Speaker 1: Mr garbutsch Off, tear down this wall. Either you're with
Speaker 1: us or you were with the terrorists. If you've got
Speaker 1: healthcare already, then you can keep your plan. If you
Speaker 1: are satisfied with is not President of the United States,
Speaker 1: take it to a bank. Together, we will make America
Speaker 1: great again. It's what you've been waiting for all day.
Speaker 1: The Buck Sexton Show joined the conversation called Buck toll
Speaker 1: Free at eight four four nine hundred Buck. That's eight
Speaker 1: four four nine hundred to eight to five the Future
Speaker 1: of talk radio. Buck Sexton. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody,
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for being here. We got a
Speaker 1: lot to talk about today, as always, just some raking
Speaker 1: news for you as we go to the airwaves here,
Speaker 1: there is this shooting at YouTube, at YouTube headquarters out
Speaker 1: on the West Coast in California, and so far from
Speaker 1: what we're seeing, it is a female suspect who was
Speaker 1: who is now dead from a self inflicted gunshot wound.
Speaker 1: So she committed suicide, but not before she shot four people,
Speaker 1: none of them based on the reporting so far, fatally,
Speaker 1: but so far law enforcement sources. They held the press
Speaker 1: conference right before we went onto air. They're saying they
Speaker 1: believe this was a female targeting her boyfriend perhaps and
Speaker 1: perhaps an ex boyfriend. I don't know if this would
Speaker 1: be qualified as a possible but what would have been
Speaker 1: called years ago at least a crime of passion. We
Speaker 1: we don't have those details. We just female shooter. She
Speaker 1: is dead. Shot For people, they are at the hospital,
Speaker 1: but police said that they are being treated for their
Speaker 1: wounds and they are expected to be okay. And that's
Speaker 1: all we have. So you can imagine, though, shooting at YouTube,
Speaker 1: all all of the the wheels started turning in everyone's minds.
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, this is I think, not only is
Speaker 1: this a way to seize a tremendous amount of attention
Speaker 1: because of the high profile of YouTube, there could also
Speaker 1: be some messaging here about, you know, attacking the platforms
Speaker 1: that are spreading other messages. And everyone was very spun
Speaker 1: up right from the get go. But it looks like
Speaker 1: this is just, uh, you know, a terrible situation. But
Speaker 1: only the shooter is dead. So that's the good news,
Speaker 1: as much as you can say there's any good news
Speaker 1: in a situation like this. Nobody else has been killed,
Speaker 1: and it's certainly nothing along the lines in terms of
Speaker 1: casualties and and and the the horror that we have
Speaker 1: seen in well some weeks back, this is a very
Speaker 1: different situation. Police have the whole campus, the YouTube campus,
Speaker 1: on lockdown, and they're gonna be giving us updates. If
Speaker 1: we have anything beyond that, anything new throughout the course
Speaker 1: of the show, we'll certainly tell you on air what
Speaker 1: we've got, but for now, so, a woman who went
Speaker 1: after her boyfriend not even clear if I don't know
Speaker 1: producer Mike did did we know if she was even
Speaker 1: trying to hit other people or did she just did
Speaker 1: she draw down on her boyfriend and hit by standards,
Speaker 1: it doesn't that That's the one thing I would want
Speaker 1: to know because why would she you know, if it
Speaker 1: was about her boyfriend, why is she shooting other people?
Speaker 1: I mean, maybe he was in he was at a party, right, Yeah,
Speaker 1: the first report was there. It happened at a party
Speaker 1: at YouTube, so she might have she might have just
Speaker 1: essentially snapped or gone after him, pulled out a weapon
Speaker 1: in a crowded space and just started firing hit him
Speaker 1: and some other people. Doesn't seem like this was a
Speaker 1: a premeditated mass shooter scenario where somebody was trying to
Speaker 1: just commit you know, mass casualties and plan it all
Speaker 1: out like what we've seen. You know, she didn't come
Speaker 1: in with a rifle, two bags of of magazines, you know,
Speaker 1: pipe bombs and a flakfest on it. She she came
Speaker 1: after her boyfriend from what we know. So if I
Speaker 1: have any more on this for you, we'll let you know,
Speaker 1: but for now, because it was it was dominating the
Speaker 1: news cycle for the hour before we went on the
Speaker 1: er because everyone assumed shooting. But we don't have much
Speaker 1: more on that, So let's get into the the the
Speaker 1: other big news of the day, or that the continuing
Speaker 1: story that we're falling very closely here, and that has
Speaker 1: to do with the the immigration showdown that's happening, where
Speaker 1: the illegal immigration showed on that's happening. You have this
Speaker 1: caravan of people, which was estimated a little over a
Speaker 1: thousand people. They've walked hundreds of miles from Central America
Speaker 1: on their way to the United States through Mexico, and
Speaker 1: as I pointed out to you, Mexican government, at least
Speaker 1: until today, was letting them walk through, even though Mexico
Speaker 1: enforces its own borders and has immigration laws that it
Speaker 1: has no compunction about following through on it is trying
Speaker 1: to or it is doing it was doing nothing, and
Speaker 1: now we have a situation where it looks like that
Speaker 1: may have changed. But here's the President said earlier today
Speaker 1: on this caravan of illegals. Although it's interesting they're really
Speaker 1: asylum seekers because technically we're gonna get into this. We've
Speaker 1: got an expert in immigration law joining us later on
Speaker 1: to discuss. But technically there it's it's a caravan of
Speaker 1: asylum seekers. That's what you'd call it. Here's what Trump
Speaker 1: said about it. Though now the caravan doesn't irritate me,
Speaker 1: the caravan makes me very sad that this can happen
Speaker 1: to the United States, where you have thousands of people
Speaker 1: that decide to just walk into our country and we
Speaker 1: don't have any laws that can protect it. And the
Speaker 1: wall because of the Democrats, has been delayed. But it's
Speaker 1: very sad to see it, and it's sad even from
Speaker 1: both sides. It's sad for the people in the caravan,
Speaker 1: and it's sad for the people of the United States.
Speaker 1: It's really sad that we don't have laws that say
Speaker 1: we have a border and if you don't do it
Speaker 1: legally you can't come into the United States. To me,
Speaker 1: that's a very sad thing for the people of the
Speaker 1: United States. As I was saying, I mean the president
Speaker 1: is correct in uh, he's not. How do I put
Speaker 1: I'm trying to think of how to how to say this.
Speaker 1: His arts in the right place on this one, or
Speaker 1: he's correct in substance but not on the specifics. There
Speaker 1: you go, meaning that it is crazy that this is
Speaker 1: what the law currently is for migrants from Central America.
Speaker 1: They can just show up and claim asylum, but that
Speaker 1: is the law that the Republican controlled Congress has done
Speaker 1: nothing to change. That is just how much more frustration
Speaker 1: can we manage before we just decide why do we
Speaker 1: why do we even waste our time? Right? What's the
Speaker 1: point of voting for Republicans if this is the situation
Speaker 1: we're going to be in. I mean, there's only so
Speaker 1: much that the president won't be able we'll be able
Speaker 1: to do. I would know that it's not just Trump
Speaker 1: who is obviously people like me, that a lot of
Speaker 1: folks are opposed to this situation of the migrants approaching
Speaker 1: the border. But even libertarian Rand Paul had to weigh
Speaker 1: in earlier. The people that are marching up through Mexico
Speaker 1: should be stopped at the border and they should be
Speaker 1: sent back. We should not allow people to come into
Speaker 1: our country and break the laws. I'm all for legal immigration.
Speaker 1: Immigrants are buying large, good people, and I've added to
Speaker 1: our country where a nation of immigrants. But we should
Speaker 1: not allow people, particularly eleven hundred of them marching up
Speaker 1: to basically sort of thumb their nose and say, well,
Speaker 1: we don't care what your laws are, we're coming. They
Speaker 1: should be opped at the border and sent home. If
Speaker 1: it requires a change the law, we should do it.
Speaker 1: But I think there is some leeway within the executive
Speaker 1: branch that they may well be able to do this
Speaker 1: if they want to. Isn't it isn't fascinating that you've
Speaker 1: got someone from the legislative branch who's like, I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, we might do something. Trump might do something.
Speaker 1: We gotta kind of see, you know, not too hot,
Speaker 1: not too cold, just right here, you know, which is
Speaker 1: it who's really in charge, who's supposed to be making
Speaker 1: the call here about what to do? And I think
Speaker 1: there's a huge opportunity that's being missed right now by
Speaker 1: everyone who is on the side of the administration. I
Speaker 1: think there's a big opportunity that's being missed, and it
Speaker 1: is Democrats should be asked one after another, what do
Speaker 1: you think about this? I mean, they should be pushing
Speaker 1: as many Democrats as they can to answer, you know,
Speaker 1: whatever it is. If it's the walking rocking around as
Speaker 1: a reporter on Capitol Hill, and you know, I mean
Speaker 1: mrs speaking, Mr Schumer, you know we're Senator Schumer or whatever. Oh,
Speaker 1: Congresswoman Pelosi, what do you think? I hate that the
Speaker 1: fabric of America and they'll do the jobs that Americans
Speaker 1: won't do. Uh. That that is good to get on
Speaker 1: the record. Um that Democrats are really complicit and in
Speaker 1: fact favor massive foreign and what's what's the right word.
Speaker 1: You know, people are saying invasion. That's a bit strong, right,
Speaker 1: Invasion implies military, but in a massive foreign intrusion into
Speaker 1: US sovereignty time and again is too much. Remember this
Speaker 1: is not the only instance of this. This is just
Speaker 1: one that we're all aware of, and it's created something
Speaker 1: of a of a political showdown. But there were I
Speaker 1: I forget. I think the number of of youth border
Speaker 1: crossings in the last year has actually been pretty high,
Speaker 1: and we're we're seeing a surgeon people trying to get
Speaker 1: across the border. And this is where I have to say,
Speaker 1: we've seen the administration trying to negotiate on some of
Speaker 1: these points with the Democrats. We do crossover, we do
Speaker 1: cross over into territory where Republicans have to act here.
Speaker 1: They can't just say, well, we couldn't get a deal
Speaker 1: with the Democrats. Well, you know, we couldn't get a
Speaker 1: deal with the Democrats. No, it has to be has
Speaker 1: to be more than that, because we voted in a
Speaker 1: Republican Congress, Republican h House and Senate, and we have
Speaker 1: a Republican president. So they've got to be able to
Speaker 1: do something here. But the dirty little secret of the
Speaker 1: Democrat Party is they favor all this stuff. They're all
Speaker 1: all about it, all about it. They think that this
Speaker 1: is a great idea. The more impoverished immigrants, legal and
Speaker 1: illegal from a third world, the better. And all of
Speaker 1: your faculties of reason tell you that that's probably not
Speaker 1: a good idea for the economy, for the welfare of
Speaker 1: this country going forward, for our political cohesion. That there
Speaker 1: is something about being American. It's not just you know,
Speaker 1: you show up and you can do things that you
Speaker 1: want to do. You can be a part of the economy.
Speaker 1: Here there's something it's supposed to be more than that,
Speaker 1: and Democrats largely reject that. So that's what we see
Speaker 1: happening here and know with this h caravan, which by
Speaker 1: the way, they have I believe, um Mexican authorities have
Speaker 1: said that they are stopping them now right because of Trump.
Speaker 1: But yeah, we'll see and we'll see how long that lasts,
Speaker 1: and we'll see where all this goes. Trump has claimed
Speaker 1: credit for the sidelining of this caravan in Mexico, but
Speaker 1: we'll see. Um, if this in fact is going to
Speaker 1: go away or not, my guess is no. My guesses
Speaker 1: they will arrive at the border and and then we'll
Speaker 1: start talking about, Okay, well where do all these migrants
Speaker 1: end up going? Where do they show up? You won't
Speaker 1: hear the stories about the migrants who are entering communities
Speaker 1: or they have already been margarets in Central America, uh placed,
Speaker 1: and they become part of MS thirteen that's been happening
Speaker 1: all of the country for a few years now. You
Speaker 1: won't hear those stories. So we'll have to keep following
Speaker 1: this one. The media has done everything in its power
Speaker 1: to suppress the truth about the opioid epidemic and its
Speaker 1: ties to Mexico and the drug cartels. As you know
Speaker 1: we've been discussing here with frequency, doing everything in their
Speaker 1: power to suppress the truth about those who come into
Speaker 1: this country claiming asylum and then go on to become criminals,
Speaker 1: members of gangs. The youth crossings, unaccompanied youth that were
Speaker 1: crossing the border, many of them are much older than
Speaker 1: they say they are. They provide documentation, and that's how
Speaker 1: we end up having nineteen year olds in the ninth
Speaker 1: grade and some of these high schools who speak not
Speaker 1: a word of English. That doesn't really help us, does it.
Speaker 1: That's not a good thing for us, for America. Just
Speaker 1: saying eight four four eight to five eight four buck,
Speaker 1: talk a bit more about the immigration situation. Also, we've
Speaker 1: got updates on the Mueller probe coming up later on
Speaker 1: some follow up to the the media's spat with Sinclair all.
Speaker 1: They're so upset about it, and they are just in
Speaker 1: high dudgeon about the whole thing. We'll get into that
Speaker 1: and uh, a whole lot more. And we've also got
Speaker 1: an expert joining us on the specifics of immigration law
Speaker 1: later on the show. Oh and Christian privilege is now
Speaker 1: a thing that they're teaching people in school that there
Speaker 1: making sure we get rid of crusaders as mascots too.
