Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off teared down this wall. Either beer with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you got healthcare,
Speaker 1: all of it, then you can keep your plan. If
Speaker 1: you are satisfied with is not president, take it to
Speaker 1: a bank. Together, we will make America great again. It's
Speaker 1: what you've been waiting for all day. The Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show joined the conversation called Buck toll Free at eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred Buck that's eight four four, nine
Speaker 1: hundred to eight to five The Future of talk radio.
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton, Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, great
Speaker 1: to have you with me. My, oh my. We have
Speaker 1: a lot to get into today. We will discuss all
Speaker 1: the latest on the FBI, FISA abuse, the Mueller probe,
Speaker 1: the memos, the Dueling memos, all that stuff. We'll get
Speaker 1: into quite a bit of that. We'll also talk about
Speaker 1: how it looks like the government's funded. There will be
Speaker 1: no the final shutdown in it. That was off, I was,
Speaker 1: I was a little I was sharp and flat at
Speaker 1: the same time. That was just not good. But the
Speaker 1: final shutdown will not happen. Most most of you have
Speaker 1: heard right the final countdown from when you're at sports stadiums.
Speaker 1: They always play that at the end, So we will
Speaker 1: talk about what that means. We'll talk about Nancy Pelosi's marathon,
Speaker 1: DACA Grandstanding seven hours, and we'll get in to that.
Speaker 1: But and then finally I'll tell you about a an
Speaker 1: unexpected showdown between a Women's March participant and a kind
Speaker 1: and selfless Trump voter that she bumped into on the
Speaker 1: side of the road. It's going to be quite a story.
Speaker 1: We'll get to that later on the show. Good to Heavens.
Speaker 1: I think he's a Trump voter, Yes, indeed, So we
Speaker 1: will get into all of that. I need to start though,
Speaker 1: with this the latest of latest info Info deep dive
Speaker 1: on the FBI probe. The Mueller situated all this stuff, right,
Speaker 1: I still there's so many different facets to it that
Speaker 1: it's hard to find a single way to describe all
Speaker 1: of it. But here's where we know, here's what matters.
Speaker 1: Here's why you're listening in to the show so we
Speaker 1: can get into this. First of all, this guy struck
Speaker 1: uh spelled stock but we say struck he um. It's
Speaker 1: even worse than we thought. More text messages have been released.
Speaker 1: We now know more about who this guy was and
Speaker 1: what he thought about Trump. And now here's what uh,
Speaker 1: here's what we know. This is the Senate investigators have
Speaker 1: released this. It turns out that Struck is a oh,
Speaker 1: who's gonna be shocked here, a social justice warrior, That
Speaker 1: he has self righteous and deeply ignorant views on politics. Um,
Speaker 1: that he is full of disdain for Republicans. Even referred
Speaker 1: to those in in in Louden County as Hillbillies, I believe,
Speaker 1: which is interesting cause I think Loudon County is one
Speaker 1: of the five wealthiest per capita counties in the entire
Speaker 1: United States. So yeah, a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: Banjoe's played with the toes in Louden County. They're Struck. Um.
Speaker 1: So we we've seen more of who this guy is.
Speaker 1: And remember, he helped this is not just we're not
Speaker 1: just picking on some random FBI agent. As you know,
Speaker 1: he helped craft of the language for the Comy exoneration
Speaker 1: of Hillary Clinton's email crimes, because that's what they were.
Speaker 1: He has been involved that keynotes of the Hillary email
Speaker 1: investigation and the Russia probe. He was I think Deputy
Speaker 1: chief of Counterintelligence the FBI. So he's a he's a
Speaker 1: senior guy. He's not just someone that we're We're not.
Speaker 1: We're not finding the guy in charge of you know,
Speaker 1: refilling the printer in cartridges and saying, oh, look at
Speaker 1: his political opinions. Right, this is a guy who's ideas
Speaker 1: and biases matter. So we find out more about him.
Speaker 1: We find out that he says there are a lot
Speaker 1: of dumb white men in the FBI. We you know,
Speaker 1: he says a lot of nasty stuff. Um. He said
Speaker 1: that he would rather his son. Remember this is somebody
Speaker 1: that we are we are told to trust in his professionalism, folks,
Speaker 1: that he would never try to stack the deck in
Speaker 1: favor of Hillary, and he would ever tried a deep
Speaker 1: six Trump's chances, right, just trusting his professionalism. Oh, he's
Speaker 1: very professional. But Peter Struck joked in these text messages
Speaker 1: released by sending investigators today that he would rather his
Speaker 1: son be homeless than support Ted Cruz. He joked that
Speaker 1: the government should maybe shut down a pro life march.
Speaker 1: That's really funny for a federal agent to joke about.
Speaker 1: By the way, So so he's snide, he's a partisan,
Speaker 1: and he's an idiot. By the way, left quite a
Speaker 1: trail here using government devices to write this stuff. Folks,
Speaker 1: I've been there, right, I had an NYPD Intelligence Division
Speaker 1: issued uh phone smartphone, and I assure you I was
Speaker 1: not writing to my colleagues saying crazy political stuff or
Speaker 1: how I wanted to stack an investigation one way or another,
Speaker 1: because I mean, yeah, put it aside. Just this guy's
Speaker 1: obvious bias and lack of ethics. What an idiot this
Speaker 1: was that? Can we just talk about this for a second, everybody.
Speaker 1: This is the number two guy and FBI counter intelligence.
Speaker 1: This is who gets that job you want to talk
Speaker 1: about undermining institutions. I'm sorry, but he doesn't think that
Speaker 1: any of this information could be subpoena. He never stopped
Speaker 1: to think that maybe I shouldn't be saying all this stuff.
Speaker 1: Remember this is not like we went through his private
Speaker 1: right I'd feel differently about this. This isn't like we
Speaker 1: are releasing transcripts of private phone calls on his own time,
Speaker 1: on his own dime with his mistress. No, no no, no,
Speaker 1: this is what he was writing on his government issued
Speaker 1: devices he has. He is a senior counter intelligence FBI investigator.
Speaker 1: This is like, you know, a rocket scientist who can't
Speaker 1: get the DVD player to work. I mean, come on, yet,
Speaker 1: here we are. Now you're saying Buck, well, okay, you're
Speaker 1: telling me more about this. We know this guy's a
Speaker 1: dirt bag and all that, but let's you know, why
Speaker 1: do we really care? Oh, don't really care? Because some
Speaker 1: of the other stuff that was in these text messages,
Speaker 1: most notably that the president of the United States President
Speaker 1: United States wanted to be briefed on everything they were
Speaker 1: dealing with. And that was right be That was a
Speaker 1: couple of months before the election POTUS president United States
Speaker 1: President Obama at the time, Why would Obama want to
Speaker 1: know everything the FBI is doing? And the assumption here
Speaker 1: is surrounding the Clinton email probe, Well, I think that's
Speaker 1: a that's a fair question, isn't it. He wanted updates.
Speaker 1: Obama wanted updates from the FBI. Know, this is weird
Speaker 1: and a red flag for a number of reasons, But
Speaker 1: let me put out there that it is also weird
Speaker 1: because Obama very explicitly claimed that he would never get
Speaker 1: involved in anything having to do with an FBI investigation.
Speaker 1: Can you guarantee to the American people, can you direct
Speaker 1: the Justice Department to say Hillary Clinton will be treated
Speaker 1: as the evidence goes, she will not be in any
Speaker 1: way protected. I can guarantee that, and I can guarantee
Speaker 1: that not because I give Attorney General Lynch a directive
Speaker 1: that is institutionally how we have always operated. I do
Speaker 1: not talk to the Attorney General about pending investigations. I
Speaker 1: do not talk to FBI directors about pending investigations. The
Speaker 1: we have a strict line and always have maintained it
Speaker 1: previs President just a button this up. I guarantee it.
Speaker 1: I guarantee that there is no political influence in any
Speaker 1: investigation conducted by the Justice part for the FBI, not
Speaker 1: just in this case, but in any case. And she
Speaker 1: will be full stop, period, and she will be treated
Speaker 1: no guaranteed, full stop. Nobody gets treated differently when it
Speaker 1: comes to the Justice Department, because even if she ends
Speaker 1: up as the Democratic And how a many time do
Speaker 1: you have to say, Chris, guarantee guaranteed now, But see,
Speaker 1: I've got a little problem here. Why why, oh why
Speaker 1: is an FBI agent texting is mistress that Obama wants
Speaker 1: a full update on this. And it's the same guy
Speaker 1: who added the extremely careless language into the COMI exoneration
Speaker 1: letter for Hillary Clinton. I just want to know how
Speaker 1: that's possible. I need someone to explain that to me.
Speaker 1: How you could have the President of the United States
Speaker 1: who says, guaranteer, our guaranteered christ how much our guaranteer,
Speaker 1: how many times we have to go through this, But
Speaker 1: yet here we have to look at what we've seen
Speaker 1: based on these FBI texts, and the President wants an
Speaker 1: update on everything we're doing, having having through the Hillary
Speaker 1: email investigation, that would be m hmm. It's almost like
Speaker 1: maybe Obama was lying in that interview. And given that
Speaker 1: the Attorney General at the time basically de facto had
Speaker 1: to recuse herself from the investigation to Hillary Clinton's emails
Speaker 1: because of her misconduct everyone, not just because she didn't
Speaker 1: recuse herself in advance of it. Loretta Lynch had to
Speaker 1: step back. She never formally recused herself, but she had
Speaker 1: to step back or Comey had to step in for her.
Speaker 1: Oh isn't that Comey just just showing up right in
Speaker 1: the nick of time? That had to happen because of
Speaker 1: Loretta Lynch's misconduct for Barack Obama's Attorney generals misconduct by
Speaker 1: by meeting with Bill Clinton right when Hillary Clinton is
Speaker 1: not just under investigation, but a decision is going to
Speaker 1: be announced to the American public. And now we find
Speaker 1: out that some FBI not just some FBI agent and
Speaker 1: FBI agent who was intimately involved in the Hillary email
Speaker 1: investigation and the Russia probe. Is that is saying that
Speaker 1: the president wants updates on this. What are we to
Speaker 1: make of that? Folks? You know, we're gonna start putting
Speaker 1: sort of pressuring Trump to answer questions under oath, which
Speaker 1: he should not do, by the way, but if we
Speaker 1: i'd like to bring in uh former President Barack Obama
Speaker 1: asked him some questions while we're at it. President Obama,
Speaker 1: did you did you actually ever get briefed on the
Speaker 1: because then we're also gonna bring in some FBI folks,
Speaker 1: because then, you know, we know this game is played.
Speaker 1: Let's see how they like it. Did you ever let
Speaker 1: President Obama? Did you ever have a discussion with President Obama?
Speaker 1: Peter Struck, James Comey, go down the list, McCabe, Sally
Speaker 1: Yates at d o J have you ever talked to
Speaker 1: Obama about Hillary's email investigation? If we were to check
Speaker 1: the visitor's log, would you be able to account for
Speaker 1: all the different conversations in front of uh Senate, Senate
Speaker 1: committee or House committee investigating this matter. Would you really
Speaker 1: be able to do that? I'm gonna guess the answers
Speaker 1: probably No. I'm going to go out on a limb
Speaker 1: here and suggest that maybe what we're starting to figure out,
Speaker 1: or we're starting to be able to prove, is that
Speaker 1: the fix wasn't in from the d o J folks,
Speaker 1: the fix was in from President Obama. Well, we wouldn't
Speaker 1: that make a lot more sense now that we remember
Speaker 1: Obama was going on TV saying that Hillary didn't do
Speaker 1: anything wrong while the investigation was going on. We want
Speaker 1: to talk about people saying, oh, obstruction of justice with Trump, right,
Speaker 1: they forget that. Obama is like, yeah, you know, what
Speaker 1: she did is overblown, no big deal, no harm, no foul.
Speaker 1: Obama's the president. This is the actual sitting president United
Speaker 1: States is saying the Democrat content under for the presidency,
Speaker 1: who did violate classified protocols over a hundred times on
Speaker 1: our on our server, destroyed evidence, lied about it. I mean,
Speaker 1: it was a disaster. But with all of that, with
Speaker 1: all of that, we never hear about Obama's obstruction of justice.
Speaker 1: I think we deserve some answers, folks. I think we
Speaker 1: should all be allowed to know. We have a right
Speaker 1: to know what was Obama's hand in all this Hillary's emails,
Speaker 1: maybe even the Russia probe. How often was he briefed
Speaker 1: on the Russia probe? What did he know about the Russia?
Speaker 1: You know, look, I understand the game, right, Hill exert
Speaker 1: executive privilege and the but let's start asking some questions here,
Speaker 1: because now what we've se what we've seen with what's
Speaker 1: been released today, is that we've been talking about this scandal.
Speaker 1: We've been talking about this massive anti Trump conspiracy and
Speaker 1: the deep state and the anti trumpers, as though the
Speaker 1: the pinnacle of the conspiracy, the top of the conspiracy
Speaker 1: is at the Department of Justice. But I'm pretty sure
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice is under the purview of the
Speaker 1: executive branch, which means that the very very top is
Speaker 1: the president, and the president who would have been presiding
Speaker 1: over that d o J for the entire period we're
Speaker 1: looking at here with regard to Hillary's emails and leading
Speaker 1: into the change of power with the Trump presidency was
Speaker 1: former President Barack Obama. The if you like your plan,
Speaker 1: you can keep your plan. That paragon of truth and virtue,
Speaker 1: So I like a little more information on that one.
Speaker 1: I'm starting to think that the buck stops with Obama
Speaker 1: on this one, if you will. Um, maybe this is
Speaker 1: much higher up than we had even imagined beforehand. Because
Speaker 1: if President Obama was getting briefed on these emails, these
Speaker 1: lined the American people about it and having discussions about
Speaker 1: what's going to happen, that is a big deal. And
Speaker 1: I have not even gotten into the Ashley memo. Uh,
Speaker 1: the Democrats tend pager that's coming out. We've got We've
Speaker 1: got a lot more to talk about all the stuff here,
Speaker 1: but we will be a right back stay there too.
Speaker 1: The President wants to know what they're doing to try
Speaker 1: to stop Trump, because that's clearly from all the other
Speaker 1: text messages, that's what they were working on. That's what
Speaker 1: they cared about. We need to get to the bottom
Speaker 1: of this and find out what the president knew and
Speaker 1: when he knew. Clearly, the FBI covered for Hillary Clinton,
Speaker 1: the d o J covered for Hillary Clinton, and we
Speaker 1: have got to get the facts out. Congress from Gomer,
Speaker 1: it's right, we have to get the facts out. And yes,
Speaker 1: the d o J did cover for Hillary Clinton. And
Speaker 1: we've all seen now the way that d o J investigators, prosecutors,
Speaker 1: how they act when they want to get somebody i e.
