Loser Democrats Endlessly Investigate

This is the Buck Sexton Show where the mission where mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a great American. Again, the Buck Sexton Show begins. He's a great guy. Now Mexico is now stopping people coming very easy for them to do, stopping people coming in through Mexico. Let's see if they

keep it done. If they keep doing that now, if they don't, or if we don't make a deal with Congress, the border is going to be closed, or we're going to close large sections of the border, maybe not all of it, but it's the only way we're getting a response. And I'm totally ready to do it, and I will say this many people want me to do it. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. President Trump still pushing the

idea that he may shut down the border. I don't think that this is the way he's going to go, and I don't think it will solve or even necessarily help on the problem all that much. But the man's trying to do something. There are no good options available right now because of the laws that exist on the books, because of the situation on the ground at the border, and because one political party no longer believes that we should have immigration laws. One political party no longer believes

that there's anything wrong with illegal immigration. Really, I mean, they won't say this out loud, but there's plenty of data. I can point you to, plenty of evidence that this is in fact how they feel. Let me bring you up to speed on what is going on with Joaquin Castro. Now, well, Keene Castro is someone who and this just came out today,

he's running for president. He's not one of the top contenders, but he's a congressman from Texas I believe, who is running for president and has put out and is one of the first Democrats to put out what his plan is on immigration. And here's the very shortened version of

what could be a longer conversation and will be. But he wants to decriminalize illegal entry into the United States, all right, Julian Castro wants to make sure that if somebody comes into America illegally, they are no longer to be arrested and treated as No, it's a misdemeanor, it's a federal misdemeanor to enter, but it is still a crime. This would now be the equivalent, legally speaking of a

civil offense a parking ticket. At the moment when the country is in the grips of the biggest immigration, illegal immigration crisis, perhaps in its history, because remember, it's not just the people crossing now, it's they say, eleven more like twenty million illegals already in the country. And what that does to the political parties and to our our cultural and political and social fabric in this country and rule of law, and you know that's always looming in

the background. You already have an enormous population of legal aliens living in the country, enormous and now you have a huge surge that'll be a million more for the year if it continues at the current rate. And what do what do the Democrats do? Oh, that's right, they start to talk about how we should make it even easier, we should make the penalties even less, and right now

there's basically no penalty. It would be in the Dallas News was supporting on this today that that Castro's plan would be turning this into a civil, non criminal violation illegal entry. So it's like it'd be like a like a parking ticket situation. Now, and this is where I'm telling you I see it right now, this is where the Democratic Party is going. They're they're going to do

everything they can to further weaken immigration enforcement. They're going to try to eliminate any real hope of interior enforcement against illegal alien illegal aliens, and then illegal entry at the border will be deprioritized as any kind of law enforcement issue, and they're just going to say, let's just process people as fast as we can bring more of them into the country and completely leave law enforcement I

mean in the lurch. I mean, if all of a sudden, a legal entry is not really a crime, you have to ask the question, why does border patrol even exist? Then border patrol shouldn't be out there. You know, does border patrol's mission matter? If they're not policing crimes? What are they doing down there. Oh, they're just there to prevent drugs from flowing into the country. There's more than that,

isn't there. You know, we are being forced to address a fundamental question about the future of this country, which is should we have borders at all? The Democrats want to say no, but they're not ready to say no. They do not believe that we should be excluding people from the country. They do not think that there's anything

wrong with illegal entry into the United States. And they have gone so far left and so out of the mainstream on this issue that I can't see how twenty twenty turns into on immigration anything more than a fight over It's just going to be a fight over amnesty. They're going to offer amnesty to everybody who's here. That's

what they're gonna want to do. They're gonna call it a pathway to citizenship, but they know that they're a Lynsky I'd approach here of overwhelming The system is going to be true not just that our southern border, it's going to be true of the supposed pathway. The pathway

is going to be a conveyor belt. All you have to do is be on it and you'll get to the end, which means citizenship here to tell me that people that are in the country that you don't have English proficiency, proven to the government, that don't pay back taxes when most of them would actually get money from the government because they'll make enough money to pay taxes, so they're not gonna pay into the system. They're not gonna pay any fine, They're not all this is all nonsense.

We went through this before we Reagan signed an amnesty back in the eighties, and they were still here in cases twenty years later, or people who said that they were they should have been covered by the amnesty, or there was some aspect of it, and we were promised that it would be it would stop after that. You know, it was for a few million people the amnesty. I forgot three or four million. I think it would stop after that. Edn't think out words. It only got bigger.

Democrats want to want the incentives to come into this country, even even stronger than they had been in the past, even stronger than they have been before this. So we do not have partners in addressing the crisis. We have actually one side that wants to figure this out, the Republicans, And I'm not saying that they're particularly adept or skilled at it. But then on the other side, you've got people that just want to perpetuate exactly what's going on.

And that's why you're going to just see the continuation of all this dysfunction. We're going to see a real lack I think of well, there'll be a lack of honesty and the way the Democrats talk about this, but this is we're focusing on the issue. And the last week I was saying, we need more focus, we need more focus. Now here we are and you know, Trump's last car to play seems to be shutting down the border. Here's Sarah Howkaby Sanders saying just that play fourteen. The

President's not threatening. The President's taking his job as the commander in chief very seriously in terms of protecting the American people. Everyone wants to talk about the cost of doing that. That is certainly, again not something we want to happen. The President's the one that is responsible for the last two years of economic growth, economic boom, and the number of jobs that we have in this country.

We don't want to see that hurt. But at the same time, the president's number one responsibility is to protect American life. Democrats may not care about that. They may be perfectly fine watching women and children exploited as they make the treacherous journey up from the up from the South across the southern border. They may be perfectly fine seeing babies frankly killed right up until the moment of birth.

But this president isn't. He takes his job of protecting American life very seriously, and he's gonna do what it takes to make sure that happens right. Shutting down the border would at least be a demonstration of resolve from the president and focus on the issue. But I'm telling you, the pressure would be too great and he'd have to relent very quickly. It would not last long, and it wouldn't solve the problem. It just gets people to focus

on the problem. This is the biggest challenge the country, imminent challenge the country faces right now what to do about the southern border. Who is showing leadership on this other than President Trump? I can think of very few people, and that is really unsettling. We have more on this border issue, and a whole lot more coming up in the show. Team stay with Me, give us any money to fix it. They won't change the law to fix it.

So we're gonna do the best with what we have, and if that means pulling people off the ports of entry to put them out on the border where there's no wall, we will absolutely do that. There's a lot of good ways to help solve this problem. Congress could do it, but they're not going to. Mexico could help us do it. They need to do a little bit more. Honduras could do more, Nicaragua could do more. El Salvador

could do more. And if we're going to give these countries hundreds of millions of dollars, we would like them to do more. They're not going to do more, though, folks, I wish we're not the case. I'd like to tell you that things are looking good and there's going to be some real change on the horizon. That the the other partners that we should have here in Mexico, Honduras, Nicaragua or Salvador, Guatemala, the Democrat Party in our own country, that they would seek to in some way, in some

way that is meaningful, stem the flow of migrants. I mean this mass movement of people which is what we are in the mid stuff This is not a normal immigration issue. We are at the beginning of an immigration, an illegal alien tsunami in this country. That's what is happening. People have called it an invasion, that's all. It's not a military invasion. It's an illegal alien invasion. That is

what's going on here. And if you don't think that, I'm giving it to you Stradium though I was down in our passa last week, is you know, reporting on this issue and talking to Border Patrol about this. Here's the Border Patrol Council VP telling us just how serious it is. Plate twelve. They're definitely at a crisis and it's an emergency. You know, we welcome more agents coming

down here to the southern border and assisting. But in the end, you know, something needs to be done about the overflow of these individuals that are coming into the country. And if there's other countries that are facilitating this invasion, they obviously need to step up to the plate and start doing something about it. You notice what he says, an invasion facilitating an invasion. That is the Border Patrol Council Vice President who is just calling it like he

sees it and not mincing words. Now you get into this back and forth, and I've mentioned Julian Castro before here, you know, you know he Castro is saying that everything that the Trump administration is trying to do is a bad idea. I play thirteen. The idea that you would close the border or that you would cut off aid to these very countries where people are fleeing and coming to the United States is downright stupid. It's the wrong thing to do. If you close off the border, you're

just going to hurt jobs in the United States. Okay, but what does mister what does Representative Castro think we should do? Oh, we know what he thinks we should do, which is just not enforced immigration law anymore, no longer illegal. Let people just come into the country. It's a it's a parking ticket. It's no big deal. This guy's running for president, folks. Okay, this is not I'm not picking some in a random Internet troll and saying, so this

is what the left believes this guy is. If not a serious presidential contender, I think a lot of people of him as a very serious VP contender. I mean, he's young, and you know, the optics of Castro on the ticket to the Democrats look good. But while he's just trashing the Trump administration's desire to do something here, Border agent Raoul or Tez is just reminding everybody that this thing, this situation going on at the border is out of control. Play fifteen at double our capacity right now.

I don't have to have enough medics. I don't know, have enough border troll agents to ensure that these folks are getting processed within the forty eight hours that we should be processing them. We're going to keep people in custody longer, our agents are getting assaulted. Potentially could be a liability where even one of the individuals that are in custody could be assaulted in detension facilities that are overcrowded.

I don't know who else we have to hear it from that this is a crisis, that this is something that cannot be handled, that cannot be dealt with right now now. I just wonder who who it is that that the Democrats would believe, what authority could be point to here if that's not enough. J Johnson, Obama's DHS secretary, is like, oh no, no, this is definitely a crisis.

