Speaker 1: You're listening to the Buck Sexton Choke podcast, make sure
Speaker 1: you subscribe to the podcast on the iHeartRadio app or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. A new study from the
Speaker 1: global think tank the World Resources Institute claims that unless
Speaker 1: Americans cut back on beef consumption, the world is going
Speaker 1: to see massive food shortages by twenty fifty. That's right, peasants,
Speaker 1: it's time to trade in your cheeseburger for a handful
Speaker 1: of crickets. Gross. I'll explain why this is nothing more
Speaker 1: than the same elatest population panic we've seen for over
Speaker 1: a century in tonight's old welcome to hold on, I'm
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton. They want you to put down your hamburger, folks.
Speaker 1: They want you to, of course, stop using fossil fuels,
Speaker 1: ride bicycles, take shorter showers. You'll notice, conservation is always
Speaker 1: at your costs, not there. Somehow, it's not even really conservation.
Speaker 1: It's actually just the reduction in your standard of living
Speaker 1: under the rubric up saving the planet, the water that
Speaker 1: you use, the air that you breathe, everything that you
Speaker 1: buy at the store that you need, all of that
Speaker 1: they want under their thumb. They want to control things. Well,
Speaker 1: my friends, here is a reality. They also want to
Speaker 1: control the burgers that you will eat. CNN headline, here
Speaker 1: to help save the planet cut back to a hamburger
Speaker 1: and a half per week. First of all, I'm just
Speaker 1: going to throw this out there. Who eats a half
Speaker 1: a hamburger a week? As in either one or two? Right,
Speaker 1: I'm not half hamburger guys running around, That's not really
Speaker 1: a thing, is it. Maybe you split one with your
Speaker 1: or your husband, your girlfriend, whatever. But anyway, here's from
Speaker 1: the CNN article, Americas will The Americans will need to
Speaker 1: cut their average consumption of beef by about forty percent
Speaker 1: and Europeans by twenty two percent for the world to
Speaker 1: continue to feed the ten billion people expecting to live
Speaker 1: on this planet in twenty fifty, according to a new
Speaker 1: report from the World Resources Institute. Goes on to say
Speaker 1: about nine point eight billion people will live on the
Speaker 1: planet by twenty fifty. That's up from seven billion people
Speaker 1: in twenty ten. Demand for food is projected to outpace
Speaker 1: population growth, increasing by more than fifty percent as people's
Speaker 1: incomes in the developing world are expected to increase, according
Speaker 1: to the report. Now, order and where did this all
Speaker 1: come from? This notion that we're just going to overpopulate
Speaker 1: the earth. There'll be too many human being and then
Speaker 1: we'll all run out of food, and so they'll be
Speaker 1: massive reductions and population because we won't be able to
Speaker 1: actually handle it. We won't be able to feed the
Speaker 1: massive population on this planet. It's not a new idea,
Speaker 1: and it's one that returns in cycles over time. You
Speaker 1: could even go back to Thomas Mouthless. He was an
Speaker 1: English cleric and a scholar the turn of the nineteenth century.
Speaker 1: He wrote an influential essay that claim that population growth
Speaker 1: would eventually outstrip food production, leading to mass starvation. Essentially,
Speaker 1: you're going to get to a point where there are
Speaker 1: so many people you can't feed the people you have,
Speaker 1: no matter what you do, and then you're gonna have
Speaker 1: massive die off until they get back down to the
Speaker 1: level that the earth can actually sustain. This might sound
Speaker 1: right if you could predict the future, if you knew
Speaker 1: where technology was going. But you can and they didn't,
Speaker 1: and so it was really wrong. But this is a
Speaker 1: graph that shows Malthus's theory in action. Population rises exponentially
Speaker 1: in outstrips food production. You see what he didn't think
Speaker 1: about was m maybe there will be more food production
Speaker 1: along with the more people, because one we'll just get
Speaker 1: better at making food, and two we'll just use more
Speaker 1: of the very abundant resources on this massive planet of
Speaker 1: ours to make more food. Right, we make the food
Speaker 1: for the people. We're not trying to make food to
Speaker 1: store and massive mass if silos that no one ever eats. Right,
Speaker 1: We're trying to feed the population we have. Of course
Speaker 1: there is some food storage. But you get what I'm saying.
Speaker 1: What was mouth is really all about? Well, his solution
Speaker 1: to this was essentially to kill off poor people. Yeah,
Speaker 1: it sounds like a libelite, doesn't he. We should facilitate
Speaker 1: the operations of nature in producing mortality. Instead of recommending
Speaker 1: cleanliness to the poor, we should encourage contrary habits in
Speaker 1: our towns. We should make the streets narrower, crowd more
Speaker 1: people into the houses, and court the return of the play.
Speaker 1: This English intellectual from just a few generations back, a
Speaker 1: very influential one at that, really believe that we should
Speaker 1: make life miserable for poor people so that they're living
Speaker 1: in filthy conditions, and maybe then the play will come
Speaker 1: back and kill them off, and then we'll have enough
Speaker 1: food for the middle class end more importantly, of course,
Speaker 1: the rich people to have. I mean, this is some
Speaker 1: crazy stuff, right, except it hasn't gone away from This
Speaker 1: is infused in the climate movement of today in so
Speaker 1: many ways. And the globalists, the global elite, the Davos set,
Speaker 1: they're always so worried about how we're going to feed
Speaker 1: the world and the drain on our resources and our climate.
