Doing The Right Thing For The Country

alien intrusions into the country. Plus, is there really a movement in academia to suppress facts in the sciences in favor of left wing narratives? That in more coming up on The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American great, You're a great American Again, The buck Sexton Show begins. Former CIA analysts. This is a humanitarian crisis, a crisis of

the heart and a crisis of the soul. Last month, twenty thousand migrant children who are illegally brought into the United States, a dramatic increase. These children are used as human pawns by vicious coyotes and ruthless gangs. One in three women are sexually assaulted on the dangerous trek up through Mexico. Women are children are the biggest victims by far of our broken system. This is the tragic reality

of a legal immigration on our southern border. This is the cycle of human suffering that I am determined to end. Sounds like a crisis to me. Welcome to the Buck Saxon Show. You know, the President had his addressed last night right after we went off air. I think it

was effective. It wasn't much in the way of new but it was a straight to the American people explanation of why the shutdown is happening and what the fight over this border wall is really all about, without going through the prism of some media network that's going to have an anchor that's putting his or her spin on things. The President getting to address the American people on an

issue of tremendous importance. Even if Libs can't agree that there's a crisis at the border, I think that we can all agree that immigration is a very important issue and there's a lot to be done on it. I think that enforcing the law is a really good start. The left tends to take a very different active on it. They believe that there's a need for well amnesty, and I'm not sure what else, which brings me to my

single biggest takeaway after watching it last night. In the very awkward Pelosi Schumer side by side response, classic Pelosi and Schumer just stick to the talking points. Nothing, nothing compelling. It's amazing that they're such successful politicians, but a lot of it is just the fundraising and the wheeling and dealing behind the scenes. It's not because either of them aren't any way inspiring personalities who show anything in the

way of public leadership. Maybe they're good at leading their caucus or their their majority or minority to do one thing or the other. But I came only last night just with this very fundamental conclusion, and that is that the Democrats are not a posed to illegal immigration. Democrats do not have a problem with illegal immigration. Now that's different than saying that they will openly advocate in favor of explicitly greater numbers of illegal immigrants coming to the country.

But it's just at every phase, at every stage of the immigration debate and of this whole process we're going through, Democrats favor the side of the illegal Democrats favor the position of people who are in the country and violation of our laws. They always take the position that law and order is secondary to their emotional and political concerns about illegal aliens in the United States. You just go down a list of all of the things you see.

And this is so important because they claim that the reason they're post the border wall has to do with its lack of efficacy, or has to do with its cost, or they go through the motions of having a real debate or discussion on this. But the truth is that look at everything else that they advocate for when it comes to illegal immigrant related issues, and you know what you're dealing with. Step away from the issue of the wall for a second. On sanctuary cities, where are the Democrats.

They are in favor of sanctuary cities. They do not want to end sanctuary cities. They think that it is the right thing to do to have local law enforcement refuse to cooperate with federal law enforcement to enforce existing federal law. There's no question about the laws that are being enforced, and the Democrats don't even have the strength of their convictions to say that those laws are illegitimate, that laws about being an illegal alien should not be

on the books. No, they'll say those laws are fine, but they do not want They do not support local and state law enforcement assisting federal law enforcement, hence sanctuary city jurisdictions. E verify. One of the most important things we could do in the whole immigration debate is make it less desirable, less personally profitable for people to violate our immigration laws and come to this country. Where do

Democrats stand on everify? Which would mean that employers would have the ability pretty easily to know if somebody was legally allowed to work or not. Remember, this is about existing law. We're not even trying to change laws. We're trying to help act on the laws that are in place that this Congress could change. If they were so bad, if the laws were so immoral, they could change it. They say they'll want to change it. The Democrats certainly don't want to change it, and so with e verify,

the Democrats oppose it. When it comes to interior enforcement, who's always in favor of more lenient enforcement when deportations are under discussion, Democrats. Democrats are now the party of illegal aliens. That's what has happened, and that is a remarkable shift from where they were even ten years ago. Ten years ago, they were a party that would go

through the motions on securing the border. They would talk about, how, okay, we need to deal with the immigrants, who are the illegal immigrants who are already in the country, but we should we should take action at the border. You know, Obama would would push for deportations. You know, they were calling for a little while Obama the deporter in chief. Now the reality was they changed the definition of what

they were counting as a deportation. They essentially cooked the books under the Obama administration so that he could see tough on the border as a means of having the political capital to get amnesty, because that is the motherload, that is the holy grail for the Democrats. You get amnesty, everything else becomes in your reach. Everything else will go toward Stadism and the left and the authoritarian social socialist democratic agenda, all of it. That's why the fight over

this issue is also so important. If you just care about limited government, if you if you care about right to life, if you care about rule of law, any of these things, and you're like, immigration book is not you know, I live I live in Montana. I don't care that much about immigration. The Canadians don't come, you know, come in and droves. I tell you that by changing the demographic reality of the United States, the Democrats are remaking the political makeup of are electorate, and in doing so,

they will flip Texas from red to blue. They will create a single party state that the Democrats run with a ProForma republican opposition. That's the end goal here, and that's why it's so important to understand that Democrats are not negotiating with us over what works. When it comes to border security, Democrats are not in favor of border security. They do not want illegal aliens to be kept out.

They can't openly say it because the American people, by a strong majority, are not quite with them on it. But the thirty percent of Americans and the latest gallopole I saw who identify as liberal, they want illegals. They don't care how they get here. The more the marrier government will take care of them, taxes on the quote rich will be higher. That's the agenda, that's the plan.

And they cheer on the radical, cultural, linguistic, and demographic transformation of this country without understanding that this is combustible stuff. That they are doing that. There is no previous example that we can point to of a society as large and as sophisticated as America at any point in history that has had quite such an influx overwhelmingly from one linguistic and cultural background, that did not have long term deleterious effects on the cohesion of the country in question.

If you want to, if you want to look back at history and see when you've had a massive influx of people of a different culture and of a different political union, who I'm into one the changes that occur over time tend to be ones of disruption and disunity. No one thinks about that right now, very much, at least because it's still very early in the game. But who knows what the long term implications of this will be Our history and Libs either don't know this or

don't care to know it. It's probably a combination of both is of immigration with stop immigration and stop that allows for the assimilation process. We get, you know, we get a wave of immigrants from Germany and then immigration levels go down, We get a wave of immigrants from Ireland, we get away. You know, this has been the natural immigration.

It has not just been a million a year legally every year, which we don't even really talk about, and then you know, a couple of hundred thousand this year, a couple of hundred thousand next year illegally on top of it. That's the underlying truth of this whole debate. Though the Democrats are secretly and it's not really such a secret, but at the end of the day, they are in favor of illegal immigration in the United States. They won't say it, but it's true. And that is

the big problem that we face now. We are not working toward the same goal. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer are not negotiating with Trump over how best to achieve border security. Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer and the Democrats do not want border security. They don't believe the statistics about all the opioids that are coming across illegally into the country, or they don't care, they don't believe the statistics about all the crimes committed by illegal aliens, or

they don't care. They don't believe that by shutting down the magnet the attraction for people to come into this country illegally, you would stop the human smuggling that enriches is the cartels, and that results in so much misery and despair and death at our southern border. Over decades, women being sexually abused and raped young girls by these coyotes who are employees of the cartels that cut people's heads off and dangle bodies from overpassages to send a

message to the rest of society. We run this place. That's who our enemy is on the other side of the border. And Pelosi and Schumer atlet there's no problem. All we need to do is just deal with the dreamers, just give reward people who broke the law. Everything else doesn't matter. Democrats and Republicans on illegal immigration are not trying to achieve the same goal. This is not a difference in how we get there. This is a difference

in where we're trying to go. They have sold out the sovereignty of this nation and have embraced lawlessness in order to achieve power that cannot be taken away from them because the reality of the electorate in this country will have forever changed. That's the game that they're playing. So I hope Trump can hold the line. I hope Trump is able to make the case the American people he sounds like he's dug in on this one. But the heat's getting turned up, as we knew it would.

People are suffering because of the shutdown. They're not getting their paychecks. A lot of federal workers are living paycheck to paycheck. I was a federal worker with no savings to speak of. I mean, you know, you know, a few hundred dollars in the bank, maybe a couple of thousand. If I was feeling really flush with cash, and if I didn't have my paycheck, I would have been in trouble.

So I understand the angles and the risks and issues involved here, But this is about the future of this country, and this is about exposing the Democrat multidecade long operation to eradicate sovereignty in favor of a super state that will be run by the authoritarian socialist Democrat left. Those are pretty high stakes. We'll be right back. You know, the fake gifts, the fake news, And I just want

to tell you said the Republicans are totally unifised. Now, if you would ask the same question to the Democrats, you let me know, in some of those districts where I wan, or that are a little bit more forward sanity, you want them to run say we don't want to have border security. You got plenty of Democrats that do not want to be in this battle. The only reason they're against it is because I won the presidents and they think they can try and hurt us going into

the presidency. But that's not going to happen. And we don't give up because people we're doing we're doing the right thing. Okay, doing the right thing for the country. The President says he feels like Republicans are unified. I hope he's right, because this is a fight that doesn't look like it's gonna end anytime soon. There were some meetings today. President when met with folks on Capitol Hill, we got some different versions of how that whole went

played twenty one. Okay, Nancy, if we opened the government up in thirty days, could we have border security. She raised her hand and said no, not at all. The President calmly said, I guess he's still not wanting to deal with the problem. Unfortunately, the President just got up and walked down. He asked a speaker, Pelosi, will you agree to my walls? She said no, and he just got up and said, then we have nothing to discuss. And he just walked down again. We saw a temper tantrum.