Speaker 1: The Mueller probe versus how they act when they want
Speaker 1: to do everything they can to make sure that the
Speaker 1: problem goes away. Which is really just a description of
Speaker 1: the Hillary email investigation by the Department of Justice. Uh,
Speaker 1: it's it's troubling. But here we are, my friends. It
Speaker 1: is troubling to see how disparate the treatment is of
Speaker 1: Democrats and Republicans by the Department of Justice. But I'd
Speaker 1: rather us be living in reality and deal with the
Speaker 1: truth than allow these false narratives to just continue on
Speaker 1: un challenged. Um, the notion of Obama getting brief by
Speaker 1: this FBI guy Struck is well, we need to find out,
Speaker 1: like I said, and we need more information. Speaking of information,
Speaker 1: you've got a Democrat memo that's supposed to come out
Speaker 1: relatively soon or or is on schedule, I should say,
Speaker 1: to come out relatively soon. And those of you who
Speaker 1: listen to show every day, remember that yesterday I said
Speaker 1: to you that the Democrats might play games with redactions
Speaker 1: and as of today the Washington Examiner. Remember I said
Speaker 1: that they will include lots of classified stuff, so they
Speaker 1: can just in their memo, right, supersecret squirrel, supersecret squirrel.
Speaker 1: And then the debt Republicans lied about this other thing,
Speaker 1: and then supersecret squirrel, supersecret squirrel. Just keep repeating stuff
Speaker 1: that they know will will not get through because it
Speaker 1: is actually sensitive, it is actually classified. And then whatever
Speaker 1: redactions exist in the document, whatever blocked outlines there are,
Speaker 1: they can just say whatever they want publicly about how
Speaker 1: oh the Republicans are being are being so unfair they
Speaker 1: don't want the truth to get out. See all these redactions. Well,
Speaker 1: guess what I said that yesterday. This is the Washington
Speaker 1: Washington Examiner today. Quote. The Democratic memo Republicans say is
Speaker 1: very different from theirs. It's full of sources and methods,
Speaker 1: said one lawmaker, referring to highly fight information. It includes
Speaker 1: material they clearly cannot release. It's nothing but sources and methods,
Speaker 1: said a third, uh second, and a third even to
Speaker 1: the footnotes. And then, in case you were wondering, you
Speaker 1: have Adam Schiff wing in. We want to make sure
Speaker 1: that the White House does not redact our memo for
Speaker 1: political purposes. And obviously that's a deep concern. Let's think
Speaker 1: about this for a second. If the White House is redacting,
Speaker 1: what what would be the circumstances under which the White
Speaker 1: House would want less information to get out there? Right,
Speaker 1: there's this whole conspiracy against Trump, there's there. I can't
Speaker 1: conceive of anything that would go into the Carter Page
Speaker 1: visor warrant that would hurt Trump, because if something existed
Speaker 1: in the Carter Page visa warrant that would hurt Trump,
Speaker 1: we would have already heard about it. Everybody, we would
Speaker 1: have already heard about So here's what I'll say. I
Speaker 1: hope Republicans, um, I hope Republicans call their bluff on
Speaker 1: this one. If Schiff and the other Democrats decide that
Speaker 1: their approach is going to be to try and put
Speaker 1: redaction land mines in this document, I think that we should,
Speaker 1: you know, the Republicans should say all right, go for it,
Speaker 1: meaning that they should say, no, no, well we'll clear this.
Speaker 1: And now I know people say, oh, the sources and methods.
Speaker 1: You know, if some guy said some of the some
Speaker 1: guy about Carter Page at some point is that, you know,
Speaker 1: we we gotta see who we're talking about here. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm theorizing because I don't know what the sources and
Speaker 1: methods are, but it's a very important issue. Sometimes you
Speaker 1: gotta let the truth be known, folks. And I think
Speaker 1: we're there. I think Republicans if if Democrats are willing
Speaker 1: to let it, if they're willing to put it on
Speaker 1: paper and say this is what we want to release,
Speaker 1: I say go for it. The more transparency the better,
Speaker 1: because I can't see how more information hurts Trump. He's
Speaker 1: holding the line for America. Buck Sexton is back. This movie,
Speaker 1: Declassified Criminal Referral, released by Senators Grassley and Graham, shows
Speaker 1: the FBI relied heavily on the Trump dossier to secure
Speaker 1: these surveillance warrants and that Clinton associates were feeding information
Speaker 1: to the former British by Christopher Steele as he compiled
Speaker 1: the dossier, and it reads in part, the report was
Speaker 1: information that came from a foreign subsource who was in
Speaker 1: touch with redacted, a contact of redacted, a friend of
Speaker 1: the Clinton's who passed it to redacted. There are indications
Speaker 1: that the blacked out sections referred to a longtime Clinton
Speaker 1: ally and friend, Sidney Blumenthal, who you'll remember provided intelligence
Speaker 1: reports to then Secretary of State Clinton through her unsecured
Speaker 1: personal server used exclusively for government business. When you hear
Speaker 1: who the source one of the sources of that information is,
Speaker 1: You're gonna think, oh my gosh, I've heard that name
Speaker 1: somewhere before. Where could it possibly have been? And the
Speaker 1: domestic source? And I'm trying to think how Secretary Clinton
Speaker 1: to find him. I think she said he was an
Speaker 1: old friend who emailed her from time to time. That'd
Speaker 1: be really warm, really warm, drag out, he says, really
Speaker 1: not track outa Remember Cyndey Bloomenthal from the whole Benghazi situation,
Speaker 1: because Secretary of State at the time, Hillary Clinton, you
Speaker 1: will call, from the Benghazi investigations, was reaching out to
Speaker 1: Sydney Bloomenthal. That's some kind of expert on Libya. Just
Speaker 1: before we get deeper into this conversation, who's Sydney Bloomenthal?
Speaker 1: Think of him as one of the Clinton's chief hatchetmen.
Speaker 1: He was a White House advisor under Bill Clinton. And
Speaker 1: when Bill Clinton was engaged in his philandering and harassing
Speaker 1: and lying and scheming and conspiring, Sidney Blumenthal was like
Speaker 1: the first guy to always tell the rest of the
Speaker 1: White House, you know, we gotta we gotta get out
Speaker 1: there on the front line to defend Bill's reputation and
Speaker 1: has since then been something of a well a guy
Speaker 1: who does stuff for the Clintons and including spreading. He
Speaker 1: was a journalist for a while. He's written books, I think,
Speaker 1: including spreading conspiracies, all to the all for the benefit
Speaker 1: of the Clintons. He'll plant stories in the media. He
Speaker 1: is a political operative and opportunist, very close ties to
Speaker 1: the Clinton's hiller. When you're when you're emailing directly the
Speaker 1: Secretary of State or an issue like Libya and sheet
Speaker 1: cares what you have to say about it, clearly you've
Speaker 1: got some influence. So wouldn't this be interesting? Now we've
Speaker 1: been questioning here the whole fis a process around the
Speaker 1: Carter page warrant and what went into it and everything else.
Speaker 1: Now we're starting to get some very league signals. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's not definite yet again, some signals that a close
Speaker 1: Clinton hatchetman, right Sydney Bloomenthal, may have been passing along
Speaker 1: information to steal who was passing along information to the
Speaker 1: Phis Accord. My friends, this would this is like a
Speaker 1: step removed from finding out that one of the sources
Speaker 1: for the information used in the dossier to get a
Speaker 1: PHISES surveillance warrant on an American citizen. Was Hillary Clinton. Okay,
Speaker 1: this is really and I know that sounds crazy, but
Speaker 1: this is not that far, you know. This is this
Speaker 1: is somebody who has close and continuing contact and access
Speaker 1: to Hillary and she Secretary of State and has a
Speaker 1: decades long relationship with her. And now it looks like
Speaker 1: it's possible that some of the information steal got came
Speaker 1: from a hill re, a Hillary supporting really a Hillary
Speaker 1: acolyte and a political hitman of sorts, somebody who goes
Speaker 1: out there and goes after the opponents of the Clintons.
Speaker 1: That's what this guy does. That's one of his roles, right,
Speaker 1: He kind of he puts on the black hat and
Speaker 1: he goes out there and spreads the rumors and does
Speaker 1: all that stuff. If that isn't undermining whatever faith and
Speaker 1: trust that we should or could have in this visa
Speaker 1: process at this point, I don't know, guys, how much
Speaker 1: worse is it gonna get. Today we found out that
Speaker 1: the FBI, or at the top level, an FBI agent
Speaker 1: involved in Hillary's emails may have been updating Obama despite
Speaker 1: his very clear and definitive claims to the contrary on
Speaker 1: Hillary's email investigation, which brings up some questions about that.
Speaker 1: And we found out that at most likely a close
Speaker 1: friend of Hillary Clinton's, who was Trump's opponent at the time,
Speaker 1: everybody in the presidential race, a close friend of Hillary's,
Speaker 1: may have been one of the ones feeding information into
Speaker 1: the dossier. I mean, this guy still just put together
Speaker 1: a gossip compendium, and that's what this was. This was
Speaker 1: just a compilation of gossip, no real verification, no nothing.
Speaker 1: And I remember reading when BuzzFeed first published it, I
Speaker 1: guess in January, thinking the stuff with the Russian hookers
Speaker 1: and all that was. Come on, guys, doesn't even you
Speaker 1: know that that's the part of the movie. We're like,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna walk out. This doesn't make any sense. This
Speaker 1: is this is garbage, you know. But these are people
Speaker 1: that supposedly we should trust. That's that were that were
Speaker 1: worth the FBI trusting. Now I'm stuck, and I wonder
Speaker 1: what you think about this. I'm stuck going back and
Speaker 1: forth on on a file on the following issue that
Speaker 1: affects everything we're talking about here. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: I think that there was a clear effort to be
Speaker 1: to abuse power at the at the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: against Trump and in Hillary's favor. Stretching back through all
Speaker 1: the all the things we talked about, the Russia collusion
Speaker 1: probe and Hillary's emails, I think that there was a
Speaker 1: clearer But then I also feel like, was there a
Speaker 1: Trump derangement syndrome that had already spread among these individuals
Speaker 1: such that they did they did they really believe this
Speaker 1: stuff or was it a convenient pretext to go after Trump?
Speaker 1: You see what I'm saying. Did they actually think that
Speaker 1: there was a a plot of foot because they're so
Speaker 1: psychotically anti Trump, or were they conjuring the plot entirely
Speaker 1: knowing it was completely bow this just because it was
Speaker 1: a way of trying to take Trump down. I go
Speaker 1: back and forth on this because when you look at
Speaker 1: the the evidence, and it's also hard to to assess
Speaker 1: all this new evidence and information when so many of
Speaker 1: these different actors that we're seeing, particularly like Struck at
Speaker 1: the FBI and others, assume that this would never come out.
Speaker 1: So we've got to take that into account as well. Right,
Speaker 1: they were taking actions that they figured would never come
Speaker 1: to the light of day, which means that you know that.
Speaker 1: That's when I start to lean towards you know what.
Speaker 1: They knew that this was nonsense, but they figured that, hey,
Speaker 1: we can get away with it, right, we can. This
Speaker 1: gives us an excuse two surveil some of Trump's people
Speaker 1: and to start leaking stories about this to the media.
Speaker 1: Because there's another thing. If remember Obama was told about
Speaker 1: the Russia interference in the election. We knew that, right,
Speaker 1: and and the obaministration chose not to make it a
Speaker 1: bigger deal. Maybe this was offered up to Obama on
Speaker 1: a silver platter, so to speak, by the FBI, by
Speaker 1: the d o J. And had he chosen to he
Speaker 1: could have made the Russia collusion narrative a much bigger
Speaker 1: pre election story. But he might have figured out, you
Speaker 1: know what this is, This could backfire. And I think
Speaker 1: by the way, I would have you know, because there
Speaker 1: were some news reports were already coming out about this.
Speaker 1: There were some efforts in the media to get that
Speaker 1: story going, but Obama was not. And you had all
Speaker 1: these officials to write Brennan Formacy I Director and others
Speaker 1: saying hold on, you know, we should have been more
Speaker 1: aggressive about Russia collusion. We should have come out sooner
Speaker 1: on the story, Well, why didn't they when we think
Speaker 1: that went through together, folks, I think it's much more
Speaker 1: likely that they had they had come up with Essentially,
Speaker 1: they didn't take action on conspiracy that they had concocted
Speaker 1: before the election. What I mean by that is, why
Speaker 1: do they have, you know, the the leaks about the
Speaker 1: Trump and Russia and their surveillance and all the things
Speaker 1: that we started to hear. Maybe it was all being
Speaker 1: presented by some of these pro Hillary deep staters to Obama,
Speaker 1: to Loretta Lynch, you know, to Comey, to McCabe, etcetera,
Speaker 1: and or I'm sorry by them to Obama. Uh, and
Speaker 1: they just decided it's too risky to try to run
Speaker 1: with this. I see that as a real possibility here,
Speaker 1: because they have they have told us that they chose
Speaker 1: at the highest level not to make Russia a bigger
Speaker 1: issue in advance of that Russian meddling was not going
Speaker 1: to be made a bigger issue in advance of the election.
Speaker 1: Why why do you think that is given all that
Speaker 1: they given their psychotic fixation on it. Now out, I'm
Speaker 1: starting to think that maybe they put all this together
Speaker 1: and that they had that this was all in place
Speaker 1: to be the ultimate October surprise. And there's other we
Speaker 1: look at some of the way the news stories when
Speaker 1: you can see it, but Obama just couldn't quite bring
Speaker 1: himself to to do it before the allige. You know,
Speaker 1: look he put the sanctions on rush afterwards, right, I mean,
Speaker 1: you see there's all this stuff. I feel like they
Speaker 1: didn't They built this machine and then they did not
Speaker 1: fully let it loose the Russia collusion narrative right before
Speaker 1: the election, because it would have looked a little too convenient,
Speaker 1: a little too much like a construct. And so that
Speaker 1: explains some of the sloppiness with all this too, in
Speaker 1: the way that this comes together. I'm hoping that this
Speaker 1: that you see what I'm what I'm saying here. I
Speaker 1: know we're we're getting down deep into the weeds here.
