Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. The census question looks
Speaker 1: like it won't be added, but Trump is saying we'll
Speaker 1: find another way to get the information about who are
Speaker 1: citizens in this country. Also the fight over what to
Speaker 1: do on these ice raids. Democrats are flipping out, saying
Speaker 1: this will make communities less safe. Oh what a shock.
Speaker 1: They're opposed to law enforcement when it comes to immigration.
Speaker 1: That plus and Cultur will join with the latest on Epstein,
Speaker 1: the census question, Immigration, Trump, and so much more coming
Speaker 1: up on The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show where the mission or mission is to decode
Speaker 1: what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistakes American,
Speaker 1: You're a great American Again the buck Sexton Show began.
Speaker 1: He's a great guy. No, it's a bad guy. Is
Speaker 1: that the President does not seem to share. And we
Speaker 1: saw this morning when he announced his heartless raids on
Speaker 1: families this coming Sunday. This goes too far because these raids,
Speaker 1: we're not what they signed up for with President Trump,
Speaker 1: and I think they're calls to the President made a difference.
Speaker 1: On Sunday. West of the Mississippi, our people are in
Speaker 1: church and as they prepare to go to church. They
Speaker 1: feel very threatened and scared by these raids. Welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Saxons show, everybody. We knew this would happen.
Speaker 1: Here you have Nancy Pelosi, Speaker of the House, very
Speaker 1: very powerful legislator, legislators, some would argue, really the most
Speaker 1: powerful legislator in the country right now, Maybe only Mitch
Speaker 1: McConnell up there with her. But you have Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: doing what we knew she and the Democrats would, opposing
Speaker 1: the enforcement of our immigration laws because it's just so mean,
Speaker 1: it's just so heartless. Immigrations and Customs Enforcement is a
Speaker 1: federal agency that acts upon existing statutes, statutes that say,
Speaker 1: if you're in this country illegally, if you've had your
Speaker 1: days in court, or if you have refused to show
Speaker 1: up in court and you are supposed to be deported,
Speaker 1: you have a deportation order, you go home, you get
Speaker 1: sent home. That is what the law says, the laws
Speaker 1: that are created by the very body that Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: sits atop right now over on Capitol Hill. But she
Speaker 1: and the rest of the Democrats are running around grandstanding
Speaker 1: virtue signaling about how horrible it is that a select
Speaker 1: group of people that were picked and then will be
Speaker 1: even beyond that looked over by immigration and Customs enforcement
Speaker 1: officers and prioritized that even this list of those are
Speaker 1: under our law supposed to be deported, they are not
Speaker 1: deported without Democrats crying about it, saying it's heartless, saying
Speaker 1: it's awful, undermining our law enforcement efforts. They don't want
Speaker 1: this to happen. Trump backed off at a couple of
Speaker 1: weeks ago. When is it obvious what's going on here, folks?
Speaker 1: They are rooting for illegal immigration. They have no problem
Speaker 1: with illegal immigration. They do not want them to be
Speaker 1: punishment for illegal immigrants. They are hoping that illegal immigrants
Speaker 1: are able to evade law enforcement. If they were honorable,
Speaker 1: if the Democrats weren't just a bunch of hypocritical, self
Speaker 1: righteous grandstanders, they would say, we want to pass a
Speaker 1: bill to to change the law so that you can
Speaker 1: just come into this country and stay, and if you're
Speaker 1: already in this country illegally, you get to stay. Now.
Speaker 1: You might say to me, buck, buck, that's never gonna
Speaker 1: work because the Republicans won't go along. Okay, but at
Speaker 1: least the Democrats would be pushing for what they want
Speaker 1: as a matter of law, instead of what they have now,
Speaker 1: which is, oh, no, no, no, no no, we're not going
Speaker 1: to change the laws. But what do you mean you're
Speaker 1: enforcing those laws. What do you mean what is said
Speaker 1: on the page of the law books is to be
Speaker 1: taken seriously by federal law enforcement. They are undermining the
Speaker 1: very foundation of our system by doing this. They're undermining
Speaker 1: our rule of law every single day. Every time they
Speaker 1: do this. They never explain why shouldn't someone with a
Speaker 1: deportation order be deported. They've gone through the system, we
Speaker 1: have a process. And this is where you start to
Speaker 1: see the radical Olynskiite side of the Democrats really exposing itself.
Speaker 1: You had mayor Peat today also say we're gonna make
Speaker 1: the prison population half its current size. Folks, this is
Speaker 1: where we're this is what we're dealing with now. If
Speaker 1: this Democratic party that Trump is up against they want
Speaker 1: to empty out the prisons by half, it's gonna be
Speaker 1: a lot a lot of bad, bad folks out there.
Speaker 1: You know, the prisons are not full of half people
Speaker 1: that didn't do anything wrong. I hate to break it
Speaker 1: to the Democrats, you know, open the prisons half of
Speaker 1: them out and then open borders, and everybody's here gets
Speaker 1: to stay, and anyone is here gets to have the
Speaker 1: taxpayers foot the bill for them, and we're just gonna
Speaker 1: keep spending and spending and spending. Nothing ever changes on
Speaker 1: that front. Look, I have told you to celebrate recently.
Speaker 1: I've said, enjoy this country for what it is right now,
Speaker 1: Enjoy what's going on, because it's not gonna last. These
Speaker 1: Democrats are showing us it is not going to last.
Speaker 1: They are playing with fire, and I'm starting to think
Speaker 1: that they're not just playing. I'm thinking they're arsonists. Democrats
Speaker 1: have a disdain for this country. It comes out time
Speaker 1: and again from their public pronouncements. They want to fundamentally
Speaker 1: transform and change this country, and a great way to
Speaker 1: do that is to watch it crumble down and then
Speaker 1: they get to be the ones who build it back
Speaker 1: up in their image. I'm starting to think that that's
Speaker 1: really what the ends date is here, folks. That's what
Speaker 1: they're hoping to accomplish. Immigration is just one way that
Speaker 1: they'll get there. We'll have more on this in a moment. Well,
Speaker 1: this makes America less safe. Look, I don't think anybody
Speaker 1: disagrees that there ought to be law enforcement protecting people
Speaker 1: from danger. That's not what this is about. This is
Speaker 1: targeting people who are caught in a broken system where
Speaker 1: there should be a pathway to citizenship. And again, in
Speaker 1: a community like mine, if rumors start going on about raids,
Speaker 1: let alone, if it starts actually happening, it immediately makes
Speaker 1: the community less safe. It makes people less likely to
Speaker 1: participate in the economy, less likely to talk to law
Speaker 1: enforcement when they need help dealing with something that really
Speaker 1: is a matter of danger, And it's really designed to
Speaker 1: strike fear into people at a moment when fear is
Speaker 1: something we've got way too much of in this country.
Speaker 1: No one's allowed to be deported anymore, folks, That's what
Speaker 1: the Democrats really want to say. That's where they are.
Speaker 1: Maybe if you're an MS thirteen gang assassin, maybe then
Speaker 1: you get deported, but only if you've had a lot
Speaker 1: of taxpayer funded defense teams, and you know, you get
Speaker 1: to have your trial and then an appeal, and maybe
Speaker 1: go in front of an immigration judge separate from your
Speaker 1: trial and your appeal, and you know, only when you've
Speaker 1: absolutely exhausted and this is as an illegal when you've
Speaker 1: exhausted all of that due process. Then maybe you get
Speaker 1: sent home. If you've really killed some people and you
Speaker 1: don't vote Democrat, you know, then you get sent home.
Speaker 1: Short of that, they don't want to send anybody home.
Speaker 1: And here's why this makes me so mad, because I
Speaker 1: was involved starting last summer publicly in the debates about
Speaker 1: what's going to happen, what is going to be the
Speaker 1: reality for all of these different illegal aliens crossing into
Speaker 1: this country and going into the asylum process. They kept
Speaker 1: telling us, the Democrats are saying, just respect the process,
Speaker 1: just let them do the process. And we would ask,
Speaker 1: and you'd ask, Democrats go back. You'll hear them say
Speaker 1: this on the record, members of Congress. Oh, if they
Speaker 1: don't get there, if they don't get asylum when they
Speaker 1: go through that process, we respect the final determination of
Speaker 1: our immigration courts, and they should be sent home. Well
Speaker 1: that was while the numbers were getting up, run up,
Speaker 1: run up on hundred and thirty one hundred and forty
Speaker 1: thousand a month, run up, run up, run up, more
Speaker 1: and more and more. Now that we realize this is
Speaker 1: really a crisis. We've got too many people coming in.
Speaker 1: They're saying, whoa, whoa, whoa Hold on a second, you
Speaker 1: can't send these people that have had all their due process,
Speaker 1: who came into country illegally, you can't send them home.
Speaker 1: Now they are they are an absolutely essential part of
Speaker 1: this country. They're doing the jobs Americans won't do. They're
Speaker 1: more lab them, they're better than Americans. Oh, you mean
Speaker 1: that we should have seen this coming all along, that
Speaker 1: it was all a con that they never intended to
Speaker 1: be honest about any of this, that they were just
Speaker 1: hoping that we would be in the situation we're in
Speaker 1: right now, which is that effectively, Democrats have turned this
Speaker 1: into a human rights issue where if you're in America,
Speaker 1: it is your human right to never get sent anywhere
Speaker 1: else as long as you vote Democrat. That's where this
Speaker 1: is now. I mean, may repeat their claiming that law
Speaker 1: enforcement needs to protect people from danger, but not this.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry. Is anyone in danger if I don't pay
Speaker 1: my taxes? Does that endanger? Can they make that argue?
Speaker 1: Is anyone in danger if I don't pay my taxes?
Speaker 1: Is it in danger if you don't pay your taxes?
Speaker 1: The answers, of course, is no. Is it ain't even
Speaker 1: hurt by it? No? You can't make the argument, I
Speaker 1: don't even really hurt by it. If you refuse to
Speaker 1: pay your taxes, and you refuse a judge's summons to
Speaker 1: come answer for why you didn't pay your taxes, men
Speaker 1: with guns are going to come to your home. Men
Speaker 1: and women perhaps will come to your home and take you, yes,
Speaker 1: separate you from your family, and take you to a cell.
Speaker 1: And if you say sorry, I don't want to do that,
Speaker 1: they're going to forcibly put you on the ground and
Speaker 1: handcuff you. And if you keep fighting, they're going to
Speaker 1: keep escalating force. So why is that justice? Why should
Speaker 1: that be the law? If laws about immigration are no
Speaker 1: longer valid, laws about taxes should no longer be valid either.
Speaker 1: Let's see how long the dem lib status authoritarians can
Speaker 1: fund their little dream projects when people that are paying
Speaker 1: way too much in taxes already are like, you know what,
Speaker 1: I'm just done with this. And then we can also
Speaker 1: go on, oh, they're separating my family because I didn't
Speaker 1: pay what What's what? Explain to me the difference? Someone?
Speaker 1: Please try? I mean, if they try, they get they
Speaker 1: get smacked around, so they know they won't because there
Speaker 1: is no difference. They say that, they say that there's fundamentally,
Speaker 1: the problem that we face now is that Democrats do
Speaker 1: not believe that illegal entry or illegal status in America
Speaker 1: is a crime. They don't think this should be a crime.
Speaker 1: They don't think this is a crime. They think they
Speaker 1: see nothing wrong with That's why I keep saying, ask
Speaker 1: a Democrat what is the downside immigration? Not that they
Speaker 1: stick to these very service talking much. We believe in
Speaker 1: border security, we believe in rule of law. We okay,
Speaker 1: they'll say that those are talking points. What does a
Speaker 1: legal immigration do that is bad? According to the Democratic Party?
Speaker 1: And this is now a mantra for all of them.
Speaker 1: They are All they do is contribute to the economy,
Speaker 1: make our community safer, and make out if and remember,
Speaker 1: these are not people that have been vetted or been screened,
Speaker 1: or they just show up, why have an immigration system
Speaker 1: at all? If we are supposed to assume, and we
Speaker 1: are being told assume this, or else you are racist,
Speaker 1: assume this is the case about illegals, or else you
Speaker 1: are a bad person. You are to assume that illegals
Speaker 1: as a group are more law abiding, more productive, and
Speaker 1: better in this country, better contributors to the polity than
Speaker 1: Americans are, based on nothing based on just what the
Speaker 1: Lib media says and what the Democratic Party says, and
Speaker 1: you might see, buck, why are they so why are
Speaker 1: they adhere to this so much? One, it's a really
Speaker 1: handy weapon. The illegal immigrant issues a very handy weapon
Speaker 1: against the Republican Party. They let's call us racist and xenophogues.
Speaker 1: And anything that allows Democrats in the short term to
Speaker 1: call Republicans racist is something that Democrats can't help but
Speaker 1: just immediately latch onto. But we all know here the
Speaker 1: long term game, the long term game is that this
Speaker 1: is how the Republican Party dies. This is how limited government,
Speaker 1: rule of law, individual rights, constitutional restraint, separation of powers.
Speaker 1: It all goes away, and we just turn into one
Speaker 1: of these countries where majority rules and then majority sees
Speaker 1: is power and then power is everything. And you know,
Speaker 1: you can the Constitution is not gonna be worth a
Speaker 1: whole lot of anything. The reason that all this works
Speaker 1: is because the people who are here, you me, my
Speaker 1: fellow Americans, we believe in this, and we have a
Speaker 1: culture and we have a history, and we have a
Speaker 1: way that we from California to you know, New York,
Speaker 1: from Texas up to Minnesota, we have a way that
Speaker 1: we think about the world, that we think about each other,
Speaker 1: and that is unique and special to us. And if
Speaker 1: we just decide that that doesn't matter anymore and just
Speaker 1: anyone can show up, how can we pretend that there's
Speaker 1: even assimilation process at that point? How can you say
Speaker 1: that there's going to be assimilation? When is when is
Speaker 1: the number two high for there to be assimilation? No
Speaker 1: discussions whatsoever. The Democrats, though, just just more pandering, more
Speaker 1: nonsense from them and just emotionalizing the issue too. This
Speaker 1: all you are going to hear is that this is
Speaker 1: about separating families. That is to talk about separating families.
Speaker 1: By the way, a lot of these families were separated
Speaker 1: by choice by the families by sending kids on accompanying
Speaker 1: to the border, handing them over to human trafficking organizations.
Speaker 1: Oh buck, they're so desperate. I'm sorry. They're not stacking
Speaker 1: up bodies and they're not digging mass graves in Guatemalo
Speaker 1: right now, Like we know, we do have to have
Speaker 1: some sense of reality here. We keep getting told of
Speaker 1: these people are seeking asylum and they're fleeing violence and persecution.
Speaker 1: They just want to be in a better country. That
Speaker 1: doesn't make them bad people. But everybody wants to be
Speaker 1: in a at our country. Who's not in a great country.
Speaker 1: There's not enough great country to go around, folks. This
Speaker 1: is what you know, We're getting to the point where
Speaker 1: we have to start having these discussions openly. You know.
Speaker 1: I mean, I don't I don't want to live in
Speaker 1: a country where the government doesn't care if you're a
Speaker 1: citizen or not. But they're just going to say that
Speaker 1: it's all it's all about separating families. It's a system
Speaker 1: that's abusing human rights. This is one of the Democrat
Speaker 1: left wing Superstarsziona Pressley far left superstars. That is here's
Speaker 1: what she has to say, play one. It is unfortunate
Speaker 1: that our country is no longer standing by its promise
Speaker 1: of being a beacon of hope and haven for those
Speaker 1: like you seeking asylum. Instead, this administration has criminalized families
Speaker 1: and is now operating a fundamentally flawed system that is
Speaker 1: systemically separating families and engaging in human rights abuses on
Speaker 1: US soil. What does that mean criminalizing families? It's not
Speaker 1: criminalizing families. Criminalizing a legal entry has been the law,
Speaker 1: you know, and still is the law. Congress isn't even
Speaker 1: trying to change that law. It's not criminalizing families. That's
Speaker 1: just a lie. It's just a lie. But we're not
Speaker 1: doing enough. We're not this on Democrats always saying we're
Speaker 1: not living up to our promise. We're not being the
Speaker 1: country we say we're on all this stuff. I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: We take a million legal immigrants in every year. We're
Speaker 1: gonna have a million illegal immigrants in this year. That's
Speaker 1: a lot of people. At what point did we start
Speaker 1: to say it, We'll hold on a second. Can we
Speaker 1: focus a little more on the people that are already
Speaker 1: in this country. We got problems we've gotta fix here.
Speaker 1: You know, if they're just gonna say that it makes
Speaker 1: it better, and you know, if you're gonna take this,
Speaker 1: there's some radical libertarians to believe this too. Just open borders,
Speaker 1: just let everybody in, all right. Look, that's an experiment
Speaker 1: where if you run it and you're raw, the country
Speaker 1: is over. Democrats want to run that experiment. They want
Speaker 1: to run the open borders experiment. They want to run
Speaker 1: the modern monetary theory just inflate the currency and don't
Speaker 1: worry about it. They want to run that experiment. They
Speaker 1: really do want to. They want to at least risk
Speaker 1: completely destroying this country. I mean that is not an exaggeration.
Speaker 1: Absolutely destroying our economy, destroying our political culture. They are
Speaker 1: taking steps right now that push us absolutely in that direction,
Speaker 1: and they're willing to do it. They're willing to roll
Speaker 1: the dice. The question that a lot of you probably have,
Speaker 1: or maybe one that I pose to you, is do
Speaker 1: they know that that's what they're doing and they want
Speaker 1: to do it anyway? Do they think it's a risk
Speaker 1: or is that the end goal to bring about a
Speaker 1: collapse that they can be in charge of the reordering.
Speaker 1: I don't know, man. Democrats say some pretty crazy stuff
Speaker 1: these days, but this is kicking at the load bearing
Speaker 1: walls of our civilization, of our country of America. That's
Speaker 1: what they are doing right now. Immigration is just a
Speaker 1: front line of that effort. Who is speaking up on this,
Speaker 1: Who is making the case? We need more voices who
Speaker 1: understand this and who are eloquent and who are persuasive
Speaker 1: and who get it. You got more coming up, Stay
Speaker 1: with me. The Democrats. All they need to do is
Speaker 1: support border security and the government will be funded. But
Speaker 1: that that we're talking about the border control. The Democrats
Speaker 1: support border security, they don't support five billion dollars. Could
Speaker 1: you could? Could you identify will for me some of
Speaker 1: the kinds of border security you're saying that the Democrats.
Speaker 1: Democrats say they support border security, what where they don't
Speaker 1: we respect you? They voted against Kate's law, they voted
Speaker 1: against ending sanctuary cities. They voted against supporting mister Team
Speaker 1: gang members. They voted against supporting violent criminals. They voted
Speaker 1: time and time again against a physical border. Walter's topic
Speaker 1: legal entry. I mean, where is the evidence that you
Speaker 1: keep asserting they're for border security. They haven't been. They
Speaker 1: opposed closing loophole asylum that flood our system with meritless clients.
Speaker 1: I want to move out. Yeah. If I were Wolf,
Speaker 1: I want to move on too. Because he just got
Speaker 1: buck slapped. I guess, well, technically it was Miller slapped,
Speaker 1: but it's my show, so I'm gonna say it was
Speaker 1: buck slap exactly. That was fantastic Stephen Miller sounding like
Speaker 1: Buck s exit on the radio. Here. What do I say?
Speaker 1: All the time they oppose enforcement at every turn, every action,
Speaker 1: every measure, and then they turn around and say, oh,
Speaker 1: but word for border security. No, they're not. They're not
Speaker 1: for border security. They're absolutely not for border security. How
Speaker 1: much more clear does it have to be? How much
Speaker 1: more clear could it be? Find one aspect of the
Speaker 1: border and securing the border, and then say do Democrats
Speaker 1: support this toy? Against it? Every time? Every time they're
Speaker 1: against it? So actions speak louder than words here, words
Speaker 1: don't even really matter. Actions are all that matters. That's
Speaker 1: very it's very frustrating, it really is, all right. On
Speaker 1: the census question, Democrats are there's such clowns, they're so
Speaker 1: disingenuous the census. And we'll talk to and Culter a
Speaker 1: little bit more about this later on as well. I
Speaker 1: want to get ans take on it. But the census
Speaker 1: has been a question that's around. It was on the
Speaker 1: census every year, you know, citizenship rather was a question
Speaker 1: on the census every year until I think nineteen fifty
Speaker 1: or so. But now to have a question that was
Speaker 1: always there, and that makes perfect sense to ask are
Speaker 1: you a citizen? You know I have to check this
Speaker 1: box when I apply for a job. Are you a citizen?
Speaker 1: Why is it so weird to ask people when you're
Speaker 1: trying to count who's in the country and what their
Speaker 1: situation is. Are you a citizen but Mayor Peach running
Speaker 1: around here? You know, Mayor Pete. He disappoints me because
Speaker 1: he's smarter than this, but he is that he has
Speaker 1: to say certain things to get what he wants to
Speaker 1: advance in this looney left wing Democratic Party. But here's
Speaker 1: what may Or Pete had to say about the census recently,
Speaker 1: Play five. This is racially and politically motivated manipulation of
Speaker 1: the census. It makes the whole country worse off. It
Speaker 1: leads to underrepresentation. It'll lead to an undercount and in
Speaker 1: a community like mine, an industrial Midwest city that is
Speaker 1: finally growing but would not be seen to be growing
Speaker 1: if you netted out immigration, it threatens our ability to
Speaker 1: get access to resources. There's a reason why the court's
Speaker 1: ruled that this is wrong. I'll let other scholars talk
Speaker 1: about why the president's action may be unconstitutional, but it's
Speaker 1: very clear that it's wrong. How could it be unconstitutional
Speaker 1: to ask a question that was on the census every
Speaker 1: ten years for almost two hundred years. How could it
Speaker 1: be unconstitutional? The government gets to decide what questions ask
Speaker 1: on the senses. This is a completely relevant normal question
Speaker 1: to ask, unconstitutional, but Democrats just use that word as
Speaker 1: a I don't like it, and I want to sound
Speaker 1: smart unconstitutional. I do believe may Or Peat is smarter
Speaker 1: than this. But he's playing he's playing dumb because he's
Speaker 1: got to appeal to the dumb left wing bass. He's
Speaker 1: he's manipulating them, and I find that pretty gross. But
Speaker 1: that's what that's what he's doing that it's it's it's
Speaker 1: racially motivated. Why is it racially motive? We're asking, but citizenship,
Speaker 1: citizenship is not a racially is not an issue of
Speaker 1: race at all. There are a lot of citizens in
Speaker 1: America who are of all different races. Why is citizenship
Speaker 1: a racially motivated issue? Because there are a lot of
Speaker 1: illegal aliens who are non white, Hispanic or Latino. Okay,
Speaker 1: well that's but that's not all of them. This is
Speaker 1: a completely universally, universally applicable question. We're just asking about citizenship.
Speaker 1: We're not asking are you an illegal alien Mexican. It's
Speaker 1: not a racial component here, and then just say that
Speaker 1: it's it's politically motivated. Well, yeah, the data would show
Speaker 1: that there are far more illegals in this country that
Speaker 1: we even led to believe, and maybe maybe people should
Speaker 1: know that. Maybe that's the thing that they should be
Speaker 1: allowed to know. Jim Jim Jordan shirtless Jim. Does anyone
Speaker 1: else call him? Oh? No, it's not shirtless Jim buck Wow. Hey,
Speaker 1: hey Jim seeing his moves on the up of the
Speaker 1: dance floor. No, no, he's he's jacketless Jim. That's what
Speaker 1: I was trying to Shirtless Jim. Whoa, he's like he's
Speaker 1: a Chippendale's guy, just got a little bow tiled. Jacketless
Speaker 1: Jim Jordan. He understands it's really gone on with the
Speaker 1: census Place six. Are we going to see an executive
Speaker 1: order here? What do you predict? I think we will,
Speaker 1: and I think it's a good move. Look, this is
Speaker 1: just common sense. We've been asking the census question, the
Speaker 1: citizenship question on the census, in one form or another,
Speaker 1: for two hundred years. And you go talk to any
Speaker 1: one on the street asking do you think we should
Speaker 1: be asking a citizenship question on the census. Every single
Speaker 1: person you talk to will say yeah, and then they'll
Speaker 1: quickly follow it up with a second question. Let's say,
Speaker 1: aren't we doing that already? And of course you'd have
Speaker 1: to say. Yes, We've been doing it for two hundred years,
Speaker 1: so this is common sense. Everyone's for it, everyone understands
Speaker 1: it's needed. Except Democrats in Congress. Yep. Couldn't be more
Speaker 1: obvious that this is the right thing to do, this
Speaker 1: is the right question to ask. And yet here we are,
Speaker 1: and we had we had. Trump finally announced that he's
Speaker 1: not going to include a citizenship question on the twenty
Speaker 1: twenty census, and he's going to take an executive action.
Speaker 1: As we go to air here at least this is
Speaker 1: the latest an executive action that instructs the Commerce Department
Speaker 1: to obtain an estimate of US citizenship through other means.
Speaker 1: Why can we never ever get this information? Why does
Speaker 1: it always have to be there's some stumbling block, there's
Speaker 1: some reason why we cannot know how many people have
Speaker 1: come into America illegally and are living here illegally. It
Speaker 1: shouldn't be this hard, it should not be this complicated.
Speaker 1: But there is a there's a vested interest among the
Speaker 1: left in preventing us from finding this information out. And also,
Speaker 1: just like they do constantly with their voter suppression, they're
Speaker 1: always yelling at voter suppression, and then there's like record
Speaker 1: high voting in the place they're saying among minorities where
Speaker 1: they say there's gonna be voter suppression. They like to
Speaker 1: pretend that this is another what is their favorite allegation
Speaker 1: against Republicans. Sexism is high, but it's not the high.
Speaker 1: Their favorite is racism. They love to play the racism card.
Speaker 1: We'll talk later about how AOC is playing the racism
Speaker 1: card look in a subtle fashion, but she's playing it
Speaker 1: against Nancy Pelosi, you know, old old white lady. Pelosi's
Speaker 1: being a little insensitive to color, AOC has been saying.
Speaker 1: So that's that's interesting when we get that coming up.
Speaker 1: But also Tom Steyer wants to give healthcare to illegals,
Speaker 1: means he wants to have the government take money from
Speaker 1: you and hurt your access to healthcare or long run,
Speaker 1: that's what's going to happen here. We'll get into that
Speaker 1: in a moment. Yes or no, would your insurance plan
Speaker 1: provide coverage for undocumented undocumented immigrants? And so the short
Speaker 1: answer is going to be yes. Once again, I want
Speaker 1: to talk about something broader, which is this, we have
Speaker 1: a failed immigration system. We should have comprehensive immigration reform,
Speaker 1: which is a classic thing that this government has been
Speaker 1: unable to do for decades. So in that context, what
Speaker 1: are you supposed to do with people who are part
Speaker 1: of society, live here, contribute to society, and yet are
Speaker 1: somehow under the radar, are living in the shadows which
Speaker 1: they're a part of society. The good news is that
Speaker 1: Tom Steyer is a billionaire, which makes me think that
Speaker 1: anyone can be a billionaire. So we've got that going
Speaker 1: for us, because this guy's deeply unimpressive. So that's the
Speaker 1: good news. The bad news is that now you've got
Speaker 1: a billionaire in this race who is not going to
Speaker 1: be open about this, but just listening to him, it's
Speaker 1: very clear that he is for effectively open borders, that
Speaker 1: he believes it, certainly believes an amnesty. Absolutely, that's a
Speaker 1: whole all we're contributing in the shadow? Okay, so does
Speaker 1: anyone is the assumption we make that anyone who comes
Speaker 1: here illegally or otherwise, anyone who comes here, even if
Speaker 1: they're illegal, they are contributing and not a net taker.
Speaker 1: That's the assumption we have to operate. Well, then the
Speaker 1: way for us to get truly rich, remember that is
Speaker 1: the assumption the Left operates under. But the way for
Speaker 1: us to get truly rich is to just take in
Speaker 1: as many we should take in ten million illiterate, non
Speaker 1: English speaking people from cultures that are very dissimilar to
Speaker 1: ours all over the world. Ten million a year will
Speaker 1: be the wealthiest country in the history of the universe.
Speaker 1: Because they're all. They're all. It doesn't matter, or does
Speaker 1: it matter. Other countries have a merit based system where
Speaker 1: they try to assess whether someone because they recognize that
Speaker 1: some people are wards of the state, some people are
Speaker 1: a net drain on the economy. This is just the facts,
Speaker 1: this is just reality. You can't have that discussion. You're heartless,
Speaker 1: You're being You're bad. I think the Democrats have already
Speaker 1: lost the election. I think it's because healthcare for illegals
Speaker 1: is a deal breaker. Anybody who has and my only
Speaker 1: concern here is that there aren't enough people who have
Speaker 1: a basic understanding of economics to tackle this one. But
Speaker 1: anyone who does, and not even economics, just math healthcare
Speaker 1: for illegals. We are running out of money right now
Speaker 1: for Medicare. That's already been talking with the president. We're
Speaker 1: running a big deficit and we have not. We have
Speaker 1: not curb spending at all on this President. Look that
Speaker 1: the facts are the facts. We're running out of money
Speaker 1: on medicare. You're not going to give medicare to illegals.
Speaker 1: So then how do you distinguish between somebody who shows
Speaker 1: up and says, oh, I've been living here for a
Speaker 1: couple of years, working in the shadows, and I need
Speaker 1: I need a heart surgery, and someone who comes from
Speaker 1: anywhere in the world and just says, Okay, I'm here,
Speaker 1: give you my heart surgery. Now, heart surgery costs a
Speaker 1: couple hundred thousand dollars, half million dollars, depends on the surgery.
Speaker 1: Does anyone anybody have an answer to this is the answer? Yes,
Speaker 1: So so we get to pay for the rest of
Speaker 1: the world's healthcare. That because if we open this up,
Speaker 1: we're seeing this in the southern border. If you show
Speaker 1: up with a kid, you get to stay. Guess what now,
Speaker 1: people from China and Bangladesh and all over the place
Speaker 1: are shown up here. I got a kid, you gotta
Speaker 1: let me in. Do they really think that if we
Speaker 1: start giving healthcare to anyone who's in the country, paid
Speaker 1: for by the taxpayer, that there won't be people who
Speaker 1: engage in kind of benefit tourism. Show up in America,
Speaker 1: get your heart fixed, show up in America, get your
Speaker 1: hip fix. Now this is where the smarmie libs jump
Speaker 1: in and say, you're so mean, don't you care about
Speaker 1: the people are Okay, I'm so mean. I have to
Speaker 1: pay onerous taxes every year under penalty of being thrown
Speaker 1: in prison and obey all kinds of stupid laws that
Speaker 1: libs will defend to the hilth and say it's the law,
Speaker 1: it's the law. Let other be look at your show
Speaker 1: up here illegally, have a right to a doctor's labor,
Speaker 1: have a right to taxpayer dollars, And you and I
Speaker 1: will be told that's right, American citizens. We're gonna be told, Yeah,
Speaker 1: you know that you've got You've got that surgery. You
Speaker 1: don't have to wait a couple of years for that one.
Speaker 1: And if what if I'm in pain? If what if
Speaker 1: I die because I'm waiting for the surgery, Oh, there
Speaker 1: won't There won't be scarcity. There's not going to be
Speaker 1: an increased drain on the healthcare system when the entire
Speaker 1: healthcare system is being paid. When rather illegal immigrants can
Speaker 1: rely on the healthcare system to pay entirely for whatever
Speaker 1: care they get. Does any serious person really believe that?
Speaker 1: I already know there are a lot of doctors who
Speaker 1: won't take Medicaid because Medicaid reimbursement rates aren't high enough. Increasingly,
Speaker 1: doctors aren't gonna take Medicare because Medicare reimbursement rates aren't
Speaker 1: not gonna be high enough. And some doctors also have
Speaker 1: just left practice because there's so many there's so much paperwork,
Speaker 1: so much box check. I can't tell you I don't
Speaker 1: I don't want to go to the the doctor because every
Speaker 1: time I go, well, first of all, modern medicine, like
Speaker 1: fifty percent of the time completely lets me down, takes
Speaker 1: my money, and does nothing to help me. But I
Speaker 1: don't know if any of you have had the same experience.
Speaker 1: I'm just telling you the experience I've had. I'd I'd
Speaker 1: say my satisfaction rate going to an MD with a
Speaker 1: problem is about fifty percent and about fifty percent of
Speaker 1: the time, and they either have no idea what's wrong,
Speaker 1: or they're like, yeah, it's probably gonna be that way
Speaker 1: maybe forever. You know, here's a bill for five hundred
Speaker 1: dollars don't want to do our hitching the way out. Thanks.
Speaker 1: That's my experience with modern medicine for the most part,
Speaker 1: fifty percent or actually like yeah, that's a you know,
Speaker 1: an ear infection. Here are some drops, but you know,
Speaker 1: it can be very very disappointing experience. But you fill
Speaker 1: out all this paperwork, you have to check all these things,
Speaker 1: and now you do it online, you show up, you
Speaker 1: gotta do it again by hand because they're not sure
Speaker 1: that they're gonna be able to It's just a nightmare.
Speaker 1: We do not make this system better because we have
Speaker 1: decided that this is a right, it is not a service.
Speaker 1: And that is why our cell phones get smaller, faster,
Speaker 1: better all the time, our healthcare gets slower, crappier, more expensive.
Speaker 1: We never learn the lessons, or at least the libs
Speaker 1: the socialists never learn the lessons. You think Tom Styre
Speaker 1: is gonna wait when he went it's time for him
Speaker 1: to have his angioplastic or whatever. I mean, he's an
Speaker 1: older guy. I think he's gonna wait. Please, He's he's
Speaker 1: gonna see the best who is the best heart surgeon
Speaker 1: there possibly is, and he will go to that person
Speaker 1: and he will not wait to see that person because
Speaker 1: he's a billionaire. You, my friends, you have been paying
Speaker 1: into medicare your whole lives. You will wait. He might
Speaker 1: wait until it's too late. But if you have a
Speaker 1: problem with that, do you not care about immigrant illegal
Speaker 1: immigrant children? Do you not care about the people who
Speaker 1: are fleeing poverty? And you know that there also was
Speaker 1: a difference the people that used to come here and
Speaker 1: flee to this country where claiming asylum here. They would
Speaker 1: tell you stories. I've spoken to many, many, many of
Speaker 1: them over the years to tell you about how much
Speaker 1: they love this place, how amazing this is. You know,
Speaker 1: here's a little experiment. Ask somebody who was a refugee
Speaker 1: from the Khmer rouge from Cambodia came to this country
Speaker 1: what they think of America. I've had that experience before
Speaker 1: it and it's it's humbling to hear how much those
Speaker 1: legal refugees who told true stories what they were fleeing,
Speaker 1: how much they love this place and how much they
Speaker 1: appreciate it, how much they don't want it to turn
Speaker 1: into some status hell hole like these other countries have become.
Speaker 1: Ask a Cuban who fled Castro's regime, what do you
Speaker 1: think of America. Do you appreciate this place? What is freedom?
Speaker 1: Meet in America? Ask someone from the former Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: Ask a pole, ask a check what do you think
Speaker 1: of America? And then listen to what you hear from
Speaker 1: people like Ilhan Omar, who is not a is a
Speaker 1: legal immigrant and now a member of Congress. Now America
Speaker 1: caused the problems America owes me this. America should probably
Speaker 1: apologize for all the bad stuff it's done to me.
Speaker 1: And I'm here now and now I get my piece
Speaker 1: of this, whatever that means to me. I wonder, I
Speaker 1: wonder if those who are coming across our southern border
Speaker 1: from the so called Northern Triangle countries, Honduras, El Salvador,
Speaker 1: Guatama All. I wonder if they're showing up with nothing
Speaker 1: but gratitude, or as soon as they were exposed to
Speaker 1: enough MSNBC and community organizers and Democratic Party agitation, they say, yeah,
Speaker 1: we have nothing to be thankful for from this country.
Speaker 1: You owe this to us, America. Where's my free healthcare?
Speaker 1: When I was in college, I took a terrorism class.
Speaker 1: Every time the professor said al Qaeda, he sort of
Speaker 1: like his shoulders went up, And you know, it's al Qaeda,
Speaker 1: you know. Hospital, You don't say America with an intensity.
Speaker 1: You don't say England with an intensity. You know, you don't.
Speaker 1: You don't say the Army with an intensity. CARE was
Speaker 1: founded after nine eleven because they recognize that some people
Speaker 1: did something and that all of us were starting to
Speaker 1: lose access to our civil liberties. We need to abolish
Speaker 1: ice had all in the Maine deportation at contension progress.
Speaker 1: We need to fight back against the criminalization of immigrants
Speaker 1: and those crossing the border. The left has really fallen off,
Speaker 1: the fallen off the map of politics in terms of
Speaker 1: how far left they've gone, folks. I mean, this is
Speaker 1: this is stuff that you would not have heard in
Speaker 1: mainstream political circles even a few years ago. But they
Speaker 1: have this new hard left vanguard, as I've been calling it.
Speaker 1: It's not a fringe. It's not like they can be excluded,
Speaker 1: it's not like they're not important. The media narrative, I mean,
Speaker 1: think of a member of Congress who's gotten more attention
Speaker 1: in the last six months than Ocazio Cortez. I think
Speaker 1: it's very easy to argue that Occasio Cortes has gotten
Speaker 1: more attention than even Nancy Pelosi, which is really kind
Speaker 1: of astonishing, but that's where we are. Ilhan Omar, though,
Speaker 1: has gotten perhaps the second or third most attention among
Speaker 1: members of Congress large because of things she says that
Speaker 1: make people uncomfortable, or that upset people, or that are offensive.
Speaker 1: And then you always have left say, oh, snowflakes, you
Speaker 1: get offended by everything. No one says that nothing is offensive.
Speaker 1: It's just that the Left gets over offended, are offended
Speaker 1: by things they should not be. That does not mean
Speaker 1: there's no such thing as an offensive comment, but the
Speaker 1: Left that they can't exercise judgment and be adults about things.
Speaker 1: They always have to make just supercilious and bad faith arguments.
Speaker 1: Ilhan Omar. Here's her talking, just by way of review
Speaker 1: about her tweet about the Jewish people Play nine. You wrote,
Speaker 1: Israel has hypnotized the world. May all awaken the people
Speaker 1: and help them see the evil doings of Israel. You've
Speaker 1: commented a lot since then trying to explain what you
Speaker 1: meant by that, and I wonder just what your message
Speaker 1: is this morning, as the first on our Game Changers series,
Speaker 1: two Jewish Americans who find that deeply offensive. Oh, that's
Speaker 1: really a regrettable way of expressing that, I don't know
Speaker 1: how my comments would be offensive to Jewish Americans, doesn't
Speaker 1: know how her comments there be offensive a Jewish Americans. Okay,
Speaker 1: there you go, one of the most by the far left,
Speaker 1: one of the most beloved members of Congress out there
Speaker 1: right now, and she doesn't understand why anybody would have
Speaker 1: a problem with what she says. Huh, isn't that interesting?
Speaker 1: Pelosi has started to have a problem with this though.
Speaker 1: Pelosi has recognized that she doesn't really seem to be
Speaker 1: in control anymore of her own party. That in the
Speaker 1: era of social media, what really gets more attention, or
Speaker 1: here's a better way of putting it, what is driving
Speaker 1: more of the conversation at home and within the left
Speaker 1: wing basse Pelosi holding a press conference where yeah, she's usual,
Speaker 1: thanks always says, or AOC going home, you know, cooking
Speaker 1: some avocado toast. I guess you don't cook that, you
Speaker 1: prepare it, but you know what I mean? That was
Speaker 1: supposed to be a millennial joke for that was weak sauce,
Speaker 1: cooking whatever it is that she cooks, and making a
Speaker 1: live stream video of herself where she says stupid things
Speaker 1: We all know what the answer is. It's AOC doing
Speaker 1: her home video and reaching out to her millions of
Speaker 1: millions of followers. I do find it distressing that so
Speaker 1: many millions of people want to want to Well, there
Speaker 1: are people that want to know what Occasio Cortez says
Speaker 1: because she's dumb. And there are others though, and I
Speaker 1: think the number is probably larger among her followers who
Speaker 1: believe that she has a lot to offer, that she
Speaker 1: has insight, there's stuff that she brings to the table
Speaker 1: that we should all want to hear in depth from
Speaker 1: her about. But Pelosi's had enough of this. I mean,
Speaker 1: Pelosi is like, look, they we got to get people
Speaker 1: here to stop stop causing problems and focus more on
Speaker 1: the Democrat agenda. And guess what turns out that AOC
Speaker 1: doesn't want to play by Pelosi's rules, doesn't want to
Speaker 1: sit down and listen to her elders on this one. No, no,
Speaker 1: not at all. In fact, Occasio Cortez has, in classic
Speaker 1: whiny lib millennial fashion, started to complain in public about
Speaker 1: how she gave me too much work played nineteen. The
Speaker 1: last time I kind of spoke to her one on
Speaker 1: one was when she asked me to join the Select
Speaker 1: Committee Young Climate Change. What did you say, I said, no,
Speaker 1: I think that that ultimately I'm fine with the decision,
Speaker 1: especially given the committee assignments that I was ultimately given,
Speaker 1: which were very intense and very rigorous. I was assigned
Speaker 1: to two of some of the busiest committees and four
Speaker 1: subcommitte So my hands are full, and sometimes I wonder
Speaker 1: if they're trying to keep me busy. Oh, it's so
Speaker 1: hard to be a member of Congress and show I mean,
Speaker 1: anyone who's spent five minutes covering politics knows that there
Speaker 1: are a lot of idiots in Congress on both sides.
Speaker 1: I mean, the Democrat idiots tend to be I think,
Speaker 1: a greater level of shockingly stupid idiot. But but but there
Speaker 1: are dump There are dumb folks on all sides, no
Speaker 1: question about that. And it can't be that hard to
Speaker 1: be a member of Congress when you see who was
Speaker 1: in the Congress. So we start with we start with that.
Speaker 1: But obviously AOC is chafing a little bit under the
Speaker 1: leadership the old Democratic Party. Now keep in mind that's
Speaker 1: the leadership that got them to very close, very close
Speaker 1: to Trump. I mean, they obviously lost pretty big in
Speaker 1: the electoral college, but one the popular vote. The popular
Speaker 1: vote doesn't really matter though, because it's not the race
Speaker 1: they run, but you know, they turn out votes and
Speaker 1: if they're going to try to win those states though,
Speaker 1: for the electric college, that do matter. What is a
Speaker 1: what is a more likely formula for success? To have
Speaker 1: the Okazio Cortez abolish ice, open borders, climate change, green
Speaker 1: new Deal, emergency wing of the party pitching people in Florida,
Speaker 1: in Ohio who are persuadable voters, or to have Pelosi
Speaker 1: and the old school Democrats, you know, do their usual
Speaker 1: Oh yeah, no, we're reasonable. We just want a bigger,
Speaker 1: a bigger, cuddlier welfare state for everyone and the rich
Speaker 1: people to pay more. Which is the more or less
Speaker 1: the water down basic pitch of the Democrat Party for
Speaker 1: a long time. Now, oh, with some identity politics and
Speaker 1: other things thrown in there. But the woke side of
Speaker 1: the party, the woke left, they are untested at the
Speaker 1: national level of politics. Remember Obama, People say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: look at Obama. He was not. Obama ran as a
Speaker 1: healer and a centrist. It's not what he was, but
Speaker 1: that's how he ran. He ran as a traditional marriage candidate,
Speaker 1: and he was gonna, you know, and also Obama was
Speaker 1: a unique, a very unique situation. He's gonna stop the
Speaker 1: rise of the seas and everything. And people were just
Speaker 1: completely in love with the whole Obama situation. They didn't
Speaker 1: think about what he was saying, that his love that
Speaker 1: he was saying it. But AOC went from whining a
Speaker 1: little bit about her committee assignments and saying that Pelosi is,
Speaker 1: you know, doing some stuff or maybe maybe trying to
Speaker 1: just keep it running around so she can't cause trouble
Speaker 1: to just straight up calling out the most powerful Democrat
Speaker 1: in elected office right now, Play eleven. It's singling out
Speaker 1: for individuals and knowing the media environment that we're operating in,
Speaker 1: knowing the amount of death threats that we get, knowing
Speaker 1: the amount of concentration of attention. I think it's just
Speaker 1: it's it's just worth asking why do you think she
Speaker 1: has racial animals as you race? No, no, absolutely not no, no,
Speaker 1: oh no, you're not saying that, but singing out four individuals,
Speaker 1: all women of color. And this has become a thing
Speaker 1: now we've started to hear more from some of these
Speaker 1: women of color about how they think that they're being
Speaker 1: singled out for reasons that no, not gonna They're not
Speaker 1: gonna say it's races. But Okazio Cortez has accused Pelosio repeatedly.
Speaker 1: This is from the Hill singling out women of color,
Speaker 1: and it's outright disrespectful. Huh. You see, Pelosi is about
Speaker 1: to find out that people who use bad faith allegations
Speaker 1: of racism as a cheap weapon in any debate are
Speaker 1: really really annoying and aoc is. As I've said, the
Speaker 1: Prince Joffrey. You have to watch Game of Thrones just
Speaker 1: so you get this reference. She's the Prince Jeoffrey the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party. She has far too much power and influence
Speaker 1: and far too little knowledge and humility and wisdom. And
Speaker 1: this is where the Democratic Party is going these days.
Speaker 1: You'll notice who's are up and coming right wing superstar
Speaker 1: in politics. I think most people would who follow politics
Speaker 1: would say Dan Crenshaw down in Texas. That's one of
Speaker 1: the There's some others you might throw in there too,
Speaker 1: but Dan Crenshaw, who was a seal, a decorated seal,
Speaker 1: and you know, I went to Harvard and from everything
Speaker 1: that I've been told about him, is a very good guy,
Speaker 1: and he's trying to service country well, and he's trying
Speaker 1: to be smart and thoughtful about what he does. Their
Speaker 1: superstar is Braddy ignorant, social media obsessed Ocasio Quartet. I
Speaker 1: think that tells you a lot about where the parties
Speaker 1: are right now. You know, increasingly the Young Republican Party
Speaker 1: feels more like the Party of Crenshaw, not that it's
Speaker 1: necessarily be behind him, but that he is. Dan Crenshaw
Speaker 1: is representative of the young conservative movement in this country
Speaker 1: now and AOC is representative of a young left wing
Speaker 1: movement in this country right now. And I think that
Speaker 1: we should all remember that, and you should feel even
Speaker 1: more comfortable about the decisions you've made based on that comparison.
Speaker 1: There are just people that have it, and she just
Speaker 1: has it. Yeah, I mean you could. I was watching
Speaker 1: that rally. You could see her with a political future
Speaker 1: right here at the Democratic Convention. Yeah, I mean you
Speaker 1: know a speaker. Yeah, surprised me, actually, I mean either.
Speaker 1: And she's also willing. She doesn't have that flinchy thing
Speaker 1: when asked, she'll get involved in political causes. Well, you
Speaker 1: go to Washington. I saw on one of the shows.
Speaker 1: Let's say, yeah, absolutely. I got to watch him. Mega
Speaker 1: World does not really want to pick a fight with this,
Speaker 1: with this woman. I mean when she called the shop,
Speaker 1: people are going, you know, you shouldn't be talking about
Speaker 1: not going to the White House before you win it all. Well,
Speaker 1: she put that pressure on herself and then she delivers.
Speaker 1: I mean she just stands there and she strokes the
Speaker 1: ball in and I mean that's something. I mean, it's
Speaker 1: she's remarkable woman, and she's probably that's the coolest woman
Speaker 1: in America right now, Pino, you make us believe God
Speaker 1: bless you. Oh like the coolest what about America right now?
Speaker 1: It's Charlie Sykes from the Bulwark. I was a radio host.
Speaker 1: He's a conservative for a long time now was over
Speaker 1: at SPCs. It's say whatever the Democrats wanted to say.
Speaker 1: The coolest woman in America. I don't know. For those
Speaker 1: of you who listen to show up in Wisconsin, I
Speaker 1: don't know how I used to listen to that guy.
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say it had him on the Hill TV.
Speaker 1: Once ignorant about the border, doesn't know the laws, doesn't
Speaker 1: know the reality, doesn't know anything but real smug, real smug.
Speaker 1: He he I don't know what he's doing in m SMEC.
Speaker 1: He should go right to CNN, where all the most
Speaker 1: smug ignoramus's hang out. That would be a better, better
Speaker 1: usage of his time. Here, coolest woman in America? Who
Speaker 1: is the other with Nicole Wallace? There, you know, a
Speaker 1: former a former Bush person who now goes on MSNBC
Speaker 1: to trash Trump. And I, I just I can't imagine
Speaker 1: being in the in the role of turning my back
Speaker 1: on everyone that I had worked with and on the
Speaker 1: movement that I had fought for, just because I felt
Speaker 1: like I wasn't sitting at the cool kids lunch table anymore.
Speaker 1: There's so much of that in conservative media and the
Speaker 1: era of Trump. And I'll tell you that I think
Speaker 1: some of the people who are at the cool kids
Speaker 1: lunch table in the Trump era, so to speak, some
Speaker 1: of the some of the individuals that Trump has brought
Speaker 1: into the administration, some of the people who have a
Speaker 1: lot of access to the administration, are are not good.
Speaker 1: They're not good. That's just true. Some of them I
Speaker 1: know very well, and I can tell you they're not good.
Speaker 1: And some of them I'm just more aware of. They're working.
Speaker 1: I can tell you they're not good that all said.
Speaker 1: I don't run around doing this thing of you know,
Speaker 1: because I you know, I thought I was going to
Speaker 1: get to work in the West Wing and oh no,
Speaker 1: So now I'm gonna help the Democrats attack the administration.
Speaker 1: This is what they do, the former Conservatives who run
Speaker 1: around abandoning everything that they've alleged to stand for for
Speaker 1: the last twenty years. You know, I did see this.
Speaker 1: This piece was in an American Greatness on George Will.
Speaker 1: You know I would I would offer you that it's
Speaker 1: worth checking it out, because I'm sure a lot of
Speaker 1: you are. Will is a very talented writer, and I
Speaker 1: don't know him. I've never met him. I think he's
Speaker 1: a from what I've heard, he's a He's a gentlemanly fellow,
Speaker 1: although I don't know if that's true, but I always
Speaker 1: appreciate that. I like good manners. I like people who
Speaker 1: are who are treat people, you know, decently and well.
Speaker 1: But you know, George Will used to be much more well.
Speaker 1: Let's just say he has switched in what he has
Speaker 1: believed at various times his career based on his writing.
Speaker 1: He believes in he used to believe in legislating morality,
Speaker 1: and now he believes very much in like a more
Speaker 1: leisa fair approach from the government when it comes from Rality,
Speaker 1: and you can say you evolved everything else. But what's
Speaker 1: so interesting about Will and this piece, and I'm just
Speaker 1: basing it off the quotes that I saw. I mean,
Speaker 1: the argument I found pretty persuasive is that he's always
Speaker 1: the true conservative. He can switch and still be a
Speaker 1: true conservative. He can change he change his position and
Speaker 1: still be a true conservative. I think there's a lot
Speaker 1: of that run around in DC these days. I think
Speaker 1: there's a lot of that in the belt Way for sure.
Speaker 1: I would hope and maybe the revisiting of the Kavanaugh storia.
Speaker 1: I think there are some specifics that we can point
Speaker 1: to here that might be. But I would hope that
Speaker 1: people who just couldn't stomach in the conservative movement couldn't
Speaker 1: stomach voting for Trump the first time around. Now realize
Speaker 1: that we see when that we see who the left
Speaker 1: puts forward, who the Democrats want to have in power
Speaker 1: in this country, that that's just not a You cannot
Speaker 1: vote for these people and call yourself a conservative. You
Speaker 1: cannot support their agenda and back them rhetorically, politically, financially,
Speaker 1: perhaps and then say, well, I'm the real conservative. I
Speaker 1: think we should have the attitude of keeping the door
Speaker 1: open to anybody who realizes the error of their ways.
Speaker 1: I'm but I'm I'm amazed. I go back and look
Speaker 1: sometimes at some of the individuals, even people I've had
Speaker 1: on radio over the years, who used to be conservatives,
Speaker 1: and they have not just turned on Trump, but they
Speaker 1: have switched to being Democrats. I mean they will now
Speaker 1: go on MSNBC to fawn over Rappino, for example, because
Speaker 1: that's what the cool, woke left wing people want, so
Speaker 1: they'll just jump on that whole thing too. No problem
Speaker 1: with throwing the flag on the ground, No problem with
Speaker 1: unnecessary cursing at the public of people who oh, men
Speaker 1: curse too. They curse on the field, you jerks. They
Speaker 1: don't sit at press converces and drop f bombs, and
Speaker 1: if they do, people have a problem with it, right,
Speaker 1: especially representing the national team, expectations are different than even
Speaker 1: in professional sports. But oh, we're throwing out all the
Speaker 1: different throwing out all the expectations that we're allowed to
Speaker 1: have because the only thing that matters to them is,
Speaker 1: oh Rapino is so awesome. Oh she's so great. And
Speaker 1: we all have to sit around and talk about how
Speaker 1: great she is. And if you don't, well, then you're
Speaker 1: not welcome and you're not welcome at that cool kids table,
Speaker 1: now the left wing cool kids table. You're not welcome.
Speaker 1: You have to say that she's fantastic or else that's troubling. Yeah,
Speaker 1: can I give you some good news. Economy is kicking.
Speaker 1: But here's BT founder Robert Johnson just bringing you a
Speaker 1: little bit of a little bit of cheer play. Twelve. Well,
Speaker 1: I think the economy is doing absolutely great, and it's
Speaker 1: particularly reaching into populations they here before have had very
Speaker 1: bad problems in terms of jobs, unemployment, and the opportunities
Speaker 1: that come with full employment. So African American unemployment is
Speaker 1: at its lowest level Hispanic unemployment women. So I get
Speaker 1: President a lot of credit overall. If you look at
Speaker 1: the US economy and you've look at the number of
Speaker 1: people who are no longer looking for jobs but now
Speaker 1: sort of seeing the opportunities for job growth, you gotta
Speaker 1: give the president an A plus for that A plus.
Speaker 1: Robert Johnson says, I agree. Donald Trump was friends with
Speaker 1: Jeffrey Epstein. The relationship between President Trump and Jeffrey Epstein,
Speaker 1: Trump and Epstein, Epstein and Trump Epstein. He's rich and
Speaker 1: was once well connected to people like Donald Trump. The
Speaker 1: sex trafficking case against Jeffrey Epstein and it's ties to
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. Epstein and ties to Trump ups. That's
Speaker 1: the headline you get from a lot of these news organizations.
Speaker 1: We have somebody joining us now who has been covering
Speaker 1: the Epstein case long before this latest spade of news stories.
Speaker 1: I got Ann Caulter back with us, folks. That's right,
Speaker 1: the one end only author of over a dozen best
Speaker 1: selling books. Audios America may be my favorite. Also a
Speaker 1: fan of Demonic However, see I can go back into
Speaker 1: the archives a bit. I have to tell you I
Speaker 1: have read them all, so I'm very familiar with the work.
Speaker 1: So let's let's hop right into this. And I have
Speaker 1: some big questions about the Epstein thing. We've been talking
Speaker 1: about it on the show this week, so people know
Speaker 1: the basics of Okay, this guy is a he's a
Speaker 1: crazy serial pedophile and incredibly rich. Can we just start
Speaker 1: with how did this guy make all this money? I've
Speaker 1: been asking friends of mine in New York on Wall Street.
Speaker 1: I worked at Hedge Funds, and they keep saying this
Speaker 1: doesn't add up. What do you think happened here? Oh?
Speaker 1: Thank you Buck. I think that's the biggest mystery of all.
Speaker 1: In fact, I originally that was the theme of my
Speaker 1: column this week. It was just too long and I
Speaker 1: really wanted to go after the main villain of the case,
Speaker 1: Barry Krusher, so I ended up I'm saving the money
Speaker 1: part for next week. So the truth of the matter
Speaker 1: is no one knows, and it's interesting. The one thing
Speaker 1: that is known about his billions, Jeffrey Epstein billions of dollars,
Speaker 1: is that it does not come from what he claims
Speaker 1: it comes from. Oh is genius investing, and it'll only
Speaker 1: take clients were worth a billion dollars, no more. No,
Speaker 1: somebody is funding this guy. Um. And perhaps as a
Speaker 1: little montage you played at the beginning of the show indicates,
Speaker 1: I've I've been screaming from the rooftops begging the media
Speaker 1: to cover this case since two thousand and six. I
Speaker 1: feel like I've woken up from I'm I'm I'm where
Speaker 1: I'm sleeping, and this is a dream where it's every
Speaker 1: show I turn on, there's his ugly mug. Um. Finally,
Speaker 1: it's being covered, and why is it being covered? For
Speaker 1: one reason? This insanity? Oh, Donald Trump's best friend, Jeffrey Epstein. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's insane, that's not true. But don't tell them, Please
Speaker 1: don't tell them, or this case will disappear and he
Speaker 1: will get off Scott for you. Once again, I do
Speaker 1: think getting to the bottom of who is funding him,
Speaker 1: we'll explain a lot of things, including, um, how it
Speaker 1: is he keeps escaping the noose. This this arrest this
Speaker 1: week marks the third attempt to prosecute Jeffrey Epstein for
Speaker 1: essentially the same cases of child molestation, certainly the same behavior, um.
Speaker 1: And every time, somehow, somehow the case falls apart um,
Speaker 1: the prosecutor backs down. Well, you know, if they why
Speaker 1: do you think that is an I mean, that's where
Speaker 1: you know, how how is it that somebody could do
Speaker 1: the things that he's done Usually, you know, for just
Speaker 1: a run of the mill person, one case of sex
Speaker 1: with a minor, and you're you're in a hole, You're
Speaker 1: in a whole heap of trouble, like registering, going to prison.
Speaker 1: You know, life is never going to be the same
Speaker 1: for you. Dozens and dozens and dozens and trafficking and
Speaker 1: all the stuff I mean, and paying and all these
Speaker 1: enhanced penalties that would be attached to all this. How
Speaker 1: could anyone have that kind of influence? How could Acosta?
Speaker 1: What do you think of the Acosta press conference yesterday?
Speaker 1: This guy's looking at us like, yeah, well I did
Speaker 1: my best. Not good enough, buddy, No, not nearly good enough.
Speaker 1: Though he isn't half as bad as the original profutor.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are state crimes. God bless the Feds
Speaker 1: for stepping in both in Florida and now Southern districts
Speaker 1: Southern District of New York. Let's see if Southern District
Speaker 1: of New York does the same thing, they could back
Speaker 1: away too. Though, I based on the history, I do
Speaker 1: think there's there's a chance that a year from now,
Speaker 1: no one will remember his name and Peggy Siegel out
Speaker 1: in Hollywood will be throwing big parties to reintroduce Jeffrey
Speaker 1: Epstein's society. No, you're totally right. This is not This
Speaker 1: is not like other cases. This is not even like
Speaker 1: other cases involving um prominent powerful democrats take you know,
Speaker 1: Harvey Weinstein or Woody Allen, Which is why I think
Speaker 1: it is connected to who is paying him. I think
Speaker 1: I think he gets to the bottom of that and
Speaker 1: we'll have a much better understanding of what's going on.
Speaker 1: I mean, the reason Accost backed down, as he himself
Speaker 1: described in a Daily Beast article a year or two ago,
Speaker 1: was that his office came under relentless attacks the defense
Speaker 1: counsel had they had Jeffreys lawyers and investigators were turning
Speaker 1: the assistant US attorney's lives upside down, prying into their
Speaker 1: personal lives, you know, upsetting their families. Yeah, okay. They
Speaker 1: were doing that to the victims too. They were doing
Speaker 1: that to the Palm Beach police, and they didn't back down.
Speaker 1: The FBI agents didn't back down. So even though what
Speaker 1: Accosta did does not come close to what Barry Krisher,
Speaker 1: the first prosecutor to get this, who was supposed to
Speaker 1: prosecute and by the way, he was totally gung ho
Speaker 1: according to sworn testimony of the chief of police, who
Speaker 1: was the total hero of this story, and his garbage
Speaker 1: was being gone through by Epstein's guys. He and his
Speaker 1: policemen were being followed by Epstein's guy that they were
Speaker 1: worried about their families because of Epstein's guys, and yet
Speaker 1: they didn't back down. But Acosta and his lawyers, and
Speaker 1: they're fancy jobs in the US or in the office. No,
Speaker 1: they backed down even if someone put the thumb on
Speaker 1: a Costa. Though, do you think someone told a Costa
Speaker 1: you're going to have to back office. There was that
Speaker 1: weird question about an intelligence asset or something, and Acosta
Speaker 1: gave a very strange answer. Possibly possibly, but it wasn't
Speaker 1: US intelligence, right, And as Vicky Ward has pointed out,
Speaker 1: I think quite ably. You know, Epstein gets all of
Speaker 1: his fancy friends to go around talking about how brilliant
Speaker 1: he is and oh my gosh, he's so brilliant in
Speaker 1: the math, because well there's no evidence of that to
Speaker 1: anyone who's ever met him. That is very strange. There's
Speaker 1: a lot Hey, where do you think this goes? I mean,
Speaker 1: you've been on this all along. It has been one
Speaker 1: of these stories where it somehow they managed to convince
Speaker 1: a lot of people that this was something only conspiracy
Speaker 1: theorist would talk about. No, there is this billionaire weirdo
Speaker 1: who's a peto, who's hanging out with the president, our
Speaker 1: former press and Clinton, who's hanging out with all kinds
Speaker 1: of celebrities. I mean, you see the people that he's
Speaker 1: been been peeling around with. This is all real. What
Speaker 1: happens now, though, do you think we get answers? I
Speaker 1: despair of that. I think it's at least possible that
Speaker 1: Epstein himself will finally see justice and that he will
Speaker 1: go to jail. I mean, I just don't. You can't
Speaker 1: put anything past our media, but I can't see how
Speaker 1: they can be this hepped up on the case. How
Speaker 1: they can go on and on and on. I mean,
Speaker 1: he's worse than a Russian spy in their eyes this week,
Speaker 1: next week, all because they can call him Donald Trump's bff.
Speaker 1: What was with the Palm Beach DA or state attorney whatever?
Speaker 1: He was ya state attorney, that's Barry Krishner. He was
Speaker 1: following the case. Obviously, the Palm Beach Police had to
Speaker 1: keep going to him. He had to oversee the investigation.
Speaker 1: So Michael Ryder, the chief of police, he's testified under
Speaker 1: oath that I was keeping Krishner updated. We've worked together
Speaker 1: very happily, have a good relationship. I'm getting subpoenas from him,
Speaker 1: but I wasn't telling him the name of the person
Speaker 1: I was telling him the evidence we were getting, and
Speaker 1: Krishner was gung ho, saying, this is someone we have
Speaker 1: got to stop. As soon as he gets the name
Speaker 1: of who the purp is, he was probably hoping it
Speaker 1: was Russia. Limbaugh again, no, no, no, finds out that
Speaker 1: it's big Democratic donor Jeffrey Epstein, and suddenly Michael Ryder,
Speaker 1: chief of police, testifies. Suddenly his attitude totally changed. He
Speaker 1: would not allow him to issue any more subpoenas. He said, Oh,
Speaker 1: I think this is a bad case. Some of the
Speaker 1: underage girls I've gone, I've gone to their MySpace pages
Speaker 1: and they mentioned alcohol. Seriously. That was his argument. I
Speaker 1: can't take this to it to a jury. So he
Speaker 1: took a powdery by presenting a case to the grand
Speaker 1: jury that we will we weren't present for, but we
Speaker 1: have reason to believe he may not have done his
Speaker 1: best work in his presentation to the grand jury, because
Speaker 1: all they returned was an indictment for one count of
Speaker 1: solicitation of prostitution, nothing about miners at all, nothing about
Speaker 1: Epstein's co conspirator conspirators. It was a total outrage. And
Speaker 1: by the way, you know, I think accosted did a
Speaker 1: bad thing here. Again, not at all compared to Barry Krusher,
Speaker 1: state attorney, whose job it was and whose police turned
Speaker 1: over all the evidence we ever needed in this case.
Speaker 1: But how about the media look at itself? Like I say,
Speaker 1: I spent two thousand and six, and by the way,
Speaker 1: I did get Bill O'Reilly to do a beautiful segment
Speaker 1: on it. God bless him when he was good. He
Speaker 1: was very, very good. And that segment he did in
Speaker 1: July two thousand and six, as the story was breaking
Speaker 1: about this sleeves bag Democratic prosecutor Barry Krisher, who had
Speaker 1: spent three years harassing Rush Limbaugh for back pain medication.
Speaker 1: But he's presented overwhelming evidence of this child molester living
Speaker 1: in Palm Beach and oh no, we'll we'll just give
Speaker 1: you a probation. What do you think of the Clinton
Speaker 1: time here, because Clinton apparently has already lied about how
Speaker 1: many times he hung out with this guy that seems
Speaker 1: to have been reported just in the last twenty four hours. Yes, yes, well,
Speaker 1: I think, I mean, I think it goes back to
Speaker 1: your to your original question, which I think is a
Speaker 1: big question. Who's paying Epstein? It certainly seems to be
Speaker 1: a blackmail extortion operation. Epstein apparently reportedly had cameras all
Speaker 1: over the Lolita Express, his private seven twenty seven, his
Speaker 1: various mansions, he had cameras, and the girls have have
Speaker 1: reported that they were asked to service these various powerful men,
Speaker 1: prime ministers, ex presidents, the member of the royal family.
Speaker 1: After doing so, they were to report back to Jeffrey F.
Speaker 1: Epstein about what happened. This is collecting information and the cameras.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of powerful rich, whether they're celebrities
Speaker 1: or through power through politics, a lot of people that
Speaker 1: they've got compromot on, and I just it's just hard
Speaker 1: for me to believe that the mysterious the black hole
Speaker 1: source of his billions of dollars has nothing to do
Speaker 1: with the fact that this case keeps being keeps being
Speaker 1: thrown by the prosecutors and the fact that he was
Speaker 1: collecting information on powerful people. It does seem to be Yeah,
Speaker 1: I believe it's some sort of intelligence operation, not an
Speaker 1: American intelligence operation. But maybe that's the reason we're never
Speaker 1: going to find out. Guys, We're going to come and
Speaker 1: do a quick break here. We'll come back with Anne
Speaker 1: on the border, the census, things that she's gonna, I know,
Speaker 1: have lots of thoughts about we'll be right back, all right, team,
Speaker 1: We're back here with a culture. The one and only
Speaker 1: author of thirteen best selling books. I hope I got
Speaker 1: the number right there. So many hard to keep track,
Speaker 1: most recently Audio Samerico. At least that's the most recent
Speaker 1: one that I'm go to reference right now. We got
Speaker 1: we got the border. We got the border going on.
Speaker 1: I've been down there a few times. It's an absolute mass.
Speaker 1: I've been saying it's a mess for six months. It's
Speaker 1: the worst it's probably been in my lifetime. This is
Speaker 1: happening under Trump. Before we get to the census question
Speaker 1: and just how can the border be fixed? Can it
Speaker 1: be fixed? They can be fixed in all the ways
Speaker 1: Trump promised to fix it when he was running for office. Um,
Speaker 1: I I feel a little like um. Remember George Bush
Speaker 1: used to say about, you know, how we win the
Speaker 1: abortion issue, and oh, we have to change people's hearts
Speaker 1: and mind Um, well no, we for all we know
Speaker 1: we've changed the hearts and minds of the vast majority
Speaker 1: of American people. What we need to do here, see,
Speaker 1: mister president is overturned. Rovy Wade and I feel the
Speaker 1: same way with immigration. Most, even even in the conservative media,
Speaker 1: most people were not at all woke to the immigration issue.
Speaker 1: Um well, back before I put out Adios America, Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, our people woke on this issue. Now. I
Speaker 1: was just talking to somebody because you know, Ross Perrot
Speaker 1: died this week. I love that he's getting some lovely
Speaker 1: encomiums then, and my friends happens to have voted for
Speaker 1: him twice. I said, good for you. He said, yeah,
Speaker 1: he had some great ideas. He had had some dumb
Speaker 1: ideas too, that thing about how everybody we'd have like
Speaker 1: Plubis sites on everything, people who just vote in their
Speaker 1: homes on things. No, I would so love that. For
Speaker 1: should we have a wallow? Well, I think that the
Speaker 1: popularity of it was national referendum should we deport illegals
Speaker 1: and build a wall? I mean, I think we had
Speaker 1: that referendum in the two thousand. I don't think Republicans
Speaker 1: have the backbone for deportation. And they keep saying that
Speaker 1: Trump is going to do this thing. I don't. I
Speaker 1: don't think that we're I don't think they're going to
Speaker 1: do it. I don't think they're even going to start
Speaker 1: and the people are there. The people wanted the people
Speaker 1: keep voting for a week. It's like Brexit. We can't
Speaker 1: get it. It's amazing. By the way, the census question
Speaker 1: is what is I don't think I've actually heard the
Speaker 1: an hot take we're seed in anywhere on how liberals
Speaker 1: are fighting knowing how many illegals are in this country
Speaker 1: truth and nail. So I mean, is there more to
Speaker 1: this than that or what am I missing here? Not?
Speaker 1: You're absolutely right. I also want to mention because I
Speaker 1: don't know, maybe this is well known to your listeners.
Speaker 1: It certainly isn't well known to the viewers of MSNBC
Speaker 1: and CNN, everyone acting like, you know, this is some
Speaker 1: crazy little scam the Republicans came up for people who
Speaker 1: research genealogy. The census has always asked about the citizenship.
Speaker 1: You can go back to colonial times. They have like
Speaker 1: three questions. They weren't asking about, you know, do you
Speaker 1: have mold in your bathtub like they do these days. No,
Speaker 1: that was that was one of the basic questions. And
Speaker 1: that was back before we were a massive welfare state.
Speaker 1: We just wanted to know how many people are citizens here.
Speaker 1: It was ended in nineteen fifty. Of course it should
Speaker 1: be added back in. You know they talk about the
Speaker 1: Russians interfering with elections and oh democracy it's so important. Well,
Speaker 1: we have all these congress districts across the country where
Speaker 1: you know, you need like three citizens to vote for
Speaker 1: you to win because your districts is determined by how
Speaker 1: many people are living are living there and not how
Speaker 1: many citizens are living there. So it takes a lot
Speaker 1: more votes to win in a congressional district where it's
Speaker 1: all citizens living than in congressional districts like Maxie and
Speaker 1: Waters they're like half illegal aliens. And the administration did
Speaker 1: they mess up on this one? How do we get
Speaker 1: to this point? Because it seems like such an easy
Speaker 1: and easy thing to do. Yes, I have not studied
Speaker 1: this closely. It kind of looks like the administration did
Speaker 1: screw this one up. Why don't they just say we
Speaker 1: want to know they don't have to come up with
Speaker 1: this thing about what was there? Right? It would like
Speaker 1: to pursue the voting rights. Actually, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of questions Act to ask on the census that don't
Speaker 1: don't have any practical application whatsoever. Immediately this one actually
Speaker 1: does how much federal funding, you get, how big your
Speaker 1: congressional district is, that sort of thing. It actually does
Speaker 1: make important differences in a lot of ways. But um,
Speaker 1: I don't think it's up for Congress or the Urem
Speaker 1: Court to be deciding this. That seems to be and
Speaker 1: again I've been paid that close attention to it. It
Speaker 1: looks like they made a bad argument. And by the way,
Speaker 1: contrary to many reports, just as Roberts didn't say you
Speaker 1: can't ask this, he said, the justification you gave is
Speaker 1: clearly a lie. We're going to send it back to
Speaker 1: the district court. So I think they could win in
Speaker 1: the courts, But why even bother? I like Bill Barr's
Speaker 1: approach of just saying, yeah, we're going to be including it.
Speaker 1: I like that approach too. By way, Bar is pretty great,
Speaker 1: isn't he. I'm a fan. I've been really Oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: isn't it wonderful having someone smart work for Trump? Can
Speaker 1: you imagine if we had Chris Koebeck at Homeland Security?
Speaker 1: It is pretty amazing. I mean, to this day, is
Speaker 1: there a precedent for it, then it's unprecedented. It's one
Speaker 1: of my favorite things. Do you have happened in any
Speaker 1: press conference. So that's a bar original and call to everybody.
Speaker 1: Check out Audios America. That's the one we'll talk about immigration,
Speaker 1: or pick up one of her other dozen or so books,
Speaker 1: and always appreciate you joining us from the left coast.
Speaker 1: We'll see you soon. Thank you. Oh man. I cannot
Speaker 1: believe we're in this, in this position, or even have
Speaker 1: to have this argument, have this fight. But you know, Democrats,
Speaker 1: they're they're they're utterly shameless, you know. And anything to
Speaker 1: prevent people from knowing how many legals are in this country,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't even be a great way of finding out.
Speaker 1: What does real repression look like? What what does it
Speaker 1: seem like when a when a government has crossed that
Speaker 1: threshold into into tyranny and darkness. People often talk about
Speaker 1: Venezuela these days, and especially in light of the fondness
Speaker 1: that much of the American left seems to have for socialism.
Speaker 1: We look at Venezuela and we say to ourselves, oh, huh,
Speaker 1: that's what happens when you spend way beyond your means
Speaker 1: as a country. You create massive social welfare and entitlement programs,
Speaker 1: and you do absolutely nothing to expand your economic base
Speaker 1: to expand your GDP, and you just hope that everything
Speaker 1: somehow works out. And then there's more beyond that too,
Speaker 1: price controls under the auspices of social justice. So when
Speaker 1: all of a sudden you start to have inflation because
Speaker 1: you've debased your currency, that's why they did in Venezuela.
Speaker 1: When the inflation kicks in, now prices are going up
Speaker 1: for items on the store shelve, the government says, oh, no, no,
Speaker 1: you can't do that. Okay, Well, now the businesses can't
Speaker 1: because they have to pay in Venezuelan bolivars and they
Speaker 1: have to get food shipped in and good shipped in
Speaker 1: from the rest of the world. Now they can't put
Speaker 1: them on the shelves. And then the government says, oh,
Speaker 1: they're just being greedy and they won't. You know, this
Speaker 1: is and this was the economic death spiral of Venezuela.
Speaker 1: But there are economic death spirals and then there are
Speaker 1: death squads. And that's what I wanted to talk to
Speaker 1: you about. Here, a story that I don't think got
Speaker 1: anywhere near the attention that it should have, and it
Speaker 1: should be remembered by all that the Venezuelan regime still
Speaker 1: has in the West in America, some people who, if
Speaker 1: not outright defenders of it, will go to pretty extraordinary
Speaker 1: lengths in order to blame someone else, blame us, usually
Speaker 1: for the failures of the Venezuelan regime. And we know
Speaker 1: that there are there's deprivation, political crackdowns, incredible corruption, terrible
Speaker 1: violence in the streets. But this story really tells you
Speaker 1: what's going on in Venezuela and what's behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: what's really happening here. This was a New York Times story,
Speaker 1: actually was a Reuter's story in New York Times, picked
Speaker 1: up from a couple of days ago. Venezuelan security forces
Speaker 1: are sending death squads to murder young men and stage
Speaker 1: the scenes to make it look like the victims resisted.
Speaker 1: This is a United Nations saying this in a report
Speaker 1: issued by its Human Rights or Human Rights chief last week.
Speaker 1: Government figures show that deaths ascribe to criminals resisting arrest
Speaker 1: numbered five thousand, two hundred and eighty seven last year
Speaker 1: and one five hundred and sixty nine by May nineteenth
Speaker 1: this year. Many of them appear to be extrajudicial executions.
Speaker 1: This is a reference to Venezuela's Special Action Forces FAS.
Speaker 1: These guys arrive dressed like paramilitaries there in all all
Speaker 1: black pickups, no license plates, they have balaclavas on their
Speaker 1: dressed in tactical gear, and they will just go into
Speaker 1: a house and they separate the men from the women
Speaker 1: and children, and then they'll just, according to witnesses, go
Speaker 1: and execute them now. And then they stage the scene
Speaker 1: and they set it up so that it looks like
Speaker 1: all this person was Persone's resisting arrest. You know, we
Speaker 1: had to do, we had to do. Let's understand what
Speaker 1: this does to any political opposition. And when people talk
Speaker 1: about why, given how poorly Venezuela is run, given what
Speaker 1: has been going on there now for years, and the
Speaker 1: real pain that people have been feeling, the loss, the misery,
Speaker 1: the suffering, why is it that there isn't a more
Speaker 1: generalized and there have been people in the streets and
Speaker 1: there's the Guido oppositional though you'll note Maduro still in charge.
Speaker 1: People are all talking about, oh Guido any day now,
Speaker 1: any day now. Nope. Thugs are good at one thing
Speaker 1: when it comes to governance, and that's rule by force,
Speaker 1: rule by fear. They know how to do that. Maduro
Speaker 1: knows how to do that and this usage of government
Speaker 1: paramilitary assassination squads is I think one of the most
Speaker 1: obvious manifestations of how a government can really, a government
Speaker 1: like this can can oppress people no matter how bad
Speaker 1: things get. You know, if they can just show up,
Speaker 1: they can show up and kill anyone they want to
Speaker 1: kill right now, and there's really no recourse that anyone has.
Speaker 1: So if you're living in a country like that and
Speaker 1: they'll make it look like it was it was legit,
Speaker 1: you know, they'll make it look like you were resisting.
Speaker 1: What can you do about that? The answer is there's
Speaker 1: there's very little that can be done about it. Um.
Speaker 1: But this is this is a window into how true
Speaker 1: oppressive and totalitarian states operate. You know, we get all
Speaker 1: these people after during and after the Fourth of July
Speaker 1: ceremony here in DC, with Trump doing a having a
Speaker 1: military flyover and then the tanks ruling down the streets,
Speaker 1: get all that stuff going on. People said, oh my gosh,
Speaker 1: it's terrible and Trump is awful, and they have all
Speaker 1: this all this freak out and people talk about fascism
Speaker 1: in Tianamen Square. This is what the early days of
Speaker 1: fascism looks like. People showing up in paramilitary squads and
Speaker 1: exec shooting men who might be regime opponents, who might
Speaker 1: be in one way or another considered to be a problem.
Speaker 1: All right, That's That's one thing that I think people
Speaker 1: need to really keep in mind here that they can
Speaker 1: get rid of anybody, you know, anybody they want, for
Speaker 1: whatever reason they want, and that really changes things. So
Speaker 1: here we go. Next up is Iran for a second,
Speaker 1: my friends, I wanted to get to this really quickly
Speaker 1: because you know, we had this British warship that had
Speaker 1: to chase some Iranian Iranian ships for a moment to
Speaker 1: get them away from it from a British flagged tanker. Look,
Speaker 1: Iran is going to keep doing things like this in
Speaker 1: the hopes that they can create a pressure situation that
Speaker 1: will result in Europe and the United States separating from
Speaker 1: each other. Here's some of the just the latest analysis
Speaker 1: out there by people who have pretty pretty good grasp
Speaker 1: her Ari Flasher I think is good on Iran. Here's
Speaker 1: what we need to say. Place seventeen, as we know
Speaker 1: from Israel, when they raided the Iranian depository that Iran
Speaker 1: was lying from the start. Also under that deal in
Speaker 1: October of twenty and twenty next year, the arms in
Speaker 1: bargo on Iran will be lifted, and Iran's obligation not
Speaker 1: to provide her arms to other nations will also be lifted. Now,
Speaker 1: Iran is already in violation of that. They're regularly supplying
Speaker 1: arms to the Hoodie rebels in Yemen as well as
Speaker 1: to Hezbollah operating out of Syria. So Iran is violenting
Speaker 1: it from the start. But the language of the deal
Speaker 1: is so bad. The world would lift the arms embargo
Speaker 1: in a mere fifteen months and in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: just in four years, Iran would be free to develop
Speaker 1: all the ballistic missiles at once. Forget the nuclear side
Speaker 1: of it. This deal was terrible on the conventional side,
Speaker 1: not to mention the billions that was paid to Iran,
Speaker 1: which they used to increase terrorism around the world. Other
Speaker 1: than calling the rebels in Yemen hoodies like Hoodie and
Speaker 1: the Blowfish, it's hoothy, pretty good stuff from R. Fleischer
Speaker 1: there and Marco Rubio. I mean, Marco talks a big
Speaker 1: game on foreign policy. He fancied himself a big foreign
Speaker 1: policy guy. Here's what he says, play eighteen. The deal
Speaker 1: allowed them to continue it They could continue to build
Speaker 1: these missiles and they didn't violate the deal. They could
Speaker 1: continue to pour millions of dollars into Hezbollah and other
Speaker 1: proxy terrorist organizations and that wasn't a violation of the deal.
Speaker 1: They could carry out sanctions of Asians on behalf. The
Speaker 1: Syria president was right to get us out of the deal. Yep,
Speaker 1: wasn't a good deal, folks, But you know who thinks
Speaker 1: it was Joe Biden. Sixteen, The historic ran nuclear deal
Speaker 1: we negotiated blocked Duran from gaining nuclear weapons, with inspectors
Speaker 1: on the ground, international inspectors confirming that the agreement was
Speaker 1: being kept. Yeah, Trump cast it aside, prompting Duran to
Speaker 1: restart his nuclear program, become more provocative and raising the
Speaker 1: risk of another disastrous war in the region. If Tehran
Speaker 1: returns to compliance with a deal, I would rejoin the agreement,
Speaker 1: of course he would. You know why, folks, Because Biden
Speaker 1: has been wrong on every foreign policy issue for the
Speaker 1: last forty years, so he wants to be consistent. He
Speaker 1: wants to be wrong on this one too. He can't
Speaker 1: let this opportunity. Biden never misses an opportunity to miss
Speaker 1: an opportunity in foreign policy. That's that's his mantra. Another
Speaker 1: viral video, I want to talk to you about this one.
Speaker 1: The audio pretty much tells you what you need, pretty
Speaker 1: much gives you everything that is needed to know about
Speaker 1: this story. But a guy in Long Island at a
Speaker 1: bagel shop. Um was having a bad day, having a
Speaker 1: bad day. And it turns out this guy is five
Speaker 1: feet tall and he's he's so he's he's on the man,
Speaker 1: a full grown man. He's on the shorter side, and
Speaker 1: he just was in this bagel store and he thinks
Speaker 1: that some lady behind the counter laughed at him or something,
Speaker 1: and he proceeded to completely flip out. Here is what
Speaker 1: do we have this? What's this guy's name? Morgan? And
Speaker 1: something more? Chris Morgan. Here's what Chris Morgan of Bay
Speaker 1: Shore in Long Island. Here's him having a pretty bad
Speaker 1: day in the bagel store. The audio we had to
Speaker 1: bleep out some stuff, but this was all on video.
Speaker 1: When viral play it the great Why is it okay
Speaker 1: for women to say, oh, you five feet on dating sites?
Speaker 1: You should be dead? That's okay? Who here? Nobody? Women
Speaker 1: in general have seven on dating sites? Did think I'm
Speaker 1: making that up? Everywhere I go. I get to say,
Speaker 1: it's smart with the fighting with shut your mouth, you're
Speaker 1: knock or my father or my fourth dude want to
Speaker 1: step outside? You want to step outside. I'm not standing out. No, no,
Speaker 1: you shut up. Two. You can't see exactly what happened
Speaker 1: there because a radio show. But this, this this fellow
Speaker 1: of slight stature, it's pretty much at Frodo Baggin's size. Uh.
Speaker 1: He just he's running around running his mouth and you know,
Speaker 1: you're not God, You're not my father. And a guy
Speaker 1: who is looking to be more like around six two
Speaker 1: or six three does in fact tackle him to the
Speaker 1: ground in front of everybody. So there is a little
Speaker 1: bit of a moral story here, which is when you
Speaker 1: happen to be a slight stature, you don't necessarily want
Speaker 1: to go around saying I'll take any man in the house.
Speaker 1: And there are a lot of men in the house
Speaker 1: who could actually take you. You know what I mean,
Speaker 1: You gotta you gotta watch that. Uh you know, Mark, Mark,
Speaker 1: I don't know about your neighborhood, but in any neighborhood
Speaker 1: I've ever been in, and if you're the smallest guy
Speaker 1: in the room, you don't want to challenge every guy
Speaker 1: in the room to a fight for no reason. Yeah,
Speaker 1: not your smartest idea, not the smartest, especially on Long Island.
Speaker 1: But here here's what. Yeah, oh on the Strong Island, man,
Speaker 1: you gotta watch out. Every every everybody on Strong Island
Speaker 1: is ready to throw down if you, especially if you
Speaker 1: make fun of Strong Islands. But look, this guy's having
Speaker 1: a bad day. One thing I did find kind of noteworthy.
Speaker 1: And some of the ladies might give me a might
Speaker 1: give me a little bit of a lip over this one.
Speaker 1: But I will tell you this for all the the
Speaker 1: the cultural hubbub out there about how men are superficial
Speaker 1: when it comes to women, and you know, we care
Speaker 1: so much. We only care about looks of all that
Speaker 1: stuff out there. Women are very comfortable out in the
Speaker 1: out in the dating world. And I am a man
Speaker 1: who is unmarried and has been on his fair share
Speaker 1: of dates in life. They're very comfortable being hightists, and
Speaker 1: they will have height requirements. And of all the things
Speaker 1: that you could be limiting your dating pool based on height,
Speaker 1: is one of the among the most arbitrary, the most superficial,
Speaker 1: and also one that the person cannot change or do
Speaker 1: anything about. Right I mean, I would argue to you
Speaker 1: that to have a limit on a person's height is
Speaker 1: you know, even more superficial than to have a particular
Speaker 1: body type in mind, because you know, you can all
Speaker 1: at least change your body type a little bit here
Speaker 1: or there. There's some action you can take. By the way,
Speaker 1: did you see that people were body shaming Jason Momoa
Speaker 1: saying he had a dad bod? Do you know what
Speaker 1: I'm talking about this? You know, the guy who plays Aquaman,
Speaker 1: the photo he's in that people are shaming him on
Speaker 1: the internet. I'm like, I'm I'm actually like never going
Speaker 1: to a public pool ever again. Like he's still very jack.
Speaker 1: I think this is a problem that people see all
Speaker 1: these these superhero movies and stuff. They see these guys
Speaker 1: and who are actors who get super jacked for that role,
Speaker 1: and they don't understand that that's because they're eating chicken
Speaker 1: breast and working out two hours a day, five or
Speaker 1: six days a week and eating incredibly clean and like
Speaker 1: this is their job is to look like that, but
Speaker 1: they don't look like that as soon as that is
Speaker 1: no longer their job because it's a lot of work,
Speaker 1: it's a lifestyle, and unless you're a bodybuilder or something
Speaker 1: like that, You're not going to maintain that physique indefinitely.
Speaker 1: It's just not reality, right, So I just think it's
Speaker 1: got a funny People like, oh, he's got a dad bot.
Speaker 1: I was like, dad bod, that's not a dad bot.
Speaker 1: That that guy's god our a little five foot tall
Speaker 1: friend here. He does have a bit of a dad bod.
Speaker 1: He's a little bit, you know, which is fine. I
Speaker 1: embraced it. I embraced the dad bod. But he just
Speaker 1: should have been a little more aware of that before
Speaker 1: he decided to pick fights with everybody's much tall on them.
Speaker 1: But I tell you the story, and I know we're
Speaker 1: having it. We're having a little bit of fun of
Speaker 1: this individual's expense, but there's a happy ending. See. That's
Speaker 1: why I'm okay telling you this. Because it turns out that,
Speaker 1: according to the New York Post here, he's now become
Speaker 1: insta famous And sure enough, the guy who says that
Speaker 1: women were laughing at him on dating sites and saying
Speaker 1: he was too short is now getting dates. Quote, my
Speaker 1: phone is blowing up, like the President. Morgan told the
Speaker 1: New York Post, I haven't even got to my friends.
Speaker 1: I got girls hitting on me that I don't even know.
Speaker 1: He says, the rant scene around the world has changed
Speaker 1: his luck with the ladies. I gotta say that's a
Speaker 1: little I mean, it's a little bit of aid. I
Speaker 1: feel like, if you are the guy in the video
Speaker 1: saying you can't get a date, and then you freak
Speaker 1: out and you get tackled, I wouldn't assume Mark that
Speaker 1: then you get dates really easily after that, But apparently
Speaker 1: you do. There's someone out there for everybody. There is
Speaker 1: somebody out there for everybody. You know. Whenever I start
Speaker 1: to feel like maybe this dating thing is too hard
Speaker 1: and they're never gonna actually settle down, I gotta remember that, Hey,
Speaker 1: there are guys who who are in prison, who get
Speaker 1: married while they're in prison to women they've never met,
Speaker 1: who they're just penpal friends with. So you know, there's
Speaker 1: hope for all of us, right, producer, Mark, you're not married?
Speaker 1: Are you? I'm getting married soon? Really? Yes? Look at you.
Speaker 1: I don't even know funding it on the radio. That's cool.
Speaker 1: Whin's the wedding in November? Look at you can Congratulations sir,
Speaker 1: that's very exciting. You said that with a little bit
Speaker 1: of trepidation there, like you don't want to actually congratulate me. No,
Speaker 1: I just was I was actually just having a sip
Speaker 1: of coffee as okay, saying. You know, older married men
Speaker 1: all say, oh, welcome to the club, like they say
Speaker 1: that if it's a bad thing. Oh dude, I've never
Speaker 1: been I know you are. I knew you aren't, but still, yeah,
Speaker 1: I've never been married. Me and producer Mike Man, we're
Speaker 1: gonna be. They're gonna make a reality TV show about
Speaker 1: us called like the Bachelor's or something. That's right, man,
Speaker 1: that's what the bachel radio guys. Yeah, pretty much, you know.
Speaker 1: I mean, we're we're out there. We're out there on
Speaker 1: this seen DC and NYC, respectively, just trying to live life.
Speaker 1: And everyone's always like, hey, you know, when when are
Speaker 1: you gonna have kids? I'm like, well, I'd kind of
Speaker 1: like to get married first. So's I call me old fashioned,
Speaker 1: but that's I'd like to put the you know, put
Speaker 1: the cart in the right position with the horse, you
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying. So we'll see. But Mike, did
Speaker 1: you see this video with the bagel the bagel rant guy? Yeah,
Speaker 1: it's amazing, it's amazing, right, like, how does he how
Speaker 1: does he think it's gonna end when he's going around
Speaker 1: challenging every guy. Every guy in that store is noticeably
Speaker 1: bigger than because he's not just five feet tall, he's
Speaker 1: five feet tall and like little and pudgy. Yeah, man,
Speaker 1: every guy in that store is bigger than him, and
Speaker 1: he's challenging them all to a fight, one after another.
Speaker 1: I wonder if this you know, they had that small
Speaker 1: man's disease? You ever have? We used had this lay
Speaker 1: in high school. One of my little friends who was
Speaker 1: like and I'm not a big guy. I'm not. I'm
Speaker 1: like five nine, that's not tall. But one of my
Speaker 1: buddies in high school, he was like five five he
Speaker 1: is you know. We always used to break on him
Speaker 1: here and there, but he had a mouth on him. Man.
Speaker 1: He just thought he was way tougher than he was us.
Speaker 1: And we always said, you have a little man's disease. Yeah.
Speaker 1: People always say that they call it a Napoleonic complex.
Speaker 1: Not true. Actually Napoleon with five to seven, which was
Speaker 1: actually slightly above average height for his time. Yes, he
Speaker 1: was not. Yeah, he was not short. So people who
Speaker 1: say that this is like when they talk about burning
Speaker 1: the ships with Cortez whatever his name was. He said
Speaker 1: that this week. Nope, that's not what happened. They scuttled
Speaker 1: the ships. They sank them, They did not burn them. Ah.
Speaker 1: That's why Buck is here, folks, to set to set
Speaker 1: everything right, to set everything straight. We'll be right back
Speaker 1: the fight over words. I'm a radio host, so I
Speaker 1: care about words a lot. We all care about words
Speaker 1: matters to us. It's how we communicate. The Left tries
Speaker 1: to win debates, often not by convincing you or bettering
Speaker 1: or besting your arguments, but by forcing you to use
Speaker 1: certain words. If you use the words they want you
Speaker 1: to use, you've already conceded so much that perhaps the
Speaker 1: rest of the argument, the rest of the debate is moot,
Speaker 1: does not really matter anymore. And here we have an
Speaker 1: instance of something like that. An editorial in the New
Speaker 1: York Times call me they the subhead here is the
Speaker 1: singular they is inclusive and flexible, and it breaks the
Speaker 1: stifling prison of gender expectations. Here's what this guy goes
Speaker 1: on to, right, he is not what you should call me.
Speaker 1: If we live in a just, rational, inclusive universe, one
Speaker 1: in which we are not also irredeemably obsessed by the
Speaker 1: particulars of the parts between our fellow human's legs, nor
Speaker 1: the ridiculous expectations signal signified by those parts about how
Speaker 1: we should act and speak and dress and feel. There
Speaker 1: would be no requirement for you to have my gender
Speaker 1: assumed and to and you could just refer to me
Speaker 1: in the common tongue. So why does standard English imposed
Speaker 1: gender requirement on the third person singular? And why do
Speaker 1: elite cultural institutions, universities, publishers, and media's media outlets like
Speaker 1: The Times still encourage all this gendering. To get to
Speaker 1: my particular beef. When I refer to an individual who's
Speaker 1: gender I don't know here in the Times, why do
Speaker 1: I usually have to choose either he or she or
Speaker 1: he or she? Okay, let's play this out for a moment,
Speaker 1: shall we. This is this is what was. It's been
Speaker 1: coming for a while, folks. Now, now, in order to
Speaker 1: cater to the transagenda, we are all to abandon the
Speaker 1: use of gendered pronouns. That's right, this is this is this,
Speaker 1: This is published the New York Times. This is a
Speaker 1: real movement. There is, in fact, a character in the
Speaker 1: show Billions who is non binary and gender fluid, you know,
Speaker 1: trans transgender, and Taylor Mason is the character's name, and
Speaker 1: Taylor Mason is referred to or asks to be referred
Speaker 1: to as they, and everyone in the show just is
Speaker 1: always your Ferny tailor Mason as they, And it's kind
Speaker 1: of confusing. You're like, wait, what they did this? Or
Speaker 1: you know they did that, You're like, who's they? It
Speaker 1: is confusing because here's the big problem that they have
Speaker 1: to get over with this one. They refers to multiple people.
Speaker 1: So unless we are going to somehow assume that transgendered
Speaker 1: individuals have a multiple personality disorder and need to be
Speaker 1: referred to as multiple individuals, you have a singular versus
Speaker 1: plural conundrum. You have a problem here. And this piece
Speaker 1: and others like it are out there because they realize
Speaker 1: that using z xe or z or ze and all
Speaker 1: this stuff that automatically notes that a person is within
Speaker 1: the trans community, and so they think that that's that's
Speaker 1: not acceptable. They they want a person they being plural
Speaker 1: people in the trans community, and the people that are
Speaker 1: pushing for this idea, they want pronouns to be used
Speaker 1: where you can't tell. Now, they say what's the big deal?
Speaker 1: This is the argument often with these these issues, especially
Speaker 1: on language. They'll say this to me about about quote,
Speaker 1: undocumented immigrants. What's the big deal? Why can't you just
Speaker 1: say undocumented? Okay, Well, I can argue, like a third
Speaker 1: grade or two, what's the big deal? Why can't you
Speaker 1: just say illegal alien? Oh? Because illegal alien sounds bad?
Speaker 1: Maybe because breaking the law is bad. Maybe that's why
Speaker 1: it sounds bad. Maybe undocumented will sound bad in time
Speaker 1: if people started to use it all the time, because
Speaker 1: they'd realize, oh, that means illegal, that means breaking the law.
Speaker 1: But they change the word because they understand the power
Speaker 1: of connotation. But this is the argument they then make
Speaker 1: with they for transgender individuals, that we should all start
Speaker 1: to use day, not just for transgender individuals, but for everybody.
Speaker 1: Everybody should just be There's no more he or she,
Speaker 1: they they plural. They say, what's the big deal? Well,
Speaker 1: I think the big deal is that language is about
Speaker 1: communicating ideas and facts and truth and stuff, and gender
Speaker 1: is still a thing. They can pretend that it's not,
Speaker 1: they can pretend it doesn't matter, but it does matter.
Speaker 1: Gender is still worthy of description. Gender is still out
Speaker 1: there for all of us to observe, and it has effects.
Speaker 1: It has impact on life, on everything around us. They
Speaker 1: can try to make us change the words, but they
Speaker 1: can't change the reality. And because they can't change the reality,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say it right now. I'm sorry. I'm
Speaker 1: sticking with he or she because there are still he's
Speaker 1: and she's in this world. And that's how I'm going
Speaker 1: to refer to them. This is gonna get bigger, though, folks.
Speaker 1: They're gonna push hard on this. You watch rock and roll,
Speaker 1: fellow patriots, we made ours go up to eleven. It's
Speaker 1: time for roll call Facebook dot com slashbuck Sexton four,
Speaker 1: Roll call time. That's right. You know how we do.
Speaker 1: You know how we roll? You know how the Facebook
Speaker 1: gets down? Yo? All right, I'll stop, but no, it's
Speaker 1: kind of a very dark and rainy day here in DC.
Speaker 1: So I hope wherever you are you can sit back,
Speaker 1: relax and enjoy a warm bath of my radio time.
Speaker 1: That's a Duke Silver reference. Very few of you will
Speaker 1: probably get that. But alrighty, John Shields Eye, how does
Speaker 1: one spend a lifetime to become a representative for an
Speaker 1: American sport team? If you hate the country so much
Speaker 1: saw them throw the flag on the ground. I'm just
Speaker 1: curious how they can be so angry. Well, John, it's
Speaker 1: really unfortunately the case that wokeness for a lot of
Speaker 1: folks now is not only politically advantageous, but there is
Speaker 1: an additional layer of the financial advantage of wokeness, as in,
Speaker 1: if you are able to promote yourself as somebody who
Speaker 1: is very social justice aware, then you will make more money,
Speaker 1: your career will advance, you'll be somebody who gets commercial
Speaker 1: benefits as well as political ones. So I mean, I
Speaker 1: can't answer beyond that why some of the women on
Speaker 1: the national team decide to act the way they do.
Speaker 1: I wish they wouldn't, but it's not up to me.
Speaker 1: There we have it. Let's see here. Brandon all Rights
Speaker 1: heard the story of Jayleen Hinkel, who plays for North
Speaker 1: Carolina Pro women's soccer team, who chose not to play
Speaker 1: for the national team because they demanded players where pride
Speaker 1: jerseys that went against Christian beliefs. Was going to buy
Speaker 1: a Hinkel jersey to support her, but looking at the
Speaker 1: NWSL shops that are filled with pride stuff, there's no
Speaker 1: way I'll buy anything. How they're going to generate revenue
Speaker 1: that gets them into billion dollar range if they insist
Speaker 1: on agendas of the sport that no one really cares
Speaker 1: about that much to begin with. Well, you know, Brendon,
Speaker 1: We've got a couple of problems in this new era
Speaker 1: that we all live in. One is that we everyone
Speaker 1: is a celebrity now, which is a question of how
Speaker 1: much of a celebrity. Everyone's on social media. Everyone's creating
Speaker 1: their own brands and presenting themselves and signaling to everybody
Speaker 1: else all the time what they are, and everything is
Speaker 1: politicized as well, so we do not have these personal
Speaker 1: and individual silos and separations that we used to. It's
Speaker 1: now just a total free for all with this stuff.
Speaker 1: It's frustrating. It is frustrating. I wish it was not
Speaker 1: the case, but it is the case. Jim writes, Okay, Buck,
Speaker 1: I understand how kneeling before the flag during a sporting
Speaker 1: event commute as unpatriotic, and for the most part, I agree.
Speaker 1: On the other end, athletes who take a knee but
Speaker 1: still pay reverence to the flag can also be viewed
Speaker 1: as peacefully protesting the government, all while being observant. I
Speaker 1: just ignore their actions and respect it in my own way,
Speaker 1: even from home shields high. Well, Jim, you're certainly entitled
Speaker 1: to that view of it. I would just say that
Speaker 1: they recognize the people that do this tend to recognize
Speaker 1: that take a knee during the anthem, that it is
Speaker 1: upsetting to other people. They're not doing this in order
Speaker 1: to just they know that the way they get attention
Speaker 1: for this is because it bothers folks who view it
Speaker 1: as disrespectful. So they're doing it with the knowledge of
Speaker 1: it being perceived as disrespectful, whether you know, we could
Speaker 1: always argue about acts like this, whether it's disrespectful or not. Wow,
Speaker 1: it's like a monsoon here in DC right now. This
Speaker 1: is crazy, you know. This is this is where in
Speaker 1: Karate Kid Part two, daniels Son has to go and
Speaker 1: break the big beam across the Oh no, that's not
Speaker 1: Daniels On this mister Miyagi has to break the beam
Speaker 1: that falls across the guy's chest. You know, I started
Speaker 1: just a little. I just had an observation on Twitter
Speaker 1: last night, and this is It's always the stuff on Twitter.
Speaker 1: It's never when I'm going hard against the libs, you know,
Speaker 1: whenever I'm just lighting libs up and talking about Democrats
Speaker 1: and policy. That's not when all of a sudden I
Speaker 1: get left wing blue Check Pyla, and it's always, you know,
Speaker 1: I just think that chocolate's a better flavor of ice
Speaker 1: cream to vanila. People go, oh my gosh, you're so
Speaker 1: stupid and ugly. Why would you say that about vanilla
Speaker 1: ice cream when chocolate? It's ridiculous. I'm like, I thought,
Speaker 1: I thought we're in the trust tree. I thought we
Speaker 1: were in the nest. I thought I could just share
Speaker 1: an opinion. So I just I don't even remember what
Speaker 1: I was watching, but I was watching something and they
Speaker 1: had another one of these moments where and it wasn't
Speaker 1: I don't need to be I don't need this to
Speaker 1: be explaining to me. No one had superpowers. Okay, I'm
Speaker 1: not saying, oh, but you know Superman can fly and
Speaker 1: like you can't really flause, you know, not being a
Speaker 1: moron here, I'm just saying that there's a tendency in
Speaker 1: Hollywood to always if the guys are fighting, then the
Speaker 1: girls have to fight too, And girls are often fighting
Speaker 1: guys who are much larger and stronger than they are
Speaker 1: and just beating them all up all the time. Now,
Speaker 1: I understand that all fight scenes are a little bit
Speaker 1: stylized and all that. You know, there's a degree of
Speaker 1: suspension of disbelief that we accept when we watch things.
Speaker 1: I just think that watching one hundred and ten pound
Speaker 1: women who don't have superpowers beat up five or six
Speaker 1: guys in a row who are all like trained thugs
Speaker 1: and outweigh or two to one, it's just for me,
Speaker 1: it's like this is it just gets ridiculous after a while.
Speaker 1: I mean, these are these women couldn't lift lift a
Speaker 1: ten pound weight. I mean, they're obviously very beautiful, which
Speaker 1: is why they're on TV shows or on these different movies.
Speaker 1: But you know, it's one thing. If you're gonna cast
Speaker 1: Ronda Rousy and she's gonna fight some dudes, I'm like,
Speaker 1: all right, Like she looks like she can can complete
Speaker 1: that storyline. I mean, she looks like she could play
Speaker 1: that part. But when you have some bikini model who
Speaker 1: looks like she hasn't had a cheeseburger in quite a
Speaker 1: while and she's fighting like ten different dudes, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: it's just it's just ridiculous. It's just ridiculous, and all
Speaker 1: a blue checks. It's the patriarchy. They're all come it
Speaker 1: after me, and I'm like, why do we do we
Speaker 1: really all have to pretend that that, you know, one
Speaker 1: hundred pound women are just as capable of fighting as
Speaker 1: a one hundred and eighty or two hundred pound guy.
Speaker 1: I mean, is that really the world we have to live? Oh?
Speaker 1: It is the world we have to live in now.
Speaker 1: We we have to suspend all that is obvious in
Speaker 1: the pursuit of whatever the left says will make people
Speaker 1: feel equal or more equal anyway. I just it was ridiculous. Man,
Speaker 1: people come after me on this. I'm like, what, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: is that offensive to you? It's it's offensive to not
Speaker 1: to you listening to this, but to people out there
Speaker 1: that anyway, I might even I'm even gonna get it's ridiculous.
Speaker 1: Everywhere you go down there are all these you know,
Speaker 1: very skinny, very attractive women on TV who always fighting.
Speaker 1: You know, he's like punching guys and throwing them over
Speaker 1: their shoulders and all. I'm like, no, no, it's not
Speaker 1: how it works. Yeah, okay, if it's a Mark, if
Speaker 1: it's Miss Marvel, if it's a superhero, or if it's
Speaker 1: somebody who has some you know, special super Cia training, which,
Speaker 1: let me tell you that doesn't exist. Uh but you know, okay, fine,
Speaker 1: But if it's just someone who's like a detective on
Speaker 1: the police force, then all of a sudden, she's throwing
Speaker 1: fly kicks and no, no, I know, I'm alone. Maybe
Speaker 1: I'm alone on this one. I'm a little crazy. I
Speaker 1: don't people think that I'm I'm people think I'm the weirdo.
Speaker 1: What did I didn't even realize what I'm talking about here?
Speaker 1: Anor rights? Are you available to chat? Well? A Noor?
Speaker 1: I don't think so, Jack bad Buck News, iHeart radio
Speaker 1: seems to be fine, but I had to google you.
Speaker 1: They haven't updated your podcast since the twenty seventh of June.
Speaker 1: H Man, keep doing great work out There is our shield,
Speaker 1: Hie against a lovecrafty and beast that is left. Yo. Man,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry about the podcast situation. I don't know what
Speaker 1: to say. I'm we got all these different platforms. I
Speaker 1: don't know why this is so hard for this to
Speaker 1: just stay the way it's supposed to be. But I'm trying.
Speaker 1: I am on it, and I'm trying. I can tell
Speaker 1: you that Tyler, this Epstein thing goes deeper than you know,
Speaker 1: follow the money and CYA shields high Tyler. I do
Speaker 1: think this Epstein thing goes goes very deep. I think
Speaker 1: that this is this is a story. There are a
Speaker 1: lot of people that don't really want the truth to
Speaker 1: come out about not necessarily who are involved in this,
Speaker 1: but who didn't do anything to stop it, or who
Speaker 1: when I mean involved in it, that didn't necessarily directly
Speaker 1: do anything for or with Epstein and involving in these girls.
Speaker 1: But I do think that there are people that turn
Speaker 1: to blind I do it, that use their influence to
Speaker 1: make this thing, you know, go away legally speaking for
Speaker 1: Epstein as quickly as possible. So I think that's true.
Speaker 1: I think that's the real direction all this is heading.
Speaker 1: And we'll see if they're able to shut it down then, Stephanie, right,
Speaker 1: if they want to tack AC, how about they turn
Speaker 1: their AC off in their car all day see how
Speaker 1: they feel. Then I'm sorry, No, I love my AC. Well, Stephanie,
Speaker 1: you have the right attitude about air conditioning. Darn it,
Speaker 1: I'm with you on that. Here we go next up here,
Speaker 1: Todd right, spuck, You're seriously one hard host to track down.
Speaker 1: Couldn't find your producers contact infos. I thought i'd take
Speaker 1: a shot here. I'll be brief. Given the forum, cops
Speaker 1: often don't have what they need to keep themselves safe
Speaker 1: for deployed troops off and don't have what they need
Speaker 1: to do their jobs. That's where this American comes in.
Speaker 1: He's got organizations cops direct, troops direct. All right, I've
Speaker 1: seen you step up for American heres in the past.
Speaker 1: I hope this guy qualifies best. Todd, Well, Todd, you
Speaker 1: got through to me, and you got through on the
Speaker 1: air too. I will look at this organization and see
Speaker 1: if it is something that we can help out with
Speaker 1: or get involved with. So thank you, Michael and Buck
Speaker 1: love the show. Only concern is that you, like all others,
Speaker 1: continue to call Democrats crazy, delusional, and idiots. This description
Speaker 1: may be accurate for your everyday live walk in the street,
Speaker 1: but the top Dems running the party and the media
Speaker 1: aren't crazy. They're just bad people. They know exactly what
Speaker 1: they're doing, and calling them crazy may give them an
Speaker 1: excuse to fall back on shields high. Michael, I gotta
Speaker 1: tell you, I think that some of the people that
Speaker 1: are very seen the Democratic Party, I think they're true
Speaker 1: believers my friend. I don't think that it's all just
Speaker 1: an act. I don't think they're clever enough or machia
Speaker 1: valiant enough for to just be something that they put on.
Speaker 1: I do believe it. There's more to it than that,
Speaker 1: But you could be right. We'll see team that's gonna
Speaker 1: be it. Thank you so much for joining me here.
Speaker 1: Appreciate it. As always. I will talk to you tomorrow,
Speaker 1: same time, same place. Tell somebody about the podcast. Please,
Speaker 1: let's get those podcast numbers going high for the month.
Speaker 1: Shields High