Will There Be A Saudi Iran War?

We got doctor Jalathan Schanzer joining the talk national security and the Israeli elections. Lots of stuff coming up. This is the buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American, You're a great American Again. The buck Sexton Show begins analysts this attack on the ore refinery by any reasonable definition, as an act of war. It is attacking the world economy, sustability of the oil markets

throughout the world. I am looking for a response that would be unequivocal. If they don't pay a price for bombing a neighbor's oil fields, then all hell is going to break out in the Mid East. Welcome to the Buck Sexton Show. Everybody, thank you so much for joining. As you can hear there from Senator Lindsey Graham, there's definitely major concerns over what is going on in the Middle East right now. So here's here's what we know.

Let's start with what we know. It was a devastating sneak attack on Saudi Arabia's most important asset on Saturday. There was this fuse, a lot of explosive drones and cruise missiles that slammed into the heart of Saudi oil production. I mean, this was a surgically precise military operation. You had nineteen projectiles launched, seventeen hits on critical oil infrastructure. In fact, the Saudi facility at a Keek is the single biggest crude oil stabilization plant in the world and

Kuras oil field is the second biggest. So as a result of this one attack, Saudi production dropped about fifty percent. That's about five point seven million dollars million barrels of crude oil coming offline all at one time on one day. If you had this double digit jump in global oil prices as a result, which got everybody's attention. So who

was responsible for this very clear act of war. Well, you know, there was an immediate claim of responsibility from the Hoothy Rebels, Hoothies, who have been fighting this vicious civil war right next door to Saudi Arabia in Yemen, and they've launched hundreds of these small scale drone attacks at Saudi Arabia, which has been in charge of this at the head of this coalition to defeat the Hoothy Rebels since twenty fifteen, and they have been pretty brutal

in their efforts to suppress the Hoothies. But you see, none of the Hoothie strikes in the past on the Saladies were anywhere near this scale or sophistication. This was a tactical proficiency far beyond what had been seen previously from the Hoothy militia and Yemen. And you know, and here we are, we're a few days after sifting through missile and drone parts, and you've got all these different experts and intelligence agencies looking at the satellite imagery to

make sure they're certain of the culprit. So this could lead to war, and right now it is believed. In fact, the Saudis have said that they are effectively without doubt that the Iranians were behind this, and then it's just a question of what the additional details are. The claim from the Hoothies the hoothis trying to take responsibility. That's really a fig leaf meant to create hesitation among the Saudis and among and for US striking back militarily against

the Iranians. But look, this all makes some sense from the perspective of the Iranians are cornered after Trump pulled out of the Obama administrations a Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action that JCPOA right, the Iran nuclear deals, how we think of it, that hit The brakes on the Iranian economy are real fast. Yeah, sure, the European Union hasn't reimposed sanctions, but you know, oil exports are down tremendous,

foreign investments down tremendously. Iranian GDP shrunk almost four percent last year and might and they think it will shrink about six percent next year if the current trends continue. So the Mullas are cornered. Iran's heading for a grueling recession. But they still haven't blinked, not on their nuclear program, not on negotiations. In fact, Supreme Leader Ayatollah Ali Kamene has said there will be no negotiation with the United

States to change this. Instead, it looks like he's certain the Iranians are striking at the heart of Saudi oil production production. To go Trump, right, they're trying to send a signal to the rest of the world that when cornered, the Iranian viper still has fangs. So let's assume the Iranians were behind this. What is the United States? Dude, do we really want to get in the middle of this.

Let's hope not. The backdrop for this Saudi strike, this sneak attack, which is clearly in that of war, is the regional Sunni Shia proxy war with the Iranians that has been escalating in recent years. Some would say it's been escalating for over a millennium, and it could easily set the entire Middle East of flame. All it takes is a miscalculation on one side or the other. I think President Trump. I hope President Trump recognizes these risks.

His supporters were promised a non interventionist foreign policy the twenty twenty election looms. Doing the Saudis fighting for them is not putting American interest first. It's not putting America first. Could the Saudis set off a regional war on their own by striking back an It's certainly possible. Could oil spike over one hundred dollars a barrel? Who knows? These are dangerous times, my friend. Thoughts and prayers for President Trump, for our armed forces. Let's hope we can navigate out

of this without getting ourselves in even deeper. We've got more coming up, and you've introduced a build along with Senator Corey Booker, obviously who's running for the White House. You did this today. It would create a pilot program to guarantee jobs for anyone who wants one. That's ambitious. It would cost a lot of money. What is the number one thing you would do to pay for that? Yeah? I mean, this is an idea that has a long legacy. It was proposed by Franklin Roosevelt. It was supported by

Martha Luther Kim Junior. It's going to allow it's a pilot project. The pilot program that is going to allow fifteen communities within um this country to create this program. And I think ultimately, when these jobs are created and people are pleased in these jobs, it will pay for itself. Ah, there we go. This has become the new super big government Democrat go to talking point. It will pay for itself. Wow,

that sounds good. How are you going to pay for a plan to guarantee everybody the governed, to guarantee everyone a job? Oh, don't worry about it, it'll pay for itself. Huh. How will you guarantee healthcare for everyone? Well, how are you guarantee medicare for all for everyone? Well, it'll pay for itself with the savings will get. I've heard people say this. Democrats have said this, dude, with the savings that you'll get on your healthcare and when you cut

out the insurance companies, this will pay for itself. No serious person can believe that there is no way this will pay for itself. That's just fantasy land stuff. Bernie Sanders today rolled out a two point five trillion dollar Housing for All plan. Sanders has said that the plan would guarantee every American quote, regardless of income, a fundamental right to a safe, decent, exces and affordable home, and would be paid for by a wealth tax on the

top one tenth of one percent of income earners. He said there's virtually no place in America where a full time minimum wage worker can afford a decent two bedroom apartment. All right, I'm gonna stop there. I live in New York City. I've never been able to afford a decent two bedroom apartment here. Okay, I'm like, I feel like I'm big time because recently I I'm like pushing forty, and I moved into one bedroom territory. It used to all be in one room. Everything. Bathroom pretty much was

the kitchen, kitchen was the bed. Bed was the bathroom. Welcome to New York to stake in the toilet. Hey, whatever you gotta do, you gotta get it done. It's New York, it's NYC. It's the big Apple, it's the big show. But minimum wage worker two bedroom apart Who said that one minimum wage worker should be able to afford a two bedroom apartment in a city? What's wrong with the studio? I lived in studios all through my twenties.

Studio apartment four hundred square feet, usually a bed, a dresser, a place to shower, and maybe like a hot plate. So I just like Bernie starts from this place. What are you even talking about the average two bedroom apartment in New York City is probably about four four forty five hundred dollars a month, four grand. I'd say the average apartment in Manhattan is over three thousand dollars a month. Now, I know the other boroughs, it's different, it gets you

can get better deals there. Manhattan's a big place. It's one of the five boroughs. Guarantee everybody at two bedroom apartment on a minimum wage job. Okay, well, not that many. The point of a minimum wage job is generally not to have a minimum wage job forever. Usually, if you do a good job at your minimum wage job, you can move up, you can get into a more senior role, you can get into management. And also a lot of

people are in two income households. So now if you have two minimum wage jobs in the same household, people can do better, and they can start to save some money, and they can start to build their way into the middle class. But just think of the central planning on display here. Yeah, we're gonna mandate that, you know, everybody what should be able to afford a two bedroom apartment on a minimum wage salary. I mean, do you want

to start paying forty dollars for cheeseburgers? At McDonald's, because I mean, maybe then it could happen the free market, or rather just the market sets prices. Bernie Sanders can tell you all day about how much the government should be setting prices, But the government cannot set prices. All it does is push capital into other areas through its intrusions and mandates in the marketplace. But it doesn't work

the way they want it to work. And I can even talk to you about the minimum wage minimum wage. When they raise it, some people benefit from it, some people don't. And I'm talking about minimum wage earners, because there is an actual value to the labor provided by somebody who's earning minimum wage. And businesses have to balance the balance their costs and balance their their input their output. And so you can say, well, we're gonna pay everyone

twenty dollars minimum wage. Now, what they just do is they cut back your hours or they cut back jobs. Some people might be able to stay around with that twenty dollars minimum wage increase, but other people are going to lose their jobs or they're gonna have their hours cut. There's a minimum wage increase doesn't benefit people the way we're always told it does, but it's an emotional issue. People feel like, you should you work, you show up,

you work, you should get paid fairly. Meanwhile, I feel like I did free work for years as an intern at all these different places, building a resume which really is exploitative. I'm just gonna say it. But people say, well, do you want that stuff in your resume or not? I did all kinds of free work. I was running around making copies his book, making cupies. I did all kinds of stuff. One more thing before we're gonna get a little more into the latest with the Cavanall situation,

which they haven't given up. Libs haven't given up. They've they've lost this battle, but they keep They're just hoping to wear us down. You know they're wrong. They don't really care. Saturday, I saw something today that Department of Justice might be circulating. I haven't seen this confirmed yet.

It might have been confirmed since I read it. Department of Justice is circulating what it thinks might be a what an Attorney General Barr and others think might be a possible compromise on a gun control measure, after all the public outcry, after all these shootings, and President Trump is assuring us this is something we should not have to worry about and left wing Democrats want to confiscate your guns and eliminate your god given right to self defense.

You know that as your president, I will never allow them to take away your liberty, your dignity, your social security, and I will never ever allow them to take away your sacred right to keep and bear arms. I don't know about that right now. There's really there's no political benefit for Trump in conceding anything on gun control to the other side. But I am hearing that the Trump White House and the Department of Justice are thinking about

are thinking about sending something along. Yeah do you here you go? DJ sends gun legislation package to the White House as debate rages over mat Okay, yeah, no, this was the options. This was the options. But i've heard that it's gone beyond that. Now they're narrowing down because this was from about a week ago. They're narrowing down the options to oh, that's right, we should actually do

this thing. I don't see what the benefit is. I don't see how this is going to result in anything other than a feeling of the left getting its way on guns, which is not good because you're just encouraging them to do more of this, and then you have, for example, the effort to demonize the NRA continues. The NRA has held our Congress hostage, doing everything possible to obscure the truth, trying to appeal to a small subset of extremists. They think they can say, jump and hey,

appose this bill. Appose appill, don't get that done. Don't do that suggest you're either in favor of the Second Amendment or you want to take everyone's guns away. It's ridiculous. It is absolutely ridiculous. And on issue after shoot, they are not only out of touch with where the American people are, they are way out of touch with where gun owners are. This is not something we just have to put up with. This is not some cosmic force

that can't be stocked. In other words, when we listen to people instead of corporations or special interests, this is going to change. I promise you, this is going to change. We've got to fight the corruption and we've got to be willing to push back. This is something that the vast majority of Americans want, and we have got to have the courage to take them on. The NRA. We can be and it's time that we take action. Tell them to stop working for the gun industry and start

working for the American family. President Trump, please tell them molan la bay and leave us all alone. Okay, don't do this, don't go forward with some just it's just a response to left wing pressure. They haven't won the argument. There's there's nothing that they can point to that would be helpful for saving lives from the perspective of doing some kind of gun control measure here, all that all that you know you're going to get is additional laws,

additional harassment. I just look today at the what it takes to getting gone in New York City, because I would like to exercise my Second Amendment right here. It's it's gonna take me six months, six months. I was trained by the federal government with weapons and had a top secret clearance for years. It'll take me six months to get a gun. And that's assuming that I get through all this stuff, and then I'll figure out, Wow, this guy is really right wing. I don't know if

we can give him a gun. Sounds scary. You're gonna you're gonna make concessions the other side on this, we have so many gun laws already in place, and it's just if you do the universal background check, you're setting up what will become a day facto registry. There's every every transaction will be will be logged and cataloged, and then I'll be able to very easily go through them all,

maintain a database of all of it. And then you have a registry, and then the call becomes, all right, everybody who has this kind of gun, turn it in. All right, everybody who has that kind of gun, turn it in. All of a sudden, you know, you're left with double barrel shotguns only Elmer Fud style for legal for people that want to own firearms, and for all the criminals. Guess what they didn't turn in their stuff? Oh wow, what a shock. It's almost like how gun

free zones don't stop mass murderers. I worry about Trump on this one. He says he's a gun guy, and you know, Trump is great in many ways, but yeah, he's really I don't know if he really is. He's not a Second Amendment guy. He listens too much to people who are giving him bad advice. On this one. I worry he's getting bad advice from people very close to him. In the White House. I think that's happening. Now we'll see. Hopefully I'm wrong on this one. Rarely am.

One of the reasons why I ran for Congress is to fight for the healing and the justice of all survivors one in sixteen women. Of course, we know this is not a genderized crime, and sexual assault is a crime, but a crime disproportionally perpetuated on to women, and one in sixteen women their first sexual experience was rape. This

is a public health crisis and epidemic. I see it also as a social justice issue, and it's deeply concerning that someone who starves on the highest court of the land could have this many allegation, allegations that are highly politically motivated and that keep on turning up false. There's a reason that we have the process we do. There's a reason that we have the system we do in place. It's actually to achieve justice, believes it's not just so

that we can have a system. There are reasons why we have the presumption of innocence while we have the right to face accusers. These are all procedural, but yes, they're also intended to get us to a place of justice. And it is unjust for someone to suffer professional consequences, reputational consequences for an endless series of lies, innuendos, smears, falsehoods that we all understand why they're being made, where they're coming from. And the Democrats just they go with

it anyway. They realize that if they start adjudicating whether something is a fair allegation against somebody like Kavanaugh, then they might have to do that again in the future. Better to just stick to the script, keep the party first, assault going right, attack Cavanaugh. That's all that really matters. The truth is irrelevant. Well, here's a little extra bit

of truth that I thought you should all know. Another thing that just was coincidentally left off of the New York Times is Sunday Essay and hasn't been mentioned now until a few days into this fiasco. So you had Max Steyer, who I already played for you yesterday. I mean, this is a guy, a guy who he's like a better government or a good government advocator, talks about collectivizing the power of government. This guy's a lib. He's a liberal. I mean, that's listening for two seconds. And you know

he also represented Clinton in the nineties. I believe in the specifically in the Paula Jones issue, but tied into Whitewater, and I just want to say Watergate, that's a different one. Whitewater, Monica Lewinsky. It's tough to keep all the Clinton scandals straight just because it was the whole presidency was really one long scandal. But it turns out that Max Stier's wife, Florence you Pan, was nominated by Obama to be on

the DC Circuit Court of Appeals. Resident Obama wanted Florence you Pan to be on the DC Court of Appeals, which is known to everybody in legal circles as the pre eminent stepping stone to the Supreme Court. It's the anti chamber, it's it's the holding place right before you might get a Supreme Court slot if you are so called upon and chosen. But Florence Yupan did not get that DC Circuit Court spot because the Republican controlled Congress.

I'm sorry, I'll Senate under Mitch McConnell just let her nomination lapse. They didn't. They didn't, you know, destroy your character. They didn't drum up fake allegations, call her a criminal based on nothing, and no, they didn't do any of that. They just decided that Republicans had a majority. The Senate.

Senate rules allow them to decide whether or not they're going to have an up or down vote on this particular nominee for the DC Circuit, and they just didn't do it, just like it was the Merrick Garland situation, except Merrick Garland was up for a Supreme Court seat. This is for the DC Circuit. Now, someone please explain to me why it is that in none of the interviews that these New York Times authors of this Kavanaugh hit book, which is what it is. It's not going

to be a hit, but it's a hit book. I mean, it's it's meant to go after Kavanaugh. Someone explained to me why they didn't think that was relevant information. The one witness they can cite that's new claiming an event that even the so called victim herself does not recall. Their one witness has a wife who was blocked by Republicans from more or less becoming Supreme Court Junior Justice

Florence Upan right right before the Supreme Court. You don't think that maybe there's a little bit of bitterness there that doesn't go perhaps to motive with this guy. He sees an opportunity. Yeah, I was at Yale with Kavanaugh. We got drunk a lot. Who's gonna know. See, one of the problems with these allegations against Kavanaugh is that not only can they not not only is it very hard to entirely disprove them because they're so old and

so vague and so lacking in any real detail. No one's going to get in any trouble for making these kinds of allegations. All you have to be is a liberal Democrat who believes very strongly in Roe v. Wade, and he was very angry about the conservative tilt of the Supreme Court, and you know all the rest of it. And Trump, And you say, yeah, I think I'm pretty sure Kavanaugh one night late drunk at a party. I mean,

I could tell you this. I could get away with saying this about anybody that I went to college with. Who's a guy. Yeah, I'm pretty sure I saw him at a party one night and he got really drunk, and you know he might have I think he groped a girls, you know, behind and she was very upset. But no one really remembers because we're drunk How are you going to disprove that I could even swear that under oath, I could even bear false witness. That's right,

there's a reason why that's a sin. I could bear false witness and swear with my right hand on a bible, and I'm never going to suffer any legal consequences because how could you How could you prove that I'm lying? You can never prove that I'm lying. But that's why things like the possible motivation to lie are so important. That's why the full context of who this Max Steyer guy is is something that clearly The New York Times and one gives. I mean, the New York Times has

been humiliated this week. To anybody who is not completely delusional and brainwashed, they have been humiliated, and they should feel humiliated for what they have done, but they don't view it that way. They just doubled down. I mean, they did their best to attack Kavanaugh. They did their best to undermine him, to hurt his you know, to

hurt him on the Supreme Court. And I really do believe this, And I give Eric Ericson credit for getting out ahead of this and making some noise about this point, because I think he's right that this is also a message to Supreme Court Justice Roberts that if you mess with us on the abortion thing, there's nothing the Left is unwilling to do, no place they won't go in order to exact revenge and to take consequences out against people. So yeah, that's right, Max sty Er, mister O, so honest.

Max Styer turns out his wife feels like she was mistreated by the Republican, a Republican controlled Senate on the issue of getting confirmed as a judge. You don't think that maybe that factors into his thinking about his little story about Kavanaugh. Also, I just as an aside here, the story that Kavanaugh just got drunk and then went and put his member in a in a girl's hand. No way, no way, just doesn't it doesn't adn't. It doesn't make any sense. I'm gonna tell you guys something.

I know a lot of drunk maniacs in college, a lot of guys that got way too way, way too black out drunk, and you know, some of them definitely were too gropy with women sometimes and you know there was there was stuff that happened that was not not acceptable. I never heard of this walk up to a girl at a party. I'm just gonna you know, I'm just gonna put my put my stuff on. That's why when they said it in the talk of the campus and absolutely would have been the talk of that you can't

do this. This isn't in the realm of oh yeah, you know, people do stuff, they get drunk. Please, this isn't Yale, this isn't an animal house. But this is the way it is. Now. As long as the lie has a life cycle useful enough to damage Kavanaugh, they'll tell it anyway. Stires lying folks. They can tell us about how honest he is. Oh, just like they can tell us about how honest Andy McCabe is. That's right, he's facing felony lying charges. Or how honest Comy was.

That's right, he abandoned essential FBI regulations and abused his position for petty personal attacks, or how how Muller was America's greatest law enforcement officer. Muller needs a blanket and a sippy cup and some time to relax. But we had to figure that out. We had to figure that out for ourselves, didn't we We didn't want to tell us any of that. We'll be right back. Oh, I believe that that every member of this caucus them beyond

because this is not a partisan issue. Again, this is an epidemic, and for far too long we have been a way too tolerant and complicit and perpetuating rape culture. Um. And so I think that everyone is committed in this Democratic Caucus to addressing that issue. But we have Diffressman. He says, get real, so that you say what I say, This is the reckoning and gone other days will be we will be complicit and lacks a daizel and the fact that this is an epidemic and survivors deserve healing,

injustice and everyone deserves due process. Um. I've filed this resolution to initiate an impeachment inquiry um because we need to get to the truth. And I think the Congress can. We've proven that we can do the work of legislating, of oversight and initiating investigations. That's what's happening in judiciary right now. Nobody believes what Congresswoman Presley is saying here, not even Congresswoman Presley. I mean, no one thinks that

this is really about the things that she's saying. It's about right, we're all in this, we're all we all get that, we're all in on this. I assume this is just a lot of a lot of blather, a lot of talking points about Congress's oversight role and all this other stuff. She throws in some phrases like rape culture. Rape culture is not a is not the thing that liberals pretend it is. I don't know. I don't know what rape culture is. I know they think it is.

Where does this Where does this exist? Rape is a heinous crime. There's there's no place in America where anyone thinks that, you know, rape is not a big deal. Doesn't exist, doesn't exist on campuses, doesn't exist in companies. There are rapists, there are bad people. There's not some culture, though, where this is normalized and everyone just walks around saying, yeah, you know, sometimes that happens. No, it's a felony. People go to prison for decades in some cases, and rightfully so.

So this again no effort to deal with what really happened here, which is that Democrats in collusion. Yeah it's right, I like that word, in collusion with the New York Times thought that they had something that could really hurt Kavanaugh, and this week was gonna be bash Cavanaugh week, you know, take it to him, show Cavanaugh that he hasn't just because he got confirmed he's on the Supreme Court doesn't mean that he's going to be able to have a

day's piece. And the New York Times just belly flopped here. I mean, it was brutal, and thank Heavens that people were able to figure out what happened. And now they're acting like, yeah, I'm meant to dive in that way. That was fine, that was great. I don't think so, not at all, not at all. Impeaching Kavanaugh. They're going to impeach him now after the stories that were told about him a few days ago have already completely fallen apart. Debbie Ramirez has no idea what she's talking about. Hey,

let me ask you this. Do you think that it is likely? Do you think it's possible that the best friend Leland Kaiser, the best friend of Christine blasi Ford, received, as we now know, a lot of pressure and even threats. Right, all things might come out about your life too. They were threatening her. She was basically being blackmailed to back up crazy Christine blasi Ford's story, and she wouldn't do it. Do you think that that same pressure wasn't used against

Ramirez or anybody around her as well. Do you think that there was an unwillingness to tell Ramirez that, you know, maybe maybe it wasn't. Maybe it wasn't negative pressure. Maybe it was positive pressure. Maybe it was Hey, you can be a hero here. You can be a hero to women for all time going forward. All you have to do is say that this guy just you know, put his put his genitals in your vicinity at a party thirty years ago, and you can save women's rights, you

can free women from oppression. You can be a hero if you believe all that crap. It's pretty it can be compelling, right if you're actually buying into all that. But does anyone think that that wasn't a part of this? You'll notice what I was thinking about this today as these New York Times reporters who are just going on. One of them retweeted a Vox piece today that was like, oh, conservatives are making this seem like a much bigger deal

than it was. No, it's a really big deal. They can try to fight this one out, but they're gonna get crushed because it's a really big deal what happened. They left out a key detail, and they left it out recklessly. And I would argue, intentionally, I can pretend that it was something else now, but we don't have to buy their lies. And I would also just say that, yeah, it's amazing how it didn't matter that it doesn't matter

to them that it's fake. It doesn't matter to them that this is, that this is not true, because it was all for a purpose, and the purpose was to destroy Kavanaugh. The New York Times, it has been amazing to see this whole thing play out, and with every additional detail. The great thing about defending Kavanaugh is that the facts have always been on your side, and additional

facts are even more on your side. You know, The New York Times still doesn't even accept how big of an error it really committed here, or rather how big of a lie it told. And you know, for those who still cling to the fiction that a reason a person could think that Kavanaugh was credibly accused, Well, then why was pressure put on Leland Kaiser to say things she did not believe to help blasi Ford's baseless case in court? That would be called witness tampering. That's what

you would call it. Why should we accept that in any way here, pretend like that's just the normal course of the way things are, the way things were. I've said it before. People that have been defending Kavanaugh have not had to retract, have not had to back down, have not had to change their story once. Not you, not me. No one who has believed in the innocence of this man from the beginning has had a single day, a single moment where it was, oh, wow, I guess

maybe Kavanaugh did do it. It went from humh, let's hear about these allegations. That seems very unlikely too. As soon as we found the facts out about blasi Ford. Okay, so there are no facts. This is a hit. I was saying, you can go back and look at the

shows we were. We were doing shows titled I think Christine blasi Ford is lying, like the first week of the allegations, and then it was Ramirez, and then it was sweat Nick, and then it was a woman that I don't even know one even names her, but claimed that she was raped in a boat in Rhode Island. Told the Senate this and nobody believed it. Not even Democrats could believe that because he had never even been

in the States. Disgusting the Democrats that they're they're discussing, you know what you see though they never will debate this issue in public. They just hide. They just tell their little stories. They write this stuff for their own constituencies, for their own readership, and then they run away. None of them are man enough or woman enough to stand up and make this case against somebody who knows they're lying.

On day one of my administration, I will use my executive authority to start closing the pay gap between women of color and everyone else, because it's about time we bo. We must recognize the systemic discrimination that infects our economy, and we must work actively and deliberately to root it out and set this country on a better path. Elizabeth

Warren is a shameless demagogue. I do think she is smart enough and well read enough, although not nearly as well read as she presents herself, to know that the pay gap is a myth. There's no such thing. There is there is no pay gap as presented by Democrats. There's a different there's a differential in pay between men and women, but the moment that you account for things like chosen profession, hours worked overtime, just choices that one

makes in the workplace. Yes, what pay gap disappears like so many other things. You know what I discuss climate change with you, I point out and I've seen now some more in depth analyzes about this. If what they say is true, that the world is going to be underwater,

at least the whole sections of it. You know, the entire state of Florida coast to California thirty year mortgages right now, or you know when people bought take out a thirty year mortgage home prices would have to would have to take this in new account, and insurance would have to take this in new account. If they really believed in climate change, it would have an effect on beachfront property. Obama just bought a fifteen million dollar mansion of Martha's Vineyard on the beach on the water at

sea level. Do you think he's worried about that? See how people act. Forget about what people say they want to do, See what they actually do. Elizabeth Warren here is talking about the pay gap. If the pay gap were real, than anybody who was a capitalist people do

like money. Capitalist like money too. Anyone who was a real capitalist would say, I've got a great idea if I can get an almost thirty percent, let's say, a twenty five percent on average savings on every employee I hire by just hiring a woman to do the same job as a man, I would only hire women a twenty five percent advantage in the labor cost in your business over your competitors. You would crush everyone. Just hire women. Of course, it's because you know hiring women that that

would never can be considered discriminated. You can hire only women and only minorities, and that would never be considered discrimination. If you brought a lawsuit saying hey, I'm a I'm a white male, like I didn't get hired. You know, it's very difficult that those lawsuits do exist, but it's

very difficult to win those lawsuits. Why don't people only hire women because they try to hire the best employee they can, man or woman, and they try to hire people that are going to bring the most value to the business because it is in their interest to do so. Elizabeth Warren saying she's going to close the pay gap with an executive order, that should really put a jolt into people. What does that even mean? How would that work? How would she do that. I'm not even sure she knows,

but it's a it's a good applause line. I suppose it's something that gets her supporters very, very fired up. You know, I just missed it? Was was it? Last night? Elizabeth Warren gave a speech here in Manhattan at Unions not Union Square Park, Washington Square Park, which is where Occupy Wall Street back in the day used to have

a lot of its big meetings. I remember covering some of the big Occupied Wall Street gatherings, protest movements, whatever you want to call it, down in Washington Square Park. I've also played speed chess there against many an individual and done better than they thought I would. I will have you know what, it's true, what you're a chess hustler. That's right. I got chess skills that shouldn't surprise anybody. I got all. I got all kinds of skills nobody

knows about. They're like, they're always like, damn, you're good at chess. I'm like, that's right, I'm actually not that good. But I've I've learned enough from plank speed chess that you really just have to memorize some quick patterns because by making somebody else go very fast. If you know some movement patterns, you can usually win very But the whole point is you have to move really fast, right, That's the thing. If someone thinks about it, it it won't

work anyway. So she was there giving a speech, and I'm a little bit sad that I missed it because I think it would have been really interesting to see what Elizabeth Warren supporters, you know, how they react or I think they said there were ten or fifteen thousand people there was their biggest and I just can't imagine all these people in New York City, what do they think Elizabeth Warren's really going to do for them? This

city is wildly expensive. It's expensive in large part because of well obviously supplying to man, but also there's a lot of regulations around housing. The tax rate here is very high. There's all kinds of government decision making about Look, there's a lot of central planning in New York City. A lot of costs are much higher than they should be. So I would have been interested to go just to see what the New York City socialists would really like.

But I didn't know about it, and so I missed it, and I only saw it as it was happening, and I was like, Ah, I don't know if I can go deal with the communes right now. I'm just gonna have a nice quiet night. So I decided to do something, just hang out solo, do my own thing, do some writing. But that then brings me to another former female presidential candidate out there on the stump. She's never gonna give

it up, folks. She's never going to admit that she was wrong, that she wasn't a good candidate, that she wasn't going to win, and that no one cheated. She

just wasn't good at this. She's back. So I've talked with many of the Democratic candidates for president, as you might guess, I've answered their questions about everything from digital outreach to investments in the early States, and I've ended every conversation by saying, to each one, let me tell you what I think the biggest obstacle might very well

turn out to be, and that is this. You can run the best campaign, you can have the best plans, you can get the nomination, you can win the popular vote, and you can lose the electoral College and therefore the election. For these four reasons. Number one, voter suppression. Wait, what are the other way? Do we cut off the other reasons? All right, I guess we'll just have to. I want to number two. I don't like pat suits. I want to hear what the other reasons are? You know what

this is? This is this serves a couple of purposes. Hillary Clinton's out there saying this stuff because one, she's an egomaniac and really thinks the presidency was her should be her. She still thinks to this day, I assure you, that she should be the president of the United States, and the fact that she's not is just a testament to how terrible Trump is, how unfair the world is, and all the rest of it. But that's that's really,

you know where that's really where it is, right. She thinks that it was hers and it was taken from her. She also, though, is playing into this victim mentality that a lot of Democrats have around how they they really think that even when they lose elections, they win. Has a very interesting comment yesterday on the show. I mean, she's not she's not all that pro Trump, but she's she's a she's sharp, and she does good work. Over

at the Washing Examiner. When Tiana Lowe joined us, and she said that every Supreme Court justice except for Alito, that's a that's a conservative for the last whatever it is twenty years now. The left has some reason, some excuse, Oh, that doesn't count that person. There's an asterisk. That person's not, you know, not really shouldn't really be on the court. It's Merrick Garland seat. People say this. I've heard legal analysts say this like they're morons. It was never Merrick

Garland seat. He doesn't own it. It wasn't given to him. There's a process, he didn't get through the process. That's you know, tough. Sorry, libs. Of course we know all about the Kavanaugh asterisk, which is just baseless, clearly politically motivated accusations with no evidence or corroboration. It's supposed to create an asterisk. Well that's yeah, that's not going to be weaponized and abused for the rest of our lives. You look at you look at the way that they said, oh, well,

because you know, Bush stole the election. Oh there's another thing. We always when we win elections, there must be stolen Bush stole the election, and Bush with the whole Bush v. Gore Florida recount. Trump stole the election with, you know, because of Russia. I mean, this is these people are babies. They lost, and you see at the very top of their babies. Hillary is being child this year. She lost. She's not the president, She's never going to be the president.

It's time to give it up. Time to stop the wives. Voter suppression. Democrats like to point to places where they've had record voter turnout and claim voter suppression. We ask cal and they say, oh, well, because voter because they ask for ID at the polling place. The Supreme Court has ruled on this already and they have said that voter ID is not voter suppression is not prohibited. Is not unfair. I don't know what's a suppression of rights.

It's over three hundred dollars for me. I looked it up today because I'm getting ready to go through over three hundred dollars to get to apply for a New York City handgun permit. I think it's three twenty five. It's over three hundred bucks. Why don't we charge three hundred dollars for people to vote? I have to It cost me three hundred dollars in order to enjoy my Second Amendment rights? Why is that? Okay? If you ask him some live that's because of finger pronting and background checks.

That are okay. Well, I've got a constitutional right to a firearm, just like they've got a constitutional right to vote. I have to pay over three hundred all but you know, I digress. Actually not really, it's kind of related, isn't it. Well, this is a lie, just like Stacy Abrams running around saying that she would have won in Georgia. She would have won that gubernatorial race but for voter or suppression. That is a lie. It's just not true to the Democrats.

Does the mainstream media ever call her out for that? Do they ever say, hold on a second, where's your evidence for that? In fact, all the if you look at the numbers, if you look at what happened, it's quite clear that that's not true. She lost. She lost an election. It happens to Democrats. When was the last time you could think of where conservatives were claiming mainstream conservatism was saying that Supreme Court justice is illegitimate or

that election didn't really happen. Libs do it all the time. Hillary does it, doesn't care about it. Doesn't matter to her what it does to our faith in our institutions. But I mean, she's look, let's just say it, she's a deeply unethical and really damaged person. I've been saying she has a hole in her soul for a long time. The only thing that was going to fill it was the presidency. You know, now she's got to fill it with rose, yoga and long walks in Chappaqua. I don't

know if that's going to do it for her. Well, right back, we also saw what happened in twenty sixteen. Experts estimate that anywhere from twenty seven thousand to two hundred thousand Wisconsin citizen voters, predominantly in Milwaukee, were turned away from the polls. That's a lot of potential voters. They showed up, but maybe they didn't have the correct form of identification. Maybe the name on their driver's license included a middle name or an initial that wasn't on

their voter registration. But officials made every excuse in the book to prevent certain people from voting in that election. I mean, they didn't have the right identification. Ah. I thought we were done hearing from Hillary Clinton, but we're never really going to be done. She can't help herself. We have to hear her opinions all the time. We have to always be hearing from Hillary Clinton about all things involving the election that she still pretends she would

have won. Notice the range there too. Experts estimate what was the twenty five thousand and two hundred fifty thousand or something like. That's a big range. That was true, that's a lot. That's a lot, almost like, it's such a big range that experts don't know what the heck they're talking about. They're just guessing. You know, I can

guess too well. I estimate that on the day of the election, there were at least two or three million people who were hung over, and people who tend to go out and party are more likely to be conservative. If therefore, Trump really should have won the popular vote. Prove me wrong, me wrong. I knew John was going to hit that one. Yeah, that's true. Prove me wrong. Speaking of Hillary and never going away, Jimmy Carter is

still making the rounds. But he's talking about something that I have to say, Heaven forbid, But here we are. I agree with former President Carter on something. Here's what he said I hope. You know, if I will just eighty years old, if I was fifty years younger, I don't believe I could undertake the duties that I experienced when I was president. But one thing, you had to

be flexible with your mind. You had to be able to go from one subject to another and conservate on each one adequately and then them all together in a comprehensive way, like I did between begging instad with a piece agreement. You also have to be able to I got new ideas. He's saying that there should be an age limit for the presidency, and this is going to be a very real discussion. You know. Joe Biden, I still I still cling to my belief that he's not

going to be their nominee. But all the major polls, all the real all the number crunchers are saying, sorry, Joe Biden's gonna be the nominee. Joe Biden's gonna be the nominee. As if they're all there, they're across the board pretty much. That has been the trend. In fact, one amazing statistic that I saw yesterday was that in California, right now, among likely Democrat voters, Andrew Yang is beating

Kamala Harris, which was just amazing to me. Yang Gang is a phenomenon such that Camelot Mamala Harris, who for months we were all told, ooh, she's you know, she brings all these different elements together at a very appealing candidacy for Democrats and maybe she'll even went over some undecided We were told all that, Oh, she's the real deal, She's the real candidate. No breakthrough, nothing. Yang's ahead of her in her home state of California. So keep that

in mind. But Biden, look, he seems too old for the job, and it does matter. And I do think the Democrats recognize the second that they try to pull the Oh that's not fair. You can't make an issue if you're being agist, you know agist like producer Mark. Yeah, that's right, we know he's like, Yeah, what's it like being north of thirty old men? You know? My bones creak? How about that producer Mark? They creak? I got got like a like a creek like it makes, you know,

clicking noises. You'll be there too. One day it was like being at the first ever Super Bowl. Wow one was that? No, it was like six seven. It was amazing. We don't even wear helmets back then. Even though what a television was when you were a kid, you don't even understand. Yeah, you television. If you had one TV in the whole neighborhood, it was amazing. Everybody watched one black and white box. The thing was like three by five inches of actual screen. The rest of it was

just casing. Hold all that stuff together. It's like a giant sausage. All right, we'll be right back. There was a fair amount of theatrics being played out by both mister Collins and by mister Lewandowski. I think you have to look at mister Lewandowski as an adverse witness. He had no interest in complying with this actual subpoena outside of showing up. He intended to obstruct justice once again, frankly, by not being willing to give the answers to questions

by the Democrats. I think if I were mister Nadler right now, I would be slapping mister Lewandowski with an inherent contempt order and calling him in front of the House of Representatives and finding him an inherent contempt order. Huh, bring it, Democrats, bring it. Let's let's see you do it, Let's see where that goes. To live in a country where you can decide that you don't like the way someone's answering your questions, you're going to start finding them.

You know who is held in contempt of Congress, Attorney General Eric Holder. This is a tool that democrats. They're not going to do it. You know why, because even they realize where this leads. They put so much pressure on our institutions. They put so much downward pressure on some of the most important parts of our so called democrat they always loved her as a democracy. They push

all the outer limits. They have no respect whatsoever for the actual functionings of these institutions, and the moment something happens that they don't like, they're willing to toss out the rule book and just decide, well, we're going to do it my way. Meanwhile, krey Lewandowski, he's not backing down at all. He's just saying that this is complete nonsense.

I don't have any reason to be held in content, and I've told the members of Congress I'm happy to come back and answer more questions if they need me to. After the five or six hours tarade that I went through yesterday. Yeah, what are they going to hold him in contempt? For? The White Houses told them that under executive privilege, he should not answer any questions about his conversations with White House, with White House officials or with

the President. Okay, well, if they've got a problem with that, figured out what the White House or if they really think that he's wrong, all right, fine, all them in contempt. See where that gets you. A lot of talk, a lot of talk from Democrats, and you know what I will say about the Trump administration really more than think else President Trump himself, they don't know how to deal with an opposition. They don't know how to deal with political targets who refuse to bend the knee. The Democrats

still haven't figured this out yet. If you don't cave, if you don't give them what they want, if you don't just decide you're gonna pack up and leave, they get very flustered. They don't really understand what to do. And Corey Lewandowski yesterday was just turning the tables on them because it was clear they weren't trying. What are

they trying to do? They want to ask him, They want to ask him to recite things that they are already in record from the Mulla report, as if as if he's just supposed to do whatever they say whenever they say it. They're looking for soundbites to use to put on MSNBC and CNN. I'm sorry, I don't think so. He obviously didn't think so either. I also received hundreds of thousands of emails, some days with as many as a thousand emails, and unlike Hillary Clinton, I don't think

I ever to leave any of those. Many of them were responded to with either one word answers or voted to other staff. It's for additional follow up. But throughout it all, and to the best of my recollection, I don't ever recall having any conversations with foreign entities, let alone any who were offering to help him manipulate the outcome of an election. Responding to contempt with contempt is a pretty natural human emotion, and I do think that

ultimately that is what kra Lewandowski was doing here. The Democrats are contemptuous of him. They're not there to respect him get answers from him. They are there to grandstand, to make him look like a fool, to hurt the people not to hurt him, and to hurt the people that he worked with, and four to hurt his chances to run for the Senate in New Hampshire. They're there on a seeking destroy mission. Why should Corey Lewandowski pretend otherwise. Why should he be the one who has to act

like the rules only count for his side? This is this is again, this is wartime conservatism. Friends, You see what the other side does. Do you want to do you want to play by their rules keep losing? You want to play by their rules and get slapped around? Or do you want to say no, I've had enough. Thanks. I don't think I'll let Eric Swalwell and uh you know who are all the all the rest I can't remember now. Going after him, I said, what was Nadler?

Of course, you know, Jerry Nadler saying his stuff, doing his usual nonsense. These people are clowns, clowns, and Lewandowski was, you know, telling them exactly what he should have in my opinion, which was just you know, you know where to you know where to suffit? Leave me alone and enough of this right now. If they want to, if they want to hold them in contempt, let's see, let's see how that goes. Let's see where that stops and starts. I think it was the right I think it was

the right move. I do think this is problematic when you say I have no obligation to be candid, and when Corey Lewandowski said that, of course it was. It was like man dog bites man. We all are aware that the administration does not place a value on being truthful and honest, and so it was nice that he would come out and stated so bluntly. But it was no big surprise. I mean, can can Tim Kane just be honest about what was said? This is a classic

Democrat moment. Here you have Tim Kane talking about the need for Corey Lewandowski to be honest, and he's being dishonest about what Korey Luandowski said. Corey Luandowski said that there was nothing, there was nothing that requires him to be truthful with the media. Guess what that's true. That is reality. And the media can act like public officials should be run out of town the moment that they say anything that is untruthful to the media. But this

is as old as politics itself. You know. They can try to make it sound like this is some terrible crime against the Republic. But in reality, the media is oppositional to the president, and a lot of people recognize that this media, in particular, the mainstream media, is dishonest at its core about what its real mission is day to day. They don't seek to shed light on the truth in America. They seek to destroy Trump. Why should we have to sit around and pretend otherwise, and why

should the White House? I mean, look, I think one of the greatest innovations of this White House is to recognize that ninety percent of the press corps is a bunch of Libs, a bunch of Democrats. And of that ninety percent, I'd say ninety percent of the ninety percent, our activists really make almost no effort whatsoever at being objective journalists. And so with that, speaking of contempt, with that degree of contempt directed at the White House, why

not why not respond in kind? Okay, if you guys are going to try to misrepresent what we're doing, if you're going to spread lies about us all the time, we're gonna call you fake news or, as Trump has said, very fake news. If he wasn't speaking some degree of truth with that, and I think it's generally very truthful. But if there wasn't a lot of truth to it, then the media wouldn't be nearly as upset, would they. Why does it bother them so much when Trump says

fake news? Why does it get them so riled up when he talks about how they keep presenting these stories and the stories are that are fake are generally always about Trump. They don't make these huge errors in the other I mean this. The New York Times has been making a mockery of itself the last couple of days with these these two reporters who just can't get out of their own way. And now they were complaining about others. They're complaining about how Fox News, Fox News is the problem. Oh,

look at how Fox twisted things. You know, you had you had vox dot Com claiming that it was just an honest mistake that got removed in the editing process. Okay, well, if it was just an honest mistake that got removed in the editing process, the fact that the additional accuser has never on the record accused anyone of anything, and her friends claimed that Kavanaugh did nothing, why did the authors also leave that out of a long NPR interview

just never comes up. Huh. Almost like they're trying to ram through a narrative to do damage and then they figure they'll clean it up afterwards. They hate being called fake news. I know that At CNN, for example, if you ever refer to them as fake news publicly and they know about it, even if you're just somebody who's not doesn't do that much media. If you refer to the fake news CNN, they unless you're administration official, they'll make exceptions for that, but they will not have you

on air. They are very sensitive about it. They make all kinds of claims about how that's just that's unacceptable, that's too much, it's beyond the pale. I like what Lewandowski did because it reminds us that we don't have to just sit and take it that in the same week that they try to straight up smear operation on Kavanaugh. There is another option. There's another alternative, and that alternative

is fight back. We better do it this year, and the good news is Trump is definitely going to do it. But you better be prepared wherever you are across the country if you want to be involved in this reelection, and one way or another, if you want to share your thoughts and your values. You better be ready to fight, because the other side is coming after all of us on this stuff. My name is Griata Timbario. I have not come to offer any prepared remarks at this hearing.

I'm instead attaching my testimony. It is the IPCC Special Report on Global Warming of one point five degrees celsius, the SR one point five, which was released on October eighth, twenty eighteen. I am submitting this report as my testimony because I don't want you to listen to me. I want you to listen to the scientists, and I want you to unite behind the science. And then I want

you to take real action. Thank you. And then I want you to brush your teeth and go to bed early, because you're like thirteen years old and you need sleep, and you need life experience, and you need to read a lot of books, and you need to learn things, and you need to grow and you need to understand more. My friends, that young girl is testifying in front of Congress today congressional testimony from how producer Mark. You tell her?

How old is she? I think she's thirteen or fourteen, but maybe she's a year to older than that sixteen Wow, she looks younger than that sixteen years old. Okay, even still, I don't care. I don't care what she has to say about climate change. I don't care what she has to say about much of anything other than what the cool sixteen year old kids are listening to these days, and maybe what the teenage fashion styles are or something. And it's not mean. It's not mean to say this.

It's not I am not putting her down. If I were her and the whole media acting like everything I said, with some pronouncement from Einstein himself, I would say, Okay, that's kind of cool. I'll roll this. It's more fun than being in school. Why would Congress ever testify? What do we have to learn from me? She's a sixteen year old. She's not a scientist. Even if she was a would be scientist, she's sixteen years old. This is yet another data point. They talk about the data and

the science. Here's a data point. A scientific movement that uses sixteen year olds as its spokespersons is not about science. It's really not that complicated. It's not that hard, is it. You can just think through this all just makes sense. Why not have an actual scientist testify if this was so compelling, why use a young girl? Oh? We know why because if you criticize her, and I believe she

has Asperger syndrome as well. So if you criticize a girl who has a a what I don't even know about disability or whatever the preferred nomenclature is for Aspergers, you're a bad person and you're why you beat I've seen journalists, I've seen blue check Twitter and Facebook journalists do this or on Twitter and Facebook, where if you point out, like I do, this is absurd. You know, do I want to hear from a fourteen year old

about whether the FED should lower rates? Come on, fourteen year old, finance genius, let's let's hear what you think about lowering rates, because you're just what gonna read the talking points that someone's handed to you. I just wish there was a greater degree of honesty here, honesty around how much this climate change movement is really an emotional

and religious belief. As I keep saying, it as a religious belief for people who think they are too smart for a religion, for an actual religion, for an actual relationship and philosophy and connection to in spirituality, based in in God, or based in you know, whatever deity or series of deities on one things exists. No, Now, it's this is this is the existential crisis of our time. And they I would ask you, if a sixteen year old to testify in front of the Congress, why not

have a toddler. Why not have a five year old just read off whatever is printed for him or her by the green the green energy lobby. It makes just as much sense. This is indefensible, and as an American I have to say it's it's embarrassing. Our Congress is

increasingly a source of embarrassment. What happened with Korey Lewandowski yesterday where you had these these democrats all just lining up one afternother to try to get that that one viral moment, you know, try to get that one moment where they were going to at ablish that you know, they they were really the hashtag resistance fighter. They were the one that was trying to hold Trump accountable by

ridiculing and humiliating his people. And yet what we saw was krey Lundowski saying, no, I don't think I don't think I'll let you arrest us today be hand, great line, really is. It's true though, That's what's going on. That's where we are now. I think this Congress is an embarrassment. The people that are constantly trying to come up with new ways to discuss how horrible Trump is and then and then turn around it and act like this is some assemblage, are that the Congress is some assemblage of

great intellectuals. Because people are in the Congress, we should listen to them. I'm sorry, I just disagree. I do not find them nearly as impressive as they find themselves. Now, some of them are great, obviously, where it's a big body, you've got hundreds of members, hundreds of members in the House, one hundred members in the Senate, and eventually you reach a point where you understand that a lot of them

are just unimpressive and you move on from there. But to have a sixteen year old girl testifying about a massively complicated scientific issue and telling us, really lecturing the American people through our own elected body, that urgent action must be taken, this is embarrassing. And anybody who's a climate change advocate, fanatic, whatever you want to call them, they should be embarrassed by this too, but they're not

seem Some big events happening in the Middle East. Obviously, we have the standoff now between Saudi Arabia and Iran, and perhaps the United States as well, not just on the sidelines but right in the background, and also a major election shock in Israel. But first let's get to

our friend, doctor Jonathan Schanzer, who's with us now. He is from the Foundation for Defensive Democracies and he's going to tell us what his thoughts are on all this, Doctor Schans are great to have you back, Thanks duck than you with you. So let's just start the the Iran Saudi situation. How big a deal is this as you see it? You know, how different is this from the provocations we've seen in the past, and what first?

Let let's start with what should the Saudis do? Okay, so um, Look, first of all, let's just say that the attack that just took place was a hugely significant one in the sense of the Saudis. Of um. You know, they are one of the world's largest producers of oil sit atop a massive proven reserve, and they have this massive facility that is a core component of the global supply of oil the Iranians know this, and they have struck you at it. They've done so with precision, they've

done so with significant weaponry. So this was not just simply an attack on Saudi Arabia. Some would claim this was an attack on the US LED system. It was certainly an attack on the global supply of oil. And I must also add that the reassurances that we've heard from the Saudis that this is all just going to be fixed very quickly, to me, does not strike me as true. I think they put a rosy spin on

a lot of things. If you remember the killing of that journalist Jamalsa Shoji, you know they mean for weeks they were saying it didn't happen as wise, and of course we ultimately found out the very ugly truth. I think we're going to probably go through a similar exercise here with the Saudis. Now as to what the Saudis should do, I mean, certainly I'd like to see the Saudis be able to defend themselves, but we do have

questions about their military capabilities. You know, they've been fighting a war and Yemen and not doing it very well. You know, instead of attacking Hoofy targets, they can out school buses full of children. Um, it's not gone well for them. Do you think that's I mean, doctor Jonathan, do you do you think that that's an accident? I mean, the Saudis are spending the third most on on munitions each year on defense of any country in the world. So why can't they be more efficient? Or are they

haphazard on purpose? Well that's a good question. And you know, I mean I actually visited Saudi Arabia last year and you know, I was in one of these operation rooms and uh, you know, they really made it look well, it was a really professional operation. And yes, they're buying up American sophisticated weaponry hand over fifth. But you know, when you look at how they have prosecuted their own conflicts,

it does not look good. And it does question about education, about training, about commitment, and uh, you know, I think the question is, you know, if the Saudis respond, you know, with US backing and the Saudis failed to deliver the message that we want them to deliver, what does that do to their deterrance, to our deterrance? Does it embolden Iran? Does it make things worse? Does it turn the tide

of public opinion in the favor of the Iranians. These are things that I would not personally want to take a chance on. What do you think should happen? So the look, there are a lot of different ways to respond. We've seen from the Trump administration as they've already just announced new sanctions, and we expect those to be announced let's just say within the next couple of days or week. I have concerns about that response only because I think

it's a perpetuation of the status quo. The Iranians decided to attack Saudi Arabia and this oil installation because they're under sanctions and they were trying to gain leverage over the United States, showing that they could hurt us at the pump and that we needed to come to the table and offer certain concessions. I think if we up the Anion sanctions, they likely up the Antion continued attack against US interests and against oil targets. So then the

question is what do you do beyond that? I think there are two things. One is I think it's time to engage with our international partners again. There are all these countries that stopped working with us on Iran policy because we walked away from the Iran nuclear deals saying the Iranians, we're doing everything we wanted. Well, I think we can now dispense with that. We know now that they are aggressors and that they're not just targeting the

US or Saudi Arabia, They're targeting global oil. One would hope that the French, or the Brits, or even the Russians or the Chinese would say, we don't want that, we don't want to spend more on oil. We need to get a randi heel, so let's all work together. Then there's the last part of this, which is a credible threat from the United States, not necessarily conflict, but certainly moving assets closer to Iran in the region, letting them know that there can be a real ramification if

they continue to escalate. Right now, I am concerned that Iran does not fear us in the least. They look at us with this posture that we're getting ready to leave the region and that we only rely on sanctions, and that is not a good place to be in with a regime like Iran. What would a strike that is commensurate with the provocation here look like you could hit you know, UH, Iranian refining facilities. There's there one or two facilities that I think are probably already being

looked at. UM. There's also carg Island, which is a major shipping point for Iranian petroleum products. You can imagine that a strike along those lines would be commensurate. Uh. There is the question though, I think a couple of things. One, the President does seem to be concerned about the price of oil and what a conflict might do in terms of just the health of the economy, and so one

doesn't know what that would do globally. There's also the question of an Iranian response and whether they attack the US directly, and whether this draws US into another conflict, which of course the President is low to do. We may yet not really have many options left if the irunience continue to escalate, but I think it's important that

we have those sorts of targets already in sight. I'm sure the Pentagon has already been thinking through these, but it's really interesting to note that there are voices from the Pentagon right now urging caution, and this is not exactly the traditional role of the Pentagon. Usually the Pentagon says we're here, We're at the ready. You let us know when you need us, and you know, we can

do damage to the enemy. Right now, the Pentagon seems to be pumping the breaks and that is sort of a new thing for me to watch, and I don't really know what it means. How concerning should it be that it seems that nineteen projectiles, I mean, they're all missiles in a sense, but it was a combination of cruise missiles and drones that nineteen projectiles were fired, seventeen hit their targets. Based on the damage assessment I was reading this morning, and that neither the Saudi nor Iran,

Saudi nor American radar capabilities pick this up. UH. It's it's deeply disconcerting. I read a report today suggesting that the Saudis were actually pointing their detection UH in the direction of Iraq, Syria, Yemen, all with this understanding that Iran would never attack them directly, and so that they don't have the means to intercept directly from UH. You know, if attacks are launched by Iran, and that is why

we have this kind of blind spot. That is a heck of a blind spot to have when you're talking about an aggressive country like Iran, you know, a state sponsor of terrorism that has been mastering missile technology and precision guided munition, these PGM kits which they're sending all over the place, you know, to his Balah and Hamas and other proxies. You'd think that they'd be ready for

all of it. One interesting thing to think about, of course, is not just that they'd be looking to buy additional weaponry from the United States, but also potentially to draw from the expertise of the Israelis. And there has been this really interesting kind of quiet diplomacy that's been taking place between the Saudis and the Israelis because of their mutual antipathy for Iran. Maybe this is a moment where they start to work together and the Middle East politics

begin to change. This is potentially one positive spin, but really right now it's a lot of negatives. You're wondering how professional the Saudis are, whether they can handle this themselves, how the US needs to get involved, should it be involved, and whether this puts US from a precipice of another conflict that many Americans are very concerned about getting into. How rattled I mean, I know you have contacts all

across the region. How rattled are the Saudis buy what happened? Well, this is the thing I mean right now, I think they're circling the wagon. You know. It's a lot of kind of personal outreach to you know, oil companies to try to figure out how to get things back online, a lot of reassurances publicly, press statements and things like that. I have to tell you, we're not We're probably not going to get an honest answer out of the Saudis for a little bit. It's going to be rosy for

a while. They're going to put the positive spin on it. The thing that I'm concerned about is that our financial institutions are buying it, you know, talking to oil traders, folks are saying, well, look we've got lots of excess capacity right now and it's going to be fine. Well what if Iran keeps doing this? And I think Iran certainly has the capacity and the will to keep doing this, and if the Saudi facilities are not put back online quickly and others are taken offline, you have the potential

for a real crisis. So that's the kind of thing that I'm watching right now, and I think that goes very under reported. What do you think the gloves come off option would be from the American and Saudi point of view, if we just decided we want the Iranians to know that never never again. Are they going to do something like this? Um? Well, like I said, I think there are some Iranian oil facilities. You start to take those off offline, and what you're doing is you're

you're removing whatever. No, but I mean more along the lines of is do you think there's a shock and awe possibility here too? Or are they are they going to just stay away from that because the possibility of I mean that is an escalation, right then then we

are at war. Yeah, that's true, although I think that Look, there are other things that the US has been thinking about taking out for quite some time, like Iranian nuclear facilities, and you know they've been loath to do it, but maybe this is the time now to say, Look, not only are we going to take out your ability to sell oil, but all these nuclear threats that you continue to to pose and to issue, well they're going to be taken off the table now too, because we've got

these moabs and bunker busters that are going to get rid of those nuclear sites that you've got dug in in the side of a mountain. Um, so I can imagine doing that. And by the way, that's the kind of thing that the international community, even they're very fearful of a conflict, they're going to cheer because the Iranians, you know, have had everybody running scared for basically a

decade now over that nuclear program. We're going to come back in just a moment with doctor Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for Defensive Democracies and talk about this Israeli election, which there are now results in on that in just a moment. All right, back on the Bucks Exton Show. Here we have doctor Jonathan Schanzer from the Foundation for Defensive Democracies. Jonathan, results came in, Bobe didn't win outright, that Yahoo is not in the clear. What happens now

in Israel? Well, you know, I would say that right now Boebe looks a little hobbled. I think he had hoped that he would win out right the second time around. But you know, I am sort of joking today that

election day in Israel should be renamed Groundhogs Day. The numbers are basically the same it was kind of a dead heat between Nasanyahos Lecout party and Benny Gantz's Blue and White Party, Against, of course, being the former chief of staff of the Israeli Army, who's pulled together kind of a centrist coalition to try to unseat Natagna, who is now the longest serving prime minister in Israeli history.

I think you know, the things that we're watching right now is this desire on the part of some to form a unity government between these two parties, and I think it probably would be the best thing for political stability in the country. The problem is is that the Blue and White Party guys say that they refuse to serve with BB at BB is not likely interested in

serving with them. So what we're watching for now is natagnal as a hearing with the Attorney General of Israel in about two weeks for a bunch of charges that are penning against him. If he is wounded by these, you might begin to see desfections from within Natagna, who's own party. There could be an attempt at a coup to unseat him, and for the rest of the members of Lee coud Uh to start working and reaching across the Aisle with blue and white, and you would ultimately

see uh that that coalition government. I would say, we probably have about thirty days to let this thing play out, which is what the mandate is uh for coalition building Uh in Israel? Is there is there any real concern that the that because there's this shift now in Israeli politics, that there would be a follow on shift in the US as your relationship in any meaningful or important way?

Or is the expectation here? This is it's interesting to us. Okay, Israel important, Middle East out lily and Middle East is obviously heating up right now. Ron Saudi things are going a little crazy. Uh, but things will likely be the same with Israel or what it really matter? Well, look, a couple of things to point out. First of all, the president himself said today that his relationship is with Israel, America's relationship with with his rail, not with one person.

Um and uh, you know, the US will respect the outcome of these elections. The other thing to note here is that blue and white and we could have I mean, they're foreign policies are indistinguishable as far as I'm concerned from a security perspective. Maybe some domestic things at home, where where they might differ on the margins, but in terms of their views on Iran, his Balama, the US Israel relationship, all of these things, the mil to mil relationship,

it's all basically the same. Um. These the guys that blue and white are are Hawks, but they are less inclined to work with Israel's religious right. Uh. And that is natanya Who's base that religious right. And that's really the big difference here. So I don't seem much changing, um as a result of a possible change in leadership. The only thing that's really different is of course that Natanyao and Trump have kind of a bromance going. I mean, these are two guys that know each other. Um, they've

got a good relationship. Of course, Jared Kushner has known Natanyao for much of his life. So you have this sort of comfort level among senior administration officials with the current leadership in Israel. But new relationships can be built, especially between two allies when the alliance is based on

common values, which this one I think really is. Before you let you get back to all things defensive democracy, Jonathan, I want to ask what do you think about these reports that Ambassador Bolton has some pretty harsh words about the presidence foreign policy behind closed door surprises you you think he's spot on? What do you make of it? Well, I'll say this about Bolton. Yeah, he's got a lot of harsh words for a lot of people. That's his style.

And so you know the question is whether he's going to do what most people do in Washington, which has hold your tongue, thank the President for his time, or whether he's going to lash out. My sense is that, you know, if our foreign policy remains relatively constant, you know,

Bolton really shouldn't do that. But if you know, if he if he sees that the President is really shifting wildly from perhaps whatever the course was that they had plotted out, I can imagine that he might see that as kind of the unraveling of the work that he did over these many months. And it's still not advisable in Washington. You've got to remember the thing is that, you know, long term relationships are important and reputations are important.

But like I said, John Bolton has always had these sharp elbows, so wouldn't surprise me anything. Any thoughts on Robert C. O'Brien as the new Nation Security advisor. We got about a minute. Yeah. Look, a professional guy, a capable guy. You know. My question is, and I honestly don't know the answer to this, what is his relationship like with the President. I know they've had some victories

in terms of reclaiming Americans held against their will. The question is, will he provide that unvarnished truth, those tough analyzes to the tough questions that the President may not want to here but probably should. That's what McMaster did, That's what Bolton did. I think that's what any good national security advisor will do. Jonathan shans Er, everybody, he is at the Foundation for Defensive Democracy. So what's the website, Jonathan, FDD dot org. FDD dot org. Everybody check it out

your national security analysis. Doctor shans are always a pleasure, sir. Thank you for giving us your time today. True thing. Thanks by well. Team. We'll get into some light or fair here at the moment, we'll get into some roll call. I thought I thought we'd bring in doctor Shanser though he's he's one of the best in the game on this stuff, so I thought you'd want to hear from him as well as from me. Back in just a moment. The show ain't over yet, folks, keeping it real. It's

time for roll call. So what do we do yesterday? Do we do? Did we do uh Facebook? Or do we do emails? Yesterday? We got a book? We did face Okay, so now we got to get into our emails. Let's see what Let's see. We got an email world. That's always fun. Uh, Team Buck at iHeartMedia dot com. That is the email address. It is very exciting. We recommend that you you try it out. You'll love it. The emails come to us and uh and everyone is happy. So here we go. Valerie, I'm always I'm always worried

that I'm gonna start reading off people's full names. So don't worry. I'll try very hard not to do that. Where did oh whoops? Where did Valerie just go? Okay, Valerie disappeared. We'll get back to that. It's oh no, here it is here. It is she right, Okay, it's your show. You can take calls if you want. But she wrote in the subject line callers really question Mark, I mean Valerim is telling you. Sometimes people they write

to me, they go, why are you taking callers? Team Buck wants their voice to be heard as voice is not just as thoughts and emails and messages. And I said, all right, fine, but I can tell you that producer Mark, did it seem like folks were all excited about calls yesterday because I got some emails. You've got some emails. Didn't seem like there's a lot of love for the calls. Yeah, there were a lot of anti call emails, a lot of anti call emails. And look, this is a this

is not a this is not a buckocracy. This is more of a buck buck based constitutional republic. So you know, there are rules, and the rules are if the if the audience, if a preponderance of the audience would like it a certain way, we got to make them happy. All right, here we go, James, good name, Hey, Buck, get off my lawn. I'm sorry for nuking. You're taking calls live night. Oh I guess, James wrote in, all right,

my next email will address the three points you talked about. Peace. James, James, it's all good, my man, it's all good. You know he called in. You had a little spice to the show. We appreciate it. We always appreciate a little spice, although not too much because I'm producer. John has to take the tums. Actually, are you a spicy food guy? Yeah? You are. Hey, he's Italian. He's got a mama Mia with the pamadoro, with the What kind of spices do

you use in Italy? I don't even know red peppers spicy. I don't think it. Italian food is that spicy either, But they can be like spice spicy. At abiata is arabiata? Is that what you call it? Right? What do you call it? Adabiata pasta right? The sauce. No, I don't know what you're saying. Ah, I'm sorry, John, I know it's like it's like the old country here all out a second arabiata. Yeah, atabiata soa. I'm not crazy. It's

a thing, spicy auta biata us. It's a it's a sample, a recipem make here we go, let's see what it's got here. It has one a week. U oh now that yeah, Oh my gosh. I want to do a show called Cooking with Conservatives. I want to do that show would be amazing. But see, the thing is and have to be a very nonchalant, like I'm hanging out with a fellow conservative in a kitchen and we are each drinking our spirit of choice, you know, wine, beer,

liquor whatever it may be. Hopefully, hopefully they'll they'll be like me, and they'll want to just drink something straight because it's good and they don't want to waste waste the flavor with mixers, you know, like a sorority girl. But uh, that's right, I said it. But you know, I think that we could do this conservative cooking with conservative I think it'd be a lot of fun. And I'm trying to see what's I'm trying to see what's

in and out. I'll be out the sauce here that just keeps telling me about how delicious it is in this recipe, so I'll figure it out. Uh, you got butter olive oil, crushed red pepper flakes. That's the spikes I was looking for. That's what I was saying. You're right, you're right, all right, don't tell a mama producer a John to give me a beating over the head with the rolling a pin, you know, like the old school.

Right now, the Italian audiences seotyping. I know I was gonna say it right now, the Italian the Italian American segment of the audience like buck thin nice, A little bit, a little bit, a little bit of the nice. All right, all right, here we go, Um where do we where? Where we I was doing I was doing roll call and then I got sidetracked talking about spicy sauces. All right, here we go more of this? Uh low right. I listen to your show because of your version of the

day's events. I really like to structure a role call the interaction with your listeners opinions. That way. Taking call from people in the middle of the show is what everybody else does. It gets old. I really like everything you're doing to expand your media company. Kudos to producer Mark. Everyone just loves produce. You know, producer Mark comes on board, all this fun stuff happens. Sorry, we love you too. Du John, You've been there from the beginning. You're an

early investor. Producer John is like a guy that bought Amazon stock when it was five dollars. You know, I'm a very stable genius, exactly exactly. You know. Producer Mark is like, ooh, he's like the Mark Zuckerberg of a situation. Like he's Oh, I'm i'm young, I'm hip, I'm running things. I'm helping you create a media empire. Correct. No, I know that's why we gotta keep you happy. So uh all right, well but yeah, Lowell, I think that the people,

the people have been heard on this one. Here we go, we have Randolph Randolph Mortimer. I love that movie. If you haven't seen Trading Places, I do think you will enjoy it. I think it's worth at I think it holds up well. I believe it's Eddie Murphy's and people always say forty eight hours balderdash, malarkey. Eddie Murphy's second best movie, in my opinion, is Trading Places Coming to America. I put in the numbers. I don't. I just don't like forty eight hours that much. I don't know. It

wasn't really my thing. Let's see here, Randolph rights. I recently watched an interview with Peter Hitchens in which he said that when he was a revolutionary socialist, they were very much in favor of large scale immigration, not because they particularly liked immigrants, but because they didn't like Britain. I thought that if they had large numbers of people in Britain from outside of it, it would make the

task of changing Britain easier. Need it be said that the Marxists in our own country bear resemblance to their British comrades. Additionally, I've just begun reading The Gulag Archipelago, which should be a must read. I'm in my mid twenties, and not once in high school and nor in college, have I ever had or been encouraged to read the likes of Souls and Eatsenter, Dostoevsky or even or Well. I did, however, have time to read The Handmaid's Tale.

Shield's High Randy from Georgia. Randy, first of all, I'm very pleased that you are hopefully you learned about the Archipelago from this show, because I've told people to read it. And also I'm a constant proponent of Orwell and Orwell's works on the show. I was never assigned it's still and I went to some I went to some schools that were not particularly progressive, at least for their time.

For grammar school, for high school, college was Commyville, for sure, but college everywhere pretty much is Commyville, except for you know what. The exception is Hillsdale College. Hillsdale College actually

teaches the American American Founding. It teaches from a perspective of Judeo Christian values, and the more people I meet from Hillsdale, the more impressed I tend to be with what that school is turning out, especially as compared to some of its well known Ivy League counterparts out there, which are just spitting out lots of leftists all the time. So where was I here? Oh? Yes, I was never

assigned Orwell's nineteen eighty four. I was never assigned nineteen eighty four George Orwell in school, which is just astonishing. It's just crazy, given the things that I was. I read a lot of books about somebody living in a village and the elders wanted to maintain the old ways. But then you know, somebody came along with like a new tractor or some new technology, but the old ways and like the spirits. You know, there's some you know,

traditional non Judeo Christian religious practices thrown in there. Blah blah blah. Yeah, a lot of that stuff, not a lot of the of the Orwell, which the only book I was. Actually, that's not even true. I read. I read Animal Farm on my own. I was never even assigned Animal Farm in school, which is really nuts. Never signed Animal Farm, never signed nineteen eighty four, never signed

the geolog Archipelago, never assigned crime and Punishment. Never you know, these are all things that I had to read on my own. Actually might go back and read geolog Archipelago again. It's been a long time. Uh, let's see here. Dixie. Wow? Cool? Dixie wasn't It was the name of my Boston Terrier growing up. Hi Buck, Just wondering if you've seen heard the new ad campaign for the Hartford Insurance Company Always Think of You, and it gave me a smile. No, here,

what does it say? So the buck starts here with new branding for the Hartford something or other. Oh that's cool. There's like a buck in there. Yeah, that's cute. I appreciate that. I used to have this T shirt that I think it was sold by Urban Outfitters or something, but it would said get buck wild and it had two deer but with human legs kind of so it was really a almost like a centaur, but deer top instead of horse bottom. I guess that that was more

complicated explanation than it need to be. But anyway, and they were dancing, you know, like like getting all dancy dance going on. I don't know that T shirt fell I wear that T shirt so much it fell apart. But it was a conversation starter. Ladies were like, oh my gosh, your name is Buck and your T shirts as do you want to get Buck wild? That is like so a darbs. And I was like, can I

have your phone number? And they're like nah, sorry, it's like, ah, shot down, It's all right, Producer Mark, I say that it helped me grow character. Put some hair on your you nowhere head. There's so much hair, it's a haircut. That's also true. That's also true. Um, we haven't gotten to enough enough role call your hold on a second. When we you know what I'm gonna I'm gonna extend it through, so we'll get into more hole. We'll come

right back. We're gonna do a double. We'll do it well, we'll do two, not not, I'll do one, I'll do two. We'll be it back all right, and we're continuing with a roll call. I decided to do a do a two for a two for today, and I also wanted to throw in the mix some of our Facebook messages. We got a lot of emails coming to a lot of Facebook messages, so I figured, why not, let's let's get that at Facebook dot com slash buck Sexton. That's what I h That's how you send us a message.

That is in fact, if you send a message there it we'll get to us, so you don't have to send the Is this the roll call? Yes? Yes, If you go to the url I gave you, I assure you it is. It is for roll call purposes. And if you don't want it read on air, just put not for roll call at the top, please. I feel I always I've had like heart attacks. I've seen it things a few times though, like this is super sense that I don't tell anybody, but they read it at

the bottom and I'm like, no, don't do that. We've never gotten that on air, but it has been a thing that I've I've seen because I try to scan them before we get to them. Richard Buck. There was a survey of police officers published in twenty thirteen. It showed that they were overwhelming these skeptical of gun control measures. It makes sense they'd be skeptical because they see data impact of the laws. Here's a link to the article on police one, I don't know if anything newer exists. Well,

thank you so much, Richard. That's very interesting. I mean, look, I never said because I just said I don't know. I just was trying to tell you that I have met law enforcement officers who aren't particularly pro Second Amendment, but I've certainly met a ton of law law enforcement officers who are all about the Second Amendment. And I

just never seen any data on this. And according to this police one dot com websites, and this is fifteen thousand verified law enforcement professionals took part in the survey. It said, quote, do you think a federal band law manufacturer and sale of ammunition magazines that hold more than

ten rounds would reduce violent crime? Ninety five point seven percent of law enforcement officers said no. Another question, what do you think a federal ban on the manufacturing sale on semi automatic firearms turned by some as assault weapons would due to reducing violent crime? Six percent said moderate, seventy one percent said none, twenty percent said a negative effect on reducing violent crime one percent of law enforcement officers.

According to this police one dot com site which has this study, I've never heard of police one dot com. So this is something new for me. But this is what we got sent on real call. So there we have. It looks like overwhelmingly law enforcement according to this are pro Second Amendment, which makes sense to me. I'm just telling you, though, there are you know, CNN, We'll find all five cops that want to take all your guns

away and put them on TV. I promise you, I promise you that, Colton Buck, the only excuse you need to come down to Texas is barbecue. Coulton, I agree, man, I love, I love. Actually I have not had good barbecue in a long time. I have not had good barbecue a long time. All right, Producer Producer John, what is the you can only have one thing at a great barbered at a great classic Southern barbecue joint? What is your meat of choice? Um? I acceptable answer. I

put it in top three. Producer Mark, what do you you only get one meat choice? Not the five we usually get there because we go hard in the paint, of course. Yeah, what do you get? I guess I have to go with ribs? Also acceptable? Also acceptable? Okay, those are those are two of my top three for me. Number one is brisket. I just I'm a brisket fanatic. I think the brisket when it's done right, is the most delicious. Uh you know meat that there is, so

number two, what's up? That's my number two? Oh you go number two? Yeah? Yeah. I just sometimes to talk to people and they're just like, I like the roast chicken. I'm like, you go to a barbecue places for the roast chicken. What are you some kind of a saying, some kind of a communist. It's just it's just ridiculous, Nathan. Right,

it's about rifles of that distinction. You can call them tactical rifles, but given that they feel they fall under the ninety four assault weapon ban, they're rifles that are assault weapons. As dumb as it sounds, the precedence is set. Yeah, Nathan, that's what I'm saying. I mean, if you know, if somebody classifies all rifles with a detachable magazine, a four grip, and a rail system as an assault rifle in law, then when you refer to assault rifles, that's what you

are referred to. So you know, we can I understand there's no firearms designation, but we're talking about law and legal policy, you know. Yeah, I mean, we can do shorthand stuff. Or we can rename things, like with the Affordable Care Act, we can call it Obamacare. But technically, if I want to pull up the bill, I do I do a search for the Affordable Care Act. I don't do a search for Obamacare, right, because that's not what it's called technically. I know you're already like, boo

boo Obamacare. D it's good times, Douglas. Oh wait before, sorry, Douglas. We'll get you tomorrow, guys, don't forget. Tomorrow, at seven o'clock at the Women's National republic Republican Club in Midtown, Manhattan, I will be giving a speech on wartime conservatism seven pm Eastern. Please please come check it out with a more team buck that shows up the marrier. I will stay after the speech. I will drink alcohol, I will tell stories. I will hang out. We will take selfies.

I want selfies of you. It'll be amazing. Let's go for it. Show up tomorrow, Women's National Republican Club. I could even tell you the address if I had it pulled up right here, but it's like fifty fifty second Street or something and between fifth and sixth I think. But so it's right in Midtown Manhattan. If you're in New York City, Team Buck, come on out, come on out, check it out. Shield Hie