Speaker 1: So my basic premise is that the FBI guys all
Speaker 1: the stuff we're seeing now is that they were trying
Speaker 1: to pull together the fires award on carter page. They
Speaker 1: were trying to create something that they wanted to make
Speaker 1: public and the Abdministration could make public, and it was
Speaker 1: gonna basically be Russia wants to get what Russia wants
Speaker 1: to elect Trump Trump people are working with the Russians
Speaker 1: and I've been talking to the Russians about how to
Speaker 1: elect Trump. They dropped that story in October. It cost
Speaker 1: Trump the election. Hillary wins and all those people struck
Speaker 1: McCabe calling me the rest of them, they're all heroes
Speaker 1: above suspicion. That's how I see it. This is how
Speaker 1: I see it all coming together. You could. You can
Speaker 1: call me crazy, but that's what I see. We've got
Speaker 1: every Linelets let's get into some calls. I'll be back
Speaker 1: right after this break. All right, let's get into a team.
Speaker 1: Got lines lit, Let's do it. We have Brian and
Speaker 1: Woos the Massachusetts in line. Hey Brian, Hey Buck. You
Speaker 1: know what I was thinking. If the demo Tress packed
Speaker 1: this memo full of sources and methods in order to
Speaker 1: force redactions by the GOP and cause a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of confusion, and I make people wonder why they if
Speaker 1: they're hiding anything, why not just give the Democrats complete
Speaker 1: control over what they can redact, because I don't think
Speaker 1: they're gonna expose their own sources and methods. And it
Speaker 1: completely takes away from from a GOP. You know, as
Speaker 1: far as you know, I think Brian, that they have
Speaker 1: to I think that the Republicans and Committee would have
Speaker 1: to vote in favor of release. So I don't think
Speaker 1: there's a way that that, you know what I'm saying,
Speaker 1: Like it's it's based on the vote. So I don't
Speaker 1: think that they're They're probably just have to vote yea
Speaker 1: or nay. They're not otherwise it doesn't go anywhere. So
Speaker 1: I don't think that would work. But now we're getting
Speaker 1: pretty down into the processes, and I look, I've never
Speaker 1: been in Congress, so I don't know exactly how it goes.
Speaker 1: I thought that the already voted on releasing it, or
Speaker 1: is that just the Intelligence Council. Yeah, No, that that's
Speaker 1: the the House Intelligence Committee voted on release. But now
Speaker 1: it goes is too. It goes through the exact same
Speaker 1: process that Republican memo did. So now it goes to Uh,
Speaker 1: there's like a period of a few days or I
Speaker 1: figure out five days. The White House is looking at it, Uh,
Speaker 1: the FBI in talent community can also weigh in on it,
Speaker 1: and then I think it goes back to the House
Speaker 1: after that, and then there's left final sort of a
Speaker 1: final release. I think that's how it goes. But again,
Speaker 1: there's there's games that are being played with the process,
Speaker 1: and and I would like to see just more information
Speaker 1: coming out. So I don't think, I don't know, let
Speaker 1: me look into that, Brian. Maybe your plan would work.
Speaker 1: I have a feeling though, that the Republicans wouldn't be
Speaker 1: in a position where they can just wash their hands
Speaker 1: of it, right. But then again, you get to the
Speaker 1: whole thing about well, why have any redactions at all?
Speaker 1: Why not just if everyone agrees that you can't say
Speaker 1: certain stuff, what's the point of leaving it in with
Speaker 1: the blacked outlines. Although I didn't even talk about the
Speaker 1: grass Lee referral about Christopher Steel that was released today,
Speaker 1: and there's a lot of blacked out stuff in that,
Speaker 1: a lot of redactions, which race some questions for me.
Speaker 1: So we're working in some some gray areas of blacked
Speaker 1: out information, Brian. But I do appreciate you calling in Shields. Hi,
Speaker 1: thanks for thanks for holding Let's get uh. Gretchen in
Speaker 1: Long Beach, Mississippi. Hey, Gretchen, Hey, how are you. I'm good?
Speaker 1: Thank you for your call. Good good good? Yeah. Well,
Speaker 1: my my thought is along the same long kind of
Speaker 1: as Brian. Um. I kind of wish, in my opinion,
Speaker 1: if it's safe enough, I would give the Democrats. Here
Speaker 1: you go, here's your twenty four hours. Um, this is
Speaker 1: your paper, your document. You you wanna, I'm gonna release
Speaker 1: it in twenty four hours because that's what you want.
Speaker 1: You've requested it. Just to shift has made it quite clear.
Speaker 1: Here you go back, make your whatever you want to
Speaker 1: do with it, put it in their court. And if
Speaker 1: it doesn't have to go back to Congress, which it
Speaker 1: probably is, to go to committee, the vote will go
Speaker 1: down party lines like I did before. Protect the people
Speaker 1: that need to be protect. Could I mean, they already
Speaker 1: know who that is, but let it out, it's already
Speaker 1: got to come out. And then it's there. It's there,
Speaker 1: It's it's their thing. They own it. And my own
Speaker 1: question was, since they wrote this document and they want
Speaker 1: to reveal these sources and methods it's stuff, isn't that
Speaker 1: revealing Since they wrote it, they own it. Do they
Speaker 1: not only also own perhaps the release of classified information
Speaker 1: if they do not redact it themselves, which would be illegal.
Speaker 1: I'm wondering how that, you know, I know, we're kind
Speaker 1: of getting into the long world of you know, down
Speaker 1: in the weeds. But I'm wondering, then if if they've
Speaker 1: written it, it's their document, then should they also own
Speaker 1: any of the repercussions legally? Well, but if they go
Speaker 1: through the process, then the information is effectively declassified. Right.
Speaker 1: So so nothing that can come out of this process
Speaker 1: would be legally actionable as classified information because if Congress
Speaker 1: approves the release, it is it is, it is declass sified, right,
Speaker 1: So it doesn't make Yeah, it doesn't maintain its classified
Speaker 1: status after the Congress does this. So that's what's really
Speaker 1: what's really interesting is in classification, and this is i think, uh,
Speaker 1: just a worthwhile addition to this conversation. Corretch and classification
Speaker 1: is always a little bit of a little bit of
Speaker 1: an art, not a science. Uh. And the truth is
Speaker 1: what is and is not sensitive government information? The government
Speaker 1: just always says, well, yeah, it's classified. I mean, if
Speaker 1: there's any hint of it's classified, they say, yes, it's classified.
Speaker 1: They always air on the side of that to the
Speaker 1: point where it's actually silly. I mean they they will
Speaker 1: classify you know what I had for lunch yesterday. I
Speaker 1: mean it's insane. But the uh, you know, the other
Speaker 1: side of this is that you have to always have
Speaker 1: a balancing of our right to know and Congress is
Speaker 1: obligations for oversight to the executive branch's ability to conduct
Speaker 1: some of its some of what it does in secret,
Speaker 1: particularly on kind of intelligence investigations, any intelligence related matter,
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it. So it's a very complicated.
Speaker 1: Go ahead, Gretchen, Okay, Well, I don't know how you know,
Speaker 1: I have a I have a son who's deployed, so
Speaker 1: we can't talk about We can talk about the weather,
Speaker 1: you know, but there's a lot that we don't talk about,
Speaker 1: like I have his dog. Your dog is doing great,
Speaker 1: you know, and superficial really kind of thing, and I
Speaker 1: don't ask. And I mean there's military parents and wives
Speaker 1: and stuff. We all know these things, you know, so
Speaker 1: we all kind of know. So Hillary apparently doesn't know,
Speaker 1: by the way, but you know, well apparently not. But
Speaker 1: you know, you have to think about even the smallest
Speaker 1: little thing, um can make a big difference, you just do.
Speaker 1: You never really know, so you know, we kind of understand.
Speaker 1: And maybe some of his parents were wives. It's all
Speaker 1: maybe a little overboard and being whatever. It's kind of awkward.
Speaker 1: It's a little hard, but it's just part of the deal.
Speaker 1: So I don't understand, uh, you know, well that the
Speaker 1: Hillary emails and all that kind of stuff. It's it's just, um,
Speaker 1: I think it shows an arrogance of power. Oh absolutely
Speaker 1: absolutely no, I mean and and also a lack of
Speaker 1: accountability and at a double standard in the justice is
Speaker 1: um gretch and tell your tell your son that we
Speaker 1: here in the freedom of sending our regards and our
Speaker 1: thanks for his service. All right, thank you very much
Speaker 1: for calling in team. We're going to roll into this
Speaker 1: break the top of the hour coming up. Second hour
Speaker 1: of the Buck's Action Show is upon us. Uh. We
Speaker 1: have a lot to discuss here, including the Pelosi. Was
Speaker 1: it seven or eight hours that she was up there? Uh,
Speaker 1: yammering on, We'll get into that and more. Stay with me.
Speaker 1: He's back with you now, because when it comes to
Speaker 1: the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. If a
Speaker 1: Dream Act were brought to the floor, it would pass
Speaker 1: immediately with strong bipartisan support. And I commend my Republican
Speaker 1: colleagues for their courage and speaking out on this. Yet
Speaker 1: our dreamers hanging limbo with a cruel cloud of fear
Speaker 1: and uncertainty above them. The Republican moral cowardice must end
Speaker 1: members of Congress or trustees of the people and of
Speaker 1: our nation. Why are we here if not to protect
Speaker 1: the patriotic young people who are determined to contribute and
Speaker 1: to strength in America. So welcome back to the buck section.
Speaker 1: To everybody. Hour two. That was your favorite. Nancy Pelosi,
Speaker 1: she gaven eight our speech today on the House floor.
Speaker 1: She went on for eight hours about dreamers. Now, there's
Speaker 1: a lot that I want to see here. Let me
Speaker 1: start with this. Democrats have a weird obsession with this issue.
Speaker 1: You'll notice this. There's a lot of other stuff going
Speaker 1: on in the country, a lot of other things that
Speaker 1: matter to Americans, and yet this has become the primary
Speaker 1: policy concerned, primary policy fight for the Democrat Party. They
Speaker 1: are using their powers in elected office to advocate for
Speaker 1: illegal aliens, which is what dreamers are. It's not a
Speaker 1: that that's not to impugne each and every one of
Speaker 1: them as individuals. It's just a factual statement about their
Speaker 1: legal or in this case illegal status. This is issue
Speaker 1: number one for Democrats. I wonder why. And yet at
Speaker 1: the same time, you had a very interesting phenomenon today
Speaker 1: one that I think did not get nearly enough attention.
Speaker 1: You had Nancy Pelosi to speak for hate. Hey hours
Speaker 1: and hey have had dreamers. I mean Nancy progressive private
Speaker 1: Jet Pelosi. She's out there talking about dreamers and how
Speaker 1: much she wants to help, you know, these patriots. And
Speaker 1: by the way, if we're gonna start saying thing think
Speaker 1: they're patriotic, that I also want to look at okay, um,
Speaker 1: what are really the numbers on dreamers in terms of
Speaker 1: high school graduation, employment rate, criminal background. Let's really get
Speaker 1: into it. Then don't tell me that that's mean and nasty.
Speaker 1: If we're gonna start being told, oh, well, they're all great,
Speaker 1: so therefore we should change the law for them, which
Speaker 1: what Pelosi is saying. But what you saw happen today
Speaker 1: was was very instructive. Not Pelosi blathering on for eight
Speaker 1: hours of that jammers. Um. But you had Chuck Schumer
Speaker 1: being very pleased about the budget deal. Now that they
Speaker 1: raised the debt ceiling, right, they got a budget deal.
Speaker 1: Allows so oh they're gonna on the big fight the shutdown. Nope,
Speaker 1: they didn't. The reason they didn't have the fight is
Speaker 1: because the last one they lost, and there they think
Speaker 1: they can use this brinksmanship over the debt ceiling, the
Speaker 1: federal government's debt ceiling, as a way of getting the
Speaker 1: public to support their is and more Republicans will look bad.
Speaker 1: The American people will start to say, Yeah, Democrats, dreamers,
Speaker 1: that's what we're all really focused on. So they got
Speaker 1: a budget deal, It just happened yesterday, funding the government
Speaker 1: until March. Right, that's what they've decided to do. And
Speaker 1: yet Chuck Schumer is saying this is a good thing.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi is giving an eight hour speech about dreamers,
Speaker 1: which is no one really cares about. But it's a
Speaker 1: lot of grand standing. Right, So what's really happening here.
Speaker 1: Why is the Senate minority leader saying, yeah, let's move
Speaker 1: on from this and let's let's just get a budget
Speaker 1: deal done, when the House minority leaders like, yeah, this
Speaker 1: is terrible, we need to talk about it for eight hours. Well,
Speaker 1: here's a hint. The Morning Consult a polling company that's
Speaker 1: been growing very rapidly in recent years, doing very well
Speaker 1: as a poll with the following the GOP. This is
Speaker 1: just out today. GOP has a thirteen point edge over
Speaker 1: Democrats on National Party a nine point edge over Democrats
Speaker 1: on the economy, a six point edge over Democrats on jobs,
Speaker 1: and a six point edge over Democrats on immigration. But
Speaker 1: wait a second, I thought the American people think that
Speaker 1: that the dreamers are just the heart and soul of
Speaker 1: America because they're just dreaming about a better future. That's
Speaker 1: what the media would lead us to believe. They will
Speaker 1: tell us that the American people are on the side
Speaker 1: of the Democrats on this issue, and yet no, No.
Speaker 1: In fact, Trump highlighting the costs of illegal immigration, highlighting
Speaker 1: the criminality that is a very serious consideration. Whenever we
Speaker 1: talk about illegal immigration gangs like ms ther Team, which
Speaker 1: we spent quite a bit of time talking about yesterday.
Speaker 1: He's showing that there's another, there's a whole another side
Speaker 1: to this discussion. In fact, there are many sides of
Speaker 1: this just gushion, and the American people are not in
Speaker 1: favor of an amnesty. They are just not. Pelosi can
Speaker 1: tell us all day that the House will vote for it,
Speaker 1: and this is the right thing to do and everything else,
Speaker 1: but the American people do not want an amnesty and
Speaker 1: the Democrats do not want to deal. That's why Chuck
Speaker 1: Schumer is happy to move along see Pelosi, she knows
Speaker 1: that she can get away with saying whatever she wants
Speaker 1: on dreamers, and she can just grandstand on it. That's
Speaker 1: what she's doing, eight hours of grandstanding today. But Schumer
Speaker 1: in the Senate, he's gonna have to deal with a
Speaker 1: more complicated set of circumstances on the possibility of an
Speaker 1: amnesty and on dreamers and everything else going on here
Speaker 1: because Trump has made quite an offer to them as
Speaker 1: an as an opening bid one point eight million. If
Speaker 1: dreamers are so important to the Democrat party, why are
Speaker 1: they not willing to meet the Trump administration halfway on
Speaker 1: border security, on e Verify, on a wall and all
Speaker 1: these other issues. If Dreamers are an issue of such
Speaker 1: great importance to Democrats that Pelosi needs to stand up
Speaker 1: and talk about them for eight hours, there's no way
Speaker 1: that the Democrats could walk away from a very serious
Speaker 1: and I would offer generous first opening bid from the
Speaker 1: from the Trump side on this. So they'd rather just
Speaker 1: move on because they don't want to. They don't want
Speaker 1: to actually get into this fight. They just want to
Speaker 1: keep talking about it. They want to keep talking about
Speaker 1: it in the hopes that they can use this as
Speaker 1: an issue in the midterms, and that at some point
Speaker 1: they'll just be able to fundraise off this, and or
Speaker 1: that they will be able to fundraise off this and
Speaker 1: just continue on pretending that they have the moral not
Speaker 1: just the moral high ground, which they will never stop pretending.