Speaker 1: This is still going on now. You may have seen,
Speaker 1: for example, these Georgia guidestones, the Stonehenge of Georgia they
Speaker 1: call It's been around since nineteen seventy nine. There was
Speaker 1: an explosion and then they tore it down. Someone tried
Speaker 1: to blow this thing up and then it was so
Speaker 1: messed up they had to tear it down. I guess
Speaker 1: because it was unsafe to be around. Now, look, don't
Speaker 1: destroy property. It's not nice, but that's bad. That's suppose
Speaker 1: it destroyed property. That is a vandalism. But what was
Speaker 1: more interesting, I think as part of this story was
Speaker 1: when people found out about and maybe this, I mean,
Speaker 1: who knows what the real motivation was here. The ten
Speaker 1: principles on the Georgia Guidestone maintain humanity under five hundred
Speaker 1: million in perpetual balance with nature, guide reproduction wisely, improving
Speaker 1: fitness and diversity, unite humanity with a living new language, rule, passion, faith, tradition,
Speaker 1: all things. And it gets a little more boring below that.
Speaker 1: But being not a cancer on the earth, leave room
Speaker 1: for nature, Leave room for nature. There's a kind of
Speaker 1: environmentalist radicalism underpinning all this. In fact, there's a Malthusian
Speaker 1: go back to every buddy Thomas Malthis Malthusian ethos at
Speaker 1: work here. Five hundred million people, perpetual balance with it.
Speaker 1: Who says that's a perpetual balance five hundred million, but
Speaker 1: where it's seven billion right now? Right? So what am
Speaker 1: I missing here? So we're supposed to we're supposed to
Speaker 1: kill off six point five billion people, that's their idea,
Speaker 1: or just watch them all die or something. What are
Speaker 1: they really saying here, folks? There is, as I've said,
Speaker 1: not only in malenthusiasm, but also a nihilism and a
Speaker 1: desire for totalitarian control that is infused in these environmentalists
Speaker 1: and sustainability movement, so much so that not only the
Speaker 1: telling you to lay off the cheeseburgers, peasant, you don't
Speaker 1: need those cheeseburgers looking a little tubby anyway, right, that's
Speaker 1: what they're telling you. But they also want you to
Speaker 1: really consider seriously, because you know, got to be responsible
Speaker 1: stewards of the environment, that you should be eating bugs
Speaker 1: is from the World Economic Forum website. Five reasons why
Speaker 1: eating insects could reduce climate change. Time magazine says, they're healthy,
Speaker 1: they're sustainable, So why don't humans eat more bugs? CNN?
Speaker 1: The food that can feed and maybe save the planet
Speaker 1: bugs The Guardian. If we want to save the planet,
Speaker 1: the future of food is insect you know, libs. I
Speaker 1: just want to say, why don't you choke down a
Speaker 1: mouthful of cockroach first? You know, let's see them do it.
Speaker 1: Instead of Bill Gates walking around with his giant belly
Speaker 1: and his billions of dollars trying to control the whole
Speaker 1: planet telling everybody what they should be eating. I want
Speaker 1: to see Bill get on a treadmill. Okay, I don't
Speaker 1: really need advice from these people about how to live
Speaker 1: my life. But it's not just advice, it's control that
Speaker 1: they want. They want to tell you what you can
Speaker 1: and can't do, and they come up with these extremely
Speaker 1: grandiose convoluted and honestly insane theories in order to justify
Speaker 1: this level of control. This is behind the Biden administration
Speaker 1: pushing for all of these reductions in climate in emissions
Speaker 1: to protect a climate they say climate is an existential threat.
Speaker 1: This is behind the Dutch farmers being told they can't
Speaker 1: actually farm food anymore, or at least not the way
Speaker 1: they're used to, because of climate emissions. This is all
Speaker 1: about control and adherence to a religion that is actually nihilism.
Speaker 1: It's not really a religion. It's the complete destruction of
Speaker 1: meaning of humanity and replacing it with the earth. That's
Speaker 1: what matters. Not humanity nor the Earth is here for us,
Speaker 1: humanity's playground. Deal with it, libs. All right. President Biden
Speaker 1: continues to struggle with the out of control inflation situation.
Speaker 1: We come back, Carol Markowitz going to break that down
Speaker 1: for us, the raging dumpster fire that is the Buiden economy.
Speaker 1: Permon you are. Let's talk about protecting your online data.
Speaker 1: A lot of companies are going to say your privacy
Speaker 1: is guaranteed. We know that's not true though. That's why
Speaker 1: you need a new privacy and cybersecurity application tool called
Speaker 1: Secure it's spelled sek You are. Secure is using proprietary
Speaker 1: encryption and offering secure instant messaging and email with secure
Speaker 1: all of your communications based on servers and data centers
Speaker 1: hosted in Switzerland without using any of the big tech platforms.
Speaker 1: Privacy is a big issue now. Without real security, people
Speaker 1: can read your emails, messages, even your bank information. Secure
Speaker 1: will never mind your data and never ask to your
Speaker 1: phone number. You can send emails to your doctor, banker, lawyer,
Speaker 1: or anyone else with a total confidence you're not being
Speaker 1: spied on by your internet provider or big peck. Secure
Speaker 1: is your solution to stop the constant theft of your
Speaker 1: digital identity. Costs only five dollars for the messenger only
Speaker 1: ten dollars for the messenger and email combination package. Go
Speaker 1: to secure dot com and take back your privacy today.
Speaker 1: That's sekure dot com and use promo code buck for
Speaker 1: twenty five percent off. We'll be right back with more.
Speaker 1: Hold the line. President Biden is struggling to get a
Speaker 1: handle on soaring inflation, so much so that members of
Speaker 1: his own party seem to be viewing him as political kryptonite.
Speaker 1: Do Democratic candidates in Ohio even declining to share the
Speaker 1: stage with him at an event in Cleveland. In a
Speaker 1: recent op ed, New York Post, comms Karl Mark Whitz
Speaker 1: says that Biden's economy is a flaming dumpster fire, writing
Speaker 1: as a stock market continues to tank, inflation stays high,
Speaker 1: and people really feel the crunch. Many experts think a
Speaker 1: recession is on the horizon. The ship needs to be
Speaker 1: turned around, but the president first needs to recognize that
Speaker 1: he's set sail at all. Yep, I agree, He joins
Speaker 1: me on our discuss Carol Mark. Who's good to see Carol.
