Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. There are some Republican
Speaker 1: Senate defections against Trump's declaration of a national emergency at
Speaker 1: the border. I guess some Republicans are tired of winning.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about what that means going forward for our
Speaker 1: border security, plus all the latest on that incredible scandal
Speaker 1: and the various scams that people are using to get
Speaker 1: into college. That plus betto Keith in the RAF he
Speaker 1: totally wants to win that I'm more coming up on
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Remember the
Speaker 1: animipd Buck, are there any centers wishing to change their vote?
Speaker 1: If not the A's or fifty nine, the Nates or
Speaker 1: forty one, the joint resolution has passed. Welcome to the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show. Republicans apparently don't like to win. Republicans
Speaker 1: think that it's more important to preen and to lecture
Speaker 1: and to feel like they really really are the righteous
Speaker 1: ones instead of dealing with what is a true crisis
Speaker 1: at the border and backing up a president who's trying
Speaker 1: to do something about the border. Now, this resolution is
Speaker 1: not going to go anywhere. The Senate, with its fifty
Speaker 1: nine to forty one vote, cannot get together the two
Speaker 1: two thirds majority needed for it to be veto proof.
Speaker 1: But it is disheartening that there are GOP defections on
Speaker 1: an issue like this, where all the Democrats are doing
Speaker 1: is lining up and saying Trump wants it. No, Trump
Speaker 1: wants to do something about the border. No, they will
Speaker 1: not let Trump get his way. They will not give
Speaker 1: Trump a victory. They don't care that the border is
Speaker 1: an absolute mess right now. And that's not my opinion.
Speaker 1: That is from border patrol, that is from immigration customs enforcement.
Speaker 1: They are overwhelmed and overrun. They don't have the resources,
Speaker 1: they don't have the tools and the laws in place
Speaker 1: to effectively handle this situation. Unless you think that having
Speaker 1: an open border is great, then then it's fine. Then
Speaker 1: it's fine, Then there's no problem at all. These Republicans
Speaker 1: who did this, I have to say, it's just to
Speaker 1: remind her that there is this impulse in the GOP,
Speaker 1: and among some of the most well known names in
Speaker 1: the GOP, there's this impulse to just lose with dignity.
Speaker 1: That's their preference, always lose. But know that you are
Speaker 1: adhering to your constitutional principles. I don't even I don't
Speaker 1: even think that there's any circumstance, any circumstance where some
Speaker 1: of these Republicans would have come along with President Trump
Speaker 1: on this issue just because they like the idea. They
Speaker 1: like the idea of showing that they'll stand up against
Speaker 1: him on something. This was all about them. This is
Speaker 1: not about what's best for the country. And it is
Speaker 1: a disgrace what has happened here. It's a disgrace. You
Speaker 1: have Mitt Romney when he's not picking up candles and
Speaker 1: blowing them out on his cake one by one, which
Speaker 1: if you haven't seen it, Mitt Romney does, in fact
Speaker 1: blow candles out like a cyborg on a birthday cake.
Speaker 1: I am Mitt Romney. I am blowing up candles on
Speaker 1: that cache. He spoke about why he was not supportive
Speaker 1: of Trump on this issue of the national Emergency, played
Speaker 1: twenty seven. I'm gonna be voting in favor of the
Speaker 1: resolution of disapproval. For me, this is a constitutional question.
Speaker 1: It's a question about the balance of power that has
Speaker 1: cored or our constitution. This is not about the president
Speaker 1: or about the border security. In fact, I support border security.
Speaker 1: I support the construction of a border barrier. What about
Speaker 1: rule of law? Mitt? Do you support rule of law?
Speaker 1: Has a court struck down the statute that's been around
Speaker 1: for decades that allows the president of the United States
Speaker 1: to any situation that is an emergency, and the border
Speaker 1: is an emergency. The Democrats lied and lied and lied
Speaker 1: about that until they got their way with the budget.
Speaker 1: But now they can't lie anymore, or at least they
Speaker 1: can't lie without looking like morons because the borders clearly
Speaker 1: in emergency's gonna be one hundred thousand people at the
Speaker 1: border this month, folks. I'm gonna go down there with
Speaker 1: my own eyes and see it. If I can hundred
Speaker 1: thousand people coming into the country in one month illegally, Okay,
Speaker 1: that's a good size US city. But it's not a crisis,
Speaker 1: it's not an emergency. There's a statute that says the
Speaker 1: president can do this. The president acted under that statute.
Speaker 1: Congress passed that law. They have not repealed that law.
Speaker 1: A court has not struck down that law. What is this, Oh,
Speaker 1: you can't do this why President Trump understands this better
Speaker 1: than some of the most sanctimonious members of the Republican
Speaker 1: Senate play clip twenty five. I think anybody going against borders, security,
Speaker 1: drug traffic, in human traffic, and that's a bad vote.
Speaker 1: The Democrats are for open borders, they're for crime. I mean, frankly,
Speaker 1: they're for crime. These people can tell you that better
Speaker 1: than anyone. When you have open borders, when you don't
Speaker 1: have a walls, I guess they think it's good politically.
Speaker 1: I think it happens to be bad politically. I think
Speaker 1: it's an eighty percent issue and maybe more than that.
Speaker 1: But the Democrats, in order to make things difficult, they
Speaker 1: are for open borders and they're for crime, and the
Speaker 1: Republicans aren't. But I told Republican senators vote anyway you want,
Speaker 1: vote how you feel good. But I think it's bad
Speaker 1: for a Republican senator. I also think it's bad for
Speaker 1: a Democrat senator to vote against border security and to
Speaker 1: vote against the wall. I think if they vote that way,
Speaker 1: it's a very bad thing for them long into the future.
Speaker 1: I think he's right, but clearly some Republicans did not agree.
Speaker 1: They decided that they were going to break with the
Speaker 1: president on this issue. And look, this doesn't It doesn't
Speaker 1: really do anything. It's a resolution of approval or disapproval
Speaker 1: or whatever, disapproval of what the president's done. It doesn't
Speaker 1: do anything. However, what this does show is that there
Speaker 1: are Republicans who still Republicans, who still decide that they
Speaker 1: choose their own sense of their political importance over the
Speaker 1: agenda and over the interests of the nation. There are
Speaker 1: Republicans that would rather have nice things written about them
Speaker 1: for a day in the New York Times and Politico.
Speaker 1: In these places, you know, well, this Republican clearly is
Speaker 1: standing up for constitutional principles. So let's give him a
Speaker 1: little pat on the head. Before tomorrow we call him
Speaker 1: a racist and a sexist and a monster. Again, there
Speaker 1: are some Republicans who can't help it. They're so driven
Speaker 1: by ego that what matters most is that good day
Speaker 1: of press doesn't matter. The borders a mess. I kept
Speaker 1: hearing this explanation that, well, Republicans shouldn't do this, and
Speaker 1: Trump shouldn't do this because it'll set a precedent for Democrats.
Speaker 1: Democrats don't care what the precedent is. Look what Obama
Speaker 1: did with DOCCA. How many times he went on TV,
Speaker 1: I don't have your authority, I can't do it. I
Speaker 1: can't do it. Or it turns out I can do
Speaker 1: it because Congress Groll. I'll grow around Congress pen on
Speaker 1: the phone. Obama just did it. You know, they could
Speaker 1: try to have a national emergency on guns and seize
Speaker 1: our guns. That would be a very very very bad idea.
Speaker 1: They could try to declare a national emergency on climate change.
Speaker 1: You see. The funny thing about climate change, though, is
Speaker 1: that they never want to have to actually live under
Speaker 1: the policies that they think they want to pass, So
Speaker 1: that'll all crumble. The complete infeasibility of their climate change
Speaker 1: emergency would become apparent rather quickly. But also, just you know,
Speaker 1: why is it that Democrats win elections and then Democrats
Speaker 1: get policy that they want. Republicans win elections, and we
Speaker 1: can't seem to get it done other than tax cuts, folks.
Speaker 1: You know we got our tax cut. Yeah, that's nice.
Speaker 1: You know, it's not going to be as nice when
Speaker 1: a Democrat president takes control, a far left one at
Speaker 1: that most likely, and the tax rate just goes up
Speaker 1: a bunch. Taxes are going to go up across the board,
Speaker 1: that's what they want to do. So so the tax
Speaker 1: cut is always a tax cuts are always temporary. They
Speaker 1: can say they make them permanent, but they're always temporary.
Speaker 1: Taxes are for the here and now. Border policy, healthcare legislation.
Speaker 1: Maybe it's not forever, but at least there's some structure
Speaker 1: in place, and it has long, long term ramifications. And
Speaker 1: this is just nonsense from these Republicans. It really is.
Speaker 1: It really is. I don't even understand what they What
Speaker 1: point do they think they are approving here by going
Speaker 1: a against the president on this? Who do they think
Speaker 1: they're helping by doing this? They think they're establishing The
Speaker 1: Democrats don't give a crap about the Constitution. They don't
Speaker 1: give up. They don't care about separation of Paris. You've
Speaker 1: got the most prominent liberal papers, and they want to
Speaker 1: get rid of the electoral college. They want just the
Speaker 1: popular vote to be the old you know. There, they'll
Speaker 1: pull apart everything in the Constitution or our structure of federalism.
Speaker 1: They don't care. And so this is, you know, it's
Speaker 1: like we want the Democrats to like us. Oh, maybe
Speaker 1: if we do this they'll like us. Maybe if we
Speaker 1: show we really care about the Constitution, they'll want to
Speaker 1: be our friends. No, they'll want to kick us in
Speaker 1: the face and then kick sand in our eyes and
Speaker 1: laugh at us and then go do what they want
Speaker 1: to do. You'll notice, was there ever a moment in
Speaker 1: eight years of Obama pushing disastrous policy on the country,
Speaker 1: No Obama Care, Amnesty, cap and trade, climate change, all that,
Speaker 1: all this nonsense. Was there ever a time where there
Speaker 1: were where there were major Democrat defections? Oh, you know,
Speaker 1: we were just you know, uh, Obama's basically pushing socialism
Speaker 1: here and we just can't go along with that. Are
Speaker 1: you kidding me? Never happens. Why is it that Democrats
Speaker 1: can be on board to get what they want, but
Speaker 1: Republicans always have to have this this little purity contest.
Speaker 1: You know, it's like it's like they're all auditioning for
Speaker 1: the role of you know, the the the founding father
Speaker 1: of today, the one that really gets the constitution, the
Speaker 1: one that really has his finger on the pulse of
Speaker 1: what Thomas Jefferson would have thought of this? How about
Speaker 1: actually falling through on policy? You know, and I know
Speaker 1: that you could say back, but this is going to
Speaker 1: go into the courts and okay, fine, but so what's
Speaker 1: with the Republican defections? Why the grandstanding? You know what,
Speaker 1: why why why pull u? You know, you see what's
Speaker 1: going on to you? Why do this? It's just it
Speaker 1: also shows the Democrats that it's still easy to fracture Republicans,
Speaker 1: still easy to get them to abandon abandon each other
Speaker 1: on the field of battle because you know, they want
Speaker 1: to play by the rules. You know, that's great. I
Speaker 1: hope that makes them, you know, feel safe and warm
Speaker 1: at night. But in the meantime, the president's trying to
Speaker 1: deal with a massive crisis on our border. He's trying
Speaker 1: to fulfill a campaign promise that was the central campaign
Speaker 1: promise he made in twenty sixteen, and he can't even
Speaker 1: count on the Republicans in the Senate to have his back.
Speaker 1: It's all a really sense I know, he said, he said,
Speaker 1: you know, vote however you want, do whatever you want. Fine,
Speaker 1: but this shows us why even when we win as Republicans,
Speaker 1: we lose. And I am sick of it, I really am.
Speaker 1: We got a lot more speaking of even when you
Speaker 1: how about even when you lose you win as in Bato,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, are you guys like going to spend
Speaker 1: some time with me on the radio so I can
Speaker 1: ride into my skateboard And I'm just like gonna make
Speaker 1: pancakes with my kids, and the media is going to
Speaker 1: fall in love with me, and I'm gonna be president
Speaker 1: and it's gonna be so amazing. I'm gonna play my
Speaker 1: acoustic guitar in the corner and drink some zema because
Speaker 1: I'm a child of the eighties. Beto, Baby, we're gonna
Speaker 1: talk about him. He threw his hat in the ring today.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, we'll be right back. The President is literally
Speaker 1: using powers granted by Congress to enforce laws passed by Congress.
Speaker 1: This is well within his constitutional duty, and Congress is
Speaker 1: still unhappy for some reason. Make no mistake this vote today.
Speaker 1: If they oppose the president, do they stand in opposition
Speaker 1: to the American people, to American communities, and to safety
Speaker 1: and security? Or questions are not especially difficult ones. I'm
Speaker 1: sure the President is operating within existing law and the
Speaker 1: crisis on our border is all too real. So I
Speaker 1: will vote to support the President's decision later today, and
Speaker 1: I would encourage our colleagues to do the same. Miss
Speaker 1: McConnell gets it. Why can't other Republican senators get it?