Speaker 1: But also the American people are with them on this,
Speaker 1: They just frankly are not. But there's another component here,
Speaker 1: one that is not getting nearly attention. And this one
Speaker 1: is a bit of a bummer everyone, Right, Pelosi rambling
Speaker 1: on for eight hours semi coherently, uh in a way
Speaker 1: that it's just meant to draw attention to her and
Speaker 1: how great she is, who cares. But there's also a
Speaker 1: problem here about what's going on with the budget and
Speaker 1: spending in this country. And I know that it's not
Speaker 1: it's not hip, it's not cool these days to discuss
Speaker 1: the debt, to discuss the deficit. But I'm starting to
Speaker 1: get a little worried. One of the issues that those
Speaker 1: who actually know about the markets, and I'm not pretending
Speaker 1: to be one of them, but I do read people
Speaker 1: who know about the markets, and I know people who
Speaker 1: are very knowledgeable about macro trends in the economy, and
Speaker 1: I asked them questions as one does, and one wants
Speaker 1: to learn that the possibility of inflation is looming quite
Speaker 1: large and much of what's going on in the economy
Speaker 1: right now because that that that is one issue um
Speaker 1: and also raising interest rates right, raising interest rates, which
Speaker 1: would mean that are servicing of the debt, and this
Speaker 1: goes back to our Tea party day, folks, are servicing
Speaker 1: of the debt becomes a much bigger concern, a much
Speaker 1: bigger part of the outlay that we currently have a
Speaker 1: federal spending. Now, this is not going to be the
Speaker 1: most you know, knock your socks off exciting, sexy topic
Speaker 1: we ever discussed on the show, but I do after
Speaker 1: the break, I do want to talk to you a
Speaker 1: little bit about what's going on with spending right now,
Speaker 1: because we're not worried about spending on a parade, whether
Speaker 1: you like parades or not, but there's other stuff out
Speaker 1: there that should get some attention here and we will
Speaker 1: get into it, and I would love to hear your
Speaker 1: thoughts on list. What do you think about just extending
Speaker 1: the extending the debt ceiling here funding the government for
Speaker 1: another whatever it is, six weeks or so, and why
Speaker 1: Pelosi and Schumer have this dissonance in their messaging. Something's
Speaker 1: going on, folks, what is that funky smell? Something? Something
Speaker 1: smells funky here. We should figure out what it is,
Speaker 1: um and we will be right back. Yeah. If you
Speaker 1: believe that we are all God's creation, as I do,
Speaker 1: as people of faith do, and I do believe faith
Speaker 1: as a gift that everyone doesn't have. So you may
Speaker 1: not have that same perspective. Getting a little lecture on
Speaker 1: faith from Catholic politician not Nancy Pelosi, who is an
Speaker 1: abortion extremist who believes an abortion for nine months of
Speaker 1: her pregnancy. That's interesting, isn't it. Anyway? Uh, Pelosi gave
Speaker 1: her speech today on immigration. We're starting to see that
Speaker 1: Democrats are un serious on the issue. They really just
Speaker 1: want to use it for fundraising and as a as
Speaker 1: a cudgel, as a weapon against Republicans, to say that
Speaker 1: they're racist, to say that they're bad people, and to
Speaker 1: just as much as possible, play the race card against Republicans.
Speaker 1: That's what the immigration issue really boils down to for
Speaker 1: now for Democrats, in the hopes that eventually they can
Speaker 1: mobilize that sentiment into victory at the polls and then
Speaker 1: they'll just have a mass amnesty. And what the country
Speaker 1: looks like with that mass amnesty. Just in terms of
Speaker 1: the politics, we become a single party state, folks, it'll
Speaker 1: be Democrats and Democrat like some of your like buck,
Speaker 1: we already have that. But that's a discussion maybe that
Speaker 1: we'll hold off on for now. But here's my problem.
Speaker 1: What's going on with the GOP right now? Folks? That's right.
Speaker 1: I'm not just gonna sit here like everything is isn't it?
Speaker 1: Isn't that the Lego Lego song Everything is awesome? Right? Yeah?
Speaker 1: I can't be the Lego theme song guy for the
Speaker 1: GOP here in the Freedom hud because while some things
Speaker 1: are awesome, and Trump has been impressing me with the
Speaker 1: first year and what he's been doing the first now
Speaker 1: a couple of months of this year. Um, but Trump
Speaker 1: is in a good job the GOP overall, though, I've
Speaker 1: got some problems with it, Like, for example, Uh, they've
Speaker 1: bust They've busted through the spending cap by three billion dollars.
Speaker 1: They've been raising the debt limit time and again. There's
Speaker 1: no cuts that are being made anywhere. Um. They will
Speaker 1: not cut entitlements, they will not deal with Medicare, Medicaitor,
Speaker 1: social Security, they've actually thought about getting earmarks back, and
Speaker 1: they're spending a lot of money. I mean, I think,
Speaker 1: are we gonna sp what's it, what's it a trillion
Speaker 1: dollars on track to spend a trillion dollars in the whole,
Speaker 1: I mean, not a trill not not total, a trillion
Speaker 1: dollars more than we take in. So that's a problem, um,
Speaker 1: And I think what's unfairers That Obama racked up insane
Speaker 1: debt in his eight years, as we know, but with
Speaker 1: the artificially low interest rates because of FED policy, the debt,
Speaker 1: the servicing of that debt was not quite the uh
Speaker 1: the punishment that it could have otherwise been for all
Speaker 1: of us. And this is really just racking up debts
Speaker 1: the future generations will have to pay. But in the meantime,
Speaker 1: if interest rates rise, you're gonna have a problem because
Speaker 1: if you've got whatever it is now, I forget what
Speaker 1: the percentage of our percentage of our outlays goes towards
Speaker 1: servicing the debt we already have, which is twenty trillion dollars.
Speaker 1: But as that percentage ticks up, you start spending a
Speaker 1: lot of money just on keeping up with the money
Speaker 1: you've already spent. Right, It's like if you've got a
Speaker 1: credit card and you you've got a ten thousand dollar
Speaker 1: outstanding balance and it goes from all right, well now
Speaker 1: you're paying Uh we're talking credit cards here, So the
Speaker 1: a p R is really high, right, I mean, fortunately,
Speaker 1: servicing the debt is not that I but you know,
Speaker 1: if you go from a five to a p R
Speaker 1: and your credit card, that's gonna hurt because now money
Speaker 1: you're gonna use spending for groceries, he's gonna go to
Speaker 1: paying down the debt you've already run up on that
Speaker 1: credit card because of the rays in the percentage, the
Speaker 1: annual percentage, Right, the A p R. Government kind of
Speaker 1: functions a similar way here. If interest rates rise and
Speaker 1: we have to pay back interest on the debt that
Speaker 1: we've already accrued, it starts to crowd out other government
Speaker 1: spending and now we start to feel it. And by
Speaker 1: the way, government spending I think it was Milton Friedman right,
Speaker 1: government spending is just just another form of taxation, folks.
Speaker 1: So while we can cut taxes on one side, if
Speaker 1: we don't cut spending and keep going deeper and deeper
Speaker 1: into debt. The interest rates that we will be paying
Speaker 1: on that debt are gonna be rising, and that means
Speaker 1: we're gonna be paying off even more. And this is
Speaker 1: how this is how things gets scary for the economy
Speaker 1: because here's what I can tell you. Nobody knows when
Speaker 1: this debt go when the debt thing goes bad. No
Speaker 1: one knows when the debt bomb goes off, no one,
Speaker 1: no one, no one knows what I've heard. Everybody who's
Speaker 1: talked about this whose knowledge, but they don't know. They
Speaker 1: can't say a trillion or a thirty trillion all of
Speaker 1: a sudden it all comes crumbling down. But here's what
Speaker 1: the people who watch this ken all you. At some
Speaker 1: point it does I don't know when, but the music
Speaker 1: will stop. It will be a very big problem. And
Speaker 1: how that looks for the future of this country is
Speaker 1: something that nobody can really answer. Nobody really knows. So
Speaker 1: I think we have to start being realistic about what
Speaker 1: the GOP is doing here. Look, if the decision is
Speaker 1: we're just gonna party and do what we can and
Speaker 1: hope the future generations figure it out somehow, well that's
Speaker 1: one way to go. But that's kind of what we're
Speaker 1: doing right now without admitting that's what's going on. It's
Speaker 1: not a good thing. I know, I know everything is
Speaker 1: not awesome. I wish I could say it was. But
Speaker 1: that is a concern. I will raise it occasionally here
Speaker 1: on the show. I will not I will not be
Speaker 1: labor the point, hopefully right Carl in Winston Salem, North Carolina. Hey, Hey,
Speaker 1: what's up, buddy. Hey, Now I got a solution for
Speaker 1: all these all the woes that we're talking about. It
Speaker 1: it's called a fair at tax. You get to keep
Speaker 1: all the money you may call your income tax, and
Speaker 1: all the people that live here get to pay um
Speaker 1: uh consumption tax, which means like a quarter for every
Speaker 1: dollar you spend goes to the government. And it's been
Speaker 1: figured out that that will pay all the government bills
Speaker 1: and it will take care of all the doctor problems,
Speaker 1: all the immigration problems. But more people here will have
Speaker 1: more more people consuming and paying our national debt. Off
Speaker 1: is that simple. There's no reason to play politics with
Speaker 1: my income tax money. And and that's all manthey, polics
Speaker 1: who wants to do you can tell her to shut up.
Speaker 1: But you know, if I'm not if I don't have
Speaker 1: a diamond diamond area. I'm not paying any income tax.
Speaker 1: I don't care how many people's here. I mean, I
Speaker 1: get to keep from my whole paycheck. That's my That's
Speaker 1: what makes me happy. Yeah, look, I would love a
Speaker 1: fair at tax. I mean, I think taxes are still
Speaker 1: way too high. It's hard to celebrate that much when
Speaker 1: you just had a little bit of a cut in
Speaker 1: what is already I think, in unfair and confiscatory taxation system.
Speaker 1: But to keep in mind that the entitlement state that
Speaker 1: we currently have, and this is look at the expenditures
Speaker 1: of the federal government really just come down to Medicare, Medicaid,
Speaker 1: and Social Security. That's where the money is. And Social
Speaker 1: Security is a very popular program. People want to keep it.
Speaker 1: That's manageable. Social Security is manageable. It's Medicare and Medicaid
Speaker 1: that are the beasts that can eat up the entirety
Speaker 1: of not entirety, but eat up way too much of
Speaker 1: government outlets and government spending. And it's just not popular
Speaker 1: to tell people that someone's not gonna pay for most
Speaker 1: of their health care when they're old. And it's not
Speaker 1: popular to tell people that they're not going to get
Speaker 1: government sponsored healthcare if they are below a certain income threshold.
Speaker 1: Right that that's just and neither political party wants to
Speaker 1: touch it. And it's an unfortunate circumstance. But I'm with
Speaker 1: you on a fair tax. I think there'll be a
Speaker 1: way better way to go. And you know, there's there's
Speaker 1: a whole other discussion about how the notion of a
Speaker 1: federal income tax that is the same across the whole
Speaker 1: country when cost of living is very different across the
Speaker 1: country is It's just inherently unfair what goes on right now.
Speaker 1: But Carl, thank you for calling in from North Carolina.
Speaker 1: Anthony out on the eastern shore of Maryland. What's up, Anthony, Yes, sir,
Speaker 1: how are you doing? Bucks you? Uh, there's issue going
Speaker 1: on with the spending and all that. I was kind
Speaker 1: of watching the news on TV a little bit with
Speaker 1: a couple of this agreements with with the UH spending
Speaker 1: and all that, and agree and not agree. Uh. My
Speaker 1: issue is domestic has been put in the last eight
Speaker 1: or ten years um with with the absorbent and spending
Speaker 1: over the Obama administration, and then all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: you know, we got President Trump and thenarratives trying to
Speaker 1: help us out, and and um, I think, uh, give
Speaker 1: it a year or so with these tax breaks and all.
Speaker 1: I think, Uh, in my personal opinion, just like the
Speaker 1: d in years, things will start mellowing out. But in
Speaker 1: the meantime, you know, let's get something going. Let's get
Speaker 1: something going. But you think interest rates need to go up.
Speaker 1: I see here, I say, I'm thinking for it's all day.
Speaker 1: Well yeah, I'm not not no eight time percent, but
Speaker 1: uh we're we're at out or down like two. Yeah. Look,
Speaker 1: I mean for savers, the situation, there's really been a
Speaker 1: transfer of wealth that's going on away away from savers.
Speaker 1: So that's been and that's a function of government monetary
Speaker 1: policy stretching back now for many years. And that's a problem, right,
Speaker 1: And it's one of the reasons there's so much money
Speaker 1: chasing yields in the stock market. I think it needs
Speaker 1: to be a little bit stronger to get the dollar stronger,
Speaker 1: which which is I've heard President Trump say that. You know, Look,
Speaker 1: I like to have the stronger dollar. Right now it's weak. Um,
Speaker 1: with with everything else going on and everything getting on together,
Speaker 1: I think everything's going to come together and start flying, right,
Speaker 1: I hope. So, my friend Anthony, thanks for calling from Maryland.
