Dems Dust Off Felon John Dean

to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Mag no mistake, American, You're a great American. Again, the buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. No. Trump is showing true Nixonian's style. Trump is Nixon on steroids and stilts. If I had to channel a little of Richard Nixon, I think he'd tell this president he's going too far. This is the sort of stuff of a banana republic. This is what an autocrat does, frighteningly dictatorial. He's thinking like Putin would think.

Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Everybody, John dene down on Capitol Hill of Watergate infamy. This guy is Avanadi like in his understanding of how to push the media buttons and just say the things they're so desperate to here. Oh it's Nixonian and banana republic and dictator and what a joke, what a joke. But sure enough today he was down on Capitol Hill testifying before the Congress as though he has something to add. He's a bystander, he's just someone from a long time ago who was involved

in something that has nothing to do with this. But because the media in this town, in particular in DC, view the torpedoing of the Nixon presidency as the highlight of all journalism of all time. They think it's the single greatest moment for journalism in this country's history. And they only can think in terms of repeats and a loop. You know, Oh, this is like, this is like Nixon, This is like Nixon. It's almost like Libs have a very hard time accepting the results of elections and just

just letting it go, just let it go. They won't. They come up with some narrative, some storyline that makes them think, oh, well, we don't have to let it go because it's not real, or it didn't really happen, or it's about to end before the next election even happens. Sure enough, that's not how this plays out. That's not how it works. But they think that it's a good idea to bring John Dean out once again. This guy who I believe went to prison for what he did

to Watergate. He was Nixon's counsel. And this is what he said on CNN, which is hashtag resistance Central. This is what he had to CNN this morning, play seventeen. Clearly not a fact witness, but I hope I can give them some context and show them how strikingly like Watergate, what we're seeing now, and as reported in the Muller report is the fact that Nixon was hands on very early is just like Trump, hands on very early. The firing of Komi was certainly not dissimilar from some of

the actions that Nixon took. Nixon is just like Trump. That's all he has to say. And he gets on TV and he gets treated by all these these very borderline IQ and highly unimpressive CNN anchors like this is this is the word of the Almighty on all things in p OH. We have John Deane today. I gotta listen everything this guy has to say. Well, I would like to give you a little window into what this

what this John deedon character is really all about. He is serving a very clear purpose here, which is tying the Bush I'm sorry, tying the Trump administration back to Nixon. Right, Nixon was impeached and resigned. I'm sorry, Nixon was not impeached. Pardon me. Nixon resigned, but would have been impeached, would have been removed from office most likely. So he resigned in advance of this. And they want to create that

storyline that's this is all about. That is just like but you see the issue with John Deed, and there are a lot of them. What the us is John Deed is that this is what he always does. He wrote a book in two thousand and four worse than Watergate, the secret presidency of George W. Bush, worse than Watergate. And this has now become a phrase that people use, usually in a kind of mock high dudgeon. Worse than Watergate.

This is oh, it's worse than one. Well, if the Bush administration was worse than Watergate, I guess this has to be worse than worse than Watergate. This fellow, mister Dean, he exists so that Democrats have someone they can point to that will be a little little time and space transport back to the era of big journalism's unbelievable power, where they could bring down a presidency, and they don't really have quite the same power anymore. In fact, Trump is really a slap in the face to that power.

Trump's mere existence as president is a constant reminder to the journo class that they ain't what they used to be. They have John Dene to trot out here, as though his testimony on this should matter at all to anyone. They could have any figure from the Nixon era, any author, or from any presidential era for that matter, come out and just answer questions about what they think is in the Muller report, or what they think about what's been published.

Who the heck cares Democrats are embarrassing on this? They want to get John Dene and testify. Where's where are the calls for Muller to testify? I'm telling you, folks. They want to let Muller skate away without a whole lot of scrutiny and without any opposition questions. They want to let Muller just go. Muller did them the best solid he could with this report and his little his little weirdo press conference. He did everything he could for

the Democrats. They want to send him off and not They don't want him to get comat and getting comy just means they don't want people to find out who this guy really is and what he's all about. Because if that happens, then guess what his report will be seen through the prism of the partisan that he really is the anti trumpster that we all know him to be. But that's right. They bring down the guy who wrote the worst than Watergate book about the Bush presidency. And

I can't even tell you here. This is what the Amazon description of this John Deane book from the Bush era is. The former counsel the President Nixon provides a stinging critique of the current Bush administration, it's obsession with secrecy and its willingness to deceive the American people, emphasizing the presidents. This is what it says, emphasis on image over substance, imperial governing, and flaw decision making. Okay, so he doesn't like Bush, but that makes it worse than Watergate.

I mean, this is a laughable phrase, right, This is preposterous, worse than what how Ny has nothing to push, has nothing to do with the water Gate. Oh, it's worse than a water gate. Yeah, sure it is. Meanwhile, if you want to look at what's really going to be a problem. Oh wait, no way, hold on, I'm not let him get away with this. Jim Jordan, Jim Jordan had a moment. I really liked Jim Jordan. Jim Jordan had a moment with John Deane. Did I play at please?

Did you give advice to Lanny Davis or Michael Collins prior to mister collins testimony to Congress? Yeah? I have known Lanny Davis for almost a couple decades and we have talked about it, and I did say, as soon as you're turning your testimony over, it will be picked apart. So you instructed Michael Collins lawyer to keep information from Republicans to instruct the committee work that we were doing in the Oversight Committee just a few months ago. You

told that to meet Michael Collins lawyer. I didn't quite phrase it that right. Now. You know what. They took your advice. I'm sorry they took your advice. Good day. Yeah, mister Cohen kept his testimony from us for as long as possible, but you know, what else mister Cohen did that day line. This is what concerns I think so many Americans about the work that's going on in this Congress,

this one hundred and sixteen. The first the first announced witness of the one hundred and sixteenth Congress is Michael Cohen. The guys sits in prison today for lying to Congress. Today, Chairman Nadler brings in from the Judiciary Committee a guy to talk about obstruction of justice who went to prison in nineteen seventy four were obstructing justice. At least they're

going with experts now. He's an expert in obstructing justice because that's what he did, just like Michael Cohen is an expert in lying under oath because that's what he did. But you know, it really gets the Democrats worried. Media is not covering this much, doesn't want to talk about it. But what keeps them up at night, I'm telling you, is the Bar report the Inspector General, which has been delayed folks until I think July, which is a shame, but it has been delayed. But that Bar report that

has them worried. They no Bar is serious, They no Bar is talented. They know that there's the very real possibility that he will have answers finally about the Russia steel origin, Russia investigation origins and the Steel dossier. And this is what really worries them. Mark Meadows touched on this. Mark Meadows is doing some great work on this. He says, Look, the senior FBI folks had to know that the Steel dossier was a joke play fourteen prior to that first

fives application. Peter Struck, Andy McCabe and others at the FBI knew that Christopher Steele's dossier was not credible, and they did a rush to make sure that they could actually surveil him. That will come out because there's a cover up that happened within certain realms at the FBI, a rush to surveil and a cover up. That's the kind of information that I think we're going to see her.

That's that's what we are going to find out from this Inspector General report, because the most dirty stuff will be what happened in the very beginning to get this investigation going. That's why they're lying about this whole Papadoppolis thing. There's no way that Papadopolis was the origin point of the investigations, there's no way. It just doesn't hold water, doesn't hold together, it doesn't make any sense. There was other stuff going on here. There were partisans in this process.

Who knows how far up a chain it goes over the DNC and the Hillary campaign. There were people involved in the Obama administration who had to know. And that's where you're going to have the really scary stuff for the Democrats. So you know, they can put John Deane on the stand today and this whole dog and pony show, it's a waste of everybody's time. They're making themselves look like a bunch of clowns. We have some good and

worthwhile testimony to look forward to. I believe we have an Inspector General report that's delayed but still coming out. And it is true that the single most the single most dangerous man to the Democrats delusions in this country right now, it's not even Donald Trump, it's Attorney General Bill Barr. I'll be right back. It's very preliminary information. The fire Department is on scene and they're responding, But the preliminary information is that there was a helicopter that

made a forced landing. Emergency landing or landed on the roof of the building for one reason or another. There was a fire that happened when the helicopter hit the roof. People who were in the building said they felt the buildings shake. The fire department believes the fire is under control. There may have been casualties involved in people and the

helicopter that we do not know. So there was this helicopter crash that was getting a ton of media attention, and I think I think one person I believe so far, we think, Mike am I right here, it's the pilot that died. Yes, that's since then it's there if confirmed that one died, and it was the pilot was the pilot was And we don't think right now that there was anyone else on that on that helicopter. No, it

happens now we don't. Yeah, this is one of these things where you notice how how a news cycle is generated from not necessarily what is really going to have impact on the lives of the most people, but just what can capture, you know, attention and imagination very quickly. A helicopter crash of this kind. As soon as they've determined that it wasn't terrorism, which it seemed right away

that was the case. I mean, a helicopter would be a particularly poor choice of a vehicle for a suicide operation because it carries very few people, and it would helicopters are fragile. Those of you who fly to them know that they're not not particularly sturdy or durable craft. And obviously today one of them tragically crashed on this building. Whether the I believe one of my family members works in the building that is right next to this building.

So there's been quite a lot of to do from the streets around this in New York City, a lot of stuff going on, but we do have it in New York. Anytime there's an aerial incident of this kind, people's minds tend to go right to terrorism because of nine to eleven and the impact that that had on our lives. This, though, is a reminder also of how the old media maxim if if it bleeds, it leads, is very much the case. This was getting more attention, which I think also tells you a lot about how

much impact the John Deane hearing was really having. This news story for much of the day, was the number one cable news item for many hours, and ultimately we're talking about something that is about as significant as a car crash where a person died. It's really not Once you established that it's not terrorism and that there was only one person involved, it's very sad for him and his family. And I'm not trying to down plenty of that at all. I'm just saying that this is effectively

a car crash at the top of a building. I mean, this is one person dying and a crash of a mechanical failure. And there's been more or less flood the zone coverage of it for many, many hours today. And I think it's in part because of the mentality in New York that anytime there's a crash involving an aerial craft,

everyone starts to think terrorism. That's true, but perhaps more to our purposes here, an incident like this was able to take all the focus off of what the Democrats and what is a relatively minor news story in the grand scheme of things. I was able to take hours of attention away from the John the John Deane testimony.

I wonder how much of that was ratings, old school news judgment driven versus whether some networks realized that you know, it would be probably to the Democrats benefit to have less people watch John Dene make a jackass of himself. Why anyone should care what this guy from an incident forty years ago that very few people in America even really know much about, but beyond that it was a

very different incident from we're talking about today. Why that person should be the focus of an inquiry on Capitol Hill is something that Democrats, I just don't think have any real answer to. So it's probably for the best for them today that this turned into just a news story that was consuming all the different channels and getting all the attention and not John Dene and making a fool himself on the Hill. I will say the man, you know I've written around Mike you ever been in

a helicopter? I have not, and I don't plan to. I've been in a bunch of military helicopters. I've been in a few private helicopters. They're you know, you're in a plane. You have this forward uh you know, you have you have the wing speed and everything, and you just feel like you can maybe kind of get to some kind of a landing. Things go bad in a helicopter, they go People tell me that there's continuous rotation in the blades. But yeah, yeah, things go bad in a helicopter,

they go really bad. Yeah, I trust the military. I don't trust the people flying around New York City. Y's for sure. Yeah, that's a different, different thing. It's one thing to get into a black Hawk with like a you know, night Stalker pilot or something. It's another thing to hop in with some guy who's like, yeah, we take tourists around the island and yeah, it's all fun. And I can't hear you because I got the loud

rotor going in the bank. You know. That always strikes me as Yeah, it's mayhem in New York and there's all I mean, there's been way more crashes than normal here of over the last few years of helicopters. Yeah, well, regulations probably coming, by the way, you know, build the Blasio. I saw this today. He is less popular in New York then. And what was it? Was it Jillibrand or was it Cuomo? I think it was Jillibrand, But is jillabrand I think, right, who's basically in the very very

low end of the Democrat race. But I think the Blasio serves an important purpose in New York City, and that is that to build a Blasio shows you that you can be a lazy moron and run the largest city in the country and the city will more or less be okay. I mean, you'll do things that hurt the city, but it'll continue to run as is because it's such a big machine and been around for so long that even somebody as lazy and dumb as build a Blasio is not able to completely and utterly make

it go could put all at once. So that's a good news. That's a little bit of upbeating us for the day and a team. We've got more coming up. Staying with me. See the President of the United States in prison, it's an extraordinary statement from the Speaker of the House. Do you agree with her? Is that how you see it? Do you want to see the president in prison instead of impeaching him? That she wants to see President Trump in prison? Look, I don't have any

difficulty with those words. Do you think President I'm committed crimes that could be prosecuted he did. No one is above the law, and that includes President Trump. If it determines that we lead to impeachment or if he ends up in jail, so be it are almost said that he should be in jail. All, if you become president in twenty twenty, would you want your Justice department to pursue charges against President Trump? Well, let me press you, our congressman. Do you want to see the president of

the United States in jail more than anything else? Will look the lizard brain that I have says, I hope bad things happened to this man because he has been so destructive. They want him in prison. Folks libs, whether this is just their little way of being able to sleep at night, not cry too much, way to keep the snowflakes from melting entirely? They tell themselves that there are still a realistic prospect of President Trump going to prison.

They want this president in jail, in jail for what, Well, depends who you ask. They'll all say obstruction. And then I always point out which which count of obstruction or rather which act of obstruction. They don't seem as clear on that. Are they really going to settle on the Don McGann thing? That wouldn't go anywhere. They wouldn't win that case, So they'd rather just refer to the generic Oh Trump is a criminal, he's a bad guy. He's terrible. They want they want him in prison and with no

trace of irony. Hello, you know who's coming to weigh in on this issue none other than Hillary Clinton her self. Besides, it's time to jump in on this issue. And as though as though she has any credibility whatsoever, as though anyone really needs to hear what Hillary I don't know what she means in that paragraph, even though I'm Secretary of State and it clearly means confidential, which is classified, that Hillary Clinton still thinks the public needs to hear from.

She is so deeply bitter still about losing the presidency to Trump. I mean, this is not something that she will ever forgave or forget. She's never going to get past it. I think Hillary Clinton, in her mind probably thinks the last thirty years of her existence, maybe even all sixty some odd years of her existence, in their totality, we're about becoming president and that's not going to happen. It's just not going to happen. And she now has

to deal with that. She has to wake up every day and no, Hillary Clinton is never going to be the president the United States. I don't know if she can really do that. I don't know if she can process it. And so what does she do? She goes out there and shares her opinion on things for which we do not. We do not need her input. Her input is not helpful, It is not needed. Play Cliff team. I don't want to be a downer, but I will

say this. If you take the time to read the Mueller Report, actually read it, which all of us in this auditorium are more than capable of doing, you come to two inescapable conclusions. The first is that Russia conducted a sweeping and systemic interference in our election. The second is that obstruction of justice occurred. Now you cannot read the report, chapter and verse, fact after fact without reaching

those conclusions. And yet Muller didn't reach those conclusions. He chose not to conclude, so as to hand off to the Democrat controlled House of Representatives and handoff to the anti Trump media apparatus. An issue that they could just keep alive forever. They could use for political purposes. Maybe they impeach, maybe they don't, but it'll always be the

big what if. By abandoning prosecutorial ethics, by abandoning his duty at the DOJ, what Muller did is leave open a wound on the Trump administration that will never really heal. And that was the purpose all along inescapable conclusion that obstruction of justice can occurred. That is not That is not an inescapable conclusion. In fact, I think it's a very very weak. And I've spoken to federal prosecutors, current

informer about this. I've spoken to people that this is all that they did, look at issues like this, look at cases like this, and they said that you might be able to bring an obstruction charge, but you would lose. And because federal prosecutors don't bring charges that they're likely to lose likely to lose on, they would never bring an obstructtion to justice charge against against President Trump. But Muller couldn't say that because then that would be case closed.

So what does he do. He says, well, we're not gonna We're gonna decide to not decide one of the truly bizarre and just hacky political things to do, and a disgrace. I really do believe that Mueller will be thought of the same way that Comey has thought of. Now, remember we were told that Comy was the last honest man, and oh, he's so great, and how could anyone doubt

the greatness of James Comy. Turns out that that was all just pr and spin and Comey is not some amazing hero for all time, and just the same as true with Muller, He's not some amazing hero for all time either. He's a guy who has a very particular view of how things should play out in this case, in this instance, and was willing to stack the deck, bend some rules, and be a partisan, and that's what happened.

We're going to talk about immigration in some detail, but I wanted to just bring up here for a moment because the debate over abortion continues on very much in the public square now, and you're seeing more on this issue than you usually do because of the state. You know, some states are trying to protect life, and some states

are saying we value life not at all. I mean, Democrats states are saying that life has the life of a fetus has no value, it's of no consideration, and it's appalling and it's really it's unsettling just as a human being to see this going on. But some of the feminists who are coming out now to take on this issue are whether recognizing it as such or not finally speaking honestly on this issue. It's this woman, Sophie Lewis.

I've never even heard of her before, but she came out to speak about what the truth of abortion is from a left wing mind. And here I'll let her say it herself. Play thirteen. We tend to say that abortion is indeed very bad, but or we say, luckily, it's not killing ky, it's just a health care right. Abortion is, in my opinion, and I recognize how controversial this is a form of killing. It is a form of killing that we need to be able to defend. I am not interested in where a human life starts

to exist. Now, it's a horrific thing to say, but at least she understands that the pro life position is about defending life. It's not about restricting women's rights. It's not about being anti woman. It's about there's a baby. It's about the life of a little baby. And she just comes out and says it, abortion is a form of killing, but it's just killing that we should be in favor of. That's the That is the real position. All this other stuff is just talking around it, and

it's it's this is a form of killing. And the pro the pro voice or pro abortion position, if it was going to be based in anything that's coherent, would be it's killing. But we have to allow this killing for the following reasons. Now, maybe they would lose that argument. They should lose that argument. That's why they won't do it. But that's that's the arguments as it from a rational perspective,

from an honest perspective, should be should be presented. You'll see more of that though some of the left, some of the feminists slipping up and telling us what's really true, which they usually don't want to do. Immigration, Trump a deal Mexico, what could be done to stop the massive migrant flow. That is where we're going next. That is what we're going to get into. There is a lot of time before the Iowa Caucus. We've never been guided

by a pole before. If you were to look at the Texas Senate race the first couple of months after we were in, no poll was going to say that we were going to win that. Yeah, but like here's the problem, betto you didn't win the Texas Senate race. So the fact that no pole said that meant the poles were like totally right, oh man, betto I was kind of hoping he was gonna be around longer, folks. I don't think he's gonna be in this race all that long. I think he's gonna get He's gonna get tossed,

