Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Attorney General bar stares
Speaker 1: down the Lib media and explains the facts of life
Speaker 1: when it comes to the Muller Report and the deep
Speaker 1: state coup against President Trump. Also, the Trump administration is
Speaker 1: saying there should be some tariffs coming against Mexico unless
Speaker 1: Mexico plays ball on immigration with us. And finally, the
Speaker 1: creator of Chernobyl takes the wrong view of his own creation.
Speaker 1: We'll get into that more coming up on the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again,
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show begins analyst, Remember then he's a
Speaker 1: great guy. Now. I think Bob said that he was
Speaker 1: not going to engage in the analysis. He was he
Speaker 1: was not going to make a determination one way or
Speaker 1: the other. We analyzed the law and the facts, and
Speaker 1: a group of us spent a lot of time doing
Speaker 1: that and determined that both as a matter of law,
Speaker 1: many of the instances were not amount to instruction as
Speaker 1: a matter of law. As a matter of law, in others,
Speaker 1: we didn't agree with the legal analysis. A lot of
Speaker 1: the legal analysis and the report. He did not reflect
Speaker 1: the views of the department. It was the views of
Speaker 1: a particular lawyer or lawyers, and so we applied what
Speaker 1: we thought was the right law. Welcome to the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show journey, General Barr throwing down with the Libs,
Speaker 1: with Muller, the partisan hack, and all the rest of them. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. It was so obvious as there was obstruction
Speaker 1: that they can't even decide which count of obstruction was
Speaker 1: the most obvious. It was so clear that Trump broke
Speaker 1: the law in the cover up of an investigation that
Speaker 1: he'd not that he did not cover up and at
Speaker 1: any point could have ended and did not. But it's
Speaker 1: so obvious that Mueller wouldn't even say that it happened.
Speaker 1: This is a bizarre world we are living in now,
Speaker 1: my friends, where Libs completely conjure some alternate reality where
Speaker 1: up is down and down is up, where no collusion,
Speaker 1: no obstruction is well, no obstruction is really there was
Speaker 1: absolutely obstruction, but they just wouldn't say there's obstruction because
Speaker 1: they couldn't prosecute if there had been obstruction, And the
Speaker 1: prosecutor wouldn't say there was obstruction because he couldn't prosecute it. Well,
Speaker 1: but he could have said there was obstruction, So that's
Speaker 1: not true. So that doesn't hold up. And why did
Speaker 1: Mueller hold this press conference? It's almost like he's let's
Speaker 1: look at this. The report was released, people were going
Speaker 1: to read through it. They let that breathe, They let
Speaker 1: that breathe in the news cycle for a couple of weeks.
Speaker 1: It's all I was talking about the all Report. Let's
Speaker 1: just wargain this out from for a moment. If you
Speaker 1: were Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer, really Pelosi because this
Speaker 1: is more of a house side issue, but the Senator
Speaker 1: is involved in some way as well. It's the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: If you were the DNC and you were trying to
Speaker 1: work with Muller to kick off an impeachment proceeding after
Speaker 1: the report has been released, what better thing could you
Speaker 1: have than Mueller having a press conference where he is
Speaker 1: essentially imploring Congress to take this up as an impeachment matter.
Speaker 1: Could you have coordinated this anymore effectively? Could you have
Speaker 1: come up with a better plan? I think the answers no.
Speaker 1: So are we really to believe that it is then
Speaker 1: a coincidence that that's not what was driving Muller here.
Speaker 1: That just kind of happened. Why did he think he
Speaker 1: had to hold that press conference in the first place.
Speaker 1: We didn't misunderstand anything. He didn't tell us anything new.
Speaker 1: He just wanted to, you know, make sure that he
Speaker 1: gave one last little parting shot at the president before
Speaker 1: he did his mic drop. I'm out of the DOJ
Speaker 1: and I'm not answering any more questions. This was this
Speaker 1: was lighting a match, putting it up to the you know,
Speaker 1: the window drapes right as you walk out and say, well,
Speaker 1: I didn't do anything. I just you know, if the
Speaker 1: house burns down, it's not my fault. This is what
Speaker 1: he did. So it's so clear. But people know that.
Speaker 1: They can't they can't allow that to to settle as
Speaker 1: the narrative because what it tells us is what we've
Speaker 1: we should know, we should have known all along, and
Speaker 1: now we know beyond a reason with doubt. Muller's an
Speaker 1: anti Trump hack. He's a partisan just like Comy. Remember
Speaker 1: they used to tell us that Coomy was above reproach,
Speaker 1: that Komy was the last honest man in DC, that
Speaker 1: Komy was to be absolutely usted when he exonerated Hillary
Speaker 1: or not exonerated, but bailed out Hillary Clinton on the
Speaker 1: email thing. Oh he's been FBI director, and he's been this,
Speaker 1: and that he's so great. Now we know Comy is
Speaker 1: a self loving, self involved hack, a sanctimonious, super tall
Speaker 1: twerp whose only real loyalty is to himself, his ego,
Speaker 1: and his perception of his role in this praetorian guard
Speaker 1: Fbido j Deep State that he was the ringleader of.
Speaker 1: In many ways, that's all he really cared about. But
Speaker 1: they used to tell us to remember that Comy had
Speaker 1: no politics, and same thing with Mueller. Muller and Comi
Speaker 1: are cut from the same cloth. These might will be
Speaker 1: the same guy. They are part of this cast that
Speaker 1: thinks they're above elected officials. They're the ones that keep
Speaker 1: the country going. They're the ones that hold up this republic.
Speaker 1: They're the ones that are providing the framework that all
Speaker 1: the rest of us live in a very grandiose sense
Speaker 1: of their their own roles and importance in American society.
Speaker 1: But remember, how people feel about themselves determines what they
Speaker 1: think about everything else around them. Bar knows he's not
Speaker 1: trying to pick a big public fight, but he knows.
Speaker 1: What Muller did was meant to be a last attempt
Speaker 1: at ambushing the president and handing off impeachment to the Congress,
Speaker 1: which is not his job. That was never his job.
Speaker 1: This was not supposed to be oppo research for Democrat
Speaker 1: impeachment purposes, but that's what it very quickly turned into.
Speaker 1: Then you also have what really went on here and
Speaker 1: when is this going to get aired out? When can
Speaker 1: we approach this part of this critical part of the story.
Speaker 1: There's no way that they opened an investigation on Papadopolis
Speaker 1: based on the meetings in July of twenty six There's
Speaker 1: no way. How did a human asset get near him
Speaker 1: in the first place? How did he come up on
Speaker 1: the radar? The first Russia interference in the election, you know,
Speaker 1: warning flags need in the intel community went up apparently
Speaker 1: in April of twenty sixteen. So you're telling me it's
Speaker 1: July when Papa dapplos. That's one that no way, no
Speaker 1: way they're hiding stuff from us. Bar knows it, and
Speaker 1: he's going to find out what it is by thirteen.
Speaker 1: What have you seen? What evidence? What makes you think
Speaker 1: I need to take a look at this. So, like
Speaker 1: many other people who are familiar with intelligence activities. I
Speaker 1: had a lot of questions about what was going on.
Speaker 1: I assumed i'd get answers when I went in, and
Speaker 1: I have not gotten answers that are no all satisfactory,
Speaker 1: and and in fact that probably more questions, and that
Speaker 1: some of the facts that I've learned don't hang together
Speaker 1: with the official explanations of what happened. What do you
Speaker 1: mean by that? That's that's all I really will say.
Speaker 1: Things are just not jiving. Things are not jiving. You
Speaker 1: know what the Attorney General is saying, they're lying. He
Speaker 1: doesn't want to use that word little inflammatory. For right now,
Speaker 1: the official narrative of Russia collusion, peddled by the Deep State, FBI,
Speaker 1: DJ under the Obama administration is a lie. Barr knows
Speaker 1: it's a lie. He's going to expose it as a lie,
Speaker 1: and the wrath of liberals across the country is going
Speaker 1: to come upon his head. But you know what the
Speaker 1: good news is, he's prepared for it. Folks. This guy's
Speaker 1: a bulldog. He's a fighter. I like him. I got
Speaker 1: more on this in a moment. Well, in a way,
Speaker 1: I did expect it, because, yeah, because I realized we
Speaker 1: live in a crazy hyperpartisan period of time, and I
Speaker 1: knew that it would only be a matter of time
Speaker 1: if I was behaving responsibly and calling him as I
Speaker 1: say him, that I'd be attacked because nowadays people don't
Speaker 1: care about the merits or the substance. And that's one
Speaker 1: of the reasons that I ultimately was persuaded that maybe
Speaker 1: I should take it on, because I think at my
Speaker 1: stage on life, it really doesn't make any difference in
Speaker 1: your career. At the end of my career, I've you know,
Speaker 1: and he's a reputation that you've worked your whole life on. Though. Yeah,
Speaker 1: but everyone dies and I'm not, you know, I don't
Speaker 1: believe in the Homeric idea that you know, immortality comes by,
Speaker 1: you know, having old sung about show over the centuries.
Speaker 1: You know. I gotta say I love this guy, Attorney
Speaker 1: General Barr. He's a boss. This guy's the real deal.
Speaker 1: This guy's a patriot. He's a brilliant legal mind, and
Speaker 1: he really cares about doing what's right. And that's one
Speaker 1: of the reasons I get so annoyed, so aggravated with
Speaker 1: the attacks on his character. But it's it's reassuring because
Speaker 1: they're just they're not they're not attacks that are made
Speaker 1: in good faith at all. They're just character assassination efforts
Speaker 1: for political reasons. He's done nothing wrong. He's done nothing
Speaker 1: except be ethical, be transparent, be fair minded. And I'm
Speaker 1: just happy to hear his attitude is like or die, son,
Speaker 1: and he's like, let's do this. I see what's going on.
Speaker 1: They're not gonna intimidate me. They're not gonna push me around.
Speaker 1: He's like, I'm at the end of my life. This
Speaker 1: thing about how everyone dies, that's what you you know
Speaker 1: these days. This is really the attitude you have to
Speaker 1: have if you're going to be fighting for conservative values
Speaker 1: and ideals, you gotta just say, you know, win or lose,
Speaker 1: this is what I gotta do. That's how I feel
Speaker 1: increasingly in the media. It's one of the reasons why
Speaker 1: I'm leaving the hill. Win or lose, I gotta throw down.
Speaker 1: I've got to fight for what I believe in and
Speaker 1: do what I think is right and say what I
Speaker 1: think needs to be said, and come what may, and
Speaker 1: then there's gonna be some rocky, rocky stuff ahead for me.
Speaker 1: I know that there already has been rocky stuff for
Speaker 1: people ain't me, you know, try to come after me
Speaker 1: and everything. But this is why it's a fight. This
Speaker 1: is why we are ideological warriors. And Bill Barr isn't
Speaker 1: even really an ideological warrior. He's somebody who is fighting
Speaker 1: for what is just. He's fighting for the rule of law,
Speaker 1: He's fighting for the truth. And they hate him for it.
Speaker 1: They absolutely hate him for it. They would so much
Speaker 1: rather have someone who is malleable, someone who can be
Speaker 1: who can be persuaded that you know, the Democrats will
Speaker 1: be their friend if only they turn on their former allies.
Speaker 1: This is Democrats will cajole, will will pressure, induce, solicit,
Speaker 1: They'll just whatever they have to do to get someone
Speaker 1: to abandon who they are as part of the Democrats
Speaker 1: lost for control and power, and Bar is a threat
Speaker 1: to all of that. But you see here, he is
Speaker 1: the perfect man at this time for this job. He
Speaker 1: has the intellect for it and as importantly, he has
Speaker 1: the temperament for it. I mean, I can't imagine being
Speaker 1: this guy and seeing all these you know, I was
Speaker 1: on TV last night and Box and Shannon Bream Show,
Speaker 1: and you know's some guy who's a former Obama DJ,
Speaker 1: and it's just the stuff he's saying. It's just it
Speaker 1: was just laughable that they've been so fair to Trump,
Speaker 1: that they've been too fair to Trump. It's too fair
Speaker 1: to Trump. They had put him through a two years
Speaker 1: special counsel investigation based on a lie. Too fair to him.
Speaker 1: They're throwing people in prison. They said, thirty guys with
Speaker 1: m fours to go pull Roger Stone out of his
Speaker 1: bed because he, like you know, lied about nothing. And
Speaker 1: they're they're too fair to the Trump people, the Democrats
Speaker 1: that broke the same laws, people like Tony Podesta and
Speaker 1: others about failure to registers and agent they don't get
Speaker 1: prosecutor too fair. I mean, how do these people look
Speaker 1: at themselves and not laugh? But Barr doesn't get to
Speaker 1: say what I say. He has to maintain a certain dispassionate,
Speaker 1: reason based method of talking about out and talking to
Speaker 1: these talking about these issues and talking to these people.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure he just wants to be like, you know,
Speaker 1: I'm a lot smarter than you, right, and you know
Speaker 1: that you're kind of a moron and you're a Trump's
Speaker 1: deranged and everything that you're saying here, Pelosi or Shift
Speaker 1: or Nadler is the rantings of a lunatic. You know that, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's kind of what I wish he could say.
Speaker 1: And I know that he thinks that deep down, But
Speaker 1: many they are going after him with everything they have.
Speaker 1: After Trump, he is the I would argue to that
Speaker 1: after Trump, Barr has become in a very short period
Speaker 1: of time, the most hated figure by the left in
Speaker 1: American politics. And it's we can judge him by his enemies.
Speaker 1: This guy is doing heroic work. He is standing up
Speaker 1: to the mob and he's not yelling, he's not making
Speaker 1: a scene of it. He's just like, bring it. I'm
Speaker 1: Bill Barr. Brig it. That's all he's saying. He's just saying,
Speaker 1: you know, this is this is it. I know what's
Speaker 1: going on here. I know the games that were played.
Speaker 1: He can't prove it all yet, but he sees this.
Speaker 1: He sees what happened. You know, when he when he
Speaker 1: puts out quotes like where he's talking about the Pratorian,
Speaker 1: the Praetorian Guard media, I'm sorry, Praetorian guard deep state
Speaker 1: that thinks that it's above the laws that rattles the left,
Speaker 1: that concerns them, because that's the truth. If it were
Speaker 1: if it were ridiculous, they wouldn't care. But he knows
Speaker 1: that there was this cast, this this self appointed elite
Speaker 1: under the Obama administration in the federal government that that
Speaker 1: thought that Trump was a clear and present danger to
Speaker 1: the United States. And so they abuse their power and
Speaker 1: in some cases did break the law in order to
Speaker 1: try to take him down. That's it, and Bar's going
Speaker 1: to get to the bottom of this, but you know,
Speaker 1: the attacks on his reputation. Thankfully, he's like a guy
Speaker 1: who it's like the end of a Shakespearean play and
Speaker 1: he's gonna just set some things right before he sails
Speaker 1: off into the sunset, so to speak. He's like, look,
Speaker 1: I'm not gonna sit back on this one. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I think he's done such a good job. And
Speaker 1: I also, I really appreciate how he refuses to back
Speaker 1: down on this whole spying thing, because he knows they
Speaker 1: really if he caves on that, they think they'll get
Speaker 1: him to cave on everything else. They attack his reputation,
Speaker 1: they get him a change words. He knows you cannot
Speaker 1: give an inch to these crazy libs. You cannot back
Speaker 1: down at all. You can't say, oh, well, let's take
Speaker 1: a moderate position, because they're not looking for moderate they're
Speaker 1: just looking to win. You're just you're just giving them
Speaker 1: more territory to work with. That's all you're doing, is
Speaker 1: what he said in this interview on CBS about the
Speaker 1: word spying Play twelve. You've testified that you believe spine occurred, Yes,
Speaker 1: into the Trump campaign. Yes, you've gotten some criticism for
Speaker 1: using that word. Yeah. I mean, I guess it's become
Speaker 1: a dirty word somehow. It hasn't never been for me.
Speaker 1: I think there's nothing wrong with spying. The question is
Speaker 1: always whether it's authorized by law. Some former intelligence chiefs
Speaker 1: that the president has made that word somewhat pejorative, that
Speaker 1: they're spine, and it's as a witch hunt, is as
Speaker 1: a hoax, and so you're used to that word. Makes
Speaker 1: it seem that you're being a loyalist. You know. It's
Speaker 1: part of the craziness of the modern day that if
Speaker 1: a president uses a word, then all of a sudden
Speaker 1: it becomes off bounds. It's a perfectly good English word.
Speaker 1: I'll continue to use it. He's the man, he really is.
Speaker 1: It's a spying the spying. The fact that Trump says
Speaker 1: spying doesn't mean that. That's not a word I can
Speaker 1: use anymore. Okay, this is He's not he will not
Speaker 1: play their games. So many Republicans take that kind of
Speaker 1: romneyesque view of like, let's just be really polite to them,
Speaker 1: Let's just give them their way a little bit, give them,
Speaker 1: give them their way on this, give them their way
Speaker 1: on that, and maybe we can all be friends. Nope,
Speaker 1: they don't want to be our friends. They want to
Speaker 1: crush us. They want to destroy us, just like they
Speaker 1: tried to crush Trump with this deep state coup and
Speaker 1: bars like, I'm sorry, we're not letting this go. We're
Speaker 1: not letting this slide. You can throw all the stuff
Speaker 1: you wanted me. Bar's gonna keep on coming. They can't.
Speaker 1: They can't beat Bar, just like they couldn't beat Trump.
Speaker 1: And there that's what they're getting worried about it. Man,
Speaker 1: This Inspector General report, when it comes out, it is
Speaker 1: going to be sweet Coomy McCay. These people are gonna
Speaker 1: get They're gonna get their come up. And it's maybe
Speaker 1: not legally, but in terms of public repudiation. Hoof. I'm hoping.
Speaker 1: Also you see some senior Obama appointee DJ folks Sally Yates.
Speaker 1: Sally Yates involved in all this. There's there's some really
Speaker 1: bad folks that when it comes to light what they
Speaker 1: did to try to take Trump down, it'll be jaw dropping.
Speaker 1: We've been talking to them for months, asking them for
Speaker 1: months to step up and take on a greater role
Speaker 1: and a greater responsibility. Of the number Wednesday alone, we
Speaker 1: had over a thousand people move as one, one large group.
Speaker 1: It's the largest group we've encountered come through the Mexican
Speaker 1: country up to our border and try to cross all
Speaker 1: at one time a thousand people. The fact that they
Speaker 1: didn't break that up, they didn't try to return those
Speaker 1: individuals back to their home country is what we're asking
Speaker 1: them to do. They have the capability, it's within their
Speaker 1: law to do that. Their immigration laws allow for this,
Speaker 1: and we want to see that happen. They should be
Speaker 1: willing to help us fix this problem that they can
Speaker 1: so easily do. Is it easy for them to fix it?
Speaker 1: Will they fix it? These are the questions we turn
Speaker 1: to now and in the aftermath of the announcement from
Speaker 1: the administration that President Trump plans to put these tariffs
Speaker 1: on Mexican goods starting at five percent in June, and
Speaker 1: then it goes up to ten. Then I think fifteen
Speaker 1: twenty twenty five. It's going to these escalating tariffs until
Speaker 1: Mexico is more helpful in dealing with the immigration crisis
Speaker 1: that we currently have at the border. Let me just say,
Speaker 1: and I believe early in the week I told you this,
Speaker 1: we're going to come back to immigration. I mean, this
Speaker 1: is not an issue that's going away. This is not
Speaker 1: an issue that and it's because it hasn't gotten better,
Speaker 1: it hasn't improved. In fact, it's exactly where it was
Speaker 1: but a few months ago when I first started telling
Speaker 1: you there's a massive scam going on. You've got thousands
Speaker 1: and thousands, hundreds of thousands of people who are coming
Speaker 1: into the country who should not be allowed into the country,
Speaker 1: who are abusing our laws, who are abusing the goodwill
Speaker 1: and good nature of the American people. And this is
Speaker 1: finally now an issue of some national attention. But the
Speaker 1: problem has not been solved. We have not fixed this yet.
Speaker 1: This has not been addressed effectively by the administration. I'm
Speaker 1: not just blaming Trump. Judges have gotten in the way.
Speaker 1: Democrats and Congress have no interest in fixing it. There's
Speaker 1: a lot of pushback against every effort that he has,
Speaker 1: and I think it's bad faith pushback too. You have
Speaker 1: judges on the federal Court who are effectively a part
Speaker 1: of the hashtag resistance, and there you use their power
Speaker 1: with these universal injunctions to stop the President from being
Speaker 1: able to do really anything at the border. So that's
Speaker 1: that's a major issue that the Department of Justice, I know,
Speaker 1: is thinking about trying to address more directly and hoping
Speaker 1: to be able to turn around. But now Trump is
Speaker 1: going with not quite the the ultimate sanction that he
Speaker 1: had discussed of shutting down the border, but across the
Speaker 1: board tariffs on goods coming in from Mexico, and like
Speaker 1: Mexico is our largest trading partner. President Trump, though, defended
Speaker 1: this move, tweeting out earlier today that Mexico has taken
Speaker 1: advantage of the United States for decades because of the
Speaker 1: Democrats or immigration laws are bad. Mexico makes a fortune
Speaker 1: from the US and has for decades. They can easily
Speaker 1: fix this problem. Time for them to do, finally what
Speaker 1: must be done. This comes at a time when there's
Speaker 1: the US Mexico Canada trade agreement that still needs to
Speaker 1: be finalized and that has been very important for the administration.
Speaker 1: So this throws that into some degree of doubt, although
Speaker 1: I'm sure Trump would say that there's no doubt. It'll
Speaker 1: all be fine. But this is now a five percent
Speaker 1: tariff on three hundred and sixty billion dollars in goods
Speaker 1: that are imported from Mexico. That's going to take effects
Speaker 1: starting June tenth. And you know, this is a trade
Speaker 1: deal that we're going to have to get done. This
Speaker 1: is a trade deal that or rather the US Mexico
Speaker 1: Canada trade deal is. But also what do we do
Speaker 1: if we get to the point that these tariffs go
Speaker 1: higher and higher? The you know, the Mexican government, I'd
Speaker 1: have to look at what the what their laws are specifically,
Speaker 1: but I do know, for example, that Mexico, it is
Speaker 1: not illegal to be in Mexico and to try to
Speaker 1: cross into America. That's our problem. There is no Mexican
Speaker 1: law that I was told this by Border patrol. There's
Speaker 1: no Mexican law that says leaving from Mexico to go
Speaker 1: to america's legal. Leaving from America to go into Mexico.
Speaker 1: They'll defend their border, but they're not really helping us
Speaker 1: defend ours and as a function of law, I don't
Speaker 1: know where that really leaves them. If they take in
Speaker 1: these Central American migrants, thousands and thousands of Central American migrants,
Speaker 1: of what happens then? Are they supposed does the Mexican
Speaker 1: government now have to deal with these migrants? Isn't it
Speaker 1: so interesting that that the Democrats will tell us that
Speaker 1: all of these illegal immigrants coming in from Honduras, El Salvador, Guatemala,
Speaker 1: that they are going to be a huge economic advantage
Speaker 1: and they're going to do all these jobs that we
Speaker 1: won't do, and they're so hard working. The Mexicans don't
Speaker 1: seem to see it that way. The Mexicans aren't like, oh, no, no,
Speaker 1: you don't take our Central American migrants, sir. We're keeping
Speaker 1: them here where they can bolster our economy. No, it's
Speaker 1: only in this country that the Democrats are telling us
Speaker 1: that's the case. In an even more sophisticated and information
Speaker 1: based economy, we're led to believe that non English speaking migrants,
Speaker 1: who in most cases will have less than a high
Speaker 1: school level education and perhaps in many cases almost no
Speaker 1: formal education, they're going to be a great economic benefit
Speaker 1: to us. This is what Democrats say. What do we
Speaker 1: make of the fact that Mexico is not thrilled to
Speaker 1: be the new place that people fleeing Central America are
Speaker 1: going to be set up? And that's assuming Mexico goes
Speaker 1: along with this. I don't know if they will. They
Speaker 1: have their own domestic political considerations, you have to remember that.
Speaker 1: But for us right now, you know, I think the
Speaker 1: bigger concern is the possibility of some economic fallout from this,
Speaker 1: Peter King, for economic fallout for us going an election year. Look,
Speaker 1: Trump is playing high stakes poker. Let's be honest about this.
Speaker 1: Here's what Peter King says about the play ten. If
Speaker 1: the President's going to do it, I think it has
Speaker 1: to really be thought out and to see what all
Speaker 1: the collateral damage is going to be, you know, the
Speaker 1: unintended consequences because obviously have more of an impact on
Speaker 1: Mexico than on us, but many American businesses and that
Speaker 1: means many American workers could be affected by this. So again,
Speaker 1: the president, I believe, has the power to do this,
Speaker 1: He has the right to do it, and it may
Speaker 1: be the appropriate thing to do, right and hope as
Speaker 1: they do it, they really watch the consequences, you know,
Speaker 1: very close. You got to watch the consequences for American
Speaker 1: workers and consumers. It's gonna hit the auto industry in
Speaker 1: this in this country pretty hard if if this actually
Speaker 1: gets implemented and then once those escalations kick in, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of American auto makers that some of the
Speaker 1: stuff is some of the plants are in Mexico or
Speaker 1: even just some of the parts are assembled in Mexico
Speaker 1: and then they're brought to the US and finished here.
Speaker 1: So this is this is a bigger This is a
Speaker 1: bigger deal and would be I think have more impact
Speaker 1: than even the China tariffs that we've seen so far.
Speaker 1: China gets people on edge because there's this possibility of
Speaker 1: the of a much broader escalation, but it started pretty small,
Speaker 1: pretty targeted. This is Trump is threatening and across the
Speaker 1: board tariff on all goods. This isn't just steal or
Speaker 1: this isn't just soybeans. Is everything and the only way.
Speaker 1: And you've heard me say it. I'm gonna keep saying
Speaker 1: it because I'm very confident in the truth of this statement.
Speaker 1: If the economy is when people go into cast their
Speaker 1: votes in twenty twenty, if the economy is more or
Speaker 1: less what it is right now under this president. Trump
Speaker 1: wins if we head into a major recession, whether it's
Speaker 1: cyclical or not, whether there's one event that kicks it
Speaker 1: off or not, it does not matter. If we head
Speaker 1: into a major recession, Trump stands a very good chance
Speaker 1: of losing because he doesn't have to lose that many
Speaker 1: votes to lose to a Democrat, and it doesn't really
Speaker 1: matter who the Democrat is. And class warfare and socialism
Speaker 1: and the state stepping in to save you, that's all
Speaker 1: more popular. That's more likely to get traction, not in
Speaker 1: good times, but in bad times when people are scared.
Speaker 1: It's when you've already seen your house value plummet, you've
Speaker 1: lost your job, and you know you've lost thirty percent
Speaker 1: of your four oh one k or something like that.
Speaker 1: That's when someone like Elizabeth Warren showing up and saying
Speaker 1: free school, free childcare, free healthcare for you. You go,
Speaker 1: you know, maybe maybe I gotta listen to the free
Speaker 1: lady who's a fake Cherokee. You know, maybe maybe that's
Speaker 1: the way to go. This is my fear is that
Speaker 1: Trump is trying to follow through on these very important
Speaker 1: promises from his presidency. He's he's trying to do what
Speaker 1: he can to actually deliver on these promises. But the
Speaker 1: timing of this may mean that there's there's some unintended consequences,
Speaker 1: and if there are unintended consequences that have a real
Speaker 1: effect on the election, we got we got a problem, folks,
Speaker 1: we got a problem. Trump's not gonna be able to
Speaker 1: get a deal deal with China before reelection. I'm very
Speaker 1: confident in that as well. And he really needs to
Speaker 1: have a US Mexico Canada trade deal in place before
Speaker 1: his election because he's the dealmaker. He's the guy that's
Speaker 1: always been saying I know how to get this done.