Speaker 1: Shield time, my friend, Um, I uh, I gotta talk
Speaker 1: to you about some other stuff comeing out of here.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, the military parade that Trump talked about. All
Speaker 1: the media's all freaking out. Trump is a dictator. He
Speaker 1: wants to have a parade that honors our military. Oh no,
Speaker 1: talk about that and more coming up right after the break,
Speaker 1: stay with other shows. Just talk at you in the
Speaker 1: Freedom hud. We have a mission. We fight for the
Speaker 1: truth in a team effort, and buck us back with
Speaker 1: our next play. So before I talk about how democrats,
Speaker 1: some of them, not a lot of them, are acting
Speaker 1: like Trump's suggestion about a military parade is the equivalent
Speaker 1: of when the what is it the the Cubans and
Speaker 1: the Chinese invade in Red Dawn? I always get the
Speaker 1: remake confused, isn't it? Oh no, sorry, the Soviets and
Speaker 1: the Cubans invade in the original Red Dawn, And then
Speaker 1: I think it's the North Koreans and the Chinese and
Speaker 1: the remake of Red Dawn. They're acting though, like it's
Speaker 1: that scary Trump. Am I right? Yeah, I'm right. That's
Speaker 1: that's how I roll But before we get into that,
Speaker 1: I just wanted to take some time here to hand
Speaker 1: out some buckslaps. Oh yeah, one more, give me one more,
Speaker 1: give me a buck slab. There we go. I don't
Speaker 1: know why. I don't know why we make a karate
Speaker 1: noise with a buck slap, but it adds a little
Speaker 1: bit of the you know, and we really know what's
Speaker 1: going on. So alright, first up for the bucks lap,
Speaker 1: We've got John Heilman, the guy over at MSNBC. Who
Speaker 1: are I always confused with the other guy who lost
Speaker 1: his job because he was like a harassing predator predator type.
Speaker 1: But John Heilman said the following about the White House
Speaker 1: Chief of Staff Chief staff walked into the way House
Speaker 1: briefing room few months ago and attacked the African American
Speaker 1: rish woman. I can tell you that there are all
Speaker 1: a lot of African Americans who who detected racial animals
Speaker 1: in the way in which that played out. And so
Speaker 1: I think there's a pattern here that where we're on
Speaker 1: these issues the touch culture and touch race, where the
Speaker 1: chief of Staff is not that far away from m
Speaker 1: Donald Trump. Heileman saying that that that three star General
Speaker 1: Kelly lost his son in combat uh, say he's a racist.
Speaker 1: That's this. This is how the Democrats, this is how
Speaker 1: they analyze that was on Morning Joe. I could tell
Speaker 1: just from Mika big Oh my gosh, Um, that's just
Speaker 1: a slur. I mean, that's so unacceptable from Heilman. And
Speaker 1: I would note that, you know, in a previous administration,
Speaker 1: if you made such a such a baseless and scirless
Speaker 1: charge against the White House Chief of Staff, you wouldn't
Speaker 1: be allowed on the different TV networks. Really, you know,
Speaker 1: you would be told, oh no, you can't do that.
Speaker 1: But going after John Kelly saying he is a racists
Speaker 1: also just not here that this is one of the
Speaker 1: games of Democrats love to play. They'll say, well, and
Speaker 1: they'll name a bunch of minorities and women that Trump
Speaker 1: has attacked, or that one of Trump's people, one of
Speaker 1: his top advisors, has you know, publicly tangled with in
Speaker 1: some way. And I just want to note, Okay, if
Speaker 1: there's one thing we all know, it's a trumpell tangle
Speaker 1: with anybody, all right, Trump Trump is he's given out.
Speaker 1: Trump slaps left and right. I mean, he does not discriminate.
Speaker 1: He will throw down with anyone. And it's just so
Speaker 1: pathetic that they try to fit into this this narrative,
Speaker 1: into this mold that somehow Trump is only picking on her.
Speaker 1: In this case, John Kelly, his wife, his chief of staff,
Speaker 1: is only picking on minorities and women. Therefore he's a
Speaker 1: misogynist and a racist. Like there's just no basis, and
Speaker 1: this is this is a symptom of Trump arrangement syndrome,
Speaker 1: because it's an argument that can't stand up to five
Speaker 1: minutes of scrutiny. Right, it is just Trump's arrangement syndrome,
Speaker 1: pure and simple. I just noticed I saw a commercial
Speaker 1: secning with a statue of Liberty on an island, and
Speaker 1: I've never been to the statue of liberty. For a
Speaker 1: guy who loves freedom and America so much and literally
Speaker 1: lives in New York City and used to have, you know,
Speaker 1: a window where you could see when I would go
Speaker 1: to work, could see the statue of Liberty. I feel
Speaker 1: like that's unacceptable. I feel like I'm gonna have to
Speaker 1: remedy this, and you need to buck slap yourself. I
Speaker 1: think I do need to buck slap myself. That needs
Speaker 1: to get okay, alright, alright, that easily remedied. Next up, here.
Speaker 1: There's a few different clips that got It's to the Highlman.
Speaker 1: One he's just being a punk. He gets a buck slap,
Speaker 1: and then you get Couch and Nelly versus Navarro now
Speaker 1: and a. Navarro is a CNN favorite because she says
Speaker 1: she's a Republican, but all she does is trash Republicans,
Speaker 1: particularly Donald Trump, and gets away with saying just a
Speaker 1: long slew a series of idiotic and nasty things on television.
Speaker 1: They love her over there though, because she is great.
Speaker 1: She's a Republican quote unquote who's great at trashing Republicans,
Speaker 1: never has really a terse word for a Democrat, but
Speaker 1: loves to. And she speaks for the Latino community at
Speaker 1: some level, right, That's that's part of She'll say, oh
Speaker 1: we know Latinos this, and Latinos that, she'll speak for
Speaker 1: Latino community. She is among and I can tell you
Speaker 1: this from my own experience over there, among the least insightful,
Speaker 1: least well read, least polite, and least worthwhile commentators on
Speaker 1: TV at CNN period, among the very very worst, which
Speaker 1: I will say that's saying something. She's going up against
Speaker 1: Ken Cucinelli, who I'm sure you're a familiar with from
Speaker 1: his long career in uh in Republican politics. But they
Speaker 1: got into the DOCCA thing and things got a little nasty.
Speaker 1: We haven't gotten to the heart of this problem at all.
Speaker 1: The President is willing to have a showdown with the
Speaker 1: Democrats again, that's where the shutdown comment came from, because
Speaker 1: he knows how it's gonna end. And my last comment
Speaker 1: is that since the last shutdown, only one side has
Speaker 1: given any ground on this, and that is President Trump
Speaker 1: has gone from the six nine thousand actual dock and
Speaker 1: number to a hypothetical number of one point eight million
Speaker 1: that we aren't even sure of before those people have
Speaker 1: made contact of the So the words of General Kelly,
Speaker 1: they don't concern you at all. Look, the guy's a
Speaker 1: military man. He started off what you all have characterized
Speaker 1: him saying, is everybody's lazy. That isn't what he said.
Speaker 1: He started off, and you played the quote some people
Speaker 1: think that they might have been scared and so they
Speaker 1: didn't signet might have come. He said, get off your
Speaker 1: that's disrespectful. And I don't think, of course to pretend,
Speaker 1: of course people who cares. I care that people are
Speaker 1: breaking the law, that over people who can that people
Speaker 1: who care, who are gonna get no, I'll tell you
Speaker 1: who cares. Let me tell you who cares? Can I mean,
Speaker 1: let me explain to you who cares? Damn question about
Speaker 1: who cares? That people who care are the immigrants who
Speaker 1: are special. And she just keeps going on and talking
Speaker 1: over them and talking over that. That's what That's what
Speaker 1: an overro does, ever see an end to talk over
Speaker 1: people yell and scream and trump and racist and so
Speaker 1: mean to immigrants that it's all about immigrants all the time.
Speaker 1: I would know that one of the one of the
Speaker 1: tricks that you may have if you could watch that
Speaker 1: whole clip, which I wouldn't recommend, but it went on
Speaker 1: for like six minutes. We played a little bit of
Speaker 1: it there for you, is that they say that the
Speaker 1: segment is ending, and so that means that you know
Speaker 1: they're they're wrapping it up. And then though when one
Speaker 1: of the two Democrat guests it was three on one
Speaker 1: Don Lemon Democrat, Van Jones Democrat, and a Navar Democrat,
Speaker 1: and then when they're saying we'll give you the last
Speaker 1: world will go, then they top and they let Navarro
Speaker 1: just go on this this tirade about you know how
Speaker 1: Trump and racism and immigrants and blah blah blah blah
Speaker 1: blah and just just the usual blather, the usual verbal
Speaker 1: vomit that comes out of her on CNN, and they
Speaker 1: extend the segment magically, it just gets longer all of
Speaker 1: a sudden, Oh no, let her go, let her go. Okay,
Speaker 1: she's uh, she's slamming him, she's smearing him, She's she's
Speaker 1: destroying his argument, she's attacking the president. She well, she's
Speaker 1: just really attacking Cucinelli to uh, and then it's time
Speaker 1: to go to commercial break CNN. This is CNN. Uh.
Speaker 1: They all deserve bucks laps over there these days. But
Speaker 1: we'll be back with more. Stay with me the Center.
Speaker 1: John Heilman here. Um, the President apparently would like to
Speaker 1: throw himself a parade, military parade, um troops and tanks
Speaker 1: and all that kind of stuff, And there's some planning
Speaker 1: now underwear at least dates are being considered. What say you,
Speaker 1: I say it's a fantastic waste of money to amuse
Speaker 1: the president. I don't think a show of military might.
Speaker 1: It reminds you of what the Soviets do and what
Speaker 1: the Chinese do uh. And we need to honor our
Speaker 1: men and women in uniform, and but I think we
Speaker 1: ought to do so in a way that does not
Speaker 1: necessarily appear bellicoasts are threatening to the rest of the world.
Speaker 1: We want to be peacemakers, not warmakers. It also, uh
Speaker 1: can be perceived as jinguists in some respects uh, saber
Speaker 1: rattling in some respects. There you have a bunch of
Speaker 1: Democrats who, no surprise, all of a sudden, are concerned
Speaker 1: about government spending. Oh my gosh, a parade. And this
Speaker 1: is one of the first times I think I've ever
Speaker 1: heard Democrats in elected office argue against any parade that
Speaker 1: I'm familiar with. I mean, we got we got parades
Speaker 1: going on for everything these days, folks. I mean, I
Speaker 1: live in New York City, and let me tell you,
Speaker 1: it's you know, uh, this week it's the Army you know,
Speaker 1: not really, but you know, it's the Armenian Parade, and
Speaker 1: next week it's the Bulgarian Parade, and next week it's
Speaker 1: the Bolivian Parade, and next week it's you know, the
Speaker 1: Southern County Kerry of Ireland Parade. And it's like just
Speaker 1: parade after parade, parades all the time. All right, Darvon's
Speaker 1: having parades. I will tell you, as a general rule,
Speaker 1: i'm kind of anti parade. This will not surprise any
Speaker 1: of you. I think that parades are overrated. Now, I'm
Speaker 1: not anti them as that I begrudge anyone who likes
Speaker 1: them or thinks that they should all end or something.
Speaker 1: I just find the parades or it's like, oh yeah,
Speaker 1: that's loud, the floats. You're like, Okay, I gotta wait
Speaker 1: a few more minutes. It's gonna be another it's gonna
Speaker 1: be a you know, another bunch of are I I
Speaker 1: can hear some drums. Let's give it a few minutes.
Speaker 1: You know, they're gonna, they're walking, they're coming. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's just not the most exciting spectator spectator sport I've
Speaker 1: every Yeah, I know, I'm hate it right now. Oh
Speaker 1: yeah you agree. Oh you're with me all right. Producer
Speaker 1: Mike is giving me the thumbs down on parades, the
Speaker 1: thumbs up on parades or not. You know, like sports
Speaker 1: teams have parades. Although your Eagles fans had their own
Speaker 1: parade by friend, I saw that. But yeah, you know, look,
Speaker 1: I'm not a parade. I wanna have a parade of
Speaker 1: a parade. Here's the thing though, The one time when
Speaker 1: I'm like, you know what, I like, I think that
Speaker 1: this is important and you need to show up is
Speaker 1: like Veterans Day. Yeah, Veterans Day parade, Memorial Day parade.
Speaker 1: Those are parades that matter. Right. So anything that involves
Speaker 1: respect for the armed forces in the military, I think
Speaker 1: goes into a different category of parade. And this notion
Speaker 1: that Democrats have that it's so crazy that we would
Speaker 1: take some time to celebrate. You notice none of these
Speaker 1: people like, what's the Women's March about? What the heck
Speaker 1: are they complaining about? Right? I mean, and by the way,
Speaker 1: you want to you want to get into the cost
Speaker 1: of some of these things that the Women's marching terms
Speaker 1: of Oh, that's right, city services over time, clean up,
Speaker 1: the clean up for some of the parades in New
Speaker 1: York City, it looks like a hurricane slash, tornado slash,
Speaker 1: you know, bombing raid went through downtown Manhattan. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's crazy what happens after these parades. So it is
Speaker 1: very expensive, uh, in a city budgetary sense, I mean,
Speaker 1: in a national budget having a parade, I think it's
Speaker 1: pretty minor. But the point is there's cross associated with
Speaker 1: all this stuff. But we're gonna get We're gonna get
Speaker 1: cheap all of a sudden. We're gonna want to pend uh,
Speaker 1: pinch pennies, pinch pennies. Uh, We're gonna want to pinch
Speaker 1: pennies when it comes to honor in the military. Let's
Speaker 1: just take a little step back here for a second. Uh.
Speaker 1: And and we're gonna start saying it's jingoistic. You know,
Speaker 1: we're not North Korea, Dick Durbin. We're not saying that, Hey,
Speaker 1: look at these big missiles, We're gonna fire them at you.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's not the point. It's just for us
Speaker 1: to celebrate our own military. And I wouldn't. We've got
Speaker 1: a few million active duty and recently uh recently separated
Speaker 1: from the service veterans who I fought wars in Iraq, Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: deployed all over the world. They defeated the Taliban, they
Speaker 1: defeated Saddam Hussein, ousted him from power, defeated the Al
Speaker 1: Qaeda in Iraq insurgency, handed Iraq back over to the Iraqis.
Speaker 1: And I mean, I'm just going off the top of
Speaker 1: my head. By the way, I'm not trying to forget
Speaker 1: or leave out anything, but has they've done a tremendous
Speaker 1: amount of good work for the world, and we all
Speaker 1: owe them, as the American people a debt of gratitude
Speaker 1: will never be able to pay. And so if we
Speaker 1: have a parade, why why is that? This reminds me
Speaker 1: of when Democrats right after Not eleven, we're kind of like, man,
Speaker 1: I don't know about flags, you know, all the flag waving.
Speaker 1: Maybe everyone was like, I'm sorry, what's that. You got
Speaker 1: a problem with the American flag? Now elected officials and
Speaker 1: media pundits, because that's weird now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: because Trump is for a military parade, there against it.