Speaker 1: Don't forget at that. But it's got a lot more
Speaker 1: to talk about, don't we, Christian privilege. I'll probably an
Speaker 1: hour too. That's gonna get me fired up. Our team
Speaker 1: hit a quick break, will be right back now. The caravan,
Speaker 1: which is over a thousand people coming in from Honduras,
Speaker 1: thought they were gonna just walk right through Mexico and
Speaker 1: right through the border. As you know, and af there's
Speaker 1: a phenomenal deal for Mexico. It's been a horrible deal
Speaker 1: for the United States. We're renegotiating it now. And I
Speaker 1: told Mexico yesterday that because of the fact that their
Speaker 1: laws are so strong, they can do things about it
Speaker 1: that hard to believe the United States can't. I said,
Speaker 1: I hope you're going to tell that caravan not to
Speaker 1: get up to the border. And I think they're doing
Speaker 1: that because as of twelve minutes ago, it was all
Speaker 1: being broken up. We'll see what happens. I don't mentioned
Speaker 1: it before, but I think Mexico will actually use lethal
Speaker 1: force for people to try to eagally cross its border
Speaker 1: to the south, so they have very strict border control.
Speaker 1: Larry in Ohio, what do you think about all this?
Speaker 1: Enjoy your show, Thank you, Larry. Enjoy hearing from you.
Speaker 1: What's up College? A couple of months ago and I
Speaker 1: wrote President of Trump to forget that damn wall and
Speaker 1: put military personnel down there to guard our southern border.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get there. We're gonna get into that discussion.
Speaker 1: I finally heard out of the President Trump that he's
Speaker 1: thinking about And another thing, put the pressure on Mexico.
Speaker 1: Stop all commerce between Mexico and the United States. And
Speaker 1: Bill Ford wants to Bill Ford's in Mexico. I hope
Speaker 1: he's got a good market for him because he won't
Speaker 1: be shipping any to the United States. And also stop
Speaker 1: hit him in the belly with finance. No. If we
Speaker 1: would attacks the remittances, that would certainly have a big impact,
Speaker 1: of big effect. It's one of the ways people have
Speaker 1: I have talked about possibly paying for the wall. By
Speaker 1: the way, remittances from Mexico from the US to Mexico
Speaker 1: each year in the neighbor the fifteen to twenty billion dollars.
Speaker 1: That's just money leaving the U. S. Economy going to Mexico.
Speaker 1: Stop all mail mail from going to Mexico because he
Speaker 1: llegals in here are sending billions of dollars back home
Speaker 1: to their families. Stop postal commerce, all right, Larry wants
Speaker 1: a lockdown. Larry, thank you for calling my friend. I
Speaker 1: do appreciate hearing from Larry is like, no more commerce,
Speaker 1: no more mail. Jason in Destin, Florida. He's also got
Speaker 1: immigration thoughts. Hey, Jason, Hey a book. How's it going? Man?
Speaker 1: All right, thanks for your call. Yeah, I was talking
Speaker 1: to the guy to answer the phone. They're about sending
Speaker 1: all the the immigrants over California because they're more than
Speaker 1: welcoming over there and pretty much give them everything everything
Speaker 1: they want. And uh. But the bigger issue that I'm
Speaker 1: sitting here thinking about it and we look back what
Speaker 1: we're doing is kind of I don't want to kind
Speaker 1: of be a harbing jurything. But but past administrators, especially
Speaker 1: Democrats because the folks eyes have been involved in doing it.
Speaker 1: But but we've been messing around with other countries for
Speaker 1: for decades and messing around overthrowing other people, UH, dictators
Speaker 1: and such Olivia, Gadaffi, Killery and Obama over through Gadaffi,
Speaker 1: and that's why Italy short was just pounded with immigrants
Speaker 1: all across from across the Mediterranean. They lost eight hundred
Speaker 1: people died in a in a boat trying to cross
Speaker 1: the Mediterranean to get to Italy. Um. After that, they
Speaker 1: overthrew Gadaffi, they overthrew Um. They did the same thing.
Speaker 1: Bill Clinton did the same thing with I need, I
Speaker 1: need a way to tie this all together, Jason, What
Speaker 1: are you trying to tell me? Well, people are coming
Speaker 1: up here trying to seek asylum from South and Central
Speaker 1: America where they're starving to death. I'm not saying we
Speaker 1: had a you know, the absolute hand in it. But
Speaker 1: the Democrats, Obama and Hillary and Bill Clinton and so forth,
Speaker 1: even Bush, they didn't help you. I'm not I'm not
Speaker 1: sure I see an intentional blowback situation here, Jason, But
Speaker 1: I will give it some more thought about that. I
Speaker 1: appreciate you calling in. We are going to talk more
Speaker 1: about the military getting sent down to the border, and
Speaker 1: then later on the show we'll have someone from me
Speaker 1: an expert, uh, a friend Art Arthur from the Center
Speaker 1: for Immigration Studies joining and then we'll talk about all
Speaker 1: the other things too. That's all coming up. He's holding
Speaker 1: the line for Amra buck Sex in his back so forth.
Speaker 1: But dreamers, they have two options. One is to wait
Speaker 1: for the courts to rule on this. The other one
Speaker 1: is what they what they already called Plan B. And
Speaker 1: Plan B is to wait onto and to see if
Speaker 1: Donald Trump is going to be re elected or not.
Speaker 1: But for many of them, Donald Trump is not an
Speaker 1: option right now. And you know, the real wallet right
Speaker 1: now on immigration is called Donald Trump. Trump is the
Speaker 1: wall Born Ramos, one of the most prominent, one of
Speaker 1: the most prominent spokespersons out there for illegal immigration, and
Speaker 1: it's really is kind of a nationalist in exile, right.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's very much in favor all the time
Speaker 1: of immigration from Latin America into America as someone who
Speaker 1: is himself Latin American, though he lives in America. I
Speaker 1: think he may have actually moved recently back. He's thinking
Speaker 1: about moving back. I saw some story about that, but
Speaker 1: doesn't advocate for this for you know, for other immigrants,
Speaker 1: it's it's always just Latino immigrants, which I think is
Speaker 1: interesting or why why why do we have that distinction? Um,
Speaker 1: But then again we also are not allowed to ask
Speaker 1: these questions. You know that you you start to really
Speaker 1: get into the underlying themes here and you do analysis
Speaker 1: beyond just the headlines, and you might run into some trouble.
Speaker 1: I saw on one of the shows on Fox one
Speaker 1: of the guests recently brought up a brought up a
Speaker 1: book that I've actually read, and it is it is
Speaker 1: considered a UM. It is a highly politically incorrect book.
Speaker 1: We could say that it's called The Camp of the
Speaker 1: Saints by Gen rests By, written back in the seventies.
Speaker 1: The basic premise of the book is that Western civilization
Speaker 1: or Europe in this case France specifically becomes overrun by
Speaker 1: huge a huge wave literally on on enormous oil tankers
Speaker 1: and cargo ships, but a huge wave, a flotilla of
Speaker 1: like hunt of at the time I think it was
Speaker 1: other hundreds of thousands or millions of people from the
Speaker 1: Indian subcontinent. And you know that the book is that
Speaker 1: there's a lot of things that are said that people
Speaker 1: say are racist, and you know the author, and it's
Speaker 1: popular among white nationalists of course, so but many of
Speaker 1: the arguments. Um, I think Stein was Stein brought it
Speaker 1: up on Fox a couple of days ago. He just
Speaker 1: he just mentioned the book. I didn't even see the interview.
Speaker 1: I just saw the headline on it. But many of
Speaker 1: the arguments you hear from the different sides, and it
Speaker 1: is interesting because they mirror the discussions that are had
Speaker 1: currently about you know, the is there going to be
Speaker 1: an impact on the culture? Oh, how could you ask
Speaker 1: such a thing? That's so racist? We even ask such
Speaker 1: a thing. So it's as I said to you, Um,
Speaker 1: it's interesting to read the book. Whether you think it's uh,
Speaker 1: you know, whether you think it's terrible racist or not,
Speaker 1: it's still you should be familiar with with the some
Speaker 1: of the arguments. It's written in as a novel. But
Speaker 1: people say that there's a degree of um, you know,
Speaker 1: foresight as through the clash of civilizations between the rest
Speaker 1: of the West and the rest in it. But the
Speaker 1: one of the issues you're never allowed to talk about
Speaker 1: is the and then putting aside that that book and
Speaker 1: everything else that comes with it, it's just the clash
Speaker 1: of cultures. At what point are we overwhelming our ability
Speaker 1: to assimilate? At what point do we have we taken
Speaker 1: in too many immigrants. Is there such a thing, I mean,
Speaker 1: all immigrants legal and illegal at one time? Is it?
Speaker 1: Can there be a number that's two I right now
Speaker 1: we're taking in a million a year, or we are
Speaker 1: permanently legalizing a million people a year. It's a lot.
Speaker 1: I know America's got about thy million people living here,
Speaker 1: but still a million years a pretty heavy number. And
Speaker 1: overwhelmingly the each year, the new peep will that become permanent,
Speaker 1: permanent residence of the United States are the family members
Speaker 1: of immigrants because of chain migration. So this is the effect.
Speaker 1: This is what's happening here. And there's also another component
Speaker 1: of this that I think doesn't get very much attention,
Speaker 1: and that is from uh That is from the fact
Speaker 1: that there is something different about a contiguous landmass to
Speaker 1: our own being the country that is responsible for a
Speaker 1: massive part of immigration over the last thirty years. In fact,
Speaker 1: the majority of all immigration to this country comes from
Speaker 1: one country, and it is Mexico. And when you have
Speaker 1: people like Querey Ramos who are saying that there will
Speaker 1: be electoral ramifications in this country for our refusal to
Speaker 1: allow lawlessness primarily facilitated by our next door neighbor another country,
Speaker 1: in this case Mexico. Uh, this is a a unique
Speaker 1: problem set we are dealing with. This is something different
Speaker 1: than the immigration we deal with with other countries. You know,
Speaker 1: there's also a history here that we never really get
Speaker 1: to talk about, a history of the US fighting a
Speaker 1: war with Mexico, the sense of Mexico having lost territory.
Speaker 1: There are groups that still talk about a a rayon
Speaker 1: quista or a reconquest of lost territory um and but
Speaker 1: a reckon quista via political means right, via a sense
Speaker 1: in a sense political conquest. I mean, this is very
Speaker 1: You have to take these things somewhat seriously when you
Speaker 1: look at the demographic realities of what's happening in a
Speaker 1: place like California, where this is now what the rest
Speaker 1: of the country is is going to be dealing with
Speaker 1: if we don't start to change our immigration policies. Where
Speaker 1: you have people who have a a political block that
Speaker 1: is strong enough that they make demands of the govern
Speaker 1: not to enforce the law against certain communities, that's an
Speaker 1: interesting phenomenon, isn't it. And that's what's been happening in California.
Speaker 1: So no, I I and look at this, and I
Speaker 1: think to myself, it's time for the Trump administration to
Speaker 1: really lay it all down, laid on the line, and
Speaker 1: make the case and and then there's what can be done.
Speaker 1: In the meantime, the President spoke about sending the military
Speaker 1: to the border. We have very bad laws for a border,
Speaker 1: and we are going to be doing some things. I've
Speaker 1: been speaking with General Mattis. We're gonna be doing things
Speaker 1: military until we can have a wall in proper security.
Speaker 1: We're gonna be guarding our border with the military. That's
Speaker 1: a big step. We really haven't done that before, or
Speaker 1: certainly not very much before. Trump sending the military to
Speaker 1: the border to help out, to do what he can
Speaker 1: to try and prevent further illegal immigration in the country.
Speaker 1: But I mentioned before, I may have been off with
Speaker 1: UH whether they're willing to use lethal force at the
Speaker 1: Mexico Guatemala border, But there are military outposts there permanently,
Speaker 1: and there are are some fenced areas too. Just interesting,
Speaker 1: isn't it. You Know, the moment that an American talks
Speaker 1: about offense and military at our border, you will hear
Speaker 1: people like Jorge Ramo say that that's racist, it's violent, xenophobic,
Speaker 1: it's terrible. Meanwhile, Mexico has military installations enforcing a border,
Speaker 1: you know, armed personnel enforcing a border that also has fencing,
Speaker 1: although not partically good fencing on their boarding with with Guatemala.
Speaker 1: So you know, this is the central, the central issue
Speaker 1: of the Trump It was essential issue the Trump campaign.
Speaker 1: It is also central to the administration's chances. I think
Speaker 1: of retaining Republican majorities in the House in the Senate,
Speaker 1: because if we lose on this, as I keep saying,
Speaker 1: we lose on everything else. And that's why Democrats have
Speaker 1: become so irrational and unreasonable when it comes to immigration.
Speaker 1: That's what I see happening here. Eight four four to five.
Speaker 1: You've got some thoughts on this. We uh are going
Speaker 1: to talk about Christian privilege coming up in the next hour.
Speaker 1: That'll be interesting. That's what they're teaching people in college now.
Speaker 1: First it was white privilege. Now it's Christian privilege. And
Speaker 1: there's of course male privilege too, but that's hashtag the patriarchy.
Speaker 1: This is what people learn in school. Now. That's why
Speaker 1: we have a trillion dollar student loan debt that's never
Speaker 1: gonna get paid off. No one's learning anything particularly useful
Speaker 1: in a lot of these disciplines. Um, but that will
Speaker 1: be coming up in the next hour, and also any
Speaker 1: of your thoughts, let me know what's on your mind.
Speaker 1: We'll hit that in more. We'll be right back. Do
Speaker 1: we have Trump with the what was he with a
Speaker 1: lot being minister either day? And he was just like,
Speaker 1: don't call on them, they're fake. We have we should
Speaker 1: get that. That was fun. I saw that today. Don't
Speaker 1: call on American don't call that American news station calling
Speaker 1: your lot van station because we got fake news here.