Place sixteen. As Kevin McLean and the Commissioner of CVP pointed out on Tuesday, there were four thousand apprehensions one day alone, four thousand run pace this month for one hundred thousand apprehensions. The highest we saw on my watch was May twenty fourteen, sixty five thousand. So this is a crisis. It's very diff only a crisis, yep, it is very definitely a crisis. Now, you will remember the media lied about this for the two months or so

leading up to our current discussion. It's not a crisis. It's not a crisis. Oh no, it is a crisis. The numbers don't lie, the people working the issue don't lie. And now that we're trying to trying to come up with some way of dealing with this, some way of stopping this invasion as it was called, this tsunami as I like to call him, in just this, this enormous tidal wave of illegal entry and illegal activity. What the Democrats do? They undermine and criticize Trumpet at every juncture.

They have no constructive solutions whatsoever. In fact, they're solutions. The things that they want to do and propose would only make it worse because the Democrats have shifted so far left on him ration I mean they are now a party that is a day facto open borders party. You know, the law can be whatever it is. I mean, you can tell me as much as you want that the law right now says, if you're an illegal alien in the United States and you are to be deported,

that is what the law states. Okay, but illegal aliens get invited to Democrats by Democrats for the State of the Union, address illegal aliens, march proudly in the streets and say, we demand rights, we demand this, we demand that they're not They're not being deported. It's not happening. So the law on that issue doesn't really matter. So while you could say, back, but look at all the infrastructure and all the stuff, when all the laws we have at the border right now, I say to you, yeah,

but they're not it's not working. People are getting into the country who are not supposed to be in the country, who are abusing the system. They're doing it in huge numbers. They know they're doing it. It's not working. We have a near open border situation, and you know, Trump is trying some pretty radical stuff here, don't I don't think that shutting down the boarder will work because there will be tremendous economic pressure. If he does that, there will

be people saying, my business is getting crushed. Now, dude, you can't do this, or mister President, not dude. But you know what I mean, Congress won't act. I'm sitting Are we going to just keep looking at this problem get worse and worse, the swell of the you know, the surge of people get larger and larger the southern border. I think the answer is probably yes. I think that what you end up having here is maybe some bipartisan bill come out of the Congress to just increase the resources.

But if you increase the resources, all you're doing is making people more comfortable and adding to the speed with which they will be under the current asylum law introduced in the United States, never to be seen again by the authorities. So you know, I wish I could. I mean, I know what the answers are. I just also know that the people in charge aren't going to do anything for that. They're not going to do anything to solve the situation, which is very disheartening. Let's talk about red

flag laws and Second Amendment sanctuaries. This has now come up because of what's happening in Colorado, but it does have ramifications for the Second Amendment and for folks across the country because of well the one. There's the gun rights aspect, but then there's just also what happens when nullification of law occurs in response to what is a

perceived unconstitutional overreach. What happens when people no longer have respect that the other side is acting on or has the expectation the other side is acting on good faith when it comes to the way that they're right laws and then trying to enforce laws. So you got a sheriff in Colorado who has said that he would rather

go to jail. It's got a lot of attention to rather go to jail than enforce a new gun controlled bill that has been passed by the legislature in the state of Colorado, which as we know, is a purple states. You get some very very democrats stuff gone to Denver, you know, very democrat, and yet there's also some red areas of Colorado too. And you have these red flag laws now a red flag law. I think they exist

in fifteen different states right now. Guess what, mostly blue Democrats states from what I understand, But you have these red flag laws where a law enforcement officer or an individual I believe, I think you have to be a you might have to be a family member. But there's individuals can go forward and say to a judge that someone is a threat, that their firearms, firearms that they have in their possession, or a threat, and they can be taken away. Now, this is on many levels, both

you know, reasonable and unreasonable, or reasonable and concerning. You know, it's reasonable because you'd say yourself, Hold on a second, I mean a temporary it's effectively a temporary restraining order, which I've talked about in the past, and I can see some wisdom to this as long as it's very clearly spelled out. But and and and is respectful of the rights of law biding gun owners. But it is either. Problem here is that what you really have is an

open door for abuse. I mean, the problem that you run into is that one this is going to be almost an entirely ineffective I mean, you know, this is you're hoping that the one person that you're trying to stop from doing something bad with a gun, that they're going to go to the court in time to stop him. And you know, they'll tell you all of this might stopt. Shootings are listening, very very unlikely. So from an effectiveness standpoint,

I think it's it's very it's dubious. But from a rights, from a Second Amendment standpoint, you are on just the order of a judge losing your Second Amendment rights without the ability to defend yourself. I don't mean defend yourself with the Second Amendment, I mean without the if they convince the judge in your absence that you are a danger, they can take Now, the laws are a little different state to state twos, and this Colorado one is what

I'm focused on right now. But they can take your guns away or your gun away, and I think we all know that, whether we're talking about a contentious personal relationship or you know, there's just any number of ways that this could be abused. And so I understand, I fundamentally understand why you would have someone who's a sheriff, for example in Colorado, just says, look, I'm not going to do this. I'm not going to take I'm not going to go into someone's home who has not been

accused of a crime. We gotta remember this is not about being a crime This is about somebody who's just a danger to themselves or others. This is an entirely mental health oriented diagnosis that people who don't have a background of that are going to be making decisions on. And it's essentially a PreCrime removal of or you know, I don't know if you call it pre crime, but you know it's a pre crime removal of a second Amendment right from somebody. Now it is temporary. You can

challenge it. You know there's a fourth what does it now? The comtat of version quote would allow family members or others. See it is open to others to petition a judge to remove people's guns that they're deemed an extreme risk to themselves or others. If the judge agrees, each person would lose the right to purchase or possess firearms for three hundred and sixty four days. They would be able to file a protest for request to order to have the order reversed. You know, this is what I mean.

You know, you're this is like what people say, Oh, if you're on the no fly list, you shouldn't be able to have a gun. Well, the no fly list is not an adjudicated list it's just a bureaucratic list. And this is a judge who would be able to say, you know what, you you are no longer able to own a gun because these people, and it's not clear necessarily who the people are in this instance, these people say you should not have one, that you are a

danger to yourself or to others. So if somebody's just really sad and you know, maybe having a little too much, a little too much of Grandpa's old cough medicine, little too much scotch late at night, you know, and they own a firearm, is someone going to be able to say, well, they shouldn't own that firearm. They could do something bad with it. I think that this opens up problems, and

I don't think it really solves many problems. I unlike a lot of other gun control measures, though, I at least, and this is kind of how I started off this discussion, I at least think that this one, by proponents of it, some proponents of it, at least is intended in good faith. This isn't a completely this isn't a worthless idea. This isn't in a band bump stocks which okay do nothing, but you know, bum stocks and I know some of you don't even like the band of the bump stocks,

and you've written I've gotten I've read your emails. I am very aware that you think the bump stock band because it's really banning a style of firing a weapon. It's like banning eating with your left hand with a fork instead of your right. I mean, you can't, you know, a bump stock is not really something that changes the internal mechanism at all of the rifle, as you know anyway. But then you also that so that's at the at the gun control level of this, there's some some nuance

and some different layers. Um. But then you get to, though, what happens when you start having sheriffs you say, I'm just not gonna I'm not going to comply with that. You get a sense of the gun the real gun grabbers in this country who want to just find a way. And we saw what happened from the anti gun left after the New Zealand massacre, the Mosque massacre that happened. The left is always looking for a way, always looking for an opening to try and eliminate, you know, guns

from private hands in this country. I mean, and yet it's such a far fetched idea logistically, never mind constitutionally and legally that it's it's hard to take it seriously other than we know they have the desire. But you all know this, and a lot of you are from parts of the country where this is much more true than certainly where I live in DC, were very, very

very few people owned guns. The federal government going door to door to take people's guns would be disastrous in a lot of ways, and in ways that I don't have to spell out to you, But in a local law enforcement sheriffs and local police departments deciding that they won't go along with this just goes to show you how meaning they won't go along in this case with this red flag law, that there's not a sense of good faith from the other side on this issue, and

that there's now the debate over guns has become so toxic and so politicized, people just would prefer to non law enforcement, would prefer to non comply in some in some instances, you know, and this is why when I talk about the erosion of legal standards that are rooted in principle and rooting in playing understanding of the law, you know, there there are ramifications to this stuff, you know,

the same way. And Democrats like to play this game a lot where they'll just, I mean, DACA is effectively executive branch nullification of immigration law. That's what it is. That's what President Obama did. And when you start to see one side do this just in order to keep pace with the overreach that you're seeing from your political opponents, it becomes then more likely that you, as a Republican, as a conservat you'll say, you know what, well, we're

just not going to enforce this law. It's like when I say, okay, we're not going to enforce immigration law, maybe we should enforce the income tax either, and see how long that works for us. Oh buck, you can't do that. You know, well, the same the same thinking that tells people that you can have deferred action for childhood arrivals, because Obama says so that that same thinking could be, well, we just think that the irs should prioritize, you know, only people who have stolen more than ten

million dollars from the government should be prosecuted. Everybody else you get a warning and a request for payment. Everybody else. That actually probably sounds like a pretty good system to me. You know the first time around, you okay, send us our money. Right. No one goes to prison the first time unless you've stolen, you know, more than a million or more than ten million from the government. And even then the prison sentence shouldn't be very long, because you

can tell. Is where I start to turn it a little bit of a radical anarchist because I hate paying taxes and it's about to be tax season here. It is tax season, Oh gosh day when everyone Americans should be forced to send a check to the government. Just for your purpose. We'll be right back. Say we're at Florida International University talking to students about their opinions of socialism and if they support a socialist GPA policy, would they be willing to share their high GPA with people

that have a low GPA? After all, it's all about equality. Which would you rather have in America? Socialism or capitalism? I would say socialism. How do you view the word socialism favorably or unfavorably? I guess I would go with favorably. I'd rather people have that. See opportunity. It's a lot

of excess in America. The main idea of socialism being that people at the top are doing their fair share to help people at the bottom, trying to prevent disparity of income and trying to prevent excess as you called it, and so on campus, if there's a GPA disparity where there's people to bottom with the poor GPA, would you support a policy or people at the top spread the wealth and give that GPA to people to bottom, give like, help them get a better GPA. I'm all for helping.

