Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt the government shutdown approaches.
Speaker 1: Trump has drawn a line in the sand. The Democrats
Speaker 1: are freaking out about the departure of Maddis, and a
Speaker 1: lot of Republicans are too. Plus a Supreme Court decision
Speaker 1: that will make securing the border harder in the short term,
Speaker 1: but a US agreement with Mexico may actually help things out.
Speaker 1: That and Moore coming up on The buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Mag no mistake, America, You're a great American Again. The
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins Analysts, So we are going to
Speaker 1: be working very hard to get something passed in the Senate.
Speaker 1: There's a very good chance it won't get past it's
Speaker 1: up to the Democrats. So it's really the Democrats shutdown
Speaker 1: because we've done our thing. When Nancy Pelosi said you'll
Speaker 1: never get the votes in the House, we got them,
Speaker 1: and we got them buy a big marchin to seventeen
Speaker 1: to one eighty five. So now it's up to the
Speaker 1: Democrats as to whether or not we have a shutdown tonight.
Speaker 1: I hope we don't, but We're totally prepared for a
Speaker 1: very long shutdown, and there is our only chance that
Speaker 1: we'll ever have. It looks like we're heading for a shutdown.
Speaker 1: Everybody looks like that's where this is all going. And
Speaker 1: the President says it's going to be a long one.
Speaker 1: And I've got to tell you that seems like a
Speaker 1: pretty safe prediction right now, because this is it. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is a lot of the Trump movement on the line,
Speaker 1: a lot of what the President promised in the campaign,
Speaker 1: a lot of what he has been repeatedly saying he
Speaker 1: will achieve well after the campaign was over. It all
Speaker 1: comes down to what happens now. Know how what last
Speaker 1: week Nancy Pelosi was saying, you don't have the votes,
Speaker 1: you don't have the votes. Oh, but it turns out
Speaker 1: we do have the votes. Nancy. I don't think this
Speaker 1: is a surprise to anybody, but Nancy Pelosi was just
Speaker 1: making stuff up. Now that we look back at that meeting,
Speaker 1: who seems like they were more in command of reality Schumer,
Speaker 1: Pelosi or Trump. And now we're going to get into
Speaker 1: this fight over who is responsible for the shutdown when
Speaker 1: this is really a construct that we shouldn't fall into
Speaker 1: the House is the House and the Senator majority of
Speaker 1: Republican right now, the House Representatives has put forward a bill.
Speaker 1: The bill says, this is what we'd like, we'd like
Speaker 1: some funding. We want the funding for this. If Democrats
Speaker 1: won't go along, if they're insisting that you need sixty
Speaker 1: votes to do a minor budgetary measure, then that's on. Then. Now,
Speaker 1: I know President Trump said, you know, I'm the one
Speaker 1: who's shutting down the government, but I disagree with his
Speaker 1: disagree with his framing of the issue, and he disagrees
Speaker 1: that now because he's saying the Democrats are the ones
Speaker 1: who would be shutting the government down. But this blame
Speaker 1: game doesn't really tell us anything. All that matters here
Speaker 1: is an understanding of what the two sides stand for
Speaker 1: and what happens if the GOP caves, and I've been
Speaker 1: worried along they're going to cave, and I'm worried that
Speaker 1: they make cave. Even after the government shuts down, you
Speaker 1: will see all these stories about the hardship of federal
Speaker 1: government employees now that they're not getting their paychecks on time.
Speaker 1: You'll see a lot of media that would usually be
Speaker 1: pretty quiet over the Christmas holiday that will be coming
Speaker 1: out and just telling stories about how how horrible it
Speaker 1: is that this one family couldn't go to a national
Speaker 1: park or they couldn't do They'll find all these different
Speaker 1: things and try to increase public pressure. Trump and those
Speaker 1: who believe in funding a wall are going to have
Speaker 1: to go forward and go out in public. And Trump
Speaker 1: will probably be down to morrow Lago when this is
Speaker 1: happening and say, look, there's a reason why the government
Speaker 1: has shut down. It's because Democrats refused to give five
Speaker 1: billion dollars to the President and his party to increase
Speaker 1: border security. We'll get later into this. It was actually
Speaker 1: a really good moment with Stephen Miller on CNN. But
Speaker 1: how exactly do Democrats want better border security? Just well,
Speaker 1: we will return to that issue later in this show.
Speaker 1: But just think about that for a moment. If you
Speaker 1: were on the spot, if somebody was saying to y'all,
Speaker 1: I'll give you one hundred bucks if you can tell
Speaker 1: me you know what the Democrats have really done on
Speaker 1: border security that would be considered hawkish. You know, security
Speaker 1: at the border really matters to them because and they
Speaker 1: took the following steps. What would come to mind if somebody.
Speaker 1: If someone were to make you that wager, it's kind
Speaker 1: of tough. I don't know if i'd be able to collect.
Speaker 1: Democrats are up against the wall on this one, pun intended.
Speaker 1: There's no way for them to escape as long as
Speaker 1: we keep the pressure on and the discussion focus where
Speaker 1: it should be. They say that there's no need for
Speaker 1: a wall. I say that the head of Border Patrol,
Speaker 1: the head of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement, every border patrol
Speaker 1: agent i've ever talked to, Video that we've seen in
Speaker 1: recent weeks of the caravan in the San Diego sector
Speaker 1: stopped by a barrier. All of that tells me that, yes,
Speaker 1: it would be a piecemeal process. Yes it would take
Speaker 1: a lot of time. But walled areas are more or
Speaker 1: the non walled areas. You know, people say, oh, I'm
Speaker 1: going to invest in ladders. The ladder will get us
Speaker 1: over the wall. Okay, you're gonna need a pretty big ladder.
Speaker 1: You have to you have to move it a pretty
Speaker 1: long distance, and how do you get down the other side? Again,
Speaker 1: I mean, really, if people are gonna play this game,
Speaker 1: I had someone tell me today, well, you know, human
Speaker 1: trafficking involves a lot of tunnels under the border, And
Speaker 1: I say to that, Okay, So does that mean that
Speaker 1: we just give up because people can tunnel under it?
Speaker 1: Because people will tunnel under the border even without a
Speaker 1: wall there, Does that mean that we say, oh, it's
Speaker 1: not worth trying, just trying to stop this anymore and
Speaker 1: they can just tunnel. I mean, why even have border
Speaker 1: patrol above ground? I guess we should only have border
Speaker 1: patrol in tunnels. The fundamental difference here is is one
Speaker 1: side willing to take action to stop this continued slow
Speaker 1: burn illegal immigration invasion. Is one side willing to do
Speaker 1: something about that, yes or no? Because we know the
Speaker 1: Democrats are not. We know they have no interest in
Speaker 1: stopping this. They don't care about the seventy three thousand
Speaker 1: people that died last year from opio overdoses. They don't
Speaker 1: care about the increasing power and violence of the cartels
Speaker 1: south of our border. What that does? Think of what
Speaker 1: that does. In Mexico, thirty four thousand people were murdered.
Speaker 1: I think it was thirty from ven thirty seven. In
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen it was over thirty thousand murders. Massive amounts
Speaker 1: of lawlessness, criminality, kidnapping, all attributable to the cartels and
Speaker 1: their primary market, not their only market, but their primary
Speaker 1: market is right here and by far the number one
Speaker 1: way that they get access into this market is across
Speaker 1: the southern border. That is how they do it. So
Speaker 1: there are a lot of reasons, a lot of INCENTI
Speaker 1: tips that we should all agree on to take decisive
Speaker 1: action where we can on this issue. And if that
Speaker 1: means we go to a shutdown, then darn it, we
Speaker 1: go into a shutdown. Eighty five percent of the government
Speaker 1: continues as is. Eighty five percent of the government isn't
Speaker 1: going to change one bit because of this. This is
Speaker 1: about forcing a national debate. You know, Democrats won't give
Speaker 1: Trump the wall. I thought elections were supposed to have consequences.
Speaker 1: Now Trump has said that Mitch McConnell should use the
Speaker 1: nuclear option. I do not believe that Mitch McConnell will
Speaker 1: do that. I think Mitch McConnell is too much of
Speaker 1: an institutionalist. I think that he's quite happy. Unlike Paul Ryan,
Speaker 1: who is now leaving with a legacy of Wow, great
Speaker 1: job you did cutting the debt and the deficit. There, buddy,
Speaker 1: Mitch McConnell knows that he will be able to point
Speaker 1: justifiably too numerous federal judges, Supreme Court judges, you know,
Speaker 1: a whole slew of conservative victories on the judiciary that
Speaker 1: are the results of Mitch McConnell making the Democrats live
Speaker 1: by their own rules and live by them long and hard.
Speaker 1: So you know, Mitch, Mitch is gonna be taking a
Speaker 1: victory lap no matter what. At the end of all this,
Speaker 1: I don't think he's willing to go with the nuclear option.
Speaker 1: But what is this? What is this uh notion that
Speaker 1: because the Senate comes up with artificial rules, there's no
Speaker 1: constitutional constraint that you have to have sixty votes to
Speaker 1: get a budgetary measure through. You need sixty votes or else,
Speaker 1: or else the minority can stop this. No fifty one
Speaker 1: votes for the budget to be enough. Remember how the
Speaker 1: Democrats played it on Obamacare. They rammed it through party line,
Speaker 1: didn't care. Yeah, a lot of things are criticized about Democrats,
Speaker 1: but their lust for power is impressive, and their willingness
Speaker 1: to just ram down the opposition's throats whatever big government
Speaker 1: monstrosity they can concuss. You know that you almost have
Speaker 1: to respect it now. It's it's a pretty remarkable thing.
Speaker 1: That they pull off. So shutdown is where we're heading here,
Speaker 1: which also means, unfortunately, I was kind of looking forward to,
Speaker 1: you know, this is my last and I'm a good
Speaker 1: old little tea. Here's my last live show with you
Speaker 1: all for twenty eighteen, because I'm taking next week off.
Speaker 1: I'll be back right after New Year's and not taking
Speaker 1: off any vacations, not planning any vacations after that, but
Speaker 1: this is my last one for twenty eighteen. And I
Speaker 1: have a feeling that my initial plan of kicking back
Speaker 1: and not having to look at Twitter and all the
Speaker 1: different news sites and be managing my four or five
Speaker 1: or whatever it is, different email accounts and looking at
Speaker 1: I had this whole vision of me just drinking tea,
Speaker 1: hanging out with my family in New York, hanging out
Speaker 1: with Miss Molly down here in DC. And now I
Speaker 1: think that we're going to be in the shutdown showdown,
Speaker 1: shutdown showdown, which is gonna mean that a lot of
Speaker 1: people are going to be paying attention to this stuff.
Speaker 1: It's not gonna be quite as jolly. It's not gonna
Speaker 1: be quite the holly jolly. Isn't that what it is?
Speaker 1: Holly jolly? Christmas? Right, Yeah, it's not. It's not a
Speaker 1: molly jolly Christmas, although that's what's on my mind. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's gonna be a different, a different Christmas. And I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people had anticipated because of this,
Speaker 1: of this shutdown, but we might as well, you know,
Speaker 1: we should have had this fighter. You're well last February.
Speaker 1: I think it was we should have had the fight then,
Speaker 1: should have gone for it then. But it's not too
Speaker 1: late after this. It is too late now if you
Speaker 1: push it beyond beyond this fight. And you know, I think,
Speaker 1: you know, Democrats, people that are making such a big
Speaker 1: deal about twenty twenty, I would note I think that
Speaker 1: people are gonna forget you. This is a question of
Speaker 1: can you can the Democrats be forced to bend the
Speaker 1: knee here? One side is gonna have to blank. I
Speaker 1: worry that it will be the Republicans. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: lie to you. Or the most likely outcome here is
Speaker 1: some kind of a financial half measure where they will agree,
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans will agree after a week of shutdown
Speaker 1: that there can be an additional you know, auxiliary border funds,
Speaker 1: but it can't be used explicitly for a new fence
Speaker 1: it could be used for, and they'll kind of come
Speaker 1: up with some you know, wishywashy middle pathway that lets
Speaker 1: everybody go home for the holidays. That's what I think
Speaker 1: is most likely to happen here, But maybe not, Maybe not.
Speaker 1: Trump got a wake up call. He got a wake
Speaker 1: up call from a lot of people this week that
Speaker 1: have really supported him, that have been there for him
Speaker 1: through the unfair attacks on him and a lot of
Speaker 1: fair attacks on him. You know, a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: that people say about Trump. I'm like, well, that's kind
Speaker 1: of true, but you know, I still like the agenda,
Speaker 1: and I'm still for the the trajectory of the government
Speaker 1: that he is pushing. Doesn't mean that everything, every tweet,
Speaker 1: every every joke, every policy decision he makes, I'm for.
Speaker 1: As you know, I was very unhappy with them earlier
Speaker 1: this week, and I'm I'm I'm very unhappy with the
Speaker 1: fact that we didn't repeal in a place Obamacare. But
Speaker 1: I guess people just don't want to hear that from me.
Speaker 1: These are central promises. You know. If we're just going
Speaker 1: to argue over the size of the social Democrat welfare
Speaker 1: state in this country, you know, I'll do I'll spend
Speaker 1: more time doing history shows. You know what I mean.
Speaker 1: I mean, if we're really not going to get these
Speaker 1: policies implemented that we've worked so hard as a conservative
Speaker 1: movement in this country to get to put ourselves in
Speaker 1: a position at least to get, then what is the
Speaker 1: point of it all? You know? Now I'm starting to
Speaker 1: feel a little bit like Bill Murray and Groundhood Bag
Speaker 1: when it's like thousands of people gathered together to worship
Speaker 1: a rat, he's a little he gets a little down.
