Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The New York Attorney
Speaker 1: General has decided to do her own Special Council routine
Speaker 1: and go after Trump, his companies, his family members. You know,
Speaker 1: the deep State has many tricks. Will have to break
Speaker 1: down what this one means for him. And also it's
Speaker 1: May Day coming up in Caracas, my friends. What's going
Speaker 1: to happen in Venezuela is a counter coup underway at
Speaker 1: a more coming up from the buck Sexton Show. This
Speaker 1: this is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or
Speaker 1: mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence.
Speaker 1: No mistake, American, You're a great American. Again the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show begins. No welcome, Judy Bucks. Actually show everybody.
Speaker 1: I am back here in the swamp after a much
Speaker 1: needed day off, and boy, we've got a lot of
Speaker 1: news to cover today. I mentioned Venezuela at the top. There.
Speaker 1: We're also going to get into the latest Deep State
Speaker 1: efforts to destroy this president, or at least wound this
Speaker 1: presidency enough that some very third tier Democrat candidate can
Speaker 1: just sort of waltz in and become President of United States.
Speaker 1: I know it's an appalling thought, but it's one we
Speaker 1: have to take seriously the New York State Attorney General
Speaker 1: showing us how the Democrats play the game dirty, very
Speaker 1: very dirty. Also the Trump administration trying to deal with
Speaker 1: asylum to change it up so it's no longer this
Speaker 1: massive loophole. Sure there's going to be some Ninth Circuit
Speaker 1: Court opinion that's gonna mean the president can't do anything,
Speaker 1: and we'll get into some of that also or on
Speaker 1: in the show, our friend Tyler Merritt's going to join
Speaker 1: about a Navy seal that Tyler says, and he's a
Speaker 1: former special operations guy himself is getting completely unfair treatment
Speaker 1: from the government from the media so far on his case.
Speaker 1: And we'll also have an expert on Venezuela joining to
Speaker 1: talk about what's going on there. But but first I
Speaker 1: got to talk to you about this New York State
Speaker 1: Attorney General, a position formerly held by the one and
Speaker 1: only Eric Schneiderman, who, just by way of review, for
Speaker 1: those of you who are keeping score about Democrat dirt
Speaker 1: bags out there, Schneiderman was a hero Democrats because he
Speaker 1: was going to use the prosecutorial power, which remember, folks,
Speaker 1: short of the military turning on this citizens of a country.
Speaker 1: The prosecutor's office is the single most destructive, most frightening,
Speaker 1: most fearsome weapon of political vengeance and oppression that any
Speaker 1: government's going to have. Right, the criminal justice system becoming
Speaker 1: politicized is a massive leap toward tyranny, and Democrats are
Speaker 1: doing it more with every passing day. They just don't
Speaker 1: care how it looks. They don't care what it does
Speaker 1: to the system. They will take down Trump through lawfare
Speaker 1: any way that they can. But Schneiderman was a hero
Speaker 1: to the Democrat left and in fact specifically a kind
Speaker 1: of me too icon for a while, meaning that he
Speaker 1: was very supportive of all the outing of people for
Speaker 1: their sexual misconduct and the consequences they were suffering. And
Speaker 1: oh a, then it turns out that he was an
Speaker 1: abusive racist with the women in his own life. Oh
Speaker 1: this is such a surprise too. Well, nobody who's paying attention.
Speaker 1: But Schneiderman stepped down. And now we've got a new
Speaker 1: attorney general in New York. The just elected Leticia James,
Speaker 1: who will be taking office next month, and she has
Speaker 1: made it quite clear that the state of New York
Speaker 1: is going to war with Trump. That's what this is
Speaker 1: the state of New York is going to do everything
Speaker 1: that it can to drudge, to dredge up, drudge up, sorry,
Speaker 1: Drudge report on the Mind, to dredge up damaging material
Speaker 1: about the president, to threaten and maybe even imprison some
Speaker 1: of his associates, maybe even go after some members of
Speaker 1: his own family, all because why Democrats hate the president. Now,
Speaker 1: let's start with some very basic principles. It is not
Speaker 1: supposed to be the case that you open an investigation
Speaker 1: of an individual. You're supposed to open investigations of crimes.
Speaker 1: Democrats in the era of Trump have largely abandoned this
Speaker 1: time worn and honored and very important principle. They just
Speaker 1: want to get Trump. This is a get Trump at
Speaker 1: all costs operation. That's what they're running here, folks. They
Speaker 1: want to find a way to destroy this president, and
Speaker 1: they will use and abuse, which is what we're seeing
Speaker 1: the law, in every way that they possibly can. Here's
Speaker 1: what NBC News was reporting on today with Attorney General
Speaker 1: elect Leticia James coming into office. Quote, she campaigned on
Speaker 1: passing a bill to change New York's double jeopardy laws
Speaker 1: with an eye on possible pardons. Coming out of the
Speaker 1: White House, Jane told NBC News she wants to be
Speaker 1: able to pursue state charges against anyone the president or
Speaker 1: to pardon over federal charges or convictions and whose alleged
Speaker 1: crimes took place in the state. Under current New York law,
Speaker 1: she might not be able to do that. Here's an
Speaker 1: attorney general. Let's let's really just unpack this room. This
Speaker 1: is important, this is what this is what your president
Speaker 1: is up against. Right now, here's an you might say, back,
Speaker 1: he's the president, and you know he's got the whole
Speaker 1: federal government. Oh no, no, no, no, The federal government
Speaker 1: was turned against this president. His own executive branch employees
Speaker 1: Comey and Struck and Clapper and well Brennan had left.
Speaker 1: The people that were supposed to be the professionals in
Speaker 1: the federal bureaucracy he turned against him. Sally Yates, his
Speaker 1: acting attorney general, at one point an anti Trump lunatic.
Speaker 1: And now we see that there are state prosecutors, state
Speaker 1: bureaucrats who also view it as their mandate to leverage
Speaker 1: their powers for explicitly partisan purposes, which is what they says.
Speaker 1: I mean, here you have a state attorney general who
Speaker 1: is saying that, or who ran rather on a platform
Speaker 1: of let's change the law in New York State. Let's
Speaker 1: have the let's have the legislature change the law in
Speaker 1: New York State specifically so that when I become your
Speaker 1: Attorney general for the State of New York, I can
Speaker 1: go after the bad Orange Man aka the President United
Speaker 1: States Donald Trump. She wants changes in law, which I
Speaker 1: would remind you, I think the double jeopardy law new
Speaker 1: York is a good law. I think that it is.
Speaker 1: And this is the courts are not really that set
Speaker 1: on this yet. I think it's total crap that you
Speaker 1: can get a federal charge and then a state charged
Speaker 1: for the exact same conduct. I believe that is double jeopardy.
Speaker 1: I disagree with people to think that is not. And
Speaker 1: New York has a law that says, look, in New
Speaker 1: York State, if you if you suffered the you know,
Speaker 1: if you go through a federal trial for something, or
Speaker 1: if you have federal charges against you, you know you
Speaker 1: don't get to do this, then well you beat that,
Speaker 1: but now we're going to hit you with the state
Speaker 1: charge for the exact same conduct. I think that's more
Speaker 1: or less what New York has in place here. You
Speaker 1: have Leticia James saying we're gonna get rid of that.
Speaker 1: Why not, because she thinks the law is a bad thing.
Speaker 1: She wants a change in law so that she can
Speaker 1: go after she can go after the President of the
Speaker 1: United States and his family because he's from New York.
Speaker 1: So this is why this really matters. Right, if the
Speaker 1: state of Montana did this, no offense, Montana wouldn't really
Speaker 1: matter because that they're not going to be There's nothing
Speaker 1: in their jurisdiction but Trump Tower and Trump's businesses, and
Speaker 1: this is all in New York. So what you have
Speaker 1: is the federal law enforcement bureaucracy coup against Trump failed.
Speaker 1: So now you're going to have a state level in
Speaker 1: New York, in his home state. Now they're going to
Speaker 1: try the same thing or something similar to arrest the
Speaker 1: president's associates to pressure them to turn on him to
Speaker 1: I've been telling everybody who will listen at least that
Speaker 1: Michael Cohen. The fact that Michael Cohen did not have
Speaker 1: the goods on Trump to really to really put Trump
Speaker 1: in an indefensible situation just goes to show him. And
Speaker 1: that was the president's private lawyer for and he was
Speaker 1: begging an he'd say anything to try to take the
Speaker 1: president down. They don't They don't have anything. If they
Speaker 1: had it, we would know they don't have anything. But
Speaker 1: you have Leticia James saying that quote, I think within
Speaker 1: the first one hundred days this bill will be passed.
Speaker 1: This now that she's taking the attorney general position, she
Speaker 1: said it is a priority because I have concerns with
Speaker 1: respect to the possibilit that this administration might pardon some
Speaker 1: individuals who might face some criminal charges, but I do
Speaker 1: not want them to be immune from state charges. This
Speaker 1: is a partisan. This is a Democrat saying I want
Speaker 1: a change in the law in my state so that
Speaker 1: I can punish theoretical, not even alleged crimes that this
Speaker 1: person may or may not have committed and people around
Speaker 1: him may or may not have committed. This is appalling.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is what we are up against, my friends,
Speaker 1: So think about this for a moment. This would be
Speaker 1: like Congress passing some law that says, you know, we
Speaker 1: want to pass the you know Buck sexcent camp Be
Speaker 1: on Radio Act because he's just too effective at crushing libs.
Speaker 1: That's not okay, Oh, to target me in that way. Yes,
Speaker 1: we crushed libs here. But that's darn it, that's what
Speaker 1: we're supposed to do. I mean, dare I say that
Speaker 1: what Leticia James is calling for here is deeply on
Speaker 1: American I mean changes and laws intended to and to
Speaker 1: keep in line. That's gonna mean there are other people
Speaker 1: now that might face double jeopardy in the state of
Speaker 1: New York just because she wants to get Trump. She's
Speaker 1: been pushing for this, and it's because this is now
Speaker 1: what the Democrats do. You know, if Trump was so
Speaker 1: bad at his job, if his ideas were so unpopular,
Speaker 1: if he was such a terrible president, you'd think that
Speaker 1: they would just they would find it sufficient to make
Speaker 1: the case as to why Trump is not a good president.
Speaker 1: But instead what you have is all this this desperate conduct,
Speaker 1: this hyperbolic anti Trump derangement syndrome mania out there where
Speaker 1: everything Trump does is literally worse than Hitler. And what
Speaker 1: does that tell you if they had a case to
Speaker 1: make about why he's doing such a bad job, or
Speaker 1: why not just make that case? It always has to
Speaker 1: be no, No, we're gonna we need a special counsel
Speaker 1: And now we need an attorney general in this date
Speaker 1: of New York to go after him. And you know,
Speaker 1: and now we need spinoff investigations from the Special Council
Speaker 1: to go after him. And and now we've got Congress
Speaker 1: calling for all these hearings, and you know, hearing after
Speaker 1: hearing after hearing, we're gonna have Jerry Nadley be like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, I think that you're a bad guy, and
Speaker 1: I just want to have you. I want an opportunity
Speaker 1: to grandstand. And you know, Jerry, we know what you're
Speaker 1: gonna say, buddy. It's nothing new and nothing worth anybody's time.
Speaker 1: You know, obstruction and very serious obstruction casey we have
Speaker 1: to talk about. And no, no, we don't have a
Speaker 1: very serious obstruction case to talk about. They won't quit.
Speaker 1: Though one deep state coup failed, now another one is
Speaker 1: in the making, going into a reelection campaign for the
Speaker 1: president that they could just focus on winning that, but
Speaker 1: they have to cheat. They have to cheat, you know,
Speaker 1: that's what we say, the word coup. That's important. But
Speaker 1: also they cheat it. There was an effort here to
Speaker 1: destroy the president when he was running and cheating that
Speaker 1: whole process right by using by leveraging what's supposed to
Speaker 1: be a neutral party, The FBI the intelligence community, and
Speaker 1: people were doling out information to the press, all damaging
Speaker 1: to Trump, none of it damaging to his opponent. And
Speaker 1: they did this. They knew what they were doing, they
Speaker 1: knew that they were cheating, and then when they lost,
Speaker 1: they tried to cheat once again by stealing victory from
Speaker 1: the guy who really want it. And if you think
Speaker 1: that I'm being a little bit and you know that
Speaker 1: I'm not. But if you think that I'm being a
Speaker 1: little bit extreme in my deep state Part two, here,
Speaker 1: keep in mind that Latitia James, Attorney General of New
Speaker 1: York State, is bringing together PROSECUTORILA heavy hitters like quote
Speaker 1: former US Attorney General Lauretta Lynch as part of her
Speaker 1: transition to help her identify important hires for her office,
Speaker 1: with an eye on bringing in x furts for Trump
Speaker 1: related investigations end quote from NBC. Here, that's right, my friends,
Speaker 1: This attorney general for the state of New York is
Speaker 1: bringing in Obama's attorney general, the woman who met with
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton on the tarmac. Remember when Hillary was an
Speaker 1: investigation who bailed Hillary out of criminal jeopardy that she
Speaker 1: more than earned because she broke the law and we
Speaker 1: all know it. Hillary broke the law, no question about it.