Speaker 1: President's acting with an existing law. And also, what a
Speaker 1: what a strange place to really draw this line with
Speaker 1: all the executive overreach that the real executive overreach that
Speaker 1: happens now on a regular basis, with Congress seating so
Speaker 1: much of its authority to the executive branch because they
Speaker 1: don't want to take the political risks of having to
Speaker 1: make real decisions. So just let the president make those
Speaker 1: real decisions. This area, this is the place building a fence.
Speaker 1: This is what they're so worried about. That's where they're
Speaker 1: going to take a stand. You know, this is where
Speaker 1: the government can't spend money. I think the estimates are
Speaker 1: that we and and we lose eighty billion dollars a
Speaker 1: year in Medicare and Medicaid fraud. I think that's right.
Speaker 1: I hope it's not eighty million, because that would be very,
Speaker 1: very different. But we spend a lot of money on
Speaker 1: that issue alone, lose a lot of money. You're gonna
Speaker 1: tell me that we can't actually handle building offense at
Speaker 1: our southern border. You're gonna tell me that this is
Speaker 1: some area where you know, I'm sorry. Yeah, I was
Speaker 1: called sixty to seventy billion. I was close sixty to say.
Speaker 1: I just want to make sure I wasn't giving you
Speaker 1: a crazy number there, because I like to get the
Speaker 1: numbers ready, that's right, So let's call it sixty. We're
Speaker 1: losing sixty billion dollars a year, folks, to Medicare and
Speaker 1: medicaid fraud, people stealing from the government. And we don't
Speaker 1: have three or four billion dollars to build a wall
Speaker 1: and facilities at our border that will prevent this continued
Speaker 1: invasion of illegals and inadmissibles. We just we don't. This
Speaker 1: is where Congress, you know what it really is, folks.
Speaker 1: They're just not on board with this. Republicans some of
Speaker 1: them on board, A lot of them aren't. They don't
Speaker 1: want to say it. They don't have the they don't
Speaker 1: have the decency and the integrity and the honor to
Speaker 1: say it now. Instead, they'd rather just pretend to go that.
Speaker 1: They go along with Trump when it's good for them,
Speaker 1: but when it comes to taking a tough vote, they
Speaker 1: they've got nothing. They don't want to do it. They
Speaker 1: don't want to be in a position where they could
Speaker 1: be held to account later on. Oh, or they could
Speaker 1: just listen to Chuck Schumer on this one play twenty nine.
Speaker 1: The Framers gave Congress the power of the purse in
Speaker 1: Article one of the Constitution is probably our greatest power.
Speaker 1: And now the president is claiming that power for himself
Speaker 1: under guys of an emergency declaration to get around the
Speaker 1: Congress that repeatedly would not authorize his demand for a
Speaker 1: border wall. Repeatedly would not authorize a border wall. Okay,
Speaker 1: you guys remember Obamacare, right, still a thing. Unfortunately, they
Speaker 1: just decided to change that law in real time, the
Speaker 1: executive branch, the Obama administration. They just they would just
Speaker 1: change aspects of the law. Where was mister constitution Chuck Schumer?
Speaker 1: Then when the President United States, when it was Obama,
Speaker 1: decided that deferred action for childhood arrivals, which is not
Speaker 1: in the law, which he has no right to do,
Speaker 1: when he would just say, oh, well, my discretion, We're
Speaker 1: going to use prosecutorial discretion, so that will then be
Speaker 1: expanded into we promise we won't actually enforce the law
Speaker 1: against you, and you get to stay wherever you are
Speaker 1: in the country. That was utterly lawless. Where were Democrats
Speaker 1: and that, oh, well, they thought it was the right
Speaker 1: thing to do. You see, when Democrats want to get
Speaker 1: something done, they figure out a way to self justify it.
Speaker 1: When Republicans have the right to do a thing, but
Speaker 1: Democrats make enough noise about it, they back off and
Speaker 1: they whimp out. Look, it's going to the courts either way,
Speaker 1: and I know it's but the symbolism here is troubling.
Speaker 1: Trump does not have a unified Republican party behind him
Speaker 1: to get the things done that he has to get done.
Speaker 1: And we're heading into an election year. Things are gonna
Speaker 1: get tough, They're gonna get ugly, and there are a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans that are looking to tocktail and run.
Speaker 1: You're gonna need a plea. Let me know. If you're
Speaker 1: gonna to formally read the indictment, you have the optiment
Speaker 1: having me read it, or you can wave reading the
Speaker 1: need to plea of guilty and that guilty. Here are
Speaker 1: we wave formal reading of the indictment and mister smalltality,
Speaker 1: thank you, Jesse Smallett in court not guilty. Now. My
Speaker 1: expectation would be that he ends up trying to negotiate
Speaker 1: some kind of a plea bargain. But I think he's
Speaker 1: got to go to jail. I think I think he's
Speaker 1: got to go to prison for this. Not for a
Speaker 1: very long time, but he should serve some time. The
Speaker 1: law has to have meeting. I mean, what he did
Speaker 1: was reckless, it was willful, it was premeditated, and it
Speaker 1: also pulled at some of the sensitive strings in this country.
Speaker 1: You know, it pulled at some of those areas where
Speaker 1: if you are being reckless, if you're being disingenuous, you
Speaker 1: can do a lot of damage to how people view
Speaker 1: each other, to how we all get along. You know.
Speaker 1: He effectively defamed millions and millions of Trump voters, and
Speaker 1: he did it for his own advance nment, his own
Speaker 1: need for attention, and lied and lied and lied about it.
Speaker 1: How is it that the mainstream media was not able
Speaker 1: to see this? How is it that they did that?
Speaker 1: What is it Robin Roberts interview where he was treated
Speaker 1: as somebody who was just telling his story instead of
Speaker 1: somebody who really should have been pushed on the facts.
Speaker 1: And there should have been an effort made to get
Speaker 1: to the truth. But they just didn't care about that. Really,
Speaker 1: they believed the story because they always believe the story
Speaker 1: because the narrative of a racist America that has overrun
Speaker 1: with these mean maga hat wearing Trump supporters that carry
Speaker 1: nooses in their back pockets and hate people because of
Speaker 1: their skin color, of their ethnicity. Liberals unfortunately believe that lunacy.
Speaker 1: That's for me in many ways. The most troubling takeaway, Yeah,
Speaker 1: the media's dishonesty here and also ineptitude. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: not very smart. A lot of people that work in
Speaker 1: the media are not very smart, which is why they're
Speaker 1: so insecure and why they are so nasty, and also
Speaker 1: why group think appeals to them so much, because they
Speaker 1: want the other important media people to like them and
Speaker 1: to give them jobs. So they all want to think
Speaker 1: the same thing, say the same thing, herd mentality in
Speaker 1: the mainstream media. They all want to stay as a
Speaker 1: part of the herd. But the other part of this
Speaker 1: that we have to remember is that what Jesse Smalllett
Speaker 1: tells us is that even after hoaxes like the Uba
Speaker 1: gang rape hoax and the Duke Lacrosse hoax and the
Speaker 1: woman who said she was attacked on a subway and
Speaker 1: her job was smacked off by somebody with a maga
Speaker 1: hat total hoax. I mean, with all these hoaxes that
Speaker 1: happen the majority of the media and much of the left,
Speaker 1: and I go back and forth between disdain for the en,
Speaker 1: feeling sorry for them, disdain because the true believers in
Speaker 1: the left tend to be very nasty people. They tend
Speaker 1: to lack honor and mercy and dignity. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is just my This is in my experience, not all
Speaker 1: of them, but a lot of them. I mean, the
Speaker 1: true believers on the left are people who are whacked
Speaker 1: out and are somewhat disconnected from the humanity of the
Speaker 1: people around them because it's all theoretical, it's all about
Speaker 1: the collective. You know, they can't be nice to people
Speaker 1: that they're dealing with in a day to day sense
Speaker 1: because they're so busy trying to save the world from
Speaker 1: climate change and the climate change efforts they're engaging in.
Speaker 1: Excuse their nasty behavior. I mean, just spend spend five
Speaker 1: minutes online on Twitter and see how the left acts,
Speaker 1: see how they respond to good faith thought, good faith engagement.
Speaker 1: They just it's disgusting. They turn it into a cesspool
Speaker 1: in a matter of seconds. And I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: journalists on the left too. I'm not just talking about Randos,
Speaker 1: but they really believed that this happened to Jesse Smollett
Speaker 1: because that's what they think of Trump supporters. You have
Speaker 1: to remember that the only way you could be so
Speaker 1: foolish as to buy into this narrative is if you
Speaker 1: think that this is really where the country is, and
Speaker 1: that's really how Trump supporters are, and it's it's troubling,
Speaker 1: but I think it's better for us to know the
Speaker 1: truth about this than to keep walking around thinking that, maybe,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe the left isn't as insane as buck
Speaker 1: Sexton tells us. They are. No, trust me, they are.
Speaker 1: They are that insane. I'm not. I'm not just trying
Speaker 1: to get you all fired up over this. They are nuts.
Speaker 1: So I just just a quick update there on Smollet
Speaker 1: for you. I did speak this week. It didn't mean
Speaker 1: for that to rhyme him I am, said Sam, I
Speaker 1: am or whatever, you know what I mean, Green Eggs
Speaker 1: and him. I did speak this week to some folks
Speaker 1: in the government. I won't say where about the Mueller
Speaker 1: probe and the reality of the Muller probe, which is
Speaker 1: that it keeps getting pushed back they are supposed to,
Speaker 1: because I told you a few weeks ago I had
Speaker 1: a good authority it was gonna end. Now we're told March,
Speaker 1: but we have been told February. And if if I'm
Speaker 1: a betting man, I think this thing drags on at
Speaker 1: least into April, if not into May, based on the
Speaker 1: on the delays that we're hearing about it. And I
Speaker 1: think that part of this, I do think that part
Speaker 1: of this is because the left needs to There's an
Speaker 1: administrative component, no question, they're trying to wrap things up,
Speaker 1: and they got questions and what are they going to release?
Speaker 1: But there's an administrative question here. But there's also the
Speaker 1: need for the DOJ, the bureaucracy, and the left within
Speaker 1: it to try to find cover because this is gonna
Speaker 1: be a real moment in American history. When this report
Speaker 1: comes out and there's there's nothing in it that's gonna
Speaker 1: the collusion delusion squad is going to look absolutely out
Speaker 1: of their minds, which we all have known all along
Speaker 1: they would, but now we're going to have real hard
Speaker 1: proof of this at least well what they'll say it's
Speaker 1: the absence of proof is not you know, the absence
Speaker 1: of evidence is not evidence. That's what they'll be telling us.
Speaker 1: But anybody who's being saying and normal is going to
Speaker 1: understand that this is not what they were promising what
Speaker 1: was going to happen. This is not what This is
Speaker 1: not the Russia collusion that they had been talking about
Speaker 1: now for two years, endlessly, endlessly. Adam Schiff, you're gonna
Speaker 1: hear a lot of him in the days ahead. He
Speaker 1: was confronted about the absence of collusion. Here is what
Speaker 1: Shifty Shiff had to say six at all along and
Speaker 1: beginning two years ago, as you point out, until the
Speaker 1: present date, is there is ample evidence of collusion. But
Speaker 1: whether that evidence amounts to proof beyond a reason without
Speaker 1: a criminal conspiracy, we would have to wait for Bob
Speaker 1: Mueller to determine. That is still very much my view.
Speaker 1: The best evidence of the president's complicity as a general
Speaker 1: matter is the fact that he has been so deceptive
Speaker 1: about all of these contexts time after time. If there's
Speaker 1: insufficient evidence in the Mueller Report, and we're not able
Speaker 1: to produce efficient evidence in our own investigation, that ends
Speaker 1: the inquiry. There may be grounds for removal from office,
Speaker 1: or there may be grounds for indictment. After he leaves
Speaker 1: office that the Congress discovers. One of the issues that
Speaker 1: we're looking at, which the Muller report may not cover,
Speaker 1: is whether the Russians were laundering money through the Trump organization.
Speaker 1: Our predominant concern in my committee is was this president?
Speaker 1: Is this president compromised by a foreign power? I mean,
Speaker 1: this guy is sick. He's really got a problem. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe he understands that everything he's saying is a lie.
