Stop Exaggerating Russian Actions

This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. What magno mistake American, You're a great American Again The Buck Sexton Show begins. No, welcome to the Buck section Show. Everybody. Great to have you here with me on this most excellent Thursday. Excellent. We need to get ready for what is going to be quite a year in twenty nineteen. Time time to batten down the hatches, my friends, Get

ready for the squall. Dig deep in the trench. It's going to get so much uglier, It's going to get so much crazier. How is that even possible at this point, It's hard to fathom, but I know it to be the case. Unfortunately, a lot of very excited and over

excitable coverage today of this situation with Maria Boutina. Maria Boutina, who is this Russian gun rights activist, and now she has pleaded guilty to conspiring conspiring here, according to the Washington Post, with a senior Russian official, to infiltrate the conservative movement in the United States as an agent for the Kremlin from twenty fifteen until her arrest in July.

She's the first Russian national who is convicted of influence, of trying to influence, seeking to influence US policy in the run up to the twenty sixteen election. This is being reported on by a credulous and ignorant media as a spy has been found. This is being reported there and they're using the word spy. Yahoo has called her

a spy. MSNBC. The main story on MSNBC just a few moments ago when I was when I was doing my last run of you know, the various sites that I want to make sure or I go through every time I come on air. The main story was, in fact, this Maria Boutina thing, and they were calling Maria Boutina a spy. They were calling her a spy. Here's the problem with that. She's not a spy. Now, that doesn't mean what she did is okay, It doesn't mean that what she did is, you know, just fine and dandy.

But why, once again do they have to exaggerate. Why is the media continuing its trend of pushing further than the facts when it comes to anything relating to Russia, Trump, the election collusion, any of this stuff. Here's what really happened,

based on the facts as we know them. Maria Boutina, a Russian national, came to America and was trying to gain influence in decision making circles, particularly the National Rifle Association, but just in general American decision makers on the right, and wanted to open a back channel for communication for the Russian government or for prominent Russians attached to the Russian government. And here's how she's not a spy. One she didn't ever try to access nor did she access

sensitive or classified information. She wasn't trying to steal info. Now maybe she would have eventually, but that's not the that's not what the charges are. She was trying to get close to people that have influence in America. This is acting as a foreign agent. Now, this corresponds to another charge that has come up in this whole Russian collusion madness of failure to register as a foreign agent.

Call it a FARAH violation Foreign Agent Registration Act. And that's when you're in America and an American who is trying to push for a foreign agents interest here in America right now, if you are advocating on behalf of let's say, you know, Saudi interests or Turkish interests or Thie interests in America, but you're doing it openly, you're saying, hey, I really I'm advocating for Thaie interests in America. That

falls under FARAH. And that's the kind of thing where usually when they catch you, or if that comes to the government's attention, they say, hey, hey, you know you got a register? All right, you got a register. It's essentially being a lobbyist. You're a lobbyist for a foreign government, you have to register, just like how if you're a lobbyist period in our own government, you're supposed to register, right, So this is the equivalent of unregistered lobbying activity. Because

Maria Boutina was going around saying, hey, I'm Russian. I want to open up a dialogue between America and Russia, and I want to be near decision makers and people who are involved and have influence in the policy process on behalf of Russia. That's a very different thing. This is not espionage. This is not spying. This is not

like Anna Chabman. Anna Chapman was accused of being what the KGB used to call an illegal which essentially was a long, deep, long time, deep cover operative meant to penetrate under false pretenses the very top levels of the United States government, steal secrets and take it back to Moscow, pretending not to be a Russian right, pretending to be

something else. In this instance, Maria Buccino, this is somebody who is walking around and saying, Hey, I'm Russian, and I want to talk to people about how we can get American Russia to agree on some stuff. She's facing up to five years in federal prison now. And now, why is this so significant? By the way, for a registration also came up in the general flintcase, but we'll

get to that in a moment. They're saying this is so important because it ties together the NRA, GOP, and Trump, so the the three headed hydra that the left hate so much. They hate the GOP, they hate the NRA, and wow do they hate Trump. And this lets them tell this tale of a woman who was trying to Was she successful in any of this? Did she manage to influence US policy at all? You know? This is this reminds me of the exaggeration of the impact of

some Facebook ads. You know when when they were asking the Google executive Peach I, CEO of Google, earlier this week, how much money was spent by Russian associated accounts on Google during the election. You know what he said, It was something relines about four thousand dollars. Spending four thousand dollars on Google to influence an election is like pouring a cup of tap water in the ocean and saying

you're changing its temperature. Technically, you might have altered the temperature somewhat, but it's not percept it's not something that you could perceive, it's not something you could measure. Maria Boutina did not shift any US policy. Okay, Maria Boutina was entirely unsuccessful in this, which, by the way, is why the Mueller probe didn't even handle this case. Handed it off. This was not, in any way a major case of espionage. This was not something that people should

be so excited about and so concerned about. But it involves a Russian involves geop stuff and the elections. Oh, oh my gosh, it's such a big story. We are living in a time of hysteria and delusion that is embraced by an increasingly desperate establishment. And the establishment is desperate because not only is their power coming coming under assault and therefore its longevity is in question, but we also now are free to ask questions about why are

these people the establishment? What is it about the elites in government, in journalism and media that has put them in that position? Should we believe them? Should we trust them? Are they particularly good or competent what they do? No, they're not, and Trump exposes them, exposes them for not being what they think they are, which is exceptional, which is excellent at what they do. No, they just are

powerful and influential. But that's different. That's a very different thing. Indeed, you know, you can be the leader of a foreign country because everyone thinks you're great, or you can be the leader of a foreign country because you seize power through brute force. Both cases, you're talking about a leader, but only one side of the ledger would you have a situation where somebody could claim excellence and skill and

the other it's just force and power. And the Left is obsessed with power and with the exercise of that power, and they'll use force to get there, and anyone who challenges that is a target to be destroyed. And that's why they have to come up with all these different narratives. Narratives meant to undermine the opposition, undermine the people who are a threat to their power. Maria Boutina, for example, yet another individual who insaner times they would just say, okay,

just get out of America. They'd probably just deport her as they get out of America, go back to Russia. You know, you shouldn't be here trying to meddle in our national conversation about anything in this way. You know, you're supposed to registers as an agent of a foreign country. Right, there's foreign registration for Americans, you know, being an agent of a foreign power, and then there's being a foreigner who's an agent of a or in power. Now General

Flynn didn't register UNDERFERA. There are a lot of people in DC who have not registered UNDERFERRA, but they were going to use that, I think as additional leverage against him. And this then brings me to what we see happening through all the Russia collusion stuff. We see happening with General Flynn, with all the people that have been caught up Papadopolis and Cohen and Boutina and others. Now, and that is when is the law strict, literal and harsh

and when is the law open to interpretation? Something that we should look through with an ida mercy and decency and second chances, And increasingly in the most politically tense investigations in the country, what we find is that Democrats always take the most strict, uncharitable, vicious, aggressive view of the law, most literal interpretation of the law possible when it is negative for a Republican and we always have the reverse for Democrats, whether it's Hillary or you name it.

The law is malleable, the law is open to interpretation, there's room to maneuver, and there's room for mercy. When it's a Democrat who is that issue? This is fundamentally destroying our sense. This Mueller probe, the hysteria around all things, Russia is destroying our sense that the law is impartially applied when it comes to politics. We cannot run from this. We have to confront it. We will do more of that.

In just a moment, he answered a bunch of questions, a great number of them apparently, and the agents knew that some of those those answers didn't fit very well with what he knew. And what's fascinating about the information we have is they made the conscious decision not to raise those with him. So there is a certain feeling of a trap here that obviously he never clued into.

What's really troubling is not just the fact that they proceeded to criminalize it, but that the initial agents apparently did not believe he was intentionally lying, and they did

not recommend the charge. Now you now fast forward to where we are now, and I can only imagine what Flynn might be thinking and reading the recent filings, because in one of the footnotes for Cohen, the prosecutors note that he came in and made all types of false statements about all types of stuff to investigators and then simply says, a matter of factly, he then corrected those statements and I could imagine Michael Flynn reading this thing. Well, Okay,

what happened to my chance to correct? That's right, what happened to Flynn's chance to correct? Who gets a second chance? Who gets the benefit of the doubt? That is what is an issue here. I'm so sick of all these smarmy left wing lawyers and pseudo lawyers who send they broke the law, pleaded guilty, taking this view of everything involving Trump at Russia and collusion and the lies and the perjury charges as though they've they've never seen how

criminal law actually functions. Some people get a lot of the way, other people don't. If it's based on politics, that's a huge problem. Hillary had nine lawyers in the room, or there McCabe, who's a liar and a scoundrel and was fired from the FBI for for those reasons. McCabe made sure that Flynn didn't have any lawyer in the room with him. Now, you don't need a lawyer. I don't do that. We're just gonna we're just gonna talk

to you about this thing. Liberals played dirty, and that's that's the that's the quick and dirty of what we're really talking about here, and when you see how psychologically traumatized they were by Trump's victory, and you go back and just from member all the people crying at that Hillary victory party that wasn't a victory, all the different senior government employees who thought that they were going to have eight years of a glorious Clinton administration and it

was gonna be so fantastic for their careers. And also it was really a pinnacle moment for a certain kind of liberal boomer that Hillary's eight years was going to be a kind of golden era of Democrat liberalism in America, and that that was stolen from them, and that it was so unfair and so wrong, and they lashed out, and people within the government. It wasn't just outside a government.