Speaker 1: James is bringing on Luretta Lynch to help her find
Speaker 1: the people who, guess what are the most rapidly anti
Speaker 1: Trump former DOJ employees, to pull them into her office
Speaker 1: and try to leverage theirs their former position and access
Speaker 1: in the federal government to bring cases against Trump now
Speaker 1: in New York State. And if you think that New
Speaker 1: York State cases aren't seriously, you know, look at what
Speaker 1: Look at what they've done with no collusion. You know
Speaker 1: there was no collusion. But we had a two year
Speaker 1: special counsel looking into this fantasy, this fable. You don't
Speaker 1: think that they'll do something similar in New York State.
Speaker 1: These people have no ethics, there's no good faith, there's
Speaker 1: no decency in their approach. They are on a search
Speaker 1: and destroy mission. They think that they are either saving
Speaker 1: the country from Trump or saving the country for themselves.
Speaker 1: I don't know, but they fight very, very dirty, and
Speaker 1: we need to be prepared for it. And a whole
Speaker 1: lot more show coming up, my friends. Oh also immigration asylum. Man,
Speaker 1: We've got so much to cover, So stay with me.
Speaker 1: If we had any doubt before about this Presiden's fitness
Speaker 1: for office, if we had any doubt before about this
Speaker 1: president's fitness for office, there is no doubt remaining. He
Speaker 1: is unfit for the presidency. But this was our big gun.
Speaker 1: Now it just looks like you're stalking him the Muller Report.
Speaker 1: Bill Maher says, there was their big gun. He's correct.
Speaker 1: That was the liberal mentality here. That is what they believed.
Speaker 1: They thought that Mueller, that Saint Muller was going to
Speaker 1: deliver them from all of Trump's sins, that Saint Muller
Speaker 1: was going to come along. Although I guess a lot
Speaker 1: of lips don't really believe in saints or probably God
Speaker 1: for that matter, but they believe that this was their deliverance.
Speaker 1: And yet it did not happen. And there's very little,
Speaker 1: if any sense among the Democrats that they should take
Speaker 1: a step back and maybe reevaluate what it is that
Speaker 1: they've been telling the American people on this for over
Speaker 1: two years now. No sense at all that there should
Speaker 1: be any deference to perhaps the executive branch going forward
Speaker 1: with its ability to operate unfettered of bad faith investigation.
Speaker 1: Of course, not right. They're not gonna do any of that.
Speaker 1: They're gonna try to just ambush sandbag, you know, just
Speaker 1: mess over Trump as much as they possibly can with
Speaker 1: these investigations. And and what Muller did was very intentional,
Speaker 1: you know. I asked a very a very senior government
Speaker 1: lawyer recently, I said, have you ever seen before a
Speaker 1: prosecutor who has remember playing the role prosecutor and says,
Speaker 1: I'm not just going to decline charges. I'm gonna say
Speaker 1: that somebody else has to make this call, even though
Speaker 1: it's my call. And think I's like, no, I've never
Speaker 1: seen that before. And somebody else who was in the
Speaker 1: room said, well, what about what Comy did? I said,
Speaker 1: Oh no, no, no, no no, no, no. Comey was the
Speaker 1: head of the FBI. He was not a prosecutor. He
Speaker 1: was an investigator in that role. He's not the prosecutor.
Speaker 1: He's not he's not the attorney general. That's not his call.
Speaker 1: So it wasn't Coomy's call to make for Hillary Clinton's emails.
Speaker 1: But what Homie did was for what you could say
Speaker 1: was a close call, although I don't think it was close.
Speaker 1: Hillary broke the law, she should have paid the price,
Speaker 1: But what they were saying was a judgment call. Comey said,
Speaker 1: no reasonable prosecutor would bring charges. Then fast forward to
Speaker 1: what happened with Muller on what is a judgment call
Speaker 1: should there be an obstructor Again, I don't think this
Speaker 1: is close either, but that's of course my opinion, but
Speaker 1: it is there is some judgment call here instead of
Speaker 1: Muller doing what Comy didn't say. You know, they could
Speaker 1: go either way, but it's going this way and that's
Speaker 1: the way it should go. He left it open ended,
Speaker 1: why so that we could hear from you know, Nadler
Speaker 1: and Schiff and all these crazy anti Trump jerks up
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill about how we need to talk about obstruction.
Speaker 1: He's back with you now, because when it comes to
Speaker 1: the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. The twenty
Speaker 1: twenty budget would strengthen the security of our nation through
Speaker 1: enhanced border security, immigration enforcement, cybersecurity, transportation security, counter terrorism,
Speaker 1: and resilience to disasters. With regard to order security. As
Speaker 1: you're all aware, we're in the midst of an ongoing
Speaker 1: security and humanitarian crisis at our southwest border. The Department,
Speaker 1: at the request of our frontline officers and agents, has
Speaker 1: worked with this committee to make clear that we need
Speaker 1: additional resources to respond to the crisis in March alone,
Speaker 1: CBP apprehended and encountered over one hundred and three thousand
Speaker 1: migrants crossing without legal status, the most in one month
Speaker 1: for over a decade, one hundred and three thousand, my friends,
Speaker 1: over one hundred thousand. Just as I have been promising
Speaker 1: you all month, went down to Texas see for myself
Speaker 1: what's going going on, and sure enough, it is a
Speaker 1: mess at our southern border. Democrats are fine with it,
Speaker 1: They encourage it, they like it. They prefer this situation
Speaker 1: of lawlessness, of the exploitation both of people that are
Speaker 1: trying to evade our immigration laws. But I understand it's
Speaker 1: to get a better life for themselves and also enriching
Speaker 1: the cartels along the way and taking advantage of the
Speaker 1: generosity of the American people and our generous spirit in
Speaker 1: our desire to be a country that is a beacon
Speaker 1: of hope and light and liberty for the world. But
Speaker 1: it's not going to stay that way. If we can't
Speaker 1: say who comes and goes. We won't have a country
Speaker 1: if we don't have sovereignty, and we are losing sovereignty
Speaker 1: with every passing day. Now the situation is going to
Speaker 1: be bad this month as well. Will it be over
Speaker 1: one hundred thousand. We will have to see. Illegal crossings
Speaker 1: are on pace to hit over a million for this year.
Speaker 1: And so the President is doing what he can to
Speaker 1: try to fix this situation, a situation that I would
Speaker 1: point out if if he were a Democrat, and if
Speaker 1: it had been a Republican before him, you would constantly
Speaker 1: be hearing about how the president inherited this situation. The
Speaker 1: president inherited the situation from his predecessor. That is true
Speaker 1: in this case, President Trump did inherit this situation from
Speaker 1: his predecessor. But you won't ever come across that as
Speaker 1: a main media narrative because they like that Trump has
Speaker 1: to deal with this, and all they want to talk
Speaker 1: about is the separation of parents from children at the border,
Speaker 1: also known as a criminal prosecution. Parents are separated from
Speaker 1: children in this country every day, separated from American citizens
Speaker 1: every day for a rest. Unless there's a parent or
Speaker 1: guardian who can take custody of the child right away,
Speaker 1: they are put in the care of child Services. This
Speaker 1: happens all the time. Anyone whose law enforcement knows this, right,
Speaker 1: if there's a mother's driving drunk and there's a kid
Speaker 1: in the back, seat and the mother is going to
Speaker 1: go down down to the jail to get processed. There's
Speaker 1: gonna be a separation that cares you're not going to
Speaker 1: bring the kid with you into the prison or into
Speaker 1: the jail. But that's all the media wants to talk about.
Speaker 1: There are other major seams in this process. There are
Speaker 1: other things that we need to address in the immigration
Speaker 1: system as it is right now, and President Trump is
Speaker 1: trying to do that. He has called for new rules
Speaker 1: for asylum seekers that will involve charging a fee. Oh
Speaker 1: you mean that they should have to pay just like I.
Speaker 1: You know a lot of places you have to pay
Speaker 1: a visa fee. And oh yeah, that's right. You know.
Speaker 1: I actually had a liberal today on my panel and said,
Speaker 1: you know, oh, they these people can't afford the fees.
Speaker 1: Really because they afford the five six, seven thousand dollars
Speaker 1: they're paying the Mexican cartel coyotes to get them to
Speaker 1: the border. Those who are wondering, what buck, why is
Speaker 1: it that they pay these fees if all they do
Speaker 1: is show up at the border? Ah, Because this is
Speaker 1: now a this is now effectively a protection racket, right,
Speaker 1: the old mafia model with a protection racket is. You know,
Speaker 1: that's a nice story you got. There be a shame
Speaker 1: of something happened to it. But you know, we can
Speaker 1: keep your store safe if you just pay us, you know,
Speaker 1: ten percent of the house take every month or whatever
Speaker 1: it is. And at the border, now, if you're going
Speaker 1: to be a migrant who shows up at the border
Speaker 1: as part of one of these caravans, the cartels are
Speaker 1: controlling who's showing up for these illegal crossings, and you
Speaker 1: have to pay off the cartels. That's how the cartels
Speaker 1: are getting very very rich along the way richer, I
Speaker 1: should say, because they're obviously already making billions of dollars
Speaker 1: off of the illicit drug trade, but paying a fee
Speaker 1: to the US government for the at least at some
Speaker 1: way maybe defraying the cost of additional immigration judges, customs
Speaker 1: and border patrol officer over time. That seems entirely reasonable
Speaker 1: to me. That's one of the that's one of the
Speaker 1: President Trump rules for asylum seekers that they're hoping to
Speaker 1: put in place, limiting their ability to work legally. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right. You're an asylum seeker. We don't know if
Speaker 1: you're going to be able to stay. So because here's
Speaker 1: what happens. If if they get a job all, then oh,
Speaker 1: then they're going to go into court and they're gonna say,
Speaker 1: you know, I have a job here, now I'm I'm
Speaker 1: in the community, and they try to establish roots. And
Speaker 1: then if you say, hold on a second, I only
Speaker 1: promise that you could be here until you had your
Speaker 1: asylum process, you know, until you got your due process.
Speaker 1: I didn't promise you could stay just because you happen
Speaker 1: to be here while you're getting your asylum due process.
Speaker 1: Then you're heartless. Then you're a mean person, you're a racist,
Speaker 1: you're a xenophobe, you're all these things. They'll say, we
Speaker 1: know this. So he's trying to curb their ability to
Speaker 1: work legally in this country. I'm sure they're gonna work illegally.
Speaker 1: I'm sure many of them will, but at least they're
Speaker 1: not supposed to be on the books because you know,
Speaker 1: states like California, they're gonna give them ideas. They're gonna
Speaker 1: give them, and we're gonna be told that the fabric
Speaker 1: of our nation is being carried on the backs of
Speaker 1: the waiting for asylum crowd that has illegally crossed into
Speaker 1: this country and is now abusing our system, and we
Speaker 1: know they're abusing our system, but Democrats are aiding and
Speaker 1: embedding them. And then here's the big one, or maybe
Speaker 1: I think this you could say is the biggest one.
Speaker 1: Trump wants courts immigration courts to resolve their claims within
Speaker 1: one hundred and eighty days. So this is gonna put
Speaker 1: the courts on overdrive. You're gonna come in, you're gonna
Speaker 1: say your thing, you're gonna go. And that's and one
Speaker 1: other part of this that I'm hoping they put in
Speaker 1: place is, you know, they're gonna have to deal you
Speaker 1: can't get additional hearings after your asylum hearing, and you know,
Speaker 1: essentially allowing you to contest that's the law right now.
Speaker 1: You can contest your deportation order specifically after you've been
Speaker 1: denied asylum. That's this is crazy. This is Trump is
Speaker 1: right when he says that we have essentially idiotic immigration
Speaker 1: laws on this, He's right. Democrats don't want to admit
Speaker 1: this because they like what's going on, but Trump is
Speaker 1: telling the truth. Or our laws are idiotic around this stuff,
Speaker 1: they absolutely are. And Trump is trying to change the
Speaker 1: game here and by making this all happen within one
Speaker 1: hundred and eighty days. Now you have a realistic chance
Speaker 1: of a few things. One, just dealing with this backlog
Speaker 1: will send a message of control. And if you do
Speaker 1: this properly, then the word gets out that no, no, no,
Speaker 1: you can apply for asylum. But if you don't get it,
Speaker 1: you're gonna find out within six months and they're going
Speaker 1: to send you back your country of origin. Then the
Speaker 1: flow starts to stop. Because here's what the Democrats fight
Speaker 1: tooth and nail at every opportunity. They do not want
Speaker 1: there to be any adverse consequences to breaking our immigration laws.
Speaker 1: So they're all for, oh, the process, this and that laws,
Speaker 1: but they will not allow there to be any enforcement
Speaker 1: of the law that results in any negative consequence for
Speaker 1: any immigrant, illegal immigrant who comes into the country illegal alien,
Speaker 1: I should say, because then that in and of itself
Speaker 1: will begin to deplete the flow of these migrants coming
Speaker 1: in and exploiting the asylum process when they are really
Speaker 1: economic migrants. And as I have said time and again,
Speaker 1: that does not make them bad people. I'm not saying
Speaker 1: they're evil. I have no animosity toward the illegal aliens
Speaker 1: that are coming across the border and claiming asylum. They
Speaker 1: just see this as the Americans are dumb enough. Well
Speaker 1: then that makes me feel a little amosity. But they
Speaker 1: see this as the American system is dumb enough. And
Speaker 1: you know, this is my chance and I'm gonna take it.
Speaker 1: This is my chance of a better life. And so
Speaker 1: I'm going to skip the line. You know, this is
Speaker 1: if I don't jump in front of this airport line,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna miss my flight. Sorry, folks, I'm gonna jump
Speaker 1: in front of the airport line. You know that's you know,
Speaker 1: I had to pull a little bit of that yesterday.
Speaker 1: I almost got delayed at the airport and the whole thing.
Speaker 1: And I didn't jump in front of people, but I
Speaker 1: had to. I had to sweet talk someone to do
Speaker 1: something to my ticket. And man, that stuff gets stressful.
Speaker 1: But I digress. The Trump plan here is a good one.
Speaker 1: It's a it's moving in the right direction. And from
Speaker 1: the memo, it says, this strategic exploitation of our nation's
Speaker 1: humanitarian programs undermines our nation security and sovereignty. The purpose
Speaker 1: of this memorandum is to strengthen a silent procedures to
Speaker 1: safeguard a system against rampant abuse of our asylum process,
Speaker 1: and the memo directs Attorney General William Barr to propose
Speaker 1: regulations with the ninety days that would change the rules
Speaker 1: for asylum. And this is what we get into exactly
Speaker 1: the fee and the one hundred and eighty days going
Speaker 1: on a million cases in the backlog here, I mean,
Speaker 1: that's just that's just stratospheric that is completely out of control.
Speaker 1: So work your way through the backlog, have people pay
Speaker 1: a fee to help defray some of the costs no working,
Speaker 1: so that you can establish roots. And then the big
Speaker 1: part of this is going to be streamlining the deportation
Speaker 1: process for those that are denied asylum, which is going
Speaker 1: to be about nine and not just those who show
Speaker 1: up and don't get it. But if you don't show
Speaker 1: up but you're hearing, there should be a deportation order
Speaker 1: on your right away. It should be a default, and
Speaker 1: they should exercise that warrant. I mean, the immigrations, the
Speaker 1: customer enforcements should track down people that don't show up
Speaker 1: for their asylum hearing and actively and expeditiously deport them.
Speaker 1: If that does not happen, this problem only gets worse.
Speaker 1: It'll be one hundred thousand a month, every month until
Speaker 1: the poorest and neediest from El Salvador, Guatemala and Honduras
Speaker 1: have flooded into this country and planned to stay indefinitely forever.
Speaker 1: That's what will happen. And you can say, well, bok,
Speaker 1: those are three countries, they're not that big at the
Speaker 1: population is that okay? But what about the next surge?
Speaker 1: What about the next country that you know we got
Speaker 1: we got big problems in Venezuela. We're gonna be talking
Speaker 1: with Venezuela in the second hour of the show. You
Speaker 1: effectively have a struggle, a violent struggle for power going
Speaker 1: on now on the streets of Venezuela. It has turned
Speaker 1: a corner and gone into a very and this is
Speaker 1: a very important moment, but it's also a very precarious
Speaker 1: moment for that country. But what if the worst happens there?
Speaker 1: What if the Maduro government opens fire. There's just outright totalitarianism, oppression,
Speaker 1: widespread violence, crackdowns, executions of pleat I mean, it happened
Speaker 1: in Cuba, right, I mean, you look at the history
Speaker 1: of Latin America, this would not be that. I'd say
Speaker 1: it's going to say it's beyond the pale, not even close.
Speaker 1: This wouldn't even be that surprising under the circumstances. What
Speaker 1: if we get a one hundred thousand people want to
Speaker 1: come from Venezuela, and what about the you know, you
Speaker 1: just keep going down this list. You say, what point
Speaker 1: are we allowed to object to this? What point we
Speaker 1: have a problem with what's going on here? Trump administration
Speaker 1: is making the right move. I have concerns that you're
Speaker 1: going to see what you've had time and again, which
Speaker 1: is a Ninth Circuit judge, It'll probably be the Ninth Circuit,
Speaker 1: It'll probably be a federal judge sit again San Francisco.
Speaker 1: We'll say that some aspect of what the administration is
Speaker 1: doing here that falls within the executive ranch, within their purview,
Speaker 1: some aspect of it violates an administrative Procedure Act or something,
Speaker 1: and therefore strikes it down. They just want to do
Speaker 1: everything they can. The left is open borders and wants
Speaker 1: to keep the border open at all costs. That's the plan.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter what they have to do to the rule
Speaker 1: of law in the process, doesn't matter what they have
Speaker 1: to do to our sovereignty. They're they're on board. They're
Speaker 1: on board with open borders. Let's talk a little bit
Speaker 1: about Biden because I'm a major, and it's not just
Speaker 1: I don't like Biden as a candidate, disagree with them
Speaker 1: and all that. That's all you know, that that's baked
Speaker 1: into the cake here. I don't think Biden is nearly
Speaker 1: as formidable as even some of my Republican friends do.
Speaker 1: I don't think he's going to be the nominee. I
Speaker 1: don't think he's impressive. I don't think he's their guy.
Speaker 1: But I'm open to alternative theories. We'll be right back.
Speaker 1: I want to thank Rich fids Gerold, the County executive,
Speaker 1: Balaghetti County executive, being here and all my time in
Speaker 1: public life from the stuff gotten involved. The country wasn't
Speaker 1: built by Wall Street bankers, CEOs and Hudge and Hudge
Speaker 1: fund manager. If the enterprise, it's hard times. Everybody took
Speaker 1: a hit. Union workers, the UAW took instredible cuts in
Speaker 1: their future and their and their pensions, and the left
Speaker 1: to get GM working. They also got that last year
Speaker 1: and try to cut wages or freeze wages for their
Speaker 1: people right today. The same is happening in big hospital
Speaker 1: in big hospital systems. I think we have to rethink
Speaker 1: how we define what concert a successful economy did America?
Speaker 1: Don't think their children gonna have the same standard of
Speaker 1: men they had. How can a person digny be maintained? Why?
Speaker 1: Why they do that? It means investing much more in
Speaker 1: medical research to conquer devastating diseases like cancer and addiction.
Speaker 1: I'm Alzheimer's extredible. Yeah, yeah, it's just stredible. There, Biden
Speaker 1: runs a little bit of the Ron Burgundy scene where
Speaker 1: I think it's Steve Krell's like, why are we yelling? Why?
Speaker 1: Why is he just yelling everything? It all feels so
Speaker 1: very forced, it's so it's so cheesy, it's so cliche.
Speaker 1: It's we've heard all this from him before. None of
Speaker 1: this is interesting, none of this is exciting. What are
Speaker 1: the Democrats thinking? This is? This is the best that
Speaker 1: they can put forward. They've got all these they've got
Speaker 1: twenty candidates, and Biden is far and away in the league,
Speaker 1: far and away, and he's never been impressive. How is
Speaker 1: it possible that the Democrats don't have somebody who's at
Speaker 1: least a little more interesting as their front runner. Well,
Speaker 1: I'm telling you right now, and we'll go back and
Speaker 1: we'll play the tape on this one, because I'm pretty
Speaker 1: confident in this prediction. I don't think that I don't
Speaker 1: think that Biden is gonna pull it off. I don't
Speaker 1: think I don't mean that he's not gonna win. I
Speaker 1: don't think that he's going to be the Democrat nominee.
Speaker 1: I just and look, it's very hard to make these predictions.
Speaker 1: Everybody that thought that they, well, not a lot a
Speaker 1: lot of you listing actually knew that Trump was gonna win.
Speaker 1: And I don't know how you did that. And you're
Speaker 1: some kind of magicians out there in Team Buckland, but
Speaker 1: in all the political class didn't know that Trump is
Speaker 1: gonna win. Here laughing, You're like, yeah, I know, but Biden,
Speaker 1: it's tough to make these predictions. But I'm predicting Biden
Speaker 1: can't win. I mean, also, the stuff he's saying about
Speaker 1: tax cuts just not true. Play sixteen here. Everybody knows
Speaker 1: the middle class is hurting. It. It's hurting now. Fifty
Speaker 1: three percent of the folks in America dump think their
Speaker 1: children gonna have the same standard of me they had.
Speaker 1: The best of my knowledge, is the first time that's
Speaker 1: happened in a long, long, long time. The stock market
Speaker 1: is roaring but you don't feel it. There's two trillion
Speaker 1: dollars tax cut last last year. Did you feel it?
Speaker 1: Did you get anything from it? Of course not, of
Speaker 1: course not. Allo went to folks with the top and
Speaker 1: corporations that pay no taxes. The number of corporations that
Speaker 1: pay no taxes now has doubled since that tech. Look, guys,
Speaker 1: this is not good. Yeah, it's not good. Joe. Your
Speaker 1: whole speech not good, your whole approach not good. Democrats
Speaker 1: are gonna have to be better. I mean, I hope
Speaker 1: they don't. So in a sense, maybe I should just
Speaker 1: be quiet and let them put Joe Biden forward. But
Speaker 1: this guy, he's just not a winner, never has been.
Speaker 1: And I think there's a lot of stuff about his background,
Speaker 1: and there's stuff, some stuff, some family stuff that's going
Speaker 1: to come out that's not going to be good for
Speaker 1: the damns, my friend. So they better find another front
Speaker 1: runner and find one fast. When it comes to ben Roads,
Speaker 1: Remember he's the same guy who told us the catalyst
Speaker 1: for Benghazi and the attack that took place there where
Speaker 1: four Americans gave their life for our country. He's the
Speaker 1: same guy who told us it was all caused by
Speaker 1: a video. So I don't put a whole lot of
Speaker 1: weight in what he says. What I do know is
Speaker 1: an opposition research document was the basis to go get
Speaker 1: a warrant to do what spy on a person associated
Speaker 1: with the Trump campaign. I do know those things happen,
Speaker 1: and it seems to me, based on what Bill Bill
Speaker 1: Bar said a couple of weeks ago, he thinks there
Speaker 1: may be more there. We know ten days after what
Speaker 1: we now know as Hurricane crossfire, the investigation into Trump,
Speaker 1: that there was a briefing at the White House with
Speaker 1: Obama's chief of staff, and so to suggest that they
Speaker 1: didn't know anything, it's just not accurate. Obama knew stuff.
Speaker 1: I think that's quite obvious. But somehow that hasn't gotten
Speaker 1: nearly the attention that it should. Somehow that doesn't, That
Speaker 1: doesn't rate for the media. Where was Obama on all
Speaker 1: of this? What kind of a hand in this during
Speaker 1: an election year? I mean, you know, we're gonna talk
Speaker 1: about Venezuela later this hour. People are using the term
Speaker 1: coup a lot here here in the term coup, and
Speaker 1: there's a fight over whether that's an accurate description or
Speaker 1: is that a counter coup. Isn't it we had an
Speaker 1: attempted coup in this country. We had elements of the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party, the media, and the federal bureaucracy try to
Speaker 1: stop and then end a president who was duly elected
Speaker 1: by over sixty million of his fellow Americans. We had
Speaker 1: that happen here in America. And if this hasn't really
Speaker 1: yet settled, you know, this hasn't yet found its way
Speaker 1: into the blood stream in DC in a way that
Speaker 1: it's going to have to. But I'm not going to
Speaker 1: forget this. Others like me aren't going to forget this.
Speaker 1: And you know, this is something we have to take
Speaker 1: very very seriously because all the sanctimony about our democracies
Speaker 1: at stake when it came to Russia collusion which did
Speaker 1: not exist, that stuff truly applies to what we're talking
Speaker 1: about here. The abusive finds the Obama administrations, machinations behind
Speaker 1: the scenes here, or lack of oversight even I could
Speaker 1: you imagine walking into the Oval office and saying, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we we have this this oporesearch document that's
Speaker 1: essentially just a collection of rumors. That's all it is.
Speaker 1: That is what the dossier was rumors. You know, I
Speaker 1: could go around and pull together, chat room comments on
Speaker 1: news stories involving politicians of all sort of crazy stuff.
Speaker 1: If I pulled all that together, put it in a document,
Speaker 1: and showed up at the FBI and they opened up
Speaker 1: a Fizer warrant on somebody based on that crap, lousy
Speaker 1: nonsense that I pulled together, everybody would know that that
Speaker 1: was just incredibly unethical and wrong and an abuse and unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: And that's what happened here, except instead of it being
Speaker 1: chat room comments on the Internet, where you know people
Speaker 1: in the comment section always freaked out, it was Russian
Speaker 1: subsources of Christopher Steele for the dossier. If that is
Speaker 1: sufficient to get a Fizer warrant, then effectively anything that
Speaker 1: you could think of is sufficient to get a FIZO warrant.
Speaker 1: I mean, you could just make it up. If there's
Speaker 1: no verification process for the information that's going to go
Speaker 1: before a Fizer court, which clearly there is not, then
Speaker 1: what you have is a backdoor means to le ridge
Speaker 1: the spying power. That's what it is of the federal
Speaker 1: government against political opponents. And that is what happened. That
Speaker 1: is exactly what happened. I agree with Newt here speaking
Speaker 1: of coups there's the venezuela. Is it a coup or not?
Speaker 1: And then there's what happened here with Trump. A tale
Speaker 1: of two coups, if you will. Here's the Newtster play nine.
Speaker 1: This was an attempted coup deta. This was an effort
Speaker 1: by a group of people to undermine the choice of
Speaker 1: the American people because they had arrogated to themselves that
Speaker 1: they were morally superior and they had the right to
Speaker 1: deny us the constitutional system. That's what it was. The
Speaker 1: challenge to the president and to Attorney General bar Is
Speaker 1: to have the nerve to calmly and methodically get everything
Speaker 1: out in the open, let the American people see how
Speaker 1: sick the system had gotten. I've been talking to sources
Speaker 1: this week here in DC that are high up in
Speaker 1: the federal government about this, and I'm being assured, I
Speaker 1: have been assured that there will be an accounting for
Speaker 1: what happened here. But I'm going to tell you this,
Speaker 1: and you know, I meaning that the spying and the
Speaker 1: effort to undermine Trump, not just undermine him, to push
Speaker 1: him aside a coup, data to remove him as the
Speaker 1: head of state in this country. That is what happened
Speaker 1: that is what they were trying to do. It is obvious,
Speaker 1: it is clear at this point. But here's my problem.