Speaker 1: It's dishonest, it's disgusting. But you just hear how he
Speaker 1: just switches all over the place and now he's talking
Speaker 1: about money laundering for the president. What where did this
Speaker 1: come from? You know how you can tell that Adam
Speaker 1: Schiff is lying? His lips are moving. No, No, I'm
Speaker 1: just kidding. You know how you can tell Adam Schiff
Speaker 1: is lying because based on his approach to Russia collusion
Speaker 1: and what's gone on with the Mullar probe, it is
Speaker 1: never a possibility that the president is innocent. It's never
Speaker 1: a possibility, with the way that he constructs this narrative
Speaker 1: that it didn't happen. It's always just it. It needs
Speaker 1: more investigation, We need more information. There had to be
Speaker 1: collusion we just haven't found it yet, he said there,
Speaker 1: and he was being serious that maybe the Congress, the
Speaker 1: Congress will be able to find Russia collusion with Trump
Speaker 1: that the Special Council was not able to find. My friends,
Speaker 1: I'm amazed that some members of Congress can tie their
Speaker 1: shoes in the morning and find the bathroom. Congress is
Speaker 1: not going to find anything that the Muller Probe did
Speaker 1: not find about Russia collusion. Now they may find Trump's
Speaker 1: business dealings, you know, things that they may find Trump's
Speaker 1: third grade report card where it was said that he
Speaker 1: was very very naughty. You know, they may find some stuff.
Speaker 1: And that's what they're gonna do. They're gonna just look
Speaker 1: for everything and dig through everything. They are going to
Speaker 1: turn the Congress and the investigative and oversight powers of
Speaker 1: the United States Congress into an ongoing OPO research machine
Speaker 1: to feed the lunatics at MSNBC and CNN and The
Speaker 1: New York Times, the Washington Post, just to give them
Speaker 1: stuff to run with. That is the plan. That is
Speaker 1: what they are going to do here. And they have
Speaker 1: no hesitation about this, I mean no sense that maybe
Speaker 1: maybe they're dragging the country through the mud in a
Speaker 1: way that is damaging, regardless of what it does for
Speaker 1: their electoral prospects in twenty twenty. You know that there's
Speaker 1: no decency from these people. Oh, by the way, you
Speaker 1: know what came out on this Lisa Page. Remember Lisa
Speaker 1: Page referred to as the paramour of Peter Struck, the
Speaker 1: FBI agent who wrote all that terrible stuff, a Trump
Speaker 1: hater and the chief of counterintelligence at the FBI. Very
Speaker 1: important guy. You know, you see these figures popping up
Speaker 1: the Hillary email investigation, the Russia collusion investigation. You're the
Speaker 1: same people, the same Hillary loving Trump hating maniacs at
Speaker 1: key nodes in these different places in the DOJ. Lisa
Speaker 1: Page was the woman who's having an affair with and
Speaker 1: she testified unclosed doors. The transcript's now been released that
Speaker 1: what we've known all along is true. Now we just
Speaker 1: have confirmation, which is that the Department of Justice was
Speaker 1: running cover for Hillary on the email thing, and that
Speaker 1: there was never going to be a circumstance under which
Speaker 1: Hillary Clinton was prosecuted for violations of the ESPIONAD. It
Speaker 1: didn't matter what they found, it didn't matter how sensitive
Speaker 1: it was, it didn't matter how egregious how reckless recklessness
Speaker 1: is in the statute. If what Hillary Clinton did with
Speaker 1: her and I had a TS clearance, I know how
Speaker 1: the regulations go. I know what happens to lower level people.
Speaker 1: When I was in the CIA. If I had had
Speaker 1: one one hundredth of what Hillary did, my career would
Speaker 1: have been over and I would have been begging not
Speaker 1: to go to prison. That's just the truth. Meanwhile, with Hillary,
Speaker 1: even though recklessness was in the statute, they said that
Speaker 1: it didn't count, you know, because it's old and stuff.
Speaker 1: And the same people at DJ who were saying that
Speaker 1: Hillary didn't get in trouble for an email server that
Speaker 1: she set up willfully knowingly in order to evade transparency requirements.
Speaker 1: That's all it was. It was shady Hillary. They decided
Speaker 1: that the Espionage Act has written the Statute as it is,
Speaker 1: did not apply to Hillard. These is the same people
Speaker 1: that sent over FBI investigators to go trap General Flynn
Speaker 1: based on the Logan Act, which no serious person thinks
Speaker 1: is a law that could be prosecuted. It's never been
Speaker 1: put people go to prison for the Espionage Act for
Speaker 1: a long time. No one's been prosecutor on the Logan Act.
Speaker 1: The same people at DJ Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, James Comey.
Speaker 1: These are the people that are making these decisions. This
Speaker 1: is unequal application of the law based on political affiliation.
Speaker 1: That's what we saw, and it was all the way
Speaker 1: at the very top, and it was trying to influence
Speaker 1: the future of this country, trying to What's what's so
Speaker 1: ironic about the whole Russia collusion investigation is that they
Speaker 1: accused Trump of working with the Russians to try to
Speaker 1: change the change the outcome of the election, when in
Speaker 1: our own country, our own Department of Justice, the chief
Speaker 1: law enforcement mechanism in the United States was we have
Speaker 1: proof and we know trying to change the result of
Speaker 1: a presidential election, and nobody yet seems to really be
Speaker 1: willing to hold them to account for it. Back in
Speaker 1: just a moment, if anyone in the military or anybody
Speaker 1: in the intelligence community, including people within the FBI, if
Speaker 1: they were to leak like that, they would be fired,
Speaker 1: they would be imprisoned, they would be prosecuted. There were
Speaker 1: dozens and dozens of classified emails that were actually put
Speaker 1: onto an illegal server that was then destroyed, that was
Speaker 1: likely picked up by foreign intelligence. God knows what countries
Speaker 1: actually have these classified emails that Clinton was sending. But
Speaker 1: the bottom line is is that she should have been
Speaker 1: held accountable and she wasn't, And there was an orchestrated effort,
Speaker 1: a conspiracy, so to speak, to ensure that she was
Speaker 1: not prosecutor. That's what Page testified to. And the fact
Speaker 1: that she wasn't prosecuted on something that rank and file
Speaker 1: people in the military and intelligence community to get prosecuted
Speaker 1: for is unfathomable. But we just found that clip. I
Speaker 1: don't even know we had that. It's Devin Newnes said
Speaker 1: exactly what I was telling you, which is, yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: when I was a little nobody in the CIA, if
Speaker 1: I had pulled the crap at Hillary Pool, I would
Speaker 1: be dunezo. But she's Hillary Clinton, sowow, she gets to
Speaker 1: live by a different set of laws, Hillary laws, Clinton laws.
Speaker 1: That's what happened here, and we all knew this, And
Speaker 1: I think that's one of the frustrations. You know, so
Speaker 1: much of what the Democrats do is to speak to
Speaker 1: all of the rest of us like we're so dumb,
Speaker 1: like we just can't understand anything. And we knew that
Speaker 1: they were never going to prosecute Hillary Clinton. It was
Speaker 1: just not going to happen. They weren't going to let it.
Speaker 1: It didn't matter what she did, they weren't going to
Speaker 1: let that happen because she was their great hope for
Speaker 1: a continuation of Obama's policies and breaking the great glass
Speaker 1: ceiling as the first woman president. All this stuff run
Speaker 1: and people have spent years, decades propping up this shrill,
Speaker 1: nasty woman who's not particularly gifted politically whatsoever. But you know,
Speaker 1: they just has the name, and the whole thing is
Speaker 1: the name, and that's all that it really took, you know,
Speaker 1: and a resume that she was handed because of who
Speaker 1: her husband was. Let's just call it what it is.
Speaker 1: Let's just call it what it is. And by the way,
Speaker 1: Evan Noon has also some words for the Muller pro
Speaker 1: play clip ten. The Muller investigation, it went off the
Speaker 1: rails a long time ago. They have zero credibility. They
Speaker 1: have been looking for two years. They have no evidence
Speaker 1: of collusion. And look, this would not be complicated to
Speaker 1: find collusion. Remember that was the whole story. We were
Speaker 1: going to find evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians
Speaker 1: to get dirt on Hillary. Not only has that never
Speaker 1: been proven. We actually have the opposite. We have the
Speaker 1: opposite is true. It's a fact the Clinton campaign hired
Speaker 1: Christopher Steele to go and talk to Russians to get
Speaker 1: dirt on Trump that's never been prosecuted. So what in
Speaker 1: hell's Muller doing. I have no idea. This has gone
Speaker 1: on for two years and he's doing kind of Joe
Speaker 1: fifty million dollars of taxpayer money has been spent. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so he gets it. I'm glad Nunez understands it. It
Speaker 1: is off the rails these challenges. I am absolutely convinced
Speaker 1: we'll bring out the absolute best in every single one
Speaker 1: of us. And we have something that almost no other
Speaker 1: country in the world has. We have the single greatest
Speaker 1: mechanism to call forth the genius of our fellow human beings.
Speaker 1: This democracy, more than three hundred and twenty million people strong,
Speaker 1: can bring the ingenuity, the creativity, the resolve of an
Speaker 1: entire country. And each one of these challenges can and
Speaker 1: will be met. But the foundational challenge to get all
Speaker 1: of this done is to fix our democracy. So we
Speaker 1: have to like come together and be challenging challengers of
Speaker 1: addressing all of the great hope of future and democracy
Speaker 1: and the people, and we will make the democracy. Betto
Speaker 1: is in my friends, he has launched his twenty twenty bid,
Speaker 1: and I have no idea what the heck he was
Speaker 1: talking about. In that little we have the single greatest
Speaker 1: knockdness them to call forth the genius all of our
Speaker 1: fellow human beings. It can bring the ingenuity, the creativity,
Speaker 1: the resolve of an entire country. No, democracy is not
Speaker 1: a mass mobilization for for the ingenuity and the creativity
Speaker 1: of the entirety of the American people. Democracy is a
Speaker 1: system by which we pick the people who are given
Speaker 1: authority by us in our governmental structure and hope that
Speaker 1: they leave us alone. It's not just like everyone gets
Speaker 1: to be awesome and is like surrounded with their awesomeness
Speaker 1: at the same time. This is kind of a shock
Speaker 1: to some folks. Maybe that Betto should we start calling
Speaker 1: him Robert. This whole Betto thing is just this is
Speaker 1: kind of pretentious, right, This is weird, but it makes
Speaker 1: him seem more interesting. You'll note a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrat candidates are going by their first names. Tulsi,
Speaker 1: bad Toe, Bernie, Hillary all first, all first namers, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, but battou O'Rourke, who's a guy who
Speaker 1: has cultural appropriation. But it's not appropriation if you wear
Speaker 1: like designer jeans and ride a skateboard. He said not
Speaker 1: long ago, this about running for office play fourteen. We've
Speaker 1: heard a lot of people speculate that you and Senator
Speaker 1: Cruz may face each other again, not in a Senate rematch,
Speaker 1: but running for a higher office. What are your thoughts
Speaker 1: on I'm running for president. I don't want to do it.
Speaker 1: I will not do it. Amy and I are raising
Speaker 1: an eleven year old, a ten year old, and a
Speaker 1: seven year old, and we've spent the better part of
Speaker 1: the last two years not with each other, missing birthdays
Speaker 1: and anniversaries and time together, and were our family could
Speaker 1: not survive more of I don't want to do it,
Speaker 1: I will not do it, like totally accept I went
Speaker 1: to my local ashram and I spoke to my guru
Speaker 1: and he was like, wait, but like, if you're president,
Speaker 1: you'll be like super rich and famous, right like so
Speaker 1: all that family stuff. I was like, forget it, and
Speaker 1: now I'm gonna run. Isn't Beto kind of like an
Speaker 1: Aeron Sorkin character? Like from the West Wing. He's an
Speaker 1: Aeron Sorkin character mixed with a new age yoga instructor.
Speaker 1: So I just want the country to come together and
Speaker 1: like unite, and also I need you to breathe deeply
Speaker 1: and feel your chea and have the cheat in the
Speaker 1: center and make sure that you both push in and
Speaker 1: out of your diaphragm at the same time. That's like
Speaker 1: every every yoga class I've ever taken they tell me
Speaker 1: to do things. I'm like, I don't get it. What
Speaker 1: am I pushing in the diaphragm or out of the diaphragm?
Speaker 1: And how do I push my diaphragm exactly? What is this? Yeah, Beto, Oh,
Speaker 1: mister Betto, I don't know if you have the stomach
Speaker 1: for it. So I can't I can't tell you that
Speaker 1: you should do this. I can only tell you may
Speaker 1: wish to do this. There's a Vanity Fair profile of
Speaker 1: Betto that is such a slobbering love fest. I mean
Speaker 1: it is the It is the literary equivalent of a
Speaker 1: well a well oiled foot massage for Beto O'Rourke via
Speaker 1: Vanity Fairs editorial staff. So if you're up for that,
Speaker 1: if you if you can handle that. I like when
Speaker 1: like they pull the toes because like sometimes it makes
Speaker 1: a little pop noise, and like it totally releases my stress.