Speaker 1: What's up, Hi, Buck? Thanks for having me. I gotta say,
Speaker 1: it's always a bad sign when your side of things,
Speaker 1: as we're seeing with this White House, kind of changes.
Speaker 1: The messaging feels like almost every day. Some days it's
Speaker 1: the economy is actually great, you know, you stupid peasants
Speaker 1: stopped complaining about gas. Other days it's we've done an
Speaker 1: amazing job with the employment situation, so don't complain about
Speaker 1: how inflation super high. And then it's putin's price high.
Speaker 1: Maybe things aren't so great. You know which one is it?
Speaker 1: And I just wonder, I mean, I'm still holding on
Speaker 1: to that sixteenth cents we saved last fourth of July.
Speaker 1: But yeah, you know, it's funny because when the Biden
Speaker 1: administration points to successes, like unemployment is very low, that
Speaker 1: is because of them. But when there's something wrong, like
Speaker 1: the gas prices are very high, that's because of somebody else.
Speaker 1: It's really quite convenient. And you know, I think that
Speaker 1: you know, what we have going on with this administration
Speaker 1: is that they don't know what they think. They don't
Speaker 1: know what they're supposed to be doing, and they get
Speaker 1: mocked by people like the Chinese state media. And it's
Speaker 1: scary to watch because the president is out to lunch,
Speaker 1: so we have no idea what is actually thinking. Last
Speaker 1: night in Cleveland, for example, I didn't hold supporters that
Speaker 1: you know, they're they're doing some work on inflation or
Speaker 1: something watched. We got a long way to go because
Speaker 1: because of the I call it the Putin tax increase.
Speaker 1: The third reason I ran was to unify the country.
Speaker 1: Do you unify it? That's been the harder part of
Speaker 1: it right now. No, I'm serious, because we've become so divided.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's stunning. He really it feels to me
Speaker 1: like the Biden White House now the pitches just to
Speaker 1: really dumb people or people who are living in total denial.
Speaker 1: I mean, this Putin price hike thing, no one really
Speaker 1: believes that's what's going on. No, nobody believes that's what's
Speaker 1: going on because gas prices were going up before Putin
Speaker 1: invaded Ukraine. So no, of course it doesn't make any sense.
Speaker 1: And you know, the actual scary thing to me was
Speaker 1: when the White House Twitter account tweeted that the gas
Speaker 1: station should be reducing the prices, and it's just like,
Speaker 1: if the president really believes that the individual gas stations
Speaker 1: are setting these prices, that's that's terrifying to me. Buff
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just econ one oh one that they
Speaker 1: don't seem to grasp. And then again the Chinese media
Speaker 1: weighing in on this and saying, well, look, the president
Speaker 1: finally believes that capitalism is you know, just a bad thing.
Speaker 1: And it's kind of scary to watch. I mean, you
Speaker 1: mentioned Biden talking about gas stations and the messaging from
Speaker 1: this White House on the gas beating up on gas stations.
Speaker 1: I mean this should be like, you know, beating up
Speaker 1: on Delhi's and Bodegas for the price for the price
Speaker 1: of Eggs. It's like, well, if it's gone up everywhere else,
Speaker 1: guess what, it's going to go up with them too.
Speaker 1: But here he is. Here is his tweet. My message
Speaker 1: to the company is running gas stations and setting prices
Speaker 1: at the pump is simple. This is a time of
Speaker 1: war and global peril. Bring down the price you are
Speaker 1: charging at the pump to reflect the cost you're paying
Speaker 1: for the product, and do it now? Does the president
Speaker 1: not understand that a business has to make a profit
Speaker 1: or else it goes out of business? Like? Is he
Speaker 1: so stupid? And I actually I wonder because I've always
Speaker 1: thought Joe Biden was dumb, and actually Democrats used to
Speaker 1: admit that he's just not a smart guy. He's never
Speaker 1: been a smart man. But he's kind of like an actor.
Speaker 1: He says the required lines, he looks the part. And
Speaker 1: so he was a center from Delaware, right, who cares?
Speaker 1: But maybe he is so stupid that he thinks a
Speaker 1: business can just charge what they actually pay for the
Speaker 1: product to consumers and still be a business. I like
Speaker 1: that all these Twitter users started writing to like Lamborghini
Speaker 1: and Chanel and saying like, bring down the price of
Speaker 1: your product right now? You know in a joking passion
Speaker 1: attendance tweet, I'm in for some chanel, you know, price reductions.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden can make that happen for us. But yeah,
Speaker 1: it's it's it's as if he doesn't understand that oil
Speaker 1: is sold on the global market. It is not something
Speaker 1: that the individual gas station at the end of your
Speaker 1: block sets the price on. It is not something that
Speaker 1: they can control and absolute these and you know, where
Speaker 1: were they when nobody was driving, when nobody was flying,
Speaker 1: and these gas stations were not making money. I mean,
Speaker 1: when the oil companies were not making money. It wasn't
Speaker 1: quite as much quite a concern at that point. And
Speaker 1: it's just again, it's like baffling to watch this administration
Speaker 1: make these calls and have these tweets, because it really
Speaker 1: shows an administration adrift and really with no bearings of
Speaker 1: what's actually happening. Who you know, it's funny. I've talked
Speaker 1: to Clay on this about radio a lot on our
Speaker 1: radio show, and it's I do think it's instructive here
Speaker 1: because as much as I disagreed with a lot of
Speaker 1: I'm pretty much all of Obama administration policy, but you know,
Speaker 1: I thought they were wrong on things. There were some
Speaker 1: people in that administration, at the senior levels in that
Speaker 1: White House who I would admit were smart. I think
Speaker 1: they were wrong, but they were smart and had some
Speaker 1: degree of competence and capability. I just think they were
Speaker 1: pursuing the wrong policies in this Biden white House. I
Speaker 1: actually I think it's really the b team. And I'm wondering,
Speaker 1: you know, do you do you see anybody here? You go,
Speaker 1: you know that person. That person would be apart from
Speaker 1: whether you agree with them, could be in any presidential administration.
Speaker 1: Like I feel like this is this is like the
Speaker 1: streams who never do the reading for the class and
Speaker 1: they're making all the they're making all the decisions. Do
Speaker 1: you mean our vice president here? Yeah? Absolutely, I think
Speaker 1: that they're I think none of them have done the
Speaker 1: reading and they always come off it's sort of unprepared. Again,
Speaker 1: I think when you when you talk about the economy
Speaker 1: and you don't have any care about what the people
Speaker 1: are going through. I mean, we saw this a lot
Speaker 1: with Jen Saki when she was just she'd make comments like, oh,
Speaker 1: the tragedy of the treadmill or all the other comments
Speaker 1: about just inflation or people not being able to get
Speaker 1: the items that they need. There's just there's no connection
Speaker 1: to the American people where they understand our pain. I
Speaker 1: think you're absolutely right. With the Obama administration, at least
Speaker 1: you felt like when things were not going their way,
Speaker 1: that they were aware of it. This administration just pretends
Speaker 1: it's not happening. It seems delusional art up. Yeah, it
Speaker 1: seems like they're really delusion. By the way, you mentioned this.
Speaker 1: The Chinese state affiliated media saw the Biden tweet. The
Speaker 1: China Daily EU bureau chief tweeted back at the president.
Speaker 1: Now US president finally realized that capitalism is all about exploitation.
Speaker 1: He didn't believe this before. That's pretty awesome. I gotta say,
Speaker 1: it's just it's it's scary, and this is what we're
Speaker 1: what we're dealing with. And you know, Trump got a
Speaker 1: lot of criticism when he was president about us being
Speaker 1: mocked on the world stage. I mean, this is worse
Speaker 1: than a lot of the mockery that the Trump administration received.
Speaker 1: I don't like the Chinese state media pointing out that
Speaker 1: our president doesn't seem to understand the capitalism is the
Speaker 1: best system to have ever existed. And you know, it's
Speaker 1: just it's again. It's scary to watch and I am
Speaker 1: genuinely baffled by the behavior of this administration on the
Speaker 1: world stage. Yeah, Mark, Whit's always on point. Thanks for
Speaker 1: joining us. Where are you creat is now? It's fifth
Speaker 1: month and the administration has begun to talk endgame. We'll
Speaker 1: have more on that with the senior fellow at the
Speaker 1: Foundation for Defensive Democracy, Bill Roggio, coming up. But I
Speaker 1: want to talk to you about protecting your most valuable asset,
Speaker 1: your home. I don't know if you saw this, but
Speaker 1: there was a recent story about an Arizona real estate
Speaker 1: agent and found out the home she lived in was
Speaker 1: for sale. Problem was, she wasn't actually selling her home.
Speaker 1: She was the victim of home title fraud, a devastating
Speaker 1: crime happening all over the country. According to the expert
Speaker 1: at home Title Lock, the crime is incredibly profitable and
Speaker 1: hard to detect. An identity thief simply creates a fake
Speaker 1: title transfer for your home and refiles as the new owner.
Speaker 1: Then you can take out loans on your home or
Speaker 1: sell it. Typical identity theft services don't cover you neither.
Speaker 1: There's homeowners insurance. Home title lock does home tutle Louck
Speaker 1: puts a barrier around your home's title. The instant they
Speaker 1: detect anyone champer with your home's title, they help shut
Speaker 1: it down and help get your home back in your name.
Speaker 1: So here's what you should do. But at hometuttle loock
Speaker 1: dot com. Read the testimonials from FBI agents and government officials.
Speaker 1: Then register your address to see if you're already a
Speaker 1: victim and don't even know it. When you protect your home,
Speaker 1: tell him Buck sent you to get thirty three days
Speaker 1: of protection. Home titlelock dot com again. That's home titlelock
Speaker 1: dot com. Bill Roggio up next, Stay with us. The
Speaker 1: war in Ukraine is now in its fifth month, and
Speaker 1: any hope of a quick resolution to the conflict has vanished.
Speaker 1: Last week, President Biden announced get another eight hundred and
Speaker 1: twenty million dollar aid package to the embattled nation, even
Speaker 1: as the administration itself is tempering expectations. Last week, US
Speaker 1: Director of National Intelligence Avril Haynes laid out three scenarios
Speaker 1: for how the conflict could end. Some far less optimistic
Speaker 1: than the US had initially hoped for. You were to
Speaker 1: bring some more insight, A senior fellot the Foundation for
Speaker 1: Defensive democracies, Bill Rogio, Bill, always good to see it.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us, Thanks for having me bub
Speaker 1: All right, so before we get to the scenarios laid
Speaker 1: out by d and I Haines, what are things looking
Speaker 1: like right now on the ground in Ukraine? Not a
Speaker 1: lot of reporting about it. Yeah, there's the Russians took
Speaker 1: control of the duties the Chunk and Seferdines, so they've
Speaker 1: essentially consolidated control full control of Luhan Province. That's one
Speaker 1: of the two provinces that make up the don Bas region,
Speaker 1: the other Janettes. That's the Russians are on the move there.