Speaker 1: So maybe I should give them the benefit of the
Speaker 1: doubt and assume here that what's really at work is
Speaker 1: just their Trump derangement syndrome, and that they don't have
Speaker 1: a problem with a parade for the military as a concept.
Speaker 1: They're just pretending to because they hate Trump so much.
Speaker 1: I just hate Trump. They just get so upset about
Speaker 1: all of this. But I recall, you know, after World
Speaker 1: War Two, for example, some really timeless and inspiring photos
Speaker 1: of our our boys coming back from overseas, so to speak,
Speaker 1: our men and women in uniform. Coming back to the States,
Speaker 1: ticker tape parade, the whole thing. What's what's wrong with that?
Speaker 1: I would need some of these Democrats to explain, Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're worried about the budget, right, sure, that's what it's about.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the biggest crock of nonsense. But they're
Speaker 1: opposed to the optics of this. They think that the
Speaker 1: perception of a parade would somehow what antagonized North Korea?
Speaker 1: Do we care about antagonizing North Korea? I think I
Speaker 1: think a little more antagonism against North Korea is probably
Speaker 1: a good thing. That's you know, the assaumble. And by
Speaker 1: the way, anyone who says that we should uh, we
Speaker 1: are not or we are overestimating the furer and opposition
Speaker 1: to this doesn't pay attention to what's going on in
Speaker 1: the world around them. You've got a guy named Arne
Speaker 1: men Coney who is a former a former US Senate candidate.
Speaker 1: I have a feeling he probably got a grand total
Speaker 1: of uh, you know, five votes, But he says, we quote,
Speaker 1: we already have thirteen people who have signed up to
Speaker 1: lay down in front of the tanks. If Trump brings
Speaker 1: out a military parade. This is not a military authoritarian state.
Speaker 1: We will you join us hashtag Trump parade. These people
Speaker 1: think that this is like Tianamen Square, you know that
Speaker 1: they're standing up the Trump, the dictator. It's like, no,
Speaker 1: this would be U. S. Military. You know, it would
Speaker 1: be a parade where we're celebrating the military and thank
Speaker 1: you very much. This should be a big thank you
Speaker 1: for your service day. Right, So what's what's the issue.
Speaker 1: Isn't it so interesting Democrats? You know, I know they
Speaker 1: all say things like, oh, we support the troops. You know,
Speaker 1: that's bipartisan. A lot of Democrats they got some questions
Speaker 1: about the troops. Be honest with you. A lot of
Speaker 1: Democrats in places they don't talk about at parties, they wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, why didn't they have the I'm talking about
Speaker 1: Democrat elected politicians now, but they wonder, you know, they
Speaker 1: didn't have the the fortitude to do it. And look,
Speaker 1: I know there are other Democrats who are in Congress
Speaker 1: who served honorably and are great and all that too.
Speaker 1: But if you're looking for disdain for the military and
Speaker 1: political circles, even it might be slightly closeted disdain. But
Speaker 1: if you're looking for it's always among Democrats. You never
Speaker 1: find Republicans that are like, yeah, military, I'm kind of
Speaker 1: iffy on it. There are some Democrats that are like, man,
Speaker 1: I'm a little iffy on the whole US military thing.
Speaker 1: It's a it's just the way it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's the way that they're ideology lines up on a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of things, um not, not the least of
Speaker 1: which is that we are the cause of problems in
Speaker 1: the world. Right that's a classic leftist Democrat talking point,
Speaker 1: that we cause, that our military causes problems all over
Speaker 1: the world. And the Gnome Chomsky view, if you will,
Speaker 1: on the military, that's a Democrat issue, that's not a
Speaker 1: Republican one. So like I I don't like parades, but
Speaker 1: I'd be down for a parade for a military And
Speaker 1: I think that Trump's onto onto something here, if nothing else.
Speaker 1: Once again, he manages to expose that Democrats just always
Speaker 1: seem to have a little bit of a well Trump
Speaker 1: arrangement syndrome clouds their judgment on everything. But also when
Speaker 1: it comes to military, it's like, why aren't you guys
Speaker 1: on board for this a little bit sooner? A little strange,
Speaker 1: isn't it. I want to tell you about a Trump
Speaker 1: voter and a March for Women person that they had
Speaker 1: quite they had quite a little a little sit down.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna not sit down, but all an interaction. This
Speaker 1: is gonna come up. You've got to hear this. It
Speaker 1: is illuminating about the way that coastal blue Democrat voters
Speaker 1: view Trump. Trump is um and people who vote for
Speaker 1: either of those things. Um, I think we're gonna have
Speaker 1: some fun with it. So what happens when when somebody
Speaker 1: from the Women's March is having car trouble and is
Speaker 1: in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of the
Speaker 1: wilds of Virginia confronted with that always ah, always terrifying
Speaker 1: situation of a Trump voter who comes to her aid
Speaker 1: on the side of the highway. Oh, we will discuss
Speaker 1: that and much more, my friends coming up in the
Speaker 1: next hour. Stay with me. Welcome back to our three
Speaker 1: of the buck Sections show. Everybody, Thank you so much
Speaker 1: for being here with me. So, there was a column
Speaker 1: that came out recently, and I feel like it was
Speaker 1: such an excellent, excellent exploration of the Trump derangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: It's almost like a clinical study in Trump arrangement syndrome.
Speaker 1: And the piece was in the Tampa Bay Times, so
Speaker 1: there you have it. And it was just published a
Speaker 1: couple of days ago or a day or two ago,
Speaker 1: and the title was I detest Trump, but a redneck
Speaker 1: fixed the redneck fixed my prius with zip ties. Now
Speaker 1: for us to really written by a woman named Ruth
Speaker 1: mayer Um. So I wanted to share with you some
Speaker 1: of what's in this piece because if you wanted understanding
Speaker 1: for what Trump derangement syndrome does to people, I think
Speaker 1: this article is a really excellent exploration of it. This
Speaker 1: is the you know, this is the progressive latte drinker
Speaker 1: coming face to face with an American with like just
Speaker 1: like an everyday American. It's terrifying something you are, like,
Speaker 1: I know, Buck, those latte drinkers are really scary. So
Speaker 1: here you go. I went to this. These are her words.
Speaker 1: I'm reading to you from her peace. I went to
Speaker 1: the Women's March in Washington, d C. And I arrived
Speaker 1: home feeling heartbroken. It was the last way I expected
Speaker 1: to feel. I had spent the morning sitting on the
Speaker 1: steps of the Lincoln Memorial with my sixteen year old daughter,
Speaker 1: whose silent tears on election night in ten had marked
Speaker 1: the beginning of this national nightmare for me. She had
Speaker 1: insisted we drive from Charlotte to d C this year
Speaker 1: so that we could quote protests in front of the
Speaker 1: President's house. We heard all of the inspiring speakers. We
Speaker 1: relish the creativity of the posters and slogans, but I
Speaker 1: guess not the hats, because I got rid of those.
Speaker 1: Being among so many like minded people was comforting. I
Speaker 1: heard one woman say, I love being here today. It
Speaker 1: makes me feel less alone. I wanted to be with
Speaker 1: people who shared my anger because I have been so
Speaker 1: angry about Donald Trump this past year. I have been
Speaker 1: angry at my country for electing this man, Angry at
Speaker 1: my neighbors who support him, Angry at the wealthy who
Speaker 1: sacrificed our country and its goodness for tax breaks. Angry
Speaker 1: at the coal miners who believed his promises. All right,
Speaker 1: ed quote, I gotta I gotta take I gotta take
Speaker 1: a step back from this for a second. Here. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna go out on limb and say, this woman is angry.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm just gonna put that out. I'm sensing some
Speaker 1: anger from her. I think it's maybe clouding her judgment
Speaker 1: a little bit. I also think she may have internalized
Speaker 1: national politics a little too much. You know, it's really
Speaker 1: not all about you. It's okay, you don't have to
Speaker 1: cry at night. I also would note that, Okay, her
Speaker 1: daughters sixteen, so at least she can have some idea
Speaker 1: of what's going on. She didn't pull the favorite progressive
Speaker 1: trick of the first six months or so, which was
Speaker 1: my four year old came up to me and said,
Speaker 1: what are we gonna do about the change in marginal
Speaker 1: progressive tax rights for millionaires and billionaires? It's like, I
Speaker 1: don't think your four year old ask you that question, actually,
Speaker 1: And I'm talking about journalists, by the way, like people
Speaker 1: that have careers and in the media and and in
Speaker 1: writing and supposedly spreading truth. They're like, my eight year
Speaker 1: old came up to me and said, I don't understand
Speaker 1: how the president can withhold further action on deferred action
Speaker 1: for childhood arrivals. It's like, no, your six year old
Speaker 1: son did not ask that question. But it's cute that
Speaker 1: you like to use that as a trope to show
Speaker 1: how outraged you are. But anyways, sixteen, fine, sixteen, you're
Speaker 1: allowed to be upset about politics. Crying about politicists at
Speaker 1: sixteen strikes me as a little bit, uh, a little
Speaker 1: bit too much. But then again, some sixteen year old
Speaker 1: girls cry when the mall closes too early, or sixteen
Speaker 1: year old guys cry when they lose a video game, right,
Speaker 1: So okay, so people cry, fine, fair enough. Whatever you
Speaker 1: can tell though she's a little angry. You can tell
Speaker 1: she's a little upset. And this is part of the
Speaker 1: mentality that we see time and again when it comes
Speaker 1: to the anti trumpers um that they do take this
Speaker 1: so very very personally. People ask me all the time,
Speaker 1: how do you live in New York City, and you're
Speaker 1: all these people, I just I just live my life,
Speaker 1: you know. Uh. It's you know when in the movie
Speaker 1: Forgetting Sarah Marshall, Jonah Jonah Hill, who has a CD
Speaker 1: that he's made, goes up to Russell Brand, who's supposed
Speaker 1: to be a rock star, and he's like, hey, I
Speaker 1: just wondering if you've got a chance to listen to
Speaker 1: my CD, and Russell Brand's like, no, I just went
Speaker 1: on living my life. And that's actually my approach to
Speaker 1: living around a whole bunch of progressives in New York City.
Speaker 1: When I'm not actually working, right, when I'm not writing
Speaker 1: or on radio or TV or something, I just I
Speaker 1: don't engage, right do I? In my in my pre
Speaker 1: in my pre pre black Rifle coffee days, for example,
Speaker 1: what I go to the anarchist coffee shop that's right
Speaker 1: near me, and and and here they're they're terrible music.
Speaker 1: And I'm sure try to avoid looking at all the
Speaker 1: all the posters about the next Women's march. Yeah, you know,
Speaker 1: before I knew about better options. Sure, I just try
Speaker 1: to ignore this stuff. But the anti trumpers can't ignore.
Speaker 1: They can't separate it out. It's all so intertwined in
Speaker 1: their identity and in their sense of self. And that's
Speaker 1: also why they aren't impervious to new information, new facts,
Speaker 1: good faith arguments, because to change their mind about much
Speaker 1: of the reasons are many of the reasons they have
Speaker 1: for hating Trump is to change their mind about how
Speaker 1: righteous and brilliant and wonderful they are. It's not about Hey,
Speaker 1: this is about this is public policy, which is complicated,
Speaker 1: and here's a different approach to this, and maybe you
Speaker 1: should think about it. It's I'm a good person. I
Speaker 1: voted for Hillary. You guys, are still mean you voted
Speaker 1: for Trump? So she went to the women's march. Fine,
Speaker 1: what are they marching about? Not really clear to me,
Speaker 1: although not for unborn babies. But that's another discussion for
Speaker 1: another time. Uh. Anyway, she went back to my fury.
Speaker 1: We gotta keep going here. So and she's mad at
Speaker 1: hole miners. I would note I'm guessing of whom she
Speaker 1: has met zero, But she's mad at coal miners for
Speaker 1: believing Trump. She's mad at everybody. I mean, you could
Speaker 1: really say this is the quintessential Remember how Pajama Boy
Speaker 1: was like the ultimate Obama voter. This woman in this
Speaker 1: article comes across as the quintessential Hillary voter. She's just
Speaker 1: so angry that Hillary didn't shatter that glass ceiling. I
Speaker 1: will read you some more of her piece here. My
Speaker 1: fury has been bottomless. I drink my cup. I drink
Speaker 1: my morning coffee from a cup that says I hate
Speaker 1: to wake up when Donald Trump is president. I swear
Speaker 1: I'm not making this up. Guys. The constancy of my
Speaker 1: outrage has been exhausting, yet I have not found a
Speaker 1: way to quell it. Nearly each day has brought our
Speaker 1: new reason to stoke the fire, but a day with
Speaker 1: my daughter communing with the angryly aggrieved seemed a good
Speaker 1: way to try. Oh man, she actually drinks coffee out
Speaker 1: of a cup every day. That says, I hate waking
Speaker 1: up with Donald Trump. First of all, where does you
Speaker 1: where does she even get that? I'm assuming she went
Speaker 1: online for like I hate Trump merch and found this.
Speaker 1: But you know, talk about a self reinforcing message, like,
Speaker 1: you know, turne it down a little bit, maybe get
Speaker 1: like a you know, a little image of a puppy
Speaker 1: or something for your coffee mug. You know, maybe just
Speaker 1: take a step back, lady. Anyway, So then she goes
Speaker 1: on too, and this is what this is what we're
Speaker 1: going to get into a second. Then she goes on
Speaker 1: to tell about the rest of her day and the
Speaker 1: unexpected happened after protesting and exuding and really reveling in
Speaker 1: wallowing in her hatred and fury against Trump and all
Speaker 1: the Trump voters and all the Oh, they're just those
Speaker 1: in the like like Peter's, like Peter Struck from the FBI,
Speaker 1: you know, those those hillbillies, right. Oh, she's so disgusted
Speaker 1: by them. But then fate intervenes and the woman who's
Speaker 1: any about how she's just so angry. She can't find
Speaker 1: enough outlets for her anti Trump anger. It doesn't work
Speaker 1: in politics, from what I understand, Like this is, uh,
Speaker 1: she comes across an actual Trump voter, No, she and
Speaker 1: she has no choice. She has no choice but to
Speaker 1: to stand there, and she doesn't want to make any
Speaker 1: sudden movements. She doesn't want to give the Trump voter
Speaker 1: an excuse to charge. You know, you don't want to
Speaker 1: make too much eye contact either with the Trump voter,
Speaker 1: because the Trump voter might might take that as a
Speaker 1: as a signal for you vying for dominance, you know,
Speaker 1: but you don't want to run away from the Trump
Speaker 1: voter because then the Trump voter may think your prey.
Speaker 1: So this pro Hillary, anti Trump voter had to face
Speaker 1: her greatest fear. She had to actually have a conversation
Speaker 1: with the Trump voter. I will tell you about it
Speaker 1: right after this break welcome back. When I last left you,
Speaker 1: we had a priest driving women's marsh attending ang gree
Speaker 1: Hillary voter who is not just never ever Trump, she
Speaker 1: is I hate Trump so much, and she was squaring
Speaker 1: off against that most dangerous, that most dangerous of opponents
Speaker 1: in every day Trump voter terrifying I know. Let me
Speaker 1: read to you from her account. She survived it, so
Speaker 1: we can all be thankful for that, the Trump voter
Speaker 1: and her did not. This did not end with tragedy.
Speaker 1: Here is what happened. Quote. Before I could do anything
Speaker 1: but park my gray Prius. Of course it's a Gray Prius,
Speaker 1: a man rushed over. I heard you coming down that road,
Speaker 1: he said. Before I could say much, he started surveying
Speaker 1: the situation. You said she had car trouble. Oh, she
Speaker 1: had car trouble. She thought she had blown out a tire,
Speaker 1: and she had to pull off at the nearest exit.
Speaker 1: There was a popping sound followed by a screeching, and
Speaker 1: she was worried she might be driving on metal, very dangerous.
Speaker 1: So she stuck there. And in this moment of need,
Speaker 1: in this terrifying ordeal, who comes along with somebody that
Speaker 1: she clearly identifies as a Trump voter. So he says,
Speaker 1: I heard you coming down that road, and she said that.
Speaker 1: He didn't so much offer to help as get right
Speaker 1: to work. Quote it turned out that I hadn't blown
Speaker 1: a tire. A huge piece of plastic under the front
Speaker 1: bumper had come loose, causing the screeching as it scraped
Speaker 1: along the road. After determining that he couldn't cut the
Speaker 1: plastic off, he ran over to his car to grab
Speaker 1: some zip ties so he could secure the piece back
Speaker 1: in place. He did all of this so quickly that
Speaker 1: I didn't have time to grab the prominent resist of
Speaker 1: course sticker on the side of my Prius, which suddenly
Speaker 1: felt needlessly alienating. You don't say. As this man lay
Speaker 1: on the ground under my car with his miracle zip ties,
Speaker 1: I asked if he thought they would hold for four
Speaker 1: more hours of driving. Just ask any redneck like me
Speaker 1: what you can do with zip ties. Well, zip ties
Speaker 1: and duct tape. You can solve almost any problem. You'll
Speaker 1: get home safe, turned to his teenage son standing nearby.
Speaker 1: You can say that again. His son agreed. The whole
Speaker 1: interaction lasted ten minutes. Tops Catherine and I that's the
Speaker 1: name of her daughter, made it home safely, survived. She
Speaker 1: survived the Trump voter. He didn't. He didn't take her hostage,
Speaker 1: he didn't kidnap her. He just was really nice and
Speaker 1: fixed her car right away. And yeah, she was ninety
Speaker 1: minutes south of d C. That's way outside of Beltway territory, folks,
Speaker 1: that's like the wilderness. I mean, you're practically in more
Speaker 1: door when you go ninety minutes south of d C,
Speaker 1: because that's actually real Virginia. It's not the Northern Virginia
Speaker 1: part that has now been taken into d C and
Speaker 1: the Metroplex right ninety minutes is like, I mean, you're
Speaker 1: gonna hit Charlottesville before long. It's Virginia, Virginia. And sure
Speaker 1: enough she she was approached by a Trump voter in
Speaker 1: her great prius because of course that's what she drives.
Speaker 1: And he just ran over there helped her out, didn't
Speaker 1: didn't you know? It's weird the and she just I
Speaker 1: will also know it with all this, she just identifies
Speaker 1: him as a Trump voter. I am assuming that this
Speaker 1: gentleman was I don't know, did he have like a
Speaker 1: mullet trucker hat and a Maga T shirt on? I mean,
Speaker 1: what she gives no no explanation of this from what
Speaker 1: I'm trying to How does she even know that he's
Speaker 1: Maybe she's just like, oh my gosh, strikes me as
Speaker 1: a Trump He was wearing a car heart jacket. Strikes
Speaker 1: me as a Trump voter. Good gosh. Um, he looked
Speaker 1: like his hands had done heavy labor recently. He must
Speaker 1: be a Trump voter. It's like, I'm not. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm giving you more detail than she did. I don't
Speaker 1: know how she knew. I'm she's driving a great Prius,
Speaker 1: she has a resist bumper sticker on. I can tell
Speaker 1: you there's a lot of stuff. There is a preponderance
Speaker 1: of cats at home most likely. Yes, that's right, not
Speaker 1: like one or two. That's cool. Cats are fine. Like anyway,
Speaker 1: she she doesn't. She says, this guy's a Trump voter.
Speaker 1: How she knows, I don't know. Um maybe because he
Speaker 1: said like ma'am and was polite and friendly and helpful
Speaker 1: to her and wasn't like, oh my gosh, we have
Speaker 1: to call Triple A right away. Like he's like, I
Speaker 1: got some zip tiz, let's fix it. So here's what
Speaker 1: she She goes on though, And I will say the
Speaker 1: story has a happy ending, folks. I'd like to tell
Speaker 1: you stories with happy endings. When I can't, A story
Speaker 1: goes on like this. This is our author here, Ruth.
Speaker 1: She is a oh, she's a communications consultant. Mm hmm. Interesting.
Speaker 1: So it's like communications consultants, social media manager these you know,
Speaker 1: you tend to have a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: Bernie Bros. And Bernie's sisters in in that in those categories.
Speaker 1: But here's what she says in her piece, Our encounter
Speaker 1: changed the day for me. When I tried to dive
Speaker 1: back into my liberal podcast, my mind kept being pulled
Speaker 1: back to the gas station. I couldn't stop thinking about
Speaker 1: the man who called himself a redneck. She couldn't stop
Speaker 1: thinking about that. I mean, look, you know redneck. You
Speaker 1: know some of this guy's got some manly appeal. Probably
Speaker 1: I'm just putting that out there. Who came to our rescue.
Speaker 1: I sized him up as a Trump voter again based
Speaker 1: on the fact that he's good with his hands and
Speaker 1: fixed a car. But there you go, Trump voters, you
Speaker 1: should feel good about that one, just as he likely
Speaker 1: drew inferences from my prius and resist sicker. You know
Speaker 1: what's so funny, I'm obviously not quoting her anymore. I
Speaker 1: guarantee this guy wasn't like, oh wow, there's a Hillary voter.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna go help her with my zip dies. He
Speaker 1: was just like, a woman needs help with car, will
Speaker 1: help her, because right but she's like, he must have
Speaker 1: sized me up. He probably knew right away. I just
Speaker 1: come from the Hillary March or whatever they're calling it.
Speaker 1: All right, back to what she says. For a moment,
Speaker 1: we were just two people and the exchange was kindness
Speaker 1: his and gratitude mine. As I drove home, I felt
Speaker 1: the full extent to which Trump has actually diminished my
Speaker 1: desire to be kind. He is keeping me so outraged
Speaker 1: that I hold ill will towards others on a daily basis.
Speaker 1: Trump is not just ruining our nation, he is ruining me.
Speaker 1: By the end of the drive, I felt heartbroken. All right,
Speaker 1: So go there, let's you see what I said. It's
Speaker 1: a happy ending. I mean, it's like there's a silver lining.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure we could say it's a totally happy ending,
Speaker 1: because here's what's going on. This woman has the self
Speaker 1: awareness to realize that once she's super judge. If MS
Speaker 1: Molly was here, she'd be like, oh, that's very judgy
Speaker 1: to say that this guy's a Trump vote her with no.
Speaker 1: I mean it's not like he hadn't I don't. I
Speaker 1: didn't hear anything about a Trump bumper sticker on his
Speaker 1: car or something. He was driving a pickup truck and
Speaker 1: he had workman's boots on. It was terrified, Like, what's
Speaker 1: the problem I was? I guess as she figured she
Speaker 1: was in rural Virginia and there's a decent chance that
Speaker 1: sure enough you know this guy anyway. Uh. But instead
Speaker 1: of taking the lesson she should take from this is
Speaker 1: maybe I need to rethink how much I internalize politics
Speaker 1: and how much I have been fed this steady diet
Speaker 1: of real hatred for Trump, as though he's the Antichrist.
Speaker 1: He's he's basically he's like basically Hitler, I mean all
Speaker 1: that stuff. Instead of thinking again about all of that,
Speaker 1: she's actually like, you know what, I feel bad that
Speaker 1: I'm mean and and nasty to some people, at least
Speaker 1: in my in my head, that's my first inclination because
Speaker 1: of Trump. Therefore, you'll see where I'm going here. Her
Speaker 1: meanness is not a function of the progressive brainwashing that
Speaker 1: she's had from the media and everything else. Her meanness
Speaker 1: is Trump's fault. And I kind of wish I could
Speaker 1: sit down with miss miss Mayor or Meyer Mayor. However,
Speaker 1: he said, I wish I could sit down with Ruth.
Speaker 1: Can I call your Ruth? No, you may not, sir um,
Speaker 1: and just say to her, you know, maybe a better
Speaker 1: approach to this would be to just treat everybody like
Speaker 1: you would want to be treated, which is what they
Speaker 1: tell us all starting in around kindergarten, I think, and
Speaker 1: just be cool and like, have your beliefs and politics. Look,
Speaker 1: you want to go march in the Women's March, that's great,
Speaker 1: do your thing, but don't come to all kinds of
Speaker 1: judgments about somebody. I mean, you don't have about judging him.
Speaker 1: She's you know, just because he calls himself a redneck.
Speaker 1: I'm sure there's some rednecks that voted for Hillary. You know,
Speaker 1: they're like probably four or five somewhere in the country.
Speaker 1: But no, seriously, like, like, just because he called himself
Speaker 1: a redneck doesn't mean that she knows all that much
Speaker 1: about him. She doesn't, you know, she doesn't know him.
Speaker 1: She doesn't understand what he what he's been through, and
Speaker 1: what he's dealt with. And so just be a nice
Speaker 1: person instead and stop thinking that politics is the defining
Speaker 1: characteristic of who you are day in and day out.
Speaker 1: That should be I mean, then we'd get to a
Speaker 1: happy ending, right then we would be in a better
Speaker 1: position here. Um, she says at the end, it felt
Speaker 1: like a sign that maybe if we treat one another
Speaker 1: with kindness, ingratitude, putting our most loving selves for or,
Speaker 1: this moment can transform into something more bearable. But how
Speaker 1: do we hold onto the fire fueling our resistance to
Speaker 1: the cruelty Trump unleashes, but also embraced the world with love.
Speaker 1: I wish I knew she sees she's getting close to
Speaker 1: the answer, but I'm gonna have to give her a
Speaker 1: red X on the paper here because she's not getting
Speaker 1: the answer right. Yeah, don't be such a judgmental weirdo
Speaker 1: about people because you differ with them politically. Don't think
Speaker 1: that your own politics define who you are. But also
Speaker 1: don't get so wrapped up in the national political situation
Speaker 1: that it's affecting your day to day life. Lady, if
Speaker 1: you're drinking from an I Hate Trump monk every day,
Speaker 1: you got a problem. It's time to admit you have
Speaker 1: a problem. So I hope she comes to that at
Speaker 1: some point. But she survived her encounter with the redneck
Speaker 1: self described she she's okay, She's okay, everybody. She might
Speaker 1: have learned something, and that guy sounds awesome. By the way,
Speaker 1: I'd like to have some gluten free tequila with him
Speaker 1: at some point, and we're rolling a quick break, we'll
Speaker 1: be back with Selena Zito telling us about russ Bell Democrats.
Speaker 1: Perfect transition here, stay with me. Well, you know, there's
Speaker 1: a lot of political stories going on right now, and
Speaker 1: some of them aren't getting nearly enough attention because of
Speaker 1: all the Russia memo collusion Muller nonsense. But we've got
Speaker 1: a national political reporter with us now to bring us
Speaker 1: up to speed on the mess in Pennsylvania. Our friends
Speaker 1: Selena Zero is with us now. She's written in the
Speaker 1: Washington Washington Examiner on this and she wants to tell
Speaker 1: us about what's going on. Selena, great to have you back,
Speaker 1: always great to be on the show. Thank you so much.
Speaker 1: So tell me what's going on in in Pennsylvania with
Speaker 1: and there's redistricting and the Democrats are having a big
Speaker 1: rough time. What's happening. So we've got a couple of
Speaker 1: things going on in Pennsylvania. Let's start with the with
Speaker 1: the congressional map uh tow or yeah to know. About
Speaker 1: ten days ago, as the state Supreme Court ruled that
Speaker 1: the current congressional map as drawn was illegal, unconstitutional, unconstitutional
Speaker 1: under the state, and that has to be thrown out,
Speaker 1: redrawn by the state legislature, which is a majority Republican,
Speaker 1: and then signed by the Democratic governor and put in
Speaker 1: place intended, which is crazy, right, Like can you just
Speaker 1: imagine imagine redrawing eighteen congressional districts intendees and then um
Speaker 1: changing them, and then people have to have their petitions
Speaker 1: in so they can run, and people will then have
Speaker 1: to figure out who where they live because it's going
Speaker 1: to change. So the Republicans balked at it, and they
Speaker 1: took it back to the state Supreme Court and asked
Speaker 1: them to put a stay on their own ruling, which
Speaker 1: of course they were never going to do. So then
Speaker 1: they took it to the U. S. Supreme Court and
Speaker 1: uh sam Alito said he's not going to at touch this.
Speaker 1: So now we're back to all of the eighteen congressional
Speaker 1: districts having to be redrawn. Of those eighteen seats, thirteen
Speaker 1: of them are held by Republicans, five by Democrats. Of
Speaker 1: those thirteen republicans, five have decided not to run. Whether
Speaker 1: there are um like a lot of them, Like Schuster,
Speaker 1: you know, his chairmanship and transportation expires, and these guys
Speaker 1: don't like to go from being in leadership to one
Speaker 1: of four hundred and thirty five members, So a lot
Speaker 1: of them are retiring. And um, so that's in a
Speaker 1: nutshell where this is so and they lost their leadership
Speaker 1: or step down. The Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, yes, oh yes,
Speaker 1: And there's also the state Democratic chairman, Marcel Grons, who
Speaker 1: is was a very respected state party chair leader. He
Speaker 1: was one of the first sort of Democrats to make
Speaker 1: it allowable for more moderate and centrist Democrats to you know,
Speaker 1: get on the slate and run, something that hasn't been
Speaker 1: able to happen for Democrats in this state since two
Speaker 1: thousand and eight. So it opened up the possibility that
Speaker 1: some Democrats could win in some state legislative state or
Speaker 1: congressional seats and you know, maybe have an impact in
Speaker 1: where the majority is in either of those bodies. Uh.
Speaker 1: He made some controversial mistake or uh, controversial opinions last week.
Speaker 1: I'm not sure where they were because it was within
Speaker 1: an interview with the Philadelphia Enquirer and show the the
Speaker 1: Democratic Governor Tom Wolffe asked him to leave. And now
Speaker 1: they without a state party chairman until June. We're speaking
Speaker 1: of Nazito. She is a political analyist and columnists with
Speaker 1: Washington Examiner national political reporter Selena tell me about your piece,
Speaker 1: Rise of the Rush Belt Democrats. So that was my
Speaker 1: interview with UH Congressman Tim Ryan. Jim Ryan. If you remember,
Speaker 1: in two thousand and sixteen, right after the Democrats lost
Speaker 1: not only the presidency but lost more seats in the
Speaker 1: House and the majority their minority became even smaller, UH
Speaker 1: challenge Nancy Pelosi to UH for her minority leader's seat. Now,
Speaker 1: Ryan has for the most part been a back venture
Speaker 1: UH and and so his quest was chaotic at best.
Speaker 1: He didn't win, but he did give her a run
Speaker 1: for the money. And what he did do was give
Speaker 1: a more forceful voice for moderate Democrats that has been
Speaker 1: allowed again since about two thousand and eight, two thousand
Speaker 1: and nine. He has now been asked to go to
Speaker 1: New Hampshire and more than any other Democrat considering running
Speaker 1: for Democrats for president in two thousand and twenty. So
Speaker 1: it's interesting to see a more moderate UH politician getting
Speaker 1: a voice in in a sort of upper echelon of
Speaker 1: the Democratic grassroots activism than you have seen a sense
Speaker 1: about since so, my goodness, since the time Al Gore
Speaker 1: ran in two thousand, Selena, is that part of the
Speaker 1: Democrat strategy to try to win, to get some pickups
Speaker 1: in the mid terms, they're gonna return to the old
Speaker 1: blue dog Democrat, gun toton Democrat playbook. We'll see everybody
Speaker 1: talks about that, But honest to goodness, it's there's sort
Speaker 1: of no self awareness among the Democrats. As I watched
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi today give a six our were she called
Speaker 1: it a filibuster, and what the House doesn't do a filibuster,
Speaker 1: but her six hour speech on the House floor, and
Speaker 1: I said, and I thought, you know, this does not
Speaker 1: help swing state Democrat candidates. Yeah, even if they wanted
Speaker 1: to return to that old playbook, it seems to me
Speaker 1: like being a gun total Bible loving Southern Democrat or
Speaker 1: you know whatever, brust belt Democrat. Uh, That to me
Speaker 1: is is tough to do when you're also advocating for
Speaker 1: legal alien rights all the time and transgender bathroom issues.
Speaker 1: So I think that they're gonna have a tough I
Speaker 1: think the national Democrat Party is gonna have a tough
Speaker 1: sell with that. But we'll see what happens. Selena, where's
Speaker 1: people go for? Where's your website? We gotta go in
Speaker 1: a second. Oh, Selina Zito F A L E N
Speaker 1: A S D I T O. That has everything that
Speaker 1: I write for the Examiner in the New York pust fantastic.
Speaker 1: Check it out at Selena Zito dot com. Selena, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for joining us. We appreciate and have
Speaker 1: a great one. Thanks you too. Alright, team, we're gonna
Speaker 1: do some roll call on the flip side of this
Speaker 1: BA we get to hear from all of you. Will
Speaker 1: be right back. Centator John Hallman here. Um, the president
Speaker 1: apparently I would like to throw himself a parade, military parade,
Speaker 1: um troops and tanks and all that kind of stuff. Uh.
Speaker 1: And there's some planning now underwear or at least states
Speaker 1: are being considered. What say you? I say that it's
Speaker 1: a fantastic waste of money to amuse the president. I
Speaker 1: don't think a show of military might have reminds you
Speaker 1: of what the Soviets do and what the Chinese do. Uh.
Speaker 1: And we need to honor our men and women in uniform,
Speaker 1: and but I think we ought to do so in
Speaker 1: a way that does not necessarily appear bellicoasts are threatening
Speaker 1: to the rest of the world. We want to be peacemakers,
Speaker 1: not warmakers. It also uh can be perceived as jinguists
Speaker 1: in some respects uh, saber rattling in some respects. There
Speaker 1: you have a bunch of Democrats who, no surprise, all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, are concerned about government spending. Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: a parade. And this is one of the first times
Speaker 1: I think I've ever heard Democrats in elected office argue
Speaker 1: against any parade that I'm familiar with. I mean, we
Speaker 1: got we got parades going on for everything these days, folks.
Speaker 1: I mean, I live in New York City, and let
Speaker 1: me tell you, it's you know, uh, this week it's
Speaker 1: the Army you know, not really, but you know, it's
Speaker 1: the Armenian Parade. And next week it's the Bulgarian Parade,
Speaker 1: and next week it's the Bolivian Parade, and next week
Speaker 1: it's you know, the Southern County Kerry of Ireland Parade.
Speaker 1: And it's like just parade after parade, parades all the time.
Speaker 1: All right, Devon's having parades. I will tell you, as
Speaker 1: a general rule, I'm kind of anti parade. This will
Speaker 1: not surprise any of you. I think that parades are overrated.
Speaker 1: Now I'm not anti them as that I begrudge anyone
Speaker 1: who likes them or thinks that they should all end
Speaker 1: or something. I just find the parades or it's like,
Speaker 1: oh yeah, that's loud, the floats. You're like, Okay, I
Speaker 1: gotta wait a few more minutes. It's gonna be another.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be a you know, another bunch of are
Speaker 1: I I can hear some drums. Let's give you a
Speaker 1: few minutes. You know they're gonna they're walking, they're coming.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just not the most exciting spectator spectator
Speaker 1: sport I've every Yeah, I know I'm a hater right now.
Speaker 1: Oh yeah you agree. Oh you're with me all right,
Speaker 1: Producer Mike is giving me the thumbs down on parades,
Speaker 1: the thumbs up on parades or not. You know, look,
Speaker 1: sports teams have parades. Although your Eagles fans had their
Speaker 1: own parade by friend, I saw that. But yeah, you know, look,
Speaker 1: I'm not a parade. You wanna have a pray to
Speaker 1: a parade. Here's the thing, though, the one time when
Speaker 1: I'm like, you know what, I like, I think that
Speaker 1: this is important and you need to show up. Is
Speaker 1: like Veterans Day, you Veterans Day parade, Memorial Day parade,
Speaker 1: those are parades that matter. Right, So anything that involves
Speaker 1: respect for the armed forces in the military, I think
Speaker 1: goes into a different category of parade. And this notion
Speaker 1: that Democrats have that it's so crazy z that we
Speaker 1: would take some time to celebrate. You notice none of
Speaker 1: these people like, what's the Women's March about? What the
Speaker 1: heck are they complaining about? Right? I mean, and by
Speaker 1: the way, you want to you want to get into
Speaker 1: the costs of some of these things that the Women's
Speaker 1: march in terms of oh, that's right, city services, over time,
Speaker 1: clean up to clean up for some of the parades.
Speaker 1: In New York City, it looks like a hurricane slash,
Speaker 1: tornado slash, you know, bombing raid went through downtown Manhattan.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's crazy what happens after these parades. So
Speaker 1: it is very expensive, uh, in a city budgetary sense,
Speaker 1: I mean, in a national budget having a parade, I
Speaker 1: think it's pretty minor. But the point is there's cross
Speaker 1: associated with all this stuff. But we're gonna get We're
Speaker 1: gonna get cheap. All of a sudden, we're gonna want
Speaker 1: to pen uh, pinch pennies, pinch pennies. Uh, we're gonna
Speaker 1: want to pinch pennies when it comes to honor in
Speaker 1: the military. Let's just take a little step back here
Speaker 1: for a second. Uh. And and we're gonna start saying
Speaker 1: it's jingoistic. You know, we're not North Korea, Dick Durbin.
Speaker 1: We're not saying that, Hey, look at these big missiles,
Speaker 1: We're gonna fire them at you. I mean, that's not
Speaker 1: the point. It's just for us to celebrate our own military.
Speaker 1: And I would don't. We've got a few million active
Speaker 1: duty and recently uh recently separated from the service veterans
Speaker 1: who I fought wars in Iraq, Afghanistan, deployed all over
Speaker 1: the world. They defeated the Taliban, they defeated Saddam Hussein,
Speaker 1: ousted him from power, defeated the Al Qaeda in Iraq insurgency,
Speaker 1: handed Iraq back over to the Iraqis. And I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm just going off the top of my head. By
Speaker 1: the way, I'm not trying to forget or leave out anything,
Speaker 1: but has they've done a tremendous amount of good work
Speaker 1: for the world, and we all owe them, as the
Speaker 1: American people a debt of gratitude will never be able
Speaker 1: to pay. And so if we have a prey, why
Speaker 1: why is that? This reminds me of when Democrats right
Speaker 1: after Not eleven we're kind of like, man, I don't
Speaker 1: know about flags, you know, all the flag waving maybe,
Speaker 1: and everyone was like, I'm sorry, what's that. You got
Speaker 1: a problem with the American flag? Now elected officials and
Speaker 1: media pundits, because that's weird now all of a sudden,
Speaker 1: because Trump is for a military parade, there against it.
Speaker 1: So maybe I should give them the benefit of the
Speaker 1: doubt and assume here that what's really at work is
Speaker 1: just their Trump derangement syndrome and that they don't have
Speaker 1: a problem with a parade for the military as a concept.
Speaker 1: They're just pretending to because they hate Trump so much.
Speaker 1: I just hate Trump. They just get so upset about
Speaker 1: all of this. But I recall, you know, after World
Speaker 1: War Two, for example, some really timeless and inspiring photos
Speaker 1: of our our boys coming back from overseas, so to speak,
Speaker 1: are men and women in uniform coming back to the States,
Speaker 1: ticker tape parade, the whole thing. What's what's wrong with that.
Speaker 1: I would need some of these Democrats to explain. Oh, yeah,
Speaker 1: they're worried about the budget, right, sure, that's what it's about.
Speaker 1: I mean, that's the biggest crock of nonsense. But they're
Speaker 1: opposed to the optics of this. They think that the
Speaker 1: perception of a parade would somehow what antagonized North Korea.
Speaker 1: Do we care about antagonizing North Korea? I think I
Speaker 1: think a little more antagonism against North Korea is probably
Speaker 1: a good thing. But that's you know, the assamble. And
Speaker 1: by the way, anyone who says that we should uh
Speaker 1: we are not or or we are overestimating the furer
Speaker 1: and opposition to this doesn't pay attention to what's going
Speaker 1: on in the world around them. You've got a guy
Speaker 1: named Arne men Coni who is a former a former
Speaker 1: US Senate candidate. I have a feeling he probably got
Speaker 1: a grand total of uh, you know, five votes. But
Speaker 1: he says, we quote, we already have thirteen people who
Speaker 1: have signed up to lay down in front of the tanks.
Speaker 1: If Trump brings out a military parade. This is not
Speaker 1: a military authoritarian state, we will you join us. Hashtag
Speaker 1: Trump parade. These people think that this is like Tianamen Square,
Speaker 1: you know that they're standing up the Trump, the dictator.
Speaker 1: It's like, no, this would be U. S. Military. You know,
Speaker 1: it would be a parade where we're celebrating the military
Speaker 1: and thank you very much. This should be a big
Speaker 1: thank you for your service day. Right, So what's what's
Speaker 1: the issue? Isn't it so interesting Democrats? You know, I
Speaker 1: know they all say things like, oh, we support the troops.
Speaker 1: You know, that's bipartisan. A lot of Democrats they got
Speaker 1: some questions about the troops. To be honest with you,
Speaker 1: a lot of Democrats in places they don't talk about
Speaker 1: at parties, they wonder, you know, why didn't they have
Speaker 1: the I'm talking about Democrat elected politicians now, but they wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, they didn't have the the fortitude to do it.
Speaker 1: And look, I know there are other Democrats who are
Speaker 1: in Congress who served honorably and are great and all
Speaker 1: that too. But if you're looking for disdain for the
Speaker 1: military and political circles, even it might be slightly closeted disdain,
Speaker 1: but you're looking for it's always among Democrats. You never
Speaker 1: find Republicans that are like, yeah, military, I'm kind of
Speaker 1: iffy on it. There are some Democrats that are like, man,
Speaker 1: I'm a little iffy on the whole U. S. Military thing.
Speaker 1: It's a it's just the way it is. I mean,
Speaker 1: it's the way that their ideology lines up on a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of things, um not, not the least of
Speaker 1: which is that we are the cause of problems in
Speaker 1: the world. Right, that's a classic leftist Democrat talking point,
Speaker 1: that we cause, that our military causes problems all over
Speaker 1: the world. And the Gnome Chomsky view, if you will,
Speaker 1: on the military, that's a Democrat issue, that's not a
Speaker 1: Republican one. So like, I don't like parades, but I'd
Speaker 1: be down for a parade for a military And I
Speaker 1: think that Trump's onto onto something here, if nothing else.
Speaker 1: Once again, he manages to expose that Democrats just always
Speaker 1: seem to have a little bit of a well Trump
Speaker 1: de arrangement syndrome clouds their judgment on everything. But also
Speaker 1: when it comes to military, it's like, why aren't you
Speaker 1: guys on board for this a little bit sooner? A
Speaker 1: little strange, isn't it. I want to tell you about
Speaker 1: a Trump voter and a March for Women person that
Speaker 1: they had quite they had quite a little a little
Speaker 1: sit down. I'm gonna not sit down, but an interaction.
Speaker 1: This is gonna come up. You've got to hear this.
Speaker 1: It is illuminating about the way that coastal blue Democrat
Speaker 1: voters view Trump. Trump is um and people who vote
Speaker 1: for either of those things. Um, I think we're gonna
Speaker 1: have some fun with it. So what happens when when
Speaker 1: somebody from the Women's March is having car trouble and
Speaker 1: is in the middle of nowhere, in the middle of
Speaker 1: the wilds of Virginia confronted with that always ah, always
Speaker 1: terrifying situation of a Trump voter who comes to her
Speaker 1: aid on the side of the highway. Oh, we will
Speaker 1: discuss that and much more. My friend's coming up in
Speaker 1: the next hour. Stay with me.