Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. President Trump heads to
Speaker 1: the border tonight to make his case the American people
Speaker 1: about why we need funding for a wall. Will he
Speaker 1: prevail or are we heading for another government shutdown? Plus,
Speaker 1: it looks like none of the three embattled Virginia Democrats
Speaker 1: plan to resign. We'll have updates for you on that story.
Speaker 1: And also is anti Semitism rising in the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: We'll have a friend join on that topic coming up
Speaker 1: on The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, America, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. Remember No,
Speaker 1: I'm heading out to pass Texas right now, and we
Speaker 1: are going to do a job. We're going to continue
Speaker 1: to do what we're doing. I think we've made a
Speaker 1: lot of progress. We've actually started a big, big portion
Speaker 1: of wall today in a very important location, and it's
Speaker 1: going to go up pretty quickly over the next nine
Speaker 1: months that whole area, and we'll be finished. It's fully
Speaker 1: funded construction, which I know a lot about is begun
Speaker 1: and it's a much better wall, much stronger wall, and
Speaker 1: a much less expensive wall than we've been building. Then
Speaker 1: we're gonna have a lot of wall being built in
Speaker 1: the last next period of time. Welcome to the Buck
Speaker 1: Saxton Show, my friends. Great to be back with you
Speaker 1: here on this Monday. So the President is still fighting
Speaker 1: for this wall funding. Democrats, of course, are completely dug
Speaker 1: in opposition, as as completely as completely set as it
Speaker 1: could ever be. I mean, the Democrats aren't budging an
Speaker 1: inch on any of this because it's all about a
Speaker 1: win for Trump, and they know that they don't want
Speaker 1: to give Trump a win. They want it to be
Speaker 1: Trump cave to them. Doesn't matter what this means for
Speaker 1: the country, doesn't matter what it means for the border.
Speaker 1: They don't really care about either of those things. With
Speaker 1: push comes to shove. They care about their power and
Speaker 1: their future in the jobs that they have in Congress.
Speaker 1: That's what they care about. And they also care about
Speaker 1: continued flood of illegal immigrants into this country, illegal aliens
Speaker 1: roaming the interior at a rate of now who knows,
Speaker 1: I mean the number of illegal aliens in the United States,
Speaker 1: as I've discussed before, they say it's eleven million. That's laughable.
Speaker 1: It's much closer to twenty, and there are plenty of sources,
Speaker 1: including border patrol and immigrations and customs enforcement, who can't
Speaker 1: get The thing is they have to go with the
Speaker 1: official number, which is based on census data because there
Speaker 1: isn't a single official elsewhere in the government because government
Speaker 1: agencies are prohibited from collecting information. The libs don't want
Speaker 1: us to know how many people are in this country illegally.
Speaker 1: The government itself does not want us to know because
Speaker 1: then people would recognize we've been scammed for decades, for decades,
Speaker 1: and they don't want to deal with the consequences of that.
Speaker 1: They don't want to believe that the American well, they
Speaker 1: don't believe that the American people can be trusted with
Speaker 1: that information. You see, we're two xenophobic. We bring in
Speaker 1: a million legal immigrants every year to let them permanently
Speaker 1: live as part of our family in America forever, a
Speaker 1: million a year, and we're still called xenophobic by the left.
Speaker 1: A million people. That's a major city worth of immigrants
Speaker 1: every year, and we're told that we're xenophobic because we
Speaker 1: just want people to come in as part of that
Speaker 1: one million. We don't want an extra three or four
Speaker 1: or five hundred thousand every year. It's a few hundred
Speaker 1: thousand illegal crosses at the border, and it's half a
Speaker 1: million visa overstays every year. Now, not all of them
Speaker 1: stay permanently. I get that, but I look at these numbers.
Speaker 1: I know what the numbers are. The numbers going up
Speaker 1: by a quarter of a million and a half a million,
Speaker 1: you know, every year, depending on the year of the
Speaker 1: illegal aliens in the country. It has to be has
Speaker 1: to be what else is happening, Well, they're all going
Speaker 1: to Canada, I don't think so. They're definitely not all
Speaker 1: going back to Honduras or Mexico or El Salvadora or wherever.
Speaker 1: They're not going back to China and Bangladesh and India
Speaker 1: and the other places we're seeing illegal aliens cross. Trump
Speaker 1: is right on this issue. And by the way, their
Speaker 1: latest polling today shows that Trump is that Rasmuston has
Speaker 1: them in fifty two percent approval, which is fantastic for
Speaker 1: this phase of his presidency. And Republicans are more trusted
Speaker 1: than Democrats on immigration by not a wide margin, but
Speaker 1: by a real margin people. The American people, according to
Speaker 1: poll out I saw today trust Republicans more in immigration.
Speaker 1: What does that tell you? What's the difference in Republicans
Speaker 1: and Democrats on this issue? Enforcement, enforce the laws. That's
Speaker 1: where we're really separate from the Democrats. They do not
Speaker 1: want laws to be enforced anymore. By the way, it's
Speaker 1: nine points higher than at the time of the of
Speaker 1: the shutdown. Producer Mike just gave you that information here.
Speaker 1: So now as I look at where this is heading,
Speaker 1: because we're gonna we're about to hear all kinds of
Speaker 1: of of sob stories about you know, what the shutdown
Speaker 1: is going to do again. And I'm not saying there
Speaker 1: wasn't real There weren't real adverse consequences for good folks.
Speaker 1: There were, There's no question, but oh my god, the
Speaker 1: media and remember, none of that had to happen if
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Schumer just would give five billion dollars to
Speaker 1: build necessary asked for by border patrol, asked for by
Speaker 1: ice fencing at our southern border. So yeah, I mean,
Speaker 1: from a process standpoint, Trump is responsible for this, but
Speaker 1: he's not actually responsible for what happened here. All Democrats
Speaker 1: have to do is give them money for offense at
Speaker 1: the southern border, which is what sound border policy requires.
Speaker 1: That's all they have to do, but they won't do
Speaker 1: it because they won't give Trump a win, and because
Speaker 1: they don't want the border to be secure. Let me
Speaker 1: give you to that. To that point, exhibit A as
Speaker 1: to why is it that Buck comes on radio night
Speaker 1: after night and says Democrats are a de facto open
Speaker 1: borders party. There's a lot of they use a lot
Speaker 1: of you know, oh no, we were not open open borders.
Speaker 1: I mean years, come and go as you please. We're
Speaker 1: not for that. They want there to be. They want
Speaker 1: the status quo of continued large numbers of illegal aliens
Speaker 1: to come into America and stay. That is what the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party wants, full stop. I mean, it's just it's
Speaker 1: just obvious. It's just true. They like the mass violation
Speaker 1: of our laws. They like the lawlessness that creates also
Speaker 1: a dependency on government in this country by people that
Speaker 1: aren't supposed to be here and are going to need
Speaker 1: additional help and assistance. And also they view it as
Speaker 1: just creating new voters for people say, oh, illegals don't
Speaker 1: vote one. I don't believe that. I don't know what
Speaker 1: the numbers are, but I don't believe that illegals don't vote.
Speaker 1: And two because you have some states where they give
Speaker 1: driver's licenses their motor voter laws register them at the DMV.
Speaker 1: It's just not And there have been some cases of
Speaker 1: people that are voting who are illegals. But Texas, I know,
Speaker 1: is looking into this now. But their children are going
Speaker 1: to grow up in this country and they're going to vote.
Speaker 1: And I understand how this squorks, right the mom and
Speaker 1: dad are illegals, or mom or dad or is in
Speaker 1: illegal and you're gonna want to support the party that
Speaker 1: tells you that mom or dad will write all along
Speaker 1: and there's nothing wrong with you know, this is just
Speaker 1: part of the American dream now. So there's obvious political
Speaker 1: benefit for the Democrats from this obvious and we all
Speaker 1: know it. But in case the reasoning I just took
Speaker 1: you through is not enough, we now have the Democrats
Speaker 1: showing us their hand once again. They want a limit
Speaker 1: as part of the negotiation that broke down over the weekend.
Speaker 1: I think it's back on again, but it's part of
Speaker 1: the negotiation for to avoid a government shutdown, and that
Speaker 1: involves border funding. Democrats want a limit on immigration and
Speaker 1: custom enforcement detention beds. Essentially, they want a limit on
Speaker 1: how many people ICE can hold in custody. ICE is
Speaker 1: currently authorized to hold forty thousand people, but there are
Speaker 1: forty nine fifty seven immigrants in detention as of this week,
Speaker 1: So I think it's one. It's fascinating that NBC here
Speaker 1: says that President Trump has repeatedly said ICE is holding
Speaker 1: dangerous criminals, including murderers. While ICE held immigrants in fiscal
Speaker 1: year twenty eighteen who collectively were convicted on fifty four thousand,
Speaker 1: six hundred and thirty charges. Okay, only one thousand, six
Speaker 1: hundred and forty one of the charges were homicide. So
Speaker 1: the current crop of illegal aliens in custodyc This is
Speaker 1: you always have to read between the lines with the
Speaker 1: Lib media on immigration. The current crop of illegal aliens
Speaker 1: in ICE custody is responsible for one thousand, six hundred
Speaker 1: and forty one murders. That's a lot of dead Americans
Speaker 1: for this illegal alien process to continue playing out, isn't it.
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm just saying, if we enforced the law
Speaker 1: in this country, if we did not have a lawless
Speaker 1: policy when it came to illegal aliens in the American interior,
Speaker 1: we'd be one thousand, six hundred and forty one Americans richer,
Speaker 1: we would have a whole bunch more people around. But
Speaker 1: I think it's interesting NBC. Well, of the fifty four
Speaker 1: thousand criminal charges, only sixteen hundred or murder. Okay? Well, also,
Speaker 1: how many are assault? How many are aggravated battery? How
Speaker 1: many are sexual assault? Rape? How many are you know,
Speaker 1: just going down the list, robbery, burglary, armed robbery, you know,
Speaker 1: we get into thaft. We're certainly into the thousands there. Okay.
Speaker 1: So I thought that illegal aliens don't commit crimes and
Speaker 1: are better than Americans, because that's what Democrats tell us
Speaker 1: all the time. Democrats want us to believe that illegal
Speaker 1: aliens are better and more law abiding than Hispanic Americans,
Speaker 1: Black Americans, Asian Americans, white Americans, everybody. They're better than
Speaker 1: all of us. Magically, the only people who come across
Speaker 1: the border, according to Democrats, are just better than the
Speaker 1: rest of us, the ones who come across illegally. Wow,
Speaker 1: that's quite a system we have set up. I guess
Speaker 1: we're just really lucky, aren't we. Nonsense, right, we know this.
Speaker 1: It is a big pile of malarkey. But they want
Speaker 1: fewer beds. They want fewer beds. And this is the
Speaker 1: key point, because Democrats are complicit in what is happening
Speaker 1: right now to our immigration system, and is happening as
Speaker 1: a result of decisions made by tens of thousands, hundreds
Speaker 1: of thousands of illegal aliens who have gotten word about this.
Speaker 1: The system is overwhelmed. We cannot process all of the
Speaker 1: people who are coming, and we legally cannot turn them
Speaker 1: away if they know what to say. So we now
Speaker 1: have a southern border. This is all a fact. And
Speaker 1: I've spoken to border patrol and Immigrations customs enforcement at
Speaker 1: the highest levels about this and they have confirmed it
Speaker 1: to me in no uncertain terms. We have a southern
Speaker 1: border where if you know how to play the game,
Speaker 1: you and you're willing to be a tiny bit patient
Speaker 1: with the detention process, you will end up in the
Speaker 1: interior of the United States. And we do. And people say, oh, no, bok,
Speaker 1: there's going to be a hearing and nonsense. They are
Speaker 1: never going to see the inside of a courtroom. We
Speaker 1: cannot handle this. Our system is not set up for this.
Speaker 1: And the Democrats know that. So what do they want
Speaker 1: to do? They want to d resource, defund critical parts
Speaker 1: of the enforcement architecture for our immigration laws inside this country.
Speaker 1: Fewer beds for ice detainment. You know what that means,
Speaker 1: fewer people can be held and then and then deported.
Speaker 1: It means that they'll say, well, now you need to
Speaker 1: do more prosecutorial discretion with who you're going to hold
Speaker 1: and then deport from the country. They want to make
Speaker 1: it more difficult. They want there to be fewer resources
Speaker 1: available to the people that are charged with enforcing US
Speaker 1: law and in this case, holding and processing and booting
Speaker 1: out of the country a lot of people that really
Speaker 1: should not be here. You know, if you are an
Speaker 1: illegal alien and you have killed somebody, once you have
Speaker 1: served your sentence, I really don't want you in this country.
Speaker 1: You should be gone back to your country. Right. We
Speaker 1: do not need illegal alien murders, We do not need
Speaker 1: illegal alien rapists. Then you start working your way down
Speaker 1: line and say, hold on a second, where do they
Speaker 1: draw the line? You know, at what point are they
Speaker 1: willing to say that our laws are just that they
Speaker 1: should be enforced The answers Democrats don't want them enforced.
Speaker 1: But instead of being honest about this, what they do
Speaker 1: is throw up roadblocks every time Trump or anyone tries
Speaker 1: to assist our law enforcement and federal government agencies with
Speaker 1: processing handling dealing with this massive inflow of illegal aliens.
Speaker 1: We have people who say that, oh, we don't have
Speaker 1: immigration crisis. I say, we have a backlog of nine
Speaker 1: hundred thousand immigration cases that's gonna take a decade to work,
Speaker 1: and we have more coming in all the time. Where
Speaker 1: does that backlog? What happens to people in that backlog?
Speaker 1: In the meantime, they stay in this country, they work here,
Speaker 1: they have kids here, They're never getting deported. Folks, It's
Speaker 1: never happening. And as you have more and more coming,
Speaker 1: we're gonna get you a million two in the backlog,
Speaker 1: a million five in the backlog. Ice is gonna say,
Speaker 1: we can't we can't even hit. All we can do
Speaker 1: is trying to process the murderers and the rapist because
Speaker 1: we can't handle the rest of the Yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: overwhelming the system. The Democrats are going full a Lynsky
Speaker 1: on our border. That's what this is. We need to
Speaker 1: recognize that. And Trump is the only one who is
Speaker 1: really making this case in an effective way. He's right
Speaker 1: on the border. He has been right on the border
Speaker 1: I certainly hope he has a chance to make the case. Tonight,
Speaker 1: we will talk a bit about the Democrat debacle in
Speaker 1: Virginia coming up here, because, believe it or not, it
Speaker 1: got even worse over the weekend. Northam made it even worse.