Speaker 1: Even if we get some degree of transparency out of
Speaker 1: this process, even if there is and I think, I
Speaker 1: think Bill Barr is a stud I mean, I think
Speaker 1: that guy is a superstar and he's not a he's
Speaker 1: not a showboater, but he knows the law and he
Speaker 1: doesn't care what they're going to say about him. And
Speaker 1: Bill Barr is what Trump needs. Bill Barr needs people
Speaker 1: who know the law, know what's coming for them, and
Speaker 1: will stand and fight effectively. He doesn't need some of
Speaker 1: the clown show that he unfortunately has has put around
Speaker 1: him at different points in the administration. I mean, we're
Speaker 1: past the point, my friends. We could say that Trump
Speaker 1: only picks the best people, maybe for his companies, maybe
Speaker 1: in his businesses, not the case in government. You know,
Speaker 1: I give you well, I'm not it's not even worth
Speaker 1: naming a vision with Michael Cohen. I mean, I can
Speaker 1: start naming the names. You'd be here all night. But
Speaker 1: Bill Barr is going to get the information out there.
Speaker 1: That doesn't mean there's going to be consequences. Bureaucracies are
Speaker 1: incredibly adept at evading consequences for the people inside of
Speaker 1: them who miss step as long as they were doing
Speaker 1: so and not harming the actual bureaucracy. Right, So if
Speaker 1: I work at the FBI and I do something really bad,
Speaker 1: as long as it doesn't hurt the FBI, then they're
Speaker 1: going to find a way to mitigate the consequences against
Speaker 1: that individual. This is true across the federal government. I mean,
Speaker 1: I could, you know, agency after agency, I could go
Speaker 1: through and tell you about examples of this. You know,
Speaker 1: if you work at the CIA, and if you come
Speaker 1: at the CIA, you're gonna get crushed if you mess up,
Speaker 1: but you know, you we're doing your job and you're
Speaker 1: well thought of it the agency, you're probably gonna be okay.
Speaker 1: You know, just go from place to place within the
Speaker 1: federal government. And that's that's the case. But this was
Speaker 1: an attempt at coup and we need to have a
Speaker 1: full accounting for that. I also want to note that
Speaker 1: whenever they start to talk about how the investigation was
Speaker 1: about Russia collusion, I mean that's just a lie. I mean,
Speaker 1: the investigation was up Trump. It really wasn't, because Russia
Speaker 1: collusion is effectively irrelevant. It was minor. It was a blip.
Speaker 1: It was a pretextual rationalization for all the things that
Speaker 1: they did to Trump. All right, That's that's what it was.
Speaker 1: I mean, Russia collusion was not something that changed the election.
Speaker 1: And if you need proof of that, all you have
Speaker 1: to do is think about why is it that the
Speaker 1: Obama administration, when all this stuff is going on, he's
Speaker 1: getting briefings about it, He's being told about this. And
Speaker 1: we know how panic people like John Brennan and James
Speaker 1: Clapper and others supposedly were in the twenty sixteen election
Speaker 1: as all of this is happening. We know we've been
Speaker 1: told so many times, oh my gosh, the Russians, the
Speaker 1: Russians are coming, the Russians are coming. And yet they
Speaker 1: didn't do anything. They waited to see if Hillary was
Speaker 1: going to win. They made a political calculation. The Obama
Speaker 1: administration made a political calculation not to take definitive or
Speaker 1: even in any kind of meaningful action about the Russia interference.
Speaker 1: Because I'm almost positive that there was some discussion in
Speaker 1: the Oval Office at some point involving Obama on this issue.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is just I'm surmising here, but I'm
Speaker 1: telling you I'm right, and they're like, look, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, so there's Russian stuff's going on. We don't
Speaker 1: want to make a big deal of this. It's it's
Speaker 1: not going to change the election. Hillary is gonna win.
Speaker 1: And if we make a big deal of it and
Speaker 1: Hillary wins, then they'll say that it was an illegitimate election.
Speaker 1: Then the right will come out with all their conspiracy theories.
Speaker 1: So what they did was the Obama administration suppressed this
Speaker 1: because it was in their electoral interest to do so,
Speaker 1: not it wasn't about the national security of this country.
Speaker 1: It was about their electoral interests. And Rod Rosenstein, who
Speaker 1: you know, I'm not a fan of I am not
Speaker 1: a Rod Rosenstein person. I think that Rod, I'm going
Speaker 1: to wear a wire to prove the president's crazy. And
Speaker 1: keep in mind, think about how stupid this guy is.
Speaker 1: Even if he wore that wire and he got the
Speaker 1: president what calling out the fake news media. You know,
Speaker 1: we've never heard anything from any of these people that
Speaker 1: really suggest the president's crazy. I mean, to remove the
Speaker 1: president using the twenty fifth Amendment, it would have to
Speaker 1: be the president is seeing pink elephants flying around in
Speaker 1: the sky and he can't remember his name, and he
Speaker 1: is not of sound mind. Is Rod Rosenstein not smart
Speaker 1: enough to understand that the president saying things that offend
Speaker 1: Rod Rosenstein's delicate little Democrat sensibilities doesn't count as you
Speaker 1: need to get removed from being president the United States.
Speaker 1: So I don't know how smart Rosenstein is. I mean,
Speaker 1: let's start with that. But he did come out give
Speaker 1: credit where its due and take a little swipe at
Speaker 1: the Obama administration for making a choice. And it was
Speaker 1: a choice. They decided that this is the way it
Speaker 1: was going to be, making a choice to not make
Speaker 1: a big deal out of this play clip five. Previous
Speaker 1: administration not to publicize the full story about Russian computer
Speaker 1: hackers and social media trolls and how they relate to
Speaker 1: Russia's broader strategy to undermine America. The FBI disclose classified
Speaker 1: information about that investigation to selective lawmakers and their staffers.
Speaker 1: Someone selectively leaked information to the news media. The FBI
Speaker 1: director to Slows at a congressional hearing. But there was
Speaker 1: account of intelligence investigation that might result in criminal charges. Yeah,
Speaker 1: there was. There was a whole lot of lawbreaking going
Speaker 1: on in this process too. I want to know who
Speaker 1: was leaking all this stuff. I want them to get
Speaker 1: who leaked Flynn's phone call becus. I'm telling you that
Speaker 1: that is to leak that kind of spying information to
Speaker 1: the press for partisan you know, as a partisan weapon
Speaker 1: that needs to be rooted out. I mean, that needs
Speaker 1: to be punished severely. That person should go to prison
Speaker 1: for years years. And I think it was a senior
Speaker 1: I think it was a senior official of the Department
Speaker 1: of Justice under the Obama administration, I really do. Do
Speaker 1: I think they'll ever get him. It depends or her
Speaker 1: could be a her. Do I think they'll ever get
Speaker 1: that person. I don't know, but I I you know
Speaker 1: that that's a serious crime, and we don't we don't
Speaker 1: hear much about it all from media because they didn't
Speaker 1: want to talk about that crime. They don't talk about
Speaker 1: these other make believe cries. It supposedly happened involving Trump
Speaker 1: in Russia, all the rest of it. I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: going to drop this one, my friends. I'm not gonna
Speaker 1: let this let this fall by the wayside. What has
Speaker 1: been going on in this country last two years with
Speaker 1: the Muller probe is a is a disgrace. I think
Speaker 1: that Mueller, in a just out of spite, you walked
Speaker 1: out of the house and decided to light the curtains
Speaker 1: on fire, you know, just just just take out a
Speaker 1: lighter and just light him. Oh I didn't, I didn't
Speaker 1: do anything terrible. I just you know, Yeah, he knew
Speaker 1: what was gonna happen, and he's created Muller has created
Speaker 1: a roadmap for Congress to impeach the president the United States.
Speaker 1: He used the office he had as a special Special
Speaker 1: Counsel to set the Democrats up for an impeachment proceeding
Speaker 1: against the president to prevent what is really the worst
Speaker 1: fear the Democrats have is not Russia interfering in our election.
Speaker 1: It's not even Russia picking our next president. Their worst
Speaker 1: fear is Donald Trump winning re election. That is their
Speaker 1: worst fear. That is the thing that really keeps them
Speaker 1: up at night. And that is a fear that they
Speaker 1: should have because I think it is very likely that's
Speaker 1: what's going to happen. They I'm sure hate to hear that,
Speaker 1: but that is the reality. We've got more team coming up.
Speaker 1: Stay with me. This is an epidemic, and we have
Speaker 1: a president who will not only will not acknowledge that
Speaker 1: we have an epidemic of white nationalists are off to
Speaker 1: New Zealand, to just a few people, He's providing the
Speaker 1: mood music for it. That is the reality we face. Yeah,
Speaker 1: I think the President needs to at some point look
Speaker 1: in them here and you understand that the rhetoric, the
Speaker 1: words he uses in all of this inflame. This about
Speaker 1: big part of what's going on in America. Give permission
Speaker 1: to the most craziest people in America. And it happens
Speaker 1: in part because there's a climate set at the top
Speaker 1: of unbelievable constant wise and hostility and division in this country.
Speaker 1: The conspiracy theories cited by these neo Nazis in Pittsburgh
Speaker 1: and New Zealand and now outside San Diego, conspiracy theory
Speaker 1: that Trump never condemned and actually seemed to support. And remember,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump just over the last two couple of days
Speaker 1: have been defending what he said in Charlottesville, and it
Speaker 1: echoed called back into our memory, right, something that just
Speaker 1: happened not too long ago, What happened in Pittsburgh. Donald
Speaker 1: Trump and all of this hate rights part of the
Speaker 1: environment of today, and he bears some responsibility for it.
Speaker 1: And we don't know if it has any connection to
Speaker 1: the politics that's going on, but I mean it would
Speaker 1: be a stretch to say that it doesn't. It's all
Speaker 1: He's Trump's fault. You see, everything bad that happens, according
Speaker 1: to the left, must be Trump's fault because Trump is
Speaker 1: the evil, bad Orange man that haunts liberals dreams. And
Speaker 1: they can't ever just think about it an event for
Speaker 1: what it really was and for in this case, the
Speaker 1: atrocity of a shooting, yet another shooting in a house
Speaker 1: of worship. They have to find a way to tie
Speaker 1: it immediately to the President of the United States. It
Speaker 1: is his fault, you know, the president who has a
Speaker 1: son in law who is Jewish and who is his
Speaker 1: top advisor, Jared Kushner is the President's number one advisor
Speaker 1: from everyone that I've spoken to in this White House.
Speaker 1: He has a daughter who he's obviously thinks the world
Speaker 1: of and she converted to Judaism. But the media would
Speaker 1: have us believe the President Trump is some kind of
Speaker 1: a secret anti semi This is really the This is
Speaker 1: the line they're going to go with. This is the
Speaker 1: way they're going to try to make this baggage for
Speaker 1: Trump well, the answer is, oh, yes, yes, of course,
Speaker 1: that's what they do. They claim that the president is divisive,
Speaker 1: and then they tell you and me that the president
Speaker 1: the guy that you voted for, not all of you maybe,
Speaker 1: but most of you that listen to this, and that
Speaker 1: I voted for that guy. He's the reason for this.
Speaker 1: So if you support him, what does that say about you?
Speaker 1: That's what they want you to take away from this.
Speaker 1: That's their version of events here, that's what they're presenting
Speaker 1: you in the media. And you know, here's CNN's Don
Speaker 1: Lemon and Ala Navarro, two of the dumbest people on television,
Speaker 1: talking about how they don't they don't even when the
Speaker 1: president condemns what happened, they don't believe his condemnation play
Speaker 1: clip one, instead of trafficking in bigotry and racism and
Speaker 1: anti semitism, in hate and making excuses for us. I
Speaker 1: want to believe it. I want to believe it. I'm
Speaker 1: going to be real. How do you believe him? What
Speaker 1: should we believe? You don't believe him. We all saw
Speaker 1: and we all know that he didn't say a word
Speaker 1: about the black churches. We all know that he didn't
Speaker 1: say a word condemning Steve King, a congressman from Iowa.
Speaker 1: So it's time after time after time after time. No,
Speaker 1: we don't want to believe you want to, but we
Speaker 1: need to, but I don't know that we can. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they're delusional, Navarro, and I don't know who else that
Speaker 1: there was a lemon and some other voice came in there.
Speaker 1: They're delusional. You can't believe that the president condemns bigotry,
Speaker 1: and yet they can't believe that he's condemning bigotry. The
Speaker 1: President had nothing to do with this shooter, had nothing
Speaker 1: to do with this situation, but it is his fault.
Speaker 1: You know this. This is just so destructive and I
Speaker 1: would argue so dishonest, But this is what the Democrats
Speaker 1: do now. They find a way to tie everything to
Speaker 1: President Trump that is negative and nasty because there are
Speaker 1: people that will believe it, that are this wacko. Trump
Speaker 1: has deranged them to the extent where you know, if
Speaker 1: it's bad weather in Philly, it's because of Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just nuts. The Venezuelan opposition leader Juan Guidot is
Speaker 1: launching what he calls the final stage of Operation Freedom
Speaker 1: to try to topple the disputed President Nicolas Maduro and
Speaker 1: a warning about this next video. Earlier this afternoon, we
Speaker 1: watched as an armored military vehicle plowed full speed through
Speaker 1: a crowd of protesters. Now you have armored vehicles in Venezuela,
Speaker 1: under the command of Nicholas Maduro running over opposition figures.
Speaker 1: Where is all of us heading in Venezuela. We have
Speaker 1: Ana Rossa Kintana joining us now. Now she is a
Speaker 1: policy analyst at the Heritage Foundation. She specializes in Latin
Speaker 1: America and agreed to have you back. Hey, nice, nice
Speaker 1: to talk to you. So, okay, what do we need
Speaker 1: to know about today in Venezuela. I mean, yeah, so
Speaker 1: today there's a very pivotal day, right, I mean, so Guido.
Speaker 1: Originally the protests were supposed to take place tomorrow, but
Speaker 1: Guido was told by sources in the military that Maduro
Speaker 1: had planned on arresting him. So that's why they moved
Speaker 1: up the demonstrations to today. And today we saw publicly
Speaker 1: many military officials were publicly defecting and publicly recognizing Guido,
Speaker 1: which is that's pretty significant. We saw that Leopoldo Lopez,
Speaker 1: who had been in prison for about five years, is
Speaker 1: was finally free for a few hours, and it was
Speaker 1: on the street and was demonstrating as well. He's now
Speaker 1: at the Chilean Ambassador's residence seeking refuge there. I think
Speaker 1: what we're seeing right now is, you know, we're seeing
Speaker 1: something inevitable. What it's the lead to. Nobody really knows.
Speaker 1: Is Guido going to be successful, is he going to
Speaker 1: be arrested, is he going to potentially going to be killed.
Speaker 1: I mean, nobody really knows. It's a very dynamic and
Speaker 1: evolving situation on this point about whether or not this
Speaker 1: is a coup. There's a lot of chatter back and
Speaker 1: forth in the press in this country on that specific verbiage,
Speaker 1: whether or not it's proper to call it a coup.
Speaker 1: What do you say, I mean, it's it's absolute Maduro
Speaker 1: propaganda to call the SIKU. Because one, if you call
Speaker 1: the CeCu, then you recognize that Maduro is Venezuela's legitimate leader.
Speaker 1: And it's very well known that the May twenty eighteen
Speaker 1: elections were highly fraudulent. He stole the elections. Right. The
Speaker 1: only legitimate electoral body in Venezuela's country is the country's
Speaker 1: National Assembly, which is why on January tenth, the day
Speaker 1: that was supposed to be Madua's an occuration day. Juan Guai, though,
Speaker 1: became Venezuela's president because according to Article two thirty three
Speaker 1: a Venezuela's Constitution, if there exists a void in the
Speaker 1: if there's a avoid in the head of state, the
Speaker 1: head of the National Assembly assumes the presidency, and that
Speaker 1: was Juan Guido who was the head of the National Assembly.
Speaker 1: So no, this is not a coup whatsoever. Now what
Speaker 1: happens if this doesn't work, what happens if Guido's forces
Speaker 1: And by the way, for those listening, is this You know,
Speaker 1: these had their demonstrations, but there was there was a
Speaker 1: lot of gunfire. Today there's video circulating of the armored
Speaker 1: vehicle running over some people who are obviously part of
Speaker 1: the opposition. There is there a military component of this,
Speaker 1: There are military defections. I mean, who has the advantage
Speaker 1: here where it comes to the ability to project force
Speaker 1: on the streets. I mean, it's it's it's quite clear
Speaker 1: that unfortunately Maduro has the upper hand in this respect
Speaker 1: because Maduro has Cuba's police state backing him, right, and
Speaker 1: this is why you haven't seen these widespread military defections
Speaker 1: because this police state system was created to I entify
Speaker 1: and prevent widespread defections, and the defections that we've seen today.
Speaker 1: I mean, these soldiers and these military officials are incredibly
Speaker 1: brave because they're putting their lives in danger, their families
Speaker 1: lives in danger. So I mean, I think it's it's
Speaker 1: a matter of this is a time when and I
Speaker 1: hate using the term international community, but this is actually
Speaker 1: a time for the international community and democracy and freedom
Speaker 1: loving countries, particularly the fifty four that recognize Guido, the
Speaker 1: stand up and let Maduro know that they are going
Speaker 1: to be strong consequences one if anything happens to Maduro,
Speaker 1: and too if he finally does not step down. I mean,
Speaker 1: there's a lot that these other countries have not done.
Speaker 1: They are not replicating US sanctions. They are not seizing
Speaker 1: Maduro and his officials illicit assets inside of their countries.
Speaker 1: They're not revoking the visas of the families living inside
Speaker 1: of Spain and Canada and other countries living incredibly luxuriously.
Speaker 1: So they still have not fully actualized a pressure campaign
Speaker 1: against Maduro, which is why he still thinks he has time.
Speaker 1: And I mean they need if they're going to support Maduro.
Speaker 1: They need they need to do this now. People in
Speaker 1: this country, generally, I think, seem to be on board
Speaker 1: for supporting those who are paying attention and who care
Speaker 1: Guido versus Maduro. Maduro as a socialist, he's a thug,
Speaker 1: He's a bad guy who runs what is effectively a
Speaker 1: narco state, which I think never really gets enough attention.
Speaker 1: That some of the top people in the Venezuelan government
Speaker 1: are sanctioned by the Treasury Department for being narco traffickers,
Speaker 1: which shows you a lot about the governance of this country.
Speaker 1: But there's also this left wing narrative you keep hearing
Speaker 1: of we should stay out, this isn't really our problem.
Speaker 1: What do you say to that. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: that is such absurdity, right just on the point of
Speaker 1: the narco part. I mean, it's people. It's been as
Speaker 1: fall in officials at the highest levels who are directly
Speaker 1: involved in drug trafficking. And we talk about the opioid
Speaker 1: crisis in the United States, but we neglect to talk
Speaker 1: about the fact that we still have a massive cocaine
Speaker 1: crisis in this country. And we're glad to talk about
Speaker 1: how the cocaine crisis continues to stabilizing South America, Central
Speaker 1: America and Mexico and the United States. Venezuela is then
Speaker 1: vice president. When he was designated as a drug trafficking kingpin,
Speaker 1: they found over five hundred million dollars of drug trafficking
Speaker 1: related assets directly in the United States. And he's only
Speaker 1: one person. There have been dozens of others who've been
Speaker 1: sanctioned and designated as drug trafficking kingpins as well. And
Speaker 1: so the threat of drugs, this is a nonpartisan issue,
Speaker 1: and this is something that affects everybody, regardless of the
Speaker 1: ideology that you believe in. And so this is an
Speaker 1: area where I think the United States and other countries
Speaker 1: need to be proactively engaged to mitigate the damage that
Speaker 1: these guys are causing. On the point about the military
Speaker 1: balance of power, here, here's what National Security Advisor Bolton
Speaker 1: said about Maduro and the degree of support for him
Speaker 1: in the military. I want to have you react to
Speaker 1: at play Club nineteen. What do you think the chances
Speaker 1: that this uprising will work? Then? Well, I don't think
Speaker 1: it's support in the military for the Maduro regime. I
Speaker 1: think it's fear make its fear of the twenty to
Speaker 1: twenty five thousand Cubans security forces in the country. I
Speaker 1: think it's fear of the consequences if adhering to the
Speaker 1: constitutional mandate of the interim president fails. But I think,
Speaker 1: really now, what we're seeing is the people of Venezuela.
Speaker 1: This has been building for a long time, that if
Speaker 1: this effort fails, they will sink into a dictatorship from
Speaker 1: which there are very few possible alternatives. It's a very
Speaker 1: delicate moment. I want to stress again, the president wants
Speaker 1: to see a peaceful transfer of power from Maduro to Guido.
Speaker 1: That possibility still exists if enough figures depart from the
Speaker 1: regime and support the opposition, And a fair to say
Speaker 1: that that possibility of a peaceful transfer of power is
Speaker 1: fading rapidly. I mean, I think the longer this dragged out,
Speaker 1: and the longer Maduro believes that he can hold on,
Speaker 1: and the longer the Russians believe that Madurou believe Duro
Speaker 1: can hold on, I think, yes, it does reduce the ability.
Speaker 1: It doesn't fully eliminate it, though, right, I mean, I think,
Speaker 1: but during means to believe that he has no other options,
Speaker 1: and he still has not gotten to that point, and
Speaker 1: I truly believe it's because other countries have not reciprocated
Speaker 1: and not replicated the US's sanctions regime. I think once
Speaker 1: we get to that point, because the demet that the
Speaker 1: internal pressure campaign in Venezuela is there. I mean, we're
Speaker 1: seeing Venezuelans consistently risking their lives pushing back against the regime.
Speaker 1: We're seeing international actors, you know, international players, right the
Speaker 1: fifty four countries voicing diplomatic support, but really only one
Speaker 1: or two countries, the United States and at times the
Speaker 1: Canadians really pushing back and you know, putting teeth behind
Speaker 1: these words. And I think until other countries do more,
Speaker 1: I mean, it's really he's not going to he's not
Speaker 1: going to step down. You think right now, given what's
Speaker 1: happening on the streets of Venezuela, and people are obviously
Speaker 1: seeing the videos and there's some very harrowing footage of
Speaker 1: gunfire and people on on both sides of it, I
Speaker 1: think it's an overpass or a bridge when there's a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of gunfire going on. Do you
Speaker 1: do you think that if the Venezuelan military has given
Speaker 1: the order to open fire on a large, large group
Speaker 1: of anti Maduro protesters. Do you think that they would
Speaker 1: do it? I mean, I think so. I think we've
Speaker 1: seen these situations before, where you've seen the military attacking
Speaker 1: unarmed protesters. I mean, I can remember back in twenty
Speaker 1: fourteen when the uprisings, when they were massive anti government uprisings,
Speaker 1: when Leopoldo Lopez was originally arrested. I mean, the video
Speaker 1: is coming out of Venezuela, just them slaughtering unarmed students
Speaker 1: were just were horrific, and we saw videos of tanks
Speaker 1: running over students, and there was very little impetus even
Speaker 1: by then President Obama to respond to this. Any chance
Speaker 1: of US being we mentioned Obama. I mean, do you
Speaker 1: think that there's any way that the US could realistically
Speaker 1: find itself having to take some kind of a military
Speaker 1: position here. I honestly, I would hope it doesn't. I
Speaker 1: hope it doesn't get to that, right, because this is
Speaker 1: not just the US's problem. This is Columbia's problem, this
Speaker 1: is Brazil's problem, his Candada's problems, is everybody else's problem.
Speaker 1: It's not just the US problem. And this is not
Speaker 1: the US is not the only country who has the
Speaker 1: capability to really put an end to this crisis, and
Speaker 1: these shouldn't leave it up to us to deal with it.
Speaker 1: Anna Kintana over at Heritage, Anna, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for joining us. Appreciate it now. I was great talking you.
Speaker 1: All right, team, We'll be right back. This is obviously
Speaker 1: a very serious situation. The President has been monitoring at
Speaker 1: the minute by minute throughout the day, as have his advisors.
Speaker 1: We see this now as a potentially dispositive moment in
Speaker 1: the efforts of the Venezuelan people to regain their freedom,
Speaker 1: which we fully support. We think it's still very important
Speaker 1: for key figures in the regime who have been talking
Speaker 1: to the opposition over these last three months to make
Speaker 1: good on their commitments to achieve the peaceful transfer of
Speaker 1: power from the Maduro clique to enter in President Juan Guido.
Speaker 1: The Cubans, we believe have played a very significant role
Speaker 1: in propping Maduro up today, possibly with help from the Russians,
Speaker 1: that's the speculation. Certainly in Caracas. We think this demonstrates
Speaker 1: why we need Venezuela ruled by the people of Venezuela
Speaker 1: and not by external forces. Just some final thoughts here
Speaker 1: on what's happening in Venezuela. There you had a National
Speaker 1: Security Visor Bolton give a kind of overview statement of
Speaker 1: what's happening right now down to our south in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: And I do think that it's easy to overstate how
Speaker 1: much this does affect us. And I would want to
Speaker 1: put in some context here that at the end of
Speaker 1: the day, Venezuela being a disaster or not, we wanted
Speaker 1: to be a happy, prosperous country and that would be
Speaker 1: best for the people of Venezuela, be best for our hemisphere,
Speaker 1: and certainly for US companies that have assets there and
Speaker 1: the oil markets and our access to Venezuelan Crewe does
Speaker 1: these things do have effects on us, I'm not saying
Speaker 1: we are. And then you add in the drug component
Speaker 1: of this, the illegal drugs that are flowing from Venezuela
Speaker 1: with state support all the way up into the United States.
Speaker 1: But ultimately this really is a Venezuelan problem. And I
Speaker 1: think that part of what the Trump administration has been
Speaker 1: promising us all along is that we wouldn't do what
Speaker 1: recent administrations have done, which is decided that we are
Speaker 1: going to make everyone else's problems our problems, that we
Speaker 1: are not going to push for a kind of US
Speaker 1: making everyone else's issues go away foreign policy. And I
Speaker 1: think that that's important guiding principle for US, I really do,
Speaker 1: and I would like to see more going forward. I'd
Speaker 1: like to see more of that in Venezuela. We're doing
Speaker 1: some stuff, We're not doing too much stuff yet. I
Speaker 1: hope it stays that way. Do I think this is
Speaker 1: going to get if you're wondering, I do think this
Speaker 1: is just going to get a lot uglier. I don't
Speaker 1: think this is going to turn the peaceful transfer power.
Speaker 1: We're past that, in my opinion. I could be wrong.
Speaker 1: I'm hoping. I mean, there's already been some violence, or
Speaker 1: a fair amount of violence, just in the last twenty
Speaker 1: four hours. But I think this is going to turn
Speaker 1: into some real pitched battles in the streets. I just
Speaker 1: can't see someone like Mduro walking away from the controls
Speaker 1: of power. Remember, it's not just him, it's all of
Speaker 1: his top people. It's their fears about their families, it's
Speaker 1: their future in their minds, no matter what, never how
Speaker 1: thuggish their behavior has been. Thugs don't want to rot
Speaker 1: in a Venezuelan prison, you know, thugs don't want to
Speaker 1: be held to account for drug trafficking, and whatever they
Speaker 1: have to do, they're gonna do. So I think that
Speaker 1: this is I think this is going to get worse
Speaker 1: before it gets better. Now, switching gears here for a
Speaker 1: moment if I can, because there's a lot of conversation
Speaker 1: out there about socialism and why why can't we learn
Speaker 1: the lesson of history that socialism does not work. It
Speaker 1: just like oh but Bok, Sweden and Denmark, and those
Speaker 1: are not socialist countries. They are countries with very high
Speaker 1: taxes and very large social welfare programs, but they're also
Speaker 1: culturally quite cohesive and have traditions and government systems in
Speaker 1: place that tend to be more efficient and corruption free
Speaker 1: than what you have in a lot of other places.
Speaker 1: Latin America is not well known for rooting out corruption
Speaker 1: in its midst to put it mildly, but another problem
Speaker 1: that we have. You know, why can't we learn the
Speaker 1: lesson of why socialism is bad? Or why can't we
Speaker 1: learn the lesson about how enlarging government does not result
Speaker 1: in all these magical and wonderful things we're told that
Speaker 1: it will. Well, it's because we're being we're often lied
Speaker 1: to about it. There's not It's not just that people
Speaker 1: don't learn the lessons of history. The leadership that's supposed
Speaker 1: to be able to tell us, Hey, you know, we've
Speaker 1: all learned this lesson together. No, they make it up
Speaker 1: as they go along. I mean, here is Biden who
Speaker 1: made some appearances today on the show, and I'm just
Speaker 1: gonna keep saying it. I don't think he's impressive. I
Speaker 1: don't think he's a real threat. I just don't think
Speaker 1: he can be Trump at all. I think anyone who
Speaker 1: really believes that is kind of deluding themselves. But Biden
Speaker 1: lies about the Trump tax cuts. He just lies about it.
Speaker 1: Pay sixteen. It's well past time that the minimum ways
Speaker 1: can actually be a minimum of fifteen dollars. Time to
Speaker 1: start rewarding work over a wealth test. The first step
Speaker 1: is the reverse President Trump's tax cut for the very
Speaker 1: wealthy and corporations. We need to eliminate these special tax
Speaker 1: creates from the fact coach that rewards special mectis. Let's
Speaker 1: get rid of capital gains loophole for multi millionaires. Warren
Speaker 1: Buffets said the best he should not pay a lower
Speaker 1: tax fraate than the Secretary has thanks love. That's because
Speaker 1: the capital gains. It's wrong. You know what else is wrong?
Speaker 1: Saying that the tax cuts were only for the wealthy.
Speaker 1: It's a lie. It's not just an opinion, it's it's
Speaker 1: a lie to say that. But Biden goes around saying that.
Speaker 1: You'll notice that the does the media do a whole
Speaker 1: pinocchios thing about Biden every time he says, of course
Speaker 1: not fact checkers. Just like all the rest of the media,
Speaker 1: fact checkers are are a dominated profession by leftists, and
Speaker 1: they use it to great effect to push their own
Speaker 1: political agenda. So why don't we learn the lessons, in
Speaker 1: part because we're always being lined to and people have
Speaker 1: other things to do. Then dig into the history, although
Speaker 1: I hopefully cover a fair amount of it here on
Speaker 1: the show. But yeah, Biden lies a lot, folks. Keep
Speaker 1: that in mind. We'll be right back. A Navy seal
Speaker 1: accused of war crimes. This story has been getting some attention.
Speaker 1: We're hoping that it gets more because our guest joining
Speaker 1: us now says that this is this is unjust, this
Speaker 1: is not right, what is happening, and he'll give us
Speaker 1: all the backstory. Here we have our friend Tyler Merritt
Speaker 1: joining us. He is a formerly a member of the
Speaker 1: United States Armed Forces and he is currently the CEO
Speaker 1: of nine Line Apparel. Tyler, thanks for joining us, Hey,
Speaker 1: thanks for having me on all. So tell me the
Speaker 1: story here. What do people and in case they don't know,
Speaker 1: give us a little bit of the backstory too. What
Speaker 1: do they need to know right now about Eddie Gallagher? Well,
Speaker 1: if you want to know all the false news, you
Speaker 1: can go to New York Times check out David phillips
Speaker 1: ridiculous article about Navy seal warns against reporting their chief
Speaker 1: full war crimes, where he goes on and publicly condemns
Speaker 1: the allegations of the actions of this Navy seal. And
Speaker 1: really that's the main premise is that this individual has
Speaker 1: been deemed guilty and now has to prove himself innocent,
Speaker 1: and not only the eyes of the public opinion, but
Speaker 1: now with the UCMJ, and as we both know, the
Speaker 1: UCMJ system is a little bit flawed and the fact
Speaker 1: that you don't have the same freedoms and rights that
Speaker 1: a civilian does. And I think that the American public
Speaker 1: needs to know that there's currently some undue command influence
Speaker 1: that are affecting this case, and there's some false narratives
Speaker 1: out there that have the potential of sending a veteran
Speaker 1: the US Navy seals. So when he's been in the
Speaker 1: army for the Navy for nineteen and a half years
Speaker 1: to prison for the rest of his life without the
Speaker 1: positive possibility of UM. This is just something that needs
Speaker 1: to get out there and people need to listen and
Speaker 1: understand why the President has stepped up and said that
Speaker 1: he needs to be removed from a confinement. Uh. Can
Speaker 1: I ask that what? What is the what is the
Speaker 1: narrative that the as you said, the New York Times
Speaker 1: and some of the leftist media is saying about this guy?
Speaker 1: And then and then what's the what are the facts
Speaker 1: of the cases? You know them? Yeah? So the New
Speaker 1: York Time has said that in addition to um murdering
Speaker 1: a seventeen year old boy, he also killed or attempted
Speaker 1: to kill a small child. Uh, this is my favorite
Speaker 1: part of the report. So you understand terminal bilistics and
Speaker 1: caliber of a long range assault rifle, especially something you
Speaker 1: know just below a fifty cow and what it would
Speaker 1: do to a small child if you were to strike them.
Speaker 1: And the Times report says that I witness accounts uh
Speaker 1: say that Gallagher shot a small girl and then she
Speaker 1: got up and walked away. You shoot someone with a
Speaker 1: fifty calor equivalent in the so calm round. They're not
Speaker 1: getting up. Their body parts are being spread apart many
Speaker 1: many feet. And really the premise of this is there's
Speaker 1: a video and some images of a ISIS fighter, not
Speaker 1: a child, a seventeen year old military aged man who, yes,
Speaker 1: we the United States murdered him. We did it with
Speaker 1: missiles from an aircraft. You wanted a why because you're
Speaker 1: you're an intelligence community? What is a source? You know,
Speaker 1: when we're tracking a source and the special operations between ECIA,
Speaker 1: you know that? Or the device it's their cell phone.
Speaker 1: You know, we're tracking this individual who's a bomb maker.
Speaker 1: It doesn't matter. He's seventeen years old, and we prosecuted
Speaker 1: a target. They went and exploited the target for ssee
Speaker 1: site survey exploitation, and they found this seventeen year old.
Speaker 1: The Iraqi general is seen interrogating him and he's got
Speaker 1: you know, what looks like a severed promoral artery. He's
Speaker 1: got a sucking chest. Women, he's in bad shape, lethargic
Speaker 1: in the video, and this Iraqi general it was actually
Speaker 1: tracked down by friends of mine after the fact, and
Speaker 1: he has gone on record saying that the Navy field
Speaker 1: did not murder this child. He actually intervened to try
Speaker 1: to provide life saving techniques and there's actually a video
Speaker 1: out there that shows him doing this. But what happened was,
Speaker 1: after all of this occurred, Eddie and his platoon from
Speaker 1: the Sale Team seven made a bad decision. They took
Speaker 1: a picture with the deceased all around him, and Eddie
Speaker 1: had a knife out and was holding onto the child,
Speaker 1: and then the captain of a picture it said something
Speaker 1: the fact that I got him with my hunting knife,
Speaker 1: and that's really where this whole thing came about. People
Speaker 1: to that ran with it. And the facts of the
Speaker 1: case are that this Navy seal attempted to provide life
Speaker 1: saving techniques to an individual who severely wounded did not
Speaker 1: end up being able to keep him alive. But the
Speaker 1: rumor mill had already started from this picture, and the
Speaker 1: Navy commander at Captain Rosenblow, even though he was presented
Speaker 1: with copious amounts of evidence and eyewitness accounts and videos
Speaker 1: that said he did not murder this child, and by ways,
Speaker 1: now a child is a fighter. He decided to proceed
Speaker 1: with charges anyways as his right as a commander, and
Speaker 1: chose not to go through SOCA, not to go through
Speaker 1: naval special warfare, but to go through conventional Navy. And
Speaker 1: since then they have leaked information into the New York Times,
Speaker 1: as the New York Times reporter has stated, they've withheld
Speaker 1: a lot of the exculpatory evidence, and they can seemed
Speaker 1: to push this narrative that this Navy seal killed a child,
Speaker 1: and while the actions of taking pictures imposing with the
Speaker 1: deceased are not, you know, widely condoned or really understood.
Speaker 1: I'll tell you from being someone who's deployed many, many
Speaker 1: times with guys in the special operations community, you're asking
Speaker 1: people to go do bad things to bad people, and
Speaker 1: you have to dehumanize individuals sometimes. And that's not making excuses.
Speaker 1: It's trying to explain to the general public that if
Speaker 1: you ask an individual as deploy ten, twelve, thirteen times
Speaker 1: and to go take out the enemy, it does desensitize people.
Speaker 1: And that's the dark humor that people don't understand. We're
Speaker 1: speaking to Tyler, Tyler Merritt's CEO of nine Line Apparel
Speaker 1: and a former combat pilot in the special Operations community himself, Tyler,
Speaker 1: the treatment that this Navy seal has received is also
Speaker 1: a major concern of yours, and you want to raise
Speaker 1: awareness about that. I think most most folks you know
Speaker 1: who don't have family and military or having served themselves,
Speaker 1: would assume that, well, at least while awaiting trial or
Speaker 1: a while awaiting due process within the UCMJ system, that
Speaker 1: someone like Chief Gallagher would be treated reasonably well. But
Speaker 1: from what I see here, that is not the case,
Speaker 1: absolutely not. So he was put to pre trial confinement
Speaker 1: in prison, would rapist and murders for the last seven
Speaker 1: months only until a Republican Duncan Harner Pete, he saith
Speaker 1: other individuals stepped up and begged for the President to intervene,
Speaker 1: and he did and he ordered for Gallagher to be
Speaker 1: released from pre trial confinement. Well, this Navy captain has
Speaker 1: some serious pulse and really big Hines decided that he
Speaker 1: would institute his own pre trial confinement on the naval base.
Speaker 1: So Eddie is not allowed to be out of uniform,
Speaker 1: he's not allowed to have visitors, even Republican representatives. Stunking
Speaker 1: Hunter or one of his associates attempted to stop by
Speaker 1: because you know he was involved with this case, and
Speaker 1: the captain would not allow that individual to see at
Speaker 1: a gallaghery, he's not allowed to talk to his lawyer
Speaker 1: without using the phone that is issued to the watch commander,
Speaker 1: and the watch commander stands directly over it. And so
Speaker 1: imagine trying to have a conversation with your attorney about
Speaker 1: your case, but your commander's delegate is standing two inches
Speaker 1: away from him. That's not really privacy. In addition to that,
Speaker 1: he's not allowed to really talk along, so he can
Speaker 1: talk for five minutes about his case that could send
Speaker 1: him to prisons his life. And then he's told him
Speaker 1: needs to get the phone back, but he's not allowed
Speaker 1: to cell phone and he's not allowed a computer. By
Speaker 1: the way, the only reason you take away computers are
Speaker 1: for like pedophilia. People who have an issue with that
Speaker 1: are usually told you can't have a computer, But a
Speaker 1: computer's kind of needed to prepare for your defense of
Speaker 1: your life. Tyler, I know you, what would you like
Speaker 1: to see? And there's a part of this as well,
Speaker 1: that's an action item for folks who want to try
Speaker 1: to help the Chief Gallagher, but well, what would you
Speaker 1: propose or what would you recommend that the president or
Speaker 1: just the military chain of command due in the circumstance.
Speaker 1: Hashtag free Eddie. Social media is a powerful tool. Continue
Speaker 1: to push to your congressman the senators that you know,
Speaker 1: we have a lot of people who voluntarily sign up
Speaker 1: for the armed services. They're willing to give their life.
Speaker 1: Eddie has done his duty to this country. He does
Speaker 1: not deserve this. He deserves the right to a fair trial.
Speaker 1: He deserves to be home with his wife and children.
Speaker 1: You know, this is devastating for him emotionally, mentally and
Speaker 1: for his family. You know, to put someone through that,
Speaker 1: he's already done so much, to not even give him
Speaker 1: the modicum of respect of the presumption of innocence is
Speaker 1: absolutely ridiculous. And that's the one major flaw of the
Speaker 1: U s UCMJ system, This presumption of guilt just by
Speaker 1: an accusation, and there's tons of false accusations out there.
Speaker 1: I would equate it to the he said, she said
Speaker 1: rape accusations. You know, rape is horrible, it's serious, but sometimes,
Speaker 1: as we all know, people make those things up in
Speaker 1: this case. There's a lot of the backstory to kind
Speaker 1: of explain here of how this came about. But you know,
Speaker 1: you have some millennial, younger Navy seals that you didn't
Speaker 1: like Gallagher, and Gallagher's promoted and going to be in
Speaker 1: charge of the training center, and they didn't agree with
Speaker 1: his tactics. He did a lot of daytime operations and
Speaker 1: as you and I both know, those are the most dangerous,
Speaker 1: but they're also the most effective. So it creates controversy
Speaker 1: across It creates ribs, and then people decide, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm going to make it complaint Eddie Gallagher kills children.
Speaker 1: He shouldn't be in charge of people and sending training.
Speaker 1: And a lot of times the military we sweep things
Speaker 1: in the rug. We just reassigned people. In a lot
Speaker 1: of time, people absolutely overreact and they take these accusations
Speaker 1: as truth as opposed to digging into the facts. So
Speaker 1: posing with a deceased isis fighter is bad, But that's
Speaker 1: a war crime that you need to go to prison
Speaker 1: for the rest of your life. Then I knowing a
Speaker 1: lot of people who should be very concerned, and you're
Speaker 1: selling two shirts to raise money for Eddie's defense at
Speaker 1: nine Line Apparels, I understand it. Yeah, yeah, And the
Speaker 1: last few weeks have been able to raise almost one
Speaker 1: hundred thousand dollars for his defense, and that's great and
Speaker 1: it sounds like a lot, but unfortunately he's going up
Speaker 1: against a giant soon with unlimited resources, and the average
Speaker 1: costs or something like this is four or five hundred
Speaker 1: thousand dollars, so we're a little bit short. If people
Speaker 1: go to nine Line apparel dot com, they can obviously
Speaker 1: purchase shirts. You can also Google search the hashtag of
Speaker 1: free Eddie and you'll see all the different non profits
Speaker 1: involving can directly give funds. But honestly, the best thing
Speaker 1: that could happen is to create a big public outcry
Speaker 1: and learn and get educated on all the ins and
Speaker 1: outs of what's wrong with the UCMJ system. And the
Speaker 1: only thing that I'd say is a positive is the
Speaker 1: power of social media and the power of the press
Speaker 1: to be able to go push back. DD And now
Speaker 1: the Secretary of Defense last night issued a demand for
Speaker 1: the IG in Sector General to look at the dealings
Speaker 1: of the prosecutors because they're leaking information to the press,
Speaker 1: false information which is an absolute crime. And they're withholding
Speaker 1: information material information from the defense attorneys, which is another
Speaker 1: absolute crime. And these things can be proven. So it's
Speaker 1: a really big black eye in the Navy, and when
Speaker 1: recruitments at an all time low and you're having issues
Speaker 1: trying to get people to come and join the services,
Speaker 1: ying one of your own under a false narrative by
Speaker 1: a New York Times reporter that continues to exacerbate the
Speaker 1: situation for you know, personal games, clickbait, Dave Phillips making infamous.
Speaker 1: This guy is not a reporter, this is not fact.
Speaker 1: He's a warrior, and he's he's he's deserves a lot
Speaker 1: more process and presumption of innocence than he's getting right now,
Speaker 1: that's for sure. Tyler Merritt, everybody, CEO, Nineline Apparel, Tyler,
Speaker 1: thanks for calling him, my friend. We'll talk to you soon. Thanks,
Speaker 1: but team, we'll be right back. I want to make
Speaker 1: sure that those who work in the oil and gas industry,
Speaker 1: those who work in the fossil fuel industry, are brought
Speaker 1: along as partners to make sure that we make this
Speaker 1: transition in the ten years that we have left to us,
Speaker 1: as the science and scientists tell us. So I'm going
Speaker 1: to work with listen to everyone, anytime, anywhere to make
Speaker 1: sure that we advance this agenda and get to zero
Speaker 1: net zero greenhouse gas emissions by twenty fifty or Donda
Speaker 1: just ten years because of global warming, but I just Betto,
Speaker 1: I thought it was twelve years. Like what happened on
Speaker 1: the global warming? Oh my gosh, where is Betto? This
Speaker 1: guy is entirely unserious as a political candidate, but in
Speaker 1: an era of left wing absurdity, it's hard. It's hard
Speaker 1: to say that with any certainty. Beto. It's like, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, at the bottom of the polls, like
Speaker 1: he's just not doing well. He went from being the
Speaker 1: new hotness, apparently very popular with the ladies. I don't
Speaker 1: really see it, ladies. I'm just I don't see it.
Speaker 1: I don't know what to tell you. But you know,
Speaker 1: he went from being the guy to now somebody who
Speaker 1: people are thinking. He may not last that long in
Speaker 1: this whole thing. It's possible that he has some breakout
Speaker 1: moment or whatever it may be, but the Democrats have
Speaker 1: turned on him pretty rapidly. But here he is making
Speaker 1: this case about how we're gonna have nets zero greenhouse
Speaker 1: gas emissions by twenty fifty. Does anyone take these people,
Speaker 1: these politicians seriously when they say stuff like this, Beto
Speaker 1: O'Rourke is going to have nothing to do. He's gonna
Speaker 1: have no say in the conversation in well, I was
Speaker 1: going to say in five years, never mind in thirty
Speaker 1: and more like five months, given the way that he's
Speaker 1: going right now. I don't understand how people can be
Speaker 1: so fooled by this climate change absurdity. I don't understand
Speaker 1: how they can think that this is really this catastrophic threat.
Speaker 1: I mean I analyze for you often what they think
Speaker 1: and how they presented and the way. But at the
Speaker 1: end of the day, it's so idiotic that it's it's
Speaker 1: just hard to fathom. It's such a stupidity and such
Speaker 1: an obvious delusion. But for a lot of Democrats it
Speaker 1: is a matter of orthodoxy now. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: if you deviate from this, I don't think you can
Speaker 1: be in good standing anymore as a Democrat and not
Speaker 1: be a climate change at armist. I think it is
Speaker 1: now in that same category along with being pro choice,
Speaker 1: you know, pro abortion. I think you have to be
Speaker 1: pro abortion. I think you have to be pro well
Speaker 1: anti gun. You have to be you know, those are
Speaker 1: the I'm trying to think what else on the left? Oh,
Speaker 1: you have to be part of the transagenda now to
Speaker 1: be a leftist. If you are a Democrat and you're
Speaker 1: not in favor of make believe, pronounce for people and
Speaker 1: all that stuff that that you're you're going to get
Speaker 1: a lot of heat. And Beto is a bit of
Speaker 1: an idiot on policy, but you know who else is
Speaker 1: not smart on policy? And it's doing incredibly well for
Speaker 1: the Democrats. Alexandria Ocasio Orte Cortez, who had this to
Speaker 1: say about the Veterans Administration the VA, something that she
Speaker 1: I'm sure knows absolutely nothing about. But in case you
Speaker 1: didn't know, now you know play eleven about healthcare. That's
Speaker 1: because we can starve our public system start of budgets
Speaker 1: the job we can see. You know, she she knows
Speaker 1: nothing about the VA. She has no substance to the
Speaker 1: things that she says, but neither it is Betto. And
Speaker 1: what you see is that Democrats this doesn't bother them
Speaker 1: at all. These people are effectively actors, and that's why
Speaker 1: they care so much about their appearance and their ethnicity
Speaker 1: and their you know, their personal story and how they
Speaker 1: fit into the diversity diversity rhetoric and all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Um because it's so superficial and the Democratic Party doesn't
Speaker 1: seem to have any uniting principles whatsoever other than big
Speaker 1: government stayed in place of God and putting forward some
Speaker 1: politicians who are just ignoramuses. Rock and roll fellow patriots,
Speaker 1: we made ours go up to eleven. It's time for
Speaker 1: Roll Call Ronnie. Remember Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: for Roll Call Ronnie Rights. Commercial for Bob left Zets
Speaker 1: podcast comes on before your show. It starts with welcome
Speaker 1: back to the Bob left Set show. Very confusing. Some
Speaker 1: people turn off your show thinking they got the wrong show. Well, Ronnie, hopefully,
Speaker 1: hopefully we can figure that out. That's not good. I
Speaker 1: don't know what's going on there. I do not know
Speaker 1: what that's all about, but we will look into it, Ronnie.
Speaker 1: You know I got We're on a new podcast platform now.
Speaker 1: You know, Buck's only got so many, so many things
Speaker 1: he can handle at one time, so I'll have to
Speaker 1: look into this one. Thanks guys for bringing to my
Speaker 1: attention Monique Rights Aloha. I wanted to know who covered
Speaker 1: for you on April twenty ninth, twenty nineteen. An English
Speaker 1: gentleman liked him. I like you too, doing guest appearances
Speaker 1: on Fox News. Thank you well, Monique. That would be
Speaker 1: Rahim Kassam, who has the fanciest of accents, imaginable, and
Speaker 1: he talks on radio very effectively because he also wears
Speaker 1: a silk scarf all the time. It's true. I hang
Speaker 1: out with Rahim in DC. I know, let's called posh
Speaker 1: British accent, but Raheim does a great job. I was
Speaker 1: glad he's able to fill in. He did it from
Speaker 1: Florida yesterday. I was in Florida over the weekend. I
Speaker 1: had a great time down in South Beach. Yeah that's right.
Speaker 1: I needed so everybody else in this town with let's
Speaker 1: go to the White House Correspondence dinner. I was like, nap,
Speaker 1: I don't think so, no White House Correspondence dinner for me.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna just go down to South Beach and enjoy
Speaker 1: the sights and some delicious food and some great weather.
Speaker 1: And I firmly stand behind my decision. It was the
Speaker 1: right one. So there we go. Terry, listen to you
Speaker 1: every night often be a podcast. I was trying to
Speaker 1: comment on Roll Call. Has no one else made the
Speaker 1: comparison of Joe Biden and Michael Scott from the TV
Speaker 1: show The Office. Both are from Scranton, Pennsylvania, super awkward
Speaker 1: and unaware of how clueless they truly are. Shields Hi, Terry, Terry.
Speaker 1: I don't think I've never heard anybody else make that
Speaker 1: particular comparison, but I can appreciate that you are thinking
Speaker 1: outside the box. Although Michael Scott, I think is more
Speaker 1: is certainly more humorous, and I would even argue more
Speaker 1: considerably more likable than Joe Biden. I think this whole
Speaker 1: likable Joe Biden thing is kind of a facade. I
Speaker 1: think he's a very kind of grinning cheshire cat style politician,
Speaker 1: you know, real, real classic smiles that you shakes your hand,
Speaker 1: glad hands, you kisses, the baby's head tells you what
Speaker 1: you want to hear, and then you know, up to
Speaker 1: the next one. So I am not impressed. I think
Speaker 1: that Biden's going to flame out pretty quickly. I think
Speaker 1: his candidacy is not going to be what a lot
Speaker 1: of liberals are hoping it is. It's like they never
Speaker 1: learned the lesson Biden is right in the mold of
Speaker 1: Hillary twenty sixteen, John Carry two thousand and six, right
Speaker 1: or no two thousand and four. Sorry, not six not
Speaker 1: six seven, not six four John Carry in two thousand
Speaker 1: and four. These are not people who are inspiring. These
Speaker 1: are default establishment Democrat candidates, and that has not worked
Speaker 1: out well for them. They need We'll see. Look, I don't.
Speaker 1: I also don't want to give the Democrats. You guys
Speaker 1: like Buck, shut up, don't give them any advice. I
Speaker 1: know it's true. I don't want to help them pick
Speaker 1: a better candidate either. I don't think that that makes
Speaker 1: sense for anybody so, or at least doesn't make sense
Speaker 1: for us. So we shall see. We'll see how it goes.
Speaker 1: I am not impressed by him, though, Sue, Right, Buck,
Speaker 1: do you have any influence over who takes your place
Speaker 1: on Rising? When you were away I couldn't even finish
Speaker 1: listening to it because your substitute was such a poor
Speaker 1: representative of conservative views. I know the format is to
Speaker 1: be positive, but you're able to do that while still
Speaker 1: standing up against distortions and misrepresentations of the president. I'm
Speaker 1: still feeling hurry back, We'll sue, I'm back today, So
Speaker 1: that is the good news. The other answer to your
Speaker 1: question is no, I don't have any Rising is something
Speaker 1: that is not run by me. I'm a talent on
Speaker 1: that radio. I run right radio. I get to make
Speaker 1: the make the final call as long as producer Mike
Speaker 1: says it's okay, as long as he gives me, you know,
Speaker 1: the atta boy, then then I can do it. But
Speaker 1: but other than the two of us, there's really nothing else.
Speaker 1: I mean, they let they let me run my own
Speaker 1: ship here, and it's very different on Rising. It's it's
Speaker 1: a big website, it's TV. You got a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of producers and everybody else gets to weigh in on things.
Speaker 1: So there you go. Um, but I don't even know who. Honestly,
Speaker 1: I don't even know who filled in from when I'm
Speaker 1: gone because I was on the beach. I'll tell you
Speaker 1: guys this. I left my phone in the hotel when
Speaker 1: I went down to the beach, and it was great
Speaker 1: just just to go like four or five hours at
Speaker 1: a time, no no cell phone. I really recommend you
Speaker 1: do this because I realized when I was doing it
Speaker 1: that this is the first time in quite some time
Speaker 1: that I had done that. And at first you have
Speaker 1: a little bit of phone fomo. You know, where's where's
Speaker 1: my phone? Well, I gotta grab my phone. Where's my phone?
Speaker 1: But then you recognize that you can live your life
Speaker 1: without having a pocket computer in your hand at all times.
Speaker 1: You can and enjoy yourself. You can listen to the
Speaker 1: ocean waves, you can enjoy conversation with friends, get some sun,
Speaker 1: go for a walk on the beach, drink a couple
Speaker 1: of margarita's, maybe three or four. All that can be
Speaker 1: done without that device in your hand all the time.
Speaker 1: I think we're all becoming slaves to our little devices,
Speaker 1: and in media world, becoming slaves to social media too,
Speaker 1: which is the shame. I don't know how to get
Speaker 1: around it, but that's where it is. But Sue, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for writing in appreciate it. Adam writes
Speaker 1: Buck the line from Transformers is autobots transform and roll out,
Speaker 1: not autobots unite? You maybe cry out, ugh, shields high
Speaker 1: autobots transform and roll out? Huh, I guess it's not
Speaker 1: autobots unite? What maybe it's Is it ThunderCats unite? No,
Speaker 1: it's ThunderCats ho right, mark your ThunderCats guy? Come on,
Speaker 1: I have no clue. You have no idea what I'm
Speaker 1: talking about? You all right? Fine? I remember ThunderCats. ThunderCats.
Speaker 1: Oh that's a great show back in the day. I
Speaker 1: love ThunderCats, ThunderCats Evening Book podcast Minion. Here, this is
Speaker 1: from Michael listening to Thursday Show. Just gotta answer the challenge.
Speaker 1: The man that wrecked up a fake club at the
Speaker 1: Herald Club was Axel Foley, and he was speaking with
Speaker 1: the chief of the Bedhils Police Department. Boom moving Ninja
Speaker 1: status confirmed, she'll tieh well, Michael, indeed, boom and confirmed. Carrie, right,
Speaker 1: thank you for not praising the Book of Mormon show,
Speaker 1: Ugh from a Mormon. Yeah, you know, Carrie, I'm I'm
Speaker 1: all for humor. That's meant in good faith, and I
Speaker 1: you know, and I like edgy and I like pushing
Speaker 1: the boundaries. I just in the Book of Mormon stuff,
Speaker 1: there's a lot of curse words in place of punchlines.
Speaker 1: In my opinion, I just didn't it wasn't my cup
Speaker 1: of tea. Wasn't my cup of tea. It was too much,
Speaker 1: too much of that for me. Jesse Rights, Hey, buck Love,
Speaker 1: the show had two questions for you on Friday. You
Speaker 1: were talking about how the left is trying to control
Speaker 1: the conversation by controlling the language. So why don't we
Speaker 1: do the same and reject their definition and use our own,
Speaker 1: such as an assault weapon is only missiles and rockets
Speaker 1: instead of what they say. The other question is, are
Speaker 1: there any leftists you find to be intelligent that I
Speaker 1: can listen to see what their side of the argument is.
Speaker 1: Shields High Jesse. Two very interesting points questions from Jesse here,
Speaker 1: So let me try to take these and dive into
Speaker 1: them a little bit. On the control of language, I
Speaker 1: would prefer that we just refuse to abandon the language
Speaker 1: that we already have and alter the language that we
Speaker 1: already have to suit leftist fancies, to suit the leftist agenda,
Speaker 1: because we don't have the same capabilities of megaphone dominance
Speaker 1: that the left does when it comes to the media academia,
Speaker 1: and so I just think that we're inherently going to
Speaker 1: be in a losing battle if we try to make
Speaker 1: them use words, for example, that essentially concede the point
Speaker 1: in a debate before you've even had the debate, And
Speaker 1: that that's what the left is always trying to do.
Speaker 1: They want you to just admit that you're wrong by
Speaker 1: using words. You know, an undocumented immigrant, for example, they're
Speaker 1: just an immigrant without without the proper documentation. There's nothing
Speaker 1: bad about it, nothing illegal about it. You already said,
Speaker 1: they're just undocumented. Just give them some documents. What's the problem.
Speaker 1: And this is true of so many different things. And
Speaker 1: it's also particularly true of pronoun usage. Now in the
Speaker 1: whole transgender discussion. If you are forced to bend the
Speaker 1: knee and say he when it's a she or she
Speaker 1: when it's a he, you've already conceded the point. Really
Speaker 1: after that, it's it's just a formality whether you agree
Speaker 1: or not, because you agree based on the language that
Speaker 1: you're using. And as to leftists that I think are
Speaker 1: worth listening to on the Russia collusion stuff, it's really
Speaker 1: by topic more than by personality. I would say. On
Speaker 1: the Russia collusion stuff, I would say that you have
Speaker 1: Glenn Greenwald is very consistent on it and really takes
Speaker 1: the left to task. Michael Tracy, who is kind of
Speaker 1: a a He's a salty little fellow, not particularly friendly
Speaker 1: from my experience, but he's good on Russia collusion. I
Speaker 1: used to be a big fan of Christopher Hitchens writing,
Speaker 1: even though he's a militant atheist and or rabbit atheists,
Speaker 1: whatever you want to call it. But he was great
Speaker 1: on radical Islam and great on the Clintons too, and
Speaker 1: there are some issues, and he's just a very very
Speaker 1: talented writer. I don't think that the left is a
Speaker 1: lot of people that are held up as great writers
Speaker 1: in the left now are just not very good writers.
Speaker 1: I don't know how to say it more than that.
Speaker 1: I mean, Michael Lewis is an incredibly talented storyteller and writer.
Speaker 1: His books are highly highly readable. He's very very good.
Speaker 1: But he's you know, he's a leftist. He's a Democrat
Speaker 1: for sure. I have to think more about who else
Speaker 1: falls into that that category in terms of who's interesting
Speaker 1: to listen to and that will go through the topics
Speaker 1: and have a real discussion. There's very little of that
Speaker 1: on the left these days. It's it's not what sells.
Speaker 1: What sells is certainty in stupidity. What sells is Ocasio
Speaker 1: Cortez saying dumb things and people saying, yeah, that's right.
Speaker 1: She knows she's great. She doesn't have to like know
Speaker 1: this stuff. She just feels and what she feels is true.
Speaker 1: Of course that is not true, but that is what
Speaker 1: people think. But I'll think more about any really worthwhile
Speaker 1: leftists these days. You know. Look, I mean there's a
Speaker 1: lot of I read The New York Times a lot.
Speaker 1: I mean, The New York Times has some excellent writers,
Speaker 1: though it's editorial writers. I don't think. Look, the New
Speaker 1: York Times is best most talented editorial writer is Ross Doubtfitt,
Speaker 1: who is their conservative. So he's not particularly pro Trump conservative,
Speaker 1: but he is the New York Times a version of
Speaker 1: a conservative. He's the most skilled at a keyboard. And
Speaker 1: I've read a lot of New York you know, people
Speaker 1: like Charles Blow. I mean, he's just not a very
Speaker 1: good writer. It's just not I mean they can get
Speaker 1: mad at me for saying it or whatever. He's just
Speaker 1: not a very good writer. Tom Friedman is a very
Speaker 1: overrated writer, just kind of mediocre. But you go through
Speaker 1: and there's there are some people that are very talented.
Speaker 1: But again, Doubtfit isn't isn't a leftist, So that doesn't
Speaker 1: really answer your question all that well, Tricia rights love
Speaker 1: your show, have a question on immigration, you know a Tricia,
Speaker 1: Actually I'm gonna come let me do We'll do a
Speaker 1: double instead of just running through this, let me do
Speaker 1: a double role call. We'll hit a quick pause. I'll
Speaker 1: be right back. We'll finish this because I missed you
Speaker 1: guys yesterday. We'll finish this out. Stay with me, all right.
Speaker 1: So I'm finishing up a role call here because it's Tuesday,
Speaker 1: and isn't it tuesday? I almost got that wrong because
Speaker 1: I miss yesterday. And I told a friend of mine
Speaker 1: yesterday down in Florida, I do miss all of you,
Speaker 1: you know, even when I get a day off and
Speaker 1: i'm having I had a great day. I had a
Speaker 1: fantastic weekend, really really enjoyed it, and just it was awesome.
Speaker 1: But great food, great company. But I just gotta tell you,
Speaker 1: I missed the show. When I'm not doing the shows,
Speaker 1: it's a problem. I'm not saying that I miss other
Speaker 1: work that I have to do, but I do miss
Speaker 1: the radio show. I do miss the radio show, all right,
Speaker 1: Trisia rights love the show. Well, thank you, Trisia love
Speaker 1: you too. Have a question or immigration, and I seriously
Speaker 1: wonder why this hasn't been done with the crazy, out
Speaker 1: of control people coming to our border. Why doesn't the
Speaker 1: Trump administration just put a bunch of judges at the
Speaker 1: border and hear the so called asylum claims and then
Speaker 1: deport them right away. Second question, why don't they also
Speaker 1: do an operation with Ice and start supporting people whose
Speaker 1: date in court passed and they didn't show up. Curious
Speaker 1: for your opinion on these ideas well, Trisha, your first
Speaker 1: suggestion is pretty much what the administration wants to do
Speaker 1: and it has been beginning to do. So you're right
Speaker 1: on target with that. They need a lot more of it.
Speaker 1: And keep in mind that whenever you're talking about judicial process,
Speaker 1: there'll be people that just try to abuse the process,
Speaker 1: meaning that they will take it upon themselves to just
Speaker 1: extend it out or find ways to make everything harder
Speaker 1: than it would otherwise be in order to just you know,
Speaker 1: use the seems in the system so that effectively people
Speaker 1: get to stay even when they're not supposed to stay.
Speaker 1: So that will still even if you have judges there,
Speaker 1: they'll probably get you know, oh, I need to challenge this,
Speaker 1: or we need an appeal, or you know, whatever it
Speaker 1: may be. There'll be different things going on. And as
Speaker 1: to the deporting people that don't qualify for asylum, that
Speaker 1: absolutely should happen. But I actually made a prediction today
Speaker 1: on Rising that what you're going to see is the
Speaker 1: moment those numbers start to tick up, when they when
Speaker 1: they accelerate the process of hearing the asylum claims and
Speaker 1: they really get a new groove. And I think they
Speaker 1: will be able to do this because they recognize it's
Speaker 1: a real it is a true national emergency. As they
Speaker 1: do that, and then it becomes clear to the Democrats
Speaker 1: and the left that you're going to have effectively a
Speaker 1: rolling mass deportation that's occurring of hundreds of thousands of people,
Speaker 1: then they're going to just try to put the brakes
Speaker 1: on that too. And that's where you see that they
Speaker 1: really are open borders and this is all in bad
Speaker 1: faith and their argument that oh, they're legally allowed to
Speaker 1: claim asylum. Yeah, but then they're legally also mandated to
Speaker 1: be deported if they don't get the asylum, they're gonna
Speaker 1: they only want the you know, they only support the
Speaker 1: legality of claiming asylum. They don't support the legality of
Speaker 1: what happens if you don't get it. You'll see that
Speaker 1: with Democrats because they don't they don't debate this in
Speaker 1: good faith. They just don't number twenty three Sexton. Nice job, Buck,
Speaker 1: you won supercross on the Freedom Bike. According a guy
Speaker 1: named Mark, there's a young man who is a supercross
Speaker 1: motorbike racer whose last name is Sexton. Sexton's are pretty
Speaker 1: common name folks for those who don't know. Just because
Speaker 1: I like to always do a little bit of fun
Speaker 1: side note education In the show, a sexton is the well,
Speaker 1: the grave digger, and the offer offering collector in a church.
Speaker 1: He also tries to usually sweep things out, keep it clean.
Speaker 1: He's kind of like the church custodian. So that's right,
Speaker 1: I'm a church janitor. That's what a sexton is, is
Speaker 1: it not a sex tant t? A NT that is
Speaker 1: for astronomical nautical usage, trying to figure out where you
Speaker 1: are using the horizon and the stars or some other
Speaker 1: nonsense like that. So there you have a team back
Speaker 1: in action, back here in the swamp. It is going
Speaker 1: to be a momentous week, that much I can assure
Speaker 1: you of. There's going to be a lot of stuff
Speaker 1: going on. Had some meetings today that leave me to
Speaker 1: believe that there's going to be some fireworks on Capitol
Speaker 1: Hill later this week, so we'll get talk about that.
Speaker 1: If you have any thoughts, suggestions, opinions, Facebook dot com,
Speaker 1: slash buck sex in the place to send them to me.
Speaker 1: I'm here every day this week, team, so get excited.
Speaker 1: I'll talk to you tomorrow. Shield's High