Dems Go Full Impeachment Crazy

what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, you're a great American. Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Remember they did it. They did it, folks, Democrats have gone full crazy. Welcome to the buck Sexton Show. Great to have you here, and honor and a privilege. As always those who have been listening to me for a while. Now that I've been saying all along, I just don't like to repeat my predictions. Just like I've been telling

you Biden's not going to be the nominee. I'm looking pretty good on that one. I've also told you many times that they're going to impeach. They can't help it,

They're going to impeach the president. Guess what Nancy Pelosi today announced they're beginning an impeachment inquiry, which just means that they're now trying to add some legitimacy, trying to add some sense of of process to what is nothing more than a temper tantrum three years in the making from a Democrat left that is unhinged and increasingly I think obviously unwell. You had Pelosi today giving a bit of a meandering and stumbling press conference, which I suppose

is not surprising. She had been alluding to this all day. She had some conference at the Atlantic Monthly, a left wing rag that presents itself with fancy prose, and decided that she was going to give us a little sense of what was coming up. But now we've actually heard it from Pelosi. They are now going to impeach the president. I mean, they're saying it's a an inquiry. Does anyone really believe that they're going to start an impeachment inquiry

and there won't actually be an impeachment. I mean, we'll talk about a waste of everyone's time. Now, I'm not saying that Democrats are above wasting time, but it's not good politics for them. They're going to have to they're going to impeach this president. It's interesting, isn't it. Last

week they were going to impeach Brett Kavanaugh. But then anybody, anybody who is honest and has above a second grade reading level, figured out really quickly that it was a sham, that it was a scam, and that it was a lie that they were trying to once again perpetrate against

Brett Kavanaugh. So now they've moved on to this. Before I let you hear from Madame's speaker herself, Nancy Pelosis, she announced this because I want you to know exactly what they're saying, because we have to discuss where they're going to take this. I would like it to be very clear for all of us that they have moved to impeachment on the basis of an incident that they do not know any of the details of yet for themselves,

they do not know what was said. They're basing this on a conversation that a person in the intelligence community complained about that they heard about secondhand, and without knowing the facts, they have decided to go ahead and start this impeachment inquiry without understanding what really went on here. They've decided that they should push for maximum impact right away. First you have Pelosi doing the usual, the usual nonsense about how this president is owed just such a violation

of the Constitution. Everything, his every breath is a violation of the Constitution. The Intelligent Community Inspector General formally notified the Congress that the administration was forbidding him from turning over a whistleblower complaint on Constitution Day. This is a violation of law. Shortly thereafter, press reports began to break of a phone call by the President of the United States calling upon a foreign power to intervene in his election.

This is a breach of his constitutional responsibilities. The facts are these. I just want to pause there and notice how she's immediately ties us to Russia collusion in some way, just rhetorically. This is Ukraine, different country. Not the Democrats really care. Facts don't really matter to them, but that he called on foreign interference in the election. Oh, they've they've already. That's the talking point, right, that's the charge again.

This is another another time that they're going to say that President Trump wants foreign interference in the election. Good heavens, what will we do? And then she goes on the Intelligence Community Inspector General, who is appointed by President Trump, determined that the complaint is both of urgent concern and credible, and it's disclosure, he went on to say, relates to one of the most significant important of the Director of

National Intelligence is responsibility to the American people. So so this is important for you to know as well. The appointed by Trump thing. This is like when they used to say that Muller was a Republican. Comey was a Republican is meaningless. Comey was actually a comy as still along as we found out, and Muller was a figurehead

for a left wing hatchet job operation against Trump. And some of the people that hate Trump the most are in fact Republicans, are former Republicans, in the cases of people who write for that dumpster Fire, the Bulwark and other places right former Republicans. Now they're fighting for the other team because you know they didn't. If they can't have the leadership of the Republican Party, nobody can. And

that's the never Trump rallying cry. Now better to have the better to have the socialists in charge than Trump. But I'm still a Republican, they say, Please, It's embarrassing for everybody. Most of all of them. But Pelosi says things here that are plainly not in evidence. Think about the recklessness of this moving to an impeachment hearing based on what is effectively a rumor reported on by anti Trump newspapers. That's what they're doing here with impeachment. They're

going based on a rumor. Here is Speaker Pelosi. Remember this just happened at five eastern Today's We've got what is essentially breaking news for you here just in the last hour. Here's what Speaker Pelosi had to say about the whistleblower complaint. For more than twenty five years, I've served on the Intelligence Committee as a member, as the ranking member, as part of the Gang of Four, even

before I was in the leadership. I was there when we created the Office of the Director of National Intelligence that did not exist before two thousand and four. I was there even earlier in the nineties when we wrote the Whistleblower Laws and continued to write them to improve them, to ensure the security of our intelligence and the safety of our whistleblowers. I know what their purpose was, and we proceeded with balance and caution as we wrote the laws.

I can set with authority the Trump administration's actions undermine both our national security and our intelligence and our protections of the whistle blowers more than both. So so I can say with authority that Nancy Pelosi has no idea what she's talking about. She doesn't know, she doesn't know. And what I meant to say before was bringing up this whistle blower that he was. I'm not the whistle blower. The inspector general. He's appointed by Trump. He's a functionary,

he's a bureaucrat. We don't know this guy is Trump doesn't Yeah, sure, this guy is the one that you know that the president can't know the heart of every person and every single job that's that's a presidential point of the administration. They do a little due diligence. Sure they try to look at the record, but you know, he's the inspector general for the intelligence community. I mean, it's not the Secretary of State. You do what you can.

And more importantly, Pelosi doesn't know what was said on this phone call, doesn't even know, and she's going forward with this. Ah, but we all know what this is. This is politics for a desperate Democratic party. You know why they're so worried Biden's starting to slip. Biden is neck and neck, even behind in some polls. I'm seeing in Iowa, New Hampshire to Warren. If there's a changing of the guard. The Democratic Party feels very uncertain about it.

Warden perhaps Warren perhaps is a little too radical, a too left wing for the general electorate. What are they going to do? Oh, they need to They need to stack the deck. You see, how do they stack the deck against Trump? Ah? Yes, impeachmentt That'll do it, That'll make it work. They think the actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution, especially when the president says Article too says I can do whatever

I want. For the past several months, we have been investigating in our committees and litigating in the so the House can gather all the relevant facts and consider whether to exercise its full Article one powers, including a constitutional power of the utmost gravity approval of articles of impeachment. And this week the President has admitted to asking the President of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically.

The action of the actions of the Trump presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the President's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections. Therefore, today I'm announcing the House of Represents moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. I'm directing our six committees to proceed with their investigations under that umbrella of impeachment inquiry. The president must be

held accountable. Is above the law. Hillary Clinton's above a law. But that's a question for another time. I guess Nancy Pelosi is an ethical and political disgrace. What's the charge, Nancy? What she keeps saying, endangered our national security, endangers our elections, endangers this endangers that. Okay, Nancy, what's the charge? What exactly did he do? She doesn't know. Oh, but she says he admitted. What did he admit to, Nancy? He admitted to telling a foreign head of state to look

into corruption in his country. Well, that seems completely legitimate. If a corollary of that, if a secondary effect of that is that somebody who is Biden's family member is maybe going to get into a little bit of trouble. We don't know yet, too bad. What is the illegality because it benefits him politically. I got news for you. If that's the standard, everything a president tries to do, he wants to do to benefit him politically. Presidents don't

do things, generally speaking, that don't benefit them politically. Oh my gosh, I'm you know. We must have articles of impeachment against President Trump. He wants to end the war in Afghanistan just because he wants to see his poll numbers go up. You could make that argument, but then you'd also be making the argument that the president doesn't have any constitutional authority at all to do anything. They

keep doing this. They think they can bludgeon us with narrative and fake newsmen going on tv J and blah blah. I'm putting all these absolutely maniacal anti Trump so called legal analysts who are just pundit clowns who say things that are wrong over and over again. They're proven wrong over and over again, and they just keep shoveling them at the American people because the Democratic Party is unwell. They've lost it. Trump's arrangement syndrome has reached critical mass.

They don't know how to deal with the world as it actually is, so now they've concocted this whole theory. And I've played for the audio from Nancy Pelosi herself. What did the president? What's the violation? Just because she says that she doesn't like it, there's a violation. What's the crime. I've heard people on TV, on MSNBC, somebody said treason, treason? How getting rid of corruption? Maybe Joe Biden's son should have been taken fifty thousand dollars a

month from one of the most corrupt governments. Are really ruins corrupt, I should say, companies in one of the most corrupt governments in one of the most corrupt countries in the entire Eurasian land masks. You know, maybe that's an issue to look at just a little bit. It's madness, But this is where we are. I'm just beginning. As you can tell, it's gotten me a little bit fired up. I am just beginning to fight. We'll be right back

the future. About democracy is a state that come a time when you have to be moved by a spirit of history to take action to protect and desert tegatory of my nation. I believe, I truly believe the time to begin impeachment proceeding against this president has come. To delay or to do otherwise, we're betrayed the foundation of

my democracy. You knew that impeachment was coming when Representative Lewis here decided that he was going to give this speech this morning, and that's when they were they're adding up the votes, and then the Congressional Black Caucus moved into the yes column, and then you just knew, okay, now that they're they've got the votes. Why now, though, of all the things Trump has been accused of, remember they had the ten possible instances we've heard so much,

the ten possible instances of obstruction of justice. This is what they think that this is the straw that broke the camel's back. This is the one that pushed it too far that the president. They don't know. We keep saying that the President did or said, they don't know, We don't know. We'll get into the whole transcript release fight in a second, but it's absolutely utterly insane that they would Why would they do this? Why would they push now when the transcript the President has said it

is going to be released. I believe tomorrow. Tomorrow, I think is when the transcript is supposed to come out. Yeah, that's what the President has said why do it in advance on the transcript? Ah, you know why, folks, This was all about just getting enough Democrats to cross the impeachment rubicon. That was the purpose all along, that once they're on the other side of the river, it's never coming. It's never going to change. Now they all have to

go through with it. So this was more than anything else, a media and far left Democrat pressure campaign that finally worked enough that there's no turning back. They're gonna have to now see this thing through. They're going to drag the country while we have the clown show of Democrat candidates just saying idiotic things looking entirely unserious as who could or should be the next leader of the free world.

