Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The left is rallying
Speaker 1: behind ilhan Omar despite her tendency to say things that
Speaker 1: are anti Semitic and also to downplay nine to eleven.
Speaker 1: What is really at work here? Plus the cathedral of
Speaker 1: Notre Dame is still burning. We'll give you updates on
Speaker 1: this breaking news story. And what is the presence plan
Speaker 1: for sanctuary cities and illegal immigrants going to turn into.
Speaker 1: We'll got that a much more coming up on the
Speaker 1: Buck side. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American.
Speaker 1: Again the Buck Sexton Show begins. Remember the NMPDE didn't
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton. No. Here was founded after nine eleven because
Speaker 1: they recognized that some people did something. So you have
Speaker 1: no idea whether I'd have another one. Another plane is hit.
Speaker 1: Some people did something. Oh my goodness, there is smoke
Speaker 1: pouring out. Some people did something. It just flew straight
Speaker 1: into it. Welcome to the Buck Saxon Show. That audio
Speaker 1: was from what President Trump retweeted over the weekend and
Speaker 1: has now cause such a fiery back and forth between
Speaker 1: the left and the right between Democrats and Republicans. That
Speaker 1: was the voice of ilhan Omar saying that when it
Speaker 1: comes to nine to eleven, some people did something, and
Speaker 1: then going on to talk about how the real victims,
Speaker 1: the people that we should have been really worried about,
Speaker 1: were those who were concerned for their civil liberties in
Speaker 1: the Islamic community after nine eleven, skipping past the nearly
Speaker 1: three thousand people who were murdered, many of them crushed, incinerated,
Speaker 1: murdered on nine to eleven by Jehadest fanatics trying to
Speaker 1: bring about a war that would destroy our civilization. It's
Speaker 1: quite a thing to move past that as though it
Speaker 1: wasn't anything worthy of note. But a sitting member of
Speaker 1: Congress speaking about nine to eleven dismissed it. It's some
Speaker 1: people did something something. Huh. Now, look, I'm one that
Speaker 1: likes to give second chances. I misspeak, sometimes people misspeak
Speaker 1: on things. But she doesn't claim that she misspoke. The
Speaker 1: claim here is not that representative ilhan Omar meant to
Speaker 1: say something very different or just got tired and caught
Speaker 1: up in the moment, and you know that that was
Speaker 1: not the claim. The claim is that it is racist.
Speaker 1: You see racist to call her out for this, it
Speaker 1: is islamophobic to call her out for this. And with
Speaker 1: this we see a time tested and favorite tactic of
Speaker 1: the left. Don't engage on the substance, don't engage on
Speaker 1: the intellectual merits slime the other side, Smear them, lie
Speaker 1: about them, assassinate their characters, take issue with who they
Speaker 1: are as people, suggest that they're bad human beings for
Speaker 1: thinking what they do, for disagreeing with you. This is
Speaker 1: a preview of what you're going to see heading into
Speaker 1: the twenty twenty election from Democrats as a primary motive
Speaker 1: attack against Trump. This is not going to be something
Speaker 1: that just kind of comes up sometimes. This is going
Speaker 1: to be one of the one of the main ways
Speaker 1: that they try to undermine this president. But I don't
Speaker 1: want to just move too far into the tactic here
Speaker 1: and pull apart why this is so important for the left.
Speaker 1: They need to pause on that for one second. Ilhan
Speaker 1: Omar is favorably disposed toward care Council on American Islamic Relations,
Speaker 1: which is an unindicted co conspirator with different terrorist groups,
Speaker 1: has a history of terror apology in this kind country
Speaker 1: and shows up as I have seen firsthand, because I've
Speaker 1: had to occasionally be on panels or in debates where
Speaker 1: CARE shows up to claim that the real concern when
Speaker 1: there are dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe thousands of dead bodies
Speaker 1: in the ground, of people who are the victims of terrorism,
Speaker 1: the real concern is that somebody might ask the wrong
Speaker 1: question about Islam afterwards. That's what CARE tends to do.
Speaker 1: That's the Care approach. We should really be worried about
Speaker 1: those who speak ill of the prophet Muhammad after a
Speaker 1: massive terror attack. That's where the system really breaks down.
Speaker 1: Don't worry so much about the terror the dead people,
Speaker 1: the people whose lives are ruined because their loved ones
Speaker 1: are never to be seen again because some fanatic screaming
Speaker 1: Allahu Akbar killed a lot of them. So I have
Speaker 1: no patience, no time for the mouthpieces of Care. Also
Speaker 1: that she says CARE was founded after Ilmar doesn't know
Speaker 1: anything about Kara Seams, or doesn't know very much at all.
Speaker 1: It says it was founded after nine eleven. It was
Speaker 1: founded in I think nineteen ninety four, but long before
Speaker 1: nine eleven then they've been making They've been running around
Speaker 1: yelling Islamophobia at people for many years before the nine
Speaker 1: to eleven attacks. But now they're saying that it's it's
Speaker 1: racist that Trump brought this up, or that he would
Speaker 1: he would magnify this criticism of Ilhan Omar and that
Speaker 1: that's what this really comes down to. Oh, and they
Speaker 1: take it a step further to play clip here's just
Speaker 1: classics CNN Jeffrey Tuben saying this is all because Trumps
Speaker 1: are racist? Play three. What do all the people that
Speaker 1: he's vilifying have in common? They're all people of color?
Speaker 1: You know, it is all you know, aoc omar. I
Speaker 1: mean this is you know, whether it's the basketball players
Speaker 1: or the football players. I mean it's He's always after
Speaker 1: people of color, and at is not a coincidence? Is
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Tubina moron? Or does he just play one on TV?
Speaker 1: Everyone that Trump goes after a person of color? How
Speaker 1: if I said something so stupid on television, I would
Speaker 1: I would feel embarrassed for a long time to come. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know. Is Crooked Hillary a person of color
Speaker 1: because Trump seemed to go after her a lot and
Speaker 1: still does. Is Shifty Adam Schiff a person of color
Speaker 1: because Trump goes after him? And I don't even want
Speaker 1: to get into the whole list. Comey struck page Brandon.
Speaker 1: I mean, all these people that Trump just rightfully annihilates
Speaker 1: on Twitter and in his public statements. Is is Jim Acosta? Well, okay, yeah,
Speaker 1: Jim Acosta. I guess technically he's Latino. But there are
Speaker 1: other people at CNN that he goes after two or
Speaker 1: are they all people of color, you know? Or are
Speaker 1: they people that fit into this kind No, of course
Speaker 1: not the president. Uh you know, the President is in
Speaker 1: fact someone who goes after those who go after him,
Speaker 1: and the President is a counterpuncher. But to say that
Speaker 1: he only goes after people of different races about this
Speaker 1: is it's just a lie. It's just not true. Um.
Speaker 1: You know, I can't even I think of all the
Speaker 1: people that are are white that he makes fun of
Speaker 1: and mocks on a daily, on a regular basis, so
Speaker 1: many do you think Trump, you know, likes av Nati?
Speaker 1: Uh So anyway, such a stupid comment. But this is
Speaker 1: what gets you applause on CNN. This is what gets
Speaker 1: you applause on CNN. And then they go even further. Um,
Speaker 1: then they decide that the issue is that Trump is
Speaker 1: putting her life in Jeopardy. Now. That was what this
Speaker 1: turned into over the weekend, that that Trump is responsible
Speaker 1: for incitement to violence. This is an expansion on what
Speaker 1: you will generally hear from the left, and that is
Speaker 1: things that they really don't like, words that they really
Speaker 1: don't like are tantamount too close to violence. Might as
Speaker 1: well be speech equals violence. This has become a tactic
Speaker 1: of censorship, this Ilahan Omar debate. While in many ways
Speaker 1: it's just about a stupid comment she made, and you know,
Speaker 1: it's indefensible, and there oh, there are some who defended
Speaker 1: by the way. J Jerry Nadler, for example, who's going
Speaker 1: to make a few appearances in the show. He defended
Speaker 1: the play clip too. Did you take any issue with
Speaker 1: the way Congresswoman Omar characterized nine to eleven? No I
Speaker 1: did not. She characterized it only in passing she was
Speaker 1: talking about discrimination against the Muslim Americans and she she
Speaker 1: just said that after that happened, it was used as
Speaker 1: an excuse for lots of discrimination and from withdrawal of
Speaker 1: civil liberties. No I did not take that. I've had
Speaker 1: some problems with some of her other remarks, but not
Speaker 1: but not with that one. No problem with what she says,
Speaker 1: even Note eleven, just like a thing speaking about Care,
Speaker 1: which is an organization that does a lot of apologizing
Speaker 1: for the radical tendencies of Islam. There's a debate from
Speaker 1: I forget when from back in the day where they
Speaker 1: had one of their apologists on after the Danish cartoons
Speaker 1: fiasco where you had a cartoonist in Denmark, as you know,
Speaker 1: have the prophet Mohammed, and then there were embassies that
Speaker 1: were attacked and people there were there was violence that
Speaker 1: broke out because of what one cartoonist in Denmark did,
Speaker 1: and there was a guy from CARE. I never forget
Speaker 1: this as well. You know, we shouldn't, we shouldn't do
Speaker 1: things like this. It's an active intimidation. He would he said,
Speaker 1: to be critical of Islam in this way, it intimidates people. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, speech equals violence. The words are based violence.
Speaker 1: Therefore will be violent in response to your words. This
Speaker 1: is a very dangerous, a very dangerous approach. But the
Speaker 1: left takes this on many issues. You know, they will
Speaker 1: say that President Trump is inciting violence against ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: merely by criticizing what she says. And she's you know,
Speaker 1: she's not a legitimate target for this criticism. And now
Speaker 1: that we're hearing that she gets death threats and all
Speaker 1: these lots of people get death threats, that doesn't death
Speaker 1: threats are terrible, people should be punished for them. But
Speaker 1: you can't be Hell, we cannot be held responsible for
Speaker 1: the death threats of imbeciles because we criticize public figures
Speaker 1: because censorship. The left likes to censor. And what you
Speaker 1: see with the ilhan Omar situation is all of the
Speaker 1: different tactics and tools that the left will use. They'll
Speaker 1: say that the criticism of her is racist. They'll say
Speaker 1: that criticism of her is leading to death threats. They
Speaker 1: want to create special categories for individuals to be public figures.
Speaker 1: But they're victims, you see. They have to be treated
Speaker 1: and talked about differently because they're victims because of their ethnicity,
Speaker 1: or their religion, or their sexual orientation, or they're to
Speaker 1: be treated to a different set of rules in public discourse.
Speaker 1: Leftist trying to do that right now. You're going to
Speaker 1: see a lot more of this going forward. You're going
Speaker 1: to see a lot more and the effort to make
Speaker 1: it impossible to have an open and honest discussion about
Speaker 1: how crazy some of these leftists are. What they're saying.
Speaker 1: Why it's wrong because oh, you said, what about AOC,
Speaker 1: You must be a racist? You said what about Ilhan Omar,
Speaker 1: You must be a racist. How can we have any
Speaker 1: real discussion about the country if the approach the Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to have is well, you can't disagree with
Speaker 1: certain people on heated and passionate issues of real public
Speaker 1: consequence that really matter, because it must just be that
Speaker 1: you're down talking to them. You are part of the patriarchy.
Speaker 1: Your white privilege is showing you're not allowed to criticize
Speaker 1: these individuals because you do so from a position of
Speaker 1: white supremacy. They will say they are trying to destroy
Speaker 1: legitimate discourse, the differences that we have in policy and
Speaker 1: in the ideas that we share publicly. They want to
Speaker 1: control it. They want to control the language, which we
Speaker 1: talked about last week, and they also want to control
Speaker 1: who has the right to speak. When are you allowed
Speaker 1: to disagree? When are you able to stand up and
Speaker 1: say what that person is saying is wrong? Life says
Speaker 1: it can't say that Ilhan Holm are very defensive about
Speaker 1: out the anti Semitic Muslim congresswoman from Minnesota very defensive.
Speaker 1: We should start asking questions about why that is and
Speaker 1: what they think the rules are going to be that
Speaker 1: the rest of us have to follow when it comes
Speaker 1: to members of Congress, people in the media, elected officials.
Speaker 1: If you're in a protected class, you can say any
Speaker 1: crazy thing you want, no one's allowed to criticize you.
Speaker 1: Or if there are some people that act poorly in
Speaker 1: response to the crazy things the Democrat says by threatening
Speaker 1: them the rest of us all have, We're all to
Speaker 1: be held accountable for that. I'm sorry. I won't be
Speaker 1: lectured to in that way by people that demonize Brett
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh as a rapist, by people that said the Covington
Speaker 1: Catholic kids were evil racists, that completely demean people who
Speaker 1: are Trump supporters. I mean they lie about people and
Speaker 1: destroy them and never give it a second thought. We're
Speaker 1: going to be lectured to by that media about how
Speaker 1: we should be more careful in our discourse. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I don't think so, not on my watch, not on
Speaker 1: my time. We'll be right back. This is an incitement
Speaker 1: to violence against Congresswoman Omar, against our fellow Americans who
Speaker 1: happened to be Muslim. This is part and parcel of
Speaker 1: what we've seen from an administration that has described Mexican
Speaker 1: immigrants as rapists and criminals, a man who has called
Speaker 1: a silence seekers, and he calls the animals an infestation.
