Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Welcome in Monday edition Clay Travis Buck Sexton Show appreciate
all of.
Speaker 2 (00:05):
You hanging out with us.
Speaker 1 (00:07):
Buck is caught in South Florida traffick, but he will
join me at some point during the course of Monday's program.
This is the last full week rejoice of Joe Biden's
tenure as President of the United States. We are officially
seven days away about this time. One week from today,
(00:28):
Donald Trump will be raising his right hand to become
the next President of the United States. We will be
live with the show and all of you in Washington.
Speaker 2 (00:39):
D C. Buck and I are both going to arrive
on Friday evening.
Speaker 1 (00:43):
We'll be there for the sites, the sounds, the festivities
of Inaugural weekend, and then we will be getting hopefully
just an up close look at what day that many
of us have been waiting for for a very very
long time, for that Monday Inaugura. So that's letting you
know where we are headed. What's going on this week, Well,
(01:04):
we have the confirmation hearings beginning with Pete Hegseth on Tuesday,
the Battle over Pete Hegseth, Tulca Gabbard, RFK, Junior, Cash
Patel among others officially underway. It is looking very good
at this point for all of Trump's current nominations to
be confirmed. But we will see how all those hearings go,
(01:26):
and we will continue to break all of that down
for you. But I would say the biggest story of
the weekend has continued to be and the biggest story
of last week has continued to be the wildfires that
have been raging in Los Angeles that are not yet
fully out, and the fallout from those wildfires beginning in
(01:49):
earnest and one of the challenges has been determining what
is true and what is false. So I spent a
lot of time over the weekend diving into the particulars
of this story so we'd be prepared to talk about
it and share with you actual true details here because
so many of you are in California, so many of
(02:11):
you have spent time in the city of Los Angeles.
In fact, I believe the team shared the three states.
Probably not a surprise that we have the biggest audience
in Texas, Florida, and California. Now those are three of
the most popular states in the country. That's not a surprise,
but also three states where we dominate in many different markets,
whether it's number one in Sacramento, number one in San Diego,
(02:33):
number one in Austin, number one in Houston, just absolutely
gobsmacking growth all over the state of Florida, particularly South
Florida where Buck lives. Right now, we appreciate all of
you listening, but I wanted to make sure that we
got all this right. And then this morning, as I
was doing my prep, I want to give credit because
(02:54):
it was fantastically well done. There's an article from Tom Clintock,
who is we have asked to come on as a guest.
By the way, this morning, I asked our team to
reach out to him, a Republican who represents California's fifth
congressional district, and I thought, probably instead of focusing on
(03:14):
the specific failures right now, I want to rebut the
idea that is the only response that leftists seemed to have,
which is, oh, this is caused by climate change. Oh well,
climate change caused this because one of the challenges associated
with climate change is if you cite climate change, for
(03:34):
many people, it is just such a reverential belief that
there is no argument that is able to be made
to the contrary and so I thought McClintock Congress from
McLintock did a fantastic job kind of giving the history
of LA and I wanted to share a little bit
of what I was reading from him this morning in
(03:56):
the and I get again. I give credit to the
Wall Street Journal editorial page as well. And it starts
with the discovery basically of Los Angeles' San Pedro Bay
when Juan Cabrio arrived in the autumn of fifteen forty two.
He named it the Bay of Smokes because there were
(04:19):
so many wildfires which were common in the Los Angeles area.
And we're talking about wildfires now, but for long before
basically there were any Europeans at all in Los Angeles
or in the California area. I thought this was really fascinating.
(04:40):
Prior to the year eighteen hundred, based on studies, California
lost an average of around four and a half million
acres to fires every single year. That is, these fires
long before anybody ever conceived of climate change. Indeed, before
(05:01):
there were very many humans at all that were even
living in this area. Certainly before there was any substantial
population of Europeans that were living in this area. They
had four and a half million acres of fires every year.
Wildfires were actually a natural consequence of the California landscape,
(05:25):
and then due to human ingenuity and study in the
decades ahead. This is again according to Tom McClintock, Congressman,
by the end of the twentieth century, we had driven
that all the way down to losing around two hundred
and fifty thousand acres of wildfire burns a year. So,
(05:50):
with all of human ingenuity coming into place, we had
driven down the amount of wildfires that were happening from
four and a half million million acres a year on
average prior to eighteen hundred. Again, this is a pre
industrialized California. We had driven this all the way down
to two hundred and fifty thousand acres. Well, that seems
(06:12):
like a really impressive amount of work that we've done.
But in twenty twenty California had a four point three
million acre loss of wildfires, and between twenty nineteen and
twenty twenty three, an average of more than one and
a half million acres burned each year. So basically, suddenly,
(06:35):
after having basically corralled this issue which had existed in
California prior to any sort of major human intervention. We
now have returned to a substantial amount of wildfire that
is taking place.
Speaker 2 (06:51):
So what happened? Why? Why?
Speaker 1 (06:54):
I mean this is again, story matters and facts matter,
and trying to examine history matters in an intelligent fashion.
Speaker 2 (07:02):
So think about this.
Speaker 1 (07:03):
We had basically conquered wildfires in California to a large extent.
You can't prevent them entirely because it is a natural
result of the habitat of California, the winds, the Santa
Ana winds, the foliage, all of these things conspired before
we were here to burn four and a half million acres.
(07:23):
With great wildlife management, wildfire management, we had driven that down.
And then in the last few years, suddenly we're starting
to return to the natural the natural burn, even still
substantially less on average, but still the natural burn that
had already happened. And people out there are saying, well,
this is climate change. Actually it's not if you look
(07:46):
at the history. And by the way, if you look
at the history of waterfall over the last one hundred
and fifty years or so, as I did because I'm
a nerd in the Los Angeles area, you can't assess
waterfall as a major change here, right, It fluctuates pretty
consistently throughout all of this time. In other words, climate
(08:07):
change is not to blame in fact, and this is
a really Now we're gonna pivot into what changed? Okay,
why do we start to have some of these changes?
Environmental studies and the goals of the environmentalists to return
this landscape to more of a natural condition is actually
(08:28):
now creating the same conditions that we had helped secure
to limit the amount of fires that are going on. Again,
reading from Congressome McClintock's piece here, which is so well done,
we'll share it on clayanbuck dot com. I'm gonna tweet
this out from my own account at Clay Travis.
Speaker 2 (08:42):
You can go follow it.