Speaker 1: If you remember, it's a great movie. I really enjoy
Speaker 1: that one. We're gonna cover a lot of ground today
Speaker 1: on the show. More on the Boarder, we're on Madison,
Speaker 1: the Syria withdrawal, the possible withdrawal from Afghanistan. Third hour.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna have some thoughts about twenty eighteen, And
Speaker 1: of course I'm gonna have to tell you at the
Speaker 1: end of today's show, because it'll be the last one
Speaker 1: before Christmas and my birthday, how wonderful all of you are,
Speaker 1: how much I appreciate each and every person listening to
Speaker 1: this across the country who listens it means a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount to me. I don't want to get all weepy
Speaker 1: at the start of the show because I have to
Speaker 1: get through the whole show. But we'll talk more about
Speaker 1: that in the third hour. And a quick apology. Because
Speaker 1: I thought we were going to be able to do
Speaker 1: open lines for the whole show. Turns out because the
Speaker 1: holiday schedule, we are dead. Producer Mike had to go
Speaker 1: for family reasons, had to travel, so we are down
Speaker 1: a man, which means we don't have someone in the
Speaker 1: phone lines tonight. I'm sorry to say I didn't mean
Speaker 1: I did fake newsbook. I didn't mean to make a
Speaker 1: promise that I couldn't keep on that one, but it
Speaker 1: turns out I was. I was wrong yesterday that I'll say,
Speaker 1: we have a fantastic show. You can always write to
Speaker 1: me on Facebook and tell me your thoughts there, Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com, slashbuck Sexton, and even work in some cheesy
Speaker 1: Christmas music at the end, so stay with me. The
Speaker 1: President is making decisions without counsel, without preparation, and even
Speaker 1: without communication between relevant departments and relevant agencies. All of
Speaker 1: this turmoil is causing chaos in the markets, chaos abroad,
Speaker 1: and it's making the United States less prosperous. And less secure.
Speaker 1: Less secure. Everything is Trump's fault, you see. Schumer just
Speaker 1: wants you to know that everything bad that happens you
Speaker 1: can blame on Trump. Meanwhile, the Senate is, according to
Speaker 1: Fox here scrambling to take up a spending package with
Speaker 1: billions in funding for a border wall, I mean ongoing
Speaker 1: negotiations to fund the government by midnight, as President Trump
Speaker 1: acknowledged there's a good chance a partial government shut down
Speaker 1: will be triggered. After keeping the final vote open for
Speaker 1: five hours to secure enough support, the Senate finally advanced
Speaker 1: a House approved spending bill with five point seven billion
Speaker 1: for a border wall, with Vice President Mike Pence breaking
Speaker 1: a tie that procedural hurdle paves the way for a
Speaker 1: final vote in the Senate. If Congress doesn't pass a
Speaker 1: spending bill by midnight tonight, oh, a partial government shutdown
Speaker 1: will be triggered. Oh no, what are we gonna do?
Speaker 1: It's all gonna be okay, Buck is here to tell you.
Speaker 1: Now you already know that it's all gonna be fine.
Speaker 1: People make such a big deal out of this. They
Speaker 1: also act like Evan's gonna remember. I wonder if you
Speaker 1: could go for it, if you if you had a
Speaker 1: time machine, it'd be fun. In twenty twenty, say hey,
Speaker 1: remember that shutdown? It was terrible, wasn't It was horrible?
Speaker 1: What happened? Everyone gonna say what what shutdown? What matters
Speaker 1: here is do you get a wall or not? You know,
Speaker 1: Mitch isn't gonna go nuclear option, even though that would
Speaker 1: be fun, that would be fun. Oh man. The Democrats
Speaker 1: would lose their minds over that one. Trump has to
Speaker 1: keep this promise. There's no way for him to keep
Speaker 1: faith with his base without keeping this promise. Although there's
Speaker 1: a lot it could be a lot of unhappy people
Speaker 1: that are going to have to work here in DC,
Speaker 1: and a lot of journos. Me, I guess I'm not
Speaker 1: a journal but among the folks that are going to
Speaker 1: have to spend more time thinking about this than they
Speaker 1: had anticipated, than they had planned. And I was really
Speaker 1: just hoping the next week was going to be melow.
Speaker 1: I know, I'm gonna stop winding about it. We have
Speaker 1: a lot to get into. There's actually a big decision
Speaker 1: from a Supreme court. It's not a full opinion, but
Speaker 1: there's a there's a decision that came out from a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court about whether they would give a stay on
Speaker 1: a lower court decision because of the imminent harm that
Speaker 1: the government would suffer if they did not. Turns out
Speaker 1: it didn't go our way. We'll get into that, and
Speaker 1: then also in agreement that the Trump administration has claimed
Speaker 1: to get with Mexico that could really be helpful at
Speaker 1: the border. And it's taking a page from the book
Speaker 1: of Buck because it's exactly what I said they should
Speaker 1: have done about a month or so ago. It's nice.
Speaker 1: I got the President listening to me maybe, which is nice.
Speaker 1: And then we're gonna get us some Christmas thoughts later
Speaker 1: on the show. John's going to tell you but all
Speaker 1: the amazing things he's planned. I was going to ask
Speaker 1: producer Mike about his gifts and what he was planning,
Speaker 1: because producer Mike has to send gifts for the many
Speaker 1: ladies in his life. But he's on the road somewhere now,
Speaker 1: so we miss him. But he will be back soon.
Speaker 1: And I want to get into that decision and then
Speaker 1: lean into the third hour the show tonight, which is
Speaker 1: just going to be year and review year going forward,
Speaker 1: and my thoughts about how amazing, wonderful, brilliant, patriotic and
Speaker 1: good looking all of you listening to this show are
Speaker 1: One thing that I think has been missed and didn't
Speaker 1: get a lot of coverage yesterday was what we have
Speaker 1: worked out, what this administration has been able to do
Speaker 1: in conjunction with the Mexican government, and the massive and
Speaker 1: monumental moment that took place yesterday where catch and release
Speaker 1: has ended. And it's a sad day in America when
Speaker 1: the Mexican government is doing more to protect the America
Speaker 1: can people than Senate Democrats. I hope that they will
Speaker 1: not let that be the case by the end of
Speaker 1: the day, and they will work with us and work
Speaker 1: with the President and Senate Republicans to get this done
Speaker 1: and let everybody go home and let us start building
Speaker 1: a wall and let us start protecting our border. Well,
Speaker 1: so she's talking about something very specific that you're not
Speaker 1: hearing a lot from the media on this one. They're
Speaker 1: not really talking about it. But you know, Mexico has
Speaker 1: agreed right now, the administration has worked out with Mexico
Speaker 1: that asylum seekers are to be sent back to Mexico
Speaker 1: for the duration of immigration proceedings. As I said to you,
Speaker 1: a refugee is somebody who applies from outside the country.
Speaker 1: An asylum seeker is somebody who wants protection from inside
Speaker 1: the country and the Mexican the Mexican government now will
Speaker 1: have with us what they call a third party safe agreement.
Speaker 1: I believe you have heard about that. You have heard
Speaker 1: about that on this show because I told you that's
Speaker 1: what the administration should do. It is what we have
Speaker 1: with Canada. This is a way to fix the problem. Okay,
Speaker 1: you come to the border. There will be a place,
Speaker 1: a waiting area, waiting zone, whatever you want to call,
Speaker 1: a waiting camp where you you know, are are going
Speaker 1: to be placed while they process your immigration claim. They're
Speaker 1: not going to allow people to come into the country though,
Speaker 1: and then supposedly show up for a hearing in a
Speaker 1: few years, and then if they don't get status, supposedly
Speaker 1: get deported. Because everyone knows that that's where this whole
Speaker 1: thing falls apart. That's where there is no honesty about
Speaker 1: the process from the Democrats. So this is a pretty
Speaker 1: a pretty big win. This is what CNN reported on
Speaker 1: earlier today. Homeland Security Secretary Nielsen announced that the United
Speaker 1: States has told Mexico that entering individuals entering the US
Speaker 1: illegally or without proper documentation and seeking asylum will be
Speaker 1: sent to Mexico to wait for the duration of their
Speaker 1: US immigration proceedings. According to the Department of Homeland Security,
Speaker 1: individuals entering illegally or without proper documentation trying to enter
Speaker 1: the US to claim asylum will no longer be released
Speaker 1: into our country, where they can often disappear before a
Speaker 1: court can determine their claims merits. They will instead be
Speaker 1: processed by DHS and given a notice to appear for
Speaker 1: their immigration hearing. Asylum seekers from Guatemala, Honduras, and El
Speaker 1: Salvador must wait outside the United States until their immigration
Speaker 1: proceedings are concluded. According to a Department of Homeland Security official,
Speaker 1: the Migrant Protection Protocols is what they're calling them. It's
Speaker 1: going to be phased in along our southwest border, and
Speaker 1: asylum seekers from Northern Triangle countries will return to Mexico
Speaker 1: and given a notice to appear in court and will
Speaker 1: be allowed back in for the hearing. Now, this is
Speaker 1: a humanitarian measure, DHS is saying it'll free up order personnel. Essentially,
Speaker 1: all right, you're gonna get your day in court. But
Speaker 1: the scam ends that's what this is saying the scam
Speaker 1: is supposed to end um and and I think that
Speaker 1: that's this is what I've been saying all all along. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, this is this is what I've been I've
Speaker 1: been saying should be done. Meanwhile, we got just another
Speaker 1: unbelievable Robert's Supreme Court turncoat moment today. This just came
Speaker 1: in this afternoon where they will not put a stay
Speaker 1: on um. They will not put a stay on the
Speaker 1: court ruling that went against the Trump administration that changes
Speaker 1: who can claim asylum. Here this is from the Scotus blog.
Speaker 1: Just now. The Justice turned down the government's request, which
Speaker 1: means that the government will not be able to enforce
Speaker 1: its new policy on asylum while the government appeals to
Speaker 1: the US Court of Appeals to the Ninth Circuit and
Speaker 1: if it comes to that. The Supreme Court Chief Justice
Speaker 1: Roberts provided the deciding vote as four justices, Justices Clarence Thomas,
Speaker 1: Samuel Ledo, Neil Gorsuch, and Brett Kavanaugh, indicated that they
Speaker 1: would have granted the government's application. So the Trump administration
Speaker 1: back in early November said it had a new asylum
Speaker 1: policy because under the previous rules instituted by the Obama administration.
Speaker 1: An immigrant was allowed to stay in the country because
Speaker 1: she believed, you know, because that immigrant said that they'd
Speaker 1: be persecuted no matter how they got here. But under
Speaker 1: the new policy, if you came in illegally, you would
Speaker 1: be ineligible for asylum. Well, it turns out that the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court, by a five four decision thanks Roberts, the
Speaker 1: Libs plus rob Bert, said no, you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: do that. You're not allowed to under executive authority claim
Speaker 1: that if you have broken the law to come into
Speaker 1: the country, you can't then claim a salam. So, you know,
Speaker 1: how does this now interact with this new policy? You
Speaker 1: know what this seems to do to me from what
Speaker 1: I can tell is you want to try to come
Speaker 1: into America illegally now because you can still claim asylum,
Speaker 1: still go through the asylum process, but you'll be in
Speaker 1: the US interior. Whereas if you show up at a
Speaker 1: port of entry and say, hey, I'd like to claim asalam,
Speaker 1: I'll say, oh great, thanks, go back to Mexico and
Speaker 1: come back when your court date is So all this
Speaker 1: means is that the government hasn't won right away, but
Speaker 1: you'll have to see as it makes its way into
Speaker 1: the courts. It's gonna make its way all the way up.
Speaker 1: But you know, this is just another example of the judiciary,
Speaker 1: just like the Department of Justice, just like the me media,
Speaker 1: just like college campuses. The judiciary is decidedly skewed against
Speaker 1: conservatives and against the faithful execution of the law when
Speaker 1: it comes to immigration. Somehow, all these judges seem to
Speaker 1: do is come up with lots and lots of new
Speaker 1: reasons why we can't have an orderly immigration system. We
Speaker 1: can enforce the laws in the books. We can't prevent lawbreaking.
Speaker 1: If there's a loophole, the loophole has to stay. If
Speaker 1: there are you know, shortfalls and existing immigration law that
Speaker 1: can favor people who are being unscrupulous, who are committing
Speaker 1: fraud against the United States, who are lying, it has
Speaker 1: to stay. So this is also why we can't rely
Speaker 1: on executive authority. Because the Obama is able to rely
Speaker 1: on it in a number of cases, knowing that most
Speaker 1: of the judiciary was going to be with him on
Speaker 1: this stuff. The Trump administration has an incredibly hostile judiciary
Speaker 1: to deal with, and that means any executive order they
Speaker 1: want to take, whether it's on immigration or it's on
Speaker 1: building the wall or anything. You know, it's going to
Speaker 1: get challenged, the Ninth Circuit is going to shut it down,
Speaker 1: and they're still gonna call Trump a dictator. It is
Speaker 1: a pretty remarkable state of affairs when any ninth Circuit
Speaker 1: judge in the country can effectively tell the President the
Speaker 1: United States, you can't do that, and Trump goes, Okay,
Speaker 1: well we'll take this to court. And I saying Trump
Speaker 1: is a dictator. Pretty sure. Dictators don't allow any of
Speaker 1: hundreds of federal federal judges to shut down their authority
Speaker 1: on any matter whenever they want, which is what we've
Speaker 1: seen with Trump so far, because he is respecting the
Speaker 1: system as messed up as the system often is. The
Speaker 1: destruction of our immigration system. They want to end immigration
Speaker 1: to the United States, and that is a step that
Speaker 1: we will never enter into. That's just a step we're
Speaker 1: not going to take. Congressman Luis gutierres as always, thank
Speaker 1: you for being here. Okay, okay, I'm sorry, I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: You know there are limits here, folks. Congressman Goodiers. They
Speaker 1: want to end immigration, how can a member of Congress
Speaker 1: they notice the Chris Hayes, thank you very much. Congressman,
Speaker 1: give me a break. They want to end immigration. They
Speaker 1: just want to control illegal crossings at the southern border.