Speaker 1: Like I've said this to people too. You know, even
Speaker 1: on my most that the days I'm the most frustrated,
Speaker 1: not just want to say frustrated with the administration, I'm
Speaker 1: frustrated for the American people. I just want good things
Speaker 1: to happen in this country, even for the crazy Libs
Speaker 1: who won't appreciate it and don't understand it and won't
Speaker 1: be thankful for it. I just want good things to
Speaker 1: happen for this country. But even on my worst day
Speaker 1: where I feel like things aren't going the way they
Speaker 1: should for administration, I'm like Trump is the most entertaining
Speaker 1: politician I think ever. I think it's probably fair to
Speaker 1: say he's the most entertaining politician in this country. I mean,
Speaker 1: how could you compare them to you know, a hundred
Speaker 1: years ago? Who knows, but it's pretty amazing you think
Speaker 1: about it. Bryant has got some thoughts from me up
Speaker 1: in North Carolina or down in North Carolina. Hey, Bryan, Hey,
Speaker 1: how are you, sir? I'm good. Thank you for your call. Okay,
Speaker 1: I I love your show. Thank you, and you know
Speaker 1: I love to listen to you. I feel a butt
Speaker 1: coming here, Brian, go ahead, okay. But I wanted to
Speaker 1: make something clear earlier. And I don't mean to differ
Speaker 1: with your college education, which college educated, which I am too.
Speaker 1: But you said this, You said you was scared to
Speaker 1: say it was an invasion. I didn't say I was scared.
Speaker 1: I said I'm not sure that's entirely the most accurate
Speaker 1: way to say. Well, the only thing, the only point
Speaker 1: I'd like to bring out I think it isn't It
Speaker 1: is an invasion. It's not a military invasion, but it's
Speaker 1: a political financial invasion. They're they're doing it in a
Speaker 1: different way. And if you look back through the history
Speaker 1: world history, which I know you study, but if you
Speaker 1: look back through that the Spaniards, which Mexico is from from,
Speaker 1: you know, there's some Spanish descent. They were conquerors. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're being conquered and we just need to realize that
Speaker 1: we need to just change our sinth and realize it's
Speaker 1: not political because Mexico has no means to do that
Speaker 1: against us. But any it's true, I've worked. I'm a
Speaker 1: registered nurse, and I have to take people. I'm not
Speaker 1: a racist person. I have to take care of people,
Speaker 1: all all races, all set, you know, it doesn't matter.
Speaker 1: I just you know, I'll say their life this as
Speaker 1: quick as I'll save anybody else's, because that's a whole
Speaker 1: other issue. But what I what I look at, I mean,
Speaker 1: and I've worked. I was actually before that, I was
Speaker 1: self employed and I have I have worked some people
Speaker 1: of mexic Can dissent and they were two of the
Speaker 1: best workers I've ever had. But they came in, gave
Speaker 1: us an illegal social Security number, and we were started
Speaker 1: taking taxes out where we started getting Yeah, but Brian, people,
Speaker 1: when when I when I talk about the policies involved here,
Speaker 1: I have no problem or animosity with any individual illegal immigrant.
Speaker 1: You know what I mean. It's I don't either. And
Speaker 1: we even one of the boys was young. He was
Speaker 1: twenty some years old. I'm forty nine. He was a
Speaker 1: lot younger than me, but me and my dad, who
Speaker 1: was in business together, agreed to sponsor him. And I
Speaker 1: told him, I said, I don't have a problem with
Speaker 1: you coming too. This is country. Just do it legal,
Speaker 1: just do it the right way. You know, pay pay
Speaker 1: to taxes like all of us day because we don't
Speaker 1: like paying taxes either. Were over taxed to death. But
Speaker 1: I said, you know, it's it's still I say that
Speaker 1: all the time, Brian. Right, Like, if someone told me
Speaker 1: they weren't paying their taxes, I wouldn't dislike that person.
Speaker 1: I wouldn't even I wouldn't even necessarily think less of
Speaker 1: that person. I just say, well, you're probably in trouble
Speaker 1: and they're gonna come after you. And I can't say
Speaker 1: that I don't understand why, right, I have a feeling. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so you know, I'll just said what I think it is.
Speaker 1: It's a slow invasion and if we don't recognize it
Speaker 1: a law, and you know, I'll support Trump. Yeah, I
Speaker 1: hear you, Brian. I look, I appreciate your calling my
Speaker 1: friend and your thoughts. We've got a bunch of lines
Speaker 1: let though, so I have to leave it there with
Speaker 1: you for now, but thank you, sir. Chris in Burlington,
Speaker 1: North Carolina. Hey, Chris, Hey, how's it going, book? It's good?
Speaker 1: Thank you for a ring? Yes, sir, the question I
Speaker 1: had it there, I guess kind of question or comment
Speaker 1: of I'm trying to figure out what your thoughts on
Speaker 1: it would be. But there's like a point, you know history,
Speaker 1: I think me and the guy on the phone before,
Speaker 1: we're talking about from ninety one to like nineteen sixty
Speaker 1: five where there was absolutely no immigration. They shut immigration down. Yeah,
Speaker 1: to give folks, you know, time to assimilate, become an American,
Speaker 1: everything like that. What are your thoughts on if that
Speaker 1: could happen or would or if and when it will happen.
Speaker 1: Do you think that's like a possibility of things that
Speaker 1: could happen or do you think that's just out the
Speaker 1: window the left? I think we're a long way away
Speaker 1: from that. When the Democrat Party is effectively a party
Speaker 1: that wants uh de facto or or or as close
Speaker 1: to open borders as possible. Right, they want nearly unrestricted immigration.
Speaker 1: They just want to be able to count their future
Speaker 1: voters as they come into the country. That's really the idea.
Speaker 1: So we're a long way away from being able to
Speaker 1: really shut down immigration, legal and illegal in this country.
Speaker 1: And look, I would never want there to be a
Speaker 1: complete shutdown on immigration. I just want our immigration policy
Speaker 1: to turn into you know, we we are compiling uh
Speaker 1: the the A team from around the world. What do
Speaker 1: we need more of in this country? Do we need
Speaker 1: more astrophysicists, Do we need more primary care physicians? Do
Speaker 1: we need more you know, you name it right, whatever
Speaker 1: it is that we need more of in this country,
Speaker 1: or whatever standards we want to it for immigrants, we
Speaker 1: should put them in place. We should enforce them and
Speaker 1: then have an actual policy discussion about how, what, what
Speaker 1: the numbers are that we need and then just go
Speaker 1: about it that way. I mean, America should treat our
Speaker 1: immigration policy the way a corporation treats its hiring. You
Speaker 1: want to get the best people, the people that you
Speaker 1: are gonna that are gonna have to contribute the most,
Speaker 1: the fastest, with the least amount of you know, additional
Speaker 1: or excessive support. And that doesn't make us. Canada does this,
Speaker 1: Australia does this. Other countries do this, and there are countries,
Speaker 1: by the way that also just don't really take you know,
Speaker 1: Japan just doesn't take immigrants. And by the way, that's
Speaker 1: a huge problem for Japan and the countries in a
Speaker 1: stage of slow die off because they don't. I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: we don't cross talk. What do you say, Chris, I said, Well,
Speaker 1: I mean you're thinking like Japan. They probably thinking, hey,
Speaker 1: we have no folks as it is. No, they don't.
Speaker 1: Oh no Japan, No, no, quite the contrary, Japan is
Speaker 1: actually aging out, uh. And there's a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: reasons for that. But Japan is facing huge uh economic
Speaker 1: dislocations going forward because they just don't have enough people
Speaker 1: to support there. There are a whole villages and towns
Speaker 1: in Japan right now that people say feeling not like
Speaker 1: I haven't been I just read about it a lot,
Speaker 1: uh that feel like retirement communities because there are no
Speaker 1: young people because no, they haven't been able to replace
Speaker 1: they don't have uh, you know, it's essentially replacement level childbearing.
Speaker 1: They haven't been doing that for for decades now. But Chris,
Speaker 1: I appreciate you calling from North Carolina. We gotta run
Speaker 1: into get ready for a break here coming up. Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: demographics in Asia are fascinating. Uh. India has far too
Speaker 1: many people for its infrastructure and its economy, which is
Speaker 1: gonna cause all kinds of problems. China because the horrific
Speaker 1: one child policy has thirty million, too many males because
Speaker 1: males were more highly prized for economic reasons under the
Speaker 1: one child policy. UH. And Japan has too few people.
Speaker 1: In South Korea, it's actually not that far behind. They're
Speaker 1: not having enough babies and you need people actually for
Speaker 1: an economy. So they're trying to turn the mechanization and
Speaker 1: robotics in robotics more specifically in Japan to make up
Speaker 1: for the shortfall. So they got big problems in that
Speaker 1: part of the world because of demographics. All right, we
Speaker 1: got a lot more coming up, including Christian privilege. Is
Speaker 1: that a thing we'll discuss. He's back with you now,
Speaker 1: because when it comes to the fight for truth, the
Speaker 1: fuck never stops. Welcome back to the buck Sex and
Speaker 1: show everyone. We have the news that broke just before
Speaker 1: we came on air, and it talks to me talked
Speaker 1: about in the last hour. Um that is this shooting.
Speaker 1: It the YouTube headquarters in San Bruno, California. It seems
Speaker 1: so far all the facts point toward a uh dispute
Speaker 1: between a girlfriend and boyfriend, and she shot her, the
Speaker 1: shooter shot her, boyfriend, shot a couple other people. Um.
Speaker 1: I saw a report that said the woman was shot
Speaker 1: many times though, so there there might have been additional
Speaker 1: intended targets beyond the boyfriend. Will we'll let you know
Speaker 1: as we find out more, but no one has been
Speaker 1: killed other than the shooter who took her own life.
Speaker 1: And we have very little in terms of specifics beyond that.
Speaker 1: So if we get more as we are on air,
Speaker 1: will certainly tell you I will tell you about it.
Speaker 1: But in the meantime, we just know YouTube shooting at
Speaker 1: the YouTube headquarters. Female shooter dead, three people. Oh I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: so it's three three wounded, one killed. Yeah, So well
Speaker 1: we'll see what There'll be additional information coming out. I'm
Speaker 1: sure it's the question of it happens while we're on
Speaker 1: air or not, but we'll let you know as we can.
Speaker 1: So we've got an eye on that. And like as
Speaker 1: I said, it was initially suspected that it could have
Speaker 1: been an active terror but that's been completely wiped away.
Speaker 1: And people are saying, no, no, this is this is
Speaker 1: a It might be a crime of passion. I don't
Speaker 1: know what else. That's what it would have been called. Right,
Speaker 1: when you have a quarrel between two people have a
Speaker 1: romantic relationship, can turn violent and can even turn deadly.
Speaker 1: So that's that's all we have to go on so far. Um,
Speaker 1: just as as a brief aside, I did see that
Speaker 1: the Austin Police Department has said that they they believe
Speaker 1: that the Austin bombings that we were covering here extensively
Speaker 1: a couple of weeks ago were domestic terrorism. So, just
Speaker 1: as an aside, I wanted to follow up on that.
Speaker 1: So we we were going to talk about Christian privilege
Speaker 1: in a few minutes. But before I get there, I'm
Speaker 1: I'm seeing that there's a tremendous amount of pushback to
Speaker 1: Trump militarizing the border. They're saying, and you have to wonder,
Speaker 1: what exactly are we supposed to do at the border.
Speaker 1: What would be acceptable? Are we supposed to set up
Speaker 1: a a welcoming committee. Are we supposed to just taking
Speaker 1: anyone who gets there? What should we tell the people
Speaker 1: that go through the legal immigration process and I've spent
Speaker 1: thousands of dollars in many years trying to come into
Speaker 1: this country the right way. Sorry, you know, you're a chump.
Speaker 1: You could have you could have done it this way.
Speaker 1: I just don't even see what the Democrat argument, Well,
Speaker 1: the good the good faith argument is for their side.
Speaker 1: I know what the real argument is. It's about power,
Speaker 1: and it's about establishing themselves as the political party in
Speaker 1: this country, not a party among others, were among two
Speaker 1: at least, sorry Libertarians, um, but the political party. Um.
Speaker 1: It's about power, it's about pre eminence. But the more
Speaker 1: you look at what's going on with the immigration debate
Speaker 1: right now, the more I think there should be real
Speaker 1: outrage from the American people about how much the media
Speaker 1: apparat us has covered up what's really happening here and
Speaker 1: what has happened in this country for for many years.
Speaker 1: And there has been an active campaign of disinformation from
Speaker 1: the media about the effects of immigration. What's and I
Speaker 1: might I say immigration illegal immigration? Um, what illegal aliens
Speaker 1: due to the country in terms of economic costs, in
Speaker 1: terms in terms of crime. I would note that there
Speaker 1: was this pushback from when Trump was talking about this
Speaker 1: during the primary, people say, oh, you know, illegals are
Speaker 1: less likely, they'd say immigrants usually, and then they play
Speaker 1: these games of what we're talking about illegals, we're talking
Speaker 1: about all immigrants, but you know, illegals are less likely
Speaker 1: to commit crime than native born Americans, which is a
Speaker 1: consistent fallback position here, which is that immigrants two Democrats
Speaker 1: are better than Americans, meaning people that anyone who arrives
Speaker 1: in the country is just inherently, obviously better and more
Speaker 1: worthy than anyone of any race, creator color born in
Speaker 1: this country who was a citizen. Right, That's seems to
Speaker 1: be the fallback position or the their knee jerk reaction
Speaker 1: you get from Democrats on this stuff, and that alone
Speaker 1: is troubling, annoying, and somewhat condescending. But I'm I'm hoping
Speaker 1: the Trump campaign, I'm sorry, the Trump administration comes together
Speaker 1: on this and finally takes a stand here, because if
Speaker 1: they if they don't, just you wait and see what
Speaker 1: it looks like when you have Democrats writing laws again
Speaker 1: in the legislature and a Democrat administration in the White House.
Speaker 1: It's gonna be Amnesty is gonna be top of the list.
Speaker 1: Like we're not even talking about getting rid of Obamacare
Speaker 1: right now that that's not even getting any discussion. Do
Speaker 1: I hope that there will be something on that. I yeah,
Speaker 1: i'd say I hope. I do not expect, and I
Speaker 1: would bet against it between now in the mid terms,
Speaker 1: I would actively bet against. They're proba look in Congress
Speaker 1: doing something on Obamacare. If immigration is it, folks, Okay,
Speaker 1: maybe they'll they'll try to do additional tax cuts are great? Immigration?