A temper tantrum. Schumer says, hmm, I have a hard time just taking Chuck's word for it. Is there anybody else who might be able to shed some light on just what went on at this effort by the President today to move things forward on a negotiation to get security for the border and get the rest of the federal government back open play twenty two. President literally called the question. He said, if I opened up the government quickly,

would you agreed a border security and a wall. The Speaker of the House said no, And at that point, I think the President thought there was no longer any reason to be talking at this meeting. I had the president plan and he walked out. Well, the President walked into the room passed out candy. It was true, but I don't I don't recall him ever raising his voice or slamming his hand. Yeah, that's the Pence version of events there, I will take I will take Pence's say

on this one over Schumer. That much is for sure. And I think that there's a real sense that you know that the Democrats. I am I am hoping, I am hoping they will suffer the consequences of all the all the lies and all the falsehoods that they have been peddling around this border issue. I'm also hoping to get to the border next week, so we'll see. I might I might have to be away from the freedom

hunt for a day. Oh no, if that happens, But I will let you know, and we'll get one of our great hosts to step in if that's the case. But I want to get down there, talk to border patrols, see the fans, see the wall, see what's going on myself. So we're hoping to make that a thing. But Sarah Carter is there right now, and we'll talk to her about that coming up in just a bit. So the President continues to fear monger, and he makes up the facts.

This is a president's you see, that's in crisis. In no way did the president speech last night makeup persuasive or even a new case for an exorbitantly expensive border wall, a wall that the President guaranteed would be paid by Mexico. He says, I ran on this, Yeah, he ran on it,

saying Mexico would pay for it. Federal workers will not be receiving their paychecks and what that means in their lives is tragic in terms of their credit rating, paying their mortgage, paying their rent, paying their card payment, paying their children's tuish and the rest. The President seems to be insensitive to that. He thinks maybe they could just

ask their father for more money, but they can't. But they can't, and we think that the collateral damage that he is causing, well, I'm going to yield to the leader to talk about that, but I would say this, if you don't understand financial insecurity, then you would have a policy that takes pride in saying I'm going to keep government shut down for months, for years unless you totally a break to my position. You know, Pelosi there took a little shot at Trump saying he'd ask his

dad for money. You know, I mean Nancy somebody who can ask her rich husband for money anytime she needs it. You know, she didn't make that thirty million dollars she's got, So I think Nancy needs to cooler jets there on the going after family money thing. All right, let's let's start with that Nancy Pelosi, woman of the people. All of a sudden, it's pretty astonishing. And if she really cared so much about these workers who were going without

pay for a period of time. Her and Chuck could turn this whole thing around and just put out funding for a border wall. Think of all of the nonsense that this country has spent money on, and it's and it's a pretty enraging experiment to do it. I mean, think of all this stuff that the federal government has wasted money on over the years. And now now we're being told is that the wall is too expensive. That's a that's just not a real criticism here. The wall

is not too expensive. The wall will work, and whether it's a wall or a barrier, it's just a distraction. And to say that there's not a crisis of the border, I mean that that is I think the dumbest thing to say, because now we're just arguing over what constitutes a crisis. When Democrats all summer were saying that a crisis was occurring at the border because of all these families showing up that we're supposed to just let into

the country. Here's Nicole Wallace, who is uh, you know, feathering her nest with the paychecks from MSNBC by being a rabbit anti trumper. I don't know what her well, I do know what her promise. She wants to be on MSNBC, and that's you know, that's who sign under paychecks. But she says the crisis, this is somebody worked for the Bush administration. She says, the crisis a scam. Plane nine.

I think that they're there there. I think there are half a dozen things that were wrong, falsehoods, lies, um and and you talked about a lot of them before the speech and went to some of them now. But the big scam of the whole address was that there's a crisis. There's not a crisis. Pretty sure there is a crisis. I'm pretty sure that we should stop listening to people that say there isn't a crisis when we

all know that there is. And this then brings me also to the fake fact check apparatus that the liberal media has. They keep on saying that they're gonna fact check the present. They're all fact checking the present. I mean, here's the Associated Press with a fake fact check. Trump said Democrats will not fund border security, but that is not true. Democrats did pass money for border security, but at one point three billion dollars, funding was much lower

the present requested and did not pay for a wall. Yeah, well, this is not a fact check associated press. This is a subjective assessment of what funding border security means. Right. You know, if I say that you know you won't give me a down payment for a house, and you say, well, here's a dollar, go by, you know, go find a house where you could make a down payment for a dollar. You know, I'm I'm going to make the assessment you're

not giving me a down payment for a house. You could claim that you are, but this is a this is a dispute over how you define a down payment for a house, right, same thing with funding border security. So you can argue as to whether or not it's it's it's fair to say, but it's not a fact check. It's not a fact check. When the president says they won't fund border security, he believes that continuing what we're

doing now is not funding border security. They're not funding it, they're not funding a wall, they're not funding things that are necessary for security at the border. And and there's so many others where they claim to be doing a fact check, and really what they're just doing is a lib check, as in, he's not being liberal. So we're going to be a check on him, So why not sign the other bills though, so some of these workers can get paid? The government should do that. Yeah, No,

do you think I should do that? John? I mean it's for me. Did I watch your one sided reporting? Do you think I should do that? Hey? John? Not seriously, John, do you think I should just signed? Well, the argument is, help me tell me I should just signed. I'm saying that if you sign that these workers can start getting paid, the government can. So you would do that if you were in my position, you do that. I'm not in

your position. I'm asking you. If you've got something, I'm asking you, would you do that if you were in my position, because if you would do that, you should never be in this position because you'd never get anything done. Good Bye, everybody, Thank you very much, Go home the mommy. The President basically says that, go home the mommy. We have that as a drop. I think that's always fun. That's pretty much what he did there to ABC's John Carl.

Let me just notice the way that they asked the president questions, have you have you heard any have you heard any Democrats get asked, Hey, why don't you just give the president money to try to see if he can make the border more secure. It's a good use of taxpayer dollars, and the reward could greatly outweigh any of the drawbacks. What why don't you You don't hear them ask that question? Right? Yeah, they all go to the accost A school of journalism. Excuse me, mister president,

are you gonna lie? Are you a liar? Like that's a real question, Like that's journalism, That's that's bringing us, that's bringing us necessary information to be informed citizens. People are deeply, deeply unimpressive, but nonetheless they've managed to maneuver their way into the the privileged reaches of the of the news media. Which is, the more time I spend in media, the more unimpressive I find most of the people that work in the upper echelon of the mainstream media.

That you know, the big story. I didn't spend time on it yesterday. Libs were obviously very fired up about this one, and and I just wanted to spend some time on Well, there's really truly two parts of it. It's the Mueller probe component and then the Rosenstein rosen Stein situation. And you know, I had some meetings recently with a whole bunch of senior folks, very senior folks

at the Department of Justice. Got to talk to them about everything that's going on over there, because you know, I'm here in the swamp, so I might as well make use to the fact that I'm just I'm just down the street. I can get to I can get to DJ. I can have lunch with Rosenstein if he gave me five minutes notice, you know, I could get there no problem, hop on one of those little nerdy electric scooters that everybody has in DC. Now that's right.

They're dorky looking, but they really really are convenient. I can neither confirm nor deny that I ride green energy friendly electric scooter in DC. I can't. I can't tell you one way or the other. Maybe maybe you do, maybe I don't, probably do. But Mana fort now because of what we are told is an error by his legal team, the same legal team that's managed to advise him through a process where he's had a plea bargain get effectively tore up by the prosecution because they say

he violated it. I mean, maybe it's all Manafort's fault, but I gotta start to think, you know, this guy might not have the best the best lawyers in the world. I'm sure they're very expensive, but all lawyers are expensive. If you ever have to deal with them, you find that out pretty quickly. Here's the law in the short

of it. They're saying now in this filing that Manafort's own lawyers put out that that the special Counsel Robert Muller's team has said that Manafort lied about sharing polling data with Klimnick, who is tied to Russian intelligence Constantin Calimnick, who's a Russian Ukrainian businessman, and he's already been charged with tampering with potential witnesses. So we're being told that that this guy who's a Russian Ukrainian with ties to

Russian intel. If you're a billionaire in Russia, by the way, you have ties to intel. I mean their country is run by an intelligence officer. A lot of the most powerful figures in the Russian government are former intelligence officers. And really, you know, people make jokes here about how you know, once you're you know, once you're in the intel community, you're always you know, once you're CIA, you're always CIA. In the US that's not true. You know,

you're once you're out, you're out. You're out of the family. You have no contact, no connections, nothing. Uh. The Russian model is a little more. Yeah, once you've been KGB, your role as KIGB. Once you're in the KGB, the want leave. So that and I've mentioned before this book that I recommend. It's a it's a good book called The New Nobility, which was about how with the collapse of the Soviet Union, the intelligence apparatus very much transitioned

into being the heads of the Russian mafia state. You know, because the intel guys had both info and the muscle to take action based on that very sensitive info. So they were in a very they were in a favorable position to seize the state industries that were then privatized and be near that if they didn't own or you know, if they weren't the primary beneficiary, they were at least able to get their cut and become very powerful. Anyway, that's just a little bit of context for this whole

tie to Russian intelligence thing. But Calimnick is probably he's been indicted, he's never going to face prosecution. He's in Russia. The Russians are never going to turn him over. But the long and the short of it is that they're saying that Manafort gave this polling data to the Russians, So this is collusion, and I just say, okay, let's

just let's just start with some basics here. Number one, it is in no way, in no interpretation of law, a violation of any statute to give information that is polling data, which is generally very public information anyway, although for campaigns sometimes they'll keep it because I think there's an information advantage to it. But you know, this is sharing an internal campaign an assessment essentially with an outside observer.

