The Border Crisis is Real

mistake American, You're a great American Again. The buck Sexton Show begins as this idea that they need five billion five to seven, which they haven't even sent us a plan for until yesterday. We're looking at it now, is unrealistic. We want the symbol of America to stay as the statue of liberty, not a big concrete wall. The President is announced that he's going to address the country tomorrow night on the so called crisis of the border. I

expect the president to lie to the American people. Why do we expect this because he has been lying to the American people, and it spokespeople continue lying to the American people. There is no security crisis at the border. The only emergency at the border is a humanitarian emergency. Caused by this war on children. The president has no authority to usurp congressional authority of the purse. Congress must

appropriate funds. He cannot simply take funds appropriate for other purposes to build a wall because he declares the national emergency. And we would certainly oppose any attempt by the President to make himself a king and a tyrant by saying that he can approach create money without Congress. That is perhaps the most dangerous thing he is talking about since he became president. Lies, lies, falsehoods, half truths, miss truths. The Democrats are thrown that everything in the kitchen sink

at the wall, at Trump. They're doing everything in their power, anything in their power and beyond it to try and stop Trump from securing our southern border. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show, my friends. It is go time here. Democrats are starting to lose this argument. They have been very self assured, very smug, and of course sanctimonious, because

we are talking about Democrats. They've assumed along that the old rules about shutdowns would apply, that the media would rally, like the little lackeys they are, to the Demo krat's side and make sure that the blame, such as it is, goes to Republicans. The American people turn on their members of Congress for not opening the government in a timely fashion, Republicans cave, Democrats win, and the border in this case would not get secure. Doesn't look like that's necessarily going

to be the case, now, does it. We have heard just to take a step back, because the border has been the single most important news story in the country for the last six months, with the only real exception being that period when the Kavanaugh nomination took over, and we got right in the middle of that fight here on the show, as you know, and thankfully good prevailed over evil in that one. And I'm not sure that the right side is going to win in this border battle,

but we're getting close. But I wanted to take a step back from what's going to be discussed tonight is presidential address. It's going to happen at nine o'clock Eastern, as you know, it would be right right after we finish this show, so I can't I can't assess the address for you in over the course of this show,

but certainly we'll talk about it tomorrow. But I wanted to give a context for what's coming tonight, because there's definitely going to be a pitch from the Presidence of the United States about why this wall needs to be built. The context, though, is that the Democrats and the left have no credibility on any issues relating to immigration whatsoever. They have lied and lied and lied. They said that the caravan was never going to reach our southern border.

They said that there were that there were no criminals in the caravan. They said that the wall would not work. They say that walls have never worked. They say that there's no problem with our current asylum system. It's not being abused. People aren't lying, they don't have they're not using loopholes. There isn't a lack of interior enforcement at every stage of our immigration process right now involving our

southern border where there's any concern or conflict whatsoever. The Democrats tactic is to lie about it and then attack the other side, and the biggest one right now. And this just requires gall I mean, this is nuts. Is they're saying, and we came in with this, that there's no crisis at the border. There's no crisis. They are willing just as they have redefined an illegal alien to be a quote undocumented immigrant. They're willing to redefine the

word crisis to be effectively meaningless. What is it that you would call a situation where laws are being broken on a daily basis to the tune of thousands, tens of thousands over the course of a month, hundreds of thousands over the course of a year. What is it you would call a circumstance that allows for the violation on a daily basis in thousands of cases of US sovereignty. What would democrats call a situation where hundreds, perhaps thousands

of women on a monthly basis are sexually assaulted. What would democrats call a situation in which drugs are pouring across the border at rates that are terrifying even to longstanding veteran members of border patrol. The cartels are more powerful in Mexico right now than they have been in recent memory. There's an argument to be made they're more violent than they have ever been, and there's an argument to be made that they are more powerful than they

have ever been. They're just not going toe to toe with the government in quite the same fashion as they have in the past. But more to the point, for all of us. The cartels are now the primary source of the poison, the opioids that are pouring in to cities and towns across the United States that are killing

over seventy thousand of our fellow Americans every year. In fact, that cartels, as I have told you, are creating pills to look like pharmaceutical pills so that they can sell them more easily on the street because the da and have slapped down doctors for overprescribing opioids, probably too much, so I mean, they're probably people that are a lot of pain now because they can't get the opioids. And to fill that need, because you have a lot of addicts out there to fill that need, the cartels have

swooped in. This has been going on for years, but it's more true now than ever before. If it's not a crisis, when you have tens of thousands of Americans dying from illegal poison that is overwhelmingly coming from one place, what is it? What is the definition of a crisis? Then you know why they don't want that to be the word that is used. Because the president has the authority to act if it is a crisis, He has the authority in statute. Democrats are running out of room

with their lies. They do not want to secure the border. It's a joke. All they want to do is more are expeditiously processed those who arrive with overwhelmingly false claims or preproduced claims, fabricated claims of imminent violence against them, when in reality they just want access into the United States.

They want to skip the rest of the millions of people who are trying to get into the country legally, and they don't care that their first act on US soil is fraudulent, the very act of being here and the premises under which they have entered the country are fraudulent. Democrats have no interest in stopping this, and I think finally, the American people are figuring this out. We do not believe these claims that they also want border security. They

also believe that this is a problem. I mean, they're saying it's not a crisis. We've had thousands of people parked at one of our ports of entry or one of our border sectors, trying to overrun border patrol and throwing rocks at them. If that is not a crisis, I need them to explain to me what is and when you add on to this the massive hypocrisy of Democrats who themselves all summer when it came to the issue of family separation. Oh my gosh, why would they

do this? Why are they separating you families that choke with the border from their children. This is they were saying that was a crisis, but everything else that's going on to the border they're claiming is not. I mean, they when it suits their needs, the news cycle, they think plays into their hands. Then they throw the term crisis around with reckless abandon the moment that the usage of the word crisis opens up an opportunity for the President of the United States to address the crisis, to

do something about the crisis, they change their minds. Isn't that convenient? Isn't that a situation that if you are a cynical observer of what Pelosi and Schumer and the rest of the Democrat gang wanted, you would think, Oh, that's exactly what I would have expected. You know, you've got the truth here is that this is a political fight for the Democrats, has nothing to do with border

security or national security. Democrats are in a panic because they know that if Trump follows through on this promise. It will be a symbol for everything else that he has promised. And they have been telling us all along. It will never happen. Trump won't. It's a joke. In fact, you're a rube, you're foolish, you're a clown. If you believed President Trump when he said he was going to build a wall, that you were unsophisticated and you're thinking

about politics. That's what the Democrats and the media, but I repeat myself have been saying now for two years. They have already had to lick their wounds when it came to trying to take down this president, with all their negative stories, all their personal attacks, all of their hysteria over collusion, over the twenty fifth Amendment. Trump is a racist, you know, whatever it is. They've thrown everything they have a Trump. They haven't been able to take

him down. And they thought they'd be able to. They really believe it they'd be able to derail this presidency. And not only have they been incapable of derailing the presidency. Now we stand on the precipice of the president achieving

a political breakthrough. Hasn't happened yet, and we will see, but at least we are in the fight here, and Trump is leading the charge to get a political breakthrough that would not only change what's going on in our southern border and give us some hope of finally achieving control over who comes and who doesn't across our southern border. The entire narrative about Trump as some kind of a

fraud who is fooling the gullible would be untenable. I mean, there would be betty in the media who would try to stick to it, but they would be the laughing stock. There'd be no way around it. They've been telling us all this time, for two years. The wall's never going to happen, and you're if you think it will, you're an idiot. In fact, if you think Trump's even going to try and get a wall, you're an idiot. Well,

it looks like he's trying now, doesn't it. And if he manages to push this through, libs will lose their minds. This is a tense moment in politics. There are a lot of people who for them this is an issue of their own personal credibility, their professional future. A lot of journalists, members of congress activist organizations. They have built up this entire store of lies around the border and

the whole thing just could come crashing down. It's going to be interesting, and I hope the President tonight gives us all he's got because the time is now. Some more of the details of what's going on at the border. We're gonna have also, my friend Annie McCarthy, I told him tonight, Andy, we're really going to need you to break down a legality here of whether they can or

cannot build this border wall. But then I meaning whether the President has the authority also under the law, and then we'll talk to him about this arrest of an indictment of I should say indictment, not arrest, pardon me, indictment of Vessel Nitskaya, who is at the Trump Tower meeting this Russian lawyer that was getting some attention today.

And you will help us break that down. We'll have White House correspondent from Daily Caller joining with the latest about what we can expect tonight in that address, and we have much more show coming. Oh and free healthcare for illegals in New York City. What a surprise, that's all coming up. Stay with me, team, Well, this is

a very serious situation. President Obama called it a humanitarian crisis when twenty fourteen, when we saw tens of thousands unaccompanied children coming across the border exploiting gaps in our immigration law. But you know, this is an entirely contrived and phony crisis right now, and by that I mean the political crisis here in Washington where Miss Pelosi and

Senator Schumer simply want to beat President Trump. They want to deny him what he's asking for, and they want the political benefit among their base for having done so. I think we can improve the security of our southern border, deal with the flow of heroin and other illegal drugs, human trafficking, and migrant movement across the border illegally, which was creating this crisis at the border. You know, he mentioned there, that was a Senator Cornyn, and he mentioned

drugs the border and what's going on there. I actually have some stats here about the twenty seventeen to twenty eighteen narcotics situation at our southern border. There has been in terms of seizures and this is over the last year. Okay, this is what's going on now. A twenty two sent increase in heroin sees, a thirty eight percent increase in meth amphetamine ceased and a seventy three percent increase in fentanyl.