Speaker 1: Is it? Immigration? And trade? Actually, I've see I see
Speaker 1: here that the United States is now proposing This is
Speaker 1: according to CNN, take that with a grain of soft uh,
Speaker 1: proposing thirteen hundred Chinese Chinese exports that could be targeted
Speaker 1: four tariffs. Mm hmm. This is expanding quite a bit.
Speaker 1: Here's what they write. The United States plans to apply
Speaker 1: the tariffs about fifty billion dollars worth of goods to
Speaker 1: punish China for its theft of trade secrets, including software
Speaker 1: patents and other technology. Tariff would be applied to all
Speaker 1: the products, according to the US Trade Representative, which is
Speaker 1: a wing of the White House. So White House is saying,
Speaker 1: you know what, we're going to recoup some of our losses.
Speaker 1: We're gonna get back some of what China stole because
Speaker 1: it's just wrong what's been going on here. It's just wrong.
Speaker 1: And I would note that no one disagrees that that's
Speaker 1: what China has been doing, right, or at least no
Speaker 1: one who knows anything. You don't even hear Democrats coming
Speaker 1: out and saying, oh, no, this is all xenophobia. No, no, no.
Speaker 1: China has been stealing intellectual property for us at breakneck
Speaker 1: speed for many years now, and that just turns into
Speaker 1: economic advantage and prosperity for them. So what the administration
Speaker 1: is saying is, you know what we're gonna We're gonna
Speaker 1: start to recoup some of those losses. And even if
Speaker 1: that doesn't really work, because it depends on how this
Speaker 1: all happens. That we're talking about very large, complex economic
Speaker 1: systems here, even if that's no good, at least we're
Speaker 1: putting China on notice. He got to stop doing this.
Speaker 1: We are paying attention and we aren't going to allow it.
Speaker 1: And this is an act of of political will from
Speaker 1: from this from this White House and from this President,
Speaker 1: because what he's doing is is dealing with the problem
Speaker 1: that's been a long time in the making and addressing
Speaker 1: it in a way that will take a long time
Speaker 1: to bear fruit, most likely, and getting a lot of
Speaker 1: heat in the process. This is exactly what you don't
Speaker 1: see most politicians willing to do right. No one will
Speaker 1: deal with the debt and entitlements because that's a long
Speaker 1: term problem. It's been getting put together for a long
Speaker 1: time and it's gonna take quite a while the solvent
Speaker 1: and won't be popular. Trump is swimming upstream on this
Speaker 1: issue of dealing with China, and it's theft of intellectual
Speaker 1: property and trade secrets, everything else that it's been doing,
Speaker 1: which is finally an administration that won't just bury its
Speaker 1: head in the sand and pretend that this isn't going on,
Speaker 1: and is willing to you know, see some see some
Speaker 1: short term pain in the economy here, I mean, or
Speaker 1: at least in the markets. In the markets have been
Speaker 1: getting whiplash, the the the four oh one k you know,
Speaker 1: many hundreds of dollars going up, going down. I mean
Speaker 1: in totality. Uh, you know, not exactly the kind of
Speaker 1: thing that if you're Trump and you're hoping for the
Speaker 1: most robust economy possible, you're gonna see. But the alternative
Speaker 1: is it just let China continue to steal our most
Speaker 1: sensitive and intellectual property, steal military secrets, industrial secrets, and
Speaker 1: do nothing and just suffer in silence, you know, talk
Speaker 1: about it sometimes, have conferences, you know, think tank conferences.
Speaker 1: You're saying, maybe we could get China stop sting for no,
Speaker 1: maybe we should do something about it, which could also
Speaker 1: bring about some reforms with how China does business. That
Speaker 1: is possible. I'm not saying it's likely, but maybe the
Speaker 1: Chinese will lay off a little bit. Maybe we're not
Speaker 1: just wasting our breath on this. Maybe it's not worth
Speaker 1: it to them to continue to antagonize us through this
Speaker 1: continuous campaign of theft, which is what's going on. You know,
Speaker 1: if you stole information like this from a company and
Speaker 1: then use it for your own gain, you'd you'd be
Speaker 1: in all kinds of trouble. But if a nation state
Speaker 1: does that, we've been led to believe that we should
Speaker 1: just ignore it or it's not a problem for us. False. False.
Speaker 1: So look, things are gonna heat up with China in
Speaker 1: this trade war. But I'd like someone to tell me
Speaker 1: what they think the alternative is. If it's just sit
Speaker 1: around and let China pillage us constantly, that's not acceptable.
Speaker 1: Switching gears here for a moment, before we get into
Speaker 1: the talk about Christian privilege, I want to tell you
Speaker 1: about G four tequila. G four tequila is distilled from
Speaker 1: a unique combination of fifty harvested rain water and fifty
Speaker 1: percent spring water, and G four brings bright, clear, crisp
Speaker 1: aromas and flavors of pure agave together. Like I'm somebody
Speaker 1: who does enjoy a little bit of tequila here and there.
Speaker 1: It's my favorite, actually, of the of the adult beverages.
Speaker 1: And I have a whole bunch of bottles at G
Speaker 1: four Tequila at home. I've got the an Jejo, I've
Speaker 1: got blanco, I've got the different aged varieties of G four.
Speaker 1: You should really check it out. I'm telling you. G
Speaker 1: four tequila is absolutely delicious. You can find them on Facebook.
Speaker 1: Just google G four Tequila and find the nearest dealer
Speaker 1: you possibly can so you can try them out. Delicious.
Speaker 1: You'll never think of tequila the same way once you
Speaker 1: try it. I've got it at home, Give it a shot.
Speaker 1: G four Tequila, and we will be right back. Of
Speaker 1: all the pervasive stupidities, of all the incorrect ideas held
Speaker 1: by the academy and media in this country. The inability
Speaker 1: to understand that Christianity outside of the United States is
Speaker 1: very persecuted, that Christianity outside of the Western world is
Speaker 1: under siege, remains one of the ones that it's just
Speaker 1: the most frustrating because it's so clear, and yet here
Speaker 1: we are. We have a story just out today that
Speaker 1: George Washington University, which is among the most expensive, at
Speaker 1: least it was a few years ago, among the most
Speaker 1: expensive private universities in the country. I actually lived right
Speaker 1: off g W USE or g W g W you
Speaker 1: I got. I messed that one up, but people know
Speaker 1: what I mean. I lived right off the campus. I
Speaker 1: know the area pretty well one summer when I was
Speaker 1: an overworked and underpaid intern in d C. Important life experience.
Speaker 1: But they're hosting a Christian privilege event this week because
Speaker 1: they want to say that sevent of Americans. Uh, I
Speaker 1: have a special privilege by being Christian, because America is
Speaker 1: roughly seventy Christian and I just have to stop and
Speaker 1: and want to lose it. I mean, are they really
Speaker 1: just saying that any group in the majority in any
Speaker 1: country has special privilege and needs to check their privilege,
Speaker 1: or are they saying that to be Christian in America
Speaker 1: or in the West is to be singled out for
Speaker 1: special treatment, because actually the opposite is true. Christians are
Speaker 1: the only group among religious groups today that can be
Speaker 1: completely and utterly uh piled on by the media, by
Speaker 1: the by the Democrats, by leftist you know, you can
Speaker 1: mock Christians, you can uh you know, humiliate their traditions
Speaker 1: or try to, you can heap scorn upon them, and
Speaker 1: people will laugh and laugh, laugh and think it's funny.
Speaker 1: It was recently uh Beijar right over on the View,
Speaker 1: which apparently is still a show. Kind of much a
Speaker 1: shock to me. How wow, joy Bayha. I think that
Speaker 1: was pretty good actually without playing an audio sound, by
Speaker 1: just going off the memory banks. Yeah, Now, why do
Speaker 1: you love guns so much? You're a bunch of Christians,
Speaker 1: that's why. Uh, she's among the dumbest people that I
Speaker 1: know of who's paid for her opinion on television, among
Speaker 1: the dumbest. I wouldn't say she is the single dumbest,
Speaker 1: but she's definitely in a special category. And you know,
Speaker 1: I don't like to be mean. I'm just trying to
Speaker 1: be honest and accurate. But she said something snarky about
Speaker 1: and actually about Christians and how to apologize for it
Speaker 1: because guess what, joy A lot of your audience are Christians.
Speaker 1: And while it's people will say, oh it's America. Yeah
Speaker 1: you're allowed to. You'll notice you can. You can criticize Christianity.
Speaker 1: You can make all kinds of movies mocking Christianity. And
Speaker 1: you know you had that movie Religionousts a few years ago,
Speaker 1: and uh, all you can do? You know, Christopher Hitchens,
Speaker 1: someone who's work I've read extensively. I have, even though
Speaker 1: he's an atheist, a militant atheists, really uh knew that
Speaker 1: he was never going to have a problem writing about
Speaker 1: the Christian faith and mocking it and deriding it. And
Speaker 1: Christians weren't going to do anything. They might disagree with them,
Speaker 1: they might say that he's being nasty and unfair, but
Speaker 1: it was a different faith that would constantly threaten his
Speaker 1: life when he would write books will remain unnamed though,
Speaker 1: because you know, maybe maybe it was the Amish. Maybe
Speaker 1: the Amish were the ones. I'm just I don't I
Speaker 1: don't want to. I don't want to cast any aspersions.
Speaker 1: But now we've got colleges teaching classes on Christian privilege.
Speaker 1: I just wonder if they because they are so concerned
Speaker 1: with oppression in the third World. I'm wondering if colleges
Speaker 1: and the media would spend any of their time explaining
Speaker 1: to college kids that, in fact, Christianity is horrifically oppressed
Speaker 1: in much of the world, that Christianity is punishable by
Speaker 1: death in some countries, that there are major wealthy Islamic
Speaker 1: countries in particular that ben an outlaw Christianity, and that
Speaker 1: at least on the books, they'll say, oh, we don't
Speaker 1: enforce it, would execute someone as a function of Shariah,
Speaker 1: as a function of their legal system if they were
Speaker 1: to be an apostate one who left Islam and became
Speaker 1: a Christian. No churches in Saudi Arabia, folks, No crucifix
Speaker 1: is allowed in public, No, no, nothing not allowed. No
Speaker 1: public religious Christian displays period. It's true, and some other
Speaker 1: Muslim countries too. By the way, the place that is
Speaker 1: as a percentage of the lowest region of the world
Speaker 1: that you break it down by continent and region, the
Speaker 1: lowest as a percentage of the overall population that are
Speaker 1: Christian is the Middle East, which didn't happen because of
Speaker 1: the normal EBB and flow of people choosing one religion
Speaker 1: or the other, or migration, or it happened because of extermination,
Speaker 1: an extermination that's actually still occurring in Iraq, that's still
Speaker 1: occurring in parts of Syria. And oppression and violence and hatred,
Speaker 1: and I think there were there was just a family
Speaker 1: of Christians was just executed on Easter in Pakistan. They
Speaker 1: were in a in a rickshaw and they were killed,
Speaker 1: four of them. That's just you know, another day in Pakistan.
Speaker 1: Churches get grenade attacked in Pakistan. My parents told me
Speaker 1: stories about one of their parish priests in Upstate New
Speaker 1: York who tell stories about how they have to be
Speaker 1: careful in Nigeria at Catholic churches there, or just any
Speaker 1: Christian church. There's a lot of Protestant Protestants there too, um,
Speaker 1: but they have to be careful in any Christian church
Speaker 1: because of suicide bombers, because they specifically Islamic radicals will
Speaker 1: single out churches for suicide bombings, and you go down
Speaker 1: the list. I mean, of course, Christianity is is is
Speaker 1: oppressed and and has banned in North Korea. Any authoritarian
Speaker 1: status regime that is I mean, or totality, I should
Speaker 1: say totalitary, not authoritarian. I know some mean you say, Buck,
Speaker 1: that's not accurate. Totalitarian regimes, many of them are either
Speaker 1: banned Christianity or just deeply opposed to it. And Islamic
Speaker 1: regimes are deeply opposed to it in panic and Christians
Speaker 1: are under assault all over the world. But yet our
Speaker 1: kids are being taught that there's a special Christian privilege. Um,
Speaker 1: this is all part of efforts to just delegitimize what
Speaker 1: is an an essential part of our history, our culture,
Speaker 1: and for a lot of us in this country, our
Speaker 1: day to day. And it also comes from such a
Speaker 1: place of ignorance to that they just don't know. I mean,
Speaker 1: I even I had a little somewhat snippy Twitter exchange
Speaker 1: with an ABC News political analyst and a while ago
Speaker 1: where I had to explain to him that Christians are
Speaker 1: Actually he was like, oh, it's so ridiculous that you're
Speaker 1: focused on Christians in Iraq. He wasn't even sayings to me.
Speaker 1: But I jump in and say, Christians are basically being
Speaker 1: extreminated in a rock You idiot. How much money does
Speaker 1: ABC News pay you to be in ignorimus? I forget
Speaker 1: the guy's name. Actually, otherwise they call him out, but
Speaker 1: he's he's like the head political annials over there, and
Speaker 1: he's a moron. Now, I'm actually saying people are dumb
Speaker 1: on the show today, which must mean that I'm kind
Speaker 1: of a snarky mood. But I'm only saying it when
Speaker 1: it's really true. I'm only saying when it's really true. Sorry. Um,
Speaker 1: we're gonna come back. We've We've got Andrew are Arthur
Speaker 1: joining us here in just a moment. Team Um, I'll
Speaker 1: be right back with him. We're gonna talk more about
Speaker 1: the border and laws. Stay with me. The Mexican border
Speaker 1: is very unprotected by our laws. We have horrible, horrible
Speaker 1: and very unsafe laws in the United States, and we're
Speaker 1: going to be able to do something about that, hopefully soon.
