Speaker 1: You are entering the Freedom Hunt Tomorrow's Mother Day. Here
Speaker 1: in the swamp, people are gathering together to hear what
Speaker 1: will probably be some pre boring testimony about stuff they
Speaker 1: already know, but there could be some bombshells we will
Speaker 1: assess together here in the Freedom Hunt. Also, the fight
Speaker 1: between Trump and the squad continues on what does this
Speaker 1: tell us about the direction of the general election for
Speaker 1: President Trump in twenty twenty And also a transgender individual
Speaker 1: who is insisting that women provide a service that they
Speaker 1: only provide to women. This is a crazy story. We'll
Speaker 1: get to that and more coming up on The buck
Speaker 1: Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show, where the
Speaker 1: mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
Speaker 1: actionable intelligence. Mistake American, You're a great American? Again the
Speaker 1: buck Sexton Show begins. Analysts, remember the nid No, do
Speaker 1: you believe President Trump is a racist? I believe he is, Yes,
Speaker 1: no doubt about it. These are folks and women who
Speaker 1: who love their country, and they work very hard, and
Speaker 1: they want to move us towards that more perfect union
Speaker 1: that our founding father has talked about. Tragically, the President
Speaker 1: has decided that racism is good politics. Racism is a
Speaker 1: good political strategy. There's a reason why he keeps returning
Speaker 1: to attacking these women of color and the rhetoric that
Speaker 1: he uses. Are you accusing the president of being a racist.
Speaker 1: I'm accusing him being worse than that. He is somebody
Speaker 1: that he's using race like a weapon to divide our
Speaker 1: country against itself. Worse than a racist, Cory Booker says.
Speaker 1: In Affinity plus One, Corey Booker goes with, welcome to
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, I see that my travels
Speaker 1: through Latin America with the Secretary of States over the
Speaker 1: last few days have not allowed the fur or from
Speaker 1: the left over Trump's comments, Oh it's so racist, Trump's
Speaker 1: comments to die down a little bit. We know that
Speaker 1: the leftists seem to have a propensity for calling people racists.
Speaker 1: We know that this has been a weapon that they
Speaker 1: have deployed far too often and far too cynically for
Speaker 1: many years. And so I'm at the point where regardless
Speaker 1: of what you think about whether Trump's comments about the
Speaker 1: the squad as they are called, talib omar aoc and
Speaker 1: who am I, Oh Pressley, there we go, She's she's
Speaker 1: the really the fourth the fourth member of the squad,
Speaker 1: or she's the one in the band who if she
Speaker 1: were to not show up one day, they would probably
Speaker 1: be able to find somebody else to play that instrument.
Speaker 1: But nonetheless, the other three are certainly getting a lot
Speaker 1: of attention these days. They're in this fight with Trump.
Speaker 1: And here's what I take from it. All one is
Speaker 1: that the Democrats never tire of calling Trump a racist,
Speaker 1: and anyone who supports President Trump knows that it doesn't
Speaker 1: matter what he has said or will say going forward,
Speaker 1: they will always call him a racist. And this is
Speaker 1: just the way that they will approach the election. This
Speaker 1: is what they've been doing for the whole time. Nothing
Speaker 1: here is going to change. But it does also show us.
Speaker 1: I think that the President of the United States understands
Speaker 1: that he cannot ever back down or bow down to
Speaker 1: these accusations. It really doesn't matter what he says. It
Speaker 1: doesn't matter what he could say. Something that even the
Speaker 1: President would admit, Oh, I've bold I misspoke, That's not
Speaker 1: what I meant, or that clearly could be taken it
Speaker 1: away that I did not intend, which could happen to
Speaker 1: any of us. The moment the President says, okay, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: I made a mistake. Then they just go and finish
Speaker 1: finish him off politically, they make sure he'll never win
Speaker 1: another election. They'll that'll be all that, all that they
Speaker 1: talk about. So I'm not surprised for some of the
Speaker 1: conservatives out there who have been upset, and I know
Speaker 1: plenty of them, at least in the media, upset at
Speaker 1: the President for the recent comments. I just say, can
Speaker 1: we focus on the country. Can we focus on the
Speaker 1: more important things that are happening around America right now?
Speaker 1: Can we focus on the border where I am upset
Speaker 1: with the lack of action from the administration perspective. Got
Speaker 1: some new numbers in today, thirty five arrested in the
Speaker 1: Immigrations and Customs enforcement raids that were much touted in
Speaker 1: the last week or so. Thirty five people, folks, You
Speaker 1: got over three hundred and thirty thousand Central Americans have
Speaker 1: come into the country claiming quote, asylum. They're not asylum
Speaker 1: seekers there. They are immigrants who are skipping the line illegally,
Speaker 1: that is what they're doing. But thirty five got picked
Speaker 1: up by Ice, So there's that. I have to say
Speaker 1: that I am disappointed right now with the situation of
Speaker 1: the border. But first, let me just dispense with all
Speaker 1: this focus on racism, right, the racism of the president.
Speaker 1: One is, I've known this was going to happen for
Speaker 1: a long time, the same way that climate change has
Speaker 1: become a posture completely bereft of any intellectual substance whatsoever.
Speaker 1: You just say that you believe in climate change, because
Speaker 1: by establishing that belief, you are telling all the people
Speaker 1: around you what a good person you are, how wonderful
Speaker 1: you are, how fantastic you are. It has nothing to
Speaker 1: do with the science. You say I believe in climate change,
Speaker 1: and the left pats you on the head. That's what
Speaker 1: they've been doing. They've expanded the term beyond meaning for
Speaker 1: political purposes. Well, I'll also tell you that the term
Speaker 1: white supremacy has intentionally been expanded beyond all meaning by
Speaker 1: the left because they want to just use it as
Speaker 1: a catchall weapon against their ideological opponents. This has been
Speaker 1: happening for quite some time. You have aoc running around
Speaker 1: saying that the President of the United States is in
Speaker 1: fact stoking white supremacy and neo Nazi groups play clip four.
Speaker 1: He is stoking white supremacy, and he is allowing frankly
Speaker 1: neo Nazi groups to go off unchecked, because that is
Speaker 1: a key part of rousing his base. But we cannot
Speaker 1: allow and give into that. This is such a slender
Speaker 1: from AOC who increasingly I have to say, she's just
Speaker 1: someone who doesn't do the work. And what I mean
Speaker 1: by that is she's not a person with whom I disagree,
Speaker 1: But I could at least say she's informed, she understands
Speaker 1: her argument. She is a walking, talking, emotional blackmail and
Speaker 1: talking points machine, that is what she is. She spews
Speaker 1: all this claptrap about socialism, doesn't understand the microeconomics. Forget
Speaker 1: about macroeconomics, because that can't really tell you very much
Speaker 1: most of the time. The microeconomic theory behind why socialism
Speaker 1: isn't just flawed in practice, it is flawed in theory.
Speaker 1: It doesn't work well, and it's wrong, and even if
Speaker 1: you could implement it the way you think you could,
Speaker 1: it wouldn't be a good idea. She doesn't understand the philosophy,
Speaker 1: she doesn't understand the theory. She doesn't even know how
Speaker 1: companies or businesses or commerce really works. But she's lecturing
Speaker 1: the whole country about this all the time, and the
Speaker 1: way that she does it is from the perspective of
Speaker 1: the victim. That's why it's so important for her and
Speaker 1: for the rest of the squad and for the rest
Speaker 1: of the Democratic Party to use race as often as
Speaker 1: they can, because they feel both protected and able to
Speaker 1: go on offense all the time. How could you question
Speaker 1: ABC talking about Trump on white supremacy. You must be
Speaker 1: a white supremacist too. These are the disgraceful games that
Speaker 1: they play, and the end results are particularly distressing. I
Speaker 1: have to tell you the you know, you had these
Speaker 1: NYPD officers, these NYPD officers who were trying to affect
Speaker 1: an arrest in New York City, and I was a
Speaker 1: civilian analyst assigned to the Intelligence Division, so I never
Speaker 1: I never had a badge, a badge and a gun
Speaker 1: in the NYPD. I help them track down the terrorists
Speaker 1: as essentially they're operating in New York City and understand them.
Speaker 1: But I have a particular affinity for the men and
Speaker 1: women of the MYPD because I worked with them. I mean,
Speaker 1: because I saw what they do day in and day out.
Speaker 1: But the comments and the smears of people like AOC
Speaker 1: have consequences in real life. Calling everybody a white supremacist
Speaker 1: saying that if you support President Trump, you must be
Speaker 1: racist too. There's so much racism all over the country,
Speaker 1: so much that they have to manufacture it. Often in
Speaker 1: the media talk about fake racial incidents. There, Jess Smollett
Speaker 1: and Erica Thomas down in Georgia and so many others.
Speaker 1: You know, all these people on campus that find racist
Speaker 1: graffiti on their wall, or find a noose hanging from
Speaker 1: a treason where it turns out that the individual reporting
Speaker 1: it put it there. We have so much racism, so
Speaker 1: much nasty, vicious racism in this country, that there's hoax
Speaker 1: after hoax after hoax going on. What is that all about?
Speaker 1: This is really ultimately about power and about trying to
Speaker 1: transfer power from those on the right to those on
Speaker 1: the Democrat and identity politics obsessed left. They want to
Speaker 1: force us all to submit to their incredibly stupid ideas.
Speaker 1: If there's one, if there's one major overarching theme that
Speaker 1: I want to get into today, it's how dumb the
Speaker 1: Democrat ideas really are. I do believe that they have
Speaker 1: convinced themselves that Donald Trump is a horrible racist, but
Speaker 1: I also think that they have an intellectual insecurity at
Speaker 1: least the ones who are smart enough to understand the
Speaker 1: real implications of their ideas. They have an intellectual insecurity
Speaker 1: because they are taking positions that normal, sane, rational people
Speaker 1: with basic knowledge about how the world functions could not
Speaker 1: support in good conscience. Position after position, rashided to lead
Speaker 1: twenty dollars minimum wage. We'll get to that pretty soon. AOC,
Speaker 1: the Green New Deal, abolish ice. Lots of Democrat members
Speaker 1: of Congress say we should do that, So just get
Speaker 1: rid of just create an open border. Bernie Sanders saying
Speaker 1: all college should be free, it will all be paid for,
Speaker 1: all trade school, everything. These are completely unworkable, absurd, obtused
Speaker 1: positions that have been mainstreamed by the Democratic Party. I
Speaker 1: mean they have taken that, they have taken the road
Speaker 1: to crazy town, and they are letting it loose. They're
Speaker 1: having way too much fun being nuts. But the rhetoric
Speaker 1: has consequences. Their ideas are clearly horrible, and we'll talk
Speaker 1: more about that in this hour. But the things that
Speaker 1: they say about white supremacy and all the rest you
Speaker 1: know you have and the police even when they're minorities,
Speaker 1: I would note, according to leftist theory which I have
Speaker 1: to spend a lot of time reading about and learning about.
Speaker 1: According to leftists, the police themselves are instruments of white
Speaker 1: supremacy even when they are not white, and so anti
Speaker 1: police feeling is always very strong among those on the up,
Speaker 1: especially local police, those who enforce laws that tend to
Speaker 1: be more morality based and more civil order base instead
Speaker 1: of a lot of the federal level stuff, which is
Speaker 1: it's illegal because the government says so. But some NYPD
Speaker 1: officers are trying to affect the arrest and people were
Speaker 1: dumping This is in my hometown where I'm moving back
Speaker 1: in a few weeks. People were dumping water on them
Speaker 1: and laughing. Play sixteen not invol Oh they not stopping,
Speaker 1: Oh my god yet making plan? Oh are they laughing
Speaker 1: at dumb abolish ice? Black lives matter? You look at
Speaker 1: these different chants, these groups, all coming from the left,
Speaker 1: and the disrespect, in fact, the demonization that they engage
Speaker 1: in a law enforcement has consequences. People like AOC saying
Speaker 1: that concentration camps are operating at our southern border and
Speaker 1: therefore those in charge of the camps are the equivalent
Speaker 1: of then SS that has consequences. They are willing to
Speaker 1: tear down what is around them on the left. If
Speaker 1: they can't be in control of it, something you have
Speaker 1: to remember. And their ideas are stupid. They may the
Speaker 1: best thing you could say for them is that they're
Speaker 1: well intentioned. But well intentioned means nothing. The path the
Speaker 1: hell is paved with good intentions. I'm sure you've heard.
Speaker 1: So they talk about racism all the time to get
Speaker 1: us off balance, to silence us, to make us feel
Speaker 1: like we can't support this president despite the excellent job
Speaker 1: that President Trump is doing as president. That's the initial
Speaker 1: that's the covering fire fuel. That's to keep our heads down.
Speaker 1: And then they try to run up the middle in
Speaker 1: a full own assault with the dumbest, craziest ideas you
Speaker 1: could ever think of at a national government level, things
Speaker 1: like the Green New Deal or twenty why not a
Speaker 1: million dollar minimum wage? Let's take apart some of the stupidity,
Speaker 1: shall we. There's nothing that we can do to get
Speaker 1: them to stop calling Trump racist. The President knows that
Speaker 1: he cannot and should not apologize for anything because it
Speaker 1: will get him nowhere, and they don't want an apology,
Speaker 1: they want his destruction. We'll get into that and more
Speaker 1: coming up. Stay with me if the Democrats, I guess
Speaker 1: are forced to embrace her, and I call it AOC
Speaker 1: plus three. Okay, not that AOC is a bargain because
Speaker 1: she's not a man. She's no bargain. Look, I mean
Speaker 1: we'll go into it at some point. I'll tell you
Speaker 1: all about AOC. I got more an AOC. A Trump
Speaker 1: knows that making this group of four congresswomen the most
Speaker 1: known and visible group in the entire Democratic Party can
Speaker 1: only help in twenty twenty because the far left is
Speaker 1: now at the helm. They're now in control the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: and the American people need to know that. Why do
Speaker 1: we think there's been this this clinging to Biden that
Speaker 1: has been going on. Biden is deeply unimpressive and everybody
Speaker 1: really knows it. But Biden has the outward trappings and
Speaker 1: resume of the somewhat centrist moderate Democrat. You know, somebody
Speaker 1: who's was tied to the Obama administration, who understands how
Speaker 1: DC work has been around a long time. Why not
Speaker 1: allow the Democratic Party to put forward one of the
Speaker 1: ideological vanguard, somebody that is pushing for the ideas that
Speaker 1: motivate Democrats to go vote, motivate them to go to
Speaker 1: the polls, because if they did that, they would get destroyed.
Speaker 1: They know this, the three or four percent of the
Speaker 1: American voting population at least until Amnesty goes through and
Speaker 1: destroys the Republican Party. But conversation for another day. The
Speaker 1: three or four percent who are up for grabs, whose
Speaker 1: votes can still be one by one side or the other.
Speaker 1: They don't really want to hear about the trials and
Speaker 1: tribulations of transgender individuals who insist on female appointments being
Speaker 1: kept for them that involve a very specific grooming. I
Speaker 1: We will talk about that later in the show, because
Speaker 1: it is going on in Canada right now and people
Speaker 1: need to know that the left still defends this stuff.
Speaker 1: There is no level of insanity around what are called
Speaker 1: transgender rights now, which is just whatever a transgender individual
Speaker 1: says they are. There is no level of insanity. The
Speaker 1: Left will not defend what. We'll get there. Oh and
Speaker 1: also Al Franken, they're trying to rehabilitate. Hey h, we'll
Speaker 1: get to that as well. I thought Al Franken was
Speaker 1: going to be out of the game now, but guess
Speaker 1: what he wants to come back. We'll talk about what's
Speaker 1: going on there. Man, do they hate this president? And
Speaker 1: they really do plan to do everything they can to
Speaker 1: make it socially unacceptable to vote for him. That's a
Speaker 1: huge part of this whole effort from the squad. You say,
Speaker 1: you you tell anyone that you're voting for Trump, they
Speaker 1: can call you a racist, and a vast majority you
Speaker 1: can pretty much count on any Democrat who would over here,
Speaker 1: that's a yeah, that's right, that's racist. What does that
Speaker 1: mean for all of the Latino and black and Asian
Speaker 1: and other Americans who vote for Trump? By the way,
Speaker 1: I think this somehow never gets factored into conversation. Did
Speaker 1: they are they They've been brainwashed somehow. Oh, we could
Speaker 1: take the quote from Aana Pressley that she does not
Speaker 1: want quote what was it, I think I remembered exactly,
Speaker 1: but quote brown faces that do not want to speak
Speaker 1: for with or for brown voices or be a voice
Speaker 1: for brown That your skin colors should determine your ideology.
Speaker 1: The left is open about that now. They will say that,
Speaker 1: which to me is just a definitionally racism. I mean
Speaker 1: that is racism. Your skin color is X. You should
Speaker 1: think why that's racist? Or you must think if you
Speaker 1: do not think that you somehow lose your racial authenticity.
Speaker 1: The left clings to this stuff, still believes this stuff,
Speaker 1: in fact, more so now than ever, I believe because
Speaker 1: Trump has broken them. I mean, I do worry about
Speaker 1: the emotional and psychological stability of most lib journals if
Speaker 1: Trump wins reelection. But the spasms of lunacy currently gripping
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party with calling everyone a racist who supports Trump,
Speaker 1: calling Trump a racist a thousand times a day, having
Speaker 1: all these different news channels getting in on this, it's
Speaker 1: because the party does not have good ideas. We will
Speaker 1: transition to that in a moment. So recently I introduced
Speaker 1: the Boost Act. This legislation completely repeals the GOP tax
Speaker 1: scam that is wholly helping wealthy individual the rich, the corporations.
Speaker 1: And do you know what I did with that money?
Speaker 1: Do you know what I said, We're gonna go ahead
Speaker 1: and put it into the pockets of folks like everyday Americans.
Speaker 1: If you make less than one hundred thousand dollars, you're
Speaker 1: gonna get up to six thousand dollars in your pocket.
Speaker 1: And if you make less than fifty thousand dollars, you're
Speaker 1: gonna get three thousand dollars. That's what we do with
Speaker 1: our public dollars. We give it back to the people.
Speaker 1: The people that earned it. Dollars are not public congresswomen
Speaker 1: to leave. They belong to individuals. The state doesn't have
Speaker 1: any money, It only has our money. What she was
Speaker 1: doing there, that was at the twenty nineteen NAACP convention,
Speaker 1: one of the squad, one of the four is in
Speaker 1: very clear and explicit terms telling us all that socialism
Speaker 1: is the order of the day for the Democratic Party,
Speaker 1: that socialism is really what the Democratic Party is all about.
Speaker 1: I wish they would just adopt the name and be
Speaker 1: honest about that now. And those who say, oh, we're
Speaker 1: not socialist, you know, they play all these definitional games.
Speaker 1: They would say, oh, we're the Democratic parties not so
Speaker 1: social security doesn't make a socialist. Well as social security
Speaker 1: in some ways is in fact a socialist program within
Speaker 1: the government, and there are others. There can be an
Speaker 1: entirely socialist economy, or there can just be socialist sectors
Speaker 1: like healthcare, for example, a very large sector. But it
Speaker 1: can't be a defense the left. The Democrats in this
Speaker 1: country can't defend themselves against allegations of socialism. By saying,
Speaker 1: we're not the Soviet unions, We're not socialists, okay, you
Speaker 1: aspire to be. According to Bernie Sanders and many other Democrats,
Speaker 1: similar to the Nordic country Scandinavian countries that are democratic
Speaker 1: socialist states, although not really nearly as socialist as many
Speaker 1: Democrats in this country want to believe. So which is it.
Speaker 1: Are they trying your drag us toward democratic socialism a
Speaker 1: form of socialism, or is any charge of socialism going
Speaker 1: to be shouted down as racist? A lie? Speaking of
Speaker 1: lies to leave lied there? Do you think that any
Speaker 1: mainstream media reporter that asks her this question is going
Speaker 1: to or rather that that overheard that is going to
Speaker 1: ask her? Why do you say that only the rich
Speaker 1: got helped by a tax cut? It's a lie. Eighty
Speaker 1: percent of taxpayers period had more money as a result
Speaker 1: of the Trump tax cuts, eighty percent plus. So that's
Speaker 1: a whole lot more than just rich people. Because eighty
Speaker 1: percent of people paying taxes, and I'm one of them,
Speaker 1: can tell you, and not rich, and little extra money
Speaker 1: in the bank really does help. And the government is
Speaker 1: spending too much of our money. They are creating a
Speaker 1: systemic burden, a risk that can collapse. Ask anybody who
Speaker 1: understands complicated financial systems, or just as somebody who reads
Speaker 1: the history of Fiat currency. AOC's top advisor right now
Speaker 1: for economics is an adherent of modern monetary theory. This
Speaker 1: is very straightforward, folks. It's just print whatever you got
Speaker 1: to print to give people whatever you got to give
Speaker 1: them money wise, this is a recipe for destroying the
Speaker 1: American economy, destroying our way of life, and turning this
Speaker 1: place over a period of time, but not that long.
Speaker 1: If you really did that, you turn yourself into a
Speaker 1: much bigger version of Venezuela very quickly. It would not
Speaker 1: take all that long, because the problem is that once
Speaker 1: inflation sets in, it's very hard to control. All modern
Speaker 1: monetary theory says, it's just keep inflating until it gets
Speaker 1: a little bit too scary, and then figure out how
Speaker 1: to stop the inflation. This is the equivalent, and this
Speaker 1: is AOC's top advisor, Bernie Sanders. People or adherents of this.
Speaker 1: There are a lot of people on the left now
Speaker 1: who and the ones who aren't modern monetary theory devotees
Speaker 1: essentially agree with the idea spend whatever you got to
Speaker 1: spend on whatever programs you want to spend them on.
Speaker 1: But this would be like saying, yeah, end inflation once
Speaker 1: it starts going, just target it really carefully. This would
Speaker 1: be me saying, you know, play with a lit match
Speaker 1: around the drapes of your house just when they catch fire, like,
Speaker 1: just put it out right away. Okay, Yeah, but what
Speaker 1: if I can't, and what if the whole house catches
Speaker 1: on fire. That's what modern monetary theory with the inflation,
Speaker 1: that it can very quickly create risks for all of us.
Speaker 1: The fastest way to destroy a country short of a
Speaker 1: nuclear war or a pestilence that you know, takes out
Speaker 1: half of us. Either one of those things are possible,
Speaker 1: but very unlikely. The fastest The only real way that
Speaker 1: America falls is either from a complete political dissolution, meaning
Speaker 1: our own polity comes apart, which given the open borders
Speaker 1: added to the left, that's increasingly a problem. We don't
Speaker 1: we don't agree on things anymore. Even the Constitution, folks,
Speaker 1: can't protect us if a solid majority of the of
Speaker 1: the individuals living in this country don't believe in all
Speaker 1: this constitution. Founding Father's America stuff. You can go back
Speaker 1: and read about the rise and fall, really just the fall.
Speaker 1: The rise and fall would be given, which is a
Speaker 1: very long history. But you can read Adrian Goldsworthy about
Speaker 1: the fall of Rome and one of the There are
Speaker 1: a lot of things, a massive, unaccountable, highly expensive bureaucracy.
Speaker 1: That was one major problem with the ancient Roman Empire.
Speaker 1: Another was just the constant inflow of what we're then
Speaker 1: called and you know, I'm not saying this is what
Speaker 1: we're dealing with now. What we're then called barbarians, which
Speaker 1: actually came from the ancient Greek barbar which was a
Speaker 1: reference to the way that people who worked Greeks spoke
Speaker 1: because their language is essentially like Gibberish speakers. Oddly enough,
Speaker 1: in a at Rome, there were parts of Greece that
Speaker 1: would later be referred to as barbarian. But you had
Speaker 1: these inflows of different groups that were not that did
Speaker 1: not feel Roman, but they came inside the boundaries of
Speaker 1: the Roman Empire, and then they had to be they
Speaker 1: had to be ministered to by the central government, and
Speaker 1: they were never truly on board, and you had what
Speaker 1: would we would call today secession movements. They would call
Speaker 1: them uprisings or revolts, and it just over time dissolved
Speaker 1: because people did not feel roman That's one way. Another way,
Speaker 1: and probably a much faster way, is just completely destroy
Speaker 1: the currency of a country. Just just annihilate that currency
Speaker 1: and see what ends up happening. It creates a panic,
Speaker 1: and that's what Democrats are willing to risk so that
Speaker 1: what we can have free college. Here's the thought, folks.
Speaker 1: Too many people are going to four year colleges. Colleges
Speaker 1: are too expensive. University in colleges have become far too powerful,
Speaker 1: not as institutions of higher learning, but as gatekeepers into
Speaker 1: elite society. Enough is enough. We need to rethink this
Speaker 1: whole process, not double and triple down on the expenses
Speaker 1: of it all. But the Democrats are just they're running
Speaker 1: around wanting to spend the public treasury like drunken sailors.
Speaker 1: No offense to the sailors who are listening, but sometimes
Speaker 1: you guys like the party spending too much money. Rashida
Speaker 1: Talib is saying that they're just going to take money
Speaker 1: from you and give it to other people. Oh and
Speaker 1: also universal basic income. I would tell you I heard
Speaker 1: a I just want to deal with this because I
Speaker 1: haven't talked about it on the show. I heard a
Speaker 1: fantastic and I rarely will promote someone else's podcast here
Speaker 1: unless they are guests on the show. But he doesn't
Speaker 1: care because he's I think, got the biggest podcast in
Speaker 1: the world. So you know, occasionally I will listen to
Speaker 1: Joe Rogan stuff and I saw Rogan talking to Naval
Speaker 1: Ravocant something you may know who he is. Neval is
Speaker 1: the founder of angel Lists. So he's a Silicon Valley
Speaker 1: venture capitalist, very very smart guy like me, grew up
Speaker 1: in New York City and has an interesting has an
Speaker 1: interesting backstory. I would say it's well worth watching the
Speaker 1: I will recommend that you watch the entire or leasten
Speaker 1: to the entire Rogan Ravocant interview. Some of the guys
Speaker 1: that Rogan has on I just I have no interest
Speaker 1: in hearing what they have to say. Ravocant was really
Speaker 1: insightful and he spoke about universal basic income and he
Speaker 1: nailed it. I mean what I've been trying to say
Speaker 1: and is some of this is I think quite clear.
Speaker 1: And this is going to tie into are minimum wage
Speaker 1: just go We're about to get in a minimum wage folks.
Speaker 1: Don't where we're gonna talk about that? In a moment.
Speaker 1: But because Democrats are crazy on that too. I mean,
Speaker 1: they're just they have just it's unfettered left wing lunacy
Speaker 1: now all over the place, and they're just trying to
Speaker 1: keep us off balance with racism, racism, racism. Meanwhile, yeah,
Speaker 1: let's destroy the entire uscon to me with our ideas.
Speaker 1: And you might say, buck, they'll they'll never win, they'll
Speaker 1: never be empowered to do this. Yeah, remember what happened
Speaker 1: in two thousand and eight. You don't think that can
Speaker 1: happen again. But Rabican back to this interview with Rabican
Speaker 1: and Joe Rogan nevall as the guy's name. He was
Speaker 1: talking about universal basic income. He says, for one, the
Speaker 1: moment that you just have money, it had, making it
Speaker 1: not means tested is just, on its face insane, right,
Speaker 1: because you're giving a thousand dollars to a billionaire. Just
Speaker 1: because you're giving a thousand dollars a month everybody, makes
Speaker 1: no sense in any world. Okay, So start with that.
Speaker 1: If it's not means tested, that's absurd. And then the
Speaker 1: moment it's not means tested, you're really dealing with what
Speaker 1: is essentially it might be very widespread, but essentially a
Speaker 1: welfare program, So then the politics behind that change. But
Speaker 1: if you create a broad enough direct deposit program for
Speaker 1: everybody through universal basic income, you find yourself in a
Speaker 1: position where or you will will soon find yourself in
Speaker 1: a position where fifty of the people who vote just
Speaker 1: want more money for themselves. Every time someone says, well,
Speaker 1: it's not gonna be a thousand dollars a month for
Speaker 1: universal basic income, it's gonna be two thousand a month,
Speaker 1: it's just this constant invitation to use the politics of
Speaker 1: the mob to override market forces, to override what the
Speaker 1: economy will bear, and just say, or you know what
Speaker 1: the market will bear rather, and what our economy can sustain.
Speaker 1: And that temptation is obvious to anyone, and it is
Speaker 1: in a sense a precursor to where we are in
Speaker 1: this minimum wage debate right now, which there's some amazing
Speaker 1: stuff of Bernie Sanders. And then the last part of
Speaker 1: it is universal basic income cannot which you know, Andrew Yang,
Speaker 1: at least he's got ideas. I think his ideas are
Speaker 1: generally bad and or wrong, but at least they're real ideas,
Speaker 1: and some of them are kind of new ish. But
Speaker 1: you need to give somebody more than just a check.
Speaker 1: People need purpose. And this is a mantra of mine
Speaker 1: has been for a very long time. Everyone needs purpose.
Speaker 1: Why do you get up in the morning. Why do
Speaker 1: you do what you do? Is it to do a
Speaker 1: great job at work? Is it to be a fantastic
Speaker 1: neighbor and mother or father or take care of your family?
Speaker 1: Is it to just work on your relationship with God?
Speaker 1: And you know whatever? But everyone needs purpose. And in
Speaker 1: the world of employment, when we're talking about you know,
Speaker 1: money and economics, people need purpose in their day to
Speaker 1: day lives that does not come from just getting a check.
Speaker 1: So that's what I feel universal basic income I do
Speaker 1: want to get more into. Look, it's just there's crazy
Speaker 1: all over the place the Democrats these days, and I
Speaker 1: think that they're not going to be able to move
Speaker 1: away from this stuff. They're not gonna be able to
Speaker 1: move away from raising their hands and saying they all
Speaker 1: want to give healthcare to illegal aliens. Are not going
Speaker 1: to be able to move away from claiming that they
Speaker 1: all want to give they all want medicare for all,
Speaker 1: except for Kamala Harris, who's trying to play both sides
Speaker 1: and hope the media covers for her. So again, we're
Speaker 1: going for a joy ride into the into the bowels.
Speaker 1: I guess you can't joy ride inside the bowels, right,
Speaker 1: but that's kind of unless you're really small. But we
Speaker 1: are going for a cruise here through the left wing
Speaker 1: crazy like single payer. Let's talk about single payer, stay
Speaker 1: with me and all of us done without a middle
Speaker 1: class tax hike, without a middle class task. Yes, thirty
Speaker 1: trillion over ten years. There are ways to pay for it.
Speaker 1: Also understanding the investment that we are going to be
Speaker 1: making in a way that is going to read great
Speaker 1: benefits in terms of other costs. When people question that
Speaker 1: there is no formula for this, that you are going
Speaker 1: to find money in magical ways is not realistic thinking,
Speaker 1: how do you respond to that? Statisquo is not enough.
Speaker 1: That's not an answer. Kamala Harris, thirty trillion dollars folks
Speaker 1: for single pair over ten years, three trillion dollars a year.
Speaker 1: It's basically doubling. It's effectively doubling government expenditures every year
Speaker 1: for single pair. And she's claiming that we can do
Speaker 1: this without raising taxes in the middle class. That's just
Speaker 1: a lie, or she's not very smart. There's no third option.
Speaker 1: You know how the media is always lectures. Oh, Trump lied,
Speaker 1: and Trump got two scoops of ice cream and everyone
Speaker 1: else got one, and he's so terrible. Where is the
Speaker 1: Where are the guardians of truth in this one? Where
Speaker 1: are the democracy dies in darkness? Folks? Where's the how
Speaker 1: many Pinocchio? Is we gonna give Kamala Harris here? Thirty
Speaker 1: trillion dollars over the course of ten years. You're not
Speaker 1: gonna raise taxes on the middle class. You're just gonna
Speaker 1: find the money elsewhere? There are only oh, I'm sorry,
Speaker 1: pardon me. There is a third option here. There is
Speaker 1: a third option, and it's the scariest one. The first
Speaker 1: option is she's just not very smart and doesn't understand
Speaker 1: the mathematics of this, which I don't. To be fair,
Speaker 1: I don't believe it that's true. I think that Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris is bright. You know. I don't think she's a genius,
Speaker 1: but I think she's a She's a bright person. Let's
Speaker 1: let's always be fair about every individual politician, and it
Speaker 1: seems like where where they are in terms of their
Speaker 1: intellectual gifts and cognitive ability, Kamala Harris strikes me as bright.
Speaker 1: I don't know her, but okay, so that means I
Speaker 1: think she could just be lying to this person because
Speaker 1: it's convenient now that I totally believe, right, And that's
Speaker 1: the likeliest. She's too smart to know that thirty trillion
Speaker 1: dollars is just going to come from wherever. So she's
Speaker 1: just saying this because she'll get through the interview, and
Speaker 1: that it lets the crazy left here what they want
Speaker 1: to hear. Okay, that's one. There is that third option.
Speaker 1: We're just going to inflate it. We're just going to
Speaker 1: print the money to pay for this, which will destroy
Speaker 1: the savings that you have in your bank account right now,
Speaker 1: which will annihilate your wages. I mean, the people that
Speaker 1: really get hurt in an inflation are the people who
Speaker 1: are working for wages for a living, who are close
Speaker 1: to you know, economic pain all the time, who do
Speaker 1: not have financial stability. They're they're the ones that just
Speaker 1: get wiped out. Those who own real estate and gold
Speaker 1: and you know assets, real hard assets, they're in much
Speaker 1: better shape. I mean, they maybe realize the mad maxine
Speaker 1: that's going on in the streets around them. And we
Speaker 1: all live in this, we all have to live in
Speaker 1: the same country. If we're going to be in the
Speaker 1: same country. But they can do they're better off, to
Speaker 1: be sure. But commonly here is trying to tell you
Speaker 1: that they're just going to find the money somewhere if
Speaker 1: their plan is to just print and I think that
Speaker 1: there's enough, there's enough lunacy on the left. This is
Speaker 1: look at what Look at how much money Obama spent
Speaker 1: over his eight years, and then look at every president
Speaker 1: before him combined. If you look at a chart of
Speaker 1: federal spending, you cannot look me in the eye and
Speaker 1: say we aren't on the precipice of a huge disaster here.
Speaker 1: And I know Trump hasn't cut this off, has not
Speaker 1: turned this around. You have. The problem is, folks, you
Speaker 1: can't have the power to do anything this country anymore
Speaker 1: unless you're just going to spend and spend and spend.
Speaker 1: Trn't realizes that no one wants to be the one
Speaker 1: that says that Santa Claus isn't coming this year. No
Speaker 1: one won't. And if you are that person, you get
Speaker 1: pushed out. And then the total lunatics of the left,
Speaker 1: the Democrat crazies, they say, oh, yeah, Santa will be here,
Speaker 1: and then they get to do all the other stuff
Speaker 1: that comes with getting the votes. For saying Santa is
Speaker 1: going to be here, I got more worried. We haven't
Speaker 1: talked to a minimum wage yet. That's got to come up.
Speaker 1: All ownership. Is that its lowest rate in fifty one years.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much, thank you. I will say the
Speaker 1: Bernie Sanders people had far more energy and spirit. I
Speaker 1: will say, good animal. So Rashida Khalib was back in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen. This video has gotten a lot of play.
Speaker 1: Completely out of her mind. Had to be physically dragged
Speaker 1: from a Trump event screaming stuff. Now she's a member
Speaker 1: of Congress who has the entire media in her back pocket,
Speaker 1: except for a conservative media that's only about ten percent
Speaker 1: of the media. That's who's running the show now, folks,
Speaker 1: people that get dragged out of events screaming like lunatics,
Speaker 1: that's who wants to be in charge of the economy
Speaker 1: into You know, there's so much that they say about
Speaker 1: Trump all the time. Trump has run companies, has run businesses. Yeah,
Speaker 1: and you could say, oh, Buckley, he didn't run them
Speaker 1: so well whatever. Yeah, they guy's worth billions of dollars.
Speaker 1: I know he inherited a lot of money. But he's
Speaker 1: run companies. Okay, they're Trump buildings all over New York,
Speaker 1: They're Trump buildings all over DC, all over the world.
Speaker 1: He's doing something right, so we can all have dispenser.
Speaker 1: That's old. But he's not sure. You know, he's not
Speaker 1: as good at business as he says he is. Whatever.
Speaker 1: I mean, he's good enough. He's better at business than
Speaker 1: Rashida Talib and Bernie Sanders and Elizabeth Warren because he's
Speaker 1: had to operate in that real world where facts matter,
Speaker 1: where numbers matter, where it's not enough to just wish
Speaker 1: that things would be a certain way, but they have
Speaker 1: to be that way. But that when I talk about
Speaker 1: the psychosis and the craziness of the left, and I
Speaker 1: worry my friends because I do believe. I also will
Speaker 1: refer back to the naval ravocant Joe Rogan conversation because
Speaker 1: I agree with so much of what was said, and
Speaker 1: I think I do say a lot of it here.
Speaker 1: The radicalization of the left is being assisted. There's an
Speaker 1: echo chamber effect that has turned from the left wing
Speaker 1: sphere just bouncing around everyone hearing what they want to hear,
Speaker 1: watching Matt out to a crazy Russia staff just following
Speaker 1: the people they want on Twitter and just seeing the
Speaker 1: news they want on Facebook, Hollywood, reflecting back all their
Speaker 1: left wing prejudices all the time. It's gone from just
Speaker 1: that's created closed minded a closed minded left too. I
Speaker 1: believe it has created a truly radical left that is ascendant.
Speaker 1: There's a left wing in this country right now that
Speaker 1: has been brainwashed, and not just brainwashed on a couple
Speaker 1: of issues, brainwashed on the most important issues that hold
Speaker 1: our country together, that create the rule of law and
Speaker 1: the prosperity that we all care so dearly for. And
Speaker 1: I think that Rashida to Leib among others, is representative
Speaker 1: of that radicalization. And I think Trump also understands that
Speaker 1: that's what's going on now. Now. Has Trump also been
Speaker 1: a part of this just by existing? I think yes.
Speaker 1: I think that he's broken a lot of people psychologically,
Speaker 1: which makes them more How do you brainwash people often?
Speaker 1: Now I can get into the jihadest pipeline of how
Speaker 1: they would take people from you know, disaffected youth to
Speaker 1: suicide bomber. Right, one of the things you'll do is
Speaker 1: you'll you'll you have if you have found someone who
Speaker 1: has not already been broken. You break them down psychologically,
Speaker 1: and then you build them back up in a certain way.
Speaker 1: You tell them that they're cowards for not fighting for
Speaker 1: the cause. Then you say, ah, but I will give you,
Speaker 1: I will give you the pathway to retain your your
Speaker 1: manhood and become a shahid, become a martyr, and you know,
Speaker 1: suicide bombings and all the rest of it. I think
Speaker 1: that people have been broken on the left. They've been
Speaker 1: broken by Trump, and now you have this constant digital
Speaker 1: media apparatus that seeks to put them back together only
Speaker 1: through the most extreme, distilled version of Democrat left wing
Speaker 1: socialist nonsense. In America, you have people now that believe
Speaker 1: crazier stuff than at any point in my lifetime, and
Speaker 1: a lot of them, and they're getting elected to office.
Speaker 1: Look at the Democratic Party under Obama, Look at the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party under Clinton. Go you know, you go back
Speaker 1: in time. You can see the progression for yourselves. Things
Speaker 1: are getting wackier and therefore more dangerous and more destabilizing
Speaker 1: for the country. They think Trump is undermining institutions. You
Speaker 1: have an entire movement within one of two major political
Speaker 1: parties right now to undermine capitalism capitalism is defective. AOC
Speaker 1: says it, Bernie Sanders says that, Elizabeth Warren says it.
Speaker 1: And I can assure you if Corey Boker and Kamala
Speaker 1: Harris and you know, name another Democrat who's a little
Speaker 1: more establishment leaning, if they thought that it meant that
Speaker 1: they would win the election, they'd be all on board too.
Speaker 1: They're just not sure yet. They're not sure. They're trying
Speaker 1: to they're sitting on the fence, really. But here's just
Speaker 1: a let's take one issue, all right, the minimum wage.
Speaker 1: Minimum wage is it's you can't make this go away.
Speaker 1: You can't make people understand that it does. Once you
Speaker 1: know the mechanisms of a minimum wage law, then you
Speaker 1: understand it does not serve the purpose that it is
Speaker 1: supposed to serve. Then you recognize that it does give
Speaker 1: some people more money. But overwhelmingly those who get more
Speaker 1: money from minimum wage are not low income workers. They're
Speaker 1: usually people who already have a job, and they often
Speaker 1: live in a householdhere somebody else has a job, and
Speaker 1: their overall combined income is pretty pretty close to, if
Speaker 1: not middle class. Those who really suffer from minimum wage
Speaker 1: laws are people who now can't get jobs because there
Speaker 1: are fewer of them or whose hours are cut back,
Speaker 1: and that that well, let's just first we have Rashida
Speaker 1: to leave here, who I really do believe is an
Speaker 1: economic illiterate. But there are plenty of leftists who are
Speaker 1: economic illiterates, and they've gotten very, very powerful. There are
Speaker 1: plenty of people who in fact Marxism is based on
Speaker 1: economic illiteracy. You cannot understand how human beings function in
Speaker 1: the context of companies, corporations, day to day transactions. You
Speaker 1: cannot understand complex systems and want to be a Marxist.
Speaker 1: Marxism can work within a very small you know, my
Speaker 1: high school used to joke the Society of Jesus, the Jesuits,
Speaker 1: you know, they're kind of a Marxist organization and they
Speaker 1: all share and they don't have private property. And it
Speaker 1: can work in a very small on fine, you could
Speaker 1: even say that, you know, with within a family or
Speaker 1: within a frat house, you could be Marxists. You can't
Speaker 1: have a Marxist society though, you can't understand human beings
Speaker 1: and think you could have a Marxist society. But the
Speaker 1: left right now is ascendant with this. They think that
Speaker 1: this is in fact where it's all going and if
Speaker 1: we don't make the case against them, they're happy to
Speaker 1: try this whole thing out and just see where it goes.
Speaker 1: Rashida Khalib is openly calling for not just a fifteen
Speaker 1: dollars national minimum wage. Right. This is the federal government
Speaker 1: stepping in saying that everybody has to make fifteen dollars
Speaker 1: an hour, but it's actually gonna be Uh. She's not
Speaker 1: happy with the job destruction that would result from that.
Speaker 1: She wants even more destruction of jobs. Play seventeen we
Speaker 1: started it. I think you should be twenty dollars. Everything
Speaker 1: gone up. Ah, and so here we go eighteen to twenty.
Speaker 1: No notice how she even adjusts the figure as she's
Speaker 1: going along. This is just a dick tote from the commissar.
Speaker 1: Yeah it should be it should be twenty. Yeah, maybe
Speaker 1: it should be eighteen. Oh maybe nineteen. Well whatever, we'll
Speaker 1: figure it out. But it's gonna be a lot more money.
Speaker 1: Fifteen dollars minimum wage. Producer Mike sent me this year
Speaker 1: destroy one point three million jobs. That's what they guessed nationwide.
Speaker 1: One point three million people lose their jobs. Twenty million.
Speaker 1: Twenty dollars minimum wage would destroy even more jobs than that.
Speaker 1: Of course, and you know who found out recently how
Speaker 1: economics really works, Bernie Sanders. Because the Bernie Sanders campaign
Speaker 1: wasn't going to pay, wasn't pay people fifteen dollar minimum wage.
Speaker 1: Now they're going to pay people with a fifteen dollar
Speaker 1: minimum wage, and they're cutting back their hours because of it.
Speaker 1: Exactly what people like me say happens in a minimum
Speaker 1: wage situation. The market sets the price. Individuals decide on
Speaker 1: voluntary transactions. That is the only way to really set
Speaker 1: a price. The moment you have government intrusion into the market,
Speaker 1: all you do is invite more intrusion from the government
Speaker 1: to deal with the imbalances that it will create. It's
Speaker 1: a fancy way of saying the government will mess it
Speaker 1: up and then show up and say, hey, we're the
Speaker 1: cleanup crew for that whole mess. Let's do more stuff
Speaker 1: a higher minimum wage. Not enough people with jobs, not
Speaker 1: enough people at the lower end of the economic spectrum
Speaker 1: doing well, Let's let's do another program here. And to
Speaker 1: any left is I would just say, why not a
Speaker 1: hundred dollars? They don't have an answer to this because
Speaker 1: they don't understand the basic microeconomics behind why minimum wage
Speaker 1: is not a good idea, and I know it's popular.
Speaker 1: I know can servants who say, yeah, you know, but
Speaker 1: on balance, you know, tomato tomato, and make an olmet,
Speaker 1: you gotta break a few eggs. You know. Minimum wage
Speaker 1: is something that people like, and it is popular. It's
Speaker 1: a popular idea. But the moment that you have to
Speaker 1: put this into practice, all of a sudden, people realize,
Speaker 1: oh wait, it's not what we thought. It would be
Speaker 1: kind of like socialism. If only we could get the
Speaker 1: Democrats to understand that, I think we'd all be in
Speaker 1: much better shape. I gotta say, Corey Booker is somebody
Speaker 1: that I just wonder how anybody who knows anything would
Speaker 1: want to support, even a Democrat. I don't understand it.
Speaker 1: The guy. To me, it all just seems so phony
Speaker 1: and so forced, and he's so desperate for votes, for power,
Speaker 1: for prestige, and he does this whole you know, he
Speaker 1: tries so hard to emote, tries to connect with audiences
Speaker 1: in his whole I am Spartacus moment, and he should
Speaker 1: be ashamed, are shamed of his role in the Kavanaugh
Speaker 1: the Kavanall smear campaign, But he's not. In fact, I'm
Speaker 1: sure he's proud of it because it helped him among
Speaker 1: the radical left Democrats. But here's Corey Booker, a producer
Speaker 1: Mike pulled this for me, talking about how he feels.
Speaker 1: You know that we've got all these people running around
Speaker 1: saying that, you know, Trump is such a such a
Speaker 1: racist and he's so terrible, he's such a bad guy.
Speaker 1: You know you have Oh, here you go here, I
Speaker 1: mean here, here's ilhan Omar for example, just to give
Speaker 1: you a sense of what she says about the President
Speaker 1: United States. But thirteen Now, even when we're talking about
Speaker 1: the president, people will say, you know, they're his remarks
Speaker 1: are racist and will forget the inherent racism that has
Speaker 1: always been part of him, and how much he always
Speaker 1: takes an opportunity to others to filify them. Who is
Speaker 1: she even talking about. You don't get any any specifics
Speaker 1: there too to otherwise who is being otherwised all the time?
Speaker 1: Illegal aliens ms their team, Well, people that break the law.
Speaker 1: I think we're allowed to otherise. I think that other
Speaker 1: rising in the sense that if you break the law,
Speaker 1: that should be punished and that's bad. Yeah, then that's
Speaker 1: another that's not based on ethnicity or skin color, it's
Speaker 1: based on the law. She of course does not see
Speaker 1: it that way. She sees everything that Trump does through
Speaker 1: a lens of well, white supremacy, white nationalism. Still this day,
Speaker 1: never met a white nationalist, never met well I'm not
Speaker 1: saying they don't exist at all, but they are far
Speaker 1: less prominent in American society than you know, flat earthers
Speaker 1: who are also anti vax who are also you know
Speaker 1: that they're is just it's a fringe of a fringe.
Speaker 1: We're always told that they're the next great threat in
Speaker 1: this country. But back to Cory Booker for a moment
Speaker 1: if I could, because but I want to play that
Speaker 1: because we're always being lectured about race and racism. In
Speaker 1: the first hour, I know, we talked quite a bit
Speaker 1: about and I think this is real. On the one hand,
Speaker 1: there is this emotional that the left has, this emotional
Speaker 1: need to always suggest that the president is a racist, right,
Speaker 1: that they need to believe that or else they'd have
Speaker 1: to look at the results of his presidency and they'd
Speaker 1: have to say to themselves, what, wait a second, it's
Speaker 1: going really well, oh no, it's terrible, He's a racist.
Speaker 1: But the left has so many problems, so many contradictions
Speaker 1: with race, with bigotry that they never deal with, and
Speaker 1: the media gives them a pass on this because it
Speaker 1: is all about narrative. Oh one more thing about about
Speaker 1: the I know of talking about this other podcast. You know,
Speaker 1: raba con said at one point that there's no such
Speaker 1: thing really as objective journalism anymore. I'm paraphrasing here, but
Speaker 1: ever since the Internet, we don't need people to tell
Speaker 1: us a huge news organization to tell us facts. So
Speaker 1: what we have are massive activism organizations that are pushing agendas,
Speaker 1: that are promoting one side of the argument against the other,
Speaker 1: pretending they're just presenting you with facts, which is exactly
Speaker 1: what I've been saying for years. It makes sense from
Speaker 1: a business model perspective, right, Why would why would c
Speaker 1: an N be able to make money just giving you
Speaker 1: the facts, man, I mean the facts you can get
Speaker 1: online in two seconds. We don't need see an N
Speaker 1: twenty four hours today just presenting us with facts. There
Speaker 1: aren't enough interesting facts for them to give. But that's
Speaker 1: why they've become narrative purveyors instead of fact purveyors. That's
Speaker 1: also why they are so invested in the narrative of
Speaker 1: a racist right because they are activists and this is
Speaker 1: a storyline they've been feeding to their audience. It gets eyeballs,
Speaker 1: it gets clicks, and it serves a purpose. It's exactly
Speaker 1: what these major media organizations and the Democratic Party along
Speaker 1: with them, are looking to do. But they never give
Speaker 1: us answers about. Well, hold on a second, what about
Speaker 1: the racism of the left, which is very real, or
Speaker 1: the anti Semitism of the left, which is very real.
Speaker 1: Here's Corey Booker talking about straight up, real deal anti
Speaker 1: semit Lewis farrakhon play seven. I want to ask about
Speaker 1: something that you were recently asked, and that is about
Speaker 1: whether or not you would meet with Nation of Islam
Speaker 1: leader Lewis Farakhon. He's unambashadly anti Semitic. He said, quote,
Speaker 1: I don't you said quote. I don't feel like I
Speaker 1: need to do that. But I'm not one of those
Speaker 1: people who says that I wouldn't sit down with anybody
Speaker 1: to hear. What they have to say is that still
Speaker 1: where you are. Well, first of all, that is completely
Speaker 1: taking out of context that larger conversation. Okay, you know
Speaker 1: I have met I live in Newark, so we have
Speaker 1: famous Mosque twenty five. We have Nation of Islam there.
Speaker 1: As mayor, I met with lots of folks. I've heard
Speaker 1: mister Farrakon speeches for a lot of so I don't
Speaker 1: feel like I need to do that. But I'm not
Speaker 1: one of these people that says I wouldn't sit down
Speaker 1: with anybody here what they have to say. But I
Speaker 1: live on a neighborhood where I'm getting guys on the
Speaker 1: streets offering and selling his works. I am very familiar
Speaker 1: with with minister Lewis Farrakon, and is believes in him.
Speaker 1: Why not repudiate Farrakon? Notice how he doesn't jump at
Speaker 1: the opportunity to say, well, Lewis Farakon is an anti semi.
Speaker 1: Do you think that any Democrat could hear the name
Speaker 1: of of a true racist like David Duke and not
Speaker 1: immediately say, oh, that guy's a racist, which is fine
Speaker 1: because he is. But then add to it, and he
Speaker 1: supports Donald Trump every chance they get, They'll say it
Speaker 1: all the time. Why doesn't the left ever have to
Speaker 1: answer for this? Because the people that would make them answer,
Speaker 1: or at least that would get the responses to those
Speaker 1: questions out there, are in the media and the media
Speaker 1: is completely in the tank. I mean, the media is broken.
Speaker 1: There is no objective journalism anymore. Those people are liars.
Speaker 1: There are some objective journalists, but journalism is not an
Speaker 1: objective profession. It has become a propaganda fight. It has
Speaker 1: become a battle of ideas with partisans on all sides.
Speaker 1: And then there's just Corey Booker sounding like a clown sometimes,
Speaker 1: which you can make your own decisions about this, played
Speaker 1: twenty four. Donald Trump is a guy who you understand.
Speaker 1: He hurts you and you and my testosterone sometimes makes
Speaker 1: me want to feel like punching him, and which would
Speaker 1: be bad for this elderly, out of shape man that
Speaker 1: he is. When I did that, there's physically physically obyfically yeah,
Speaker 1: Corey Booker is a punk, So there's that. He's just
Speaker 1: an insecure wanna be and a punk. We need a
Speaker 1: commission on child separation because what these commissions are charged
Speaker 1: with doing, just as the nine to eleven Commission did
Speaker 1: when they said what went wrong in the nine to
Speaker 1: eleven commission, they had, they were charged with investigating and
Speaker 1: making sure they dug up every nook and cranny of
Speaker 1: what happened and how it happened in our system, and
Speaker 1: I think that that kind of study is what's going
Speaker 1: to be required in order to reunify as many children
Speaker 1: with their parents as possible. The only thing we are
Speaker 1: allowed to talk about when it comes to the border,
Speaker 1: according to Democrats, the only thing is treatment of migrants
Speaker 1: who crossed the border illegally in detention. And we need
Speaker 1: to just have a loop a cycle of let's revisit this,
Speaker 1: let's go back to this, let's have more investigations about this, because,
Speaker 1: just like with Russia collusion, even if it goes nowhere,
Speaker 1: it's the story that the Left likes to tell, and
Speaker 1: it's a distraction as well as an attack. The distraction
Speaker 1: of focusing on the southern border and all the migrants
Speaker 1: and the concentration camps running on all this is a
Speaker 1: means of avoiding what the Democratic Party really stands for,
Speaker 1: at least having an open conversation about what does the
Speaker 1: Democratic Party stand for right now, because the answer is
Speaker 1: open borders, and everybody that says otherwise is either deluding
Speaker 1: themselves or lying. Every enforcement mechanism that comes up every
Speaker 1: time there's an effort, whether it's to clear sanctuary cities
Speaker 1: or to deport people that have had all their due
Speaker 1: process and have been put on a list. Democrats oppose it.
Speaker 1: They do not ever come up with ideas to better
Speaker 1: enforce immigration laws. All they do or come up with
Speaker 1: ideas to make those who break the laws less accountable
Speaker 1: and more comfortable, literally more comfortable. So that's one component
Speaker 1: of this, and the other is just the attack oh Republicans,
Speaker 1: because this is all part of the Republicans are racist.
Speaker 1: Trump is racist. Trump must be a rasis because he
Speaker 1: does not want the border to be open. Obama didn't
Speaker 1: want the border to be open either, at least he
Speaker 1: said he didn't. Some of you are probably yelling he did, buck,
Speaker 1: but he said he didn't, and the press didn't criticize
Speaker 1: him for that. That was considered to be sane. And
Speaker 1: what is the opposite of saying insane? What are we
Speaker 1: doing right now in this country? What is going on
Speaker 1: with our southern border? What is happening right now? It
Speaker 1: is crazy? But I have to tell you, and I
Speaker 1: just spoke to some people very close to the president
Speaker 1: before coming on air about this, and I because I
Speaker 1: express some frustration tonight on a special report with Brett Bear,
Speaker 1: I told I told people well, I told whoever I
Speaker 1: was watching the show, you can't keep having this, Oh,
Speaker 1: we're going to deport people. We're going to deport people,
Speaker 1: and then no deportations occur. It reminds me of the
Speaker 1: line from the movie about the Wall Street collapse that
Speaker 1: I'm actually forget are too Big to Fail. It's actually
Speaker 1: a pretty entertaining movie where I believe it's Bernanke, or
Speaker 1: maybe it's it's Paulson says. The thing about having a
Speaker 1: bazooka in your back pocket is you've got to be
Speaker 1: able to use it. And the thing about Trump saying
Speaker 1: there's gonna be mass deportations or even just a surgeon
Speaker 1: deportations of those who are unquestionably legally not supposed to
Speaker 1: stay in the country anymore, that's you know, you have
Speaker 1: to do it. You have to actually make it happen.
Speaker 1: You cannot allow this to be a thing that keeps
Speaker 1: getting brought up. Oh, yes, we're gonna deport all these people.
Speaker 1: And this is where and my understanding is the White
Speaker 1: House is very frustrated. They're saying, why can't ICE pull
Speaker 1: this off? Is Ice Immigrations and Customs Enforcement incapable? Are
Speaker 1: some officers unwilling. Why isn't this happening? Thirty five people
Speaker 1: is the number that's been published in just the last
Speaker 1: few hours. Thirty five people. And Trump is frustrated. I'm
Speaker 1: sure he's frustrated. How could this be Each time he
Speaker 1: brings up deportations, we hear very serious numbers, and that
Speaker 1: would send a message. You have to have the other
Speaker 1: side of this equation in place. You absolutely must have
Speaker 1: punishment for violating the law. And what we have right
Speaker 1: now is just a complete mess where it's not clear
Speaker 1: who's fallen asleep on the job. Thirty five people come on.
Speaker 1: And this is where you have to look at the
Speaker 1: foreign countries that are involved in this process too. The
Speaker 1: fact that guatemal in Mexico won't give us third safe
Speaker 1: country agreements. We do have to cut off eight to
Speaker 1: these countries. We you know, we really have to do.
Speaker 1: And this will This is the equivalent of the nuclear
Speaker 1: option in diplomacy wise, all right, not actual nuclear option.
Speaker 1: Said some stuff. I'm gonna tell you, Trump said some
Speaker 1: stuff about Afghanistan. Do we have that mark from I
Speaker 1: think we had it yesterday, but I don't know if
Speaker 1: we still have it. On the Trump said some stuff
Speaker 1: about Afghanistan that I get what he was saying. We
Speaker 1: got it, Oh, we'll find it. I understand what he
Speaker 1: was going for, which is that he could lay waste
Speaker 1: the entire country in a matter of minutes if he
Speaker 1: wanted to. But that's not the same thing as winning
Speaker 1: the winning the war in Afghanistan, and that's not a
Speaker 1: serious policy option. So it'll look Trump sometimes, you know,
Speaker 1: the swagger gets a little bit ahead of the policy.
Speaker 1: To put it mildly, Oh, we do, yeah, play it.
Speaker 1: We wanted to fight a war and Afghanistan and win it.
Speaker 1: I could win that war in a week. I just
Speaker 1: don't want to kill ten million people. Does that make
Speaker 1: sense to you. I don't want to kill ten million people.
Speaker 1: I have plans on Afghanistan that if I wanted to
Speaker 1: win that war, Afghanistan would be wiped off the face
Speaker 1: of the earth. It would be gone. It would be
Speaker 1: over in literally in ten days. And I don't want
Speaker 1: to do that. I don't want to go that route.
Speaker 1: So we're working with Pakistan and others to extricate ourselves.
Speaker 1: Nor do we want to be policeman because basically we're
Speaker 1: policemen right now, and we're not supposed to be policeman.
Speaker 1: We've been there. We've been there for nineteen years in Afghanistan.
Speaker 1: It's ridiculous. This is one of these moments where Trump
Speaker 1: is going to get us to the right policy, which
Speaker 1: is all I really care about, which is end this
Speaker 1: thing and get us out. But the way that he
Speaker 1: speaks about it turns into some frenzy in the media. Oh,
Speaker 1: he's saying he's gonna I'm assuming that he means nuclear
Speaker 1: strikes in Afghanistan, which no one really thinks he's going
Speaker 1: to do. And I don't think the president would ever
Speaker 1: do that unless there was some imminent threat from Afghanistan,
Speaker 1: which is not realistic. But I do believe that he
Speaker 1: will get us to the right place in the end
Speaker 1: of policy. But that just reminded me. I was reminded
Speaker 1: of that because I said nuclear option, but the nuclear
Speaker 1: option in dealing with Guatemala and in dealing with Mexico
Speaker 1: countries that are just intransigent on this issue of Look,
Speaker 1: Mexico sending more troops and that means there'll be fewer
Speaker 1: there are fewer illegal crossings going on right now at
Speaker 1: our southern border, and they're saying, oh, look at us,
Speaker 1: we sent more troops. That's troops to their border with Guatemala.
Speaker 1: So this is all now the migrant corridor that's coming
Speaker 1: into the United States. But keep in mind that it's
Speaker 1: the summer months and people were expecting there to be
Speaker 1: some drop in detentions over the summer months. So here
Speaker 1: we are. Is it because of Mexican effort or is
Speaker 1: Mexican government effort, or is it because there are just
Speaker 1: fewer people right now trying to cross because you can
Speaker 1: die of heat exhaustion very easily in these desert areas,
Speaker 1: and especially if you get in vehicles, and there's there's
Speaker 1: been some recent captures of smuggling efforts involving a tractor
Speaker 1: trailers and vans and people stuck in the vans and
Speaker 1: the tremendous heat, so that that may be all a
Speaker 1: part of this too, but these need to be safe
Speaker 1: third countries. We need agreements with Mexico and Guatemala that
Speaker 1: anyone who's trying to well with Guatemala, they'd have to
Speaker 1: stop in Mexico. But in Mexico, anyone who is from
Speaker 1: Guatemala or Honduras or Al Salvador, they need to stop
Speaker 1: and ask for asylum in Mexico first, the nuclear option.
Speaker 1: If we really want to exercise it is going to
Speaker 1: be remittances. Remittance based. That is where the administration could
Speaker 1: really get everyone's attention very quickly. Guatemala received almost ten billion,
Speaker 1: nine point three billion dollars last year in hard currency
Speaker 1: sent back to it from migrants abroad, twelve percent of
Speaker 1: its GDP, and the United States is Guatemala's top trading partner.
Speaker 1: So these countries need to get it together, all right.
Speaker 1: We are we are asking them for something that is
Speaker 1: entirely reasonable. We are willing to help them in that effort.
Speaker 1: But Guatemala and Mexico right now, not don't look like
Speaker 1: they're really on the team, not as much as they
Speaker 1: need to be, that's for sure. Al Salvador, as I
Speaker 1: told you yesterday, based on what the presidents saying, does
Speaker 1: sound like it wants to be on the team. But
Speaker 1: Alsalva is very, very poor, and who knows how much
Speaker 1: they're able to do without more substantial US assistance. But
Speaker 1: you know, you got to start the deportations because that
Speaker 1: sends the message if you show up, you're not going
Speaker 1: to get to stay. Right now, the people who are
Speaker 1: crossing illegally are responding to very straightforward incentives, the incentives
Speaker 1: right now or if you get here, you're good to go.
Speaker 1: That has to change. That's why Democrats try to fight
Speaker 1: it at every turn. They don't want there to be
Speaker 1: more enforcement of the law. They want the storyline that's
Speaker 1: passed along the migrant cord or to be that if
Speaker 1: you get to America you're good to go. There must
Speaker 1: be there must be consequences for the actions of people
Speaker 1: that violate immigration law, or else we're just open boarders,
Speaker 1: which we know is what Democrats want. But we can't
Speaker 1: give up this fight because unfortunately immigration becomes the issue
Speaker 1: that determines all other issues. This is the way that
Speaker 1: Democrats win in the end, even though they're losing the
Speaker 1: American people. They just replace the American people. That's the plan.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. When it comes to the counterintelligence
Speaker 1: investigation of the Trump campaign, is anybody providing kind of
Speaker 1: a deep dive to look at what happened? There? Is
Speaker 1: that part of mister horowitz charter, Well, I would I
Speaker 1: think I would let Inspector General horrowitld speak for himself
Speaker 1: about the scope of his investigation. But as you know,
Speaker 1: the Attorney General has doing a review or has commissions
Speaker 1: for people to do review, and I think that's part
Speaker 1: of his job, it's part of mine to get some
Speaker 1: of those questions answered. So Christopher Ray, FBI director, testified
Speaker 1: today in front of a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: folks on Capitol Hill, and there was definitely, I think,
Speaker 1: a sense that there's gonna be some disappointment tomorrow on
Speaker 1: both sides. Ray didn't want to get ahead of where
Speaker 1: things are. Tomorrow's Mullard Day. Everyone's all, Oh, it's Mullard Day. Oh,
Speaker 1: It's Mullard Day. Yeah, Muller Day. Yea. And here's what
Speaker 1: I have to say about that, there's very low likelihood
Speaker 1: that you're going to have any kind of revelation that
Speaker 1: there's gonna be anything that anyone finds out of particular interest,
Speaker 1: based on the fact that Mueller's testimony has already been
Speaker 1: bound officially within the framework of the report itself, within
Speaker 1: what the report says. So just like remember when James
Speaker 1: Comey testsfied, everyone said, oh, Coomy, we're gonna hear all
Speaker 1: this stuff. I think Comey just said, I do not recall.
Speaker 1: I am James Comey, and I just love the sound
Speaker 1: of my own my own voice, and my self righteousness
Speaker 1: could choke a hippopotamus. But he just said he didn't
Speaker 1: remember anytime things got a little bit tough. He didn't
Speaker 1: remember pretty easy right that Rudy Giuliani, for example, understands
Speaker 1: what's going on here, with what was going on with
Speaker 1: Comy all along. I just want to get this in
Speaker 1: because Rudy's got He's had Coomy's number for quite some time.
Speaker 1: Rudy actually told me that he knew that Coomy was
Speaker 1: bad news all the way back to when Komey was
Speaker 1: the one pushing novel and discredited legal theories to try
Speaker 1: and really prosecute viciously. Martha Stewart, here's here's what Giulian
Speaker 1: need to say about the sank to come he played
Speaker 1: twenty There's no way that Coomy can explain how he
Speaker 1: signed an affidavit in which he got somebody surveiled, and
Speaker 1: the affidavit basically says if the skill Dacier has been verified,
Speaker 1: and then four months later he went to the President
Speaker 1: and said it's unverified, and no one's asked, Comey, how
Speaker 1: come you didn't try to verify it. Isn't that your
Speaker 1: job as the head of the FBI. You got a
Speaker 1: document it makes all these allegations about a presidential candidate
Speaker 1: and then the president elect, and after four months of
Speaker 1: having that document, you walk into the president of elector
Speaker 1: president and say it's unverified. Isn't it your job to
Speaker 1: verify it? Wasn't Comy just trying to put the squeeze
Speaker 1: on the president. Absolutely, it was a complete shakedown. That
Speaker 1: was a shakedown, that was you better keep me in
Speaker 1: office because I got this dirty information on you. He
Speaker 1: doesn't realize you can't do that with Donald Trump. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can't do it. Comy read a little too much
Speaker 1: Jed your Hoover fan fiction, I guess, or maybe just history.
Speaker 1: But he thought that he could pull that off on
Speaker 1: the President and he couldn't. Didn't find out. Didn't want
Speaker 1: to know what was true about the Keystone document. For
Speaker 1: this entire Russia collusion farce. I never wanted to get that.
Speaker 1: This is what the the IG report look the reason
Speaker 1: that tomorrow is not going to be as interesting. And
Speaker 1: I hate to be the guy that says that I
Speaker 1: should be sitting here saying, oh, oh, the Democrats are
Speaker 1: running for cover, folks, Oh no, things are I just
Speaker 1: I can't tell you things I don't think are true.
Speaker 1: They'll be There'll be both sides claiming victory. There'll be
Speaker 1: a lot of oh my gosh. You know. Democrats will say, see,
Speaker 1: he would have charged him if he could have charged him,
Speaker 1: but he didn't charge him because he couldn't charge him.
Speaker 1: That's what they're gonna say, meaning that the only reason
Speaker 1: that there weren't criminal charges was because he's president. And
Speaker 1: that's now that that's the story. That's the little safety
Speaker 1: blankie that keeps the Democrats feeling like they're all safe
Speaker 1: and warm at night. But here we are now wondering
Speaker 1: what's going to come out of this whole fiasco tomorrow. Oh.
Speaker 1: Rudy also mentioned the IG report and gave his thoughts
Speaker 1: on it today, and I'd say I appreciated Rudy not
Speaker 1: pulling punches. He does not mess around. Twenty one. I
Speaker 1: know that the Steel dossier is a complete fraud. The
Speaker 1: whole investigation of Mantaford is premised on a false piece
Speaker 1: of evidence. The real collusion here, the real conspiracy here
Speaker 1: was foreign people. Is Hillary Clinton. First of all, she
Speaker 1: paid for the Steel dossier. The steal dossier is based
Speaker 1: on its face on Russian information that's paying for foreign information.
Speaker 1: It turns out as Ukrainian. Same difference. There's a guy
Speaker 1: in the Ukraine that the Ukrainian court found guilty in
Speaker 1: December of giving dirty information and getting and getting looks
Speaker 1: like paid by a Russian for it for the Hillary
Speaker 1: Clinton campaign. I think all of this is going to
Speaker 1: come out. I hope he's right about the IG report.
Speaker 1: But again I have to tell you what we know
Speaker 1: from what's happened in the past, and in the previous
Speaker 1: iteration of the IG report about the Hillary emails and
Speaker 1: the politicization, was there was there political bias that investigation.
Speaker 1: The entire report was an owde to a symphony of
Speaker 1: political bias, all laid out for you. And then in
Speaker 1: the key findings, the executive summary, the final decision was, oh, no,
Speaker 1: there's no bias in the whole Hillary Clinton email investigation.
Speaker 1: Of course there was bias, but they couldn't write that
Speaker 1: because if they had written that, then there would have
Speaker 1: to be consequences. So what they do is provide you
Speaker 1: with the information and then beyond that, make sure that
Speaker 1: there's no determination based on the information that would force
Speaker 1: a real accounting, a real accountability at the FBI, at
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice for what happened. Because these institutions,
Speaker 1: you have to remember, they want to defend themselves more
Speaker 1: than anything else. They do not want to be in
Speaker 1: a position where the entirety of the institution no longer
Speaker 1: has the confidence of the American people. I think we're
Speaker 1: already there with political investigations involving the Department of Justice
Speaker 1: and career officials that served for a long time in
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice like James Comey Life, Robert Muller,
Speaker 1: Mike Rosenstein, good on the list. Never mind that clown
Speaker 1: show of Struck and Page and others, McCabe at the FB.
Speaker 1: So how do I know that it's gonna be a
Speaker 1: part as in Mess Tomorrow, the Mueller Day, It's Mueller time.
Speaker 1: I do miss beer commercials from the eighties and the nineties.
Speaker 1: It's a it's a more fun, more carefree time when
Speaker 1: you could just have a bunch of dudes at a
Speaker 1: pool party or on a beach who were average and
Speaker 1: very paunchy, open a can of very watery tasting domestic
Speaker 1: brew of some kind, and all of a sudden, the
Speaker 1: Swedish Bikini team would appear and start dancing around them
Speaker 1: and you'd hear cool music from your youth. Yeah, we
Speaker 1: don't really do that so much anymore. Not the patriarchy
Speaker 1: when it comes to beer commercials is no longer alive.
Speaker 1: And well, but how do I know that tomorrow there'll
Speaker 1: be a lot of I don't even know how I
Speaker 1: got talking about that, but they'll be Oh, yeah, Muller time,
Speaker 1: Miller time. That's how. Here's a perfect example of why
Speaker 1: this is gonna be a mess. Perfect example. Jerry Nadler. Oh,
Speaker 1: I don't know why anyone listens to this guy, but anyone.
Speaker 1: Jerry Nadler decided that he was going to try and
Speaker 1: attack the administration for or the Department of Justice, I
Speaker 1: should say, for putting a letter out which you can
Speaker 1: which I read and you can see it's public, a
Speaker 1: letter that says what the parameters of Muller's testimony should be.
Speaker 1: Jerry Nadler thought that he had stumbled upon a fantastic
Speaker 1: issue here was which he could attack the Republicans. Please
Speaker 1: play nineteen. You don't think they have any authority to
Speaker 1: instruct him in that way? Must he comply with that letter? No?
Speaker 1: He must, No, he does not have to comply with
Speaker 1: that letter. He doesn't work for them, and that letter
Speaker 1: asks things that are that are beyond the power of
Speaker 1: the of the agency to ask. Even if he still
Speaker 1: worked for them. Who, I guess he's got them. Huh,
Speaker 1: I guess he's really cornered. The Republicans here, they're trying
Speaker 1: to fixes in. They're saying they're gonna stop Muller from
Speaker 1: telling the truth about a massive conspiracy with Russia to
Speaker 1: throw the election that didn't happen. It didn't happen. Take
Speaker 1: a deep breath, Libs, it did not occur. Come into
Speaker 1: the real world. Stop living in fantasyland. They won't do it.
Speaker 1: They just they cannot help themselves. They are so stuck
Speaker 1: on this fiction. Nonetheless, Nadler says that the DOJ cannot
Speaker 1: give This is a This is a perfect example of
Speaker 1: what we're gonna see tomorrow. He's going around giving interviews
Speaker 1: of Sana all listen, Camarasa, and he's saying things about
Speaker 1: how the Republicans are of course bar Republican appointee in
Speaker 1: the DOJ. They're trying to stop the truth from getting out.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem with that. It's a total lie. And
Speaker 1: Nadler's an idiot play eighteen. Here's the Attorney General himself
Speaker 1: that his press conference Bob had said that he intended
Speaker 1: to stick with a public report and not go beyond that,
Speaker 1: and in conversations with the Department, his staff was reiterating
Speaker 1: that that was their position, and they asked us for
Speaker 1: guidance in writing to explain or to tell them what
Speaker 1: our position was. So we responded in writing. The department
Speaker 1: sent the guidance they had requested, so Muller actually requested, yes,
Speaker 1: this is what we're up against, folks. Democratics are saying,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, do you realize what they've done here?
Speaker 1: They're giving Muller guidance about what he can say. It's
Speaker 1: a terrible thing they're doing. It's horrible. Except Muller asked
Speaker 1: for the guidance. They wanted it in writing so they
Speaker 1: could refer to it. So everyone's on the same page.
Speaker 1: This is just establishing the rules of the road. You're
Speaker 1: not a bad guy. When someone says, hey, what are
Speaker 1: the rules of this game, and you say, here are
Speaker 1: the rules of the game, you can't then say, do
Speaker 1: you see what they're doing forcing rules upon this brave patriot.
Speaker 1: Bob Muller's going to take down Trump. It's not going
Speaker 1: to happen, but tomorrow you'll see. I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: I know all of you are not going to start
Speaker 1: watching this at nine o'clock in the morning. There are
Speaker 1: bars here in DC that are opening up early, and
Speaker 1: there have been advertising I've seeing where they're planning to
Speaker 1: serve their full menu. Letting to serve their full menu,
Speaker 1: because this is a swamptown and everyone wants to see
Speaker 1: what the swamp rats will be up to you up
Speaker 1: on Capitol Hill. So it's quite a spectator sport. And
Speaker 1: you just have all these members of Congress sports so
Speaker 1: unimpressive and so annoying. On the Democrats side, some of
Speaker 1: the Republicans aren't as great as they should be. But
Speaker 1: I gotta tell you, I rarely see a Republican member
Speaker 1: of Congress and think I wouldn't leave that person in
Speaker 1: charge of a lemonade stand. And I see plenty of
Speaker 1: Democrats or I'm like they would just they would run
Speaker 1: that lemonade stand in the ground, no idea what they're doing,
Speaker 1: no ability whatsoever to make good decisions and understand what's
Speaker 1: going on. So yes, indeed, that is the reality that
Speaker 1: I see happening here tomorrow, Oh Trump, you got to
Speaker 1: hear from We got to hear from the Trumpster himself
Speaker 1: about what he expects for mullotime twelve of it. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to be watching Mueller because you can't take
Speaker 1: all those bites out of the apple. We had no collusion,
Speaker 1: no obstruction, we had no nothing. The Democrats were devastated
Speaker 1: by it. They went crazy. They've gone off the deep
Speaker 1: end and not doing anything. All they care about is
Speaker 1: a phony investigation. Where the report was written, it said
Speaker 1: no collusion, there's no nothing. They're wasting that time no collusion.
Speaker 1: Of course, Democrats are all going to come out of
Speaker 1: tomorrow's investigation saying I'm sorry tomorrow's testimony, rather saying that
Speaker 1: the investigation proved that Trump broke the law even though
Speaker 1: he was not charge with anything. You are now you
Speaker 1: are now innocent, or rather guilty until proven innocent under
Speaker 1: Democrat rules. This is what we're all going to see.
Speaker 1: This is what the expectations shall be. I do not
Speaker 1: think that we'll find out anything all that interesting tomorrow.
Speaker 1: I don't know. Remember Mueller testified, or I should say,
Speaker 1: spoke publicly at a press conference and was not compelling
Speaker 1: and seemed very I'll be on it. He seemed a
Speaker 1: little too old to be doing this. Was just didn't
Speaker 1: wasn't effective at all. Then you have the reality of
Speaker 1: what happened with Komy where he just didn't answer anything,
Speaker 1: and that may be the case as well. So you know,
Speaker 1: I'll do enough of the pre game. I've had enough
Speaker 1: pre gaming of Mueller time for one day. We'll cover
Speaker 1: it tomorrow on the show. What he says, what he
Speaker 1: doesn't say. There's going to be a lot of whatever's
Speaker 1: in the report, is my answer. My answer is the report.
Speaker 1: I'm telling you it's probably going to be yes, the
Speaker 1: phrase that everyone hates because it's a cliche out will
Speaker 1: be a nothing burger a vec fromage. We shall see, though,
Speaker 1: I'll be watching. Yay, what an exciting day I have planned.
Speaker 1: We'll be right back. I don't know how to tell
Speaker 1: you about this story other than to tell you so
Speaker 1: we're just gonna have to dive into this one together.
Speaker 1: And yeah, let me just say that I know that
Speaker 1: sometimes sometimes they're young ones listening to the show. I
Speaker 1: would give you a fair warning here that while I
Speaker 1: the language I use will always be cleaned and broadcast worthy.
Speaker 1: The subject matter here is about to get pretty gross,
Speaker 1: but I don't know how to get around it. And
Speaker 1: it's a real issue. It's a newsworthy issue. It's something
Speaker 1: you should know about. As bizarre and appalling as the
Speaker 1: whole thing is has to do with the latest extreme
Speaker 1: iteration of transgender activism, I'm saying, fuck, what what do
Speaker 1: you mean? Trench interact with what's going on here? Isn't
Speaker 1: transgenderism just about love wins or loving people or letting
Speaker 1: people be, you know, do do what they want to do.
Speaker 1: I saw recently a whole piece where they kept referring
Speaker 1: to a biological male as a female, and there was
Speaker 1: another male and a female, and I was trying to
Speaker 1: keep straight who was It was a whole entrapment thing
Speaker 1: and a paternity case with false and I just couldn't.
Speaker 1: I'm pretty good at reading. I couldn't keep straight what he,
Speaker 1: the she, the who? The whare the There are reasons
Speaker 1: why we have pronouns. I know the Left pretends like
Speaker 1: this isn't that there are reasons for pronouns. It is useful,
Speaker 1: it's helpful he versus she. These are real things, These
Speaker 1: are real distinctions that we should be aware of. But
Speaker 1: here we go. This is the story, folks. A Canadian
Speaker 1: man is suing thirteen different esteticians. This is a real thing.
Speaker 1: A Canadian man and I'm sorry, a transgender woman has
Speaker 1: decided to sue thirteen esteticians. By the way, you noticed that,
Speaker 1: I don't even know how I could talk about this
Speaker 1: on Twitter. I'm not sure I would get banned. Basically,
Speaker 1: this transgender individual is saying, if you don't, if women
Speaker 1: will not wax his male parts, which are still male,
Speaker 1: he is, they're violating his human rights and this is discrimination.
Speaker 1: That's right, folks. A guy can go into a women's
Speaker 1: beauty salon now and claim that the unwillingness of female
Speaker 1: estheticians employees of this establishment who will not handle and wax.
Speaker 1: I don't even really know how to describe this. That
Speaker 1: area of this man up close and personal are bigots.
Speaker 1: And you might say, buck, this is such a crazy story.
Speaker 1: No one takes it seriously. Canadian law does. Canadian Human
Speaker 1: Rights Council is taking it very seriously. This guy's filed
Speaker 1: fifteen I'm sorry, sixteen complaints about against estheticians in the
Speaker 1: last year, claiming that being denied quote services on account
Speaker 1: of her gender identity was discriminatory. That's right. If you're
Speaker 1: a female, imagine this for a second. Imagine to the
Speaker 1: men listening to this, your your wife works at a
Speaker 1: beauty salon and a rather portly, clearly male individual comes
Speaker 1: in and says, all right, ladies, I'm stripping down on
Speaker 1: this table and you're gonna give me the full you know,
Speaker 1: Brazilian wax treatment. I think it would be okay if
Speaker 1: as a husband, if your wife was being told that,
Speaker 1: you would be really, really upset. I know I would.
Speaker 1: I don't have a wife, but I can imagine. But
Speaker 1: people in this country who are transgender activists are They're
Speaker 1: not outraged by this. They're like, yeah, that's this is
Speaker 1: a see. This is where the real, the rubber meets
Speaker 1: the road, so to speak. This is where the reality
Speaker 1: versus the unreality becomes a thing, and it's all around
Speaker 1: them trying to use the left, trying to use pressure
Speaker 1: and politics to get us to admit things that are
Speaker 1: just false. Male body parts are different than female body parts.
Speaker 1: We could sit around all day and talk about how
Speaker 1: that's mean, and some people feel sad about this, but
Speaker 1: male body parts are different than female body parts. This
Speaker 1: is a This is a real thing that we're all
Speaker 1: very aware of. This is about as basic as knowledge gets, too,
Speaker 1: isn't it. Who's a boy, who's a girl? This is
Speaker 1: one of those things that you start to learn when
Speaker 1: you're a toddler. Who's a boy, who's a girl? How
Speaker 1: to boys act? How to girls act? We all know
Speaker 1: this is real. This is the world we live in.
Speaker 1: They reject this. They reject this to the point where
Speaker 1: you are supposed to be handling male anatomy as a
Speaker 1: female esthetician and pretend that it is female anatomy, or
Speaker 1: else you are legally libel. He's gonna run these women
Speaker 1: out of He's going to destroy their businesses. This isn't
Speaker 1: just some exercise in you know, in theory. We're not
Speaker 1: sitting in some classroom saying maybe this could happen. This
Speaker 1: guy's actually he's an activist and he's going around suing
Speaker 1: people because he says he's a woman. He goes around.
Speaker 1: You know, there's this photo of him. I mean, this
Speaker 1: guy is and there's all this other stuff too about it.
Speaker 1: It says horrible things. A clear person is clearly deranged,
Speaker 1: person's clearly suffering from mental illness. Do we get to
Speaker 1: say that, do we ever get to discuss a link
Speaker 1: between transgenderism and mental illness? Do we ever get to
Speaker 1: say that transgenderism is in fact a form of mental illness.
Speaker 1: This we've we've now dispensed with that. Very interesting. You know,
Speaker 1: biology is the science that is the most under assault
Speaker 1: by the social justice left, and then they're really trying
Speaker 1: to destroy it as a discipline. They have so politicized
Speaker 1: it that you can no longer expect even a biologist
Speaker 1: to say things that are obviously true that you learn
Speaker 1: in freshman year high school, that you learn in the
Speaker 1: first grade. Actually, boys have one thing, girls have another.
Speaker 1: You learn this at a really early age. You understand
Speaker 1: why there's the separation between boys and girls, why there's
Speaker 1: you know, different bathrooms, all this stuff. They're trying to
Speaker 1: erase this. And you could say, buck, this is just
Speaker 1: one case, it's one story, but it just shows how
Speaker 1: insane the left really is in Canada. Is they're right
Speaker 1: alongside us with it with all this stuff. I mean,
Speaker 1: Canada is like the fifty first state. Let's not pretend
Speaker 1: I'm not telling you about some story in a village
Speaker 1: in Pakistan somewhere that is a distant culture that we
Speaker 1: have nothing in common with. This is the Canadians, and
Speaker 1: you have American transgender activists who were going along with this.
Speaker 1: I've been saying it all along. They will try You've
Speaker 1: seen it a little bit. But there will be an
Speaker 1: effort on the left to suggest that or to demand
Speaker 1: that straight males must be willing to consider transgender females
Speaker 1: men who claim to be women through transgenderism as a
Speaker 1: heterosexual male. If you do not find a transgender female,
Speaker 1: meaning a male who has male parts but says a
Speaker 1: female attractive, that's not a preference thing. That's a bigot thing.
Speaker 1: You are bigoted, You're a bad person. That's where it's
Speaker 1: already heading there. I've seen some articles. I've mentioned this before.
Speaker 1: It's but this is the real that they want everyone.
Speaker 1: This is Soviet level rejection of objective reality. That's where
Speaker 1: we're heading. You must agree to something you know is false,
Speaker 1: or else you must live your life affirming something is
Speaker 1: true that you know is untrue or else. I mean,
Speaker 1: transgenderism has just turned into a form of bullying the
Speaker 1: rest of us into saying things are true that are
Speaker 1: not true. And I'm feeling I'm losing some level of
Speaker 1: freedom to discuss these things. I could get kicked off
Speaker 1: of Twitter, I could get kicked off of Facebook. Who
Speaker 1: knows what corporate sanctions could await me for saying things
Speaker 1: like boys have one kind of equipment, girls have another.
Speaker 1: These are not the same things. Wasn't there like a
Speaker 1: sesame street thing? Which of these things is not like
Speaker 1: the other? Boys and girls? One of these things is
Speaker 1: not like the other. They are in fact different. So
Speaker 1: I know that this is it's just one story. It's
Speaker 1: up in Canada. But if these women are gonna lose
Speaker 1: their lively, they're all gonna they're all gonna get sued
Speaker 1: in Canada's going to uphold these laws, uphold the judgments. Rather,
Speaker 1: so you're gonna have a bunch of women who are
Speaker 1: bankrupted because this one guy who also here. This was
Speaker 1: another story that gives you a sense of who we're
Speaker 1: dealing with. Her Yaniv Jessica Yanev is this transgender individual,
Speaker 1: accorded nash Real View. Here is quote seeking permission from
Speaker 1: a Canadian local council to hold three topless swims for
Speaker 1: people aged twelve and up and parents would be barred
Speaker 1: from attending. This swim would be for children who identify
Speaker 1: as LGBTQ two s plus and would include topless twelve
Speaker 1: and up girls. Openly, this activist is pushing for this. Well,
Speaker 1: it's young teen girls to be going around topless at
Speaker 1: a at a pool party where parents aren't allowed to attend.
Speaker 1: And this is where the Canadian court so far, or
Speaker 1: the Canadian law at least, is signing with the Canadian
Speaker 1: Human Rights Commission is saying, yeah, this is somebody that
Speaker 1: we're gonna send up for you. It's British Columbius Human
Speaker 1: Rights Tribunal is making decisions on this. I mean, they're
Speaker 1: taking this seriously. They're really looking at this instead of
Speaker 1: laughing this individual out of the building. Jonathan, Now, Jessica YANEV,
Speaker 1: you know, when is it When is it too much?
Speaker 1: When do the Libs realize that there that their side
Speaker 1: has just completely gone crazy? I wonder what that is? There?
Speaker 1: Anything now? Is there anything for the world's gonna end
Speaker 1: in twelve years? Open borders is no problem. Men and
Speaker 1: women aren't different. You know, killing a baby that's nine
Speaker 1: months old in the womb is not is not an
Speaker 1: immoral act. I just is there anything that's too crazy
Speaker 1: for them anymore? I don't know what are the outer
Speaker 1: limits of the crazy. We'll be right back. Who remembers
Speaker 1: Al Franken? Remember that guy a painfully unfunny comedian, which
Speaker 1: if you're a leftist you can get away with that.
Speaker 1: You just have to make jokes that attack the right.
Speaker 1: The right people meaning people on the right, usually white
Speaker 1: Christian males, Republicans, conservatives. You don't have to be funny.
Speaker 1: You just have to carry water for your side, and
Speaker 1: then they'll make sure that you get jobs and all
Speaker 1: kinds of stuff. Okay, So al Franken was at one
Speaker 1: point at US senator won that race in Minnesota. He
Speaker 1: will also recall that he won by a few hundred votes,
Speaker 1: and if you look back at the story of how
Speaker 1: he beat I think it was Norm Coleman was the
Speaker 1: other was the Republican. It was super shady. And anyone
Speaker 1: who says a little bit of voter fraud is no
Speaker 1: big deal doesn't know what the margin was in that
Speaker 1: Minnesota Senate race, because it was hundreds, I think even
Speaker 1: two hundred at one point or so votes. It's like
Speaker 1: a local high school gymnasium of people standing in line voting.
Speaker 1: That that was the difference in who got to be
Speaker 1: a US senator, So that's one point. But Frankin fell
Speaker 1: from grace very rapidly, and it was because of me too.
Speaker 1: It was because he had or rather videos of him
Speaker 1: had emerged, I'm sorry, photos of him had emerged where
Speaker 1: he was grabbing a woman who was asleep on the chest.
Speaker 1: Now I believe she had body armor, but he was
Speaker 1: mimicking groping her and it was a weird, creepster thing
Speaker 1: to do. And then Leanne Tweeden came out and said
Speaker 1: that he had forced to kiss on her I think
Speaker 1: during a USO tour. And then seven other women came
Speaker 1: forward and said he's a very sexually aggressive kind of
Speaker 1: pervy guy. And you know, seven of them all right,
Speaker 1: And Kristen Gillibrand, who had been a friend of and
Speaker 1: she just by the way she is just she is cold,
Speaker 1: des ice manaman. She'll say anything, She'll tell you whatever
Speaker 1: you want to hear, switches her positions like it's nothing.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just a really a shockingly brazen grasper
Speaker 1: and grifter, you know, whatever she has to say in
Speaker 1: the moment for the benefit of Christians. Look, she's a
Speaker 1: classic politician. I suppose you could say, but she said,
Speaker 1: Franken has to resign, and so Franken did step down
Speaker 1: from his Senate seat. And this was because the Democrats
Speaker 1: knew at that point in time that their ability to
Speaker 1: weaponize against Republicans any me to allegation was really going
Speaker 1: to be hampered by Okay, this guy has seven women
Speaker 1: come forward and he gets to stay in his job.
Speaker 1: So for the benefit of the weaponization of me too
Speaker 1: from the left, Franken got fed to alliance. And guess what. Now,
Speaker 1: Jane Mayer has come forward, who's a left wing hack writer,
Speaker 1: and she's written some puff peas in the New Yorker
Speaker 1: looking at the accusations against the senator. It turns out
Speaker 1: she claims now that essentially, I'm trying to make sure
Speaker 1: I get the exact verbiage here, but it's that nothing
Speaker 1: that these women said has been corroborated at all, That
Speaker 1: there was no evidence that anything that what they said
Speaker 1: is true. And now that's not true because there's a photo, right,
Speaker 1: But all the other women who claim that he grabbed
Speaker 1: them or groped them, that there was no evidence and
Speaker 1: that it didn't check out. And Jane Mayer is now
Speaker 1: trying to launch an effort to rehabilitate Frankin's image because
Speaker 1: maybe they want to bring him back. At one point,
Speaker 1: Frankin was thought of as a possible challenger for Trump.
Speaker 1: At one point, Franken was a guy that people were
Speaker 1: thinking as a comedian, he could mock Trump and he'd
Speaker 1: be he'd be able to go on stage and deal
Speaker 1: with him. And and they he got me too. And
Speaker 1: now he's sang in this piece and elsewhere that he
Speaker 1: regrets that he regrets stepping down, which he forgot the rule.
Speaker 1: There are rules, folks, and the rules when you're dealing
Speaker 1: with the leftist mom you never apologize. He only apologize
Speaker 1: if you, as a human being, feel you've done wrong
Speaker 1: and for your own conscience and your own honor, you
Speaker 1: must apologize. You do not apologize because they demanded, because
Speaker 1: then they just use your apology as a confession for
Speaker 1: further punishment and destruction of your life. This is now,
Speaker 1: you know, they've they've gone beyond what you used to be.
Speaker 1: They wanted to humiliate you publicly, but you'd keep your job.
Speaker 1: You know, conservatives would have to get you know, this
Speaker 1: ritual humiliation, but you weren't. It wasn't the end of
Speaker 1: your career necessarily, that's all changed. Now it's oh no,
Speaker 1: they want you fired, they want you finish, just like
Speaker 1: the the young woman when I was at the Hill
Speaker 1: who wanted me fired for saying that ilhan Omar is
Speaker 1: an attractive woman. I was to be fired for that.
Speaker 1: That was the that was the demand for tweeting that
Speaker 1: I was supposed to be fired. Didn't bother anybody, didn't
Speaker 1: do anything, but I should lose my job because the left,
Speaker 1: especially left wing feminists, the left wing feminists are among
Speaker 1: the very worst. I mean, they're completely out of their
Speaker 1: minds and they're vicious and they're bitter. But here I
Speaker 1: think frank In, you know, seven women came forward. I
Speaker 1: think he is a creep. Like I think he's obviously
Speaker 1: he's doing gross stuff. There's photos of him. But what's
Speaker 1: amazing to me? Or I should say just astonishing? It's
Speaker 1: not amazing. I mean, it makes sense, really right, but
Speaker 1: you just you want to just say what the heck.
Speaker 1: May Or is the woman that published the article about
Speaker 1: the During the Cavanaugh confirmation hearings, Mayor went forward with
Speaker 1: the second accuser, who took a week of meeting with
Speaker 1: lawyers and therapists to try to remember if in fact
Speaker 1: what she thought she remembered was what she remembered. And
Speaker 1: then they went forward with this even though one of
Speaker 1: the witnesses that that accuser sighted was like, never happened.
Speaker 1: That's not a thing that happened. So Mayer published unfounded
Speaker 1: accusations against without any any journalistic due Dillens and by
Speaker 1: the way, Ronan Pharaoh also mister, oh, mister, meet you guy. Yeah,
Speaker 1: left wing partisan activist hack. He also put his name
Speaker 1: on that, which was a disgrace. But I mean, I
Speaker 1: never expected that guy was particularly honorable. He's just all
Speaker 1: for himself. But now you know she wants to rehabilitate
Speaker 1: Franken and say, well, the witnesses against him, we can't
Speaker 1: corroborate any of their information. You don't say now all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, we want evidence. Now you know, we're
Speaker 1: gonna go back to a theory because it's good for Franken,
Speaker 1: who I think Democrats really do want him back in
Speaker 1: public life. They really liked he's an absolutely za vicious
Speaker 1: left wing partisan, nasty, really goes after people and says
Speaker 1: exactly what the left wingers in Hollywood in New York.
Speaker 1: And you know that you know, he knows exactly what
Speaker 1: they want to hear, and he does. He delivers it
Speaker 1: every time. I think they want to bring him back,
Speaker 1: just like they try to bring back Spitzer. You know,
Speaker 1: they try to bring back these left wing attack dogs,
Speaker 1: these Democrats and give them a Spitzer got a TV
Speaker 1: show at CNN, and what an embarrassment. First of all,
Speaker 1: the show stunk. It's horrible. It's unwatchable because that guy's unwatchable.
Speaker 1: But as Buddy Jeff zucker knew that, you know, Spitzer
Speaker 1: was a good soldier for the left wing cause he
Speaker 1: took himself down. He was guilty. Franken also a little
Speaker 1: little soldier for progressivism. Does anyone think that he wasn't guilty?
Speaker 1: What seven women were? They were all making it up,
Speaker 1: all seven of them. I thought women had a right
Speaker 1: to be believed. Can I just know what the journalistic
Speaker 1: standards are here for publishing these accusations? Oh? I think
Speaker 1: I know what they are. If you're a Republican, you
Speaker 1: are guilty the moment anyone says anything, even if it's crazy,
Speaker 1: the evidence is against it and there's no evidence to
Speaker 1: support it. But if you are a Democrat, then all
Speaker 1: of a sudden, the rules of evidence and cross examination
Speaker 1: and all the rest of it apply. Oh okay, well,
Speaker 1: I'm glad we've established that this is just all a
Speaker 1: big hypocritical exercise and power. That's what me too has become.
Speaker 1: Thanks Jane Mayer and The New Yorker and Al Franken,
Speaker 1: We'll be right back rock and roll, fellow patriots. We
Speaker 1: made ours go up to eleven. It's time for roll call. Indeed,
Speaker 1: it is Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. This is
Speaker 1: where all the role call magic happens. You know that team,
Speaker 1: or if you don't know that, now you do, and
Speaker 1: you can send me all of your thoughts and stuff.
Speaker 1: By the way, I will be doing a live event
Speaker 1: for Republican youth. So I'm not sure there's an age limit,
Speaker 1: but it is young Republicans. That will be in early September.
Speaker 1: But just for those of you who are in the
Speaker 1: New York area, if you want to go to the
Speaker 1: Young Republicans of New York event. I will be posting
Speaker 1: all of that on Facebook and Twitter and all of
Speaker 1: that as we get a little bit closer to it. Also,
Speaker 1: I have another announcement for next week something I'll be
Speaker 1: doing that I think you'll be excited to see. But
Speaker 1: I don't want to say until the week of because
Speaker 1: you can always have these things change or get canceled.
Speaker 1: But the buck is going into the lions Den, my friends.
Speaker 1: At least that's the plan right now, and all of
Speaker 1: you will be able to watch it from the comfort
Speaker 1: of your own homes. It is going to be Shields
Speaker 1: High full real Ted rights, Hey Buck, listening to your
Speaker 1: podcasts on Latin America from where Irapuatu, Mexico never even
Speaker 1: heard of it. These people are very friendly and helpful.
Speaker 1: To be honest, the people here seem very happy or
Speaker 1: they don't make a lot of money. Shaking hands and
Speaker 1: hugs in the morning is a daily routine, unlike American
Speaker 1: teens of barely saying hello and generally unhappy people. Great show,
Speaker 1: Shields High, Ted, Well, Ted, I hope you're enjoying Irapuato.
Speaker 1: That sounds like a fun is It reminds me of
Speaker 1: whenever I say that of the place from the end
Speaker 1: of In the end of shaw Sank Redemption, I think
Speaker 1: it's see what Tanejo is where he's mark you know,
Speaker 1: I'm talking about where he goes to the beach, to
Speaker 1: the end of Shaw Shank. Oh, I know it's a spoiler.
Speaker 1: The movies like twenty years old. Du I do not
Speaker 1: know what you're talking about. You don't know what I'm
Speaker 1: talk Mark. You know you're being like horror movies. You're
Speaker 1: busy wedding planning. Yeah, there you go. Horror movies. What's
Speaker 1: the best? You know? I haven't actually seen any good
Speaker 1: horror movies in a long time. What's the best horror
Speaker 1: movie to come out in last year? Mark? Put you
Speaker 1: on the spot. Well, I just told you I don't
Speaker 1: like horror movies. So why would I know that? Oh?
Speaker 1: I think you said I like horror. No, I don't
Speaker 1: like horror movies. Oh all right, well then you wouldn't
Speaker 1: know that. But Shaw Shank Redemption isn't a horror movie, dude,
Speaker 1: So what are you talking about? I always thought it was,
Speaker 1: Oh my god, gosh, it's about a guy who goes
Speaker 1: to prison. I mean, it's not a happy thing. But
Speaker 1: all right, back to back to a roll call producer
Speaker 1: Mark Sandal kinds of stuff today, Julie right Hey buck
Speaker 1: excellent interview with Secretary Mike Pompeo. Very glad to have
Speaker 1: him in Trump's Cabinet. A while back, I read that
Speaker 1: people born between nineteen seventy six nineteen eighty four, we're
Speaker 1: not quite gen X and not quite millennials, but are zennials.
Speaker 1: We've had an analog childhood and had a digital childhood
Speaker 1: or a digital adulthood. Rather, while zennial is dumb, and
Speaker 1: I suggest we are the mixer generation. This makes it
Speaker 1: easier to distance ourselves from the AOC millennials and whatever
Speaker 1: weirdo twin peaks stuff the gen X crowd pines for.
Speaker 1: Thank you for the great analysis, Julie. Julie, I've seen
Speaker 1: it both ways. I'm not sure there's really even a
Speaker 1: technical definition of millennial, though I have been told that
Speaker 1: if you're born after nineteen eighty you are considered a millennial.
Speaker 1: This is why I am, in fact a true gray
Speaker 1: I'm a graybeard millennial in all senses, because I do
Speaker 1: have some gray in the beard. Should I clip the
Speaker 1: gray out of the beard or should I leave it
Speaker 1: in there? You know? Do you do a bit of
Speaker 1: manscaping or the beard to get the gray hairs out
Speaker 1: on the face or what? I don't know, inquiring minds,
Speaker 1: Actually no one cares. We'll see what happens in my
Speaker 1: poll between whether bacon or eggs is the one thing
Speaker 1: you'd want if you could only have one for the
Speaker 1: rest of your life. I will tell you as of today,
Speaker 1: it's running for seven days. We've had thousands of votes
Speaker 1: so far, Bacon is winning sixty forty. Patrick writes, I'm
Speaker 1: doing a hopper jump off the Trump train. Still listen
Speaker 1: to your show, but the defense of the go back
Speaker 1: where you came from is is irreprehensible. I think you
Speaker 1: just mean reprehensible. As a centrist and a libertarian, I
Speaker 1: can no longer back this present because of more religious values.
Speaker 1: I'm Catholic too. I can allow support the crazies on
Speaker 1: the right, I can't support the crazies on the left. Well, Patrick, look,
Speaker 1: I understand some of your frustration. I think that Trump misspoke.
Speaker 1: And it's just a question whether you although the sentiments
Speaker 1: were clearly meant, we know what he meant by or
Speaker 1: rather we know that he doesn't like the women and
Speaker 1: what they represent ideologically. But go back to where he
Speaker 1: came from. He just was being Trump. It really was,
Speaker 1: and I really do not believe that he meant it
Speaker 1: as a as a racial insult. I think he meant
Speaker 1: it as a these these individuals, these women in Congress,
Speaker 1: do not love our country and tear it down, So
Speaker 1: maybe they shouldn't be here. And it wouldn't matter where
Speaker 1: they were born or what their skin color was. That's
Speaker 1: just how he feels about it. I assure you, if
Speaker 1: they were a number of Italian lawmakers whose parents had,
Speaker 1: you know, immigrated here from Italy and they were saying
Speaker 1: terrible things about America and how we have concentration camps,
Speaker 1: Trump would have said, you know, go back where you
Speaker 1: came from. Just the same. But I can understand your frustration.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you writing in and thanks. At least my
Speaker 1: show is smart enough that even people who don't support
Speaker 1: Trump will listen to it. I always take that as
Speaker 1: a special, a special compliment. There are there are lives
Speaker 1: who listen to this show. There are a lot of
Speaker 1: centrists who listen to this show. I think it's because
Speaker 1: they realize that I spend all day learning about all
Speaker 1: the things, so that I can come here on radio
Speaker 1: and talk about as much stuff as I can and
Speaker 1: give you real information, not just the insights of analysis,
Speaker 1: but help everyone learns stuff. The stuff that I'm learning.
Speaker 1: I want to be able to share with all of you.
Speaker 1: It's like a most This is like the most fun
Speaker 1: class ever, as far as I'm concerned, Hopefully you feel
Speaker 1: the same way. Adam, right Buck, When are you going
Speaker 1: to hire an intern a whisper in your ear? You're
Speaker 1: only a man? Well, everyone compliments you on roll Call
Speaker 1: Shields high. Well, Adam, trust me, my friend, I work
Speaker 1: in media. I do not need anyone whispering in my
Speaker 1: ear that I am mortal, because I am constantly reminded
Speaker 1: of my mortality by various media executives and other media personalities.
Speaker 1: Even so, trust me, you do not have to worry
Speaker 1: about a lack of humility with the Buckster. Even if
Speaker 1: he refers to himself in the third person, he does
Speaker 1: that in a self effacing way. Let's see Nadine right
Speaker 1: Buck audio on the podcast I Listen to iHeart is
Speaker 1: still an issue. Bumper music, et cetera. Playing for guests
Speaker 1: comes at a higher volume when you're speaking. Is there
Speaker 1: a way to turn your mic up? The volume turn
Speaker 1: all the way up, Shields, Hi, guys, I don't I
Speaker 1: don't know what's going on here. I'm look I'm moving
Speaker 1: to New York in a few weeks, will be in
Speaker 1: a brand new studio, We'll have a We'll all be
Speaker 1: together in the brand new Freedom Hunt in New York City.
Speaker 1: So you know, hopefully that will that will allow us
Speaker 1: to fix this problem, whatever it may be. Moses, right buck,
Speaker 1: I'm a former Marine and former employee of DHS. I
Speaker 1: wanted to share details from discussions I've had with one
Speaker 1: of the vice presidents the National Border Patrol Council. My
Speaker 1: concern is from the men and women on that border.
Speaker 1: My hope is that a voice like yours can help
Speaker 1: with getting those agents the resources and the platform they
Speaker 1: need to push back against the narrative the Democrats the
Speaker 1: media are pushing every day. I want to share these
Speaker 1: ideas and plans I've had with Chris Cabrera. Border Patrol
Speaker 1: would love to hear your thoughts and also if you
Speaker 1: can help well, Moses, my friends, send me whatever you got,
Speaker 1: all right, send me here. You know how to find me,
Speaker 1: what you want me to pass along and I will.
Speaker 1: I will see what I can do, all right, Team,
Speaker 1: that's gonna be it for the show today. Always an honor,
Speaker 1: a privilege, and a pleasure to get the chance to
Speaker 1: chat with you, get a chance to hang out with
Speaker 1: all of you, which is really what it feels like.
Speaker 1: I am getting my last week's here in DC. I'm
Speaker 1: going to be an emigray from the Swamp. I'm going
Speaker 1: to be saying adios to the Swamp very soon and
Speaker 1: back to the Big Apple. Hopefully there's a lot of
Speaker 1: you that listen to the show who are in the
Speaker 1: Big Apple area, because we will be trying to do
Speaker 1: some live events and other fun things there. But until tomorrow,
Speaker 1: my friends, Mueller Day, which I will tell you right now,
Speaker 1: is not going to be nearly as exciting it. The
Speaker 1: media has to pretend like it's going to be exciting,
Speaker 1: but it's I think it's going to be a dud,
Speaker 1: a dud and then some. That is my honest assessment
Speaker 1: of where we're going on Muller Day. But until then,
Speaker 1: my friends, please do send me thoughts and share via Facebook, Facebook,
Speaker 1: dot com slash Buck Sexton. That's the best way to
Speaker 1: reach me. Right now. We are getting an email address
Speaker 1: set up. It only take us like ten years to
Speaker 1: do that. We will talk to you tomorrow here on
Speaker 1: the show. Shields High