Speaker 1 (08:44):
Environmental studies now costs millions of dollars, and it takes
five point three years for any forest thinning project in
California to get approval. And often again they had been
doing logging, had been grabbing timber. The amount of timber
harvested from public lands has declined seventy five percent.
Speaker 2 (09:07):
Since the eighties.
Speaker 1 (09:09):
Sheep and cattle, which were being allowed to graze widely
because they ate a lot of the foliage the underbrush
that is creating so many of these fires have been
restricted by bureaucratic laws and fees, and all of these
things have created the overall recipe for these wildfires to return.
(09:37):
And again I'm not getting into I do think it's
a really interesting discussion.
Speaker 2 (09:40):
We'll dive into this more.
Speaker 1 (09:42):
The failures of water management, the failures of hey, how
do you not have a huge reservoir that could have
made a huge difference in the palisades. How is that
down when you've got somebody making seven hundred thousand dollars
a year. Those are let's analyze them on a particular basis.
Why were the fire hydrants not running? All of those
(10:02):
things will be examined, but I'm talking about the larger
picture here. What occurred that actually created such a fertile
environment for wildfires like these to occur. The evidence and
data would suggest that it was a rejection of the
management techniques which had been incredibly successful in bringing back
(10:28):
the amount of acreage that was burned on a yearly basis.
Dialing all of those back, in conjunction with all of
the political failures, created an environment that was ripe to
be exploited in the event that these wildfires were to
catch back on fire and were now creating a scenario
(10:48):
which was very similar through this whole region to what
existed when Europeans arrived in the Los Angeles area in
the first place. And again we'll talk to the congressman
about this, but what did we do is we allowed
the environmentalists to create scenarios where all of us lose,
(11:12):
and they did so in the name of trying to
make California better climate adaptable. In other words, and this
is probably not going to shock a lot of you,
but we were actually on the right track. We were
using decades of intelligent forestry management techniques and then leftists
(11:34):
in California, crazy environmentalists, took control of the political apparatus,
repudiated and rejected many of the policies that had created
a vast reduction in wildfires. And now we have a
situation where we're basically returning the land to what it
(11:56):
was like in a pre intelligent data driven decision process.
And the difference is we since then have added millions
of people into these areas where they've built homes, and
now many of those homes have been destroyed. It's important
to look at not only the specific failures, and again
(12:20):
I think that's important, and we'll talk about some of
those too, because I spent a lot of time over
the weekend looking at them, the specific failures of why
can't California put out the fires once they start, but
also the larger picture of why was this area so
poised to catch fire and create such a problem. The
data would suggest that environmentalist, while claiming that climate change
(12:45):
is the cause of this, actually caused the situation themselves
by returning the land to a pre rational analysis that
had driven down the overall amount of fires. Now going
to stop any all fires, just like you're never going
to stop all tornadoes or you're not going to stop
all hurricanes. Natural disasters are bound to happen. But what
(13:08):
you want to do, if you can, is limit the
overall ability of those fires to have such a fertile terrain.
And it appears the environmentalists, due to their failure, the
ultimate people of California now in those homes are paying
the price on it. So we'll dive into these. By
the way, I'll take some of your calls. I know
a lot of you are in the LA area. You
(13:30):
may have seen this happen you may have lived there
in the sixties, seventies, and eighties as rational choices were
being made and the amount of burns were dropping substantially
in that area. And now you're seeing all of this
come back, and you're throwing your hands up and saying,
this is the result of failed public policy. And then
we'll get into how bad is California that they can't
(13:53):
put out freaking fires. That's what a lot of you
were asking as you were sitting watching this over the
course of the weekend. How do we get to a
place where California, which is the fifth largest economy in
the world. California by itself is the fifth largest economy
in the world, has a government that's so inefficient they
can't even put out fires. Those are big, important questions
(14:14):
that all of us will break down for all of you.
But I want to tell you about our friends right
now at Hillsdale and what an incredible difference they can make.
Remember back to school with Rodney Dangerfield Classic. Hillsdale's making
it possible for you to go back to school too.
Hillsdale's bringing a number of their courses online, just like
watching TV shows on demand. You can access popular courses
(14:35):
like Constitution one oh one. Professors will take you through
a series of interesting history lessons, how the Constitution came
to be, how impactful the document has been in ensuring
our freedoms. Think about it, this handwritten document kept us
as the land of the free for more than two
hundred and forty years, through the birth of the nation,
civil War, modernization of media, you name it. You'll see
(14:57):
and feel the passion of these professors they share with
they've learned themselves, and why it makes everything, including learning
in particular, so much more fun. Watch Hillsdale Colleges Constitution
one oh one series relearn all about this incredible document.
One of forty free online courses available from Hillsdale. Go
online to Clayanbuck for Hillsdale dot com, no cost, easy
(15:19):
to get started. That's clayanbuckfour Hillsdale dot com. One more time,
clayanbuckfour Hillsdale dot com.
Speaker 2 (15:27):
You ain't imagining it. The world has gone insane.
Speaker 3 (15:32):
Reclaim your sanity with Clay and Fun. Find them on
the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (15:39):
We've been talking about what I think is.
Speaker 1 (15:43):
Just a scary situation, but also a sign of what
can happen when you begin to reverse progress, when you
go from, as Congressman Tom McClintock points out, driving down
in a massive the amount of wildfire acres that are
(16:04):
being consumed in California, and then you start to reverse
all the policies that had helped to make that such
a huge success. And we're joined now by the author
of that Wall Street Journal editorial, Congressman Tom McClintock from
the fifth Congressional District in California. Congressman Clintock, appreciate you
(16:25):
coming on with us, great peace this morning.
Speaker 2 (16:31):
How frustrating is it.
Speaker 1 (16:34):
To look at the data and do your deep dive
on what's been going on with California wildfires. As you
lay out, this is a historical reality, four and a
half million, on average acres a year have burned since
the fifteen hundreds in California. Due to smart policies, that
number gets driven back down to two hundred and fifty thousand,
(16:58):
and then as you lay out, new decisions are made
that reverse many of those successful policies, and here we
are California can't put out a fire, and there are
a lot more of them than there used to be.