Speaker 1: Hopefully Congress will get their act together and get in
Speaker 1: and create some very powerful laws like Mexico has, and
Speaker 1: like Canada has, and like almost all countries have. We
Speaker 1: don't of laws. We have catch and release. You catch
Speaker 1: and then you immediately release and people come back years
Speaker 1: later for a court case, except they virtually never come back.
Speaker 1: So what we are preparing for the military to secure
Speaker 1: our border between Mexico and the United States We have
Speaker 1: a meeting on it in a little while with General
Speaker 1: Madison everybody, and I think that it's something we have
Speaker 1: to do. There you have the President talking about what
Speaker 1: the situation that the border really is right now, We've
Speaker 1: got somebody who's an expert in all things immigration immigration law,
Speaker 1: Andrew are Arthur is with us. He is a Resident
Speaker 1: Fellow in Law and policy for the Center for Immigration Studies,
Speaker 1: which is based down Washington, d C. Are great to
Speaker 1: have you back, Thank you for heavy Always good to
Speaker 1: be here. All right, So a bunch of questions that
Speaker 1: I'm really interested in what you can tell us about.
Speaker 1: First off, the what are the weaknesses in US boardy
Speaker 1: border policy right now? Is a function of law in
Speaker 1: terms of this caravan, because I think the perception isn't
Speaker 1: This is what I've got as well, is that if
Speaker 1: this caravan is from Honduras or El Salvador or a combination, right,
Speaker 1: we don't really know, but if it's coming from Central
Speaker 1: America and they get to the border, people are gonna say, well,
Speaker 1: I'm claiming asylum. I'm I'm fleeing a violent country where
Speaker 1: I am oppressed, and border patrol will take them in.
Speaker 1: What's the reality Art, That's exactly the reality, Buck. I mean.
Speaker 1: The fact is that uh, Congress amended the law to
Speaker 1: expedite the removal of individuals like this, individuals who are
Speaker 1: caught entering illegally, individuals who were apprehended at the ports
Speaker 1: of entry without documents, and it's called expedited removal, and
Speaker 1: the whole idea was that they would be quickly removed
Speaker 1: from the United States. There was a caveat to the
Speaker 1: expedited removal rule, however, that if any alien apprehended claim
Speaker 1: to fear of return, that they would be referred over
Speaker 1: to an asylum officer who would make a determination of
Speaker 1: whether they had a credible fear of removal or not. Now,
Speaker 1: the standard for asylum is a well founded fear, which
Speaker 1: is less than more likely than not. But still, you know,
Speaker 1: a fairly strangent standard credible fear is lower than that. So, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, if there's a likelihood possibility of harm or
Speaker 1: that someone love was harmed in the past, they'll pass
Speaker 1: credible fear and they will be put into regular removal
Speaker 1: proceedings in front of an immigration judge. At that point,
Speaker 1: they go from border patrol who apprehends them CBP to
Speaker 1: U s c I s the asylum officer to uh
Speaker 1: ICE detention, and they get put in front of a
Speaker 1: Department of Justice immigration judge. So four different agencies get
Speaker 1: involved in the process up to that point. Now the
Speaker 1: immigration judge uh you know, at that point can release
Speaker 1: the alien. If the alien is apprehended within the United States,
Speaker 1: ICE can release them in any situation. And unfortunately, during
Speaker 1: the Obama administration, we saw the vast number of those
Speaker 1: individuals be released and disappear. So they the likelihood here is,
Speaker 1: under current law, if this caravan makes it all the
Speaker 1: way to the US Mexico border, a lot of them
Speaker 1: won't only be able to enter the United States, they'll
Speaker 1: be able to stay. Well, it's going to depend on
Speaker 1: how the Trump administration responds and how the immigration judge
Speaker 1: is response. Let me let me retract that for a second.
Speaker 1: They would have under the Obama administration. Certainly regulation has
Speaker 1: been allowed to stay. So it depends that. Now it
Speaker 1: depends and we're and we're gonna have to see the
Speaker 1: will of the president. But the president seems to indicate
Speaker 1: that the presidents indicated in the past that he was
Speaker 1: not afraid to use the tension more broadly than the
Speaker 1: Obama administration did. And quite frankly, it wouldn't surprise me
Speaker 1: if we don't see the vast majority of these individuals
Speaker 1: detained until such time as an immigration judge can hear
Speaker 1: their asylum claim and until they take an appeal. So
Speaker 1: generally it takes about anywhere between a month to about
Speaker 1: two months for an immigration judge to hear an asylum claim,
Speaker 1: and then the appeal itself could take another two two
Speaker 1: to four months, so those individuals could be in detention
Speaker 1: for a lengthy period of time. Can Congress just why
Speaker 1: won't Congress try to change this law? Is it just
Speaker 1: a function of yeah, they don't have a supermajority and
Speaker 1: the Senate will will filibuster. It seems like having h
Speaker 1: laws in place that allow for a mass of foreigners
Speaker 1: to show up at US borders and just say that
Speaker 1: they're claiming asylum is an invitation to the very abuses
Speaker 1: that we've seen. Absolutely, and Congress needs to tighten up
Speaker 1: the credible fear standard. Uh and frankly, UH, DHS needs
Speaker 1: to tighten up the standards that it's asylum officers used
Speaker 1: when they find credible fear. Let me give you an
Speaker 1: amazing statistic buck that of all credible fear cases that
Speaker 1: are adjudicated are found to have credible fear. So of
Speaker 1: those people at least that's been true in the past,
Speaker 1: have been found to have incredible fear and referred over
Speaker 1: to an immigration judge, so that expedited removal process doesn't
Speaker 1: work in their case. It's being Andrew are Arthur, who
Speaker 1: is a resident fellow at the Center for Immigration Studies
Speaker 1: in d c H. Talk to me about the president's
Speaker 1: UH sending military to secure the border. Well, you know,
Speaker 1: there the president has a variety of different options as
Speaker 1: it relates to that UM. With respect to UH the
Speaker 1: support that the military would give it the border, they
Speaker 1: would probably play primarily a secondary role. They would play
Speaker 1: a logistical role with respect to border enforcement, as you know.
Speaker 1: But just to inform your listeners, we have a sophisticated
Speaker 1: ray array of devices along the border, including aerostats, which
Speaker 1: are basically large blimps that are tethered to the ground. UH.
Speaker 1: They're all weather and can see people uh thermal imaging
Speaker 1: along the border. We have you know, centers along the
Speaker 1: border to identify where people are, as well as cameras
Speaker 1: and those the vices can be monitored by the National Guard.
Speaker 1: We've certainly seen that happen in the past or the military,
Speaker 1: and that would free up border patrol agents to actually
Speaker 1: make apprehensions along the border. So what about Trump possibly
Speaker 1: using military funds. I know what we're doing kind of
Speaker 1: around the world here an immigration, but since I've got
Speaker 1: you and everyone's listening, I wanted to make sure we
Speaker 1: cover a lot of ground. Uh. Speaking of covering grounds,
Speaker 1: it's quite a transition the wall. The President has said
Speaker 1: that he is going to consider using military funds for
Speaker 1: the purposes of constructing a wall beyond what was in
Speaker 1: the omnibus. Can he do this? Well? It's interesting because
Speaker 1: people forget the fact that that was actually how the
Speaker 1: wall began. In two thousand and six, the US Army
Speaker 1: Corps of Engineers, through one of its offices, actually did
Speaker 1: most of the logistical planning for the wall that was
Speaker 1: completed during that period of time, and Corp of Engineers
Speaker 1: and National Guard unit's actually used the construction of the
Speaker 1: wall as part of their training regiment. Keep in mind
Speaker 1: that you know, when you're training to be an engineer,
Speaker 1: you need to actually build something um and this was
Speaker 1: something that could be built quite frankly. Uh, you know,
Speaker 1: a wall has a house has four walls, a wall
Speaker 1: only has one. But it's the same basic concept. Uh
Speaker 1: that continued until about two thousand and eight. Now CBP
Speaker 1: actually paid for the supplies, but D O D paid
Speaker 1: for the labor. So the president can do this then,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, I just I hear both. I
Speaker 1: hear people saying he absolutely cannot, he absolutely can. Where
Speaker 1: do you come down on this? Well, the restrictions in
Speaker 1: the budget on the president's ability to do this. But
Speaker 1: you know the fact is that if you view it
Speaker 1: as a training exercise and you just happen to be
Speaker 1: building a wall in a certain place, that doesn't really Uh,
Speaker 1: that wouldn't appear to train to me to transgress the
Speaker 1: restrictions on the president. Another important thing to keep in
Speaker 1: my bucket is we're not just talking about, you know,
Speaker 1: a wall everywhere, because, as you and I both know,
Speaker 1: the Rio Grand is a significant portion of the border.
Speaker 1: Levies are a core function of the U. S. Army
Speaker 1: Corps of Engineers. We we can remember that from back
Speaker 1: in Hurricane to Trina, when all the fingers were being
Speaker 1: pointed and levies actually function as a wall in certain
Speaker 1: places they provide a wall along a river bed for
Speaker 1: flood control. And quite frankly, it would serve a dual
Speaker 1: purpose in this particular instance, if one were imaginative enough
Speaker 1: about drafting the proposal kind of like a moat, kind
Speaker 1: of like a boat at times negative wad exactly the opposite,
Speaker 1: but the same idea. It isn't it isn't is it?
Speaker 1: I mean, we we do what we don't. Um. But
Speaker 1: one more thing, Andrew or are I want to ask you? Um?
Speaker 1: If the President could focus on one thing right now
Speaker 1: for immigration purposes, if there was one thing that he
Speaker 1: could really put the entire efforts of the White House towards,
Speaker 1: what should that be? That one thing? With the mandatory
Speaker 1: e verify. If the fact is that the vast majority
Speaker 1: of people buck who are coming to the United States
Speaker 1: are coming here to work, uh, to you know, make
Speaker 1: money for themselves, make money for their families, uh send
Speaker 1: back home. And if you had mandatory verify, which is
Speaker 1: possible where we could know where every employer in the
Speaker 1: United States could verify in real time the employment eligibility
Speaker 1: of new every new employee, it would turn off the
Speaker 1: job's magnet. And the fact is most of the immigration
Speaker 1: problems that we see would go away almost overnight. Andrew
Speaker 1: are Arthur, everybody at the Center for Immigration Studies c
Speaker 1: i S dot org for all of their latest research
Speaker 1: and analysis. Are always appreciate you joining us man. Thank
Speaker 1: you very much. Pleasure is mine. Thank you again. Today
Speaker 1: we're gonna roll into a break here we come back.
Speaker 1: I've got some updates for you on the Mueller probe.
Speaker 1: Um and it's it's latest victim or if you are
Speaker 1: a hateful never Trump or you're just like, oh, it's justice,
Speaker 1: but I don't think so. I don't think so. I'm
Speaker 1: gonna give you that and more coming right up. It
Speaker 1: should have been the call that was made when Muller
Speaker 1: was appointed that we should never have seen the appointment
Speaker 1: of a special Council as the first step. First that
Speaker 1: should have been done within the Justice Department, Investigator general,
Speaker 1: inspector general, maybe Office of Professional Responsibility, maybe assigned an
Speaker 1: existing career person to do it. Then let's see is
Speaker 1: there evidence of criminal conduct. We have to make sure
Speaker 1: we never confuse political sins with federal crimes. And I
Speaker 1: think this is going about it the right way, in
Speaker 1: a calibrated step by step way I think it would
Speaker 1: have been. Look, the answer to having one bad appointment
Speaker 1: of a special Council is not to make a second
Speaker 1: bad appointment of the special Council. I'm against the criminalization
Speaker 1: of political differences, whether it's Republicans trying to criminalize Democrats
Speaker 1: or Democrats trying to criminalize Republican I got I gotta
Speaker 1: agree with Professor Dirsh. There the Dirsh getting done. Um,
Speaker 1: there never should have been a special counsel. And I
Speaker 1: have been consistent on this one all along, my friends,
Speaker 1: they're absolutely, never, ever, ever should have been a special counsel.
Speaker 1: It was a doomed well, I shouldn't say doom because
Speaker 1: it's not about actually justice. It says it was it
Speaker 1: was doomed to be unjust. But the purpose of it
Speaker 1: is injustice, so it all makes sense. Actually, the purpose
Speaker 1: of the Special Council is political. It is the criminalization
Speaker 1: of politics. And I think that the machine, the swamp,
Speaker 1: saw this all as an opportunity for well, the system
Speaker 1: to strike back, and they had some people in the
Speaker 1: Trump administration that we're not wise to this one. You know,
Speaker 1: they didn't see this one coming. So I agree with yours,
Speaker 1: But you know, you've got some updates here on on
Speaker 1: the on the Mueller probe, which I just want I
Speaker 1: like to start some of our Mueller Probe segments now
Speaker 1: with there never should have been a Muller probe, right,
Speaker 1: it's not something that should have happened. It is something
Speaker 1: that should never have gotten to this point in the
Speaker 1: first place. But now we've got someone who's going to
Speaker 1: prison Dutch Harry Potter and if you've seen this guy,
Speaker 1: but that's kind of right, you know, I'm talking about
Speaker 1: this Dutch lawyer is technically not Harry Potter. He has
Speaker 1: some name, um that is Dutch. What's this guy's name.
Speaker 1: I'm forget what his name is. Alex Vanders Vaughan got
Speaker 1: it fun to say, not to be confused with. You're
Speaker 1: on Van der Slut. Remember him, Natalie Holloway guy, remember
Speaker 1: that that whole thing. And I think he got sent
Speaker 1: to prison for a long time for a different I did.
