Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The report will be
Speaker 1: out in a week. My friends, the Democrats are frothing
Speaker 1: at the mouth trying to come up with a way
Speaker 1: to make it bad for Trump. Bill Barr was swatting
Speaker 1: them away today up on Capitol Hill. We'll talk about that. Plus,
Speaker 1: the border is a total crisis situation. Will have the
Speaker 1: latest updates for you, and the number of countries that
Speaker 1: have had national show up just in the Rio Grant
Speaker 1: sector will blow your mind. Dotted more coming up on
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again the buck Sexton Show begins, analyst remembers,
Speaker 1: great guy. Now, this process is going along very well,
Speaker 1: and my original timetable of being able to release this
Speaker 1: by mid April stands, and so I think that from
Speaker 1: my standpoint, by the by within a week, I will
Speaker 1: be in a position to release support to the public,
Speaker 1: and then I will engage with the chairman of both
Speaker 1: judiciary committees about that report and about any further requests
Speaker 1: that they have. Welcome to The buck Sexton Show. Oh,
Speaker 1: we're in the final countdown for the release here of
Speaker 1: the full Muller Report, which I think people that live
Speaker 1: in New York and DC and work in media politics
Speaker 1: are very excited about. I think a lot of the
Speaker 1: rest of the country is like, whatever, man, we know
Speaker 1: what's going to happen. We know Democrat rats are going
Speaker 1: to claim that, oh no, it's much worse. There were
Speaker 1: no charges. But just because it's not beyond a reasonable
Speaker 1: doubt doesn't mean that it didn't happen. That's what they'll say.
Speaker 1: They're so predictable, which is why I predict them most
Speaker 1: of the time. This is where this is all heading,
Speaker 1: and Trump and his allies are gonna just look at
Speaker 1: this and say, yeah, no charges, So what's this? What's
Speaker 1: the hubbub about? What's the problem here? There's been so
Speaker 1: much reckless talk about Bob Barr, specifically, people saying that
Speaker 1: he's not ethical, that he's compromised, that somehow President Trump
Speaker 1: just hand picked this guy and turned him into his
Speaker 1: inside man at the DOJ. But Barr knows this game well.
Speaker 1: He is a skilled legal mind and also political operator.
Speaker 1: He knows what they're trying to do here, how they're
Speaker 1: trying to back him into a corner, and the Democrats
Speaker 1: will smear his reputation. They'll throw him under the bus
Speaker 1: as quickly as they can. But he was parrying and
Speaker 1: jousting and winning today on Capitol Hill as they the
Speaker 1: Democrats tried to land a blow on him, they just
Speaker 1: couldn't do it. He knows what's up. He's handling this
Speaker 1: like a pro. He is a professional. He says. The
Speaker 1: report will be out in a week. That's exactly within
Speaker 1: the timeline that he has stated from the beginning. The People,
Speaker 1: and we've played the soundbites for you here on the show,
Speaker 1: People at MSNBC and all these other places that claim
Speaker 1: there's a cover up. Oh, it smells like a cover up. No, No,
Speaker 1: that does not smell there's a cover up. And before
Speaker 1: they can set up the narrative of oh, they're redacting
Speaker 1: information based on political whim no no. Barr explained today
Speaker 1: in some detail what will be removed from the report,
Speaker 1: why it will be removed, and that will in fact
Speaker 1: be listed. The reasoning for the redaction will be listed
Speaker 1: and color coded in the document playclip thirteen. Now. In
Speaker 1: my letter of the March twenty ninth, I identified four
Speaker 1: areas that I feel should be redacted, and I think
Speaker 1: most people would agree. The first is grand jury information
Speaker 1: six E material. The second is information that the intelligence
Speaker 1: community believes would reveal intelligence sources and methods. The third
Speaker 1: or information in the report that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions.
Speaker 1: You will recall that the Special Council did spin off
Speaker 1: a number of cases that are still being pursued, and
Speaker 1: we want to make sure that none of the information
Speaker 1: in the report would impinge upon either the ability of
Speaker 1: the prosecutors to prosecutecute the cases or the fairness to
Speaker 1: the defendants. And finally, we intend to redact information that
Speaker 1: implicates the privacy or reputational interests of peripheral players where
Speaker 1: there is a decision not to charge them. Does any
Speaker 1: of that sound unreasonable, of course not. In fact, he's
Speaker 1: just following the guidelines. He's doing what DJ policy tells
Speaker 1: him he should do. Unlike Comey, who, for example, decided
Speaker 1: to stand in front of Loretta Lynch in place of
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch and say that there will be no charges
Speaker 1: against Hillary because FBI sanctimony. Chief Komy thought that that
Speaker 1: was what he felt like doing at that point in time.
Speaker 1: Bill Barr is a professional and an ethical guy, and
Speaker 1: yet here we are Democrats pretending that he is bought
Speaker 1: and paid for by Trump, or that there's been some
Speaker 1: cover up, some effort to obscure this report. They're going
Speaker 1: to have a really tough time for those who are
Speaker 1: paying attention. It's going to be difficult. It's going to
Speaker 1: be hard for them to explain how this is a
Speaker 1: cover up. When Mueller was offered was offered the ability
Speaker 1: to review Barr's summary letter of the Mueller Report findings,
Speaker 1: here is what he said about that. Here's Bill Barr
Speaker 1: Play twelve, the letter of the twenty fourth. Mister Muller's
Speaker 1: team did not play a role in drafting that document,
Speaker 1: although we offered him the opportunity to review it before
Speaker 1: we sent it out, and he declined that the letter
Speaker 1: on the twenty ninth. I don't believe that that was
Speaker 1: reviewed by mister Mueller or that they participated in drafting
Speaker 1: that letter. So he's just telling them what happened here.
Speaker 1: But they made the offer. If you are trying to
Speaker 1: play games here and misrepresent the Muller Report, would you say, hey,
Speaker 1: do you want to review this and then tell us
Speaker 1: if you're okay with with with the language we use.
Speaker 1: Of course not mother knows that Bob, I'm sorry, I
Speaker 1: did it. Bill Barr understands what's happening here. He knows
Speaker 1: that Barr isn't going to First of all, the idea
Speaker 1: that Barr would be able to misrepresent this and get
Speaker 1: away with it is crazy. I mean, Muller would would
Speaker 1: his team would object to it. They would tell people.
Speaker 1: So that's not what happened. And ultimately it's a yes
Speaker 1: or no situation. Will there be charges no? Will there
Speaker 1: be obstruction charges no? Will there be collusion or conspiracy charges? No?
Speaker 1: These are issues of fact. The biggest problem that the
Speaker 1: leftists the Democrats are going to have though with this
Speaker 1: whole situation is that they're going to say that their
Speaker 1: redactions are unfair. See that it's the hidden information, the
Speaker 1: information you can't see. That's where the real collusion is.
Speaker 1: That's where the bad things are happening. Only one problem
Speaker 1: with that. Muller is working with Bar on the redactions.
Speaker 1: So the Muller team is a part of deciding what
Speaker 1: should be and should not be redacted. Bar smart enough
Speaker 1: to bring him into that process, and so when people
Speaker 1: inevitably in the Congress will say, oh, but what about this,
Speaker 1: and we can't see that try to make something of this.
Speaker 1: They will have very little ground to stand on. Now,
Speaker 1: that doesn't mean they won't say it. They're demagogues, they lie.
Speaker 1: They've invested so much in this crazy narrative of Trump
Speaker 1: as the evil Manchurion candidate doing prutens bidding for the Kremlin.
Speaker 1: Didn't happen. Now they have to find a way to justify,
Speaker 1: not just to themselves but to their voters what happened here.
Speaker 1: I don't think that the Democrats, the Democrat base is
Speaker 1: really upset that they were lied to. I think a
Speaker 1: lot of them probably knew they're being lied to. I
Speaker 1: think they're upset that they didn't get the results they
Speaker 1: were promised. That Muller's gift to the American people in
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen was not an indictment of the President of
Speaker 1: United States. I think that's I think Democrats are angry
Speaker 1: about that. They can handle a lie as long as
Speaker 1: they get the outcome they want, but they are going
Speaker 1: to be very upset with anything less than the Congress
Speaker 1: will be the Democrats in Congress upset with anything less
Speaker 1: than the full unredacted report, and Barr has already said, sorry,
Speaker 1: that's not what the gude. Let's say you're not going
Speaker 1: to get the full unredacted report. I'm open to your
Speaker 1: reasoning as to why you need to see it, but
Speaker 1: it doesn't work that way. Doesn't work that way. Democrats
Speaker 1: are going to kick and scream and moan and wail,
Speaker 1: but Bars got them. He's this guy was tremendously effective today.
Speaker 1: He was laying waste to the stupidity of the Democrat winers.
Speaker 1: We got more on this report and also than obviously
Speaker 1: the immigration crisis coming up here team in just a moment,
Speaker 1: and so stay with me. Remember when the left called
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal bold, or how about their bold
Speaker 1: defensive anti semitism in the House. I think they're mistaking
Speaker 1: bold for something else because the way I define bold
Speaker 1: is the taste of freedom I get every morning with
Speaker 1: my Black Rifle Coffee. Black Rifle delivers the best roast
Speaker 1: or coffee right to your door, and Black Rifles Coffee
Speaker 1: Club makes things easy. Just pick your blend and the
Speaker 1: amount you want, and Black Rifle ships your coffee right
Speaker 1: to your door every month. Hassle free, no lines, no
Speaker 1: running out just great coffee, ship right to your door
Speaker 1: every month, hassle free. Plus when you join their coffee Club,
Speaker 1: you'll receive discounts and offers not available to other customers.
Speaker 1: When you drink Black Rifle Coffee, you're supporting a company
Speaker 1: that gives back to veteran and first responder causes, and
Speaker 1: serves coffee and culture to those who truly love America.
Speaker 1: For a bold cup of America's best coffee, visit Black
Speaker 1: Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and get twenty percent off
Speaker 1: your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash buck,
Speaker 1: Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck for twenty percent off.
Speaker 1: Before getting into your budget request, I want to address
Speaker 1: a serious oversight matter your unacceptable handling of Special Counsel
Speaker 1: Robert Muller's report. It's been reported that the report is
Speaker 1: three hundred to four hundred pages, and I use the
Speaker 1: term reported because we have no idea along it actually is.
Speaker 1: All we have is your four page summary, which seems
Speaker 1: to cherry pick from the report to draw the most
Speaker 1: favorable conclusion possible for the President. And in many ways
Speaker 1: your letter raises more question than it answers Ah yes,
Speaker 1: Democrat ne need Allowy there who is going with the
Speaker 1: Pelosi talking for the Democrats raises more questions than I know.
Speaker 1: It doesn't. No, it doesn't, a man, because what really matters? Right?
Speaker 1: You know what? What what's the most important part of
Speaker 1: all of this? You know, if you're getting your college
Speaker 1: admission response in the mail, does it really matter you
Speaker 1: know more that you get all the different paperwork for
Speaker 1: the process or they send you one one paragraph it says, Sara,
Speaker 1: you're not in. I think you kind of know. I
Speaker 1: think I think you got the most important part. But
Speaker 1: the sorrow you're not in. No charges. If there are
Speaker 1: no charges, then there is no basis upon which to
Speaker 1: bring criminal charges against the President United States or anybody
Speaker 1: else that was caught up in this Russia collusion investigation.
Speaker 1: That's what matters. I just think it's so funny this
Speaker 1: congresswoman is She's like, we don't know what's in the report,
Speaker 1: but I know that you're being too nice to the president. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: he offered Mueller the opportunity to read over his summary
Speaker 1: of the findings. Mueller declined. Mueller is working with him
Speaker 1: now in the redactions, which is very very important because
Speaker 1: they're gonna lie to you a lot about this, and
Speaker 1: the Democrats are just hoping to demagogue this issue by
Speaker 1: making it sound like there's something going on here that
Speaker 1: is not on the up and up. But that's why
Speaker 1: it's so important when Barr has to just lay it
Speaker 1: down for them that there are very good reasons why
Speaker 1: there will be information. They're not given very good reasons,
Speaker 1: completely fair and open reasons. Now the information will be
Speaker 1: completely fair and open. But this is this is where
Speaker 1: you're we're gonna have to focus our energy because there's
Speaker 1: gonna be a lot of lies told about this. This
Speaker 1: is why Bill Barr, if I call him Bob by
Speaker 1: the way, I apologize, but it's Bill. Obviously Bill Barr
Speaker 1: had to explain to members of Congress today what six E,
Speaker 1: which is Grand Jury material, what it means, and what
Speaker 1: the precedent is for this play fourteen not if it
Speaker 1: violates the law, and we believe six E does apply
Speaker 1: to members of Congress. This whole mechanism for the Special Council,
Speaker 1: as I said, was established during the Clinton administration in
Speaker 1: the wake of ken Star's report, and that's why the
Speaker 1: current rule says that the report should be kept confidential
Speaker 1: because there was a lot of reaction against the publication
Speaker 1: of ken Star's report, and many of the people who
Speaker 1: are right now calling for release of this report were
Speaker 1: basically castigating ken Star and others for releasing the Star report.
Speaker 1: I don't intend at this stage to send the full,
Speaker 1: unredacted report to the committee. I like how Barr just
Speaker 1: turns us all around them. It's like, look, Democrats, you guys,
Speaker 1: you guys set the precedent. Go back to Clinton era.
Speaker 1: You know there there were decisions made then that are
Speaker 1: now the practice for special counsel and going forward there
Speaker 1: there were rules of the road established. Bar is just
Speaker 1: obeying the rules of the road. But oh, what a surprise.
Speaker 1: Human Democrats are hypocritical, and then they don't care what
Speaker 1: the rules were beforehand. Now they just want what they
Speaker 1: want when they want it. They're desperate to get access
Speaker 1: to whatever information they can in this report to try
Speaker 1: and use it to tarnish Trump, to trash this administration.