Speaker 4 (17:10):
Well, exactly right, fire is how nature gardens, and Nature's
allows e gardener. If you doubt that for a second,
just leave your own alone for a few years and
tell me what it's going to look like. Nature removes
excess growth by catastrophic fire. Beginning in the twentieth century,
we adopted policies to do the gardening ourselves. We auctioned
(17:34):
off excess timber to logging companies who actually paid us
to remove the excess. We leased public lands to cattle
and sheep ranchers to suppress brush growth through grazing. In
the Santa Monica Mountains above Malibu, I remember as a kid,
beast sheep orders used to graze tens of thousands of
heads of sheep every year to keep the brush under control.
(17:55):
We used herbicides to keep brush from residential areas. We
put out fires before they could explode out of control,
and as you pointed out, fire losses went from the
historic average of about four and a half million acres
in California to a fairly steady quarter of a million acres.
But then we adopted these leftist environmental laws in the
nineteen seventies that have made permitting for these practices endlessly
(18:19):
time consuming. Ultimately cost prohibitive, and so not a lot
of it gets done. We still had fires in those days,
but they were a fraction of the intensity that we
see to day. And now what we're seeing is not
a new normal, we're simply seeing the old normal return.
In twenty twenty, we were back up to about four
and a half million acres destroyed by fire. And that
(18:41):
is a choice that we made when we adopted laws
that have made it impossible to manage our lands.
Speaker 1 (18:50):
How frustrating is that to not only you, but other
Californians who have lived through the process. Boy, we're making
really good decisions when it comes to limiting these wires fires.
And then this is often, as you know, much of
this is circular. You start to have that success and
people say, well, maybe we don't need to do this anymore,
(19:11):
and the environmentalists and the climate change people make these changes.
And now they're arguing, and I'm sure you're already seeing this, well,
this is a natural consequence of climate change, as opposed
to a natural consequence of many of the choices that
they made in an effort to try to combat climate change.
Speaker 4 (19:29):
Well, here's the problem with their argument. Is he referenced
when Wan Cabrio dropped anchor in San Pedro Bay, it
was the autumn of fifteen forty two. That's the height
of the Santa Ana fire season. He promptly named it
the Bay of Smoke. So you know, fires fanned by
these seasonal Santa Ana wins are nothing new. And by
(19:49):
the way, when Juan Cabrio observed those fires off the
coast of California in fifteen forty two, it was the
height of a little ice age, when temperatures were at
their lowest in ten thousand years. And it also doesn't
explain this. You can literally go up in a helicopter
and you can often tell the difference between the public
(20:11):
lands that are subject to these environmental laws and the
private lands that are not, just by the condition of
the forests on each side of the line. So we
have to ask ourselves, how clever are the climate to
know the exact boundary lines between the public and private
lands and only decimate the public ones.
Speaker 1 (20:31):
So what is the solution here in your mind? I mean,
and how frustrating is it that? Well, let me go
back to the solution, because I think you'll get to that.
But how frustrating is it that basically the government of
Los Angeles and certainly the state government of California. We're
talking about the fifth largest economy in the world, and
that they not only have lost the ability to help
(20:53):
prevent these fires based on public policy decisions, but also
lost the ability to even put the fires out. I
would argue Congressman that maybe the number one goal and
responsibility of any government on its most basic level is
when people's homes are burning, we should be able to
put them out. California can't even do that Los Angeles
(21:14):
area right now?
Speaker 4 (21:15):
Yes, Well, who hasn't, just said doctor Johnson said, when
a man is to be hanged in the morning, it
focuses attention remarkably. Well, you know, maybe this is something
that will focus the attention of the people of California
on the people they've been electing now for forty or
fifty years. And by the way, it's not just California.
Some of the worst of these environmental laws are federal
(21:36):
that we're imposed in the nineteen seventies. But it comes
down to a simple question that elections matter because they
determine public policy, and public policy matters because that determines
our fundamental safety and quality of life as human beings.
Speaker 1 (21:54):
So what's the solution in your mind? Let's pretend that
Californian's actually made a good decision, and I loved your
piece in the Wall Street Journal, and I think the
Wall Street Journal for publishing it, you for writing it.
What would you do looking forward? Okay, we have to
try to limit the amount of wildfires. You're never going
to completely eliminate them, because as you mentioned, this is
(22:15):
a natural condition of southern California from time immemorial, or
at least since we've had recorded history of the LA area.
From a European perspective, what should happen from if you
were given a magic wand and they said you're in
charge of fixing this and trying to limit this going forward,
what's the right solution?
Speaker 4 (22:33):
This is not a theoretical discussion, because we already know
what works. We've practiced it for much of the twentieth century.
Every year we would send out foresters to the National Force.
It would mark off excess timber, and then we would
auction that timber off to logging companies to remove. They
would pay us to remove it. The same thing with
(22:55):
leasing public lands of the BLM. Right now leases of
most of his public lands across the country for about
a buck fifty ahead for cattle in California's twenty five dollars.
So obviously nobody leases land for grazing. So you have
this huge build up of brush. You know, all of
(23:17):
that excess brush and all of that excess timber is
going to come out one way or the other. It's
going We're either going to carry it out or nature
is going to burn it out. So you know, go
back to the policies that work. Scientific management of the
forests worked, remove the excess growth before it can choke
off the forest or before it can build up his
(23:38):
brush when nature comes to burn it out. That's that's
the fundamental issue in all of this is scientific management
of the lands. We can signed our lands to a
condition of benign neglect because the environmental left promise that
would improve the forest and brush land environment. Well, I
(23:59):
think we're entitled to ask, now, after fifty years of
experience with these laws, how are they working? And the
answer is damning is going up in smoke all around us.
We've lost about a quarter of our national forests to
catastrophic fire in the last ten years. That's the effect
of these new environmental policies, and what we've found out
(24:20):
is that benign neglect is not so benign.
Speaker 1 (24:25):
How frustrating is it as a Californian. I don't know
if you heard in any of the first hour of
the program, but I've spent a lot of time in California.
I mean, there's a strong argument that California as America's
Garden of Eden. You just laid out, we're not trying
to do anything that hasn't worked before. It's not like
you're coming out and saying, hey, we need to take
some radical moves to try and adjust this. California made
(24:46):
a lot of great decisions. It's why the state grew
and flourished into the fifth largest economy in the world.
It now feels to me, and I'm curious if you
feel this on the ground, like all of that incredible
wealth and all of those good decisions are now being
left behind in favor of radical anti growth and frankly
(25:07):
destructive policies for many of the people living there. For
someone like you, how incredibly frustrating is.
