Mexico Tariff War Is On

And we've been working with decades from Mexico to be equal partners to resolve this problem, and they've remained on the sidelines from day one. They only have about one hundred and fifty miles of chunk point of the border that they need to enforce, and we have two thousand. We need Mexico to do to do three things. We need them to do their interdiction along their border, We need them to attack and target the TCOs that are profiting from this, and we need them to be partners

with respect of the side them process. I think that this pressure is going to bring them to the table and get them closer to doing what they should be doing. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody fight over the border is heating up. How much is for sure at this point? Do you have Republicans who are getting a little bit a little auntie, a little concerned about what the economic implications will be from this possible tariff and

tariff escalation that will come. It starts next week five percent on all goods from Mexico into this country, driving hundreds of billions of dollars of goods overall, and that will only go up from there, right, it will be even more. This is a heck of a lot more. Three hundred and fifty billion dollars a year of Mexican imports is what we're dealing with here. So five percent and then ten percent and then fifteen percents a lot

of money. And this is in addition to what Trump has already taken on with tariffs against China to try to force China to the table on ending its unfair predatory trading practices, intellectual property theft, all other things. And I do believe the President has largely on the substance, won that argument as to whether we should confront China before Trump came along. Oh no, we can't do that

trade war. Oh it's terrible now and says, well, hold on a second, what have the Chinese really been doing? And what does the future look like if we don't take a different posture when it comes to China. But now he's looking at Mexico and it's like, all right, maybe we're the tariffs there too. I do have a little bit of a concern that tariffs now are the hammer and that Trump sees everything because he's got that

hammer as a nail. But maybe this does work, and it certainly would work better if Republicans didn't at the first sign of any friction, of any political and economic cost suggest this is now the Senate Republicans who at a lot of chrony capitalist, quasi open borders donor class Republicans in the Senate, that's where you find a lot of them, and they get very concerned about this and what it would mean, what it would mean for their reelection prospects, I think, and also it would have a

negative impact on some businesses, and there will be some economic pain that comes from this. I don't think there's any question about that. But there's another aspect of this that we have to think about, and that is what is acceptable right now? What is an acceptable future for us when it comes to the border. I mean you had Mark Morgan there to start off the segment here talking about how Mexico can do more than it is doing to help us out on this and should do more.

He says, there needs to be interdiction along the more interdiction along the border, attack the criminal organizations, and be

partners in the asylum process. How many months now have I been saying to you and Mexico needs to become a safe third country and we need an agreement with them to be a safe third country, meaning that anyone who wants to get asylum in this country would show up here, present themselves, but stay on the Mexican side of the US Mexico border and have their process adjudicated without them disappearing into the American interior, without the enormous

magnet that exists right now for fraud, for lawbreaking, and for making a mockery of our immigration process by either presenting oneself as a family unit when that's not the case, or just knowing that as a family unit, if you come to the border, you're going to be released into the American interior, and then there will be no real effort, no real accountability to track you down afterwards. If this doesn't change, then our situation at the border will not change.

It will only continue at one hundred thousand plus a month coming into this country, and we will not have a border that anybody could seriously consider secure. It's not secure right now. It's the worst that it has been in a very long time. Completely overwhelmed, is what you're hearing. I mean, that's the description from the border patrol has been for weeks. Arrests have surged to a seven year

high while these talks with Mexico are going on. I'm sorry, but I have a tough time believing that we could be at a point where we're setting records right now, after all the attention to this issue has gotten and oh my gosh, more than one hundred and forty four thousand, two hundred migrants according to the the New York Times. Here we're taken into custody by Customs and Border Protection along the southwestern border in May. That is a thirty two

percent increase, the highest monthly in seven years. Most crossed the border illegally. Ten percent arrived without the proper documents at ports of entry, so they are crossing. These are all illegal crossings, one hundred and forty four thousand illegal crossings that resulted in people to being taken into custody. I'm sorry, almost all of them were illegal crossings. And then you had about one in ten are in custody because they don't have the right documents when they showed

up at a port of entry. So this problem is even worse than worse than people who have been trying to get the alarm alarm bells wrong. Realize, one hundred and forty four thousand, we're gonna be We're gonna be over well over a million for the year if this keeps up, one hundred and forty four thousand people showing up, not going through the normal And keep in mind, we already have through the legal immigration process a million people a year who are going to be brought into the

American family. Personally, we have a million people a year who will be staying in this country forever. And that's legal, and that's fine. But I'm just saying, you know, there's a lot that our immigration system is already handling and dealing with that you're going to add on to it. Now, almost one hundred and fifty thousand people illegally crossing a month is just indicative of how completely out of control

the situation is. Who can afford who can better afford in this trade dispute now that Trump is or this this fight over a possible tariff implementation, Who can better afford this price tag us for them? We have been led to believe, I think, and this is from the

go along to get along swamp culture in DC. We were led to believe that when it comes to foreign relations, America should never it's bullying if we use leverage against a country that's not an oppositional country, or that's not North Korea or Russia or something, but you know, any other country we deal with, especially a neighbor like Mexico, it bullying if we say we're going to need you to do this or else to this. I say, this

is negotiation. In any negotiation, there are good things you can offer, and there are things you can offer that aren't so good. You could say you do this, or I'll do that, or you do this, or I'll do this other thing that you don't want me to do. That's how this goes. We've been asking the Mexican government for a long time to help us more on this problem. We've been trying to get them to be more constructive partners,

but they don't want to do that. Maybe they don't want to spend the resources, maybe they don't want to handle this. But the Mexican government can do a whole lot more. And we know this. Lindsey Graham I think is a spot on here when he says that they should become a third safe country. We should have that agreement in place, and the other things that we see going on with the buses and everything else, that all

has to stop. Play clip nine. Ask Mexico to do two or three things that they're not doing that wouldn't matter help us. Make sure you apply for asylum in Mexico or Central America, not the United States. Stop giving them buses to get to our border. A few things you could do would help the problem. And if they'll do those few things, we won't do tariffs. But if they refuse to help us, what options do we have?

Refuse to help us? What options do we have? There are things on the books I'll have you know if you if you really want to go deep in the weeds and immigration, there are things like any country that does not take back those that we are trying to deport. We can suspend all visas. This is currently on the books for immigration. We can suspend all visas from that country. I'm sure if the Trump administration did that with any of these Central American states, we'd be told that it's horrible.

And look what they said when we cut off aid. We're not allowed to invoke and this is the liberal mentality on the immigration crisis. We are not allowed to invoke consequences. We're not allowed to cause consequences for anyone in this process. We cannot punish people that cross illegally. We cannot punish dates that will not stop those from crossing illegally Mexico. We cannot punish Central American countries that are allowing this outflow from their own territory into Mexico.

It's no one's fault. No one is allowed to suffer anything as a result, suffer any consequences because of this. And if we as a sovereign nation, try to re establish our sovereignty in some meaningful sense, if we're trying to take any action that would deal with you, now going on one hundred and fifty thousand a month illegally crossing into the country. We're bad the we're the bad guys here. They're saying it. Oh, Trump, this tiff, this teriff issue is just showing how, you know, how he

doesn't really understand the economics self. No, I think he does understand the economics involved. What does it cost the country right now to have this problem of illegal immigration. What is the cost in healthcare and schools, in the processing of all these people by the federal government, the court time, the lawyers that I'll be appointed in a Washington Post. Biggest story in the Washington Post front page is HHS canceling English classes and legal aid for unaccompanied

child migrants in shelters. Let's understand what's happening here. Every unaccompanied migrant child that is currently in federal government custody was sent by adults who know that they are exploiting the system. So this is a direct response to what we have going right now, which is trying to do everything we can to make them as comfortable as possible and to release them to a sponsor family somewhere in the United States. But this is not this is not

what's supposed to happen. You're not supposed to take your kid from some other country, send them to the US border and say okay, you take care of him now until we can find somewhere else for that person to go. There are budgetary constraints, and the budgetary constraints now are affecting some soccer programs that they've set up for unaccompanied migrants, for schooling programs. Look, I don't blame these kids. It's not about punishing the kids. But Congress needs to do

more here to stop this from happen. The answer can't be yeah, we are running a giant education and entertainment facility for anyone who wants to send their child to America, not through the legitimate process, and to put them in the hands of coyotes, to put them in positions where they are enriching the cartels, and then again no one suffers any consequences. If you were a Central American who wanted to come to America right now, why not do it? Nothing bad is gonna I mean nothing bad is going

to happen to you from the American government. Bad things gonna happen because of the coyotes and the transfer across cartel controlled territory. Are we allowed to do anything to Mexico to comply. I re allowed to do anything to get some of these other countries that are taking money from US. That's right, taxpayers sending them checks. I see here. Guatemala says it's working with the US to tighten its borders and try to break up these caravans. Well, it's

it's about time. It's about time, and it maybe is only happening because they see that if we're willing to take steps against Mexico, that we'll have some economic consequences in political pain in this country too. Tariffs are not going to be pain free. But if we're willing to do that, then maybe we're going to do more about the Central American countries where a lot of these margarets are coming from. But this is as a major issue. We got more on this team and a whole lot

more show to talk about, so stay with me. The news came that the President had this notion that he was going to treat Mexico as an enemy. This is dangerous territory. This is not a way to treat a friend. It's not a way to deal with immigration, it's not a way to deal the humanitarian needs at the border. Okay, Nancy Pelosi econ and trade expert Nancy Pelosi tonight at eleven, what is the way to deal with Mexico on this? What is the way to deal with the humanitarian crisis

at the border. It's also an illegal immigration crisis. Notice that the Democrats always trying to control the language, always trying to control the way that we talk about this. What do they present? Oh, that's right, it's just humanitarian. Because then if you don't fund, you know, English as a second language classes for the migrant children, if you're not putting them in school, giving them taxpayer funded healthcare, and you know, recreational programs and movie showings and all

these things, you're a terrible person. Meanwhile, we are this is a scam. We are being scammed. It is happening every day, and it's happening now to the tune of almost one hundred and fifty thousand a month. I just saw that number today. It's astonishing. And Pelos, she says that we're treating Mexico like an enemy. Why does Canada? Is Canada treating us like an enemy? Because there are some tariffs on the import of US goods into Canada,

so they can protect some of their own industries. Is the EU treating us like an enemy because they have tariffs in place to protect some of their industries that they think are particularly necessary or sensitive for their own reasons. I would just I would like to know where the lines are drawn here to call it treating Mexico like

the enemy. Look, I understand there's a difference. Then there should be a difference in how we approach dealing with China and how we approach dealing with Mexico on trade. But this isn't really that hard, is it. Are we asking for anything from the Mexican government that is impossible? Are we saying, well, if you don't stop all the flow of drugs into this country, which are now killing tens of thousands of Americans a year. But look, that's hard,

that's hard. You know, the cartels are not comply ying with the Mexican government by their very definition. They're breaking the law. They're going around. Well there's I'm sure plenty of collusion with Mexican authorities, but that's another issue. But we're saying, is hey, when you have a crowd of a thousand Hondurans or Guatemalans who are all marching together

across the country. Can you not provide them with food and shelter and buses and take them right to the border and then just say, well, this is your problem, America. Can you offer them safe haven in your country and play ball this a little bit more so that they're not walking into our country? Does that seem unreasonable? Is that?

Is that an enemy state request? I can assure you that if we had one hundred and fifty thousand or so illegal crossings at our northern border with Canada, we would have some tough words for our Canadian brothers and sisters. You know, we would have to say, hey, can you guys get a handle on things. If you can't, we're gonna have to you know, there's gonna have to be some consequences year. But you know, but Pelosi, all the Democrats do on this issue is complain about Trump. They

never have anything to offer that is constructive. They just want to sit back and use this as a means of bashing the administration, calling him racist, calling him xenophobic, and doing everything in their power in the meantime to obstruct any meaningful change about the current situation of the border, which is it is worse than it has been in the last twenty years. Right now, President Trump, who beat the Republican field largely by talking tough on immigration and

making some big promises. The immigration situation at our border is worse than it has been in twenty years. What is Trump supposed to ignore this? Tariffs? One reason he's gone for tariffs is because it's an area where at least the Democrats. You don't think some judge from the Ninth Circuit is going to come along and say, oh, the President can institute tariffs or maybe a judge, well, just give it time, we'll be back. We have a border situation in the inner station. You have one over here.

But I hear it's going to work out very well. I think it's both going to work out well. It's going to work out very well here. And again, both the military and the trade is such a big factor and we're going to be discussing that very much. So it's an honor to be in Ireland with my friend and he's doing a great job as your Prime minister. They want to avoid a courses, it's going to avoid our wall between No, I think you do. I think you do. The way it works now is good. You

want to try and keep it that way. And I know that's a big point of contention with respect to Brexit as your border, and I'm sure it's going to work out. Well. That was an interesting exchange. That was Trump there talking to Leo Varadkar, who is the Prime Minister of Ireland. So oh sorry, President wait is the president of Prime Minister of Ireland. I gotta make sure I get this to get this right. It doesn't really

I'll figure it out in the meantime. Um, but talking about the border wall, uh, you have sure enough the the Irish Premier. That's a good way to do one. You have the Irish Premier who's not liking the idea of a h of a wall between Britain and or between England and Ireland over over this whole Brexit issue. So here here's I just thought that was kind of a funny extent. Also strange that you wouldn't think that he's the PM. Thank you, producer, Mike. That's what I thought.

Just making sure. It's tough to keep it all straight with all these European places. UH got you know, you get the President of France, Matron Missieur mac roll, and then you got the PM in the UK, the PM in Ireland, but now they don't want walls there. Ireland. You know, I've never been, which is interesting because it's kind of the mother country for me in a sense. I think I'm about half Irish and I've never been to it, so I gotta get I gotta work on that.

I've been to China, I mean to Afghanistan. I've never been to Ireland, so I don't know how that's happened. But my friends who have spent a lot of time they're tell me that it is shockingly left wing and its politics, that it is even even for a European country. People have told me. I remember hearing a friend of mine who did a who studied in Ireland for years. He said that Ireland is the Cuba of Europe. That's

a whoa. That is rough stuff. I don't know if that's true or not, but I wouldn't think of Leo Varadkar as a particularly Irish name. But obviously they've had a lot of immigration and folks and different backgrounds going to Ireland. All right, let's move on the board of situation with the tariffs. Let's see if it gets moving from Mexico. If you're asking me for a prediction right now, I would think I would think that the likeliest situation is that Mexico's gonna try to They don't want this

to go to effect. We don't want this to go into effect. So good chance, in my mind that what happens here is the Mexican government says, okay, okay, we'll do some stuff, and it gives the Trump administration the cover to say, all right, since you're gonna work with us,

we're gon we're gonna put this on hold. And wouldn't that be let's just establish this now so that when the media is trying to tell you that Trump is terrible and he's so bad and doesn't know anything and he's orange and his hair is weird, let's remember that if that happens, if Mexico promises and takes some additional steps as a result of this, it's a threat. I mean, it's an economic threat. But this threat of an implementation of a five percent tariff, wouldn't that be Trump making

a deal? Wouldn't that be successful negotiation from the negotiator in chief here? I think the answer has to be yes, right. I think we have to see this as a win for Trump. So I say this now, maybe it doesn't happen, maybe the five percent tariff goes into effect. I say this now because Trump, you know, will get no credit from the media whatsoever. Even if Mexico blinks, Mexico backs down and says, you know what, we'll play ball on this. We'll stop some of this inflow into your country of

illegals keep in money. You know, Mexico has sovereignty too. Mexican government, Mexican authorities can do things about people entering their country from another country. You know, if you just walked into Mexico without permission, guess what they would have a problem with that. But no surprise, they haven't taken a whole lot of action so far to help us in this process. But if Trump gets action out of them,

just remember it's a win. And very few media outlets will tell you that because they're also invested in the destruction of this president. Speaking of the destruction of this president, you see what I did there, That's what we call smooth, smooth turn by a smooth operator. It's a smooth transition you have of the constant talk now of impeachment from the media. Thanks Muller, We all know what Mueller's press

conference was really about. It was to light the fuse or re light the fuse on impeachment proceedings against the president. You still haven't had anybody really define whether Mueller decide whether Muller is going to be giving open testimony, which he absolutely must do. I do not understand how anyone doesn't see this as a necessary You can't let him walk out, just have his say and then just bounce.

Here's the truth. If the Democrats thought that Mueller would provide them, and you know this, Muller would provide them with a massive bash Trump extravaganza opportunity, and there wasn't a risk to them of it majorly backfiring. We would have already had Mueller down on Capitol Hill. Oh, they would have pushed for it right away at the House, the committees, the media would have been a whole circus. But there are questions that Muller needs to be asked.

There are questions that Christopher Steele is apparently going to be asked. But we'll see if not, how that happens and when that happens. But for Muller, I would like to know, at what point did you find out that the operations against the Trump campaign was that one that the Trump campaig didn't clue with Russia. You start with that, When did you know that? And why did you continue with this massive, grinding investigation even after it was clear

there was no collusion. We know the answer to it, but I want to get him on the record as

to why he continued with this. I also want him to explain how it is that the official record of the origins of the Russia collusion investigation indicate that this was all because of Papadopolis and what he said in a bar and that's just laughable, and in fact, in the Mulla report, I believe it gets wrong that Mifsu reached out to They think that Papadopolus reach out to Mitsu, but Mifsud reach to Papadopolis first, which makes this much more likely to be a dangle, which would change the

way that it should have been treated by law enforcement. If they put somebody near the campaign and planted the idea of Hillary's emails getting hacked by the Russians in the first place, then that's entrapment. They're trying to avoid this, But what we're going to find out is that there was entrapment, but we can't. Unfortunately, until we have the IG report, we're limited in how much we can fight

back on some of this. And in the meantime, the Democrats are running around with this impeachment narrative, and first of all, the media that they're in a frenzy And why are they in a frenzy over this? Well, they're in a frenzy because their credibility, such as it is, has taken a hit. I don't mean their credibility about their reporting so much, because that was already You and I both know that a lot of these networks are anti Trump. They're full of people who are perpetrators of

a fake news narrative against Trump. Don't ever forget that it was the media that first used the term fake news to describe how gullible Republicans and Trump supporters were with the stuff that was on Facebook, and Trump managed to turn that around to say, Yeah, you think that we're gullible. You think that our side traffics in falsehood. Your side traffics in falsehood all the time and pass

themselves in the back for it. Your side traffics in propaganda and misdirection, and thinks that they are doing a great service for the country. They're not even good faith errors, they're bad faith errors. And you embrace this part of you know, the journals embraced this part of themselves. But the problem that the media has to deal with now, the anti Trump media, which is just an we always go back and forth on this is the media and

appendage of the Democratic Party. Is the Democratic Party and appendage of the media. I think you make the case their way, But they promised. I mean, you look at someone like Rachel Maddow, her show on MSNBC Night after night. The promise of that was and so many people built their careers in the last two years on the left around there's going to be a moment of Aha, this Trump presidency is over. They're gonna get him. If they had to lie to get there, that was always okay.

The people that watch CNN, MSNBC, they're not upset if there are fake news stories used to hurt the president. That's all part of the effort. In fact, I think they'd be upset if they found out that CNN and MSNBC and the Washington Post and other places were unwilling to bend or even break their standards entirely in order to take down this president. After all, they think he's a threat to our democracy, they think he's a threat

to our institutions, clear and present danger to America. Shouldn't they be willing to color outside the lines a little bit to get this guy. I don't think that the CNN audience is, in particular, having spent a lot of time over there and having some contact with members of that audience through the digital world, they're crazy. I don't think that they have a problem at all with the fact that CNN has had to fire people for fake stories that they've run. They've run with things that were

big time fake news. They've gotten things wrong, like the date of the communications around the around Donald Trump Junior and the Trump Tower meeting. There's all kinds of things that they just get wrong and wrong and wrong and wrong, wrong. As long as it hurts Trump is fine, but wrong. And then not giving the goods to the audience, meaning the end of the Trump presidency. That's what's so unacceptable

to them. They've been promising, promising their audience that this was all this get Trump effort was going to be Watergate two point zero and would result in the destruction of this presidency in one way or another, and nothing short of that is going to be acceptable to them, which is why the media is alloard. They're all on board for impeachment, totally believe in it. Playclip three. I'm

starting a playclip four. Rather, this is the media telling you how much there needs to be impeach on playclip four, bounting pressure growing calls to start impeachment after Robert Muller breaks his two years silence. If the House leadership doesn't start hearings now, I believe it's hard to see them every doing it in the months ahead. Again, now or never, we seem to be moving toward a place where impeachment may be inevitable. The damn really seems to be breaking

wide open. When he was really saying, is Congress has a job to do? It was almost a jeopardy question the way Robert Muller put it yesterday. There is a process other than the criminal justice system to charge a sitting president. What's the answer. The answer is impeachment. The answer is peachment. I do believe that that in a sense, the Democrat aligned media might be giving the Democrat Party some bad advice here because they're thinking short term and

the short term. They just want to have coverage of impeachment proceedings. And they feel like if this moves to impeachment, no matter what the outcome, the media will have been justified in what they've done in the eyes of their audience and their supporters and subscribers. And since Trump came into office, then then they don't look like they were just a bunch of clowns who overpromised, underdelivered, and completely debased themselves and their profession, in the profession of journalism

in the process. They'll say, oh, well, Trump was impeached, so we were even if Russia collusion was a farce, we were right all along. See, because he got impeached, it covers their It covers their backs, so to speak. It gives them some professional credibility and some degree of relevancy once again, which right now a lot of them feel like they're scrambling what have they been doing? What

was this all about? If not to lead to impeachment. Now, Pelosi and the Democrats they gotta think, Okay, but what does this really mean? How would this really shake out? We'll address that part of it right after the break. I travel all the time in the country. Do you know most people think that impeachment means you're out of office. Did you ever get that feeling or are you just in the bubble here? They think that you get impeach, you're going and that is completely not true. And I

may have thought that myself fifty years ago. But you get impeach, and it's an indictment. It's an indictment. So when you're impeaching somebody, you want to make sure you have the strongest possible indictment, because it's not the means to the end that people think all you do vote to impeach, Bye bye, Bertie. It isn't that She's right, It isn't that. First of all, I am a little surprised.

I feel like, wildly ignorant anti Trump lunatics are Pelosi's base, So now all of a sudden there ignorance is a problem for her. That's just a surprise to me. But she seems a little bit, a little bit upset by that. But notice how she says, it's all about having the best case possible. Okay, the best case possible. Why Speaker Pelosi, if it's not me, it's not a means to an end.

She seems to suggest, unless you have a really strong case, okay, and if she has that really strong case, which some Democrats say they already do, and Pelosi, I'm sure tomorrow will say, well, our case is really strong, but we still have to wait to see if we can make it stronger. It's the strongest case ever. But let's let's drag this process out and drag her feet on a little more to see if it could be the even stronger, strongest case Ever's this is babel, it's babel babbling from Pelosi.

It's not a surprise. But also, there's not going to be removal of the president from office. That's not going to happen. That's not a part of this. Right. We all know that the Republicans in the Senate are not gonna go along. I'm gonna have a two thirds majority. You're not gonna have a I don't believe you have. Well, I hope you wouldn't have a single Republican senator vote for removal from office. It'll be a straight party line

vote from the Democrats. So there is no means to an end here, no matter what the whole purpose of impeachment and the reason Democrats are talking about it so much is because of the optics. It's because of the narrative going into the reelection. So who doesn't really understand what's happening here, Pelosi are the people that she seems to think are too dumb to understand what's happening. They want the president of peach so that they can say

the president was impeached. Impeached is bad. Impeached is a mark of disapproval, but it's a political process. It's a political check on the president, but a purely partisan impeachment that does not result in removal from office. The Democrats could get that anytime they want. They could just do it. Any majority could impeach any president if they really chose to do it. It doesn't it doesn't have meaning beyond that, So there will never be a means to an end

the president is. I don't think anybody believes realistically going to be moved or removed from office by the Senate a two thirds majority, never mind the fact that the Republicans thankfully have a narrow Senate majority right now. So what is all this about. It's just power politics playing

out in front of us. All It's the insanity of the Democratic Party inflicting itself on the nation once again, trying to flail about for some way of evening the odds, because they have to do the more savvy ones, and Pelosi has air savvy or moments. The more savvy Democrat operators here have to know that none of these candidates right now that they're putting up have a have a prayer of defeating Donald Trump unless they can try to

stack the deck for their side. And maybe they think impeachment is just that Buck Sextons decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake, American, You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show. CIA analysts another battle in the free speech wars unfolding today, this one involving mister Stephen Crowder, who I've done his show a couple times in the past. Stephen is a conservative, is built a very large following on YouTube. He's one

of the kind of early I think. I can't think of many conservatives who became YouTubers earlier than Stephen. He got into that game early on and has rightly benefited from that foresight. I know Steven's content have been I've been a guest on his show. I can't say that I know all of his content, all the things that he said. I mean, that would be crazy, right. He's done probably thousands of shows over the years, but YouTube is a major platform for him. And guess what social

justice warriors want him gone. They want him off deep platformed speech equals violence. Oh my gosh, Stephen Crowder is so scary. We have to get him kicked off the platform. That's where we are right now. And there had been a rumblings for the last I'd say the last couple of days of how they There was a review going on of Crowder, a review going on of whether YouTube would kick him off entirely. Yeah, and initially, and this was started also because of a I'm trying to remember

this guy's name. He's from Vox, which is really the most left wing, smarmy, whiny, beta male organization in media that I'm aware of. I mean, just very a lot of sort of pajama boys style, you know, just whiny nonsense from Vox, and they're among Vox is almost like parody. You read it and you think that really can't be the article, is it? I mean, I can't do a good job right now at the top of my head of coming up with some of the things that Vox will write. But you know, do do Disney cartoons all

perpetuate the white patriarchy in society? You know, they'll they'll write things like that all the time. I mean, they think that's really helpful for society. You know, they're also a big, big proponents at Vox if there's no such thing as a non political or non politicized space, and so they take it upon themselves to pollute everything with

their far left politics. You know, Ezra Kleine was I think it was a senior person over at Vox, for example, and he's he's someone who if you really want to take the measure of him, just listen to the debate that he had with Sam Harris sometime go on Sam Harris's podcast, where you just picked up that Klein was a a very smarmy, self righteous and intellectually dishonest individual.

That was what I took from listening to Sam Harris and as Recline go back and forth on the This was maybe at least a year ago now, I think. But YouTube was looking at Stephen Crowder because of a car I believe Carlos Maza, who works at Vox, who has tweeted out things like since I started work in Vox, Stephen Crowder has been making video after a video debunking

strike Through. Every single video has included repeated over at tax on my sexual orientation and ethnicity, and so he had he's complaining, essentially saying that that Crowder, this Vox writer says a Crowder is is being anti Hispanic and anti gay in making fun of Carlos Maza, whom I had never heard about until this controversy. But I feel like I probably could guess a lot of his political

leanings and all that he works for Vox. I mean it's basically a COMI I mean, if you work for Vox, you're you're to the left of Bernie Sanders, if that's even possible, if there's any room on the spectrum to the the left of Bernie Sanders, if you work in Vox, you're pretty much there. So they went after Crowder, and Crowder is, look, he's a you know, I gave Steven's always been a very very nice to me when I've

done a show. I gave him credit for being a conservative pioneer on YouTube, somebody who was early among on the right to use YouTube as a platform, and they want to make it he's a great person for the left or trying to make an example of because if enough conservatives grow large followings on YouTube, well then it becomes a place where we have real clout and where we can go and it's an alternative to the current valkanization that's happening in the digital space on you know,

with some of these other channels that are out there that well is this you know, is this going to work? Is this going to be a real going concern for conservatives stretching for a while, or is it going to fold anyway? They put this out there for Crowder that they were looking at his stuff, and YouTube came back and said, I'm trying to find the actual statement here.

After Maza's complaint, here we go, Here we go, YouTube yesterday said quote, our team spent the last few days conducting an in depth review of the videos flagged to us, and while we found foul language that was clearly hurtful. Oh no, the videos as posted don't violate our policies as an open platform. It's crucial for us to allow everyone from creators, a journalist to late night TV host to express their opinions within the scope of our policies.

Opinions can be deeply offensive, but if they don't violate our policies, they'll remain on our site. And quote, Now, I this is really I think, if they're being honest about this, this would be if applied in good faith, that there are rules, and if you don't violate the rules, you stay on the platform, even if it makes people sad on the inside, even if it gives them hurt feelings lots of tears. If you don't break clearly defined, universally applicable rules on the platform, you don't get kicked

off the platform. That's from the perspective of what we could hope for with Facebook, YouTube, Instagram, any of these things Google which owns YouTube, or Alphabet is the parent company which owns Google, which owns YouTube. That's the best that we can hope for. But continued pressure from Vox and other sites, and the left has a much bigger megaphone to the heads of Silicon Value than we do on the right. They did not let up the pressure

after this, and they took action against Crowder. Anyway, Oh, Okay, so what do they do. They didn't kick him off the platform entirely, but they de monetized him. They demonetize him. So now, okay, you can still be on YouTube, but you just can't use YouTube in a professional capacity to make money. You can't use this as something that you can partner with YouTube as a content creator for monetization. And here's what YouTube said about this update on our

continued review. We have suspended this channel's monetization. Speaking a Crowder's channel, we came to this decision because a pattern of egregious actions has harmed the broader community and is against our YouTube partner program policies. What the heck does that mean? Harmed the broader community? Is that code for things libs don't like, things the vox commies get upset, get a little sad about. I couldn't even tell you harmed the broader community. How is it a violation or

the rules or not? You see what happened here was you had a high profile test of whether or not YouTube engages in anti conservative viewpoint discrimination. And I'm not, by the way, I'm not agreeing or disagreeing, or I'm passing no judgment on the specifics of what. First of all, I haven't seen or heard what Crawder said. I've seen a couple of pull quotes on it, but you know, I don't know if some of the stuff he said if I'm not passing judgement on one way or the other.

But YouTube decided when they looked at this that it did not violate any of their rules, and that was their judgment. Now a day passes, there's media attention on this. Clearly the social justice left he is up in arms about this decision, and so they come up with the well, we'll go with the kind of halfway. We'll split the baby, so to speak. Here we will tell Crowder that he can stay on the platform, but he has been demonetized, so that is taking sanction against him, That is punishing

him for speech that the left does not like. Now, conservatives are all fired up about this, as we should be, just as when friends of mine like Raheem Kassam and Jesse Kelley and others have been summarily suspended from Twitter for things that to me or it's a judgment call to begin with, but an incredibly poor judgment call based on the kind of things they've been suspended from the past, we conservatives rally together, but this is going to continue on and I can't say that I really, I really

feel like we have an answer here. This does remind me a little bit of the debate that has been roiling conservatism and the right for the last week or

so about Frenchism, and I guess sarab amari Ism. I don't know what we really you know, Frenchism pro or khnum or four or against and that, and by the way, and I'm not I don't want to try to dig too deep into that one right now, because I'm not going to represent to David's satisfaction his point of view from David French from Nash Review accurately, and I certainly wouldn't be able to represent sarab Amari's point of view

on this. But in very basic summary, it's you know, do you do you have to do what you have to do to win if you really believe in and if you really believe that there are things that are important in conservatism that must be implemented and not just weight around that hope that one day the other side comes to their senses, or do you try to be nice and stay within the already agreed power frameworks and see if you can just sort of make incremental progress

toward conservative ents. What do we do with these social media platforms? Do we just keep pushing back and saying, all right, we know that what you're doing. And this is the future of communication, my friends. This is the battle that conservatives have been waging a battle against the mainstream media since well at least the eighties with Reagan.

But really, you know, thanks to Rush and some of the other big voices out there who gave a voice to half of the country, and then the rise of Fox News starting in nineteen ninety six, the Drudge Report, which has been a mainstay of my Internet reading since I was in college. You know, thanks to these alternatives, we finally had some balance in the voices in the media. But now that you know, the digital world that seemed open this up and now it's being closed off again

because of the dominance of these platforms. These are the ways that people get their information online. Now, you know, people are not going no one's typing in you know, Patriot, Newscoolstuff, dot Com, slash net and persand backslash Patriot. I mean, no one's doing that, right, you go. You see what's in your Facebook feed, you see what's in your Twitter feed. You google a word or two about the news of the day, and whatever pops up is what you're going

to read. So this gives them a massive advantage. And who knows how you can even calculate how valuable this was for Democrat candidates in the last few elections. You know, we're just waking up to this now, We're waking up to how pervasive the bias of Silicon Valley is, how strongly the left has dominated behind the scenes via algorithms, in terms of service and these enforcement procedures. I mean, here's one idea. If I got suspended, let's say from Twitter,

who would I even call? What do you even do? Is there is there a phone number? Can I get someone on the phone at Twitter that will explain to me what's going on? Not that I'm aware of, there's no you know, one eight hundred Twitter. So I get to send into some anonymous turn someone anonymous service email account and hope that someone is going to give me a fair shake. There. You know, I don't even know

what the answers are to these things. But I also don't know how we're supposed to continue to engage with these platforms in good faith unless they or believing that they're engaging with us in good faith, unless that they established very clear rules of the road. And in cases like this, where it's where it's a close call, or rather where it's an important call not a close call, it doesn't go against the conservative somehow. This was a

real test for YouTube. And you know, there's a major effort underway right now to get rid of all kinds of content from YouTube, and this was the New York Times piece. YouTube is removing thousands of videos that push quote extreme views now, as is so often the case with the debates over censorship and the First Amendment, which are some of the most interesting constitutional fights that we've had in this country. Where does the First Amendment stop

and start? What's protected, what's not? And it is it is an essential freedom, And yes, we need the First Amendment. I mean, we need the Second Amendment to protect the first, but we also need the First Amendment to protect the second. We need the First Amendment for everything else that's going on.

Freedom of speech, the liberty to share ideas without prior restraint from the government, without punishment from government, entities and bodies except in the most clearly defined circumstances, and it's easier said than done to clearly define them. This is central to our society and it's really one of the things that separates us from many other developed countries, not just in the West, but around the world, industrialized, wealthy countries.

We have true freedom of speech. It doesn't really exist anywhere else. But when you start to see the the capacity for digital censorship grow in this way, meaning that you know, an algorithm can shift the public conversation about an issue, whether it's immigration or healthcare, or which presidential candidate they can shift behind the scenes, you don't even know what's going on. You don't know how they're doing what they're doing. It's not just like a newspaper that's

presenting you information. Are you seeing this because it's the most relevant search result? Are you seeing it because your friends that you agree with want you to see this? Why are you being shown these things? Unless we have full transparency into that, we're never really going to know why we're seeing the information that we are, how it's impacting, how it's influencing our view on a whole host of issues. And I want to return to this censorship point, because

that's where this YouTube removing extreme videos. This is something we need to watch very very closely because this is going to be true across the Internet on all these different platforms, and given what we've seen with Crowder, where they'll find a way to punish you if your conservative ian, if you don't break their rules. Think about where that could go next and who could be next in this process. I'll have more for you on this in just a moment. YouTube. Facebook.

They dwarf CNN, the New York Times in not just the money that they command in the advertising dollars, in their ability to elevate and suppress voices. I mean, it's not even close. There's been a massive shift in power from these old legacy platforms like the New York Times, CNN apparatus and the apparat chicks who work for them, to these social media platforms. That's that has happened. It is reality now and they're much bigger players in this space.

These digital platforms are the future of communication. I mean they're the present and future of communication. And that's why when you see things like this from The New York Times about them, we should all be on guard and not just and then you see what happens with Stephen Crow and other conservatives, fellow conservatives in terms of the punishments that are meeted out, the suspensions that all of that.

We got to be ready. This is this is the biggest First Amendment fight in terms of free speech, not religious liberty. That's other parts of this that we're going to have going forward. New York Times Rights here that the companies like YouTube have come under intense criticism for their delayed reaction to this spread of hateful and false content. At the same time, President Trump and others argue the giant tech platforms censor right wing opinions, and the new

policies put in place by the companies have inflamed those debates. Yeah, yeah, they have. Is what is really hateful and false content? How could we even engage that? Things like if someone says abortion as murder? Is that a hateful comment? Because I think a lot of you listening would say, well, it's hateful to kill babies. So what is hateful content? Illegue immigration is bad and I legal immigrants should be

punished for breaking the law. Is that hateful content? You may say, buck, of course not, But if you ask, if you asked a room full of people that work for Google or people that work for Facebook, is that hateful? I think they would say absolutely. You had none other than Anderson Cooper himself be rating someone on air because Facebook would not take down a video that was essentially a parody video of Nancy Pelosi looking like it looking

like a clown. That's right, take it down. Deep platform it. The mentality that you see from the left on college campuses has now found its way, not just in a peripheral sense, into the most powerful media platforms and in the minds of the most powerful media figures on the left. It's at the very top of the power structure. You know, you have you know Jack Dorsey and Mark Zuckerberg and

the people that run these platforms. They feel the social pressure and they have bought in at some level to the construct that the left creates here of a need, an immediate need to suppress, suppress, and sensor speech. This is going to have very negative consequences for us. Do you able to fight back going forward? If they're able to just determine what's hateful, what's fake, they get to

pull down what's fake. Now, is it that going to be interesting, considering that they believe every word out of Donald Trump's mouth. Donald Trump can say that he had a bagel for breakfast and they'll say that it's fake news. We're going to let them now determine on these platforms, what is the answer. It's gonna have to be government regulation, folks. It's gonna have to be wartime conservatives uniting and take an action that a whole lot more show teams stay

with me this day. Have set upon a mighty endeavor, a struggle to preserve our republic, our religion, and our civilization, and you set free a suffering humanity. When I attended the commemoration of the sixtieth anniversary of the D Day landings, some thought it might be the last such event. But the wartime generation, my generation, is resilient, and I'm delighted to be with you in Portsmouth today. A lot of pomp and circumstance around the President's visit and time with

the royal family, which one would expect. And now with June sixth, the D Day commemoration, right, I know, today's June fits or tomorrow's technically the D Day, the day of D Day. But while we look at this and we find ourselves one. I think first hearkening back to the courage of those who were storming those beaches in Normandy and what they did, what they put on the line.

Many gave their lives for this country. Many Brits, many Canadians and some others from some other countries as well, gave their lives in that effort, and we have a very special relationship with the with the Brits as a result that endures to this day. I mean, it's yes, it's true. We have all this cultural similarity and this connectivity between us and the Brits that stretches back for centuries, although not all, not all of the history with Great

Britain's great we had they did. They did burned down our White House at one point, right, I mean, there's been some bad stuff. They were impressing our sailors for a while and we had to we had to beat them in a revolution. But it's cool. We're friends now. We love the Brits. In fact, I saw a poll today that said that Americans ninety percent of Americans have a favorable view of Great Britain, which is about what I would have guessed. And then the ten percent I

think are just curmudgingly. I don't like anybody, you know, probably probably hate you know, Barbados, the Bahamas, Vanuatu and other like little island paradises that how could you be mad at them? But I'm sure there's there's you can find ten percent of people that don't like any issue, doesn't matter what it is. But this should be a day when it's maybe just a little bit out of favor to trash Trump. You know, we got the D

Day commemoration. He is the commander in chief. As I was telling you yesterday, I think he gets not nearly enough. He gets not nearly enough praise or support or recognition for being a commander chief who has stayed his hand when the two previous commanders in chief really did not in many ways, and I think made some enormous strategic errors both Obama and Bush. Trump has not made enormous strategic errors on national security, has not put large numbers

of our troops in harms way unnecessarily. But the the patriotism, you know, and the water's edge, that whole, that doesn't really you know, that that partisanship stops the water's that just that's not really true anymore, is it. We've got a president on foreign soil, He's still getting people coming after him and every way they can at CNN have

one of their correspondents. I don't know if this is just stretching for stretching for time, or if this is trying to just pander to the CNN audience, which is psychotically anti Trump, psychotically anti Trump. But here's CNN CNN correspondent talking about how maybe Trump wants to be king himself play seven. Essentially, there are so few people who can seemingly inspire that level of respect, that level of

deference in President Trump. We don't often see that, but as you said, the queen, he's always taking a very deferential tone. He seems to have a huge amount of respect for the institution of the monarchy. Perhaps he likes the idea of being a king. I would say that's a Freudian slip. But you know, it's just they can't help themselves. She's a correspondence, not a pundit. She's supposed to just be reporting on the president's visit and that

he has. You know, these are the are the loops that exist in the minds that there's a kind of playback loop that exists in the minds of many liberals on these issues. And one of the loops is that Trump Trump likes authoritarians, supports authoritarians, wants to work with authoritarians. You know. That's yeah, that's one of the loops. And so when when he's meeting with you know, maybe maybe Canada is a closer rally, I don't know. I don't want to get in between our Canadian and British brothers

and sisters on this one. I don't know who's technically a close rally the United States. You could make the case out of the way, it's probably Canada. But we love the Brits too, you know, we can't. We can't pick among our children. We love them all equally. But you'd think that here he is showing. You know, they always say he's not presidential. They always say he doesn't give all the due respect, and he says things that he shouldn't say. And now he's being respe backfull, not

of Putin or Kim Jung un. We know they want to jump on that and say all kinds of things about how, oh, look at what this tells us, and

he loves dictators, and all this other stuff. We know that, right, But he's being respectful of the royal family in one of our closest allied countries, and it's indicative in some way, according to the CNN report, everyone and maybe he wants to be king of Trump's monarchical tendencies, of Trump's desire to be an autocrat himself, even though the king in the if there was a king in Great Britain, it would not be a person of any power authority, So why would you want to do that? And I'd be

only the bet that Trump has. I don't know what the real funding is for the Royal family in Britain right now, but my sense is that Trump has a whole lot more money and certainly a lot more freedom and what he can do than I think Great Britain does. You know. Also, they did a little bit of a clear up on the Megan Markel issue. I mean, Trump addressed that again, it was fake news what they did that was being spread around in a way that was meant to just poison the well of media coverage before

the president's arrival. He didn't, he didn't go after Megan Markel unnecessarily. He just said he didn't realize she had said something mean and then he said something nice about her. So that was fake news. You know that they want to skip past that, but that was indeed fake news. Uh. Speaking of fake news, well, I guess it's plagiarism. Isn't really fake news. It's fake thinking. It's falsifying your own ability and thinking so that people believe you know more

than you do. Biden's got himself in some trouble. Has to do with a Green New Deal. In the environment. We always hear that Trump administration is it's so terrible from liberals say this, it's so terrible in the environment. Trump disagrees with that. Play fifteen. You know, we have the cleanest air in the world in the United States and gotten better since some president. We have to clete this water. It's crystal clean, and I always say I

want crystal clean to water in air. And so I haven't heard his comments, but we do have we're setting records environmentally. I think that in part he just says this because he knows that it drives liberals insane. One of the areas there's a the liberal mind really does believe that Republicans, they've been so brainwashed on this issue. They think that Republicans don't care about leading the water real pollutants, not CO two, which is what you and

I breathe out. I'm filling the room around me right now with CO two, so are you. It's not a pollutant. But they have come to believe that they are the planet's only hope. That the left, the Green New Deal advocates they're the only hope for saving the world. And that's not an exaggeration. That is how they view this, that they're going to save the world by continuing to push with policies that they can't they will never implement themselves,

will never get through Congress, would be astronomically expensive. But it's really more about the psychological posture of Liberals with this issue than anything else. They believe much more strongly in their own greatness, as indicated by their belief in the Green New Deal, than anything that has to do with really saving the world. But Trump pointing out that there's a lot of good stuff going on with the environment,

that we're constantly the EPA has not been destroyed. All regulation of the environment is not you know, has not gone by the wayside. This drives them insane. This is a great way of trolling them, because they true believers on the left insist, and I've come across them. They really do think that you and I, those of us who are conservative have no interest or care whatsoever for the environment, for conservation and for the world around us.

What do they base this on, It's not clear climate change skepticism, or rather skepticism of the catastrophic implications of climate change. Even though we can point to the same projections about climate change stretching back for decades being wrong, We're still supposed to believe that the people who were

wrong are going to be right the next time. But Biden is trying to make some headway with the left on the Green New Deal long climate change, and he ran into a little trouble because he borrowed from some other some other places in his announcement for his own plan. So we will get into that. We all saw about Bernie Sanders and socialism. It's gonna be fun stick around. It's shameful the way we treat it Puerto Rico in the Islands. I'm not even sure people in the Presence

administration knew Puerto Ricans are all citizens. No, I'm not, I'm not joking. And so there was this notion that somehow, why should we have to make and invest that kind of money in dealing with what is a genuine existential crisis. An existential crisis, he says, after taking a shot at at Puerto Rico. Let me tell you that that's Joe Biden who's got his own He's got his own problems.

This week that the Trump administration has sent billions and billions of dollars in disaster relief to to Puerto Rico. And while Biden is going to sit there and tell us all that this is that, you know, he's making fun of them, that making fun of Trump, that his people on administration don't know that Puerto Ricans are citizens. I would just note that I spoke to the governor of Puerto Rico about this issue, and I said, are you getting sufficient this? I interviewed him and I said,

are you getting sufficient funds? Are is the government response? The federal government response strong? And he said yes. Now there are some issues that should be addressed. One is the Jones Act, which is an outdated and really kind of really somewhat bizarre statute that says that you know, if a ship leaves. I mean, I can't remember the specificsm it now, but it has to You can't just

send a ship from the US to Puerto Rico. It has to come from some or a foreign ship has to go to a US port first before it goes to Puerto Rico. I forget that, but it just means that the price of goods is much higher. It also was an issue for the relief efforts initially. But you can tell that that Biden is not going to be a stickler for accuracy, because why should he be. They're gonna they're gonna prop him up and say he's great

no matter what. They're gonna do what they always do, which is skip over any inconsistency, any inaccuracy that Biden puts forward, and as long as it's negative for Trump, they will find a way. They'll find a way to make it sound like Biden's more or less on more or less on track. But he does have a little problem that came up, and this is actually from CNN where Biden once again has a plagiarism issue. This is

the democrats number one candidate. This guy a month ago had a sniffing, kissing tops of heads being super inappropriate and weird issue, which you'll note Democrats even to meet you era not a problem for them. They think he's the most electable, so they'll they'll just skip past all that. But CNN's John King he was displeased with Biden for h this problem that should not have been place sixteen.

This is a pretty amateur mistake for the front runners campaign to make on a substantial policy rollout when they had to know when Team Biden got together planning to announce his campaign. The one thing they cannot do is plagiaris it's lazy, or it's arrogant. And let me flip the thing. You would think he would be happy to quote progressive groups on his website as they are. They're attacking great embrace. This is i'll call this a style issue.

All this is a leadership issue. This is a comp this issue he wants to be present in that states. This is a leadership and competence issue. You can't do this stuff. You just can't. You do it in our business, you get fire. Donald Trump tweeted out plagiarism charge against sleepy Joe Biden on his ridiculous climate change plan is a big problem. But the corrupt media will save him. That's true. His other problem is that he is drawing flies, not people to his rallies. Nobody is showing up, I

mean nobody. You can't win without people. Is this comes from Republican National The RNC has been going after Biden on this too. The RNC Steve Guests tweeted during his nineteen eighty eight campaign, Biden plagiarized campaign speeches from British Labor Party leader Neil Kinnock as well as Robert Kennedy. During law school, Biden plagiarized too. Likes to plagiarize. This

is an issue. I would just point out that there was there was a a member of the incoming administration of the Trump campaign who the left wing media was actually CNN went after her for a twenty year old plagiarism issue and cause huge problems for her unfairly, and this was used to sink an incoming administration official. This is not going to sing Biden though, because they're gonna just skip past it. They're gonna say, they're gonna say

that this was It's fine. You know, they'll they'll allow it. The groups that he plagiarized from will say no, no, even without without giving us official permission, we will give retroactive permission to Joe Biden to steal our stuff. Biden has said some other really interesting stuff, by the way.

I mean, he's going really hard here on climate because he's trying to find a way to look relevant and authentic to the left wing base, because he needs he's going to need the base to support him if he's gonna beat all these other candidates, be enough just for the the establishment of DC, the swamp, the media to be with him. He's going to need grassroots activists on the left to give him at least some support in

this process. But you know, the Daily Caller News Foundation has looked at a few parts of this report that are problematic. Then remember this is Biden's climate change call to arms. Not quite as crazy as Elizabeth Warren, who says that it might be a greater challenge than World War two, but you know, is saying that this is

something that we have to deal with. Aviation, according to the Biden platform that was released on this accounts for nearly two percent of global greenhouse gas emissions, and that portion is expected to increase. Unfortunately, today, a few low carbon technologies or fuels have been developed to tackle this challenge. The liberal website Vox in January used language that is similar to this, right. I mean, these are the different the different areas where he just sort of took this.

I'm sure it's a staffer. I'm sure it's a staffer who pulled this stuff together. What's more, it's gonna be than anything else, is just the way that Biden is going to skate. He's gonna skate on this because he's gonna skate on everything. It's gonna be Hillary all over again. They think that he is the electable one, and so he's the one that they will do everything they can to knock all barriers down in favor of. They're gonna do whatever they have to to try to help this guy,

and they're gonna need to do a lot. He's he's not a formidable candidate against Donald Trump. He's not. I still believe that Bernie Sanders as as crazy as it says. We're gonna talk about crazy Bernie and the Soviet Union in a minute. I still think that Bernie Sanders is a bigger problem than Joe Biden if he gets the nomination. Obviously, Soviet Union was in authoritarian society with no democratic rights. And I think if you know history, you'll know that

democratic socialists stood up and fought against that. You can look about what existed in the Soviet Union in Venezuela. That's not what I'm talking about. Wait a second, why is Bernie Sanders and Bernie Sanders there is talking about how the Soviet Union is not a good example of sellers. He can't look at that. Let's not forget that Bernie wasn't some big critic of Soviet socialism. He went there on his honeymoon. Bernie went to the Soviet Union on

his honeymoon. A bizarre choice. If nothing else, just think about the food. I mean, how much borsht can one man have on his honeymoon before he wants something else. And he was there back in what was the eighties, so I can't imagine what that was really like. But he and he came back and with his wife. I've played the audio for you before on the show. He was defending what he saw there. In fact, he was

glorifying some of what he saw there. It's kind of a modern day you know, Walter Duranti, remember the guy from it was that the new York Times of Chicago Tribune. I think it was the New York Times who went over there and didn't want to talk about or didn't want to report on the famine in Ukraine, which was a forced famine. It was an intentional government policy. These people would have no food, they would starve. So I believe it's called the Holadamar by the Ukrainians, but I

might have that wrong. There's a Ukrainian holocaust through the famine that the Soviet Union pushed on them, pushed on Ukraine. But Bernie is somebody who came back saying nice things about the Soviet Union as an adult, and as an adult who chose to travel there, So that may bring us to all one. He's not honest about his past

with socialism, which is not surprising at all. But then there's also how is it that socialism is still gaining in popularity in this country at a time when you would think, given the internet access, we have what's happening in Venezuela. Oh, and they all pretend like Venezuela is not a place that any of them would have ever

said anything nice about. That's not true. Venezuela is a country that, as recently as twenty twelve, you could find supportive editorials in the New York Times the Washington Post about what Chavez was trying to accomplish in that country. They didn't have results really to point to, but they're saying, you know, he's he's on the right track, trying the

right things, doing what he can here. He's doing his best to make sure that there's going to be, you know, there's going to be a more equitable society in Venezuela. But one of the reasons that I think it's becoming more popular is that you're one that the media is

largely supportive of this. Just as during the Soviet Union's era, there were a lot of people in academia and the media in this country who liked the idea of the Soviet I'm not talking about fellow travelers and actual communist penetrations, which we did have here and is still a part of our history that is completely whitewashed by the left. If you have not read Whittaker Chambers Witness, please please read that book. There are many others that I would

blacklisted by history is great. There's there's a lot of that's about McCarthy. There's the Venona Project. There's books about the Nona that you should read. It's all about the penetrations the Soviet Union had of this country. The KGB archives that were released as the metrok and archives, you know, the Sword of the Shield about the KGB. Highly recommend

that book. It'll tell you one the extent of the operations against us at the hands of the Soviet Union, but it'll also tell you about how the KGB and the Communist Party were much closer to at some point going to maybe open war with us than a lot of people realize. They were really thinking about it. They were they thought we were going to have a first strike on them, so they were really considering a first strike on us. There's some scary stuff in those archives.

But why why would anybody not understand the lessons that have been learned here? Man? How is it really possible that in this at this stage of the game, there would be such a lack of understanding of the truth of socialism? Well, you know the Daily the Daily Show, which is a straight up propaganda show with jokes, so sometimes there's funny stuff, but it's it's political propaganda in joke form. I did this man on the street kid asking people about socialism, and I mean, here's what they said,

play club eleven. I think socialism is great. I think you should definitely help whoever you could at any situation for socialism just design to anything that's helping black people out. Okay, so your socialism curious? In college? Do you hate billionaires? Bokey? Yeah. You look at Jeff Basis, he doesn't look human. I mean, I think the socialism is one point. I mean I don't really know what socialism now. I know you said Buck, this isn't a scientific poll. There's a there's a bunch

of college kids. What do they really know. Well, all the polling that we see right now, I mean, if you want to talk about scientific polls, shows that there is a pretty dramatic increase in support for socialism overall, that that people do believe in socialism, they do believe that it's something that we should consider more as a country, and it's getting close to I think fifty percent support among millennials that have to check the most recent polling.

But part of it is that they don't know what it is. They don't really understand that what you have, for example, in and I used to joke around that Bernie Sanders is running for the mayor of Stockholm. That's not really fair to Stockholm. Stockholm is Sweden. Obviously Stockholm is a major city. There is a country that has a pretty free market economy. It just has very high tax rates in a very large social welfare state. But it's not a socialist country. It's not meaningfully socialist in

many ways. It does not have government called the means of production. It's not all state industries. It used to be along it used to be back in the seventies. But the designation of these as socialist countries is not accurate. Venezuela is much closer to a socialist country. And we're really looking at this Venezuela where the government was controlling prices.

And as I've said to you, the price control mechanism was one of the reasons that Venezuela failed so rapidly and so miserably, because sure, as night follows day, you control prices on based on a social justice platform of oh, these guys are the greedy capitalists are taking too much

money from you with their price. Now the price is lower, well, then guess what the price is the price because that's what the market price was, So then you create a black market for things, and then people stop making things for the open market, and then the open market starts to collapse because people can't buy the things that they're trying to that they want to buy, and the producers

can't make them because the prices are wrong. And then the government would step in Venezuela and say, well, now we control the factory because you're not making, you know, widgets cheaply enough for the Venezuelan people. We're gonna take over your widget factory and we're gonna be the ones running it and telling people, oh, do you think that works out well? And so on and so forth. And that's how you have the country with the largest proven oil reserves in the world in his state of complete

economic and financial despair. Though I'll note that Maduro is still hanging on. I've been worried all along that this guy was going to find some way to cling to power, and that's exactly where we are. He is, in fact, clinging to power. But kids should at least know that the programs that we're talking about in this country, that the things that are under discussion, what is socialism and what's not. They should be able to distinguish that. And you know, medicare for all is not in and of

itself socialism. It is closer and closer though to socialized medicine. It'll put us on a path through socialized medicine. I mean, they need to know that. But if all it is is helping people, doing nice things for poor people, spreading money around from rich people, which is what the common conception among millennials and gen z currently is, then social is gonna keeping popular. Basically, they don't know what it is. The relevance of this dossier is that it was used

in one FISA application for carter Page. Carter Page is one individual in this entire Russia investigation. So I just want to point out that this is like one thread. The question is which piece of the dossier did they rely on. I can tell you that they didn't staple the dossier to a cover letter and hand it to the court, and was it corroborated? And I think we don't know the answers to that questions to those questions yet because most of it has been redacted, and the

IG report should shed more light on those. So that's one of the premier defenders of the upper echelon management of the FBI that engaged in the deep state coup against empty deep state coup against the president. You know, that's one of the uh the the foremost bad experts and analysts over at seeing an Asher rang Gappa, who was at FBI for you know a long time, and she's been a mainstay. It's been her. This guy Mud who's just completely lost his mind. I actually have met

him a couple of times and he seemed normal. But Trump has broken him like he's broken many other people. There's Rangappa, there's Pajama, the FBI Pajama Boy. I don't remember his name, but you know who I'm talking about, the one that looks like pajama boy and he comes on. He's like James Coomey's number one, number one fan. And what they do now is they keep on either just getting things entirely wrong, which rung Gappa did here. The

dossier was not used in one FIES application. It was used in from what we've already seen for once been released, it has been using all of the fives applications. It was cited again and again for the extensions. So if they had more information, if there was more stuff. You would think that they wouldn't have to rely on what we now know. And this is not some spin, This is not some effort to describe it in a way

that is inaccurate. It was opposition research paid for by the DNC relying on foreign on a foreign intelligence former foreign intelligence operative, Christopher Steele, who relied on foreign sources of information. I've still never gotten an answer to the question, why is it that the meeting that Vezelnisky at Trump Tower had with Donald Trump Junior and Mana Ford and Jared Cohen. Why was that meeting evidence of some kind of treason. It's horrible, It's terrible. He's never start taken

that meeting. And because it would have been information from a foreigner, that's all. It is information from a foreigner about Hillary Clinton and the Clinton DNC paid a foreigner to get information from other foreigners. And that's okay. No one has ever explained that to me. You know, they say, oh, well, Christopher Steele, he's highly respected. Really, we're I know, now we're going to get Steel testifying. That's the ladies. He

can testify. I gotta see if it's behind what the what the specifics of the parameters of the testament, you're going to be But Christopher Steele is going to be testifying, and we have to find out, okay, well who told him on and when we have to get him under oath. I wonder if if he is found to lie about any of this stuff, do you think that they will they will prosecute him. Do you think that there's really any realistic possibility that they will hold him accountable if

he engages in any kind of falsehood up there? No, of course not. Just like how Tony Podesta, John Podesta's brother, for his foreign engagements and working for foreign governments, is going to find himself in no trouble whatsoever. You know, he's not going to get in trouble for what he

did because we have a two tiered justice system. But but back to this miss Rangappa, who has once or twice crossords with me on Twitter in the past, so we've I've never met her, but she is she's in a sense remarkable because in a crowded field of clownery, Miss Rangapa at CNN as their national security analyst is among the most consistently and spectacularly wrong analysts that have been on this issue. Period. She has managed to be

completely off based time and again. But CNN never holds anyone to account for this because the purpose of their analysts, and this is very important, The purpose of the CNN National security analyst are going on TV is not to tell you things that are true, is not to tell you things that are accurate. It is to promote a

narrative that is pleasing to CNN's audience. Despite the fact that now they've had a think an eighteen percent drop in their ratings, they have a narrative they're trying to push. This is I believe very personal for CNN top management. I think that Zucker views his role now is engaging in a kind of massive feud with Trump, and it's

Trump versus Zucker at some level. And this has been personalized in a way that if I were still an employee of CNN, which I am certainly not, I would find wholly inappropriate and bothersome But being wrong is never an issue at cnit See That's what I'm really getting at here. I mean, what NAPA said is just factually incorrect. Did you think they're going to issue a correction? Maybe they'll put it in like the website and no one's

gonna see it, and no one's gonna care. It doesn't matter though, And the other part of this that I find so interesting is that you have these former national security people, people from my old community in one way or another, like Rongappa, CNN, Pajama Boy and Phil mud who I know people that like Phil and say he's a good guy. So I don't know what's and I'm probably being much more charitable about him than he would be about me, which is fine, But I don't know

what's happened to him. But in the Trump era, you know, he's the one that was yelling about the blank whole countries, and you know, he's from a blank whole country. I think he's Irish, so you know, it's not a very nice thing to say about Ireland. But you know, you look at this and you see that there's there's a a fallback position for a lot of these individuals that well, the FISA Court had a process with judges signing off

on stuff, so it's okay. This is never the position of the left on any other matter of national security interest. This is never the position of the left that because there's a there are some internal checks and balances, no external watchdogs, A secret government process to spy on people is just fine and just fine and dandy. Oh, but there was somebody signing off on it. Really, so was the left okay with there's somebody signing off on drone strikes,

so then the drone strikes must just be fine. Well, they were fine when Obama was doing them, but before or that, that was of course, that was not fine. They changed their mind on these things based very much on who the individual, Who the individual is, who's making the calls, and that's what you have with all these institutionalists on the payroll at CNA. They're defending the process because the process was used at the FBI and the DOJ to get at Trump, the Inspector General port As

I keep saying, it is going to come out. There are going to be people who look very very bad and look stupid. I don't know if there's going to be any accountability in government. I'm not sure there will be. I don't want to overpromise to you and tell you that I really believe at this point that those at the FBI who stepped out of line, who abused their authority, who abused their power, will be held to account because I'm not sure that that is true. In fact, I

doubt very much that that is true. And I can also tell you that the people that have been getting paid to run around and be mouthpieces for the Russia collusion delusion for a long time here, those people will also not be punished by the media apparatus because they weren't being paid to go on TV and be smart and be right. They were paid to give a kind of believability, to create of a near of respectability of

what was a conspiracy theory. And as you know, the conspiracy theory was that President Donald Trump worked with the Russians to undermine our election, steal the election from Hillary Clinton. It's crazy and it needs to keep being set out loud because it's so crazy. Rangappa and others over there, they're part of the Well, it didn't matter that we were wrong, because now let's move to oh that, now,

let's move to obstruction. The process was weaponized against Trump to create the conspiracy theory of Russia collusion, and now the process of the process, meaning the investigation of the conspiracy theory that's being weaponized against Trump. It's it's never enough, that never will be enough because it also was never really about the truth. And once that's established, and once we understand that, then everything else really makes sense and

falls into place. I saw some story here about Los Angeles. You know, I spend some time reason I like I like LA to visit. I don't know, I don't know if I could live there or not, just because the traffic. I'm a I'm not a car guy. I like, I like to be driven. I'm a very much. The ride share thing has made LA much better for me. I like ubering, and that's right. I believe that you should to get Uber riders to get ratings too, not just drivers. And I know many of you who disagree with me

on that. But LA has gotten some more some more bad news about city mismanagement, the homelessness problem. I want to I want to just touch on that a little bit and then we'll get into your favorite time in mind,

roll call. That's coming up. I was just out in China, as many of you know, for a week, and when I when I came back, I spent the week in Los Angeles and I have to say that the new inline here for the day about how the number of homeless people's jumped twelve percent across La County and that you have nearly sixty thousand homeless living on the streets. This is tragic, but it's unsurprising. And California, you know, it takes a long time for a place to degrade.

You know, Rome wasn't built overnight, but it also didn't collapse overnight. It took a long series of events, over a considerable period of time for everything to finally just fall apart. And you know, you start to think, how quickly would some of these blue states really just collapse if they if they didn't have the federal government backing a lot of their programs and giving them all this stuff.

I mean, how quickly would the actual governing decisions of some of these blue states turn into a Detroit like situation or blue cities? I should say, although states too at some level. But you know, California is a place that, given its natural resources, it's tremendous beauty. I mean, you know, you drive along Pacific Coast Highway, you go check out Malibu, big sir, These are some of the most beautiful places in the United States. Some people would argue some of

the more beautiful places in the world. And the fact that California has the problems that it does here really just go to the political monoculture that exists. Now. There are I think someone told me there are a million a million Republicans, a million registered Republicans in the Los Angeles County, either in the county or in Los Angeles County and the surrounding areas. But there are Republicans. Ever, they're just completely outvoted. I think it's three to one.

And you have all these policies that are being pushed that are just they don't make sense. These are not intelligent things to do. And this keeps happening in these cities that are very, very blue. There's tremendous mismanagement. This is happening in Los Angeles where the homelessness population is exploding, And this is happening in San Francisco, where you now have the poop patrol for people trying to find human feces via apps on the streets so they can avoid

those areas. I'm here in Baltimore, which has certainly had its fair share of problems from mismanagement, continues to be plagued by crime. Really one of the only one of the only exceptions to this, which is a very large blue city. I mean, Chicago had its most violent weekend of the year this past weekend. I think fifty people were shot something along those lines. But really, the only exception to this is New York City, where I'm originally from.

And I just believe that New York, under you know, Giuliani, cleaned it up so that crime wasn't going to be a problem. And then you did have a very lucky period of tremendous not just investment in the in the financial sector and all the employment there, but but global investment in New York City. Because New York is a

truly global city. You've had people from Russia, China, Brazil, India, very very wealthy foreign nationals buying incredibly expensive properties, which has helped prop up the real estate market more than it would have otherwise been. So New York is a bit of an anomaly. But all these other places San Francisco, Los Angeles, Baltimore, Chicago, New Orleans and just poorly run, man,

I mean just not run well at all. And you see the decisions that are being made, and you can tell on the left coast the west coast, people think that it's mean to stop homelessness. They think it's it's you're being unkind if you try to prevent people from living on the streets and being in squalor, even if you want to prevent the outbreak of diseases like typhus. You know, the things that have been eradicated in the general population for a long time. But if you are

living in unsanitary conditions, you can get so. I feel badly for a place like la because there's a lot of great people live there, a lot of great Los Angelenos listen to this show. But I also feel like the country does get to learn something from far left management of these cities is incredibly damaging. Roll Calls up next. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for roll call. Let's get to it Facebook dot Com, slash Buck Sexton, and let's get to Kyle who rides Buck heard you want Kennedy talking

about China. It bothers me that people in this country loosely throw around the term fascist at whomever they disagree with politically. But if you look at the definition of what fascism actually is, I think the twenty first century reincarnation is China. I know they call themselves communists, but I think their mix of nationalism, state run quasi capitalist enterprises, and the Orwellian police state is more fascist than communist

in its features. I'm not sure there can be a deal with a devil like that unless we sacrifice our principles and security. But I hope I'm wrong. Churchill warned about Hitler in the early thirties, but no one took them seriously until the threat was too large to diffuse without all out war. We need leaders who understand the threat and take it seriously because the target is on our backs and the Chinese are practicing their aim. Well.

You know, I've been reading them more and more of these geostrategists of people that have been long time China watchers, and they seem pretty united in the idea that China is really looking to defeat us or get ahead of us economically before we're going to see anything militarily from them. And I see your point about how they're not They're definitely not really truly communist because the central tenet of

a of a communist system is economics, right. I mean, that's Marxism, is it's a political and economic system intertwined together, or it's really politics directing the entirety of the economy for the purposes of redistribution. But whether it's a you know, fascist or quasi capitalist, or some new thing we've never seen, I think you could probably argue that China is in many ways, it's its own, its own political entity, and it is unlike anything else that we have ever seen

in the past. There is a Central Committee, there is a Chinese Communist Party, and the Central Committee does control things. Shijinping, though, from what I understand, controls the Central Committee, So it's a communist dictatorship, it's an individual dictator ship. It's a one one party capitalist status enterprise. There's a lot of ways you could describe China, but all of them are

going to be problematic for us going forward. Adam writes book, you should do an ad campaign that coincides with the election, have a parody of Comrade Commy Bear run for president, do all the tropes from the USSR, and help Trump win.

Shields High well, Adam, I think especially there's a part of me that's hoping that Bernie Sanders is going to get the nomination, just so then we can bring back Commy Bear, which would be a whole lot of fun and it would be a really good way for us to be able to do some fun commentary and do some good things. So we'll see, we'll see what we got. Stan writes In Paraguay, a teacher broke a piece of chalk while writing on the chalkboard. Trump was blamed because

of the white chalk. He was also cited for racism. Stan, if you're a comedian, do not quit your day job, my friend, But I do you. Writing in Nonetheless, Brandon writes book Great Show Yesterday. The opening scene in Saving Private Ryan's the main reason I joined the Army. I was in tears watching it at the age of twenty. I always loved my country, but didn't see the need to serve her. I thought to myself, what makes me so special that I get to enjoy this freedom in

liberty without any sacrifice of my own. Shortly after watching the movie, I went to an Army recruiter in my small community college in Saginaw, Michigan. I told the recruiter I wanted to do what Ryan did in the movie. By the grace of God, it all worked out, and I became an airborne infantryman with all with the ACO one five O five in the eighty second Airborne Division. Today's a very special day for my old unit. One

day before D Day h minus. It's written on our crests our unicrest to remember the men that jumped into France one hour before June sixth, nineteen forty four. So on June fifth, around twenty three hundred, that's when it happened. Thanks for what you do, brother Airborne all the way. I think I might say yesterday the anniversary D Day,

I might have. I know it's June six I just got confused as to what day we're what date we were on, so apologies for that, but obviously D Day is June sixth, which is coming up in a day day before today would be the day that you're getting loaded onto boats and getting ready to get on the planes for the air drop and all the rest of it. And we talked about it in some detail yesterday, Michael rites.

But a couple of things. Glad you're leaving Rising the show will leave lose half its audience when you leave. Their website. Video playback was horrendous in terms of Uber ratings. I'm with you. It's a free market solution to a problem. Like all unregulated services in the free market. They only get better with time. On baby Trump, I think it's kind of cute. Would be the ultimate troll of his supporters added a maga hat to it and started bringing

little Trump baby balloons to the campaign rallies. Someone in the audience needs to get on that. Look, if they're not all ready selling fat baby Trump merchandise, then they're missing out on a big merchandising opportunity. You know, if they're not already doing that, I would how many of you would buy a little baby Trump blow up for

the pool? You know? You know how people do those things where you know, like a big swan or I don't know, whatever it is, you blow up, you throw it in the water and then you can you can. It's not what is it called a float? I guess that would make sense because it's you're floating on it. But baby Trump merchandise, fat baby Trump merchandise is definitely

something that there's an opportunity. And so if they have not already trademarked it and just putting it out there, you can send me, send me a ten percent cut. For the person that actually gets it and starts making it, send me my ten percent cut and will consider it even Let's see here, John Rights, where are you located so far back in the woods? I get TV a day late. Well, John, I do the show out of Washington, d C. But as I said, I'm in Baltimore tonight

because sometimes I gotta make moves. I got meetings how to do, and that's yeah. I do the show in the Swamp, live from the swamp. Jeff Rights, Hey, Buck love your show. Listen nightly. By the way, what artist and song is your bumper music between segments? Sounds great. I'd like to know so I can download it. Thanks and have a great day. Well, Jeff, appreciate you writing

in the bumper music between segments. It comes from a music library which we have a commercial license for, so I don't even know that there's a band associated with it. I think it's just the overall library that we have rights too. I couldn't tell you, but I did pick out some of the music. So the more upbeat stuff tends to come from tends to come from me. We are thinking about doing a kind of revamp of the

music on the show. In general. We're thinking about doing some changes to the They call it imaging, which I always think is interesting because it's audio, it's not image, but the radio imaging may be changing pretty soon. Marissa Rights heard roll call. Thank you, Yes, send the Freedom Hunt address and I'll get them sent to you. In the male. The beard oils, all right, Marissa, I haven't forgotten.

We'll get that to you. Although my beard is, as some of you noticed, very trimmed down from what it used to be. It's much less of a much less of an Eric Eric the red Viking beard, and now more of a like, Hey, I'm a hipster who makes coffee kind of a beard. I don't know if hipster's talked that way. I don't know what really happened there, Sarah, Hey, Buck really galls mean that Virginia Governor Northam cannot wait to kill babies but wants to keep others safe from

harm by guns. Same old communist socialist agenda shields high. Oh, Sarah, I don't know if I have much to add to that. Let's see here, dude, this is from Matt. Dude, what is the deal? I haven't had to care about the British Royal Navy, British Royal family, not Navy, sorry, British

Royal family since July four, seventeen seventy six. I never understand seeing their pictures, all of the tabloids and the checkout line I liked, I like Trump would have been completely lost if I were asked about the Duchess of Sussex.

Who who? What? What? Who? Matt. I also, I share your confusion here because why anyone cares at all about the British royal family is something that I have no real Well, I'll say this, people like fairy tales and royal families figure heavily in that, and I think for I noticed that they're more popular among young women. They like Meghan Markle and the Prince Harry and all these guys. They're viewed as a kind of ultimate like a classy

what do you call it, classy reality star. That's what the British Royal family is for a lot of people. They're like classy reality stars. So maybe that's part of it, um, But I couldn't I couldn't speak to it really beyond that. Pablo hey Buck, you asked for good shows to watch, and just saw this week in a mini series about the Central Park five. I thought it was done really well and telling the story of this tragedy. Then they couldn't help themselves and actually took a jab in the

summary part of the show. Huh, shields high. I don't know what you mean by took a jab in the summary part of the show. I would just say this. You know, Ann Coulter has done a lot of really interesting work on the Central Park five and has pointed out that the people that were initially convicted, they confessed, and the way that they were all exonerated was essentially that their DNA was not the DNA found on the woman who was brutally raped and attacked and almost beaten

to death in the park. But that was always, as I understand it, that was always known. It was always believed that there was a primary attacker who got away, but that did not mean that no one else took part in the attack. And for that kind of a sexual assault, if anyone takes any part in the attack, they are equally guilty as the perpetrator who would have

left behind his genetic material. So I'm willing to bet that if I watch this and then read back over the court transcripts of it, and maybe I'll have to do that, I will find that this is likely a work of some propaganda. But we shall see, we shall see. What else do we have here? We have Chris all right, buck heard you talking about Stephen King. I grew up in the eighties and he was one of the defining cultural authors. I read every book up until he got hit by a van of the nineties. I think he's

writing veered off into something after that. I still read a number of his books, but he never really recovered from the accident. I married my midlife crisis. He wallowed in that life threatening accident. Who am I to judge? What has always jared me is that all of his main characters are unmistakably conservative insane. In other words, the heroes of his stories are recognizable as normal. He doesn't understand the good guys. He writes about our conservative talk

about cognitive dissidence. Well, Chris, thanks so much for our writing it about Stephen King. I have never read a Stephen King book, so I can't really speak to it, but thank you very much for giving me your thoughts on the matter. All Right, team, that's gonna be it for today in the Hut from Baltimore. Get a shout

out to all the folks listening on WCBM. I hope you are enjoying it and we will be back tomorrow from the swamp from DC, same time, same place, well, I guess different place for me, but same place for you, hopefully Shieldsaye