Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The red lights are
Speaker 1: flashing for a possible recession here in the US and
Speaker 1: perhaps globally. What would this mean for the Trump administration. Plus,
Speaker 1: is a Democrat candidate finally emerging other than Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about which radical looks to be making gains
Speaker 1: in the left wing Democrat primary. And the showdown between
Speaker 1: Hong Kong and the communist Chinese government continues. What are
Speaker 1: we doing and how will this shake out? Matamore coming
Speaker 1: up from the Buck Sexton Show. Buck Sexton Remission, Decoding
Speaker 1: the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence mag No mistake, America,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Former CIA analysts. I can speak to three hours without
Speaker 1: a phone call. Try doing that sometime. No, Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sex and Show, everybody. Great to have you
Speaker 1: here with me. One of my last live shows. Coming
Speaker 1: to you from the swamp here in Washington, d C.
Speaker 1: I'm beginning to get a bit of nostalgic. I mean,
Speaker 1: how will I go forth without riding an electric scooter
Speaker 1: past the White House every day? I just don't know
Speaker 1: what I'll do with myself. Actually, I'll do a lot
Speaker 1: of things. I think the swamp. I've had enough swamp
Speaker 1: for quite some time. It's been a formative experience or
Speaker 1: a let's just say it's been an experience. Now I've
Speaker 1: enjoyed it down here, I've the good news is that
Speaker 1: there's a great crew of conservatives down here with me,
Speaker 1: and we make sure that we try to back up
Speaker 1: the administration as best we can. Well enjoying some delicious
Speaker 1: Scotch or tequila, whichever one you prefer. We've got a
Speaker 1: lot to get you today here on the show, my
Speaker 1: friends the economy will talk a bit about whether this
Speaker 1: is going to be This is the biggest challenge that
Speaker 1: Trump has. This is the one thing the Achilles heel
Speaker 1: of the twenty twenty reelection is can he keep the
Speaker 1: economy on track. If the answer is yes, I think
Speaker 1: Trump is going to be just fine. I think we
Speaker 1: have four more years of the administration and I can't
Speaker 1: say we'll live happily ever after, but at least we'll
Speaker 1: have a better president than we would have from twenty
Speaker 1: twenty to twenty twenty four. But if things get ugly
Speaker 1: on the economic front, who knows. You see the rise
Speaker 1: of these radicals on the Democrat left, the Sanders Warren
Speaker 1: wing of the party increasingly assertive. The media likes it,
Speaker 1: the media props it up. We'll talk about the candidate
Speaker 1: that I think has finally started to show us all
Speaker 1: who he or she is going to be going forward
Speaker 1: as the front runner or as the most likely nominee.
Speaker 1: But I don't want to get too far ahead of myself.
Speaker 1: We've been through quite an ordeal, my friends, as a country.
Speaker 1: For the last week or so, it has been just
Speaker 1: NonStop verbal bludgeoning of Trump supporters and all this talk,
Speaker 1: all this just completely outrageous, exaggerated stuff about a white
Speaker 1: nationalist takeover of the country, a white nationalist in the
Speaker 1: White House, horrible smears, and I have to wonder at
Speaker 1: some point if the Democrats will just move on to
Speaker 1: another topic because we do become numbed to their insanity. CNN,
Speaker 1: for example, has had a constant loop of people going
Speaker 1: on TV just to talk about how racist the president
Speaker 1: is all the time. I don't think this is making
Speaker 1: any new voters. I think this is just to play
Speaker 1: to the derangement of the CNN audience that thinks that
Speaker 1: Trump early is basically worse than Hitler or whatever it
Speaker 1: is that they're saying these days. But even they might
Speaker 1: feel a bit of exhaustion from just yelling and screaming
Speaker 1: about how racist the administration, how xenophobic the administration is.
Speaker 1: Play clip seven. Well, we know about this administration, and
Speaker 1: we knew from you know, Donald Trump's treacherous history was race.
Speaker 1: We knew when he announced his campaign, We knew when
Speaker 1: he was questioning Barack Obama's citizenship and other rising him
Speaker 1: that anyone who is other, who they cannot trace through
Speaker 1: their lineage, right, it's problematic. And so it is for
Speaker 1: that reason, Kate. I can't tell you how exhausting it
Speaker 1: is to talk about racism and xenophobia and this administration.
Speaker 1: But I also cannot express the outrage the exhaustion the
Speaker 1: people on the other side of that racism are feeling.
Speaker 1: So I will yell at about it and tell my
Speaker 1: voice this horse, this is a problem. This is something
Speaker 1: that we cannot sit idly by and watch. That's right, folks,
Speaker 1: they're telling us now. And this isn't just that one
Speaker 1: CNN commentator. There are others in the left, you know,
Speaker 1: they're just they're just exhausted by telling us how racist
Speaker 1: the country is all the time, and how racist Trump
Speaker 1: is specifically, this has just become It's become beyond boring.
Speaker 1: It really is something that feels like it there needs
Speaker 1: to be a mass institutionalization of people that have internalized
Speaker 1: all this really believe the countries in the grips of
Speaker 1: some horrible racial breakdown, essentially that we can't handle this
Speaker 1: president anymore. One other thing that I just I would
Speaker 1: note when when you push back, as I have been
Speaker 1: on that the primary talking point about how Trump is
Speaker 1: a racist comes from the left, from the Charlottesville perspective,
Speaker 1: they always say, Oh, and I just to be very clear,
Speaker 1: went back and read that transcript several times over watch
Speaker 1: that press conference where he said the both sides and
Speaker 1: he was not saying that Neo Nazis were good people.
Speaker 1: That is a lie. It is a vicious and stupid
Speaker 1: and intentional lie that the media tells over and over
Speaker 1: because that is a foundational piece of the Trump is
Speaker 1: a racist storyline. That's what they keep saying. But you know,
Speaker 1: there are other people who you know, they also talk
Speaker 1: about the birth controversy, and there are other presidents who
Speaker 1: have had their place of birth question as it related
Speaker 1: to you know, this is this never the media never
Speaker 1: talks about this. There were people who brought up questions
Speaker 1: about Senator John McCain's ability to be president because he
Speaker 1: was born in the Panama Canal Zone, for example. There
Speaker 1: are people who brought up questions about Romney, George Romney
Speaker 1: back in nineteen sixty eight because he was born in Chihuahua, Mexico,
Speaker 1: at a Mormon colony. Barry Goldwater born in the Arizona
Speaker 1: Territory in nineteen o nine before Arizona was in fact
Speaker 1: a state. And there's even going back to eighteen eighty
Speaker 1: Charles Alan Arthur ran as a VP on the Garfield ticket,
Speaker 1: but there were rumors that Arthur was born in Canada
Speaker 1: and not Vermont. Folks, you know that we were told
Speaker 1: that Barack Obama, the whole Birther thing was all rooted
Speaker 1: in racism. Meanwhile, there have been controversy stretching back for well,
Speaker 1: by my account, over one hundred years about presidents where
Speaker 1: they were born and whether they were eligible for the presidency.
Speaker 1: I have heard people say, and I'm sure Ted would
Speaker 1: not like this, but I've heard people say that Ted
Speaker 1: Cruz might have problems depending on your interpretation of who
Speaker 1: is a who is eligible to run for the presidency
Speaker 1: constitutionally because you know, Ted was born in Canada, so
Speaker 1: that this is again the race narrative is always, you know,
Speaker 1: you're It's just meant to be a propagandistic assault all
Speaker 1: the time. If you don't agree that Trump is a racist,
Speaker 1: you're a racist. If you try to get into the
Speaker 1: why do you think this, you're a racist too, You're
Speaker 1: a white. It's just overwhelming how much this is repeated
Speaker 1: on team It's like this is the only thing the
Speaker 1: media wants to talk about. Oh, that's right now that
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion farce has collapsed, and only bitter clingers
Speaker 1: to the Russia collusion conspiracy are still running around pretending
Speaker 1: like that's actually going to mean anything in the next election.
Speaker 1: Let's also not forget that they're supposed to be a
Speaker 1: report coming out from the Department of Justice looking into
Speaker 1: possible malfeasance on their side. The Inspector General's looking into this,
Speaker 1: and then there's the attorney that Bill Barr has appointed
Speaker 1: from Connecticut to look into more allegations of improper conduct
Speaker 1: from the Department of Justice of a politicize nature. So
Speaker 1: we might get some it might be a rough September, folks,
Speaker 1: for the deep state and for the Dems. But in
Speaker 1: the meantime, I just think the sheer the exhaustion that
Speaker 1: the left thinks that they feel from just shrieking constantly
Speaker 1: about Trump's non existent racism. I mean, they can never
Speaker 1: point to a statement that he's made when you look
Speaker 1: at it in context and with his intent, was actually racist.
Speaker 1: It's always they take something and you know, they say
Speaker 1: that it is something that it's not, and then oh,
Speaker 1: that's the racism, and if you don't agree with that,
Speaker 1: you're a terrible person. They I think they're not fatigue
Speaker 1: from repeating so much about how Trump is all white nationals.
Speaker 1: I think the fatigue comes from just constantly having to
Speaker 1: repeat this lie so that people will believe it. But
Speaker 1: there are other things going on, like the border, immigration,
Speaker 1: the economy, the Democratic primary. We have a very busy
Speaker 1: show to get to, so let's not get too deep
Speaker 1: in the weeds on the left hysterical accusations today about racism.
Speaker 1: Let's actually look at policy and the future and what's
Speaker 1: going to be happening in this country. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: As a young agent, I was watching ten people get away.
Speaker 1: For every person, we caught hundreds of thousands of millions
Speaker 1: of people getting in. And you walk up and down
Speaker 1: this border. Now it feels secure. Fifty seven miles of
Speaker 1: new border barrier fourteen miles completed just last week, stretching
Speaker 1: from the Pacific Ocean east according to CBP, and there
Speaker 1: is more to come. This infrastructure freed up one hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty agents every twenty four hours to be shifted
Speaker 1: into more remote areas. The fence doesn't stop everyone, but
Speaker 1: it does buy agents time. These two men found a
Speaker 1: hole in the secondary fence, but ran back when they
Speaker 1: saw a border patrol. However, unable to scale the primary
Speaker 1: fence without a ladder, they're apprehended in between. By sixty days,
Speaker 1: our apps have gone down by forty three percent. Fence works, folks,
Speaker 1: and you've got a new fence being built, new wall
Speaker 1: being built. Oh you'll remember that's because Trump won in
Speaker 1: court after they said that he would lose in court.
Speaker 1: How many legal analysts at this point should people no
Speaker 1: longer listen to on TV because they tell the audience,
Speaker 1: the left wing audience, what they want to hear, which
Speaker 1: is Trump is destroying the Constitution and then turns out,
Speaker 1: oh no, actually, Trump was right, the administration was correct.
Speaker 1: They do have the right to do this, and we
Speaker 1: never hear about it again in that vein you had
Speaker 1: in front of the Ninth Circuit three judges today hearing
Speaker 1: about Trump's termination of Temporary protected status, which is a
Speaker 1: fancy way of saying Obama's lawless DACA decision. It's important
Speaker 1: to remember the history here, folks, because DACA came from
Speaker 1: the president, the former president the United States, Barack Obama,
Speaker 1: not getting what he wanted from the legislature, telling us
Speaker 1: while he wasn't getting them hansive immigration reform, which was amnesty,
Speaker 1: telling us that that's why that he couldn't do anything
Speaker 1: about it. And then after saying he couldn't do anything
Speaker 1: and Congress didn't do what he wanted, he said, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna do it anyway. I got a pen
Speaker 1: on a phone, got a pen and a phone, and
Speaker 1: so he decided to take unilateral and lawless action just
Speaker 1: to say that, Okay, doesn't matter what the legislative bodies
Speaker 1: have written, doesn't matter what the law actually says. We're
Speaker 1: just going to tell people you can break this law.
Speaker 1: Because I say, so you can be here in violation
Speaker 1: of federal statute. Obama said, because he says so. Well,
Speaker 1: a judge heard this today. A sorry, three judges on
Speaker 1: the Ninth Circuit, and I'll give you a little bit
Speaker 1: of a The Ninth Circuit heard the case. The three
Speaker 1: panel judge is composed of Judge Consualo Callahan, a George W.
Speaker 1: Bush appointee, Morgan Kristen and Obama appointee who want who
Speaker 1: wants to guess what Judge Kristen's gonna decide here? Oh,
Speaker 1: but our core aren't politicized? And Ryan Nelson, a Trump appointee.
Speaker 1: Judge Nelson. This is from a reporter with Politico Ted Hessan.
Speaker 1: Judge Nelson argued, the district court judge who blocked Trump's
Speaker 1: TPS termination quote made so many errors, violated the law
Speaker 1: in so many ways. The other two judges on the
Speaker 1: panel haven't been as telling about their view of the
Speaker 1: lower court decision. Made so many errors and violated the
Speaker 1: law in so many ways. That's a description not just
Speaker 1: of the lower court judge, but could very well be
Speaker 1: a description of what Obama himself did. Violated the law
Speaker 1: in so many ways. The whole thing is an error.
Speaker 1: This is the very simplified version of what has happened.
