Barr Wins on Capitol Hill

The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again the buck Sexton Show begins, analyst remembers,

great guy. Now, this process is going along very well, and my original timetable of being able to release this by mid April stands, and so I think that from my standpoint, by the by within a week, I will be in a position to release support to the public, and then I will engage with the chairman of both judiciary committees about that report and about any further requests

that they have. Welcome to The buck Sexton Show. Oh, we're in the final countdown for the release here of the full Muller Report, which I think people that live in New York and DC and work in media politics are very excited about. I think a lot of the rest of the country is like, whatever, man, we know what's going to happen. We know Democrat rats are going to claim that, oh no, it's much worse. There were no charges. But just because it's not beyond a reasonable

doubt doesn't mean that it didn't happen. That's what they'll say. They're so predictable, which is why I predict them most of the time. This is where this is all heading, and Trump and his allies are gonna just look at this and say, yeah, no charges, So what's this? What's

the hubbub about? What's the problem here? There's been so much reckless talk about Bob Barr, specifically, people saying that he's not ethical, that he's compromised, that somehow President Trump just hand picked this guy and turned him into his inside man at the DOJ. But Barr knows this game well. He is a skilled legal mind and also political operator. He knows what they're trying to do here, how they're trying to back him into a corner, and the Democrats

will smear his reputation. They'll throw him under the bus as quickly as they can. But he was parrying and jousting and winning today on Capitol Hill as they the Democrats tried to land a blow on him, they just couldn't do it. He knows what's up. He's handling this like a pro. He is a professional. He says. The report will be out in a week. That's exactly within

the timeline that he has stated from the beginning. The People, and we've played the soundbites for you here on the show, People at MSNBC and all these other places that claim there's a cover up. Oh, it smells like a cover up. No, No,

that does not smell there's a cover up. And before they can set up the narrative of oh, they're redacting information based on political whim no no. Barr explained today in some detail what will be removed from the report, why it will be removed, and that will in fact be listed. The reasoning for the redaction will be listed and color coded in the document playclip thirteen. Now. In my letter of the March twenty ninth, I identified four areas that I feel should be redacted, and I think

most people would agree. The first is grand jury information six E material. The second is information that the intelligence community believes would reveal intelligence sources and methods. The third or information in the report that could interfere with ongoing prosecutions.

You will recall that the Special Council did spin off a number of cases that are still being pursued, and we want to make sure that none of the information in the report would impinge upon either the ability of the prosecutors to prosecutecute the cases or the fairness to the defendants. And finally, we intend to redact information that implicates the privacy or reputational interests of peripheral players where there is a decision not to charge them. Does any

of that sound unreasonable, of course not. In fact, he's just following the guidelines. He's doing what DJ policy tells him he should do. Unlike Comey, who, for example, decided to stand in front of Loretta Lynch in place of Loretta Lynch and say that there will be no charges against Hillary because FBI sanctimony. Chief Komy thought that that was what he felt like doing at that point in time.

Bill Barr is a professional and an ethical guy, and yet here we are Democrats pretending that he is bought and paid for by Trump, or that there's been some cover up, some effort to obscure this report. They're going to have a really tough time for those who are paying attention. It's going to be difficult. It's going to be hard for them to explain how this is a cover up. When Mueller was offered was offered the ability to review Barr's summary letter of the Mueller Report findings,

here is what he said about that. Here's Bill Barr Play twelve, the letter of the twenty fourth. Mister Muller's team did not play a role in drafting that document, although we offered him the opportunity to review it before we sent it out, and he declined that the letter on the twenty ninth. I don't believe that that was reviewed by mister Mueller or that they participated in drafting that letter. So he's just telling them what happened here.

But they made the offer. If you are trying to play games here and misrepresent the Muller Report, would you say, hey, do you want to review this and then tell us if you're okay with with with the language we use. Of course not mother knows that Bob, I'm sorry, I did it. Bill Barr understands what's happening here. He knows that Barr isn't going to First of all, the idea that Barr would be able to misrepresent this and get away with it is crazy. I mean, Muller would would

his team would object to it. They would tell people. So that's not what happened. And ultimately it's a yes or no situation. Will there be charges no? Will there be obstruction charges no? Will there be collusion or conspiracy charges? No? These are issues of fact. The biggest problem that the leftists the Democrats are going to have though with this whole situation is that they're going to say that their redactions are unfair. See that it's the hidden information, the

information you can't see. That's where the real collusion is. That's where the bad things are happening. Only one problem with that. Muller is working with Bar on the redactions. So the Muller team is a part of deciding what should be and should not be redacted. Bar smart enough to bring him into that process, and so when people inevitably in the Congress will say, oh, but what about this, and we can't see that try to make something of this. They will have very little ground to stand on. Now,

that doesn't mean they won't say it. They're demagogues, they lie. They've invested so much in this crazy narrative of Trump as the evil Manchurion candidate doing prutens bidding for the Kremlin. Didn't happen. Now they have to find a way to justify, not just to themselves but to their voters what happened here. I don't think that the Democrats, the Democrat base is really upset that they were lied to. I think a

lot of them probably knew they're being lied to. I think they're upset that they didn't get the results they were promised. That Muller's gift to the American people in twenty nineteen was not an indictment of the President of United States. I think that's I think Democrats are angry

about that. They can handle a lie as long as they get the outcome they want, but they are going to be very upset with anything less than the Congress will be the Democrats in Congress upset with anything less than the full unredacted report, and Barr has already said, sorry, that's not what the gude. Let's say you're not going to get the full unredacted report. I'm open to your reasoning as to why you need to see it, but

it doesn't work that way. Doesn't work that way. Democrats are going to kick and scream and moan and wail, but Bars got them. He's this guy was tremendously effective today. He was laying waste to the stupidity of the Democrat winers. We got more on this report and also than obviously the immigration crisis coming up here team in just a moment, and so stay with me. Remember when the left called the Green New Deal bold, or how about their bold

defensive anti semitism in the House. I think they're mistaking bold for something else because the way I define bold is the taste of freedom I get every morning with my Black Rifle Coffee. Black Rifle delivers the best roast or coffee right to your door, and Black Rifles Coffee Club makes things easy. Just pick your blend and the amount you want, and Black Rifle ships your coffee right to your door every month. Hassle free, no lines, no running out just great coffee, ship right to your door

every month, hassle free. Plus when you join their coffee Club, you'll receive discounts and offers not available to other customers. When you drink Black Rifle Coffee, you're supporting a company that gives back to veteran and first responder causes, and serves coffee and culture to those who truly love America. For a bold cup of America's best coffee, visit Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and get twenty percent off

your first purchase. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com, slash buck, Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck for twenty percent off. Before getting into your budget request, I want to address a serious oversight matter your unacceptable handling of Special Counsel Robert Muller's report. It's been reported that the report is three hundred to four hundred pages, and I use the term reported because we have no idea along it actually is.

All we have is your four page summary, which seems to cherry pick from the report to draw the most favorable conclusion possible for the President. And in many ways your letter raises more question than it answers Ah yes, Democrat ne need Allowy there who is going with the Pelosi talking for the Democrats raises more questions than I know. It doesn't. No, it doesn't, a man, because what really matters? Right? You know what? What what's the most important part of

all of this? You know, if you're getting your college admission response in the mail, does it really matter you know more that you get all the different paperwork for the process or they send you one one paragraph it says, Sara, you're not in. I think you kind of know. I think I think you got the most important part. But

the sorrow you're not in. No charges. If there are no charges, then there is no basis upon which to bring criminal charges against the President United States or anybody else that was caught up in this Russia collusion investigation. That's what matters. I just think it's so funny this congresswoman is She's like, we don't know what's in the report, but I know that you're being too nice to the president. Meanwhile, he offered Mueller the opportunity to read over his summary

of the findings. Mueller declined. Mueller is working with him now in the redactions, which is very very important because they're gonna lie to you a lot about this, and the Democrats are just hoping to demagogue this issue by making it sound like there's something going on here that is not on the up and up. But that's why it's so important when Barr has to just lay it down for them that there are very good reasons why there will be information. They're not given very good reasons,

completely fair and open reasons. Now the information will be completely fair and open. But this is this is where you're we're gonna have to focus our energy because there's gonna be a lot of lies told about this. This is why Bill Barr, if I call him Bob by

the way, I apologize, but it's Bill. Obviously Bill Barr had to explain to members of Congress today what six E, which is Grand Jury material, what it means, and what the precedent is for this play fourteen not if it violates the law, and we believe six E does apply

to members of Congress. This whole mechanism for the Special Council, as I said, was established during the Clinton administration in the wake of ken Star's report, and that's why the current rule says that the report should be kept confidential because there was a lot of reaction against the publication of ken Star's report, and many of the people who are right now calling for release of this report were basically castigating ken Star and others for releasing the Star report.

I don't intend at this stage to send the full, unredacted report to the committee. I like how Barr just turns us all around them. It's like, look, Democrats, you guys, you guys set the precedent. Go back to Clinton era. You know there there were decisions made then that are now the practice for special counsel and going forward there there were rules of the road established. Bar is just obeying the rules of the road. But oh, what a surprise.

Human Democrats are hypocritical, and then they don't care what the rules were beforehand. Now they just want what they want when they want it. They're desperate to get access to whatever information they can in this report to try and use it to tarnish Trump, to trash this administration. That's all this is. And you know what they'll what they'll say about the redactions no matter what, that they're unfair, even though Muller is involved in They're going to say

that they are unfair. This is Democrats licking wounds to some extent because they know that they, at least the ones who are not completely delusional, have looked like absolute clowns on this issue. They've been wrong, wrong, and wrong again on Russia collusion, and now they're looking for somebody to seek sink their teeth into so that they can not look like ineffective buffoons to their constituents, to the

Democrat base. But no matter what, isn't this report And as I said, yes, I remember I told you my sources were claiming next week turns out they were correct. When this thing comes out, I will read every page of it that is out there for public view, and we will break it down together. I can assure you of this, No matter what is said in that report, there will be some Democrat effort to make it into Oh my gosh, how could they not have brought charges

against them? Because here's what they have to do. Find a way to equate the non prosecution decision against Hillary Clinton with the non prosecution decision against Trump that's coming. Because they know that right now we have a two tiered justice system, one for connected, powerful, important Democrats and one for conservatives, one for Republicans. The DOJ does not treat these things the same way. Andy McCabe, formerly of VFBI,

lies into owth and does not get charged. General Flynn, Trump's national security advisor, misremembers a conversation that he thinks he's having with colleagues, and they charged him with felony lying under oath. Hillary Clinton has over a hundred classified emails on her private unclassified server system, which meant that it was on the server, it transited the server, it was sent over open lines. She did this over and over. Some of them were marked classified, even though she pretended

they weren't. People remove classification markings, which is a huge security violation, so they could send them over unclassified systems. The Espionage Act statute that applies is clear on recklessness. Comy removed the word recklessness because he would have been making the case for charges and they didn't charge her. Why because she was gonna be the next president. That's what it was all about. They're gonna try expert Lee to whitewash that history by saying, we'll see Hillary got

the benefit of the doubt. Trump got the benefit of the doubt. Oh no, no, no, no, Hillary was a criminal. She broke the law. Trump did not break the law. Trump had anti Trump zealots on his trail with unlimited resources and a mandate to take him down, and they couldn't do it. Hillary and Trump are not the same on this matter. Do not believe the lies that you will hear on this because I'm telling you that's where

it's going to go. The whole that they don't have enough to say that Trump, you know, based on this at least, they don't have enough to say he's going to be impeached. Maybe they'll get something on the instruction side that they'll make that case, even though it'll be overblown and nonsense. But what they really need to do is erase this story of Hillary got away with it and Trump had to be you know, the absolutely clean

or else that's what happened. So they're going to say, oh, they both got a pass, even though trust me, they did not. Only Hillary got the pass. We have bad laws. Nobody can believe these decisions we're getting from the Ninth Circuit. It's a disgrace. And so we're finding the bad laws, the bad things that are coming out of Congress. You have a Democrat Congress that's substructing. You talk about obstruction,

the greatest obstruction anyone's ever seen. All they have to do is spend twenty minutes and they can fix this whole problem. We have the worst laws of any country anywhere in the world, whether it's catch and release or or any one of them. I mean, I could name I could sit here and name them. But if you get rid of catch and release, chain migration, visa lottery, you have to fix the asylum situation. It's ridiculous. You

have people coming in claiming asylum. They're all reading exactly what the lawyer gives them to have a piece of paper and read what that is, and all of a sudden, you're entitled to asylum. And some of these people are not people you wanted country. President's completely correct here that we have we're fighting bad laws that Congress is not acting. And he mentioned that Ninth Circuit, the Ninth Circuit judge, I mean, the Ninth Circuit is effectively now determining national

immigration policy. And this is not the way it is supposed to be that one federal judge in the Ninth Circuit can decide to put a nationwide injunction on immigration. Think about what this means, what can't the Ninth Circuit do? Can a Ninth Circuit judge say the president has no right to to order the movements of military forces in a time of war? Can the Ninth Circuit overrule Trump if he wants to get us out of Afghanistan? Up up you others some explanation. I'm sure they can come

up with for that. This is outrageous. And what you have is a judiciary that doesn't have to even be a majority of left wing Obama appointee nutcases, but just have a handful of them spread out throughout the country and they're able to object to federal policy and put the brakes on the Trump agenda. You know, at some point we have to ask the question, what is the

point of the elections that we've had. If one appointee federal judge who hasn't won any election can just say Nope, the president can't do that, not allowed to do that. It's completely unacceptable. It's just wrong. The Democrats are all focusing right now on child separation. That's all they want to talk about. They want to talk about child separation. Meanwhile, children are separated in this country from their parents anytime they commit a crime. Crossing the border is a crime.

And yet you don't see people that are all wailing and gnashing their teeth and crying crocodile tears because of somebody that's arrested for drunk driving or possession of drugs or and you know a lot of them, single parents, no one to take care of the kids, separated from their kids. That happens. You don't get to bring your child into the prison cell with you. But they're focusing on this and pretending that this is explicitly and intentionally

only something that Trump has done. No one else has ever done this before, and that that's what the policy was separation, or the policy was enforced the law. The law says you arrest people for crossing illegally. There's a President Trump said play fifteen just so you understand, President Obama separated the children. Those cages that were shown, I think they were very inappropriate. They were built by President Obama's administration, not by TRUMPA. President Obama had child separation.

Take a look. The press knows it. You know it, we all know it. I didn't have I'm the one that stopped it. President Obama had child separation. Now I'll tell you something once you don't have it. That's why you see many more people coming that coming like it's a picnic, because let's go to Disneyland. President Obama separated children. They had child separation. I was the one that changed it. Okay, thank you very much. Here's a piece from McClatchey in

June twenty eighteen. Last year, Yes, Obama, President Barack Obama separated parents from their children at the border. Obama prosecuted mothers for coming to the United States illegally. He fast tracked deportations, and he housed unaccompanied children intense cities for much of the country. And President Donald Trump, the prevailing belief is that Obama was the president who went easier

on immigrants. Neither Obama nor Democrats created trump zero tolerance policy, which calls for every legal border cross are to be prosecuted and lead to their children being detained in separate facilities before being shipped to a shelter and eventually a sponsor family. But Obama's policy helped create the roadmap of enforcement that Trump has been following and building on. So, yes,

there was separation that occurred. There would be separation if there was reason to believe that the child was in danger or that this was part of a smuggling operation, and they didn't always get it right. And if you're an unaccompanied child, guess what they did, hold you in a quote cage. But as is the case all the time, there's just different rules when talking about how Republicans do things, how the media describes it, and how the media describes

when Democrats do things. I mean, here's what Obama said back when he was president about the immigration debate overall. Play clip eight. This will be interesting. Should we want to encourage newcomers to learn the language of the country they're moving to. Of course, does that mean that they can never use their own language? No, of course that

it doesn't mean that. But you know it's not racist to say, ah, if you're going to be here, then you should learn the language of the country that you just arrived at, because we need to have some sort of common language in which all of us can work and learn and understand each other in order to push back against what are clearly racist motives of some. We can't label everybody who is disturbed by immigration as racist.

Don't call everybody's kind of problems with our immigration system a racist, Obama said, telling people learn English is okay. Oh well really, I mean you and I know that, but the media doesn't know that. Here's what we do know, though, is this is really all about the Democrats shift to open borders. Trump gets it Play seventeen. We are building a lot of wall. It's getting built. Some of you saw that last week when we went We had a

great presentation of a new stretch. But we're building a lot of wall, and we're being very strong on the butter. But we're bucking a court system that ever ever rules for us. And we're bucking really bad things with Congress, with the Democrats in Congress not willing to act. They want to have open borders, which means they want to have crime, They want to have drugs pouring into our country. They don't want to act. We have to close up the borders. We're doing it, but we're doing it. I

could do it much faster if they would act. So it's a terrible thing. The Democrats in Congress, what they're doing and the obstruction. They don't want to fix it, and we have to fix it. They want open borders. They want to have millions of people pouring into our country. They don't even want to know who they are. President's right. They just want more and more to come in. Don't want to work to solve this problem. Don't see it as a problem. Democrats don't believe it's really a problem.

It just needs to be streamlined. You see, it doesn't need to be stopped. Well that's a major difference, isn't it. But it's not one of the Democratic parties willing to be honest about and this is what we are up against. Care was founded after nine eleven because they recognized that some people did something and that all of us were

starting to lose access to our civil liberties. The new second favorite Democrat left wing member of Congress there ilhan Omar, referring to the nine to eleven attacks that killed three

thousand Americans as some people who did something. I'm quite sure that if it was not a female, minority Muslim member of Congress who said that, and a Democrat, of course, that the media would maybe raise some eyebrows, that there would get some additional coverage of referring to the greatest attack on the United States since Pearl Harbor as a thing that some people did. I think that that would get a bit of attention. But you see, she is in a protected status. She is in a protected class,

in fact, in several protected classes. From the perspective of the left, Democrat, female, Muslim, and ethnic minority, these are all and an immigrant. You add all of these things together and the Democrats will they will never abandon her. It does not matter what she say, how anti semitic. Something she says is, yeah, maybe they'll censure her, they'll say, oh, that was naughty, don't do that again, but they will

stick alongside her. And she was defending CARE there, the Council on American Islamic Relations, which has been effectively in Islamophobia hyperventilation organization for a long time. Every time there's a terror attack, and I used to go on even at CNN believe it or not, and try to analyze what's going on, I'd have to have someone from CARE come on, and they would you be saying, how the real you know, dozens of Americans would be lying dead from a terror attack at the hands of a Jihottes.

But I'd have to hear from CARE about how you know the real problem is that someone said something mean to a woman wearing a headscarf somewhere on the subway, and that's what we have to be on guard against. No I think in the hours after a mass casualty terror attack at the hands of a gihottest in the United States, I think that the big problem is the gi Hottest. I don't think that the primary issue we have to worry about is Islamophobia, which is what we

would constantly here. In fact, I've always said said that the United States does not give itself that the American people don't give ourselves enough credit for the lack of reprisal attacks, the lack of what would be unethical and immoral, but a lot of people expected them to happened, that kind of attacks against Muslim Americans that could have been driven by hate and fear and anxiety after nine eleven, In fact, those attacks were few and far between, which

is a good thing, something to be celebrated. I don't think we give ourselves, the American people, enough credit for the fact that we took that situation for all it was well in this country to each other. Now. We could talk about the Afghanistan war, the Iraq War, and those decisions. That's separate, But we as the American people We did not let that separate us. We did not decide that our Muslim American neighbors, friends, colleagues were to blame for this or part of the problem for this.

We did not do that. That is not an accurate reading of the history. But it is still one that some people who have an incentive to exaggerate our divisions, to exaggerate the hatred in this country for their own purposes. Well, we'll stick to that. And that's why, you know, ilan Omar, on the one hand, nine to eleven, some people who did something, but oh man, Muslim civil rights were being destroyed.

That's not true. I mean I was. I was in the unit of the NYPD that was doing quote mosque surveillance. We were actually running investigations involving terrorism, which just so happened to often. I'm just telling you, the facts often involve people that would go to mosques. And there was a lot and there are there are many many Muslims in my unit, and there are a lot of people who were watching over us to make sure that what we did was constitutional and respectful of the First Amendment.

And but still, you know, ACLU and all of them, they whatever they can do to you know, put us in greater jeopardy. The ACLU likes to do as you know, it's just it's just like the Southern Poverty Law Center. These have become left wing attack organizations. They're not really devoted to any particular principle other than destroy the right, destroy the concern conservative ideology in this country really and traditional what's thought of as traditional American values. Just subvert

them at every turn. That's what the ACLU does, and the Southern Poverty Law Center just goes after conservatives. I mean, that's what they do. But I thought this was a very interesting exchange today speaking of Ilhan Omar, and you know, the worry over civil civil liberties of Muslims after nine to eleven, which I'm not saying there was shouldn't have been any worry. There was worry about all of our civil liberties, by the way, but it was always overblown and there was a lot of oh, you know, the

primary fear here should be islamophobia. Attorney General Bill Barr today was asked as part of those members of Congress that were trying to just pepper him with all kinds of questions. He was asked about hate crimes now now before you hear what the Attorney general, who I thought did a masterful job today, And really, you know, they've met their match with this guy. He knows stuff than they do. He's smarter than these members of Congress are.

He knows the law better. And they're not gonna They're not playing any games with this guy. I mean, Bill Barr is a breath of fresh air over at DJ. You know, it took it took Trump a while to get it right, but his ag now is the right ag. And here is what Barr said. You know, we always hear this notion this, We always are told this talking point that hate crimes under Trump are on the rise. Oh there's a rise in hate and there'll be all these articles about it, and well, the attorney generals up

on the federal statistics about hate crimes. Here's what he said, Play twenty two. We have an enviable record of prosecuting hate crimes at the at the same or higher rate than previous administrations. As far as I'm a winner, i'd have to see what other what else you're talking. Are you familiar with the data of what the percentage had they increased under the Trump administration. I think there are indications they have they increased? Yes, hate whether hate crimes

versus the prosecution of hate crimes? Hate crimes? Have they increased under this administrator? I haven't seen any data, you know, going from two thousand and sis, So is it a priority? You haven't looked at the data, You're not aware of it. As I said in my confirmation hearings, I'm very concerned about hate crimes and tend to vigorously pursue them. The data that I have seen have showed an increase going back to twenty thirteen, So I do I agree with

you that they have been increasing, but I don't. I have seen no data to say that it's it's different under the Trump administration. Wait a second, you mean there's not some huge spike and hate crimes under Trump. But but that's what all the liberal talking heads say all the time, that Trump is so hateful and there's all the hate crimes. That's just not representative of the facts.

That's just not what's going on here. The truth is, if you really want to know, hate crimes have been on the rise because reporting has been on the rise, and what is considered a hate crime is on the rise. Now there's no pro hate crime constituency in American politics. You know, no person should ever be attacked or even just no one should even be rude to somebody or you know, or or treat someone differently, you know, not bring them their menu at the restaurant with the same

speed because of their religion, their ethnicity. They're anything, right, I mean, you know, America, this battle has been won. The left pretends like it's being lost unless you give them all the power. But this battle over normal Americans seeing each other as as individuals of equal dignity and worth and respect and God's children. That we have won this as a society and as a culture. But the left benefits so much from pretending that in fact, we're

losing ground, and this benefits them politically. It also allows them to upren for all the news cameras an act like they're the ones that are the new civil rights heroes. It's just not true. The biggest problem with it is that the rise in hate crimes under Trump it's just not a reflection of reality. Earlier this year, the Leadership Institute had a field organizer named Hayden Williams peacefully helping conservative students recruit for their group at UC Berkeley, and

he was viciously attacked by a radical leftist thug. This was an ideological attack, my friends. Now, President Trump has taken action, signing an executive order to protect conservative students free speech. But we need more action and we need your help. Support the Leadership Institute to defend conservative students on campus. All you have to do is go to take back the campus dot org because you see, the Leadership Institute is the premier organization for educating and training

conservative college students. With a gift of as little as five dollars a month, you help the Leadership Institute train conservatives on campus so that we can actually win the future of this country. Let's not seed the campus to the left wing radicals anymore. Let's fight back. Please donate today, go to take back the campus dot org and make your urgent gift again. That's take back the campus dot org. To put things into perspective, last year, agents in RGV

made one hundred and sixty two thousand apprehensions. We're ready at one hundred forty seven thousand. At this pace. In my sector alone, we will have more than two hundred and sixty thousand apprehensions by the end of the fiscal year. On average, we apprehend more than a thousand people illegally crossing the border every day. That's roughly the capacity of seventeen commercial buses. Last week, agents in my sector apprehended one thousand and seven hundred and sixty six people in

a single twenty four hour period. We expect these numbers to continue to climb as we enter the summer months, which will undoubtedly place both migrants and our board troll age it's at significant risk. Rescue missions will increase as a result, drawing additional personnel from our frontline law enforcement mission. We are in the midst of what is a mass migration from Central America into this country. That is what

is happening. It is going to be hundreds of thousands of people soon, it will be millions of people if we don't do something. You were hearing there from Rodolpho Karish, who is the chief Border Patrol Agent of the Rio Grand Valley sector of the border. He was just talking some of you might have thought, and it would be a completely legitimate thought to have. Wow, that's a lot of a thousand a day at our southern border. That's a lot. No, no, no, a thousand a day just

in the Rio Grand Valley sector. Think about what that means when you add into it that in the El Paso sector, for example, they've had five hundred one thousand, a couple of thousand over a very short period of time. I mean, you look at the numbers and you see what's happening here, and it is open season for a legal entry into the United States. Our Border Patrol, which is supposed to be a law enforcement organization, is being

repurposed for a largely humanitarian mission. Now this is not to say that I want people at our southern border to be in any jeopardy or danger. I understand the need, and we do have an obligation just like we would with any other people we take into custody, any other prisoners or anyone else who breaks the law. You know, you can't leave them unattended, unfed. This is just the reality of state custody. You have to take care of people.

But that's a big problem when the people that are doing the caretaking are supposed to be law enforcement officers, not the Border Patrol. All Slash red Cross and mister Karish of Border Patrol said this about what his officers have to do now Play twenty. The majority of people we are apprehending our family units and unaccompanied children from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, El Salvador, and Honduras.

Many are extremely vulnerable. Consequently, thirty to forty percent of my daily workforce is doing humanitarian work at any given point in time. This includes processing, karen feeding, hospital watch, and transportation. It also means that at any given point time, thirty to forty percent of my workforce is not available

to secure the border. An agent who's taken a migrant to a hospital is not available in or to DiPT narcotics, Nor are we able to respond to other smuggling events or border intrusions when we encounter and apprehend large groups of people. The bad guys know this. They know our resources are stretched. Then, in addressing the humanitarian issue which undermines our border security operations, they direct the movement of large groups into certain border areas as a diversion to

facilitate the smuggling of drugs. This is an issue of both national security and officers safety. So when Democrats say, as they do frequently, that this is only a humanitarian crisis, they're lying. The humanitarian crisis also creates a national security crisis. National security from the perspective of drug smuggling in the cartels and also just the human smuggling of we don't know who's coming into this country, we don't know what

they plan on doing. There was just earlier this week an individual arrested an ISIS sympathizer who plan to get a vehicle and engage in a mass casualty vehicle attack here in Washington, d C. There is no reason to believe that we have control over who's coming into this country and who's not. There's no reason to believe that we are in a situation where we can tell who is coming across in areas that are flooded already with migrants who are surrendering themselves outside of ports of entry,

which is illegal. There is also from the same testimony today, you have a Bordercool agent Krish saying that they've gotten they've apprehended people in his sector alone from fifty different countries including China, Bangladesh, Turkey, Egypt, and Romania. Now, remember the way this process works. The people that they're capturing who cross illegally can then claim what's called defensive asylum. Oh, I actually want asylum in your country, and they can

go into the process too. They'll be led into the United States. They will have a criminal prosecution against them for the illegal entry, but that's only a misdemeanor, and they may still be able to stay. But there are a lot of people that get across that don't even have to claim defensive asylum because the border is increasingly open. You know, all you have to do is get past that initial fence line and get into a populated area and you're good to go. Border pchool is not going

to track you down. I've seen it. I've seen what their resource constraints are. Fifty different countries, folks. How many people do you have to be able to infiltrate into the United States? You know, if you were from the if you were an ISIS cell right now, and I'm not somebody who usually says, oh, you know, take take the risk of coming into the country to the southern border,

because maybe it'll be caught. But right now, if you were part of an ISIS cell and you wanted to give the United States much more, much higher likelihood of success penetrating across the southern border than trying to get a visa from a Muslim majority country that you know has an ISIS sell in it or has an ISIS franchise in it. I should say, much easier to do that than to try to get a visa, put yourself through the screening process, fly in and do it all legally.

All you have to do is hang out with one of these migrant caravans in Mexico. Just fly to Mexico, hang out with a migrant caravan there, and when you know there's a big surrender coming and the border patrol agents are all tied down just about a mile down the road or miled on the fence line, make a run for it. You're good. You're good to go. We have no idea how money people are smuggling themselves in this way, no idea what kind of drugs and other

things are getting into this country as a result. Democrats, of course, just all they want to talk about his family separation because they're desperate for the moral high ground and they're desperate for a diversionary issue from the fact that this. They lied to you, The Democrats and the media have been lying to you for months saying there is no crisis. How stupid. Do they look now, well, how dishonest? Maybe do they look now? They knew there

was a crisis, most of them did. They just wouldn't say it because they were trying to back up the Democrat talking points about how we don't need a wall, we don't need more border security. These people are liars, top Democrats, major media outlets, liars on the issue of the border and how bad is it. Here's what Rudolpho said about that play eighteen. In my thirty years as an agent, I have never witnessed the conditions we are

currently facing on the Southwest border. This is not a manufactured crisis created by those of us who live and work in the border area. Board Troll continues to apprehend record numbers of people who purposely violate US immigration laws. We are taking advantage of by gaps in our legal framework, and that undermined the rule of law. Criminal organization is along the border capitalize on these issues and make tremendous profits at the expense of both migrants and the American people.

This is a disaster, and it is happening under the Trump administration. I will say this though, at least at least we do have a commander in chief who understands the scope of the problem and wants it to stop.

Could you think for a moment if this situation, because this is all about the legal framework that's in place for asylum and how it's being exploited, and how the media is reported on this, and how the word has gotten out outside of our borders, while inside of our borders you got the press running defense for the smugglers, for the cartels and the coyotes, saying, oh, no, there's no problem, don't look down here, don't look at the border,

nothing going on. You imagine if we had a democrat, all you'd hear about is how we just need to bring in more and more than we need amnesty. So we have something of a fighting chance to get this issue under control. But time is not on our side here. If this continues as is, we will reach a tipping point where it will no longer be possible to consider

the border to be anything other than open. And once politicians of both parties decide that this problem can't be fixed, that the population of illegals is too large to expect to enforce US law against, they're just going to cave. They're gonna cave I interviewed a congressman today from Long Island. He and Steve King one amnesty, amnesty in exchange for border security? What does border security mean? Border security is

a very malleable term. What does it mean. Does it mean just faster processing to let more of these mass mass migrant caravans coming in the United States? Or does border security mean a greater capability and the legal backing necessary to tell people you can't come in this way. We have a legal immigration process. This is not it. Turn around and go home, do not pass, go, do not collect two hundred dollars. That's what border security would really be. But we all know that Democrats are entirely

opposed to that. So what do we do? What do we do? Background checks are critical for your business. Whatever size company you're running, whatever HR department you're in, whatever industry you're in, You're going to need to have background checks done on your employees, and you might need some additional vetting of business partners or other company matters. I want you to try my friends at Global Verification Network.

Global Verification Network is the only dual certified veteran owned background investigation and vetting company and their rismutigation experts will work with you whatever size your company, from startups all the way up to fortune one hundreds. So even if you've got somebody that's currently doing background checks for you, some big conglomerate out there that probably offshores it, by the way, which Global Verification Network does not. They do

it all in the States. Reach out to Global Verification Network, talk to them about your needs and they'll set up a program that will work for you. Call eight seven seven, six nine five one one seven nine eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine tell them you're

part of Team Buck. You'll be happy you did. I think Georgia has to realize that while we are enjoying an extraordinary boom in the film industry, there's nothing that says it has to stay here, and we have to be a state that is not only friendly to business, we've got to be friendly to the women who work in these businesses. You should not have to worry about your ability to control your bodily autonomy because of the governor has pushed such an abominable and evil bill that

is so restrictive. It's not only bad for morality in our humanity, it's bad for business. Ah bad for business. Stacy Abram says, protecting babies from murder in the womb is bad for business. Business like what Planned Parenthood conducts when it sells baby parts, which we all know happened. We saw the videos, but they pretend did not happen. They use their allies in various prosecutors' offices to try to harass the people who made those videos. Fetal Heartbeat

bill is bad for business, Stacey Abrams says. And and even as the goal to say that it's abominable and evil to try to protect babies in the womb. You know, we are going to talk about reparations later on this hour and how Democrats are embracing that as a concept. And yes, slavery is a is a very sad, tragic, wrong, immoral part of the American past, but we have come to terms with it. We obviously ended the practice a

long time ago. It ended because of a brutal Civil war in which a whole lot of Americans lost their lives, and that's what it took to end it. So there was a price paid in blood for the end of slavery, as we all know. And since then we have been a path to greater and greater racial harmony and legal equality. Abortion. The reason I bring up reparation slavery is that abortion will also at some point in the future. I can assure you. I can't tell you when, but I know

it will happen. With greater scientific knowledge and understanding, abortion becomes less and less defensible. With greater knowledge about the abortion procedure, it becomes less scientifically and ethically defensible. And there will come a time when the vast majority of the American people will say, I cannot believe that the avatars for infants operated by Planned parenthood were able to go on for so long that day. That day will come. I don't know if it'll be in my lifetime. I

hope it will be. But for Stacy Abrams never. If you're a Democrat, you have to be pro abortioned all the way, all nine months. If you waver at all, you're an enemy of choice. What they'll call you an enemy of choice and you will not get the money. You will not get the funds. They won't even vote on the Borderlive Infant Protection Act. I mean there they are openly now. They can they can tell us as much as they want Otherwise, but they're openly now the

party of infanticide. But for Abrams to use moral language here like it is evil, it is abominable to try to protect little babies is an unfortunate but perfect example of just how degraded the left's moral sensibility has become. That they do not understand anymore right from wrong. They have embraced, They have embraced evil so thoroughly that they do not know what is evil. And for her to say it's not only bad for humanity, it's bad for business.

She's referring to these actors, including a Lissa Milano, who is not a very a bright or introspective woman, not somebody that anybody should listen to. And I know because I've had to deal with her and also had to deal with her thinking that complaining about a journalist asking fair questions is somehow going to get me to stop asking the fair questions or I will feel chastened afterwards.

She was lucky, She was lucky that I led her off without completely exposing her for the intellectually bankrupt fraud she is. But I was trying to be somewhat polite and professional. Look as I have a self awareness one of the biggest knocks on me. If anything, I can be too polite. It doesn't mean I don't like to fight. I like to fight, but I don't start the fights, and I can be too polite in the run up

to them. But back to Abram's here, she's saying she's talking about this being bad for business because Milano and others have said that they will not They've tried to financially pressure Georgia into abandoning this bill, which is a fetal heartbeat bill, which just says that once the fetal heartbeat is detectable, you cannot have an abortion anymore. And this is scientifically very sound principle, isn't it. People do not have two hearts. If you have two hearts, you

have two people. This is a different person who is in the womb, and once the heart is beating. That could not be more clear from a pure science perspective, it is two human beings. But Abrams knows that she has to be in the vanguard of the abortion extremists if she wants any real shot at winning the presence.

It's a terrible shame, you know. I'm reaching out this week to try to have some of the either producers or director or actors, I don't know whoever will come on to talk about the movie Unplanned, which I'm hoping to see soon. I need to find the best way for me to see it. I rarely go to movie theaters, but I'm hoping to be able to get a copy and download it or watch it at home. I'm pleased

to see that it's doing so well. I think it's broken the twelve million dollar mark in terms of sales, which for an independent film on this topic is pretty remarkable.

But we are hoping to have them on this week because my understanding from friends of mine who've seen the movie is that it is It is haunting, but it is the kind of gut wrenching viewing that if we want to confront this evil and if we want to live in a truly moral society, in a country where the most precious among us are protected, then that's what we need to do. We need to watch, we need to understand, we see the full scope of just what has happened here, what is happening still day in and

day out across the country. Stacy Abrams I find deeply unimpressive the media is obsessed with her just like they're obsessed with Betto. I don't think that there's much substance there at all, But I do know this, Like all the rest of the far left, she is an abortion extremist and she is in the wrong on this issue. Congresswoman Shila Jackson Lee has proposed a bill to form a commission to study how to do reparations? If you elected president, would you sign that bill if it came

across your desk? When I am elected president, I will sign it. If that bill were to pass and come to your desk, Would you sign it? If the House and sent had passed that bill, of course I would sign if would you sign that bill? Yes? If you are president of the United States, would you sign that bill if it passed the Congress? A commission on reparations a slavery in the United States? I would. Would you signed the bill for reparations? Yes, I would. I already

support that bill. Listen to one major Democrat candidate there after another in response to al Sharpton, A man whose lack of ethics and integrity is not something I think I need to explain to any of you. But they still have to. They still have to show up and kiss the ring. They have to bend the knee in front of Sharpton. If you're going to be the Democrat candidate, he still wields a lot of power. But they're talking

about reparations here, reparations for slavery. And this isn't You cannot call something a fringe issue or something that is outside of the mainstream of political discussion when you have on a stage like the National Action Network conference Al Sharpton's organization. So there's that and one Democrat presidential hopeful offen another saying yes, they would sign a bill for reparations. Yes,

they believe in reparations. Oh, and Sheila Jackson Lee, he's discussing in some specifics here what a reparations bill would look like, play too, how exactly would reparations benefits to slave descendants would be distributed. There's been some questions on that the bill does not even go to that point because we want the study to go forward, want an assessment. I would be speculating as to how any of this

would be addressed. But one could see institutional responses to institutions like historically by colleges, many of them formulated in the eighteen hundreds, but again, I think the most important point is the establishment of the commission and not answering the question before the study and the facts have been completed. A commission to study the facts, they are saying, A commission to study the facts. What you know, where would

this go? What would be the purpose of this? And this is an issue that you're seeing increasingly on the left a lot of support for, but they're very fuzzy on the specifics. Right, it gets very hazy all of a sudden, what this would even me? Newt Gingrich, for example, raise this question, and I'm wondering how the Democrats think

they'll answer a play three. I think the most revealing thing is what's happening on this whole idea of reparations, and I think we should take it seriously in a very positive way of allowing the Democrats to explain exactly who would get reparations, how would you determine how and

far back would you go? If you think about it, you have to have somebody who is virtually out of touch with reality to believe that in this extraordinarily complex society which continues to this to get mass migration from all over the world, legal migration by the way that you can somehow reach out magically and figure out who to give reparations to this. This is a perfect Al

Sharpton utterly phony issue. But it tells you the decay of the Democratic Party that he now has presidential candidates who thrilled to go see him to tell him that they would sign a bill as crazy, utterly phony on antellectual level, on a reality based level, sure, but politically it's obviously potent for the Democrats. They have a belief that this is something that they should discuss, they should talk about, and if nothing else, it allows them to

pose as the saviors of the American soul. You know, Democrats can give long, long and self indulgent, inspirational lectures about confronting the past injustices of race. I mean, there's a lot of justice that has occurred in the past in a lot of ways. If we really plan on doing an accounting of it, I mean, I would like to wonder where that stops and starts. How far back

do we go? Who else might have a case to be made for some kind of redistributive economics based upon what was done to quote their people back in the day. Think about how this would be in the implementation as well. And here's just one example. If you were, let's say the son or daughter of somebody today who's my contemporary, and you had one black parent and one white parent, would you would that person qualify for reparations? And I asked this question not to be not to be silly,

because nobody has any answers yet they don't. But if this was just a financial incentive or a financial financially based programs, so they're going to give money to people, do you get less money than if you know, if you are have a black parent and a white parent, then you would if you had two black parents, How would they assess how much reparations any individual would get it? I would say, oh, buckle, it's not about individuals. It'll

be about institutions. Okay, well, who would make that determination? What we're told? And this is from I was reading on vox dot com today. I can feel the testosterone leaving my system with each passing line every time I go to vox dot com. But I was reading Vox, and you know, they're talking about how the left wants a one hundred to five hundred billion dollar reparations fund set aside. Maryanne Williamson is the self help guru and

spiritual advisor who is pushing for this. But there are some on the left who are saying that, yes, that's what you need. Hundreds of billions of dollars. So it's essentially a massive slush fund would be taxpayer funded that the left in this country would be able to distribute as it sees fit, with the idea that this would

somehow be justice. And let me just say that to take money from people, which is what this would be, taxpayer funded, to take money from individuals and to give it to other people is inherently a problematic business, right. This would involve all kinds of redistribution of wealth. Now, people say, buck, we already do that with all these welfare programs. I know, when does it stop? When is

it enough? Government's seizure of individual assets by force in order to give them to other people is something that is always for me in excess of government authority. But

that's where we are now. I mean, as a society, we've just come to accept that the income tax and the redistribution of the money from it to people that the governments either in need or just worthy of it is what we have to accept plunder, as Bastiat would have called the plunder of individuals of their labor and time and assets because the state sees a collective good that comes from this. But who knows where this would really go and who knows what the level of reparations

funding would have to be. People talk about the racial wealth gap in this country. Would would reparations then only be used for African Americans? What about Africans who arrived in this country in the last fifty years, last thirty years? Would they also? Is it a skin color based issue?

There are no real answers. Is it's an enormously complicated set of historical issues, and that you would create a government commission to try to handle this is just an effort really to inflame and and inflame racial resentment, to create greater tension among people, and to allow for a lot of Democrat grandstanding on the issue. Remember, the Democrats were the party of slavery and Jim Crow and the KKK,

and now the Democrats want to be the ones that centive. Oh, we need to have a commission on these historical injustices. We are all in this country very aware of the history, the immoral history of slavery. But we also can only be held to accounts as individuals for our own moral actions. You know, there is no such thing as a collective guilt in this country that individuals should be held response

before based on what their forefathers did. Whatever my great grandfather did, I did not do that thing, I cannot be held It is immoral to hold me responsible for the moral actions or immoral actions of my ancestors, or even my father, or my parents, or my family members. So it erode the moral order when you start to make distinctions on people and take from people based upon what you say that somebody else who does not even exist and does not live anymore, may have done generations ago,

which is where this conversation will inevitably lead. But really it's just Democrats grandstanding, virtue signaling, and playing the identity politics that are the center of their party. I talk to kids who's sit in their classroom afraid that will be the next victim of gun violence. None of that is going to change until we get a leader who is willing to go big on the issues we take on, be bold and the solutions we offer, and do good in the way that we govern. I'm ready to solve

these problems. I'm running for president of the United States. Are you had Eric Swowell, who's taken a break from all of his conspiratorial garbage over Russia collusion in Trump to appear on the Colbert Rapport very or whatever it's called now the Late Show with Colbert Who cares? Stephen Colbert, who is just It's just essentially an opo program against the Trump administration. It's not funny, it's not clever. It's

a lot of mean spirited nonsense. But Swalwell of course gets to announce his long shot, to put it mildly, twenty twenty run on the Colbert Rapport, And even in that, even in that one clip, he reminds us why he is a deeply unserious person and should not be treated as anyone to listen to on issues of national policy. He said, I talk to kids who sit in their classrooms and they're afraid they'll be the next victims of

gun violence. He should tell them, And maybe Swalwell does not seem to hn know this, but you know, he should tell them that kids are in fact safer now in the classroom than they were twenty years ago. That's just a fact. These are these just stubborn things. These facts that come up right, These are statistics that you can't really just run around and pretend don't exist. But Swalwell wants to play into this fear. You know, I don't know why it is that there's well, I do know.

It's because emotion and the manipulation of young minds and the emotions that you can drum up in people. When you've manipulated young people to parrot certain ideas and to say certain things. That's very much a Democrat approach. You don't see Republicans do this. You don't see conservatives say we are arming the kids are like twelve, and they really think that the marginal tax ri it should go from thirty seven to thirty five because we're gonna have

to he with the real boomer surgeon medicure. And I just you know, no, I don't care what twelve year olds think about national policy, all right. I don't care what twelve year olds think about honestly, much of anything. And the twelve year olds were listening, thank you for listening to the show, and you obviously have excellent taste, But you're gonna we're gonna have to wait a little while before we get to have you vote and you're a part of the national conversation. There are some there

us young teenagers listened to the show. They've called in before, but they also call in because they want to learn, and they want to they want to share their ideas. But they're listening the show to learn, which is what teenagers should do. They should be learning and asking questions. They should not be lecturing, and we certainly shouldn't have adults who think that they should be able to lecture the rest of us based on what kids allegedly tell them.

And then, of course you also have that trope from Twitter, which very few of you I will be familiar with, but journalists all live on Twitter these days. It's like we're in the matrix, except it's Twitter, and they'll do this thing where they'll say, you know, yeah, like my like seven year old is just like telling me that, you know, Donald Trump's refusal to accept like the latest

gender normative instruction from the University of wherever. It's just like really upsetting and like I'm literally shaking right now. And then everyone says, no, your seven year old didn't say that, so why are you pretending that you're seven year did I mean this is a This is a pretty normal, a pretty normal response for people when they know they're being a lined to. But but the left loves to do this. Swollwell is saying that because kids are worried, we should change gun policy. I mean, he's

he's running against the Second Amendment. Effectively, he's already come out and said that he wants to have an assault rifle band. He wants to essentially wants to be somebody who has a focus against guns. And he says, for example, quote I see a country in quicksand, unable to solve problems and threats from abroad, unable to make life better for people here at home. Nothing gets done. That was

what he was saying. And he's pushing gun safety a lot, which I always want to say, gun safety is things like training your trigger finger, discipline. They're not they're never really talking about gun safety. They're talking about confiscation and the demonization of those who believe in the Second Amendment. Joe Biggs, for example, tweeted out, so basically, representative Swalwell wants a war because that's what you would get. You're out of your mind if you think I'll give up

my rights and give the government all the power. Swalwell responded to this guy, it would be a short war, my friend. The government has nukes, too many of them, but they're legit. I'm sure if we talk we could find common ground to protect our families and our community. So Swallow is also an idiot, because guess what, Swalwell, we have nukes. How's the pacification of Afghanistan going? We just lost I believe seeing the reports conflicting on this, we just lost a number of our brave soldiers. I

think at least two of them killed in Afghanistan. We have nukes. The Taliban doesn't. Why can't we just force them to do whatever we want? Right? Control is person to person, street to street. Nukes don't give you control over a people that you wish to rule. It can give you the right to or the ability to not the right to threaten and blackmail your neighbors and to annihilate your neighbors. But you're I mean, it's tanooke. Your own population as not a realistic threat if you seek

to rule them. But if you disarm them, if they cannot fight back, well then you can control them entirely. But Swalwell doesn't doesn't understand, doesn't know this, doesn't understand this, and say another one of these, this clown car of Democrat candidates I think is nineteen now, and you don't even have Biden yet in the mix. Clown car that is just going to get bigger and bigger all the time, because now running for the presidency is just viewed as by a lot of these Democrats as as what is

really a branding exercise. It gets them on the Tonight Show, gets them on TV, gets people talking about them, and all that stuff. Swalwell should be forced to answer for what he has been saying and his role in propping up the hoax over Russia collusion. You know, Swalwell should have to answer for all of that that he's running for president. Maybe this is just a brilliant move on his part to change the subject as quickly as possible. But remember Swawell and Adam Schiff and others, they haven't

backed off Russia collusion yet. They're still they're still living in a fantasyland on this one. And fantasyland extends for Swalwell too. He's going to be the next president. We know that left wing radicals have overrun college campuses across the country. It's the students, it's the faculty, it's the administrators, and they're suppressing conservative speech. In fact, they attack conservative students and they try to bar conservative speakers from campus.

We don't have to just sit back and take this anymore. The Leadership Institute is out there training conservative activists for campuses so that they can make the campus safe for conservatism. The Leadership Institute is the best at this and you can help them in their critical mission. Just go to take back the Campus dot org and you can fight back against the left efforts to silence conservative voices on

college campuses. With a gift of as little as five dollars a month, you can help our side win this ideological war. Visit take back the Campus dot org to make your urgent gift to the Leadership Institute. Today again, go to take back the Campus dot org to make your gift. Take back the Campus dot org. You are now entering the Freedom Hontital Operation Center. All sensitive programs musty camps strictly need to know the team Buck is

cleared and ready for the buck brief, Mister President. Over the years, Israel has been blessed to have many friends who sat in the Oval office, but Israel has never had a better friend than you. You show this time it again, you show this, and you withdrew from the disastrous nuclear deal with Iran. I remember in one of our first meetings, you said, this is a horrible deal. I will leave it. You said it, you did it.

You showed it. When you restored sanctions against a genocidal regime that seeks to destroy the one and only Jewish state. You said, I will restore those sanctions. You said it, and you did it. You showed that when you recognize Jerusalem is Israel's capital and moved the American embassy there.

You gave us a tremendous ambassador. You said it, you did it, and you've showed it once against Today, mister President, with your official proclamation recognizing Israel's sovereignty over the Golan Heights. Then Yahoo is quite a statesman and quite an ally of the United States. He is in the midst of a battle today for the prime ministership of the State of Israel's an election going on. So I want to bring on an expert to tell us just what's happening

and what it means Going forward. We have our friend dovin Effune with us now. He is the editor in chief of the Alga Miner, which some describe as the Jewish people's answer to Al Jazeera. Great to have you all, my friend, always a pleasure book. So tell me what what's where are we right now in this in this election or understandings things? You're close and you know what can you tell us about what's happening today? In general? Well primus and Naho is in the midst of the

political fight of his life. Polls have just closed ten pm Israel time, and the first exit polls have been released. There are three major Israeli TV channels that release exit polls. Two of them are showing a dead heat thirty six seats each between Naho and his political rival Benny Gantz, a former chief of staff of the DF together with

a group of other generals. But they are showing that the right wing block, and of course in Israel you need a coalition of parties to form a government, comes out and ahead with sixty six seats versus fifty four for the left wing block. There is one poll which may be an outlier or may have got it right, which actually shows Naho's rival Guns about four or five seats ahead of net Yahoo and a dead heat sixty sixty each. In terms of the formation of the political

blocks which are necessary to create the government. In the end of the day, we're going to have to wait till tomorrow morning, US time, until those balants are actually counted and we have a real result. In the meantime, both of the candidates, Naho and Guns are claiming victory. Naho says, I'm meeting with coalition potential coalition partners to night. I'm ready to get this wrapped up. Guns are saying

it's time to move on now. From the US perspective, we see, we see this election playing out, and obviously, you know Ninjah who despite what Beto O'Rourke says about him. Did you hear that, By the way, do you hear Beto saying that Yahoo does not represent the will of the Israeli people. That was pretty funny, considering he seems

to win a lot of elections. Yeah, I mean, unfortunately, it seems that for Democratic candidates, presidential candidates, it's sort of a right of passage to go after bb Um. It's going to get all kud if bb stays in office and one of them ends up winning, they'll have to deal with the guy. But could you call them a racist too? By the way, I mean, why you know, when people say things in politics in this country, why is he referring to BB as a racist? What's the

justification for that? Well, usually what they point to is this nation state law, which you know was backed by the Yahu government, which basically says that Israel is the nation state of the Jewish people and only of the Jewish people. I think there's a lot that gets lost in translation though, you know, when when you know the law on the technic county is the law on the

way it's being presented, make it over into the English language. Um, you know, I speak Hebrew and I speak English, and I understand exactly what's being said, and the truth that it's very often mischaracterized. You know, it's the law itself stipulates that all of the citizens have equal rights. But you know, in the same way as you know you have Muslim countries in Christian countries, Israel as the one Jewish state and it's the only nation state of the

Jewish people in the world. And I think that's been sort of twisted by his political opponents to taught him with this sort of racist label, which is unfortunate and inaccurate.

Now the national security posture of Israel, would it if Benny Gantz, right, who's the main challenger against Yah, if we were to wake up and find out that he squeaked out of victory here, would it really change the way that ISRAE interacts with other countries in the region, more specifically how it reacts with Palestinians in the West Bank and the Gaza strip, or is Israeli national security policy a pretty unified front at this point. The truth is there aren't a lot of differences in terms of

the nuts and bolts. Having said that, there is a great deal that we don't know. Against Ran an anti BB campaign, but didn't focus a lot on what he might do differently, and he didn't face a great deal of challenge from Israeli media. That's the truth. So there's

a lot that remains unknown and undetermined. You know, if Israel, if Israeli's wake up, it will be the result of a you know, Bbi's been here too longer in anybody but BB campaign, and they're going to have to sort of unpack who this new guy is and what tools he really has to address very serious, you know, international challenges. The national diplomacy that Naho has become a real master at GANS is unproven entity when it comes to dealing

with the Russians, the Chinese, the Indians, the Africans. I mean, if you look at the kind of advancement that Nahu has made over the last decade in Israel's due to political standing in diplomatic relations around the world, Guants has big shoes to fill, very very big shoes to fill. So it remains to be seen whether he's going to rise to the challenge or not, and whether it's Rays are going to be disappointed or whether they're going to

be comfortable with that choice. Having said that, I just want to remind everybody that that is far from the actual determination. At this point. We still just have exit pols, the exit pols a day vergent. We're gonna have to wait till tomorrow morning US times to see what the actual results are. I know you've got to get back to covering what those results are, Dovid. But before I let you go, I RGC has been designated by the Trump the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps has been designated by

the Trump administration as a foreign terrorist organization. This is a groundbreaking designation and that they are technically part of the Iranian military. What do you think of this and how is this being greeted or being seen by Israel. Oh, the journeys are ecstatic and it's something that both sides of the political aisle, both Nitnaho and the challenger against

are going to be very very excited about. I mean, at the end of the day, the IRGC is the engine and the controller of the Iranian economy, but also the engine of malign and belligerent activities of the Islamic Republic of Iran across the globe at the end of the day. Signifies another level in the ratcheting up of maximum pressure that the Trump administration is applying on this

largest international state sponsor of terror. So it's about time, frankly, and there's still a lot more that can and should be done. We want I think the Israelis would like to see and I think those that see a Run as an unrepentant actor that really needs to be pushed harder would like to see the removal of any waivers in the oil sanctions, and you know, an analyst at the Foundation for Defensive Democracies recently said that between zero and ten, the pressure level on a run is about

a six. This news designation for the ion GC might move it up to a seven or at seven and a half. Removing the oil waivers as well are going to help us bring it right up to the ten, which is where it needs to be if we expect any change of behavior from a run, you know, they absolutely have to have no other choice. David, I Fu and everybody check out algaminer dot com for all their coverage on what's going on with the Israeli election in

the Middle East. More broadly, David, thanks for making the time, my friend. Talk to you soon. Always a pleasure. Buck Team, We'll be right back. After twenty eight hundred subpoenas, five hundred search warrants, nineteen lawyers attempting to tie him to nonsense Russian interference in the election, the president has triumphed again. To show your support and to celebrate this incredible news, you need to own one of Noble Goold's twenty twenty

President Trump freedom coins. One side incredibly depicts an image of Donald J. Trump while the other side lists his major achievements. This commemorative one ounce coin is the only presidential Trump coin made of ninety nine point nine percent silver, not silver plating, and his IRA approved. At the price of silver rises, so will the value of these coins. You want to hold onto this collector's item for generations, go to Trump coin twenty twenty dot com and use

code buck and say five dollars off each coin. Just text buck to five eleven five eleven, or go to trump coin twenty twenty dot com and use code buck to save five dollars per coin. Available for a limited time. Go to trump twenty twenty dot com today code buck Standard text rates may apply. What is propaganda. It's a term that you hear thrown around a lot, and it

has come to have a negative connotation. To be sure, right if you if you call somebody, especially if they work in the news business, a propagandist, you are besmirching their professional ethics and the work that they put out. You are not saying something that is meant to be positive. You are very clearly undermining them. But as with many words, it was not always the case. It started out that the word propaganda, which comes from the Latin to spread, right,

that's propagare it comes from the Catholic Church. In fact, the Congregazzio, the propaganda fee day, the spread of the true faith. That's where the's that comes from an administrative body inside the Catholic Church. That was meant to make

sure that the true faith was being spread. But it was in the First World War where you all so had the usage of mass produced imagery, so posters, war posters and oh that's right radio, that propaganda became a term of disparagement for information that's meant to bring about an outcome. It's not information that is shared just so you have it. It is information shared with an agenda.

And now I think that it's much better in a media landscape if we all accept that all arts, to borrow from George Orwell and his timeless essay, all art is propaganda and all you know, it's meant to evoke a feeling, a thought, a belief, and all news coverage in one way or another is kind of a form

of propaganda. But if you're going to really distill it down to openly nakedly politicized spread of information, there are sometimes when you have to say, well, wow, that is just going a bit too far, and we see that happening now in real time with many things, but with the news coverage of tax refunds all right, CBS News

has this piece out today. Tax refunds so far this year are down by six billion from twenty eighteen, and a lot of coverage of this is meant to show that things are that this is a negative, right, that oh my gosh, people have less money because their refunds are smaller. Their refunds are smaller. You have to go a few paragraphs down to find out that, oh, hold on a second, your higher paychecks all year are the

reason that your refund is not bigger. So this is like saying that you know, you have less money coming in at one time in one day than you did last year, but all the rest of the year you have more money coming in, which one of those things

is a better experience. But the media knows that the one thing that Trump irrefutably accomplished right away first year in office was a massive tax cut, and that that tax cut is meant to spur business growth and investment in development and to put more money in the pockets

of the American people. Now we can for now, although some of you will get maybe a little mad at me for this, we will put aside whether it is a fiscally responsible thing to do to have a tax cut and still run trillion dollar deficits, which is what we are doing. But let's just like I said, we put that aside temporarily, and now we look at Okay, why is it that people don't seem to understand that

they have more money? All right? Only seventeen percent of people, according to poll that just came out today, cited by CNBC, and it's I'm sorry, it's an NBC Wall Street Journal poll, the vast majority of Americans, almost eighty percent of them, you know, I think that they're sorry. Seventeen percent of people believe their own taxes will go down. Yeah, almost eighty percent of them think that their taxes are going up. Almost eight out of ten people are wrong on this issue.

Why is that possible? How is that possible? Republicans are the only group in which thirty percent are more believe they're getting a tax cut. I guess Republicans actually do math and pay attention, because if you are a taxpayer, you get eight out of ten Americans at least get a tax cut under the twenty eighteen law. So the lowest earning sixty percent of households receive an average cut of a little less than a thousand dollars. The top one percent of taxpayers could expect more than fifty one

thousand dollars. In the mc walsh Journal poll, thirty three percent of Republicans believe they're getting a tax cut, well an even pun ten percent of Independence and only seven percent of Democrats think that they are getting a tax cut seven percent. Now understand, this is not an opinion thing. This is not well I think I'm getting one, but I'm not, but I am or This is facts. They are getting tax cuts. Eight out of ten are getting a tax cut. Seven percent think they're getting a tax cut.

Why is that the case. Well, Mattie Iglesias, who is a journalist over at Vox, kind of let the cat out of the bag today. He tweeted out the following, He's got a lot of attention. Quote. Nobody likes to give themselves credit for this kind of messaging success, but progressive groups did a really good job of convincing people that Trump raised their taxes when the facts say a clear majority got a tax cut, so he's celebrating this openly.

He's like, yep, progressive groups line lie to the American people about the taxes that they paid, lie to the American people about how much money they'll get in this, and it was very effective. Does anyone want to jump in here and suggest, why is it that we don't trust the media? Oh, that's right, because they all magnify the lies of these progressive groups by putting them on

TV using their research, citing their analysis. You know, if you put analysts on TV who are reckless and irresponsible, as certainly CNN has done with Russia collusion and MSNBC and others, But if you put them on TV to say that the American people aren't actually getting a tax cut, you know what you are Party two a lie. You are engaged in the worst kind of propaganda, which is propaganda ment to harm people by filling their minds with lies.

Because it's clearly a benefit to the American people to have more money in their pockets. I can't think of an American who is getting more money from this tax from the tax cut that Trump put in place and is upset about it. Some very very rich Libs will go on TV and say, oh, I don't even worth the money everyone, And then we always say, okay, write a bigger check. You're welcome to write as big a check. You can give all your money the irrest. They'll take

it too. Treasury departments happy to take all your money if you want to give it to them. But I still think every year Republicans miss their opportunities to make their case about government fraud, waste and abuse, about the bloat of the federal bureaucracy, about the ridiculousness of the tax code seventy thousand plus pages, the enormity of the losses in time. And look, I just did my taxes over the weekend and it was just it was hellish.

I'm trying to get this and that and this, you know, every every little ten ninety nine I have for one hundred dollars for some magazine I wrote an article for nine months ago, you know, everything I'm trying to pull together, and all the sales tax for internet purchases, all this stuff. It's just not sense, total utter nonsense. And yet we don't really make the case that this is not the

way it has to be. Ted Cruise for a little while when he was running the primary, said that we'd have a tax code on that you could put on a postcard. What happened to that? You know, well, where are some of these big ideas that conservatives have been pushing for a while and finally got some traction the last few years, especially on the tax code. Our tax code is a monument to waste and pay to play and corruption and special interests. That is why our tax

code is seventy thousand pages. There was no other reason, and a tremendous amount of government picking winners and losers. But I just wish there was greater rage about this, because you should be upset of the tax code. I know, I am. Turns it out that the Department of Justice is taking that whole college admissions cheating situation very very seriously, not just in the initial phase where they're leveling charges against people, but they're they're even adding charges. And this

makes me a little sad. Now I know that that justice is blind, and I shouldn't be. I'm not trying to play favorites here, but I did used to watch the show Full House and when I was a kid, and I was roughly the age of the two young teenage daughters on that show when I would watch it, and I just thought that that was the coolest thing ever, you know, with Uncle Jesse and the you know, the dad played by Bob Saget and Dave Coolier as as

the other uncle. Um. You know. I just remember really liking that show, and many a Friday night before I was socializing with girls and going out on weekends, I would stay in and watch Full House, along with a few other shows. I don't know how many of you, Brandon, did you ever watch T g IF Do you know I'm talking about? Yeah? TJF was great, man, I mean I was, Oh, I was all about I was all about family matters. I like Step by Step. That Dinosaurs show was kind of weird, but that was even in

there for a while. But also Perfect Strangers, Belk Bartacamas. I remember all that stuff. But so Full House has a special place in my heart. Why am I talking about Full House? It's a rough week for Aunt Becky. Aunt Becky who was the very lovely, very lovely actress who played cool Uncle Jesse's girlfriend on the show. She I don't think they were married on the show, but they called her Aunt Becky she's in a lot of trouble.

She's part of this whole college admission scam and her fashion designer husband, Massimo Giannouli, which is a great name for a fashion designer. Of course, I wonder his name is probably like, you know Phil Carbone from Philly. Hey, I'm Phil Carbone from Philly. And he's like, I'm gonna be a fashion designer. Noah, not mine them. He's a Massimo Giannulli, but that sells more three chemises. It's a

fancy word for a shirt. But her fashions on her husband and her they've been indicted on additional charges, not just for the initial paying bribes to get people into school. So Aunt Becky aka Laurie Laughlin, who is the that's the real name of the actress, and she was in Full House, which she's best known for. They are now caught up in this multimillion dollar college admission scam, and they've added in Boston a second superseding indictment to commit

conspiring to commit fraud and money laundering. Laughlin and Giuliani were charged last month with conspiracy to commit mail fraud. The new indictment adds a laundering charge for money laundering charge for all sixteen defendants. You know, these are these charges, the wire fraud, mail fraud, money laundering. These are kind of charges where you think, oh, well, how bad can

it really be? But the answer is really bad. You can go to federal prison for or a number of years on this stuff, especially if you don't take a plea deal. So I think what you're seeing here is setting these parents up to take a plea deal. Look, I'm a little bit of a loan voice on this one. I don't think what they did is okay, But I also think that treating this as a major federal federal case, or at least some of the charges, right, I mean, lah, yeah,

you can't. You know, money laundering. I mean, you're hiding the source of money and all that stuff. But bribing a college official should not be something that people go to federal prison for for a long time. It should be something that you maybe pay a big fine and you have to live with the humiliation of what you did and don't do anything bad again. So you should

plead guilty to a charge. I'm not saying let these people off, but I mean, are they're really going to send Aunt Becky say this is what it's all about. Are they really going to send Aunt Becky to prison for four or five years because you wanted her daughter to go to USC? And I'm not putting USC down, but it's not a school that people usually think you're going to pay a half a million dollars and bribes

to get into that. That's just a fact. This is one of these moments where I think the politics are very much influencing some of the prosecutorial decisions here. I think that you have a bunch of rich people who are going to be made an example of because this is an easy one. You know. It reminds me of how people got so spun up over the steroid baseball cheating scandal. There are congressional hearings about it, and it's not that it's okay, but is it really? Is it

really a national crisis? Anyway? I'm gonna have to start wearing my free Aunt Becky T shirt because I'm a full House devotee. By the way, Fuller House, for those of you who don't know, is terrible, So don't waste your time. You got to stay with the original. And that's what I got for you. On that. We got roller call coming up in a moment roll call time. Oh yes, indeed it is Facebook dot com slash Buck sex and if roll call is for you, and let me just say it is for you, this is where

you get to tell me what do you think? And please do right in anytime you like, Let's get to it. Seth rights, Hey Buck, just listen to Friday's podcast and was cracking up at the idea of you debating with the made up liberal character that identifies as Vigo the Space Lord Ninja Master. I would love to hear that segment. Well, I would love to do that segment, so maybe I should go for it. Maybe that's the way to see him and Nick am sue whoke do you like? I spell it like w y o K because it's more

than just woke, it's woke. I'll figure it out. I'll give it some thought. I will work on it for sure. And yes, Vigo the Space Lord Ninja Master is is quite a fellow. We will have to come up with what his bio and background are. But thank you so much for writing agin, Seth. I do appreciate it. Roger rites your Stelter impression kills me. Raggia, do you said Stelter.