I wouldn't give like, oh, let me just give you so much point. But it's about being fair, right, we got to help people to bottom. I've fought a lot of sleep, so I don't know if I will be fair. It's hard. If I guess, it would be kind of like hypocritical for me to say no, yea that those are our friends from from campus Reform asking on a campus because it's campus reform. You know, do you do you support socialism? And a lot of kids say yes these days. I mean when I say kids, these are

young adults. These are people who, generally speaking on a campus can vote. And I just saw some polling data. It was from an old poll, but you know, something like forty of the people in this poll who are millennials, if memory serves, think that socialism is a better Socialism is better than capitalism. This is a theory that is growing.

I mean, it wasn't long ago that I think it would have been considered completely bizarre to hear anybody on a college campus walking around saying that socialism is better than capitalism for students, for professors a little different. There

are these Marxist professors walking around. But you know, we've gotten a bit far from the fall of the Soviet Union and the lesson that the world and unfortunately many, many hundreds of millions of people had to learn the hard way, the lesson of what comes from from socialism.

But I think it's interesting to watch how the Democrats have to grapple with whether they're just going to be honest about what they wanted for twenty twenty, whether where they're going to run as open democratic socialists because that's what the platform is. You know, Medicare for all and these other Green New Deal program and you know, you look at free college and this is this is all

what you would expect in a European welfare state. I'll note that the president did and I you heard a bit of the skepticism in my voice about this for the last week or so, when all of a sudden healthcare has come up, presidents now said that a healthcare repeal and replace or reform or whatever it is they're gonna do it is not going to happen till after the twenty twenty election. It's probably the right move because

they didn't seem like they were ready for this public debate. Again, they didn't seem like they're ready for this fight, and that's why they're backing off it, which which is smart. I think let's focus on the economy, focus on immigration, on problems where the Democrats don't really have a leg to stand on, so to speak. Trump, they got rid of the Congress, got rid of the individual mandate penalty.

I mean, there have been some things done. They have worked to try and lower the price of prescription drugs, very very important problem to tackle, and yet they don't really seem to understand that if all people here about a healthcare reform is that you can stand your parents' insurance until you're twenty six, and that people with prexisting

conditions will be covered. Oh and a lot of people that have insurance now would lose it under their plan, even though most of them would go back to having other plans, and you know, the ones that have any kind of a private plan and the ones that are on Medicaid expansion. I mean, Medicaid is a very ineffective healthcare program and a very expensive one in addition to that. So there should be better ways, and states experimenting to cover people who would need Medicaid would be a better move,

giving states greater control. But this is they're not The Republicans were not ready for this one, and I could sense it, and I think that they're making the right move by at least for now, shelving this debate. Because if you're going to come out, don't let the Democrats replay, you know, twenty twelve. Don't let the Democrats come out with the same talking points and win on this one. And let's focus on socialism. I mean, let's really have

that debate. Let's really have a discussion about whether this country should increasingly brace the idea that there is a basic need that the government has to fulfill to take from some to give to others because it's the right thing to do according to the people doing the taking, that the government should be and if we're going to have a more classical definition of socialism, the government is

in control of the means of production. We're a ways away from that, but we're increasingly in a place where the government certainly is in control of the distribution of what is produced, or the government has greater control over that than it has in the past. And I do want twenty twenty to be something of a referendum on socialism. I want to be because then it's also referendum on statism and on big government and on unconstitutional overreach by

federal authority. You know, that's that all gets tied into this debate over socialism. Let's make it, you know, a contest between MAGA and the Sanders AOC vision of the future. That's what I'm hoping happens. So we'll continue to focus on that big hour two coming up. My friend Andy McCarthy from National Review is going to join us to tell us what happens now. Mullaprobe is over. But there's this fight over the full report. Oh, they have to see the full report. What will that mean? Will the

grand jury information get released? Will there'll be fights over this? How does executive privilege way in on what information we can see, and that's you know, And also I just want to want to ask him about whether the president should really be concerned about any possible legal jeopardy going forward. I mean, is that something that we really also need to be aware of. You know, could could Trump find himself indicted by someone by some other federal authority or

maybe some state authority. Even Andy, who was at the Southern District of New York for decades, can tell us all about that. And we have oh so much more to team coming your way, So we'll be back in just a moment. You know, when you put on a pair of jeans you haven't worn a long time, you find a twenty in the back pocket, you go, oh, it's my day. Well, think about the money that you currently have sitting around doing nothing in that four oh one K account from you know, the job before last

one that you're not really paying attention to. That money is just sitting there gathering financial dust. It could be working a lot harder for you in a precious metals IRA. My friends at Noble Goold can see if you qualified, they'll do all the hard work for you on this, and this could make you a lot and cost you nothing.

Give noble Goold to call at eight seven seven six four six five three four seven, or this is really easy, Just text my name buc K. That's text Buck to five eleven, five eleven and received their free investors Guide plus for all qualified iras about twenty thousand dollars. They'll include a complimentary rare graded Morgan silver dollar valued at one hundred and fifty dollars. Just go to Noblegold Investments dot com or text buck to five eleven five eleven.

Individual results may vary invest wise, standard text rates may apply. There's no reason why the Attorney General can't seek permission to disclose all the grand jury material, which could be a sizable portion of that report that has been the president in Watergate. And at the end of the day, Abe, we're not going to allow this Attorney general him by the President, to oppose the obstruction case to bury Mueller's report and finding. So we're going to insist that it

comes out there. You have Adam Schiff, who has learned nothing apparently the last two years, isn't isn't budging much at all from his collusion delusions. Well, now it's I guess the obstruction construction. But we got somebody who can tell us what's coming next in all this and what our expectations should be. And the fun part is he's been right all along, unlike Schiff, who's been wrong all along. We've got Andy McCartney with us now of National Review,

also a Fox News contributor. Andy, great to have you back. What do you mean to be with you? Thanks so much? Man? What do you make of shift here? Trying to say that, you know, the first of all, the handpicked I mean the little kind of you know, the little kidney punches he's throwing. No one's looking at the handpicked ag Well, every president hand picks it. I mean, like, well, what

does that even mean? But saying that that he's not going to him interfere in the obstruction case, is he really trying to say that they may try to bring a political obstruction case against the president or does he still think there's some prayer of a of a criminal proceeding. Well, I think they've always thought, Buck that they could bring political charges of some kind. After all, impeachment, which has hovered over this thing from the beginning. I think it's

less likely now, although it's not off the table. It's less likely now that we know that Muller has not, you know, come out with any smoking gun, and it looks like most of his report exonerates the president, at least at least on legal issues. You know, political issues are a different story. But you know, Congress doesn't need a penal offense, you know, an actual felony like I used to prosecute in federal court in order to impeach a president back in I think it was nineteen seventy

or seventy one. Ironically, Jerry Ford, who was then the minority leader in Congress, trying to impeach Justice William O. Douglas. I think at the time it's ironic because Ford ends up becoming president because of an impeachment effort against Nixon, who resigns rather than be impeached. But Ford, back in nineteen seventy or seventy one said that an impeachable offense is anything at the House of Representatives decides that it is at a certain point in history. So yes, they can,

you know, they can do this politically. But as the I think the smarter Democrats have said, or at least you know, grudgingly conceded um. You know, unless you have a consensus. Unless you have such egregious misconduct that cuts across the you know, the the outrage over it cuts across partisan and ideological lines, You're not going to have an impeachable offense. So you might as well forget about. So where does this go though? In terms of the the you know, the grand jury information that may be

contained in the Muller Report. I mean, you know there's now where are we in finding out? You know, what's in it? How much do we get to see? And what do you think the play is going to be for Democrats? I mean, I know they're going to find something in there to say, see, this proves something, But what do you see happening? Well, I think the grand jury issue is largely an empty bag that they're fighting over.

Buck In this sense, you know, there's no doubt that Barr in his letter talks about the need to scrub grand jury information from the report because of legal requirements. There's there's a requirement by federal law of grand jury secrecy. Not to get too deep in the weeds on this. But when I was a prosecutor, especially where I practice,

the law is different from from jurisdiction to jurisdiction. But in the Second Circuit it was pretty common to if you needed to get a disclosure of grand jury information, you just go to a judge and get a disclosure order. But the interesting thing, if you read Rules sixty, which controls all this federal rules of criminal procedure, there's nothing in Rules sixty that expressly makes dissemination to Congress a

rationale for for unsealing grand jury information. And the reason that matters is there's a big appellate case in the DC Circuit right now, which is where, of course, all this action is taking place in Washington right The case of the DC Circuit, which is called McKeever versus Sessions, concerns whether a judge has authority outside the strict provisions of Rule six C, just like a generalized authority to

unseal grand jury minutes. And what the Justice Department has argued in that case is that the judge is stuck with the rationales that are laid out in Rule six C. You can't just like make up, you know, I think it would be fair to disseminate this to Congress, so therefore I can disseminate it to Congress. So that precise issue is in front of the court now, and the

Justice Department has taken a position on it. So it would be impossible for Bar, with the Justice Department having argued in the DC Circuit that a judge doesn't have authority outside the rule, to suddenly say that a judge does. I think the reason I say all this may be an empty bag. But as I understand it, most of the important witnesses that the Democrats would care about cooperated with Muller's investigation without the need of going into the

grand jury. He didn't need to subpoena them. They sat for interviews. Those interviews and whatever Muller made of them are not grand jury material. They're not covered by grand

jury secrecy. So in the end, the grand jury, I think, may turn out to be less of an issue than executive privilege, which becomes an important issue because it's one thing for White House officials to speak to a federal prosecutor, which is what Bar, but which is what Muller was because that's within the executive brand and it doesn't wave privilege. It's quite another thing to disclose it to Congress in

the public, which would require a waiver of privilege. So I think while we're having all this hullabaloo about the grand jury, now when against it gets down to brass tax executive privilege. Yeah, it's the executive privilege argument of it. Yeah, that that makes that makes sense to me. Andy, Um you know, I also just wanted to get your senses to how how do you how do you assess now that it's it's done, Muller's actions here? You know, you know what what do you think was fair? What was unfair?