Speaker 1: Here is the hashtag resistance judiciary deciding that President Trump
Speaker 1: does not have the full powers of the presidency. Only
Speaker 1: Obama had the full power or really extra presidential power.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, we're just going to tell people that are
Speaker 1: breaking the law. You know, this is no different folks
Speaker 1: than if you had a Republican president who came in
Speaker 1: and said, hey, if you refuse to pay federal income taxes,
Speaker 1: we're just going to call you, you know, tax tax
Speaker 1: sideliners because you're just staying on the sidelines while this
Speaker 1: whole tax thing plays out. So we're not going to
Speaker 1: prosecute you. Okay, Well there's the problem with that, right,
Speaker 1: because there's statutes that if you don't do this, you'll
Speaker 1: get prosecuted. So, I mean, if a president can do
Speaker 1: that and just say well, we're just not a whole
Speaker 1: class of criminals will no longer be prosecuted. It's not
Speaker 1: the same thing as saying they're all going to be pardoned,
Speaker 1: which then you can get into how that would work.
Speaker 1: But we're just not going to hold you in violation
Speaker 1: law and in fact give you government benefits that you
Speaker 1: would not be entitled to, which is what happened with
Speaker 1: the Temporary Protected Status DACA deferred action for child that arrivals,
Speaker 1: right the same thing, but judge came along and said,
Speaker 1: oh no, you can't undo this. What Obama had the
Speaker 1: discretion to do, Trump does not have the authority and
Speaker 1: discretion to undo. This is ridiculous, and anyone who spends
Speaker 1: any time thinking about it knows right away that it
Speaker 1: is ridiculous. But this is what we're being told. This
Speaker 1: is what the left offers up as Trump is the
Speaker 1: one who's violent in the constitution. Meanwhile, he's right on
Speaker 1: the wall, he's right on DACA switching DOCCA back to
Speaker 1: what it was, which is rule of law. He's right
Speaker 1: on the Muslim band accord of the Supreme Court. He
Speaker 1: keeps winning these, but it takes time and it takes effort,
Speaker 1: and the media creates this narrative of the lawlessness of
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Meanwhile, who's really lawless the lib activist
Speaker 1: judges that try to stop him from doing what he
Speaker 1: is constitutionally authorized from doing, because then like it or
Speaker 1: the Trump administration that when you get one federal or
Speaker 1: you get one universal injunction, from some federal Obama point,
Speaker 1: see some federal judge, and or you know, somebody from
Speaker 1: the Clinton and sometimes it's even unfortune Republican administrations at
Speaker 1: a point, crappy left wing judges. You get one federal
Speaker 1: judges says, oh, you can't do that, mister president. What
Speaker 1: does our so called tyrant Trump do? American libs are
Speaker 1: always saying, oh, he's destroying the constitution, we can't handle
Speaker 1: four more years this. His administration goes, okay, we'll go
Speaker 1: through the process, we'll see you in court, and then
Speaker 1: they win and the news stories. I mean, one of
Speaker 1: the reasons I'm telling you about this is because on
Speaker 1: immigration specifically, you know, Trump is building a wall. Trump
Speaker 1: is trying to change the asylum scam that all these
Speaker 1: Central Americans are running. So it can't be done anymore.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's the administration is taking action, but their
Speaker 1: hands are tied all the time in bad faith by
Speaker 1: leftist activist judges, and the media megaphone from the mainstream
Speaker 1: is just dying about it all the time. So that's why,
Speaker 1: as much as he has not been able to deliver
Speaker 1: yet on the promises at the border, I also have
Speaker 1: to say, you know, he's dealing with unprecedented obstruction from
Speaker 1: the bench, from the federal judiciary as well. Because remember
Speaker 1: it's one thing to say, oh, they're not letting Trump
Speaker 1: do what he wants, they're obstructing him. And then it's no, no,
Speaker 1: these lower judges a lot him in the Ninth Circuit, right,
Speaker 1: the crazy Ninth Circuit. These lower judges are wrong. Their
Speaker 1: interpretation of the law keeps getting overturned. So Trump is right,
Speaker 1: this isn't you know. With Obama, there were all these
Speaker 1: power grabs he did, and Obama kept lot his administration
Speaker 1: lost in court over and over again. Obama tried to
Speaker 1: tell the Senate when it was and was not in
Speaker 1: session so he could make appointments recess appointments. The Senate's like, sorry,
Speaker 1: we're in session now, you can't tell us when we're
Speaker 1: not in session. Obama's like, yeah, actually I can. You know,
Speaker 1: that's just one of many times when he lost and
Speaker 1: what was a clear naked power grab. But with Trump,
Speaker 1: they say he's making a power grab when really they're
Speaker 1: actually taking power away from him as president because they
Speaker 1: don't believe he's a legitimate president. That's part of it.
Speaker 1: And then when we find out that turns out the
Speaker 1: Trump administration interpretation of the law, and this is particularly
Speaker 1: the case on border and immigration issues. When it turns
Speaker 1: out Trump is right, then the story disappears, but the
Speaker 1: damage has already done. You have the Trump deranged left
Speaker 1: thinking that he's this horrible tyrant and you know, he's
Speaker 1: done all these awful things, and what are we ever
Speaker 1: going to do. Gotta stay we gotta stay focused on
Speaker 1: what matters here. We can't let the left determine what
Speaker 1: the narrative will be for the rest of us, because
Speaker 1: they're going to switch pretty soon here into o se.
Speaker 1: Trump didn't even fulfill the promises to his base. Trump
Speaker 1: was a con man all along. This is what they'll
Speaker 1: be telling you. And on the issue of immigration specifically,
Speaker 1: which is one of the main ways that Trump became
Speaker 1: president United States, it's not fair to put all the
Speaker 1: blame on his shoulders, given the dirty tactics of the
Speaker 1: Democrats up to this point and the courts aiding them
Speaker 1: in this process. In media in general, there is a framework.
Speaker 1: New York Times operates on, the the Washington Post operates on,
Speaker 1: the CNN operates on. For example, I've been in politics
Speaker 1: for a few years, you know what now one reporter
Speaker 1: has ever asked a Burnie, what are you going to
Speaker 1: do about the test level of income and wealth? In equality?
Speaker 1: You can ask an is that part of what the
Speaker 1: media talks about? What are you gonna do about three
Speaker 1: people on equal wealth for the bottom half of Bernie?
Speaker 1: What are you going to do about forty million Americans
Speaker 1: living in poverty? Five hundred thousand people sleeping out on
Speaker 1: the street. Why is it, Bernie that we are the
Speaker 1: only major country on Earth that doesn't guarantee healthcare to
Speaker 1: all people and we spend devices lunch per person as
Speaker 1: other industrialized countries. Do you hear that Christian eulf asked
Speaker 1: by the court of mediator another? But by not asking
Speaker 1: my questions that make for the media unfair? It doesn't
Speaker 1: the way. It doesn't mean it's unfit to me personally.
Speaker 1: But if those are the issues of I am campaigning on,
Speaker 1: those are the issues that I cannot talk about, then
Speaker 1: what I am trying to do? Does I cut out
Speaker 1: to the American people? Why is it that reporters are
Speaker 1: not approaching me with questions that are based on the
Speaker 1: framework of my socialism, my Marxism, and my desire to
Speaker 1: destroy the American economy as fast as possible. Someone answer
Speaker 1: me that question. Bernie's a radical. Folks shouldn't lose sight
Speaker 1: of that. You know, if we had a parliamentary system,
Speaker 1: if you look at different governments around the world, there
Speaker 1: are people within those within the elected the realm of
Speaker 1: elected officials who are radicals in their system. We have
Speaker 1: a two party system, really, I mean, I know their independence.
Speaker 1: We have a two party system, and so we we
Speaker 1: give a lot of cover to Democrats because we say, well,
Speaker 1: they're Democrats. I mean, they're all kind of it's all
Speaker 1: kind of similar the same. Bernie is something different. Bernie
Speaker 1: is I will say this again later on the show.
Speaker 1: We'll talk about true believers. Bernie is a true believer.
Speaker 1: I think that this is someone who, if he had
Speaker 1: the authority, would believe that shared misery is more important
Speaker 1: to institute in this country economically than unequal but widespread prosperity.
Speaker 1: And this is a psychological disposition that you see among
Speaker 1: Marxist leaders around the world, among the socialists, and Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders is a socialist, they would prefer the equal sharing
Speaker 1: of misery to borrow from Churchill than the unequal distribution
Speaker 1: of blessings. Bernie's talking about the grotesque level of income
Speaker 1: and wealth inequality. What are they really going to do
Speaker 1: to deal with that? Let me tell you something. Unless
Speaker 1: you're talking about a wealth tax, which would see so
Speaker 1: you would see so many liberals, wealthy elite coastal liberals
Speaker 1: lose their minds at the prospect of a real wealth tax.
Speaker 1: All you're really doing is trying to put greater burdens
Speaker 1: on those who rely on income and labor and work
Speaker 1: to support themselves and to try to get ahead. There
Speaker 1: is no such thing as a part of America where
Speaker 1: if you're making one hundred, one hundred and fifty thousand
Speaker 1: dollars a year you're a rich person. But if you're
Speaker 1: making one hundred and fifty grand you're paying a lot
Speaker 1: in taxes, folks, a lot, and Bernie wants you to
Speaker 1: pay more under the rubric of millionaires and billionaires. We
Speaker 1: know he's talking less about the millionaires now because he is,
Speaker 1: in fact a millionaire. Bernie is a socialist who owns
Speaker 1: three houses. A socialist with three house that's the kind
Speaker 1: of socialist I want to be, and who I think
Speaker 1: made nine hundred thousand dollars last year. Wasn't that what
Speaker 1: it was mostly off of a book or off of
Speaker 1: income that he gets from that book. But Bernie is
Speaker 1: to be taken seriously because guess who else is surging
Speaker 1: right now? Elizabeth Warren. Elizabeth Warren I just saw in
Speaker 1: a poll today is right there, right up there with
Speaker 1: Joe Biden. I think within a point. Warren all along
Speaker 1: has been the candidate that seemed the most likely to
Speaker 1: bridge the establishment with the radical left. If she starts
Speaker 1: to get some numbers behind her, if the poll start
Speaker 1: to show, I think you'll see the ship. Because they
Speaker 1: I've been saying it can't be Biden, it can't be Biden.
Speaker 1: I mean I shouldn't say it can't be because he
Speaker 1: is the He's still the default candidate if nothing really
Speaker 1: coalesces behind any particular contender other than Biden. But that guy,
Speaker 1: he can't get it done. He's not going to be
Speaker 1: able to be Trump's people aren't going to say, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: give me some of that. Joe Biden. He's going to
Speaker 1: be the guy that inspires people. But Elizabeth Warren, now
Speaker 1: you get first female president. Now you've got somebody with
Speaker 1: an academic pedigree that liberals are gonna love and who
Speaker 1: is trusted by the far left and is liked enough
Speaker 1: by the establishment. I could see this being very real.
Speaker 1: And by the way, she is also a radical. She's
Speaker 1: also someone who believes very much just like Bernie does
Speaker 1: in the radical redistribution of wealth as a moral imperative.
Speaker 1: It's not about what will make you or me wealthier
Speaker 1: or happier anything else. It's those rich people. They're bad.
Speaker 1: We're gonna go after them. But by the way, they
Speaker 1: claim they're going to go after the rich people, but
Speaker 1: they can't go after the rich people because there are
Speaker 1: too many rich Democrats. You know what they're gonna do.
Speaker 1: They're gonna make it harder for all the rest of us.
Speaker 1: They're trying to get our piece of the Americans and
Speaker 1: trying to build our wealth, trying to get to that
Speaker 1: next place where you have some feeling of economic security
Speaker 1: and prosperity. Bernie's telling you he's going to raise your
Speaker 1: taxes to pay for the amazing healthcare that he's going
Speaker 1: to give you courtesy of the government. Doesn't even think
Speaker 1: it's going to be good. You really want that healthcare.
Speaker 1: You want that healthcare system run by the same people
Speaker 1: that couldn't keep Epstein alive with two prison guards falling asleep.
Speaker 1: That's the story today. Two prison guards falling asleep who
Speaker 1: are supposed to be making sure that the highest profile
Speaker 1: federal prisoner in the system did not kill himself, and
Speaker 1: oh what a shock he ended up killing himself. That
Speaker 1: system is going to be in charge of whether you know,
Speaker 1: whether you have an early stage intervention to prevent a
Speaker 1: heart attack or not. You want them to be making
Speaker 1: that call. Wow, a lot more faith in government than
Speaker 1: I've got, friends. But also Warren is, I do respect
Speaker 1: the fact that she is like the terminator of politics
Speaker 1: after that unbelievable debacle of one one twenty fourth Cherokee
Speaker 1: and saying that, see, I'm right, guys, I'm one twenty
Speaker 1: fourth Cherokee. She's still a serious contender, and she'll say
Speaker 1: whatever she has to, including jumping on this whole Trump
Speaker 1: is so racist thing. Play six. This is a man
Speaker 1: who is president of the United States refers to people
Speaker 1: in Charlottesville who are white supremacists as fine people. A
Speaker 1: man who says he doesn't want any more immigrants coming
Speaker 1: here from all countries. A man who describes people who
Speaker 1: flee for their lives from Central America as mounting an
Speaker 1: invasion on our country, a man who has used racist
Speaker 1: language and racist imagery over and over and over, and
Speaker 1: most of all, a man who winks and nods at
Speaker 1: the white supremacists, and who in turn is embraced and
Speaker 1: celebrated by the white supremacists. You know, when the white
Speaker 1: supremacists called Donald Trump one of their own, I tend
Speaker 1: to believe them disgusting, intellectually dishonest, a liar, a fraud,
Speaker 1: a perfect Democrat, a perfect leftist. I think it is
Speaker 1: going to be Warren. I really, do you heard it
Speaker 1: from me? Now I've told you it's not going to
Speaker 1: be Biden. I think that it's going to be Warren
Speaker 1: with all the all the stuff that comes along with that.
Speaker 1: Get ready in America, because she is every bit as
Speaker 1: dangerous to the economy as Bernie Sanders is and even
Speaker 1: more self righteous. One thing culture that goes on in
Speaker 1: politics that I find really dismaying. Politicians need money. A
Speaker 1: lot of them aren't that wealthy. They live on their
Speaker 1: showeries one hundred and a half a year. They're not
Speaker 1: They're not crying, but they love travel and private planes.
Speaker 1: They have to get around for their professional and political races.
Speaker 1: They become so called friends with the wrong freaking people.
Speaker 1: And these people are frightening and they want something from
Speaker 1: They want the prestige of hanging around a politician, and
Speaker 1: they these the relationships are awful. The names that have come.
Speaker 1: I don't want to use their names tonight, but the names,
Speaker 1: why do these people know a guy like this guy Epstein?
Speaker 1: Why don't even want to know them? Yeah? Please made
Speaker 1: yea queas made this guy's got his own show, folks
Speaker 1: cable news. I play the audio sound bites mostly because
Speaker 1: it's like a game. Can I even understand what he's
Speaker 1: what he's blabbering about? But I noticed the focus on
Speaker 1: how Yeah, so you know private planes. Politicians they make
Speaker 1: friends with shady people because they like the private planes. Um,
Speaker 1: you know who really like the private planes? Bill Clinton
Speaker 1: and you know who like the private planes even apart
Speaker 1: from the Epsteins that the Clinton Foundation, which I believe
Speaker 1: spent fifty million dollars on private private plane travel over
Speaker 1: the course of the Clinton foundations heyday, which was until
Speaker 1: people realize Hillary Clinton wasn't going to be president anymore.
Speaker 1: Almost like it was a giant access selling operation under
Speaker 1: the guise of a charitable organization where you could buy
Speaker 1: access so that you were supporting the global brand of
Speaker 1: the Clintons and if you're an American citizen, get a
Speaker 1: tax write off for it too. But they're going to
Speaker 1: have to explain the four trip versus twenty seven trip
Speaker 1: disparity at some point with Bill Clinton. I know they've said, oh,
Speaker 1: it's about trips versus individual flights. Twenty seven flights, folks,
Speaker 1: is a lot of flights. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: people in America that have private planes. I mean, I
Speaker 1: don't really know any, but there are a lot of
Speaker 1: people who do, and twenty seven flights is a lot,
Speaker 1: a lot to take. So I just would note that
Speaker 1: they're they're gonna do what they can to defend the
Speaker 1: Clinton legacy. Remember they've already defended Clinton. Well, we know
Speaker 1: he's I mean, we know Clinton's a predator. It's just
Speaker 1: this is just a different a different degree, a different
Speaker 1: level when you're talking about what Epstein did. But Bill
Speaker 1: Clinton has been credibly accused of sexual assault by women
Speaker 1: who if there's anything about a right to be believed
Speaker 1: those women were in the place that they said attacked
Speaker 1: by Clinton. There's plenty of circumstantial evidence to support their claims.
Speaker 1: There's none of this. Oh this was, you know, thirty
Speaker 1: years ago. I don't remember anything. I just remember that
Speaker 1: the bad man did the bad thing to me when
Speaker 1: it's politically advantageous for Democrats. This is not a Kavanaugh situation,
Speaker 1: but they will do everything they can to defend the
Speaker 1: Clinton legacy. I think in part because they also they
Speaker 1: don't have a dynasty right now to back. It doesn't
Speaker 1: look like Michelle Obama's going to run a Barack Obamas
Speaker 1: children are too young to run, so there is no
Speaker 1: dynasty in place. And I do think Democrats realize that
Speaker 1: the Trump's there are a couple of players there who
Speaker 1: might decide to run at some point in the future.
Speaker 1: So just keep keep an eye on the narrative, keep
Speaker 1: an eye on what they're gonna do here with the
Speaker 1: Epstein case. Because they keep trying so despolute to tie
Speaker 1: it to Trump and deflect from anything Clinton related. You
Speaker 1: know that they are not They are not being honest
Speaker 1: in this process, that much is for sure. Also wanted
Speaker 1: to just bring up the latest on the gun control
Speaker 1: side of things here the Democrats. You'll notice that the
Speaker 1: frenzy has died down, but Trump still has mentioned yeah,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe we'll do I don't think any other guy's
Speaker 1: gonna happen. We keep going through this. There's a situation
Speaker 1: where the Democrats are saying we need to have gun control,
Speaker 1: and then they don't actually get this legislation. Let's see
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi gave us a view of what's coming forward
Speaker 1: here play fourteen. In the near near future, we must
Speaker 1: pass gun violence prevention legislation. Every day we lose lives,
Speaker 1: and now public sentiment must weigh in to save lives,
Speaker 1: to pass our bill, and to look at high capacity
Speaker 1: magazines that should be eliminated as well, high capacity magazines.
Speaker 1: Going to get rid of what is assault rifles and
Speaker 1: high capacity magazines. Members of Congress, I know that they're
Speaker 1: they're pushing for a ban on semi automatic rifles, assault rifles,
Speaker 1: and they're also trying to get rid of high capacity magazines.
Speaker 1: There are so many of these magazines already in circulation
Speaker 1: that any possibility of really meaningfully getting rid of them
Speaker 1: when it's it's not even that hard to make. It's
Speaker 1: not hard to make them, folks. So if somebody really
Speaker 1: wants to be a bad guy and they're willing to
Speaker 1: spend the time, they'll find a way to either get
Speaker 1: their hands on an existing high capacity mat which I
Speaker 1: don't even know what that's supposed to mean. I think
Speaker 1: in New York it's it meant ten rounds, which means
Speaker 1: that if you have a standard magazine, saying a Glock nineteen,
Speaker 1: you would be in trouble or you'd have to have
Speaker 1: that they create this piece that you put in the magazine.
Speaker 1: I think that they sell these essentially makes it so
Speaker 1: that you can't fill the magazine all the way. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure the bad guys are gonna say no,
Speaker 1: I want more. But I am seeing here and producer
Speaker 1: Mike flagged this for me as we're as we were
Speaker 1: on air, you have oh gosh, here we go. Four
Speaker 1: four Philadelphia police officers have been shot in the Nice Town,
Speaker 1: Tioga section, according to a CBS affiliate here in Philadelphia,
Speaker 1: and they were rushed to the hospital. No officers are
Speaker 1: believed to be to have life threatening injuries right now,
Speaker 1: and this was in response to a call for narcotics
Speaker 1: related to a narcotics activity in the area. Producer Mike,
Speaker 1: do we have any do you have any other updates
Speaker 1: or or context to add to this and see this
Speaker 1: is just breaking. This is near Temple University. You're a
Speaker 1: Philly guy, so what is this in a Is this
Speaker 1: in a rough neighborhood? What's going very rough neighborhoods? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's up to a five officer shot now. Um, but yeah,
Speaker 1: the nice Time Tayoga Section is in the north part
Speaker 1: of Philadelphia, right near a temple and it's is an
Speaker 1: extremely rough area. So this looks to be like a shootout,
Speaker 1: probably narcotics related with cops, not say, from what we
Speaker 1: see right now, active targeting of law enforcement. That seems
Speaker 1: to be the takeaway so far. Yeah, exactly. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: looked like they're responding to a narcotics call and they're
Speaker 1: still drawn in. It's it's just shootout. It's ongoing and
Speaker 1: it's not over yet. So hopefully nobody else gets here. Man.
Speaker 1: All right, Well, as we have any updates on that,
Speaker 1: we will certainly let you guys know. I'm curious to
Speaker 1: see you know, just as I'm here talking about how
Speaker 1: they're I don't think they're going to get legislation to
Speaker 1: change change anything with guns. You know, you have a
Speaker 1: shooting like this, if it turns out that the individual
Speaker 1: who engaged these cops had a if he has a
Speaker 1: high capacity magazine, if he has a semi automatic rifle. Uh,
Speaker 1: then we're going to be here. You know. That'll put
Speaker 1: a whole new push behind this. So this could you know,
Speaker 1: this is the this is the new cycle we're in folks.
Speaker 1: You know, one second you're thinking, all right, it looks
Speaker 1: like this this momentum has stalled to change gun laws
Speaker 1: in this country. But now with this, we'll have We'll
Speaker 1: have to see. Um. I do remember I think there
Speaker 1: was a major shootout with FBI officers and a couple
Speaker 1: of guys down and I think it was in the
Speaker 1: area of Miami Dade back in I want to say,
Speaker 1: the eighties and the nineties, and that led to some
Speaker 1: real outcrut because because the cops were outgunned by these
Speaker 1: two guys. And I think that that's when the I
Speaker 1: think they might have changed over to fifteen round magazines
Speaker 1: at the FBI at that point. But anyway, we'll see
Speaker 1: if this has any effect on the legislative situation. The
Speaker 1: shooting Philadelphia. Mike's from Philly. He'll he'll keep an eye
Speaker 1: and it. While we're on air, and we'll come back
Speaker 1: to your team in a few minutes. You said, this
Speaker 1: administration has established concentration camps on the southern border of
Speaker 1: the United States for immigrants, where they're being brutalized into
Speaker 1: humanizing conditions and dying. You've got a lot of grief
Speaker 1: for using the word concentration camps. Do you regret that
Speaker 1: or do you think people misinterpret it? Yeah, well, I
Speaker 1: think I think there's a there's a few things that
Speaker 1: play one. I don't regret it at all. Doesn't regret
Speaker 1: using concentration camps. Really, the the idiot in chief of
Speaker 1: the Democrats isn't ever going to back down off this
Speaker 1: stuff because it's about playing to the most frenzied, brainwashed
Speaker 1: left wingers in the country, people who just cannot open
Speaker 1: their minds to any on our argument for a second
Speaker 1: because it would shatter their sense of who they are.
Speaker 1: They are the good people, the smart people, the caring people,
Speaker 1: the Democrat people. Can't change it up for them, can't
Speaker 1: have them think about things critically, always going to falter
Speaker 1: when you have a discussion with them on their need
Speaker 1: to feel like they are superior to you, and AOC
Speaker 1: certainly plays into that. Democrats are now an open borders party.
Speaker 1: They're absolutely undermining law enforcement and advocating for the California
Speaker 1: Plan for America. The California Plan is pretty straightforward. Change
Speaker 1: the demographics of the United States in key states California
Speaker 1: has already won such that you make it a one
Speaker 1: party stronghold, and then you control all national elections going forward.
Speaker 1: Most immigrants in the country are concentrated, and that includes
Speaker 1: illegal immigrants, are concentrated in the following states New York, Texas, Florida, California.
Speaker 1: If you have those states as Democrat one party rule states,
Speaker 1: guess what it's all over. Republican Party is toast. So
Speaker 1: what are we supposed to make of Democrats focusing in
Speaker 1: on the treatment of migrants who are illegally crossing our
Speaker 1: border and acting like yelling kids in cages, kids in cages,
Speaker 1: and talking about concentration camps. They're emotionalizing the issue because
Speaker 1: they can't win a rational argument, and heaven forbid we
Speaker 1: spend any time thinking about what the real Democrats strategy is,
Speaker 1: which is to establish one party rule in America by
Speaker 1: the left and by the socialists. That's what they're doing.
Speaker 1: That is the plan they've already done it in California.
Speaker 1: This is not some bizarre theory that is being concocted
Speaker 1: in the fever swamp of the internet somewhere. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is what's happening. But as long as it's as
Speaker 1: long as they allow themselves to seize the emotional high ground,
Speaker 1: they know that the left will be with them, and
Speaker 1: the fact that she won't back off the concentration camps
Speaker 1: comment just tells you everything you really need to know.
Speaker 1: And she's she's a reckless person, an unethical person, and
Speaker 1: as a disgrace. And it's you know, it used to be, oh,
Speaker 1: she's young, she's new. She says dumb things, but people
Speaker 1: think it's kind of cute sometimes or I know you don't,
Speaker 1: but people would. And now you realize that, no, this
Speaker 1: is this is a problem, this mentality, this ideology, the
Speaker 1: way that the Democrats are embracing this extreme They keep
Speaker 1: saying that Republicans use extreme rhetoric, and I'm looking for
Speaker 1: this extreme rhetoric and I don't see it. Democrats say extreme,
Speaker 1: crazy stuff all the time. Republicans they always have to
Speaker 1: refer back to something Trump said, you know, six months
Speaker 1: or two years ago, and change what he said, so
Speaker 1: that it sounds worse not backing off of the concentration
Speaker 1: camps comment. Oh, by the way, Frank, this is another
Speaker 1: speaking of whose which side's really crazy? That's a game
Speaker 1: that we should continue to play here on show Democrats
Speaker 1: and Republicans. Who's really crazy? Frank Figliuzzi, It is fun
Speaker 1: to say his name. I will say that I believe
Speaker 1: he's the same guy who did the whole August eighth,
Speaker 1: white supremacist eight eighth thing over at MSNBC. I think
Speaker 1: he's that guy just because I remember the name now,
Speaker 1: which is impressive. It is impressive to have accomplished the
Speaker 1: feat of the single dumbest SoundBite of national security analysis,
Speaker 1: maybe in the history of cable TV, but definitely in
Speaker 1: recent memory. But he's got more where that came from, folks.
Speaker 1: I'm sure they got a big contributor contract for him.
Speaker 1: Over at MSNBC. Here is former FBI official Deep State Officionado.
Speaker 1: I am sure Frank Figliuzzi saying some really sweet things
Speaker 1: about Trump supporters. Played twelve. This is why it's so
Speaker 1: important to look through the lens of radicalization when you
Speaker 1: look at as president and then apply counter radicalization techniques,
Speaker 1: because you're right, attacking his followers is going to be counterproductive.
Speaker 1: He demands that loyalty, and they are loyal. So if
Speaker 1: you call Trump followers racist and mass they simply coalesce
Speaker 1: around each other and become even more defensive and protective
Speaker 1: of the leader, just as they would in say, a
Speaker 1: terrorist organization, just as they would in a terrorist organization.
Speaker 1: That's right. The sixty million plus Americans who voted for
Speaker 1: Trump were just like a really big terrorist organization. Miss
Speaker 1: Guy's a moron. You know. One thing that makes me
Speaker 1: sad is that there's no we never get the opportunity
Speaker 1: to debate the left anymore. They won't do it. They
Speaker 1: won't They won't crawl out of their established lib safe
Speaker 1: zones long enough to have to face somebody on the
Speaker 1: other side who has another point of view. I never
Speaker 1: see good debates on TV anymore. It's very, very rare
Speaker 1: because any leftist with any standing will only go on
Speaker 1: places where they have the Anderson Cooper effect, like with
Speaker 1: Max boot last night. I mean Max Boot. I know
Speaker 1: I'm jumping around here, but Max Boot I worked at
Speaker 1: the Council on Foreign Relations as an intern. When he
Speaker 1: was there as a fellow, and nobody liked him. We'll
Speaker 1: tell you that he was not. They did not like
Speaker 1: him in the building anybody. But he was a conservative.
Speaker 1: So I felt a degree of like, hey, I've got
Speaker 1: some solidarity with this guy. I mean, he has he
Speaker 1: has all the charm of a goose turd. But you know,
Speaker 1: I figured he's a conservative. And I knew I was
Speaker 1: a conservative at that point. I graduated college, and you know,
Speaker 1: I figured I was going to go to the CIA
Speaker 1: trying to find bin lad and try to help America out.
Speaker 1: So and Boot has now made a whole second career
Speaker 1: for himself by trashing conservatives, not just Trump, trashing conservatives,
Speaker 1: saying that white nationalism has overtaken National Review. You know,
Speaker 1: a place where friends of mine like Charles Cook and
Speaker 1: Andy McCarthy and Kevin Williamson and people you hear on
Speaker 1: this show, National Review has been overtaken by white supremacy.
Speaker 1: And he went on air last night with Anderson Cooper,
Speaker 1: and I was it was embarrassing. I mean, Anderson Cooper
Speaker 1: show is a trash is a trash dump it really is.
Speaker 1: It's a dumpster fire of lib partisan but like pseudo serious.
Speaker 1: At the same time, you know, we're just drawing journalism here.
Speaker 1: You know. It's the one where they had the woman
Speaker 1: on who said that she thought quote rape was sexy.
Speaker 1: You know, the woman that they put on TV in
Speaker 1: prime time to accuse the president of being a rapist.
Speaker 1: They put a lunatic, an actual crazy person on TV
Speaker 1: in primetime. But I remember what they did when they
Speaker 1: end that guy who I actually know him, Sam sam Numberg.
Speaker 1: I mean, he was having something of a nervous breakdown
Speaker 1: and went on all these different shows and clearly was
Speaker 1: not in his right mind, and they kept putting it.
Speaker 1: They put him on show after show, off the show
Speaker 1: at CNN because he was saying stuff about Trump that
Speaker 1: they thought they that their audience would want to hear.
Speaker 1: And there's no ethics, no decency whatsoever. But yeah, Max's boot.
Speaker 1: They put him on TV. So you know, he trashes conservatives.
Speaker 1: You never have people who are shown as Democrats who
Speaker 1: are really just right wingers there to trash Democrats. That
Speaker 1: doesn't happen. You have Trojan Horse conservatives all over the
Speaker 1: media now, all over the place. You know, they say,
Speaker 1: oh I'm a consern I'm a real conservative. And let
Speaker 1: me tell you now why Trump and everything he stands
Speaker 1: for is terrible, really, deregulation, cutting taxes, securing our border,
Speaker 1: giving power back to states. Maybe what what is so
Speaker 1: anti conservative about the Trump agenda? Not starting wars? We
Speaker 1: don't have to start, not intervening in countries, or we
Speaker 1: don't have an important US national security interest. Oh, but
Speaker 1: they just trash conservatives all the time. And this is
Speaker 1: the discourse on cable news has devolved so much that
Speaker 1: you see places that I hope they I mean, I
Speaker 1: hope that these some of these shows and some of
Speaker 1: these pundits never recover in the sense that they are
Speaker 1: never believed to be objective again, because they were never
Speaker 1: objective in the first place. I mean, I think this
Speaker 1: is true of MSNBC now and CNN. But we'll see.
Speaker 1: But figlots. He's saying Trump supporters or terrorists to bring us,
Speaker 1: bring us all the way back to the center here,
Speaker 1: and how you shouldn't you shouldn't attack Trump supporters because
Speaker 1: they'll just coalesce around the leader. You know what this is?
Speaker 1: This is them admitting. Okay, so we tried to just
Speaker 1: bash Trump supporters into submission last week. That didn't work.
Speaker 1: So now let's pretend like we're above that. Now, let's
Speaker 1: tell our left wing moon audience at MSNBC that we're
Speaker 1: not going to attack Trump supporters because that just makes
Speaker 1: them circle around Trump. We've got better ideas. I got
Speaker 1: news for you, folks. They don't have better ideas. In fact,
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is largely out of ideas. What does
Speaker 1: it have? Identity? Politics and socialism, those two concepts applied
Speaker 1: to politics and culture and economics. That is the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: That's really all they've got. Some of you are probably
Speaker 1: yelling and satanism, but that's a discussion for another time.
Speaker 1: Are we going into recession? So I think the answer
Speaker 1: is most likely no. I think that the US economy
Speaker 1: has enough strength to avoid that. But the odds have
Speaker 1: clearly risen, and they're higher than I'm frankly comfortable with.
Speaker 1: Oh boy, I have been telling this. In fact, my
Speaker 1: old co host at Rising would admit, I'm sure if
Speaker 1: we got her to call in the show sometime that
Speaker 1: I've been saying for the last year and a half
Speaker 1: that the only way Trump is gonna lose it's not
Speaker 1: going to be Russia collusion. It's not going to be Oh,
Speaker 1: he's social racist, he's a white nationalist, all this other crap.
Speaker 1: They say, the only way Trump might lose is if
Speaker 1: we just head into a nasty cyclical recession in the
Speaker 1: year of the election. And this is gonna be very
Speaker 1: tough because there's a tremendous amount of incentive that the
Speaker 1: media has, including the financial media, to just get to
Speaker 1: tell stories that will get eyeballs and attention. And that's
Speaker 1: gonna be oh my gosh, oh my gosh, you're gonna
Speaker 1: hear a lot of the sky is falling because every
Speaker 1: time I'm gonna look at the Drudge Report right now,
Speaker 1: yields flash recession warning, stocks dive down eight hundred points,
Speaker 1: banks hammered, everyone's freaking out, dogs and cats living together,
Speaker 1: mass hysteria. I'm here to make some some predictions about
Speaker 1: the economy. Now, I am not an economist, I'm not
Speaker 1: a market watcher, nor do I play one on TV.
Speaker 1: But here's what I'm gonna tell you. The likelihood of
Speaker 1: a recession is serious. That's that's something we do have today.
Speaker 1: We do have to look at as it's if you
Speaker 1: look at about every ten years or so historic we
Speaker 1: hit into it and stocks have been white hot. I mean,
Speaker 1: it has just been absolutely on a tear here, even
Speaker 1: this enormous bull marketed hitting records and there's going to
Speaker 1: be a cool off. We have a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: debt that has accumulated. We have a fair amount of
Speaker 1: bad debt out there, a lot of subprime auto loans.
Speaker 1: This trillion was at one point two trillion now and
Speaker 1: there was a one point six trillion. And student loans,
Speaker 1: a lot of them aren't going to get paid back.
Speaker 1: They're talking about. You know, we're also in this uncharted
Speaker 1: territory of I was going to talk about the forgiveness
Speaker 1: of student loans, which is another way of just saying
Speaker 1: socializing those debts among the rest of the economy. But
Speaker 1: we're heading into uncharted territory with a massive unwinding of
Speaker 1: what has been done here with all the stimulus, the
Speaker 1: enormous balance sheet that the Fed has now the twenty
Speaker 1: two going on twenty three trillion, I believe of total
Speaker 1: total government debt. And you know, no one sees this
Speaker 1: stuff coming because the incentives aren't aligned. And seeing it
Speaker 1: coming when the stock markets doing great. If you're somebody
Speaker 1: who knows the market, you don't you usually tell people
Speaker 1: bye bye bye. Get in getting because that's how people
Speaker 1: make money, and you want to keep making money until
Speaker 1: the very endial things turn around. Now, you may not
Speaker 1: care that much about this or you I don't know,
Speaker 1: I don't know how many of you are active investors,
Speaker 1: but it matters to what will happen with the broader economy,
Speaker 1: with employment, with four one ks, with pension plans. That's
Speaker 1: why the stock market as an indicator is important. Even
Speaker 1: though you'll have idiot leftists who go in TV. Only
Speaker 1: twenty percent of Americans actively own stocks and manage them
Speaker 1: whatever it is, okay, yeah, but the markets tell us things.
Speaker 1: The markets speak in different ways. Very few people can
Speaker 1: really decipher what it is. I'm always amazed at how
Speaker 1: often if I'm flipping around the channels, you turn on
Speaker 1: CNBC or one of these things is where there's the
Speaker 1: markets you're opening are down and they're up and they're down,
Speaker 1: and you know, uncertainty you're overtrade with China is really
Speaker 1: driving this thing, really, because we've had uncertainty overtrade with
Speaker 1: China for like the last year and change. That's what's
Speaker 1: driving the market down today. I just I'm not pretending
Speaker 1: to be an expert, folks, but It's kind of like
Speaker 1: the climate change stuff at some point where you just
Speaker 1: know when someone's been wrong enough times that they don't
Speaker 1: know what the heck they're talking about. It's just like
Speaker 1: going on whatever he wants to climb market, up market,
Speaker 1: down market, go all around, do the hokey pokey and
Speaker 1: you shake it in. Then you know the thing, and
Speaker 1: what does it? Shake it all around? That's right, I
Speaker 1: forgot about the hokey pokey. And what was the last
Speaker 1: time you heard about the hokey pokey? Mark? It's probably
Speaker 1: been a while. I do it once a week. Dude.
Speaker 1: You're always there for me. Mark. It's what I like
Speaker 1: about you. So anyway, the market's gonna get bad, and
Speaker 1: you know, I think that that's going to be a
Speaker 1: problem for Trump, even though here's a prediction that I
Speaker 1: have for you. For sure, this market go south and
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, employments unemployment starts ticking up, and
Speaker 1: things aren't looking quite as rosy. All the people that
Speaker 1: we're saying that as of six months ago, we're saying
Speaker 1: it's the Obama economy. It's the Obama economy. They're gonna go, ah,
Speaker 1: just kidding, it's actually the Trump economy. The Trump economy
Speaker 1: of course, because now it's bad. They were so willing
Speaker 1: to take the credit. Now they will not take the blame.
Speaker 1: And I do think that it's cyclical. And look, Trump's
Speaker 1: been spending of this governments and spending a lot that
Speaker 1: the good times have been rolling. There's going to be
Speaker 1: a correction. There always is. There's going to be a
Speaker 1: change in the trajectory. And this is when you start
Speaker 1: to think about hard assets. You start thinking about property,
Speaker 1: you start thinking about gold, different ways of trying to
Speaker 1: hedge against this. All future is uncertain, you know, That's
Speaker 1: one of my mantras. No one can tell the future,
Speaker 1: but you can also look at trends and try to
Speaker 1: make preparations for them. How does crypto factor into all this? Cryptocurrencies?
Speaker 1: I think you're gonna hear a lot more talk about that,
Speaker 1: because right, and that the dollar has been so strong
Speaker 1: for so long that has been it's been very hard
Speaker 1: to see how anything else would come along. But remember
Speaker 1: it's when you ride the wave of consensus in these
Speaker 1: in these financial situations, that things get really bad, really fast.
Speaker 1: When the words I think it's Gordon Gecko says, those
Speaker 1: guys are sheep and sheep gets slaughtered. Gordon Gecko is
Speaker 1: like the greatest Wall Street character of all time. It's
Speaker 1: funny people really liked They liked Gordon Gecko so much
Speaker 1: that there are people that were after the movie Wall
Speaker 1: Street came out, they said they wanted to be stockbrokers
Speaker 1: because the bad guy from the movie Wall Street was
Speaker 1: so cool. So yeah, that could happen. People love Gordon
Speaker 1: Gecko anyway. Look, I don't think that this is going
Speaker 1: to get super ugly economically. I don't think it's gonna
Speaker 1: get that bad. But brace yourselves because there's gonna be
Speaker 1: a total will change in narrative and all the focus
Speaker 1: on Russia and racism and all of that has been
Speaker 1: in part driven by the lack of a coherent Democrat narrative.
Speaker 1: And what is the counter narrative to the country's doing well.
Speaker 1: I keep coming on air, I tell you this, the
Speaker 1: country is doing well. Democrats go, no, it's not really.