Speaker 1: You know, Look, we keep hearing that. You know, the
Speaker 1: Russians don't have morale, they're losing equipment, they're losing men
Speaker 1: at a rapid case, and yet they're still advancing on
Speaker 1: the ground. Today they're advancing towards a small city called Severesk,
Speaker 1: and they're moving to look to take on the last
Speaker 1: two major cities in Dante Province. Whether the Ukrainians them
Speaker 1: or not, I think after what we witnessed this Russian
Speaker 1: offenses in the last two months, it's grinding, but it's effective.
Speaker 1: It's brutally effective. This is what I affected them to
Speaker 1: do in Kiv, and they tried to do a lightning
Speaker 1: assault and it seems the Russians debris organize. The reporting
Speaker 1: has become from Ukraine on the Ukrainian side has become
Speaker 1: a lot more grim, a lot. It was very hopeful
Speaker 1: two months ago after the Battle of Kiev, and now
Speaker 1: things now that we're talking, you know again, you have
Speaker 1: the National Director of Intelligence talking about something we discussed
Speaker 1: that months ago, about these three scenarios and that two
Speaker 1: of them are not very good. So now let's look
Speaker 1: at these scenarios that have been laid out in this
Speaker 1: I think it was a was it a leaked assessment
Speaker 1: bill that everyone's reporting on now or at least some
Speaker 1: assessment the government has um? What can you tell us
Speaker 1: about that? Yeah, you know, that's I'm not sure how
Speaker 1: this came out. I thought it was publicum. But yet
Speaker 1: basically the Director of National Security arbro Haines said that,
Speaker 1: you know, look AT's three things, that there's three outcomes here.
Speaker 1: The first could be the Russians can break through and
Speaker 1: take even more territory in Ukraine, and I think that's
Speaker 1: what we're seeing now. Everyone thought they were going to
Speaker 1: hold the Russians at Saint Paris. Once that front broke,
Speaker 1: the Russians advanced a pretty significant amount of territory. The
Speaker 1: advanced ten miles in seven in several days, and that
Speaker 1: you know, that might not seem alike a lot, but
Speaker 1: in this type of war and on the battlefield, that's
Speaker 1: a significant considering the fighting. So that's the first scenario
Speaker 1: that the Russians make a game. The second scenario is
Speaker 1: that this thing turns into a World War One type scale,
Speaker 1: and then the third scenarios that the Ukrainians can drive
Speaker 1: out the questions. I think that third scenario really has
Speaker 1: been shelved at this point based on what you, as
Speaker 1: sufficients are saying. I never thought that that was very
Speaker 1: realistic given the Russian military capabilities, and I think we're
Speaker 1: seeing the first and second scenarios being more like the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians are start taking significant losses one hundred to two
Speaker 1: hundred soldiers a day killed, up to five hundred wounded.
Speaker 1: These aren't just these are the Ukrainians best troops and
Speaker 1: they're giving up ground and taking significant casualties. I don't
Speaker 1: think they're fighting very smart, and that's why that first
Speaker 1: option the Russian breakthrough the Russian takeovers in territory. This
Speaker 1: is the one again. We were warning about this what
Speaker 1: one to two months ago, Buck and people were just
Speaker 1: pooh pooing this as being impossible. But now it is
Speaker 1: a possibility. And in what ways are the Ukrainians most
Speaker 1: mismatched here militarily? And early on there was a lot
Speaker 1: of talk about air strikes and artillery range. Is that
Speaker 1: still Are those still the primary areas where the Ukrainians
Speaker 1: are you having a hard time even withstanding this Russian
Speaker 1: offensive And basically, given that they're fighting on their home turf,
Speaker 1: we're giving them a lot. They've got a lot of guns, right,
Speaker 1: They've got a lot of shoulder fired missiles, and they've
Speaker 1: been getting military support from not just America, but many countries.
Speaker 1: How are the Russians able to continue to grind on
Speaker 1: and take more territory? Where is the mismatch? The mismatched
Speaker 1: primarily is an artillery for the person foremost, as you mentioned,
Speaker 1: the secondary in the air. The Russians have negated the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians in the air. The Ukrainians used of uads. That's
Speaker 1: that was very effective in the beginning, But now the
Speaker 1: Russians have been countered this using their air defense more effectively,
Speaker 1: but the Ukrainians are seeing their outmatched by ten to
Speaker 1: fifteen the one depending on what part of the front.
Speaker 1: In artillery, now, the US is supplying artillery systems, but
Speaker 1: the problems are is that some of these artillery systems
Speaker 1: aren't compatible with what the Ukrainians use, the old Soviet
Speaker 1: weapons systems. They're having supply issues. The Russians are firing
Speaker 1: at least ten to one shells so and then the
Speaker 1: Ukrainians are starting to have problems with effective combat units.
Speaker 1: They're losing some of their best fighters, some of their
Speaker 1: best soldiers are starting to get ground down and starting
Speaker 1: to see reports of units taking forty fifty, sixty to
Speaker 1: eighty percent casualties. That is not sustainable. These are the
Speaker 1: casualties that people were saying the Russians were taking at
Speaker 1: the beginning. The Ukrainians are now starting to take these casualties.
Speaker 1: When you put all this together, this is why that
Speaker 1: elapse scenario. And look, I don't think the Russians could
Speaker 1: advance all the way to the border west of the
Speaker 1: border of Poland, but they could advance that river, which
Speaker 1: I think was their initial goal about taking kid and
Speaker 1: taking all the territory east of the Deniper River. I
Speaker 1: think this is this is a possibility now, something that
Speaker 1: we have to consider in the western You think they
Speaker 1: made because I've been saying this since February, that they're
Speaker 1: just going to cut the country in half and take
Speaker 1: the eastern part of it and just say you guys
Speaker 1: can have the rest is Do you think that's what
Speaker 1: they're heading toward? Yeah? Absolutely, Buck, I said, I felt
Speaker 1: as well, they would leave a rump Ukrainian state that
Speaker 1: is weakened, UM, that is divided, and the Russians can
Speaker 1: have um, you know, have a client state on you
Speaker 1: know again west and east of the Deniper River. I
Speaker 1: think that is I always think that was the goal.