You know, now that we can actually look back on a on a game that has been played and you know the whistle has been blown, what do you think about how the way Muller conducted this whole thing? Well, I mostly um am not very favorable toward it. I will say one thing. I think the silver lining of Muller's appointment is that it rested control of a counter intelligence investigation from the FBI two Muller and I think

Buck that turns out to be very interesting. As we've talked about a number of times, counterintelligence investigations in the Justice Department don't get a prosecutor because it's not prosecutor work. You're not trying to build a criminal case. So it was unusual to take it away from the bureau which runs counter intelligence and give it to a federal prosecutor. And I think a lot of that was to allow him to conduct a criminal investigation under the guise of

counter intelligence. But on the other hand, what I thought, Buck, is a very interesting fact that hasn't gotten a lot of attention is that the last carter page FISA warrant was issued in June round mid to late June of twenty seventeen, probably a couple of weeks, maybe a month after Muller was appointed, while he was still kind of getting his bearings, and they did go back to court

in June and get another one. The interesting thing, Buck, is that's a ninety day warrant, which means it would have been due to be reauthorized in September of twenty seventeen, by which point Mueller would have been really up and running. He'd have been running the investigation for four months. He'd he'd have been on top of everything. In September, they don't go back to reauthorize the warrant, and by then everybody who's been involved in the warrant is gone. Comey

has been removed, McCabe's been sidelined. Baker's gone, Strack and Page or gone. Everybody who was the the key group of agents and the key group of Justice Department officials who were behind using the card, using the Steel dossier to get surveyed allance warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court, they're all gone. And Muller, when it's his call to make,

decides we're not going to do that. And I believe that that's why we can conclude that's a big reason why we conclude that there was probably by the end of twenty seventeen, probably by the by the mid autumn of twenty seventeen, I think they knew there was no

collusion case. And do you think that is there any doubt in your mind that the dossier, based on what we've been told, on what's been out there so far, that the dossier was a substantial and the kind of the the sine qua non of getting the FISA applications or getting the FISA warrants buck without you and me having to speculate about this, because you know, we haven't

seen the unredacted warrants. Senator Grant Grassley and Senator Graham, who have seen them, say that with out the dossier, there's no way they had enough to seek a warrant. And Andy McCabe and his testimony when he was deputy director of the FBI and his testimony in Congress has

conceded as much. So I think we can safely say, especially now that Mueller's gotten to the end of the rainbow and told us emphatically that there was no criminal collusion, I think we can safely say that if they didn't have you know, if they had other information, we'd have heard about it. Is the president out of any realistic possibility of criminal jeopardy here any not just in them, I mean just in general. From Mueller's investigation. Yes, you know,

we don't. The Southern District of New York investigation is continuing, so and that's on a different it's in a different place and on a different rhythm, being run by different people and looking at different stuff than Mueller looked at.

But I think, you know, the major, the major alleged misconduct, even though it's hard for me to say allege because it it looks like it was on the basis of virtually nothing, but the major allegation of misconduct against Trump was an espionage conspiracy with Russia, and I think he's past that hurdle. And then, of course there was the obstruction,

which I never thought was much of anything. But you know, I think you asked me before where I think of the way Muller handled this, I think it's really does not speak well of him that he abdicated on the one question that there really that he was arguably needed to answer. I mean, I think there was no collusion case, and he probably knew that very early on, and this basically came to him buck as a as an obstruction investigation.

He was retained or he was appointed right on the heels of Komi's firing, and right after McCabe opened an obstruction case against the president at the FBI, and he spent twenty two months that as Muller did, looking at obstruction, and in the end he said, well, you know, look, I'll give you the facts on both sides of the question, and then, you know, do you agree with Professor Dershowitz and others who say that not only was that weird, but it's really unethical and unfair that the that Muller

needed to make a call one or the other and not do this. Well, I could have, but I didn't. Yeah, I don't know. I don't know that I would say it was unethical, But I do think it does have ethical implications, and that is this book there. You're not supposed to have a special counsel unless there's two things.

There's got to be concrete grounds for criminal investigation, which means a crime to investigate, and secondly, a conflict of interest that is so profound the Justice Department can't, within the ethical rules, run the case itself. So what do we see Mueller doing here? Muller comes because there's supposedly a conflict for justice, yet he recruits his staff from

the upper rechelance of the supposedly conflicted Justice Department. When he returns indictments or files indictments, he transfers a boast of a bunch of them to the component parts of the supposedly conflicted Justice Department. And in the end, the only decision that he had to make, he basically delegated it to the Attorney General, who runs the supposedly conflicted

Justice Department. So you have to ask, why did we need a special counsel If the Justice Department was capable of doing all this, what did we need a special counsel for very good question. Annie McCarthy. Everybody, you should follow his work on a National review. And and you've got a podcast over there, right I do. It's called the McCarthy Report, so it should be easy enough to remember, all right, McCarthy report. Remember me there we go and

look for any on Fox News, everybody. Andy, thanks so much for your time, my friend. We'll talk to you soon. See, we'll be back in just a moment. Mac. In February, Leadership Institute field organizer Hayden Williams was peacefully helping conservative students recruit for their group at UC Berkeley when he was viciously attacked by a radical leftist thug. Since then, President Trump has taken action, signing an executive order to

protect students free speech, including conservatives. My friends, but more action is needed. You can take that action now. Support the Leadership Institute and defend conservative students. Just go to take back the Campus dot org. The Leadership Institute is the premier organization for educating and training conservative college students. With your gift of as little as five dollars a month, you can help conservative college students stand up to the

intimidation and physical attacks of radical leftist campus bullies. The left's effort to silence conservative voices on college campuses in America has been going on for too long, So please visit take back the Campus dot org to make your urgent gift to the leadership Institute today. That's take back the Campus or take back the campus dot org. Nothing you give them, whether a Shifty SHIFT or Jerry Nadler. It's a four hundred page report, right. We could give

them eight hundred pages and it wouldn't be enough. They spent over thirty million dollars on an investigation. They found no collusion, which by the way, was the most ridiculous premise I've ever heard of anyway, and you understand exactly what I mean, no collusion. There was no collusion. There never was. After thirty million dollars, we're going to start this process again because Jerry Magner wants to start it,

or because SHIFT wants to start it. I'll rely on the Attorney General to make decisions, but I will tell you anything that's given to them will never be good enough. So I think it's somewhat of a waste that time. This is just politics at a very low level and President's absolutely right, and we know he's right. Denial ain't

just a river in Egypt, my friends. Democrats are pretending like they have not watched, at least many of them are pretending like they have not watched the complete deflation and eradication of their favorite conspiracy theory, the one that says that President Trump somehow, for some reason, and without it being you know, able to without being able to prove any evidence of, but he colluded with the Russians to cheat in the election. And this is why I

don't know. We just talked to Andy about this, but you can already hear Democrats saying, oh, well, now now we're gonna try to get him on obstruction. What they what they really need to figure out? And I think that they haven't made up their minds on this because it's a purely political calculation. It's not based in law, it's not based in what's ethical or right. It's just what will help the Democrats take back power in twenty twenty.

Are they going to impeach him? Can they find some justification? They know it's not going to be collusion, but now maybe there's some way that they can get him on obstruct I mean the fact that the Southern District of New York still has ongoing investigations and there's all these investigations of the president. Can you imagine if there were ongoing federal investigations of Obama that were just fishing expeditions,

just just looking for something. You get a bunch of Ausa's assistant, US attorneys and FBI agents just going through all the you know, all of Obama's You need to go back to what was that that guy Tony Rezko and go back to domestic terrorists, Bill Ayres, and you know, you look, look at all these figures from Obama's past. Imagine the FBI just started investigating all that, you know, all these different people, at all the different connections. The

media would have completely lost their minds. And at least some of that stuff sounds like it could have happened or did happen, Whether there was criminal activity or not, you'd have to figure it out. But what we have here is just the endless investigation of endless investigations. I mean,

they're not going to stop there. They're never going to stop because they can not accept that they were wrong and they cannot accept that they lost He walked up to me and wrapped his hands around my face like that and pulled me in and started rubbing noses with me. And it wasn't, you know, like an eskimo kiss or and then stop. It was for like a good fifteen seconds, and I remember thinking, is he going to kiss me? It's not rape, but it doesn't need to be rape

to not be right. That's Amy Lapos, second accuser of inappropriate conduct. Let's be very clear, not sexual assault or but inappropriate conduct. And as she said, it's not it's not rape, but that doesn't mean that it's okay. Even weirder the conduct in this instance, allegedly even weirder then what was initially said. It wasn't like a quick eskimo kiss. It kept going as apparently where he rubbed noses briefly, you know, he kept rubbing his nose against her nose.