Speaker 1: I mean, this guy is Virginia. I love you, great state.
Speaker 1: I've spent a ton of time. I've probably spent more
Speaker 1: time in Virginia than any state except for New York.
Speaker 1: Wonderful place. I don't know what your Democrat neighbors are thinking, though,
Speaker 1: I just I don't know what they I don't know
Speaker 1: what they're smoking, but sounds like fun. We'll be right
Speaker 1: back to who are up against? People that want to
Speaker 1: allow criminals into our society? Can you explain that one?
Speaker 1: You know, most things you understand, but they want to
Speaker 1: allow criminals into our society. Convicted felons, kidnapping, These are
Speaker 1: people that kidnap people. The Democrats want them to come
Speaker 1: into our society. I don't think so. Kidnappings two thousand
Speaker 1: and eighty five. Homicides that means murder, murderers two thousand
Speaker 1: twenty eight. I mean it's incredible. Sexual offenses one thousand
Speaker 1: and seven, thirty nine just came out two minutes ago,
Speaker 1: Homeland Security, Department of Homeland Security. I don't know, maybe
Speaker 1: we're in a different country than I know of how many,
Speaker 1: how many thousands of murders, rapes, robberies, are sins? How
Speaker 1: many of those are you willing to accept from the
Speaker 1: illegal alien community as just the cost of the cost
Speaker 1: of the way things are because the Democrats see, I'm
Speaker 1: willing to accept the number zero because they shouldn't be
Speaker 1: in the country in the first place. So this isn't like, oh,
Speaker 1: there's crime in any society. Yes, of course, I'm not
Speaker 1: saying we're ever gonna get to a zero a zero
Speaker 1: crime rate in America. There will always be people that
Speaker 1: you know, choose the who's the wrong path and do
Speaker 1: the wrong thing and then hurt their their fellow human beings.
Speaker 1: That's that's always that's always existing, always will exist. We
Speaker 1: try to deal with it. We try to manage it
Speaker 1: and limit it as much as possible. But I think
Speaker 1: it's fair to say that when it comes to limiting
Speaker 1: crime from people who aren't in your country, I do
Speaker 1: not worry about crimes committed by people, you know, by
Speaker 1: people in Vietnam, because they're not being committed in this country.
Speaker 1: I do not worry about crimes being committed by people
Speaker 1: in Brazil because they're not in this country, right, But
Speaker 1: people who come into this country aren't supposed to be here.
Speaker 1: That's a concern for me because wait a second, they
Speaker 1: weren't supposed to be here in the first place. And
Speaker 1: this is the philosophical shift that Trump is trying to
Speaker 1: get people to understand. It's not that sixteen hundred murders
Speaker 1: by illegal aliens is you know, it's not that that's
Speaker 1: a little too high. It's sixteen hundred murders too high.
Speaker 1: What is going on here? Why do we have anyone
Speaker 1: in the country tree illegally who is living in the
Speaker 1: shadows and going through all this difficulty and committing murders.
Speaker 1: This shouldn't be happening at all because if we enforced
Speaker 1: our immigration laws, they would not be here, period. So
Speaker 1: our tolerance for illegal alien crime should be substantially lower
Speaker 1: than our tolerance for a societal crime, because you know,
Speaker 1: nothing is perfect, right. But again, Trump is making this case.
Speaker 1: I hope he really digs into tonight. I think he will.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna be watching Live right after the show, so
Speaker 1: we'll talk more about that tomorrow, but let's discuss Virginia's
Speaker 1: situation in a moment. What has been a difficult week.
Speaker 1: And you know, if you look at Virginia's history, we're
Speaker 1: now at the four hundred year anniversary, just ninety miles
Speaker 1: from here. In sixteen nineteen, the first indentured servants from
Speaker 1: Africa landed on our shores and Old Point Comfort what
Speaker 1: we call now Fort Monroe. And while also known as slavery. Yeah,
Speaker 1: this guy Northam, what is his deal? He's given an
Speaker 1: interview to CBS. They're really being very, very gentle with him.
Speaker 1: I think there were some weird restrictions too, maybe with
Speaker 1: Northam interviewed with Washington Post or somebody where they're they're
Speaker 1: doing everything they can to help keep this guy's political
Speaker 1: career afloat, because it has been struggling mightily since his
Speaker 1: whole black face. Oh no, that's not me, but everyone
Speaker 1: knows it is him. Controversy. How can anyone take this
Speaker 1: guy seriously? How can anyone pretend like he's a person
Speaker 1: of substance? I don't know, but here we are Democrats
Speaker 1: just recognizing that I think the most likely person to
Speaker 1: resign out of Northam Fairfax, and herring is Fairfax. Fairfax
Speaker 1: has now called for an FBI. Remember he's a lieutenant governor.
Speaker 1: Two women have accused him of sexual assault, and both
Speaker 1: of them on the record had sexual relationships with them.
Speaker 1: So there they are entirely credible allegations. That does not
Speaker 1: mean they are proven allegations. There is a difference, certainly
Speaker 1: important for law, but also important for us to keep
Speaker 1: in mind for due process reasons. They are unproven, but
Speaker 1: they are credible allegations, to be sure, which is different
Speaker 1: than the allegations made against Kavanaugh, which were not credible,
Speaker 1: but they wanted them to be treated the media, the
Speaker 1: Democrats wanted them to be treated as already proven by
Speaker 1: the mere fact of the allegation. Here we have a
Speaker 1: different situation of oh, no, these are credible allegations against Fairfax,
Speaker 1: and I find it. I mean I find them entirely
Speaker 1: believable given the circumstances that he has or that the
Speaker 1: women rather have alleged. But he may be the one
Speaker 1: who who was forced to resign. Here it looks like
Speaker 1: there may be public testimony from these women. Fairfax has
Speaker 1: called for an FBI investigation, which I've noticed is now
Speaker 1: this is now the hail Mary Pass tactic of Democrats
Speaker 1: or left wingers who are in trouble. I want an
Speaker 1: FBI investigation. Notice how they wanted this. They wanted to
Speaker 1: inflict this on Kavanaugh and it did nothing, which we
Speaker 1: all knew it would do nothing because this wasn't an
Speaker 1: FBI matter. The FBI really is in no position to
Speaker 1: investigate or adjudicate this. And they said, well, it's really
Speaker 1: a background check. Well the FBI doesn't you know. They
Speaker 1: kept changing, moving around the goalpost so that the FB
Speaker 1: just so there'd be some investigation to give them more
Speaker 1: time to figure out another smear of Kavanaugh. But Fairfax,
Speaker 1: you're calling for the FBI. You have two crimes, alleged crimes,
Speaker 1: one committed allegedly in North Carolina, the other allegedly committed
Speaker 1: I think in Virginia. I'm not sure about that, the
Speaker 1: two different states that much I remember, and the FB
Speaker 1: I would have jurisdiction in neither place. So what is
Speaker 1: the FBI is supposed to do here? But it's it's
Speaker 1: just a talking point to say, oh no, I want
Speaker 1: to prove my innocence, bringing the FBI. Like the FBI
Speaker 1: or just these magicians who can figure out everything right away.
Speaker 1: Still looking for that Russia collusion some of those FBI guys,
Speaker 1: I don't think they're gonna find it either. I think
Speaker 1: that Russia collusion investigation is gonna get shut down real soon.
Speaker 1: But I think Northam knows that if he just plays
Speaker 1: his cards right at this point, he can stay. Here's
Speaker 1: what he said, play three. How you think you still
Speaker 1: deserve this job when so many people are calling for
Speaker 1: you to step down? Well, again, we have worked very hard.
Speaker 1: We've had a good first year, and I'm a leader.
Speaker 1: I've been in some very difficult situations, life and death situations,
Speaker 1: taking care of sick children. And right now, doctor, Right now,
Speaker 1: Virginia needs someone that can heal. There's no better person
Speaker 1: to do that than a doctor. Virginia also needs someone
Speaker 1: who is strong, who has empathy, who has courage, and
Speaker 1: who has a moral compass. And that's why I'm not
Speaker 1: going anywhere. Man, there's a lot of hutzpah on display
Speaker 1: with this guy. Pretty brazen stuff from the good doctor.
Speaker 1: I mean, never mind the fact that he starts out
Speaker 1: the interview by calling slavery indentured servitude, which is which
Speaker 1: was a which was a wow. Moment like this guy,
Speaker 1: I've never heard somebody make that mistake before, but I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, you could get into anyway. It was. That
Speaker 1: was a bit of a surprise. But then he goes
Speaker 1: into saying that he's the right man, he's the perfect
Speaker 1: man for the job of governor. Right now, he has
Speaker 1: thrown the state into a a governmental crisis, and yet
Speaker 1: he is the perfect man to fix it. You know,
Speaker 1: this is like the stockbroker who, once he's lost your
Speaker 1: life savings, is like, you don't understand. I am more
Speaker 1: motivated than anybody make that money back for you. So
Speaker 1: borrow some money from your brother and give you know.
Speaker 1: That's that's who this guy is. Now, since since I
Speaker 1: burned your house down, I'm exactly who you want to
Speaker 1: build your house for you now I owe you. This
Speaker 1: guy is whoo man. He is next level. But I
Speaker 1: think he's staying. I don't think he's going anywhere. I
Speaker 1: don't think I don't think I don't think Herring is
Speaker 1: going anywhere. I think that justin Fairfax is the one
Speaker 1: and the greatest jeopardy of resigning, which would mean that
Speaker 1: as this plays out, the Democrat Party in Virginia would
Speaker 1: have three politicians all in trouble, two of them admittedly
Speaker 1: and provably for wearing black face a long time ago,
Speaker 1: then saying ridiculous stuff about it now and lying about
Speaker 1: it now and everything else. And then a black guy
Speaker 1: who's accused, who's lieutenant governor, without any actual proof other
Speaker 1: than the accusations. He says he didn't do it, and
Speaker 1: he's the one who might resign. That is an interesting
Speaker 1: look for the Democrat Party. I've got to say, we'll
Speaker 1: be right back from actual experts at the UN, from
Speaker 1: the Donald Trump's own administration saying how dire this is.
Speaker 1: The UN said we have twelve years before complete disaster.
Speaker 1: We talked to the representative of the Marshall Islands and
Speaker 1: he's calling it what could amount to genocide if we
Speaker 1: allow things to go as they are. The reports aren't
Speaker 1: just hey, it's going to get bad. The reports are
Speaker 1: people will die, millions and millions and millions of people
Speaker 1: will die, and there's real economic damage that can happen
Speaker 1: as well, billions of dollars in economic damage from crops
Speaker 1: to deaths, to losing oceanfront homes and businesses in over
Speaker 1: the next century. Dogs and cats living together Massisteria so
Speaker 1: be good for goodness sake. Whoa somebody's coming, Doctor Bankman
Speaker 1: one of his I mean, one of Bill Murray's finest roles.
Speaker 1: That was Katie tur Or, not doctor Bankman, just saying
Speaker 1: crazy stuff. I got news for you, Miss Turr. Who's
Speaker 1: one of these people that all of a sudden, I'm
Speaker 1: supposed she's kind of came out of the woodwork over
Speaker 1: at MSNBC and now now she's an anchor, so she
Speaker 1: must know something. These people don't know anything about anything.
Speaker 1: I'm amazed at how flimsy, at how weak the intellectual
Speaker 1: depth is with so many of these these TV these
Speaker 1: TV news anchor types, you know, and uh, you know,
Speaker 1: Katie tur I've got news for her. Yes, you know what.
Speaker 1: Millions and millions of people are going to die. In fact,
Speaker 1: billions of people are going to die. We are all
Speaker 1: going to die. Hopefully we will have children and replenish
Speaker 1: our species, but we're all going to die. It has
Speaker 1: nothing to do with climate change. This is normal. People
Speaker 1: cannot and would not think this way if they had
Speaker 1: not been endless propagandize too, and if they did not,
Speaker 1: you know, there is a place in the human mind.
Speaker 1: Some would even say in the human soul where where
Speaker 1: we desire purpose. It's one of the reasons why you
Speaker 1: actually want work. It's why, you know, an endless a
Speaker 1: life that was nothing but lying on a beach eating grapes,
Speaker 1: you know, would be fun for a few days, maybe
Speaker 1: a few weeks, maybe a few months, but after that
Speaker 1: you're going to be a fat, lazy guy who eats
Speaker 1: a lot of grapes and is sunburned. You know, you
Speaker 1: actually want purpose, whatever that is, whether it's you know,
Speaker 1: raising the best family you can, being the best you
Speaker 1: can at your job, helping the most people you can,
Speaker 1: you know, serving your country as best you can. People
Speaker 1: desire purpose, but people also desire higher meaning. Many of
Speaker 1: us fill that with God. Many of us have that
Speaker 1: is the higher purpose is to serve what is eternal
Speaker 1: and celestial, and and you know what is the purpose
Speaker 1: of our existence, which is to love and honor God.
Speaker 1: That that's what many people do, and many people view
Speaker 1: as their reason for being here. Oh way, I mean,
Speaker 1: I don't spend a lot of time talking about religious
Speaker 1: stuff on the show because that's not that's not my brief.
Speaker 1: But it from a political and philosophical perspective, this really matters,
Speaker 1: because what's happened is that that part of the mind.
Speaker 1: And you know my line on this, and it's true.
Speaker 1: It's that climate change is a religious belief for people
Speaker 1: who think they are too smart for religion. What they've
Speaker 1: done is they've just inserted this climate alarmism into that.