Speaker 1: I don't think they help they can up fully up rain.
Speaker 1: And what is the Biden administration doing in the background
Speaker 1: here to try to bring this conflict because it feels
Speaker 1: like right now it just goes on into the Russians
Speaker 1: get what they want? I mean, is the reason that
Speaker 1: we don't hear more about a possible solution to this
Speaker 1: through deploys. See that the Russians have now decided they're
Speaker 1: not stopping no matter what until they get that bisected
Speaker 1: Ukraine mean is that do we know what Putin's has
Speaker 1: Putin stated what his goal is and do we know
Speaker 1: what Biden is offering on behalf of the Western countries
Speaker 1: aligned as Ukraine's allies here to try to stop the conflict. Now,
Speaker 1: the President, Biden and other Western leaders have said this
Speaker 1: is a decision the Ukrainians must make. But in the background,
Speaker 1: I think they are trying to push for a solution.
Speaker 1: But the problem is that the Russians don't want a
Speaker 1: political solution. They want to I believe, to split the state.
Speaker 1: They said they want to take a control of the
Speaker 1: don Bos, liberate those areas, get rid of the Nazi elements,
Speaker 1: and demilitarize the Ukrainians. That would be leaving a rump
Speaker 1: state as we think about earlier. But the Ukrainians themselves
Speaker 1: are saying they're going to fight until they drive the
Speaker 1: Russians out of all of Ukraine. So both sides are
Speaker 1: nowhere near considering negotiating, and I wouldn't trust the Russians
Speaker 1: negotiate either. This is this is a situation. This is
Speaker 1: why I think unless the Russians achieve a dramatic breakthrough
Speaker 1: and they're able to take significant amount of territory give
Speaker 1: forcing the Ukrainians to leaving them with no choice but
Speaker 1: to see the ground. I think this could be either
Speaker 1: a lengthy conflict or prolonged conflict. I just don't see
Speaker 1: the Ukrainians being able to drive the Russians out, not
Speaker 1: in the near to mid term. I mean, if you
Speaker 1: had to, if you had to make an assessment, is
Speaker 1: this war still going on a year from now, I
Speaker 1: think it may be yes. I think if I have
Speaker 1: been making an assessment, unless there is a Russian significant
Speaker 1: Russian breakthrough and a collapse, I think, given what we
Speaker 1: witnessed this last five months, that it's very likely that
Speaker 1: this war will be grinding on for the next year.
Speaker 1: And look Europe and even here in the United States,
Speaker 1: they're starting to see the Ukraine fatigue and that plays
Speaker 1: a Roman to this as well. It could either extend
Speaker 1: this work or could bring it to a quick close
Speaker 1: if the Western countries decide to cut down or even
Speaker 1: stop providing aid to Bill. Thanks for being with us man,
Speaker 1: go to see it. It was a pleasure, bucket and
Speaker 1: agree on. Senator Elizabeth Warren is taking aim at crisis
Speaker 1: pregnancy centers, claiming that they're used to trick women into
Speaker 1: not getting abortions. I mean she actually said that. We'll
Speaker 1: have more on this with the host of Counterculture on
Speaker 1: the Epic Times, Danielle Desuza in a moment. As we've
Speaker 1: reported on this program before, pro life establishments around the country,
Speaker 1: including churches and chrisis pregnancy centers, are being vandalized all
Speaker 1: over the United States and seems nobody is being held
Speaker 1: accountable for it. According to a report in The Daily Signal,
Speaker 1: six days after the FBI announced a formal investigation into
Speaker 1: a series of attacks against churches and pro life organizations,
Speaker 1: the agency seems to be falling through but apparently has
Speaker 1: made no arrests. If that wasn't enough, Senator Elizabeth Warren
Speaker 1: is now attacking crisis pregnancy centers as well, claiming they're
Speaker 1: fooling pregnant women into not getting abortion, seriously saying that
Speaker 1: join me now to discuss the Danielle de sus a
Speaker 1: host of Counterculture with Danielle de Susa. Danielle, good to
Speaker 1: see you, hi, Buck, thanks for having me. So let's
Speaker 1: just start with this SoundBite of Elizabeth Warren that I,
Speaker 1: you know, there are the things that I would talk
Speaker 1: about that our differences of politics. And then there are
Speaker 1: things that seem like differences of whether a person understands
Speaker 1: and lives with basic morality and has a soul. And this,
Speaker 1: for me, finds itself more in the second category. Here's
Speaker 1: Elizabeth Warren saying that, first of all, she thinks all
Speaker 1: crisis pregnancy centers should be shut down in her state
Speaker 1: of Massachusetts. And why why here in Massachusetts, these so
Speaker 1: called crisis pregnancy centers out number genuine abortion clinics by
Speaker 1: three to one. They are giving it over to people
Speaker 1: who wish them hard, and that has to stop. We
Speaker 1: need to put a stop to that in Massachusetts right now. People,
Speaker 1: I mean, there's so much they're people who wish them harm,
Speaker 1: she says, of crisis pregnancy centers that do things like
Speaker 1: give counseling, get baby formula, baby clothes, bring together family
Speaker 1: members to teach them about how to be helpful with
Speaker 1: the baby. I mean that that wishes them harm, apparently exactly.
Speaker 1: I mean, these crisis pregnancy centers actually give people oftentimes
Speaker 1: free medical care, free ultrasounds, free checkups. But yet the
Speaker 1: people who wish them harm aren't the crisis pregnancy centers.