Speaker 1: If you can handle it, you should read it because
Speaker 1: you'll see what we're up against here. There's some stuff
Speaker 1: about Betto that I'm obviously gonna have some fun with you,
Speaker 1: because look, you come here, you give me your time.
Speaker 1: Not only are we doing information and analysis, but it's
Speaker 1: gotta be fun, right, We gotta have a good time.
Speaker 1: But I think that Betto I'm being convinced more and
Speaker 1: more by Democrats that I know who aren't pro Beto.
Speaker 1: They're Bernie people, they're Biden people. They think that Beto
Speaker 1: might actually be a real contender. And here's the reason
Speaker 1: why they look at Beto and they look at Obama
Speaker 1: for example. And you have two guys here with you know.
Speaker 1: There there's a young hip charisma aspect of all this.
Speaker 1: But also the media is very very powerful, especially remember
Speaker 1: we think of the power of the media has to
Speaker 1: direct the narrative for all of America, including people like
Speaker 1: you and me who know that we are getting a
Speaker 1: steady dose of left wing propaganda from the left wing media,
Speaker 1: but they still are able to shape a lot of
Speaker 1: the conversation. They still have a tremendous amount of influence.
Speaker 1: They still are very much able to set the table
Speaker 1: for debate right and to push our thoughts into certain directions,
Speaker 1: even when you're aware of the propagandistic effect. Imagine if
Speaker 1: you were somebody who really thought that CNN was honest,
Speaker 1: for example, you thought that you were just getting the news.
Speaker 1: You thought that whatever comes out of the media industrial
Speaker 1: complex is the gospel truth. Then you'd be somebody who
Speaker 1: when they tell you Betto is great, when they tell
Speaker 1: you Betto is the second coming of well, the second
Speaker 1: coming of Obama, I guess right, that's really that they're
Speaker 1: saying that Betto is Obama like and that he is
Speaker 1: the guy the country needs right now because he's kind of,
Speaker 1: you know, he's not particularly aggressive, he's low key, he's
Speaker 1: a family man, he's nice and all the all there's
Speaker 1: they're starting to build this narrative around him, and that
Speaker 1: narrative will have a lot of residence, especially in a
Speaker 1: very crowded field of Democrats, which is just I can't
Speaker 1: I work in politics, right, I cover the stuff every day.
Speaker 1: All I'm doing is reading and researching in preparation for
Speaker 1: this show, and I can't even name all the candidates
Speaker 1: I'll top of my head, and I should probably learn
Speaker 1: them all at this point. But there's some that I'm like, wait,
Speaker 1: that person? Who who? Who? What? What? Who? What's that?
Speaker 1: A lot of there was a little there was a
Speaker 1: there was a reference there, there was a movie reference.
Speaker 1: Some of you will get it. Very few of you
Speaker 1: will get it. Some of you will get it. Beto
Speaker 1: is going to have the media totally behind him. They're swooning.
Speaker 1: I mean when I say they like Beto, there's really
Speaker 1: almost a romantic obsession with Betto from political journalists, from
Speaker 1: the people who write these profiles of an up and
Speaker 1: coming candidate and all that kind of stuff. There is
Speaker 1: really a it's abnormal what you're seeing here. It's not
Speaker 1: just oh, he's a Democrat and he's young. It's and
Speaker 1: they always say he's Kennedy esque. I don't know, does
Speaker 1: he really look like a Kennedy? Is that just I
Speaker 1: feel like Kennedy esque is what Democrats call Democrat politicians
Speaker 1: who are white guys who are vague like like kind
Speaker 1: of handsome, I don't know, but like buck like have
Speaker 1: you have you seen me with my acoustic guitar and
Speaker 1: when I'm like singing songs and I'm also in a
Speaker 1: punk rock band. But there's a sensitive side to me,
Speaker 1: because like Beto's very he's very emo, he's very sensitive
Speaker 1: and like he wants all the greatness of the country
Speaker 1: to just like be so great, but also wants to
Speaker 1: like write songs about how he's just friends with your girlfriend,
Speaker 1: Like he doesn't really want to ask her out, but
Speaker 1: like maybe he'll ask her out at some point if
Speaker 1: you're cool with that. But he says they're just friends. Now,
Speaker 1: that's right. That's you know who Beto was in college?
Speaker 1: He was the guy who whatever you went to the
Speaker 1: fraternity party or whatever, he was playing guitar in the
Speaker 1: corner and talking to your girlfriend and you're like, what's
Speaker 1: this all about? And then when you ask, you're like, hey, white,
Speaker 1: that guy's like, oh, he's just my friend. He just
Speaker 1: wants to be friends. We're onto you, Beto, we know
Speaker 1: how you roll. So like I just wrote this song
Speaker 1: for you because I felt so emotionally connected from our
Speaker 1: five minute conversation while you're waiting in line for the
Speaker 1: cag And as long as it doesn't bother your boyfriend,
Speaker 1: I just want to sing it for you. We really
Speaker 1: got a rot Beto character going on here. By the way,
Speaker 1: let's talk about Beto on the issue? Shall we? On policy?
Speaker 1: What does this guy stand for? What is his pathway
Speaker 1: in the Democratic Party? Is he the real deal? Is
Speaker 1: he a threat not just to win the primary, but
Speaker 1: to defeat Trump? We have that and owe so much
Speaker 1: more coming up, And just like a second stay with me.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many countries are all on the
Speaker 1: face of the planet one hundred and ninety two musclementals
Speaker 1: of How can we, who used to be the indispensable
Speaker 1: nation be the only country that has removed itself from
Speaker 1: any obligation to work with anyone? Or perhaps the most
Speaker 1: pressing problem if you think of our leadership, those who
Speaker 1: preceded us right, those who run speeches in Normandy, those
Speaker 1: who faced an existential threat to Western democracy, in our
Speaker 1: way of life, they showed us the way we can
Speaker 1: all come together. We can unite, we can marshal the resources,
Speaker 1: and we can convene the countries of the world around
Speaker 1: otherwise unsolvable problem. That's who we are. That's why they
Speaker 1: call us the indispensable nation. Well, that moment is now
Speaker 1: for us on this issue. So if there's a time
Speaker 1: to reassert global leadership and make friends instead of enemies,
Speaker 1: it's today, because the challenges are too great to do otherwise. Yes,
Speaker 1: I mean, Beto just sounds like a high school kid
Speaker 1: who's giving a speech at Model un and just wants
Speaker 1: to get a standing o all the time so badly.
Speaker 1: He's kind of in please clap, please clap mode. Yo,
Speaker 1: We're just gonna come together like like we did at Normandy,
Speaker 1: except for climate change, please clap exactly. Man, it's uh,
Speaker 1: this guy, he's really I mean, climate change is a
Speaker 1: big one for these people. I it's just not a
Speaker 1: it's not easy to have a constructive it's really not
Speaker 1: even possible of a constructive conversation with people who are
Speaker 1: so crazy they think the world's gonna end in twelve years.
Speaker 1: Betto Robert should we call him Robert? Remember I'm the
Speaker 1: guy who it was on the Rush Limball Show when
Speaker 1: I was guest hosting a few years ago and Rush's team,
Speaker 1: I remember mister Snerdley, He's like, are you are you
Speaker 1: for real? In the break said yeah, I'm for real.
Speaker 1: People didn't really know that Bill de Blasio's real name
Speaker 1: was varonville Helm Court and Taliah Mark Schnell Varonville Helm
Speaker 1: Alf dutch Land. He changed his name to Bill de Blasi,
Speaker 1: as we know, because hey, he was going to vote
Speaker 1: for Billy the Blasio. I'm a union guy from Queens.
Speaker 1: You know, I worked for the two five Electrician Union Queens.
Speaker 1: I vote for build a Blasio. You know, it sounds
Speaker 1: like it sounds like something you do, right, But I'm
Speaker 1: gonna vote for Warren Wilhelm. Who what, I don't know
Speaker 1: if that's really something you're gonna do. So Vardon Fieldham
Speaker 1: changed his name. It's very slice of mister Rielhelm. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so he became build a Blasio. And I remember I
Speaker 1: said that on the show and people were like, what
Speaker 1: he must be making that up. No, it's true. You
Speaker 1: can check it out. You can. You can look it up. Betto.
Speaker 1: I would just note from reading the Glowing Profile and
Speaker 1: Vanity Fair. Oh Beto, so handsome and dreamy. The Glowing
Speaker 1: Profile and Vanity Fair on him. He was called Robert
Speaker 1: for much of his adult life. So this this all
Speaker 1: Beto thing. And because I know people can say Buck,
Speaker 1: your name is Buck. Well, my middle name is buck Man.
Speaker 1: You all know this. It's a family name and everyone's
Speaker 1: called me Buck since I was a baby. The only
Speaker 1: people will call me James or the police in the IRS,
Speaker 1: but hopefully not people I hear from very often. But
Speaker 1: Betto is just as a kind of an affect. It's
Speaker 1: not anywhere in his name. It's a Latin nickname for
Speaker 1: his name, and he's not Latino. So I'm sorry, but
Speaker 1: this if there is such a thing as cultural appropriation,
Speaker 1: and I know I argue that there is not. But
Speaker 1: if you argue, there is a white dude named Robert
Speaker 1: O'Rourke call it run around, called himself Beto. Yeah, what
Speaker 1: if I want to run for office? And I was like,
Speaker 1: just call me Diego whatever, it would be okay with that.
Speaker 1: I just like, I just like to be called Diego. Yeah, Roberto,
Speaker 1: there you go. So anyway, he's crazy on climate change.
Speaker 1: Um go, wait, did we already play eighteen? John? I
Speaker 1: got so wrapped up in the no I got okay,
Speaker 1: Yeah I wanted to play. So this is what he
Speaker 1: thinks about client. So this is Betto, the new great
Speaker 1: hope of the Democrats to defeat Trump. Here's what he
Speaker 1: says about climate chan just gonna kill us all. It's
Speaker 1: so scary, and perhaps most importantly of all, because our
Speaker 1: very existence depends on it, we can unleash the ingenuity
Speaker 1: and creativity of millions of Americans who want to ensure
Speaker 1: that we squarely confront the challenge of climate change before
Speaker 1: it's too late. Yeah, I don't know how we're supposed
Speaker 1: to do that. I don't know what he thinks is
Speaker 1: really going to happen here. But you notice that there's
Speaker 1: this his whole thing is going to be that he's
Speaker 1: the positivity candidate. He's almost like he's going to turn
Speaker 1: into the left wing life coach America never asked for.
Speaker 1: You can totally do it and achieve your dreams and
Speaker 1: self actualize and reach those goals as long as you
Speaker 1: send me twenty ninety nine via cash or check. That's
Speaker 1: what's That's what I think the path is here for Forbetto.
Speaker 1: But I take seriously that he could be a real
Speaker 1: candidate in the sense that he may get some real,
Speaker 1: real push, you know. I take seriously that this is
Speaker 1: a guy who look, I mean, he is appealing, he's
Speaker 1: got a nice family, his story from El Paso, his
Speaker 1: whole Texas thing, is a pretty good story. He lost
Speaker 1: to Ted Cruise, but he made it closer than I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people expect it, although not nearly
Speaker 1: as close as they were pretending it was going to be.
Speaker 1: And you know, I just think that we don't know,
Speaker 1: I mean any and you know, And I'm going to
Speaker 1: be the guy who tells you all on because we're
Speaker 1: gonna go into this battle for twenty twenty folks, We're
Speaker 1: gonna go in this together. But I'm going to be
Speaker 1: the guy who tells you what I know and when
Speaker 1: I don't know. And I'll tell you this. Anyone who
Speaker 1: tells you that they know who's gonna win this Democratic primaries,
Speaker 1: lyne have no They have no idea. Nobody has has
Speaker 1: any idea whatsoever about what's really going to happen here.
Speaker 1: I mean, you've got Biden and Bernie at the very
Speaker 1: very top of the of the polls right now, and
Speaker 1: people will point out rightly that you got two old
Speaker 1: white dudes who are who are the front runners right
Speaker 1: now for the for the Democrat Party's ticket. At least
Speaker 1: with Bedo they get somebody who seems a little more
Speaker 1: a hip and with it, I also believe that Biden.
Speaker 1: If Biden is just Hillary two point oh. Biden is
Speaker 1: the candidate that they're left with when they don't have
Speaker 1: any other good candidates, and they just figure that the
Speaker 1: Democrat establishment will carry him on their shoulders. You know,
Speaker 1: the media, academia, Wall Street, American Bar Association, unions, you know,
Speaker 1: all these different groups that are all about getting Democrats elected.
Speaker 1: They're going to try to make Biden the guy, and
Speaker 1: I think that they're going to have a lot of
Speaker 1: difficulty because I don't find him to be particularly compelling.
Speaker 1: I mean, at least at least Beto Isn't he is interesting,
Speaker 1: I'm not. I don't think he knows very much. I
Speaker 1: don't think he's particularly Oh wait, he's worried about our democracy.