Speaker 1: And their purpose is because you know, the earth. If
Speaker 1: you don't believe in God, the only thing that is
Speaker 1: eternal is the earth. And in fact, primitive religions worshiped
Speaker 1: the earth. Right. This is this is you get into
Speaker 1: people who are animists to who you know, impute celestial
Speaker 1: or create deities out of inanimate objects. Right, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know you have the most primitive religions worshiped the on,
Speaker 1: worship the moon, worship the stars, or you know, or
Speaker 1: bears because bears are big and scary, although I'm a
Speaker 1: big fan of bears. Now, what you have is a
Speaker 1: kind of New Age earth worship where our species only
Speaker 1: exists to protect the earth. And people really believe this
Speaker 1: and oh, by the way, a fringe benefit of all
Speaker 1: of this, or for many of them, it's the it's
Speaker 1: the actual central purpose because they don't care about anything
Speaker 1: other than the self. They are, They are truly and
Speaker 1: cosmically selfish. And what they realize is that they can
Speaker 1: mobilize the masses on this climate change silliness, although it
Speaker 1: is very serious because if they get their way, you're
Speaker 1: gonna have people will die if they get their way,
Speaker 1: you know, people will freeze to death in winter, people
Speaker 1: will die of malaria. I mean, there will be consequences
Speaker 1: if we give up fossil fuel. I mentioned the Great
Speaker 1: Leap Forward. Sixty million people starved to death in the
Speaker 1: twentieth century, sixty million because of crappy government central planning. Right,
Speaker 1: millions starved in the Ukrainian famine because of crappy government
Speaker 1: central planning. What they're telling us is the is the
Speaker 1: converse of historical reality. What the Katie tours and you know,
Speaker 1: she's just represented. She's just spewing the talking points that
Speaker 1: all the other bigger, more famous, h stupid rich TV
Speaker 1: people say. And but but what they offer to us,
Speaker 1: what they give us is that if you don't engage
Speaker 1: in this kind of massive central planning, that's when all
Speaker 1: the terrible things will happen. If you don't let the
Speaker 1: state make all these decisions for you and in your
Speaker 1: life in order to prevent the awful things. You know,
Speaker 1: then you're complicit in the the famines and the floods
Speaker 1: and they coming. I mean, yea, let me tell you
Speaker 1: what the Marshall Islands is really thinking about, which I
Speaker 1: know you're up Laddnight worried about the Marshall Islands. The
Speaker 1: Marshall Islands is thinking, yeah, we gotta, we gotta be
Speaker 1: all in on this scam because all these wealthy countries
Speaker 1: where they're actually building stuff and doing stuff. Productivity, that's
Speaker 1: what you know. Wealth is human endeavor that you know,
Speaker 1: is pulled together and the excess of that human labor,
Speaker 1: or rather the fruits of that human labor is wealth.
Speaker 1: That is wealth. It is us doing stuff, making things
Speaker 1: that is That is what creates wealth and prosperity. Right.
Speaker 1: The countries that have a lot of that. I'm sure
Speaker 1: Marshall Islands has some nice tourism and probably some I
Speaker 1: don't know that goods now that's Kazakhstan. But I'm sure
Speaker 1: they you know that they do some things. They want
Speaker 1: to be in on the scam, and I understand it.
Speaker 1: It's a good scam to be in on, which is
Speaker 1: that the developed world, the first world, is supposed to
Speaker 1: and this is at the heart of all this inter
Speaker 1: governmental panel on climate change stuff. The first world is
Speaker 1: supposed to subsidize the economic progress of the third world,
Speaker 1: change for us being less prosperous ourselves by using less
Speaker 1: fossil fuel or less hydrocarbon. Right, That's what the game is.
Speaker 1: That's why there is a global Marxism, a global redistributive
Speaker 1: impulse that is at work here, or you could say
Speaker 1: a global globalism. It's it's your global globalism. No, but
Speaker 1: really that's that is part of this, of this rubric,
Speaker 1: of this framework. They want to look at the developed
Speaker 1: countries and say you because they try to argue that
Speaker 1: we the reason we're wealthy is because of our exploitation
Speaker 1: of other countries. That's one of the primary myths that
Speaker 1: are perpetuated by Marxist intellectuals around the world, that the
Speaker 1: reason America's wealthy is because of our exploitation of other countries.
Speaker 1: But when that isn't enough, and they still of course
Speaker 1: believe that, they will say, well, the reason we're wealthy
Speaker 1: is because of our ex exploitation of planet Earth. And
Speaker 1: the only way to make amends for that exploitation is
Speaker 1: to make other places wealthier giving them our wealth so
Speaker 1: that they won't have to exploit too. That's only fair.
Speaker 1: You see. It's the same mentality though the same route.
Speaker 1: Fallacies about capitalism, about the creation of wealth, about the
Speaker 1: basics of economics, all of that is encapsulated by this
Speaker 1: Green New Deal alarmism, and this green New Deal stuff
Speaker 1: is it is whackadoodle. You know. Ocasio Cortez has some
Speaker 1: advisor who I think they just think is smart because
Speaker 1: he kind of looks like Malcolm Cladwell, so he must
Speaker 1: be smart. Libs love the all the pretension of the
Speaker 1: intellectual class. They love the facade of intellectuals, but they
Speaker 1: don't actually want to have to have any knowledge and
Speaker 1: argue with people who also have knowledge. They just want
Speaker 1: the benefits of appearing knowledgeable without the work that it
Speaker 1: requires to get there. Right. This is a favorite thing
Speaker 1: of lips. They like to be ostentatious with the minimal
Speaker 1: knowledge they have so that they can belong to the
Speaker 1: class of elites that think of themselves it's very knowledgeable,
Speaker 1: but really aren't. But this guy went on Tucker Carlson's show,
Speaker 1: and Tucker's like, look to frequently ask question that you
Speaker 1: put out here when the New Green New Deal roll out.
Speaker 1: When that happened, you know, the freaking asked questions said,
Speaker 1: you know, we're gonna stop air travel and we're gonna
Speaker 1: get rid of cow farts. And then Okazio Cortez's people said,
Speaker 1: oh no, that's a forgery, that's a fake. It's Republicans
Speaker 1: making it up. And then it was oh no, it's
Speaker 1: not that. It was just a mistake from someone up.
Speaker 1: But we didn't mean to put that out, and her
Speaker 1: adviser told Tucker that it never went out. That's just
Speaker 1: they're just lying about it. They're just love because what
Speaker 1: we saw with their ambitious proposal is that their ambition
Speaker 1: for the Green New Deal, and for Ocasio Cortez greatly,
Speaker 1: I mean monumentally outstrips her knowledge, her wisdom, her critical thinking,
Speaker 1: all of it. And it is a for some, it
Speaker 1: might be a sign of the end times that the
Speaker 1: most prominent and the most influential Democrat in America right
Speaker 1: now is effectively on policy matters and ignoramus. That is troubling,
Speaker 1: But we cannot walk away from it. We have to
Speaker 1: stare this down and be honest about it. With only
Speaker 1: three days left until Valentine, it seems like everybody is
Speaker 1: selling Bouquet's drug stores, supermarkets, gas stations, you name it,
Speaker 1: your special Someone deserves the best, though, and that's why
Speaker 1: every Valentine's I order from my rose authority one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers dot com right now you can get eighteen
Speaker 1: red roses for twenty nine ninety nine, or upgrade to
Speaker 1: twenty four assorted roses plus a vas four ten dollars more.
Speaker 1: This is an unbelievable offer from one eight hundred Flowers
Speaker 1: eighteen red roses for twenty nine ninety nine, or upgrade
Speaker 1: to twenty four assorted roses plus a vas for ten
Speaker 1: dollars more. Miss Molly's getting flowers, don't tell her from
Speaker 1: one eight hundred flowers Beautiful two dozen roses. I'm using
Speaker 1: this exact same deal. I recommend you do too. To
Speaker 1: order eighteen red roses for twenty nine nine nine, or
Speaker 1: upgrade to twenty four red roses plus a vas for
Speaker 1: ten dollars more. Go to one eight hundred flowers dot com.
Speaker 1: Click that radio icon entercode buck. That's one eight hundred
Speaker 1: flowers dot com radiocode icon buck offer expires today. My
Speaker 1: Danny ended up. It's a janitor, but his little girl
Speaker 1: got the chance to be a public schoolteacher, a college professor,
Speaker 1: a United States senator, and a Canada for president of
Speaker 1: the United States. Make daddy ended up as a janitor.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna get me a beer. Uh Okay, first of all,
Speaker 1: what's what's her beef with her dad? Janitor is an
Speaker 1: honorable profession providing a real service. And I mean this,
Speaker 1: I'm not I'm I mean this about any I've done
Speaker 1: jobs that were not, you know, glorious jobs, and anybody
Speaker 1: who's ever done that has respect for people to show
Speaker 1: up and do a good job at a job that
Speaker 1: is needed every day. So I just didn't really like
Speaker 1: her whole you know, mac daddy was just a janitor.
Speaker 1: But like I'm a really important person running for president.
Speaker 1: I just don't. I know a lot of politicians do this. Okay,
Speaker 1: but that's you know, this is yeah, this is America.
Speaker 1: You know, the parents work hard and the kids have
Speaker 1: a shot to do something else. A question actually for you, buck, Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're discussing that here. Why do they think we care
Speaker 1: with their grandparents and parents did? Dude, it's all I
Speaker 1: think it's the You're so right. I think it's the
Speaker 1: political consultants who tell them, you know, you've you've got
Speaker 1: to connect with the heartland and with the people and
Speaker 1: tell them you know, you know you used to do
Speaker 1: this all the time. John Edwards, Ambulance Chaser in Chief. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and he shows me like, you know, my my dada
Speaker 1: and my dada worked in a in a coal mine
Speaker 1: and what was Oh and the other one, Oh, the
Speaker 1: best one of all these days is is kasik rhymes
Speaker 1: with well kasik And uh, you know he's gonna say
Speaker 1: something else, but I can't. He is Um. He's always
Speaker 1: talking about how you know, my daddy was a male man.
Speaker 1: It's like, yeah, okay, your dad had a job which
Speaker 1: he received a paycheck for and healthcare benefits and was
Speaker 1: probably able to retire like a lot of people I
Speaker 1: know these days, Like what why are we supposed to
Speaker 1: feel sorry for them? Like I don't understand what their
Speaker 1: problem is, you know, I think they just do this
Speaker 1: because they think that it makes them more relatable. I
Speaker 1: think it's weird. That's completely weird. I agree. I think
Speaker 1: if they think it normalizes him, Yeah, they think it
Speaker 1: normaliz Like I mean, like my you know, my parents
Speaker 1: were like we're blue collar and so like not fancy
Speaker 1: at all, but like I'm super fancy. So yeah, I
Speaker 1: just think it's a weird. I'm glad you picked up
Speaker 1: on that too, like you and John, because it's just
Speaker 1: such a weird thing to say. My daddy was just
Speaker 1: a channer. He was just mopping up vomit all the time.
Speaker 1: It's like like your father was doing an honest day's
Speaker 1: work for an honest you know, an honest wave. Like.
Speaker 1: I don't think anyway. I think it's weird, and I
Speaker 1: think a lot of a lot Look, Kasik as a Republican.
Speaker 1: A lot of politicians do this. Yeah, I guess when
Speaker 1: you're when you are a politician, you own like three
Speaker 1: or four homes and your base doesn't. I guess you
Speaker 1: gotta like, you know, be more normal. Yeah. Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: is a socialist who's worth ten million dollars. Yep. I
Speaker 1: think I told you Mike twenty recently, and you guys thought.
Speaker 1: I mean, she says it's she marked it down as
Speaker 1: ten million, but I'm sure it's I mean, it's probably
Speaker 1: higher than that, but she's worth ten million dollars. I'm
Speaker 1: not worth ten million dollars. I'm not worth a million dollars.
Speaker 1: So I sit here and I say, Okay, hold on
Speaker 1: a second. I'm being lectured about paying my fair share
Speaker 1: because I work three jobs and so I get tax
Speaker 1: that are certain rate. I'm being told I should probably
Speaker 1: pay more. Meanwhile, I'm not worth anything, and she's worth
Speaker 1: ten million dollars. I need to work. I need someone
Speaker 1: to explain to me how that's supposed to work. But anyway, guys,
Speaker 1: she's she's out there and she's obviously now officially running
Speaker 1: for president. I think, and there's a part of me
Speaker 1: that doesn't want to say this because I think that
Speaker 1: she just has no shot. I mean, the whole one
Speaker 1: one twenty fourth native American thing is just that was
Speaker 1: such a blunder and so obtuse that way. You know,
Speaker 1: I read it over the weekend because I was really curious.
Speaker 1: They feel like the left's answer to all this is, oh,
Speaker 1: she didn't professionally advance because she said she was Native American. Now,
Speaker 1: let me say that that is highly highly subject to interpretation.
Speaker 1: And you know, the way that they went through this
Speaker 1: is to interview, Oh, guess what the faculty of the
Speaker 1: University of Pennsylvania Law School and the universe see of
Speaker 1: Harvard Law School, because that was the huge leap in
Speaker 1: her career. She hadn't a kind of you know, undistinguished
Speaker 1: legal career before that. And again I don't like people
Speaker 1: who I don't like when people put down any state school.
Speaker 1: Some state schools are are considered a lead. But you know,
Speaker 1: Rutgers is a fine institution. Rutgers can get a great education.
Speaker 1: There's some great lawyers that come from there. And I
Speaker 1: don't I'm not casting any stones, but Rutgers as a
Speaker 1: just because of the way that Harvard Law School specifically worked,
Speaker 1: You're not going to go from Rutgers in your undergrad
Speaker 1: to Harvard Law School as a professor. It's just rather
Speaker 1: Rutgers as your jd. To Harvard Law School as you professor,
Speaker 1: as you're as a professor, it just won't happen. And
Speaker 1: same thing University of Pennsylvania and those are both I
Speaker 1: think Harvard's number two. Those are both considered top ten
Speaker 1: law schools, and Rutgers not a top I don't think
Speaker 1: it's the top one hundred law school. So it just
Speaker 1: doesn't happen. And that it happened for her is on
Speaker 1: its face highly highly suspicious. That Harvard listed her officially
Speaker 1: as an American for diversity purposes in their literature for
Speaker 1: a decade is also indicative of something that she can
Speaker 1: never explain because because the Left says, the Boston Globe
Speaker 1: prove this is their big thing, The Boston Globe prove
Speaker 1: that she's not a race fraud, that she's not folk
Speaker 1: a hauntis I don't buy that because I read through
Speaker 1: their whole analysis and all things and say, first of all,
Speaker 1: they they do this whole dig in deep with they said, okay, well,
Speaker 1: one professor on the hiring committee at Harvard said that, yeah,
Speaker 1: it came up that she was Native American in the
Speaker 1: hiring process. And then we asked him some more and
Speaker 1: he said, okay, well maybe i'm mister ember. Essentially, they're like,
Speaker 1: this guy got pressured into recanting, is what happened. He's
Speaker 1: gonna be not welcome in the faculty lounge anymore at Harvard.
Speaker 1: Luck because they all they all love Elizabeth Warren, they
Speaker 1: all share her politics. They don't care that she's a fraud.
Speaker 1: See that's and there was one professor who said that
Speaker 1: it came up. Why would a professor say that if
Speaker 1: it didn't happen. A lot of them would say it
Speaker 1: didn't happen because they're not idiot. It's their Harvard law professors.
Speaker 1: They understand when journalists are asking about this, they know
Speaker 1: what's going on. So they're lying for her. That's not
Speaker 1: that doesn't strike me as odd at all. It's an
Speaker 1: easy thing to lie about. Well, it didn't really come
Speaker 1: up to my recollection. You know who's gonna hold you
Speaker 1: of that. And you get to help Elizabeth Warren along
Speaker 1: the way, you know, her race fraud. You effectively give
Speaker 1: a bunch of libs on the faculty at Harvard who
Speaker 1: are super libs to wash this away, right. Oh yeah, no,
Speaker 1: she's not did engage in race frauds, shure. You know
Speaker 1: they also say that. So so that's the main thing.
Speaker 1: They ask these different professors who were on the hiring committees,
Speaker 1: and they all say that it was because of her
Speaker 1: amazing work and amazing work of the classroom. And I
Speaker 1: mean it must have been really amazing, because she's the
Speaker 1: only under she was the only person from a state
Speaker 1: law school that became at her time at least was
Speaker 1: a professor at Harvard in the law school. So it's
Speaker 1: just you know, these are some, and she also, at
Speaker 1: key points in her career made a very conscious effort
Speaker 1: to change her design nation officially to Native American. So
Speaker 1: I don't buy that it didn't professionally advance her. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I don't because when she's asked, she goes into some
Speaker 1: meandering story about identity and members of her family had
Speaker 1: passed away, And I'm just like, so, people in your
Speaker 1: family passed away who weren't Native American, and you decided
Speaker 1: to start calling yourself Native American to identify with them.
Speaker 1: That is bizarre. But it did open up this other
Speaker 1: possibility to me, which is that maybe maybe she's actually
Speaker 1: delusional and the same way that Rachel Dolazoll. I think
Speaker 1: Rachel Dolazol convinced herself that she was black. Now that's
Speaker 1: crazy to you go with me, because she's obviously not black,
Speaker 1: But I think she convinced herself that she was black.
Speaker 1: You know, people can be convinced of a lot of things.
Speaker 1: There's actually a psychological condition that I've talked about because
Speaker 1: it comes up in discussions about transgenderism, where people want
Speaker 1: a limb to be removed because they think that they
Speaker 1: should not have it. Now, this is obviously a mental
Speaker 1: mental health disorder, but it is. It is a real thing.
Speaker 1: You know, people can think all kinds of stuff. Maybe
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren really did think she was a Native American.
Speaker 1: But is it a better look for it would be
Speaker 1: president of the United States to be utterly delusional. I'm
Speaker 1: not sure. You know, at least with the fraud thing,
Speaker 1: You're like, yeah, she played the system. You know, it's gross.
Speaker 1: We should make fun of her for it, and she's
Speaker 1: a fraud, but I understand why she did it. You know,
Speaker 1: it's like, okay, maybe that person's a bank robber. I
Speaker 1: don't agree with it. It's not okay, but they were
Speaker 1: doing it to steal money. But if the bank robbers like, no,
Speaker 1: I'm not a bank robber. I'm actually a pink unicorn
Speaker 1: who's just getting money for the you know, magical world
Speaker 1: that I'm building, you might say, WHOA, we got a
Speaker 1: different kind of problem here. I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: what we're talking about with Elizabeth Warren, but I've I've
Speaker 1: read in detail the docs around her, and you know,
Speaker 1: there's there's stuff up here. I mean, now, as you know,
Speaker 1: she's also filled out a state our registration card for
Speaker 1: Texas with stating that in her own handwriting, and she's
Speaker 1: Native American and she would kind of turn it on
Speaker 1: and turn it off at different times in her adult life,
Speaker 1: which it's just not normal and it is inexplicable. I also, look,
Speaker 1: this is my challenge to those who want to be
Speaker 1: who want to be big Warren supporters out there, and
Speaker 1: I there's a bunch of them. This is my challenge. Okay,
Speaker 1: I just need someone to tell me why she decided
Speaker 1: this is true? Why Elizabeth Warren decided to plage your eyes?
Speaker 1: To plage your eyes a French recipe, pretend that it
Speaker 1: was her own family recipe, and submit it to a
Speaker 1: Native American cookbook called Pow Wow chow enlist herself as
Speaker 1: Cherokee in the book. Producer, Mike, do you have any
Speaker 1: theories on this because this is like what this is
Speaker 1: like something a crazy person would do. Ye. Bizarre, It's
Speaker 1: really bizarre. Like it's not even her. I mean she
Speaker 1: she she plagiarized it. She took it wholesale from a
Speaker 1: from a like a Julia Child cookbook. Yeah, she's she's
Speaker 1: actually why as you were speaking of this, me and John,
Speaker 1: we're going back and forth on how if she really,
Speaker 1: you know, was maybe be misled by her family early
Speaker 1: on in life. And I was just like, man, she's
Speaker 1: been doubling and tripling and quadrupling down on this myth
Speaker 1: forever and it's just bizarre. Everything she does about it
Speaker 1: is this is this bizarre behavior and it's just to me,
Speaker 1: it's it's way. He does not matter how deep she goes,
Speaker 1: she just won't stop. Want she want. The light is keeps,
Speaker 1: she keeps it going. It's it's it's pretty amazing. Then
Speaker 1: then we had Warren, though, and here's her pathway. I
Speaker 1: think she's got the whole social justice, economic warfare left
Speaker 1: thing going for her. And you know, the hardcore left,
Speaker 1: I mean, the Democrats are insane, as you know, I
Speaker 1: mean the Democrat Party. Look, they're smart, normal, nice Democrats,
Speaker 1: but they don't run the party. They're not in charge.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party's insane. It's an important principle for us
Speaker 1: to be working from. The Democratic Party is nuts. And
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, though, I think it's going to do surprisingly
Speaker 1: well among Democrats because she's going to go with this
Speaker 1: extreme anti Trump position. Play clip two. Every day there's
Speaker 1: a racist tweet, a hateful tweet, something really dark and ugly.
Speaker 1: Are we going to let him use those to divide us?
Speaker 1: You know, here's what bothers me the time. When we
Speaker 1: get to twenty twenty, Donald Trump may not even be president.
Speaker 1: In fact, he may not even be a free person.
Speaker 1: There you have a sitting Democrat senator who is suggesting
Speaker 1: the president the United States is going to be in
Speaker 1: prison and the next what year and a half? This
Speaker 1: is as gross as anything that you know, all the
Speaker 1: people that say, oh, the undermining of the institutions, and
Speaker 1: look what Trump says about Hillary and lokrrop and oh,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, Hillary actually broke the law and got a
Speaker 1: pass full stop. Okay, Hillary is a criminal. She just
Speaker 1: got away with it. That's what happened. People can tell
Speaker 1: the other things, they're making it up. They're delusional. But
Speaker 1: her saying that Trump will go to prison, this is
Speaker 1: going She is going to pander to the most insane
Speaker 1: elements of the Democratic Party. It is going to be outrageous.
Speaker 1: She is going to try to turn herself into the
Speaker 1: epitome of the hashtag resistance. That's where she's going with this.
Speaker 1: She's going to make herself the fierce anti Trumper and
Speaker 1: say the most vitriolic, nasty stuff. And I just want
Speaker 1: to say this ahead of time, because the left has
Speaker 1: been telling us about how Trump is so uncivil and Trump. No,
Speaker 1: they just don't like Trump because when they roll up
Speaker 1: their sleeves and they try they try to throw low blows,
Speaker 1: Trump just just smacks them down, just lays them out cold,
Speaker 1: you know, And they don't like that. I don't like that.
Speaker 1: Now what you're gonna see here a bunch of Democrats.
Speaker 1: They're gonna try to go after Trump. They're gonna just
Speaker 1: kitchen sink everything they've got after Trump as nasty, as dirty,
Speaker 1: as undermining as they possibly. He's a racist, a massagist,
Speaker 1: he should be in prison, he's a trader, he's a criminal,
Speaker 1: all this stuff, and Elizabeth Warren is going to be
Speaker 1: one of them. And that's at least in the short term,
Speaker 1: going to mean the Left will forgive her. The Left
Speaker 1: will let her stay in this even though she's a joke.
Speaker 1: She's a joke, not a funny joke on my dad.
Speaker 1: Has no charm whatsoever, has absolutely no personal charisma or magnetism.
Speaker 1: I really don't understand why people like her. And I'm
Speaker 1: at least like Tulsey Gabbard. You know she can give
Speaker 1: me some surf lessons. It sounds like fun. We'll be
Speaker 1: right back. I go hard for freedom every day. I
Speaker 1: try to represent the values that you and I share
Speaker 1: and fight with libes wherever I can to make sure
Speaker 1: the truth prevails. But it takes a lot out of me.
Speaker 1: You know what gets me going? Black Rifle Coffee. That's right.
Speaker 1: I need my cup of Black Rifle every morning and
Speaker 1: every afternoon because it is simply the best coffee you
Speaker 1: can get on the market. It is absolutely delicious. I
Speaker 1: mean this stuff. It's got a punch up telling you
Speaker 1: and the flavor is fantastic. Just pick the roast you like.
Speaker 1: I'm a big fan of the Freedom Blend, but you
Speaker 1: can also go full black or silence or smooth. Go
Speaker 1: on the website and you will see have it delivered
Speaker 1: to you every month. Joined the Coffee Club. This should
Speaker 1: be your coffee of choice. Wake up with America's coffee,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck
Speaker 1: and receive fifteen percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off again, Black
Speaker 1: riflecoffee dot com, slash buck join the coffee club and
Speaker 1: fifteen percent off your first order. And ridiculous means deserving
Speaker 1: or inviting derision or mockery, absurd. He does he really
Speaker 1: mean that attacks on incomes over ten million dollars at
Speaker 1: seventy percent, which is widely popular with the American people,
Speaker 1: is ridiculous. Is that an adult conversation? Yeah? I think
Speaker 1: he thinks it's ridiculous and it's confiscatory and that it's
Speaker 1: anti growth. That would be his point. What is will
Speaker 1: Derek Jeter or another athlete not hit another home run
Speaker 1: because they're gonna get taxed at seventy what's the economic
Speaker 1: behavior that he thinks it's antigrowth other than his own pocket? Adam,
Speaker 1: this is I'm not doing this, Steve. You gotta answer
Speaker 1: the question. I'm not so Steve Schmidt. I don't like
Speaker 1: asking him the christ you know it's yeah, it's antique growth.
Speaker 1: What does that? What does that mean about? Can we
Speaker 1: get mister Steve Schmidt? Mister Iran John McCain's terrible president,
Speaker 1: terrible losing presidential campaign and apparently was a was a
Speaker 1: prolific leaker from what I'm told by the way, to
Speaker 1: the press about that about his own campaign, Um can
Speaker 1: I can I just ask why this girl I'm gonna
Speaker 1: I'm gonna send me say, I'm gonna answer things. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna tell the people that Trump is the racist, sadist,
Speaker 1: a monster, the devil's bad Steve Puff marshmallow man, but
Speaker 1: even meaner. You know, Steve Schmidt is this guy that
Speaker 1: is held up at somebody we should listen to on politics. Look,
Speaker 1: I he was on solid ground there. He's the guy
Speaker 1: who's taken the Schmidt position. He I'm sorry the a
Speaker 1: Schultz position here, where you know a seventy percent tax
Speaker 1: rate is is bonkers and would have some bad bad
Speaker 1: if you actually made people pay that in a very
Speaker 1: bad Look what's happened in New York State. They've lost
Speaker 1: billions in revenue because people who are wealthy are like, Okay,
Speaker 1: New York State, you want to just take more of
Speaker 1: my money, I'm leaving. I'll keep my house here, but
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go to another state and file for taxes
Speaker 1: there because there are consequences to these confiscatory left wing
Speaker 1: socialist approaches. But stef Smith doesn't laugh to answer questions.
Speaker 1: You doesn't like it. He's mad, he's bull. He was
Speaker 1: on his own podcast. There who storms off their own podcast.
Speaker 1: Somebody comes into your house, you better tell them what's
Speaker 1: for dinner, if you know what I mean, you better
Speaker 1: tell them what time it is, Steve Schmidt. So not
Speaker 1: a SMBC. Hey it's Trump, but scared enough. Question two.
Speaker 1: I just think that's such a such a weak move
Speaker 1: to bail on your own to bail on your own show.
Speaker 1: I don't know, guys, I promise you I'll never bail.
Speaker 1: I'll never bail on this show like i'd like with
Speaker 1: that caller. Then I'm just gonna bail on my show.
Speaker 1: I don't like it. You know. It's like, uh, it's
Speaker 1: it's amazing. Oh gosh, you know, I'm excited. We're gonna
Speaker 1: have my my buddy. David Harsani joined later and he
Speaker 1: was a little side done. He's gonna talk to us
Speaker 1: about anti Semitism. Democratic Party, Ilhan and Talib Ilhan Omar
Speaker 1: rather and Talib, these two new female congresswomen and Muslim
Speaker 1: congresswomen who are just going after Israel and are part
Speaker 1: of the uh the BDS movement and you know, trying
Speaker 1: to boycott, divest, and and they're they're really a post Israel. Uh.
Speaker 1: You know, David Harsani and I go way back. He
Speaker 1: actually was the first person that ever really encouraged me
Speaker 1: to write an editorial instead of a straight and a
Speaker 1: new story for the play. So well, I'm I'm a
Speaker 1: Harsani fan from way back. He'll be joining us in
Speaker 1: a little bit day Air for All. This is another
Speaker 1: one of these issues that is in our current moment
Speaker 1: of Oh, let's just offer everybody, you know, unicorns and
Speaker 1: rainbows and candy land, and somebody else will pay for it,
Speaker 1: and it's all gonna be amazing. And the government never
Speaker 1: does a bad job with mandates or with things that
Speaker 1: exceed it's mandated. It's always government always knows what to do. Yeah. Right,
Speaker 1: there's an op ed in the New York Times of
Speaker 1: the weekend daycare for All. The progressive to do list
Speaker 1: is missing a very important idea. And this woman is
Speaker 1: a columnist at the Nations, so he's very left wing.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Nation is essentially a communist front in
Speaker 1: this country. I don't mean that it's sponsored by the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union or something like that, but it is so
Speaker 1: far left that for it to be taken seriously, is
Speaker 1: I think, an affront to seriousness. But it is something
Speaker 1: that is representative of the far left Bernie Sanders wing
Speaker 1: of a Democrat party, I mean, which is just open socialism, statism,
Speaker 1: and collectivism. The nation is at least honest about that,
Speaker 1: whereas the New York Times and others much less so.
