Guest Host: Lisa Boothe Commands 'The Freedom Hut'

start too worryful. What's your father? Will be pacing the flow to the fireplace. So really i'd better skirt, please, don't well, maybe just a half a drink. Baby it's bad out this So I love that song. And this is Lisa Booth with the Buck Sexton Show. I'm filling in for him tonight. Obviously I don't sound like him, which is probably a good thing because that would be weird. But all right, So I am really fired up about

this right now. So we've got radio stations in Cleveland and San Francisco that have banned this beautiful song, Baby It's Cold Outside, a Christmas classic goes back to nineteen forty four. They have banned this song and one of the hosts of the radio one of the radio stations that banned it, Glenn Anderson, had this to say. He said, the world we live in is extra sensitive now. People get easily offended. But in a world where me too has finally given woman the voice they deserve, this song

has no place. But isn't that kind of the problem. One that the world has gotten that sensitive that a song from nineteen forty four somehow a problem. But also they need to movement and how far it's gone that the lyrics of the song somehow imply you know something nefarious. And what really drives me insane is I really think it sort of puts the viewpoint of the left in perspective. One from the censorship standpoint, they don't like something, they

shut it down. But two that somehow women are victims. And you look at the words of this song. And the woman in the song decides to stay. So who cares if she's asked three four times to stay? It's her choice. She has agency. If she wanted to leave, she could have left. She decided to stay. She decided to have another drink. And according to the song, it was cold outside, wouldn't you want to stay? Inside and have another drink, particularly if you're hanging out with someone

you like and someone you're having fun with. So how ridiculous is it to imply somehow, because she's asked a couple of times, that you know, she can't make their own decision, and to stay that she's a victim. It paints her as weak and that drives me insane as a woman. But it really is the same approach that the Left applies to a lot of things, even for the equal pay argument from the left. Essentially, what they're implying is that women need a government mandate or government

intervention to get paid more, And how ridiculous that. And even if you look at studies, they don't even break that down. Most often the breakdown and pay comes from decisions that a woman makes, either time in office or choosing less lucrative careers. But it just really irks me that the left beliefs somehow that a woman can't do it on their own and that they need a government intervention. And another aspect of this that I find, you know, really just scary and terrifying is sort of for the

relationships between men and women. There was also this Princeton A capella group that decided to pull the plug on the Kiss the Girl from Little Mermaid. Everyone knows that song. I'm not going to sing it because I have a terrible voice. Nobody wants to hear that. But people at the university said that they raised concerns over misogyny and that it was dismissive of consent. How ridiculous, somehow a song just about kissing a girl is going to trigger people.

I mean, how insane have we gotten? And where has this led us? As well? The Daily Wire recently reported about women and men in relationships having to enter some sort of dating consent agreement and shooting videos regarding consent because men are so terrified about getting caught up in this too movement. And it really concerns me because you look at what the over correctness or the overcorrection we've seen in society about the meed too, and it actually

negatively impacts women. You know. Bloomberg interviewed around thirty senior executives on Wall Street and they actually found that men are walking on eggshells because they're so terrified of getting caught up in they need too movement that they don't even want to be around women. And I found this interesting because Karen Olinsky, a president of the Financial Women's Association and a senior vice president at Wells Fargo, said

the falling. She said that women are grasping for ideas and how to deal with it because it's affecting their careers and it's a real loss. So essentially what has happened is because of the me too movement and this overcorrected overcorrection and the societ that we've seen, women are actually worse off and men are terrified to be a

round woman. And can you blame them? I mean, you look at what happened to Supreme Court Justice Brett Cavanaugh and the railroading of him over baseless allegations from people like Christine Ford, where we've seen numerous inconsistencies with her stories. We saw lies about flying, lies about the second exited house. I mean, can you blame men for being terrified of

living in this society? I remember a while back, there's a woman named Emily Lindon, I believe it's her name from teen Vogue, and she said that it doesn't at all concern her if innocent men's lose their jobs over false accusations because it's more important to bring down the patriarchy. I mean, how terrifying is that that it's okay for an innocent man to get caught up in something that

he didn't do, just to prove a bigger point. That's where we're at, people, And nook no further than what Senator Mazie Horno also said during the Supreme Court confirmation of Brett Cavanaugh. She said that men should just shut up. So men listening, that's what you should do. That's what people on the left, that's what some of these women believe, Mazie Rano being one of them, just shut up. And

Senator Jill Brand also further approved this point. Just this week, she tweeted out that the future is a female, to which Donald Trump Junior rightfully responded. He said, should I tell my boys, ages nine, seven and six that there was no future for them? So, you guys, this is the kind of society that we're living in right now. And you know what, it may just be a banning of the song is the way the left views this, But I view it as so much bigger. And these

are issues we're facing as a society. The over sensitivity, the censorship of the left, and also what the over correction of the me too movement has brought. And we really saw that come to a fruition with the Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh hearing. And we're going to see a lot more of this. So people, if you were living in these states or in these cities where these radio stations are banning baby it's cold outside, you call them and you tell them that you want them to

play it. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. Lisa Booth filling him for him tonight. You might know me from Fox News. I'm on outnumbers sometimes I do a bunch of stuff over there. I've also written some columns for The Hill and for the Washington Examinar, and spent some time on Capitol Hill in campaigns as well. We've got an awesome show for you tonight. We've got National Review Andrew McCarthy. We're gonna talk to him about the Mueller probe. We're going to talk to Stephen Yates about

China and trade. Jesse Kelly, who thinks that Alexandria Acasio Cortes should not be underestimated. You're gonna want to stay tuned for that. And we're also going to talk immigration with Center for Immigration Studies Andrew Arthur and also Fares R. J. Hammond. So you're gonna want to stick around for that. It's

going to be an awesome show. But first I wanted to get your take, you know, on what I had said earlier on in the show about the Me Too movement and the band on the baby It's Cold Outside song. So why don't you call in if you're If you're around, we'd love to hear your thoughts. Phone numbers eight four four, nine hundred buck So tune in, would love to hear what you have to say. And also another person who I want to hear what they have to say is producer Mike. Mike, how did I do there with that?

What did you make of my opening statement there? I thought it was outstanding. When you said you came in, you said you wanted to talk about that, I was like, yeah, I'm like that's pretty good because like on the surface, I when this debate was going on, it's found it utterly ridiculous. I was just like, here's the left losing their minds again. But like like when you get into it and which just happened with Judge Cavanaugh and the

environment we live in. It's serious. You know, it's from a guy's point of view, like it's not like it used to be. And you have to be cautious about dating. And when you can take a seventy four year old song and make that out of it, I think it's ridiculous but scary. Well, and that's what's And look, I'm a I'm all for like the Harvey Weinstein's going down, and you know people like that, you know, who are

doing terrible things. But you know, I'm not okay with, you know, the baseless allegations thirty six years later that are unproven, no corroborating witnesses, no corroborating evidence, and trying to bring someone down off of a beer a mirror allegation. That's why it really concerns me because I have three brothers, and you know, so I look at this both from a female perspective but also someone who has been raised in a family with guys, and you know, it's kind

of terrifying. And I was telling you about the study that I found really interesting. And so I'm a senior fellow for this group called Independent Woman's Voice, and her sister's organization is the Independent Woman's Foundation, and so they flagged this study that I found super interesting. All right, and so the study's done by Valentine Bolotney. I'm sorry, Valentine, I probably butchered your name, so I apologize for that

also Natalie Emmanuel. And so essentially what they did is they looked at several years of data with the Massachusetts Bay Transportation Authority BUST and train operations, and what they found is that even in a unionized environment, where tasks are similar, allery wages our identical, and tenure dictates promotion, that female workers still earned eighty nine cents on the

male worker dollar. And the reason they found was because of the choices that women make, for instance, and what they found that men take forty eight percent fewer unpaid hours off work, eighty nine percent more overtime hours annually, and also sign up for seven percent more scheduled overtime, and they take twice as much last minute unscheduled over time. And I found that interesting because even in this really level playing field that you have, you still have women

earning less. What that tells me is perhaps there's one on the left that are showing up at these rallies with the pink cats. Maybe they should spend more time not at these rallies and wearing these pink cats, but maybe showing up at work. Yeah, putting in a little bit more time, or making different career decisions in the career fields that they're choosing. I don't know if you don't necessarily have to respond to the I don't want to gain in trouble, but yeah, I'm in trouble every

day here. But it's all good. But what do you make of that study? I mean, is it as interesting as I find it? Or am I just a nerd here? No? I think if you carried about two of those things could be true at the same time you're on now, I'm good. Yeah, I found it very interesting. And once again, like I said, I can't believe this actually studies about this now, But it's why it's out there. I think it's, you know, worth paying attention to and worth you know,

talking about. Has anyone called them talk to us yet? Yeah, we actually have some We have Mark onm Mississippi on the line, so he wants to talk about a little bit and we're gonna put them through right now for you. Hey, Mark, Hey, are you doing I'm doing well, how are you doing tonight? Good listen, I just wanted to put some infot on when this started. I'm fifty eight year old white male.

I've been at a chemical plant for thirty years. And the brainwashing classes as I call them, starting back in the nineties, and they kept changing the program and starting out and expect respect, matter of respect, women for this, women for that. And we have women that work and they actually are making the same amount of money, but just the things that have changed over the years. And they have a network for everybody but the white male.

They have the LGDDCT whatever. All the letters are Hispanic Network, the Black Network, Women's Network. And years ago my colleague tried to start a Christian network and we're told that you just can't be forming hate groups. Wow. But the women, you know, I heard you talking about some of them not making money at other places. I'm sure that might, but they are here and they're you know, same as this men. There's some men that are can't carry their

weight either. But when you get out there and you're talking about valves and forty eight inch plate frenches and stuff like that, you know, they give, they get it, but they just change it around when they work around them. There's nothing against women or anything. We got plenty of them. They're good workers and can you know, do better than

some men. Well, the point I was making is that there's this you know, well, the point I was making is that there's a study that essentially, in you know, very level equal playing field, that essentially what happened is that the choices of the women there dick heated the outcome of the pay. So that was the point I was making, is that, you know, it's a lot of times it comes down to choice. And again back to my point earlier agency and the fact that women aren't victims.

We make our own decisions and we you know, we make our own determination in life. So that was kind of more broadly about the point I was making. But do you find in the work environment has your interaction with women changed or are you worried with you know, sort of the me too movement and that interaction with the you know, women at your organization. I mean, I've been married to the same lady for thirty one years, so I try to avoid I do like to I

guess they call it a pension method. I don't show up with anybody alone or working together or anything. It's always more than just me and another woman doing a job or something. You know, And that's saying terrible, but I mean that's just the way I mean. I gave an example. We had a man that was become the supervisor area. He brought again it really wasn't one of the good workers, and he brought her behind closed door

as well. It wasn't two months after that he went back to his tools because he was told under no circumstances or you go one on one behind closed door. You know. He was just trying to give her a performance review and tell her what she was doing on but that was just a big insult. Yeah, well, it sounds like you're ruined, ruined a good person. Well, it sounds like you're a smart man. And as they say, happy wife, happy life. Right yeah, all right, well you

have a great night. I appreciate you calling in. All right, we're gonna go to Nick now and queens who wants to talk about this as well. Okay, hey Nick, Hey Lisa, are you I'm doing well? How's it going? Good? Excellent job so far? Oh I appreciate that. That's better than the alternative, right yeah, right, And I'm the one I always tweet you pictures of when you're on TV. Oh awesome, I appreciate that. I let's try your pictures of my niece every once in a a long. Oh yeah, I've got

I've got a niece as well. Um, she's a little CUTI pie. So that's a really fun thing to have. Um and so what so what were your thoughts then on you know what I had said, uh, sort of regarding the banning of baby it's cold outside and sort of more broadly, this overcorrection in society regarding the me too movement? You know, what are your thoughts on that?

I think it's ridiculous and I think you actually probably said it on TV that think of the other songs that are on the radio and the rap songs and all these other songs that are on the radio. But those are fine. But you know, in old time Christmas song is not right. And that's that's just you know that, that's just really really the PC police are just it's it's out of control. And you know, I my kind of theory is I'm going to do whatever I want

and I don't care what other people think. Well, and it's like, if I want to listen to Christmas music. I'm gonna listen to Christmas music. Same here, which is why we started the show with baby It's Cold Outside because I love that song. But they're coming for a little Mermaid kiss the girls a problem. They're also coming for it off, so Rudolph needs to be aware as well. But Nick, I appreciate your time, thanks so much for calling in, and we appreciate you sharing your thoughts. Right,

I think we have one more call. Time for one more call. Let's do it, yeah, Alan Ohio, Alan, Hey, Allen, Hi, how's it going? Okay? Um? A lot of snow and

sloppy weather here in the Buckeye State. Ah, well, you know that's what I h Oh Sorry, go ahead, But I had a couple comments about this song, and it shows a lot of ignorance on the left side because I work with traumatized women, and I think I'm a counselor, okay, And I think this whole um protest that they have against this song minimizes what it's really like for a

woman who's been truly traumatized. That song in that movie does not begin to um parallel in any way what happens to women who are physically restrained, blocked from leaving, and I think that it trivializes the whole issue. The second observation I just wanted to make real quickly is that I think it's sexist because if the roles were reversed, we wouldn't even be having this conversation. If it was the woman asking the man to stay, we wouldn't be

having this conversation. So I think the whole fact that they point out a problem here shows that they have a sexist, sexist viewpoint. Well, you know that's actually that's a great point you make, because you're right. I mean, look, if this song was about a woman saying that to a man, they'd be like, oh, look at her. She's so strong, she's so empowered, she makes her own decisions.

But exactly back to you know, your point what I was saying earlier, It's like the fact, just because he's asked her a couple of different times, somehow she can't make her own decisions. I mean, in the end of the song, she chose to stay. She wanted to have another drink, So I mean, you know, goes back to you know, that point about agency and ability for a woman to make her own decisions, but you're right. If the roles were reversed, the dynamics of the conversation would

be completely interesting. Thank you so much for Alan. You made some really interesting points tonight, so we really appreciate your time. All right again, Lisa booth Phillion for the buck Sexton Show. You know me from Fox News, I think in some other places, So stay with us. Welcome back to the buck Sexton Show. We've got Andrew McCarthy from the National Review and also a Fox News contributor, and I've had the honor of being on the Fox

News is Outnumbered couch with him. Andy, You're such a smart guy, so I am so glad to have you on the show tonight. And just you know so much about the Mueller investigation, everything that's going on, so I'm just so thankful that we've got you to break it down for us. So, you know, Andy, first of all, I want to start off Judge Napolitan, I want of her co workers from Fox made some news yesterday. He said that he believed that Don Junior will be indicted.

Do you believe that statement? Do you believe him? Well, I don't see any evidence to that at the moment. Lisa, I think that we have a better indication that there was some kind of a criminal investigation going on. I don't, I don't really, I don't know what the Politano was

referring to. I know that people are looking carefully at his testimony in the in the Senate, but so far, you know, the only intriguing thing there is that he says that he did not speak to then candidate now President Donald Trump about the Russia meeting at the Trump

Tower in June of twenty sixteen. The only two people I think who know that one way or the other are Don Junior, the President, and from what I understand, one of the things that the Mueller has been putting pressure on Paul Manafort where they've had a flowing out after Manafort was trying to cooperate with the investigation, Mueller's evidently been putting pressure on him about whether the President knew about the Trump Tower meeting him, whether Don Junior

had told him. I don't know what other evidence, you know, what other transaction they'd be looking at, but I don't to what. At least the way I understand the investigation right now, I don't think they have evidence to charge him well, and I wanted to ask you that because I read your column the other day, and the case you made is that Mueller is not or he's building report,

he's not building sort of a criminal case. And so if you can for our listeners if they haven't read your column, which they should, and I advise everyone to go and read it, but can you just sort of summarize that for us and why you believe that he's building report and not a case. Yeah, sure, Well, no prosecutor builds a case, Lisa, the way that Muller is

going about it. So what you want to have when you're building a criminal case is a cooperator who's an accomplice, who is involved in what you say is the main scheme. And then what you do is you bring that cooperator into court to plead guilty and you have him alocute to the full extent of the conspiracy. So you say, yes, there was a Yes, there was a conspiratorial arrangement. I was involved in it. You know, these other three people were involved in it. Here's what they did, here's what

I did. And that's how you go about it. The last thing you would do as a prosecutor trying to build to the crescendo of a big case would be to plead all of your possible, big important witnesses to charges of lying to investigators. It would mean that the one enduring thing that a jury would come away with after watching your case is that they can't believe a thing any of your this is say, which is not

the way that you that you go about it. So I think Mueller's problem, and this has been the problem I tried to identify when he was appointed without the basis of a you know, without any factual grounding for a criminal investigation. From that day forward, there has never been a time when it seemed that Mueller had evidence of anything criminal in the way of a scheme between

the Trump people and the Kremlin. And I've always thought, Lisa, that that's the reason they refer to it as collusion, because collusion is a weasel word, and uh, you know, it just means concerted activity. You and I are colluding by having this conversation, doesn't mean we're doing anything wrong, right, What what prosecutors care about is conspiracy, which is a criminal agreement to violate a law, a criminal law, And

he's never had that. So I think that you know, every There are a lot of people who who don't like Trump who look at all these pleas and they think, you know, very hopefully from their perspective, that Mueller is piece by piece, mesodically rolling up people to get, you know, to go up the chain, as they say, and finally get to Trump. But that only works when you're getting them to plead guilty to the thing that they did

with Trump. And if they're all pleading guilty to making false statements to investigators long and after the cell called collusion scheme, then you don't really have a collusion case. Well, so then you know, my question to you then is, you know, what's the point of the Mueller investigation? Then if if they're you know, really, isn't this criminal activity? You know, why even have the Muller investigation of the beginning with like to begin him? What is he doing?

What is the point of this investigation? That's always been a great question, and it's you know, one of the reasons I try to point out that, you know, there is this distinction between criminal investigations and counterintelligence investigations. What Mueller was handed was a counterintelligence investigation that's importantly different

from a criminal investigation. In the latter. In criminal cases, what you're trying to do is build evidence so that you can prove beyond a reasonable doubt that somebody that you've identified as a suspect has violated a law. The point of a counter intelligence investigation is not to enforce the law. In fact, most the vast majority of counterintelligence

investigations don't have anything to do with criminal prosecution. The point of a counterintelligence investigation is to collect information about foreign powers that may threaten American interests. So, for example, in the Russia counterintelligence investigation, the thing that you're looking at is Russia. You know to the extent that it poses a threat to our election system and anything else

that way, it may pose a threat too. And the reason it's really bad to give a prosecutor a counterintelligence investigation is twofold. First, in the Justice Department, counterintelligence investigations don't get a prosecutor because it's not lawyer work. It's agent work. It's analytical work. There's nothing about having a

law degree that makes you an expert intelligence analysis. So the only time the lawyers get involved in the Justice Department in counterintelligence is if the analysts need them to get for example, a warrant under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act to surveil somebody. So then the prosecutorial it's not even they not even usually prosecutors, they're just government lawyers

in the Justice Department. They will go to the fies the court and try to get a warrant for the agents, but they don't get involved in the collection or analysis of the evidence. So why you would put a prosecutor in charge of an important counterintelligence investigation is beyond me. But the second reason it's really bad, Lisa, is what you want with prosecutors is for them to be assigned to something that already is suspected to be a crime.