Speaker 1: How does that mean they want to end immigration? We
Speaker 1: are you know, they leave all the context out of
Speaker 1: this discussion. They're so dishonest about all of this. They
Speaker 1: just say things like like that that they want to
Speaker 1: end all immigration. You say to yourself, well, hold on
Speaker 1: a second. America takes in a million people every year
Speaker 1: and makes them either a permanent resident or a citizen.
Speaker 1: A million that is a major US cities worth of
Speaker 1: immigrants every year through the legal system. We have a
Speaker 1: half a million visa overstage who are then illegal in
Speaker 1: this country every year. And that has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with coming across the border illegally because they all came legally.
Speaker 1: Then they just stayed until they were illegal. And then
Speaker 1: you add to that the number of illegal immigrants both
Speaker 1: in the country and coming into the country all the time.
Speaker 1: And the truth is, we don't even know how many
Speaker 1: of them there are. We don't know. This is like saying,
Speaker 1: you know, we know how many illegal drugs are coming
Speaker 1: into the country. They can guess, but they don't know
Speaker 1: because they're sneaking them in. How can they how can
Speaker 1: they just say things that are so stupid and have
Speaker 1: people believe them. How can they say things that are
Speaker 1: so patently false and not get called out. It's because
Speaker 1: the media is completely in bed with them. They are
Speaker 1: all in favor of this. They are, you know, hoping
Speaker 1: that America will become a different country through the immigration process,
Speaker 1: through mass immigration that is bringing about tremendous change. I mean,
Speaker 1: when you think about how many people have come into
Speaker 1: this country in the last thirty years, we are demographically
Speaker 1: shifting rapidly. And people say, oh, Buck, well do you
Speaker 1: have a problem with that. Well, when you have assimilation
Speaker 1: as a process that both takes time and also involves
Speaker 1: people coming in an orderly process in a way that
Speaker 1: the overall society can adequately bring them into the society,
Speaker 1: it is possible to overwhelm that both from a political, legal,
Speaker 1: and a cultural sense. I've had to say this to people.
Speaker 1: You know, Germany brought in a million a million migrants
Speaker 1: in one year from the Middle East and South Asia
Speaker 1: and some from North Africa, I think too, but a
Speaker 1: million the migrants essentially in one year back in twenty sixteen,
Speaker 1: a million. You say, well, Buck, you know Germany is
Speaker 1: a country of I can't at the top of head,
Speaker 1: I don't know, sixty seventy million people something like that.
Speaker 1: Germany is a big country. They can they can handle that.
Speaker 1: I say, all right, you know, there's a whole discussion
Speaker 1: to be had there. But what about a million people
Speaker 1: in Belgium? There's that? Is Belgium still Belgium? If they
Speaker 1: bring in a million Afghan, Iraqi and Syrian refugees, Okay,
Speaker 1: what about two million? Does it still feel like the
Speaker 1: same country? Do they have the same respect for rule
Speaker 1: of law, the same cultural traditions, same language, same shared
Speaker 1: national heritage. Right? I mean, America is an idea, but
Speaker 1: it's an idea that we all have to buy into. Right.
Speaker 1: It's not skin color, it's not ethnicity base, but it
Speaker 1: is an idea. And if you have enough people that
Speaker 1: show up that feel like America is not really an
Speaker 1: idea that they much care for. It's really just about
Speaker 1: a place where you can, you know, get access to
Speaker 1: the welfare state, where there's this whole liberal industrial complex
Speaker 1: of grievance organizations and telling you, oh, you came here, well,
Speaker 1: America owes this to you. You know, we have to
Speaker 1: give you even more than what we've already given you.
Speaker 1: We're so terrible to have put you in this position
Speaker 1: where you don't have everything that you want, but you know,
Speaker 1: we want to end immigration. This is from a congressman
Speaker 1: on television saying this. The people who act like this
Speaker 1: is an intelligent thing to say that this is an
Speaker 1: acceptable thing for him to say. It's just it's just
Speaker 1: grotesque and it's unfair. But we are dealing with people
Speaker 1: who are dishonorable on this issue above many others. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is one where you know, we should really just understand.
Speaker 1: They don't care about the truth. They don't care about
Speaker 1: what the long term implications are for the country. They
Speaker 1: have bought into this and there is a degree of
Speaker 1: hysteria that they have embraced around immigration rhetoric. They have
Speaker 1: no solutions, no answers, nothing. All they have is more
Speaker 1: and more and more. If you don't like it, you're racist.
Speaker 1: That's what they offer up. But I have to say
Speaker 1: the all time record for lying in the phase of
Speaker 1: all the evidence was a tweet you, Madam Secretary, sent
Speaker 1: out on June the seventeenth, and it says, we do
Speaker 1: not have a policy of separating families at the border period.
Speaker 1: That's your Twitter account, that's what you put out. Yet
Speaker 1: you came here today to tell us exactly is your
Speaker 1: policy of separating families and children from their families another lie.
Speaker 1: I don't have forty five seconds. I won't take them all. Oh,
Speaker 1: here it goes. Get ready for goody eras to me
Speaker 1: and astonishing to me that during Christmas. Of course I
Speaker 1: had to call them the holiday seasons to be inclusive.
Speaker 1: But during Christmas, because the majority always wants to just
Speaker 1: call it Christmas. That during Christmas, a time in which
Speaker 1: we celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ. A Jesus Christ
Speaker 1: who had to flee for his life with Mary and Joseph.
Speaker 1: Thank god there wasn't a wall that stopped him from
Speaker 1: seeking refuge in Egypt. That wall wasn't there, and thank
Speaker 1: god there was an administration like this, or he would
Speaker 1: have too have perished under twenty eight, I would say
Speaker 1: of innocence when Herod ordered the murder of every child
Speaker 1: under two years of age. Maybe I haven't gone a
Speaker 1: lot to Bible school, but I know that part. I
Speaker 1: mean shame on everybody that separates children and allows him
Speaker 1: to stay at the other side of the border. Fearing death, fring, hunger,
Speaker 1: freeing sickness. Shame on us for wearing our badge of
Speaker 1: Christianity during Christmas and allow the secretary to all right,
Speaker 1: I can't, I can't, I can't take any again. I'm
Speaker 1: sorry that you guys had year as much as he did. Notice, yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. Everyone runs come across the border illegally as
Speaker 1: the baby Jesus. This is what we're supposed to take
Speaker 1: away from all of this. And Republicans are just the big, bad,
Speaker 1: mean people. By the way, when Joseph and Mary were
Speaker 1: returning to Bethlehem, it was to be legally counted for
Speaker 1: the purposes of taxation. You see, they were obeying the law.
Speaker 1: They were not They were not coming in from some
Speaker 1: other place and trying to evade. They were trying to
Speaker 1: get away from border patrol. They were obeying the law
Speaker 1: of the time. Nonetheless, you know, people get separated from
Speaker 1: families every day across the country for breaking the law.
Speaker 1: People get separated from their children every day. You know,
Speaker 1: Mike gets separated from his children a few months, General Flynn,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe his grandchildren. I don't know if he
Speaker 1: has grandchildren not. But people families get separated for criminal
Speaker 1: justice reasons all the time in this country. And I'm
Speaker 1: not saying that's good we should celebrate, and I'm just
Speaker 1: saying this is what happens. You know, there is a
Speaker 1: trade off between order and liberty. There is a trade
Speaker 1: off between rule of law and compassion. And all Democrats
Speaker 1: do is just play this game of you know, we're
Speaker 1: the kind ones. We're not for open borders, but anything
Speaker 1: you do that makes the border not open, we're going
Speaker 1: to call you racist, baby separating, heartless monsters for you know,
Speaker 1: I think Nielsen's probably done, by the way in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: I don't think she's gonna last that much longer because
Speaker 1: she probably is sick of just getting all this abuse
Speaker 1: from these crazy Democrat loons. And I don't blame her.
Speaker 1: You know, it's getting it's getting tough. It's getting tough
Speaker 1: out there for people that try to actually do something
Speaker 1: about the border. Donald Trump wags the dog as the
Speaker 1: investigations into him close in. He plays chicken with the
Speaker 1: lives of federal employees and their families by walking the
Speaker 1: country toward a government shutdown, and the world is less
Speaker 1: safe today. After the dramatic resignation of the last human guardrail.
Speaker 1: Defense Secretary Jim Madison's resignation a clear rebuke of Donald
Speaker 1: reckless decisions about troop withdrawals in Syria and Afghanistan. The
Speaker 1: backlash to Donald Trump's impulsivity being felt this afternoon at
Speaker 1: home and around the world, and reigniting questions about who
Speaker 1: Trump is working for and whether he's displaying an unsustainable
Speaker 1: degree of instability and office. From Secretary Mattie's resignation letter,
Speaker 1: quote my views on treating it. Okay, this is where
Speaker 1: I have to jump in. So that's Nicole Wallace, who
Speaker 1: is a former Bushy, you know, she worked for the
Speaker 1: Bush administration, so a former Republican or just somebody who
Speaker 1: liked her position within the Republican elite, and now that
Speaker 1: she doesn't feel like she's as connected or as important,
Speaker 1: has turned on everything she used to believe in. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure which it is now. I believe that she
Speaker 1: is supposed to be an anchor and not an opinion journalist.
Speaker 1: But although it doesn't even really matter, the point is
Speaker 1: to just listen to that introduction, The last human in
Speaker 1: guardrail against President Trump. General maddis the last human guardrail. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: the you know the the number two at the Pentagon
Speaker 1: is now going to be Well, first of all, Maddis
Speaker 1: is still there, so you know, there's not even a
Speaker 1: a an imminent concern of there's nobody in place to
Speaker 1: do anything that would stop the president from But I
Speaker 1: just wonder, when does one of these horrible things actually happen,
Speaker 1: the things that we're always being told are going to
Speaker 1: happen because of President Trump, When does one actually occur. Oh,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have war with North Korea. No, actually, he's
Speaker 1: going to try to get a peace deal with North Korea. Oh,
Speaker 1: the Iranians there, it's gonna do all these terrible things
Speaker 1: if we end the deal with them. Well, it turns
Speaker 1: out that the deal is you know, which is it?
Speaker 1: They tell us that these horrible things are going to happen,
Speaker 1: and that Trump is so reckless and awful, and yet
Speaker 1: these things don't happen. And is it really because everyone
Speaker 1: around Trump is so good it's stopping him from making
Speaker 1: these bad decisions all the time. I'm not saying that
Speaker 1: Trump doesn't have some impulses that are best raining. I
Speaker 1: think every president probably has some ideas and impulses that
Speaker 1: his advisors around him recognize or are able to make
Speaker 1: him recognize are not the way to go. But did
Speaker 1: you hear all of that? I mean, you had you
Speaker 1: had an anchor on MSNBC there suggesting who does the
Speaker 1: president work for? We know what that is. I don't
Speaker 1: think that's a I don't think you could even say
Speaker 1: that's a Russia whistle. I think that's a Russia bullhorn. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, he's doing Putin's bidding. He's doing Putin's bidding.
Speaker 1: You know what I remember during the Obama years, and
Speaker 1: many of you will know exactly what I'm talking about.
Speaker 1: Every time we were suggesting a more aggressive posture against
Speaker 1: the Islamic State, we were doing Osama bin Laden's bidding,
Speaker 1: or isis is bidding or al Qaeda's bidding by trying
Speaker 1: to fight against them. Now we do Putin and Erduan's bidding.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just a stupid talking point for
Speaker 1: people that don't want to actually deal with the reality
Speaker 1: of what's going on on the ground in either Syria
Speaker 1: or Iraq or Afghanistan. I mean, there are real conversations
Speaker 1: to be had here. I get it. I have a
Speaker 1: personal affinity for the Kurdish people, and what they have
Speaker 1: done in Iraq and in Syria, and we owe them,
Speaker 1: and I get it. We need to find a way
Speaker 1: to keep faith with the Kurds. That doesn't mean we
Speaker 1: have to set up a permanent base in Syria always
Speaker 1: and forever, when we don't even know what the purposes
Speaker 1: of our presence there beyond they're not being an Islamic state.
Speaker 1: But people are saying, oh, they're doing you're doing er
Speaker 1: Duan's bidding. All you're doing Putin's bidding. Just because Putin
Speaker 1: or Erduan wants us to do one thing or another,
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that's the wrong thing for us to do.
Speaker 1: This is a simplistic thinking, and especially from people who
Speaker 1: have never been in the region, who have no in
Speaker 1: depth knowledge of any of these matters. Are they're among
Speaker 1: the most vociferous in this. Oh, well, you know, there's
Speaker 1: a vacuum will form, A vacuum will form. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: if that's going to be our posture, then I suppose
Speaker 1: we should also set up a military, a permanent military presence.
Speaker 1: You know, a few thousand soldiers in Nigeria, in Somalia,
Speaker 1: in Libya, you know, go down the list. And by
Speaker 1: the way, we already have. How many countries do we
Speaker 1: have a military presence when you add it all up.
Speaker 1: This notion that by by trying to draw down more
Speaker 1: quickly from Syria everything is going to collapse and become
Speaker 1: terrible doesn't take into account the Iraqi forces that are
Speaker 1: next door. But that's even getting into a serious discussion
Speaker 1: about this. I'm persuadable on this issue, meaning that you know,
Speaker 1: I understand why there are concerns about rapid withdrawal from Syria.
