Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The increasingly insane hashtag
Speaker 1: resistance thinks that they can make comparisons between Ivanka's email
Speaker 1: and Hillary's email debacle will destroy that lie and also
Speaker 1: look at how one judge from that's right. The Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuit thinks that he can overrule the executive branch. And
Speaker 1: what's going on with the caravan in Tipuana Namore coming
Speaker 1: up on the buck Sexton Show. 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: you're a great American again. The buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst,
Speaker 1: remember no, Welcome to the buck Sex and show. Everybody
Speaker 1: great to have you with me. Thanksgiving week is upon us. Man,
Speaker 1: I can taste the turkey right now. I can almost
Speaker 1: just imagine that gravy, just getting some of it, almost
Speaker 1: shirt because I love that gravy so much. The gravy
Speaker 1: is very important. By the way, do not skimp on
Speaker 1: the gravy. Make sure that you really bring your a game,
Speaker 1: because you could have a great bird. You pour a
Speaker 1: week sauce on a great bird doesn't really matter anymore.
Speaker 1: Now now you got a mediocre bird. You don't want that. Now.
Speaker 1: We've got some important issues to get into today, including
Speaker 1: what's going on with this caravan and Tijuana. In fighting
Speaker 1: in the Democrat side of things, that's always fun. Look
Speaker 1: at what the Democrats are doing to fight with each other.
Speaker 1: Trump finally released a statement on Kashogi, this Saudy dissident
Speaker 1: who was a US permanent resident got brutally murdered, and
Speaker 1: a consulate and the Saudi consulate in Turkey, and it's down.
Speaker 1: We've got some updates on that for you and all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. But I mean, there's just one
Speaker 1: story that I wanted to dive into today with all
Speaker 1: of you that is really a reminder of what we
Speaker 1: need to expect going forward, and that is that Ivanka
Speaker 1: Trump has come into the attention, the negative attention of
Speaker 1: the media for the first time in a while. They
Speaker 1: usually stay away. You know, Ivanka doesn't really get involved
Speaker 1: in the more contentious, at least publicly, the more contentious
Speaker 1: political issues, but she used a personal email account to
Speaker 1: send hundreds of emails about government business and in the
Speaker 1: first year in office, and what you can imagine what
Speaker 1: immediately happens here is the left goes into full on
Speaker 1: freak out mode about how all see look at all
Speaker 1: the hypocrisy with the Hillary's emails. That was a big deal,
Speaker 1: but this isn't a big deal with my friends, this
Speaker 1: is pathetic. Okay, let me give you the details of
Speaker 1: this so far, and I have to because unfortunately, this
Speaker 1: is what we're going to be doing. We need to
Speaker 1: get used to this. This is trench warfare, and that
Speaker 1: means we're going to be playing a lot of political
Speaker 1: defense the next two years. There's no way around it.
Speaker 1: I wish that I could come in here and we
Speaker 1: could talk. We could talk more about policy that could
Speaker 1: be enacted. I mean, we'll still talk policy, but I
Speaker 1: mean policy that might actually get done and what the
Speaker 1: best way is for the government to do it. Instead,
Speaker 1: what we're gonna end up talking about is this and
Speaker 1: that completely bullcrap investigation of this administration figure, that administration
Speaker 1: figure Trump's finances, what Trump had for breakfast five years
Speaker 1: ago on the third Tuesday of the month. That's the
Speaker 1: kind of stuff the Democrats are going to spend all
Speaker 1: their time on, and they're just gonna saturate the airwaves
Speaker 1: with this stuff. I mean, this is the kind of thing.
Speaker 1: Where'll you'll see people who they don't care. I mean,
Speaker 1: they will be gleeful even when some of these some
Speaker 1: of these theories that they have and some of the
Speaker 1: stuff does not pan out, because it's all about just
Speaker 1: throwing more stuff at the other side. That it's based
Speaker 1: on lies or that there's no evidence behind it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter because it forces us to do what we're gonna
Speaker 1: have to do right now from home, which is just
Speaker 1: to play defense. Here's here's there's the story from the
Speaker 1: Washington Post today. Ivanka Trump sent hundreds of emails last
Speaker 1: year to White House aids, cabin officials, and her assistants
Speaker 1: using a personal account, many of them in violation of
Speaker 1: federal records rules, according to people familiar with a White
Speaker 1: House examination of her correspondence. White House ethics officials learned
Speaker 1: of Trump's repeated use of a personal email while reviewing
Speaker 1: emails gathered last fall by five cabint agencies to respond
Speaker 1: to a public records lawsuit. That review revealed that throughout
Speaker 1: much of twenty seventeen, she often discussed or relate official
Speaker 1: White House business using a private email account with a
Speaker 1: domain that she shares with her husband, Jared Kushner. The
Speaker 1: discovery alarms some advisors or President Trump, who feared that
Speaker 1: his daughter's practices bore similarities to the personal use email
Speaker 1: use of Hillary Clinton, an issue he made a focus
Speaker 1: of her twenty sixteen campaign. Uh, folks, folks, come on,
Speaker 1: this is pathetic. All right, this is this is a joke.
Speaker 1: This was during primarily during the transition. She was sending
Speaker 1: emails about logistics and scheduling. You know, hey, guys, do
Speaker 1: we have this meeting later today? Okay, So let's just
Speaker 1: knock down some of the because what they're saying is, oh,
Speaker 1: it's like Hillary, and people are calling for an investigation.
Speaker 1: They're got to investigate this. The House has already said.
Speaker 1: You have Democrat members of the House saying that they're
Speaker 1: going to be looking into this, like this is an
Speaker 1: issue that we need to care about. I mean, these
Speaker 1: people are delusional, they are nuts. But that's what's that's
Speaker 1: what's happening here. The big problem with Hillary's emails. Let's
Speaker 1: just take a quick, a quick trip down memory lane
Speaker 1: with Hillary. All right, The big problem was that there
Speaker 1: was classified information in her private email server and in
Speaker 1: exchanging over unclassified unclassified service. It means it's very easy
Speaker 1: for especially a foreign intelligence adversary, to get access to
Speaker 1: that very very sensitive national security information. Every instance of
Speaker 1: that classified being sent, received, you know, transmitted, held on
Speaker 1: an unsecure server is in fact a crime. Now the
Speaker 1: statute does not get into intent, but you know people
Speaker 1: interpreted it, people being Democrats who are at the top
Speaker 1: of the DOJ. But you know, people determined that they
Speaker 1: would not prosecutor for. But that's a very serious issue.
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton having not just one over a hundred confirmed
Speaker 1: classified classified emails in that server, including Special Access program information,
Speaker 1: which is very very sensitive stuff, is reckless beyond words,
Speaker 1: and even Coomy, even sank To Coomy, said that it
Speaker 1: was extremely careless. There's no question what she did was egregious,
Speaker 1: was reckless, was wrong, and was criminal. Okay, classified versus
Speaker 1: unclassified is a huge distinction here. There is absolutely nothing
Speaker 1: to suggest that anything in Ivanka's private emails was classified. Now,
Speaker 1: you could say to me, whoa buck, We don't know
Speaker 1: unless we investigate, I say, okay. But you could also
Speaker 1: say that about everything everyone's email. Do you have classified email?
Speaker 1: I don't know, we don't know. Maybe we should, maybe
Speaker 1: we should look at it, Maybe we should supped to
Speaker 1: your email, right. I mean they could do this to
Speaker 1: any any public figure, anyone who's ever had a security clearance.
Speaker 1: They could just say, well, we won't know unless we check,
Speaker 1: and they just start pulling, pulling their information, pulling their data.
Speaker 1: So on the most important level is classified. Hillary had it,
Speaker 1: Ivanka doesn't. That puts this in a completely different category
Speaker 1: of discussion. Okay, And then you add in the other stuff.
Speaker 1: Ivanka didn't have a private server set up in her basement.
Speaker 1: She used in email a private email domain for routine
Speaker 1: logisticals in business. And by the way, it's completely legal
Speaker 1: for her to do that. The only requirement under record
Speaker 1: keeping laws is that she would forward those emails to
Speaker 1: her government address so that they are part of record keeping. Okay, fine,
Speaker 1: When you look at what has happened here, she hasn't
Speaker 1: deleted any emails, unlike Hillary who deleted over you know,
Speaker 1: there was one over thirty thousand deleted. She wasn't deleting them.
Speaker 1: They're all in the server still. So all the records
Speaker 1: have been kept, nothing has been hidden, nothing has been
Speaker 1: No one's used hammers on hard drives as they did
Speaker 1: with Hillary. No one has used bleach bit to try
Speaker 1: to digitally wipe all remnants of any information from the server,
Speaker 1: as they did with Hillary, and no one was running
Speaker 1: for president, or rather, Ivanka wasn't running for president running
Speaker 1: around lying about the use of her server as Hillary did.
Speaker 1: So those are just off the top of my head,
Speaker 1: the ways that these are very different. But this is
Speaker 1: what the left does, right. This is this is a
Speaker 1: version of guy number one is a mass murderer, I
Speaker 1: jaywalked earlier today. We are technically both criminals, that is true,
Speaker 1: Buck and mass murderer, both technically lawbreakers. One of them
Speaker 1: is a jaywalker, one of them is. And I jaywalked
Speaker 1: like a madman. I mean I jaywalker. I'm in New York.
Speaker 1: I make a science of it. I make an art
Speaker 1: form of my jaywalking. So, you know, yes, technically true,
Speaker 1: but dishonest on the merits and claiming that there's any
Speaker 1: similarity between Ivanka's email situation and Hillary Clinton's as I mean,
Speaker 1: this was like front page News today. I mean, this
Speaker 1: was a big all Morning Long and MSNBC, CNN, They're
Speaker 1: all running these big stories about it. This is this
Speaker 1: is an instance of they are they are creating a
Speaker 1: narrative and they're chasing it, and now they're going to
Speaker 1: try it. They will use the media stories that are
Speaker 1: out there to try to claim but there's greater interest
Speaker 1: in an official congressional investigation of Ivanka's emails. What they
Speaker 1: really want is just to turn the heat up on Trump,
Speaker 1: to go after Ivanka and Jared, get them under oath,
Speaker 1: get them in public hearings. That's coming, And that's why
Speaker 1: I'm what I'm why I'm talking about this is, yes,
Speaker 1: wanted to smash the lives from the left, but this
Speaker 1: is showing you their hand very early. The media is
Speaker 1: going to create the narrative and then Congress is going
Speaker 1: to act on it. The Democrat majority House is going
Speaker 1: to act on it with subpoenas and with hearings on
Speaker 1: just endless amounts of nonsense. And so you can already
Speaker 1: start to see this playing out a little bit. And
Speaker 1: they're gonna love the idea, absolutely love the idea of
Speaker 1: getting Trump family members, Donald Trump, Junior, Ivanka, Jared Kushner,
Speaker 1: Trump confidants, you know, Kelly and Conway, put them under
Speaker 1: oath as often as they can. See if they can
Speaker 1: embarrass them, see if they can get them in a
Speaker 1: perjury trap. Just whatever that they can do. It will
Speaker 1: be a campaign of endless harassment against Trump and all
Speaker 1: the people around Trump. And that's unfort you know, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: and enough Americans that believe the Democrat bullcrap to give
Speaker 1: them control of the House. And now this is what
Speaker 1: we're heading for. People say, oh, well, now there'll be
Speaker 1: an ability in government. It's not gonna be any accountability.
Speaker 1: There certainly won't be any accountability for the clowns. They're
Speaker 1: gonna waste taxpayer time and dollars on what will be
Speaker 1: witch hunt investigation after witch hunt investigation that are just
Speaker 1: meant to be the equivalent of MSNBC style anti Trump
Speaker 1: monologues given from the floor of Congress, Ivanka's emails, just
Speaker 1: like Hillary's emails. That's a live but they'll keep going
Speaker 1: with this. This is also why whenever these people want
Speaker 1: to lecture me or you on Trump's decorum or you know,
Speaker 1: maintaining decency in our politics, I'd say these people play dirtier, nastier,
Speaker 1: and more dishonest than anybody else could ever imagine. So
Speaker 1: I don't really need to hear it from the Schumer Pelosi,
Speaker 1: Maxine Waters axis about how we should all be acting
Speaker 1: and how Trump is so beyond the pale, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's so discrediting the way that he tweets and all
Speaker 1: this stuff. This is what we're heading for. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm going to try to find ways for us to
Speaker 1: focus in on what really matters on the policy debates
Speaker 1: and discussions. But Democrats are just going to They're just
Speaker 1: going to turn this into as much of a food
Speaker 1: fight as they can. And they don't care how, they
Speaker 1: don't care how dirty they get, because they're already filthy.
Speaker 1: Ivanka's emails are nothing like hillaries, and nothing about Ivanka
Speaker 1: is anything like Hillary. So there's that at least about
Speaker 1: their situations. Eight four four two five eight four four
Speaker 1: nine hundred buck. We will be right back team. I'm
Speaker 1: thrilled to announce my support for this bipartisan bill that
Speaker 1: will make our community safer and give former inmates a
Speaker 1: second chance at life after they have served their time.
Speaker 1: So important, and we're all better off when former inmates
Speaker 1: can receive and re enter society is law abiding, productive citizens,
Speaker 1: and thanks to our booming economy, they now have a
Speaker 1: chance at more opportunities than they've ever had before. This
Speaker 1: is true, our economy is so strong that when people
Speaker 1: are getting out of jail, they're actually able to find jobs.
Speaker 1: That's President Trump talking about this, this First Step Act
Speaker 1: and this effort at this bipartisan effort at criminal justice reform.
Speaker 1: Jared Cushner's very involved in Avengeance. I hire this just
Speaker 1: because one it's an example of how conservatives and the
Speaker 1: right get it basically no credit from the other side
Speaker 1: when they do things that everyone kind of agrees or
Speaker 1: at least well intentioned. You you may disagree with this
Speaker 1: criminal reform bill, by the way, I know some conservatives
Speaker 1: who do, but at least it is well intentioned. You
Speaker 1: want to give people a second chance. You want to
Speaker 1: be fair to them, people that you know, serve time
Speaker 1: that are incarcerated or not non people because they made
Speaker 1: a mistake, because you know, they've they've had a difficulty
Speaker 1: making the right choice at different points in their lives.