There's nothing illegal about this, so start with that. So, oh, this is a big story of the New York Times, number one New York Times story I think yesterday, other than probably updates on the shutdown, this is their number one breaking news item. And it's not illegal. Lying about it may be illegal, but lying about anything that is material, which if you're looking at the Muller probe material is whatever the heck they say it is. Lying about anything

can be illegal, so that that doesn't really matter. That's not particularly relevant. It's not an illegal act. So we're starting with that, and then you get into Okay, So the theory here is that Maniford, and I've already heard this from libs all day today because I work with libs, the theory is that the Manifort effort was to share information so the Russians could more accurately target the election via Facebook. So that's why they're pulling I mean, you know,

let's just take a step back for a moment. Even if that were true, meaning that he thought that giving the you know that he passed along information to the Russians because the Russians wanted to have a better understanding of American politics. That wouldn't be illegal or even really problematic. Right, There's a lot of ways that he might have given this information over to a Russian that he had known for years and worked with for a very long time. Look,

Manaphort's a shady, sketchy guy. He's going to prison for a long time. I'm not in the Promnaphort camp. I'm not here to your fen Menaphor. I'm just saying, though, is this illegal or in any way tied to Donald Trump? You know? Was he acting as somebody who was trying to impress a very wealthy Russian associate. Was he sharing the information to say, hey, look we're actually we're doing

really well. We might actually win this thing. And that there were ongoing discussions between people who were trying to be intermediaries of the Russian state with members of the Trump team in the campaign at self is not problematic. People Obama and his team were flying all over the world and meeting with all kinds of people from all different countries. You know, there are a lot of people that try to build relationships with incoming possible administration, certainly

with the incoming administration. But they try to make all of this through through the context they put it in, through the way that they frame these issues. They make it seem as nefarious as possible. Maybe it's a little shady, They make it seem like it's the shadiest thing ever. Maybe it's a little bit of bad judgment. They make it seem like it's being a traitor, being a horrible,

vile crime against the nation. And I think we've just seen that this hysteria is true of you know, of the left and of liberals, you know, at every stage of this whole Muller probe. So I don't see this Manafort sharing polling data issue as being nearly as explosive. People are saying, this is the most evidence we've had yet of collusion. There's no evidence of actual collision. There's evidence that he gave polling data a Russian buddy of his. Okay,

so what he gave? So what does that mean that the American people, you know, like Trump in the following states? Now you see, because even if that's true, and even if the Russians tried to act on that information, guess what. The notion that the Russians would be able to tip the election one way or the other based upon the amount of Facebook activity they did is laughable. This is this is where the delusion is. Forget them about about everything else for a moment, the exaggeration of the power.

They knew about the Russian effort when Hillary was winning, they didn't say anything because they knew that they or they rather they thought they were sure that Hillary was going to win. Do you think they would have been quiet about this and they run up to the election if they really believe that there was any realistic possibility that some Facebook accounts could throw the think of all the efforts and by the way, as you know, and

I haven't spoken about on the show. There's there's some lib groups that in the Roy Moore Senate race did false flag operations. This has now come out. I should probably talk about this tomorrow. There are libs, including some with ties to billionaires, Liberal American billionaires, who ran false flags in the Roy Moore Senate race. And we're just supposed to sort of skip past as like, oh, I guess that's not a big deal. So the Manafoord thing

once again exaggerated. We don't know the full context. We don't know even how much. I mean, was it one pole? Was it? Donald Trump is running neck and neck with Hillary Clinton. That's like a news item. You'd share that with anybody. You know, how specific was the polling, what were the poles? And what was the context of the conversation? Without knowing that, we don't know anything except that Manaford's

lawyers are apparently a bunch of bozos. And then there's just just quickly before we we're gonna have Sarah Carter joining in just a moment, and you know she is, I mean, she is all in this. She's calling in to us from the southern border. I mean, she's down there in the Rio Grande Valley right now. And I said, look, Sarah, and you get to a place where you have good enough cell reception where you can call in. She's gonna tell us some really interesting stories about what she's seeing

and hearing from being down there. And then so we'll have her join us for a hot wash of all that. And uh, but I have to talk briefly just about this Rosenstein thing. We were being told yesterday Rosenstein is going to resign. Oh my gosh, Rosenstein. It was all this, this big flurry of fear from the left on all this stuff. Now we're told, oh no, Rosenstein's not going to resign until after them all the report, which means he's going to be in place probably all year. So

much ado about absolutely nothing. But the left shows once again that they think that Rosenstein's their guy, and he's in on this effort to politically destroy Trump using the Department of Justice and the Special Council. That's all there is to it. So there you have all you need to know on that. Let's talk to Sarah Carter coming up here in just a moment. Stay with me. You're probably familiar with AARP, you or someone you know might already be a member, but did you know that the

aar P is really left wing. See that's why I recommend AMAC. Why AMAC well. AMAC was founded by an Air Force veteran, and it is all about supporting the values and policies that you do. They are advocates for border security, they are advocates for fixing social security. They are advocates for seniors when it comes to all conservative policies and aspects of life. And you get all the benefits of AARP. So you know, put your money where your heart is on this one. Stand with AMAC as

they fight the good fight. By becoming a member today, the benefits are great, the cause is even greater. Tell your family and friends join right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's am AC dot us slash buck, am AC dot us slash buck. It's better for America. AMAC is better for you. Team. I want to bring you some ground truth from a situation at the border, and for that we turn to our friend, invest negative journalist Fox News contributor Sarah Carter. You can read her

work at Sarah A Carter dot com. She is down in the Rio Grand Valley right now. Sarah, thank you so much for joining us. What are you looking at

down there right on the border. Well, my main focus, and it's always been as the national security aspects that you know along the nearly two thousand mile a porous border between the United States and Mexico, and really focusing in on the Rio Grand Dalley sector in Texas, because while everybody's paying attention to everything going on in California, people have somehow forgotten about the rest of the border,

and the McCallen sector is really important. I was here in twenty fourteen when hundreds and then thousands of Unda Company miners made their way across the Rio Grand Dalley. It was really incredible. I was there in an area private property along the Rio along the river where people were just crossing and grows. So I thought, why not take a chance, come out, Derek, and come see what's going on, especially now since it's such an important topic

and it's the central focus of the administration. So I went out early this morning with some law enforce beneficials and a private resident whose family actually owns the property on the Rio Grand River. He called himselves Junior, and I gave me permission to go on his property and literally within ten minutes buck of sitting out just watching the river, looking at the fast terrain. You know, it's

a pretty sparse there's nobody around. I see two gentlemen coming in my direction, and at first I thought, maybe, you know, they were Christians. I thought maybe their border control, maybe their ci depends. I keep looking and as they see me, they start putting their hands up in the air. They're turning themselves into me. I had to explain to them.

I thought they spoke Spanish. So I began talking to them in Spanish, asking them, you know, telling them I'm a reporter, telling them and I'm not at immigration or border patrol that I'd like to talk to them, that they could put their hands down, and they still wouldn't do it. So at that point I realized, as they got closer that they were not Spanish speaking. They weren't from Central America or from Mexico. They were from some other country, and so I spoke to them in English.

They told me they were from Bangladesh. This is very interesting what they call otms. Other than Mexican. These are special interest aliens. They call them sias. Both of them were from Bangladesh. The little English that they spoke. They told me that traveled for three months, paid a trafficker over sixteen thousand dollars a piece to move them from Bangladesh through Dubai to Brazil, up through Central America and then through Mexico to be grouped by me when they

crossed the border into the United States. In fact, they had no idea that they were even in the United States when they saw me. They just didn't even know where they We're at at that moment. So can I just kind of just try to try to put this in a little context for a second, Sarah, You go out, as you've spent a lot of time on the border in the past, and you're a fluent Spanish speaker. You go out on the border, you see some people that are clearly crossing over from the other side. They don't

speak Spanish. Turns out they came all the way from Bangladesh and made their way up through South America and across the US Mexico border and had already made it onto our side. It doesn't sound like it's that hard to do this. No, it's not. And this is the point, this is the reason why I've been so focused on the border now for more than words covering this topic. This is new. You know, every time a new administration takes office and we hear about the border, and everybody

talks about resolving the crisis. Let's resolve this crisis, and then we hear the political backbiting and fighting over it. There's a border right there, people are crossing it. If I hadn't run into these guys, I don't even know Border patrol would have run into them. Because remember they're preparing here the tal infector for the president's arrival tomorrow here to discuss this. They're gonna have to talk about this topic. So here you have two special interest aliens.