But they're going to have the whole country stuck on whether or not impeachment is going to happen when we all know that this is just like I told you. And I don't like to be that guy that says I told you, I told you, But if you if you go back to certainly this past summer, I was saying that impeachment was going to happen because the Democrats are crazy, and I understand what crazy Democrats do. But now we have to all understand there's no way they

don't hold the vote and impeach this president. They're not going to get the two thirds they need in the Senator remove him, not even close. But now this is going to become a political fixation for the Democrats, and it is really just one big OPO effort against the President to put him on defense while the Democrats figure out which style of socialists they're going to put forward. You know, who is going to take the mantle of anti Trump savior of our democracy. They keep saying these things,

savior of our democracy. It's like they don't live in America, a country that is right now at peace, that is prosperous, that by all observable metrics, is doing quite well. Yet we don't hear anything about that, right. All we hear about is our democracy is under threat. Why I voted for President Trump a lot? Have you voted a vast majority? Have you voted for President Trump? Well? In what ways?

A democracy under threat? Oh? I'm sorry. The people who have done nothing other than try to run the most bad faith, shameless investigations of this president possible to stop him, to destroy his presidency, they now want to lecture the rest of us in just what exactly, what exactly fair

play looks like. I don't think so. After the special counsel that never should have happened, After all the congressional inquiries and hearings, it never should have happened, the nonsense around the twenty fifth Amendment, they're going to remove him. I mean, they have tried cou's against this president, and now they want to tell us that he can't play a little bare knuckle politics of his own and have somebody remember he didn't say throw Biden's son in prison,

he said investigate. We're told we'll get back into this in a moment. Yes, I believe that the transcript should be released. I believe that in particular right now, the House committees are are asking for it, and they should be granted that. Listen, again, this gets back to an

erosion of our democracy. Donald Trump is trying to play politics with this issue, and he is trying to collaborate with and conspire with a foreign leader to interfere in our democracy, and I will I have absolutely no support for that. And I believe that that this is a political tactic being waged by Donald Trump because he obviously perceives a threat that is a political threat, and I

have no support for it whatsoever. I just need to understand how all these Democrats can speak about this like they know what is in the transcript that they have not read. We've skipped right past this, and you saw how this was set up on Saturday. Well, you know, you know Jake Chopper will well excuse me, he kind

of sounds like that. Well, you know, I just want to know, like what's going You know, if Don Junior was being investigated by that, you know, you're like, all right, so we're just gonna pretend like we know this is what happened, even though we don't know what happened. And after all these months we've had of Democrats saying, whoa hold on, we have to wait for the facts here, we have to wait and see, you know what's going on.

Hold on a minute, hold on a second. To that, I just say, huh, So now they don't have we waited all this time, they don't have the facts, and yet they're moving to impeachment. Let's also just the transcript. The President has said that he will release the transcript. What reason could there possibly be other than what I've already said about how you just need you need to get Democrats to commit so they can't turn around. You need them to get to they have to scuttle their

ships on impeachment. They didn't actually Cortes didn't light them on fire. As you know, he's scuttled them. It's different. And the President has said that he will release this transcript. So why aren't we seeing Why aren't we seeing more of a an effort to at least hold back until we know what's in them? Why go now? Because it's not really about what's in them, It's about the narrative,

you see. I love how the as soon as the President had said earlier today he had tweeted out that he was that he was going to release it, all of it. It went from release the transcript, why won't you release the transcript? What are you covering up? Democrats were saying that the media was all saying that too. Oh my gosh, you can't release the transcript. What if foreign leaders don't trust you anymore on phone calls? And also you know what if the American people just can't

handle what's in there? I mean, they just change all the time. They have no principles folks. It's just all emotions and nastiness. And they've convinced themselves that Trump is the worst person since Hitler, maybe as bad as Hitler. So anything is justified. I mean, the President's clearly just you know, I was gonna say he's got to be frazzled by all this, He's got to be rattled. But now this president loves a fight, God bless him. He's just gonna say, you know what, fine, dig in, let's go,

let's see what you got. He was tweeting right after Nancy's speech, but he did Pelosi, Nadler, Schiff and of course Maxine Waters. Can you believe this? They never even saw the transcript of the call a total witch hunt and then in all caps presidential harassment. Yeah, that is, that is what is going on. So I think that's her.

By the way, He also tweeted earlier in the day, I'm currently at the United Nations representing our country, but have authorized the release tomorrow of the complete, fully declassified, an unredacted transcript of my phone conversation with President Zelenski of Ukraine. You will see it was a very friendly and totally appropriate call. No pressure and unlike Joe Biden and his son. No quid pro quo. This is nothing more than a continuation of the greatest and most destructive

witch hunt of all time. Speaking of quid pro quos, here's the president on that point, get other people to pay, and then everybody called me, oh please, can we pay? And there was never any quid pro quo. The letter was beautiful, It was a perfect letter. It was unlike Biden, who, by the way, what he said was a horror and ask how his son made millions of dollars from Ukraine, made millions of dollars from China even though he had no expertise whatsoever. Okay, so what he did was a

real problem with us. There was no pressure applied, no nothing, No pressure applied, no nothing. What is the president's What is the liability here? What law did he break? What did they don't even know? Folks, This is the Democrat This is actually a desperation move the Democrats. They sure they're lashing out, so at some level it has the appearance of putting them on offense, but they don't have

the goods if they did. And I think I would note that what's going to be in that transcript will be entirely defensible and perhaps even just a nothing burger. But Democrats will say, well, there's a million other reasons we impeach them. It doesn't matter. They're impervious to facts. It doesn't matter what you say, it doesn't matter what you present them with. That today it was all about this phone call that they don't know what was said,

but they've heard, you know, through layers and layers. This is like the game telephone when you're a kid. They've heard through layers of it being passed down that oh, something bad happened. But instead of waiting until they know they did this, because now that they've gotten impeachment proceedings rolling, they'll they'll just shoehorn in whatever they have to about Trump. Okay,

well this letter wasn't as bad as we thought. But you know, Russia collusion and obstruction or okay, you know, maybe the pressure campaign that Trump used against the Ukrainian president to do something that. Does anyone think that what he said is wrong or illegal in any way? Forget about illegal? Is it even wrong? Why can't the president of the United States tell a Ukrainian counterpart, Hey, I really want you to look into some corruption in your

country by. The prosecutors play this game in America all the time. They go after targets that are political targets. It happens all the time. Just ask Scott Walker, Chris Christie, Rick Perry, Bob McDonnell, Scooter Libby, get down this. This happens all the time. And what they always say is, oh, but even if there's a political implication, it doesn't mean

that the underlying investigation is tainted. Oh okay, Well that's good to know, but it's also very obviously in some cases not true, which then raises the question for us, Well, hold on a second, why is it any different here with Trump? Why are we in a situation, Why are we in a circumstance that, you know, the President of the United States isn't allowed to exercise his authority under the Constitution to conduct foreign relations because remember it's not

even Joe Biden, it's remember Joe Biden's family. You know, maybe maybe Hunter Biden shouldn't have been a run around Ukraine when his dad is the point man for policy in Ukraine. I mean, can we step back from this for a second. There are one hundred and ninety seven countries in the world. I think maybe one hundred ninety five, depends on how you count them, but roughly one hundred

and ninety seven. Okay. Hunter Biden, Joe Biden's son, when he's the vice president, magically gets put on the board of a company that is under intense pressure for corruption. And there are people with tens, perhaps hundreds of millions of dollars at stake, depending on how this corruption investigation shakes out, And we are to believe that Hunter Biden, the vice president's son, is put on their board because he's such a good lawyer, because he understands international deal

making so well. I mean, he had been a public affairs officer and I think it was the Navy and didn't last a year because he had a positive cocaine test. So why exactly is this guy getting fifty thousand dollars a month from Barisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company. Anyone want to try to take a guess? Oh, they say, well, there's no quid pro quote. First of all, how do you know that? We don't know? Could be right? Democrats have this standard with Trump at his tax returns. Oh,

we need to see the tax returns. Federal government already has it. Oh we need to see it for ourselves. So for them, more investigation is always a legitimate line of it. We just need more invest Why are you opposed to getting to the truth. We just need more investigation. Okay, well, we want more investigation about what was going on when the vice president saw was getting paid a whole lot of money to sit on a board of a company that was under a lot of pressure and that was

at the intersection of US and Ukrainian foreign policy? What about that? What about that is so strange or so surprising? I would offer you answers nothing, But you know what is surprising is that we are supposed to believe that anyone thinks that we're going to believe that Hunter Biden wasn't getting paid off in one way or another. People say, there wasn't a quit pro quot. Okay, well, then he

was an insurance policy. Think about this, if you if you're the director of this company, you know, the CEO of Barisma, and you can put the vice president's son on your board for a cool fifty thousand month, and that may mean that you don't go to prison and or you don't lose a few hundred million dollars that seems like a really good investment, doesn't it. Even if you're not sure exactly what he's going to do. You got the vice president's son on your board. That buys

you some credibility. It's an insurance policy. It's the appearance of access, it's the appearance of invulnerability. And that's the part of this that you have to remember. That's the part of this that you can't just let let's slide out of you. I've been saying it all along. I mean, this is what they do not have an answer for. They cannot explain why is it exactly that this is going on? Why would Joe Biden's son be on this board? Does anyone want to try to take a stab at

that one? Oh? I guess they don't know. They can't figure out the answer to that question. We'll be right back, All right, team, We are joined by our friend Chadwick Moore today on the show. Chadwick is over at Spectator USA. He's a columnist, he's a pundit. You often see him on Fox News. We also did a fantastic duo speech here in New York City a week ago for the New York Republicans Club. Chadwick great to have you on the show for the first time, sir, great to be here, Buck,

thanks for having me. And it was a fantastic night the other night. Yeah, we rocked a house. That's how we roll. So man, speaking of speaking of rock in the house, Nancy Pelosi, you see that transition, smooth as silk. Nancy Pelosi, she's gone full crazy and she's decided that they're gonna go forward with an impeachment inquiry, which means, guess what, they are going to impeach this because I feel like, now what they're gonna have the inquiry, They're

not gonna hold an impeachment vote. Come on, yeah, what what on earth are they thinking? When we're approaching an election year and the Democrats are already branded as they do nothing, failed party, going from Russia Gate to a quick hot second of impeach Kavanaugh to impeach Trump. Do they think this is going to play well in an election year? You know? One thing is that you know, people say in the mid terms that Republicans didn't turn

out the Democrats basically, Kate, they exhausted their votes. You know that everyone came out in the mid terms and they sort of barely made a slight, slight demand says, well, if there's anything that's going to get Republicans out to the polls in twenty twenty, it's going to be if the Democrats try to impeach President Trump. I mean, this is just madness. Though in a Pelosi she had this

kind of rambling. By the way, we're gonna start talking about age limits, maybe there needs to be a Speaker of the House age limit because Pelosi looked like she was, you know, on another plans at some points during her speech there. But anyway Pelosi's saying, she talks about the founders and then how Trump has undermine our national security? How can she say all these things when she does not know what happened in this whistleblower complaint at all?

She does, she has no inside knowledges whatsoever. From what we understand. She just reads the newspapers just like the rest of us. You're absolutely right, And maybe it's the Speaker of the House. To your earlier point, we should call her the sol of the House. That seems that whenever she gives a speech, she has no idea what's going on. And I believe I just saw Trump said he's going to be releasing the full transcripts of the phone call with the Ukrainian officials, so that might really

take the wind out of the sales. Here, they are dramatically trying to shift all the focus off of the inquiry into Joe Biden, into Hunter Biden when Joe was vice president. This is this is a hail Mary for them. What have they got? They have absolutely nothing. It's just wild, man. I'm assuming. I'm all these democrats were like, there's so much to impeach him on. I'm always like, okay, looks so much. Let's say, okay, why they're oh my gosh, like, guys,

come on, it shouldn't be that hard. I thought it was Russia. Oh now it's the Ukrainian whistleblower phone call. These people are crazy, man, They're just they're just in another planet. But you know, we real quick, Chadwick. I mean we got to the president was at the u N today, and you know, this is a president who and this is gonna be a part of the twenty twenty narrative. You know that just as well as I do. He's constantly called a racist, a homophobe, a big in

all these different things. Meanwhile, here's what the President said today at the United Nations in fun of representatives from a lot of countries where there's real homophobia, real bigotry in a way that we don't see in this country. Play clip. As we defend American values, we affirmed the right of all people to live in dignity. For this reason, my administration is working with other nations systop criminalizing of homosexuality.

And we stand in solidarity with lg VTQ people who live in countries that punish, jail or execute individuals based upon sexual orientation. Chad, does the gay community give the president?

The LGBTQ community, he seems to have trouble with the acronym, but it's a long acronym, you know, But do they ever give him any any credit for what is what is the moral stand here that other presidents, it seems, have been very hesitant to take, which is, it doesn't matter what country you're in, you know, you can't imprison gays or you know, in some of the Islamic countries, throw them off roofs or bury them under rocks, or any of these things. That's a horrific human rights violation.

The President speaking out on this, does he get any credit absolutely not. In fact, I was just I just now clicked over to the Advocate magazine, my former employer, where I used to do most of their big cover stories. They have me blocked on Twitter. But their headline about the speech on the on the front trade spash is a boring un speech proves he uses LGBTQ people LGBTQ lives as pawns. Um they have. When this was so, this initiative, it's seventy one nations where it's currently criminalized

to be gay. Six of those nations murder homosexuals, and the initiative is headed up by Rick Rnelle, our our ambassador to Germany, who's openly gay, the highest ever openly gay official in uh in the government. And um, you know, the approach to this is it's basically seventy one different plans for each country, and it involves using leverage in trade and and things like this. It's not you know, sort of going in and you know it's it's a

negotiation and it's trade and using leverage. Uh So. But the gay media when this was first a noun Um Out magazine, which is the other big gay magazine, ran a headline thing that the criminalization efforts of homosexuality are actually racist. That was in the headline. Um, they don't know what to make of this guy, because he's clearly not homophobic. He's a New York City Manhattan businessman. Have you ever met an actual rich businessman in New York

who's sincerely homophobic. He's had gay people around him his entire life. Obviously, there's plenty of homosexuals dressing Milannia, and they give him no credit. They give her no credit for how gorgeous she is and her great style. And they simply can't because these these organizations and these media sites, they're no longer. They don't care about gay people. They

are not. That's not what they're about anymore. They are just another propaganda wing of the Democrat Party and increasingly of the far left of the sort of neomarxists in academia and in Hollywood and in the media. So that's that their goal anymore. They don't have anything after gay marriage, especially, they were left with nothing else to fight for, you know, civil rights were achieved, and instead they've taken on these other issues that go well beyond what they're stated purposes.

And it's no more clear than how they treat uh these um uh President Trump's uh, the administration's initiatives to decriminalizes the President Trump also just partnered with Gilead, the pharmaceutical company which produces a drug that prevents HIV infection, to give two hundred thousand Americans who are who are vulnerable to contracting HIV free access to the drug because the drugs about a thousand dollars a month um. Total silence on the gay leap, total silence in the gay

media on that. Um. So he can't win with them. But you know it doesn't matter if the advocates claiming that that he's using them as hawns. Well, you know, LGBT is four percent of the population. Um. Is he really vined for those four percent of the boats? Wouldn't he do better to pander to evangelicals? No? He Instead, he is doing something he believes in and that his ambassador, one of his one of his favorite members of the administration,

also believes in. And he's sharing long with that. He did not have to say that in that say that in the speech today, and he did. Yeah. And it also brings up how the left, the left doesn't know how to how to balance its wokeness with predominantly non white Muslim countries that are truly and viciously, as a matter of law, bigoted against the LGBT community. The Left hasn't figured out how to how to make sense of that one quite yet. But Chadwick, we got. We gotta

leave it there for right now. My friend, you guys are gonna have Chadwick in for me sometime next month, exciting things. She'll be hearing him here in the Freedom und He's going to be taking the taking the helm for a day. Chadwick More. Everybody at the spectator, Thank you so much, sir. We'll talk to you soon. All right, thank you very much. The team, we'll be right back. We had another special guest in the lineup today. Team.

We have Steve More with us now. He is a senior fellow at the Heritage Foundation, formerly an economic advisor to President Trump. He's going to talk to us about some mineral issues that are national security and economic concerns. Steve. Great to have you back on the program. Yeah, thanks for having me again. By the way, this is a huge issue because you know, there is no country in the world that has more minerals and more metals and have greater mining capacity in the United States, says, and

we're sitting atop trillions of dollars of these resources. And the scandal is that we are not developing our own resources, have become totally dependent on foreigners, just like we became dependent on foreigners for oil in the nineteen seventies and and it wrecked our economy. So I'm very worried about this and appreciate that you have beyond to talk about. Well,

I mean, but tell me you're concerned about it. I think a lot of people don't even realize that there's any blocks or hurdles in place to mineral mining that you're speaking of. What's going on in this country. Well, first of all, let's take an example, you know that I wrote about this week, which is uranium. You know, now people are like, what do we need uranium for? Well, you need it for your nuclear power plants. You need it for nuclear energy, and you need it for the military,

needs it for our nuclear capability. And guess what, we don't produce it anymore in the United States. Now we get some of it from Canada, but now we're getting most of our You're not going to believe this we're getting most of our uranium that we need for our weapons systems from from Russia, China, Kazakhstan and countries like that. That doesn't seem like a good idea at all. So who's blocking this? I would say, not such a good idea. You have to be dependent on, you know, onfrontly nations.

And so this is a crisis and we need we need to remove some of the barriers. And by the way, people are wondering how did this happen, because you know, we've been doing copper mining, coal mining, goal mining, the uranian mining for decades and decades in this country out west and states from Colorado to California to Montana to Utah and Wyoming. And it's brought to help mostly because these environmental rules and environmentalists and basically shut down our

mining capacity. And most of these minerals, by the way, are underneath federal lands. So I estimate we could raise several trillion dollars of royalties, you know, to help pay down our national debt if we if we got the mining capacity back up. And so it's a win win for the economy, for these private workers, for the mining workers and to and for our national security. But Steven, I mean, first of all, uranium obviously gets a lot of attention because of uranium one. But is there any

eat is there? Right? This is an example of really what you're talking about, which is, you know, the Russians buying into a company that has an outsized role and uranium production at the US is dependent on But who does anyone really is this an environmentalist issue? I mean, who's saying let's not get our stuff from our own soil. If we're sitting at top it, it seems like a

good idea to get after it. Well, So what the story here with respect of most of our mining capacity has been to the environmentalists have just made it almost impossible to open up new mines in the United States. And by the way, most of these other countries that we do get minerals from, including these Asian countries, they

don't have any environmental standards at all. So it's worse for the environment to be getting them from you know, China and countries like that then producing it here at home. But with respect to uranium, what's happening is the Russians are just dumping this stuff on the market in order to put our uranium producers out of business, shut down our mind, so we're totally dependent. Um, you know, this is the old Soviet Union we're talking about, you know, I mean, it's it's it is I think you used

it insane. It is insane. I mean, it doesn't make any sense. And now Donald Trump has to, my opinion, issue an executive order to you know, reinstate our mining capabilities in the United States so we can be you know, what are the most resource rich world country in the world, and think about all the jobs that we could be painting with these mining operations that have been shut down.

So it's it's important. I'm so glad you're covering because it's important issue for our economy and for our national security. Stephen can't let you go without asking you, with people listening across the country, how do you think the economy is going to shake out in the last year of Trump's first term? Here? What are your what are the man a growth thoughts that you can give us on China, trade,

the market, and just how things are going to go. Well, first of all, we got the best economy we've got, you know, in any decades. And if you're a worker, you know this is the best decade and you're in my lifetime and in fifty years at the lowest unemployment rate, the rising wages, We've got the lowest Black unemployment and Hispanic unemployment rate. We've got you know, lowest interest rates,

lower inflation rate, the seven million surplus jobs. So this is a blockbuster economy, and liberals are twisted into a pressl to figure out how to explain why Donald Trump has created this great economy. Now, the thing that worries me is this China trade dispute. I want to see, like how US support Trump on this because I think we're in an abusive relationship with China. But I'm sure

we'd love to see China make some concessions here. Let's get let's get this thing done, because when that happens, you know we're going to have the best economy ever in twenty and twenty. But you know, the balls in basing squared on that one. What's it going to take for China to finally bend on this? Well, there are economy is getting creamed. These these you know, terrorists are killing the Chinese account. But they may have their first recession in thirty five years. We just have to keep

the pressure on. You know, you know the problem these Chinese dictators, they don't face the voters like Donald Trump has to face the voters. So you know, we're worried that they're just gonna try to wait him out. Because you know this, and I know it, and everybody listened to the show knows the Chinese with much of that of Joe Biden as president than Donald Trump. I think that's true. Stephen Moore, everybody senior felt the Heritage Foundation. Stephen,

good luck to you. Thank you as always for joining us, and we will talk to you soon. Thank you for take care. Yeah, you know I've said it before the change. If you look back at what libs were saying ten or fifteen years ago about fracking and energy in this country, thank god we didn't listen to them. America has, despite all efforts by the left, turned into an energy superpower. Maybe we should embrace being a rare earths and minerals

superpower as well. I'm just putting it out there. I think that might be something that we could we could get going. Stephens certainly think so. The future does not belong to globalists. The future belongs to patriots. The future belongs to sovereign and independent nations who protect their citizens, respect their neighbors, and honor the differences that make each country special. Globalism exerted a religious pull over past leaders, causing them to ignore their own national interests. But as

far as America is concerned, those days are over. The globalists, the globalist the humanati to build the burghs, google it, they're out there. I'm just kidding. We're talking real globalists now, not the conspiracy theory based globalists. I mean, I guess you can use the term and be in either camp, but I'm talking about the real globalists in the United Nations,

International Monetary fund, elite media. I mean, all you have to know about CNN, for example, is you know, when you're sitting in a hotel room in Beijing, as I was not long ago, and CNN pops up, you realize, oh wow, they really do think of themselves as citizens of the world. CNN the citizens of the world network. They're not I mean, they're not about patriotism. They're not about America's better than other countries in certain ways. That's

not something I really want to discuss. That's not something that they factor into their worldview, and in fact, what I saw was a lot of down talking America, a lot of putting America down, a lot of saying that, you know, America is maybe not such a great place after all, especially in the era of Trump. You know, it's like we've been it's like we've been hijacked by this guy, President Trump. This country is no longer the great shining city on a hill at once was. But

we know that's all nonsense. I like that President Trump was willing to go in the United Nations and speak on this matter because it is very important. It's easy to forget that President Trump came into office at a time when there was a trend back toward a nation States government thinking about that nation state before it considered international opinion or the global consensus, as I'm quite fond of pointing out, because you will hear pundits go on TV.

You'll hear people that will refer to international opinion says, what does that mean? Are we just looking at a number of developed world governments or all governments? It seems a bit exclusionary, doesn't it to just look at the developed world and their governments and take their opinions into account. You know, should we listen to oh, I don't know the Philippines quite the same way that we listen to

the UK. And are we allowed to have some countries that matter more to us in terms of our opinions about policy than others, or do we just treat every country like it's more or less the same? This is a fantasy, I mean, you know the answer to this. Of course, every administration is going to have some countries that matter more than others, and there will be times when we have to or we should. I mean to say, when our own government puts the interests of our citizens

ahead of citizens from other countries. It's not always win win for everybody. Trump understands that very basic calculation, and I would offer to you that that's true of most of the other countries of the world. The only exceptions are some EU countries, but that's changing. Obviously, there's been a shift. I think, you know, they created a monetary union without really creating a fully formed political union, which is why you have all this tumult all of this,

all this concern about Brexit. What's going to come after this? There has been a resurgence of debate around the term nationalism itself. You know, you can use the term patriotism, but I think it has been so broadly, it's so broadly applied, right, it's just, oh yeah, patriotism is is

the fourth of July barbecuing a stake, waving an American flag? Okay, yes, sure, But isn't patriotism also saying the United States is going to have to stand up to Chinese trade aggression and unfair practices and theft, even if that hurts the Chinese economy and therefore the Chinese people. Isn't that something that we need to accept. Shouldn't our government take the position that its first obligation is to us, you know, and

if you come from a perspective that I do. And I'm sure pretty much all of you listening, except for perhaps the few media matters lunatics who are just waiting for me to say one bad thing. Oh that's Sexton guy. He's going to slip up one day. Oh, And to media matters, I just want to want to say preemptively, my audience knows who I am, and they know this show, and they know what I stand for. So you can wait and wait and eventually pounce. But it's going to take a whole heck of a lot to get the

buckster to be quiet. But on the globalist point, there's a real trend there has been for a long time of our especially among the Democratic Party, but it's true of a lot of Republicans too, our interests being put into this that of all these different global international considerations. Right.

You hear about people discussing UN resolutions as though they're binding on us UN resolutions, as though we're supposed to really care, especially when we don't even sign them or tell them straight up, sorry, not a part of that. The International Criminal Court another situation. We're not a signatory to it, right, because we're not going to allow for the governments of the rest of the world to tell us that some general or you know, it's not a

far stretch. I think member of our administration who has to conduct a war to defend our interests, to defend this country is a war criminal. Sorry, we'll handle that one ourselves. But this is a break you see from elite consensus opinion, and that's one of the reasons that they hate Trump so much. You have to remember it is not really Trump's policies that get libs the most agitated.

I mean, that's certainly there's some of that. But as we were discussing with my friend Chadwick Moore before, if it were policy based, when Trump did things that they like, wouldn't it then be the case that they would say, well, at least he's doing the right thing. No, they hate everything he does. Right, everything Trump does is literally worse

than Hitler. Right. What doesn't matter what it is, and that's because Trump also represents to them a repudiation his mere existence as president and the ideas that he espouses, whether he's picked them up from other people or not, whether they're new for him or not, doesn't matter. What he stands for is a different approach between America and

the rest of the world. Now, I think it's the right approach, but it is a break from, for example, what you would have with establishment Republicans stretching back to multiple Bush administrations, and you would have to look at the way and then once you start taking a far enough, far enough view, a long enough lens. Yeah, Well, the world has also changed a lot. We've seen We've learned a lot in the last thirty years about how America.

I'd like to think we've learned a lot about how America interacts with our trading partners on national security concerns, who's an ally, who's a friend, who's a foe. So there should be a constant updating of this with only certain core principles put in place. But Trump changes the core principles. And this is what really upsets them so much. He's not just making different decisions. It's not just policy,

it's no no a at a very foundational level. As president of the United States, Trump will look at what's going on and say, this is better for the American people than it is for some other country or some other group outside of our borders, and therefore it is my obligation to pursue this irrespective of what other governments may want or think. That is a major break from what had been an elite consensus for a long time.

And people don't like to think that one they're ever wrong, and they certainly don't like to think that they're not going to get their way again in the future. So the ideas on the world stage that Trump represents and that he is articulating at the United Agents, and I'm not gonna lie the speech today was boring. I mean, it was a pretty boring speech. I'm just telling you the truth it was. I think the Trump does that because he's like, all right, I'm at the un I'm

going to say my piece, and that's that. You know. I think that's it. I believe that Trump really does, you know, He's like, all right, you know, we gotta do this thing. But there were some areas where he made you know, he made some worthwhile comments that elucidate that illuminates some of his thinking about well, not just on the world stage, but also the way that he approaches all matters as president, and all of it is of course a grave insult. Liberals consider all of this

to be a grave insult. It upsets them to their core because ultimately, if you're a true collectivist and now I know, I'm digging into the philosophy here maybe a little maybe a little more than one showed on a syndicated radio show. But I feel like, you guys are cool that I could just sit here and be like, oh my gosh, the country is destroyed and we're all on fire, and you know, there's other there's other shows you can listen to for that. Hopefully you won't because

the show is way better. But when you look at the underlying philosophy here of the left. Why are they globalists? Well, they're globalist because there are collectivists. And what could be the more, the more ultimate collective than a one world government. You know, the United Nations, the League of Nations. Go

back to Woodrow Wilson. Look at how they've tried to create a system of interlocking regimes and status quo all around the world that will become over time one not that places will have their sovereignty and we can communicate and be allies and have a more prosperous and just and happy world. We all want that. No, No, this is different. This is one rule for all, one regime

that is effectively a super government. If you are a collectivist, if you believe here at home in America, and I know you're not, But if one were a collectivist and believed that the government should achieve whatever power it requires to do anything that it believes it should do. Well, if you think that here at home, where it affects your fellows, shouldn't you think that for the whole world.

If one is so certain here in America that taking the power that the collectivist that the socialists left in America wants for itself if they're sure that that is righteous, that that's the right thing to do in America, which clearly, given the trends of the Democratic Party is the case, then wouldn't they want to expand that to the whole world as rapidly as possible they're so certain of the of the You know, there's there's a few defining characteristics

of liberalism today. I always say hypocrisy is one. Another one is certainty, certainty on issues where they would be much better served by tremendous humility. But humility requires introspection, and introspectrum requires honesty, and that is certainly in short

supply in the Democratic Party. A collectivist in a village, in a town, is a collectivist in a city, is a collectivist in a country, as a collectivist at the United Nations, for the entire world, Trump is a threat to those layers of government control, and they hate him for that. They don't even get into the specifics of what he says. He's back with you now, because when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops.