Speaker 1: But this piece goes into how, yes, they're talking about
Speaker 1: free public college, healthcare for all, a living wage. These
Speaker 1: are all good things, but what about how we need
Speaker 1: to have universal universal childcare? And this piece, let me
Speaker 1: just say, makes almost no effort. I don't think it
Speaker 1: makes any effort. I just I don't want to give
Speaker 1: you a complete blanket statement there without being but I'm
Speaker 1: pretty sure it makes no I've read through a few times.
Speaker 1: Makes no effort to say, how are you going to
Speaker 1: pay for this? How are you going to pay for this?
Speaker 1: I mean, it tells you that, yes, people spend a
Speaker 1: lot of money in child care in a lot of places,
Speaker 1: and yes, this is a challenge for for young couples
Speaker 1: where you have one person working the other one, you know,
Speaker 1: can't stay home and have their same lifestyle, and they
Speaker 1: but they can't really afford childcare and there's some interesting
Speaker 1: numbers about that, how sixty nine Rather in Alabama, for example,
Speaker 1: the Economic Policy Institute says that it's five thousand, six
Speaker 1: hundred and thirty seven dollars a year for an infant
Speaker 1: and four thousand, eight hundred and seventy one for a
Speaker 1: four year old, which is sixty nine percent of the
Speaker 1: average rent and thirty three percent of the cost of
Speaker 1: in state tuition at a four year college in Alabama. So, yes,
Speaker 1: childcare is expensive. But what about this quaint idea of
Speaker 1: people raising their own children and someone staying home with
Speaker 1: the children. Why do we have to abandon that? Now?
Speaker 1: One of the reasons why we are well, one of
Speaker 1: the things about this that we're not supposed to really
Speaker 1: discuss is that one of the issues with childcare is
Speaker 1: that you have an explosion in the last thirty or
Speaker 1: forty years of single mothers. So that obviously makes the
Speaker 1: stay at home model difficult because stay at home mom
Speaker 1: who wants to work is going to have to have
Speaker 1: somebody who's going to provide childcare. But you know, to
Speaker 1: look at this just as a function of what would
Speaker 1: be good in an economic sense, and I do not
Speaker 1: concede that that's the case, because this would be a
Speaker 1: wildly expensive program, and I don't know how we cannot
Speaker 1: afford the programs we already have. I am here, I
Speaker 1: am being a little get off my lawd on this.
Speaker 1: I know, but we cannot afford the government we already have.
Speaker 1: That is a fact. It's just a question of when
Speaker 1: it all starts coming apart, when the wheels start coming
Speaker 1: off the bus. Might be ten years, might be twenty,
Speaker 1: might be in six months if things get really ugly
Speaker 1: with the economy, who knows, probably more like ten or
Speaker 1: twenty years. But point is, this is now going to
Speaker 1: be another massive entitlement that the left is pushing. And
Speaker 1: I give this guy or in cast I don't know
Speaker 1: who he is, but he's on Twitter. He pointed out
Speaker 1: that if you were to go back in time, back
Speaker 1: to nineteen seventy four, you know, because because the New
Speaker 1: York Times just had this piece on daycare for all
Speaker 1: that was the title over the weekend. Go back to
Speaker 1: nineteen seventy four and a piece in the New York
Speaker 1: Times that talked about a daycare for all program, which
Speaker 1: is what the Soviet Union had. And I just there's
Speaker 1: a lot going on here. I want to read to
Speaker 1: you from this nineteen seventy four op ed in the
Speaker 1: New York Times. Actually, no, I'm sorry, it's not an
Speaker 1: op ed report. It's it's it's a straight news story
Speaker 1: in the New York Times about what it's like in
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union. Quote Zoya Edenko is the model of
Speaker 1: the young Soviet mother liberated by a local daycare center
Speaker 1: that mits her to hold a job with her three
Speaker 1: year old son in a state nursery. She works as
Speaker 1: a guide and teaches English at a night school under
Speaker 1: the highly subsidized Soviet daycare system. Missus Edenko pays a
Speaker 1: modest ten roubles about thirteen dollars per month for six
Speaker 1: days a week of childcare. She drops her boy off
Speaker 1: at about eight am and picks him up at seven pm.
Speaker 1: He gets three meals and a snack daily. Child rearing
Speaker 1: never had much attraction for missus Edenko. I went back
Speaker 1: to work three months after my son was born. She said.
Speaker 1: I could have waited a year legally and still kept
Speaker 1: my job, but it was difficult for me to bring
Speaker 1: up the baby, and I wanted to get out of
Speaker 1: the house. My mother in law lives with us, and
Speaker 1: she took care of him. The very idea that some
Speaker 1: American women want to stay at home and raise their
Speaker 1: own children astonish this thirty year old woman, for her
Speaker 1: work was the only satisfying outlet, and despite her frequent
Speaker 1: contact with English speaking foreign tourists, she knew nothing about
Speaker 1: the range of voluntary and community activities done by non
Speaker 1: working women. Don't American women want to get out of
Speaker 1: the house, she asked, Don't you want to work? Don't
Speaker 1: you want to earn some money and get independence? Privately,
Speaker 1: many educated Soviet mothers take a much more skeptical view
Speaker 1: of the Soviet daycare system and regard the competence of
Speaker 1: most daycare workers as below desirable standards. Now let me
Speaker 1: just let me stop there for a second here, isn't
Speaker 1: this a little eerie? I mean, this is in the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union in the seventies. Really, I guess you could
Speaker 1: argue probably the height in the sixties and seventies, the
Speaker 1: height of this of Soviet power. And this is just
Speaker 1: a report by the New York Times on the universal
Speaker 1: daycare system in the Soviet Union. But notice how there's
Speaker 1: some interesting attitudes among Soviet women, and there's some shortcomings
Speaker 1: and pitfalls of this whole program that come up. The
Speaker 1: women who are more educated and better off in the
Speaker 1: Soviet system do not like the daycare system that they had.
Speaker 1: I think that's certainly interesting, but it goes on the
Speaker 1: idea that some American women want to stay home and
Speaker 1: raise children. Astonished a Russian woman, don't want to get
Speaker 1: out of the house, she asked. The vast majority of
Speaker 1: Soviet families require the salary of a working wife to
Speaker 1: make ends meet. Repeatedly, Soviet citizens expressed astonishment when they
Speaker 1: learn that an American father can support a family of two, three,
Speaker 1: or even four children without his wife's working. Many are
Speaker 1: also surprised that American women would willingly have more than
Speaker 1: one child. That is suicide, said one fort year old mother.
Speaker 1: Even with a preschool group for our daughter, we have
Speaker 1: a hard time coping. Others have little choice in the
Speaker 1: matter for financial reasons. One young father reported putting an
Speaker 1: eight month old baby into a nursery rather than waiting
Speaker 1: because the financial strain was too great. Without the wife working,
Speaker 1: this man earned roughly double the average family workers salary
Speaker 1: of one hundred and forty rubles or one hundred and
Speaker 1: eighty six dollars a month. You know I think this
Speaker 1: is you start to see this year and they call
Speaker 1: them upbringers, by the way, that's what they call the
Speaker 1: people that work in these facilities. But you start to see, how,
Speaker 1: what should we be thinking about when we when we
Speaker 1: talk about this issue of universal daycare? If if I
Speaker 1: had told these these people back in the nineteen seventies
Speaker 1: that we would win the Cold War, and or in
Speaker 1: cass On on the Sky on Twitter, he's a blue
Speaker 1: check on Twitter. I know who he is, but he
Speaker 1: points us out if we had won the Cold War.
Speaker 1: And you know, you go forward a few decades and
Speaker 1: now in America, it's the norm for you know, in
Speaker 1: the seventies, Americans stayed home, and or rather American women,
Speaker 1: a lot of them stayed home, and that was fine.
Speaker 1: And once salary, I don't know a lot of families,
Speaker 1: it feels like where one salary is sufficient. So we've
Speaker 1: had all this economic progress, We've had all this growth
Speaker 1: and explosion of wealth, but our society now is increasingly
Speaker 1: set up to have a two income earning household in
Speaker 1: order to support a middle class lifestyle. That's I don't
Speaker 1: have an answer to that. I just think that that's noteworthy.
Speaker 1: I think that that's interesting, and I appreciate it that
Speaker 1: some folks are looking at this and saying, hold on
Speaker 1: a second, something is wrong here. Now. I mentioned that
Speaker 1: the explosion in unwed mothers in this country has led
Speaker 1: to a lot of people point too, and this is
Speaker 1: not you know, I know they're single mothers who are
Speaker 1: listening to this. This is not to disparage any individual
Speaker 1: at all, but statistically, single mothers, particularly single mothers from
Speaker 1: poor communities, who live in particularly poor high crime zip codes,
Speaker 1: are there there children, they're male. Children are very likely
Speaker 1: much more likely than children from any ethnicity and from
Speaker 1: any socioeconomic status, from a two parent household to have
Speaker 1: serious problems with crime and all these other things. So,
Speaker 1: you know, the social science on this is pretty clear
Speaker 1: on the social research. But you know, you at so
Speaker 1: you have you have a lot of single mothers, and
Speaker 1: then you also have this economic expectation that you're going
Speaker 1: to have to a two income or earning household. I mean,
Speaker 1: I think you could look at wages and you know,
Speaker 1: where are real wages now compared to where they were then.
Speaker 1: And this is a complicated economic argument, but it's just
Speaker 1: you know, in the seventies, one you know, you could
Speaker 1: stay home and have three kids. You know, a mom
Speaker 1: could stay home, raised three or four kids, husband working
Speaker 1: middle class job. That would work. I don't see that
Speaker 1: as much these days, and certainly that translates into argument.
Speaker 1: Then there then there's this other part of it, and
Speaker 1: this is where you really are going to see the problem.
Speaker 1: I think with having a daycare for all model as
Speaker 1: they did in the Soviet Union, folks didn't exactly work
Speaker 1: out great for them, she says. A mother of a
Speaker 1: seven year old girl, this is back to the quote
Speaker 1: from his Peace, said she found a privately run play
Speaker 1: group which was technically semi illegal because of Sylvia with Union,
Speaker 1: for her daughter because she felt the upbringers in these
Speaker 1: state institutions were poorly qualified. Another mother with three children
Speaker 1: said she objected to the extensive indoctrination in state nurseries
Speaker 1: and kindergartens with their songs about the motherland, lenin and
Speaker 1: border guards on watch against hostile foreigners. Still, others said
Speaker 1: they disliked having children raised so much by people outside
Speaker 1: of the family during their early formative years. Women conceded
Speaker 1: that the concerns were those of a minority of educated,
Speaker 1: middle class intellectuals. Yeah, you don't say so. In the Union,
Speaker 1: the people who had a higher level of education, a
Speaker 1: higher level of most likely economic and intellectual freedom. We're
Speaker 1: like this whole daycare for all thing is not a
Speaker 1: good idea. People are not good at their jobs, the
Speaker 1: children are not bonding with the mother and with the
Speaker 1: family the way they should, and there's indoctrination that's going on. Now.
Speaker 1: I'm sure that the left would make an argument here
Speaker 1: that we would do our our government would do a
Speaker 1: better job in this than the Soviet Union would. But
Speaker 1: I also would want to say that the problems of
Speaker 1: indoctrination and of incredible expense and of you know, think
Speaker 1: of like the VA for babies, you know, meaning that
Speaker 1: a state run institution that is supposed to provide you
Speaker 1: care and services. But the VA is only for obviously
Speaker 1: for medical needs and for veterans and a a small percentage
Speaker 1: of the the pulation. But that's a really state run enterprise.
Speaker 1: It's got a lot of problems. Imagine if you expanded
Speaker 1: that out, you know, times ten or twenty x, and
Speaker 1: we're trying to provide care and watching and feeding and
Speaker 1: nursing and all this stuff too babies across the country.
Speaker 1: I don't think the state would do a good job
Speaker 1: of this. I don't think that the state should be
Speaker 1: in the business of promoting this, which I know is
Speaker 1: probably very contentious. And I also know for sure we
Speaker 1: can't find ways to pay for this without dramatically raising taxes,
Speaker 1: which even people say they want this don't want to
Speaker 1: do so. A view of the Soviet daycare for all
Speaker 1: program in the nineteen seventies and now the fight over
Speaker 1: daycare for all today in the pages of the New
Speaker 1: York Times, and I like a little little trip down
Speaker 1: memory lane for everybody there. I hope you found that instructive.
Speaker 1: A little bit of a little bit of the history
Speaker 1: can sometimes illuminate our present in interesting ways. We're back.
Speaker 1: It's the fact that someone within the White House spent
Speaker 1: three months collecting this information, which is really really hard
Speaker 1: to do, and it also sends sheds light and the
Speaker 1: fact that many people who work for us weren't hired
Speaker 1: for us, and how close you're definding who did it.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping to have a resolution on that this week
Speaker 1: when it find that person of persons, and it's likely
Speaker 1: going to be a career staff. Are you going to
Speaker 1: learn a lot about how hard it is to fire
Speaker 1: federal workers. You know, people say, Buck, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't like the term deep state. The president himself
Speaker 1: told me, what was it now for four or five
Speaker 1: months ago. I don't like the term deep state. It's conspiratorial.
Speaker 1: I actually think it's a pretty accurate description of someone
Speaker 1: what we see in the federal government. And I used
Speaker 1: to work in the federal government, so I know something
Speaker 1: about this. And you know, this is yet another instance
Speaker 1: of something that just does not happen to Democrats when
Speaker 1: they're in office, in that is sabotage from the inside.