Speaker 4 (25:13):
That, Well, it's not just frustrating, it's heartbreaking. You look
at California, we have the most equitable climate in the
entire Western hemisphere. We have the most bountiful natural resources
anywhere in the continent of the United States. We're poised
on the Pacific rim in a position to dominate a
world trade for the next century. And yet if you
(25:34):
look at the census data, you will find that there
is an unprecedented exodus of Californians leaving the state and
one of the two of the most popular destinations a
Nevada and Arizona. Now think, I cannot imagine an act
of God that could do so much damage to this
beautiful state as to cause people to find a better
(25:58):
place to live and work and raise their f families
out in the middle of the Nevada Nuclear test range.
No active God can do that that I can think of.
But active government can do that much damage, and they have.
And so now people are voting with their feet and
leaving this beautiful state. And the only thing that's changed
in the state is public policy. And the good news
(26:18):
is we can't control acts of God, but active government
we can change the moment we summon the political will
to do so. So far we haven't summoned that will,
but maybe this is a catalyst to get people to
start rethinking their whole worldview about the people they've been
electing in California for the past fifty years, and hopefully
it's a wake up call to the federal government as
(26:41):
well to begin changing some of these federal policies that
have contributed to this disaster.
Speaker 1 (26:46):
We're talking to Congressman Tom McClintock. Last question for you, Congressman.
I get a lot of questions, and we had a
caller just at the end of the last hour about
California's failure to capture much of the reign that actually
falls in California, particularly southern California.
Speaker 2 (27:02):
I've spent a lot of time there, anybody who has.
Speaker 1 (27:04):
When the rain comes and it doesn't come in a
consistent fashion, it often arrives all of a sudden. You
can stand and watch all of this bounteous fresh water
just roaring right out into the Pacific Ocean, never claimed.
How does that get fixed and how has that been
allowed to continue to occur?
Speaker 4 (27:22):
Well? I served on the Water and Power Subcommittee' chairman
for several years, and what I learned in those years
is droughts are nature's fault. They happen, but water shortages
are our fault. Water shortages are a choice we made
when we adopted the same environmental laws that have made
the management of our public lands all but impossible. They've
also made the construction of new dams and reservoirs all
(27:43):
but impossible. California, just precipitation alone produces about forty five
hundred gallons of fresh water every day for every man
or woman and child in the state. The problem is
it's unevenly distributed over time and distance. We used to
build dams to store water from wet years to move
(28:03):
it to dry years. We used to build aqueducts to
move water from wet regions to dry regions. That same
environmental left movement destroyed our ability to do that, So
we haven't constructed a major dam over a million acre
feet in California since nineteen seventy nine, were the population's
more than double. So it all comes back to a
choice that we have made through the policies that we've
(28:26):
enacted by the people we have elected.
Speaker 1 (28:30):
Congressman. Fantastic editorial. I appreciate you coming on and talking
with all of our audience that has been so frustrated
by so much of what you've laid out. We need
to get you on again, but appreciate you fighting the
right battle, and hopefully public policy, as you said, can
be corrected in California, because it wasn't very long ago
when the state was making a lot of great decisions.
Speaker 4 (28:51):
Yes, exactly right, and as someday it will again.
Speaker 1 (28:53):
I pray Congressman Tom McLintock from the fifth Congressional District
in California, we shake the time I shared that editorial.
Encourage all of you to go read it fantastic this
morning in the Wall Street Journal. Look, you can switch
your cell phone service to pure Talk right now from
your current cell phone service and save as much as
one thousand bucks a year, same quality, five G nationwide
(29:15):
service because Puretalk is on the same towers and network
as one of the big wireless companies. The only difference
is you don't have to pay anywhere near as much.
In fact, you don't have to spend anywhere near those
one hundred plus dollar bills. You can spend thirty five
dollars a month with Puretalk, get unlimited talk text, fifteen
(29:35):
gigs of data with a mobile hotspot. A family of
four can save one thousand dollars a year with Puretalk,
and you can do it at the end of the year.
That's an extra thousand dollars in your pocket. It's easy
to switch. All you have to do is dial Pound
two five zero say the keywords Clay and Buck again
from your cell phone. Dial pound two five zero say
Clay and Buck. You'll save an additional fifty percent off
(29:57):
your first month with Puretalk a man America's wireless company.
Speaker 2 (30:01):
That's Pound two five zero. Do it today.
Speaker 5 (30:05):
Stories of freedom, stories of America, inspirational stories that unite
us all each day. Spend time with Clay and find
them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you get
your podcast.
Speaker 6 (30:19):
It's the last week of the Biden administration, so we
got that going for us, which is nice. Joe Biden
still technically the President of.
Speaker 2 (30:28):
The United States for a few more days.
Speaker 6 (30:31):
Doesn't really feel like he's been president for quite some time.
But this is where we are, and Biden is going
to be giving a speech here, I believe, focusing on
foreign policies, shortly going to talk about the way forward.
One of the remarkable things about Joe Biden is that
he has a record of being really catastrophically wrong on
(30:54):
foreign policy issues. As a president, he has a record
and vice president under the Obama administration of catastrophic foreign
policy decisions, things that he pushed forward directly himself, or
that he supposedly decided himself, although I think it's always
the advisors, but that's supposed to be his strong suit.
(31:15):
I think that tells you a lot about Joe Biden
that the area of his greatest competency is actually an
area of tremendous weakness if you listen to anybody who
is honest and has been paying attention throughout his career.
Speaker 2 (31:28):
But Clay, this also leaves a lot of.
Speaker 6 (31:31):
Open territory right now for the Democrats, I think, given
the wildfires in California continuing to create devastation across a
wide swath of Los Angeles, and the fact that Gavin
Newsom is running as he's doing a lot of pr
(31:53):
damage control for his stewardship of that state along with
Karen Bass, it's not a moment where you would think
that Gavin Newsom is a top contender for the leadership
of the Democrat Party. He certainly is looking a little
weak in the in the moment at least, and it's
interesting to me that Peter Doucy of Fox News, in
(32:15):
the closing week of Carrie Jean Pierre's tenure as White
House Press Secretary, asks her who is the leader of
the Democrat Party between next Monday, when Trump takes office
and the next the next presidential election cycle. Here's just
what she had to say in response, is play twenty
(32:36):
eight between.
Speaker 5 (32:37):
Next Monday and twenty twenty eight, who's the leader of
the Democrat Party?
Speaker 2 (32:42):
Goodness wow?
Speaker 7 (32:43):
That is honestly, that is for people much smarter than
I to make that assessment, that decision. Obviously, voters will decide.
That is not something for me to decide. I could
say right now, in this moment, in this room, as
I'm looking at the clock as it's counting down because
we have to leave shortly. You have the president, President
Joe Biden, who is obviously the president and the leader
(33:04):
of the Democratic Party. I cannot predict the future. So
that is not something that I'm going to do from here.
Speaker 2 (33:09):
So no, Leader of Department, That's not what I said.
Speaker 5 (33:12):
Full time.
Speaker 2 (33:14):
I'm regretting this right now.
Speaker 7 (33:16):
That's not what I said. I said that I am
You asked me about what's the twenty twenty eight is
going to look like between now and twenty twenty eight.
I can't or post post obviously this president's tenure. That's
not for me to decide. That's not for me to speak.
Speaker 2 (33:31):
To Clay now.
Speaker 6 (33:34):
I actually think that it isn't for her necessarily way
in right, I think that it's Peter Doucy having a
little fun in the last week here, but pointing out
a question that I think has to not only be
on the minds of Republicans but Democrats as well.
Speaker 2 (33:48):
Who is the leader of the resistance to Trump? Right now?
Speaker 6 (33:52):
You know, there used to be this whole, this whole team,
this whole bench of people that are vying for or
the leader of the hashtag resistance against Trump, and now
it feels like it's all just been put on pause,
it's been sent into remission. I don't know, it's I've
(34:14):
never seen a Democrat party so leaderless in my adult
lifetime as it seems to be right now.
Speaker 1 (34:22):
I think Gavin Newsom wanted to be that Trump alternative,
and honestly, the LA wildfires have to a large extent
crippled him politically, and I don't think that's gonna happen
my expectation is that it's going to be Gretchen Witmer,
and I know some of you out there are thinking
(34:42):
it's crazy, but she can't run for reelection again. Josh
Shapiro can, and when he gets re elected, I think
there'll be some DeSantis like momentum presuming that he is reelected.
I think Bucky would get reelected in twenty six, which
would a natural jumping off point for his political movement
(35:03):
then to move national. But I don't think there's a
national figure. Keem Jefferies is not particularly charismatic or well
spoken enough to me to be a compelling national figure.
Chuck Schumer certainly is not in the Senate as the
minority leader. Sometimes that's the person who's in opposition. I
(35:23):
think there's a huge void of leadership. Kamala Harris is
not because she's never been a particularly well spoken advocate
for the Democrat side. And I do think California Democrats
are going to have a tough time because this fire
in LA is going to be seen as an indictment
(35:43):
of their leadership, even if they're national. And let me
mention this two buck, because you just play that audio,
are you gonna miss a little bit the Peter Doucy
Corene Jean Pierre interactions. I mean, we've had basically four
years of sharing those clips because Peter Deucy has been
one of the few media members who would actually ask
(36:04):
questions of Karine Jean Pierre that were something other than
on a scale of awesomeness, How awesome would you say
Joe Biden and his administration have done, which is the
default White House Press Corps questioning in general, with the
exception after June twenty seventh. Obviously that changed when suddenly
everybody had teeth after the debate performance. But Peter Doucy
(36:25):
is going to be, I imagine having way less fun
in a Trump White House briefing room than he has
with Karine Jean Pierre. And a part of me thinks
Karine Jean Pierre, even in that interaction, likes Peter Deucy,
like you know, even though they obviously are have gone
at it quite a lot. And I think Karine Jean
Pierre has lost almost He's got like an O and
(36:49):
six hundred and forty two record against Peter Deucy questions.
I do think that even she's going to miss that
a little bit.
Speaker 6 (36:56):
Well, there's a degree of theatricality in the in these
West wing press core exchanging, both of them.
Speaker 2 (37:04):
Are performing in some ways.
Speaker 1 (37:06):
It's not yeah, it's televised, it's a it's a it's
a shadow boxing. Our friend Caroline Levitt, though, is going
to be taking over that role for the Trump administration,
and I would.
Speaker 6 (37:18):
Think that there would be a degree of theatrics there.
But to start off with, I don't know. I think
that a lot of these I think a lot of
the journals out there, the people that really insist that
they're still the quote mainstream and unbiased or non nonpartisan journalists,
(37:38):
I think that they realized that that whole brand is
shakier than it has been in a very long time,
when even Bezos at the Washington Post, you know, with
his Washington Post says, guys, we need to stop being
so crazy. So I don't know that they're going to
go after the White House Press secretary with the same
ferocity that say they initially did in twenty sixteen when
(38:01):
Trump's team were in twenty seventeen, rather when Trump's team
took over, you know, I think that they may ease
into it a little more. Again, we'll see where where
this goes with deportations. I still believe that as those
ramp up, that's going to become a centerpiece of the
resistance to Trump, such as such as it will be.
(38:22):
But yeah, I think also, I know you've you've mentioned this, Clay,
the Biden State Departments. His farewell address at the State
Department is going to be defending his foreign policy legacy.
Has it?
Speaker 2 (38:38):
Has it kicked off yet? I don't think it started yet.
Has it?
Speaker 6 (38:40):
We're on the air as this is going not yet. Yeah,
he's a little late. It was supposed to start around too,
but it's Biden. So they got to wake him up.
They got to get him some apple juice. They got
to probably give him a shot of something to get him,
you know, get his eyes open and look with some clarity.
Speaker 2 (38:55):
So he's going to give a speech, but they are
hopefully going to be.
Speaker 6 (38:57):
Announcing a pretty major breakthrough with the release of hostages
from Hamas. That is the expect the expectation, right, is
that that's what's going to be announced in this speech,
some some degree of hostage swap and or a hostage trade.
And I think that that's Biden's attempting. Look, we want
(39:20):
all the hostages free. We want the hostages home. So
good news is good news, no matter what. Of course,
it's tragic that it's so few hostages. It should have
been all of them. It should have been done a
long time ago. But I think that it's it's a
it's an incredibly meek and almost chastened Biden white House
that is handing over the reins here. They're really desperate
(39:45):
for some kind of legacy to latch onto. That's something
that they can say, look what we did, and look
what we have to be proud of.
Speaker 2 (39:52):
I think it's you know what I mean. I think
it's a remarkably weak.
Speaker 6 (39:57):
Record that they're trying to trying to doll up a
bit here in the final stages, and it just goes
to the overall Democrat lack of leadership, lack of message.
I've never seen the Democrat Party as a brand look
as depressed as it does right now. And I know
(40:19):
that it's temporary. I'm not deluding myself into thing this
is going to last forever.
Speaker 2 (40:23):
It's not.
Speaker 1 (40:24):
But right now they're at a Nator good word. Look,
I do think you also have to give a lot
of credit. Again, we're getting a little bit ahead of
this speech, but there are reports that there are going
to be somewhere in the neighborhood of thirty some odd
hostages that are going to be released in Gaza by Hamas.
(40:45):
Trump saying that there's going to be hell to pay
if these hostages were not released before he came into office.
Buck I think is actually the impetus to the extent
that we get a result behind that, because I think
much of the Middle East fears Trump in the wake
of his assassination of Solomony, and there's talk already about hey,
(41:09):
what's going to happen with Iran going forward? Hezbola, you
have a ceasefire in the North, now do you get
one with Hamas. I think that Trump's victory has created
negotiating power for Israel. And I know this because the
Israelis told it to me when I was over there
last month in December. They said that Trump's election fundamentally
(41:31):
altered that the hostage negotiations because there was an understanding
that you're not going to get Kamala Harris, who's trying
to placate the left of her base that just doesn't
frankly care that much about what happens to Jews that
Trump was going to come in and reak havoc if necessary.
Speaker 6 (41:49):
There's something very clear here, and it's something that all
of MAGA and Trump voters can be quite proud of,
which is that there is no pross wing of of
Trump voting world.
Speaker 2 (42:03):
This is not a thing doesn't exist.
Speaker 6 (42:05):
There's there's no contingent that Trump is trying to play
Kate on the right that thinks that Hamas is a
glorious resistance to tyranny organization or something right That is
a thing on the left. As we all know, it
was a big problem for the Democrats in this last
election cycle. We saw it with the with the protests
on college campuses. There is a pro Hamas wing of
(42:28):
the Democrat party and that's gone now. So anything that
the US can and and and would do going forward,
uh to put greater pre to really support Israel and
you know, allow Israel to do what it needs to do.
Hamas knows that that's happening now. So there's a new
sheriff in town and his name is Donald Trump.
Speaker 1 (42:48):
Well, not only that, remember the the Hitler taught We
got some funny clips for you about Democrats freaking out
about Barack Obama interacting with with Trump because he's Hitler
still in their mind. Remember that Trump would have won
Israel if Israel were voting as a United States state
by a margin similar to what he won West Virginia
(43:10):
and Wyoming by I mean we're talking about like seventy
thirty if Israelis were voting for who the next United
States president should be, Which is why the whole idea
of oh, this guy's Hitler, Like I don't think Hitler's
that popular at Israel. Just going to toss that out there,
he would have won. Trump would have on the same
level as he won the most Trumpian states in the
(43:31):
United States. And it's like no one ever wants to
even talk about that, but it's pretty consequential. And again,
I think if we get that news, I think Trump
deserves a lot of credit for it with his hell
to Pay commentary.
Speaker 6 (43:44):
You know, if you're in the markets, people are very
uncertain about what's going to happen this year and what
they should do going forward to try to get some yield,
to try to make smart decisions, and that's why you've
got to find people that have research at their disposal,
that have tools that they've created to help in this regard.
That's where Mark Chakin comes in. Mark Chakin and his company,
(44:06):
Chakeen Analytics, have been around for a long time. He
himself is a fifty year Wall Street vet. Mark even
built an indicator that's in nearly every trading terminal to
this day and has nearly one million people using his tools.
Right now, his systems are signaling a big shift in
the AI markets. You might choose to research whether wealthy
individuals and hedge funds are quietly dumping hundreds of thousands
(44:27):
of shares of the world's most popular tech stocks. Mark
is stepping forward to explain why that's happening. He has
a free briefing for you at stocks twenty twenty five
dot com. If you've got money in the markets or
think you're safe from the AI bubble, think again. Go
to stocks twenty twenty five dot com.
Speaker 2 (44:46):
News you can count on and some laughs too.
Speaker 3 (44:49):
Clay Travis at Buck Sexton find them on the free
iHeartRadio app or wherever you get your podcasts.
Speaker 2 (44:57):
Welcome back in here to Clay and Buck.
Speaker 6 (44:58):
You got president, I almost said former President Biden almost
there not trying to get ahead of.
Speaker 1 (45:04):
Things, thankfully, I'm one week thankfully seven days. Yeah, one
one week left here Biden soon to be ex president
Biden giving a speech right now where he is touting
his foreign policy accomplishments. Twenty three of thirty two NATO
allies spending two percent on defense.
Speaker 2 (45:24):
So, okay, I.
Speaker 6 (45:25):
Bet of the what's my math here? Of the nine
that aren't, I bet there's some of the bigger ones.
But put that aside. No, but no one's really all
that focused in on this. But here's what I will say. Gosh,
I was going to say in Biden's defense. I can't
believe I'm going to say that out loud, but I
am Clay. You know, we keep it real here. I
think that Joe Biden, getting up in front of the
(45:47):
camera right now, giving this closing speech at the State Department,
in his last week as president, I think that he
still feels very much vindicated by in a sense, by
the loss that Kamala had. I think he views himself
as a winner still, even though he got pushed out
(46:10):
by his own party. I think that he views his
legacy as one to zero against Trump. And you know,
if he had been in there again, I'm speaking from
the Biden perspective, but you could see this guy up
there into the degree that he looks not particularly vacant
and present. I think that Biden feels like his legacy
(46:34):
is in much better shape than say, Kamala Harris is
at this stage, and it's in better shape than it
would have been for him had he lost the big bout.
So you know, this is probably an overly charitable view
of Biden, but again, from his perspective, he's not the
(46:55):
guy that got annihilated in the general election and led
to to this current state where it's really a leaderless
Democrat party. I think he believes again this is my
Biden interpretation, Clay, I think he believes that history will
look bit I'm talking about from the Democrat perspective, will
(47:17):
look more kindly on him in this election cycle, and
it will look more and more to people like they
should have.
Speaker 2 (47:25):
Backed Biden all along.
Speaker 6 (47:27):
I'm just this is where I think his mind is
as he's closing the books here.
Speaker 1 (47:33):
I think by so, I always like to say it's
hard to predict recent future history, meaning we got a
lot right looking at twenty twenty four, it's very hard
to predict hey, forty years from now, sixty hundred years
from now, how will people look back on the Biden
presidency With that in mind, Here's why I think he's
(47:57):
actually going to continue to look worse and worse. What
did Biden do that in retrospect could look really smart?
I'll give you an example.
Speaker 2 (48:08):
George W. Bush.
Speaker 1 (48:09):
I think, personally, this is my personal opinion, utterly failed
in the money that he spent in Iraq and to
a large extent, Afghanistan. We should never have gone to
war in Iraq. But one hundred years from now, buck,
if suddenly the Middle East becomes a flourishing, democrat, human
(48:30):
rights laden outpost of civilization, people may.
Speaker 2 (48:34):
Look back at George W.
Speaker 1 (48:35):
Bush and say, you know what, his decision to go
to war in Iraq, even though it got criticized at
the time, was brilliant.
Speaker 2 (48:43):
Historically, I don't think that's going to happen.
Speaker 1 (48:47):
But if there were the seeds that Bush helped to create,
and they flourished in Iraq becomes a democracy that is
the envy of countries around the Middle East, and everybody
moves in that direction, you could look at that and say,
what seeds did Biden plant that you can look at
during his four years and say, boy, this looks really
(49:07):
bad right now, but it could flourish fifty or one
hundred years from now. I can't even think of anything
that he could look better at in retrospect.
Speaker 6 (49:16):
I think that Biden's presidency will largely be Now Again,
I was saying from I'm thinking about this from the
Democrat branding perspective, totally totally understandable perspective of what are
the names that you know, we've lived in this world,
Clay for twenty years now where it's well, I mean,
the Obamas are more recent, but it's Clinton, Obama, Kennedy,
(49:39):
and now Biden has become a name, one of the
big Democrat names out there.
Speaker 2 (49:44):
He's been president for four years.
Speaker 6 (49:47):
And they're going to want to have some kind of
a legacy going forward to rally around on their side.
Biden's presidency I think is very inconsequential in many ways
because I don't think that Biden's presidency was anything other
than the machine running right. The Democratic Party was making
a lot of the decisions. But here's what I would say, they,
(50:11):
you know, the big disaster of the Biden years in
a sense, again, if you're a Democrat, is the win
that Donald Trump just had and Biden's not really I
think that he's gonna be viewed as not really responsible
for it. Yes, So I think his party made the
decision to shove him aside, and people are going to
(50:32):
look at this and they're going to say that was
you never push out.
Speaker 2 (50:36):
An incumbent president.
Speaker 6 (50:37):
It was a huge, huge mistake because it's also sacrificed
Kamala Harris's political future in the process too. You see,
it is the worst possible world what they did. Push
out your incumbent, serve up Kamala to get absolutely destroyed.
Speaker 2 (50:52):
Now what do they have?
Speaker 1 (50:55):
Yes, So I think the criticism is going to end
up bouncing back on by In and his team saying
he should have never announced that he was running, That
that was reckless, and that was the sin. The only
things that I could say, like and I'm trying to
think like fifty years down the horizon, you see where
Jake Sullivan said that. Jake Sullivan said, well, one reason
(51:16):
we're not getting a lot of credit right now is
because we made so many decisions that in the decades
to come will look brilliant. And I'm paraphrasing him, but
basically I'm trying to look and say, okay, let's be generous.
What did Biden do. I can see historians saying, okay,
he beat COVID.
Speaker 2 (51:33):
That's not accurate.
Speaker 1 (51:34):
COVID was going to go away, as you and I
talked about, because the natural flow of virus, whether Trump
was in office or Biden like so, I don't think
they can make that argument. That could be one of
their arguments. Then they could say, I guess the withdrawal
from Afghanistan, even though it was a disaster, was the
right one. They can say, hey, we stood up against
Russia in the battle with Ukraine and we kept Vladimir
(51:56):
Putin from what being Hitler and going into like Belarus
and other countries. I don't you buy that. That could
be their argument. They could say, hey, in the Middle East,
October seventh really made it hard. Remember Jake Sullivan said,
We've never seen a quieter Middle East, and one week later,
October seventh happen. So I think it's hard to argue.
But they can say, hey, we stood behind Israel and
(52:17):
that helps set the foundation. My point is, I think
it's going to be hard to make long range Biden
made a big difference arguments. I think Biden is Jimmy Carter.
Jimmy Carter just died, and everybody's reassessing the difference is,
unlike Jimmy Carter, Biden's not going to have a post
presidency where he creates habitats for humanity and does a
(52:37):
lot of global jet setting to try to make up
for the fact that he was a bad president.
Speaker 6 (52:43):
I think, unless my major advances in biogenetics, I.
Speaker 1 (52:47):
Think I think Biden is Jimmy Carter without the Jimmy
Carter post presidency, which actually means Biden is the worst
president in any of our lives. And I think, again,
I'm thinking historically, not right now. I'm trying to think
decades into the future. I just see very few things
that in retrospect somebody can point to and today, boy
he got ripped, but he got this.
Speaker 6 (53:07):
See I'll I'll throw this out there. First of all,
I mean, I think Barack Obama set in motion the
entire leftward tilt of the country that really just crashed
into the wall of Trump in this past election with
all of the most insane left wing stuff you can
trace back to the Obama administration and to the early
(53:29):
years of Obama. So I you know, to the beginnings
of obamasm So I would say Obama's the worst president
of the century by far. I think, far more destructive
and far more consequential in his destruction than what we've
seen now.
Speaker 2 (53:41):
To be fair, eight years versus four years. You know,
there's a there's a year.
Speaker 1 (53:45):
You could point to Obama and say he killed Osama
bin Laden, Right, most presidents.
Speaker 6 (53:50):
You can point to Joe Biden and say he's the
president who in twenty years of the Iraq I mean
of the Afghanistan war, just said enough is enough and
he ended the war.
Speaker 2 (53:58):
I know, well, that's the afghan argument.
Speaker 1 (54:01):
But that's what they're gonna say, that's the Afghanistan argument
you can make in twenty forty to fifty years. Here's
why I think Jimmy Carter is the appropriate analogy. Historically,
Again we're history nerds here. Jimmy Carter really got elected
because of Watergate, right, because Gerald Ford pardoned because Gerald
(54:22):
Ford made the decision to pardon Richard Nixon, and Carter
narrowly got in in seventy six as the ultimate Washington outsider,
and there was an anger associated with the Nixon end
of that era, and Ford tried to run. Ford, by
the way, is a good guy who historically most people
have said, Yeah, that was the right decision to pardon Nixon.
The country benefited, he lost in the short term. Carter
(54:44):
is somewhat of an accidental president as a result. I
think Joe Biden is an accidental president because of COVID,
because Democrats used COVID, much like they did Watergate, to
get a otherwise never electable guy in to office, and
then much like in nineteen eighty, Reagan came in and
(55:04):
just swept out Carter. I think Trump re emerging in
twenty four and sweeping out Biden makes the analogy between
Jimmy Carter and Joe Biden. Then you can toss in
the selection yours inflation.
Speaker 6 (55:18):
Yeah, but this election was a lot closer than Carter
the Reagan just to I mean, I think it's well worth.
Speaker 2 (55:25):
To be fair.
Speaker 1 (55:26):
The Carter Reagan example was supposed to be very close.
And this is actually we're a little bit scary. Is
it possible to have a truly Reagan era whipping of
anybody who's a Democrat, even if they're an awful candidate.
Speaker 6 (55:41):
You know, the country is dug in in a way
now where people will continue to stay with party. I
think almost irrespective of results. I believe this of Democrats
they would say it's true. Republicans too, I would disagree,
but I think that, yes, the polarization of the country
is a reality. The Democrat Party has moved far to
the left compared to what it was even a few
(56:04):
decades ago. Look, I'm just trying to sort of see
what the messaging is here from. I mean, Biden's trying
to tell us how the US is so strong and
the foreign policy front where so strong.
Speaker 2 (56:15):
Things are great. It's a weak argument, Clay, I get it.
Speaker 6 (56:20):
I'm just trying to figure out what the Democrat to
do with this, because they need something to rally or someone,
some brand to rally around. It's by way, it's not
going to be Obama going forward. It's not going to
be a Clinton going forward. They are so leaderless and
without messaging at this point too, because the whole last year,
(56:42):
the messaging wasn't you know, we got to finish the
job with the middle class and get more. It was
Trump is hitler, let's prosecute him. And then the country said, actually,
we kind of like this guy. Let's give him four
more years. I don't know how they come back from that.
And I think Biden is running around doing his version
of you know, the farewell tour based on foreign policy
(57:03):
because you know who really, you know, it's not going
to be No one really cares that much about what
Biden says at this stage, so he's just trying to
have put some put some nice flowery of words together
in his defense.
Speaker 1 (57:15):
Let me put something out there that points to how
hard the history can be to predict, even in the
short term, to say nothing of decades into the future.
You and I were not on together as a team yet.
If on January seventh, the day after January sixth, twenty
twenty one, I had come on and I'd said, hey,
things look bad for Trump now, But I'm telling you
(57:36):
January twenty twenty five, Trump is going to win the
popular vote, the biggest Republican win since nineteen eighty eight.
Every single person in America just about would have called
me a moron, not crazy, not dissimilar from normal, and
that would have been a headline everywhere four years later
(57:59):
that all had happened. So while you think about Kamala,
I'll just say in winter, so to speak, She's not
in as bad of a spot right now as Trump
was on January seventh, twenty twenty one.
Speaker 6 (58:13):
I see, this is kind of what I was getting
at Clay. I think that there'll be some Biden nostalgia
within a couple of years. This is what I mean,
I think. And then Biden knows that, and they're gonna
they're gonna go with it. They're gonna pretend you're gonna say,
you know, he was a steady hand and you know
things are okay, because.
Speaker 2 (58:29):
They's gonna need something.
Speaker 1 (58:31):
Kamala's team has to convince the nation over the next
two years that but for Biden's decision to wait to
step down, she would have beaten Trump. That's her argument
for why she deserves to be the nominee in twenty
eight I think it's wrong because I think Kamala the
more time people spend with her, the less they like her.
But there's gonna be a battle over who is to
(58:53):
blame for twenty twenty four, and Kamala's people need it
to be Biden, and Biden's people need it to be
common And.
Speaker 6 (58:59):
That That's really what I'm trying to get out here
with Biden is I think laying the groundwork for in
the future Democrats to feel like it was Kamala's fault, right,
this is the whole thing. It's it's in the fault.
Speaker 1 (59:13):
Remember in the debate Republican debate, We're about to go
to break but when suddenly Nicky Haley like pulled out
a knife and metaphorically stabbed Tim Scott. And they were
like close friends to that point, and Tim Scott's like, Okay,
we're gonna go here. But they were so similar, both
South Carolina Republicans that one or the other had to survive.
And Nicky Haley had the knife in her hand and
(59:34):
just gutted Tim Scott on the stage metaphorically speaking, that's
what's gonna have to happen, Biden, Kamala, one of them
is gonna have to get get a knife.
Speaker 2 (59:42):
And just it was like Tim Scott such a nice guy.
What just happened? He's so nice?
Speaker 1 (59:47):
And what Nicky Haley ended up surviving the longest. She
was the last, you know, the last executioner you know
in that respects, Like what does she gain? But she
had to do that, I think to get to the
point she did. Kamala Biden are gonna have to make
that choice at some point.
Speaker 6 (01:00:01):
Look, we're talking a lot about Trump taken over next week.
It's going to be fantastic in so many ways. I'm
honestly thrilled for the country. I think this is going
to be a great era in America. But you also
got to prepare for the unexpected, and that includes what's
going to happen, at least in the short term with
the economy, with our thirty six trillion dollars of debt,
(01:00:24):
and inflation could start to creep up even more than
is expected right now.
Speaker 2 (01:00:29):
I mean, look at what they're doing with rates.
Speaker 6 (01:00:31):
Take action today with gold and silver and you'll be
happy you did in the future. The Birch Gold Group,
that's who I trust. And here's a great thing that
you can do. Birch Gold Group can help you convert
an ira or four to one k into an ira
in physical gold without costing you a penny out of pocket.
Mark in this audience had this to say, Birch Gold
(01:00:51):
has brightened my future. Within a few minutes, an easy
financial transaction and plan for retirement was accomplished. Be in
touch with them today. You can call, text, or visit
their waysite. Get a free info kit when you text
my name Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight.
That's text Buck to ninety eight ninety eight ninety eight.
Or go online to birch Gold dot com slash buck.
(01:01:12):
That's birch Gold dot com. Slash buck News and politics,
but also a little comic relief.
Speaker 2 (01:01:20):
Clay Travis and Buck Sexton.
Speaker 3 (01:01:23):
Find them on the free iHeartRadio app or wherever you
get your podcasts.