I'm sorry. It's super weird, folks, I know you know that. But you know, they can try to contort reality as much as they want. They can do all this different stuff. They do everything in their power to make it seem like this isn't a super creepy weirdo thing to do. It is a super creepy, weirdo thing to do. I don't care how much they you know, they try to explain this away. There's something very very strange about Joe

Biden's behavior. I mean, you've got Jillibrand and Pelosi Wang and now Pelosi said earlier today that it's not disqualifying. But Democrats, you see, they want to give Biden to pass. But they can't say that. So what they'll say is there shouldn't be consequences, but there should be a conversation. Republicans get consequences, Democrats get a conversation. Let's talk about this. Republicans should lose their jobs, never never be in public

life again, be you know, right. And in some cases, as we know, like with Kavanaugh, based on lies, based on lies, Democrats based on truth. No, no, no consequences. Let's just have a conversation. Here's what Jillibrand and Pelosi said played nineteen. These women feel to means and that's not okay. So if Vice President Biden does choose to run for president of the United States, I imagine this is a conversation he will be having to have with the American people. I know, Jimli Biden a long time,

My grandchildren loved Joe Biden. I mean, he's an affectionate person to children, to senior citizens, to everyone. That's just the way he is. He has to understand in the world that we're in now that people's face is important to them, and what's important is how they receive it, not necessarily how you've intended it. He's an affectionate person. Have you seen all the all the photos and all the video and everything that's out there of how Biden acts.

Do you think that if Biden had an R next to his name, if he were a member of the g O P, would these women in the Democratic parties, prominent women Nancy Pelosi, third in line for the presidency, folks that'll help you sleep at night. These women coming out to defend Biden would not do it if this were a Republican So this is not about principle, This is about power. But Biden's stuff is really weird. I understand it's not a huge it's not a huge deal, and I'm not trying to make it a huge deal.

It's really more than anything else. Another instance where we see how dishonest the media is and how the double standards are absolutely everywhere. I think that Biden's gonna flame

out very quickly once he gets in. There'll be this recognition that this guy that they're so desperate for a return to It seemed like the political inevitability of obama Ism to the left, and yes, Obama did win two elections and was in office for eight years, that they think that Biden can be a kind of restorative figure back to that glorious time for the Democrat Party. Although you know, when Obama was an Democrat party was decimated

as a party. It lost a tremendous amount of seats and state legislatures, a lot of House and Senate seats, laws. I mean, there was a lot that did not go well if the Democrats. Well, Obama was an office. Obama was not somebody who's political popularity translated to other members of his party. That just didn't happen. In fact, I think that the party had to bear a lot of consequences because of who Obama, because of Obama's policies. But there is an obvious double standard here and we're going

to see that continue with Biden. Some of the old statements that he made that people in the media I had to say we're funny or lighthearted when they when you see them again, now you'll say, hold on the same media that will dredge up audio tape if somebody from ten years ago or that will completely lose their minds over a photo or something that someone did thirty years ago. In terms of inappropriate I'm not talking about crimes,

but you know, inappropriate conduct or insensitive conduct. They're gonna try to make it sound like, oh, uncle Joe Biden, he's not creepy, he's just oh he is, he's he's he's a creepster, saying that he's really affectionate. These women didn't think it was normal. These women didn't think that. You know, I can tell you this. I have never tried to eskimo kiss a fellow employee, male or female. Never gone for the eskimo kiss um, no matter what kind of mood I was in, no matter how it

was feeling, never leading anything. We just just reb noses for seconds, a little nose reb Nope, that did not happen. Oh, but speaking of double standards, there's a second accuser against Justin Fairfax, Lieutenant Governor of Virginia, And there was a story today in the New York Times. You can't make this up about how that just that that whole political scandal in Virginia, Well it just went, you know, poof, it just disappeared. Oh this is so surprising. Guys, How

did these scandals in Virginia? You know, I love the media. I mean the media is like the guy who lights the house on fire and then whatever arrives goes. Isn't it the craziest thing? This house is on fire. I don't know how this happened. You know, they're like the arsonist and firefighter at the same time. Hey, hey, let's get some buckets of water to throw out to put out this fire. I just started. Yeah, the media covered up the whole Fairfax I should well. They covered it

up initially by not reporting on it. Now they're letting it whither away and they're just gonna move on from it. But Meredith Watson, who's the second accuser for Fairfax, she's saying she wished she came out sooner. And you know, this is still a story play twenty. I feel guilty. Why do you feel guilty? It happened to her after it happened to me, and had I had the strength? Are the courage to say something in two thousand, maybe it never would have happened to her. It was a

huge betrayal. He was my friend. I don't understand how need do that to somebody that you've been a friend too, and who's confided in you about things. I just don't understand how you need do that. Does anyone think that that doesn't sound like a credible retelling of events and that woman is sharing anything other than real pain and real,

real angst resulting from an alt against her. I mean, I don't think a woman can sound I mean, compare that that story that she's telling, the way she's telling it, how she sounds she's telling it to say Julie Sweatnik, the third accuser of Kavanaugh, who Democrats were willing to initially believe, just because I find Meredith Watson entirely credible, unbelievable. There's nothing about her story that does not add up.

Where are the me to mobs? Where where are the people that you know storm Capitol Hill that get all angry at Republicans that you know did everything to stop Kavanaugh? And I don't know, I don't I don't see them. All of a sudden, there they've just disappeared. They're almost like the anti war left that just evaporated under the Obama administration. When Obama increased the troops in Afghanistan, who over one hundred thousand? Where were all the Code Pink protesters? Then?

Where were all the anti war leftists? Oh, it's just more important things, apparently than stopping the massive escalation of a war that, by the way, resulted in more US casualties. The Obama administration racked up more US casualties in Afghanistan than the eight years of Bush or so far the two years of Trump put together. So not a lot of interest there obviously from the left, and same thing here.

It's just all all about the jockeying and jostling for power for the leftist that there's not they I have a hard time taking them seriously on these matters because they pretend to be advocates for a certain principle, but really they are just pushing to be in greater control and they want to just trash the other side. That's the primary motivation that they have for so much of this.

Meredith Watson sounds like a woman in a lot of pain with a lot of who you know, who needs and deserves a lot of sympathy for what happened to her. And yes, you could say Buck, that was in an interview. The media's obviously talking to or okay, but it's how they talk to her, how often they talk to her. Is this a front page news story or is this on the back pages? Is this something to talk about once in a while, or is this something that they make a repeat story so that the heat gets turned

up on Fairfax to resign. You know the answers to this. They don't want Fairfax to resign for the optics and for the fact that you'd have a major Democrat that would be going down in the state of Virginia, a very important state in the twenty twenty election. So that's what's happening here. The stories just went poof about Northam, about Fairfax, about herring oh on the media is like, how did that happen? We all know how it happened. There's a lot of things I know about Joe Biden.

I'm don him for a long time. He is extremely affectionate. He's very affectionate, I find oddly affectionate. He gives people on the mouth. I've seen him rub the shoulders of women and men. Joe Biden calls them expressions of affect Uncle Joe, as we affectionally call him, very very affectionate. He's touchy feely. He's been doing it his entire life in an affectionate way. He suffers from being overtly affectionate.

To say that, you know, Biden should change the way he is, or that he needs to be less affectionate, I think is a problem. I think the next time I see Joe Biden, if he doesn't hug me and give me a kiss and hold my hand, that's not the Joe Biden. I knew he's a nice guy. He's not a predator. And this is ridiculous. Let me just say it. This is ridiculous. I just want to know what's ridiculous. I mean, you know, Mika there is in

high dudgeon. It is ridiculous, sir, you know. I mean it's like she was at the spa and they didn't have the proper organic lemon peel slices to put in her deionized water. I mean, she's very upset, But I just want to know what's ridiculous is there's no let's be clear about this There's no allegation out there about Biden doing any of this stuff that anyone really disputes. It's just a question of how creepy and how big

a deal it is. It's definitely creepy, So on the one to ten creepiness scale, you know, where does it fall and how much should people care about it? Those are all fine things, But to be so outraged about it, I mean, they accuse Republicans of stuff that didn't even happen, and we're supposed to take action against them, right, they accuse Republicans, they lie about Republicans like Havanaugh to take them down, and you know, they seem to think that we are just going to like let this go. That

Biden is a weird he's a weirdo. Nuzzling somebody's nose, you don't know, in a professional environment or in a professional setting where you have power, where you are in control, is weird? Okay. No one's saying that Biden should go to prison or is a terrible person or anything that We're just saying that guy's a weirdo, all right, the same you know, does it matter that Elizabeth Warren is not actually Cherokee and that she lied up being a

Cherokee to advance herself professionally for many, many years. I mean, it doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things in life, but does it should it matter in terms of her judgment to the American people that she thought, Oh, I'm gonna say I'm one, one thou and twenty fourth Cherokee, So that proves me right? Is that weird? Yeah, that's

very weird. Okay, that's also very very weird. And you know, satire and mockery or things that these that these democrats, they can't handle it because the so much of the of the pitch for them is the construct around whatever the media is telling people. But if people are snickering behind your back because they know that you're actually kind of a strange a strange bird, you know, a strange duck is a strange duck stranger than a strange bird, I don't know, quack quack. That's very hard then to

keep the mythology around people going. But speaking of being a bit strange, a little transition here into the latest from to O Rourke, who is really a combination of the guy from What's the What's the movie? Oh yeah, it is really a combination of Napoleon Dynamite and Keanu Reeves the nineties. Yeah, like, I just totally I just want to run for president and have you put all of your hopes and dreams like in this basket that

I'm going to carry around. Does anyone else care? Again, not a big deal, but a little weird that Beto only seems to wear a blue button down shirts. Is it the same shirt? Does he just have a closet full of you'll see this. I've never seen him not wearing a blue button down shirt with rolled up sleeves. Is this the Beto uniform? Um? Not a big deal. Not going to solve world piece, not gonna cure cancer, whether Beto changes a shirt or not. But it's a

little weird. You know what. Else, it's weird that he thinks that, you know what, people really want more town halls with oh Man, with elected or with appointed officials, not even like the officials play clip nine. That's why as president, I'll sign an executive order on the first day in office requiring every single cabinet secretary to hold a town hall meeting like this every single month, to listen to you and to be accountable to you. So that we deliver for you. Democracy is what we need

if this country is gonna make it. I mean that just sounds so horrible. Yeah, every month, every you're gonna have to like have the department like that. The Secretary of Health and Human Services is gonna have to sit on a bunch of like random people who don't know anything about the issue per se, are gonna ask questions, are gonna televise it. It's a great idea of betto Ah. You're an amazing You're an amazing fella, mister betto He also just says other things that are that are demonstrably

bizarre and untrue. Play play eight D. These kinds of challenges in the lifetimes of anyone in this auditorium, regardless

of how young or how old you are. This economy, this this unprecedented concentration of wealth and power and privilege we haven't seen since the last true progressive era, that center of clobature referred to that produced Teddy Roosevelt in some extraordinary progressive reforms healthcare system where people are dying of diabetes and the flu and curable cancers in the year two nineteen, in the wealthiest of the most powerful copy second, does Beto not realize that people die from

the flu because they die from the flu because it's a virus that we have no cure for or vaccine that is proven effective against. To see, people still die from the flu. Yes, yes, many tens of thousands of people do because it's the flu. That's not you who needs facts. Betto has his blue shirt and he has a vision for America. Our three coming up. Global Verification Network is the only dual certified and veteran owned background

investigation and vetting company. Now, background checks are critical for your business, and you may already have some company, some vendor that does them for you. I want you to give my friends at Global Verification Network a call. They not only are veteran owned and operated, so you can support veteran business by using them. They also don't outsource

their data or any of the work. It's all done here in the States, so they are separating themselves from the competition, and they are the people that you should be calling to do your background checks. They're headquartered in Chicago, but they have offices throughout the nation and all employees are located here in the United States. So give them a call and tell them that you're part of team buck all right eight seven seven six nine five one one seven nine. That's eight seven and seven six nine

five one one seven nine. Or go to my GVN dot com Global Verification Network leave no stone unturned. That's what I hear these things. Let's make America great again. I think to myself, well, exactly when did you think America was great? It certainly wasn't when people were in slave It certainly wasn't when women didn't have the right to vote. It certainly wasn't when the LGBT community and was denied the rights to which it was in times.

That phrase echo as discrimination in your ears. It takes us back to I think an American past and never in fact really existed in this notion of greatness. Let's unpack former Obama administration Attorney General Eric Holder there from him, and let's let's do this. Shall we unpack what he says? He rejects this notion of in America that was ever great. How else can you explain? He says, Well, we had

slaves before me could vote. I mean that takes you all the way up into the into the twentieth century. The LGBT community didn't have rights, So that takes you up into the Obama administration. So if America wasn't great all the way up until the Obama administration, then America, according to Derek Holder, has never been great unless the only time it has been great is the Trump presidency, which you and I might think is kind of funny.

I mean, I think it was great before then too, but I'm sure Eric Holder does not take that position. But this for me is a reminder of a common place, a commonplace way that democrats think of this country. You know, there are a lot of people who take pride in being American, but leftists generally take pride in thinking they're better than America. That's where that's where they get a

sense of self worth. You know. This is why you know Obama's message was very much a promise of a fundamental transformation, that he was a near Messianic figure who would wipe away this ms of the American past and bring us into some new promise language. As we know. I mean, this is all just this was all just crap,

wasn't It wasn't true, It wasn't the case. But there there is a blame America first, and blame America as quickly as you can, attitude that is prevalent on the left and Eric Holder, whom I've heard people say, I don't know if this is to be taken seriously or not, but I've heard people say that Eric Holders considering running for president too, and the Democrats are soon going to get to the the you know, the the dance hall doesn't have room for any more people part of this equation.

I mean, you know, I really don't think you can have a primary with thirty candidates in it, but this seems to be where we're heading. Holder, though, understood his role in the Obama administration, which was very much to protect President Obama and to protect the Democratic Party. I mean, he was a political infighter. You look at what Holder did in his approach to his job, not just fast and furious and some of the other debacles that now are all swept under the rug and people pretend like

they never happened. But you look at what someone like Jeff Sessions or even Attorney General Barr, how he is supposed to approach the role. He's expected to be not just neutral, but a kind of paragon of non partisan perfection in the role. Meanwhile, when Holder was in the job. They all knew that he was, as Holder said, Obama's wingman.

That was the claim that he was Obama's right hand guy, and he was, I mean, to Holder's credit or infamy, depending on how you want to view it, he was in fact right hand man to President Obama all along. But Holder also holds views that are very commonplace among Democrats, and he's somebody who has said I believe it was it was Holder who said that America is a nation of cowards because we never talk about race. Reality is that we talk about race in this country all the time.

The reality is that we talk about race and have to be very, very very cautious because there are only certain ways you are allowed to talk about race. You know, it is now expected that, at least among Democrats and the left and the media and the academy, that white privilege, which I think is one of these stupidest and most offensive phrases in common usage these days, that white privilege is just taken as a thing. You know, I'm still

waiting for my white privilege check. I'm waiting for someone to say, oh, I'm going to hire you because you've your white privilege over the other fifty white guys who kind of look like you, kind of sound like you, and want the same job. Where's the white privilege? I just I need someone to explain to me how there's how this is even worthy of being set out loud,

that people have something called white privilege. I deny that there is such a thing, and I would also deny that it is in any way a useful thing to talk about, not only because it does not exist. But even if you theoretically believe that there is such a thing as white white privilege, how do you quantify it, how do you offset it? What are you supposed to

do about it as a white person? There are no answers here, But you know, holder knows that it's just it's among Democrats the cheapest and easiest applause line to speak of in these these sweeping terms about our racist past and how how bad we have been as a country.

That's why I says, you know, America was really never great, which this is mainstream thinking among many Democrats, that America has sinned around the world and at home, and that Republicans are a bunch of jingoistic maniacs who just want to wave their American flags while they drink bud light and you know, go race their four by fours out in the yard, and you know all that, you know something, You're like, Buck, that sounds great, I know, but that's

a caricature. We all recognize that as a caricature, but holder things that we are not aware enough of the racism of our past. I think that many Democrats agree with them play five that judges, like everybody, all other Americans carry with them implicit biases, and especially in the criminal justice spheres. How do you fix it? Well, you certainly have to have training. You have to make people aware of the fact that they do carry these biases

and make them understand that. You know, if you see an African American defendant in front of you, that's going to probably trigger things in your mind unconsciously, subconsciously, and you're perhaps going to treat that person differently than somebody who shows up in a tie and has you know, a great lawyer that they have paid for. You're going to maybe cut that person a break that you wouldn't

otherwise give to a Hispanic or African American defendant. People have to be just aware of that, and then that training has to continue So here's a fun fact. There's no evidence whatsoever that anyone can point to that implicit

bias training has any impact on implicit bias. I mean, this is a kind of social science voodoo that there is no they people talk about this, Oh we need implicit bias training if somebody has an implicit or subconscious bias, I assure you having an hour of classroom time telling you not to be subconsciously biased will do nothing. So start with that. I mean, this is just this is meaningless.

This is meaningless pablum from holder on this issue. And remember this guy who's Attorney General, folks, the senior most law enforcement official in the United States government for years and is still a Democrat and very high, very high standing. But another question I have if we're going to talk about implicit bias and racist baggage and racism in this country.

I just pose this as a question and won't follow up with an answer, but it would be it's interesting if you try to get the left to weigh in on is it possible to have implicit bias against white people? Think about that one a little more. Let that one just bounce around for a moment. Is it possible for people to have an implicit We're being told all the time that there's white privilege. So there are people who are white who are getting all kinds of benefits and

advancing themselves because of their whiteness. Meanwhile, I don't think whiteness is in short supply. I don't know anybody who's benefiting professionally or otherwise merely from the fact of being white. But is it possible for them to be implicit bias from people of any non white background against white people. You will hear most people on the left say the answer is no, which is a fascinating discussion in and

of itself. That essentially, anti white racism is not possible because they view race entirely as through the lens of being a social construct. So in a society like ours where the majority is white, although it's not going to be the case that much longer in this country based on the demographic trends, but insided like like ours, it's impossible for there to be anti white racism because racism

requires power. That's what they say. They redefine what it is to be racist, They redefine the very concept of race is such that it's not about treating people thinking about people acting toward people differently because of their skin color, making moral and character and other assumptions about someone because of their pigmentation and some of their genetically dictated features. That's what I think of as racism. The left thinks of racism entirely through the lens of a power construct.

And so this is how you get all this talk about white privilege and even now white supremacy, which you've noticed has been expanded well beyond what it had previously been thought of. Right, white supremacy used to be people that would march around with swastika's tattooed on their foreheads and you know, yelling about white power. And they've always

been this noisy fringe of idiots and losers. But now white supremacy is things like, you know, the the feeling that people have based upon someone's dress code or someone's choice of what they wear when they walk into a courtroom. No, it's white supremacy to expect that somebody wear a jacket and tie. You know what you heard Joe Biden recently talk about how you know that this is a speaking

about about the problem we have is white culture. I mean, first of all, Joe Biden to say that, I mean, the guy is not exactly got a lot of street cred. I don't know what else to say. I mean, Joe, Joe Biden is not uptricularly is not a guy that you would think of as understanding anybody, at least inherently understanding anybody outside of his own immediate circles. But this is the way that you need that, this is the way that you're told to talk about these things from

a level. So I just think it's interesting because you know, Holder wants to lecture us about racist baggage, but he doesn't have any solutions, and he doesn't even have answers to straightforward questions. And in fact, the left doesn't have answers to these questions. And when they do try to give answers, they're entirely unsatisfying because they're intellectually untenable. I mean,

they're self contradictory. You can't adjust your definition of what racism is based upon the race of an individual, because then you're redefining what it is to be racist. But that is in fact what happens all the time among Democrats and the left. If we look for consistency, we're going to be looking for a very very long time, my friends, but that is where we are. I've got more coming up. Stay with me. Conservatives are under siege

on campuses. You know this, my friends. And back in February, there was an incident that really showed us just how bad it's gotten. The Leadership Institute's field organizer, Hayden Williams, was peacefully helping conservative students recruit for their group when he was attacked by a vicious radical leftist thug. You now, President Trump has taken action. He signed an executive order to protect conservative students free speech, but more action is needed.

You can help. Go to take back the Campus dot org to support the Leadership Institute and defend conservative students. The Leadership Institute is the premier organization for educating and training conservative college students now. The left effort to silence conservative voices on campuses has gone on for far too long. My friends, Hayden Williams took a punch for all of us. Now it's time to fight back and protect conservative students

on campus everywhere. Visit take back the Campus dot org to make your urgent gift to the Leadership Institute today. That's take back the campus dot org. So I don't know if you saw my announcement speech, but I did it right outside of Trump International. Did you see it? Well? The reason why I took the fight to him is because President Trump is creating so much division and hate in this country. But he is very small. He is weak, He is a coward. He is a leader who actually

punches down. He demonizes those who need our help, those who need our support. Jill Brand just like wants to y'all and it's equal pay day. I'm like, she wants equal pay for people because, oh my gosh, Democrats, can you do better than this police? I mean, at least give at least give us some candidates to talk about that are are interesting, you know, and not just worthy of mocker. I mean, Jilla Brand doesn't even she doesn't

know what her ideas are. People just tell her what the idea should be, whatever she thinks will work at any given moment. But I thought that was a really a really funny little little moment there where she comes out and she's saying Trump is creating division and hate. He's terrible and I hate his stupid face, that he's so mean and awful. It's like I'm pretty sure, miss Jilla brand, that you are in fact creating division and hate.

I'm I'm I'm gonna go out on a limb here and say that Kirsten Jill, Kristen or Kirstin I don't make I don't mix them up on purpose, I swear, but it's just impossible. I think it's Kirston Jilbren that she she thinks that the Democrats are are the are

the great healers in this nation. I mean the same Democrats who for the last two years have been pretending that President Trump is a traitor, that the President of the United States is a sexual predator, um, a trader, um crazy as in mentally unfit to hold any office, probably a racist, a xenophobe, an anti Muslim bigot. I mean, you got on the line. All these things that they've said about the president that are are are deeply destructive and unfair and untrue. I do not believe any of

those things are true about President Trump. They certainly the whole you know, grab the woman by the area line that everyone's very familiar from the Billy Bush tape. I don't know what it's going to take for the media to stop misconstruing what he said. I'm not saying it was okay, I mean it was. It was an ungentlemanly thing to say. But he wasn't bragging about assaulting women. He was bragging about his access to attractive women who let him. That was what he said, let him do

things because he's a famous, powerful, important guy. But they always make it sound like he was claiming that he was drugging and then taking advantage of people or something. You know that he's almost a Cosby esque situations, not that at all. It's not. And they're not so stupid. The media is not so stupid that they don't understand that.

But a major and you're going to see this now gearing up for the twenty twenty election, a major point of opposition against Trump that comes from the left has to do with making support of Trump socially unpalatable. You know, supporting Trump makes you somebody who's a bad person that

people shouldn't be friends with. And you know, nobody should like let let their kids stay over at you know, your house to hang out with your kids because you're a Trump supporter and you're a bad person, right, That's that's part of the effort here. And and it was just yesterday that I said to you, it's not just about Trump. They really do feel this way about Trump supporters too. You know, the things they're saying about Trump, they feel about the people who voted for him. And

if that sounds at all like it's a it's a leap. Well, here's the chairman of the DNC, Tom Perez, talking about people who support Trump, who support Mitch McConnell and Paul Ryan and all these different people, or rather who he named some of these people who have supported Trump. Here's what he thinks of those who support President Trump. Play three.

But the thing is they they are cowardly. I mean, history will not only judge Donald Trump harshly, It will judge Mits McConnell and Paul Ryan and all the other cowards who refuse to stand up to this president and allowed the Party of Lincoln to die. They will be judge harshly because whatever he says goes right. Cowards. He

says cowards about Republicans who won't stand up. And I can assure you cowards and idiots and buffoons is how they would describe, at least privately, those who vote for Trump. It is not just about the president himself. It is about those who believe in what he is trying to accomplish. You see, for me, it's always been it's always been the agenda. It has not been the case that, you know, President Trump's individual character or you know, even individual accomplishments

before becoming president, were the motivating factor in support. Although I do find most of his tweets and certainly his battles with the media to be very entertaining, amusing and worthwhile too. The media has changed. They don't realize it quite yet, but they have changed, and it will never be the same because of this president. And I think that's all to the good. I think it's something that

we should all be very happy about. But they're gonna try this through the media, through through not just and I don't just mean the news media. They're going to try it through TV shows and through Hollywood, and they

want to make it socially unacceptable to support Trump. And so even if you personally are going to vote for him, Jilla Brand and Tom Perez and all these others out there are going to make people feel a little sheepish about speaking openly going into this election about their support for Trump, They're gonna make people feel like, you know, I sit down in the boardroom at work, or I sit down and you know in the office environment, I better not be wearing my MAGA hat. I better keep

this to myself. And that's an advantage for Democrats and they know it. You know, a chilling effect on your support of MAGA is what they're trying to achieve, and they have a lot of ways of trying to do it. Hi, I'm going to gap. Binary sex typically refers to your biological traits as your gonads, your genitalia, your internal sex characteristics, your hormone production, hormone response, and secondary sex characteristics. Gender is about your identity, your expression, and it's often based

on ideas about sex. It's important that we really break down what are we talking about when we talk about sex and gender and is there something called biological sex and what does that mean. This idea that the body is either male or female is totally wrong and I

am living proof of that. We know intersex people exist and break down this binary We all have characteristics that are typically male and typically female, and it is really about political choices, social factors, ideological choices that we assign meeting to different parts of our body. All of that is wrong. Everything that you just heard there is factually, scientifically, rationally incorrect. For those of you who are wondering what the heck was that nonsense, it was a video ad

that is running in teen Vogue. Now hold on, before you say, puck, come on teen Vogue, Who cares? I guess I better cancel my subscription before we look at that part. Let's understand that, you know, teen Vogue is owned by one of these big media conglomerates, just like all these other magazines, and they're propagandizing to young people who don't have the knowledge and philosophical background necessarily to understand that what they're being told is complete garbage. There's

no binary, coherent thing called biological sex. That is as false as any statement can be. There is abs resolutely a coherent thing. It's It's one of the clearest and most well understood things in existence is that there is a difference between xx chromosome and x y chromosome. Now, people who want to play the game, and sometimes I get emails from people that think they're very smart and say, well, buck, there can be chromosomal abnormalities, and they're you know, sometimes okay, well,

is that then the standard for being intersex? See? See, they they want they want there to be a scientific explanation for what is a purely psychological phenomenon, and a phenomenon based entirely of emotion and will and choice, not of a physical manifestation or a physical reality. And you know, this is a kind of extension, this desire to First of all, there's a Marxist underpinning to all this, because destroying the family, destroying sex is necessary to destroy the family.

Destroying family is a necessary component of replacing the family unit with the state. The state then becomes your family, the collectivist identity that we all are handed by. The state becomes the only identity that has meaning, because of course the state also wants to be in place of God. So get rid of the family, get rid of God, replace it with the state. This is some people will talk about cultural Marxism, but has long standing roots in

secularist Marxist philosophy. So it's not out of nowhere that all of a sudden we're being told there's no such thing as biological sex. This is a very very fashionable, not just because it's in teen vogue, a very fashionable position on the left now. And people say this and think that they don't sound stupid when they sound very stupid, saying there is no scientific basis for these claims whatsoever.