Speaker 1: That's all this is. And you know what they'll what
Speaker 1: they'll say about the redactions no matter what, that they're unfair,
Speaker 1: even though Muller is involved in They're going to say
Speaker 1: that they are unfair. This is Democrats licking wounds to
Speaker 1: some extent because they know that they, at least the
Speaker 1: ones who are not completely delusional, have looked like absolute
Speaker 1: clowns on this issue. They've been wrong, wrong, and wrong
Speaker 1: again on Russia collusion, and now they're looking for somebody
Speaker 1: to seek sink their teeth into so that they can
Speaker 1: not look like ineffective buffoons to their constituents, to the
Speaker 1: Democrat base. But no matter what, isn't this report And
Speaker 1: as I said, yes, I remember I told you my
Speaker 1: sources were claiming next week turns out they were correct.
Speaker 1: When this thing comes out, I will read every page
Speaker 1: of it that is out there for public view, and
Speaker 1: we will break it down together. I can assure you
Speaker 1: of this, No matter what is said in that report,
Speaker 1: there will be some Democrat effort to make it into
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, how could they not have brought charges
Speaker 1: against them? Because here's what they have to do. Find
Speaker 1: a way to equate the non prosecution decision against Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton with the non prosecution decision against Trump that's coming.
Speaker 1: Because they know that right now we have a two
Speaker 1: tiered justice system, one for connected, powerful, important Democrats and
Speaker 1: one for conservatives, one for Republicans. The DOJ does not
Speaker 1: treat these things the same way. Andy McCabe, formerly of VFBI,
Speaker 1: lies into owth and does not get charged. General Flynn,
Speaker 1: Trump's national security advisor, misremembers a conversation that he thinks
Speaker 1: he's having with colleagues, and they charged him with felony
Speaker 1: lying under oath. Hillary Clinton has over a hundred classified
Speaker 1: emails on her private unclassified server system, which meant that
Speaker 1: it was on the server, it transited the server, it
Speaker 1: was sent over open lines. She did this over and over.
Speaker 1: Some of them were marked classified, even though she pretended
Speaker 1: they weren't. People remove classification markings, which is a huge
Speaker 1: security violation, so they could send them over unclassified systems.
Speaker 1: The Espionage Act statute that applies is clear on recklessness.
Speaker 1: Comy removed the word recklessness because he would have been
Speaker 1: making the case for charges and they didn't charge her.
Speaker 1: Why because she was gonna be the next president. That's
Speaker 1: what it was all about. They're gonna try expert Lee
Speaker 1: to whitewash that history by saying, we'll see Hillary got
Speaker 1: the benefit of the doubt. Trump got the benefit of
Speaker 1: the doubt. Oh no, no, no, no, Hillary was a criminal.
Speaker 1: She broke the law. Trump did not break the law.
Speaker 1: Trump had anti Trump zealots on his trail with unlimited
Speaker 1: resources and a mandate to take him down, and they
Speaker 1: couldn't do it. Hillary and Trump are not the same
Speaker 1: on this matter. Do not believe the lies that you
Speaker 1: will hear on this because I'm telling you that's where
Speaker 1: it's going to go. The whole that they don't have
Speaker 1: enough to say that Trump, you know, based on this
Speaker 1: at least, they don't have enough to say he's going
Speaker 1: to be impeached. Maybe they'll get something on the instruction
Speaker 1: side that they'll make that case, even though it'll be
Speaker 1: overblown and nonsense. But what they really need to do
Speaker 1: is erase this story of Hillary got away with it
Speaker 1: and Trump had to be you know, the absolutely clean
Speaker 1: or else that's what happened. So they're going to say, oh,
Speaker 1: they both got a pass, even though trust me, they
Speaker 1: did not. Only Hillary got the pass. We have bad laws.
Speaker 1: Nobody can believe these decisions we're getting from the Ninth Circuit.
Speaker 1: It's a disgrace. And so we're finding the bad laws,
Speaker 1: the bad things that are coming out of Congress. You
Speaker 1: have a Democrat Congress that's substructing. You talk about obstruction,
Speaker 1: the greatest obstruction anyone's ever seen. All they have to
Speaker 1: do is spend twenty minutes and they can fix this
Speaker 1: whole problem. We have the worst laws of any country
Speaker 1: anywhere in the world, whether it's catch and release or
Speaker 1: or any one of them. I mean, I could name
Speaker 1: I could sit here and name them. But if you
Speaker 1: get rid of catch and release, chain migration, visa lottery,
Speaker 1: you have to fix the asylum situation. It's ridiculous. You
Speaker 1: have people coming in claiming asylum. They're all reading exactly
Speaker 1: what the lawyer gives them to have a piece of
Speaker 1: paper and read what that is, and all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you're entitled to asylum. And some of these people are
Speaker 1: not people you wanted country. President's completely correct here that
Speaker 1: we have we're fighting bad laws that Congress is not acting.
Speaker 1: And he mentioned that Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit judge,
Speaker 1: I mean, the Ninth Circuit is effectively now determining national
Speaker 1: immigration policy. And this is not the way it is
Speaker 1: supposed to be that one federal judge in the Ninth
Speaker 1: Circuit can decide to put a nationwide injunction on immigration.
Speaker 1: Think about what this means, what can't the Ninth Circuit do?
Speaker 1: Can a Ninth Circuit judge say the president has no
Speaker 1: right to to order the movements of military forces in
Speaker 1: a time of war? Can the Ninth Circuit overrule Trump
Speaker 1: if he wants to get us out of Afghanistan? Up
Speaker 1: up you others some explanation. I'm sure they can come
Speaker 1: up with for that. This is outrageous. And what you
Speaker 1: have is a judiciary that doesn't have to even be
Speaker 1: a majority of left wing Obama appointee nutcases, but just
Speaker 1: have a handful of them spread out throughout the country
Speaker 1: and they're able to object to federal policy and put
Speaker 1: the brakes on the Trump agenda. You know, at some
Speaker 1: point we have to ask the question, what is the
Speaker 1: point of the elections that we've had. If one appointee
Speaker 1: federal judge who hasn't won any election can just say Nope,
Speaker 1: the president can't do that, not allowed to do that.
Speaker 1: It's completely unacceptable. It's just wrong. The Democrats are all
Speaker 1: focusing right now on child separation. That's all they want
Speaker 1: to talk about. They want to talk about child separation. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: children are separated in this country from their parents anytime
Speaker 1: they commit a crime. Crossing the border is a crime.
Speaker 1: And yet you don't see people that are all wailing
Speaker 1: and gnashing their teeth and crying crocodile tears because of
Speaker 1: somebody that's arrested for drunk driving or possession of drugs
Speaker 1: or and you know a lot of them, single parents,
Speaker 1: no one to take care of the kids, separated from
Speaker 1: their kids. That happens. You don't get to bring your
Speaker 1: child into the prison cell with you. But they're focusing
Speaker 1: on this and pretending that this is explicitly and intentionally
Speaker 1: only something that Trump has done. No one else has
Speaker 1: ever done this before, and that that's what the policy
Speaker 1: was separation, or the policy was enforced the law. The
Speaker 1: law says you arrest people for crossing illegally. There's a
Speaker 1: President Trump said play fifteen just so you understand, President
Speaker 1: Obama separated the children. Those cages that were shown, I
Speaker 1: think they were very inappropriate. They were built by President
Speaker 1: Obama's administration, not by TRUMPA. President Obama had child separation.
Speaker 1: Take a look. The press knows it. You know it,
Speaker 1: we all know it. I didn't have I'm the one
Speaker 1: that stopped it. President Obama had child separation. Now I'll
Speaker 1: tell you something once you don't have it. That's why
Speaker 1: you see many more people coming that coming like it's
Speaker 1: a picnic, because let's go to Disneyland. President Obama separated children.
Speaker 1: They had child separation. I was the one that changed it. Okay,
Speaker 1: thank you very much. Here's a piece from McClatchey in
Speaker 1: June twenty eighteen. Last year, Yes, Obama, President Barack Obama
Speaker 1: separated parents from their children at the border. Obama prosecuted
Speaker 1: mothers for coming to the United States illegally. He fast
Speaker 1: tracked deportations, and he housed unaccompanied children intense cities for
Speaker 1: much of the country. And President Donald Trump, the prevailing
Speaker 1: belief is that Obama was the president who went easier
Speaker 1: on immigrants. Neither Obama nor Democrats created trump zero tolerance policy,
Speaker 1: which calls for every legal border cross are to be
Speaker 1: prosecuted and lead to their children being detained in separate
Speaker 1: facilities before being shipped to a shelter and eventually a
Speaker 1: sponsor family. But Obama's policy helped create the roadmap of
Speaker 1: enforcement that Trump has been following and building on. So, yes,
Speaker 1: there was separation that occurred. There would be separation if
Speaker 1: there was reason to believe that the child was in
Speaker 1: danger or that this was part of a smuggling operation,
Speaker 1: and they didn't always get it right. And if you're
Speaker 1: an unaccompanied child, guess what they did, hold you in
Speaker 1: a quote cage. But as is the case all the time,
Speaker 1: there's just different rules when talking about how Republicans do things,
Speaker 1: how the media describes it, and how the media describes
Speaker 1: when Democrats do things. I mean, here's what Obama said
Speaker 1: back when he was president about the immigration debate overall.
Speaker 1: Play clip eight. This will be interesting. Should we want
Speaker 1: to encourage newcomers to learn the language of the country
Speaker 1: they're moving to. Of course, does that mean that they
Speaker 1: can never use their own language? No, of course that
Speaker 1: it doesn't mean that. But you know it's not racist
Speaker 1: to say, ah, if you're going to be here, then
Speaker 1: you should learn the language of the country that you
Speaker 1: just arrived at, because we need to have some sort
Speaker 1: of common language in which all of us can work
Speaker 1: and learn and understand each other in order to push
Speaker 1: back against what are clearly racist motives of some. We
Speaker 1: can't label everybody who is disturbed by immigration as racist.
Speaker 1: Don't call everybody's kind of problems with our immigration system
Speaker 1: a racist, Obama said, telling people learn English is okay.
Speaker 1: Oh well really, I mean you and I know that,
Speaker 1: but the media doesn't know that. Here's what we do know, though,
Speaker 1: is this is really all about the Democrats shift to
Speaker 1: open borders. Trump gets it Play seventeen. We are building
Speaker 1: a lot of wall. It's getting built. Some of you
Speaker 1: saw that last week when we went We had a
Speaker 1: great presentation of a new stretch. But we're building a
Speaker 1: lot of wall, and we're being very strong on the butter.
Speaker 1: But we're bucking a court system that ever ever rules
Speaker 1: for us. And we're bucking really bad things with Congress,
Speaker 1: with the Democrats in Congress not willing to act. They
Speaker 1: want to have open borders, which means they want to
Speaker 1: have crime, They want to have drugs pouring into our country.
Speaker 1: They don't want to act. We have to close up
Speaker 1: the borders. We're doing it, but we're doing it. I
Speaker 1: could do it much faster if they would act. So
Speaker 1: it's a terrible thing. The Democrats in Congress, what they're
Speaker 1: doing and the obstruction. They don't want to fix it,
Speaker 1: and we have to fix it. They want open borders.
Speaker 1: They want to have millions of people pouring into our country.
Speaker 1: They don't even want to know who they are. President's right.
Speaker 1: They just want more and more to come in. Don't
Speaker 1: want to work to solve this problem. Don't see it
Speaker 1: as a problem. Democrats don't believe it's really a problem.
Speaker 1: It just needs to be streamlined. You see, it doesn't
Speaker 1: need to be stopped. Well that's a major difference, isn't it.
Speaker 1: But it's not one of the Democratic parties willing to
Speaker 1: be honest about and this is what we are up against.
Speaker 1: Care was founded after nine eleven because they recognized that
Speaker 1: some people did something and that all of us were
Speaker 1: starting to lose access to our civil liberties. The new
Speaker 1: second favorite Democrat left wing member of Congress there ilhan Omar,
Speaker 1: referring to the nine to eleven attacks that killed three
Speaker 1: thousand Americans as some people who did something. I'm quite
Speaker 1: sure that if it was not a female, minority Muslim
Speaker 1: member of Congress who said that, and a Democrat, of course,
Speaker 1: that the media would maybe raise some eyebrows, that there
Speaker 1: would get some additional coverage of referring to the greatest
Speaker 1: attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor as a
Speaker 1: thing that some people did. I think that that would
Speaker 1: get a bit of attention. But you see, she is
Speaker 1: in a protected status. She is in a protected class,
Speaker 1: in fact, in several protected classes. From the perspective of
Speaker 1: the left, Democrat, female, Muslim, and ethnic minority, these are
Speaker 1: all and an immigrant. You add all of these things
Speaker 1: together and the Democrats will they will never abandon her.
Speaker 1: It does not matter what she say, how anti semitic.
Speaker 1: Something she says is, yeah, maybe they'll censure her, they'll say, oh,
Speaker 1: that was naughty, don't do that again, but they will
Speaker 1: stick alongside her. And she was defending CARE there, the
Speaker 1: Council on American Islamic Relations, which has been effectively in
Speaker 1: Islamophobia hyperventilation organization for a long time. Every time there's
Speaker 1: a terror attack, and I used to go on even
Speaker 1: at CNN believe it or not, and try to analyze
Speaker 1: what's going on, I'd have to have someone from CARE
Speaker 1: come on, and they would you be saying, how the
Speaker 1: real you know, dozens of Americans would be lying dead
Speaker 1: from a terror attack at the hands of a Jihottes.
Speaker 1: But I'd have to hear from CARE about how you
Speaker 1: know the real problem is that someone said something mean
Speaker 1: to a woman wearing a headscarf somewhere on the subway,
Speaker 1: and that's what we have to be on guard against.