Speaker 1: I know how to get the deals done. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying he's wrong, and I'm not saying that this won't work.
Speaker 1: I'm merely pointing out that this is a this is
Speaker 1: a role of the dice big time, and the way
Speaker 1: that this could you know, the way this could go,
Speaker 1: it could be rough for the economy. So we will
Speaker 1: have to We'll have to see. I'll be right back, team,
Speaker 1: stay with me. Trural issues, intellectual property rights, forced technology transfers,
Speaker 1: essentially the respect for private property that at this point
Speaker 1: China has not reflected in their practices, and we need
Speaker 1: to see reforms in that regard. Will we see reforms?
Speaker 1: We've been asking China to reform for a long time.
Speaker 1: Here's a concern that I have is I reflect more
Speaker 1: on my time in China. There has long been this
Speaker 1: paradigm of America running on four year people would say
Speaker 1: even shorter or two year or one year election cycles,
Speaker 1: and that our politics is inherently very short, verst short
Speaker 1: thinking and tactical versus strategic in its approach. Whereas the Chinese,
Speaker 1: because you have this central committee that's authoritarian, that is
Speaker 1: not elected, that does not go anywhere, or can take
Speaker 1: a much longer view that they can position themselves. And
Speaker 1: I think the argument from most China experts that I
Speaker 1: know is and they have positioned themselves with a longer
Speaker 1: horizon for their plans, their projects, their activities, whether it's
Speaker 1: economic competitiveness, military growth, and and capability, that they're not
Speaker 1: thinking about what will this look like in two years
Speaker 1: or four years, They're thinking where we be in twenty years,
Speaker 1: where we be in you know, fifty years. That's a
Speaker 1: disadvantage that we have at a strategic level. There's a
Speaker 1: lot of advantages that we have because of our society
Speaker 1: versus theirs. We have much more localized improvisation and individual initiative,
Speaker 1: and you know, we have much better business environment, much
Speaker 1: better a rule of law. You know, they're less corruption.
Speaker 1: I mean, so we do have a lot of advantage
Speaker 1: of the Chinese. I'm not just sitting here trying to say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: because if you go too far in this direction, you
Speaker 1: start to think, well, why don't we do what people
Speaker 1: like Tom Friedman we're saying ten years ago. You know,
Speaker 1: maybe China has a better model than us. In many ways,
Speaker 1: they do not have a better model than us. They
Speaker 1: might be better at creating rapid economic growth coming from
Speaker 1: a place of poverty. But you know, we've we've had
Speaker 1: a much more you know, a rise that has been
Speaker 1: in our own way. Every bit is as incredible and meteoric.
Speaker 1: We just haven't done as rapidly, and haven't done it
Speaker 1: by completely oppressing our own people and starving them and
Speaker 1: killing millions of them. And we haven't had quite the
Speaker 1: same costs in place either for our economic rise of
Speaker 1: the Chinese have had. But when when Mike Pants is
Speaker 1: talking about how we want to see reforms we want
Speaker 1: to see change. This is where you see some of
Speaker 1: the shortcomings of our approach to these other countries and
Speaker 1: the tools that we use to try to get compliance,
Speaker 1: things like sanctions, right, that's usually that's the more serious stuff.
Speaker 1: But even tariffs, you know, a tariff is not that
Speaker 1: far off from a sanction. I mean, sanctions have more
Speaker 1: bite and can be more punitive in nature. But you know,
Speaker 1: a tariff isn't necessarily we're angry at you for this thing,
Speaker 1: but it's we're going to take some stuff from you
Speaker 1: because we think we need to, and we're hoping that
Speaker 1: China backs away from this, backs away from the different behaviors,
Speaker 1: the theft of intellectual property, the you know, as I
Speaker 1: told you, walking around and seeing all the incredibly incredibly
Speaker 1: accurate looking fake fake Louis Baton bags, fake Rolex is fake,
Speaker 1: I learned. So I learned more about about fancy watches
Speaker 1: from being in China that I have from any else
Speaker 1: because there were there were stories you'd walk past and
Speaker 1: they had just right there for you Panorize and Paddock,
Speaker 1: Philippe and Rolex, and these are the most expensive, some
Speaker 1: of the most expensive watch brands in the world. Certainly
Speaker 1: the most celebrated watch brands in the world. And they're
Speaker 1: all fakes though, but you can kind of look at
Speaker 1: them and hold them and I don't know how much
Speaker 1: is this one? How much is this one? They don't
Speaker 1: care that there's been billions of dollars of marketing and
Speaker 1: research and effort. I mean it goes into all these products.
Speaker 1: They're just like, well, we're gonna we're gonna copy them
Speaker 1: and sell them to people and give those companies nothing. Obviously,
Speaker 1: that's a very unsavory trade practice because then they could
Speaker 1: also flood the market with them, and that's what they've
Speaker 1: been doing. But we think that they'll change because of
Speaker 1: pain that's inflicted on them. What the reason I was
Speaker 1: thinking about the authoritarian nature of the Chinese state is
Speaker 1: when you don't have to worry about elections, how much
Speaker 1: do you really care If you have a monopoly on
Speaker 1: force and you sit atop a mountain of force as
Speaker 1: the Chinese Central Committee and in an enormous police state,
Speaker 1: you know you're pretty good at waiting out a republic
Speaker 1: like ours that's going to have a change in leadership,
Speaker 1: if not every four years, at least every eight years.
Speaker 1: And that waiting game gives them a major advantage in
Speaker 1: any negotiation. This is one of the reasons why I
Speaker 1: think there's no chance we're going to get a deal
Speaker 1: before the election, because why would the Chinese do that.
Speaker 1: They can wait this out. We're going to slow down
Speaker 1: their economy a bit. Okay, fine, they'll say, we'll slot
Speaker 1: on the economy, but we'll make up for it when
Speaker 1: the next American comes along. Who's they're hoping it's a democrat,
Speaker 1: I'm sure, and goes back to the old way where
Speaker 1: the Chinese just get to cheat to get ahead, and
Speaker 1: that's what they've been doing. They've been cheating. So the
Speaker 1: ability to withstand public pressure when you don't have any
Speaker 1: accountability to that public, no real accountability short of revolution,
Speaker 1: short of an armed insurrection, that's a difficult thing to overcome.
Speaker 1: And that's where I think the problem in our trade
Speaker 1: dispute with China. You know, we don't have an answer
Speaker 1: to this, We don't have a well what do we
Speaker 1: do about that? And in that sense, it mirrors some
Speaker 1: of the the sanction policies. You know, we sanctioned Iran,
Speaker 1: we sanctioned North Korea, we have sanctions against these, sanctions
Speaker 1: against Russia, doesn't change anything. We're really we're really not
Speaker 1: changing behavior. We're certainly not changing regimes with sanctions. So
Speaker 1: are we really able to change central economic policies of
Speaker 1: the Chinese Central Committee with tariffs? Um, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I don't know. I'm I'm in waiting cmode here with Trump.
Speaker 1: I'm open to letting him have the leeway to see
Speaker 1: all this through. But I'm going to judge this by
Speaker 1: the results. I'm gonna judge China and the trade war.
Speaker 1: There was a one way trade war until Trump came along,
Speaker 1: But I'm gonna judge that by the results. I'm also
Speaker 1: going to judge this possible imposition of tariffs on Mexico
Speaker 1: by do they finally comply? Do we see a complete
Speaker 1: plummeting of the illegal crossings at the border. Let's see,
Speaker 1: let's see what the Trumpster can pull off. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm hopeful, but I'm not just gonna trust. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna verify on this. We have to be ready. It is.
Speaker 1: It's a very our founders. I always like to say this,
Speaker 1: our founders in the darkest days of the revolution, they
Speaker 1: said the times have found us. Well, I think right
Speaker 1: now the times have found us. We have a defiance
Speaker 1: of the Constitution of the United So and so when
Speaker 1: we go down this path, we have to be ready
Speaker 1: and it has to be clear to the American people,
Speaker 1: and we have to hope that it will be clear
Speaker 1: to the Republicans in this United States. She's talking about impeachment. Folks.
Speaker 1: Remember but a few weeks ago, the conventional wisdom coming
Speaker 1: out of the swamp and the mainstream media was, oh, no, Nancy,
Speaker 1: Nancy's too savvy for impeachment. They know that that's not
Speaker 1: going Oh no, no, no. That was all That was
Speaker 1: all staging. That was preparing the battlefield to the Libs
Speaker 1: advantage by making it seem like this is not the
Speaker 1: plan all along. It's very important the perception here really matters,
Speaker 1: because if the plan all along has been impeachment, one
Speaker 1: that affects the foundational rationale behind the whole Mueller probe.
Speaker 1: And as Annie McCarthy or Buddy was on yesterday, has
Speaker 1: written Natural View today, this was always an impeachment probe.
Speaker 1: This was never really a criminal investigation of Trump. As
Speaker 1: soon as it was clear to Muller that there was
Speaker 1: no collusion with Russia, so from then on it was
Speaker 1: just how do we get them on impeachment? How do
Speaker 1: we set up impeachment? But for Democrats it looks more measured,
Speaker 1: it looks more authentic and reasonable for them to come
Speaker 1: to the decision of impeachment because of the quote facts
Speaker 1: they discover then to make it obvious that this was
Speaker 1: just going to be impeachment along, because that's pure politics.
Speaker 1: It in that way somewhat similar to why why is
Speaker 1: it that CNN clings to the fiction that it's a
Speaker 1: neutral news gathering organization, that it does not have a
Speaker 1: political agenda or bias. I mean, it's it's a laughably
Speaker 1: flimsy perception of itself that it has. But why does
Speaker 1: CNN have that perception? Why does it keep fighting to
Speaker 1: at least make some people believe that? And that's the
Speaker 1: that's the outward messaging, no matter how much people realize
Speaker 1: it's crap. Why Because their left wing propaganda is more
Speaker 1: effective if it is coming from a place that is
Speaker 1: at least ostensibly neutral, because then it's just the facts.
Speaker 1: It's like the apples versus bananas. They're they're they're just
Speaker 1: saying apples or bananas. They're not giving you, you know,
Speaker 1: they're not giving you a a rotten tomato and telling
Speaker 1: you that it's a it's a an apple, which is
Speaker 1: what they do all the time. They're not, you know,
Speaker 1: falsifying things. Are not promoting either fake news or an
Speaker 1: agenda through a narrative that is partisan and is trying
Speaker 1: to pursue a certain end, not spread certain knowledge. It
Speaker 1: adds to the efficacy, it adds to the mission, the
Speaker 1: effectiveness of their mission. A lot of think tanks, by
Speaker 1: the way, claim to be nonpartisan research foundations. Meanwhile, anyone
Speaker 1: who is familiar with their work and look at it
Speaker 1: and say that's a Lib think tank full of Libs
Speaker 1: pushing Lib policies. But they'll say, oh, no, no, we're
Speaker 1: a nonpartisan research foundation. Sure, you are right. That's the Democrats,
Speaker 1: in the same way, are trying to trying to hold
Speaker 1: themselves up as we aren't partisans who have been planning
Speaker 1: this and scheming this all along. We're just defending the constitution.
Speaker 1: We're just trying to uphold the best traditions of America
Speaker 1: with you know whatever. I think this is Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: talking about it, for heaving's sake, and she's on the
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel Show, by the way, of course speaking to
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel about this, Who's don't know him, and he
Speaker 1: definitely doesn't know me. And he's the kind of person
Speaker 1: who I'm sure would be like, look, who knows who
Speaker 1: he is? You know he's he has their education of
Speaker 1: being a really mean guy, which I think is interesting
Speaker 1: for a comedian you know who else though, And this
Speaker 1: I know from people who worked for him, So this
Speaker 1: is not the Jimmy Kimmel thing, is a little more
Speaker 1: hearsay that he's mean, like just a nasty person. You know,
Speaker 1: he was really nasty? Was David Letterman? Not a nice
Speaker 1: guy well known by his staff, not a nice guy.
Speaker 1: And I didn't think a funny guy either. I think
Speaker 1: he's somebody who just got really lucky right place, right time.
Speaker 1: At least Jay Leno was kind of funny sometimes. Letterman
Speaker 1: I never and I was a New Yorker. I never
Speaker 1: liked Letterman, and a lot of people work for him
Speaker 1: didn't like him. I can tell you that not quite
Speaker 1: as reviled as Keith Alberman, whose staff was pretty much
Speaker 1: an open revolt about how he was. The irony of
Speaker 1: Keith Alburman was that he had a show where he
Speaker 1: did the worst person in the world, and he was,
Speaker 1: in fact the worst person in the world. That's the
Speaker 1: irony of Keith Olberman. But Kimball's talking to Pelosi here
Speaker 1: and she's saying that impeachment, you know, the American people
Speaker 1: have to be ready. She said, we have a defiance
Speaker 1: of the constitution. What's the you know, she says that,
Speaker 1: and that's that's very much a pelosiism because it's it's
Speaker 1: a grandiose sounding term. She's trying to, you know, rally
Speaker 1: left wing imbeciles to her side. What is a defiance
Speaker 1: of the constitution? What's the defiance of the constitution she's
Speaker 1: talking about? You know, this is just like undermining our institutions,
Speaker 1: protecting our democracy. These are are phrases that that that
Speaker 1: bring with them all this this sense of importance, you know,
Speaker 1: the gravity of the moment encapsulated in words. Okay, but
Speaker 1: what does it really mean? You know, this protecting our institutions?
