Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom Hudge. Trump is under siege
Speaker 1: from his critics for some tweets over the weekend, but
Speaker 1: guess what, he is fighting back and doubling down. We'll
Speaker 1: break down all the latest on that, plus a major
Speaker 1: change in what asylum actually means at our southern border.
Speaker 1: How this good help stand the migration crisis. We've got
Speaker 1: that and much more coming up on The Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: This is the Buck Sexton Show where the mission where
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: Make no mistakes, American, You're a great American. Again, The
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show begins. Analyst, he's a great guy. Now,
Speaker 1: these are people that, in my opinion, hate our country.
Speaker 1: Now you can say what you want, but get a
Speaker 1: list of all of the statements they've made and all
Speaker 1: I'm saying that if they're not happy here, they can leave.
Speaker 1: They can leave. And you know what, I'm sure that
Speaker 1: there'll be many people that won't miss them. But they
Speaker 1: have to love they have to love our country. They're
Speaker 1: Congress people and I never used any names, but these
Speaker 1: are people. Quiet quiet, quiet, quiet, quiet quiet. These are
Speaker 1: people that if they don't like it here, they can
Speaker 1: leave and I'd be I don't know who's gonna miss them,
Speaker 1: but I guess some people will. One of them is
Speaker 1: polling at eight percent. So when when I hear people
Speaker 1: speaking about how wonderfelt al Qaeda is when I hear
Speaker 1: people talking about some people, some people with the world
Speaker 1: Trade says some people, not some people, much more than
Speaker 1: some people. When I hear the statements that they've made.
Speaker 1: And in one case, you have somebody that comes from Somalia,
Speaker 1: which is a failed government, a failed state, who left Somalia,
Speaker 1: who ultimately came here and now as a congresswoman who's
Speaker 1: never happy, says horrible things about Israel, hates Israel, hates Jews,
Speaker 1: hate Jews. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. President Trump
Speaker 1: not backing down an inch today after the whole media firestorm, right,
Speaker 1: let's bust out all the cliches the media controversy around well,
Speaker 1: the Trump said, look, here's what's going on. All right,
Speaker 1: Let's let's look at what matters for a moment, and
Speaker 1: then I'm want to talk to you about the asylum
Speaker 1: situation of the border, and we'll return to whether Trump
Speaker 1: should have said things the way he said them later on.
Speaker 1: There's an anti americanism that is now prominent in the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. It is on display, it is out of
Speaker 1: the been, and this has always been a feature of
Speaker 1: the left in this country. Will want to the desire
Speaker 1: to tear down this country, to divide this country in
Speaker 1: ways that we think less of each other based on
Speaker 1: our ideology and our politics. This has been going on
Speaker 1: for a long time, but now you really see it.
Speaker 1: Now you really see it from the angry and bitter
Speaker 1: caucus within the Democratic Party right the leftists. And it's
Speaker 1: not even just this squad You've got, you know, Elizabeth
Speaker 1: war and you've got others. You are just they're just
Speaker 1: always bitter about this country. What they want to do
Speaker 1: is appeal to the victim mentality that so many people have,
Speaker 1: because you know what the truth is, life is hard,
Speaker 1: Life is full of disappointments. I'm sure many of you
Speaker 1: listening to this have things that you wish had gone differently.
Speaker 1: I know I have things that I wish had gone differently,
Speaker 1: different choices I could have made. I wish I had
Speaker 1: been more disciplined. I wish I had focused more on
Speaker 1: things that matter. A lot of but part of growth
Speaker 1: and part of being a productive and worthwhile human being is.
Speaker 1: You just accept that you're not perfect, and you try
Speaker 1: to do better, and you have certain hopefully moral code
Speaker 1: that you live by and you adhere to. But none
Speaker 1: of us are perfect, and you just assume that along
Speaker 1: the way there's gonna be some bumps and bruises. But
Speaker 1: what if somebody could come along and tell you that
Speaker 1: all the stuff in your life that's not the way
Speaker 1: you want it to be, Everything that is either a
Speaker 1: failure or a disappointment or a frustration, is someone else's fault,
Speaker 1: some other system as systematic oppression, you could say, some
Speaker 1: other group or entity or organization or or entire history
Speaker 1: is the reason why you are frustrated, the reason why,
Speaker 1: and therefore it is not in your hands. It's none
Speaker 1: as your fault. And all you have to do is
Speaker 1: be a part of the movement to put power in
Speaker 1: the hands of those who claim that it is all
Speaker 1: someone else's fault, and they will address this unfairness, they
Speaker 1: will address this inequality, they will make the frustration go away.
Speaker 1: Of course that's a lie, right, but that's the big
Speaker 1: lie at the heart of the Democratic Party. And you
Speaker 1: see here what's causing the frustration for many on the left.
Speaker 1: Is America itself the cause of the disaffection, the cause
Speaker 1: of the dissatisfaction. It is this country for leftists. Instead
Speaker 1: of viewing this as the greatest, most prosperous, most incredible
Speaker 1: nation state ever created in the history of the universe,
Speaker 1: which is what it is, they look at it and says,
Speaker 1: it's a place of oppression, of sexism, of racism, of
Speaker 1: wealth inequality, and we need to do a whole top
Speaker 1: down refit. Put other people in charge, down the powerful,
Speaker 1: push them aside unless they're leftists, and then make them
Speaker 1: more powerful. Folks. It's all a lie. It's a dangerous
Speaker 1: line too, is an ideology of bitterness, bitterness toward a
Speaker 1: country that has given all of these individuals. Yes, the squad,
Speaker 1: so to speak, but many other Democrats. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: they're the leftist beliefs that they hold. They didn't come
Speaker 1: up with them, they're just they're just manifestations of it.
Speaker 1: This is now mainstream Democrat thinking, especially in Trump's America.
Speaker 1: All this prosperity and optimism and growth, and you know,
Speaker 1: we're becoming spoiled in this country right now by how
Speaker 1: low unemployment is, how high the stock market is, no
Speaker 1: major wars. I mean, you look at this, and Democrats
Speaker 1: are furious with it. They hate how much dare I
Speaker 1: say Trump is winning? They hate it? And so what
Speaker 1: do they do? They spew hatred about things. And Trump
Speaker 1: is sick of it. He's sick of this mentality. And
Speaker 1: by the way, I agree with him insofar as enough
Speaker 1: is enough. We don't have to sit around and get
Speaker 1: lectured by people who neither have the intellectual depth nor
Speaker 1: the moral depth to tell the rest of the country
Speaker 1: how to live their lives and what they should do.
Speaker 1: We don't have to sit around anymore and clap and
Speaker 1: and and you know, smile through our teeth at people
Speaker 1: on the left who want to tear down so much
Speaker 1: that is great about this country because they think that
Speaker 1: they are better than America. They think that this country
Speaker 1: needs to be dramatically remade in some other not the
Speaker 1: not the constitutional basis of individual liberty. No, no no, no,
Speaker 1: something else. What is it. They're not really quite sure
Speaker 1: yet what it is. They just know it has to
Speaker 1: be something else. Trump wasn't going to back down. Trump
Speaker 1: understands that backing down to these leftist, to these democrats,
Speaker 1: never gets you anything good. This is This is one
Speaker 1: takeaway from the Trump era that I hope everybody has,
Speaker 1: which is they will cavin on you. They will ruin you,
Speaker 1: they will destroy you. They won't feel bad about it.
Speaker 1: They don't care what it takes. They act without decency,
Speaker 1: they act in bad faith, and they feel good doing it.
Speaker 1: This is the political opposition we face in this country now.
Speaker 1: This is now a defining characteristic of the left. This
Speaker 1: is not something that is a aberrant among Democrats. They
Speaker 1: really believe that Republicans don't care about dead children at
Speaker 1: the border. They really believe that Republicans, in their heart
Speaker 1: of hearts, don't want to defend sovereignty and rule of law,
Speaker 1: but are just racists. And the fact that many of
Speaker 1: the Republicans that hold these positions are themselves minorities doesn't
Speaker 1: change their thing at all, or that the Republicans will
Speaker 1: hold these positions are repulsed by true racism and believe
Speaker 1: in the dignity and individual rights and individual grace of
Speaker 1: all individuals. That doesn't matter to the left at all.
Speaker 1: It's just about what the narrative can be, how effective
Speaker 1: they can make it. They'll say whatever they have to
Speaker 1: say at any point in time, that's where we are
Speaker 1: as a country right now. When was the last time
Speaker 1: you heard about Russia collusion. By the way, Notice how
Speaker 1: they moved off of that. Oh. I thought that was
Speaker 1: the most important lesson the country had to learn. I
Speaker 1: thought that the president was a traitor and that Russia
Speaker 1: was destroying our institutions. Oh, you mean that they can't
Speaker 1: damage the president with that anymore. It looks like looks
Speaker 1: like they have to find something else now it's the
Speaker 1: president as a racist. Oh. They draw this straight line
Speaker 1: from Trump on the escalator to Charlottesville to this tweet.
Speaker 1: This is what they're doing. They never are content to
Speaker 1: just make a case to the American people about their ideas.
Speaker 1: It's always we have to be our side, the Republicans, Conservatives.
Speaker 1: We're bad people. We're just bad people. And Trump is
Speaker 1: the worst of all of us. That's true. Trump is
Speaker 1: worse then Some idiot was on MSNBC today apparently said
Speaker 1: Trump is more racist than a neo Nazi. I think
Speaker 1: was the quote. And I'm not even sure that's the
Speaker 1: dumbest thing on MSNBC that's been said all day. I'm
Speaker 1: quite sure it's not the dumbest thing that's been said
Speaker 1: all day there, which just tells you a lot about
Speaker 1: what gets said over at MSNBC. For those of us
Speaker 1: who care about politics as a system of dealing with
Speaker 1: competing interests and trying to bring about the common good,
Speaker 1: the best for the country, the best for you and me,
Speaker 1: there are more important things to think about than whether
Speaker 1: the president tweets or says everything perfectly. And the president
Speaker 1: knows that, and that's why even if he does perhaps
Speaker 1: misstep one time or another, he knows that he's in
Speaker 1: a fight and the other side is just hoping to
Speaker 1: make him lose. There are no particular rules they abide by.
Speaker 1: They'll do whatever they have to do. They will use
Speaker 1: our own decency against us, just like we're seeing at
Speaker 1: the border. I might add, the decency of the American
Speaker 1: people is being used as a weapon to undermine our
Speaker 1: sovereignty and our rule of law. Our very asylum process
Speaker 1: itself has been overtaken as a trojan horse for open
Speaker 1: borders in America. That's what's going on. We don't want
Speaker 1: people to live in fear of execution or torture because
Speaker 1: of their political or religious beliefs, so we have a
Speaker 1: process called asylum. Guess what leftists are now cheering as
Speaker 1: that process is being trampled on by people who just
Speaker 1: want to be here, because yeah, it's a great country
Speaker 1: with really nice fat welfare benefits, and people want to
Speaker 1: be here and not in Mexico and not in these
Speaker 1: other countries that they're fleeing from. But that's not what
Speaker 1: the process of asylum was set up for. We will
Speaker 1: get into this because this is very important. The Trump
Speaker 1: administration is in the pro by the way, it's gonna
Speaker 1: go to the courts. It's gonna be a fight over this,
Speaker 1: but this is where our focus needs to be. They
Speaker 1: have to stop the lie. It is you know one
Speaker 1: thing that drives me crazy. Before we have a quick
Speaker 1: pause here to collect our thoughts before we come back
Speaker 1: and dive into this asylum fight. They keep saying that
Speaker 1: Trump wants to end asylum protection for these migrants. No,
Speaker 1: he's trying to stop fraudulent asylum claims. That's what these are.
Speaker 1: When over ninety percent of people are saying something that's
Speaker 1: not true. You have to stop the massive fraud. But
Speaker 1: we'll see what the media does is they say, oh,
Speaker 1: but it's all just a sylum. No, that's not the
Speaker 1: way this works. They're trying to scam the system, and
Speaker 1: we should not allow them to get away with that scam.
Speaker 1: We have more on this team, a whole lot more.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. I watched Lindsey Graham today on Fox
Speaker 1: and Friends talking about the same subject, and frankly, even
Speaker 1: stronger than what I'm saying, he said the communists, I'm
Speaker 1: saying that they're socialists. Definitely. As to whether or not
Speaker 1: their communists, I would think they might be, but this
Speaker 1: isn't what our country is about. Nevertheless, they're free to
Speaker 1: leave if they want, and if they want to leave,
Speaker 1: that's fine, and if they want to stay, that's fine.
Speaker 1: Politicians can't be afraid to take them on. A politician
Speaker 1: that here's somebody where we're at war with al Qaida
Speaker 1: and see somebody talking about how great al Qaida is.
Speaker 1: Pick out a statement that was omar, how great al
Speaker 1: Qaida is. When you hear that, and we're losing great
Speaker 1: soldiers to al Qaida, When you see the World Trade
Speaker 1: Center gets knocked down, and you see the statements made
Speaker 1: about the World Trade Center, all the death and destruction,
Speaker 1: I'll tell you what, I'm not happy with them, and
Speaker 1: it's very easy to be saying, oh, gee, well it's okay.
Speaker 1: If weak politicians want to say, and the Democrats in
Speaker 1: this case, if they want to gear their wagons around
Speaker 1: these four people, I think they're gonna have a very
Speaker 1: tough election because I don't think the people of the
Speaker 1: United States will stand for it. I hope he's right.