Speaker 1: It is a uniquely left wing democratic approach to an issue,
Speaker 1: approach to an administration, approach to politics, that when you
Speaker 1: are a federal bureaucrat, you would take it upon yourself
Speaker 1: to either leak really sensitive information to obstruct presidential orders
Speaker 1: and plans. And we keep seeing this happen. I cannot
Speaker 1: remember this happening a single time during the eight years
Speaker 1: of the Obama administration. I do not remember somebody leaking
Speaker 1: the president's confidential schedule at any point. And we know
Speaker 1: that this keeps happening with Trump. And it's just indicative
Speaker 1: of the fact that you have a major confluence, an
Speaker 1: ideological alignment of statists with the party of the state,
Speaker 1: which is the Democratic Party. So if you're somebody who
Speaker 1: really believes that government should be bigger and more involved
Speaker 1: and more that the federal government is incredibly necessary in
Speaker 1: all of its missions, not in it's just core missions,
Speaker 1: and it's constitutionally mended in every Department of Education, Department
Speaker 1: of Health and Human Services. You know, you break down
Speaker 1: all these different things, all of that is oh so necessary.
Speaker 1: We should have even more, and we should celebrate all
Speaker 1: of our federal bureaucrats. If you think those things, you're
Speaker 1: a Democrat. And if you're a Democrat who thinks those things,
Speaker 1: you don't like Trump. I think that's quite obvious. But
Speaker 1: you know, Mick Mulvaney said that the League of Trump's schedule,
Speaker 1: which led to all these idiot pundits saying, oh, Trump
Speaker 1: doesn't even do his job. It doesn't even do his job.
Speaker 1: Can they just figure out is Trump an evil genius
Speaker 1: who's single handedly destroying the world and destroying America? Or
Speaker 1: is he just a lazy fozo eating cheeseburgers all day.
Speaker 1: It can't be both. I just want them to at
Speaker 1: least be consistent in their stupidity, like pick one flavor
Speaker 1: of stupid libs. But Trump isn't paranoid. They are out
Speaker 1: to get him, and I think that we see yet
Speaker 1: another instance of it with this leak of a schedule.
Speaker 1: I hope they find out who did it. I doubt
Speaker 1: they will. Yeah, yeah, I know people have heard of
Speaker 1: the AAARP. It's a pretty well known organization. But what's
Speaker 1: not nearly as well known is that the AARP is
Speaker 1: pretty much for retired Libs. Whether they know it or not.
Speaker 1: That's what they're pushing over. There a lot of liberal
Speaker 1: agenda items under the guys of oh, we're just trying
Speaker 1: to help out and represent seniors. I got a better
Speaker 1: idea for you, AMAC. Why do I recommend AMAC? Well,
Speaker 1: AMAC gives you all the benefits of AARP, but it
Speaker 1: supports your values. It's not some liberal left wing organization.
Speaker 1: So you get the discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistants,
Speaker 1: dental plans, but you're also supporting an organization that is
Speaker 1: pushing for fixing social security, border protection, lower taxes, stuff
Speaker 1: you believe in. Stand with AMAC as they fight the
Speaker 1: good fight by becoming a member today, joined right now
Speaker 1: at amac dot us slash buck. That's am ac us
Speaker 1: slash book. AMAC is better better for you, better for America.
Speaker 1: Most of the things that have always been aggravating to
Speaker 1: me is that we have had a policy that makes
Speaker 1: one superior to the other, and we mask it with
Speaker 1: a conversation that's about justice and two state solution. When
Speaker 1: you have policies that clearly prioritize one over the other.
Speaker 1: When I see Israel, you will institute law that recognizes
Speaker 1: it as a as a as a Jewish state and
Speaker 1: does not recognize um the other religions that are that
Speaker 1: are living in it, and we still uphold it as
Speaker 1: a democracy in the Middle East. I almost chuckle because
Speaker 1: I know that if you know we we say we
Speaker 1: see that in any other society, we would criticize it,
Speaker 1: we would call it out. We do that to Iran,
Speaker 1: We do that to any other place that sort of
Speaker 1: upholds its religion. Oh. The Democrats are so excited about
Speaker 1: some of their new congressmen and congresswomen, particularly the females,
Speaker 1: and the diversity of the incoming class. And now I
Speaker 1: have to say that they've run into a couple of
Speaker 1: problems here. For example, Ilohan Omar. She is an immigrant
Speaker 1: to this country. I believe she's a Somali, and then
Speaker 1: went to Kenya, as many Somalis do, to flee the
Speaker 1: situation there, and then moved to Minnesota. She is now
Speaker 1: amer of Congress. She seems to have some problems though,
Speaker 1: with Israel and Jews. She recently said, and we talked
Speaker 1: on the show, that Israel has hypnotized the world, which
Speaker 1: seemed certainly suspect, and then in responds to influence of
Speaker 1: pro Israeli lobby in this country, she tweeted out, it
Speaker 1: is all about the Benjamins. Well, some people did not
Speaker 1: like that obvious reference to cold hard cash and Jews
Speaker 1: and Israel. In fact, a lot of people, including people
Speaker 1: on her own party. So she has now apologized. She wrote,
Speaker 1: anti Semitism Israel. This was today, and I'm grateful for
Speaker 1: Jewish allies and colleagues who are educating me on the
Speaker 1: painful history of anti Semitic tropes. As if she didn't know.
Speaker 1: My intention is never to offend my constituents or Jewish
Speaker 1: Americans as a whole. We have to always be willing
Speaker 1: to step back end thing through criticism, just as I
Speaker 1: expect people to hear me when others attack me for
Speaker 1: my identity. This is why I unequivocally apologize. At the
Speaker 1: same time, oh, look at that, I reaffirmed the problematic
Speaker 1: role of lobbyists in our politics, whether it be APAC,
Speaker 1: the NRA, or the fossil fuel industry, because I guess
Speaker 1: those are the only lobbyists. It's gone on too long.
Speaker 1: We must address it. So do we accept this apology?
Speaker 1: And why is Ilhan Omar acceptable to the Democratic Party
Speaker 1: even though she definitely doesn't like Israel and I think
Speaker 1: she kind of doesn't like Jews. I think that might
Speaker 1: be fair to say. But I want to bring on
Speaker 1: my friend David Harsanyi, who is a senior editor at
Speaker 1: the Federal to shed light on this issue. He wrote
Speaker 1: a piece the Democrats anti Semitism problem isn't going away.
Speaker 1: Mister Harsan You always good to have you on the program.
Speaker 1: Thank you for having me. Um so, I got sorry
Speaker 1: about the long winded intro there. I just want to
Speaker 1: set some of the table here before I, you know,
Speaker 1: hand the feast over to you. Tell me, I mean,
Speaker 1: is Ihan Omar an anti Semite? From what we see
Speaker 1: so far? Is that fair to say? Oh, I think
Speaker 1: she's an anti Semite, because it's not some slip of
Speaker 1: the tongue or some sort of you know, trope that
Speaker 1: is that you can confuse in some way. I mean,
Speaker 1: and she said this before, and she's everything she said
Speaker 1: seems leads me to believe she's an anti Semite. But
Speaker 1: the thing is, it's not the tropes that are the
Speaker 1: biggest problem in my estimation. Those tropes are manifestations of
Speaker 1: her of her belief that Israel and the Jewish state
Speaker 1: should not exist, which to me is a functionally anti
Speaker 1: Semitic and far more serious position than making, you know,
Speaker 1: than throwing some one line or is it at Jews.
Speaker 1: So to me, that's the main problem, and that's why
Speaker 1: it's simply apologizing for saying something stupid out loud is
Speaker 1: not really enough and it doesn't really speak to anything. Now,
Speaker 1: obviously there's some interesting there's some interesting dynamics at play
Speaker 1: when it comes to American politics and support for Israel,
Speaker 1: because you have some you know, you have some Democrats
Speaker 1: who are very supportive of Israel. You have some democrats,
Speaker 1: including Jewish democrats, who are deeply critical of Israel, and
Speaker 1: people like Ilhan Omar Will point to the Democrats who
Speaker 1: are also I mean Glenn Greenwald, for example, Jewish and credible.
Speaker 1: You know it is really an Israel Basher. I don't
Speaker 1: even think it's critical. I mean he has a problem
Speaker 1: with the state of Israel and so ilhan Omar will
Speaker 1: point to someone like a Glenn Greenwald and say, see,
Speaker 1: I'm not the only one who thinks that Israel's in
Speaker 1: apartheid state or is engaged in horrible oppression. I mean,
Speaker 1: how do you how do you untangle all those threats? David, Well,
Speaker 1: it's difficult because I I don't think any serious person
Speaker 1: that has ever said that being critical of Israel is
Speaker 1: makes you an anti Semite. Obviously, you know, Israel has
Speaker 1: had many different kinds of governments, including socialist governments that
Speaker 1: people have been critical of and from all sides. The
Speaker 1: problem for me, at least my view, is that if
Speaker 1: you though believe that the very project of Israel is
Speaker 1: a Jewish state is somehow false, or you know, a colony,
Speaker 1: or you know whatever, then you are being anti Semitic.
Speaker 1: Jews need a state to defend themselves. History has proven
Speaker 1: this over and over again, and denying them that ability
Speaker 1: to have that state, I think is anti Semitic in
Speaker 1: its own way. It doesn't necessarily mean you're always, you know,
Speaker 1: some big Jew hater, but in the end, that's what
Speaker 1: it is. Hate the bashround people like Greenwald or whatever.
Speaker 1: But I mean, I think it's it's pretty obvious that
Speaker 1: that wing of the progressive movement are you know, have
Speaker 1: a problem with Jews in general, and it doesn't matter
Speaker 1: if you're Jewish or not. There are plenty of self
Speaker 1: hating Jews. Karl Marx was a self hating Jew and
Speaker 1: others as well, who you know, those people probably admire
Speaker 1: in some way. So yeah, I mean, I give Greenwald
Speaker 1: credit at least for being he's at least interesting in
Speaker 1: that he doesn't always he's not just not on the
Speaker 1: topic of Israel, but just in general. Like on Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: he will call it out for the lunacy that it is.
Speaker 1: But then on Israel or Greenwald and I have actually,
Speaker 1: you know, have actually clashed before because I mean I
Speaker 1: think he's he actually has a sort of fondness for
Speaker 1: terrorists that comes across I mean, if you are a
Speaker 1: radical Islamist psychopath, Glenn Greenwald will find a way to
Speaker 1: explain how you're not that bad, which is obviously sets
Speaker 1: me off in all the wrong ways. But in Russia collusion,
Speaker 1: he's good. I mean, you know, you have look. I
Speaker 1: like people who are free thinkers, or at least I
Speaker 1: like the thought process that they engage in. But for
Speaker 1: someone like you can't fall into a soul and know
Speaker 1: what he thinks about Jews or not right, I mean,
Speaker 1: but the bottom line is, and I do agree with
Speaker 1: everything you just said. I think he's actually far more
Speaker 1: interesting and maybe far more honest than many other progressives.
Speaker 1: I think that that's great. And but the bottom line
Speaker 1: is he seems to be I think, at least from
Speaker 1: reading him, that terrorists, you know, Hamas to al Kaita
Speaker 1: to anyone else, has a legitimate case of you as
Speaker 1: a legitimate case to do what they do because of
Speaker 1: American imperialism or Israeli imperialism or whatever. And I think
Speaker 1: that's a really a moral position to take. So that's
Speaker 1: my problem with him, is yeah, no, Look, and I
Speaker 1: brought his name into this conversation, so I just kind
Speaker 1: of wanted to give a fuller context for what I
Speaker 1: read again as his views, and also have debated him,
Speaker 1: you know, once or twice in the past. But on
Speaker 1: this point about the rising anti semitism, is there a
Speaker 1: rising anti semitism Democratic Party? I mean, I think I've
Speaker 1: seen Mark Levince some other folks saying that this isn't
Speaker 1: just a thing, it's a thing that's getting worse. Do
Speaker 1: you see that as the case or are we just
Speaker 1: seeing it now? Because you know, we can look back
Speaker 1: and look at photos of say Obama shaking Farakhan's hand,
Speaker 1: or look at Farakhan's Twitter account and see it is
Speaker 1: not suspended, but learn to code, We'll get you suspended.
Speaker 1: Is it getting worse or we just more aware of it?
Speaker 1: On the left? Definitely getting worse. I mean, I'm not
Speaker 1: a spring chicken, right, I've been around. I know what
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party was like then and now. I think
Speaker 1: Obama had a lot to do. Listen, Obama's a reflection
Speaker 1: of where the Democrats were going. He's not a person.
Speaker 1: I mean, he led in that direction as well, but
Speaker 1: obviously it's also a reflection of voters. And I think
Speaker 1: we saw it then and he's now changed the entire
Speaker 1: dynamic of Israel's support in America. If you notice, it's
Speaker 1: kind of like even right now in the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: it's kind of young against old in a way. The
Speaker 1: younger freshmen a lot of them are, you know, very
Speaker 1: reluctant to say anything bad about you know, Omar or
Speaker 1: anyone else like that. But it's the older sort of
Speaker 1: people who do. I think that's the split and progressives
Speaker 1: because they're hard left or anti Israel because they view
Speaker 1: it as a colonizing force. And with that comes a
Speaker 1: lot of anti Semitism, and it always has. We've seen
Speaker 1: it on college campuses, and now it's bleeding into mainstream politics.
Speaker 1: And you know, there's Rashida to Leab as well, who
Speaker 1: I don't know. I don't know who. I mean, do
Speaker 1: you have an opinion on who's been more egregious in
Speaker 1: this regard to Leab or Omar? Are they pretty much
Speaker 1: in the same boat. I think they're in the same boat,
Speaker 1: and those are obviously she's a you know, she's a
Speaker 1: Palestinian and she has sort of you know, perhaps you
Speaker 1: could forgive that a bit, even though I think she's
Speaker 1: completely wrong on the reasons why these things are happening.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't want to forgive her, but maybe
Speaker 1: some people might want to um. But in the end
Speaker 1: we have to judge people and the things they say
Speaker 1: in the positions they take, and both you know, we didn't.