These are the drugs that are heroin and fentanyl particularly are the ones that are killing so many of our

fellow Americans. They're coming across the southern border. In fact, methamphetamine prices have dropped considerably meth right now speaking to a law enforcement contact about this recently, meth is more pure and cheaper on US streets when they're finding it then I think it at any time, the price of meth is plummeted, and the cartels are just trying to keep the markets open somewhat that meth amphetamine has almost become a loss leader for cartels, meaning that they're they're

trying to keep their supply relationships going and they're making their money their illegal drug trade money on the fentyel and the heroine, and they're thrown in meth as kind of a sweetener of sorts, because so much of the drug trade now is focused on these opioids, because they're so powerful, so potent, and the market is large for them. This is a crisis. People are dying. They're dying because we do not have a secure southern border. This stuff. If it were so easy to get illegal fentael on

the streets of America. If it was so easy to get a doctor to prescribe it, the cartels wouldn't be making billions of dollars doing it illegally. We'll talk more about the expectations for the president's speech tonight, and of course the already prepped medium backlashed against it. Coming up.

He's holding the line or America, buck Sexton his back taking a republic for a political leader to try to seize power by the declaration of an emergency on made up facts, and you can look through history for the other autocrats, the other fascists, the other dictators who have tried to do and have in fact declared such things. It's disturbing. Steve Schman talk about the weakness, that its an idiot. How about that we're done with We're done

with him, We're done with him. I just want to know that this is what passes for expert commentary on MSNBC. Say they are the fascist and the you know, the bad people and the stuff and the Hitler idiocy, idiocy, not even intelligent criticism of the president from a so called so called I don't even know if he I think he's now a Democrat. I don't know. He might as well be a Democrat if he's not. That's the guy who ran McCain's presidential campaign. By the way, he

says a lot, doesn't it. You know, this is something I've been talking to a lot of people in DC about in recent weeks, because I've I've had my more than my fill of having to hear from you know, whenever you turn on the TV or you're you know, looking in different editorials, different papers, these never Trump Republicans. When are they going to wake up? I'm not saying they have to defend everything Trump does. I'm not saying

anybody has to defend everything Trump does. I don't. I don't like some of the things that Trump has said and done. I don't agree with Trump on certain things. That's fine, but you got to pick a side, you know, you're on you're on one team on these issues that

you're on the other team. And I just I can't help but notice that with a lot of these people, it's really they pretend that it's all about the republic, you know, they pretend that they're all concerned with how Trump is using this declaration of emergency to seize power and oh my gosh, and the constitution you're shredding it, when really they're just upset and in many cases bitter and envious of people that have been elevated because Trump

has won. Trump has won the election, and his people, the people that are around him are not the standard GOP operatives. You have to remember that a lot of these voices you're hearing from the GOP establishment dynasties, from the McCain camp, from the Romney camp, from the Bush camp, the ones that are all such such principled critics of the administration, the ones that have a blinding hatred for Trump. What they really hate is that they're not important anymore.

What they really hate is that many of these GOP operatives and talking heads and consultants thought that they had paid their dues and it was their turn, and in the Trump era they're shut out. And so what they're presenting to you and Schmidt is certainly in this category. There are many others as well, where they're presenting to you as principled criticism and opposition is really, I want the toys, and I don't have the toys, so I hate everybody. That's the tantrum that these anti Trumpers in

the GOP are engaged in. So I am perfectly willing to hear from honest critics of the president. And as you know, I'm still on very good terms with some pretty well known critics of the president within the GOP, over at National Review and other places. And but you know, they call balls and strikes. They say the president did this, well, the President didn't do that. Well. I don't like the president personally. I like the president's policies. That's that is

a principal position. And President Trump be the fascist, the hitler, and that's an idiot position. And the fact that they give airtime to people so they can say things like that tells you all you need to know about the journalistic ethics or really the lack thereof at these major networks. They are disgracing themselves. But I don't think they have any integrity to protect. And when you have no integrity

to protect, you have endless options. So I guess there's that upside on this issue of the border and the possibility of a state of emergency declared so President Trump can start building this wall. Don't you think that if it were really about the effectiveness of the wall or the cost of the wall, and those two things go hand in hand, don't they. You know, if the wall is expensive and ineffective, it makes it even more of

a political liability. But if it were about that, why such outrage about him starting this What they say is true, these phrases, you know, things people say, Oh, you give me a ten foot wall, I'll give you an eleven foot ladder. This is not These are not positions that have been thought out. These are slogans. This is trying to tap into a mob mentality to overcome a rational response to what is obviously an incredible problem we have, which has led to twenty million illegal aliens in the

country at a minimum. That's the other issue that they've been lying to you about forever. You know, the more information we get about the board and about immigration, the more clear it is that there has been a by partisan effort to hide the reality of our southern border

from the American people. And I've even read wonky analysis by national security geostrategists who say that this notion that the that the immigration that we are in undergoing right now, if you took out of this the domestic politics and the identity politics and all of the toxic racializing of the issue that the Democrats do to make it sound like this is really just about keeping America white. They say things like that publicly, they claim things like that

on TV. Take that out from from this discussion for a moment and look at what's what has been going on and is going on at our border. Any other country would consider it a crisis. Any other country would be doing everything in its power to stop this from continuing. And from a geostrategic position, if you were to analyze this,

you'd say, hold on a second. Not only do you have a mass of illegal, illegal intrusions into a country that are changing the body politic of the country and question that are that are reshaping its politics and having a profound impact on its culture. It's for a country that is contiguous with that country, which historically leads to real instability and leads to outcomes that you know, we don't even want to consider right now, but you know,

political instability that can have long lasting ramifications. It's different when you have tens of millions of people from one country come to another country of a different culture, speaking generally a different language. When that country next door also has a history of having previously controlled owned that land. You know, there's this concept of irridentism, the idea that a country will want back the land that it previously had.

There used to be groups that would talk a bit about this, also the ray Konquista, which was also a historical reference to the expulsion of the Muslim conquerors of Spain, which finally was successful in fourteen ninety two. And some of you have probably seen the movie El sid and

you know how all that stuff went. But there is a difference between people coming from an ocean away and settling in America and a country on our border that does not really respect the border and has a tremendous amount of We want to talk about foreign influence in elections, You want to talk about what the political implications are of having a foreign country having dispersed so many of

its own people into another country. You know, no one ever thinks about this when you're talking about our southern border, or not saying, nobody but you. And if you want to see what I'm talking about, there's a book by Kaplan called The Revenge of Geography where he talks about how geography it's it's essentially an academic explanation of how geography is death. And he says, what's going on with Mexico and the United States is not standard nation to

nation relationship here. And it's not standard immigration either. People coming back and forth, you people paying remittances. You have whole communities forming that are contiguous with the southern border that still have a tremendous affinity and connection to both legally and culturally to their home country. This is not a recipe for unity and success long term in this country. To allow this to continue. The number is now twenty million.

What are we going to wait till it's thirty million? Wait? Over time it'll be forty million. And they're aligned to you about the numbers. Not only they aligned to you about the numbers, but they also don't want to have more accurate numbers to present you with because if the American people really knew what was going on, they would be completely outraged, and the Pelosi Schumer wing or the Democrat Party wouldn't have a leg to stand on anymore.

I mean, they would have to just go open borders, which I would note I don't think that's an unthinkable position for them. Let me just take you back to this. You will recall that when Obama was pushing Obamacare, and I was right in the middle of that debate, I was just getting going in conservative media. I was at the blaze people like me, among many many other conservatives. I'm not saying that I was some kind of a visionary. Here we were saying, this is a this is a

pathway to to single payer? Is this is this is just meant to be a bridge to single payer? And they were saying, ah, no, this is just the Massachusetts plan that Mitt Romney came up with. This is actually a conservative plan, this is a Heritage Foundation plan. We're not going to use this as a bridge. And here we are o'cazeo, Cortez, Warren, whoever. The Democrat of the moment is what are they talking about Medicare for all,

which is single payer? So what six years ago they were telling us was a slander against Democrats is now their policy. If we can't stop them now and build a border wall, I assure you it is well within the range of possibility that within six years, perhaps sooner than six years, especially if you have a Democrat president coming to twenty twenty, you will have a mass amnesty.