Speaker 1: I mean, look within reason, right, I'm not talking about
Speaker 1: like mass murderers here. We're talking usually about people that
Speaker 1: got them involved in drugs. I mean, drugs is the
Speaker 1: prime you know, it is the prime mover in large
Speaker 1: scale incarceration in this country. And so the Trump is
Speaker 1: trying to do something here I mean, and they get
Speaker 1: so little credit. There's no good faith from the other
Speaker 1: side about what Trump will do or what he's willing
Speaker 1: to I think by the way Pelosi gave him a
Speaker 1: serious infrastructure package. I think he'd pushed Mitch McConnell, and
Speaker 1: I think he'd pushed the Republicans in the House as
Speaker 1: well as in the Senate to try to do something
Speaker 1: on it. I really do. But this is one of
Speaker 1: the very rare things. I know, it's we got the
Speaker 1: lame duck here, but this is one of the rare,
Speaker 1: rare moments where he might actually see some legislative movement
Speaker 1: before we get into just know, interractable political political warfare.
Speaker 1: And I also want to note that while we got
Speaker 1: the other side always posing like the people that are
Speaker 1: evidence based, and you know that the left Democrats, they
Speaker 1: they've really internalized this notion that they're the one, you know,
Speaker 1: Trump is the crazy one, and they're just trying to
Speaker 1: save the republic. Trump is the one that's disconnected from reality,
Speaker 1: and they're the ones that are kind of standing, you know,
Speaker 1: standing on the front lines of saving the republic or
Speaker 1: our democracy. They prefer that to republic whatever it is.
Speaker 1: I saw this. Yugov pulled it in from the Economist,
Speaker 1: and Yugov and I just I had to note this one.
Speaker 1: Sixty seven percent of Democrats believe it is definitely true
Speaker 1: or probably true that Russia tampered with vote tallies in
Speaker 1: order to get Donald Trump elected. Almost seven out of
Speaker 1: ten Democrats pretty much believe not that Russia and Trump colluded.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, that's a whole separate thing, that Russia
Speaker 1: actually changed votes so that Trump would win the twenty
Speaker 1: sixteen election. Not a single person, not a single publication,
Speaker 1: No one has provided one piece of evidence to support that.
Speaker 1: You could say, as the left loves to all the time,
Speaker 1: without evidence, this allegation is entirely without evidence. Sixty seven
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats think that Putin was able to get
Speaker 1: into air gapped voting machines and change. If Putin could
Speaker 1: do that, by the way, I mean you almost want
Speaker 1: to tip your hat to them. If the Russians are
Speaker 1: that skilled that nobody noticed. Boris oleg and Yuri like
Speaker 1: will judge the Volts. It will make the volta change.
Speaker 1: But this, this is why I tell you we are
Speaker 1: in a time of democratic mass delusion. They have convinced
Speaker 1: themselves their media is convinced about things that are just
Speaker 1: flatly untrue. They think that we're delusional, and I see that.
Speaker 1: I'm like, look, I don't like all the Trump's tweets.
Speaker 1: I don't like everything that Trump does and says. I
Speaker 1: don't agree with them all the time. And I know
Speaker 1: that there's some core stuff that he does and said,
Speaker 1: I just like his policies. I'm I'm not delusional about it. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I think he tells FIBs sometimes to mess with the
Speaker 1: media or because he feels like it, but it's not
Speaker 1: important and I don't really care. Democrats actually believe the crazy.
Speaker 1: They don't think that that it's, you know, the cost
Speaker 1: of doing business for their side. They believe things like
Speaker 1: Russia tampered with vote tallies. Strong majority of Democrats believe
Speaker 1: that according to this ball it's just nuts. Kaushogie. Trump's
Speaker 1: got a statement on it. Left's going to freak out
Speaker 1: about it. We got to get into that, so stay right,
Speaker 1: stay right there, team. I don't make deals with Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: I don't have money from Saudi Arabia. I have nothing
Speaker 1: to do with Saudi Arabia. I couldn't care less and
Speaker 1: I will tell you. It is. Most of you know.
Speaker 1: Being president has cost me a fortune, and that's okay
Speaker 1: with me. I knew that a long time ago. All
Speaker 1: I do is focus on this country and making great
Speaker 1: deals for this country. I don't focus on making great
Speaker 1: deals for myself because I don't care anymore. So Saudi
Speaker 1: Arabia has nothing to do with me. What does have
Speaker 1: to do with me is putting America first. Right now,
Speaker 1: we have oil prices in great shape. I'm not going
Speaker 1: to destroy the world economy and I'm not going to
Speaker 1: destroy the economy for our country by being foolish with
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabias. I think the statement was pretty obvious what
Speaker 1: I said, it's about America first. That's Trump in the
Speaker 1: midst of what is now a media frenzy to almost
Speaker 1: blame the president of the United States for the torture,
Speaker 1: murder and dismemberment of a Saudi dissident writer and kind
Speaker 1: of pundit for the Washington Post opinion calumnist, and it's
Speaker 1: it's really this is all a bash Trump operation now
Speaker 1: because there's nothing because I've been saying all along, there's
Speaker 1: nothing Trump can do that would that would placate critics
Speaker 1: on this issue. And the only things that he could
Speaker 1: do that would get close to play hitting them would
Speaker 1: be recklessly stupid for the president of the United States
Speaker 1: to do under the circumstances. I mean, would just be
Speaker 1: completely unacceptably stupid. You know, what are we really gonna do.
Speaker 1: We're gonna try to go to the Are we gonna
Speaker 1: rendition the leader of Saudi Arabia, the Crown Prince mom
Speaker 1: had been Salmon and take him to the Hague to
Speaker 1: stand trial. What under what authority are we going to
Speaker 1: punish him? We're gonna try to extradite the leader of
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia. You know, this isn't like the leader of
Speaker 1: Vanawatu or something. I mean, you know, they do have
Speaker 1: real resources, a real military, and a lot of people.
Speaker 1: So this is this is not going to be a simple,
Speaker 1: straightforward thing for us to even if we were that crazy,
Speaker 1: which we're not. I'm just saying this the thing when
Speaker 1: you talk about when you talk about the options here,
Speaker 1: none of the options that people want Trump to pursue
Speaker 1: are realistic. Okay, So he released a statement today from
Speaker 1: the White House. I'm gonna read, well, read most of
Speaker 1: it to you, because it'll go pretty quickly it's interally,
Speaker 1: he writes, the world is a very dangerous place exclamation point.
Speaker 1: The country of Iran, as an example, is responsible for
Speaker 1: a bloody proxy war against Saudi Arabia and Yemen, trying
Speaker 1: to destabilize Iraq's fragile attempt at democracy. Supporting the terror
Speaker 1: group has belong lemonon propping up dictator Bashar Assad in
Speaker 1: Syria who has killed millions of his own citizens, and
Speaker 1: much more likewise, the Iranians have killed many Americans and
Speaker 1: other innocent people throughout the Middle East. On the other hand,
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia would gladly withdraw from Yemen. If the Iranians
Speaker 1: would agree to leave, they would immediately provide humanitarian assistance.
Speaker 1: After my heavily negotiate a trip to Saudi Arabia last year,
Speaker 1: the Kingdom agreed to spend and invest four hundred and
Speaker 1: fifty billion dollars in the United States. This is a
Speaker 1: record amount of money. It will create hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of jobs in tremendous economic development. Of the four hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty billion, one hundred and ten billion will be
Speaker 1: spent on the purchase of military equipment from Boweing, Lockheed
Speaker 1: Raytheon and many other defense contractors. If we foolishly canceled
Speaker 1: these contracts, Russia and China would be the enormous beneficiaries,
Speaker 1: very happy to acquire all of this newfound business. It
Speaker 1: would be a gift from them to the United States.
Speaker 1: The crime against Jamal Kashogi was a terrible one and
Speaker 1: one that our country does not condone. Indeed, we have
Speaker 1: taken strong action against those already known to have participated
Speaker 1: in the murder. After great independent research, we now know
Speaker 1: many details of this horrible crime. We've already sanctioned seventeen
Speaker 1: Saudis known to have been involved in the murder of
Speaker 1: mister Kashogi and the disposal of his body. Representatives of
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia say that Kashogi was an enemy of the
Speaker 1: state and a member of the Muslim brotherhood. But my
Speaker 1: decision is in no way based on that. This is
Speaker 1: an unacceptable and horrible crime. King Salmon and Crown Prince
Speaker 1: Mohammad been Salmon vigorously deny any knowledge of the planning
Speaker 1: or execution. Our intelligence agencies continue to access all information.
Speaker 1: But it could very well be that Crown Prince had
Speaker 1: no knowledge of this tragic event. Maybe he did, Maybe
Speaker 1: he didn't. I understand their members of Congress who for
Speaker 1: political reasons or others want to go in a different
Speaker 1: direction for me. They're free to do so. I intend
Speaker 1: to ensure that in a very dangerous world, America is
Speaker 1: pursuing its national interests and vigorously contesting countries that we
Speaker 1: should do his harm. Very simply. It is called America first.
Speaker 1: So I skipped some parts of that. I'm want to
Speaker 1: go too much detail in the radio, but I mean
Speaker 1: that you get you get the gist for sure. That's
Speaker 1: most of it. So here's a Trump is saying, We've
Speaker 1: got important business with Saudi Arabia. We need Saudi Arabia
Speaker 1: as a counter terrorism partner, we need the saudiast to
Speaker 1: be a buffer against Iranian expansionism and extremism throughout the
Speaker 1: Middle East. And we aren't about to go after the
Speaker 1: leader of a country that we've been allied with for
Speaker 1: a long time without having definitive proof of this. And
Speaker 1: for all the people saying, oh, the Washington Post report
Speaker 1: that the intelligence agencies, okay, yeah, the intelligent agencies also
Speaker 1: thoughts of dominant weapons of mass destruction. Intelligence agency, These
Speaker 1: aren't law enforcement organizations. They don't deal with beyond a
Speaker 1: reasonable doubt. They deal with what we think what is
Speaker 1: our best assessment. So I'm not saying you can you
Speaker 1: disregard their assessment, but the best assessment isn't enough in
Speaker 1: this case. There's not enough certainty to outweigh US interests
Speaker 1: in Saudi Arabia and dealing with the King of Saudi Arabia.
Speaker 1: And you know, people are I understand a lot of
Speaker 1: you listening, probably yeah, buck. Of course journalists are in
Speaker 1: full freak out mode over this though, because oh the
Speaker 1: line is that Trump is soft on dictators, and Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't care and even Trump is personally making making money
Speaker 1: off of this somehow. I mean, this is crazy play
Speaker 1: clip fourteen. We're not going to give up hundreds of
Speaker 1: billions of dollars in orders and let Russia, China and
Speaker 1: everybody else have them. If you look at Iran, just
Speaker 1: take a look at Iran, and you look at what
Speaker 1: they're doing. They are a terrorist nation right now. Although
Speaker 1: I must tell you they're a better right now than
Speaker 1: they were when I took off. As when I took off,
Speaker 1: as they were heading in a very very bad direction,
Speaker 1: and at some point things very positive frankly could happen
Speaker 1: with Iran, but we also need a counterbalance and Israel
Speaker 1: needs help also. If we abandoned Saudi Arabia would be
Speaker 1: a terrible mistake. Presidents just saying it. We're not going
Speaker 1: to abandon the Saudiast. It's not in it. It's not
Speaker 1: in our interests to abandon the Saudiast. We've got big
Speaker 1: deals to do with them. We've got big strategic interests
Speaker 1: in the region. And you know what, what the terrible
Speaker 1: thing that happened to one guy is not enough to
Speaker 1: derail all us interests in this relationship. It's just it's
Speaker 1: just not are we really going to and by the way,
Speaker 1: really going to what? What do these journalists even want
Speaker 1: to happen? And I know you know this, this is
Speaker 1: from the beginning. This has been an opportunity and an
Speaker 1: opening for the media to bash Trump, to say that
Speaker 1: he's too cozy with dictators. Any we got more comments
Speaker 1: with me. Think you have to ask those people what
Speaker 1: their motivation is. I think of the seventeen it's mostly
Speaker 1: like fourteen men who are on that letter. If in
Speaker 1: fact there is any misogyny involved in it, it's their problem,
Speaker 1: not mine. My main concerned was that there is no vision,
Speaker 1: there is no common value, there is no goal that
Speaker 1: is really articulated in this letter aside from we need
Speaker 1: to change. And when you actually look at the signatories,
Speaker 1: it is not necessarily reflective of the diversity of the
Speaker 1: party we You know, after we have about sixteen signatories,
Speaker 1: fourteen of them are male. There are very few people
Speaker 1: of color in the caucus. There there's very few ideological diversity.
Speaker 1: It's not like there are progressives that are signing on.
Speaker 1: It's not like you have a broad based coalition. So
Speaker 1: I find you know, I don't. I'm not totally bought
Speaker 1: into the concept. So there you have the kind of
Speaker 1: two standard bearers within the Democratic Congress right now, or
Speaker 1: you know, the soon to be Democrat majority House of Representatives.
Speaker 1: You've got Nancy Pelosi and on the one end, who
Speaker 1: represents the ultimate establishment inside DC player I mean, Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi is the swamp personified. And then you've got Ocazio Cortez,
Speaker 1: who is the not especially well read but somewhat telegenic
Speaker 1: and charismatic progressive from Queens, who's the youngest I think
Speaker 1: we're the youngest member of Congress of all time, and
Speaker 1: who just just you know, just wants like free stuff,
Speaker 1: like for everyone, man, I mean, just go for it.
Speaker 1: So that that there's a lot of that going on
Speaker 1: now too, there's this sort of new progressive surge into
Speaker 1: the Congress. But here's what I think is gonna happen.
Speaker 1: They're all gonna fall in line beyond Pelosi. This talk
Speaker 1: of a Pelosi an anti Pelosi political insurgency when the
Speaker 1: Democrat it's just not going to happen because ultimately Democrats
Speaker 1: are very much unified on what matters to them, which
Speaker 1: is enlarging the government control of people's lives, spending the
Speaker 1: taxpayers money, and dictating as much of your life as
Speaker 1: they can. That's it' that's what they really want to do.
Speaker 1: Collectivism and statism. Those are the twin pillars of the
Speaker 1: modern Democratic Party. Sure, we can slice the onion a
Speaker 1: little thinner into identity politics, transgender rights, abortion on demand,
Speaker 1: I mean there's all there's all those things too, But
Speaker 1: at a at a macro thirty thousand foot philosophical level,
Speaker 1: Democrats are about collectivism and stateism, big powerful government and
Speaker 1: treat people like groups and have an elite, which would
Speaker 1: obviously be the Democrat Congress and the media. And others,
Speaker 1: an elite that determines what the collective good is and
Speaker 1: that must be pursued at the expense of individual rights
Speaker 1: and individual property and all the rest of it. Right,
Speaker 1: that's a summary view of what they're trying to do.