It's happening. I've been telling you for a while that Biden's not going to be the nominee, and every Democrat I say that too, looks me like, no, don't say that Biden would trounce Trump. They don't use alliteration like that. Let's be honest. They're like, yeah, he beat him. I'm like, all right, democrat whatever, it's the imaginary democrat I'm talking to. Yeah,

he'd take what did what did Biden say? I'd beat him like a drum That's like, you know, I could just picture Biden, you know, chasing after chasing some kids off his law and wearing you know, a really a really tattered robe, you know, waving a newspaper. You know, you kids come back here. I'll lamb based you. Is it lambossed or lamb based number two? Right? Lamb based? Right? Yeah? Yeah,

is it lamboss tera? No, it's lamb based, I believe is the say the problem when you learn words by reading them, but sometimes you don't realize until you say it out loud on a national radio show that you're not sure you're saying it the right way. Um. So we've had we've had a few of those here Brandon

on the show. Although it's just more just more evidence that I used to use those word flash cards a lot back in the day, so so Biden said he'll beat Trump like a drum, which that's fighting, fighting Joe Biden as opposed to sleepy Joe Biden. But Elizabeth Warren, who really is like the terminator in that it doesn't matter how embarrassed she should be, or what has happened to or anything else. She just decides that she's gonna keep on going. You just you cannot what's I wish?

I can't remember at the top of I have, but it's Kyle Reese and Termator one. You know, it does not feel paid or remorse, and it absolutely will not stop until she is president. It's kind of like that. It's a little bit like Termator one, except it's Elizabeth Warren. And you know, I could probably make some jokes here about you know, her being a fake Cherokee and all that, but you gotta be careful that you can do those in real time. You know, Oh, they're still still lines

you can cross. And Media Matters is out there somewhere the worst and I know a lot of you like, what does media Matters? Imagine an organization that claims that it's a nonprofit education or an education group, and all it does is pay people to try and find ways to even not even just catch conservatives saying something that they didn't mean too or that was dumb. Sometimes we say dumb things. Everyone sometimes says dumb things, but that

they'll even twist it. And then their whole purpose in life is to make as much noise about it as possible, to try to get people fired. That's all they do. That's their job. Every day. I would not be able to sleep at night. I would rather do any minimum wage job in the country, and I mean that any minimum wage job, because it would be honorable. Media manners

is not honorable. Sorry, they've been going after people, including yours, truly for the whole gret Gret Greta tun Tunberg and might say, I feel like I'm trying too hard to say it the Swedish way. Maybe it's just a Thunberg. A Thunberg get over here, you know, But Greta Tronberg, I like this. I got to work on my Swedish accent.

It's not particularly good, um, except for I I want to do the Swedish chef, which some of you like and some of you you know, producer brand and I will tell you that there are you know, there's some things where the audience is very split. Right, there are some things they really like and there there are others where it's pretty clear, um, Swedish chef is like is like a fifty fifty proposition. They're not for Rugert Ugert or you know, they're like, no, no no, something like the Swedish chef.

They think my version of the Swedish chef is not not prime timeworthy. I feel like it all sounds the same. Thank you, exactly. That's an impression you really can mess up exactly Spurg you know. Anyway, So all right, back to Warren. Who's who's I think? Can we just say the Warren impression is going to become the Hillary impression,

So I'll give it to her. Hello, she's back, right, I mean, Warren and Hillary, there's a lot of and people don't don't tell me, oh, you're just saying that because no, no, there there really are some similar you know, both white women of the same age with similar hair, and you know, there's there's some similarities there. You know. It's like when when a random cab driver thinks that I'm Tucker Carlson, I'm like, yes, indeed, I can see the similarity there. Although I have facial hair now a

little bit, A little bit, all right. So Warren is edging out Biden in the latest New Hampshire poll and Bernie Sanders is way down in the latest New Hampshire poll. Which is looking at this and trying to do a lot of a lot of reading that tea leaves. I try not to spend that much of our time on the speculation. I feel like the news these days, a lot of shows. It's one thing to analyze, it's another

thing to just speculated, well, this goold. I'm not saying predictions, which I tend to do on very small doses, and my predictions tend to be right. I'm just saying, but I'm not saying that. You know, you can never get into bit of speculation. Sometimes you're forced to write, like the Democrats tomorrow, here's some speculation for you. The Democrats tomorrow, regardless of what is in the transcript, will claim that it's terrible and now Trump really needs to be impeached.

Doesn't matter what it says, even if anyone reading it would say, yeah, this seems pretty normal, actually, or this seems not that bad. I'm telling you, I think it's going to be a Yeah, it's not that bad. It's not gonna be great, but it's not that bad. That's what I think. And Democrats are gonna say, oh my gosh, he's Benedict Arnold plus Hitler. That's that would be a bad, bad dude, you know. And Arnold, that guy rolled the dice,

came up snake eyes. Not good, not good. He could have been he could have been a hero for the Brits. We'd be living in uh you know, the Benedict Arnold, Sure Shire, you know what I mean. You know they would have no But he messed up. Wrong side a man, wrong side wrong tell you would be on the wrong side of history. That guy, other than Judas, the most

infamous traitor in all history. I think people would say brutus, But I say, no, Brutus thought that he was a patriot at a time when that was a very complicated matter. At two brute Brutus. Okay, So Warren, how do we get into ancient Rome? Who knows, it's one of those days. I'm taking some cold meds. We're just gonna have to roll with it. Warren is at twenty seven percent among likely Democratic presidential primary voters in the state of New Hampshire. Okay,

so she's doing very well. Biden's at twenty five percent, Warren's two point edges well within the sampling arrow. Okay, so they're neck and neck. Here's a question I have for you. What is the what is the pitch for one over the other? These days when the Democrats line up, it feels like it's really just a contest for individual affinity for a politician. I can't even really tell you. Yeah, we know that Warren and Bernie are left of Biden, but Biden's chasing their positions as fast as he can.

Biden was saying, yeah, if you're if you're if you're in prison and you think you're you know, you think you're a transgender, you know you'll be in that. You know. He's trying to do the whole woke thing. Who has better ideas? And I really mean, just swim in the in the in the sewage here with me for a moment. Okay, think about Democrat ideas. Let's just let's just do this. Who is a Who is a better play for the Democrats on the economy. Who's the best play for Democrats

in the economy. I'm not even sure they know, first of all, it's largely similar stuff, right, It's they don't disagree all that much. But one problem they're going to have is that they love to do the class warfare angle. You know this, Democrats are obsessed with pushing class warfare. This is really central to their sense of you know, why the Democratic Party exists, Oh, to soak the rich and tano power to the people, all that stuff. All right, So what's the pitch? What are they going to do

for the people? Now? You've got you know, every what we had Steve Moore on before, and he's just saying what we already know. The economy is, this is the best economy that we've had in this country since at least the nineties, and a lot of you would say it's a lot better than the nineties, depending on which metrics you look at. So you could very easily argue it's the best economy in my adult lifetime. So what are Democrats going to say about it? How can they differentiate?

Because anyone can sit around and be like, oh, the rich will pay for everything. Okay, they all say that it's not true. Well, here's here's some versions of it we've gotten from a mayor Pete was in Iowa. I will tell you I am I am disappointed. Even from the other side of the aisle, I am disappointed in Mayor Pete. You know, I've been out to Fort Wayne, Indiana twice in the last two years. What's up? Whoa, whoa. I've come out there to visit the folks love Fort Wayne, Indiana,

a wonderful people, wonderful place. And I was told both times watch out for that Mayor Pete guy. And I said, mayor who. I was like, who's Mayor Pete? Oh, the mayor of South Bend, Indiana. I was told two years ago he was going to run for president. And I was like, come on, the mayor of no no, no offense, South Bend. But I mean, you're not four Wayne, you know, I mean come on. So I was like, who is this guy? And then I saw his resume. I figured this has to be a person who is is real.

You know, maybe he's a liberal, but he's a reasonable liberal. You know. He's Who's the guy that I can't even remember his name? Now, that's how much of an impression he made. The congressman from Maryland who was a self made millionaire. You know, he's I'm sorry, guys, I'm blanking on his name, which is crazy because I've talked about him many times on the show. But you know, he's wrong on some stuff, but he's not wrong on everything. And I thought may Or Pete would be a little

bit more like that, and I was wrong. May Or Pete loves to lecture everybody on how the Bible supports the party of you know, infanticide. Okay, so start with that. Yeah, I think may Or Peatch should be a little more cautious about the Pope Pete routine. But even on the economy, on healthcare, I think that he falls into that very unseemly category of politician who's smarter, who knows better, but just will say what he has to say because that's

what he's been told he has to say. Here he is talking about the economy right now, and I meet so many folks who have talked about the ways in which are political and that can systems have led them down. We see it in the fact that the Dow Jones is going up and our life expectancies are getting shorter at the same time. It shouldn't be possible. I mean, the life expectancy getting shorter is generally a result of

two things. One is lifestyle diseases, Okay, which is the number one the number one killer really out there to look at heart disease, diabetes and some cancers that are related to not always but related to lifestyle smoking specifically, and the opioid crisis. Those aren't really economic matters, though, so it seems strange he would go in that direction. But here's the problem the Democrats have. What is their pitch on the economy, What exactly are they gonna do better?

They go back and forth. A year ago was oh, but it's the Obama economy. Nope, Obama's not president anymore. We have we've gone way past that. And no serious person thinks that if we were in a recession, which Democrats promised we would be in because Trump is president, nobody really thinks that they wouldn't the same Democrats wouldn't be saying, oh, look what Trump has done to the economy.