Speaker 1: It's actually people like Elizabeth Warren and Planted Parenthood that
Speaker 1: not only wish the baby harm, of course, but actually
Speaker 1: the woman harm. They oftentimes don't want her to know
Speaker 1: what is happening in the pregnancy. They don't want her
Speaker 1: to know what's happening in the womb, and so they
Speaker 1: bait and switch. She's talking about. Isn't what the crisis
Speaker 1: pregnancy centers are doing, it's what Plant Parenthood does. They
Speaker 1: basically say, we're all about you know, we're all we're
Speaker 1: all about parenthood, We're all about these other services, when
Speaker 1: in reality they use that to bring women in and
Speaker 1: then actually give them abortions. So they're the ones who
Speaker 1: are pulling this bait and switch tag and are also
Speaker 1: using this and then harm the same women. Yes, and
Speaker 1: also is fascinating because for years, Danielle, we know that
Speaker 1: the Planned Parenthood talking point has been that abortions are
Speaker 1: only three percent of the services they provide, and they'll
Speaker 1: often say, well what about you know, people say what
Speaker 1: about mamograms? It turns out Planned parent who doesn't do mamograms,
Speaker 1: they can they can suggest essentially to somebody where to
Speaker 1: go to get a mammogram. But now that abortion isn't
Speaker 1: getting the same kind of federal funding, and abortion isn't
Speaker 1: getting the same kind of legal support from the make
Speaker 1: believe constitutional right. Why are I mean, if only three
Speaker 1: percent of your activities as a business involve something, why
Speaker 1: are places? Why are Planned Parenthood's closing down? You know,
Speaker 1: I think that's a really good point. Plan Parenthood have
Speaker 1: been closing down. They've been dropping like flies all over
Speaker 1: the country. We've even seen these abortion bands coming into
Speaker 1: place in many states. And you're the left keeps saying
Speaker 1: things like, oh, abortion is so popular, rovi waight is
Speaker 1: so popular. Well, actually it's not popular. That's why so
Speaker 1: many of these states want restrictions, and that's why so
Speaker 1: many of these states that are closing down these Planned
Speaker 1: parenthoods because Plant Parenthood has nothing to offer these women
Speaker 1: if not abortion. That was their primary service, that was
Speaker 1: their main service, and anything that they would add to
Speaker 1: that was really just an add on service. So Planned
Speaker 1: Parenthood closing is actually a good thing, and it'll be
Speaker 1: great if we actually don't send federal funding to Planned Parenthood,
Speaker 1: but perhaps instead send it to some crisis pregnancy centers
Speaker 1: that actually help women's help. And there's a surge in
Speaker 1: these companies, by the way, that we've all seen that
Speaker 1: are touting their abortion travel benefits, which is it's remarkable
Speaker 1: when you find out, you know, Dick Sporting Goods for examples, saying,
Speaker 1: don't worry, we'll give you thousands of dollars to travel
Speaker 1: to go get an abortion. Some people pointing out also
Speaker 1: to make everyone really apart from, of course, the morality
Speaker 1: of abortion itself, it should make people really uncomfortable that
Speaker 1: it seems that these companies are much faster to talk
Speaker 1: about how much they want to help you will get
Speaker 1: abortions than they are to help with maternity leave and
Speaker 1: provide assistance for actual motherhood. But here's a Fox forty headline,
Speaker 1: if you use your company's abortion travel benefits, will your
Speaker 1: boss find out? There are so many of these companies
Speaker 1: that are talking about their abortion travel benefits, I think
Speaker 1: that they may also start to realize one it's a story.
Speaker 1: It seems strange that they're so dedicated toward this, especially
Speaker 1: in companies that aren't necessarily thought of as work. But
Speaker 1: also if they're going to be paying people to travel
Speaker 1: across state lines, it's kind of like they're asking for
Speaker 1: this to be handled at the federal level by Congress,
Speaker 1: which may have different implications than they think it will, right,
Speaker 1: And you know, you brought up this question of will
Speaker 1: your employer know whether or not you use these funds
Speaker 1: to travel it's get an abortion. Well, why is it
Speaker 1: that they're saying, Oh, no, that's your rights of privacy,
Speaker 1: We don't need to know that. Here's the money. You're
Speaker 1: just going to get reimbursed for this. But yet they
Speaker 1: want to know how many shots you've gone, whether you've
Speaker 1: gotten a vaccine, they want to know all these other things.
Speaker 1: Was about your personal health, but yet they don't want
Speaker 1: to know about this. And as you mentioned, they do
Speaker 1: want these women to get abortions because they don't want
Speaker 1: to have to pay for maternity leave. They don't want
Speaker 1: women to actually have families, have a life outside of work.
Speaker 1: They basically want them to grow up and live in
Speaker 1: cubicles their whole lives so that that kind of provides
Speaker 1: their meeting and life. Basically, work is the only thing
Speaker 1: that they care about. And yet these companies know that
Speaker 1: this is actually quite harmful to women, just sending them
Speaker 1: across state lines. They're just going to fly them to
Speaker 1: places like New York to get abortions there. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is This is something that I think we thought
Speaker 1: of before this happened. You know, this abortion tourism, the
Speaker 1: idea of having like a Disneyland being like an abortion
Speaker 1: clinic and people go there and they're they're flown there
Speaker 1: on a trip. It really is just a new concept.
Speaker 1: I think. Here's a guy, Harvey Cotton from the Ropes
Speaker 1: and Gray law firm that our team pulled this from.
Speaker 1: Talking about how the abortion benefits will work. This guy stated,
Speaker 1: just like your employer doesn't know if you're going to
Speaker 1: the doctor for treatment of any other medical condition, they
Speaker 1: wouldn't be a to find out what you've been reimbursed
Speaker 1: for travel to seek an abortion in a state where
Speaker 1: it's legal. So I had to This benefit work through
Speaker 1: the medical plan is so important. This could turn into
Speaker 1: a bit of a fight, I think as well. Over
Speaker 1: is this a mandatory benefit now? Right? And remember because
Speaker 1: of Obamacare, we've all gotten used to this, this very
Speaker 1: heavy handed federal Well, this must be covered by all plans.