Speaker 1: We just learned today that she had written for a
Speaker 1: Farercon newspaper in two thousand and six. You imagine, Uh,
Speaker 1: can you imagine a Republican congressman writing for the David
Speaker 1: Duth newsletter and then being able to just scirt by
Speaker 1: and no one, you know, even finding that, no one
Speaker 1: even fact checking that op war research. Nothing. Um, it's
Speaker 1: just it's it's hard to imagine. Yeah, and you know,
Speaker 1: and this is this gets into an area where where
Speaker 1: I mean, I have some opinions from my previous life,
Speaker 1: and I think, you know, because because they're a there's
Speaker 1: a On the one hand, I think that Omar and
Speaker 1: to Lab they're new. They they there's this excitement around them,
Speaker 1: their women and their minorities. So there's this this particular,
Speaker 1: you know, this particular shroud of protection around them. You know,
Speaker 1: they can get away with saying more. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think I think that that's patently obvious. But you know,
Speaker 1: you touched on a couple things with Omar. I found
Speaker 1: an interesting that one this is Somali who lived in Kenya.
Speaker 1: I mean she she had a somewhat similar route in
Speaker 1: that sense to on her CLI, who I think is
Speaker 1: brilliant and has really changed the global discourse in some
Speaker 1: ways on some of these issues about Islam specifically. But
Speaker 1: her fixation on Israel is one telling and two telling,
Speaker 1: as in, I think it tells us a lot about
Speaker 1: what she really thinks because it doesn't come from a Palestinian,
Speaker 1: you know, she doesn't have any personal connection to Israel
Speaker 1: or interaction with Israel at all. But beyond that, David,
Speaker 1: the Muslim world is full of I mean, I'm the
Speaker 1: Muslim world is there's a lot lot of people in
Speaker 1: the Muslim world who are deeply anti Semitic, I mean,
Speaker 1: and anybody who says otherwise does not know what the
Speaker 1: heck they are talking about. No, I mean, I don't
Speaker 1: know if anyone's done to Poland in the United States,
Speaker 1: where I think this, you know, the Muslim community has
Speaker 1: is not probably that way, but you know, across the
Speaker 1: world it's very different. It's high, high levels of anti Semitism.
Speaker 1: Seventy eighty percent of people are So that's a problem,
Speaker 1: and and it's it's something we're not allowed to talk about.
Speaker 1: Like every time I mentioned Omar I'm told she's the
Speaker 1: first Muslim congresswoman, as if that somehow should should dissuade
Speaker 1: me from being critical of her. I don't care if
Speaker 1: she's the first Martian in Congress. It doesn't matter. When
Speaker 1: you're saying crazy things, that's it's it's unfortunate actually that
Speaker 1: she's that kind of person. But she's an anti Semite,
Speaker 1: and you know, we act like she's twelve years old
Speaker 1: and she's learning. She's a thirty seven year old woman
Speaker 1: elected to Congress. She doesn't know how not to be
Speaker 1: a bigot yet. I mean, I think that that's just unlikely. So, um,
Speaker 1: I just think we think this causes any problems from
Speaker 1: a from a like a political electoral you know, who's
Speaker 1: going to win elections perspective. Does this this cause issues
Speaker 1: you think for the Democrats? I don't know. Um, probably
Speaker 1: not many, frankly, because you know, it's it's complicated. But
Speaker 1: there's been a long term project on the left in
Speaker 1: the Jewish community to disconnect Jews from Israel, to disconnect
Speaker 1: them actually from their faith in a way and pretend
Speaker 1: that Judaism is just sort of an outgrowth of liberalism.
Speaker 1: And this is obviously a longer discussion. But I think
Speaker 1: that's bearing fruit. And I'm not saying all Jews are
Speaker 1: that way, but you know, the reform movement, for instance,
Speaker 1: within Judaism is actually just a liberal advocacy group at
Speaker 1: this point, and it's it's really distressing that we can't
Speaker 1: sort of keep those you know, segregate those communities into
Speaker 1: you know, and compartmentalize our faith in our politics, because
Speaker 1: politics and faith now are almost the same thing from
Speaker 1: most people. David Harsani, everybody check out his latest at
Speaker 1: the Federalist. He is taking the Democrats to task for
Speaker 1: their anti Semitism problem. David always good to have you all,
Speaker 1: my friends. Thanks for making the time, Thanks for having
Speaker 1: me man today. We'll be back in just a moment. Folks,
Speaker 1: my friends. Three days left until Valentines And I know
Speaker 1: you can get flowers from all these different places, but
Speaker 1: don't you want the most beautiful, aromatic, eye popping, perfect roses.
Speaker 1: That's what I want. That's why I've hooked up Miss Molly.
Speaker 1: Don't tell her it's a secret, with two dozen beautiful
Speaker 1: roses to be delivered on Valentine's Day from one eight
Speaker 1: hundred flowers. Guys, gals, this is the way to go. Okay,
Speaker 1: I order every year on Valentines from my rose authority
Speaker 1: one eight hundred flowers dot com. I recommend you do too.
Speaker 1: Get on it now, don't wait to order eighteen red
Speaker 1: roses for Valentine's Day for your sweetheart for only twenty
Speaker 1: nine ninety nine or upgrade to twenty four so assorted
Speaker 1: roses plus of a's for ten dollars more. Go to
Speaker 1: one eight hundred flowers dot com. Click the radio icon
Speaker 1: it enter code buck. That's one eight hundred flowers dot com.
Speaker 1: Enter promo code buck. You got a hurry. Gotta jump
Speaker 1: on this right now, because the offer expires today in
Speaker 1: our nation's heartland, at a time when we must heal
Speaker 1: the heart of our democracy and renew our commitment to
Speaker 1: the common good. I stand before you as the granddaughter
Speaker 1: of an iron R. Miner, as the daughter of a
Speaker 1: teacher and a newspaperman, as the first woman elected to
Speaker 1: the United States Senate from the state of Minnesota to
Speaker 1: announced my Canada's favorite president of So if you missed it,
Speaker 1: that was Amy Klobshar from Minnesota. I think she was
Speaker 1: the one. I think that my my buddy Pete Hegseth
Speaker 1: from Fox News. He ran for senate. When I first
Speaker 1: met him, he had just on for senate in Minnesota.
Speaker 1: He lost in the primary, but I think Cloba schar
Speaker 1: was the one who beat the guy who won in
Speaker 1: that primary. But anyway, so Cloba Shark. That was the
Speaker 1: first time I heard of her. And you know, now
Speaker 1: she's she's out there. I hope I have I might
Speaker 1: I might have that one wrong. Don't quote me on that,
Speaker 1: but I think I'm right. Um. But now she's announced
Speaker 1: that she's running for president, and it was amazing because
Speaker 1: she announced it and it's, oh, it's very Minnesota. Yeah
Speaker 1: uh she and the Minnesota's listening to this, like Buck,
Speaker 1: don't even try your Minnesota. Your Minnesota accent game is
Speaker 1: so weak. Don't channel um. But I sound a little
Speaker 1: bit like a bad missus doubtfire when I'm trying to
Speaker 1: sound like I'm from Minnesota. Here's the thing, I always
Speaker 1: assume everybody from Minnesota is so nice. All. I used
Speaker 1: to go camping in Minnesota with my dad and my brothers.
Speaker 1: We went for years. Elie men Eli Eli Eli. That's right,
Speaker 1: Eli not eli eli. Minnesota. We went for years and
Speaker 1: critical boundary of the boundary waters, the critical Wilderness area.
Speaker 1: I remember going up there and everybody in Minnesota was
Speaker 1: so nice. What happened up there though, where the state
Speaker 1: has gone practically communist. That's part one. It has the
Speaker 1: climate of Siberia, that's part two. And you know, some
Speaker 1: of these people are come out of you are not
Speaker 1: that nice, at least the Democrats. You get Al Franken,
Speaker 1: a mean, nasty, grasping groper, and now you got Klobaschar
Speaker 1: who it turns out, is not a nice lady. I
Speaker 1: can tell you this. Whenever you hear stories about somebody
Speaker 1: who's a Democrat, if it's a Republican, they'll be like
Speaker 1: video evidence of it, and they'll do expose as in
Speaker 1: the front page. You'll you'll see a Republican being mean
Speaker 1: to staff. You'll know about it, right. But whenever you
Speaker 1: see stories about a Democrat in media, politics, Hollywood, even
Speaker 1: any of it, about how they're abusive to staff, it's
Speaker 1: almost always true. I mean, I can't think of a
Speaker 1: time where I read about a Democrat who maybe was
Speaker 1: abusive to staff and it didn't turn out, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: that person's a person's a terror. The Cruella Deville of
Speaker 1: Democrat politics and Amy klobaschar Man. I hated Kula Deville.
Speaker 1: She wanted to make all those cute puppies, all those
Speaker 1: cute Dalmatians into a coat. Side note, Dalmatians really beautiful
Speaker 1: to look at. Not very nice dogs in terms of
Speaker 1: their temperament. And the Dalmatian owners out there. You can
Speaker 1: get mad at me if you want. I read this
Speaker 1: stuff from the American Kennel Club. But I'm telling you
Speaker 1: yours maybe sweet, you're you're fufu or rufous or whatever,
Speaker 1: may be adorable, but generally Dalmatians are known to not
Speaker 1: have a particularly sweet temperament. I'm just telling I just
Speaker 1: bring you the truth, folks, I just bring you the truth. Anyway,
Speaker 1: I didn't like Krola Deville, and I don't think I'm
Speaker 1: gonna like Amy klobaschar who gave this announcement. It's because
Speaker 1: all the stories now about how she throws objects. I mean,
Speaker 1: she's not just nasty to staff. She throws objects at staff,
Speaker 1: like she threw a purse at a staff member. She
Speaker 1: people quit in tears because she's so mean and so nasty.
Speaker 1: And I'm telling you the media covers us up because
Speaker 1: they'll say, oh, it's sexist to criticize a woman for
Speaker 1: being mean. If she were a man, they would just
Speaker 1: say he's being assertive. No, that's not true. I have
Speaker 1: very colorful language for a lot of men that I
Speaker 1: know in media in particular, who treat their staffs badly. Okay,
Speaker 1: I do not. I do not say that, Oh, so
Speaker 1: and so is assertive, like Keith Olberman was famously vicious
Speaker 1: to his staff, Like anybody in media knew that. Nobody
Speaker 1: said that he was assertive. They said he was an
Speaker 1: sob pos Okay, So I hate this this nonsense argument.
Speaker 1: Oh they're just saying she's a woman. No, I'm sure
Speaker 1: she's nasty. But I like how Trump said she announced this,
Speaker 1: and he said Amy Klobisher announced she's running for president,
Speaker 1: talking proudly of fighting global warming while standing in a
Speaker 1: virtual blizzard of snow, ice and freezing temperatures. Bad timing.
Speaker 1: By the end of her see you looked like a
Speaker 1: snowman woman Trump. Sometimes Trump, I just gotta say it, man,
Speaker 1: you complete me. I hate awards ceremonies. I really think
Speaker 1: that when you get beyond high school, we should get
Speaker 1: rid of awards ceremonies. Okay, so before we dive into
Speaker 1: this discussion. A couple of exceptions. Military awards, military decorations
Speaker 1: not a part of this discussion. Okay, awards for real things,
Speaker 1: for real heroism, you know that that's that's something else.
Speaker 1: Obviously we'll put that aside. But awards for the arts
Speaker 1: and for media, I just I just don't get it.
Speaker 1: And I do feel like people in the media, because
Speaker 1: they're so both insecure and so in love with themselves
Speaker 1: at the same time, that's why you have all this stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, whenever I hear somebody say, now you know
Speaker 1: I was on a show that Emmy nominated, I'm always like, okay, well,
Speaker 1: were you nominated for Best Actor or were you just
Speaker 1: on the staff of the show that got nominated? Like
Speaker 1: is that? I mean, if you're the catering guy on
Speaker 1: the Emmy nominated you know, Big Bang Theory or something,
Speaker 1: I'm happy for your professional success, but I don't think
Speaker 1: that we need to hear about how you are Emmy nominated.
Speaker 1: Feel the same way about all these journalists and these
Speaker 1: journalism awards. Oh I got a Pulitzer or I got
Speaker 1: a Peabody, I got there's all these different I can't
Speaker 1: even keep track of all this stuff. Who cares? You know,
Speaker 1: the upside of writing a great piece is a lot
Speaker 1: of people reading it and maybe you having some sort
Speaker 1: of influence on an important issue or on a national conversation,
Speaker 1: or just showing the best of your craft. And I
Speaker 1: just feel like most most of you listening, for example,
Speaker 1: whatever your job is, the reward for a job well
Speaker 1: done is being good at your job and knowing that
Speaker 1: and getting paid to do that job that you're good at,
Speaker 1: whatever that job is. And you know, I wish that
Speaker 1: we in our culture more of a celebration of just
Speaker 1: being good at what you do, whatever that is. You know,
Speaker 1: this is some of you will probably think of the movie,
Speaker 1: or if you've seen it, you'll think back to, you know,
Speaker 1: Jiro Dreams of Sushi, which is a really really good
Speaker 1: documentary about one of the most famous, famous little sushi
Speaker 1: restaurants in the world that's in a subway stop in Tokyo.
Speaker 1: I forget what it's called. The main guys obviously named Jiro,
Speaker 1: and you know, he has this apprentice who spends ten
Speaker 1: years trying to make the perfect tomago, which is the
Speaker 1: little egg custard, and after ten years finally wons his
Speaker 1: mentor Jiro, who's the most amazing sushi chef you know
Speaker 1: in the world, etc. Get He finally gets it right
Speaker 1: and he tells him this is right, and he cries,
Speaker 1: Now you don't have to necessarily cry because you make
Speaker 1: your tomago perfectly. But whatever you're doing doing that thing,
Speaker 1: I think it's Saint Francis dis Sails who says, be
Speaker 1: exactly who you are and be that perfectly, or do
Speaker 1: not wish to be anything but what you are, and
Speaker 1: be that perfectly. That's why then this whole award ceremony
Speaker 1: thing for these many times like this is my long
Speaker 1: way of saying, I didn't even know the Grammys were
Speaker 1: all last night. I woke up this morning, I went
Speaker 1: to do rising and they're like, are we gonna do
Speaker 1: a segment on the Grammys? Like what? What? Well, it
Speaker 1: turns out that I'm not the only one and all
Speaker 1: time low for the in the demo, at least for
Speaker 1: the Grammys. I just don't understand why people care about this,
Speaker 1: And I guess more and more people are agreeing with
Speaker 1: me because it just strikes me as incredibly self indulgent
Speaker 1: and unnecessary and self referential, just the whole thing. Also,
Speaker 1: I think the state of American music right now is
Speaker 1: a country music aside, because I don't know anything about
Speaker 1: country music, which is something that I should really address
Speaker 1: some of you right now. We're booing me, and I
Speaker 1: earned that. I did start listening to punk rock recently,
Speaker 1: old punk rock, like the New York Dolls and the Ramones,
Speaker 1: and because I didn't really and so if any of
Speaker 1: you have country rock suggestions for me, like really great
Speaker 1: contemporary contemporary country music, country music, and if I said
Speaker 1: country rock country music, uh, send it to me Facebook
Speaker 1: dot Com, slash Buck, sexon. Because other than country, which
Speaker 1: I cannot speak to, I think the state of music
Speaker 1: in America right now is pretty terrible. So I definitely
Speaker 1: didn't watch the Grammys, but I do want to do
Speaker 1: roll call in a moment. Hey, team Buck, it's time
Speaker 1: for roll call. You know. I started listening to some
Speaker 1: dubstep again. I'm I'm I'm not gonna lie to you guys.