Speaker 1: How do all of our institutions deserve reprotected or do
Speaker 1: some of them need to be pretty much raised to
Speaker 1: the ground and started anew Should the FBI just be
Speaker 1: celebrated for being awesome and perfect, or should we look
Speaker 1: at what really happen there with regard to spying on
Speaker 1: a presidential campaign and Russia collusion and all the rest
Speaker 1: of it. I think these are fair questions to ask. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: Jimmy Kimmel, to give you a sense of where the
Speaker 1: Hollywood Live mindset is on all this. Right, So, Pelosi's
Speaker 1: engaged in a perpetuating a fraud in front of the
Speaker 1: American people. The fraud is that they have not been
Speaker 1: dedicated to and planning on an impeachment for seeding all along.
Speaker 1: Of course they have. That's obvious. That's what's going on.
Speaker 1: They're going to impeach, all right, you're hearing it from me.
Speaker 1: You've been hearing it from me. They're going to impeach
Speaker 1: the president. They will not be able to back down
Speaker 1: from this and not look weak to their base. They
Speaker 1: figure that this will, at if nothing else, tie Trump
Speaker 1: down in counter narrative efforts instead of going around saying, hey,
Speaker 1: look at how Austin the economy is. Look At how
Speaker 1: much better the country's working now than it was working
Speaker 1: literally in terms of jobs than it was when Obama
Speaker 1: was in charge. No, no, he's gonna have to spend
Speaker 1: all this time. No, I didn't obstruct that's a lie.
Speaker 1: That's a lie. So they just bury him in this slime.
Speaker 1: They know they'll be able to do that with the
Speaker 1: impeachment proceeding. But Pelosi is still sticking to the script here.
Speaker 1: If we haven't made the decision yet, you know, we're
Speaker 1: just waiting to see, just waiting to see what we
Speaker 1: come up with when we've reviewed all the facts, because
Speaker 1: we're so objective in all this. And it's about the Constitution.
Speaker 1: It's not about the Constitution. It's about Libs want to
Speaker 1: be back in power and get even with Trump. There
Speaker 1: are a lot of people that put their hopes and
Speaker 1: dreams that attach themselves to politicians the way that other
Speaker 1: people attach themselves to sports teams or celebrities. You know,
Speaker 1: they think that that person or that team is a
Speaker 1: reflection of who they are and look at in certain ways.
Speaker 1: It's not. You know, people who love their sports team,
Speaker 1: and that's fine and good, but some people take it
Speaker 1: too far. You know, some people keep referring to the
Speaker 1: teams as we long after the game is over, and
Speaker 1: they don't wipe the paint off their faces, and they
Speaker 1: go to work for a couple days wearing the jersey.
Speaker 1: It's like calm down, but you're not actually on the rangers.
Speaker 1: You know, you need to need to chill. But politicians
Speaker 1: and for liberals, I mean I've seen people recently. I
Speaker 1: saw someone right that, you know, liberalism is a form
Speaker 1: of identity politics for college educated white people now in
Speaker 1: this country, that you really want to be liberal just
Speaker 1: because of what it says about you, not because of
Speaker 1: what your beliefs are. And that's a major part of
Speaker 1: liberal liberal branding. And Nancy Pelosi is playing into that here.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi knows that you know you you. She just
Speaker 1: has to convince the Libs that the good people want
Speaker 1: to punish Trump and then everything else will start to fall,
Speaker 1: and then everything else falls into place. It doesn't need
Speaker 1: to worry about the details. You don't have to worry
Speaker 1: about the details. Just just push this narrative more. But Kimmel,
Speaker 1: who's one of these nasty libs, rich libs on on
Speaker 1: the West Coast, here's what he has to say to
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi, And let your play seven. You know, we don't.
Speaker 1: We haven't had a chance to see the Muller report.
Speaker 1: Doesn't seem like it seems like when your subpoenas somebody
Speaker 1: in Congress, and they for some reason, it used to
Speaker 1: be it seemed like you've got subpoena by Congress, you
Speaker 1: had to go in and speak. Now it's like, I
Speaker 1: don't know if I'm gonna do that. If I do,
Speaker 1: I have some different terms that. Can't you put those
Speaker 1: people in jail? Can't you put those people in jail?
Speaker 1: This is a comedian everybody on a major national TV platform.
Speaker 1: Can you put those people in jail? Don't forget as
Speaker 1: we get closer to the real height of this election battle,
Speaker 1: don't forget the lessons of Kavanaugh. Don't forget that the
Speaker 1: true believer lives don't think it's enough to have power.
Speaker 1: They don't think it's enough to get their way. They
Speaker 1: want to get their way, and they want to inflict
Speaker 1: punishment and misery and degradation on their ideological opponents because
Speaker 1: the only way they can believe what they believe is
Speaker 1: by insisting on the not just wrongness but evil of
Speaker 1: the other side. Otherwise they would have to grapple with facts,
Speaker 1: they'd have to grapple with differing notions of the common
Speaker 1: good and what policies work and don't work. No, No,
Speaker 1: so much easier to We're the nice people. We're the
Speaker 1: good people. We care about the poor, we care about minorities.
Speaker 1: Those mean conservatives are evil, they're white nationalists. They're all right,
Speaker 1: they support Trump. They're all of these things. And if
Speaker 1: they have to go to prison and have their lives
Speaker 1: ruined and have you know, their families pulled apart, and
Speaker 1: because you know, we have to win, then so be it.
Speaker 1: That's their attitude. It's a very common attitude on the left.
Speaker 1: They view all of this as zero sum. They're going
Speaker 1: scorched earth. They have no interest whatsoever in meeting us halfway.
Speaker 1: It's not going to happen. In fact, they complain to
Speaker 1: people like the Speaker of the House, why can't you
Speaker 1: lock up those who don't do what the congressional majority says, Well,
Speaker 1: there are some very good reasons, they're very good answer
Speaker 1: to that, But Nancy Plosi didn't give them, of course,
Speaker 1: because she's a panderer, just like Elizabeth Warred, who will
Speaker 1: talk about later on. Stay with me. Some of you
Speaker 1: may be aware of or gun laws in the United
Speaker 1: States don't make much sense. Anybody can buy any weapon
Speaker 1: at any time, you know, without much if any regulations
Speaker 1: make a buyer or the Internet vager buyer machine guns.
Speaker 1: That was a former president Obama. I think we can
Speaker 1: just refer to as Obama. I'm not a believer, as
Speaker 1: you know, and I'm never gonna change my mind on
Speaker 1: this one unless somebody makes a really compelling case. I'm
Speaker 1: not a believer in anyone maintaining a government title when
Speaker 1: they no longer have that title. I don't like calling
Speaker 1: former Speakers of the House mister speaker. I don't like
Speaker 1: calling former ambassador's ambassador or you know. My only exception
Speaker 1: is people in the Middley and that's just because I
Speaker 1: think the military should get a special, special deference. But
Speaker 1: that's it. The former president of United States here is
Speaker 1: speaking in front of a foreign audience. He's in Brazil,
Speaker 1: and everything that he said there is a lie. It's
Speaker 1: it's not that it's up for debate or discussion or
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, okay, the one part about much
Speaker 1: if any regulation, you could argue that that's an opinion, right,
Speaker 1: although that's a it's a stupid it's a stupid opinion.
Speaker 1: But he's allowed to have stupid opinions. I think Obama
Speaker 1: had many stupid opinions. But the things there are there
Speaker 1: are objective things that he said, anybody can buy any
Speaker 1: weapon any time. That's a lie. Anybody cannot buy any weapon.
Speaker 1: In fact, you are a prohibited possessor for a whole
Speaker 1: host of reasons. If you're convicted felon, if you have
Speaker 1: been convicted of a crime of domestic abuse, if you
Speaker 1: are an abuser or addict of illegal drugs, not a
Speaker 1: those none of those categories you're allowed to legally own
Speaker 1: any firearm of any kind. So it's not true that
Speaker 1: anybody can buy any weapon anytime. That's that's that's a lie.
Speaker 1: Start with that, that's a lie, and any weapon. He
Speaker 1: also says, really, how many of you who listen to
Speaker 1: this show who owned a Noba fires How many of
Speaker 1: you think you could just walk in and buy an
Speaker 1: M sixty fully automatic, belt fed M sixty. Now, I
Speaker 1: know there are a few of you who are like
Speaker 1: I can buck, I have the federal license, I know,
Speaker 1: but not you. I mean, the rest of the ninety
Speaker 1: nine percent of the people listening to the show cannot
Speaker 1: buy an M sixty legally, would not be able to
Speaker 1: do it. There's a whole bunch And if you live
Speaker 1: in a blue state, you probably or depends on the
Speaker 1: Blue State. But I mean, if you live in Connecticut,
Speaker 1: for example, you would not be able to buy a
Speaker 1: standard a standard cult made a R fifteen, couldn't buy it.
Speaker 1: I think you'd have to. I don't know what how
Speaker 1: the band is there. I know the ban in New
Speaker 1: York is you couldn't buy a standard air fafine. You'd
Speaker 1: have to buy some kind of modified AR that has
Speaker 1: a different stock and a different magazine and no four grip,
Speaker 1: and there's all these essentially cosmetic restricts. So but the
Speaker 1: point here is it's a lie. What Obama saying is
Speaker 1: a lie. They can buy it over the internet. That's
Speaker 1: also not true. They can he explicitly said they can
Speaker 1: buy machine guns. That's not true. So well, let's let's
Speaker 1: unpack that for a moment. What are we what are
Speaker 1: we to make of that? Why why would the former
Speaker 1: president United States go before a foreign audience and tell
Speaker 1: them things about America that are not true and and
Speaker 1: then do it in a way that you know, what's
Speaker 1: the purpose of this? Why would he do this? Why
Speaker 1: take down America as the former president of the United
Speaker 1: States to a foreign audience. He was speaking at the
Speaker 1: VTEX Digital Innovention Digital Innovation Convention in Sal Paulo. He
Speaker 1: also said the most difficult day during his two term
Speaker 1: presidency was the Sandy Hook shooting. So look, it's it's
Speaker 1: also I think noteworthy that Obama is saying this in Brazil,
Speaker 1: which has very restrictive gun laws. You know, you are,
Speaker 1: It's very hard to get a gun in Brazil legally,
Speaker 1: and Brazil has among the highest firearms homicide rates in
Speaker 1: the world, and it is about per capita I think
Speaker 1: five or six times five or six x r O.
Speaker 1: So he's speaking in a country that has strict gun laws,
Speaker 1: where they suffer from a true plague of gun violence
Speaker 1: every day, and he's doing it to get cheap applause.
Speaker 1: Because I've always felt this way about Obama. He is
Speaker 1: he is fueled by cheap applause. Now, a lot of
Speaker 1: politicians aren't. Don't get me wrong. I'm not. I'm not.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that this is a unique to Obama,
Speaker 1: but not a guy that had a lot of new ideas,
Speaker 1: really was dogmatically liberal, you know, did not break from
Speaker 1: the liberal consensus on anything that I can remember, and
Speaker 1: knew exactly what to say to different audiences to get
Speaker 1: them to go liberal audiences to get them go along
Speaker 1: with it. But this is also just a general liberal trait.
Speaker 1: They like to go on TV, they like to go
Speaker 1: on foreign soil. This is like my I know, I'm
Speaker 1: still fixated on c AN International, but I'd like to
Speaker 1: go in front of foreign audiences in trash America as
Speaker 1: though they think that there's some benefit to be derived
Speaker 1: from that. You know, they feel like they elevate themselves
Speaker 1: personally by taking shots at their own country. I can't
Speaker 1: understand that. Let's just say it, Okay, Brazil has a
Speaker 1: heck of a lot more to learn from Us than
Speaker 1: we have to learn from Brazil, and even close. So
Speaker 1: I just wish the Libs would would stop doing this.
Speaker 1: It's very common they like to go over you know,
Speaker 1: whether it's you know, actors or musicians or you know,
Speaker 1: just sort of famous self righteous libs, Democrat politicians. They're overseas,
Speaker 1: and there's always a pretty really there's always this possibility
Speaker 1: or maybe even probability that when America comes up and say,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, you know, America's an embarrassment, they'll make fun
Speaker 1: of all the you know, the right wing crazies and
Speaker 1: everything in this country and all we do is eat
Speaker 1: cheeseburgers and drive around in big SUVs that guzzle too
Speaker 1: much gas and climate change and all this. You know,
Speaker 1: we're one American family here. When when you go outside
Speaker 1: the family, everyone knows this. There's what you can say
Speaker 1: inside the family, and then what you say outside the family,
Speaker 1: you talk to somebody outside about what's going on the family.
Speaker 1: Everything's great, everyone's awesome. You don't air the family dirty
Speaker 1: laundry in funt of outsiders. And this is what democrats do.
Speaker 1: They get on foreign soil, and in this case, a
Speaker 1: former president, the most recent president before Trump, they get
Speaker 1: them foreign soil, and it just takes some cheap shots
Speaker 1: at their own country. And it's just it's just smarmie
Speaker 1: and low and and uh, I don't I don't think
Speaker 1: it's okay. Russia, Russia, Latimer Putin, Russia of Russia, Russia,
Speaker 1: Russia hates Russia, Russia, Russia, Putin Russia's Russia, Russia, Russia, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russian, Russia, Russia,
Speaker 1: Moscow Moscow, Russia, Russian Pro Russian, Russian, Russia, Russian, russ US.
Speaker 1: We just gave you, We just gave you a review
Speaker 1: of Rachel Maddow's show the highest rated show at MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Some it's the highest rated show across all the LIB networks.
Speaker 1: We gave you a review of Rachel maddow Show for
Speaker 1: about the last two years. Russia, Rusia, Russia, Moscow, Trump Tower,
Speaker 1: Trump Tower, Moscow, Russia, Mana Fort Moscow, Russia, collusion, collusion, collusion,
Speaker 1: you know, election interference. Blah blah. That's it, that's all.
Speaker 1: If you know that, you know what she's been doing
Speaker 1: for two years on the air, and turns out that Russia, Russia.
Speaker 1: What when it comes to Trump, Russia did what exactly
Speaker 1: with the Trump campaign? Oh, that's right, nothing, nothing. Well,
Speaker 1: it turns out there's a little bit of unease among
Speaker 1: some of the libs right now because they know that
Speaker 1: their brand has taken a hit. They're aware of the
Speaker 1: fact that the public, at least the public that has
Speaker 1: two brain cells to rub together that watches these shows,
Speaker 1: which is not that many of them, recognizes that they've
Speaker 1: been led astray, that this was overhyped. Now not many
Speaker 1: of them, by the way, most of them still are.
Speaker 1: That's right, Trump and Trump and Russia, Trump and Russia.
Speaker 1: They've been brainwashed. The Trump and Russia. They work together.
Speaker 1: You know, they can't help. It's more, you know, not
Speaker 1: my president. It just gets them so excited to this
Speaker 1: prospect that Hillary didn't really lose it. It's such a
Speaker 1: seductive they can't escape. It's such a seductive narrative, so
Speaker 1: much easier to look at that. But some of the
Speaker 1: newspapers are walking are back in a way, at least
Speaker 1: from their quote news reporters, which we'd all know. They've
Speaker 1: all got an agenda too, but they do more of
Speaker 1: the facts than the strictly opinion and propagandizing networks out there.
Speaker 1: This is a story on Vanity Fair today, inconsistent, incoherent,
Speaker 1: and poorly conceived. The New York Times clamps down on
Speaker 1: reporters going on MSNBC. Is this a liberal media war?
Speaker 1: This is very interesting. Apparently the Times just yanked quote
Speaker 1: one of its journalists from Rachel mattau amid concerns about
Speaker 1: cable news bias. Deem Backey or is it back it?
Speaker 1: I don't know how you say it. Backe thinks it's
Speaker 1: a real issue. That's the guy who runs New York Times,
Speaker 1: but didn't MSNBC. How build the Times is business and
Speaker 1: aren't they in the same Trump era vote? Oh wow,
Speaker 1: you mean the New York Times is trying to walk
Speaker 1: away a little bit from the the nonsense propaganda of
Speaker 1: Rachel Maddow Show and it comes to Russia collusion. You
Speaker 1: mean you mean to tell me that there is now
Speaker 1: some recognition among these various libs that they should not
Speaker 1: have gotten way, way, way ahead of the facts. If
Speaker 1: they're now going to present themselves as objective, objective news reporters. Nope,
Speaker 1: not objective, not objective. In fact the opposite. They are
Speaker 1: highly highly partisan. But they need to try to protect
Speaker 1: that brand somehow. So there are there are reporters from
Speaker 1: New York Times. They're being told they cannot go on
Speaker 1: The Madou Show, which is if you're a liberal, the
Speaker 1: single Oh it's not just Madou Show. Don Lemon too,
Speaker 1: who I believe Trump calls the dumbest man on television
Speaker 1: or the dumbest news host on television, which is a
Speaker 1: pretty that's a pretty strong case. You know, the New
Speaker 1: York Times contributors aren't allowed to go on Don Lemon
Speaker 1: Show anymore. Opinion columnists can, but not the news reporters
Speaker 1: because because of the perception of bias So for those
Speaker 1: who have been saying, ah, along, oh, you know this
Speaker 1: the it's just the facts that seeing everything. No, no,
Speaker 1: there's some recognition coming up now of they've gone they've
Speaker 1: just gone too far. Trump has broken them and they
Speaker 1: really have lost their minds. And in the era of Trump,
Speaker 1: it has become too obvious that there's an agenda at work.
Speaker 1: It's become too obvious that these lib networks have taken
Speaker 1: it upon themselves to be the hashtag resistance and to
Speaker 1: protect the perception of their news gathering organizations as neutral
Speaker 1: or nonpartisan. The Times and others are pulling their people
Speaker 1: off air. Sure enough, Hollywood disappoints again. I had told
Speaker 1: you all about Chernobyl and how it's a very well
Speaker 1: done show. It will haunt you. It's difficult to watch
Speaker 1: in parts, especially because you can't comfort yourself by telling yourself, Ah,
Speaker 1: this is fictional or this isn't really what happened. It
Speaker 1: is what happened. And you know, Chernobyl, it doesn't really
Speaker 1: spare you from some of the very painful and gory
Speaker 1: moments of that nuclear meltdown. And it's just a way
Speaker 1: of seeing what a sclerotic, ossified Soviet bureaucracy is really
Speaker 1: like and how the state, the big es state, if
Speaker 1: left to its own devices, doesn't really care about the
Speaker 1: suffering of its people, doesn't really want to be held accountable,
Speaker 1: and is willing to use brute force to make sure
Speaker 1: that suffering that is occurring is not known to the
Speaker 1: rest of the people. So there's some very important lessons
Speaker 1: from it. But they were not content, Hollywood and the libs,
Speaker 1: and they were not content to just allow it to
Speaker 1: be a very good show. Um, they went that well,
Speaker 1: one of the creators of it decided to get into
Speaker 1: a wow. HBO's Chernoble's already the highest rated show of
Speaker 1: all time on IMDb. According to producer Mike Here, I
Speaker 1: told you, it's a very good show. It's just very
Speaker 1: well done. Um. The guy who plays the kind of
Speaker 1: leads scientist is is really exceptional. I don't know, I've
Speaker 1: never I don't I've seen him in other stuff, I think,
Speaker 1: but I can't remember what. But he does a really
Speaker 1: good job. But Stephen King, the guy who writes about
Speaker 1: the you know, always really he's he's one of the
Speaker 1: most famous fiction writers of all time. I think you're
Speaker 1: at least one of the most famous of my lifetime
Speaker 1: Stephen King who wrote it? And pet Cemetery and all
Speaker 1: these different books that you know, producer Mike what what
Speaker 1: is the most famous is there? Like? What's the are
Speaker 1: you Stephen King person? Here and there? Like? I do
Speaker 1: I like some of this stuff. I don't haven't read
Speaker 1: any of his books, but um, I watched his movies.
Speaker 1: It's not really my genre, but I do enjoy some
Speaker 1: of them. I mean, what's the what's the most famous
Speaker 1: Stephen King book of all? Is it? Pet Cemetery? Is that?
Speaker 1: Or that's the one I would identify with. That's the
Speaker 1: one that this and I think just did a remake
Speaker 1: of that. Um, but I remember he got on my
Speaker 1: radar with pet Cemetery and then there's it right with
Speaker 1: the Clowns. Anyway, I never I've never read a Stephen
Speaker 1: King book, actually, and if he's not one of those,
Speaker 1: you know, I've read a lot of Tom Clancy and
Speaker 1: a lot of Michael Crichton. I've never read any Stephen King.
Speaker 1: But anyway, he went and he's a super lib no surprise.
Speaker 1: He weighed in on Twitter with the following, It's impossible
Speaker 1: to watch HBO's Chernobyl without thinking of Donald Trump like
Speaker 1: those in charge of the doomed Russian reactor. He's a
Speaker 1: man of mediocre intelligence in charge of great power, economic
Speaker 1: and global that he does not understand. Now, I mean,
Speaker 1: I have problems with us on many levels. First off,
Speaker 1: to tie the Chernobyl Reactor meltdown of nineteen eighty six
Speaker 1: to Donald Trump is a stretch in every way. It's just,
Speaker 1: you know, this is like saying that anything bad that
Speaker 1: happens is essentially Trump like, because Trump is so bad
Speaker 1: that you can compare it, that you can compare him
Speaker 1: to any bad thing. I mean, there's really no similarity here.
Speaker 1: If you say that he's a man of mediocre intelligence
Speaker 1: in charge of great power that he does not understand.
Speaker 1: How did Donald Trump beat the most completely in the tank,
Speaker 1: media and political machine imaginable with the Hillary twenty sixteen campaign.
Speaker 1: The guy is I'm not saying that he's a great intellect.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that he could sit down and write
Speaker 1: you an incredible essay on you know, the origins of
Speaker 1: Burkey and conservative thought or something. He is a political genius.
Speaker 1: He's a political genius. To do what he did required
Speaker 1: a level of genius. And this is why I almost say, Look,
Speaker 1: he's a president, I'm not. He understands things in the
Speaker 1: way that I don't. Am I more well read than
Speaker 1: Donald Trump? Yes? Is that bragging? No? Because I don't
Speaker 1: think it's that hard to be. Does he have tremendous
Speaker 1: skills that far exceed my own in different areas, and
Speaker 1: that I'm nearly in awe of his, like his ability
Speaker 1: to sell, his ability to endure, his ability to have
Speaker 1: animal political instincts that are just correct when everyone else
Speaker 1: thinks they're wrong. Those are like, those are almost like
Speaker 1: special powers that he has. And I'm not saying that,
Speaker 1: you know, he's as a as a person, he's some
Speaker 1: kind of a superhero. I just mean he has he
Speaker 1: has gifts. He has some gifts. But to suggest that
Speaker 1: he's this this bumbling full they said this about George
Speaker 1: Bush too, you know. And they tell us that Obama
Speaker 1: was a genius. Though Obama's not a genius. Obama's very
Speaker 1: mediocre political skills, yes, great thinker, Absolutely not Obama's. Obama's
Speaker 1: entire worldview ideology, the way he'd react to things on
Speaker 1: the fly was just wrote pure left wing liberalism that
Speaker 1: you'd get from any college professor at any third tier
Speaker 1: school anywhere in the country. That was Obamas. But it
Speaker 1: was in this persona of the you know, the the
Speaker 1: whole Obama of life and the you know, all that stuff, right,
Speaker 1: I mean that so that was anyway. I know, I'm
Speaker 1: getting a little bit deeper into the weeds on this
Speaker 1: than I'm meant to, but I just think that that's nonsense,
Speaker 1: that Stephen King will say that. Well, what's even more
Speaker 1: annoying to me, though, is that Then Craig Mazin responded
Speaker 1: to this tweet, and he is the creator of Chernobyl,
Speaker 1: I believe, and he wrote, first this is to Stephen King,
Speaker 1: I'm so pleased you're watching. And second, I'm so pleased
Speaker 1: you're smartly watching. Not that there was ever a doubt, so,
Speaker 1: you know, not quite piling on as hard as he could,
Speaker 1: but definitely suggesting that this comparison of Trump to the
Speaker 1: Chernobyl meltdown and the Soviet bureaucracy around it is apt.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is this is just so inverted thing.
Speaker 1: This is so it's such an inverted reality. I mean,
Speaker 1: Trump is an Even if someone hates Donald Trump, Trump
Speaker 1: is a hyper capitalist. Trump is a may the best
Speaker 1: man win you know win whenever you can, like, that's Trump.
Speaker 1: Trump is not. Nobody actually gets to win. Everyone pretends
Speaker 1: to share all the stuff, share the wealth, no one
Speaker 1: makes any decisions. I mean, he's the opposite of a
Speaker 1: Soviet bureaucracy. He's the opposite of a slothful government functionary.
Speaker 1: And you know why there's a sensitivity here is that
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party is the party of the slothful government functionary.
Speaker 1: The Democratic Party is the American political ideology that is
Speaker 1: most associated with a crushing, massive federal bureaucracy. It's not conservatives.
Speaker 1: It's not the ones that are saying, let's get rid
Speaker 1: of whole departments, let's cut the budget for this stuff,
Speaker 1: let's have less regulation. Let's so, I mean to make
Speaker 1: this comparison, but this is the same people that you
Speaker 1: know that Trump is hitler. They used to say Bush
Speaker 1: is hitler. Anyone they don't like is hitler. Anyone in
Speaker 1: power that doesn't agree with the various tenets of contemporary
Speaker 1: liberalism can be disregarded as as a not just a
Speaker 1: dumb person, but a bad person. You know what it
Speaker 1: is is liberalism is just intellectually flaccid. It just it lacks,
Speaker 1: it lacks a structure that is tangible and real. It's
Speaker 1: just it's emotion wrapped in emotion, covered in self righteousness
Speaker 1: and virtue signaling. What does the contemporary liberally even stand for?
Speaker 1: Bigger government destroying the you know, kicking at the load
Speaker 1: bearing walls of Western civilization? I mean, what do what
Speaker 1: do liberals even really you know, giving giving some people
Speaker 1: what they want and telling other people that even if
Speaker 1: it harms them or it takes from them, well because
Speaker 1: of an interpretation of history or because of an interpretation
Speaker 1: of contemporary oppression, It's fine. I just I just think,
Speaker 1: you know, I think liberalism is really a kind of massie.
Speaker 1: It's turned in the era of Trump, it has turned
Speaker 1: into a mass psychosis. And this comparison of Trump to
Speaker 1: the Soviet bureaucracy and the era of Chernobyl is just nuts.
Speaker 1: It's it's it's such a I was glad to see
Speaker 1: my friend Dan Bongino weigh in on this one on
Speaker 1: Twitter too. You know, Dan, and I'll tell you this,
Speaker 1: I don't often I don't talk that much about other
Speaker 1: people in the business. You know, Dan has had a
Speaker 1: He's always been a very talented guy, but the last
Speaker 1: two years he's really done. And you know, he's just
Speaker 1: he's just built a real empire for himself. And I
Speaker 1: will tell you he is one of the nicest guys
Speaker 1: in this business. He's always given me helpful advice, he's
Speaker 1: always been a friend, He's always been a really, really
Speaker 1: good dude. Um. So I'm really happy to see Dan
Speaker 1: do so well. Also happy to see him smack smacksim
Speaker 1: lives around. He wrote the following why do Hollywood elite
Speaker 1: is continue to publicly humiliate themselves on Twitter? Chernobyl was
Speaker 1: a failure of socialism where the government controls the means
Speaker 1: of production, the exact opposite of the Trump deregulation and
Speaker 1: tax cut agenda. Yeah, it's just another another very well
Speaker 1: put way of saying what I'm telling you, which is
Speaker 1: that this is they take they make something artistic that
Speaker 1: has a worthwhile message, and the Libs will rewrite history
Speaker 1: and create some obtuse, elogical takeaway because they can't help themselves.
Speaker 1: Because what is close, what is closer to the Soviet
Speaker 1: bureaucracy that defies truth, that does not care about the
Speaker 1: real life consequences of policies, that believes that the revolution
Speaker 1: and the cause as defined by a governing elite is
Speaker 1: more important and more powerful and more worthy than anything,
Speaker 1: including preventing the murder of perhaps millions or death, I
Speaker 1: should say, of millions of people in the Soviet What
Speaker 1: is closer to that mentality? The individual rights, constitutional, limited government, freedom,
Speaker 1: liberty group, which would be conservatives, or the we get
Speaker 1: to tell you what you can put on social media,
Speaker 1: what you can drive, what power you can use, what
Speaker 1: you can say, how much of your own stuff you
Speaker 1: can keep? Crossss and will use the deep state to
Speaker 1: ruin you. Democrat Party. I mean, who's closer to this.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying they are Soviets, but who's closer to
Speaker 1: the Soviet Union? The American Left for the American right,
Speaker 1: There's no question it's the American left. That's one of
Speaker 1: the reason why I still really reject or resent this
Speaker 1: usage of red as the color for the Republican Party
Speaker 1: and blue for the Democrats. That's that's that's not an accident, folks,
Speaker 1: And there's no good reason for that. The Democrats should
Speaker 1: be the reds, we should be the blues. It seems
Speaker 1: like a minor thing, but it's really not. Whether they've
Speaker 1: appropriated the term liberal, they've taken from us, the word
Speaker 1: most associated with what is central to our belief system,
Speaker 1: which is liberty, individual liberty, and the human dignity and
Speaker 1: freedom that comes with it. They've taken that word and
Speaker 1: made it their word, and they're they're the antithesis of
Speaker 1: liberalis And that's why I'll call them libs now. But
Speaker 1: I used to refuse to call them liberals, and then
Speaker 1: finally I said, all right, I guess I can't. I
Speaker 1: can't fight City Hall on this one. You know, they've
Speaker 1: moved away from progressives because that's just that's just not
Speaker 1: hip anymore. I just like leftists. My college thesis, that's
Speaker 1: our referred to them. I'll keep referring in that way leftists.
Speaker 1: But yeah, leftists, even when they make good movies, they
Speaker 1: take the wrong message from it. Chernoble's a great show,
Speaker 1: but the creator of it and Stephen King and other
Speaker 1: libs take the exact wrong message away from it, which
Speaker 1: is that all this is like Trump. No, it's not
Speaker 1: like Trump at all. It's actually the opposite of Trump.
Speaker 1: It's like you, guys, it's like the Democrat. Not you
Speaker 1: listening to this, but the Democrats. That's what the Soviet
Speaker 1: bureaucracy should remind everybody of And that's why there's the
Speaker 1: sensitivity in this effort to say, oh, it's it's like Trump.
Speaker 1: I don't. I don't think so, clowns. I don't think so.
Speaker 1: I'll bring it back. We can cancel student loan debt
Speaker 1: for about nine of the people who have it. And finally, oh,
Speaker 1: but we can do so much more two cents. We
Speaker 1: cannot only do that. We can also provide universal tuition
Speaker 1: free technical school, two year college, and four year college
Speaker 1: for every one of our kids. To what we can do,
Speaker 1: universal childcare for every baby age zero to five, universal
Speaker 1: pre K for every three year old and four year
Speaker 1: old in this country, and raise the wages of every
Speaker 1: childcare worker and preschool cenator. We're just gonna give a
Speaker 1: lot of free stuff to different people by texting the
Speaker 1: rich people, oh man, Elizabeth Warren, she makes Hilary seem appealing.
Speaker 1: That was on the view. By the way, Joy bears, Yes,
Speaker 1: I love all the free stuff, except I don't work
Speaker 1: for free. I work for millions. But I care so
Speaker 1: much about poor people because I'm Joy beiha, I don't think.
Speaker 1: I don't think that she cares about poor people at all.
Speaker 1: I think it's all front. I think that these multi
Speaker 1: millionaire libs that go on TV their favorite thing to
Speaker 1: pretend they're number one thing to pretend they really really
Speaker 1: care a lot about talking about the white libs on
Speaker 1: TV is fighting against racism. That's because it requires nothing
Speaker 1: from them. I'm not you know, I'm joy Behad, I'm
Speaker 1: not racist, and I hate racist Donald Trump because he's
Speaker 1: such a racist. And then there are other favorite things
Speaker 1: to pretend they care so much about poor people. They
Speaker 1: don't do anything for poor people. They don't have any
Speaker 1: necessarily any even personal connection to the poor. They make
Speaker 1: no sacrifices in their own life, but they want us
Speaker 1: all to know that they really care about poor, poor people.
Speaker 1: But back to Elizabeth Warren talking about giving all this
Speaker 1: free stuff. Notice how that crowd of the View, which
Speaker 1: I wonder where the mean IQ is lower the IQ
Speaker 1: of the average audience member on the View or the
Speaker 1: Bill Maher show, Both of them just liberal seals clapping
Speaker 1: like they're trained. You know, they're gonna get a fish
Speaker 1: every time they clap like seals. That's true of both
Speaker 1: of those audiences. I've actually been in the Bill Maher
Speaker 1: audience once because my friend see cupp was was on
Speaker 1: the show and she brought me along as a guest.
Speaker 1: That audience is the dumbest audience of anything I've ever
Speaker 1: just the things that they clap out. I'm like, are
Speaker 1: you guys all morons? Well the answers yes, but poke well,
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren, that was actually a freudience. Elizabeth Warren knows
Speaker 1: that promising all this free stuff is going to get
Speaker 1: this audience very very fired up and on her side,
Speaker 1: and she's she's desperately trying to move away from her
Speaker 1: identity politics fraud right that she's a Cherokee from Oklahoma,
Speaker 1: to how she's the idea's candidate. But really all she's
Speaker 1: doing is taking Bernie Sanders ideas and being a woman
Speaker 1: as she says them, and that's it. I mean, that's
Speaker 1: the difference, and being younger than Bernie, which is not hard.
Speaker 1: So that's all that she brings to the table. At
Speaker 1: this point, she went on this show The Breakfast Club,
Speaker 1: which I've seen clips up a few times before. I'm
Speaker 1: not really familiar with the people on the show, and
Speaker 1: I know it's I believe too. Of the host of
Speaker 1: African American, I think one is Latino. I don't and
Speaker 1: I don't know who all the hosts are, but she
Speaker 1: was on that show and it was very interesting. This
Speaker 1: this guy named Charlemagne the God. He was speaking Elizabeth Warren.
Speaker 1: And I note that these politicians, especially some of the
Speaker 1: ones who are very used to being treated a certain
Speaker 1: way by the mainstream media and everything else. These politicians, um,
Speaker 1: they don't do very well with a kind of unscripted
Speaker 1: off the cuff podcast radio show kind of format. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, with without there, without George Stephanopolas holding their hands.
Speaker 1: As a Democrat, they can get thrown off their game
Speaker 1: a little bit. Here's Charlamayne the God talking to Elizabeth
Speaker 1: Warren and I'm gonna I'm gonna play a good chunk
Speaker 1: of this clip because I want you to hear this.
Speaker 1: I mean, he he calls her out. I give him credit.
Speaker 1: I'm m I believe the guys at Democrat. He's a leftist.
Speaker 1: He's I'm sure gonna vote for, you know, a Democrat
Speaker 1: in twenty twenty. But at least he's doing a real interview.
Speaker 1: Play clip play clip too hoo. How long did you
Speaker 1: hold on it? There was some report that said you
Speaker 1: are Native American on your Texas ball license and then
Speaker 1: she said, you are a Native American on some documents
Speaker 1: when you were a professor at Harvard, Like, why'd you
Speaker 1: do that? So it's what I believe, you know, that's
Speaker 1: like I said, it's what I learned from my family.
Speaker 1: When did you find out? When did you find out
Speaker 1: you weren't? Well, you know, it's I'm not a person
Speaker 1: of color. I'm not a citizen of a tribe, and
Speaker 1: tribal citizenship is an important distinction and not something I am.
Speaker 1: So were there any benefits of that? No, Boston Globe
Speaker 1: did a full investigation. It never affected nothing about my
Speaker 1: family ever affected any job I ever got. Um didn't
Speaker 1: get a discount of college. Now he's kind of like
Speaker 1: the original Rachel Doza, a little bit che do white
Speaker 1: woman pretending to be black. Now this is what I
Speaker 1: learned from my family. Yeah, yeah, Wow, you're like the
Speaker 1: original Rachel Dola's all. He remember Rachel dolas All. She
Speaker 1: was a white woman living her life as a black
Speaker 1: woman despite the fact that she was not black. And
Speaker 1: I believe was a some senior member of the NAAC
Speaker 1: chapter in the Pacific Northwest. I think was Seattle or
Speaker 1: Portland or somewhere like that. I forget where exactly, but she, yeah,
Speaker 1: she was a white woman living her life as a
Speaker 1: black woman and had adopted this persona that she was
Speaker 1: a black woman and worked for the NAACP. If memory serves,
Speaker 1: and here is Charlomagne and the god, who is a
Speaker 1: black person is asking Elizabeth Warre and like, how do
Speaker 1: you how do you go through your adult life? You're
Speaker 1: a teacher, You're a professor at Harvard, at University of Pennsylvania,
Speaker 1: these Ivy League schools, and you just assumed that even
Speaker 1: though you're the whitest white woman that anyone's ever seen,
Speaker 1: that you're actually a Cherokee. You know. I spoke to
Speaker 1: someone who studied with her, and this is a private person,
Speaker 1: so I've got to protect the source. But I spoke
Speaker 1: to somebody who took classes with her at Harvard Law School,
Speaker 1: and he said that she would refer to herself as
Speaker 1: a as a Cherokee from Oklahoma on a She was
Speaker 1: the chapter president of the end UP. Sorry Elizabeth, not
Speaker 1: on this Warman. Rachel dolisol Pruscer Mike tells me was
Speaker 1: the chapter president of the end of ACP in Spokane, Washington, YEP.
Speaker 1: The Chapter President of the end of ALACP. So wow,
Speaker 1: that back to Elizabeth Warren. This guy that I know
Speaker 1: who studied with her at Harvard Law School, was a
Speaker 1: student of hers when she was a professor there, said
Speaker 1: that she would refer to herself regularly. It was just
Speaker 1: known that she was Elizabeth Warren Cherokee. That was that
Speaker 1: was her identity there. And this pretense now they're like, oh,
Speaker 1: and it didn't do anything or whatever it's on and
Speaker 1: I think Charlemagne the God looks at her and it's like, really,
Speaker 1: like you never really thought this one through. It wasn't
Speaker 1: like a minor thing. I mean, she really was representing herself.
Speaker 1: She wrote in Pow Wow Chow. She wrote in Pow
Speaker 1: Wow Chow, where she plagiarized the recipe Elizabeth Warren Cherokee.
Speaker 1: So she this was really a part of you know,
Speaker 1: I don't write on things like Buck Sexton, you know,
Speaker 1: Anglo Irish white guy. You know, I don't write that
Speaker 1: on things. But this was really a part of her
Speaker 1: conception of herself and how she does things and who
Speaker 1: she was. And Charlotte Maagne's like this kind of weird, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, you you were living this fraud, whether it
Speaker 1: directly professionally benefited you or not, there's something definitely off
Speaker 1: about it. And then he asked her about something else,
Speaker 1: and I didn't even know this part of her, so look,
Speaker 1: I tipped my hat to the breakfast club. They got
Speaker 1: a real interview out of Elizabeth Warren, and there was
Speaker 1: a lot of pandering by the way that went on too.
Speaker 1: I mean, at different points the interview, she started talking about,
Speaker 1: you know, all the things that she wants to do
Speaker 1: for the black community, and you know how she's in
Speaker 1: favor of reparations and all this stuff. I was just
Speaker 1: waiting for the pull at Hillary Clinton be like, oh,
Speaker 1: and I have hot sauce in my handbag all the time,
Speaker 1: you know, and and I love hip hop music, and
Speaker 1: just just being the most like lame old white lib
Speaker 1: boomer trying to pander imaginable, right. I mean, that's that's
Speaker 1: what Hillary used to do, and it's obviously what Warren's doing.
Speaker 1: But mister the God that's his name, I don't know
Speaker 1: what his real name is, asked her about something else
Speaker 1: that I didn't even know, which is that she used
Speaker 1: to be a registered Republican. Play Cliff three, the only
Speaker 1: folks who were willing to stand and fight were folks
Speaker 1: like Paul Wellstone and Ted Kennedy. And that's when republican
Speaker 1: is that why, like sometimes you do it your family,
Speaker 1: you know, when I say, oh, really we weren't active,
Speaker 1: I actually don't even know. Okay, I don't. I don't
Speaker 1: even know how that. A lot of confusion back in
Speaker 1: the Dame is one you thought you was Native American,
Speaker 1: you thought she was Republican. When you get on, when
Speaker 1: you get on the right track, you got to a
Speaker 1: fucking road at some point. Yeah, you know, A bit
Speaker 1: part of it was when I got into the fights
Speaker 1: over You've got to make the law reflect their values.