Speaker 1: I know that the version of events, in the version
Speaker 1: of America that you get from ilhan Omar Aoc to
Speaker 1: Lee Presley, I know that that wouldn't win a national election.
Speaker 1: But how different is the view of America from those
Speaker 1: four members of Congress to say Pete Buddha Judge or
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders or you know, go down the list or
Speaker 1: Castro who says the president is a white supremacist. I
Speaker 1: think we actually do we even have him? Saying that
Speaker 1: we might even have him, I don't even Trump. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he says it Play thirteen. Everybody knows that acts like
Speaker 1: a white supremacist. He is a racist. He's made that
Speaker 1: clear on so many different occasions. And not only that
Speaker 1: as the leader of our country, his politics, his strategy
Speaker 1: is about dividing people along racial lions. So this is
Speaker 1: this is how is Trump supposed to speak to elected
Speaker 1: members of government who referred to him as a white supremacist.
Speaker 1: I just want to, you know what, so does he
Speaker 1: have to just make, you know, Aristotelian arguments and and
Speaker 1: try to try to bring them out via you know,
Speaker 1: the tactics of Lincoln Douglas debate and show the wrongness
Speaker 1: of their positions. I mean, I understand some people say, yes, bugga,
Speaker 1: but you know he's a human being too. And if
Speaker 1: somebody was calling me a white supremacist, I would let
Speaker 1: it fly at them because it's a lie and it's
Speaker 1: a smear. I think Trump feels the same way. I
Speaker 1: think he's sick of it. This is garbage, this is nonsense.
Speaker 1: This Democrat, Democrat, Democrat Freudian, This Democrat party is cracking up.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just it's it's whacko there. They've got
Speaker 1: these people that are running around that are making these
Speaker 1: kinds of claim. They're saying this insane stuf about the
Speaker 1: President United States, and their side never calls him out
Speaker 1: for this a white supremacist. But if you remember, they've
Speaker 1: they've tried to move the definition white supremacists used to be.
Speaker 1: You know, swastika tattoos on your neck, a shaved head
Speaker 1: and you know Arian nation stuff, and now a white
Speaker 1: supremacist is I don't think that we should have race
Speaker 1: based admissions and colleges. Oh that's white supremacy. No, it's not.
Speaker 1: It's just it's actually the opposite of racism. But that's
Speaker 1: perhaps a conversation for another day. Trump is not backing
Speaker 1: down because he understands that backing down just puts puts
Speaker 1: him in a weaker position going forward. Do I wish
Speaker 1: that Trump could use sometimes more precision? Do I wish
Speaker 1: that he hadn't said something that makes it sound like
Speaker 1: he doesn't even know that these members of Congress three
Speaker 1: of the four were born in this country. Yeah? Yeah,
Speaker 1: But I'm also asking Trump to be the guy who
Speaker 1: can go out there and fight against all this stuff
Speaker 1: and not get fatigued, and not get bogged down, and
Speaker 1: not despair against the fact that, you know, if this,
Speaker 1: if the current Democratic Party we're to come into power,
Speaker 1: I don't know how and when the country would recover
Speaker 1: from that, because this Democratic Party is not what I
Speaker 1: grew up But that's not what you grew up with.
Speaker 1: This is something else. This is some radical socialist craziness.
Speaker 1: That's what lindsay Grammar and Linday gram straight up calling
Speaker 1: them commies. If we'll get on that later. I like it.
Speaker 1: You know, if they're going to call us white supremacist,
Speaker 1: maybe we should call them commies. Maybe we should tell
Speaker 1: Democrats that they're just a bunch of statist, socialist lunatics. Hey,
Speaker 1: that's that's one way to go. Because I gotta tell
Speaker 1: you this, this stuff that we're seeing from from the
Speaker 1: far left these days, the the vitriol, the anti americanism,
Speaker 1: and this is how you had an anti fu guy
Speaker 1: over the weekend. The press is just reporting on and
Speaker 1: attacked an ICE detention facility. No, you had an anti
Speaker 1: foot domestic terrorist try to blow up an ICE detainment facility,
Speaker 1: had a gun, he had got into a shootout with
Speaker 1: with ICE officials, and he had a manifesto. And the
Speaker 1: manifesto was exactly what you'd expect from somebody who was,
Speaker 1: you know, an MSNBC watcher. I mean, the talking points
Speaker 1: could have come out of Rachel Maddow's monologue. And this
Speaker 1: guy is a terrorist and he's you know, where's all
Speaker 1: the coverage of that anti foot terrorist tries to blow
Speaker 1: up ICE facility because it's concentration camp taking AOC's language.
Speaker 1: Oh is the media gonna hold her responsible for all
Speaker 1: the vitriol that folks, glad you come here to the
Speaker 1: freedom hunt, because we've got a lot of fight left this.
Speaker 1: People who come to our border must have and want
Speaker 1: to apply for asylum, must have already applied and been
Speaker 1: denied at a country they passed through. Remember, asylum is
Speaker 1: about safety, not a choice of for him, the ideas
Speaker 1: that you want to get people safe, and this is
Speaker 1: something America has been very generous about in the past.
Speaker 1: That's right, that's Ken Cuccinelli. This is what the administration
Speaker 1: is doing. I wish they'd done it a while ago.
Speaker 1: They're just going to start saying, if you it's through
Speaker 1: executive order. I remember, the president has a lot of
Speaker 1: authority over who can come into the country. These are
Speaker 1: all aliens. These are all non US citizens who are
Speaker 1: showing up. They do not have the rights of citizens,
Speaker 1: despite what the left and Democrats want to give them,
Speaker 1: and the President should be able to exclude them all
Speaker 1: for any or no reason. By the way, if he
Speaker 1: just feels that it's in the national interest. But that
Speaker 1: would of course be you know, that would be deaf
Speaker 1: con one for the libs, they would completely lose their
Speaker 1: minds and it would be overturned, overturned in federal court
Speaker 1: right away. And because they just find some judge, they
Speaker 1: find some left wing Obama appoint toe to say that
Speaker 1: the commander in chief isn't really the commander in chief.
Speaker 1: That's what we keep coming up against with this president,
Speaker 1: that's what they keep doing to him. But now we
Speaker 1: see the administration saying, Okay, you have to at least
Speaker 1: try to get asylum in Mexico effectively before you can
Speaker 1: ask for it here in America. Because all these Central
Speaker 1: American migrants, they are taking advantage of the system in
Speaker 1: a few ways. One is you'll notice there aren't all
Speaker 1: these Mexican asylum seekers. Why is that. Mexico's got plenty
Speaker 1: of people that I'm sure would still love to come
Speaker 1: here illegally or it's still come here period in some
Speaker 1: way if they could. But it's because contiguous countries Canada
Speaker 1: or Mexico, if you come into the country, if you
Speaker 1: come in illegally, we can push you back across the
Speaker 1: border very quickly. Non contiguous countries there's a different set
Speaker 1: of rules. And that's why the Central American asylum seekers
Speaker 1: have been able to get into the process, into the
Speaker 1: pipeline in America and not be quickly deported back to
Speaker 1: their countries of origin. And the whole point is to
Speaker 1: just overwhelm the system, gum up the works, and then
Speaker 1: you get to stay forever. So now we're saying, okay,
Speaker 1: the administration is going to only allow you to apply
Speaker 1: for asylum in this country if you try to get
Speaker 1: asylum in Mexico. Effectively, if you're so desperate to leave
Speaker 1: Al Salvador or Honduras, if you're really in fear for
Speaker 1: your life. Mexico is not a country that is in
Speaker 1: a state of war. You're not being persecuted politically or
Speaker 1: religiously in a country where you have the same religion
Speaker 1: and same language. Okay, that's not happening. So why wouldn't
Speaker 1: in Al Salvador and say, okay, I'm in Mexico now
Speaker 1: I'm safe from the violence that I say I'm fleeing
Speaker 1: in Al Salvador. What because Mexico is too violent is
Speaker 1: a country to be in. Come on, that's not a
Speaker 1: serious position. That's an untenable, intellectually untenable position for anyone
Speaker 1: to hold. So this is going to force the discussion
Speaker 1: or force the reality. I should say into our discussion
Speaker 1: that these are not legitimate asylum seekers. They are scamming
Speaker 1: the system, and this is going to be you know,
Speaker 1: it's going to be fought in court right away. But
Speaker 1: just remember asylum is about safety. It's about people getting
Speaker 1: to a safe place, and it's not about getting the
Speaker 1: best welfare benefits and the best economy. And you know
Speaker 1: that that's you know, having access to the best schools.
Speaker 1: That's not what asylum is about. That's immigration, that's different.
Speaker 1: And if they're in Mexico, that's a safe enough country
Speaker 1: that they should request asylum in Mexico first, also a
Speaker 1: country where they share a lot of cultural linguistic background.
Speaker 1: So why wouldn't you want it If you were really
Speaker 1: just playing violence in Honduras, why wouldn't you want to
Speaker 1: apply in Mexico for asylum. I think it's so interesting.
Speaker 1: One I'm sure you'd be told this by Latin American experts,
Speaker 1: is that the Mexicans are often quite nasty to other
Speaker 1: Spanish speaking peoples in the region, particularly Central Americans. So
Speaker 1: that's a question that maybe maybe that would come up,
Speaker 1: but no one's gonna want to talk about that because
Speaker 1: only America is ever bad to people, only America ever
Speaker 1: has racism, right, that's the story you hear from the left.
Speaker 1: It's it's ridiculous. But this is an important move by
Speaker 1: the administration. It will be challenge in court pretty much
Speaker 1: right away. And this is one of many things that
Speaker 1: has to be done here in order to stop this
Speaker 1: migrant crisis from continuing on. And the rhetoric is going
Speaker 1: to continue to be horrible. I mean, I even though
Speaker 1: everything administration is doing here is proper. I mentioned this
Speaker 1: Antifa terrorists. Remember, we've got to talk about this here
Speaker 1: because they won't want to talk about it at the
Speaker 1: other networks. A left wing Antifa Democrat Party sympathizer tried
Speaker 1: to blow up some ice facility where there was detainment
Speaker 1: going on of some of these migrants, saying that it's
Speaker 1: like a concentration camp, and he wrote some manifesto. I
Speaker 1: read his manifesto and he's taking the language of AOC
Speaker 1: and saying, well, you know, and I understand. If I
Speaker 1: thought that there were real concentration camps operating this country,
Speaker 1: would I take up arms against them? Absolutely? I would.
Speaker 1: If there are real concentration camps operating, I would take
Speaker 1: up arms, no question about it. These aren't concentration Only
Speaker 1: a moron thinks they're concentration camps. But there are a
Speaker 1: lot of morons out there who are hearing this stuff
Speaker 1: from members of Congress, and they were lacked on it.
Speaker 1: You know, I remember when if you said anything mean
Speaker 1: about CNN being fake news, you're responsible for that one
Speaker 1: idiot pipe bomber guy. Well, what about AOC and this
Speaker 1: member of Antifa, what about ilhan Omar and what she
Speaker 1: says about how we treat migrants that are coming to
Speaker 1: our southern border play before and instead of us saying
Speaker 1: here is a B and C, we're saying there is
Speaker 1: zero option. And if you ever think that you have
Speaker 1: a chance, we're going to treat you worse than a dog.
Speaker 1: One of our members said to me, if there were
Speaker 1: dogs in those cages, every single member of Congress would
Speaker 1: vote to make sure that all of these cages didn't
Speaker 1: exist to any So, we live in a society. We
Speaker 1: live in a society and govern in a body that
Speaker 1: might value the life of a dog more than they
Speaker 1: value the life of a child who might not look
Speaker 1: like theirs, And that is completely sad, saying horrible things
Speaker 1: about America, about this country, about how we treat migrants,
Speaker 1: and I'm sick of it, and I know a lot
Speaker 1: of you are too, And I do think the President
Speaker 1: should and has a role, has an obligation to speak
Speaker 1: out about this and should continue to. This is anti Americanism,
Speaker 1: straight up, full stop. That's what this is. These are
Speaker 1: people who are lying about US as a country, us
Speaker 1: as the American people. And yes they are of us,
Speaker 1: they are Americans, they are members of Congress. But guess what,
Speaker 1: Sometimes the people that you really have to worry about
Speaker 1: are the people who are on your side, so to speak,
Speaker 1: as Americans, the enemy within can be very real, my friends.
Speaker 1: The ideological opponents that we face, the most important ones today,
Speaker 1: aren't external to this country. They are internal to this country.
Speaker 1: And I think the President and many of his supporters
Speaker 1: recognize that. We all know that AOC and this crowd
Speaker 1: are a bunch of communists. They hate Israel, they hate
Speaker 1: our own country. They're calling the guards along our border
Speaker 1: the boord troll agents, concentration camp guards. They accuse people
Speaker 1: to support Israel of doing it for the Benjamin's. They're
Speaker 1: anti Semitic, they're anti America. Don't get down, aim higher.
Speaker 1: We don't need to know anything about them personally, talk
Speaker 1: about their policy, man, Lindsey Graham. I like what he's
Speaker 1: going for here. I mean, first of all, to have
Speaker 1: a senator called them a bunch of commies is great.
Speaker 1: You gotta like this. It's like, we all know they're
Speaker 1: a bunch of communists. Yes, we do. Let them have it.