They lashed out too. And yet as I sit here, I still note that they have not produced any evidence of collusion, and they are still going after people for the petty of crimes. I mean, they're going after people for for lies that don't really seem like lies. They have all these shady dealings around figures in the government. I mean, Comey said just this past weekend, if the administration was better organized, they never would have let Flynn sit down with some FBI guys without the White House

Council present. You know, He's basically like, we slipped we slipped a couple of guys in there. You know, we slipped them under the radar. You're gonna do that to the National Security Advisor, people say, oh, buck, But law enforcement uses tricks and techniques and you know, essentially lying all the time they gave people. Yeah, but they usually don't do it without a criminal predicate to the National

Security Advisor and give me a break. Your law enforcement could also theoretically exercise any warrant that they want to if they can convince a judge to sign off on it. So you know, batter down your front door and you know, send in an armored carrier and three and a squat team. But you know, usually if they're just trying to find out if you you know, are running a credit card

fraud scam or something, they don't do that. Discretion is a necessary component of the justice system, right there has to be good faith action from the people that are entrusted with the power, and we're not seeing good faith action. And that's why I mean, I think Trump should look Trump should pardon Flynn full stop Pardon General Flynn, Play thirteen. I never directed him to do anything incorrect or wrong, and he understands that. Look, he did some bad things

unrelated to me, in order to embarrass me. They cut his turn down. How many people when they say, listen, if you embarrass the President of the United States will give you a deal. Your father in law, your wife will cut your jail. That's all it is. It's a terrible system we have. It's going on right now with General Flynn. The FBI said he didn't lie, but Muller said he did lie. So they took a man who's a general and a respected person and a nice man.

And I don't even know what he said about me, because, you know, maybe they scared him enough they don't make up the story. But I have a feeling that maybe he didn't. He's a tougher kind of a guy than Kohen. But they took a general that they said didn't lie, and they convinced him he did lie, and he made some kind of a deal. And now they're recommending no time, you know why, because they're embarrassed that they got caught. I think he's the President's right on them on this one.

He knows, you know. There Cohen can't prove the President told him to do anything wrong. Cohen's the lawyer, he should know better. Advice of counsel is a real thing. And what they did to Flynn, I just said again, they did Flynn dirty. Remember why Mueller was set up. Muller was set up as a special consul to look at was or any collusion and any influence of Raisha through the Trump campaign and influencing the election. There's been

no evidence of collusion at this point. And if there's anything about Kohne yesterday that indirectly affects the president, Remember the information came from a guy that was a liar and accused of lying to the Congress of the United States. So how much credibility do you want to put in the words of a liar. It's a fair point from Chuck Graslie. There one other thing before we move on to some other topics, I want to talk to you about the Women's March and how it's in the midst

of some some disarray. It's like the women's marches, and they're not all marching in the same direction. There's some problems there. Also, the Senate some some break news on the Senate and Yemen and Kashogi. They're not They're not gonna let this thing go, even though now it's it's too late for people to realize because everyone has just assumed that they spend so much time on Kashogi because he must be a you know, a US person, meaning either a citizen or a Green card holder. He's not.

I was a visitor, the visitor of the country. Are we responsible now for changing our foreign policy based on anyone anywhere in the world that has something terrible happened to them if they are a journalist, we we then have to change our foreign policy in a whole region because of it. That's the new standard. It's not a very it's not a very wise standard, if in fact that that is our standard. I mean, the world is a dangerous place. I hate to be the bearer of platitudes.

But there's one more thing here on the whole the DOJ's conduct. And I'm happy that a judge, Judge Sullivan, sounds like he wants to see those three O two's. It seems very clear that with a seven month lag between when the FBI had the initials sit down with Flynn, and when they filed the three O two and that we've already seen reporting that the FBI agents did not initially think that he lied and they didn't bring charges right away, seems very clear that they just they fabricated

a pretext. You know, it's it's not that hard to do this. It's not that hard to go through someone's testimony, and if you really really want to get them, find something that is technically not accurate and say, well, you say you misremembered, we say it's a lie. Guess what

their version is enough to get you prosecuted. And then once they're prosecuting you, you're in a position where you can either fight them and try to clear your name and risk complete financial ruin and long prison sentence, or you say, all right, I'll do whatever you say. I'll do whatever you say. But here's something that I think is worth pointing. This is from Bree Payton at the Federalist.

The Department of Justice white text messages between former FBI employees Lisa Page and Peter Struck from their cell phones before the Office of the Inspector General could review them. According to a new report from the DOJ watchdog Page Instruct's involvement with Special Counsel Robert Mueller's investigation has been heavily scrutinized after it was revealed they had sent numerous

and to one another. Mueller has been tasked with looking into whether or not Donald Trump and his campaign association It's coordinated with Russian officials to steal the twenty sixteen election away from Hillary Clinton. The eleven page report reveals that almost a month after Struck was removed from Mueller's team, his government issued iPhone was wiped clean and restored to

factory settings by another individual working Muller's office. Special Counsel's records officer told investigators she determined it did not contained records that needed to be retained, no substance of text, notes or reminders. Wow, isn't that convenient? Inspector General just has somebody look at Struck in Page's phones and go, yeah,

there's nothing here we need to retain. We're just gonna we're just gonna get rid of it, okay, because we've seen a lot of stuff from them that should have been retained, and a lot of stuff that the FBI didn't want to release. By the way, so somebody want to explain that one to me. Oh, that's just a coincidence, right, It's it's always this is what you get from the anti Trump Hillary hers out there. It's always just a coincidence when something like this goes down. You know when

Hillary used bleach bit on her own server. Hey, you know that was just a mistake. You know what, like wipe it like with a cloth, she said, like with a cloth, wiping it. Hello, don't you miss her? Don't you wish she was president? Oh? I know, I know it could still happen. I still think she's you haven't heard much better recently. I still think she's running as

much as everyone else thinks. That's crazy. Meanwhile, despite all this stuff going on, there's at least one pull out today that says that Trump is about as popular at this point in his presidency as Obama was in his presidency. So, you know, you've got the entire media saying Trump is a criminal, actually saying Trump is a criminal, actively rooting for his administration to collapse, people to go to prison, Trump's son in law to be indict I mean son rather to be indicted and his son in law to

be indicted. And meanwhile, the president keeps in the fight. I gotta give him credit. And he even likes the job. Play fourteen. I love getting things done for the people. It's a nasty job because I get hit so hard, so unfairly by so many. I mean really unfairly. When you look at what we've done with taxes, what we've done with regulations, what we've done with China and national defense and so many other things, including the environment. The Paris Accord is not working out to well for Paris.

Take a look at what's happened, the struggling. That whole country is burning down. Okay, So, and I was the one that kept us out of the Paris Accord. If I was in the Paris Accord, we would be paying trillions of dollars, trillions of dollars for nothing, and I wouldn't do that. And my people love the job I'm doing.

You know. The one thing, if I could get a little wish for twenty nineteen, I would just like the administration's critics to focus on policies that don't like instead of this just craziness about Russia and payoffs and women, and they're just all this nonsense. It's all inflated. It's all exaggerated. They're connecting dots that aren't even there. You know, tell me you don't like Trump because of the taxes. Tell me you don't like Trump because you know of

of immigration fund. At least that we could have a discussion with somebody. But if you really think that there was some crumblin conspiracy, I just I don't even know what to say to those people. You know, at some point you run out of a middle ground for any kind of a conversation. Oh one more thing here on the chief of staff. This was all from a Harris Faulkner interview on Fox News that the Harris got to sit down. Congrats to her on the with the President

on the chief of staff situation, play fifteen. We're interviewing people now for chief of staff. Yes, five people, really good ones, terrific people, mostly well known, but terrific people. That actually wasn't from the Harris interview. That was from just a press conference. But you know, I'm just saying, it's Christmas and my birthday coming up. Mister President, you need a chief of staff the buck gets results. I'm

just putting it out there. I know people in the White House listen to the show, the buck gets results allers to it. But you gotta let him do his radio show. Still, um disputes in the Democratic Party base because they all hate one another. Um. I mean you have the Muslims and the Jews, and the various exotic sexual groups and the black church ladies with um, you know,

the college queers. The only thing that keeps this the Democratic base together is for them to keep focusing on No white man are the one ones keeping you down. You must hate white man. It's the one thing they all have in common. Now, it shouldn't be any surprise, but that little SoundBite for man culture on Fox News made lots of liberal heads explode. They got very upset

about that. But she was asked about a very specific thing, and that is a piece that came out this week in Tablet magazine with the title is the Women's March melting Down. And we have somebody who can talk to us a little bit about what the heck is going on here with the whole Women's March movement and allegations of anti Semitism within the leadership and all kinds of stuff going on there in as Felcher is with us. Now, she is a senior policy analyst at the Independent Women's

Forum in as what is the truth theory? Is the Women's March melting down? What's happening? Well, they're certainly having quite a bit of drama in advance of their next march, which just remind folks is the end of January, so this is not good timing for them. But yes, let's refers to a piece that came out in Tablet magazine talking about how even from the very first meeting of the leadership at the Women's March, there were anti Semitic elements to it, right, that some of the march leaders

or march organizers. We're talking about how, for example, Jewish people apparently bear a special collective responsibilities exploiters of black and brown people. And also the false, the false conard that Jews were the leaders of the American slave trade, that they were the genius behind the American slave trade or something like that. These are charges that come from Louis Farakon's book The Secret Relationship between Blacks and Jews.

So there's not really Actually, this is a bit frustrating because conservatives and conservative media have been pointing out the anti Semitic elements and the anti semitic statements that have come out from leaders of the Women's March from day one. But only because the Tablet magazine expose has now been published is it getting any kind of mainstream coverage. But this is another one of those frustrating moments where it's like, yes, conservatives have known this for two years, where were you

mainstreaming media? And I mean Linda Sars, whom I actually bumped into once at Union Station in DC, which is funny. She didn't know who I was, but I was like, oh wow, that's Lindisar Sir. Look at that Linda sarsor somebody who is very much associated with the Women's March and definitely has a fondness for some anti Semitic folks. Yeah so um so. Linda star Storagemika Malory are the two folks who get brought up in these contacts a lot.

They both have long standing relationships with Louis Faracon and with the Nation of Islam. They've also refused to back down from those relationships. This is not one of those things where increasingly common unfortunately, where the social media mob pulls out a tweet out of context from ten years ago. U These are active and ongoing relationships, and both women have have pretty much refused to disavow Louis Farrakon, who, by the way, is the most famous anti Semite in America.

It's basically him and David Duke. They can they can Duke haha, it out for that top. But but these are not sort of you know, sort of We're not dealing with with things that are are maybe ambiguous or can be read both ways. No, no no, like Lewis Faracon called Jews termites on Twitter, and by the way, Twitter doesn't ban him for that, And these leaders of the Women's March have refused to break their association with Louis Farracon.

If this were on the right, by the way, if this were a Trump rally or a for example, the Tea Party movement, can you imagine that this would go two years without getting the kind of coverage that it's getting now. Of course it would not. It would be on the front page of every magazine and every news broadcast for months until everybody involved resigned in disgrace. I mean, I just got to say, you know. The March leaders were named twenty seventeen Women of the Year by Glamour magazine.

There was a glossy book published with Conde Nast on them. They have a lucrative merchandise business selling branded Women's March gear. They've raised millions of dollars through donations and institutional funding. They've gotten money from places like Planned Parenthood and the

Hospital Workers Union. What's this Fortune Magazine named Mallory, Linda Sarsore, Perez and Bland to its list of the world's great Greatest Leaders and New York Center Kirsten Gillibrand, in explaining why these four women were on Time magazine's list of the one hundred most influential people, wrote, the Women's March was the most inspiring and transformational moment I've ever witnessed in politics. And it happened because of these four extraordinary women.

And she names the Mallory Bland, Perez, Sarsore. That's all from his Talbot magazine piece. Let me just tell you Inez, I interviewed Bob Bland. She's a ludentic. Yeah. And by the way, Linda Sarsour opens at a rally for Jilla brand. So these these folks were well integrated into the Democratic Party.

They were mainstream folks in the Democratic Party and as you said, they got this, you know, sort of star studded coverage from everything from serious coverage in places like the New York Times and mainstream TV networks, but also I mean the glossy vagazine from from Conde nass all the glamour shots and by the way, all of those donations.

Who talked about one of the other allegations from the Tablet magpiece, and this has also been covered by The Daily Beast in the past, is that a lot of that money has sort of disappeared and there's some allegations of financial impropriety on the part of these these Women's

March organizers. So again, all of this stuff would have been immediately plastered on across the news were these women the leaders of say conservative movement, But because they were the leaders of the Women's March, a lot of this stuff was sort of pushed down and ignored for years, for almost two years, until finally this massive exposity gets published. And by the way, they're still trying to fight back

against this. So a lot of UM reporters and journalists who tweeted out this Tablet magpiece received an email from a PR firm hired by the Women's march basically asking them to delete their critical tweets in exchange for unidentified, off the record information. Can you imagine if, like the press office of a White House for example, or going back to Trump campaign, tweeted out or emails a bunch of reporters and said, if you take back your critical tweets,

we might give you some off the record information. It would be the end of journalism if he had done that. But because they did that, it got a little mockery from the right. But he's basically passed unnoticed. You know this, this Women's March that's supposed to happen the end of January. Is this gonna be? It's gonna be in DC, isn't it. They're they're gonna march right past my apartment, aren't they. It's terrified. Oh they they they marched past my apartment

last year. But the fun part of the Women's March last year to me is is, um I was actually just trying to try to go see a movie with my husband and got like sort of caught up in this this march and tried to get through. But the funniest part of it to me was like they all went for brunch afterwards, apparently because I was sitting in restaurants and all around me where women enjoying expensive brunches with the P word hats on their heads, and they

left their signs all over the city. And this is you know, this is sort of par for the course, right, are you and some of the other conservative women of DC considering a very a very state and polite counter protests where you're all showing up and you know, just holding up signs with things like we don't hate men, and we actually believe in you know, in life and having babies and you know, things like that at anything of the works. Um well, I asked Independent Women's Form.

We're definitely planning on covering the women's march. I don't know if we're going to counter protest protest it yet or if we're just going to maybe and ask some pointed questions that these marches. I don't know exactly what that covered is going to look like yet, but we're definitely planning on being there and pushing back against this narrative, right, because it's always it's always the groups on the left that then claim to speak for women as a whole. Right.

It's it's never the group on the right that claim to speak for all women. It's always National Organization for Women, the Women's March. Well, let me tell you, all women don't support the Women's March. They don't support the anti semitism of Wonderstar Store and Jamaica Mallory and and they definitely don't support a lot of the fringe beliefs of the far left feminist agenda. So those those are they represent themselves, They represent, you know, a certain percentage of women.

But really, at the end of the day, less than a third of American women even call themselves to even identify as feminists. So really, these women are representing a very small group of people in this country. All right, in as filter everybody Independent Women's Forum and look for stuff on the Federalist dot com too. In as great to have you. Thanks for having you, Buck Tabe, We'll be right back. If you're like me, you use email

every day, probably too much throughout the day. But that also means that you know, you should think about what is this company really like that you're trusting all this information too? Are they left wing? Do you think that they're scanning your information? Are they selling stuff to third parties? Skip all that nonsense. Join ipatriots dot Us. Ipatriots dot us is a new conservative alternative to liberal based email services.

If you're if you're concerned at all about your current email service, your privacy and protection, this is the option for you. Ipatriots dot Us is secure, private, and includes more of what you want without the ads and spam. Your email and files are going to be safe with their high end anti virus, anti spam encrypted software. Okay, ipatriots dot Us won't sell your information and it doesn't

support liberal agenda items. Show your patriot. Go to ipatriots dot us now, choose your membership program and input your desired ipatriots email address. During checkout, enter promo code buck for ten percent savings during your first year membership. Again enter romo code buck at ipatriots dot us. They say that walls don't work and a wall wall solve it. All that he's doing is putting up walls around people's hearts, and we are not a wall away from being better.

Don't waste billions of dollars of taxpayer money in order to build something that will not make our border more secure. They say a wall is racist. The President went to the heart of what I call his brown menace theory. These migrants, they're dirty people, They bring disease. This border wall thing is about controlling the browning of America. Donald Trump is fixated on the southern border, as he was the day that he announced this campaign. It is not

about securing the borders. It is about xenophobic, racist, bigoted beliefs. Which one is it? Or is it both walls are racist and walls don't work. I'm just wondering, if walls don't work, why do Republicans want it so badly? Or at least, why does Trump wanted so badly? Why do

people who voted for Trump wanted so badly? We should we should feel comfortable digging into these questions a little bit, because, first of all, of course a wall works, oh and the other the other objection to it is that it's so expensive. Bernie Sanders's very pricey to wall. It's gonna call it so much money. It's gonna be so expensive. I want to do play five. I think water security is enormously important, but I think building a wall is a very costly and inefficient way to do that. And

I'm not alone. I mean, many experts think given the kind of technology that we have today, we can protect those southern bat without building the wall and spending five billion dollars. Furthermore, I'm not quite sure he may, but I'm not quite sure that he has the boats in the house. That last part is a non secretary. I mean, it's irrelevant. It's not Democrat job to worry about whether Republicans have the votes in the House. Okay, Senator Sanders

can leave that up to the Republican Congress. But notice how with each of the objections, when you push back a little bit, when you look at the facts a little bit more, the objection starts to fall apart. Let's start with this. It's they say it's racist. Okay. Is the Israeli border wall racist? Okay that some of them might say, Some lives in this country probably say yes. Is the wall that the Saudis are building, the fence that Saudis are building between Saudi Arabia and Yemen? Is

that racist? Is the wall in the western Sahara racist? Is the demilitarized zone between North and So I'm not saying it's a good idea, if it's fair. I'm just at is it racist? Is the barrier between North and South Korea? Is that racist? You know? What about the what about the fence that we have in San Diego? Is that racist if we tear it down because it's a monument to racism. If the answers no, I'd like to know why. In terms of the cost we just

hit pretty much today. I think it's official twenty two trillion dollars in debt. We are twenty two trillion dollars in debt as a country. That is an astonishing number considering that it wasn't long ago at all that we weren't even into double digits on our national debt, and yet here we are. We are spending ourselves into oblivion. Our political system is effectively now built upon intergenerational theft.

Our political system is built upon people passing laws that give benefits today based on IOUs that those in the future will have to pay. That's not the way a responsible country is wrong. But nonetheless, when you're twenty two trillion dollars in debt and you have a major crisis continuing to occur at the border, I don't want to hear about how five billion dollars is too much to spend on something that is absolutely critical to US sovereignty into rule of law. So the notion that the real

issue here has cost is laughable. And I'm consistent on this. People will point out that the Muller probe, for example, has cost has cost money, and I always say to them, yes, I understand the Muller probe has cost money, But if there really was Russian collusion, fifty million dollars wouldn't be too much to pay to find that out. The reason the Muller probe is too much money isn't because it's in principle too much money. It's because the whole thing is a witch hunt. It's a waste, it's a crock,

it's a joke. A border wall is certainly not that. Oh and then Chuck and Nancy all of a sudden they are experts on the wall play four deed border security. The wall is a part of border security. You can't have very good border security without the wall. Knows that is a political promise. Border security is a way too effectively on our I respond, the experts say you can do border security without a wall, which is wasteful and doesn't solve the problem. I mean when he says that,

when he says the experts say. I always want to push back and say, well, what about the head of border patrol, what about the head of customs enforcement? The people that have been working on the border for years and years and years, they say that a wall is immensely helpful. So are they just misinformed? Are they paid for by big wall, you know, instead of big oil? I just want to know why are they so confused?

Who are these experts? Are these immigration attorneys and activists that they're citing that that say that you don't need a wall to do this. A wall would certainly help, and it has helped in many places as we know. Here is David Rubin, who was the former mayor of Shiloh, Israel, talking about what the wall in Israel did for their security, for their safety, and for the population of the state

of Israel. Play clip eight. Between two thousand and ten and two thousand and twelve, there were fifty five thousand illegal immigrants into Israel. The rapes and murders in southern Tel Aviv skyrocket skyrocketed in those few years. The Israeli government made a decision that they were going to build the wall, a high tech steel wall on the southern border in two thousand and sixteen, the wall was up.

Two sixteen, there were eleven illegal immigrants who entered Israel, and then they raised the height of the wall additional several feet, and in two thousands seventeen there was not one illegal immigrant that made it through the southern border into Israel. So this is a remarkable works. It works from fifty five thousand across this one area into Israel to zero. Now I understand that the lib argument here as well. It might be fifty five thousand, but what

if a dozen people get across? Then you could say a wall doesn't stop everybody. Yeah, but would you rather have fifty five thousand illegal crossings or a dozen or five or five hundred or even five thousand. Security is about risk mitigation and doing the best you can with what you have. We're not doing the best we can with what we have. There's one other point, by the way, that I wanted to make it that I think often

escapes the conversation here. You know, when people talk about anchor babies, which I know now it's you're not supposed to say this anymore. You know, they have different to talk about family unification policy, reunification. It's not anchor babies.

One aspect of this that that does not get talked about enough is that you know that when somebody has a child in the United States and then they are to be deported, even if they are a criminal, meaning that they commit a crime here, if they had a child in the United States, it's considered a family separation.

So if you are in America and you are a member of a cartel, or you are somebody who's involved in drug trafficking at a serious level, and you're supposed to be deported from the country by Immigrations and Customs enforcement, and you've had a kid in America, guess what. Now, the liberal argument is, we can't deport that person because oh, that's right, we're separating families. So the anchor isn't just for people who are in America and might get deported otherwise, right.

The anchor then also extends to people who fall into the criminal justice system. Now, now the argument is made that you can't you can't deport them, you can only incarceerate them for whatever their sentence is, because that would be that would be breaking apart families. Meanwhile, people that gets into prison who are just Americans, those families are broken up every day, and Liberals don't shed any big tears over that one. So there's a there's a lot

of dishonesty around this issue. But I saw Tom Holman last night, and I always really like this guy. We got I gotta chat with them a little bit. We always whenever I see him in Fox we have a discussion about the border. Here's what he says about things play nine. I don't care if you're Republican, a Democrat. Every one of those people should want to vote to secure the border. There's no downside on securing a border, less illegal immigration, less illegal drugs being smuggled. The wallship

proven they worked back in the early eighties. I was a border TLAs standing on the line in San Diego. Thousands came through every night. But once they built that border barrier, the illegal crossings decreased dramatically. It is proven it worked in San Diego, you El Paso. It has proven one percent effective. So why would we not want a wall because they don't want it to be effective. I mean, I know Tom knows that, but that's the truth. The problem with the wall is not that it doesn't work.

The problem that Democrats have with it is that it does, which tells you everything you need to know about where they really stand on immigration and how they really feel about security at our southern border. You've got a lot of liberals and a lot of conservatives DS talking about maybe there needs to be a breakup of the monopoly that these social media companies have because of the ideological

bias on display. Well that's one option, but you know what a better option is, just have a platform where you don't have to worry about bias. That's snippy dot Com. Thousands of listeners to this show have joined snippy dot com and they're expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. As Namby's an unbiased social media platform. It's all about

common versation and community. Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but it guarantees users the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators. Okay, it is completely free to join. You've got nothing to lose here, Just go check it out for yourself. Snippy dot com no shadow banning and no suppression of conservative thought ever. And now Snippy's got an updated user interface and exciting new features. It's available

in the Apple App Store and available for Android. Snippy dot com is your new alternative social media. I would love to be able to regulate the content of speech. The First Amendment prevents me from doing self, and that's simply a function of the First Amendment. But I think over the long run, it's better that government does not

regulate the content of speech. That's a Ted Lou Congressman Lou, who you know, is increasingly popular in these progressive commentary circles on TV because he's you know, he's a guy like to drop the rhetorical bombs. But once again, you get liberals here really telling you what's in their heart, what's in their mind, what they really think about certain issues, and on the speech police situation and the desire of social media platforms and college campuses and now corporate America

to regulate the content of speech. Understand that, you know, even when you have a Congressman who's supposed to be all about upholding defending the Constitution, they if they're Democrats, they would like to be able to tell you what you can and can't say. And they have the hubrists and the arrogance to believe that they know what's best for you to be able to say and not say. But they got to kind of admit that there's a little problem there with the First Amendment, at least when

it comes to the government. Yeah, technically the government probably shouldn't be doing content, but they they want to be in a position to dictate to you. And that totalitarian impulse is in and of itself problematic, and you see it now operating at so many different levels on the left. You see it among people in the government who are embracing language language restrictions that are constantly changing too and are only becoming more restrictive. Right, we're never told, oh

you can actually you can talk about that issue. It turns out we were wrong and we can have a free and open debate about this. No, it's just more and more things are being taken off the table, you know, more areas of debate and inquiry and discussion are are

essentially roped off from discourse. This has been going, This has been a longstanding project of the left to change the way we can talk, to change the way that you know, we are allowed to discussion issues because as I as I've mentioned you many times, if they can determine the words for you. They can largely direct the

thoughts for you. They can influence debated discussion in ways that it's hard to even quantify and really even understand, because we're just now automatically the grounds of the discussion or are moving toward what they want, toward the policy ends that they would prefer. But free speeches under is under a very direct assault in this country, and it's only going to get worse before it gets better. I mean, the social media platforms are obviously a big part of this.

But you know, Democrats now and you know, by the way, this is also you know, I go back and forth with what should we do? How do we fight back against this? You know, you've had you have sometimes these these Hollywood lib types get away with saying really offensive stuff. I mean, you know, Mika Brazinski just said somebody was a blank boy, and you know that that the president was acting in this way, and she's not she's not gonna fire because she's in tight with MSNBC. I don't

know why anyone likes that show. Morning Joe. I really struggle with what the what the upside of it is. But then then you know there are other times and people that you think maybe are are above reproach and they get can't. You know, then the heart of tyranny, and whether it's the tyranny of government or the tyranny of a society that is abandoning principles of freedom, abandoning principles regarding liberty, the heart of tyranny is not the

draconian enforcement of regulations, standards, and laws. It's the theckless. It's the you know, the the constantly changing. It's the capriciousness in the enforcement of laws. It's people saying, yeah, well, you know you said that, so you get fired. You said something very similar, but you don't get fired because you know what that means. The person with all the

power is the person deciding, the person with that discretion. See, it's kind of like what we see with the DOJ and the FBI, right, I mean, the big problem is not that laws on perjury and processes around investigations are too strict. It's that they're only too strict when it comes to Republicans, to conservatives, to Trump allies. Well, this is obviously politically motivated, and that's why that keeps happening.

We also see this with the speech police, whether we're talking about you know, Kevin Hart, or we're talking about Mikabridginsky. You know, there's these different standards that evolve for individuals based upon where they fall in the political spectrum, and it's just exhausting. I would love for this to be

the case in this country. I would love for us to be in a place where we have some some hope, some sense that you know, the the standard will at least be uniformly applied when it comes to what's unacceptable to say, when it comes to what's far too you know what, what's beyond the pale. But you know, we're

not there. We're not there. And what really separates ideologically, what separates a left from the right in the most general terms, is they always think that they should be the ones in control because they believe that their judgment on these matters and their ability to use state power to exercise that judgment, that they think that they always know what the best way is. It's it's troubling, but this is what's going to happen. Um. By the way, you know, the speaking of these ABC is going to

bring back the Connors for season two. The ratings were actually good. You know, Roseanne got fired for for you know, a racist tweet one one racist tweet, he's out, homophobic comment for micause she's not out. You know. Yeah, how do you engage these things? Well, it depends on what the executive at the time think and how much heat they're willing to take. But it looks like they're going to bring back that show the Connors, which I think is kind of a surprise. John, if did you see it? Mike,

did you see this? I never saw it. I don't know if I don't, I didn't see it. I saw the first Roseanne. I did not think the first Roseanne was funny. The new one, Noah, Yeah, the first episode was okay, it was it was just, you know, it felt a little contrived to me, the whole thing. But yeah, this is you know, the speech and the way that people get judged by these things. You know, there's a lot of money, a lot of jobs that can hang in the balance on this stuff. So we shall see.

I gotta talk to you about the Kashogi situation. I know we've you know, you got an update on this. The Senate has taken an action. It's not important. It's an action that won't result in any further action most likely, But we've got to get to the heart of what's going on here with this foreign policy. Oh and by the way, I stumbled into some protesters last night who were protesting at a White House official's house, and I happen to walk right in the middle of that protest

and speak to their organizers. I got some exclusive audio for you. You are now entering the Freedom Technical Operations Center. All sensitive programs must be kept strictly. Need to know Team Buck is cleared and ready for the Buck brief. Some breaking news. The Senate voted just a couple of hours ago, fifty seven to thirty eight to end US

military involvement in Yemen. As lawmakers are still very very upset over the killing of Koshogi and what they say is the unacceptable response of the Trump administration to this. All right, this like Russia is turning into its own form of hysteria and pushing us closer and closer to some very bad decision making. I think let's just start with this. Jamal Kashogi is not an American citizen, was not a citizen, was not a permanent resident. Jamal Kashogi

was not a US national. This is not one of ours who was killed in a foreign consulate, on foreign soil by a foreign entity. He's not, And there was a lot of lying. I checked into this to make sure that the that I have this right, because I think it's really important. We were being told for weeks, weeks and weeks that he was a Green card holder. A Green card holder, which means he's he's a permanent resident of America. He could stay here his whole life,

his kids will be Americans. That is false. He was an O one visa holder. He was a visitor to this country who wrote a column for the Washington Post. Now, none of that mitigates the brutal torture and murder that he suffered. That doesn't change anything, but it does affect the US responsibility for a major response to this. So let's just all be very clear. There was an obvious effort early on to create the perception that Kashogi was

a US person. We need to do more. America need to speak up for one of its own here, and we need to take decisive action to punish Saudi Arabia for this, not just to speak out, but but to

make sure that they feel consequences for it. And only now that you've that they've got this cycle of oh my gosh, Kashogi, and you know, Kashogi's now part of the people that are honored for being Time magazine, you know, person of the Year along with and I'm not trying to be controversial here, but you know that that newspaper in Maryland where there is the mass shooting, they're also they're also covered in this Man of the Year or

a Person of the Year in Time magazine. And they weren't killed because of the danger of their journalism assignments. This was a personal feud with a psychopath who went in and shot them all, and it shot five of them. And in essence, this is the equivalent of a postal worker who goes in and shoots a bunch of people who used to work with or something. I mean, this is a that was a personal grudge, you know. To say that that's a guardians of our democracy situation is

I think it's a terrible situation. It's a tragedy, but I think it's something of a stretch to include that and it's a guardian of our democracy. Yeah, they were doing their jobs and some of them got shot because there was a maniac running around who didn't like some of the stories that they had written. But it wasn't because they were speaking truth to power. It was just a crazy person. But back to Kashogi if I can for a moment here, But the Senate has done is

essentially senatorial virtue signaling. The House has already made it clear that they're not going to go ahead with this measure, that there's not going to be any real change in US foreign policy visa vie the Saudis because of it. But they're they're just wanted to get on record, and it's because the elites, the establishment inside the Beltway and in the media here in America has made the Kashogi issue really just a big opportunity to bash Trump, and

that's why they're so fixated on this. This is why Jamal Kashogi is the most famous, well known dissident to have been killed by a foreign power by far, despite the fact that there are a whole bunch of people in recent years who have been killed by Russia, who you know, who have been taken out as a result of their criticisms of a regime. And it's because there's a tie in here where they're able to bash Trump and anytime you can bash Trump, journalists get very very

excited and they're very interested obviously about that opportunity. But our policy in Saudi with back in Saudi Arabia and specifically the war in Yemen, is that we don't want Yemen to fall into the hands of an enemy. And that's what would occur. If the Saudis weren't engaged in this bombing campaign, you would have the Hoothies, who are a Shia faction inside of Yemen who are backed by the Iranians. You'd have the Hoothies likely able to seize power.

You also have a very active Al Qaeda branch in Yemen, and we're trying to suppress that and support the legitimate government as we see it inside of Yemen, and the Saudis are our best proxy for doing that. But this is all because of Ira and this is because of some very serious interests we have at preventing the southern portion of the Arabian Peninsula from effectively becoming a launch pad for terrorist attacks. Remember Al Kaeda in the Arabian

Peninsula was just a few years ago. Consider the most active terror franchise at external plotting, meaning coming after the US and its interests. Al Kaida and the Arabian Peninsula has been behind some very high profile international attacks and attempted attacks in Europe and in the United States. So we can try to pretend like there's no real US interest in what's going on and Yem unfortunate, it's not true.

And on the humanitarian side, and I'm somebody who has been trying to raise the alarm about what's going on in Yemen for a long time. We've done segments at Hill TV. Look, I'm just gonna tell you this. We did a segment five months ago at least on Hill TV about the war in Yemen and how it's the biggest humanitarian disaster in the world, and it just didn't get very much attention. People didn't seem that interested in

that particular story. And I don't know, I can't Maybe we just didn't do a good enough job presenting it. I would think that the biggest humanitarian crisis on planet Earth would be something a lot of people were interested in. But I mean other journals, I mean other people in the media who saw us covering that. Not a lot a lot of high level at a lot of high level interest. And I think in general, there hasn't been that much interest until now because now it is look

at out terrible yemen is. Look at what the Saudis are doing. Trump is so nice to the Saudis. This is all about bashing Trump. You know. They just keep using this kind of transitive property of criticism to eventually bring it back to how Trump is the bad guy here.

You know. I would note that these same journals who were writing a lot of stories now about what's going on with the humanitarian crisis in Yemen, were pretty muted for a long time about the fact that the Obama administration presided over a supposed coalition to end the war in Syria, which is now killed close to six hundred thousand people, and there was not a unified voice from journalists saying that Obama had failed, despite the fact that

it was supposed to be US leadership. Remember, we're the ones that negotiated with the Assad regime to get the chemical weapons out. You know, that was a John Kerry Barack Obama move. You know, they were very much involved, and the whole thing was a disaster. Syria has just

been gutted topped to bottom. I mean, Syria is a shadow of its former self as a country, and there was a lot of just incompetence on a splitting the abaministration during that, and it was just it was never really Obama's fault, though they never really wanted to say that Obama was making bad decisions there. Meanwhile, we're not the ones that are bombing Yemen. The Saudis are bombing Yemen. But we want the Saudis to be able to back the legitimate government in Yemen over rebel groups that are

proxies for Iran and over all Qaeda. And we're supposed to change all that and give up that policy, shift around that policy because a foreigner, let's just say it, I mean, a foreign journalist was killed in a foreign country by a foreign entity, and this is now all America's problem. I mean, this guy was not one of ours. And so why are we so much more, you know, orders of magnitude more upset about this than the journalists who are tortured and killed in places like Turkey and

places like Russia and places all over the world. You know what the answer is, It's not about the best interests of the American people. It's not about us foreign policy and geopolitics. It's about can it be attributed to Trump? Is it an opportunity to bash Trump? That's why they're so interested in this. It's really gross. You know, I do have to ask the question. I've got to keep it real. Why does the president have some of these just utter bozos from his past that he brought into

this administration? You know what? It motivates the president to do this because there have been some people who Does anyone want to make excuses for Amorosa? The President certainly doesn't. Does anyone want to make excuses for the much as Scaramucci the President? Well, I guess they're on good terms. Now. Does anyone want to want to talk about how great Steve Bannon is? I mean, I don't know. I don't

hear a lot of that. Certainly, I don't hear much of it when it comes to Cohen, including from the President who says that Cohen is now terrible. So why would somebody as terrible as Cohen get as close to never mind the President United States, a successful businessman like Donald Trump. Well, good news we got the president to give an answer today if we can. Michael Cohen, he

was your attorney three years. He was sentenced yesterday and It may seem like he got a break because it could have been twice as much, but it's still three years in federal prison, five hundred thousand dollars in restitution. This was someone who surreptitiously recorded you is now known as a criminal liar. Yet this was someone who was in your inner circle. Yeah, well it happens. I mean, look what happens. I hire usually good people, but it

just happened. Why did you hire Michael Cohen? First of all, that was his title of very low level work. Why did you need more public relations than he did law? But he did so. If you'd see him on television, he was okay in television. But years ago, many years, like twelve thirteen years ago, he did me a favor?

Did Trump a favor? I've heard this before, and I've been wondering when we'll finally get to find out what this favor was that got Cohen so deep into the President's good graces that he would become he's certainly in his inner circle. I mean, he's a guy who was very close to the president for a number of years. I don't think anybody disputes that. So what, in fact was this favor? Well, the President told us listen, he was on a committee and he was so responsive and

so good, and I said, he's a nice guy. I shouldn't wait a minute, Wait a minute, that was the favor, because people have been asking, well, what is the favor that he did the president? He was on a committee with you. Was on a committee. It was a condominium committee many years ago, and he was a very big supporter of mine on that committee. I did a great job. Trump World Tower to a very tall building right opposite

the United Nations. And when you build a building, people always get together at the end and they make a settlement with the owner. They say the ceiling wasn't painted the right color or something. You know, stuff sometimes serious stup. But in my case, it was a great building and he was in the committee. I thought he was a great guy. I thought he was really a nice guy

who was very supportive. You know, I'll say this, when you've actually gotten to know somebody and they're not asking you for something or that, you're not in a position where you feel like they inherently have an interest in making you think one thing or another, you often get a better sense of who you're dealing with, and you feel like you want to bring people into your professional life that you know from just life in general. And I feel this way in media. The people that i've well,

certainly people i've worked with in the past. It's a little different. People i've worked with in the past are if I've had a good experience, the first people that I want to work with in the future. And I also think that loyalty is a very important trait to have. It's also a very important trait to respect, you know, it's a very important trait that we should want other people to have as well. And to do that means that you have to reward people for loyalty. So President

is not a politician. I mean, I don't think that he well he wasn't a politician before he's president, obviously, but I don't think that he thought of the people that he was bringing in as possible liabilities. I also think that there was so little prep in many ways for the possibility that he was really going to be the next president the United States and leader of the free world, that there was a lot of learning on the job about who to give certain jobs to. And

I think that's been quite clearly the case. But I go back and forth on this one because I am frustrated. I'm frustrated the President has given so much authority and so much trust while he's the occupant of the White House to just utter Bozo's third tier people when it comes to their ethics and their intellects. Honestly, there's a lot of them that are really low grade individuals and they've been given incredibly powerful positions. So that's been a disappointment.

And there are disappointments about this presidency. You know, we're going to have to start to face up to some of the things that aren't what we wanted, aren't what was promised. It's not to say that I don't still support the President's not to say I'm not still just forever grateful that Hillary Clinton is not the president. I get it. But you know, on this one, on his choice of advisors, and I'm not bitter that he hasn't

given me the chief of staff job. Okay, don't no, No, I'm not not bitter, you know, I mean, would I be an amazing White House chief of staff, of course, of course, But has the President asked me yet? No, No, he has not. But seriously, I do think that the President gets a bit of leeway as well, or should get leeway for wanting to have people around that he feels at some level he can really trust because he

is encircled with enemies all the time. I mean, he is besieged in a way that no president in my lifetime has ever been. He cannot talk to or trust most members of the press, he cannot talk to or trust talk openly, at least honestly to many senior government officials and people who are career government servants. He has to be wary of them, and I think the President

would be foolish not to be. But yeah, we were told that it's because Cohen, you know, a long time ago did him a solid when he was on a condo board, and that's how it all happened. You know, it's you know what is the power of weak associations? Sometimes you just bump into somebody and that person changes your life for better or war for worse. I think with Cohen it's for worse. So we'll continue to follow this and got a big our three coming up. I

bumped into some protesters last night. Yeah, that's right. I would they tend to find me or I don't know. We just I have a sixth sense about these things. But I found one of these, one of these anti White House Administration official mobile protests going on last night, and I interviewed the protest leader, asked about immigration, asked him about what the heck are you doing here? Are you harassing people? You'll want to hear that conversation. And

that's upright in just a few minutes. And I practically slipped into a food coma yesterday after I finished off some delicious pork chops courtesy of Omaha Steaks. And right now, Omaha Steaks is giving an amazing limited time offer to my listeners. When you go to Omaha Steaks dot com and Entercoade Buck into the search bar, you'll get seventy four percent off Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package originally one hundred and ninety five dollars, now only forty nine ninety nine.

Order now and you'll get four hand cut age to Tendantis, top surloin steaks, two Savory Premium pork chops, four chicken fried steaks, four Omaha Steaks burgers, four kilbasa saucea just all Beef meatballs, potatoes, Zoa grata, apple, tartlets plus four more burgers free. I'm telling you it's an incredible package. I have it myself. I've almost gotten through my first one. I might have to get a second one. That's right. This limited time gift package is only forty nine ninety

nine and you got to Omaha Steaks dot com. Make sure you type buck in the search bar and add the Family Gift Package to your card. Don't wait, this offer is going to end soon. Go to Omaha Steaks dot com type buck in the search bar to send the Omaha Steaks Family Gift Package today. So last night walking home and sure enough I stumble upon a protest going on in the streets at DC. It's a funky

assortment of folks. They are dancing, there's a lot of loud music, about thirty or forty protesters in a few dozen police following them around as they block the streets and generally just make a lot of noise. So I figured, hey, I'm kind of a media person, a journal an opinion journalist, if you will, maybe I'll stop and ask these folks what the heck are you doing here? And this is how that went. Mus for us nas sir, and I'm the founding organizer of Work for Peace. Okay, let's Worked

for Peace. Work for Pieces a queer and transgress roots movement that uses all forms of dance to promote peace. We were founded in response to the Pulse nightclub shooting to bring the dance lore into the streets to start that we are here and we will dance. And we're best known for our dance protests in front of Mike Pence's house and Avunca Trump's house. And so why are you here right now in this location? So right here is the apartment complex where Stephen Miller lives. Stephen Miller, Well,

would you look at that? I stumbled onto one of these protests at the home groups right. These are the people or among the people who find out where a prominent person that they disagree with politically lives, and they gather outside their home and try to make a lot of noise at night when they think the person is likely to be there. You'll recall this happened and was rather aggressive and terrifying outside of Tucker Carlson's home not

long ago. It's happened in other places. My understanding is this isn't even the first time they've done this. To White House Senior advisor or senior aid whatever his title is, Stephen Miller. They've done this before, although I've never seen them doing it like this. Now. Is this group intimidating, No, there were police everywhere. This was a group that was honestly dancing in the streets. That was their whole thing. They're dancing in the streets, but they're playing very loud

music and they're harassing somebody. So I wanted to ask a little more about why they choose these tactics. Remember I'm speaking to the organizer of this group. I wanted to ask them why they choose these tactics and what they think about the issues overall. So strap in, folks, it gets interesting. The architect of family separation and the architect of using tear gas on migrant families, women and children who are at the border with the migrant teara beans.

So we're here to send a clear message to Stephen Millern his immigration policies that he is pioneering are not tolerated by our communities. Why following to his house, though, why not just protest outside the White House. We're you to have higher visibility because some people might think this is harassment. Well, we were at the White House and

then we came to his apartment complex. And when we think about harassment, what comes first to mind for me is ICE individuals breaking into migrant and refugee households and tearing them from their families and putting them in jail. What comes to mind is Roxanna, a trans LATINEX individual who was kept in ice, dehydrated and beaten by ICE

officials for ten days before she should we abolishize? Oh, just to be clear here, I ask this protest leader about whether it's harassment to gather outside the private home of somebody who works in the White House in the US government, And the response I get is not really about whether it's harassment of that person. It's real harassment

is what ICE does to people at the border. I mean, I would just know that this is when people talk about what about is m This is a first class, a one choice USDA example of what about ism has nothing to do with anything that I'm really talking about here.

I'm saying, you are leading a protest outside of a person's home where they are operating their capacities as a private citizen, Like I'd like to have dinner and go to sleep like a normal person, and you're making a lot of noise and you're trying to embarrass them in front of the people who live around them. And your answer to that as well, they're bad things that happened to the border. By the way, to say that Stephen Miller is the architect of tear gassing migrants in the border,

that's false. As we know, the Obama administration used tear gas at the border. In fact, tear gas is a often used, often used technique of law enforcement for crowd control and crowd dispersal. So that has nothing to do with Stephen Miller at the border. And the notion of or the policy of child separation at the border that was occurring under the Obama administration not in the same numbers as it has under the under the Trump administration.

But also you did not have a flood of people trying to abuse our system and come across the border by the tens of thousands. But then we get into a little more of what this guy thinks about policy. Get ready for it. We're here to advocate to abolish ice, to let them in, and to send a clear message to migrants and refugees in the caravan, that we are here, we support you, and we will continue to work until you are free and you are safe and secure. And

do you think that we should have open borders? Yes, I do. I believe that when we think about the reason why borders are in place, when we think about US imperialism and how it has desecrated other countries, many of these countries from where individuals are coming seeking refuge because of US imperialism. The US needs to open reporters. It needs to We need to find a safe and secure way to support the individuals whom we have marginalized as the US population. All Right, A lot of big

takeaways here. This is an interesting conversation with this guy. Now, I yes, he's a liberal loon. I will say he was. He was very polite. He let me stop. I said, I work for the Hill. I'd like to ask him some questions, and he was perfectly polite to me, and everybody there was kind of smiling and laughing. So you know, I always come to you from a place of honesty. Right. If I saw a bunch of menacing thug like you know, jerks assembled outside, I mean these were like nice, happy, smiley,

silly jerks. They were not menacing, They were not in any way trying to intimidate anybody. I mean they were they were actually dancing in the streets with rainbow flags and rainbow colored clothing on. So and I don't think anybody was scared, but I also think that it was causing a bit of a disturbance. Anyway, Here's a guy who has, as far as I under stand it, gathered many times, and this is one of the things that he does. He's an activist, he's a left wing activist,

and primarily on the issue of immigration. I noticed how when I ask him about open borders, he doesn't miss a beat. Yes, absolutely, we want open borders. When I asked him about whether ice should be abolished, he doesn't miss a beat. Absolutely, we should abolish ice. Now, these are positions that are increasingly common and widespread within the modern Democrat party. These are not really fringe positions anymore. I'm not saying they're majority positions, but they're not fringe.

You can find plenty of Democrats for whom this is the case. And I found most interesting that this guy, immediately when I asked him about open borders, he says, yes,

we should have open borders. You've heard me tell you this before, that the left believes that we owe it to the world that we owe to the rest of the world, bring them into our country, changing our culture to accommodate them, changing our laws to accommodate them, and giving them our stuff via the welfare state, because of all the injustice that the United States has done around the world over the many, many decades, all the wrongs

that we have committed. You see, it's to make up for colonialism, even though America was never a colonial power, but to make up for the legacy of Western imperialism, the mantle of which was taken from Great Britain and by the United States after the Second World War. So that's the mentality that's at the heart of a lot of this left wing activist thinking. And you're hearing a left wing activists just say it, right, he's just coming out and saying it, Yeah, that's right. We have to

take in all these margarets. Anyone wants to come to America should be able to come to America because we owe it to them because of all the bad things we've done. This is very similar to the Obama point of view about how we have to make amends with the rest of the world, and we should limit the way that we use our power to our influence because of all the bad stuff America is done. Do you think that the Democratic Party is in line with your thinking on this? Do you think you'll have a candidate

in twenty twenty that will be pro open borders? Should they just be honest about this. We're here to push the Democratic Party to continue fighting for justice and to continue fighting for safety and security for migrants and refugees. Do you have any concerns that following people to their homes to protest at night when they're not at their places of work is shutting down discussion, could be seen as intimidation, could be actually hurting your cause. We're here

to celebrate the queer entrance community. We're here to celebrate migrants and refugees. Now, put aside the silliness of a lot of what this guy says and his inability to answer some pretty straightforward questions. He is in line with the Democrat base. He is in line with how they think about these things. This is where the Democrat Party is going. Open borders, abolish ice. We owe it to the rest of the world who cares what happens to America. So in that sense, this protest was useful because I

got to see how crazy they are. Well, the weather outside may be frightful, but the smell indoors is delightful. If you are drinking some delicious Black Rifle coffee, My friends, this is your cup of joe. If you love America, freedom and all the good stuff about this country, and you support veterans in the process. By the way, I'm all about Black Rifle Coffee. You should be to get yourself the gift of delicious coffee delivered to your front door, or get it as a gift for a friend of yours.

Black Rifle Coffee makes it easy with their coffee club. Okay, this is the best tasting, most energizing coffee you can get. And they offer three, six and twelve months prepaid and pay as he goes subscriptions and you can gift them for somebody. So on a cool, interesting gift for the holiday to give to somebody that you know they're gonna love. And it's easy for you to set up Black Rifle Coffee.

Go to Black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck and you'll see fifteen percent off your order, sign somebody else up for the coffee club, or sign yourself up again black Riflecoffee dot com slash buck for fifteen percent off black Riflecoffee dot Com slash buck. We do not live in charitable times when it comes to public discourse. I think we could all agree on that we do not see a lot of people acting with mercy and forgiveness in

the way that they approach others in public life. And it's it's particularly pointed these days in the era of Get Trump at all costs. There you had a couple of hosts on the View who were really having a good laugh at the expense of Michael Cohen and saying he's a thog just like his boss, of course, Donald Trump, and that you know, karma is a B word, and

you heard it, and they were the only ones. There was a lot of jubilation yesterday on social media from people that were just having a good laugh at the

fact that Michael Cohen's going to prison. Now. It goes without saying that Michael Cohen is a individual who is ethically challenged, somebody who clearly was well beyond his skill set when it came to where he was in terms of access and influence, somebody who is not a model for any of us to follow, and he is paying a pretty hefty price, literally in the sense that he's getting a big fine, and also that he will lose three years of his life and his reputation is destroyed

and ruined. But I try to always be mindful of the fact that, you know, these political disputes that we have, when we turn it into a matter of cheering for one side or the other to have people and to prison, we really debase ourselves in the process. I try very hard not to do this. I'm reminded of a story that was told to me many years ago by I wouldn't even call him a friend. He was an associate of mine in New York and he was not a nice guy. He was not somebody that I wanted to

spend much time with or around. But he was one of those friend of a friend guys that would just

end up hanging around. And this is when we were I suppose a few years out of college and he was in law school, and he told me about how he had spent some time down at the at the Federal courthouse in New York City, and I forget even the specific context of what it was that he was saying and how it was that this, but essentially said that he was down there for the defense of a guy who was on trial for insider trading, stock market fraud, that kind of thing, and he said that showing up

to this trial, we thought the whole time because everyone's wearing a suit and you're in a courtroom, and there's a certain normalcy that seeps in when you're in that courtroom. You know, this is just what people are doing, and it's easy to forget the stakes and everyone goes home at the end of the proceeding and it just seems

like it's a process. It's a process. But I remember he told me that at the end of that process there was a guilty verdict and this guy ended up or maybe even he took the plea, and it doesn't matter. He was it was clear at the end of the process that the defendant was going to prison for some

period of time. And this friend of mine told me about how he heard and he will never forget it, or this associate of mine that he heard the wife just start sobbing, sobbing at the recognition that she was going to be separated from her husband for a few years, sosabbing at the recognition that her family name would never be quite the same that somebody that she had partnered up with for life and had children with. There were kids in this family too, that they had suffered this fate.

And you know, it's not a trial where people at the end feel like, yeah, that's right, justice is done. This person is a terrible person. People get into desperate circumstances and they cheat on their taxes. People get into desperate circumstances and they engage in insider training or some

kind of a white collar crime, you name it. And I do think that we need to separate in our minds those who have truly victimized individuals, people who are violent criminals, people who have stolen from individuals, and those who have scammed the system. It's not to say that scamming the system is okay, but it's different. And we know this, We intuitively know this, that a mass murderer is very different from an insurance fraud scamster. Right, these

are very different. You could sit down and I'm reminded of a Christopher Hitchins once said that he had a test for people who had a prior record. You know that you could sit down with somebody and if they said, yeah, you know, I spent some time and to spend some time in the slammer because embezzled some money from my company, he says, all right, well you paid your dues and sure enough you've come out and I hope you've reformed your ways. But you'd continue having lunch if you sat

down with somebody like that. If you sat down you found out that somebody was engaged in, you know, child sex trafficking, or was a rapist or a murderer, you probably wouldn't continue the lunch and would want to get the heck out of there. That's the obvious way of separating out the degree and severity of crimes. We all

know there's a degree in severity. And I think that there's way too much celebration in our current moment from the Democrats and a lot of anti Trump Republicans of people who are having their lives ruined, I mean, their life savings wiped out for process crimes, for crimes that are not the kind of thing that make anyone a bad person. They just make a mistake. You know, no

one's dying of a drug overdose. No one's losing their life or their future because you know, Michael Cohen didn't didn't pay all of his taxes to the State of New York or something. That's just not happening. And that's not to say that he's a good guy and he shouldn't pay a price. But I do think that those who celebrate this, who take a position of glee at the suffering of others, should be very troubled by their conduct. And there's way too much of that right now with

anyone associated with Trump. I mean, people are celebrating what happened to Michael, and that happened in front of his wife and in front of his kids, that happened in front of people who have known him. And yeah, I even love the guy. I mean I don't know him, but you know he has people who count on him and love him. And he's not going to prison for three years, which is not an insignificant amount of time.

General Flynn, do you ever think that after thirty years of serving his country, being part of special operations in Iraq Afghanistan at the top of the Defense Intelligence Agency, do you think that he would be begging a court not to send him to prison, and for what exactly, what's the crime that Flynn supposedly committed, misfremembering a phone call that wasn't criminal in the first place, and for that you can have your reputation on your life ruined.

I just ask that we all be a little contemplative about this, and that we remember that those who run around celebrating at the misfortune of Trump associates are, if nothing else, completely abandoning any thing resembling a holiday spirit. You know, this is a time of the year, as we get into Christmas and we get into the New year, where you think about mercy and forgiveness, and this is a country that is in need of a restoration of

those ideas. Right now. There is far too much desire to see the other, to see your opponents destroyed, when really we should be thinking about how we can all be better and do better for each other. So Merry Christmas and goodwill to all, But not from the view. Apparently she's back with her first public statement since the effort to destroy Brett Cavanaugh with an avalanche of lies. Doctor or Professor of Psychology PhD. Christine Blasi Ford is

now presenting Awards for Sports Illustrated. Listen, I am honored to speak with you from far about a woman I admire so much, A woman who suffered abuse as a vulnerable teenaged athlete, who found the courage to talk publicly to stop the abuse of others. Her courage inspired other survivors to end their silence, and we all know the result. Rachel Den Hollander. I am in awe of you, and I will always be inspired by you and stepping forward.

You took a huge risk, and you galvanized future generations to come forward even when the odds are seemingly stacked against them. Ladies and gentlemen, please welcome this year's Sports Illustrated Inspiration of the Year, Rachel Den Hollander. Now this situation does not surprise me at all. In fact, I was arguing with people last summer that this is exactly where we would be. There are a number of important

takeaways here. First of all, you will recall that it was a widely used talking point during the effort to destroy Brett Kavanaugh that this woman has nothing to gain.

That's what they kept saying, nothing to gain from coming forward, and people like me on this show and elsewhere we're saying, really, because Anita Hill had nothing to gain other than being considered a hero for women's rights and womanhood for all eternity, for getting speaking gigs and book deals and having movies made about what a hero she is, I'd say that's

a lot to gain. And it was just obvious as soon as Christina Blasi Ford came forward with this that she was also going to benefit from the massive system in place that's there specifically to prop up and reward those who do the bid of the left. And now that she's presenting awards for Sports Illustrated as well as being considered for she was considered, I believe for Time Magazine Person of the Year. She definitely is on Time magazines cover for the month of December, so she's on

the cover of magazines. She is lionized. She has treated like a hero, a truth teller when there is still and this is where I get to the other component of this no evidence to back up anything that she said.

In fact, what we know from the career sex crimes prosecutor who interviewed her in Congress, there would not have even been enough based on what she had to share, Based on the information that Christine Blasi Ford gave to affect and arrest of Brett Kavanaugh today, never mind taking it to this level of well, we have to believe her. This woman has a right to be believed. I would also note, does the woman who's accusing Keith Ellison have

a right to be believed? No, of course not. Keith Ellison as a Democrat, and he's an African American and he's in a different category for the left than other guys who get accused. What about Michael Lavanatti himself? Does his accuser of felony domestic abuse have a right to be believed? Now? The right to be believed line only gets trotted out when it benefits Democrats. And I would note that none of this with Christine Lazzie Ford now

is surprising. You see what they've done is they've created They're creating this image, this brand around her as a survivor, and we're supposed to treat her as a survivor. When I think that she was highly politically motivated to make the allegations that she did. There's no evidence of support the allegation that she brought forward. There are a lot

of inconsistencies and massive holes in her story. But she's going to attach herself now to real survivors like Den Hollander, people who were sexually abused, to a rape who are assaulted, because in doing so, she is the spokes person for those who are survivors. And if you call into question her authenticity in that role, the left will of course say,

are you downplaying the people that she's speaking for. You know, she is attaching herself to this movement and putting herself at the forefront of this movement, and what you are seeing now is just the beginning of that effort. There's going to be a lot more. Christine Blassie Ford is now a left wing celebrity, and this was entirely predictable. In fact, I predicted it. I know many of you knew the same thing that she would be for decades

to come. Your kids will be watching movies, however, whatever channel they watched them on. Your kids in ten or fifteen years will be watching a movie where Christine Blassie Ford is played by the most beautiful actress of our era, and she's a heroine for all time, standing up against the evil you know, rapist frat boy Brett Kavanaugh and all the white male privilege. He said, that's what's going to happen, and it was obvious, and we called it. And I would just note that the people who were

saying that wasn't going to happen. I think we should be at a point now where you can say, we don't have to listen to their opinions on these matters. They're obviously not very good analysts. Nothing to gain. They said of Blasi Ford, that was a lie, and it

was an obvious lie. But at the time it was useful because it managed to take some of the ferocity out of the argument that this was all a setup, that this was all a hit, that Christine Blazzi Ford is either a delusional, damaged person or just a vicious liar. There's only one of two options, and she's one of them. But they're treating her like she's a hero. Now, of course, the show ain't over yet, folks. It's time for roll call. Roll call is the best call, because there ain't no

call like the roll call. Facebook dot Com slash buck Sexton and let's get right to it. Eric says buck I found this very interesting, a body language take on the wall discussion between Trump Pelosi, pants and Schumer. On a side note to chime in on your best voice. Clearly some people don't listen to the Stansbury Investor Hour because clearly, Arianna Huffington is your best impression. L Ol. Shields High, Darling, thank you so much for the kind wire.

It's about Arianna. She wants you to make sure that you stretch, that you get all of your macros, and you eat vegan and do yoga because this is all the great CEOs of the twenty first century are very limber. It's important to be limber. Arianna has a lot of good advice for you. Steve right Hey, Buck outstanding show as usual, Well, Steve, outstanding message as usual. Just catch a gump on Wednesday's podcast. I love the guests today, Andy McCarthy, Louie Gomert. A thought just occurred to me.

Is it possible for the President to direct the Army Corps of Engineer Engineers to inspect and document the entire southern border wall? Just seems like that would be a great start with notations of weak spots along the border. As always, love the show, Shields way High, Well, Steve,

it would be a good idea. I think that the Army Corps of Engineers check out the border at Also, we'd have to keep in mind that much of the border doesn't have any wall or any fencing, So, you know, we got we gotta be clear on that one, right, there's most of the border is not in fact covered by a fence or wall of any kind. And as to how quickly it could happen, keep in mind that there are some areas of the border where it's very

hard to cross. Regardless, there's some places where there's already a natural barrier, or you're just going through a lot of desert, and they have in place, you know, sensors in border patrol in some ways of trying to catch you. But there are other areas that are most highly trafficked. So you would start with the most highly trafficked areas of the border, and then you would make your way from that to the lesser trafficked areas of the border.

I mean. Representative Jim Jordan, for example, shared the following facts via Twitter yesterday. Walls work, These facts don't lie. Israel illegal immigration down ninety nine percent, San Diego sector of hard order down ninety two percent, El Paso down ninety five, Tucson down ninety percent, Yuma down ninety five percent. Let's build the border security wall. I have yet to hear a serious counter argument to this. I've yet to hear people say anything in terms of an argument other

than just well, don't work while don't work. Well, you can chant it and you can yell at libs, but that does not make it true. So there you have it. Adamola Adaramola, Yeah, Adaramola writes, Hi, how is you well? Adamola? I think you're a bot or a computer program from a foreign country that is trying to engage me in a Facebook discussion. So I will just write back to you, I is fine, and please take me to your leader because you're a bot, because you're not actually somebody I

think who listens to the show. That is my guess. I've had plenty, plenty of boats, unfortunately, get into the Facebook. But it's sometimes kind of funny because in real time I read them and I go, oh, that's a bot. James writes, he sent me a link, so that's not a good one. Andrea writes, for your mom, I show this to every class I teach. It's Swan Lake but with acrobatic twist, and it's Great Chinese State Circus Swan Lake, Andrea,

I will send that to my mom. You apparently listen to the show very very closely, because yes, my mom was a professional ballet not belly some of you heard me say belly ballet dancer with American Ballet Theater, one of the premier, if not the premier ballet companies in the country. That was some time ago, and since then she's just been the greatest mom in the country. But I will certainly send this link on over to her.

Let's see here, Rachel writes, Buck, with everything you talked about with Andy McCarthy tonight pretending to Flynn, it just seems like they were trying to entrap him. I'm no lawyer and may not know the parameters of entrapment. Can you explain why this is not an issue? No, Rachel, I think you're right. In fact, the Wall Street Journal editorial the Flynn in Trap pretty much says it they they were trying to get this guy. They were not

doing this in good faith to have a discussion. Look that there are two pretexts that they used to try and get to excuse sending over what was essentially a criminal probe to speak to the incoming national security advisor and make sure that it seemed like it was no big deal so he wouldn't have a lawyer. There. One is the Logan Act, which is preposterous. You're going to charge an incoming national security advisor with a law that has never in the history of the United States sent

anyone to prison. I think one time a charge is brought under the Logan Act and the person was found not guilty, and it was in the nineteenth century. Okay, this is ridiculous, And the fact that people in the government would even bring it up just goes to show you they're desperate to find some excuse for this. And the other one is this notion of a counterintelligence threat

or a blackmail threat to Flynn. Essentially that the Russians could have said, will you must tell us everything you'll know about all the secrets, because otherwise we will tell the American people that you told them something not true about an unimportant conversation with Giseliek. Guess what nobody would care if Flynn could just say, whatever I tell people,

I misremembered it wasn't an important conversation. You know. If if let me put it, you this way, if the incoming National Security advisor, if General Flynn had a conversation with the Russians in which he said I had I had corn flakes for breakfast yesterday, and in fact he had Coco puffs. You know, technically that's not true. Nobody would care, though, So the Russians don't have something on him.

There's no criminal act him speaking to them about foreign policy at policy was not criminal, Okay, the whole idea. And Sally Yates, who I think escapes way way more easily from the blame here than she should in terms of the public recognition of her role in this. She

was one of these people is pushing this. Look she's a little Democrat, a little hall monitor democrat statist who didn't like Trump, didn't like his people, and had devoted her whole life to being a little DOJ bureaucrat, and you wanted to find a way to get these guys, and she did. And she remember she's the one who also wouldn't wouldn't execute the order that Trump gave when she was acting attorney general. I mean, the fact that that woman was acting attorney general should be jaw dropping

to people. Look at these individuals at the top of the DOJ, top of FBI. Look at this, Komi, McCabe, Yates, Struck. These people are acting terribly, terribly when it comes to their abuse of power and the use of their discretion. And these are the most important people to Dogen the FBI. These aren't just random people that we tried it out from nowhere. They were the ones running these investigations. They

were the ones making these decisions. They're terrible. I really betrayed the public trust and they're partisans and because they're not honest about that fact, they're also liars and what they're doing is dishonest and they're destroying people. I have no respect none for Yates, for Komy, for Struck from a cabe. These people have profaned the institutions that they supposedly represented and worked for. Diane writes, Buck, thanks for enlightening all of us in the hut. Are the Pelosian

Schumer homes surrounded by fences or more importantly walls. If so, why I literally don't see either of them capable of delivering policy beyond do as I say and not as I do shield Hie Diane, Yeah, walls obviously work, and this idea that walls don't work is just preposterous, and I mean it's really it's embarrassing that people even say this. It's so stupid. But it's just one of these It's like saying we're a nation of immigrants. No, we're not. Most of us were born here. We're not a nation

of immigrants. This is just not true. I mean, and if you're gonna say, well, over the course of our history, well then all nations are nations of immigrants. People come and go, there are migrations. I mean, it's just a stupid thing that people say, or that immigrants do the jobs Americans won't do well. Americans would do any job if the pay was right, pretty much any legal, you know,

decent job that where the pay was right. But if you bring in low wage, low skilled workers to undercut which you're gonna pay Americans and by the way, pay them off the books, then yeah, they won't do those jobs. As to the walls, I mean, this is it's just stupid. It's just not a smart, it's not an intelligent position that the Left holds on this. But you know, they managed to get away with it, and you know they're they're a slippery bunch on the left, so we got

to hold them to account. Eric I am not Oss, but became impressed with you on Real News on the Blaze TV and have been following you since those days. WHOA, thanks, Eric, I think I figured out some aspects of the Facebook algorithm. The more people interact with posts on a Facebook page, the more people will see it. So if people see a post and feel the message is important, they need to like and post and add comments this more people. The more people do this, the more eyeballs will see it.

Shields high well. Eric, I can tell you that you are correct and that interactions with a Facebook post are a very important component of that Facebook post having reach and you know, shares comments like so for those of you who see things that I post, and also when you talk to each other on posts on Facebook, that helps us get the message out. And if you're listening to the show and you have not already, please do follow our Facebook page Facebook dot com slash Buck Sexton.

It's a way to communicate with all of you. You can send me messages. I post there as often as I can, and it's a kind of a central gathering point for many members of Team Buck that is going to be how we close it out today, Excited for little Freestyle Friday tomorrow. Until then you have your orders Shields high Sni double Py, My friends. Snippy dot com. This is the new social media site you've heard me talking about here on the show. I just was posting yesterday.

I'm gonna post later today too. Snippy dot com is a place where you can have unfettered, unrestricted conversation and don't have to worry about anti conservative bias. Thousands of my listeners have joined snippy dot com. They're expressing their

opinions and stirring up lively conversations. You know, if you look at snippy dot com a few months ago, you need to go back and check it out again because they've done all kinds of awesome updates and if you care about politics, sports, current events, food, fashion, really anything, you're gonna find a lively chat on snippy dot com. No shadow banning, no suppression of conservative thought ever. And they've got an updated user interface and exciting new features too.

It's available in the Apple App Store and for Android. Snippy dot com free to join, folks. This is a free product I'm telling you about here. Just go check it out. Snippy dot com s n i p p y