Speaker 1: There you go, incitement to violence from Batteau, who's like
Speaker 1: so upset about this, and why can't Trump like just
Speaker 1: be nice and like open his heart to Batou's America.
Speaker 1: So I'm not I'm not getting ahead of the facts here, folks.
Speaker 1: They're straight up saying that that the President United States
Speaker 1: is calling for violence against a female Muslim minority member
Speaker 1: of Congress. That's what they're saying. This is the storyline
Speaker 1: they're going with. And as if that weren't crazy enough,
Speaker 1: here's a Twitter exchange that you're gonna have to just
Speaker 1: hear to believe. So Dan Crenshaw, who I'm sure many
Speaker 1: of you know, Texas Congressman, and he responded to Ilhan Omar.
Speaker 1: Now he's a Texas Congresman who also happens to be
Speaker 1: a combat veteran Navy seal who lost an eye to
Speaker 1: the shrapnel from an IED and that's why he wears
Speaker 1: an eyepatch. I'm sure all of you know this, but
Speaker 1: just in case. Crenshaw responded to Ilhan Omar saying some
Speaker 1: people who did something with quote first member of Congress
Speaker 1: to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans as
Speaker 1: some people who did something. Alexandrio Kazio Cortez responded to
Speaker 1: wounded Purple Heart recipient veteran Dan Crenshaw with the following,
Speaker 1: you refuse to co sponsor the nine to eleven vict
Speaker 1: compensation fund, yet have the audacity to drum resentment toward
Speaker 1: Ilham with completely out of context quotes. Folks, AOC twenty
Speaker 1: nine year old former bartender, AOC left wing radical imbecile
Speaker 1: is publicly calling out Dan Crenshaw, decorated navycal combat veteran
Speaker 1: lost in eye to an ied fighting the Taliban, for
Speaker 1: not doing enough to fight terrorism. This is the modern left.
Speaker 1: There there are no limits to the stupidity, no outer
Speaker 1: boundaries to the dishonesty. They are completely unself aware about
Speaker 1: where they really stand in the grand scheme of things
Speaker 1: and in the universe of counter terrorism fighting. For Okasio
Speaker 1: Cortez to publicly lecture Dan Crenshaw, this is kind of
Speaker 1: a a perfect metaphor for how Democrats and Republican interact
Speaker 1: on this issue these days, you know, no respect, no deference,
Speaker 1: no nothing for somebody who has put so much more
Speaker 1: on the line, knows so much more about the issue
Speaker 1: and has real, real credibility and gravitas on this little
Speaker 1: little imbecile. AOC is gonna call out Dan Crenshaw, You know, AOC.
Speaker 1: You know he might want to pick up an M
Speaker 1: four and head to Afghanistan or Iraq and actually get
Speaker 1: some street cred before you start lecturing Dan Crenshaw on
Speaker 1: terrorism and nine eleven victims, folks. He would be forthcoming
Speaker 1: only if he releases the entire report and the underlying
Speaker 1: evidence to the Judiciary Committee, which has been done in
Speaker 1: every previous instance where they were looking into presidential or
Speaker 1: other misconduct. That would be now the Judiciary Committee is
Speaker 1: the proper locus for deciding what has to be withheld
Speaker 1: from the public. Again, that's what's been done in the
Speaker 1: past to deny the Judiciary Committee in the Congress. The
Speaker 1: knowledge of what's in parts of the Malor report is
Speaker 1: not proper. And of course, uh the Attorney General when
Speaker 1: he started talking completely without evidence as he said about
Speaker 1: spying on the Trump campaign, when he when what he
Speaker 1: meant was executing judicially ordered Lawrence showed his bias and
Speaker 1: the fact that he's really acting as as a personal
Speaker 1: agent to the president rather than as the Attorney General
Speaker 1: of the United States in this matter. Everything this guy
Speaker 1: Nadler says is not true. I mean, it's it's almost amazing.
Speaker 1: You almost stand back with a degree of wow on
Speaker 1: your face when this guy talks. Wow. Congressman Nadler just
Speaker 1: trying so hard to rewrite the script here make it
Speaker 1: seem like, Oh, that's right, bar is such a bad guy,
Speaker 1: you can't trust him. And who believes this non Oh,
Speaker 1: unfortunately Democrats do. Spying is spying, folks. I worked for
Speaker 1: a spying agency for years. I spent my twenties as
Speaker 1: a spy agency employee. And let me tell you something.
Speaker 1: National security letters and fieser warrants and phone taps and
Speaker 1: email capture, and that is spying. If someone came in
Speaker 1: from China and said, I'm not spying, I'm just secretly
Speaker 1: listening to the communications of senior government officials or people
Speaker 1: tied to the Trump campaign and reading their emails, you'd say, oh,
Speaker 1: that's a spy. You wouldn't say, oh, well, that was
Speaker 1: ordered by the government of China. Therefore, it's not no,
Speaker 1: that's spying. Spying is the clandestine or surreptitious surveillance or
Speaker 1: acquiring of information. That's all it is. That's the definition.
Speaker 1: So yes, they were spying on the campaign. That they
Speaker 1: that they still want to fight this fight just shows
Speaker 1: how delusional the Democrats are, and they're also desperate to
Speaker 1: try and set up a narrative that is favorable to
Speaker 1: them in advance of the release, which we have been
Speaker 1: told today the Mulla Report drops Thursday. The Mula Report
Speaker 1: will be out Thursday. I believe Thursday morning. I will
Speaker 1: have to speed read that thing like nobody's business, because
Speaker 1: it's my business to speed read it, and hopefully by
Speaker 1: the time I get on air at six o'clock, I
Speaker 1: will have read through, if not all of it, a
Speaker 1: vast majority of it. I think it's four hundred pages
Speaker 1: with maybe one hundred redacted, is what I heard today,
Speaker 1: So three hundred pages I could get through. I get
Speaker 1: through three hundred pages is by showtime. That'll be my plan.
Speaker 1: So I've read the whole report Thursday, want to come
Speaker 1: on air because you know, the Democrats are going, oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, you know there's look at all the obstruction.
Speaker 1: That's what's gonna that's what's gonna up in here. They're
Speaker 1: going to say that there was plenty of grounds for obstruction,
Speaker 1: but the president got bailed out, because you know that's
Speaker 1: what happened. Republicans are the ones who get bailed out,
Speaker 1: not Democrats. Sure, buddy, sure, stay all that one. Nadler
Speaker 1: was on one of the boring CNN shows. But this
Speaker 1: is what he said about obstruction. Play eleven. Attorney General
Speaker 1: Bill Barr. He did reach a conclusion. He says there
Speaker 1: is not sufficient evidence to establish that the president obstructed justice.
Speaker 1: Does that end the debate over obstruction of justice? Well,
Speaker 1: certainly not, especially since Attorney General Bar, before he became
Speaker 1: Attorney General, wrote a long memo in which he said
Speaker 1: that a president could not obstruct justice because the president
Speaker 1: is the boys to the Justice Department and could order
Speaker 1: it around to to to in student an investigation, to
Speaker 1: eliminate investigation, and could not be questioned about that. In
Speaker 1: other words, he thinks that as a matter of law,
Speaker 1: a president can't obstruct justice, which is a very wild
Speaker 1: and theory to which most people do not do not agree.
Speaker 1: Um and the fact of the matter is we should
Speaker 1: see and judge for ourselves, and that's for Congress to
Speaker 1: judge whether the president obstructive justice or not, and for
Speaker 1: the public ultimately. It's not It's not the Bailey Wick
Speaker 1: of the Attorney General. It is not. No, it is
Speaker 1: not the Bailey Wick of the Attorney General. Again, everything
Speaker 1: Nadler says it's wrong. This guy just goes on TV
Speaker 1: just says wrong things wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It is
Speaker 1: an avalanche of wrong from from Congressman Nadler every time
Speaker 1: he opens his mouth on television these days. Let's just
Speaker 1: start with this. His whole old bar thinks that you
Speaker 1: can't be guilty of obstructure. Editor h. Mueller didn't didn't
Speaker 1: want obstruction charges either, chief, So where does that leave you?
Speaker 1: Is Muller ind on this too? Oh oh, don't think
Speaker 1: the Democrats are past that. Don't think that that's off
Speaker 1: the table. Mueller must have played golf once at a
Speaker 1: Trump resort and and somebody there made a made a
Speaker 1: play for cultivating Mueller is a deep, deep, deep, deep
Speaker 1: secret asset to only be deployed, you know, twenty years
Speaker 1: in the future when Trump would need I mean, people
Speaker 1: are crazy, crazy about this stuff. Mueller said no obstruction
Speaker 1: because there was no obstruction. Mueller said no charges because
Speaker 1: they couldn't charge him. Do you really think for one
Speaker 1: second that Mueller would have skipped the opportunity to look
Speaker 1: like a hero to the fifty percent of the country
Speaker 1: that absolutely hates Donald Trump with a burning passion if
Speaker 1: they think of how many zeros would be added to
Speaker 1: Muller's memoir if only he had just he doesn't have
Speaker 1: to even win the case, just bring the charges against
Speaker 1: just say that the president has to be charged. But
Speaker 1: they always leave this out. They hope that people are
Speaker 1: not paying close enough attention to know what's really true here.
Speaker 1: So Mueller is a part of this, and then is
Speaker 1: just you know, for him to claim that the attorney
Speaker 1: general isn't the one who makes this determination, it's like
Speaker 1: he doesn't care what you know, he just doesn't care
Speaker 1: what the truth is. He just doesn't It doesn't matter
Speaker 1: to him that it is obviously the case that this
Speaker 1: this false attorney general. I would also note folks who
Speaker 1: bailed out Hillary for clearly violating the law. I mean, she,
Speaker 1: you know, Hillary was the equivalent of like she had
Speaker 1: a giant bag of weed and they found her and
Speaker 1: she's on video and she's like, yeah, I got a
Speaker 1: giant bag of weed, like and then they just made
Speaker 1: it go away. I mean Hillary's charges were the Justi
Speaker 1: Smollette of Espionage Act charges, as in, it could not
Speaker 1: be more on, I mean, the hoax part of it.
Speaker 1: It could not be more obvious what happened. Why didn't
Speaker 1: Hillary get charged? Oh? Because the justice system worked. No,
Speaker 1: because the Attorney General and James Comey and Lauretta Lynch,
Speaker 1: they made up an excuse for her. They didn't say
Speaker 1: she didn't do it. They just they're not going to
Speaker 1: charge her because she didn't mean it. That that was
Speaker 1: what the excuse was. She didn't mean it. Let's not
Speaker 1: be mean to her. I'm nice, she says. It's an
Speaker 1: entirely different situation with Trump and Muller. We know that
Speaker 1: Trump wasn't getting the benefit of the doubt. Look at
Speaker 1: what they did to the people around Trump that they
Speaker 1: could charge. But no matter what comes out of this
Speaker 1: report on Thursday, the Democrats are going to claim it
Speaker 1: their's obstruction because the machinery of propaganda is already in motion.
Speaker 1: And what they're going to say is, see the president
Speaker 1: of the United States committed obstruction. We need to now
Speaker 1: consider impeachment charges. We need to consider how we punish
Speaker 1: the president for this terrible transgression. And then they want
Speaker 1: to drag that out. You're going to hear about obstruction
Speaker 1: and obstruction and obstruction for the next nine months on
Speaker 1: an endless loop from Democrats. They're never going to let
Speaker 1: it drop until they think it is no longer useful
Speaker 1: for them, even if you and I know that they're crazy.
Speaker 1: By the way, this is what the people that read
Speaker 1: you know, the Slate dot Com, the New York Times
Speaker 1: editorial page, watch CNN. They're gonna love all this obstruction
Speaker 1: talk now, can't get enough of it. It's gonna be
Speaker 1: like catnip for them. Scooby snacks except obstruction shrewber Wow,
Speaker 1: I need to work on my That was a terrible
Speaker 1: Scooby screwy. Nope, still bad. My Scooby is not good. Guys,
Speaker 1: got a code, read myself. We're gonna hit a quick break.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. The fire that they're having at
Speaker 1: the Notre Dame Cathedral is something like a few people
Speaker 1: have witnessed. When we left, we had a whole group
Speaker 1: of your great representatives, and when we left the plane.
Speaker 1: It was it was burning at a level that you
Speaker 1: rarely see a fire burn. It's one of the great
Speaker 1: treasures of the world, the greatest artists in the world.
Speaker 1: Probably if you think about it, I would say Jovida.
Speaker 1: It might be greater than almost any museum in the world.
Speaker 1: And it's burning very badly. It looks like it's burning
Speaker 1: to the ground. But it's a terrible sight to behold.
Speaker 1: Horrific today watching the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris
Speaker 1: just in a blaze. It was hard to believe. At first.