They might be good guys, they might not be. I don't know. Them crossing the border and just walking into the United States. I mean, they're just walking in. They just got trafficked all the way from Bangladesh. They somehow, according to them, they paid sixteen thousand dollars a piece to get here. They went through various other countries and they came here. And when I finally got them to talk a little bit more, I said, well, why did

you pick the United States? Obviously they had gone through many different countries previously, and said it was political reasons, political reasons, and that we're very interesting. A lot of the coyotes and the traffickers are really smart right now. They're really keen on our rules and on our laws. And one of the things that they tell every who crosses the border didn't happen in the past. Buck, by the way, people weren't aware of this in the pact,

these asylum claims. So they tell them, you know, apply for asylum. Say you're a political prisoner, or say that you're a political dissident, or tell them that you're claiming asylum or credible fear because you're afraid for your life. So people have the same story. And once they make that claim, they're here because now they've got to go through the court system, and we know the court system it's backlogged. So these gentlemen, by the way, we could

direct them up the road. Border patrol was further ahead up the road and didn't meet with them. I did find out that border patrol did pick them up. There were several other stamily units apparently behind them. Even though the men said no, there's nobody else with us, there were some family units crossing in that same area, and border patrol was able to apprehend them to but it

just goes to show you. I mean, it was within ten minutes of me being along the river alone with just two other folks, just as sitting there, that two men from Dangladesh were crossing into the United States. I gotta tell you, I was stunned. I was expecting people from Central America in Mexico. That's normally the people that I run into. So running in to what they can to special interest aliens, people from from so far away

was really kind of stunning. And it just goes to show you what a national security risk it is when we don't have the resources, when we don't have the manpower, and by the way, we don't have the wall, which is a necessary part of all of that apparatus. It's not just one thing, it's pieces of everything that build the security at our border. We're speaking to Sarah Carter and she's an investigative journalist, you know her from Fox News. Sarah is right now on the US Mexico border in

the Rio Grand sector. I mean, Sarah, this is pretty stunning for the people listening as you are down there on the border, that you would just as as you know, a person who wants to get some ground truth, go and go for a walk to the US Mexico border with border patrol, and as you said, in the first ten minutes, come across some otm other than Mexican, in this case, illegal aliens walking into the country. You know,

the borders two thousand miles long. I mean, this is not you know, if this were a fishing trip, it didn't. It didn't take you very long for you to catch fish. You know, in ten minutes, you're already bumping into people that are illegally entering the United States. And what I want to know is you said there were some family

units that were coming up behind them. Did they just walk up to border patrol and do the usual song and dance about how they're fleeing violence and oppression in Central America and then get brought into the country, right, they don't get turned away? Yeah, pretty much, That's exactly what happened. So as soon as the family units came in, I was told that they had been taken immediately. There

were two very young miners with the unit. With the family unit, they were taken immediately to receive medical attention, just to make sure that they were okay. So you have to think of the class here too. You know, people come across the border, especially like when I met the two men from Bangladesh that crossed over. They you know, the first thing I asked them, are you okay? Is everything okay? Because part of the issues are either they've

been sick, they've been without water. Luckily, today is a really incredibly beautiful day here in the Rio Grand Valley, not hot at all. It's about seventy degrees, it's cloudy sky. So it's a good time for people to cross, right, because if they're going to come across, they're going to come across when the weather's good, if there's been a little bit of a lull because of the holidays, and this usually happened. So honestly, I really was not expecting

to run into anybody. I didn't know if I would. I just took the opportunity to go down there. I've spent about four hours down along the border. I also talked to a lot of law enforcement officials last night, asked them their opinion on a border wall, what they believed was necessary to strengthen our national security, if they even thought a wall would work. One of the guys said something really important to me, and this is a

very senior law enforcement official. They were actually in California, and they said, you know, it was actually a little bit boring out in California, other than the fact that when the guys climbed the walls and threw rocks at us, really pelted our cars with rocks. That was a little dangerous, and of course they got out of the way of that situation. But they said, the walls there are working, and what they do is they divert the traffic so that way our resources can be focused on those areas

that we can't put a wall. Now. Of course, they're not planning on putting a wall across the entire United States Mexico borders. That's almost impossible because of the terrain, because of the river, because of private property, but in areas that it's needed most, so that way, border patrol ice said other law enforcement agers really focus their resources. It's absolutely working and it's necessary, is what they told me.

And out here along the Rio Grand where you see such wide open spaces, and especially when resources are sin, when border patrol agents they really can't be at every single spot at all the time, and they really don't have even the technology still out here. They're still looking to put more technology censors than things of that nature to catch people as they cross. They don't even have that. So you can imagine those are two men from Bangladesh that I ran into. How many people have crossed this

border that they can't even account for. We'll never know who they are, how they got in, what their name. I mean, we don't know where they go. Sarah, can we have to head into a quick network break for ourfiliates. Can I hold you and we'll come back. We got Sarah Carter on the border right now. We're talking to where she's down in the Rio Grand sector. She has come into contact with illegal crossings right away. We're going to get into more of the border with Sarah Carter

when we come back. All right, we're back with Sarah Carter, investigative journalist, Fox News contributor Sarah A. Carter is where her original reporting goes for those of you who want to know what story she's breaking on a day to day basis. So, Sarah, you're down on the border. You know you've been talking about the illegal crossings and border patrol perspective on this there's such a hot political debate right now around the country about you know, what should

happen with regard to the border. And we're hearing a lot of Democrats say, and Nancy Pelosi, Chuck Schumer, there is no crisis. Well, you just spoke to a lot of folks in border patrol. Do they feel like there's a crisis. Do they feel like they have the tools and the law behind them to do their jobs properly. I can't tell you how angry they were when they saw Chuck Schumer and Nancy Pelosi on television last night.

I can't tell you how angry they were. A d they just think this is that either they're they're just lying to the American public, and I mean, and they are. Look, there's a crisis. They're just like President Trump said. And it's not just because you know, oh am I agreeing with him because he's President Trump. No, not at all.

I've been covering this since the Bush administration. I've been covering the US Mexico border, so I can honestly say there is an enormous crisis, not just for the people in the United States and the national security implications, but what about these young children that are being trafficked. I can tell you this. I was talking to one border patrol agent who had to treat young children twelve year old and a fourteen year old who had been trafficked

alone into the United States. There. Apparently her mother is here and she paid some coyotes to traffick them in. The young girl was raped and she had to sleep with her smuggler as part of the payment to getting into the United States. The boy was sick, she had been raped. They had to be taken into for medical care. And what happens to these childregn what happens to these people who or being trafficked by these criminal organizations. This isn't worth a nice ride to the border. This isn't

a ride in a nice car. These are people that are literally abused, some of them abeaten, some of them are enslaved. They come here to the United States and they have to work off the payments to the drug cartels and to trafficking organizations, either as you know in the sex industry, or working practically as slaves for for people, for households, as maids or landscaping. There is nothing, nothing at all about this that is remotely that is remotely. Uh you know this this Uh you know, bring us

your poor, bring us your hungry, bring uster tired. Yeah, I hear that. I hear that. And I understand if there was a war right now, and there is a war going on in Mexico right now. But if there was a flood or sub type of great disaster or subtype of actual battle where people were and his refugees like I saw in Afghanistan and along the border of Pakistan, where people really had to flee for their lives immediately, then then maybe we could set up some type of situation.

But right now, we're perpetuating a problem. We are creating more of a problem than resolving a problem. We are we are perpetuating a crisis because we're allowing the drug cartels and these human trafficking organizations to to bring people into this country. And because we haven't changed the laws, and because we have refused to allow the administration to do a job, they're just bringing more and more people in. And you know what are border patrol folks telling you

about about the about the situation of illegal drugs. Oh gosh, you can't even imagine. Over here in Rhinosa, which is a major city that borders here, the Rio Grand Valley sector, the rhinosas in Mexico. Literally gun battles going on in Rhinosa. I at a border Betwel agent told me he sat there out there not too long ago, listening to a gun battle that he said sounded like he was gonna back in the war zone in Iraq because he's a veteran, and he said, I just couldn't believe it. I couldn't

believe what was going on. And he said, the amount of drugs that get trafficked is incredible. Not only if you have the drugs coming through the port of entry. You think about the hundreds of billions of dollars that some of these drug cartels have a mass right selling their contraband. But you have them coming through the port

of entry. You have other people kneeling the drugs through and across the border, and you have miss shift transit routes that were trying to connect to our highway systems to move these drugs into the United States. And just look at what's happened. Look at the increase in sentinel coming from China moving through Mexico into the US, not just across the border. That's true. It gets moved into by plane, by training, by automobile, by whatever you can imagine,

and by mail itself, you know, comes in. But it's killing our children. I mean, it's literally killing our children. I go to Ohio, you know, I get the documentary not in Vain, and people can see this documentary yet not in Vain USA dot com. And we go through this with the DA with undercover law enforcement, with families who have lost their children, you know, and they're selling contraband, percocet, oxycott and you're fame it. It's on our streets. And

guess what. It's not oxycott, it's not percocet, it's not xan x. It's Setinel and heroin pills on our streets. And sometimes kids are kids, and it's terrible. But sometimes people purchase it thinking they're purchasing on percocet or a zanex. They take it for the first time and they're dead. And parents have found their children like this. So this is a war being waged on our country. We have

neighbors to ourselves who are dead. Sprit need none of us opening the gateways and floodgates for the drug cartels and for the criminal organizations, but they're in desperate neither of us drawing a line and saying no more. This is unacceptable. We're not going to put up with this. We're going to work with our southern neighbors, but they've got to work with us too before we give them

another time. We're going to fight for our children's lives, and we're going to fight for the lives of these children who are being trafficked by these people, by these grotesque and heinous people. By the way, and I'm not saying that lightly. Oh no, they're they're terrible. Sarah. We're gonna We're gonna be leave it there, Sarah Carter down on the border right now. Everybody reporting for us. Sarah, always great to talk to you, my friend. Stay safe down there and tell us, tell us how the rest

of the trip goes. We'll have you back on soon. Thank you so much. Back. I look forward to it. Team. We got a quick break. We'll be right back. She is challenging the status quo. I think that's fantastic. I think that you know, I used I used to teach before, especially before in the last few years, and the thing that I always loved about teaching was when you teach. It requires you to defend the premise, and it requires you to re examine the premise and question is it

still relevant? It is, it doesn't have impact, does it have meaning? And I think that she is introducing bold ideas that that should be discussed, and I think it's good for the party, if I could think it's good for the country. I mean, just just blather there from the person that I think is the most likely female to be the Democrat nominee for the presidency in twenty twenty.