That's not that's the first thing they're gonna do, a mass amnesty, and you will have an effort to have a comprehensive immigration reform that will not only have the amnesty, but will also do everything short of completely erasing our southern border. People can come and go as they please, come back and forth. You know. All they're all they're gonna want to do is tax productive activity in this country as long as they can find you when you're here to tax you. If you make enough to be taxed,

which most illegals don't, then that's all fine. That's what they're gonna want. It'll be the closest thing to open borders of any country in the world. And some of my well intentioned but I think slightly delusional libertarian friends will say, oh, this will just make us richer and better off. Really, I'd like to see the evidence for that, and don't just point through we'll have a bigger GDP. Yeah, I know, that's like saying we'll have more more bodies

in a room. Great, what are they doing there? But it's it's go time. The president knows it's go time. This issue has to be resolved and he should. He should declare a state of emergency in tonight. If he doesn't. If he doesn't do it, I think he's missing a huge opportunity. And more importantly, I think he's missing what needs to be done for the country. And I have not heard any compelling, any compelling reason for him not

to do it, not a single one. You know, you have to remember that too, when when you hear the detractors, when you hear people who are opposed to this for some reason, there's always there's all this different stuff that they they throw at you, and when you deal with them one by one, you realize this is all flimsy. It's not that much money. It does work. Congress has voted for this on a bipartisan basis in the past. It isn't his power to declare an emergency. We do

have the technical know how to build a barrier. So what really is the opposition to this? Don't let Trump win, That's all it is. Don't let Trump get his way. If he gets his way on this, the Trump movement is actualized, it is delivering, it is successful, it will have momentum. Ultimately, what this really is about for Pelosi and Schumer as they know if Trump gets this wall, he's going to win in twenty twenty, They're going to have Trump for another four years. What do you think

they're willing to do to prevent that? What lengths or Democrats willing to go to to stop that from happening. Well, you're starting to see it. We've got more. Stay with me. All Americans, not only in the States most heavily affected, but in every place in this country, are rightly disturbed by the large numbers of illegal aliens entering our country. The jobs stay home might otherwise be held by citizens or legal immigrants. The public service they use imposed burdens

on our taxpayers. Oh my gosh, that Bill Clinton is such a racist. How could he be such a racist? You know who else said stuff about how legal immigration was bad, Barack Obama? You know who well said stuff about how legal immigration is a cost both economically and socially in our country. Hillary Clinton. We can play audio of all these different people, Chuck Schumer. Illegal immigration was

bad until a couple of years ago. Maybe you know, you go to the second half of the Obama administration, when all of a sudden they were trying to get comprehensive immigration reformed through and then we realize, oh, wait a second, they aren't really opposed to this. They like this because it gives them power, because it plays into the identity politics and the state dependence that Democrats need in order to achieve power. So we're not playing on

the same We're not playing on team Border Patrol. They're playing on team Open Borders. And we've realized this. But just like the way that Americans who are paying attention to know the mainstream media is dishonest, the mainstream media is still pretends it's not. People have figured out a lot of them that the Democrats are dishonest, but doesn't mean everybody's figured it out when it comes to immigration. Certainly,

mister Snoop Dogg himself has not figured it out. He's rather upset about what Trump is doing on the government shut down. Let us let us hear from mister Snoop play all you people for the federal government that got getting not getting paid right now, ain't no win the world. Y'all can vote for Donald Trump when he come back up again, if it is, if y'all do vote for him, y'all some stupid mother. I'm saying that to y'all early all you federal government people, that's not being paid, that's

being treated unfairly right now, not being paid. That's so terrible. And this pump mother, I don't care. So I'm saying that to say this. When Dick get back on and y'all get your jobs back and it's time to vote, don't vote for that. Please, don't look what you do. He just don't give a y'all honest, blue collar, hard working people and suffering. So if he don't care about y'all, you really don't give a about us, So for him too. Funk everybody down with Donald Trump? I said, he yeah,

Snoop Dogg Kim people shut the government down. Piece. I think we have a I think we have a Democrat twenty twenty candidate, folks. I think he's I think he's ready for Iowa. You know, if they're okay with their congress congresswoman speaking about Trump that way, why not have Snoop Dogg in the mix. Although if he ran, I'm sure a lot of a lot of million, tensi millions Democrats would vote for him. So there's that. Andy McCarthy's coming up. He's gonna make some legal sense of all this,

so stick around for that. I want to introduce you to a new conservative alternative to all those super lib progressive email services I patriots dot Us. I patriots dot us is secure in private. It has more of what you want with none of the nonsense. All those ads in spam forget that stuff. With ipatriots, you get thirty gigs of cloud storage and larger attachment size is It's just a betterall, better overall email system for your use.

And they won't sell your information or support liberal agenda items like a lot of those free email providers out there. So show your a patriot. Go check out I patriots dot us, knowing that it's compatible with most mobile devices iPhone, iPad, Android, Windows Mobile, BlackBerry, you name it. You got ipatriots dot us. Now choose your membership program and input your desired ipatriots email address. During checkout, you enter promo code buck that's

buc K for ten percent savings during your first year membership. Again, enter promo code buck for ten percent savings during your first year of membership. There's no question that we will litigate, and there will be litigation. These are moments in our country where the beauty of the design of our democracy is being tested. And if you think about our democracy of the Republicans being a tabletop standing on four legs, there are three independent, coequal branches of government and a

free and independent press. And so what is happening over and over again in the last two years is those other branches of government and the courts and the press will put the checks and balances on the outrageous conduct of this administration. If clares an emergency, I think that we will see again the checks and balances kick in, in particulars through the courts. Lawsuits are a coming, not a surprise, I think, But how will those shake out?

Does the president have the authority to declare a state of emergency and build a wall? Is he, in fact the commander in chief who can do that? We have with us now, the one and only Andy McCarthy, writer for National Review, Fox News contributor, former federal prosecutor. Andy. Great to have you back. Happy new year, Block, Happy new year. Great to be here. All right. So we don't know as we go to air here whether the President will in fact a clary state of emergency tonight.

But let's because because it doesn't have to be tonight, right, So it doesn't really If he does well, then he has He could also declare state of emergency in a week or a month, assuming the situation, the borders the same, and the president decides to what in your mind happens Andy if he goes that route, how does this play out? We know this much. One's going to file lawsuit over it. Yeah. Well, I have mixed feelings about this book, just because I

think it's it's really bad policy. I thought this when Obama did it. You know, one classic example with Obama, everybody thinks about his own immigration pronouncements, right, which were completely unsupported by statutory law and we're undertaken. Even though he wasn't relying on a statute that talked about declaring an emergency. He basically said that there was an emergency because Congress wouldn't do what he wanted it to do,

so he just did it. And the press didn't seem to whipped up about that, but they're obviously always whipped up about Trump. I think it's bad policy for the president to do this sort of thing. You know, the way our governing framework is supposed to work, we really don't have three co equal branches. Of government. Congress is supposed to be the article one branch. They're supp is to be the ones making policy. It hasn't really been

that way since the Progressive error. But that's not the way it's supposed to be, or the way it's supposed to be is that Congress writes the laws and the president carries them out. And the other thing that's interesting Herebuck is he does have, undoubtedly I think, statutory authority to do this, and those the statutes, which these kinds

of statutes are strewn throughout the federal Code. One of the things I don't like about them is this is the way that Congress abdicates it's duty that we elect them to carry out. So they, you know, they take a bunch of their legislative authority and they delegate it to the administrative state agencies. And then they take another bunch of their authority and they delegate it to the president, and then they go on cable TV and complain that

they don't like the way things are. But in the meantime, they don't do the job that we sent them there for the other thing that's interesting about this book is the statutes allow him to declare a state of emergency and even allow him to reallocate or reprogram funds Defense Department funds. If he finds that it's a you know, it's a national emergency that requires the military, he can he the statutes say he can do this. There is nothing in the statutes that allows or calls for the

court to be able to review this. The Congress has basically left us up to the president's judgment. But I think two things are interesting. One is, if there is an emergency on the border, it's caused by Congress's laws and you know, basically court decisions or litigation that the

Justice Department was involved in. But the situation that we have with this new dominant class of asylum seekers who come to US, which are now predominantly families with children as opposed to know these are families with children from Central America rather than working age men from Mexico. So the demographic of the population that wants to come in has changed. Our law has not kept up with it. So it's it's basically overwhelmed our ability to deal with

it administratively. But basically Trump would be invoking a statute to address an emergency that's been caused by statutes. Now, Andy, a lot of very important stuff that you on their courtesy of mister McCarthy, But one thing really struck struck me as as yours being there, which is that this this idea that you're telling me that the president probably does have the authority and it may not even be

reviewed by courts. Is that is that right? Yeah? Well, here's the thing, Buck, there's that's a big deal, and there's yeah, well, there's what should happen, and there's what does happen. So we have a number of these laws that give the president sweeping authority to deal with crises, and most of these laws allow the president to decide whether there's a crisis or not unilaterally, and they don't

allow for court review of that. The statutes basically say, if the president, in his judgment decides X, then we have to assume X, and then he can do the following things which are in the nature of legislation. Which is why I object to this. And it's correct for a number of my friends who are illegal analysts to say that should be judicially unreviewable because the statute doesn't

allow for judicial reviews. But what I keep saying back down here on planet Earth, where President Obama in eight years put three hundred and forty judges on the federal bench,

many of whom are progressive activists. The fact that statutes don't allow for judicial review has not to this point prevented them from engaging in judicial review, right, you know, so, I don't know that the fact that either the statutes say what they say or pass president indicates that the president has this kind of sweeping authority is going to back up a progressive activist who's been put on you know,

the federal district court someplace. And what we've seen again and again and again is that these judges are willing not only to block the president but try to impose their orders as if they were national hamstrings on the president rather than you know, something that just affected that district.

How would you assess your your certainty? We're speaking to Annie McCarthy, everybody of National Review and Fox News contributor, h Annie, how would you address assess your and address your your certainty about whether the president fundamentally has the power to do this? I mean, is this a is this a clear call? Is this a gray area issue? Because you're hearing people say he just flatly can't, right,

But they're Democrats. Yeah, of course, right, I say, yeah, this is why this if this question is hard buck. If we were just dealing with the four corners of the statue, um, I'd say he absolutely has the authority. I wouldn't have any I wouldn't have any hesitant. And what is the applicable statute? You know, I had it in front of me a second ago, and I should have known you were going to ask me that question. Ah,

here it is. It's it's a section twenty two ninety three of Title thirty three of the US Code, which basically empowers the president to declare a national emergency and to reprogram funds to construct civil defense project if the president deems that they're essential to national defense. So the statute says, if the president decides that there is a national emergency, and you know, it enables him to do various things, including reallocate funds. So that's what the statute says.