Speaker 1: Are all plans all across the country is supposed to
Speaker 1: cover abortion even though abortion is illegal in some states? Yeah, Well,
Speaker 1: some states are even passing laws saying that you can't
Speaker 1: actually help someone else obtain an abortion like Texas. So
Speaker 1: I don't know where that's going to go as far
Speaker 1: as the legal ramifications of that, but no, I mean,
Speaker 1: I think this idea of making it so that you know,
Speaker 1: this is now required to be part of insurance and
Speaker 1: so on people, that's almost another thing that then we
Speaker 1: have to deal with trying to get rid of. But
Speaker 1: I think if that happened, I don't think it would
Speaker 1: be upheld at all. Then Yelle always appreciate the respective.
Speaker 1: Thanks for being with us. Thank you. An Arizona congressional
Speaker 1: candidate recently released an ad in which he takes on
Speaker 1: the Ku Klux Klan with an AAR fifteen. You've got
Speaker 1: to see this. We've got video for you and quick hits.
Speaker 1: Stay with us. Arizona congressional candidate Jerome Davis shows why
Speaker 1: he believes he needs a thirty round magazine and California
Speaker 1: Governor Gavin Newsom is under fire for you get another
Speaker 1: striking piece of hypocrisy. We have those stories and kits.
Speaker 1: Let's get right to it now. Usually congressional ads are
Speaker 1: pretty boring. Usually congressional ads you watch them and you go,
Speaker 1: come on, what's this really supposed to do? Who's going
Speaker 1: to care about this one? And you get into the oh,
Speaker 1: did this guy really say this, or did he really
Speaker 1: stand or did gal you know stand for that whatever? Right? Sometimes, though,
Speaker 1: the ad is so creative that it becomes a bit
Speaker 1: of a cultural moment to me, if you will, and
Speaker 1: goes viral and a lot of people see it. And
Speaker 1: I think that may be the case here with Jerome Davis.
Speaker 1: He's running for Congress in Arizona, and he is clearly
Speaker 1: a supporter of the Second Amendment. And as you know,
Speaker 1: there's this ongoing debate about how because gun grabbers, leftists, democrats,
Speaker 1: they want to tell you you can't have now. I
Speaker 1: don't think the criminals care what we say about magazine limitations,
Speaker 1: of course, but the law abiding are told you can't
Speaker 1: have a ten round magazine or a fifteen or a
Speaker 1: thirty round magazine. You can only have a five round magazine.
Speaker 1: How long before they say you can only have a
Speaker 1: one at a time, you know, a one at a
Speaker 1: time breach loading rifle of something. I mean, it's ridiculous, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, this is where we are flint lock pistols only.
Speaker 1: This is crazy. JEROMEE. Davis, though, made this ad he's
Speaker 1: running for Congress, and he says, look, you might need
Speaker 1: thirty rounds because a situation like this. Amocrats like to
Speaker 1: say that no one needs in AAR fifteen for self defense,
Speaker 1: that no one could possibly need all thirty rounds. But
Speaker 1: when this rifle is the only thing standing between your
Speaker 1: family and a dozen angry Democrats in clan hoods, you
Speaker 1: just might need that semi automatic in all thirty rounds. There,
Speaker 1: you have it right. You know, there was a Fourth
Speaker 1: of July weekend just happened, and there was a lot
Speaker 1: of tension, of course on the mass shooting that occurred
Speaker 1: in Highland Park and then also the shootings that occurred
Speaker 1: in other major cities. So those are the biggest news stories,
Speaker 1: and rightly so. But if you see some of the
Speaker 1: stuff that was going on with these Independence Day celebration
Speaker 1: over the weekend of Independence Day, I should say that
Speaker 1: this stuff has nothing to do with Independence Day. This
Speaker 1: people taking an opportunity to blow things up and create
Speaker 1: mayhem and get away with bad behavior. Here is a
Speaker 1: group of youths in Minneapolis who just rolled and drove
Speaker 1: around attacking people with fireworks on the street. I mean,
Speaker 1: one woman was walking a dog she was targeted to
Speaker 1: directly watch this come you don't want Christmas Love. And
Speaker 1: there's Gavin Newsom vacationing in Montana. A new controversy's arising
Speaker 1: from Governor Gavin Newsom's holiday trip with his family. Newsom
Speaker 1: is on vacation in Montana. According to Cala Matters, Montana
Speaker 1: is one of twenty two states California has banned state
Speaker 1: funded travel too because of anti LGBTQ policies. Let's be clear.
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom, in an act of typical lib virtue signaling,
Speaker 1: says no one is allowed to go to Montana because
Speaker 1: he says it's anti LGBTQ. And by the way, it's
Speaker 1: let's be clear, it's LGBTQI A plus for Gavin Newsom's
Speaker 1: purposes and everyone else's. Let's be very clear on that.
Speaker 1: One can't leave out the extra letters because that would
Speaker 1: be non inclusive. Gavin Newsom, though, travel to Montana, and
Speaker 1: he doesn't want state employees to go there. So it's
Speaker 1: good for Gavin Newsom on vacation. That's cool, but it's
Speaker 1: not okay for state employees to go there for any
Speaker 1: reason because it's so bigoted. The whole state of Montana,
Speaker 1: punish the whole state and twenty two states. California says,
Speaker 1: you can't have stayed fund to travel to California. Live
Speaker 1: insanity all concentrated in that one state. It's not good.
Speaker 1: That's up for tonight's hold the line. The no Spin
Speaker 1: news of Bill o'reiley is next fieldside