Speaker 1: They're gonna run around calling everybody racists and fascists, and
Speaker 1: when a white supremacists and Nazis, we can start to
Speaker 1: call them commis, folks, I mean, I call them libs.
Speaker 1: We could also say, I think we need to use
Speaker 1: the term commy more because they're not really even democratic socialists. Well,
Speaker 1: you're talking about the AOC wing of the party. These
Speaker 1: are individuals who want so much control over the government
Speaker 1: and think of themselves as a revolutionary committee of sorts
Speaker 1: that should have the power to do whatever they want.
Speaker 1: Well then yes, then yes you do. In fact, I
Speaker 1: think deserve to call some of them commed. So so
Speaker 1: I like I like where Lindsay's heads out on this one. Now,
Speaker 1: on the specific charge of aiming higher. This is where
Speaker 1: the Trumpster in the press commerce today was just like, look, man,
Speaker 1: he's he's not he's not having it. Oh and let
Speaker 1: me just before we get into this. They have names
Speaker 1: for us all the time. They call us names all
Speaker 1: the time, right, they being the left, the Democrats. Why
Speaker 1: can't we have disparaging terms for them that go to
Speaker 1: what they believe in their ideology. I'm not saying the
Speaker 1: kind of names that you know, would would be ashamed
Speaker 1: to call anybody. I mean, there are some things you
Speaker 1: should never call any person, right, but you know, curses
Speaker 1: and things. But why can't we call them comedies? Why
Speaker 1: don't we refer to them as libs? If they're going
Speaker 1: to run around and say that everybody's a racist and
Speaker 1: a white supremacist and a neo Nazi and a fascist
Speaker 1: and all this stuff, why do we always have say, well,
Speaker 1: and all, they really want to enlarge the government and
Speaker 1: are not constitutionally bound and they're not originalist. And you know,
Speaker 1: this is where Trump is a different kind of republic.
Speaker 1: He fights in a way that is effective because he
Speaker 1: fights the way they'll fight. This is a fire with
Speaker 1: fire situation. He calls them out. I mean, can you imagine.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, with Mitt Romney, it was like
Speaker 1: he was always doing a model un tryout. But he
Speaker 1: was trying to trying to argue with Democrats and it
Speaker 1: just doesn't it just doesn't do. It doesn't cut it.
Speaker 1: It's not enough. So I think and the left clearly
Speaker 1: understands the importance of dominating the language that we use.
Speaker 1: And but that's why you know, when Trump says he
Speaker 1: disagrees with Lindsey Graham on this one. Look, I think
Speaker 1: that Trump is usually when he pushes hard and fights back.
Speaker 1: I like it. This time, I think that he opened
Speaker 1: himself up for because what he said just was factually
Speaker 1: wrong and it was it was not necessary, and it
Speaker 1: did seem, you know, it just opened up this can
Speaker 1: of worms. It didn't have to happen. So I think
Speaker 1: it was a blunder. I think it was a blunder.
Speaker 1: I think it was the wrong the wrong tweet. But Trump,
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, he disagrees, folks. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: he tripled down on this one today because also I
Speaker 1: know what Trump was trying to say. Trump is taking
Speaker 1: aim at the anti americanism of these figures. He's not.
Speaker 1: You know, this is the thing Trump, Trump's not a racist. Okay,
Speaker 1: they can say this about him all day. He is
Speaker 1: not a racist, but he's willing to say things that
Speaker 1: the left will claim our racist because we live in
Speaker 1: this politically correct can't say anything, have to just always
Speaker 1: be lectured about white privilege and white supremacy all the time.
Speaker 1: And so Trump breaks out of that mold. To do
Speaker 1: that is gonna sometimes mean. Maybe he goes a little
Speaker 1: further than I would if I were him, But then again,
Speaker 1: I'm not the president. But he disagree with Lindsay on
Speaker 1: this one at the Press Commerce Today play clip twenty.
Speaker 1: I disagree with Lindsay he's a congressman. What am I
Speaker 1: supposed to do? Just wait for senators? No, these are
Speaker 1: four So I disagree with Lindsay on that that was
Speaker 1: the only thing he said, Aim higher, shoot higher. What
Speaker 1: am I gonna do? Wait till we get somebody else
Speaker 1: in a higher position in higher office. These are people
Speaker 1: that hate our country. They hate our country, they hate it.
Speaker 1: I think with a passion. Now it's possible I'm wrong.
Speaker 1: The voter will decide. But when I hear the way
Speaker 1: they talk about our country, when I hear the anti
Speaker 1: Semitic language they use, when I hear the hatred they
Speaker 1: have for Israel and the love they have for enemies
Speaker 1: like al Qaeda. Then you know what, I will tell
Speaker 1: you that I do not believe this is good for
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party. Certainly, it's not the party that I've
Speaker 1: known over the years. You know, Trump, he's saying, look,
Speaker 1: maybe maybe I shouldn't have said it the way I
Speaker 1: said it. That's that's the closest the Trump will ever
Speaker 1: get to that, by the way, what he said there.
Speaker 1: You know, maybe the voter will decide, but he's not
Speaker 1: backing down on the fight. And I understand tactically, I
Speaker 1: know why he does not apologize because they don't want
Speaker 1: his apology. They just want him to concede ground. So
Speaker 1: they it's trench warfare, folks. It's not like you abandon
Speaker 1: one trench, you go back one hundred yards. The other
Speaker 1: side's gonna want to cease fire. They're just like, Okay,
Speaker 1: now we're our position to shell you more. That's all
Speaker 1: they want to do. Trump knows that. So that's why
Speaker 1: when they play this whole game of what the haven't
Speaker 1: Republicans denounced? Why haven't they denounced? Look, I mean I've
Speaker 1: said I didn't. I didn't really like what the presidence
Speaker 1: that the president knows he might have gone the wrong
Speaker 1: direction a little far. But no, sorry, we're not going
Speaker 1: to play the oh, I'm so sorry game, because the
Speaker 1: I'm so sorry game doesn't get you anywhere. The Okay, well,
Speaker 1: this is what I would say now game is what
Speaker 1: Trump wants to play, which is, I'm still in this fight.
Speaker 1: You know, sometimes, folks, you know, in war, sometimes the
Speaker 1: wrong the wrong house gets bombed. You know, bad things happen.
Speaker 1: And I think the Trump approach here is when you're
Speaker 1: dealing with true, truly virulent anti americanism. And and this
Speaker 1: just this attitude of shocking left wing dictatorial authoritarianism, which
Speaker 1: is what you get from the the AOC Green New
Speaker 1: Deal lunacy. I mean that whole wing of and how
Speaker 1: you know we have to embrace all these insane ideas.
Speaker 1: You know that if you're not completely on board with
Speaker 1: transgender twelve year olds dancing in front of rooms full
Speaker 1: of men, I mean, this is all real stuff. It's
Speaker 1: happening now, folks. You're a bigot, one of the big
Speaker 1: ones that keeps coming up, and you know you're just
Speaker 1: starting to see it now. Is oh, if you're if
Speaker 1: you're not, if you're a heterosexual, male. And you do
Speaker 1: not find a transgender female, which is a biological male
Speaker 1: that claims to be female. You don't find that person's
Speaker 1: actually attractive. It's not that that's your preference. And that's okay,
Speaker 1: you're a bigot. This this is our They've started this.
Speaker 1: They've started this, and I'm give it two years. This
Speaker 1: will become the mainstream position of the Democratic Party because
Speaker 1: they're insane, because they have lost it. They're an ideology
Speaker 1: now that is unmoored from any moral principle, from any
Speaker 1: reality other than power and mob rule. That's what they've become.
Speaker 1: That's why they're all for open borders. That's why they'll
Speaker 1: say whatever they have to say whenever they have to
Speaker 1: say it. Oh yeah, I think Trump I understand. I
Speaker 1: think that when when Lindsay Graham said aim higher, I
Speaker 1: think he meant, you know, take the high road in
Speaker 1: the conversation. I don't think he meant go for more
Speaker 1: prominent officials. Trump took that in a surprising direction here.
Speaker 1: But let's let's just go back for a second to
Speaker 1: Lindsay Graham, who was was, you know, doing doing a
Speaker 1: pretty pretty good job on the morning show. It was
Speaker 1: on Fox and Fox and friends this morning. Here's what
Speaker 1: he also said about the squad of four, which is
Speaker 1: Pressley to lead AOC and oh wait, who am I missing?
Speaker 1: Frensley to lead AOC and oh Omar of course play
Speaker 1: ten Well. I think there are American citizens who are
Speaker 1: duly elected that are running on an agenda that is
Speaker 1: disgusting that the American people will reject. Talk about what
Speaker 1: it means for America to have free healthcare for illegal
Speaker 1: immigrants and no criminalization of coming into the country. I
Speaker 1: hope Lindsay is right. I think he is, and I
Speaker 1: couldn't guarantee it. I'm not sure that what he's saying
Speaker 1: here is true. I don't know this country. We got
Speaker 1: a lot of First of all, we've got a lot
Speaker 1: of people coming in from the Third World who are
Speaker 1: if they're not voting, they're raising kids who are being
Speaker 1: told that all this stuff that the left preaches is true.
Speaker 1: So you got that, and then you know you have
Speaker 1: the media apparatus is still all in the pocket of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. You know this Lindsey Graham's faith here
Speaker 1: that the radical agenda of the left will be rejected
Speaker 1: the next election. Yeah, if the economy is as good
Speaker 1: as it is right now, probably, But if we got
Speaker 1: a big economic downturn and all of a sudden, we're
Speaker 1: told that the rich people are the problem and they
Speaker 1: have to pay their fair share, and that's what's really
Speaker 1: an issue here. I don't know. Lindsey Graham may have
Speaker 1: more faith, may have more faith in the American voter
Speaker 1: than I did. That's for sure. Everybody knows that acts
Speaker 1: like a white supremacist. He is a racist. He's made
Speaker 1: that clear on so many different occasions. And not only
Speaker 1: that as the leader of our country. His politics, his
Speaker 1: strategy is about dividing people along racial lines. It's called
Speaker 1: racial priming, and he has done that more successfully than
Speaker 1: any politician that we've seen in a very long time.
Speaker 1: It is absolutely racist and an America, and it is
Speaker 1: an old trope go back to where it came from.
Speaker 1: That you know, you might hear it on the street,
Speaker 1: but you should never hear that from the president of
Speaker 1: the United States. So I was on Fox yesterday right
Speaker 1: after these tweets came out, and I saw the Redfromie
Speaker 1: and I said, oh, oh, this is gonna be this
Speaker 1: is gonna be one of these new cycles all of
Speaker 1: a sudden that's dominated by some Trump tweets, and I
Speaker 1: knew exactly what they're going to say, and I'm of
Speaker 1: the mind that this is not helpful and that it's
Speaker 1: not a it was not a smart move for the president,
Speaker 1: that he should have said what he was trying to say. Differently,
Speaker 1: I don't agree with how he said it, if nothing else,
Speaker 1: just because now we have to spend all this time
Speaker 1: doing cleanup duty and trying to figure out, well, you know,
Speaker 1: when can we move on to the stuff that I
Speaker 1: want to talk about and that the country should be
Speaker 1: focused on, which is changing in the asylum policy, changing it,
Speaker 1: you know, getting these ice raids underway, making sure that
Speaker 1: they're happening. That's that's what's important, the battle with the
Speaker 1: progressive wing of the Democratic Party. Trump is great on
Speaker 1: that usually, and if nothing else, Trump's magic power, his
Speaker 1: special power, is that he can endure and has endured,
Speaker 1: being called everything by these leftists everything. He's a rapist,
Speaker 1: he's a traitor, he's a racists. They call him the
Speaker 1: worst things that you can possibly call anybody, and doesn't
Speaker 1: face him at all. He just keeps on, He keeps
Speaker 1: on coming at them. And that's why they have one
Speaker 1: of the reasons why they absolutely hate him so much
Speaker 1: because they can't stop him, and they can't force him
Speaker 1: to do what they want or to do. They can't
Speaker 1: make him fear them the way that they have made
Speaker 1: other Republicans fear them. Because, you know, Republicans, even the prominent,
Speaker 1: powerful ones in elected office, they don't want to have
Speaker 1: people in the media calling them racist. They don't want
Speaker 1: to have to go and face their constituents and have
Speaker 1: people in the audience who say, well, you know this,
Speaker 1: you know I saw this CNN store they called you
Speaker 1: a racist. They don't want that. They do not want that.