Speaker 1: No I think in the hours after a mass casualty
Speaker 1: terror attack at the hands of a gihottest in the
Speaker 1: United States, I think that the big problem is the
Speaker 1: gi Hottest. I don't think that the primary issue we
Speaker 1: have to worry about is Islamophobia, which is what we
Speaker 1: would constantly here. In fact, I've always said said that
Speaker 1: the United States does not give itself that the American
Speaker 1: people don't give ourselves enough credit for the lack of
Speaker 1: reprisal attacks, the lack of what would be unethical and immoral,
Speaker 1: but a lot of people expected them to happened, that
Speaker 1: kind of attacks against Muslim Americans that could have been
Speaker 1: driven by hate and fear and anxiety after nine eleven,
Speaker 1: In fact, those attacks were few and far between, which
Speaker 1: is a good thing, something to be celebrated. I don't
Speaker 1: think we give ourselves, the American people, enough credit for
Speaker 1: the fact that we took that situation for all it
Speaker 1: was well in this country to each other. Now. We
Speaker 1: could talk about the Afghanistan war, the Iraq War, and
Speaker 1: those decisions. That's separate, But we as the American people
Speaker 1: We did not let that separate us. We did not
Speaker 1: decide that our Muslim American neighbors, friends, colleagues were to
Speaker 1: blame for this or part of the problem for this.
Speaker 1: We did not do that. That is not an accurate
Speaker 1: reading of the history. But it is still one that
Speaker 1: some people who have an incentive to exaggerate our divisions,
Speaker 1: to exaggerate the hatred in this country for their own purposes. Well,
Speaker 1: we'll stick to that. And that's why, you know, ilan Omar,
Speaker 1: on the one hand, nine to eleven, some people who
Speaker 1: did something, but oh man, Muslim civil rights were being destroyed.
Speaker 1: That's not true. I mean I was. I was in
Speaker 1: the unit of the NYPD that was doing quote mosque surveillance.
Speaker 1: We were actually running investigations involving terrorism, which just so
Speaker 1: happened to often. I'm just telling you, the facts often
Speaker 1: involve people that would go to mosques. And there was
Speaker 1: a lot and there are there are many many Muslims
Speaker 1: in my unit, and there are a lot of people
Speaker 1: who were watching over us to make sure that what
Speaker 1: we did was constitutional and respectful of the First Amendment.
Speaker 1: And but still, you know, ACLU and all of them,
Speaker 1: they whatever they can do to you know, put us
Speaker 1: in greater jeopardy. The ACLU likes to do as you know,
Speaker 1: it's just it's just like the Southern Poverty Law Center.
Speaker 1: These have become left wing attack organizations. They're not really
Speaker 1: devoted to any particular principle other than destroy the right,
Speaker 1: destroy the concern conservative ideology in this country really and
Speaker 1: traditional what's thought of as traditional American values. Just subvert
Speaker 1: them at every turn. That's what the ACLU does, and
Speaker 1: the Southern Poverty Law Center just goes after conservatives. I mean,
Speaker 1: that's what they do. But I thought this was a
Speaker 1: very interesting exchange today speaking of Ilhan Omar, and you know,
Speaker 1: the worry over civil civil liberties of Muslims after nine
Speaker 1: to eleven, which I'm not saying there was shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been any worry. There was worry about all of our
Speaker 1: civil liberties, by the way, but it was always overblown
Speaker 1: and there was a lot of oh, you know, the
Speaker 1: primary fear here should be islamophobia. Attorney General Bill Barr
Speaker 1: today was asked as part of those members of Congress
Speaker 1: that were trying to just pepper him with all kinds
Speaker 1: of questions. He was asked about hate crimes now now
Speaker 1: before you hear what the Attorney general, who I thought
Speaker 1: did a masterful job today, And really, you know, they've
Speaker 1: met their match with this guy. He knows stuff than
Speaker 1: they do. He's smarter than these members of Congress are.
Speaker 1: He knows the law better. And they're not gonna They're
Speaker 1: not playing any games with this guy. I mean, Bill
Speaker 1: Barr is a breath of fresh air over at DJ.
Speaker 1: You know, it took it took Trump a while to
Speaker 1: get it right, but his ag now is the right ag.
Speaker 1: And here is what Barr said. You know, we always
Speaker 1: hear this notion this, We always are told this talking
Speaker 1: point that hate crimes under Trump are on the rise.
Speaker 1: Oh there's a rise in hate and there'll be all
Speaker 1: these articles about it, and well, the attorney generals up
Speaker 1: on the federal statistics about hate crimes. Here's what he said,
Speaker 1: Play twenty two. We have an enviable record of prosecuting
Speaker 1: hate crimes at the at the same or higher rate
Speaker 1: than previous administrations. As far as I'm a winner, i'd
Speaker 1: have to see what other what else you're talking. Are
Speaker 1: you familiar with the data of what the percentage had
Speaker 1: they increased under the Trump administration. I think there are
Speaker 1: indications they have they increased? Yes, hate whether hate crimes
Speaker 1: versus the prosecution of hate crimes? Hate crimes? Have they
Speaker 1: increased under this administrator? I haven't seen any data, you know,
Speaker 1: going from two thousand and sis, So is it a priority?
Speaker 1: You haven't looked at the data, You're not aware of it.
Speaker 1: As I said in my confirmation hearings, I'm very concerned
Speaker 1: about hate crimes and tend to vigorously pursue them. The
Speaker 1: data that I have seen have showed an increase going
Speaker 1: back to twenty thirteen, So I do I agree with
Speaker 1: you that they have been increasing, but I don't. I
Speaker 1: have seen no data to say that it's it's different
Speaker 1: under the Trump administration. Wait a second, you mean there's
Speaker 1: not some huge spike and hate crimes under Trump. But
Speaker 1: but that's what all the liberal talking heads say all
Speaker 1: the time, that Trump is so hateful and there's all
Speaker 1: the hate crimes. That's just not representative of the facts.
Speaker 1: That's just not what's going on here. The truth is,
Speaker 1: if you really want to know, hate crimes have been
Speaker 1: on the rise because reporting has been on the rise,
Speaker 1: and what is considered a hate crime is on the rise.
Speaker 1: Now there's no pro hate crime constituency in American politics.
Speaker 1: You know, no person should ever be attacked or even
Speaker 1: just no one should even be rude to somebody or
Speaker 1: you know, or or treat someone differently, you know, not
Speaker 1: bring them their menu at the restaurant with the same
Speaker 1: speed because of their religion, their ethnicity. They're anything, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, America, this battle has been won.
Speaker 1: The left pretends like it's being lost unless you give
Speaker 1: them all the power. But this battle over normal Americans
Speaker 1: seeing each other as as individuals of equal dignity and
Speaker 1: worth and respect and God's children. That we have won
Speaker 1: this as a society and as a culture. But the
Speaker 1: left benefits so much from pretending that in fact, we're
Speaker 1: losing ground, and this benefits them politically. It also allows
Speaker 1: them to upren for all the news cameras an act
Speaker 1: like they're the ones that are the new civil rights heroes.
Speaker 1: It's just not true. The biggest problem with it is
Speaker 1: that the rise in hate crimes under Trump it's just
Speaker 1: not a reflection of reality. Earlier this year, the Leadership
Speaker 1: Institute had a field organizer named Hayden Williams peacefully helping
Speaker 1: conservative students recruit for their group at UC Berkeley, and
Speaker 1: he was viciously attacked by a radical leftist thug. This
Speaker 1: was an ideological attack, my friends. Now, President Trump has
Speaker 1: taken action, signing an executive order to protect conservative students
Speaker 1: free speech. But we need more action and we need
Speaker 1: your help. Support the Leadership Institute to defend conservative students
Speaker 1: on campus. All you have to do is go to
Speaker 1: take back the campus dot org because you see, the
Speaker 1: Leadership Institute is the premier organization for educating and training
Speaker 1: conservative college students. With a gift of as little as
Speaker 1: five dollars a month, you help the Leadership Institute train
Speaker 1: conservatives on campus so that we can actually win the
Speaker 1: future of this country. Let's not seed the campus to
Speaker 1: the left wing radicals anymore. Let's fight back. Please donate today,
Speaker 1: go to take back the campus dot org and make
Speaker 1: your urgent gift again. That's take back the campus dot org.
Speaker 1: To put things into perspective, last year, agents in RGV
Speaker 1: made one hundred and sixty two thousand apprehensions. We're ready
Speaker 1: at one hundred forty seven thousand. At this pace. In
Speaker 1: my sector alone, we will have more than two hundred
Speaker 1: and sixty thousand apprehensions by the end of the fiscal year.
Speaker 1: On average, we apprehend more than a thousand people illegally
Speaker 1: crossing the border every day. That's roughly the capacity of
Speaker 1: seventeen commercial buses. Last week, agents in my sector apprehended
Speaker 1: one thousand and seven hundred and sixty six people in
Speaker 1: a single twenty four hour period. We expect these numbers
Speaker 1: to continue to climb as we enter the summer months,
Speaker 1: which will undoubtedly place both migrants and our board troll
Speaker 1: age it's at significant risk. Rescue missions will increase as
Speaker 1: a result, drawing additional personnel from our frontline law enforcement mission.
Speaker 1: We are in the midst of what is a mass
Speaker 1: migration from Central America into this country. That is what
Speaker 1: is happening. It is going to be hundreds of thousands
Speaker 1: of people soon, it will be millions of people if
Speaker 1: we don't do something. You were hearing there from Rodolpho Karish,
Speaker 1: who is the chief Border Patrol Agent of the Rio
Speaker 1: Grand Valley sector of the border. He was just talking
Speaker 1: some of you might have thought, and it would be
Speaker 1: a completely legitimate thought to have. Wow, that's a lot
Speaker 1: of a thousand a day at our southern border. That's
Speaker 1: a lot. No, no, no, a thousand a day just
Speaker 1: in the Rio Grand Valley sector. Think about what that
Speaker 1: means when you add into it that in the El
Speaker 1: Paso sector, for example, they've had five hundred one thousand,
Speaker 1: a couple of thousand over a very short period of time.
Speaker 1: I mean, you look at the numbers and you see
Speaker 1: what's happening here, and it is open season for a
Speaker 1: legal entry into the United States. Our Border Patrol, which
Speaker 1: is supposed to be a law enforcement organization, is being
Speaker 1: repurposed for a largely humanitarian mission. Now this is not
Speaker 1: to say that I want people at our southern border
Speaker 1: to be in any jeopardy or danger. I understand the need,
Speaker 1: and we do have an obligation just like we would
Speaker 1: with any other people we take into custody, any other
Speaker 1: prisoners or anyone else who breaks the law. You know,
Speaker 1: you can't leave them unattended, unfed. This is just the
Speaker 1: reality of state custody. You have to take care of people.
Speaker 1: But that's a big problem when the people that are
Speaker 1: doing the caretaking are supposed to be law enforcement officers,
Speaker 1: not the Border Patrol. All Slash red Cross and mister
Speaker 1: Karish of Border Patrol said this about what his officers
Speaker 1: have to do now Play twenty. The majority of people
Speaker 1: we are apprehending our family units and unaccompanied children from
Speaker 1: the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.
Speaker 1: Many are extremely vulnerable. Consequently, thirty to forty percent of
Speaker 1: my daily workforce is doing humanitarian work at any given
Speaker 1: point in time. This includes processing, karen feeding, hospital watch,
Speaker 1: and transportation. It also means that at any given point time,
Speaker 1: thirty to forty percent of my workforce is not available
Speaker 1: to secure the border. An agent who's taken a migrant
Speaker 1: to a hospital is not available in or to DiPT narcotics,
Speaker 1: Nor are we able to respond to other smuggling events
Speaker 1: or border intrusions when we encounter and apprehend large groups
Speaker 1: of people. The bad guys know this. They know our
Speaker 1: resources are stretched. Then, in addressing the humanitarian issue which
Speaker 1: undermines our border security operations, they direct the movement of
Speaker 1: large groups into certain border areas as a diversion to
Speaker 1: facilitate the smuggling of drugs. This is an issue of
Speaker 1: both national security and officers safety. So when Democrats say,
Speaker 1: as they do frequently, that this is only a humanitarian crisis,
Speaker 1: they're lying. The humanitarian crisis also creates a national security crisis.
Speaker 1: National security from the perspective of drug smuggling in the
Speaker 1: cartels and also just the human smuggling of we don't
Speaker 1: know who's coming into this country, we don't know what
Speaker 1: they plan on doing. There was just earlier this week
Speaker 1: an individual arrested an ISIS sympathizer who plan to get
Speaker 1: a vehicle and engage in a mass casualty vehicle attack
Speaker 1: here in Washington, d C. There is no reason to
Speaker 1: believe that we have control over who's coming into this
Speaker 1: country and who's not. There's no reason to believe that
Speaker 1: we are in a situation where we can tell who
Speaker 1: is coming across in areas that are flooded already with
Speaker 1: migrants who are surrendering themselves outside of ports of entry,
Speaker 1: which is illegal. There is also from the same testimony today,
Speaker 1: you have a Bordercool agent Krish saying that they've gotten
Speaker 1: they've apprehended people in his sector alone from fifty different
Speaker 1: countries including China, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, and Romania. Now, remember
Speaker 1: the way this process works. The people that they're capturing
Speaker 1: who cross illegally can then claim what's called defensive asylum. Oh,
Speaker 1: I actually want asylum in your country, and they can
Speaker 1: go into the process too. They'll be led into the
Speaker 1: United States. They will have a criminal prosecution against them
Speaker 1: for the illegal entry, but that's only a misdemeanor, and
Speaker 1: they may still be able to stay. But there are
Speaker 1: a lot of people that get across that don't even
Speaker 1: have to claim defensive asylum because the border is increasingly open.
Speaker 1: You know, all you have to do is get past
Speaker 1: that initial fence line and get into a populated area
Speaker 1: and you're good to go. Border pchool is not going
Speaker 1: to track you down. I've seen it. I've seen what
Speaker 1: their resource constraints are. Fifty different countries, folks. How many
Speaker 1: people do you have to be able to infiltrate into
Speaker 1: the United States? You know, if you were from the
Speaker 1: if you were an ISIS cell right now, and I'm
Speaker 1: not somebody who usually says, oh, you know, take take
Speaker 1: the risk of coming into the country to the southern border,
Speaker 1: because maybe it'll be caught. But right now, if you
Speaker 1: were part of an ISIS cell and you wanted to
Speaker 1: give the United States much more, much higher likelihood of
Speaker 1: success penetrating across the southern border than trying to get
Speaker 1: a visa from a Muslim majority country that you know
Speaker 1: has an ISIS sell in it or has an ISIS
Speaker 1: franchise in it. I should say, much easier to do
Speaker 1: that than to try to get a visa, put yourself
Speaker 1: through the screening process, fly in and do it all legally.
Speaker 1: All you have to do is hang out with one
Speaker 1: of these migrant caravans in Mexico. Just fly to Mexico,
Speaker 1: hang out with a migrant caravan there, and when you
Speaker 1: know there's a big surrender coming and the border patrol
Speaker 1: agents are all tied down just about a mile down
Speaker 1: the road or miled on the fence line, make a
Speaker 1: run for it. You're good. You're good to go. We
Speaker 1: have no idea how money people are smuggling themselves in
Speaker 1: this way, no idea what kind of drugs and other
Speaker 1: things are getting into this country as a result. Democrats,
Speaker 1: of course, just all they want to talk about his
Speaker 1: family separation because they're desperate for the moral high ground
Speaker 1: and they're desperate for a diversionary issue from the fact
Speaker 1: that this. They lied to you, The Democrats and the
Speaker 1: media have been lying to you for months saying there
Speaker 1: is no crisis. How stupid. Do they look now, well,
Speaker 1: how dishonest? Maybe do they look now? They knew there
Speaker 1: was a crisis, most of them did. They just wouldn't
Speaker 1: say it because they were trying to back up the
Speaker 1: Democrat talking points about how we don't need a wall,
Speaker 1: we don't need more border security. These people are liars,
Speaker 1: top Democrats, major media outlets, liars on the issue of
Speaker 1: the border and how bad is it. Here's what Rudolpho
Speaker 1: said about that play eighteen. In my thirty years as
Speaker 1: an agent, I have never witnessed the conditions we are
Speaker 1: currently facing on the Southwest border. This is not a
Speaker 1: manufactured crisis created by those of us who live and
Speaker 1: work in the border area. Board Troll continues to apprehend
Speaker 1: record numbers of people who purposely violate US immigration laws.
Speaker 1: We are taking advantage of by gaps in our legal framework,
Speaker 1: and that undermined the rule of law. Criminal organization is
Speaker 1: along the border capitalize on these issues and make tremendous
Speaker 1: profits at the expense of both migrants and the American people.
Speaker 1: This is a disaster, and it is happening under the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. I will say this though, at least at
Speaker 1: least we do have a commander in chief who understands
Speaker 1: the scope of the problem and wants it to stop.
Speaker 1: Could you think for a moment if this situation, because
Speaker 1: this is all about the legal framework that's in place
Speaker 1: for asylum and how it's being exploited, and how the
Speaker 1: media is reported on this, and how the word has
Speaker 1: gotten out outside of our borders, while inside of our
Speaker 1: borders you got the press running defense for the smugglers,
Speaker 1: for the cartels and the coyotes, saying, oh, no, there's
Speaker 1: no problem, don't look down here, don't look at the border,
Speaker 1: nothing going on. You imagine if we had a democrat,
Speaker 1: all you'd hear about is how we just need to
Speaker 1: bring in more and more than we need amnesty. So
Speaker 1: we have something of a fighting chance to get this
Speaker 1: issue under control. But time is not on our side here.
Speaker 1: If this continues as is, we will reach a tipping
Speaker 1: point where it will no longer be possible to consider
Speaker 1: the border to be anything other than open. And once
Speaker 1: politicians of both parties decide that this problem can't be fixed,
Speaker 1: that the population of illegals is too large to expect
Speaker 1: to enforce US law against, they're just going to cave.
Speaker 1: They're gonna cave I interviewed a congressman today from Long Island.
Speaker 1: He and Steve King one amnesty, amnesty in exchange for
Speaker 1: border security? What does border security mean? Border security is
Speaker 1: a very malleable term. What does it mean. Does it
Speaker 1: mean just faster processing to let more of these mass
Speaker 1: mass migrant caravans coming in the United States? Or does
Speaker 1: border security mean a greater capability and the legal backing
Speaker 1: necessary to tell people you can't come in this way.
Speaker 1: We have a legal immigration process. This is not it.
Speaker 1: Turn around and go home, do not pass, go, do
Speaker 1: not collect two hundred dollars. That's what border security would
Speaker 1: really be. But we all know that Democrats are entirely
Speaker 1: opposed to that. So what do we do? What do
Speaker 1: we do? Background checks are critical for your business. Whatever
Speaker 1: size company you're running, whatever HR department you're in, whatever
Speaker 1: industry you're in, You're going to need to have background
Speaker 1: checks done on your employees, and you might need some
Speaker 1: additional vetting of business partners or other company matters. I
Speaker 1: want you to try my friends at Global Verification Network.
Speaker 1: Global Verification Network is the only dual certified veteran owned
Speaker 1: background investigation and vetting company and their rismutigation experts will
Speaker 1: work with you whatever size your company, from startups all
Speaker 1: the way up to fortune one hundreds. So even if
Speaker 1: you've got somebody that's currently doing background checks for you,
Speaker 1: some big conglomerate out there that probably offshores it, by
Speaker 1: the way, which Global Verification Network does not. They do
Speaker 1: it all in the States. Reach out to Global Verification Network,
Speaker 1: talk to them about your needs and they'll set up
Speaker 1: a program that will work for you. Call eight seven seven,
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine eight seven seven
Speaker 1: six nine five one one seven nine tell them you're
Speaker 1: part of Team Buck. You'll be happy you did. I
Speaker 1: think Georgia has to realize that while we are enjoying
Speaker 1: an extraordinary boom in the film industry, there's nothing that
Speaker 1: says it has to stay here, and we have to
Speaker 1: be a state that is not only friendly to business,
Speaker 1: we've got to be friendly to the women who work
Speaker 1: in these businesses. You should not have to worry about
Speaker 1: your ability to control your bodily autonomy because of the
Speaker 1: governor has pushed such an abominable and evil bill that
Speaker 1: is so restrictive. It's not only bad for morality in
Speaker 1: our humanity, it's bad for business. Ah bad for business.
Speaker 1: Stacy Abram says, protecting babies from murder in the womb
Speaker 1: is bad for business. Business like what Planned Parenthood conducts
Speaker 1: when it sells baby parts, which we all know happened.
Speaker 1: We saw the videos, but they pretend did not happen.
Speaker 1: They use their allies in various prosecutors' offices to try
Speaker 1: to harass the people who made those videos. Fetal Heartbeat
Speaker 1: bill is bad for business, Stacey Abrams says. And and
Speaker 1: even as the goal to say that it's abominable and
Speaker 1: evil to try to protect babies in the womb. You know,
Speaker 1: we are going to talk about reparations later on this
Speaker 1: hour and how Democrats are embracing that as a concept.
Speaker 1: And yes, slavery is a is a very sad, tragic, wrong,
Speaker 1: immoral part of the American past, but we have come
Speaker 1: to terms with it. We obviously ended the practice a
Speaker 1: long time ago. It ended because of a brutal Civil
Speaker 1: war in which a whole lot of Americans lost their lives,
Speaker 1: and that's what it took to end it. So there
Speaker 1: was a price paid in blood for the end of slavery,
Speaker 1: as we all know. And since then we have been
Speaker 1: a path to greater and greater racial harmony and legal equality. Abortion.
Speaker 1: The reason I bring up reparation slavery is that abortion
Speaker 1: will also at some point in the future. I can
Speaker 1: assure you. I can't tell you when, but I know
Speaker 1: it will happen. With greater scientific knowledge and understanding, abortion
Speaker 1: becomes less and less defensible. With greater knowledge about the
Speaker 1: abortion procedure, it becomes less scientifically and ethically defensible. And
Speaker 1: there will come a time when the vast majority of
Speaker 1: the American people will say, I cannot believe that the
Speaker 1: avatars for infants operated by Planned parenthood were able to
Speaker 1: go on for so long that day. That day will come.
Speaker 1: I don't know if it'll be in my lifetime. I
Speaker 1: hope it will be. But for Stacy Abrams never. If
Speaker 1: you're a Democrat, you have to be pro abortioned all
Speaker 1: the way, all nine months. If you waver at all,
Speaker 1: you're an enemy of choice. What they'll call you an
Speaker 1: enemy of choice and you will not get the money.
Speaker 1: You will not get the funds. They won't even vote
Speaker 1: on the Borderlive Infant Protection Act. I mean there they
Speaker 1: are openly now. They can they can tell us as
Speaker 1: much as they want Otherwise, but they're openly now the
Speaker 1: party of infanticide. But for Abrams to use moral language
Speaker 1: here like it is evil, it is abominable to try
Speaker 1: to protect little babies is an unfortunate but perfect example
Speaker 1: of just how degraded the left's moral sensibility has become.
Speaker 1: That they do not understand anymore right from wrong. They
Speaker 1: have embraced, They have embraced evil so thoroughly that they
Speaker 1: do not know what is evil. And for her to
Speaker 1: say it's not only bad for humanity, it's bad for business.
Speaker 1: She's referring to these actors, including a Lissa Milano, who
Speaker 1: is not a very a bright or introspective woman, not
Speaker 1: somebody that anybody should listen to. And I know because
Speaker 1: I've had to deal with her and also had to
Speaker 1: deal with her thinking that complaining about a journalist asking
Speaker 1: fair questions is somehow going to get me to stop
Speaker 1: asking the fair questions or I will feel chastened afterwards.
Speaker 1: She was lucky, She was lucky that I led her
Speaker 1: off without completely exposing her for the intellectually bankrupt fraud
Speaker 1: she is. But I was trying to be somewhat polite
Speaker 1: and professional. Look as I have a self awareness one
Speaker 1: of the biggest knocks on me. If anything, I can
Speaker 1: be too polite. It doesn't mean I don't like to fight.
Speaker 1: I like to fight, but I don't start the fights,
Speaker 1: and I can be too polite in the run up
Speaker 1: to them. But back to Abram's here, she's saying she's
Speaker 1: talking about this being bad for business because Milano and
Speaker 1: others have said that they will not They've tried to
Speaker 1: financially pressure Georgia into abandoning this bill, which is a
Speaker 1: fetal heartbeat bill, which just says that once the fetal
Speaker 1: heartbeat is detectable, you cannot have an abortion anymore. And
Speaker 1: this is scientifically very sound principle, isn't it. People do
Speaker 1: not have two hearts. If you have two hearts, you
Speaker 1: have two people. This is a different person who is
Speaker 1: in the womb, and once the heart is beating. That
Speaker 1: could not be more clear from a pure science perspective,
Speaker 1: it is two human beings. But Abrams knows that she
Speaker 1: has to be in the vanguard of the abortion extremists
Speaker 1: if she wants any real shot at winning the presence.
Speaker 1: It's a terrible shame, you know. I'm reaching out this
Speaker 1: week to try to have some of the either producers
Speaker 1: or director or actors, I don't know whoever will come
Speaker 1: on to talk about the movie Unplanned, which I'm hoping
Speaker 1: to see soon. I need to find the best way
Speaker 1: for me to see it. I rarely go to movie theaters,
Speaker 1: but I'm hoping to be able to get a copy
Speaker 1: and download it or watch it at home. I'm pleased
Speaker 1: to see that it's doing so well. I think it's
Speaker 1: broken the twelve million dollar mark in terms of sales,
Speaker 1: which for an independent film on this topic is pretty remarkable.
Speaker 1: But we are hoping to have them on this week
Speaker 1: because my understanding from friends of mine who've seen the
Speaker 1: movie is that it is It is haunting, but it
Speaker 1: is the kind of gut wrenching viewing that if we
Speaker 1: want to confront this evil and if we want to
Speaker 1: live in a truly moral society, in a country where
Speaker 1: the most precious among us are protected, then that's what
Speaker 1: we need to do. We need to watch, we need
Speaker 1: to understand, we see the full scope of just what
Speaker 1: has happened here, what is happening still day in and
Speaker 1: day out across the country. Stacy Abrams I find deeply
Speaker 1: unimpressive the media is obsessed with her just like they're
Speaker 1: obsessed with Betto. I don't think that there's much substance
Speaker 1: there at all, But I do know this, Like all
Speaker 1: the rest of the far left, she is an abortion
Speaker 1: extremist and she is in the wrong on this issue.
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Shila Jackson Lee has proposed a bill to form
Speaker 1: a commission to study how to do reparations? If you
Speaker 1: elected president, would you sign that bill if it came
Speaker 1: across your desk? When I am elected president, I will
Speaker 1: sign it. If that bill were to pass and come
Speaker 1: to your desk, Would you sign it? If the House
Speaker 1: and sent had passed that bill, of course I would
Speaker 1: sign if would you sign that bill? Yes? If you
Speaker 1: are president of the United States, would you sign that
Speaker 1: bill if it passed the Congress? A commission on reparations
Speaker 1: a slavery in the United States? I would. Would you
Speaker 1: signed the bill for reparations? Yes, I would. I already
Speaker 1: support that bill. Listen to one major Democrat candidate there
Speaker 1: after another in response to al Sharpton, A man whose
Speaker 1: lack of ethics and integrity is not something I think
Speaker 1: I need to explain to any of you. But they
Speaker 1: still have to. They still have to show up and
Speaker 1: kiss the ring. They have to bend the knee in
Speaker 1: front of Sharpton. If you're going to be the Democrat candidate,
Speaker 1: he still wields a lot of power. But they're talking
Speaker 1: about reparations here, reparations for slavery. And this isn't You
Speaker 1: cannot call something a fringe issue or something that is
Speaker 1: outside of the mainstream of political discussion when you have
Speaker 1: on a stage like the National Action Network conference Al
Speaker 1: Sharpton's organization. So there's that and one Democrat presidential hopeful
Speaker 1: offen another saying yes, they would sign a bill for reparations. Yes,
Speaker 1: they believe in reparations. Oh, and Sheila Jackson Lee, he's
Speaker 1: discussing in some specifics here what a reparations bill would
Speaker 1: look like, play too, how exactly would reparations benefits to
Speaker 1: slave descendants would be distributed. There's been some questions on
Speaker 1: that the bill does not even go to that point
Speaker 1: because we want the study to go forward, want an assessment.
Speaker 1: I would be speculating as to how any of this
Speaker 1: would be addressed. But one could see institutional responses to
Speaker 1: institutions like historically by colleges, many of them formulated in
Speaker 1: the eighteen hundreds, but again, I think the most important
Speaker 1: point is the establishment of the commission and not answering
Speaker 1: the question before the study and the facts have been completed.
Speaker 1: A commission to study the facts, they are saying, A
Speaker 1: commission to study the facts. What you know, where would
Speaker 1: this go? What would be the purpose of this? And
Speaker 1: this is an issue that you're seeing increasingly on the
Speaker 1: left a lot of support for, but they're very fuzzy
Speaker 1: on the specifics. Right, it gets very hazy all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, what this would even me? Newt Gingrich, for example,
Speaker 1: raise this question, and I'm wondering how the Democrats think
Speaker 1: they'll answer a play three. I think the most revealing
Speaker 1: thing is what's happening on this whole idea of reparations,
Speaker 1: and I think we should take it seriously in a
Speaker 1: very positive way of allowing the Democrats to explain exactly
Speaker 1: who would get reparations, how would you determine how and
Speaker 1: far back would you go? If you think about it,
Speaker 1: you have to have somebody who is virtually out of
Speaker 1: touch with reality to believe that in this extraordinarily complex
Speaker 1: society which continues to this to get mass migration from
Speaker 1: all over the world, legal migration by the way that
Speaker 1: you can somehow reach out magically and figure out who
Speaker 1: to give reparations to this. This is a perfect Al
Speaker 1: Sharpton utterly phony issue. But it tells you the decay
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party that he now has presidential candidates
Speaker 1: who thrilled to go see him to tell him that
Speaker 1: they would sign a bill as crazy, utterly phony on
Speaker 1: antellectual level, on a reality based level, sure, but politically
Speaker 1: it's obviously potent for the Democrats. They have a belief
Speaker 1: that this is something that they should discuss, they should
Speaker 1: talk about, and if nothing else, it allows them to
Speaker 1: pose as the saviors of the American soul. You know,
Speaker 1: Democrats can give long, long and self indulgent, inspirational lectures
Speaker 1: about confronting the past injustices of race. I mean, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of justice that has occurred in the past
Speaker 1: in a lot of ways. If we really plan on
Speaker 1: doing an accounting of it, I mean, I would like
Speaker 1: to wonder where that stops and starts. How far back
Speaker 1: do we go? Who else might have a case to
Speaker 1: be made for some kind of redistributive economics based upon
Speaker 1: what was done to quote their people back in the day.
Speaker 1: Think about how this would be in the implementation as well.
Speaker 1: And here's just one example. If you were, let's say
Speaker 1: the son or daughter of somebody today who's my contemporary,
Speaker 1: and you had one black parent and one white parent,
Speaker 1: would you would that person qualify for reparations? And I
Speaker 1: asked this question not to be not to be silly,
Speaker 1: because nobody has any answers yet they don't. But if
Speaker 1: this was just a financial incentive or a financial financially
Speaker 1: based programs, so they're going to give money to people,
Speaker 1: do you get less money than if you know, if
Speaker 1: you are have a black parent and a white parent,
Speaker 1: then you would if you had two black parents, How
Speaker 1: would they assess how much reparations any individual would get it?
Speaker 1: I would say, oh, buckle, it's not about individuals. It'll
Speaker 1: be about institutions. Okay, well, who would make that determination?
Speaker 1: What we're told? And this is from I was reading
Speaker 1: on vox dot com today. I can feel the testosterone
Speaker 1: leaving my system with each passing line every time I
Speaker 1: go to vox dot com. But I was reading Vox,
Speaker 1: and you know, they're talking about how the left wants
Speaker 1: a one hundred to five hundred billion dollar reparations fund
Speaker 1: set aside. Maryanne Williamson is the self help guru and
Speaker 1: spiritual advisor who is pushing for this. But there are
Speaker 1: some on the left who are saying that, yes, that's
Speaker 1: what you need. Hundreds of billions of dollars. So it's
Speaker 1: essentially a massive slush fund would be taxpayer funded that
Speaker 1: the left in this country would be able to distribute
Speaker 1: as it sees fit, with the idea that this would
Speaker 1: somehow be justice. And let me just say that to
Speaker 1: take money from people, which is what this would be,
Speaker 1: taxpayer funded, to take money from individuals and to give
Speaker 1: it to other people is inherently a problematic business, right.
Speaker 1: This would involve all kinds of redistribution of wealth. Now,
Speaker 1: people say, buck, we already do that with all these
Speaker 1: welfare programs. I know, when does it stop? When is
Speaker 1: it enough? Government's seizure of individual assets by force in
Speaker 1: order to give them to other people is something that
Speaker 1: is always for me in excess of government authority. But
Speaker 1: that's where we are now. I mean, as a society,
Speaker 1: we've just come to accept that the income tax and
Speaker 1: the redistribution of the money from it to people that
Speaker 1: the governments either in need or just worthy of it
Speaker 1: is what we have to accept plunder, as Bastiat would
Speaker 1: have called the plunder of individuals of their labor and
Speaker 1: time and assets because the state sees a collective good
Speaker 1: that comes from this. But who knows where this would
Speaker 1: really go and who knows what the level of reparations
Speaker 1: funding would have to be. People talk about the racial
Speaker 1: wealth gap in this country. Would would reparations then only
Speaker 1: be used for African Americans? What about Africans who arrived
Speaker 1: in this country in the last fifty years, last thirty years?
Speaker 1: Would they also? Is it a skin color based issue?
Speaker 1: There are no real answers. Is it's an enormously complicated
Speaker 1: set of historical issues, and that you would create a
Speaker 1: government commission to try to handle this is just an
Speaker 1: effort really to inflame and and inflame racial resentment, to
Speaker 1: create greater tension among people, and to allow for a
Speaker 1: lot of Democrat grandstanding on the issue. Remember, the Democrats
Speaker 1: were the party of slavery and Jim Crow and the KKK,
Speaker 1: and now the Democrats want to be the ones that centive. Oh,
Speaker 1: we need to have a commission on these historical injustices.
Speaker 1: We are all in this country very aware of the history,
Speaker 1: the immoral history of slavery. But we also can only
Speaker 1: be held to accounts as individuals for our own moral actions.
Speaker 1: You know, there is no such thing as a collective
Speaker 1: guilt in this country that individuals should be held response
Speaker 1: before based on what their forefathers did. Whatever my great
Speaker 1: grandfather did, I did not do that thing, I cannot
Speaker 1: be held It is immoral to hold me responsible for
Speaker 1: the moral actions or immoral actions of my ancestors, or
Speaker 1: even my father, or my parents, or my family members.
Speaker 1: So it erode the moral order when you start to
Speaker 1: make distinctions on people and take from people based upon
Speaker 1: what you say that somebody else who does not even
Speaker 1: exist and does not live anymore, may have done generations ago,
Speaker 1: which is where this conversation will inevitably lead. But really
Speaker 1: it's just Democrats grandstanding, virtue signaling, and playing the identity
Speaker 1: politics that are the center of their party. I talk
Speaker 1: to kids who's sit in their classroom afraid that will
Speaker 1: be the next victim of gun violence. None of that
Speaker 1: is going to change until we get a leader who
Speaker 1: is willing to go big on the issues we take on,
Speaker 1: be bold and the solutions we offer, and do good
Speaker 1: in the way that we govern. I'm ready to solve
Speaker 1: these problems. I'm running for president of the United States.
Speaker 1: Are you had Eric Swowell, who's taken a break from
Speaker 1: all of his conspiratorial garbage over Russia collusion in Trump
Speaker 1: to appear on the Colbert Rapport very or whatever it's
Speaker 1: called now the Late Show with Colbert Who cares? Stephen Colbert,
Speaker 1: who is just It's just essentially an opo program against
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. It's not funny, it's not clever. It's
Speaker 1: a lot of mean spirited nonsense. But Swalwell of course
Speaker 1: gets to announce his long shot, to put it mildly,
Speaker 1: twenty twenty run on the Colbert Rapport, And even in that,
Speaker 1: even in that one clip, he reminds us why he
Speaker 1: is a deeply unserious person and should not be treated
Speaker 1: as anyone to listen to on issues of national policy.
Speaker 1: He said, I talk to kids who sit in their
Speaker 1: classrooms and they're afraid they'll be the next victims of
Speaker 1: gun violence. He should tell them, And maybe Swalwell does
Speaker 1: not seem to hn know this, but you know, he
Speaker 1: should tell them that kids are in fact safer now
Speaker 1: in the classroom than they were twenty years ago. That's
Speaker 1: just a fact. These are these just stubborn things. These
Speaker 1: facts that come up right, These are statistics that you
Speaker 1: can't really just run around and pretend don't exist. But
Speaker 1: Swalwell wants to play into this fear. You know, I
Speaker 1: don't know why it is that there's well, I do know.
Speaker 1: It's because emotion and the manipulation of young minds and
Speaker 1: the emotions that you can drum up in people. When
Speaker 1: you've manipulated young people to parrot certain ideas and to
Speaker 1: say certain things. That's very much a Democrat approach. You
Speaker 1: don't see Republicans do this. You don't see conservatives say
Speaker 1: we are arming the kids are like twelve, and they
Speaker 1: really think that the marginal tax ri it should go
Speaker 1: from thirty seven to thirty five because we're gonna have
Speaker 1: to he with the real boomer surgeon medicure. And I
Speaker 1: just you know, no, I don't care what twelve year
Speaker 1: olds think about national policy, all right. I don't care
Speaker 1: what twelve year olds think about honestly, much of anything.
Speaker 1: And the twelve year olds were listening, thank you for
Speaker 1: listening to the show, and you obviously have excellent taste,
Speaker 1: But you're gonna we're gonna have to wait a little
Speaker 1: while before we get to have you vote and you're
Speaker 1: a part of the national conversation. There are some there
Speaker 1: us young teenagers listened to the show. They've called in before,
Speaker 1: but they also call in because they want to learn,
Speaker 1: and they want to they want to share their ideas.
Speaker 1: But they're listening the show to learn, which is what
Speaker 1: teenagers should do. They should be learning and asking questions.
Speaker 1: They should not be lecturing, and we certainly shouldn't have
Speaker 1: adults who think that they should be able to lecture
Speaker 1: the rest of us based on what kids allegedly tell them.
Speaker 1: And then, of course you also have that trope from Twitter,
Speaker 1: which very few of you I will be familiar with,
Speaker 1: but journalists all live on Twitter these days. It's like
Speaker 1: we're in the matrix, except it's Twitter, and they'll do
Speaker 1: this thing where they'll say, you know, yeah, like my
Speaker 1: like seven year old is just like telling me that,
Speaker 1: you know, Donald Trump's refusal to accept like the latest
Speaker 1: gender normative instruction from the University of wherever. It's just
Speaker 1: like really upsetting and like I'm literally shaking right now.
Speaker 1: And then everyone says, no, your seven year old didn't
Speaker 1: say that, so why are you pretending that you're seven
Speaker 1: year did I mean this is a This is a
Speaker 1: pretty normal, a pretty normal response for people when they
Speaker 1: know they're being a lined to. But but the left
Speaker 1: loves to do this. Swollwell is saying that because kids
Speaker 1: are worried, we should change gun policy. I mean, he's
Speaker 1: he's running against the Second Amendment. Effectively, he's already come
Speaker 1: out and said that he wants to have an assault
Speaker 1: rifle band. He wants to essentially wants to be somebody
Speaker 1: who has a focus against guns. And he says, for example,
Speaker 1: quote I see a country in quicksand, unable to solve
Speaker 1: problems and threats from abroad, unable to make life better
Speaker 1: for people here at home. Nothing gets done. That was
Speaker 1: what he was saying. And he's pushing gun safety a lot,
Speaker 1: which I always want to say, gun safety is things
Speaker 1: like training your trigger finger, discipline. They're not they're never
Speaker 1: really talking about gun safety. They're talking about confiscation and
Speaker 1: the demonization of those who believe in the Second Amendment.
Speaker 1: Joe Biggs, for example, tweeted out, so basically, representative Swalwell
Speaker 1: wants a war because that's what you would get. You're
Speaker 1: out of your mind if you think I'll give up
Speaker 1: my rights and give the government all the power. Swalwell
Speaker 1: responded to this guy, it would be a short war,
Speaker 1: my friend. The government has nukes, too many of them,
Speaker 1: but they're legit. I'm sure if we talk we could
Speaker 1: find common ground to protect our families and our community.