When you assigned the prosecutor. In other words, what we do in this country is a crime gets committed and then we assign a prosecutor. We don't assign a prosecutor and tell them, see what you can do to go off and find a crime. So that's not the way it works. So my being overly am I overly simplifying this and saying that you know, it seems like Muller is in search of a crime instead of investigating a crime that's already happened. Yes, I think that with respect

to President Trump. That has always been true. And one of the reasons that's another of the reasons I guess I should say that's that's a really bad way to go about it in terms of counter intelligence. Is you know, if I assign you, Lisa as a prosecutor to go investigate the robbery of the First National Bank, we all know that there was a robbery, and we know that there's like three or four elements of bank robbery that

a prosecutor has to prove beyond the reasonable doubt. So the transaction has understandable limits and parameters, and you either you can either prove it or you can't after doing an adequate investigation. By contrast, a counterintelligence investigation, as we've just said, is just an information gathering exercise, and the guys who gather information will always tell you they can

never get enough, right. So unlike a normal criminal investigation, it doesn't have any finite you know, there's no sensible beginning an end to it, and it can just be an unguided missile or a phishing expedition with no natural beginning or end, and it would be one It would be one thing if you did something like that in a normal prosecutor's office where all the resources of the office can't be poured into one case. You know, every every case has to compete with every other case for resources.

But you know, when you're when you're a special cancel situation, it's like you're you assigned a prosecutor to one target. And then if you turn around and say, and by the way, we're putting any limits on you. You're assigned to this person and you scorch the earth as much as you think you need to to try to find a crime. That's not really the American way of doing investigations. Yeah,

it's pretty terrifying stuff there. And look, i'd be eve remiss to not ask you about the Mueller sentencing report on Michael Flynn. It came out on Tuesday night. What are your takeaways from it? And also is the media missing anything big about it that hasn't really been reported. Oh? Yeah, I think that there's a lot in there. I mean, I know everybody says because there's so much redaction, you can't really tell what Muller has and there's there's something

to be said for that. But I think it's interesting. Um, it seems to me that it confirms something that that I've been arguing all along, which is that you know, you asked me a second ago, what is Muller doing here? I think a big priority that Mueller has is to justify the very controversial decision made by the Obama administration to conduct an investigation of the opposition party's presidential campaign the presidency of Trump. And you know, I think that's

what they were obviously going about doing that. If you look at the Flynn memo, what it seems to indicate is that they've brought on to exactly what the theory that the Justice Department had in the Obama days before Muller was assigned. So you'll learn that, you know, there was a Logan Act investigation of Flynn during the Trump transition. Well, you know, the Logan Act is not a good basis

to conduct a criminal investigation. It's this two century old provision that never has been prosecuted successfully in the Justice Department. And when when Flynn was in the Trump transition, his job was to deal with counterparts from other countries. So you know, I don't think that's a proper basis to be conducting an investigation. And yet, you know, Muller seems

to adopt that. So I think a big part of what he's trying to do here is even if they don't find any sitable criminal offenses, by they are going to they are ultimately going to say that there was plenty of basis for the FBI in the Justice Department to be suspicious. So why aren't more people reporting that then? Because you mean, you look at that, there really doesn't seem to be a basis for the FBI ever interview interviewing Flynn in the first place. He didn't do anything

wrong with talking to Kissley acc about sanctions. He was part of the incoming administration. That has happened before. So why why aren't more people talking about that? I think because the media buy enlarges anti Trump, and they liked the investigation. And you know, ultimately Congress is not limited, Lisa,

to criminal violations. High crimes and misdemeanors don't have to be indictable criminal offenses, so it's always possible that Muller could turn up something that might be impeachable, even if it can't be used to indict Trump. So they liked the investigation. All right, Andy, well, thank you so much for joining us tonight. I knew you would be an awesome guest. So so thankful for you joining us this evening and making sense of everything for us. Thanks so much,

least always a pleasure to be with you. Thank you. Hope to see you soon. All right, YEA, have a great night. Muller's not involved in a investigation. Mueller has a Trump destruction project. He brought on a team, all of them dedicated to destroying Trump. They've done everything they could to destroy Trump. Part of that technique is you throw the kitchen sink. You basically threatened somebody and say I'm going to bankrupt you, I'm going to put your son in jail. I'm going to charge you with so

many different crimes you'll never get out from undred. Now, would you like to talk? And we have the full power of the federal government against you, it's pretty tough not to try to find a way to get him off your back. But it has nothing to do with the truth, it has nothing to do with justice. Historians someday will comment that this was one of the most extraordinary efforts to undo the will of the American people buy an established bureaucracy and its establishment friends that we've

seen in all of American history. Okay, so that was Newt Gingrich. And we've also talked to Addie McCarthy just in the last break, and again I urge you to go read his column it's called Robert Mueller's Plan, because I really, you know, I've got a lot of concerns about this. And to his point, if Robert Mueller is building a report, not a case, then what is the

point of the Mueller investigation to begin with? If there's not criminal activity that he's already that he was looking at from the inception of this investigation, what is the point of his investigation? And it's also it's not just new Gingridge, it's not just Annie McCarthy that have raised

questions and kind of rung the alarm on this. There's also this column in USA Today not too long ago by Michael Muccasey, who is a former Attorney General who served under George W. Bush, who raised the point that the Special Counsel investigation just should have never started from the beginning, that there wasn't a justification for the investigation. And now here we are. Taxpayers have been on the hook, and what have we gotten from it? Where is the collusion?

Where is the crimes in relation to conspiracy that Annie McCarthy was talking about earlier. Yet but yet here we are. I want to talk to you about Express VPN. Every time you go online or you use public WiFi, you're actually putting information and danger and all it takes is a one time, one time, and a hacker could have enough information on you distill your identity by infiltrating your Internet traffic. Hackers could open bank accounts in your name,

access your emails, and destroy your credit for years. That's why I decided to take my privacy back by using Express VPN. Express VPN has easy to use apps that runs seamlessly in the background of my computer, phone, and tablet. Turning on Express VPN protection only takes one click. Express vpn Secure anonymizes your Internet browsing by encrypting your data and hiding your public IP address. Protecting yourself with Express

VPN costs less than seven dollars a month. Express VPN is rated the number one VPN service by tech Radar, and it comes with a thirty day money back guarantee. So if you ever use public wi fi and you want to keep hackers in spies from seeing your data, Express VPN is the solution. And if you don't want to hand over your online history to your internet provider

or data resellers, express VPN is the answer. So protect your online activity today and find out how you can get three months free at express vpn dot com slash buck. That's Express vpn dot com slash buck for three month free and a one year with a one year package. Visit express vpn dot com slash buck to learn more. Welcome to Hoard two of the Buck Sexton Show. Lisa Booth in for him tonight. I've got Steven Yates on the line. He is a former national security advisor to

former President Dick Cheney Vice President Dick Cheney. And see when. I'm so glad you're here because I really want to talk to you about what's going on right now with China and trade. The Chinese Minister of Our Commerce said on Tuesday at that the meeting in G twenty at the G twenty summit was very successful and that the two countries are over the next ninety day is going to seek to try to formulate a more specifcific deal.

So where are we right now with China on trade and also what happens in the next ninety days, in your opinion, at least, I think we're kind of running in two tracks at once right now. I think everyone has come to the awareness that Donald Trump is a different kind of president, and he's taking an unconventional approach to negotiating with China, and this is a major issue

for his presidency but also for him personally. He's talked about it for decades, trying to rebalance what he sees as I think accurately the raw deal Americans have had in doing business in China. And the second track is managing the politics of the near term and going into next year. Financial markets were getting skittish about FED moves potentially, and the kind of dark horizon of a trade war

with China seemed to be rattling a few cages. I don't think that Donald Trump is going to go wobbly and negotiations with the Chinese, but we definitely have a bit of back and forth in the history of US China relations, and certainly, going back the better part of thirty years of my working on China related issues, I've never heard of anyone putting a ninety day horizon out there with China and expecting real measurable results. So if

we get something in those ninety days, that's unprecedented. But I think the president is pushing in the right direction to try to give the Chinese goal posts, and then if they fail to meet them, well, then he goes back to hitting them with the hammer of the tariffs, which he said he is famously the tariff president. So do you think you'd mentioned his unconventional approach. I mean, do you think it's working, the tariffs against China and sort of this tougher approach. Is it working well? It

certainly worked. Up to the G twenty meeting. The Chinese were feeling pressure. I think the leadership was feeling pressure political and economic. There's a kind of an open question among those of us who try to watch these things really closely about whether the Chinese feel like they got a ninety days breathing space or whether they kind of

had this personal heart to heart at the leader level. Now, I am a deeply skeptical person when it comes to having a heart to heart with the head of a communist party of any country, And much as the Communist Party of China have a heart and so I don't really believe in personal chemistry and negotiating with China, But the President believes in playing that in his negotiations. So the combo of trying to build some rapport, pressing them with tariffs and the threat of future of things coming

back probably is the right thing. But frankly, the Chinese only understand power and pressure, and that's what they'll respond to. Friendliness. He'll just eat up for lunch and come back and say can I have another serving? And so I think the President is going to have to be prepared to be tough through twenty nineteen and onward. But if we get net progress along the way, I'm happy with that. Just don't backtrack. So you're thinking this is the long

road ahead, then this is going to take a while. Absolutely, that's my zoo. I mean, I'd love to be proven wrong. I'd be happy to see the president get a breakthrough and recalibrate the US China trade relationship. But we have been, I think, on a fantasy for the last fifty years about giving economic benefits to China and favorable dealings with China, letting it get away with things we don't let any other country get away with on the expectation they become

more modern, more like us, less of a problem. And I think President Trump accurately read that a majority of Americans don't buy that anymore. And guess what, the statistics and the reality of doing business in the world doesn't

back it up anymore. And so we've got the theft of intellectual property, imbalanced trade, and a lot of non tariff barriers, which is a technical way of saying unfair trade practice is beyond taxes that the Chinese have gotten away with, and we this is just desperate need of a rebalance. So I support the direction. I'm just not optimistic it will be a near term harvest. And you had mentioned the intellectual property theft that of course was part of the justification of tariffs on China and this

tough stance that the Trump administration is taking. Of course, they did a seven month investigation into China and found a loss economically of about fifty billion dollars to Corporate America and corporate earnings. Can you just break down for the listeners just the impact of the intellectual property theft, what China is up to, and why it's so important

to know about this and to call China out on it. Well, first and foremost, I think the scale is much larger, and so we're probably really looking in the ballpark of like six hundred billion dollars worth of intellectual property being stolen from American interests over recent years. And that's not like going back thirty years, it's just going back into

recent years. And so what happens is companies try to go into the ever large China market thinking they'll get market share, increased sales, have an export platform, and the Chinese will add on fe these forced technology transfer, have their people trained up to basically spy on you and copy what you do, and after a certain amount of time, they become incredibly competitive under a national brand to do exactly what you do, and the government there will favor

the national brands over foreigners, and sooner or later you find yourself squeezed out of the market you thought was enormous and key to your long term growth. So there's been over the last twenty five to thirty years, there's been a number of big companies and some small entrepreneurs that have literally had their lunch eaten by the Chinese this way, over and over and over. The first few times people can say, oh, this is just working the

kinks out, and there's some winners and some losers. But this is a long term pattern now where entire companies get engulfed, major technologies get overtaken, and some of these technologies are critical to our vital infrastructure, like five G technology and cellular communications and lots of semiconductor parts in everything that's in the technology that we live our lives, relying upon for security, but also everyday commerce and just

getting around town. This is now a vital part of our economy, and the Chinese have really taken a huge stake in it, and now it's difficult to do something to push back. So President Trump's got obviously a lot of criticism regarding his approach on trade, a little bit less on China, you know, more on you know, regarding

surrounding NAFTA in Mexico and Canada. But staying on trade, do you think, I mean, what other approach does President Trump have then to try to if he's trying to extract concessions from China, if he's trying to get them to lay off the intellectual property threft theft outside of tariffs, you know, what other options are available to President Trump

and trying to kind of lay the hammer down on China. Well, some of what he's done broadly on trade, while not directly targeting China, I think has had an impact on negotiations with China and the reality to deal with them.

Number one, the successor agreement to NaSTA had Canada and Mexico agree to conditions that Chinese can't go make a favorable agreement with one or the other of them and sneak their way in their goods or services into the United States and bypass our own laws, in our own restrictions for security or other conditions, and so eliminating a NaSTA loophole that gave Chinese an unfair advantage by way

of NaSTA had an impact on their economic strategy. Also recalibrating the trade relationship and our alliance structure with Europe. At first, everyone said the sky is going to fall, this is going to wreck the world. But what it turned out was not only could these things be done that people said were impossible, but an increasing number of our alliances openly in many cases but even more so privately, are saying we two want a rebalancing of China's behavior

on security, on unfair trade practices. The feeling of intellectual property affects a lot of interest around the world. So there's a lot of quiet cheerleaders behind the administration's approach to try to tackle these issues with China. And frankly, there's no precedent. No leader in the world, not just the United States, has really tried to pressure the Chinese to reverse this trend to date, and so any progress Trump gets is the first in the world. How much

pressure is China feeling right now? I read a CNBC article saying that China's growth could be slowed about point six percent I think next year regarding are due to the tariffs. You know, how much pressure economically is China facing right now? Much more than statistics would let us know. Number One, there's a longstanding issue of how accurate are Chinese statistics, given that they are done by organizations controlled

by officers of the Communist Party of China. And the other part of it is, for the United States, it's an infinitesimal fraction of our GDP is tied to trade with China, and for China it's getting up into the single digits, which sounds small to a lot of people, but that is like a hundred times more impactful on their GDP their trade with US than our trade with them is for the US GDP. So, in a very real way, there's economic pressure that is disproportionately on China

that it is on the United States. Now, the industries in the US that are affected farmers primarily, but not limited to them, they have real pain, They had some uncertainty, and I think the administration and Congress have tried to address it. But we should be under no mistake, and I hope the President's team is under no mistake. The pressure is much more on China, and the time to

get your advantage is now. Will they're under pressure, don't get them up for air and hope that they'll be nice to you after this pressure has been put on them. So let's talk about, you know, kind of same question regarding at the United States. How much pressure is the United States economy in effect with China and the retalitary tariffs that they've put on us, And if this is the long haul, how much damage or how much pain

are Americans going to feel? Well, certainly there are some sectors that have put all their eggs in the China basket. I think soybeans is one of those that comes to mind, but hey, and some other commodities that affect agricultural state disproportionately, there's going to be long term impact. Now. Part of the Buenos Aires G twenty agreement was that the Chinese are committed to increase purchases of those kinds of commodities, and so we'll see whether that helps mitigate the longer

term uncertainty about this. But there's two kinds of pressure that are going to come to play. One is economic and the other is political. The political press pressure is

frankly a bit more mixed. The President's approach is more Main Street than Wall Street, and frankly, there are elements of the new Democrat majority in the Congress that has a history of being more sympathetic to the trade policy of the president has been pushing than his own majority in recent years has and so the politics of this are definitely mixed. The Wall Street versus Main Street part of this, I think is the most important part of

going into twenty twenty. And that Electoral College coalition that Donald Trump wrote to victory in twenty sixteen, that is a belt of manufacturing that wants to see a rejuvenation of work here and sees China as an unfair player, and so I think that that's going to remain solidly behind him. So there's the economic pressure, and I think Wall Street will keep and that's going to be hard for the administration, but I think Main Street is going

to mostly be supportive of this direction continuing. So let's talk about the politics a little bit. You know, you obviously mentioned the incoming Democrat House. How much does that impact is that dynamics also with the Republican led state majority one and looking at the renegotiated NAFTA deal essentially

and then to potentially any sort of deal with China. Well, I think that the Democrat majority is going to be very skeptical of deals with China, and the Republican majority probably balance would be inclined towards a more mainstream or conventional approach to trade and dealing with China on balance, But the combo of an administration engaged in these kind of negotiations of their party and then needing to try

to meet common ground. I mean, trade legislation has to come out of the House because usually it's dealing with taxes, revenue, tariffs, things like that, And so there's going to have to be piped bipartisan work to get something actually inked, But I think the politics of it actually favor the President and getting coalition in the House. If that happens, I

think the Senate would be hard pressed try to stand away. Although, as you've witnessed as well as anyone, the Senate is the body in which any one person can stand up at grandstand frankly, at any moment and bring things to a halt. And so that's just something we live with on every issue going forward. Right, all right, Stephen, thank you so much for joining us, and I really appreciate

your insight on this. Have a great one. Thanks. Would you be willing to support some degree of wall funding if you got a permanent bona fide solution on back No, that would approve one point three at least a million for the border fence, correct and not necessarily because that's what it was last year. So if you just extend that again, wouldn't that cause a problem. I mean, it depends on how you spending money. It's border security as about order security, but within that there was money for

the fence as well. Well, you're trying to better fence, You're not trying to be a wall. Now, speaking for myself, consider the wall immoral, ineffective, expensive, and President said he promised it. He also promised Mexico would pay for it. So even if they did, Smarl still and then they're not going to pay for us. Soon to be Speaker Pelosi, which I really hate saying that. That is just really depressing that she's going to be the incoming Speaker of

the House. Democrats obviously took control of the House, and this is what President Trump is going to be met with. Well, Democrats aren't going to support the wall. Nancy Pelosi doesn't want to play ball. There are going to continue standing in the way of President Trump and his efforts to try to build a wall on the southern border. And look, the only reason why he wants the walls, he wants it to serve as a deterrent from illegal activity at

the southern border. And we're seeing right now why that is needed. When we saw most recently a thousand migrants in this caravan illegally trying to rush the southern border, and of course they were met by customs and Border patrol agents with tear gas because they were trying to illegally cross into the United States and break the law. And the problem is we're going to continue to see these caravans of migrants coming and trying to exploit or

laws if we don't change things. If one we don't increase border security, in two, if we don't change laws in relation to immigration, particularly looking at things like asylum laws. Look, the reality is that these Central Americans coming over to seek asylum in the United States, eighty nine percent are going to pass that initial tests. Only nine percent are actually going to be granted asylum in immigration court. Think about those numbers. Almost ninety percent will pass the first test.

That's how easy that initial interview is, that initial threshold, that initial bar to that they're trying to pass is and only nine percent will actually be granted an immigration court. That is troubling. If that doesn't tell you that our laws need to be changed, I don't know what does. And also another thing that really irks me is the hypocrisy of the left when it comes to President Trump's

calls for a border role. If you remember back in two thousand and six, Democrats like Diane find Stein Ron why even Obama, Biden, and Clinton all voted in favor of a border fence in two thousand and six. Yet those same people, You've got Hillary Clinton basically, you know, she made fun of President Drop in his desire for a wall. You had Democrats at the time saying, like Senator Diane Feinstein saying that they are solidly behind border security.

Well where are they now? But you know what, I'm going to talk to Center for Immigration Studies are Arthur about all of this asylum, what is happening at the southern border with this caravan. He's going to break it all down for us. He's Center for Immigration Studies. We're

going to talk to him about the asylum. We're going to talk to him him about the wall, and we're also going to talk to him about this other really interesting story that's going on right now, this Honduras woman who crossed over into the southern border, jump the wall to have a baby in the United States. We're also going to talk to him about birthright citizenship and if it needs to end, you're gonna want to stay tuned. I'm not kidding you. It's going to be a great interview.

Welcome back to the Buck Sexton's Show. Lisa Booth filling in for him. We've got Art Arthur of Center for Immigration Studies. He is a resident fellow for both law and policy. We're going to talk to him about what the latest with the caravan and what's going on at the southern border. Art, how are you, I'll do great. How are you doing today? I'm doing well, all right, So I wanted to get your take. So there's some headlines today regarding adoran woman who scaled the border wall

to have a child in the United States. So it's sort of ignited this debate which we've already seen, really regarding birthrights citizenship. President Trump talked about it during the campaign. He sort of recently talked about it as well. So you know, what does this tell us about the problems with birthrights citizenship From your vantage point, well, birthrights citizenship at least has become a magnet that draws individuals to

the United States in order to give birth. And you look at this specific example and quite frankly, it points out everything that's wrong with it. One, the woman had an incentive the United States. I think that she referred to it as your big reward for making it to the United States is giving birth to a child in

this country too. She was eight months pregnant at the time that she actually gave birth, she took a perilous journey to the United States and again entered illegally, putting not only her life but the life of her unborn child in danger. So the fact is that, you know, this is a prime example of everything that is wrong

with birthright citizenship. It encourages people to enter the United States illegally, to undertake the arduous journey to come to this country, and then it gives people an incentive to enter the United States have United States children equities that will make it probably next to impossible to remove her from the United States at the end of the day. So when President Trump was talking about ending birthright citizenship, he got a lot of flaks. Some were saying that

it's going to take a constitutional amendment. Where are you on that debate, and what legally would it take to

end birthright citizenship. Well, the leading case on this issue is a case called Wang kim Arc, which is more than one hundred and I think twenty years old, interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution, and Wan kim Ark involved an individual whose parents were actually permanent residents of the United States and Wan kim Arc was born in this country, and his argument was that he was a

citizen under the fourteenth Amendment. And so even if you accepted face value, you know, Wan kim mark the idea that a child born of permanent residents is automatically a citizen of the United States. There's still the question of whether or not individuals who are not who were born to individuals who were here illegally, not under the jurisdiction of the United States and fourteenth Amendment, would be citizens. Quite frankly, I think that there is an argument to

be made. In addition, there was a very strong descent in wan kim Arc that said that the case was decided wrongly. Was decided very much according to British common law and the idea of sovereignty and allegiance, many ideas that were rejected at the founding of this republic. So one, I don't believe that won key mark is quite as broad as people say it is. And two I think it was wrongly decided. But the fact is that there hasn't been a case that's challenged it in the intervening

more than a century. I believe it was Senator Lindsay Graham who said that he was going to introduce legislation to end birthright citizenship. Do you know where Congress is on this issue right now, and do you know what the latest is with what Senator Lindsay Graham said. I do not. I have not seen a bill that would

actually end birthright citizenship. I think the Wall Act, which was introduced by a variety of senators, actually does have some legislation that does that, and Senator Graham maybe one of the maybe one of the senators that's involved in that Act. But again, I believe that this is something that could be done by congressional enactment. It's going to

have to go to the Supreme Court. But I think that this particular Supreme Court would probably look at, you know, that case on the principles on which it was based, and would you know, in accordance with h you know, the founding documents of this country, and I think that we have a lot of original is sitting on the court right now, would probably disagree with the decision in Wan Kim Mark. And I think that it would that if the Congress were to pass legislation that would change

birthright citizenship, that it would probably survive Congressional Review. The only problem is that the clock is running out. I really don't expect Speaker Pelosi to be introducing any legislation to that effect um in one hundred and sixteenth Congress. So quite frankly, the door is closing quickly for a change to be made. So the woman from Honduras, who you know, scale the fense to to have the baby, she said that her and her family are looking for

family reunification and clumb this Ohio. They've got some family there. But that doesn't kind of speak to the and they're seeking asylum just for the listeners at home, does this kind of speak to what's wrong with our asylum system right now? In the sense that you know, all the most of the media, mainstream media, they say, look, these people are coming over. You know, they're fleeing the conditions

in Central America. But isn't there also this other large component about it, where it's it's family reunification that they're seeking here in the United States, and it's also economic opportunities. Absolutely, And it's important to note that, you know, the fact is we have a higher standard of living than almost every country in the world. The vast majority of individuals I believe is given the opportunity to live in the

United States. In fact, would plus because we've had temporary protected status, perhaps one of the biggest misnomers in immigration law, from Honduras and from El Salvador for more than fifteen years. We have a large population of people from those countries living in the United States. And that's a drawing fact

for individuals who are from those countries. They want to reunify with their family members, they want to have better schools for their kids, they want to have better hospitals for themselves and their children, they want to have more economic opportunities. Again, that's perfectly understandable. The problem is it's

just not legal. The credible fear standard, which is the screening standard that's used by customs and Border Protection are used by US citizenship and immigration services at the border for people who enter illegally is very low. It's deliberately low, and for the better part of nine years, only about five thousand people claimed credible fear and guide into the

United States. But work out around that, if you did claim credible fear that you had about an eighty to ninety percent chance of being allowed into the United States. And then being released. In fact, that's what happened to Missernandez, the mother of the child. She and her family were released on Sunday. And let me just give you a fact that puts this into relief. If you were detained, your case will be finished in about forty days. If you're not detained, your case will take an average of

eight years. So probably Misser Nandez and her husband and her now two children and however many more children she will have, will probably be in the United States indefinitely if she ever leaves. So what percentage of those individuals, you know, looking more at the eight year mark, do they end up showing up an immigration court or where do they go? The vast majority of the asylum claims

get denied. A significant number of them failed to file asylum applications at all, and then a larger percentage of them either fail to show up for court or failed to appear for their asylum hearing. So only about fifty three percent of them ever file an asylum application, and the denial rate for those cases is higher than seventy

percent at the end of the day. So I mean, do you get the sense then, obviously based on you know, some of the things you just said, that these people that are coming here from Central America that they have an understanding of how to game the system absolutely, and again, you know, this seems to be a fact that is lost on the press. They know that if they come with children, that they're going to get released after twenty

days under the Flores Settlement Agreement. They know that if they claim credible fear, the odds are they're going to be allowed into the United States even if they don't have an asylum claim. They know that if they're children, if they show up, that they're going to be released over to HHS with them two days. So these are all things that we want to dissuade people from doing. About ten percent of all women who make the perilous

journey from Central America to Mexico or sexually assaulted. About two thirds of all of the individuals who make that journey are assaulted in one way or another, and that's according to Doctors Without Borders. That's not a statistic from the United States government. So, you know, it's an amazingly perilous journey that we want to encourage people not to undertake. Plus, you know, we want to have respect for our own laws.

But the fact is that when people in Honduras, Guatemala and I'll Salvador see people like Misernadas get into the United States, give birth and get released, it just encourages

more people to come. So can I because the approach of the mainstream media is a fact that you know, they're concerned about the humanitarian aspect of what's going on in Central America, and you know, these individuals, these migrants, and you know some illegal immigrants that are trying to cross the border illegally coming over to the United States. Why then do we never hear about the aspect that you just mentioned, about the dangerous journey and what happens

along the way. Why is that never discussed? And if the media is so concerned about the humanitarian conditions, why don't they talk about that? Well, you know, it's it's funny because under President Obama, when he was faced with a similar situation in two thou fourteen, both NPR and National Geographic if you can imagine, spoke about the dangers,

and I've written about the articles that they wrote. Then in fact, they talked about a specific pharmacy in all tars to Nora, where women would go to get birth control because of the high likelihood that they would be raped on the journey to the United States. And yet for some reason, that part of the story gets lost. Now all we see is the crying little girl next

to the border patrol agent and the pink sweater. Now all we see is the mother dragging the two children, one without shoes, one wearing a diaper, away from the tear gas canister. And I think that a lot of that has to do with the way that the media feels about the president. Any stick is a good stick to beat Donald Trump with. I think they believe and they figure that hard tugging pictures of small children, babies born in the United States are effective tools to use

against Donald Trump. And that's why I think we see this and why we don't hear about how lawful that journey is. ICE has attempted to put out statistics about this, but by and large, nobody ever writes about them. And the governments of those three countries encouraged their nationals not to leave, but they leave anyway. Well, So one thing I found interesting about the imagery that you're talking about.

When there was you know, I think about a thousand, this might be two weekends ago, now where you know, you had the almost a thousand immigrants trying to rush the southern border, and that was the image that you talked about in The Washington Post reported about why everyone was so focused on that picture, and they did it because they thought it contradicted the narrative it came from the White House. But one thing that I found interesting about it is that the children didn't have shoes in

the photo. But it's my understanding that at these shelters in Mexico where they came from, that they do have shoes and clothing available. Is that correct? That's correct, And the fact is that you know, this was a family that had made the journey. I believe they were from Honduras, and I believe again there was father in Louisiana for the two children. So and they were attempting to breach a rusty border fence that had accordion wire on the

other side. I really am not one hundred percent sure what that woman was thinking about putting children into that situation. I'm a parent, I had children that I had a child at age once upon a time, and if I were to attempt to rush toward police officers with Ryan gear on and a rusty fence and accordion wire. I'd probably be arrested for child endangerment. I certainly wouldn't end up with my picture splashed all over the Washington Post.

Well and also not yeah, not to mention the fact what they were doing was illegal in trying to cross the border illegally. But I'm glad that you had mentioned that because I do think that the way the media paints this just sort of tells everyone everything they need to know about where the mainstream is coming. Mainstream media is coming from it just in their buys about the Trump administration and immigration at large. But or we've got to get going. But thank you so much for joining

us tonight. I really appreciate your insight on this very hopeful Thank you for have a great night. Or you've got Lisa Booth filling in for Buck sex Sin tonight you're listening to the Buck Sexton Show. Thanks so much for staying with us. So I want to play this clip for you about President Trump talking about Elizabeth Warren and then we're gonna talk about it. Take a listen. They're gonna cover polka hotas. Who is thank of it? Thank of it? She of the great tribal heritage. What

tribe is it? Let me think about that. One meantimes she's based her life on being a minority polka hotas. They always want me to apologize for saying it, and I hereby, Oh no, I want to apologize. I'll use tonight polka hots. I apologize to you. I apologize to you. I apologize to the fake polka hunt this. I won't a vote. Now it's causing her problems. You know that name is called because now even the liberals are saying,

take a test, take a test. You know the I tell you, I shouldn't tell you because I like not to give away secrets. But this one, let's say I'm debating pocahunt this right, I promise you all do this. I will take you know those little kids, they saw them television for two dollars, learn your heritage. Guy says I was born in Scotland. It turns out he was born in Puerto Rico. And that's okay, it's good. You know. Guy says I was born in Germany. Well he wasn't

born in Germany. He was born someplace. So I'm gonna get one of those little kids and in the middle of the debate when she proclaims that she's of Indian heritage because her mother said she has high cheek boats that's her only evidence that her mother said she had high cheek book. We will take that little kid and say, but we have to do it gently, because when the

meat two generations, you have to be very gentle. And we will very gently take that kid and we will slowly toss it, hoping it doesn't hit her and injure her arm, even though it only ways probably two ounces, and we will say, I will give you a million dollars to your favorite charity, paid for it by chump if you take the test and it shows you're an Indian. You know, I mean, come on, that's hilarious. I don't care if you like President Trump or not, but you

can't not laugh at that. It's pretty funny. Well, turns out to remember that response in President Trump making fun of Elizabeth Warren calling her pokehonas prompted her not too long ago to take a DNA test. You know, this was her moment to prove to everyone that she hasn't been lying of her about her heritage. She hasn't been taking advantage of structural or structural advantages in her career

as a result. But turned out whole release ended up being a massive joke, and what we found out was that Elizabeth Warren is actually probably less Native American than the average US white person. So she did this whole rollout is a five minute video. You know, she really thought that this was just going to clear her name, and instead it ended up hurting her. And so today word around the street from New York Times is that

Elizabeth Warren. They have the article titled Elizabeth Warren stands by a DNA test, but around her worries about and so essentially word on the street is these Democrat operatives are really worried that Elizabeth Warren potentially had ended her own career be our presidential ambitions before they even got started. You know what I even remembered when this happened. My first thought was she's done because she just embarrassed herself so bad by doing this rollout and actually inevitably ended

up hurting her more than helping her own case. And it's also kind of hilarious what President Trump is able to push Democrats into doing end up stepping in their own way, hurting themselves and potentially limited herself from the twenty twenty field. So I found that interesting. I wanted to share it with you. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. Lisa Booth in for him. We've got Jesse Kelly on the line, and he is the host of

ninety ninety point fifty KPRC radio station. Jesse, So, you recently made some headlines inadvertently and not intentionally when Twitter banned you. Did you ever find out why Twitter banned you? You know, the headlines or headlines be getting quote permanently banned from Twitter. And now my name was training nationwide no matter what, I'll take it now, I don't, I don't, I don't, I don't know. I don't care. I mean, I really do not care. I didn't care that much

to begin with. It's social media to run by leftists, and it's just something we all have to watch out for on the right. Right, all right, Well, let's get into, you know, some more stuffs into this stuff. So I really enjoyed your column in The Federalists, and it's why the right should start taking Alexandria Cossio Kurtz seriously. And I find it interesting because I am one of those people. I mean, you hear are some of the things she says.

You see some of the things she tweeted out. I mean she honestly thought that she signed law or legislation into law, which is obviously not the job of Congress. So it's really easy to kind of see these things. Here's some of the things she says and just automatically dismiss her. But you say we should not, why because it actually makes her more endearing Because elections are not about It's not about you, Lisa, it's not about me.

It's not about the political pundits who who pay attention, or even people who maybe don't have a platform, but people who pay attention. Those people know how they're going to vote. I guarantee you the next guy, we know how we're voting in the next election. Elections are about the common man. They always have been. The guy who votes, but he kind of pays attention, he kind of doesn't. And in this day and age, in the social media age, it's all about charm and appeal and it's a big

reason why Trump is president. And yeah, makes the idiotic guests and I'm not defending them. Obviously, the things she says, or, don't I get that. But what the right does is we pile on Or and pile on Or and pile on Or. We attack her as an idiot, and what we do is we make her a martyr to her supporters and also the common man thinks, well, I didn't know that either, Bob. I guarantee many people say, oh, I thought they did sign it into law. Well, where I ever't want to make in front of her, stop

being such a chair. Plus, I mean, she's pretty. That matters. She's she's charismatic, she's good with the camera. She has more appeal than people think. How do you think her policies play in the public. Obviously she's talking about you know, single player healthcare systems, these things with huge price tags. But do you think that matters to the average voter.

I think some it does, some it doesn't. But I don't think socialism, especially if you look at like the Bernie Sanders versus Donald Trump hypothetical numbers from twenty sixteen, Sanders crush Trump by double digits, and almost all of them. Yes, things are going okay now, but I don't think socialism as a whole. Is that unappealing to the American public not nearly unappealing as it should be. Socialism is That's why I wrote the article Socialism is frightening. It's killed

more people than Nazism or racism, Radiism's combined. It's a frightening thing in America is not as far from it as those of us on the right would like to believe. Well, and so what's the best way for conservatives to fight that? I mean, you look at some of these polling and you know the way younger Americans view socialism, and it's pretty terrifying. So you know what's the best way then for Republicans to push back on that? For conservatives to

push back. That's not necessarily going after younger Americans. Younger Americans as far as voters don't, they don't matter. Everybody talks about younger people are always socialists, they're always democrats. It's that old Winston Churchill line. If you're under thirty and not a liberal, you have no heart. If you're over thirty and not a conservative, you have no brain. They'll come around as soon as they start bringing paychecks in. But when it comes to a candidate like Cortez, attack

the ideas, that's fine. Break down the mask. That's fine, but constantly braging her with this your a moron, She's an idiot, she's so stupid. What that does is it personalizes it for people who maybe lukewarm supporters of hers. Well, wait a minute, I kind of liked her, and now you're calling her an idiot. Now you're kind of calling me an idiot. It's the same thing the left has done with Trump. All of the criticisms of Trump are

so personal. Trump's supporters take them personally, they take them on themselves, and so it's made him even more powerful. That's a good point. I mean, do you think that conservatives do a good enough job in sort of articulating why her policy suck? No, But then again, it's harder to do that in this social media world. I mean it is a Twitter world, Facebook, Instagram, and people don't

like to accept that. But those things are extremely powerful now, and so it's snarky, it's one hundred and forty characters, it's get it in and get it out, and it very rarely do you have some was a tension span long enough to break down why it stinks? And that's something we do need to get better at home. Well, and so you mentioned in your column you've spoken about this as well of that. You know, relatability is so important. Now.

We saw that be an issue with Hillary Clinton. I remember even David axel Rod was pointing out the fact that, you know, she people couldn't relate to her, the fact that everything came out of her mouth through a political lens that you know, it was part of the reason that hurt her. So, you know, taking that into account and a looking ahead at twenty twenty, what do you see from the left in terms of what the Democrat primary field's going to look like? It's gonna be beato.

I would I said he was running against I told everybody, I said, he's not even running for senate here in Texas. He's running for president. He always has been running for president. You don't take those hard left positions in Texas that expect to win. But he did set himself up nationally. He has charisma, he has a national name idea now and I'm tony he's going to boat race the entire Democratic field. Besides maybe Harry. I mean, you think he's just gonna you know what was he on the skateboard

across the presidential debate stage. And that's my point, Les, Like you saw that, and I saw that, and I rugged my eyes about rolled into the back of land. Now what is this idiocy? But we have to remember we did that a lot to Barack Obama when he was running, too, and the things he would do in the way people fell in love with it. People loved that stupid skateboard thing. They love the little dumb things Beto does. So we can't dismiss it because we think

it's stupid. The left loves him and the guy hands it's whatever it is, and it doesn't pay to deny it. Trump had it and the left denied it. Obama had it, the right denied it. There's always a guy, there's always a superstar out there. We like to roll our eyes at and call an idiot or call all these other things. But I'm telling you the guy has something. And I think Trump still beats him, but you watch him come

back and win in twenty twenty four. But see, you think he can make his way through a crowded primary hill dank. So I think you know what we're looking at right now is nix eatingly. I mean, there's been a couple contenders in recent days saying that you know they're not going to run, but right now it looks like it's still going to be a pretty big primary field.

I mean, so you think he's able to break through the with the Kamal Harris's and the Corey Bookers of the world, Well, Booker, There's no way Booker is going to do it. He just doesn't have what it takes. Harris would be the only one I would say that would compete with Beto because she has the looks, she's really good, she speaks really well. Obviously former district attorney, so she knows what she's talking about him. I don't agree with any of her policies, but I think Beto

crushes them all. I mean, yes, it will be a crowded field, but you see who there rolling out. It's a crowded field of a bunch of old, boring white people. Those are not people who are going to energize the Democratic base. It's just not well. Jesse, thanks so much for joining us. We will be looking ahead in the coming months here to see if he ends up throwing his hat in the ring. I'll talk to you seeing all right, Jesse, have a good one. Thanks Omaha. Steaks

is America's original butcher since nineteen seventeen. Order with complete confidence right now. Omaha Steakes is giving an amazing limited time offer to Bucks listeners. When you go to Omaha Steaks dot com and enter code Buck into the search bar, you will get seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package originally one ninety five, now only forty nine

ninety nine. Order now and you'll get four hand cut aged to tenderness tops or loin steaks, two Savory Premium pork chops, two chicken fried steaks, four Omaha Steakburgers, four snappy Huelbasa sausages, all beef meatballs, four perfectly brown potatoes au grop ten, four made from scratch caramel apple tartlets, plus get four more burgers for free. Omaha Steakes is a fifth generation family owned company with over one hundred years of experience delivering perfectly aged beef cut beef hand

cut by master Butcher's in Omaha. Again. This is a limited time package for only four nine. When you go to Omaha Steaks dot com, type Buck in the search bar and add the Family Gift Package to your car. Don't wait. This offer ends soon. Go to Omaha Steaks dot com type Buck in the search bar to send the Omaha Stakes family package. Today, Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. Lisa Booth in for him tonight. I want to play you this interview that Buck did yesterday

with Greg Jarrett, the author of the Russia hoax. And essentially what Greg is saying it runs contradictory to what a lot of the mainstream media is saying about the Flynn's Michael Flynn's cooperation with Muller, that it actually is good for President Trump, because a lot of people are saying that, you know, Trump has done this is really bad for the president. So why don't you take a listen to the interview? What do you make of this latest series of events this week? Is it? Let's start

with the Flynn no jail time but substantial cooperation. What do you see in those documents? What's it all telling you? Well, the word cooperation is one of those wonderfully fungible terms. Cooperation can simply mean he agreed to talk to us immediately and try to be as forthcoming as he possibly could. It doesn't mean that he actually was able to provide anything that is incriminating whatsoever towards Donald Trump in this

so called collusion investigation. Collusions also, you know this amorphous crime that doesn't really exist in the criminal codes. Is it some sort of conspiracy coordination with Russians. Well, this memo reveals none of that, and in fact just the opposite. The memo itself makes no mention of collusion. The addendum, which is roughly five pages long, is heavily redacted, but you can tell from how it's laid out and set

up two things that Flynn offered assistance on two subjects. First, he contributed something that's unidentified in a criminal case not handled by the Special Council, So that tells us it's not directly collusion related because it's handled not by Muller. Second, Flynn seems to have answered questions about the Trump transition teams conversations with foreign governments, including Russia. But that can't be collusion either to win the election, because the election

was already over. So it's a bit of a mystery as to what is contained in the redactions. But I think it's evident to me and others that there's not much evidence of collusion being provided by Flynn and what do you take from the lack of any I mean, we've had a few people already go down for the process crimes of lying during the course of an investigation about no actual criminal conduct, right, Papadopoulos, Alexander Zuan. There's been a few of them. Papadappolis got two weeks. Flynn

looks like it's gonna get nothing. Do you do you gauge that more as a function of Mueller thinking that the cooperation was just so exceptional, or is that also Mueller maybe not wanting to kick the hornet's nest even more? Because I think people realized that the FBI did Flynn dirty on this one. I mean, this was this was a setup. I mean, there was a classify the week and then the claim of the Logan Act to get

this whole thing going. I mean, this is as as much a coordinated political hit as anything I can think of. Flynn should never have been prosecuted by Robert Muller and his assembled team of partisans. Why Because the FBI agents who interviewed Flynn concluded that he was telling the truth. That was confirmed by both James Comey and his debuty Andrew McCabe when they were interviewed by congressional investigators. The truth is, had Robert Muller been forced to prove his

case against Flynn and Chord, he would have lost. He probably would have lost the case against Popadopoulis as well. Why because the law requires that a false statement be made willfully and knowingly. That's a very difficult thing to prove. If somebody's recollection of a conversation happens to be different than a transcript of the conversation, or different than how the FBI or Muller interprets it, that's not a crime.

But you know, Muller applied enormous pressure on Flynn to admit to lying, when in fact Flynn never lied, and in fact, Flynn became broke trying to pay his legal fees. And what was really unconscionable is that Muller threatened to prosecute, based on no evidence, Flynn's own son. So Flynn finally surrendered under the intense emotional strain in monetary pressures, which is really a shame. It's wrong, it's unconscionable for Mueller to behave that way. Now, the Cohen PLA also got

some attention this week. What what what can you tell us about how you how you read that and what comes next? Well, Michael Cohen is a prodigious liar and a tax cheat, and he played guilty because he wants leniency in his sentencing treatment. You know, this is the trouble when the government, Robert Mueller in this case, decides to get in bed with a known liar and criminal. For all we know, Michael Cohen is lying about his lies. So we I mean he is not a credible witness.

And in fact, because Muller is going ahead with sentencing, it means he will never call Cohen as a witness in anything. So you know, Cohen, in my judgment, is also a total zero when it comes to collusion. You know, he can talk about payments which are perfectly legal under the Federal Campaign Election Act, to women who said they had affairs with Donald Trump, not a crime. What do you think about And by the way, everyone, we're speaking to Greg Jarrett, author of the Russia hoax, the illicit

schemes to clear Hillary Clinton and frame Donald Trump. Judge Napolitano, your colleague, overt Fox said earlier today, quote, I expect Donald Trump Junior to be indicted. Do you agree with that assessment. Disagree. Well, given Mueller's behavior of criminalizing conduct that is not remotely criminal, that's altogether a possibility. You know, again, Flenn's a perfect example. He didn't lie, he didn't commit

a crime, but Mueller prosecuted him. Nevertheless, So as I you know, I spent an entire chapter in my book The Russia Hoax explaining how the Trump Tower meeting violates no law. You know, it's not a crime to talk to a Russian lawyer or any Russian for that matter. Take a look at the Federal Election Commission website. Foreign nationals may participate in American campaigns as long as they

don't receive money or donate money. So to have a conversation with a Russian lawyer who purportedly is going to give you information about Hillary Clinton, you know, that's that's just not a crime. So we'll wait and see what Muller does. But know he is the kind of unprincipled, unscrupulous character, Mueller who would try to weaponize and criminalize that which is not truly under the law of crime. Do you think that this is winding down? And if so,

could he tell us why? Because I've been hearing that for quite a while, and obviously it has not been true for quite a while, because this thing still drags on. Are we going to be in you know, springtime, still talking about whether Mueller's got the goods? It's altogether possible. Sure, These independent counsels and special counsel investigations tend to drag

on well beyond their merits. We certainly saw that in Whitewater, which went on for the better part of four years and then ended up, you know, acute the President Bill Clinton then of something that had nothing whatsoever to do with the original mandate. So there's no telling when Muller and his team of partisans will end this thing. They should have ended it long ago. There's not a whiff of evidence that Trump ever had some conspiracy or coordination

or collusion with Russia to win the election. None zero, And it should have ended there. And in point of fact, Muller should never have been appointed because under the federal regulation, she can only appoint a special counsel if there's some evidence of a crime first. And Lisa Page, who was the top FBI lawyer on the Russia investigation, testified two months ago that during entire time the FBI had the case.

They never found any evidence of collusion. So this has been with Robert Muller, an investigation in search of a crime, which were verses. Ambassaardizes the legal process and turns the federal regulations on their head. And that was Greg Jared, author of the Russia hoax with Buck. Coming up next is R. J. Homman of Fair. He's going to talk to us about the upcoming spending fight on Capitol Hills. As stay tuned, Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show,

Lisa Booth. Here, we've got RJ. Hamman on the line from the Federation for American Immigration Reform. He's the government relations director. J I really wanted to get in to with you about, you know, this upcoming spending fight that we're going to see on Capitol Hill. President Trump of course is demanding and pushing to get funding for the border wall. Where do you see you know you're covering all this and paying attention to it. Where is this

fight heading and what do you foresee happening? Yeah, Li's thanks for having beyond obviously the border wall, President Trump's you know, key campaign promise. I mean, it's his signature issue. That's what everybody was screaming for on the campaign trail, but you know, on this, on that front, he's been largely stymied all year. I mean, every single funding fight we've had, you know, congressional leadership has convinced him, Oh, we'll do it next time, We'll do it next time. Well,

now it's now or never. I mean, you have Speaker Pelosi coming in in January. She's not going to give you any border wall funding for the next two years. So right now it's now or never. Obviously, with the tragic death of former President George HW. Bush kind of threw a wrinkle in some of these negotiations. As many of your listeners may remember, the spending bill, the dhs CR was supposed to run out tomorrow, December seventh. So what they did today, and I want everybody understand because

this isn't as swampy as it gets. So what they did. What they did is they did a two week continuing resolution to push the shutdown deadline from December seventh to December twenty first, right up before Christmas. And Lisa, you've seen this before. I've been up in Washington and see this. The closer you get to Christmas, Conservatives always get screwed.

So this, you know, the bad news is that it effectively puts a pressure on a lot of these members to cave and accept what leadership offers them just to get home for Christmas. And you know, Paul Ryan, Mitch McConnell, Kevin McCarthy, I mean, they're not really true supporters of President Trump's immigration platform, even though they let on like

they are in the border wall. So you know, when you want to pass something that you know your base is going to hate and and you don't want a bunch of angry phone calls or get thrown out in twenty twenty and then schedule to vote right up against Christmas while everyone's distracted. So you know, it looks like that that they just want to kind of tell President Trump that, hey, we can't get those votes. We need to pass a one year extension of Department Homeland Security

funding into next year. But you know, again, right now, it doesn't look good. It's now or never. That's why, you know, organization is urging you know, our members in the general public to make your voice heard. Call your member of Congress and say you do support the President Trump's a key campaign promise you support border security because of Congress all they care about right now, it looks like he's getting home for Christmas, even though they didn't

accomplish what they were set there to do. Well. I know this all two from working on Cathitol Hill and Arch I wanted to, you know, how much leverage do you think President Trump is going to use here? I mean, because we saw with the brief shutdown that you know what President Trump dubbed the Schumer shutdown over DACA. I mean, do you think he'll do that again? I mean, do you think President Trump is not going to play those games? You know, do you think he'll hunkered down? And how

much leverage does he really have here? I mean, I know he can veto it, you know, you know as well as I do. Again, it's I think both parties, and I think this fear is generally correct. Is everybody's afraid of being blamed for a shutdown. I mean, it backfired, It's backfired on Republicans before, It's certainly backfired on Schumer when he did that over DACA. And I think there's always a fear again. I mean, this is why you know, we think President Trump should use his leverage and tried.

If he wanted to shut down the government, he should have done this back in March, you know, or a lot or a lot farther away than right at the game against the line here. But again, no, Trump does

have leverage. He can veto this thing. But again, when you take out again at the damage and how long a shutdown would be, you know, Democrats could essentially run out the clock, say President Trump's vetos whatever they give him on the twenty first, they can just hang tight for a couple of weeks until they get in power and then send him something else, rather than you know, if they've tried to pass something he didn't like, they

vetoed it. You know around this week, Democrats would maybe have to come to the table and not risk being blamed for a one month shutdown. But again, you know, President Trump said, we remember back in September when he got a terrible spending bill, he says, I'm not going

to sign a bill like this ever. Again, he said that repeatedly, and I mean we're hoping he you know, he puts his boots in the ground and and sticks to what is his key campaign promise again, like I said, it is now or never Nancy Pelosi will not give him any border wall funding. In fact, you know, a Democrat appropriators, they're going to be trying to claw away money from border security and essential law enforcement functions as

long as they pertain to immigration. You're talking cutting ICE funding, cutting CBP funding. They're not just gonna not give him what he wants. They're gonna take away from our border security and interior enforcement apparatus. So I mean, he's in fantasyland again if he thinks that he can listen to the establishment Republicans on Capitol Hill and oh, we'll get

it next time. There is no next time. Wells. One thing that always gets me is we've seen like a thousand people try to rush the southern border illegally break their way into the United States. You saw them do the same on their journey to the United States and breaking into what was it, Mexico or I'm getting the right doing that as well. And then we're saying recently two of people basically throwing their children over the Southern

wall to get into the United States. So just lawlessness, and to me, it kind of makes the case for what President Trump has been saying of increased border security and also all right, No, absolutely. I mean a wall is a wall is just one of the many things again that we need to do. And and you know, people act like, you know, President Trump was exploiting the caravan and all those visions as you know, a manufactured crisis,

if you will. And I think it was actually manufactured by a lot of these open borders groups and everything that they know that we're having, you know, and immigration stalemate, and they know how you know, toxic this is in our country, and they're looking to exploit the division and

make almost a standoff, if you will. But again, the border wall can't stop the caravan, and I think that's something that you know, I wish President Trump would understand a little bit more, you know, if he really wanted to stop this problem. I mean, it's of course, it's all well and good to want that five billion dollars or even more for some border infrastructure walls work. We need to repair things down there on the border. A lot of the fences needs repairs. I totally understand that

we support that. But President Trump has to call for closing our asylum loopholes. I mean, this is what is driving people up here from Central America. These coyotes down there that bring them up here. They know how to exploit our loss. They know what to say in their credible fear interviews to get released into the interior of the country. They know that if they bring a child that they will get released because they can't be detained for more than twenty days. These laws are the ultimate

pull factors. And we could have a wall from sea to Shining Sea and they'll it'll still happen because these people will just walk right up to a port of entry or rush a port of entry and claim asylum and get released into interior of the country. It is the new form of illegal immigration. It's not like the early two thousands when you had young, working age Mexican mails streaming over the border and just running into the country. They turn themselves in immediately, and a wall certainly will

not stop this well. And I mean we saw that with the end of the zero tolerance policy with President Trump. There is an eighty percent increase of families coming over to the United States after that policy ended, So clearly people are figuring out how to game the system. So I want to talk to you about you'd mentioned the loopholes that need to be closed. Can you what are those loopholes and what needs to be done about it? Yeah,

we look at about you know, three main things. So, so first you got to tighten the credible fear standard for asylum applicants. So credible fear credible fear interview is the first thing you do when you make an asylum claim to see if it's it's valid. And the Obama administration really liberalize the meaning and it's created a situation where everyone thinks that they can get it. And what they need to do is impose penalties on migrants who

make these frivolous claims. Really tighten the standard of these interviews, because right now, I think it's over ninety percent path that initial interview and many of them eventually get their asylum claims denied. But but as you know, it takes well over a year, sometimes two years to get your asylum claim adjudicated because the backlog is so great. So what these people want to do is they really don't want to see their asylum claim all the way through.

They know that if they get past this initial credible fear interview that they'll get really into the country and they can just go disappear into the population. The second thing we need to do is address the Flores Settlement agreement. That's a court settlement, and that's what tricked up when President Trump was trying to That's what interfered with President

Trump's deer or tolerance policy was the Floras Settlement. Correct Florist settlement says that if your family units can't be detained or children can't be detained either for more than twenty days, and then they have to be released. And and if what we need to do is extend family detention and increased detention space so that will have adequate holding facilities so we don't have to release these people.

And and President Trump when he did the zero tolerance thing, is he really exposed truly what the open borders left really wants to do. You know. He says, all right, all right, so we could either separate families. They oh, no, you can't do that. And he goes, all right, well, let's hold the families together, and they say, no, you can't do that either. So then what do you want that's just for them to be released in the interior

of the country. If we exactly exactly, if we really want to stop this again, we have to ensure that these can be held together in detention. And I think the third thing is amending one of our trafficking laws, which is the TVPRA, the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act. And that's a law. It's a well intentioned law designed to protect miners from sex traffickers, but now it's just

it's basically a foothold to get into the US. And we believe there a variety of changes that can be made that would close this loophole that's being exploited while still protecting these children who may be at risk. And then I think more broadly, you know, you secure the border with more resources and staffing, you dry up the jobs magnet by implementing mandatory, you verify, you know, you send, you send the message no more funny business. I mean,

we're serious about enforcing our laws. And Congress hasn't done that yet. You know, President Trump has tried time and again to do what he can through his executive authority, kind of the opposite of what President Obama did. And you know, the ACLU or other open borders groups seem to be able to find an activist judge anywhere, you know, and likely under the Ninth Circuit to stop President Trump, even though he has legitimate authority most of the time

delegated to him by Congress. UM. And you know, or j I wanted to talk to you about, you know, how much has word essentially gotten out to these Central American migrants about how easy or laws are to games. I know you had mentioned the fact that, you know, eighty nine percent of these indigual individuals are going to pass that first interview with immigration authorities. And my understand he's only nine percent who actually show up an immigration

court will be granted asylum. So how much is word essentially gotten out about how easy it is to come here and at least pass that first initial or interview. Oh, it's it's it's widely known. I mean even go back. So I remember back when President Trump, you know, diddaca. UM, he had to dispatch Joe Biden down to Central America to tell the governments down there, hey, and to let your people know that just because we're doing this DACA thing doesn't mean that you're gonna be able to come.

I mean we've seen we've seen this time and again every time either Congress discusses or extends an immigration benefit. Or even you know, our laws get widely known how they can be abused. These people down their irrational people, they take note, they know what their family members have done, they know what works. And a lot of these coyotes down there. You know, there was actually a Washington Post article several weeks several of the reporters went down to

Guatemala and we're actually talking to people down there. Coyotes were encouraging people to go with a child that a child is basically known as a get out of jail free card. I mean that is that's a humanitarian crisis. I mean, we're our laws are encouraging people to bring their children and sometimes not even their own children, and

encourages kidnapping. You know, as somebody in Guatemala could go kidnap a child knowing that you know, hey, that child might get out of jail free card and a ticket to work in the United States. That creates a crisis down there. This journey up up to the United States from Central America, it's terrible. I mean, you have children that are raped, that they're subjected to violence. You know, gangs are recruiting. I mean, it's a real crisis, and

our laws are exacerbating the problem. You know, it's not You're not being in humane, you're not acting without heart when you want to shore them up again. These people need to make the changes in their own countries to better the conditions down there, rather than coming up in the treacherous journey to the United States and disregarding our laws. Well,

and to that point, DHS put out a statistic. I think it's over the past two years there's been one hundred and ten percent increase in malls bringing a child trying to enter into the southern border. So completely making your point, J, We're out of time, but I really appreciate you joining us tonight. RJ. Haman of Fair all right, thanks Lisa, thank you so much. Welcome back to the Buck Sexton Show. Lisa Booth. I really appreciate you guys

for sticking with me to night. This is actually my first time a solo hosting radio, So thank you to Buck for getting sick and allowing me this opportunity to fill in for him. Really, he's a friend of mine, so I really appreciate him believing in me and not thinking I was going to screw it up. So a great friend there. And I've also I've got a producer, Mike with me right now, because I heard that he actually takes issue with where I went to college. So Mike,

what gives? I don't take issue. I I mean, that's the way. That's why I tell you where you went school. Yeah, I went to the University of Tennessee, which is a phenomenal school. Phenomenal yeah, yeah, big Orange. Right. Well, I'm a Philadelphia boy, so I don't really have place to speak on the South. But well, then what's your beef with me? What I could deal? I have relatives who went to the University of Alabama. Well, I mean, it's not like you guys have anything to be upset with

right now. Alabama has been, you know, amazing, Yeah, kicking butt with football. We just have problems with schools that really stink at football. You know, that's so right, and right now that a season not going so good. You know, actually I want to talk to you about that, and what do you think is wrong with your program? Well, it's really tough, is I can't really rebut that because you know, I went to school when Philip former, Philip Fumer ever, Philip former, and then also when Lane Kiffin

screwed US over Yes, things just went downhill. And I'll tell you this. I think it's so funny because I remember there was a guy that put up our guy or gal who I don't know if who who was behind it, put up a billboard on one of the major highways and it read that Lane Kiffin was as

faithful as Tiger one. That's really funny. I never saw that well, and that just goes to show you how much people love their football in Knoxville, Tennessee, that someone would pay their own money to I mean the billboards. He was well, I mean it's true because Lane Kiffin was, you know, not a faithful you know, he's a terrible coach, screwed us over M and so well that's actually that's true too. But so I found that to be hilarious because someone literally spent their own money to send a

message and an important message. It was, yeah, an important message. What is it about the South? It out and like because the Alabama fans are the same. SEC is great, SEC country is awesome. They loved their football and they take it so seriously. I understand there's no NFL teams down there, But what's in the water down there that like gives them like they're they're crazier than like Giants fans and Eagles fans like they're nuts. They have you

been to games? Like? Have you gone to an SEC game? Oh? Yeah, Well it's so much fun. Yeah, I mean that was the highlight of going to ther University of Tennessee. It's so much fun going to the football games. You get to hang out with friends. It brings the school together, or brings the community together. It's just a lot of fun. Not even too you know, my girlfriends and I in college. You know, we go to games at the different universities.

We go to Old Mess, we go to Georgia, and you get got to check out some of the other universities as well, which was a lot of fun. Although toma um you know what? Yes, actually, well no, I don't remember it ready. Have you ever had a yellowhammer? You know what that is? Actually I did. I did go to the University of Alabama. That's cracked. Yeah, it's been a while since I graduated, although hopefully nobody knew that because I still look young, maybe you'll be okay

at least that's just what I'm gonna tell myself. Still, if I still go out and get card at a good night so it makes feel better about yourself definitely. But yeah, it's it's beautiful down there. Like I love going the BAM. I've never been to Tennessee, so I can't speak too hard on it. It's beautiful. We've got in you've got Vall Navy on the water too, which is a lot of fun. Be game the games. But

thanks so much everyone. I really appreciate you guys for joining me tonight, and thank you Buck for letting me fill in for you. Have a great night, everyone,