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, that's their reputations are very important to them,
Speaker 1: and they're not willing to withstand the kind of verbal
Speaker 1: assaults and undermining that Republicans are subjected to, unfairly, usually
Speaker 1: by the left, overwhelmingly unfairly. But yeah, so Trump Trump
Speaker 1: tweets this out, and I think that his supporters and
Speaker 1: this is where I am on this. Look, he's just
Speaker 1: trying to say that there's a an anti Americanism that
Speaker 1: has become far too prevalent and far too prominent in
Speaker 1: the Democrat Party, and that there are some people who
Speaker 1: are really representative of that now in the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: and he's just not going to stand for it. And
Speaker 1: they can call him a racist, and they can do
Speaker 1: all the stuff that they do and all that, and
Speaker 1: it's not going to change the fact that Trump at
Speaker 1: the end of the day, is not going to not
Speaker 1: going to move an inch based on their allegations. And
Speaker 1: he's definitely not going to move an inch because of
Speaker 1: what John Kasik, you know, Ohio, you're a great state
Speaker 1: with great people. I don't understand how this guy continues
Speaker 1: to be your governor. But Kasick waited on this one
Speaker 1: play twenty two. I don't run around trying to call
Speaker 1: people communists and their socialists and they hate America. I mean,
Speaker 1: you see, this is the road we're on. It's just
Speaker 1: that one thing leads to another. It started in Charlottesville,
Speaker 1: and all the time and the language becomes more and
Speaker 1: more acceptable, we become immune this name calling. Where does
Speaker 1: it leave us at the end. We're losing a little
Speaker 1: piece of our soul every time we stand back and
Speaker 1: allow this kind of rhetoric and division and anger to
Speaker 1: be announced, that people pushing back saying all right, that's enough,
Speaker 1: knock it off. Where was a big tough guy in
Speaker 1: moral voice, John Kasik, when Democrats were trying to ruin
Speaker 1: a man's life and reputation and destroy him and psychologically
Speaker 1: torture him on TV in front of his wife and
Speaker 1: children and friends and colleagues and tens of millions of
Speaker 1: onlookers during the Kavanaugh hearing. Where was big tough guy Kasit? Then?
Speaker 1: Where were all these Republicans that I see now saying, oh,
Speaker 1: this is a soul, it's a racist. Where were they
Speaker 1: on the Kavanaugh thing? And I don't want to hear
Speaker 1: about old book? That's what aboutism. It's not what aboutism.
Speaker 1: This is about the fight. This is about how they
Speaker 1: fight and how we are expected to fight. They want
Speaker 1: us to apologize for the words we use. They want
Speaker 1: us to feel on the defensive when we're trying to
Speaker 1: talk about difficult or touchy subjects. Do they have any compunction?
Speaker 1: Do they have any hesitation on their side? You know,
Speaker 1: we had Molly Hemingway carry Severino on last week about
Speaker 1: their Kavanaugh book, which I bought over the weekend. I'm
Speaker 1: looking forward to diving into it. I'm planning to get
Speaker 1: through it very quickly. They point out the Wall Street
Speaker 1: Journal atitorial today, that the Left didn't really pay any
Speaker 1: price for Kavanaugh. Maybe they left a Senate seat or
Speaker 1: two on the table, maybe, but there was no real
Speaker 1: price paid. The journalists that tried to run with the smear,
Speaker 1: and it was a smear, and it was a lie.
Speaker 1: Those women that accused Kavana were liars, and the whole
Speaker 1: thing was orchestrated. It was a hit. It was the
Speaker 1: most disgusting thing I've ever seen in American politics, and
Speaker 1: it just happened a year ago. The people involved should
Speaker 1: all be ashamed, in fact, that people involved should lose
Speaker 1: their public positions, should be drummed out of public life. Instead,
Speaker 1: you have people like Kamala Harris who are contenders for
Speaker 1: the presidency. She was very much involved in the Kavanaugh Smeir.
Speaker 1: Corey Booker, I am Spartacus very much involved in the
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh Smeir. I just want to know where are these
Speaker 1: these moral paragons, these titans of virtue that we see
Speaker 1: on the right, these people like like k sik where
Speaker 1: were they during that whole debacle which was the most
Speaker 1: atrocious thing I've ever seen in American politics and will
Speaker 1: be repeated by the left if they can get away
Speaker 1: with it. They did not pay the kind of price
Speaker 1: that would prevent them from going down that same path
Speaker 1: in the future. We all know this. Why is it
Speaker 1: that there is this entire class of Republicans out there
Speaker 1: who are so much more fierce and so much stronger
Speaker 1: when they are tearing down people who are their allies
Speaker 1: on most policy issues, they're fellow Republicans. But in the
Speaker 1: era of Trump, people that are Trump supporters and never
Speaker 1: have the same kind of Victoryol Director of the Democrats,
Speaker 1: have you ever heard Kasi say that the Democrats are crazy,
Speaker 1: that they're that they are advocating for the mass and fanticide,
Speaker 1: that there aren't thirty seven genders, that men can't get pregnant,
Speaker 1: that we can't have a green new deal, that Medicare
Speaker 1: for all is a fantasy. Do you have your John
Speaker 1: Kasi's any of this stuff? Or just say that Democrats
Speaker 1: senators in the judiciary community who tried to ruin Cavanaugh
Speaker 1: should live in infamy because there are disgrace not just
Speaker 1: as sentators, as human beings trying to set a man
Speaker 1: up and pretend that he's a gang rapist. Remember that
Speaker 1: was the allegation that was read into the record, a
Speaker 1: gang rapist when he was in high school. No person
Speaker 1: with an IQ above twenty could believe that. But that
Speaker 1: was what they did, a New Yorker with a little
Speaker 1: Ronan pharaoh. Oh, they built him up his whole meat
Speaker 1: tooth thing. And if someone handed him that whole wine
Speaker 1: Stein story, and yeah, he's stuck with it. But he
Speaker 1: knew he had a big he had a big scoop
Speaker 1: and then he used all that credibility at that moment.
Speaker 1: He was going to be a hero to the left forever.
Speaker 1: To try to bring this second woman story forward, Yeah,
Speaker 1: she was so traumatized by the Kavanaugh incident that didn't
Speaker 1: happen that she took six days and conversations with lawyers
Speaker 1: and a therapist to try to help remember if it
Speaker 1: happened to her. And then a third woman, Sweatnick, who
Speaker 1: was just a crazy person, I mean truly somebody who
Speaker 1: is mentally unstable and never should have been taken seriously
Speaker 1: by anyone. And Vlasi forward is emotionally unstable and clearly
Speaker 1: has problems. And now we know more about her past
Speaker 1: and she has no idea if it as Kavana or
Speaker 1: some other guy who grabbed her, she has no idea.
Speaker 1: You know how much she had had her drink that day.
Speaker 1: She had no idea what's going on in the situation.
Speaker 1: That's what's come out recently, just making it up as
Speaker 1: she went along. Maybe she thought she remembered it, but
Speaker 1: who really knows. I just want to know where all
Speaker 1: these can And I'm sorry, there's some you know my
Speaker 1: i's he's a nice guy and he's good on some issues,
Speaker 1: you know. David French over at National Review, David, you
Speaker 1: know you didn't respond to me on Twitter, So I'm
Speaker 1: gonna say it here. I said, why why does he
Speaker 1: believe Egene Carrol? Why is he jumping on that bandwagon
Speaker 1: against Trump? With Egene Carrol's a crazy person who's trying
Speaker 1: to sell books that she can't sell because the book
Speaker 1: is terrible and it's all a joke and it's a
Speaker 1: horrible the whole situation right. Putting her on TV is ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Anderson Cooper Show, I mean that was great. I mean
Speaker 1: that was really Anderson Cooper deserve He deserved that. He
Speaker 1: deserved that, he deserved to have eg Carol on his
Speaker 1: show implode in real time. He deserved that. For all
Speaker 1: the smears about Russia collusion, all the other stuff he's
Speaker 1: put on TV. Where are these brave Republicans on those
Speaker 1: issues though it's only on our side? And you know why,
Speaker 1: because the Democrat system, the apparatus, the media, the social clubs,
Speaker 1: the speaking contracts, the book publishers. You just you always
Speaker 1: want to be a Republican. That they that they give
Speaker 1: a little pad on the head too, and that they
Speaker 1: kind of like you don't want to really be totally
Speaker 1: on the outs with them, and that's all they need
Speaker 1: and they don't need you to totally. They don't need
Speaker 1: these guys like Casey to abandon the party entirely and
Speaker 1: to go. They just need them on key issues to
Speaker 1: give a little bit of heft, a little bit of
Speaker 1: friendly fire, so to speak against Republicans from their own side,
Speaker 1: and you know you'll you'll get taken care of. You know,
Speaker 1: you won't be targeted, and quite the same, you won't
Speaker 1: get kavanade. That's the thing people talk about, how those
Speaker 1: who speak out against Trump and the Republicans are brave.
Speaker 1: In a lot of cases, I think those who speak
Speaker 1: out are guilty of the opposite of braver. I think
Speaker 1: there's cowardice and there's self interest involved. It's been far
Speaker 1: too easy. Too many people are willing to vote for
Speaker 1: the other side, push for the other side against everything
Speaker 1: that they claim to have stood for for decades. In
Speaker 1: some cases, people have switched party affiliation because of Trump.
Speaker 1: How could you have been a Republican who really believed
Speaker 1: in the Republican platform for the last thirty years and
Speaker 1: now never mind the fact that Trump's actually doing a
Speaker 1: good job. Now you're gonna push for the other team.
Speaker 1: Now you want what you want, the Occasio Cortes Party
Speaker 1: to be running the show. I mean, you have to
Speaker 1: be out of your mind to want that. That's where
Speaker 1: we are. That's where we are. Thanks, Casey, always appreciate
Speaker 1: here of me. He's a jerk. Because if you're going
Speaker 1: to come to this table, and if all of you
Speaker 1: that have aspirations of running for office, whatever lived experience
Speaker 1: and identity that you represent, if you are not prepared
Speaker 1: to come to that table and to represent that voice,
Speaker 1: don't come. Because we don't need any more brown faces
Speaker 1: that don't want to be a brown voice. We don't
Speaker 1: need black faces that don't want to be a black voice.
Speaker 1: We don't need muslim that don't want to be a
Speaker 1: Muslim voice. We don't need queers that don't want to
Speaker 1: be a queer voice, and if you're worried about being
Speaker 1: marginalized and stereotyped, police don't even show up. That seems
Speaker 1: very open minded, doesn't it. That seems like a call
Speaker 1: for free thought and free expression from one of these
Speaker 1: four members of Congress that's gotten so much attention recently.
Speaker 1: I'd be very curious. I mean, I could analyze, and
Speaker 1: perhaps I will somewhat what she thinks she means or
Speaker 1: what I think she means here, But I would really
Speaker 1: want to ask Ianna Pressley, Democrat from Massachusetts here, what
Speaker 1: does it mean to be a quote brown face that
Speaker 1: doesn't want to be a brown voice? What does that?
Speaker 1: What does that mean? Are you no longer do you
Speaker 1: no longer have you being just the royal, the generic you?
Speaker 1: You no longer maintain your minority identity if you're not
Speaker 1: a voice for that minority, Well, who determines what that means?
Speaker 1: I mean, I would like to ask Iana Pressley, if
Speaker 1: let's say, an African American member of Congress who wants
Speaker 1: to address the family crisis in the African American community
Speaker 1: right now, particularly of children being born out of wedlock,
Speaker 1: which every social scientist will tell you is an enormous
Speaker 1: indicator of problems of all kinds down the line that
Speaker 1: children without fathers are more likely to abuse drugs, more
Speaker 1: likely to go to prison, more likely to be violent,
Speaker 1: less likely to finish high school. If a member of
Speaker 1: the African American community, who's who's a congressman were to address,
Speaker 1: is that is that speaking for the community or is
Speaker 1: that outside? Is that being a black face that speaks
Speaker 1: with that that is also a quote black voice. I
Speaker 1: want to know who gets to draw these lines and
Speaker 1: how we can think about that as anything other than
Speaker 1: a kind of racial determinism, that if you are of
Speaker 1: a certain race you have to think a certain way.
Speaker 1: You have to And this goes to the core of
Speaker 1: the Democrat Parties identity politics. You can be expelled from
Speaker 1: the community for being the community of a certain ethnicity,
Speaker 1: at least politically speaking, unless you go along with all
Speaker 1: the different things. So, if you're black and you have
Speaker 1: any questions about the Democratic Party's platform, does that mean
Speaker 1: that Ianna Pressley and the Democrats question the question one's
Speaker 1: blackness or if one is brown, does that mean that
Speaker 1: one questions that I wish the press Corps was interested
Speaker 1: in exploring these these concerns with Ianna Presley, but I
Speaker 1: know they won't be. I mean, they're all terrified. Can
Speaker 1: you imagine somebody at MSNBC asking a tough question of
Speaker 1: Ianna Pressley that you know, I still think that there
Speaker 1: are people who, in the early days, I can think
Speaker 1: of one or two in particular, didn't even mean to
Speaker 1: ask AOC a hard question, but it came across as hard,
Speaker 1: and I think that they were I think that those
Speaker 1: journalists that did that were put on ice. I think
Speaker 1: they were punished for that. I don't think that was
Speaker 1: viewed as positive. See if Ianna Pressley saying quote, we
Speaker 1: don't need any more brown faces that don't want to
Speaker 1: be a brown voice. I think that's something that we
Speaker 1: need to address. And then you also are just understand better.
Speaker 1: And then you have ilhanah Omar, who here's the kind
Speaker 1: of stuff. Here's the kind of stuff that ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: runs around saying. And I also, again, I think that
Speaker 1: we're allowed to raise this as an issue. You play
Speaker 1: five and one of the progresses that we've gained and
Speaker 1: the people who are celebrated for that progress are our
Speaker 1: civil rights leaders. And one of the reasons we celebrate
Speaker 1: some and don't celebrate others is that some of them
Speaker 1: believed in non violent movements. And so in the situation
Speaker 1: of Palestine, what we are doing right now is having
Speaker 1: hypocrisy in not celebrating non violent movements there and condemning it.
Speaker 1: This is what we're dealing with in the halls of Congress.
Speaker 1: This is what we're dealing with in the rhetoric that
Speaker 1: is in the media in regards to people who are
Speaker 1: non violently wanting to resist. Who is who is doing
Speaker 1: a great job of non violent resistance in Palestine? And
Speaker 1: I wish she would speak with greater specificity so that
Speaker 1: I could actually look into what the heck she's talking about.
Speaker 1: It's not in any way of surprise. I mean, no
Speaker 1: one sits around say wait a second, elan Omar, she's
Speaker 1: got an issue with Israel. Here's the truth, folks. The
Speaker 1: vast majority of the Muslim world has been told that
Speaker 1: Israel is bad and oppressive state, should be in a prie,
Speaker 1: should be a pariah state. And you see this just
Speaker 1: through the actions of the un if nowhere else but
Speaker 1: the normalization of anti Israel sentiment and anti Semitism throughout
Speaker 1: the Muslim world is something that even if somebody is
Speaker 1: a Democrat who is celebrated by the left now, should
Speaker 1: still be a problem, should still be shouted down, should
Speaker 1: still be debated. And that's where the media falls flat
Speaker 1: with Omar and all the rest of these celebrated leftists,
Speaker 1: creating tremendous feria unnecessary. What's happening is the very syndical
Speaker 1: political strategy by the President his administration. It is literally
Speaker 1: an effort to help their electoral prospects. It's not about
Speaker 1: public safety. I am in a city where we had
Speaker 1: become safer every year. We don't ask documentation status any
Speaker 1: when our police don't ask documentations status, they work with
Speaker 1: immigrant communities and it's helped make us safety. So this
Speaker 1: is not about safety. This is literally using government agents
Speaker 1: for political purposes. First of all, it's not really about
Speaker 1: safety at all. It's about the law. Do they lock
Speaker 1: people up for tax tax crimes and for financial fraud
Speaker 1: because of safety? No, they're not. They're not. They're not
Speaker 1: a threat to anybody. It's not about safety, about breaking
Speaker 1: the law. A lot of laws you get locked up
Speaker 1: for that. It's not about safety. Legal immigrants are in
Speaker 1: the country in violation of existing federal statute. That's not
Speaker 1: supposed to be okay, But there he had Bill de Blasi,
Speaker 1: ka Kaiser Vilhelm, Deblasio, Varrenvillhelm in the house. Yeah, who
Speaker 1: was gone this weekend. I was in New York over
Speaker 1: the weekend and there was a blackout and de Blasio
Speaker 1: was busy in I think he was in Iowa, which
Speaker 1: is just so classic. Here's this guy who is just
Speaker 1: doing slightly better in the polls than Eric Swalwell, who
Speaker 1: was doing slightly better in the polls than you or
Speaker 1: I in that we all have zero percent. So that's
Speaker 1: the one great thing about the Swallow campaign is that
Speaker 1: it was the ultimate everyman campaign and that he proved
Speaker 1: that anybody, literally anybody can run for president. So he
Speaker 1: got that going for him, which is nice. Bill de
Speaker 1: Blasi is not far ahead of him, though he's at
Speaker 1: I think one percent or less of the vote. And
Speaker 1: anybody who would I mean this, including progressives and leftist
Speaker 1: anyone who would vote for Bill de Blasio for president
Speaker 1: United States really have their head examined and that there's
Speaker 1: there's something wrong with them. Great editorial in the New
Speaker 1: York Post. I think it was today saying that the
Speaker 1: I didn't even know this was possible, But the governor
Speaker 1: of New York under the state constitution can suspend the
Speaker 1: mayor for thirty days and work to ouse the mayor,
Speaker 1: which I didn't know. But hey, you know, we have
Speaker 1: a federal government, we have states. Cities kind of exist
Speaker 1: at the pleasure of the state. They don't really, you know, don't.
Speaker 1: We don't think of it this way because in some
Speaker 1: places the cities are so large and powerful that politically
Speaker 1: they have even more sway than the state. But anyway,
Speaker 1: they were talking about how Deblasio is a total buffoon.
Speaker 1: His wife spent eight hundred million dollars plus of money
Speaker 1: on a mental health initiative that nobody, no one knows
Speaker 1: what it even did. The homelessness crisis in New York
Speaker 1: is out of control. There are homeless shelters that are
Speaker 1: popping up in neighborhoods that are not used to having
Speaker 1: homeless shelters all of a sudden. This is a new
Speaker 1: Deblasio initiative. And this is a guy whose work ethic
Speaker 1: includes rolling out of bed at like ten or eleven
Speaker 1: am and then taking a forty minute drive from Gracie mansion,
Speaker 1: the Mayor's mansion, to his gym in Park Slope, Brooklyn, which,
Speaker 1: for those of you don't know, is quite a ways away.
Speaker 1: It'd be like going all the way across a very
Speaker 1: large city so that he can do, you know, ten
Speaker 1: minutes of wrist stretching or whatever, pretending that he's working out.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is not a guy who goes into
Speaker 1: beast mode. Trust me. Do you even lift bro Yes
Speaker 1: and lifts a vates very hard and very heavy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and he thinks he should be president the United States. Wow,
Speaker 1: what a delusion. To keep mind, he was a very
Speaker 1: close Clinton confidant for a long time that Clintons really
Speaker 1: like this guy. They thought that he was somebody that
Speaker 1: I think he ran Hillary's campaign when she ran for Senate.
Speaker 1: So don't don't ever think that this is someone who's
Speaker 1: just Everyone understands what a jerk and what a clown
Speaker 1: he is. There are many many out there who at
Speaker 1: one point thought that he was a real contender of
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party. I mean, look, he thinks he's a contender.
Speaker 1: He Must's why he's running. I know it's more my
Speaker 1: problem than yours. So I'm going back to New York.
Speaker 1: But you guys all know that the Democrats in New
Speaker 1: York can affect the policy at the national level, and
Speaker 1: that's that's why it matters for everywhere. Speaking of clowns,
Speaker 1: Anna Navarro over at CNN gets away with saying stuff
Speaker 1: like this on I mean, she she really is. She's
Speaker 1: the worst political analyst I think on TV. And she's
Speaker 1: supposed to be a Republican, which is hilarious. So the
Speaker 1: Republican who just does the bidding of whatever her Democrat
Speaker 1: boss is over at CNN teller to do at any
Speaker 1: point in time, a Republican who hasn't said a nice
Speaker 1: thing about a prominent Republican and the Trump era period
Speaker 1: from what I can gather, but she's on CNN, they
Speaker 1: treat her like she's a cross between, you know, Thomas
Speaker 1: Jefferson and Copernicus, when really issues more along the lines
Speaker 1: of somebody who has never read a book. But here's
Speaker 1: what she says, play fifteen. This is our country. It
Speaker 1: is our country as much as it is the Trump's country.
Speaker 1: And if we're going to start sending people back, I
Speaker 1: don't know, you know, listen. Ted Cruz was born in Canada.
Speaker 1: Marco Rubia's parents were born in Cuba, Milannia Trump was
Speaker 1: born where Slovenia. How about her parents who are here
Speaker 1: through family immigration. I am sick of this guy's hypocrisy
Speaker 1: and his ways of dividing this country, pitting people against
Speaker 1: each other. And I think it is no coincidence. It
Speaker 1: is no coincidence that the congress people he's you know,
Speaker 1: picking on, are all women of color. Are all women
Speaker 1: of color. By the way, we didn't have this in
Speaker 1: the clip, but then the CNN anchor went on to say,
Speaker 1: because the classic CNN anchor question, and do you think
Speaker 1: President Trump wants you in the country? What do you think?
Speaker 1: Anna Navarro said it that one, oh man, CNN is terrible.
Speaker 1: I mean CNN should be it should really be like
Speaker 1: disbanded and built anew. I mean, they should just they
Speaker 1: should scrap the whole thing. They should pretty much fire
Speaker 1: the entire the entire executive board over there, get rid
Speaker 1: of everybody, get rid of almost all of the almost
Speaker 1: all of the on air talent they have, and they
Speaker 1: should start fresh because it's a joke, it's a it's
Speaker 1: a bad organization that represents dishonesty with people who are
Speaker 1: delusional and nasty, and yeah, I don't know what they
Speaker 1: think is going to change, where all of a sudden
Speaker 1: people are gonna look at them and say that, oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're trustworthy. They put people like Anna Navarro on the air, though,
Speaker 1: and you just kind of think yourself, how can anyone
Speaker 1: have such bad judgment? Really, it's just just insane. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's I'm sorry, you can tell I really I find
Speaker 1: her to be among the most odious pundits out there.
Speaker 1: But there you have it. We've all heard reports that
Speaker 1: the Trump administration is threatening to round up in deport
Speaker 1: thousands of immigrant families and cities across America this weekend,
Speaker 1: no matter their immigration status. I want every Angelino to
Speaker 1: know their rights and how to exercise them. Remember, you
Speaker 1: have the right to remain silent. You don't have to
Speaker 1: open your door to an ICE agent that doesn't have
Speaker 1: a warrant signed by a judge. You have the right
Speaker 1: to speak to a lawyer before signing any documents or
Speaker 1: speaking to law enforcement. And if you need help finding
Speaker 1: an attorney, you can call three one one and learn
Speaker 1: more about our Justice Fund and other resources that offer
Speaker 1: legal support. And whenever possible, keep a record of everything
Speaker 1: that happens. Take note of an officer's name and badge
Speaker 1: number of when and where you're being questioned, so you
Speaker 1: can use that information in your own defense. And most importantly,
Speaker 1: I want you to know you do not need be afraid.
Speaker 1: Your city is on your side. And rest assured. Here
Speaker 1: in Los Angeles we are not coordinating with ICE, not
Speaker 1: on America's side, not on the federal government side. But there,
Speaker 1: La mayor are SETI is saying your city is on
Speaker 1: your side against the federal government, against federal law enforcement.
Speaker 1: That is what he is saying, folks. He is rooting
Speaker 1: against federal law enforcement efforts. It's no other way to
Speaker 1: interpret it. There's no other way does he say this?
Speaker 1: Does he does he put out public announcements. Okay, drug dealers,
Speaker 1: there's gonna be a big sweep in the neighborhood. But
Speaker 1: just make sure that you know the procedural rights that
Speaker 1: you can exercise that might trip the cops up, slow
Speaker 1: them down, make it harder for them in some way.
Speaker 1: You know, Just just understand what's you know. And even
Speaker 1: if you're saying, well back, this is all true. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but does he tell the loan just so you know
Speaker 1: you have the right to remain silent. Yeah, okay, sure,
Speaker 1: why feel the needs Why would you feel they need
Speaker 1: to say that about about a drug dealer suite? Oh? Legal,
Speaker 1: lumigrants are on drug dealers book. Okay, but it's illegal.
Speaker 1: It's a crime. Are we now to pretend that these
Speaker 1: things aren't crimes? You know? I just I wonder where
Speaker 1: Democrats really on the line here. Well, if they draw
Speaker 1: the line at their own power and their own whims.
Speaker 1: But yeah, they're trying to help people who have violated
Speaker 1: US law in some cases for many years and in
Speaker 1: many different ways avoid federal law enforce and efforts. Someone
Speaker 1: should ask Mayor Garcetti, is being illegal a bad thing? Is?
Speaker 1: You know? Does he does he not want his city
Speaker 1: to be free of legal Well we know the answer,
Speaker 1: of course, no, he wants as many legal as possible.
Speaker 1: I mean, California has been transformed. It will no longer
Speaker 1: be a state that will ever vote for somebody who
Speaker 1: believes in limited government, who rejects identity politics, who does
Speaker 1: not think that that people should vote in a ethnic
Speaker 1: and sectarian block together. You know, you'll never have that again.
Speaker 1: You'll never have somebody that's limited government, that believes in
Speaker 1: a constitution that has words with meaning instead of a
Speaker 1: constitution that can be reinterpreted by status and progressives on
Speaker 1: a whim. That's gone now in California, it's not coming back.
Speaker 1: That's the model for the whole country. This isn't a
Speaker 1: particularly complicated thing to figure out. I mean, this isn't
Speaker 1: an experiment that you can't work out of your own mind,
Speaker 1: but it is. It is so galling to hear a
Speaker 1: mayor of this, what the second largest city in the country,
Speaker 1: essentially telling an entire class of criminals, Hey, you know
Speaker 1: the five O the police are on the way. Here's
Speaker 1: what you gotta do to try to stay low and
Speaker 1: stay stay away from them. And you know, it's just
Speaker 1: the stuff, like you know, you don't have to answer
Speaker 1: the door unless they show a warrant. Did they really
Speaker 1: think that Ice is running around without warrants and going
Speaker 1: into homes. It's just such a strange thing for him
Speaker 1: to say. It's it's not even really a dog whistle.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's it's a bullhorn saying I'm hoping that
Speaker 1: Ice is a failure in all of this. He is
Speaker 1: rooting again federal law enforcement efforts. That is what he
Speaker 1: is doing. It's the mayor of a large city. Remember
Speaker 1: the LAPD works for the mayor. There's law enforcement officials
Speaker 1: that have to answer to this mayor. This guy's bad
Speaker 1: news and his city's obviously got a terrible homelessness problem.
Speaker 1: I want to talk more about homelessness here on the
Speaker 1: show because I'm seeing it. It's it has gotten really
Speaker 1: bad in New York City, it has gotten really bad
Speaker 1: in DC. I've been out in LA and seen it
Speaker 1: very see it very poorly. They're playing out very poorly
Speaker 1: so and it's largely a mental health crisis that's exacerbated
Speaker 1: by left wing policies. But that will have to be
Speaker 1: discussion for another time. Another issue that comes up here
Speaker 1: while we have these these ice raids that have apparently
Speaker 1: started but there could be more of them, is why
Speaker 1: why is it that now raids of any kind? Uh?