Speaker 1: I understand why people although in Afghanistan, just let's let's
Speaker 1: be clear. The the two options are stay there forever
Speaker 1: and withdraw knowing that we have not achieved and enduring
Speaker 1: stable Afghanistan, but that's not something that we're going to
Speaker 1: try to do anymore. Those are the options. The option
Speaker 1: of just give it one more year, just give it
Speaker 1: one more year, that should be off the table. That
Speaker 1: should be all that. Either we say we're we're creating
Speaker 1: a permanent base in Afghanistan similar to what we have
Speaker 1: in you know, South Korea and Germany and Okinawa, where
Speaker 1: we're just going to be there forever. And now take
Speaker 1: into account that it's a it's a country that could
Speaker 1: rapidly deteriorate and we may have you know, Taliban artillery
Speaker 1: shelling or air base there. And guess what that means
Speaker 1: that we're going to have to come back in full
Speaker 1: force and deal with that. You know. I had an
Speaker 1: exchange on Twitter today with well with a few people,
Speaker 1: with Ben Shapiro with what's his what's his? Brit Hume,
Speaker 1: who I generally really enjoy his Twitter game actually, and
Speaker 1: Britt was saying, you know, are you opposed to me?
Speaker 1: Are you opposed to US military being deployed anywhere that's dangerous?
Speaker 1: And I said no, I'm opposed to US military continue
Speaker 1: to take casualties in a place where there's no end
Speaker 1: goal in sight. You know, because I got into some
Speaker 1: troublesome folks that because I tweeted out the following Ending
Speaker 1: a policy of endless war is never going to be easy.
Speaker 1: There will always be trade offs, and yes there are risks,
Speaker 1: but the alternative is endless war. People are saying, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's not fair. It's not endless war where you know,
Speaker 1: this is just a strategic projection of power. And to that,
Speaker 1: I say, well, the the Twin Towers got hit by
Speaker 1: al Qaeda when I was a sophomore in college. All right,
Speaker 1: two thousand and one, it's almost nineteen. It has been
Speaker 1: eighteen years. We have not one single year we can
Speaker 1: point to where we have not had US troops involved
Speaker 1: in active combat operations in a foreign theater, and a
Speaker 1: foreign theater that you know, was not an imminent threat
Speaker 1: to the United States. To put it mildly, so, I mean,
Speaker 1: if that's not endless war, what is endless war? I
Speaker 1: mean you could always we could be at war for
Speaker 1: thirty years and they'd say, well, buck, we could end
Speaker 1: the war next year, So it's not endless. I'd say,
Speaker 1: all right, But I think the point still stands. You know,
Speaker 1: it's it's time to stop doing this to try to
Speaker 1: build other people's countries for them. We tried very hard
Speaker 1: in Iraq, at a cost of tremendous blood and treasure.
Speaker 1: We beat al Qaeda in Iraq, we beat the Taliban
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. But we can't make these countries nice places
Speaker 1: to live. We can't make these societies more functional really
Speaker 1: then they are, or then their own people want them
Speaker 1: to be. You know, one of the reasons why we
Speaker 1: can have bases long term in Germany and Japan is
Speaker 1: that the societies that sprung up after horrific warfare were
Speaker 1: incredibly durable, stable and modern. That is not the case
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan. That is not the case in Iraq. And
Speaker 1: you also have to look at the surrounding areas, and
Speaker 1: you know what the likelihood is of imminent conflict that
Speaker 1: people would say, buck, what about North Korea? They can
Speaker 1: invade at any point in time. North Korea knows that
Speaker 1: if we if they were to attack South Korea, we
Speaker 1: would respond with overwhelming military force. Let's just say, let's
Speaker 1: just play this out a little bit more. If we
Speaker 1: were to set up a permanent military base in Syria,
Speaker 1: which is a sovereign country that we are not at
Speaker 1: war in that the Congress has not authorized a military
Speaker 1: intervention in and where we want the Asad regime to
Speaker 1: continue to be in charge. If the choice is and
Speaker 1: it is a Sad or the Islamic state, that is
Speaker 1: the choice. We do not have another choice really that
Speaker 1: we are aware of or that is realistic. But who
Speaker 1: what do we do when all of a sudden the
Speaker 1: base starts coming under assault from mortars all the time?
Speaker 1: What do we do on our permanent base in Syria
Speaker 1: has five hundred pound truck bombs, thousand pounds of military
Speaker 1: grade explosives showing up at the gate, at our security
Speaker 1: gates and blowing up whoever happens to be. They're trying
Speaker 1: to do inspections. You know what. We went through this
Speaker 1: in Lebanon. No less than Ronald Reagan knew that it
Speaker 1: was a nasty fight, knew the humanitarian situation was terrible,
Speaker 1: tried to clean things up, realize this is a mess,
Speaker 1: and got out people. Forget about that. Did things? Was
Speaker 1: there more violence? Did things grind on eleban after we left, Yes,
Speaker 1: of course, but it wasn't our fight and we lost
Speaker 1: almost That was the full number. I mean, it was
Speaker 1: about three hundred in the bombing of the marine barracks.
Speaker 1: I'm forgetting off top. I think it was two eighties seven,
Speaker 1: but I could be wrong on that one. This is
Speaker 1: the this is the truth of the situation. We have
Speaker 1: to start understanding that there are limitations to what we
Speaker 1: can I'm sorry, three hundred and seven people. I said
Speaker 1: about three hundred, but yeah, three hundred and seven people,
Speaker 1: two hundred and forty one US, fifty eight French peacekeepers,
Speaker 1: six civilian and the two attackers. We do not want
Speaker 1: endless war. I would like the US to be at
Speaker 1: peace sooner than later. It's time to bring our people home.
Speaker 1: With a new year comes new hiring decisions, and that
Speaker 1: means new personnel and the need for new background investigations. Right,
Speaker 1: whatever size your company. You could have a company with
Speaker 1: ten people, who could have a company with ten thousand people.
Speaker 1: You need another company that you can trust to do
Speaker 1: the background checks for your people, to vet everybody who's
Speaker 1: coming through the door of your place of business. Right,
Speaker 1: that's Global Verification Networks role. You really want to try
Speaker 1: out This veteran owned and dual certified veteran owned business
Speaker 1: based out of Chicago, but they've got offices all across
Speaker 1: the country. They'll work with companies of any size. They'll
Speaker 1: come up with a package for you. Just call them,
Speaker 1: they'll walk you through their process and you'll never have
Speaker 1: to worry about who's doing your background checks again. And
Speaker 1: in fact, if you've got somebody doing them right now
Speaker 1: that's not doing a great job, give Global Verification a
Speaker 1: call and they'll tell you why you should give them
Speaker 1: your business call. Eight seven seven six nine five eleven
Speaker 1: seventy nine. That's eight seven seven six nine five one one,
Speaker 1: seven nine, or go to MYGVN dot com. This is
Speaker 1: a good metaphor for the Trump presidency. It is more
Speaker 1: and more concentrated on the views and beliefs of the
Speaker 1: base of the party, the House Republicans. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: the the the maddest decision today and the apparent decision
Speaker 1: to shut down the government over over the border wall.
Speaker 1: I mean, they are they are part of the same
Speaker 1: governing philosophy, which is the president doesn't reach out to
Speaker 1: his adversaries political adversaries, he doesn't compromise, and he goes
Speaker 1: with the views of what of the people who who
Speaker 1: he feels are as close as supporters. I mean, he
Speaker 1: is going to close down the government because Ann Culter
Speaker 1: got mad at him, and that's you know that, that's um.
Speaker 1: You know where we are on the budget, on the
Speaker 1: budget side, and you know, Maddis is a representative of
Speaker 1: a broad Washington consensus about military matters. You know, he
Speaker 1: is not known as a particularly political person, but he's
Speaker 1: out now and you know the phrase, there's so much
Speaker 1: over at CNN that that one can stomach, one can handle. Uh,
Speaker 1: you know what he's saying that this whole nefarious construct
Speaker 1: of events that he's pulling together is also known as
Speaker 1: keeping faith with your base, keeping campaign promises. This is
Speaker 1: what President Trump said he was going to do. These
Speaker 1: things that he is pushing for this week are the
Speaker 1: things he said he was going to do. You will
Speaker 1: recall just a few days ago, I was very upset
Speaker 1: with the President, and I was not okay with it.
Speaker 1: I had a pretty bummed out day here on the
Speaker 1: show because I thought the President was throwing in the towel.
Speaker 1: I'm not here because I love Trump so much. I'm
Speaker 1: not here because I think that, you know, he's such
Speaker 1: an amazing human being and we should all model our
Speaker 1: lives or after him. I support the President because the
Speaker 1: President has said he will do the following things. Fill
Speaker 1: in the blanks from the campaign traw right, build a wall,
Speaker 1: fight back against China on its predatory trade practices, deal
Speaker 1: with political correctness, take the fight to the media, lower
Speaker 1: taxes bill the booming economy, bring jobs back. I mean
Speaker 1: all these. You know, Look, I understand a lot of
Speaker 1: politicians say a lot of things that they don't intend
Speaker 1: to keep or that they won't be able to keep.
Speaker 1: You know that that they just know is a false promise.
Speaker 1: But a wall is a very clear it's a binary proposition.
Speaker 1: It is or it is not we get a wall
Speaker 1: or we do not have a wall. So that's something
Speaker 1: we can hold the president accountable for and he should
Speaker 1: do everything in his power, you know, to make sure
Speaker 1: that we get this wall. Um. And you know, on
Speaker 1: the Maddis issue with the with the consensus, you know,
Speaker 1: because the Tuban was just waving around with all this
Speaker 1: different they say he's a legal Analystim he's just a pundit.
Speaker 1: It's like Paul Krugman without the without the economics degree. Uh.
Speaker 1: But you know you you hear him talking about how
Speaker 1: Manis represents a military consensus. Okay, you know what is
Speaker 1: the military consensus gotten us in the last let's just
Speaker 1: say the last ten years. You know that the the
Speaker 1: the elites on foreign policy, the people that have been
Speaker 1: calling the shots, what have they gotten us in the
Speaker 1: Middle East? What has been achieved? A stable and enduring Iraq?
Speaker 1: Not really? I mean we had to put five thousand
Speaker 1: troops back, we had to have an air campaign, a
Speaker 1: multinational coalition. Um. You know what. Now you could also
Speaker 1: argue the Middle Ease has never really been stable, and
Speaker 1: I think that's a. I think that's a fair point.
Speaker 1: The Middle East is not a region of stability, and
Speaker 1: there's a lot of a lot of reasons why that
Speaker 1: is the case, but that Mattis's departure is Look, I
Speaker 1: have a lot of respect for Maddis. I also don't
Speaker 1: know the guy. I never worked for him. I don't
Speaker 1: have any personal anecdotes about about General Mattis um But
Speaker 1: I would also note that you know that they're I've
Speaker 1: heard a lot of four stars tell us that what
Speaker 1: we're doing in Afghanistan is going to work, and they're wrong.
Speaker 1: They're wrong, over and over again. They're wrong. Stama Crystal,
Speaker 1: who is in fredily well respected and was a very
Speaker 1: I was impressed with them, a very smart but comes
Speaker 1: across as an introspective and somewhat humble guy given who
Speaker 1: he is. He was a big proponent of negotiating with
Speaker 1: the with the Taliban. He thinks that that's a good
Speaker 1: you know, the way to go forward is to negotiate
Speaker 1: with the Taliban, get some kind of a deal. All
Speaker 1: that is just cover for our exit. That's just political cover.
Speaker 1: It's not real cover, meaning that the Taliban is not
Speaker 1: going to keep any promise they make everybody knows that. So,
Speaker 1: you know, we need to stop holding up people as
Speaker 1: just because of who they are. They must be right
Speaker 1: on this issue. It's definitely not something that you could
Speaker 1: say about the Department of Justice, the CIA, the NSA.
Speaker 1: You look at these places and they're just people. They
Speaker 1: have ideas, how they have expertise, they anowledged. But these
Speaker 1: are judgment calls. They're judgment calls that affect the American
Speaker 1: people in the most important ways in matters of life
Speaker 1: and death. We have a right to be involved. We
Speaker 1: are citizens. We have a right to be involved in
Speaker 1: those conversations and to be heard on them. You know,
Speaker 1: if our military action in Syria is such a good idea,
Speaker 1: tell us then what the plan is? They say, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's Isis hasn't been defeated. Well, if we have to
Speaker 1: stay until Isis is defeated, and if we have to
Speaker 1: stay until the Turks no longer want to bomb the
Speaker 1: Kurds because they hate each other, and if we have
Speaker 1: to stay until the Assad regime is not just waiting
Speaker 1: in the wings to take back this territory, because it
Speaker 1: is still the country of Syria and Assad is the
Speaker 1: only national government that is even capable of taking control
Speaker 1: of this area. We're going to be there forever. So okay,
Speaker 1: if we want to have a discussion where the president
Speaker 1: is the slowest role on Syria, we need to get
Speaker 1: a firm agreement from the Turks. They will not attack,
Speaker 1: they will not destabilize, they'll not go after our Kurdish allies.
Speaker 1: We will continue supplying the Kurds, making sure that they
Speaker 1: can hold the territory that they have taken. We will
Speaker 1: back a political process, but we won't have you know,
Speaker 1: a few thousand troops there. Maybe we only have a
Speaker 1: few hundred troops there. That's a discussion that I think
Speaker 1: we can have. That's that's a place where we can
Speaker 1: go on this strategy. And in Afghanistan, drawing down from
Speaker 1: fourteen thousand to seven thousand, it signals to the Afghan
Speaker 1: national government, you know that the gravy train is not
Speaker 1: going to continue on forever here. We're not going to
Speaker 1: just keep throwing billions of dollars into the Afghan into
Speaker 1: the Afghan economy. That just ends up on the you know,
Speaker 1: in the corruption market essentially and propping this place up.