Speaker 1: I didn't even like that expression, because I never lie
Speaker 1: to you guys. But I can't lie to you. But
Speaker 1: listen to some dove step as I work out, and
Speaker 1: if you pick the right stuff, I think you can
Speaker 1: actually do a pretty good job. So We have Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck Sexton for those of you who
Speaker 1: like to get in on the role call action. First
Speaker 1: off is andres rets Hottie Buck getting caught up on
Speaker 1: your podcast. Currently on a monument to left wing idiocy,
Speaker 1: I thought to note something about AOC. AOC may be
Speaker 1: great at theatrics, but primarily to those that relate or
Speaker 1: have a tendency to absorb abstract left wing concepts. As such,
Speaker 1: I don't believe she the individual is at the heart
Speaker 1: of this political hallucination. Just a thought, what if senior
Speaker 1: Democrats find AOC to be the perfect canary in the
Speaker 1: coal mine to test Operation Crazy Eyes. In this way,
Speaker 1: they can test the waters to essentially see what happens
Speaker 1: so others don't have to risk further embarrassment. AOC will
Speaker 1: get these support and coaching she needs in order to
Speaker 1: function as the conductor on the crazy train. She'll do it,
Speaker 1: She'll say anything. It's an interesting theory. I mean, I
Speaker 1: think that AOC really believes she's not knowledgeable enough to
Speaker 1: not believe what she's saying and still say it, or rather,
Speaker 1: she's not knowledge enough to be cynical about what she's saying.
Speaker 1: That's what I was trying to say, I don't think
Speaker 1: that she even knows how wrong she is and what
Speaker 1: she says she believes based on the way that she
Speaker 1: says that says things, and also just the the approach
Speaker 1: of the social justice left, I can hear it in
Speaker 1: her voice. I mean, she is steeped in the approach
Speaker 1: to not just politics but life that you get from
Speaker 1: HuffPo and Salon dot Com and Talking Points, Memo and
Speaker 1: Daily Co's. And I have a whole I think I've
Speaker 1: mentioned this to before. I have a whole left wing
Speaker 1: web browser that I keep open. I mean, here, my
Speaker 1: web browser has all those things I just said, huff Post,
Speaker 1: Daily KOs, Politico, MSNBC, CNN, BuzzFeed. Well, it used to
Speaker 1: have Gawker. I need to get rid of that. Gawker's dead.
Speaker 1: Now he's gonna Dare, Spiegel, Bloomberg, all this, all this stuff.
Speaker 1: I mean, I have to keep in touch with the
Speaker 1: left so I know how crazy they are and what
Speaker 1: kind of crazy they are. And one of the ways
Speaker 1: to do that is to read their stuff. So I
Speaker 1: read their stuff, and I think, Okayzy Cortez is in
Speaker 1: earnest about the things that she says. I really do.
Speaker 1: I think that she believes this stuff as nuts as
Speaker 1: it is. Dave Write Shields hie Buck. Just listen to
Speaker 1: your show on Friday's podcast. Love your segment on the
Speaker 1: Green New Deal. But I think the point not being
Speaker 1: discussed is that the original New Deal failed. Had anybody
Speaker 1: asked AOC what everybody's supposed to do for a living?
Speaker 1: After all, the building retrofits are complete, make work projects
Speaker 1: have an ending. They are not a career. David, you
Speaker 1: raise a very interesting point there. No, I don't think
Speaker 1: that she the left has managed to rewrite history of
Speaker 1: the New Deal so that we are to believe that
Speaker 1: that FDR essentially saved the American economy, that the FDR
Speaker 1: public works projects, all the different ways that there was
Speaker 1: a mobilization of people to work for the state in
Speaker 1: a time of war, but it was very much a
Speaker 1: war on you know, economic malaise. They used the same
Speaker 1: the same kind of rhetoric. They didn't really call it
Speaker 1: a war on poverty per se, but the same idea
Speaker 1: that it did not work the way that liberals have
Speaker 1: been told that it worked. But you see that, and
Speaker 1: unfortunately Causio Quartez does not. It's also interesting that we
Speaker 1: are reminded regularly by the media of the failings of
Speaker 1: previous presidents and previous leaders in this country, stretching back
Speaker 1: for centuries really. But for some reason, the interment of
Speaker 1: Japanese Americans into concentration camps that is excused for FDR
Speaker 1: in that it is not discussed. They won't they won't
Speaker 1: say that it was okay, but they will omit it
Speaker 1: from the conversation. They will omit it. They will not
Speaker 1: engage in much analysis of that. Karen writes, if you
Speaker 1: don't like going to the gym, get an exercise matt,
Speaker 1: some dumbells and leg weights, and work out in front
Speaker 1: of Netflix in your apartment. To kill, kill, to kill, kill,
Speaker 1: two birds with one stone, as they used to say.
Speaker 1: You know, Karen, I've actually done a fair amount of
Speaker 1: home workout stuff. It's great, you know, especially when you
Speaker 1: realize how much of a challenge your own body weight
Speaker 1: can be. And really, I think that a great measure
Speaker 1: of fitness, one that I needed to work on, is
Speaker 1: your ability to control and stabilize and move your own
Speaker 1: body weight effectively. I mean, that's why, you know, with
Speaker 1: all this exercise craze stuff, and I've been talking to
Speaker 1: friends recently who are, Oh, I do Berries boot Camp.
Speaker 1: I don't know how many of you even know it.
Speaker 1: Burries boot Camp is producer Mike give it on Barry's
Speaker 1: boot Camp. The lady instructors are apparently quite lovely. But
Speaker 1: you know Barry's boot Camp And what's this other peloton
Speaker 1: where you can pay a lot of money to have
Speaker 1: an exercise bike in your living room or your bedroom.
Speaker 1: All these different advanced and boutique I believe they call
Speaker 1: it boutique fitness crazes across the country. That you look
Speaker 1: at the old school stuff they have people do in
Speaker 1: the military. You know, when you think of boot camp
Speaker 1: and you think of doing push ups, jogging, pull ups
Speaker 1: and carrying heavy stuff, that pretty much covers it. And
Speaker 1: really your ability to do push ups and pull ups,
Speaker 1: especially for the male physique, gives you a very good
Speaker 1: indicator of your upper body strength and where you really are. So,
Speaker 1: you know, I see guys sometimes and I'm by no
Speaker 1: means any kind of expert or anything like that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm a I'm an enthusiastic, uh maybe advanced beginner
Speaker 1: and all things, all things Jim. But I see guys
Speaker 1: that are in there and they're doing a lot of
Speaker 1: like wrist curls and shoulder shrugs and stuff. And you know,
Speaker 1: for the experts, yeah, that's stuff. You know, you gotta
Speaker 1: hone that one, you know, muscle group. But for most
Speaker 1: of us, it's the basics will actually get you pretty far.
Speaker 1: At somebody who has, you know, gained and lost weight
Speaker 1: multiple times, substantial amounts of weight multiple times throughout his life.
Speaker 1: That's been my experience. So any of you who, by
Speaker 1: the way, have like personal physical transformation stories or think
Speaker 1: you know, let me know, man, I'll love reading about
Speaker 1: that stuff. Facebook dot com, slash buck Sex, and one
Speaker 1: of my favorite Instagram accounts is is a body transformations
Speaker 1: account that's supposed to be a fitzspiration or I think
Speaker 1: that's what you call it fitspiration where people see it
Speaker 1: and it's amazing what individuals can accomplish. Andrew writes, I
Speaker 1: call it your podcast. Don't be so hard on yourself.
Speaker 1: I myself once repeated a mistake in etymology someone had
Speaker 1: I trusted had told me too. By the way, I
Speaker 1: remember the other thing you'd said recently that really meshed
Speaker 1: with my long held beliefs. You label the Left as
Speaker 1: having no coherent ideology other than to tear everything good
Speaker 1: and decent down. And you labeled them iconoclasts. You don't
Speaker 1: just keep your finger on the pulse of the news.
Speaker 1: You see through the Google's propaganda machine for what it
Speaker 1: truly is and what hides behind it shields high keep
Speaker 1: up the good work. Well, thank you, Andrew on both counts.
Speaker 1: I'm always very frustrated when I share any piece of
Speaker 1: knowledge in the show that I don't have to correct
Speaker 1: because it's not knowledge, it's phone knowledge or whatever, or
Speaker 1: how much just wrong Buck, it's wrong, And that's something
Speaker 1: that I don't like, ivn't do, but I will do
Speaker 1: because I want to tell you the right stuff. And
Speaker 1: then as to the left's desire to tear things down,
Speaker 1: I think that's very much the case, and I'm glad
Speaker 1: that I'm not a little on that one. A gentleman
Speaker 1: named jar rights the only thing AOC was missing was
Speaker 1: who's coming with me? Who's coming with me? You could
Speaker 1: call me sentimental, but the fish are coming with me. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know what we're going for. The little Jerry McGuire reference.
Speaker 1: Jerry McGuire is a great movie, although I do remember
Speaker 1: still with its seared into my brain that I tried
Speaker 1: to watch it once at my grandparents house, and I
Speaker 1: figured I told them there was some profanity, and they
Speaker 1: were okay with that. But my grandmother, my wonderful and
Speaker 1: dearly departed grand other, sat down with me to watch
Speaker 1: Jerry McGuire, and she happened to sit down in about
Speaker 1: about two minutes before a scene in Jerry McGuire that
Speaker 1: is memorable and involves loud females. I can't you know what.
Speaker 1: I can't even I can't even go there, guys, I
Speaker 1: gotta just all I'm telling you is that Jerry McGuire
Speaker 1: is a great movie. But you know it's not for
Speaker 1: not for the kids. Not for the kids. There's unless you.
Speaker 1: I guess you could brought probably the TV version of
Speaker 1: it where they cut out the curses and the one
Speaker 1: sex scene is probably fine. That kid was really funny.
Speaker 1: Whatever happened? Do we know what happened to him? Jonathan
Speaker 1: lipp Nikki I even remember the name. Did he turn
Speaker 1: into one of those you know, celebrity kids who ends up,
Speaker 1: you know, chasing down smack on the wrong side of
Speaker 1: town or something? Do we know? Nah? I don't know
Speaker 1: what happened to him, but the human head weighs eight
Speaker 1: pounds on rights. Heard a great AOC joke yesterday. What
Speaker 1: happens when AOC eats ice cream too fast? Answer? Nothing,
Speaker 1: whamp wamp. Thank you for sharing the joke. Patrick writes,
Speaker 1: Bocon has really missed her opportunity to use her struggle
Speaker 1: for childcare during law school as an excuse for infanticide. WHOA,
Speaker 1: Patrick's that's quite a turn you just pulled there. NJ writes, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: I love the show. I just finished with Black Panther,
Speaker 1: and I have to agree with you. It is hot, garbage,
Speaker 1: lame script, terrible acting, and the social justice stuff throughout dreadful,
Speaker 1: just dreadful. Anyway, keep up the great work, shield Tie.
Speaker 1: You know what, Thank you. I'm giving a little round.
Speaker 1: I'm somebody else will be honest about Black Panther. Black
Speaker 1: Panther's a terrible movie, all right, Brett Easton Ellis. I
Speaker 1: think recently the pretty well known gen X or gen
Speaker 1: y or whatever author Brett Easton Ellis came out and
Speaker 1: said that nobody in Hollywood really likes Black Panther. And
Speaker 1: it's true. It's a bad movie. You can enjoy it.
Speaker 1: I look, point break is a bad movie. I love Point.
Speaker 1: Break the Rock is kind of a bad movie. I
Speaker 1: love the Rock. You don't have to tell me that
Speaker 1: it's great. I love it. It's just not a good movie.
Speaker 1: It's like, makes no sense. The plot is bizarre. There
Speaker 1: are huge plot holes in it that you know, we
Speaker 1: could talk about all day, you know, I I I
Speaker 1: problem with Black Panther was not only is it a
Speaker 1: bad movie. I didn't find it that enjoyable to watch.
Speaker 1: If you enjoy it great, I can't tell you what
Speaker 1: to enjoy one not to but the plot, the acting,
Speaker 1: it's just it's just ridiculous. It's the most advanced society
Speaker 1: in the world, but they picked their leader by having
Speaker 1: a hand to hand combat, fight to the death in
Speaker 1: like an elevated Jacuzzi. Basically, I mean it may it
Speaker 1: makes no sense, folks. Okay, it's just free yourself to
Speaker 1: think freely about Black Panther and you will feel measure like, Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know I've been told I have to like this.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't have to like this. I don't.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you. It's okay. Team, We'll have more coming
Speaker 1: up tomorrow. I'll talk to you then. Shield Tie Global
Speaker 1: Verification is the only dual certified and veteran owned background
Speaker 1: investigation and vetting company out there. If you need any
Speaker 1: kind of investigative worker, if you need background checks on employees,
Speaker 1: I mean this is this is something that my friends
Speaker 1: are Global Verification Network excel at no matter what size company,
Speaker 1: they have risk mitigation experts who will talk to you
Speaker 1: about the specifics of your needs, handle whatever issues that
Speaker 1: you might have or any any time constraint concerns. They
Speaker 1: will tailor make the service for you. You need to
Speaker 1: check them out. Even if you've got somebody who currently
Speaker 1: does your background checks, call Global Verification and see if
Speaker 1: they can get you a better deal, better service, better results.
Speaker 1: Call eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine.
Speaker 1: That's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine,
Speaker 1: Or go to my GVN dot com again, that's my
Speaker 1: GVN dot com and team Make sure you let them
Speaker 1: know that Team Buck sent you