He's think he's like, really, he's just trying to keep the news media artist and he really believes that, you know, if he's just a good journalist and doing the journo stuff, that the republic will be saved by a c. A. N oh Man look at pace to look like Jeff Zucker, although Stelter should pull the zucker and button his shirt three or four buttons down. That's right, you see some of that mad cleavage and goes out that we Dad, see that there's at least two or three hairs. Dad

by the foot. But that's right, Dad by the naval area. Yeah, I know, ladies. Ladies are ah swooning right now at the Stelter deep v in the shirt. Brandon Brandon rights buck Man. So thankful we finally have a leader that will call it like it ais and regards to Iran. I served in a Rock in two thousand and six. Our greatest threat in the area that we operated in was the EFP. I was on point or lead vehicle

one night when we actually set off an EFP. The heat signature on my vehicle was located in the rear at the time. The bad guys were using a device that would pick up the heat signature on the humby engine block located in the front of the vehicle. Since my vehicle's engine was in the rear and the device was set up for a humby, the EFP one off between the rear of my vehicle on the front of

the humby behind me. We lost too many men and women to this device, which even in two thousand and six we knew was being built by the Iranians, but to my knowledge, we did bother about it. Keep up the great work, brother Airborne all the way, Brandon, thank you for your service, and thank you so much for sharing your expertise about this one. I'm glad you made it back safe and sound. The EFPs it it was terrible.

It was just the Iranians trying to bleed us in Iraq, and we did not extract the price from them in response this that we should have. We were so concerned with what was going on in Iraq that there was just no at the policy level. I don't mean the men and women who were fighting in theater, but at the policy level, there was no stomach for going after the Iranians. You know, people say that that Cheney at one point wanted to go after the suicide bomber rat

lines inside Assyria. There was not They didn't end up doing that really, or at least I don't. I can't remember now how much of that has been reported on or how much of that is just in my head. But in the on the Iranian side, there was just considered the risk we're too high for going after the EFP rat lines on the Iranian side of the border,

for pretty clear reasons. So it's a very is very frustrating because we should have we should have taken a much harder line on Iran for that, and they killed Americans actively, willfully intentionally killed Americans. There are Americans who did not come home or came home missing arms, missing legs, blinded because of what the Iranians were doing in a country that was not their country. And they are a terror, a terror sponsoring regime, and they are an enemy state.

So we need to keep all this in mind, Steve writes buck. In the Air Force, they refer to a great pilot as being sh blank blank hot. However, they tamed this down to a more gentleman LEAs Sierra Hotel went amongst the public, it dawned on me that not only is your show Sierra Hotel, but that Sierra Hotel could also be used as a code or alternative for shields high. Whichever way you say at Sierra Hotel, shields

high buck. Best regards, Steve, Well, Steve, thank you for the cool message man bringing me into the no And that's that's I'd never heard of that before. I remember there was there was a time when in the agency a lot of people referring to and I think it was borrowed by some of the agency personnel from special

operators who are like, yeah, that guy's high speed. People would always say high speed, or maybe that was just in the office that I worked, and I don't know, but that was considered if somebody was kind of a badass, they were really high speed. My hair was high speed, but my tactical skills in the field I would not describe as they were functional. They were certainly not high speed. Along the lines of what you get from trained operators. I was just trying to make sure I didn't get

in their way. That was my roles. Don't get in the way of the highly trained operators. Just help them when they need help with what you do, which is the analytic side of the equation, making the most delicious cappuccinos imaginable. But Steve, thank you so much for writing you man, and Shields High and Sierra Hotel to you.

Jeremy Buck, if people like Bernie Sanders want to restore felon's rights to vote because they're still American citizens who are afforded the right to vote under the Constitution, then do you suppose they also support restoring their Second Amendment rights as well? Ding ding ding, Jeremy, my friend, you have latched on to yet another inconsistency with liberals. We could play this could be a game, you know, we could do this like a game show. Fine, the liberal inconsistency.

And here we here we have the liberals once again pretending to stand on principle. What in reality they are just using a principle once that they plan to discard when it is no longer in their political and ideological interest to do so. So, my friend, you've you've smelled this one, and you've got it. You've got it right, You've got this one correct. Let's see who we have.

Oh and the answer, of course is no, they do not want Sorry I skipped over that they do not want to restore Second Amendment rights to people, because the objection to gun owners or the objection rather to gun ownership, is increasingly an objection to gun owners and the culture of gun ownership in this country. It's not about reducing violence, it's about using guns as a proxy for broader political disputes.

Van the main man, Hey, Buck, if a Democrat speaks about Trump in the forest and there's no one to hear him, is he still lying? Van? I will let you take that philosophy and figure out the answer yourself, my friend, Vince writes, Buck, we want game. We want your prediction. As Game of Thrones enters its final season, who will sit on the iron throne? Vince? That is quite a question to throw my way, my friend, And I will say to you that I think the person who is going to sit on the throne at the

end of the whole thing is Tyrian Lanister. That's right. I think Tyryan Lanister becomes the king. And I think it's not through. I think it's going to be by default. I think that someone's going to get whacked at the very end that you think is going to be the king or the queen. Because everyone's thinking Danaris and John Snow are on the but that's just not how Game of Thrones rolls. They don't. They don't give you that satisfying hero wins thing. They give you, well, in some cases,

stomach churning heartbreak. I'm still kind of disturbed by what happened when in the episode of the Viper and the Mountain. Oh man, that was that was brutal. I almost build on the show. I almost said, I can't, I can't handle anymore. I can't take this this kind of emotional battery anymore from Game of Thrones. But yeah, I think it'll be Terry and Lanister on the throne at the

very end. And I think that you're going to see someone in the last fifteen minutes of the last episode get whacked by a character that you think we've forgotten about but comes back for one last hurrah. That's what I would guess. And if I had spoilers to share with you, that would be one thing, But I certainly do not. Eric rites, Holy avocados, Batman. They fact checked Kristen Gillibrand and her inaccurate equal pay claim. Yeah, Kirsten Gillibrand make stuff up all the time. She's a very

unimpressive politician. She has no shot of becoming the nominee and even less of a shot of becoming president. But for her, this is just a national branding exercise. Diane, Oh, here we go, Hey Buck, new listener. I'm a podcast junkie, always looking for interesting and fresh perspective on politics and current events. I confess I'm a Shapiro, Walsh Cleaven fan. Well, I can confess back to you, Diane. Those are all very strong choices. I have a tremendous amount of respect

for those three. I used to work with Matt Walsh. Anyway. I enjoy the nice balance of information or human you bring the mix. Just wondering about Shields High? What is that all about? Love the show? Well, Diane, that's a very valid question. And every once in a while I find myself explaining how we got to to Shields High. And essentially it started back when I used to do the Saturday radio show for The Blaze, and we used to do a lot of history, and I used to

speak about ancient Greece from time of time. I would just go on these little history monologues and I was speaking about the military formation known as the phalanx, which is where you have heavily armored Greek warriors who are the hop Lights. That's because of the hop lawn shield that they carried and they had to stand shoulder to shoulder with their shields high in order to make the

phlenx and effective formation. And also the Spartans had this saying come back with your shield or on it, meaning comeback in victory or come back dead. Anyway, from this discussion with Team Buck, I would always say that they were with me as though we were in an ideological phlenx together in the fight, shields high, and it just kind of became a fun rallying cry. You know. It's people say, what does roll Tiede mean? I don't know what. People like to say it shields hie is fun to

say too. And sometimes when I'm having a real bad day and I want to get all self pitying and whiny about things, I just muttered to myself, shield tie Buck. Come on, you know it's it's a it's a war cry, show me a war face. Rah. It's like that. Anyway, Thanks so much for being a new member of Team Buck. Please spread the word and without my friends are going to close up shop in the Freedom Hunt for this episode, I will talk to you tomorrow. Oh you know it,

Shield Tie. When it comes to buying wine, most people select something and has nothing to do with the actual taste of the wine right. Instead, they just go with what looks best on the bottle or what's on sale. I'll be honest with you, that was my situation too. But now there's First Leaf, the wine club that makes it easy to discover new wines you'll love. First Leaf has created a club experience customized to you by rating

the wines you receive. First These determines your likes and dislikes and using a custom algorithm and professionally trained wine concierge team that only send wines you love. Look, I've done this a couple of quick questions about what I like and wine. Then they create a custom package of six wines that they send you. It's incredible. They're delicious, and you tell them what you like and they send you more wine. You're going to learn about wine and

learn what you love in the process. Sign up with my link and you'll get an exclusive intro offer six bottles of wine for only twenty nine ninety five plus free shipping. Just go to Tri first leaf dot com slash buck that's six bottles of wine for only twenty nine ninety five plus free shipping at tri first leaf dot com slash buck