Speaker 1: Play sixteen, Amy, and I are happy to share with
Speaker 1: you that I'm running to serve you as an ex
Speaker 1: president of the United States of America. This is a
Speaker 1: defining moment of truth for this country and for every
Speaker 1: single one of us. The challenges that we face right now,
Speaker 1: the interconnected crises in our economy, our democracy, and our climate,
Speaker 1: have never been greater, and they will either consume us
Speaker 1: or they will afford us the greatest opportunity to unleash
Speaker 1: the genius of the United States of America. In other words,
Speaker 1: this moment of peril produces perhaps the greatest moment of
Speaker 1: promise for this country and for everyone inside of it.
Speaker 1: We can begin by fixing our democracy and ensuring that
Speaker 1: our government works for everyone and not just for corporations.
Speaker 1: That's right. Like all the platitudes and all the stuff
Speaker 1: that Democrats want to hear, I just jam it into
Speaker 1: one sentence and then I skateboard off into the sunset
Speaker 1: while drinking a zema playing my punk rock guitar. That
Speaker 1: twenty twenty. Everybody, get ready for it. It's a real
Speaker 1: thing or coming up interesting news item today that conservatives
Speaker 1: will certainly talk about. But I think that the Libs
Speaker 1: will to no one's surprise. I think, but they will
Speaker 1: skip past this one pretty quickly. Southern Poverty Law Center
Speaker 1: has fired its co founder, Morris D's. Now Morris D's
Speaker 1: was eighty two years old and started the Montgomery based
Speaker 1: organization back in nineteen seventy one. Folks, I mean, this
Speaker 1: is like Kentucky Fried Chicken firing the Colonel, or Ronald
Speaker 1: McDonald firing Ronald McDonald. I guess, but I mean this
Speaker 1: is you know McDonald's firing Ronald McDonald. I mean this
Speaker 1: is like the guy who founded the Southern Poverty Law Center,
Speaker 1: which I would note is and we'll get into this
Speaker 1: at in a little more detail, is really now a
Speaker 1: left wing attack organization. It is a taxpayer subsidized left
Speaker 1: wing pack that pushes issues and goes after people and
Speaker 1: in fact designates groups and individuals who are to be
Speaker 1: isolated and destroyed, who are to be investigated, who are
Speaker 1: to be kicked out of the public square. And here's
Speaker 1: what we know about mister D's right now, eighty two
Speaker 1: years old, kicked at, fired, not allowed to step down,
Speaker 1: Fired from Southern Property Law Center. Here's here's what their
Speaker 1: statement today says. As a civil rights organization, the Southern
Speaker 1: Poverty Law Center is committed to ensuring that the conduct
Speaker 1: of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and
Speaker 1: the values we hope to instill in the world. When
Speaker 1: one of our own fails to meet those standards, no
Speaker 1: matter his or her role in the organization, we take
Speaker 1: it seriously and must take appropriate action. Today we announced
Speaker 1: a number of immediate concrete steps we're taking, including bringing
Speaker 1: in an outside organization to conduct a comprehensive assessment of
Speaker 1: our internal climate and workplace practices to ensure that our
Speaker 1: talented staff is working in the environment they deserve, one
Speaker 1: in which all voices are heard and all staff members
Speaker 1: are respected. Folks. Now, we don't know quite yet what's
Speaker 1: going on here, but that certainly sounds a lot like,
Speaker 1: at a minimum, a hostile workplace environment situation. And you know,
Speaker 1: I don't know if this is a if this turns
Speaker 1: into a me too thing or but it's bad. It's
Speaker 1: bad when you have to oust your founder for who's
Speaker 1: been your founder for decades and have to call in
Speaker 1: outside investigations to look into all this. You know, this guy,
Speaker 1: this guy did something, folks, this guy did something. And
Speaker 1: the Southern Property Law Center is one of these organizations
Speaker 1: that it's it's time we finally understand what this is
Speaker 1: and take this thing down. It's it's time we finally
Speaker 1: speak truthfully about what their mission is, which is to
Speaker 1: advance left wing causes, bash conservatives, destroy Republicans, silence dissenting voices.
Speaker 1: That is what the Southern Property Law Center does. They
Speaker 1: may they may do other things. They may do, you know,
Speaker 1: some good work here and there in legal side. But
Speaker 1: but they're most visible. There are most visible efforts these
Speaker 1: days in the media involve pushing left wing causes. Um,
Speaker 1: here you go, family separate. Here, I'm on the Southern
Speaker 1: Property Loss Cent our website right now, just to give
Speaker 1: you a sense family separation isn't over. And then also
Speaker 1: hate groups at an all time high in twenty eighteen.
Speaker 1: I can tell you this every Oh wow, and they've
Speaker 1: got this is astonishing. I didn't even know that we're
Speaker 1: gonna have this before I call. They have hate groups
Speaker 1: and an all time high. And you know who's in
Speaker 1: the photo. They have a collage of hate groups. You
Speaker 1: know who they have in the photos, Donald Trump, Gavin McGinness,
Speaker 1: Stephen Miller, White House advisor, Laura Ingram, Tucker Carlson Sheriff,
Speaker 1: Joe R. Pio, and a bunch of other people who
Speaker 1: I can't tell who they are right now. That's what
Speaker 1: they do. They smear people. This is an organization, the
Speaker 1: Southern Property Law Center, that is very litigious, by the way,
Speaker 1: likes to sue people, likes to sue people. But this
Speaker 1: is an organization that tries to destroy its political opponents
Speaker 1: and uses it's connections too in its origins as a
Speaker 1: civil rights organization as cover. It's despicable what goes on
Speaker 1: with the Southern Poverty Law Center. And if you think
Speaker 1: that I'm exaggerating, I mean just think about this. The
Speaker 1: Southern Poverty Law Center has listed in the past Ben
Speaker 1: Shapiro in publications that it has put out on extremism.
Speaker 1: It has listed Muji NOAs, who I believe has been
Speaker 1: paid out a multi million dollar lawsuit. Yes, Mugidnas prevails
Speaker 1: against the SPLC. That's the title here in the Atlantic.
Speaker 1: And Richard Cohen, who is the president of the SPLC,
Speaker 1: has apologized publicly to Maudgid NOAs because they declared him
Speaker 1: a former extremist who tries to work against radical Islam.
Speaker 1: They declared him an extremist because he's willing to criticize Islam.
Speaker 1: So to the SPLC, if you are a Muslim who
Speaker 1: speaks out about radical Islam, you are in fact and
Speaker 1: extremist because you're criticizing Islam. You can't make this stuff up.
Speaker 1: They put Moggid in their field guide for anti Muslim extremists.
Speaker 1: I know Modgid by the way, he's a good dude.
Speaker 1: And the SPLC had to pay him three point three
Speaker 1: seven five million dollars and issue a public apology. Good
Speaker 1: for modgit Man. I need to get the Southern Private
Speaker 1: Law Center to lie about me. Man's that's good work.
Speaker 1: If you can get it, I could use I could
Speaker 1: use three million dollars. I'll take a cool mill. They
Speaker 1: can say some mean stuff about me and then apologize
Speaker 1: publicly and give me a million. I would definitely go
Speaker 1: for that. Oh, speaking of the money involved here, four
Speaker 1: hundred and fifty million dollars in net assets and they
Speaker 1: have to put that out there publicly because it's a
Speaker 1: nonprofit folks, that's right, tax advantaged. You give money the
Speaker 1: SPLC and you're in you know, you're you're in good
Speaker 1: shape because you can write that off. Civil rights organization,
Speaker 1: No notice how civil rights because we all we all
Speaker 1: actually do have equivalent rights under the law in this country.
Speaker 1: In fact, the only non equivalent rights are in favor
Speaker 1: of non white minorities like a firmative action, special hiring
Speaker 1: for women and minorities, and otherwise the law is across
Speaker 1: the board equal. So these civil rights struggles have become
Speaker 1: not for equality under the law, but for political positions.
Speaker 1: That's what they've been advocating for for a long time.
Speaker 1: But the SPLC is something that I remember a long
Speaker 1: time ago getting to a fight with a fellow conservative
Speaker 1: in the media because I said the SPLC was, back
Speaker 1: in twenty twelve, a left wing attack organization. He said
Speaker 1: that that was not fair and not true. I was right.
Speaker 1: I won't say who it is because he's not here
Speaker 1: to defend himself, but I was right and he was wrong.
Speaker 1: And now we see that Morris D's, the storied co
Speaker 1: founder of the SPLC, has been booted out of this organization.
Speaker 1: If I had to guess, I'm gonna guess it's a
Speaker 1: me too situation, although I don't know. I do not
Speaker 1: know that is a that is a guess, But I'm
Speaker 1: I'm reading between the lines a little bit here, folks.
Speaker 1: Hostile environment, hostile workplace. Gotta him real fast. Notice how
Speaker 1: you also have this this tendency, this this uh grouping
Speaker 1: a very very powerful left wing, celebrated left wing men
Speaker 1: who are at the at the very top echelon of
Speaker 1: political access. And you know, people like Morris D's, people
Speaker 1: like Harvey Weinstein, and you look at Charlie Rose and
Speaker 1: Matt Lower, and you look at these guys all in
Speaker 1: good stead, all in good stead with the Democrat left,
Speaker 1: and many of them have have devoted a substantial portion
Speaker 1: of their public life to advancing left wing ideas, including
Speaker 1: equality of all people, equality of women, civil rights, civil
Speaker 1: rights for everybody. You know that, in the case of
Speaker 1: Charlie Rose and Matt Lower, consistent and reliable peddlers of
Speaker 1: the left wing orthodoxy from the various perches that they
Speaker 1: had in media. Matt Lower was a thirty million dollars
Speaker 1: a year man while he was doing it. And we
Speaker 1: find time and again that they are abusing those positions
Speaker 1: of a forty and that they are huge phonies. They
Speaker 1: are huge frauds, and worse than that in many cases.
Speaker 1: I mean, Weinstein is a straight up predator. And we
Speaker 1: don't know what more is deasy is yet, but I
Speaker 1: think we're gonna find out real soon. But here's what
Speaker 1: I take from this, And I think this is applicable
Speaker 1: to a lot of liberals. You know, a lot of
Speaker 1: liberals you see out there in the public eye. And
Speaker 1: I think one of the reasons that so many liberals
Speaker 1: are obsessed with virtue signaling, one of the reasons that
Speaker 1: they and this might be the primary reason for it,
Speaker 1: to be honest with you, I mean, there's also the
Speaker 1: benefits of you want people to think well of you.
Speaker 1: But I think that they doth protest too much. I
Speaker 1: think that they make these public pronouncements about how much
Speaker 1: they're all and they want to work for civil rights
Speaker 1: and they want to work for because there's a feeling
Speaker 1: of underlying guilt. Because usually the people that are on
Speaker 1: the front lines of an issue and that are really
Speaker 1: just trying to do good are far less concerned with
Speaker 1: pounding their own chests and talking about how much good
Speaker 1: they're doing. That's always a sign. Usually people that have
Speaker 1: positions of power to make positive change are less concerned
Speaker 1: with getting the credit for it than they are actually
Speaker 1: doing the good thing, unless it's really all about them.
Speaker 1: And you see this with liberals on climate change and
Speaker 1: liberals that make a big thing of me too. I mean,
Speaker 1: I mean Schneiderman, Eric Schneiderman, the state attorney general. Here's
Speaker 1: another one, mister, Oh, I am so me too. He said,
Speaker 1: I am all about protecting women and women's rights and
Speaker 1: women's equality, except when he was beating his girlfriend. Then
Speaker 1: he wasn't about those things. Then he was scum Why
Speaker 1: make all those speeches about it? Why go to those lengths,
Speaker 1: because they're covering their compensating for what they know they're
Speaker 1: really like, I can't tell you what's gone on with
Speaker 1: more as easier, but I can't tell you this. A sanctimonious,
Speaker 1: smug liberal who has been pushing left wing policy for
Speaker 1: a long time thinks he can get away with a lot.
Speaker 1: And it looks like this guy did until now. We'll
Speaker 1: have more on this. I myself have always been for
Speaker 1: the voting age to sixty. I think it's really important
Speaker 1: to captain kids when they're in high school, when they're
Speaker 1: interested in all of this, when they're learning about government,
Speaker 1: to be able to vote. That is not necessarily, you know.
Speaker 1: In other words, some of the priorities in this bill
Speaker 1: are that transparency and openness and accessibility and the rest.