Speaker 1: You've got to have a law that that doesn't just
Speaker 1: work for those at the top, but the works for
Speaker 1: everyone else. Good for him, mister the gods saying yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, there's some stuff in your background for miss
Speaker 1: progressive of fighter for social justice. And really all social
Speaker 1: justice is, and this is borrowing a bit from Thomas Soul,
Speaker 1: social justice is just the institutionalization of the politics of
Speaker 1: envy and of class warfare and identity politics. That's what
Speaker 1: social justice is. A catch all term for changing things,
Speaker 1: changing things around so that some people are going to
Speaker 1: benefit at the expense of other people based on gender,
Speaker 1: racial categorization, etc. That's all it is, or class category,
Speaker 1: And they'll say that it's justice. They'll say that that's
Speaker 1: what's fair. Is somebody the government taking from some people
Speaker 1: to give to others, whether it's money, whether it's a benefit,
Speaker 1: whether it's access, and it's a redistributive process. And there's
Speaker 1: always an arbitrariness to it. It's not it's not based
Speaker 1: on the market, it's not based on contracts, on free association,
Speaker 1: individual rights. It's what does the power, what do the
Speaker 1: powers that be think should happen here? And that is
Speaker 1: what happens. And that's that is a very short, but
Speaker 1: I think decent working definition of social justice. Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: is miss social justice. And you know, she might have
Speaker 1: been formidable if she had run in twenty sixteen, if
Speaker 1: she had run instead of Bernie, maybe it wouldn't have
Speaker 1: gone Hillary's way, although I still think the DNC was
Speaker 1: probably so far in the tank for Hillary that it
Speaker 1: would not have mattered. But she was confused about being
Speaker 1: a Native American. She says, confused. I mean, I just
Speaker 1: think that I think that it was like family lord
Speaker 1: that she capitalized on. You know, she she took that
Speaker 1: little story that people you know, there's all kinds of stories.
Speaker 1: You know, my background, I'm related to this like famous
Speaker 1: founding father and that you know, I don't say it.
Speaker 1: I don't know, is it true? Who knows? Who cares?
Speaker 1: She took this? Yeah, that's right. Bucks related to one
Speaker 1: of the not the most famous founders, really the forgotten founder,
Speaker 1: but apparently I'm related to him. But she took this
Speaker 1: and realized that there's a a benefit and then she
Speaker 1: got that benefit. And now she's telling us she didn't
Speaker 1: get it. And Charlemagne is that God is like, so
Speaker 1: you were confused about being a Republican and confused about
Speaker 1: being a Cherokee. What else are you confused about? Did
Speaker 1: you happen to see the video this Buck? Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: it's amazing. It's the look on his face. It is priceless.
Speaker 1: It's so awkward. He's like they're so close and he's
Speaker 1: looking at her like really she was. It was priceless.
Speaker 1: It's amazing. All right, we had a quick break team.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. What is this? I see all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, AOC and Ted Cruise are talking about
Speaker 1: agreeing on a lifetime band for for members of Congress
Speaker 1: from for lobby from lobbying. I don't like this. It's
Speaker 1: not that I don't like them agreeing. If there's something
Speaker 1: they should agree on, I'm okay with that, but I
Speaker 1: just don't think this is the right idea. I disagree
Speaker 1: with Ted on this one. Okazio Cortez AOC, tweeted out today,
Speaker 1: if you're a member of Congress and you leave, you
Speaker 1: shouldn't be allowed to turn right around and leverage your
Speaker 1: service for a lobbyist chest. I don't think it should
Speaker 1: be legal at all to become a corporate lobbyist if
Speaker 1: you served in Congress. At minimum, there should be a
Speaker 1: long wait period. That was AOC. Ted Cruz responded to
Speaker 1: our on Twitter. Here's something I don't say often on
Speaker 1: this point. I agree with AOC. Indeed, I have long
Speaker 1: called for a lifetime ban on former members of Congress
Speaker 1: becoming lobbyist. The swamp would hate it, but perhaps there's
Speaker 1: a chance for some bipartisan cooperation. You know, there's a
Speaker 1: you know there's a problem here, and that is that
Speaker 1: the First Amendment is still a thing, even if some
Speaker 1: people don't like it. Even if there are some people
Speaker 1: who have an issue with the way that it works,
Speaker 1: and you should be able to, you know, go and
Speaker 1: share your thoughts with your representatives, and even if you're
Speaker 1: getting paid for it, if you're lobbyist, you know this
Speaker 1: is kind of the way it is, folks. I know
Speaker 1: right now you have I think a one year ban
Speaker 1: on lobbying if you're a member of the House, and
Speaker 1: a two year ban and if you remember the Senate,
Speaker 1: but I mean a lifetime man that that to me
Speaker 1: just seems like a It just seems like an unconstitutional restriction.
Speaker 1: Why can't you try to get redressive grievances from your
Speaker 1: government or try to push policies that you like as
Speaker 1: you're a private citizen as a lobbyist, or not remember
Speaker 1: the government anymore. So, I don't know. I don't see
Speaker 1: this the way Ted Cruz and AOC do. And I
Speaker 1: think that if you really believe that the swamp will
Speaker 1: be drained, because you're gonna make it harder for people
Speaker 1: who formerly remembers Congress to be a lobbyists, I think
Speaker 1: you're underestimating how deep and wide, and you know, intractably
Speaker 1: grotesque the swamp really is. I don't know if that's
Speaker 1: a phrase, but I just made it up. But then
Speaker 1: there's something else about AOC or something AOC like that
Speaker 1: got my attention to. There's there's apparently this mini AOC
Speaker 1: Ava Martinez of Lake Forest, Colorado. Have you guys heard this?
Speaker 1: It's Fridays. I feel like you have a little fun
Speaker 1: with it. This is a young girl who does this
Speaker 1: AOC impersonation, and it's really pretty. It's really pretty fun.
Speaker 1: It's really pretty funny. She does, she doesn't. She's an
Speaker 1: eight year old and she I think she gets these
Speaker 1: issues about as well as AOC does. Play clip one
Speaker 1: like Hello America and see here again, but this time
Speaker 1: from Washington, DC, which is named after our country's first president,
Speaker 1: George Washington DC. Did you know that? Like, I want
Speaker 1: to tell you about my plan to single handedly save
Speaker 1: the planet. I call it the Green New Deal. I
Speaker 1: picked green because I'm still learning my colors. I came
Speaker 1: up with my plan after we were watching like the
Speaker 1: most important documentary on climate change. It's called I say
Speaker 1: two the melt Down. That's not me saying it, that's science,
Speaker 1: Like Green New Deal, cause like ninety three trillion dollars,
Speaker 1: do you know how much that is me neither, because
Speaker 1: it's totally worth it. If c Loski rising, we don't
Speaker 1: be able to drive to Hawaii anymore. And I just
Speaker 1: got this electric car. It's eco friendly. Everyone has to
Speaker 1: drive one. I give my idea. I feel like I
Speaker 1: feel like, you know, it's pretty much in line with
Speaker 1: AOC's thinking on everything. It's it's parody. Oh hopefully they're
Speaker 1: not going to try to get Facebook to take down
Speaker 1: this young girl's videos. Oh man, it's pretty it's pretty entertaining,
Speaker 1: you know. I see having an eight year old that
Speaker 1: is doing comedy is one thing. No one's actually suggesting
Speaker 1: that young Ava Martinez should march into Congress and make
Speaker 1: demands about commentating. That's what the libs do. But having
Speaker 1: an eight year old be kind of funny in this way.
Speaker 1: I feel like it's it's a music. It's entertaining. That
Speaker 1: that much is for sure. But yeah, Ted Cruz and
Speaker 1: AOC agreeing on this lobbyist band thing. I don't know.
Speaker 1: I feel ted. I feel like Ted wanted some attention,
Speaker 1: you know, this is one way to get it. Here,
Speaker 1: I am talking about him. I haven't seen I haven't
Speaker 1: seen Ted. And while I'll tell you. I've interviewed him
Speaker 1: numerous times. I've met him numerous times. He always pretends
Speaker 1: to not know who I am. I'll just be honest
Speaker 1: with you. Always pretends to not know who I am.
Speaker 1: Like Ted, you know I interview I interviewed him for
Speaker 1: the first time for an hour on the phone, say
Speaker 1: seven years ago maybe, and we've had several sit downs
Speaker 1: one on one since then, and Ted's always just like, good,
Speaker 1: good to meet you back. I'm like, yes, Senator Cruz,
Speaker 1: good to meet you for the eighth time. I'm glad.
Speaker 1: I don't know that that many do I look like
Speaker 1: the guy from Parks and Wreck that much that you
Speaker 1: can't keep us, keep us separate in your head. Man.
Speaker 1: People Also, you say young James Spader, they look like
Speaker 1: a young James Spader back then. I don't know if
Speaker 1: that's I think I'll take that over Ben Wyatt from
Speaker 1: Parks and rec but it is. It is what it is.
Speaker 1: Trying to think of a new show that I'm gonna
Speaker 1: watch this weekend too, I'll take some res on that
Speaker 1: from all of you before we get going into a
Speaker 1: roll call here in a a few minutes. What is the
Speaker 1: new show on Netflix that I should try out and
Speaker 1: then I'll give you my impromptu review here on the
Speaker 1: show Game of Thrones, they just tried to land that
Speaker 1: plane before it came apart. I mean it was and
Speaker 1: it was close. Man, they almost crashed. They almost crashed
Speaker 1: that thing. I need a new show. I don't have
Speaker 1: any people. Should I watch the Americans? Should I launch
Speaker 1: into it and really do it? Is it worth really
Speaker 1: spending the time at this point, I'm sure some of
Speaker 1: you will say, yes, that's top of my list right now.
Speaker 1: But let me know. Roll calls up next, Rock and roll.
Speaker 1: Fellow patriots, we made ours go up to eleven. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll call. Indeed, Friday roll called double the role,
Speaker 1: call double the fun. Remember that double double. You're a freshman?
Speaker 1: Oh no, single gum double Freshmen's your laugh? Man? I
Speaker 1: watched so many commercials growing up. It's the TV industry
Speaker 1: really did brainwash us all in different ways. You start
Speaker 1: to become more acclimated to it as you get older,
Speaker 1: but you know, you recognize more as you get older.
Speaker 1: Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. If you want to
Speaker 1: be a part of this, that is the way to
Speaker 1: do it. Love to hear from you, appreciate your thoughts,
Speaker 1: all of that good stuff, all of those good things
Speaker 1: coming via the Facebook. As as I mentioned to you,
Speaker 1: next week is my last week at Hill TV, which
Speaker 1: means that the door will be open for more freedom
Speaker 1: Hunt projects and less showing up paying the bills projects
Speaker 1: at you know, the Hill. So here we go. Glenn.
Speaker 1: First up, if parenthood does other procedures besides abortion, then
Speaker 1: why would the one in Missouri have to close? Well,
Speaker 1: you know planned parenthood. Glen always talks about the other procedures,
Speaker 1: but they won't they won't continue to do those procedures
Speaker 1: in the absence of abortion. I mean, they insist on
Speaker 1: on bundling it all together and that way they can
Speaker 1: refer to an abortion procedure as healthcare, when as we know,
Speaker 1: that's a very euphemistic way of looking at an abortion
Speaker 1: and that's putting it mildly looking at abortion procedure. Michael rites,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, can you please post more videos of your
Speaker 1: TV appearances onto YouTube? Thanks? Buddy Shields High Well, Michael,
Speaker 1: you know I am happy to and I try to whenever.
Speaker 1: It's really just I have to bother producer Mike sometimes
Speaker 1: after hours to get him to pull it because they
Speaker 1: don't always post them on Foxnews dot Com, so we
Speaker 1: have to find way to get it separately. But yeah,
Speaker 1: last night it was a little debate on Shannon Breem
Speaker 1: Show though Ed Henry was hosting. I like Ed. I
Speaker 1: think Ed always does, as he's a good he's a
Speaker 1: good TV TV host in general. But he let us
Speaker 1: he let us get after it a little bit. You know,
Speaker 1: he let the exchange get pretty feisty, and it should
Speaker 1: because I mean I think that this guy, I forget
Speaker 1: it was he was some former some former deputy assistant
Speaker 1: attorney general or something under Obama. He's some Democrat lawyer.
Speaker 1: And his position get ready for this, was that Muller
Speaker 1: was quote too fair. That's what he said, too fair
Speaker 1: to Trump in this whole process, which you know, if
Speaker 1: you're going to be just absolutely delusional, then I do
Speaker 1: think that a bit of derision is is called for.
Speaker 1: I was professional, of course, but I mean this guy,
Speaker 1: this guy was just was just nuts. I mean he
Speaker 1: also said that he might try to make some point
Speaker 1: about how they don't prove that that the decision about
Speaker 1: not exonerating is made every day, it's just made public.
Speaker 1: Said no, that's that's an obtuse way of looking at this,
Speaker 1: they either bring charges or they don't. They don't say, well,
Speaker 1: we could have brought charges, but we didn't bring charges,
Speaker 1: which is what Mueller did. That is not what happens
Speaker 1: in legal cases. That is not what happens in our
Speaker 1: legal system. And that is what Mueller came up with here,
Speaker 1: because as we've been discussing, this was just all all along,
Speaker 1: this was about impeachment. That's what this was. That's what
Speaker 1: was going on. Kristen, right, I know you support Snippy,
Speaker 1: but I feel like it's kind of hard to navigate. Well, Kristen,
Speaker 1: I'll go back and check out snippy dot com, make
Speaker 1: sure that they've got all the updates they need, and
Speaker 1: I will see what you're what you're telling me here.
Speaker 1: We'll get a sense as to how we we always
Speaker 1: want to update the products and do the best we can.
Speaker 1: Sandra writes. Have been listening since Real News with Amy Holmes,
Speaker 1: since your recent iHeart Sight New Look. I'm not able
Speaker 1: to listen via iHeart just get a spinning icon that
Speaker 1: never turns into the arrow, so I have to listen
Speaker 1: via iTunes on my phone. Well, Sanda, first of all,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for continuing to listen. I'm sorry
Speaker 1: that we're putting some obstacles in your way. That is
Speaker 1: certainly not our intention, and you know we're trying to
Speaker 1: always update our technology and do everything we can to
Speaker 1: make it a seamless and easy experience for you to listen.