Speaker 1: I saw the initial screenshots of it on social media
Speaker 1: and I thought, this is some this is some really
Speaker 1: bad sick joke that someone is spreading this. Maybe it's
Speaker 1: fake news. You know, you just don't want to believe
Speaker 1: it at first. Sure enough, the tallest single part, the
Speaker 1: main the highest of all the peaks of Notre Dame
Speaker 1: Cathedral came down the highest tower and people watched it
Speaker 1: as it was all on flames. And this is a
Speaker 1: it was for me. I had to turn it off.
Speaker 1: I couldn't keep watching it. It felt like watching a
Speaker 1: surveillance video of somebody walking around the louver with a
Speaker 1: sledge hammer. You know, just just smashing Michelangelo and da
Speaker 1: Vinci and Monet, and you know, just just walking around
Speaker 1: the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City with
Speaker 1: a razor blade and just taking it to all the
Speaker 1: great Renaissance works and it was just horrible. You know.
Speaker 1: I've been to Notre Dame Cathedral at least three or
Speaker 1: four times, and it is one of the most beautiful
Speaker 1: single structures in the world in my opinion, And there's
Speaker 1: so much history. Stretches back to the twelfth century. It
Speaker 1: has been standing in the city of Paris through plagues
Speaker 1: and through pestilence and through war, and you know, as
Speaker 1: many were pointing out today, even survived the Nazis. But
Speaker 1: one one spark, one flame. We don't know yet exactly
Speaker 1: what happened here. I know producer Mike is a little
Speaker 1: he's suspicious of at least foul play. I think we
Speaker 1: could say that, Mike. I'm I'm withholding judgment so far.
Speaker 1: The reporting that look, I'm not there, I'm not on
Speaker 1: the scene. I can't ask anybody any specific questions about it.
Speaker 1: The reporting that I'm seeing is saying that they they
Speaker 1: believe that this was some kind of a terrible accident.
Speaker 1: We'll see, we'll find we'll find out more. All right, Mike,
Speaker 1: you're a little suspicious, fair to say, Yeah, Mike is
Speaker 1: suspicious of what's going on here? I am. I'm waiting
Speaker 1: on this one. I don't see any I don't see
Speaker 1: any evidence to point to other than just saying, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm going with my gut on what could have happened here.
Speaker 1: But it's it's terrible, and it's it look at it's
Speaker 1: a reminder that nothing is permanent. It's actually a line
Speaker 1: from from Game of Thrones, which I did watch over
Speaker 1: this weekend with the new season, and you know, there's
Speaker 1: a linear who says, you know, everything essentially everything fades.
Speaker 1: I forget exactly how we said it, but that's the
Speaker 1: young people keep their distance from old people because old
Speaker 1: people remind them that nothing is permanent. Even the cathedral
Speaker 1: of Notre Dame, which has been around for you know,
Speaker 1: going on a millennium, nothing is permanent. Now they were
Speaker 1: able to save the outer structure, I believe it's not.
Speaker 1: It has not completely burned down, so there's some you know,
Speaker 1: the main structure has been saved. But it's people think
Speaker 1: when you think of Paris. I mean that the two,
Speaker 1: the two physical structures that come to mind are at
Speaker 1: least for me and I think for most people, uh,
Speaker 1: Notre Dame and the Eiffel Tower. And the Eiffel Tower
Speaker 1: is very visible, but it's nowhere near I think the same.
Speaker 1: First of all, nowhere near the historical significance of Notre Dame,
Speaker 1: but also nowhere near the spiritual significance. Even if you
Speaker 1: are not a believer, even if you're not a Roman
Speaker 1: Catholic or a Christian of any kind, Notre Dame was
Speaker 1: a manifestation of physical beauty on earth that was awe inspiring,
Speaker 1: and in that sense it was pointing to the divine.
Speaker 1: Whatever the divine means for the individual in this case,
Speaker 1: there was something awe inspiring about it. It was a tremendous,
Speaker 1: you know, tremendous monument to what human beings were capable
Speaker 1: of in the twelfth century. And then when you add
Speaker 1: added to it all the spirituality and the role that
Speaker 1: cathedrals like Notre Dame played in Western civilization and in
Speaker 1: the spread and growth of the best parts of Western civilization,
Speaker 1: those that we would like to see replicated by the
Speaker 1: rest of the world, including the not West. I think
Speaker 1: it is. It's a hard day for a lot of people.
Speaker 1: It really was like like a dear friend to the
Speaker 1: whole world was consumed with flames, and just for for
Speaker 1: no reason, for no reason, at least no reason that
Speaker 1: we know of. Right now, you had people watching this
Speaker 1: in real time, A lot of social media has posts
Speaker 1: up about this. There there is I would be remiss
Speaker 1: if I didn't say that that Notre Dame has featured
Speaker 1: in attacks that were planned, at least in by by
Speaker 1: different ISIS groups. I mean, Notre Dame is a very
Speaker 1: very visible symbol of not just Paris and France, but
Speaker 1: of Christianity in the West, and so there have been
Speaker 1: failed attacks, there have been aboarded attacks, there have been
Speaker 1: disrupted plots stretching back for for many years. I don't
Speaker 1: have any evidence right now of any of that. If
Speaker 1: I did, I would, you know, I would not be
Speaker 1: shy about making that, making that analytic determination. But I
Speaker 1: think right now we have to assume that the reports
Speaker 1: were seeing so far are accurate in the reports, or
Speaker 1: that there was construction ongoing. And I do believe I
Speaker 1: saw that there weren't any construction workers during this blaze,
Speaker 1: but it might have been electronic electric equipment left behind it.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm not a fire expert either, so
Speaker 1: this is not something that I usually can bring more
Speaker 1: than a lay person's interpretation of people were crying though,
Speaker 1: I mean it's really really affected them. There's something that
Speaker 1: is very magical and memorable about Notre Dame and I've,
Speaker 1: as I said, I've been there and it's one of
Speaker 1: those things that you always you always remember the first
Speaker 1: time you see it, you always remember the first day
Speaker 1: that you are in its presence. It feels almost like
Speaker 1: a living being that you are visiting. I'm glad that
Speaker 1: they're able to save some of it from total destruction,
Speaker 1: but it's a sad day, a sad day for the West,
Speaker 1: and to start off Holy Week this way also has
Speaker 1: a lot of people feeling ill at ease as long
Speaker 1: as Democrats continue to ignore the crisis at the border,
Speaker 1: and we have to look at all options across the
Speaker 1: table so that the town's right there on the border
Speaker 1: aren't taking on the entire burden, and that we're shifting
Speaker 1: some of that burden to places who constantly claim to
Speaker 1: want to have open borders and want to have an
Speaker 1: open city nobody thinks that this is the ideal solution.
Speaker 1: But until we can fix the crisis at the border,
Speaker 1: we have to look at all options. This is one
Speaker 1: of them. Whether or not it moves forward, that's yet
Speaker 1: to be determined. I thought that Democrats and sanctuary cities
Speaker 1: couldn't get enough illegal aliens. I thought the illegal aliens
Speaker 1: were the foundation of America. According to left right, this
Speaker 1: is what we've been told for a long time. Now,
Speaker 1: they do the jobs Americans won't do. They commit fewer
Speaker 1: crimes than Americans. They're they're better than Americans. I mean,
Speaker 1: this has become a mantra on the left. This has
Speaker 1: become a very oft repeated claim, and you hear it
Speaker 1: from all over the place that Democrats really must believe
Speaker 1: this because they say it all the time. And yet
Speaker 1: here we are looking at the issue of sanctuary cities
Speaker 1: and the possibility of transferring people two sanctuary cities who
Speaker 1: have just arrived at the border, and lo and behold,
Speaker 1: what a shock. The illegal aliens getting dropped off in
Speaker 1: in downtown Los Angeles by the bus load is not
Speaker 1: something that Democrats are excited about. Well, well, why is that? Now?
Speaker 1: I would make the argument, and I have. I think
Speaker 1: this is a prize in people. I think illegals would
Speaker 1: like it, meaning that I think that for a lot
Speaker 1: of them to be brought to it, because otherwise, you know,
Speaker 1: if the government doesn't move them somewhere, and the government's
Speaker 1: not going to be a door to door ferrying service
Speaker 1: for these people, right, So it's not if you have
Speaker 1: relatives in Peoria. I don't think that the federal government's
Speaker 1: gonna say, oh yeah, we're gonna just put you on
Speaker 1: a plan and take you there or you know, here
Speaker 1: you go, We're gonna drive you ourselves to Peory, Illinois.
Speaker 1: I don't think it's going to happen. But to be
Speaker 1: dropped off in a major city, for a lot of them,
Speaker 1: that's probably gonna be a good thing. And if it's
Speaker 1: not the thing, the only reason would be that they
Speaker 1: have family in this country already and that they're scamming
Speaker 1: the system, right, I mean, if they're true refugees, you
Speaker 1: would think that this wasn't about trying to link up
Speaker 1: with people in this country that they already know who
Speaker 1: are here. They're not true refugees though, so we it's
Speaker 1: not clear how many. I don't I don't think they
Speaker 1: even tracked this, how many of them have an internal
Speaker 1: sponsor ready to go for them when they arrive. I
Speaker 1: would guess a lot of them do. But for those
Speaker 1: that don't, yeah, you probably do want to get dropped
Speaker 1: off in Los Angeles or San Francisco or you know,
Speaker 1: places that are close to the border like that that
Speaker 1: are sanctuary cities. Why doesn't Los Angeles get excited about
Speaker 1: this prospect? Now? I saw share? But what was it?
Speaker 1: The chair over the weekend tweeted, I got I gotta
Speaker 1: find this real quick because this was this was kind
Speaker 1: of a wow wow moment because the President, President Trump
Speaker 1: responded to this share said something about sanctuary cities that
Speaker 1: got retwet tweeted and people were very by the President
Speaker 1: United States. Here you go? What was that? What was
Speaker 1: the tweet mic that she said? Okay, here you go?
Speaker 1: This is share the sent do you do you believe
Speaker 1: your life after live? That is not a good share impersonation.
Speaker 1: But you know what I'm you know, I'm talking about believe.
Speaker 1: It's it's kind of an I'm getting closer. I'm getting closer. Yeah, yeah,
Speaker 1: make fun of me all you want. Yeah, I know
Speaker 1: I deserve that. That sounds that sound a little bit
Speaker 1: like like somebody from the Muppets? Do you believe your
Speaker 1: life after live? But Share tweeted out, I understand helping
Speaker 1: struggling immigrants, but my city, Los Angeles isn't taking care
Speaker 1: of its own. What about the fifty thousand plus citizens
Speaker 1: who live on the streets, people who live below the
Speaker 1: poverty line and are hungry. If my state can't take
Speaker 1: care of its own men, our vets, how can it
Speaker 1: take care of more? Hold on, hold the phone, Hold
Speaker 1: on a second here, whoa whoa whoa nice shooting? Share?
Speaker 1: What do you mean that we could have a conversation
Speaker 1: about taking care of those already in this country that
Speaker 1: are poor and needy before bringing an additional million poor
Speaker 1: and needy people into the country who are coming in
Speaker 1: illegally and aren't Americans in any way, shape or form.
Speaker 1: Is that and is that a conversation we could at
Speaker 1: least have. Well that's a racist, right, That's what they'll say.
Speaker 1: That's what the left will say. But because of the
Speaker 1: back last to this, it should it should surprise no
Speaker 1: one that Share because the president, President Trump retweeted her,
Speaker 1: and now she's walking it. She's walking it back. Those
Speaker 1: who can must take Oh no, I'm sorry, this is
Speaker 1: a pardon me. She changed her mind from US September
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen tweet, So she's actually shifted towards Trump, not
Speaker 1: away from Trump. Pardon me. And here's what she said
Speaker 1: in seven twenty seventeen. Those who can must take a
Speaker 1: dreamer into their home and protect them. I'm ready to
Speaker 1: do this, and others of my business will do the same. Sanctuary, sanctuary,
Speaker 1: she says. But Share, the singer of share Fame, she
Speaker 1: all of a sudden, has a different, different approach to this,
Speaker 1: recognizes that, oh, that's right, maybe adding to the roles
Speaker 1: of those who need government assistance when we already have
Speaker 1: quite a poverty problem in Los Angeles right now. If
Speaker 1: you spend any time there. Last time I was there,
Speaker 1: I saw it tent cities and people living in tents
Speaker 1: all over the streets. It's unsanitary, it's dangerous. It is
Speaker 1: a blight for the communities that have to deal with this.
Speaker 1: I mean, you should not have people living on the
Speaker 1: streets in cities made up of tents, you know, and cardboard,
Speaker 1: But that's what you have in some parts of And
Speaker 1: these are people that are in some cases choosing, choosing
Speaker 1: to be homeless, choosing to live a life on the streets.
Speaker 1: It's not just people that are down on their luck.
Speaker 1: There is this decision to be a vagrant that is
Speaker 1: more and more a thing. I'm not saying it's a
Speaker 1: majority of them, but there are people that are choosing
Speaker 1: a life of vagrancy. Then there was all this challenge
Speaker 1: back to the sanctuary cities and the transferring of them.
Speaker 1: There was this whole challenge about whether or not this
Speaker 1: is legal. And I just I like it that Tom Homan,
Speaker 1: who was the former acting ICE director, every time I
Speaker 1: see him in Fox News in the Great Room, he's like, Buck,
Speaker 1: I loved your head. I'm like, Tom, that's so funny
Speaker 1: because I loved your head right before. We see this
Speaker 1: issue very eye to eye, probably because we both. I mean,
Speaker 1: he knows a tremendous amount of issues he's been handling
Speaker 1: for decades. But we've been doing our deep dives into this.
Speaker 1: And here's what Tom said about the challenges to the
Speaker 1: legality of this whole situation. People are saying, oh, no,
Speaker 1: you can't do that, it would be illegal. Well play
Speaker 1: with eight. I don't understand what they're talking about. Legalities
Speaker 1: because we already moved people. When I was the ICE director,
Speaker 1: we moved people all of the country. ICE moves aliens
Speaker 1: all of the country, different facilities in all fifty states.
Speaker 1: And I tell you something, we're right now. We're moving
Speaker 1: you know, a company alien children at government expense first
Speaker 1: or moved to an h chess facility, and once they
Speaker 1: find a parent sponsor at government expense, they're moving to
Speaker 1: h Chess facity to reunite with a parent or sponsor.
Speaker 1: Have to deal with the consequences of their failures and
Speaker 1: their resistance. Administration Coigress has failed on this issue. The
Speaker 1: reasons they're caravans at the boarder to begin with is
Speaker 1: because Congress hasn't to loopholes in the law. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: Governor Newsom, two people who've been pushing for WelCom borders
Speaker 1: in California, such a welcoming state. I would think they'd
Speaker 1: applaud this effort, saying they moved people all over the
Speaker 1: all over the country, already spending a lot of money
Speaker 1: doing it too. Why are the Democrats opposed to this?
Speaker 1: Notice is a trend among the left, among the Democrats
Speaker 1: that they say they're in favor of things until all
Speaker 1: of a sudden you're going to give it to them,
Speaker 1: and unless they can get out of it, unless it
Speaker 1: doesn't apply to them, Oh well then they've got Then
Speaker 1: they got a problem. Then they've got a problem. They
Speaker 1: don't want to live under the rules they want to
Speaker 1: make us live under. They don't want to pay the
Speaker 1: taxes they want you to pay. They don't want to
Speaker 1: have their schools overrun with you know, English as a
Speaker 1: second language instruction and you know recently arrived to legals
Speaker 1: who if there are from war torn countries or countries
Speaker 1: with tremendous poverty and problems, are going to need additional
Speaker 1: school resources, just the just a fact. You know, the
Speaker 1: problems of crime and lawlessness that come to communities where
Speaker 1: there's and you might say, well buck, but the overall numbers.
Speaker 1: I want no MS thirteen gangsters in this country. I
Speaker 1: want none. And I know that there are some who
Speaker 1: are born here, are from here, but I don't want
Speaker 1: any additional ones. This is why you have screening processes.
Speaker 1: This is why immigration is a process a system. If
Speaker 1: what the left beliefs about immigration now is true, someone
Speaker 1: has to explain to me why we should have an
Speaker 1: immigration system at all. If whoever shows up at our
Speaker 1: border is worthy and a good person and should be
Speaker 1: an American, which is a whole other step, right, we
Speaker 1: should be brought into the American family. If anyone who
Speaker 1: shows up at our border falls into that category, then
Speaker 1: why have an immigration system at all? Why not just
Speaker 1: have you know, why not have an open border? Left
Speaker 1: has no answer for this. They just have accusations and taunts,
Speaker 1: tell you you're racist, to tell you're a bad person.
Speaker 1: And if you try to engage them on this issue,
Speaker 1: you just hear talking phone talking points and then outrage
Speaker 1: because intellectually their position is just untenable. It makes no sense,
Speaker 1: It is self contradictory, and they don't want to accept it.
Speaker 1: Their open borders, but they are bring the illegal earlier.
Speaker 1: They call them the illegals. I call them the illegals.
Speaker 1: They came across the border illegally. Will bring them to
Speaker 1: sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care
Speaker 1: of it, whether it's a state or whatever it might be.
Speaker 1: California certainly is always saying, oh, we want more people,
Speaker 1: and they want more people in their sanctuary cities. Well
Speaker 1: we'll give them more people. We can give them a lot.
Speaker 1: We can give them an unlimited supply. And let's see
Speaker 1: if they're so happy. They say we have open arms.
Speaker 1: They're always saying they have open arms. Let's see if
Speaker 1: they have open arms. And President Trump has managed to
Speaker 1: troll the Democrats into refuting what you would think is
Speaker 1: a mainstream position for them, which is that the more
Speaker 1: the more sanctuary city immigrants legal immigrants you can gather
Speaker 1: one place, the better they should. They should absolutely be
Speaker 1: in favor of this, but they're not. In fact, they
Speaker 1: are are claiming, as I just mentioned before the break,
Speaker 1: that the issue here is one of legality that the
Speaker 1: president can't do. It would be illegal for him to
Speaker 1: do this. Play clip nine. This is Jerry Nadler, whose
Speaker 1: legal analysis is terrible, but this is what he said.
Speaker 1: The President has no right to spend money appropriated by
Speaker 1: Congress for the purposes to ship immigrants solo over the country.
Speaker 1: Nor is it right for the president to use immigrants
Speaker 1: or people who are claiming political asylum as pawns in
Speaker 1: a fight against political opponents. Why why are they being
Speaker 1: used as pawns? Why aren't they a gift from Trump
Speaker 1: directly to these actuary cities? What would be wrong with this.
Speaker 1: Democrats never get to why they oppose it, what's the problem,
Speaker 1: why would this scare people? Right? Democrats are very convinced
Speaker 1: that there's no downside from any of this, so it
Speaker 1: should be fine, it should be great. And as for
Speaker 1: no right to ship immigrants around the country. This as
Speaker 1: we mentioned before Tom Holm, and this happens constantly. They're
Speaker 1: shipping immigrants all over the country. This is what an
Speaker 1: immigration and custom enforcement has to do. They're they're spending
Speaker 1: all this money reuniting kids with their parents. What they say,
Speaker 1: what it really is is parents that came here illegally
Speaker 1: in many cases are now in a position where their
Speaker 1: kids shows up at the border. The kid gets essentially
Speaker 1: a taxpayer funded ferry service to take him or her
Speaker 1: to the illegal parent anywhere in the country, got to
Speaker 1: reunite them with the family. No questions asked about that.
Speaker 1: It's astonishing, it really is. They have no real response
Speaker 1: to any of this from the left other than the
Speaker 1: usual stuff about how it's you know, we're so racist,
Speaker 1: we're so terrible. Um. You know, the people take the
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders approach, which is just to trash the president.
Speaker 1: You know, if he's all these things that they say
Speaker 1: he is. Why can't they make better arguments about why
Speaker 1: Trump is wrong? Why did his always devolve into this
Speaker 1: name calling? You know, I have had so many disagreements
Speaker 1: with Democrats. I mean, I have disagreement with Democrats every day.
Speaker 1: It's what I do. But I'm not always just running
Speaker 1: around saying how they're a bunch of bigots and racists
Speaker 1: and this and that. I mean, their policies are crazy,
Speaker 1: so I call them crazy. But you know, here's a
Speaker 1: taste of how Bernie responds to the president and how
Speaker 1: he refers to the president. I still think Bernie's gonna
Speaker 1: be the Democrat nominee play for can I understand why
Speaker 1: people voted for Trump. I got that, But the sad
Speaker 1: trip is, and I'm not the first person to save us.
Speaker 1: We have a president who he is a pathological lawyer,
Speaker 1: lawyers my favorite day. I mean, the media has stopped
Speaker 1: invented thousands of lies that he has pulled, and he
Speaker 1: lied during the campaign. That's right, that a sexist, all racist,
Speaker 1: all texist, a homophobe, all of these things. Such a
Speaker 1: focus on the name calling, why not a focus on
Speaker 1: the policies. Here, here's why Bernie Sanders said, it's understandable
Speaker 1: why people voted for Trump. Here's one reason why they
Speaker 1: voted for Trump because they know that the federal government overall,
Speaker 1: both parties, and the media have been lying to them
Speaker 1: about immigration for for years, if not decades, just lying
Speaker 1: about it. It's always it's always, you know, illegal immigration specifically,
Speaker 1: it's always a good thing. It's great. We need more
Speaker 1: of it, no problem, we got it under control. We're
Speaker 1: deporting a lot of people. All this is nonsense. There
Speaker 1: are eleven million illegals in the country. No, no serious
Speaker 1: person believes this. Zo Well put the number. If you
Speaker 1: think that survey data, voluntary survey data, is sufficient to
Speaker 1: tell you how many people are hiding in this country illegally,
Speaker 1: they're not really hiding, but living in the country illegally.
Speaker 1: I think that there's a chance, and it depends on
Speaker 1: how the base really feels about Trump that he sails
Speaker 1: to reelection in part because the Democrats are so deeply
Speaker 1: un serious on the issue immigration and the crisis at
Speaker 1: the border is so clearly something that they are in
Speaker 1: favor of, that they advocate for that the American people,
Speaker 1: at least those who aren't completely ideologically aligned with the
Speaker 1: far left and with the left wing aims of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: that the American people are just going to say, I
Speaker 1: can't do this. You know, if they're not going to
Speaker 1: secure the border, we can't put them in power. We
Speaker 1: can't put Democrats in charge. Even if Trump is imperfect
Speaker 1: on the issue, at least he's saying the right things.
Speaker 1: At least he's trying to do something. What Democrats are
Speaker 1: trying to do is continue the crisis, make things worse,
Speaker 1: and that, for me, could be a deciding factor I
Speaker 1: think in Trump's reelection. I mean not just for me,
Speaker 1: but I mean that in my analysis of this could
Speaker 1: be why Trump wins. If the economy is strong and
Speaker 1: the Democrats just continue this posture of being de facto
Speaker 1: open borders. I don't see how you could have a
Speaker 1: Democrat defeat president of the next election cycle. I just
Speaker 1: don't see it. Do we get a massive recession, I
Speaker 1: keep saying that's gonna be that's the game change. Remember
Speaker 1: that happened. People forget that Obama got very lucky. You
Speaker 1: had an eight years of a Republican president and then
Speaker 1: a huge recession and one that was really felt at
Speaker 1: the time like it could be catastrophic financially and economically,
Speaker 1: and Obama came in in with his hope and change
Speaker 1: and all this stuff, and as a result, we had
Speaker 1: the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.
Speaker 1: As much as Democrats want to pretend that the stimulus
Speaker 1: was some great savior of the country, it's just Obama
Speaker 1: was not a good steward of the recovery, nor was
Speaker 1: he a good steward of the economy overall. But he
Speaker 1: did get lucky. From an election perspective, the Republicans have
Speaker 1: been in power and then all of a sudden things
Speaker 1: look pretty bad and people decided they wanted something new.
Speaker 1: If that happens, Bernie Sanders saying, you're gonna get free distant,
Speaker 1: free that, free college, free healthcare, free cookie, show up
Speaker 1: at the show up at a rally, get a free cookie.
Speaker 1: Daniell probably be able to He'll probably be able to win.
Speaker 1: That's my real concern. I don't think Congress, particularly not
Speaker 1: this group of congressmen and women, are smart enough to
Speaker 1: look through the thousands of pages that I would assume
Speaker 1: that President Trump's taxes will be. My guess is most
Speaker 1: of them don't do their own taxes. And I certainly
Speaker 1: don't trust them to look through the decades of success
Speaker 1: that the president has and determine anything. Democrats still fired
Speaker 1: up over President Trump's taxes. But it's leading nowhere, folks.
Speaker 1: That's a pretty confident prediction from yours, truly. But I
Speaker 1: care about our taxes, as in I had to go
Speaker 1: and stand in line today and deal with the Post
Speaker 1: Office to make sure that Uncle Sam is getting enough
Speaker 1: of my stuff. And I just find it very, very
Speaker 1: frustrating that here we are paying all the taxes we do,
Speaker 1: but the tax cut happened. There's some other stuff, taxes, taxes.
Speaker 1: Who we turn to for insight on this matter, Matty
Speaker 1: Duppler aka Dupples to me, at least she is with
Speaker 1: us now. She is the president of Forward Strategies and
Speaker 1: a tax wonk walk extraordinaire, Matty. Great to have you back,
Speaker 1: Hey Bock, So you're down to the wire. How one
Speaker 1: of those people have silent to minute? I? Well, you know,
Speaker 1: I filed for an extension, but I still had to
Speaker 1: write a big fat check. So what should what should
Speaker 1: we think about where we are right now? Matt? I
Speaker 1: mean the President's tax cut. He talks about it a
Speaker 1: lot GOP's all excited about it. But I'll put aside
Speaker 1: for a moment that we didn't elect Trump just to
Speaker 1: cut taxes. I mean, that's one of many things you
Speaker 1: wanted him to do. But how good a tax cut
Speaker 1: was this really because it feels like I'm still giving
Speaker 1: them the money, way too much money to the government.
