Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom Hudge impeachment is here. My friends.
Speaker 1: You will no doubt remember that I have called this
Speaker 1: many times on the show. Nancy Pelosi announced it today.
Speaker 1: It will break down what this means for the crazy Democrats,
Speaker 1: plus the latest on the whistleblower Ukraine, Biden situation, and
Speaker 1: also Trump at the u N That and more coming
Speaker 1: up on The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America,
Speaker 1: you're a great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins.
Speaker 1: Remember they did it. They did it, folks, Democrats have
Speaker 1: gone full crazy. Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Great
Speaker 1: to have you here, and honor and a privilege. As
Speaker 1: always those who have been listening to me for a while.
Speaker 1: Now that I've been saying all along, I just don't
Speaker 1: like to repeat my predictions. Just like I've been telling
Speaker 1: you Biden's not going to be the nominee. I'm looking
Speaker 1: pretty good on that one. I've also told you many
Speaker 1: times that they're going to impeach. They can't help it,
Speaker 1: They're going to impeach the president. Guess what Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: today announced they're beginning an impeachment inquiry, which just means
Speaker 1: that they're now trying to add some legitimacy, trying to
Speaker 1: add some sense of of process to what is nothing
Speaker 1: more than a temper tantrum three years in the making
Speaker 1: from a Democrat left that is unhinged and increasingly I
Speaker 1: think obviously unwell. You had Pelosi today giving a bit
Speaker 1: of a meandering and stumbling press conference, which I suppose
Speaker 1: is not surprising. She had been alluding to this all day.
Speaker 1: She had some conference at the Atlantic Monthly, a left
Speaker 1: wing rag that presents itself with fancy prose, and decided
Speaker 1: that she was going to give us a little sense
Speaker 1: of what was coming up. But now we've actually heard
Speaker 1: it from Pelosi. They are now going to impeach the president.
Speaker 1: I mean, they're saying it's a an inquiry. Does anyone
Speaker 1: really believe that they're going to start an impeachment inquiry
Speaker 1: and there won't actually be an impeachment. I mean, we'll
Speaker 1: talk about a waste of everyone's time. Now, I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that Democrats are above wasting time, but it's not
Speaker 1: good politics for them. They're going to have to they're
Speaker 1: going to impeach this president. It's interesting, isn't it. Last
Speaker 1: week they were going to impeach Brett Kavanaugh. But then anybody,
Speaker 1: anybody who is honest and has above a second grade
Speaker 1: reading level, figured out really quickly that it was a sham,
Speaker 1: that it was a scam, and that it was a
Speaker 1: lie that they were trying to once again perpetrate against
Speaker 1: Brett Kavanaugh. So now they've moved on to this. Before
Speaker 1: I let you hear from Madame's speaker herself, Nancy Pelosis,
Speaker 1: she announced this because I want you to know exactly
Speaker 1: what they're saying, because we have to discuss where they're
Speaker 1: going to take this. I would like it to be
Speaker 1: very clear for all of us that they have moved
Speaker 1: to impeachment on the basis of an incident that they
Speaker 1: do not know any of the details of yet for themselves,
Speaker 1: they do not know what was said. They're basing this
Speaker 1: on a conversation that a person in the intelligence community
Speaker 1: complained about that they heard about secondhand, and without knowing
Speaker 1: the facts, they have decided to go ahead and start
Speaker 1: this impeachment inquiry without understanding what really went on here.
Speaker 1: They've decided that they should push for maximum impact right away.
Speaker 1: First you have Pelosi doing the usual, the usual nonsense
Speaker 1: about how this president is owed just such a violation
Speaker 1: of the Constitution. Everything, his every breath is a violation
Speaker 1: of the Constitution. The Intelligent Community Inspector General formally notified
Speaker 1: the Congress that the administration was forbidding him from turning
Speaker 1: over a whistleblower complaint on Constitution Day. This is a
Speaker 1: violation of law. Shortly thereafter, press reports began to break
Speaker 1: of a phone call by the President of the United
Speaker 1: States calling upon a foreign power to intervene in his election.
Speaker 1: This is a breach of his constitutional responsibilities. The facts
Speaker 1: are these. I just want to pause there and notice
Speaker 1: how she's immediately ties us to Russia collusion in some way,
Speaker 1: just rhetorically. This is Ukraine, different country. Not the Democrats
Speaker 1: really care. Facts don't really matter to them, but that
Speaker 1: he called on foreign interference in the election. Oh, they've
Speaker 1: they've already. That's the talking point, right, that's the charge again.
Speaker 1: This is another another time that they're going to say
Speaker 1: that President Trump wants foreign interference in the election. Good heavens,
Speaker 1: what will we do? And then she goes on the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Community Inspector General, who is appointed by President Trump,
Speaker 1: determined that the complaint is both of urgent concern and credible,
Speaker 1: and it's disclosure, he went on to say, relates to
Speaker 1: one of the most significant important of the Director of
Speaker 1: National Intelligence is responsibility to the American people. So so
Speaker 1: this is important for you to know as well. The
Speaker 1: appointed by Trump thing. This is like when they used
Speaker 1: to say that Muller was a Republican. Comey was a
Speaker 1: Republican is meaningless. Comey was actually a comy as still
Speaker 1: along as we found out, and Muller was a figurehead
Speaker 1: for a left wing hatchet job operation against Trump. And
Speaker 1: some of the people that hate Trump the most are
Speaker 1: in fact Republicans, are former Republicans, in the cases of
Speaker 1: people who write for that dumpster Fire, the Bulwark and
Speaker 1: other places right former Republicans. Now they're fighting for the
Speaker 1: other team because you know they didn't. If they can't
Speaker 1: have the leadership of the Republican Party, nobody can. And
Speaker 1: that's the never Trump rallying cry. Now better to have
Speaker 1: the better to have the socialists in charge than Trump.
Speaker 1: But I'm still a Republican, they say, Please, It's embarrassing
Speaker 1: for everybody. Most of all of them. But Pelosi says
Speaker 1: things here that are plainly not in evidence. Think about
Speaker 1: the recklessness of this moving to an impeachment hearing based
Speaker 1: on what is effectively a rumor reported on by anti
Speaker 1: Trump newspapers. That's what they're doing here with impeachment. They're
Speaker 1: going based on a rumor. Here is Speaker Pelosi. Remember
Speaker 1: this just happened at five eastern Today's We've got what
Speaker 1: is essentially breaking news for you here just in the
Speaker 1: last hour. Here's what Speaker Pelosi had to say about
Speaker 1: the whistleblower complaint. For more than twenty five years, I've
Speaker 1: served on the Intelligence Committee as a member, as the
Speaker 1: ranking member, as part of the Gang of Four, even
Speaker 1: before I was in the leadership. I was there when
Speaker 1: we created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence
Speaker 1: that did not exist before two thousand and four. I
Speaker 1: was there even earlier in the nineties when we wrote
Speaker 1: the Whistleblower Laws and continued to write them to improve them,
Speaker 1: to ensure the security of our intelligence and the safety
Speaker 1: of our whistleblowers. I know what their purpose was, and
Speaker 1: we proceeded with balance and caution as we wrote the laws.
Speaker 1: I can set with authority the Trump administration's actions undermine
Speaker 1: both our national security and our intelligence and our protections
Speaker 1: of the whistle blowers more than both. So so I
Speaker 1: can say with authority that Nancy Pelosi has no idea
Speaker 1: what she's talking about. She doesn't know, she doesn't know.
Speaker 1: And what I meant to say before was bringing up
Speaker 1: this whistle blower that he was. I'm not the whistle blower.
Speaker 1: The inspector general. He's appointed by Trump. He's a functionary,
Speaker 1: he's a bureaucrat. We don't know this guy is Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't Yeah, sure, this guy is the one that you
Speaker 1: know that the president can't know the heart of every
Speaker 1: person and every single job that's that's a presidential point
Speaker 1: of the administration. They do a little due diligence. Sure
Speaker 1: they try to look at the record, but you know,
Speaker 1: he's the inspector general for the intelligence community. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not the Secretary of State. You do what you can.
Speaker 1: And more importantly, Pelosi doesn't know what was said on
Speaker 1: this phone call, doesn't even know, and she's going forward
Speaker 1: with this. Ah, but we all know what this is.
Speaker 1: This is politics for a desperate Democratic party. You know
Speaker 1: why they're so worried Biden's starting to slip. Biden is
Speaker 1: neck and neck, even behind in some polls. I'm seeing
Speaker 1: in Iowa, New Hampshire to Warren. If there's a changing
Speaker 1: of the guard. The Democratic Party feels very uncertain about it.
Speaker 1: Warden perhaps Warren perhaps is a little too radical, a
Speaker 1: too left wing for the general electorate. What are they
Speaker 1: going to do? Oh, they need to They need to
Speaker 1: stack the deck. You see, how do they stack the
Speaker 1: deck against Trump? Ah? Yes, impeachmentt That'll do it, That'll
Speaker 1: make it work. They think the actions taken to date
Speaker 1: by the President have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when
Speaker 1: the president says Article too says I can do whatever
Speaker 1: I want. For the past several months, we have been
Speaker 1: investigating in our committees and litigating in the so the
Speaker 1: House can gather all the relevant facts and consider whether
Speaker 1: to exercise its full Article one powers, including a constitutional
Speaker 1: power of the utmost gravity approval of articles of impeachment.
Speaker 1: And this week the President has admitted to asking the
Speaker 1: President of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically.
Speaker 1: The action of the actions of the Trump presidency revealed
Speaker 1: the dishonorable fact of the President's betrayal of his oath
Speaker 1: of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of
Speaker 1: the integrity of our elections. Therefore, today I'm announcing the
Speaker 1: House of Represents moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry.
Speaker 1: I'm directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations
Speaker 1: under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry. The president must be
Speaker 1: held accountable. Is above the law. Hillary Clinton's above a law.
Speaker 1: But that's a question for another time. I guess Nancy
Speaker 1: Pelosi is an ethical and political disgrace. What's the charge, Nancy?
Speaker 1: What she keeps saying, endangered our national security, endangers our elections,
Speaker 1: endangers this endangers that. Okay, Nancy, what's the charge? What
Speaker 1: exactly did he do? She doesn't know. Oh, but she
Speaker 1: says he admitted. What did he admit to, Nancy? He
Speaker 1: admitted to telling a foreign head of state to look
Speaker 1: into corruption in his country. Well, that seems completely legitimate.
Speaker 1: If a corollary of that, if a secondary effect of
Speaker 1: that is that somebody who is Biden's family member is
Speaker 1: maybe going to get into a little bit of trouble.
Speaker 1: We don't know yet, too bad. What is the illegality
Speaker 1: because it benefits him politically. I got news for you.
Speaker 1: If that's the standard, everything a president tries to do,
Speaker 1: he wants to do to benefit him politically. Presidents don't
Speaker 1: do things, generally speaking, that don't benefit them politically. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, I'm you know. We must have articles of
Speaker 1: impeachment against President Trump. He wants to end the war
Speaker 1: in Afghanistan just because he wants to see his poll
Speaker 1: numbers go up. You could make that argument, but then
Speaker 1: you'd also be making the argument that the president doesn't
Speaker 1: have any constitutional authority at all to do anything. They
Speaker 1: keep doing this. They think they can bludgeon us with
Speaker 1: narrative and fake newsmen going on tv J and blah blah.
Speaker 1: I'm putting all these absolutely maniacal anti Trump so called
Speaker 1: legal analysts who are just pundit clowns who say things
Speaker 1: that are wrong over and over again. They're proven wrong
Speaker 1: over and over again, and they just keep shoveling them
Speaker 1: at the American people because the Democratic Party is unwell.
Speaker 1: They've lost it. Trump's arrangement syndrome has reached critical mass.
Speaker 1: They don't know how to deal with the world as
Speaker 1: it actually is, so now they've concocted this whole theory.
Speaker 1: And I've played for the audio from Nancy Pelosi herself.
Speaker 1: What did the president? What's the violation? Just because she
Speaker 1: says that she doesn't like it, there's a violation. What's
Speaker 1: the crime. I've heard people on TV, on MSNBC, somebody
Speaker 1: said treason, treason? How getting rid of corruption? Maybe Joe
Speaker 1: Biden's son should have been taken fifty thousand dollars a
Speaker 1: month from one of the most corrupt governments. Are really
Speaker 1: ruins corrupt, I should say, companies in one of the
Speaker 1: most corrupt governments in one of the most corrupt countries
Speaker 1: in the entire Eurasian land masks. You know, maybe that's
Speaker 1: an issue to look at just a little bit. It's madness,
Speaker 1: But this is where we are. I'm just beginning. As
Speaker 1: you can tell, it's gotten me a little bit fired up.
Speaker 1: I am just beginning to fight. We'll be right back
Speaker 1: the future. About democracy is a state that come a
Speaker 1: time when you have to be moved by a spirit
Speaker 1: of history to take action to protect and desert tegatory
Speaker 1: of my nation. I believe, I truly believe the time
Speaker 1: to begin impeachment proceeding against this president has come. To
Speaker 1: delay or to do otherwise, we're betrayed the foundation of
Speaker 1: my democracy. You knew that impeachment was coming when Representative
Speaker 1: Lewis here decided that he was going to give this
Speaker 1: speech this morning, and that's when they were they're adding
Speaker 1: up the votes, and then the Congressional Black Caucus moved
Speaker 1: into the yes column, and then you just knew, okay,
Speaker 1: now that they're they've got the votes. Why now, though,
Speaker 1: of all the things Trump has been accused of, remember
Speaker 1: they had the ten possible instances we've heard so much,
Speaker 1: the ten possible instances of obstruction of justice. This is
Speaker 1: what they think that this is the straw that broke
Speaker 1: the camel's back. This is the one that pushed it
Speaker 1: too far that the president. They don't know. We keep
Speaker 1: saying that the President did or said, they don't know,
Speaker 1: We don't know. We'll get into the whole transcript release
Speaker 1: fight in a second, but it's absolutely utterly insane that
Speaker 1: they would Why would they do this? Why would they
Speaker 1: push now when the transcript the President has said it
Speaker 1: is going to be released. I believe tomorrow. Tomorrow, I
Speaker 1: think is when the transcript is supposed to come out. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what the President has said why do it in
Speaker 1: advance on the transcript? Ah, you know why, folks, This
Speaker 1: was all about just getting enough Democrats to cross the
Speaker 1: impeachment rubicon. That was the purpose all along, that once
Speaker 1: they're on the other side of the river, it's never coming.
Speaker 1: It's never going to change. Now they all have to
Speaker 1: go through with it. So this was more than anything else,
Speaker 1: a media and far left Democrat pressure campaign that finally
Speaker 1: worked enough that there's no turning back. They're gonna have
Speaker 1: to now see this thing through. They're going to drag
Speaker 1: the country while we have the clown show of Democrat
Speaker 1: candidates just saying idiotic things looking entirely unserious as who
Speaker 1: could or should be the next leader of the free world.
Speaker 1: But they're going to have the whole country stuck on
Speaker 1: whether or not impeachment is going to happen when we
Speaker 1: all know that this is just like I told you.
Speaker 1: And I don't like to be that guy that says
Speaker 1: I told you, I told you, But if you if
Speaker 1: you go back to certainly this past summer, I was
Speaker 1: saying that impeachment was going to happen because the Democrats
Speaker 1: are crazy, and I understand what crazy Democrats do. But
Speaker 1: now we have to all understand there's no way they
Speaker 1: don't hold the vote and impeach this president. They're not
Speaker 1: going to get the two thirds they need in the
Speaker 1: Senator remove him, not even close. But now this is
Speaker 1: going to become a political fixation for the Democrats, and
Speaker 1: it is really just one big OPO effort against the
Speaker 1: President to put him on defense while the Democrats figure
Speaker 1: out which style of socialists they're going to put forward.
Speaker 1: You know, who is going to take the mantle of
Speaker 1: anti Trump savior of our democracy. They keep saying these things,
Speaker 1: savior of our democracy. It's like they don't live in America,
Speaker 1: a country that is right now at peace, that is prosperous,
Speaker 1: that by all observable metrics, is doing quite well. Yet
Speaker 1: we don't hear anything about that, right. All we hear
Speaker 1: about is our democracy is under threat. Why I voted
Speaker 1: for President Trump a lot? Have you voted a vast majority?
Speaker 1: Have you voted for President Trump? Well? In what ways?
Speaker 1: A democracy under threat? Oh? I'm sorry. The people who
Speaker 1: have done nothing other than try to run the most
Speaker 1: bad faith, shameless investigations of this president possible to stop him,
Speaker 1: to destroy his presidency, they now want to lecture the
Speaker 1: rest of us in just what exactly, what exactly fair
Speaker 1: play looks like. I don't think so. After the special
Speaker 1: counsel that never should have happened, After all the congressional
Speaker 1: inquiries and hearings, it never should have happened, the nonsense
Speaker 1: around the twenty fifth Amendment, they're going to remove him.
Speaker 1: I mean, they have tried cou's against this president, and
Speaker 1: now they want to tell us that he can't play
Speaker 1: a little bare knuckle politics of his own and have
Speaker 1: somebody remember he didn't say throw Biden's son in prison,
Speaker 1: he said investigate. We're told we'll get back into this
Speaker 1: in a moment. Yes, I believe that the transcript should
Speaker 1: be released. I believe that in particular right now, the
Speaker 1: House committees are are asking for it, and they should
Speaker 1: be granted that. Listen, again, this gets back to an
Speaker 1: erosion of our democracy. Donald Trump is trying to play
Speaker 1: politics with this issue, and he is trying to collaborate
Speaker 1: with and conspire with a foreign leader to interfere in
Speaker 1: our democracy, and I will I have absolutely no support
Speaker 1: for that. And I believe that that this is a
Speaker 1: political tactic being waged by Donald Trump because he obviously
Speaker 1: perceives a threat that is a political threat, and I
Speaker 1: have no support for it whatsoever. I just need to
Speaker 1: understand how all these Democrats can speak about this like
Speaker 1: they know what is in the transcript that they have
Speaker 1: not read. We've skipped right past this, and you saw
Speaker 1: how this was set up on Saturday. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: you know Jake Chopper will well excuse me, he kind
Speaker 1: of sounds like that. Well, you know, I just want
Speaker 1: to know, like what's going You know, if Don Junior
Speaker 1: was being investigated by that, you know, you're like, all right,
Speaker 1: so we're just gonna pretend like we know this is
Speaker 1: what happened, even though we don't know what happened. And
Speaker 1: after all these months we've had of Democrats saying, whoa
Speaker 1: hold on, we have to wait for the facts here,
Speaker 1: we have to wait and see, you know what's going on.
Speaker 1: Hold on a minute, hold on a second. To that,
Speaker 1: I just say, huh, So now they don't have we
Speaker 1: waited all this time, they don't have the facts, and
Speaker 1: yet they're moving to impeachment. Let's also just the transcript.
Speaker 1: The President has said that he will release the transcript.
Speaker 1: What reason could there possibly be other than what I've
Speaker 1: already said about how you just need you need to
Speaker 1: get Democrats to commit so they can't turn around. You
Speaker 1: need them to get to they have to scuttle their
Speaker 1: ships on impeachment. They didn't actually Cortes didn't light them
Speaker 1: on fire. As you know, he's scuttled them. It's different.
Speaker 1: And the President has said that he will release this transcript.
Speaker 1: So why aren't we seeing Why aren't we seeing more
Speaker 1: of a an effort to at least hold back until
Speaker 1: we know what's in them? Why go now? Because it's
Speaker 1: not really about what's in them, It's about the narrative,
Speaker 1: you see. I love how the as soon as the
Speaker 1: President had said earlier today he had tweeted out that
Speaker 1: he was that he was going to release it, all
Speaker 1: of it. It went from release the transcript, why won't
Speaker 1: you release the transcript? What are you covering up? Democrats
Speaker 1: were saying that the media was all saying that too.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, you can't release the transcript. What if
Speaker 1: foreign leaders don't trust you anymore on phone calls? And
Speaker 1: also you know what if the American people just can't
Speaker 1: handle what's in there? I mean, they just change all
Speaker 1: the time. They have no principles folks. It's just all
Speaker 1: emotions and nastiness. And they've convinced themselves that Trump is
Speaker 1: the worst person since Hitler, maybe as bad as Hitler.
Speaker 1: So anything is justified. I mean, the President's clearly just
Speaker 1: you know, I was gonna say he's got to be
Speaker 1: frazzled by all this, He's got to be rattled. But
Speaker 1: now this president loves a fight, God bless him. He's
Speaker 1: just gonna say, you know what, fine, dig in, let's go,
Speaker 1: let's see what you got. He was tweeting right after
Speaker 1: Nancy's speech, but he did Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and of
Speaker 1: course Maxine Waters. Can you believe this? They never even
Speaker 1: saw the transcript of the call a total witch hunt
Speaker 1: and then in all caps presidential harassment. Yeah, that is,
Speaker 1: that is what is going on. So I think that's her.
Speaker 1: By the way, He also tweeted earlier in the day,
Speaker 1: I'm currently at the United Nations representing our country, but
Speaker 1: have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified,
Speaker 1: an unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelenski
Speaker 1: of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly
Speaker 1: and totally appropriate call. No pressure and unlike Joe Biden
Speaker 1: and his son. No quid pro quo. This is nothing
Speaker 1: more than a continuation of the greatest and most destructive
Speaker 1: witch hunt of all time. Speaking of quid pro quos,
Speaker 1: here's the president on that point, get other people to pay,
Speaker 1: and then everybody called me, oh please, can we pay?
Speaker 1: And there was never any quid pro quo. The letter
Speaker 1: was beautiful, It was a perfect letter. It was unlike Biden, who,
Speaker 1: by the way, what he said was a horror and
Speaker 1: ask how his son made millions of dollars from Ukraine,
Speaker 1: made millions of dollars from China even though he had
Speaker 1: no expertise whatsoever. Okay, so what he did was a
Speaker 1: real problem with us. There was no pressure applied, no nothing,
Speaker 1: No pressure applied, no nothing. What is the president's What
Speaker 1: is the liability here? What law did he break? What
Speaker 1: did they don't even know? Folks, This is the Democrat
Speaker 1: This is actually a desperation move the Democrats. They sure
Speaker 1: they're lashing out, so at some level it has the
Speaker 1: appearance of putting them on offense, but they don't have
Speaker 1: the goods if they did. And I think I would
Speaker 1: note that what's going to be in that transcript will
Speaker 1: be entirely defensible and perhaps even just a nothing burger.
Speaker 1: But Democrats will say, well, there's a million other reasons
Speaker 1: we impeach them. It doesn't matter. They're impervious to facts.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what
Speaker 1: you present them with. That today it was all about
Speaker 1: this phone call that they don't know what was said,
Speaker 1: but they've heard, you know, through layers and layers. This
Speaker 1: is like the game telephone when you're a kid. They've
Speaker 1: heard through layers of it being passed down that oh,
Speaker 1: something bad happened. But instead of waiting until they know
Speaker 1: they did this, because now that they've gotten impeachment proceedings rolling,
Speaker 1: they'll they'll just shoehorn in whatever they have to about Trump. Okay,
Speaker 1: well this letter wasn't as bad as we thought. But
Speaker 1: you know, Russia collusion and obstruction or okay, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe the pressure campaign that Trump used against the Ukrainian
Speaker 1: president to do something that. Does anyone think that what
Speaker 1: he said is wrong or illegal in any way? Forget
Speaker 1: about illegal? Is it even wrong? Why can't the president
Speaker 1: of the United States tell a Ukrainian counterpart, Hey, I
Speaker 1: really want you to look into some corruption in your
Speaker 1: country by. The prosecutors play this game in America all
Speaker 1: the time. They go after targets that are political targets.
Speaker 1: It happens all the time. Just ask Scott Walker, Chris Christie,
Speaker 1: Rick Perry, Bob McDonnell, Scooter Libby, get down this. This
Speaker 1: happens all the time. And what they always say is, oh,
Speaker 1: but even if there's a political implication, it doesn't mean
Speaker 1: that the underlying investigation is tainted. Oh okay, Well that's
Speaker 1: good to know, but it's also very obviously in some
Speaker 1: cases not true, which then raises the question for us, Well,
Speaker 1: hold on a second, why is it any different here
Speaker 1: with Trump? Why are we in a situation, Why are
Speaker 1: we in a circumstance that, you know, the President of
Speaker 1: the United States isn't allowed to exercise his authority under
Speaker 1: the Constitution to conduct foreign relations because remember it's not
Speaker 1: even Joe Biden, it's remember Joe Biden's family. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe Hunter Biden shouldn't have been a run around
Speaker 1: Ukraine when his dad is the point man for policy
Speaker 1: in Ukraine. I mean, can we step back from this
Speaker 1: for a second. There are one hundred and ninety seven
Speaker 1: countries in the world. I think maybe one hundred ninety five,
Speaker 1: depends on how you count them, but roughly one hundred
Speaker 1: and ninety seven. Okay. Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, when
Speaker 1: he's the vice president, magically gets put on the board
Speaker 1: of a company that is under intense pressure for corruption.
Speaker 1: And there are people with tens, perhaps hundreds of millions
Speaker 1: of dollars at stake, depending on how this corruption investigation
Speaker 1: shakes out, And we are to believe that Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: the vice president's son, is put on their board because
Speaker 1: he's such a good lawyer, because he understands international deal
Speaker 1: making so well. I mean, he had been a public
Speaker 1: affairs officer and I think it was the Navy and
Speaker 1: didn't last a year because he had a positive cocaine test.
Speaker 1: So why exactly is this guy getting fifty thousand dollars
Speaker 1: a month from Barisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company. Anyone
Speaker 1: want to try to take a guess? Oh, they say, well,
Speaker 1: there's no quid pro quote. First of all, how do
Speaker 1: you know that? We don't know? Could be right? Democrats
Speaker 1: have this standard with Trump at his tax returns. Oh,
Speaker 1: we need to see the tax returns. Federal government already
Speaker 1: has it. Oh we need to see it for ourselves.
Speaker 1: So for them, more investigation is always a legitimate line
Speaker 1: of it. We just need more invest Why are you
Speaker 1: opposed to getting to the truth. We just need more investigation. Okay, well,
Speaker 1: we want more investigation about what was going on when
Speaker 1: the vice president saw was getting paid a whole lot
Speaker 1: of money to sit on a board of a company
Speaker 1: that was under a lot of pressure and that was
Speaker 1: at the intersection of US and Ukrainian foreign policy? What
Speaker 1: about that? What about that is so strange or so surprising?
Speaker 1: I would offer you answers nothing, But you know what
Speaker 1: is surprising is that we are supposed to believe that
Speaker 1: anyone thinks that we're going to believe that Hunter Biden
Speaker 1: wasn't getting paid off in one way or another. People say,
Speaker 1: there wasn't a quit pro quot. Okay, well, then he
Speaker 1: was an insurance policy. Think about this, if you if
Speaker 1: you're the director of this company, you know, the CEO
Speaker 1: of Barisma, and you can put the vice president's son
Speaker 1: on your board for a cool fifty thousand month, and
Speaker 1: that may mean that you don't go to prison and
Speaker 1: or you don't lose a few hundred million dollars that
Speaker 1: seems like a really good investment, doesn't it. Even if
Speaker 1: you're not sure exactly what he's going to do. You
Speaker 1: got the vice president's son on your board. That buys
Speaker 1: you some credibility. It's an insurance policy. It's the appearance
Speaker 1: of access, it's the appearance of invulnerability. And that's the
Speaker 1: part of this that you have to remember. That's the
Speaker 1: part of this that you can't just let let's slide
Speaker 1: out of you. I've been saying it all along. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is what they do not have an answer for.
Speaker 1: They cannot explain why is it exactly that this is
Speaker 1: going on? Why would Joe Biden's son be on this board?
Speaker 1: Does anyone want to try to take a stab at
Speaker 1: that one? Oh? I guess they don't know. They can't
Speaker 1: figure out the answer to that question. We'll be right back,
Speaker 1: All right, team, We are joined by our friend Chadwick
Speaker 1: Moore today on the show. Chadwick is over at Spectator USA.
Speaker 1: He's a columnist, he's a pundit. You often see him
Speaker 1: on Fox News. We also did a fantastic duo speech
Speaker 1: here in New York City a week ago for the
Speaker 1: New York Republicans Club. Chadwick great to have you on
Speaker 1: the show for the first time, sir, great to be here, Buck,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me. And it was a fantastic night
Speaker 1: the other night. Yeah, we rocked a house. That's how
Speaker 1: we roll. So man, speaking of speaking of rock in
Speaker 1: the house, Nancy Pelosi, you see that transition, smooth as silk.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, she's gone full crazy and she's decided that
Speaker 1: they're gonna go forward with an impeachment inquiry, which means,
Speaker 1: guess what, they are going to impeach this because I
Speaker 1: feel like, now what they're gonna have the inquiry, They're
Speaker 1: not gonna hold an impeachment vote. Come on, yeah, what
Speaker 1: what on earth are they thinking? When we're approaching an
Speaker 1: election year and the Democrats are already branded as they
Speaker 1: do nothing, failed party, going from Russia Gate to a
Speaker 1: quick hot second of impeach Kavanaugh to impeach Trump. Do
Speaker 1: they think this is going to play well in an
Speaker 1: election year? You know? One thing is that you know,
Speaker 1: people say in the mid terms that Republicans didn't turn
Speaker 1: out the Democrats basically, Kate, they exhausted their votes. You
Speaker 1: know that everyone came out in the mid terms and
Speaker 1: they sort of barely made a slight, slight demand says, well,
Speaker 1: if there's anything that's going to get Republicans out to
Speaker 1: the polls in twenty twenty, it's going to be if
Speaker 1: the Democrats try to impeach President Trump. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is just madness. Though in a Pelosi she had this
Speaker 1: kind of rambling. By the way, we're gonna start talking
Speaker 1: about age limits, maybe there needs to be a Speaker
Speaker 1: of the House age limit because Pelosi looked like she was,
Speaker 1: you know, on another plans at some points during her
Speaker 1: speech there. But anyway Pelosi's saying, she talks about the
Speaker 1: founders and then how Trump has undermine our national security?
Speaker 1: How can she say all these things when she does
Speaker 1: not know what happened in this whistleblower complaint at all?
Speaker 1: She does, she has no inside knowledges whatsoever. From what
Speaker 1: we understand. She just reads the newspapers just like the
Speaker 1: rest of us. You're absolutely right, And maybe it's the
Speaker 1: Speaker of the House. To your earlier point, we should
Speaker 1: call her the sol of the House. That seems that
Speaker 1: whenever she gives a speech, she has no idea what's
Speaker 1: going on. And I believe I just saw Trump said
Speaker 1: he's going to be releasing the full transcripts of the
Speaker 1: phone call with the Ukrainian officials, so that might really
Speaker 1: take the wind out of the sales. Here, they are
Speaker 1: dramatically trying to shift all the focus off of the
Speaker 1: inquiry into Joe Biden, into Hunter Biden when Joe was
Speaker 1: vice president. This is this is a hail Mary for them.
Speaker 1: What have they got? They have absolutely nothing. It's just wild, man.
Speaker 1: I'm assuming. I'm all these democrats were like, there's so
Speaker 1: much to impeach him on. I'm always like, okay, looks
Speaker 1: so much. Let's say, okay, why they're oh my gosh, like, guys,
Speaker 1: come on, it shouldn't be that hard. I thought it
Speaker 1: was Russia. Oh now it's the Ukrainian whistleblower phone call.
Speaker 1: These people are crazy, man, They're just they're just in
Speaker 1: another planet. But you know, we real quick, Chadwick. I
Speaker 1: mean we got to the president was at the u
Speaker 1: N today, and you know, this is a president who
Speaker 1: and this is gonna be a part of the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty narrative. You know that just as well as I do.
Speaker 1: He's constantly called a racist, a homophobe, a big in
Speaker 1: all these different things. Meanwhile, here's what the President said
Speaker 1: today at the United Nations in fun of representatives from
Speaker 1: a lot of countries where there's real homophobia, real bigotry
Speaker 1: in a way that we don't see in this country.
Speaker 1: Play clip. As we defend American values, we affirmed the
Speaker 1: right of all people to live in dignity. For this reason,
Speaker 1: my administration is working with other nations systop criminalizing of homosexuality.
Speaker 1: And we stand in solidarity with lg VTQ people who
Speaker 1: live in countries that punish, jail or execute individuals based
Speaker 1: upon sexual orientation. Chad, does the gay community give the president?
Speaker 1: The LGBTQ community, he seems to have trouble with the acronym,
Speaker 1: but it's a long acronym, you know, But do they
Speaker 1: ever give him any any credit for what is what
Speaker 1: is the moral stand here that other presidents, it seems,
Speaker 1: have been very hesitant to take, which is, it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what country you're in, you know, you can't imprison
Speaker 1: gays or you know, in some of the Islamic countries,
Speaker 1: throw them off roofs or bury them under rocks, or
Speaker 1: any of these things. That's a horrific human rights violation.
Speaker 1: The President speaking out on this, does he get any
Speaker 1: credit absolutely not. In fact, I was just I just
Speaker 1: now clicked over to the Advocate magazine, my former employer,
Speaker 1: where I used to do most of their big cover stories.
Speaker 1: They have me blocked on Twitter. But their headline about
Speaker 1: the speech on the on the front trade spash is
Speaker 1: a boring un speech proves he uses LGBTQ people LGBTQ
Speaker 1: lives as pawns. Um they have. When this was so,
Speaker 1: this initiative, it's seventy one nations where it's currently criminalized
Speaker 1: to be gay. Six of those nations murder homosexuals, and
Speaker 1: the initiative is headed up by Rick Rnelle, our our
Speaker 1: ambassador to Germany, who's openly gay, the highest ever openly
Speaker 1: gay official in uh in the government. And um, you know,
Speaker 1: the approach to this is it's basically seventy one different
Speaker 1: plans for each country, and it involves using leverage in
Speaker 1: trade and and things like this. It's not you know,
Speaker 1: sort of going in and you know it's it's a
Speaker 1: negotiation and it's trade and using leverage. Uh So. But
Speaker 1: the gay media when this was first a noun Um
Speaker 1: Out magazine, which is the other big gay magazine, ran
Speaker 1: a headline thing that the criminalization efforts of homosexuality are
Speaker 1: actually racist. That was in the headline. Um, they don't
Speaker 1: know what to make of this guy, because he's clearly
Speaker 1: not homophobic. He's a New York City Manhattan businessman. Have
Speaker 1: you ever met an actual rich businessman in New York
Speaker 1: who's sincerely homophobic. He's had gay people around him his
Speaker 1: entire life. Obviously, there's plenty of homosexuals dressing Milannia, and
Speaker 1: they give him no credit. They give her no credit
Speaker 1: for how gorgeous she is and her great style. And
Speaker 1: they simply can't because these these organizations and these media sites,
Speaker 1: they're no longer. They don't care about gay people. They
Speaker 1: are not. That's not what they're about anymore. They are
Speaker 1: just another propaganda wing of the Democrat Party and increasingly
Speaker 1: of the far left of the sort of neomarxists in
Speaker 1: academia and in Hollywood and in the media. So that's
Speaker 1: that their goal anymore. They don't have anything after gay marriage, especially,
Speaker 1: they were left with nothing else to fight for, you know,
Speaker 1: civil rights were achieved, and instead they've taken on these
Speaker 1: other issues that go well beyond what they're stated purposes.
Speaker 1: And it's no more clear than how they treat uh
Speaker 1: these um uh President Trump's uh, the administration's initiatives to
Speaker 1: decriminalizes the President Trump also just partnered with Gilead, the
Speaker 1: pharmaceutical company which produces a drug that prevents HIV infection,
Speaker 1: to give two hundred thousand Americans who are who are
Speaker 1: vulnerable to contracting HIV free access to the drug because
Speaker 1: the drugs about a thousand dollars a month um. Total
Speaker 1: silence on the gay leap, total silence in the gay
Speaker 1: media on that. Um. So he can't win with them.
Speaker 1: But you know it doesn't matter if the advocates claiming
Speaker 1: that that he's using them as hawns. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: LGBT is four percent of the population. Um. Is he
Speaker 1: really vined for those four percent of the boats? Wouldn't
Speaker 1: he do better to pander to evangelicals? No? He Instead,
Speaker 1: he is doing something he believes in and that his ambassador,
Speaker 1: one of his one of his favorite members of the administration,
Speaker 1: also believes in. And he's sharing long with that. He
Speaker 1: did not have to say that in that say that
Speaker 1: in the speech today, and he did. Yeah. And it
Speaker 1: also brings up how the left, the left doesn't know
Speaker 1: how to how to balance its wokeness with predominantly non
Speaker 1: white Muslim countries that are truly and viciously, as a
Speaker 1: matter of law, bigoted against the LGBT community. The Left
Speaker 1: hasn't figured out how to how to make sense of
Speaker 1: that one quite yet. But Chadwick, we got. We gotta
Speaker 1: leave it there for right now. My friend, you guys
Speaker 1: are gonna have Chadwick in for me sometime next month,
Speaker 1: exciting things. She'll be hearing him here in the Freedom
Speaker 1: und He's going to be taking the taking the helm
Speaker 1: for a day. Chadwick More. Everybody at the spectator, Thank
Speaker 1: you so much, sir. We'll talk to you soon. All right,
Speaker 1: thank you very much. The team, we'll be right back.
Speaker 1: We had another special guest in the lineup today. Team.
Speaker 1: We have Steve More with us now. He is a
Speaker 1: senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, formerly an economic advisor
Speaker 1: to President Trump. He's going to talk to us about
Speaker 1: some mineral issues that are national security and economic concerns. Steve.
Speaker 1: Great to have you back on the program. Yeah, thanks
Speaker 1: for having me again. By the way, this is a
Speaker 1: huge issue because you know, there is no country in
Speaker 1: the world that has more minerals and more metals and
Speaker 1: have greater mining capacity in the United States, says, and
Speaker 1: we're sitting atop trillions of dollars of these resources. And
Speaker 1: the scandal is that we are not developing our own resources,
Speaker 1: have become totally dependent on foreigners, just like we became
Speaker 1: dependent on foreigners for oil in the nineteen seventies and
Speaker 1: and it wrecked our economy. So I'm very worried about
Speaker 1: this and appreciate that you have beyond to talk about. Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, but tell me you're concerned about it. I
Speaker 1: think a lot of people don't even realize that there's
Speaker 1: any blocks or hurdles in place to mineral mining that
Speaker 1: you're speaking of. What's going on in this country. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, let's take an example, you know that
Speaker 1: I wrote about this week, which is uranium. You know,
Speaker 1: now people are like, what do we need uranium for? Well,
Speaker 1: you need it for your nuclear power plants. You need
Speaker 1: it for nuclear energy, and you need it for the military,
Speaker 1: needs it for our nuclear capability. And guess what, we
Speaker 1: don't produce it anymore in the United States. Now we
Speaker 1: get some of it from Canada, but now we're getting
Speaker 1: most of our You're not going to believe this we're
Speaker 1: getting most of our uranium that we need for our
Speaker 1: weapons systems from from Russia, China, Kazakhstan and countries like that.
Speaker 1: That doesn't seem like a good idea at all. So
Speaker 1: who's blocking this? I would say, not such a good idea.
Speaker 1: You have to be dependent on, you know, onfrontly nations.
Speaker 1: And so this is a crisis and we need we
Speaker 1: need to remove some of the barriers. And by the way,
Speaker 1: people are wondering how did this happen, because you know,
Speaker 1: we've been doing copper mining, coal mining, goal mining, the
Speaker 1: uranian mining for decades and decades in this country out
Speaker 1: west and states from Colorado to California to Montana to
Speaker 1: Utah and Wyoming. And it's brought to help mostly because
Speaker 1: these environmental rules and environmentalists and basically shut down our
Speaker 1: mining capacity. And most of these minerals, by the way,
Speaker 1: are underneath federal lands. So I estimate we could raise
Speaker 1: several trillion dollars of royalties, you know, to help pay
Speaker 1: down our national debt if we if we got the
Speaker 1: mining capacity back up. And so it's a win win
Speaker 1: for the economy, for these private workers, for the mining
Speaker 1: workers and to and for our national security. But Steven,
Speaker 1: I mean, first of all, uranium obviously gets a lot
Speaker 1: of attention because of uranium one. But is there any
Speaker 1: eat is there? Right? This is an example of really
Speaker 1: what you're talking about, which is, you know, the Russians
Speaker 1: buying into a company that has an outsized role and
Speaker 1: uranium production at the US is dependent on But who
Speaker 1: does anyone really is this an environmentalist issue? I mean,
Speaker 1: who's saying let's not get our stuff from our own soil.
Speaker 1: If we're sitting at top it, it seems like a
Speaker 1: good idea to get after it. Well, So what the
Speaker 1: story here with respect of most of our mining capacity
Speaker 1: has been to the environmentalists have just made it almost
Speaker 1: impossible to open up new mines in the United States.
Speaker 1: And by the way, most of these other countries that
Speaker 1: we do get minerals from, including these Asian countries, they
Speaker 1: don't have any environmental standards at all. So it's worse
Speaker 1: for the environment to be getting them from you know,
Speaker 1: China and countries like that then producing it here at home.
Speaker 1: But with respect to uranium, what's happening is the Russians
Speaker 1: are just dumping this stuff on the market in order
Speaker 1: to put our uranium producers out of business, shut down
Speaker 1: our mind, so we're totally dependent. Um, you know, this
Speaker 1: is the old Soviet Union we're talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's it is I think you used
Speaker 1: it insane. It is insane. I mean, it doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense. And now Donald Trump has to, my opinion,
Speaker 1: issue an executive order to you know, reinstate our mining
Speaker 1: capabilities in the United States so we can be you know,
Speaker 1: what are the most resource rich world country in the world,
Speaker 1: and think about all the jobs that we could be
Speaker 1: painting with these mining operations that have been shut down.
Speaker 1: So it's it's important. I'm so glad you're covering because
Speaker 1: it's important issue for our economy and for our national security.
Speaker 1: Stephen can't let you go without asking you, with people
Speaker 1: listening across the country, how do you think the economy
Speaker 1: is going to shake out in the last year of
Speaker 1: Trump's first term? Here? What are your what are the
Speaker 1: man a growth thoughts that you can give us on China, trade,
Speaker 1: the market, and just how things are going to go. Well,
Speaker 1: first of all, we got the best economy we've got,
Speaker 1: you know, in any decades. And if you're a worker,
Speaker 1: you know this is the best decade and you're in
Speaker 1: my lifetime and in fifty years at the lowest unemployment rate,
Speaker 1: the rising wages, We've got the lowest Black unemployment and
Speaker 1: Hispanic unemployment rate. We've got you know, lowest interest rates,
Speaker 1: lower inflation rate, the seven million surplus jobs. So this
Speaker 1: is a blockbuster economy, and liberals are twisted into a
Speaker 1: pressl to figure out how to explain why Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has created this great economy. Now, the thing that worries
Speaker 1: me is this China trade dispute. I want to see,
Speaker 1: like how US support Trump on this because I think
Speaker 1: we're in an abusive relationship with China. But I'm sure
Speaker 1: we'd love to see China make some concessions here. Let's
Speaker 1: get let's get this thing done, because when that happens,
Speaker 1: you know we're going to have the best economy ever
Speaker 1: in twenty and twenty. But you know, the balls in
Speaker 1: basing squared on that one. What's it going to take
Speaker 1: for China to finally bend on this? Well, there are
Speaker 1: economy is getting creamed. These these you know, terrorists are
Speaker 1: killing the Chinese account. But they may have their first
Speaker 1: recession in thirty five years. We just have to keep
Speaker 1: the pressure on. You know, you know the problem these
Speaker 1: Chinese dictators, they don't face the voters like Donald Trump
Speaker 1: has to face the voters. So you know, we're worried
Speaker 1: that they're just gonna try to wait him out. Because
Speaker 1: you know this, and I know it, and everybody listened
Speaker 1: to the show knows the Chinese with much of that
Speaker 1: of Joe Biden as president than Donald Trump. I think
Speaker 1: that's true. Stephen Moore, everybody senior felt the Heritage Foundation. Stephen,
Speaker 1: good luck to you. Thank you as always for joining us,
Speaker 1: and we will talk to you soon. Thank you for
Speaker 1: take care. Yeah, you know I've said it before the change.
Speaker 1: If you look back at what libs were saying ten
Speaker 1: or fifteen years ago about fracking and energy in this country,
Speaker 1: thank god we didn't listen to them. America has, despite
Speaker 1: all efforts by the left, turned into an energy superpower.
Speaker 1: Maybe we should embrace being a rare earths and minerals
Speaker 1: superpower as well. I'm just putting it out there. I
Speaker 1: think that might be something that we could we could
Speaker 1: get going. Stephens certainly think so. The future does not
Speaker 1: belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future
Speaker 1: belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens,
Speaker 1: respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each
Speaker 1: country special. Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders,
Speaker 1: causing them to ignore their own national interests. But as
Speaker 1: far as America is concerned, those days are over. The globalists,
Speaker 1: the globalist the humanati to build the burghs, google it,
Speaker 1: they're out there. I'm just kidding. We're talking real globalists now,
Speaker 1: not the conspiracy theory based globalists. I mean, I guess
Speaker 1: you can use the term and be in either camp,
Speaker 1: but I'm talking about the real globalists in the United Nations,
Speaker 1: International Monetary fund, elite media. I mean, all you have
Speaker 1: to know about CNN, for example, is you know, when
Speaker 1: you're sitting in a hotel room in Beijing, as I
Speaker 1: was not long ago, and CNN pops up, you realize,
Speaker 1: oh wow, they really do think of themselves as citizens
Speaker 1: of the world. CNN the citizens of the world network.
Speaker 1: They're not I mean, they're not about patriotism. They're not
Speaker 1: about America's better than other countries in certain ways. That's
Speaker 1: not something I really want to discuss. That's not something
Speaker 1: that they factor into their worldview, and in fact, what
Speaker 1: I saw was a lot of down talking America, a
Speaker 1: lot of putting America down, a lot of saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, America is maybe not such a great place
Speaker 1: after all, especially in the era of Trump. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like we've been it's like we've been hijacked by
Speaker 1: this guy, President Trump. This country is no longer the
Speaker 1: great shining city on a hill at once was. But
Speaker 1: we know that's all nonsense. I like that President Trump
Speaker 1: was willing to go in the United Nations and speak
Speaker 1: on this matter because it is very important. It's easy
Speaker 1: to forget that President Trump came into office at a
Speaker 1: time when there was a trend back toward a nation
Speaker 1: States government thinking about that nation state before it considered
Speaker 1: international opinion or the global consensus, as I'm quite fond
Speaker 1: of pointing out, because you will hear pundits go on TV.
Speaker 1: You'll hear people that will refer to international opinion says,
Speaker 1: what does that mean? Are we just looking at a
Speaker 1: number of developed world governments or all governments? It seems
Speaker 1: a bit exclusionary, doesn't it to just look at the
Speaker 1: developed world and their governments and take their opinions into account.
Speaker 1: You know, should we listen to oh, I don't know
Speaker 1: the Philippines quite the same way that we listen to
Speaker 1: the UK. And are we allowed to have some countries
Speaker 1: that matter more to us in terms of our opinions
Speaker 1: about policy than others, or do we just treat every
Speaker 1: country like it's more or less the same? This is
Speaker 1: a fantasy, I mean, you know the answer to this.
Speaker 1: Of course, every administration is going to have some countries
Speaker 1: that matter more than others, and there will be times
Speaker 1: when we have to or we should. I mean to say,
Speaker 1: when our own government puts the interests of our citizens
Speaker 1: ahead of citizens from other countries. It's not always win
Speaker 1: win for everybody. Trump understands that very basic calculation, and
Speaker 1: I would offer to you that that's true of most
Speaker 1: of the other countries of the world. The only exceptions
Speaker 1: are some EU countries, but that's changing. Obviously, there's been
Speaker 1: a shift. I think, you know, they created a monetary
Speaker 1: union without really creating a fully formed political union, which
Speaker 1: is why you have all this tumult all of this,
Speaker 1: all this concern about Brexit. What's going to come after this?
Speaker 1: There has been a resurgence of debate around the term
Speaker 1: nationalism itself. You know, you can use the term patriotism,
Speaker 1: but I think it has been so broadly, it's so
Speaker 1: broadly applied, right, it's just, oh yeah, patriotism is is
Speaker 1: the fourth of July barbecuing a stake, waving an American flag? Okay, yes, sure,
Speaker 1: But isn't patriotism also saying the United States is going
Speaker 1: to have to stand up to Chinese trade aggression and
Speaker 1: unfair practices and theft, even if that hurts the Chinese
Speaker 1: economy and therefore the Chinese people. Isn't that something that
Speaker 1: we need to accept. Shouldn't our government take the position
Speaker 1: that its first obligation is to us, you know, and
Speaker 1: if you come from a perspective that I do. And
Speaker 1: I'm sure pretty much all of you listening, except for
Speaker 1: perhaps the few media matters lunatics who are just waiting
Speaker 1: for me to say one bad thing. Oh that's Sexton guy.
Speaker 1: He's going to slip up one day. Oh, And to
Speaker 1: media matters, I just want to want to say preemptively,
Speaker 1: my audience knows who I am, and they know this show,
Speaker 1: and they know what I stand for. So you can
Speaker 1: wait and wait and eventually pounce. But it's going to
Speaker 1: take a whole heck of a lot to get the
Speaker 1: buckster to be quiet. But on the globalist point, there's
Speaker 1: a real trend there has been for a long time
Speaker 1: of our especially among the Democratic Party, but it's true
Speaker 1: of a lot of Republicans too, our interests being put
Speaker 1: into this that of all these different global international considerations. Right.
Speaker 1: You hear about people discussing UN resolutions as though they're
Speaker 1: binding on us UN resolutions, as though we're supposed to
Speaker 1: really care, especially when we don't even sign them or
Speaker 1: tell them straight up, sorry, not a part of that.
Speaker 1: The International Criminal Court another situation. We're not a signatory
Speaker 1: to it, right, because we're not going to allow for
Speaker 1: the governments of the rest of the world to tell
Speaker 1: us that some general or you know, it's not a
Speaker 1: far stretch. I think member of our administration who has
Speaker 1: to conduct a war to defend our interests, to defend
Speaker 1: this country is a war criminal. Sorry, we'll handle that
Speaker 1: one ourselves. But this is a break you see from
Speaker 1: elite consensus opinion, and that's one of the reasons that
Speaker 1: they hate Trump so much. You have to remember it
Speaker 1: is not really Trump's policies that get libs the most agitated.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's certainly there's some of that. But as
Speaker 1: we were discussing with my friend Chadwick Moore before, if
Speaker 1: it were policy based, when Trump did things that they like,
Speaker 1: wouldn't it then be the case that they would say, well,
Speaker 1: at least he's doing the right thing. No, they hate
Speaker 1: everything he does. Right, everything Trump does is literally worse
Speaker 1: than Hitler. Right. What doesn't matter what it is, and
Speaker 1: that's because Trump also represents to them a repudiation his
Speaker 1: mere existence as president and the ideas that he espouses,
Speaker 1: whether he's picked them up from other people or not,
Speaker 1: whether they're new for him or not, doesn't matter. What
Speaker 1: he stands for is a different approach between America and
Speaker 1: the rest of the world. Now, I think it's the
Speaker 1: right approach, but it is a break from, for example,
Speaker 1: what you would have with establishment Republicans stretching back to
Speaker 1: multiple Bush administrations, and you would have to look at
Speaker 1: the way and then once you start taking a far enough,
Speaker 1: far enough view, a long enough lens. Yeah, Well, the
Speaker 1: world has also changed a lot. We've seen We've learned
Speaker 1: a lot in the last thirty years about how America.
Speaker 1: I'd like to think we've learned a lot about how
Speaker 1: America interacts with our trading partners on national security concerns,
Speaker 1: who's an ally, who's a friend, who's a foe. So
Speaker 1: there should be a constant updating of this with only
Speaker 1: certain core principles put in place. But Trump changes the
Speaker 1: core principles. And this is what really upsets them so much.
Speaker 1: He's not just making different decisions. It's not just policy,
Speaker 1: it's no no a at a very foundational level. As
Speaker 1: president of the United States, Trump will look at what's
Speaker 1: going on and say, this is better for the American
Speaker 1: people than it is for some other country or some
Speaker 1: other group outside of our borders, and therefore it is
Speaker 1: my obligation to pursue this irrespective of what other governments
Speaker 1: may want or think. That is a major break from
Speaker 1: what had been an elite consensus for a long time.
Speaker 1: And people don't like to think that one they're ever wrong,
Speaker 1: and they certainly don't like to think that they're not
Speaker 1: going to get their way again in the future. So
Speaker 1: the ideas on the world stage that Trump represents and
Speaker 1: that he is articulating at the United Agents, and I'm
Speaker 1: not gonna lie the speech today was boring. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was a pretty boring speech. I'm just telling you
Speaker 1: the truth it was. I think the Trump does that
Speaker 1: because he's like, all right, I'm at the un I'm
Speaker 1: going to say my piece, and that's that. You know.
Speaker 1: I think that's it. I believe that Trump really does,
Speaker 1: you know, He's like, all right, you know, we gotta
Speaker 1: do this thing. But there were some areas where he
Speaker 1: made you know, he made some worthwhile comments that elucidate
Speaker 1: that illuminates some of his thinking about well, not just
Speaker 1: on the world stage, but also the way that he
Speaker 1: approaches all matters as president, and all of it is
Speaker 1: of course a grave insult. Liberals consider all of this
Speaker 1: to be a grave insult. It upsets them to their
Speaker 1: core because ultimately, if you're a true collectivist and now
Speaker 1: I know, I'm digging into the philosophy here maybe a
Speaker 1: little maybe a little more than one showed on a
Speaker 1: syndicated radio show. But I feel like, you guys are
Speaker 1: cool that I could just sit here and be like,
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, the country is destroyed and we're all
Speaker 1: on fire, and you know, there's other there's other shows
Speaker 1: you can listen to for that. Hopefully you won't because
Speaker 1: the show is way better. But when you look at
Speaker 1: the underlying philosophy here of the left. Why are they globalists? Well,
Speaker 1: they're globalist because there are collectivists. And what could be
Speaker 1: the more, the more ultimate collective than a one world government.
Speaker 1: You know, the United Nations, the League of Nations. Go
Speaker 1: back to Woodrow Wilson. Look at how they've tried to
Speaker 1: create a system of interlocking regimes and status quo all
Speaker 1: around the world that will become over time one not
Speaker 1: that places will have their sovereignty and we can communicate
Speaker 1: and be allies and have a more prosperous and just
Speaker 1: and happy world. We all want that. No, No, this
Speaker 1: is different. This is one rule for all, one regime
Speaker 1: that is effectively a super government. If you are a collectivist,
Speaker 1: if you believe here at home in America, and I
Speaker 1: know you're not, But if one were a collectivist and
Speaker 1: believed that the government should achieve whatever power it requires
Speaker 1: to do anything that it believes it should do. Well,
Speaker 1: if you think that here at home, where it affects
Speaker 1: your fellows, shouldn't you think that for the whole world.
Speaker 1: If one is so certain here in America that taking
Speaker 1: the power that the collectivist that the socialists left in
Speaker 1: America wants for itself if they're sure that that is righteous,
Speaker 1: that that's the right thing to do in America, which clearly,
Speaker 1: given the trends of the Democratic Party is the case,
Speaker 1: then wouldn't they want to expand that to the whole
Speaker 1: world as rapidly as possible they're so certain of the
Speaker 1: of the You know, there's there's a few defining characteristics
Speaker 1: of liberalism today. I always say hypocrisy is one. Another
Speaker 1: one is certainty, certainty on issues where they would be
Speaker 1: much better served by tremendous humility. But humility requires introspection,
Speaker 1: and introspectrum requires honesty, and that is certainly in short
Speaker 1: supply in the Democratic Party. A collectivist in a village,
Speaker 1: in a town, is a collectivist in a city, is
Speaker 1: a collectivist in a country, as a collectivist at the
Speaker 1: United Nations, for the entire world, Trump is a threat
Speaker 1: to those layers of government control, and they hate him
Speaker 1: for that. They don't even get into the specifics of
Speaker 1: what he says. He's back with you now, because when
Speaker 1: it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.
Speaker 1: It's happening. I've been telling you for a while that
Speaker 1: Biden's not going to be the nominee, and every Democrat
Speaker 1: I say that too, looks me like, no, don't say
Speaker 1: that Biden would trounce Trump. They don't use alliteration like that.
Speaker 1: Let's be honest. They're like, yeah, he beat him. I'm like,
Speaker 1: all right, democrat whatever, it's the imaginary democrat I'm talking to. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he'd take what did what did Biden say? I'd beat
Speaker 1: him like a drum That's like, you know, I could
Speaker 1: just picture Biden, you know, chasing after chasing some kids
Speaker 1: off his law and wearing you know, a really a
Speaker 1: really tattered robe, you know, waving a newspaper. You know,
Speaker 1: you kids come back here. I'll lamb based you. Is
Speaker 1: it lambossed or lamb based number two? Right? Lamb based? Right? Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: is it lamboss tera? No, it's lamb based, I believe
Speaker 1: is the say the problem when you learn words by
Speaker 1: reading them, but sometimes you don't realize until you say
Speaker 1: it out loud on a national radio show that you're
Speaker 1: not sure you're saying it the right way. Um. So
Speaker 1: we've had we've had a few of those here Brandon
Speaker 1: on the show. Although it's just more just more evidence
Speaker 1: that I used to use those word flash cards a
Speaker 1: lot back in the day, so so Biden said he'll
Speaker 1: beat Trump like a drum, which that's fighting, fighting Joe
Speaker 1: Biden as opposed to sleepy Joe Biden. But Elizabeth Warren,
Speaker 1: who really is like the terminator in that it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter how embarrassed she should be, or what has happened
Speaker 1: to or anything else. She just decides that she's gonna
Speaker 1: keep on going. You just you cannot what's I wish?
Speaker 1: I can't remember at the top of I have, but
Speaker 1: it's Kyle Reese and Termator one. You know, it does
Speaker 1: not feel paid or remorse, and it absolutely will not
Speaker 1: stop until she is president. It's kind of like that.
Speaker 1: It's a little bit like Termator one, except it's Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: And you know, I could probably make some jokes here
Speaker 1: about you know, her being a fake Cherokee and all that,
Speaker 1: but you gotta be careful that you can do those
Speaker 1: in real time. You know, Oh, they're still still lines
Speaker 1: you can cross. And Media Matters is out there somewhere
Speaker 1: the worst and I know a lot of you like,
Speaker 1: what does media Matters? Imagine an organization that claims that
Speaker 1: it's a nonprofit education or an education group, and all
Speaker 1: it does is pay people to try and find ways
Speaker 1: to even not even just catch conservatives saying something that
Speaker 1: they didn't mean too or that was dumb. Sometimes we
Speaker 1: say dumb things. Everyone sometimes says dumb things, but that
Speaker 1: they'll even twist it. And then their whole purpose in
Speaker 1: life is to make as much noise about it as possible,
Speaker 1: to try to get people fired. That's all they do.
Speaker 1: That's their job. Every day. I would not be able
Speaker 1: to sleep at night. I would rather do any minimum
Speaker 1: wage job in the country, and I mean that any
Speaker 1: minimum wage job, because it would be honorable. Media manners
Speaker 1: is not honorable. Sorry, they've been going after people, including yours,
Speaker 1: truly for the whole gret Gret Greta tun Tunberg and
Speaker 1: might say, I feel like I'm trying too hard to
Speaker 1: say it the Swedish way. Maybe it's just a Thunberg.
Speaker 1: A Thunberg get over here, you know, But Greta Tronberg,
Speaker 1: I like this. I got to work on my Swedish accent.
Speaker 1: It's not particularly good, um, except for I I want to
Speaker 1: do the Swedish chef, which some of you like and
Speaker 1: some of you you know, producer brand and I will
Speaker 1: tell you that there are you know, there's some things
Speaker 1: where the audience is very split. Right, there are some
Speaker 1: things they really like and there there are others where
Speaker 1: it's pretty clear, um, Swedish chef is like is like
Speaker 1: a fifty fifty proposition. They're not for Rugert Ugert or
Speaker 1: you know, they're like, no, no no, something like the Swedish chef.
Speaker 1: They think my version of the Swedish chef is not
Speaker 1: not prime timeworthy. I feel like it all sounds the same.
Speaker 1: Thank you, exactly. That's an impression you really can mess
Speaker 1: up exactly Spurg you know. Anyway, So all right, back
Speaker 1: to Warren. Who's who's I think? Can we just say
Speaker 1: the Warren impression is going to become the Hillary impression,
Speaker 1: So I'll give it to her. Hello, she's back, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, Warren and Hillary, there's a lot of and
Speaker 1: people don't don't tell me, oh, you're just saying that
Speaker 1: because no, no, there there really are some similar you know,
Speaker 1: both white women of the same age with similar hair,
Speaker 1: and you know, there's there's some similarities there. You know.
Speaker 1: It's like when when a random cab driver thinks that
Speaker 1: I'm Tucker Carlson, I'm like, yes, indeed, I can see
Speaker 1: the similarity there. Although I have facial hair now a
Speaker 1: little bit, A little bit, all right. So Warren is
Speaker 1: edging out Biden in the latest New Hampshire poll and
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders is way down in the latest New Hampshire poll.
Speaker 1: Which is looking at this and trying to do a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of reading that tea leaves. I
Speaker 1: try not to spend that much of our time on
Speaker 1: the speculation. I feel like the news these days, a
Speaker 1: lot of shows. It's one thing to analyze, it's another
Speaker 1: thing to just speculated, well, this goold. I'm not saying predictions,
Speaker 1: which I tend to do on very small doses, and
Speaker 1: my predictions tend to be right. I'm just saying, but
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that. You know, you can never get
Speaker 1: into bit of speculation. Sometimes you're forced to write, like
Speaker 1: the Democrats tomorrow, here's some speculation for you. The Democrats tomorrow,
Speaker 1: regardless of what is in the transcript, will claim that
Speaker 1: it's terrible and now Trump really needs to be impeached.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter what it says, even if anyone reading it
Speaker 1: would say, yeah, this seems pretty normal, actually, or this
Speaker 1: seems not that bad. I'm telling you, I think it's
Speaker 1: going to be a Yeah, it's not that bad. It's
Speaker 1: not gonna be great, but it's not that bad. That's
Speaker 1: what I think. And Democrats are gonna say, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: he's Benedict Arnold plus Hitler. That's that would be a bad,
Speaker 1: bad dude, you know. And Arnold, that guy rolled the dice,
Speaker 1: came up snake eyes. Not good, not good. He could
Speaker 1: have been he could have been a hero for the Brits.
Speaker 1: We'd be living in uh you know, the Benedict Arnold,
Speaker 1: Sure Shire, you know what I mean. You know they
Speaker 1: would have no But he messed up. Wrong side a man,
Speaker 1: wrong side wrong tell you would be on the wrong
Speaker 1: side of history. That guy, other than Judas, the most
Speaker 1: infamous traitor in all history. I think people would say brutus,
Speaker 1: But I say, no, Brutus thought that he was a
Speaker 1: patriot at a time when that was a very complicated matter.
Speaker 1: At two brute Brutus. Okay, So Warren, how do we
Speaker 1: get into ancient Rome? Who knows, it's one of those days.
Speaker 1: I'm taking some cold meds. We're just gonna have to
Speaker 1: roll with it. Warren is at twenty seven percent among
Speaker 1: likely Democratic presidential primary voters in the state of New Hampshire. Okay,
Speaker 1: so she's doing very well. Biden's at twenty five percent,
Speaker 1: Warren's two point edges well within the sampling arrow. Okay,
Speaker 1: so they're neck and neck. Here's a question I have
Speaker 1: for you. What is the what is the pitch for
Speaker 1: one over the other? These days when the Democrats line up,
Speaker 1: it feels like it's really just a contest for individual
Speaker 1: affinity for a politician. I can't even really tell you. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we know that Warren and Bernie are left of Biden,
Speaker 1: but Biden's chasing their positions as fast as he can.
Speaker 1: Biden was saying, yeah, if you're if you're if you're
Speaker 1: in prison and you think you're you know, you think
Speaker 1: you're a transgender, you know you'll be in that. You know.
Speaker 1: He's trying to do the whole woke thing. Who has
Speaker 1: better ideas? And I really mean, just swim in the
Speaker 1: in the in the sewage here with me for a moment. Okay,
Speaker 1: think about Democrat ideas. Let's just let's just do this.
Speaker 1: Who is a Who is a better play for the
Speaker 1: Democrats on the economy. Who's the best play for Democrats
Speaker 1: in the economy. I'm not even sure they know, first
Speaker 1: of all, it's largely similar stuff, right, It's they don't
Speaker 1: disagree all that much. But one problem they're going to
Speaker 1: have is that they love to do the class warfare angle.
Speaker 1: You know this, Democrats are obsessed with pushing class warfare.
Speaker 1: This is really central to their sense of you know,
Speaker 1: why the Democratic Party exists, Oh, to soak the rich
Speaker 1: and tano power to the people, all that stuff. All right,
Speaker 1: So what's the pitch? What are they going to do
Speaker 1: for the people? Now? You've got you know, every what
Speaker 1: we had Steve Moore on before, and he's just saying
Speaker 1: what we already know. The economy is, this is the
Speaker 1: best economy that we've had in this country since at
Speaker 1: least the nineties, and a lot of you would say
Speaker 1: it's a lot better than the nineties, depending on which
Speaker 1: metrics you look at. So you could very easily argue
Speaker 1: it's the best economy in my adult lifetime. So what
Speaker 1: are Democrats going to say about it? How can they differentiate?
Speaker 1: Because anyone can sit around and be like, oh, the
Speaker 1: rich will pay for everything. Okay, they all say that
Speaker 1: it's not true. Well, here's here's some versions of it
Speaker 1: we've gotten from a mayor Pete was in Iowa. I
Speaker 1: will tell you I am I am disappointed. Even from
Speaker 1: the other side of the aisle, I am disappointed in
Speaker 1: Mayor Pete. You know, I've been out to Fort Wayne,
Speaker 1: Indiana twice in the last two years. What's up? Whoa, whoa.
Speaker 1: I've come out there to visit the folks love Fort Wayne, Indiana,
Speaker 1: a wonderful people, wonderful place. And I was told both
Speaker 1: times watch out for that Mayor Pete guy. And I said,
Speaker 1: mayor who. I was like, who's Mayor Pete? Oh, the
Speaker 1: mayor of South Bend, Indiana. I was told two years
Speaker 1: ago he was going to run for president. And I
Speaker 1: was like, come on, the mayor of no no, no offense,
Speaker 1: South Bend. But I mean, you're not four Wayne, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean come on. So I was like, who is
Speaker 1: this guy? And then I saw his resume. I figured
Speaker 1: this has to be a person who is is real.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe he's a liberal, but he's a reasonable liberal.
Speaker 1: You know. He's Who's the guy that I can't even
Speaker 1: remember his name? Now, that's how much of an impression
Speaker 1: he made. The congressman from Maryland who was a self
Speaker 1: made millionaire. You know, he's I'm sorry, guys, I'm blanking
Speaker 1: on his name, which is crazy because I've talked about
Speaker 1: him many times on the show. But you know, he's
Speaker 1: wrong on some stuff, but he's not wrong on everything.
Speaker 1: And I thought may Or Pete would be a little
Speaker 1: bit more like that, and I was wrong. May Or
Speaker 1: Pete loves to lecture everybody on how the Bible supports
Speaker 1: the party of you know, infanticide. Okay, so start with that. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think may Or Peatch should be a little more
Speaker 1: cautious about the Pope Pete routine. But even on the economy,
Speaker 1: on healthcare, I think that he falls into that very
Speaker 1: unseemly category of politician who's smarter, who knows better, but
Speaker 1: just will say what he has to say because that's
Speaker 1: what he's been told he has to say. Here he
Speaker 1: is talking about the economy right now, and I meet
Speaker 1: so many folks who have talked about the ways in
Speaker 1: which are political and that can systems have led them down.
Speaker 1: We see it in the fact that the Dow Jones
Speaker 1: is going up and our life expectancies are getting shorter
Speaker 1: at the same time. It shouldn't be possible. I mean,
Speaker 1: the life expectancy getting shorter is generally a result of
Speaker 1: two things. One is lifestyle diseases, Okay, which is the
Speaker 1: number one the number one killer really out there to
Speaker 1: look at heart disease, diabetes and some cancers that are
Speaker 1: related to not always but related to lifestyle smoking specifically,
Speaker 1: and the opioid crisis. Those aren't really economic matters, though,
Speaker 1: so it seems strange he would go in that direction.
Speaker 1: But here's the problem the Democrats have. What is their
Speaker 1: pitch on the economy, What exactly are they gonna do better?
Speaker 1: They go back and forth. A year ago was oh,
Speaker 1: but it's the Obama economy. Nope, Obama's not president anymore.
Speaker 1: We have we've gone way past that. And no serious
Speaker 1: person thinks that if we were in a recession, which
Speaker 1: Democrats promised we would be in because Trump is president,
Speaker 1: nobody really thinks that they wouldn't the same Democrats wouldn't
Speaker 1: be saying, oh, look what Trump has done to the economy.
Speaker 1: He's destroyed it. So it's just disingenuous. But I will say,
Speaker 1: at least Mayor Pete tried something of an answer on
Speaker 1: this one. He's trying to differentiate himself from the other
Speaker 1: Democratic candidates. He here's the answer you get when you
Speaker 1: ask a question of Joe Biden. Well, in Iowa, the
Speaker 1: unemployment rate is two and a half percent. People say
Speaker 1: they are employed in Iowa and their small businesses are
Speaker 1: growing before they're employed. Before he got elected, the president
Speaker 1: won by ten percentage points. And I'm not suggested he
Speaker 1: didn't win by ten percent points. Well, I'm suggesting is
Speaker 1: he's not the reason for that employment rate being down.
Speaker 1: But why shouldn't people want to make a change though, Well,
Speaker 1: that's up to the end of decide. Why should they?
Speaker 1: From them to the sign will make your case, I'm
Speaker 1: not going to. Yeah, that's some really compelling stuff there.
Speaker 1: I'm not going to. Now. You could say that that's
Speaker 1: just another one of Biden's many weak moments. He's had
Speaker 1: many weak moments in the campaign trail. But I do
Speaker 1: think that there's a sneaking thought, a sneaking suspicion that
Speaker 1: Biden has that maybe he realizes that it's I think
Speaker 1: he has started to realize it's not going to be him,
Speaker 1: and that he doesn't even really want the job. You know,
Speaker 1: they used to say this about Trump all the time,
Speaker 1: and now that he's been president for fe years, I
Speaker 1: think Trump loves being president. I think he's really into
Speaker 1: it from what I can see. I don't know if
Speaker 1: Malania likes that she's now the first Lady or not.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't pretend to know, but I think Trump likes
Speaker 1: being president. I'm not sure that Biden even thinks that
Speaker 1: he's really up for this. And I think that if
Speaker 1: you give, if you have a moment, and this is
Speaker 1: what I'm beginning to see with Warren in New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: where all of a sudden he's fought the good fight,
Speaker 1: but it's clear that there's another option, there's an alternative
Speaker 1: to him. I think he would pass the baton. As
Speaker 1: much as he's an egomaniac, which really everybody in politics
Speaker 1: at that level has to be, I get it, but
Speaker 1: I think that if there was a moment where all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, it's going to be Warren, he would
Speaker 1: breathe a huge sigh of relief. He doesn't really want this,
Speaker 1: doesn't really want his family to be dragged into this
Speaker 1: whole thing, you know, Hunter Biden. That's just the beginning
Speaker 1: of what they're going to talk about with Hunter Biden,
Speaker 1: this whole thing in Ukraine. They're also gonna bring China
Speaker 1: into it. I just I don't know's it has been.
Speaker 1: It has been a shock to me that he has defied,
Speaker 1: defied all of my claims to this point that oh,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna be Biden. I'm like, how does this
Speaker 1: guy holding on to the I think the moment that
Speaker 1: he gets an opening to not be the front runner,
Speaker 1: he'll just fade away. And that's what I think is
Speaker 1: going to happen here. But because this moment where he's asked,
Speaker 1: he's being asked by somebody, an Iowa reporter, what's what's
Speaker 1: the case you make? He doesn't even know it. He
Speaker 1: doesn't even want to make the case. What is that?
Speaker 1: Is he tired? You need a nap? We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: I am focused on getting the Inspector General of the
Speaker 1: Intelligence Community to provide Congress with the whistleblower complaint as
Speaker 1: required by law. Let me repeat that, as required by law. Ah,
Speaker 1: I see what's going on here. You have the Senate
Speaker 1: passing this a unanimous resolution to hand the whistleblower complaint
Speaker 1: to the Intel committees. Right, but that the Democrat narrative.
Speaker 1: You can see it forming. You know, it's almost like
Speaker 1: watching water freeze into ice. You just you see it happening.
Speaker 1: That's about as exciting. They are going to say that
Speaker 1: the trend script is not enough. Keep in mind what
Speaker 1: that means the Democrat position will be as of tomorrow.
Speaker 1: And I'm putting on my little nostre damas cap here.
Speaker 1: This is what's going to happen. Trump will release the transcript.
Speaker 1: It will not be nearly as damning as Democrats pretended
Speaker 1: that it was. And then they'll say, ah, but we
Speaker 1: need the whistleblower complaint. Here's the problem. The whistleblower is
Speaker 1: basing his complaint on a transcript or on a call
Speaker 1: that he neither heard nor read the transcript of, So
Speaker 1: he's basing it on what someone told him. But then
Speaker 1: they're going to elevate an obvious anti Trump deep state
Speaker 1: loon into being the second coming of George Washington because
Speaker 1: he's now a hero of the resistance for his or
Speaker 1: her whistleblower complaint. And I think about the mentality here.
Speaker 1: You hear about something that someone says the president said
Speaker 1: on a phone call, and then you decide based on that,
Speaker 1: without knowing anything, you're s elf that you are going
Speaker 1: to you know, no, I'm sorry, that's not how it works.
Speaker 1: You're gonna go forward with this in that way? No, no,
Speaker 1: but that's what they're gonna say. They are going to
Speaker 1: claim that the whistleblower he needs to be heard, the
Speaker 1: whistleblower complaint needs to be heard. Huh why is that
Speaker 1: the case? What does the whistleblower know that is more
Speaker 1: than what is in the transcript? Folks? Oh, I see.
Speaker 1: They want narrative creation. They want someone who works the
Speaker 1: intelligence community to say it for them. Okay, team, we've
Speaker 1: been talking a lot about climate change. Un climate change
Speaker 1: a big topic there, obviously, young Greta Thunberg getting a
Speaker 1: lot of headlines back and forth over that. I want
Speaker 1: to bring in somebody today who comes at this from
Speaker 1: a science background. We hear so much from people who
Speaker 1: are represent venting scientists in one way or another. I
Speaker 1: thought i'd bring one on. We have Professor Roger Pielkey
Speaker 1: with us now. He is Professor Environmental Studies at the
Speaker 1: University of Colorado, Boulder. Professor Pielke, great to have you, sir,
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. So let's just start with this
Speaker 1: you said today. I mean, this is what caught my
Speaker 1: attention initially on Twitter, that you are You're a professor
Speaker 1: of environmental studies and you are blocked by a lot
Speaker 1: of major media companies, The New York Times, Vox I
Speaker 1: think you listed a few others. What's up with that, professor?
Speaker 1: What did you do to upset the vox gods. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's a good question. I've published a lot of research
Speaker 1: and academic peer review journals and been pretty outspoken about
Speaker 1: what it says. But some reporters at The New York Times,
Speaker 1: Washington Post, Vox dot com, I've decided they don't want
Speaker 1: to hear what I have to say. So wait, but
Speaker 1: what did you have to say, professor? Don't don't stand
Speaker 1: on ceremony. What were you telling them that bothered them? Yeah? Well,
Speaker 1: I mean, the science of extreme events and disasters is
Speaker 1: pretty robust, and right now hurricanes, floods, tornadoes are often
Speaker 1: at the centerpiece of the climate change debate. But the
Speaker 1: reality is, if you look at the leading scientific assessments,
Speaker 1: they are in some cases projected to increase in the future.
Speaker 1: But in the United States and the world, we have
Speaker 1: not seen an increase in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, or drought.
Speaker 1: So so I'm gonna need to drill down this for
Speaker 1: a second, because whether it's you know, Bill Maher or
Speaker 1: NBC News or CNN, you have all these people go
Speaker 1: on TV and they constantly say storms are getting stronger,
Speaker 1: extreme weather is increasing, the wets are getting wetter, the
Speaker 1: colds are getting colder, all this stuff you always hear.
Speaker 1: You are telling me that when it comes to extreme weather,
Speaker 1: that is not true. Where would one go for sourcemanshow
Speaker 1: or if if I said that, you know, I'm going
Speaker 1: to be at Politicon next month, I said that in
Speaker 1: a room full of Democrats, they would all, you know,
Speaker 1: hoot and scream and say I was crazy. Where do
Speaker 1: I go to point them? Where can I point them
Speaker 1: to where they would be able to see that it
Speaker 1: is not in fact true that extreme weather is get
Speaker 1: just extreme weather, That fat is not happening in the
Speaker 1: way that they say it is after every hurricane. Yeah,
Speaker 1: So I mean the important thing, There's two things here.
Speaker 1: One is you have to go phenomena by phenomena. So
Speaker 1: it is true that there are more heat waves, more
Speaker 1: high temperatures, there is more extreme precipitation, but not more floods.
Speaker 1: And the place to go to get the actual data
Speaker 1: is the inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, The IPCC.
Speaker 1: You can also go to the US National Climate Assessment
Speaker 1: Document and then the official data if you want to
Speaker 1: dig even deeper of our US agencies like NOAH and
Speaker 1: the National Weather Service, NASA and EPA. Within the scientific community,
Speaker 1: these statements are not particularly controversial since they are reflected
Speaker 1: in leading scientific assessments. It is, as you say, when
Speaker 1: you get to the to the media discussion and then
Speaker 1: some of the hot politics of the climate debate, where
Speaker 1: things get they depart from what the science actually says.
Speaker 1: So so, based on the science, hurricanes getting worse as
Speaker 1: a function of climate change that cannot be proven, is
Speaker 1: that fair to say, Yeah, it's fair to say. I
Speaker 1: mean in the United States. You know, we had a
Speaker 1: paper come out last year looking at land following hurricanes
Speaker 1: in the United States, and there's no trend either in
Speaker 1: all hurricanes or the most intense hurricanes from nineteen hundred
Speaker 1: till present. If you look at flooding, there's there is
Speaker 1: no conclusion that flooding has increased in the United States
Speaker 1: or the world. The same goes for drought. Tornadoes are
Speaker 1: interesting because there is an indication that since nineteen fifty,
Speaker 1: when we have good records, that there actually has been
Speaker 1: a decline in the United States and tornadoes, so fewer tornadoes,
Speaker 1: which is not a talking point you hear very often.
Speaker 1: But I guess somebody could roll that one out there.
Speaker 1: And folks, we're talking to Professor Roger Ki who's at
Speaker 1: the University of Colorado Boulder. He's an environmental studies professor.
Speaker 1: He studies the environment and Professor I also wanted you
Speaker 1: to explain to everyone listening across the country your point
Speaker 1: about see I often talk just as a layperson about
Speaker 1: how over history you can see that there is a
Speaker 1: natural process of decarbonizing in our energy sources that you know,
Speaker 1: we went from We've gone from coal to mostly get
Speaker 1: you know, gasoline gas and now natural gas, and now
Speaker 1: we're getting closer to better renewables. There's a renewed interest
Speaker 1: in nuclear there is a decarbonizing process that's happening as
Speaker 1: a function of technology. But you've cited how much we
Speaker 1: have decarbonized in recent years and then what it would
Speaker 1: require to hit the UN targets, and there's a huge gap.
Speaker 1: Could you just walk me through that. Yeah. Historically, the
Speaker 1: way the economy works, both in the United States and
Speaker 1: most countries around the world is we get better at
Speaker 1: doing things. So anyone who's of a certain age, and
Speaker 1: if you had a car in the nine seventies, nineteen eighties,
Speaker 1: even nineteen nineties, you know the cars are a lot
Speaker 1: more efficient. They run better now. When we get more efficient,
Speaker 1: that's good because that helps grow our economy and people
Speaker 1: like rising wealth. So accompanying with that is we emit
Speaker 1: less carbon dioxide. What we haven't done and what we're
Speaker 1: going to need to do in the future if we
Speaker 1: are going to hit these aggressive targets for emissions reductions,
Speaker 1: is we're going to have to change out much more
Speaker 1: rapidly how we get our energy. It's not enough just
Speaker 1: to be more efficient. We're going to have to change
Speaker 1: out coal plants, natural gas plants. We're going to have
Speaker 1: to get our cars off of petroleum. That's a huge,
Speaker 1: huge task. And we are nowhere close, really anywhere in
Speaker 1: the world to those rates of change that are implied
Speaker 1: by these aggressive targets. So, yeah, the targets that and
Speaker 1: forever and listening, I think it's fair to say, I'm professor.
Speaker 1: I don't want to characterize your work or your beliefs,
Speaker 1: but you're not somebody who I mean, I'm highly skeptical
Speaker 1: of climate change as an issue that needs massive intergovernmental
Speaker 1: action on pain of the extinction of human species, which
Speaker 1: is what we've been hearing for the last well for
Speaker 1: a long time, but certainly in the last week, you
Speaker 1: believe the climate change, if I'm correct here based on
Speaker 1: what I've read of some of your writing, is a problem.
Speaker 1: But we need to be serious about how we deal
Speaker 1: with the problem. Is that fair to say and not
Speaker 1: just make wild statements about you know, we're going to
Speaker 1: do this, We're going to be off everything in ten years.
Speaker 1: But how would you describe where you come down in
Speaker 1: this discussion? Yeah, I mean it's you're pretty accurate in
Speaker 1: my views. I mean, if we had a choice and
Speaker 1: you ask anybody, whatever their political orientation, is it better
Speaker 1: to load up the atmosphere with carbon dioxide or not?
Speaker 1: I think most everybody would say, yeah, it's probably not
Speaker 1: a good idea to do that. People can argue about
Speaker 1: the long term effects and if they're larger or small,
Speaker 1: but at you know, first principles, it would seem that
Speaker 1: if we don't have to do it, we probably shouldn't
Speaker 1: because we're we are introducing a chemical into the atmosphere
Speaker 1: at levels that we haven't seen before. So if we
Speaker 1: all can agree, well it's better not to do it
Speaker 1: than to do it, then the question becomes, well, what
Speaker 1: are our choices? How do how do we actually get
Speaker 1: to a global economy where we're not emitting carbon dioxide?
Speaker 1: And that's where the big gap is because if there
Speaker 1: was energy sources that were perfectly clean, perfectly cheap and
Speaker 1: easy to deploy, we wouldn't be having this big, broad globe.
Speaker 1: And what do you say from the perspective of somebody
Speaker 1: who was studying this as your life's work when you hear,
Speaker 1: for example, Beto O'Rourke or I think there are many
Speaker 1: politicians out there who are saying similar things. We're going
Speaker 1: to be at zero carbonage or net zero carbon emissions,
Speaker 1: I think is a specific phrase they use. By twenty
Speaker 1: fifty I mean one. I think any politician who is
Speaker 1: looking thirty years in the future is pretending to know
Speaker 1: a whole heck of a lot more than any human
Speaker 1: being ever could. But beyond that, based on the trajectory
Speaker 1: we're currently on, is that unless there are radical breakthroughs
Speaker 1: in technology, which could very well happen any time, is
Speaker 1: that realistic Net zero I mean, when China and India
Speaker 1: are the biggest contributors to CO two, we're only fifteen
Speaker 1: percent in America, how could we get to net zero
Speaker 1: global emissions? Yeah, so net zero is if you want
Speaker 1: to balance out carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that's where
Speaker 1: we have to end up at. And so there is
Speaker 1: this auction of promises that politicians make. They say, well,
Speaker 1: twenty fifty, and another politician says twenty nine, and another
Speaker 1: says twenty forty five. But you know, the way you
Speaker 1: can tell that a politician isn't super serious about a
Speaker 1: topic is they're running for office in twenty twenty and
Speaker 1: they're talking about a twenty fifty target. What we should
Speaker 1: all be asking for is what's the target for twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, twenty twenty two. If you're lucky enough to
Speaker 1: be in office for eight years, what's it going to
Speaker 1: be for this decade? Because it's not as important exactly
Speaker 1: where we end up, but where we start. And the
Speaker 1: problem with climate policies it's never gotten out of the blocks.
Speaker 1: It's done a lot of things, there's a lot of
Speaker 1: talk and a lot of heat, but we haven't made
Speaker 1: any progress towards accelerating that rate of decarbonization. We've got
Speaker 1: to take the first steps before we can start talking
Speaker 1: about net zero. Are you called based on some of
Speaker 1: these premises you've put out, which to me all sounds
Speaker 1: entirely reasonable, right that there's because I don't say what
Speaker 1: one I mean, I can't pretend to really know. I
Speaker 1: don't say that the climate isn't warming, that global warming
Speaker 1: doesn't exist in on capacity. I just know that I've
Speaker 1: been lied to a lot in the past about what
Speaker 1: it's going to mean for the future. And so I
Speaker 1: look at this with a very skeptical eye. But you're
Speaker 1: looking at it from the perspective of somebody who studies
Speaker 1: it all the time. And yet I get the sense
Speaker 1: that if you said to certain audiences, and honestly, I
Speaker 1: would say most people who are left of center across
Speaker 1: the board and some people who write of center, if
Speaker 1: you said to them what you've just said to me,
Speaker 1: you would be called the climate denier. Does that happen
Speaker 1: to you? Has that happened to you? Well, now now
Speaker 1: we're getting back to why some people block me on Twitter.
Speaker 1: I mean, I think it's it's far more important to
Speaker 1: talk about initial steps and the analogy I use is
Speaker 1: extending human lifespan. Right. We could say, well, in a
Speaker 1: hundred years, we want the average human lifespan to be
Speaker 1: one hundred and four, and someone could yell at you
Speaker 1: and say, oh, you don't have any ambition it should
Speaker 1: be one hundred and eight. The reality is we have
Speaker 1: to go from seventy nine to eighty to eighty one.
Speaker 1: And you know, these long century long n which really
Speaker 1: is what climate change in is, require incremental steps. So
Speaker 1: what people want to know is tell me the cost
Speaker 1: and benefits of the action we're going to take today, tomorrow,
Speaker 1: next year, so I know how it affects my pocketbook,
Speaker 1: what I can see in the environment Professor, Again, this
Speaker 1: all sounds entirely reasonable. I'm just wondering. You know, we
Speaker 1: talked about how you've been blocked. Do other scientists come
Speaker 1: after you for talking about this in this way? I mean,
Speaker 1: are you persecuted for trying to be reasonable on the
Speaker 1: issue of climate science? Yeah? Well I got academic ten years,
Speaker 1: so persecution is there. You go word, But yeah, there
Speaker 1: are a number of very loud voices in the climate
Speaker 1: debate that try to squeeze others out, and you know,
Speaker 1: you have to decide whether climate change is an issue
Speaker 1: that we want to fight about, or climate change is
Speaker 1: an issue that we want to come together and solve.
Speaker 1: And I think that's up to all of us to
Speaker 1: figure out, you know, is this something that we want
Speaker 1: to work on, or is this something that you know,
Speaker 1: it's really fun to have left right debates, and maybe
Speaker 1: climate change is one of those. And I do think
Speaker 1: there are a number of scientists who've gotten sucked into
Speaker 1: that political vortex rather than talking about it as a
Speaker 1: policy problem. All right, professor, we really appreciate you joining
Speaker 1: us today. Interesting to get your point of view. A
Speaker 1: professor Environmental Studies University at Colorado Boulder, Roger Pielke, Junior
Speaker 1: Professor Pelke, thank you so much again, so you take
Speaker 1: care you too. Thanks for having me. Welcome back to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. I wish that I could say
Speaker 1: that the bad liberal ideas out there didn't have negative
Speaker 1: consequences for real people, but of course they do. And
Speaker 1: one of the areas where this is becoming increasingly apparent
Speaker 1: is around the surge in homelessness. It's particularly bad in California,
Speaker 1: which I believe now has half of the countries the
Speaker 1: state of California I think now has half of the
Speaker 1: entire United States homeless population, and it has jumped twenty
Speaker 1: percent in just the last three years. Yep, California accounts
Speaker 1: for a half of people living on the streets one state. Now,
Speaker 1: it cannot go without notice that California is a liberal stronghold,
Speaker 1: That California is a place that liberals have total political
Speaker 1: control at the legislature, at the legislative level, for all
Speaker 1: the major cities, at the mayoral level, I mean, just
Speaker 1: all the way down, all right, California is the blue
Speaker 1: the great blue Democrat wall. And now you look at
Speaker 1: the homelessess problem and you say, okay, well, what can
Speaker 1: we do to fix this. I've talked to you a
Speaker 1: little bit about it, and I will say the more
Speaker 1: I dig into it, the more my initial assessment is correct.
Speaker 1: The numbers prove it out that this is a problem
Speaker 1: that is particularly bad in the most liberal cities in
Speaker 1: the United States. The places where liberal policies are enacted
Speaker 1: with the greatest gusto are the areas that have the
Speaker 1: worst problem of homelessess. Now, I'd said before, I think
Speaker 1: maybe a week or two ago, that we do have
Speaker 1: to remember that's sure, the climate place I don't mean
Speaker 1: climate change, right, I know, we're just having a climate
Speaker 1: change professor on I don't know. I hope you all
Speaker 1: could could read between the lines there. And there's a
Speaker 1: guy who's all, he doesn't study climate and he knows
Speaker 1: that it's like not what they say it is, but
Speaker 1: he doesn't want to. He doesn't want protesters outside of
Speaker 1: his house. He's like, maybe I could convince them to
Speaker 1: just be a little less crazy, and that's a better.
Speaker 1: So I respect that approach where he's like convincing them
Speaker 1: that even if we did what they say we should do,
Speaker 1: that wouldn't be enough and that wouldn't save us. So
Speaker 1: maybe we should think of something else. But anyway, I mean,
Speaker 1: climate is in it's warm in California. Well, it turns
Speaker 1: out that if you look at California versus Florida, which
Speaker 1: have very similar climates year round, and particularly if it's
Speaker 1: an issue of avoiding severe or cold on the streets,
Speaker 1: Florida obviously gets it done. California has a far worse
Speaker 1: problem of homes then Florida does, which, as we know,
Speaker 1: is a much more politically, it's really a fifty fifty state. Politically,
Speaker 1: it's very very close to split down the line, and
Speaker 1: then you look at some of the numbers on this
Speaker 1: last year. This is the Wall Street Journal today. Orange
Speaker 1: County government cleared thirteen thousand, nine hundred and fifty needles,
Speaker 1: four hundred and four tons of debris, and five two
Speaker 1: hundred and seventy nine pounds of hazardous waste from a
Speaker 1: homeless camp in the Santa Anna riverbed. Since two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine, cases of fleaborne typhus have increased tenfold to
Speaker 1: one hundred and seventy four. A homeless person in bel
Speaker 1: Air started a fire in twenty seventeen that raised four
Speaker 1: hundred acres and shut down West LA for several days.
Speaker 1: A video recently went viral of a woman being assaulted
Speaker 1: outside of San Francisco condo by an apparently mentally ill
Speaker 1: homeless man. After being booked for the battery of the
Speaker 1: Wall Street Journal, rights the assailant was released. A union
Speaker 1: representing groundskeepers last week demanded pepper spray so workers can
Speaker 1: defend themselves from homeless people after a rash of assaults
Speaker 1: on them. What do you think democrats blame? Oh, that's right,
Speaker 1: the rent is too high. Why is now that's not
Speaker 1: even dealing with the fact that about a third at
Speaker 1: least of the homeless in California have a severe mental
Speaker 1: illness and or addiction problem. Right, So that's one component
Speaker 1: of it that they just don't even deal with that.
Speaker 1: But even if we're going to talk about housing scarcity,
Speaker 1: if this is a market based issue, why is it
Speaker 1: so much worse in California than it is in other places?
Speaker 1: There are real reasons for that. This isn't just something
Speaker 1: that you look at in a vacuum. You can look
Speaker 1: at what the reality of California housing policy is. And
Speaker 1: in California, it is very, very hard to build new
Speaker 1: homes because of all the different regulations because they want
Speaker 1: all sorts of environmentalists to be happy, they want people
Speaker 1: to just the zoning restrictions and the this and the that,
Speaker 1: and the climate change and all these things they throw together.
Speaker 1: That's what makes it so much more difficult for people
Speaker 1: to build housing, especially low income housing. And the state
Speaker 1: does not do a very good job of this. The
Speaker 1: moment that the state is in charge of creating the housing,
Speaker 1: guess what, people know that that will it's never going
Speaker 1: to rise in value. It also brings down the value
Speaker 1: of all the homes around it. So anywhere where you
Speaker 1: build a government housing is going to drop the surrounding
Speaker 1: areas real estate property value, which also then has downstream
Speaker 1: effects of increased crime and poverty and all all kinds
Speaker 1: of things. It's not good. So what really needs to
Speaker 1: happen here, Well, you'd have to have and understand ending
Speaker 1: from the government that the government is not making this better.
Speaker 1: The government California, the most liberal state in the country,
Speaker 1: would have to step back and say, hold on a second.
Speaker 1: The problem isn't the market. The problem is supposedly do
Speaker 1: good or interference in the market by left wing political
Speaker 1: activists and left wing politicians who think that if only
Speaker 1: they can control more about the housing market, everybody and
Speaker 1: everything will be much better off. It's just not true.
Speaker 1: But as is unfortunately case with Oh that's right, we're
Speaker 1: going there central planning all the time. The central planners
Speaker 1: never think it's their mistake. There always must be some
Speaker 1: other external enemy, There must be some other problem that
Speaker 1: can be pointed to. So what is it here? Oh,
Speaker 1: the rich aren't paying enough. They've already approved different tax
Speaker 1: hikes on millionaires in California or on the wealthy, or
Speaker 1: whatever that specific rate is. Do you think that's made
Speaker 1: the homelessness problem any better. Of course not, and the
Speaker 1: money just gets squandered in Sacramento the moment that the
Speaker 1: state government picks it up. What do we need market
Speaker 1: solutions freedom? Let's government California won't buy into it. Today,
Speaker 1: I have a message for those open border activists who
Speaker 1: cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice. Your policies
Speaker 1: are not just. Your policies are cruel and evil. You
Speaker 1: are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women,
Speaker 1: and children. You put your own false sense of virtue
Speaker 1: before the lives, wellbeing and countless innocent people. When you
Speaker 1: undermine or to security, you are undermining human rights and
Speaker 1: human dignity. Many of the kind she's here today are
Speaker 1: coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration. Each of you
Speaker 1: has the absolute right to protect your borders, and so
Speaker 1: of course does our country. Today, we must resolve to
Speaker 1: work together to end human smuggling, end human trafficking, and
Speaker 1: put these criminal networks out of business for good. We
Speaker 1: haven't solved the immigration issue by a long shot in
Speaker 1: this country. It was interesting to hear the present speak
Speaker 1: about it today at the United Nations you have all
Speaker 1: these different countries assembled there, and they all, all of
Speaker 1: them maintain the right to determine who comes and who goes,
Speaker 1: who is a lawful entrance, and who is denied entry.
Speaker 1: Some of them also deal with real refugee crises, meaning
Speaker 1: people that are fleeing from violence, from misery, from certain death,
Speaker 1: and they're just very well they're supposed to and generally
Speaker 1: are very happy to be in a safe place, not
Speaker 1: necessarily looking to exploit the laws of the new country
Speaker 1: they have arrived in, try to get through the system
Speaker 1: and lie and do all the things that we are
Speaker 1: always being well that I tell you about. The mainstream
Speaker 1: media does not want to tell you. I was making
Speaker 1: sure I was trying to pull the number so that
Speaker 1: I have it exactly right. But I'm pretty sure that
Speaker 1: they have just released how many individuals. This is from
Speaker 1: Customs Immigration Enforcement, and I will check on this to
Speaker 1: make sure I'm giving the right number. But they think
Speaker 1: that about six thousand people pretended to be in the
Speaker 1: last fiscal year, six thousand people were pretending to be
Speaker 1: relatives at our southern border who are not. It's not
Speaker 1: one or two. It wasn't just a little thing here
Speaker 1: or there. That's a lot, folks. That is a systematic
Speaker 1: and systemic that is a clear and repeated fraud. And
Speaker 1: why haven't you heard about that? Why hasn't this gotten
Speaker 1: more attention? Well, because once again, I've been telling you
Speaker 1: all along about the frauds that have been happening at
Speaker 1: our southern border, the way that our laws have been exploited,
Speaker 1: the way that the good faith and decency and honesty
Speaker 1: of the American people has been exploited, and the liberal
Speaker 1: media just doesn't want to cover it at all. They
Speaker 1: like this, They like this story of Oh, all the
Speaker 1: people that are coming from Central America that are breaking
Speaker 1: the law by not waiting in line to go through
Speaker 1: at port of entry. All the people that are coming there,
Speaker 1: they're doing so because they have no choice, because they're refugees.
Speaker 1: They're not just migrants that are looking to skip the line.
Speaker 1: This was These were all lies. They were lying to
Speaker 1: you about this. I mean, they are clever enough, these
Speaker 1: different news organizations, They are clever enough to know that
Speaker 1: what they're saying is not accurate, to know that what
Speaker 1: was going on at our southern border was a matter
Speaker 1: of intentional and repeated fraud. But that was not part
Speaker 1: with a narrative. They did not want to let people
Speaker 1: in on what was really happening. So you know, now
Speaker 1: when you take a look at what's going on on
Speaker 1: the border, I think that the president has at least
Speaker 1: been able to turn the tide a bit against what
Speaker 1: had been going on in the past. I think the
Speaker 1: president has at least started to build a wall. But
Speaker 1: he has all these countries that are that are gathered there,
Speaker 1: and America is the outlier in a couple of ways.
Speaker 1: One is that we have half of our political class,
Speaker 1: or one of our two major political parties, doesn't believe
Speaker 1: that we really have a right to determine who can
Speaker 1: stay in this country and who can we just have
Speaker 1: seeded sovereignty, which is also why Trump's comments around globalists,
Speaker 1: I think we're so important because that has been a
Speaker 1: globalist project all along. If you eliminate borders, if you
Speaker 1: eliminate national sovereignty, well then you do have the ability.
Speaker 1: Then you do have the opening for one world government,
Speaker 1: because if people can just come and go as they
Speaker 1: please from any country, then no one country can have
Speaker 1: a hold over them. You would have to just have
Speaker 1: one system overseeing all of it. And I know that
Speaker 1: this sounds radical, but look at what is happening already,
Speaker 1: look at the radical shifts that we have been undergoing
Speaker 1: in this country and also around the world. This is
Speaker 1: all very real. So I'm going to continue to focus
Speaker 1: in on the issue of our southern border migration. I
Speaker 1: was glad the President spoke about it today, and I'm
Speaker 1: glad that he has not allowed the media to completely
Speaker 1: define this narrative because they have been lying to you
Speaker 1: about this lying. We'll be back with roll call. Buck.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. Roll call. Everybody here we go.
Speaker 1: All right, let's uh, let's get to it. We face.
Speaker 1: We'll start with the Facebook roll call. I'm trying to
Speaker 1: not have a favorite among my role call children, but
Speaker 1: Facebook tends to be easier because all the messages I
Speaker 1: can use instead of email. I don't want to read
Speaker 1: you guys about the new iHeartMedia Info SEC policy, but
Speaker 1: because that can happen sometimes, um, let's see what is this?
Speaker 1: By the way, sometimes I get these message on Facebook
Speaker 1: where it's someone writes, Kenny, can you tell me more
Speaker 1: about yourself? That's an automated message? Right, Why is that happening?
Speaker 1: Because no, no, I'm not going to like, write my
Speaker 1: book because you're a business on Facebook. Oh, because I'm
Speaker 1: a business on Facebook. Okay, there we go. It's like,
Speaker 1: if it was a hardware store, it would, yeah, the
Speaker 1: business of Buck, the business of Buck in the Freedom Hut.
Speaker 1: We could do that. That'd be fun. I don't even know.
Speaker 1: I don't know if that business would the business your
Speaker 1: royal Buckness. Oh, hello, royal Buckedness. Here, it's making lots
Speaker 1: of lots of pounds staling. All right, we have brand
Speaker 1: in all right, hey, box shields high. Yes, sir, you
Speaker 1: mentioned Potawatami and we're unsure what it was. Potawatami are
Speaker 1: a Native American people of the Great Plains, Upper Mississippi
Speaker 1: River and western Great Lakes region. I happen to be pokagon,
Speaker 1: a band of the Potawatamie Indians. Oh, very cool, unlike
Speaker 1: Poka Honky Polka hants aka Elizabeth Warren. I don't have
Speaker 1: high cheekbones, but I do have a tribal id number.
Speaker 1: Thanks for holding the line, brother Airborne all the way
Speaker 1: all right, Brandon, thank you so much for writing in.
Speaker 1: I appreciate it. Carolyn three Caroline ba ba bab, I'm
Speaker 1: so drug. I'm on a thing. You know, that's what
Speaker 1: they always do in the in the early morning of
Speaker 1: the Saturday night bar scene. You know, that's the song.
Speaker 1: Although we've already talked about this and I know that
Speaker 1: we decided that Don't Stop Believing is the ultimate late
Speaker 1: night bar song. Although bon Jovie Living on a Prayer
Speaker 1: wants to have a word, I am just saying they
Speaker 1: are both great choices. That's true. You can't go wrong
Speaker 1: either way. I'm I actually I'm with you on that.
Speaker 1: You know. It's like when people get all get all
Speaker 1: you know, upity about whether chocolate or vanilla is a
Speaker 1: better ice cream flavor. They're both great, It's fine. Either
Speaker 1: one is acceptable. Just don't true. Just don't go strawberry chocolate.
Speaker 1: Just don't go. I mean, look, I'm a chocolate guy too,
Speaker 1: but just don't go strawberry because I'll agree with that,
Speaker 1: because we're trying to be civilized here. We just we
Speaker 1: just don't go. You know, it's the number three most
Speaker 1: p I've never seen anyone go. I've never in my
Speaker 1: life seen anyone go into an ice cream's parlor and
Speaker 1: be like, oh, all the like, you know, I love
Speaker 1: that you have butter Scotch and pistachio. I want the strawberry.
Speaker 1: I've never seen it happen. It's apparently the third most
Speaker 1: popular ice cream flavor. That's not ice cream, that's sherbird.
Speaker 1: I'm dusting. It's just, you know, I'm not into flavored
Speaker 1: ice cream in general. I agree with you. It's it's
Speaker 1: really sorebet. If I'm eating ice cream, it's fun something
Speaker 1: bad for me, exactly. You want to go in you know,
Speaker 1: if you're gonna be in the paint, you go hard
Speaker 1: in the paint, like Rodman and Malone. Back in the day,
Speaker 1: I used to watch the first time You've ever made
Speaker 1: a sports reference one? Right, thank you? You know I
Speaker 1: used to I used to watch that. I used to
Speaker 1: watch professional sports. I just at the time, I got
Speaker 1: too much to do to try to keep this show
Speaker 1: as informative and entertaining as we hope that it is. Kristen, right, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: just trying to see if there are more details about
Speaker 1: you appearing on Pluto in the future. Well, the details are,
Speaker 1: we're gonna be on Pluto next week. That's the way
Speaker 1: we're gonna do it. That's how it's gonna roll. You're
Speaker 1: gonna be able, So please if you're listening. You can
Speaker 1: download the Pluto app Pluto TV to your phone. It
Speaker 1: is free, totally free. There's no subscription, no nothing. You
Speaker 1: just download it, pop up and there's a whole lot
Speaker 1: of programming on there. I want you to focus in
Speaker 1: on a channel that is about to be unveiled that
Speaker 1: I will be on. I can't tell you, I think yet.
Speaker 1: We haven't formally announced what the name of the channel
Speaker 1: is and who the other talents are. I can tell
Speaker 1: you the other shows are fantastic people that all of
Speaker 1: you will really enjoy as well. So we're really hoping
Speaker 1: to get some attention for our new Pluto channel that
Speaker 1: will start next week. And man, I am excited about it.
Speaker 1: It will be good times, good things all around. Let's
Speaker 1: see what we got here, Matt. Here you go. Matt writes,
Speaker 1: your segment on phone news about the environment was disgraceful.
Speaker 1: If you are a true Christian, it says in the
Speaker 1: Bible to be good stewards of what we were given.
Speaker 1: That includes the planet numb nuts, So quit attacking children
Speaker 1: that are smarter. Yes, I love this. The sixteen year
Speaker 1: olds that are smarter than me. Oh man, yeah, you're
Speaker 1: right us Well i'd call ed calling me nuts. I
Speaker 1: like this, Why why do they always go to this?
Speaker 1: It's like, guys, you sound like such a moron. Okay,
Speaker 1: I mean I know more than most people who are
Speaker 1: in their seventies. Like, what is this like age that
Speaker 1: we're gonna play. You're gonna tell me that the sixteen
Speaker 1: year old knows a lot? I mean, this is just
Speaker 1: such a stupid thing to say. It's so dumb. This
Speaker 1: is the refuge of very, very dumb people. The sixteen
Speaker 1: year old is smarter than you are. No, she's really not, so,
Speaker 1: you know, can we just stop with that. It's so
Speaker 1: it's like saying she's taller than me. She's also not.
Speaker 1: So can we just not say that? Please? Such a
Speaker 1: weird place to go. Ah. Now, if you're gonna say, oh, now,
Speaker 1: we're gonna it's smarter. I'm not talking about brain power
Speaker 1: per se. I'm talking about knowledge and wisdom and experience. Okay,
Speaker 1: that's how I would define smart. Here. There's a reason
Speaker 1: we don't let sixteen year olds vote. Although, if you're
Speaker 1: a sixteen year old Nils into this show, you're very smart,
Speaker 1: and you're smarter than most adults. So thank you, welcome
Speaker 1: to team Buck. Pleased to have you, uh, Steven Rights.
Speaker 1: You're not kid bashing your chicken little bashing shields high. Well,
Speaker 1: thank you, Stephen. I appreciate that. I think that it's
Speaker 1: it's important that we stand up for what's true. And no,
Speaker 1: no honest, fair minded person could really believe that I
Speaker 1: was engaged in kid bashing. It's just not true. It's
Speaker 1: just not reality. So let's just be honest about that. Um,
Speaker 1: that's what I'm here for. Here we go. Oh another one, No,
Speaker 1: this is another angry one. I'm not gonna keep reading
Speaker 1: the angry ones. Off. All right, we got John who rights?
Speaker 1: Here we go? Whoa Buck. I really enjoy your radio program.
Speaker 1: I catch it after Hannity Show on the Patriot Network
Speaker 1: seven sixty A m. Denver. Whoo. I wanted to comment
Speaker 1: on something you touch upon the this evening talking about
Speaker 1: the unique friendship of Judge Ginsburg and Justice Scalia and
Speaker 1: how it's very unusual today's society. In my opinion, I
Speaker 1: believe it is the incredible transformation of the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: I used to have many friends who are Democrats, and
Speaker 1: I could have a meaningful dialogue with them, usually disagreeing,
Speaker 1: uncertain policies. I noticed when I was critical of Obama,
Speaker 1: I was declared a racist by these same friends who
Speaker 1: had no problem with me being critical of Clinton. I've
Speaker 1: been called the white supremacist by these same tolered people
Speaker 1: just because I'm a supporter of President Trump. I believe
Speaker 1: a majority of today's Democrats have no problem with socialism,
Speaker 1: which I want no part of. I do not want
Speaker 1: to remain friends with people whose political beliefs mirror AOC
Speaker 1: Sanders and Warren. I wish them no ill will, but
Speaker 1: I want nothing to do with people who will vote
Speaker 1: for people like Warren Sanders and show so much disdain
Speaker 1: for President Trump, regardless of their hearts in the right
Speaker 1: place they're thinking reasoning is extremely dangerous. I truly believe
Speaker 1: this coming election is one of liberty versus tyranny. Just
Speaker 1: my opinion on the subject. Thank you for your service
Speaker 1: to our country, and have a great rest of week.
Speaker 1: God bless John, Well John, thank you appreciate you listening
Speaker 1: to the show. Good to talk to you. Yeah, so
Speaker 1: that's all good thing. Here we go, Steven doesn't the
Speaker 1: climate change girl? Oh no, I can't read that. Let's
Speaker 1: see what else we got here? Woo we have. It's
Speaker 1: been the role call ever since, ever since I was
Speaker 1: a child, Basher role call has been a little more
Speaker 1: spicy Hunter. Let's see what Hunter's got here. Stop with
Speaker 1: this book and appointment I'm not booking appointments. I know
Speaker 1: that's just a Facebook thing. But being that you're an
Speaker 1: actual security expert, I assume this is necessary, especially being
Speaker 1: considering today's political climate, and it's Mike Pence on Mackinac
Speaker 1: Island in Michigan with an eight car motorcade the vice president.
Speaker 1: I mean, look, guys, you know the Lib media freaks
Speaker 1: out about everything, and what we have here is, you know,
Speaker 1: the Lib media deciding that the vice president's security considerations
Speaker 1: don't matter. I guess all of a sudden, you know, look,
Speaker 1: I don't I'm not in the Secret Service. I don't
Speaker 1: know how they do specifically this kind of an assessment,
Speaker 1: but I am quite confident that there are security concerns
Speaker 1: with having the vice president on an island exposed as
Speaker 1: he travels around, let's say, on a tricycle the whole time.
Speaker 1: I'm willing to bet that's an issue and that was
Speaker 1: a problem here. Let's see what else we have here.
Speaker 1: Steve Right the financial collapse. H we got one of these.
Speaker 1: The financial collapse has begun. It started last Monday when
Speaker 1: the Federal Reserve began bailing out multiple banks in the
Speaker 1: repo market, but it wasn't enough. Now the Federal Reserve
Speaker 1: has committed to continue the bailout by printing money in
Speaker 1: the billions daily for the next three weeks to save
Speaker 1: the banks. Without printing new money, the banking system in
Speaker 1: America would fail eventually, either the banks will or hyper
Speaker 1: hyperinflation will happen. The latter, is my guest, Steve. I'm
Speaker 1: just kidding, man. I mean, you could be right, because remember,
Speaker 1: all the smart people think that they know when there's
Speaker 1: going to be a terrible event for our economy, and
Speaker 1: they never seem to actually figure this out in time, right,
Speaker 1: they never actually know when it's going to be. So
Speaker 1: that's a problem. Right, If you can't tell beforehand, that's
Speaker 1: probably not that good. All Right, I'm gonna be on
Speaker 1: Kennedy on the panel on Fox Business. If you guys
Speaker 1: want to tune into that. If you hear this live,
Speaker 1: you can because it's nine Eastern, or you could just DVR,
Speaker 1: which is also fun. Is I think they've replayed at
Speaker 1: midnight maybe on Fox Business and yes, good things, good things.
Speaker 1: So next week is when we are going to stay
Speaker 1: Oh wait, are we gonna have the podcast up three
Speaker 1: o'clock on Thursday? Producer Mark I believe so who Thursday?
Speaker 1: That's right, everybody, As as of Thursday, you will be
Speaker 1: able to get the podcast of the Buck Section Show
Speaker 1: at three p m. Eastern Time. Yeah. Yeah, that's sounds
Speaker 1: like fun to me. It means you've got to subscribe now.
Speaker 1: You're going to be in the early listening category. My friends.
Speaker 1: You can listen whether wherever you are, anytime you want
Speaker 1: after three pm Easter Monday through Friday. Subscribe on iTunes,
Speaker 1: subscribe on the iHeart app Spotify. Right, we're all over
Speaker 1: the place, aren't we. And with that she'll tie