Speaker 1: So please stay with us on this and we'll try
Speaker 1: to get it fixed on Bucksexton dot com so you'll
Speaker 1: be able to listen there. John Shields high fan since
Speaker 1: the Real News day as well. I love I love
Speaker 1: you folks who have been with me now for I
Speaker 1: started Real News in twenty twelve, I think, so we're
Speaker 1: going on now seven years. You've been spending time listening
Speaker 1: to me, consuming the content I put out there. It
Speaker 1: really it does mean a lot, and I think you
Speaker 1: all who listened to the show know that I really
Speaker 1: honestly appreciate it. It's entirely possible, John, right to the
Speaker 1: left believes they can use impeachment as a political tool
Speaker 1: to keep Trump from winning in twenty twenty. Think of
Speaker 1: the campaign ads President Trump peached by the Senate, then
Speaker 1: they can say how can you vote for a man
Speaker 1: who was impeached again? If they believe it will help them,
Speaker 1: I think they will use it. Honestly, what else do
Speaker 1: they have? Commie bear lives? Yeah, John, I think this
Speaker 1: is what you're describing is the calculation that the Democrats
Speaker 1: are making, which is that there will be enough of
Speaker 1: a boost for them and it's worthwhile enough for them
Speaker 1: to trash Trump through the impeachment process that it does
Speaker 1: not matter that there will also be an attendant backlash
Speaker 1: and mobilization of the pro Trump base. You know, remember
Speaker 1: they're they're fighting over We're fighting over a few million
Speaker 1: and really more likely a few hundred thousand votes when
Speaker 1: it all comes down to it in twenty twenty, and
Speaker 1: that will be the difference. And the mobilization and turn
Speaker 1: out of the base obviously plays a part in this too.
Speaker 1: But and if you're looking at the undecided and places
Speaker 1: like Ohio and Florida, what do the Democrats think be
Speaker 1: able to run against an impeach president will mean for them?
Speaker 1: And if they come away from it thinking well, this
Speaker 1: will be major benefit, they'll do it. And I think
Speaker 1: they will do it. I think we are. I think
Speaker 1: we are heading to impeachment. I really do. I believe
Speaker 1: that that is going to happen. Brandy and Rights Hey
Speaker 1: Buck Podcast listener, I understand that podcasts have the platforms
Speaker 1: have the right to place their ads in the show.
Speaker 1: Perhaps the producers that load your show can work the
Speaker 1: platforms as to the time placement of their ads. There
Speaker 1: are breaks that could be utilized so we're not interrupted
Speaker 1: in the middle of important parts of the show. You know, Brandon,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to a lot of people have been
Speaker 1: writing it about this, and I'm just gonna have to
Speaker 1: dive into this and figure out how to make this
Speaker 1: the podcast experience a more seamless one. It is going
Speaker 1: to happen. Trust me, this is a priority. We have
Speaker 1: so many of you who are listening to this show
Speaker 1: now via podcast. It's really in terms of size, it's
Speaker 1: starting to get close to rivaling the overall radio show.
Speaker 1: So we're gonna do more and more here to make
Speaker 1: sure that We're gonna have to have ads in the podcast,
Speaker 1: obviously because got to keep the lights on in the
Speaker 1: Freedom Hunt, but we will make it so that it's
Speaker 1: not as as jarring and experience. Kathy Rides, please bring
Speaker 1: back commy bear action movie quote is fine for those
Speaker 1: that enjoy it, but I honestly believe that most of
Speaker 1: us would enjoy Commy Bear even more, also hoping you'll
Speaker 1: have more time for History Deep Dives. Thanks kath From Kathy.
Speaker 1: All right, Kathy the History Deep Dives. That's that will.
Speaker 1: I know I've said it before, but I was just
Speaker 1: this past year my schedule didn't allow for it. I
Speaker 1: didn't have the time to do the research and the
Speaker 1: reading and everything, and Commy beart. I'm happy to bring
Speaker 1: it back. It's just to get in the mindset of
Speaker 1: creating a character like that for a show like this.
Speaker 1: Unless people really really love it, it's just a lot
Speaker 1: of It takes a lot of time and thought to
Speaker 1: make it work. Well. Even a minute or two of
Speaker 1: Commy Bear takes more time than a standard, you know,
Speaker 1: fifteen minute long radio monologue to open the show in
Speaker 1: terms of the Prepper ration, just because writing and the
Speaker 1: writing and the voice of a throwback Soviet teddy bear
Speaker 1: that drinks vodka but also likes American pop culture and
Speaker 1: carries a Kalashnikoff is not an easy thing to do.
Speaker 1: But I'm so glad, Kathie you like him, and I do.
Speaker 1: I do want to get back to some of the
Speaker 1: team buck roots here, and that means Kamy Bear and
Speaker 1: some of the history stuff. And I you your thoughts
Speaker 1: are very much appreciated on this Josh right. I'm excited
Speaker 1: to see you leave Rising and focus more on buck
Speaker 1: centered projects. I listened to you via podcast while at
Speaker 1: work daily. It's my favorite part of my work day.
Speaker 1: I hope when you say you're going digital you mean
Speaker 1: Daily WY or Blaze TV, whatever it is. Your show
Speaker 1: is the best take on the news each day. So
Speaker 1: keep it up and shields high. Josh, thanks so much.
Speaker 1: That's really encouraging. And yes, there's going to be here.
Speaker 1: I'll give you guys a little more of a preview.
Speaker 1: So I'm leaving the Hill next week, and I thank
Speaker 1: everybody at the Hill for their for their time and
Speaker 1: being colleagues of mind and all their hard work. But
Speaker 1: we are. What we're going to end up doing is
Speaker 1: we are going to start streaming this radio show. I
Speaker 1: can't give you more details than that, but the radio
Speaker 1: show is going to be video streamed. We're going to
Speaker 1: have a seamless viewing experience. We're also going to probably
Speaker 1: create some either for the show or in addition to
Speaker 1: the show, a kind of long, long format sty'll sit
Speaker 1: down interview that I'll do with people and we'll be
Speaker 1: able to video that. So there's we are. We are
Speaker 1: launching deep into the digital era, but of course going
Speaker 1: to continue with the radio show and provide great content
Speaker 1: as it is right now for all of our affiliates
Speaker 1: across the country. But we're just expanding. We're expanding on
Speaker 1: the show, giving more options, more ways to watch and listen.
Speaker 1: So that is definitely happening. Tommy. Right, um, try Relief Factor.
Speaker 1: I've had a torn a rotator cuff than years of Versailles.
Speaker 1: It's in the shoulder and surrounding tendons. First week of
Speaker 1: Relief Factor, the pain is gone. My neck moves and
Speaker 1: pops like it should. Trust me. I'm a fat guy.
Speaker 1: Relief Factor for the ankle and Cafe Sevilla Sevilla when
Speaker 1: you go to San Diego next time. Well, thank you, Tommy,
Speaker 1: and I'm glad Relief Factor work for you. We should
Speaker 1: get them as a sponsor on the show. That would
Speaker 1: be great working on it. So there we have it.
Speaker 1: Andre's rights, Hi and sorry, I've been busy. Only now
Speaker 1: heard you're disconnecting from Rising. That's great. You've an amazing
Speaker 1: mind that I never liked that you were part of rising.
Speaker 1: It just didn't allow to allow you to demonstrate your
Speaker 1: passion respectfully, lawyer listener of Unfiltered Buck andres Well andres
Speaker 1: That's really what that was what caused this conscious uncoupling.
Speaker 1: If you will, I'm I've just I need to do
Speaker 1: what I do and be me and say what I
Speaker 1: need to say and not have to worry about the
Speaker 1: decorum of the room and deal with the libs who
Speaker 1: surround me at any given time. You're going into an
Speaker 1: era of for those of you who like this show
Speaker 1: of additional platforms and totally unfiltered Buck, We're going truly
Speaker 1: buck wild. That's what's going to happen. That's why I'm
Speaker 1: making the decision I'm making. I'm going to go all
Speaker 1: in in time for the reelection of Donald Trump, in
Speaker 1: time for this bruising political cycle. I am not going
Speaker 1: to have any Oh but can you be I'm not
Speaker 1: not going to CNN, never going back there, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: not going to it, And I'm not going to be
Speaker 1: working at the Hill anymore. It's just going to be
Speaker 1: Buck Radio, writing Fox additional projects. That's where we're heading.
Speaker 1: There's going to be no more, no more of this
Speaker 1: forced politeness when it comes to my content. That never
Speaker 1: happens on radio, obviously, but it was the case. It was.
Speaker 1: That was the deal. I mean, that was the agreement
Speaker 1: going into the hill, was that we were going to
Speaker 1: be cordial to the other side. And I did it
Speaker 1: for a year. I think I did it very well
Speaker 1: under the circumstances. Buck's not being polite anymore. It's time
Speaker 1: to stop stop being polite and start being real. Remember
Speaker 1: that the real news. That's basically what I'm gonna be doing.
Speaker 1: All right, we got some more roll call in a
Speaker 1: sex there right there. All right, we got our double
Speaker 1: roll call because it's Friday. Man, it's beautiful here in DC.
Speaker 1: I'm so excited to my little bro Keats. He is.
Speaker 1: It's cool name right named for the the romance poet,
Speaker 1: mister Keats. But he's here hanging out. So I've got
Speaker 1: my little bro in town. We're gonna be rocking out
Speaker 1: doing bro things, and I'm excited about that. We got
Speaker 1: beautiful weather. I hope you have lovely weather wherever you are,
Speaker 1: and you're listening to this podcast, you're making good choices
Speaker 1: in life in general. Zach writes, My diet an exercise
Speaker 1: regime includes no snacking after dinner and fifteen to twenty
Speaker 1: minutes of yoga three times a week on thirty seven.
Speaker 1: I also don't want to get hurt. Of course, I
Speaker 1: think I did pull something when I first started yoga.
Speaker 1: Shields high. Well, Zach, thank you for sharing. Appreciate it, buddy.
Speaker 1: I'm not somebody who has ever been able to take
Speaker 1: to yoga. I just I don't. I don't enjoy it.
Speaker 1: I don't like it. It's not it's just not for me.
Speaker 1: I've tried. I've tried, but it's not for me. Chad writes, Buck,
Speaker 1: it was a joy watching you destroy and embarrass Harry
Speaker 1: Littman on Fox. He is delusional. Well, Chad, I appreciate
Speaker 1: your support, and I would just say that, yeah, Harry,
Speaker 1: you know, if you wanted to disagree, if he wants
Speaker 1: to disagree with me on a here, that's fine. But
Speaker 1: to say things like I don't think Buck read it,
Speaker 1: or it's like, dude, you're just now you're just clowning yourself,
Speaker 1: and and that's such a that's that's such a a
Speaker 1: non argument thing to say, that's such a non debate.
Speaker 1: Oh you know, well, I don't even think you've I
Speaker 1: don't even think you've read the resolution. It's like, shut up, dude,
Speaker 1: you're getting your butt kicked, you know, just just get
Speaker 1: your butt kicked. But do it with dignity, you know,
Speaker 1: don't don't start trying to throw some low blows or something.
Speaker 1: It's just it's just embarrassing himself. It's embarrassing himself. And
Speaker 1: then to say that that Muller is being too kind
Speaker 1: to Trump, this is These are like the rantings of
Speaker 1: a crazy person, and it's shocking. This guy was employed
Speaker 1: by the DJ. It's point. But as I've said to
Speaker 1: you many times, the government is full of not even mediocrity,
Speaker 1: it's really full of subpar, subpar workers and minds. Now,
Speaker 1: I'm not saying full as in everyone. I'm just saying
Speaker 1: there's plenty. There's no shortage of dumb asses that work
Speaker 1: for the government. I'll just say it. It's true. Eric, right,
Speaker 1: mister buck, glad you're back from China. Say it in
Speaker 1: Trump's style, safe and sound. I live in Georgia, not
Speaker 1: that it matters, but listening to Disney say what they've
Speaker 1: said makes my head hurt. Wouldn't supporting abortion be killing
Speaker 1: your customers? It's Disney kids are supposed to be their
Speaker 1: prime marketing target. Am I wrong? Here? Shields way high sir, Now, Eric,
Speaker 1: you would think that a great American brand like Disney
Speaker 1: would know enough to stay out of this kind of
Speaker 1: a political scrum. But no, they're they're taking the corporate
Speaker 1: America is because they know that you get punished if
Speaker 1: you aren't on the left. They just they accept that reality.
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of leftists that run the
Speaker 1: big corporations, and we we have this double standard. Leftists
Speaker 1: make a lot of noise, they boycott, and they get
Speaker 1: their way in corporate America, and conservatives we just take it.
Speaker 1: We just take it on the chin all the time.
Speaker 1: So that's what's going on. It's annoying. Here we go
Speaker 1: Roderid's buck. If you have Enemy of Choice t shirts made,
Speaker 1: I would like one as well. Please well, Roger Um,
Speaker 1: you know, yeah, if we could make like a cool
Speaker 1: logo for it so people know what we're talking about
Speaker 1: with enemy of Choice, because just saying enemy of choice
Speaker 1: might be a little too vague. But I hear you minute.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Kayla writes, great show, and I'm
Speaker 1: glad you're done with the Hill. I usually agree with you.
Speaker 1: But oh my god, I've been listening to you long
Speaker 1: enough to get your whole get off my lawn opinions.
Speaker 1: But I have to disagree with your comments about the
Speaker 1: uber rider feedback. The uber thing is fine, but you're
Speaker 1: excitement of the application sounds like China's Good Citizen ratings. No, no, Kayla,
Speaker 1: I disagree. It's this is this is the free market working,
Speaker 1: this is the this is yelp for for both sides
Speaker 1: of the equation. I don't see why that's a problem
Speaker 1: because I because you know, it just makes it just
Speaker 1: incentivizes people to be better in their business dealings, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. Look, I mean social media Facebook.
Speaker 1: People can trash you on Facebook too, right, So but
Speaker 1: you look a lot of people that have written and
Speaker 1: agree with you. So maybe I'm missing something here. We'll
Speaker 1: see about that. But Kayla, thanks so much for writing in,
Speaker 1: and I have to say that the show is now
Speaker 1: coming to a close. Have a great weekend, everybody. I
Speaker 1: will talk to you Monday. She'll tie