Speaker 1: You're still giving way too much to the money to
Speaker 1: the government, no doubt about it. But but this was
Speaker 1: the first time that we have had wholesale tax reform
Speaker 1: in a generation. Thirty one year that took to reform
Speaker 1: the tax code, and Trump, President Trump was the one
Speaker 1: who was able to do it, So you have to
Speaker 1: give him credit there. Now, over the last eighteen months
Speaker 1: since the debate on tax reform started, there has been
Speaker 1: so much at missinformation out there that it's pretty much
Speaker 1: borderline criminal how much the establishment press got it wrong
Speaker 1: on the tax cut. You thought today in the front
Speaker 1: pages of the New York Time Time talking about how
Speaker 1: there was a lot of misleading data out there, But
Speaker 1: in reality, the majority of Americans received the tax cut.
Speaker 1: And since today is the first time Americans are filing
Speaker 1: their taxes under the new code, they need to understand
Speaker 1: that after months of being lied to, four out of
Speaker 1: five taxpayers in the United States got a tax cut
Speaker 1: as a result of the Tax Cutting Jobs Act. And
Speaker 1: you hear a lot, especially now that we're going into
Speaker 1: another presidential cycle, about Americans paying their fair share, we
Speaker 1: need more taxes on rich people. But what the Tax
Speaker 1: Cut and JOBSAC did was it actually increase the share
Speaker 1: the burden on the higher income earners in this country.
Speaker 1: It increased the progressivity in the tax code. And even
Speaker 1: though those high income earners still got a tax cut,
Speaker 1: the people who are benefiting the most are those who
Speaker 1: are in the middle income brackets because they were the
Speaker 1: ones who had the largest share of their after tax
Speaker 1: income increased thanks for the Tax Cutting Jobs Act. If
Speaker 1: you make fifty thousand dollars a year in this country
Speaker 1: roughly speak. Now, I know there's deductions and blob the
Speaker 1: blot all that, but roughly speaking, how much more hash
Speaker 1: do you have in your pocket for the year this
Speaker 1: past year twenty eighteen because of Trump's tax cut. So back,
Speaker 1: the typical American family of four is making about seventy
Speaker 1: two grand a year in this country and they over
Speaker 1: two thousand. Yeah, they are making over They are over
Speaker 1: two thousand dollars richer as a result of the tax
Speaker 1: cut in jobs. And that's not just because their tax
Speaker 1: rate was reduced, which is true for income earners across
Speaker 1: the scale. It's also because they doubled the child tax
Speaker 1: credit and the eligibility for the child tax credit was expanded,
Speaker 1: So not only do you have a bigger child tax credit,
Speaker 1: you might be eligible for it when you weren't able
Speaker 1: to cash it in it Before the AMT, the alternative
Speaker 1: minimum tax, which is essentially a double tax structure where
Speaker 1: most tax filers had to do their taxes twice and
Speaker 1: then pay the highest number of their taxes, that was
Speaker 1: diminished a little bit. Five million people fell out of
Speaker 1: the AMT, and as a result they now have more
Speaker 1: tax credits and deductions that they can take. Other parts
Speaker 1: of the task Coude that you don't hear a lot about,
Speaker 1: but our really important expansion of five twenty nine savings accounts.
Speaker 1: This allows families to use tax free savings not just
Speaker 1: for college, but for primary and secondary education. As you know,
Speaker 1: we've got a labor shortage in this country, we've got
Speaker 1: a training epidemic in this country. Allowing families to use
Speaker 1: money for diverse education needs. It's certainly a way to
Speaker 1: help the average American family in this country. And you know,
Speaker 1: you don't hear a lot about the ways of this
Speaker 1: tax code help that average American family, because we have
Speaker 1: to remember, Democrats did not vote for this tax bill.
Speaker 1: Not a single Democrat could say, yes, I want to
Speaker 1: cut race for the every American, I want to cut
Speaker 1: rates at every level of the income tax code. I
Speaker 1: want to give a double child tax credit, I want
Speaker 1: to expand the eligibility for the child tax cred and
Speaker 1: the use of five twenty nine. Not a single Democrat
Speaker 1: could say that that was a good move for the
Speaker 1: American people. I think that the American people will remember that,
Speaker 1: particularly today if they're like you, waiting in line to
Speaker 1: write a check to the government and not particularly pleased
Speaker 1: about it. The corporate tax cut was how important and
Speaker 1: how effective? Because what you hear and I've been treated
Speaker 1: to a lot of this in the last few weeks
Speaker 1: on the set of Rising, where we have a bunch
Speaker 1: of Democrat Marxists who come on to talk about how
Speaker 1: this was all just for the rich people. What do
Speaker 1: you say to those who claim that the corporate tax
Speaker 1: cut was just giving fat cats more cash and doesn't
Speaker 1: help average Americans. I find this argument to be so
Speaker 1: interesting because you can't look around any corner without economic
Speaker 1: data that just proves it. Now, the President was very
Speaker 1: clear when the tax bill was being negotiated. He had
Speaker 1: two major objectives with getting it done. One was delivering
Speaker 1: a middle class tax cut. The other was making the
Speaker 1: United States competitive. Again. We had the highest corporate tax
Speaker 1: rate in the developed world, and we were trying to
Speaker 1: compete with countries that had cut their corporate tax rates
Speaker 1: so much that they were ten percentage points below where
Speaker 1: the American rate was. Not only that American companies repeatalized
Speaker 1: whenever they earned money overseas and try to bring it
Speaker 1: back because we were one of the only countries where
Speaker 1: we forced companies to pay taxes twice on those profits.
Speaker 1: Tax cutting jobs that got rid of that. It creates
Speaker 1: a more competitive environment by lowering that corporate tax rate
Speaker 1: to twenty one percent, And the result of that is
Speaker 1: what we hear about every month when we're talking about
Speaker 1: jobs numbers. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases their
Speaker 1: report at the first Fronday Friday of every month. In
Speaker 1: twenty eighteen, for the first time, in ten years, the
Speaker 1: average American worker finally started to see a pay increase.
Speaker 1: And that's because when you reduce those barriers on corporate profits,
Speaker 1: corporations then can take that money and invest it back
Speaker 1: into their companies as a means of making their workers
Speaker 1: more productive. When workers are more productive, they are allowed
Speaker 1: to demand more labor, more value for their labor, and
Speaker 1: they are paid more. So that's why you're seeing wages
Speaker 1: rise now. And that's why you had not seen wages
Speaker 1: rise even though the economy has started to expand the
Speaker 1: beginning ten years ago. This was a very secular expansion
Speaker 1: in recovery because workers did not see their wages rise
Speaker 1: at all, because we still have that corporate tax rate
Speaker 1: that created so much obstruction to growth that workers cann't
Speaker 1: get their piece of the pie and not for enough
Speaker 1: in bucks. The people who are benefiting the most are
Speaker 1: the bottom ten percent of those workers. They are the
Speaker 1: ones who are seeing their wages rise faster than any
Speaker 1: other cohort who in that economic picture, their wages are
Speaker 1: rising faster than they have since two thousand, that's almost
Speaker 1: a twenty year gap, well before we've seen that kind
Speaker 1: of rate of increase. So for the people who are
Speaker 1: coming on rising, who are telling you that it's only
Speaker 1: the fatcasts on Wall Street who are getting rich. They
Speaker 1: are not paying attention to the economic data. They are
Speaker 1: not paying attention to the average American and their story
Speaker 1: that's being told across this country. And they better wake
Speaker 1: up because they keep ignoring that. What they're going to
Speaker 1: do is they're going to fuel another I think, embrace
Speaker 1: of a Trump presidency. Whatever happened to real tax simplification?
Speaker 1: Why is it that the tax code is still over
Speaker 1: seventy thousand pages. Ted Cruz was campaigning on doing your
Speaker 1: taxes on a postage card or postage whatever you call it.
Speaker 1: A what do you send people with the postcard? Yeah,
Speaker 1: thank you? A postcard English not really my first language.
Speaker 1: Apparently on a postcard. Trump said, simplification is going to happen.
Speaker 1: I understand that there's been some collapsing of rates and such,
Speaker 1: But the tax code, as far as I understand it
Speaker 1: is still tens of thousands of pages. Why why can't
Speaker 1: we get a tax code that's like two pages, Maddie
Speaker 1: or one right? It is still far too complex. There
Speaker 1: have been strides made in making it less complex. On
Speaker 1: the individual side. You see that with now nine out
Speaker 1: of ten filers are just taking the standard deduction because
Speaker 1: the Tax Cutting Job Back doubled the standard deduction, so
Speaker 1: it made that the most lucrative tax break for individual
Speaker 1: earners to take. The National Tax parag Union, where I'm
Speaker 1: a senior fellow, they released the report every year that
Speaker 1: talks about tax complexity and what the burden is that
Speaker 1: it puts on the economy, and that tax burden was
Speaker 1: decreased by about forty one million hours as a result
Speaker 1: of the Tax Cutting Jobs Act. There's still a lot
Speaker 1: of work to be done on the side of the
Speaker 1: corporate tax rate and the business side is things that
Speaker 1: still remains far too complex. If you can get rid
Speaker 1: of some of those complexities, that will shave off the
Speaker 1: cost that it takes to administrate the tax burden and
Speaker 1: for companies to comply, and that will mean more money
Speaker 1: and more economic turn back to the private enterprise, which
Speaker 1: of course allows the United States to become and stay
Speaker 1: the most competitive economy in the world. Maddie Duppler, you
Speaker 1: do taxes like nobody else does taxes. Maddie, it's amazing.
Speaker 1: That's a dubious distinction. But thanks for having me up.
Speaker 1: I know you. You're a super busy today. This woman's
Speaker 1: scout like fifty TV and radio hits over the course
Speaker 1: of tax Day because everyone else is like explained the
Speaker 1: taxes to me. Mattie, Maddie, thank you so much, so
Speaker 1: forward strategies. Everybody. You can follow Mattie on Twitter as well.
Speaker 1: Duples you rock the COSBA. Thanks back, All right, team,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. My name is Carlos Gazatua. I'm
Speaker 1: the president for Sergio's Family Restaurants in Miami, Florida. Are
Speaker 1: business has been in business for over forty four years,
Speaker 1: on third generation running the business. It's a woman based
Speaker 1: organization that started nineteen seventy five and now we currently
Speaker 1: have over six hundred and fifty employees into South Florida.
Speaker 1: I want to tell you that the tax cuts are working.
Speaker 1: Here's what we're doing. We're investing in equipment and technology.
Speaker 1: We've created jobs in our corporate infrastructure to create a
Speaker 1: franchise system and for our stores. And today I am
Speaker 1: proud to announced with you that we'll be offering four
Speaker 1: one case to all of our employees tomorrow. Real positive
Speaker 1: change for a business owner, for a job creator down
Speaker 1: in Florida. Who's saying, Look, tax cuts have been a
Speaker 1: godsend for Austin, for our business, for our workers, for
Speaker 1: our employees. Government's never going to make you rich. Government's
Speaker 1: never going to make you happy. The government's never going
Speaker 1: to make you safe. This is what democrats don't understand.
Speaker 1: Government's not your friends, not there to hug you, keep
Speaker 1: you warm and safe at night. The government is there
Speaker 1: to protect our rights and to engage in activities that
Speaker 1: are clearly defined in the constitution. That is it. So
Speaker 1: when these people who come from the left, and there
Speaker 1: are even some on the right as well, suggest that,
Speaker 1: you know, it's the government's business to be creating jobs,
Speaker 1: the government should be the one that are the ones
Speaker 1: that are focused on this. Oh, if we want if
Speaker 1: we want jobs, what we need is an infrastructure bill. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what's going to do it. You know, what we
Speaker 1: really want is to get the government out of the
Speaker 1: way of people that are creating jobs by providing goods
Speaker 1: and services that people want and want more of, and
Speaker 1: want increasingly efficient delivery of those things at better prices.
Speaker 1: That's what people want. The tax cuts are always just
Speaker 1: we're just filled with all these lies about what happened
Speaker 1: to them. I mean, the way that people have in
Speaker 1: the media talked about this is completely dishonest. It's really
Speaker 1: hard when when you look at this to come away
Speaker 1: and not think, oh, so this was really a victory
Speaker 1: of fake news. I mean, this is a thread from
Speaker 1: my friend David Harsanyi, you know who we have on
Speaker 1: this show on a on a pretty regular basis, and
Speaker 1: he pulled together a whole bunch of different ways that
Speaker 1: Democrats were talking about the tax cuts. And what it
Speaker 1: shows you is that the tax cuts we're just lied
Speaker 1: about so much that it worked and people didn't take
Speaker 1: the time. They didn't they didn't, you know, have enough
Speaker 1: initiative on their own. So they've got other things to
Speaker 1: do to look into all this. But here you go.
Speaker 1: This is a story Metro dot us goop tax bill
Speaker 1: will kill ten thousand people a year, says economist Larry Summers.
Speaker 1: This is on the Hill dot com Pelosi gop GOP
Speaker 1: tax bill the worst bill in the history of Congress.
Speaker 1: Meet some of the victims of the Trump tax plan.
Speaker 1: This is a Yahoo Finance piece Washington Post. It's not
Speaker 1: enough to give money to rich people. Apparently Republicans want
Speaker 1: to kick the poor and middle class in the phase two.
Speaker 1: This is according to a supposedly serious economist at the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, this is amazing, opinion, a tax plan to
Speaker 1: turbo charge inequality in three charts. Tax cuts that mainly
Speaker 1: benefit the wealthy and spending cuts that mostly hit everyone
Speaker 1: else will only widen the gap. So oh, here we go, CNN.
Speaker 1: Trump's tax tax cuts are a bust. The ominous absurdity
Speaker 1: of Trump's tax cuts. Five false or misleading things Trump
Speaker 1: said in his speech about taxes. It's just this is
Speaker 1: just all It's all propaganda. I mean, I can go
Speaker 1: on and on and on. It's all propaganda. They say
Speaker 1: things like, oh, well, the most of the benefits go
Speaker 1: to the rich, not as a proportion of money and wealth.
Speaker 1: It doesn't. And here's what do you end up finding
Speaker 1: out is that if you look at this tax and
Speaker 1: we just talked to Mattie Deppler, who's a true tax experts,
Speaker 1: a friend of mine, if you look at what happened here,
Speaker 1: everybody has more money. But the media's fake news was
Speaker 1: so successful in this process that here we are on
Speaker 1: tax Day and I am steamed about how much time
Speaker 1: and effort and money I had to give the government
Speaker 1: in order to comply with my taxes. I think more
Speaker 1: Americans should be upset about this. We shouldn't just like
Speaker 1: a bunch of penned in cows ready to be milked,
Speaker 1: except that government has put us through all of this
Speaker 1: and takes as much from us as it does. But
Speaker 1: you still have most people thinking that they didn't get
Speaker 1: money that they got because they were lied to. This
Speaker 1: was an exercise in fake news by the media to
Speaker 1: undermine something that the Trump administration clearly did and accomplished,
Speaker 1: which was the tax cut. They said they would do it,
Speaker 1: and they did it. There have been serious benefits from it,
Speaker 1: but they want to pretend that there's been nothing. In fact,
Speaker 1: it's bad for people. They've been led to believe it's
Speaker 1: bad for them. This is why you can't trust what
Speaker 1: these left wing outlet's say, and some of them read
Speaker 1: you last week. I think it was the guy from
Speaker 1: vox who was raising this as an issue to be
Speaker 1: out of. See, we fool them. We fool enough of
Speaker 1: those dumb Americans into thinking that they don't have more
Speaker 1: money because of Trump's tax cut. When they do, ha
Speaker 1: ha ha, we win. This is how the left thinks
Speaker 1: about this. Do they care that that means that people
Speaker 1: are you're going to talk about undermining democracy. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're just spreading lies that people vote differently than they
Speaker 1: should based upon what is in their interest. It is
Speaker 1: in the interest of American households to have more money.
Speaker 1: They have more money now, but they don't think they
Speaker 1: have more money because the Democrats have been lying to
Speaker 1: them and saying, oh, look at how your refund is smaller.
Speaker 1: Don't even get me started about how the tax code
Speaker 1: is just a giant monument to corruption, because it is.
Speaker 1: It is insider dealing and insider favors, and the tax
Speaker 1: code is an abomination. But that's a conversation. I guess
Speaker 1: we'll have to have another day. You have these wings
Speaker 1: AOC and her group on one side. It's outside people. No,
Speaker 1: it's the progressive group. Progressive. I'm a progressive. Yeah. However,
Speaker 1: I do reject socialism as an economic system. If people
Speaker 1: have that view, that's their view. That is not the
Speaker 1: view of the Democratic Party. WHOA hold the phone, stop
Speaker 1: the presses. The Democrats are not a socialist party. What
Speaker 1: I thought. I thought they were all on board for socialism.
Speaker 1: Now they're saying they're not. Oh you mean you mean
Speaker 1: that they like to talk this big game about how
Speaker 1: progressive they are, and then when it comes to explaining
Speaker 1: to the American people, that would mean they get a
Speaker 1: little shy all of a sudden. Very interesting here. This
Speaker 1: is Pelosi, I think, refusing to accept the reality of
Speaker 1: what is happening in her party. I think she's I
Speaker 1: think she's wrong. I think the Democratic Party is the
Speaker 1: party of socialism. Now. I think the far left does
Speaker 1: control the Democratic Party. I mean she says, that's like
Speaker 1: five people about AOC and to leave and and these
Speaker 1: other very progressive left wing Democrats. Well, where's the agenda going.
Speaker 1: What do you hear from Democrats? Do you hear democrats
Speaker 1: talk about how they're gonna fix problems? No, you hear them.
Speaker 1: And this is now mainstream talking points from Democrats, things
Speaker 1: like the Green New Deal, which is an environmental plan
Speaker 1: for people that are just nuts, for crazy people. The
Speaker 1: Green New Deal. You're going to rebuild every building to
Speaker 1: make it environmentally friendly in the country. This is normal.
Speaker 1: People don't think this way. Rational individuals do not take
Speaker 1: this approach. It just simply does not make any sense. Here.
Speaker 1: They are thinking somehow that it does. The Green New
Speaker 1: Deal is one example of it's just that the demonization
Speaker 1: of wealth. I mean, look at Bernie Sanders. You know, millionaires, abilions.
Speaker 1: I'm a millionaire, but I wrote a book, or at
Speaker 1: least people help me write it. It was ghost written,
Speaker 1: and now I'm worth billions of dollars, or at least
Speaker 1: those I wish I was with billions. You know, Bernie
Speaker 1: Sanders talking about all the rich people all the time.
Speaker 1: Notice how a lot of the richest people in the
Speaker 1: country are left wing Democrats. But there's this this ideological
Speaker 1: identification that the left has with the poor and the downtrodden,
Speaker 1: even if it doesn't manifest itself in any meaningful way. Right,
Speaker 1: the Democrats like to think of themselves as the party
Speaker 1: of the poor. Meanwhile, the elites in this country are
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly Democrats. I mean, the true coastal enclaves of snobbery
Speaker 1: and hyper wealth are full of Democrats. They're not full
Speaker 1: of Republicans. I tend to see in my own life
Speaker 1: that Republicans are people who have had to make it
Speaker 1: on their own and are making it on their own
Speaker 1: and have had to work really really hard. Democrats are
Speaker 1: people who either got lucky, got it handed to them,
Speaker 1: or are bitter about the fact that they have the
Speaker 1: money that they do, which is at range but real phenomenon.
Speaker 1: People feel guilty about the success they've had, But demonizing
Speaker 1: success is part of what Democrats do. I mean the notion,
Speaker 1: I know, we talked a bit about taxes today. This
Speaker 1: this notion that you have people who make two hundred
Speaker 1: and fifty thousand dollars a year should be paying the
Speaker 1: same tax rate as somebody who makes ten million dollars
Speaker 1: a year. How is that rooted in any fairness? If
Speaker 1: we're going to use the F word there, how is
Speaker 1: that root any fairness? But for the Democrats, it's all
Speaker 1: about It's all about how it sounds and how it feels.
Speaker 1: That's what the that's that's how they're making these decisions.
Speaker 1: That's what's pushing policy forward for them. You know, how
Speaker 1: does it How does it make you feel that thing
Speaker 1: that you're saying, How does it? How does it make you?
Speaker 1: You know, how does it make you think about these
Speaker 1: things or think about yourself when it comes to these matters.
Speaker 1: Pelosi can downplay the far left inner Party as much
Speaker 1: as she wants, but she knows the power is shifting
Speaker 1: and has shifted towards them. The Democrats now a far
Speaker 1: left party and they're socialists in all but name. And
Speaker 1: that is why when you have AOC saying that she
Speaker 1: thinks that Trump should be impeached, I think the Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to have a very hard time not impeaching
Speaker 1: this president, even if it would be and I believe
Speaker 1: it would be politically a bad idea for them, But
Speaker 1: I think that they have to feed this to their
Speaker 1: rabid left wing base. I don't see a way around it.
Speaker 1: Their base will not accept a more measured approach. Their
Speaker 1: base will not accept that there could be another way play. Thirteen.
Speaker 1: This is largely a part, largely a question for our leadership.
Speaker 1: I think it's this is a very grave problem. But
Speaker 1: there are so many aspects to this presidency that have
Speaker 1: posed a grave problem. Is it impeachable in your view?
Speaker 1: I think you could reach in a bag and pull
Speaker 1: so many things out that are impeachable of this president.
Speaker 1: I support impeaching this president. Oh that's new, that's the
Speaker 1: new approach on the left. There's so much that you
Speaker 1: could impeach this president for that you can't even settle
Speaker 1: on one. Give me one WHOA. Well, I can't because
Speaker 1: there's so much Okay, that's an interesting way to approach this,
Speaker 1: isn't it. It's so obvious he should be impeached that
Speaker 1: you can't think of a single reason to impeach him,
Speaker 1: because there are endless reasons to impeach him. It almost
Speaker 1: sounds like they would impeach him just because they don't
Speaker 1: like him, doesn't it. Maybe that's what we're really getting
Speaker 1: at here. Maybe that's what is exposed in this whole process,
Speaker 1: that it has nothing to do with any specific violations
Speaker 1: of law or even presidential ethics. It's just they hate
Speaker 1: the president. They absolutely hate him. You know. I never
Speaker 1: hated Obama, and I know that maybe it's easy to
Speaker 1: say that now for people, but I didn't. I didn't
Speaker 1: hate Obama. I didn't hate I didn't hate Obama's family,
Speaker 1: which I think is really weird when people, because a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrats hate Trump's family, they'll say terrible things
Speaker 1: about Milannia and barn and I never did that. I
Speaker 1: didn't feel the need to trash the man's family just
Speaker 1: because I disagree them. I hated Obama's policies. I didn't
Speaker 1: like what he stood for, ideologically, I didn't like his
Speaker 1: decision making as commander in chief. It wasn't about hating Obama.
Speaker 1: It's a big difference with what you see in the
Speaker 1: anti Trump resistance. They actually hate Trump. They hate him.
Speaker 1: They take a certain self satisfaction and joy from the
Speaker 1: hatred of this man and his family and those around
Speaker 1: him and those who support him, which includes you and me.
Speaker 1: There's a disdain that they cannot hide, a disdain that
Speaker 1: grows over time. And AOC feels this staying not just
Speaker 1: for Trump, but even for those who are associated with
Speaker 1: Trump in her mind and in the left's mind in
Speaker 1: this country, like newly re elected net and Yahoo in
Speaker 1: Israel Play fourteen. I think these are part of conversations
Speaker 1: that we're having in our caucus. But I think what
Speaker 1: we're really seeing is the essense of authoritarianism across the world.
Speaker 1: I think that netun Yahoo is a Trump like figure.
Speaker 1: Would you be in favor of reducing military or economic
Speaker 1: ade to Israel? I mean, I think it's on the table.
Speaker 1: I think it's not certainly on the table, and I
Speaker 1: think it's something that can be discussed. Net and Yahoo
Speaker 1: is in a Trump like figure that speaks so well
Speaker 1: for Trump in so many ways, isn't it Because the
Speaker 1: Israeli people, the left wing in Israel on security was wrong.
Speaker 1: That's what ended up happening. They were wrong, and these
Speaker 1: really people eventually decided that they weren't going to listen
Speaker 1: to those who blamed Israel first when it came to
Speaker 1: suicide bombers or the Palestinian problem of terrorism. And in
Speaker 1: this country with Trump, we have a similar phenomenon. At
Speaker 1: some point we get tired of the lies and the nonsense,
Speaker 1: and that's what has led to the rise of Trump.
Speaker 1: The political class in this country has betrayed the American people,
Speaker 1: lie to the American people far too many times. So
Speaker 1: if Trump is like net Yahoo and net Yahoo is
Speaker 1: like Trump, good for them. Of course, the left just
Speaker 1: views them both through the same prison, which is one
Speaker 1: of disdain and hatred, and they can't help themselves no
Speaker 1: matter what Pelosi says, criminal prosecution for keeping assault weapons.
Speaker 1: What's the punishment for people who don't hand in their guns?