That's that's Kamala Harris talking about Alexandria Ocasio Cortez. And when you dig a little deeper into well, first of all, that that's a perfect example of somebody who's learned how to speak certain way so as to sound like there's thought behind what she's saying, but it's really meaningless. You know,

she's challenging the premise, No, she's she's advocating policies. Okazio Cortez is saying we should have a top marginal tax rate of seventy percent, we should have a green new deal, we should completely get off all fossil fuel by I think twenty thirty, which is just insane. I mean, these ideas that they're they're putting out are completely not just a bad idea, but they're they're implausible ideas. I mean,

there's just no way this is going to happen. There's there's it's laughable to think that unless we have some incredible scientific discovery, you know, maybe somebody figures out this is like from a sci fi movie Cold Fusion something like that, right, where we just have an endless energy source that's created from something that has no carbon footprint. I don't know, you don't know who knows, right, Remember

what my central is, nobody can predict the future. Nobody really knows what's going to happen, So don't get too caught up in believing the speculation theater that's out there. A lot of people like to present themselves as you know, experts on what's going to happen in this or that feel, but very few of them, very few of them are right, and none of them want to be held accountable when they're wrong. So, you know, come, Kamala Harris is trying to find some way to make it sound like Ocasio

Cortez knows what the actual's talking about. So so why don't we hear from mean Ocasio Cortez, who was giving her own response, And I'll be honest with you, it was better than the Pelosi Schumer response, which spawned a thousand memes. I had a good one last night, so those of you who follow me on Twitter know what I'm talking about. I mean, buck memed it up a

little bit. What's up? But Ocasio Cortez, in her response to the President's Addressed of the Nation, said some stuff like I mean, like, what're like, we should have a green deal on stuff like this? Play it? Yeah. Absolutely. I cannot tell you the amount of dysfunction that this president is advancing. We now have over one hundred new members of this freshman class. I cannot even get laptops to my case workers on the ground in the Bronx and Queens so they can process the needs of our

of our constituents. We can't get mortgage applicant, you know, we cannot get their their casework started because we can't even get laptops in the hands of our district offices. Because the President has decided to hold the paychecks of everyday Americans hostage so that he can fulfill a campaign I don't. I don't even want to call it a promise, a campaign fantasy that the vast majority of Americans disapprove of.

And not only that, but in the actual address, there was falsehood after falsehood, and we have to make sure that we get our facts straight. Every day, immigrants commit crimes at a far lower rate than native born American Pause. Here's an important Here's an important lie. Here's an important line. Notice that she's talking abou imigrants. The discussion is not

around immigrants. The discussion is around illegal immigrants. And we don't have particularly good statistics on the crime rate of illegal immigrants, but from what we can see, you know, look at the ten most wanted list for for Los Angeles County. You know, just just take a little peak around. They don't want to let people know this, but there is a lot of crime that comes from illegal immigrants.

And there should be no crime from illegal immigrants because they should not be in the country in the first place. But what the Democrats do is conflate. They make it seem like it's the same thing to be a legal and an illegal immigrant, and it is not. Legal immigrants. Great welcome the American family. Proud to have you illegal immigrants.

You're not supposed to be here. It's a big difference, big big difference, all right, keep going trying to refuge and seek opportunity in the United States of America with nothing but the shirt on their backs are acting more American than any person who seeks to keep them out ever will be. That is quite a line. The illegals who are streaming into this country, the people who are showing up at the border with lines that they have been told to fool to commit a fraud. Right, they

are committing fraud by lying to investigators. When you say I'm in fear from my life from a gang that's going to kill me if I go home, because you've been told to say that, that is a lie. Right.

The same liberals who think, oh, anybody who lies to the Mullar probe should go to prison forever, or you know, there's all this stuff, those same liberals seem to think that lying to border patrol because you want to skip the immigration line, you want to skip the millions of people who spend a lot of time and money and effort to come to this country illegally. Those lies are okay because they like those lies. Those lies are no problem for the left. In fact, they're they're honorable lies

if you will. That's that's really what they believe. And they go so far here or Aocazio Cortez goes so far as should we start calling her AOC? This is what everyone's calling her. AOC is the the acronym that she's going by now, so um Anyway, AOC is also familiar for many of you, I'm sure, as the acronym that is used in French for appelacion ygene control appellation of controlled origin, which means essentially where this comes from.

So if you ever see, there's actually a very good French bistro that I can recommend to any of you who visit New York City in the West Village with a beautiful and little known outdoor area called AOC. But Alexander Kaza Cortez says, and that was complete non sequitary. But something somebody out there app somebody's listening, and they're gonna go and they're gonna have a great meal there. They'll say, well, I'm glad. In the Buck Sexton show

he gives good restaurant Rex too. Okasio Cortez says that the people that are coming into the country illegally are more American than the people who have a problem with people coming into the country illegally. Wow, that is that is some interesting stuff, isn't it. You know, that really

does require a bit of mental gymnastics. You know, the people that are breaking the law, who aren't American, who don't have American passports, who don't have legal permission to be here, who do not share our culture because they have not been a part of our culture by definition, who do not share our language, and a vast majority of the cases, they are more American than the people that have a problem with this. She was giving voice there to a sentiment that is much more widespread among

Democrats than they want to admit. And that's why I like AOC running around saying all this stuff, because she is a window into but many many Democrats actually feel, which is that they think the Democratic Party now thinks largely that illegal aliens are more American than the Americans who have problems with illegal aliens. If I didn't say that I addressed it way back then in two thousand and eight, two thousand and nine, then I would get it. But I know I did. Then I readdressed it again.

Then I went on Ellen and did what I thought was addressing it. But the backlash that Ellen received it shows me that there is no there is no there is no ending to it. If you keep feeding this energy, then it's going to grow. You're not getting no more my energy from it. I'm not giving no more because it showed that it's endless. So I'm not shutting down the questions. I hear everything you're saying, but I want

everybody to know I'm done with it. It's a choice that I personally made to say I'm not addressing it anymore. And that's not from an angry place. It's just from a place of it's never going to really in. I'm done with it. So if people choose to continue to let it grow, then do what you gotta do. So that's Kevin Hart, who's an actor, who's the most recent person that I'm aware of to get dragged on social media for jokes for things that he said years ago.

He was supposed to be hosting the Oscars, which is still considered a very you know, sought after gig. Obviously, even though everybody conservative media in particularly loves to make fun of the Oscars. I mean, I'm guilty of as well. It's long, it's bloater, it's boring, it's kind of dumb. Sometimes there's some entertaining stuff in it. But you know, he was supposed to host the Oscars and then he had to step down because homophobic comments he made from

years ago had surfaced. And now you know, Kevin Hart is a major black celebrity, and you know, you would think that liberal Hollywood would perhaps be willing to accept his apology. But what he's found out is what I've told you before. You just can't apologize to the outrage mobs anymore. You can apologize once insofar as if you feel that you are untrue to yourself or that you

made an error. You know, you can apologize for reasons of honor, you know, for reasons of your own moral compass, and whatever violations you may feel you you've committed against yourself in a sense, you know, if I said something five years ago that today I would really regret, you know, and I felt that way, I'd say, you, look, I shouldn't have said that. But once you've apologized, you've apologized.

This this idea that you can go around on bended knee and beg forgiveness from the social justice left is a bad it's a bad idea. You can't beg for their forgive us anymore because they just use your request for forgiveness as as continued weight to pile on top of you. You know, they just use your oh, I'm sorry to say, well, let's have another conversation, let's raise awareness about this again. And and it's like your confession is then used to take you from the rack to

you know, to the next torture device. That's what they do. You know, this is an ongoing social justice inquisition and we no longer accept apologies in this culture, which I think is is really troubling. You know. And Kevin Hart, who is black, I'm sure he's liberal based on some of his other stuff I've seen from on Twitter, but he's a very famous guy, very successful guy, a multi

multi millionaire. That he can't ask for forgiveness and get it should indicate that for anybody on the right, you're just you might as well just stand and take it, and that there's really very little benefit from turning yourself over onto you turn yourself over to the mercy of the social justice warriors court, so to speak. And you just find yourself beaten down even more, you find yourself

being being even more abused than attacked. And I think that there's also been a bit of a lag, you know, you usually and this maybe is why that Kevin, that Kevin Hart situation is is also is a little more instructive than some of these other cases. Kevin as a as a black American is generally given by the social justice left, because of intersectional politics, more leeway to say

certain things. You know, he he can obviously use words that other people can use, but he can also be a bit edgier than as we know any you know, if you're a white male conservative, you know you have to live by a different set of rules than everybody else in the country. But that Kevin Hart does not have immunity for saying things. And just to be clear, I don't remember offhand exactly I mean he said they're homophobic. He's apologized. I'm guessing he probably made some gay jokes

or something some years ago. I don't know how I tried to find them. What did he say? That's basically what it was. He was joking around, and he's apologized that's what he thought was funny. Back the day that if he ever had a gay son, he wouldn't want it. But he's changed his mind. He's like, that's not my philosophy anymore. There we go. Okay, so Brenda, so he's you know, so he made that I knew it was anti gay. He made some anti gay comments. What was

this like, five, ten, five six years ago? Here, you know ten, I think ten years ago, and they've resurfaced now, which is also why I think at some point I may just, uh, you know, I may just delete my tweet archive and and start fresh, not delete all my followers, but just because all it is is it's just now. What people do is they sift through all your old tweets and try to find something to nail you on.