sure enough, he's gonna get gonna get the boot. I don't know if he's gonna last longer than Tim Ryan or Hick and Looper or some of these other guys. But maybe he's got more name, more name recognition. But isn't it you know, they they skip past this part of it. What an empty suit and really kind of a phony. And you had all this national media attention on the everything that they could throw at him to prop him up to be able to be a realistic contender against Ted Cruz. And I just say, this is

who they put up against Ted Cruise. This was their answer to Ted Cruise in Texas, and we were told that this race was gonna be oh so so close. It was closer than it should have been, I will admit that. But they also put an unbelievable amount of money and media attention and they went to the mat for this guy. They did everything they could. And now the Democrats have to really look at him and say, well, do we want this to be our guy? They go, oh, gosh,

what exactly does what is acting? Does he bring to the table other than an inability to understand and read polls? From what we can gather, it's a remarkable state of affairs with this Democrat field right now. Joe Biden slipping in the polls. I knew it would happen. I'm gonna try to not be that guy. And I know you're holding to account for this. I'm gonna try to not be that guy that says like I knew it, I

called it. You know I said it. But in this case with Biden, he's just not a good candidate, folks. He's just not compelling. He's not that smart, he's not exciting. Why Joe Biden? The answer that the campaign tells you one or another is why not. He could kind of do this. He's sort of good enough to make this happen. Yeah, let's go with Joe Biden, because why not? That doesn't get people out of their seats, That does not get

people excited to vote for someone. And it's going to be a problem for him in the primary because eventually they're going to realize. Hold on a second, Democrats are gonna wake up and say, did we learn our lesson from twenty sixteen at all? Because the lesson of twenty sixteen really was going with the quote electable candidate not a good idea. You've got to go with somebody who matches up against the other person that they're supposed to defeat.

You can't just go with someone that you have this concept unsupported by anything in particular of electability. You know, Jeb was electable until he wasn't. Please clap. You know, Hillary was electable twice until she wasn't. Joe Biden's a

default candidate. He's a we don't have anybody, So let's just let's just you know, pull Biden out of the freezer and you know, put you know, let the let the chips fall where they may not that Biden's really in the freezer, you know what I mean, you know, just dust dust Biden off, pull him off the shelf. He's the guy that I'll get it done. Of course, he's not the guy that'll get it done. Why would

anyone over for this guy? At least at least Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren have some ideas and think they're terrible ideas, but they are ideas Biden, Biden's ideas. What should I say right now? He reminds me one of these politicians you see made fun of in different TV shows in movies where his staff just tells them what to say, like they whispered into his ear and he just says it. This is Biden. Guy's been wrong on every major foreign policy issue for the last forty years. It's on the

wrong side of every bajor foreign policy issue. Thought that he had this brilliant plan to fix ir Rock that would have just cut the country up into three pieces, and that sounds great. Oh yeah, that'll that'll work. Let's just let's just do it like Yugoslavia, except do you want to go through a massive civil war because where you draw those dividing lines in a country like Iraq mean everything, mean everything for resource control populations that are

inside or outside those lines, it's a big deal. Producer Mike is pointing out here that nine Democrats right now are at zero percent in Iowa. It really wouldn't be crazy for me to be like, you know what, I'm gonna run. I'm gonna get in the mix. That's right, Buck Sexton running on the Democrat ticket. Hey, I don't share any of their beliefs, and I make fun of them all the time. I think that they're nuts. But at this point i'd probably have a better chance. It's

on the Democrat candidates. I really mean that. I think it's well, okay, maybe I don't mean that, but you know what I'm I'm with. The exaggeration went a little farther, but still I could get it. I'll tell you this. I could get zero percent. I could get zero votes. I could do that. I could make that happen for you. There's also seven at one percent, so if you think get zero, you could probably get one percent too. Producer Mike.

I think with what we could cook up here in the Hut, my friend, I think we could get me to one percent. Man, you know, one percent. People just vote for him because my nanny like that guy's name is so weird. We gotta vote for him, man, Freedom Hut Headquarters. We could do anything, that's right, dude, and our only our only limit is the limit of our dreams.

Producer Mike, that's right. That's right. Immigration, folks, I told you last week that this was going to happen that if if Trump got a deal, the media was going to completely rewrite history. And oh no, well, it's just one thing that was kind of fun though, and this was a surprise. But but Donna bash Over at CNN, I like that because I'm one of the only people that knows how to pronounce her name. It's spelled Dana,

but she likes to be called Donna. Donna bash Over at CNN has had the temerity, the the gall to call out Bernie Sanders in the past for saying that the well for the way that he described the border crisis.

Listen to this play seven. You tweeted this week that President Trump's tariffs who were a quote fake border crisis in quotation marks but immigration officials have arrested or encountered more than one hundred and forty four thousand migrants at the southern border in May, the highest monthly total in thirteen years. Border facilities are dangerously overcrowded. Migrants are actually standing on toilets to get space to breathe. How is that night a crisis? What we need to do? I

mean what Trump has been doing. And I think what the meaning of that tweet is about is that Trump has been demonizing undocumented people in this country and that's part of his strategy. So I'm just gonna I'm gonna ignore everything that I said in the tweet and pretend that I tweeted something else and talk about Trump demonizing undocumented people, and you know, going to pretend that I wasn't lying and lying lying pants on fire for saying there was no border crisis. The border crisis was fake.

It's clearly not fake. The dumb thing for me to tweet a dub a dumb thing for me to say. And yeah, here I am jumping down Trump's wrote saying he's demonizing undocumented people. Undocumented about it? You know that's undocumented is like people that refer to the patriarchy and intersectionality.

You tell me everything I need to know about your politics the moment use the word undocumented, which is a made up word does not appear in the legal code, is not the proper designation for what these people are. They're illegal. It's in the federal law. They're called the legal aliens. That is what they describe their status as. More on this coming up. I spoke with the President of Mexico. I get along with them very well, and

we made this deal. But this is very This is something the US has been trying to get for over twenty years with Mexico. They've never been able to do it. As soon as I put tariffs on the table, it was, it was done. It took two days. We purposely said we wouldn't mention it for a little while because it has to be brought by their legislative body. It's got to be taken to a vote. It's another very powerful tool in addition to the very powerful tools we got.

We had none of these tools of virtually none, or they were just being talked about. They've been talked about for twenty years with Mexico. The New York Times wrote a story like, I already made the deal. It's nonsense. We talked about it for months and months and months, and they wouldn't get there. And we just said, hey, look, if you don't get there, we're just going to have to charge you hundreds of billions of dollars in Texas. And we would have been just fine. So Trump got

a deal. Folks escorting to Trump, that's what has happened. Here's got a deal with Mexico. And so the tariffs do not go into effect today. But sure enough, do you think do you think that the liberals are saying, Wow, Trump was Trump was right. Trump managed to do something here that we didn't think he'd be able to do. No, of course not. I mean I told you this. I predicted this last week. As you know, he said, just wait,

he might actually get this done. And when he does, the Libs will act like, oh no, this was It was never the thing we said it was. It was something. It was something else. There was some other reason that they had to talk about this. There was some other reason why this was a front page news story, or the the way this would shake out. Forget what they said. Then now they're telling you the truth. Here's the Wall Street Row reporting this. Mexico's border pack with the US

bought time on Trump's asylum demand. As part of a deal to avert tariffs. Mexico agreed to revisit US demands for a radical hall of the immigration system if it's proposed measures to curb immigration don't work, putting it under intense pressure to stem the tide of Central Americans riving

at the US a US Mexico border. President Trump on Monday wrote on Twitter the two countries had fully signed and documented another very important part of immigration security deal with Mexico that would require a vote by Mexican lawmakers. That was an apparent reference to a safe third country designation that would require migrants fleeing their home end to pass through Mexico to seek asylum there. We do not anticipate a problem with the vote, but if for any

reason the approval is not forthcoming, tariffs will be reinstated. Folks. This is exactly what Trump was trying to get here. This is what this is what Trump was looking for with the tariff threat against Mexico, and now here we are being told that this is moving the football down the field. Not a done deal. It's not all solved, it's not all fine. There still are plenty of ways this could go, but Trump has prepared for that. I really do think that what you see is that there

are a lot of people in DC. It's certainly a lot of journalists and a lot of people in the DC political class who don't really understand negotiation. I think, you know, in DC you have so many different members of Congress who are just engaged in covering their own butts and they're so focused with putting their names on things that won't come back to bite them and making sure that they won't be held accountable for tough votes that in a difficult negotiation. How many of them you

think really know what they're doing. I think the answer is very, very few. And I think that when Trump takes the position of all right, we're going to do this because we want a change in behavior from Mexico, what should happen in response to that is a lot of people say, Okay, well let's judge this by the results. But what does happen in response to that instead is you have a whole bunch of people in the journalist class who judge this thing before it's even gotten going,

before we know what the results are. And that's why I said, you watch and see if he gets Mexico change behavior. They're going to say, well, it was nothing last week. It was He's crazy for thinking Mexico will do anything as a result of these straps. Why would Mexico be crazy? Why is that a crazy thought. It's a very straightforward thing. Mexico could do a lot more. And I've spoken to people in border patrol about this.

I've been speaking to people for the last week about what's realistic for the Mexican government to do to meet the threshold of demands here from the Trump administration. It's really not that hard. They can stop these people met Mexico has its own immigration laws, its own territorial control. They don't have to let anybody in from Guatemala who wants to come in from Guadamala. They don't have to take anybody from Honduras wants to come in from Honduras.

And they should have a third Safe Country agreement where if someone comes from Central America and they want to apply for asylum in the United States, it's really actually, if we're gonna be technical, I believe it's applying to be a refugee in the United States, because asylum is what you apply for inside the United States. When you're here,

you get here, you apply for asylum. A refugee is somebody who's elsewhere who wants that status, which is the status is very similar between asylum refugee, but wants that in the United States. But a third Safe Country agreement means that now you don't get to come in and exploit the system and get let into the interior of the United States, never to be seen again. Now you stay in Mexico. Now you apply and you show up. You don't get to establish all these different ties in

the United States. You don't get to develop these roots that then oh my gosh, it'd be so inhumane to take people away from Look what they've done in this community. Look at all their son is a scholar at the school. Blah blah, all the stuff you're gonna hear, all of that. This deals with that problem. And so now there's not some big end run on the immigration system. Now the immigration system can function much more along the lines that we would would hope it would function right now, can

do the things that we wanted to do. But the Libs hate this, of course, because one you get Trump coming up with a if not a solution, at least a possible solution, I mean, taking some actions here that might be worthwhile. And what are the lives want to talk about? Well, one you get Corey Booker, who is just desperate for it. He's like the candidate that's the most desperate for attention, because I think Corey Booker can't believe that he's not higher up in the polls than

he is polayclippit. You hear the president talk, I mean he uses as the language that is why knowing history is so important. He uses language like a political party of our past called the know Nothings, same language. Trying to then stop Irish and Italian immigrants, trying to make us afraid of people coming from the southern border with brown skin. But but you know how many deaths have happened in terrorism since nine to eleven and where that

has come from. As much as he wants to make us afraid of people trying to come here escaping terror, not remembering like when we turned away other in we're just trying to escape terror. There was a ship that came here during World War two with a bunch of folks trying to escape the Holocaust, and we turned it around where they got killed in the Holocaust. With a shame of that. You think we would learn our lesson about people coming here to seek asylum, escaping terror, escaping terror.

That's what he's saying. Is El Salvador in a state of terror right now? Are there mass exterminations going on Al Salvador that I'm not aware of? Is Honduras in a state of terror right now? If that were the case, why don't these people just say, oh my gosh, we're in Mexico down now, we're safe, We're okay. No, no, no, Corey Booker is not this stupid. He's just this much of a demagogue. He is a cynical, self loving, self involved politician who will say whatever he has to say

to get collapsed from the left. Clearly, there's no real comparison between Central America as a place from which refugees or departed than it states and people fleeing the Holocaust in the Second World War. But he'll say that it's emotional. It gets you know, it gets the libs all all energized and aggravated, and oh my gosh. You know, it's like it's really a slap in the face to people that are true refugees. I mean, what you have going on the border. And I know this because I've been

down there a couple of times. You have people lying about what they're fleeing. Nobody on that ship fleeing Europe was lying, Okay, they knew that they face certain death back home. But these Central Americans lying about their age, line up, their family status, lying about why they're coming. Oh, I'm scared of the gangs. No, you just want American

welfare programs and better job prospects. It's very different. Are you willing to give President Trump for any credit for avoiding tariffs and for striking this deal with Mexico for creating a crisis which he then sort of partially at the last minute solved while still misrepresenting Yeah, I think the President has completely overblown what he purports to have achieved. These are agreements that Mexico had already made, in some

cases months ago. They might have accelerated the timetable, but by and large, the President achieved nothing except to jeopardize the most important trading relationship that the United States of America has. There are six million jobs in this country that depend on US Mexico trade. Who called it, folks? I went into detail. You remember this. I told you

last week. I said, if Trump gets Mexican action because of the tariffs, if the Mexican government gives in on this one and is willing to finally do something in response to the tariffs, which would mean that Trump's strategy here has borne fruit or is bearing fruit, that it will have won at some level, that he will have gotten what he sought out or what he sought to get, and the media would give him no credit for it whatsoever.

It's It's amazing, isn't it how predictable they are. I don't sit here and tell you that I am no stradamis, although we all know that I kind of am. Libs. Last week we're saying Trump doesn't understand tariffs, he'll never get Mexico take action on immigration. This is all a stunt oh over the weekend, turns out Mexico agrees to some stuff in a deal, and then libs this week Mexico taking action isn't a win for Trump because blab

blab blah, nonsense, nonsense talking points. Even Beto there, even Betto had to say it, Well, maybe he did get the acceleration, the acceleration of action here. And so if let let's just say that the doubters and the haters, as the Trumpster would say, let's say they're correct. Let's say that this is not necessarily new stuff that Mexico has agreed to. Well, if it's not new, but they haven't done it yet, and now they're going to do it, and they have agreed to accelerate the speed with which

they will do it. That is meaningful. If I tell if I agree to build your house six months ago, and now finally you say, look, you either build my house starting today or I'm going to sue you. And then I say, okay, okay, I'm gonna start building a house tomorrow. Assuming I build a house tomorrow, you will have gotten your way. You will have one in that negotiation that I haven't built the house for six months and then all of a sudden I start within the house.

For see, it doesn't mean well, you agree to it then, so this doesn't mean anything. No. Clearly the lawsuit threat in that case motivated me to take action, just like Trump threatening Mexico on this issue. And that's why Kevin McLean and over at DHS it's like, look, people come on, stop with this stuff where how you know where anything that Trump does just can't be good because Trump did it. This is ridiculous. Play six, the President tweeted out that

the tariff has been suspended. The second communition pointed out that there's a mechanism to make sure that they do what they've promised to do, that there's an actual result that we see a vast reduction in those numbers. People can disagree with the tactics. Mexico came to the table with real proposals. We have an agreement that if they implement, will be effective. The President put a charge in this whole dialogue with Mexico with the tariff threat, brought them

to the table. This is the first time we've heard anything like this kind of number of law enforce and being deployed in Mexico to address migration. Six thousand national guards that's the Guatemalan border to help with the immigration issue that's happening now. Further agreements that I'm sure we'll hear more details about the days ahead. And here's all that. This really took Trump recognizing that we have leverage. We

have leverage Visa v. Mexico. We don't just have to sit here and let the Mexican government do whatever they want to do, get away with whatever they want to get away with. We, the American people, the American government, are in a position to push them in the right direction. That's what's going on, that is what we are doing.

And yet the Libs won't budge on this. Hate it, hate it, hate it, no interest whatsoever in saying, wow, it looks like Trump might even run on this, because if he was right on this short term tariff threat, maybe tariffs can be a tool of policy after all. Maybe tariffs, which China has been using too great effect for a long time, and which originally funded the American government in this country often lost people forget this part of our history. How did the federal government fund itself

until well into the American experiment. I can't even tell you what the year was. Obviously we didn't have an income tax till the twentieth century. But there's really tariffs that funded the the fund of the federal government for a long time. So that seems to get lost, That seems to get thrown by the way. So now I'm not saying, go tariff crazy and tariff's gonna solve everything. But they're acting like Trump has no idea what he's doing.

It doesn't make any sense. It's all ridiculous. And you know, now, now we finally can look at this and say, well, hold on a second, if the president manages to get action from the Mexican government on this, if he can stem this border crisis, that would certainly be worthwhile. Well, one more thing I want to put in the mix here is as we're talking about the border California, California,

is it always going to be able? You can always say that and people know you're talking about the governator, right, most famous government that guy Gavin Newson is now the governor of California, which, wow, that guy California now is in the process. I don't think it's officially passed yet, but they're poised, that's the word they always use with something's about to happen. Poised to give illegal immigrants free healthcare.

This is the Democrats state legislature. Of course, California has an agreement in place to allow low income individuals who are between the age of nineteen and twenty five who are in America illegally, so they are a legal aliens to be able to get medical which is the state of California's Medicaid program. So it's a state healthcare welfare program. And they're going to start a real small at least comparatively to what it could be for the rest of

the state. Ninety thousand people are going to be under this measure. It's not that much. California's got a population of over thirty million. The two hundred and thirteen billion dollar budget deal. This is a part of and the estimated cost of this. Who wants to guess if the stated costs is going to be a fraction of what the real cost is. But the estimated cost of this is about one hundred million dollars a year. One hundred million dollars a year. Now, that's not nothing for a

state budget. One hundred million dollars a lot of money. On a hundred million dollars any worth a lot of money. They're just throwing them this in there. This is a welfare program. This is just the taxpayers in California are going to be funding this. And you know how they're

going to do it. They're using money raise from the individual mandate that is now no longer the no longer the law at the federal level, because the Trump administration will now California is going to say, if you don't have insurance and you fall into a certain income threshold, you're going to pay a penalty to this state of California, and that money is going to go to give other people healthcare. Just redistribution of wealth, folks, but redistribution of wealth,

not even to our fellow Americans, to illegals. Does anyone think that this program is going to stop at night at people nineteen to twenty five. Of course not. It's going to go well beyond that. You're going to have

the expansion of this become a major political issue. And Gavin Newsom knows that the Latino community, the many many illegals, and the many many millions of people who are related to sons and daughters of etc. Illegals, they will see this and they will say, Okay, well, if you can do it for this age group, you should do it for another age group and another age group. And they're going to try to build their way up to a

statewide Medicare for Medicaid for all illegals program. This is just taking your money and giving to people that are breaking the law. Folks. That's what this is, at least in California. That is what they will be doing. And this is where the country is heading right now. If Democrats are in charge, they're going to want to open up Obamacare to all illegals. Hillary Clinton already said so owner twenty sixteen campaign. California is just a canary in

the coal mine. The Tree of Life synagogue shooting in Pittsburgh of Jewish people. Those were only designated and charged as hate crimes, not domestic terrorist incidents. Mister mcgarrity, Why did the FBI not believe that these incidents were domestic terrorist incidents? That's not correct. I don't know who told you that we didn't, but we certainly had cases open

on them in both those cases. And I wasn't here for the Dylan Roof case, but it's certainly in our own Department Justice Civil Rights about three four weeks ago, and their testimony actually stated that it was a domestic terrorism event, charged through the Civil Rights Division of the Department Justice for a hate crime. So you are disputing that theme. You're saying that Amy was charged with domestic

terrorism untilan Roof, so you're using the word charge. So, as I said before, there's no domestic terrorism charge like eighteen USC. Twenty three thirty nine ABCD for a foreign terrorist organization. But the actual charge it was the actual charge domestic terrorism. You're not going to find an actual charge of mystic terrorism out there. AOC who is technically a lawmaker has a lot of problem, a lot of problems understanding the law and what laws doing, what they

what they don't do. But let me bring you into what's going on here. That was miss Okazio Cortez putting on her most serious, serious face, looking very serious, the classes on, very studious looking talking to the FBI Assistant Director of counter Terrorism, Michael mcgarrity, and she's making this point that you'll hear leftist make We're just talking about extremism on YouTube and right wing radicalization on YouTube, which

is the way that the Times did it. They're just trying to smear a bunch of people, create an excuse to have the left dominate YouTube and have their point of view turn YouTube into a straight up partisan megaphone, which would also mean YouTube as a publisher, which comes with an additional set of rules and stuff that you know, they need to start thinking a bit more about if that's the way they're going to be. There's some downside

of that for them. But AOC is pushing on this because here's what the left wants to the narrative to be, especially in the Trump era. On going into Trump's reelection that the real threat they always say this, the real terrorism threat is right wing white nationalist extremists. Here as though we're really concerned about mass plots by right wing white nationalists to bring down, you know, the Freedom Tower,

to bring down planes out of the sky. No. I worked in the largest city police department counter terrorist immunity in the country. There were that we had white We had white nationalist, neo Nazi people, you know, assigned to that account. We had anarchist terrorists. We had people that covered all the stuff. They were really bored. The jihattest terrorists people were the ones that had stuff to do.

And the fact that there is a specific statute for foreign terrorist organizations and not for someone who is engaged in you know, if someone hates people because of their skin color, that is a hate crime, and if they take action on that where they kill people, then they're charged with a hate crime. They're going to go to prison forever or get the death penalty. Why does it matter to AOC so much what the specific charges when

you're already talking about something that's a death penalty case. Oh, that's right, because the left really believes this narrative that the real terrorism threat comes from the white American who lives next door. That's what the left believes. They don't want to get into the numbers and look at terrorism, percentage of the population in America that is Muslim, which is about one percent, and percent of the population that is white, which is somewhere in the sixty five percent range.

And then look at Okay, you're comparing the one percent of America to sixty five percent of America and they're close in terms of all out casualty, all in casualties. What does that tell you, has no idea, doesn't know

anything about that. They call it the making of a YouTube radical, a rather long piece in The New York Times magazine that profiles a young man named Caleb Kane, and Caleb Kane talks about his very disturbing period in his life when he spent time watching videos of right wing YouTube stars and how he felt like this was

a brainwashing that was engaged in. He was a college dropout, they said, looking for directions, so he turned to YouTube and this, Oh, you can just feel the terror and the fear of all the left wingers that the idea of a college kid or college dropout in this case, who wants to expose himself to other very very popular and in some cases really quite mainstream and well established and well credentialed individuals, but they're all thrown into this

right wing soup together. This is one of the favorite tactics of the left now because they don't want there to be alternative voices. They do not want digital platforms to be free, fair and open. They're so used to the media dominance that they've had in the past. They're so used to what they've achieved on college campuses and in the faculty lounge, and then in Hollywood and in the news media, where the country is roughly fifty fifty

Republican Democrat. Meanwhile, journalists are ninety percent Libs. Hollywood is probably ninety nine percent Libs. College professors are you know, overwhelmingly I won't give you a percentage because I don't know at the top of my head, but overwhelmingly Libs. I mean, there were more if identified Marxist at my alma mater and there were open Republicans. Okay, So they really insist on having this ideological advantage, and they would

just say that it's because they're right. Well, if it's because they're right, why does half the country disagree with them? I Mean, it's such a facile and unserious explanation for their dominance. The reason they're dominant in this way is because they emotionally and psychologically need to feel like their

opinion is the only opinion. They're not capable, They're not equipped to deal with the argumentcy of the other side, and therefore they also feel very comfortable using whatever tools of coercion they have at any given time to shut down those alternative voices. Essentially, the left can't handle real debate. The Left can't handle opposing voices, and this is why they don't react with engagement. They react with hatred and shut it down, Shut it down down. This is what

they always want to do. Now, in this New York Times piece, they put all these different figures together on the right, everyone from Jordan Peterson to Crowder to Shapiro to uh Stefan Mali No, I you know, I don't know him, Milo Lauren Southern, Uh you know who is I think no longer even doing media, Paul Joseph Watson. It was kind of a funny little British accent. They put all these people in the same in the same boat, as though being right of center and being on YouTube

means that you're you're basically a neo Nazi. I mean they're not saying they're neo Nazis, but they're basically putting them in the same category as like Stormfront and white nationalists and and and they walk through this whole, uh, this whole process in this New York Times piece, which is written, I mean, it's a laughably partisan, dishonest, left wing hit piece, which you would expect. It's The New

York Times, a rag, it's a joke. But they have these quotes from this guy, this one guy who's supposed to be representative of this experience. Why nobody really seems to know they just picked this guy. I fell down the alt right rabbit hole, he said in a video that he posted. Um so, I guess he posted this video on YouTube where he said that he was a

recovering alt right video addict or something from YouTube. And now he's trying to make amends for that by telling The New York Times that he's learned all these terrible things. You know, I found it fascinating when you when you look at what what some of the things are they're discussed in these videos, and there are issues that are going to be inherently very controversial and and they're going to be contentious, but that doesn't mean that they're they're

illegitimate areas of serious discourse and discussion. Here's the new Here's this timespiece wrote that mister kay In recently I swore off the alt right nearly five years after discovering it, and has become a vocal critic of the movement. He is scarred by his experience of being radicalized by what he calls a decentralized cult of far right YouTube personalities who convinced him that Western civilization was under threat from Muslim immigrants and cultural Marxists. Okay, is wait, let's just

start with that one. Is Western civilization under threat from cultural Marxists. Yeah, I think that's fair to say. I think cultural Marxists are kicking at the load bearing walls of Western civilization. Is mass Muslim immigration dramatically changing societies in Europe and could have dramatically changed this country too if it were at a similar level of what we've seen in Europe. It's a It's a fair question, isn't it. A lot of Europeans certainly think so. What else is

in here? Innate IQ differences explained racial disparities, Well, that takes us back to the Bell Curve, the book written by Charles Murray, and people don't really read the book. They just hear that line then they want to shout and scream it. And if anyone really understands what is contained, I've read the Bell Curve. When you read the Bell Curve,

you know it's not this. There's one chapter that deals with racial disparities in IQ based on the aggregate numbers that they pulled together over a period of many decades. The differences are small, and the differences are only meaningful, according to Charles Murray, when spread out over a vast

population of a whole lot of people. But one thing that anybody who wants to use that kind of information for racist or racial purposes has to grapple with, and generally the racist can't, is that the whole point of what the Bell Curve shows is that there are people of all races with one forty iq s. There are people of all races with IQs in the nineties, right, I mean there are you know, doesn't matter what your skin color is, you can be at the absolute top

of cognitive ability or you can be very very low in the cognitive ability scale. So that's what the science that Murray was talking about, says, and therefore to judge somebody based in their skin colors to make is to make a judgment for which there is for which the data does not support, because you just don't know. Are you talking to somebody from are you talking to somebody from the Aleutian Islands with a one forty IQ or

a ninety IQ could be either? You don't know. And does it really matter when people interacted with each other to find out, well, there's a you know, a standard deviation more geniuses in this group when you strapolated out into the millions. No, but see, but that's really what Murray's book talked about. Instead it's just, oh, disparities and outcomes are all about race IQ as a racist tool, etc. Etc. But see this is these are interesting areas of conversation.

You can't have these discussions. I mean, you go back and listen to as Recline talking to Sam Harris, a neuroscientist. As Recline is a little nerd that pretends to know a lot about the economy, and it's really just a Marxist who thinks that the Constitution is really really old man.

But client sits down and it's just smarmy and nasty to Sam Harris talking about the issue of race and IQ, where Sam Harris is a is a lib and a neuroscientist, and he's trying to have a serious discussion about it, but as your client takes a position of well, you're saying things that hurt the social justice fabric, so you must be destroyed. That's really all that he has. Oh and then the last one on this list is feminism is a dangerous ideology. I think that's true. So it's

funny to me because I sit here. I mean, I think feminism leads a lot of women to being miserable, to being deeply unhappy, to make poor life choices. I sit here, and I think I don't. I would never be described by anybody who's not a liar or an

idiot as being all th right. But I find some of these topics that are so controversial in this radicalization of somebody on YouTube, I find needs to be topics that I would want to talk about on this show, and then I do talk about on this show, And then I do think are worthy of exploration and understanding and applying knowledge and insight and whatever data we have to these to get a better understanding of what's true and what's not. But you can't have these discussions at

the mainstream media networks. You can't. You can't have them in the pages of the so called leading newspapers and magazines or whatever's left of magazines, and so, yes, people do turn to YouTube for it. Does that mean that there are true racist, far right neo Nazi morons on YouTube. Of course there are. But they're on the Internet and they always have been, and they're in society and they

always will be. They're a fringe, they're reviled. They're not taken seriously or in any way treated with warmth by the vast, vast, vast majority of people on the right. In fact, I think many of us gladly and make it make not just a habit, but take a particular pride in trashing the far right as people that just make the lives of everybody who are trying to push for a conservatism to be as open and widespread and

widely adopted an ideology as possible. You know, having neo Nazis say yeah, you know, we're we're on the right, it goes, oh, no, we don't want them on the right. We don't want them anywhere. We don't want their ideas anywhere near us. But they put all this in this New York Times piece. They put all this together to say, oh see, it's all this all right, far right YouTube radicalization. No mention of radical Islam in this piece, by the way, that that's not a thing that I don't have to

worry about. You know, does YouTube radical Does watching Alocky videos make you want to go blow up Times Square or something question mark? They're not. They don't want to deal with that, you know, that's that's not a part of the radicalization this guy, mister Kane. One thing, you know, just to skip to the end here, I'll give you the I'll help you avoid having to read through this really pretty garbage epiece. Mister Kane. I don't I'm not aware of him taking any radical action here. They just

found some guy to profile on this. They smeared a bunch of really interesting, really insightful conservatives by putting them together with people that are idiots and racists, and other idiots and racists on the left too, you know, the true Israelites or whatever those guys were called, the ones that yelled at the Covington kids. They've been around for a long time. They'll put YouTube videos up, they'll put

stuff up on the Internet. But this guy. The happy ending to this piece, so to speak from the New York Times perspective, is that this guy, mister Kane at the end, starts looking at far left answers to the right on these questions, and that brings him, That brings him back into what could be considered a civilized and decent perspective on this. Oh okay, so the far left, you two, that's taking positions on these issues. That's good.

That's not brainwashing. That's just sensible without a trace of irony. That's how this New York Times peace ends. You know. Thankfully, the far left is now getting involved on YouTube, the radical left, and they're answering these radical right wing perspectives, and so all will be right in the world as long as YouTube engages in a whole lot of censorship and algorithm algorithm favoring and blocking of right wing content

and all this, which is really what this is about. Now, when the left is making an open play for an Internet that they have dominance of out in the I, out in the open now, they just want it to be that the Left gets to dominate communication on the internet because they've been. They feel like they've lost too much ground, too many elections, They've lost too many arguments by allowing people to really think and find out for themselves. They much rather have Silicon Valley barons spoon feeding the

public wing slop. And that's what this YouTube article is really hoping will happen. I don't know about you, but I played a lot of dodgeball when I was a kid. I was pretty good at it. I had pretty good arm, pretty good at catching the ball when it was thrown at me, reasonable agility to get out of the way of the folks trying to take me out, and I was one of the ones that were trying to go for was I the last one left? Often on my side and dodgeball? Indeed, indeed I was. Was I more

than once second or third grade dodgeball champion. I don't mean to brag, but obviously, but turns out, all that time, all those many years as a young kid running around during recess, which is what we called it, I guess, which is a fancier way of saying playtime. I didn't know this, but I was engaged in a form of unethical oppression. And there is in fact a movement of social scientists, which we know aren't real scientists up in Canada saying that dodgeball quote isn't just problematic, it is

an unethical tool of oppression. I love, oh Man live academics. You guys are fun. You guys are a fun bunch. I enjoy getting to dig into stuff like this one. So there's some conference of conference of comedies up in Vancouver, the Annual Congress of the Humanities and Social Science Sciences, which just what just happened this past week up in Canada, and they're presenting papers and ideas and all these things. But one of the one of the funniest ones, one

of the best ones of all, is that quote. The moral problem is that dodgeball encourages students to aggressively single out others for dominance and to enjoy that dominance as a victory or just a game. Kids throw balls at each other and it's usually over in a couple of minutes, and the balls, assuming that they're relatively soft and harmless. I mean, yeah, you shouldn't play dodgeball with little kids

throwing baseballs at each other or something right. It needs to be usually a kind of a large, fluffy ball. Even even using a volleyball, I know somebody like Buck, don't be a whimp. Using a volleyball can be a little little harsh. It should be something that has a little bit of a sponge sponginess in it. The proper dodgeball should have some sponge, some give, or be a rubber ball inflated with air so it's soft but can

still move pretty fast through the air. I look, I played a fair I played my fair share of dodgeball back in the day. I'm just gonna tell you straight up. But I didn't realize I was engaged in a form of oppression. And there's this story in the National Post in Canada. Keep in mind they're not writing about dodgeball as oppression. And I now I have I've never seen Mark. Have you seen the dodgeball movie with whatever the guy's name,

I can't remember, guys, classic, what's that guy's name? Is this? You know it's I want to say, no, yeah, probably, but the other you know, the guy who's from us so you know, um, there's something about Mary and meet them, Meet the Fockers and all that stuff. I know you you're talking about, but I can't grasp the name Ben ben Stiller. Thank you ben Stiller. He's in it, right, he's like the bad guy in it. Well, it's classic. I should watch it. Maybe i'll watch you this. Maybe

i'll watch it this weekend. I'd be kind of a fun one, you know, I like, I like silly sports movies like that. Well I've never seen that one, but I'm told that's good. But this article up in Canada is telling me that the children, the games that children play in schoolyards are famously horrible if you stop and think about them. So it's not just dodgeball that's coming in for the rough stuff here. There's some others that are about to get taken to task by Kunatos. Very

serious social scientists. Hey, yeah, they're like really upset about this. One tag, for example, singles out one participant, often the slowest child, as the dehumanized it. This is serious, this is what it says. I'm not making this up, all right. The dehumanized it in turn runs vainly in pursuit of the quicker ones. Yes, but this is true of pretty much any sport. If you're the slowest or the weakest

or the worst. It's not as fun and you probably want to get better at it, but it gets Oh, folks, this is we're just beginning to pull apart the games that we all played and loved as children, like Capture the Flag, which is nakedly militaristic. I love it. The Capsure the Flag is a great game, by the way. I mean if you have a good setup with Capture the Flag, and you know you have reasonably evenly matched teams.

I used to Capture the Flag at summer camp. The whole camp would be in one capture the Flag game, and if you actually managed to get that flag and get it across the other side, you were like a superstar for the night. You know, you were a hero. You got extra marshmallows to roast down by the campfire. Boom. Another game called British Bulldog has obvious jingoistic colonial themes I have do you end up? Mark? What's British Bulldog? Never heard of it? Producer Mike British Bulldog. He've heard

of this game? Oh, he hasn't heard of it. He's out smoking a stogie with the ladies. There's a game called Red Ass, which is known in America as butts up, which involves deliberate imposition of corporal punishment on the losers. Oh my gosh, I've never played butts up before, but none rouse the passions of reform minded educational progressives quite like dodgeball, the team sport of which players throw balls at each other, trying to hit their competitors and banish

them to the sidelines of shame. These are the I'm quoting from this piece in the National Post in Canada. They're serious about this. They want to get rid of they want to get rid of dodgeball, and they're applying the oh so rigorous intellectual standards of the Canadian social

scientist a to this issue. The Canadian Study for the Society for the Study of Education has a trio of education theorists who are going to argue that dodgeball is not only problematic in the modern sense of displaying hierarchies of privilege based on athletic skill, but that it is

outright miseducative. As the abstract for this discussion describes those they face marginalization, powerlessness, and helplessness of those perceived as weaker individuals through the exercise of violence and dominance by those who are considered more powerful. They're talking about they're talking about grammar school kids playing a game where they throw balls at each other and it's you know, and

they can't cross a line. But no, it's high aierarchies of privilege, folks, hierarchies of privilege, you know what, you know what they need to tell these social scienceists. Unfortunately, I wish it wasn't the case, but it is. Life is hierarchies of privilege. Life is people being separated based on ability, based on access, based on prestige, based on power, based on strength. That's life. I'm not I'm not saying that that's the ideal world, but that is the world

that we live in. And you know, were there's some people that maybe were a little better than me at dodgeball back in the day. You know, there are a few one or two. But is it just a game that we all learn? I mean, there's you know, everyone goes through things where they're not particularly they're not particularly good or skilled, and and that's a learning experience. Life

is accepting that you're not good at everything. Life is understanding that just because you wish things would be a certain way, they will not be that way, and you can either take action, you can run away from it, or you can suffer in silence. So there is a by the way in dodgeball, you don't allow headhunting, obviously, or we're not you know, we're not. We're not savages. You know, you can't throw the ball at somebody's head, obviously,

gotta keep it below the neck. I think that's okay, because sometimes you'll get some kid that's been held back like three years, and and he just starts, you know, just beating balls off a kid's faces all over the place if you let him, and that's not fun. I know. See, some of some of you are at are being savages right now. You're yelling at me. You're like, oh, buck, dodgeball. You can't anywhere on the bodies allowed in dodgeball. Don't be a whimp. I'm not saying put on a helmet.

I'm just saying it's got to be for the count. It should be below, you know, below the neck. That's that's the way civilized, that's the way civilized dodgeball is played. You know, unlike some of you listening to this being so savage, you eat cannibals. For breakfast. You know, let's be real here, folks. There are rules in dodgeball, and that's why it also reinforces that we all need to obey the same rules that we need to work as

a team. There's a lot of good in dodgeball that they don't even talk about here, but instead they just call it a tool of oppression. And I mean this, one of the problems that the left never addresses, and I don't think ken address, is that life is life is full of oppression. People will always be oppressed in life in one way or another. Life is full of different kinds of oppression. And trying to create oppression free environments for kids, and I'm not talking about systematic racial

oppression and things like that. Yeah, obviously you need to try to have some degree of legal and social equality, and you should strive for the maximum of those as well as other you know, gender equality. But you can't have equality and everything or else. You can't have competition, you can't have struggle, you can't have learning, you can't have growth, you can't have loss. None of those things

are possible if you have absolute equality. So dodgeball is really a learning tool, and nothing else you learn if you can't compete, stand behind the nerdy kid with the inhaler, the glasses and the velcrow shoes, because at least he'll get hit first. Sometimes people say to me, Buck, is it really fair to refer to Libs as crazy? And I respond, yes, it is fair, it is right, it is accurate. There are many, many, many Libs who I don't mean they're crazies and they have mental health issues.

That's not something to make jokes about. I mean they're crazy as in their political ideology is whacko, divorced from reality, separate from the day to day world that we all exist in. And it's a fiction, a fiction that really only exists in their mind, and they take action in the real world based on that fiction. So the non clinical but very effective way to describe this is to just refer to them as being nuts, because they are.

They are, simply, clearly and truly go and if you ever think yourself, well back, I need proof of this. I can't hang out and go around and say things about how the Libs are nuts and not be able to immediately point to something that's just proof of a very specific, ideologically driven liberal insanity. And for evidence, you could call it exhibit A. I would give you a story up today on CNN, another place where there's a lot of live nonsense and craziness. But it's called birth strike,

the people refusing to have kids because of climate change. Uh, let me read you a little bit of the story and then we can both enjoy the utter, the sheer lunacy that is on display in this Climate change is rapidly changing the environment we live in. That's the first line of the CNN piece. Wow, they really ending the sentence with a preposition. Climate change is rapidly changing the environment we live in. Only the best over at CNN, Only the best. But how far would you be willing

to go to help save the planet? Question mark? Would you skip school, eat pigs feet? How about forgo having kids? For thirty three ye old British musician blythe Peppino not a real name, the latter is a reality. Her fears about climate change are so strong she has decided not to have biological children. I really want a kid, she told CNN. I love my partner and I want a family with him, but I don't feel like this is

a time that you can do that. Peppino believes there will be an ecological armageddon and founded birth Strike at the end of twenty eighteen. Birthstrike is a group of people who are declaring their decision not to have kids because of climate change. So far, three hundred and thirty whole people have joined. Eighty percent of them are women. Now, you may say, buck, this is only three hundred and

thirty people. No birth strike, This group that CNN is writing a news story on is only three hundred and thirty people. But I can tell you this, They all would seem normal to you before you talk politics with them, for the most part. You know, maybe some of them are white guys with dreadlocks who sell glassware and follow the band fish around everywhere. But but for the most part,

they would seem relatively normal to you. So it's only when you engage them on a political issue that the absurdity and the insanity of their position becomes so apparent. They don't want to have children because they're afraid of climate change. This is a mental This is a mental disorder. This is a problem. This is like somebody who won't go outside. This is agoraphobia. This is aractophobia, irrational fear of spiders. I mean this belongs in that category of

interrrational fear of the fe future. But it's not when that comes from nothing. It's not one that just jumps out of thin air at people. Right. This isn't some of the other fears, or you have to get very deep into the psychotherapy about where they come from and what the underlying reasons would be. This is taking what we are told by the lib medium, by the Democratic Party and running with it and believing it. This is believing that what the Democrats say about the world ending

in twelve years is true. This is the end result of taking the ninety percent or ninety nine percent of scientists line believing catastrophic climate change to its conclusion. If nine of scientists believe this, if the global consensus is that we must act now or else, are these people crazy or are they just believing authorities around them who claim to have the only true scientific knowledge when it comes to this issue that everyone else has bad faith

and bad motivation. People like me who understand and recognize that climate change hysteria is certain to be wrong, has been wrong many times in the past, is politically motivated. And you can tell this by the arguments they make you don't even have to open up the books. You don't have to look at the numbers. Although when you do look at the numbers, you find that they have to readjust and readjust and readjust, because it turns out the numbers are not on their side. They always have

to keep changing it over time. But this is where I have to say. The people that react in this way, they're the true believers in a sense. They're the ones that listen to the government, listen to the Democrat consensus in this country and other countries. They're the ones that think that the scientific community that pedals this fear monging must be telling us the truth because they're scientists. You know,

they were white lab coats. They're like Bill Nye. The science Guy's a guy who has an undergraduate degree in engineering, and Bill Bill Nye is the all time science expert guy. The same way that because I have a political science degree from AMIRST, everyone should just refer to me as the politics guy knows more about politics than everybody else because he's an undergrad degree in that subject matter. I don't think that's the case. I don't think he would

do that. But if these people are the ones who listen and believe what they're told is true. If they take the climate change alarmists at their word, are what

are the rest of them? What are the people that aren't changing their behavior that not only will they will they continue to have kids despite the fact the world's going to end in twelve years, but that don't sell their beachfront properties, or that still flying private jets, or don't change any of their individual behaviors in response to exhortations from a scientific community that the world's going to end unless they do this, I mean they must be.

There are really only two options. They're sociopaths that they just don't care about anyone or anything but themselves, which may be true about a lot of libs. Or they're hypocrites. Then they don't really believe what they pretend to believe. Because while I can show you these birth strike people are completely nuts, they're the ones that are taking action based on what we're told. They believe the climate change consensus.

It's the rest of the people that run It's like, do you believe in climate change as though that's going to end the debate? Would you say, well, yeah, I mean the climate's changing. Climate has always changed, and there will be, you know, weather based environmental disruptions, just like they're always have been, and we should adapt to them. But there's nothing, there's nothing to be freaked out about here.

The people that will look at you like you're a monster for saying that, aren't they monsters for not taking seriously their sides rhetoric about the whole world ending? So, you know, the birth strikers, Yeah, we know they're crazy. You and I know they're crazy, but our lives in a position to call them crazy, I think the answer is quite obviously no. Some people ask why are there's so many Democrats running for president? And I say, look, you got this going the wrong way here, thinking about

this the wrong way. It's really about the entertainment value of some of these Democrats. You know, Yeah, they're not gonna be president. They know they're not going to be president. No one really thinks that Mary Ann Williamson is going to be president the United States, including Mary Ann Williamson, and a lot of you are probably thinking, buck, who the heck is that? Exactly exactly, there's a whole bunch of other candidates. Yeah, I can't even name them all.

And I work in political media for a living right. I don't even know who what all their names are. If you showed me all their photos, I'm not even sure i'd get all their names with the photos to prompt me along. There's some real third tier stuff going on here, maybe fourth and fifth tier stuff, but it's still fascinating and very entertaining. You get guys like Eric Swalwell, who really I think, staked his career on the Russia collusion end of a Trump presidency. That was what he

was promising, that's what we're supposed to get. That that that did not happen, And so he's going around now trying to convince people to vote for him based on radical anti gun stances, anti Second Amendment stances, and how he tries to speak as a He recognizes his white male privilege, of course, and that he is inherently, because of his gender and skin color, part of the patriarchy, but also thinks that he can understand the concerns of the intersectional

left somehow. And he had a moment when he was speaking over the weekend. I don't even he was on stage somewhere on c SPAN doing some rally or something, and he just he's a real wamp wamp machine play play the clip, but I will always be real with you. I will be bold without the ball. My wife and I we fight insurance companies when I'm not sure what I will be bold without the bowl. Was that because he trying to make a play on words with bull.

It's not like he said, without the bowl. The bull is Eric Swalwell a false flag candidate run by conservatives as a satire of the typical beta mail lib. Think about that before you answer it. Is it possible that Swallowell is really in this race because a bunch of conservatives got together and said, if we were creating the prototypical beta male liberal to run and to say the things that now a liberal white male has to say,

or else he'll be excommunicated from the left. And it has to do this bending of the knee and the self flagellation in and the oh, I'm make me president, but I know I'm not so great, and I know that I'm part of oppression, but I want to end depression. You know, all this stuff, He's all that possible in

the character of Eric Swalwell himself. My buddy Jesse Kelly tweeted out about that same sound bite every time I hold the stud finder up to my chest and make the beeping sound in front of my wife, reminds him of Eric Swalwell. Eric Swalwell, it's oh, he's such a nerd, but he is not necessarily the most cringe inducing of Democrat candidates. You may know this. It was Pride weekend over the weekend, and there were there were a lot

of Pride parades. I went out to dinner. What was it over the weekend and sure enough saw some of the aftermath of Pride parade stuff. And Kirsten Gillibrand, who used to be four Gun Rights and now says he na raised the worst organization in America. Used to be the female CEO who didn't want to be thought of as like the mommy, and now is all about being a mommy who's also going to be president. Right, it just changes, however she has to change. She has this

video and you have to see the video. It's on my Twitter account. I twittered it out. But where she's dancing in a rainbow colored gay Pride T shirt and with a video camera on her just happens to let this slip at the right time, play it Gay Rights. She's yelled out gay rights. Yeah, yeah, that was a

really authentic moment from Garson. Gilabred just happened to be dancing with like a bunch of you know, necklaces on at a bar, drinking shots, being cool pride shirt on gay rights, because that's what that's what everybody who's who's at the parade, they just random way have a video camera on them when they yell out gay rights. Oh, she is in this race, so that Elizabeth Warren is not the least authentic person in the race. That's what Jillibrand does. So she has a purpose here and swallwell

is to make us all feel manlier by comparison. Hey, team buck it's time for roll call. Really letting the dubstep roll call air out there for a second. It's the first day of a new world for the Buckster. I woke up this morning at eight fifteen am like a very civilized fellow. And I know that's a lot that's later than most of you probably wake up, but I needed to sort of catch up on some sleep.

I stayed up late last night watching Castlevania on Netflix, the cartoon that reminded me of the video game I played as a as a youth. Is it particularly good? No? But could I stay up late because I didn't have to get up at the crack of dawn? Yes? Yes, it was very nice and very nice, and there's additional energy now to devote to all things freedom up, which

is very exciting for me. All right, Facebook dot com, slide buck Sexton, and I gotta figure out if Mike, is there a email thing that we have from the website yet? We gotta we gotta come into the digital age here and start doing stuff like that. I know we've got the website's been redone and updated. It looks all pretty now, Buck Sexton dot com. Do we have an email contact form thing? You know, one of those thingies with the email form that you contact and we'll

full figure it out. I'm on it now. I got time. Now My excuse is gone for all of your requests when you say, hey, Buck, can you do this? And I say, well, I'll try to get to it, but I'm busy chatting with libs every day over at the Hill. Turn out that, no, I will be less busy, and I'll still be busy'll be less busy, John writes Shields High Real News Days fan, Well, John kicking it back now, for we started real news in twenty in January or so of twenty twelve, I think, or something like that.

Maybe I forget, I forget when real News start, but I think it was twenty twelve. Watching Chernobyl, I got the sense that it was making nuclear energy look bad. The Left would love to use the opportunity to use Chernobyl or a three mile island to shake a finger at and say we can't use that for energy. Now, John, I think that that's there's some truth to that, and it's frustrating because the way that the show depicts the

Soviet bureaucracy. I'm very very much in favor of. I mean, I think that it did a good job showing you that the Soviets, they worship this master of the state and the people that run the state machinery have no interest whatsoever in the truth when the truth is not advantageous to them. But the treatment of nuclear energy in

the show is not good. It's just not good. The way that they show people that I mentioned this last week bleeding and immediately their hand almost eroding because of the nuclear the nuclear energy and the radiation that it was giving off the very way that the scientists describes I can't remember his name out and it's like Latakov or something. I forget Israel. Have you seen this, producer, producer Mark, Have you seen Chernobyl yet? I have watched

the first three episodes. Here we go. What do you think so far? I enjoy it. I need to get around to watching the rest. But I like the suggestion it's a good show. Yeah, thank you, all right, good? Yeah, no, I agree. But the way that they show the nuclear energy, the radiation poisoning and all that is it's just not it's it's scientifically sloppy. You still would have had a lot of dramatic tension without completely mischaracterizing the dangers of

the nuclear nuclear radiation. I just would say, also the aftermath stuff is what bothered me the most, where they claim that there were, you know, essentially millions of people irreparably harmed by this meltdown. People were harmed and people did die, but there's no need to exaggerate it. And I think that there was a very obvious exaggeration at the end of it. And then when you add to it that the creator of the show, the show runner said that this is somehow about Trump. I'm like, this

is not about Trump, dude. You can try to this is a historical event. You can try to tie it to Trump, the same way you can tie bad weather tomorrow to Trump. But it's a silly thing to do. It's a foolish thing to do. Laurel rights. Hey, Buck, your idea of using the Muslim band to stop the flow of Central American and South American migrants has merit, even if it will be inflammatory to the left, Laurel, that's for sure. But the central problem exists of why they want to be in the US and not stay

in their home country. We know that most of these migrants are economic migrants looking for better paying work. Did you also know that remittance is sent to Central and South American countries work fifty three billion in twenty eighteen. That's from the World Bank. It's estimated that ninety five percent of that is sent from the United States. Mexico's economy in particular takes in thirty three billion, making it

less economically rewarding to work in the US. President Trump's effectively slowed the rate of migrants through high taxes on outgoing remittances to Central and South American countries. It will also have the added benefit of causing pain to their home countries, which they'll want to see reversed, and will

take steps to stop or slow migrants from coming here illegally. Well, Laurel, taxing remittances has been out there as a plan as an idea for a while, and I do think that there's there's plenty of reason to get into that and to have that discussion. The issue with the Democrats will be that they they'll say that this is hurting poor people and the optics of it don't look particularly strong,

and demagogues. Democrats will demogogue that you know what out of the issue, suggesting that, you know, Wall Street should be paying the taxes, not hard working day laborers sending money back to their families in Mexico or Venezuela or who knows where. But thank you, Laurel. Good to have you running in Jamie rides Buck on one of the weekend news shows, I heard Robert Francis O'Rourke speak for the first time. I must say your impersonation of him

is spot on. Thanks Jamie in Panama City. Well, Jamie, I really appreciate that. And even though I can't get above one percent in the polls. Right now, I just I want you to give me your heart. Beto, what could have been? Beto? What could have been? Deborah Rights? A bunch of long stuff that I can't get to right now, Chris Rights Buck I grew up in the seventies and eighties in Germany. Nuclear power was the boogeyman

of the time. Even acknowledging the terrible devastation of the Japanese tsunami nuclear disaster, the damage to the environment pales against the environmental damage of developing nations who lived through primitive environmental disasters caused by poverty and even natural disasters. If you compare the no go zones of Japan and Chre Noble, there are many worse non nuclear disasters that

devastate entire regions. Hollywood poison the well for generations to come. Yeah, Chris, nuclear is a boogeyman and has been for a long time. Nuclear power as I understand that you could fit all of the nuclear power waste that has ever been created in a warehouse. I was told this recently by a nuclear by a nuclear energy expert. By a warehouse, I think a couple of football fields long ten stories high All the nuclear waste that has ever, ever ever been

created could fit into essentially one big building somewhere. The storyline you hear is that nuclear waste. They're always close to having some kind of a shutdown. We can never get rid of the waste. We'll never figure out what to do when entire cities can be powered by nuclear plants. And Europe is better on this issue than we are. And the Friends have been much more willing to embrace nuclear power than we have in this country because of

the environmental lobby. And I do think that there is a bad faith hatred of nuclear power that comes from the environmental left because they don't want it an industrial solution to their climate change hysteria. They want wind and solar, and you know that they don't want it to be nuclear. Meanwhile, wind and solar will not be able to power the American economy anytime soon. It's ridiculous. The technology's not there.

That's just that's just the way things are. Let's see here, Andrew Shields high Buck, I'm calling balderdash on Chernobyl's depiction of animal extermination squads. As you said, radiation poisoning isn't a transferable disease, so the premise of exterminating the dogs and cats of the exclusions zone would have been counterproductive. I suspect a total fabrication solely for the sake of the scene where he has to kill the puppy. Andrew, I think you're right. I think that you are correct

on this one. And I don't know if maybe at the time there were so panicked that there were some pet pet extermination squads from the military, from the Soviet military that went out there to track down Phido because he had been irradiated. Does anyone ever call their dog FIGHTO anymore? You know, it's kind of the John Doe of dog names. Does anyone actually say, Yeah, I'm gonna

name my dog FIGHTO. Just putting that out there, but yeah, the cat that was close to the Chernobyl meltdown does not carry around with it radiation that kills everybody that it touches. That's that's not how radiation works. It's internalized and that it's within that person. It's not a They really do treat radiation almost like a zombie apocalypse disease strain, and that's not correct. So the science was very for a show that's this high profile and gotten this much attention,

that science is very shaky. Well, it's just wrong in some places, and it didn't need to be wrong. That's you know. Do you to use dramatic interpretation or to write in a scene to make a point? We all, we all understand. That's fine, you're gonna do that stuff when you're making a TV show. But when you're explaining in some detail the science of nuclear reactor at different points in the show, I think it would be better to stick to the actual science of the disaster and

not make it up as you go along. Cheryl writes, Buck Unleashed can't wait, looking forward to all you're going to do. Wishing you all the best. Cheryl, thank you so much. I appreciate that. Yes, Buck is unleashed, and things are going to get Things are going to get spicy. Giselle rites, Hey, Buck, are you going to stay in DC? You're gonna move back to New York, Giselle. Time will tell, my friend, time will tell. We shall see how that ends up shaking out. Now, we have some more in

the roll call box here. Nadine, all right, Buck, listen to podcast here work. I'm a bit behind hearing you more about you going buck wild than getting the things that allow your talents to shine. So very excited for you're looking forward to what you have coming for the rest of us. Long time listener, very much appreciate your insight, wisdom beyond your years, and ability to laugh at yourself.

Hope you'll come back to us here in New York. Well, thank you very much, Nadine, and appreciate the kind note today. And yes we are going to be getting buck wild, but until then she'll tie