But when you have these these progressive analysts who are saying he absolutely doesn't have the authority, what they are assuming is something that doesn't that the statute doesn't say. But they may well turn out to be right about which is that some judge is going to look at that, and the Justice Department's going to say, there's nothing in this statute, your honor, that gives you the authority to

review the president's decision. And the judge is going to say, I don't see anything in here that tells me I can't, and then we're off to the races. So right, see,

But this is also really important. I think that very few people, because it hasn't come up much in the discussion the news coverage of this, would know that this isn't an implied you know, a lot of time with presidential authority, you get into implied power or you know, under his role as commander in chief or in his executive role, we assume, or we have in the past, you know, said there's the discretion here, And of course that's why we have Andy McCarthy in the show. He's

actually got the statute right in front of him. You're telling me that, no, it is explicitly the law that he can do this, and I think people need to hear that and know that. Buck let me let me read you the first two lines of the statute. In the event of a declaration of war or a declaration by the president of a national emergency in accordance with the national emergency factism. That's a whole another statute that deals with when the president declares national emergencies that requires

or may require the use of the armed forces. So what the statute explicitly says is in a situation where the president has declared that there's a national emergency that requires the armed forces, there's nothing in that statute that says a judge has the authority to second guess the commander in chief who we've elected on the question whether there is a national emergency that requires the use of the armed forces. Now, I don't agree that Congress should

be giving the president these kinds of sweeping powers. I would prefer since we're not in the eighteenth century anymore, and it's not hard for Congress to convene. I'd rather we waited most of the time until there was an actual emergency and let the Congress pass a statute that tells the president what he can do. But this isn't like the law according to Andy, this is federal law,

and the Congress has given the president this authority. That's really it's important stuff, and I'm glad I'm glad we're helping get it out there. People should really know. And yes, it will go into the courts real, real quick, ending before we have to go into a break. If the court, let's you know, the Ninth Circuit, if they enjoy this, how long before we'll get an answer as to whether the President is right? You know, it has to make it most likely. I know that the courts after, you know,

the Supreme Court has to agree to take it. But what's the timetable here? Well, Buck, I think that if we go by the travel ban. The President put the travel ban into effect in January twenty seventeen, right after he got elected, and it ultimately was decided by the Supreme Court I believe in June of twenty eighteen, so about a year and a half. Now, that doesn't mean that this is necessarily a model for everything else, but I can I can tell people from experience federal judges

and courts in general, including appellate courts. You know, one of the great things about our system is we expect them to enforce the law because we don't put political pressure on them. They're not accountable to voters. But that always that also means that they marched to their own beat, and they decide things when they're good and ready to

decide them. So we may think something's an emergency and it needs to be resolved right away, but you know, the courts get around to things when they get around to things. Andy, can we keep you here talking about velni Sky for just a couple of minutes after the break? Yeah, of course, sure. Guys. We got Annie McCarthy. We're gonna talk about this latest tie into possibly the Mueller probe or is it or isn't it? Or a southern district what's going on? A lawyer with ties into this whole

Russia mess from the meeting at Trump Tower. She's gotten herself indicted and he's gonna explain what it means coming up. All right, we're back with Andie McCarthy here. Andy, So we've gone over national emergency powers in the president. But now tell me what is this about. Natalia Veselnitskaya, who was the lawyer who sat down with Don Junior, Kushner and Maniford and Trump Tower, also has ties to Fusion GPS, by the way, and that whole Ary Hillary connection. What

do you make of this? She's been indicted for obstruction by the Southern District. People are confused, but they know there's something up. Yeah, well Buck. You know. This is very interesting to me because over a year ago I wrote a column about the curious case of Natalia vessel Nitskaya and the connection there, aside from what we knew about her in connection with the Don Junior and the Trump Tower meeting, is the fact that she was in

the United States operating as a lawyer. And there was a lot of talk at the time that maybe the Justice Department had set Don Junior up by letting her come here to have this meeting. It turns out she's come a couple of times and only once at the behest of the Justice Department, and it wasn't that wasn't the time that she had the Trump Tower meeting. But she shouldn't have been allowed to come to the United States.

This was my argument in the first place, because she's not eligible to work as a lawyer here, and what she said she wanted to do here was be a lawyer for a Kremlin connected a big business guy from Russia, the Katsis, who run a business called Prevazon Holdings that was connected up with the murder and the distribution of millions of dollars in fraudo and proceeds that was uncovered by this guy, Sergei Magnitsky, who the Magnitsky Act is named after. Yeah, I was not trying to implicate Catsi

in the murder. I don't know that there's any evidence of that. But he was implicated and his business was implicated in the distribution of the fraudjo proceeds, and the Southern District did a money laundering civil forfeiture action to try to claim about fourteen million dollars of the proceeds from him, and she worked on the case to help represent him. But she's not a lawyer in the United States.

She's not authorized to practice law here, and I think the Southern District was pressured by the judge to allow her to come into the United States for purposes of the litigation. And as I pointed out in the piece I wrote over a year ago, you know, while she was here, she really didn't too much of anything of value, at least that the court of the government could detect for purposes of the case. But she did build American taxpayers a lot of money to stay in the plaza

and was the high life for a few weeks. So why is she arrested, Well, she's now they're saying that in connection with this representation that she really shouldn't have been allowed to participate in because she's not again, she's not eligible to be a lawyer. Here, she provided the Southern District of New York with essentially false exculpatory evidence about the connection of the catsives to the scheme and whether the Russian government was involved at all in the

murder of Magnitsky. And as you may recall, Buck, one of the big things that she's pushed here is she's been basically Putin's activist in the United States to try to get Congress to repeal the Magnitsky Act. Putin hates the Magnitsky Act because it allows the government to try to attach millions of dollars that belongs to his cronies and maybe part of his own personal fortune for all I know. But one of his big pet peeves has been to try to get this thing repealed, and she's

been his point person on that. And the way that they this stick works is that you know, she basically runs around and says it was Magnitsky and this guy, Bill Browder, who with the real frauds who stole all the money, and they've pinned the whole thing on the poor Kremlin, and the Kremlin's innocent. That's her, you know, that's the that's the thing that she pedals and he hold that thought. We gotta we gotta hit a quick commercial break and we come right back you we can

finish with what this means about the Muller probe. Everybody stay with me, all right, Andy, Sorry, we you know, we gotta we gotta keep the lights ons. We gotta go to our commercial break there. But but just tell me what. So we're talking about Vezelnitzkaya. She's the lawyer at Trump Tower. Initially they say it's about adoptions. She's there with Donald Trump Junior, with Jared Kushner, with Mana Ford.

You're saying she has been the prutent and the Kremlin's point person in the US, effectively working as an agent of influence for Russia, trying to get the Magnitsky Act for Peel. The Magnitsky Act name for Serage Magnitsky, which we know about because of Bill know about a lot of people know about it because of Bill Browder his book read Notice where essentially there's a huge fraud, the Russians try to steal a bunch of money, Magnitsky figured it out, and they killed them in prison. It's used

to sanction bad people around the world. Now we find out that she, meaning Vezlnitskaya, who was essentially playing what playing the Southern District for fools, and so now they're going to prosecute her for obstruction. Is that is that

pretty much where we are right now? Yeah, you've basically nailed that she was involved in the case against prevason holding, that the Southern District brought Prevason Holding is run by the cats of Family, who are pals of Putins, and she basically provided evidence that was exculpatory of them and exculpatory of the Russian government in connection with the murder of Magnitsky. And so does this have anything you know,

people reporting on them today. You know lawyer a lawyer tied to Trump Tower meeting indicted and there was all this, Oh, this sounds like Muller. But from what you're telling me, this sounds like she just got into a jam. That is that is truly unrelated at least with regard to these charges to Russia collusion, Trump Tower meeting or any of that stuff. Is that your reader or is there another layer to this? Well, I think that is my read book. But let's let's caveat this with what we've

experienced in connection with Cohen. Right, So, Michael Cohen was also prosecuted by the Southern District for crimes that was seemingly unrelated to Trump, and that led him to be basically, you know, squeezed and put him in a position where you know, Muller was able to get out of him or the Southern District was able to get out of him. Um, I guess Smaller also additional information over which she was prosecuted.

Remember Muller than pro secuted him for making false statements in a transaction that shows that the Trump organization was negotiating this Trump Tower in Moscow throughout twenty sixteen. They didn't cut it off at the beginning of twenty sixteen, as Trump had represented. So you know, if they have her jammed up and they can acquire her presence, I don't know if she's actually been arrested. I assume if

she's in Russia, we'll never see her again. But if they can actually arrest her and get her to provide information that could run down to the benefit of Mueller's investigation if what we've seen in Cohen's case is any indication. But we'll just have to wait it out and see what happened. Andy MacArthur, everybody of Natural Review read his latest there also look for him on Fox News and Andy as always my friend. Thank you so much for being really generous with your time today and we will

talk to you soon. Thanks so much, Bucky, great to tell take care. You know, I had a chance, and I know we went along there with Andy. He's one of he's one of the most knowledgeable, humble and nicest guys in the business. You know, I can tell you that Andy, and it's not just me who falls this category. You know, if I have a question about something, I can reach out to Andy, so because I never want to you know, get ahead of my skis or or you know, mess up on a legal matter. You know,

I can go to Andy and he's alway. He's just very generous with his time. He's a really good dude. And you know, uh credit to Fox for for picking him up and understanding how important his voice is in the current, the current conversation about the entirety of our justice system and what's really happening. But I had a chance today on On Rising, and actually this was a pre tape interview, so you're getting a little preview of what's coming up tomorrow WOA, and we had we had

a phenomenal sit down with Grover Norquist. That guy is a mean, lean tax analysis machine. We had a lot of fun talking about taxes. Man. He gets into the those taxes. But I talk to a woman who is a long time judge in the immigration courts, and there's some very important takeaways from that interview that you can see on Hill Dot TV tomorrow. One of them is that the court this idea that people are showing up at our border and they just want their day in

court is preposterous. Okay, because the backlog it is being made worse. I'm just gonna say it's the backlog is being made worse right now by the shutdown. So the backlog is going up, and it's already eight hundred thousand cases, eight hundred thousand cases. You have judges who are seeing fifty or sixty immigration cases a day. I think about how many hours in a day there, How can you

spend any real time? I mean, this is just this is pro forma and you know, I asked, and there's different categorization of what kind of individuals are coming before them with an immigration system. But I said, you know what is the you know, she was very clear, and look, I could tell the judge leans a little leans a little left. And I'm going to get into that in a moment. When I said, you know, what is the number of people who are no shows for their hearings?

You know what is that? What is the number of people who just do not ever, you know, show up when called? And she said, it's about ten percent of immigrants don't show up for their hearings. Now, keep in mind, if you miss your hearing date, you go to the back of the line, which could mean you know more,

you know, more years of waiting. And if you miss it, for example, because of the government shutdown, if you miss it through no fault of your own, if you miss it and you're in default, I assume they or you know, you're just a no show, whatever they call it. I

assume that they probably moved to removal proceedings. But then they have to find you and you know, you got eight hundred thousand people the immigration court system right now who are trying to have their claims adjudicated, and you've got I asked her how many unaccompanied miners and she said this was anecdotal, so this was not an official statistic.

I said, how many unaccompanied miners are staying in the country that you see, Meaning, if you show up at the border, you're sixteen, seventeen years old, what's the chance you get to stay in the country legally? Never mind if you just stay because you're not going to be deported, because you're not going to be deported. And she said it's about forty percent, so getting pretty close to half.

And I can tell you this, half of them are being waved in by immigration judges and the other half are being told, well, you have to go home, but we got to figure out how to do that, and you're a low priority. So they're never going to get deported and sent back to their families in their home country where they're actually a citizen. So the immigration courts

themselves are a huge problem in this whole process. The immigration courts have lots of these judges that have effectively a more of the merrier attitude that's going on here. You got to keep that in mind. Got a White House correspondent joining us at a moment to give a little preview what's coming up tonight. Vice President's basic point Democrats are ignoring a crisis and says the President really is considering declaring a national emergency to go around Congress.

Your response, it's just not true. It's just simply not true. There was a bipartisan effort out of the United States Senate and the United States Congress to pass a funding of the government, and the President is holding it up because of his vanity project, which is this wall at taxpayers expense and at the expensive hundreds of thousands of workers who are working every day without being paid. So it's just simply not true. He's an emergency of his

own creator. Is the President going to declare a national emergency? We're going to know here shortly after the show finishes up, but it looks very possible. We got somebody who can give us a bit of insight to the intrigue and the backstory going on at the White House right now. Amber Eighth is with us. She is the Daily Callers. White House correspondents she's with us. Amber, thanks so much for joining. Of course, thanks for having me Buck. All right, So what what did you hear from folks at the

White House? First of all, I mean, is it clear that he is going to declare stat of emergency? Is this one of these things where he hasn't done it yet but everybody, everybody who knows kind of knows he's going to. Yeah, it's not totally clear. My sources haven't indicated one way or the other whether he's going to the only thing that I've heard definitively is that this speech is going to make news, and that's happening tonight

at nine o'clock. The reason I'm leaning towards him declaring the national emergency is because of all of his statements over the past week. He first brought this up, I think it was last Wednesday, and then he repeated it again later where he said he would see how the government shut down negotiations went over the next few days to determine whether or not he would declare a state of emergency. Based on the fact that the negotiations haven't

progressed at all. The Democrats are still all bringing something like one point six billion for the vague border security, whereas Trump of course wants five point seven for a wall, humanitarian aid, and a few other measures. The fact that there's still at that impast leads me to believe that the only way the president is going to get what he wants in terms of wall funding is to declare

national emergency and bringing the military to build it. And so the the Democrats, their position right now is that there are they still they still have this one point whatever at one point seven billion, one point six billion that's on the table. But that's all that's on the table, right right, And that's not for a wall. That's the important distinction. That's not, you know, meeting the president sort

of close to halfway for wall funding. They're talking about a much more vague version of border security, and what they're mainly referring to there is technology like sensors and cameras, what some people might refer to as a virtual wall, but it in no way includes flats or concrete walls or any kind of actual physical barrier on the border, which is really going to be a non starter for the president. And I would also note that this is

not reported by other folks as much. I'm sure you've been on this one amber that the president as part of what he's asked for the border, there's emergency humanitarian funding essentially, more beds, more doctors, more judges, more lawyers, more, more of everything to deal with the border. But Democrats don't talk about any of that either. They're just like, Oh,

he just wants his wall, that's all he wants. Meanwhile, I think that they're starting to lose this argument that the wall doesn't work, and enough people who are senior in border patrol down through the ranks of just season border patrol agents see and have seen recently at at the San Diego San Ya Cedro border crossing, that it does in fact work. So I think that line has been tough. I think the it's too much money when

you're talking but Democrats is kind of laughable. So really this gets boiled down to it's just about political opposition to Trump more than anything else. That's exactly what it is. Because this wall wasn't something that Trump just dreamed up

out of nowhere. You could make the argument that perhaps the idea of a concrete wall all the way across the border wasn't realistic, but the wall is something that border patrol agents have been asking for and they've specifically asked for the latest sort of what Trump calls the wall, which is the steel slaps, because they want something that see through so that they can see threats coming on

the other side of the border. An important aspect of this, and this is something that came out yesterday, as if the President does decide to declare a state of emergency, he would face a congressional challenge. They can pass a joint resolution nullifying the state of emergency. But yesterday the White House said that the one point of agreement between Democrats and Republicans was that there is in fact to

crisis at the border. So it's going to be difficult to convince, especially the Republican led Senate, to vote against the president's state of emergency when Democrats have already admitted there's a crisis going on. Yeah. I've started off the show today talking about how this idea that there is no crisis at the border when all summer we were being told is because they wanted to run lots of footage of you know, babies crying, and you know, they've

been telling us there's a crisis all along. Now that Trump is trying to address the crisis and use his powers which we've which have been established here. We've talked to Annie McCarthy, we'll be talking to Anthie McCarthy about this. Established the powers to do this, he has them under statute. There's no crisis line. I think it's desperate. I think

the Democrats are. They're running out of leeway. Well, especially when this was the same party that was trying to blame the president and blame border patrol agents for the death of two children on the border. But when you look into that, you find us actually policies that are encouraging illegal immigration and encouraging families to try to cross the border. The family of the I believe he was eight years old, the eight year old boy who died,

maybe he was seven. His family admitted that they brought him to the border because they thought that he would have an easier time getting the family into the United States. So when you have policies that encourage things like that, you encourage parents to bring children on their truck across the border. There's no physical barrier there to stop them. They can claim asylum as soon as they get one foot on US soil. Those are all things that need

to be addressed. I think the wall is one starting point. Broader immigration reform will be the next step. And I want to switch gears from moment we're speaking, we're speaking to Amber athe over at the Daily Caller. She's the White House correspondent, so she's in the White House all the time and falling up with all these people. Jim Shujo from c Yeah, whom I've had. I've had my own interactions with in person and in cyberspace. He had a little dispute today. Why don't you just tell us

what happened. Yeah, so, Jim Shudo, he is a former Obama official. He's now a CNN anchor. Quite a transition. He has been claiming basically for the past year. This was just the most recent of many claims that Republicans were the first to fund the Steel dossier, which if you know the timeline of this, you know it's simply not true. The Washington Free Beacon, of course, paid for

standard opposition research from Fusion GPS. Months later, after they stopped paying the DNC and Clinton, the Clinton campaign took up a new contract with Fusion GPS to compile this dossier about Trump's connections to Russia. They hired Christopher Steele to look into that. It was totally separate from anything that the Free Beacon was doing with Fusion GPS. It's pretty cut and dry. Shudo, of course, keeps claiming that

Republicans started the dossier. It's I guess it's some kind of way to absolve Democrats as creating this very much unverified document. He made the claim again today. I pointed it out on Twitter, and he refuses to address the fact that the claim is not accurate. Instead, he responds in this condescending manner, quoting what he said from the transcript, as if that somehow makes what he said any more factual.

So I'm going to be on this. I'm still working reaching out the CNN and talking to people who know the dossier inside and out, just try to get a correction on this claim. But based on how long I've been pushing him on this, it seems more and more unlikely. Yeah, well he is. He excels in smarm by the way

he likes to Yeah, I will. I will tell you he's a smarmy fellow, and he's one of these people also that that will occasionally do the reach out to me personally be like, you know, for your own good, I think you should tone it down on X or Y, And I'm always like, for your own good, don't talk to me clown show. So yeah, Well, one person responded to him and said something like, sue her. She's defaming you, and I might try it. Sue me because I know

I'm right. Yeah, I know exactly. CNN fake news, unabashed, unabashedly, so they revel in it. They fake news is the water in which they swim, and the water is warm. One thing for you know, if everybody in the media gets things wrong, sometimes I get things wrong. I try to correct them and apologize when I make mistakes. This is just so intentional and it's repetitive that it's become delicious at this point. Yep. No interest in correcting the record.

Absolutely the case. Well, I just wanted to get that on the record, Amber Athy, everybody of the Daily Caller, Amber Gray work, come back talk to us soon. Thanks so much. Buck. You're probably familiar with AARP. You or someone you know might already be a member, But did you know that the AARP is really a left wing organization. The AARP font tooth and nail for a government run healthcare system, and they stood again, ends tax cuts for

middle class Americans. So forget about the AARP, but get all the benefits you get from the AIRP with a better organization. I recommend AMAC. Why AMAC? Will you see? AMAC is all about the things that you're all about, border protection, limited government, limited taxation. It is the conservative alternative to the AAARP. And over one point five million Americans have already joined AMAC, and that number is growing. If you're a conservative, you're eligible and you want all

the benefits of AARP without the liberal nonsense. Stand with AMAC as they fight the good fight by becoming a member today. The benefits are great, but the cause is even greater. Tell your family, tell your friends, join us right now at AMAC dot us slash buck that's AMAC dot us slash buck AMAC. Better for you, Better for America. Oh, the media pretends that they aren't a bunch of anti

Trump lunatics. We know this, right, We know the mainstream media is still clings desperately to this fiction that they're just they're just like reporters telling the truth, man, Like do you just speaking truth to power? They gain even know like we ever mean false? You could say fake news. They're lying, this is not true, and the ruse is wearing very thin. You know, this is not going to continue all that much longer. I think people have gotten

too wise to this. You know, if you want liberal news, you should watch liberal news. If you want conservative news, you should watch conservative news. Everybody's facts have to be accurate or else they have no credibility. The issue should not be about whether you know. To be objective is not the same thing as to be factual. That's where that's where the illusion lies here. To be objective is not really feasible in the news business because of all

the decisions that are made around editorial and narrative. Right to be objective is not something that you can you can really say with a straight phase. For the most part, there are some people that I think do a pretty good job of presenting narratives that try to be objective the events happening in the new cycle, but very few that all said, CNN is not in that category, right, CNN is the hashtag resistance, and they're not even as good at being the resistance as MSNBC, So really they're

the runner up resistance channel. How they're just even a little bit crazier. But there was quite an exchange caught today over at over at the White House on the White House lawn where for those of you who you catch it sometimes on TV, they have almost these little stalls set up with canopies over them where the different reporters will do their hits at the White House. You know, it really is set up so you have the White House as the backdrop, and you have your White House reporters.

They're set up. But I've been over there a bunch of times, and you you see people coming and going out there in the lawn, and sometimes you have a little exchange with them. Right. Well, here's an exchange that was a bit a bit spicier than the average one. This was Jim Acosta, Jim Shooko and miss Kelly and Conway getting into it. Play fifteen. Can you promise that the president will tell the truth tonight? Will he tell the truth? Yes? Jim? And can you promise that you will?

I will the whole ship and nothing about the truths to help you? God? Am I last mentioned God? Now? Well, you know, Jim minutes to cheap make sure that goes viral. Okay, this is why, By the way, this is why I'm one of the only people around here who even gives you the time a day. Can you can you and let me leybe, just let me get back in your face, because you're such a smart ass most of the time,

and I know you want this to go viral. A lot of these people don't like you, But let me just be respectful to the media bit large as I always am. I explained that that was alternative information, additional facts, and I explained it many times. And don't you put it back in my face. For all the corrections that your network needs to issue, I was on your network twenty five or twenty six times in twenty eighteen. I'm one of the last people here who even bother to

go on. And the disrespect that you showed to me personally, I'll just look pass. No, Jim Acosta is a smug schmuck. He just is. I mean, he should be an embarrassment to CNN. Meanwhile, he's more valuable to CNN than ever before. What does that tell you about that network? Um? Why does he By the way, I think I thought Jim Shuto was in that clip. I may I maybe it may have just been Jim Acosta a Shooto in there as well. Uh maybe not maybe not. No, he wasn't there.

That wouldn't make sense. I'm sorry, I got, I got my Jim's pardon me, I retract. See, unlike CNN when I'm wrong, I'll say it. Jim Shuto wasn't there as well. It was just Jim Acosta. I got my gym's messed up. I got, I got Shooto on the mind because we're talking to Amber about him before. But you know, Acosta

is just act acting like a punk here. I mean, can you imagine for a moment the backlash that would happen if you had a major network reporter or a multi millionaire network reporter who said, is President Obama going to tell the truth tonight? It's President Obama not going to be a liar to night. That's not a question, that's an attack. We're not a bunch of infants. We understand what shoot sorry, what Acosta is trying that they're interchangeable.

Really what Acosta is trying to do here, and the fact that Kelly Anne stands her ground there and tears back into him is just great. You know, this is for all of the unfinished business of the Trump administration and there's a lot there's a lot of things that have not been accomplished yet. Although the wall is still a live issue. Man, he's you got to give the president credit for fighting on this one. He's and taking a lot of pressure. He's not backing down one inch.

And I'm really looking forward to seeing to hearing and seeing what he has to say tonight on this issue. But the fact of the matter is that their willingness, the the Trump Administration's willingness from Trump on down to fight back against the media is a you know, we often are told about, oh, you know, the standard that Trump set here or there that we're going to have

to live with later. And sometimes that's true. You know, when when a Democrat comes along and you know, he's a guy who's you know, had seven wives and you know, has a has a fondness for, you know, spending time with exotic dancers, it's going to be tough for Republicans to say, well, that persons not of the character that we want in the White House. Right, so there are something some precedents that have been set here that aren't going to be that easy for us to live with

or won't be great going down the line. But we make a judgment call about that, and the judgment is that overall, it is more valuable to have Trump pushing for his agenda and to have Trump in the White House than the backlash that we deal with, both from the media in a dated a sense and then down the line in our inability without looking hypocritical, to criticize a future Democrat politician for some personal failings. But the fight against the media is I think I think this

has changed the game. I don't think it's ever going to go back to the way that it was. I think that Trump has has, you know, kicked the hornet's nest here in a good way, meaning that now we really see how they respond, how they react, and because of the Internet and because of our ability to draw upon these conversations down the line and know what the media was saying now, just like we know what they

said about Obama. You know, Yes, Trump has played a very large role in exposing how left wing, how progressive, what a bunch of activists the mainstream media are. He's he's been essential in this process. It's really among immigration and him fighting in the media are my two favorite things about Trump. The two best things about this presidency. Trade, we'll see, you know, I don't know. We got to see how it works out with China. That's I'm on

the fence on that one. But immigration and fighting back in the media, the President's been incredible. And then also our ability. Now I mean you, as as a listener to the show, know that we have access to what the media was saying before in a way that twenty

years ago we just didn't. So they could say, you know, they could pretend that they were just as hard on this president as they were on the last president and vice versa, based upon their short and petty political needs, whereas now we go, no, no, that's not what you You know, the last time this similar thing happened, this is how you responded, you know, when Obama was I've got a part in a phone, I'm gonna talk action,

I'm gonna do things. When Obama was running around in unconstitutional fashion, acting in authoritarian mode, the press was making excuses when up now with the national emergency that may be declared here pretty soon and just a matter of moments or a matter of hours, I should say, it depends on when you're listening to this, right could be

the next day that's in his statutory authority. But they're saying that he's being some crazy authoritarian with that, you know, they say that he's way he's way out of line and on this issue. And I just have to say, well, hold on a second. I remember what the media was like when Obama was in power, and I remember what they're and now I see what they're like with Trump,

and that really matters. And then you add to that just how many journalists are tweeting and retweeting left wing activist propaganda and agit prop from the move on dot orgs and the Daily Cos and the huff Post and all these just these giant piles of steamy liberal crap lousiness on the internet, and and and then those journalists turned out to say, oh, no, I don't have an opinion. I'm just, you know, just the facts, man, And I

don't think so. I don't think so. So I really like that that Kelly Anne, you know, called out Jimmy Acosta. But the problem is that the more that Jimmy Acosta gets called out, the more his fans think that what he's doing is really journalism and support him, and the more valuable he becomes in Zucker's war against against Trump. You know, I told you I have a friend who

was there when Jeff Zucker and his assistant. She was on the phone and she said, if Trump wants to go to war with CNN, CNN's gonna go to war with Trump. That was during the election. That was during the primary. I think memory serves it might have been during the general. I forget now, but I spoke to

a person who was there. So that's why when when you know, uh, smug Tapper and clownish Acosta and and and bro Cuomo and the whole squad of overpaid mediocrities over there, when they get all high and mighty about how their journals, I'm like, you guys, are you guys are just living in a big lie. You're just all part of a big falsehood. And people who are smart and paying attention have caught on. As you can tell IM there you have it. You can tell. That's something

that gets me a bit fired up. We have more like you know what we could talk about about healthcare for a moment here and the latest from my hometown. You know, I just I leave New York and things take a turn for the worse. I'm not saying it's because I'm not there, but I'm not saying it's not this guy, Deblasio, Kaiser, Phil Halm, Deblasio, Warren Wilhelm. Don't ever forget it. That was his name forever. He changed it in his twenties, because who's gonna vote for varn

Phil Harem couldn't talk. Yeah, Hey, Billy Deblasio, he's promised healthcare for all. Let's talk about it. From this moment on in New York City, everyone is guaranteed the right to healthcare. Everyone guaranteed the right to healthcare. That's right. They're saying that that's the mayor of New York City, who, at least, I'm happy to say. You know, you never hear about him thinking he's going to run for president. Are terrible governor in the state of New York. Nobody

thinks I should run for president. But my name is Cuomo, and therefore I assume that people will vote for me. And if I yell and look angry whenever I give a public pronouncement, I assume that the fear that I inspire in listeners will force them to vote for me. He thinks he's gonna run, de Blasio does not think he's going to run, at least from what I see

so far. But he now is stepping into the national healthcare discussion because I know it's for New York it's New York City only, but New York City has eight million people, and this is now going to be one of these experiments that we get to see how it functions,

how does it work out. The superliberal mayor here saying that there's going to be a new plan, a new plan in place where New York City is going to make sure that six hundred thousand New Yorkers who don't have insurance will get insurance through Metro Plus, which is the city's public health insurance options. So essentially you're going to have a microcosm here of what a public option would look like, which you know, liberals love this idea.

It's that, oh, i'll just have the I'll pay into a government insurance program, or more likely, the government's going to pay for my insurance in the government insurance program. And that's how they you know, that's how they plan to sell this thing, and that's how they're going to

do it. But he's also including illegal immigrants in this that's right now you're going to have a city that's saying we're going to take money from people who are paying taxes and we're going to use that money to give healthcare away to people who are illegals in the country. And I just want to know before we there's so much here that's problematic. But what about somebody now who shows up from afford country and says that they want to have a million dollar heart operation in New York

in New York City? Should the taxpayers pick that up? So that should the people paying? Should my parents, should my siblings who live in New York City? Should they all be picking up the tab for anyone from anywhere in the world who shows up and says I can't afford I can afford a plane ticket in New York, but I can't afford a heart transplant. By the way, heart transplant costs is about a million dollars. That's what it actually costs to do that. It might even be

a little more. So do we have a moral obligation to pay a million dollars for a foreigner's heart surgery? I just want to add how many of them? And do we have an obligation to give medical treatment to anyone who shows up in New York City and have the City of New York pick it up. I just

want to know the extent of this. And once you add illegal immigrants into this equation, what you're really saying is that now you are going to have a city government that is confiscating money from people via taxation and redistributing it to people who under the same idea of rule of law that they're taking the money from you in the City of New York. They're ignoring the rule of law when it comes to the illegal status of

these individuals and giving them goods to be here. You want to talk about making our problem at the border worse, you want to talk about incentivizing illegal immigration, This is a fantastic way of doing it. All that ends up happening here is words going to get out instantaneously really within the illegal Immeran community. I mean, we're talking about you can get on you know, Facebook or we chat

or whatever. I don't know what the preferred social media platform is for folks in Mexico and Central America, but they're it's going to be. You know, if you can get to New York City, you get you get healthcare paid for now, openly City New York's going to openly pay for your healthcare. Um, you know, I just also want to know how much how much healthcare we're going to give to illegals? I mean, is it full spectrum? Well,

what does this really mean? Oh? And the the plan I would know, And this is where the Libs always run into big problems. It's going to cost one hundred million dollars. One hundred million dollars, which is just coming from the taxpayers of New York City. I mean, Deblasio hasn't been able to destroy New York entirely yet, but I think he's now now he's starting to feel his stuff a little bit more and he's going to take

more aggressive action here. One hundred million dollars annually. Now, let's understand that six hundred thousand New Yorkers do not have, you know, health insurance currently. They're saying they're going to cover one hundred million New Yorkers annually under this program and give them healthcare. I'm sorry, they're gonna spend one hundred million dollars annually, you know, and that's what the cost will be. Well, if you do the math on this, it can you're talking about what a couple, Oh gosh,

I should I shouldn't have done this on air. In real time, you're talking about spending one hundred and fifty bucks per person for healthcare. No way, right, Because if it were a million New Yorkers and it's one hundred million dollars, you're talking about one hundred bucks a person. Well, it's six hundred thousand New Yorkers, so you know it's gonna be how they gonna how are they going to manage to do this? They think it's gonna cost one

hundred and fifty dollars a person for health insurance. That's that's just a fantasy. It'll be way more expensive than that to give people comprehensive health insurance coverage, including illegals. By the way, how many illegals are there? They don't even know. They say the number six hundred thousand that don't have insurance, maybe the numbers a million. It's gonna you think giving a million people health insurance is gonna

cost one hundred million dollars. Let me know what that health plan is where people are only gonna cost you one hundred dollars a year. Please, But it's good New York will do this. It's a shame because it's gonna start to really destroy my hometown. But New York will do this. It will be the Libs in charge. The Libs will own this. The Libs will fail, and at least the rest of the country can say, hey, you know what, the Canarian the coal mine is build the

Blasio's healthcare plan. The show ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real, It's time for roll call I Love of the Funky Tunes. Yeah, Brandon, do you like jazz? You're a music guy, you're a DJ. Do you like Do you like jazz? Where are you on this? I do? I've actually gone into a jazz club or two in my day. I was watching a TV show, Cameramot. It was recently, but they just there was this line. It was I think it was The Office. There's this line It's like, it's like jazz, like, why can't you just

play the right notes? Which I thought it was pretty funny. Um, you know, I'm not somebody who listens too much jazz. I know some of the I know some of the classics, although if you see if you start to include Ella Fitzgerald and Nina Simone and some of those artists into jazz. I love that stuff, right, That's more my style. Yeah, okay, see see I always say, is that jazz? Because if we're qualifying that, I think the jazz that people usually think of though, is more of the like just portline

mus Zach kind of stuff. Like you know, you kind of hear it somewhere and you're like, uh, this is a little too free form for me. You know, it needs to have some semblance of melody and and it needs to make some effort to be pleasant to listen to. I think that's my That's where I draw the line, Brandon, you're not a beat? Nick would I'm not a beat Nick. By the way, how is the Guns and Roses podcast going? It's going quite well. Actually, I think iHeartRadio is going

to promote it. Uh this coming year, we'll look at that. I know, I'm just doing it on my own. They noticed it, and uh and yeah, it's just growing. What's coming up on the next episode of the of the Guns and Roses podcast. Well, I just interviewed I just put it out today our former manager Doug Goldstein. He was with gin R for seventeen years. A really nice guy. He's working with opioid addiction now, so we'll talk about anything from just fun stuff with axel too, you know, uh, oh,

the opioid crisis just like you do here. Oh, if he's really interested in combating the opioid crisis, you know, let me give me put him in touch with me so we can get him on on rising. I would love And I'm gonna him in this show too, because I mean, I'm I'm all about letting people know what's what's really going on there because there's a need for decisive policy action for sure. Yeah. No, he's he's in

the travel the country. He works for something called Matthews Hope Dot Org from a family who lost their son too too soon. And you know, it all relates back to all these years I thought he was fired. It just turns out he just wanted to be a family man and didn't want to travel with the band anymore. And he's devoted his life to, you know, helping others, and that's all stems from Guns n' Roses. That's my hook,

you know. I just this is just anecdotal, but I can't think of a time when I've heard of somebody who made the decision to step away from something professionally to focus more on their family, and they regretted it. I gotta say I haven't. I'm not saying it never happens. I'm just saying that that tends not to be what I hear say with him, he doesn't regret it at all. Yeah, it's probably something that I should keep in mind. Um, oh, that's really interesting, man. You know, if I were to

ask you, I had a thought the other day. You know what the greatest um, you know what the greatest rock song of the eighties and nineties is do you do you have? Do you have a horse in that race? Or is it just too hard for you? I can kind of compartmentalize and not say g n R. It's got to be the song in the movie that just won the Golden Globe. But he mean rhpsody. Really, that's

just perfection that that song is different. I was I was thinking about whether see it's maybe this is a better a better way to set up this comparison, uh, Death Leopard or a CDC just all in a CDC. Kidding me to pour some sugar on me is a great song, and not just for your young ladies who are paying for college, one dollar at a time, we'll have either one of you guys heard Axel Rose Bohemian Rhapsody with Queen No, that sounds pretty That combination right

there could be your greatest rock song. It was the Freddie Mercury tribute they did back in the day. He's sang with a Elton John. You gotta see that. You have any Have any of you seen recent photos of Axel Rose looking like a homeless bag lady, because those are interesting. We're all gonna look like that someday. Yeah, I guess. I don't know. Yeah, if we do botox

and eat che steaks all night long. So it's just, you know, when you have someone like that, I just picture him with like the long blonde hair and like right after he's been on some bender and destroyed a hotel room. And now I feel like, I feel like he probably wants to wear a snuggie a lot, you know, And I need to correct myself. It was seventy five the song Bohemian City came out, so I'd have to

think about it. Maybe it is a sweet Child or something like that of the quintessential song, But I don't know. I think does FM radio ruined def Leopard for me because they're the band that they play six times an hour. Yeah, I guess def Leopards pretty awesome. There's even some good stuff that, like, you know, if you put it in there, I mean, it isn't photograph of def Leppard song. I get into some of the deep tracks, you know, I'm

not just pour some sugar on me. Guy ACDC is probably and Back in Black I think is probably a better rock I'm really thinking more rock anthems too. But I think there's a case you made that Sweet Child of Mind is the greatest rock song of the eighties and nineties. I really do. I think you can. I think obviously people can argue this till they're blue in the face, but Sweet Child of Mind is definitely in the running for just you know rock song that is

number one for me. Producer Mike, do you do you have a pick um? That's a good question. I'm a big guns Rosas fan too, so I think it's something that's better than Sweet Child on mine. You know what's funny about Aerosmith. You gotta respect Aerosmith because he's been in the game so long and and does have a lot of a lot of really good songs. That said, though, I don't think there's one Aerosmith song that is like

the anthem that we will remember forever Aerosmith. We celebrate the whole catalog, right, Kenny g I celebrate his whole catal, Oh, Michael Bolden, Rather I celebrate the fholl catalog. Um. But yeah, I don't really about Journey Don't stop believing. That's a good one. That's a good one, and it's good fun. Fact, the only Arrowsmith song to ever go number one, uh

is the one from Armageddon. Don't want Him as a thing, which might be that might be the worst song in my opinion, But and you know, you know what I gotta say about Journey Don't stop Believing is Mike, you just brought that up, and all of a sudden, I'm transported to every New England college bar I went to in college where you know, it was like two am, and you know, uh, you know, sin Cindy, what's her face? You know? Was it wasn't wasn't leaving the bar with me.

But I was there with my buddies and we were gonna, you know, pours them out. We're gonna drink some beer and uh yeah, yeah, lad, it's it's it's it's the ultimate, like almost last call song and was the ultimate last It takes me to the sopranos, that's alright, it takes me to less. Uh. Let's talking about speaking of last call, last scene, last song and the sopranos. You know, haven't I haven't even seen all the sopranos. Oh man, you gotta get on that. I just I just ruined the

finale for you by it. That's all right, that's I've already forget heard about how it how it ends. Yeah, but yeah, all right, you know what, guys, I gotta I'm actually gonna hit it this this this way. Well, we won't give an anxiety attack to our our affiliates who have to make sure that we stay on the clock here. So let me go into a quick break. We come back, we will do roll call. We got a little sidetracked here with our with our freedom Hot team to talk about some some music. I've got a

little nostalgic for the eighties and the nineties. But we'll come back and do role call. So I'll stay right there. The show ain't over yet, folks. It's time for roll call, all right. No, messing about right to roll call this time, Julie, Hey, buck love the show. Don't sweat it about being forty almost forty and not married or with a family yet. I'll be thirty nine soon, my husband will be forty three,

and we're expecting our fourth kid. We move to be closer to his work, but now he works from where we move from. We're happy where we live and have started our six year old on a great school, so he commutes. You can make it work for your family when you have one. On the political thank you, Julie. On the political front, the left will implode because they have stood for everything to be inclusive and cannot stand for anything without offending someone. They have lost control of

the monster they created. The right will implode simply because we cannot unite Boo and Ginsburg is seriously not in good health. She's old. Thanks for the great analysis, Julie. You know, Julie, I think you're right that I think you're right that the left will eventually implode. But you have to remember that they might get themselves into hour and then be able to do a tremendous amount of damage when they implode, right, So they just because eventually

their ideology is doomed to self contradiction and failure. It doesn't mean that we can ignore it because in the meantime, well what is you know, where does that really take us? Right? Like? Where where are we now? In terms of left wing control and a progressive backlash to Trumpism? That could set the country back in a whole bunch of ways. So I hear you, but it's not enough to say we had The left is gonna The left is gonna consume itself.

It will eventually, but they might consume us in the meantime. And that's why we have to be on guard and have to have to fight back against this. William rights, all the snowflakes in America are going to hate socialism for three reasons. First, they'll have to work at a job they'll hate for years. Secondly, they won't be able to make any money to save up for that tesla or home they want to own so bad. And thirdly, nobody else is going to care what they think about

the first two big disappointments in their lives. They'll have to work at this making these tesla nobody else okay, And then he writes who gives a rats behind about the worthless federal workers who are minus their non essential paycheck right now. Most of them are hypocrites without a paycheck for a reality check, Wow, William Williams, that's rough, Like William, there there are some really good, really good people in the federal workforce, lots of them, and they're

not getting a paycheck right now. So I can't I can't hop on board or who gives a rats? And he didn't write behind about the federal workers here. A lot of them are doing really essential job that we want them to be doing. You know, Border patrol is showing up without pay and doing their job. For example, at least some of border patrol is so Coast Guard. You know that there are others that are working with

out pay. I'm not saying that means that this isn't a fight we should have and that Trump is wrong to have this fight. I'm just saying, and let's not let's not take this too Far's it's not the fault of the fifteen percent of non essential federal workers that they work for agencies that did not get covered. But I hear you on the general snowflake ism of American left wingers and socialists. So there's that, Eric, Right, Democrats quick find the doctor and send him to nineteen seventy

six to tell Congress not to give the president emergency powers. Yeah. Eric, as we have discussed, and as our main man, Andy McCarthy made very clear, they have given the Congress has given president the authority to do this. He has the authority. People who are saying otherwise do not believe in the

plain language of clear law. Kyle rights. Also, the notorious RBG will pull a weekend at Bernie before she steps down under Trump, or she'll resign a few months before the twenty twenty election and give Democrats AMMO to make Senate Republicans look hypocritical for taking up any nominee. Allah Americ Garland. Okay, I gotta tell you this is RBG thing that some liberals are saying. It's just getting weird. There's a there's a tweet today from a and this

is not a rando, not some random person. This is a here you go, some guy named Roger Simon on Twitter who has a considerable following. He's got thousands and thousands of followers, and I think he works in politics and some capacity, or maybe he's a journalist. I don't know, but he put this out there, and this tweak had a lot of attention. Quote, if it were possible, would you subtract one day off your life and add it to Ruth Bader Ginsberg's life for one extra day of

good health. If just ten thousand people did this, it would add twenty seven productive years to her life. That's just weird. It's just creepy, you know. It's just a strange thing to do. It's not something that a normal person.

And I don't mean take a year off. I mean, obviously it's a it's a ridiculous premise, but even to think this way, you would take a day off your life or some stranger because she's on the Supreme Court, because we need to add years to Ruth Bader Ginsburg's life, because she's so necessary for the future of the republic and turning it into a you know, socialist they think paradise. I say, hell escape, I mean that that's really what they've got here. It's just it's just a bizarre thing

to do, a bizarre thing to say. And there is a cult around Ruth Bader Ginsburg that is that is truly weird. It the only way to say it is just that it's it's strange. I mean, it does not make sense for people to be as invested in a Supreme Court justice that they've never met, such that they would even, you know, give days off their lives for this such a there's such a bunch of weirdos that Ruth bider Ginsburg texts, Dan writes, Hey Buck, seventeen year

restaurant professional. As a chef, cast iron for a good steak, all caps. If it's an inch and a half plus, I usually sear it hard on one side, flip it and throw it right in the oven for the perfect medium rare. But I prefer it's seared and basically mooing myself, shields and forks high. Dan Well, Dan, thanks to hear from an actual chef and an expert on this one. You know the reverse sears. I reverse seared a filet mignon Mali Bianchile parfe. I did a little filet mignon

for myself last night. Chef Buck, you know, do I sit here at home by myself and wear a little like chef hat. Maybe can neither confirm nor deny, but I did make myself a filet a filet last filet mignon, and it was perfect. I mean, I absolutely crushed it. And one thing I'll say is that really especially with the filet, because you don't season all of it, at

least I don't. I mean people usual don't season to really go hard with the pepper and the salt on the tops that you're searing to create that crust and to have a real flavorful crust that you cut into. That makes a big difference. And I did the reverse sear method once again just to kind of perfect it. I did it with that big steak. Worked out really well, and then I did the reverse here on the filet mignon, and all reverse here means it's oven first, then seer

on the stovetop. And Chef Dan is obviously right. Get a cast iron I should get, you know what, we should get Lodge, which makes cast iron pans. Producer Mike, let's make a note of this. Let's see if they want to do a promotion on the show, because I'm basically giving them free press all the time anyway, because it's one of the best pieces of kitchen equipment I've ever bought. So there you have it. See here Aaron Rights, Hey Buck thanks so much for your show. I especially

like the Shields High episodes. I learned a lot from them and from your show in general. Shield's High, Well, Aaron, thank you Shield's High. I enjoyed that, I mean the podcast, and I will bring it back at some point. It's just it's a tremendous amount of time and effort, and I wish I could do more. That's all I can tell you. I wish I wish I had more that I could do with it. Ryan writes, Hey Buck, great show. Occasionally, to punish myself, I listened to the pod Save America podcast.

Jon Favreau and company are pretty deranged. I think they're stupid and moronic, or they think it's stupid and moronic rather to think the wall would work. Just think about that, they say it. Also, listening to the malice and profanity that show is draining by itself makes me appreciate the HUT when I switch back. Thank you, Ryan. I am smarter than those guys and nicer than those guys and could take any of them. So there's that. Thanks so

much for joining team. I'll talk to you tomorrow. Shield Tie. We got a new year, so if you want to do things the smart way when it comes to hiring, you got to start off strong by making you go to zip recruiter dot com slash buck to hire the right people. Unlike other job site, zip recruiter finds quality

candidates for you. It's powerful matching technology scans thousands of resumes to identify people with the right skills, education, and experience and actively invites them to apply to your job so you get qualified candidates fast. That's why zipp recruiter is rated number one by employers in the US and this rating comes from hiring sites on trust Pilot with over a thousand reviews. Right now, my listeners can try zipp recruiter for free at this exclusive web address, zip

recruiter dot com slash buck. If you love this show, team, show your support and support for zip recruiter by going to zip recoiter dot com slash buck. Again, that's zip recruiter dot com slash buck. Because zip recruiter is simply the smartest way to hire