And you know, they they have no problems, no qualms destroying someone's career, destroying someone's life over what was you know, an offhand common years ago. I mean, we've even had some of these cases recently where they've gone back into wasn't there a guy who was in high school who got I mean meaning that when he was in high school he said bad stuff and he got in trouble at camera? What the story was? Now branded you know

I'm talking about I'm trying to think. So there was there was somebody recently who said some stuff when he was in I think as an athlete, and they found some again I think it was homophobic stuff from when he was in high school and he got in trouble.

You know, there's there's no end to this. But the big change is just that the elite media, left wing culture, or the social justice warrior culture in this country no longer has room for mercy or forgiveness, even if you were in your own generally protected category, because you're considered somebody who is discriminated against by the rest of society.

You know that that that traditionally with the left has given you a certain leeway, a certain ability to you know, to get away with with, you know, saying or doing a bit more than others. That I think is less less applicable now. Now it's just anybody who offends the social justice left is going to find themselves continuously and repeatedly raked over the coals, you know, just getting bashed on this stuff. So I can appreciate why, and but I will also just say I do not find Kevin

Hart funny at all. I don't get it. I don't think he's particularly talented. I don't understand the appeal at all. Not that that really matters here, but just I'm just throwing that in there. Brandon, do you like him? You can tell me not really, to be honest, it's not it's I feel like every joke is the same joke. It's all the same kind of he's got a stick. It's very limited. He's not a good actor. He's made a lot of bad movies. I don't understand it at all.

But you know, he is very successful, so you gotta give him that. He makes too many movies. I think in doses he could be funny, but yeah, it's too many movies where he does the same thing in every movie. But I would I would just say this him saying I'm done apologizing. I think he's learned a lesson, which is, you know, if you want to, if you apologize once because honor demands it, fine, you don't keep apologizing. There's

no point. All it means is that it gives them opportunities to keep just bashing you, making you plead and bag and all that. It's just nonsense, and it's just gonna show him the Left is really destroying. They're destroying not just comedy and comedians, but they're also destroying the ability that we all have as a society to forgive. It's a new year, and that means some new hiring and background checks are necessary part of that whole process.

That's why you need Global Verification Network to have your back. That's right. Global Verification Network is headquartered in Chicago, with experts in risk mitigation and background investigation that can take up cases across the country. However big or small your company may be. Global Verification is the group that you want working to get your background checks done, you know, especially if there is a particularly sensitive or difficult case.

These are people that you can trust who really know what they're doing. I recommend them. I've used them, and I think you should too. Call eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. When do you do, make sure you tell them that you heard about them from the Buck Sexton Show. That's eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. Or go to MYGVN dot com again, that's my GVN dot com Global Verification Network.

Leave no stone unturned one of the things I like to do on this show because I think very few other shows that I'm aware of doing is to read academic journals and bring you some of the more interesting stuff that's going on, because usually, you know, academic journals are very insidery. They don't they don't write about stuff that you care about that much in your day to day life. Right, they're getting into the weeds on some

aspect of an obscure work by Heidegger or whomever. I mean, there's just it depends on whether we're talking about a philosophical journal, political science journal, more of the hard sciences. But this I found particularly interesting because it tackles it tackles a growing problem that is affecting the way that we talk about all kinds of major issues, and it has to do with when facts should be keep in mind here, facts should be suppressed for the greater good.

That's the basic thesis here. It's in a journal called Issues in Science and Technology. For those of you who want to look it up yourself, volume thirty five at number one, Fall twenty eighteen, Issues dot Org. I doubt any of you have spent much time on I look, I hadn't even heard of it until now. I'm not

pretending like I'm somebody who dives deep into all. There's so many of these obscure academic journals, although my favorite one was that piece we wrote we didn't write WHOA that piece we analyze for you on air about the penis as a metaphorical construct and how essentially peni if you will or not real, they are just constructs of our matt. I mean, it's the whole thing was just it was meant to be absurd, but because it used anough jargon, it was part of this project to get

insanely bizarre things written into peer reviewed academic journals. So here we are with it with a peer reviewed academic journal, and it is taking This is about climate change, and it really makes some important, important statements about how it is that you can have such suppression within the scientific community of what are clearly not even dissenting voices, just dissenting facts. You see, this piece doesn't say, for example,

that this isn't about calling out climate change deniers. It's about calling out people who through their scientific research, have information present information that is not helpful to the climate change alarmism cause. And whether scientists, I'm being totally serious, whether scientists in fact have a professional and ethical obligation to suppress facts that do not fit into the broader narrative of climate change, because even though they are facts

and not opinions, they are unhelpful. This, for what it's worth, is straight out of the Soviet Union. I am somebody who has found reading about the Soviet Union to be fascinating, particularly the philosophical foundation of data. You know, of how the regime justified itself in day to day life, Right, how could you have such deprivation in the twentieth century. The rest of the world, the capitalist world, is getting

richer and richer all the time. Things are getting better, you know, computers and vaccines and you know, electronics and all these things are happening, and the Soviet Union's lagging behind.

And there's misery, there's deprivation, there's starvation. What's going on. Well, one of the ways that you justify, or rather one of the ways that you continue with that is to suppress censorship with an over suppress rather people through censorship, with an overriding conception of what is most necessary area in a society, what is the central purpose, the central organizing principle for a polity, for a political organization and

then the Soviet Union. It was the revolution. Now, the revolution was the purpose for all things within the Soviet Union, right actualizing completing the revolution of Lenin and pushing the Bolshevik's vision into fruition, no matter what the cost. And if you were what they would have termed a subversive, if you were opposed that, all they do is call

you a counter revolutionary and everything else became secondary. All they had to do was show that you were opposed to the central the central plan central planning of the Soviet Union, and you could be you could be destroyed, you could be killed, your family could be thrown into the gulags and into the gulag system in this in Siberia.

So that's all you gonna do. Climate change has some very similar characteristics within the scientific community, and you see it in this piece, in this piece that combines a kind of social justice philosophy with the ethics of scientists. Let me this is by a guy named Adam Briggle. He's a professor in Texas. Whatever. Here's here's what he gets into. And I'll give you some of the key parts of this, because this explains how you can have people say all scientists agree climate change is real and

an urgent crisis. Well that's not true. Not all scientists agree. So well, how do you say that, How do you justify that which is just on its faith, that is a lie. All scientists do not agree. So why do you say that. Well, because the purpose of climate change alarmism, sue proceeds the need for accuracy and truth and facts in the statements about climate change. This is why it is a faith. It is a faith based tradition. That's

what climate change is. This is this is people who think they're too smart for religion believe in the religion of climate change. But this is Adam Briggles. Writing in nineteen oh five, the scientist Henry Puancare wrote that ethics and science have their own domains and should never intersect. Even as late as nineteen sixty three, the scientists Richard Feynman argue that questions such as should I do this? And what is the value of this? Have no place

in scientific life. Oh, how times have changed. The beginning of the nineteen seventies, scientists developed ethics, ethical codes for research with human subjects, and explicit norms for the responsible conduct of research. Now okay, end quote. That's usually things like falsification, fabrication, plagiarism. That's what responsible scientific research is supposed to take into account. You can't make it up, you can't lie, and you can't steal. Pretty straightforward good

ethics for scientists to have. But now things have begun to change. Researchers in the STEM fields are being asked quote, not just to do things right, but to do the right things. This is now a recently coined termin science called r r I responsible research and innovation. So what they're saying here is now you have to apply it. And he doesn't use this terminology, but I'm applying this terminology.

You have to apply social justice, ethics and philosophy to science or else the science itself, even if it is accurate, even if it is truthful, is problematic and therefore unethical. And he goes so far as to go into certain certain scientists. He mentions, for example, science policy analyst Roger Pielke Junior, published in August twenty eighteen, proclaiming the good news about climate change and natural disasters some fifteen years ago.

This is the author writing, I was a graduate student in his class at the University of Colorado when he assigned Lumberg's book as our first reading. The lesson I took from Pielke back then was that facts are not enough. Thus I was surprised to see his op ed counseling us to be factful when it comes to climate change. He has adopted the view that there are facts on one hand and irrational fears on the other, and the fact is that despite all the bad news, times have

never been better. He argues that there is little evidence that climate change has made whether more extreme. Indeed, natural disasters are claiming fewer than fewer lives than fifty years ago, and as a proportion of global gloss domestic product, the cost of natural disasters have actually gone down. Folks. This is a scientist who say, whoa hold on a second,

Hold on a minute. Here the stories you hear about how the hots are getting hotter, the wets are getting wetter, I mean completely exaggerated intellectuals over what's the word I'm looking for? What's when a movie's not good and you say it's good, producer, I mean DJ Brandon, What do you call that? Overrated? There you go, overrated intellectuals, which

I certainly don't sound like right now. Like Thomas Friedman will say, you know that the climate change issue is turning storms and natural disasters into getting worse and worse all the time, But that's not really the case. In fact, if you look at the numbers as a scientist, if you look at the data, we are in better shape

than we were. We are in bettership thanwhere But but then you get into some of the some of the aspects of this that are that are truly the Soviet twang of this approach to science becomes even more apparent because the author call somebody out named Roger Pilke Junior who wrote for the Wall Street Journal. Roger Pielke responded to this call out, and they obviously know each other

from academic life. I want to I want to take you through how this guy who's talking about ethics and science and how you you shouldn't provide facts that undermine the overall climate change narrative. It's irresponsible to do so, even if they're facts. I'll take you a bit deeper into this exchange. I find this fascinating, and I hope that a lot of you do as well, because this is creating the framework for the suppression of facts in favor of what the left decides is important and necessary.

This is this is the framework that they use. You know. It's just like the framework they create where speech equals violence. Therefore we can shut yet we can shut down what you say. You know. That's their underlying justification they have. They have this narrative where speech words are essentially violence. Therefore shutting down speech that they claim is violence is

okay because it's not just speech, it's violence, right. This is this is the gamesmanship that's behind their censorious efforts. A censorious a word, I hope. So it just kind of came to me. Sometimes words come to me that I'm not even sure words. If it's not a word, will make it a word. It's a buckets. I want to take you a little deeper into this scientific dispute. I I again. I hope you find it as interesting as I do. And then we'll get into some role

call and some other cool stuff. We'll be right back. Should scientists change their findings because there's a more important goal than getting to the truth. A lot of scientists in the climate change field say yes. As I've noted to long time listeners of this show, What climate Change alarmists do, with constantly re estimating their figures, with changing

the numbers being wrong time and time again. You couldn't get away with that if you are a microbiologist and doing clinical trials for a pharmaceutical, right, you couldn't get away with Well, were we think we're about eighty percent certain, So let's spend trillions of dollars and dramatically slow economic growth, which means more people die of all kinds of diseases, more people die, younger die are preventable disease. I mean, there's just you look at how much misery is alleviated

by capitalism that has only been possible. Capitalism is only possible because I mean in the way that we know it, I should say, but it's only possible at the level that we have been enjoying it for the last hundred plus years because of fossil fuels. Energy is necessary for a modern economy, and the only energy source we have that's been worth a damn for the last one hundred years has been fossil fuels. It's not solar, it's not wind.

You know, everyone just needs to get a grip. But this this essay, this academic essay about whether or not you should whether or not you should suppress certain certain facts that come up in the course of a course of scientific inquiry is really interesting, especially because one of the guys who's called out here, mister Pilki. Pilky writes that I wrote in the Wall Street Journal the look, this stuff about natural disaster is being worse. It's just

not true. We just see it more because we have a twenty four hour news cycle and everyone has video cameras, and you see you actually physically can see the damage more and see what's going on. But the damage itself is not worse. That's not accurate. I mean, the second worst fire in California's history happened in the nineteen thirties.

I think. So, you know, someone explained that one to me, if forest fires are caused by climate change, why was the second worst fire in California's history eighty years ago? But Pilki responds in fearmongering, in fact mongering. Adam Briggle notes that he was a graduate student in one of my classes some fifteen years ago. In fact, he was much more than that. He remains one of the most talented thinkers and writers whom I've had the pleasure to teach in my career. So when he writes I read

with interest. Briggle argues that we should consider augmenting the standard definition of research misconduct with a new category, which he calls the responsible rhetoric of research triple R. To illustrate violations of r R, he cites two researchers whose work illustrates irresponsibility. His second example, I'm gonna skip the

first one, and all the time, Briggle targets me. I've long argued that the world has seen a dramatic drop in lives lost to disasters, and that as poverty as the world has been reduced, the economic toll of disasters has not increased as fast as increasing global wealth. This is indeed good news. These are hardly controversial views, as they are also conclusions of the IPC see the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, which you know the UN relies on.

He has I welcome Briggles disagree with the substance, focus or rhetoric of my writing. His sharp mind blah blah blah at most research institutions, the penalties for researchers who engage in fabrication, falsehood, or plagiars in our severe Briggles says the r vex matters and not easy to argue. Let me simply point to an article by Lumberg's editor Chris Harris. In it, he argues that responsible behavior when it comes to publishing views. I have been asked, why

are you going forward a paper attached with so much controversy. Well, that's what we do. Our mission is to put interesting, potentially important science into public view after ensuring its quality as best we can. After that, efforts at repetition and reinterpretation can take place out in the open. That's where it belongs, not in an alternative universe where anonymity prevails, rumor leaks out, and facts stay hidden. This is the essence of science that is up for debate in the

scientific community. You have people who are saying, if your findings don't help the cause, man, you probably shouldn't publish them. And you have this guy who's also a scientist, who I would not it is not even a climate change quote deniers. He believes in a carbon tax. This guy's in favor of a lot of these policies. He's just saying, look, there's other things to keep in mind here, but he's unwilling to completely and utterly suppress inconvenient truths that the

climate change alarmists don't want to hear. I mean, al Gore's movie should be called Convenient Lines, because it's just a whole bunch of crap to support his overall thesis that's made him incredibly wealthy. I would note, but these are the kinds of debates. Yeah, this is like the debate around free speech. But this is within the scientific community, which we think of as being all about facts, all about the scientific method and inquiry and just go where

the truth of the science leads you. And there are efforts being led by the climate change loons who are careerists who have this faith based belief the climate change is going to destroy the planet or they're just getting rich off of propagating that belief. They are advocating for a new approach to science in which the facts do not matter. The narrative is supreme, just like the revolution for the Soviets. Do the social media giants and the

Internet titans of Silicon Valley did they play dirty? At this point largely a rhetorical question. As you know, I've been sounding the alarm on this for a long time, talking to you about it frequently on this show, and we have some very well known case studies now of just how bias these immensely powerful and insanely wealthy corporations

really are. And they are very progressive, they're very left wing, and we've just as a nation, I think, in the last oh couple of years, woken up to this reality.

You may recall the case of James Daymore. James Damore is a trained scientist who was working for Google, and he wrote a very thoughtful and well reasoned internal memo at Google about essentially, you know, the differences between men and women and groupthink, and he just tried to tackle some of the political correctness that was so stifling inside of Google's corporate culture, which, as we know, at the top of Google's corporate hierarchy of people who are very

left wing. I mean people that are they'd be comfortable hanging out in the Wellesley faculty lounge, no problem, that's that's the kind of mentality they have about everything. Well, James Damore shared something. Now this is unverified. This is unverified, but it's supposedly from a Google insider who remember, James Damore was fired. He was fired for sharing a good faith memo from within Google, and they got rid of him.

And this is this is supposed to be. And Daymore has now shared this some other big media blue check which means you're verified on Twitter. For those who don't know, they've shared this too. This is what apparently goes on inside of Google. This is a post on Reddit, right, which is where the cool Internet people hang out and post things. Here here's what he wrote, this supposed insider

who calls himself tired of lying for Google. I was involved in the internal decisions involving James Damore's memo, and it's terrible what we did to him. First of all, we knew about the memo a month before it went viral. HR sent it up the reporting chain when he gave it as internal feedback. But we did nothing. There wasn't anything we could do except admit to wrongdoing and lying to our employees. We just hope that no one else

would see his document. Unfortunately, the memo started spreading within the company. The floodgates opened and previously silent employees started talking to quell dissent. We told executives to write their employees condemning the memo, manipulating our internal memogen I don't know what that is to bias the ratings toward anti damore posts. The head of Image is an ally to the diversity cause, and gave every manager talking points I

want to tell their reports about the memo. In all our communications, we concentrated on how hurt employees purportedly were and diverted attention from Google's discriminatory employment practices and political hegemony, never mind the science. We needed to make an example of day More. Looking for some excuse to fire him,

we spied on his phone, Wow and his computer. We didn't find anything, although our spying probably made his devices unusably slow, preventing him from organizing support within the company. When we did fire him, our reputation and integrity took a hit, but at least other employees were afraid to speak up. This is what I always say. You don't have to burn down all the villages, You just have

to burn down one. Firing him without an NDA was a huge risk, though he was a top performer and knew too many compromising secrets like Dragonfly, the secret censored search project in China. He had all reported several legally dubious practices in search that means Google Search that still exists. Only God knows why he never leaked at Dragonfly or the other issues, but I think it's because he actually cared about Google. Our response after we fired him was

equally disgraceful. We were supposed to have a town hall to answer employees questions. However, after questions started coming in that we couldn't reasonably answer, we had to cancel it. We shifted the blame onto alt right trolls and have avoided talking about it openly since then. To control the narrative, we planned stories with journalists and flex Google's muscles were necessary in exchange for insider access and preferential treatment. All

we ask for is their loyalty for online media. Google ads pay their paycheck, and our search brings their customers, so our influence should not be underestimated. We dealt with the National Labor Relations Board case in a similar way. People are ultimately lazy, So he found a sympathetic lawyer in the NLRB and wrote the internal nall or B memo for her. No one wanted to spend the effort to oppose it, despite it being laughably weak. Then, after Daymore dropped his case with the NLRB and fall the

class action lawsuit we had. The NLRB publicly released the memo that they had written for them. Our PR firms sent press releases saying the r NLRB rule the firing legal which was manufactured BS. All our scheming was over the phone, in deleted emails, or through an external PR firm, so it was deniable. Now that we forced him into arbitration, we're close to screwing him over completely. I can't verify that this is accurate. James damore Sharon and he clearly

thinks it's accurate. Others are shark and they think it's accurate. And it all certainly sounds plausible, rings true, and more than that, it is the playbook of how these companies do this. Whether this person who seems to know a whole lot is telling all the truth or not, this is the playbook. This is how Google plays dirty. The show ain't over yet. It's time for roll call, Row call Tom is the best time. I maybe going to the border next week. It's not yet decided. I was

supposed to go a couple of weeks ago. I was supposed to go a few months before that. That would put me in San Diego. So any any Team Buck San Diego who have suggestions about where where can I get the best I would like to be cool and say the best you know, pet scato tacos or something like that, but really I'm just gonna want to know where can I get the best New American fair for brunch? You know, where can I get my avocado toast with

gluten free toast of course? But no, seriously, if you have any recommendations for San Diego, you know I'm all about hearing from Team Buck on that. I always think it's funny people who listen to the show who write me when they're going to visit New York City. Even though I don't live there anymore, it's still my hometown because I'm not I am never going to fully accept being a swamp creature. But they ask me, you know, what would you you know, what would you recommend while

we're in New York City? And I tend to share pretty detailed advice, pretty detailed suggestions for what the best way to go about a New York City visited. So if you've got some ideas for Buck Takes San Diego, by all means, feel free to feel free to share and tell me what you think I should do there. La.

I'm a little bit better than San Diego. I spent enough time in La that I kind of know my way around, and I have a lot of a lot of New York refugees in La san Diego, though, is this beautiful promised land that is also a bit of

a mystery to me. So with that, I'm also sometimes I should Probably you may be thinking, Buck, maybe you should set up the role call before you try to do it so you don't have to stall, because when you have to stall, the role call sounds like you don't know what you're doing, but it's because the computer isn't loading. I had my Mac crash today. When a Mac crashes, it's like my whole world, My whole world

comes to a halt. All right, Becky Right. Recently you were talking about I think Becky is original Saturday Squad. By the way, she's a very unique spelling of her name. Recently you were talking about conservative movies to watch, and it was a good reminder to watch chap Aquittic. You also mentioned that you haven't seen Gosnell. I watched it in theaters and I highly recommend it. They told the story beautifully and it was shocking, but not as horrific

as I expected. You will definitely cry. I did, but it was a mix of emotions, the resilience of the prosecution team, the triumph of getting the conviction, and the sadness of all those babies. Please give it a chance, Oh, Becky, I want to see it. I just haven't haven't had the chance yet to sit down and take the time and do it, but I definitely want to see it. And I interviewed Nick Searcy. I think on this show, definitely on Rising when it came out, and also Chapa Quittic.

We had chap Aquittic as an advertiser and had them on air. I really do believe it's not just lip service. I think that it's important for conservatives to try and engage more in the cultural sphere and not just seed all of the entertainment space movies, TV, music, all of it to the progressive left, which is essentially what we've done. And we have a very small slice of the media that is, of the entertainment media that you could say is in any meaningful way not even conservative, just not

politicized hard left. I would take that as a serious progress. All right, now we have Lea who rights Hey Bock podcast listener and was listening to Annie McCarthy discussed the review by the courts of a declaration of national emergency. I looked up the code and it seems to me the only way they could review would be basis of

the legality of the code, not his declaration. What are your thoughts, you know, Lee, It really comes down to what judges think they can do, often meaning that you know, sometimes something should be the The travel ban is a perfect example of this, the Hawaii versus Trump administration case that came up or the State of Hawaii, where you had this one judge who is not just an Obama point here, I think an Obama friend who said, oh no,

Trump can't do the travel band. Well, it turns out the Supreme Court had to weigh in and say, actually, Trump can do the travel ban. But keep in mind that in that whole process the ban was delayed for many, many months. Right, So, even when a judge airs, even when a judge makes it just makes a mistake in their assessment of whether they can or cannot weigh in on something. It doesn't doesn't necessarily stop them. You know, they still can have the ability to put out at

an injunction. And that's why I mean, I think there needs to be a Supreme Court case that will deal with these nationwide injunctions, because effectively what you have is lawfare being waged against the administration. Any One federal judge can stop you know, administration policy, and you could say, well, well, you know, these are coequal branches. There's an argument to be made that the President could say, yeah, sorry, I don't I don't buy that judges, that's a garbage opinion.

But once you have the executive branch ignoring a judicial branch ruling like that, you know, and then you got other problems and people are obviously going to get very tense about that. So the answer is, it's complicated. And you know, I think that even if they should not review something or should not even weigh in on some case, the federal courts sometimes will do so anyway, and that decision can be at least temporarily binding. Oh rolla cool name,

hey buck oss in the house. Beards plus itchy equals bad. Here's a tip how you can try a beard and not die from itchiness after letting the beard grow for four days. Use a beard trimmer to cut it down. The reason this works is when you shave with a razor, it cuts the whiskers at an angle and leaves it sharp. When you cut it with a trimmer, it cuts them flatter and thus much less itchy. Also invests in a high quality beard brush, you'll feel like a super villain

like this. You'll feel like a super villain petting a cat as you brush your silky mane, and it will fight any other itches. Shields High Roller has got some serious beard knowledge here. You know, Brandon, you're a beard guy. Do you agree with Roller's assessment? I was actually just telling producer Mike all I use is a is a comb uh scissors, and it's it's it's it's soft. It's very soft. I was in a physically as a kitten.

So do you feel like I don't pamper as you as you put your cat, in this case, your beard. That's I think it was. I was hidden to say it like that because it's such a little weird. I agree, Sorry, I know That's why I was like stuttering. Is it sounded weird? Um? I mean mine is soft? I mean people ask if I use oils or anything like that. But I mean, you know, I might use you know, shampoo in the shower. I keep it clean, but just you know, just let it go. You have to go

through the bad phase to get to the glory. That's what needs to happen. It takes a while. You gotta push through. Uh, push through. There's no If you're committed to the beard, you gotta gotta do a one hundred percent. What you're telling me is basically, I gotta I gotta my beard. Yeah, gotta earn the beard. Okay, well, fair enough. William writes Buck, I love your show. Keep up the great work, William. We love you. Keep up the great listening.

Thank you so much for writing into us. Joe, what's up, Joe? He just writes, simply dream On by Aerosmith. I assume this is in reference to our discussion yesterday of Aerosmith having a great body of work without a single great defining song. He's saying dream On is the best Aerosmith song. I'm gonna need a ruling from DJ Brandon here. What do we think? Yeah? I think that's up there. It's just interesting that doesn't sound since it's such early Aerosmith.

It doesn't sound like what we know Stephen Tyler to sound like today. So you know what, I think probably my favorite Aerosmith song is. And I'm not pretending that other people need to share this assessment with me. I think I like loving an elevator the most. Okay, yeah, don't actually try that because that hurts. A good safety tip. Thank you, branded Sandy. Next up here writes I wrote this message. For some reason, my Facebook keeps I'm not trying to be coy here. My Facebook keeps on crapping

out on me. I think it's because it knows I'm a conservative, and now they've got there, They've got their team of little anti conservative ninja's working behind the scenes against me. Leanna writes, Hey, Buck, I think President Trump should play one of those compilation videos that I've seen on Facebook of all the high ranking Dems, including President Obama,

denouncing illegal immigration and promoting a wall. I realized they will say they have evolved since then, but most Americans have not seen those old clips, you know, Leanna, I've been playing them on this show. I totally agree with you. There's a tremendous hypocrisy going on here where now we're being told that a wall is racist, a wall won't work.

But just a few years ago, I'm not even saying that Democrats a few years ago, we're saying this the actual individual Democrat politicians who said it a few years ago, like Chuck Schumer, are now saying that this is crazy and there's no reason to ever do this, and it's racist, and you know they'll say anything. I mean, these people problem with Democrats as they have no honor. They're so self righteous that they don't think they have to be right in their actions. It's a it's a weird it's

a weird dichotomy within their brain. You know, they're trying to achieve such moral ends that they can have immoral acts to get there. Timothy Right, Shields High in Happy New Year, you mentioned instant chat or snap Graham. We older folks who work for a living don't have time for that stuff, like you young whipper snappers. Shields High, Well, anyone who's listening. You follow me on Instagram. I post food, I post dog pictures, I post pictures of Miss Molly,

me fun things. So that's a place you can go see all that. And with that, I'm going to close out the show for it today. Talk to you tomorrow. Team Shields High. You know, the left winds about a lot of stuff. You can't use the right pronoun anymore because there's thirty seven pronouns. You can't figure out what we can do about the border, because doing anything about the border is mean. They're upset, they're marching around, they're yelling about stuff. They want safe spaces. Maybe they just

need some delicious coffee. So I want to help them out by telling them about Black Rifle Coffee. And you already know about Black Rifle because this is the best coffee you can get anywhere. I drink it every day. Every morning I rock out with a steaming hot cup of BRC. Black Rifle Coffee is roast to order, guarantees you fresh, delicious coffee with every order. They give a portion of their sales to veteran and first responder causes, and they've got a coffee club that will deliver to you.

Makes it so easy. Nothing cures a bad attitude quite like starting your day with the most American freedom loving coffee ever, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and receive fifteen percent off your order. That's Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off Black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck