Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. Nancy Pelosi, lets it
Speaker 1: slip that, yes, in fact, she would like to see
Speaker 1: Donald Trump not just defeated, but in prison. Trump's arrangement
Speaker 1: syndrome is a very real phenomenon. It has infected the media,
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, and oh so much more. We'll get
Speaker 1: into that, plus the latest on the border crisis, the
Speaker 1: tariff fight looming with Mexico, and more coming up on
Speaker 1: The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a
Speaker 1: great American Again. The buck Sexton Show begins as just
Speaker 1: say it's bad policy. The question is, though, why does
Speaker 1: the president have that much already? And that will be questioned. No,
Speaker 1: I'm just saying that it's wrong. I don't even think
Speaker 1: it rises to the level of policy. I think it's
Speaker 1: notion mongering again, and it's really, well, let's face what
Speaker 1: it is. It's a distraction from the Mother Report. Welcome
Speaker 1: to the buck Sexton Show. Nancy Pelosi blathering and blathering claptrap.
Speaker 1: Express there just a lot of black, black black. What
Speaker 1: is she even trying to say? Anybody's guess, notion mongering.
Speaker 1: She calls Trump's proposal of tariffs on Mexico to get
Speaker 1: the Mexican governed to do more. Here is a little secret, Nancy.
Speaker 1: We have a massive crisis at the border, one of
Speaker 1: the Democrats. Until about five minutes ago, we're pretending wasn't
Speaker 1: a crisis, and now they only call it a humanitarian crisis.
Speaker 1: President Trump keeps trying to use the authority invested in
Speaker 1: him via the constitution, invested in him in the Constitution,
Speaker 1: and judges block him, Democrats obstruct him, and now he's
Speaker 1: trying one more thing to get the Mexican government to
Speaker 1: play ball. Here and she says, what, Oh, it's a
Speaker 1: distraction from Muller. How is this a distraction from you
Speaker 1: know what? The truth is that anything that he does,
Speaker 1: according to Democrats and Pelosi, is a distraction for Muller,
Speaker 1: because Muller is an obsession of the left. If someone
Speaker 1: truly has a problem with rumination, if they can't give
Speaker 1: up a certain thought you bring up something else, it's
Speaker 1: inherently a waste of their time and their mental energy
Speaker 1: in their own mind, because there's something so much more
Speaker 1: important going on, and the most important thing of all
Speaker 1: right now to Democrats is what's the most effective method
Speaker 1: of destroying Trump? And I notice how I don't just
Speaker 1: say defeat Nancy Pelosi. Let this slip. There was a
Speaker 1: meeting of Democrat rats last night here in the Swamp,
Speaker 1: and according to multiple sources there this was in Politico.
Speaker 1: Pelosi said that she doesn't want him to be just impeached.
Speaker 1: She wants him to go to prison. Ah quote, I
Speaker 1: don't want to see him peach. I want to see
Speaker 1: him in prison. WHOA, Nancy, isn't that interesting? So what
Speaker 1: she would like to see is the president lose the
Speaker 1: next election so that than they can prosecute him. Now,
Speaker 1: I would note this is why some of you who
Speaker 1: have been telling me and others all along that Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton should be prosecuted. I note you have a point here.
Speaker 1: Our good faith is never reciprocated. On the other side,
Speaker 1: they don't say, oh, well, Hillary Clinton broke the law
Speaker 1: very obviously. She was falsely and unfairly bailed out by
Speaker 1: none other than sanctimoni is Jim Comi himself. And now
Speaker 1: we could the president could assign the dj to look
Speaker 1: at that, and a prosecutor could make a different decision
Speaker 1: and bring charges. The statute of limitations on the stuff
Speaker 1: that Hillary did has not run yet. It is not over.
Speaker 1: Why hasn't trumped on that, Well, I would say to you, well,
Speaker 1: because we don't want to set a precedent of using
Speaker 1: the law to go after political opponents. It's better for
Speaker 1: the country. It's it's a judgment call here. It's better
Speaker 1: for the country to move past this. Well, it's better
Speaker 1: for the country if we set a precedent. It's better
Speaker 1: for the country if the other side would also play
Speaker 1: by the same rules. I don't know that we can
Speaker 1: think that they would. Here you have the third most
Speaker 1: powerful member of the United States government, third in line
Speaker 1: for the presidency, Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, saying
Speaker 1: she wants President Trump to go to prison. And this
Speaker 1: is what I want to hone in on for a second,
Speaker 1: go to prison for what? For obstruction of justice? That
Speaker 1: at best, at best is a stretch of a case,
Speaker 1: not an open and shotcase, not a clear case. It is.
Speaker 1: It is a stretch and then some. And let me
Speaker 1: tell you, as you all know, there are a lot
Speaker 1: of ways to interpret the law. There are a ton
Speaker 1: of statutes out there, you know, there are people that
Speaker 1: will tell you that every single one of us in
Speaker 1: breaking the law every day, we don't even think about it. Now,
Speaker 1: there's that book Three Felonies a Day and talks about
Speaker 1: all the different statutes that you probably violate. You don't
Speaker 1: even realize you're violating. And that's why the position of
Speaker 1: the old secret police chief in the KGB Lavanti barrier.
Speaker 1: You show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
Speaker 1: That's so unsettling to us, because we do know in
Speaker 1: this country, if you have people with power and they
Speaker 1: want to go after after you, there are enough laws
Speaker 1: and enough people who will interpret laws as they see
Speaker 1: fit that really no one is safe. And the interpretations
Speaker 1: of the obstruction snatute that you see from those who
Speaker 1: are saying Donald Trump violated the law, they show exactly
Speaker 1: that mentality. We got to get him somehow. Remember Coomey, Mueller.
Speaker 1: These are guys who have come up with very sketchy
Speaker 1: prosecutorial theories in the past. James Comey tried to bring
Speaker 1: charges against Martha Stewart that because she said she was innocent,
Speaker 1: she was propping up the stock price of her company,
Speaker 1: and because she owned stock in that company, her protestation
Speaker 1: of innocence was in itself a form of fraud. He
Speaker 1: was basically laughed out of the quartroom. What that is
Speaker 1: is James come a moron. No, but he figured, you know,
Speaker 1: let's go ahead hunting. Martha Stewart is famous and I
Speaker 1: want to take it out. That's right, you can look
Speaker 1: that one up. I mean, comes guys scary. He's a
Speaker 1: scary individual. No, Pelosi is scary. These people that they
Speaker 1: have no they have no sense of shame in what
Speaker 1: they do. There's no honor or dignity that they are
Speaker 1: trying to protect. They are willing to go to the
Speaker 1: mat to do anything. I mean, Nancy Pelosi is saying
Speaker 1: she wants Trump locked up. This shows the most senior
Speaker 1: ranks of the Democratic Party don't just want to defeat Trump.
Speaker 1: They want to destroy him and those around him. They
Speaker 1: are obsessed with making an example out of him. It's
Speaker 1: not merely enough that they can end the Trumpian nightmare,
Speaker 1: you see. They want to make sure it never comes back.
Speaker 1: No one else will ever try to do to them
Speaker 1: what Trump has done, which is to hold up the
Speaker 1: mirror to them and laugh in their smug faces. Osi
Speaker 1: saying that she wants the president to go to prison
Speaker 1: after he's defeated. Is by the way, people who would
Speaker 1: point out, oh but Buck, what about lock her up
Speaker 1: with Hillary? Lock her up? Yeah, that was a political
Speaker 1: chant during the election. Has President Trump directed his Department
Speaker 1: of Justice to reopen the email investigation? No he has not.
Speaker 1: Could he, yes he could. One prosecutor and or one
Speaker 1: FBI director declining to bring charges does not erase the charges.
Speaker 1: He does not have the power of pardon, so it
Speaker 1: is not the same thing. And Hillary did break the
Speaker 1: law clearly, repeatedly, obviously, and she was held to be
Speaker 1: above the law by the medium, by the Democratic Party.
Speaker 1: So lock her up wasn't a question of being mean
Speaker 1: to Hillary. It was pointing out the truth that we
Speaker 1: all knew was there, which is that she was never
Speaker 1: going to be locked up. She was never going to
Speaker 1: be charged because she was at Clinton, she was a Democrat,
Speaker 1: and she was part of the machine. But on the
Speaker 1: other's side, when the Democrats are threatening to lock up Republicans,
Speaker 1: they actually do it. Scooter Libby wasn't someone that they
Speaker 1: were just chanting lock him up. They were sending him
Speaker 1: to prison for a few years for nothing, trying to
Speaker 1: get Karl Rove trying to get Cheney, Patrick Fitzgerald, a
Speaker 1: little slimy prosecutor doing whatever he could to just get
Speaker 1: a scalp justify his Special Council maneuvering. These Democrats, these leftists,
Speaker 1: they think that they are righteous. They think they're doing
Speaker 1: a good thing when they lock somebody up, when they
Speaker 1: send them away, I mean Pelosi and Schumer. You know,
Speaker 1: they would cheer openly if somehow, say the Attorney General
Speaker 1: of the State of New York could lock up Ivanka
Speaker 1: or Donald Trump Junior. They're so spiteful, and this is
Speaker 1: what the president is up against every day. It's why
Speaker 1: when they complain about his tweets and always so mean,
Speaker 1: and why don't you see how mean he is? Ar
Speaker 1: I say he's mean. Trump isn't the one who's locking
Speaker 1: up democrats. Trump hasn't sicked his Department of Justice on
Speaker 1: his political opponents or the irs like Obama on his
Speaker 1: political opponents. And then just Leo let people get their
Speaker 1: lives crossed, their life savings wiped out, their reputations ruined.
Speaker 1: You know, every time someone wants to tell me, you know,
Speaker 1: I don't like Trump's tweets, or I don't like his
Speaker 1: STYLEA say, why don't you tell that to General Flynn.
Speaker 1: Where's the prominent Democrat? Where is the former member of
Speaker 1: the Obama administration who's in prison? And don't tell me, Oh,
Speaker 1: they didn't break the law, Yes they did. Hillary Clinton
Speaker 1: wants the secretary of State. She egregiously broke the law,
Speaker 1: and some of her top advisors, Cheryl Mills and others,
Speaker 1: they were assisting her in this process, destroying evidence, lying
Speaker 1: to investigators. All this was happening, no consequences. Why is
Speaker 1: it only our side suffers consequences in these matters? This
Speaker 1: is all just Trump's arrangement syndrome playing out in real time.
Speaker 1: We see the Trump's arrangement syndrome they have in the
Speaker 1: way that they treat, for example, Paul Maniford solitary confinement
Speaker 1: at Rikers Island. I mean, these Democrats are going after
Speaker 1: Trump in bad faith because he is a threat to
Speaker 1: their power and also their sense of their own self worth.
Speaker 1: So whatever they can do to ruin him is justified.
Speaker 1: Pelosi's part of that camp too, and she is rough.
Speaker 1: I don't know how these Democrats sleep at night. I
Speaker 1: really mean that. I don't know how they can live
Speaker 1: with themselves. I would never I would never be comfortable
Speaker 1: going after a Democrats family, Democrat politicians family members to
Speaker 1: send some kind of message that you know, we're gonna
Speaker 1: get you, We're going to score one for our team
Speaker 1: by locking up your son or your daughter or your wife. Oh,
Speaker 1: you mean like what the Democrat state attorney general did
Speaker 1: in Virginia or I'm sorry, the federal prosecutor, not the
Speaker 1: state attorney general did in Virginia to Bob McDonald gonna
Speaker 1: throw his wife in the slammer for prosecutions, I mean
Speaker 1: for a corruption. She wasn't even an elected official. Look
Speaker 1: at all the efforts to take down Republicans with just
Speaker 1: expansive and preposterous interpretations of criminal law, and just the
Speaker 1: last five six years, there's nothing you see like this
Speaker 1: from the other side. They went after Scott Walker with
Speaker 1: John doean Wisconsin, total headhunting, totally politicized, Chris Christie with Bridgegate.
Speaker 1: Bob McDonald did some shady stuff, but he shouldn't have
Speaker 1: been facing eleven years in federal prison. They went after
Speaker 1: him in Virginia. They went after Rick Perry for firing
Speaker 1: somebody that he was allowed to fire in the state
Speaker 1: of Texas. They name after name Republican after Republican Ted Stevens.
Speaker 1: Federal prosecutors stacked the deck against him, hit exculpatory evidence,
Speaker 1: totally violated the most basic tenets of being an officer
Speaker 1: of the court, being a lawyer. Where's the equivalent on
Speaker 1: the other side, where are the Democrats that have been
Speaker 1: unfairly targeted through through legal means that were and they
Speaker 1: were innocent. It just doesn't happen. They fight dirty. I
Speaker 1: don't know what else to say. They fight dirty, Pelosi, Schumer, Schiff,
Speaker 1: they fight with no sense of honor whatsoever. And that's
Speaker 1: why I'm glad that Pelosi will come out and say
Speaker 1: these things that she wants the President to get sent
Speaker 1: to prison. Really she thinks that he should be in
Speaker 1: a cell for what because he got frustrated with the
Speaker 1: witch hunt against him and told his senior White House counsel,
Speaker 1: who he's supposed to be able to count on for confidentiality.
Speaker 1: By the way, they could have asserted executive privilege. They
Speaker 1: could have fought all this stuff. You know, he go
Speaker 1: fire that guy, he should have fired. I mean, the
Speaker 1: whole special counsel was a It was a hit job.
Speaker 1: And he knew it, and now they want to take
Speaker 1: him down and send him to prison because he didn't
Speaker 1: like the hit job they created against him. We are
Speaker 1: fighting against a very dark, very evil side, my friends.
Speaker 1: They don't come at us, they don't come at Trump
Speaker 1: and those around him with any sense of dignity. They
Speaker 1: don't care what they have to do to win, and
Speaker 1: unfortunately that means that we are wartime conservatives here. We
Speaker 1: are fighting against a political ideology that doesn't just seek
Speaker 1: to be in power, but seeks the destruction of those
Speaker 1: that stand the way of their power. Pelosi is just
Speaker 1: an example of it. So be prepared for this election
Speaker 1: is going to get ugly. It's going to get nasty.
Speaker 1: In the early stages, they're focused on each other. They
Speaker 1: don't really know what to do with this Democrat primary.
Speaker 1: But as soon as they have a real candidate to
Speaker 1: rally behind, you will see a ferocity from the left
Speaker 1: that shocking even to those of us who have been
Speaker 1: around Antifa at their worst and heard the chance from
Speaker 1: various left wing protest groups cheering about how we need
Speaker 1: socialist revolution in this country, or yelling about racist murdering cops,
Speaker 1: or it's going to be worse than all of that.
Speaker 1: That's a prediction I'm very confident in. Unfortunately for this country,
Speaker 1: got much more show coming your way, teams, stay with me.
Speaker 1: Mexico is going to either change its behavior about these
Speaker 1: caravans that are coming through Mexican territory. But it's a
Speaker 1: long way. It's a very long way from Honduras or
Speaker 1: Guatemala or El Salvador through Mexico to the US Mexico border.
Speaker 1: This is not easy. It's not an easy thing, and
Speaker 1: there's a lot of opportunity for the Mexican government along
Speaker 1: the way to say sorry, you're not able to just
Speaker 1: transit our territory. Mexico has sovereignty, they have laws. Now,
Speaker 1: why hasn't the Mexican government done more up to this
Speaker 1: point to stop the inflow of illegals into this country
Speaker 1: across their border from Central America. Remember, these are not
Speaker 1: Mexicans were coming across because if they were, we could
Speaker 1: quickly deport them. Because they come from Central America, they
Speaker 1: fall under different rules, and that's how they're exploiting the system.
Speaker 1: That's how we have now one hundred and thirty three
Speaker 1: thousand in the last month, a stunning number looking like
Speaker 1: it will be well over well over a million for
Speaker 1: the year. One million, seventy two thousand illegals. Wait a second, yeah,
Speaker 1: one million sevent two thousand illegals this year is the
Speaker 1: twenty nineteen prediction. According to the Washington Examiner here, this
Speaker 1: year has seen six hundred and seventy six thousand, three
Speaker 1: hundred and fifteen apprehensions, which is up about one hundred
Speaker 1: percent over the same time from last year. Democrats were
Speaker 1: saying a couple of months ago, this isn't a crisis.
Speaker 1: Is a manufactured crisis? You remember that, a manufactured crisis.
Speaker 1: And now what do you see from all the major
Speaker 1: news organizations. Are they reporting on the frauds, the fakes,
Speaker 1: the abuses of the system, people who are skipping our
Speaker 1: immigration lines, making a mockery of our immigration laws. Now,
Speaker 1: of course not. They report on how the beds are
Speaker 1: not soft enough, the pillows are not fluffy enough, the
Speaker 1: food is not tasty enough, that we are giving to
Speaker 1: illegals who are pouring into this country clearly and openly
Speaker 1: so that they can not have to go through our
Speaker 1: immigration process. They are not asylum seekers. They are fraudulently
Speaker 1: using our asylum process. That's not the same thing. Just
Speaker 1: wanting to be in America does not qualify you for asylum.
Speaker 1: If they were just seeking safety from gang violence in Honduras,
Speaker 1: they might want to stay in a very large Spanish
Speaker 1: speaking nation to ourself called Mexico. But they don't want
Speaker 1: to stop in Mexico. They make a very long trek
Speaker 1: through Mexico to here. Why is that people want to
Speaker 1: be in America. You want to get access to all
Speaker 1: the benefits courtesy of the taxpayer. He's holding the line
Speaker 1: for America, Buck Sexton. His back. Democrats Congress has been
Speaker 1: a disaster. They won't change, They won't do anything. They
Speaker 1: want free immigration, immigration to flour into our country. They
Speaker 1: don't care who it is, they don't care what kind
Speaker 1: of a record they have. It doesn't make any difference.
Speaker 1: They're not going to be changing anything. We go to them,
Speaker 1: we say, let's fix the immigration laws. They just wanted
Speaker 1: to do badly. The worst it does, the happier they are.
Speaker 1: So that's the way it is that I guess that's
Speaker 1: the way it'll be till after the election. It's a
Speaker 1: disgrace because frankly, we could jop this problem so easy.
Speaker 1: If the Democrats in Congress. We're willing to make some changes,
Speaker 1: but they're not. And that's the way it is. They
Speaker 1: want to just write it out. They want to have
Speaker 1: a real bad time. They don't care about crime, they
Speaker 1: don't care about drugs pouring into our country. They couldn't
Speaker 1: care less. It's all politics and travicious business. Is anything
Speaker 1: that Trump said there untrue? Nope, everything he said it
Speaker 1: is true. It's pretty obvious at this point, isn't it.
Speaker 1: There's nothing about the Trump position when it comes to
Speaker 1: Democrats in the border that is hard to grasp. They
Speaker 1: don't want this to be fixed. They do not believe
Speaker 1: it should be fixed because it's a problem that benefits them.
Speaker 1: What do they offer up as solutions? All you hear
Speaker 1: from them is criticism. What would be the bill that
Speaker 1: they would pass? What enforcement mechanism? That's always the place
Speaker 1: you have to go, the two areas of the immigration
Speaker 1: debate where you can always corner smarmie lives for those
Speaker 1: of you who want to know how you can always
Speaker 1: get them into a place they don't want to be.
Speaker 1: If you're going to debate this stuff, which I can't say,
Speaker 1: I necessarily recommend you do, because there's a lot of
Speaker 1: the virtue signaling crazy left running around these days on
Speaker 1: immigration issues. But there are two places where you can
Speaker 1: usually get the one is on what is bad about
Speaker 1: illegal immigration? Ask a liberal what is bad about illegal immigration?
Speaker 1: And they might say, well, you know, people should obey
Speaker 1: the law, but that's not I mean, what's the downside
Speaker 1: of it? Because if it's just people should obey the law,
Speaker 1: but there's no downside, if nothing bad happens as a
Speaker 1: result of illegal immigration, then why not just change the
Speaker 1: law and say that it's not illegal anymore? Right? What
Speaker 1: is bad about stealing? Buck? Well, you know, if I
Speaker 1: get a package send to me and somebody comes onto
Speaker 1: my porch and steals my package, I don't have the
Speaker 1: thing that I paid for, and that's a problem for me. Right,
Speaker 1: it's not what is bad about stealing is not that
Speaker 1: the government says don't steal, So when people do it,
Speaker 1: they're not going along with the government says. There's a
Speaker 1: real reason for it. There's a loss, a downside, someone suffers,
Speaker 1: something bad happens. So try to get a lib to
Speaker 1: explain to you what the downside of a legal immigration is,
Speaker 1: because they will reject the following that it is a
Speaker 1: violation of our sovereignty, That it is a cost when
Speaker 1: it comes to schools, emergency rooms, it's a burden on
Speaker 1: the taxpayer. Uh, That there are crime, there's crime associated
Speaker 1: with legal immigration. And even they say, well it's lesser,
Speaker 1: it's less crime than you'd see in the native population.
Speaker 1: Well it should be zero, because they shouldn't be here
Speaker 1: in the first place. But all all the different things
Speaker 1: that you or I would point to you as to
Speaker 1: why legal immigration is a problematic thing, not to an
Speaker 1: illegal thing, they reject. So trying to get them to
Speaker 1: explain what's bad about illegal immigration, you'll notice that they
Speaker 1: can't do it because they've been so conditioned. They've been
Speaker 1: so brainwashed into thinking that, you know, they're doing the
Speaker 1: jobs we won't do. They work harder than Americans, they're
Speaker 1: better than Americans. Illegal immigrants are doesn't matter what you know,
Speaker 1: what race, creed, or color you are. As an American.
Speaker 1: Illegal immigrants the Democrats believe, or at least say, are
Speaker 1: better than you are based on what who knows. They
Speaker 1: just say it a lot, and people who will repeat
Speaker 1: that feel like they're they're the good guys. They're doing
Speaker 1: the right thing. They're signaling their virtue to everybody else
Speaker 1: or a nation of immigrants, the dumbest thing that people
Speaker 1: will say on this issue, but they say it all
Speaker 1: the time. So that's one area where you can get them.
Speaker 1: And the other is, okay, where do we have enforcement?
Speaker 1: And I know that this is one that I bring
Speaker 1: up on the show, but it's really worth digging into
Speaker 1: because if there's no downside for the illegal immigrant, right,
Speaker 1: the first question is essentially what's the downside to America
Speaker 1: of illegal immigration? Liberals can't answer it. They don't have answers.
Speaker 1: They because they don't believe there's a downside. But also,
Speaker 1: how can we stop illegal immigration if there's no punishment
Speaker 1: for illegal immigrants, if there's no enforcement that we have
Speaker 1: the political will to follow through on, why would this
Speaker 1: problem ever go away? How could anyone who's got a
Speaker 1: fourth grade reading level from Honduras prefer staying in Honduras
Speaker 1: and poverty to come into the United States where, at
Speaker 1: a minimum, the social programs and the welfare programs are
Speaker 1: going to be a lot better. Oh but buck, they
Speaker 1: can't access those, that's a lie, especially if they have
Speaker 1: a kid here. They can access them, but they can
Speaker 1: join a household with there are benefits that you know
Speaker 1: will be able to sustain them. If they go to
Speaker 1: an emergency room, they have to be treated. They're a
Speaker 1: whole bunch of you know, they if they if they
Speaker 1: call police, I mean they're they're they're using this same
Speaker 1: roads that you're paying for. I mean, they're benefiting from
Speaker 1: being here. It's why people want to be here. They're
Speaker 1: not living in the shadows. By the way, They're getting jobs,
Speaker 1: they're buying things, they're living in houses. That this whole
Speaker 1: living in the shadows. There's another lie, another thing that
Speaker 1: the media propped up for a long time. You'd have
Speaker 1: you'd have illegal immigrants who are doing interviews on the
Speaker 1: steps of the Congress and saying, you know, oh, I'm
Speaker 1: living in the shadows, and I'm sick of living the shadows.
Speaker 1: Like I'm pretty sure you're standing in the sunshine on
Speaker 1: the building, on the steps of the building where the
Speaker 1: laws are made that you're violating. Well, but I'm living
Speaker 1: in the shadows. Well that's a choice that has been made,
Speaker 1: isn't it. But what enforcement mechanism is acceptable? What is
Speaker 1: a lot? What are we allowed to do. We can't arrest,
Speaker 1: we can't separate families, we can't arrest and detain, we
Speaker 1: can't find them, we're not allowed to rapidly deport them.
Speaker 1: We can't just send them back to their country of boards.
Speaker 1: We have to put them through a very long process,
Speaker 1: and they know that by the end of the process
Speaker 1: it's unlikely they'll be sent home anyway. If they don't
Speaker 1: like the way it's going, they can just not show
Speaker 1: up for their hearing through the asylum process. So you
Speaker 1: ask them those two question and then you'll know. Okay,
Speaker 1: so you want Democrats on the left one open borders,
Speaker 1: but don't have the courage, the honesty, the decency to
Speaker 1: say so in public. They'd rather play this game of oh, no, no,
Speaker 1: we we just we just want to, you know, see
Speaker 1: how things go. We're not really we're not really sure
Speaker 1: that we want open borders. I'm quite sure. I'm quite
Speaker 1: sure that they do. And we would be the only
Speaker 1: major industrialized country in the world, and really the only
Speaker 1: country in the world that I can think of, that
Speaker 1: has this problem that does not think that it's allowed
Speaker 1: to control who comes in and who does not. What
Speaker 1: do Democrats offer as a rebuttal to all of this,
Speaker 1: What do they say that is supposed to give us
Speaker 1: some sense of where they would go if they were
Speaker 1: in power. It's it's astonishing. And they blamed Trump for
Speaker 1: all this too, and I want to go here. You
Speaker 1: had a jenk Uger from the Young Turks, the kind
Speaker 1: of digital COMI outfit online and Kenlee mckinanny and old
Speaker 1: buddy of mine who's the RNC spokes when they were
Speaker 1: on CNN with bro Cuomo, who was like, Yo, jenk
Speaker 1: do you even have you been taking your metrics? Yo?
Speaker 1: Using that wake gana. But they were on last night
Speaker 1: and they had an exchange. Producer Mike pulled it, please
Speaker 1: play it. Under Obama, we had less undocumented immigrants than
Speaker 1: we do under Trump. Trump said, Oh, I'm gonna get tough,
Speaker 1: and I'm such a tough guy, and I'm gonna separate
Speaker 1: the families. I'm gonna put the kids in this place
Speaker 1: and the appearance of the moms and the other place.
Speaker 1: I'm so tough. And what do we have? We have
Speaker 1: more undocumented immigrants, not less. It's say a thirteen year record.
Speaker 1: He's a miserable failure on this issue. So if they
Speaker 1: voted for him thinking he was gonna stop undocumented immigrants,
Speaker 1: he didn't even do that, and now we have an
Speaker 1: absolute disaster on our heads because he doesn't know how
Speaker 1: to address the core issue. Why are they coming in
Speaker 1: the first place. You just think if you punch him
Speaker 1: in the face, but they're gonna go away? Oh wow,
Speaker 1: you mean CNN wasn't giving equal time there when that
Speaker 1: guy's just blabbering on about this A few things. This
Speaker 1: we need to call. I hear this from leftists all
Speaker 1: the time now that we need to deal with the
Speaker 1: root cause of why they want to come here. This
Speaker 1: is crazy. We're gonna fix every country that's in a
Speaker 1: crappy situation, that's poor, that has lawlessness, that has rampant
Speaker 1: crime all over the world, or else it's our fault
Speaker 1: if they all want to come here. I mean, which
Speaker 1: is it? Is America? According to the left two involved
Speaker 1: in other countries business or not involved enough. It seems
Speaker 1: to shift not based on anything other than whatever's going
Speaker 1: to get them the most applause from the you know,
Speaker 1: Brooklyn and Santa Monica set whatever, whatever, We'll get them,
Speaker 1: the opportunity to bash Trump. That's what it will be.
Speaker 1: At any point in time. We're gonna We're gonna fix
Speaker 1: Central America. Central America has been in rough shape for decades.
Speaker 1: But this is just a This is an unsious response,
Speaker 1: an unserious answer, because they can answer the other questions
Speaker 1: I ask you, which is who, what enforcement should we have,
Speaker 1: how should we stop people from coming here? And why
Speaker 1: is illegal immigration bad? No answers to this. None. They
Speaker 1: don't have any answers to this, and that's why they
Speaker 1: come up with this complete distraction of, Oh, we need
Speaker 1: to fix the reasons that people want to come here
Speaker 1: in those other countries. That's never going to happen. America
Speaker 1: is going to be a better deal than staying in
Speaker 1: El Salvador for the next fifty years. I assure you
Speaker 1: probably the next five hundred. Okay, America is America. A
Speaker 1: lot of people want to come here. There's a there's
Speaker 1: a complicated immigration process that people have to go through
Speaker 1: to come here and live here legally, but not if
Speaker 1: you're from Central America. But on the point, the other
Speaker 1: aspect of that little debate, he aud there with Kaylee
Speaker 1: and the commie immigration as Trump's fault. Now, let's unpack
Speaker 1: this for a moment. It was the Obama administration that
Speaker 1: first dealt with the issue of the unaccompanied minor surge,
Speaker 1: and there was no effort to deal with this. The
Speaker 1: word started to get out more and more the laws
Speaker 1: that these migrants are exploiting. They've been exploiting for years.
Speaker 1: It's just the tidal wave was building, and now we're
Speaker 1: finally at the point where, because they have taken away
Speaker 1: the president's ability as commander in chief to make determinations
Speaker 1: about immigration policy, his hands are tied. Now, should the
Speaker 1: Congress have acted when we had a majority of the
Speaker 1: House this in it? Yeah, I think that's fair. Should
Speaker 1: there have been greater focus on this, absolutely? But judges
Speaker 1: prevent the Trump administration from doing it. Remember there was
Speaker 1: going to be a DOCTA deal. There was going to
Speaker 1: be a deal with greater border security in new measures.
Speaker 1: But then they would they would extend out DOCCA, and
Speaker 1: then a judge came along and said, well, you know,
Speaker 1: you don't get to make that deal, President Trump, because
Speaker 1: you cannot undo what Obama, as commander in chief, chose
Speaker 1: to do. How is that supposed to work? How does
Speaker 1: one president have power the next president does not. Oh,
Speaker 1: this is what you get when you're dealing in liberal world.
Speaker 1: This is what you get when you're dealing with the left.
Speaker 1: There are no principles. There's just different ways of allocating
Speaker 1: and distributing power to their side. The border is a mess,
Speaker 1: it's a disaster. It would be less of a disaster
Speaker 1: perhaps if Democrats had not been lying, I mean lying
Speaker 1: for six months now about caravans, all the caravans. I
Speaker 1: remember when the nation the game was, caravans will never
Speaker 1: make it to the southern border, they'll break up. It's
Speaker 1: it's fearmongering. Remember going into the midterm election. Oh, the
Speaker 1: caravans were fearmongering. Now the caravans are showing up like
Speaker 1: every day. But it was it was the left was saying,
Speaker 1: was Fox News right wing fearmongering with the caravans. No,
Speaker 1: now it's you know, one hundred and fifty thousand or
Speaker 1: so a month that are showing up. It wasn't a
Speaker 1: crisis as recently as March, maybe April, they're saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: it's not really a crisis. Oh no, it's a crisis.
Speaker 1: Facilities are overwhelmed. Processing can't can't take place the way
Speaker 1: it needs to. People are saying that, I mean, it
Speaker 1: might not have been a good idea to risk sending
Speaker 1: terrorist operatives across our southern border, you know, five or
Speaker 1: even ten years ago, because there's at least a law
Speaker 1: enforcement presence there, they might get caught. But now it's
Speaker 1: they're so overwhelmed they can't check. They don't know who's
Speaker 1: coming in, they don't know what's going on. All you'd
Speaker 1: have you could sneak anybody into this country. I mean,
Speaker 1: you could sneak been lauding himself into America right now
Speaker 1: if all you did was give the cartels some cash
Speaker 1: and say, hey, I want my own I want to
Speaker 1: go make a run for it. I don't want to
Speaker 1: turn myself in. But the next time you hand in
Speaker 1: a foul or you know, you push the cartels, push
Speaker 1: a thousand people to surrender at one place along the border,
Speaker 1: and all of the border patrol agents have to get
Speaker 1: taken off the line to deal with that. Make sure
Speaker 1: no one's sick, make sure no one's dehydrated, make sure
Speaker 1: make sure they bring them pillows and blankets and everything
Speaker 1: fast enough, because they're now being treated like the Red Cross.
Speaker 1: You could a mile or two from that crossing run
Speaker 1: anybody you want to cross the border. There's no way
Speaker 1: border patrol is going to be able to catch them
Speaker 1: or stop them. They just don't have the resources so effectively.
Speaker 1: In bits and pieces. The border is wide open. You
Speaker 1: just have to pay the cartels the money they want.
Speaker 1: Any anybody would be able to sneak in the country
Speaker 1: right now. And what the Democrats are offer on this,
Speaker 1: You know Trump? Trump is evil, he's orange, He's bad.
Speaker 1: No solutions, know nothing. Oh, put more judges of the border.
Speaker 1: Make it more inviting for people to come here illegally,
Speaker 1: make it easier for them to abuse our system. That's
Speaker 1: the answer the Democrats give us. And then they say
Speaker 1: Trump has done a terrible job. They won't help, They
Speaker 1: won't fix it. Judges tie Trump's hands. Democrats demogot the issue,
Speaker 1: won't give him the money for the wall, won't give
Speaker 1: him money for border security, won't pass laws to fix
Speaker 1: the loopholes. And it's Trump's fault. It must be nice
Speaker 1: to be so delusional. I don't know. Maybe being a
Speaker 1: Democrat would be fun. You don't have to live in reality.
Speaker 1: I'll be right back. Days before Boston's Pride parade fills
Speaker 1: the city streets celebrating the LGBTQ community, another parade proposal
Speaker 1: is causing an uproar on social media. Not hateful people.
Speaker 1: We want to have a super happy fun time. John
Speaker 1: Hugo is the president of a group calling itself Super
Speaker 1: Happy Fun America. His goal to create a straight Pride parade.
Speaker 1: We want people to be a weird yea that there
Speaker 1: are not only one side to things, and there little
Speaker 1: a lot of people who are uncomfortable with some of
Speaker 1: the things that are going on in our country and
Speaker 1: they're afraid to speak up. A straight Pride parade in Boston.
Speaker 1: Producer Mike, what is this just? Are they just trolling?
Speaker 1: Are these guys serious? It sounds serious. When I first
Speaker 1: saw the headline and watch the video, I thought they
Speaker 1: were trolling. But he sounds serious and he does have
Speaker 1: some serious So his proposition is too. He wants to
Speaker 1: launch this and then he's leaving it open to it.
Speaker 1: He's like, listen, we want to do this because people
Speaker 1: need to be represented. And then next year we'd like
Speaker 1: to join the Gay Pride Parade and have it on
Speaker 1: the same day. So sound sincere hmm. I don't know
Speaker 1: if the Straight Pride Parade will be able to successfully
Speaker 1: be incorporated into the Gay Pride. That's a stretched and
Speaker 1: I told you during a break they tried to rope.
Speaker 1: But so on their on their pamphlet or whatever they're
Speaker 1: using as their literature for this, they use the picture
Speaker 1: of Brad Pitt, and I just saw a little while
Speaker 1: ago Brad Pitt was like sent out a notice to them,
Speaker 1: like get my face off this. Don't want to be
Speaker 1: part of any part of this. That's such a random
Speaker 1: Brad Pitt. I mean, I suppose, I suppose you's a
Speaker 1: handsome fellow, but okay, whatever, Um, yeah, when's this? When's
Speaker 1: the Pride Parade? And well Europe in New York? I'm
Speaker 1: in DC. Yeah, No, the ars actually was just I
Speaker 1: think this last weekend. It was very recent, and I
Speaker 1: think Boston's is coming up very soon, and they file
Speaker 1: they want to get this for August. Look, I used
Speaker 1: to I used to live right next to the street
Speaker 1: where the Pride Parade with walk in New York. And
Speaker 1: all I can tell you is, with the exception of
Speaker 1: like military or veterans parades, I'm just anti parade in general.
Speaker 1: I don't think they're fun. I think they're super loud.
Speaker 1: I think they leave a huge mess. Yeah yeah, that's right,
Speaker 1: get off my lawn. I just don't like any parades basically, so,
Speaker 1: I hope you have enjoyed your trip to London. Mister
Speaker 1: President Boris didn't have time for you. All of London
Speaker 1: turned out unanimously to basically dropped their drawers and moon you.
Speaker 1: Plus on all prominent buildings in London, things designed to
Speaker 1: embarrass or upset you were prominently projected display. I think
Speaker 1: it's very difficult with Trump, though, because he is an
Speaker 1: egomaniac and he sees all this as being about him.
Speaker 1: What's wrong with him? Where to begin? I mean, but
Speaker 1: I'm serious, I mean narcissistic personality disorder. But he clearly
Speaker 1: appears less capable of sustaining his own thoughts for longer
Speaker 1: than four to six seconds. I mean, I mean it
Speaker 1: used to be he couldn't follow anyone else's conversation. Now
Speaker 1: he doesn't seem to be able to follow his own
Speaker 1: train of thought. There you go. That's the MSNBC version
Speaker 1: of Trump's visit to the UK. For the rest of us,
Speaker 1: we focus on if you want the pomp and circumstance
Speaker 1: of meeting with the royal family, there you could focus
Speaker 1: on Trump at least trying to advance the early stages
Speaker 1: of a trade deal with the UK specific trade deal,
Speaker 1: Trump encouraging them that Brexit will be okay. Isn't it
Speaker 1: so funny of all these Americans who don't even really
Speaker 1: know anything about Brexit, who talks so much about democracy,
Speaker 1: that's all we have to defend our democracy in this country.
Speaker 1: Trump undermines our democracy. They love this concept of democracy
Speaker 1: and two people vote in a way they don't like,
Speaker 1: and then they don't believe in democracy so much anymore.
Speaker 1: The Brexit vote was a plebiscite. The people came out,
Speaker 1: they made a determination with the future of the country.
Speaker 1: And yet the establishment, the bureaucracy, perhaps you didn't say,
Speaker 1: its own version of the deep state in the UK
Speaker 1: and the left are just trying to say, well, no,
Speaker 1: we're not going to do that. It's not going to happen.
Speaker 1: And Trump encouraging them to suggest that, you know, this
Speaker 1: is all It's all gonna be fine, You're gonna this
Speaker 1: will work out for you. It's going to be great
Speaker 1: for you, is evidence of him being a bad guy.
Speaker 1: Why doesn't he get credit for supporting the will of
Speaker 1: the British people. Why isn't that something that is a
Speaker 1: headline that you'll ever see. Donald Trump supports Britain's desire
Speaker 1: for sovereignty. Donald Trump supports Britain's desire to have control
Speaker 1: over its own destiny as a nation. That's what I
Speaker 1: see happening here. But that's certainly not with these Lipsey
Speaker 1: and Rachel Maddow started that out. I think she might
Speaker 1: have been broken by Trump too. I don't know that
Speaker 1: she is really going to be able to come back
Speaker 1: from this. She was a Russian collusion delusionist extraordinaire, really
Speaker 1: almost in a class by herself, and created this ratings juggernaut,
Speaker 1: at least by MSNBC standards, with the implicit promise to
Speaker 1: her audience that they would eventually be able to cover
Speaker 1: the destruction of the Trump presidency as brought about by
Speaker 1: the Muller investigation. That was the underlying theme. That was
Speaker 1: what they That was what people that watched that show
Speaker 1: assumed they were going to get. Instead, what they got was, Oh, no,
Speaker 1: that's not going to happen at all. Turns out that's
Speaker 1: not the case. That's not the direction any of this
Speaker 1: is going in. How do you keep watching Rachel Maddow
Speaker 1: night after night if you're somebody in that audience who
Speaker 1: saw all of that. Never mind the whole well, you know,
Speaker 1: we have a page of Trump's tax return. I mean,
Speaker 1: that was the whole thing. Was so embarrassing. But you know, MSNBC.
Speaker 1: I often I rip on CNN because I know CNN
Speaker 1: better because I spent a couple of years as a
Speaker 1: contributor there. But MSNBC is really no better. And the
Speaker 1: amount of hatred they have for this president, I mean
Speaker 1: the degree of the hatred, the depth of it. I've
Speaker 1: been speaking about how you know, Pelosi and the Democrats
Speaker 1: really want to see punishment against Trump and those around him.
Speaker 1: It's not enough to defeat them on the battle they
Speaker 1: want them. They want them to lose. You know, if
Speaker 1: this was a boxing match, they don't just want to
Speaker 1: win by technical knockout. They want to see if they
Speaker 1: can do brain damage. I mean, they want to see
Speaker 1: if they can really hurt somebody. And that's the way
Speaker 1: they view their role in fighting against Trump and Trump
Speaker 1: is m and the media is right alongside for it.
Speaker 1: They cheer this stuff on. I mean the fact that
Speaker 1: Maniford is in solitary confinement at Riker's Island, a notorious
Speaker 1: and frightening prison in New York City. Maniforts and solitary confinement.
Speaker 1: This is an old man who didn't report all of
Speaker 1: his income. Folks, come on solitary confinement. He's not an
Speaker 1: axe murderer. Where are all the you know, the the
Speaker 1: civil libertarians out there, Where all the leftists who are
Speaker 1: always saying, oh, we've got mass incarceration and a police
Speaker 1: state and this and then the other thing. Where are
Speaker 1: all they do? They have no principles whatsoever. I look,
Speaker 1: I give credit where it's due, even when it's due
Speaker 1: to bad people, were people who are foolish or people
Speaker 1: who are mistaken. And you know, AOC at least is
Speaker 1: willing to say what the heck is going on with
Speaker 1: Maniford and solitary confinement. You know, solitary confinement is is
Speaker 1: rough stuff. You know. I'm doing a Tucker Carlson's show tonight,
Speaker 1: and I found it so interesting, not just the monologue
Speaker 1: that he did last night on economic nationalism in the
Speaker 1: United States, but that he was willing to say, speaking
Speaker 1: of giving credit where it's due, he was willing to
Speaker 1: say that Elizabeth Warren's economic ideas should be taken seriously
Speaker 1: and a really sensible in many ways. Now, I don't
Speaker 1: think he meant all of them, and he did point
Speaker 1: out that she's an extremist on a whole bunch of
Speaker 1: other intersectional, voke social justice left movements. But when she
Speaker 1: talks about how corporations are in this country mercenary in
Speaker 1: a way that we never could have imagined even forty
Speaker 1: or fifty years ago, corporations will, well, one, they will
Speaker 1: incorporate if they can, They'll offshore, they'll offshore their funds,
Speaker 1: I'll try to evade taxes. They'll send jobs overseas. They'll
Speaker 1: do all of these things, and yet they do get
Speaker 1: benefit from being American companies. It depends if they incorporate
Speaker 1: here or not. That obviously changes this. But they can
Speaker 1: go to American courts for redress. They benefit from the
Speaker 1: American university system in their hiring processes. They bet you know,
Speaker 1: there's you know, and you start to see that we
Speaker 1: can create this story to this story about how if
Speaker 1: you just set up things the way that conservatives have
Speaker 1: been saying for a long time, everything will be fine.
Speaker 1: But we're nowhere near that. Right. This is kind of
Speaker 1: the it's it's a version of the what do we
Speaker 1: do with China? Oh, we can't have tariffs because we're
Speaker 1: about free trade. Okay, well we don't have free trade
Speaker 1: with China. So now what you know, what do we
Speaker 1: do about the gutting of a lot of these especially
Speaker 1: rural communities, rust belt states, when they're losing jobs and
Speaker 1: they're losing social cohesion And oh, it's not it's not
Speaker 1: our problem. They you just move the companies that abandon
Speaker 1: them to set up elsewhere, set up overseas that only
Speaker 1: have a loyalty to their stock, to their stockholders. Does
Speaker 1: that that's something we can at least talk about. Oh no, Buck,
Speaker 1: of course, we're free market. We're free market. Well you
Speaker 1: look at a lot of the free marketeer talk and
Speaker 1: you start to see that their free market when it
Speaker 1: benefits them. But they like regulation, they like government help
Speaker 1: and intervention sometimes as well. The Tuckers at least opening
Speaker 1: up that conversation. And I'll be on with Tucker tonight
Speaker 1: at eight oh five Eastern if you get a chance
Speaker 1: to catch it or catch it on the replay and
Speaker 1: team I'll be back with you in just a moment.
Speaker 1: It disproportionately attacks women who don't have the private means
Speaker 1: to afford an abortion, and it's sort of like saying,
Speaker 1: you know, I support the troops, but I don't want
Speaker 1: to pay for pay them. That's that's the analogy here.
Speaker 1: Seth Malton apparently not very bright. I know he's got
Speaker 1: a bunch of fancy schools in his resume, and he
Speaker 1: served the military. That doesn't mean that he's smart on
Speaker 1: political issues. And to compare taxpayer funding for abortion to
Speaker 1: I support the troops, but I won't pay them. Wow,
Speaker 1: a stunning thing for him to say, A studying the
Speaker 1: grotesque framing of the issue. But let's understand that, as
Speaker 1: I have told you, you cannot be a Democrat in
Speaker 1: good standing and not be fully onboard with endorsed by
Speaker 1: in bed with Planned Parenthood, the single constituency on the
Speaker 1: left that you have no chance of achieving higher office
Speaker 1: if you offend, if you are considered even to be
Speaker 1: insufficiently devoted to supporting. It's not enough merely to be
Speaker 1: okay with them. You have to you have to celebrate
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood on the left. You have to suggest that
Speaker 1: Planned Parenthood is one of the great American organizations saving
Speaker 1: women's lives, taking a lot of babies lives, but saving
Speaker 1: women's lives day in and day out, unnecessary and irreplaceable
Speaker 1: women's liberation tool. One of the more appalling inversions of
Speaker 1: reality I've ever seen. Now, why is this getting so
Speaker 1: much attention today? Well, not just because of Moulton, but
Speaker 1: also your favorite Democrat contender right now. I don't know
Speaker 1: if he's your favorite or not. I'm just saying that
Speaker 1: for some reason, Joe Biden. Joe Biden had said initially
Speaker 1: that he did not he did not support the repeal
Speaker 1: of the High Amendment, and now he's had to walk
Speaker 1: that back. So all of a sudden, you have an
Speaker 1: opportunity for Democrats to jump jump in front of him
Speaker 1: and say that they are more devoted to the planned
Speaker 1: parenthood abortion on demand agenda, They're more devoted to the
Speaker 1: hard left in this country than Joe Biden is. Now
Speaker 1: there's some who are going to dig back into his
Speaker 1: past and see that Joe Biden. You know they're gonna
Speaker 1: keep calling it evolution. I mean, Joe Biden is just
Speaker 1: a classic politician. He's a slimy, demagoguery obsessed politician. He
Speaker 1: says whatever he has to say to please the most
Speaker 1: people whenever he says it. He has no moral core,
Speaker 1: He has no real beliefs other than a pursuit of Bidenism,
Speaker 1: but Biden had said that he supported the High Amendment. Now,
Speaker 1: just by way of quick review, the High Amendment says
Speaker 1: that you cannot have taxpayer funded abortion, you cannot have
Speaker 1: taxper found the abortion. And then Biden said that he
Speaker 1: thought that the guy was asking that the Mexico City Rule,
Speaker 1: the so called Mexico City Rule, which says that US
Speaker 1: foreign aid to foreign countries cannot be the places that
Speaker 1: provide cannot be the organizations that provide abortion services. So
Speaker 1: Biden says he wants to Now, now they've tried to
Speaker 1: clean this up a little bit for him. He says
Speaker 1: that he wants to end the Mexico City Rule, but
Speaker 1: still backs the High Amendment. But he said, quote that
Speaker 1: would change if avenues for women to access their protected
Speaker 1: rights under Roe v. Wade are closed. You know, there's
Speaker 1: so much about Roe v. Wade that is that is wrong.
Speaker 1: There's so much about it that you can look at
Speaker 1: it and really feel a sense of revulsion. First just
Speaker 1: the regime of abortion that it brought into it brought
Speaker 1: into being. And and but if I can and this
Speaker 1: is something you know, I talked about that on a
Speaker 1: regular basis, and the tens of millions of babies that
Speaker 1: have been aborted. I mean, it's horrifying. It's a stain
Speaker 1: on the moral conscience, on the soul really of this
Speaker 1: country that will take who knows how to finally come
Speaker 1: to grips with. But just put aside, if we can,
Speaker 1: for the purpose of our discussion, the moral dimension of
Speaker 1: Roe v. Wade for a second, and just look at
Speaker 1: the legal component of it. People say things like a
Speaker 1: women's a woman's right to choose under the Constitution. This
Speaker 1: is a stupid thing to say for anybody who understands
Speaker 1: the English language and the rule of law for what
Speaker 1: it is. I know that Roe v. Wade created this right,
Speaker 1: but we all know that this is a fiction. I mean,
Speaker 1: this is this is made up. There is no right
Speaker 1: to abortion the Constitution. There never was a right to
Speaker 1: abortion the Constitution. This is purely judicial fiat. And that
Speaker 1: you have so many people that run around speaking about
Speaker 1: row as though it isn't judicial fiat just goes to
Speaker 1: show you that they're willing to support any amount of
Speaker 1: violence to the law, never mind violence to unborn babies,
Speaker 1: any amount of violence to the law, to the concept
Speaker 1: of the law as having meaning not just being able
Speaker 1: to be changed on a whim. They can do that
Speaker 1: with anything. If they can do this with row, they
Speaker 1: can do it with whatever they want. There is no constitution,
Speaker 1: there is no rule of law. It's just whatever the
Speaker 1: powers that be determined for you at any point in time.
Speaker 1: Reminds me in a sense of the Soviet constitution. Soviet
Speaker 1: Constitution and a lot of great stuff, a lot of protections,
Speaker 1: a lot of rights wasn't real, wasn't enforced, was no
Speaker 1: separation or powers in the government, were no mechanisms for
Speaker 1: government accountability, didn't have the civil society, didn't have the
Speaker 1: the the kind of people at the time who could
Speaker 1: have even supported a true democracy. I mean, so this
Speaker 1: is this is what we're faced with now. Though people
Speaker 1: that will say things like, you know, the the constitutional
Speaker 1: right to an abortion, as if Jefferson and Madison and
Speaker 1: the founders were like, you know, what we really have
Speaker 1: to do. We have to write in here that there's
Speaker 1: going to be a protection of ending pregnancies and killing
Speaker 1: babies inside the womb. We really want to make sure
Speaker 1: that that's written with make sure that we get that
Speaker 1: out there with these quill pens on this parchment. I
Speaker 1: don't think so. I don't think so. But Biden is
Speaker 1: you're going to see this time and again someone who
Speaker 1: they're going to have to keep as they're gonna say
Speaker 1: that he evolved in his past, and they're gonna say
Speaker 1: and you're gonna see him evolving in the present as well.
Speaker 1: The media is completely backing this guy. Not all the media,
Speaker 1: but the mainstream media. They think he's their guy. And
Speaker 1: you know what, as much as they're all saying it's
Speaker 1: because he's a return to the Obama era, I also
Speaker 1: think that for a lot of the mainstream media, Biden
Speaker 1: is the next best thing to a Hillary presidency for them.
Speaker 1: He represents the old Democrat power establishment. And if you're
Speaker 1: CNN or you're any of the left wing outlets, newspapers,
Speaker 1: the legacy outlets, not the new ones they like Bernie Sanders,
Speaker 1: but the legacy outlets, the New York Times, Washington Post,
Speaker 1: they're all they're all all in for Biden because they
Speaker 1: view right now Biden is the most likely choice that
Speaker 1: could be Trump. I think that they're wrong in that,
Speaker 1: but that's where they are. As a result of this, though,
Speaker 1: there'll be a lot of rewriting and excusing of everything
Speaker 1: that Biden does, they will come up just which is
Speaker 1: they've always done with them. By the way, you know,
Speaker 1: they've created this character of Joe Biden, a kind of
Speaker 1: like lovable goofy uncle, which I don't think is reflect
Speaker 1: even if it is reflective of reality. They wouldn't do
Speaker 1: this for anybody else. They wouldn't say, oh, sure, he
Speaker 1: didn't mean that to be offensive. He was just saying here, here,
Speaker 1: here's a perfect example. Here's all listen Camarata at CNN.
Speaker 1: I don't know what this strikes me as someone who
Speaker 1: talks like this. She's over at CNN and she's a
Speaker 1: very serious broadcast play Clappa, don't you go to the experts,
Speaker 1: to the expert's website and lift some of their terminology
Speaker 1: and put it into your play like no, you you
Speaker 1: you you cite where you get your information from otherwise citations.
Speaker 1: That's what got them into trouble in the first place.
Speaker 1: I hear you. I mean, don't you just go to
Speaker 1: the experts? Come on, I kind of sound like Alison Camarada. Guys,
Speaker 1: let's be honest about this. Don't you go to the
Speaker 1: experts and lift their terminology? Yeah, that's called plagiarism. That's
Speaker 1: that's cute though that you don't know that as a journalist,
Speaker 1: but yeah, that's you don't just steal their words without
Speaker 1: without citing it. They're gonna do this for Joe though.
Speaker 1: They're gonna make fools of themselves to prop this guy
Speaker 1: up um, and they're gonna find ways to seem like
Speaker 1: they are more woke and more left wing and more
Speaker 1: progressive than Biden is in terms of the other candidates.
Speaker 1: And one of the ways to do that is to
Speaker 1: just be as extreme on the issue of abortion as possible,
Speaker 1: be out of the be out of step with the
Speaker 1: eighty percent of Americans who opposed their trimester abortion, for example,
Speaker 1: and say things like, if you if you don't think
Speaker 1: the taxpayer, if you don't think that the government should
Speaker 1: be in a position to take money from its citizens
Speaker 1: under threat of force, use that money, use that money
Speaker 1: to directly pay for abortion services, and to create this
Speaker 1: whole perception, create this narrative that this is helping minority
Speaker 1: women in particular. One of the most grim and sad
Speaker 1: statistics that I know of in this country is that
Speaker 1: in recent years in New York City, in my hometown,
Speaker 1: there have been more Black babies aboarded than born. That's horrific.
Speaker 1: Democrats should have to explain themselves on that one and
Speaker 1: not get away with talking points and nonsense rhetoric. Would
Speaker 1: it be fair to say that La has a homeless problem,
Speaker 1: probably the worst than the country stable. Everyone's like, no
Speaker 1: one's really doing anything about it, No one cares. What
Speaker 1: do you see a lot of mental health issues? Does
Speaker 1: two blocks here? You have a whole probably thirty thousands
Speaker 1: of people that live outside just in the small area
Speaker 1: of skid Row. I see people suffering out here, you
Speaker 1: know what I mean. I don't see him get a
Speaker 1: whole lot of hell. I think the mayor makes a
Speaker 1: lot of promises that I haven't seen him do a
Speaker 1: whole lot. You could just walk down to me block
Speaker 1: him downtown La. You could smell it. I mean, the
Speaker 1: smell is lingering all through the streets, not just so
Speaker 1: that it comes to crime. You see the drugs that
Speaker 1: are involved as well. It's a problem that you've led
Speaker 1: fester literally for years, and now it's you know, full
Speaker 1: blown pandemics and like certain you know, homeless slums. It
Speaker 1: seems like it is getting worse. No, it definitely is
Speaker 1: getting worse. I don't think Garcetti's doing his job as
Speaker 1: a mayor of the City of Los Angeles. I definitely
Speaker 1: don't what is causing this spike in homelessness in a
Speaker 1: number of major American cities, Los Angeles and San Francisco
Speaker 1: leading the pack. No one seems to have any particularly
Speaker 1: clear answers. You would think that at a time of
Speaker 1: such low unemployment. And I know that these numbers are
Speaker 1: all very imperfect, they're snapshots. People argue as whether they're
Speaker 1: even all that useful these days, but you would think
Speaker 1: that we would have a declining homeless population given how
Speaker 1: will things according to the various metrics we use unemployment
Speaker 1: and the stock market as an indicator of broader economic health.
Speaker 1: I'm not suggesting that everybody that's homeless has got some
Speaker 1: stock account, but this is not the time when you
Speaker 1: would expect this to be happening. You know, there's some
Speaker 1: that are saying this is a function of housing prices
Speaker 1: being too high, but that's that's determined by the market.
Speaker 1: Over the last year, according to La Times, though officials
Speaker 1: have spent six hundred million dollars to build homes and
Speaker 1: shelters and provide services. They have housed a record number
Speaker 1: of homeless people, yet numbers released over this week's show
Speaker 1: that homelessness is up twelve percent. Why because even as
Speaker 1: we house people, more people are becoming homeless, often for
Speaker 1: the first time. I just would like to know what
Speaker 1: exactly is causing this spike. I'd like to know what
Speaker 1: the reality is here of this surge in homelessness and
Speaker 1: how it could be dealt with. Putting rent control, which
Speaker 1: seems to be what the Los Angeles Times is pushing
Speaker 1: for here, that can't be it. Rent control creates housing scarcity.
Speaker 1: This has happened in Oregon recently, where you just have
Speaker 1: fewer and fewer new developments going up because there is
Speaker 1: a cost to creating new housing and if that cost
Speaker 1: is not worthwhile, people will not lay out the capital
Speaker 1: as well as take the risk of those capital outlays
Speaker 1: to build new housing. So what's the point why would
Speaker 1: they do that? Rent control exists in New York City
Speaker 1: and it really just creates this privileged class of people
Speaker 1: that happen to have non market determined rent that they
Speaker 1: have to pay every month. But for most of us,
Speaker 1: at a place like New York City, you just are
Speaker 1: paying more and more because there's grading housing scarcity because
Speaker 1: of it. So I really asked this question is why
Speaker 1: isn't anyone asking about what's causing the spike in homelessness?
Speaker 1: Why isn't anyone trying to address the root cause here
Speaker 1: or even you know, figure out what the root cause
Speaker 1: is forget about addressing it. I see no one with
Speaker 1: any answers here. I just see, Yeah, there's a lot
Speaker 1: more homeless, a lot of drugs, a lot of needles,
Speaker 1: a lot of poop on the streets La San fran
Speaker 1: and other cities run by Democrats. Not a good look,
Speaker 1: not a good sign. Do you mind if he testifies?
Speaker 1: Still before you said he didn't care. He made such
Speaker 1: a fool out of himself the last time. She because
Speaker 1: what people don't report is the letter he had to
Speaker 1: do to straighten out his testimony, because his testimony is wrong.
Speaker 1: But Nancy Pelosi equal her nervous Nancy, Nancy Pelosi doesn't
Speaker 1: talk about it. Nancy Pelosi's a disaster. Okay, she's a disaster,
Speaker 1: and let her do what she wants. You know what,
Speaker 1: I think they're in big trouble. He's right about Muller testifying.
Speaker 1: This is obvious if Democrats believe that Muller testifying would
Speaker 1: be an opportunity to do nothing but bash Trump, to
Speaker 1: undermine this presidency. They would have he would have already testified,
Speaker 1: he'd have his own show on CNN by now. But
Speaker 1: they know they are savvy enough, they're smart enough. It
Speaker 1: hurts me to say that, but they're smart enough, some
Speaker 1: of them to know that Muller under cross examination would
Speaker 1: be a problem. Muller getting asked questions about why he
Speaker 1: would decide to not decide. There have been investigations like
Speaker 1: this before of presidents and they came to conclusions about
Speaker 1: who engage in criminal conduct, including the president the United States.
Speaker 1: Ken Starr said that Bill Clinton broke the law, mimitted crimes.
Speaker 1: Muller decided not to decide, And as I've said, this
Speaker 1: was a strategic decision. It was because he did not
Speaker 1: want that to be adjudicated. Did not want the specific
Speaker 1: crime alleged to be something that people could fight back against.
Speaker 1: Keep it amorphous, keep it open, so that every time
Speaker 1: you have a lib go on TV to say, well,
Speaker 1: we must impeach the president because of all the different crimes,
Speaker 1: you say, well, okay, which one, Oh, there are so
Speaker 1: many I can't even count. Give me one crime you
Speaker 1: want to prosecute obstruction? Okay, which obstruction? Obstruction? How Ah?
Speaker 1: The one they tend to go for is Don McGann,
Speaker 1: White House counsel. Trump says, go fire Muller. He's within
Speaker 1: his constitutional rights to fire Muller. Point one, he is
Speaker 1: not obstructing an investigation that was wrongfully conceived and not
Speaker 1: actually finding any crimes that he engaged in to begin with.
Speaker 1: That's two. And he didn't even drucked because he never
Speaker 1: got the guy fired. That's three. Boom boom boom. Nobody
Speaker 1: could really think that that would stand up in any court.
Speaker 1: But if Mueller said that's what it was, then we
Speaker 1: could hone in on it. So instead he left it open.
Speaker 1: This was a tactic. This was a decision made to
Speaker 1: give the Democrats the leeway to make this just a
Speaker 1: political fight. It's not really illegal fight anymore. It's not
Speaker 1: about criminality. It's about the narrative. Just like all along
Speaker 1: it was about the narrative. With Russia collusion, Did they
Speaker 1: ever think they were really going to find criminal conduct
Speaker 1: that involved the president conspiring with the Russian? Said? No,
Speaker 1: of course not. They must have known Muller certainly knew
Speaker 1: very early on that there would be no finding of
Speaker 1: collusion when all was saddened one. He must have must
Speaker 1: have known that absolutely, But sure enough he extended investigation
Speaker 1: so that he could ensnare people in Trump's for a
Speaker 1: bit and create this impeachment roadmap, which is exactly what
Speaker 1: we have seen. But Muller tested he must testify. Any
Speaker 1: member of Congress who does not say that he thinks
Speaker 1: Mueller or she He or she that Mueller should testify
Speaker 1: is a hack. Of course he should. They've threatened to
Speaker 1: arrest Attorney General bar if he does not, if he
Speaker 1: does not show up just for the show trial they
Speaker 1: want to do against the Attorney general. Right, They've They've
Speaker 1: threatened to arrest him. But Mueller gets to just drop
Speaker 1: the mic and walk out on his terms. I don't
Speaker 1: think so. I hope Trump is correct when he says
Speaker 1: that the Democrats are in big trouble. But they tend
Speaker 1: to defy. They tend to defy the logic of normal people. Somehow,
Speaker 1: the Democrats can count upon millions and millions of supporters
Speaker 1: who will vote for them, no matter how crazy their
Speaker 1: idea is, number how insane the processes that they support.
Speaker 1: But I do think there are some concerns over the
Speaker 1: Steel docier that the Libs aren't going to be able
Speaker 1: to just sweep aside. Member of Christopher Steele is going
Speaker 1: to be is going to be testifying for the Congress,
Speaker 1: and this is not going to look good for their side.
Speaker 1: If here's how I think this plays out. Steel testifies,
Speaker 1: We get him to explain just how much he was
Speaker 1: an Essentially, he was just a political operative. He was
Speaker 1: just a paid hack. He's a hired gun to write
Speaker 1: nasty stuff about the president for political reasons, and then
Speaker 1: he takes that to the FBI, and like a bunch
Speaker 1: of idiots, the FBI just believes him he's a foreign
Speaker 1: intelligence operative. They don't think that they should have considered
Speaker 1: whether his intent was to influence as well as to inform.
Speaker 1: They just took this stuff and said, yeah, that seems good.
Speaker 1: You talked to a bunch of Russia, dude, they told
Speaker 1: you this, Let's work up a FISA warrant based on it.
Speaker 1: The drsh The drsh. He certainly knows this is a problem.
Speaker 1: He knows this doesn't look good for their sideplates in
Speaker 1: raw intelligence like that should never be the basis for
Speaker 1: a FISA warrant that intrudes on the rights of American
Speaker 1: citizens privacy. We need to have more than that, and
Speaker 1: we need to have complete candor from anybody who signs
Speaker 1: a FISA warrant. They have to tell the court, Look,
Speaker 1: we have this, We're not sure how valid it is.
Speaker 1: They clearly intended to mislead the court into thinking they
Speaker 1: had a credible source that was enough to justify intruding
Speaker 1: on the privacy of an American citizen. Does anyone believe
Speaker 1: that in good faith they tried to tell the fies
Speaker 1: A court what the holes were in their analysis that
Speaker 1: in good faith they tried to explain that they did
Speaker 1: not have a full picture of what was true and
Speaker 1: what was not not. They slid it through. They got
Speaker 1: it through. They knew they could, and they did. Just
Speaker 1: like how for a long time, and very few people
Speaker 1: even knew this. Law enforcement used to be able to,
Speaker 1: with a lesser standard than a true court court order,
Speaker 1: get emails that were older than ninety days. Those were
Speaker 1: considered less protected. They could have just gotten your emails
Speaker 1: with essentially a written investigated request. I forget what the
Speaker 1: specifics were, but they didn't have to go to a court.
Speaker 1: They didn't have to get a subpoena for your emails.
Speaker 1: They just pull them if if they're older than ninety days.
Speaker 1: That has since been changed, but that was ridiculous. Some
Speaker 1: law enforcement people liked it. The fires are courts at
Speaker 1: rubber Stamp, you bring to the fires a court. The
Speaker 1: idea is that the Fiser court is for stopping spies
Speaker 1: and stopping terrorists. Who doesn't want to stop spies and terrorists?
Speaker 1: Before this, nobody had ever really thought, or at least
Speaker 1: we the public did not know if it had happened,
Speaker 1: that anyone would use the eyes a court as a
Speaker 1: tool to spy on political opposition in this country. That
Speaker 1: is what happened. Now we have to figure out how
Speaker 1: egregious that abuse was, who was involved in it. I
Speaker 1: still want to know about the unmasking, by the way,
Speaker 1: I have not forgotten about that. There's more even than
Speaker 1: just the abuse of FISA that we should be focused
Speaker 1: on here. There's also the unmasking requests that were unprecedented
Speaker 1: in number and frequency from those folks. And we keep
Speaker 1: seeing a very we keep seeing the repeat of this.
Speaker 1: We keep seeing this pattern from Democrats and their little
Speaker 1: deep state allies that, oh, we can't release the information.
Speaker 1: I thought this was all about transparency. The White House
Speaker 1: was then able to say, oh, waited on national security,
Speaker 1: we can't tell you anything about what our campaign did
Speaker 1: and who we talked to about Russia. That that wasn't
Speaker 1: going to fly. That wasn't acceptable. So why now are
Speaker 1: we told that we should just sit back and whatever
Speaker 1: fairy tale the Left feels like sharing with us, whatever
Speaker 1: storyline they want to trot out about how the Fiser
Speaker 1: chord operator or did not operate properly, we're supposed to
Speaker 1: move past that and believe them, this is going to
Speaker 1: look very bad, folks. The information that has blacked out
Speaker 1: of the Fiser requests that we've seen so far. If
Speaker 1: that were compelling, we would already know it would have leaked.
Speaker 1: Somebody would have said, hey, they had some really they
Speaker 1: had some real derague stuff and derogatory stuff in there. Instead,
Speaker 1: what I think it most likely has to do it
Speaker 1: is just sources that they tried to pad into the
Speaker 1: Fiser request and then in a desperate attempt to make
Speaker 1: sure that it didn't look like it was really just
Speaker 1: all about the Steel dossier, to get those FISS up
Speaker 1: and operational. They redacted that information. Oh, those are really
Speaker 1: important sources. I don't think anybody believes that those sources
Speaker 1: are going to be under threat or in jeopardy. But
Speaker 1: they'll pretend anything to keep it secret, anything to keep
Speaker 1: it out of the public view. Because once we have
Speaker 1: all the facts, then what do the libs do. Well,
Speaker 1: they'll probably just you know, when they steal dossier. It's
Speaker 1: finally clear that Christopher Steele was an anti Trump hack
Speaker 1: who abused well, who got the FBI to abuse defies
Speaker 1: a process to try to change the outcome of a
Speaker 1: presidential election. That's the real foreign interference in the election.
Speaker 1: No one ever has an answer for me. If it
Speaker 1: is a big problem for foreigners to involve themselves in
Speaker 1: our election, how is Christopher Steele being paid by the
Speaker 1: DNC to run oppo research through our intelligence community and
Speaker 1: to rely on Russian sources who may very well have
Speaker 1: been engaged in disinformation and handing that to Steele. How
Speaker 1: is that not for interference in our election. I've never
Speaker 1: gotten an explanation for that. People just go a Trump Orange,
Speaker 1: Trump bad. They never can tell me. I think it's
Speaker 1: because there's no real answer for it. It is foreign
Speaker 1: interference in our election. There's no way around it. It's
Speaker 1: too obvious, it's too clear. Even CNN's Phil Mud recognizes
Speaker 1: that the Steele dossier. I mean, he's one of the
Speaker 1: kind of dead enders over there at CNN that has
Speaker 1: believed along that Russia collusion was this huge, big deal
Speaker 1: that the Trump was in trouble and Trump is basically
Speaker 1: a trader. Here's CNN, one of CNN's collusion dead enders,
Speaker 1: on what the Steel dossier defense is going to sound like.
Speaker 1: Play clip nine. This is significant, This will be a
Speaker 1: car wreck. Look, this isn't about the Muller investigation per se.
Speaker 1: It's about the origins of the investigation and how the
Speaker 1: Department of Justice and Attorney General Barris talked about this repeatedly,
Speaker 1: his suspicions about how the Department of Justice originated the investigation. Obviously,
Speaker 1: one of the documents was Christopher Steele, former intelligence operative,
Speaker 1: the information he uncovered about Donald Trump from Russian operatives.
Speaker 1: Let me give you how this game ends. Christopher Steele
Speaker 1: shows up in front of the Partment of Justice and
Speaker 1: I'm guessing doesn't have terrific answers for the quality of
Speaker 1: the information in that Steel Dosier. I'm telling you, well,
Speaker 1: if this is not gonna go well, I will tell
Speaker 1: you he's corrected. Is not going to go well for
Speaker 1: the Dems, for the left, for the hashtag resistance. It
Speaker 1: is not. It's not gonna look good for them. They've
Speaker 1: got some big problems to deal with here. So I'm
Speaker 1: looking forward to this testimony happening because when they find
Speaker 1: out that that this guy was more or less that
Speaker 1: christoer Steel was probably just speaking to some Russians that
Speaker 1: were friends of friends or people that he'd just heard
Speaker 1: something from someone about rumors. He'd collected rumors into a
Speaker 1: document rumor some of which have already been proven to
Speaker 1: be untrue. And he handed rumors that he could have
Speaker 1: pulled off the Internet for all we know to the
Speaker 1: FBI and the dj and the Obama appointee imbecile. At
Speaker 1: those institutions, we're like, yeah, this seems this seems credible. Yeah,
Speaker 1: Donald Trump, Golden showers, Russian prostitutes videotaped, Sure, that seems legit. Again,
Speaker 1: this is like with so many things with Democrats. I
Speaker 1: don't know if they're just deeply cynical or really stupid,
Speaker 1: but those are the options that were left with here.
Speaker 1: Who could have believed this thing in Dacier, this long
Speaker 1: standing campaign that the Russians knew that there would be
Speaker 1: this just bolt of lightning president presidential campaign, that Donald
Speaker 1: Trump was gonna wage and that it was going to
Speaker 1: be serious, and they just happen to put their chips
Speaker 1: on the right. This is insane. This makes no sense whatsoever,
Speaker 1: And people who believe it are either delusional or not
Speaker 1: very smart. Now he's got to find out which one
Speaker 1: it is. I think we'll know a lot more. We
Speaker 1: hear from Steel. They are gathered here on Freedom's Altar,
Speaker 1: on these shores, on these bluffs, on this day, seventy
Speaker 1: five years ago, ten thousand men show their blood, and
Speaker 1: thousands sacrifice their lives for their brothers, for their countries,
Speaker 1: and for the survival of liberty. Today we remember those
Speaker 1: who fell, and we honor all who fought right here
Speaker 1: in Normandy. They won back this ground for civilization. To
Speaker 1: more than one hundred and seventy veterans of the Second
Speaker 1: World War who join us today, you are among the
Speaker 1: very greatest Americans who will ever live. You are the
Speaker 1: pride of our nation, You are the glory of our republic,
Speaker 1: and We thank you from the bottom of our hearts.
Speaker 1: President Trump giving an excellent speech today on the seventy
Speaker 1: five D Day commemoration the celebration of Heroes from our
Speaker 1: Commander in Chief. You know today I just the closest
Speaker 1: thing that I can get to a visual representation would
Speaker 1: happened that day. I think it's true for many of us,
Speaker 1: those of us who were not there, and fewer and
Speaker 1: fewer of those who are there are left. As we know,
Speaker 1: is the opening sequence from saving Private Ryan, which is
Speaker 1: one of the most powerful sequences of warfare I think
Speaker 1: in any movie ever made, and it is a you
Speaker 1: watch it now, I've seen it dozens of times, but
Speaker 1: you watch it back again and try to really think
Speaker 1: about what that would have been like at that time,
Speaker 1: the stakes of having the fate of the free world
Speaker 1: on the shoulders of those men, that is what was
Speaker 1: going on there. Who knows what the world would have
Speaker 1: looked like, what the future would have been had it
Speaker 1: not been guided by the initial beach had established. And
Speaker 1: then the victory of the Americans and Allied forces over
Speaker 1: the Nazis, which was possible because of what happened there
Speaker 1: at D Day. Now, President Trump, I think today was
Speaker 1: in his in his most presidential mode, because he does
Speaker 1: have a tremendous respect for it, and I think a real,
Speaker 1: real deep love for the United States military, and the
Speaker 1: words today and the way that he delivered them are
Speaker 1: indicative of that feeling. And more to the point, I
Speaker 1: think that he showed the kind of respect and an
Speaker 1: honor that those men who gave their lives and who
Speaker 1: fought that day deserve. This now seventy five years later,
Speaker 1: play clip two. They were husbands who said goodbye to
Speaker 1: their young brides and took their duty as their fate.
Speaker 1: They were fathers who would never meet their infant sons
Speaker 1: and daughters because they had a job to do, and
Speaker 1: with God as their witness, they were going to get
Speaker 1: it done. They came wave after wave, without question, without hesitation,
Speaker 1: and without complaint. More powerful than the strength of American
Speaker 1: arms was the strength of American hearts. These men ran
Speaker 1: through the fires of hell, moved by a force no
Speaker 1: weapon could destroy, the fierce patriotism of a free, proud,
Speaker 1: and sovereign people. I've often thought that of all the
Speaker 1: wars to have fought in, it would be it would
Speaker 1: be a tremendous honor to have thought of the Second
Speaker 1: World War. It would have been perhaps more hellish than
Speaker 1: any other ward have fought in the First World War,
Speaker 1: just based on the style of trench warfare, and but
Speaker 1: to have been a part of that Normandy landing which
Speaker 1: could have been a complete disaster. I think back to
Speaker 1: Winston Churchill's effort to open up a second front at Gallipoli,
Speaker 1: and from Churchill's perspective, at least dithering of the first
Speaker 1: Lord of or rather the lords of the Admiralty of
Speaker 1: the people that were making the calls for the British Navy,
Speaker 1: and what was supposed to open up a second front
Speaker 1: and stop the wholesale slaughter on the Western Front in
Speaker 1: the First World War turned into a complete debacle, one
Speaker 1: that would haunt Churchill for many many years to come,
Speaker 1: and well into his prime ministership. During the Second World War.
Speaker 1: You look at what happened on d Day and now
Speaker 1: we know how this ends, we know what we know
Speaker 1: that the good guys won. But that day, if you
Speaker 1: had been in a Higgins boat, you had perhaps gotten
Speaker 1: sea sick bullets flying over your head. You're not even
Speaker 1: able to fire back that in those initials, and then
Speaker 1: all approach you have artillery rounds, landing, barbed wire or
Speaker 1: another obstacles placed in front of you. Men, some of
Speaker 1: whom you become very close to on your right, on
Speaker 1: your left, receiving horrible wounds, dying screaming out for you
Speaker 1: to help them, you knowing that perhaps your best way
Speaker 1: to help them is to get to those Nazi gun
Speaker 1: positions and take them out, hoping that one round that's
Speaker 1: all it takes, doesn't hit you in a lethal spot,
Speaker 1: and the last thing you'll ever feel, last thing you'll
Speaker 1: ever see, is that beach of Normandy. It's a remarkable day,
Speaker 1: and it really does bring together I think the American
Speaker 1: people in remembrance of what was one of our most
Speaker 1: courageous moments as a nation. I think that President Trump
Speaker 1: again did a service to the memories of those who
Speaker 1: fought and died with what he said, play seventeen men
Speaker 1: who sit behind me, and to the boys who rest
Speaker 1: in the field before me, your example will never ever
Speaker 1: grow old. The blood that they spilled, the tears that
Speaker 1: they shed, the lives that they gave, the sacrifice that
Speaker 1: they made did not just win a battle. It did
Speaker 1: not just win a war. Those who fought here won
Speaker 1: a future for our nation. They won the survival of
Speaker 1: our civilization, and they showed us the way to love, cherish,
Speaker 1: and defend our way of life for many centuries to come. Today,
Speaker 1: as we stand together upon this sacred earth, we pledged
Speaker 1: that our nation will forever be strong and united. We
Speaker 1: will forever be together, Our people will forever be bold,
Speaker 1: our hearts will forever be loyal, and our children and
Speaker 1: their children will forever and always be free. May God
Speaker 1: bless our great veterans. May God bless our allies, May
Speaker 1: God bless the heroes of d Day. And may God
Speaker 1: bless America. Thank you, Thank you. Then hard to feel
Speaker 1: anything but a swelling of pride in your chest. Is
Speaker 1: an American or any of our allives here in President
Speaker 1: Trump speech today. But there is an alternative, alternative narrative
Speaker 1: out there that I wanted to address. I won't sully
Speaker 1: the words of the President just then with getting into
Speaker 1: it right now, but stay with me, because on the
Speaker 1: other side of this break you are hearing now a
Speaker 1: revisionist history that it was really the Soviets who defeated
Speaker 1: the Nazis. Let's pull that apart when we return Soviet's
Speaker 1: kick Nazi as in World War Two, Europeans go all out.
Speaker 1: Russians celebrate like nobody else, huge parades, fireworks, the whole
Speaker 1: nine yards. Americans don't really go all that crazy, which
Speaker 1: is well crazy considering that we think we are the
Speaker 1: ultimate Nazi ass kickers. Sure we helped and sort of
Speaker 1: a bunch of other countries like France and the UK,
Speaker 1: but I wouldn't go as far as to say we
Speaker 1: won wessure as how think we did, though the USSR
Speaker 1: did most of the dirty work. But you might not
Speaker 1: know that because it's barely mentioned in any textbooks. So
Speaker 1: forget what you learned in school. Let's be you here.
Speaker 1: This was getting a lot of attention today how Russia
Speaker 1: saved the world from Nazism, which really how the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union saved the world from Nazis. And that's the the
Speaker 1: title of it, and that's the story that a lot
Speaker 1: of leftists that you're hearing from now. There there's some
Speaker 1: degree of look, there's some degree of truth in the
Speaker 1: in this storyline that that the Soviets, I mean, there's
Speaker 1: if you're talking about just brute force and numbers of casualties. Yes,
Speaker 1: it is the case that the Soviet Union took on
Speaker 1: the brunt of the Nazi war machine. That is that
Speaker 1: is very real, that is true, um, But it is
Speaker 1: not the case that there was any moral clarity shown
Speaker 1: by the by the Soviets in this process. It is
Speaker 1: not that we were on a similar moral ground to
Speaker 1: the Soviets when this all happened. Because a part of
Speaker 1: the history that you cannot skip over is the Molotov
Speaker 1: Ribbon trop packed back in nineteen thirty nine. Wherefore, a
Speaker 1: period of what was it now almost two years uh
Speaker 1: the Nazis and the Soviet Union cut up Europe into
Speaker 1: sphears of influence, essentially divided up the carcass of Europe
Speaker 1: between them, agreed not to fight each other. And it
Speaker 1: was only because the Nazis turned on the USSR that
Speaker 1: then there was this massive Eastern front that opened up
Speaker 1: Nazi germanly. Germany decided on its own on the twenty
Speaker 1: second of June nineteen forty one to go after the
Speaker 1: Soviets with Operation Barbarossa. Now Stalin people said that Stalin
Speaker 1: knew that there was a possibility of invasion, but it
Speaker 1: seemed so counter counterintuitive and so counterproductive that you can
Speaker 1: imagine the Soviets just refused to believe that the Germans
Speaker 1: would repeat the mistake of Napoleon and try a land
Speaker 1: war in Russia heading into winter. You know, it's you're
Speaker 1: not going to finish off Russia in a period of
Speaker 1: a few months. Wasn't going to happen. The Soviet Union.
Speaker 1: So the storyline that the that the Soviets were the
Speaker 1: ones that really really defeated the Nazis, it is true
Speaker 1: that they were very helpful in this process. And when
Speaker 1: you when you look at and this is what I
Speaker 1: do think that kids need to be taught in school.
Speaker 1: You look at the numbers in terms of troops on
Speaker 1: the Eastern Front versus the Western Front, it is not
Speaker 1: even close. I mean the Eastern Front, the Soviets and
Speaker 1: the Nazis fighting each other was orders of magnitude larger
Speaker 1: than which you had on the Western Front. That is,
Speaker 1: that is a fact, But it is not because the
Speaker 1: Soviets had any moral or ethical problem to speak of
Speaker 1: with the Nazis. And in fact, the complete and utter
Speaker 1: disregard for life shown by the Soviets was in many
Speaker 1: ways similar to the depravity of the Nazis state. I
Speaker 1: mean the Soviets. If you have not seen it. I
Speaker 1: do recommend Enemy at the Gates, which is a movie
Speaker 1: about out Stalingrad. Some of you are probably also telling
Speaker 1: me that I that the one or you would recommend
Speaker 1: hardcore history by Dan Carlin on Stalingrad, and I would
Speaker 1: agree with that. I mean, the Battle of Stalingrad is
Speaker 1: a is an incredible story and did involve millions of
Speaker 1: soldiers and really was the turning point in the war
Speaker 1: against against the Nazis. Now, no one, no one can
Speaker 1: really do the counterfactuals about what would have happened if
Speaker 1: the if the Nazis had not turned on the Soviets,
Speaker 1: you know, would would the American war machine eventually have
Speaker 1: overcome with with our allies overcome whatever the Nazis had
Speaker 1: Quite possible. I know a lot of you who are
Speaker 1: amateur World War two historians are probably shouting out, well,
Speaker 1: but this and that, and it's one of the most
Speaker 1: fascinating periods in history because it really was truly a
Speaker 1: battle for civilization. It was a battle for human liberty
Speaker 1: and dignity and and heasic freedom, the basic freedom of
Speaker 1: all mankind. The Soviets were not on the right side
Speaker 1: of that, because they were pro freedom. The only reason
Speaker 1: the Soviets had to fight the Nazis was because the
Speaker 1: Nazis wanted to fight the Soviets, because the the viciousness
Speaker 1: and meglomania of the Third Reich could not abide a
Speaker 1: power like the Soviet Union on their borders. They just
Speaker 1: absolutely refused to think that there was a future in
Speaker 1: which they could live peaceably alongside the Soviets. So you know,
Speaker 1: when you when you hear people now talking about that,
Speaker 1: you know, and especially to say it today, Look, there's
Speaker 1: a degree of trolling here. There are people that just
Speaker 1: want to upset those of us who are taking the
Speaker 1: day to commemorate the incredible missions on D Day and
Speaker 1: what was done on you know, Juno and Gold and Omaha,
Speaker 1: these other these other beaches Utah. We look at this
Speaker 1: and think about how it was in many ways not
Speaker 1: just a landing on the beach that brought about the
Speaker 1: end of the Second World War, but it was really
Speaker 1: in some ways those first steps on that beach, where
Speaker 1: was the beginning of a progression of American global leadership,
Speaker 1: a kind of pox Americana that yes, would not go
Speaker 1: without disruption. And it's not like we didn't have the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union squaring off against us for decades, but we
Speaker 1: were not truly the global power until we took the
Speaker 1: reins in the Second World War and beat fascism and
Speaker 1: defeated the fascists. In this time, when there's this rise
Speaker 1: of socialism in America, there's also this revisionism that creeps
Speaker 1: up a little bit about how, well, if we're going
Speaker 1: to talk about D Day, we should really talk about
Speaker 1: how the Soviet Union, which is still the ultimate example
Speaker 1: of socialism and practice. I know libs love to say, oh,
Speaker 1: what about Denmark? You know, they don't want to say
Speaker 1: what about Venezuela? What about Denmark? And I just say
Speaker 1: to that, Okay, what about the squaring off of the
Speaker 1: United States and the Soviet Union in the twentieth century
Speaker 1: one one way of life embracing capitalism and one being
Speaker 1: the embodiment of the workers revolution and socialism, And how
Speaker 1: did that all work out? Are we really supposed to
Speaker 1: skip past that? Ah? Yes? And we're also supposed to
Speaker 1: skip past the atrocities of the Soviet Union and how
Speaker 1: the Soviets in the final months of the Second World
Speaker 1: War engaged in all kinds of terrible war crimes and
Speaker 1: what would now be considered human rights of uses. I
Speaker 1: think the Soviets would have thought that was a quaint
Speaker 1: term and then locked hundreds of millions of people in
Speaker 1: the prison of Stalin's lunacy. Hundreds of millions of people
Speaker 1: had to suffer behind the the Iron curtain because of
Speaker 1: what happened, well because of the end of the Second
Speaker 1: World War, which was great that we defeated fascism and
Speaker 1: Nazi Germany. But without America there there would have been
Speaker 1: no end to that long dark night. It was America
Speaker 1: that provided some respite to the world. If if the Soviets,
Speaker 1: let's just say, had had on their own been able
Speaker 1: to defeat the Nazis and taken all of Europe, the
Speaker 1: world would be a very different place now, and I'm
Speaker 1: not sure would be much better than it would have
Speaker 1: been if the Nazis had been in charge. Remember, the
Speaker 1: Soviets liquidated many, many millions of their own people, starved
Speaker 1: their own people. There's a horrific anti semitism in the
Speaker 1: Soviet Union Stalin's purges. Nobody was really safe from them.
Speaker 1: On a pure level of comparing morality, the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: and Nazi Germany were really not far apart at all.
Speaker 1: But we now have some leftists in this country and
Speaker 1: certainly in Europe and in Russia who will want to
Speaker 1: say that it was some kind of honorable decision for
Speaker 1: the Soviets to fight against the Nazis, when the reality
Speaker 1: is the Soviets were buddies with the Nazis, and the
Speaker 1: Nazis just turned on their allies and forced and forced
Speaker 1: a fight that would not have occurred, forced us to
Speaker 1: be forced rather the Nazis, or though the Soviets to
Speaker 1: fight back, when they would have been quite happy, quite
Speaker 1: happy sitting back and allowing the Nazi war machine to
Speaker 1: batter Britain into submission. And you know, there were U
Speaker 1: boats off the coast of the United States. It's not
Speaker 1: like the Nazis weren't looking to take us down too.
Speaker 1: A lot of stuff to keep in mind here we
Speaker 1: talk about the Soviet Union team, they were not the
Speaker 1: good guys. Even if they beat the bad guys, We'll
Speaker 1: be right back. I finished my last episode of the
Speaker 1: HBO miniseries Chernobyl last night. I had one left, and
Speaker 1: I have to tell you the last episode. It finishes
Speaker 1: very strongly. It finishes as well as any show could have,
Speaker 1: and it's fascinating. It's incredible. It's a masterpiece. It's a
Speaker 1: masterpiece as a as a mini series, and what it
Speaker 1: shows you is in such a clear The writing is excellent,
Speaker 1: the way that they take you through it. It's one
Speaker 1: of these times when they have an opportunity to teach
Speaker 1: you the basics of a nuclear reactor. How many of
Speaker 1: us really know how a nuclear reactor works? I think
Speaker 1: very few, and they really walk you through some parts,
Speaker 1: but they do it in a way that it's not
Speaker 1: condescending or cheesy at all. But you learn something as
Speaker 1: you're watching this, and more than anything else, you learn
Speaker 1: what it would have been like to live in a
Speaker 1: totalitarian state where you're loyalty to the state as defined
Speaker 1: by this state on a win right. The state determines
Speaker 1: what is loyalty whenever it wants and however it wants.
Speaker 1: That is the single mode important aspect of your existence
Speaker 1: in the Soviet Union. You have no rights, you have
Speaker 1: no worth. You are only an object, a possession of
Speaker 1: the state. Even though the Soviet state claimed to represent
Speaker 1: all of the people, it didn't represent any individual. It
Speaker 1: just represented the people as a general term. But as
Speaker 1: much as there's a lot that you take from the
Speaker 1: story of Chernobyl and the Soviet Union, that is of
Speaker 1: course a refutation of Stadism and shows that socialism. Yeah there, Look,
Speaker 1: they're nuclear reactors. Were crappier than they would have been
Speaker 1: because they were cheap, and they're cheap because they didn't
Speaker 1: have the money to spend. They know the money to
Speaker 1: spend because they're socialists. But this producer Craig Mazin who
Speaker 1: got into it with my friend dwanon Gino on Twitter
Speaker 1: when he said it was a failure of humans whose
Speaker 1: loyalty to a broken governing party overruled their sense of
Speaker 1: decency in rationality, and he said to Dan, you're the
Speaker 1: old man with the cane. You just worship a different
Speaker 1: man's portrait. That's just that's that's utterly ridiculous. But here's
Speaker 1: the problem. Even even if a liberal knows the history,
Speaker 1: even if a lib knows what happened to the Silviet Union,
Speaker 1: knows what happened at the end the Chernobyl incident, they
Speaker 1: can still take the wrong lessons from it. And you
Speaker 1: see this time and again whenever libs are confronted with
Speaker 1: the realities of socialism, when they're confronted with what it
Speaker 1: really has meant for a dictatorship of the proletariat, so
Speaker 1: to speak, which is a fiction, but a fiction used
Speaker 1: to oppress people onto the boot heel of a massive
Speaker 1: government apparatus in places like the Soviet Union, like North Korea, China, China.
Speaker 1: When they do this, though, when they look back at
Speaker 1: the history, they don't take the proper lessons from it.
Speaker 1: So even when we can get them to focus on
Speaker 1: something where they should think, hold on, why was a
Speaker 1: silver Union so failed? What was it about the Soviet
Speaker 1: Union that suppressed and broke the spirit of so many
Speaker 1: millions of people, and that enslaved its own citizens to
Speaker 1: a system only really concerned with perpetuating itself and avoiding embarrassment.
Speaker 1: The Soviet system was plagued by an insecurity that can
Speaker 1: only come from the deep seated knowledge that it was illegitimate.
Speaker 1: It was the illegitimacy of the Soviet system that made
Speaker 1: them so insecure in it in the first place. But
Speaker 1: even the producer of a show about the Soviet Union
Speaker 1: and its failings takes the wrong lessons. It's not about Trump,
Speaker 1: It's not about our side. It wasn't a failure of conservatism.
Speaker 1: It was a failure of the left. Ain't no party
Speaker 1: like a Team Buck party, because a Team Buck party
Speaker 1: don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up to eleven.
Speaker 1: It's time for roll call. Time for roll call Facebook
Speaker 1: dot com slashbox Sexton on that roll call. Goodness, very
Speaker 1: exciting tomorrow. Someone told me today that I seem very
Speaker 1: at peace with the world. That may be true because
Speaker 1: tomorrow is my last day at the Hill. So yeah,
Speaker 1: last day at the hill, at least on Hill TV.
Speaker 1: I may be doing some future projects, some writing for them,
Speaker 1: stuff like that. We shall see. But as of next week,
Speaker 1: I will go back to being a melter of snowflakes,
Speaker 1: a crusher of libs, an annihilator of commies, and no
Speaker 1: longer be under any professional obligation to take a a polite,
Speaker 1: a polite stance in my analysis day to day, which
Speaker 1: I'm really I'm really looking forward to. It's been. It's
Speaker 1: gonna be Buck Unleased starting Monday. Everybody, well, it always
Speaker 1: is on radio, so it's not gonna It's not like
Speaker 1: this show changes. But anywhere else you see me, I
Speaker 1: don't have to I don't have to worry about it.
Speaker 1: I do appreciate the folks I worked with at the Hill.
Speaker 1: My co host, Crystal Ball is a is a lovely
Speaker 1: human being, very very kind and uh we got along
Speaker 1: very well. But it's time for it's time for Buck
Speaker 1: to let the let the right wing rip, Let it go,
Speaker 1: Let that little right wing bird fly, Let it fly, Buck,
Speaker 1: let it fly? Wayne, Hey, Wayne, I got it? Wait? No, hey,
Speaker 1: wait right? Not Hey Wayne, I got that wrong again,
Speaker 1: didn't I that's the Nirvana song. It's still even though
Speaker 1: I had said it wrong in the air before, I
Speaker 1: just realized, I think it is it. No, it is, Hey, Wayne,
Speaker 1: I got a new complaint. Or hey, wait, I got
Speaker 1: a new complaint. I keep getting it wrong, Wayne says.
Speaker 1: New York State legislature does it again, bands the d
Speaker 1: clawing of cats because it is a cruel, heartless procedure
Speaker 1: conclusion to do such butchery on a creature, do it
Speaker 1: in the womb or at the time of birth. New
Speaker 1: York should have no problem with pre natal clawing. You know,
Speaker 1: I guess New York is. I don't know much about
Speaker 1: d clawing cats. I'm not a cat person, so I
Speaker 1: can't speak to what that is like or what goes
Speaker 1: on with that. But yeah, I don't know I see
Speaker 1: your point though, about how they're not concerned about fetus rights,
Speaker 1: but they are concerned about cat Paul rights. She reminds
Speaker 1: me there was a I think it was a Stephen
Speaker 1: King move, a short story made into a movie Cats
Speaker 1: Paul a long time ago. They used to They used
Speaker 1: to play it on this channel in New York w
Speaker 1: pi X, which ran all these old eighties movie deep
Speaker 1: into the nineties. It was very scary. I remember watching
Speaker 1: as a kid being very scared. There's a little like
Speaker 1: dwarf that sucks the breath out of children or something.
Speaker 1: It was not cool. Brian, right, it's Buck very excited
Speaker 1: for new beginnings for you with your departure from Rising.
Speaker 1: While I could not catch the show all the time,
Speaker 1: I really enjoyed your interviews with poignant questions with people
Speaker 1: you both agree with and ones you are diametrically opposed to.
Speaker 1: You fulfilled your contract and did a great job keeping
Speaker 1: it civil with many uncivil people. If they didn't before,
Speaker 1: the leftists certainly now recognize you as a force to
Speaker 1: be recognized with, and he made some great contacts and
Speaker 1: relationships with powerful people. Now the gloves are back off,
Speaker 1: and Team Buck will certainly appreciate having a renewed and
Speaker 1: refreshed Buck who is not subject to working four am
Speaker 1: to nine pm, excited for your new projects. Hope you're
Speaker 1: getting out of DC and are able to get home
Speaker 1: to NYC and close to family for the summer. Being
Speaker 1: a swamp creature in the summer can be tiring. All
Speaker 1: the best, my friend, Shields high Brian, Well, Brian, you
Speaker 1: might get the best Facebook Note of the Day award,
Speaker 1: my friend. Thank you so much for that. I really
Speaker 1: do appreciate it. I like your perspective on this. I
Speaker 1: think that's true. I've I did get to I did
Speaker 1: get to interview a lot of libs and deal with
Speaker 1: a lot of libs that never would have come on
Speaker 1: a straight up conservative show. So that was an interesting experience.
Speaker 1: And I really got a particular window into the lib
Speaker 1: mind in dealing with libs day out and day out
Speaker 1: on set. So it was an experience for sure. But
Speaker 1: I'm just I'm I gotta be all Buck all the time.
Speaker 1: I gotta be one percent, pure, unadulterated Buck, and that's
Speaker 1: what I am on radio, and now that's what it's
Speaker 1: going to be just twenty four seven. There will be
Speaker 1: no the Buck will never stop. Oh yeah, that should
Speaker 1: come back, Max Rights, Hey Buck, I'm in Boston. I
Speaker 1: didn't get to hear Roll Call last night because the
Speaker 1: station replaced your last hour with some fluffy podcast. Man's
Speaker 1: that's that's annoying. Sorry, yeah, I gotta yeah, it happens.
Speaker 1: I can't do anything about that, Sean writes, party on Buck,
Speaker 1: Dems are wanting to give themselves yet another pay raise
Speaker 1: to the tune of forty five hundred dollars. When are
Speaker 1: we going to give the power of congressional pay raises
Speaker 1: to the states that elected them and stop this insanity?
Speaker 1: Shouldn't this be under the review and approval of those
Speaker 1: responsible for putting them into office? Well, Sean, I see
Speaker 1: what you're saying, and I'm feeling your flow on this one,
Speaker 1: my friend. But we got bigger We got bigger fish
Speaker 1: to fry than a pay raise for Democrats in the Congress.
Speaker 1: You know that's what they're gonna do, just like they
Speaker 1: exempted themselves from true Obamacare when that first came out. Kristen,
Speaker 1: Hey Buck, I love your radio show and really enjoyed
Speaker 1: watching you on Rising. Oh wow, Horizon fan, they exist
Speaker 1: now that you've decided to leave. Maybe you can approach
Speaker 1: Fox Nation and get a show there or anything to
Speaker 1: get you more exposure. I'm all four. Thank you so much, Kristen.
Speaker 1: I can tell you that there is something in the
Speaker 1: works that should be signed soon that will be additional
Speaker 1: way for you to experience the Freedom Hunt, and a
Speaker 1: good one and a cool one, and I think a
Speaker 1: lot of you will be psyched about it. We have
Speaker 1: this summer, we are hitting the afterburner and we're going
Speaker 1: to do some really cool stuff. And this is not
Speaker 1: a like, oh, I'm going to get to the History
Speaker 1: Show like one day. I will, probably when I'm retired.
Speaker 1: But this is happening, happening. This is already in the
Speaker 1: final contract phase. Radio show is going to stay, of course,
Speaker 1: but it's going to be in addition to the radio show,
Speaker 1: there will be well, I can say this, there will
Speaker 1: be a video component, a professional, legit video video component
Speaker 1: of this show, and a platform upon which any of
Speaker 1: you can vary easily without any issues. Check out the
Speaker 1: video side of this thing. So that's going to be
Speaker 1: fan fantastic, my friends. I'm excited about it. When I
Speaker 1: have more details, I will tell you about them. Timothy
Speaker 1: Ryan Shield's high Buck. Regarding your comments on the Royal family,
Speaker 1: both Prince William and Harry have served in the military.
Speaker 1: Harry served multiple tours in Afghanistan. Okay, that's very good
Speaker 1: for them, but I don't know what that has to
Speaker 1: do about the Royal family. Per Se, Soldier, sailors and
Speaker 1: airmen of the Allied Expeditionary Force, you are about to
Speaker 1: embark upon the great crusade toward which we have striven
Speaker 1: these many months. The eyes of the world are upon you,
Speaker 1: the hopes and prayers of liberty loving people everywhere in march.
Speaker 1: With you, in company with our brave allies and brothers
Speaker 1: in arms on other fronts, you will bring about the
Speaker 1: destruction of the German war machine, the elimination of Nazi
Speaker 1: chranny over oppressed peoples of Europe, and security for ourselves
Speaker 1: in a free world. This is a quote Timothy sent
Speaker 1: me for the anniversary of D Day, which of course
Speaker 1: is today. John Shields High real news fan. Well, John,
Speaker 1: that means you are original Saturday Squad. If you want
Speaker 1: to up your egg making game, you have to learn
Speaker 1: how to crack the egg one handed directly in the skillet.
Speaker 1: When I was younger, I worked at a bakery would
Speaker 1: have to use ten pounds of eggs. For a recipe,
Speaker 1: you have to use both hands and egg in each
Speaker 1: I still use the one hand method, but only do
Speaker 1: one egg at a time. Also add some fresh avocado
Speaker 1: and salsa. Then if you'd like some shredded cheese. This
Speaker 1: is my post swim meal came Bear lives all right, John,
Speaker 1: thanks for the egg tit. I appreciate it, my friend.
Speaker 1: I haven't been making eggs for myself as much lately,
Speaker 1: so I gotta work on it. Nadine Buck listen to
Speaker 1: podcasts here at work, and I'm a bit behind hearing
Speaker 1: more about you going buck wild than getting into things
Speaker 1: that allow your talents to shine. So very excited for
Speaker 1: you and looking forward to what you have coming for
Speaker 1: the rest of us. Long time listener, and very much
Speaker 1: appreciate your insight, wisdom beyond your years, and ability to
Speaker 1: laugh at yourself. Hope you'll come back to us in
Speaker 1: New York, Nadine, very very likely, and thank you so
Speaker 1: much for reaching out to me here and listening to
Speaker 1: me on podcast. And we're going to really push the
Speaker 1: podcast and get that going even bigger. Brock writes, the
Speaker 1: podcast has American now from three years ago. FYI, well, Brock,
Speaker 1: tell me where that is, because that should not be
Speaker 1: the case if they're saying American now on the podcast,
Speaker 1: because that's not the name of the show. It hasn't
Speaker 1: been the name of the show in a long time.
Speaker 1: Let's see here. Ken writes, Hey, Buck, now that your
Speaker 1: guy Jeff Sessions is out, what is your assessment of him,
Speaker 1: even though he's one of the first to get on
Speaker 1: the Trump train see a boy scout? Or is he
Speaker 1: providing cover for Muller when he recused himself? You know, Ken, Now,
Speaker 1: I think the Jeff Sessions is a good guy, and
Speaker 1: I just think that he wasn't I think he's an
Speaker 1: honorable guy and a loyal guy. I think that he
Speaker 1: wasn't prepared for the political street fight that he entered
Speaker 1: by being such a right in the center of the
Speaker 1: Trump administrations Maelstrom with the Democrats assaulting them from all sides.
Speaker 1: So I just think that Jeff was in a tough spot.
Speaker 1: I disagree with his decision to recuse himself, but I
Speaker 1: can I know why he made that decision. He thought
Speaker 1: it was the ethical thing. I do not think Jeff
Speaker 1: Sessions is somebody who was intentionally selling out. I just
Speaker 1: think that he, you know, he thought that. He's kind
Speaker 1: of like Tirian Lanister from Game of Thrones toward the
Speaker 1: final seasons when he wants to give people the benefit
Speaker 1: of the doubt and hopes that they're honorable and finds
Speaker 1: out that they're not. You know, that's kind of the
Speaker 1: Jeff sessions that we had and we needed early season
Speaker 1: Game of Thrones, Tirian where he's a cynical little soob
Speaker 1: and understands that the other side fights dirty and if
Speaker 1: you want to stay alive, you better fight dirty too.
Speaker 1: You know, that's the mentality we needed. Let's see here,
Speaker 1: Kevin right, it's hey buck. I'm sure we have a
Speaker 1: lot of thoughts about the Frenchian third Way, but one
Speaker 1: of the critical points that I think too many people
Speaker 1: meant is that it is based on a straw man
Speaker 1: of David French. The polite and non confrontational conservative squish
Speaker 1: does exist, but it is not David French. David has
Speaker 1: sued more universities over speech codes than anyone else and
Speaker 1: has never wavered him being pro life. We can and
Speaker 1: debate how to be assertive, confident, and a conservative movement
Speaker 1: going forward, but skewing this fictional David French is completely
Speaker 1: destructive and we'll leave a more divided and weaker right.
Speaker 1: I don't believe moving forward requires recriminations of our own side,
Speaker 1: the broad American right, and this certainly agrees goes for
Speaker 1: both anti Frenchians and never Trumpers. Well, Kevin, I don't,
Speaker 1: I think you would have to agree. I am not
Speaker 1: somebody who parodies or unfairly pillories David French. I've had
Speaker 1: him on this show many times. I've always shown all
Speaker 1: due respect to David and think that he is a
Speaker 1: good guy and a smart guy. I have no problem
Speaker 1: with David whatsoever. As a per I disagree with some
Speaker 1: of his approach, and I think that he has gotten
Speaker 1: he got the Russia collusion thing. I think that he's
Speaker 1: gotten that very very wrong, and that's been frustrating. But
Speaker 1: that's a far cry from He's not on our team
Speaker 1: and he's not somebody that I respect. So just let
Speaker 1: me start with that. I don't I'm not somebody who
Speaker 1: sits here. I don't call him, you know, a French
Speaker 1: Republican or something. I mean, I think that he's tried
Speaker 1: very hard to be a voice for the movement. I
Speaker 1: think that he's largely succeeded. That's said, I think that
Speaker 1: sarab Amari has a point, and I maybe we need
Speaker 1: to get into this a bit more, perhaps tomorrow on
Speaker 1: the Freestyle Friday Show. But I appreciate you writing in
Speaker 1: and thank you for your astute observations of the situation.
Speaker 1: All right, team, that's gonna be it for today in
Speaker 1: the Hut. Looking forward to talking you tomorrow. Shields High