ever heard. I mean, I'm somebody who,
Speaker 1: in his professional capacity as a counter terrorism analyst, used
Speaker 1: to have to listen, to watch and see some pretty
Speaker 1: terrible things. When you're dealing in the world of al
Speaker 1: Qaida and al Qaida and Iraq and different terrorist groups,
Speaker 1: you see and hear horrible things that happened that are
Speaker 1: happening to people, that have happened to people, and you
Speaker 1: see the aftermath of different strikes, of ied strikes, and
Speaker 1: you know, it's it's stuff that stays with you. This conversation, casual, calm,
Speaker 1: conversation that the Governor of Virginia, Ralph Northam, had on
Speaker 1: this radio show today is it's the kind of discussion
Speaker 1: that I think many of you will remember for quite
Speaker 1: a while afterwards, not because of the energy or the
Speaker 1: there was nothing profound. It's actually the finality of evil.
Speaker 1: For your ears, play clip nine. There was a very
Speaker 1: contentious committee hearing yesterday when Fairfax County Delicate Cathy Tran
Speaker 1: made her case for lifting restrictions on third trimester abortions
Speaker 1: as well as other restrictions now in place. And she
Speaker 1: was pressed by a Republican delegate about whether her bill
Speaker 1: would permit an abortion even as a woman is essentially
Speaker 1: dilating ready to give birth, and she answered that it
Speaker 1: would permit an abortion at that stage of labor. Do
Speaker 1: you support her measure and explain her answer. But when
Speaker 1: we talk about third trimester abortions, these are done with
Speaker 1: the consent of obviously the mother with the consent of
Speaker 1: the physicians, more than one physician, by the way, and
Speaker 1: it's done in cases where there may be severe deformities,
Speaker 1: there may be a fetus that's non viable. So in
Speaker 1: this particular example, if a mother is in labor, I
Speaker 1: can tell you exactly what would happen. The infant would
Speaker 1: be delivered, the infant would be kept comfortable, the infant
Speaker 1: would be resuscitated if that's what the mother and the
Speaker 1: family desired, and then a discussion would ensue between the
Speaker 1: physicians and the mothers. We want the government not to
Speaker 1: be involved in these types of decisions. We want the
Speaker 1: decision to be made by the mothers and their providers.
Speaker 1: And this is why Julie that legislators, most of whom
Speaker 1: are men, by the way, shouldn't be telling a woman
Speaker 1: what she should and shouldn't be doing with her body.
Speaker 1: That's the most grotesquely immoral and disgusting thing a politician
Speaker 1: has said in my lifetime. Although obviously a Cuomo support
Speaker 1: for a similar bill in New York is right up there.
Speaker 1: We can just walk through what was said. This is
Speaker 1: the governor of Virginia, the chief elected official of the
Speaker 1: state of Virginia, and he says that an infant under
Speaker 1: the law that Democrats are putting forward here in this
Speaker 1: abortion bill, under the law, an infant would be delivered.
Speaker 1: So then now we're talking about baby outside the womb.
Speaker 1: That is what delivered means a baby delivered outside the
Speaker 1: womb would be made comfortable, which means that obviously there's
Speaker 1: an understanding that this is a person who feels pain,
Speaker 1: who has a fully functioning brain, central nervous system, heart, lung, eyes,
Speaker 1: little fingers, little feet, a baby. And then once they
Speaker 1: had made the delivered infant comfortable, they would have a
Speaker 1: they would have the right to resuscitate or not resuscitate,
Speaker 1: and figure out what they want to do with the baby.
Speaker 1: He is talking about killing a baby outside the womb
Speaker 1: and saying it is legal. There's no wiggle room on this.
Speaker 1: There's no good faith two sides. This is infanticide, this
Speaker 1: is killing babies. And there's a feeling here of tremendous regression.
Speaker 1: I've mentioned you before that my college advisor, thesis advisor,
Speaker 1: Professor Hadley Archy's who was the only only outspoken conservative
Speaker 1: on my whole college campus and was somebody that played
Speaker 1: a very important role in the development of my my
Speaker 1: own politics and political philosophy. He was part of the
Speaker 1: early drafting of what's known as the Born Alive in
Speaker 1: Protection Act. I've told people what that bill says. It's
Speaker 1: a federal it's a federal laws. By the way, I
Speaker 1: believe this, this must be in violation of it. I'm
Speaker 1: assuming this will be This will be challenged in the courts.
Speaker 1: I certainly hope it is. It will be challenged in
Speaker 1: this life or the next. I can assure you that.
Speaker 1: But Hadley or Professor Arki's he lets me call him Hadley.
Speaker 1: Now he had to write or put forward that, if
Speaker 1: nothing else, the abortion extremist should have to consent to
Speaker 1: keeping a baby outside the womb that is alive, alive
Speaker 1: because under the under the understanding post Roe v. Wade
Speaker 1: that persistent in the courts, the right to an abortion
Speaker 1: was the right to a dead baby, even if during
Speaker 1: the abortion procedure. And this has happened. There are people
Speaker 1: who have survived botched abortions. The baby came out and
Speaker 1: was still alive. They had to pass a bill. By
Speaker 1: the way, you want to know who did not vote
Speaker 1: in favor of that bill in the state Assembly got
Speaker 1: to pass on this one, of course, because he wanted
Speaker 1: that that planned parenthood money. When he was running Barack
Speaker 1: Obama as a state senator. One of very few I
Speaker 1: would know, but he knew. You want to be in
Speaker 1: with the Democrats, you want to be part of the
Speaker 1: left and really have them fully behind you, you have
Speaker 1: to be an abortion extremist. All nine months. This is
Speaker 1: all nine months of the pregnancy, up to and beyond
Speaker 1: the moment of birth. How could anybody say this? How
Speaker 1: could anybody make this argument? The most vulnerable people in
Speaker 1: our society, The most precious thing we have in our
Speaker 1: society is life. The most vulnerable people in our society
Speaker 1: are infants. And Democrats are spending their time and resources
Speaker 1: and power to pass laws that allow people and I
Speaker 1: know that people that there will be this. Oh, it's
Speaker 1: it's very rare. Well, it's very rare. It is not
Speaker 1: a justification for any other kind of murder. So I
Speaker 1: need to know why they think it's very rare would
Speaker 1: be a justification for this kind of murder. This is
Speaker 1: not there's no gray area here. This is black and white.
Speaker 1: Democrats believe that a woman has the right to kill
Speaker 1: her own baby, that is what this says. I'm not exaggerating,
Speaker 1: I am not taking it out of context. They have
Speaker 1: fallen into an abyss of darkness, all of the echo
Speaker 1: chambers of their cowardly, disgraceful media, all these self important,
Speaker 1: self involved millionaires and billionaires running these propaganda organs, all
Speaker 1: these women's rights activist groups, and this whole the propaganda
Speaker 1: of postmodern femine postmodernist feminism, and the left wing manipulation
Speaker 1: of words and the use of emotion to try to
Speaker 1: tell people, force people, convince them to abandon the most
Speaker 1: fundamental moral concepts in society. And it's working. It's working.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of days when I come in
Speaker 1: here and I get to talk to you about things
Speaker 1: that are just interesting, things that are are entertaining, enjoyable,
Speaker 1: are you know, important in the culture. But we can
Speaker 1: we will all be fine whether it goes one way
Speaker 1: or the other. You know, we can take a loss
Speaker 1: on some issues and sleep well at night and know
Speaker 1: that it's all going to be okay. This is not
Speaker 1: one of them. This is a declaration of war on
Speaker 1: life from the left. It is the most egregious, disgusting
Speaker 1: legislative act in my lifetime. There will be a time,
Speaker 1: many years hence, I think, when we will look back
Speaker 1: on this and there will be tremendous efforts to rehabilitate
Speaker 1: what the left was really all about when it came
Speaker 1: to life and to babies, and they will try to
Speaker 1: rewrite this. They will have to rewrite this, because this
Speaker 1: is so immoral and so grotesque that it will haunt
Speaker 1: those who supported it, and certainly those who engaged in it,
Speaker 1: for many, many years to come. I want to play
Speaker 1: for you when we come back, and then we will
Speaker 1: move off the topic, because I honestly can't handle to
Speaker 1: talk about it much more, and I don't know, I
Speaker 1: don't want to. I know you've all had a tough
Speaker 1: day and you have a lot of things on your mind.
Speaker 1: You've got other thing. We got policies talk about that
Speaker 1: are beyond this. I think this is the most important
Speaker 1: thing in the country right now. You should hear what
Speaker 1: this representative in the Virginia Assembly said. I want you
Speaker 1: to hear what she had to say about this, because
Speaker 1: I want you to know that this is not some
Speaker 1: oh right wing talk radio propaganda. Whatever I am explain,
Speaker 1: I am explaining to you what this law says and does,
Speaker 1: and what the people who are supporting it want to
Speaker 1: make legal, not extending beyond what they themselves would say.
Speaker 1: We'll come back, we'll do that, and then we'll talk socialism, healthcare.
Speaker 1: We'll get into our usual rhythm, but we have to
Speaker 1: get through this one together. We'll be right back. If
Speaker 1: you're in a relationship, there are a couple of important
Speaker 1: dates that require roses Birthdays, anniversaries. Valentines is around the corner.
Speaker 1: So when you're looking for the biggest and best quality
Speaker 1: roses out there, check out my friends at one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com. Right now you can get eighteen
Speaker 1: red roses for twenty nine ninety nine, or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four red roses for ten dollars more. This is
Speaker 1: an unbelievable offer from one eight hundred Flowers eighteen red
Speaker 1: roses for twenty nine ninety nine or upgrade to twenty
Speaker 1: four red roses for only ten dollars more. Roses from
Speaker 1: one eight hundred Flowers are picked at their peak and
Speaker 1: shipped overnight to ensure freshness and her amazement. To order
Speaker 1: eighteen roses for twenty nine nine nine, or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four red roses for only ten dollars more. Go
Speaker 1: to one hundred flowers dot com slash buck again eighteen
Speaker 1: red roses for twenty nine ninety nine or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four red roses for ten dollars more. That's one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers dot com slash buck again one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com slash buck hurry offer expires Wednesday.
Speaker 1: And I want to pass this year a constitutional amendment
Speaker 1: that rights into the Constitution a provision protecting a woman's
Speaker 1: right to control her wrong reproductive health. Look at the
Speaker 1: tortured language. A woman's right to control reproductive health, just say,
Speaker 1: a right to an abortion for all nine months of
Speaker 1: a pregnancy. That's what you're doing there up in New
Speaker 1: York and now in Virginia too. This is what this
Speaker 1: is what the conversation was on the floor of the
Speaker 1: Virginia Virginia Legislature. Play eight. How late in the third
Speaker 1: trimester could a physician perform an abortion if he indicated
Speaker 1: it would impair the mental health of the woman or
Speaker 1: physical health? Okay, okay, I'm talking about the mental health.
Speaker 1: So I mean through the third trimester. The third trimester
Speaker 1: goes all the way up to forty weeks okay, but
Speaker 1: to the end of the third trimester. Yep. I don't
Speaker 1: think we have a limit in the bill. So where
Speaker 1: it's obvious that a woman is about to give birth,
Speaker 1: she has physical signs of that she is about to
Speaker 1: give a birth, would that still be a point at
Speaker 1: which she could request an abortion if she was so
Speaker 1: certified she's dilating, mister chairman, that would be a you know,
Speaker 1: a decision that the doctor, the physician, and the woman
Speaker 1: understand that. I'm asking if your bill allows that, my
Speaker 1: bill would allow that. Yes? Is there any way I
Speaker 1: have misrepresented what is going on here? I mean, I
Speaker 1: ask you that in all honesty. Here's the woman putting
Speaker 1: forth the bill for the Virginia legislature. She has asked,
Speaker 1: can you kill the baby while it is being born?
Speaker 1: Under your bill? She says, my bill would allow that
Speaker 1: woman's water breaks, she's giving birth. I decide, or you know,
Speaker 1: she decides she doesn't want to do it anymore. She
Speaker 1: can say, doctor, terminate this pregnancy. Oh, but the baby
Speaker 1: is going to be out. It's I can already see
Speaker 1: its head. No, doctor terminate the pregnancy. Okay, Well, if
Speaker 1: you say it's going to hurt your mental health. You
Speaker 1: can tell me that this will be rare. I don't care.
Speaker 1: It is murder, It is legal grounds for infanticide. It
Speaker 1: is a blight on this country that any state, any legislature,
Speaker 1: quite honestly, any human being would be okay with this.
Speaker 1: Would the fact that they're advocating for it, that they're cheering,
Speaker 1: that they're proud, my friends. I do not say this lightly.
Speaker 1: There are some issues where it is a political difference
Speaker 1: between left and right, and there are good faiths or
Speaker 1: arguments on both sides. This is not one of those issues.
Speaker 1: The left, the Democrats have sided with Satan. They are wrong.
Speaker 1: This is evil. This is evil. We must oppose this,
Speaker 1: and we must beat them at the ballot box to
Speaker 1: stop them from being able to implement what is an
Speaker 1: obviously barbaric policy. Here's an interesting thing that's happening, the
Speaker 1: whole idea of how does she identify? Does she identify
Speaker 1: as an African American? Did you see the thing going
Speaker 1: on on social media? She identify as a person of color?
Speaker 1: Because when I asked by Jake if she you know,
Speaker 1: as a black woman, she goes as a person of color.
Speaker 1: Remember that whole thing with Obama is he black enough.
Speaker 1: That is different than identifying. But it's just an interest
Speaker 1: in conversation to me that I hear people talking about.