Speaker 1: And we're even calling them raids. I mean, they're really roundups.
Speaker 1: It's just going around picking people up and saying, sorry,
Speaker 1: it's time for you to be deported. They're not They're
Speaker 1: not throwing flashbangs in and sending in a swat team
Speaker 1: with a bunch of MP fives to grab these people.
Speaker 1: At least that's not my understanding of how these things
Speaker 1: go down. But there were a lot of deportations into
Speaker 1: the Obama years. And were those deportations evil and racist
Speaker 1: and bad? Why were those deportations more or less? Okay,
Speaker 1: you heard so little criticism from the media then, And look,
Speaker 1: I've said this all along because it can be a
Speaker 1: little bit confusing. Why would Obama, who wanted amnesty be
Speaker 1: deporting people and even being called by some on the
Speaker 1: left the deporter in chief. Well, I was saying that
Speaker 1: this is because they were playing playing the long game,
Speaker 1: and they realized that if it seemed like Democrats like
Speaker 1: Obama were operating in good faith with our immigration laws,
Speaker 1: willing to deport people, willing to enforce immigration laws, then
Speaker 1: they are in a better position to fool people into
Speaker 1: thinking that they would take a deal for amnesty seriously
Speaker 1: and have and the enforcement mechanisms in that deal would
Speaker 1: be treated with seriousness, when we know that would just
Speaker 1: we saw this with the Ambassa back in the nineteen eighties.
Speaker 1: You get the amnesty and all the other stuff. That's
Speaker 1: just a suggestion that never really happens. But Sleepy Joe
Speaker 1: Biden got a little bit of heat for the deportations
Speaker 1: of the Obama era recently, and here's how that went
Speaker 1: place seven A deportations. I would make sure that everything
Speaker 1: I answer the questions, to answer your questions, no, you don't. Really,
Speaker 1: That's what the Democrats have created now, this mob mentality
Speaker 1: of just start chanting and yelling at people and make
Speaker 1: them apologize. And we all know Biden has learned the
Speaker 1: hard way, don't ever apologize to them. Trump knows this.
Speaker 1: This is why even when Trump says something that's wrong,
Speaker 1: he doesn't apologize for it. He might amend it, he
Speaker 1: might add to it, he might, you know, say he'll
Speaker 1: say something else, but he's not. He's not gonna to
Speaker 1: bend the knee because then they just then they just
Speaker 1: push you over, push you to the ground. Don't bend
Speaker 1: the knee of these people. You don't want to do that.
Speaker 1: But this is what the Democrats would have to answer.
Speaker 1: This is what Joe Biden has to answer. If there's
Speaker 1: nothing wrong with being an illegal in this country, if
Speaker 1: there's no problem with it, really, why shouldn't he apologize
Speaker 1: for the deportations. The Democrat Party has shifted on this issue,
Speaker 1: just as Joe Biden has come under all kinds of
Speaker 1: scrutiny and has all this additional heat now because of
Speaker 1: policy changes that he has over the course of his
Speaker 1: career enacted where he was on the wrong side of
Speaker 1: an issue at one point, then he switched right. He
Speaker 1: was opposed to oppose to force bussing. And now that's
Speaker 1: just one example. He worked with segregations when he was
Speaker 1: in the Senate, and now I'm sure he says, oh,
Speaker 1: he wishes he had never done that. Biden is not
Speaker 1: in the mainstream of the at least the Democrat primary
Speaker 1: voter base, because they don't think that there's anything wrong
Speaker 1: with illegal immigration. The party has shifted, it has changed.
Speaker 1: There's no longer a real sense that illegal immigration is
Speaker 1: a problem to be controlled. In fact, they would like
Speaker 1: to see such a change that the legal immigration is
Speaker 1: no longer considered a problem at all. So why shouldn't
Speaker 1: he be forced to apologize? When you think of it
Speaker 1: that way, I mean, he knows enough to understand now
Speaker 1: that apologizing as terrible idea, But why shouldn't he be
Speaker 1: forced to apologize? Why isn't he wrong? Democrats like Biden
Speaker 1: should have to answer this question. In what way are
Speaker 1: they still in the Democrat mainstream. They don't have answers, folks,
Speaker 1: because ultimately we have seen their party shift and now
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party does not believe, you know what, people
Speaker 1: cannot be illegal. This is what they say. This is
Speaker 1: now a talking point. Just come into the country and
Speaker 1: you can stay here, and there's nothing else that needs
Speaker 1: to be said about it. This is the talking point
Speaker 1: that they raise. This is what they say, and I
Speaker 1: think a lot of us have realized that that's a
Speaker 1: big problem for the Democrats going into the general election,
Speaker 1: at least I hope it is. Have we not learned
Speaker 1: the internment of Japanese Americans? Mister Holman, I'm a father.
Speaker 1: Do you have children? How can you possibly allow this
Speaker 1: to happen under your watch? Do you not care? Is
Speaker 1: it because these children don't look like children that are
Speaker 1: around you? I don't get it. Have you ever held
Speaker 1: a deceased child in your arms? First of all, your
Speaker 1: chemists are disgusting. I've served I've served my country thirty
Speaker 1: four years. This is out of fitting as well. I've
Speaker 1: served my country for thirty four years, and yes, I
Speaker 1: held a five year old boy in my arms that
Speaker 1: in fact, that tractor trader. I knelt down beside him
Speaker 1: and said a prayer for him because I knew what
Speaker 1: his last thirty minutes his life were like, and I
Speaker 1: had a five year old son at the time. What
Speaker 1: I've been trying to do my thirty four years serving
Speaker 1: my nation is to save lives. So for you to
Speaker 1: sit there and insult my integrity in my love for
Speaker 1: my country and for children, that's why this whole thing
Speaker 1: needs to be fixed, and you're the memory agree on that.
Speaker 1: Which team are you on, folks? That's really where we
Speaker 1: are now. Do you sign with someone like Tom Homan,
Speaker 1: a career law enforcement official, and as he pointed out,
Speaker 1: they're a dad, an American, a patriot who is trying
Speaker 1: to enforce our laws and wants to stop not just
Speaker 1: the exploitation of our system by these migrants, but also
Speaker 1: stop people from taking the risks because they think they
Speaker 1: will get tremendous benefit from exploding the system. Do you
Speaker 1: think that you want to be on the Homan side
Speaker 1: of this or Democratic Representative Garcia? There the demagogue, the grandstander,
Speaker 1: the intellectual phony who pretends to understand this issue, pretends
Speaker 1: to care about this issue, but at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, it's just about power. It's just about the
Speaker 1: optics getting that sound bite there. Oh, that's right. Democrats
Speaker 1: are the ones who care about the children. Republicans don't
Speaker 1: care about children. Who believes that what moron really believes that.
Speaker 1: But this is the way that they debate, This is
Speaker 1: the way that they argue, This is how they present
Speaker 1: the issue. One side cares about children, the other side doesn't.
Speaker 1: One side is racist, the other side is welcoming with
Speaker 1: open arms to all people from the Third world who
Speaker 1: break our laws to come here. There are complexities, to
Speaker 1: be sure in our immigration system. One of them should
Speaker 1: not be or rather one of them is not in
Speaker 1: our discussions. Whether we all want people to be able
Speaker 1: to be safe, whether we want them to be absolutely
Speaker 1: no loss of human life. We agree on that. So
Speaker 1: why do Democrats keep focusing on that. This does have
Speaker 1: many echoes of what we saw going on in Europe
Speaker 1: when there was that huge surge back in twenty what
Speaker 1: was it, twenty fifteen into twenty sixteen of Muslim migrants,
Speaker 1: many from but not entirely from the Syrian Civil War,
Speaker 1: who were in many cases true asylum seekers, and they
Speaker 1: were flooding onto European shores and whatever. Someone drowned because
Speaker 1: they tried to come into They try to get into
Speaker 1: the EU not through a legal port of entry, but
Speaker 1: they wanted to just run the border. Essentially, it was
Speaker 1: held up as the Europeans are being heartless and this
Speaker 1: is so terrible, and then at Angelo Berkel said, okay, well,
Speaker 1: let's have a million come into our country. Let's just
Speaker 1: let a million people in, which is what we're facing
Speaker 1: right now too. Bring a million people in. And they
Speaker 1: weren't stopping in Greece. They didn't want to be in Greece,
Speaker 1: they didn't want to be in Romania. They would walk
Speaker 1: through other countries. They didn't want to stop in Hungary.
Speaker 1: They wanted to go right to Germany and if they
Speaker 1: could make their way all the way to Sweden to Denmark,
Speaker 1: the best welfare state possible, that's what they were heading for.
Speaker 1: That's where they wanted to go. Well, while we can
Speaker 1: say that we all agree that there's a need to
Speaker 1: keep people safe from harm when we can, there's not
Speaker 1: a need to let people pick and choose the biggest
Speaker 1: what the biggest government funded paycheck is that they're going
Speaker 1: to get. But it was such a disgraceful attack on
Speaker 1: Tom Holman, whom I know and who's a good guy
Speaker 1: I've had many conversations with about immigration. It was so
Speaker 1: grotesque from these Democrats, and I'm just glad that he
Speaker 1: not surprising at all. He stood off and fought for
Speaker 1: himself on this. I'm glad that he didn't let them
Speaker 1: get away with it. And that then continued on where
Speaker 1: you had Okazio Cortes trying to pin family separation, which
Speaker 1: is not what the policy is. That that's a made
Speaker 1: up term. There is no such thing as a family
Speaker 1: separation policy. There is a zero tolerance for illegal acts policy,
Speaker 1: which means prosecution of adults who break the law. That's
Speaker 1: all it means. But they want to talk about family
Speaker 1: separation as though that's the purpose. So this would be
Speaker 1: very similar to if we had we have laws against
Speaker 1: drunk driving, and if you were to say to somebody
Speaker 1: that you have a when it comes to drunk driving,
Speaker 1: you have a family separation policy. No, what we have
Speaker 1: is a if you're driving drunk and a serious safety
Speaker 1: menace to the public, you will be arrested and prosecuted.
Speaker 1: And if there's a child in the back seat, you
Speaker 1: don't bring the child with you into prison. That's the policy.
Speaker 1: And that's what Tom Holman had to explain to AOC
Speaker 1: whom I don't know if she's It could be either,
Speaker 1: it could be both. It's probably a mix. Whether she's
Speaker 1: too ignorant or just too disingenuous to grasp this issue.
Speaker 1: What's really going on here? But AOC who's an imbecile
Speaker 1: and who cannot debate, and who does not know anything,
Speaker 1: who's all about the optics and the sound bites and
Speaker 1: the Twitter and the Instagram, and she's just she's really
Speaker 1: like an Instagram influencer who has been turned into the
Speaker 1: leader of the progressive wing of the Democratic Party, which
Speaker 1: tells you all you have to know about the progressive Democrats.
Speaker 1: I'll just put a compleat ignoramus with no life experience,
Speaker 1: no wisdom whatsoever, no record of accomplishment or success, I
Speaker 1: might add, beating Crowley and some district and queens. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that guy who was a jerk who didn't show up
Speaker 1: and do anything. It was a machine politician who got
Speaker 1: caught napping. It's not some miracle that he lost. It's
Speaker 1: not like she beat some Republican and a super red
Speaker 1: district because she's so charming and brilliant. She went up
Speaker 1: against Tom Homan on she looks she was trying to
Speaker 1: pin Garcia was trying to say it Homan doesn't care
Speaker 1: about dead kids, which what Democrats say on gun control,
Speaker 1: they say it about immigration, and they do this all
Speaker 1: the time. It's just demagoguery. It's gross. But then AOC
Speaker 1: tried to pin a quote family separation policy on. Tom
Speaker 1: Homan was the acting ICE director, former acting ice director,
Speaker 1: and here's what he said. Play one. The recommendation of
Speaker 1: the many that you recommended. You recommended family separation. I
Speaker 1: recommend a zero tolerance which includes family separation, the same
Speaker 1: as is whenever US citizen parent gets your when they're
Speaker 1: a child. Zero tolerance was interpreted as the policy that
Speaker 1: separated children from there. If I get arrested for DUI
Speaker 1: and I have a young child in a car, I'm
Speaker 1: gonna be separated. When I also police officer in New
Speaker 1: York and I arrested a father for domestic violence, I
Speaker 1: separate that mister, with all two respect. Legal assyles are
Speaker 1: not charged with any crime when you're in the country legally,
Speaker 1: it's violation eight United States Code thirteen twenty five. Seeking
Speaker 1: asylum is legal. You want to seek asylum and go
Speaker 1: through the port of entry to do with the legal way.
Speaker 1: The Attorney General the United States has made that clear. Okay,
Speaker 1: mister chair, the memo is is submitted to the record
Speaker 1: for review. Yep, she's wrong. I had the same debate
Speaker 1: on Twitter with Solidad O'Brien and she was wrong. They
Speaker 1: just jumped right into seeking asylum is not a crime. No.
Speaker 1: That's like saying, you know, seeking an appeals process in
Speaker 1: court is not a crime. No, it's the reason you're
Speaker 1: in court in the first place, as though could be
Speaker 1: a crime. And the reason that these migrants are in
Speaker 1: custody is because they committed a crime. It is a
Speaker 1: crime to just say I'm not waiting at the port
Speaker 1: of entry. I'm not going to obey your laws. I'm
Speaker 1: just going to show up and cross into US territory
Speaker 1: and surrender. That is what they are doing. That is
Speaker 1: a violation of a law. As much as Democrats like
Speaker 1: to pretend that it is not, is AOC too stupid
Speaker 1: to know that that's a violation of the law. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is where you have to ask, and I don't
Speaker 1: have the answer for that. I don't know. It seems
Speaker 1: to me that it's not beyond comprehension that she would
Speaker 1: be too foolish to really understand what's going on here.
Speaker 1: It seems to me that it is quite possible that
Speaker 1: she just doesn't know what the laws may be. But
Speaker 1: it is indicative of this whole debate, in this discussion
Speaker 1: going on right now that you hear. You have Democrats
Speaker 1: who have staff preparing them, They've written out questions, and
Speaker 1: their whole thing is to try to trip up and
Speaker 1: attack and undermine some like Tom Holman, and he's just
Speaker 1: a professional who knows the issues, knows what he's talking about,
Speaker 1: understands what's going on here. And they are a bunch
Speaker 1: of whiny, grandstanding, ridiculous brats, all of these Democrats on
Speaker 1: this issue. They're just being dishonest, disingenuous, and it's the
Speaker 1: whole thing. It's disgraceful, it really is. But good for
Speaker 1: Tom Holman. I don't know Peter Teel, but I like
Speaker 1: Peter Teele, and I like what he does. I should say,
Speaker 1: I don't. I just got that. Don't know him personally,
Speaker 1: but I think that he's done some very important thanks.
Speaker 1: First of all, he's a prominent libertarian voice but also
Speaker 1: a supporter of Trump's, which I appreciate. He spoke at
Speaker 1: the Republican National Convention at a time when to do
Speaker 1: so within the ranks of the establishment was very was
Speaker 1: a brave move, and certainly he was willing to take
Speaker 1: some risks. Now it's a little easier to be brave.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say it, a little easier to be
Speaker 1: brave politically and otherwise when you're a billion there, But nonetheless,
Speaker 1: bravery is bravery. And also he is the guy who
Speaker 1: was behind taking down Gawker, which was just a diseased,
Speaker 1: you know, pimple on the underside of the foot of humanity.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was just a disgusting, horrible website run
Speaker 1: by and contributed to by terrible people that ruined lives,
Speaker 1: ruined reputations, and teal annihilated them and brought them down,
Speaker 1: and it was it was a great thing. It was
Speaker 1: a real service to humanity that Peter TiAl did that.
Speaker 1: He spoke over the weekend at the National Conservatism Conference,
Speaker 1: and he said some very interesting things. He's a Remember
Speaker 1: he's not just a billionaire. He's also on the board
Speaker 1: of Facebooks. He's a very prominent, very powerful guy, especially
Speaker 1: in the world of Silicon Valley, and he called out
Speaker 1: Google and said that federal agencies, including the CIA and
Speaker 1: the FBI, should look into exactly how far Google's collaboration
Speaker 1: with China has gone. And he asked him, he asked questions.
Speaker 1: I had the questions here that really sent a bit
Speaker 1: of a shock up the backs of a lot of
Speaker 1: Silicon Valley folks, I think, and conservatives are perking up
Speaker 1: their ears and saying, wait a second. He sounds like
Speaker 1: he's got a point here. Here's what Peter Teal asked
Speaker 1: at this National Conservatism conference. Number one, how many in
Speaker 1: fort and by the way, these are three questions that
Speaker 1: should be asked of Google. This was from Peter teal speech.
Speaker 1: Number one, how many foreign intelligence agencies have infiltrated your
Speaker 1: Manhattan project for AI? Number two? Does Google's senior management
Speaker 1: consider itself to have been thoroughly infiltrated by Chinese intelligence?
Speaker 1: Number three? Is it because they consider themselves to be
Speaker 1: so thoroughly infiltrated that they have engaged in the seemingly
Speaker 1: treasonous decision to work with the Chinese military and not
Speaker 1: with the US military. Because they're making this sort of
Speaker 1: bad short term rationalistic decision that if a technology doesn't
Speaker 1: go out the front door, it gets stolen out the
Speaker 1: back door. Anyway. Add those questions need to be asked
Speaker 1: by the FBI, but the CIA, and they should not
Speaker 1: be asked in an excessively gentle manner. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is somebody who has real backing financially in terms of
Speaker 1: connections as well in terms of his political clout, and
Speaker 1: who understands this space really well. Who's more or less
Speaker 1: saying is Google betraying America? That's that's quite a charge,
Speaker 1: my friends. Google is one of the most powerful companies
Speaker 1: in the world. Not only is it effectively in charge
Speaker 1: of what you see because of search. Search results are
Speaker 1: so important, right whatever you type into Google, do any
Speaker 1: of you use, Maybe you use Yahoo dot com, maybe
Speaker 1: some of you probably still have. You've got Meryl, and
Speaker 1: you do the whole AOL thing. But that's not what
Speaker 1: you should be doing, because you shouldn't pay for that.
Speaker 1: I think as of a few years ago, even AOL
Speaker 1: was still making tens of millions of dollars a month
Speaker 1: over people paying for AOL subscriptions just because they never
Speaker 1: turned it off. That's pretty remarkable. It's a great business
Speaker 1: to be in the people giving you free money. I
Speaker 1: want to be in that business, the people giving you
Speaker 1: free money business. But Google also influences every other media
Speaker 1: media organization, not just in terms of how much you
Speaker 1: see it through Google results, but Google has a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of influence in the advertising space. And that is
Speaker 1: how companies, especially online, this is how they sustain themselves,
Speaker 1: is how they make money. So Google can turn the
Speaker 1: spigot on, and Google can turn the spigot off. Google
Speaker 1: can decide that you know you're going to be able
Speaker 1: to make money online, or Google can say you can.
Speaker 1: So think of all the media organizations that that influences,
Speaker 1: and so their ability to affect consumer perception and to
Speaker 1: affect media modetization, media success, media coverage is profound. And
Speaker 1: Peter Teel is saying, these guys at Google will work
Speaker 1: with China, but they won't work with the United States
Speaker 1: military on projects AI related projects. The race for five
Speaker 1: G for five G Internet is well under way, and
Speaker 1: Google doesn't seem to have any sense of nationalism patriotism,
Speaker 1: pride in country, thinks of itself as a truly global
Speaker 1: company and will work with China, which is constantly stealing
Speaker 1: the intellectual property of other Internet companies here in America
Speaker 1: is engaged in true oppression. I mean, I still can't
Speaker 1: believe and when I was in China, he can't use Google,
Speaker 1: can't do it. They've got to shut off and Google
Speaker 1: will work with China because they want access to that market,
Speaker 1: you see, and Teal's point about how maybe they just
Speaker 1: let let China rip them off in terms of technology
Speaker 1: because at least they'd rather have them do it in
Speaker 1: the you know, they'd have to be aware of them
Speaker 1: doing it and get some benefit from China with market
Speaker 1: access than just have the Chinese hacking into Google stuff
Speaker 1: and link it from AFAR and not having that market access.
Speaker 1: Then think about any information sharing and collaboration that might
Speaker 1: be going on between the Chinese government and Google and
Speaker 1: what the implications of that are, not just financial, national
Speaker 1: security implications, long term technological civilization changing implications of that
Speaker 1: technology transfer could be. This is where we have to
Speaker 1: have to sit down and have the talk about how
Speaker 1: that companies that operate in this country that are US
Speaker 1: based companies full of US personnel, aren't just about the
Speaker 1: bottom line. We have had a chorus of corporate free
Speaker 1: market absolutism for quite some time now. But there are
Speaker 1: national security considerations that US companies need to be held
Speaker 1: to account for, just like I say, there are national
Speaker 1: security consider rations that universities need to be held to
Speaker 1: account for, and that Chinese have been pillaging our intellectual
Speaker 1: property and technology and not only training Chinese nationals to
Speaker 1: go back to China to compete with US, but trying
Speaker 1: to steal proprietary technology from campuses. You know, a lot
Speaker 1: of elite universities have programs and projects that have proprietary
Speaker 1: technology that is immensely valuable at approaching it from the
Speaker 1: oh we're China, we just want to send our students.
Speaker 1: What's the problem with that? Well, that means that the
Speaker 1: door is pretty wide open for that technology theft, and
Speaker 1: no one really wants to look that deeply into it
Speaker 1: in this country. No one the government wants to spend
Speaker 1: too much time trying to track this stuff down, so
Speaker 1: till he is sounding a clarion call here. And I
Speaker 1: think that this is the beginning of a much longer
Speaker 1: focus and an investigation and just what is Google doing
Speaker 1: with China and have they sold us out? Is liberally
Speaker 1: a disease of the mind I wouldn't say that we're
Speaker 1: going to answer that question to the fullest today. I
Speaker 1: suppose this show in some ways is always answering that question.
Speaker 1: I think the answer tends to be yes, that liberalism
Speaker 1: has become a cult, a social status, more than it
Speaker 1: is a political belief system, and that there's also an
Speaker 1: embrace of untruth or non truth that is necessary to
Speaker 1: be a liberal in good standing these days. So let
Speaker 1: me give you an example of this. Just came up
Speaker 1: over the weekend. And I'm happy to have this debate
Speaker 1: with anybody who wants to have the debate. I'm happy
Speaker 1: to throw down over this issue. But doctor Eugene gu
Speaker 1: Gu MD, he is a medical doctor and he has
Speaker 1: let me see how many he has, two hundred eighty
Speaker 1: three thousand, two hundred and eighty three thousand Twitter followers.
Speaker 1: So this guy's got a big Twitter following, and he
Speaker 1: shared this. This is over the weekend. Remember this guy
Speaker 1: is a medical doctor. He's in his surgeons scrubs in
Speaker 1: his Twitter amatar. He's very anti Trump though he's a
Speaker 1: left winger. He's a left wing doctor, and he shared
Speaker 1: the following. It's a scientific and medical fact that men
Speaker 1: can get pregnant and also have abortions. Trans men and
Speaker 1: non binary individuals are human beings who deserve to be
Speaker 1: acknowledged by society. They choose their own identity, not me,
Speaker 1: not you, not any doctor, and certainly not any politician.
Speaker 1: No doctor Goo, that's his name. It is not a
Speaker 1: scientific and medical fact that men can get pregnant and
Speaker 1: have abortions. That is false. And at some point we
Speaker 1: have to just be willing to draw lines and say no,
Speaker 1: I'm not We're not doing this anymore. We're not doing
Speaker 1: this where up is down and down is up, and
Speaker 1: black is white and white is black, and you know,
Speaker 1: left is right and right is left, and no, there
Speaker 1: has to be some basis of truth. There has to
Speaker 1: be something called the fact. There has to be a
Speaker 1: reality that we all have to live in. And when
Speaker 1: you have medical doctors who have become so devoted, so
Speaker 1: devoted to leftism that they are able to convince themselves
Speaker 1: that this is something that they should say, you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, it reminds me of the chill that went
Speaker 1: up my spine when doctor Lena Wynn, who is a
Speaker 1: female medical doctor who is the president of Planned Parenthood
Speaker 1: now told me that abortion is a healthcare procedure, like
Speaker 1: any other procedure, that's also a lie. We all know
Speaker 1: that it is, if nothing else at least, and it
Speaker 1: is a highly elective procedure. It's not a not a
Speaker 1: necessary medical procedure by any extent, and it's also killing
Speaker 1: a baby. But this is what we see happening now.
Speaker 1: And what you might think is, well, this will reverse. No,
Speaker 1: it only reverses, it only stops. We only continue to
Speaker 1: live in reality if we say to people like doctor
Speaker 1: Eugene Goo, no, I'm sorry. You don't just get to
Speaker 1: make up whatever you want. There is There is objective reality,
Speaker 1: there's objective truth. See what greater power could the left
Speaker 1: really have than the ability to subvert the most basic facts.
Speaker 1: Some of you know that I am fascinated by and
Speaker 1: have been doing recently some revisiting of my favorite treatments, tracts,
Speaker 1: or writings on the Soviet Union and the totalitarianism of communism.
Speaker 1: This is in preparation for a book that I'm writing
Speaker 1: that will be coming out at the end of the year,
Speaker 1: So get excited. But one of the things that they
Speaker 1: were able to accomplish this Soviet Union was the expectation
Speaker 1: among not just the population because they were living in
Speaker 1: abject fear, but of party officials. That the way that
Speaker 1: you were to show in this central Committee, in the
Speaker 1: polite Burrow, the way that you would show you were
Speaker 1: a true believer in the revolution, was to be willing
Speaker 1: to say one thing on day one and something completely
Speaker 1: different and opposite on day two, and not blink, not
Speaker 1: miss abeat, to wage war on truth itself. That is
Speaker 1: what the lives. That is what the leftists are doing now.
Speaker 1: That's why they will say things like it is a
Speaker 1: scientific and medical fact that men can get pregnant and
Speaker 1: also have abortions and have a doctor say that, and
Speaker 1: just complete flagrant violation of all that is true about
Speaker 1: the medical profession. No doctor, gou you are wrong. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter that you are an empty You are wrong,
Speaker 1: and we need to be willing to say that out loud.
Speaker 1: Can roll, fellow patriots, we made ours go up to eleven.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. It's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Autobots rollout. Same guy, I think Facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton.
Speaker 1: I have not had a chance to talk to you
Speaker 1: all since the weekend. I hope you had a great weekend.
Speaker 1: I was up in up in New York with the family.
Speaker 1: I did Tucker Show on Friday, did how He Kurt
Speaker 1: the show on Sunday, had some fun up in the NYC.
Speaker 1: Sought Toulu my parents French bulldog who is a total
Speaker 1: snuggle monster. French bulldogs are great for any of you
Speaker 1: are thinking about getting a dog. If you don't want
Speaker 1: a dog that I know some of you are like Buck,
Speaker 1: I want a dog that can that can track down
Speaker 1: pheasant and large bobcat And yeah, I know, but that's
Speaker 1: a different kind of dog, all right. If you want
Speaker 1: if you want a dog that you just snuggles, is
Speaker 1: always cute and cuddly and would never hurt a fly,
Speaker 1: and it is not good if like someone breaks into
Speaker 1: your house, it's gonna say, like, hey, scratch my belly.
Speaker 1: I'm a French bulldog. French bulldogs are a very good option.
Speaker 1: My dream dog is an English bulldog. I keep telling
Speaker 1: my parents said, one day, I gotta get married first,
Speaker 1: and then I'm gonna get an English bulldog, and then
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have kids. But maybe it'll be kids first
Speaker 1: then English bulldog. We'll see. I'll figure that out, but
Speaker 1: I'm working on it to that end, it is time
Speaker 1: for the role call. Jeff Actually, that didn't make sense
Speaker 1: that all is a transition, but we're just gonna skip
Speaker 1: past that. Jeffrey, I have been listening since back in
Speaker 1: the day. I wanted to comment on the marijuana debate.
Speaker 1: I know you are a proponent of legalization. That's something,
Speaker 1: But some of the points that you make about the
Speaker 1: mildness of the drug is not at all accurate in
Speaker 1: the way that it appears on the street today. The
Speaker 1: THHC levels have been increasing dramatically from levels in the
Speaker 1: sixties and seventies. Also, on the street, all too often
Speaker 1: other drugs are being blended with marijuana, So there are
Speaker 1: just a lot of dangers in only marijuana smoking today.
Speaker 1: Some thoughts, Jeffrey, what you're saying is valid. I know
Speaker 1: that there are people who will put I think they'll
Speaker 1: mix PCP in with marijuana. I've even heard of crack
Speaker 1: laced marijuana. I mean, I don't touch any of this stuff,
Speaker 1: so I don't really. This is why when I sound
Speaker 1: I sound like someone's parents in an afterschool special I
Speaker 1: talk about drugs, because you know, I'm like, yeah, like
Speaker 1: the reefer, like the Mary Jane. You know, because I
Speaker 1: don't know what the cool kids say about the drugs,
Speaker 1: because I don't do any drugs. As to the the
Speaker 1: the elevated THHC levels, you're correct, there's elevated THC levels. Look,
Speaker 1: I think marijuana, I was gonna say, I think marijuana
Speaker 1: makes you slow, dumb, and lazy. I do. Now, so
Speaker 1: does alcohol in excess. Right, there are a lot of
Speaker 1: things that if you do too much of it's not
Speaker 1: so does trying to think of what my real indulgency.
Speaker 1: I just I've got to stop eating French fries. This
Speaker 1: is my you know, I can't. I mean, producer, Mike,
Speaker 1: what is your food weakness? What is the thing? Well? Mark?
Speaker 1: What is your producer Mike out having a stogy with
Speaker 1: the ladies although he doesn't smoke, What is your food weakness? Mark?
Speaker 1: All of it? All? Food is my weakness. I mean
Speaker 1: except salad. Salad would be my only non weakness. Wow,
Speaker 1: salad is like your kryptonite. Yes, I mean, I like
Speaker 1: to tell people you think salad's all healthy until there's
Speaker 1: an E Coli outbreak and all of a sudden they're
Speaker 1: pulling that spinach off the shelves. I'm just saying, But yeah,
Speaker 1: for me, it's I just need to stop eating out.
Speaker 1: Is actually I eat out pretty healthy, except whenever there's
Speaker 1: a French fry option, I'm like, Good'll take the French
Speaker 1: fries on the side. I know I should get side
Speaker 1: of greens or whatever, but you know, I don't know, man,
Speaker 1: it is, it is what it is. But yeah, Jeffrey, sorry,
Speaker 1: back to THHC. But what I said about THC being
Speaker 1: a fat soluble versus water soluble drug is true. It
Speaker 1: THC is not the toxicity. It's it cannot kill you.
Speaker 1: So it is different in that sense than heroin, which
Speaker 1: can kill you, cocaine which can kill you, alcohol which
Speaker 1: can kill you. THHC cannot really. I mean you'd have
Speaker 1: to you'd have to concentrate it in doses that you
Speaker 1: couldn't smoke, and then take it all at once. And
Speaker 1: you know that's it's just not something that ever happens.
Speaker 1: Sean rights Buck, I found a leftist with a brain.
Speaker 1: You should check out Tim Cast. He may have ideas
Speaker 1: we don't agree with, but he is able to have
Speaker 1: a decent conversation. Um. Yeah, Sean, I've I've heard of
Speaker 1: Tim Cast and I'd be happy to check out his stuff.
Speaker 1: I don't know his work, but I've heard good things,
Speaker 1: so thank you for the heads up, Rick Shield. Ye Buck,
Speaker 1: I have to comment. I have to correct your comment.
Speaker 1: You've never interviewed Paul Ryan. Ryan was on set at
Speaker 1: Real News years ago. If you weren't there that day.
Speaker 1: I seem to recall you're almost always on that show. Rick.
Speaker 1: I think you're right. I will tell you that I
Speaker 1: forget sometimes when I've interviewed people, and I like, I
Speaker 1: did interview Scott Walker well actually a couple of times,
Speaker 1: and I forgot about that until recently. I may have
Speaker 1: interviewed Paul Ryan. I don't even remember now. I don't
Speaker 1: remember that is I think I did. I'm you're right.
Speaker 1: Real News we had an interview with Paul Ryan. I
Speaker 1: might have been there, I might not have. But I've
Speaker 1: interviewed so many people at this point that some of
Speaker 1: them kind of blends together. I mean, you remember the presidents,
Speaker 1: you remember the vice president's cabin officials for the most part,
Speaker 1: but members of Congress kind of all. You know Congressman
Speaker 1: such and such, same same idea. Tyler Right's Buck, longtime
Speaker 1: podcast listener here and regarding fellow podcast listener Tim the
Speaker 1: broadcast Engineers roll call submission on Friday about the audio
Speaker 1: levels are correct, Sorry, Producer Mark. The volume levels for
Speaker 1: buck are all over the board, from normal to very
Speaker 1: load where you can hardly hear, followed by earth shattering
Speaker 1: speaker blowing levels of volume. I use the iHeart app
Speaker 1: if that makes any difference. It does not matter whether
Speaker 1: I listen at work or the truck, personal vehicle, or headphones.
Speaker 1: Keep up the good fight while the rest of us
Speaker 1: use the liberal tiers. Your show produces as the sweetener
Speaker 1: for our black rifle coffee shield side. Well, Tyler, you
Speaker 1: ended super strong there in your role call message I
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, are you still you still standing by your
Speaker 1: guns on this one? That our podcast audio is fine
Speaker 1: and people just need to figure out their own equipment.
Speaker 1: Of course, I'm always guy stand by my work, Yeah, Mark,
Speaker 1: Mark is Mark is unmoved by your entreaties about the
Speaker 1: podcast volume. Could it be an iHeart app thing, which
Speaker 1: would being ones that goes out to the podcast apps.
Speaker 1: But on my end that seems fine. Yeah, guys, Producer
Speaker 1: Mark is sticking. He's tripling's He's going trump on this one,
Speaker 1: tripling down. Joseph totally agree with the role callers of
Speaker 1: the podcast audio sucks producer. Don't be a snowflake. Check
Speaker 1: your audio and listen to your audience. Hugs and kisses
Speaker 1: and puppies from Joseph. I don't know, Mark. We gotta
Speaker 1: figure this out, man, because man, it might not be
Speaker 1: on your end or mayam, but people are. The people
Speaker 1: have spoken here, man, we gotta figure out must be.
Speaker 1: Could it be the iHeart app? We send an email
Speaker 1: to the digital the digital ninjas. I think they all
Speaker 1: want me to quit my job. I don't know what's
Speaker 1: going on here, Jessica. Hey Buck, Oh another Wow, this
Speaker 1: is another person complaining about the podcast audio. All right,
Speaker 1: we gotta fix this. We gotta figure out what's going
Speaker 1: on here, Wayne Buck, someone needs to get this concept
Speaker 1: into the mainstream. I think you can do it. What
Speaker 1: concept you say? The biggest foreign influence in our elections,
Speaker 1: directing influence, vote count changing influence is illegals voting. Motor
Speaker 1: voter laws have allowed ontold the llegals to registered to vote.
Speaker 1: I suspect that's just the tip of the iceberg. Wayne.
Speaker 1: You know, Wayne, this has been the concern for a
Speaker 1: long time. You rightly point out that motor voter laws
Speaker 1: are such that you have people that think that could
Speaker 1: could in good faith who are illegals, think that they're
Speaker 1: supposed to register to vote because we have an automatic
Speaker 1: registration or a recommended registration process when you go to
Speaker 1: the DMV, and they may think, oh, well, I'm allowed
Speaker 1: to vote because they are registering everybody who comes here
Speaker 1: to vote. As for illegals voting, we don't know what
Speaker 1: the numbers are. We do know that there is voter
Speaker 1: fraud every year. We don't know how much voter fraud.
Speaker 1: And if we don't know how many illegals there are
Speaker 1: in the country to begin with, it shouldn't be surprising.
Speaker 1: We don't know how many illegals are or are voting,
Speaker 1: and whether they're doing it nefariously or not. It's still
Speaker 1: illegal and that should not happen. Alex. Right from the
Speaker 1: sound of it, you're not a soccer fan, but while
Speaker 1: you're in DC, you should go to an MLS match.
Speaker 1: DC is second in their division. Soccer games are good times, Alex.
Speaker 1: Actually that is fake news, my friend. I do like soccer,
Speaker 1: I don't like it as much as I like tennis,
Speaker 1: which if some of you I'll just give me a
Speaker 1: second here I know you're all like, fuck, who cares
Speaker 1: about tennis? The Wimbledon match on Sunday was incredible, though
Speaker 1: Federer versus Djokovic and went into a fit set tie
Speaker 1: break twelve twelve. It's a shame Federer couldn't pull it out,
Speaker 1: but it was pretty amazing. And no, I'd go check
Speaker 1: out a soccer match here. That sounds like fun, Willie,
Speaker 1: hey buck, How long before an NYC power outage is
Speaker 1: blamed on GW in California? The utility companies are being sued,
Speaker 1: but the GW narrative is still used. Oh, global warming
Speaker 1: is what he means by g W. Really enjoy your
Speaker 1: take on events, well, Willie, thank you so much. And
Speaker 1: global warming is already being used, as I've been discussing,
Speaker 1: as the the reason for the migrant crisis. You see,
Speaker 1: that's because they have to stretch too much. It's too
Speaker 1: hard to convince people that the real problems in Central
Speaker 1: America are a function of US foreign policy in the eighties. Now,
Speaker 1: there are some leftists who are going to believe that
Speaker 1: no matter what, but overall, overall there is it's just
Speaker 1: tough to make that stick. But if they can say
Speaker 1: it's global warming, Oh, then you get all the lives
Speaker 1: on board, and who's responsible for global warming? US, China, India,
Speaker 1: the EU and so Central America gets a pass and
Speaker 1: that's why we're we're the bad guys in that narrative.
Speaker 1: So Willie, you're onto something, Mark? Right? Little do they
Speaker 1: realize I'm in DC drinking beard the Trump International? All right? Cool? Man?
Speaker 1: Oh he sent me a photo. Are you hanging out tonight?
Speaker 1: And man, Mark, I'm sorry I missed you guys and
Speaker 1: your your girlfriend or fiance is love you. Thanks for
Speaker 1: tweeting out the sending out the photo. Man, I don't
Speaker 1: know what when was this? This was back on Sunday,
Speaker 1: Buck in DC for a little birthday weekend getaway stop
Speaker 1: the Trump International. Nice place. Um, yeah, man, Mark, I'm
Speaker 1: glad you enjoyed it. And that is usually that's usually
Speaker 1: where I am. I think I'll probably be at the
Speaker 1: Trump tomorrow night, Tuesday night. So any of you who
Speaker 1: happen to be in DC, if you want to come
Speaker 1: hang out, I'll probably stop by there see some of
Speaker 1: my friends. So that's how I try to That's how
Speaker 1: I try to get down. That's how the Buckstar likes
Speaker 1: to party. That's gonna be it for the show today.
Speaker 1: I know that I feel like I'm just getting started here,
Speaker 1: but thank you so much for tuning in. Always a
Speaker 1: privilege and honor, a pleasure to have you with me
Speaker 1: in the Freedom Hunt. We will get into oh so
Speaker 1: much more tomorrow. We do that every day, I suppose,
Speaker 1: get ready for We're gonna have a big Muller week
Speaker 1: next week. So this week's gonna be about immigration mostly.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that and until next time, she'll tie