And in fact, every cell of your body is different, male or female, and you know this goes to the very earliest stages of development inside the womb and what occurs. But you know, it's also this desire to fight against nature and this presumption that leftist philosophy can somehow overcome reality just by wishing it to be. So, you know,

it's it's almost like, uh, you know. Deconstructionism is a garbage philosophy of Derita from the nineteen sixties, and it's a theory about that that criticizes traditional assumptions about things like what is true and what is identity? Right, so you just pull apart everything nothing matters really anymore, nothing is true or real anymore. That's deconstructionism. And this is how you get you know, high school sophomores or particularly

it happens in college. We're being told, well, let's you know, what's wrong with Hamlet? You know, what what do you think? Hamlet says, forget what Shakespeare meant. What do you think Shakespeare was saying here? Not what do you think he meant to say? But what should he be saying here? I mean, this is what deconstruction is. It just turns into a form of mental auto erotica. And that's a that's a fun word, by the way, That's what you see here. Though this is not rooted in truth, it's

not rooted in science. But there is a very real movement to propagandize to your kids that there's no such thing as biological sex. Meanwhile, we're all supposed to sit around and be worried about the pay gap. The pay gap is a thing only if you don't understand how basic economics works, which the left also doesn't understand. I know that they have powerful emotions, and that people who are leftists, if they have these feelings that are very very strong, but they really need to bend to the

reality around them and at least make coherent arguments. And saying there's no coherent thing called biological sex is one of the dumbest things I have ever heard. There absolutely is. We all know what it is, and just because they say so doesn't mean it is roll calls up next. Ain't no party, look a Team Buck party, because a Team Buck party. Don't stop. Yeah, we got Buck turned up to eleven. It's time for roll call. Indeed, it is from Savannah, Georgia. I'm gonna tell you guys something

that's very exciting for me. And those of you who are from Georgia or Florida or some of the other states in the vicinity are going to think that I'm a big dork for saying this, but I was very excited today. I saw an alligator, which for somebody from DC, perhaps because I am a swamp creature, for me to see a real swamp creature was very exciting. But it was basking in the sun. Looked to be about a six foot or i'd say, just hanging out, just hanging out.

It's exciting for me, you know. It's this is like when I've been in some parts of the world where where there are monkeys just running around, like monkeys are kind of like squirrels, and you know, you know, you're a tourist, You're like, look at the monkeys, and all the people that are actually from the country are like, yeah, they're annoying and loud and steal my and steal food from like the window sill. I'm sure people down here aren't as excited about gators as I am, but I

was like, whoa the gator. Very touristy moment for me. But unfortunately, Savannah, I have to tell you. I love your city and your food, and Georgia is a great state. But I could have used higher than like forty five degree weather while I was down here. I'm just saying I came all the way from New York, I mean from not New York, from DC, and it was a little b on the chili side. But no, Savannah is great. I mean the food here is amazing, which I will say is that pretty much sells me on a place.

If I like the food, I can handle everything else. Oh and people down here actually have good politics, unlike NDC, so that's nice. Johann said, heard you were in Atlanta for a conference, and believe you said the name Stansbury. So the recently I saw a TV ad for a book titled The American Jubilee. An online search took me the website for the publishers also Stansbury scary stuff. Will

you be sharing your views on it? Johann. Yeah, they've published Jubilee is essentially a book that dives into where the economy is going to crash out and how things are going to get really bad. And yes, that is Stansbury Research. I work with Stansbury Research. I know the folks who are running very well, and I'm down here for a Stansbury conference. But I am in Savannah, Georgia. I am not in Atlanta, Jesse. Right, if you were in Savannah, I hope you style by nine Line Apparel

and Black Rifle Coffee Company, Jesse. I have had it's a fair point. I have reached out to my friend at nine Line Apparel, the CEO of there, Tyler Merritt. Unfortunately he has been out of town over the weekend and into the week so we've not been able to meet up yet. But otherwise I absolutely would have gone over there and if I just had a little bit more time. But it's it's a bit, it's a bit on the busy side. So I'm hoping that, you know, things will more or less come together on all that.

What else do we have here? And I just started mumbling, there the end, they'll come together with the thing. Paul Rites, Hello, Buck, any chance your truffled egg recipe is available online, Paul, I didn't know that I had a truffled egg recipe. Are you referring to scrambled egg with truffle flavoring? Because that would just be scrambled eggs. You add some either truffle shavings if you want to be very bougie, will

Hi electrafor shavings in my scrambled eggs? Yes, I do, and I wear a top hat and a monocle while I eat them and nothing else. That's one way to go. But the secret for me for scrambled eggs is and the game changer things that I learned from doing. And I'll just tell you I watch a lot of YouTube videos.

I learned to cook by watching YouTube videos. But you have to watch multiple videos of making the same dish because everybody has different techniques and certain ones you will pick up yourself and you'll you'll like, and others you'll be like, I don't want to do it that way. So if you watch multiple videos, it's kind of like reading various news sources on the same topic. It's important to do that in my business because there are nuances and little details that are different from write up to

write up. So to go deep on a story, you want to read more than one source on it. In fact, you want to read many sources on it most of the time. I feel the same way about being an autodidact chef. I don't know if that's a thing, but let's say that's a thing. Somebody who's self taught as a chef, which I am, and chef is way too grandiose a term for it. Somebody who can make some decent proteins and breakfast food and occasionally, no, that's really it. Actually,

that's where I go. That's that's the full the full length of my culinary skills. But my scrambled eggs are amazing. I mean they're amazing. I cannot lie to you. Know. It's a very good thing to be able to make carroy. Oh wait, I was telling you. I see a Karen. I'll get to you in one second. I skip right over the secret for those you want to know, you're learning one thing today you can really use. Make sure

that you know that you can take the eggs. And this seems so simple, but I never thought of it before. I always tried to adjust the heat. Eggs are so heat sensitive and cook so quickly that as you're going the moment you think that it's there, they're going too fast. Because overcooking eggs is what everybody does. This is why when you go to a diner and they say, hey, we're gonna make you an omelet, and the omelet comes out and has those sort of brown scorched marks on

the outside. I mean, eggs should never have brown scorch marks on it. That's not a good sign. That means they cook the you know what out of it. Be comfortable taking your eggs off the burner entirely, So just move it off the burner, move it somewhere else on your stove, Move it somewhere where it's not overdirect heat, because there's still going to be heat in that pan, so it's gonna stay very warm, in fact, will continue

to cook. But that's just a way more effective I find than you know, trying to get to like low medium or simmer or you know whatever. It's just just take it off that heat and then know that in the process is a necessary step. Karen, it's buck great that you talked about the starvation in China under Mao. Helen Raleigh, who grew up in China might be an interesting guest for your show. She is now a businesswoman

who occasionally writes for The Federalist. I recently finished reading her book Can You Just Never Said, which is about the hardships her family endured under MAO and how difficult it was to get American citizenship. Look, China is a fascinating, fascinating everything country, economic competitor, national security challenge, and we

are about to enter a new phase now. I mean the last almost twenty years, you would say at this point, we've had a twenty year cycle now of interventions abroad, predominantly but not entirely, but predominantly in the Muslim world, and they have been counterinsurgency operations for the most bar counter terrorism that turns into counterinsurgency, and that's just been our focus. Radical Islam has been the primary enemy of

America and the West for the last twenty years. We are shifting out of that now, not that radical Islam isn't still are and it's going to go away, but they're not going to be a primary or the primary threat. It's going to first it'll feel like China, China and the US are butting heads more and more over economic matters, and then the national security challenges will become more apparent.

So we are heading into that. I mean, I think we're going to be in a twenty year cycle and it's really starting now of US China struggle for dominance, and by the end of those twenty years, we're going to know who's the top dog. And that's what I see happening now. So I'm really trying to gear myself

toward understanding that as much as possible. I'm going to China in May, at least that's the plan as of now, for all kinds of just basic ground truth tourism stuff and also some high level meetings with some business folks there. So I'm going to get some ground truth to be able to bring back to you here on the show. But is going to be at folks, I mean all it's amazing too. Notice how Russia, the Russia scaremongering since the Mulla report came out, has dropped off already so much.

And Russia is not a realistic challenger to US. Yes, it has a very large nuclear arsenal, it's a very big country with a lot of natural resources, but it's it's little You know, it's a little weak sauce economy, just it's not a serious national security and economic competitor threat China is China is going to have a bigger economy than us and then a bigger military. Then well already has more manpower, but a more powerful military than ours under current with a current trajectory in a pretty

short period of time. And we have no leadership really that thinks about this problem. I mean, the fact that matters that Trump is the first president in my lifetime who has at least been ringing the alarm bell about you know, yeah, China, we want with them on some things, but we want to try to be cooperative where we can. But China is a competitor. China is trying to become the global hegemon. It does not want to be in

second place. Trump understands that, you know, his zero sum view, his hyper competitive view of all things interpersonal, inter business relationships has meant that Trump understands the threat that China poses to not just the US but the liberal Western world order over the long term. I mean, let me put it to you in these terms, the US China showdown that I think we're in the early stages of right now is going to be something akin to what

you know ancient Greece and Persia were locked in. I mean, this is going to be the two great powers of the day, or people would say a new Cold War and that's you know, sure, that's that's another more recent version of it. But I like to get to the ancient, ancient Greek and ancient Roman stuff whenever I can. So that's what I see happening here. And so you're gonna hear more from me about China going forward. Tim, That's gonna be it for Live from Savannah today here in

the Freedom Hunt. I'll be back in the swamp in DC tomorrow. I'm not going to bring any alligators with me, but I will talk to you then. As always, shields high. We have a fantastic contingent of seniors who are patriots in love this country, who listen to this show and to all the seniors out there. You know, you may have heard of the AARP, but I want you to know AARP doesn't share your values. They're pretty left wing,

fought for progressive causes, including Obamacare. That's why I want you to check out my friends at amak amac was founded by an air veteran, and they have working for over a decade to support conservative views and policy here in America. So AMAK agrees with you on what the future of this country should look like, but also gets you great value discounts on car insurance, hotels, roadside assistance,

ental plans, even sell service options. So check out AMACS stand with them as they fight the good fight by becoming a member today. The benefits are great, but the cause is even greater. Join right now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you, Better for America.