He's destroyed it. So it's just disingenuous. But I will say, at least Mayor Pete tried something of an answer on this one. He's trying to differentiate himself from the other Democratic candidates. He here's the answer you get when you ask a question of Joe Biden. Well, in Iowa, the unemployment rate is two and a half percent. People say they are employed in Iowa and their small businesses are growing before they're employed. Before he got elected, the president

won by ten percentage points. And I'm not suggested he didn't win by ten percent points. Well, I'm suggesting is he's not the reason for that employment rate being down. But why shouldn't people want to make a change though, Well, that's up to the end of decide. Why should they? From them to the sign will make your case, I'm not going to. Yeah, that's some really compelling stuff there. I'm not going to. Now. You could say that that's just another one of Biden's many weak moments. He's had

many weak moments in the campaign trail. But I do think that there's a sneaking thought, a sneaking suspicion that Biden has that maybe he realizes that it's I think he has started to realize it's not going to be him, and that he doesn't even really want the job. You know, they used to say this about Trump all the time, and now that he's been president for fe years, I think Trump loves being president. I think he's really into

it from what I can see. I don't know if Malania likes that she's now the first Lady or not. I wouldn't pretend to know, but I think Trump likes being president. I'm not sure that Biden even thinks that he's really up for this. And I think that if you give, if you have a moment, and this is what I'm beginning to see with Warren in New Hampshire, where all of a sudden he's fought the good fight, but it's clear that there's another option, there's an alternative

to him. I think he would pass the baton. As much as he's an egomaniac, which really everybody in politics at that level has to be, I get it, but I think that if there was a moment where all of a sudden, it's going to be Warren, he would breathe a huge sigh of relief. He doesn't really want this, doesn't really want his family to be dragged into this whole thing, you know, Hunter Biden. That's just the beginning of what they're going to talk about with Hunter Biden,

this whole thing in Ukraine. They're also gonna bring China into it. I just I don't know's it has been. It has been a shock to me that he has defied, defied all of my claims to this point that oh, it's not gonna be Biden. I'm like, how does this guy holding on to the I think the moment that he gets an opening to not be the front runner, he'll just fade away. And that's what I think is

going to happen here. But because this moment where he's asked, he's being asked by somebody, an Iowa reporter, what's what's the case you make? He doesn't even know it. He doesn't even want to make the case. What is that? Is he tired? You need a nap? We'll be right back. I am focused on getting the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community to provide Congress with the whistleblower complaint as required by law. Let me repeat that, as required by law. Ah,

I see what's going on here. You have the Senate passing this a unanimous resolution to hand the whistleblower complaint to the Intel committees. Right, but that the Democrat narrative. You can see it forming. You know, it's almost like watching water freeze into ice. You just you see it happening. That's about as exciting. They are going to say that the trend script is not enough. Keep in mind what that means the Democrat position will be as of tomorrow.

And I'm putting on my little nostre damas cap here. This is what's going to happen. Trump will release the transcript. It will not be nearly as damning as Democrats pretended that it was. And then they'll say, ah, but we need the whistleblower complaint. Here's the problem. The whistleblower is basing his complaint on a transcript or on a call that he neither heard nor read the transcript of, So

he's basing it on what someone told him. But then they're going to elevate an obvious anti Trump deep state loon into being the second coming of George Washington because he's now a hero of the resistance for his or her whistleblower complaint. And I think about the mentality here.

You hear about something that someone says the president said on a phone call, and then you decide based on that, without knowing anything, you're s elf that you are going to you know, no, I'm sorry, that's not how it works. You're gonna go forward with this in that way? No, no, but that's what they're gonna say. They are going to claim that the whistleblower he needs to be heard, the whistleblower complaint needs to be heard. Huh why is that

the case? What does the whistleblower know that is more than what is in the transcript? Folks? Oh, I see. They want narrative creation. They want someone who works the intelligence community to say it for them. Okay, team, we've been talking a lot about climate change. Un climate change a big topic there, obviously, young Greta Thunberg getting a lot of headlines back and forth over that. I want to bring in somebody today who comes at this from

a science background. We hear so much from people who are represent venting scientists in one way or another. I thought i'd bring one on. We have Professor Roger Pielkey with us now. He is Professor Environmental Studies at the University of Colorado, Boulder. Professor Pielke, great to have you, sir, Thanks for having me. So let's just start with this

you said today. I mean, this is what caught my attention initially on Twitter, that you are You're a professor of environmental studies and you are blocked by a lot of major media companies, The New York Times, Vox I think you listed a few others. What's up with that, professor? What did you do to upset the vox gods. Yeah, it's a good question. I've published a lot of research and academic peer review journals and been pretty outspoken about

what it says. But some reporters at The New York Times, Washington Post, Vox dot com, I've decided they don't want to hear what I have to say. So wait, but what did you have to say, professor? Don't don't stand on ceremony. What were you telling them that bothered them? Yeah? Well, I mean, the science of extreme events and disasters is pretty robust, and right now hurricanes, floods, tornadoes are often

at the centerpiece of the climate change debate. But the reality is, if you look at the leading scientific assessments, they are in some cases projected to increase in the future. But in the United States and the world, we have not seen an increase in hurricanes, floods, tornadoes, or drought.

So so I'm gonna need to drill down this for a second, because whether it's you know, Bill Maher or NBC News or CNN, you have all these people go on TV and they constantly say storms are getting stronger, extreme weather is increasing, the wets are getting wetter, the colds are getting colder, all this stuff you always hear. You are telling me that when it comes to extreme weather,

that is not true. Where would one go for sourcemanshow or if if I said that, you know, I'm going to be at Politicon next month, I said that in a room full of Democrats, they would all, you know, hoot and scream and say I was crazy. Where do I go to point them? Where can I point them to where they would be able to see that it is not in fact true that extreme weather is get just extreme weather, That fat is not happening in the

way that they say it is after every hurricane. Yeah, So I mean the important thing, There's two things here. One is you have to go phenomena by phenomena. So it is true that there are more heat waves, more high temperatures, there is more extreme precipitation, but not more floods. And the place to go to get the actual data is the inter Governmental Panel on Climate Change, The IPCC.

You can also go to the US National Climate Assessment Document and then the official data if you want to dig even deeper of our US agencies like NOAH and the National Weather Service, NASA and EPA. Within the scientific community, these statements are not particularly controversial since they are reflected

in leading scientific assessments. It is, as you say, when you get to the to the media discussion and then some of the hot politics of the climate debate, where things get they depart from what the science actually says. So so, based on the science, hurricanes getting worse as a function of climate change that cannot be proven, is that fair to say, Yeah, it's fair to say. I

mean in the United States. You know, we had a paper come out last year looking at land following hurricanes in the United States, and there's no trend either in all hurricanes or the most intense hurricanes from nineteen hundred till present. If you look at flooding, there's there is no conclusion that flooding has increased in the United States

or the world. The same goes for drought. Tornadoes are interesting because there is an indication that since nineteen fifty, when we have good records, that there actually has been a decline in the United States and tornadoes, so fewer tornadoes, which is not a talking point you hear very often. But I guess somebody could roll that one out there. And folks, we're talking to Professor Roger Ki who's at the University of Colorado Boulder. He's an environmental studies professor.

He studies the environment and Professor I also wanted you to explain to everyone listening across the country your point about see I often talk just as a layperson about how over history you can see that there is a natural process of decarbonizing in our energy sources that you know, we went from We've gone from coal to mostly get you know, gasoline gas and now natural gas, and now

we're getting closer to better renewables. There's a renewed interest in nuclear there is a decarbonizing process that's happening as a function of technology. But you've cited how much we have decarbonized in recent years and then what it would require to hit the UN targets, and there's a huge gap. Could you just walk me through that. Yeah. Historically, the way the economy works, both in the United States and most countries around the world is we get better at

doing things. So anyone who's of a certain age, and if you had a car in the nine seventies, nineteen eighties, even nineteen nineties, you know the cars are a lot more efficient. They run better now. When we get more efficient, that's good because that helps grow our economy and people like rising wealth. So accompanying with that is we emit

less carbon dioxide. What we haven't done and what we're going to need to do in the future if we are going to hit these aggressive targets for emissions reductions, is we're going to have to change out much more rapidly how we get our energy. It's not enough just to be more efficient. We're going to have to change out coal plants, natural gas plants. We're going to have to get our cars off of petroleum. That's a huge,

huge task. And we are nowhere close, really anywhere in the world to those rates of change that are implied by these aggressive targets. So, yeah, the targets that and forever and listening, I think it's fair to say, I'm professor.

I don't want to characterize your work or your beliefs, but you're not somebody who I mean, I'm highly skeptical of climate change as an issue that needs massive intergovernmental action on pain of the extinction of human species, which is what we've been hearing for the last well for a long time, but certainly in the last week, you believe the climate change, if I'm correct here based on what I've read of some of your writing, is a problem. But we need to be serious about how we deal

with the problem. Is that fair to say and not just make wild statements about you know, we're going to do this, We're going to be off everything in ten years. But how would you describe where you come down in this discussion? Yeah, I mean it's you're pretty accurate in my views. I mean, if we had a choice and you ask anybody, whatever their political orientation, is it better to load up the atmosphere with carbon dioxide or not? I think most everybody would say, yeah, it's probably not

a good idea to do that. People can argue about the long term effects and if they're larger or small, but at you know, first principles, it would seem that if we don't have to do it, we probably shouldn't because we're we are introducing a chemical into the atmosphere at levels that we haven't seen before. So if we all can agree, well it's better not to do it than to do it, then the question becomes, well, what

are our choices? How do how do we actually get to a global economy where we're not emitting carbon dioxide? And that's where the big gap is because if there was energy sources that were perfectly clean, perfectly cheap and easy to deploy, we wouldn't be having this big, broad globe. And what do you say from the perspective of somebody who was studying this as your life's work when you hear, for example, Beto O'Rourke or I think there are many

politicians out there who are saying similar things. We're going to be at zero carbonage or net zero carbon emissions, I think is a specific phrase they use. By twenty fifty I mean one. I think any politician who is looking thirty years in the future is pretending to know a whole heck of a lot more than any human

being ever could. But beyond that, based on the trajectory we're currently on, is that unless there are radical breakthroughs in technology, which could very well happen any time, is that realistic Net zero I mean, when China and India are the biggest contributors to CO two, we're only fifteen percent in America, how could we get to net zero global emissions? Yeah, so net zero is if you want to balance out carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, that's where we have to end up at. And so there is

this auction of promises that politicians make. They say, well, twenty fifty, and another politician says twenty nine, and another says twenty forty five. But you know, the way you can tell that a politician isn't super serious about a topic is they're running for office in twenty twenty and they're talking about a twenty fifty target. What we should all be asking for is what's the target for twenty

twenty one, twenty twenty two. If you're lucky enough to be in office for eight years, what's it going to be for this decade? Because it's not as important exactly where we end up, but where we start. And the problem with climate policies it's never gotten out of the blocks. It's done a lot of things, there's a lot of talk and a lot of heat, but we haven't made any progress towards accelerating that rate of decarbonization. We've got to take the first steps before we can start talking

about net zero. Are you called based on some of these premises you've put out, which to me all sounds entirely reasonable, right that there's because I don't say what one I mean, I can't pretend to really know. I don't say that the climate isn't warming, that global warming doesn't exist in on capacity. I just know that I've been lied to a lot in the past about what it's going to mean for the future. And so I

look at this with a very skeptical eye. But you're looking at it from the perspective of somebody who studies it all the time. And yet I get the sense that if you said to certain audiences, and honestly, I would say most people who are left of center across the board and some people who write of center, if you said to them what you've just said to me, you would be called the climate denier. Does that happen

to you? Has that happened to you? Well, now now we're getting back to why some people block me on Twitter. I mean, I think it's it's far more important to talk about initial steps and the analogy I use is extending human lifespan. Right. We could say, well, in a hundred years, we want the average human lifespan to be one hundred and four, and someone could yell at you and say, oh, you don't have any ambition it should

be one hundred and eight. The reality is we have to go from seventy nine to eighty to eighty one. And you know, these long century long n which really is what climate change in is, require incremental steps. So what people want to know is tell me the cost and benefits of the action we're going to take today, tomorrow, next year, so I know how it affects my pocketbook, what I can see in the environment Professor, Again, this all sounds entirely reasonable. I'm just wondering. You know, we

talked about how you've been blocked. Do other scientists come after you for talking about this in this way? I mean, are you persecuted for trying to be reasonable on the issue of climate science? Yeah? Well I got academic ten years,

so persecution is there. You go word, But yeah, there are a number of very loud voices in the climate debate that try to squeeze others out, and you know, you have to decide whether climate change is an issue that we want to fight about, or climate change is an issue that we want to come together and solve.

And I think that's up to all of us to figure out, you know, is this something that we want to work on, or is this something that you know, it's really fun to have left right debates, and maybe climate change is one of those. And I do think there are a number of scientists who've gotten sucked into that political vortex rather than talking about it as a policy problem. All right, professor, we really appreciate you joining

us today. Interesting to get your point of view. A professor Environmental Studies University at Colorado Boulder, Roger Pielke, Junior Professor Pelke, thank you so much again, so you take care you too. Thanks for having me. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. I wish that I could say that the bad liberal ideas out there didn't have negative consequences for real people, but of course they do. And one of the areas where this is becoming increasingly apparent

is around the surge in homelessness. It's particularly bad in California, which I believe now has half of the countries the state of California I think now has half of the entire United States homeless population, and it has jumped twenty percent in just the last three years. Yep, California accounts

for a half of people living on the streets one state. Now, it cannot go without notice that California is a liberal stronghold, That California is a place that liberals have total political control at the legislature, at the legislative level, for all the major cities, at the mayoral level, I mean, just all the way down, all right, California is the blue the great blue Democrat wall. And now you look at the homelessess problem and you say, okay, well, what can

we do to fix this. I've talked to you a little bit about it, and I will say the more I dig into it, the more my initial assessment is correct. The numbers prove it out that this is a problem that is particularly bad in the most liberal cities in the United States. The places where liberal policies are enacted with the greatest gusto are the areas that have the

worst problem of homelessess. Now, I'd said before, I think maybe a week or two ago, that we do have to remember that's sure, the climate place I don't mean climate change, right, I know, we're just having a climate change professor on I don't know. I hope you all could could read between the lines there. And there's a guy who's all, he doesn't study climate and he knows that it's like not what they say it is, but he doesn't want to. He doesn't want protesters outside of

his house. He's like, maybe I could convince them to just be a little less crazy, and that's a better. So I respect that approach where he's like convincing them that even if we did what they say we should do, that wouldn't be enough and that wouldn't save us. So maybe we should think of something else. But anyway, I mean,

climate is in it's warm in California. Well, it turns out that if you look at California versus Florida, which have very similar climates year round, and particularly if it's an issue of avoiding severe or cold on the streets, Florida obviously gets it done. California has a far worse problem of homes then Florida does, which, as we know,

is a much more politically, it's really a fifty fifty state. Politically, it's very very close to split down the line, and then you look at some of the numbers on this last year. This is the Wall Street Journal today. Orange County government cleared thirteen thousand, nine hundred and fifty needles, four hundred and four tons of debris, and five two hundred and seventy nine pounds of hazardous waste from a

homeless camp in the Santa Anna riverbed. Since two thousand and nine, cases of fleaborne typhus have increased tenfold to one hundred and seventy four. A homeless person in bel Air started a fire in twenty seventeen that raised four hundred acres and shut down West LA for several days. A video recently went viral of a woman being assaulted outside of San Francisco condo by an apparently mentally ill homeless man. After being booked for the battery of the

Wall Street Journal, rights the assailant was released. A union representing groundskeepers last week demanded pepper spray so workers can defend themselves from homeless people after a rash of assaults on them. What do you think democrats blame? Oh, that's right, the rent is too high. Why is now that's not even dealing with the fact that about a third at least of the homeless in California have a severe mental

illness and or addiction problem. Right, So that's one component of it that they just don't even deal with that. But even if we're going to talk about housing scarcity, if this is a market based issue, why is it so much worse in California than it is in other places? There are real reasons for that. This isn't just something that you look at in a vacuum. You can look

at what the reality of California housing policy is. And in California, it is very, very hard to build new homes because of all the different regulations because they want all sorts of environmentalists to be happy, they want people to just the zoning restrictions and the this and the that, and the climate change and all these things they throw together. That's what makes it so much more difficult for people to build housing, especially low income housing. And the state

does not do a very good job of this. The moment that the state is in charge of creating the housing, guess what, people know that that will it's never going to rise in value. It also brings down the value of all the homes around it. So anywhere where you build a government housing is going to drop the surrounding areas real estate property value, which also then has downstream effects of increased crime and poverty and all all kinds

of things. It's not good. So what really needs to happen here, Well, you'd have to have and understand ending from the government that the government is not making this better. The government California, the most liberal state in the country, would have to step back and say, hold on a second.

The problem isn't the market. The problem is supposedly do good or interference in the market by left wing political activists and left wing politicians who think that if only they can control more about the housing market, everybody and everything will be much better off. It's just not true. But as is unfortunately case with Oh that's right, we're going there central planning all the time. The central planners

never think it's their mistake. There always must be some other external enemy, There must be some other problem that can be pointed to. So what is it here? Oh, the rich aren't paying enough. They've already approved different tax hikes on millionaires in California or on the wealthy, or whatever that specific rate is. Do you think that's made the homelessness problem any better. Of course not, and the money just gets squandered in Sacramento the moment that the

state government picks it up. What do we need market solutions freedom? Let's government California won't buy into it. Today, I have a message for those open border activists who cloak themselves in the rhetoric of social justice. Your policies are not just. Your policies are cruel and evil. You are empowering criminal organizations that prey on innocent men, women, and children. You put your own false sense of virtue

before the lives, wellbeing and countless innocent people. When you undermine or to security, you are undermining human rights and human dignity. Many of the kind she's here today are coping with the challenges of uncontrolled migration. Each of you has the absolute right to protect your borders, and so of course does our country. Today, we must resolve to work together to end human smuggling, end human trafficking, and

put these criminal networks out of business for good. We haven't solved the immigration issue by a long shot in this country. It was interesting to hear the present speak about it today at the United Nations you have all these different countries assembled there, and they all, all of them maintain the right to determine who comes and who goes, who is a lawful entrance, and who is denied entry.

Some of them also deal with real refugee crises, meaning people that are fleeing from violence, from misery, from certain death, and they're just very well they're supposed to and generally are very happy to be in a safe place, not necessarily looking to exploit the laws of the new country they have arrived in, try to get through the system and lie and do all the things that we are always being well that I tell you about. The mainstream

media does not want to tell you. I was making sure I was trying to pull the number so that I have it exactly right. But I'm pretty sure that they have just released how many individuals. This is from Customs Immigration Enforcement, and I will check on this to make sure I'm giving the right number. But they think that about six thousand people pretended to be in the last fiscal year, six thousand people were pretending to be relatives at our southern border who are not. It's not

one or two. It wasn't just a little thing here or there. That's a lot, folks. That is a systematic and systemic that is a clear and repeated fraud. And why haven't you heard about that? Why hasn't this gotten

more attention? Well, because once again, I've been telling you all along about the frauds that have been happening at our southern border, the way that our laws have been exploited, the way that the good faith and decency and honesty of the American people has been exploited, and the liberal media just doesn't want to cover it at all. They like this, They like this story of Oh, all the people that are coming from Central America that are breaking the law by not waiting in line to go through

at port of entry. All the people that are coming there, they're doing so because they have no choice, because they're refugees. They're not just migrants that are looking to skip the line. This was These were all lies. They were lying to you about this. I mean, they are clever enough, these different news organizations, They are clever enough to know that what they're saying is not accurate, to know that what was going on at our southern border was a matter

of intentional and repeated fraud. But that was not part with a narrative. They did not want to let people in on what was really happening. So you know, now when you take a look at what's going on on the border, I think that the president has at least been able to turn the tide a bit against what had been going on in the past. I think the

president has at least started to build a wall. But he has all these countries that are that are gathered there, and America is the outlier in a couple of ways. One is that we have half of our political class, or one of our two major political parties, doesn't believe that we really have a right to determine who can stay in this country and who can we just have seeded sovereignty, which is also why Trump's comments around globalists, I think we're so important because that has been a

globalist project all along. If you eliminate borders, if you eliminate national sovereignty, well then you do have the ability. Then you do have the opening for one world government, because if people can just come and go as they please from any country, then no one country can have a hold over them. You would have to just have one system overseeing all of it. And I know that this sounds radical, but look at what is happening already, look at the radical shifts that we have been undergoing

in this country and also around the world. This is all very real. So I'm going to continue to focus in on the issue of our southern border migration. I was glad the President spoke about it today, and I'm glad that he has not allowed the media to completely define this narrative because they have been lying to you about this lying. We'll be back with roll call. Buck. It's time for roll call. Roll call. Everybody here we go. All right, let's uh, let's get to it. We face.

We'll start with the Facebook roll call. I'm trying to not have a favorite among my role call children, but Facebook tends to be easier because all the messages I can use instead of email. I don't want to read you guys about the new iHeartMedia Info SEC policy, but because that can happen sometimes, um, let's see what is this? By the way, sometimes I get these message on Facebook where it's someone writes, Kenny, can you tell me more

about yourself? That's an automated message? Right, Why is that happening? Because no, no, I'm not going to like, write my book because you're a business on Facebook. Oh, because I'm a business on Facebook. Okay, there we go. It's like, if it was a hardware store, it would, yeah, the business of Buck, the business of Buck in the Freedom Hut. We could do that. That'd be fun. I don't even know. I don't know if that business would the business your

royal Buckness. Oh, hello, royal Buckedness. Here, it's making lots of lots of pounds staling. All right, we have brand in all right, hey, box shields high. Yes, sir, you mentioned Potawatami and we're unsure what it was. Potawatami are a Native American people of the Great Plains, Upper Mississippi River and western Great Lakes region. I happen to be pokagon, a band of the Potawatamie Indians. Oh, very cool, unlike

Poka Honky Polka hants aka Elizabeth Warren. I don't have high cheekbones, but I do have a tribal id number. Thanks for holding the line, brother Airborne all the way all right, Brandon, thank you so much for writing in. I appreciate it. Carolyn three Caroline ba ba bab, I'm so drug. I'm on a thing. You know, that's what they always do in the in the early morning of the Saturday night bar scene. You know, that's the song.

Although we've already talked about this and I know that we decided that Don't Stop Believing is the ultimate late night bar song. Although bon Jovie Living on a Prayer wants to have a word, I am just saying they are both great choices. That's true. You can't go wrong either way. I'm I actually I'm with you on that. You know. It's like when people get all get all you know, upity about whether chocolate or vanilla is a better ice cream flavor. They're both great, It's fine. Either

one is acceptable. Just don't true. Just don't go strawberry chocolate. Just don't go. I mean, look, I'm a chocolate guy too, but just don't go strawberry because I'll agree with that, because we're trying to be civilized here. We just we just don't go. You know, it's the number three most p I've never seen anyone go. I've never in my life seen anyone go into an ice cream's parlor and be like, oh, all the like, you know, I love that you have butter Scotch and pistachio. I want the strawberry.

I've never seen it happen. It's apparently the third most popular ice cream flavor. That's not ice cream, that's sherbird. I'm dusting. It's just, you know, I'm not into flavored ice cream in general. I agree with you. It's it's really sorebet. If I'm eating ice cream, it's fun something bad for me, exactly. You want to go in you know, if you're gonna be in the paint, you go hard in the paint, like Rodman and Malone. Back in the day, I used to watch the first time You've ever made

a sports reference one? Right, thank you? You know I used to I used to watch that. I used to watch professional sports. I just at the time, I got too much to do to try to keep this show as informative and entertaining as we hope that it is. Kristen, right, Hey, Buck, just trying to see if there are more details about you appearing on Pluto in the future. Well, the details are, we're gonna be on Pluto next week. That's the way we're gonna do it. That's how it's gonna roll. You're

gonna be able, So please if you're listening. You can download the Pluto app Pluto TV to your phone. It is free, totally free. There's no subscription, no nothing. You just download it, pop up and there's a whole lot of programming on there. I want you to focus in on a channel that is about to be unveiled that I will be on. I can't tell you, I think yet. We haven't formally announced what the name of the channel

is and who the other talents are. I can tell you the other shows are fantastic people that all of you will really enjoy as well. So we're really hoping to get some attention for our new Pluto channel that will start next week. And man, I am excited about it. It will be good times, good things all around. Let's see what we got here, Matt. Here you go. Matt writes, your segment on phone news about the environment was disgraceful.

If you are a true Christian, it says in the Bible to be good stewards of what we were given. That includes the planet numb nuts, So quit attacking children that are smarter. Yes, I love this. The sixteen year olds that are smarter than me. Oh man, yeah, you're right us Well i'd call ed calling me nuts. I like this, Why why do they always go to this? It's like, guys, you sound like such a moron. Okay, I mean I know more than most people who are in their seventies. Like, what is this like age that

we're gonna play. You're gonna tell me that the sixteen year old knows a lot? I mean, this is just such a stupid thing to say. It's so dumb. This is the refuge of very, very dumb people. The sixteen year old is smarter than you are. No, she's really not, so, you know, can we just stop with that. It's so it's like saying she's taller than me. She's also not. So can we just not say that? Please? Such a weird place to go. Ah. Now, if you're gonna say, oh, now,

we're gonna it's smarter. I'm not talking about brain power per se. I'm talking about knowledge and wisdom and experience. Okay, that's how I would define smart. Here. There's a reason we don't let sixteen year olds vote. Although, if you're a sixteen year old Nils into this show, you're very smart, and you're smarter than most adults. So thank you, welcome to team Buck. Pleased to have you, uh, Steven Rights. You're not kid bashing your chicken little bashing shields high. Well,

thank you, Stephen. I appreciate that. I think that it's it's important that we stand up for what's true. And no, no honest, fair minded person could really believe that I was engaged in kid bashing. It's just not true. It's just not reality. So let's just be honest about that. Um, that's what I'm here for. Here we go. Oh another one, No, this is another angry one. I'm not gonna keep reading the angry ones. Off. All right, we got John who rights?

Here we go? Whoa Buck. I really enjoy your radio program. I catch it after Hannity Show on the Patriot Network seven sixty A m. Denver. Whoo. I wanted to comment on something you touch upon the this evening talking about the unique friendship of Judge Ginsburg and Justice Scalia and how it's very unusual today's society. In my opinion, I believe it is the incredible transformation of the Democratic Party.

I used to have many friends who are Democrats, and I could have a meaningful dialogue with them, usually disagreeing, uncertain policies. I noticed when I was critical of Obama, I was declared a racist by these same friends who had no problem with me being critical of Clinton. I've been called the white supremacist by these same tolered people just because I'm a supporter of President Trump. I believe a majority of today's Democrats have no problem with socialism,

which I want no part of. I do not want to remain friends with people whose political beliefs mirror AOC Sanders and Warren. I wish them no ill will, but I want nothing to do with people who will vote for people like Warren Sanders and show so much disdain for President Trump, regardless of their hearts in the right place they're thinking reasoning is extremely dangerous. I truly believe this coming election is one of liberty versus tyranny. Just

my opinion on the subject. Thank you for your service to our country, and have a great rest of week. God bless John, Well John, thank you appreciate you listening to the show. Good to talk to you. Yeah, so that's all good thing. Here we go, Steven doesn't the climate change girl? Oh no, I can't read that. Let's see what else we got here? Woo we have. It's been the role call ever since, ever since I was a child, Basher role call has been a little more

spicy Hunter. Let's see what Hunter's got here. Stop with this book and appointment I'm not booking appointments. I know that's just a Facebook thing. But being that you're an actual security expert, I assume this is necessary, especially being considering today's political climate, and it's Mike Pence on Mackinac Island in Michigan with an eight car motorcade the vice president.

I mean, look, guys, you know the Lib media freaks out about everything, and what we have here is, you know, the Lib media deciding that the vice president's security considerations don't matter. I guess all of a sudden, you know, look,

I don't I'm not in the Secret Service. I don't know how they do specifically this kind of an assessment, but I am quite confident that there are security concerns with having the vice president on an island exposed as he travels around, let's say, on a tricycle the whole time. I'm willing to bet that's an issue and that was a problem here. Let's see what else we have here. Steve Right the financial collapse. H we got one of these.

The financial collapse has begun. It started last Monday when the Federal Reserve began bailing out multiple banks in the repo market, but it wasn't enough. Now the Federal Reserve has committed to continue the bailout by printing money in the billions daily for the next three weeks to save the banks. Without printing new money, the banking system in America would fail eventually, either the banks will or hyper hyperinflation will happen. The latter, is my guest, Steve. I'm

just kidding, man. I mean, you could be right, because remember, all the smart people think that they know when there's going to be a terrible event for our economy, and they never seem to actually figure this out in time, right, they never actually know when it's going to be. So that's a problem. Right, If you can't tell beforehand, that's probably not that good. All Right, I'm gonna be on Kennedy on the panel on Fox Business. If you guys

want to tune into that. If you hear this live, you can because it's nine Eastern, or you could just DVR, which is also fun. Is I think they've replayed at midnight maybe on Fox Business and yes, good things, good things. So next week is when we are going to stay Oh wait, are we gonna have the podcast up three o'clock on Thursday? Producer Mark I believe so who Thursday? That's right, everybody, As as of Thursday, you will be able to get the podcast of the Buck Section Show

at three p m. Eastern Time. Yeah. Yeah, that's sounds like fun to me. It means you've got to subscribe now. You're going to be in the early listening category. My friends. You can listen whether wherever you are, anytime you want after three pm Easter Monday through Friday. Subscribe on iTunes, subscribe on the iHeart app Spotify. Right, we're all over the place, aren't we. And with that she'll tie