Speaker 1: He's the other. He's a different Dutchman who got himself
Speaker 1: in a lot of trouble. This guy didn't do anything
Speaker 1: I was gonna say particularly bad. This guy didn't really
Speaker 1: do anything bad. This guy, Vanders want let's just getting
Speaker 1: this is rough. This is some rough stuff here. He's
Speaker 1: going to jail for thirty days. This is our CNN, right,
Speaker 1: said a Dutch lawyer. I was gonna try to do
Speaker 1: a little Dutch accent, But my Dutch accent is just
Speaker 1: a bad version of my German accent. My German accents
Speaker 1: just a bad version of my Russian accent. A Dutch
Speaker 1: lawyer tied to former Trump deputy campaign chairman Rick Gates
Speaker 1: became the first person to be sentenced in Mueller's investigation,
Speaker 1: a federal judge sending him on Tuesday to spend thirty
Speaker 1: days in prison and pay a twenty thousand dollar fine
Speaker 1: after he admitted to lying to investigators. Vanders. Jan Vanders,
Speaker 1: one who worked with Gates and former Trump campaign chairman
Speaker 1: Paul Manafort while he practiced law at Scanting, very very
Speaker 1: famous international law firm, admitted to lying and failing to
Speaker 1: turn over emails to Mueller's team in February. So you
Speaker 1: gotta think first of all that this guy is a
Speaker 1: lawyer himself. Maybe that's why they came down a little
Speaker 1: hard on him, because why about he didn't do anything illegal?
Speaker 1: Why lie about this? He didn't do anything wrong until
Speaker 1: he lies? Now he's going to prison for thirty days. Now, look,
Speaker 1: I'm assuming that the prison he goes to for thirty
Speaker 1: days is probably not the worst. But but I can
Speaker 1: tell you I know people who have someone actually just
Speaker 1: recently told me the story of being and being held
Speaker 1: being detained just for twenty four hours in New York City,
Speaker 1: and it's traumatizing. So you you do not want to
Speaker 1: people like, oh, it's only thirty days. I don't think
Speaker 1: this lawyer, who probably walks around wearing uh three thousand
Speaker 1: dollar custom suits, I don't think he's particularly accustomed just
Speaker 1: spending time in any kind of a federal lock up.
Speaker 1: So this this is gonna be rough. Plus he's reputations destroyed,
Speaker 1: and for what everyone it's nothing? Do we really think?
Speaker 1: I mean, I would love to have someone from the
Speaker 1: anti Trump media have the discussion with me. It will
Speaker 1: never do because they'll they'll get buck slapped and they
Speaker 1: know it. But I would love to have someonething anti
Speaker 1: Trump media just just try to take the position that
Speaker 1: it wouldn't have been easy to get Hillary and Huma
Speaker 1: and Cheryl Mills and the whole Hillary email squad for
Speaker 1: some version of lying under oath of the course of
Speaker 1: that investigation if they had wanted to. This is where
Speaker 1: you see the difference between how democrats get treated by
Speaker 1: the system and how people tied to I don't know
Speaker 1: vendors want what is and he probably is like Dutch
Speaker 1: Reform Party or something. I don't know what is, you know,
Speaker 1: political affiliation is. It's just in Holland. I'm guessing it's
Speaker 1: a choice between a political party that's supportive of of
Speaker 1: a huge welfare state and high taxes, and one that's
Speaker 1: supportive of an even huger welfare state and high taxes, which,
Speaker 1: by the way, is what we're heading for in America too.
Speaker 1: So I don't think I'm just poking fun without understanding
Speaker 1: that situation. But I feel like, at what point do
Speaker 1: we realize this whole thing is a farce. They're going
Speaker 1: after Vanderswan here for a process crime. Nothing bad happened.
Speaker 1: He now has a felony on his record, probably has
Speaker 1: to he probably loses his h Yeah, he loses his
Speaker 1: law license with this one. Um, And you know, the
Speaker 1: guy's got a wife and kids. You know, there's real
Speaker 1: consequences here. You know, the little hyenas over at MSNBC
Speaker 1: and CNN. You know, I'm like, hey, yeah, another yeah,
Speaker 1: another one bites the down. They get all excited about this.
Speaker 1: This isn't teaching Trump a lesson, This isn't getting even
Speaker 1: with the Trumpsters and magun all the rest of It's
Speaker 1: just ruining some dude's life for nothing. But it's important
Speaker 1: for you to remember that because Democrats don't care if
Speaker 1: if they if they can tie it to Trump, great,
Speaker 1: even if not sends a warning to the others puts
Speaker 1: them unnoticed. This whole thing, the whole Mouler probes a sham.
Speaker 1: The deep state strikes back. Our three coming up team,
Speaker 1: stay with me in the White House. We have perhaps
Speaker 1: the worst and most stay interest president. This president is
Speaker 1: the worst that I've ever seen, the worst president in
Speaker 1: the history. I would even argue that he is the worst.
Speaker 1: After one year, Donald Trump is the worst in the
Speaker 1: history of the American presidency. Welcome to our three of
Speaker 1: the buck sex and show everybody, uh so that there
Speaker 1: you had just just a little little taste, just some
Speaker 1: bit of what you could expect from the overall media
Speaker 1: sense of where we are a year and change into
Speaker 1: the Trump administration. They're not saying that the president is
Speaker 1: not so great. They're not saying that he has failed
Speaker 1: to make America great again. They're saying he is literally
Speaker 1: the worst president ever, the worst president ever. And when
Speaker 1: you sit here and you look around, you gotta think
Speaker 1: yourself a whole lot of second, how can the media
Speaker 1: say the worst president? And remember, I'm not They're not
Speaker 1: saying worse than Obama, They're not saying the worst one
Speaker 1: they can remember. They're saying the worst ever. Know, there
Speaker 1: was a you go back far enough, their presidents who
Speaker 1: were like segregationists, and presidents who were on the wrong
Speaker 1: side of the slavery issue, and you know, you get
Speaker 1: into some of the stuff you think the worst ever
Speaker 1: and they wonder why we have a hard time believing
Speaker 1: them and listening to them. They wonder, why is it
Speaker 1: that we don't trust them? Um, And it's because if
Speaker 1: we pay attention to what it is that there actually
Speaker 1: saying over time, you know, if you try to hold
Speaker 1: them to account for what their analysis, because remember, we're
Speaker 1: just we're just reported, we're just reporters. If you look
Speaker 1: at what they've said in the past, you have to
Speaker 1: take a step back and say to herself, wait, hold
Speaker 1: on a minute, weren't we told by and I mean
Speaker 1: by mainstream outlets. Um, weren't we told that fascism was
Speaker 1: coming to America a little over a year ago? And
Speaker 1: and almost as bad as Hitler was what people were saying,
Speaker 1: right Trump, Trump was creeping fascism in America. Here we
Speaker 1: are one year into it, and you know what we've
Speaker 1: seen time and again a president who, for better or worse,
Speaker 1: and I obviously think for worse, but a president who
Speaker 1: hasn't been able to enact some of his agenda because
Speaker 1: of a federal judge somewhere. A president who hasn't been
Speaker 1: able to enact an important part of his agenda because well,
Speaker 1: maybe the Congress didn't want to go along. Notice how
Speaker 1: he doesn't do what Obama did, which we got a
Speaker 1: pun on the phone when there's the pun on the phone,
Speaker 1: and he just designs that he's going to via executive order,
Speaker 1: pushed for policy that he couldn't get through via Congress,
Speaker 1: and people say, oh buck, what about the wall in
Speaker 1: the military. We'll see if that actually happens. And by
Speaker 1: the way, if he uses his authorities commander in chief,
Speaker 1: I think that's legitimate. He's not just saying I'm doing
Speaker 1: this because I can do it. He's saying on the
Speaker 1: commander in chief, it's a national security threat. We're gonna
Speaker 1: build a wall using our defense fonds. Okay, so, but
Speaker 1: you have to take stock of this moment in time
Speaker 1: when all that the media has been telling you about
Speaker 1: Trump and the administration has time and again been at
Speaker 1: a minimum proven to be hyperbolic and in many ways
Speaker 1: just completely and utterly false lies. You could say that, yes,
Speaker 1: in fact, it was a case of fake news. It
Speaker 1: has been again and again. Oh one more thing before
Speaker 1: I get into I just want to follow up a
Speaker 1: little bit on the on the in a sense, the
Speaker 1: unintentional hilarity of all these massive media conglomerates that have
Speaker 1: legacy advance atage over their competitors complaining about Shinclair Oh
Speaker 1: Chinclair Tribune merger gives them the whim wassh. We're gonna
Speaker 1: get there in just a second. But first, remember the
Speaker 1: alt Right? Remember the all Right. Wasn't that a thing
Speaker 1: at one point? Oh my gosh, the al Right runs,
Speaker 1: the runs the wine house, the remember the guys that
Speaker 1: the losers with the tiki torches and Charlotte's all there,
Speaker 1: Nazism is coming back to America. Well, what happened to
Speaker 1: the all right. I thought they all right, was about
Speaker 1: to control therry. Now they all right. You see occasionally
Speaker 1: these little news stories about how they're like all thirty
Speaker 1: of them are squabbling with each other, and that a
Speaker 1: lot of it. Oh, they didn't like to tell you
Speaker 1: about this. A lot of the alt right propaganda that
Speaker 1: was on the Internet was being magnified by bots and trolls,
Speaker 1: which I would know means that it wasn't actual people
Speaker 1: that were necessarily sharing or promoting some of those stories. Right,
Speaker 1: some of them were, But I'm saying that there's there
Speaker 1: was a magnific cation effect by bots, by trolls, And
Speaker 1: if you look at some of the Russian propaganda efforts
Speaker 1: in our social media, it was along the lines of
Speaker 1: the ault right. But are we really supposed to be
Speaker 1: worried if if Russians are tweeting out alts right memes
Speaker 1: during during an election. I think the answer is no,
Speaker 1: We're not worried about some Russian hackers convincing the American
Speaker 1: public that fascism is in fact a better political system.
Speaker 1: But we were warned so much. And I said this
Speaker 1: on election day. Uh, back in the day, I was saying,
Speaker 1: you know this alt right thing has become such a
Speaker 1: construct of the left. I mean, this is classic to
Speaker 1: what they do. And here we are a year in
Speaker 1: and after they've been warning, goes, oh they all right
Speaker 1: and more it's so terrible. I don't know. Have you
Speaker 1: have you seen a lot of neo nazi marches happen
Speaker 1: around the country. The answer is no. Have you seen
Speaker 1: a rise in fascistic policy from the Trump administration? The
Speaker 1: answer is no. But you know, when I asked that question,
Speaker 1: and we've been talking a lot about immigration throughout the
Speaker 1: course of the show today, when I ask you that question,
Speaker 1: there are a lot of Democrats who would point to
Speaker 1: enforcing immigration laws on our federal books as as kind
Speaker 1: of like fascism. It's kind of like fascism. They would
Speaker 1: say that it has, you know, a hint of the racist,
Speaker 1: fascistic tendency in it. And you're like, well, you'll notice
Speaker 1: that Democrats aren't willing to openly say they're in favor
Speaker 1: of amnesty. Democrats pretend that that we should have rule
Speaker 1: of law when it comes to immigrations. Are are they
Speaker 1: on this creeping fascism too? I just don't want us
Speaker 1: to completely When when you got Trump at fifty percent approval,
Speaker 1: higher than Obama at this point in his presidency. And
Speaker 1: let me keep it. Keep in mind, that's after Obama,
Speaker 1: with all the amazing story and hope and charings and
Speaker 1: all that stuff. I had spent a trillion dollars of stimulus, right.
Speaker 1: I know that some of that spending still had to
Speaker 1: be rolled out, but you know he had already gone
Speaker 1: approval of spent a trillion dollars on all of his favorite,
Speaker 1: you know, pet projects of all kinds of the Democrat Party.
Speaker 1: And you look at his his time in office versus Trump,
Speaker 1: and you got polls this week so showing Trump more popular.
Speaker 1: In the media still says he's the worst president ever.
Speaker 1: What I just want to ask them, I want to
Speaker 1: enforce some standards of sanity here in America in the media.
Speaker 1: In what way is he the worst president ever? Other
Speaker 1: than his personal style and habits, which sure they could
Speaker 1: say that's the but no person of any real thought
Speaker 1: processes cares all that much about that. Does it really
Speaker 1: affect you if the president is a little gruff, for
Speaker 1: a little rough around the edges with his language? Answers No,
Speaker 1: of course not so. And what do I see the
Speaker 1: worst pread of the economy is doing great. Unemployments super low,
Speaker 1: Black unemployments lowest has been in decades. Hispanic unemployment so
Speaker 1: lowest it's been in decades, passing tax cuts and quite honest,
Speaker 1: doing a very kind of mainstream geop playbooks so far
Speaker 1: with with a little bit of you know, populist rhetoric.
Speaker 1: And but you know, all the things that Trump has
Speaker 1: actually done so far are other than taking on the media,
Speaker 1: which I would know. That's why they hate him so much.
Speaker 1: That's why he is I mean, I'm I can answer
Speaker 1: my own question, why is he the worst president ever?
Speaker 1: Because he has held the mira up to the media
Speaker 1: and shown that they are in fact feckless little cowards overwhelmingly,
Speaker 1: not all of them. There are great people the media too,
Speaker 1: but overwhelmingly the mainstream media is full of fectless people
Speaker 1: with no integrity and a complete lack of spine. So
Speaker 1: they're saying he's the worst there. I just want to
Speaker 1: know and somehow that the alt right has basically disappeared,
Speaker 1: whereas a year ago there are poised to take over
Speaker 1: the country or it was just being hyped in exaggerated
Speaker 1: by the media because it was a way of bashing Trump.