Speaker 1: The Afghans are going to have to deal with the future.
Speaker 1: That Afghanistan has in store for them. Let's talk about
Speaker 1: a potential government shutdown at ben night tomorrow night, on
Speaker 1: the eve of Christmas. This is what the President told
Speaker 1: Democratic leaders at the White House last week. Stephen, listen
Speaker 1: to this. I am proud to shut down the government
Speaker 1: for border security. I will take the mental I will
Speaker 1: be the one to shut it down. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: blame you for it. The last time you shut it down,
Speaker 1: it didn't work. I will take the mantle of shutting
Speaker 1: down and I'm going to shut it down for border
Speaker 1: But all right, we're apparently in the same position as
Speaker 1: we were a week ago. The President had, as you know,
Speaker 1: two years, a Republican controlled House and a Republican controlled
Speaker 1: Senate to get this done, to build that border wall.
Speaker 1: Why did he fail? Well, the House is voting as
Speaker 1: we speak on border security. The fight's only just beginning,
Speaker 1: as you know. First of all, we're talking about success
Speaker 1: on border security. This president has been unprecedented achievements in
Speaker 1: that area. But right now as we speak, we are
Speaker 1: rallying Republican lawmakers to try and get a bill out
Speaker 1: of the House. And the fundamental issue here is whether
Speaker 1: or not Democrats will supply votes to pass border security
Speaker 1: or whether they're going to push for open borders, which
Speaker 1: equals massive crime. If the president for every week to
Speaker 1: our southern border. I like this, Fire it up, Stephen Miller,
Speaker 1: you know. I think Stephen Miller, who is going on
Speaker 1: CNN and had given their anchors kind of a kind
Speaker 1: of a tough time. I like it. You know, I
Speaker 1: think it's I think it's pretty good. It's guys, Stephen Miller.
Speaker 1: He's smart on immigration. He's actually got you know, he's
Speaker 1: got some skills on the immigration front for sure. And
Speaker 1: you know this, the media really tries hard here to
Speaker 1: make it sound like what Republicans want is so so unreasonable. Oh,
Speaker 1: it's just so unreasonable when you think about it. What
Speaker 1: are they really asking for five five billion dollars to
Speaker 1: build border barrier? Really, that's what's that's what's so impossible
Speaker 1: given all the things that we spend money on. I've
Speaker 1: even seen Democrats Howard Dean was writing about how we
Speaker 1: need to keep our military, keep our military commitments where
Speaker 1: they are in Iraq, Afghanistan, and Syria. Howard Dean, mister
Speaker 1: anti war against the Iraq war, it out by withdrawing
Speaker 1: our troops from Afghanistan. You are condemning millions of women
Speaker 1: to the Stone Age. Wow, first of all, that's that's
Speaker 1: I'm amazed that he got away with saying that no education,
Speaker 1: no choice about who they marry, they will become property
Speaker 1: when the Taliban takes over. Is that what you really want?
Speaker 1: Roe Kana? He's running to Rokana, And I'm wound to say, Okay,
Speaker 1: Howard Dean, So what you're saying is we have to
Speaker 1: rebuild Afghanistan and impose a new society upon them. That
Speaker 1: doesn't sound like a short term, limited mission to me.
Speaker 1: And how long before we're told that that's imperialistic and
Speaker 1: it's some some neo colonial white man's burden mission that
Speaker 1: we are engaging in there, and that we are oppressors
Speaker 1: and that we are doing bad things. You know, this
Speaker 1: is this is what will happen there. We will be
Speaker 1: told that we are invaders and we are colonialists and
Speaker 1: all of those things if we actually try to remake
Speaker 1: afghan society, which Howard Dean seems want to do. But
Speaker 1: but I digress. How much money he's going to be
Speaker 1: spent though? How much money is going to be spent
Speaker 1: on the war in Afghanistan and how much can we
Speaker 1: spend on our border. Stephen Miller is not letting them
Speaker 1: just slip away on this with the usual talking points.
Speaker 1: And this is what you see so often with Democrats
Speaker 1: is that the talking points are designed to attack the
Speaker 1: person who wants to ask questions. The talking points are
Speaker 1: set up on the left to shut down discussion, not
Speaker 1: to convince the other side or even convince somebody who's
Speaker 1: listening in that they're right. It's just offense. It's just
Speaker 1: perpetual offense. When it comes to immigration. That's why it's you.
Speaker 1: They'll say, it's racism, it's xenophobia. Why do you want
Speaker 1: to separate women and children at the border. Why are
Speaker 1: you so heartless? Why are you afraid of non white
Speaker 1: people immigrating to the country. All these things that they
Speaker 1: say are not meant to convince anyone of anything. They're
Speaker 1: just meant to make people who are asking questions about
Speaker 1: border security. And Leila mcgrad should say, I don't want
Speaker 1: to It's this too much for me. I don't want
Speaker 1: to get into this anymore. It's not worth it. It's
Speaker 1: not worth it. That's what they want you to say, John,
Speaker 1: Do we have that clip of Miller continuing here with
Speaker 1: Wolf Blitzer. Are you talking to Democrats right now to
Speaker 1: come up with a compromise. Well, what I've fort midnight
Speaker 1: tomorrow night. The Democrats all they need to do is
Speaker 1: support border security and the government will be funded. But
Speaker 1: that that that we're talking about border control. The Democrats
Speaker 1: support border security, they don't support five billion dollars. Could
Speaker 1: you could you identify Wolf for me some of the
Speaker 1: kinds of border security you're saying the Democrats. Democrats all
Speaker 1: say they support border security, like what where they don't. Well,
Speaker 1: they do respect with you. They voted against Kate's law,
Speaker 1: they voted against ending sanctuary cities. They voted against supporting
Speaker 1: Mster Team gang members, they voted against supporting violent criminals.
Speaker 1: They voted time and time again against a physical border
Speaker 1: wal to stop the illegal entry. I mean, where is
Speaker 1: the evidence that you keep asserting they're for border security.
Speaker 1: They haven't been. They opposed closing loophole's for asylum that
Speaker 1: flood our sisters with meritless Clay I want to move out.
Speaker 1: You know, this is what somebody needs to do to
Speaker 1: point out that there's nothing, there's nothing about the Democrats
Speaker 1: that suggest that they really believe in border security. That
Speaker 1: they keep saying this because because then people okay, well,
Speaker 1: then Democrats must be reasonable. There is nothing about their
Speaker 1: policies that indicates a desire to be um to secure
Speaker 1: our border. And he just ran down this whole list.
Speaker 1: You know, they want they want people to be able
Speaker 1: to more easily get in the United States to claim asylum,
Speaker 1: and then they'll never be deported even when they don't
Speaker 1: get asylum, which is what the law says. Law says,
Speaker 1: if you don't get it, you gotta go. They don't want,
Speaker 1: you know, more deportations. They they always try to slow
Speaker 1: down deporting gang members. They don't want uh, you know,
Speaker 1: more aggressive border patrolling. They you know, there's no they
Speaker 1: like sanctuary cities. They don't want enforcement of the interior.
Speaker 1: They don't want to verify. I mean, just go down
Speaker 1: the list, Go down the list. Where is the evidence
Speaker 1: for Democrats want a secure border? They know the American
Speaker 1: people by a solid majority, want a secure border, so
Speaker 1: they say that, But when it comes to their actions,
Speaker 1: where is the evidence that they do in fact want
Speaker 1: a secure border based on the laws that they're willing
Speaker 1: to pass, based on the specifics of how they can
Speaker 1: fix different problems. It's just not there Stephen Miller with
Speaker 1: a drop kit, I mean, Wolf Blitzer also that guy.
Speaker 1: He's one of the luckiest people on planet Earth as
Speaker 1: far as I can tell. You know, he just looks
Speaker 1: like an anchor and sounds like an anchor and doesn't
Speaker 1: really seem to know very much. Is certainly not particularly
Speaker 1: adept or capable on his feet, and yet he's like
Speaker 1: the most respected anchor at CNN. You know, I don't know,
Speaker 1: but he also at least doesn't go quite as far
Speaker 1: as some of the other pundit types that you have
Speaker 1: on CNN. You know, some of the others who who
Speaker 1: are who are anchors but are actually pundits, you know,
Speaker 1: they they claim to be nonpartisan, and yet all they do,
Speaker 1: you know, they get Chris Cuomo, bro Cuomo, who's like, hey,
Speaker 1: so like when you become you know, I just want
Speaker 1: to ask you this question Trump's supporter, and when you
Speaker 1: become a racist, it's like, oh, well, that's a that's
Speaker 1: a fair question to ask some you know, Republican congressman
Speaker 1: who thinks that we should have a secure border. You
Speaker 1: know that that's what that's the game that they play, though,
Speaker 1: Unfortunately that's what they do. But Miller is completely correct
Speaker 1: in laying out that on issue after issue, Democrats make
Speaker 1: it harder to secure the border and then claim without evidence,
Speaker 1: you could say that they want to secure the border.
Speaker 1: There we go, score one for Stephen Miller. I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you he did a good job. Some of you
Speaker 1: have asked me, what's it like to do a show
Speaker 1: in the morning every day with liberals? Buck? What's that like?
Speaker 1: I'd say, Well, Buck has a tremendous patience and sometimes
Speaker 1: has to rely on social charm to uh, I guess
Speaker 1: just charm, not social charm to diffuse situations. Rising has
Speaker 1: been a very interesting experiment thus far. It is a
Speaker 1: left right show. So I have a liberal co host
Speaker 1: whom I must say, on a personal level I get
Speaker 1: along with fantastically and she's a lovely person. But it
Speaker 1: is tough to just have the give and take of well,
Speaker 1: the two hosts from different perspectives, but more than that,
Speaker 1: the guests that we have come in. I was actually
Speaker 1: joking around this week because you know, everybody was kind
Speaker 1: of letting it loose, a little, letting loose, letting it
Speaker 1: loose this week because we had our last week of
Speaker 1: full shows on the air before next year, and we're
Speaker 1: talking about how we can always tell when somebody comes
Speaker 1: in and they've done their homework about the show versus
Speaker 1: people that just come in and go, oh, it's just
Speaker 1: you know, a show. It's The Hill. The Hill's kind
Speaker 1: of a non partisan, maybe slightly center left, although I
Speaker 1: know people say it's center right, but you know, it's
Speaker 1: a pretty both sides website in terms of the news
Speaker 1: it puts up depending on who you ask, and people
Speaker 1: say down they go hey Crystal, hey Buck, and you know,
Speaker 1: they're all happy to be there. And if it's sometimes
Speaker 1: we're talking about you know, getting dogs trained up for
Speaker 1: people with you know who a PTSD or you are,
Speaker 1: we talking about really nice stuff on the show. So
Speaker 1: that's that Sometimes is fine, meaning that you know there's
Speaker 1: no political throwdown expected. But sometimes we get somebody's coming
Speaker 1: in and you know, we're about to talk about I
Speaker 1: don't know the kavanall hearing and and they don't know
Speaker 1: necessarily who I am and who Crystal who Crystal is,
Speaker 1: especially if they're a subject matter expert. But other times
Speaker 1: they'll come in and they'll be like, you know, hi, Crystal,
Speaker 1: great to see you, and then they look at me
Speaker 1: and say hello Buck. You know, it's like hello newman,
Speaker 1: like they know that I'm there not give them a
Speaker 1: hard time, but just give the other perspective. And so
Speaker 1: in a sense, they're sitting down looking at me like, oh,
Speaker 1: I know you're the enemy, and I know I'm terrible person.
Speaker 1: Yeah exactly. You know that's what they're thinking when they
Speaker 1: sit down. John and we had some really some spiriting
Speaker 1: exchanges when we started this show. The idea was, and
Speaker 1: this is why I love radio so much, because this
Speaker 1: is just me and I get to tell you what's
Speaker 1: really top of mind, how I'm thinking about issues, and
Speaker 1: how the give and take of you know, email and Facebook.
Speaker 1: And we will take more calls in the new year,
Speaker 1: by the way, I know that's been something that we
Speaker 1: haven't been doing as much of and I miss I
Speaker 1: missed hearing from more of you on the phone line.
Speaker 1: So we just honestly, it's the reason we haven't done
Speaker 1: calls today is a staffing because we're here in the holidays.
Speaker 1: I thought, I know, I said, yet I was wrong.
Speaker 1: I thought we would have the ability to take calls
Speaker 1: to say. I thought we'd have a person to man
Speaker 1: the phones because we need one on the board and
Speaker 1: one on the phones, and producer Mike had to travel
Speaker 1: today to get to his family, and so it's just
Speaker 1: DJ John Rock in the booth. So I'm sorry that
Speaker 1: we don't have calls today, but that's why you should
Speaker 1: send me Facebook messages or email. You can send me
Speaker 1: an email Official Team bucket gmail dot com is the
Speaker 1: email address that we have set up. I keep saying
Speaker 1: we're gonna get a new one, but it's been a while,
Speaker 1: all right. So but you know, with Rising, we do
Speaker 1: have these moments where things can get a little tense,
Speaker 1: that things can get a little difficult, and the most
Speaker 1: well known exchange, I kind of want to do a
Speaker 1: little stop start of it. The most well known exchange
Speaker 1: I think that we had on the show. I'm not
Speaker 1: including the really big interviews the President, the vice president,
Speaker 1: other people, but the one that I think at the
Speaker 1: most attention was a a throwdown with Candice Owens and
Speaker 1: my co host, my lovely co host, Crystal Ball, and
Speaker 1: I just want to play something. You know, this is
Speaker 1: what happens when you try to have a show where
Speaker 1: you bring everybody in and everyone's going to be nice
Speaker 1: and everything's going to be fine, but then things can
Speaker 1: sometimes get a little bit tense. Play a John. How
Speaker 1: do you view the responsibility that comes with that. I
Speaker 1: view the responsibility of just being a person that maintains
Speaker 1: my ability to have an opinion. I express an opinion,
Speaker 1: and no means that I say that I have just
Speaker 1: found the facts and this is related, and I always yeah.
Speaker 1: I said, I'm going to go out and say that
Speaker 1: there is a zero percent chance that this was sent
Speaker 1: by Conservatives. I find all of these, all the things
Speaker 1: that are going on, the caravan of illegals, the packages
Speaker 1: that are being sent right confirmation. I have to I
Speaker 1: have to jump in here. Candice and Crystal were talking
Speaker 1: about these pipe bombs, which I never really found out
Speaker 1: what the full details were about the construction of the bombs,
Speaker 1: but I don't think any I don't know if it's
Speaker 1: out there and I just missed it. But I felt
Speaker 1: like we we didn't really get those questions answered about
Speaker 1: how they how the bombs were made, and what was
Speaker 1: the full degree of lethality of them. But regardless, Candy
Speaker 1: said there's a zero percent chance that a conservative sent
Speaker 1: those bombs. It turned out that the guy had was
Speaker 1: driving around and like the Magamobile, so I you know,
Speaker 1: make of that what you will. But then the issue
Speaker 1: kind of turned a little bit to race relations and
Speaker 1: m Candice Owens is an African American female, Crystal is
Speaker 1: a white liberal, and then things kind of just went
Speaker 1: from there. Keep playing to John, it was to be
Speaker 1: incredibly suspicious timing so that they are meant to get
Speaker 1: to the border um at you know, on the day
Speaker 1: of the election. Again, this is not root in fact,
Speaker 1: but you do have to understand I am very much
Speaker 1: entitled to my opinion on Twitter as much I have
Speaker 1: one one more just when we're here, because I hey
Speaker 1: see buck Buck got shut out there. Hey, it was
Speaker 1: my turn to ask a question. Whoa hey, hey, you
Speaker 1: know that was where I was supposed to get the
Speaker 1: jump in KB. That's what I call Crystal. Kb's my turn.
Speaker 1: But no, she she was her. You wanted to push
Speaker 1: on the issue with Candis, and that happens. Sometimes we
Speaker 1: decide that we're going to you know, get into it
Speaker 1: more with the guests than the other host will, which
Speaker 1: that tends to be the way this plays out. Um
Speaker 1: But here is how that went. Keep playing it and
Speaker 1: to get to know you before you came on. I'm
Speaker 1: really interested in your perspective because I think you're a
Speaker 1: fascinating person. Thank you. There was another tweet that said
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is comprised of racist white liberals? That
Speaker 1: is correct? Am I racist? White? Well let's go back
Speaker 1: and let's say I will say this that many people
Speaker 1: in the party don't are not aware of the on racism.
Speaker 1: Let's go back to an early part of this conversation
Speaker 1: where you said to me, are you concerned about the
Speaker 1: color in the White House? Why? Why would you ask
Speaker 1: me that question? Because you speak about black issues? Why
Speaker 1: would you ask me? But let's get to really the
Speaker 1: nucleus of this. Why did you ask me that question today?
Speaker 1: Because why did you feel that I needed to be
Speaker 1: concerned about that? Because you're bringing a whole group of
Speaker 1: young African American leaders the way. Okay, So this is
Speaker 1: something that I talk about often, is that in many
Speaker 1: ways white liberals don't realize that you put on that
Speaker 1: the racism and the conversation that we have. You're saying
Speaker 1: I'm a racist. You haven't let me finish my statement,
Speaker 1: you keep cutting me off. Go Okay. The emphasis that
Speaker 1: you place is always on having a discussion about race. Okay,
Speaker 1: you guys are insistent on having a conversation about race
Speaker 1: and telling us that we should see and implying that
Speaker 1: we should see race everywhere. And I don't agree with that.
Speaker 1: If you don't look in me according to the color
Speaker 1: of my skin, you would simply ask me how I
Speaker 1: thought that Trump was doing as a president. But instead
Speaker 1: you try to jump up a conversation that's surrounded by race.
Speaker 1: Sweep the link it was, it was, it got spicy
Speaker 1: in there for for a little bit. I was like, oh,
Speaker 1: I was you know, Charlie Kirk was also on set
Speaker 1: with me. Were You couldn't see this on the well
Speaker 1: maybe you see a little bit on the clip if
Speaker 1: you watch the video, but we were kind of looking
Speaker 1: at each other like, oh man, that's getting it's getting intense.
Speaker 1: You know, I don't know it's gonna go here. And
Speaker 1: I would say this that, you know, Crystal is a
Speaker 1: is a really good sport about how she likes to debate.
Speaker 1: I mean, she wants to really mix it up. She
Speaker 1: had no problem with that exchange. In fact, she wanted
Speaker 1: to keep going. And we're thinking in the new year,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you this about setting up a show that
Speaker 1: would be kind of an in addition to Rising, which
Speaker 1: is more just news of the day and really based
Speaker 1: on getting newsmaker kind of interviews. We would set up
Speaker 1: a show that would just be a debate a debate show,
Speaker 1: and we would moderate it in a way where, you know,
Speaker 1: we'd give equal time and we'd have cross examination by
Speaker 1: the hosts, cross examination you know each other, and really
Speaker 1: structure it so we could have you know, a worthwhile
Speaker 1: intellectual throat out, I mean, old school firing line, but
Speaker 1: with you know, new school techniques and technology. That's the
Speaker 1: that's the idea. So we're banding that about. We're hoping
Speaker 1: we can make that happen in twenty nineteen. We're already
Speaker 1: talking the powers that be about it. So I've got
Speaker 1: some thoughts on twenty eighteen that'll be coming your way,
Speaker 1: and obviously end of your thoughts in just a moment.
Speaker 1: I don't want to spoil a surprise. I know Santa's
Speaker 1: coming soon, but if you're getting a gift from me
Speaker 1: this Christmas, you're get the gift a Black Rifle coffee.
Speaker 1: That's right. It is my favorite coffee company out there.
Speaker 1: I start every day with a delicious hot cup of
Speaker 1: Black Rifle, and I throw some heavy cream in there,
Speaker 1: because you know what, you only live once. That's right.
Speaker 1: Don't be a whim Drink delicious coffee that is brought
Speaker 1: to you by veterans of the United States military. And
Speaker 1: they love their coffee all right, and they make things
Speaker 1: easy with the Coffee Club. Black Rifle Coffee lets you
Speaker 1: pick your blend, the amount you want, and then they'll
Speaker 1: ship it right to your door. I just got a
Speaker 1: big crate a coffee delivered to me today. Give the
Speaker 1: gift of great tasting coffee by ordering three, six, and
Speaker 1: twelve months prepaid or pays Ego subscriptions, which you can
Speaker 1: gift for people. It's a fantastic gift for anybody you
Speaker 1: got a last minute gift. This is what you should do.
Speaker 1: The best tasting coffee out there, Black Rifle Coffee is
Speaker 1: the gift that keeps on giving. Visit Black Rifle Coffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck receive fifteen percent off your order.
Speaker 1: That's Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent
Speaker 1: off for decades to come. I fear that the whole
Speaker 1: country will read the whirlwind the behavior of several of
Speaker 1: the Democratic members of this committee at my hearing a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago was an embarrassment, but at least it
Speaker 1: was just a good old fashioned attempt at borking. Those
Speaker 1: efforts didn't work. When I did, at least okay enough
Speaker 1: at the hearings that it looked like I might actually
Speaker 1: get confirmed. A new tactic was needed. Some of you
Speaker 1: were lying in wait and had it ready. This first
Speaker 1: allegation was held in secret for weeks by a democratic
Speaker 1: member of this committee and by staff. It would be
Speaker 1: needed only if you couldn't take me out on the merits.
Speaker 1: When it was needed, this allegation was unleashed and publicly
Speaker 1: deployed over doctor Ford's wishes. And then and then, as
Speaker 1: no doubt was expected, if not planned, came a long
Speaker 1: series of false, last minute smears designed to scare me
Speaker 1: and drive me out of the process before any hearing occurred.
Speaker 1: Crazy stuff, gangs, illegitimate children, fights on boats in Rhode Island,
Speaker 1: all nonsense reported breathlessly and often uncritically by the media.
Speaker 1: This has destroyed my family and my good name. A
Speaker 1: good name but built up through decades of very hard
Speaker 1: work and public service at the highest levels of the
Speaker 1: American governments. I spoke into a lot of friends in
Speaker 1: the last few days, a lot of people about what
Speaker 1: the single most important story of twenty eighteen has been,
Speaker 1: and almost all of them, including liberals that I know,
Speaker 1: agree that it was the Kavanaugh hearing. Of course, the
Speaker 1: left and the rights, Democrat and Republican, conservative and progressive,
Speaker 1: we take very different things away from it. But the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh hearing was one of the most troubling public spectacles
Speaker 1: that I have ever witnessed in American in life in
Speaker 1: America in my time. It's one of the most disgusting, dishonest,
Speaker 1: and dishonorable mass media democrat character assassination attempts I have
Speaker 1: ever seen, maybe the worst one I have ever seen.
Speaker 1: It was utterly appalling, and it was a reminder, I
Speaker 1: think for many of us that there is right and
Speaker 1: wrong in public life, that the media still has the
Speaker 1: power to destroy. Maybe not quite as easily as they
Speaker 1: used to, but the left wing dominated Democrat aligne mainstream
Speaker 1: media is not beyond ruining a man or a woman's
Speaker 1: life in its pursuit of power and for the perpetuation
Speaker 1: of their preferred narrative. I watched that Kavanaugh hearing and
Speaker 1: I remember getting to talk to you about it right
Speaker 1: as it was concluding, And it was one of those
Speaker 1: moments when I actually could I felt a physical manifestation
Speaker 1: of injustice. It felt evil, it felt wrong, and what
Speaker 1: those smiling hyenas, those senators on the Democrat side were
Speaker 1: doing was an evil thing. And there was clarity among conservatives.
Speaker 1: All of a sudden, we realized that the left on
Speaker 1: some issues disagrees. On other issues, they are just wrong.
Speaker 1: They are immoral. On the issue of life, for an example,
Speaker 1: they are wrong, and what they're doing is immoral. But
Speaker 1: on this the destruction of the presumption of innocence and
Speaker 1: the abandonment of cross examination, of just reason and the
Speaker 1: presentation of evidence, all of that they were willing to
Speaker 1: completely dispense with to ruin a man, to ritually torture
Speaker 1: him on television for the amusement of progressive jackals across
Speaker 1: the country, who, unfortunately, in many cases, have been fed
Speaker 1: this idea that white males are the enemy, that white
Speaker 1: males are the enemy of women. In fact, that the
Speaker 1: patriarchy is really just another way of saying the white
Speaker 1: maleminance of American society. And even if maybe Kavanaugh didn't
Speaker 1: do the things he was accused of doing. Perhaps it
Speaker 1: was a necessary sacrifice, you know, to even things out
Speaker 1: to destroy him. That was a that was a mentality
Speaker 1: that was much more widespread than I think a lot
Speaker 1: of people outside of the you know, coasts, outside of
Speaker 1: the corridors would realize, you know, the Assella corridors it's called.
Speaker 1: I mean, the media was very much in favor of
Speaker 1: this for a whole host of reasons, not the least
Speaker 1: of which was they kind of wanted a really prominent
Speaker 1: prep school, white male, Yale educated scalp on the right.
Speaker 1: They really liked that idea. Maybe maybe he was innocent,
Speaker 1: but they thought it was still worth it to destroy him.
Speaker 1: I can think a few things more horrible than being
Speaker 1: accused of being a serial gang rapist. Remember how insane
Speaker 1: these accusations were. And it's very important that you also
Speaker 1: remember who was willing to be a part of this
Speaker 1: who I would note that you usually could count on
Speaker 1: perhaps in the media and the press, public intellectuals who
Speaker 1: all of a sudden became a coward, who was saying, well,
Speaker 1: she has a right to be believed, because they didn't
Speaker 1: want their email inbox to be filled with nasty comments
Speaker 1: from people across the country who say that, you know,
Speaker 1: women are women never lie. We were told things that
Speaker 1: are just themselves lies, that women never lie about this. No,
Speaker 1: women do lie about this, not all women, not even
Speaker 1: a majority of women. But it does happen, So why
Speaker 1: spread the lie that it never happens. They were saying that.
Speaker 1: They were saying that, you know, a lie can be
Speaker 1: a very useful thing, unfortunately for unscrupulous people, and we
Speaker 1: were seeing that on full display in the cabin at hearing.
Speaker 1: So it was the biggest for me, The biggest story
Speaker 1: of twenty eighteen was in fact, that two or three
Speaker 1: week period of the Brett Kavanaugh hearing, and it serves
Speaker 1: as a very important reminder for all of us, a
Speaker 1: very important reminder that the Left is willing to act
Speaker 1: in ways that are really demonic, that go beyond just
Speaker 1: a question of different, you know, different means to reach
Speaker 1: the same end. It's not just well, you know, you
Speaker 1: have your way and we have our way, and maybe
Speaker 1: we can find some way to make it all, you know,
Speaker 1: go down the middle. No, this was this was the
Speaker 1: acceptance of immorality to destroy a human being publicly for
Speaker 1: all time. And they failed. But they just barely failed.
Speaker 1: As I've told you many times here on the show.
Speaker 1: I was talking to people in the White House during
Speaker 1: those weeks as well as others around this town in DC.
