Media Bows For Beto

The buck Sexton Show. This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake America, You're a great American Again the buck Sexton Show begins. Remember the animipd Buck, are there any centers wishing to change their vote? If not the A's or fifty nine, the Nates or forty one, the joint resolution has passed. Welcome to the

buck Sexton Show. Republicans apparently don't like to win. Republicans think that it's more important to preen and to lecture and to feel like they really really are the righteous ones instead of dealing with what is a true crisis at the border and backing up a president who's trying to do something about the border. Now, this resolution is not going to go anywhere. The Senate, with its fifty nine to forty one vote, cannot get together the two two thirds majority needed for it to be veto proof.

But it is disheartening that there are GOP defections on an issue like this, where all the Democrats are doing is lining up and saying Trump wants it. No, Trump wants to do something about the border. No, they will not let Trump get his way. They will not give Trump a victory. They don't care that the border is an absolute mess right now. And that's not my opinion. That is from border patrol, that is from immigration customs enforcement.

They are overwhelmed and overrun. They don't have the resources, they don't have the tools and the laws in place to effectively handle this situation. Unless you think that having an open border is great, then then it's fine. Then it's fine, Then there's no problem at all. These Republicans who did this, I have to say, it's just to remind her that there is this impulse in the GOP, and among some of the most well known names in the GOP, there's this impulse to just lose with dignity.

That's their preference, always lose. But know that you are adhering to your constitutional principles. I don't even I don't even think that there's any circumstance, any circumstance where some of these Republicans would have come along with President Trump on this issue just because they like the idea. They like the idea of showing that they'll stand up against him on something. This was all about them. This is not about what's best for the country. And it is

a disgrace what has happened here. It's a disgrace. You have Mitt Romney when he's not picking up candles and blowing them out on his cake one by one, which if you haven't seen it, Mitt Romney does, in fact blow candles out like a cyborg on a birthday cake. I am Mitt Romney. I am blowing up candles on that cache. He spoke about why he was not supportive of Trump on this issue of the national Emergency, played twenty seven. I'm gonna be voting in favor of the

resolution of disapproval. For me, this is a constitutional question. It's a question about the balance of power that has cored or our constitution. This is not about the president or about the border security. In fact, I support border security. I support the construction of a border barrier. What about rule of law? Mitt? Do you support rule of law?

Has a court struck down the statute that's been around for decades that allows the president of the United States to any situation that is an emergency, and the border is an emergency. The Democrats lied and lied and lied about that until they got their way with the budget. But now they can't lie anymore, or at least they can't lie without looking like morons because the borders clearly in emergency's gonna be one hundred thousand people at the

border this month, folks. I'm gonna go down there with my own eyes and see it. If I can hundred thousand people coming into the country in one month illegally, Okay, that's a good size US city. But it's not a crisis, it's not an emergency. There's a statute that says the president can do this. The president acted under that statute. Congress passed that law. They have not repealed that law.

A court has not struck down that law. What is this, Oh, you can't do this why President Trump understands this better than some of the most sanctimonious members of the Republican Senate play clip twenty five. I think anybody going against borders, security, drug traffic, in human traffic, and that's a bad vote. The Democrats are for open borders, they're for crime. I mean, frankly, they're for crime. These people can tell you that better

than anyone. When you have open borders, when you don't have a walls, I guess they think it's good politically. I think it happens to be bad politically. I think it's an eighty percent issue and maybe more than that. But the Democrats, in order to make things difficult, they are for open borders and they're for crime, and the Republicans aren't. But I told Republican senators vote anyway you want, vote how you feel good. But I think it's bad

for a Republican senator. I also think it's bad for a Democrat senator to vote against border security and to vote against the wall. I think if they vote that way, it's a very bad thing for them long into the future. I think he's right, but clearly some Republicans did not agree. They decided that they were going to break with the president on this issue. And look, this doesn't It doesn't really do anything. It's a resolution of approval or disapproval

or whatever, disapproval of what the president's done. It doesn't do anything. However, what this does show is that there are Republicans who still Republicans, who still decide that they choose their own sense of their political importance over the agenda and over the interests of the nation. There are Republicans that would rather have nice things written about them for a day in the New York Times and Politico. In these places, you know, well, this Republican clearly is

standing up for constitutional principles. So let's give him a little pat on the head. Before tomorrow we call him a racist and a sexist and a monster. Again, there are some Republicans who can't help it. They're so driven by ego that what matters most is that good day of press doesn't matter. The borders a mess. I kept hearing this explanation that, well, Republicans shouldn't do this, and Trump shouldn't do this because it'll set a precedent for Democrats.

Democrats don't care what the precedent is. Look what Obama did with DOCCA. How many times he went on TV, I don't have your authority, I can't do it. I can't do it. Or it turns out I can do it because Congress Groll. I'll grow around Congress pen on the phone. Obama just did it. You know, they could try to have a national emergency on guns and seize our guns. That would be a very very very bad idea. They could try to declare a national emergency on climate change.

You see. The funny thing about climate change, though, is that they never want to have to actually live under the policies that they think they want to pass, So that'll all crumble. The complete infeasibility of their climate change emergency would become apparent rather quickly. But also, just you know, why is it that Democrats win elections and then Democrats get policy that they want. Republicans win elections, and we can't seem to get it done other than tax cuts, folks.

You know we got our tax cut. Yeah, that's nice. You know, it's not going to be as nice when a Democrat president takes control, a far left one at that most likely, and the tax rate just goes up a bunch. Taxes are going to go up across the board, that's what they want to do. So so the tax cut is always a tax cuts are always temporary. They can say they make them permanent, but they're always temporary. Taxes are for the here and now. Border policy, healthcare legislation.

Maybe it's not forever, but at least there's some structure in place, and it has long, long term ramifications. And this is just nonsense from these Republicans. It really is. It really is. I don't even understand what they What point do they think they are approving here by going a against the president on this? Who do they think they're helping by doing this? They think they're establishing The Democrats don't give a crap about the Constitution. They don't

give up. They don't care about separation of Paris. You've got the most prominent liberal papers, and they want to get rid of the electoral college. They want just the popular vote to be the old you know. There, they'll pull apart everything in the Constitution or our structure of federalism. They don't care. And so this is, you know, it's like we want the Democrats to like us. Oh, maybe if we do this they'll like us. Maybe if we show we really care about the Constitution, they'll want to

be our friends. No, they'll want to kick us in the face and then kick sand in our eyes and laugh at us and then go do what they want to do. You'll notice, was there ever a moment in eight years of Obama pushing disastrous policy on the country, No Obama Care, Amnesty, cap and trade, climate change, all that, all this nonsense. Was there ever a time where there were where there were major Democrat defections? Oh, you know, we were just you know, uh, Obama's basically pushing socialism

here and we just can't go along with that. Are you kidding me? Never happens. Why is it that Democrats can be on board to get what they want, but Republicans always have to have this this little purity contest. You know, it's like it's like they're all auditioning for the role of you know, the the the founding father of today, the one that really gets the constitution, the one that really has his finger on the pulse of what Thomas Jefferson would have thought of this? How about

actually falling through on policy? You know, and I know that you could say back, but this is going to go into the courts and okay, fine, but so what's with the Republican defections? Why the grandstanding? You know what, why why why pull u? You know, you see what's going on to you? Why do this? It's just it also shows the Democrats that it's still easy to fracture Republicans, still easy to get them to abandon abandon each other on the field of battle because you know, they want

to play by the rules. You know, that's great. I hope that makes them, you know, feel safe and warm at night. But in the meantime, the president's trying to deal with a massive crisis on our border. He's trying to fulfill a campaign promise that was the central campaign promise he made in twenty sixteen, and he can't even count on the Republicans in the Senate to have his back. It's all a really sense I know, he said, he said,

you know, vote however you want, do whatever you want. Fine, but this shows us why even when we win as Republicans, we lose. And I am sick of it, I really am. We got a lot more speaking of even when you how about even when you lose you win as in Bato, Oh my gosh, are you guys like going to spend some time with me on the radio so I can ride into my skateboard And I'm just like gonna make pancakes with my kids, and the media is going to fall in love with me, and I'm gonna be president

and it's gonna be so amazing. I'm gonna play my acoustic guitar in the corner and drink some zema because I'm a child of the eighties. Beto, Baby, we're gonna talk about him. He threw his hat in the ring today. Oh yeah, we'll be right back. The President is literally using powers granted by Congress to enforce laws passed by Congress. This is well within his constitutional duty, and Congress is still unhappy for some reason. Make no mistake this vote today.

If they oppose the president, do they stand in opposition to the American people, to American communities, and to safety and security? Or questions are not especially difficult ones. I'm sure the President is operating within existing law and the crisis on our border is all too real. So I will vote to support the President's decision later today, and I would encourage our colleagues to do the same. Miss McConnell gets it. Why can't other Republican senators get it?