Speaker 1: You can pick which one of those is more likely
Speaker 1: to be true. Well, I'll let you come to your
Speaker 1: own conclusion about that one. Um. But then, uh, back
Speaker 1: to where the media is on all this stuff. Uh,
Speaker 1: Mika Brazinski over at Morning Joe. She really it's really
Speaker 1: having a tisk tisc moment when it comes to Sinclair
Speaker 1: and what's going on over there. Um, here's dangerous. You know,
Speaker 1: edges here are that he's trying to undermine the media,
Speaker 1: trying to make up his own facts. And it could
Speaker 1: be that while unemployment and the economy worsens, he could
Speaker 1: have undermined the messaging so much that he can actually
Speaker 1: control exactly what people think. And that is the That
Speaker 1: is our job. That is their job to tell people
Speaker 1: what they what they think. That's their job. You see,
Speaker 1: I'm not just coming up with this because I do
Speaker 1: insightful analysis here in the Freedom Hunt. The reason he's
Speaker 1: the worst president ever is because he's taken on the media.
Speaker 1: That's why they say it. There is otherwise, no, there's
Speaker 1: no objective standard for that statement unless it's really just
Speaker 1: about about journalists who are whining about their lack of power,
Speaker 1: their lack of prestige under this administration. That's it. So
Speaker 1: it really tells you a lot about the profression profession
Speaker 1: of journalism at this point in America, doesn't it. It
Speaker 1: really is illuminating when you hear that Trump sure enough
Speaker 1: is hated by the media, not because of what he
Speaker 1: does as president, because of how he makes the media field,
Speaker 1: makes them shad, makes them sad on the inside. We
Speaker 1: got more Mika on Sinclair, I'm gonna want to hear this.
Speaker 1: Those are the journalists who are the highest paid in
Speaker 1: the market. I noticed a lot of men who are, uh,
Speaker 1: maybe in their forties, fifties, and sixties. Those are the
Speaker 1: highest paid journalists in the market by far, especially compared
Speaker 1: to the women sitting next to them. I can tell
Speaker 1: you that for sure. And they should know better, All
Speaker 1: of them should know better. This is a really embarrassing
Speaker 1: moment for journalism at this point. We can't afford to
Speaker 1: um be anything less than perfect. We have to try
Speaker 1: and strive for perfection and fairness every day. And this
Speaker 1: was a massive feeling. Is it interesting that she's whining
Speaker 1: about the disparity between male and female anchors and other
Speaker 1: networks without knowing any of their circumstances and negotiations or
Speaker 1: anything else. I think she makes half as much as
Speaker 1: b d I Joe. I think she makes like he
Speaker 1: makes five million and she makes two points something. So
Speaker 1: what why? Why is that okay? At MSNBC, she's calling
Speaker 1: it out and she says that these local networks that
Speaker 1: are own by Sainclair, why is Mika? You know, this
Speaker 1: is just what you see, folks. There's no objective standards,
Speaker 1: there's no integrity. It's just people in the media. They
Speaker 1: are often the worst. They're like actors, except they think
Speaker 1: that everything they say is based in fact and their contents.
Speaker 1: They're they're creating a narrative for all of us to
Speaker 1: live in. But just start to think more and more
Speaker 1: of these news readers and and this, this so called
Speaker 1: mainstream media as a bunch of whiney, self indulgent actors,
Speaker 1: and everything else will make sense. We'll be right back, Hey, Tim,
Speaker 1: I wanted to switch gears for a second here and
Speaker 1: bring in our friend Tyler Merritt, who is the CEO
Speaker 1: of nine Line Apparel. He is here in studio in
Speaker 1: New York City making a rare big Apple appearance. Mr Merritt,
Speaker 1: great to have you here. Hey, thank you so much
Speaker 1: for having me again. As you folks all know, nine
Speaker 1: Line is one of our wonderful sponsors here on the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. But not only are they all about
Speaker 1: America freedom and commerce because we are capitalists here, but
Speaker 1: also exactly still gotta make a buck, but you guys
Speaker 1: also do a lot of really good work for the community.
Speaker 1: Tell me about the Nine Line Foundation Veterans Village. So
Speaker 1: our initial initiatives were to help the severely winded veteran community,
Speaker 1: those who've lost multiple limbs and how to get back
Speaker 1: to some sense of normalcy. UH, nine apparel. We we
Speaker 1: have a lot of veterans that work for us, and
Speaker 1: it's really year indeed to our heart to give back
Speaker 1: to the community we once served. Nineline Foundation really does
Speaker 1: focus on the individual efforts to get back to some
Speaker 1: sense of normalcy. And while we used to and still
Speaker 1: do work with severely wounded physically, we're doing a lot
Speaker 1: more with the emotional mental health care and rehabilitation that's
Speaker 1: out there, and specifically looking at veterans homelessness. UH. For
Speaker 1: the last several years, the the the number of veterans
Speaker 1: UH taking to the streets due to drug and alcohol
Speaker 1: issues has climbed, and we've seen a increase in the
Speaker 1: number of veteran suicide and these things are linked together.
Speaker 1: So we want to come up with a solution and
Speaker 1: not just rhetoric of how might we be able to
Speaker 1: do this. Government is not going to fix it. UH.
Speaker 1: A lot of philanthropic organizations like the Nineline Foundation, like
Speaker 1: the Gary Conese Foundation, like Tunnels for Towers, these organizations
Speaker 1: can come together and really do a lot of good
Speaker 1: for our vetching community. What are some of the actions
Speaker 1: that you take as part of Ninline Foundation? What are
Speaker 1: some of the programs will give us some of the
Speaker 1: specifics so folks who might want to get involved and
Speaker 1: understand what they'd be contributing to. Absolutely, so we actually
Speaker 1: have no overhead. UH. We we do focus on the
Speaker 1: individual at a time, so we have no paid employees,
Speaker 1: So donation dollars go directly to uh the individuals in
Speaker 1: need and and we focused our efforts on an individual
Speaker 1: at a time because we wanted to make a big
Speaker 1: impact on on this community. And this is considered a
Speaker 1: hand up, not necessarily a hand out. A lot of
Speaker 1: these guys, especially in the special operations community, they're not
Speaker 1: asking for help, but they really needed, uh, you know,
Speaker 1: going to war and coming back with two fingers when
Speaker 1: you left with all twenty digits. It's a big change.
Speaker 1: And there's a lot that these guys have to bring
Speaker 1: to the table, you know, just their share will to
Speaker 1: continue to be optimistic and motivate other individuals who are
Speaker 1: severely wounded. It's incredible. It really does put you into
Speaker 1: perspective of life. When you visit your buddies at Walter
Speaker 1: Reads and and all they want to know about is
Speaker 1: tell me about prosthetics. Don't tell me about what I
Speaker 1: can't do, tell me what I can do. So providing
Speaker 1: them a wheelchair accessible home like the one we just
Speaker 1: completed earlier this month with Serinic Morante, it allows them
Speaker 1: that sense of freedom where they can feel, uh, that
Speaker 1: new sense of normalcy return into their lives. We're speaking
Speaker 1: to Tyler Merritty's CEO of nine Line Apparel. They are
Speaker 1: a sponsor here of the show. They also do some
Speaker 1: fantastic philanthropic work, specifically in the area of helping our veterans,
Speaker 1: which we're discussing now. Can you give us a sense, Tyler,
Speaker 1: of some of the initiatives that you're either partnerships to
Speaker 1: help veterans, UH that are coming up or things are
Speaker 1: events you're planning. Just give folks a sense of of
Speaker 1: where some of these efforts are are going to be
Speaker 1: in the months ahead. Yeah, So anyone is in the
Speaker 1: New York City area, UM, there's an event on Armed
Speaker 1: Forces Day at mom at the airport where we're gonna
Speaker 1: be flying. I believe it's May sixteenth, calendar form A right,
Speaker 1: fair enough, but it is our Enforces Day weekend. And
Speaker 1: there's two events we have going on. One we've we've
Speaker 1: done year after year. There's our fifth run. UH. It's
Speaker 1: a five K ten k in Savannah, Georgia. UH. It's
Speaker 1: last year. We raised about seventy five dollars for our foundation.
Speaker 1: It was a heck of a good time. If anyone's
Speaker 1: in the Savannah, Georgia area, go to Nineline Foundation dot
Speaker 1: org and you can learn all about it. But it's
Speaker 1: a it's a night run. They'll be beers, they'll be bands,
Speaker 1: they'll be good festivities. UH, and it's all for a
Speaker 1: good cause. And then this local area in New York
Speaker 1: City same day, UM partner with an organization that is
Speaker 1: flying in veterans from around the country to just congregate
Speaker 1: and meet and mom at the airport. So people with
Speaker 1: private aircraft, helicopters, airplanes are are grabbing a veteran and
Speaker 1: they're they're taking them uh to meet in a central location.
Speaker 1: The whole idea, it's very similar to the premise of
Speaker 1: our apparel company. How do you close the gap between
Speaker 1: those who serve and those who don't, you know, the
Speaker 1: fire fighters, the police officers, military members and their civilian counterparts,
Speaker 1: Because there's a big disconnect that civil military divide. It's
Speaker 1: it's prevalent in the United States still, and the only
Speaker 1: way to get over this disconnect is have conversation. And
Speaker 1: that is what nine Line Apparel in general does, is
Speaker 1: it opens up conversations for those who have never served
Speaker 1: and for those who serve to kind of explain, you know,
Speaker 1: why they joined and what it means to give back
Speaker 1: to your community, and just for everybody listening if they
Speaker 1: want to see more of what you're doing on the
Speaker 1: foundation side, what's the website, what's the social media call outs?
Speaker 1: What what should we tell them to go to? Absolutely
Speaker 1: so nine line apparel dot com. We do definitely list
Speaker 1: all of these initiatives as well, but Nineline Foundation dot
Speaker 1: org is where all the philanthropic activities are centralized. Nine
Speaker 1: Line Foundation dot Org. Fantastic, everyone, go check it out.
Speaker 1: I know veterans issues are absolutely crucial to folks listening
Speaker 1: to this show, and you have a really great opportunity
Speaker 1: to do something good, to help out, to help our veterans,
Speaker 1: and also to have some fun in the process. If
Speaker 1: you can make your way down for this ten K
Speaker 1: five k in Savannah and and some of the other
Speaker 1: events that will be up there to do. Check it out.
Speaker 1: Tyler Merritt, CEO of nine Line Apparel Company, Great to
Speaker 1: have you, my friend. Thanks for visiting in New York.
Speaker 1: We like seeing you up north. Hey, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: I'm gonna have to go ahead back that seven other now,
Speaker 1: alrighty today we're gonna roll into a quick break. We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. Many of you know, I'm not somebody
Speaker 1: who gets all that excited about Poles. You guys are
Speaker 1: down and it makes sense that most of them, all
Speaker 1: of them says who polls. I gotta admit it says
Speaker 1: who Poles says? Oh, it's one of my favorite. That
Speaker 1: was Trump's lawyer Michael Cohen. One of my favorite exchanges
Speaker 1: to the entire election. Cam Paying says who and by
Speaker 1: the way, he was right because the polls were wrong.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless it's just kind of a fun one. I
Speaker 1: don't get that excited about poles sometimes, though they do
Speaker 1: give you a snapshot of something that's worth discussion that
Speaker 1: doesn't have to do with an election. And I saw
Speaker 1: this on Pew Research today of American adults haven't read
Speaker 1: a book in a whole or in part in the
Speaker 1: last year in any form. Now, I just want to
Speaker 1: say that that doesn't mean that those people necessarily aren't reading.
Speaker 1: Most of us are reading all the time. But I
Speaker 1: would put out there and this is a reminder for
Speaker 1: me as well. Even if you're someone who reads a
Speaker 1: lot of newspapers and it's just reading in your day
Speaker 1: to day in life, books are a special category. It
Speaker 1: really is worth it to spend some of your time
Speaker 1: working through an actual book. I forced myself to do this.
Speaker 1: I have several books that I keep on my bedside
Speaker 1: table so that way I can change it up depending
Speaker 1: on what I feel like. And also I have a
Speaker 1: kindle that I'm pretty obsessed with because it allows me
Speaker 1: to highlight as well as do some other things, I
Speaker 1: can look up words, so for example, there will be
Speaker 1: no mixing up of archaic and anarchic. And I'm also
Speaker 1: in the habit now, and I wish I had started
Speaker 1: it years ago. Of forcing myself is too strong, But
Speaker 1: making a point of reading books that you know, we
Speaker 1: all know what the plot line is. We all have
Speaker 1: heard of them, we've all read them in the or
Speaker 1: we've all been told about them in the past but
Speaker 1: never actually got a signed. So, for example, right now,
Speaker 1: I'm reading Mary Shelley's Frankenstein, which some people think is
Speaker 1: one of the great novels of all time. It's certainly
Speaker 1: is a groundbreaking work in the genre of what would
Speaker 1: become science fiction. Although I gotta tell you I'm much
Speaker 1: more a Bram Stoker's Dracula guy. I'm just not as
Speaker 1: excited about Frankenstein. Shelley's writing is a little more dense.
Speaker 1: It's a little harder for the modern I to get through.
Speaker 1: I know people will say the language is beautiful in it.
Speaker 1: Dracula almost reads like a screenplay. It holds up so
Speaker 1: very well. And I only read Dracula last year. So
Speaker 1: I'm going back and reading books that we all know
Speaker 1: and I've heard of but haven't necessarily read. So that's
Speaker 1: something that I'm I'm allowing myself to do, giving myself
Speaker 1: the space to do it. And I have to say
Speaker 1: it's great. I'm somebody who went years without reading anything
Speaker 1: that was outside of the nonfiction realm. I just didn't.