Speaker 1: And it was a close fought battle. There were times
Speaker 1: when it looked like maybe the President, just for the
Speaker 1: reasons of, you know, preserving the Republican Party's reputation or
Speaker 1: whatever the fear was, they might withdraw the cabinal nomination
Speaker 1: was it was close. And if Blasi Ford, who you
Speaker 1: know now of course, is a celebrity, and we all
Speaker 1: understand that, and you know, they spent a tremendous amount
Speaker 1: of time working with her on her presentation, and this
Speaker 1: was all stage managed. This was all There was collusion,
Speaker 1: you could say, in this effort. There was not just
Speaker 1: some woman coming forward on her own without anyone telling
Speaker 1: her what to say, how to say it, how to present.
Speaker 1: Every aspect of it was very closely managed for maximum
Speaker 1: impact against Cavanaugh. If he had not come out, and
Speaker 1: we started by playing some of his defense if he
Speaker 1: had not come out, as any man of honor, Wood
Speaker 1: accused of the things that he was accused of and
Speaker 1: responded to it with indignation and outrage and righteous fury.
Speaker 1: He would not be on the Supreme Court, and he
Speaker 1: would have been destroyed. Everything that he had built over
Speaker 1: his life, everything that he ever stood for, would have
Speaker 1: been destroyed. He would have had to seek justice in
Speaker 1: the next life, because in this one there would have
Speaker 1: been no justice for him. This was forced on us
Speaker 1: by the same media that tells us all the time
Speaker 1: that Trump is so immoral, so unethical, so distasteful. I
Speaker 1: don't trust any of them to be the arbiters of
Speaker 1: what is fair or right. I don't really want to
Speaker 1: hear it. I don't really think I need their lectures.
Speaker 1: But it was a warning for us all as well.
Speaker 1: This next year, twenty nineteen, is going to be very,
Speaker 1: very ugly. The political temperature will go even higher. How
Speaker 1: is that even possible. It's tough to say, but it will.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people who I think have
Speaker 1: lost touch with what really matters in their lives, a
Speaker 1: lot of people who are who are scared, who are angry,
Speaker 1: who have been brainwashed, whether it's on on climate change,
Speaker 1: or Trump's xenophobia, or the threat of nuclear annihilation that
Speaker 1: he poses, or Russia collusion, any one of these areas
Speaker 1: of hysteria and hysteria, unfortunately, is contagious. That's how you
Speaker 1: get to a mass hysteria, and that's where we are.
Speaker 1: This is going to now be funneled through a Democrat
Speaker 1: majority in the House representatives that, as we saw from
Speaker 1: the Kavanaugh situation on the Senate side, has no scruples
Speaker 1: to protect. We'll do anything that's effective. We'll destroy anyone
Speaker 1: that stands in their way, and so we are going
Speaker 1: to have to be prepared for things to get nasty, messy,
Speaker 1: and very very difficult. You will have people in your
Speaker 1: day to day life who will think less of you
Speaker 1: if you don't agree with them that Trump should be impeached.
Speaker 1: You will have old friends, this has happened to me,
Speaker 1: who say really really unfair and hurtful and destructive things
Speaker 1: to you about you because you don't agree with them.
Speaker 1: Be prepared for that, don't back down. But also, you
Speaker 1: don't have to fight every fight. You don't have to
Speaker 1: engage every time. It's some fights are just not worth it.
Speaker 1: Most fights, quite honestly, in your day to day life
Speaker 1: are just not worth it, at least over politics. Rarely
Speaker 1: is it the case that you hand out your own
Speaker 1: version of the buck slap. Although sometimes you should. There
Speaker 1: was this news today about Ruth Bade Ginsburg, around whom
Speaker 1: a kind of creepy cult has formed, the cult of RBG,
Speaker 1: you know, the crossfitter and the Supreme Court Justice extraordinaire.
Speaker 1: She had surgery to remove cancerous growths from her lungs,
Speaker 1: and because we are all decent human beings, we wish
Speaker 1: her a speedy recovery in all the best. She has
Speaker 1: another human being, she has, you know, she has feelings
Speaker 1: and family and people love her, and we wish her
Speaker 1: all the best. I bring it up only because it
Speaker 1: sent a bit of an alarm through the left wing ranks,
Speaker 1: because their their plan is that Ruth Bader Ginsberg will
Speaker 1: stay through the twenty twenty election. But that's a ways off.
Speaker 1: Ginsberg is eighty five years old and obviously has just
Speaker 1: has had a very serious healthcare and this is after
Speaker 1: she had broken a number of ribs. She's going to
Speaker 1: try to make it all the way through, but her
Speaker 1: health may fail. She may have to step down. If
Speaker 1: that happens, I can't even begin to picture. I can't
Speaker 1: even really understand how much rage and hysteria and and
Speaker 1: over emotional craziness is going to fall on the left
Speaker 1: wing of this country and people that really think that,
Speaker 1: you know, RBG is the last hope of you know,
Speaker 1: women's rights and minorities and abortion, and you know, you
Speaker 1: go down all these different things that they're so concerned about.
Speaker 1: I don't know how that plays out, other than to
Speaker 1: say that this country will be it will be more
Speaker 1: divided than it has been, certainly in my lifetime over
Speaker 1: that issue. Kavanaugh was a a vision of what is
Speaker 1: to come again in the future. I think, so we
Speaker 1: will have to be prepared for that in twenty nineteen.
Speaker 1: Social media is not just a platform, it's also increasingly
Speaker 1: a publisher. That means that people can determine what you
Speaker 1: see and how you see it, and they can also
Speaker 1: ban you or kick you off the side, or just
Speaker 1: make sure none of your friends are actually seeing what
Speaker 1: you're writing. That's going on with Twitter and Facebook, all
Speaker 1: of these big sites. If you don't want to deal
Speaker 1: with that anymore, I've got a new startup social media
Speaker 1: company for you, Snippy dot com. Thousands of my listeners
Speaker 1: have joined snippy dot com and they're expressing opinions and
Speaker 1: stirring up lively conversations. You see Snippy as an unbiased
Speaker 1: social media platform that is all about conversation and the
Speaker 1: free exchange of ideas. There is no left wing bias,
Speaker 1: no progressive conversational health initiatives, just free and open discourse
Speaker 1: the way you and I like it, all right, totally
Speaker 1: for you to join, Open to everyone, snippy dot com
Speaker 1: let your opinion matter now with an updated user interface
Speaker 1: and exciting new features, also available in the Apple App
Speaker 1: Store and for Android Snippy dot Com. Man, John, I
Speaker 1: don't want to bum everybody out, you know, I know
Speaker 1: that we just get pretty intense there for a second.
Speaker 1: My year, my year in review, I don't I don't
Speaker 1: have a lot of stock markets kind of in the
Speaker 1: in the toilet right now. You know, the Democrats won
Speaker 1: the House, Trump, the Muller probe still goes on, and
Speaker 1: there's not a whole lot that I think we could
Speaker 1: we could celebrate all that, all that openly um right now,
Speaker 1: but there's also a lot we can celebrate in our
Speaker 1: day to day lives. Like John, what are you going
Speaker 1: to be doing over the Christmas break? I'm gonna be working, Buck, Okay,
Speaker 1: I'll be here working. Yeah, I've got to do some
Speaker 1: things here and there. I'm gonna take a few days
Speaker 1: off from radio, though I have to. I'm on call
Speaker 1: for the Hill, which means that I have to stay
Speaker 1: in DC for Are you doing anything for your birthday?
Speaker 1: Miss Molly's gonna make me a big dinner. She I
Speaker 1: usually ask her to make something that's really usually glutenous,
Speaker 1: and she makes a delicious gluten free version. But she
Speaker 1: makes incredible gluten free pizza, which I would say some
Speaker 1: of you are like, oh, gluten free pizza. No, no no, no,
Speaker 1: it's really good. Make it for yourself at home. I'm
Speaker 1: in Crust gluten free pizza is excellent. Beat crust gluten
Speaker 1: free pizza. I know it sounds funky, you know, he's
Speaker 1: a super beat, super beat um, but you you should
Speaker 1: try beat crust pizza. But John, I'm sure you're gonna
Speaker 1: take some You're gonna take some time off, right. My
Speaker 1: first day off will be January second, all right? All right? Yeah,
Speaker 1: you're you're a hard working mad brother. I appreciate it.
Speaker 1: That's the nature of radio. You're usually working holidays and
Speaker 1: late nights and weekends, and you're going in in a snowstorm.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to tell people I'm too tired to go
Speaker 1: on vacation this year, I'm just taking vacation meeting. I
Speaker 1: just need to regroup. I just need a lot of sleep.
Speaker 1: I need to eat, you know, healthy food and not
Speaker 1: just keep on throwing gluten freemac and cheese in the microwave.
Speaker 1: So you know, I've I've got I've got those those
Speaker 1: plans going on. But you know, it'll be fun Christmas.
Speaker 1: I'll be up in New York for Christmas Day. It's
Speaker 1: always very pretty up there, and that's that's very nice.
Speaker 1: And you know, the good news is what really matters
Speaker 1: is the stuff that you're dealing with every day, folks.
Speaker 1: You know what really matters is this holiday over Christmas
Speaker 1: or the Christmas holiday itself and being with your family
Speaker 1: and friends, being with loved ones. That's the stuff that
Speaker 1: really Yeah, whether we win on you know, this Supreme
Speaker 1: Court case or that, or whether you know, taxes go
Speaker 1: up or down, we can manage all that stuff. So,
Speaker 1: you know what, maybe this is the one time it's
Speaker 1: probably bad from a radio business perspective because usually people
Speaker 1: are like, oh my gosh, the country is falling apart.
Speaker 1: They're abandoning their pencibles on the constitution. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: I get it right. This is what most people do
Speaker 1: on radio all the time, and you know they're trying
Speaker 1: to discress. But I'm here to tell you that it's
Speaker 1: actually all good. It's all gonna be okay. Not every day,
Speaker 1: not day to day. You know there's gonna be problems,
Speaker 1: but it's all gonna be all right. And this Christmas
Speaker 1: takes some time to reset. You know, just just give yourself.
Speaker 1: It is important. You actually owe it to yourself, no
Speaker 1: matter how much of a of a fighter you are,
Speaker 1: whether in your personal or professional, if you owe it
Speaker 1: to yourself to spend some time recharging this holiday, reflecting,
Speaker 1: maybe think about Baby Jesus and God. That's up to you.
Speaker 1: But there's a lot of stuff that you should be
Speaker 1: doing that will help you push into twenty nineteen strong.
Speaker 1: So there we have it, a little bit of uplift
Speaker 1: before we get into some roll call and some closing
Speaker 1: thoughts for twenty eighteen. It's time for roll call. This
Speaker 1: is our final roll call of the year, which is
Speaker 1: pretty amazing. Really, all right, let's get to it. Brian. Oh,
Speaker 1: by the way, I'm I'm going to close out with
Speaker 1: some final thoughts for the year in the next segment.
Speaker 1: So roll call will not, in fact be our last
Speaker 1: segment of the It will not be your last segment
Speaker 1: in the year. I'll just get to talk to you
Speaker 1: all for a few minutes to close out a very
Speaker 1: successful twenty eighteen. Brian writes, Happy birthday, Buck, have a
Speaker 1: well deserved relaxing week off. Hope you're getting out of
Speaker 1: the swamping back to NYC. Get ready for a very
Speaker 1: interesting twenty nineteen. We're gonna need your insight and decorum
Speaker 1: more than ever next year. Ps I sent you and
Speaker 1: Porter an email a while back on blockchain and global
Speaker 1: currency transitions that will happen when the overdue and expected
Speaker 1: market correction happens. Really want yours and Porter's feedback on
Speaker 1: the company known as Ripple. When the correction happens, I
Speaker 1: think we'll see a large scale transition to XRP in
Speaker 1: banks and institutions. Take a look, as I appreciate your
Speaker 1: research well, Brian, I will certainly take a look, and
Speaker 1: thank you so much for your kind words. And yeah,
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen is going to be wild. I'm gonna be
Speaker 1: talking more about that next but twenty nineteen is going
Speaker 1: to be a particularly interesting year to be doing radio
Speaker 1: and covering politics. MASONA writes, Hey, you read my message
Speaker 1: on air Awesome on my way home now and catching
Speaker 1: the show, so bummed about Matdis resigning. He was definitely
Speaker 1: my favorite cabinet member. Keep up the great work, Buck
Speaker 1: shields high. Yeah, Mason, A lot of people really like Matdis,
Speaker 1: and you know, I think that there's a sense that they,
Speaker 1: you know, they won't be able to find someone who
Speaker 1: can fill his shoes. But I think the military has
Speaker 1: a whole lot of incredibly adept, skilled and wise minds,
Speaker 1: and we'll be able to get a really fantastic Secretary
Speaker 1: of Defense in the next year. I think that that's
Speaker 1: likely to happen to him. I have a feeling Mattis
Speaker 1: will probably want to waigh in on the transition at
Speaker 1: some degree, Although I don't know how how strained the
Speaker 1: relationship really is with President Trump. I've certainly read a
Speaker 1: fair amount about that being the case. Scott rights, Hey, there, Buck,
Speaker 1: Considering that my little town of sixteen thousand souls here
Speaker 1: in Laconia has lost twelve people the drug overdoses this year,
Speaker 1: and we all know where they're coming from. Where are
Speaker 1: the people that will start asking truly hard questions to
Speaker 1: Democrat lawmakers that have zero interest in securing our border.