President's acting with an existing law. And also, what a what a strange place to really draw this line with all the executive overreach that the real executive overreach that happens now on a regular basis, with Congress seating so much of its authority to the executive branch because they don't want to take the political risks of having to make real decisions. So just let the president make those real decisions. This area, this is the place building a fence.

This is what they're so worried about. That's where they're going to take a stand. You know, this is where the government can't spend money. I think the estimates are that we and and we lose eighty billion dollars a year in Medicare and Medicaid fraud. I think that's right. I hope it's not eighty million, because that would be very, very different. But we spend a lot of money on that issue alone, lose a lot of money. You're gonna tell me that we can't actually handle building offense at

our southern border. You're gonna tell me that this is some area where you know, I'm sorry. Yeah, I was called sixty to seventy billion. I was close sixty to say. I just want to make sure I wasn't giving you a crazy number there, because I like to get the numbers ready, that's right, So let's call it sixty. We're losing sixty billion dollars a year, folks, to Medicare and

medicaid fraud, people stealing from the government. And we don't have three or four billion dollars to build a wall and facilities at our border that will prevent this continued invasion of illegals and inadmissibles. We just we don't. This is where Congress, you know what it really is, folks. They're just not on board with this. Republicans some of them on board, A lot of them aren't. They don't want to say it. They don't have the they don't have the decency and the integrity and the honor to

say it now. Instead, they'd rather just pretend to go that. They go along with Trump when it's good for them, but when it comes to taking a tough vote, they they've got nothing. They don't want to do it. They don't want to be in a position where they could be held to account later on. Oh, or they could just listen to Chuck Schumer on this one play twenty nine. The Framers gave Congress the power of the purse in Article one of the Constitution is probably our greatest power.

And now the president is claiming that power for himself under guys of an emergency declaration to get around the Congress that repeatedly would not authorize his demand for a border wall. Repeatedly would not authorize a border wall. Okay, you guys remember Obamacare, right, still a thing. Unfortunately, they just decided to change that law in real time, the executive branch, the Obama administration. They just they would just

change aspects of the law. Where was mister constitution Chuck Schumer? Then when the President United States, when it was Obama, decided that deferred action for childhood arrivals, which is not in the law, which he has no right to do, when he would just say, oh, well, my discretion, We're going to use prosecutorial discretion, so that will then be expanded into we promise we won't actually enforce the law against you, and you get to stay wherever you are

in the country. That was utterly lawless. Where were Democrats and that, oh, well, they thought it was the right thing to do. You see, when Democrats want to get something done, they figure out a way to self justify it. When Republicans have the right to do a thing, but Democrats make enough noise about it, they back off and they whimp out. Look, it's going to the courts either way, and I know it's but the symbolism here is troubling.

Trump does not have a unified Republican party behind him to get the things done that he has to get done. And we're heading into an election year. Things are gonna get tough, They're gonna get ugly, and there are a lot of Republicans that are looking to tocktail and run. You're gonna need a plea. Let me know. If you're gonna to formally read the indictment, you have the optiment having me read it, or you can wave reading the

need to plea of guilty and that guilty. Here are we wave formal reading of the indictment and mister smalltality, thank you, Jesse Smallett in court not guilty. Now. My expectation would be that he ends up trying to negotiate some kind of a plea bargain. But I think he's got to go to jail. I think I think he's got to go to prison for this. Not for a very long time, but he should serve some time. The

law has to have meeting. I mean, what he did was reckless, it was willful, it was premeditated, and it also pulled at some of the sensitive strings in this country. You know, it pulled at some of those areas where if you are being reckless, if you're being disingenuous, you can do a lot of damage to how people view each other, to how we all get along. You know.

He effectively defamed millions and millions of Trump voters, and he did it for his own advance nment, his own need for attention, and lied and lied and lied about it. How is it that the mainstream media was not able to see this? How is it that they did that? What is it Robin Roberts interview where he was treated as somebody who was just telling his story instead of somebody who really should have been pushed on the facts. And there should have been an effort made to get

to the truth. But they just didn't care about that. Really, they believed the story because they always believe the story because the narrative of a racist America that has overrun with these mean maga hat wearing Trump supporters that carry nooses in their back pockets and hate people because of their skin color, of their ethnicity. Liberals unfortunately believe that lunacy. That's for me in many ways. The most troubling takeaway, Yeah,

the media's dishonesty here and also ineptitude. I mean, they're not very smart. A lot of people that work in the media are not very smart, which is why they're so insecure and why they are so nasty, and also why group think appeals to them so much, because they want the other important media people to like them and to give them jobs. So they all want to think the same thing, say the same thing, herd mentality in the mainstream media. They all want to stay as a

part of the herd. But the other part of this that we have to remember is that what Jesse Smalllett tells us is that even after hoaxes like the Uba gang rape hoax and the Duke Lacrosse hoax and the woman who said she was attacked on a subway and her job was smacked off by somebody with a maga

hat total hoax. I mean, with all these hoaxes that happen the majority of the media and much of the left, and I go back and forth between disdain for the en, feeling sorry for them, disdain because the true believers in the left tend to be very nasty people. They tend to lack honor and mercy and dignity. I mean, this is just my This is in my experience, not all

of them, but a lot of them. I mean, the true believers on the left are people who are whacked out and are somewhat disconnected from the humanity of the people around them because it's all theoretical, it's all about the collective. You know, they can't be nice to people that they're dealing with in a day to day sense because they're so busy trying to save the world from climate change and the climate change efforts they're engaging in.

Excuse their nasty behavior. I mean, just spend spend five minutes online on Twitter and see how the left acts, see how they respond to good faith thought, good faith engagement. They just it's disgusting. They turn it into a cesspool in a matter of seconds. And I mean, you know, journalists on the left too. I'm not just talking about Randos, but they really believed that this happened to Jesse Smollett

because that's what they think of Trump supporters. You have to remember that the only way you could be so foolish as to buy into this narrative is if you think that this is really where the country is, and that's really how Trump supporters are, and it's it's troubling, but I think it's better for us to know the truth about this than to keep walking around thinking that, maybe, you know, maybe the left isn't as insane as buck Sexton tells us. They are. No, trust me, they are.

They are that insane. I'm not. I'm not just trying to get you all fired up over this. They are nuts. So I just just a quick update there on Smollet for you. I did speak this week. It didn't mean for that to rhyme him I am, said Sam, I am or whatever, you know what I mean, Green Eggs and him. I did speak this week to some folks

in the government. I won't say where about the Mueller probe and the reality of the Muller probe, which is that it keeps getting pushed back they are supposed to, because I told you a few weeks ago I had a good authority it was gonna end. Now we're told March, but we have been told February. And if if I'm a betting man, I think this thing drags on at least into April, if not into May, based on the

on the delays that we're hearing about it. And I think that part of this, I do think that part of this is because the left needs to There's an administrative component, no question, they're trying to wrap things up, and they got questions and what are they going to release? But there's an administrative question here. But there's also the need for the DOJ, the bureaucracy, and the left within it to try to find cover because this is gonna

be a real moment in American history. When this report comes out and there's there's nothing in it that's gonna the collusion delusion squad is going to look absolutely out of their minds, which we all have known all along they would, but now we're going to have real hard proof of this at least well what they'll say it's the absence of proof is not you know, the absence of evidence is not evidence. That's what they'll be telling us.

But anybody who's being saying and normal is going to understand that this is not what they were promising what was going to happen. This is not what This is not the Russia collusion that they had been talking about now for two years, endlessly, endlessly. Adam Schiff, you're gonna hear a lot of him in the days ahead. He was confronted about the absence of collusion. Here is what Shifty Shiff had to say six at all along and beginning two years ago, as you point out, until the

present date, is there is ample evidence of collusion. But whether that evidence amounts to proof beyond a reason without a criminal conspiracy, we would have to wait for Bob Mueller to determine. That is still very much my view. The best evidence of the president's complicity as a general matter is the fact that he has been so deceptive

about all of these contexts time after time. If there's insufficient evidence in the Mueller Report, and we're not able to produce efficient evidence in our own investigation, that ends the inquiry. There may be grounds for removal from office, or there may be grounds for indictment. After he leaves office that the Congress discovers. One of the issues that we're looking at, which the Muller report may not cover, is whether the Russians were laundering money through the Trump organization.

Our predominant concern in my committee is was this president? Is this president compromised by a foreign power? I mean, this guy is sick. He's really got a problem. I mean, maybe he understands that everything he's saying is a lie. It's dishonest, it's disgusting. But you just hear how he just switches all over the place and now he's talking about money laundering for the president. What where did this come from? You know how you can tell that Adam

Schiff is lying? His lips are moving. No, No, I'm just kidding. You know how you can tell Adam Schiff is lying because based on his approach to Russia collusion and what's gone on with the Mullar probe, it is never a possibility that the president is innocent. It's never a possibility, with the way that he constructs this narrative that it didn't happen. It's always just it. It needs

more investigation, We need more information. There had to be collusion we just haven't found it yet, he said there, and he was being serious that maybe the Congress, the Congress will be able to find Russia collusion with Trump that the Special Council was not able to find. My friends, I'm amazed that some members of Congress can tie their shoes in the morning and find the bathroom. Congress is not going to find anything that the Muller Probe did

not find about Russia collusion. Now they may find Trump's business dealings, you know, things that they may find Trump's third grade report card where it was said that he was very very naughty. You know, they may find some stuff. And that's what they're gonna do. They're gonna just look

for everything and dig through everything. They are going to turn the Congress and the investigative and oversight powers of the United States Congress into an ongoing OPO research machine to feed the lunatics at MSNBC and CNN and The New York Times, the Washington Post, just to give them stuff to run with. That is the plan. That is

what they are going to do here. And they have no hesitation about this, I mean no sense that maybe maybe they're dragging the country through the mud in a way that is damaging, regardless of what it does for their electoral prospects in twenty twenty. You know that there's no decency from these people. Oh, by the way, you know what came out on this Lisa Page. Remember Lisa Page referred to as the paramour of Peter Struck, the FBI agent who wrote all that terrible stuff, a Trump

hater and the chief of counterintelligence at the FBI. Very important guy. You know, you see these figures popping up the Hillary email investigation, the Russia collusion investigation. You're the same people, the same Hillary loving Trump hating maniacs at key nodes in these different places in the DOJ. Lisa Page was the woman who's having an affair with and she testified unclosed doors. The transcript's now been released that

what we've known all along is true. Now we just have confirmation, which is that the Department of Justice was running cover for Hillary on the email thing, and that there was never going to be a circumstance under which Hillary Clinton was prosecuted for violations of the ESPIONAD. It didn't matter what they found, it didn't matter how sensitive it was, it didn't matter how egregious how reckless recklessness

is in the statute. If what Hillary Clinton did with her and I had a TS clearance, I know how the regulations go. I know what happens to lower level people. When I was in the CIA. If I had had one one hundredth of what Hillary did, my career would have been over and I would have been begging not to go to prison. That's just the truth. Meanwhile, with Hillary, even though recklessness was in the statute, they said that it didn't count, you know, because it's old and stuff.

And the same people at DJ who were saying that Hillary didn't get in trouble for an email server that she set up willfully knowingly in order to evade transparency requirements. That's all it was. It was shady Hillary. They decided that the Espionage Act has written the Statute as it is, did not apply to Hillard. These is the same people that sent over FBI investigators to go trap General Flynn based on the Logan Act, which no serious person thinks

is a law that could be prosecuted. It's never been put people go to prison for the Espionage Act for a long time. No one's been prosecutor on the Logan Act. The same people at DJ Loretta Lynch, Sally Yates, James Comey. These are the people that are making these decisions. This is unequal application of the law based on political affiliation.

That's what we saw, and it was all the way at the very top, and it was trying to influence the future of this country, trying to What's what's so ironic about the whole Russia collusion investigation is that they accused Trump of working with the Russians to try to change the change the outcome of the election, when in our own country, our own Department of Justice, the chief law enforcement mechanism in the United States was we have proof and we know trying to change the result of

a presidential election, and nobody yet seems to really be willing to hold them to account for it. Back in just a moment, if anyone in the military or anybody in the intelligence community, including people within the FBI, if they were to leak like that, they would be fired, they would be imprisoned, they would be prosecuted. There were dozens and dozens of classified emails that were actually put onto an illegal server that was then destroyed, that was

likely picked up by foreign intelligence. God knows what countries actually have these classified emails that Clinton was sending. But the bottom line is is that she should have been held accountable and she wasn't, And there was an orchestrated effort, a conspiracy, so to speak, to ensure that she was not prosecutor. That's what Page testified to. And the fact that she wasn't prosecuted on something that rank and file people in the military and intelligence community to get prosecuted

for is unfathomable. But we just found that clip. I don't even know we had that. It's Devin Newnes said exactly what I was telling you, which is, yeah, you know, when I was a little nobody in the CIA, if I had pulled the crap at Hillary Pool, I would be dunezo. But she's Hillary Clinton, sowow, she gets to live by a different set of laws, Hillary laws, Clinton laws. That's what happened here, and we all knew this, And

I think that's one of the frustrations. You know, so much of what the Democrats do is to speak to all of the rest of us like we're so dumb, like we just can't understand anything. And we knew that they were never going to prosecute Hillary Clinton. It was just not going to happen. They weren't going to let it. It didn't matter what she did, they weren't going to let that happen because she was their great hope for a continuation of Obama's policies and breaking the great glass

ceiling as the first woman president. All this stuff run and people have spent years, decades propping up this shrill, nasty woman who's not particularly gifted politically whatsoever. But you know, they just has the name, and the whole thing is the name, and that's all that it really took, you know, and a resume that she was handed because of who her husband was. Let's just call it what it is. Let's just call it what it is. And by the way, Evan Noon has also some words for the Muller pro

play clip ten. The Muller investigation, it went off the rails a long time ago. They have zero credibility. They have been looking for two years. They have no evidence of collusion. And look, this would not be complicated to find collusion. Remember that was the whole story. We were going to find evidence of Trump colluding with the Russians to get dirt on Hillary. Not only has that never been proven. We actually have the opposite. We have the

opposite is true. It's a fact the Clinton campaign hired Christopher Steele to go and talk to Russians to get dirt on Trump that's never been prosecuted. So what in hell's Muller doing. I have no idea. This has gone on for two years and he's doing kind of Joe fifty million dollars of taxpayer money has been spent. Yeah, so he gets it. I'm glad Nunez understands it. It is off the rails these challenges. I am absolutely convinced we'll bring out the absolute best in every single one

of us. And we have something that almost no other country in the world has. We have the single greatest mechanism to call forth the genius of our fellow human beings. This democracy, more than three hundred and twenty million people strong, can bring the ingenuity, the creativity, the resolve of an entire country. And each one of these challenges can and will be met. But the foundational challenge to get all

of this done is to fix our democracy. So we have to like come together and be challenging challengers of addressing all of the great hope of future and democracy and the people, and we will make the democracy. Betto is in my friends, he has launched his twenty twenty bid, and I have no idea what the heck he was talking about. In that little we have the single greatest knockdness them to call forth the genius all of our fellow human beings. It can bring the ingenuity, the creativity,

the resolve of an entire country. No, democracy is not a mass mobilization for for the ingenuity and the creativity of the entirety of the American people. Democracy is a system by which we pick the people who are given authority by us in our governmental structure and hope that they leave us alone. It's not just like everyone gets to be awesome and is like surrounded with their awesomeness at the same time. This is kind of a shock to some folks. Maybe that Betto should we start calling

him Robert. This whole Betto thing is just this is kind of pretentious, right, This is weird, but it makes him seem more interesting. You'll note a lot of a lot of Democrat candidates are going by their first names. Tulsi, bad Toe, Bernie, Hillary all first, all first namers, all of a sudden, but battou O'Rourke, who's a guy who has cultural appropriation. But it's not appropriation if you wear like designer jeans and ride a skateboard. He said not

long ago, this about running for office play fourteen. We've heard a lot of people speculate that you and Senator Cruz may face each other again, not in a Senate rematch, but running for a higher office. What are your thoughts on I'm running for president. I don't want to do it.

I will not do it. Amy and I are raising an eleven year old, a ten year old, and a seven year old, and we've spent the better part of the last two years not with each other, missing birthdays and anniversaries and time together, and were our family could not survive more of I don't want to do it, I will not do it, like totally accept I went to my local ashram and I spoke to my guru and he was like, wait, but like, if you're president, you'll be like super rich and famous, right like so

all that family stuff. I was like, forget it, and now I'm gonna run. Isn't Beto kind of like an Aeron Sorkin character? Like from the West Wing. He's an Aeron Sorkin character mixed with a new age yoga instructor. So I just want the country to come together and like unite, and also I need you to breathe deeply and feel your chea and have the cheat in the center and make sure that you both push in and

out of your diaphragm at the same time. That's like every every yoga class I've ever taken they tell me to do things. I'm like, I don't get it. What am I pushing in the diaphragm or out of the diaphragm? And how do I push my diaphragm exactly? What is this? Yeah, Beto, Oh, mister Betto, I don't know if you have the stomach for it. So I can't I can't tell you that you should do this. I can only tell you may wish to do this. There's a Vanity Fair profile of

Betto that is such a slobbering love fest. I mean it is the It is the literary equivalent of a well a well oiled foot massage for Beto O'Rourke via Vanity Fairs editorial staff. So if you're up for that, if you if you can handle that. I like when like they pull the toes because like sometimes it makes a little pop noise, and like it totally releases my stress. If you can handle it, you should read it because

you'll see what we're up against here. There's some stuff about Betto that I'm obviously gonna have some fun with you, because look, you come here, you give me your time. Not only are we doing information and analysis, but it's gotta be fun, right, We gotta have a good time. But I think that Betto I'm being convinced more and more by Democrats that I know who aren't pro Beto. They're Bernie people, they're Biden people. They think that Beto

might actually be a real contender. And here's the reason why they look at Beto and they look at Obama for example. And you have two guys here with you know. There there's a young hip charisma aspect of all this.

But also the media is very very powerful, especially remember we think of the power of the media has to direct the narrative for all of America, including people like you and me who know that we are getting a steady dose of left wing propaganda from the left wing media, but they still are able to shape a lot of the conversation. They still have a tremendous amount of influence. They still are very much able to set the table for debate right and to push our thoughts into certain directions,

even when you're aware of the propagandistic effect. Imagine if you were somebody who really thought that CNN was honest, for example, you thought that you were just getting the news. You thought that whatever comes out of the media industrial

complex is the gospel truth. Then you'd be somebody who when they tell you Betto is great, when they tell you Betto is the second coming of well, the second coming of Obama, I guess right, that's really that they're saying that Betto is Obama like and that he is the guy the country needs right now because he's kind of, you know, he's not particularly aggressive, he's low key, he's a family man, he's nice and all the all there's they're starting to build this narrative around him, and that

narrative will have a lot of residence, especially in a very crowded field of Democrats, which is just I can't I work in politics, right, I cover the stuff every day. All I'm doing is reading and researching in preparation for this show, and I can't even name all the candidates I'll top of my head, and I should probably learn them all at this point. But there's some that I'm like, wait, that person? Who who? Who? What? What? Who? What's that?

A lot of there was a little there was a there was a reference there, there was a movie reference. Some of you will get it. Very few of you will get it. Some of you will get it. Beto is going to have the media totally behind him. They're swooning. I mean when I say they like Beto, there's really almost a romantic obsession with Betto from political journalists, from the people who write these profiles of an up and coming candidate and all that kind of stuff. There is

really a it's abnormal what you're seeing here. It's not just oh, he's a Democrat and he's young. It's and they always say he's Kennedy esque. I don't know, does he really look like a Kennedy? Is that just I feel like Kennedy esque is what Democrats call Democrat politicians who are white guys who are vague like like kind of handsome, I don't know, but like buck like have you have you seen me with my acoustic guitar and when I'm like singing songs and I'm also in a

punk rock band. But there's a sensitive side to me, because like Beto's very he's very emo, he's very sensitive and like he wants all the greatness of the country to just like be so great, but also wants to like write songs about how he's just friends with your girlfriend, Like he doesn't really want to ask her out, but like maybe he'll ask her out at some point if you're cool with that. But he says they're just friends. Now, that's right. That's you know who Beto was in college?

He was the guy who whatever you went to the fraternity party or whatever, he was playing guitar in the corner and talking to your girlfriend and you're like, what's this all about? And then when you ask, you're like, hey, white, that guy's like, oh, he's just my friend. He just wants to be friends. We're onto you, Beto, we know

how you roll. So like I just wrote this song for you because I felt so emotionally connected from our five minute conversation while you're waiting in line for the cag And as long as it doesn't bother your boyfriend, I just want to sing it for you. We really got a rot Beto character going on here. By the way, let's talk about Beto on the issue? Shall we? On policy? What does this guy stand for? What is his pathway

in the Democratic Party? Is he the real deal? Is he a threat not just to win the primary, but to defeat Trump? We have that and owe so much more coming up, And just like a second stay with me. I don't know how many countries are all on the face of the planet one hundred and ninety two musclementals of How can we, who used to be the indispensable nation be the only country that has removed itself from

any obligation to work with anyone? Or perhaps the most pressing problem if you think of our leadership, those who preceded us right, those who run speeches in Normandy, those who faced an existential threat to Western democracy, in our way of life, they showed us the way we can all come together. We can unite, we can marshal the resources, and we can convene the countries of the world around otherwise unsolvable problem. That's who we are. That's why they

call us the indispensable nation. Well, that moment is now for us on this issue. So if there's a time to reassert global leadership and make friends instead of enemies, it's today, because the challenges are too great to do otherwise. Yes, I mean, Beto just sounds like a high school kid who's giving a speech at Model un and just wants to get a standing o all the time so badly. He's kind of in please clap, please clap mode. Yo, We're just gonna come together like like we did at Normandy,

except for climate change, please clap exactly. Man, it's uh, this guy, he's really I mean, climate change is a big one for these people. I it's just not a it's not easy to have a constructive it's really not even possible of a constructive conversation with people who are so crazy they think the world's gonna end in twelve years.

Betto Robert should we call him Robert? Remember I'm the guy who it was on the Rush Limball Show when I was guest hosting a few years ago and Rush's team, I remember mister Snerdley, He's like, are you are you for real? In the break said yeah, I'm for real. People didn't really know that Bill de Blasio's real name was varonville Helm Court and Taliah Mark Schnell Varonville Helm Alf dutch Land. He changed his name to Bill de Blasi, as we know, because hey, he was going to vote

for Billy the Blasio. I'm a union guy from Queens. You know, I worked for the two five Electrician Union Queens. I vote for build a Blasio. You know, it sounds like it sounds like something you do, right, But I'm gonna vote for Warren Wilhelm. Who what, I don't know if that's really something you're gonna do. So Vardon Fieldham changed his name. It's very slice of mister Rielhelm. Yeah, so he became build a Blasio. And I remember I said that on the show and people were like, what

he must be making that up. No, it's true. You can check it out. You can. You can look it up. Betto. I would just note from reading the Glowing Profile and Vanity Fair. Oh Beto, so handsome and dreamy. The Glowing Profile and Vanity Fair on him. He was called Robert for much of his adult life. So this this all Beto thing. And because I know people can say Buck, your name is Buck. Well, my middle name is buck Man. You all know this. It's a family name and everyone's

called me Buck since I was a baby. The only people will call me James or the police in the IRS, but hopefully not people I hear from very often. But Betto is just as a kind of an affect. It's not anywhere in his name. It's a Latin nickname for his name, and he's not Latino. So I'm sorry, but this if there is such a thing as cultural appropriation, and I know I argue that there is not. But if you argue, there is a white dude named Robert

O'Rourke call it run around, called himself Beto. Yeah, what if I want to run for office? And I was like, just call me Diego whatever, it would be okay with that. I just like, I just like to be called Diego. Yeah, Roberto, there you go. So anyway, he's crazy on climate change. Um go, wait, did we already play eighteen? John? I got so wrapped up in the no I got okay, Yeah I wanted to play. So this is what he thinks about client. So this is Betto, the new great

hope of the Democrats to defeat Trump. Here's what he says about climate chan just gonna kill us all. It's so scary, and perhaps most importantly of all, because our very existence depends on it, we can unleash the ingenuity and creativity of millions of Americans who want to ensure that we squarely confront the challenge of climate change before it's too late. Yeah, I don't know how we're supposed to do that. I don't know what he thinks is

really going to happen here. But you notice that there's this his whole thing is going to be that he's the positivity candidate. He's almost like he's going to turn into the left wing life coach America never asked for. You can totally do it and achieve your dreams and self actualize and reach those goals as long as you send me twenty ninety nine via cash or check. That's what's That's what I think the path is here for Forbetto.

But I take seriously that he could be a real candidate in the sense that he may get some real, real push, you know. I take seriously that this is a guy who look, I mean, he is appealing, he's got a nice family, his story from El Paso, his whole Texas thing, is a pretty good story. He lost to Ted Cruise, but he made it closer than I think a lot of people expect it, although not nearly as close as they were pretending it was going to be.

And you know, I just think that we don't know, I mean any and you know, And I'm going to be the guy who tells you all on because we're gonna go into this battle for twenty twenty folks, We're gonna go in this together. But I'm going to be the guy who tells you what I know and when I don't know. And I'll tell you this. Anyone who tells you that they know who's gonna win this Democratic primaries,

lyne have no They have no idea. Nobody has has any idea whatsoever about what's really going to happen here. I mean, you've got Biden and Bernie at the very very top of the of the polls right now, and people will point out rightly that you got two old white dudes who are who are the front runners right now for the for the Democrat Party's ticket. At least with Bedo they get somebody who seems a little more a hip and with it, I also believe that Biden.

If Biden is just Hillary two point oh. Biden is the candidate that they're left with when they don't have any other good candidates, and they just figure that the Democrat establishment will carry him on their shoulders. You know, the media, academia, Wall Street, American Bar Association, unions, you know, all these different groups that are all about getting Democrats elected.

They're going to try to make Biden the guy, and I think that they're going to have a lot of difficulty because I don't find him to be particularly compelling. I mean, at least at least Beto Isn't he is interesting, I'm not. I don't think he knows very much. I don't think he's particularly Oh wait, he's worried about our democracy. Play sixteen, Amy, and I are happy to share with you that I'm running to serve you as an ex

president of the United States of America. This is a defining moment of truth for this country and for every single one of us. The challenges that we face right now, the interconnected crises in our economy, our democracy, and our climate, have never been greater, and they will either consume us or they will afford us the greatest opportunity to unleash

the genius of the United States of America. In other words, this moment of peril produces perhaps the greatest moment of promise for this country and for everyone inside of it. We can begin by fixing our democracy and ensuring that our government works for everyone and not just for corporations. That's right. Like all the platitudes and all the stuff that Democrats want to hear, I just jam it into one sentence and then I skateboard off into the sunset

while drinking a zema playing my punk rock guitar. That twenty twenty. Everybody, get ready for it. It's a real thing or coming up interesting news item today that conservatives will certainly talk about. But I think that the Libs will to no one's surprise. I think, but they will skip past this one pretty quickly. Southern Poverty Law Center has fired its co founder, Morris D's. Now Morris D's was eighty two years old and started the Montgomery based

organization back in nineteen seventy one. Folks, I mean, this is like Kentucky Fried Chicken firing the Colonel, or Ronald McDonald firing Ronald McDonald. I guess, but I mean this is you know McDonald's firing Ronald McDonald. I mean this is like the guy who founded the Southern Poverty Law Center, which I would note is and we'll get into this at in a little more detail, is really now a

left wing attack organization. It is a taxpayer subsidized left wing pack that pushes issues and goes after people and in fact designates groups and individuals who are to be isolated and destroyed, who are to be investigated, who are to be kicked out of the public square. And here's what we know about mister D's right now, eighty two years old, kicked at, fired, not allowed to step down, Fired from Southern Property Law Center. Here's here's what their

statement today says. As a civil rights organization, the Southern Poverty Law Center is committed to ensuring that the conduct of our staff reflects the mission of the organization and the values we hope to instill in the world. When one of our own fails to meet those standards, no matter his or her role in the organization, we take

it seriously and must take appropriate action. Today we announced a number of immediate concrete steps we're taking, including bringing in an outside organization to conduct a comprehensive assessment of our internal climate and workplace practices to ensure that our talented staff is working in the environment they deserve, one in which all voices are heard and all staff members are respected. Folks. Now, we don't know quite yet what's going on here, but that certainly sounds a lot like,

at a minimum, a hostile workplace environment situation. And you know, I don't know if this is a if this turns into a me too thing or but it's bad. It's bad when you have to oust your founder for who's been your founder for decades and have to call in outside investigations to look into all this. You know, this guy, this guy did something, folks, this guy did something. And the Southern Property Law Center is one of these organizations that it's it's time we finally understand what this is

and take this thing down. It's it's time we finally speak truthfully about what their mission is, which is to advance left wing causes, bash conservatives, destroy Republicans, silence dissenting voices. That is what the Southern Property Law Center does. They may they may do other things. They may do, you know, some good work here and there in legal side. But but they're most visible. There are most visible efforts these days in the media involve pushing left wing causes. Um,

here you go, family separate. Here, I'm on the Southern Property Loss Cent our website right now, just to give you a sense family separation isn't over. And then also hate groups at an all time high in twenty eighteen. I can tell you this every Oh wow, and they've got this is astonishing. I didn't even know that we're gonna have this before I call. They have hate groups and an all time high. And you know who's in

the photo. They have a collage of hate groups. You know who they have in the photos, Donald Trump, Gavin McGinness, Stephen Miller, White House advisor, Laura Ingram, Tucker Carlson Sheriff, Joe R. Pio, and a bunch of other people who I can't tell who they are right now. That's what they do. They smear people. This is an organization, the Southern Property Law Center, that is very litigious, by the way,

likes to sue people, likes to sue people. But this is an organization that tries to destroy its political opponents and uses it's connections too in its origins as a civil rights organization as cover. It's despicable what goes on with the Southern Poverty Law Center. And if you think that I'm exaggerating, I mean just think about this. The Southern Poverty Law Center has listed in the past Ben Shapiro in publications that it has put out on extremism.

It has listed Muji NOAs, who I believe has been paid out a multi million dollar lawsuit. Yes, Mugidnas prevails against the SPLC. That's the title here in the Atlantic. And Richard Cohen, who is the president of the SPLC, has apologized publicly to Maudgid NOAs because they declared him a former extremist who tries to work against radical Islam. They declared him an extremist because he's willing to criticize Islam.

So to the SPLC, if you are a Muslim who speaks out about radical Islam, you are in fact and extremist because you're criticizing Islam. You can't make this stuff up. They put Moggid in their field guide for anti Muslim extremists. I know Modgid by the way, he's a good dude. And the SPLC had to pay him three point three seven five million dollars and issue a public apology. Good for modgit Man. I need to get the Southern Private Law Center to lie about me. Man's that's good work.

If you can get it, I could use I could use three million dollars. I'll take a cool mill. They can say some mean stuff about me and then apologize publicly and give me a million. I would definitely go for that. Oh, speaking of the money involved here, four hundred and fifty million dollars in net assets and they have to put that out there publicly because it's a nonprofit folks, that's right, tax advantaged. You give money the SPLC and you're in you know, you're you're in good

shape because you can write that off. Civil rights organization, No notice how civil rights because we all we all actually do have equivalent rights under the law in this country. In fact, the only non equivalent rights are in favor of non white minorities like a firmative action, special hiring for women and minorities, and otherwise the law is across the board equal. So these civil rights struggles have become not for equality under the law, but for political positions.

That's what they've been advocating for for a long time. But the SPLC is something that I remember a long time ago getting to a fight with a fellow conservative in the media because I said the SPLC was, back in twenty twelve, a left wing attack organization. He said that that was not fair and not true. I was right. I won't say who it is because he's not here to defend himself, but I was right and he was wrong.

And now we see that Morris D's, the storied co founder of the SPLC, has been booted out of this organization. If I had to guess, I'm gonna guess it's a me too situation, although I don't know. I do not know that is a that is a guess, But I'm I'm reading between the lines a little bit here, folks.

Hostile environment, hostile workplace. Gotta him real fast. Notice how you also have this this tendency, this this uh grouping a very very powerful left wing, celebrated left wing men who are at the at the very top echelon of

political access. And you know, people like Morris D's, people like Harvey Weinstein, and you look at Charlie Rose and Matt Lower, and you look at these guys all in good stead, all in good stead with the Democrat left, and many of them have have devoted a substantial portion of their public life to advancing left wing ideas, including equality of all people, equality of women, civil rights, civil

rights for everybody. You know that, in the case of Charlie Rose and Matt Lower, consistent and reliable peddlers of the left wing orthodoxy from the various perches that they had in media. Matt Lower was a thirty million dollars a year man while he was doing it. And we find time and again that they are abusing those positions of a forty and that they are huge phonies. They are huge frauds, and worse than that in many cases.

I mean, Weinstein is a straight up predator. And we don't know what more is deasy is yet, but I think we're gonna find out real soon. But here's what I take from this, And I think this is applicable to a lot of liberals. You know, a lot of

liberals you see out there in the public eye. And I think one of the reasons that so many liberals are obsessed with virtue signaling, one of the reasons that they and this might be the primary reason for it, to be honest with you, I mean, there's also the benefits of you want people to think well of you.

But I think that they doth protest too much. I think that they make these public pronouncements about how much they're all and they want to work for civil rights and they want to work for because there's a feeling of underlying guilt. Because usually the people that are on the front lines of an issue and that are really just trying to do good are far less concerned with pounding their own chests and talking about how much good

they're doing. That's always a sign. Usually people that have positions of power to make positive change are less concerned with getting the credit for it than they are actually doing the good thing, unless it's really all about them. And you see this with liberals on climate change and liberals that make a big thing of me too. I mean, I mean Schneiderman, Eric Schneiderman, the state attorney general. Here's

another one, mister, Oh, I am so me too. He said, I am all about protecting women and women's rights and women's equality, except when he was beating his girlfriend. Then he wasn't about those things. Then he was scum Why make all those speeches about it? Why go to those lengths, because they're covering their compensating for what they know they're really like, I can't tell you what's gone on with

more as easier, but I can't tell you this. A sanctimonious, smug liberal who has been pushing left wing policy for a long time thinks he can get away with a lot. And it looks like this guy did until now. We'll have more on this. I myself have always been for the voting age to sixty. I think it's really important to captain kids when they're in high school, when they're interested in all of this, when they're learning about government, to be able to vote. That is not necessarily, you know.

In other words, some of the priorities in this bill are that transparency and openness and accessibility and the rest. That's a subject of debate, but my view is that I would welcome that. Nancy Pelosi wants to brainwash your kids using the Democrat apparatus of the school system, the media,

social media she wants to do. She wants to brainwash your kids and get them voting as soon as possible, because kids will vote for the party of the cool people and the nice people, which on fourly because of their dominance in our culture and in the cultural narrative in this country. Is the Democratic Party, who's the party of free stuff? Who doesn't like free stuff? Oh wow, gee,

if I were fifteen or oh, that's not true. When I was fifteen or sixteen, I was an I've been a conservative for as long as I've been essentient being. I think I go back a very long I knew I was a conservative in high school. I've never been down with the Democrats ever. It's just never been my thing. I think I probably go back. You're a smart guy, exactly, exactly. But Pelosi, there's so much here that's that's classic Pelosi.

One is this pretense that she would that she has for a long time wanted to law Yeah, just I have wanted to larry the voting age to sixteen for a long time. No, she has not, all right, I mean, you know, this is just nonsense. I'm not even checking her record on this one. Maybe she brought it up once, like twenty years ago or something. But this is this is a new thing, and this is part of the Democrats mobilization plan, which involves creating new voters, I mean

actually creating them people that can't vote. Now, Democrats want to be able to vote. They want to legals to vote, they want teenagers to vote, sixteen year olds to vote, they want convicted felons to vote. This is the strategy. This is their cut out the vote effort, which really tells you a lot about where the Democrats minds are on this stuff. You know, these days, increasingly I find

what is the Republican Party. The Republican base married people that attend religious service, with jobs, who are good to their neighbors, but want people to generally from the government leave them alone, you know, love America. There you have it. That's pretty much there, you know, which is a lot

of people, but that's pretty much the Republican Party. Yeah, some limited government and constitutionalism and all that stuff in there too, for sure, but it's mostly married people or people with families who have a job, pay their bills, are responsible and don't get into all this you know, nonsense about the coming revolution and the need to redistribute wealth and all these other things they talk about. Unfortunately, that means that if you're in any identity identity group,

you know, identity politics is dominated by the Democrats. If you're in any minority group, the overwhelming push on you is to make you a Democrat, right the the overwhelming pressure is going to be to get you to over the Democratic Party. And it's true of teenagers too, teenagers who want to be cool. I mean, you know, who does Beyonce vote for? Who does Jay Z vote for? Who does name a celebrity? Leonardo DiCaprio, mister climate change

flies everyone in his private jet. You know, to think of a big celebrity other than James Woods, whose Twitter is fierce. Think think of somebody. If you don't, If you don't follow James Woods on Twitter, you're missing out inst the block. You're you're missing out. He is a very entertaining fellow. But they want to make teenagers vote. Pelosi will just she'll just make stuff up as she goes along. She has no problem doing that, as we all know. And that is certainly part of what is

going on here. Making sixteen year olds vote is a bizarre idea. If you're a reasonable person, if you're somebody that just has a need deep within the recesses of his or her soul for power. I remember when I talk about power, it's always the power to make others do certain things. You know, there's some people who have a need. They want that ability to make you do stuff.

That's what Democrats, what status, what the leftist, that's what they want to be able to tell you what to do, how to live your life, what to think, what to eat. If you're somebody who just wants people to make choices, have liberty, be left alone, you're a conservative. Now it's a pretty clear delineation between the two ideologies. We should not be haunted by the specter of being automated out of work, whether it's a tax rate, whether it's distributing

wealth that is created by automation. If we talk, if we if we approach solutions to our system and start entertaining ideas like that, then we should be excited about automation because what it could potentially mean is more time educating ourselves, more time creating art, more time investing and investigating in the sciences, more time focused on invention, more time going to space, more time enjoying the world that

we live in. Yeah, that's aoc on automation. Now, let's let's make sure that we stick with the truth and the facts. It is true that overall, automation in time is over the course of time, has been useful for people to have more free time. It is true that we are more productive now as a society because of automation. We are wealthier as a society because of automation. What was really interesting here is that she just she thinks

that it gives you more time to create art. Well, that's only if you have somebody paying the bills while you're doing your finger painting, if someone's giving you money so that you can have your little pottery wheel at home. John, you ever done pottery? It's actually pretty cool. We did pottery in my grammar school and I remember thinking that,

actually it was pretty fun. And you know, people always, but I think forever, there's always that association with the scene from Ghosts, you know, so that's whatever people think of a pottery wheel, that's all that comes into their minds. Pretty good movie, by the way, kind of holds up for what it is. So AOC saying that you're gonna have more time to create art is funny. But what's not funny is the prospect of mass, mass unemployment that

could come from this wave of AI. And you know this takes you back into a debate that's been around for well, not that long. It's been around for last hundred and let's say, I don't know, one hundred and twenty years, or so one hundred and thirty. It depends on how deep in the industrial revolution you want to go, but it definitely takes you back quite a ways to periods in time when just the basics of mechanics and machinery of engines and combustion engines gave people a lot

of concern that they would be out of work. But of course, with greater productivity, there were other jobs, and people will be moved to other jobs. I do think it's fair to point out that AI changes things though, that one one component of this discussion that exists until now is that every machine that we've had has been a labor multiplier really for human beings that are a part of the process, and that there will always be a need for people to be decision makers in that process.

But AI, at least as it is envisioned for the future, could replace in an information based economy the human beings that are the decision makers within that information based economy in certain ways. You know, I actually don't think that restaurant servers and hosts and hostesses, and you know, there are some jobs where you want a human being just because you want a human being. I do not want a robot coming up and say, would you like cheesy fries?

Like No, I want someone who comes up to me who's like, hey, Buck love your radio showman, I'm gonna bring you some cheesy fries on the house, because that's what happens all the time, you know. So I think that's a that's it's a serious concern though. And people were definitely given aoco hard time though, because she's like, yeah, you'll have like more time to create art and like it should be exciting for everybody. It will. Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about here.

If Uber manages to do what it's planning to do, which is used a neural net and connect. And I know a lot of you who listen and I always

appreciate your message. A lot of you who listen to this show are long haul truckers, people that are in the long haul trucking and shipping and just the movement of goods, which is one thing that the green energy folks never understand is that we have no way, even even if we make some of the changes they want, we can't transport the food from the field to the table to get to people unless we have fossil fuel.

It just it just can't be done. And anyway, but those of you that are in those fields that that's a big sector of the economy. And if you have autonomous vehicles, there will be a big loss of jobs there. I mean, I think there's over I think there are over a million people in the country right now. I don't know what the exact numbers, it's definitely over a million who either drive an uber or drive a taxi of some kind and are transporting people around. And it's look,

it's an important service. It's part of the service economy. People need that service. They have to get to work, they have to get to the store. Those jobs go away. What happens to those million people, Well, you could say, oh buck, they'll be absorbed into other jobs. But what if it takes a year or two, what if it

takes ten years? You know, And this is where the sneer of learned to code from journalists has finally been turned back on them, because there have been some considerable layoffs in journalism world recently, but learned to code was what you could get kicked off of Twitter for saying to a journalist. I would note that's an interesting, interesting

little tidbit. But the idea that everybody who is currently driving a truck or delivery vehicle or a taxi is going to switch their profession to being a computer coder is absolutely absurd. So there'll be dislocations, there'll be real concerns about this, But then there's also aoc more broadly, just truly making an immiscile of herself. Play clip two. Mister Sloan, why was the bank involved in the caging

of children and financing the caging of children? To begin with, I don't know how to answer that question because we weren't so in finance. You were, I'm not familiar with the specific assertion that you're making, but we weren't directly involved in that. She thinks that the Wells Fargo CEO was somehow involved or his company was involved in the caging of children at the border. Where she got that is anyone's guess, but it's a it's a bizarre and

really dumb thing to say. Clearly, this guy who does not work for the federal government, has nothing to do with caging children. And this is where you know I agree with Newt new to loot Newt Gingrich on there. You know, you get caught back and forth with AOC is she is she a laughing stock or is she a threat? I think she's both, and I try to present that side of her here on the show. Those

sides of her on the show play three. In a normal, healthy society, Alexandria would be seen as this interesting graduate student who had gotten into some college with a good student loan, hung out a lot of smoked the little grass, drank a little beer, had a good time, once red half of a book, knows nothing, and nobody would take her seriously when in a healthy society she would be

a joke. She doesn't know anything, her views are based on whatever random thought comes in that morning, and her proposals are beyond silly, and she couldn't possibly defend her proposals. Nude is absolutely correct, and it's reassuring to hear that, isn't it. But it's also a little unnerving because he's right. In a healthy society, that is how the American people would view this freshman member of Congress. That is what they would think of her proposals, but they don't. So

what does that say about where we are? What does that say about trajectory of politics will be in this country if the left has their way, If someone who is such a know nothing could become the day facto ideological leader of the Democrat Party overnight, it just tells us the Democratic Party has real core. It is just a coalition for the pursuit of power that is not conservative, that is not associated with the Republican Party. It is everything that the Republican Party is not that wants power,

that is the Democratic Party. There's no real underlying uniting ethos. There's no party. You know that the principles things like you know, a women's right to choose redistribution of wealth, these aren't principles. These are just mechanisms to power, and in fact they're deeply unprincipled. Nude also had some more words about AOC play for you know, I think it might be useful to take up a fund to ask AOC.

She'd be on to Venezuela, go to Zimbabwe, visit with people who used to live in the so of a union. These are people who operate out of an emotion led kind of self righteous passion with no knowledge. The fact is not only a socialism not work. Socialism leads you to a dictatorship. It leads you to powerful people like Muduro's stealing. People like AOC have no answer, not if you say to her. In fact, they believe in mythology.

They think, for example, Cuba's this wonderful paradise, except, of course, most Cubans can't afford to buy a car, and the only cars available were made before nineteen fifty eight. It's all true, It's all true. And yet the libs that I know, and the libs that I talk to on a regular basis, think that she is some kind of incredible messaging superhero. There is in fact an AOC comic book. Folks, they really do think she's a messaging superhero. Her superpower

is stupidity. But apparently that does not matter. It does not matter that she knows nothing. And these are people that we're telling us that Trump isn't intellectually curious enough. These are people that were telling us that we should be ashamed for voting for President Trump, who has been running a multinational corporation for decades, was an incredibly successful TV star and entertainer. You know, has been in the boardroom,

has been in negotiations. And whether you think he's been great and all of his business dealings or not, or even just mediocre or whatever, at least he's been doing stuff. At least he does know something about something. This woman knows nothing about nothing, and the Democrats turned to her as their guiding light on policy. It is both hilarious

and terrifying at the same time. Have you heard, though, that President Trump doesn't want more people come in and he's even separated families you try to come is because her children were threatened? Yea, he said, because of violence. One of the most despicable moments in modern American history. I saw kids locked in cages, sitting on floors. I will never forget it. The media needs to make sure that the stories you hear at the border are just

of crying children. That's the only thing you're supposed to hear from them. You're supposed to be told that Trump has locked children in cages and that the Trump administration is evil and mean and doing all kinds of awful, awful things, which you're not supposed to know or pay any attention to, is that currently our border is essentially an open border. If you show up with a kid from Central America, you get to come into the United States. You do pass go, you do collect two hundred dollars,

so to speak. I don't know if you really clicked any money, but you do get to come into the United States. The Trump administration is not, or rather President Trump himself is not to blame for this state of affairs. I don't think that would be fair. But he isn't getting it done either, folks. He's not securing the border effectively. Yes, Congress has to act, Yes the courts are against Trump, but this needs to be the focus. What's he going to say to those of us who voted for him

going into twenty twenty. Yes, the left is crazy and maybe that's enough. But is he going to be able to convince them that the wall is built being built?

I am hoping to get down to El Paso in a few weeks and I'll be able to bring you a lot of ground truth and do interviews with frontline border patrol roll folks, and just see for myself what's going on with the detention facilities, with the wall with everything, this was an interesting story in the last twenty four hours that I think, as I like to hearing, it should get more attention, so I'm telling you about it.

Homeland Security officials have sent two hundred and forty migrants back to Mexico since January under an experimental new policy that requires Central American asylum seekers to wait outside US territory while their asylum claims are processed. The policy, known as Migrant Protection Protocols, has been expanded in recent days

to the Calexico Port of Entry in California. According to Department of Homeland Security officials, a small number of migrants who are arrested for crossing illegally between the US port of entry in San Diego area have been a return to Mexico under this Migrant Protection Protocols. So the measure allows in immigration law allows authorities to send back migrants who arrived through a third country to that foreign territory.

Immigrant legal advocates are seeking an injunction and federal court to block MPP, which the Trump administration says is necessary to contend with the recent search of border crossings. Okay, why does this matter? Third party safe agreement, That's what this is you might recall I've spoken to you about that before here on the show. This would be an enormous improvement in the current situation. This would really help take the heat off our border patrol and Immigrations and

Customs enforcement officers. Here's what it would do. Currently, if you show up at the border, remember you have a kid, or you claim credible fear, you are brought into processing centers. They make sure that you're not a known terrorist and that you don't have you any kind of terrible communicable disease. They feed you, they house you for a day or two, maybe a few more, and then they release you in

the American interior. That is what happens, never to be seen again by US authorities in a vast majority of cases. What this new agreement would do, This Migrant Protection Protocols agreement would say that, Okay, you show up at the border. You want asylum, great, You're going to stay in Mexico. You're apply here at a port of entry, you apply in Immigrations and Customs enforcement facility, but you will wait on the Mexico Mexico side of the US Mexico border

until your case is ready for adjudication. Now, what you're going to see you're already seeing it, is that the quote immigration advocates are going to fight this tooth and nail. Why because this takes the scam out of it. The whole point of what they're doing at the border now is they're released into the country essentially on a handshake and a promise in a nod, Hey, you'll come back, right, you'll come back for your hearing. No, actually they will

not come back for their hearing. They are not going to get asylum, but they're never even going to show up and request asylum. That's that's central to this whole problem. So these immigration these so called immigration advocates, these legal groups, and you know a lot of this is funded by Soros or Soros like individuals who are pro open borders,

whether they'll say so or not. But when they're at the border, they know that if if people can't get into the country immediately and they have to respect our legal process, this will this will effectively shut down this massive loophole if they can implement this program properly. So this should be a major push from immigration enforcement, customs

and border patrol. Here's you know, I come to unite I tell you that things are not going well enough to the border, and I'm trying to raise the alarm about this. Here's a way to make it work. People can still apply for asylum. We're not saying you can't get asylum if you have a real, real reason. You just can't scan the system the same way, because you're gonna be in Mexico and you're gonna show up to a court and when you don't get a psalm, you're

gonna get sent right back across the border. This is a solution to the problem, or at least will help the problem a lot. So I'll continue to follow this and I'll have more for you on it as it goes along. There's a chance I may catch a bit of heat tomorrow for a column that I have written. I want to give you a little preview of it. It somewhat ties into this whole college admissions debacle, all the cheating and the scandals and the payoffs, the bribes.

But this is my own little take on things, and here's basically where I am on it. I think that recruiting for college athletics is absurd. I think that it should stop. I think that schools shouldn't do this anymore. And the moment I say this to people, and I know there's probably a lot of people listen to this who are like, Buck, you mess with my college football and we're gonna I'm not saying no college athletics. I'm not saying, you know, shutdown, No, I love college sports.

I'm just saying, let's stop with this pretense of putting people in schools like UNC Chapel Hill and Stanford who are at a fifth or sixth grade reading level, and we're supposed to treat that, We're supposed to act like that. You know, they're they're normal students, just like all the other students, and they're getting this great education, and no, they are semi professional athletes. So this is my column tomorrow,

which would be up on the Hills. We need to stop this athletic recruiting thing because it allows for the exploitation of these young men and women, especially young men who are playing sports. That the NCAA had a did a billion dollars in revenue last year. There's big money here, but there's this whole, this whole sham, this whole scam of the scholar athlete and all the stuff. No, no, no, no, no, pretty much every school in the country. And there's a lot of nuance here and some of you, I know,

light me up in the on the Facebook comments. Go for it. You know, if you disagree, this is fine. I'm I know this is a little bit of a controversial position, but I also know that I'm right on this.

The idea that you would have schools bringing in and these are schools are taking five, six, seven percent of all applicants sometimes less, that you would be kicking kicking open all these spots for people that not only are playing in the big sports football, basketball, you know, depending on the school that it depends on what sports they really value. But for people that you saw this with these and these individuals that are you know, getting getting

into schools by cheating. Oh the crew team pole vaulters. Who the heck cares about pole vaulting. I mean, let's be serious. Pole vaulting is something that you see when flipping through the channels at two am. You watch two people do it. You're like, oh, that's pretty cool, and you're done. Nobody should be getting in to Stanford because they're a pole vaulter. This is ridiculous. Nobody should be getting into Yale or UVA or you name it, ut

Austin because they're on the they're a great fencer. This is just absurd. What we should have are at the top level of NCUBA athletics. It should be semi pro people. I'm not saying that people can't go into the can't get the education at the school. I'm just saying no, no, they should be paid and brought in and have a special curriculum developed for them. They can still represent the school.

But this whole thing of we're just going to recruit people and pretend like they're normal like the rest of the students, and this is all just you know, they're all student athletes. No, they're athletes, students at the top level, at the top schools and at the top athletic programs. They're playing all kinds of games with this. And don't even get me started on Division three schools, you know, these smaller schools, these less important athletic programs, they shouldn't

be recruiting at all. It's a joke. It is absolutely absurd. Why we really need to make sure that the women's field hockey team is competitive in our conference? Why take the students you want to take have tryouts, and then you know you're still going to field great teams at these schools that you're still are full of athletes. It's just it's this arms race that undermines the basic foundational

purpose of the university, which is to educate people. It's not to, you know, fill an eighty thousand person stadium with screaming fans and pretend that the people on the field are normal students just like all the rest of the students. That's not the purpose of a university. And they have dozens and dozens of these teams and they're

recruiting and recruiting and recruiting. It takes up You want to talk about taking spots away from deserving people, and if you can get in without the sport, then great, That's what I'm saying. You don't need the sports, so why are we recruiting. I know people people get very contentious about this with me. It's gonna be up on the hill dot Com tomorrow. I'll post it on Facebook. But no more college recruiting for athletics the way it currently is. I'm taking a stand on this one. It's

absurd and I think I'm right. The show ain't over yet folks, keeping it real, it's time for roll call. Roll call time on a Thursday. Yeah, yeah, it's time for the row call. Oh yes, Buck to roll call. You didn't know that I had pipes, did you? Oh? I got pipes. I didn't say they were good pipes.

I've got pipes. Let's get to it. Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton indeed, indeed, and uh let's see what we have here now, Michael Buck, I would rather not vote for a Republican than vote for a Republican that does things like vote against the national emergency. How about you? Shields high, Michael. I don't have an easy answer here, man. I'm very frustrated by this. It's like I've been saying, we Republicans don't want to win. They don't want to win.

I don't know how else to put it. I you know, you, if you really care about something, if you think something is necessary and good and moral in many cases, aren't you going to do what you can to get to that place to use the process. I'm not saying the ends justifies the means, but I'm saying, aren't you willing to fight along the way to get that thing done that you believe is good and worthy and beneficial and moral, and no Republicans liked it like a lot of posturing,

a lot of roosters strutting around. Well, I love the Constitution that I am the closest to the founding fathers of any Republican. You know, I don't care which US senators have a giant copy of the Constitution over their very fancy desks on Capitol Hill. I don't care if they sleep on bedsheets made of replicas of the Constitution. I want them to enact policy that is good for this country, and yes, is in keeping with the Constitution.

But that's where I disagree with them. They think they're making some big constitutional stin I think they're just being foolish. Statutes say the president can do this. The president in the past has done this dozens and dozens of times, I think over fifty times, and just because Congress would not go along with something does not necessarily mean that the president does not have the authority to do it.

So I'm with you. I am very frustrated. But you know, they're the same Republicans who say, oh, the president doesn't have the authority to the Constitution, the same ones who say that on this have no problem with all kinds of presidential findings and you know, presidential orders for military action and all kinds of stuff. You know, they seem to think that executive authority that is outside of our

borders should be essentially unchecked. You know, it should. It should be up to the president to fire missiles, declare war, fight wars, all this stuff. But Congress has totally advocated that responsibility. Oh but this responsibility building a fence, folks, that's what we're talking about, building a fence. It's too dangerous for the president to have that responsibility. Well, I disagree. Oh let's see, William writes, I am done with every

Republican party. This is absolutely unfathomable that they do not have a backbone, let alone a pair of something else. Time for a third party resurrect the Tea Party as a full fledged challenge to both parties. This is not going to end. Well, I'm so concerned for my six children and eight grandchildren. William, I agree with you that this is this is disheartening. Now, let's let's be clear. It doesn't really mean anything. It doesn't have the force

of law. The president pulled out the veto and it's just a it's a resolution that means nothing. It means nothing. But I do think that this goes to show you that there are a lot there are people within the Republican Party who when Trump seemed unstoppable, they just wanted to ride the Trump wave. But now that we're getting into election season, you know, they want to kind of hedge their bets a little bit. They're Republican senators that

are waffling a little here. Oh you know, I am really more concerned about me than about the Trump agenda. And I think we have to keep a very close eye all that. I think that's a real phenomenon. Jeremy Rights hey Buck podcast listener in Roswell, New Mexico, area fifty one. The difference between flying with an old school yoke and flying by wire control is that you can better feel what the plane is doing through the yoke. A fly by wire is essentially using a computer game

joystick to fly the plane. The computer controls the plane by what the pilot does with the joystick. This helps with fatigue, but if there's a problem with the computer, there is no backup. At least with a yoke, you can still control the plane. If power is lost, keep up the great work. Shields high, Jeremy, thank you so much for that. And that's what I was getting at yesterday that there are you know that people who are

making fun of the president. And I've spoke to an aviation security a world renowned aviation security expert today at the Hill about this, and he said that it's it's absolutely the case that some of the basic flying, basic pilot skills can get rusty and can be also thrown off. It can get rusty because of the complexity of these systems and also can throw you off in an emergency because you are completely relying on computers. You know what

you really have now are near autonomous airplanes. Well, if you have an autonomous airplane and all of a sudden the circuits have an issue, you need to be able to have a pilot who says, all right, I'm in the cockpit, I'm in control. I'm in control. And I think this is always going to be an issue with autonomous cars as well. People are going to want to have the option. I'm saying, all right, things are getting

weird in this car. It's you know, go inside to side at eighty miles an hour, I want, you know, human control. Now, I think you're gonna have to always have that. I know, I know that exists in planes, but the systems in place can be counterproductive to that, to that effort, Rick Rights, good news, Buck. Dan Crenshaw's parents are American parents were living abroad when he was born. Sixth generation. Okay, okay, okay. So so he is a

natural born citizen of to US citizen parents. And what you're saying, all right, all right, that's uh that now we're now we're talking. Now we're talking. That is good news, Gina, or is it Gianna? Hey? Buck, I heard you say on yesterday's show you're all in for Dan Crenshaw until you found out he wasn't born here. I went into his bio indicated he was born to American parents in Scotland, depending on the circumstances. Wouldn't be similar to Ted Cruz,

who was born in Canada. Love your analysis every day, Sarah. Well, Gina, clearly that is what we were just talking about a second ago. And yes, that would be similar to Ted Cruise. Although I don't believe Ted Cruz's parents were US citizens. I think one of them was in one of them. Now, don't quote me on this, folks. I don't know everything, although I'm a radio host, so I'm supposed to pretend. Right. A lot of the radio hosts do and they know a lot less than me, which is always kind of funny.

But I don't quote me on this when we have to check this one out. But there is some dispute about this, and Coulter was throwing a lot of shade toward Ted Cruz, saying that he constitutionally does not have the pathway to run for the presidency. She's like, I'm sorry, not a natural born citizen under the founder's interpretation. All right, now we have wow, another one on Crenshaw. Okay, okay, we get it. Yes, his parents were citizens. Thank you,

Thank you, Steve. I appreciated Jason Buck, How can we break the left from using these protesters as a political weapon to destroy their political enemies protesters office as a political weapon. Rather, is it going to take the prosecution of Hillary Clinton or another of their top people to break them of this dangerous game they're playing? Buck? How can we oh the same question here? Ah, I don't know how we break them from doing I don't know how we get them to stop doing this. I wish

I had a ready answer for you. I think that the you know, the left is the party of the state, and so they're always going to be comfortable abusing the mechanisms of the state for their own political ends. That's just the way it is. So we aren't in turn, going to become much more comfortable status in our own right, because that's not how we are, that's not who we are. But if you're a bureaucrat, there's a very good chance that you are in the federal bureaucracy, you are somebody

who's likely to be a Democrat. I think it was over nine federal bureaucrat donations went to Hillary Clinton in the last election. It was a stunning number, a stunning number. How do we get them to stop doing this? Well, I will say that there's some degree of, you know, there's some degree of maybe we need to make them live under the rules that we live under. Two and

I'm all for that. Now with the free speech wars, we do not bend, We do not apologize, We do not consume our own we do not turn on our own people. You apologize if your own honor or integrity demanded I'm not saying never apologize. I'm saying you don't apologize because the mob tells you to. All of us will say things and do things, not just people in media. All of us say things that we don't mean that went too far, and a good person, an honorable person,

apologizes when he or she is wrong. But I'm not going to apologize because you know we hate conservatives. We hate conservative Nope, sorry, not gonna happen. Not gonna happen. Gotta draw the line. That's why I've been so happy, so happy that that Tucker has been standing strong on this issue, and it has real ramifications for the rest of us. The generation of conservatives, you know, a generation

below Tucker. It means a lot that he's not getting snapped in half by this clear underhanded assault on him. Scott writes, Hey, Buck, am I alone, and I think the only reason the FBI arrested these celebrities with guns drawn and a quarter million dollar bail is simply because the elites that run these high end schools are angry. These people short circuit of the usual method of getting

their subpart children into prestigious colleges. You used to have to donate a wing of a library, or convince a dean that a bronze of their likeness would look perfect in the middle of the quad. Keep it Real and Shields High, Scott Scott, the answer is yes. I think you are correct. The answer is yes. A lot of people are so upset about this because they don't accept that there can be any other ways to short circuit

the system. The elites like their pathways into these schools, and people that are just below them they're not allowed to do this. Team. We've got more coming up tomorrow. Looking forward to talking to you for a freestyle Friday. Shields High