Speaker 1: They're trying to accomplish. You know, they always act like
Speaker 1: they've got this big tent in big differences. You mean,
Speaker 1: the big difference for the Democrats is do they go
Speaker 1: for free college or just college that like the taxpayers
Speaker 1: are totally paying for. I mean, you know, it's really
Speaker 1: all the same stuff from them. You really don't hear
Speaker 1: where's the area of great ideological friction within For the Democrats,
Speaker 1: it's always just a question of how quickly they can
Speaker 1: get to the same place, which is socialism. I mean
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party now, is this the American Socialist Party?
Speaker 1: They won't say that. It was really interesting, Actually, I
Speaker 1: had a a progressive activist on Rising and I said,
Speaker 1: do you think the Democrats are going to embrace because
Speaker 1: he's he's he had a Warren something like Warren Warren
Speaker 1: rocks pin on, like Elizabeth Warren is awesome. I know.
Speaker 1: So there's some people who still think Elizabeth Warren's going
Speaker 1: to run for something. And I said, do you think
Speaker 1: that they'll just embrace the terminology, never mind the idea.
Speaker 1: They've already embraced the ideology. But will they embrace the
Speaker 1: terminology of democratic socialism? Will the Dems go full Democrats
Speaker 1: socialist in twenty twenty? And he said, oh no, no, no,
Speaker 1: of course not. Why not? Bernie Sanders says it, Okazio
Speaker 1: Cortez says it. I mean, these are the leading, the
Speaker 1: leading figures in the Democratic Party now. I mean Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi doesn't say it quite yet. But you know, it's
Speaker 1: also hard for somebody who's worth fifty million dollars to
Speaker 1: act like she's really all that concerned with socialism, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, or rather, lots of rich people are conservant socialism,
Speaker 1: but they always end up falling into very hypocritical positions
Speaker 1: on that. Oh, like Bill de Blasio. By the way,
Speaker 1: that's a perfect transition. Here's what Bill Deblasio said recons
Speaker 1: and Billa Blasi. I remember he's a guy, hey, Billy
Speaker 1: de Blasio, also known as Warren Wilhelm, that was his name.
Speaker 1: He changed his name as an adult. But but de
Speaker 1: Blasio recently said the following, I just want to read
Speaker 1: this to you because this really goes to the center
Speaker 1: of the idiocy and insanity of the left that believes
Speaker 1: we're heading toward a progressive utopia in this country. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is this is what Bill Deblasio said. Quote. What's
Speaker 1: been hardest is the way our legal system is structured
Speaker 1: to favor private property. I think people all over this
Speaker 1: city of every background would like to have the city
Speaker 1: government be able to determine which building goes where, how
Speaker 1: high it will be, who gets to live in it,
Speaker 1: what the rent will be. I think there's a socialistic
Speaker 1: impulse which I hear every day in every kind of community,
Speaker 1: that they would like things to be planned in accordance
Speaker 1: with their need central planning. That's what he's talking about,
Speaker 1: and I would too. Unfortunately, what stands in the way
Speaker 1: of that is hundreds of years of history that have
Speaker 1: elevated property rights and wealth to the point that that's
Speaker 1: the reality that calls the tune on a lot of development.
Speaker 1: I'll give you an example. I was down one day
Speaker 1: on Varick Street close to Canal and there's a big
Speaker 1: sign in front of a condo saying unit start at
Speaker 1: two million dollars, and that just drives people stark, raving
Speaker 1: mad in this city because that kind of development is
Speaker 1: not for everyday people. It's almost like it's being flaunted. Look,
Speaker 1: if I had my druthers, the city government would determine
Speaker 1: every single plot of land how development would proceed, and
Speaker 1: there would be very stringent requirements around income levels and rents.
Speaker 1: That's a world I'd love to see. And I think,
Speaker 1: I think what we have in this city at least
Speaker 1: are people who would love to have the New Deal back.
Speaker 1: On one level, they'd love to have a very very
Speaker 1: powerful government, including a federal government that's directly involved in
Speaker 1: addressing their day to day reality, very reachable right now,
Speaker 1: and it leaves this friction and this anger. End quote. Now,
Speaker 1: I read that whole thing to you, because that's essentially
Speaker 1: Deblasio socialist manifesto. Here we have the mayor of the
Speaker 1: largest city in the United States saying that the local
Speaker 1: government should determine what gets built, what it looks like,
Speaker 1: how big it is, who gets to live there, what
Speaker 1: they pay. That's actually socialism. That's not even democratic socialism,
Speaker 1: that's just socialism. He's saying this openly. This guy was
Speaker 1: very tight with the Clintons by the way is a
Speaker 1: very connected figure. Some people still think one day he
Speaker 1: might run for president, But I mean his complete lack
Speaker 1: of charm and charismo is probably an issue that didn't
Speaker 1: that Barry Hillary tried it anyway. But he's going for
Speaker 1: straight up socialism here, he really is. And here's the
Speaker 1: really fun part about it. He's talking about how, oh
Speaker 1: they're flaunting these new condominium You know what build a
Speaker 1: Blasio's home is estimated to be worth in Brooklyn about
Speaker 1: two million dollars. So you got a guy who lives
Speaker 1: in a mansion paid for by the taxpayers, who owns
Speaker 1: privately a two million dollar home, who is going out
Speaker 1: there lecturing the people of New York City and the
Speaker 1: country as well in a sense on how government should
Speaker 1: be able to determine what is built, where it is built,
Speaker 1: who gets to live there, what they pay, what it costs,
Speaker 1: what the landlords can charge, and we're supposed to take
Speaker 1: him seriously. It is hard to tell if it is
Speaker 1: ignorance of economics or just pure cynicism and demagoguery that
Speaker 1: pushes this, but socialism is ascendant within the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: make no mistake about it. And whether they put a
Speaker 1: kind of traditional Democrat Pelosi face on it, or they
Speaker 1: let Acasio Quartz and this new crop of leftists run
Speaker 1: wild in the Congress. The Democratic Party is being overtaken
Speaker 1: by the socialist impulse. It is happening right now in
Speaker 1: this country. I am telling you, it is going on
Speaker 1: before our very eyes, and we need to fight against this.
Speaker 1: We need to push back, We need to win this argument.
Speaker 1: Speaking of arguments, the one over immigration is just going
Speaker 1: to get more and more tense because there's no legislation
Speaker 1: that's going to fix any of this now. So now
Speaker 1: it's just going to be a question of executive branch, courts, media,
Speaker 1: public opinion. There will be no immigration legislation anytime soon,
Speaker 1: and we've got big problems on the border that's coming up.
Speaker 1: You've probably heard me talk about snippy dot com in
Speaker 1: the past. Well, thousands of my listeners have joined snippy
Speaker 1: dot com and they're expressing their opinions and stirring up
Speaker 1: lively conversation. So if you've looked at snippy dot com
Speaker 1: in the past and left, you really need to look again.
Speaker 1: Snippy's an unbiased social media platform. It's all about conversation
Speaker 1: and community. It's going to be not only encourages freedom
Speaker 1: of expression, but guarantees its users the ability to discuss
Speaker 1: topics freely without suppression from administrators. You know, I just
Speaker 1: posted earlier today, I want to get some thoughts from
Speaker 1: folks on Thanksgiving, and I know that whatever I'm putting
Speaker 1: up on Snippy and whatever others are posting there, that's
Speaker 1: what they really want to say. There's no moderation from
Speaker 1: people that are administrators, none of that stuff. Snippy is
Speaker 1: a place where everyone can express their thoughts and share
Speaker 1: their opinions. It is totally free to join, folks, open
Speaker 1: to everyone, So join us at snippy dot com. Let
Speaker 1: your opinion matter, no shadow banning, no suppression of conservatism,
Speaker 1: and with an updated user interface and exciting new features.
Speaker 1: It's also available in the Apple App Store and available
Speaker 1: for Android. Snippy your new alternative social media. Should this
Speaker 1: caravan had been stopped at the Guatemala border, of course
Speaker 1: I agree with that one hundred percent. You should have
Speaker 1: to country, have it to be with all these people
Speaker 1: because they have people, they have bad people, because they
Speaker 1: don't belong here. They're just migrants. But he's like the
Speaker 1: same in the same case, is like when Mexican migrants
Speaker 1: going to the US. They're undocumented. You know of incidences
Speaker 1: here in Tijuana and in other cities that some of
Speaker 1: these people that are coming into these with these caravans
Speaker 1: are coming in crimes. This is not about racism. We
Speaker 1: don't dislike a certain group of people because they're from
Speaker 1: a country, one country or another. We are here because
Speaker 1: our government has not taken control of these what we
Speaker 1: call invasion. So the caravan has in part arrived in Tijuana.
Speaker 1: Let's not forget that. In the immediate aftermath of the election,
Speaker 1: we were being told that Trump was fearmongering over the caravan.
Speaker 1: They'd never get there. Oh, there are a thousand miles away.
Speaker 1: A thousand miles away. That was the big that was
Speaker 1: the big talking point. Oh now they're there. You mean
Speaker 1: buses and trains exist in Mexico. Oh what a shock.
Speaker 1: So here we are with people gathering at the boarder,
Speaker 1: caravan gathering at the border trying to you know, find
Speaker 1: a way to enter enter the United States en mass, right,
Speaker 1: in a huge group, and you have people who are
Speaker 1: protesting them in in a Tijuana saying that they don't
Speaker 1: they do not wanted here. They're using much of the
Speaker 1: same rhetoric that we have heard from conservatives in this country,
Speaker 1: and the Libs, you can tell, don't really know how
Speaker 1: to handle this because they're just so used to saying
Speaker 1: you're a racist, stop being racist, that they're not used
Speaker 1: to having to make an argument about this or to
Speaker 1: deal with the facts of the case as they are
Speaker 1: actually presented. So you know, that's what they're They're not
Speaker 1: dealing with that component of it. They don't know really
Speaker 1: what to say. Here's a Tijuana. I mean, we have
Speaker 1: some great audio here of these protesters in Tijuana. Can
Speaker 1: I say, I mean, didn't I say Tijuana. I'm just
Speaker 1: so saying it that way. I know it's Tijuana, but
Speaker 1: I want to say Tijuana. I want to Americanize it.
Speaker 1: But the protesters who are saying that explicitly, I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy's trans being translated for you by someone from
Speaker 1: the Spanish. But that Trump was right. Play clip two
Speaker 1: Donald Donald Trump. Well I know Donald Trump and I
Speaker 1: know Verdad, which is true or right? Uh So Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was right. This was an invasion. What Trump said
Speaker 1: was true. This is an invasion. So the Mexican people
Speaker 1: of Tijuana are not pleased, at least some of them.
Speaker 1: I know, people can say, oh no, well, let's think
Speaker 1: about this for a second. Folks, who would want a
Speaker 1: mass of thousands of people that need to be fed,
Speaker 1: need to be using you know, restroom facilities, need to
Speaker 1: be clean and need to be kept orderly and safe
Speaker 1: and all this other stuff. Would you want that just
Speaker 1: showing up in your neighborhood? Why would anyone want this?
Speaker 1: I mean, I live here in the swamp in DC.
Speaker 1: If a few thousand people descended upon, you know, my
Speaker 1: area of the swamp and we're living in the street,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't want that. Does that make me a bad person?
Speaker 1: Does that make me racist? I don't even care what
Speaker 1: race they are, right, I mean, I just I just
Speaker 1: wouldn't want anybody to be doing that. It's not safe,
Speaker 1: it's not sanitary, and it's not orderly. And you know,
Speaker 1: the human mind, especially when it comes to your neighborhood
Speaker 1: and where you live, the human mind tends to crave
Speaker 1: a certain degree of organization. It's one of the reasons
Speaker 1: why we form ourselves into states and have governments. But
Speaker 1: people are finally starting to look at this and say, well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, what does it mean if you
Speaker 1: know the Mexican people are allowed to be opposed to
Speaker 1: Honduran caravans coming into into some parts of Mexico. Are
Speaker 1: the American people allow take a similar position. I mean,
Speaker 1: here's the mayor of Tijuan. Again, this is gonna be
Speaker 1: in Spanish, but I've got the translation here for you.
Speaker 1: This is the mayor of of Tijuana. Play three. I mean,
Speaker 1: we're not shot avalanche and tsunami. You may have caught there.
Speaker 1: So this is the mayor of Tijuana, says in Spanish.
Speaker 1: No city in the world is in favor of of this,
Speaker 1: is prepared to deal with this. If I may it's
Speaker 1: an avalanche, it's a tsunami. Um or sorry, no city
Speaker 1: in the world is prepared to deal with this. It's
Speaker 1: an avalanche, it's a tsunami. Yeah, that's right. There are
Speaker 1: there are costs associated with dealing with this caravan. There,
Speaker 1: there's there are difficulties, there are hardships that people will
Speaker 1: have to endure because of this caravan, and and they
Speaker 1: don't have to want it. We are so used to
Speaker 1: being shut down down in this country on any discussion
Speaker 1: involving immigration, but we're just we're just beaten down with
Speaker 1: the rhetoric about how we're all racist, That's what it is.
Speaker 1: Anybody doesn't matter what your skin, colorage, doesn't matter ethnicity,
Speaker 1: if you don't want masses of illegal immigrants. And that's
Speaker 1: they keep saying, Oh, they're asylum seekers. The asylum seeking
Speaker 1: is the scam to get them in the country. You know,
Speaker 1: if if a thousand people were about to marry Americans
Speaker 1: from across the border that they had never met, Okay,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't sit here and allow people refer to them
Speaker 1: as green card holders. I would say they're engaged in
Speaker 1: marriage fraud, because that's what they are trying to do.
Speaker 1: These are overwhelmingly fraudulent claims of asylum that are and
Speaker 1: everybody knows it, and everybody knows it. And the caravan
Speaker 1: is a real problem. The caravan's a real issue. And
Speaker 1: you know, last week we had all was and Fox News,
Speaker 1: I mean all these other news outlets were trashing conservatives,
Speaker 1: trashing conservative media because they said that this was all
Speaker 1: jinned up just for the election. Meanwhile, now we're actually
Speaker 1: looking at the problem and what are the Democrats offer.
Speaker 1: If this caravan a two thousand can come in and
Speaker 1: do this, why can't others? If this caravan can get
Speaker 1: into the country. What about caravans from Brazil, from Venezuela,
Speaker 1: from Nicaragua under what, guys, can we stop anyone who
Speaker 1: has a very simple series of lines to deliver in
Speaker 1: the first lines of immigration enforcement, when they when they
Speaker 1: are essentially being processed by a border patrol and immigration
Speaker 1: and customs enforcement, and they say, I've got credible fear
Speaker 1: gangs want to hurt me, I'm fleeing violence. Anybody can
Speaker 1: say that. Anybody can say that. And then what you
Speaker 1: realize is, oh, hold on a second, you mean to
Speaker 1: tell me that, you mean to tell me that there's
Speaker 1: no way to stop these people from coming in to America,
Speaker 1: that that that seems like a problem for some folks.
Speaker 1: That seems like a scam. And Democrats are in on
Speaker 1: the scam. And this is what they do with the
Speaker 1: leagual immigration. Oh by the way, we got a guy,
Speaker 1: here's just another guy, a Mexican living in Tijuana, who
Speaker 1: is talking about this caravan. Here's what he says. Play four.
Speaker 1: I'm not really in favor of them coming the way
Speaker 1: they did. You know, to me, it feels like, um,
Speaker 1: they invaded and that was not the correct way. But
Speaker 1: I know all of them are not like that invaded.
Speaker 1: He says, Oh my gosh, so that Mexican is so
Speaker 1: racist against Hondurans. How could he? You know, I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean Mexicans being racist against Hondurans. I mean, at
Speaker 1: what point? At what point do we realize this is?
Speaker 1: This is just gone off into crazy town. But Democrats
Speaker 1: do not They do not have a solution on this.
Speaker 1: They do not have an answer on this. Their whole
Speaker 1: thing is just like with socialism, the biggest thing socialism
Speaker 1: has going forward is that it sounds good. The biggest
Speaker 1: problem is that it doesn't work. Apply that logics and
Speaker 1: Democrats immigration. The best thing about Democrats immigration is they
Speaker 1: sound like they're nice and caring. The problem is they
Speaker 1: don't care. They're not being nice, and they're creating problems
Speaker 1: for this country and for our rule of law and
Speaker 1: our sovereignty, and they know none of that even factors
Speaker 1: into their thinking at all. I find this, Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: we're gonna we're gonna continue to follow the story. I mean,
Speaker 1: I find this very troubling. I'm very annoyed by it,
Speaker 1: and I want more action from Republicans on this when
Speaker 1: they have to do a better job of making the case.
Speaker 1: Trump's the only one I see out there. Where are
Speaker 1: the rest of the Republicans. Why aren't they sound the
Speaker 1: alarm about this massive asylum scam. Well, you go to
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit and it's a disgrace. And I'm gonna
Speaker 1: put in a major complaint because you cannot win if
Speaker 1: you're us a case in the Ninth Circuit. And I
Speaker 1: think it's a disgrace when people file every case gets
Speaker 1: filed in the Ninth Circuit, because they know that's not law,
Speaker 1: that's not what this country stands for. Every case that
Speaker 1: gets filed in the Ninth Circuit, we get beaten and
Speaker 1: then we end up having to go to the Supreme Court,
Speaker 1: like the travel ban, and we won. This was an
Speaker 1: Obama judge. And I'll tell you what, It's not gonna
Speaker 1: happen like this anymore. Everybody that wants to sue the
Speaker 1: United States, they file their case in almost they file
Speaker 1: their case in the Ninth Circuit. And it means in
Speaker 1: automatic laws, no matter what you do, no matter how
Speaker 1: good your case is, And the Ninth Circuit is really
Speaker 1: something we have to take a look at. Trump is
Speaker 1: completely correct here on the Ninth The Ninth Circuit and
Speaker 1: you know, you'll notice that the Libs and the activist
Speaker 1: judges on the Ninth Circuit are not in the least
Speaker 1: bit chastened by the fact that they've already been slapped
Speaker 1: down on a major issue dealing with immigration and presidential authority,
Speaker 1: in this case, the travel ban. Trump was right, according
Speaker 1: to the Supreme Court on the travel ban. So these
Speaker 1: judges are just hashtag resistance. That's what's really going on.
Speaker 1: These are Obama appointees who think that their judgment of
Speaker 1: what the law should be is more important than what
Speaker 1: the law says. So let me just give you I mean,
Speaker 1: here's some of the background of this one from the
Speaker 1: New York Times. President Trump signed a proclamation on November
Speaker 1: ninth that banned immigrants from applying for asylum if they
Speaker 1: failed to make the request at a legal checkpoint. Only
Speaker 1: those who entered the country through a port of entry
Speaker 1: would be eligible, he said, invoking national security powers to
Speaker 1: protect the integrity of the United States borders. When in days,
Speaker 1: the administration submitted a rule to the Federal Register, letting
Speaker 1: it go into effect immediately and without the customary period
Speaker 1: for public comment. But the rule overhauled long standing asylum
Speaker 1: laws that people fleeing persecution can seek safety. The United
Speaker 1: States advocacy groups I left wing, left wing packs, which
Speaker 1: is what the Southern Poverty Law Center and the a
Speaker 1: cl you have become soothe administration and the judge put
Speaker 1: in this temporary stranding order. One Remember, all it takes
Speaker 1: is one federal judge to now stop the president of
Speaker 1: the United States from exercising his constitutional authority as commander
Speaker 1: in chief. That's the country we're living in now. They
Speaker 1: tell us that there's tyranny. Meanwhile, you get any federal
Speaker 1: judge anywhere in the country can say nope, Trump can't
Speaker 1: do that, and Trump has to go Okay, we know,
Speaker 1: we gotta go to court and gotta go to the
Speaker 1: little process. This is just stalling. This is bad faith
Speaker 1: law from the left, which is when these judges are leftist.
Speaker 1: That's what this is. Okay. Understand also what the Trump
Speaker 1: administration has said here and what the left is therefore saying.
Speaker 1: All Trump has said is you cannot cross into the
Speaker 1: country illegally and then say, oh yeah, I want asylum.
Speaker 1: So because what really that means is that now you'll
Speaker 1: have people to get near the border and they just
Speaker 1: wait until they think there's an opening, and then they
Speaker 1: can cross into the country and then they're home free.
Speaker 1: And if they get caught, instead of having to worry
Speaker 1: about being immediately turned around and deported, they just claim asylum.
Speaker 1: So it's like a get out of jail free card.
Speaker 1: And what Trump has said is in order to protect
Speaker 1: our national sovereignty at the border, he will not allow
Speaker 1: I mean, as executive policy will no longer allow people
Speaker 1: to claim what they call defensive asylum, meaning that once
Speaker 1: you're already caught, you say, well, I want to claim asylum.
Speaker 1: Now Trump is saying no, sorry, that doesn't work. That's
Speaker 1: not acceptable. And when you think about it, what the
Speaker 1: Left is there for telling you is that they want
Speaker 1: people to be able to come into the country however
Speaker 1: they want and abuse the system and claim asylum for
Speaker 1: cases that they are not going to win. I mean,
Speaker 1: over eighty percent to these aside these would be or
Speaker 1: these requesting these individuals requesting asylum, over eighty percent are
Speaker 1: going to be rejected. Okay, they're going to be rejected.
Speaker 1: And this is where the Democrats are being so dishonest
Speaker 1: because at that point, once they're rejected, they're in the
Speaker 1: country illegally. So these are all soon to be These
Speaker 1: are illegals in waiting, folks, That's what we're talking about,
Speaker 1: over eighty percent of them by the numbers of what
Speaker 1: we've seen in these recent Migaret waves. This is why
Speaker 1: I when I say that the Democrat Party has turned
Speaker 1: into a party that turns a blind eye to illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: to a party that is openly advocating for illegal immigration,
Speaker 1: I'm not exaggerating. They want to make it as easy
Speaker 1: as possible to be in this country illegally and to
Speaker 1: enter this country illegally, and they will pervert the law,
Speaker 1: they will turn the law upside down in order to
Speaker 1: get there. Also, as I've been saying this, this notion
Speaker 1: that these judges are in a position to just overrule
Speaker 1: to a temporary on a temporary basis, but overall executive authority,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just it's just nonsense. It just
Speaker 1: goes to show you that there is such an anti
Speaker 1: Trump strain in this country right now that you have
Speaker 1: judges who don't have the respect for the law or
Speaker 1: for the powers that they hold to understand that Trump,
Speaker 1: as the commander in chief and under a duly pass
Speaker 1: congressional statute, has the authority to exempt illegal aliens from
Speaker 1: entering the country for any reason that he deems in
Speaker 1: the national interest. That is the law that the travel
Speaker 1: ban was upheld under. In part. That law certainly applies here.
Speaker 1: So if Trump says, you know we're at we're at
Speaker 1: war with Iran, or you know we're war with any country,
Speaker 1: therefore illegal aliens or not illegal aliens, just aliens from Iran,
Speaker 1: non citizen non residents from Iran cannot enter the United States.
Speaker 1: He has the constitutional authority to do that. This also
Speaker 1: brings us to how the left really does seem to
Speaker 1: believe that foreigners have constitutional rights full constitutional rights as well,
Speaker 1: and just just go down the line. Not only they
Speaker 1: think that foreigners should be able to essentially sue to
Speaker 1: come into the United States against the express wishes of
Speaker 1: the executive branch through the President, but they if they
Speaker 1: had their way, I think they would let foreigners vote
Speaker 1: in our elections too. There's no moral, principled outragemal left
Speaker 1: over illegal aliens voting in our elections. They just say
Speaker 1: it doesn't happen, But they're not saying if it did happen,
Speaker 1: it's like really bad. They wish it could happen, but
Speaker 1: I mean, this is here's a perfect example of the
Speaker 1: crap that we have to deal with. Senior supervising attorney
Speaker 1: at the Southern Poverty Law Center, Melissa Crowe says, quote,
Speaker 1: this is a critical step in fighting back against President
Speaker 1: Trump's war honest asylum seekers. End quote. That's just idiocy.
Speaker 1: These are not legitimate asylum seekers. These are people who
Speaker 1: are abusing asylum law getting ahead of other people who
Speaker 1: are really who are really trying to flee certain death
Speaker 1: in their countries being targeted by their own governments. These
Speaker 1: are economic migrants. These people want to be in America.
Speaker 1: We've got a big cozy welfare stake going to this country. Folks.
Speaker 1: It's a good time to be in America. If you've
Speaker 1: got no skills and don't speak English, it's not that
Speaker 1: hard to be here now. It's easier than it's been
Speaker 1: in a long time. So that's what we're talking about.
Speaker 1: I mean, under this woman from the Southern Property Law
Speaker 1: Centers description or under her conception of asylum, the entire
Speaker 1: country of Honduras qualifies for asylum, all of it. So
Speaker 1: do we have to merge with Honduras now? And if
Speaker 1: Honduras qualifies, why does in Mexico. Mexico has got a
Speaker 1: tremendous violence problem, a lot of drugs, a lot of corruption.
Speaker 1: So what is you know, where do we draw the
Speaker 1: line here? The answer is the left draws the line
Speaker 1: the moment that it's no longer in their political interests
Speaker 1: and the greater the number of impoverished Third world non
Speaker 1: English speaking immigrant the Left can pile into the United States,
Speaker 1: in their mind, the better. It just means that they
Speaker 1: have a greater chance of creating a one party state
Speaker 1: in this country, which is the ultimate goal, which is
Speaker 1: why I'm telling you right now twenty twenty, it's all
Speaker 1: about amnesty. If they can get the presidency and control
Speaker 1: of the Senate, the first thing they're going to try
Speaker 1: to do is ram through an amnesty, and that is
Speaker 1: ballgame for conservatism. That is the end for those of
Speaker 1: us who believe in limited government, rule of law, and constitutionalism.
Speaker 1: We will be a different country then, So keep that
Speaker 1: in mind. I acknowledge there's a stock market correction, and
Speaker 1: I don't like to see anybody lose any money all
Speaker 1: any time, But these things happen, they come and go.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying the psychology and stocks has gone down
Speaker 1: a bit. The economy is roaring. So Larry Cudlow is saying, look,
Speaker 1: don't don't everybody panic. Yeah, the stock market, and I
Speaker 1: can tell you this. I mean, if you've basically been
Speaker 1: looking at that the way the stock market's done since
Speaker 1: the beginning of the year, if you've been invested since
Speaker 1: the beginning of the year, all of your gains, if
Speaker 1: you've been really just in the S ANDP and sort
Speaker 1: of the you know, if you've been in some big
Speaker 1: mutual funds, the gains are gone. And if you've invested
Speaker 1: in the main drivers of stock market growth in recent years,
Speaker 1: in terms of what they call the fang stocks, which
Speaker 1: are Facebook, Apple, Netflix, and Google, if you've been heavily
Speaker 1: invested in that, you've gotten You've gotten your shirt handed
Speaker 1: to you. I mean, it's been it's been rough last month.
Speaker 1: Now you could say, buck, I don't really care about
Speaker 1: the stock market. This isn't financial show. And I said,
Speaker 1: you know, I know, I understand that. But people look
Speaker 1: at this and they say, maybe maybe this is a
Speaker 1: recession that's about to happen here, and there's there's concerns,
Speaker 1: there's concerns over that. Here's my problem is that I
Speaker 1: think that the market we've been in a ten year
Speaker 1: bull market, and there's a lot of reason to believe
Speaker 1: that a cyclical recession is going to happen in the
Speaker 1: next year or two. And just as we saw with
Speaker 1: the way, the Democrats got incredibly lucky with Obama coming
Speaker 1: on the scene right when you at the end of
Speaker 1: eight years of Republican administration and a pretty rough recession
Speaker 1: hit right around the time that you're trying to see
Speaker 1: John McCain take on Barack Obama, right, I mean, that
Speaker 1: was very good timing for a pretty radical left wing
Speaker 1: president to come on the scene and talk about, you know,
Speaker 1: the redistribution of wealth and paying your fair share and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. Because people get scared and they want
Speaker 1: that they want to believe the government's there for them,
Speaker 1: the government's going to help them, the government is the
Speaker 1: backstop of all this stuff. And right now there's a
Speaker 1: little bit of an increase in fear, and I worried
Speaker 1: that the Trump administration is heading in for something of
Speaker 1: a perfect storm here, where you're gonna have the House
Speaker 1: of Representatives is just going to turn into a Democrat
Speaker 1: opo machine. I mean, they're gonna just be doing all
Speaker 1: these just like the Ivanka email stuff. They're gonna reach,
Speaker 1: they're gonna stretch, They're gonna come up with all kinds
Speaker 1: of nonsense, whatever they can then whatever they have to
Speaker 1: try and justify their insane positions. But they're in enough,
Speaker 1: they have enough power and enough authority and certainly enough
Speaker 1: amplification from the media that it is likely that they'll
Speaker 1: be able to get you know, the message out there
Speaker 1: and get some tractionals and they're going to impeach the president. Now,
Speaker 1: impeaching the president when the economy is roaring and things
Speaker 1: are going really well in the country overall, certainly economically,
Speaker 1: impeaching the president seems like a petty part is in
Speaker 1: hatchet job. You know, it just seems Now. It doesn't
Speaker 1: mean Democrats won't do it. It just means that I
Speaker 1: don't think that that helps them going into twenty twenty
Speaker 1: in those critical states that they will need to win
Speaker 1: if they're gonna be Trump right, they Pennsylvania, Michigan, Wisconsin, Ohio, Florida,
Speaker 1: you know the states. So you know, if that's what
Speaker 1: it's all gonna come down to, you know, then we
Speaker 1: need to understand that an economy that's on the downswing,
Speaker 1: even if it's not really Trump's fault, is going to
Speaker 1: add to the woes of this administration. And you're gonna
Speaker 1: see I do believe you're going to see a moment
Speaker 1: here where the Democrats are going to have an opening
Speaker 1: to really push for the democratic socialism also known as socialism.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think they're really gonna push for that.
Speaker 1: They're gonna say this whole Medicare for all things is
Speaker 1: going to gain more attraction, and they'll just a lot
Speaker 1: of people and tell them, oh, yeah, the big lie
Speaker 1: that I'm hearing on that all the time on Medicare
Speaker 1: for all is oh okay, fine, yeah, you'll have to
Speaker 1: pay more in taxes, but you'll say it, you'll get
Speaker 1: more money back in savings on your healthcare. That's that's
Speaker 1: a lie. This is the magic cake that feeds everybody
Speaker 1: that never runs out, and that will make you fat
Speaker 1: no matter how much of it you eat. You know,
Speaker 1: it's just not true. And government saving you money is
Speaker 1: to you know, through your healthcare after taking more money
Speaker 1: from you in the form of taxes. That's just not true.
Speaker 1: And I wish, I wish we could get people to
Speaker 1: really understand that. But the direction of the economy is
Speaker 1: really going to affect a lot of the political conversation.
Speaker 1: And I think that there's my concern all along has
Speaker 1: been Trump with a booming economy and a four percent
Speaker 1: give or take unemployment rate is unstoppable, but unstoppable. But
Speaker 1: by the left, Trump with you know, the stock market
Speaker 1: taking a thirty percent dip from the high I and
Speaker 1: people's four oh one k's getting crushed. Pension by the way,
Speaker 1: all the pension funds for those of you that are
Speaker 1: like I don't care about four own ks. Wherever you
Speaker 1: live across the country, the pension fund where you are
Speaker 1: is most likely invested, and the long term pension outlays
Speaker 1: all take into account that they got to make money
Speaker 1: by investing it, right, so to pay the pensions in
Speaker 1: in uh, you know punk satawni for the firefighters, they've
Speaker 1: I don't know why punk Satanni came to mind, but
Speaker 1: you know they've got to invest the pension money and
Speaker 1: have a compound at a certain expected growth rate. Otherwise,
Speaker 1: you know, they've got to raise tax on people because
Speaker 1: they're not gonna have the money. They're gonna have pension shortfalls.
Speaker 1: So I don't think that when when I talk about
Speaker 1: the market. The market affects a lot more than just oh,
Speaker 1: like arm, oh, how's my portfolio doing? You know, let
Speaker 1: me just shine my monocle right now and put on
Speaker 1: my top hat please. I wish, by the way, that
Speaker 1: sounds like fun, not the monocle in the top hat,
Speaker 1: but having that kind of money. So but that's where Trump,
Speaker 1: I think, comes much more vulnerable. And also look this
Speaker 1: China issue. The Chinese stock markets down about twenty percent
Speaker 1: this year. China stock market's getting roughed up, and Trump
Speaker 1: has There's no two ways about it. Trump has retaliated
Speaker 1: people who am saying he's picked he picked a fight
Speaker 1: and started a trade war with China. But he's really
Speaker 1: just responding to an ongoing Chinese trade war. But he
Speaker 1: is responding to it, and the tensions are getting ratcheted
Speaker 1: up here as a result. Kudlu also spoke about this
Speaker 1: play Cliff twelve. It's got to include IP theft, it's
Speaker 1: got to include changes in ownership. It's got to stop
Speaker 1: the force transfer of technology. It's got to go to
Speaker 1: zero tariffs and zero non tariff barriers. It's got to
Speaker 1: having forceability, it's got to have strict timetables. It has
Speaker 1: to have, frankly, more than we've seen so far. He said, Look,
Speaker 1: we're not backing down with China. If China is willing
Speaker 1: to play ball like a responsible actor here, if the
Speaker 1: Chinese government will stop the shenanigans and start acting like
Speaker 1: a normal, advanced, developed rule of law country in terms
Speaker 1: of its trade relations, well then you know we can
Speaker 1: come to some kind of an agreement. Now I've said
Speaker 1: this all along because you know, the conventional wisdom on
Speaker 1: trade has been, you know, we're a free trade even
Speaker 1: though that's really more of a talking point than it
Speaker 1: is a concept you can implement. But you know, we're
Speaker 1: all about free trade. But if China is going to cheat,
Speaker 1: then we need to exact or extract some punishment for
Speaker 1: their predatory trade practices. And as you mentioned in intellectual
Speaker 1: property theft, there's more than just you know, them having
Speaker 1: taxes on imports. Right, There's more than just tariffs to
Speaker 1: discuss here. There's a lot of other activity they're engaged in.
Speaker 1: But this is only good if we win, right, This
Speaker 1: is only good if it works out. If this just
Speaker 1: results in continued back and forth and you know, economic
Speaker 1: dislocations and perhaps even global economic stagnation as a result
Speaker 1: of the two largest economies in the world getting to
Speaker 1: some kind of, you know, a contest of wills here.
Speaker 1: That's not good. So I've been willing to give the
Speaker 1: Trump administration the leeway to get this done. They still might,
Speaker 1: they'll probably. I'm sure if I could talk to Cutlow,
Speaker 1: and we interviewed him a few weeks ago at the Hill,
Speaker 1: but I wasn't there for it. But next time I
Speaker 1: get a chance to talk to Cudlow, you know, I'm
Speaker 1: sure he would say that it's early, you know, and
Speaker 1: that this is going to take. It's a process. But
Speaker 1: you know, the longer it takes, the more pain that
Speaker 1: we suffered through it, the less it would be a victory. Right,
Speaker 1: So we got to see what ends up happening here
Speaker 1: with China. But the economy is key. If Trump is
Speaker 1: going to win in twenty twenty, we have to keep
Speaker 1: this economy going strong. And the left knows that, and
Speaker 1: so they're willing to tank it. If they have to
Speaker 1: take off the shelf existing technologies, we could reduce carbon
Speaker 1: emissions by let's say thirty without any Yeah, it's not
Speaker 1: like we'd all have to go back to caves and
Speaker 1: you know, live off you know, fire. We could have
Speaker 1: electricity and smartphones and all that stuff, which would buy
Speaker 1: us probably another twenty thirty years for that technological breakthrough
Speaker 1: that's necessary. The reason we don't do it is because
Speaker 1: we are still confused, blind shrouded with hate, anger, racism,
Speaker 1: mommy issues. Yeah, I mean you know we we we are,
Speaker 1: we are fraught with stuff. Obama is not nearly as
Speaker 1: impressive all the issues as the media tended he was
Speaker 1: for many, many years. Obama is somebody who has always
Speaker 1: been held up as having a much greater grasp of
Speaker 1: the complexities of politics than than he does, or at
Speaker 1: least complexities of policy. And that's a perfect example. You know,
Speaker 1: we have off the shelf technology that would reduce carbon
Speaker 1: emissions by thirty percent, and the only reason we don't
Speaker 1: do it is mommy issues, racism. I can't you remember
Speaker 1: all this stuff that he's It was just like this long,
Speaker 1: this long string of of stupid non sequiturs, and I
Speaker 1: just I can't tell you with first of all, that
Speaker 1: Obama is still out there giving all these speeches and stuff.
Speaker 1: You know, he's president for eight years. Maybe maybe just
Speaker 1: like do some good charity work. You know, maybe we
Speaker 1: don't have to hear the most recent president acting as
Speaker 1: a partisan surrogate for the party in opposition to the
Speaker 1: current president. Right, maybe that would be nice, like what
Speaker 1: George W. Bush did, for example. I know it's not required.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying it would be nice. It would be
Speaker 1: more respectful and gentlemanly, I think. But I know this
Speaker 1: is not a time for gentlemanliness in politics, I suppose,
Speaker 1: at least not in the left's view, and honestly not
Speaker 1: on the rights either. It's pretty much a brawl. So
Speaker 1: here Obama makes this comment, any people are laughing and
Speaker 1: all it's so funny and all the things that he
Speaker 1: says there, and this is just one example of an
Speaker 1: obama Ism. But it sounds kind of wise and witty,
Speaker 1: and oh, Obama, just tell us more. It's just garbage.
Speaker 1: He doesn't know what the heck he's talking about, which
Speaker 1: for a guy who was present for eight years, it's
Speaker 1: pretty remarkable. But the reason that we don't use those
Speaker 1: off the shelf technologies is that they're really expensive. The
Speaker 1: reason that we don't use renewable at the rates that
Speaker 1: the left wants us to that the green extremes believe
Speaker 1: we should is because they are highly highly efficient still
Speaker 1: and with the increasing availability of fossil fuels and the
Speaker 1: better technology for getting at the fossil fuels as well
Speaker 1: as the more efficient technology for using it things like
Speaker 1: liquefied natural gas obviously fracking as part of the extraction process.
Speaker 1: The idea that we're all of a sudden supposed to
Speaker 1: rely on wind, rely on solar, there's a lot this
Speaker 1: has been you know, solo has been the next big
Speaker 1: thing for the last forty years, and there's a reason
Speaker 1: for that. But either the notion that Obama puts forward there,
Speaker 1: I just think that's that this is of all the
Speaker 1: things from the Obama era that he would do on
Speaker 1: a regular basis, the way that he would go after
Speaker 1: he would create these straw men on the right and
Speaker 1: then just rip them apart as though he was doing
Speaker 1: something really smart and really brave. That really bothered me.
Speaker 1: He never contends with the argument the other side, my
Speaker 1: argument against his whole I mean, never mind getting into
Speaker 1: the climate change is a threat to us thing, which
Speaker 1: is just that's just irrational. It's irrational. It's not a
Speaker 1: threat to us. We're all going to be fine, Okay,
Speaker 1: people have gotten those all scared and they think that
Speaker 1: he's talking about other people being scared and afraid and
Speaker 1: mommy issues. But if there was a technology out there
Speaker 1: that was cheaper and better and more efficient for us
Speaker 1: to use what it came to energy, doesn't he think
Speaker 1: that he'd be using it. I mean, this is the
Speaker 1: guy he will remember on tape before he ran for
Speaker 1: president said you know, under my plan, electricity would skyrocket
Speaker 1: and price. He doesn't seem to understand that energy is
Speaker 1: the lifeblood of a modern economy and that when you
Speaker 1: put unnecessary pressures upward pressures on the price of energy,
Speaker 1: you're hurting everything. You're making poor people pay more for
Speaker 1: their food, You're poor people paying more for their heat,
Speaker 1: everybody's paying more for stuff. It's just not a good idea.
Speaker 1: But instead of recognizing and dealing with the truth here,
Speaker 1: and the truth being that there are very clear reasons
Speaker 1: why we have not gone to renewables the way that
Speaker 1: left wants us to do, and by the way, they've
Speaker 1: thrown so much the way as subsidies. And you guys, remember, Celendra,
Speaker 1: that giant Obama era boondoggle, hundreds of millions of dollars
Speaker 1: in taxpayer guarantees to a solar company that was get
Speaker 1: ready for it losing money on every transaction it did,
Speaker 1: but it was gonna what make it up on volume.
Speaker 1: That's like the old joke, we're losing money, but we're
Speaker 1: gonna make it up on volume. You know, we lose
Speaker 1: money on every unit, but the more we sell the oh,
Speaker 1: the more the more money you lose. Right, Celendra was
Speaker 1: selling at a loss, and that's how you can lose
Speaker 1: hundreds of millions of dollars running an energy company. And
Speaker 1: whatever was twenty eleven. And I just think it's interesting that,
Speaker 1: you know, they can actually deal with the argument from
Speaker 1: our side, which is by the way, we are decarbonizing
Speaker 1: as a globe and as a society. If you look
Speaker 1: at the history free of energy, but if one actually
Speaker 1: took the time as I have to read about the
Speaker 1: history of fossil fuel exploration and how energy has powered
Speaker 1: economies in the modern era, what you find out is
Speaker 1: that we've gone from highly carbon intensive, highly inefficient sources
Speaker 1: of fuel burning wood burning, whale fat, you know, you know,
Speaker 1: you go through you know, kerosene and and then coal
Speaker 1: and then gas, and now we're at liquefied natural gas.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're getting cleaner as we or just natural
Speaker 1: gas in general, cleaner as we go along in terms
Speaker 1: of emissions and more efficiency and greater abundancy. And this
Speaker 1: is something that should be celebrated. But instead, you know,
Speaker 1: you get Obama making a snarky comment and he's he's
Speaker 1: just parading ignorance on this. It's just not true that
Speaker 1: there is feasible technology to drop global carbon emissions by
Speaker 1: thirty percent that is cost effective that we could do,
Speaker 1: and that would buy us forty years of you know,
Speaker 1: leeway for other technologies to deal with climate change, which
Speaker 1: isn't even a threat we have to deal with. You.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I want to come back in another
Speaker 1: life and have everybody treat me like I'm a genius
Speaker 1: when I don't know what I'm talking about. That that
Speaker 1: would be That would be really cool, you know, and
Speaker 1: no one ever is allowed to tell you otherwise, or
Speaker 1: else they're gonna be shouted down and everyone's gonna say
Speaker 1: they're a terrible person. That would be nice. That means,
Speaker 1: I mean, Obama had that for eight years. You just
Speaker 1: say stuff, tell stuff that wasn't true, Say stuff that's
Speaker 1: just inaccurate, you know, share opinions as other fact. And
Speaker 1: it was getting backstop by the media all the time.
Speaker 1: And I see here, I just say to myself, and
Speaker 1: how do I get that gig where you're hailed as
Speaker 1: a genius when in reality a lot of your ideas
Speaker 1: are either mediocre or subpar. But you know, he does,
Speaker 1: he does sound convincing, I guess to lives and so
Speaker 1: that's that's really all it takes. Sometimes, do you need
Speaker 1: expert delivery of high quality screen solutions for employers, property
Speaker 1: managers and financial companies? Well, Global Verification Network is the
Speaker 1: answer that you're looking for, my friends. Global Verification is
Speaker 1: a veteran owned small business dedicated to the expert delivery
Speaker 1: of high quality screening services to the employment, tenant screening,
Speaker 1: and financial services sectors. Look, I know the cean a
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network. He's a great guy, He's got a
Speaker 1: fantastic team. And this is a veteran owned and operated company.
Speaker 1: So if you want to support veteran small business, and
Speaker 1: if you want to make sure that the people that
Speaker 1: you're hiring or that you're renting a property out to
Speaker 1: you are who they say they are and are all
Speaker 1: squared away check their backgrounds thoroughly. Make sure you get
Speaker 1: through the process quickly and efficiently. You need Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: Go check it out for yourself. Go to MYGVN dot
Speaker 1: com again, that's my GVN dot com or called eight
Speaker 1: five five nine six zero five three one eight. What's
Speaker 1: it like to be on the front line of the
Speaker 1: battle against the Islamic State? What were the sights and
Speaker 1: sounds and how how was it to be there trying
Speaker 1: to assist the Iraqis in taking back their country after
Speaker 1: the rise of Isis. We have an author who can
Speaker 1: tell us all about this. Ephraim Mattas is with us now.
Speaker 1: He is the author of City of Death Humanitarian Warriors
Speaker 1: in the Battle of Mosel, which you can get Nowlason.
Speaker 1: It's out in bookstores as well. He's a former Navy seal. Ephram,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for joining us. Thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: Buck appreciate it. So, man, tell me, you come out
Speaker 1: of the Navy, you come out of the Navy seals
Speaker 1: and you decide that you're going to join a very
Speaker 1: very special unit fighting the Islamic State in northwestern Iraq. Well,
Speaker 1: what happened here? How'd you do this? Well so, actually,
Speaker 1: so I left the Navy early last year, and my
Speaker 1: thought was not necessarily to do the whole combat thing.
Speaker 1: That wasn't that wasn't my intention. My intention was to
Speaker 1: do humanitarian work. And the guys that I joined up with,
Speaker 1: I volunteered with, were the Free Burma Rangers, and they
Speaker 1: were working in northern Iraq doing humanitarian stuff and doing
Speaker 1: medical things as well. They were armed, they were working
Speaker 1: with the Iraqi Army, and I just figured it was
Speaker 1: a good place for me, as a former seal to
Speaker 1: go and help and do some good in this world.
Speaker 1: And during that during that time, the Iraqi Army unit
Speaker 1: that we were attached to, who we would we would
Speaker 1: feed the civilians and help the civilians and treat treat
Speaker 1: the wounded. Every time they cleared a new village or
Speaker 1: something like that. That same unit was ordered to attack
Speaker 1: West Moosle And so what what went from a humanitarian mission,
Speaker 1: you know, ninety five percent of the time went to
Speaker 1: a full on you know, we basically transitioned into being
Speaker 1: full on combat medics for the assault into Mosul, and
Speaker 1: I mean that was some of the toughest fighting of
Speaker 1: the entire certainly in the Iraqi side of the of
Speaker 1: the equation of the entire fight against the Islamic State.
Speaker 1: What was it like being being with those near those
Speaker 1: Iraqi units and and being right there beside them as
Speaker 1: they're going house to house door a door. I mean,
Speaker 1: what tell us about that? What I assume was a healthscape.
Speaker 1: I've seen some video by the way of you, f Rahim,
Speaker 1: when you're actually out there on the battlefield. I mean,
Speaker 1: actually there's a video of you online where you actually
Speaker 1: got wounded. So I mean you were right there in
Speaker 1: the action. What was it like to see all this Well,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what, man, it was. It was really
Speaker 1: it was kind of surreal, right. So I talked about
Speaker 1: it in the book City of Death, where, um, you know,
Speaker 1: I leave the seals right this this elite unit, where
Speaker 1: one of the top you know, uh close quarter combat
Speaker 1: units in the world. Um, you know, incredibly elite, tight knit.
Speaker 1: We have everything is you know, we have standard tactics,
Speaker 1: all this stuff, great equipment, and I go from that
Speaker 1: to just total chaos on the battlefield. Right. So what's
Speaker 1: it like working with the Iraqis they fight a war
Speaker 1: was very different than we do. Their soldiers are ten
Speaker 1: ten days on ten days off, none of them really
Speaker 1: have body armor on. UM. They only fight after, you know,
Speaker 1: their morning tea and then they usually break for dinner
Speaker 1: and then that's it, you know, and so they don't
Speaker 1: do any night fighting. It was a very very strange thing.
Speaker 1: They're in comparison to the US forces. They're very disorganized
Speaker 1: and all that. So it was very chaotic. It was
Speaker 1: extremely chaotic, if you want to know what it was like. UM.
Speaker 1: But I will also say this though, two about the
Speaker 1: individual Iraqi soldiers. And this isn't necessarily an endorsement of
Speaker 1: the Iraqi government, but the individual Iraqi soldiers were incredibly brave.
Speaker 1: I was. I was actually very surprised to see that
Speaker 1: these guys were were we were laying down their lives
Speaker 1: to rescue um. You know, Sunni Muslims, and most of
Speaker 1: the guys in the in the that we were working
Speaker 1: with were Shia, and they were They were incredibly kind
Speaker 1: to the civilians. They were even kind to their ISIS captors.
Speaker 1: I never saw any We saw lots of ISIS prisoners,
Speaker 1: but I never saw any um mistreatment of those guys.
Speaker 1: And it was it was quite an interesting experience living
Speaker 1: in working directly with the iraqis holding security with them
Speaker 1: at night, holding the line with them when ICE's counterattacks. Um,
Speaker 1: and I talked about all that stuff in the book
Speaker 1: The City of Death, and they're just really really really
Speaker 1: great human beings honestly, and I'm not saying that casually
Speaker 1: sounds cliche, but they truly are, Like they're really Um yeah,
Speaker 1: I mean, how did they How do they receive you?
Speaker 1: I mean I'm assuming they must have been pretty darn
Speaker 1: grateful that somebody, especially with your skill set, shows up
Speaker 1: and it's like, I'm gonna I'm gonna help you take
Speaker 1: back your country just because I think it's the right
Speaker 1: thing to do. Yeah. Absolutely, these guys were incredibly gracious. Um,
Speaker 1: they were. It was It was funny when I first
Speaker 1: showed up, the other guys I'm on the Free Bremer
Speaker 1: Rangers team had already been there for a couple of months,
Speaker 1: and so I sort of showed up and the other
Speaker 1: guys on the on the team were former special a
Speaker 1: couple of Special Forces guys and a couple of former Marines,
Speaker 1: and so so when I showed up, I was still
Speaker 1: I was literally fresh out of the fresh out of
Speaker 1: the seal teams. M I left and literally got a
Speaker 1: flight directly and flew directly to Iraq. Like I was
Speaker 1: still technic in the Navy, but I was on leave,
Speaker 1: on terminal leave when I went to Iraq. It's usually
Speaker 1: not what I think people do when they're on leave,
Speaker 1: but yeah, I go ahead, no no um. And so yeah,
Speaker 1: when I when I flew to Iraq, I when I
Speaker 1: started working with these guys, my guard was still very
Speaker 1: much up. You know, I always had my hand on
Speaker 1: my rifle. I was always you know, kind of had
Speaker 1: my standoffish and just I was thinking very tactically and
Speaker 1: I had to, like I had to really let my
Speaker 1: guard down and learn that I could trust these guys.
Speaker 1: And I talk about that in the book City of Death,
Speaker 1: where you know, I'm first mingling with these Iraqi soldiers
Speaker 1: and they're they're so to answer your question, they were
Speaker 1: a little bit standoffish at first because I was acting
Speaker 1: different and they didn't understand why I was acting all tactical,
Speaker 1: you know, so I had to kind of cool it
Speaker 1: and become a little bit more comfortable around them. But
Speaker 1: once that happened, they were incredibly gracious, incredibly kind to us. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, we didn't even speak the same language. But
Speaker 1: these guys would come hang out with us and like
Speaker 1: whatever room we were sleeping in, and they just come
Speaker 1: hang out and they're sitting there all talking in Arabic
Speaker 1: and we're just sitting there talking in English and everybody's
Speaker 1: just laughing and having a good time. It was very
Speaker 1: quite quite the surreal experience. Yeah, what can you tell
Speaker 1: me about the about the enemy side of the equation?
Speaker 1: I mean, what did you what did you see from
Speaker 1: them in terms of tactics, in terms of their their
Speaker 1: skill level on the battlefield, and also obviously the aftermath
Speaker 1: of the atrocities and the violence they committed against civilians.
Speaker 1: I mean, just you know, give us a picture of
Speaker 1: what the other side of the battle feels like. Oh man,
Speaker 1: So I'll tell you what I thought to give you comparison.
Speaker 1: I fought the Taliban in Afghanistan, um and I'll tell
Speaker 1: you what, man, this fighting ISIS was an entirely different animal,
Speaker 1: not just because we didn't have air support and whatever else,
Speaker 1: but the ISIS, the ISIS fighters were honestly, they were
Speaker 1: they were good. They were really good. And by the
Speaker 1: time we were pushing into West Mosel, sort of at
Speaker 1: the end of the Caliphe. That was their last stand,
Speaker 1: right that West Mosele was their Alamo. Um, you know,
Speaker 1: all all the dumb ones were already dead, you know
Speaker 1: what I mean, like all the guys you know they
Speaker 1: were they had already been wiped out, and so it
Speaker 1: was extremely difficult to spot an ISIS fighter in the
Speaker 1: in the urban sprawl of what was going on. Um.
Speaker 1: I think I think I only saw one confirmed ISIS
Speaker 1: fighter who popped out and fired an RPG. Um. You know,
Speaker 1: And because they would hide, they would they had I
Speaker 1: think three years to prepare Mosle for this offensive, so
Speaker 1: you know, they'd be two three rooms deep in these
Speaker 1: buildings they had. They were shooting from all kinds of
Speaker 1: hidden vantage points, and it was it was absolutely terrifying.
Speaker 1: And you know, of course they know what streets we
Speaker 1: have to go down, so those are all mined and
Speaker 1: booby trapped, and they'd use suicide bombers, car bombs, you
Speaker 1: name it. And it was. It was insane. And a
Speaker 1: couple of other things that were interesting about this fight
Speaker 1: were the Islamic State fighters that were there. One they
Speaker 1: knew it was the last battle, so they were not
Speaker 1: trying to say of ammunition and to a lot of
Speaker 1: the Islamic State fighters. This was a very interesting thing.
Speaker 1: A lot of the bodies that we found of guys
Speaker 1: of Islamic State fighters that we killed during the assault,
Speaker 1: a lot of them were European guys. A lot of
Speaker 1: them were white, you know, Chechens and things like that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and we'd find we'd find handbooks and korans and sniper
Speaker 1: handbooks and stuff like that written in Russian. And the
Speaker 1: reason for that was because the other Islamic State fighters
Speaker 1: were trying to and some of them successfully did escape
Speaker 1: with the civilian crowds that were fleeing. You know, they
Speaker 1: shaved their beard and they try to blend in as
Speaker 1: best they could with the crowds. The crowd a lot
Speaker 1: of times would point them out to us, but the
Speaker 1: white guys were not able to They weren't able to
Speaker 1: do that. The white Islamic State flighters were not able
Speaker 1: to do that. So a lot of the guys that
Speaker 1: we came across were um were those guys. And then
Speaker 1: they also again the final point is that they knew
Speaker 1: they were going to die. They knew they were going
Speaker 1: to die, and they knew they were going to be martyred.
Speaker 1: So no matter no matter what they did. You know,
Speaker 1: according to their beliefs, they were going to go to heaven, right,
Speaker 1: So that's why, you know, you'd mentioned the day that
Speaker 1: I got shot. You know, we were rescuing a girl
Speaker 1: and a man from a pile of rotting bodies or
Speaker 1: more than one hundred and fifty people have been slaughtered
Speaker 1: in the street right in front of ISIS headquarters there
Speaker 1: in West Mosle, and they were you know, the ISIS
Speaker 1: guys had no problem doing that because you know, they're
Speaker 1: going to be martyred and go to heaven anyway, and
Speaker 1: these people are apostates, so they are able to do that.
Speaker 1: So the level of cruelty was insane, but they're also
Speaker 1: their sophistication was also incredible. One final point, they were
Speaker 1: also making their own ammunition, like RPG ammunition. They were
Speaker 1: making one time use rockets and like little factories in
Speaker 1: random buildings all throughout Mosile, which I didn't even think
Speaker 1: was possible, but they'd figured out how to do it,
Speaker 1: and they were doing it literally like factory made RPG
Speaker 1: rounds and launcher tubes and all this stuff, so incredibly sophisticated,
Speaker 1: incredibly ruthless, and it was an honor to be a
Speaker 1: part of dealing with it, because you know, this was
Speaker 1: this is my generation's Nazis. You know, like if you
Speaker 1: had been alive, if we had been alive during you know,
Speaker 1: World War Two, it would have been amazing to contribute
Speaker 1: to the downfall of the Nazis. Right, well, this is
Speaker 1: our generation's channel of the Islamic state is a death cult.
Speaker 1: It's a genocidal mass race being death cult. And yeah,
Speaker 1: well it's you know, and it's something that you know,
Speaker 1: I think that it's a good reminder for everybody out there.
Speaker 1: I mean, fram one question for you. I know you
Speaker 1: were a seal, I know you fought in Afghanisan when
Speaker 1: you're in the midst of this, and it's pretty incredible
Speaker 1: that there are videos of you in Mosul running to
Speaker 1: people who have been wounded. You got wounded yourself. You know,
Speaker 1: you've got what are you carrying in ak and you're
Speaker 1: running around, You're doing all these things. You've got some
Speaker 1: Americans with, You've got some uh, some Iraqis in view.
Speaker 1: What do you I mean, are you just completely focused
Speaker 1: the task at hand? I mean, are do you ever
Speaker 1: break psychologically in a moment you just say, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: what the heck am I doing here? And then go
Speaker 1: back into go back into your training or yes, that's
Speaker 1: an excellent question. So one of the things that I
Speaker 1: talk about in City of Death, and one of the
Speaker 1: things I wanted to make I didn't want this to
Speaker 1: be another Seal book, right, there's there's dozens of Seal
Speaker 1: books out there. I didn't want this to be that
Speaker 1: I talk a little bit about my time in the Seal,
Speaker 1: but I wanted this to be a very open and
Speaker 1: realistic portrait of what it's like to be in this fighting.
Speaker 1: And So to answer your question, and I talked about
Speaker 1: it in the book City of Death, is Yes, absolutely
Speaker 1: there was times I completely lost my composure. On the
Speaker 1: first day of the assault into West Mosle, which I
Speaker 1: didn't even know we were assaulting into West Mosel that day.
Speaker 1: I thought we were just kind of moving forward a
Speaker 1: little bit. I literally broke down and started weeping as
Speaker 1: I held this little girl's hand who had been shot
Speaker 1: in the face, and you know that the other medics
Speaker 1: were working on her, that the real medics are working
Speaker 1: on her, and there's nothing I could do to help her.
Speaker 1: I just held her hand and just was like I
Speaker 1: just hope that she would survive. And I just began weeping.
Speaker 1: And I've never lost my composure before, you know, in combat.
Speaker 1: And then that same exact night, Isis counterattacked and we
Speaker 1: our position was hit with the seven or eight rockets
Speaker 1: are RPG like direct hits within a matter of ten minutes.
Speaker 1: It was insane the amount of firepower that was coming
Speaker 1: back at us. And yet we were all like, dude,
Speaker 1: what are we doing here? We're potentially going to die tonight.
Speaker 1: And we all had to make that decision. And I
Speaker 1: know I certainly did. I really internalized it, and I
Speaker 1: was like, dude, I am I willing to die for
Speaker 1: these Iraqi people? Am I willing to die to hold
Speaker 1: the line with the Iraqi army? You know? And these
Speaker 1: guys aren't even you know, fighting back effectively. And yeah,
Speaker 1: there was a lot of introspection. There was a lot
Speaker 1: of I don't have to be here. I paid my
Speaker 1: own way to be there. I wasn't paid to be there,
Speaker 1: you know, I had to buy my own plane ticket.
Speaker 1: And yeah, so there was a lot of introspection. And
Speaker 1: then the day that I was wounded, the day that
Speaker 1: we went on that mission, you know, we were talking
Speaker 1: about it before and afterwards. The guys that were on
Speaker 1: the mission, the former Special Forces guy's name is David Ubank,
Speaker 1: he's the founder of Free Brommer Rangers. And then my
Speaker 1: other buddy, Sky Barkley, former marine. You know, we've been
Speaker 1: talking before we went out into this mission. We were like, dude,
Speaker 1: we're going to die. You know, there was it was,
Speaker 1: it was that bad. We were going directly into Isis territory.
Speaker 1: They had the high ground on the flanks, and luckily
Speaker 1: the US military commanders we called them, are that David
Speaker 1: Ubank called them, and they they agreed to give us
Speaker 1: a smoke screen. So they literally fired an artillery barrage
Speaker 1: smoke screen to kind of blind the enemy a little bit,
Speaker 1: and we ran behind it in a rocky Army tank
Speaker 1: straight into the straight into the fray. They started dropping
Speaker 1: mortars and opened up on us with machine guns and
Speaker 1: we were able to get you know, two people out.
Speaker 1: So yeah, there's a ton of introspection, um and I
Speaker 1: talk about it in detail in the book, and a
Speaker 1: lot of the feedback that people have been giving me
Speaker 1: from the book as they're like, thank you for being honest,
Speaker 1: thank you for telling what it's really like being there,
Speaker 1: you know, because I don't. I don't. I don't. I'm
Speaker 1: not trying to be some big tough guy because I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm really not. I'm just a normal human being who
Speaker 1: wants to who wants to help people. And yeah, so
Speaker 1: I discussed all those fears and all those all those doubts,
Speaker 1: and a lot of that was what the heck am
Speaker 1: I doing? Man? You know there's a well, fra you're
Speaker 1: a warrior, and you're a courageous and principal guy, man,
Speaker 1: And thank you for your service to this country, and
Speaker 1: thank you for your service for humanity as well. The
Speaker 1: book The City of Death Humanitarian Warriors in the Battle
Speaker 1: of Mosul. I actually just purchased it right now on Amazon.
Speaker 1: I recommend you all do the same. Frame. Thank you
Speaker 1: so much, man, great to have you on. Thank you
Speaker 1: for your service. Been a route a week for Facebook,
Speaker 1: in fact, a difficult few months. You know why people
Speaker 1: are figuring out that there's a lot of left wing
Speaker 1: nonsense going on at that company, a lot of tilting
Speaker 1: the conversation away from conservatism and toward progressivism using algorithms
Speaker 1: and terms of service policy, all kinds of stuff. You
Speaker 1: know what gets around all that a new social media
Speaker 1: platform called snippy dot com. If you've looked at snippy
Speaker 1: dot com in the past and left, you need to
Speaker 1: look again. Thousands of my listeners have joined Snippy and
Speaker 1: are expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy's
Speaker 1: an unbiased social media platform. It's all about conversation and community.
Speaker 1: Not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its users
Speaker 1: the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators.
Speaker 1: Snippy's a place where everyone can express their thoughts and
Speaker 1: share their opinions. It is free to join, folks, cost
Speaker 1: you nothing. Go join snippy dot com. Let your opinion matter.
Speaker 1: No shadow banning, no conversational health nonsense, just pure thoughts
Speaker 1: shared on a platform meant for you, Snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: Even though peas and carrots have received a presidential pardon,
Speaker 1: I have warned them that House Democrats are likely to
Speaker 1: issue them both subpoenas. Nonetheless, in the spirit of Thanksgiving,
Speaker 1: I will be issuing both peas and carrots a presidential pardon. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: I can't guarantee that your pardons won't be enjoined by
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit always happens. They're guaranteed. It's kind of funny, right,
Speaker 1: It's kind of funny. You know. I gotta say, I
Speaker 1: don't really that's obviously from Trump pardoning the turkey today.
Speaker 1: The ceremony apparently goes back to the nineteen forties. And
Speaker 1: you know, it's been a thing for a while here,
Speaker 1: and during George HW. Bush's first Thanksgiving US president, there's
Speaker 1: been this tradition for the president to pardon the turkey.
Speaker 1: I don't what is hold on to say? Here we go.
Speaker 1: Here's the white House history dot org pardoning the Thanksgiving turkey.
Speaker 1: Here's what it says. The official pardnering of White House
Speaker 1: turkeys is an interesting White House tradition that has captured
Speaker 1: the imagination of the public. And I wouldn't go that far, buddy.
Speaker 1: In recent years, it's often stated that President Lincoln's eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty three clemency to a turkey, recorded in an eighteen
Speaker 1: sixty five dispatch by White House supporter Noah Brooks, was
Speaker 1: the origin for the pardoning ceremony. Reports of turkeys's gift
Speaker 1: to American presidents can be traced to the eighteen seventies,
Speaker 1: when Rhode Island poultry dealer Horace Vose began sending well
Speaker 1: fed birds to the White House. The first families did
Speaker 1: not always feast upon Voss turkeys, but the yearly offering
Speaker 1: gained his farm widespread publicity and became a veritable institution
Speaker 1: at the White House. At Thanksgiving nineteen thirteen at Turkey
Speaker 1: come Lately from Kentucky, a few minutes of fame with
Speaker 1: the fine feathered Rhode Islander. Soon after, in December, Horace
Speaker 1: Vos died, thus ending an era. By nineteen fourteen, the
Speaker 1: opportunity to give a turkey to a president was open
Speaker 1: to everyone, and poultry gifts were frequently touched with patriotism, partisanship,
Speaker 1: end glee. In nineteen twenty one, American Legion Post Front, Okay, etc.
Speaker 1: We got a lot more here. Recently, White House mythmakers
Speaker 1: claimed that President Truman began the tradition of partning a turkey. However,
Speaker 1: the Truman Library disputes this. Ninety nineteen forty eight Truman
Speaker 1: except the two turkeys coming handy for Christmas Dinner nineteen
Speaker 1: eighty one. The practice of sending the presentation turkey to
Speaker 1: a farm became the norm under Ronald Reagan, the Turkey.
Speaker 1: Oh eight, CNN did what playclip thirteen? John President Trump
Speaker 1: pardoning the Thanksgiving Turkey, the annual tradition peas the name
Speaker 1: of this turkey, and just the most unusual potomy here
Speaker 1: as this comes on the heels of a statement that
Speaker 1: the President has put out essentially pardoning Saudi Arabia and
Speaker 1: the crown Prince and the king there, despite what his
Speaker 1: intel community is expected to put out in a report
Speaker 1: today that Saudi Arabia is behind that these leaders of
Speaker 1: Saudi Arabia are behind the killing of a Washington Post journalist. Wow,
Speaker 1: what a forced transition there, Oh my gosh, the parting
Speaker 1: of the turkey kind of like the partnering of Saudi Arabia. Wow, CNN,
Speaker 1: you can do better than that. That is that was
Speaker 1: really that was weak. That was weak. That's pretty funny.
Speaker 1: But that's the Trump's not allowed to do anything without
Speaker 1: it being an opening for criticism. Trump can't even pardon
Speaker 1: the turkey without the pardoning of the turkey being used
Speaker 1: against him, you know, the Emolument's clause or something with
Speaker 1: the turkey. That's what it is. Yeah, that's the ticket.
Speaker 1: Every year this topic comes up and I just don't
Speaker 1: understand why how to have a conversation with your angry
Speaker 1: uncle over Thanksgiving. That's what this New York Times piece
Speaker 1: is called. And I see variations of this year in
Speaker 1: and year out, you know. And here's what it says. Quote.
Speaker 1: Thanksgiving is a beloved holiday because it's a time to
Speaker 1: gather with relatives from afar. It's a dreaded holiday for
Speaker 1: the same reason. Many of us aren't accustomed to socializing
Speaker 1: with people who think differently from us, especially about politics.
Speaker 1: Our political attitudes and beliefs are intertwined with our most
Speaker 1: basic human needs, needs for safety, belonging, identity, self esteem,
Speaker 1: and purpose. And when they're threatened, we're biologically wired to
Speaker 1: respond as if we're in physical peril. No, no, false,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna stop right there. This is how liberals view things.
Speaker 1: This is not how conservative view things. I don't view
Speaker 1: my politics as essential to my safety, belonging, idea, entity,
Speaker 1: self esteem, and purpose, not at all. In fact, I
Speaker 1: view my politics says, hey, I think this is the
Speaker 1: best way to get this thing that we're all trying
Speaker 1: to get, or that I think we should all have,
Speaker 1: or that is, you know, intrinsic to human nature. But
Speaker 1: I'm open to debate it. I'm open to thinking about
Speaker 1: it another way. And honestly, you know my opinion. No
Speaker 1: one person's opinion matters all that much anyway. Past the gravy.
Speaker 1: That's kind of how I feel about this stuff. But
Speaker 1: they set up this angry uncle bot that that's supposed
Speaker 1: to be kind of like a training a training module
Speaker 1: for libs that have to deal with clearly with conservatives, right,
Speaker 1: because conservatives are the ones that are going to be difficult.
Speaker 1: Conservatives the one that they say are going to be
Speaker 1: a problem. So he writes, Hey, it's the angry uncle bot.
Speaker 1: I have lots of opinions, but what kind of uncle
Speaker 1: bot do you want to chat with? Then you have
Speaker 1: to reply, I'm more liberal, so I'll chat with conservative
Speaker 1: uncle bot. And I'm more conservatives, so I'll chat with
Speaker 1: liberal uncle bought. All right, So I click on I'm
Speaker 1: more liberal, so I'll chat just because I want to
Speaker 1: see what they say. Great. Let me tell you something.
Speaker 1: Trump has been great for America. Just look at the economy.
Speaker 1: It's booming. This is what the bot and you can
Speaker 1: click on this thing. Right, It's like a video game.
Speaker 1: It's like a choose your own adventure for politics. So
Speaker 1: look at the economy, it's booming, and then you have
Speaker 1: to click on how would you reply? Trump has been
Speaker 1: good for the rich? The jobs numbers are misleading, So
Speaker 1: how are you doing financially? You know, all annoying left
Speaker 1: wing things to say, let's go with John, what do
Speaker 1: you think? Let's go with the jobs numbers are misleading.
Speaker 1: I hear that one a lot, and then the response
Speaker 1: is you don't like them because Trump looks good hashtag
Speaker 1: fake news. And then the moderator comes in and says,
Speaker 1: this is not a good choice. This will turn the
Speaker 1: conversation into a debate over facts and figures. That's a
Speaker 1: problem because people tend not to be persuaded by contrary evidence.
Speaker 1: Try this response instead, so how are you doing financially?
Speaker 1: Good choice? The goal is to start a conversation. So basically,
Speaker 1: this is training folks. I know that there's a liberal
Speaker 1: version at a concertive version, but obviously people read the Times.
Speaker 1: They're all going to be a bunch of screaming libs.
Speaker 1: This is training that libs need for how to talk
Speaker 1: to conservatives in their family. And it's just so funny
Speaker 1: to me because I've had to talk to Libs. My
Speaker 1: whole life, all the time, all around me. The notion
Speaker 1: that as an adult who has political views and beliefs,
Speaker 1: I would need the New York Times. I get it
Speaker 1: too right. I mean, this is supposed to be kind
Speaker 1: of cute. It's little tongue in cheek. I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to be the Ebenezer Scrooge of Thanksgiving conversation here, although
Speaker 1: maybe I am. But it's just it just goes to
Speaker 1: show you, you know what the best thing to do
Speaker 1: on Thanksgiving is just enjoy being around family and friends
Speaker 1: and just don't get into annoying, contentious topics. Just don't
Speaker 1: do it. It doesn't matter. You're not gonna win anything,
Speaker 1: You're not going to convince anyone of anything. It's just
Speaker 1: much less important. And I really do believe that Libs
Speaker 1: have a much stronger inclination on this. Libs are much
Speaker 1: more likely to just get way out of get their
Speaker 1: nose bent out of joint on this one, and freak
Speaker 1: out because they view to that intro the point made
Speaker 1: of the intro. They view politics as intrinsic to their
Speaker 1: being and who they are and all this other stuff,
Speaker 1: and it's just not really the case, you know, It's funny.
Speaker 1: I think in this current environment, you're probably better off
Speaker 1: talking about religion and religious belief than you are about Trump.
Speaker 1: It's more likely you could agree on is there a God?
Speaker 1: And you know what is the truest or the only
Speaker 1: true religion? Then you are to get people on the
Speaker 1: opposing side of the Trump discussion to talk about things
Speaker 1: in a in a civil fashion. You know, you don't
Speaker 1: want someone to throw the turkey drums to get you.
Speaker 1: Those things can be kind of big. You know, you
Speaker 1: don't want you don't want some kind of an incident.
Speaker 1: So you know how to have a conversation with your
Speaker 1: angry uncle. Why do they assume the uncle's angry? By
Speaker 1: the way, what about the aunt. I've got some very
Speaker 1: opinionated aunts. You know what. Why they got to assume
Speaker 1: if there's man's splaining going on, there could be woman's
Speaker 1: planing over that Thanksgiving turkey. I'm just I'm just checking
Speaker 1: all the boxes, my friends. Roll calls up next. The
Speaker 1: show ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real. It's time
Speaker 1: for roll call, two shows away from Thanksgiving. On the
Speaker 1: roll call, that's where we are here, folks. Wow, time
Speaker 1: flies when you're doing a syndicated talk show. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, I can't believe already here. I've been living
Speaker 1: in the swamp for six months. Six months. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you. I miss I miss my big apple. You know,
Speaker 1: home is home, and for me, home is that big, smelly,
Speaker 1: overpriced concrete jungle known as New York City. But DC, no,
Speaker 1: I miss home. But it's good for the work. I
Speaker 1: got to interact with all the swamp creatures and bring
Speaker 1: you additional insights and knowledge and things like that because
Speaker 1: I'm here, so that part of it's cool. I gosh,
Speaker 1: I'm so tired. I'm actually drinking drinking coffee at this
Speaker 1: stage of the game. That's probably a bad idea, now,
Speaker 1: no wonder, I can't sleep at night. But it's black
Speaker 1: rifle coffee. That's the good news. Taste delicious, all right.
Speaker 1: Facebook dot Com slashbuck sex a team. I want. I
Speaker 1: want some Facebook first timers. You know. I've got a
Speaker 1: big crew of wonderful, wonderful team Buck folks who will
Speaker 1: write in on a regular basis, and obviously we get
Speaker 1: a lot of notes in that are that are first
Speaker 1: timers in general. But I would love it for the
Speaker 1: holidays to get some team Buck first timers in the
Speaker 1: inbox here. All you do is go to the page
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com Slashbuck Sex and send me a message
Speaker 1: there and thank you so much for doing so. Whatever
Speaker 1: you get the chance. Douglas rights, you are good on Rising.
Speaker 1: Today's co host and the panel were not too bright
Speaker 1: an extremely partisan, same as all the other shows. Well, Douglas,
Speaker 1: I'm glad that you think that I'm good on Rising.
Speaker 1: It's not easy to carry the conservative banner in that environment,
Speaker 1: and I do it as tactfully as I can, because,
Speaker 1: as I've said, I agreed when I came on the
Speaker 1: show to take a not too aggressive position with my
Speaker 1: conservative views. So I've I make my case, but I'm
Speaker 1: not going to shout. I'm not going to lose my
Speaker 1: temper and all the rest of it. So that that's
Speaker 1: how I view all of it. But thank you for
Speaker 1: your support of what I do. Martin writes, can you
Speaker 1: verify is Wikipedia is telling the truth about you? Especially
Speaker 1: in the footnotes, it appears that Wikipedia is a takes
Speaker 1: a leftist slant of things written in it. Hittory will
Speaker 1: be kind to me for I shall rewrite it. Signed Wikipedia, Martineah,
Speaker 1: I've had left wingers, go try to delete my Wikipedia page.
Speaker 1: I've had them try to put things on there that
Speaker 1: are not true. This is the way that unfortunately, social
Speaker 1: justice left acts on this stuff. This is the way
Speaker 1: that they that they will, you know, they conduct themselves.
Speaker 1: So yep, uh yeah, that's that's pretty much it. Um
Speaker 1: So there you go. I mean, oh yeah, I don't
Speaker 1: even have a I don't even have a Wikipedia page
Speaker 1: right now because they deleted it. They have deleted it.
Speaker 1: Um So, I don't know what else to tell you
Speaker 1: other than yep, the social justice words. They're gonna come
Speaker 1: after me, and you know, they're just they're just scum.
Speaker 1: I mean, I get so. I really have an honest
Speaker 1: disdain for these particularly for these progressive guys out there
Speaker 1: who are just so smarmy and nasty, bata male pajama
Speaker 1: boy cowards. You know that that's really the designation, that's
Speaker 1: what they are. And they all work at Huffington Post
Speaker 1: and move on, dot org and Slate and all these
Speaker 1: just talking points, memo, what's that other daily cos these
Speaker 1: just just steaming dung heaps of pseudo content that don't
Speaker 1: need to exist but they do for whatever reason. I
Speaker 1: just don't I just tend on to like those people.
Speaker 1: I mean, no, I'm sure there's some people there who
Speaker 1: are fine, but in general, I mean, in general, if
Speaker 1: you work for move on dot org or you work
Speaker 1: for Media Matters, you're probably not a very good person.
Speaker 1: Not not true all the time, but in general, it's
Speaker 1: it's a fair bet, especially Media Matters. Media Matters is
Speaker 1: a disgrace. But I could go on and on. So, yeah,
Speaker 1: Wikipedia did they They've deleted my page and people keep
Speaker 1: trying to put it. Hey, any of you listening, please
Speaker 1: go back and restore my Wikipedia page. How about that?
Speaker 1: It says thorough resourced as a lot of other Wikipedia
Speaker 1: pages that were out there. I've never written on it myself, obviously,
Speaker 1: but you know they've they've deleted it. So it's just
Speaker 1: such an annoyance. They just don't want people to be
Speaker 1: able to easily find me in my bio and background
Speaker 1: because they it's a form of deep platforming. They want
Speaker 1: a deep platform me on the Internet, and that's that's
Speaker 1: what they're doing. It's disgusting. I hate these clowns. Philip
Speaker 1: bright Shield, hie Buck, You've talked about this before, but
Speaker 1: with the recent mccraven comments, please visit wide. General flag
Speaker 1: officers tend to be social liberals. I have a few hunches.
Speaker 1: It starts with the service academies, which, in my experience,
Speaker 1: churned out the more liberal offers of my peer group
Speaker 1: a life of insular focus, and later fete it as
Speaker 1: royalty as they rise to flag rank. These senior officers
Speaker 1: have never lived or worked outside of a socialist environment. Therefore,
Speaker 1: while they're often great military minds, their whole personal experience
Speaker 1: is what of social prestige, Like an elite in any society, Philip,
Speaker 1: I think your analysis, and I'm guessing your military yourself.
Speaker 1: You're you're a military I can see if your bio
Speaker 1: your analysis is spot on. It's just that the nature
Speaker 1: of people that rise to the elite levels of the
Speaker 1: military command structure, not the elite levels. You know. When
Speaker 1: I think of elite military, I think of Jaysack. I
Speaker 1: think of Seals, Army Rangers, Delta, Special Forces, MARSAC, you know,
Speaker 1: Air Force, pjs, etc. I mean, that's when I think
Speaker 1: of elite military, That's what that's what comes to mind.
Speaker 1: But at the elite levels of the military command structure, Yeah,
Speaker 1: these are people that are much more like politicians than
Speaker 1: they are like warriors in many cases, and that's their day.
Speaker 1: Their day to day is much more similar to what
Speaker 1: you'd have as a congressman than what you'd have as
Speaker 1: a door kicker. So I do think that that affects
Speaker 1: their approach and certainly the perception they have of the
Speaker 1: world around them. And also I know that it's true
Speaker 1: on the intel analysts and civilian side. You know, you
Speaker 1: dident tend to need advanced degrees to impress the promotion
Speaker 1: boards of some of these places. And so when you
Speaker 1: get advanced degrees, there's a certain level of indoctrination that
Speaker 1: occurs because they're talking about social science advanced degrees, not
Speaker 1: like getting a PhD in math. Right, you're getting a
Speaker 1: degree in international relations, a degree in political science, or
Speaker 1: one of those things. And yeah, those are liberal strongholds.
Speaker 1: So there's a degree, and everybody's affected by this. Right,
Speaker 1: you want people around you to think you're smart, and
Speaker 1: you want to sound smart, so you end up saying
Speaker 1: the things that the smart people say. Now that all said,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm just speaking about bureaucracies and gentlemen. I
Speaker 1: have no experience. I've never been in the military. I
Speaker 1: have no experience of the military command structure myself, so
Speaker 1: you know your analysis, Philip is more astute on that
Speaker 1: than mine. I can tell you though that, you know,
Speaker 1: if you want to be CIA director, you got to
Speaker 1: kiss a lot of butt and you got to get
Speaker 1: advanced degrees, and that's pretty much it. You don't have
Speaker 1: to be some super intel officer. You really just have
Speaker 1: to be a politician. So as to the military side
Speaker 1: of it, I'll leave that to the many, many, many
Speaker 1: of you listening in this audience right now who are
Speaker 1: current or former military. One of the great points of
Speaker 1: pride in this show was what a huge and robust
Speaker 1: military listenership we have. Laurel writes, Hey, Buck, Laurel and Idaho.
Speaker 1: Here was it one of your sponsors, which is the
Speaker 1: free TV website app. I listened at work and don't
Speaker 1: always remember to write down the important stuff, lol, Laurel,
Speaker 1: free TV. What are you talking about? Snippy dot com.
Speaker 1: It's a new social media platform, Laurel, that's a sponsor
Speaker 1: on the show. Maybe that's what you're you're going for.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure, though. Timothy writes, here's a bearded picture
Speaker 1: for you from a Californian living in Canada. Talk about
Speaker 1: moving from the pan into the fire. Wow, Timothy, your
Speaker 1: beard is Your beard is like is next level dude.
Speaker 1: Like you could be a character in a TV show
Speaker 1: about the Civil War, and all the other Civil War
Speaker 1: guys would be like, gotta respect Timothy's beard. So props
Speaker 1: my friend. Thank you. Timothy writes, Oh another, this is
Speaker 1: a different Timothy Shield time Bucks, stop the madness with
Speaker 1: the burgers. Pickles are an absolute necessity for a counterpoint
Speaker 1: to the red meat flavor. Go to five guys. I
Speaker 1: know Obama likes it too. Even a blind squirrel finds
Speaker 1: a nut and get a bacon cheeseburger all the way,
Speaker 1: it will change your life. Okay, Timothy, a few thinks here,
Speaker 1: all right. First of all, I love five guys, okay.
Speaker 1: Second of all, even though I can't eat the bun obviously.
Speaker 1: Second of all, I don't know why people are so
Speaker 1: dug in on this pickle on burger thing. I mean, look,
Speaker 1: I understand that you've been propagandized too by the pickle
Speaker 1: industry for many, many years now. I understand that McDonald's
Speaker 1: unfortunately fell victim to the pickle on burger craze a
Speaker 1: long time ago. But it doesn't have to be that way.
Speaker 1: I'm showing you a glimpse of a brighter, better future
Speaker 1: where we don't have to have pickles on our burgers.
Speaker 1: We can have a pickle on the side of the plate,
Speaker 1: right next to your French fries, right next to your chips,
Speaker 1: you know, whatever it is you want to have there,
Speaker 1: right next to your Brussels sprouts. If you're like me
Speaker 1: and you try to eat brossel sprouts with every meal.
Speaker 1: That's just the way that it can be, Timothy, I'm
Speaker 1: trying to show you a glimpse of a brighter future.
Speaker 1: That's it. Five Guys is excellent. Although my favorite of
Speaker 1: the fast food burger chains is In and Out Burger
Speaker 1: In and Out. It's my number one, even though the
Speaker 1: fries at In and Out are not that good, John,
Speaker 1: have you had the Have you had the fries in
Speaker 1: and Out and five Guys? Five Guys fries are better,
Speaker 1: but In and Out Burger is is definitely, you know,
Speaker 1: definitely my favorite for the actual burger bah. John, you
Speaker 1: better be ready tomorrow. We're talking Thanksgiving food, Thanksgiving traditions.
Speaker 1: We're gonna have a whole, a whole shebang plan. You're
Speaker 1: ready for that action, add news. Buck, I'm out tomorrow. Wow, Wow,
Speaker 1: I'm I don't even know what to say. Now, Brandon
Speaker 1: will be here just leaving me. Yeah, Brandon, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Brandon doesn't get as excited about food. He gets excited
Speaker 1: about music, but food. He's not a foodie. That's all right.
Speaker 1: We'll talk to him about it anyway. Willie is next here.
Speaker 1: You're right, say hey, Buck, I live in SoCal, quite
Speaker 1: a distance from the fires. The saddest part of the
Speaker 1: fiasco is the loss of life and the feeling that
Speaker 1: it could have been a much smaller tragedy if only
Speaker 1: common sense were used. Governor Brown blamed global warming not
Speaker 1: so long ago. He seemed rather quiet during Trump's visit.
Speaker 1: What worries me most? Do we need a tragedy before
Speaker 1: we realize sanctuary cities and state policies are as dangerous
Speaker 1: as fires? How the voter, how the veterans, or rather
Speaker 1: how the voters can vote for the demn stuns me.
Speaker 1: Thanks for your excellent program, Willie, Well, thank you, Willie.
Speaker 1: And let me tell everybody out there, please do send
Speaker 1: me your Thanksgiving thoughts for tomorrow. We'll try to get
Speaker 1: a lot of that in on the show, what's the
Speaker 1: best side dish on Thanksgiving Feast Day? What are you
Speaker 1: thankful for? What are you looking at? Four two and
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen and all that good stuff. Anything you want
Speaker 1: to send for the show tomorrow, Facebook dot com, slashbuck sexted,
Speaker 1: talk to you, then she'll tie