Speaker 1: This is what they spend time on at CNN. This
Speaker 1: is where their focus is. You know, they're they're wanting
Speaker 1: to talk about how Kamala Harris. I mean, she's obviously
Speaker 1: a woman of color. Does she identify as black? I mean,
Speaker 1: I think with most people she registers as black. But
Speaker 1: this is a this is a conversation of sorts. I
Speaker 1: don't think it's a particularly important one. But how does
Speaker 1: one quantify or qualify blackness in this country? If someone
Speaker 1: is of of you know, dual ethnicity, if you will
Speaker 1: mother and father are from different ethnic backgrounds, do you pick?
Speaker 1: Do you you know that there is an identification, there
Speaker 1: is a self identity process in this whole thing. It's
Speaker 1: it's dizzying when you try to put all this stuff
Speaker 1: together and try to understand where they're going with all
Speaker 1: of it. But that's you know, that's and I know
Speaker 1: you say, oh about that's just one clip, but no,
Speaker 1: I mean today there was a focus on Howard Schultz
Speaker 1: not knowing the price of cheerios. Oh, he's an out
Speaker 1: of touch billionaire. Doesn't know the price of cheerios. I'm
Speaker 1: about a billion dollars short of being a billionaire, and
Speaker 1: I don't know the price of cheerios off the top
Speaker 1: of my head because I don't need them. Yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: I guess it's like three or four bucks maybe, but
Speaker 1: maybe it's six. And it depends on where you shop.
Speaker 1: I don't know, John, what do you know what the
Speaker 1: price of cheerios? This was a big story today for
Speaker 1: the media. Four or five bucks? Okay exactly? John depends
Speaker 1: on this. I see John knows. John knows his cheerios.
Speaker 1: Honey nut is obviously the way to go if you're
Speaker 1: gonna get cheerios. But I think plane cheerios are gluten free,
Speaker 1: but I'd have to check. But that's the kind of
Speaker 1: just nonsense that they focus on. When and I played
Speaker 1: for you what And I'm not going to go back
Speaker 1: and talk more about what we started the show it
Speaker 1: because it honestly, it upsets me. It upsets me to
Speaker 1: talk about it, upsets me to think about it. But
Speaker 1: we can't move away from a hard topics just because
Speaker 1: there's there's other things on the horizon. Amla Harris not
Speaker 1: a strong rollout for I would say a certainly a
Speaker 1: top three Democrat nominee contender not not going so well
Speaker 1: so far. And here's one that we didn't get to yesterday.
Speaker 1: And here's part of the conversation that I think is
Speaker 1: going to be harder for Democrats to make seem okay
Speaker 1: to the general elector. I mean, the Democrats biggest problem
Speaker 1: and runn against Republicans is that their only job is
Speaker 1: to not be lunatics, and they can't do that job.
Speaker 1: If the Democrats came forward and they said, you know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna fix healthcare, We're gonna respect people's individual rights,
Speaker 1: we're not going to try to take your guns away.
Speaker 1: We're not gonna push climate change lunacy on you. We
Speaker 1: want to fix some aspects of Obamacare. We will. We
Speaker 1: want DACA an amnesty, which I'm obviously very opposed to,
Speaker 1: but you know, we're willing to do some things at
Speaker 1: the border to tamp down on this false amnesty claims
Speaker 1: and also on the illegal crossings with the fence. You know,
Speaker 1: if they just triangulated a little bit, a little bit,
Speaker 1: I would be I would know that they were probably
Speaker 1: doing a head faith that they were lying. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that the Democrats would cease to be Democrats.
Speaker 1: But instead of doing that, instead of presenting themselves as
Speaker 1: better at governance and more reasonable than the Republicans, what
Speaker 1: do they do the crazy talk play for what we
Speaker 1: would call today a domestic terrorist group? Why why why
Speaker 1: would we call them domestic terrorist group? Because they tried
Speaker 1: to use fear and force to change political environment? And
Speaker 1: what was the motivation for the use of fear and
Speaker 1: force based on race and ethnicity? Right? Are you aware
Speaker 1: of the perception of many about how the power and
Speaker 1: the discretion at ICE as being used to enforce the laws?
Speaker 1: And do you see any parallels parallels huh to a
Speaker 1: domestic terrorist group ICE, Immigrations and Customs Enforcement. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, that's why during the shutdown it made me
Speaker 1: so frustrated all these Democrats who were saying, oh, the
Speaker 1: poor border patrol people, they're working without pay. Immigrations and
Speaker 1: Customs enforcement, they're working without pay. I'm sitting here, I'm like,
Speaker 1: all on a second, yeah, they should get paid, and
Speaker 1: I feel badly for those families, but they got their
Speaker 1: back pay. Is now they're secure, They'll be all right.
Speaker 1: But Democrats are the ones that say that they're acting
Speaker 1: like Nazis, that Border Patrol is like a bunch of Nazis,
Speaker 1: that ICE is setting up concentration camps. They're the ones
Speaker 1: that undermine the core mission of those agencies. At the
Speaker 1: first sign of any political advantage from it, they throw
Speaker 1: ICE and Border Patrol under the bus so fast their
Speaker 1: heads don't even have time to spend. And then they
Speaker 1: want to be Oh, we're so worried about these, about
Speaker 1: our brave federal employees. We gotta go to a quick break.
Speaker 1: I'll be back. Oh in one minute. I'm sorry. I
Speaker 1: thought we had up. Sorry about that team. I was like, John,
Speaker 1: what's going on here? Yeah, I'm not done yet. I
Speaker 1: have not yet begun to radio. So this is what
Speaker 1: this is what you've got going on. I mean, you
Speaker 1: have Kamala Harris, who is somebody she's just like Hillary,
Speaker 1: and that she's gonna say whatever she has to say
Speaker 1: in the moment to appeal to whoever she has to
Speaker 1: appeal to you, and eventually I think it all will collapse.
Speaker 1: The media is gonna try to prop her up and
Speaker 1: hold her up and and convince people through all their
Speaker 1: little propaganda magic tricks that she's a centrist, a technocrat,
Speaker 1: and you know Sterling resume great personal story. The reality
Speaker 1: is she's a completely opportunistic politician who doesn't seem to
Speaker 1: have much of an ethical core in her policies. I'm
Speaker 1: not talking about personal stuff, and it's just not not
Speaker 1: a real man up for the Trumpster. That's the good
Speaker 1: news for us. But we got more on socialism and healthcare,
Speaker 1: Big healthcare, Deep Dot coming up next hours. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: I think you could never affoid that you're talking about
Speaker 1: trillions of dollars. I think you can have Medicare for
Speaker 1: all for people that are uncovered, but because that's a
Speaker 1: smaller group and a lot of them are taking care
Speaker 1: of Medicaid already Medicare, but to replace the entire private
Speaker 1: system where companies provide healthcare for their employees would bankrupt
Speaker 1: us for a very long time. That's not correct. That's
Speaker 1: not American. What's next? What industry are we going to
Speaker 1: abolish next? That alone would wipe out millions of jobs
Speaker 1: of Americans. And that is a kind of extreme policy.
Speaker 1: That is not a policy that I agree with. And
Speaker 1: if you take immigration, you take healthcare. What we have
Speaker 1: is extremes on both right, both sides not representing the
Speaker 1: large majority of America who don't have a voice. The
Speaker 1: billionaires on the left caused them a little bit of heartburn. There.
Speaker 1: For the progressives, you have Bloomberg, who say what you
Speaker 1: will about him, and he's a total you know, he's
Speaker 1: a total nincome poop on guns and he's mister nanny,
Speaker 1: stay with it, no drinking big sodas, and uh, you
Speaker 1: know he obviously he's he's a big government guile. Though.
Speaker 1: I will say the problem with Bloomberg, and I remember,
Speaker 1: as much as I love Glembeck, I remember he looked
Speaker 1: at me once like I was crazy because I was
Speaker 1: a New York City resident for many years. I actually
Speaker 1: worked for Bloomberg at the NYPD, and I said, you know,
Speaker 1: you gotta be Bloomberg is what you really got to
Speaker 1: worry about, because at Bloomberg you get efficient, efficient government services,
Speaker 1: clean streets, the trains running on time. But he won't
Speaker 1: let you have big sodas and wants to take your
Speaker 1: guns away. You know, the the the Detroit model, the
Speaker 1: Baltimore model of a Democrat lefty who just doesn't know
Speaker 1: what the heck they're doing and tries to pile on
Speaker 1: all the progressive you know, Nanni state social justice nonsense. Yeah,
Speaker 1: anybody with you know, two brain cells to rub together
Speaker 1: can come up with why that's a bad idea. The
Speaker 1: real problem from our perspective is the Bloombergian effective provision
Speaker 1: of government services and reasonably efficient government activity that is
Speaker 1: Nannie State. Like that's when you get you know, that's
Speaker 1: when you all of a sudden people saying, well, I
Speaker 1: don't mind being Denmark. We're gonna talk more about Denmark
Speaker 1: and healthcare and stuff, by the way, in just a
Speaker 1: few moments here. But the problem that Bloomberg and Schultz,
Speaker 1: who was a second guy there, they're both talking about
Speaker 1: Kamala Harris saying we need medicare for all. The problem
Speaker 1: that they pose for the Democrat Party right now is
Speaker 1: that here are two guys who are both self made.
Speaker 1: Oh man, they were going after Schultz. Schultz grew up
Speaker 1: in a housing project and started out with one coffee
Speaker 1: shop and ended up running a multibillion dollar empire. As
Speaker 1: much as I don't like Starbucks, is you know, it's politics.
Speaker 1: It is a great brand, and it's an incredible success story,
Speaker 1: and you know, you gotta give props where they're due.
Speaker 1: And Bloomberg obviously was a finance guy who came up
Speaker 1: with the Bloomberg terminal idea, and he became a self
Speaker 1: made billionaire. I think he's the richest person in New
Speaker 1: York State. So these are two guys who understand, for
Speaker 1: whatever their politics may be, they understand business. They understand numbers, finances,
Speaker 1: and a balance sheet, no question, you cannot question either
Speaker 1: of them when it comes to their ability on those matters.
Speaker 1: And they are staring, staring across the table at the
Speaker 1: Warren Ocasio Cortez, Bernie Sanders, Kamala Harris fantasy land, I
Speaker 1: mean just absolute fantasyland. And they're saying, I'm sorry, this
Speaker 1: isn't going to work. This would be catastrophic. The costs
Speaker 1: would be catastrophic for the economy. You're talking about tens
Speaker 1: of trillions of dollars of additional government spending that you're
Speaker 1: not going to be able to come up with a
Speaker 1: tax revenue to pay for this. We're already going a
Speaker 1: trillion dollars a year in a debt. We're already spending
Speaker 1: too much right now, or we're going to start going
Speaker 1: three trillion in debt, four trillion in debt. This is
Speaker 1: how on a yearly basis. This is how we would
Speaker 1: find ourselves in a circumstance where our debt our debt
Speaker 1: service obligations becomes too high, crowds out other government spending.
Speaker 1: Could become the biggest single item in the budget if
Speaker 1: we don't watch ourselves, so we'll just be paying taxes
Speaker 1: to pay the interest on the money that we've already spent.
Speaker 1: You know, this is how you get in a scary territory, right.
Speaker 1: This is like if you're an individual and all you
Speaker 1: can pay your finance charges and your credit card bills.
Speaker 1: That's when the credit cards companies got you, because now
Speaker 1: you're just paying them money for the money you've already spent.
Speaker 1: You're not even getting rid of that balance. You're on
Speaker 1: a treadmill, and they're they're the ones with the whip saying,
Speaker 1: you know, mush, mush, go faster. That's what our government
Speaker 1: will will be doing if we allow the debt to
Speaker 1: get so large to the debt service payments crowd out
Speaker 1: the rest of it. And we're on track for that
Speaker 1: to happen if we do this, I mean, if you
Speaker 1: if you have single payer for healthcare, it's going to
Speaker 1: just it'll blow up the blow up the budget, which
Speaker 1: also means that we won't be able to borrow money.
Speaker 1: Our treasury bonds will become a problem, and eventually we
Speaker 1: risk not being the reserve currency for all global commerce,
Speaker 1: and that becomes a huge problem. You know, our overspending
Speaker 1: is a national security vulnerability. China is already aware of
Speaker 1: this and looking to take advantage of it long term.
Speaker 1: This is not just a function of oh, these people
Speaker 1: have some nice ideas. This matters for future generations. It
Speaker 1: matters for the health of this country financially and healthwise.
Speaker 1: But these billionaires, they are are not welcome in this
Speaker 1: conversation on the left right now, because people want the
Speaker 1: Santa Claus healthcare talk. They want to be told that
Speaker 1: they're gonna have brilliant, perfect, wonderful free healthcare that only
Speaker 1: the super rich people are going to pay for. And
Speaker 1: I'm here to say that what Bloomberg and Schultz are
Speaker 1: saying is there's not enough money. They are making a
Speaker 1: promise that they cannot deliver on. Keep in mind, the
Speaker 1: wall is not a promise that Trump has made that
Speaker 1: he can't deliver on. Democrats are refusing to let him
Speaker 1: deliver on it. You could have sixty Democrat votes in
Speaker 1: the Senate, solid Democrat majority you know in the House
Speaker 1: called a fifty vote Democrat majority in the House, and
Speaker 1: the Democrat presidency, they would not be able to deliver
Speaker 1: on this plan. They might try, and we're going to
Speaker 1: talk to McRoy here in a few minutes about what
Speaker 1: that would look like, but they will not be able
Speaker 1: to do this without catastrophe effects on the economy. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: aoc Ocasio Cortez is out there just just openly promoting this,
Speaker 1: and it really comes down to not you're going to
Speaker 1: see more of this. It's not just about healthcare, healthcare expenditures,
Speaker 1: the cost and all that. It's also increasingly just about
Speaker 1: what's fair. Right. This is this is very much an
Speaker 1: Obama word, right, what's fair? Pay your fair share. This
Speaker 1: is about justice. This is about people should have free
Speaker 1: stuff because there are too many rich people who have
Speaker 1: too much stuff. This is that's not an economic argument,
Speaker 1: that's a social justice argument. And that's when it comes
Speaker 1: to eliminating private health insurance, which Kamala Harris said she wants.
Speaker 1: That is the argument that increasingly is going to be
Speaker 1: made by the left going forward. It's not even about
Speaker 1: the numbers. Just do it because it's the right thing
Speaker 1: to do. They will say, play clip two. Do you
Speaker 1: support Senator Harris's proposed last night Medicare for all and
Speaker 1: eliminated by the trans companies? You know, I think that
Speaker 1: I think that's the direction that we absolutely need to
Speaker 1: go in. Medicare for all would save the American people
Speaker 1: a very large amount of money. Capitalism has not always
Speaker 1: existed in the world, and it will not always exist
Speaker 1: in the world. Maybe this idea of idealizing this outcome
Speaker 1: of maybe one day you two can be a billionaire
Speaker 1: and own more than millions of families combined, is not
Speaker 1: an aspirational or good thing. How much is at? What level?
Speaker 1: Are we really just living in excess? And what kind
Speaker 1: of society do we want to live in? Alexandria Ocasio
Speaker 1: Cortez wants people to be poorer because we'll all feel
Speaker 1: better if we're all a little poorer. That's what this
Speaker 1: really comes down to. It is the philosophy of pulling
Speaker 1: people down so that the people below them feel more
Speaker 1: comfortable with where they are. It's not going to make
Speaker 1: their lives better, it's not going to make things better
Speaker 1: for them. This is very dangerous, and it is being
Speaker 1: more and more openly embraced on the left. This is
Speaker 1: going to be the argument that you hear in the
Speaker 1: Democrat primary. And I think even when the Democrat candidate
Speaker 1: is finally decided, and you know Schultz who says he
Speaker 1: might run third party, and the left is freaking out
Speaker 1: because they all that they hear third party, and all
Speaker 1: they can think about is former years of Trump, which
Speaker 1: makes their heads explode. Schultz is speaking truth on this stuff.
Speaker 1: And I know, I'm not even getting into his policies
Speaker 1: that I disagree with, and I'm sure he's a climate
Speaker 1: change not in all that other stuff. The Democratic Party
Speaker 1: has radicalized to the left in a lot of ways,
Speaker 1: as we've been discussing this hour. But here's what Schultz said,
Speaker 1: play six. If you kind of look at the tea
Speaker 1: leaves today, it appears the Democratic Party is shifting far,
Speaker 1: far left, with very strong progressive ideas, the likes of
Speaker 1: which we should talk about. Yep, his assessment is correct.
Speaker 1: The Democrat Party is far left, especially now on the
Speaker 1: issue of healthcare. They're more open about it than ever.
Speaker 1: What is the truth of single payer? What would it
Speaker 1: mean to have medicare for all my friend Ovic Roy,
Speaker 1: who is a fantastic expert of this, He's going to
Speaker 1: join us for a deep dive into this. If you
Speaker 1: listen to this interview, you will know more than ninety percent,
Speaker 1: probably ninety five percent of the people who go on
Speaker 1: TV and talk about it. Listen to what my man
Speaker 1: Ovic has to say that's coming up. Hiring can be
Speaker 1: time consuming. We've had to do a lot of it
Speaker 1: at Hill TV, so I've been through this process. And
Speaker 1: you know, you post a job to these different online boards,
Speaker 1: you'll get a lot of the wrong resumes from the
Speaker 1: wrong people when you really just need something to sort
Speaker 1: through the resumes and find people that have the right
Speaker 1: skills and expertise for the job opening that you've got right.
Speaker 1: So those job sites that overwhelm you with the wrong resumes,
Speaker 1: they're not smart. That's why you should do the smart thing,
Speaker 1: which is what I did, and go to zip recruiter,
Speaker 1: dot Com, slash buck. Unlike other job sites, zipp recouiter
Speaker 1: finds qualified candidates for you. It's powerful matching technology scans
Speaker 1: thousands of resumes to identify people with the right skills, education,
Speaker 1: and experience and actively invites them to apply to your
Speaker 1: job so you get qualified candidates fast. It's no wonder
Speaker 1: that zip recruiter is rated number one by employers in
Speaker 1: the US, and right now my listeners can try zip
Speaker 1: recruiter for free at this exclusive web address zip recruiter
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck. If you love the show team
Speaker 1: shore your support, go to zipprecoiter dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: Again zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Zipp recruiter the
Speaker 1: smartest way to hire. If we're talking about tearing down
Speaker 1: the healthcare system and starting over, I think every option
Speaker 1: needs to be on the table, and single payer sure
Speaker 1: ought to be at the tops. Everyone all should receive
Speaker 1: the healthcare they need, regardless of where they live, their income,
Speaker 1: or their zip code. This is about a right, not
Speaker 1: about a privilege for a few. And let's be clear,
Speaker 1: it is not only about what is the right thing
Speaker 1: to do morally and ethically. It's also smart in terms
Speaker 1: of the fiscal impact, a single pay a healthcare system
Speaker 1: would save the average family significant sums of money. And
Speaker 1: what Republicans sometimes do is confuse the issue and they say, well,
Speaker 1: you're going to pay more in taxes. What they forget
Speaker 1: to tell you is that if you were a family
Speaker 1: of four now paying fifteen or twenty thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: year in private health insurance, You're not going to be
Speaker 1: paying that at all. The new hotness on the progressive
Speaker 1: left single payer. Gosh, I'm old enough to remember just
Speaker 1: a few years back when to say that Obamacare was
Speaker 1: really just a way of getting a single payer with
Speaker 1: some kind of mean, unfair, maybe even racist comment. But
Speaker 1: here we are. Turns out that was true all on.
Speaker 1: What is the truth of what's happening here with single pair?
Speaker 1: Is it a good idea? I want to I want
Speaker 1: to tackle some of these statements, and I brought on
Speaker 1: an expert to help us do that. We have Ovic
Speaker 1: Roy with us, who, by the way, has an MD.
Speaker 1: On top of being a generally brilliant and insightful fellow,
Speaker 1: he's also the president of the Foundation for Research on
Speaker 1: Equal Opportunity. To see what he's up to, free op
Speaker 1: f r e eo pp dot org free op oppa,
Speaker 1: you know me dot org uster. Mister Roy, good, have
Speaker 1: you hey, man? How's it going. I'm good, I'm good.
Speaker 1: So let's start with this. What is your just your
Speaker 1: your first reaction when you hear Bernie Sanders, Kamala, Harris Warren, etc.
Speaker 1: They're all saying single payer, medicare for all, or at
Speaker 1: least they're saying medicare for all. You say what to this?
Speaker 1: What I say, Buck, is that only half of what
Speaker 1: they're saying is crazy, and single pair is a greater
Speaker 1: threat than I think a lot of us realize. That's
Speaker 1: that's pretty that's pretty disconcerting. We walk me through. Let's
Speaker 1: take some of these some of these big statements that
Speaker 1: they make, and you tell me the truth of it
Speaker 1: or where it comes on. For example, here here's you know,
Speaker 1: I get a little frustrated because a lot of my
Speaker 1: Republican friends, a lot of my conservative brothers and sisters,
Speaker 1: will just say that Venezuela is all you need to say, right,
Speaker 1: look at Venezuela, socialism, Venezuela. And while Venezuela is instructive
Speaker 1: in some ways, obviously, the left, the progressives, they just say, Okay,
Speaker 1: what about Denmark, what about Sweden? Sweden does it? Why
Speaker 1: can't we? The UK does it? Why can't we? What
Speaker 1: do you say to that? Over? Yeah? And there again
Speaker 1: that's the part that's not crazy. Here's an amazing statistic, Buck,
Speaker 1: that a lot of your listeners won't know, and that
Speaker 1: is that government's spending on healthcare, not total spending. Government
Speaker 1: spending on healthcare per person in the United States is
Speaker 1: higher than all but two other countries in the world's,
Speaker 1: higher than the UK, higher than Canada, higher than France,
Speaker 1: higher than Sweden. That's the amazing thing is our system
Speaker 1: for all the sort of the good things that we
Speaker 1: have in America, our healthcare system is so inefficient and
Speaker 1: so expensive do largely the government policy. That government spending
Speaker 1: on healthcare in America per person is far greater than
Speaker 1: it is almost every other country in the world. So
Speaker 1: when Bernie Sanders and Kamala Harris always people say, hey,
Speaker 1: a single payer system like the UK or Canada would
Speaker 1: save us money, they are right now. The thing they
Speaker 1: don't tell you is that to get to that kind
Speaker 1: of savings cost savings from where we are today, you'd
Speaker 1: have to cut what we pay hospitals while we pay
Speaker 1: doctors while we pay drug companies by fifty percent. And
Speaker 1: no drug lobby or hospital lobby or doctors lobby is
Speaker 1: going to go for that. And so what you're eventually
Speaker 1: what you actually are going to have in America if
Speaker 1: you try to have single pair is you're going to
Speaker 1: have a system in which the cost to healthcare is
Speaker 1: the same, it's just that the government's paying for it.
Speaker 1: What would that do? That would increase federal spending in
Speaker 1: America over the next ten years by thirty three trillion
Speaker 1: dollars with a t That would increase federal spending by
Speaker 1: seventy one percent total federal spending, by the way, not
Speaker 1: just the healthcare piece. So the problem with a single
Speaker 1: payer is a devil whity take the tails if you
Speaker 1: actually do it the way that UK and Canada, those
Speaker 1: countries do it, whether there's rationing and there's restrictions and
Speaker 1: price controls and restrictions on access to high price services. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you could have a system that cost less in terms
Speaker 1: of government spending, but what we spend. Now, there's another
Speaker 1: important point, buck, and that is government run healthcare is
Speaker 1: not the only way to save money in our healthcare system.
Speaker 1: Market based healthcare systems like the ones in Switzerland Singapore
Speaker 1: spend far less than all those single payer countries. You
Speaker 1: never hear the Democrats talk about that, and that's the
Speaker 1: theme of a lot of the work we've done at
Speaker 1: my think tank, Free opt Dot Org where you know,
Speaker 1: we have a white paper called Transtanting Obamacare that details
Speaker 1: in a hundred pages for those who really care, how
Speaker 1: exactly you could transition our system, which is not a
Speaker 1: free market system, into one that is so that there's
Speaker 1: more competition, more choice, and lower costs. Oh, Vic, you know,
Speaker 1: this is where though, we get caught up in and
Speaker 1: just what sounds good to people? And what a lot
Speaker 1: of what a lot of the democrat the Democrats that
Speaker 1: are front runners right now are saying, is effectively things
Speaker 1: aren't so bad in Canada. Why don't we do Why
Speaker 1: don't we just do what what Canada does? And what
Speaker 1: you know? And the answer, so, well, what is the
Speaker 1: answer to that from your perspective? Why don't we just
Speaker 1: do what Canada does? Yeah? I mean, you know, if
Speaker 1: you do what Canada is basically the Canvas system. The
Speaker 1: hospitals and the drug companies and the doctors are theoretically private.
Speaker 1: The insurance is a single payer system. All the insured.
Speaker 1: There's one insured, the government of Canada. The British system,
Speaker 1: by contrast, it's completely socialized, like the VA, where both
Speaker 1: the insurers and the hospitals and the doctors are all
Speaker 1: either owned by the government or employee by the groom.
Speaker 1: So that's more like the East German healthcare system the
Speaker 1: British system. So there's a there are differences between different countries.
Speaker 1: And by the way, this is important for you to understand,
Speaker 1: not every country is single payer that has universal coverage.
Speaker 1: Universal coverage and single payer are not the same thing.
Speaker 1: For example, we have almost every American has a TV,
Speaker 1: but that there was no single payer TV system that
Speaker 1: created that. Right, we all have TVs because we like
Speaker 1: to watch TV, and TV isn't that expensive to buy. Right.
Speaker 1: The same could be true with health insurance. If we
Speaker 1: had a market based system for health insurance, we would
Speaker 1: actually have health insurance. It's not expensive and everyone would
Speaker 1: have it. We'd have universal coverage. So what's so great
Speaker 1: about Canada from the left standpoint that it spends less
Speaker 1: money and that everybody has health insurance, which is a
Speaker 1: good thing. It is a good thing that everybody has
Speaker 1: health insurance, and it's a good thing that we spend
Speaker 1: less money. Now here's the downside. The downside is that
Speaker 1: the way Canada does it is through waiting lists. They
Speaker 1: basically restrict your access to the latest technology. They were
Speaker 1: strict your access to procedures that they don't think we're important.
Speaker 1: If you want to get if you bust your knee
Speaker 1: and you need to get you carry your ACL and
Speaker 1: you knee replacement. In Canada, the average wait time is
Speaker 1: fourteen months on more than a year, because Canada thinks
Speaker 1: that people don't really need any replacements. So basically people
Speaker 1: have to come to America to get their knees replaced.
Speaker 1: So there are a lot of downsides the Canadian system.
Speaker 1: But again, the point I'm trying to make here is
Speaker 1: it's not enough for conservatives to say, oh, yeah, Kamala Harris,
Speaker 1: she's crazy Venezuela bang right. That that's not good enough
Speaker 1: because the average family today is spending more on their
Speaker 1: hospital bills than they are in taxes. The median household
Speaker 1: in America in terms of income, it's about sixty two
Speaker 1: thousand dollars thanks to the Republican tax cuts, their tax
Speaker 1: rates about thirteen and a half percent, but they're spending
Speaker 1: twenty percent of their income all in on hospital spending,
Speaker 1: not and that doesn't even include the drug and everything else.
Speaker 1: So American healthcare is way too expensive and conservatives have
Speaker 1: to have positive saluteans that reduce the cost of healthcare
Speaker 1: in America. So the costs are too high. I mean,
Speaker 1: so you would agree with this, is this is not
Speaker 1: just a perception like people get into it, go ahead. No,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying no, it's not a perception. It's absolutely
Speaker 1: the fact. Not only are they too high, they are extreme.
Speaker 1: Healthcare prices in America are extreme compared to other countries.
Speaker 1: And it's not because of the market. The market isn't
Speaker 1: the reason why prices are extreme. Chrony capitalism is the
Speaker 1: reason why prices are extreme in America. Government policies that
Speaker 1: create monopolies, that create barriers to competition, that restrict choice,
Speaker 1: and remove the everyday patient from the cost and price
Speaker 1: and value of the healthcare that he buys. As you know, Buck,
Speaker 1: so many of us, most of us. In fact, ninety
Speaker 1: percent of Americans don't buy their own health in term,
Speaker 1: it's bought on their behalf by somebody else, whether it's
Speaker 1: their employer or the government. That's one of the most
Speaker 1: important things we want to fix. So you have to
Speaker 1: have a market, you want to have a market based system.
Speaker 1: Will have to start buying their own insurance, and they
Speaker 1: have to be free to buy the kind of insurance
Speaker 1: that they want, not the kind of insurance, but the
Speaker 1: federal government tells them to buy. You know, you'll also
Speaker 1: hear of it that there's that there will get that
Speaker 1: we get worse. This is one of the big talking
Speaker 1: points from left of the time, we have worse outcomes
Speaker 1: and spend more money. You've already addressed the we are
Speaker 1: spending more money. We spend a lot of the government
Speaker 1: spends a lot of money on healthcare in this country,
Speaker 1: and the American people spend a lot of money in healthcare.
Speaker 1: But how do you address the outcomes issue? Yeah, it's
Speaker 1: true that inaggregate, in certain ways we have worse outcomes,
Speaker 1: like our life expectancy is lower and things like that.
Speaker 1: You have to kind of unpack those statistics because if
Speaker 1: you look at the white population the United States, it's
Speaker 1: pretty comparable to Europe in terms of health outcomes. Where
Speaker 1: where we really fail is with racial and ethnic minorities,
Speaker 1: particularly blacks. And obviously the reason why that's the case
Speaker 1: is not because of the healthcare system necessarily, it's about
Speaker 1: the broader the legacy of slavery and segregation and the
Speaker 1: poverty that a lot of urban blocks find themselves in.
Speaker 1: So that's like, so, yeah, you know, the whole thing
Speaker 1: about health outcomes, it's it's it's a complicated subject because
Speaker 1: how much of what we call health insurance relates to
Speaker 1: the reasons why low income minorities struggle in America's well.
Speaker 1: And also we have we do have higher rates of
Speaker 1: obesity type two, by diabetes, heart conditions, and those are
Speaker 1: diseases generally diseases of lifestyle, right, so, and Americans are
Speaker 1: noticeably less healthy. This is the one thing where Europeans,
Speaker 1: I think, do this in soccer. Europeans are better than us.
Speaker 1: But whatever, we get to eat better, more delicious cheeseburgers. Oh,
Speaker 1: can we hold it through the breaks? I got a
Speaker 1: few more questions. I want to I want to take
Speaker 1: the Ovic arsenal and make it my own so that
Speaker 1: when I have to go talk to libs on this one,
Speaker 1: I can crush them. Everywhere we're talking to Ovic Roy.
Speaker 1: He is the man on this issue, the president for
Speaker 1: the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity Free Up dot org.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back morning. Coffee is in American institutions
Speaker 1: more American than apple pie, And unlike apple pie, you
Speaker 1: actually needed to get your day started if you're me.
Speaker 1: That's why I always kick it off the right way
Speaker 1: with the most freedom loving, patriotic coffee on the market,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee. This is how I get my day going.
Speaker 1: It's how I get my day going, even in the
Speaker 1: afternoon after I've started off in the morning, because Black
Speaker 1: Rifle is fuel for what you need every day. Okay.
Speaker 1: Black Rifle gives a portion of their sales to veteran
Speaker 1: and first responder causes. And it's delicious coffee, which is
Speaker 1: what's really important. I note a lot of you two.
Speaker 1: You want good coffee. This is a great premium product.
Speaker 1: It'll get delivered to your door. You can sign up
Speaker 1: for the Coffee Club and it'll ship it right to
Speaker 1: you every month, hassle free. That's what I'm set up with.
Speaker 1: You should get set up with it too. Wake up
Speaker 1: with America's coffee, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck and receive fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: That's Black Riflecoffee dot Com, slash buck for fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck. All right, we're
Speaker 1: back with oh Vic Roy from the Founda for Research
Speaker 1: on Equal opportunity where he is the president, he is
Speaker 1: a healthcare expert legitimately actually has an MD, which I'm
Speaker 1: always very impressed by people in the media generally, you know,
Speaker 1: they think that a one year journalism degrees is a
Speaker 1: fancy thing. Um Ovic, Kempbell Harris is talking about replacing
Speaker 1: all private health insurance. Now, I had always thought and
Speaker 1: and it makes sense at least when you when you
Speaker 1: first run the numbers on it, that the one thing
Speaker 1: that makes the Democrat goal impossible of single payer or
Speaker 1: medicare for all of that system is that you're going
Speaker 1: to have to tell ninety percent of people who have
Speaker 1: private health insurance, sorry, your plan is gone. Is that
Speaker 1: the bulwork against this that we would like it to be?
Speaker 1: And if not, how would a president President Warren Harris
Speaker 1: Sanders implement this vision as you see it? Like, what,
Speaker 1: how do we know that this is actually happening? Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, it's not ninety percent of Americans who
Speaker 1: have private health insurance. It's more like sixty percent of
Speaker 1: Americans have private health insurance, forty percent I'm sorry, who
Speaker 1: have coverage, right, yeah, yeah, go ahead, yeah for you know,
Speaker 1: nine percent half health insurance. Yeah, of the ninety percent
Speaker 1: who have health insurance, sixty percent have through the through
Speaker 1: private insurers, and forty percent half through the government. So,
Speaker 1: for example, the people who are on Medicaid, the people
Speaker 1: who are on Medicare, Medicare is basically a single parent
Speaker 1: fayre insure UM. That's why they call it Medicare for all.
Speaker 1: People who are on the VA, people who are on
Speaker 1: active duty military Defense Department healthcare. That's so almost half
Speaker 1: of the covered population is already getting some form of
Speaker 1: government involved healthcare. Yeah, I mean, yeah, forty percent. So
Speaker 1: that's that's the thing. So you know, that's that's why,
Speaker 1: that's what they're trying to build on. And that's why
Speaker 1: when they stay say Medicare for all, because Medicare it's
Speaker 1: single payer healthcare. And there are you know, seventy million
Speaker 1: people on Medicare, and there are another sixty million people
Speaker 1: on Medicaid UM. And then there's the ten million on
Speaker 1: the VA, and and and then the five million or
Speaker 1: whatever the number is, I can't remember exactly for ACTI
Speaker 1: duty military. A lot of people, if you add it
Speaker 1: all up, who are already on government run healthcare. So
Speaker 1: we don't have this free market system. That's the first
Speaker 1: thing to appreciate. But you're right that when Kamala Harris says, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, let's eliminate your private insurance and replace it
Speaker 1: with government insurance, that's yeah. Maybe some people on the
Speaker 1: left are looking forward to that time when they can
Speaker 1: trade in their private insurance for government interns, but lots
Speaker 1: of other people are not. And so yes, I don't
Speaker 1: think that single payer in that sense is likely. But
Speaker 1: as we know, that hasn't stopped Democrats from expanding the
Speaker 1: reach of government to have a public option, say, or
Speaker 1: to decrease the eligibility age of Medicare from sixty five
Speaker 1: to fifty five, and all these kind of chip away,
Speaker 1: incremental kind of things that they can do to expand
Speaker 1: the reach and role of government insurance. So just because
Speaker 1: single payer can't be achieved in one cell swoop, that
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that conservatives are in the clear. And again,
Speaker 1: you can't beat something with nothing. The healthcare system in
Speaker 1: America is legitimately broken, it's legitimately extremely expensive, and conservatives
Speaker 1: can't just sit around and say, oh, well, we're against socialism.
Speaker 1: The socialism is happening right now in terms of the
Speaker 1: insane profits that companies are making by basically being federally
Speaker 1: licensed monopolies instead of competitive markets. Who are the bad
Speaker 1: guys in this well, there's there's lots of bad guys
Speaker 1: and people. People beat up on the drug companies a lot.
Speaker 1: I mean, who else goes on that list? I put
Speaker 1: the hospitals at number one because mainly, if you think
Speaker 1: about what we spend on healthcare in America, about a
Speaker 1: third of its hospital spending, about fifteen percent of as
Speaker 1: drugs and another twenty percent as doctors. I don't think
Speaker 1: doctors are the bad guys generally, though there are. There
Speaker 1: are some bad apples in the medical profession. We have
Speaker 1: to be honest about that. But really the hospitals and
Speaker 1: the drug companies are. That's half the spending, and if
Speaker 1: we actually were able to do something about those two pieces,
Speaker 1: we do a lot to make healthcare more afforable. And
Speaker 1: I will say the Trumpet administration has been really smart
Speaker 1: and savvy about how they've tried to reduce the cost
Speaker 1: of prescription drugs. There's a lot of stuff that they're
Speaker 1: doing that I think deserves a lot more attention and
Speaker 1: praise from conservatives than I think has been appreciated on
Speaker 1: the hospital side. The Indiana Republican congressman named Jim Banks
Speaker 1: from northeast Indiana just put out a bill called the
Speaker 1: Hospital Competition Act, which is a terrific bill that really
Speaker 1: tries to tackle the problem of regional hospital monopolies which
Speaker 1: have merged with other crosstown rivals to build these big
Speaker 1: monopolies where they can basically tell insurers, we're going to
Speaker 1: jack up the price of a knee replacement by ten
Speaker 1: percent this year, and you have to eat it because
Speaker 1: the insurer doesn't have any bargaining part. Because the insurer
Speaker 1: can't send its patience to another hospital because there is
Speaker 1: no other hospital. One hospital system owns all the hospitals
Speaker 1: in a community. So that's becoming huge problem, and that's
Speaker 1: why private health insurance has become a lot more expensive
Speaker 1: than Medicare and medicaid. The government, for all of its flaws,
Speaker 1: you know you can't you can't you know you can't
Speaker 1: be you can't dictate prices to the government. The government
Speaker 1: dictates prices to you, right, whereas for the private insurers,
Speaker 1: they don't have that same ability. So private insurance is
Speaker 1: steadily getting more and more expensive, and that's why you're
Speaker 1: seeing more and more Americans say, you know what, I
Speaker 1: used to believe in the private sector system, but I'm
Speaker 1: I'm I'm more open minded about single pare now because
Speaker 1: I'm sick of getting higher premiums and a flat paycheck
Speaker 1: every month. What does Trump need to do going into
Speaker 1: what's You know it's going to be a highly contentious election.
Speaker 1: We've only got about a minute, ovic, But what's your
Speaker 1: minute elevator pitch for the president on what the GOP
Speaker 1: Trump planned for healthcare, which you admit is expensive and problematic,
Speaker 1: what it needs to be. He's got to do what
Speaker 1: he's doing on drug prices for every sector of the
Speaker 1: healthcare system. There needs to be a Trump blueprint to
Speaker 1: lower the cause of hospital prices, a Trump blueprint to
Speaker 1: lower the cost of physician office visits, a Trump blueprint
Speaker 1: to lower the cost of lab tests and medical devices.
Speaker 1: You do that, you have a real plan to attack
Speaker 1: all the ways in which federal policy have distorted these
Speaker 1: markets and driven up prices. You're going to have something
Speaker 1: really strong and really persuade it to talk about. That's
Speaker 1: a lot less disruptive than single payer, but has a
Speaker 1: lot of the benefits purported benefits in terms of cost savings. Oh,
Speaker 1: vic Roy, everybody. As advertised, he is the man on
Speaker 1: this issue, President for the Foundation for Research on Equal Opportunity.
Speaker 1: Free opt dot org is his site. Ovic, we all
Speaker 1: know more about single payer than we did when we
Speaker 1: started this interview. So thank you so much, my friend.
Speaker 1: Always good to have you on the show. Thanks Buck team.
Speaker 1: Who man, I'm gonna let the class out for a minute. Here,
Speaker 1: catch your breath. We'll come right back at a moment.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Communities of color are usually much further
Speaker 1: to the left than white liberals because racism, colonialism are
Speaker 1: we understand through lived experience in a way that many
Speaker 1: don't understand that these are issues that are part of
Speaker 1: a hypercapitalist framework. You know, black folks are descendants of
Speaker 1: slaves that were imported quote unquote by slave owners to
Speaker 1: the United States for the explicit purpose of cultivating crops,
Speaker 1: and it was predicated on white supremacy and racial superiority.
Speaker 1: But we have to understand that white supremacy exists for
Speaker 1: a reason. There's so much that we have to we
Speaker 1: can delve into their Obviously, that's aoc Alexandra Ocasio Cortez,
Speaker 1: who is speaking in the leftist lingo that unfortunately has
Speaker 1: has become to dominate the faculty lounges of many college campuses,
Speaker 1: and it is now with the rise of quote woke
Speaker 1: journalism is now increasingly commonplace in newsrooms and for major websites.
Speaker 1: And there are just these these very overwrought, historically problematic
Speaker 1: or at least unfinished, selective in their discussion of capitalism, colonialism,
Speaker 1: and many of these things. But these phrases that are
Speaker 1: usually in place of any thoughtful discourse on these issues.
Speaker 1: That's and by the way, even the word discourse they
Speaker 1: use it on the left so much you can I
Speaker 1: can tell what someone's politics are now. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is maybe a good way of getting in and getting
Speaker 1: into this. I can tell what someone's politics are based
Speaker 1: on the words they use to talk about issues. I
Speaker 1: don't mean the words they use to describe a position.
Speaker 1: I mean I can just hear someone discussing something. And
Speaker 1: you know, for example, people who who use the phrase
Speaker 1: communities of color frequently are going to be on the left.
Speaker 1: People who will talk about a legacy of colonialism in
Speaker 1: the year twenty nineteen are going to be on the left.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's all these different things, and there's even
Speaker 1: more instructive, and I think specific examples in that just
Speaker 1: the certain words, the usage of justice without any explanation
Speaker 1: for what kind of justice? What does that mean? And
Speaker 1: this is why you'll hear me say on this show frequently,
Speaker 1: what do they mean by that? What does that mean?
Speaker 1: They use words without establishing the underlying meaning of what
Speaker 1: they're saying or without any clarity. Right, They're going for
Speaker 1: an emotional response that they know that this is this
Speaker 1: is setting off certain synapses in the brain, right, certain
Speaker 1: firing of neurons happens when people here buzzwords on the left,
Speaker 1: they immediately start to think, this is a friendly, this
Speaker 1: is a person that I agree with, and this these
Speaker 1: are good things. These are things that I like, And
Speaker 1: it's it's an essential part of understanding left wing communication.
Speaker 1: This is why I use these terms like, uh, you know, intersectionality,
Speaker 1: and we talk about people being woke, and we talk
Speaker 1: about dead naming, and I try to familiarize you with
Speaker 1: leftist jargon one to expose usually how just thoroughly intellectually
Speaker 1: bankrupt it all is. I mean, just these ideas and
Speaker 1: concepts fall apart under the weight of their own contradictions.
Speaker 1: That's that's one reason why, but also to understand that
Speaker 1: they are really creating their own, really professional language for
Speaker 1: mobilization and activism, and that this is now creeping into
Speaker 1: our pilot. And that's why I get so agitated over
Speaker 1: things like undocumented migrant, which is the latest. You know,
Speaker 1: they're just undocumented people moving who want work. That's a
Speaker 1: long way from illegal alien and there where there are
Speaker 1: a lot of steps in between. But that change in
Speaker 1: language is a conscious choice. Do not just let that slip.
Speaker 1: Do not all of a sudden decide that you know
Speaker 1: you're you're going to to give in to however they
Speaker 1: want you to speak about these things, because your word
Speaker 1: choice matters. Your word choice matters. And that little rant
Speaker 1: from o'cazio Cortez saying that communities of color are quote
Speaker 1: much further to the left than white liberals because of
Speaker 1: racism and colonialism, First of all, that's not true. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is where you have to get into what is
Speaker 1: further to left. How I don't think there. I don't
Speaker 1: think there is a further to the left than what
Speaker 1: you're hearing from some open socialists who are you know,
Speaker 1: white socialists and the Bernie Sanders mold. What She's really
Speaker 1: addressing is that there is an increasing radicalism of thought
Speaker 1: within some communities of color because they're being constantly told
Speaker 1: and this is this is combustible, This is dangerous. They
Speaker 1: are being told by the media, and whether it's media
Speaker 1: commentators who are minorities themselves or who are white liberals
Speaker 1: who are exploiting these narratives for their own purposes, whether
Speaker 1: it's ratings or just virtue signaling. But communities of color
Speaker 1: are increasingly being told in this country by the media
Speaker 1: and by politicians like AOC that white supremacy is on
Speaker 1: the rise, that the president is a white supremacist. Hakeem Jeffries,
Speaker 1: who is a member of Congress, referred to the President
Speaker 1: of the United States as the Grand Wizard of Pennsylvania Avenue.
Speaker 1: This is incredibly destructive, This is incredibly divisive in a
Speaker 1: way that you and I might be able to say, well,
Speaker 1: these are just reckless politicians and demagogues doing what they do.
Speaker 1: But some people, and I would argue a lot of
Speaker 1: people will hear this and think, wow, the other side
Speaker 1: on this, which is effectively in their version of events.
Speaker 1: In the left wing communities of color version of this narrative,
Speaker 1: the other side is white male Republicans. That's that's the
Speaker 1: other that is what is being otherised here actively. And
Speaker 1: you know, you see this celebratory tone at the demise
Speaker 1: of the white male majority of the media celebrates this
Speaker 1: very openly, and they encourage people to think increasingly in
Speaker 1: terms of racial power disparities, and they encourage non white
Speaker 1: minorities to use their group status, their their group identity
Speaker 1: as a means of achieving greater power over the other.
Speaker 1: This is not going to lead to good things. This
Speaker 1: is not going to lead to happy places. But this
Speaker 1: is now central to the left wing Democrat approach to
Speaker 1: politics to mobilize as now I'm saying it because I
Speaker 1: brought up before communities of color. To mobilize the minority
Speaker 1: population in this country as a racial and ethnic block
Speaker 1: against the Republican predominantly but not entirely white majority. Is
Speaker 1: a racializing of politics that is not going to have
Speaker 1: any This is not going to end well, This is
Speaker 1: not going to be positive for the country. This is
Speaker 1: something that has to be undone. This is a complete
Speaker 1: departure from the idea that this country is a was
Speaker 1: founded on an idea. Yes, it was imperfect, yes, in
Speaker 1: its time, there was tremendous injustice that was done slavery.
Speaker 1: There have been other injustices in this country's history too,
Speaker 1: Jim Crow segregation. But the basic idea of a country
Speaker 1: founded on an idea gives us at least the framework
Speaker 1: for not being a race segregated or racially based cast
Speaker 1: system like society. Right, we have that foundation in place.
Speaker 1: To constantly mobilize non white minorities for political and cultural
Speaker 1: purposes against the other, the white male conservative majority is
Speaker 1: to create a friction that I would argue undermines the
Speaker 1: most important shared principles and values of this country, which
Speaker 1: is that we are not supposed we are not defined
Speaker 1: by or dictated by our skin color or by our ethnicity.
Speaker 1: We actually have free will, free choice, and we are
Speaker 1: all equal in the law and equal in the eyes
Speaker 1: of God. And that people should choose their destinies, their beliefs,
Speaker 1: their futures freely, not based on what they have been
Speaker 1: told by others. Ocasio Cortez talking about a hyper capitalist framework.
Speaker 1: These are big words used by people who don't understand
Speaker 1: and big ideas. You're going to see a lot more
Speaker 1: of that on the left in this Democrat primary. These
Speaker 1: are people who pick and choose different aspects of history
Speaker 1: without understanding the fuller context. Because generally on the left
Speaker 1: you have some of the biggest demagogues on politics, who
Speaker 1: are held up as being the leading lights of the
Speaker 1: progressive wing of the Democratic Party are not particularly well
Speaker 1: read and not insightful on any aspects of American life.
Speaker 1: They just know how to agitate. They know how to
Speaker 1: push buttons. They understand how powerful envy is when mobilized.
Speaker 1: They understand how powerful class warfare can be in the
Speaker 1: hands of somebody who does not mind what they are
Speaker 1: tearing down or burning down in the process. Take AOC seriously,
Speaker 1: because I assure you, despite her ignorance, her inability to
Speaker 1: grasp very important, very basic concepts of governance, the left
Speaker 1: will take her seriously and enough people will emotionally attach
Speaker 1: to her ideas that the falsehood that is baked into
Speaker 1: into much, if not all, of it won't matter. Enough
Speaker 1: got more common stay with me. Can America work productively
Speaker 1: towards adjust and lasting peace between Israelis and Palestinians, in
Speaker 1: your opinion, by having an equal approach to dealing with both.
Speaker 1: Most of the things that have always been aggravating to
Speaker 1: me is that we have had a policy that makes
Speaker 1: one superior to the other, and we mask it with
Speaker 1: a conversation that's about justice and two state solution. When
Speaker 1: you have policies that clearly prioritize one over the other,
Speaker 1: such a us, I mean, just our relationship really with
Speaker 1: this Raeli government and this israelis eate and so when
Speaker 1: I see is right, you'll institute um law that that
Speaker 1: recognizes it as a as a as a Jewish state
Speaker 1: and does not recognize um the other religions that are
Speaker 1: that are living in it, and we still uphold it
Speaker 1: as a democracy in the Middle East. I almost chuckle
Speaker 1: because I know that if you know we we we
Speaker 1: say we see that in any other society, we would
Speaker 1: criticize it, we would call it out. We do that
Speaker 1: to Iran, We do that to any other place that
Speaker 1: sort of upholds its religion. So that is your You're
Speaker 1: you're new and exciting to the left. Congresswoman from Minnesota,
Speaker 1: Ilhan Omar, who's all who's made quite a splash in
Speaker 1: a very short short period of time with her not
Speaker 1: so subtle implied homophobia and now with her commentary about
Speaker 1: israel I mean, this is somebody who clearly has a
Speaker 1: real problem with Israel, and that's for a lot of
Speaker 1: folks starts to get pretty close to sounding like anti semitism,
Speaker 1: if they're not already there. Some of you're like, no,
Speaker 1: Bucket is just anti semitism. But notice the way that
Speaker 1: she discusses this, and you know, look there's the foreign
Speaker 1: policies oude of this, which maybe is not as interesting
Speaker 1: to you, interesting to you, but the reason that the
Speaker 1: left does not like Israel there are many reasons, right,
Speaker 1: but the reasons why there is this and keep it.
Speaker 1: There are Democrats who are very proist. Well, I know
Speaker 1: that I'm really talking about the left here. This is
Speaker 1: where the separation of the apparatus of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: and the ideological hard left there is a thing there.
Speaker 1: You know, you do have Democrats who are members of Congress,
Speaker 1: for example, who are at least outwardly very pro Israel,
Speaker 1: even though they're pretty leftists on a lot of things.
Speaker 1: But the hard left of the Democrat Party, the kind
Speaker 1: of big progress move on Dot org types, the ilhan
Speaker 1: omars of the party are anti Israel because to them,
Speaker 1: in this ideology of post colonialism, intersectionality, and social justice,
Speaker 1: these different concepts that the left holds as as really
Speaker 1: the primary organizing narratives for our day to day lives.
Speaker 1: Israel is like a violator on all these different fronts.
Speaker 1: In their minds, Israel is a colonial outpost in the
Speaker 1: Middle East. It is white, even though, of course, when
Speaker 1: you talk about white and oppression that white Jewish people
Speaker 1: in Israel, I think would have a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of things to say about a history of oppression
Speaker 1: and what that has been like and what that has
Speaker 1: meant globally and for a few millennia. But you know,
Speaker 1: the left just sees it in this very this very straightforward,
Speaker 1: and I would argue, very wrong headed and completely decontextualized context,
Speaker 1: or rather decontextualized fashion, decontextualized context. Buck, come on, let's
Speaker 1: get it together. Uh. Where they're they're white, they're colonial
Speaker 1: their first world, they're pro American their democracy. Therefore Israel's
Speaker 1: a problem. Therefore it's oppressive. And they also view Islam,
Speaker 1: even though it's the second largest religion as the world,
Speaker 1: as a non white and oppressed religion. And really, you know,
Speaker 1: you look at the way she talks about Israel and
Speaker 1: that it's it's character of a Jewish state she finds
Speaker 1: inherently problematic. Meanwhile, think of all this, Think of all
Speaker 1: the states around the world, all the countries that are
Speaker 1: that are Muslim, and and there's no no one raises
Speaker 1: an issue with the idea of the Islamic Republic of
Speaker 1: and not just Iran. She goes to Iran, which is
Speaker 1: particularly crazy, But all these other countries are Islamic, and
Speaker 1: no one suggesting to them that they have to go
Speaker 1: through mass immigration, that they have to have you know,
Speaker 1: Christianity put on the same footing in their national constitution
Speaker 1: or whatever as as as Islam is. I mean, no
Speaker 1: one even discusses that somehow it's always acceptable for Islam
Speaker 1: to be the only faith in a nation state. And
Speaker 1: Islam is held to this very different standard, this much
Speaker 1: lower standard than in our country Christianity and Judaism are
Speaker 1: in terms of its responsibility for the acts of its adherents.
Speaker 1: And and you hear ilhan Omar talking about this, and
Speaker 1: you just know that this is what she's saying in
Speaker 1: an interview. I really want to know what she says
Speaker 1: when the cameras are not rolling. I've heard I've had
Speaker 1: many Muslim, including Muslim leftist friends over over the years,
Speaker 1: and I've heard what they say about Israel when they're
Speaker 1: not when they think that they're around people that aren't
Speaker 1: going to repeat it. I mean, some of them don't
Speaker 1: necessarily know my politics that they would now, but many
Speaker 1: years ago when I was CIA, they wouldn't have known own.
Speaker 1: And the way that they talk about Israel, it's clear
Speaker 1: that it's not just they don't like Israeli policy. They
Speaker 1: don't like Israel. And with a lot of Muslims and
Speaker 1: a lot of the Muslim world, here's the truth. It's
Speaker 1: not just that they don't like Israeli policy or the
Speaker 1: state of Israel's a concept. It's that they don't like Jews.
Speaker 1: It's at their anti Semites. Anti Semitism is rampant in
Speaker 1: the Muslim world, and with some of the importation into
Speaker 1: this country of different beliefs and people of backgrounds where
Speaker 1: it's much more commonplace to be anti Semitic, we are seeing,
Speaker 1: I believe, a growing problem here on the left of
Speaker 1: real nasty, leftist anti semitism that the media is going
Speaker 1: to make excuses for because it crosses over with their
Speaker 1: oppression rhetoric about intersectionality. And you know, women from the
Speaker 1: Islamic world, like ilhan Omar and all the rest of it,
Speaker 1: they're gonna make excuses for leftist anti semitism. Mark my words,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. Ipatriots dot us is a new
Speaker 1: conservative alternative to liberal based email services. Ipatriots dot us
Speaker 1: is secure, private, and includes more of what you want
Speaker 1: without all the ads in spam. With ipatriots, you get
Speaker 1: thirty gigs of cloud storage, larger attachment sizes, and much more.
Speaker 1: Your files and emails are safe with ipatriots premium anti virus,
Speaker 1: anti spam two one hundred and fifty six bit encryption.
Speaker 1: I Patriots also won't sell your information or support liberal
Speaker 1: agenda items like a lot of those free email providers
Speaker 1: out there. Okay. Ipatriots dot us is compatible with most
Speaker 1: of the mobile devices you can possibly find out there,
Speaker 1: So show your a patriot. Go to ipatriots dot us
Speaker 1: Now we've got a new offer. Enter promo code buck
Speaker 1: sign up for month to month service today and get
Speaker 1: your first month free. You won't be charged until your
Speaker 1: second month of service at the specified month to month rate,
Speaker 1: and you can cancel it anytime. Input your desired ipatriots
Speaker 1: email address during checkout again, ipatriots dot US enter promo
Speaker 1: code buck for the first month. Look, border crossings are down.
Speaker 1: There is an increase of those attempting to apply for asylum,
Speaker 1: but they're handing themselves over to the authorities too. Statistically,
Speaker 1: immigrants are less likely to commit a crime than those
Speaker 1: of us that were born in the United States. So
Speaker 1: many lies, so little time. That's Democrat Congressman Gutierrez talking
Speaker 1: about immigrants, legal immigration. Let me take a chainsaw to
Speaker 1: this edifice of nonsense, now, shall we. It's just they
Speaker 1: just won't stop. They will not stop. This idea that
Speaker 1: crossings are down, therefore there is not a problem is nonsense.
Speaker 1: This would be like saying, okay, let's look at the
Speaker 1: opioid crisis. If the opioid crisis had been going on
Speaker 1: for thirty years and you went from seventy thousand dead
Speaker 1: a year to let's say it's a huge drop off
Speaker 1: thirty five thousand dead a year, but you've already racked
Speaker 1: up a body count of how many deaths over that
Speaker 1: period of time. You've already lost how many loved ones,
Speaker 1: how many brothers and sisters, mothers and fathers, friends, family.
Speaker 1: That's a crisis and a continuing crisis. So I mean
Speaker 1: to say that because it's not the worst that it
Speaker 1: has ever been is to ignore the fact that just
Speaker 1: because something can be worse does not mean it is
Speaker 1: not a problem today. I hope my logic is I've
Speaker 1: explained that one with enough clarity here on the air.
Speaker 1: We already have, and I was happy to see Tucker
Speaker 1: Carlson last night say this, twenty million illegals in the country.
Speaker 1: It's not eleven million. That's a joke. It's at least
Speaker 1: twenty million. And that's not me just picking the number
Speaker 1: out of thin air. There are multiple math PhDs who've
Speaker 1: looked at the available hard data for illegal crossings and
Speaker 1: deportations over the last decade, and the idea that we
Speaker 1: are somehow not up by at least double what they're
Speaker 1: telling us is crazy. I mean, this is you look
Speaker 1: back in twenty ten, eleven million illegals. In two thousand
Speaker 1: and five, eleven million illegals. Last year eleven million illegals. No,
Speaker 1: I go speak to border patrol. You have fifty thousand
Speaker 1: people at a time now in a month who are
Speaker 1: showing up at the border. I mean thirty thousand family units.
Speaker 1: That's at least two individuals or families, not one. We
Speaker 1: haven't yet gotten to the point yet where people are
Speaker 1: identifying as as a family. So you know, this is
Speaker 1: just this is we are lied to and lied to
Speaker 1: and lied to so many times on this issue, and
Speaker 1: I think that the frustration, it look, it boils over
Speaker 1: when I'm talking about this, It obviously comes out in
Speaker 1: my I think it's why the White House today from
Speaker 1: their official Twitter account, as well as the President from
Speaker 1: his potus Twitter account, retweeted my article on the Hill
Speaker 1: from earlier this week on all of the scams that
Speaker 1: are being run. So Gudierres is being disingenuous with his
Speaker 1: Oh the numbers are down, well, they're down from completely
Speaker 1: unsustainable illegal invasion of the nineties and the early two
Speaker 1: and the early two thousands. Okay, yeah, they're down from that,
Speaker 1: but they're still unacceptably high. And there's already such a
Speaker 1: huge illegal population within the country that everyone who's showing
Speaker 1: up now is joining the ranks of an already unsustainable
Speaker 1: illegal issue. You know, this is like saying if you're
Speaker 1: if you're a million dollars in debt and you were
Speaker 1: spending fifty thousand dollars a month beyond your means, and
Speaker 1: now you're only spending twenty five thousand dollars a month
Speaker 1: beyond your means. And you say, well, bucket's no big problem.
Speaker 1: Look at how look at how far down it is. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but you already have a debt of a million dollars
Speaker 1: and you're still adding to it. We have twenty million illegals,
Speaker 1: and they're still adding to the number in large numbers,
Speaker 1: and we don't even know what the real number is.
Speaker 1: Half a million visa overstays a year, thirty thousand family
Speaker 1: units a month showing up at the southern border. That
Speaker 1: doesn't include unaccompanied minors, and it doesn't include illegal single
Speaker 1: adult male crossers. Goodierras is just full of it. He's
Speaker 1: just full of it. He either does. He's either just
Speaker 1: ignorant or he doesn't care. It's probably both. This notion
Speaker 1: that they're showing up to claim asylum. That's right. They
Speaker 1: claim asylum so they get into the interior of the
Speaker 1: US and then they know that there will be no enforcement.
Speaker 1: Less than one percent of those who enter the United
Speaker 1: States claiming asylum are expelled from the country through deportation,
Speaker 1: but ninet scent of those who claim asylum, do not
Speaker 1: qualify for it. So somebody explain those numbers to me.
Speaker 1: This is a massive backdoor in the United States, and
Speaker 1: any politician who tells you otherwise is a liar. A liar.
Speaker 1: Gutierrez is lying to you about this and then on
Speaker 1: this issue. Finally, of by the way, it was pretty
Speaker 1: cool to get the to have the potus account, which
Speaker 1: has twenty five million followers, tweet out an article that
Speaker 1: I am the author of. That was nice. I liked
Speaker 1: that high five. You haven't read it, you gotta check
Speaker 1: out my stuff on the Hill dot com on the
Speaker 1: written side the editorial page there, it's the crisis of
Speaker 1: the border is real and getting worse. And I just
Speaker 1: make this case to you based on the numbers, based
Speaker 1: on the schemes and the fraud, and based on now
Speaker 1: the increasing medical concerns and costs on the system of
Speaker 1: all of this. So you've got surging numbers fraud, fraud,
Speaker 1: fraud and lies everywhere from the migrants who are coming in,
Speaker 1: and medical costs that are about to get really, really heavy.
Speaker 1: You know. The smartest thing, I could now walk somebody
Speaker 1: through what the loopholes are in our immigration system, and
Speaker 1: they wouldn't be breaking the law necessarily. They're not breaking
Speaker 1: the law till they don't show up for their immigration hearing.
Speaker 1: I could walk somebody through that and you know, essentially
Speaker 1: guarantee that they'll get entry in the United States and
Speaker 1: don't have to worry about having to leave. That's unacceptable,
Speaker 1: completely unacceptable. But that's where we are. That's where the
Speaker 1: status quo has that's what the status quo has become.
Speaker 1: And then this thing of a good era is about
Speaker 1: how immigrants are less likely to commit a crime than
Speaker 1: those of us who are born in the US. That's
Speaker 1: just not true. It's only true if you make it
Speaker 1: about immigrants who are supposed to go through a screening process.
Speaker 1: When you add illegal immigrants into the equation, it is
Speaker 1: not true. And actually, I don't think that they should
Speaker 1: be conflating those two populations at all, because the issue
Speaker 1: is not with legal immigrants. Legal immigrants are welcome. Legal
Speaker 1: immigrants are Americans. They listen to this show, God bless
Speaker 1: you and thank you for giving me your time. Illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants are breaking the law, and they're doing so in
Speaker 1: a systematic fashion, with the assistance of the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: and a left wing media that is all is open
Speaker 1: borders in all but name. That's what's happening. And that's
Speaker 1: why I get frustrated when people say things like immigrants
Speaker 1: are less likely to commit crimes and those of us
Speaker 1: who are born in the US, that's dodging the issue.
Speaker 1: Are illegal immigrants apart from the crime of crossing in
Speaker 1: the country and the document fraud and the lying to
Speaker 1: federal officers and the you know, social security fraud and
Speaker 1: the welfare fraud, all those things that also happen in
Speaker 1: large numbers in illegal immigrant communities. They pretend like it doesn't,
Speaker 1: but it does. Apart from all of those violations of law,
Speaker 1: how many are actually in gangs' sexually assaulting people, murdering people,
Speaker 1: whether they're part of the I MS thirteen or some
Speaker 1: other gang, you know. That's that's that's the statistic that
Speaker 1: I would like to see. And it's so interesting, isn't
Speaker 1: it that the Democrat the knee jerk reaction from the
Speaker 1: Democrats is always that illegals are better than Americans. This
Speaker 1: is a mantra, This is a recurring theme in the
Speaker 1: Democrat party that illegals are better than the Americans of
Speaker 1: all ethnicities and backgrounds. Right, we have a quite a
Speaker 1: diverse population in America, and they're saying illegals who are
Speaker 1: predominantly from not entirely Mexico and Central America are better
Speaker 1: than Americans. It just seems a strange position to take
Speaker 1: for an American political party, but they understand that they
Speaker 1: will be the only political party with any power in
Speaker 1: this country if this continues. That's why they are all
Speaker 1: in on illegal immigration. And I keep saying this, and
Speaker 1: I hope somebody with the ability to get big Democrats
Speaker 1: like big Democrats. Big Democrats won't you know, they won't
Speaker 1: come on and debate me or argue with me. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just that it's I'm too risky, right, what's the
Speaker 1: upside versus The downside is they get intellectually fileted like
Speaker 1: a fish. The upside for them is pretty minimal. So
Speaker 1: I can't get them. But somebody who is in a
Speaker 1: position to get a Democrat on the hot seat, you know,
Speaker 1: get Nancy Pelosi or get they just have to ask
Speaker 1: them to answer this question, why shouldn't Democrats before illegal immigration?
Speaker 1: They'll say, oh, because we want people to respect our laws.
Speaker 1: No no, no, no, no, that's not enough, because they're
Speaker 1: not respecting our laws. Why shouldn't illegal immigrants just come
Speaker 1: into the country as they please, or as they call them,
Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants. Why shouldn't they I can give you a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of reasons. Sovereignty, rule of law, all political cohesion,
Speaker 1: strain on resources, cultural assimilation. I'll go down the whole list.
Speaker 1: Democrats reject all of that, or from Brocall strombling about
Speaker 1: lauring Speirger English or bro call, there's not going to
Speaker 1: be a welcome of a country clawbone anymore. That's right.
Speaker 1: Brokaw got his hand caught in a little mouse trap.
Speaker 1: He said a little something naughty because he said you
Speaker 1: should learn English. You know he's He's stubbed his toe
Speaker 1: big time with that one, didn't he ouch? Not supposed,
Speaker 1: not supposed to tell people that, not supposed to say
Speaker 1: that assimilation means learning English. If assimilation does not mean
Speaker 1: learning English, what does assimilation mean? Does any anybody want
Speaker 1: to try that? I do object when I voted in
Speaker 1: New York City to the ballot being in five or
Speaker 1: six languages. I do object to that. I think that's
Speaker 1: a problem. Language is not about skin color, it's not
Speaker 1: about ethnicity. It's about national cohesion. And communication and shared
Speaker 1: culture and values. Those things all matter Democrats, We'll just
Speaker 1: throw that all aside. They'll throw any of this stuff aside,
Speaker 1: because ultimately, all that really matters to them is this relentless,
Speaker 1: endless pursuit of power and illegally. They've switched. They've switched
Speaker 1: the script on illegal immigration. They used to pretend that
Speaker 1: they were the protectors of the working class from illegal
Speaker 1: immigrant competition for jobs. That's not where their bread is
Speaker 1: buttered anymore. Now they are all about illegal aliens. I've
Speaker 1: been telling you about snippy dot com and the more
Speaker 1: stories you see about the way that Facebook and these
Speaker 1: other giants of the Internet treat your privacy, treat your data,
Speaker 1: and also push for progressive agenda items all the time,
Speaker 1: it's time for you to check out snippy dot com
Speaker 1: or right, you don't have to deal with that other
Speaker 1: stuff anymore. Thousands of my listeners have already joined snippy
Speaker 1: dot com and they're expressing their opinions and stirring up
Speaker 1: lively conversations. Snippy's an unbiased social media platform. It's all
Speaker 1: about conversation and community. Not only encourages freedom of expression,
Speaker 1: but guarantees its users the ability to discuss topics freely,
Speaker 1: without suppression from administrators. It's a place where everyone is
Speaker 1: free to express their thoughts and share their opinions. It
Speaker 1: is totally free to join, open to everyone. So join
Speaker 1: us at snippy dot com. Let your opinion matter, no
Speaker 1: shadow banning and no suppression of conservative thought ever. Now
Speaker 1: with an updated user interface and exciting new features, also
Speaker 1: available in the Apple App Store and now available for Android,
Speaker 1: Snippy snippy dot com your new alternative social media check
Speaker 1: it out at all is an immorality. It's not who
Speaker 1: we are as a nation. It's an old way of thinking.
Speaker 1: I hate the way. I think it's even more. I
Speaker 1: think it's wasteball. How are we a country that puts
Speaker 1: a wall between ourselves and an allied nation? A wall
Speaker 1: is an immoral symbol for our country. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is just stupidity. I have very little patients these days
Speaker 1: for politicians who go on TV and say that a
Speaker 1: wall is an immorality, that a wall won't work. All
Speaker 1: these different all these different things that they they bring
Speaker 1: together and they say they bleat these talking points. Four
Speaker 1: legs good, two legs bad. Some of people will catch
Speaker 1: that references our that's our random reference for today. Let's
Speaker 1: see who. Let's see who catches it. It's based on
Speaker 1: a homework assignment I gave the team a long time ago.
Speaker 1: So here's what happens. They go on TV, they say
Speaker 1: all of this. The American people, unfortunately, are still very influence,
Speaker 1: at least those who care about this, by what they
Speaker 1: see on TV. And so some of them will believe
Speaker 1: that walls don't work and that a wall is immoral.
Speaker 1: A lot of them will believe that Trump's willingness to
Speaker 1: hold up the government or hold up funding for part
Speaker 1: of the government because of the desire for a wall
Speaker 1: is irresponsible and whatever. And so the Democrats get their way,
Speaker 1: even though this is all built upon stupidity, and this
Speaker 1: is all built upon falsehood. A wall all is not immoral.
Speaker 1: If a wall is a moral, then border patrol is
Speaker 1: a moral. If border patrol is a moral, we should
Speaker 1: have open borders. This is not hard. The Left cannot
Speaker 1: win this argument. They are wrong. They do not believe
Speaker 1: in helping to secure the border. They like the status quo,
Speaker 1: which is not an open border. It is a porous border.
Speaker 1: It is thirty forty fifty thousand illegals a month, pouring
Speaker 1: in month after month after month. Anybody who tells you
Speaker 1: that an equivalent number are leaving this country to go
Speaker 1: back to Honduras or Mexico, which had been the that's
Speaker 1: the story, will sometimes here, Oh, well, the economy got bad,
Speaker 1: there's an outflow bull These people are idiots. A lot
Speaker 1: of stupidity out there, a lot of very self serving stupidity, unfortunately.
Speaker 1: But that's what you are coming across on the left
Speaker 1: and these Democrat circles where they say these things. And
Speaker 1: we still have not dealt with the underlying issues here.
Speaker 1: We still have not handled the problem of illegal immigration
Speaker 1: as it is presented to us today. And I played
Speaker 1: that that Tom Brokaw thing for you, and it's it's
Speaker 1: pretty amazing how much they john than Remember Tom Brokaw
Speaker 1: said that maybe illegals, or rather maybe some immigrant communities,
Speaker 1: the Latino community, needs to work a little harder at assimilation,
Speaker 1: you know. And I mean I would go as far
Speaker 1: to say, I don't want I don't think that ballots
Speaker 1: should be printed in other languages. I think that I
Speaker 1: don't think that schools should be taught at other languages.
Speaker 1: Language is an essential part of social and political and
Speaker 1: nation state, polity, political union, cohesion. Okay, essential, it is indispensable.
Speaker 1: How we communicate is also a function, or rather also
Speaker 1: affects how we see everything around us. That people are
Speaker 1: opposed to this notion just goes to show you how
Speaker 1: little they really care about a durable assimilation that would
Speaker 1: be happening over the course of year after year, because
Speaker 1: we're bringing in a million Lead Eagal immigrants a year,
Speaker 1: making them green card holders, permanent residence, etc. But here's
Speaker 1: what happens, you know, here's what happens to somebody like
Speaker 1: Tom Brokaw when they decide that he says something bad,
Speaker 1: NBC calls him out. Play Play thirteen, a former longtime
Speaker 1: anchor of this broadcast, is in the news tonight for
Speaker 1: comments he made Sunday on Meet the Press. The criticism
Speaker 1: was widespread and almost immediate. Les Or Tonight at NBC
Speaker 1: News spokesman tells me quote Tom's comments were inaccurate and inappropriate,
Speaker 1: and we're glad he apologized. How could it be inaccurate
Speaker 1: to say that people should try harder at assimilation, that's
Speaker 1: an opinion. How could it be inaccurate to say that
Speaker 1: people should learn English in this country? That's an opinion.
Speaker 1: It's a good opinion, by the way, But notice how
Speaker 1: they go to this place of not just opposing opposing
Speaker 1: what Tom brokas that. Look, I give credit to people
Speaker 1: when they say smart things. Whatever, whoever the person may be,
Speaker 1: If they say something that's correct or smart, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: say they are it is correct and they are smart.
Speaker 1: So Brokaw is forrest here to, you know, to eat
Speaker 1: a little humble pie, eat some crow. Why why can't
Speaker 1: we have this discussion? This is part of why, a
Speaker 1: big part of why Trump won. We're not allowed to
Speaker 1: discuss assimilation. We're not allowed discussion national discuss I need
Speaker 1: to speak English too, apparently, discuss a national language. We're
Speaker 1: not allowed to do that. How can that be shut off?
Speaker 1: How can we tell ourselves that we are having a
Speaker 1: real discussion, a real open debate about our immigration policy
Speaker 1: when anything you say about assimilation that takes into account
Speaker 1: the possibility that maybe immigrants have a role here. Illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants have a role here too. Maybe all immigrants have
Speaker 1: a role here too. That's not to say that there
Speaker 1: aren't some immigrants who are doing every thing and they're
Speaker 1: you know, they're great at being Americans. Obviously there are
Speaker 1: a lot of them, but I'm sure there are some
Speaker 1: who come here and think of this more as like
Speaker 1: a jobs program and maybe a soup kitchen. They don't
Speaker 1: really feel some attachment to this country. You know. English
Speaker 1: proficiency should be a precondition. It's a precondition, at least
Speaker 1: it's on paper a precondition in places like Sweden that
Speaker 1: have had very open door policies for asylum seekers in
Speaker 1: recent years, much to the social disunity now of that country,
Speaker 1: and a lot there's a lot of dysfunction that has
Speaker 1: come from that policy, by the way, and the government
Speaker 1: is actively in some of those Norse countries. The Northern
Speaker 1: European be a more proper way to put it. I
Speaker 1: guess Scandinavian's word I was looking for. They realize that
Speaker 1: they've made some mistake, but we're not only able to
Speaker 1: talk about it. Let me let me tell you this.
Speaker 1: Any issue of politics where people of good faith would
Speaker 1: want to have a debate and they're not allowed to
Speaker 1: tells you a lot. And that is the case when
Speaker 1: it comes to assimilation, immigration, and English as our national language.
Speaker 1: It's a big problem because what nonbelievers fail to understand
Speaker 1: is that calling a dream crazy is not an insult,
Speaker 1: it's a compliment. Don't try to be the fastest runner
Speaker 1: in your school or the fastest in the world, be
Speaker 1: the fastest ever. Don't picture yourself wearing Obj's jersey, picture
Speaker 1: OBJ wearing yours. Don't settle for homecoming queen or linebacker.
Speaker 1: Do both. So that's one of the inspiring Nike commercials
Speaker 1: that that great American company puts out on a fairly
Speaker 1: regular basis. I look, Nike is one of the premier,
Speaker 1: not just American, but global brands, right Nick, the Goddess
Speaker 1: of Victory. Nike a pretty amazing story behind it to
Speaker 1: this guy just realized that nobody was making nobody was
Speaker 1: making good running shoes, which you would think would be
Speaker 1: a market would have been pretty well tapped into back
Speaker 1: in whatever it was the sixties, I think maybe it
Speaker 1: was in the fifties and forget. But this guy decided
Speaker 1: to make better running shoes and now you got Nike,
Speaker 1: which is obviously a huge international conglomerate. But I bring
Speaker 1: it up because once again we have the pressure, the
Speaker 1: pressure from the social justice left forcing a company to
Speaker 1: bend on an issue that is absolutely absurd. You have
Speaker 1: Muslims demanding on a change dot Org position with fourteen
Speaker 1: thousand signatures demanding that the Nike Airmax two seventy shoe
Speaker 1: change the logo because it's it's looks like it's supposed
Speaker 1: to be kind of a stylized Airmax, but it looks
Speaker 1: somewhat and I actually know enough Arabic script to know this,
Speaker 1: it looks vaguely like Allah. It's not in Arabic script,
Speaker 1: mind you, but the way they've stylized our script, it
Speaker 1: looks kind of I mean, not much, but kind of
Speaker 1: like it could possibly be Allah to some eyes. And
Speaker 1: they expect Nike to change this because to write the
Speaker 1: name Allah on the bottom of a shoe, which in
Speaker 1: the Muslim world the bottom of the shoe, is considered
Speaker 1: a grave insult. This is why when that Iraqi, who
Speaker 1: by the way, is a member of parliament, now, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: when that Iraqi threw his shoe at George W. Bush
Speaker 1: back in two thousand and seven or eight, I think
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, it was a grave insult in
Speaker 1: the Iraqi culture. You know, if you show someone the
Speaker 1: bottom of your shoe, that's essentially our equivalent of showing
Speaker 1: them only a single finger in the middle of your hand.
Speaker 1: But you know, this is where I think that Nike is.
Speaker 1: You know, it might it might end up having to
Speaker 1: change its spoke person said, Nike respects all religions. We
Speaker 1: take the concerns seriously. The Airmax logo was designed to
Speaker 1: be a stylized representation of Nike's Airmax trademark. It is
Speaker 1: intended to reflect the Airmax brand only. Any perceived meaning
Speaker 1: otherwise is unintentional. You know they don't mean allah. But
Speaker 1: what's even more interesting is notice how there's this tendency
Speaker 1: and it's common in Islam to force nonbelievers to bend
Speaker 1: to the unreasonable expectations of many in the Islamic faith,
Speaker 1: as in, we have to use the language that they demand.
Speaker 1: We can't have depictions of Muhammad and cartoons or on
Speaker 1: South Park, even if it's in a bear costume. It's
Speaker 1: the only religious faith in the world where if you
Speaker 1: do that, not only will they sign petitions, but there
Speaker 1: are threats of violence. We haven't been talking much about
Speaker 1: radical Islam in a while, but here's an early prediction
Speaker 1: that I can assure you we will have to revisit.
Speaker 1: Radical Islam is still very much with us around the
Speaker 1: globe and is going to surge once again as a
Speaker 1: major problem for us. It is just a question of
Speaker 1: when roll calls up next, team Buck, It's time for
Speaker 1: roll call. Okay, roll call, Let's take it from the
Speaker 1: friend zone to the end zone. Because I I I
Speaker 1: it's game time something like that. I think that's how
Speaker 1: the lyrics go. I'm wondering I didn't. Let's let's see
Speaker 1: how many of you caught the references from yesterday. All right,
Speaker 1: Let's see as we get into our roll call, Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com, slash Buck sex and if you want in
Speaker 1: on this action, which is always fun for those of
Speaker 1: you who get into like yes, Buck, I will you
Speaker 1: really read my stuff on the air, We will people
Speaker 1: across the nation here my words from your lips. Indeed,
Speaker 1: Facebook dot Com, Slashbuck saxon. All right, Jennifer writes Buck.
Speaker 1: Not sure if you've seen the hashtag where's Ruth on Twitter?
Speaker 1: But people are starting to wonder where RBG is and
Speaker 1: whether her health condition is in fact more serious than
Speaker 1: thus far reported. It has been sometimes since she was
Speaker 1: seen in public, and rumors are running wild. All her
Speaker 1: upcoming engagements are canceled. What are your thoughts? Of course,
Speaker 1: we wish only good health to Justice Ginsburg. But the
Speaker 1: silence on her condition is concerning. We know she's absent
Speaker 1: from oral arguments. Is she participating in court matters? Are
Speaker 1: her clerks filling her role? Why is no one reporting
Speaker 1: on this shield? Hie jen Jen. I think that there.
Speaker 1: I saw some reporting yesterday from some reporters I know
Speaker 1: here in DC, at least one that I know of
Speaker 1: in DC, saying that she's been seen working out with
Speaker 1: a trainer. And I'm being serious about that. That was
Speaker 1: the report that I saw in DC. So I think
Speaker 1: she's okay and in recovery. I don't think that there's
Speaker 1: any imminent health concern for Ruth Vader Ginsburg. And as
Speaker 1: as moral and decent conservatives and human beings, we always
Speaker 1: wish any of our fellow Americans, or anyone for that matter,
Speaker 1: the best when it comes to their health. David right hey,
Speaker 1: buck back after a small sabbatical. Good luck with the beard,
Speaker 1: and you should check out a Ripper Street on Netflix.
Speaker 1: Check you later, David, doc ripper Street, Huh? Is that
Speaker 1: like a Jack the Ripper thing. I'm enjoying Peaky Blinders
Speaker 1: so much. I'm in the last few episodes, and you
Speaker 1: know it's a great show when you have this concern
Speaker 1: about what are you going to do when the show
Speaker 1: ends because you think the show is so fantastic. That's
Speaker 1: kind of where I am with Peaky Blinders. I'm just like, oh,
Speaker 1: I want to keep watching, but I want to save it.
Speaker 1: You know. It's like that last slice of pizza, Like
Speaker 1: I want to save it for tomorrow, but I want
Speaker 1: to have it now because it's delicious. So indeed, was
Speaker 1: that that? Probably I got a little close. Sometimes it
Speaker 1: look close to the mic, and if I hear it
Speaker 1: back later, sounds a little creepy. So I should probably
Speaker 1: not do that. Try to get a little effect, a
Speaker 1: little theatricality here in the Freedom Hunt for your edification
Speaker 1: and entertainment, well really just for your entertainment, Caroline hey Buck.
Speaker 1: There's an important story out there receiving very little attention,
Speaker 1: the Mexican gas crisis. Apparently, Mexican gangs have been siphoning
Speaker 1: gasolin off the pipelines, and the government has shut the
Speaker 1: pipelines down. The only way gas can be transported now
Speaker 1: is by truck, which is way more inefficient and inexpensive.
Speaker 1: The lines are huge. People are running out and can't
Speaker 1: get to work. And their economy is being crushed. What
Speaker 1: will this mean for the immigration crisis in the Wall.
Speaker 1: I'd love to hear your take on this. Shields High.
Speaker 1: You know this is thank you so much for bringing
Speaker 1: this to my attention. I am not aware of this,
Speaker 1: although I know it is it is happening as I
Speaker 1: do a quick Google search looking up what you're talking about. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that there's a fuel crisis in Mexico. I didn't know
Speaker 1: about this. This is really interesting though, because in countries
Speaker 1: where there is a natural resource wealth and there is
Speaker 1: an active either organized, very active organized crime element, or
Speaker 1: even an insurgency, it's a very bad sign for the
Speaker 1: stability of that country. When the criminal group, whether it's
Speaker 1: an insurgent or terrorist group or a just a organized
Speaker 1: crime cartel like organization, when they go after state resources,
Speaker 1: you got a big problem. You know. It's one thing
Speaker 1: when they want to run their illicit their illicit schemes, right,
Speaker 1: they want to do drug running, gun running, prostitution, human trafficking,
Speaker 1: all those things. Those aren't businesses, or at least they're
Speaker 1: not supposed to be businesses that the state is in.
Speaker 1: But when they're going after the lifeblood economically of the
Speaker 1: state itself. That's very concerning. It's it's the truth. In Nigeria,
Speaker 1: there was a hole. There was a whole movement and
Speaker 1: actually called the Movement for the Emancipation of the Niger
Speaker 1: Delta or the it's essentially an insurgency movement in the
Speaker 1: Delta region of the Niger River in Nigeria that wants
Speaker 1: a greater share of the oil wealth because the very
Speaker 1: impoverished area and the money just goes to the federal
Speaker 1: government and there's tremendous corruption there, but they go right
Speaker 1: for the oil wealth. And they also will engage in
Speaker 1: oil bunkering where they will try to get access to
Speaker 1: the oil through pipelines and there's actually there are actually
Speaker 1: some photos of people doing this and once in a
Speaker 1: while somebody makes the very unwise decision when they're whacking
Speaker 1: at an oil pipeline with hammers with buckets out to
Speaker 1: engage in this oil bunkering. And this is if you
Speaker 1: look this up online, you'll see it. In Nigeria. I
Speaker 1: think in one instance that they lost it was in
Speaker 1: the three digits. I can't remember if it was one
Speaker 1: hundred or three hundred, but I mean people just immolated
Speaker 1: in a Nigerian oil ball of fire, and it's because
Speaker 1: they had their buckets out at the pipeline smoking a cigarette,
Speaker 1: very very unwise for everybody in the vicinity of that pipeline.
Speaker 1: So I will this is a great heads up. And
Speaker 1: by the way, all of you should always feel like
Speaker 1: if you don't hear me talk about a story, you know,
Speaker 1: I appreciate it when you send me the biggest headline
Speaker 1: on Fox News for the day, just because I love
Speaker 1: the team spirit and the team effort. But I've usually
Speaker 1: got that covered just by way of making sure we're
Speaker 1: all using our time in the best possible manner. But
Speaker 1: if you know of a story that I haven't hit
Speaker 1: that you think is something the rest of the team
Speaker 1: should here, send it to my Facebook inbox. And we're
Speaker 1: in that inbox every day looking at pitches and stories
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. So don't be shy
Speaker 1: about that. And if I don't get to it, don't
Speaker 1: don't think that I'm not reading it. I just we
Speaker 1: got a lot of things to get to hear of
Speaker 1: the course of the show. Okay, obvious say that story
Speaker 1: really interested me. So I went on a bit of
Speaker 1: a bit of a tangent there. Oh, I want to
Speaker 1: make sure that I give you to give you the
Speaker 1: proper facts. Oil bunkering in Nigeria has killed as many
Speaker 1: in one incident in a pipeline explosion as seven hundred people.
Speaker 1: I thought it was three hundred people. This was a
Speaker 1: nineteen ninety eight. A fireball shot up one hundred feet
Speaker 1: into the sky and seven hundred people were incinerated. Wow,
Speaker 1: I thought three hundred was maybe I was, I was
Speaker 1: gonna high Nope, it was seven hundred. I spent some
Speaker 1: time in Sub Saharan Africa. I never get to talk
Speaker 1: about it on the show. Maybe one day I'll be
Speaker 1: able to talk about on the show. I probably have
Speaker 1: to check in on some things first. Sub Saharan Africa
Speaker 1: is a, depending on where you are, very beautiful place
Speaker 1: or a very dangerous and depressing place. Okay. Next up
Speaker 1: here in the Facebook box, David right Shield's High Buck
Speaker 1: podcast listener on Kamala Harris's history of wanting to prosecute
Speaker 1: parents if their kids don't show up to school. We
Speaker 1: know what that was really about. If a kid doesn't
Speaker 1: show up, the school gets no money for that kid
Speaker 1: that day. Money for the school means money for the union.
Speaker 1: Which goes to Democrat campaigns, and yes, it was intended
Speaker 1: as a stepping stone to criminalizing homeschooling for exactly the
Speaker 1: same reasons. Well, David, I definitely know that the state
Speaker 1: is very in general, especially the more statist states, the
Speaker 1: very blue states, are opposed to and will do whatever
Speaker 1: they can to knock down homeschooling. Okay, so start with
Speaker 1: that they don't like it for exactly what you said. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: you only have to look at the numbers for the
Speaker 1: public school system in this country and you get a
Speaker 1: very clear sense of just what's important in the Department
Speaker 1: of Education, and it is pensions, health benefits, and the
Speaker 1: hiring of non teaching bureaus. That's what really moves the
Speaker 1: needle for the public school teach. The public school staff,
Speaker 1: I should say, in this country they have hired a
Speaker 1: massive increase of administrators. Some do important things, a lot
Speaker 1: of them don't. A lot of them are just pushing
Speaker 1: paper around for the local school district or for the
Speaker 1: superintendence office or whatever. A lot of you know, English
Speaker 1: as a second language teachers and tutors that have to
Speaker 1: come in. We all know what that's about. So this
Speaker 1: is where you really the rubber really meets the road
Speaker 1: for the teachers unions with funding, that's what they really
Speaker 1: care about. And so your point about people not wanting
Speaker 1: or rather Kamala Harris not wanting people to hold their
Speaker 1: children back from school because they don't get paid for
Speaker 1: that day. I don't know if that is true, but
Speaker 1: if that is accurate, then your theory is certainly very
Speaker 1: interesting and I'd want to dig into that some more.
Speaker 1: But yes, the teachers unions represent adults. They don't really
Speaker 1: represent kids. And I know people get very mad when
Speaker 1: I say that, but you know, it's never really about
Speaker 1: how to fix things for the kids. It's always shorter
Speaker 1: working hours, smaller class eyes, more money, more benefits. That
Speaker 1: they'll say that that's also they can do a better
Speaker 1: job of teaching. But that's a pretty self serving explanation
Speaker 1: for everything that the teachers Union is pushing for. And
Speaker 1: que angry emails from members of the teachers Union into
Speaker 1: my inbox. All right, Leah, listeners may want to switch
Speaker 1: to cast box pods. Casts on cast box they are working,
Speaker 1: all available in playing Leah. I hadn't. I don't even
Speaker 1: never I've never even heard of cast box pods, So
Speaker 1: thank you for the heads up on that. You've taught
Speaker 1: me something new today and we'll have to check it out.
Speaker 1: Robert writes, second Day Without a Buck, Sex and Show
Speaker 1: on Stitcher, what's up? Oh my gosh, come on, really, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: I got to write an angry email to someone who
Speaker 1: do I write the angry email to you? Man. We've
Speaker 1: got to get the podcast has to be up every day.
Speaker 1: I know it's not on you, Mike, it's that it's
Speaker 1: the tech side of this. But you know, we do
Speaker 1: this incredible show. We got to be able to get
Speaker 1: the hundreds and thousands of people, hundreds of thousands people
Speaker 1: that are listening, to be able to listen. Darn it
Speaker 1: all right. That frustrates me. John writes all that jabbering
Speaker 1: about the Punisher was pure torture, and if you can't
Speaker 1: grow a beard without asking other guys for advice, you
Speaker 1: should just shave and shut up. John. You see them
Speaker 1: a little grumpy, my friend. I think that you would
Speaker 1: be better off not listening to this show. There are
Speaker 1: so many other shows for somebody of your temperament and
Speaker 1: obvious intellectual ability. Go listen to one of those shows.
Speaker 1: Then that's fine. Good luck finding somebody more well versed
Speaker 1: in the issues that we talk about it and go
Speaker 1: listen to that show. You'll be looking for a very
Speaker 1: long time. But I wish you all the best, and
Speaker 1: the profanity was unnecessary. Michael. I have the cure for
Speaker 1: global warming. Make it illegal for Democrats to exhale carbon dioxide.
Speaker 1: They can inhale all they want, but not exhale. Hm.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure that that policy will work in action, Michael,
Speaker 1: but I like where your heads at all right, I
Speaker 1: will hold on a second, Alex. One more here, Buck,
Speaker 1: Thanks again for your fantastic show. I have a question,
Speaker 1: where are the inspectors general? They just seem to be missing.
Speaker 1: Would you take some time to explain their function, how
Speaker 1: they're chosen, what they oversee, how many there are and
Speaker 1: how long a typical or atypical for that matter, investigation
Speaker 1: has taken historically. How many different active investigations are ongoing,
Speaker 1: so what do we know from them so far? I
Speaker 1: have so many questions. Shouldn't require a deep dive, maybe
Speaker 1: just a well executed racing dive in shallow waters. Thank
Speaker 1: you and shields high, Alex. Alex, great questions, but it
Speaker 1: is the very end of the show. So I'm saved
Speaker 1: by the bell on this one. I will try to
Speaker 1: address these at a later date and I can certainly
Speaker 1: write you back and answer here on Facebook. That's it
Speaker 1: for the show today, everybody, thank you for listening. Please
Speaker 1: tell your friends, make sure you subscribe to the podcast
Speaker 1: on iTunes or wherever you listen to podcast hill Tie.
Speaker 1: If you're in a relationship. There are a couple of
Speaker 1: important dates that require roses. You know what they are?
Speaker 1: Birthday's anniversaries. Oh, that's right, Valentine's Day, which is just
Speaker 1: coming up around the corner. So when you're looking for
Speaker 1: the biggest and best quality roses out there, check out
Speaker 1: my friends at one eight hundred flowers dot com Ruanda.
Speaker 1: You can get eighteen red roses for twenty nine ninety nine,
Speaker 1: or you upgrade to twenty four red roses for only
Speaker 1: ten dollars more. This is an unbelievable offer from one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers eighteen red roses for twenty nine ninety
Speaker 1: nine or upgrade to twenty four red roses only ten
Speaker 1: bucks more. So, this is gonna be a situation you
Speaker 1: need to jump and get on this now because bouquet
Speaker 1: prices are going to be going up soon. Take advantage
Speaker 1: today when it comes to live special occasions, it don't
Speaker 1: settle for anything less than my authority for roses one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers dot com To order eighteen red roses
Speaker 1: for twenty nine nine to nine, or upgrade at twenty
Speaker 1: four red roses for ten dollars more. Go to one
Speaker 1: eight hundred flowers dot com. Click the radio icon, enter
Speaker 1: promo code buck Again. That's one eight hundred flowers dot com.
Speaker 1: Click the radio icon promo code buck. Hurry offer ends
Speaker 1: today