Does Anyone Really Believe These Idiots?

the buck Sexton Show. Everybody, Thank you so much for being here. Great to have a chance to address you all across the country and in some cases all around the world. We have a lot of stuff to get to for a Friday, so I feel like shouldn't stand too much on ceremony and just get right to it. I do want to note, though, that one of my predictions came true. In fact, many of my predictions come true,

but this one in particular, I'm proud of. I told you that as soon as everybody learned about Conan the bar Carrian, as we are calling him Conan the Hero Dog, there would be a surge in interest in Belgian Malinois, the breed of dog that Conan happens to be one of. And now ABC News had a story this morning. I remember I told you the people are gonna want to start getting the Belgian Malinois. It's going to become very trendy.

ABC predicted this morning. Thousands now want the breed of hero dog involved in the Al Baghdaddy raid, but experts warn that they are too much for most people. Who told you, folks who told you not only that they were too much for most people, but that there would be this surge in interest. So as beautiful and incredible as Belgian Malinois and even German shepherd's Dutch Shepherds, these different working dog breeds are. They are not something that you want to just pick up and bring home to

the kids. You're gonna have your hands more than full. Important safety tip from the Freedom Hut today. All right, let's get to the tyranny of the interagency consensus. Fantastic piece today from my friend Mark Hemingway, husband of Molly Hemingway. Mark is a great writer in his own right over at the Federalist, and his piece is called Donald Trump

versus the Interagency Consensus. And this is a particularly important time for this because as part of all of this impeachment stuff, you see going on bruhaha, which is a fun word to say, this impeachment frakis ruckis. I think those are all words that we could use. You are

seeing people come forward who can't help. But let it be known that while they are government employees, they think that the bosses within the government that are elected by the people to oversee the federal bureaucracy, the machinery of the day to day of the federal government, that the people who work inside the machinery think that they're not just executing on orders, they're really there to drive things, and that the elected officials come and go, but the

bureaucracy is forever. This is troubling stuff. And when you add that to the admission more recently of the former I think he was the former acting CIA director John McLaughlin, when he was being asked by a CBS one of the liberal CBS journals about Trump's impeachment, here is what now. I know people will take this in different ways. I'll tell you how I'm going to take it, but here is what the former CIA director John McLaughlin, who is a guy from inside the bureauxy for a very long time.

Here's how he talks about the deep state. Play for Please, you'd have to agree that naturally the impeachment inquiry is underway, sparked by a complaint from someone within the intelligence community. It feeds the president's concern and often use term about a deep state being there to take you know, thank

God for the deep state. I mean, I think you know everyone here has seeing this progression of diplomats and intelligence officers and White House people trooping up to Capitol Hill right now and saying, these are people who are doing their duty, who are responding to a higher call. Think about it for a minute. With all of the people who knew what was going on here, it took an intelligence software to step officer to step forward and say something about it, which was the trigger that then

unleashed everything else. Now, why does that happen? What I'm tell American people why that happens is this is the institution in the US government that, with all of its flaws and it makes mistakes, is institutionally committed to objectivity

and to telling the truth. I will tell you, as somebody who used to work in the CIA, that that's a very rosy picture of what the institutional commitment of that organization, or any part of the intelligence bureaucracy, what the day to day really is something quite different from that. There's a lot of complexity involved here. There are concerns about access, how do you shape policymaker beliefs without actually

telling policymakers what to do. These are the back and forth that you'll hear about from people who've actually worked the intelligence community. But I'm also going to tell you that there are a lot of people who work in the federal government who really think that. First of all, they're overwhelmingly personally politically Democrats and in some cases really leftists. They've gone into government work because they believe in the

power of government to do good things. And they also think that if we're going to have this big shiny toy that that is the federal government, they want to be in control of it, and they want to do the things that they are ideologically aligned with it doing that. The mission is not top down from the president as

the head of the executive branch. A mission is what the people inside the walls of whatever this federal agency is think it should be, and they give lip service to the guy who's or has always been a guy up to date, lip service to the guy who is giving the orders. Yeah, sure, sure, we'll do what you say, but we're also going to be working to do things differently in our own way. And in no presidency has this been more clear than the presidency of Donald Trump.

I think it's also worth noting that we were initially told that talk of a deep state was a conspiracy theory, that if you spoke of bureaucrats inside the federal government who thought they had a mission apart from what the actual mission from the commander in chief was, you were engaged in some misdirection fantasy. You were misled. You must

have been a consumer of fake news. And then we found out about McCabe and Comy and Page and Struck and Yates and Brennan and Clapper and the top echelon of federal law enforcement and the intelligence community under the obamaministration, none of whom are supposed to be explicitly political, and now beyond any reasonable doubt we know that they were

deeply political. Objected to Trump, not just on specific issues, but in general, objected to his elevation to the role of commander in chief and believed that they had a duty to thwart his desires, his directives, his mission, his promise to the American people. They never really accepted that he won the election, and therefore the will of the

American people expressed through that election should be pursued. There should be efforts made to execute upon that plan, not the plan of the bureaucrats who had been there for a very long time in DC. And this is where we get to the the consensus views of the interagency. What does that really mean? That came up recently in the testimony of Vindeman, and this was from his written statement.

Now you would find that that's a a troubling thing for someone to use as a justification for objection to the President of the United States as a policy matter in Ukraine. The views of the inter agency, this, I

can tell you, is also really a misnomber. What ends up happening in the intelligence community is that there will be an expression of one point of view from one agency that is the best approximation of what a majority of the senior people in that organization, leveraging some of the expertise of the younger people think of an issue, and then it will often be as part of the interagency process, balanced with the views of other agencies, many

of whom have different equities, have different mission sets and tools at their disposal and expertise, And at the end they kind of just blurred out this product or this briefing or this decision on a specific issue to the President of the United States that represents the so called consensus. But by the time it gets to that level, it's often so watered down as to be largely meaningless. And also momentum carries the day. What does CIA think now? What does DIA or NSA or any of these agencies,

what do they think now? Chances are it's kind of similar or whatever they thought a year ago or five years ago or ten years ago about the issue, unless there's been some massive change, right. They tend to have their own customs and ways of doing things, ways of thinking about things, institutional biases about different problem sets around the world. What do we think of talking to North Korea? What do we think of engaging China in a trade war?

What do we think of counter terrors? I mean, all across the board, And I know because I sat in meetings where important issues were discussed in the intelligence community, and we're trying to find some consensus ish position, and there's really no such thing. There's really no such thing. It doesn't the consensus on Ukraine, well, there was no consensus on you crane policy because the Obama administration refused to give them lethal aid. Then the Trump administration came

in and did give them lethal aid. So that was a change from the commander in chief. Were there a lot of complaints before about Obama's unwillingness to do what was necessary to really help the Ukrainians, No, of course not. And then we get to what the real consensus of the interagency, and what we find is the consensus of the deep state. It's anti Trump. That was the only

thing that they all really could agree on. Is what was motivating so much of what we saw in terms of the actions of these senior bureaucrats to frustrate the president's decision making, and beyond that, to destroy the president, to undermine the president, to work with reporters and the Democratic Party and whomever, to work with foreigners, in the case of Christopher Steel, assembling the dossier and using Russian or Ukrainian or whatever sources and running that laundering, that

DNC paid for a document through our own intelligence community, and then starting spy as a warn on Carter page a full field investigation on George poppadopplas. This stuff is insane. They didn't just oppose in principle. They opposed by taking it upon themselves to use the power within the government that they had to wage a political war, a political vendetta against Donald Trump, because the consensus of the deep state was and is that Donald Trump is unfit, unacceptable,

and did not really win the twenty sixteen election. So they are under no obligation. We often hear the Democrats now talking about how Trump swore an oath he has to uphold and defend the Constitution. Well, guess what part of that constitution establishes President Trump as the commander in chief of the executive branch and of the military. And they don't get to in the deep state just decide that they wash that away. They pushed that aside, and

their mission then becomes whatever they say it is. They're giving their own orders. Now, you know, the bureaucracy has become self aware, kind of like Skynet and the Terminator movies. And that didn't end well for us. The only consensus opinion that they're really sure of is that they have to do everything they can to stop Donald Trump. They used to say there was no deep state. Then they said, okay, fine, there are a few people in the deep state. Now

they're saying, thank God for the deep state. And it's like, we're supposed to pretend that we didn't know this was coming all along, and they haven't been lying to us all along. First they insisted that the president is a Russian agent. Then they claimed he's a money launderer and a tax cheat and a fraudulent businessman. And now they've decided they don't like the way he talks to foreign leaders. But they have no evidence and no argument to support impeachment.

All they have is the unconditional cooperation of the media and their advanced to advance their preposterous narrative. What is more likely to repeat one of my favorite challenges here on the show, what's more likely that President Trump is, at the same time, according to Democrats, guilty of all of these horrible offenses and congress of newness, they're laid

out a number of them. Some have gone away as a result of finding out more facts others have been stretched out now and they've added to it, or they've moved the goalposts, they found some way to keep the allegation alive. But what is more likely that Trump is the idiot that the left says he is, but also able to do all these things and get away with them, or that Democrats have abandoned reason, fairness, and decency and are just throwing every allegation they can against the President

that they just can stand. They hate this guy. They hate him because of what his ascent means about the way they view the world. They hate him because it means that there's someone who will challenge some of the not just political but some of the cultural norms out there that have affected politicians, especially on the right, for a long time, that he'll take the fight right to

the media. They can't stand this guy, and the only way that they could stop being so crazy about him would be to come to grips with all the lies that they've told so far, and they won't do that. And the people that have believed this, the people that have been spoon fed the nonsense from CNN and from MSNBC, those who've been lied to by The New York Times, the Washington Post, all these expectations about the Muller probe ending the Trump presidency, freeing us all from the long

dark night of trumpness. Turns out that that wasn't true. But the people that believed it to be true can't be told that. They have to be told. Don't worry, it's coming just around the corner. And that's where Nancy

Pelosi and all the Democrats come in. That's where the people who are part of very much at the top of the establishment, and who often conflate credentials with credibility or credentials with competence, And just because you're the boss of something or the head of something, you're the speaker of something, doesn't mean that you're a good person, a knowledgeable person, or a wise person. The elites don't like

that though. They don't like the challenge of somebody coming forward to say, hey, I know you've all made fun of me. You thought I was a joke. Here I am that people have empowered me, and I'm now as Donald Trump pointing fingers at people and saying, well, who are you exactly? Why should you be in this elevated position?

Why should you be able to walk around so smug and dictatorial at the same time based on what a lot of people, a lot of people in the media, a lot of Democrats, and academia and the legal profession in Hollywood, and they don't have good answers for that, and it unsettles them. It really bothers them at a core level. And so that's why Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, as I've been saying along and you listen to the show, you know, I try not to be that guys, as

I predict the future. A lot of people do this on radio, and it's annoying to me because they just tell you about their winners. They don't tell you about their losers. But I tend to be right. Hopefully. It's one of the reasons why you listen to the show. I've always been saying, Nancy Pelosi, she's going to make sure that this president is impeached. That's stretching back for

two years now. She's going to impeach this president. Why because of the emotional psychological need of the Democratic Party and the people who run it to lash out at Trump to have yet another moment of not my president. This is not any cause for any glee or comfort this is something that is it's very solemn, that it's something prayerful, and that we had to gather so much information to take us to this next step. I rise in strong support, but I do not take any pleasure

in the events that have made this process necessary. I rise in strong support of the resolution, but I do so with an understanding that the task before us is a solemn one. How each member of this Chamber approaches the vote this morning and the days and weeks ahead maybe the most important service as members of Congress we will ever pay to the country and constitution that we all love and have pledged to defend. Oh, these Democrats are so it's just they really don't want to do

this to Trump. It's just so serious and they know how serious it is. And there's no joy, No, there's no schadenfreude at Trump's misfortune. There's no sense of ha ha. We're pulling off another scam against this guy because he keeps beating us, and we can't accept the reality of what's going on in the country under a Trump presidency. We have to keep creating this fake world of Trump is destroying everything and everybody. Does anyone believe these idiots

Pelosi and Chiff and all the rest of them. Oh, no, we take no joy in this whatsoever. Really, why are they doing it? It's preposterous. Schiff ran around for two years saying that there was evidence of Trump colluding with Russia. Schiff ran around promising his constituents and all Democrats and left us across the country that President Trump's day would come when finally he could no longer hide from his treason. Remember, folks,

that is what they were accusing this president of. Is there any reflection that comes from being wrong for two years, Madam Chiff, Of course not. He served his purpose if nothing else, And the Democrats won't admit this publicly. The Muller probe, in a sense worked. It obstructed the president, slowed down his administration, kept good people from going to work in this administration. The Democrats have already managed to rob Trump of some of the powers of his office

by running around with these insane, deceptive, destructive narratives. But then to have the temerity to have the brazenness to sit there and act like they don't want to do this. Oh, I don't want to do this. I just Donald Trump is forcing my hand. Ah, it's weak stuff. We all know exactly what's going on here. You had the House vote yesterday two hundred and thirty two to one hundred and ninety six to approve the resolution setting out rules

for an impeachment process. So now there's some rules of the road that they have agreed to in the House. How many Republicans went along with this in whatever we're calling this vote to begin an impeachment inquiry that we were told had already begune a couple weeks ago. How many Republicans have defected? Zero? This is an entirely partisan vote, which is new, which is new in the history of impeachments.

Republicans had turned on and we're turning on Nixon, and some Democrats went along with the Republicans and the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton. So this strictly party line vote shows you exactly what's going on here. This is just a power played by the Democrats seeking to undo an election that they did not like in advance of just barely another election of a president that they say is so stupid and so dangerous that it should be obvious

the American people wouldn't reelect him. Here's what we all know they are terrified that this president will get reelected. Why shouldn't they be. Look at the jobs numbers today, look at what's going on in the country. Oh, we were told if Trump move troops out of that part of SyRI there'd be genocide and Isis would rebound and

a huge terrorist army would sweep across. Or we'd find out that Abubakher al Buaghdaddy was dead a week later, thanks to our special operators, some good work by folks in the national security realm at the direction of the President of the United States. Economy is still doing very well. The biggest problem now is they're so little in the way of unemployment. They're so little for Democrats to sink their teeth into as criticism against Trump, that they just

have to keep repeating these crazy narratives. And we have to sit here and spend time shooting down the insanity, impeaching the president for what. What's the purpose of this inquiry? How many of you even heard about the NSC staffer who came forward and said that as soon as he heard this was yesterday when he heard the initial Trump phone call with Zelenski, that he thought there was nothing illegal. There's nothing wrong with it? What law? What law was broken?

And at the end of all this, you have to remember the aid was not cut off. The investigation to Biden did not occur. So we're going to criminalize a conversation between two heads of state that resulted in no action, nothing done, and that he was completely within his constitutional rights to do in the first place. This is what it is. If the Democrats did not have they're just quizzling little media toadies in their pockets. They would never be able to try to pull this off. It's so flimsy.

There's no there there, There's just nothing to speak of. That's why they worked so hard at pushing stories that any person who spends any time digging into says, is this it? This is really what's happening. There are some Republicans who, it does seem to me, have an understanding of what is really going on here. Representative Cheney, by the way, has some fire. Resentative McCarthy has quite a lot to say about this too. Producer Mark, please do five and six for me, if you would, sir. This

is a process that has been fundamentally tainted. The president has had no rights inside these hearings. His counsel has not been able to be present. So for them now to claim that they're suddenly going to open the process up, which, by the way, this resolution does not do. The resolution says that they're going to continue doing what they want to do. It gives authority for open hearings, but they cannot go back and fix what is a fundamentally tainted

and unfair record. Elections have consequences, our furollo. Americans use their vote to choose who will work for them. So I ask you all a simple question, especially to my colleagues, is that what is happening here today? Are we gathered in these final moments before we depart for a week to fund our government to pay our troop. Are we gathered today to prove a new trade deal? Are we gathered to debate the critical national security issues regarding China

r Iran? Well, that answer would be unanimously no, we are not working for the American people. Those items would resemble the achievements of a productive Congress, a Congress that truly works for the people. What is this Congress doing with the Democrats in the majority. It is working in the deeply undemocratic fashion that we currently see under way where they're trying to undo an election from twenty sixteen. That's it. We have the American people lined up and ready.

In almost exactly twelve months, we'll be able to decide what they really think of a Trump presidency. But Democrats seek to short circuit this by putting forward a process that could, in theory remove the president from office. And they want to do this based on something that we've all heard about and that anyone who is looking at honestly says does not rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor. If you don't like it, vote

against Trump. That's why we have elections. If you think that it was unfair in some way, but not illegal, there is a process for that vote. Democrats pretend to care so much about voting. They say, if only they can get more people to vote, of course they would win. They're always the majority, even when the votes come in short of what they need for power. Pelosi in particular, I wonder when I could meet somebody who would tell me that Nancy Pelosi is someone that you could feel

good about supporting as a powerful politician. I know a lot of Democrats. They all seem understand that Nancy Pelosi serves a role, but she'll just say whatever. She'll say anything, whatever she has to say at any point in time. That is what Nancy Pelosi will do. You had an example of that last night when she was on the Colbet. Oh no, it's not the Colbert rapport anymore. That was the old show, right truthiness. That was actually a much better show. Now he does the Late Show in New York,

which I can't imagine. How many nights in a row can someone just do the same tired Trump jokes before people get tired? But the answer is that audience, the leftists people live in New York, LA, San Francisco, DC, never never get tired of Trump jokes. Doesn't matter if they're funny, it doesn't matter if they've heard them before. Just keep it coming. Anti Trump is m is a compulsion for these people. It's like they have an addiction

to people trashing Trump from whatever platform they can. But one thing that you'll never have on the right, You'll never have an conservatism, at least not any time in the near future. And maybe things will change dramatically in my lifetime, although I doubt it. When Democrat politicians go

on these late night shows. The whole point of it is to massage, massage some of the propaganda, to let the Democrats have their say, and also have somebody who's cool and has a lot of cultural residence and a big platform a lot of people watching, like Colbert does make that Democrat just seem cool. You know, they do this. They'll have CNN anchors onto who are overwhelmingly unimpressive dorks, but they'll have them on and make them seem cool.

You know. Yeah, when they're done with that show, like then they're gonna go hang out at a big fancy cocktail party on the Upper West Side or something with all the other very cool people and media and intelligency and all the rest of it. There's a lot there's a cultural blessing, although I don't think they like the term blessing. There's a cultural blessing that occurs on that show for Democrats that never extends to Republicans, never extends to them. An example was last night when you had

Pelosi on with Colbert. And unfortunately a lot of people still get their news from these stupid, hackneyed late night shows. But here's what she said about I mean, you guys all know that at least doesn't even listen to me for a long time. I have some rules, right, what's one of my rules about politicians. Whenever they say it's for the children, you know, they're pretty much lying to you. Right, Whenever they say it's for the children, they're trying to

manipulate your emotions and they're being shameless. Oh look at this Nancy Pelosi, What does she think about what's going on right now? Play twenty two. Look, because they said, what advice would you get people who want to run for office? And I told them they have to have their vision and their knowledge and their strategic thinking and their connection to the aspirations of their constituents. But I said, it's this is not for the faint of heart. So if you want to go into the arena, you have

to be paired to take a punch. You also have to be prepared to throw a punch for the children. Throw a punch more than children. Madame Speaker, thank you so much for being here on this momentous day. Good luck to the constitution. There we are, throw a punch for the children, everybody. If that's what they're doing in this impeachment hearing, they're throwing punches for the kids. It's for the kids, you see. That's why they're doing all

this stuff. Not so that Nancy Pelosi's fancy liberal friends in San Francisco and New York and DC can think that she's doing a good job. Give her a high five. I don't know if she does high fives, but whatever it is. At the next cocktail party, which are real things, and people say, oh, stop talking about liberal cocktail parties. No, they exist, trust me. I don't get invited to them, but I know they exist. I have friends who go

to them. This is just shameful. This whole thing is shameful, and the acromotive that you're going to see as a result of it is only going to get worse. There's no effort here to restore norms, to bring us back to a place where at least we can count on Democrats to play by some of the rules, or think that some of the rules are important, even when the rules are not favorable to what a Democrat or the Democrat majority wants. That's what it means to have a principle.

That's what it means to respect the system. They speak about, respect for the system. They speak about, respect for the Constitution, which is laughable, by the way, to anybody who remembers what was going on with Democrats during the eight years of the Obama presidency. And Democrats went forward with a law that regulates inactivity, and then a five four decision in the Supreme Court keeps that grossly unconstitutional legislation alive. And they want to tell us about the Constitution and

about individual rights and liberty. I mean, it's a joke. It's ridiculous. Unfortunately, it's deeply unfunny. We're going to see this now with very few surprises. It's just a shouting match Left on one side, the Democrats on one side, Republicans on the other. Whatever they can do that hurts the president is what they will do. Everything else is a distant concern for them, including throwing a punch for

the children. Founding fathers understood that a leader might take hold of the oval office, who would sacrifice the national security, who would fail to defend the constitution, who would place his personal or political interests above the interests of the country. They understood that might happen, and they provided a mechanism to deal with it. And that mechanism is called impeachment.

Adam Schiff invoking the Founding Fathers. I don't want to throw up because you would hear it on radio and you would see it all the Pluto channel, which that would be bad. But I did feel my stomach turn a little bit. This guy, the one who lied to American people for two years saying the president was a trader, a trader, folks working with Russia, betraying the United States of America. And now it's oh, he puts his interest above US national security interests. I have a question fadom

Ship who determines US national security interests? In Ukraine? President of United States. They run into some problems here. Anybody who understands the way our system of government is really built quickly figures out that they're just making this stuff up. They have no idea what they're really saying. It's all just blah blah constitution blah blah, our democracy. Trump is bad, Throw Trump out of office. All the rest of it is just noise. It's dressing up a flimsy case, which

is what they currently have against the president. I'm annoyed that we have to spend as much time as you do as a country going into an election year where there are some big things to talk about, like Medicare for all. Elizabeth Warren will get to that, don't warrant that's coming up when we should be having very serious

discussions about things that will affect you. That will be the difference between you sitting in a waiting room and finding out that you can see the doctor you want when you want, or you sitting in a waiting room and being told sorry, it's gonna be nine months. I know your arm really hurts and maybe you need surgery, but Elizabeth Warren's plan doesn't allow you to see a

specialist that quickly. Because we're overwhelmed. But don't you feel good because illegal aliens now have healthcare that you're paying for, that's in your future if these Democrats when instead of talking about that, though it's all impeachment, Trump, treason, lies, lies and more lies from the Democrats. I suppose we should not be surprised. Welcome back to the Box Sexton Show. Elizabeth Warren has a plan. Oh yeah, she has a plan for a lot of but how to pay for

Medicare for all? A signature issue of her presidential run is not one of them. Until today, Elizabeth Warren everybody wants to tell you that you're gonna have free healthcare for the rest of your life, and basically none of you are going to have to pay for that. I hate to say this, but we do reach a point at which if somebody is so stupid as to believe a thing, I wonder if it's possible that they're smart enough to believe why that thing is wrong in any capacity.

No matter what I tell them, no one should really think it is possible. As a function of math, goods and services, basic economics, supply and demand, any of them. No one should think that what Elizabeth Warren says is even vaguely possible. Remember it's not just that she says it's going to be really good health insurance is not gonna pay But then the middle class. No tax hikes on the middle class despite a fifty two trillion dollars

Medicare for All plan. All right, Elizabeth Warrent tweeter at today, today, I'm relashing my plan to pay for Medicare for all. I'll stop. Here's the headline. My plan won't raise taxes one penny on middle class families. In fact, we'll return about eleven trillion dollars to the American people. That's bigger than the biggest tax cut in our history. Here's how

my friends, this is. This is utterly absurd. She's not only telling you that she's not going to pay or she's not going to raise taxes on the middle class. She's telling you that she's going to engage in a tax cut. How is that possible? Here's what she writes on Twitter. I asked top experts to examine my Medicare for All plan. They concluded, we can cover everyone, and this is from Elizabeth Warren, all right, cover everyone and give them vastly better coverage without a tax increase on

middle class families. This analysis was done by doctor Donald Berwick, one of the nation's top experts in Medicare and Medicaid programs under President Obama, and Simon Johnson, the former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and a professor at MIT. In addition to providing coverage for everyone, they concluded that my plan would slightly reduce the amount of money of the United States would otherwise spend on healthcare over the

next ten years. I am fighting for Medicare for all. I have the only detailed plan to pay for it. And we're the only Democratic primary campaign that has laid out the true full cost of any healthcare plan medicare. Otherwise, I look forward to others doing the same, my friends. Oh,

and here you go. Also, we cover the remaining eleven trillion dollars with taxes on big corporations, Wall Street and the one percent and enforcing a tax laws we now have, adding a targeted cut to a Defense department slush fund. And that's it. This is just insane, my friends. This is completely and utterly bonkers. And she's supposed to be the super smart policy wonk of the Democrats who are running her and Buddha Judge, who are both he's also a Medicare for all guy. They really think that they

can do this. They think they can do this in a way that's so efficient that you could have Sweden or Denmark levels of universal healthcare without their levels of taxation. How would that be possible? Why would we be so much better at this and than it's been. Keeping mind when we're comparing ourselves, which the Democrats love to do, to countries like Sweden that have let's say, twenty million people in it, Okay, America has three hundred and thirty

million people. The healthcare system here is much more complex, much larger, and is dealing with all kinds of complexities. No one sitting around saying, when are the Swedes gonna cure cancer? I mean maybe, but it's going to be America most likely. So we have a lot of things to think about for our healthcare system that other countries

don't really or they're free riders on our system. But the claim that she can do this without raising taxes in the middle class and without destroying the rest of the economy is utterly absurd. Here's how Fox News writes this up today on It's the main story on the website Warren's Project Warren projects no new tax burden for

the middle class. The Warren campaign claims those eleven trillion in individual costs would drop to practically zero while the plan maintains and boosts a funding pipeline from other sources. The plan carries a total price tag of just under fifty two trillion dollars over the next ten years, or slightly less than cost projections for the current system that factors in current and additional spending. New spending alone would be in the twenty trillion dollar range. Compared with roughly

thirty two trillion dollars for Sanders plan. Now, so let's be clear, the fifty two trillion is all in healthcare spending under this plan, right, The twenty trillion is in excess of current government healthcare expenditures. So the government's going to spend, according to Warren, an additional twenty trillion dollars over ten years, basically going to double what the government

spends every year for ten years. Bernie Sanders saying it's thirty trillion, which would be doubling with the government spends every year. We're going to put these people in charge of this much of the economy, the genius of our system economically, and we see this now we've got great job numbers. Isn't it so amazing too? Obama, we suffered through a recession for years and they kept calling it a recovery. Trump. All we have is a booming economy, and we keep being told any minute now, it's going

to change, any minute now, it's going to change. Hasn't changed yet, almost like they're trying to play games with the public's expectations for political reasons. But let's get back now for a second. Why is America so rich. You could argue that Soviet Union, for example, had better strategic geography, natural resources. I mean, you could argue that why is

America so wealthy? America has done as well as it has done because it has harnessed individual ingenuity, individual initiative, people pursuing their own self interest economically, and in doing so, becoming more productive, more efficient, inventing stuff, being entrepreneurs, being good employees because it benefits them. Human beings, we are all inherently self interested creatures. This is just a fact. I know, the Marxists, others a sea, they're admitting it.

The fat Cats, they're so selfish holdership with warrants like say, they're just they don't want to give all the money from the Wall Street to the poor people. Elizabeth Warren's worth about ten million dollars, by the way, but she cares so much about poor people. But the system we have rewards people for doing good, smart, efficient things, providing services, coming up with new technologies, being better at stuff. We're

just being good at stuff. And I think that one one important lesson that we all have is, you know, you can be the person who works at the gas station who does a great job, and everybody's happy to see and is efficient and quick, and you know, maybe you get more tips and then maybe you become a manager, and then maybe you become a regional manager. You know you or you'd be a person who shows up and hates their job and is bad at it. We want a system that that advantage is one person over the

other person based on what they do. That that is the system that we want. And Democrats also refuse to understand that because of the market signals, because of price. And this now goes back into the central planning, which is I know a recurring theme that I've been bringing up with you here, but the government is not good at determining how many different kinds of milk we should have, who should make the milk, where should the milk go? Walk into a whole foods now you'll see not just

moo cow milk. I don't know why I did a move there, but I just came to my mind. You'll have, you know, almond milk and soy milk and hazelnut milk, and five different providers of a few of those, and they'll be in different sizes, in different colored boxes. And what would happen if the government was saying, yeah, we're just gonna be your milk provider. Do you think you'd

have better, tasting, cheaper milk, does anybody? Elizabeth Warren thinks the answers yes, Elizabeth Warren, And they would deny this because it makes it it clarify the situation. Elizabeth Warren wants you to believe that if the government was in charge of what milk you could buy in the store,

the government was the only person paying for milk. The government got to regulate what kind of milk was out there and determine what the price of milk was, that you'd be able to go in there and you'd I mean, I mean I drink milk sometimes. Now that's so fancy, I feel bougie. The first sip I was drinking walnut milk, you'd dat even though they made that till recently. It's kind of good. Healthcare is even more complicated than the dairy or the milk industry. And put aside for a

moment that almond milk is almond juice. That's lying about being milk. We have very clear lessons for why we have had more people taken out of poverty in the last fifty years than in all of human history before

it combined. It is because of markets, because of individual incentive, and because we have a system that leverages the desire within human beings to do well and to do better, and a system that inherently elevates the good, the efficient, the smart, the hard working, and does not similarly elevate those who don't really care, don't want to do a

good job, don't want to do it the right way. Now, if you apply Elizabeth Warren's thinking about or rather our discussion about milk, to Elizabeth Warren's thinking about healthcare, all the things that I'm telling you're everything that we said was true about Obamacare, that conservative said was true about Obamacare turned out to be true. Yes, it was a stepping stone to single pair. They said that was a lie. Yes, it was a stepping stone to socialism. They said that

was a lie. Now we have open socialists running in the Democratic ticket. Oh what a shock. Yes, it would be mostly a massive expansion of Medicaid. You know, when I was debating healthcare at Politicon with a bunch of leftists and my man Glenn Jacobs, who's awesome he was. He was on my team he's a libertarian perspective, but libertarians also like markets. But we're debating. As I said to them, just explain this to me, and this this really in including the MD. But he's a psychiatrist, so

we know he's a little leftist wacky. Not all of them, but like ninety five percent of them are. I'm just telling you it's true. I said to them, why why go through all of this? If the real problem is the uninsured in this country, why not just expand Medicaid to cover anybody who's uninsured? There's no such thing. If you don't have health insurance, now you have Medicaid. Why

not just do that? Wouldn't that take care? If it's really just about insuring everybody, just tell any anyone who walks in and says, oh, you don't have insurance, Well now you have Medicaid. I mean, it can't be because it's too expensive. If they're talking about thirty trillion dollars twenty twenty to thirty trillion dollars of new government spending, I mean, and you're only really looking at about fifteen to twenty million Americans roughly who aren't covered in Medicaid

don't have insurance. Or you have a problem, why radically transform the whole system. Well, because they want you to go to the doctor. And they won't say this, but they want your insurance to be no better than Medicaid, and somebody on Medicaid's insurance to be no better than yours. You're all going to be the same. Think about how what that means for people right now. They are used to having insurance, used to having options going to see

private doctors. You think your insurance is going to get better. You think that's gonna be fun. Oh, and Democrats want to make sure that illegal aliens are also right there with you now, so they have the same insurance that you do too. Everyone's gonna have the same insurance, be government mandated. This is what the government will pay for. Go back to the milk on the shelves in the store. Government's the only person that pays for milk in the

whole country. The government decides what's acceptable for the size of milk, the taste of milk. It's gonna get better, it's gonna get a cheaper you're gonna have more options. They are fundamentally wrong, Just like what they said about how Obamacare is going to be amazing and great. Yeah, some people get subsidies, some people get free stuff from the government. Other people have to pay for that free stuff. Not good for them. I thought this was going to

fix the problem of the unashored. Why didn't obamacare, Obamacare fix the problem of the unashured. Oh, now we need single pair. They told us we wouldn't need single pair, and now we do. The people who are right the last time, people like me, among many others. They should be listened to. Now. The people that are promising the magical chocolate cake that never runs out, that cost you nothing, that you can eat tons of and never get fat,

they should Honestly, their ideas should be ridiculed. Elizabeth Warren's ideas is ridiculous. This is absurd, And no tax increases on the middle class to pay for this. That's you know, you know, comprises the tax based people that make money. And yeah, there's there's a class of rich people in this country who already, by the way, pay a lot of taxes, but everybody else because there's so many of them.

That's where the real money is. Got to make everybody pay value added tax, consumption tax, whatever it may be, They're gonna throw all these things into the mix. It's a nightmare. So just the next time you're in the store, look at the shelves and think about what would these shelves look like if Elizabeth warrener Bernie Sanders got their way in the Congress, which is also here. That's a whole I mean, politically, this all that's never gonna happen, folks,

They're not going to get there. So why would you elect somebody that's got a stupid plan, that's crazy, that will bankrupt the country and the Congress won't even go along with at least I don't think they would. Well, this is because I live in the real world. It's very frustrating to live in the real world these days. It's much more fun to live in liberal fantasyland where everything would just be fine if it wasn't for Donald Trump.

You know, every we could fix everything, give everyone great healthcare. Nobody should be held responsible for their bad decisions, Nobody should feel like they're being left out of the economy, no matter how little they do, or it's just the difference between reality and reality. You know what side of

this I want to be on. It wasn't until I heard of a man by the name of Bernie Sanders always began to question and assert and recognize my inherent value as a human being that deserves healthcare, housing, education, and a living way. Wasn't until Bernie Sanders came along that AOC who's endorsed Bernie Sanders said she understood or rather began to a question and assert and recognize her inherent value as a human being, and that means healthcare, housing, food, everything.

Have we learned nothing from the experiment of the Soviet Union? The answer with someone like Bernie Sanders is they have learned nothing. They don't understand. And you could say, but buck, they're not going to be as radical as the Soviets were. Well, one, that's because of political possibility. They can't even if they wanted to go as radical as a Soviets, where they

wouldn't be able to get there. We are in a very different place culturally and just as a country, and within our economy much richer by the way as well. One of the problems we run into with liberals is that even when they're destroying something, if it's rich enough, it can take a while for us to figure out that they're destroying that thing, and they argue all along that they're not destroying it, and by the time it's unavoidable to come to the conclusion that they've ruined it,

like California, it's too late. So then it doesn't matter that we were right. That's I think what you can expect for the healthcare system with Democrats, if they were to get their way with Medicare for all. We have to take this very seriously because two of the three top candidates, Bernie Sanders Elizabeth Warren, believe that this is the way to go. In fact, Buddha Judge, who was a top four or five candidate, also thinks that Medicare for all is the way to go. But o'canzio cortez,

I mean that almost sounded like idol worship. Until Bernie Sanders came along. She didn't understand her full inherent value as a human being. She needed a gotta come around to say, you're gonna have the rich people paying more, you're gonna pay less, you're gonna have for housing, you're gonna have food, all the things, and then all of a sudden you recognize your inherent values of human being.

That's both bizarre and kind of sad. So I wasn't planning to spend much time here talking about Congresswoman Katie Hill. And I don't really particularly like to get involved in the personal life stuff of public figures. I mean just I don't find it all that interesting. And it was already pretty clear to me that she was going to have to resign, and now she has resigned. It's a congresswoman from California. We had Tiana Lowe from The Examiner on her own of the Week talking about this. But

now I've got a problem. Now I've got a problem with this because it's quite clear what happened. She messed up, she did think she wasn't supposed to do, and then because she associates with some bad people, including apparently her ex husband, there was embarrassing stuff that happened to her.

But on the way out, instead of just accepting responsibility for what happened, understanding that she messed up, she made a mistake, she's now trying to do what Democrats love to do, which is rewrite the narrative, blame their political enemies, and then try to probably down the line, resurrect some kind of public public life, public career for oneself, just to review the facts here. Katie Hill had a had multiple set well, she denies one and accepts the other one.

There's photos though of at least one of them naked and brushing each other's hair or something. She had a sexual relationships as a member of Congress with people who were on her payroll work for her, and she has the power to hire and fire. Now, Congress established rules that you These are congressional rules, specific Congress. You can't

do that. So, just by way of a comparison here, you know, I if I walk into a country club and I insist on walking around the dining room using my cell phone, some of you people along the country clubs will know that's a big someplaces that's a big no no. And they decide that, okay, we have a rule against this. If you're not gonna get up your cellphone, we're gonna kick you out of the club. And you keep talking on your cell phone, that's on you. Those

are the rules of the club. You won't obey them. The club has the right to say these are the rules. You're gone. She broke house rules, no question, there's no there's no debate about whether or not g and it's a pretty serious rule too. I mean, I know the cell phone things, but I just mean that different bodies have the right to declare, you know, this isn't a criminal proceeding. No one saying she sho's going to prison for this, but the Congress can say that this is

the way we're going to conduct ourselves. This is now a rule they've come up within the me too era, and she broke that rule. This is very this is very straightforward, but now it ends up happening. Is it's it's about other things she's saying, Oh, he's saying, it's

about revenge porn. Okay. There is a lack of wisdom I think that some people have when they especially if you're a person in public life and you're taking these kinds of photos, but that's a personal I just I think it's a bad move, that's said somebody using that, especially anybody who is in a trusted and perhaps an intimate setting with someone. I mean, using that against a

human being is a despicable thing. And do I think that there was perhaps a little bit too much in some places, at some publications, a little bit of quiet glee at being able to share what we're clearly humiliating photos of a Democrat. Yeah, probably, and I think there was a little too much. Hey, look at this revenge porn that we're reporting on. By the way, did we tell you this revenge porn things? Now step back for

a second. If this were a Republican female there, you know, the New York Times would have been running the photos in the front page, right, it would have been a totally different situation. So I'm aware of that, right, I trust me. The double standard here couldn't be any more clear. But if it's because it's a Democrat, they're downplaying it. But that doesn't mean that it's a free for all.

Either people should be able to just or people should feel ethical as journalists spreading this stuff all over the place. But my problem here is that Katie Hill, I mean, I've got an obviously a bunch of problems with this. Katie Hill, Democrat, former Democrat congressman from California, is blaming other people for this. She's climbing that there's a double standard, that there's sexism at work here. Play clip two. Please.

I will never shirk my responsibility for this sudden ending to my time here, But I have to say more because this is bigger than me. I am leaving now because of a double standard. I'm leaving because I no

longer want to be used as a bargaining chip. I'm leaving because I didn't want to be peddled by papers and blogs and websites used by shameless operatives for the dirtiest gutter politics that I've ever seen, and the right wing media to drive clicks and expand their audience by distributing intimate photos of me taken without my knowledge, let

alone my consent, for the sexual entertainment of millions. I'm leaving because of a misogynistic culture that gleefully consumed my naked pictures, capitalized on my sexuality, and enabled my abusive X to continue that abuse, this time with the entire country watching. Nope, that's not why she's leaving. None of that is true. She's leaving because she had sex with people that she was paying with public funds as a member of Congress in her office. That's unacceptable. That's it. Oh,

she can try to do all this other stuff. Oh, and I'll look at this over here. No, can't do it. Not allowed to do it. And the Democrats know that if they let her. I want to talk about a double stuff. What is the double standard? If they let her stay, then there'd be a double standard. So and the Democrats now still like to keep this stuff. They're waiting for a Republican to mess up in this way.

Can you imagine what the media frenzy would be. Could you imagine the news coverage that would occur if this had been Congressman, you know, Newness or Crenshaw or Gates brushing a female aid's hair, you know whatever, Like I actually I will tell you I didn't even see the photos. I didn't think I needed to, but whatever was going on in those photos, can you imagine the frenzy. Oh, the late night jokes, Oh Stephen, Colbert and Kimmel will be making all they'd be having a great time with

this one. The double standard if a male, and particularly a male Republican was doing this. By the way, I'm not even getting into the thrupple stuff, which I didn't even know what that was. It's like a threesome couple. You're a three person couple, so you all get to have sex with each other. I mean, you know, consenting adults can do what they want to do. But if it wasn't a Democrat doing that stuff, I assure you

there would have been a whole lot more interest. So there she starts off that that clip and that was perfect. This is classic. This is Democrat at mister directured propaganda. One on one. Really, she starts up by saying that she would never shirk responsibility. Nope, she is trying to. She couldn't get out of this entirely, but she is trying to shirk responsibility because the next thing that comes out of her mouth is basically, this is bigger than me. No,

no it's not. It's actually it's actually not bigger than her stuff. Don't have sex with people when you're a congress person who work for you, on your congressional staff, who are being paid with public funds, and who you are entrusted to behave professionally around as a as a member of Congress, an elected official in the United States government.

That's it. This is now the standard. By the way, if a Republican comes out and has some affair, you know, and I, by the way, it's just I think a matter of time, let's be realistic, before some Republican member is having some something or other going on with his staffer. There are some very lovely staffers on Capitol Hill. I've spent some time around there. It would not be surprising to anybody that guy's gonna have to go. These are the rules, now, right, These are the rules. Members of

Congress agree, agree to buy by the rules. But I hope that person, whoever it is, and maybe I'm wrong and this won't happen, but I hope that Republican member of Congress doesn't turn around and say, but but you know, there was a conspiracy against me, or there was a double standard, and then for her to turn this into a for Katie Hill to say this is about the right wing media, Well, why is it their fault. They didn't make you. They didn't make Katie Hill break the rules,

they didn't make her act in this way. But really, what we know is that she's trying to establish, on her way out the ultimate currency on the left, victimhood status. She gets to become a victim, well then you know she'll be able to rewrite the narrative in time, and that she was a victim of a misogynist, you know,

right wing media attack. And it is this almost like Hillary playbook back in the day, the vast right wing conspiracy right, just make something up, blame blame some enemies out there, and act like your conduct had nothing to do with any of it. Oh and if you really want to make sure that you can still get some speeches on the speaker circuit, maybe get a book, be invited to fancy luncheons, maybe get a board seat somewhere or something. You really, you know what, what's the one

thing she hasn't done yet? Katie Hills on the way out because of her own actions admitted, proven done. But she's saying all this other stuff. What's the one thing that she hasn't done yet that other than saying that she's going to fight the NRA for the rest of her life, which is that's the classic that is adjustin Trudeau move. I want to take all of yourselftwife weapons or the Harvey Weinstein. You know, yeah, I'm going to dedicate myself to fighting the NRA. No, how about Harvey Weinstein.

Dedicate yourself to not being a sexual predator. But what is the one thing that she hasn't done? Oh, that's right, she has not yet attacked Donald Trump. Play clip through. Please, I'm leaving. But we have men who have been credibly accused of intentional acts of sexual violence and remain in boardrooms on the Supreme Court, in this very body, and worst of all, in the Oval office. Wow, just in time.

There what slander? Now? I will just put aside for a second the fact that you've had all these people come out and accused Trump of this or that. Do we know any of the who's the really credible source for Donald Trump engaged in sexual violence against a woman? And don't tell me this thing about he said he would grab I know what he said. He was saying that they let they let you, was what he said.

He says, when you're a star, you can be sexually aggressive with women and they let you, because that is he was saying, they're consenting to it. Okay, that was locker room talk. We know that. Who was it the woman who came forward and wrote that book? And then on Anderson Cooper so a show on Live TV CNN said that rape is sexy quote unquote rapist sexy. That is what she said. She's the credible story. Who's the credible source for the President the United States as a rapist?

Do I believe the presence of Philanderer? Yes? Have I ever for one second, believed that he's a rapist based on the allegations, the stories, the fact pattern. No, I don't believe it. Sorry, and to put Kavanaugh in there too. We are not at a point where if you think that Kavanaugh assaulted these women, you're just not very smart. I don't know what else to say, or you've deceived yourself so much that you're incapable of rational thought on

this issue. They can't even prove that blasi Ford met him. She can't even tell a convincing story about meeting him. Where, when, how, who took you home? That's not credibly accused. It's the opposite of credibly accused. I don't one more thing in this since I'm talking about Blassie Ford. She just I saw yesterday she I'm trying to think of what the what the award was called? Hold on, let me see if I can find this Christine blasi Ford, she got an award. Daily Wire reporting on this, had he give

us an acceptance speech. She was in the cover of what was it? Time magazine? Here we Go, accepted an empowerment award from the YWCA Silicon Valley, gave a speech, etc. Etc. Okay, all right, my friends, I'm just gonna I'm not letting this go because it's appalling what they did. The Kavanat's one of you. It's the ugliest thing I've ever seen in American politics. To this day. Still, I'm not letting go that the press pretended. And I remember having this

dispute publicly with people. The press pretended at the time to be so dumb that they really didn't think that there was any upside for Christine blasi Ford for accusing Kavanaugh. Why would she lie? She has nothing to gain, they kept saying. I looked around, saying other than being famous, being revered, being rich, being a hero to the left, and fulfilling her own ideological beliefs to stop kavan Off from being on the court, to protect Roe v. Wade,

most likely, those are all obvious things. And I was saying at the time, of course, she's gonna be she's gonna get a book deal, she's gonna be on the cover of Vanity Fair. All these things will happen. But they pretended because it was just necessary for the storyline at the time, trying to fool stupid people. The media pretended across the board to be a bunch of morons. Why would she lie? She has nothing to gain, She's got a ton of stuff to gain. Who the heck

NoHo Christine blasi Ford was before? Now we all know her name. Now she gets awards. Now she's in the covers of magazines. Now, I'm sure wherever she goes, women who are leftists who don't know any better approach her and say thank you so much for what you did. You know, thank you for making up a story and trying to ruin a guy's life in front of his wife and children and all of America, because you know, Rovie Wade sacred. That's why, that's what she had to gain.

This was obvious. Who didn't know that? I knew it, You knew it. Getting awards, I would just wait for the book to come out. Oh that'll be just give that some time. Ah. This is why, this is why no one is why you can't trust the media, can't trust the Democrats. If nothing else, take that from today. He recently attended the wedding there was also attended by Avanka Trump. What did you talk about? I was I

was a little drunk. I expect nothing, and I was with Orlando Bloom, who I think was equally, if not slightly less drunk than I was. And we were stood at the bar and what did you say? And if Ana was also at the bar, and I can't I can't one hundred percent remember it, but I remember that that we were quite drunk, and we started going, if anky you can do something, you can do something, you can do something, you can make a difference, you can

make a difference, you can make it better. And if Anker stuff was I remember if Unka was going, I'm trying. And then the night carried on. I kept drinking, and then the next day it was like a two day wedding. And the next day there was like a drinks thing in the afternoon, and I'd forgotten all about it until I saw her across this sort of garden and it all came back and she just said, I bet you've got a headache this morning, and like I just was like,

can you just like do something. It's like, I'm not even from this country, but I just I believe that liberal narrative of you know, if Vunka could like maybe stop or Dad from being, you know, such a lunatic, And so I was this is I just I wish I could be and I would be so much more fun to be a left wing newsperson, a left person in the media, on the left, because you just walk around and you know that everyone's kind of gonna just

love whatever stupid thing you say about this. All you can do is all you can do is come over into the darkness, just be anti Trump, and you just be like I want to. It was like you can do something. And I was drunk, and everyone's like, Oh, that's like awesome, because it's like it's like drunk hashtag resistance, you know what I mean. It's fantastic. Yeah, not so much. I'm starting to like Mark Zuckerberg. His unorthodox haircut is something that might take him getting used to for me still.

But but I like that he now has perhaps seen enough of the leftism out there and the desire for censorship which comes from the left, the desire for domination of information and speech and dissemination of all of that which comes from the left, that now he's like, Wow, these people are crazy. We got to figure out a way to allow for the exchange of ideas in what is a massively powerful platform Facebook. So he's been better.

I think that what he's doing for example, on political ads is better than what Jack Dorsey's doing over at Twitter, which is, yeah, we're gonna let people pay for political ads, like we're not gonna do what the left wants here and try to rely on the built in, the built in advantages that the left tends to have in these platforms to make it organic, because it's never really organic. It's never really what it's just supposed to be. There's algorithms,

and there's upgrading and downgrading and all these things. But some of you probably are familiar with Aaron Sorkin. Aaron Sorkin has made quite a name for himself as a screen He actually wrote The Social Network, the movie The Social Network, which was not particularly favorable to Mark Zuckerberg, by the way, but it's very It is a very entertaining movie for what it is, justin Timberlake, husband of Jessica Biel, did do a pretty good job in it,

much to my chagrin anyway. But Aaron Sorkin in the New York Times has written an open letter to Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook isn't defending free speech, it's assaulting the truth. M let's take a look at this, shall we. Mister Sorkin, who you know, and by the way, for making his name in Hollywood, for writing very snappy, witty dialogue between people. No one really talks like the way that the characters and Aaron Sorkin shows or movies talk. I mean, it's

just it's the weird. I mean, I guess some people find entertaining, but just it's very forced. I think. Here's what he writes in this EDITORI though, where he's telling Mark Zuckerberg that it is assaulting truth instead of defending free speech. Quote, this is Aaron Sorkin. Most people don't

have the resources to employ a battalion of fact checkers. Nonetheless, while testifying before a congressional committee two weeks ago, Representative Alexandria Occasio Cortez asked you the following, do you see a potential problem here with a complete lack of fact

checking on political advertisements? Then, when she pushed you further, asking you a Facebook would or would not take down lies, you answered, Congresswoman, in most cases, in a democracy, I believe people should be able to see for themselves what politicians they may or may not vote for are saying and judge their character for themselves. Now, if you tell me. Now, you tell me. If I'd known you felt that way, I'd have had the Winklevoss Twins invent Facebook. Ooh, burn

burn the Winklevoss Twins and many Facebook. Oh no, that's because you know, the winkle Vast Twins are supposed to be the preppy elite, always get their way and don't. By the way, they're worth a ton of money now, not just from Facebook, but from cryptocurrency. They crushed it and being early in the cryptocurrency world. So those guys are you know, I don't know. They want to start a conservative Hey, Winklevoss Twins, you want to start a conservative media outlet? I know I know a guy. We

could do some things. This guy's got cash to burn. But here's how Mark Zuckerberg responded, And like I said, I kind of like Zuck unleashed here. Zuck and Buck could be good. That may be fun. I gotta be fun guy to interview. Actually, America isn't easy. America is advanced citizenship. You gotta want it bad because it's gonna put up a fight. It's gonna say you want free speech.

Let's see you acknowledge a man whose words make your blood Boil who's standing center stage and advocating at the top of his lungs, which you would spend a lifetime opposing at the top of yours. You want to claim this land as the land of the free, then the symbol of your country can't be a flag just a flag. The symbol also has to be one of its citizens exercising his right to burn that flag and protest. Show

me that, defend that, celebrate that in your classrooms. Then you can stand up and sing about the land of the free. That's what Mark Zuckerberg posted on Facebook. You know where it comes from. It was written by Aaron Sorkin in the movie The American President. Yeah, so clear that was meant to be a soaring moment of oratory in the film written by Aaron Sorkin, and so to that, I would just want to ask, hold on a moment, what changed between that movie, which I think came out

in probably nineteen ninety eight or something. It was quite a bit old now and today that seems also true. In fact, these principles about I don't have to like your speech, but I'll defend to the death your right to say it. You know that this is what old school liberals used to say this was the standard way that they would approach these topics. You know, it became cliche,

that phrase idea of whatever. I forget what the exact one is, but you know, you have these these old school liberals who believed in the freedom to burn flags and burn bras, and the freedom to say really bad stuff, and the freedom to march and to be you know, and to be racist. And you know they used Now you have in the pages of the most revered liberal outlets in the news outlets in the country, people on the editorial boards of the New York Times Washington Post

advocating for hate speech laws criminalizing it. Now liberals will say that a couple of stupid and I believe drunk white kids walking across a campus and I think I can't remember they drunk or not, doesn't matter. And yelling the N word isn't just stupid and something that should be condemned, but should be criminal. You go to prison

for that, for saying a word. And then I can go into a gym, as I did yesterday, to try to work out a little bit, and hear people blasting over the PA system songs with lots of people saying the N word. So some people can say it, it's fine, other people go to prison for it, and liberals today will say, yeah, that's the way it should be. Really, I thought freedom of speech was something we all agreed on. Here's the troubling reality. It's not just Aaron Sorkin. There

are others too. Freedom of speech when it really matters, it's not something the left believes in anymore. They believe in power. They believe that they know what is right, that government should be empowered to do what they think is right, and anyone who stands in the way of that is bad, not just wrong, but bad. And all decision making, all policy disputes are taken through are pulled

through that filter. First. This is troubling. This is not the way it's supposed to be, and this is not the way liberals were even going back a few you know, maybe five or ten years. It's it's been getting worse, I mean progressively with college campuses. They have the speech codes, and they've been trying to silence people that liberals now want censorship, and they want censorship help from the most powerful platforms of information exchange in the history of the world.

And you have to remember that too. This isn't just you know, one abusive cleric in one town of Renaissance era Italy or something saying, no, we're going to burn these books. Okay, that's bad, but that's one town. This now would be information dominance and control of the dissemination of information on a global scale, much more powerful, much more far reaching. And what's at stake here is the perception of millions, hundreds of millions of people on any

number of issues. And the left will not give this up. They want it the way they want it. They will not adhere to the principle here. They do not believe that people should have their say on this. There's only one say what they say. That's it. Mark Zuckerberg gets credit here. Man, that was a fantastic response to Aaron Sorkin calling him out. Aaron Sorkin's a sanctimonious lib. There's no surprise Mark Zuckerberg, I would think is a Democrat.

But he seems to at least be a Democrat who, having built a very large company and having seen what the left of his own party believes about how that company should be run, now understands that the so called liberals and I hate that term for them, but they've used it specifically as a way of throwing us off the truth. They're not liberals. They are statists, they are progressives, they're leftists, they're socialists. But they are a threat to liberty.

And that's not the talking point, that's not exaggeration. What liberties do we really have if we don't have the liberty to say things that liberals don't like, so called liberals, how can we be considered a free people if we're not free to say things that are offensive. This was central, This was taught in schools. This was one of the few areas where left and right could really come together

and agree. They could coincide, they could have a worthwhile discussion about this, and at the end of the day they tended to be at least willing to adhere to the basic principle of free speech. It's gone now. It's just a question of how long it'll be on life support before liberals can completely eliminate it. They don't even aspire to share the basic tenets of free speech with us. They don't even they don't. They've openly embraced censoring things

they don't like. They've openly embraced control of the government so that they can shut down things that they say are offensive. Mark Zuckerberg credit where it's due, not only just for slapping down Aaron Sorkin, who's just really insufferable. Just go watch a little bit of the West Wing. It's so cute, both sides presented. But like the Left is always a little smarter, a little better, a little more moral, a little more courageous. And the Democrats are

always the good guys. Really, the Conservatives are basically all being paid off by big oil or something, or they just need some really clever lib to explain to them. Why, you know, drooling in anmore is a terrible idea, And I remember that one in that show. I would try to watch some of it, but I've seen a few episodes and it's just a fantasy land for liberals where they win every argument. And John Stewart basically took that

format of the Daily Show. Let's have a comedy show where we talk about the issues of the day and just make fun of the other side and present straw man arguments and our side always wins. People love this stuff. They love it. I loved it during the Bush administration to pretend that there was really an alternative presidency on TV. That's what it was, with Martin Sheen in the role of the what was it Jeff Bartlett I think was his name or something. Brilliant all American professor from New

Hampshire who's a Democrat. Yeah, I wonder if Jeff Bartlett thinks that they're two genders. Would be a fun question to ask on that show. But the show's gone. Now, Well, it's happening, my friends. President Trump is moving to Florida. That's right. It has been established now that the President of the United States is officially changing his personal residence. Obviously technically lives in DC, but he would he now will be a resident of the great State of Florida.

Reasons for this are pretty clear, right, Florida no state income tax. Florida is a place that has better weather than New York, I'll just admit it, and better politics than New York. At least there's some red parts of Florida. There's some real conservatism, some Republican politics that matter in Florida. Unfortunately here in DC, I'm sorry, in New York. Also true in DC where I used to live. Here in

New York, that is not the case. There is, in fact, no real Republican party in New York City that really does very much or does much of anything. So I just wanted to share this with those looking for this. So you got the President United States saying that he's leaving the place that he's called, the state that he's called his primary home for his entire adult life. He's from here. Everyone's forgets that eighty percent of New York

City voted for Hillary Clinton in the last election. I think so many people forget that somehow Hillary Clinton a total, you know, transplant to New York, a fraud in that regard one a lot of regards. She's more embraced by New York than a guy who's a native born New Yorker who's lived here his whole life and been really a part of the city his whole life. Just goes to show you the power of Democrat narrative in politics.

But in response to this, you had a mayor Build a Blasio tweet out, don't let the door hit you on the way out or whatever. Andrew Cuomo, the Governor of New York, good riddance. It's not like real Donald

Trump paid taxes here. Anyway, He's all yours Florida. The first Lady of New York City, Charlaine McCray, the wife of Mayor Bill de Blasio, just wrote boy bye in reference to Donald Trump leaving, and Mayor Bill de Blasio also wrote our deepest condolences to the good people of Florida as Trump attempts to outrun his past and near future.

So here you have the politician, politicians for the City of New York and for the State of New York, who are celebrating the loss of probably the most well I think you could say now, no question, the most famous New Yorker alive. And because of the tax situation, and also I'm sure at some level, because of the insane politics of this city, which increasingly people don't realize. Wall Street is liberal. Everybody needs to get this through

their heads. Most people on Wall Street, most of these hedge fund billionaires, these people they like Hillary, they donate to Democrats. Wall Street is liberal. It's not some bastion of right wing stuff. Yeah, they want lower taxes, maybe that's it. They want to keep more of their money on everything else. Trust me, they're socially liberal. They're probably all about climate change. This is just you know, the

rest of the country. Because you hear hell hush about the Warren Whyn't she talks about, huh, we're gonna have a tax on Wall Street? People say, oh yeah, those right wingers on there's the right wing Wall Street. They're people who are on Wall Street. But overwhelmingly golden sacks, liberal liberal place, left wing donates. The Dems. You got on the line, these big financially, these megabanks, financial institutions, they're all about supporting Democrats, all about supporting the left.

So you just look at the donations. Somehow rich people gets conflated with Republicans all the time, and it's it's total nonsense. This is where I have to think, Man, I don't know, it'd be kind of nice to move down to Florida got better weather. I have to think of where i'd go. Miami comes to mind from because I'm a single guy and that would be kind of fun. But Palm Beach, I hear is very very nice. West

Palm Beach, I hear is very nice. Other places in Florida that are, you know, more up and coming or a little less a little less bougie. Perhaps what's there where would you if you had to move a Tampa has some great places. Naples has some great stuff. Where's the where if you had to move to Florida to Marrow producing Mark, where to be? I'd like the West Palm area. West Palm. I have some family down there. Really nice. Yeah. I used to live in Coral Springs, Florida.

Actually from middle and high school. I I live there. How was it? I mean, as a kid, it's a lot different, just because I couldn't drive a lot of old people stuff like that. So as a kid, I would say it was bad. But now that there's no state income tax in Florida, I'd go in a second. I probably need to spend time in the pan Handle, right Jacksonville and places like that that are up in the red part of Florida. Don't go to Key West. They get obliterated by hurricanes all the time. I've been

then there a couple of times. Don't move there. Yeh, don't move there. You can go to Key West. Nice place to visit. That's where the party ad anytime you want to move the Freedom Hut down there. Yeah, we want to move to Florida. You're good, I'm some I'm gonna think about. But no state income tax. That's all that matters New York City. I think it's like, what is it twelve or thirteenth or something ridiculous? Outrageous for what I did. I mean the stuff you have to

deal with here in this city sometimes. I know a lot of your saying, buck, come out to wherever. Probably got a great place, man, I don't even want to know how far my money would go. And a wonderful city like Omaha be great. I have a great time there. It's time for roll call, man. I can't believe another week of fantastic shows done here in the Freedom Hunt.

Thank you so much for listening. I hope you're enjoying also watching us on the first which is on Pluto TV and you can watch the channel two forty eight. If you're listening on the radio or the podcast, you can watch a video live stream of the radio show. Please do check it out, and thank you so much for that. I also want to say today, in case she is listening, happy birthday to my mom, Missus Sexton. She is the only Missus Sexton running around right now.

Because some of the kids are taking you know, not, We're not The boys are not married yet so Mom, Happy birthday or the best mom in the world. Thank you so much for our support. Love you and you know like a day over thirty five. All right, let's get to what we have going on here in the role call inbox Wayne, Hey Buck. I started listening to

your show recently from Denver. I've gotten tired of Hannity, etc. Because they all seem to allow the leftist to control the game by going into defense mode for Trump even though he's done nothing. It reminds me of the years I've spent in Ukraine listening to and reading Ukrainian, American and Russian media. Putin would commit crimes and incursions against Ukraine, then immediately accused Kiev. It's actually they say, Kiev, I believe over there of the crime, or justify the crime

as a protection of Russian families in Ukraine. Ukraine would go right into defense mode and try to explain what really happened, sometimes making themselves seem like a guilty party, falling all over themselves in reactive response. Putin owned them every time, running the game as a propaganda master. Kiev, Brussels, Washington would all scramble. When Putin went to lunch in Sochi with his twenty five year old mistress. My question, when will we stop reacting to kremlines strategy and start

controlling the game? Hearing all the punts squawking about what the Dems are doing, the Dems are playing everyone for idiots and winning the pr game. Thanks Buck, Wayne. If you're asking me when, Wayne, I think the answer is it may never happen. Democrats excel at propaganda. Democrats have control of the media, They've control of the academy, they have control of most of these social media platforms that really move the conversation. Right now, how do we go

on offense? And we just keep fighting, just keep fighting. It's never this battle has never done. There's no victory. There's only just you know, the day to day who's winning right now? The score changes all the time, and the stakes are the future of this country and in some ways the future of the of the world. So

it matters. It certainly matters, Michael. Let's see here. Indeed, the Trump legacy may very well become his unprecedented effective outing double agent statists, swampers, and leftists from their cozy little fiefdoms, if only enough voters would recognize them. At primary time instead of being played by the state committees. Don't really like mandatory term limits, but I'm all into the current agenda of Convention of States. Thanks for all

the great radio work, Mike in Pennsylvania. Well, Mike, thank you so much for writing in. And yes, Trump has definitely had this side effect of exposing people, in some cases people who have been supposedly conservatives for a very long time. That's been interesting to see that happen. And yes, I would have to agree with you that there's there are a lot of benefits of Trumpism that I could not have even expected from the beginning. I think he's

done quite a good job with them. Uh let's see, Hey Buck, it's from marine and producer Mark Human of Mystery about that whole polyamory thing. Oh no, this sorry, we already read this one. This was about the book wants to talk about polyamory and Polly something or other another one. What's this polyandry? What was the other one? We learned this other one though, poly andry. That's one woman with more than one husband. Yeah. I just want to point out you were reading the email where we

learned it. Yeah, so you could have just looked down Yeah, No, I know. I'm just that's what I'm That's what I did. Took me a second. Polyandry was the new one that I learned about. That one sounds the worst. You learn something new every day. I'm gonna have a wife and I'm gonna sharing it with multiple dudes. This is the worst. Now do you have to be intimate with the other dudes? I don't know. That's a that's an interesting question. That is another if Maureene can write in and tell us

that in other part of it? Right? Or is it just like a harem, except you're it's a it's a dude, it's a man harem. You know what I mean, like you take turns. Yeah, yeah, I know. To look and the people are pushing this lifestyle these days of Polly whatever, and I'm just trying to learn. I'm just trying to Oh, we got somebody else who wrote it on this, Jacob writes Buck, I'm a millennial six months older than you, os Team Buck, Las Vegas. Here, I'm listening to Friday's

show as I write this. I've seen a show on polyamory already. About twelve years ago, the Learning Channel ran a documentary series that followed a couple of polyamorous relationships. There was a married couple who shared a girlfriend and a woman who had two line a live in boyfriends. I watched it once out of curiosity and couldn't make myself watch it again. I thought, you want to know you're right without knowing it. Keep it up. PS, The La Panto Show is the coolest two hours in the

history of digital media. And long live commy bearra Man Jacob, thank you so much. Yeah, we didn't talk about La Panto Day October seventh this year, but you can still find it on the internet. We should just drop that into the feed. It'd be fun get everyone to listen to. Next year, we'll just drop the La Panto Show as an extra into the into the feed. And why not. I'll be fun. I think, yeah, we could definitely do that. I miss it. I miss it. Little Panto Show was

good times. Chuck rhymes with buck. So if Trump is impeached by the super secret impeachment, will he even know he is impeached? I realized that we should expect a trial or something, but the way the Dems are doing things, why should that happen? Everon agrees and impeaching would be destructive to our democracy, so wouldn't For the sake of the country, it'd be better to keep the whole process secret. This is no more ridiculous than many other claims they

have made recently. That leads back to the question what Trump even no he was impeached? What might that look like? What do you think, Buck? I'm not really sure what we're being asked. I'm not really sure whether if Trump is impeached, will he even know he is impeached? Yes, I think he would know if he's impeached. So and then right, I think he's asking me if the Dems are even gonna do a trial with Trump there like

they did with it. I believe they did that. Within if they're even going to do a trial, they're just impeach him with that him even there. I think that's what he's getting at. Yeah, Okay, Well the answers I don't know, so we'll have to see what they end up doing. I gotta go back. I was too young to remember much of the Trump, I mean, the Clinton impeachment stuff, so I should go and check some of

that stuff out. This is where being a graybeard millennial is not fantastic because you don't have the institutional knowledge of being an adult who is politically involved at that point in time. All right, my name is Hunter and I am twelve. I really enjoy your show. I listen to it every day after school. You've really helped me enjoy politics. I've been listening for about a year now. I heard my dad listen to it and I thought it was cool. Well, Hunter, I think you're cool. Thank

you so much for listening to the show. Really appreciate it. Give your dad a big high five and a hug from all of us here in the Freedom Hunt. And it's great to have so many twelve years old man listen to the show every day. That's really really cool. I am humbled and very appreciative. So thank you so much. Hunter. Stay with it. You'll never turn into a crazy lib like the rest of them. Dan, Hey Buck, I am.

I am original Saturday Squad from Green Bay, Wisconsin. Was having dinner with my wife the other night and found this gluten free beer had a pine felt that had to be a serviceable alternative. If you're ever in the Green Bay area, let me know I'll buy you one. Dan, thank you so much. I have never been up to a Green Bay, but if I get up there, I will certainly reach out. And I appreciate very much hearing

from you, my man. And gluten free beer is okay if you really, if you're going to go that route, somebody who has ciliac disease. I've had to think about this stuff. Cider producer, Mark is what you because cider is naturally gluten free. I was just going to say, yeah, that cider, it can be fan to actually have. I have some tart cider in my fridge. That's really excellent. There's actually a place out on Long Island and Riverhead called the Riverhead Cider House. Really they have They make

their own ciders. They're delicious. Yeah, no ciders like candy. Yeah, yeah, it's yeah. I was gonna say, don't know how to sugars there, that's the problem. You're basically drinking like Mott's apple juice with a little bit of booth thrown into it. Basically, Yeah, it's still good though. It's delicious, delicious, It's delicious. Gina, Gina, here we go. Watching you on the Blaze about four to five years ago, while living in Texas was a

start of my political awakening. I've not stopped searching since that time thanks to you. I've also called you twice while I lived in Charlotte's. So happy to finally see you on TV again, Gina. Thank you so much for watching me on TV again. Thank you for being a part of what we do here in the Freedom Hut. I very much appreciated. It really means a lot. Noah, Wow, here we go. Oh no, Noah rode in. Some of these are old emails that look like their new emails.

Why did that happen? He was fifteen? He's writing in about minimum wage. We got I've got to do a better job. Okay, you know what, I'm just gonna go. Let's do some Facebook. All right. Now we get into the Facebook portion of this and homage in a sense to Mark Zuckerberg, who we had to give a high five to today for slapping down sanctimonious Aaron Sorkin on the show. All right, let us let us get let us get two itch my friends. Uh, let's see where

are we here? We're doing the Facebook? Okay, yes, par pardon me. We have Alex who writes, hey, Buck, I worked for a congressman, and he recently quoted Buck during a floor speech in Congress. He'd like to send Buck a copy of the speech. Is there a mailing address that I could send this too? I'm very happy to verify everything, so you know this is in some sort of scam. Sure I got quoted by re member Congress on the floor. Look at that. Yeah, we can DM

him personally. Yeah, we'll send the stuff. Yeah, the congressman can call on Buck. I loved your quote or whatever it was. The Buck is very quotable. Charlie, Hey Buck, Charlie from Penn State. My question is how do you go to a wedding without a date. That's sad haha, jokes aside, I'm a big fan shield Side. Well, sorry that some of us have had to go to weddings without a date. Sometimes, you know, it's a thing that can happen. I'll never have to worry about this again

because you will be married very soon. Yeah. The only weddings I've gone too, at least as an adult. I'm not talking about as a kid, I've had a date. Yeah, I mean if it's a family wedding, though in your situation, it's not that big of a deal. But like my wedding for example, you're not gonna go without a day. You only know me, exactly, You're not gonna see me, yeah, exactly, you got every the other else. You're just like a stranger wander around the no anybody at all, No I know,

I know. Well. Also, wedding crashers is propaganda, damn it. That's not that's not how it works. You don't go to a wedding and you don't know anybody's remember they're crashing weddings. They don't know. You don't go to wedding, you don't know anybody, and there's nothing but beautiful bridesmaids who are like, I just like really need someone to give me some love and attention. Now, Like, that's not

how it happens. The bridesmaids are all being shuttled by Bridezilla back in fourth for photos and gotta be in place at the time, and the whole thing. It's not You're not like dancing around with a bunch of sports illustrated swimsuit models who are like, I just feel the need for some love because I'm not getting married and she is. That's not how it works. That's what it looks like. A wedding crashers the anger and your voice makes me think that you don't understand the concept of

a movie. Buck, No, because I saw wedding Crashers and I thought to myself, this is the way it's supposed to be. But it's not a documentary. Yeah, but no one thinks it's a documentary. Obviously. Just made me sad. Could you start a fraternity like an old school? Yes, you could, if you wouldn't be that much fun. Probably not. I'm just I think it was false promises. That's all I'm trying to say. Braham Rights. You keep saying you don't have a college team to cheer four, You're more

than welcome to cheer for the Oklahoma Sooners. Thank you so much, man. I will, I will when I found What is a Sooner? I don't know, but I know it's the nickname for the team. I figured out out too, Thanks Sherlock. But I'm just saying there's I don't know what a Sooner is. We'll figure that out. I'll go for it. Here we go, Jeremy writs, Buck. If you're over the age twenty five and don't have or work

with kids, you should be banned from wearing Halloween costumes. Also, even as a graduate of a Big ten school and with an above average basketball program. I agree with you that school should be for school. If people are so bent on college athletes getting paid, maybe they can be compensated for how far they go in their respective college tournament, something crazy like rewarding excellent, since that's how the real

world works. Shields High Jeremy, Yeah. I mean, people will get very emotionally attached to college athletics, and so when I tell them that, I'm not saying we shouldn't have college sports or college competition. I'm just saying we shouldn't do this thing. We shouldn't do this thing where we pretend that people that are coming to these schools are students when they're really just athletic mercenaries who are brought

in to do that. And some of them can barely read, can barely do the most basic of classes in college. And it's just it. Also, the whole focus of these schools on, oh, is our team winning. The focus should be on like what's the average sat the incoming class, and what jobs are people getting when they graduate and how much are they earning, and like that should really be the school pride. I hate the school pride to me about how good is this school at preparing people

to be successful and excellent adults. Not? Yeah a team went nine and pool last year? Yea, who cares? And I know I get I can hear the booze. Who cares. I'm not saying don't watch and enjoy. I'm talking about when you're a student in the school. You know, if they win, they lose. Fine, you know, school pride is fine. But I know it's like it's like I'm a communist now everyone hates this. Why can't you do both? Fuck? Why can't you be invested in the college sports teams

and be a good student. I'm gonna say you can't be a good student to be invests in college sports. That would be crazy. I'm saying the focus of the school and administrators is too heavily on their athletic programs at some of these big major schools, and it's just not what school is supposed to be. I mean saying, like, let's take Ohio State for example, We're going to go there. They're a good school too. Yeah, it's a good school too, but most of the top programs are also good schools. Yeah.

I don't know. I just add why can't they just have like people show up and do tryouts. Why do they have to have all this recruiting and all this nonsense? Who cares? Because they need to make money. I mean there is a saying that's the big schools. It's not all the schools. And what I'm really talking about is like, why does Princeton recruit for the squash team? Who the hell cares? It makes no sense. Princeton and other Ivy League schools don't allow scholarships, Yeah, but they still recruit,

they still bring but get in otherwise top tier. Not necessarily. It depends on the sport. Look at you with the sports knowledge over here, actually know some stuff. Yes, yea my background in sportspot I remember this night. Yeah, but it's you know, I went to Amherst and we had guys who are on the football team who could who could like barely put a sentence together. And I was always like, what four it's a D three school. They stink? Who cares? But that was my experience. That was my experience.

What what do I what I know except about everything? Please tell people this weekend. First of all, right, in to tell producer Mark that he's wrong and Buck is right. That's always important, so that he knows that Teambucket. iHeartMedia dot com, Facebook dot com, Slashbuck Sexton, please tell somebody about the show this weekend. I hope you're enjoying the Pluto stream Channel two forty eight, the first on Pluto TV. And uh oh yeah, that's right, Shields High