Speaker 1: So Swallow is also an idiot, because guess what, Swalwell,
Speaker 1: we have nukes. How's the pacification of Afghanistan going? We
Speaker 1: just lost I believe seeing the reports conflicting on this,
Speaker 1: we just lost a number of our brave soldiers. I
Speaker 1: think at least two of them killed in Afghanistan. We
Speaker 1: have nukes. The Taliban doesn't. Why can't we just force
Speaker 1: them to do whatever we want? Right? Control is person
Speaker 1: to person, street to street. Nukes don't give you control
Speaker 1: over a people that you wish to rule. It can
Speaker 1: give you the right to or the ability to not
Speaker 1: the right to threaten and blackmail your neighbors and to
Speaker 1: annihilate your neighbors. But you're I mean, it's tanooke. Your
Speaker 1: own population as not a realistic threat if you seek
Speaker 1: to rule them. But if you disarm them, if they
Speaker 1: cannot fight back, well then you can control them entirely.
Speaker 1: But Swalwell doesn't doesn't understand, doesn't know this, doesn't understand this,
Speaker 1: and say another one of these, this clown car of
Speaker 1: Democrat candidates I think is nineteen now, and you don't
Speaker 1: even have Biden yet in the mix. Clown car that
Speaker 1: is just going to get bigger and bigger all the time,
Speaker 1: because now running for the presidency is just viewed as
Speaker 1: by a lot of these Democrats as as what is
Speaker 1: really a branding exercise. It gets them on the Tonight Show,
Speaker 1: gets them on TV, gets people talking about them, and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. Swalwell should be forced to answer for
Speaker 1: what he has been saying and his role in propping
Speaker 1: up the hoax over Russia collusion. You know, Swalwell should
Speaker 1: have to answer for all of that that he's running
Speaker 1: for president. Maybe this is just a brilliant move on
Speaker 1: his part to change the subject as quickly as possible.
Speaker 1: But remember Swawell and Adam Schiff and others, they haven't
Speaker 1: backed off Russia collusion yet. They're still they're still living
Speaker 1: in a fantasyland on this one. And fantasyland extends for
Speaker 1: Swalwell too. He's going to be the next president. We
Speaker 1: know that left wing radicals have overrun college campuses across
Speaker 1: the country. It's the students, it's the faculty, it's the administrators,
Speaker 1: and they're suppressing conservative speech. In fact, they attack conservative
Speaker 1: students and they try to bar conservative speakers from campus.
Speaker 1: We don't have to just sit back and take this anymore.
Speaker 1: The Leadership Institute is out there training conservative activists for
Speaker 1: campuses so that they can make the campus safe for conservatism.
Speaker 1: The Leadership Institute is the best at this and you
Speaker 1: can help them in their critical mission. Just go to
Speaker 1: take back the Campus dot org and you can fight
Speaker 1: back against the left efforts to silence conservative voices on
Speaker 1: college campuses. With a gift of as little as five
Speaker 1: dollars a month, you can help our side win this
Speaker 1: ideological war. Visit take back the Campus dot org to
Speaker 1: make your urgent gift to the Leadership Institute. Today again,
Speaker 1: go to take back the Campus dot org to make
Speaker 1: your gift. Take back the Campus dot org. You are
Speaker 1: now entering the Freedom Hontital Operation Center. All sensitive programs
Speaker 1: musty camps strictly need to know the team Buck is
Speaker 1: cleared and ready for the buck brief, Mister President. Over
Speaker 1: the years, Israel has been blessed to have many friends
Speaker 1: who sat in the Oval office, but Israel has never
Speaker 1: had a better friend than you. You show this time
Speaker 1: it again, you show this, and you withdrew from the
Speaker 1: disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. I remember in one of
Speaker 1: our first meetings, you said, this is a horrible deal.
Speaker 1: I will leave it. You said it, you did it.
Speaker 1: You showed it. When you restored sanctions against a genocidal
Speaker 1: regime that seeks to destroy the one and only Jewish state.
Speaker 1: You said, I will restore those sanctions. You said it,
Speaker 1: and you did it. You showed that when you recognize
Speaker 1: Jerusalem is Israel's capital and moved the American embassy there.
Speaker 1: You gave us a tremendous ambassador. You said it, you
Speaker 1: did it, and you've showed it once against Today, mister President,
Speaker 1: with your official proclamation recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights.
Speaker 1: Then Yahoo is quite a statesman and quite an ally
Speaker 1: of the United States. He is in the midst of
Speaker 1: a battle today for the prime ministership of the State
Speaker 1: of Israel's an election going on. So I want to
Speaker 1: bring on an expert to tell us just what's happening
Speaker 1: and what it means Going forward. We have our friend
Speaker 1: dovin Effune with us now. He is the editor in
Speaker 1: chief of the Alga Miner, which some describe as the
Speaker 1: Jewish people's answer to Al Jazeera. Great to have you all,
Speaker 1: my friend, always a pleasure book. So tell me what
Speaker 1: what's where are we right now in this in this
Speaker 1: election or understandings things? You're close and you know what
Speaker 1: can you tell us about what's happening today? In general?
Speaker 1: Well primus and Naho is in the midst of the
Speaker 1: political fight of his life. Polls have just closed ten
Speaker 1: pm Israel time, and the first exit polls have been released.
Speaker 1: There are three major Israeli TV channels that release exit polls.
Speaker 1: Two of them are showing a dead heat thirty six
Speaker 1: seats each between Naho and his political rival Benny Gantz,
Speaker 1: a former chief of staff of the DF together with
Speaker 1: a group of other generals. But they are showing that
Speaker 1: the right wing block, and of course in Israel you
Speaker 1: need a coalition of parties to form a government, comes
Speaker 1: out and ahead with sixty six seats versus fifty four
Speaker 1: for the left wing block. There is one poll which
Speaker 1: may be an outlier or may have got it right,
Speaker 1: which actually shows Naho's rival Guns about four or five
Speaker 1: seats ahead of net Yahoo and a dead heat sixty
Speaker 1: sixty each. In terms of the formation of the political
Speaker 1: blocks which are necessary to create the government. In the
Speaker 1: end of the day, we're going to have to wait
Speaker 1: till tomorrow morning, US time, until those balants are actually
Speaker 1: counted and we have a real result. In the meantime,
Speaker 1: both of the candidates, Naho and Guns are claiming victory.
Speaker 1: Naho says, I'm meeting with coalition potential coalition partners to night.
Speaker 1: I'm ready to get this wrapped up. Guns are saying
Speaker 1: it's time to move on now. From the US perspective,
Speaker 1: we see, we see this election playing out, and obviously,
Speaker 1: you know Ninjah who despite what Beto O'Rourke says about him.
Speaker 1: Did you hear that, By the way, do you hear
Speaker 1: Beto saying that Yahoo does not represent the will of
Speaker 1: the Israeli people. That was pretty funny, considering he seems
Speaker 1: to win a lot of elections. Yeah, I mean, unfortunately,
Speaker 1: it seems that for Democratic candidates, presidential candidates, it's sort
Speaker 1: of a right of passage to go after bb Um.
Speaker 1: It's going to get all kud if bb stays in
Speaker 1: office and one of them ends up winning, they'll have
Speaker 1: to deal with the guy. But could you call them
Speaker 1: a racist too? By the way, I mean, why you know,
Speaker 1: when people say things in politics in this country, why
Speaker 1: is he referring to BB as a racist? What's the
Speaker 1: justification for that? Well, usually what they point to is
Speaker 1: this nation state law, which you know was backed by
Speaker 1: the Yahu government, which basically says that Israel is the
Speaker 1: nation state of the Jewish people and only of the
Speaker 1: Jewish people. I think there's a lot that gets lost
Speaker 1: in translation though, you know, when when you know the
Speaker 1: law on the technic county is the law on the
Speaker 1: way it's being presented, make it over into the English language. Um,
Speaker 1: you know, I speak Hebrew and I speak English, and
Speaker 1: I understand exactly what's being said, and the truth that
Speaker 1: it's very often mischaracterized. You know, it's the law itself
Speaker 1: stipulates that all of the citizens have equal rights. But
Speaker 1: you know, in the same way as you know you
Speaker 1: have Muslim countries in Christian countries, Israel as the one
Speaker 1: Jewish state and it's the only nation state of the
Speaker 1: Jewish people in the world. And I think that's been
Speaker 1: sort of twisted by his political opponents to taught him
Speaker 1: with this sort of racist label, which is unfortunate and inaccurate.
Speaker 1: Now the national security posture of Israel, would it if
Speaker 1: Benny Gantz, right, who's the main challenger against Yah, if
Speaker 1: we were to wake up and find out that he
Speaker 1: squeaked out of victory here, would it really change the
Speaker 1: way that ISRAE interacts with other countries in the region,
Speaker 1: more specifically how it reacts with Palestinians in the West
Speaker 1: Bank and the Gaza strip, or is Israeli national security
Speaker 1: policy a pretty unified front at this point. The truth
Speaker 1: is there aren't a lot of differences in terms of
Speaker 1: the nuts and bolts. Having said that, there is a
Speaker 1: great deal that we don't know. Against Ran an anti
Speaker 1: BB campaign, but didn't focus a lot on what he
Speaker 1: might do differently, and he didn't face a great deal
Speaker 1: of challenge from Israeli media. That's the truth. So there's
Speaker 1: a lot that remains unknown and undetermined. You know, if Israel,
Speaker 1: if Israeli's wake up, it will be the result of
Speaker 1: a you know, Bbi's been here too longer in anybody
Speaker 1: but BB campaign, and they're going to have to sort
Speaker 1: of unpack who this new guy is and what tools
Speaker 1: he really has to address very serious, you know, international challenges.
Speaker 1: The national diplomacy that Naho has become a real master
Speaker 1: at GANS is unproven entity when it comes to dealing
Speaker 1: with the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans. I mean,
Speaker 1: if you look at the kind of advancement that Nahu
Speaker 1: has made over the last decade in Israel's due to
Speaker 1: political standing in diplomatic relations around the world, Guants has
Speaker 1: big shoes to fill, very very big shoes to fill.
Speaker 1: So it remains to be seen whether he's going to
Speaker 1: rise to the challenge or not, and whether it's Rays
Speaker 1: are going to be disappointed or whether they're going to
Speaker 1: be comfortable with that choice. Having said that, I just
Speaker 1: want to remind everybody that that is far from the
Speaker 1: actual determination. At this point. We still just have exit pols,
Speaker 1: the exit pols a day vergent. We're gonna have to
Speaker 1: wait till tomorrow morning US times to see what the
Speaker 1: actual results are. I know you've got to get back
Speaker 1: to covering what those results are, Dovid. But before I
Speaker 1: let you go, I RGC has been designated by the
Speaker 1: Trump the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has been designated by
Speaker 1: the Trump administration as a foreign terrorist organization. This is
Speaker 1: a groundbreaking designation and that they are technically part of
Speaker 1: the Iranian military. What do you think of this and
Speaker 1: how is this being greeted or being seen by Israel. Oh,
Speaker 1: the journeys are ecstatic and it's something that both sides
Speaker 1: of the political aisle, both Nitnaho and the challenger against
Speaker 1: are going to be very very excited about. I mean,
Speaker 1: at the end of the day, the IRGC is the
Speaker 1: engine and the controller of the Iranian economy, but also
Speaker 1: the engine of malign and belligerent activities of the Islamic
Speaker 1: Republic of Iran across the globe at the end of
Speaker 1: the day. Signifies another level in the ratcheting up of
Speaker 1: maximum pressure that the Trump administration is applying on this
Speaker 1: largest international state sponsor of terror. So it's about time, frankly,
Speaker 1: and there's still a lot more that can and should
Speaker 1: be done. We want I think the Israelis would like
Speaker 1: to see and I think those that see a Run
Speaker 1: as an unrepentant actor that really needs to be pushed
Speaker 1: harder would like to see the removal of any waivers
Speaker 1: in the oil sanctions, and you know, an analyst at
Speaker 1: the Foundation for Defensive Democracies recently said that between zero
Speaker 1: and ten, the pressure level on a run is about
Speaker 1: a six. This news designation for the ion GC might
Speaker 1: move it up to a seven or at seven and
Speaker 1: a half. Removing the oil waivers as well are going
Speaker 1: to help us bring it right up to the ten,
Speaker 1: which is where it needs to be if we expect
Speaker 1: any change of behavior from a run, you know, they
Speaker 1: absolutely have to have no other choice. David, I Fu
Speaker 1: and everybody check out algaminer dot com for all their
Speaker 1: coverage on what's going on with the Israeli election in
Speaker 1: the Middle East. More broadly, David, thanks for making the time,
Speaker 1: my friend. Talk to you soon. Always a pleasure. Buck Team,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. After twenty eight hundred subpoenas, five
Speaker 1: hundred search warrants, nineteen lawyers attempting to tie him to
Speaker 1: nonsense Russian interference in the election, the president has triumphed again.
Speaker 1: To show your support and to celebrate this incredible news,
Speaker 1: you need to own one of Noble Goold's twenty twenty
Speaker 1: President Trump freedom coins. One side incredibly depicts an image
Speaker 1: of Donald J. Trump while the other side lists his
Speaker 1: major achievements. This commemorative one ounce coin is the only
Speaker 1: presidential Trump coin made of ninety nine point nine percent silver,
Speaker 1: not silver plating, and his IRA approved. At the price
Speaker 1: of silver rises, so will the value of these coins.
Speaker 1: You want to hold onto this collector's item for generations,
Speaker 1: go to Trump coin twenty twenty dot com and use
Speaker 1: code buck and say five dollars off each coin. Just
Speaker 1: text buck to five eleven five eleven, or go to
Speaker 1: trump coin twenty twenty dot com and use code buck
Speaker 1: to save five dollars per coin. Available for a limited time.
Speaker 1: Go to trump twenty twenty dot com today code buck
Speaker 1: Standard text rates may apply. What is propaganda. It's a
Speaker 1: term that you hear thrown around a lot, and it
Speaker 1: has come to have a negative connotation. To be sure,
Speaker 1: right if you if you call somebody, especially if they
Speaker 1: work in the news business, a propagandist, you are besmirching
Speaker 1: their professional ethics and the work that they put out.
Speaker 1: You are not saying something that is meant to be positive.
Speaker 1: You are very clearly undermining them. But as with many words,
Speaker 1: it was not always the case. It started out that
Speaker 1: the word propaganda, which comes from the Latin to spread, right,
Speaker 1: that's propagare it comes from the Catholic Church. In fact,
Speaker 1: the Congregazzio, the propaganda fee day, the spread of the
Speaker 1: true faith. That's where the's that comes from an administrative
Speaker 1: body inside the Catholic Church. That was meant to make
Speaker 1: sure that the true faith was being spread. But it
Speaker 1: was in the First World War where you all so
Speaker 1: had the usage of mass produced imagery, so posters, war
Speaker 1: posters and oh that's right radio, that propaganda became a
Speaker 1: term of disparagement for information that's meant to bring about
Speaker 1: an outcome. It's not information that is shared just so
Speaker 1: you have it. It is information shared with an agenda.
Speaker 1: And now I think that it's much better in a
Speaker 1: media landscape if we all accept that all arts, to
Speaker 1: borrow from George Orwell and his timeless essay, all art
Speaker 1: is propaganda and all you know, it's meant to evoke
Speaker 1: a feeling, a thought, a belief, and all news coverage
Speaker 1: in one way or another is kind of a form
Speaker 1: of propaganda. But if you're going to really distill it
Speaker 1: down to openly nakedly politicized spread of information, there are
Speaker 1: sometimes when you have to say, well, wow, that is
Speaker 1: just going a bit too far, and we see that
Speaker 1: happening now in real time with many things, but with
Speaker 1: the news coverage of tax refunds all right, CBS News
Speaker 1: has this piece out today. Tax refunds so far this
Speaker 1: year are down by six billion from twenty eighteen, and
Speaker 1: a lot of coverage of this is meant to show
Speaker 1: that things are that this is a negative, right, that
Speaker 1: oh my gosh, people have less money because their refunds
Speaker 1: are smaller. Their refunds are smaller. You have to go
Speaker 1: a few paragraphs down to find out that, oh, hold
Speaker 1: on a second, your higher paychecks all year are the
Speaker 1: reason that your refund is not bigger. So this is
Speaker 1: like saying that you know, you have less money coming
Speaker 1: in at one time in one day than you did
Speaker 1: last year, but all the rest of the year you
Speaker 1: have more money coming in, which one of those things
Speaker 1: is a better experience. But the media knows that the
Speaker 1: one thing that Trump irrefutably accomplished right away first year
Speaker 1: in office was a massive tax cut, and that that
Speaker 1: tax cut is meant to spur business growth and investment
Speaker 1: in development and to put more money in the pockets
Speaker 1: of the American people. Now we can for now, although
Speaker 1: some of you will get maybe a little mad at
Speaker 1: me for this, we will put aside whether it is
Speaker 1: a fiscally responsible thing to do to have a tax
Speaker 1: cut and still run trillion dollar deficits, which is what
Speaker 1: we are doing. But let's just like I said, we
Speaker 1: put that aside temporarily, and now we look at Okay,
Speaker 1: why is it that people don't seem to understand that
Speaker 1: they have more money? All right? Only seventeen percent of people,
Speaker 1: according to poll that just came out today, cited by CNBC,
Speaker 1: and it's I'm sorry, it's an NBC Wall Street Journal poll,
Speaker 1: the vast majority of Americans, almost eighty percent of them,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that they're sorry. Seventeen percent of
Speaker 1: people believe their own taxes will go down. Yeah, almost
Speaker 1: eighty percent of them think that their taxes are going up.
Speaker 1: Almost eight out of ten people are wrong on this issue.
Speaker 1: Why is that possible? How is that possible? Republicans are
Speaker 1: the only group in which thirty percent are more believe
Speaker 1: they're getting a tax cut. I guess Republicans actually do
Speaker 1: math and pay attention, because if you are a taxpayer,
Speaker 1: you get eight out of ten Americans at least get
Speaker 1: a tax cut under the twenty eighteen law. So the
Speaker 1: lowest earning sixty percent of households receive an average cut
Speaker 1: of a little less than a thousand dollars. The top
Speaker 1: one percent of taxpayers could expect more than fifty one
Speaker 1: thousand dollars. In the mc walsh Journal poll, thirty three
Speaker 1: percent of Republicans believe they're getting a tax cut, well
Speaker 1: an even pun ten percent of Independence and only seven
Speaker 1: percent of Democrats think that they are getting a tax
Speaker 1: cut seven percent. Now understand, this is not an opinion thing.
Speaker 1: This is not well I think I'm getting one, but
Speaker 1: I'm not, but I am or This is facts. They
Speaker 1: are getting tax cuts. Eight out of ten are getting
Speaker 1: a tax cut. Seven percent think they're getting a tax cut.
Speaker 1: Why is that the case. Well, Mattie Iglesias, who is
Speaker 1: a journalist over at Vox, kind of let the cat
Speaker 1: out of the bag today. He tweeted out the following,
Speaker 1: He's got a lot of attention. Quote. Nobody likes to
Speaker 1: give themselves credit for this kind of messaging success, but
Speaker 1: progressive groups did a really good job of convincing people
Speaker 1: that Trump raised their taxes when the facts say a
Speaker 1: clear majority got a tax cut, so he's celebrating this openly.
Speaker 1: He's like, yep, progressive groups line lie to the American
Speaker 1: people about the taxes that they paid, lie to the
Speaker 1: American people about how much money they'll get in this,
Speaker 1: and it was very effective. Does anyone want to jump
Speaker 1: in here and suggest, why is it that we don't
Speaker 1: trust the media? Oh, that's right, because they all magnify
Speaker 1: the lies of these progressive groups by putting them on
Speaker 1: TV using their research, citing their analysis. You know, if
Speaker 1: you put analysts on TV who are reckless and irresponsible,
Speaker 1: as certainly CNN has done with Russia collusion and MSNBC
Speaker 1: and others, But if you put them on TV to
Speaker 1: say that the American people aren't actually getting a tax cut,
Speaker 1: you know what you are Party two a lie. You
Speaker 1: are engaged in the worst kind of propaganda, which is
Speaker 1: propaganda ment to harm people by filling their minds with lies.
Speaker 1: Because it's clearly a benefit to the American people to
Speaker 1: have more money in their pockets. I can't think of
Speaker 1: an American who is getting more money from this tax
Speaker 1: from the tax cut that Trump put in place and
Speaker 1: is upset about it. Some very very rich Libs will
Speaker 1: go on TV and say, oh, I don't even worth
Speaker 1: the money everyone, And then we always say, okay, write
Speaker 1: a bigger check. You're welcome to write as big a check.
Speaker 1: You can give all your money the irrest. They'll take
Speaker 1: it too. Treasury departments happy to take all your money
Speaker 1: if you want to give it to them. But I
Speaker 1: still think every year Republicans miss their opportunities to make
Speaker 1: their case about government fraud, waste and abuse, about the
Speaker 1: bloat of the federal bureaucracy, about the ridiculousness of the
Speaker 1: tax code seventy thousand plus pages, the enormity of the
Speaker 1: losses in time. And look, I just did my taxes
Speaker 1: over the weekend and it was just it was hellish.
Speaker 1: I'm trying to get this and that and this, you know,
Speaker 1: every every little ten ninety nine I have for one
Speaker 1: hundred dollars for some magazine I wrote an article for
Speaker 1: nine months ago, you know, everything I'm trying to pull together,
Speaker 1: and all the sales tax for internet purchases, all this stuff.
Speaker 1: It's just not sense, total utter nonsense. And yet we
Speaker 1: don't really make the case that this is not the
Speaker 1: way it has to be. Ted Cruise for a little
Speaker 1: while when he was running the primary, said that we'd
Speaker 1: have a tax code on that you could put on
Speaker 1: a postcard. What happened to that? You know, well, where
Speaker 1: are some of these big ideas that conservatives have been
Speaker 1: pushing for a while and finally got some traction the
Speaker 1: last few years, especially on the tax code. Our tax
Speaker 1: code is a monument to waste and pay to play
Speaker 1: and corruption and special interests. That is why our tax
Speaker 1: code is seventy thousand pages. There was no other reason,
Speaker 1: and a tremendous amount of government picking winners and losers.
Speaker 1: But I just wish there was greater rage about this,
Speaker 1: because you should be upset of the tax code. I know,
Speaker 1: I am. Turns it out that the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: is taking that whole college admissions cheating situation very very seriously,
Speaker 1: not just in the initial phase where they're leveling charges
Speaker 1: against people, but they're they're even adding charges. And this
Speaker 1: makes me a little sad. Now I know that that
Speaker 1: justice is blind, and I shouldn't be. I'm not trying
Speaker 1: to play favorites here, but I did used to watch
Speaker 1: the show Full House and when I was a kid,
Speaker 1: and I was roughly the age of the two young
Speaker 1: teenage daughters on that show when I would watch it,
Speaker 1: and I just thought that that was the coolest thing ever,
Speaker 1: you know, with Uncle Jesse and the you know, the
Speaker 1: dad played by Bob Saget and Dave Coolier as as
Speaker 1: the other uncle. Um. You know. I just remember really
Speaker 1: liking that show, and many a Friday night before I
Speaker 1: was socializing with girls and going out on weekends, I
Speaker 1: would stay in and watch Full House, along with a
Speaker 1: few other shows. I don't know how many of you, Brandon,
Speaker 1: did you ever watch T g IF Do you know
Speaker 1: I'm talking about? Yeah? TJF was great, man, I mean
Speaker 1: I was, Oh, I was all about I was all
Speaker 1: about family matters. I like Step by Step. That Dinosaurs
Speaker 1: show was kind of weird, but that was even in
Speaker 1: there for a while. But also Perfect Strangers, Belk Bartacamas.
Speaker 1: I remember all that stuff. But so Full House has
Speaker 1: a special place in my heart. Why am I talking
Speaker 1: about Full House? It's a rough week for Aunt Becky.
Speaker 1: Aunt Becky who was the very lovely, very lovely actress
Speaker 1: who played cool Uncle Jesse's girlfriend on the show. She
Speaker 1: I don't think they were married on the show, but
Speaker 1: they called her Aunt Becky she's in a lot of trouble.
Speaker 1: She's part of this whole college admission scam and her
Speaker 1: fashion designer husband, Massimo Giannouli, which is a great name
Speaker 1: for a fashion designer. Of course, I wonder his name
Speaker 1: is probably like, you know Phil Carbone from Philly. Hey,
Speaker 1: I'm Phil Carbone from Philly. And he's like, I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be a fashion designer. Noah, not mine them. He's a
Speaker 1: Massimo Giannulli, but that sells more three chemises. It's a
Speaker 1: fancy word for a shirt. But her fashions on her
Speaker 1: husband and her they've been indicted on additional charges, not
Speaker 1: just for the initial paying bribes to get people into school.
Speaker 1: So Aunt Becky aka Laurie Laughlin, who is the that's
Speaker 1: the real name of the actress, and she was in
Speaker 1: Full House, which she's best known for. They are now
Speaker 1: caught up in this multimillion dollar college admission scam, and
Speaker 1: they've added in Boston a second superseding indictment to commit
Speaker 1: conspiring to commit fraud and money laundering. Laughlin and Giuliani
Speaker 1: were charged last month with conspiracy to commit mail fraud.
Speaker 1: The new indictment adds a laundering charge for money laundering
Speaker 1: charge for all sixteen defendants. You know, these are these charges,
Speaker 1: the wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering. These are kind
Speaker 1: of charges where you think, oh, well, how bad can
Speaker 1: it really be? But the answer is really bad. You
Speaker 1: can go to federal prison for or a number of
Speaker 1: years on this stuff, especially if you don't take a
Speaker 1: plea deal. So I think what you're seeing here is
Speaker 1: setting these parents up to take a plea deal. Look,
Speaker 1: I'm a little bit of a loan voice on this one.
Speaker 1: I don't think what they did is okay, But I
Speaker 1: also think that treating this as a major federal federal case,
Speaker 1: or at least some of the charges, right, I mean, lah, yeah,
Speaker 1: you can't. You know, money laundering. I mean, you're hiding
Speaker 1: the source of money and all that stuff. But bribing
Speaker 1: a college official should not be something that people go
Speaker 1: to federal prison for for a long time. It should
Speaker 1: be something that you maybe pay a big fine and
Speaker 1: you have to live with the humiliation of what you
Speaker 1: did and don't do anything bad again. So you should
Speaker 1: plead guilty to a charge. I'm not saying let these
Speaker 1: people off, but I mean, are they're really going to
Speaker 1: send Aunt Becky say this is what it's all about.
Speaker 1: Are they really going to send Aunt Becky to prison
Speaker 1: for four or five years because you wanted her daughter
Speaker 1: to go to USC? And I'm not putting USC down,
Speaker 1: but it's not a school that people usually think you're
Speaker 1: going to pay a half a million dollars and bribes
Speaker 1: to get into that. That's just a fact. This is
Speaker 1: one of these moments where I think the politics are
Speaker 1: very much influencing some of the prosecutorial decisions here. I
Speaker 1: think that you have a bunch of rich people who
Speaker 1: are going to be made an example of because this
Speaker 1: is an easy one. You know. It reminds me of
Speaker 1: how people got so spun up over the steroid baseball
Speaker 1: cheating scandal. There are congressional hearings about it, and it's
Speaker 1: not that it's okay, but is it really? Is it
Speaker 1: really a national crisis? Anyway? I'm gonna have to start
Speaker 1: wearing my free Aunt Becky T shirt because I'm a
Speaker 1: full House devotee. By the way, Fuller House, for those
Speaker 1: of you who don't know, is terrible, So don't waste
Speaker 1: your time. You got to stay with the original. And
Speaker 1: that's what I got for you. On that. We got
Speaker 1: roller call coming up in a moment roll call time.
Speaker 1: Oh yes, indeed it is Facebook dot com slash Buck
Speaker 1: sex and if roll call is for you, and let
Speaker 1: me just say it is for you, this is where
Speaker 1: you get to tell me what do you think? And
Speaker 1: please do right in anytime you like, Let's get to it.
Speaker 1: Seth rights, Hey Buck, just listen to Friday's podcast and
Speaker 1: was cracking up at the idea of you debating with
Speaker 1: the made up liberal character that identifies as Vigo the
Speaker 1: Space Lord Ninja Master. I would love to hear that segment. Well,
Speaker 1: I would love to do that segment, so maybe I
Speaker 1: should go for it. Maybe that's the way to see
Speaker 1: him and Nick am sue whoke do you like? I
Speaker 1: spell it like w y o K because it's more
Speaker 1: than just woke, it's woke. I'll figure it out. I'll
Speaker 1: give it some thought. I will work on it for sure.
Speaker 1: And yes, Vigo the Space Lord Ninja Master is is
Speaker 1: quite a fellow. We will have to come up with
Speaker 1: what his bio and background are. But thank you so
Speaker 1: much for writing agin, Seth. I do appreciate it. Roger
Speaker 1: rites your Stelter impression kills me. Raggia, do you said Stelter.
Speaker 1: He's think he's like, really, he's just trying to keep
Speaker 1: the news media artist and he really believes that, you know,
Speaker 1: if he's just a good journalist and doing the journo stuff,
Speaker 1: that the republic will be saved by a c. A.
Speaker 1: N oh Man look at pace to look like Jeff Zucker,
Speaker 1: although Stelter should pull the zucker and button his shirt
Speaker 1: three or four buttons down. That's right, you see some
Speaker 1: of that mad cleavage and goes out that we Dad,
Speaker 1: see that there's at least two or three hairs. Dad
Speaker 1: by the foot. But that's right, Dad by the naval area. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I know, ladies. Ladies are ah swooning right now at
Speaker 1: the Stelter deep v in the shirt. Brandon Brandon rights
Speaker 1: buck Man. So thankful we finally have a leader that
Speaker 1: will call it like it ais and regards to Iran.
Speaker 1: I served in a Rock in two thousand and six.
Speaker 1: Our greatest threat in the area that we operated in
Speaker 1: was the EFP. I was on point or lead vehicle
Speaker 1: one night when we actually set off an EFP. The
Speaker 1: heat signature on my vehicle was located in the rear
Speaker 1: at the time. The bad guys were using a device
Speaker 1: that would pick up the heat signature on the humby
Speaker 1: engine block located in the front of the vehicle. Since
Speaker 1: my vehicle's engine was in the rear and the device
Speaker 1: was set up for a humby, the EFP one off
Speaker 1: between the rear of my vehicle on the front of
Speaker 1: the humby behind me. We lost too many men and
Speaker 1: women to this device, which even in two thousand and
Speaker 1: six we knew was being built by the Iranians, but
Speaker 1: to my knowledge, we did bother about it. Keep up
Speaker 1: the great work, brother Airborne all the way, Brandon, thank
Speaker 1: you for your service, and thank you so much for
Speaker 1: sharing your expertise about this one. I'm glad you made
Speaker 1: it back safe and sound. The EFPs it it was terrible.
Speaker 1: It was just the Iranians trying to bleed us in Iraq,
Speaker 1: and we did not extract the price from them in
Speaker 1: response this that we should have. We were so concerned
Speaker 1: with what was going on in Iraq that there was
Speaker 1: just no at the policy level. I don't mean the
Speaker 1: men and women who were fighting in theater, but at
Speaker 1: the policy level, there was no stomach for going after
Speaker 1: the Iranians. You know, people say that that Cheney at
Speaker 1: one point wanted to go after the suicide bomber rat
Speaker 1: lines inside Assyria. There was not They didn't end up
Speaker 1: doing that really, or at least I don't. I can't
Speaker 1: remember now how much of that has been reported on
Speaker 1: or how much of that is just in my head.
Speaker 1: But in the on the Iranian side, there was just
Speaker 1: considered the risk we're too high for going after the
Speaker 1: EFP rat lines on the Iranian side of the border,
Speaker 1: for pretty clear reasons. So it's a very is very
Speaker 1: frustrating because we should have we should have taken a
Speaker 1: much harder line on Iran for that, and they killed
Speaker 1: Americans actively, willfully intentionally killed Americans. There are Americans who
Speaker 1: did not come home or came home missing arms, missing legs,
Speaker 1: blinded because of what the Iranians were doing in a
Speaker 1: country that was not their country. And they are a terror,
Speaker 1: a terror sponsoring regime, and they are an enemy state.
Speaker 1: So we need to keep all this in mind, Steve
Speaker 1: writes buck. In the Air Force, they refer to a
Speaker 1: great pilot as being sh blank blank hot. However, they
Speaker 1: tamed this down to a more gentleman LEAs Sierra Hotel
Speaker 1: went amongst the public, it dawned on me that not
Speaker 1: only is your show Sierra Hotel, but that Sierra Hotel
Speaker 1: could also be used as a code or alternative for
Speaker 1: shields high. Whichever way you say at Sierra Hotel, shields
Speaker 1: high buck. Best regards, Steve, Well, Steve, thank you for
Speaker 1: the cool message man bringing me into the no And
Speaker 1: that's that's I'd never heard of that before. I remember
Speaker 1: there was there was a time when in the agency
Speaker 1: a lot of people referring to and I think it
Speaker 1: was borrowed by some of the agency personnel from special
Speaker 1: operators who are like, yeah, that guy's high speed. People
Speaker 1: would always say high speed, or maybe that was just
Speaker 1: in the office that I worked, and I don't know,
Speaker 1: but that was considered if somebody was kind of a badass,
Speaker 1: they were really high speed. My hair was high speed,
Speaker 1: but my tactical skills in the field I would not
Speaker 1: describe as they were functional. They were certainly not high speed.
Speaker 1: Along the lines of what you get from trained operators.
Speaker 1: I was just trying to make sure I didn't get
Speaker 1: in their way. That was my roles. Don't get in
Speaker 1: the way of the highly trained operators. Just help them
Speaker 1: when they need help with what you do, which is
Speaker 1: the analytic side of the equation, making the most delicious
Speaker 1: cappuccinos imaginable. But Steve, thank you so much for writing
Speaker 1: you man, and Shields High and Sierra Hotel to you.
Speaker 1: Jeremy Buck, if people like Bernie Sanders want to restore
Speaker 1: felon's rights to vote because they're still American citizens who
Speaker 1: are afforded the right to vote under the Constitution, then
Speaker 1: do you suppose they also support restoring their Second Amendment
Speaker 1: rights as well? Ding ding ding, Jeremy, my friend, you
Speaker 1: have latched on to yet another inconsistency with liberals. We
Speaker 1: could play this could be a game, you know, we
Speaker 1: could do this like a game show. Fine, the liberal inconsistency.
Speaker 1: And here we here we have the liberals once again
Speaker 1: pretending to stand on principle. What in reality they are
Speaker 1: just using a principle once that they plan to discard
Speaker 1: when it is no longer in their political and ideological
Speaker 1: interest to do so. So, my friend, you've you've smelled
Speaker 1: this one, and you've got it. You've got it right,
Speaker 1: You've got this one correct. Let's see who we have.
Speaker 1: Oh and the answer, of course is no, they do
Speaker 1: not want Sorry I skipped over that they do not
Speaker 1: want to restore Second Amendment rights to people, because the
Speaker 1: objection to gun owners or the objection rather to gun ownership,
Speaker 1: is increasingly an objection to gun owners and the culture
Speaker 1: of gun ownership in this country. It's not about reducing violence,
Speaker 1: it's about using guns as a proxy for broader political disputes.
Speaker 1: Van the main man, Hey, Buck, if a Democrat speaks
Speaker 1: about Trump in the forest and there's no one to
Speaker 1: hear him, is he still lying? Van? I will let
Speaker 1: you take that philosophy and figure out the answer yourself,
Speaker 1: my friend, Vince writes, Buck, we want game. We want
Speaker 1: your prediction. As Game of Thrones enters its final season,
Speaker 1: who will sit on the iron throne? Vince? That is
Speaker 1: quite a question to throw my way, my friend, And
Speaker 1: I will say to you that I think the person
Speaker 1: who is going to sit on the throne at the
Speaker 1: end of the whole thing is Tyrian Lanister. That's right.
Speaker 1: I think Tyryan Lanister becomes the king. And I think
Speaker 1: it's not through. I think it's going to be by default.
Speaker 1: I think that someone's going to get whacked at the
Speaker 1: very end that you think is going to be the
Speaker 1: king or the queen. Because everyone's thinking Danaris and John
Speaker 1: Snow are on the but that's just not how Game
Speaker 1: of Thrones rolls. They don't. They don't give you that
Speaker 1: satisfying hero wins thing. They give you, well, in some cases,
Speaker 1: stomach churning heartbreak. I'm still kind of disturbed by what
Speaker 1: happened when in the episode of the Viper and the Mountain.
Speaker 1: Oh man, that was that was brutal. I almost build
Speaker 1: on the show. I almost said, I can't, I can't
Speaker 1: handle anymore. I can't take this this kind of emotional
Speaker 1: battery anymore from Game of Thrones. But yeah, I think
Speaker 1: it'll be Terry and Lanister on the throne at the
Speaker 1: very end. And I think that you're going to see
Speaker 1: someone in the last fifteen minutes of the last episode
Speaker 1: get whacked by a character that you think we've forgotten
Speaker 1: about but comes back for one last hurrah. That's what
Speaker 1: I would guess. And if I had spoilers to share
Speaker 1: with you, that would be one thing, But I certainly
Speaker 1: do not. Eric rites, Holy avocados, Batman. They fact checked
Speaker 1: Kristen Gillibrand and her inaccurate equal pay claim. Yeah, Kirsten
Speaker 1: Gillibrand make stuff up all the time. She's a very
Speaker 1: unimpressive politician. She has no shot of becoming the nominee
Speaker 1: and even less of a shot of becoming president. But
Speaker 1: for her, this is just a national branding exercise. Diane, Oh,
Speaker 1: here we go, Hey Buck, new listener. I'm a podcast junkie,
Speaker 1: always looking for interesting and fresh perspective on politics and
Speaker 1: current events. I confess I'm a Shapiro, Walsh Cleaven fan. Well,
Speaker 1: I can confess back to you, Diane. Those are all
Speaker 1: very strong choices. I have a tremendous amount of respect
Speaker 1: for those three. I used to work with Matt Walsh. Anyway.
Speaker 1: I enjoy the nice balance of information or human you
Speaker 1: bring the mix. Just wondering about Shields High? What is
Speaker 1: that all about? Love the show? Well, Diane, that's a
Speaker 1: very valid question. And every once in a while I
Speaker 1: find myself explaining how we got to to Shields High.
Speaker 1: And essentially it started back when I used to do
Speaker 1: the Saturday radio show for The Blaze, and we used
Speaker 1: to do a lot of history, and I used to
Speaker 1: speak about ancient Greece from time of time. I would
Speaker 1: just go on these little history monologues and I was
Speaker 1: speaking about the military formation known as the phalanx, which
Speaker 1: is where you have heavily armored Greek warriors who are
Speaker 1: the hop Lights. That's because of the hop lawn shield
Speaker 1: that they carried and they had to stand shoulder to
Speaker 1: shoulder with their shields high in order to make the
Speaker 1: phlenx and effective formation. And also the Spartans had this
Speaker 1: saying come back with your shield or on it, meaning
Speaker 1: comeback in victory or come back dead. Anyway, from this
Speaker 1: discussion with Team Buck, I would always say that they
Speaker 1: were with me as though we were in an ideological
Speaker 1: phlenx together in the fight, shields high, and it just
Speaker 1: kind of became a fun rallying cry. You know. It's
Speaker 1: people say, what does roll Tiede mean? I don't know what.
Speaker 1: People like to say it shields hie is fun to
Speaker 1: say too. And sometimes when I'm having a real bad
Speaker 1: day and I want to get all self pitying and
Speaker 1: whiny about things, I just muttered to myself, shield tie Buck.
Speaker 1: Come on, you know it's it's a it's a war cry,
Speaker 1: show me a war face. Rah. It's like that. Anyway,
Speaker 1: Thanks so much for being a new member of Team Buck.
Speaker 1: Please spread the word and without my friends are going
Speaker 1: to close up shop in the Freedom Hunt for this episode,
Speaker 1: I will talk to you tomorrow. Oh you know it,
Speaker 1: Shield Tie. When it comes to buying wine, most people
Speaker 1: select something and has nothing to do with the actual
Speaker 1: taste of the wine right. Instead, they just go with
Speaker 1: what looks best on the bottle or what's on sale.
Speaker 1: I'll be honest with you, that was my situation too.
Speaker 1: But now there's First Leaf, the wine club that makes
Speaker 1: it easy to discover new wines you'll love. First Leaf
Speaker 1: has created a club experience customized to you by rating
Speaker 1: the wines you receive. First These determines your likes and
Speaker 1: dislikes and using a custom algorithm and professionally trained wine
Speaker 1: concierge team that only send wines you love. Look, I've
Speaker 1: done this a couple of quick questions about what I
Speaker 1: like and wine. Then they create a custom package of
Speaker 1: six wines that they send you. It's incredible. They're delicious,
Speaker 1: and you tell them what you like and they send
Speaker 1: you more wine. You're going to learn about wine and
Speaker 1: learn what you love in the process. Sign up with
Speaker 1: my link and you'll get an exclusive intro offer six
Speaker 1: bottles of wine for only twenty nine ninety five plus
Speaker 1: free shipping. Just go to Tri first leaf dot com
Speaker 1: slash buck that's six bottles of wine for only twenty
Speaker 1: nine ninety five plus free shipping at tri first leaf
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck