Democrats Continue to Defend Ilhan Omar

Buck side. 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. Remember the NMPDE didn't Buck Sexton. No. Here was founded after nine eleven because they recognized that some people did something. So you have no idea whether I'd have another one. Another plane is hit. Some people did something. Oh my goodness, there is smoke

pouring out. Some people did something. It just flew straight into it. Welcome to the Buck Saxon Show. That audio was from what President Trump retweeted over the weekend and has now cause such a fiery back and forth between

the left and the right between Democrats and Republicans. That was the voice of ilhan Omar saying that when it comes to nine to eleven, some people did something, and then going on to talk about how the real victims, the people that we should have been really worried about, were those who were concerned for their civil liberties in the Islamic community after nine eleven, skipping past the nearly three thousand people who were murdered, many of them crushed, incinerated,

murdered on nine to eleven by Jehadest fanatics trying to bring about a war that would destroy our civilization. It's quite a thing to move past that as though it wasn't anything worthy of note. But a sitting member of Congress speaking about nine to eleven dismissed it. It's some people did something something. Huh. Now, look, I'm one that likes to give second chances. I misspeak, sometimes people misspeak

on things. But she doesn't claim that she misspoke. The claim here is not that representative ilhan Omar meant to say something very different or just got tired and caught up in the moment, and you know that that was not the claim. The claim is that it is racist. You see racist to call her out for this, it is islamophobic to call her out for this. And with this we see a time tested and favorite tactic of

the left. Don't engage on the substance, don't engage on the intellectual merits slime the other side, Smear them, lie about them, assassinate their characters, take issue with who they are as people, suggest that they're bad human beings for thinking what they do, for disagreeing with you. This is a preview of what you're going to see heading into the twenty twenty election from Democrats as a primary motive attack against Trump. This is not going to be something

that just kind of comes up sometimes. This is going to be one of the one of the main ways that they try to undermine this president. But I don't want to just move too far into the tactic here and pull apart why this is so important for the left.

They need to pause on that for one second. Ilhan Omar is favorably disposed toward care Council on American Islamic Relations, which is an unindicted co conspirator with different terrorist groups, has a history of terror apology in this kind country and shows up as I have seen firsthand, because I've had to occasionally be on panels or in debates where CARE shows up to claim that the real concern when there are dozens, maybe hundreds, maybe thousands of dead bodies

in the ground, of people who are the victims of terrorism, the real concern is that somebody might ask the wrong question about Islam afterwards. That's what CARE tends to do. That's the Care approach. We should really be worried about those who speak ill of the prophet Muhammad after a massive terror attack. That's where the system really breaks down.

Don't worry so much about the terror the dead people, the people whose lives are ruined because their loved ones are never to be seen again because some fanatic screaming Allahu Akbar killed a lot of them. So I have no patience, no time for the mouthpieces of Care. Also that she says CARE was founded after Ilmar doesn't know anything about Kara Seams, or doesn't know very much at all.

It says it was founded after nine eleven. It was founded in I think nineteen ninety four, but long before nine eleven then they've been making They've been running around yelling Islamophobia at people for many years before the nine to eleven attacks. But now they're saying that it's it's racist that Trump brought this up, or that he would he would magnify this criticism of Ilhan Omar and that

that's what this really comes down to. Oh, and they take it a step further to play clip here's just classics CNN Jeffrey Tuben saying this is all because Trumps are racist? Play three. What do all the people that he's vilifying have in common? They're all people of color? You know, it is all you know, aoc omar. I mean this is you know, whether it's the basketball players or the football players. I mean it's He's always after people of color, and at is not a coincidence? Is

Jeffrey Tubina moron? Or does he just play one on TV? Everyone that Trump goes after a person of color? How if I said something so stupid on television, I would I would feel embarrassed for a long time to come. Oh, I don't know. Is Crooked Hillary a person of color because Trump seemed to go after her a lot and still does. Is Shifty Adam Schiff a person of color because Trump goes after him? And I don't even want to get into the whole list. Comey struck page Brandon.

I mean, all these people that Trump just rightfully annihilates on Twitter and in his public statements. Is is Jim Acosta? Well, okay, yeah, Jim Acosta. I guess technically he's Latino. But there are other people at CNN that he goes after two or are they all people of color, you know? Or are they people that fit into this kind No, of course not the president. Uh you know, the President is in fact someone who goes after those who go after him,

and the President is a counterpuncher. But to say that he only goes after people of different races about this is it's just a lie. It's just not true. Um. You know, I can't even I think of all the people that are are white that he makes fun of and mocks on a daily, on a regular basis, so many do you think Trump, you know, likes av Nati? Uh So anyway, such a stupid comment. But this is what gets you applause on CNN. This is what gets

you applause on CNN. And then they go even further. Um, then they decide that the issue is that Trump is putting her life in Jeopardy. Now. That was what this turned into over the weekend, that that Trump is responsible for incitement to violence. This is an expansion on what you will generally hear from the left, and that is things that they really don't like, words that they really don't like are tantamount too close to violence. Might as

well be speech equals violence. This has become a tactic of censorship, this Ilahan Omar debate. While in many ways it's just about a stupid comment she made, and you know, it's indefensible, and there oh, there are some who defended by the way. J Jerry Nadler, for example, who's going to make a few appearances in the show. He defended the play clip too. Did you take any issue with the way Congresswoman Omar characterized nine to eleven? No I

did not. She characterized it only in passing she was talking about discrimination against the Muslim Americans and she she just said that after that happened, it was used as an excuse for lots of discrimination and from withdrawal of civil liberties. No I did not take that. I've had some problems with some of her other remarks, but not

but not with that one. No problem with what she says, even Note eleven, just like a thing speaking about Care, which is an organization that does a lot of apologizing

for the radical tendencies of Islam. There's a debate from I forget when from back in the day where they had one of their apologists on after the Danish cartoons fiasco where you had a cartoonist in Denmark, as you know, have the prophet Mohammed, and then there were embassies that were attacked and people there were there was violence that broke out because of what one cartoonist in Denmark did, and there was a guy from CARE. I never forget this as well. You know, we shouldn't, we shouldn't do

things like this. It's an active intimidation. He would he said, to be critical of Islam in this way, it intimidates people. Oh, that's right, speech equals violence. The words are based violence. Therefore will be violent in response to your words. This is a very dangerous, a very dangerous approach. But the left takes this on many issues. You know, they will say that President Trump is inciting violence against ilhan Omar merely by criticizing what she says. And she's you know,

she's not a legitimate target for this criticism. And now that we're hearing that she gets death threats and all these lots of people get death threats, that doesn't death threats are terrible, people should be punished for them. But you can't be Hell, we cannot be held responsible for the death threats of imbeciles because we criticize public figures because censorship. The left likes to censor. And what you see with the ilhan Omar situation is all of the

different tactics and tools that the left will use. They'll say that the criticism of her is racist. They'll say that criticism of her is leading to death threats. They want to create special categories for individuals to be public figures. But they're victims, you see. They have to be treated and talked about differently because they're victims because of their ethnicity, or their religion, or their sexual orientation, or they're to be treated to a different set of rules in public discourse.

Leftist trying to do that right now. You're going to see a lot more of this going forward. You're going to see a lot more and the effort to make it impossible to have an open and honest discussion about how crazy some of these leftists are. What they're saying. Why it's wrong because oh, you said, what about AOC, You must be a racist? You said what about Ilhan Omar,

You must be a racist. How can we have any real discussion about the country if the approach the Democrats are going to have is well, you can't disagree with certain people on heated and passionate issues of real public consequence that really matter, because it must just be that you're down talking to them. You are part of the patriarchy. Your white privilege is showing you're not allowed to criticize these individuals because you do so from a position of

white supremacy. They will say they are trying to destroy legitimate discourse, the differences that we have in policy and in the ideas that we share publicly. They want to control it. They want to control the language, which we talked about last week, and they also want to control who has the right to speak. When are you allowed to disagree? When are you able to stand up and

say what that person is saying is wrong? Life says it can't say that Ilhan Holm are very defensive about out the anti Semitic Muslim congresswoman from Minnesota very defensive. We should start asking questions about why that is and what they think the rules are going to be that the rest of us have to follow when it comes to members of Congress, people in the media, elected officials. If you're in a protected class, you can say any crazy thing you want, no one's allowed to criticize you.

Or if there are some people that act poorly in response to the crazy things the Democrat says by threatening them the rest of us all have, We're all to be held accountable for that. I'm sorry. I won't be lectured to in that way by people that demonize Brett Kavanaugh as a rapist, by people that said the Covington Catholic kids were evil racists, that completely demean people who are Trump supporters. I mean they lie about people and

destroy them and never give it a second thought. We're going to be lectured to by that media about how we should be more careful in our discourse. I'm sorry, I don't think so, not on my watch, not on my time. We'll be right back. This is an incitement to violence against Congresswoman Omar, against our fellow Americans who

happened to be Muslim. This is part and parcel of what we've seen from an administration that has described Mexican immigrants as rapists and criminals, a man who has called a silence seekers, and he calls the animals an infestation. There you go, incitement to violence from Batteau, who's like so upset about this, and why can't Trump like just be nice and like open his heart to Batou's America. So I'm not I'm not getting ahead of the facts here, folks.

They're straight up saying that that the President United States is calling for violence against a female Muslim minority member of Congress. That's what they're saying. This is the storyline they're going with. And as if that weren't crazy enough, here's a Twitter exchange that you're gonna have to just hear to believe. So Dan Crenshaw, who I'm sure many of you know, Texas Congressman, and he responded to Ilhan Omar.

Now he's a Texas Congresman who also happens to be a combat veteran Navy seal who lost an eye to the shrapnel from an IED and that's why he wears an eyepatch. I'm sure all of you know this, but just in case. Crenshaw responded to Ilhan Omar saying some people who did something with quote first member of Congress to ever describe terrorists who killed thousands of Americans as

some people who did something. Alexandrio Kazio Cortez responded to wounded Purple Heart recipient veteran Dan Crenshaw with the following, you refuse to co sponsor the nine to eleven vict compensation fund, yet have the audacity to drum resentment toward Ilham with completely out of context quotes. Folks, AOC twenty nine year old former bartender, AOC left wing radical imbecile is publicly calling out Dan Crenshaw, decorated navycal combat veteran lost in eye to an ied fighting the Taliban, for

not doing enough to fight terrorism. This is the modern left. There there are no limits to the stupidity, no outer boundaries to the dishonesty. They are completely unself aware about where they really stand in the grand scheme of things

and in the universe of counter terrorism fighting. For Okasio Cortez to publicly lecture Dan Crenshaw, this is kind of a a perfect metaphor for how Democrats and Republican interact on this issue these days, you know, no respect, no deference, no nothing for somebody who has put so much more on the line, knows so much more about the issue and has real, real credibility and gravitas on this little little imbecile. AOC is gonna call out Dan Crenshaw, You know, AOC.

You know he might want to pick up an M four and head to Afghanistan or Iraq and actually get some street cred before you start lecturing Dan Crenshaw on terrorism and nine eleven victims, folks. He would be forthcoming only if he releases the entire report and the underlying evidence to the Judiciary Committee, which has been done in every previous instance where they were looking into presidential or

other misconduct. That would be now the Judiciary Committee is the proper locus for deciding what has to be withheld from the public. Again, that's what's been done in the past to deny the Judiciary Committee in the Congress. The knowledge of what's in parts of the Malor report is

not proper. And of course, uh the Attorney General when he started talking completely without evidence as he said about spying on the Trump campaign, when he when what he meant was executing judicially ordered Lawrence showed his bias and the fact that he's really acting as as a personal agent to the president rather than as the Attorney General of the United States in this matter. Everything this guy Nadler says is not true. I mean, it's it's almost amazing.

You almost stand back with a degree of wow on your face when this guy talks. Wow. Congressman Nadler just trying so hard to rewrite the script here make it seem like, Oh, that's right, bar is such a bad guy, you can't trust him. And who believes this non Oh, unfortunately Democrats do. Spying is spying, folks. I worked for a spying agency for years. I spent my twenties as a spy agency employee. And let me tell you something. National security letters and fieser warrants and phone taps and

email capture, and that is spying. If someone came in from China and said, I'm not spying, I'm just secretly listening to the communications of senior government officials or people tied to the Trump campaign and reading their emails, you'd say, oh, that's a spy. You wouldn't say, oh, well, that was ordered by the government of China. Therefore, it's not no, that's spying. Spying is the clandestine or surreptitious surveillance or

acquiring of information. That's all it is. That's the definition. So yes, they were spying on the campaign. That they that they still want to fight this fight just shows how delusional the Democrats are, and they're also desperate to try and set up a narrative that is favorable to them in advance of the release, which we have been told today the Mulla Report drops Thursday. The Mula Report

will be out Thursday. I believe Thursday morning. I will have to speed read that thing like nobody's business, because it's my business to speed read it, and hopefully by the time I get on air at six o'clock, I will have read through, if not all of it, a vast majority of it. I think it's four hundred pages with maybe one hundred redacted, is what I heard today, So three hundred pages I could get through. I get through three hundred pages is by showtime. That'll be my plan.

So I've read the whole report Thursday, want to come on air because you know, the Democrats are going, oh my gosh, you know there's look at all the obstruction. That's what's gonna that's what's gonna up in here. They're going to say that there was plenty of grounds for obstruction, but the president got bailed out, because you know that's what happened. Republicans are the ones who get bailed out, not Democrats. Sure, buddy, sure, stay all that one. Nadler

was on one of the boring CNN shows. But this is what he said about obstruction. Play eleven. Attorney General Bill Barr. He did reach a conclusion. He says there is not sufficient evidence to establish that the president obstructed justice.

Does that end the debate over obstruction of justice? Well, certainly not, especially since Attorney General Bar, before he became Attorney General, wrote a long memo in which he said that a president could not obstruct justice because the president is the boys to the Justice Department and could order it around to to to in student an investigation, to

eliminate investigation, and could not be questioned about that. In other words, he thinks that as a matter of law, a president can't obstruct justice, which is a very wild and theory to which most people do not do not agree. Um and the fact of the matter is we should see and judge for ourselves, and that's for Congress to judge whether the president obstructive justice or not, and for the public ultimately. It's not It's not the Bailey Wick of the Attorney General. It is not. No, it is

not the Bailey Wick of the Attorney General. Again, everything Nadler says it's wrong. This guy just goes on TV just says wrong things wrong, wrong, wrong, wrong. It is an avalanche of wrong from from Congressman Nadler every time he opens his mouth on television these days. Let's just start with this. His whole old bar thinks that you can't be guilty of obstructure. Editor h. Mueller didn't didn't want obstruction charges either, chief, So where does that leave you?

Is Muller ind on this too? Oh oh, don't think the Democrats are past that. Don't think that that's off the table. Mueller must have played golf once at a Trump resort and and somebody there made a made a play for cultivating Mueller is a deep, deep, deep, deep secret asset to only be deployed, you know, twenty years in the future when Trump would need I mean, people are crazy, crazy about this stuff. Mueller said no obstruction because there was no obstruction. Mueller said no charges because

they couldn't charge him. Do you really think for one second that Mueller would have skipped the opportunity to look like a hero to the fifty percent of the country that absolutely hates Donald Trump with a burning passion if they think of how many zeros would be added to Muller's memoir if only he had just he doesn't have to even win the case, just bring the charges against just say that the president has to be charged. But

they always leave this out. They hope that people are not paying close enough attention to know what's really true here. So Mueller is a part of this, and then is just you know, for him to claim that the attorney general isn't the one who makes this determination, it's like he doesn't care what you know, he just doesn't care what the truth is. He just doesn't It doesn't matter to him that it is obviously the case that this this false attorney general. I would also note folks who

bailed out Hillary for clearly violating the law. I mean, she, you know, Hillary was the equivalent of like she had a giant bag of weed and they found her and she's on video and she's like, yeah, I got a giant bag of weed, like and then they just made it go away. I mean Hillary's charges were the Justi Smollette of Espionage Act charges, as in, it could not be more on, I mean, the hoax part of it. It could not be more obvious what happened. Why didn't

Hillary get charged? Oh? Because the justice system worked. No, because the Attorney General and James Comey and Lauretta Lynch, they made up an excuse for her. They didn't say she didn't do it. They just they're not going to charge her because she didn't mean it. That that was what the excuse was. She didn't mean it. Let's not be mean to her. I'm nice, she says. It's an entirely different situation with Trump and Muller. We know that

Trump wasn't getting the benefit of the doubt. Look at what they did to the people around Trump that they could charge. But no matter what comes out of this report on Thursday, the Democrats are going to claim it their's obstruction because the machinery of propaganda is already in motion. And what they're going to say is, see the president of the United States committed obstruction. We need to now consider impeachment charges. We need to consider how we punish

the president for this terrible transgression. And then they want to drag that out. You're going to hear about obstruction and obstruction and obstruction for the next nine months on an endless loop from Democrats. They're never going to let it drop until they think it is no longer useful for them, even if you and I know that they're crazy. By the way, this is what the people that read you know, the Slate dot Com, the New York Times

editorial page, watch CNN. They're gonna love all this obstruction talk now, can't get enough of it. It's gonna be like catnip for them. Scooby snacks except obstruction shrewber Wow, I need to work on my That was a terrible Scooby screwy. Nope, still bad. My Scooby is not good. Guys, got a code, read myself. We're gonna hit a quick break. We'll be right back. The fire that they're having at the Notre Dame Cathedral is something like a few people

have witnessed. When we left, we had a whole group of your great representatives, and when we left the plane. It was it was burning at a level that you rarely see a fire burn. It's one of the great treasures of the world, the greatest artists in the world. Probably if you think about it, I would say Jovida. It might be greater than almost any museum in the world. And it's burning very badly. It looks like it's burning to the ground. But it's a terrible sight to behold.

Horrific today watching the cathedral of Notre Dame in Paris just in a blaze. It was hard to believe. At first. I saw the initial screenshots of it on social media and I thought, this is some this is some really bad sick joke that someone is spreading this. Maybe it's fake news. You know, you just don't want to believe it at first. Sure enough, the tallest single part, the main the highest of all the peaks of Notre Dame Cathedral came down the highest tower and people watched it

as it was all on flames. And this is a it was for me. I had to turn it off. I couldn't keep watching it. It felt like watching a surveillance video of somebody walking around the louver with a sledge hammer. You know, just just smashing Michelangelo and da Vinci and Monet, and you know, just just walking around the Metropolitan Museum of Art in New York City with a razor blade and just taking it to all the great Renaissance works and it was just horrible. You know.

I've been to Notre Dame Cathedral at least three or four times, and it is one of the most beautiful single structures in the world in my opinion, And there's so much history. Stretches back to the twelfth century. It has been standing in the city of Paris through plagues and through pestilence and through war, and you know, as many were pointing out today, even survived the Nazis. But one one spark, one flame. We don't know yet exactly what happened here. I know producer Mike is a little

he's suspicious of at least foul play. I think we could say that, Mike. I'm I'm withholding judgment so far. The reporting that look, I'm not there, I'm not on the scene. I can't ask anybody any specific questions about it. The reporting that I'm seeing is saying that they they believe that this was some kind of a terrible accident. We'll see, we'll find we'll find out more. All right, Mike, you're a little suspicious, fair to say, Yeah, Mike is

suspicious of what's going on here? I am. I'm waiting on this one. I don't see any I don't see any evidence to point to other than just saying, you know, I'm going with my gut on what could have happened here. But it's it's terrible, and it's it look at it's a reminder that nothing is permanent. It's actually a line from from Game of Thrones, which I did watch over this weekend with the new season, and you know, there's a linear who says, you know, everything essentially everything fades.

I forget exactly how we said it, but that's the young people keep their distance from old people because old people remind them that nothing is permanent. Even the cathedral of Notre Dame, which has been around for you know, going on a millennium, nothing is permanent. Now they were able to save the outer structure, I believe it's not. It has not completely burned down, so there's some you know, the main structure has been saved. But it's people think

when you think of Paris. I mean that the two, the two physical structures that come to mind are at least for me and I think for most people, uh, Notre Dame and the Eiffel Tower. And the Eiffel Tower is very visible, but it's nowhere near I think the same. First of all, nowhere near the historical significance of Notre Dame,

but also nowhere near the spiritual significance. Even if you are not a believer, even if you're not a Roman Catholic or a Christian of any kind, Notre Dame was a manifestation of physical beauty on earth that was awe inspiring, and in that sense it was pointing to the divine. Whatever the divine means for the individual in this case, there was something awe inspiring about it. It was a tremendous, you know, tremendous monument to what human beings were capable

of in the twelfth century. And then when you add added to it all the spirituality and the role that cathedrals like Notre Dame played in Western civilization and in the spread and growth of the best parts of Western civilization, those that we would like to see replicated by the rest of the world, including the not West. I think it is. It's a hard day for a lot of people.

It really was like like a dear friend to the whole world was consumed with flames, and just for for no reason, for no reason, at least no reason that we know of. Right now, you had people watching this in real time, A lot of social media has posts up about this. There there is I would be remiss if I didn't say that that Notre Dame has featured in attacks that were planned, at least in by by

different ISIS groups. I mean, Notre Dame is a very very visible symbol of not just Paris and France, but of Christianity in the West, and so there have been failed attacks, there have been aboarded attacks, there have been disrupted plots stretching back for for many years. I don't have any evidence right now of any of that. If I did, I would, you know, I would not be

shy about making that, making that analytic determination. But I think right now we have to assume that the reports were seeing so far are accurate in the reports, or that there was construction ongoing. And I do believe I saw that there weren't any construction workers during this blaze, but it might have been electronic electric equipment left behind it.

I don't know. I'm not a fire expert either, so this is not something that I usually can bring more than a lay person's interpretation of people were crying though, I mean it's really really affected them. There's something that is very magical and memorable about Notre Dame and I've, as I said, I've been there and it's one of those things that you always you always remember the first time you see it, you always remember the first day that you are in its presence. It feels almost like

a living being that you are visiting. I'm glad that they're able to save some of it from total destruction, but it's a sad day, a sad day for the West, and to start off Holy Week this way also has a lot of people feeling ill at ease as long as Democrats continue to ignore the crisis at the border, and we have to look at all options across the table so that the town's right there on the border aren't taking on the entire burden, and that we're shifting

some of that burden to places who constantly claim to want to have open borders and want to have an open city nobody thinks that this is the ideal solution. But until we can fix the crisis at the border, we have to look at all options. This is one of them. Whether or not it moves forward, that's yet to be determined. I thought that Democrats and sanctuary cities couldn't get enough illegal aliens. I thought the illegal aliens were the foundation of America. According to left right, this

is what we've been told for a long time. Now, they do the jobs Americans won't do. They commit fewer crimes than Americans. They're they're better than Americans. I mean, this has become a mantra on the left. This has become a very oft repeated claim, and you hear it from all over the place that Democrats really must believe

this because they say it all the time. And yet here we are looking at the issue of sanctuary cities and the possibility of transferring people two sanctuary cities who have just arrived at the border, and lo and behold, what a shock. The illegal aliens getting dropped off in in downtown Los Angeles by the bus load is not something that Democrats are excited about. Well, well, why is that? Now? I would make the argument, and I have. I think

this is a prize in people. I think illegals would like it, meaning that I think that for a lot of them to be brought to it, because otherwise, you know, if the government doesn't move them somewhere, and the government's not going to be a door to door ferrying service for these people, right, So it's not if you have

relatives in Peoria. I don't think that the federal government's gonna say, oh yeah, we're gonna just put you on a plan and take you there or you know, here you go, We're gonna drive you ourselves to Peory, Illinois. I don't think it's going to happen. But to be dropped off in a major city, for a lot of them,

that's probably gonna be a good thing. And if it's not the thing, the only reason would be that they have family in this country already and that they're scamming the system, right, I mean, if they're true refugees, you would think that this wasn't about trying to link up with people in this country that they already know who are here. They're not true refugees though, so we it's not clear how many. I don't I don't think they even tracked this, how many of them have an internal

sponsor ready to go for them when they arrive. I would guess a lot of them do. But for those that don't, yeah, you probably do want to get dropped off in Los Angeles or San Francisco or you know, places that are close to the border like that that are sanctuary cities. Why doesn't Los Angeles get excited about this prospect? Now? I saw share? But what was it?

The chair over the weekend tweeted, I got I gotta find this real quick because this was this was kind of a wow wow moment because the President, President Trump responded to this share said something about sanctuary cities that got retwet tweeted and people were very by the President United States. Here you go? What was that? What was the tweet mic that she said? Okay, here you go? This is share the sent do you do you believe your life after live? That is not a good share impersonation.

But you know what I'm you know, I'm talking about believe. It's it's kind of an I'm getting closer. I'm getting closer. Yeah, yeah, make fun of me all you want. Yeah, I know I deserve that. That sounds that sound a little bit like like somebody from the Muppets? Do you believe your life after live? But Share tweeted out, I understand helping struggling immigrants, but my city, Los Angeles isn't taking care

of its own. What about the fifty thousand plus citizens who live on the streets, people who live below the poverty line and are hungry. If my state can't take care of its own men, our vets, how can it take care of more? Hold on, hold the phone, Hold on a second here, whoa whoa whoa nice shooting? Share?

What do you mean that we could have a conversation about taking care of those already in this country that are poor and needy before bringing an additional million poor and needy people into the country who are coming in illegally and aren't Americans in any way, shape or form. Is that and is that a conversation we could at least have. Well that's a racist, right, That's what they'll say.

That's what the left will say. But because of the back last to this, it should it should surprise no one that Share because the president, President Trump retweeted her, and now she's walking it. She's walking it back. Those who can must take Oh no, I'm sorry, this is a pardon me. She changed her mind from US September twenty seventeen tweet, So she's actually shifted towards Trump, not away from Trump. Pardon me. And here's what she said in seven twenty seventeen. Those who can must take a

dreamer into their home and protect them. I'm ready to do this, and others of my business will do the same. Sanctuary, sanctuary, she says. But Share, the singer of share Fame, she all of a sudden, has a different, different approach to this, recognizes that, oh, that's right, maybe adding to the roles of those who need government assistance when we already have quite a poverty problem in Los Angeles right now. If

you spend any time there. Last time I was there, I saw it tent cities and people living in tents all over the streets. It's unsanitary, it's dangerous. It is a blight for the communities that have to deal with this. I mean, you should not have people living on the streets in cities made up of tents, you know, and cardboard, But that's what you have in some parts of And these are people that are in some cases choosing, choosing to be homeless, choosing to live a life on the streets.

It's not just people that are down on their luck. There is this decision to be a vagrant that is more and more a thing. I'm not saying it's a majority of them, but there are people that are choosing a life of vagrancy. Then there was all this challenge back to the sanctuary cities and the transferring of them. There was this whole challenge about whether or not this

is legal. And I just I like it that Tom Homan, who was the former acting ICE director, every time I see him in Fox News in the Great Room, he's like, Buck, I loved your head. I'm like, Tom, that's so funny because I loved your head right before. We see this issue very eye to eye, probably because we both. I mean, he knows a tremendous amount of issues he's been handling for decades. But we've been doing our deep dives into this. And here's what Tom said about the challenges to the

legality of this whole situation. People are saying, oh, no, you can't do that, it would be illegal. Well play with eight. I don't understand what they're talking about. Legalities because we already moved people. When I was the ICE director, we moved people all of the country. ICE moves aliens all of the country, different facilities in all fifty states.

And I tell you something, we're right now. We're moving you know, a company alien children at government expense first or moved to an h chess facility, and once they find a parent sponsor at government expense, they're moving to h Chess facity to reunite with a parent or sponsor. Have to deal with the consequences of their failures and their resistance. Administration Coigress has failed on this issue. The reasons they're caravans at the boarder to begin with is

because Congress hasn't to loopholes in the law. Nancy Pelosi, Governor Newsom, two people who've been pushing for WelCom borders in California, such a welcoming state. I would think they'd applaud this effort, saying they moved people all over the all over the country, already spending a lot of money doing it too. Why are the Democrats opposed to this?

Notice is a trend among the left, among the Democrats that they say they're in favor of things until all of a sudden you're going to give it to them, and unless they can get out of it, unless it doesn't apply to them, Oh well then they've got Then they got a problem. Then they've got a problem. They don't want to live under the rules they want to make us live under. They don't want to pay the

taxes they want you to pay. They don't want to have their schools overrun with you know, English as a second language instruction and you know recently arrived to legals who if there are from war torn countries or countries with tremendous poverty and problems, are going to need additional school resources, just the just a fact. You know, the problems of crime and lawlessness that come to communities where there's and you might say, well buck, but the overall numbers.

I want no MS thirteen gangsters in this country. I want none. And I know that there are some who are born here, are from here, but I don't want any additional ones. This is why you have screening processes. This is why immigration is a process a system. If what the left beliefs about immigration now is true, someone has to explain to me why we should have an

immigration system at all. If whoever shows up at our border is worthy and a good person and should be an American, which is a whole other step, right, we should be brought into the American family. If anyone who shows up at our border falls into that category, then why have an immigration system at all? Why not just have you know, why not have an open border? Left has no answer for this. They just have accusations and taunts, tell you you're racist, to tell you're a bad person.

And if you try to engage them on this issue, you just hear talking phone talking points and then outrage because intellectually their position is just untenable. It makes no sense, It is self contradictory, and they don't want to accept it. Their open borders, but they are bring the illegal earlier. They call them the illegals. I call them the illegals.

They came across the border illegally. Will bring them to sanctuary city areas and let that particular area take care of it, whether it's a state or whatever it might be. California certainly is always saying, oh, we want more people, and they want more people in their sanctuary cities. Well we'll give them more people. We can give them a lot. We can give them an unlimited supply. And let's see if they're so happy. They say we have open arms.

They're always saying they have open arms. Let's see if they have open arms. And President Trump has managed to troll the Democrats into refuting what you would think is a mainstream position for them, which is that the more the more sanctuary city immigrants legal immigrants you can gather one place, the better they should. They should absolutely be

in favor of this, but they're not. In fact, they are are claiming, as I just mentioned before the break, that the issue here is one of legality that the president can't do. It would be illegal for him to do this. Play clip nine. This is Jerry Nadler, whose legal analysis is terrible, but this is what he said. The President has no right to spend money appropriated by Congress for the purposes to ship immigrants solo over the country.

Nor is it right for the president to use immigrants or people who are claiming political asylum as pawns in a fight against political opponents. Why why are they being used as pawns? Why aren't they a gift from Trump directly to these actuary cities? What would be wrong with this. Democrats never get to why they oppose it, what's the problem, why would this scare people? Right? Democrats are very convinced that there's no downside from any of this, so it

should be fine, it should be great. And as for no right to ship immigrants around the country. This as we mentioned before Tom Holm, and this happens constantly. They're shipping immigrants all over the country. This is what an immigration and custom enforcement has to do. They're they're spending all this money reuniting kids with their parents. What they say, what it really is is parents that came here illegally in many cases are now in a position where their

kids shows up at the border. The kid gets essentially a taxpayer funded ferry service to take him or her to the illegal parent anywhere in the country, got to reunite them with the family. No questions asked about that. It's astonishing, it really is. They have no real response to any of this from the left other than the usual stuff about how it's you know, we're so racist, we're so terrible. Um. You know, the people take the Bernie Sanders approach, which is just to trash the president.

You know, if he's all these things that they say he is. Why can't they make better arguments about why Trump is wrong? Why did his always devolve into this name calling? You know, I have had so many disagreements with Democrats. I mean, I have disagreement with Democrats every day. It's what I do. But I'm not always just running around saying how they're a bunch of bigots and racists and this and that. I mean, their policies are crazy,

so I call them crazy. But you know, here's a taste of how Bernie responds to the president and how he refers to the president. I still think Bernie's gonna be the Democrat nominee play for can I understand why people voted for Trump. I got that, But the sad trip is, and I'm not the first person to save us. We have a president who he is a pathological lawyer, lawyers my favorite day. I mean, the media has stopped invented thousands of lies that he has pulled, and he

lied during the campaign. That's right, that a sexist, all racist, all texist, a homophobe, all of these things. Such a focus on the name calling, why not a focus on the policies. Here, here's why Bernie Sanders said, it's understandable why people voted for Trump. Here's one reason why they voted for Trump because they know that the federal government overall, both parties, and the media have been lying to them about immigration for for years, if not decades, just lying

about it. It's always it's always, you know, illegal immigration specifically, it's always a good thing. It's great. We need more of it, no problem, we got it under control. We're deporting a lot of people. All this is nonsense. There are eleven million illegals in the country. No, no serious

person believes this. Zo Well put the number. If you think that survey data, voluntary survey data, is sufficient to tell you how many people are hiding in this country illegally, they're not really hiding, but living in the country illegally.

I think that there's a chance, and it depends on how the base really feels about Trump that he sails to reelection in part because the Democrats are so deeply un serious on the issue immigration and the crisis at the border is so clearly something that they are in favor of, that they advocate for that the American people, at least those who aren't completely ideologically aligned with the far left and with the left wing aims of the Democrats, that the American people are just going to say, I

can't do this. You know, if they're not going to secure the border, we can't put them in power. We can't put Democrats in charge. Even if Trump is imperfect on the issue, at least he's saying the right things. At least he's trying to do something. What Democrats are trying to do is continue the crisis, make things worse, and that, for me, could be a deciding factor I think in Trump's reelection. I mean not just for me, but I mean that in my analysis of this could

be why Trump wins. If the economy is strong and the Democrats just continue this posture of being de facto open borders. I don't see how you could have a Democrat defeat president of the next election cycle. I just don't see it. Do we get a massive recession, I keep saying that's gonna be that's the game change. Remember

that happened. People forget that Obama got very lucky. You had an eight years of a Republican president and then a huge recession and one that was really felt at the time like it could be catastrophic financially and economically, and Obama came in in with his hope and change and all this stuff, and as a result, we had the worst recovery from a recession since the Great Depression.

As much as Democrats want to pretend that the stimulus was some great savior of the country, it's just Obama was not a good steward of the recovery, nor was he a good steward of the economy overall. But he did get lucky. From an election perspective, the Republicans have been in power and then all of a sudden things look pretty bad and people decided they wanted something new.

If that happens, Bernie Sanders saying, you're gonna get free distant, free that, free college, free healthcare, free cookie, show up at the show up at a rally, get a free cookie. Daniell probably be able to He'll probably be able to win. That's my real concern. I don't think Congress, particularly not this group of congressmen and women, are smart enough to look through the thousands of pages that I would assume that President Trump's taxes will be. My guess is most

of them don't do their own taxes. And I certainly don't trust them to look through the decades of success that the president has and determine anything. Democrats still fired up over President Trump's taxes. But it's leading nowhere, folks. That's a pretty confident prediction from yours, truly. But I care about our taxes, as in I had to go and stand in line today and deal with the Post Office to make sure that Uncle Sam is getting enough

of my stuff. And I just find it very, very frustrating that here we are paying all the taxes we do, but the tax cut happened. There's some other stuff, taxes, taxes. Who we turn to for insight on this matter, Matty Duppler aka Dupples to me, at least she is with us now. She is the president of Forward Strategies and a tax wonk walk extraordinaire, Matty. Great to have you back, Hey Bock, So you're down to the wire. How one

of those people have silent to minute? I? Well, you know, I filed for an extension, but I still had to write a big fat check. So what should what should we think about where we are right now? Matt? I mean the President's tax cut. He talks about it a lot GOP's all excited about it. But I'll put aside for a moment that we didn't elect Trump just to cut taxes. I mean, that's one of many things you

wanted him to do. But how good a tax cut was this really because it feels like I'm still giving them the money, way too much money to the government. You're still giving way too much to the money to the government, no doubt about it. But but this was the first time that we have had wholesale tax reform in a generation. Thirty one year that took to reform the tax code, and Trump, President Trump was the one who was able to do it, So you have to

give him credit there. Now, over the last eighteen months since the debate on tax reform started, there has been so much at missinformation out there that it's pretty much borderline criminal how much the establishment press got it wrong on the tax cut. You thought today in the front pages of the New York Time Time talking about how there was a lot of misleading data out there, But in reality, the majority of Americans received the tax cut.

And since today is the first time Americans are filing their taxes under the new code, they need to understand that after months of being lied to, four out of five taxpayers in the United States got a tax cut as a result of the Tax Cutting Jobs Act. And you hear a lot, especially now that we're going into another presidential cycle, about Americans paying their fair share, we

need more taxes on rich people. But what the Tax Cut and JOBSAC did was it actually increase the share the burden on the higher income earners in this country. It increased the progressivity in the tax code. And even though those high income earners still got a tax cut, the people who are benefiting the most are those who are in the middle income brackets because they were the ones who had the largest share of their after tax

income increased thanks for the Tax Cutting Jobs Act. If you make fifty thousand dollars a year in this country roughly speak. Now, I know there's deductions and blob the blot all that, but roughly speaking, how much more hash do you have in your pocket for the year this past year twenty eighteen because of Trump's tax cut. So back, the typical American family of four is making about seventy two grand a year in this country and they over

two thousand. Yeah, they are making over They are over two thousand dollars richer as a result of the tax cut in jobs. And that's not just because their tax rate was reduced, which is true for income earners across

the scale. It's also because they doubled the child tax credit and the eligibility for the child tax credit was expanded, So not only do you have a bigger child tax credit, you might be eligible for it when you weren't able to cash it in it Before the AMT, the alternative minimum tax, which is essentially a double tax structure where most tax filers had to do their taxes twice and then pay the highest number of their taxes, that was

diminished a little bit. Five million people fell out of the AMT, and as a result they now have more tax credits and deductions that they can take. Other parts of the task Coude that you don't hear a lot about, but our really important expansion of five twenty nine savings accounts. This allows families to use tax free savings not just for college, but for primary and secondary education. As you know, we've got a labor shortage in this country, we've got

a training epidemic in this country. Allowing families to use money for diverse education needs. It's certainly a way to help the average American family in this country. And you know, you don't hear a lot about the ways of this tax code help that average American family, because we have to remember, Democrats did not vote for this tax bill. Not a single Democrat could say, yes, I want to cut race for the every American, I want to cut

rates at every level of the income tax code. I want to give a double child tax credit, I want to expand the eligibility for the child tax cred and the use of five twenty nine. Not a single Democrat could say that that was a good move for the American people. I think that the American people will remember that, particularly today if they're like you, waiting in line to write a check to the government and not particularly pleased about it. The corporate tax cut was how important and

how effective? Because what you hear and I've been treated to a lot of this in the last few weeks on the set of Rising, where we have a bunch of Democrat Marxists who come on to talk about how this was all just for the rich people. What do you say to those who claim that the corporate tax cut was just giving fat cats more cash and doesn't help average Americans. I find this argument to be so interesting because you can't look around any corner without economic

data that just proves it. Now, the President was very clear when the tax bill was being negotiated. He had two major objectives with getting it done. One was delivering a middle class tax cut. The other was making the United States competitive. Again. We had the highest corporate tax rate in the developed world, and we were trying to compete with countries that had cut their corporate tax rates so much that they were ten percentage points below where

the American rate was. Not only that American companies repeatalized whenever they earned money overseas and try to bring it back because we were one of the only countries where we forced companies to pay taxes twice on those profits. Tax cutting jobs that got rid of that. It creates a more competitive environment by lowering that corporate tax rate to twenty one percent, And the result of that is what we hear about every month when we're talking about

jobs numbers. And the Bureau of Labor Statistics releases their report at the first Fronday Friday of every month. In twenty eighteen, for the first time, in ten years, the average American worker finally started to see a pay increase. And that's because when you reduce those barriers on corporate profits, corporations then can take that money and invest it back into their companies as a means of making their workers

more productive. When workers are more productive, they are allowed to demand more labor, more value for their labor, and they are paid more. So that's why you're seeing wages rise now. And that's why you had not seen wages rise even though the economy has started to expand the

beginning ten years ago. This was a very secular expansion in recovery because workers did not see their wages rise at all, because we still have that corporate tax rate that created so much obstruction to growth that workers cann't get their piece of the pie and not for enough in bucks. The people who are benefiting the most are

the bottom ten percent of those workers. They are the ones who are seeing their wages rise faster than any other cohort who in that economic picture, their wages are rising faster than they have since two thousand, that's almost a twenty year gap, well before we've seen that kind of rate of increase. So for the people who are coming on rising, who are telling you that it's only the fatcasts on Wall Street who are getting rich. They

are not paying attention to the economic data. They are not paying attention to the average American and their story that's being told across this country. And they better wake up because they keep ignoring that. What they're going to do is they're going to fuel another I think, embrace of a Trump presidency. Whatever happened to real tax simplification? Why is it that the tax code is still over

seventy thousand pages. Ted Cruz was campaigning on doing your taxes on a postage card or postage whatever you call it. A what do you send people with the postcard? Yeah, thank you? A postcard English not really my first language. Apparently on a postcard. Trump said, simplification is going to happen. I understand that there's been some collapsing of rates and such, But the tax code, as far as I understand it

is still tens of thousands of pages. Why why can't we get a tax code that's like two pages, Maddie or one right? It is still far too complex. There have been strides made in making it less complex. On the individual side. You see that with now nine out of ten filers are just taking the standard deduction because the Tax Cutting Job Back doubled the standard deduction, so it made that the most lucrative tax break for individual

earners to take. The National Tax parag Union, where I'm a senior fellow, they released the report every year that talks about tax complexity and what the burden is that it puts on the economy, and that tax burden was decreased by about forty one million hours as a result of the Tax Cutting Jobs Act. There's still a lot of work to be done on the side of the corporate tax rate and the business side is things that

still remains far too complex. If you can get rid of some of those complexities, that will shave off the cost that it takes to administrate the tax burden and for companies to comply, and that will mean more money and more economic turn back to the private enterprise, which of course allows the United States to become and stay the most competitive economy in the world. Maddie Duppler, you do taxes like nobody else does taxes. Maddie, it's amazing.

That's a dubious distinction. But thanks for having me up. I know you. You're a super busy today. This woman's scout like fifty TV and radio hits over the course of tax Day because everyone else is like explained the taxes to me. Mattie, Maddie, thank you so much, so forward strategies. Everybody. You can follow Mattie on Twitter as well. Duples you rock the COSBA. Thanks back, All right, team, We'll be right back. My name is Carlos Gazatua. I'm

the president for Sergio's Family Restaurants in Miami, Florida. Are business has been in business for over forty four years, on third generation running the business. It's a woman based organization that started nineteen seventy five and now we currently have over six hundred and fifty employees into South Florida. I want to tell you that the tax cuts are working. Here's what we're doing. We're investing in equipment and technology. We've created jobs in our corporate infrastructure to create a

franchise system and for our stores. And today I am proud to announced with you that we'll be offering four one case to all of our employees tomorrow. Real positive change for a business owner, for a job creator down in Florida. Who's saying, Look, tax cuts have been a godsend for Austin, for our business, for our workers, for our employees. Government's never going to make you rich. Government's never going to make you happy. The government's never going

to make you safe. This is what democrats don't understand. Government's not your friends, not there to hug you, keep you warm and safe at night. The government is there to protect our rights and to engage in activities that are clearly defined in the constitution. That is it. So when these people who come from the left, and there are even some on the right as well, suggest that, you know, it's the government's business to be creating jobs, the government should be the one that are the ones

that are focused on this. Oh, if we want if we want jobs, what we need is an infrastructure bill. Yeah, that's what's going to do it. You know, what we really want is to get the government out of the way of people that are creating jobs by providing goods and services that people want and want more of, and want increasingly efficient delivery of those things at better prices. That's what people want. The tax cuts are always just we're just filled with all these lies about what happened

to them. I mean, the way that people have in the media talked about this is completely dishonest. It's really hard when when you look at this to come away and not think, oh, so this was really a victory of fake news. I mean, this is a thread from my friend David Harsanyi, you know who we have on this show on a on a pretty regular basis, and he pulled together a whole bunch of different ways that

Democrats were talking about the tax cuts. And what it shows you is that the tax cuts we're just lied about so much that it worked and people didn't take the time. They didn't they didn't, you know, have enough initiative on their own. So they've got other things to do to look into all this. But here you go. This is a story Metro dot us goop tax bill will kill ten thousand people a year, says economist Larry Summers.

This is on the Hill dot com Pelosi gop GOP tax bill the worst bill in the history of Congress. Meet some of the victims of the Trump tax plan. This is a Yahoo Finance piece Washington Post. It's not enough to give money to rich people. Apparently Republicans want to kick the poor and middle class in the phase two. This is according to a supposedly serious economist at the Washington Post, this is amazing, opinion, a tax plan to

turbo charge inequality in three charts. Tax cuts that mainly benefit the wealthy and spending cuts that mostly hit everyone else will only widen the gap. So oh, here we go, CNN. Trump's tax tax cuts are a bust. The ominous absurdity of Trump's tax cuts. Five false or misleading things Trump said in his speech about taxes. It's just this is just all It's all propaganda. I mean, I can go

on and on and on. It's all propaganda. They say things like, oh, well, the most of the benefits go to the rich, not as a proportion of money and wealth. It doesn't. And here's what do you end up finding out is that if you look at this tax and we just talked to Mattie Deppler, who's a true tax experts, a friend of mine, if you look at what happened here,

everybody has more money. But the media's fake news was so successful in this process that here we are on tax Day and I am steamed about how much time and effort and money I had to give the government in order to comply with my taxes. I think more Americans should be upset about this. We shouldn't just like a bunch of penned in cows ready to be milked, except that government has put us through all of this

and takes as much from us as it does. But you still have most people thinking that they didn't get money that they got because they were lied to. This was an exercise in fake news by the media to undermine something that the Trump administration clearly did and accomplished, which was the tax cut. They said they would do it, and they did it. There have been serious benefits from it, but they want to pretend that there's been nothing. In fact, it's bad for people. They've been led to believe it's

bad for them. This is why you can't trust what these left wing outlet's say, and some of them read you last week. I think it was the guy from vox who was raising this as an issue to be out of. See, we fool them. We fool enough of those dumb Americans into thinking that they don't have more money because of Trump's tax cut. When they do, ha ha ha, we win. This is how the left thinks about this. Do they care that that means that people

are you're going to talk about undermining democracy. I mean, they're just spreading lies that people vote differently than they should based upon what is in their interest. It is in the interest of American households to have more money. They have more money now, but they don't think they have more money because the Democrats have been lying to them and saying, oh, look at how your refund is smaller.

Don't even get me started about how the tax code is just a giant monument to corruption, because it is. It is insider dealing and insider favors, and the tax code is an abomination. But that's a conversation. I guess we'll have to have another day. You have these wings AOC and her group on one side. It's outside people. No, it's the progressive group. Progressive. I'm a progressive. Yeah. However, I do reject socialism as an economic system. If people

have that view, that's their view. That is not the view of the Democratic Party. WHOA hold the phone, stop the presses. The Democrats are not a socialist party. What I thought. I thought they were all on board for socialism. Now they're saying they're not. Oh you mean you mean that they like to talk this big game about how progressive they are, and then when it comes to explaining to the American people, that would mean they get a

little shy all of a sudden. Very interesting here. This is Pelosi, I think, refusing to accept the reality of what is happening in her party. I think she's I think she's wrong. I think the Democratic Party is the party of socialism. Now. I think the far left does control the Democratic Party. I mean she says, that's like five people about AOC and to leave and and these other very progressive left wing Democrats. Well, where's the agenda going.

What do you hear from Democrats? Do you hear democrats talk about how they're gonna fix problems? No, you hear them. And this is now mainstream talking points from Democrats, things like the Green New Deal, which is an environmental plan for people that are just nuts, for crazy people. The Green New Deal. You're going to rebuild every building to make it environmentally friendly in the country. This is normal. People don't think this way. Rational individuals do not take

this approach. It just simply does not make any sense. Here. They are thinking somehow that it does. The Green New Deal is one example of it's just that the demonization of wealth. I mean, look at Bernie Sanders. You know, millionaires, abilions. I'm a millionaire, but I wrote a book, or at least people help me write it. It was ghost written, and now I'm worth billions of dollars, or at least

those I wish I was with billions. You know, Bernie Sanders talking about all the rich people all the time. Notice how a lot of the richest people in the country are left wing Democrats. But there's this this ideological identification that the left has with the poor and the downtrodden, even if it doesn't manifest itself in any meaningful way. Right, the Democrats like to think of themselves as the party of the poor. Meanwhile, the elites in this country are

overwhelmingly Democrats. I mean, the true coastal enclaves of snobbery and hyper wealth are full of Democrats. They're not full of Republicans. I tend to see in my own life that Republicans are people who have had to make it on their own and are making it on their own and have had to work really really hard. Democrats are people who either got lucky, got it handed to them, or are bitter about the fact that they have the money that they do, which is at range but real phenomenon.

People feel guilty about the success they've had, But demonizing success is part of what Democrats do. I mean the notion, I know, we talked a bit about taxes today. This this notion that you have people who make two hundred and fifty thousand dollars a year should be paying the same tax rate as somebody who makes ten million dollars a year. How is that rooted in any fairness? If we're going to use the F word there, how is

that root any fairness? But for the Democrats, it's all about It's all about how it sounds and how it feels. That's what the that's that's how they're making these decisions. That's what's pushing policy forward for them. You know, how does it How does it make you feel that thing that you're saying, How does it? How does it make you? You know, how does it make you think about these things or think about yourself when it comes to these matters.

Pelosi can downplay the far left inner Party as much as she wants, but she knows the power is shifting and has shifted towards them. The Democrats now a far

left party and they're socialists in all but name. And that is why when you have AOC saying that she thinks that Trump should be impeached, I think the Democrats are going to have a very hard time not impeaching this president, even if it would be and I believe it would be politically a bad idea for them, But I think that they have to feed this to their rabid left wing base. I don't see a way around it. Their base will not accept a more measured approach. Their

base will not accept that there could be another way play. Thirteen. This is largely a part, largely a question for our leadership. I think it's this is a very grave problem. But there are so many aspects to this presidency that have posed a grave problem. Is it impeachable in your view? I think you could reach in a bag and pull so many things out that are impeachable of this president. I support impeaching this president. Oh that's new, that's the

new approach on the left. There's so much that you could impeach this president for that you can't even settle on one. Give me one WHOA. Well, I can't because there's so much Okay, that's an interesting way to approach this, isn't it. It's so obvious he should be impeached that you can't think of a single reason to impeach him, because there are endless reasons to impeach him. It almost sounds like they would impeach him just because they don't

like him, doesn't it. Maybe that's what we're really getting at here. Maybe that's what is exposed in this whole process, that it has nothing to do with any specific violations of law or even presidential ethics. It's just they hate the president. They absolutely hate him. You know. I never hated Obama, and I know that maybe it's easy to say that now for people, but I didn't. I didn't

hate Obama. I didn't hate I didn't hate Obama's family, which I think is really weird when people, because a lot of Democrats hate Trump's family, they'll say terrible things about Milannia and barn and I never did that. I didn't feel the need to trash the man's family just because I disagree them. I hated Obama's policies. I didn't like what he stood for, ideologically, I didn't like his decision making as commander in chief. It wasn't about hating Obama.

It's a big difference with what you see in the anti Trump resistance. They actually hate Trump. They hate him. They take a certain self satisfaction and joy from the hatred of this man and his family and those around him and those who support him, which includes you and me. There's a disdain that they cannot hide, a disdain that

grows over time. And AOC feels this staying not just for Trump, but even for those who are associated with Trump in her mind and in the left's mind in this country, like newly re elected net and Yahoo in Israel Play fourteen. I think these are part of conversations that we're having in our caucus. But I think what we're really seeing is the essense of authoritarianism across the world. I think that netun Yahoo is a Trump like figure. Would you be in favor of reducing military or economic

ade to Israel? I mean, I think it's on the table. I think it's not certainly on the table, and I think it's something that can be discussed. Net and Yahoo is in a Trump like figure that speaks so well for Trump in so many ways, isn't it Because the Israeli people, the left wing in Israel on security was wrong. That's what ended up happening. They were wrong, and these really people eventually decided that they weren't going to listen to those who blamed Israel first when it came to

suicide bombers or the Palestinian problem of terrorism. And in this country with Trump, we have a similar phenomenon. At some point we get tired of the lies and the nonsense, and that's what has led to the rise of Trump. The political class in this country has betrayed the American people, lie to the American people far too many times. So if Trump is like net Yahoo and net Yahoo is

like Trump, good for them. Of course, the left just views them both through the same prison, which is one of disdain and hatred, and they can't help themselves no matter what Pelosi says, criminal prosecution for keeping assault weapons. What's the punishment for people who don't hand in their guns? Do they go to jail? Well, Jake, they would, but I also offer an alternative, which would be to keep them at a hunting club or a shooting range. These

weapons are so devastated. I've seen this as a prosecutor in the cases that I've prosecuted. We've seen these and the school shootings from Sandy Hook to Parkland, and it's not just the violence that they've caused. It's the fear, the immeasurable fear that our children live in because they are still on our streets. I want to get rid of that fear. I want to do what Australia did in New Zealand just recently did. I think this issue just needs some bold leadership to do it. It's not

the violence, Swalwell says, it's the fear. He kind of gave up the game there, folks. Here you have one of the roughly twenty Democrats who are either expected to run or running already for the Democratic presidential nomination. Swalwell who covered himself in absolute garbage for two years as one of the primary voices on Russia Trump collusion. I mean he was, he was out there saying all kinds

of crazy stuff. Now he's building his presidential run around many things, I guess, but the primary one he's known for is that he opposes the Second Amendment. He wants to take all assault weapons from you. Now, some of you are probably already saying back, assault weapons aren't really a thing, I know, but that's what he's calling them. He wants to take all semi automatic rifles with cosmetic

features that he finds scary. Because remember, it's not the violence, it's the fear, that's what he said, the fear that our kids have. Who stokes that fear. Who's responsible for creating the perception across the country that kids should be scared in schools. Children actually safer in school now and they were twenty years ago. Numbers don't lie. But who creates this perception? Oh, that's right, the media does. So the media tells us all to be very very very

afraid that our children are all at risk. They don't want to have armed resource officers or people that might be able to do something on the school grounds, or at least they scoff at that, which would be a more serious proposal. To keep in mind, those school resource officers are not just there to stop school shootings in the sense that there could be a mass shooting. They're there in case there are other emergencies on the campus. They're there in case there's a fight that turns, you know,

particularly violent. You know, you might want to have somebody there if two kids pull out switchblades, you probably want an armed resource officer on the school grounds. But they don't like that idea because it feeds into the good guy with a gun stops bad guy with a gun narrative. That's not the narrative they want to tell. The narrative Swalwa wants to tell is that people with assault weapons

and I don't know what to say. I mean, this is what he calls it, right, people with semi automatic rifles are posing this big danger to society and people that have these particularly, they're going to go after the AR fifteen and things like it. That's what they really want. That's the most common semi automatic rifle in circulation right now that they want to ban under assault assault weapon guidelines, and they want to get rid of them because Swawall

says that that's a danger to society. Now, I would have to point out to him that handguns are far more dangerous in terms of the lethality. Handguns are what really kills people in this country. It's ninety percent plus. I think it's ninety might even be more like ninety seven percent plus of the homicides that occur on the firearm are are with a handgun, might even mean ninety nine percent nothing. I mean, it's just almost all of it.

You have roughly one hundred people, thousands and thousands of people a year are shot in this country, and you had roughly one hundred people a year are killed by rifles. And I think that includes suicides by rifle and a long gun shotgun, but it might not include that. It might just be those that are shot with those weapons. Yeah, cut the suicides out. I think that's not that's not in that statistic. But it's less than one hundred a year are killed by rifles or shotguns. Very few people

are murdered with rifles or shotguns. But once every year or two there is an incident where someone takes a semi automatic rifle and for the purposes of mass carnage, just goes around shooting as many people as they can. But as we all know from the Fort Hood shooter, Nidal Hassan, two handguns. I might have been carrying three,

but he used two simultaneously. The Virginia Tech shooter used a handgun and I believe a Tech nine and but you know, did not have long guns and not having a rifle of any kind, so people can engage in mass shootings and kill a whole lot of people without

a rifle. In fact, I think some of you would argue, or you could argue, that a person who goes into a room, you know, with two pistol with extended clips could do every bit as much damage as somebody who goes in there with an r But violence isn't really

the issue. A Swallwell says, fear is the issue. So they create the fear, and then they suggest the way to solve the problem is to ban ownership of these weapons and not just ban the new purchase of it, but to send people to prison if they won't give up their weapons. Now, that's what you have to remember with the gun grabbers is that ultimately they're not just about opposing violence. They're about incarcerating you for wanting to

enjoy your Second Amendment rights. They want to take away your freedom, ruin you, perhaps ruin your life, because you own a semi automatic rifle that you legally purchase and that you are entitled two hundred and second Amendment. There are people like Eric Swawell who are Democrats who are on the left who think that you should be, oh, that's right, separated from your family. That's the family separation

that doesn't bother them. Apparently only the family separation of illegals who are scamming our system at the border that really worries liberals. You being separated from your family because you don't want to hand over you are lawfully obtained semi automatic rifle. They're not gonna lose any sleep over that you go to prison, No big deal. And you see this with the way gun laws are enforced in any of these blue states, where even very minor or

understandable good faith errors are punished severely. And those you who say, buck, there's no such thing. You have to know the laws, It's actually not true. There are good

faith errors that can occur. Otherwise, Explain to me what somebody whose error, whose a flight is diverted to New York and then they have to get on a different flight the next day because of whether they have to recheck their handgun and are arrested, arrested for checking in the handgun that they were legally transporting, not caring, but transporting on an airplane because of whether they get pushed

in New York City. They gotta then, you know, stay in a hotel for the night, they get their firearm in their luggage, and then when they go to recheck their luggage, New York says, well, you don't have a permit for this. You're going to prison. Yeah, that's that's I wouldn't even say that's a good faith error on the part of the gun or that's just that's just completely wrong what they do to that person. They have

no choice. This should be like the government saying, well, we're gonna pick you up in one state and drive you across state lines to where your gun is illegal. You know, stinks for you, but we're gonna make you do that, and then we're going to arrest you for it. Well, but that's not that's not fair, is it. They don't care about fair. It's not about the stopping of violence, folks. It's about the fear. Remember what he said, It's about the fear. They create the fear, they manipulate it, they

expand upon it. Just one more note here on Squaw, who is just deeply unimpressive character that he thinks letting individuals keep their rifle at a range would stop stop all mass shootings, somebody will just take the rifle from that range. This, I mean, it's such a ridiculous idea. It's such a ridiculous compromise to have. In the first place. You have so many millions of these guns already in circulation. All you need is one. One rifle in the hands of a bad guy can kill dozens of people and

has many times in the past. So unless you get every single one of them out of circulation, there's always the chance that someone's going to misuse one. But he thinks that this is the way that we're gonna go forward with us. It just makes no sense at all. It just makes no sense at all. But he's not trying to make sense. He's just trying to placate the Left in their insanity on guns. Whenever you turn over a rock, you tend to find some slimy Democrat character

assassination outfit underneath it. These days, it's just amazing how much this keeps happening over and over again. I haven't covered this yet on the show, but Justice Brett Cavanaugh has gotten all kinds of negative attention from groups recently that say that he should not be allowed to teach a university course through George Mason University, a summer teaching job. They want him fired from a summer teaching job at George Mason University. Students for Mason Force Survivors is the

student group that has been saying this has to happen. Now, this is wrong on so many levels. First of all, if you still believe that Brett Cavanaugh is a sexual predator who was part of this high school gang rape crew, you're a moron. You're actually a moron. If at this point you still believe that you are not an intelligent human being, You do not have a particularly astute or

capable brain. Only an idiot would still believe this. Okay, only somebody or someone who is delusional, right, So it's not that they don't have a fast firing mind, but their mind does not have the judgment that comes from being rooted in reality. So you have to be either stupid or delusional to think that Brett Kavanaugh was a secret rapist all those years, and I mean the women who came out against him, it was all such an

obvious political hit. The third woman was clearly a liar, the second woman was also a liar, and the first woman the more you thought about it, Yeah, she was

a liar too. But this group that's supposed to be student activist trying to stop Brett Kavanaugh from getting his teaching job for the summer through George Mason University, turns out that Demand Justice, which is a liberal advocacy group that Hillary Clinton's twenty sixteen press secretary Brian Fallon runs, is behind the Facebook ad campaign that is going that is specifically going to students at George Mason University, and they want students to sign a change dot org petition

to get kavan off fired. This is what libs do. You'll notice Conservatives don't rush to get people fired all the time. We don't always threaten boycotts. We don't go through life like a bunch of spoiled cry babies who don't know how to operate, who don't know how to function in a world where they don't always get their way.

Liberals just can't handle things, or they're so lacking in honor and integrity that they think any political dispute with somebody is license to ruin their life, to ruin their future. Anytime a liberal disagrees with somebody, Now, if they're important enough, they take it upon themselves to try to get them fired, to try to wage individual economic warfare against people. They're doing it right now against Kirston Nielsen. They do not want Kirston Nielsen to be able to get odd job

now that she has left the Trump administration. They've been very open about this. There are activist groups that are sending letters to corporations, the CEOs all over the country saying, do not hire Kirston Nilsen when you have a sitting Supreme Court justice who was remember at the absolute peak of a legal profession before he became a Supreme Court justice, impeccable credentials, unbelievable background in terms of the kinds of cases he had worked on as an appellate judge and

DC circuit. I mean, this guy was in every respect the gold standard in the legal profession. My friends who are super lawyer nerds were like Cavanaugh from a resume perspective is unbeatable, unbeatable, and also from a character perspective, when you take into account what he's really like and

what people who have worked with him say. Not some smear campaign by left wing activists who just cry a lot, and yet they a former Hillary spokesman, someone with close ties at Hillary Clinton is running this campaign to ruin Cavanaugh by getting people on college, on this college campus, on George Mason University, to say that he should be fired from a job that he was offered. I mean,

these leftists are morons, they really are. You know. Justice Scalia came to speak at Amherst, and the entire political science department, except for my advisor, blessed Professor Arky's boycott the speech. Students refused to go dressed in all black war black armbands, turned their backs next to him. I

don't want to let them know. We were lucky at our little sixteen hundred person school to have a sitting Supreme Court justice come and talk to us, stand up in our chapel and try to enlighten us a little bit about what really happens, what's really going on in jurisprunce. We were lucky. Anyone at George Mason University who would be able to study with Cavanaugh's lucky. But instead you have these leftists who are just complete and utter lons

and cry babies. And it's wrong and it's vindictive, and we need to start fighting back against this. We need to start saying enough is enough. These leftists can't run around like little petty terrorists because that's what they are. Ain't no party like a Team Buck party, because a Team Buck party, don't stop. Yeah, we got bucks turned up to eleven. It's time for roll call. Roll call, everybody,

It's time for the roll call. That's right, Facebook dot com, slash Buck Sexton, if you want in on the roll call, let's get to it. Thanks, this is Brian. Thanks for going back to get some great questions to job Creator Network CEO on Rising this morning. You pushed all the right tax points. I appreciated Alfredo's honest answers. You and Crystal are continue to do a great job on that show.

I'm sure it can be trying at times with some of those far left guests, but the pros far outweigh the cons, one being you get to talk to and hopefully influence powerful people on both sides of the aisle with new perspectives while keeping you on fresh on daily happenings. Keep up the great work, Brian. Well, Brian, that's the nicest thing anyone's written about Rising, so really do appreciate it, my friend. Thank you. I'm glad you enjoy the show.

It is an exercise in patient. Sometimes my co host is a lovely person and we get along famously, but just having a left right conversation, especially with the guests, can be a challenge, can be very, very difficult. So let's see what we get going on in the future there, James writes Buck, I listen to your Friday podcast. I want to echo the comment about the podcast ads. They also hear them. They're not in line with the freedom hunt. I believe it is from your podcast host. They do

not know who it is. I listen to via Amazon Echo. It just pulls the cast McCloud somewhere. Figure you may as well let the NSA here you as well. Shields high. Yeah, James, we're gonna have to see what the hosting we're working on this one. I've had a lot of people say it. I don't know how much control we have over the podcast ads. It might be what's called programmatic, where there's kind of a pre selected run of ads that they do. And this then gets beyond my pay grade because it

turns into revenue generation for the show. So if you want those ads to go away, just keep keep buying black rifle coffee and donate some money to the Leadership Institute and etc. Etc. You know that that'll help us get rid of the podcast ads faster. Dwayne all Right, was the electronics spying on Trump campaign court ordered as COMI says or court approved? Seems two different things. Doubt the court's called up Coomi and ordered him to spy on the campaign, you know, Duaye I, I appreciate the

distinction that you're making there. I think it's a meaningful one because in the context of fish, this isn't there's no opposition. You know, in a normal court of law, when you go before a judge, granted for you know, a search warrant, certain things, the judge just have to has to sign off on it. But in this case, it's all done in secret and the judge just signs off on it. Right, There's there's a a rubber stamping that this process seems to have been become that I

think is definitely problematic. So we'll have to see my friend. But yes, it was really court approved as in the court in this instant, and this may be a problem with other with other instances, other law enforcement requests as well. We have to keep that in mind. But the judge shouldn't just say, oh, you want to listen in on a presidential campaign, Sure, go for it. Richard, right, buck happy,

who's your hellos? Talking to your big brother. While I was listening to your podcast and you mentioned the Panopticon, I went to read more and guess what came up after. I've never looked up that work in my life. The stuff is creepy. On a total side note, the prison and Guardian of the Guardians of the Galaxy, it was a Panopticon Shields and mixtapes high Richard. Yeah, Richard, you always bring insight to the show with your notes. My friend, I do do appreciate eight. Daniel, can you tell me

more about yourself? My name is Daniel. I recently moved to Colorado. I can tell you this Colorado would be every bit as progressive and liberal leftist California if it were a border state and if more people lived here. Some ways it is worse. The red Flag bill is one example. Well, Daniel, if you want to know more about me, you just got to keep listening to the show, because I do talk on this radio show for three hours at a time, and it's the probably the best

single way out there to get to know me. I people who know me in real life kind of laugh sometimes because I do like to listen a lot. I'm not as talkative in person as I am on radio. It's probably because I have to speak so much for my job. But that would be my recommendation. Just listen to this show and tell people about this show. As for Colorado, I know that it's become a more purple state. There are progressive outposts in it, but they are also

very concerned ivative parts of Colorado. That's true of many states, and even a state like Pennsylvania for example. And you know, we're on a wonderful station affiliate out in Harrisburg, Pennsylvania. But if you go to Philly, obviously Philly is blue blue blue, Pittsburgh very blue. But other parts of the state of Pennsylvania they still respect the Second Amendment in the Constitution and take a much more conservative view of things. Phil Rights. Hey, Buck Coball is well in the Freedom Hunt.

I was wondering if you'd have on Scott Horton. He is, without a doubt a foreign policy guru on everyone on everything rather all right, and also ps love the Beard. Thank you, Phil the Beard seems to be getting more thumbs up than thumbs down. I gotta say some folks seem to be more pro Beard than you might have anticipated, then I would have anticipated. So yes, indeed, Laurel, right buck, I'm a podcast listeners, so I'm usually a day or

so behind listening to Friday's show. And you're monologue on control of the language. Did you notice that in the indictment of Julian Assange they referred to Chelsea Manning as she Interesting how we are discussing words like illegal immigrants being the technical codified terminology for those who are unlawfully in the country, but those responsible for writing indictments for crimes are including factually incorrect information about co conspirators and witnesses.

Speaking of Osange, I'm not entirely sure where to make of it. I feel it's a gray area that, if prosecutor and found guilty, could be used in the future as case law to go after mainstream media journalists who published league material. Can you share or reshare your thoughts, Laurel, You make well, You make an excellent point and raise an excellent question. As for the terminology, I did notice this too, that it is, and it is true across I believe now all of the news networks. I believe

all of them. I could be wrong on that, but use the term in their news broadcasts, least not necessarily in their commentary. That Chelsea Manning is a she, that is a factually incorrect statement. And if we're going to start making factually incorrect statements because some people think it is a nicer thing to do than I would at least want everyone to agree that that is what is being done, because I do not want to be part of a delusion. Chelsea Manning is not a female. Chelsey

Manning is male. If you ask me as Chelsea Manning male or female, the answer that I will give is that Chelsea Manning is male, because that is reality. This is not This is not a mutable characteristic. This is not something that changes because people would like it to change. No, I'm sorry, there are lines here, and I did notice it, Laurel, you have a keen eye on the usage of she instead of he to describe Bradley. I'm sorry. I did not mean to dead name there as they say Chelsea

Manning in the documents. Also, just the notion that what just happened for me where I just mixed up the names for a second. Now, they may they may claim that dead naming is only purposeful, but this is not some horrible crime to refer to somebody as their previous name. You know, my first name is James. If someone refers to me as James, they're not doing something nasty and terrible. They're just referring to my first name, which is my legal name. So you know, I know that I have

not had a transgender surgery or anything. So maybe there's a different there's a different focus on the usage of a name in that regard. But I think you see what I'm saying, Jimmy, You know I get all these the podcast listeners. I'm just telling you live radio audience across the country, one hundred and twenty five or so stations. All the podcast folks are writing in in droves. Where's my live radio peeps? You guys don't have Facebook, come

on now Facebook dot com. Slash buck Sex said, I know you're at a computer a smartphone a lot of the time, so it's not hard tell the team what you think about things. Jimmy writes, love your podcast, Buck great to listen to. A voice of reason that is from a conservative point of view. Just listen to your coverage of the movie Unplanned. Wanted to thank you for that heartbreaking shield time, my friend. Keep up the great work well, Jimmy, thank you so much for your note.

I really really do appreciate it. And yeah, I plan to see the movie Unplanned as soon as I can. I don't even know if it is in the DC market right now, I have to check. I would guess that it is not playing at any of the theaters near me, which I think tells you a lot rich kind of buck binging today, enjoyed the Beija imitation. Can we get Clapper, McCabe, Struck and Comby in a room and listen in Well, thank you, I'm glad you enjoyed

Joy Beha. You know she's on this show talking about how you know how I have to listen to Megan McCain and it just hurts my ears, almost like when I have to read words and it hurts my eyes. Yeah, Behar, multi millionaire TV personality, Joy Behar. Everybody and anybody can be a success in America. That much I can tell you. Jennifer writes, good evening, Love you, Love the show. I'm in charge of brunch on Sunday. Eggs with or without

crem Fresh, Jennifer, love you too. And the answer to your question is, if you have crem fresh on hand, work it into your scrambled eggs. It adds a little something special, little extra penash, pizzazz, a little June se qua into your scrambled eggs. Now that we've gone through that, my friends, I can bid you adieu for the night. Talk to you tomorrow. Shields High