Speaker 1: We're not fighting any huge wars, We're not suffering through
Speaker 1: bad employment times or markets that are crashing out. So
Speaker 1: what exactly is the government's supposed to be? I mean,
Speaker 1: the border is not good, but that's because Democrats won't
Speaker 1: allow it to be secured what exactly is so terrible
Speaker 1: in the country right now, And I just see that
Speaker 1: this could shift very rapidly, This could change, and we
Speaker 1: find ourselves in a situation where we're going to have
Speaker 1: to be explaining the Trump tax cut and all this
Speaker 1: other stuff that has looked so good so far in
Speaker 1: an economic environment where look, it might just be a
Speaker 1: sell off and a temporary thing. But if the timing
Speaker 1: of a market downturn, at the timing of an economic
Speaker 1: shift in momentum, things start going south on us. If
Speaker 1: that coincides at the election, this thing gets very close,
Speaker 1: very quickly. And I'm not thinking that Trump sails to
Speaker 1: reelection the way I would. Right now, we know that
Speaker 1: we also face foreign influence that is being denied by
Speaker 1: the White House, by the would be dictator of Donald Trump.
Speaker 1: But also that Moscow Mitch is stopping voter rights legislation
Speaker 1: and election security legislation. But we also know that they
Speaker 1: just lifted a consent decree that's kept Republicans and the
Speaker 1: RNC from going into local communities and intimidating voters by
Speaker 1: having off duty officers tell people that they're monitoring their votes.
Speaker 1: For the first time since nineteen eighty one, The RNC
Speaker 1: will be allowed to cheat and lie and go into
Speaker 1: polling places and scare voters, particularly voters of color. Stacy Abrams,
Speaker 1: who has yet to win any political contest of any kind,
Speaker 1: is allowed to get away with claiming repeatedly and in
Speaker 1: public that she didn't win the Georgia gubernatorial race because
Speaker 1: she was cheated because of voter suppression. Now, I remember
Speaker 1: when it was a laugh line that Hillary would tell
Speaker 1: her supporters because you know, I'm with her, Hello, I'm
Speaker 1: with her. Still. How much do you miss Hillary? Right now?
Speaker 1: Have you checked under your better in your closet? You
Speaker 1: never know, and there's going to be a Clinton waiting
Speaker 1: for you somewhere, going to jump out and scare you.
Speaker 1: But when we were looking at that election, the big
Speaker 1: joke was that maybe Donald Trump would not accept the results.
Speaker 1: Now you have not only of course Democrats. They didn't
Speaker 1: accept the results of the election with the whole Russia
Speaker 1: collusion conspiracy fairy tale, fairytale for them, nightmare for the
Speaker 1: country because of all the resources wasted, all the time
Speaker 1: gobbled up by this, and it was just the whole
Speaker 1: thing was absurd. But now you have Stacy Abrams, who
Speaker 1: has become immedia celebrity for saying things that are demonstrably
Speaker 1: and provably untrue about the governor's race in Georgia. It
Speaker 1: is just not the case that there was illegal voter suppression.
Speaker 1: If there was, we would have heard about it by now.
Speaker 1: But she just keeps saying this, and she goes around
Speaker 1: now as a voting rights advocate, which I just have
Speaker 1: to say, I mean, this is at some point going
Speaker 1: to run up against the reality of a lot of
Speaker 1: these areas where Democrats always claim there's going to be
Speaker 1: voter suppression have record high turnout. They did this happen
Speaker 1: in twenty sixteen, It's happened in twenty eighteen as all.
Speaker 1: But because of some change to a polling place or
Speaker 1: the whatever it is. Democrats always claim that it's an
Speaker 1: effort to suppress minority votes. Anything you do in an
Speaker 1: election that is a change that a Republican does, they
Speaker 1: say it's to suppress already votes. This is the standard line.
Speaker 1: Oh okay, maybe you need to have ID at the
Speaker 1: polling place. Oh my gosh, they're suppressing minority votes. The
Speaker 1: Supreme Court already ruled that voter ideas is not a
Speaker 1: legal disenfranchisement of voters that you do have a basic interest.
Speaker 1: And that's why I'm when they talk about this elect
Speaker 1: notice how it just faded away, you know. And I
Speaker 1: was on the Bill Mars show that he opened the show.
Speaker 1: I was surprised. We talked with us first with how
Speaker 1: the Republicans weren't voting on this you know, eight hundred
Speaker 1: million dollars voting security package or you know, protecting polling
Speaker 1: places from cyber hacking. I said, they tried to ram
Speaker 1: through using unanimous consent, which is meant for naming a
Speaker 1: post office somewhere. Unanimous consent is like, hey, everybody on
Speaker 1: the Senate floor, can we all like a journe at
Speaker 1: three o'clock today so we can all go play in
Speaker 1: the softball game? Sweet cool? I mean, it's not meant for, hey,
Speaker 1: let's spend eight hundred million dollars change laws about voting,
Speaker 1: established new federal statutes that will require mandate reporting for
Speaker 1: all these different Russia collusion you know, fairy tale things
Speaker 1: about how there might be a foreigner who's offering you information. No,
Speaker 1: you don't do that with unanimous consent, which is what
Speaker 1: the Damns were doing. But they did that so they
Speaker 1: can put forward something that they knew wasn't going to
Speaker 1: get through, and then the lib media would say, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, they don't want to do voter security. They don't.
Speaker 1: Then you say, okay, what about voter ID, Oh, voter
Speaker 1: IDA nothing, okay, Well, then a hundred guys name Yuri,
Speaker 1: who you work for the FSB or it would really
Speaker 1: actually be I suppose the SVR, but who work for
Speaker 1: Russian intelligence. They could just show up here or the
Speaker 1: GRU if you wanted to the military side, folks, Oh
Speaker 1: that's right, Russian Intel one o one. But they could
Speaker 1: show up here and have a hundred of them just
Speaker 1: voting and voting and voting. It doesn't take that many
Speaker 1: votes to flip some of these districts. To flip flip
Speaker 1: some of these states, you could say, well, they'd never
Speaker 1: do that, okay, but why not make sure they couldn't
Speaker 1: do it? Why not make it just a little bit harder.
Speaker 1: Any security precaution can be beaten, there's always a way
Speaker 1: around that. It's it's an issue of elevating the difficulty
Speaker 1: of engaging in the illicit behavior. True of criminal security precaution,
Speaker 1: andy terrors and stuff across the board but Stacy Abrams
Speaker 1: is just the purveyor of a fiction that Democrats like
Speaker 1: to tell themselves, which is one that she really was
Speaker 1: the winner of the Georgia governor's race, which is it's
Speaker 1: just not true, and also that there's a need to
Speaker 1: tackle this nationwide voter suppression effort. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: all emotion, folks. It's like when we hear about jerrymandering
Speaker 1: from Democrats. Guess what Democrats jerrymander two And when you
Speaker 1: bring this up, they'll admit it. Then they'll say, but
Speaker 1: Republicans do it worse, says who how I'll hear this
Speaker 1: from people all but Republicans are worse about jerrymandering another
Speaker 1: or not both sides erry mander. It's a question of
Speaker 1: what the realities are in any given state at any
Speaker 1: given time, who runs the legislature and what the districts
Speaker 1: look like. But they're both jerrymandering. They're both doing it.
Speaker 1: But this is like when Democrats say we don't want
Speaker 1: money in politics, really like, you don't want Tom Steyer
Speaker 1: and George Soros and you know, go down. You don't
Speaker 1: want Michael Bloomberg. Oh yeah, there's there's no rich lives
Speaker 1: throwing a lot of money around in politics. Oh no,
Speaker 1: that never happens. I mean, this is just this is
Speaker 1: a delusion, but it's it's a it's a cultural thing
Speaker 1: on the left to believe that they don't want money
Speaker 1: in politics, that they want more, because what that really
Speaker 1: comes down to is that not only a Republicans racist,
Speaker 1: of course, that's why they want to suppress the vote,
Speaker 1: but that the Democrats would win every election if only
Speaker 1: more people who could vote did vote. And to this,
Speaker 1: I say, well, for one thing, I don't want more
Speaker 1: people voting. I don't want people voting who are engaged
Speaker 1: and feel the need to vote, because if it's people
Speaker 1: that don't really care, which the media knows, then the
Speaker 1: left wing dominance of our media ecosystem is a huge
Speaker 1: asset to Democrats. I don't want the low information voters
Speaker 1: to turn out in droves. I want people that follow things,
Speaker 1: that care, that know what's going on. That's just a baseline,
Speaker 1: and this is just my preference, but that's my baseline.
Speaker 1: That's why I don't believe in mandatory voting. They have
Speaker 1: it in some countries. I think they have mandatory voting
Speaker 1: in Brazil. It's worked out great down there that place
Speaker 1: a lot of problems. But you just look at the
Speaker 1: news stories today with Stacy Abrams. Stacy Abram says she's
Speaker 1: open to being vice president for any Democrat nominee. So
Speaker 1: she's not going to seek the presidency herself, which is
Speaker 1: good because she wouldn't win, but she's willing to be
Speaker 1: anyone's VP. Well, this is quite an offering because right now,
Speaker 1: the vote that a lot of these Democrat primary candidates
Speaker 1: are vying for the most is the African American Democrat
Speaker 1: primary voter. That's the one that is the that's the
Speaker 1: real game changer. And you have people like Mayor Pete,
Speaker 1: who does pretty well with white suburban Libs, no support
Speaker 1: among the Black community. I mean it's like less than
Speaker 1: it's because say it's less than zero percent. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's really possible, but maybe he can't get any
Speaker 1: votes from the black community. Bernie Sanders has always struggled
Speaker 1: with the black community. Joe Biden, Joe Biden is being
Speaker 1: kept in the lead so far in most of the polls,
Speaker 1: in large part due to the very strong support that
Speaker 1: he has in the black community. So Stacey Abrams, folks,
Speaker 1: she could be she could be making a deal with
Speaker 1: someone to be their VP, and then you'll be hearing
Speaker 1: more and more of this voter suppression story that is
Speaker 1: not based in facts, not based in reality, but it's
Speaker 1: a fairy tale that libs like to hear, and they
Speaker 1: love to hear it told by Stacey Abrams for at
Speaker 1: least four, if not eight years as a vice president.
Speaker 1: You are now entering the Freedom Hot Tindable Operation Center.
Speaker 1: All the programs Musky Caps strigually need to know Team
Speaker 1: Buck is cleared front and ready for a Buck brief. Well,
Speaker 1: there's no question that China has made it clear that
Speaker 1: they are threatening to bring some kind of action against
Speaker 1: Hong Kong involving their police or their military, their paramilitary forces.
Speaker 1: We've reached a real impass here, and China has to
Speaker 1: weigh the impact the significant casualties that would they'd be
Speaker 1: looking at. They're roughly estimated a million protesters, that's of
Speaker 1: seven million residents in Hong Kong, and then the impact
Speaker 1: on financial markets, and Hong Kong is really a gateway
Speaker 1: to China as well as a financial center in its
Speaker 1: own right. I think China would be reluctant to commit forces,
Speaker 1: but they're clearly preparing to do so if they feel
Speaker 1: like it's necessary. The protesters are demanding things, I think
Speaker 1: China would not want to give up that Kerry Lamb resign,
Speaker 1: that the Hong Kong police be held accountable for their
Speaker 1: brutal tactics, that the extradition bill be permanently withdrawn, and
Speaker 1: that protesters receive amnesty. I think that China is probably
Speaker 1: going to let this subside because it would be just
Speaker 1: too disruptive, and China doesn't like disruption. I know that's
Speaker 1: what's happening in Hong Kong, but it would be too
Speaker 1: much of an escalation of disruption to completely crush this
Speaker 1: thing using the tactics that we saw in nineteen eighty
Speaker 1: nine in tian on Men Square. But make no mistake
Speaker 1: about it, that is the concern right now, that we
Speaker 1: will see a replay of tian on Men bodies in
Speaker 1: the streets, people being riddled with bullets for peacefully protesting.
Speaker 1: The Chinese understand the optics of the situation, which is why,
Speaker 1: of course you can't even see what's happening in Hong
Speaker 1: Kong and any part of mainland China right now, at
Speaker 1: least not officially. It's a bizarre our thing. I've told
Speaker 1: you when I was in Beijing a few months back,
Speaker 1: Beijing and then Shanghai, to be cut off from the
Speaker 1: Worldwide Web in a country where you're it's one thing
Speaker 1: if you're out in the jungle or the desert somewhere,
Speaker 1: and you know, it's just a lack of infrastructure around you.
Speaker 1: There's no cell signal that you can understand when you're
Speaker 1: in the middle of When you're in the middle of Beijing,
Speaker 1: you have skyscrapers all around you. You have millions and
Speaker 1: millions and millions of people on the streets and in
Speaker 1: buildings and in these tremendous class structures everywhere. So why
Speaker 1: would you be unable to do a simple Google search
Speaker 1: and find out information the rest of the world can well?
Speaker 1: Because of the Great Firewall, as we know, because China
Speaker 1: is a financially financially prosperous totalitarian state. North Korea is
Speaker 1: an impoverished totalitarian state. But China has very much the
Speaker 1: same mentality about information in control. It's harder to do
Speaker 1: on a billion person's scale than on about a twenty
Speaker 1: or thirty million person scale, which is what you're talking
Speaker 1: about in North Korea. I think it's about twenty five
Speaker 1: or thirty million. I hope that we don't see anything
Speaker 1: really ugly happen here in Hong Kong. I think the
Speaker 1: Chinese government, the Communist Party is likely to just let
Speaker 1: this subside because there are so many other ways that
Speaker 1: they can establish influence, and eventually the Chinese will get
Speaker 1: their way because the one country, two systems deal expires
Speaker 1: in roughly twenty fifty I forget the exact year, but
Speaker 1: it's not a forever thing, and that means that at
Speaker 1: some point China is just going to say, okay, now
Speaker 1: it's our way. You had, you had your fun, you
Speaker 1: had your time, Now it's our that's I think the
Speaker 1: Communist Party's plan. Where is the administration on this right now?
Speaker 1: I think that they're trying to figure out what the
Speaker 1: smartest move is because there's the human rights appeal. There's
Speaker 1: that emotional impulse that we all have when there are
Speaker 1: protesters who are waiving American flags in a foreign country,
Speaker 1: singing our national anthem in a foreign country, as we
Speaker 1: played for you yesterday. We feel that human solidarity with
Speaker 1: them for freedom. But our government also exists first and
Speaker 1: foremost to take care of us first and foremost and
Speaker 1: our interests. I think the Trump administration is probably working
Speaker 1: behind the scenes to cool things down as much as
Speaker 1: they can with China and the protesters in Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: But China cares a whole lot more about this than
Speaker 1: we do and is willing to go much further in
Speaker 1: their response and certainly anything we're considering. I would just note, though,
Speaker 1: that the Democrats who came before Trump, as much as
Speaker 1: they're right now, very smug, as they have all the answers.
Speaker 1: You know Trump, Oh, he's escalating the tariff war. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's terrible what he's doing. Okay, fine, he decides that
Speaker 1: the September tariffs won't go into effect on some consumer products,
Speaker 1: they'll push you back to December. Oh Trump's backing down,
Speaker 1: they say. I mean, it's just, you know, he can't
Speaker 1: win whatever he does. They hate you know that, But
Speaker 1: don't ever forget that. The Democrats, especially under the eight
Speaker 1: years of Obama, showed themselves to be entirely unserious on
Speaker 1: matters of foreign policy. No vision, no strategy, no idea,
Speaker 1: what the heck is going on. Joe Biden back in
Speaker 1: May of twenty eleven had this to say on China.
Speaker 1: Play ten. There was a debate here in the United States,
Speaker 1: and quite frankly throughout most of the West, is whether
Speaker 1: arising China was in the interest of the United States
Speaker 1: and the wider world. As a young member of the
Speaker 1: Foreign Relations Committee, I wrote, and I said, and I
Speaker 1: believe then what I believe now, that a rising China
Speaker 1: is a positive, positive development, not only for China but
Speaker 1: for America and the world. Written large, this was the
Speaker 1: standard line. This was a standard line for all the
Speaker 1: Obama years, This was a standard line for the Bush
Speaker 1: years before that. Let's just make China really, really rich.
Speaker 1: Let's help them get really rich, even if they do
Speaker 1: it by stealing from us, and they do it on
Speaker 1: our backs, but you know, it'll be great for everybody.
Speaker 1: What could go wrong with a nuclear armed power of
Speaker 1: a billion people, where individual rights and freedom don't even exist,
Speaker 1: No one even's really thinking they will exist at any
Speaker 1: point in the foreseeable future. What could go wrong with
Speaker 1: the country of a billion people with a very militaristic
Speaker 1: outlook into the future, wanting to expand its control, wanting
Speaker 1: to become the global hedgemon, and with because of its
Speaker 1: horrific one child policy. About a thirty million man surplus,
Speaker 1: meaning thirty million more men of marrying age than there
Speaker 1: are women for them to marry. So you got way
Speaker 1: too many, way too many guys. You have have a
Speaker 1: need for natural resources. You have a narrative of a
Speaker 1: rising power that should be the global power and has
Speaker 1: some payback to do to countries in the region and
Speaker 1: around the world, including us for holding it back for
Speaker 1: all this time. And all you ever heard from the
Speaker 1: elites was all, this is great, this is fantastic. The
Speaker 1: wealthier China gets, the better it's going to be for us.
Speaker 1: This was the overriding storyline. Yeah, you'd hear a little
Speaker 1: bit of stuff about human rights sometimes and no one
Speaker 1: really took that, no one really did anything about it.
Speaker 1: So don't think for a second that the Democrats it's
Speaker 1: so easy of them now to stand on the sidelines
Speaker 1: and act like they have answers on North Korea, on
Speaker 1: China and anythings. They have no idea. They've already shown
Speaker 1: us that ultimately the problems that they have come from
Speaker 1: not believing that America is any better or more more
Speaker 1: worthy of its global leadership role than any other country.
Speaker 1: And to borrow from Obama, I mean we're exceptional the
Speaker 1: way the Green think they're exceptional on the you know,
Speaker 1: Italians think they're exceptional, etc. Etc. And I hope I'm
Speaker 1: right about China. We'll see. I think that this will
Speaker 1: slowly de escalate. The Chinese understand they don't want to
Speaker 1: create martyrs on the streets of Hong Kong. But these
Speaker 1: protesters are not messing around either, and they may decide,
Speaker 1: you know what, they're just going to go for it.
Speaker 1: At that point, all bets are off. More coming up,
Speaker 1: Stay with me. Would you like to see gasoline powered
Speaker 1: vehicles gone within twelve years? Well, as much as it's
Speaker 1: technologically possible. I think we need to draw down our
Speaker 1: fossil fuels as much as as much as we possibly can't.
Speaker 1: I don't think we should build another pipeline at all
Speaker 1: in the United States of America. It's a matter of
Speaker 1: our survival. I don't even think it's a matter of
Speaker 1: political opinion. It's scientific fact. She knows nothing about science.
Speaker 1: That's AOC. She doesn't know much about anything other than
Speaker 1: left wing talking points and whatever. We'll get the woke
Speaker 1: crowd fired up. But I did want to take a
Speaker 1: moment to just point out how completely insane. This situation
Speaker 1: has gotten with the left and their climate change hysteria,
Speaker 1: but there's some very important threads of socialism through the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal. You'll notice I'm on a socialism kick
Speaker 1: these days, probably because I'm writing a book on socialism
Speaker 1: and diving very deep into the philosophy, the history, and
Speaker 1: all the rest of it. Because I think that this
Speaker 1: election in twenty twenty is a referendum in America on socialism.
Speaker 1: That's what I think this Really. They're going to try
Speaker 1: to make it about Trump and racism, but all their policies,
Speaker 1: all of the actions they want to take, have a
Speaker 1: socialist twang, if not entirely socialist in intent. And that's
Speaker 1: where the Green New Deal comes in here, because there
Speaker 1: are some very very obvious correlations that you see between
Speaker 1: are obvious threads I should say that run through the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal this climate change hysteria. Mentality one is
Speaker 1: that the Green New Deal involves a tremendous amount of
Speaker 1: central planning. This would be central planning on a massive scale,
Speaker 1: determining what energy usage should be, what different forms of
Speaker 1: energy are allowable, how much energy any one individual or
Speaker 1: entity or group could use. This is everything that we
Speaker 1: do is dependent upon energy. So if you can control
Speaker 1: the flow of energy throughout homes, businesses, you control the economy,
Speaker 1: You control everything for all intents and purposes, you have
Speaker 1: total control. You also see the political imperative, and this
Speaker 1: is another important characteristic of socialism time and again, the
Speaker 1: political imperative overriding the economic reality. Here's the economic reality.
Speaker 1: Despite what AOC says about a green New Deal, it
Speaker 1: is not based on cost efficient technology. It is not
Speaker 1: based on what would make for the greatest economic prosperity.
Speaker 1: It's based on, oh my gosh, we have to do
Speaker 1: this or we're all going to die, which is really
Speaker 1: the ultimate when you think about it, the ultimate political imperative.
Speaker 1: The first obligation of the state to all of us
Speaker 1: is to keep us alive. Obviously doesn't always work that way,
Speaker 1: but that's the state is supposed to keep us alive
Speaker 1: first and foremost, to prevent us from being killed from
Speaker 1: you know, from invasion, somebody breaking into our home, whatever
Speaker 1: it may be. But the state's first obligation is to
Speaker 1: our physical safety. And so when they can create a
Speaker 1: narrative of all of our physical safety is at risk,
Speaker 1: that is the greatest political imperative that they could ever
Speaker 1: come up with, and therefore it can override everything else.
Speaker 1: That's why the hysteria is not a by product, it's
Speaker 1: not a side effect when you're talking about client a change.
Speaker 1: The hysteria is necessary because if they don't establish this
Speaker 1: one overarching storyline of mass death and die off again,
Speaker 1: the ultimate political imperative, it's going to stumble. It's going
Speaker 1: to run into all these different economic and financial realities.
Speaker 1: Like we don't even know if the green technologies that
Speaker 1: we want to institute could work at the scale we
Speaker 1: need them to. And no one even really has done
Speaker 1: an analysis on whether electric cars or long run based
Speaker 1: on electricity generated from our current means is going to
Speaker 1: be better for the planet. I mean, there's all these
Speaker 1: different This is like my thing about recycling. I promise
Speaker 1: you recycling does not make the world a better place. Okay,
Speaker 1: so I know every gets mad at me. Recycling is
Speaker 1: a religious belief made real. It's the same reason why
Speaker 1: you have and that's where the religious component of this.
Speaker 1: I was talking about an overriding political imperative. But there
Speaker 1: when you get to existential questions, which is what they've done.
Speaker 1: This is what AOC and the others have done. They've
Speaker 1: raised climate change catastrophism into an existential issue. Then it
Speaker 1: clearly passes into the realm of the religious. And how
Speaker 1: do you argue with the religious? How do you argue
Speaker 1: with a true believer? You can read a Hoffman's book
Speaker 1: True Believer, if you want to go through the psychology
Speaker 1: of people that are true believers. They will not just
Speaker 1: feel completely justified in pushing for what they want, but
Speaker 1: also you're a heretic down you're you're a person that
Speaker 1: is opposed to the existential sal the salvation that they
Speaker 1: are promising us. I mean, there's a salvation narrative that's
Speaker 1: tied to green energy and the Green New Deal, climate
Speaker 1: change alarmism, all of this. And I just can't take
Speaker 1: anyone seriously who wants to tell me that the science
Speaker 1: is with them on this, because there's so much about
Speaker 1: it that's obviously not scientific. I mean, here's a there's
Speaker 1: a young woman that was on Reuters and many other
Speaker 1: news feeds today, but she's on you know, Global global
Speaker 1: news feeds, and she's a sixteen year old climate change activis.
Speaker 1: Now she may be a fantastic science student, I have
Speaker 1: no it doesn't matter she's sixteen. There's a reason we
Speaker 1: don't let sixteen year olds vote. There's a reason we
Speaker 1: don't let sixteen year olds do a whole bunch of things,
Speaker 1: and it's because they're young. They have no life wisdom
Speaker 1: to draw upon. And by the way, if you're sixteen
Speaker 1: year old listening to the show, you're smarter than most
Speaker 1: forty year old liberals. So congratulations, But we still shouldn't
Speaker 1: let you vote quite yet. And here we have somebody who,
Speaker 1: just based on age, you would ignore as an adult.
Speaker 1: You know, I'm thirty seven. I don't care what sixteen
Speaker 1: year olds think about gun control. I don't care what
Speaker 1: sixteen year olds think about the tax right. And I'm
Speaker 1: right to not care unless it's my own family member
Speaker 1: or I'm engaging in a conversation with somebody in a
Speaker 1: friendly way. But I'm not going to be lectured by
Speaker 1: a sixteen year old on these issues. That's not ages,
Speaker 1: and that's just reality. Here you have Greta Thunberg, who
Speaker 1: is going around now. I think she's traveling. Yeah, she's
Speaker 1: taking part in a UN summit here traveling aboard a
Speaker 1: zero emission yacht. Oh, I wonder what the emissions were
Speaker 1: to create the yacht, though, folks, they never do that analysis.
Speaker 1: And she's appearing in global media saying stuff like this
Speaker 1: play it. I mean, I am not telling anyone what
Speaker 1: to do or what not to do. I'm just doing
Speaker 1: this because I want to do this myself, and I
Speaker 1: am one of the very very few people in the
Speaker 1: world who actually can do this, and then I think
Speaker 1: I should take that chance to do this. Bo It's
Speaker 1: going to be people who don't understand or don't accept
Speaker 1: the United science, and I mean I will just ignore
Speaker 1: them because I mean, I'm only acting and communicating all
Speaker 1: the science and if they don't like that, then I mean,
Speaker 1: what have I got to do with that? I mean,
Speaker 1: the media should be embarrassed to have a sixteen year
Speaker 1: old girl who became famous because she started demonstrating outside
Speaker 1: of Swedish Parliament instead of going to school. We're supposed
Speaker 1: to listen to her. Why what does she know that
Speaker 1: you and I don't. Now, I don't blame this young girl.
Speaker 1: I'm sure she thinks. I'm sure she believes everything that
Speaker 1: she's doing. She's probably a lovely person and I hope
Speaker 1: she has a bright and wonderful future. I'm not criticizing
Speaker 1: the sixteen year old activist, although a little bit more
Speaker 1: self awareness would probably be a good thing. We'll put
Speaker 1: that aside. She's sixteen, but the media is treating her
Speaker 1: like she's a voice of authority on this. The issue
Speaker 1: of climate change is an issue of global scientific and
Speaker 1: economic debate and impact. Trillions of dollars are at stake,
Speaker 1: and major meet the biggest media outlets in the world
Speaker 1: in BBC and Reuters and CNN, they put this sixteen
Speaker 1: year old girl on TV to tell us what to
Speaker 1: do based on the science. I don't mean to be mean,
Speaker 1: but I wonder what her SAT two biology score or
Speaker 1: chemistry score would be. Probably not very impressive. She's going
Speaker 1: to tell the rest of us about climate change. Why
Speaker 1: they love to use the emotional impact of brainwashed youth
Speaker 1: on adults. If this, if this was really about science,
Speaker 1: folks AOC and this Greta Thunberg, this young girl and
Speaker 1: the rest of them wouldn't be the one standing in
Speaker 1: front of us giving the lectures and telling us all
Speaker 1: the rest of it. It would be actual scientists who
Speaker 1: can answer questions and give data that is peer reviewed
Speaker 1: and that is able to be reproduced by independent experiment.
Speaker 1: This is the foundation of science. Science is not consensus.
Speaker 1: But as we know, this really isn't about whether it's
Speaker 1: AOC or the rest of Democrats or the rest of
Speaker 1: the global climate change community. It's not about science. It
Speaker 1: is about control and central planning and socialism. I felt
Speaker 1: that our entire election system was going to be compromised
Speaker 1: forever by this company that told the American public that
Speaker 1: it was not going to do any evil. This is
Speaker 1: the best thing that I can do in the situation
Speaker 1: that I'm currently at. And the thing is is that
Speaker 1: the American public needs to understand what's happening. I'm going
Speaker 1: to publish this information so that other people can see
Speaker 1: the system that Google has built in order to control
Speaker 1: the entire information landscape. This is something that once people see,
Speaker 1: it's going to bring It doesn't matter whether you're left
Speaker 1: or whether you're right. When you see this, both sides
Speaker 1: are going to agree that this is wrong. The single
Speaker 1: most powerful part of our entire information apparatus in this
Speaker 1: country is a Silicon valley Google, Facebook, Twitter, and similar
Speaker 1: companies of those are the Big three an Amazon. When
Speaker 1: you look at it in terms of its power, not
Speaker 1: just because it owns The Washington Post, but the amount
Speaker 1: of data that it is currently collecting by knowing what
Speaker 1: we want to buy all the time. Look, I'm an
Speaker 1: Amazon junkie. I order stuff I need toothpaste. I order
Speaker 1: it on my Amazon app. I need little fuzzy slippers
Speaker 1: because who doesn't like fuzzy slippers? Order on my Amazon app.
Speaker 1: I mean, I've become a little bit addicted to the
Speaker 1: convenience of it, just like Google got us addicted to
Speaker 1: the convenience of search, and Facebook got us addicted to
Speaker 1: seeing all of our you know x's in college and
Speaker 1: afterwards and checking to see, you know, if they've upgraded
Speaker 1: or downgraded. I'm just kidding. That's not what you do
Speaker 1: on Facebook. What you do on Facebook is you look
Speaker 1: and you know, get happy when you see your friends
Speaker 1: having babies and they're cute baby photos and puppy photos. Obviously,
Speaker 1: that's really what Facebook's all about, at least when you
Speaker 1: get to be in your thirties. In your twenties, Facebook
Speaker 1: is about x's and who's doing what, and who's gone
Speaker 1: on the nicest vacations and all that stuff. This is
Speaker 1: what the research says, folks. I'm not making this up.
Speaker 1: But these are incredibly powerful companies. They're private companies, and
Speaker 1: unfortunately they've been able to recreate the information advantage that
Speaker 1: the left used to have in the media landscape, because
Speaker 1: over time we figured out that journalists and American journalism
Speaker 1: was a province of the left, that it was ideologically
Speaker 1: biased toward the Democratic Party, and this just became something
Speaker 1: that you could no longer ignore. We figured this out,
Speaker 1: but they still claim it's not the case. We know
Speaker 1: it is the case. I mean, CNN and other places
Speaker 1: are a joke that won't admit this. But now what
Speaker 1: they've done and said, Okay, we're not going to tell
Speaker 1: you that this is being brought to you by We're
Speaker 1: going to create a neutral platform where you just whatever
Speaker 1: pops up in your feet is what the algorithm says
Speaker 1: should pop up, which it's all mechanized. It's all like computers.
Speaker 1: There's no bias. Man, Well, of course there is. It's
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why I found it so just
Speaker 1: preposterous when you heard all this talk of Russia collusion
Speaker 1: and Trump and the Facebook ads, and the advantage that
Speaker 1: Democrats have built into the system right now via social
Speaker 1: media is something that would be difficult to quantify, but
Speaker 1: I think it's at least four or five percentage points
Speaker 1: in a national election, at least, because think about all
Speaker 1: the different ways that they can skew the system in
Speaker 1: favor of Democrats, in favor of the left, and they're
Speaker 1: doing it. So you have this Google insider who has
Speaker 1: come forward, and here's the story on Project very Toss.
Speaker 1: A Google insider who anonymously leaked internal documents to Project
Speaker 1: very Toss made the decision to go public in an
Speaker 1: on the record interview, The insider, Zachary Voorhees, decided to
Speaker 1: go public after receiving a letter from Google and after
Speaker 1: he says, Google allegedly called the police to perform a
Speaker 1: wellness check on him. Along with the interview, Voorhees asked
Speaker 1: Project very Toss to publish more of the internal Google
Speaker 1: documents he had previously leaked or He said, I gave
Speaker 1: the documents to Project very Toss. I've been collecting them
Speaker 1: for over a year and the reason why I collected
Speaker 1: these documents was because I saw something dark and nefarious
Speaker 1: going on with the company, and I realized they were
Speaker 1: not only going to tamper with the elections, but used
Speaker 1: that tamper with the elections to essentially overthrow the United
Speaker 1: States I shortly after the report, including the algorithmic unfairness documents,
Speaker 1: were published, where He's received a letter from Google containing
Speaker 1: several demands. He told Project very Toss that he complied
Speaker 1: with Google's demands, which included a request for any internal
Speaker 1: Google documents that he may have personally retained for He's
Speaker 1: also said he sent those documents to the Department of
Speaker 1: Justice Anti Trust Division. So and people are referring to
Speaker 1: him having a Google Snowden moment where he found a
Speaker 1: news blacklist site for Google. That's right, folks, they can
Speaker 1: make news sites. Think about this. Let's just bring this
Speaker 1: down to level over. We all we all get exactly
Speaker 1: what's going on here. When you type in Trump into
Speaker 1: Google and do a new search, the first four or
Speaker 1: five things that pop up are what people are going
Speaker 1: to click on. Think of how many sources there are
Speaker 1: out there. Are you going to see a new source
Speaker 1: that says Trump's racism dividing the country again. Are you
Speaker 1: going to get a new source that says Trump's actually
Speaker 1: winning the trade war so far against China. Well, that's
Speaker 1: completely up to the algorithm. That's completely up to people
Speaker 1: who are Google engineers and these companies. Everyone who has
Speaker 1: spent time in them who is not completely brainwashed will
Speaker 1: tell you they are a political monoculture. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: almost like a left wing totalitarian statelet operating in the
Speaker 1: San Francisco Bay area. That's what's happening. Does anyone really
Speaker 1: think that they are making a serious effort to be
Speaker 1: fair to all sides? That's ridiculous, of course not. Of course,
Speaker 1: they don't care. They're trying to make sure they don't
Speaker 1: get caught. Here's what, by the way, voor He said
Speaker 1: after the police performed the wellness check on him Play three.
Speaker 1: Google doesn't just want to say to the court, yeah,
Speaker 1: we gave him access to this data. They want to
Speaker 1: make a criminal case out of it. And so what
Speaker 1: they've done with other employees is that they've made the
Speaker 1: argument that the person hacked into the networks. And so
Speaker 1: what I did is I put out a dead man switch.
Speaker 1: So a dead man's switch is something that people that
Speaker 1: have information about a corporation or somebody else and they're
Speaker 1: concerned about their personal safety and possibly their life, they
Speaker 1: let that entity know that in the case that they
Speaker 1: get oft that the information will be released to the public.
Speaker 1: Why are the police outside your home in San Francisco?
Speaker 1: So Google decided to do a wellness check. They're trying
Speaker 1: to establish that I've got some sort of mental problem
Speaker 1: in order to make their case easier. The next day,
Speaker 1: the police began looking for me in two different locations.
Speaker 1: They take this stuff very seriously, don't they. I mean Google.
Speaker 1: Forget the police for a second, folks, this is the
Speaker 1: sort of situation unearthing of documents from then a company
Speaker 1: like Google. If if we really can prove beyond any
Speaker 1: doubt that Google is biased in its search results, think
Speaker 1: about what the impact on that stock price could be.
Speaker 1: There's a lot of money and a lot of power
Speaker 1: at stake here. These social media companies are provinces of
Speaker 1: the left, and the powers of the left will fight
Speaker 1: very hard to keep it that way. Deem, I have
Speaker 1: a confession to make, which I like to do on
Speaker 1: live radio across the country. I think that's the best
Speaker 1: way to share some of your deepest, darkest secrets. But
Speaker 1: don't worry, I'm gonna bring producer Mark into this two
Speaker 1: so I won't be the only one. I recently tried
Speaker 1: white Claw, which I have been hearing about from ladies
Speaker 1: for quite some time. They keeps saying, Oh, this new
Speaker 1: White Claw drink is delicious, And I thought, oh, well,
Speaker 1: I can't be seen drinking a flavored spritzer in public,
Speaker 1: but perhaps at some point I'll decide that it's worth
Speaker 1: giving it a shot. And I did, and I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you something. It is suspiciously delicious. I bring it
Speaker 1: up because four Loco now has a hard seltzer with
Speaker 1: fourteen percent alcohol. Now I have to get first of all,
Speaker 1: producer Mark, have you ever had four Loco? I haven't
Speaker 1: because I've heard horror stories. What explained to me what
Speaker 1: the what the four loco thing is all about? Because
Speaker 1: is this where you have the most caffeine? And right?
Speaker 1: Is that way? It's like caffeine and alcohol together. I
Speaker 1: believe so. In the original formula so many years ago,
Speaker 1: before I believe the FDA made them tone it down
Speaker 1: a little bit, was just ridiculous amounts of alcohol and
Speaker 1: caffeine and there were some bad things happening to people.
Speaker 1: But you are You're a White Claw guy, aren't you. Oh?
Speaker 1: I love White Claw. It's fantastic, isn't it amazing? For summertime.
Speaker 1: But we should really, how do I get sponsored by
Speaker 1: white Claw? That would be fun. We got we gotta
Speaker 1: get that great or some kind of a white Claw
Speaker 1: rip off. If it doesn't happen, you know, we could
Speaker 1: we could get like, you know, I don't know, some
Speaker 1: other color purple c. Yeah, there's other brain figured there
Speaker 1: are Yeah. I remember also being a kid and when
Speaker 1: when people started drinking alcohol, when it was like such
Speaker 1: a such a badass thing to do. Everyone got started
Speaker 1: with wine coolers, which I never see anymore. Really, but
Speaker 1: do you remember the like Bartles and James and these things?
Speaker 1: Do you know what I'm talking? It was? It was
Speaker 1: not quite Zema level because Zeema's classy. As we know,
Speaker 1: Zema's classy. Do you know do you ever have wine coolers?
Speaker 1: I've heard of them, but I've never had one. Yeah. No,
Speaker 1: it's uh, it's a lot a lot of sugar with
Speaker 1: very very little alcoholic or anywa White white Claw is
Speaker 1: a thing now that people are getting excited about. So
Speaker 1: I just wanted to share that I have. I have
Speaker 1: had some, and the more of it that I have,
Speaker 1: the more of it that I that I tend to like.
Speaker 1: But it is late in the summer, So if you
Speaker 1: haven't gotten into it yet, I think that's probably going
Speaker 1: to be for the best. Do we have the uh
Speaker 1: Cardi B audio handy Bunny chance, this is what called
Speaker 1: the Ten. That's why no nailbuzz. This is son of
Speaker 1: the Bernie Santas. I am with Cardi B. We're with
Speaker 1: the Ten Nail Bar in Detroit, Michigan, talking about some
Speaker 1: of the most important issues that impact you. Education, job's wages,
Speaker 1: Holly's fatality. No, we're in the nailbal Cardis snails and
Speaker 1: mina just a little bit different, but we hope you'll
Speaker 1: tune into Bernie and Cordie B getting the nails done
Speaker 1: in Detroit talking policy. Man, that's what's going on there, folks.
Speaker 1: Cardie B the rapper? Is that is you or a
Speaker 1: hip hop artist? Is that the preferred Yeah, she's sitting
Speaker 1: down with Bernie Sanders. They're getting their nails done. Question, producer, Mark,
Speaker 1: have you ever gotten a man a cure? I have not.
Speaker 1: I haven't either, and I've had people try to convince
Speaker 1: me that this is something that guys should do, and
Speaker 1: I just don't understand. In fact, I've had arguments in
Speaker 1: the past. I shouldn't say arguments, but but I've had
Speaker 1: very h questioning discussions with women in my life who
Speaker 1: have thought that they needed to get their nails done
Speaker 1: religiously every week or two or whatever it is. And
Speaker 1: if they don't get them done, they think that they
Speaker 1: don't look workplace ready. I don't understand that. I don't
Speaker 1: understand that no one. I mean, if your nails are
Speaker 1: clean and look normal, that's fine. I don't understand why
Speaker 1: people think they have to get their cuticles done all
Speaker 1: the time, male or female. Do we have an answer?