Speaker 1: Do they go to jail? Well, Jake, they would, but
Speaker 1: I also offer an alternative, which would be to keep
Speaker 1: them at a hunting club or a shooting range. These
Speaker 1: weapons are so devastated. I've seen this as a prosecutor
Speaker 1: in the cases that I've prosecuted. We've seen these and
Speaker 1: the school shootings from Sandy Hook to Parkland, and it's
Speaker 1: not just the violence that they've caused. It's the fear,
Speaker 1: the immeasurable fear that our children live in because they
Speaker 1: are still on our streets. I want to get rid
Speaker 1: of that fear. I want to do what Australia did
Speaker 1: in New Zealand just recently did. I think this issue
Speaker 1: just needs some bold leadership to do it. It's not
Speaker 1: the violence, Swalwell says, it's the fear. He kind of
Speaker 1: gave up the game there, folks. Here you have one
Speaker 1: of the roughly twenty Democrats who are either expected to
Speaker 1: run or running already for the Democratic presidential nomination. Swalwell
Speaker 1: who covered himself in absolute garbage for two years as
Speaker 1: one of the primary voices on Russia Trump collusion. I
Speaker 1: mean he was, he was out there saying all kinds
Speaker 1: of crazy stuff. Now he's building his presidential run around
Speaker 1: many things, I guess, but the primary one he's known
Speaker 1: for is that he opposes the Second Amendment. He wants
Speaker 1: to take all assault weapons from you. Now, some of
Speaker 1: you are probably already saying back, assault weapons aren't really
Speaker 1: a thing, I know, but that's what he's calling them.
Speaker 1: He wants to take all semi automatic rifles with cosmetic
Speaker 1: features that he finds scary. Because remember, it's not the violence,
Speaker 1: it's the fear, that's what he said, the fear that
Speaker 1: our kids have. Who stokes that fear. Who's responsible for
Speaker 1: creating the perception across the country that kids should be
Speaker 1: scared in schools. Children actually safer in school now and
Speaker 1: they were twenty years ago. Numbers don't lie. But who
Speaker 1: creates this perception? Oh, that's right, the media does. So
Speaker 1: the media tells us all to be very very very
Speaker 1: afraid that our children are all at risk. They don't
Speaker 1: want to have armed resource officers or people that might
Speaker 1: be able to do something on the school grounds, or
Speaker 1: at least they scoff at that, which would be a
Speaker 1: more serious proposal. To keep in mind, those school resource
Speaker 1: officers are not just there to stop school shootings in
Speaker 1: the sense that there could be a mass shooting. They're
Speaker 1: there in case there are other emergencies on the campus.
Speaker 1: They're there in case there's a fight that turns, you know,
Speaker 1: particularly violent. You know, you might want to have somebody
Speaker 1: there if two kids pull out switchblades, you probably want
Speaker 1: an armed resource officer on the school grounds. But they
Speaker 1: don't like that idea because it feeds into the good
Speaker 1: guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun narrative.
Speaker 1: That's not the narrative they want to tell. The narrative
Speaker 1: Swalwa wants to tell is that people with assault weapons
Speaker 1: and I don't know what to say. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is what he calls it, right, people with semi automatic
Speaker 1: rifles are posing this big danger to society and people
Speaker 1: that have these particularly, they're going to go after the
Speaker 1: AR fifteen and things like it. That's what they really want.
Speaker 1: That's the most common semi automatic rifle in circulation right
Speaker 1: now that they want to ban under assault assault weapon guidelines,
Speaker 1: and they want to get rid of them because Swawall
Speaker 1: says that that's a danger to society. Now, I would
Speaker 1: have to point out to him that handguns are far
Speaker 1: more dangerous in terms of the lethality. Handguns are what
Speaker 1: really kills people in this country. It's ninety percent plus.
Speaker 1: I think it's ninety might even be more like ninety
Speaker 1: seven percent plus of the homicides that occur on the
Speaker 1: firearm are are with a handgun, might even mean ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent nothing. I mean, it's just almost all of it.
Speaker 1: You have roughly one hundred people, thousands and thousands of
Speaker 1: people a year are shot in this country, and you
Speaker 1: had roughly one hundred people a year are killed by rifles.
Speaker 1: And I think that includes suicides by rifle and a
Speaker 1: long gun shotgun, but it might not include that. It
Speaker 1: might just be those that are shot with those weapons. Yeah,
Speaker 1: cut the suicides out. I think that's not that's not
Speaker 1: in that statistic. But it's less than one hundred a
Speaker 1: year are killed by rifles or shotguns. Very few people
Speaker 1: are murdered with rifles or shotguns. But once every year
Speaker 1: or two there is an incident where someone takes a
Speaker 1: semi automatic rifle and for the purposes of mass carnage,
Speaker 1: just goes around shooting as many people as they can.
Speaker 1: But as we all know from the Fort Hood shooter,
Speaker 1: Nidal Hassan, two handguns. I might have been carrying three,
Speaker 1: but he used two simultaneously. The Virginia Tech shooter used
Speaker 1: a handgun and I believe a Tech nine and but
Speaker 1: you know, did not have long guns and not having
Speaker 1: a rifle of any kind, so people can engage in
Speaker 1: mass shootings and kill a whole lot of people without
Speaker 1: a rifle. In fact, I think some of you would argue,
Speaker 1: or you could argue, that a person who goes into
Speaker 1: a room, you know, with two pistol with extended clips
Speaker 1: could do every bit as much damage as somebody who
Speaker 1: goes in there with an r But violence isn't really
Speaker 1: the issue. A Swallwell says, fear is the issue. So
Speaker 1: they create the fear, and then they suggest the way
Speaker 1: to solve the problem is to ban ownership of these
Speaker 1: weapons and not just ban the new purchase of it,
Speaker 1: but to send people to prison if they won't give
Speaker 1: up their weapons. Now, that's what you have to remember
Speaker 1: with the gun grabbers is that ultimately they're not just
Speaker 1: about opposing violence. They're about incarcerating you for wanting to
Speaker 1: enjoy your Second Amendment rights. They want to take away
Speaker 1: your freedom, ruin you, perhaps ruin your life, because you
Speaker 1: own a semi automatic rifle that you legally purchase and
Speaker 1: that you are entitled two hundred and second Amendment. There
Speaker 1: are people like Eric Swawell who are Democrats who are
Speaker 1: on the left who think that you should be, oh,
Speaker 1: that's right, separated from your family. That's the family separation
Speaker 1: that doesn't bother them. Apparently only the family separation of
Speaker 1: illegals who are scamming our system at the border that
Speaker 1: really worries liberals. You being separated from your family because
Speaker 1: you don't want to hand over you are lawfully obtained
Speaker 1: semi automatic rifle. They're not gonna lose any sleep over
Speaker 1: that you go to prison, No big deal. And you
Speaker 1: see this with the way gun laws are enforced in
Speaker 1: any of these blue states, where even very minor or
Speaker 1: understandable good faith errors are punished severely. And those you
Speaker 1: who say, buck, there's no such thing. You have to
Speaker 1: know the laws, It's actually not true. There are good
Speaker 1: faith errors that can occur. Otherwise, Explain to me what
Speaker 1: somebody whose error, whose a flight is diverted to New
Speaker 1: York and then they have to get on a different
Speaker 1: flight the next day because of whether they have to
Speaker 1: recheck their handgun and are arrested, arrested for checking in
Speaker 1: the handgun that they were legally transporting, not caring, but
Speaker 1: transporting on an airplane because of whether they get pushed
Speaker 1: in New York City. They gotta then, you know, stay
Speaker 1: in a hotel for the night, they get their firearm
Speaker 1: in their luggage, and then when they go to recheck
Speaker 1: their luggage, New York says, well, you don't have a
Speaker 1: permit for this. You're going to prison. Yeah, that's that's
Speaker 1: I wouldn't even say that's a good faith error on
Speaker 1: the part of the gun or that's just that's just
Speaker 1: completely wrong what they do to that person. They have
Speaker 1: no choice. This should be like the government saying, well,
Speaker 1: we're gonna pick you up in one state and drive
Speaker 1: you across state lines to where your gun is illegal.
Speaker 1: You know, stinks for you, but we're gonna make you
Speaker 1: do that, and then we're going to arrest you for it. Well,
Speaker 1: but that's not that's not fair, is it. They don't
Speaker 1: care about fair. It's not about the stopping of violence, folks.
Speaker 1: It's about the fear. Remember what he said, It's about
Speaker 1: the fear. They create the fear, they manipulate it, they
Speaker 1: expand upon it. Just one more note here on Squaw,
Speaker 1: who is just deeply unimpressive character that he thinks letting
Speaker 1: individuals keep their rifle at a range would stop stop
Speaker 1: all mass shootings, somebody will just take the rifle from
Speaker 1: that range. This, I mean, it's such a ridiculous idea.
Speaker 1: It's such a ridiculous compromise to have. In the first place.
Speaker 1: You have so many millions of these guns already in circulation.
Speaker 1: All you need is one. One rifle in the hands
Speaker 1: of a bad guy can kill dozens of people and
Speaker 1: has many times in the past. So unless you get
Speaker 1: every single one of them out of circulation, there's always
Speaker 1: the chance that someone's going to misuse one. But he
Speaker 1: thinks that this is the way that we're gonna go
Speaker 1: forward with us. It just makes no sense at all.
Speaker 1: It just makes no sense at all. But he's not
Speaker 1: trying to make sense. He's just trying to placate the
Speaker 1: Left in their insanity on guns. Whenever you turn over
Speaker 1: a rock, you tend to find some slimy Democrat character
Speaker 1: assassination outfit underneath it. These days, it's just amazing how
Speaker 1: much this keeps happening over and over again. I haven't
Speaker 1: covered this yet on the show, but Justice Brett Cavanaugh
Speaker 1: has gotten all kinds of negative attention from groups recently
Speaker 1: that say that he should not be allowed to teach
Speaker 1: a university course through George Mason University, a summer teaching job.
Speaker 1: They want him fired from a summer teaching job at
Speaker 1: George Mason University. Students for Mason Force Survivors is the
Speaker 1: student group that has been saying this has to happen. Now,
Speaker 1: this is wrong on so many levels. First of all,
Speaker 1: if you still believe that Brett Cavanaugh is a sexual
Speaker 1: predator who was part of this high school gang rape crew,
Speaker 1: you're a moron. You're actually a moron. If at this
Speaker 1: point you still believe that you are not an intelligent
Speaker 1: human being, You do not have a particularly astute or
Speaker 1: capable brain. Only an idiot would still believe this. Okay,
Speaker 1: only somebody or someone who is delusional, right, So it's
Speaker 1: not that they don't have a fast firing mind, but
Speaker 1: their mind does not have the judgment that comes from
Speaker 1: being rooted in reality. So you have to be either
Speaker 1: stupid or delusional to think that Brett Kavanaugh was a
Speaker 1: secret rapist all those years, and I mean the women
Speaker 1: who came out against him, it was all such an
Speaker 1: obvious political hit. The third woman was clearly a liar,
Speaker 1: the second woman was also a liar, and the first
Speaker 1: woman the more you thought about it, Yeah, she was
Speaker 1: a liar too. But this group that's supposed to be
Speaker 1: student activist trying to stop Brett Kavanaugh from getting his
Speaker 1: teaching job for the summer through George Mason University, turns
Speaker 1: out that Demand Justice, which is a liberal advocacy group
Speaker 1: that Hillary Clinton's twenty sixteen press secretary Brian Fallon runs,
Speaker 1: is behind the Facebook ad campaign that is going that
Speaker 1: is specifically going to students at George Mason University, and
Speaker 1: they want students to sign a change dot org petition
Speaker 1: to get kavan off fired. This is what libs do.
Speaker 1: You'll notice Conservatives don't rush to get people fired all
Speaker 1: the time. We don't always threaten boycotts. We don't go
Speaker 1: through life like a bunch of spoiled cry babies who
Speaker 1: don't know how to operate, who don't know how to
Speaker 1: function in a world where they don't always get their way.
Speaker 1: Liberals just can't handle things, or they're so lacking in
Speaker 1: honor and integrity that they think any political dispute with
Speaker 1: somebody is license to ruin their life, to ruin their future.
Speaker 1: Anytime a liberal disagrees with somebody, Now, if they're important enough,
Speaker 1: they take it upon themselves to try to get them fired,
Speaker 1: to try to wage individual economic warfare against people. They're
Speaker 1: doing it right now against Kirston Nielsen. They do not
Speaker 1: want Kirston Nielsen to be able to get odd job
Speaker 1: now that she has left the Trump administration. They've been
Speaker 1: very open about this. There are activist groups that are
Speaker 1: sending letters to corporations, the CEOs all over the country saying,
Speaker 1: do not hire Kirston Nilsen when you have a sitting
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice who was remember at the absolute peak
Speaker 1: of a legal profession before he became a Supreme Court justice,
Speaker 1: impeccable credentials, unbelievable background in terms of the kinds of
Speaker 1: cases he had worked on as an appellate judge and
Speaker 1: DC circuit. I mean, this guy was in every respect
Speaker 1: the gold standard in the legal profession. My friends who
Speaker 1: are super lawyer nerds were like Cavanaugh from a resume
Speaker 1: perspective is unbeatable, unbeatable, and also from a character perspective,
Speaker 1: when you take into account what he's really like and
Speaker 1: what people who have worked with him say. Not some
Speaker 1: smear campaign by left wing activists who just cry a lot,
Speaker 1: and yet they a former Hillary spokesman, someone with close
Speaker 1: ties at Hillary Clinton is running this campaign to ruin
Speaker 1: Cavanaugh by getting people on college, on this college campus,
Speaker 1: on George Mason University, to say that he should be
Speaker 1: fired from a job that he was offered. I mean,
Speaker 1: these leftists are morons, they really are. You know. Justice
Speaker 1: Scalia came to speak at Amherst, and the entire political
Speaker 1: science department, except for my advisor, blessed Professor Arky's boycott
Speaker 1: the speech. Students refused to go dressed in all black
Speaker 1: war black armbands, turned their backs next to him. I
Speaker 1: don't want to let them know. We were lucky at
Speaker 1: our little sixteen hundred person school to have a sitting
Speaker 1: Supreme Court justice come and talk to us, stand up
Speaker 1: in our chapel and try to enlighten us a little
Speaker 1: bit about what really happens, what's really going on in jurisprunce.
Speaker 1: We were lucky. Anyone at George Mason University who would
Speaker 1: be able to study with Cavanaugh's lucky. But instead you
Speaker 1: have these leftists who are just complete and utter lons
Speaker 1: and cry babies. And it's wrong and it's vindictive, and
Speaker 1: we need to start fighting back against this. We need
Speaker 1: to start saying enough is enough. These leftists can't run
Speaker 1: around like little petty terrorists because that's what they are.
Speaker 1: Ain't no party like a Team Buck party, because a
Speaker 1: Team Buck party, don't stop. Yeah, we got bucks turned
Speaker 1: up to eleven. It's time for roll call. Roll call, everybody,
Speaker 1: It's time for the roll call. That's right, Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash Buck Sexton, if you want in on the roll call,
Speaker 1: let's get to it. Thanks, this is Brian. Thanks for
Speaker 1: going back to get some great questions to job Creator
Speaker 1: Network CEO on Rising this morning. You pushed all the
Speaker 1: right tax points. I appreciated Alfredo's honest answers. You and
Speaker 1: Crystal are continue to do a great job on that show.
Speaker 1: I'm sure it can be trying at times with some
Speaker 1: of those far left guests, but the pros far outweigh
Speaker 1: the cons, one being you get to talk to and
Speaker 1: hopefully influence powerful people on both sides of the aisle
Speaker 1: with new perspectives while keeping you on fresh on daily happenings.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work, Brian. Well, Brian, that's the
Speaker 1: nicest thing anyone's written about Rising, so really do appreciate it,
Speaker 1: my friend. Thank you. I'm glad you enjoy the show.
Speaker 1: It is an exercise in patient. Sometimes my co host
Speaker 1: is a lovely person and we get along famously, but
Speaker 1: just having a left right conversation, especially with the guests,
Speaker 1: can be a challenge, can be very, very difficult. So
Speaker 1: let's see what we get going on in the future there,
Speaker 1: James writes Buck, I listen to your Friday podcast. I
Speaker 1: want to echo the comment about the podcast ads. They
Speaker 1: also hear them. They're not in line with the freedom hunt.
Speaker 1: I believe it is from your podcast host. They do
Speaker 1: not know who it is. I listen to via Amazon Echo.
Speaker 1: It just pulls the cast McCloud somewhere. Figure you may
Speaker 1: as well let the NSA here you as well. Shields high. Yeah, James,
Speaker 1: we're gonna have to see what the hosting we're working
Speaker 1: on this one. I've had a lot of people say it.
Speaker 1: I don't know how much control we have over the
Speaker 1: podcast ads. It might be what's called programmatic, where there's
Speaker 1: kind of a pre selected run of ads that they do.
Speaker 1: And this then gets beyond my pay grade because it
Speaker 1: turns into revenue generation for the show. So if you
Speaker 1: want those ads to go away, just keep keep buying
Speaker 1: black rifle coffee and donate some money to the Leadership
Speaker 1: Institute and etc. Etc. You know that that'll help us
Speaker 1: get rid of the podcast ads faster. Dwayne all Right,
Speaker 1: was the electronics spying on Trump campaign court ordered as
Speaker 1: COMI says or court approved? Seems two different things. Doubt
Speaker 1: the court's called up Coomi and ordered him to spy
Speaker 1: on the campaign, you know, Duaye I, I appreciate the
Speaker 1: distinction that you're making there. I think it's a meaningful
Speaker 1: one because in the context of fish, this isn't there's
Speaker 1: no opposition. You know, in a normal court of law,
Speaker 1: when you go before a judge, granted for you know,
Speaker 1: a search warrant, certain things, the judge just have to
Speaker 1: has to sign off on it. But in this case,
Speaker 1: it's all done in secret and the judge just signs
Speaker 1: off on it. Right, There's there's a a rubber stamping
Speaker 1: that this process seems to have been become that I
Speaker 1: think is definitely problematic. So we'll have to see my friend.
Speaker 1: But yes, it was really court approved as in the
Speaker 1: court in this instant, and this may be a problem
Speaker 1: with other with other instances, other law enforcement requests as well.
Speaker 1: We have to keep that in mind. But the judge
Speaker 1: shouldn't just say, oh, you want to listen in on
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign, Sure, go for it. Richard, right, buck happy,
Speaker 1: who's your hellos? Talking to your big brother. While I
Speaker 1: was listening to your podcast and you mentioned the Panopticon,
Speaker 1: I went to read more and guess what came up after.
Speaker 1: I've never looked up that work in my life. The
Speaker 1: stuff is creepy. On a total side note, the prison
Speaker 1: and Guardian of the Guardians of the Galaxy, it was
Speaker 1: a Panopticon Shields and mixtapes high Richard. Yeah, Richard, you
Speaker 1: always bring insight to the show with your notes. My friend,
Speaker 1: I do do appreciate eight. Daniel, can you tell me
Speaker 1: more about yourself? My name is Daniel. I recently moved
Speaker 1: to Colorado. I can tell you this Colorado would be
Speaker 1: every bit as progressive and liberal leftist California if it
Speaker 1: were a border state and if more people lived here.
Speaker 1: Some ways it is worse. The red Flag bill is
Speaker 1: one example. Well, Daniel, if you want to know more
Speaker 1: about me, you just got to keep listening to the show,
Speaker 1: because I do talk on this radio show for three
Speaker 1: hours at a time, and it's the probably the best
Speaker 1: single way out there to get to know me. I
Speaker 1: people who know me in real life kind of laugh
Speaker 1: sometimes because I do like to listen a lot. I'm
Speaker 1: not as talkative in person as I am on radio.
Speaker 1: It's probably because I have to speak so much for
Speaker 1: my job. But that would be my recommendation. Just listen
Speaker 1: to this show and tell people about this show. As
Speaker 1: for Colorado, I know that it's become a more purple state.
Speaker 1: There are progressive outposts in it, but they are also
Speaker 1: very concerned ivative parts of Colorado. That's true of many states,
Speaker 1: and even a state like Pennsylvania for example. And you know,
Speaker 1: we're on a wonderful station affiliate out in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania.
Speaker 1: But if you go to Philly, obviously Philly is blue
Speaker 1: blue blue, Pittsburgh very blue. But other parts of the
Speaker 1: state of Pennsylvania they still respect the Second Amendment in
Speaker 1: the Constitution and take a much more conservative view of things.
Speaker 1: Phil Rights. Hey, Buck Coball is well in the Freedom Hunt.
Speaker 1: I was wondering if you'd have on Scott Horton. He is,
Speaker 1: without a doubt a foreign policy guru on everyone on
Speaker 1: everything rather all right, and also ps love the Beard.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Phil the Beard seems to be getting more
Speaker 1: thumbs up than thumbs down. I gotta say some folks
Speaker 1: seem to be more pro Beard than you might have anticipated,
Speaker 1: then I would have anticipated. So yes, indeed, Laurel, right buck,
Speaker 1: I'm a podcast listeners, so I'm usually a day or
Speaker 1: so behind listening to Friday's show. And you're monologue on
Speaker 1: control of the language. Did you notice that in the
Speaker 1: indictment of Julian Assange they referred to Chelsea Manning as
Speaker 1: she Interesting how we are discussing words like illegal immigrants
Speaker 1: being the technical codified terminology for those who are unlawfully
Speaker 1: in the country, but those responsible for writing indictments for
Speaker 1: crimes are including factually incorrect information about co conspirators and witnesses.
Speaker 1: Speaking of Osange, I'm not entirely sure where to make
Speaker 1: of it. I feel it's a gray area that, if
Speaker 1: prosecutor and found guilty, could be used in the future
Speaker 1: as case law to go after mainstream media journalists who
Speaker 1: published league material. Can you share or reshare your thoughts, Laurel,
Speaker 1: You make well, You make an excellent point and raise
Speaker 1: an excellent question. As for the terminology, I did notice
Speaker 1: this too, that it is, and it is true across
Speaker 1: I believe now all of the news networks. I believe
Speaker 1: all of them. I could be wrong on that, but
Speaker 1: use the term in their news broadcasts, least not necessarily
Speaker 1: in their commentary. That Chelsea Manning is a she, that
Speaker 1: is a factually incorrect statement. And if we're going to
Speaker 1: start making factually incorrect statements because some people think it
Speaker 1: is a nicer thing to do than I would at
Speaker 1: least want everyone to agree that that is what is
Speaker 1: being done, because I do not want to be part
Speaker 1: of a delusion. Chelsea Manning is not a female. Chelsey
Speaker 1: Manning is male. If you ask me as Chelsea Manning
Speaker 1: male or female, the answer that I will give is
Speaker 1: that Chelsea Manning is male, because that is reality. This
Speaker 1: is not This is not a mutable characteristic. This is
Speaker 1: not something that changes because people would like it to change. No,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, there are lines here, and I did notice it, Laurel,
Speaker 1: you have a keen eye on the usage of she
Speaker 1: instead of he to describe Bradley. I'm sorry. I did
Speaker 1: not mean to dead name there as they say Chelsea
Speaker 1: Manning in the documents. Also, just the notion that what
Speaker 1: just happened for me where I just mixed up the
Speaker 1: names for a second. Now, they may they may claim
Speaker 1: that dead naming is only purposeful, but this is not
Speaker 1: some horrible crime to refer to somebody as their previous name.
Speaker 1: You know, my first name is James. If someone refers
Speaker 1: to me as James, they're not doing something nasty and terrible.
Speaker 1: They're just referring to my first name, which is my
Speaker 1: legal name. So you know, I know that I have
Speaker 1: not had a transgender surgery or anything. So maybe there's
Speaker 1: a different there's a different focus on the usage of
Speaker 1: a name in that regard. But I think you see
Speaker 1: what I'm saying, Jimmy, You know I get all these
Speaker 1: the podcast listeners. I'm just telling you live radio audience
Speaker 1: across the country, one hundred and twenty five or so stations.
Speaker 1: All the podcast folks are writing in in droves. Where's
Speaker 1: my live radio peeps? You guys don't have Facebook, come
Speaker 1: on now Facebook dot com. Slash buck Sex said, I
Speaker 1: know you're at a computer a smartphone a lot of
Speaker 1: the time, so it's not hard tell the team what
Speaker 1: you think about things. Jimmy writes, love your podcast, Buck
Speaker 1: great to listen to. A voice of reason that is
Speaker 1: from a conservative point of view. Just listen to your
Speaker 1: coverage of the movie Unplanned. Wanted to thank you for
Speaker 1: that heartbreaking shield time, my friend. Keep up the great
Speaker 1: work well, Jimmy, thank you so much for your note.
Speaker 1: I really really do appreciate it. And yeah, I plan
Speaker 1: to see the movie Unplanned as soon as I can.
Speaker 1: I don't even know if it is in the DC
Speaker 1: market right now, I have to check. I would guess
Speaker 1: that it is not playing at any of the theaters
Speaker 1: near me, which I think tells you a lot rich
Speaker 1: kind of buck binging today, enjoyed the Beija imitation. Can
Speaker 1: we get Clapper, McCabe, Struck and Comby in a room
Speaker 1: and listen in Well, thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed
Speaker 1: Joy Beha. You know she's on this show talking about
Speaker 1: how you know how I have to listen to Megan
Speaker 1: McCain and it just hurts my ears, almost like when
Speaker 1: I have to read words and it hurts my eyes. Yeah, Behar,
Speaker 1: multi millionaire TV personality, Joy Behar. Everybody and anybody can
Speaker 1: be a success in America. That much I can tell you.
Speaker 1: Jennifer writes, good evening, Love you, Love the show. I'm
Speaker 1: in charge of brunch on Sunday. Eggs with or without
Speaker 1: crem Fresh, Jennifer, love you too. And the answer to
Speaker 1: your question is, if you have crem fresh on hand,
Speaker 1: work it into your scrambled eggs. It adds a little
Speaker 1: something special, little extra penash, pizzazz, a little June se
Speaker 1: qua into your scrambled eggs. Now that we've gone through that,
Speaker 1: my friends, I can bid you adieu for the night.
Speaker 1: Talk to you tomorrow. Shields High