Speaker 1: I had this idea in my head, I don't have
Speaker 1: time for novels. I gotta say now, I make time
Speaker 1: for novels, not exclusively, but I will at least have
Speaker 1: one piece of fiction that I'm writing at any given
Speaker 1: sorry reading at any given time. And I even went
Speaker 1: through a period when I was in the government where
Speaker 1: I have to tell you, I feel like I just
Speaker 1: stopped reading books. Now I didn't stop reading, and I'm
Speaker 1: sure a lot of you feel the same way. I
Speaker 1: was reading eight hours a day for my job. I mean,
Speaker 1: that was my primary job in the government. Was just
Speaker 1: a constantly read But the same way that I have
Speaker 1: an affinity that I've talked to you all before on
Speaker 1: this show about where I like actual physical books and
Speaker 1: to have them and to be around them. And there's
Speaker 1: now research that shows that just having books in the
Speaker 1: home and being around books has positive effects makes you
Speaker 1: want to read more makes you think about what's in
Speaker 1: the books more. Well. This is a constant effort on
Speaker 1: my part to try and honestly expand my horizons and
Speaker 1: expand my my reading list. I think one thing I
Speaker 1: will do this week is post online the last five
Speaker 1: or six books that I've read on my kindle, because
Speaker 1: that's kind of a fun way I think of sharing.
Speaker 1: So I'll do that on Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton.
Speaker 1: I think that's a fun way to share with all
Speaker 1: of you what what I'm up to you in the
Speaker 1: realm of reading. But I say this, you know, I
Speaker 1: saw this pupole, and I don't say, oh, every needs
Speaker 1: to read books in any kind of a self gratulatory tone.
Speaker 1: I have to remind myself. I get so caught up
Speaker 1: in my other work and and particularly reading editorials and
Speaker 1: news wire and all the stuff that comes in the
Speaker 1: news cycle that I don't really allow myself the time.
Speaker 1: And now I've got into a pretty solid habit of
Speaker 1: I fall asleep reading every night. Now. Some people say
Speaker 1: it's bad for your eyes, and some people will say
Speaker 1: that it's not necessarily the most conducive for romance. But
Speaker 1: I find that it's a good way to relax my mind.
Speaker 1: And at night I read things that aren't generally speaking,
Speaker 1: aren't tied into what I'm doing for work. I just
Speaker 1: read things to read them before I go to sleep.
Speaker 1: I really like it, and I just would say that
Speaker 1: I think it's one of the most important skills in life.
Speaker 1: And for those of you who have children who you
Speaker 1: still have the ability to h give suggestions to or
Speaker 1: try to guide, that the habit of reading is up
Speaker 1: there with being on time and person a little cleanliness,
Speaker 1: you know, personal hygiene. Reading is really a critical life skill.
Speaker 1: And that there of us adults who haven't read a
Speaker 1: book in the last year. Look, I know a lot
Speaker 1: of them are already reading for other things they do. Um,
Speaker 1: a lot of them are just super busy with life.
Speaker 1: I understand it. But the same way that we gotta
Speaker 1: make time for certain things, I think each and every
Speaker 1: one of us needs to make time for books. Um,
Speaker 1: not a lot. Not. And they don't have to be dense.
Speaker 1: You don't have to sit around and read the you know,
Speaker 1: the Brothers Karamazov or A Day in the Life of
Speaker 1: Ivan Denizovitch or something you know. It doesn't have to
Speaker 1: be the Gulag Archipelago. Notice I'm really going after the
Speaker 1: Russian authors here. Uh, you can just read whatever you
Speaker 1: feel like reading. But a book is different than a
Speaker 1: magazine article. A book is different than what you're gonna
Speaker 1: pick up in a newspaper, and just the mindset, the narrative,
Speaker 1: and I think the effect that it has on your
Speaker 1: on your thinking and the way that your brain is processing.
Speaker 1: It's just it is different. So that was what I was.
Speaker 1: That was what the Pew article or the Pew pole
Speaker 1: made me think about today. And I wish I like
Speaker 1: Frankenstein more than I do. I can tell you all
Speaker 1: go read if you've never done it before, read Bram
Speaker 1: Stoker's Dracula. But Frankenstein, it's one of these books where
Speaker 1: I'm kind of reading it to say that I've read it,
Speaker 1: you know what I mean, So I could say I've
Speaker 1: been there not. Buck is not impressed. That's my review.
Speaker 1: All We got a roll call coming up, team, so
Speaker 1: stay with me. All right, We've got a lot of
Speaker 1: great messages in the Freedom Hut today, so let's get
Speaker 1: to it. Hey, team Buck, it's time for roll call.
Speaker 1: Like I said, lots of great messages to get to
Speaker 1: and so here we go Facebook dot com slash Buck
Speaker 1: Sexton if you have thoughts to share. And if it
Speaker 1: sounds like I am stalling right now, I am because
Speaker 1: my computers frozen. So there is that. But I'm about
Speaker 1: to get into it live radio. You gotta the show.
Speaker 1: The show must go on just because just because. Okay,
Speaker 1: there we go, good to go. Um, let's get into it. First.
Speaker 1: Up here we have Mike, who writes, Buck the Memphis
Speaker 1: Bell was is a B sevent teen bomber. Currently it's
Speaker 1: being restored and we'll be on display this summer. Love
Speaker 1: the show and your commentary on Fox News. Keep it
Speaker 1: up Shields high Mark, Well Mark, thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Kind of you to say. And I just realized that
Speaker 1: I read the wrong name there, Mike, Thank you very much.
Speaker 1: Gosh Buck, get it's together. Sorry about that, Mike. It's okay.
Speaker 1: The people call me Bob all the time. I go
Speaker 1: into Starblarck a Starbucks, and the mois b U C K.
Speaker 1: Buck and then sure enough Bob, Bob. My name is
Speaker 1: not Bob. Not there's anything wrong with Bob. It's nice name.
Speaker 1: Next up we get Taylor, who writes the following, uh, Buck,
Speaker 1: your back backup beeper noise is the same voice for Hillary,
Speaker 1: and they're both equally wretched. By the way, is that
Speaker 1: Butter dripping off this photo of a steak? You might ask,
Speaker 1: damn right, it is? It's great on Sam, And also
Speaker 1: why not Butter? Is I think good on almost anything?
Speaker 1: So Taylor, you have a point there, My friend appreciate it. Uh.
Speaker 1: Next up is Cheryl, she writes. Sacramento police chief releases
Speaker 1: video of shooting within days for transparency. Immediately the protests started,
Speaker 1: and they stopped traffic on the freeway as well as
Speaker 1: jumping on cars in downtown Sacramento. They've interrupted NBA Kings
Speaker 1: games at least twice, disrupted public hearings regarding community grievances
Speaker 1: and recommendations. They say they will not stop until the
Speaker 1: police responsible for the shooting are convicted. Uh. This is
Speaker 1: in response to this Stefen Clark shooting. I would know.
Speaker 1: I watched the video and and here's what I here's
Speaker 1: what I can say in the Stefen Clark shooting. It's dark.
Speaker 1: You've got law enforcements saying let me see your hands.
Speaker 1: You've got a guy who's running around in backyards and
Speaker 1: and clearly trying to evade police. He was on his
Speaker 1: grandmother's property when he was shot though, so he wasn't
Speaker 1: actually trespassing at the time he was shot. And it
Speaker 1: looks like one of these terrible accidents where law enforcement
Speaker 1: believed he was a threat. Under the circumstances. It was
Speaker 1: dark out, it's tough to see. And if they feel
Speaker 1: like he didn't show his hands, they pulled and they
Speaker 1: drew down, they fired him. Now. I know this is
Speaker 1: a tough area though, because I can understand for people
Speaker 1: who are more skeptical than I am of law enforcement.
Speaker 1: They say, so all a cop has to do is yell,
Speaker 1: you know, put up your hands, and then shoot you.
Speaker 1: And even if you've shown no threat and don't have
Speaker 1: a weapon, that's fine. You know, this is where if
Speaker 1: the officer believes that he or she faces you know,
Speaker 1: is in is in danger, essentially is in mortal or
Speaker 1: severe physical danger, they can use lethal force. Uh. In
Speaker 1: the video, they yell gun, gun, gun, and start shooting.
Speaker 1: So you know, the assumption is that they saw a gun, right.
Speaker 1: I don't think that these officers. I'd be willing to
Speaker 1: bet quite a lot that these officers didn't go to
Speaker 1: work that day thinking, well, let me just shoot somebody.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a terrible thing, um, but it's it's
Speaker 1: a it's a tough case. It's a tough case. I
Speaker 1: don't think the law enforcement officers meant meant to do
Speaker 1: anything wrong, and I think by the book in terms
Speaker 1: of the procedures, I don't think they'll be found have
Speaker 1: done anything wrong. But I also understand the sensitivities here.
Speaker 1: A young man was killed who wasn't actually hurting anyone
Speaker 1: and didn't didn't actually was a threat. There may have
Speaker 1: been the perception of a threat, but didn't pose a
Speaker 1: threat to anyone. So it's it's a very sad circumstance.
Speaker 1: Now it's to all the protests. There's a lot of
Speaker 1: people who are I think, upset about it. I think
Speaker 1: there's also a lot of people who view this as
Speaker 1: an opportunity to push a political agenda, which would not
Speaker 1: be surprising given what we have seen in the days
Speaker 1: and weeks following the Parkland school shooting. Ah. So, Cheryl,
Speaker 1: thank you very much for your note. Next up we
Speaker 1: have Lauren, She writes, Last man Standing is the best.
Speaker 1: Just listen to yesterday's show and wanted to second the
Speaker 1: opinion ps I think you referenced Crazy Stupid Love the
Speaker 1: other day with the Steve Jobs New Balance shoes thing,
Speaker 1: and I was dying laughing, Lauren, that is true. That
Speaker 1: is true. I was in fact referencing, uh, that line
Speaker 1: from Crazy Stupid Love where the guy who plays Gosh,
Speaker 1: he's from the office. I'm blanking on his name right now,
Speaker 1: very well known actor h Correll, Steve Carrell is playing
Speaker 1: the kind of you know, divorced dad or separated dad,
Speaker 1: and he wears the new Balanced sneakers with the suit
Speaker 1: that that was a reference to that, So Lauren got me. See,
Speaker 1: Lauren didn't just it's not an action movie quote. That's
Speaker 1: just a movie quote. That's the next level. But I
Speaker 1: think we're gonna open it up by the way to
Speaker 1: I feel like we've kind of plumbed the depths of
Speaker 1: action movie quotes for the foreseeable and so we may
Speaker 1: switch it up and go into comedy movie quote Friday
Speaker 1: or just you know, general movie quote Friday, I got
Speaker 1: big Plans, Team, I Got big plants. Uh, next up, Robin,
Speaker 1: She writes, It was Oh, Robin was out at Whoa Whoa.
Speaker 1: She wrote the following. This was in Fort Wayne, Indiana
Speaker 1: last weekend. It was so gracious of you to give
Speaker 1: us your time. Today, we are praying for you to
Speaker 1: have safe travels and a glorious, blessed easter. I will
Speaker 1: work on developing d s M criteria for Trump delusion disorder.
Speaker 1: May I suggest you call it Trump defiance disorder, similar
Speaker 1: to opposition all defies disorder. So Robin is a trained
Speaker 1: psyche ecologist, and I told her when I met her
Speaker 1: at the Woe Who event that I wanted to do
Speaker 1: more research into the real underlying science of Trump Trump
Speaker 1: delusion disorder or Trump arrangement syndrome, because I think it's
Speaker 1: a real thing. I think it's actually a form of
Speaker 1: mental illness. Now, I don't think that it's just a
Speaker 1: way of being snarky about your political you know, opponents.
Speaker 1: But Robin, thank you so much, lovely to meet you
Speaker 1: and your family. Uh and God bless all Right. We
Speaker 1: have Eric who writes is this where we send stuff
Speaker 1: for roll Call? I love your show, great voice, obviously
Speaker 1: it is Eric. Amazing analysis and spot on Hillary impressions.
Speaker 1: They get me every time. I routinely share links to
Speaker 1: your podcast with my five thousand Facebook contacts, hoping to
Speaker 1: get more people addicted. The only thing you've ever been
Speaker 1: incorrect about is J. J. Abrams, who is by no
Speaker 1: means overrated. Anyway, you completely rock and we very much
Speaker 1: appreciate the amazing job you're doing. Your listeners get more
Speaker 1: bang for the buck as it were, Shields High. Eric. Well, Eric,
Speaker 1: first of all, thank you so much for a very
Speaker 1: kind note. And look, it's cool that you're wrong about J. J. Abrams,
Speaker 1: but I'm so glad that we agree on everything else.
Speaker 1: You know, we kind of be boring friends if we
Speaker 1: thought the same about everything, right, So it's good that
Speaker 1: we have a little bit of a of a difference here,
Speaker 1: So thank you very much for that. And next up
Speaker 1: is what hold on a second? Sorry once again? Oh
Speaker 1: here we go. Um, we have Michael who's writing in
Speaker 1: to tell me what was this? Um? Oh no, a
Speaker 1: lot of things, Michael. I gotta I gotta actually read
Speaker 1: through this before I can give you a real answer. Uh.
Speaker 1: Next Larry here right, say Buck, I've been traveling for
Speaker 1: the last few weeks and I missed most of the podcast.
Speaker 1: Can you please give me a rundown of your shows
Speaker 1: for the past three weeks? Uh? Larry and Rhode Island. Um, Larry.
Speaker 1: They were amazing shows with tremendous depth of knowledge. They
Speaker 1: were heartfelt. You'll laugh, you'll cry, you'll you know, download
Speaker 1: the podcast you'll see So go check it out. Jeremy.
Speaker 1: You know one more here for Jeremy. Listen to the
Speaker 1: podcast from last night. We need more John Oliver impressions
Speaker 1: along with Hillary and Commy Bear, maybe all three having
Speaker 1: a drink together at a bar Shields High. Jeremy, I'm
Speaker 1: glad you're John Oliver. You know, it's like you can
Speaker 1: just make jokes like this all the time, and Americans
Speaker 1: who think they're sophisticated will laugh at it because it's
Speaker 1: so funny, because he sounds so funny. Oh isn't that right. Uh,
Speaker 1: He's actually not funny. So there's that. I'm gonna close
Speaker 1: it up here, Team Jeremy, thank you for the message.
Speaker 1: I gotta shut down the freedom Hunt for the Night
Speaker 1: will be act tomorrow. Until then, She's high