Speaker 1: I mean, it's a constant fight I have with my
Speaker 1: significant other. Why are you see money? See? I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't get it, folks, no one see. No one
Speaker 1: even notices your fingers. No one even notices. But you
Speaker 1: know it's a dude, it's a fight I've had with
Speaker 1: with ex girlfriends. I'm just gonna say it. No, I can't.
Speaker 1: I can't go to that super fun thing you're planning
Speaker 1: for us because I have a nail appointment. I'm like, really,
Speaker 1: a nail appointment. Apparently it's a thing. But Bernie and
Speaker 1: Cardi b getting their nails done together because pop culture
Speaker 1: is trying to get Bernie elected more coming up. Hey,
Speaker 1: team Buck, it's time for roll call. I can't believe
Speaker 1: how fast the summer's gone by. I'm sure a lot
Speaker 1: of you have that same feeling. Maybe I have that
Speaker 1: feeling every summer. But man, we are already in the
Speaker 1: middle of August. Feels like just yesterday I was talking
Speaker 1: to you about things that were happening Memorial Day, weekend,
Speaker 1: or you know, leading up to it. So here we are.
Speaker 1: Time flies, more little gray hairs in my little gray
Speaker 1: in beard. But such as life, Facebook dot com, slash
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton. If you want to be in on the
Speaker 1: roll call action, it's quite easy to do. Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton, Owen Rights, Buck, You're on Google play Music.
Speaker 1: It's how I listen. However, sometimes there's a glitch which
Speaker 1: prevents recent shows from being at it. Well, Owen, hopefully
Speaker 1: we can fix the glitch. I don't know if we'll
Speaker 1: get there or not, but we will try, so thank
Speaker 1: you for the heads up. I do appreciate it. Kisuki Rights,
Speaker 1: something I thought about after listening to your show last
Speaker 1: night and after reading in Morning News thanks for a
Speaker 1: great show. I listened to the podcast and the attachment
Speaker 1: is unavailable. Well, I don't know what you're talking about there,
Speaker 1: but I appreciate it. Thanks for writing in taft hot
Speaker 1: take on Afghanistan. I agree, get everyone out of there.
Speaker 1: If that is going to be the course of action,
Speaker 1: pull out and never go back. I don't have any
Speaker 1: desire to take a trip over there for any reason.
Speaker 1: Let us focus elsewhere. Yeah's have to I just for
Speaker 1: people that say, oh, but if we leave, bad things
Speaker 1: are going to happen, then I have to always say
Speaker 1: to them, well, is it ever going to get better?
Speaker 1: Is there a realistic possibility that this situation is going
Speaker 1: to improve? I have to say the answer is most
Speaker 1: decidedly no. Sean Ryan's hey, buck on, Bill Maher, you
Speaker 1: crushed it. You're amazing. We love you. Sean. Well, Sean,
Speaker 1: You're amazing and we love you too. Man. Thank you.
Speaker 1: I think I did as well as one could under
Speaker 1: the circumstances of the Bill Mahr Show. Remember you're only
Speaker 1: one of four people, so you have limited talk time.
Speaker 1: When they bring in the additional panel guest, who was
Speaker 1: Mary Anne Williamson, I want you to take your spirit
Speaker 1: and darling lockhounds with that spirit and come up with
Speaker 1: a way to achieve your dreams. I think my Williamson
Speaker 1: is coming along. My bedo is a little more because
Speaker 1: it's really just Keanu Reeves. If Keanu Reeves were very annoying,
Speaker 1: then you have betto Rourke. So it's pretty easy. Like, yeah,
Speaker 1: I enjoyed doing the Bill Mars Show. Hopefully I'll get
Speaker 1: a chance to go back. Maybe next time I'll have
Speaker 1: a little more ability to get fiery. Here we go,
Speaker 1: James Buck in a Bally uniform dancing in front of
Speaker 1: the White House. If your last days in a swamp
Speaker 1: for giggles shields Hie from w g Y, New York.
Speaker 1: All right, James, I don't know if you meant Bally
Speaker 1: or ballet, but I guess is there about Bally uniform?
Speaker 1: Is that a thing? I was unaware of that, John
Speaker 1: Hey Buck. I was listening to Rush on my way
Speaker 1: home from work today and he took credit for the
Speaker 1: guy who accosted Chris Cuomo. It seems that Rush has
Speaker 1: been referring to bro Cuomo as Fredo for a while
Speaker 1: now and thinks this guy was a listener who genuinely
Speaker 1: thought his name was Fredo. That could be possible. I
Speaker 1: don't know, I mean we obviously even call him bro
Speaker 1: Cuomo for a long time. I don't know about whether
Speaker 1: this guy really believed his name was Fredo. I think
Speaker 1: from watching the video, if I had really made a
Speaker 1: mistake with someone's name, I'd be able to convince them
Speaker 1: that that's what I thought. I don't think it's well,
Speaker 1: I don't know. You know, it depends on the circumstances.
Speaker 1: I think it's unlikely, though. I will say, Christine, right Buck,
Speaker 1: I think Trump should hire you for his cabinet to
Speaker 1: stop this soft coup. Christine, that's very sweet of you.
Speaker 1: The only issue I have is I love my job
Speaker 1: so much that the only job that I'd want to
Speaker 1: take a break from this job to do in the
Speaker 1: administration would be so senior and so high up the
Speaker 1: food chain that people would laugh if I told them.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're talking cabinet stuff, folks, and they could laugh.
Speaker 1: But I could also laugh at anything that is below that,
Speaker 1: because I wouldn't. I wouldn't do it. I'm very happy
Speaker 1: with where I am. Kevin Rights, Hey Buck, Jesse Kelley,
Speaker 1: and Sean Parnell on the Vietnam War, The Vietnam vets
Speaker 1: I've encountered and talked to. Almost all said that they'd
Speaker 1: go back in an instant. The war was basically won
Speaker 1: by nineteen seventy three, but political instability in America emboldened
Speaker 1: the North to plan and offensive in nineteen seventy four
Speaker 1: and attacked in nineteen seventy five. America withdrew and left
Speaker 1: our allies without support, and my parents' country crumbled in moments.
Speaker 1: Sean is one hundred percent correct. We should leave, but
Speaker 1: it matters tremendously how we leave. We came in and
Speaker 1: wrecked thing, so we have some responsibility for how we leave.
Speaker 1: I don't know if Afghanistan and the Afghan National Army
Speaker 1: can hold up even with support. But however we leave,
Speaker 1: we cannot just pull up the stakes and leave them
Speaker 1: dry well. Kevin, I think that Khalilzad, who is the
Speaker 1: negotiator for the Trump administration on this, I think that
Speaker 1: he believes that there is a way to do this.
Speaker 1: I don't know if he's right. I'd like to think
Speaker 1: that he's right because a lot is riding on that,
Speaker 1: but we will have to see. The Taliban certainly are
Speaker 1: in a strong position here, and you have to think
Speaker 1: from their perspective, they've been fighting this war all this
Speaker 1: time to get the US to leave. Once we do leave,
Speaker 1: what is really going to stop them from having their
Speaker 1: way on the ground in Afghanistan. I think the only
Speaker 1: thing that we can be somewhat I wouldn't say assured of,
Speaker 1: but that's a little bit less likely, is that they
Speaker 1: would allow their country to be used as a platform
Speaker 1: for international terrorism, because I mean, look, I can just
Speaker 1: speak from my own perspective. If we leave Afghanistan behind,
Speaker 1: we have an agreement with the Taliban, and then you
Speaker 1: had al Qaeda setup bases there and launching attacks against
Speaker 1: us once again, and something on the scale of nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, we would go back and just we would
Speaker 1: lay we would lay waste to the country in a
Speaker 1: way that is not even really worth talking about right
Speaker 1: now because it would be so horrifying. But I think
Speaker 1: that that's where the American public would be, that would
Speaker 1: be that the feeling, you know, ultimately, we're trying to
Speaker 1: be a country that is that is decent and honorable
Speaker 1: to our fellow human beings all over the world. But
Speaker 1: if we get taken advantage of, or if that decency
Speaker 1: becomes twisted as a weapon against us, I do not
Speaker 1: think anybody should underestimate the ferocity of the American people
Speaker 1: when provoked. Joshua Rights, don't watch Bone Tomahawk. You will
Speaker 1: lose a piece of your soul. Try this instead. It's
Speaker 1: a bunch of covers, all right, Joshua Man, that must be, really,
Speaker 1: that must be. I don't think I can watch it now.
Speaker 1: I've had too many people tell me that this movie
Speaker 1: has really traumatized them, So I think I think I'm
Speaker 1: gonna have to skip it. I think I'm gonna have
Speaker 1: to avoid it. Let's see, Dennis right. I know you
Speaker 1: get thousands of messages a day, But regarding Epstein, I say,
Speaker 1: witness protection. I don't know really what you're going for
Speaker 1: with that. Are you saying that Epstein should have been
Speaker 1: placed in witness protection because he wasn't a witness, He
Speaker 1: was a suspect. He was somebody who was accused of
Speaker 1: the very serious crimes, and he's the top of the
Speaker 1: criminal food chain here. He's at the very peak of
Speaker 1: this conspiracy. So I don't know really what you're going for,
Speaker 1: but I do appreciate you writing in let's see Eric Rights. Oh,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, Thomas Right, Sorry, keep doing that.
Speaker 1: Good discussion with your guests today on the topic of
Speaker 1: China versus Hong Kong. The current conversation, a conversion of
Speaker 1: China's currency, the sure applied by the US, and the
Speaker 1: tensions in Hong Kong are all leading the collapse of
Speaker 1: China's economy. It will be proof of the lie too
Speaker 1: big to fail. Hong Kong and Shanghai are the two
Speaker 1: export centers from China. Beijing will destroy Hong Kong, and
Speaker 1: before it allows that colony to become independent, Beijing will
Speaker 1: lose total control of the Chinese economy. Of Hong Kong
Speaker 1: succeeds in retaining autonomy, it will create a cascade of
Speaker 1: uprisings throughout China and in the process collapse their economy.
Speaker 1: It may not happen tomorrow the next day, but it
Speaker 1: will come soon. Marketers in Hong Kong are already trading
Speaker 1: the Chinese currency on the world market. That hasn't happened
Speaker 1: in a decade. Keep a close eye on basic resources
Speaker 1: and imports to China. When ports start to close, staging
Speaker 1: for a border invasion will be imminent in Hong Kong.
Speaker 1: He should talk to Art Laugher. He's a lot of
Speaker 1: experience the Chinese are in a Shields High whoa Thomas
Speaker 1: going deep in the China analysis there. Thank you very
Speaker 1: very much. I do appreciate I do appreciate that. Let's
Speaker 1: see writes the movie Audis Shawn. It's Japanese. Rob Zombie
Speaker 1: even said it freaked him out. It is really disturbing. Man.
Speaker 1: You guys are into some freaky films. Man, I haven't
Speaker 1: heard of any of this stuff before. Ryan. Here we go.
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, I'm probably not the most veteran listener, but
Speaker 1: I've been following and watching you grow since your Saturday show.
Speaker 1: I'm probably ninety nine point nine nine percent in agreement
Speaker 1: with you, but that's okay. I think you have this down.
Speaker 1: I and probably many others would like to get more
Speaker 1: perspective into Buck's world and would like to revisit a
Speaker 1: request we made a while back to be on the
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan Show. He is left of center, but appears
Speaker 1: to be very objective and will not try to destroy
Speaker 1: you with his beliefs, even takes a lot of abuse
Speaker 1: from a leftist for doing so. He provides a long
Speaker 1: form interview and allows his guests to get their perspective
Speaker 1: and points across. If you're on the fence about it
Speaker 1: and give it the interview a try. Joe kind of
Speaker 1: pushed into something but allowed. Okay, Yeah, anyway, shields Hie
Speaker 1: continue finding any good five brother well Ryan, It's a
Speaker 1: fantastic idea. The only issue is the slots for Joe
Speaker 1: Rogan show are very limited, and I'm not sure even actually,
Speaker 1: I'm pretty sure he has zero idea who I am,
Speaker 1: so we'd have to get the Buckster on his radar.
Speaker 1: I don't know how we do that other than me
Speaker 1: just continue to do what I do and grow this
Speaker 1: show and we'll see if it leads to an invitation.
Speaker 1: But no, Look, if there's one show right now in
Speaker 1: the country that I could invite myself onto, it would
Speaker 1: be the Joe Rogan podcast. If I could just say
Speaker 1: I want an invite onto one show in America right now.
Speaker 1: I talked to Joe about everything that matters under the sun.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think the immigration discussion that I could
Speaker 1: have with Joe Rogan, for example, would be really eye
Speaker 1: opening to people because I've become very well versed in
Speaker 1: that subject over the last couple of years, deep diving
Speaker 1: on my own and going down to the border and
Speaker 1: doing field research. So that would be one aspect of it.
Speaker 1: I think that the trajectory of US national security interests
Speaker 1: abroad would be really interesting. The deep state, what's true
Speaker 1: of the federal bureaucracy, and what the realities of intelligence
Speaker 1: going forward will be for different governments, including our own.
Speaker 1: So there's a lot of ground m plus obviously that
Speaker 1: Democrats being socialists now and how we need to understand
Speaker 1: that's what's happening. So I don't know, Maybe somebody who
Speaker 1: knows Joe will hear that pitch and get it to him.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, I gotta go roll and get
Speaker 1: ready for some Fox Business team, So I'll talk to
Speaker 1: you tomorrow. Shields High