Obama Spied On Trump

to hear about. Folks that are more coming up. Buck Sexton Mission, decoding the news and disseminating information with actionable intelligence. No mistake here, a great American again, this is the Buck Sexton Show. Palma CIA analysts, I can speak to three hours without a phone call. Try doing that sometime. A couple of things going on. First, there is, of course the ongoing Inspector General's investigation that's being conducted by the Independent Office of Inspector General, and our folks are

assisting them with their effort. And then, second, as you alluded to, now that the Special Council investigation is completed and having only recently returned to the Department. The Attorney General is seeking to understand better the circumstances at the Department and the FBI relating to how this investigation started, and we're working to help him get that understanding. I think that's part of his job and part of mine.

Welcome to the Buck Saxton Show. That's a long answer from FBI Director Ray about are we going to find out if there were spying or not? Surveillance as I know fond of saying, it's really just a fancy French word for spying. Silveillance, surveillance, right to watch, usually in clandestine fashion, to gather information on I could tell you that when you fly a plane over enemy territory to see all their stuff, you can call it a surveillance plane. You could also call it a spy plane. Both are

both are correct. And this fight over words, which, as I tell you, Democrats love to try and dictate the words that we can use as a means of assisting their side in the battle of ideas before we can even mount our own defense. The insistence on not using the term spying is very, very indicative of where their minds are on all this stuff. They're worried, folks, they're worried. They should be worried, because it gets very hard to explain spying on a presidential campaign by the top figures

of the Obama administration national security apparatus. When your justification for it is a rumor that George Papadopoulos passed on to some foreigner over drinks and Carter Page. It really is hard to believe, isn't. In fact, I don't believe it. When I say it's hard to believe, I mean I think it is incredible. It is incredible, as in not possible to be believed. I am incredulous about the story. I don't think that we haven't told the truth yet

about how this whole thing got going. The Russia collusion conspiracy theory was not born of some innocent investigative work from the FBI looking into George Papadopolis and Carter Page. Someone somewhere in a position of considerable power and an Obama administration appointee almost certainly made the call, made a decision to do this, and now the country has had to suffer the consequences of it for over two years.

I just I think it's instant that Christopher Ray, as the FBI Director of course he's going to defend the institution at some level. This is a terrible situation for the FBI. This is a terrible situation for public confidence in the ability of the premier federal law enforcement agency in the country to avoid entangling itself in our politics.

This looks really bad, folks. But you know, I would just say that if they're going to try to play these word games, then I wanted I want to make sure the left degrees that the FBI back in the sixties wasn't spying on Martin Luther King Jr. Oh No, no no, no, of course not. The FBI was just engaged in unconstitutional surveillance based on on shaky counterintelligence premises, and we're willing to deploy human assets to influence events for political outcomes.

It wasn't spying, though, you see, it was just unconstitutional counterintelligence surveillance also known as spying. In fact, co intel pro which you can read about anywhere on the internet, was written about here in NPR when they're talking about this history of the FBI spying on Martin Luther King Jr. As a history of domestic spying. So just because the FBI does it doesn't mean it's not spying, especially when it is in the realm of counterintelligence and not traditional

criminal law enforcement. All Right, the word is spying, and they should have to now. So I'm spying. It's good. I worked for a spy agency. Spying on Al Qaida is a good thing. I take pride in spying on Al Qaida. I mean, I don't do it anymore, but that was something that I thought was a great patriotic and even pro civilization, pro humanity duty. I would never

shy away from spying on Al Qaida. So if there was a real threat, why, you know, if these FBI guys and who knows who else that we're talking to, Papadopolis and Carter Page, if it was reasonable even for them to think that there was a threat, why would they shy away from the term spying so much? They should be proud to have spied on the Trump administration if that's what they did. But we know they aren't. And isn't that instructive? Isn't that something of a red flag?

You could say? And then some This is where you also have Clapper, James Clapper, who has been at the heart of so much of this and has done what I would argue, is it really multi generational damage, meaning that for generations to come people will have questions about the lack of political gamesmanship at the CIA, Director of National Intelligence, the FBI, at Clapper has been a part

of dramatically damaging the reputations of these agencies. And I know from my friends who there are Trump to range people all over the federal government. You have to remember that whenever you have the Washington Post or one of these papers that says, well, you know, we've spoken to sources inside the building and they tell you what their snapshot is. They will never tell you that there are patriotic conservative types who think that what's been done to

the president is horrible. And I know people at Langley at FBI headquarters that fall into that category. But what they will tell you is that there are people who are still deeply outraged that Trump think that Trump. Remember we used to hear this Trump was at war with the intel community. They used to say that the president and if it was, it war with his employees, because that is what the members of the intelligence community are,

They are Trump's employees. Clapper clearly didn't think of them that way. Though Clapper thought he had a higher purpose, Wasn't that was that the James Comey book. Did I just do that by accident? I'm so smooth, that was slick. Let's be honest. Play clip five here. Using undercover agents is a standard and legitimate technique that is widely used in investigations. So I'm sure. I mean, there are protocols and standard standards for using an agent, and I'm sure

that's the case here. So you're thinking this was not done lightly, Well, no, it's never done lightly. Uh well, yeah, I guess it miss meets definitely the Dictionary definition of spy of surveillance or spying, a term I don't particularly like. It's not a term of art used by intelligence people. It has a negative connotation of a rogue operation, out of control, not in compliance with the law, and that's

not the case at all. He doesn't know if that's not the case at all, let's start with that, and I do appreciate that he's at least willing to admit that. Yeah, from a definitional standpoint, it was spine. They were spying on the Trump campaign, knowing that it was people tied to the Trump campaign trying to use the surveillance fancy French word for spying of people tied to Donald Trump to get access to information about much higher up people. Remember,

it wasn't just Carter Page and Papadoppolas. They were very interested in Maniford early on, very interested in General Flynn. And there's some interesting wording in the I was gonna say that dossier in the report, the Mulla report about the investigation into Flynn. How thorough was that? How long back did that? How far back did that go? It seemed like Flynn was on the radar of the authorities, perhaps even before the completely pretextual and bad faith Logan

Act violation meeting came up. Sally Yates set General Flynn up. That is what she did. These are not good people. These are not people that were acting with the best interests of their fellow national security professionals or the United States when they did this. This was petty, It was spiteful. Sally Yates is a spiteful person, all right. That's why she also refused to take orders from the President and also refused to resign. Made him fire her because she

was hashtag resistance. These people are disgraced to the offices they held. The Clapper and Yates and Combie a disgrace. But notice how with Clapper here he says meets the Dictionary definition of spying, but he doesn't like the connotations about how it's a rogue operation out of control. He also, I don't know if he's talking to Monsieur Dona Lament

don Lemon, I prefer the French Don Lament. But when he was talking to him there, we just take it as a given or he takes it as a given Clapper that this was all on the up and up, that there was nothing about this that should have raised an eyebrow. Why would anyone think that is the case given what we've seen so far. I mean, they briefed

the president. Just take this one example. James Comey, as the FBI director, briefed the President of the United States on this dossier and did not tell him, Nor did anyone in the intelligence community think it was necessary for anyone to know in the public that the dossier was a compilation of foreign assembled paid for by the Hillary campaign lies. Don't you think that would have affected the perception of how much veracity anybody could possibly think was

in this. Don't you think that if President if someone handed President Trump a piece of paper like this and said, Hey, I'm the fbid ract. You should just know that the Hillary campaign is spreading the stuff about you. You'd say, yeah, it's a bunch of lies, it's a bunch of crazy nonsense. Why why, James Comey, are you showing this to me? Oh? And that's right. CNN ends up reporting on it within hours.

We're supposed to believe that's a coincidence, just like CNN being the only journalistic outfit that happened to be in place for the Roger Stone arrest, the circus arrest of you know, geriatric sartorial icon Roger Stone with dozens of guys heavily armed. I will tell you I spoke to some DJ sources and I read them the riot Act over that one, and there was a oh, well, it was within the bounds of what we could as a non non no, no, no, don't pull that. It was

within the bounds nonsense with me. Oh, I don't want to hear that stuff. Guys. We all know what that was. We all know what Mauler's team was engaged in there. Let's let's not let's not talk to Buck like he's a dumb dumb okay, and they I had sometimes I got a little test team with some of my my sources in this town. I have to I did not like that. Well it was it was within the discretion of the mother team. No no, no, no, no no, no. That should have raised more than eyebrows. That should have

raised hackles. People should have been ticked off. They could have called Roger Stone and said, oh, show up, turn yourself in. Everyone knows he would have done it. He's not gonna flee. He's not gonna flee and leave all of his finely tailored suits behind. Nonsense. But CNN just happened to be there. CNN that also happens to have a number of former senior FBI you know, administrative assistance to James Comi on the payroll, just happens to be there.

No other no local journalism, no no other networks. Just you know, I mean, I know they say they just got lucky. It was just good journalism. After all the other good journalism CNN's done on this issue. Oh man, they really, they really pushed the limits, don't they. This was spine. I worked for a spy agency. What was done to Trump campaign was spine. It was done by senior members of the National security apparatus appointed by and under the orders of, at least in general, the Obama

administration and President Obama. These were Obama employees, folks, That is a fact. James Clapper comy. These are employees in the executive branch of President Barack Obama who spied on a presidential campaign based on a delusion, one that should have been shut down before it even got started. And instead they did everything they could we know this from the page struck tex at the FBI, everything they could to breathe more life into it, to leak to the press,

to collude with the anti Trump mainstream media. That was what they chose to do. Now they're desperately trying to cover it up on the one hand and attack Trump for obstruction on the other. I'm sorry, now, we've seen enough of their games. We know what they're up to. It's not going to work, not on my watch, not here in the freedom hunt. We'll be right back. Well, that's not the term I would use. Look, there are

lots of people have different colloquial phrases. I believe that the FBI is engaged in investigative activity and part of investigative activity includes surveillance activity of different shapes and sizes, and to me, the key question is making sure that it's done by the book. And at this time, do you have any evidence that any illegal surveillance into the campaigns or individuals associated with the campaigns by the FBI occurred. I don't think I personally have any evidence of that sort.

Ah back to the spying debate here, that's FBI Director Christopher Ray, who was showing us who he is today, and it doesn't surprise me at all. He's an institutionalist. He's somebody who's been in government, been in these roles for a very long time, comes from within the bureau, and is going to protect the bureau because this is, from the perspective of public trust, an existential crisis for

the FBI in the making. What happens when the American people find out, as we will, that the FBI can vary easily and perhaps even within their regulations and within the law, quite easily and legally spy on a presidential campaign.

Is that supposed to make us feel better? Should we feel better about the FBI if, in fact, like a bunch of imbeciles, they believed some Internet conspiracy theories that were working around during the election, and thought that it was a worthwhile usage of resources to send an agent to go talk to or send someone acting on behalf of the FBI to go talk to Papadopoulos, open up a FIZA and get it renewed three times on Carter page. I think they should be careful what they wished for here.

It would be better for the reputation of the FBI, and it would be better for public confidence in the FBI if, in fact, the Inspector General report were to find that there was a rogue actor that you know, Comey really was like you know, agent number one running around doing all this stuff and lying and falsifying documents,

And that would because you can root that out. But if the law currently is so lax, and if the FBI has so little oversight that they can show up to a FISA car and be like, yeah, we got this like pile of crap that we haven't actually verified at all. It's called we'll call it a dossier. And you know, the American citizen, we want to pull all of his communications for the next few months, and we don't know that he's committed a crime or we have

no reason to believe he has committed any crime. Actually, but this paper, this was handed to me by an opposition researcher during a presidential campaign, so I figure we'll just use this and we'll go from there. That's appalling. That's even worse. What this really means, what Christopher Way is telling you, is yeah, maybe it was all by the book. And in this case, the book means that

the Fourth Amendment doesn't count anymore. It means that people who are unscrupulous can abuse their authority in the government to open up spying, because that's what it was on the political opposition, on conservatives, on Republicans, on Trump. That's even worse than a rogue actor. For a few weeks now, I've been reminding you that Mother's Day is fast approaching. Now, it's just days away. So what one hundred Flowers is here to pick out a gorgeous bouquet for you that'll

show her she's loved. One eight hundred Flowers still has amazing offers on beautiful Mother's Day bouquets and arrangements starting at twenty nine ninety nine. Now that's an offer that mom would approve of. There's still time to have your bouquet delivered on Mother's Day, but you've got to get moving. With an amazing selection of sweet streets in bouquets, One eight hundred flowers has everything you need for Mother's Day and she'll never guess how great of a last minute

deal you scored. Mother's Day Bouquets and arrangement starting at twenty nine ninety nine is an amazing offer, but you have to order today. Trust one in hundred flowers to make mom feel loved. Order today from one hundred flowers dot com to order beautiful and vibrant Mother's Day bouquet is starting at twenty nine ninety nine. Go to one eight hundred flowers dot com slash buck. That's one eight

hundred flowers dot com slash buck. Mother's Day is Sunday, so order today and save at one eight hundred flowers dot com slash buck. He's back with you now, because when it comes to the fight for truth, the fuck never stops. Did you have a problem away, Comey handled the Clintoney mill investigation. Yes, I said so at the time. Okay, so, given the fact that a lot of people coming should be fired, did you find that to be a persuasive

act of obstructing justice. No. I think even the report at the end of the day came to the conclusion, if you read the analysis, that a reason that loomed large there for his termination was his refusal to tell the public what he was privately telling the president, which was that the president was not under investigation. Why wouldn't Comey tell the public that? Isn't there an important isn't there a compelling interest in not having that cloud over

the commander in chief? You have to remember that for the anti Trump forces in this country, in the media and government Democratic Party, they think anything that justifies taking away the ability to operate freely when it comes to Trump, anything is justified. They're fine with it. Whatever it is they have to do so that Trump can't really be the president. They think is a good thing. They think that they have a right to make sure that that

is the case. And Comey was playing games. He's playing games along the whole standing up and reading that statement about Hillary and the emails, and that just reminds me the gall the hootspa on some of these analysts and pundits and news people who are now running around holding up this letter written by hundreds of former federal prosecutors who have all signed their names to this four hundred and fifty former federal prosecutors who have said that there

should have been obstruction charges would have been obstruction charges if not for the fact that Trump is president United States. I think it's fascinating that these people think that we're supposed to care. I don't give a I don't give what. I don't give a you know what about what a bunch of lawyers who, by the way, no offense. The lawyers listening tend to be Democrats, right American Bar Association basically a wing of the DNC. A lot of lawyers

or Democrats. A lot of prosecutors in particular are Democrats, especially in the bluer parts of the country. And I don't much care what they think about this. I also want to know what their response, if we're going to go down this pathway, what their response would be to the fact that Mueller himself did not take the position that they are asserting. Are they saying that Muller was scared? Was Mueller somehow unwilling to speak the truth on this issue?

Was Saint Muller the Great Anointed Destroyer? Of the Trump administration. Oops didn't manage to pull it off. Did he? Did Saint Muller get cold feet? He very well could have written in that four hundred plus page report we found enough evidence to bring charges, but we know the OLC guidance from the Department of Justice states that you cannot bring charges against the sitting president. So therefore we leave this to the American people into Congress to handle as

they see fit. He didn't say that. He didn't say that. I think in part because here's the most persuasive anti obstruction charge argument that I know of. Trump didn't obstruct anything. I would also like to know what these prosecutors who signed this letter that all the media was all excited about. It was posted Monday afternoon, including Bill Weld, who is running against Trump. Oh, well, he must be really objective. He's a former US attorney in the Reagan administration who's

running against Trump for the Republican Nation. Yeah, he's a he's a guy that you can look to to be totally honest and fair minded in this whole process. Uh, you know, this is just a This is just a pr and a propaganda exercise. These are people who obviously don't like the president, and they think that because they've worked in government in some capacity as prosecutors, that their judgment is now beyond partisanship. And that's just that's just silly.

No reasonable person would think that that's what's going on here. It's it's not It shouldn't be their expectation that in a country of three hundred and twenty or so million people, because a few hundred people that happen to have law degrees and had worked in government prosecution, think that there would have been obstruction charges here? That what does that? What does that mean? So do we have the evidence now to bring those charges because Mueller didn't? Is there

new evidence? No, there's not. This is there's a level of this is kind of sad, and I know that that's not the way you usually hear this discuss. But there were all these stories towards the end of the Muller Probe about how there were people who were worried that they would older people were worried they would die before seeing justice and the Mulla Probe could be released and finally set things right in the land. You know, this is almost like it's the end of a Shakespearean drama.

It's like the end of Hamlet, where the last act on stage is to set things, you know, set things right going forward, set things right into the future after all the tragedy and loss. This isn't a stage drama. This is this is real life, and there are much more There should be much more important things to really everybody in America, especially if they're in their last days. Then whether or not the Mulla report has come out,

this was a mass hysteria. This was along the lines of another mass hysteria that is getting some attention now that I won't have the time to go into today, but it's that we're in the midst of a of a massive species die off and that if we don't do something soon. This is an assessment some report that just came out that's that said that humans are having a quote unprecedented and devastating effect on global biodiversity, with about a million animal and plant species threatened with extinction.

You know what they don't really get into the report is that nine p nine percent of all species that have ever existed our extinct, extinction for species over time and the different processes of new species coming to light. I mean, this is the way it's always been. But they want you to think that all the all the planets, animals are going to die because of us. It's our fault. Oh, how do we fix it? Who wants to take a guess? How do we stop a million animals and plant a

million animal and plant species from going extinct? Well, that's right, climate chance change, climate change legislation, which is also a way to help struggling and minority and oppress communities in this kind, it's just it's a justification for everything, for all things. Climate change, in the parlance of late eighteenth century France or early twentieth century Russia, is the revolution. It's whatever they want it to be. It gives them the power to do anything that they seek to do.

And if you stand athwart it, you are a threat. You are a counter revolutionary, You are a bad person. You must be destroyed. Do you want a million animal and plant species to go extinct? Well, I hope not. The only way to solve it is to empower imbeciles like Ocasio Cortez and Nancy Pelosi. Otherwise you want all the animals and plants to die. They believe that this is not what normal people would think about the world

around them. This is the result of massive media propaganda and brainwashing and the rejection of reason in and thought and science and the scientific method. That same ability to get completely panicked about the prospect of all species dying off because of us, because we're so terrible human beings. That same mentality is unfortunately tied to the Mulla Report, which is, even though it's not true, they still think there must be something there. It must be true. We'll

go right back. So our leader says, let's move on. It's sort of like Richard Nixon saying let's move on at the height of the investigation of his wrongdoing. Of course, he wants to move on. He wants to cover up, He wants to silence on one of the most serious issues we face. Chuck Schumer saying that McConnell is trying to engage in some kind of a cover up here because because cocaine Mitch, aka said a majority leader, Mitch McConnell, he's more fun to call him cocaine Mitch. He said

it's time to move on. This case close. He's right. The case is closed. Two years, thousands and thousands of pages of documents, and the subpoenas and the hundreds of witnesses and all this stuff. Muller went scorched earth released this four hundred page long anti Trump editorial effectively, but it was not able to find a crime to charge either, just the facts and how much. McConnell's like, can we

just please do other things this country? And Chuck Schumer because he knows that a lot of his constituents, a lot of people, unfortunately in my home state of New York, have Trump's arrangement syndrome. They'll just they'll never stop with this, They'll never give this up. They think that Congress is going to or at least the Democrats in Congress going to get some degree of truth, some nugget that was missed by Muller and his whole squad. This is absurd.

This is absurd, But it's like the absurdity of those who are calling for a bar to be fired. They say that Mitch McConnell is part of the cover up, they say that Bill Barr is part of the cover up. They attack anyone who just says, you know, when is enough enough? I mean, here, here's here to say. Montage Democrats are not just content to try and drag the

Attorney General's reputation through the mud. They like a bunch of screeching lunatics, really do want, at least from what they say, to lock Bar up in prison, which is just utterly absurd. I mean, just completely crazy town. And it's not like one or two of them are saying it. A lot of them are saying. At Playlipate, are you talking about just having him sit for a hearing or

locking him up somehow? And you have to have him sit for a hearing, and I think you have to have him locked up, and unless he agrees to participate and come to the hearing. The House and the Senate, each chamber has an inherent power to compare a witness to testify. If that witness just refuses, and that includes arrests and then even includes jail, the House is powerless

unless the House takes some action. We have what's called inherent contempt proceedings, which means we send the sergeant of arms out to handcuff the individual who is declining to Well, I'm going to start with mister Barr. These are people who are These are democrats who are really saying they want to send the sergeant sergeant at arms in Congress to go arrest the Attorney General. No, no, I understand

that at some level, this is just theatrics. This is for the people, the very, very simple minded and easily brainwashed folks who watch MSNBC constantly, who think that they're getting objective It's one thing if you watch MSNBC and you realize that you're watching lewing propaganda, at least you have some self awareness. But there are a lot of people who watch MSNBC and think that it's objective news, and I feel bad for them because their understanding of

politics and the world around them is deeply unsophisticated. They think they're really sophisticated, but they are not. But here you have people that are pandering to that unsophisticated but very self righteous crowd of MSNBC true believers by saying that they're gonna they're gonna try to lock up the Attorney general, as if that wouldn't create a constitutional crisis. You know, the same the same Democrat left that has been whining about the undermining of institutions for the last

two years just as a favorite talking point. You know, they just they try to make it sound like they're the only people who care about the institutions of government. Oh, it still comes to election results. They don't like then it. You know, the Georgia election was stolen, the North Carolina election was to all these elections are stolen, stolen, stolen, that they don't win the twenty sixteen presidential election stolen.

You think that maybe that in and of itself would constitute some kind of undermining of our institutions, like the institutions of our election. But Democrats, come on, we're not looking for consistency with them. Will be looking all day, my friends, We're not gonna find it. They want to throw the Attorney General in jail, why, you might ask, because he won't sit there and allow them to engage in the obvious shenanigans of having staff attorneys cross examined

the Attorney General of the United States. That's right, that's what they think that should be done. Here. You have a bunch of lawyers, these members of Congress, they're almost all lawyers, like seventy percent of the ones who sit on the Judiciary Committee our lawyers. And they won't do the questioning themselves. They want to have somebody else do it for them. They want to do that because they want it to seem like a criminal proceeding in Bar is a defendant in that they can't beat Bar on

the merits. So now they're just trying every every campaign of insinuation, Slanders sliming their conduct on this is utterly disgraceful. And they're, oh, we actually have Mitch McConnell on what he thinks about all this and why they're going after Bar. Right, Chuck Schumer got all upset about what Minch McConnell said. Let me play for you what Cochi and Mitch had

to say. Play seven. Now, I've been more than six weeks since Special Counsel Bob Mueller, the former FBI director, concluded his investigation into Russia's interference in our twenty sixteen election and delivered his findings to the Justice Department. It's been two weeks since Attorney General William Barr made the four hundred and fifty page report public. This investigation went on for two years. It's finally over, case closed, all right, it's time for this thing to be done. They said

there was a conspiracy. Now they're going after bar because he's a convenient targets more than he's a convenient target. They're going after bar because they have to run interference for the little Democrat deep state clients who were the ones that generated this whole conspiracy in the first place. They're the ones that created this whole narrative. They're the

ones that came up with this Russia collusion fantasy. And the Inspector General report from within the Department of Justice, I think is going to show that some of these people were just way outside the bounds of what is ethical given the power they have. I'm not so you notice how I'm not telling you they're going to go to prison very hard. You know, prosecutors, FBI agents, they can engage in a lot of really poor conduct and the worst thing that will happen is they'll get fired.

For prosecutors, it's usually not even that prosecutors. There's so little oversight of what federal prosecutors do and their decision making. But even within the FBI, within those federal bureaucracies, you can mess up and then some and they're not necessarily gonna come after you with anything other than a possible suspension maybe of firing. Very unlikely. I think you'll see anyone go to I know other people tell you, oh, Coomy's going to jail, and no, I don't think so.

I don't think it's gonna happen. Coomy's gonna look really bad on this whole process. But the attacks on bar are meant to prepare the battleground for when Bar is releasing or as Attorney General is at a press conference and talking about the Inspector General report and what is in it, and it's going to look really bad for Democrats.

And it's gonna look also terrible for the media in that the members of the media were so willing to go along with his especially in the early stages, this crazy Russia collusion story and use all this pretextual nonsense about Papadopolis and Carter Page as as evidence in this conspiracy, as evidence to present to the Fiser Corp. But also is evidence to present the public in all these different

news articles. Just absurd, absolutely absurd. It should be case closed, But because the Democrats just can't let it go, we're going to have to continue to talk about this, but we will continue to fight them. My friends, don't worry about it. Obviously, border security is top of mind for this president since January. Democrats are now seventeen points more likely to refer to what's happening at the southern border

as a quote crisis. Remember that it was in January that Schumer and Pelosi went on primetime television following the President's Oval Office address and said, this is a manufacturer crisis. So border security top of mind, but also the President will be considering a merit based immigration system. He put. The President put together a seventy point plan and submitted

to Congress in October of twenty seventeen. So anybody who seems surprised that this president wants to end the VS lottery system, end chain migration, have a merit based immigration system, a deal with DOCCA as he can, and certainly continue. So that's on the table. Order so Daco'll be on the table. I get ahead of it, but it could be we'll see. Trump better be careful these negotiations over immigration because the Democrats have no good faith whatsoever on

this issue. They do not want the same thing that the rest of the or that a majority of the American people want. They aren't looking for a border that is secure, that does not allow the continued influx of illegals, that does not reward people for crossing in massive numbers illegally. We're not trying to achieve the same thing. This is absolutely central. It's fundamental to understand this. On a lot of policy issues, the Democrats and the Republicans are separated

by the means to achieve the same end. On this issue, on immigration, we no longer differ on the means. We differ on the ends. We don't want the same goal, we don't want the same immigration reality. And so when Trump is talking about, or when the administration that was Kelly and Conway's discussing what Trump would be willing to a budge on or what's on the table, I get it. He's a negotiator. He wants to make his pitch, but

he needs to be very careful. I'm don't get mad at me, but Saint Reagan, wonderful man, wonderful president, got swindled, got swindled with an amnesty back in nineteen eighties six. I think it was millions of people amnestied, no real improvements of border security, nothing in terms of the verification and enforcement measures for those that were possibly covered by the amnesty. And they were still hearing amnesty cases as of I think twenty ten or twenty eleven from that

initial amnesty in the eighties. All Right, everyone's like, oh, yeah, I should have been covered by that. Now let me have a you know, a lawyer appointed to represent me in court. It's just this is what ends up happening. Democrats just want amnesty. They'll say anything to get there, because everything else is negotiable. Every other aspect of the border can change. They want ambassy and they don't want a wall because tearing down the wall that might be tough.

That's a tough sell. Yeah, we've just built this wall. Now we're going to tear it down that that wouldn't be an easy thing for Democrats to pull off. The optics of that are not strong. But yeah, I think that Trump Trump's gonna have a tough time here. Democrats don't want to be working with him on anything with regard to immigration. They want this to be a major issue going into the midterms, rather the presidential election, not

the midterms. New York Post as an interesting piece here, speaking of the border, Central American migrants have Mexico facing a border crisis of its own. This is in sidad hidaa go Mexico. I I do not I took French, not Spanish. That'll make fun of my Tijuana. I know it's Tijuana. I gotta say it like that, Tejuana. When the migrant caravans crossed the Succuiote River and International Bridge

from Guatemala, Aidan Lopez springs into action. In this steamy tropical city, he shuts down his shop and takes cover. Like many merchants along Mexico's southern border, Lopez says his business is suffering due to a recent escalation in crime committed by migrants. Many are calling for the Mexican government to shut its doors. Lopez owns a stall selling blue jeans in this city of nearly fifteen thousand people on

the southern tip of Mexico. Since last October, thousands of mostly Central American asylum seekers have overwhelmed the city, which is just steps from a bridge connecting Mexico to Guatemala. With no other place to go, many camp out in the town square and beg quote, we know they are not all bad people, but when they started to come through, there were a lot of robberies and assaults, Lopez told the New York Post. Here so now we get a

multitude crossing, we just clo the shop. Wait a second, I thought that these this is all this New York postpiece by Isabel Vincent. I thought that the migrants were better than Americans. I thought that they were going to just do the jobs we won't do, work harder than

we work, be more law abiding than we are. This is what we're always told, is whether Democrats consistently say about migrants that come across the border illegally, that come as part of these caravans, that they're amazing and we are deficient because we do not understand how amazing they are, even though they're breaking our laws, even though we are not supposed to bring in one hundred thousand illegal crossing illegal crossers a month. But where's the Trump administration on this?

What are we going to do about this? The money that they're talking about moving to the border is just going to grease the wheels of process. The only area where I've started to see some real movement that I think could be helpful, it could be useful to securing the border is in stricter enforcement, stricter enforcement of credible fear claims that may actually be worthwhile. That has the possibility I think of starting to turn back this tidal

wave of people coming into the country illegally. Essentially just make it harder for them to get through and lie. That's all it is. That in and of itself, I think would really be powerful here. It is US asylum screeners to take a more confrontational approach. Internal document show as Trump aims to turn away more migrants. Oh, because Trump is such a big meaning they want you to know.

He's so mean. That's why he's doing this. Meanwhile, he's trying to re establish any kind of security at the border. It's the Washington Post. The Trump administration has sent new guidelines to asylum officers, directing them to take a more skeptical and confrontational approach during interviews with migrants seeking refuge in the United States. It is the latest measure and that tightening the nation's legal quote loopholes homeland security officials

blame for a spike in border crossings. According to internal documents and staff emails obtained Tuesday by The Washington Post, the asylum officers will more aggressively challenge applicants whose claims of persecution contained discrepancies, and they'll need to provide detailed justifications before concluding an applicant has a well founded fear. That's right, credible fear. Folks might have to actually be

credible fear. Oh wow, you mean it will no longer just be I am scared in my country of the people coming for me, Like they're robotically reading this crap that is handed to them by the different pro migrant groups that are involved in all this, by the coyotes, by the smugglers. They're told what to say. We know they're economic migrants. We know they're not fleeing political or

religious or ethnic persecution. They're not asylum seekers. They're liars, Not all of them, but ninety percent plus of them who are saying they have a credible fear are lying about it. Okay, let's just be honest about this. Just living in Honduras does not mean you have a credible fear of persecution. Just being from the country of asabad or does not make you an asylum seeker. And if it does, we need to be opening up our doors to those entire countries, which we're getting pretty close to

doing these days. It feels like Trump administration's right tighten things up, enforce the rules, make it harder secure the border. They're moving to the right direction. Might be too little, too late in terms of owning the center ground. I think the center ground can be owned by the left, whether it's raising the minimum way age, securing social security, medicare, medicaid, redefine what the center is and don't let them define our in a Canada as something of that is far left.

Trump is coding us to impeach him. That's what he's doing. It's so perfect. I mean, we pull those two little sound bites you together. On the one hand, you have Nancy Pelosi. You know, the left is really the party of the center. You know, Democrats, the progressives. We can own the center. But I mean Trump is just begging us to impeach him. Am I right? Am I right?

She's amazing, folks, She's amazed that just say whatever she has to say, no no ethical, moral, or ideological core, just whatever she needs to say whenever she needs to say it. Moral, relativism, statis, m big government. These these are the closest things that she has to organizing principles for her ideology. And atop all that, of course is the the glory of Nancy Pelosi. But whatever she has to do to maintain her privileged position in society. Very wealthy,

very powerful, very connected. But I love us, you know, yeah, Democrats, we're totally reasonable. Trump is begging us to impeach him. Though I'm pretty sure, I'm pretty sure that Trump is not goading them to impeach him. I'm pretty sure that they have decided to embrace a trumped arrangement syndrome that does feel and does does appear to be truly pathological. Speaking of pathological, there is a a kind of multiple personality disorder that is on display with Democrats over the

issue of impeachment. Depending on the day, you have Democrats who say, well, we have to impeach him, and then you have Democrats who say we're waiting for the evidence. And then you have others who say we'll have to give up on impeachment because it's going to blow back on us. The political ramifications are not worth it. I just wish, you know, they would get on the same sheet of music for a few days instead of all here. You know, people say buck, but they're politicians. They have

different opinions. No, no, no. The whole point is that they're speaking with many mouths about this issue because it's just bizarre, it's absurd. So they want to have some people saying, oh, no, we're going to impeach them. So that makes the left wing base happy. They want some people who are saying, oh, we're gonna wait and see who the evidence is. That's where the Trump deranged but

not completely insane. They are more comfortable with that. And then the hold on a second, you know, maybe we shouldn't go completely all in on this idea of impeachment because it's going to blow back on us politically. That's for the Democrat establishment that realizes if Muller couldn't deliver them the big win that they wanted, they're no way, no way, impeachment is going to do that for them. They keep striving, struggling, begging, scratching, clawing for some one thing.

You know that that one coop de gross or is it a coop de grosse? I think it's cool that that one master stroke, that one moment of aha, where Trump's presidency is finished and it's just not gonna happen. And I have to wonder when they when they will realize it's not gonna happen. I guess it'll be when Trump wins reelection, then then there'll be some at least a few hours of oh wow, this is real again.

But all the impeachment issue. But do we do? We have Elizabeth war Elizabeth Warren, she was really annoying me today. We gotta get someone, you know, Elizabeth Warren has been saying annoying things about this. Beto O'Rourke is running around desperate to try and get some attention for himself because look, apparently my home videos and my rolled up sleeves and my sort of rugged Kennedy Usk handsomeness is not enough to make me president. Uh. He says that we are

at the must impeach Trump phase. We must do this play clip twelve to invite power to participate in our elections, to obstructs justice and cover up during the investigation. There there must be accountability. We must get behind the House of Representatives and they pursuing peach, must pursue impeach of this president. Does Betto ever have to explain? What's this? Trump invited a foreign power to participate in our election? I don't remember that, Betto? Is that because he made

a joke about Russia. If you have the Hillary emails, let us know, keep in mind, they're all hoping that nobody will do the due diligence and the research to separate these things out. Russia never did have the Hillary emails. Russia hacked into the DNC servers and John Podesta's emails and release some of those through wiki leagues, but they never got Hillary's emails. The people who say that, oh, but they were acting on Trump's orders, No, they weren't.

And these were rumors that were flying around all over the place. Invited a foreign power to participate at our election. Oh my gosh, these people really, I would say they need to get out more. But bettos out all the time. He's running around doing this kind of on the road Jack Kerouac thing where he's just traveling all over the place and trying to get attention for himself. You know, I'll tell you, I knew Betto wasn't going to be

the guy. Although I for a moment thought that the Democrats were so in love with him and so delusional that nothing could nothing could dissuade them. There was a moment in time where because everything about him was defying gravity and reality. But when he did that that totally dumbass video of himself getting his teeth cleaned. He's like her, are you know he's in the dentist chair of the whole thing? And get who is this guy? Why? Why

would anyone think this is a good idea? And how could anyone expect us to want to give them the nuclear codes when this is their version of a judgment? Call Representative Al Green, I would not. It is also in the impeach, impeach, impeach side of things. Play thirteen. Are you concerned that impeachment talk may actually help the president's reelection? I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected, so he takes You know, democrats

can't can't seem to figure it out. Is it that if they impeach him he will get reelected, he won't get You know, there's they have no idea. This is all It's all just political. It's all nonsense. This is their obsession. They want to keep talking about this. They're desperate to make it seem like there's more at work here than the most obvious partisan nonsense. You know that this is about the defending our democracy and about protecting our core institutions. And come on, no no serious person

believes this. Nobody really thinks this is the case. But I guess some Democrats are wacko enough that they're they're on this one man. They're they're deciding that this is what they're gonna this is what they're gonna do. And then they got Joe Biden out there. They got Joe Biden leading the charge right now. I just I know I've been saying it, but I don't see it. I don't think Uncle Joe's got the goods. I don't think he had him then. I don't think he has him now.

I think he's a guy who has gotten very lucky in his political career, got him in the right place at the right time, and his clinging to the legacy of Barack Obama's gonna get old. People are gonna realize that this isn't this isn't enough. Talking about his buddy Baroque is not gonna sell people on why he should be the next leader of the free world. Play clip four. I watch my buddy Brock stand out there, watch the r and he talked about we have to find that

amazing grace. By the way, there is amazing grace in this country. We just have to reach out and pull it in, folks, where you must defeat Donald Trump above all else. He says, we gotta defeat Donald Trump. That's gonna be his pitch. He's gonna say he's electable. Now, I'm just putting this out there for the Democrats who are listening in the audience. What was the Hillary Clinton pitch again? Oh, that's right, that above all else. If you wanted to beat Hell, if you wanted to beat

Donald Trump, Hillary Clinton was your choice. How did that work out? Exactly? How did the super establishment insider, boring, uninspiring Democrat candidate to defeat Donald Trump in twenty sixteen? How that go? Oh? That's right. They had to cook up a whole crazy person story about Russia collusion to explain the loss. I'm telling you, China collusion twenty twenty. When Biden loses, it could happen. You know, people say, well, Joe,

how are you gonna do all this? Well, guess what first thing I do is going to repeal this Trump tax cut. Oh, not a joke, Not a joke. Biden's like, you know what, everybody don't. I don't think you should like this great economy. I don't think you should be excited about what's going on in America right now. I think we need people making less money, we need higher unemployment, we need things to stop going so well. Joe Biden blue color, Joe sharing you his wisdom for the day.

Oh man. The Democrats, Yeah, I'm not the I'm not a lone voice in the woods anymore with Democrats who are realizing this guy's got weaknesses. Folks, this is not it's not gonna be enough to be Trump. When you line up Biden and Hillary, you know, Hillary had the whole woman thing going for her, had a you could argue, certainly a more distinguished track record. I don't know if I wouldn't say successful, but you know, with her whole

secretary of state run me. Look, they're they're comparable. I mean, the resumes are comparable. They're both creatures of public life with their whole lives. But Hillary had the whole glass ceiling thing and the Clinton establishment around her, and I think that you could make a case that she was a she was a stronger establishment candidate against Trump than Joe Biden would be. And Democrats are starting to figure

that out. And that's why when they're saying things like, the first thing I'm gonna do is repeal those tax cuts. Why are people cheering for that? They really want to give more of their money to the government. Who who wants to do that? Ever? Come across people who really think that that's a good idea in real life, but conceptually, you know, theoretically that other people would be paying more

in taxes as somehow exciting to them. That just that strikes me as very very odd mentality that Democrats have. But it's worse than just bad ideas that they're repackaging. The Democrats will never give up on. You know, higher taxes is better, Well, it turns out it's not better for you as an individual, and it's not better for economic growth, so it's not better. Overall, government is incredibly wasteful. Government should not be taking more money than is absolutely

necessary to run. It's very limited and constitutionally secured mandates like national defense, and you know, there's only a few things that government should really be doing, but we do

a whole lot more now. But what concerns me is that you have Joe Biden getting all this establishment attention, and then on the other side you have these quite these establishment candidates that don't really seem to get the same degree of support from the DNC, And you know, the media likes them, but they haven't yet fallen in love with them, and they're moving further and further left with ideas that aren't just you know, raising my taxes

is annoying. Raising my taxes is something that the Democrats want to do that would bother me and should bother you too. They're if you pay taxes more or less. There's some exceptions to this. You got a tax cut. So if you're a taxpayer, it is there's an eighty percent chance that you got a tax cut because of Trump. Democrats want to take that away. But I can handle that. I don't approve of it. I think it's a bad idea,

but it doesn't really put me on edge. Some of the other things you're hearing from these left wing candidates or these candidates that are trying to appear more left wing, that's really what's going on. Appear more left wing so they can appeal to the progressive base that they need in order to gain enough numbers and enough support to come out of this primary. People like Corey Booker or like Kamala Harris, Elizabeth Warren Corey Booker on guns is

concerning to me. There's an authoritarian statism that is at the heart of his appeal on guns. This is CNN asking Corey Booker about what the consequences would be for They always say a buyback program. Remember, a buy back program when it comes to guns, is mandatory confiscation with whatever fee they decide to give you, which you know, for in a lot of cases, is not going to be the fair market value of the guns. So it's

really a confiscation with some you know, minimal compensation. Oh and by the way, if you just don't want to go along with this, they'll throw you in prison. Corey Booker was asked about this. Here's what he said in play too. The critical thing is, I think most Americans agree that these weapons of war should not be on our streets. Again, would you prosecute people do support the government buying them back? And if not, potentially people could go to jail if they don't want to sell them back.

Yes or no. Again, we should have a law that bans these weapons, and we should have a reasonable period in which people can turn in these weapons. Right now, we have a nation that allows in streets and communities like mine. These weapons that should not exist. Okay, let's unpack their what he says, because it's quite clear to me that the answer is that he's giving is Oh, yeah, no, we're gonna lock people up for they're lawfully purchased and

currently possessed firearms. We're gonna lock people up for that. He says. There should be a reasonable period in which they can turn in these weapons. Okay, what if they don't turn them in. But if they don't want to turn them in, what if this is their private property that they lawfully obtained and that the Second Amendment guarantees their right to continue to own. They are weapons in common usage, so they are covered under d C. V. Heller.

What happens to those people? You pass this law, you give the time period, what if they don't do it? A law without a penalty rapidly ceases to be a law at all. Corey Booker knows this, and that's why

Corey Booker wants you to know. Although he won't come out and say it that he would be comfortable, Oh, that's right, separating families, because that's what happens when you lock somebody up because they have a semi automatic rifle that they are legally allowed to own until Corey Booker and the Progressive Democrats come along and pass some sort

of assault rifle ban. All the data shows that the assault rifle ban was effectively irrelevant, did nothing in terms of dropping violent crime, was annoying to people though, and was an infringement on their Second Amendment rights. This phrase, they use weapons of war is such an idiotic phrase. A weapon of war. I mean, you think about some of the weapons that are in common usage. You say, well, of course they're used in warfare, And ultimately that is

the point. The point is, and this is where liberals get really uncomfortable. If we needed to wage an insurrection against a tyrannical government, we would be in a position to do so. So that's why, Yeah, we don't want muskets. We want semi automatic rifles, we want handguns. We want things that would be useful in the context of a defense against tyranny as well as self defense and defense at ones home and property. Put weapons of war. They

make it sound like they're talking about Stinger missiles. They're talking about semi automatic rifles that have a folding stock. But ultimately, Corey Booker is willing to throw you in prison if you don't do what he wants on us. Just remember that Democrats are all about smiles and the little guy and the poor guy and all that nice stuff until it comes to guns. They think guns are ikey and gun owners should go to prison. They're okay

with that. For many years, Trees have been taking total advantage of the United States on trade, whether they're allies or not. They looked at us really as a bunch of very soft touches. And that's not what's happening anymore. We've placed massive tariffs on China, and the tariffs have really had a positive impact. Number One, our country has taken in a lot of money. Number Two, we're creating

jobs like never before. So it's very important that China open its markets to our farmers and everybody else because right now they're clothes largely, and yet our markets are open to them. We're changing things, and we're changing them fast. How fast are we changing things and how are we doing in this trade negotiation with China. It's supposed to be a big deadline on Friday. We've got our friend Gordon Chang back in the house. Everybody he is the

author of the Coming Collapse of China. You can also go to Gordon sea Chang dot com for his latest analysis, and you see him a lot on Fox and pretty much every news network out there. Gordon, great to have you on, sir, Thank you so much. Buck. So, how are things, How are things looking for this trade deadline on Friday? How's the Trump administration handling all this? And what do you think the Chinese? What are they thinking

right now about this whole trade deal? I think Beijing is a bit in a panic because they're used to getting their way with the American negotiators, but President Trump has kept them off balance. I think the things look a lot better for us after Trump's tweet on Sunday where he said he was going to increase the tariffs, and that's what we absolutely need to do because Beijing right now is not talking to us in good faith

see jumping. The Chinese ruler withdrew commitments that his trade negotiators made to the United States, and those commitments were across the board. So right now I don't believe Beijing is actually come to terms with the United States. What should Trump do if, in fact, as we go into Friday, I mean, it's twenty five percent tariff on two hundred billion dollars of good Do you think that's the move? Well,

that's the start. If it were President Chang, the tariffs would not be twenty five percent, They'd be two hundred and fifty percent or twenty five hundred percent. I would ban the importation into the US of any goods that have benefited from the theft of US intellectual property, and I would ban the importation of goods sold by any company that has stolen USIP. We need to be extremely

tough on them. But what Trump is doing is really moves in the right direction, because at some point, you know, the Chinese have to understand that they cannot use their traditional tactics against US and expect continued success. How has the shift in trade policy from the Trump administration affected the Chinese? We always hear about the downside for our own economy from the mainstream media, but it's been a rough year in China For people who pay attention to

the markets. I think they've certainly been seeing that. So, Gordon, how do you gauge all this? It has been a rough year, and right after the President's on Sunday, you saw the Shanghai composite drop five point six percent or so, but more significantly the Shenshin composite down seven something and the China X which is tech heavy, that was down seven point nine percent one day. So China, actually, I think, is not doing very well in general, but the trade

war hasn't helped it. But remember, China has structural problems on its own, and what Trump's actions are doing is sort of adding another level of insecurity to people in China, and that's a good thing for US. China right now is growing maybe one or two percent in reality, it's not nearly the six point four percent that they claim

for the last quarter. And the most important thing buck in order to get whatever growth they have, they're creating five and a half times as much debt as nominal gross domestic product, even if the inflated GDP claims are accurate. That's up from one and a half times from a year ago. That's really a sign of an economy in trouble.

What do you think the break Is there any realistic possibility of a breakthrough where all parties come away, if not happy, at least with the most constructive deal in place possible I mean, all along Trump has been hoping to get a deal with the Chinese? Is there any they've been getting away with a lot for a long time? Intellectual property theft, you mentioned predatory trade practices. A lot of folks I know would argue they never should have

been allowed in the World Trade Organization period. But if the Chinese finally succumbed to the pressure the Trump administration has put on them to establish a more fair deal, are is there a big upside for the Chinese economy over the long run? I mean, you know, what is the best case scenario out of all This is what I'm trying to get at. Okay, from my perspective, a best case scenario is no trade deal and we disengage from China, we get our faith there, and we go

our separate way. And the reason is that the Chinese are not leaving us any choice. I mean, they steal somewhere I would guess three to four hundred billion dollars a year in USIP. If you disengage, you're giving them fewer opportunities to take stuff. And also the more you disengage, the fewer the opportunities they have to violate trade agreements with US, But you know, anything is possible, Buck, there

could be an agreement. An agreement would be a great thing for China because what they're lacking right now is confidence in their own economy. And you're starting to see a number of manufacturers move their operations out of China because they're worried about geopolitical risk. They're also worried about other things, but one of the factors is geopolitical risk, and that is a trade agreement. You have a trade agreement,

you reduce those concerns. Trump administration is handling China the way that you would like them too, for the most part, Gordon, is that fair to say, Yeah, I think the administration is moving in the right direction. I of course would like to see it faster, but you know, American governments don't move that fast. But we're seeing I think, a political calculus across the spectrum of American politics that right now understands the threat that China poses and is actually,

you know, we're moving in the right direction. So, for instance, you had Chuck's humor talk about supporting the president's policies on tariffs. That's a very good thing. We know, the Speaker of the House doesn't like Beijing for very good reasons. And so clearly Trump can put together a coalition here because people understand the China challenge. How are we doing

switching gears for second to North Korea? There have been some critics of the president who are saying, see, Kim Jong un isn't doing what he said he would do this. They're already trying to declare failure on the North Korea nuclear negotiations the Trump administrations engaged in. Where do you come down on that cordon? Well, they haven't failed, but

they are failing. We've got to remember buck that nobody, nobody has ever enticed the Kim regime into good behavior over the long term, not the Chinese, not the Russians, not the South Koreans. And this is exactly what Trump is doing. A matter of fact, this is what Trump said he was doing at the Ottawa g seven just before the historic June's Summit last year with Kim Jong un. President Trump said, look, I'm going to give Kim a quote unquote one time shot. That's a one time shot

to do the right thing. Trump wanted to make him feel secure enough so that he would give up his weapons. But since you know that one time shot started. You know, we've seen Kim move in all the wrong directions, So I think it's time for the president to pivot, go back to the policies that made him successful, which were to really enforce sanctions in a way that made the regime in kiang Yang hurt. Now, what should Trump do

given that there's this intransigence. I think that we should first of all, go after the Chinese banks for continuing to launder money for the North Koreans. The Trump administration on June twenty ninth, twenty seventeen, designated Bank of Doundong a primary money laundering concern under the Patriot Act. That disconnected the bank from the global system because it could no longer transact business in dollar. That was a warning. We know that, but Banka Dondong is a real small institution.

We also know that all of China's Big four have been laundering for the Kim regime, and we should be imposing at least fines and maybe even disconnecting them from the global system him That would be a warning shot that Beijing could not ignore. We also need to go after the South Koreans for busting sanctions, as well as the Russians. You know, people violate sanctions because the US is not stopping them. We stopped them. Kim Jong hun is then forced to either keep his weapons or survive,

and in that case, he's going to choose survival. All right, everybody. Gordon Chang check out his Twitter handle Gordon ge Chang on Twitter, and also Gordon Chang dot com for his website. Gordon, thank you so much, Thank you, Buck team. We'll be right back. Okazio Cortez is in many ways in the vanguard of the Democratic Party. Some say she's almost the de facto spiritual leader of the progressive left. She does

a lot of social media stuff. She runs all over the place and takes these little homemade videos, puts them on Instagram and they get millions of views. Well. In her most recent one, it seemed that she was in fact terrified by a garbage disposal. Play it. I am told this is a garbage disposal. I've never seen a garbage disposal. I never had one in any place I've ever lived. It is terrifying. I don't know what for or what its purpose is, like food scraps, like is

this environmentally sound? I don't know, well, like I'm pretty sure it's for the disposing of garbage. But we get into the some more. Okazio Cortez had a parody account of her, and she is hard to parody, so I give that person credit. It turns out that that parody account was recently banned from Twitter. So what are the rules here? What do the social media czars in Silicon Valley get to determine? And where should we go from here? We've got our buddy Will Chamberlain on the line. He

is the publisher of Human Events. He has some thought on these things. Well, great to have. You're gonna be with you back, all right. So now Twitter's gonna ban parody accounts that are marked as parody. I mean, this

seems to be beyond farce. Well, I mean, you got to realize that Twitter's principle here is not some consistent, broad application of a rule against parody accounts, but rather a particularly privileged interpretation of those rules that say that if you're a liberal and you parody a conservative, well that's just fine in dandy. But if you're a conservative and you effectively parody a liberal, well that's that we just can't have that, candily, So that's the real point.

The double standard is obvious in many ways. But you know what I want to ask is what should the standard be? You know, David French over National Review put out a piece today where he's essentially imploring these Silicon Valley social media giants to voluntarily adopt viewpoint neutral First Amendment protections via their platform. This sounds great to me, except there's no way they're going to do this, right.

I mean, this sounds like as likely to happen as the Democratic Party to decide the wholesale abandon planned parenthood and embrace a pro life position. The people that he is appealing to are completely on the other side of the political spectrum than him and want him and his fellow travelers to lose election. So to try and persuade them that they should be viewpoint neutral is sort of

a feudal exercise. One should realize who one has the capacity to persuade, and in this case, perhaps we do have the ability to persuade Silicon Valley of certain things, but only under duress. What do you think we should do? I mean, the bias and social media is obvious at this point, and people who pretend that there isn't an effort to silence, to punish, and to really downgrade in the national conversation conservative points of view. I think they're

just being other, dishonest or delusional. What do we do though, I mean, in a world where Facebook is Facebook and Twitter alone are determining a lot of what people see, read, and here, what's the answer for conservatives who don't want to live by these very biased and mercurial rules. So I have two core recommendations for conservatives generally and the

conservative movement. So the first is a framing recommendation. I believe we should be framing access to large social media platforms as a civil right because in the same way that private discrimination was rendering the Constitution's commitment to the equality of people sort of a dead letter in the Jim Crow South in the nineteen forties and nineteen fifties, and we needed federal law to fix that and make

it so that stopped. I see a similar dynamic here where in a world where the vast majority of serious political discourse occurs on major social media platforms. To make the underlying cultural commitment, we have to free speech more than a dead letter. We need to actually impose restrictions on social media companies, and the way to justify that is to say the right to speak on these platforms is a civil right and that private companies don't have

should not have the ability to violate it. So that's part one. The second yeah, part two. Part two is we should be aiming to pass legislation at both the state and federal level where that creating essentially a consumer

protection law that says something along these lines. If Facebook or Twitter bans you for lawful speech, and what you should be able to do is the very next day, walk into a courthouse get an injunction against Facebook or Twitter or Instagram that forces them to restore your account. In addition, force them to pay your attorney sees and in further impose a further statutory penalty. Right. I want to this is a private right of action. I want

to make it possible. So if you are, if you have your account wrongfully taken away from you by one of these companies, you can tomorrow go to court and a judge will give you an injunction forcing Twitter to get it back to you. Sounds good to me. Anyone else on board for this, well, I think I'm the only person on the line. So I am firmly on board for my own idea. No, I mean, I mean, does anyone else trying to support your idea here? Have you gotten to anyone in Congress or other publications or

other you know who else is on board? So I mean the Ron Coleman, a lawyer on Twitter, was the sort of the originator of the idea, especially of focusing on state consumer protection. The legislation, you know, we the article that I first proposed this in, uh you know, we just came out two days ago, and so we haven't really gotten a full fledged movement behind the legislay

to push yet. But that said, I mean, the formulation of the right to speak on social media platforms as of a right has gotten a huge amount of traction very very quickly. Denish to SUSA picked it up on Laura Ingraham Show. Paul Jesseph Watson picked it up on his own YouTube, and since he was the person that was purged by Facebook and sort of the most recent catalyst for all this, that was a big deal too.

And Broncos, a cartoonist that Legal Insurrection, seems to have also picked up on it pretty clearly by posting a cartoon that analogizes the social media fight to the civil rights Now No, Raheem Kassam is a beloved member of this circus that we run here called the Freedom Hunt Right Sexton Show obviously, and will you know therefore as a as a human events person, you're also in the broader family. I just want to know what for all the folks listening tell me about we got about a minute.

What are you doing a human events and why should folks go check it out? So this is the oldest conservative magazine in the country, started in nineteen forty four, and we've relaunched it. It was defunk for about five years, and we're bringing you I think you should really go check out the website because I think you'll see it

different from anything else in conservative media. We are publishing beautiful, long form, interesting and thought provoking articles that I think you'll really get a kick out of and that will really make you think. So that's the core of what we're doing, and we're not trying to be clickbaity, you know,

our core. The way we're trying to fund this is through memberships and if you come a member of founding Father of Human Events as it where you can get access to a group chat with me and Ride Kassan and others as well, where you can talk with us about what we're doing, how we're doing it, and what we're publishing. So all right, I don't know Human events dot com. Everybody check it out. Publisher Will Chamberlain will great to have you on my friend. Come back soon,

all right, thanks buck. Oh you've got here a bunch of protesters, a bunch of pseudo Christian protesters who've been out here shaming young girls for being here. So here's the deal. I've got one hundred dollars to anybody who will identify any of these three. So we're going to do I'm going to donate the plant. Look a bunch of white people ending up of a plant, power rights shaming people. There's nothing Christian about what you're doing. Nothing

Christians at all about what you're doing. Hi, nothing Christian or loving or godly about what you're doing. So I've got one hundred dollars to anybody who will identify. One hundred dollars. Rich. What makes you think that it's your job to tell women what's right for their bodies? And the truth is, I'm not really asking because I don't care.

Shame on you. Well, that was Pennsylvania's State Rep. Brian Simms, who not content merely to harass an elderly woman who is exercising her First Amendment rights to advocate for the lives of the unborn outside of a planned parative clinic, but now wants to This guy wants to docks and is offering a bounty, offering money to people who will docks, some young people who are trying to also spread a message of life. This did not go over well with

people in the pro life community, rightfully so. And we're joined now by one person who is going to have some thoughts to share on the whole fiasco and also what really matters here. Lila Rose is with us. She is the founder and president of Live Action. Lila, thank you so much for giving us some of your time.

Thanks for having me back. So you are going to be engaging in a prey in what exactly is happening in response to what's going on outside this plan parenthood clinic in Philadelphia where this elected official is verbally abusing people, being threatening toward people, putting it on his Facebook, putting it on Twitter, sharing it all over the place. You and other pro life advocates are going to do what

in response? Sure, So we're going there to support the local community because there have been wonderful folks in Pennsylvania who have been praying outside the planned parent has there and this one in particular for years now, doing peaceful sidewalk counseling, trying to help women in need and support women with other options, the most of all praying, and that's what you see on the video, I mean, Brian sends this elected representative for the state House in Pennsylvania

is her king a group of three teen girls and their moms who are praying peacefully and harassing getting up in the face of an elderly woman holding a rosary praying, calling them bullies, making fun of their their race, making fun of their prayer, calling on his followers to docs them docs teen girls, and again they just respond by praying. I mean, that's what they're there to do, to pray

for an end abortion. So Live Action will be going out there as well as other groups to supporting incredible work of local activists who are peacefully praying for an intro abortion in Pennsylvania. If anyone hearing this wants to join you by the way if they want to know where this is happening and how they can be a

part of it, where should they go? Sure, so there's a if you go to my Twitter feed Lilah gray Throws, you can get information on the time and the address eleven am on Friday morning at this planned parenthead There's also a Facebook event that Live Action aid is linked to, so if you are local in Pennsylvania and Philadelphia, please head over and join. This is a prayerful protest. We stand down to bullies, but we don't respond to bullying

with bullying. We respond to it with love. The endgame here, Buck is to end abortion, is to educate others about what abortion does, the violent act that it is. It's about advocating for other options for women and girls. It's about proclaiming that human beings have dignity and value. I mean, I would fight for the right to life of Brian Sins, this representative, just like anybody else. And it's saying that bullying, harassment, doxing against those who are standing for life will not be,

will not be. We will stand up to it. We're not going to back down. And I'm excited to know that there are hundreds of people who are already saying you want to be there because people are passionate about this and they will not stand down. They will not stand down to bullies. Your group is obviously also very active in general in the pro life movement. Tell me

about the latest from different state legislatures. I see here Georgia think is the most recent one that are either poised to or have already signed a fetal heartbeat bill. What are these bills? What do they do? And what do people need to know about this? Sure, so this is a big deal. The heartbeat bill would ban abortions after the heartbeat can be detected of the baby by ultrasound, So that's about six weeks into a woman's pregnancy. This is a baby that's art is already beating. This is

often before a woman even realizes she's pregnant. So it's amazing how early in embryonic development a child's heart begins to beat, and it's really exciting. Georgia is the fourth state now this year. Governor Kempt just signing this bill into law this morning. Georgia's state number four. So Kentucky, Mississippi,

and Ohio have already passed their own heartbeat bills. This is a huge step forward for the prolif movement and for human rights because it's finally saying, if you're a human with a heartbeat, you should be protected by law. It doesn't matter if you're inside the woomb or outside the womb. And how many states right now have already done this, and also what's the position to this. I'm sure that Planned Parenthood and nay roll and other groups

that defend abortion are mounting a ferocious assault on these bills. Yes, I mean ferocious is perhaps an understatement. You may have seen Alissa, you know, actress Elissa Milano and others pledging to boycott the state of Georgia and not do business in the state. You know, Hollywood will refuse to do business in the state if they pass this horrible law. I mean that is the reaction is boycotts, I mean Hollywood.

It's kind of good, good riddance. I think Georgia is thinking because we'd rather protect life than court Hollywood actors. But look, there are four other states that three other states have done this just year alone besides Georgia, and the laws have not gone into effect yet. They're set

to go into effect in July. And part of this is because there are attacks and challenges made to the laws by nay Rao Biplane parenthood by proabortion justices or judges who do not want these laws to go into effect, who do not think the states have the right to do this. Of course, I think that the states absolutely have the right to protect human life within their jurisdiction.

I think that's actually in the interest of the US federal government to be concerned with the preservation of human life. It's securing a common defense. But because of Rob Wade and because of some of the subsequent rulings by the US Supreme Court, that has really harmed the ability of states to protect children in the womb in their jurisdiction. So that's going to it's going to come down to the court stuck, and you know, the way the Supreme

Court is looking right now, it's really troubling. I mean, we need to we need another seat on the court. I think that's not a far left proabortion villot. Unfortunately, we have several of those in the Supreme Court right now. So it'll be interesting to see how this plays out. If this goes to the US Supreme Court. I don't know if you had a chance to hear this, la la,

it's pretty self explanatory. Though. A former New York City council Christine Quinn was on CNN, a place that I actually used to also sometimes offer analysis and much much to mine now shock and dismay. But she she had this to say about what the truth is of infants in the womb. Please play the clip. When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her, it's part of her body. When a woman gets pregnant, that is not a human being inside of her, it's

part of her body. When we get it, I mean, that's that's what That's what she said. I yeah, it's hard to think of anything that is more scientifically inaccurate. I mean, this is kind of like saying my head is my foot, but this is applauded somehow. Yeah, I mean, this is the leg they have to stand on. Buck abortion advocates, the ones who are really honest, admit, it's a baby, and we're just gonna be okay with killing it. And those are some of the folks who are behind

the New York law. And they were celebrating. I don't know if you remember, but they were celebrating lighting up the Empire State building paint because they were so excited that abortion would now be legal through all nine months and even committing potentially and fantasied infants to survive abortion attempts. So when you see this from some abortion advocates saying, well, it's not a baby and a woman isn't pregnant with the human beings to primember with their own body, I mean,

it's obviously ridiculous. It flies in the face of everything we know about the development of an embryo in the womb, how it's a unique, distinct individual life. We know that that's a fact of any biology book. The problem with facts, though, buck is they have consequences, and if we acknowledge that this is a human life, then all of a sudden we have to ask the question of it should it be okay to take that human life away from them? It should it be okay to end that human life?

And that is exactly the pro life pro choice debate, And unfortunately a lot of pro abortion supporters I call them pro abortion because I don't actually think they're about choice, but a lot of the self named pro choice supporters they don't want to have that, Ila, because they recognize that if you could acknowledge it's the human life all of a sudden, you have to be willing to say that some human beings don't matter, that some human beings don't have a right to live, that it's okay for older,

stronger human beings to kill younger, weaker human beings. And that doesn't sound very good. So they're going to try to ignore that part of the discussion by just flat out saying it's not even a human to begin with. Lila Rose, founder and president of Live Action, Lila, always a pleasure to talk to you. Thank you so much for joining us, Thanks for having me on. All right team, We'll be right back. I didn't talk at all about the Kentucky Derby, which happened over the weekend. My favorite

thing or the cool names the horses have. Beyond that, I know almost nothing but horse racing. I've never even been to Louisville. I should probably go there at some point and check it out. Producer Mike, though, has some thoughts on this. He's way more into sports and just generally being an American than me. Mike, what was the

controversy exactly? So, yeah, the winner of the derby. The original winner got this qualified for running into another horse, and this had never happened before, so they basically took his tile away, and you know, people were up in arms for many reasons. And then the President tweeted about it and said the best horse didn't win, and then that made it a major story. So I started digging in a little deeper and following it on the mainstream media.

And the consensus of the mainstream media was that they got it right, that they should have taken away from him and given it to the second place source. And whenever the mainstream media says that they got it right, I tendn't believe that they means they got it wrong. And I actually agree with with Trump here that they should not have done it, and I think they should have given it to the original winner. Do you do you ever go in the bet on the ponies? Wherever

the nearest place? I actually have and not reason. It's a fun of it. I've never been to the Derby. I go to the Belmont Stakes here in New York and it's a blast to do. It's a lot of fun um So it's definitely worth a day of going out, and especially when it's nice out. But I don't know too much about it. I just go to you know, for the cocktails and the fancy dresses and and you know that stuff that sounds like a fun time to me, it is. It's a lot it's actually a lot of fun.

You brought another story to my attention, and it's about Trump wanting to explain this to me. For people that are in the military service academies, they could go pro right away and then serve after their pro career. What's what's the significance here? Correct? So, yeah, if you're a you know, Army, Navy, Air Force, Marines, and if you're in a sports program there. Uh. The most notable example

would be David Robinson, the basketball player. U he had to you know, he was an outstanding player, an NBA legend. Now he's in the Hall of Fame. But when believe his nickname was the Admiral that he never quite reaching the rank of admiral exactly. He was the Admiral um. So from a from a perspective, if you're an athlete, you know, and you really want to play pro, why would you go to a service academy If you have to,

you know, you can't go play. You'd have to wait four years, do your time and then go in it, and that that hurts you money wise. So the President today I thought it was really cool. Um, he wants to make a weaver so which will allow U military athletes to turn pro and then they can return and serve their time to the military after the pro career is over, which you know, on the surface is like, oh,

that's pretty cool. But it's a really big deal for the I think our military academies when it comes to recruiting, they can now go out there and sell their school to the best athletes that in our nation and you'll see more prominent you know, imagine Army Navy in the top ten rankings in football or basketball. Um. I think that's great for our country. I think it's great for the students and the student athletes. Yeah, it sounds like a great idea to me. I don't I don't see

any we actually have Trump talking about it. If you want to hear it real quick, Yeah, play can I call clipall for Clipbuck? Yeah, call for a Proucer Markymark play clip fourteen. I mentioned this to the coach and it's a big deal. I hope it doesn't become the story, but it is a big story because I'm gonna look at doing a waiver for service Academy athletes who can get into the major leagues like the NFL, hockey, baseball.

We're gonna see what we're gonna do it and they'll serve their time after they've finished with professional sports, and that'll make things. Can you imagine this incredible coach with that little asset, because I would imagine that would make recruiting a little bit easier. So we're gonna in behalf of the coach, who's a tremendous guy. We're gonna look at a waiver for the service academy so they'll serve at that time after. I think it sounds good, right,

sounds like a cool idea to me. Thanks for bringing it to the team's attention, producer Mike. And then here we go. So I'm here for good things, all right, President Trump? Coming up with you had another way to just make things a little make things a little better in this country, make America a little more great, one little piece at a time. So we are going to go into a roll call here in just a moment. Team, you know what that means ebook dot com slash buck Sexton.

If you want to slip one in at the last second, we'll be right back. Hey, Team Buck, it's time for roll call dot com slash buck Sexton. Forge in on the roll call. Such a fun thing, such an easy thing to do. You're sitting there like I would like to share my thoughts with people across the country. I have an idea, and that idea is going to be shared with mister buck Sexton, and he will then share it with the world, or at least the world of

Team Buck. Thomas kicks us off today. Hello Buck. Listening to you yesterday talking about how the Democrats use lying to promote their agenda kind of remind me of the Islamic concept of takia. I guess that is more common ground between the radical left and radical Islam. Interesting shields high Thomas, for those who don't know, is referring to a precept within Islam that is taught in some Islamic jurorsprudence. Some folks who study Shariah. They promote this idea of takia,

which is lying for the benefit of the faith. So if you have to lie to infidels, I have to lie to nonbelievers. If will benefit Islam, then you do that.

So that's what that's what takia is, and I think that Libs do engage in a kind of form of takia, especially when it comes to the dishonesty that they engage in around things like what their real policy goals are, what they're really hoping to achieve, etc. Now, next one up here we have Branda who writes, Hey, Buck, if Brian Kemp, the governor of Georgia, suppressed the vote, he's the worst suppressor of all time because his policy as

a Secretary of State of Georgia increased the roles by Democrats. Like to complain about the time it took to vote in areas with a high black population. That's part of the suppression plan. They're not realizing that these polls are run by local governments and those are mostly Democrat controlled polling places. Brandon, what you are saying is true. The long lines in some predominantly black areas of Georgia that were cited as voter suppression efforts were Democrat controlled areas

under local Democrat control. So how that could be voter suppression? Some will have to try and explain to me and then also the record voter turnout. Now they would say, well, the turnout would have been even higher. But if somebody was trying to scheme a way to suppress the vote, don't you think that they would at least, especially somebody with the kind of power that Brian Kemp had, don't you think it'd be at least successful enough that there

wouldn't be record a high turnout. It's not a perfect argument, but it's an indicator to be sure. Roger Rights heard the show. I'll be waiting for a list. If your friend David responds to you, keep charging buck. Thank you. On the Israel book issue, yeah, I don't have a great list of books on israel I really, and I wish that I could just rattle some off the top of my head, but I wouldn't want to give you the first five things that pop up on Amazon. You

don't need me for that. So usually when I recommend a book to you, one it's something that I've read, and two it's something that I highly recommend. I don't have one on Israeli history specifically. And actually I'm going to be flying, you know, next week, I'm going to China. As our president likes to say, and if any of you have any recommendations. I need to bring hard copy books because I don't want to bring electronic devices with me unnecessarily to China for obvious reasons. So I'm going

to bring hard copy books. If you have a book that you're like Buck, this is the greatest thing I've read in a long time. Nonfiction, please nonfiction. Feel free to send me your recommendations on Facebook. Let's see we have Nathan who rights Hey, what's up. I've been listening

to your show since the Saturday show on the Blaze. Well, Nathan, that means your original Saturday squad oss and the fact that you can keep my attention almost daily through a three hour show is a testament to your skills on the air. This is my first time writing in but your appeals for some good workout music have finally motivated

me to reach out. I have no idea what your range of favorite music genres are, but as a guy who works out three days a week and almost obsessively works on expanding his Spotify library, I thought i'd give you my two cents. Check out the artist Cartel, especially their album cycles. Okay energetic but with actual music skills on display. Thank you, Nathan. I will check out Cartels.

I think I've heard of them. I think I might know one or two of their songs that I did like it, So I'm willing to go back and look at some more ps from Nathan. As a guy who recently grew a beard, I have come to realize you can't please everyone with what you do or do not grow on your face. If you do, you at least you don't look like an adolescent when you're clean shaven,

like me. Shields high, Nathan, Nathan the beard. I will tell you I've had a few a few ladies whose opinions I respect, who have been very pro beard, and I think they've They've definitely tipped the balance in favor of the beard staying for a while. Also, I like it because it's low maintenance and I don't have to

think about shaving, which is kind of nice. And if it gets really hot this summer, I will unleash my bare skinned face on the world and hopefully that will be a little bit cooler as in temperature not hip. Let's see here, James Rights stolen hah, Hillary, you lost Farren Square. I dislike Bernie Sanders, but Hillary stole the

election from him. The lad for trying to steal our chosen president who won faren Square by trying to impeach President Trump and create ways for unfair voting like early voting on a holiday for voting allowing employees to be able to leave for work three hours, an idea New York that Koma wanted to do. They cry voter suppression, and if I can remember correctly, they tried to throughout President Trump in the trash throw out votes rather for

President Trump. The trash three words for Hillary and the rest of them. Get over it, shields high Trump will win again. From w g Y up in Coubleskill, New York, or at Cobleskill, New York. I'm not sure how I say that you should visit upstate. Visit the Bay Hall, OH Baseball Hall of Fame in Cooperstown, New York. Were only thirty minutes from there. Lots to do well it just when I say Hi five and thank you to all my wonderful folks up in the w g Y

area of upstate New York. I am a New Yorker, as you all know, so I have a particular fondness for anything New York related. I have never been to the Baseball Hall of Fame. Will I will keep my opinions about baseball to myself because I want I want you all to still be my friend. I don't want you to get mad at me. Thanks for writing in, James, Pamela writes, most of the complaints you just leave it against Biden fit Donald Trump. I'm not a Democrat, I am not a liberal. I am never trump x goop.

Sadly too many bought the spin. Well, Pamela, I wish you would give me a bit of the specifics of what the complaints I leave it against Biden are when it comes to Trump. You know, Trump isn't a career Let's just start with this. Let's start with how Trump and Biden are different. Trump isn't a career politician. He's not a lifetime swamp creature. He has worked and very successfully worked in the private sector for many decades. He's

built a globally recognizable brand. He did inherit money from his father, but he did not inherit a global brand. He created that. He has been a very successful media

personality in his own right. Let's see ran on a campaign of some ideas that were his and really almost nobody else's in the Republican field, including things like building a wall and stopping Chinese predatory trade practices, two areas where I would note he has been proven to be correct and the consensus in the Republican Party has been proven incorrect. So I what are you talking about? You think that Trump sniffs women's hair or touches them too much.

I've never seen photos of Trump putting his hand in kind of weird places with young women in public. I've never seen that. I know there are accusations from some women against President Trump that he is, that he was sexually aggressive with them. How much you believe them or not, I leave up to you, But there's not the same clear evidence of a weird, creepy behavior. While I remember, while also an elected public official with a lot of power. So I need you to tell me what the complaints

are against Biden. Then also fit Trump that he's that he says whatever to make anybody like him at any point in time. I mean, Trump says things that make a lot of people hate him. He said things that make a lot of the goop hate him. He said things that created what is the never Trump movement that continues to this day. I don't think he says whatever people will want to hear. Yeah, his supporters will want to hear it, but his supporters were not the Republican

mainstream when he started it. So I don't think it's fair to say that he was pandering to the GOP. Quite the opposite. I think he was kind of a punch in the face to the GOP. But as you can see, Pamela, you got me thinking with your question, so I appreciate you sending it to me. Friday's quote this is from Adam was the late Alan Rickman as Hans Gruber to THEO. I think you should add that quote to your list intro for the show Shields High THEO you wanted a miracle? I give you the f B.

I did I sound like Rahem Kassam there. Raheim has such a such a fancy accent. It's a huge, huge advantage. We can't put too much Raheem on the radio because of his fancy British accent. I don't want you guys to say, Buck, you need a fancy British accent too, speak of Raheim. Rain writes in I love Raheim's guest hosting when he sat in for you, great great guest host. Brexit and UK goings on are important for us to

hear about. Maybe interview Sargon of Akad. You might like to chat with him about classical liberalism versus what the left calls it. Now. I don't know who Sargon is, so I'd have to figure this out. Is that a real Is there a person named Sargon of Akad? I learned something new every day. When someone asks you if

you're a god, you say yes. Matt writes, Hey, Buck, I lost track for you in your radio shows when you change networks back around twenty sixteen, I've been busy building a new family ranch, kind of got it rolling. Just thought i'd touch base, see how things are going, see if you're still on the radio, what network and all that. I'm not sure if you remember. I was listening from your Days and the Freedom Hut at the Blaze. We've chatted before. I called your show a couple of times.

Hope Ball as well, Matt in Texas. There we go, Matt Man, Well you got through me on Facebook, and yeah, you can listen to the show anytime. I mean, I'm on about one hundred and twenty plus stations across the country. You can listen on the iHeartRadio app. So yeah, um, I think I think you should definitely listen my friend, or you can just listen on the iTunes on iTunes podcast. That's where a lot of a lot of the cool kids listen these days on the podcast. Yeah so, uh, Matt,

good to have you back. Matt original Saturday Squad people that have been been with me from OSS days. That's like seven years now. It's a long time, a long time, all right, team, Speaking of seven years, more coming up tomorrow she'll tie