Speaker 1: That's a subject of debate, but my view is that
Speaker 1: I would welcome that. Nancy Pelosi wants to brainwash your
Speaker 1: kids using the Democrat apparatus of the school system, the media,
Speaker 1: social media she wants to do. She wants to brainwash
Speaker 1: your kids and get them voting as soon as possible,
Speaker 1: because kids will vote for the party of the cool
Speaker 1: people and the nice people, which on fourly because of
Speaker 1: their dominance in our culture and in the cultural narrative
Speaker 1: in this country. Is the Democratic Party, who's the party
Speaker 1: of free stuff? Who doesn't like free stuff? Oh wow, gee,
Speaker 1: if I were fifteen or oh, that's not true. When
Speaker 1: I was fifteen or sixteen, I was an I've been
Speaker 1: a conservative for as long as I've been essentient being.
Speaker 1: I think I go back a very long I knew
Speaker 1: I was a conservative in high school. I've never been
Speaker 1: down with the Democrats ever. It's just never been my thing.
Speaker 1: I think I probably go back. You're a smart guy, exactly, exactly.
Speaker 1: But Pelosi, there's so much here that's that's classic Pelosi.
Speaker 1: One is this pretense that she would that she has
Speaker 1: for a long time wanted to law Yeah, just I
Speaker 1: have wanted to larry the voting age to sixteen for
Speaker 1: a long time. No, she has not, all right, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, this is just nonsense. I'm not even checking
Speaker 1: her record on this one. Maybe she brought it up once,
Speaker 1: like twenty years ago or something. But this is this
Speaker 1: is a new thing, and this is part of the
Speaker 1: Democrats mobilization plan, which involves creating new voters, I mean
Speaker 1: actually creating them people that can't vote. Now, Democrats want
Speaker 1: to be able to vote. They want to legals to vote,
Speaker 1: they want teenagers to vote, sixteen year olds to vote,
Speaker 1: they want convicted felons to vote. This is the strategy.
Speaker 1: This is their cut out the vote effort, which really
Speaker 1: tells you a lot about where the Democrats minds are
Speaker 1: on this stuff. You know, these days, increasingly I find
Speaker 1: what is the Republican Party. The Republican base married people
Speaker 1: that attend religious service, with jobs, who are good to
Speaker 1: their neighbors, but want people to generally from the government
Speaker 1: leave them alone, you know, love America. There you have it.
Speaker 1: That's pretty much there, you know, which is a lot
Speaker 1: of people, but that's pretty much the Republican Party. Yeah,
Speaker 1: some limited government and constitutionalism and all that stuff in
Speaker 1: there too, for sure, but it's mostly married people or
Speaker 1: people with families who have a job, pay their bills,
Speaker 1: are responsible and don't get into all this you know,
Speaker 1: nonsense about the coming revolution and the need to redistribute
Speaker 1: wealth and all these other things they talk about. Unfortunately,
Speaker 1: that means that if you're in any identity identity group,
Speaker 1: you know, identity politics is dominated by the Democrats. If
Speaker 1: you're in any minority group, the overwhelming push on you
Speaker 1: is to make you a Democrat, right the the overwhelming
Speaker 1: pressure is going to be to get you to over
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. And it's true of teenagers too, teenagers
Speaker 1: who want to be cool. I mean, you know, who
Speaker 1: does Beyonce vote for? Who does Jay Z vote for?
Speaker 1: Who does name a celebrity? Leonardo DiCaprio, mister climate change
Speaker 1: flies everyone in his private jet. You know, to think
Speaker 1: of a big celebrity other than James Woods, whose Twitter
Speaker 1: is fierce. Think think of somebody. If you don't, If
Speaker 1: you don't follow James Woods on Twitter, you're missing out
Speaker 1: inst the block. You're you're missing out. He is a
Speaker 1: very entertaining fellow. But they want to make teenagers vote.
Speaker 1: Pelosi will just she'll just make stuff up as she
Speaker 1: goes along. She has no problem doing that, as we
Speaker 1: all know. And that is certainly part of what is
Speaker 1: going on here. Making sixteen year olds vote is a
Speaker 1: bizarre idea. If you're a reasonable person, if you're somebody
Speaker 1: that just has a need deep within the recesses of
Speaker 1: his or her soul for power. I remember when I
Speaker 1: talk about power, it's always the power to make others
Speaker 1: do certain things. You know, there's some people who have
Speaker 1: a need. They want that ability to make you do stuff.
Speaker 1: That's what Democrats, what status, what the leftist, that's what
Speaker 1: they want to be able to tell you what to do,
Speaker 1: how to live your life, what to think, what to eat.
Speaker 1: If you're somebody who just wants people to make choices,
Speaker 1: have liberty, be left alone, you're a conservative. Now it's
Speaker 1: a pretty clear delineation between the two ideologies. We should
Speaker 1: not be haunted by the specter of being automated out
Speaker 1: of work, whether it's a tax rate, whether it's distributing
Speaker 1: wealth that is created by automation. If we talk, if
Speaker 1: we if we approach solutions to our system and start
Speaker 1: entertaining ideas like that, then we should be excited about
Speaker 1: automation because what it could potentially mean is more time
Speaker 1: educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing and
Speaker 1: investigating in the sciences, more time focused on invention, more
Speaker 1: time going to space, more time enjoying the world that
Speaker 1: we live in. Yeah, that's aoc on automation. Now, let's
Speaker 1: let's make sure that we stick with the truth and
Speaker 1: the facts. It is true that overall, automation in time
Speaker 1: is over the course of time, has been useful for
Speaker 1: people to have more free time. It is true that
Speaker 1: we are more productive now as a society because of automation.
Speaker 1: We are wealthier as a society because of automation. What
Speaker 1: was really interesting here is that she just she thinks
Speaker 1: that it gives you more time to create art. Well,
Speaker 1: that's only if you have somebody paying the bills while
Speaker 1: you're doing your finger painting, if someone's giving you money
Speaker 1: so that you can have your little pottery wheel at home. John,
Speaker 1: you ever done pottery? It's actually pretty cool. We did
Speaker 1: pottery in my grammar school and I remember thinking that,
Speaker 1: actually it was pretty fun. And you know, people always,
Speaker 1: but I think forever, there's always that association with the
Speaker 1: scene from Ghosts, you know, so that's whatever people think
Speaker 1: of a pottery wheel, that's all that comes into their minds.
Speaker 1: Pretty good movie, by the way, kind of holds up
Speaker 1: for what it is. So AOC saying that you're gonna
Speaker 1: have more time to create art is funny. But what's
Speaker 1: not funny is the prospect of mass, mass unemployment that
Speaker 1: could come from this wave of AI. And you know
Speaker 1: this takes you back into a debate that's been around
Speaker 1: for well, not that long. It's been around for last
Speaker 1: hundred and let's say, I don't know, one hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty years, or so one hundred and thirty. It depends
Speaker 1: on how deep in the industrial revolution you want to go,
Speaker 1: but it definitely takes you back quite a ways to
Speaker 1: periods in time when just the basics of mechanics and
Speaker 1: machinery of engines and combustion engines gave people a lot
Speaker 1: of concern that they would be out of work. But
Speaker 1: of course, with greater productivity, there were other jobs, and
Speaker 1: people will be moved to other jobs. I do think
Speaker 1: it's fair to point out that AI changes things though,
Speaker 1: that one one component of this discussion that exists until
Speaker 1: now is that every machine that we've had has been
Speaker 1: a labor multiplier really for human beings that are a
Speaker 1: part of the process, and that there will always be
Speaker 1: a need for people to be decision makers in that process.
Speaker 1: But AI, at least as it is envisioned for the future,
Speaker 1: could replace in an information based economy the human beings
Speaker 1: that are the decision makers within that information based economy
Speaker 1: in certain ways. You know, I actually don't think that
Speaker 1: restaurant servers and hosts and hostesses, and you know, there
Speaker 1: are some jobs where you want a human being just
Speaker 1: because you want a human being. I do not want
Speaker 1: a robot coming up and say, would you like cheesy fries?
Speaker 1: Like No, I want someone who comes up to me
Speaker 1: who's like, hey, Buck love your radio showman, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: bring you some cheesy fries on the house, because that's
Speaker 1: what happens all the time, you know. So I think
Speaker 1: that's a that's it's a serious concern though. And people
Speaker 1: were definitely given aoco hard time though, because she's like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you'll have like more time to create art and like
Speaker 1: it should be exciting for everybody. It will. Let me
Speaker 1: give you an example of what I'm talking about here.
Speaker 1: If Uber manages to do what it's planning to do,
Speaker 1: which is used a neural net and connect. And I
Speaker 1: know a lot of you who listen and I always
Speaker 1: appreciate your message. A lot of you who listen to
Speaker 1: this show are long haul truckers, people that are in
Speaker 1: the long haul trucking and shipping and just the movement
Speaker 1: of goods, which is one thing that the green energy
Speaker 1: folks never understand is that we have no way, even
Speaker 1: even if we make some of the changes they want,
Speaker 1: we can't transport the food from the field to the
Speaker 1: table to get to people unless we have fossil fuel.
Speaker 1: It just it just can't be done. And anyway, but
Speaker 1: those of you that are in those fields that that's
Speaker 1: a big sector of the economy. And if you have
Speaker 1: autonomous vehicles, there will be a big loss of jobs there.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think there's over I think there are
Speaker 1: over a million people in the country right now. I
Speaker 1: don't know what the exact numbers, it's definitely over a
Speaker 1: million who either drive an uber or drive a taxi
Speaker 1: of some kind and are transporting people around. And it's look,
Speaker 1: it's an important service. It's part of the service economy.
Speaker 1: People need that service. They have to get to work,
Speaker 1: they have to get to the store. Those jobs go away.
Speaker 1: What happens to those million people, Well, you could say,
Speaker 1: oh buck, they'll be absorbed into other jobs. But what
Speaker 1: if it takes a year or two, what if it
Speaker 1: takes ten years? You know, And this is where the
Speaker 1: sneer of learned to code from journalists has finally been
Speaker 1: turned back on them, because there have been some considerable
Speaker 1: layoffs in journalism world recently, but learned to code was
Speaker 1: what you could get kicked off of Twitter for saying
Speaker 1: to a journalist. I would note that's an interesting, interesting
Speaker 1: little tidbit. But the idea that everybody who is currently
Speaker 1: driving a truck or delivery vehicle or a taxi is
Speaker 1: going to switch their profession to being a computer coder
Speaker 1: is absolutely absurd. So there'll be dislocations, there'll be real
Speaker 1: concerns about this, But then there's also aoc more broadly,
Speaker 1: just truly making an immiscile of herself. Play clip two.
Speaker 1: Mister Sloan, why was the bank involved in the caging
Speaker 1: of children and financing the caging of children? To begin with,
Speaker 1: I don't know how to answer that question because we
Speaker 1: weren't so in finance. You were, I'm not familiar with
Speaker 1: the specific assertion that you're making, but we weren't directly
Speaker 1: involved in that. She thinks that the Wells Fargo CEO
Speaker 1: was somehow involved or his company was involved in the
Speaker 1: caging of children at the border. Where she got that
Speaker 1: is anyone's guess, but it's a it's a bizarre and
Speaker 1: really dumb thing to say. Clearly, this guy who does
Speaker 1: not work for the federal government, has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with caging children. And this is where you know I
Speaker 1: agree with Newt new to loot Newt Gingrich on there.
Speaker 1: You know, you get caught back and forth with AOC
Speaker 1: is she is she a laughing stock or is she
Speaker 1: a threat? I think she's both, and I try to
Speaker 1: present that side of her here on the show. Those
Speaker 1: sides of her on the show play three. In a normal,
Speaker 1: healthy society, Alexandria would be seen as this interesting graduate
Speaker 1: student who had gotten into some college with a good
Speaker 1: student loan, hung out a lot of smoked the little grass,
Speaker 1: drank a little beer, had a good time, once red
Speaker 1: half of a book, knows nothing, and nobody would take
Speaker 1: her seriously when in a healthy society she would be
Speaker 1: a joke. She doesn't know anything, her views are based
Speaker 1: on whatever random thought comes in that morning, and her
Speaker 1: proposals are beyond silly, and she couldn't possibly defend her proposals.
Speaker 1: Nude is absolutely correct, and it's reassuring to hear that,
Speaker 1: isn't it. But it's also a little unnerving because he's right.
Speaker 1: In a healthy society, that is how the American people
Speaker 1: would view this freshman member of Congress. That is what
Speaker 1: they would think of her proposals, but they don't. So
Speaker 1: what does that say about where we are? What does
Speaker 1: that say about trajectory of politics will be in this
Speaker 1: country if the left has their way, If someone who
Speaker 1: is such a know nothing could become the day facto
Speaker 1: ideological leader of the Democrat Party overnight, it just tells
Speaker 1: us the Democratic Party has real core. It is just
Speaker 1: a coalition for the pursuit of power that is not conservative,
Speaker 1: that is not associated with the Republican Party. It is
Speaker 1: everything that the Republican Party is not that wants power,
Speaker 1: that is the Democratic Party. There's no real underlying uniting ethos.
Speaker 1: There's no party. You know that the principles things like
Speaker 1: you know, a women's right to choose redistribution of wealth,
Speaker 1: these aren't principles. These are just mechanisms to power, and
Speaker 1: in fact they're deeply unprincipled. Nude also had some more
Speaker 1: words about AOC play for you know, I think it
Speaker 1: might be useful to take up a fund to ask AOC.
Speaker 1: She'd be on to Venezuela, go to Zimbabwe, visit with
Speaker 1: people who used to live in the so of a union.
Speaker 1: These are people who operate out of an emotion led
Speaker 1: kind of self righteous passion with no knowledge. The fact
Speaker 1: is not only a socialism not work. Socialism leads you
Speaker 1: to a dictatorship. It leads you to powerful people like
Speaker 1: Muduro's stealing. People like AOC have no answer, not if
Speaker 1: you say to her. In fact, they believe in mythology.
Speaker 1: They think, for example, Cuba's this wonderful paradise, except, of course,
Speaker 1: most Cubans can't afford to buy a car, and the
Speaker 1: only cars available were made before nineteen fifty eight. It's
Speaker 1: all true, It's all true. And yet the libs that
Speaker 1: I know, and the libs that I talk to on
Speaker 1: a regular basis, think that she is some kind of
Speaker 1: incredible messaging superhero. There is in fact an AOC comic book. Folks,
Speaker 1: they really do think she's a messaging superhero. Her superpower
Speaker 1: is stupidity. But apparently that does not matter. It does
Speaker 1: not matter that she knows nothing. And these are people
Speaker 1: that we're telling us that Trump isn't intellectually curious enough.
Speaker 1: These are people that were telling us that we should
Speaker 1: be ashamed for voting for President Trump, who has been
Speaker 1: running a multinational corporation for decades, was an incredibly successful
Speaker 1: TV star and entertainer. You know, has been in the boardroom,
Speaker 1: has been in negotiations. And whether you think he's been
Speaker 1: great and all of his business dealings or not, or
Speaker 1: even just mediocre or whatever, at least he's been doing stuff.
Speaker 1: At least he does know something about something. This woman
Speaker 1: knows nothing about nothing, and the Democrats turned to her
Speaker 1: as their guiding light on policy. It is both hilarious
Speaker 1: and terrifying at the same time. Have you heard, though,
Speaker 1: that President Trump doesn't want more people come in and
Speaker 1: he's even separated families you try to come is because
Speaker 1: her children were threatened? Yea, he said, because of violence.
Speaker 1: One of the most despicable moments in modern American history.
Speaker 1: I saw kids locked in cages, sitting on floors. I
Speaker 1: will never forget it. The media needs to make sure
Speaker 1: that the stories you hear at the border are just
Speaker 1: of crying children. That's the only thing you're supposed to
Speaker 1: hear from them. You're supposed to be told that Trump
Speaker 1: has locked children in cages and that the Trump administration
Speaker 1: is evil and mean and doing all kinds of awful,
Speaker 1: awful things, which you're not supposed to know or pay
Speaker 1: any attention to, is that currently our border is essentially
Speaker 1: an open border. If you show up with a kid
Speaker 1: from Central America, you get to come into the United States.
Speaker 1: You do pass go, you do collect two hundred dollars,
Speaker 1: so to speak. I don't know if you really clicked
Speaker 1: any money, but you do get to come into the
Speaker 1: United States. The Trump administration is not, or rather President
Speaker 1: Trump himself is not to blame for this state of affairs.
Speaker 1: I don't think that would be fair. But he isn't
Speaker 1: getting it done either, folks. He's not securing the border effectively. Yes,
Speaker 1: Congress has to act, Yes the courts are against Trump,
Speaker 1: but this needs to be the focus. What's he going
Speaker 1: to say to those of us who voted for him
Speaker 1: going into twenty twenty. Yes, the left is crazy and
Speaker 1: maybe that's enough. But is he going to be able
Speaker 1: to convince them that the wall is built being built?
Speaker 1: I am hoping to get down to El Paso in
Speaker 1: a few weeks and I'll be able to bring you
Speaker 1: a lot of ground truth and do interviews with frontline
Speaker 1: border patrol roll folks, and just see for myself what's
Speaker 1: going on with the detention facilities, with the wall with everything,
Speaker 1: this was an interesting story in the last twenty four
Speaker 1: hours that I think, as I like to hearing, it
Speaker 1: should get more attention, so I'm telling you about it.
Speaker 1: Homeland Security officials have sent two hundred and forty migrants
Speaker 1: back to Mexico since January under an experimental new policy
Speaker 1: that requires Central American asylum seekers to wait outside US
Speaker 1: territory while their asylum claims are processed. The policy, known
Speaker 1: as Migrant Protection Protocols, has been expanded in recent days
Speaker 1: to the Calexico Port of Entry in California. According to
Speaker 1: Department of Homeland Security officials, a small number of migrants
Speaker 1: who are arrested for crossing illegally between the US port
Speaker 1: of entry in San Diego area have been a return
Speaker 1: to Mexico under this Migrant Protection Protocols. So the measure
Speaker 1: allows in immigration law allows authorities to send back migrants
Speaker 1: who arrived through a third country to that foreign territory.
Speaker 1: Immigrant legal advocates are seeking an injunction and federal court
Speaker 1: to block MPP, which the Trump administration says is necessary
Speaker 1: to contend with the recent search of border crossings. Okay,
Speaker 1: why does this matter? Third party safe agreement, That's what
Speaker 1: this is you might recall I've spoken to you about
Speaker 1: that before here on the show. This would be an
Speaker 1: enormous improvement in the current situation. This would really help
Speaker 1: take the heat off our border patrol and Immigrations and
Speaker 1: Customs enforcement officers. Here's what it would do. Currently, if
Speaker 1: you show up at the border, remember you have a kid,
Speaker 1: or you claim credible fear, you are brought into processing centers.
Speaker 1: They make sure that you're not a known terrorist and
Speaker 1: that you don't have you any kind of terrible communicable disease.
Speaker 1: They feed you, they house you for a day or two,
Speaker 1: maybe a few more, and then they release you in
Speaker 1: the American interior. That is what happens, never to be
Speaker 1: seen again by US authorities in a vast majority of cases.
Speaker 1: What this new agreement would do, This Migrant Protection Protocols
Speaker 1: agreement would say that, Okay, you show up at the border.
Speaker 1: You want asylum, great, You're going to stay in Mexico.
Speaker 1: You're apply here at a port of entry, you apply
Speaker 1: in Immigrations and Customs enforcement facility, but you will wait
Speaker 1: on the Mexico Mexico side of the US Mexico border
Speaker 1: until your case is ready for adjudication. Now, what you're
Speaker 1: going to see you're already seeing it, is that the
Speaker 1: quote immigration advocates are going to fight this tooth and nail.
Speaker 1: Why because this takes the scam out of it. The
Speaker 1: whole point of what they're doing at the border now
Speaker 1: is they're released into the country essentially on a handshake
Speaker 1: and a promise in a nod, Hey, you'll come back, right,
Speaker 1: you'll come back for your hearing. No, actually they will
Speaker 1: not come back for their hearing. They are not going
Speaker 1: to get asylum, but they're never even going to show
Speaker 1: up and request asylum. That's that's central to this whole problem.
Speaker 1: So these immigration these so called immigration advocates, these legal groups,
Speaker 1: and you know a lot of this is funded by
Speaker 1: Soros or Soros like individuals who are pro open borders,
Speaker 1: whether they'll say so or not. But when they're at
Speaker 1: the border, they know that if if people can't get
Speaker 1: into the country immediately and they have to respect our
Speaker 1: legal process, this will this will effectively shut down this
Speaker 1: massive loophole if they can implement this program properly. So
Speaker 1: this should be a major push from immigration enforcement, customs
Speaker 1: and border patrol. Here's you know, I come to unite
Speaker 1: I tell you that things are not going well enough
Speaker 1: to the border, and I'm trying to raise the alarm
Speaker 1: about this. Here's a way to make it work. People
Speaker 1: can still apply for asylum. We're not saying you can't
Speaker 1: get asylum if you have a real, real reason. You
Speaker 1: just can't scan the system the same way, because you're
Speaker 1: gonna be in Mexico and you're gonna show up to
Speaker 1: a court and when you don't get a psalm, you're
Speaker 1: gonna get sent right back across the border. This is
Speaker 1: a solution to the problem, or at least will help
Speaker 1: the problem a lot. So I'll continue to follow this
Speaker 1: and I'll have more for you on it as it
Speaker 1: goes along. There's a chance I may catch a bit
Speaker 1: of heat tomorrow for a column that I have written.
Speaker 1: I want to give you a little preview of it.
Speaker 1: It somewhat ties into this whole college admissions debacle, all
Speaker 1: the cheating and the scandals and the payoffs, the bribes.
Speaker 1: But this is my own little take on things, and
Speaker 1: here's basically where I am on it. I think that
Speaker 1: recruiting for college athletics is absurd. I think that it
Speaker 1: should stop. I think that schools shouldn't do this anymore.
Speaker 1: And the moment I say this to people, and I
Speaker 1: know there's probably a lot of people listen to this
Speaker 1: who are like, Buck, you mess with my college football
Speaker 1: and we're gonna I'm not saying no college athletics. I'm
Speaker 1: not saying, you know, shutdown, No, I love college sports.
Speaker 1: I'm just saying, let's stop with this pretense of putting
Speaker 1: people in schools like UNC Chapel Hill and Stanford who
Speaker 1: are at a fifth or sixth grade reading level, and
Speaker 1: we're supposed to treat that, We're supposed to act like that.
Speaker 1: You know, they're they're normal students, just like all the
Speaker 1: other students, and they're getting this great education, and no,
Speaker 1: they are semi professional athletes. So this is my column tomorrow,
Speaker 1: which would be up on the Hills. We need to
Speaker 1: stop this athletic recruiting thing because it allows for the
Speaker 1: exploitation of these young men and women, especially young men
Speaker 1: who are playing sports. That the NCAA had a did
Speaker 1: a billion dollars in revenue last year. There's big money here,
Speaker 1: but there's this whole, this whole sham, this whole scam
Speaker 1: of the scholar athlete and all the stuff. No, no, no, no, no,
Speaker 1: pretty much every school in the country. And there's a
Speaker 1: lot of nuance here and some of you, I know,
Speaker 1: light me up in the on the Facebook comments. Go
Speaker 1: for it. You know, if you disagree, this is fine.
Speaker 1: I'm I know this is a little bit of a
Speaker 1: controversial position, but I also know that I'm right on this.
Speaker 1: The idea that you would have schools bringing in and
Speaker 1: these are schools are taking five, six, seven percent of
Speaker 1: all applicants sometimes less, that you would be kicking kicking
Speaker 1: open all these spots for people that not only are
Speaker 1: playing in the big sports football, basketball, you know, depending
Speaker 1: on the school that it depends on what sports they
Speaker 1: really value. But for people that you saw this with
Speaker 1: these and these individuals that are you know, getting getting
Speaker 1: into schools by cheating. Oh the crew team pole vaulters.
Speaker 1: Who the heck cares about pole vaulting. I mean, let's
Speaker 1: be serious. Pole vaulting is something that you see when
Speaker 1: flipping through the channels at two am. You watch two
Speaker 1: people do it. You're like, oh, that's pretty cool, and
Speaker 1: you're done. Nobody should be getting in to Stanford because
Speaker 1: they're a pole vaulter. This is ridiculous. Nobody should be
Speaker 1: getting into Yale or UVA or you name it, ut
Speaker 1: Austin because they're on the they're a great fencer. This
Speaker 1: is just absurd. What we should have are at the
Speaker 1: top level of NCUBA athletics. It should be semi pro people.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that people can't go into the can't
Speaker 1: get the education at the school. I'm just saying no, no,
Speaker 1: they should be paid and brought in and have a
Speaker 1: special curriculum developed for them. They can still represent the school.
Speaker 1: But this whole thing of we're just going to recruit
Speaker 1: people and pretend like they're normal like the rest of
Speaker 1: the students, and this is all just you know, they're
Speaker 1: all student athletes. No, they're athletes, students at the top level,
Speaker 1: at the top schools and at the top athletic programs.
Speaker 1: They're playing all kinds of games with this. And don't
Speaker 1: even get me started on Division three schools, you know,
Speaker 1: these smaller schools, these less important athletic programs, they shouldn't
Speaker 1: be recruiting at all. It's a joke. It is absolutely absurd.
Speaker 1: Why we really need to make sure that the women's
Speaker 1: field hockey team is competitive in our conference? Why take
Speaker 1: the students you want to take have tryouts, and then
Speaker 1: you know you're still going to field great teams at
Speaker 1: these schools that you're still are full of athletes. It's
Speaker 1: just it's this arms race that undermines the basic foundational
Speaker 1: purpose of the university, which is to educate people. It's
Speaker 1: not to, you know, fill an eighty thousand person stadium
Speaker 1: with screaming fans and pretend that the people on the
Speaker 1: field are normal students just like all the rest of
Speaker 1: the students. That's not the purpose of a university. And
Speaker 1: they have dozens and dozens of these teams and they're
Speaker 1: recruiting and recruiting and recruiting. It takes up You want
Speaker 1: to talk about taking spots away from deserving people, and
Speaker 1: if you can get in without the sport, then great,
Speaker 1: That's what I'm saying. You don't need the sports, so
Speaker 1: why are we recruiting. I know people people get very
Speaker 1: contentious about this with me. It's gonna be up on
Speaker 1: the hill dot Com tomorrow. I'll post it on Facebook.
Speaker 1: But no more college recruiting for athletics the way it
Speaker 1: currently is. I'm taking a stand on this one. It's
Speaker 1: absurd and I think I'm right. The show ain't over
Speaker 1: yet folks, keeping it real, it's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Roll call time on a Thursday. Yeah, yeah, it's time
Speaker 1: for the row call. Oh yes, Buck to roll call.
Speaker 1: You didn't know that I had pipes, did you? Oh?
Speaker 1: I got pipes. I didn't say they were good pipes.
Speaker 1: I've got pipes. Let's get to it. Facebook dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck Sexton indeed, indeed, and uh let's see what
Speaker 1: we have here now, Michael Buck, I would rather not
Speaker 1: vote for a Republican than vote for a Republican that
Speaker 1: does things like vote against the national emergency. How about you?
Speaker 1: Shields high, Michael. I don't have an easy answer here, man.
Speaker 1: I'm very frustrated by this. It's like I've been saying,
Speaker 1: we Republicans don't want to win. They don't want to win.
Speaker 1: I don't know how else to put it. I you know, you,
Speaker 1: if you really care about something, if you think something
Speaker 1: is necessary and good and moral in many cases, aren't
Speaker 1: you going to do what you can to get to
Speaker 1: that place to use the process. I'm not saying the
Speaker 1: ends justifies the means, but I'm saying, aren't you willing
Speaker 1: to fight along the way to get that thing done
Speaker 1: that you believe is good and worthy and beneficial and moral,
Speaker 1: and no Republicans liked it like a lot of posturing,
Speaker 1: a lot of roosters strutting around. Well, I love the
Speaker 1: Constitution that I am the closest to the founding fathers
Speaker 1: of any Republican. You know, I don't care which US
Speaker 1: senators have a giant copy of the Constitution over their
Speaker 1: very fancy desks on Capitol Hill. I don't care if
Speaker 1: they sleep on bedsheets made of replicas of the Constitution.
Speaker 1: I want them to enact policy that is good for
Speaker 1: this country, and yes, is in keeping with the Constitution.
Speaker 1: But that's where I disagree with them. They think they're
Speaker 1: making some big constitutional stin I think they're just being foolish.
Speaker 1: Statutes say the president can do this. The president in
Speaker 1: the past has done this dozens and dozens of times,
Speaker 1: I think over fifty times, and just because Congress would
Speaker 1: not go along with something does not necessarily mean that
Speaker 1: the president does not have the authority to do it.
Speaker 1: So I'm with you. I am very frustrated. But you know,
Speaker 1: they're the same Republicans who say, oh, the president doesn't
Speaker 1: have the authority to the Constitution, the same ones who
Speaker 1: say that on this have no problem with all kinds
Speaker 1: of presidential findings and you know, presidential orders for military
Speaker 1: action and all kinds of stuff. You know, they seem
Speaker 1: to think that executive authority that is outside of our
Speaker 1: borders should be essentially unchecked. You know, it should. It
Speaker 1: should be up to the president to fire missiles, declare war,
Speaker 1: fight wars, all this stuff. But Congress has totally advocated
Speaker 1: that responsibility. Oh but this responsibility building a fence, folks,
Speaker 1: that's what we're talking about, building a fence. It's too
Speaker 1: dangerous for the president to have that responsibility. Well, I disagree.
Speaker 1: Oh let's see, William writes, I am done with every
Speaker 1: Republican party. This is absolutely unfathomable that they do not
Speaker 1: have a backbone, let alone a pair of something else.
Speaker 1: Time for a third party resurrect the Tea Party as
Speaker 1: a full fledged challenge to both parties. This is not
Speaker 1: going to end. Well, I'm so concerned for my six
Speaker 1: children and eight grandchildren. William, I agree with you that
Speaker 1: this is this is disheartening. Now, let's let's be clear.
Speaker 1: It doesn't really mean anything. It doesn't have the force
Speaker 1: of law. The president pulled out the veto and it's
Speaker 1: just a it's a resolution that means nothing. It means nothing.
Speaker 1: But I do think that this goes to show you
Speaker 1: that there are a lot there are people within the
Speaker 1: Republican Party who when Trump seemed unstoppable, they just wanted
Speaker 1: to ride the Trump wave. But now that we're getting
Speaker 1: into election season, you know, they want to kind of
Speaker 1: hedge their bets a little bit. They're Republican senators that
Speaker 1: are waffling a little here. Oh you know, I am
Speaker 1: really more concerned about me than about the Trump agenda.
Speaker 1: And I think we have to keep a very close
Speaker 1: eye all that. I think that's a real phenomenon. Jeremy
Speaker 1: Rights hey Buck podcast listener in Roswell, New Mexico, area
Speaker 1: fifty one. The difference between flying with an old school
Speaker 1: yoke and flying by wire control is that you can
Speaker 1: better feel what the plane is doing through the yoke.
Speaker 1: A fly by wire is essentially using a computer game
Speaker 1: joystick to fly the plane. The computer controls the plane
Speaker 1: by what the pilot does with the joystick. This helps
Speaker 1: with fatigue, but if there's a problem with the computer,
Speaker 1: there is no backup. At least with a yoke, you
Speaker 1: can still control the plane. If power is lost, keep
Speaker 1: up the great work. Shields high, Jeremy, thank you so
Speaker 1: much for that. And that's what I was getting at
Speaker 1: yesterday that there are you know that people who are
Speaker 1: making fun of the president. And I've spoke to an
Speaker 1: aviation security a world renowned aviation security expert today at
Speaker 1: the Hill about this, and he said that it's it's
Speaker 1: absolutely the case that some of the basic flying, basic
Speaker 1: pilot skills can get rusty and can be also thrown off.
Speaker 1: It can get rusty because of the complexity of these
Speaker 1: systems and also can throw you off in an emergency
Speaker 1: because you are completely relying on computers. You know what
Speaker 1: you really have now are near autonomous airplanes. Well, if
Speaker 1: you have an autonomous airplane and all of a sudden
Speaker 1: the circuits have an issue, you need to be able
Speaker 1: to have a pilot who says, all right, I'm in
Speaker 1: the cockpit, I'm in control. I'm in control. And I
Speaker 1: think this is always going to be an issue with
Speaker 1: autonomous cars as well. People are going to want to
Speaker 1: have the option. I'm saying, all right, things are getting
Speaker 1: weird in this car. It's you know, go inside to
Speaker 1: side at eighty miles an hour, I want, you know,
Speaker 1: human control. Now, I think you're gonna have to always
Speaker 1: have that. I know, I know that exists in planes,
Speaker 1: but the systems in place can be counterproductive to that,
Speaker 1: to that effort, Rick Rights, good news, Buck. Dan Crenshaw's
Speaker 1: parents are American parents were living abroad when he was born.
Speaker 1: Sixth generation. Okay, okay, okay. So so he is a
Speaker 1: natural born citizen of to US citizen parents. And what
Speaker 1: you're saying, all right, all right, that's uh that now
Speaker 1: we're now we're talking. Now we're talking. That is good news, Gina,
Speaker 1: or is it Gianna? Hey? Buck, I heard you say
Speaker 1: on yesterday's show you're all in for Dan Crenshaw until
Speaker 1: you found out he wasn't born here. I went into
Speaker 1: his bio indicated he was born to American parents in Scotland,
Speaker 1: depending on the circumstances. Wouldn't be similar to Ted Cruz,
Speaker 1: who was born in Canada. Love your analysis every day, Sarah. Well, Gina,
Speaker 1: clearly that is what we were just talking about a
Speaker 1: second ago. And yes, that would be similar to Ted Cruise.
Speaker 1: Although I don't believe Ted Cruz's parents were US citizens.
Speaker 1: I think one of them was in one of them. Now,
Speaker 1: don't quote me on this, folks. I don't know everything,
Speaker 1: although I'm a radio host, so I'm supposed to pretend. Right.
Speaker 1: A lot of the radio hosts do and they know
Speaker 1: a lot less than me, which is always kind of funny.
Speaker 1: But I don't quote me on this when we have
Speaker 1: to check this one out. But there is some dispute
Speaker 1: about this, and Coulter was throwing a lot of shade
Speaker 1: toward Ted Cruz, saying that he constitutionally does not have
Speaker 1: the pathway to run for the presidency. She's like, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: not a natural born citizen under the founder's interpretation. All right,
Speaker 1: now we have wow, another one on Crenshaw. Okay, okay,
Speaker 1: we get it. Yes, his parents were citizens. Thank you,
Speaker 1: Thank you, Steve. I appreciated Jason Buck, How can we
Speaker 1: break the left from using these protesters as a political
Speaker 1: weapon to destroy their political enemies protesters office as a
Speaker 1: political weapon. Rather, is it going to take the prosecution
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton or another of their top people to
Speaker 1: break them of this dangerous game they're playing? Buck? How
Speaker 1: can we oh the same question here? Ah, I don't
Speaker 1: know how we break them from doing I don't know
Speaker 1: how we get them to stop doing this. I wish
Speaker 1: I had a ready answer for you. I think that
Speaker 1: the you know, the left is the party of the state,
Speaker 1: and so they're always going to be comfortable abusing the
Speaker 1: mechanisms of the state for their own political ends. That's
Speaker 1: just the way it is. So we aren't in turn,
Speaker 1: going to become much more comfortable status in our own right,
Speaker 1: because that's not how we are, that's not who we are.
Speaker 1: But if you're a bureaucrat, there's a very good chance
Speaker 1: that you are in the federal bureaucracy, you are somebody
Speaker 1: who's likely to be a Democrat. I think it was
Speaker 1: over nine federal bureaucrat donations went to Hillary Clinton in
Speaker 1: the last election. It was a stunning number, a stunning number.
Speaker 1: How do we get them to stop doing this? Well,
Speaker 1: I will say that there's some degree of, you know,
Speaker 1: there's some degree of maybe we need to make them
Speaker 1: live under the rules that we live under. Two and
Speaker 1: I'm all for that. Now with the free speech wars,
Speaker 1: we do not bend, We do not apologize, We do
Speaker 1: not consume our own we do not turn on our
Speaker 1: own people. You apologize if your own honor or integrity
Speaker 1: demanded I'm not saying never apologize. I'm saying you don't
Speaker 1: apologize because the mob tells you to. All of us
Speaker 1: will say things and do things, not just people in media.
Speaker 1: All of us say things that we don't mean that
Speaker 1: went too far, and a good person, an honorable person,
Speaker 1: apologizes when he or she is wrong. But I'm not
Speaker 1: going to apologize because you know we hate conservatives. We
Speaker 1: hate conservative Nope, sorry, not gonna happen. Not gonna happen.
Speaker 1: Gotta draw the line. That's why I've been so happy,
Speaker 1: so happy that that Tucker has been standing strong on
Speaker 1: this issue, and it has real ramifications for the rest
Speaker 1: of us. The generation of conservatives, you know, a generation
Speaker 1: below Tucker. It means a lot that he's not getting
Speaker 1: snapped in half by this clear underhanded assault on him.
Speaker 1: Scott writes, Hey, Buck, am I alone, and I think
Speaker 1: the only reason the FBI arrested these celebrities with guns
Speaker 1: drawn and a quarter million dollar bail is simply because
Speaker 1: the elites that run these high end schools are angry.
Speaker 1: These people short circuit of the usual method of getting
Speaker 1: their subpart children into prestigious colleges. You used to have
Speaker 1: to donate a wing of a library, or convince a
Speaker 1: dean that a bronze of their likeness would look perfect
Speaker 1: in the middle of the quad. Keep it Real and
Speaker 1: Shields High, Scott Scott, the answer is yes. I think
Speaker 1: you are correct. The answer is yes. A lot of
Speaker 1: people are so upset about this because they don't accept
Speaker 1: that there can be any other ways to short circuit
Speaker 1: the system. The elites like their pathways into these schools,
Speaker 1: and people that are just below them they're not allowed
Speaker 1: to do this. Team. We've got more coming up tomorrow.
Speaker 1: Looking forward to talking to you for a freestyle Friday.
Speaker 1: Shields High