Speaker 1: Who's going to stand up and ask Nancy Pelosi next
Speaker 1: year and ask her, Madam speaker, sixty thousand people died
Speaker 1: last year from drug overdoses. How many American citizens do
Speaker 1: you think are acceptable to sacrifice to opioid streaming over
Speaker 1: our borders on the open border? Altar thirty thousand? Is
Speaker 1: it truly? It is truly time rather to take these
Speaker 1: people to the woodshed. Keep up the good fight, and
Speaker 1: I'm keeping my shield high. Brother, Marry Christmas, well, Scott,
Speaker 1: Marry Christmas to you two. And on the opioid issue,
Speaker 1: i'man I agree. I think it's a an incredibly serious issue,
Speaker 1: and I am troubled by the fact that people just
Speaker 1: don't seem to want to believe or want to accept
Speaker 1: the reality that the drugs are coming across our southern border.
Speaker 1: That's what is happening. That is the truth of where
Speaker 1: most of the illegal opioids are making their way into
Speaker 1: this country. So with that in mind, I just would
Speaker 1: have to say, we have to keep the pressure on,
Speaker 1: keep spreading the truth, keep talking about what you know
Speaker 1: the likeliest ways of dealing with this or that the best,
Speaker 1: most effective ways of dealing with this problem will be
Speaker 1: It was very troubling. I was reading an analysis of
Speaker 1: the opioid epidemic and there was a case being made
Speaker 1: just based on the statistics, that we are likely to
Speaker 1: see a significant decrease in opioid addiction after there has
Speaker 1: been essentially a massive death toll that has gone on
Speaker 1: long enough that the people who have already been introduced
Speaker 1: to opioids, already have some dependency, are no longer with us.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was a horribly uh macabre view of
Speaker 1: where the opioid crisis is going. It. It would almost
Speaker 1: like be saying that the war will end when when
Speaker 1: enough people have died. When when you know, when enough
Speaker 1: people have died, that neither side has the will to
Speaker 1: fight anymore. So I think we need to head that off.
Speaker 1: We can't just wait for there to be uh die,
Speaker 1: you know, people dying. That's that's unacceptable. James Rights, Hey,
Speaker 1: Buck Shields time. Banning bump stocks is really just banning
Speaker 1: a firing technique. With a little practice, anyone can use
Speaker 1: the recoil of the weapon to fire like that. It
Speaker 1: really makes no sense. Love the work you do, sincerely, James. Yeah, James,
Speaker 1: I know that you can. You can create a bump
Speaker 1: fire effect by looping the by using your belt loop
Speaker 1: and firing it that way. So that there there are
Speaker 1: ways to do this um that don't involve a piece
Speaker 1: of plastic. And remember that is that is what has
Speaker 1: been banned here. A piece of plastic is now an
Speaker 1: illegal thing to own. I think that should be troubling
Speaker 1: for everyone. I mean, when the government can make something
Speaker 1: that is an ananimate object that is very easy to
Speaker 1: make and is in and of itself not dangerous to anyone,
Speaker 1: When they can make that a felony to possess that,
Speaker 1: that is that is troubling. James writes, Hey, Buck, I
Speaker 1: have two possible solutions to the wall handed to the
Speaker 1: Army Corps of Engineers. Fund it with the military budget,
Speaker 1: or sell government bonds to fund it. Let people willingly
Speaker 1: pay for it. If it's going to save the government
Speaker 1: money in the long run, they can pay the bonds back.
Speaker 1: The Army Corps of Engineers certainly could do it, but
Speaker 1: I think that there are there are issues with how
Speaker 1: it would actually get how you could transfer over funds
Speaker 1: to use for that purpose. So I would say that's
Speaker 1: that's something to keep in mind and think about. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not as simple as just well, we're going to
Speaker 1: spend the money on this. Congress has to appropriate it
Speaker 1: for certain purposes. But nobody really knows, and except for
Speaker 1: the people who work in Congress, how these budget processes
Speaker 1: and how the appropriations really go. It's a kind of
Speaker 1: an arcane and down in the weeds process. So that's
Speaker 1: that's what I've got for you on that for now,
Speaker 1: my friend. Let's see what else do we have here,
Speaker 1: Tim writes Buck, I'm listening to Ben Shapiro and he
Speaker 1: just blamed you for the Syrian pull out. He said
Speaker 1: this was not driven by nicky Nicky Hailey, Pompeo, Bolton,
Speaker 1: and Madis. We're all against it, but the president must
Speaker 1: be listening to Buck and the dictator of Turkey. Good job, Buck.
Speaker 1: He referred to you as a big headed fellow. Tucker, Well,
Speaker 1: my head is large, so there's nothing I can do
Speaker 1: about that. It is a it is a serious cranium.
Speaker 1: I think Ben was probably referring to a Twitter exchange
Speaker 1: that we had earlier where I said, look, we've got
Speaker 1: to deal with this, this concept of endless war. I'm
Speaker 1: not reading a tweet exactly, but a concept of endless
Speaker 1: war and didn't like that idea. And I just look Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: There is no let's not delude ourselves. The policy is
Speaker 1: to be there forever. I've been told that by four
Speaker 1: star generals. I was told that by four star generals
Speaker 1: ten years ago when I was in Afghanistan. The policy
Speaker 1: is to be there forever. So if you want to
Speaker 1: keep US troops there forever, then that's fine, but that
Speaker 1: should be the argument. And in Syria, remember, a pullout
Speaker 1: from Syria is not the same as the pullout from Iraq,
Speaker 1: because we have five thousand troops in Iraq next door.
Speaker 1: And as long as we maintain security guarantees for the
Speaker 1: Kurds visa VI the Turks, which wouldn't require very much.
Speaker 1: I mean, it probably would just require leaving some Special
Speaker 1: Forces teams there and letting the Turks know we still
Speaker 1: have some guys, because I remember, I mean, there's a
Speaker 1: difference between having a few thousand people and having a
Speaker 1: few dozen people that are working with allies in the
Speaker 1: front lines. We have special forces that are deployed in
Speaker 1: places all over the world that nobody ever thinks about
Speaker 1: because they just don't know about it, or because the
Speaker 1: footprint is light enough. But we do have a debt
Speaker 1: of honor to the Kurds, and I don't think that
Speaker 1: we should just leave them high and dry and allow
Speaker 1: the Turks to pound them with aerial bombardment. That would
Speaker 1: be that would be bad, bad conduct on our part.
Speaker 1: And I understand the irritation with that. That said, we
Speaker 1: have no future. And this is and I offered to
Speaker 1: Band to call into the show by the way, or
Speaker 1: you know, I would call into his show. I don't care.
Speaker 1: We could have this discussion, and he didn't respond. But
Speaker 1: there is no future for a permanent ford operating base
Speaker 1: for US forces in Syria. The Assad regime has won
Speaker 1: the Syrian Civil War. People who keep saying the vacuum
Speaker 1: is going to be filled by Iran and Russia, the
Speaker 1: vacuum has already been filled. It was filled in the
Speaker 1: Obama years. US having a light footprint along with some
Speaker 1: Kurds does not, in fact prevent Russia and Iran from
Speaker 1: using the region as a ford operating base for all
Speaker 1: kinds of operations, because they're already doing that. And what
Speaker 1: we really don't want to have is US getting pulled
Speaker 1: in the middle of a regional conflict, which is increasingly
Speaker 1: likely the longer we stay. There's a lot of complexity
Speaker 1: these issues, and I think people of goodwill and of
Speaker 1: serious minds can differ on it. And while I appreciate
Speaker 1: Ben's reference to me being a big headed tucker like Fellow,
Speaker 1: I would appreciate even more if you wanted to call
Speaker 1: into the show sometime and discuss this issue in a
Speaker 1: way where we could probably get to some worthwhile conclusions,
Speaker 1: and I could tell him about my time in Iraq
Speaker 1: and Afghanistan and what I draw from that and how
Speaker 1: that affects my thinking about these issues. Now, let's go
Speaker 1: to Nathaniel, who writes, Yo, buck Shield time, brother, this
Speaker 1: Syria withdrawal is rather curious. I'm speculating one of two things.
Speaker 1: Either we are certain that the Kurds and Syrian Democrat
Speaker 1: forces have the capability to keep any Isis resurgence at bay,
Speaker 1: or this is a tactic to draw Isis out, meaning
Speaker 1: their ideology is based on landownership, so fake a vacuum.
Speaker 1: See if they established territory as a way to draw
Speaker 1: them out and use that opportunity to finish them. Any
Speaker 1: thoughts on this being a head fake, Nathaniel. I don't
Speaker 1: think it's a head fake, but it's I hate being
Speaker 1: the person just as it's a complicated situation. But I
Speaker 1: think that the President is trying to shake up the
Speaker 1: current paradigm, which is just the continuation of a US
Speaker 1: Force presidents everywhere we go. So that's where I think
Speaker 1: we are, I you know, meaning once we've deployed troops,
Speaker 1: it's very very hard to ever just say we're not
Speaker 1: going to have troops there anymore. I'm going to come
Speaker 1: back with some closing thoughts for the year. Team stay
Speaker 1: with me, Oh Christmas Tree, Oh Christmas Tree. And I
Speaker 1: feel like we probably shouldn't close out twenty eighteen with
Speaker 1: muzak of Oh Christmas Tree. But nonetheless, here we are,
Speaker 1: you know, every year round this time because it's the holidays,
Speaker 1: and I have my Christmas obviously coming up just like
Speaker 1: the rest of you. And also my birthday, which for
Speaker 1: those who don't know, is December twenty eighth, I will
Speaker 1: be thirty seven years young, which feels like it feels
Speaker 1: like quite a ways. But yeah, I'm gonna be with
Speaker 1: family and with Miss Molly for the holiday. But this
Speaker 1: is where I have to take a couple of minutes
Speaker 1: to just say that, with all of the change that
Speaker 1: I have had in the last really eight years since
Speaker 1: I got into media, and with certainly the changes of
Speaker 1: the last couple of years leaving the Blaze, going to
Speaker 1: national radio syndication, and then spending some time at CNN,
Speaker 1: where I was ritually ambushed and abused for the amusement
Speaker 1: of Democrats, and then leaving and starting at the Hill
Speaker 1: with this new Hill TV venture. The one constant that
Speaker 1: has always kept me getting up every day, staying up
Speaker 1: late at night, reading as much as I can, doing
Speaker 1: as much research as I can, and just giving it
Speaker 1: my all are all of you, the people who listen
Speaker 1: to this show. I have a tremendous gratitude, respect, and
Speaker 1: affection for all of you, who might refer to as
Speaker 1: Team Buck. Although you're just the team, you're the people
Speaker 1: that listen to the show and that give me a
Speaker 1: reason for doing the show. And I've learned a lot
Speaker 1: from all of you over the years. You have been
Speaker 1: there to support me during some really incredibly difficult, challenging
Speaker 1: professional and personal times, and it's just such a privilege, honestly,
Speaker 1: every day to get to talk to all of you,
Speaker 1: and I do cherish it each day. I will say
Speaker 1: the one thing that I always look forward to is
Speaker 1: doing this radio show and getting to speak to all
Speaker 1: of you across the country, those of you who listen
Speaker 1: on your local station or those who listen on podcast.
Speaker 1: It really is an incredible gift to have this platform
Speaker 1: and to share thoughts and this experience of this ongoing
Speaker 1: intellectual and honestly spiritual exchange that goes on with this
Speaker 1: radio show on a day to day basis, And it
Speaker 1: is something that you know, and as my parents hear
Speaker 1: me talk about this, I know my mom gets a
Speaker 1: little gets a little misty eyed sometimes. But it's pretty
Speaker 1: astonishing that a kid who had a speech impediment when
Speaker 1: he was in the first, second third grade had to
Speaker 1: get special tutoring because he wasn't doing well in school,
Speaker 1: had to have a special speech therapist to teach him
Speaker 1: how to sound like other people around him and not
Speaker 1: per anounced words incorrectly and even pronounce his own name,
Speaker 1: believe it or not, incorrectly. That you would fast forward
Speaker 1: two years later when I'd be able to address you
Speaker 1: here on this platform. Almost one hundred and thirty radio
Speaker 1: stations now across the country, I believe carrying this show,
Speaker 1: but also having been able to sit at the Golden
Speaker 1: Mic for Rush Limball and do Sean Hannity's massively successful
Speaker 1: radio show and Glenn Beck's radio phenomenon, to have sat
Speaker 1: at the Helm on those different of those different ships
Speaker 1: and had those experiences, it's been. It's been a pretty incredible,
Speaker 1: pretty incredible ride. And this this year on my birthday,
Speaker 1: the thing I will be most happy about when I
Speaker 1: reflect back, other than my health and my family and
Speaker 1: and you know, the love that I have in my life,
Speaker 1: the thing that I am most proud of in my
Speaker 1: professional career in media, the one area where I always
Speaker 1: feel like every bit of effort is it and everything
Speaker 1: that I can do to bring entertainment and information and
Speaker 1: just connection with like minded people across the country to
Speaker 1: this show is worth it. So thank you all so
Speaker 1: much for that. I'm excited for twenty nineteen. I have
Speaker 1: all kinds of plans in the works. There so many
Speaker 1: things I can't even get into them right now. I
Speaker 1: also don't want to overpromise and get ahead of myself
Speaker 1: with things that are going to take a little more
Speaker 1: time than I'd like them to but we have a
Speaker 1: lot going on. If you get a chance over the
Speaker 1: holiday to talk to people about shows they listen to,
Speaker 1: you know, I always always appreciate it if you can
Speaker 1: tell them to try downloading the Buck Sexton Show. That's
Speaker 1: all I want for my birthday from all of you,
Speaker 1: is to get one person who has not heard this
Speaker 1: show before to listen to The Buck Sexton Show on podcast.
Speaker 1: That is my Birthday request and my Christmas request. You
Speaker 1: all mean a lot to me. I appreciate all the
Speaker 1: support and I want you to have a fantastic holiday.
Speaker 1: I'll be back with you in the new year. Shield
Speaker 1: tie