Biden Covers His Hyde

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. So you still opposed the public funding for abortion? I still am opposed the public

funding to abortion. And the reason I am as again it goes to the question of whether or not you are going to impose a view to support something that is not a guaranteed right but an affirmative action to promote when in fact there is this enormous pressure and even threat to close down clinics that are available in the past for women who do not have the funds but are able to have them paid for. More privately

as you've been able to do. That was one thing, but we now see so many Republican goods denying healthcare of the millions of the most poorest and most vulcable Americans of our refusing even Medicaid experiences. I can't justify leaving millions of women without access to the care they need. And they're building the constitut exercise, they're constitutionally protective right if I as right as I do, I can no longer support WHOA what a flip flop we have there?

Welcome to the buck Sex and show my friends the Democrats top contender and an almost presumed nominee at this point, Joe Biden showing you nice and early who he really is, showing you at this stage of the game that Joe Biden will say whatever he has to say, whenever he

has to say it. Remember, we had our discussion about Reagan and front him as an almost pure demagogue, and demagogue defined I believe by I can't remember now if it was Oh gosh, I don't know if it was Menkin or Chester to know it was Menkin, I believe who said one who speaks to a room says things he knows to be untrue to a room of people he believes to be idiots. Something along those lines. That's Esic Biden right there, say whatever he has to say,

whenever he has to say it. My friend David Harshawnie over at over at the Federals, he pulled together a little timeline today. Remember this is Joe Biden on an issue that for his entire career, stretching back now forty some odd years as a public figure, this guy's been Joe Biden has one speed and it's politician. That's it. There's no other Joe Biden. Stretching back to nineteen seventy six. Harsaani pulled together this little timeline of Biden who has

been able to get by as a Catholic Democrat. Don't even get me started on a lot of the Democrats who are Catholic out there, who they're Catholic, all right. They believe in abortion for all nine months of the pregnancy, that the public should pay for it via taxes, that there's thirty seven genders, that we should be teaching eleven year olds to do drag shows. But but they're they're Catholic, all right. They're Democrats. Hey, I'm just saying one needs to explain that one to me and a whole lot

of other people. Nancy Pelosi planned parenthood. Loves her, but she's a she's a Catholic, all right. But what they do is they say, well, they're personally pro life, but in their public lives their pro choice, which I've this is just this is the old Lincoln Douglas argument. You know, I personally oppose slavery, but I'm not going to stop somebody else from ing slaves. That was the old That was the argument. That was what the This is what

you know, Stephen Douglas. This is how it went. Lincoln's like, actually, if it's wrong, it's wrong, and you don't get to just do this, Well, somebody else can do those those moral wrongs in the state has no say in it, and the state will protect that moral wrong. In fact, in this case the case of abortion, of the state will fund that moral wrong. Oh the left, so many,

so much intellectual contortion and distortion. Here's the timeline from Harsani though of mister Biden, the top Democrat now running for the presidency. Nineteen seventy six, Biden voted for the high Amendment, a law banning federal funds to pay for abortion. In nineteen eighty one, the Biden Amendment to the Foreign Assistance Act banned any American aide from being used in

research related to abortions. In nineteen eighty four, Biden supported the Mexico City Policy, which bans federal funding for private organizations that provide abortion. Advocated decriminalize abortion or expand abortion services. In nineteen ninety three, Biden votes to save the High Amendment. In nineteen ninety five nineteen ninety seven, Biden voted for partial birth abortion bands that would be vetoed by Hillary. Sorry by Bill Clinton, she was not president, despite what

some people think. June fifth, twenty nineteen, Joe Biden continues his forty plus year support for the High Amendment. All right, that just happened? June sixth, Twitter pushback to Biden support of the High Amendment. Night of June sixth, Joe Biden caves drops a forty plus your position to appease progressives and now supports taxpayer funded abortion from conception to crowning.

Joe Biden, man of principle, says, no one who knows anything, this is what they offer to us, a man who will abandon at a moment's notice the second that it is necessary for his own policy. I told him he's a Bidenist first and foremost. He is a Bidenist. He'll drop forty years plus of effort to seem like he was a kind of a Democrat moderate on the issue of abortion. Now he's a hardliner. Now he's a leftist

hardliner on abortion, full stop. He wants to take money that the government forces you to pay in taxes and send that money to Planned Parenthood to pay four babies being killed. This is Joe Biden today, folks. I mean, he's in his late seventies, and we're really to believe that now now he's evolving on a on a very clearly established position as as not a defender of life, but at least as something of a moderate in the

Democrat party on this issue. Now he's a hardliner. We all know why this is right, Well, none other than Okazio Cortez explained it. In case anyone has any questions about why Biden, just on whoop sees forty years of public life, didn't know what I was talking about. Just learn now, Oh, look at that, Okazio Cortez gives away the plot here at play twenty. The term progressive is getting hijacked so much that people just think it means

democrat now, and not all Democrats are progressive. And I'm sorry, but if you're going to come out and saying that you you support the High Amendment, which prevents us from funding clinics like planned parenthood, that's not progressive. That's not a progressive position. And you know what, if your pride is being a moderate centrist candidate, then go out and say that. Say I'm proud to be a centrist. I'm

proud to be funded by Wall Street. I'm proud to not push as hard as I can on women's rights. Say it own it, be it. But don't kind of come out here and then say your progressive candidate but at the same time not support repealing something as basic as the High Amendment. The High Amendment. You know, this is what's so interesting about this is considered a concession to what would be essentially it's it's a way of

not being total extremists on the issue of abortion. Right, the Democrats make this concession and say, okay, look where we women's right to choose, all that stuff, but just to kind of cool things down a little bit and we can still have our abortion factories and plan part and everything. We're not going to just totally take your money and pay for this. We're going to give money to plan parenthood via grants and say that none of that money can be used for abortion, and money is fungible.

So this is really, this is really a fiction to begin with, folks. I mean you've been paying, we've all been paying for abortion for a long time in this country. I don't just mean morally, I mean financially. But now the left is like, no, no, no, you're gonna have to This is the progression with the left all the time. It's not enough to tolerate, it's not enough to accept. You must celebrate. You must be complicit. You must be a part of what they want. You must embrace what

they want. Say yes, yes, give me more of that. I need more of that progressivism. I want to bathe in it. I want to be surrounded with it. I want to make my life's work. Now. Part of advancing the left is cause. And if you don't do that, well, then you're regressive. Then you're a counter revolutionary. Then you're insufficiently committed to women's rights, then you're insufficiently committed to diversity.

Then you are a part of the problem. This is the shortcoming I see of the more libertarian conservative view of things, which is, let's let's just let these things play out. Let's just see what happens. Will obey, We'll obey the rules even when they don't. We'll play nice even when they don't. We'll hope that things get better while they make things go their way, and just see

what happens. Now. This is why the rise of trump Ism and a more muscular conservative right is so necessary, because we've been pushed to the brink of social emergency, and this social and political emergency, we've seen that they will finish, finish us off if they can. We can surrender, and then they will come in and bayonet the survivors. We can say that, you know, we we wave the white flag. And then once they've they've taken all of our armaments, so to speak, then they'll line us up

and finish us off. And we may feel very very very very fancy and self righteous. You know. Well, as conservatives, we adhered to principle the whole time. Okay, Well, while we're adhering to principle, babies are being murdered and slaughterhouses across the country. So somebody explained to me how that benefits us while we had here to principal. People like Joe Biden show very clearly that the left now runs the Democratic Party. The Democratic Party is a leftist party there.

They are not looking for middle ground. They're not looking to play nice or play fair or find agreement with the other side. They're looking to ram it down your throat.

And this then forces us to revisit the revolution on the right in the last two years of who when people are trying to use the state to ram this down your throat, when they're trying to take money out of your pocket and use it to fund planned parenthood, and people like Joe Biden won't even pretend to not stand in the way of it, but just not make it so blatant. Right, let's get rid of the High Amendment. Do you want Mit Romney fighting against them or do

you want Donald Trump fighting against them? That's that's really what it all comes down to at this point, who's going to be more effective will who will say that what they're doing is just They're just a bunch of liars and frauds. It's not Mit Romney. But I do take as much as this issue shows how fall how far the left has morally degraded itself, that Biden's already done this in a way that I mean, this has got even John Kerry's got to be looking at him saying, Wow,

this guy's a flip flopper. That was my favorite line from when John carry is running for president was that he kept saying that he was nuanced in his positions. And then I forget who it was, but someone said the nuance was just a fancy a fancy French word for flip flop, which I think was true. Oh man, just like as I say, surveillance is a fancy French word for spying. Um, this is now the reality that

we're facing. Though this is a hard left Democrat party, They're they're not they're they're kicking out from under us things that have been in place to make us feel like, well, at least they're not complete, at least, they're not completely insane. At Least they're their blood lust does not have to be funded out of our pockets explicitly. And now they're saying no, no, it will be you will fund this, You will pay for this Joe Biden. Everybody, your your

so called centrist moderate, your return to normalcy. Joe Biden is a hack. Joe Biden has done nothing in public life that has benefited people more than it has benefited Joe Biden. He is a product of and for the Democrat system, the swamp, the overall political apparatus here in DC. That is what his existence has been defined by. Does he have some patriotic impulses? Does he wish his fellow human being? Well? Sure, but should this guy be the next commander in chief of this country? This man who

has clearly no moral or political core. It can change on a dime after decades. You know, people say, buck, what about Trump? He's changed? Then? Yeah, But Trump is a private person. Joe Biden has been passing laws on these issues for decades, and the moment it is politically advantageous for him, he just says, whoops, forget all that other stuff. I said, Oh my gosh, Democrats, you both terrify me and crack me up at the same time. Lives,

We've got more showcome and it's Friday. It's going to be awesome, stay with me things like the High Amendment or attacks on women, and I will continue to fight to rip them down and empower women have better access to contraceptive care, to healthcare, and the kind of things that help them live healthy lives where they control their destinies. Not a bunch of politicians. The Vice president is absolutely wrong on this one. I hope that that Joe Biden

rethinks his position on this issue. Perhaps he doesn't have all the facts, perhaps he doesn't understand who the High Amendments hurts most. And again it's it's lower income communities, communities of color. We do not pass laws that take away that freedom from the women who are most all. It's been the law for a while, and it's been wrong for a long time because it really is it's just discrimination. We do not pass laws that take a where the freedom of man. That be careful, folks, she's

gonna be a next president. I'm telling you, she's having a surge with the lefties. We do not pass laws. Oh man, she is. She is not the most not the most charming of political candidates issue, But here we are. When they talk about freedom and access, isn't that such an interesting bastardization of the terms freedom, access. No, No, what they mean is you have to pay for other people to have abortions. Your tax dollars will go to this, a policy that half the country basically opposes on deep

religious and moral and ethical grounds. You will have to pay for this. It is no longer acceptable to even pretend, because I think you can argue that we've been paying for it all along, but to pretend that you shouldn't have to pay for this. You will have to pay for this. You must be complicit in this in a sense. This is now, you know, planned parent and being able to show up at your door and demand it's little, it's a little piece of your bank account. Democrats have

stripped the facade office. They're no longer going to They're no longer going to go through this. Uh, this rigor morale up. Well, you know we don't really pay for drinking out that you're you're paying for it now. And Joe Biden was not about to get his hand caught and left his buzzsaw by saying, well, that's a little bit crazy, that's a little bit out of control. Um, he's just gonna go along with it. He's gonna change his mind on the fly, as he did here, because

he's not a principled man. He's not a principalman. He's also a man who has to apologize a lot for a lot of things. Do we have time to do? Yeah? Yeah, God, this is Biden. This is random. But play three here he's Biden apologizing to women for saying something. But I don't think anything has a solid it the system and the fundamental makeup of this country as much as this Watergate thing has. And the only analogy I can really

think of is a football analogy. And I apologize to you women in the audience for not being able to think of a more appropriate analogy. But they told me here. They didn't want you here anyway. I didn't expect any women to be here. There's your Joe Biden, everybody, top Democrat candidate. It's the best they can offer up there. Didn't expect any women to be You cannot take the freedom. I mean, if it's hem or Warren, I don't know. They're both frauds. They're just frauds in different ways. We

got to talk immigration, the crisis, the tariffs, Mexico. The show is packed and stacked and re racked. We'll be right back. We spend a lot of time talking about the United States being a melting pot. Well that's true, but quite frankly, I think it's overrated. We've been able to move forward because of politics, and in my opinion, politics need not necessarily be a dirty word. Politics should

be the most honorable of professions. Those of you who heard doctors and lawyers and Indian chiefs in the audience, how can any of you possibly do as much good if you're very good at what you do as I can do. If I'm very good at what I can do, you can't. This is where the action is. Politicians happen to affect everything that affects you, as you are very well aware. Joe Biden very high self regard as a politician. There, that's from back in the day. As a little throwback

Biden for you. But I'm not gonna let anybody forget who this guy is. How can you be as good as I am? And this whole practice voice thing that he has too, it's it's all just a stage show for him, folks. It's all just it's all put on, you know, this is it's like he's playing an actor. I mean, you're playing a politician rather in a movie. But now let's move on to the terrified in Mexico.

Is this really important? I told you remember the way the media set this up, because if Trump wins, they're going to pretend like it's not a win, and he might get his way on this. If the Mexican government says they're going to change their ways in response to this tariff, that means Trump was right. And all the people mocking him and all the people saying he's such an idiot, he so you know this and that didn't know what they were talking about. So that may be

the case here. Trump has not backed down off the tariff issue. Here's what he said, Place sixteen. When you're the piggiebank that everybody steals and robs from, and they deceive you, and they've like they've been doing for twenty five years. Tariffs are a beautiful thing. It's a beautiful word if you know how to use them properly. Republicans should love what I'm doing because I viewed tariffs in

two phases. Number One, it's great to negotiate with because people don't want to be tariffed for coming into the United States. They don't want that. And number two, frankly, if they gone, you make a fortune because all the companies are going to move back into the country. Now. Is the right about that? I don't know. Probably not,

not in the short term at least. But what happens if Mexico does change its behavior, because they can, and they start acting like a more responsible partner in securing the border and doing what needs to be done so that we don't have this massive Central American Mican crisis. Report of the Wall Street Journal Robbie Whalen tweeted this

out earlier today. Quote Mexican Mexico's Foreign Affairs ministry confirmed last night that it is sending six thousand members of its newly established National Guard to the southeast of the country to assist with the migrant issue. No word yet on us is reported request to change their asylum procedure, however, Okay,

but this is significant. Mexico sending six thousand people from its own national guard to its border with essentially the checkpoint that separates it from Central American countries like like Guatemala, that's significant. This is action taken in response to the tariffs that are supposed to hit on Monday of five percent, and that escalate from there. People are saying, Oh, Trump is so crazy, Why would he do this thing? How

could he be so silly? Well, meanwhile, the United States would rather the Mexican government is treating this very seriously and maybe taking action in response to it. That is exactly what Trump wants them to do. Wouldn't that be negotiating successfully. Wouldn't that be something of a victory for

the president. Just imagine, imagine how it's going to be reported on Monday if the tariffs don't go into effect because Mexico more or less comes out and says, Okay, we're gonna do We're gonna play ball, we don't want those tariffs, We're gonna do more. You mean that the president understands negotiation better than many of these bureaucrats and journalists who run around yelling about how well we'll see.

I don't want to get ahead of it. It might not happen, Mike Pence said early today, quote at this point, the tariffs are going to be imposed on Monday. I'm encouraged that Mexican government came today with more, but it will be a matter for the president who consider so now they're in a back and forth to see what is sufficient, you know, what is an acceptable response from the government of Mexico here to prevent this five percent

tariff from going into effect. But this is thinking, This is thinking from the president that is somewhat outside the box. And yet yet again here we are. The consensus says, Oh, the president's crazy, why would he do this? Don't conflate immigration and economics. Okay, we'll see. We'll see a lot of people out there that think their policy wants that essentially tell you we've been wrong up to this point and we never get our way, but just stay the

course and somehow that will change. Now, the crisis continues at the border, and even if Mexican government tries to help, it may not be enough. I have an idea in mind. It's been getting some traction online, one that I support, and it really does just come down to the president and his will to act. Could solve the crisis with one executive order. I will explain what that is, how it would work, and want the opposition to it would be on the other side of this brink. So why

does it seem like Mexico's it's their fault? Also because they're letting millions of people walk up through their country, and they shouldn't let anybody walk up through their country. I mean, frankly, we shouldn't even have to have border patrol. Border patrol is doing incredibly, you know, they apprehend it over one hundred thousand people less. I don't want this. I want people to come in legally. We want the people that we want, and I want to marry based system,

but we shouldn't have anybody. They shouldn't be able to walk through Mexico. And now I've told Mexico, if you don't stop this onslaught, this invasion, people get angry, and I use the word in invasion. People like Nancy Pelosi that honestly, they don't know what the hell they're talking about. I watch her. She was saying, we have to protect Mexico. We have to take care of Mexico. Look, I'm dealing

with Mexico right now. They send in five hundred billion dollars worth of drugs, They kill a hundred thousand people, They ruin a million families every year. If you look at that, that's really an invasion without the gun, an invasion without the guns. The President says Mexico is not doing enough. Mexico is a mess and we suffer as

a result of it. And as a country with the opioid epidemic at such horrific levels, it's quite clear that there's a human cost that is catastrophic as a result of Mexico's lawlessness, corruption, bureaucracy, inefficiency, lack of political will to be a reliable partner on all these security and immigration related issues. That's all real, an invasion without the guns. That's really the line of the day. That's really the

most interesting the President has said in some time. But when he says it's the fault of Mexico and Congress, there is truth to that, but that's not the only truth. Let's just first assess what he means by that, and then I'll tell you why. I think the President has set himself up now where it's on him. He has there's something that he can do, and I think he has to do it, and he's not going to want to do it because the Libs are going to lose

their minds. They're going to absolutely lose their minds. But doesn't that mean that that's even better. He says it's the fault of Mexican Congress. Let's start with Mexico. One hundred and thirty three thousand people a month making their way through Mexico gay in the US Mexico border. They're not in Mexico legally, they're just crossing into Mexico as migrants from Central America. They could be told to turn around. Mexico has sovereignty, they could stop them from doing this.

They're not Mexican citizens, they don't have they don't have special rights to be in Mexico or to walk through Mexico or any of this. So could the Mexican government do more to stop them? Absolutely? Is it clear that they're going, These Central American migrants are going a very long distance because they want to be in a better country. Yes. But notice how you'll see these stories that try I

knew this would happen. There are stories out there now that are trying to make the case that Mexico for Central American migrants is not a sufficient next stop. It has to be America, America or bust. Here's this piece the Wall Street Journal. Violence makes Mexico an unwelcoming refuge as US asked neighbor to take an asylum seekers women in Tijuana shelter in Tijuana shelter. Describe the dangers. Let's give you some of them. You'll get the flavor of

this piece quickly. Let's give you a little bit of this. People from Mexico's impoverished south used to migrant to the US and hopes of getting a better paying job. Nowadays many are fleeing violence. As President Trump threatens to impose tariffs on Monday unless Mexico does more to stem the northern flow of Central Americans, his administration has calm on Mexico to require migrants to request asylum there instead of

the US by declaring itself a safe third country. Current negotiations between senior US and Mexican officials to contain the migrant tide have touched on such a designation, which could be costly and risk overwhelming border communities. Left unsaid is something migration analysts and security experts say is indisputable Mexico

isn't a safe country. Surgeon. Migration from Central America on the northbound caravans that infuriated mister Trump have eclipsed as silent exodus of Mexico Mexicans fleeing the lawlessness of what is known as untamed Mexico. You can hear gunshots while you dress your children for school, said Elita Nava, who fled Guerrero State with her three children hoping to join her husband and washed in DC. Kids are afraid to

go out. They're only aspirationous to join a gang. What happens, my friends, when the border is such a mess and such a debacle and so overwhelmed that every impoverished Mexican decides, you know what, now's a good time to just go and get in the mix. Here, show up without any papers, say I'm Honduran. The border patrol's knocking to the difference. What happens when that wave arrives. In fact, there are so many Central Americans who are from these small particularly

from rural and outlying villages. Wait, rural villages, but that's not where you have a lot of gang violence. Oh maybe it's really not about gang violence. You have so many Hondurans and Al Salvadorans and Guatemalans making the track to the United States. Now it's not really even I mean, they're just making the journey topping on buses, getting on trains whatever. That people that aren't going are feeling left behind, they feel like they're missing out on this. Folks, this

is a mass migration event. This is going to turn into not a million, this will be millions of people unless we figure out something really soon. You're already seeing the beginnings of Oh, not only a Central America so crime ridden and unsafe that anyone who lives there, any Honduran, any Mexican, must be considered an asylum seeker at the drop of a hat. They're just by saying my country

is too dangerous. Now there are people who are going to say there are whole states, at least whole parts of Mexico that are so dangerous that any Mexican should be considered an asylum seeker. And I just want to know, what about Venezuela, what about Brazil? What about name a country that has a crime problem, and then tell me how we're supposed to claim that they're not allowed to come here and claim asylum to this problem only gets worse.

Mexico is a big part of the problem. Congress is a big part of the problem because Democrats are on board for this, they like this, and there are a lot of weak Republicans on immigration. They don't talk about it openly, but when push comes to shove, they don't want to really do anything. Okay, But here's what the issue for Trump is, and I think it's time that somebody raised this with the President himself. The President of

the United States does have the ability to this. The President of the United States can by decree shut this whole thing down. It will drive libs completely insane. They will claim that he is worse than Hitler, but they will say that no matter what. Remember there was the Muslim ban, and I remember thinking, why is he going after this right away? Well, it could be very important that the president thought that Muslim ban issue out all the way up to the Supreme Court. You remember Trump v. Hawaii.

That was a Supreme Court case. It was decided June twenty six, twenty eighteen, just around a year ago. There was a line in that, remember, and it was found in favor of the administration. Chief Justice Roberts wrote in that opinion, eleven eighty two in the US Federal Code enables the President to suspend the entry of all aliens or any class of aliens, whenever he finds that their entry would be detrimental to the interests of the United states.

That's a pretty clear law, isn't it. That's the statute. The President can suspend the entry of any alien or class of aliens when he finds it is not in US interests. That's the law. That's what the law says. All of the Central American migrants are aliens. None of them have the rights of citizenship or permanent residents. They don't have the protections that are afforded to our citizens under the Constitution. They don't have the right to be

in the United States at all. If President Trump wants this thing to end, maybe he gets this thing done

with Mexico. That's possible. If he really wants this to end, he should declare sent Americans to be because of the crisis, because of the overwhelmed border centers, because of the amount of people that are scamming the system and the fraud, and one hundred and thirty three thousand that are coming in, and the people lying about family units, the people lying about the violence they're fleeing, the people that are never

showing up at their hearings. He should declare anyone from the Northern Triangle countries of Guatemala, hunter Us or Al Salvador to be inadmissible by executive order. That's it. That's all. Now. You might say, Buck, that'll be challenging court right away, and I say, yes, it will. But we have a Supreme Court precedent from a year ago that went in

the administration's favor. Will the court overturn Trump? Will some petty little circuit court dictator in black robes tell the President he can't do the sure but it'll go to appeal and they'll lose an appeal most likely unless it's the Ninth Circuit with the crazies. But when it makes its way up to the court, the Court's gonna have look at this and say, we've already affirmed this. The president does have this right. What are we going to do undermine the right that we affirmed a year ago.

The law is clear. The president needs to declare Central American migrants inadmissible until Congress fixes the laws and we have a secure border and we have the barrier we need full stop. The president must do this. Liberals will completely freak out, they will lose their minds, doesn't matter. This is what needs to be done. Mexico is not going to play ball long term on this issue. It's not enough to have the tariffs. The president must act.

The totalitarian Libs will never relent, my friends, they don't come back to reason. They don't want to find a central way forward or a moderate path. They want their way, They want to win, and so many of the core constitutional values that they will occasionally pretend to care about, they will abandon very quickly the moment that it is inconvenient to their emotions and their beliefs. And here's what I found quite interesting about the Masterpiece or the latest

on what could be considered the bake that cake phenomenon. Right. So, just by way of quick review, last year, there was the Supreme Court case Masterpiece cake Shop the Colorado Civil Rights Commission. And in that instance, you had someone who was told that he had to make a cake for a gay wedding and had to put certain messages on that cake despite the violation of his sincere and fundamental religious beliefs that it would have forced them to effectively

endorse right. And the Supreme Court in that instance didn't really establish a defense of that core religious liberty, just said, well, let's the animus from the state of Colorado. Was obvious state of Colorado in this case, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission that was set up to adjudicate these things was allowing some people, you know, they're not gonna make like a Muslim baker put Genitalia on a cake, or or make a devil cake or anything. They're not gonna make.

You know, some people have religious freedom, just not Christians, right that there was a double standard in what you know, would you make a black baker baker cake that had had a Confederate flag on it, for example? Is that is that something that the constitution mandates? Well, no, the Colorado Civil Rights Commission wouldn't do that because you know, Christians are up for it's open season on Christians as we know that the Libs really don't like traditional Christian belief.

There's all I know. There's a lot of these other churches that are like the lave whatever you want, but like we all love Jesus, but there's no such thing as a real rule. You know, that's fine, and you know people can do whatever. They have the religious freedom to get into that stuff too. A lot of people go to these churches where you essentially have a motivational speaker posing as a pastor, and there's a lot of like you know, electrified music and stuff. That's, you know,

to each his own whatever. Fine, But on the religious liberty question, libs are constantly trying to destroy traditional Christian belief and force them to bend the knee. As we see, and these these instances of the of the Christian or the evangelical baker that's being told to make a gay wedding cake, this is targeted harassment. There are plenty of other bakers that somebody could go to, and remember it's not a person saying I will not sell you a cake. I will not make a cake for you. I will

not sell you what is already in my store. It's not that they won't serve them. It's this in the Masterpiece Cake Shop case, that baker was saying, look, I'm just not gonna celebrate a gay wedding with messaging that I have to create for a cake that I do not believe in. That's all. That's all. He was not saying I won't sell you to sell you the cake, or I won't bake a cake for you. It's I won't bake a cake and say I loved I love gay marriage or whatever. That's a version of what the

argument is here. Well, just slapping down the the the blatantly discriminatory Colorado Civil Rights Commission, which was really just an anti Christian commission. That did not no surprise here, that did not solve the problem. Because the Supreme Court whenever it comes to defending religious liberty, the Second Amendment, anything that conservatives and that you know, traditional traditional American views of the Constitution, anytime that's up for grabs, there's

absolutely no, absolutely no chads. It seems that we're going to get some sweeping ruling. You know, Row never happens on our side of a ledger reminding Roe v. Wade. You know, we never get this. We're always told, Oh, the Court's gone so far to the right. No, it hasn't. When was the last time the Court had a sweeping conservative decision that set policy for the rest of the country and eradicated something central to the left. I can't think of it. People say, oh, dcv. Heller book, No, dcv.

Heller just prevented the eradication of the Second Amendment. There's still a whole lot of restriction. And this look at where abortion rights are versus where gun rights are. Abortion is a right without an abortion isn't just a right that cannot be restricted. It's a right now based on judicial fiat that you have to pay for and that you have other restrictions on your fundamental rights, including the First Amendment. You know, where can you protest an abortion clinic?

How much leeway and space do you have to give an abortion? No other part of law has this stuff. Abortion an absolutist right that they say is constitutional, but it's not even the Constitution. The Second Amendment is a real constitutional right and there are restrictions all over the place such that people say, oh, dcv. Heller, what a sweeping victory for the Second Amendment. No, it just it just kept it alive. It just kept it on life support.

You can't outright ban a citizen's right to own a gun because you don't want guns in the hands of citizens DC, which is why that's where it happened here in the swamp. So with that in mind, when you see what happened to Masterpiece Cake Shop, it was obvious this was going to happen. Washington's State Supreme Court has now pushed the issue right back into the Supreme Court's hands.

The case is Washington versus Arlene's Flowers. You know, in Masterpiece, you got a Christian baker who served gay customers but didn't want to do a custom design cake that relied on his creative talents and messaging for a gay wedding. And in this case, this is another Christian florist who serve gay customers, including the gay couple at issue in this case, but would not custom design floral arrangements for

a gay wedding. This is essentially artistic talent and artistic creation versus just the basic services of a of a of a business. This has to do with the nature of the message. Things that are message free, you got to serve people, right, this is this is the country we're living on. Things that a message three free, you have to serve. But this is where this is where

we are. The Colorado Civil Rights Commission and the people that were shown to be really anti Christian bigots in that whole process, they were they weren't chasing at all by this. They're just gonna keep They're gonna keep pushing it until they get their way, unless the Supreme Court finally says, you know what, the First Amendment has meaning you cannot tell someone that they have to endorse a message that they do not want to endorse. You know, you cannot make a baker or a painter or a

writer sign a loyalty oath to gay marriage. You can't do it and still believe that you have freedom of speech and freedom of conscience and freedom of religion. You can't do it. But you know, we have this this mentality. Oh you know, if we just if we just play right as conservatives and people that believe in religious freedom, if we you know, stick to the rules and we don't get too crazy, you know, eventually we'll win out. Really have we won out on abortion for the last

fifty years. Where where are these big social victories that are being delivered, you know, social conservative victories that are being delivered to the right. I don't know. I haven't seen one in a long time. So this is this is why we are in a We're gonna fight for the soul of this country. We really are. It's an

idea iological war, but it's a war nonetheless. I mean, this woman, if the court doesn't find, if the court doesn't find in her favor, and this Arlene's Arlene's flowers, she is personally liable for vast if she'll go bankrupt they'll destroy her. That's right, a gay couple upset that this woman wouldn't help celebrate their gay wedding. We'll be bankrupt and destroyed and ruined because she's somebody who believes in traditional marriage. She has no problem with gay people.

She just believes in marriage as it was practiced for a few thousand years until you know, a few years ago. So she should be ruined. Now bankrupted, no more business, no more bank account, nor more food on the table, unless the Supreme Court says no, you actually don't. You don't have to sign loyalty oaths to gay marriage in this country publicly as part of your business dealings. You don't have to do that. Well, we'll see. I have very little faith in it for some reason, you know,

conservatives are I don't know. We just we just keep getting kicked in the face and thinking that if we get well, get take one more kick, and maybe this will all turn in our favor. It's not what's happening in my lifetime. It's time for a lot of people on the right to wake up. We're gonna talk later on in the show about Chernobyl and I have a

very different take on it. To offer you today, one that is far more critical of the series and looks at the left wing politics and messaging that I'm now, having finished the series, and particularly the last episode, I'm quite aware have been infused into this, and contemporary propaganda unfortunately has reared its head in many ways in the Chernobyl series. But the parts of the Soviet Union and the Soviet bureaucracy that deals with, as I've mentioned, that's

very worthwhile interesting. And one thing about the Soviets was that they were very concerned with controlling the record. They knew that whatever gets written down will be treated as reality in the future. Whatever becomes the record will be treated as the reality in time, not entirely, but but

generally and usually overwhelmingly. This is also why the Soviets would do things like painstakingly go through records when someone was liquidated, for example, within the government ranks, and they would use a razor blade to take their name out of official documents. They do want to even white it out or anything else, so anybody could try to scratch it away and see it was what was under there.

They would they would have these They would go to painstaking lengths to remove people from the bureaucratic records and to make it as in essence they did not exist. And one of the final scenes of Chernobyl, you have the I believe it's the head of the KGB, and the punishment that he offers one of the scientists who speaks out, is that they're going to make that person live, ay, make him live, to see that his entire legacy is erased and handed off to other people. Everybody else will

get credit for what he had done. Nobody will speak his name, nobody will know that he ever existed, that his punishment was to watch in real time as his existence was erased, and that as he was going to die from the poisoning of the radiation. But you know that's a very Soviet mindset. Well, we have something that reminds me a bit of that going on right now

in this country. I've mentioned to you before that the left is completely comfortable with ruining lives based on actions, political decisions, not criminal things, actions taken years ago that at the time were considered certainly within the realm of acceptable you know, acceptable discourse, or was considered an acceptable decision at the time. But the left will settle scores long after the fact, and this may seem like a relatively minor case, but I don't find it minor at all.

I think I think this should send a chill up the backs of everybody out there who has ever taken a stand for something that has later on become a stand that has later on become unpopular, that the Left has deemed to be on the wrong side of history one of their favorite phrases. Linda Fairsteam was one of the prosecutors involved in the case known as the Central Park five. I grew up in New York. I was in Central I grew up two blocks from Central Park.

It was my family home was right next to the park, and it loomed very large in the lives of everybody in Manhattan. And we all knew about Central Park and this case of the Central Park jogger. It was a very sensationalized and sensitive and horrifying case of a woman who was jogging was brutally raped and almost beaten to death with a brick in the park. And you had a number of young men, they were all minorities, who were found guilty of this crime. And then a long

time passed and then they were found not guilty. And now it has become this article of faith on the left that they were wrongfully imprisoned. Now I have read the work of none other than Anculter, who is a talented lawyer. People often forget that clerk for a federal judge worked as a corporate lawyer. She is a talented lawyer, knows the law very well and does a lot of research and reads everything, which separates her from a lot

of the other legal analysts out there. And just based on the excerpts that she has pulled in the arguments that she has made, I do not believe that the Central Park five are innocent despite the exoneration. I'm sorry, but the fact that there was DNA that did not belong to them at the scene did not mean that the confessions that they all gave with adult relatives present, taped and that a jury heard and a jury was like, Yeah,

these guys are all guilty. The fact that there was DNA from somebody that was not one of them found on this woman who was so brutally attacked doesn't mean that they weren't a part of the attack. I mean, the fundamental premise of the exoneration is something that I'm sorry I've got a problem with unless I'm missing something. They always believe that there was someone who got away.

Because one rapist attacker got away doesn't mean that anybody else who was part of a gang rape, which was always what was believed to have occurred here, doesn't make them not guilty. There every bit is guilty. And they knew things about this woman that they could only have known if they were there during the attack, and it's on record. But now we're all told, oh, you know, this was racism. It was terrible, and it's not enough merely to exonerate them. Now they go out and they

find people to blame and punish for this injustice. It's not enough to get the quote justice of exonerating these men, who also got a huge payout tens of millions of dollars in the City of New York, thanks New York taxpayers. Linda Fairstein, who was the prosecutor back in nineteen eighty nine for the Central Park five, she was the prosecutor in this case. Her publisher has dropped her now due to public pressure. Fairstein is the author of twenty four books,

sixteen of them New York Times bestsellers. Crime novels, and her publisher has said, sorry, we're not working with you anymore. Now I'm not pretending like this is, you know, the same as her getting sent to prison or something. But there this is public pressure being brought on a person for doing her job. In nineteen eighty nine, I was eight years old, and I am quite a ways from eight years old. Now this is public pressure being brought to bear so that she suffers consequences. Now, you are

never free of the vindictive left. There is no statute of limitations on the social justice rage that is out there. If they can find a way to hold you accountable when it is politically convenient for something that you didn't even do wrong, they will do it. And this is why you see it with brendan Ike at Mozilla. You know he's for traditional marriage when Obama's for traditional marriage. You know, a bunch of years, five, six years passed and they decide, oh, well, you can't be the CEO

of this company, Moore, because you're a bigot. Was Obama a bigot at the same time or No? They have no They have no real pable to discuss here. There's nothing they can really say that explains us other than they like one person Obama, they don't like the other person Ike. But when your publishers are dropping you, when you're getting fired from Mozilla, they want consequences against individuals

based upon the present whims of the liberal mob. I'm going to have to dig into the Central Park five case now, because this one is I think that, unfortunately, people are being brainwashed on this, and they're being told that this was some terrible injustice, and it's become so popular now on the left to talk about how horrible it was that these memoir in prison wrongfully. Really all of them con fess the new details about the event.

They couldn't have known unless they were there. We're supposed to think that that's all a coincidence. I'll have more on this, you know, I think the Democrats should stop talking about investigating and do investigating, you know, all this stuff of it. Should there be impeachment, should there be oversight. They ought to hold hearings. You know, they're holding a hearing on money Day with John Deane, who, with all due respect, is a figure from the nineteen seventies. You

know this. I don't think Democrats are helped at all by this sort of process, arguments about how we should do it or when we should do it, Like Woldsome hearings, talk about the substance of the investigation, not this process talk. You know, it's June already, and you know the Intelligence Committee hasn't held any serious hearings. Oversight has held a couple.

The Michael Kohn hearing was a serious, important hearing. The Judiciary Committee hasn't held any significant hearings about, you know, investigating the president. Do that, don't talk about this. I actually agree for a change with the CNN's favorite legal analyst, Jeffrey Tubin, insofar as the Democrats are a joke on impeachment, a joke at this point, this is ridiculous. No, No, we need to dig into process. We need to you know, they've turned into like it's some sort of ridiculous parody

of themselves. We've had two years, two years of a Muller investigation. You've had tens of millions of dollars spent to try and get all of the possible derogatory information on President Trump you could, I mean, all the nastiest, most damaging stuff by a bunch of anti Trump partisans. That's what's been going on and what is the response that we get from Democrats. Well, Trump is the worst. He has to be impeached, but we're not sure if he should be impeached yet. It can't be both of

these things. This is not possible, This is not feasible. Democrats are preposterous here. Democrats are simply and utterly un serious elected officials. Although they are doing this because they think that it's about their power. It's about maintaining power. It's about staying in power or achieving more of it. That's it. Everything else, all these arguments about defending our democracy or you know, saving this or that institution, that's just all not it's just all nonsense. It's all complete

and utter crap. And they should be embarrassed by this, as you know they are not. And I like that Trump is taking the fight to them. I mean, I know that they got all angry at Trump because of his interview with Laura Ingram, but you know, he should point out that Nancy Pelosi is a disaster of black lit one. I think she's a disgrace. I actually don't think she's a talented person. I've tried to be nice to her because I would have liked to have gotten

some deals done. She's incapable of doing deals. She's a nasty, vindictive, horrible person. Tamula report came out, it was a disaster for them. Nancy Pelosi equal and nervous, Nancy. Nancy Pelosi doesn't talk about it. Nancy Pelosi's a disaster. Okay, she's a disaster. I think he's correct, Nancy Pelosi. Helly, they should have pitched the pasited as ar as people tell make mean videos, have put them on Facebook of me. Ah, he's right that she's nasty and there is something vindictive

about her saying. And this is people who compare the Hillary thing lock her up to this. I think that's a really inept comparison, because one, Hillary did break the law, full stop. She broke the law. People can try to say, oh no, but let know she broke the law, and the law is supposed to be serious. The law she broke are supposed to be meaningful. But they bailed her out, The system bailed her out. And she also wasn't the

sitting president. Folks. I know that they all thought of her, the Democrats and left she might as well, as far as they were concerned, have been the sitting president, but she was not. And there is something different about being inside the very top wrong of power in the legislative branch, as Nancy Pelosi is, and saying in front of your colleagues in the Congress that you want the current president to go to prison, which is what Nancy Pelosi did.

It's disgusting. It is disgusting. She is a person without honor, she is a person without integrity. People can argue with me on that as much as they want. I don't care they're wrong. Pelosi, just like some t other Democrats, should be ashamed, but is not. I mean, here's here's Debbie Dingle, which I always think is and my name is buck Sexton. So how can I really poke fun at anyone but technically James Buckman Sexton. But who cares? Debbie Dingle says that there's no problem here the Democratic

Party right now, play clip two. She's got the full support of the Caucus. I agree with where she is on the subject of impeachment. We've got to continue the investigations. No one's above the law. I am not for a partisan of impeachment. I've said that many times, and I think we need to focus on the issues that was a Democrat member of Congress. You just said, I'm not for a partisan impeachment. I mean, is she a moron?

Is she not smart? Or is she so cynical that she thinks that the people that vote for her and the Democrats are so dumb that they really believe that it would that there's any universe in which the impeachment of this president would be anything other than partisan. How can anyone say this? How can they say this with a straight face? The left of the Democrats, the anti Trumpers, they're always lecturing us about truth and about how Trump lies, and then they say things like this. It's just are

they living on a different planet. Are they operating in some alternate reality, some other universe? What does this even mean? There's no rift in the party. She's the full support of the Continue the investigation. How much more investigation are they're really going to do? How much more? What else do they need to find out? We have a four hundred plus page report of the most anti Trump investigation they could possibly cobble together, and they're supposed to be

more investigating. As if what Congress is going to get to the truth that Muller missed. They need more facts. These are the same people that aren't even requesting that Muller testify yet. I mean, they're a joke. This whole thing is ridiculous. I start to wonder does the country even care about this or is this just a DC about way, a sella corridor coastal obsession. Maybe it is.

Maybe people really don't care about this. Maybe this is some kind of a media fight that gets magnified because the people that are just the people that are creating the news narrative every day all echo each other on the at oh impeach or not to impeach, to impeach or not to impeach. I think the biggest, the biggest hold up in this whole thing is the Democrats don't know how it would shake out for them if they

did impeach. They don't know if that would work out for them or not, and they can't figure it out. And so that's what the Indian action has nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with getting to the facts or the truth or anything like that. It's just they're not sure of the political calculation involved. And because they're not sure if the political calculation involved, they don't want to

take action. But what's interesting to me is they're never going to really know what the political calculation involved is. They're never really gonna know what's going to happen here. So I think Heaven forbid, but I think Tube and over at CNN is right. You know, just do it. Stop being such a bunch of whimps. Stop talking about it all the time. Stop pretending that there's some bit of information you're going to figure out, you know. I mean, look,

they should just embrace the crazy here. Embrace it's the crazy, like pocahonas Warren has when she says that Trump, if he wasn't Trump would be carried out on a hancuffs played fourteen. Donald Trump as president delayed, deflected, move, fired, and did everything he could to obstruct justice. Is he or any other person in the United States based on what's documented in that report, he would be carried out in handcuffs. Everything she said there is pretty much idiotic. Okay.

First of all, he did everything he could, That's what she said, Everything he could to delay, obstruct, etc. Etc. Obstruct all this stuff. He could have shut down the investigation any day he wanted to. He could have fired Muller any day he wanted to He could have claimed executive privilege over huge amounts of documents and prevented testimony. Didn't do that. In what way did he obstruct the instigation?

That's the real By saying something to his counsel that did not turn into any action of any kind, that's obstruction. If that is obstruction, Wow, we have to really rethink the law in its entirety. Did she said everything he could? If you told me that, you know, if I was standing, you know, if I was standing at the you know, on the front steps of a house, and I had a lighter and a gasoline can and you said, well, you've done everything you can already to burn down this house.

And I hadn't done anything. But I could, but I hadn't done anything. I think you were a crazy person. And that's why I have to ask Elizabeth warren't crazy. He was the president the United States. He could obstruct the investigation. He could have ended it. He could have just said no more investigation, shut this thing down. Now. Would they have gone along with that? I don't know, but at least could have given the order. And it was and it might have been a constitutional I would

argue it as a constitution of legitimate order. Robert Muller is not above the president in the executive branch. He's an employee. He worked for the president. So someone explained to me, how how can Elizabeth Warren, who has a law degree and taught law at Harvard, get away with saying he did everything it could do obstructor and we'd be carried out in handcuffs. But this is just idiocy. This is idiocy. I mean Democrats, this is the problem

with them. They've had two years of Trump. The country's doing well. All the numbers show that Trump is actually a pretty pretty solid commander in chief, not starting any foolish wars, slapping around journalists on Twitter that deserved it get slapped around. It's a glorious thing. And then they come forward and these are the people they offer to replace him. Sorry staying I'm staying with Trump man, I'm not, and I feel good about it. I don't know, I

don't have I have no regrets. No, if my choice is Trump or Elizabeth Warren, it's just racial fraudster. Not gonna go for it, not gonna be a pardon, not prudent, not prudent, not gonna do it. I just find the whole thing really pretty stunning that the Democrats have stumbled so in my opinion, so clearly out of the gates here that they just can't get someone. They can't get

anybody to pull it together. By the way, you know, there's a letter from Jordan, Jim Jordan and Mark Meadows that point the points out that it's been one hundred days since Michael Cohen perjured himself in testimony before Congress, and my friend Sean Davis over the Federalist pointed this out, and they won't take any action against Michael Cohen. I thought lying under oath was a big deal. It's a big deal if you're Papadopolis, big deal if you're Michael Flynn,

big deal if you're anybody had tied to Trump. But if you're anti Trump, it seems lying under oath there's no big deal. If you're anti Trump, if you're Andy McCabe and you're the FBI acting director, you can lie under oath and nothing really happened. Do you be on getting fired? You don't go to prison. Though. This is not okay, This is not okay, This is not sit around, and let's let's just be cordialed. The other side. This is where we're seeing This is where we're seeing the

politics's war reality come together. When the law only applies to us when it's bad for our side and doesn't apply to their side, that's not acceptable. It's not an acceptable state of affairs in the future. When you look up the word dirty cop, if you have a fair internet and free internet, you will see the pictures of Komi and McCabe. There is this is These guys make

Hoover look like a saint. It is absolutely despicable that the head of the FBI would think it's funny and cute to send over these FBI agents to go and interview the national security advisor for the President of the United States, and then they walk out of there and say, look, we don't think the guy's lying, but instead, what do you do? You double down and I'll just see you

just closing with this. Let's not forget the biggest league of all the leagues was the league of General Flynn, the national incoming National Security Advisor for the president of crime. Is it not talking to the Russian ambassador? It is an absolute crime. They have nine individuals who supposedly told the mainstream news media nothing was ever done to get to the bottom of that biggest league in US history.

How is it that nobody on their side, no pro Hillary, pro Obama Democrats in the bureaucratic apparatus, no one who is a prominent Democrat got caught up in the Muller machinery. After all the crimes that were committed, all the stuff that was done to take down Trump, all the lies that have been told, how is it that in the Hillary email investigation there were no secondary prosecutions of anyone for destroying evidence, for obstruction of justice, for lying under oath,

none of those process charges. If you believe that that's because Hillary and her top advisors are so ethical and honest, you're an imbecile. I know you don't believe that. But if one were to believe that, it's just a difference in the application of the law based on the people with power and the fact that Democrats feel very good about themselves and have no problem using the law as a tool of partisan politics, including sending people to prison,

including the destruction of people's lives. Speaking of the destruction of lives, switching gears here for a second. There is so there's this controversy over what's gone on with YouTube and Stephen Crowder and vox dot com which is the most beta, male, left wing whimpy lib website perhaps in existence, But they published something that thought was interesting, an open letter to YouTube CEO. This Pride Month, your lgbt Q creators deserve more than just a rainbow logo. And here's

what they write. Dear Susan Wojicky. YouTube social media profiles have been updated with the rainbow theme version of your logan to celebrate Pride Month, but to truly celebrate your lgbt Q creators and users, there's another meaningful update you need to make this month. Your platform has made it easier than ever for people to make abuse of content

to reach a massive scale. As a Vox video producer, Carlos Maza documented a Twitter thread, he's been the subject of personal attacks by the popular YouTube commentator Stephen Crowder during a series of videos attempting to robut Carlos's arguments. He calls Carlos quote the list be queer from Vox,

along with many other homophobic and racist slurs. These are petered attacks on Carlos's sexual orientation, ethnicity have led to vicious onslaughts, including doxing and dogpiling for many of Crowder's fans to YouTube, However, behavior well worthy of demonetization is not in violation of its policies as long as language it's offending. Language is not the primary purpose of a video.

If the repeated harassment and these videos doesn't cross the line by YouTube standards, then your line needs to be removed. So this is all saying that they need a change in standards right now. These policies make everyone less safe. The dangerous backlash against creators who dare to speak out against abuse is all the more explosive when your rules are confusing and applied inconsistently, Signed editor in chief and head of Video for vox dot Com. Journalists Now, folks

so called journals want censorship. On the left, call for censorship, demand censorship. Isn't that? Isn't that interesting? Not surprising? Just remember that the next time they make some flowery speech about the First Amendment, they don't care a wit about the First Amendment. In terms of radiation, I'm told, as Steve could at a jest extrain chernobyl is on fire and every atom of uranium is like a bullet. Kind of trating everything in its path, metal, concrete, flesh. Now

Chernobyl holds over three trillion of these bullets. Some of them will not stop firing for fifty thousand years. Tell me how to put it out. You are dealing with something that has never occurred on this planet before. All right, So that's from Chernobyl, which I've been talking about here on the show. It's it's made a lot of waves among concern among everybody, really, but conservatives like it too. I've I find that the depiction of the ossified Soviet

bureaucracy to be really, really worthwhile. I just the performances, the writings. It's an It's excellent in the execution of the storyline. And it's one of these moments where I take a step back and I say, well, why can't so many other shows be written at this quality and done in this way without you know, without overacting, without cheesy,

predictable nonsense. That said, there's some problems with Chernobyl, and I will tell you that there are problems that a number of you identified for me and for my benefit. That the more I thought about it, the more I realized that those of you who have written me on this one sent me Facebook messages or emails that you are correct that there is something inherently and clearly anti

nuclear about this series. And I thought to myself, well, come on, is it really the way that it pulls apart and shows you the g of the corrupt Soviet bureaucracy and its necessity for forcing its people to choke down the most obvious and toxic of lies. And that's all so worthwhile. And this is why I say the Lives of Others, which gives you a similar taste of totalitarianism in East Germany at the hands of the Stazi.

These are really important pieces of art. They bring to life a part of recent history in the Western world that we should all be quite aware of and understand what those lessons are. There are lessons to be taken

from this. The problem with the Chernobyl series is that one of the lessons you take from it is, oh, my gosh, nuclear power is horrifically scary, and these terrible, catastrophic, possibly world ending things could happen just because a few stupid Soviet clowns don't know what buttons to push during the late night shift at a reactor. That's not really the case. And let me just give you. And there's a very good breakdown of this from Michael Schellenberger over

at Forbes. He wrote why HBO's Chernobyl gets nuclear so wrong, And here are just a few of the other things. Radiation victims are often covered in blood for some reason, he points out, which is just not It does not radiation does not erode your skin in open wounds in real time. That is not how radiation poisoning works. And then there's some other parts of it that are just I understand that they took some you know, creative license with it, but a big issue because people see this.

There's a lot of exposition. There's a lot of explaining how a nuclear reactor works, what goes into a nuclear reactor, and that's fascinating stuff. And this is an opportunity to teach people, and to teach people in a dramatic way that will they'll remember. So you're not just learning about the Soviet bureaucracy. You're learning about how does a nuclear power plant even work? You know, you got these cooling rods and you got water circulating. You know, it's kind

of a weird thing. How does it work? People want to know, and that part of it's all great, and I think most of that, although I'm not a nuclear engineer, most of that is pretty accurate. At the they do it at a level that a lay person can understand. But why then this way over the top visualization and this depiction of radiation as being almost like an alien life form that is going to take us all over.

One part of the movie that I mean of the series that's definitely problematic, and that is clearly beyond where the facts should would take it, is that radiation is something that you can internalize and then it's almost like a disease, so you can't If you touch somebody who has been subject to radiation poisoning, you can be radiat If they are irradiated and then walk over with their clothing and their skin still covered in radiation, then yeah,

you could get some radiation from that. But in this series, there are there's a wife who goes to visit somebody in the hospital. It's it's her husband, I believe her boyfriend. I think it's her husband, and she is told don't touch him. Don't touch him because you'll get radiation too. Now, maybe you could say that the soviets in that hospital

didn't know, But that's not really true. In fact, the whole basis of the movie is they have to investigate what happened at the reactor, when in truth, the nuclear scientists in the Soviet Union had a pretty good idea rather quickly of what happened. But radioactivity is something that is internalized. It is not a is not a contagious disease.

And the reason that you have people in the movie who have been subjected to dangerous levels of radiation behind plastic sheeting in the hospital is because their immune systems are deeply weakened. So in fact, it's the people coming to visit the radiation victims that put the radiation victims at risk, not the other way around. UM. So that's there's a lot of um, there's a lot of stuff. And look, there's some of the dramatic license. I'm fine

with that. There are guys that we're going to sacrifice their lives to empty the water tanks that didn't really happen. I mean, there are some things that you can you can expect that would be part of the dramatic license. I'm fine with that. But there's other parts of this that that when you look at the science. There's there's

a degree of science propaganda going on here. You know, this is the first time in a long time that a that a mass audience has thought about and been subjected to anything really about nuclear power that was in

something completely fantastical, like the is that a word? I think that's a word, like the Hills have Eyes, where it's you know, the mutants that are created by nuclear power or by nuclear weapons testing that nuclear power, And that's really the that's the conflation that you see is that nuclear power is as dangerous as nuclear weapons, and that's just completely fallacious. That's it's a preposterous comparison. It's

not true at all. In fact, at one point, the main scientist in the movie, who's who's based on a real a real person, says that this is like the Hiroshima bomb going off, you know, twice an hour, every hour, every twenty four hours, you know whatever, And that's not really it's not really true. There's there's a lot of fear mongering on the science in the movie. I mean, I don't think there's fear mongering from the how bureaucratic, inefficient and disgraceful the KGB was. I mean, that's all,

I've studied the KGB that that's all true. We actually have a guest who's going to be joining us in a few minutes. You've written a book on some of the using some old KGB terminology. He's a former former agency guy that wanted to come on. He loves the show and he wanted to come on and talk about his book. And he served thirty five years at Langley. So I figured, you know what, well, we'll let him come on and talk about his book for a couple

of minutes. So that'll be happening a moment. But but the the sensationalism of the science in Chernobyl was unnecessary. There's no reason for this to have happened in this way, and that's why I start to be you know, especially in the at the very end, they do this whole You know, the estimates and the number of dead range from the official estimate is thirty one, but the real estimate from people is up to based on radiation and do sicknesses and cancers one hundred thousand. Uh, that's not

that's not true. You know that's not true. That's not correct, and you shouldn't use the PostScript finished the series now We're going to tell you what really happened and present us as realit. You shouldn't use that to push things that are factually incorrect. As I said. In this Forbes piece by Michael Schellenberger, he writes, quote, there's no good evidence that chernobyl radiation killed a baby, nor that it

caused any increase in birth defects. We've now had a chance to observe all the children that have been born close to chernobyl, reported UCLA physician Robert Gale in nineteen eighty seven, and none of them, at birth at least, has had any detectable abnormalities. Indeed, the only public health impact beyond the depths of the first responders was twenty thousand documented cases of thyroid cancer in those underaged eighteen

at the time of the accident. The United Nations in twenty seventeen concluded that only twenty five percent of that five thousand can be attributed to chernobyl radiation. In earlier studies, the UN estimated there could be up to sixteenth sixteen thousand cases attributable to chernobyl, but since thyroid cancer has a mortality rate of just one percent, that means the expected debts from thyroid cancers caused by Chernobyl will be fifty to one hundred and sixty over an eighty year lifespan.

At the end of the show, HBO claims there was a dramatic spike in cancer rates across Ukraine and Belarus, but this is wrong. Residents of those two countries were exposed to doses slightly above natural background radiation levels. According to the World Health Organization, If there are additional cancer debts, they will be about point six percent of the cancer debts expected in this population. Due to other causes. Radiation

is not the super potent toxin Chernobyl depicts. In one episode one, high doses of radiation make workers bleed, and an episode two, a nurse who merely touches a firefighter sees her hand turn bright red as though burned. Neither thing occurred. Neither thing is possible. Chernobyl ominously depicts people gather on a bridge watching the Chernobyl fire. At the end of the series, HBO claims it has been reported

that none of the people on that bridge survived. It is known as the Bridge of Death, but the Bridge of Death is an urban legend. There is no evidence to support it. Why? Why the lives? Why? And remember I'm not talking about that, this is the stuff that the text that appeared on the screen at the end of the series. Why put out a claim about the bridge of death when a quick Google search proves that

there was no bridge of death? Why claim that this affected hundreds of thousands of people with cancer and you know, spread enormous death and misery across a huge region of Ukraine in Belarus when that's not really true. Now, I'd like to think that that's just because they're trying to be dramatic and they're trying to sell tickets, so to speak. But you know, there is this movement out there about

the Green New Deal. There is this movement that we need a massive government takeover to deal with the existential threat of CO two induced climate change. And they want wind and they want solo and then all these things. These are technologies that are inefficient, that will not work well enough to let us enjoy our standard of living

as we have it now. There is only one technology that does not create the CO two that would destroy according to these people, the world, there's only one technology that really works at the level that we needed to for the future when it comes to energy creation. Right now, it's nuclear. Nuclear is incredibly clean, incredibly efficient, It's an unbelievable scientific advance. But nuclear power should be the future.

Is this movie about propaganda and lies inside the Soviet Union at some level, propaganda for the green movement scaremongering over nuclear power because they don't want that to be the response. They don't want that to take the place of the green Nude Deal. I think that's worth exploring. A special guest on this Freestyle Friday Friends. His name is Bill Rooney. He has a very distinguished, fascinating career in the government behind him, and now he is a novelist.

His latest book is wet Work Repair, which is out now. Bill Rooney, great to have you on the program. Buck, It's a real pleasure to be talking to you and your audience, your listeners. I am a thirty five year retired Central Intelligence Agency CIA officer. Did a lot of posting overseas. I've been around operations a lot of years.

After I finished the CIA career, I worked on railroad security for five years, and as Buck pointed out, I'm this is my second attempt at putting together a story well with a lot of operational sights into the story. Wet Work Repair is the title of the book. Wet Work is a euphemism out of the Russian language. At KGB had a department thirteen charged with carrying out wet

work or heavy lifting operations. I grew up on the East coast a Jersey guy, and I would hear in the neighborhood the term wet work to indicate in Jersey somebody would be run into a terrible ending, but then they would hide the body. So I always in my mind had work thinking about cement or putting them behind boards or a wall or something like that. Usually mafia stuff in New Jersey. Sure, that's exactly you have that I've heard of. I know nothing about it, but that's

what I've heard of. But I also was one time in Philadelphia when a guy said to me, knew at some point how he found out, I don't know, but he knew I was aged, and he asked me if I was I was doing whitt work. I said, no, okay, So tell us what is wet work repair? What's this book about? Well, the book book is a story, and any any author the challenges that you don't give away the ending In this story, it's fiction. In this story, it's very troubling. I'd spent a lot of thought, UH

in time before I put it together. A Central intelligence officer, highly experienced, comes back from the Middle East. He's now assigned to Washington, DC. UM he UH is murdered in his home. He lives in in Virginia, in the suburbs of Washington. UH. He's murdered, and the people who carried it out, they lead a warning. The warning on the

body is cease and assist. The investigators and including agency people who knew him and worked with him he was He was a subject matter expert on Iranian and Saudi Arabian affairs and worked with them for years. People couldn't believe that somebody had done them in. They could not figure out a motive. The note that was left on his body was cease and desist. Well, the investigators could

not get their hands around that cease and desists. Who are they supposed to say cease and desist agency operations or what's going on? So they couldn't figure that out. The crime scene itself is well, Bill, though we don't have time to go into the details of every every chef of your buddy. I just needed to tell you what's the overview? What did you write the book for. I wrote the book to get several messages out, my friend. And those messages are all about what's happening to values

being attacked today in the United States of America. And what are those messages? Let's hear them. Well, the messages are things like, uh, I say, you don't lead classified information. You maybe stand up for our flag when it's being raised. We've got too many stars on the wall and walk around Arlingston Cemetery to remind people of what the value of that is about. Uh, And so what what it is? Uh?

This story addresses a number of those issues. And uh, that's kind of that's kind of a general rap on it. Well that's what we want. Hey, Bill, Look, I appreciate your career in the agency. Thank you so much for for what you did for a country for thirty five years. And uh, we wish you all the best with the book. The title is wet Work Repair. My brother from Langley, Bill Rooney, is the author. Helly, what bunk? Justin signing off, I'm sorry you you left the opposite. I know you're

doing a great job now. But we could still guys like you in operations. I appreciate that, sir, you take care of yourself. Thank you so much. Team We'll be right back, Team Buck. It's time for roll call. Yes, indeed,

roll call. Before I get to the usual roll call, to let me just say that today was, in fact my last day at Hill TV, which has at different times been called uh, the Hill TV, hill dot TV, lots of different variations on the on the theme there, hill dot TV, the Hill TV, lots of things like that.

So yeah, um, it was. It was quite an experience. Um. I will tell you that the Hannity and Combs model of doing the show every day with somebody with whom you it's not that you're independent thinkers, it's that you are pretty diametrically opposed with all of your political beliefs. To do a political talk show under those conditions is really, really hard. It is very trying. And I listened for those of you that would write me over the course

of the year. Well, there was a reason why I didn't spend a lot of a lot of time and energy trying to get you all to watch Hill TV, because I wasn't sure that it would be your jam As I like to say, I wasn't sure this was something that would be your in your your Bailey Wick, so to speak. So that was because it's just hard. You know, you sit there and you know what I

want to say is no, it's it's not that. And this isn't about my colleague Crystal, for whom I do disagree with her on nine of politics, but I am fond of her, and she was a very professional and skilled and solid co host. But it's just really hard because when someone sits there, whether it's your co host or other guests or other people that work at Hill TV, and they say, well, you know, really, the what the Democrats are doing here with these investigations at Trump, this

is about protecting our democracy. I just want to scream and say, it's not about protecting democracy. It's an obvious, obvious scam to destroy this president. It's just completely done in bad faith. It's madness. It's absolutely this is what I want to say every day. I wanted to just grabe it. Oh, I'm mad as hell, and I'm not gonna take this Trump bashing anymore. That's where I was. I couldn't take the Trump bashing anymore. Man, I just

couldn't do it. Couldn't do it, you know, And they were very kind to me, and they were gonna compensate me even better than they had for my time. If I had stick stuck around through the election, and you know, I wouldn't have been light. I wouldn't have been lighting my cigars one hundred dollar bills or anything, but it would have been nice. And I know, I just I just couldn't do it. Couldn't do it. I couldn't do it.

And I'm just also so excited that now I'll be able to this show and whatever writing I want to do, whatever Fox I want to do. The live stream, which is going to be a TV version of this show that we're going to start in it's going to start in August, so I can tell you that now. I can't make more announcements about it, but the stream will begin in August, so you'll have a way to watch a video essentially a video broadcast of this radio show, and you can watch it on demand and at your leisure.

It'll be high definition quality, it'll be it'll be pretty badass, I think when we get it all set up as well as now, when you say, hey, Buck, can you do a history show? Yeah, I might actually be able to do that. I have a contract for a book that I'm looking at the contract this weekend, and once I signed the contract, then I'm writing the book. So for those of you even saying when you're gonna write a book, it looks like it might be very soon. So I got all these things I gotta do, but

one of them is not going to be. Oh, you mean the head of Media Matters wants to come in and sit on my set today. Yes, I will press him with questions, but I will show him the due respect and professionalism that I must as a representative of the Hill dot com. You know, Nope, now it's you want to play, So let's play. You know now it's gonna be Buck Unleashed, Unfiltered, Uncensored twenty four seven and

not just here in radio. And I will tell you, those of you who listen to this show for the past year, you were really my salvation that I could come and sit and do this show every day. I remember, I never I never said anything on the Hill that I didn't believe. I never. It's just a question of having to work within the defined or semi defined boundaries of finding a central point into the conversation where you can disagree without arguing. That was you can debate without

getting angry, and it's very tiresome to do that. It's very tough to do that. And I don't even know how much of an audience there is for that. I will say that the young man, who is a young man. The young man was taking over Mike No, but the dude has taken over for me is a former Daily Caller reporter named Sager and Jetty. I've had him before as a guest numerous times here on the show. He's a fantastic guy and he's he's going to be a star.

I mean, he's already very well respected, but he's excellent at what he does and is also a heck of a nice guy. So I'm very happy for him because this my departure is in a sense a promotion for him, because he now is He's not a correspondent for the show. He's an anchor for the show, but it's and I

think he'll do very well in the role. It's really hard, though, it's really really challenging to have a conversation in the current environment and not lose your cool when you hear certain things and you remember, I'm remember, this is not

a conversation about politics with anybody. This is conversations about politics with people who are hard left, who, in the case of some of the guests and some of the pundits who come on the show, are people who would like to see the president imprisoned, people who would like to see the president's family ruined and perhaps sent to prison along with him. People who believe that there's nothing wrong with any of these state abortion bills that we've

seen in New York or Virginia. I mean, people believe just a whole slew of things that it's very hard to sit there and say, yeah, you know, I think you're you're astonishingly and and just stunningly wrong on this thing. But I can't just call you crazy, you know, I can't just say, oh, yeah, green new deal, Let's put the government in charge of trillions of dollars of the economy, and let's make sure that every progressive and environment so

cause is funded via taxpayer of dollars. Create the most giant green socialist slush fund in the world, all because we think there's too much CO two in the air. According to people who have been wrong over and over again. You know, how do you how do you say to somebody it's not just that you're missing some components of this, but your your fundamental premise is borderline insane. How do you say that to somebody in a way that's not disrespectful. It's very hard. It's very hard. I can tell you.

Having had to do that, I feel like a professional weight has been lifted off my shoulders. I'll now be able to do what you hear, which is me is just what I get to be all day. I don't have to put on a different you know, a different hat. I don't have to put on the I was never a moderate, but the both sides of the conversation premise. Nope,

now it's the buck side of the conversation. This is going to be I think, better for well, certainly better for me, and I hope will be even more joyable for those of you who listen, because we are going to light it up. We are going into an election year and team, we are going to be fired up. Shields Hi. It is going to be wild. And with that, now I'll come back to Roll Call in just a moment. Hey, team, Buck, it's time for roll call. It's time for roll call. Everybody,

that's right. Sorry, I know I kind of stalled the roll call in the last one, so now I will I will avoid the stalling. Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton Lydia. First up, I just wrote a long message about you, asking why are the homelessness numbers growing? What is the root problem? I have a theory. I wanted to get it to you to mull Over because I truly believe it goes back to the progressives not wanting insane asylums. Look at my three posts under your picture

love your radio program. I guess that's on Instagram, Lydia. I will check it out. Thank you for writing in. I do know that there were efforts I think from I know they're from the left. I believe the ACLU was quite involved in them, stretching back for a long time that they did not want, or rather they opposed people being involuntarily committed. And you know that in general you could think, well that seems like a good idea, but you don't want people getting sent to an insane

asylum who should not be. But I think they may have pushed a bit too far and now people that really honestly should be getting medical help from the state. You know, it does not benefit and benefit anyone for a person to be living on the street, covered in filth, mumbling to himself and posing a danger to himself and others because of severe mental illness. But it's very hard to involuntarily commit anyone. Is that really a part of

the homelessness epidemic? I don't know. I know that mental health issues are a very large, in general, large part of homelessness, but much of that mental health issue, or meant, much of those mental health issues manifest themselves with addiction. So it's really your very high rates of drug addiction and alcoholism among the homeless population. I've seen numbers as high in the past, if something like seventy five to eighty percent of the homeless have some form of addiction

or mental illness. But I don't see much really good research on this. I don't see and I don't even know what the conservative answer to it is. I'm not sure there is a conservative answer to it. We know that what the liberals are trying, which is just more state funding for it and more permissive policies for people to live on the streets as of that's some kind of basic human rights that's not working that much. We do see right here Peter rights Greeting's book regarding your

conversation on Chernobyl and totalitarianism. Our generation watched the USSR collapse and the Berlin Wall fall on TV. I had the good fortune to travel to Europe in the summer of my freshman year of high school and visited Berlin in nineteen ninety six. Even then, the contrast between East Berlin and West was stark, dull, and dilapidated. Communist construction covered the eastern portion of the city. The remnants of the wall still stood, but were transformed by art into

a monument of liberation. The generations younger than us aren't being taught the true lessons of history. Shields high from a fellow Graybeard millennial, Pete in Michigan, Well, thank you so much, Pete, and appreciate you writing in And yes, I can imagine that Germany in the late nineteen nineties you would have been able to see quiet a difference.

Right now. My understanding is that what was formerly East Germany and has now been part of very, very capitalist and industrious Germany for decades, but what was formerly East Germany has become kind of a coolol area in Berlin. So, but I've never been to Germany. It's the two holes in my travel that I have to fill a sap our Spain and Germany. Have not been to either of those countries, and I really want to go to both, So I think I gotta put that top of the

list next time I have some time. Let's see here, Max Rights, Hey Buck, your show went all the way through roll call tonight in Boston. I heard you read my message. Thanks for your prior and current service to our country. Let's see you know so sorry for my ignorance. The saddest part of my healing missions when people continue to suffer Shield Tie James all right, well, James day

our Max James aka Max. Thanks Max, I appreciated. Let's see here, Gina all rights, Hey Buck, and listening to your D Day coverage today is with all my day long talk shows. For the first time my fifty six years, I feel frightened. Never have I felt in my lifetime that their sacrifice, their ultimate sacrifice, may have been in vain. I firmly believe the Left is actiously awaiting the deaths of our so few survivors of these horrendous days to

pass away so they can rewrite history yet again. I had two grandfathers and three great uncles fight this war. I will never forget their sacrifice. But how soon will all those raised up now forget? My favorite local chat hose posted up Kate Smith's God Bless America at the end of his segment, sitting at worked here streaming, I silently said a prayer for my country, shields high or

needed now more than ever. Well, Gina, I look, I appreciate your you know the emotions you feel, and also the depth of the love you have for the sacrifice of those on that beach in Normandy seventy five years ago, and I would just say, don't forget that there are that they're the spirit of those men is still very much alive today, and many of your fellow Americans. There's so many incredible There are so many incredible patriots here still, and they will not let this country go quietly into

the long night. I can assure you of that. Don Hey Buck, great hair, great show. Thanks Don first, never leave the continental the US ever again, Rather favor one of fifty plus UK protectorate second, so I'm coating conflating your thoughts this week with regard to the lack of support from the right for POTUS programs to protect US and the media coloring conservatives is read, then Democrats should be labeled communist, Republicans are democrats, and the remainder are conservatives.

Don I have no idea what the heck you just wanted? Just because I have no idea what that was, I don't if anybody else can follow that, but I missed that one. We went from programs in the Middle East to conservatives are read, Democrats are commies, Republicans are Democrats' wait what? I don't know? Don You lost me, buddy, But we love you anyway. Thanks for writing in. Let's

see here, Brian? What up? Brian? Here we go buck very excited for your new beginnings with your departure from Rising Well, I could not catch the show all the time. I really enjoyed your interviews, your poignant questions with people both agree with you and the ones you are diametrically opposed to. You fulfilled your contract and did a great

job keeping it civil with many uncivil people. Well, thank you, Brian man I appreciate that's that was sort of the That was the whole So what of what we were doing? That was the idea? Rob God bless you. Buck. First of all, Mexico should consider their friend America and do what it takes to control their border for our sake. Second, the idea of leaving children the border for us to take care of is a philosophy of a parasite. Consider the cuckoo bird, which lays its eggs for others to

take care of. And by the way, Biden speaks to his audience like they're idiots, and I really think he believes it. Those are my rents. Trump twenty twenty. God bless him to Thank you, Ron, thank you for writing in appreciate it. William. I'm glad you're leaving the Hill. It must have been absolute torture for you to work there. I understand that you have liberal friends so but they just can't understand reason. It's very difficult to be friends

with liberals. Only my most intelligent and dare I say Christian liberal friends have kept me as a friend on Facebook. Something happened in the past ten years that made a lot of people crazy. Anyway, you're an honorable man and full of integrity. Love your show and love you Buck Shields high Will. That is very kind of you, man, thank you so much for writing in and and uh, look I did. I did my best to under the uh the rules and by laws of the Hill TV.

I hope made the made the team proud. But now now now it's the rules, my friends, you and I write the rules now for the team. That's that's the way this goes from now on. I have I have one boss and the bosses all of you listening to this show. So I'm looking forward to that. That's the way I want things to be from now on. Everybody, my first weekend post two full time jobs. This weekend,

it's gonna be really nice. I'm gonna lie around and read some books and get ready for my focus returning to one thing and one thing only, the Freedom Hunt. Every day next week, every day thereafter Monday through Friday. Looking forward to have a great weekend. Everybody tells somebody about the podcast. Shield Tie