All Episodes

February 16, 2019 112 mins

Ben interviews J. Christian Adams and John Yoo.

Learn more about your ad-choices at

See for privacy information.

Mark as Played

Episode Transcript

Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
Speaker 1 (00:00):
Why pay your hard earned money to join an organization
that fought tooth and nail for a government run healthcare system,
one that scripted portions of White House speeches behind closed
doors to ensure the passage of the Affordable Care Act.
The organization that stood against tax cuts for middle class
Americans and small business owners. You know that's AARP. Join
AMAC instead. The conservative alternative AMAC offers the same kinds

of money saving benefits of AARP without the liberal agenda.
Become an AMAC member right now at AMA dot us
slash buck. AMAC fights for your values, protecting our borders
by enforcing common sense immigration laws, supporting small business, and
standing up for your individual God given freedoms. AMAC is
the way to go. Stand with AMAC as they fight

the good fight by becoming a member today. The benefits
are great, but the cause is even greater. Join right
now at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot
us slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you, Better
for America. This is the Buck Sexton Show, where the

mission or mission is to decode what really matters with
actionable intelligence magnor mistake American, You're a great American again.
The buck Sexton Show begins analysts. Remember no, Welcome to
the Buck Sexton Show. This is Ben Winegarden in four

Buck Sexton coming to you live from the New York
branch of the Freedom Hunt, the only way Freedom Hunt
that exists into Camio and Cuomo's New York. Thank you
for taking this Friday night to hang with us here
in the New York Freedom Hut. I've guest hosted before,
but in case you didn't listen, I was senior contributor,
am a senior contributor of the Federalist, a Senior Fellow

at the London Center, and you can find me on
Twitter at b H Winegarden. I'd also urge you to
subscribe to my Big Ideas with Ben Winegarden podcast for
in depth interviews with great things, ankers and doers, folks
just like Buck Sexton. And I want to start by
thanking Buck for giving me the opportunity to fill in
here on a busy Friday nights. You know, Fridays are
supposed to be the slow days, but that's when all

the news actually gets dropped now in this twenty four
to seven media cycle, so let's get right to it.
I want to talk about three major themes today. One
of them national sovereignty, two, sabotage, three socialism. The three
ess For tonight's episode, the Border Wall is the big

story of the day and President Trump's emergency declaration, and
we'll play some audio from that in case you missed
it during the Your Busy Work Day from the Rose Garden,
and he laid out sort of his case for why
there needs to be an emergency declaration declared on top
of the funding that was received in the recently negotiated
Continuing Resolution. And let's talk about that Continuing Resolution for

a second. You know, we're more than two years into
this presidency. Republicans had the presidency, the House, the Senate,
and the House and Senate did nothing to advance the
president's agenda really when it came to immigration period, full stop.
The fact that it ever had to come to this,
this Continuing Resolution, twelve hundred pages released at three am

in the morning, ten pages of which were then released
after the fact Congressman themselves didn't even know where to
go for the full bill text is absurd and it's
really a slap in the face to the American people.
Over about sixty three million people voted for this president
and the fact that there was insufficient border wall funding
the first two years, and now you have to deal

with this basically phony negotiation where the President had to
grit his teeth and say, I accept this bill, but
I really don't like this bill. It's a travesty, and you,
as an American should take it as a slap in
the face that you're supposed representatives that this is the
best that they could come up with. So what was
in the bill. The bill is about more than the bill.

The bill is representative of the disdand that our political
establishment has for you and I three hundred and twenty
eight billion dollar continuing resolution with a measly one point
four billion dollars for the border wall. Now one point
four billion dollars is a lot, but in context of
the federal budget in a given year, where the federal
budgets well over three trillion dollars, probably close to four

trillion dollars at this point, it's nothing. It's nothing for
something as fundamental as territorial integrity, the job of the
government protect the homeland. That's number one. Peace and prosperity.
In order to have peace, you have to have a
secure border. So three hundred twenty eight billion dollars one
point four for the wall one point three seven five.

Of course, there are strings attached to this one point
three seven five. And consider by the way the strings
attached to this versus the lack of strings attached to
all the other asinine things that come out of Washington,
hidden deep within these bills that you'll never know about
because they are twelve hundred pages. So, first of all,
this wall funding one point four billion dollars, it's limited

to the Rio Grand sector. It's not just limited to
a fifty five mile area along the southern border in
the Rio Grand Valley of Texas and restricted so you
can't use it in a series of other areas that
they lay out, other areas which need secure fencing as well.
But there are two strings attached that really it just again,

it's more than disdain. It's just spitting in your face.
It's like a big joke that you can have a
twelve hundred page bill and have a couple provisions like these.
Section two twenty four A. I'll read it verbatim. None
of the funds provided by this Act may be used
by the Secretary of Homeland Security to place in detention,
Remove refer for a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings

or initiate removal proceedings against a sponsor, potential sponsor, or
member of a house of a sponsor or potential sponsor
of an unaccompanied alien child. Let me simplify that for you,
because there's a lot of sponsors in there, and this
is typically loyally in the way that it's crafted. This
is a magnet for folks coming here and not being deportable.

That's what this is. You come with an unaccompanied alien
child referred to by the acronym UAC frequently, you can't
be thrown out. Think about what the incentive is there. Then,
of course you want to be a sponsor or, a
potential sponsor or, a member of a household of a
sponsor or, a potential sponsor of an unaccompanied alien child.
Because per section two twenty four A, you can't be

placed in detention, removed, or referred to a decision for
a decision whether to initiate removal proceedings. You can't be deported.
That's what it's saying. Here's another piece of text layered
into the bill, Section two thirty two A. Prior to
use of any funds made available by this Act for
the construction of physical barriers within the city limits of

any city or census designated place. Department of Homeland Security
and the local elected officials of such a city or
census designated place shall confer and seek to reach mutual
agreement regarding the design and alignment of physical barriers within
that city or the census designated place. Translation, local officials
are going to be the ones to determine where the

wall goes up and what kind of wall it is,
design and alignment of physical barriers. And oh, by the way,
it just so happens my understanding that those areas those
municipalities jurisdictions in the Rio Grand Valley, well they happen,
of course, be pretty much all blue districts. So what
do you think is going to happen then with that funding?

You know, there's other elements of this as well. There's
potentially a doubling of the amount of people in the
capped guest worker program hbtwo program, And you know we
can talk about that, and I guarantee you they're about
a thousand other things layered into this bill that make
you and I go crazy what it represents. Again, not
just a slap in the face to us and a

slap in the face to the president, but a total
dereliction of duty, a total lack of sincerity, of care,
of faithfulness to us as the citizen. You know what
the wall itself represents. It's not about the physical barrier. Yes,
of course, a physical barrier is necessary as one element
of having truly secure borders, because the first thing is

secure borders at home, and then we can worry about
the trillions of dollars that have been spent overseas that
haven't necessarily made us any safer. But it starts with homeland,
protecting the homeland. What does a wall represent. It represents
national sovereignty, priority number one essentially of a government, and
in the Constitution it talks about the need for the
government to protect us from invasion, which we essentially have

in which the emergency declaration today represents. It represents faithfulness
to the citizenry, it represents strength, it represents a pact
with us that the government respects us and they understand
that we are the number one responsibility, we the people,
and if not, they should all be thrown out of office.

That's what the wall represents for us for they left
for the Robert Francis O'Rourkes of the world, because I
will refuse to refer to him by that moniker, the
Beto moniker for folks like him. He says, let's tear
down the walls that exist today. How would that work
out for the country? Exactly? You know, the left makes

the argument it's immoral. A wall is immoral. Well, what
could be more moral than protecting the life and limb
of citizen ry? Okay, survival is moral, especially survival from
some of the worst people in the world. These drug
traffickers and incidentally terrorists and the terrorist groups that work
with the drug traffickers and child traffickers to get into

this country cause lots of crime, billions of dollars in damages,
all the associated cultural costs. They say, that's immoral. Okay.
The wall for us represents a citizen rate. For the left,
it represents an affront to multiculturalism and a lack of
concern that they have for the citizen ry because they

believe that everyone that there should be no borders, that
we're all the same, there's no differences in cultures. Well,
except that they know that their culture is superior to
deplorable culture. What they really care about at the end
of the day, what this is really all about, of course,
is the fact that the left wants the country overrun.

They at their core believe in some of them believe
in open borders because ideologically that's really where they are,
and they are really that deluded to think that there
is no difference between different peoples everywhere, and that's a
citizenship is something that should be treated cheaply and taken lightly.
And then for the others it is more cynical and political.

And a little bit later today we're going to talk
about one of the ways in which even absence and
amnesty in this country, mass illegal immigration to this country
actually gives the left substantial political power already full stop.
So before there is down the road, presumably some kind
of mass amnesty, the way that things are trending in
our political class, already there is power to having our

borders overrun. And that's really the point ultimately is that
this is a cynical power play from the left, though
it's sort of it's the old Cloward Piven overload the
system to force a change, overload the system, where illegal
aliens overload the system with government spending, put as much
power within the state as possible, doll out as much

our jest as possible. It all works in their favor
if you're a progressive, because a bigger state means more
power for you. That's where the left is right now.
But those on our side, quote unquote, we're talking about
a percentage of a percentage that really actually believes in
faithfulness to the Constitution, and faithfulness and fidelity to the

American people, and again to national sovereignty and territorial integrity
and citizenship itself. Citizenship itself is not a cheap word.
It's something to be held in very high esteem. And
for those immigrants who came here legally and actually had
to work for it, as opposed to spitting in the
face of those who are just abrogating the system, they
value that citizenship a lot of times, probably more highly

than folks who were born here and take it for granted.
I'm sorry to say. The reality of the situation is
that there's a bipartisan establishment, and that bipartisan establishment believes
essentially in open borders, some of them to different degrees.
It's open borders on the left and on the right,
what is it. It's cheap labor. That's sad on both sides.

It should be an affront to every concerned American. It
really should. If we could actually go to clip ten
Mark Meadows talking about the border wall, he speaks a
little bit about this. This is a president who has
performed over and over and over again. He's moved the

embassy to Jerusalem. He's brought back jobs from China to America.
The economy is roaring. We've got a number of people
that were hostages brought home. Every time they say he
won't do it, he does do it. He's going to
do it this time. I'm confident of that. I believe
that he will take it executive action to make sure

he gets the dollars that he needs to make sure
that that wall gets built. Congress won't do his job.
Quite frankly, we could have done a lot better. We
could have given him the five point seven billion that
he requested, But instead he's having to embark on a
three step process that I applaud. I mean, you know,
I can tell you that I wish that the executive

branch would have less ability to do things on their own.
That was House Freedom Caucus chair, Mark Meadow, and of
course he called for executive action and he got it.
This is Ben Winegarden in for Buck Sexon on the
Buck Sexon Show eight four nine zero zero Buck. That's
two eight two five eight four four nine zero zero
two eight two five. Follow me on Twitter at bh

Winegarden and apologize about that. The guys behind the glass
played a little joke on me before the break. We
now have the Mark Meadows clip. You've heard him. I
wholeheartedly agree with Mark Meadows. I suspect a lot of
you do too. No one wants the executive to have
to have the authority or to have to take a
measure like the President is taking, and it's clear that
he was very begrudgingly taking this measure as well. In fact,

in comments today he sort of went over why a
national emergency here is merited and then also why he
knows it's going to get caught up in litigation. If
we could go to quip six to Trump talking about
the national emergency in the wall, we're going to be
signing today and registry National emerg Agency. And it's a

great thing to do because we have an invasion of drugs,
invasion of gangs, invasion of people, and it's unacceptable. I
could do the wall over a longer period of time,
I didn't need to do this, but I'd rather do
it much faster, and I don't have to do it
for the election. I've already done a lot of wall
for the election twenty twenty. And the only reason we're

up here talking about this is because of the election.
That was the President speaking at the Rose Garden this afternoon,
explaining justifying the need to call for a national emergency. Here,
let me say what the real national emergency is in America.
It's that our leaders don't represent us. The media, the

left they love, they love to talk about, oh, dictatorship,
unprecedented violation of norms. They are actually the ones who
are violating the norms here because they don't care about
securing the country. We spend I mentioned before, we've spent
trillions of dollars overseas on engagements, and you'd be very
hard pressed. I'd be interested to hear from some of

you a bit later tonight, what has been the actual
outcome of Afghanistan. You know, we're there seventeen and eighteen years,
approaching twenty years. Maybe there will be some kind of
negotiation to get out of there. Can you define what
are the three seminole achievements of our time in Afghanistan?
What about in Iraq? It's pretty clear that Iraq has

become in many ways a proxy for Iran. It should
have been a counterbalance for it. Now it's a proxy
for it. So we've wasted all of this blood and
treasure overseas. And I'm not saying that there aren't legitimate
things that we need to be doing overseas, because I'm
as ardent accounter g hottest as you'll find, and I
believe in taking it to the enemy when they pose
a threat to US national interests. But it starts at home.

And if we don't have home right, then everything else
is in big trouble, big trouble. So what did the
President do with this invocation of his authority under the
National Emergency Act? Essentially he was able to identify, according
to the White House, eight up to eight point one

billion dollars available to build the border wall post declaration,
with additional funds having been reprogrammed. And so there's six
hundred and one million from the Treasury forfeiture fund, there's
up to two and a half billion from the DoD
funds Department of Defense funds transferred for support for counter
drug activities under Title ten and of the US Code,

Section two eighty four. There's up to three point six
billion dollars reallocated from the Department of Defense military construction
projects under the President's Declaration of a National Emergency Title ten,
US Code Section twenty eight O eight. And we'll talk
about the legal wranglings a bit later. Allow me to
allow me to have the President explain how he thinks

this is going to go down legally Quip seven, if
you would. Guys, we will have a national emergency, and
we will then be sued, and they will sue us
in the Ninth Circuit even though it shouldn't be there,
and we will possibly get a bad ruling, and then
we'll get another bad ruling, and then we'll end up
in the Supreme Court, and hopefully we'll get a fair

shake and we'll win in the Supreme Court. There you
have it. I think that's pretty wise legal analysis from
the President right there. In fact, the legal challenges are
already starting to fly this afternoon or this morning. Even
it might have been reported that Alexandroocazio Cortez and Joaquin
Castro are going to introduce legislation to try to block

the president's use of a national emergency here, and actually
the ACLU has tweeted as well that they're going to
be attacking it, and some folks are pointing to comments
from the President later on during this Rose Garden address
where he talks about, you know, I didn't want to
do it this way, we didn't need to do it
this way, but we have to do it this way.
And of course his words are going to be parsed

by the Ninth Circuit, as he mentioned, and we will
get into the legal wranglings of this. I do think
it will become very clear throughout this episode that legally
the president is on very sound footing, and we can
talk about executive power, separation of powers and the like,
but this is more a political question in reality than
a legal question, and it is sad that it has

come to it at this point. This is Ben Winegarten
in four Bucks Sexon on the Buck Sexton Show. Call
in lines are open eight four four nine zero zero Buck.
That's eight four four nine zero zero Buck two eight
two five eight four four nine zero zero two eight
two five. We'll be right back and talk about the
census citizenship question. Welcome back to the buck Sexton Show.

This is Ben Winegarden in four buck Sexton lines are
open eight four four nine zero zero two eight two
five eight four four nine zero zero two eight to five.
Follow me on Twitter at b H. Winegarden. All right,
we've been talking about the President's national emergency, sovereignty, border
wall funding and the like. Let's hear what you have
to say. Let's go to the phone, starting with doctor

Rick from Silver Spring, Maryland. Hello, doctor Rick. Yes, Hi,
good evening, and I tell you I could not be
more upset about this whole matter. Buck Show last night.
I think he did a great job talking about all
the problems with the bill. I think it you know,
I agree with him. I think it does more harm

than good, and I kind of wish the President had
said distinct stinks. I'm not going to say yes, and
I'm going to shut down the government again. But I
want to get your take on it. Ben. Yeah, you know,
my opinion of it is this the bill cuts both ways. Obviously,
there are provisions in there that the incentive structure is terrible.

From the perspective of sovereignty, and it cuts against the
president's agenda, which is part of the reason that I've
argued that, look, even in getting this one point four billion,
which is a fraction of the five point seven billion,
which is a fraction of the twenty five billion, that
even with that, they had to fight him tooth and
nail through the shutdown and then put in all of
these potential poison pills, these land mines, as they've been

described by some within the bill. So again, I think
it's a reflection of Congress and a smack in the
face of sixty three million Americans now in terms of
what would the president's best strategy have been in this scenario.
There are a lot of folks who were advocating for
maybe a one or two week continuing resolution to allow

folks to actually examine the twelve hundred pages. God forbid,
we took more than two or three days seventy two
hours to look at what was actually in the thing.
Although of course we could have all guessed that there
would be things in the bill that were egregious. I
suspect that if you were in those White House conversations
about strategy here, the reality was that they said, given
the calendar and where we are relative to twenty twenty,

and how long legal challenges would potentially take, and how
much time has already been wasted on this, that this
was probably the end of the line, and we'll take
the one point four bill in because it's better than
nothing else. We'll live to fight another day. We'll get
the incremental funding to get to over five point seven
billion potentially all in, and there will be a court fight.
Hopefully the bulldozers will get rolling well before election day

twenty twenty. Although it's worth noting that the President talked
about twenty twenty and the political element of this, and
the press will say, you know, they love to say, oh,
this is Trump's vanity project. It's not Trump's vanity vanity project.
It's that he made a promise to the American people
that represents all those things that I mentioned in my monologue,
fidelity and faithfulness to the Constitution, and territorial integrity, and

the fact that it is imperative that we get a
handle on our homeland. So that's really my opinion of it.
Do you have any follow up to that, doctor Rick? Well,
I'm just so very frustrated with the political ruling class.
Like you said, we had control of House and Senate
and the president. They could have gotten this done. Clearly
they didn't want to get this done. And I just

you know the fact that so disconnected from the people
warned us. You know, I would love for the presidents
say I'm building it, I'm using the army corps of engineers,
sue me, stop me and just build it um and
and you know, to you know, to be damned with,
you know, and let them try to stop it. You know,
I just I'm that's frustrated. Well, well, thanks so much

for the call. And and I think we're all frustrated
at our so called representatives that that's really what they are.
They represent us, they claim every midterm election, and you
know then for the senators when their races are up.
But it's a con essentially that it really is. And
again you look at it. You have basically the House

Freedom Caucus or at least a you know, disproportionate percentage
of the House Freedom Caucus that actually believes in the
things that they run on. And you have a handful
of senators and that is pretty much it. And it's
a very it's it's it's it's a it's a small
minority that speaks for the silent majority in this country.
All right, let's go to Charles in Boston. Charles, you

are on the buck Sex and show. How are you? Sir?
I agree with the first with the college just before me.
I'm disappointed too. And uh, I don't know, and I'm
not really clear why the President couldn't have said, you know,
he said, I'm going to read the bill. I don't
like this. I'm going to view to it, have a
continuing resolution and then and then uh and then uh

Board of Security because this is getting serious enough where
uh that this is getting serious enough that I almost
think we ought to have the military on the boarder
imagine find the imagine. And Israel has a wall way
back way back in uh and uh in the early
modern era. UH, Vienna had a wall to keep out

invading terms from the Ottoman Empire. And these people are
invading from South America. And I just don't know how
this is going to turn out. And I'm just afraid
for our public. Basically, if we lose the twenty twenty election,
what happens to the country. Is the company going to
be worth living in? Anymore, or should we just say Okay,
let's you know. That's how frustrated I feel, and I

just wanted to get your take on it, mister weinegotten
and again I agree with it with the doctor who
called from Silver Spring, Maryland. Okay, I'll take your answer
off the air, and thank you for having me on. Bye, Charles,
Thank thanks so much for that heartfelt call. Look, I
share your frustration and your concern about the direction of
the country, and this kind of gets to why Trump's

presidency was such a monumental act, a revolutionary act, revolutionary
in the sense of going back towards the people. I've
said this before in other forums that I believe and
I think that this continuing resolution reflects the fact that
Trump is a man alone in Washington, DC. And you
can read press accounts that sort of reflect this as well.

He holds ideas that can completely fly in the face
of ninety percent of the folks in Washington, DC. That
can't be said at elite cocktail parties, that go against
everything you learn at elite institutions that's reinforced in popular culture,
and it is near impossible to take on this behemoth.
He's one person essentially taking the swings and arrows for

sixty three million of US He is when they talk
about the presidency being the loneliest office in the world,
it really is the loneliest office in the world. When
you hear about the internal sniping, leaking, lying, sabotage in
the executive branch. It is one person standing up for
sixty three million, but there's almost no one else in
the political class there. It is a It really does

imperil our nation the fact that we don't have a
handle on this, and these measures are not the ideal measures,
And I think the President would be the first person
to agree on that he's taken every measure gun beyond
where other politicians would go. Clearly in terms of tactical
what should have been done in the near term, I'm

not sure that the continuing resolution would lead to anything
other than probably a worset deal. Even ultimately, it's very
tough sweating when your side consists of a president and
a few other people in Congress. It's very challenging. And
you see now that the president is using a power
that he'd probably rather not use, that's going to be challenged.

That has drawn the ire of even some conservatives and
some libertarians. We're going to speak with one of those. Incidentally,
we're going to speak with John You a little bit
later tonight, a constitutional scholar who has studied executive power
versus legislative power, the ins and outs of national emergencies.
And look, the Department of Defense is going to be
down at the border, their budgets being reallocated for these purposes.

And look, you saw it in the face of the
caravans as well. And the caravans are part of kind
of the series of events, the fact pattern leading up
to the justification for declaring a national emergency. And we're
going to go back to kind of the legal battle
over this and a little bit of the political battle
as well with John Yu as I mentioned a bit
later in the program, But I want to talk about

another issue that has really been off the radar except
for wonky folks in Washington, d C. But which has
really drawn the focus of the left in a way
that I think few anticipated. And you could sort of
see this and I wrote about this in The Federalist,
and probably almost a year ago. Eric Holder, former Attorney General,

he came out and it's not as if he's made
a ton of public statements or written a ton of
op eds. He came out focused on this issue of
a census citizenship question. Now, let's start at the highest level.
Why would you care about the census and what does
the citizenship question have to do with this topic of
national sovereignty. The census is actually a vital document when

it comes to political power because it is used in
primarily two tasks, one apportioning seats in the US House
and two allocating upwards of eight hundred billion and perhaps
nine hundred billion dollars a year in federal funds down
to district. So let me say it state that again,
the number of representatives in your given states, and thus

the number of presidential electors that you send to the
Electoral College, is dictated by the census numbers. That redistricting
occurs every ten years, and that's why the twenty twenty
census is so essential. And again, nine hundred billion dollars
in federal funds are allocated. Nine hundred billion dollars, that's
like a third of the federal budget, maybe slightly less,
are allocated based upon the census. The question of the

census citizenship question, what is that? Well, the Trump administration
decided under Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross, the Census Bureau fits
under the Commerce Department, that a citizenship question should be
included on the primary census. So every American, every household
who receives a census, Wilbur Ross and the Trump administration

would like the question to be asked, are you a
citizen of the United States. There are a few different
boxes relating to what your citizenship is, and then there's
no not a citizen of the United States. That's all
they want to ask. You would think that that would
be a pretty basic question that a country would want
to know. You know, in my district, what percentage of
people here are citizens? What percentage are non citizens? Well,

the backlash on the left has been massive, and here's why.
The census count that determines how many representatives are in
each state is based upon total people counted. Let me
repeat that total people counted, that citizens and non citizens.
And within non citizens, there are illegal immigrants and there
are people here who are here illegally. So the census

count to determine that apportioning counts illegal aliens. So if
you live in a state that as a disproportionate number
of illegal aliens, You might have a disproportionate number of
representatives in your state. A lot of people aren't aware
of that. Doesn't that strike you as strange that a
sent be political power? How many representatives you have, how

many electors go to the electoral college, and then what
percentage of the nine hundred billion plus dollars that gets
allocated down to the district levels based upon those population
counts that the numbers that influence that actually include illegal aliens.
Did you know that illegal aliens can actually dilute the
political power of some people, those who live in states

they're disproportionately citizens, and conversely creates more power for those
states that have more illegal aliens or more non citizens. Generally,
this isn't talked about very often. One of the reasons
that the Trump the reason the Trump administration wants to
include the question, and the reason they've argued for it,

is that in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act,
something that you would think Democrats would be on board with.
Properly enforcing provisions of the Voting Rights Act, you need
an accurate account of citizens versus non citizens. Otherwise non
citizens can dilute the political power of some artificially increase
the political power of others. So the Trump administration puts

forth the census citizenship question in their proposals and immediately
are met with a swift backlash from all sorts of
leftist advocacy groups. The case that lost for the Trump
administration is now going to be kicked up to the
Supreme Court. Today the news came out Wall Street Journal

headline quote, Supreme Court degree is to decide legality of
census citizenship question. Trump administrations seeking to ask census respondents
if they are US citizens. When we come back, we'll
talk a little bit more about the stakes of this fight,
about what the left is arguing. The insane arguments against

something is basic as you knowing what percentage of the
country is citizens versus non citizens in your own district,
what happens to your political power, Why some states are
going to lose representatives and some are going to gain representatives,
Why there's more funding for some states and not other states.
We'll get to this major legal argument that's brewing that
sticks to this point of national sovereignty and do we

defend the rights of our citizens and the political power
of our citizens. We'll get right back to that, and
we have an interview with someone who is supporting the
government's efforts to include that citizenship question at the top
of the hour. This is Ben Weinegarden in four Buck
Sexon on the Buck Sexon Show. Eight four four nine
zero zero two eight two five. That's eight four four
nine zero zero two eight two five beer right back.

This is the Buck Sexton Show, and this is Ben
Weinegarden in four Buck Sexton linzeropen eight four four nine
zero zero two eight to five, and you can follow
me on Twitter at b h wine Garden. All right,
before the break, I was talking a bit about the
census citizenship question and how this question is now going
to the Supreme Court based upon a ruling that came

down today and that the Trump administration had lost in
the Southern District of New York in a federal court
by an Obama appointed judge. And I mentioned the fact
that the census is such a vital, vital count because
the census really determines how much political power each state
has and ultimately how much political power each citizen has.
But it's impacted by non citizens because the counts that

we get out of the census total population count is
what matters to determine a portioning of the seats, an
allocation of hundreds of billions of federal dollars. Okay, So
why did Democrats hate the idea of the inclusion of
this question? What they state that they believe that there
will be an unconstitutional undercount, that non citizens will be

afraid to respond to a question are you a citizen
or not? In the census. We can walk through the
history of this, but this question was on the census
every decade from eighteen twenty to nineteen fifty, outside of
eighteen forty for whatever reason that was A similar question
has been asked of one in six households in nineteen eighty,
nineteen ninety, and two thousand on the long form Census.

The Obama administration, I don't think they're racist targeting illegal aliens.
They asked the question of one and thirty eight households
on the document that replaced the long form Census, the
American Community Survey. As mentioned, the Trump administration makes the
case that in order to enforce the Voting Rights Act,
something that we can all agree on, that they need
an accurate account of citizens versus non citizens. But the

Left has fearmongered about this issue, saying it's a Trump administration.
We can't trust them to ask this question. They're trying
to drive down non citizen numbers, But what is their
real argument. At the end of the day, they will
lose political power. In fact, in the judge's opinion from
New York who wrote against the Trump administration, he said
that the question was actually constitutional. He was fine with

a citizenship question. He differed with Commerce Secretary Wilber Ross's
judgment and the way he came to his decision. And
he wrote, and I quote here, the Court finds, by
a preponderance of evidence that the addition of a citizenship
question will cause, or is likely to clause etc. Etc.
Several jurisdictions to lose seats in the next congressional apportionment period.
Let's stop right there. People could potentially lose house seats

because of non citizens not being included. Thus the potentially
this all hypothetical question can't be asked. He added, a
net under account of people live in non citizen households.
Whilst it caused states to lose access to federal funding.
What does this all come down to At the end
of the day, it comes down to political power. It's
not about you the citizen. It's about political power for
those who benefit from those states with large non citizen populations.

When we come back, we'll talk with Jay Christian Adams.
His legal group has actually filed an amicist CUI bief
brief with the Trump administration that went to the Supreme Court.
We'll be right back on the buck Sex and show.
You're probably familiar with AARP. You or someone you know
might already be a member, But did you know that
AARP is about left wing politics. They lobby for a

lot of progressive causes. An AARP fought tooth and nail
for a government run healthcare system. Well, I recommend AMAC YAMAC.
AMAC was founded by an Air Force veteran, Dan Weber
over a decade ago to represent not only conservative views,
but policy that's good for America. AMAC advocates for border
protection and it also advocates for fixing social security. Your
investment in AMAC also allows AMAC to act for policy

good for America the AMAC difference. It's held over one
thousand real face to face meetings with key decision makers
in DC, including Senators, as well as key influencers at
the White House. AMAC offers the same kind of money
saving benefits that AARP offers, but without the liberal agenda.
Join AMAC, the conservative alternative. Instead, stand with AMAC as
they fight the good fight by becoming a member today.

The benefits are great, but the cause is even greater.
Tell your family and tell your friends join right now
at AMAC dot us slash buck. That's AMAC dot us
slash buck. AMAC is better, better for you, better for America.
We simply cannot allow people to pour into the United

States under protected, undocumented, unchecked, and illegal aliens should not
be treated the same as people who entered the US legally.
We must control our borders, must protect our borders. This
is Ben Weegarden in for Buck sexon on the Buck
Sex and Show eight four four nine zero zero two
eight two five Follow me on Twitter at bh wine Garden.

And those were just some of the few disingenuous Democrats
who over the years have of course completely flipped on
this issue, proving per usual that with them and of
course with many Republicans too, it's about power, it's not
actually about principle and those questions, and again, this question
of citizenship, border security and the like is really intrinsic

to the question of census citizenship, and I think a
unique microcosm of what the political class thinks about us,
because there isn't even a question. You've probably never even
heard the question asked, mister representative of my district, why
is it that illegal aliens can take political power from me?
Or conversely, why is it that this other district, this

other state has more political power by counting people who
have cheated the system. I talked a little bit about
the historical background of the census citizenship question, the Trump
administration's justification for it on the Voting Rights Act, and
the Democrats challenged to it, and I mentioned the judge

in the Southern District of New York, federal judge. He
shot down the Trump administration's ability to ask this question
not on constitutional ground. I'm going to quote from his
opinion here the citizenship question and I quote is quote
not inconsistent with the Constitution unquote. I it's not the
question that's an issue here, it's how the Trump administration

came to their determination. And by the way, this doesn't
even get into the fact that the groups who brought
this suit to this judge, Obama appointed judge in the
Southern district were of course leftist act VISC groups who
arguably should have had no standing, and the judge made
his argument that essentially some political power could be lost
among some groups if there was an undercount. But Secretary

Ross was the person who had the power delegated to
him to determine what questions go on that census, since
he is the Commerce Secretary and the Census sits under him.
The judge was not delegated that power. Secretary Ross was.
And by the way, that's a running theme that will
really run throughout this episode when we talk about not
just sovereignty, but everything that the president tries to do

visa via the legislative branch and vice versa. Where does
power reside. Here's what Secretary Ross said, quote Neither the
Census Bureau nor the concerned stakeholders could document that the
response rate would in fact decline materially. The Census Bureaus
analysis did not provide definitive empirical support for that belief.
And then he went on, even if there was an

i quote here an impact on responses, the value of
more complete and accurate day derived from surveying the entire
population outweighs such concerns. Unte you know, it seems pretty
reasonable to me, seems common sense to me. And more importantly,
who is a judge to question Secretary Ross's decision making?

The judiciary is out of control. The legislative branch is
actually supposed to be in the most important powerful branch,
the executive executes. The courts are there to review constitutionality,
period full stop. They're not there to question the judgment
of a person, in this case, an executive branch official
who was delegated pretty clear authority to ask whatever questions

are necessary, provided there is a constitutional purpose, and here
the constitutional purpose is enforcing the Voting Rights Act? So
what is the real story here? Was I mentioned? The
judge himself admits that this is basically about political power.
Potentially some states could lose seats in the US House
and billions of dollars, some portion of which might be

allocated elsewhere, and as there was, some people might be
hurt by that based upon this hypothetical that people aren't
going to respond to a question that asks are you
a citizen or not? And oh, by the way, if
you're not a citizen, it doesn't ask are you here
legally or illegally? It's not asking people to self incriminate.
It is a pretty basic question of a country. Are
you a citizen? Are you not a citizen? I think

that most Americans would probably agree. Guys behind the glass,
do you agree with that assertion? You should know who?
What percentage of Americans are citizens? What percentage of people
in America are non citizens? Seems pretty reasonable to me
in a country top of the list citizenship. No broader question.
Should should the census count all people? Oppose that? Also

to you, guys, if you are here illegally, should you
be counted in a census so that maybe you get
one more see it in the House of Representatives in
your state? Is that fair? Is not fair? Pretty basic?
But Democrats say, actually it's unfair. The other way, it's
actually unfair. So there are a lot of legal aliens, Well,

they use public services in your districts. You need more
money now, But why is there another representative? And why
does a probably red state that has a lower percentage
of legal aliens, why do they get less political power?
And where are the Republicans. I've never heard a Republicans
say a word about Oh my gosh, this is actually
another magnet for illegal immigration, sanctuary cities. Have you ever

heard someone say, well, sanctuary cities are a magnet for
illegal aliens, and that's actually going to be in more
power for their state. So there's actually an incentive before
there's ever an amnesty for open borders. I think more
than anything this week, what we found out with this
bill is that both parties are for open borders. I
think they both became exposed and now we both know
what they're all about. Essentially, that's the stakes, and they

can't keep lying to us about it. In twenty twenty,
this would be a fundamental question. President Trump layed out
kind of what the fundamental questions are in that state
of the Union. You know, if we don't have a
border wall, we don't have sovereignty, we're not a country.
Pretty basic thing, fundamental. It really the political class. They're
up in arms. How could you ever believe in, you know,
territorial integrity because apparently they don't believe that there are

border lines in this country. Okay, so borders. Do you
believe in borders or not? Do you believe in defending
your citizens or do you believe that America exists for
everyone in the world. Do you believe in in fanticide,
do you believe in socialism? Pretty basic things, and Republicans
will rally to the President's side on that. But then
when push comes to shove, when you get into the
nitty gritty of policy, he's pretty much left high and dry.
I still think probably the most telling act of this

Congress is what was their seminole achievements with the two
years under President Trump when we had all three branches?
And oh, by the way, the political class always said
with respect to healthcare and probably a bunch of other
things as well, well, to do this first, we need
the House. Okay, got the House. Well we need the Senate.
Got the Senate. Well we need the presidency. Got the presidency.

We need the Supreme Court? Got Supreme Court. Who's kidding?
Who here? Who is getting who here? And I want
to go back to that fundamental question about people in
the census. And this does get into a little bit
of the legal weeds, but it really shouldn't fundamental question

that Americans should be able to pose to their representatives.
In my view, why should non citizens, including illegal aliens,
be able to increase the political power of some Americans
and decrease the political power of other Americans. So this
comes down to definition of people. A constitution talks about
Congress shall set the rules for counting citizens, and we'll

use it to apportion seats. That's Article one. Section two
of the Constitution calls for a citizenship, citizens census counts,
apportioning representatives, and directing taxes. And then the language was
modified after the abolition of slavery under Section two of
the fourteenth Amendment. So of course before there were slavery provisions,
they were stricken after the abolition of slavery, so that

every American was counted. Boy, And I'll quote here from
section to fourteenth Amendment, which requires that a portioning can
be based on quote, the whole number of persons in
each state, excluding Indians, not tax The section that becomes
both comes before proceeds Section two of the fourteenth Amendment.
Section one begins all persons born or naturalized in the

United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof our citizens
of the United States and of the state wherein they reside.
So if you're reading that document like a normal person
and not like a liberal lawyer, okay, first sentence defines
who persons are. Second sentence references persons. Those persons are
born or naturalized in the US and subject to the

jurisdiction thereof that's who the whole number of persons in
each state are. And the same holds true for the
Constitution itself, by the way, and the census count is
called for under the Constitution. The preamble of the Constitution
quote we the people of the United States, not as
constitutional scholar John Eastman puts it, we the people of

the world, or we any foreign nationals who happen to
be in the United States when a census is taken.
This is pretty basic stuff. You never have heard this questions.
I have not heard a politician with any kind of
bully pulpit get up and say, why should illegal aliens
dilute your vote and increase the power of another person's vote. Again,

this is minutia. This is getting into the weeds. But
this is just as this is vital, just like the
border wall is vital. And it comes from the same
line of argumentation, which is, are we a country or not?
Do we respect our citizens or not? And it's very
clear that the political quest does not. Otherwise you might
have heard Republicans one time step up and actually defend
the Trump administration on including the question, even though the
question can't be proven that it's going to suppress suppress

response rates, because who should be afraid of answering the
question Am I a citizen or not? When I check
the box not, it doesn't say yes, I'm here illegally,
Come arrest me. So there have been legal fights on
the definition of persons. It's been inconclusive. There's a legislative
solution as well. There's a representative from Ohio. His name's

Warren Davidson. He recently reintroduced a constitutional amendment, the Fair
Representation Amendment, that a portions representative sole we quote by
counting the number of persons in each state who are
citizens of the United States unquote. And here's what he
says about that. He says, Ohio citizens should not have
their voices diminished by other states harboring illegal aliens in

sanctuary cities. Many Americans don't even realize that through current
census practices, non citizens dilute the influence of citizens, especially
in Ohio and other states with lower non citizen populations.
The status quo of awarding states greater representation for this
illegal behavior subverts our Constitution, proper census calculations are needed

to ensure that every citizens vote counts. Now, this amendment,
of course, is just going to languish in Speaker Pelosi's House,
But here's the reality, it also languished in Republican control
at houses. Why is that the case? Why shouldn't this
fight be had? So I've argued, and in a piece
that's going to come out for the Federalist shortly, I
make the case that excluding non citizens from the census

might be a legal and political loser, given the state
of today's courts and the political incentives around it. But
it's incumbent upon those of us who believe in the
rule of law and the sanctity of citizenship to challenge
the statish quo, both in the courts and in the
legislative spheres, just as Democrats do on every single matter,
as you're seeing today, for example with the President's National

Emergency Declaration. I mean, Democrats challenge on every single playing
field they possibly can. And when do Republicans put up
fights and what do Republicans put up fights for? As
I mentioned before, what do they do in two years
their seminal achievement in that in that Congress was a
tax reform bill which wasn't even exactly what the president
had called for when he ran for office, and clear

it was not Agenda item number one. They got their priority,
and they ignored the priorities that the American people had
called for above all else. So, as I said, members
of the political establishment who cling to the status quo
should be put on record and made to answer the
following question. You should demand this question of your representatives.
Why should non citizens, including illegal aliens, be able to

increase the political power of some Americans while decreasing the
political power of others. This is Ben Weingarten in for
Buck Sexon on the Buck Sexon Show. Eight four four
nine zero zero two eight two five. That's eight four
four nine zero zero two eight two five. We'll be
right back. Global Verification Network is the only dual certified

veteran own background investigations and vetting company. It's useful if
you're renting out a home or another space. For important
decisions like these, you need a service like Global Verification Network.
Go TOMGVN dot com or call at eight seven seven
six nine five one one seven nine. Global Verification Network
is federally certified as a veteran owned small business. It's

independently certified by the National Veteran Business Development Council, which
is the only minority spend certification recognized by the Billion
Dollar Roundtable. Global Verification Network is headquartered in Chicago with
offices throughout the nation. They are the risk mitigation experts
and they work with all companies from startups to fourtune
one hundreds rest ashore. No data or client information is

ever offshored, and all employees are located throughout the United States.
Visit Global Verification Network at MYGVN dot com or call
them at eight seven seven six nine five one one
seven nine. This has Ben wine Garden in four Buck
sexon on the Buck Sexon Show. Lines are open eight
four four nine zero zero two eight to five eight

four four nine zero zero two eight to five. You
can follow me on Twitter at bh wine Garden and
I actually just tweeted out a quick explainer on the
Census citizenship for your reference. Or We've got a bevy
of callers from the Mid Atlantic region out tonight. Let's
go to No in Virginia Beach, Virginia. No, you're on
the Buck Sex and Show. Oh hey, then are you know, yeah,

pretty good. Uh, yeah, that's that's about three years three
four years ago, Ched Kent did a really good, uh
exposay on what was Donald Trump or right about birthday
citizenship and it actually went into the actual the framers
of the amendment to see what they they went because
it was very lengthy debate on the Sun floor about it,
and it was a very very very good expersay on it, saying,

you know, basically that the children of illegal aliens are
not subjects to the jurisdiction there of evidence in the amendment,
and because they must be subduct the jurisdiction thereof and
since the parents are the children are Yeah. No, it's
a it's a question that's been raised in and thanks
for the call. It's a question that's been raised in

any number of pieces of litigation, and of course the
left raises great arguments. I think the arguments on our
side are more compelling. You see conservative legal scholars who
are very split on this question, and of course usually
the arguments are in some way former fashion sort of
tinged by their views on immigration. More broadly, these questions

really strike at the heart though, of the question of
who are we as a nation. What did the language
mean at the time it was written. And I think
it's very hard to make the argument that subject to
the jurisdiction thereof doesn't mean subject to the jurisdiction thereof.
That is, if you came here and your parents weren't
citizens and you come into this country, whose jurisdiction are
you subject to? Well, temporarily, of course, you're subject to

our laws, but that's not the power that typically you're
governed by. So I think it's a legitimate question. There's
some great, great arguments out there. You can see on
the federalist Judge Hoe, who's a federal judge out of Texas,
has written sort of the anti case on birthright citizenship.
Michael Anton has stirred up the political class in many ways,

but in particular his argument in favor of challenging birthright citizenship.
And of course the President himself has brought up the question,
perhaps to raise it as a trial balloon and see
where the political wins might be. But I think it's
a legitimate question and it absolutely should be debated. All right,
let's go to Randy from Richmond, Virginia. Randy, you're on
the Buck Sexton Show. Yes, it's been correct. It is.

I got several things I want to talk about, but
I just want to want to talk about that. There.
Mark Laman mentions a lot of times, this is like
a post constitutent republic, and I really believe that. So
I think what we're trying to do is save a republic.
It's already gone. It's been gone for a number of years.
We just didn't recognize that. That's the first point. Second,
I feel like what mister Trump is trying to do
it is not the way to do it. He is

listening to the wrong advisers. He needs to come out
to the people and persuade the twenty and thirty million
people who have not been voting for over forty to
fifty years. You get them back on side to vote
for liberty. Everything will change overnight, everything. But he too,
you get those of people engage, You're not We're gonna
have the other forty million balloting for having no more liberty,

others saying they want more socialist. That's what's gonna be
all with your word more not polarized like the guy
with Steve Days, and I think it is. He says
we're balcan eye. That's absolutely correct. We're balcan eyed. We
have been balcanized for many, many decades, and we'll never
realized that. We're none starting to realize that only because
we're now engaged in the argument. And not to add

to that, we have lost the arguments partly because we've
lost the language. We don't even know what conservative means.
Conservative meant to be all one time preserved values, preservative
to liberty, but they wouldn't mean it actually made no
because because it meants with the status quote, what is
the status quote? It's not liberty, it's tyranny. It's statism,

it's socialism. And we've had a social qualizized quas socialist
state since the time of FDR really spent the time.
But Winter Wilson when he gave to the banking institutions
control VERYCA and a COB for that the RS, why
would they do that? The gato our lives and they've

been controleing olives. So in the Federal Reserve when they
say well we'll go ahead and do this and that
say they're CONTROI what our currency? How you remain in
our lives? We don't when you do that. The gam
Congress gave that over to them their authority, didn't they
And you hear they do it again again and again
and again. Our enemy has been more of the Congress
than anything else. But we keep voting on the same

people over and over again. Why because they give us
stuff like if you're a black person, I vote for
that guy over that because they gives me stuck. The
gam Press convinced half the people the vote against anything
portunity to liberty and vote for more socialism. So they
vote in more Democrats to get what more Randy We're

gonna have to go to break shortly. I share your passion,
and I share your outrage. And actually in the next
hour we're gonna talk a little bit about how our
constitutional liberal liberties have been eviscerated. The language is stolen.
Woodrow Wilson, of course, was the start of all this.
This is Ben Weingarten in four Buck Sex and on
the Buck Sexon show. It for four zero two eight
two five. Will be right back. This is Ben weinertan

in for Buck sexon on the Buck Sexton Show eight
for four nine zero zero two eight to five eight
for four nine zero zero two eight two five. I've
been teasing this for a little bit in just a moment,
we're gonna have a constitutional scholar, a human trigger warning
as I like to call him, to talk a little
bit about citizenship, a bit this census question, but also

the emergency that was declared today, and we'll talk a
bit about the legal ramifications, what the challenges are likely
to be, what the president will do to counter Potentially
this should be a fascinating legal battle to watch, in
part because it really implicates questions of separation of powers
and checks and balances, and in this case, as we'll

get to in a moment, here, you have a president.
Some will argue taking authority from the legislative branch, but
it's authority that the legislative branch delegated to the president
and the executive branch, and that's something that has done.
It's very commonplace, and you have constitutional conservatives who don't
like that necessarily. But what this reflects, as I mentioned
at the top of this episode, is the fact that

the president has avowed himself of every potential possible option
and was left with no choice by the political establishment
but to go with this route. And we'll see how
it plays out. And again I think this guest will
argue in just a sec that the legal authority is there.
This is more a political question than anything else. All right, So,
without further ado, John you is a human trigger warning

for Democrats everywhere. You probably know him as one of
the George W. Bush administrations chief legal architects of the
so called War on Terror. He currently serves as a
law professor at Berkeley, where I understand he's very popular
on campus. And I should mention that John and I
did an interview on a completely different topic, his book
Striking Power, How cyber robots and space weapons change the

rules for war that I think all of you will
find quite insightful. We'll tweet it out after the segment
without further ado, Professor you, thanks for joining us today, Ben,
thanks for having me. And I like this new title,
human trigger Warning. I think I should get a what
is it a called a Twitter handle or a T
shirt T shirt that has that on the front. I

love it and should be a right up top on
your resume as well. All right, so let's jump right
into it. John, you wrote a piece that I thought
was exceptional at National Review about a week ago where
you challenge some of the arguments about the president's legal
authority to declare a national emergency and use that to
reallocate funds for purposes of building a wall and supplement

this one point three seventy five billion that he procured today.
What is your best argument for why the president has
the authority to do this? Well, first, as I think
a lot of people in the media are really exactly
treating what President Trump has done, of making the argument
that it's a constitutional power grab and it's anything. But

this is a case where Congress has the law called
the National Emergencies Act in nineteen seventy six, and it
said when the president issues a national emergency order, then
he has to go through the following steps which have occurred.
And most importantly, Congress does not sit there and define
what a national emergency is. Instead, it just recognizes that

has been and is the president's progative. Then step two,
and this is the key, is Congress has already passed
a series of statutes that say, when there is a
national emergency declared by the president, then he can reallocate
funds from any military construction project to a new one

so long as it supports the troops. I think it's
pretty straightforward. Actually, Then that the president has this already.
I think I'm afraid what you're seeing is almost a
Trump double standard. What would be normally approved, upheld, not
even controversial under any other president is seen as somehow
an attack on the constitution order just because the president's

last name is Trump. You know. I think that's actually
one of the untold stories of this presidency is there's
the attack leveled. And I've mentioned this before, Oh, norms
are being violated, the institutions are being threatened, the will
of the people is being thwarted by this president acting unilaterally.
Well actually relative to his predecessors. Can you think of

a more constrained president in the sense of judges probably
overreaching and the legislative branch really not being helpful in
any sense. Well, he has been, i think, challenging court
to a remarkable level. So you've seen cases where judges
out here where I am in California, Hawaii have blocked

various policies, and then you have cases where it's taken months,
if not a year, for those cases to get to
the Supreme Court, so that eventually the normal standards are applied.
So a good example with the travel band, which I
think will I think this case about the wall will

play out very similarly to the travel band case. There
you had courts out and why here block abuse of
presidential power again given to him by Congress, that previous
presidents had used regularly to regulate the flow of immigrants
into the United States. And then it took you had
to go all Trump had to go all the way

to the Supreme Court to get the regular powers that
presidents exercise recognized and improved. And it's worth noting, of course,
that in matters of national security, the president is typically
provided wide latitude under the Constitution. Oh yes, and you know,
as you know, Ben, you you know you interviewed peoplefore

about my other books. The Constitution put aside these congressional statutes.
But the Constitution created the presidency. The framers wanted the
president to be a single person exactly so he could
act quickly and decisively in response to emergencies. This is
this is what Congress itself acknowledges when it gives the

president these kinds of broad powers by statute to act
in times of emergencies. So it's not a case where
the president and Congress disagree. This is a case actually
where Congress has handed these powers to the president to
amplify his powers and make it easier for him to
act in time of emergency. Now, I'm sure there's going
to be some sort of absurd argument made about what

is the definition of an emergency? And then does a
judge get to overrule a president in the president's judgment
about what an emergency is? Is there any merit to
an argument like that or do you see probably a
Ninth Circuit judge saying yes, there is a problem to it,
and the Supreme Court overruling that rationale. It's a great question.

You know, what you're asking is what the law is
and then predicting what some wild judge might do. So Unfortunately,
I think you're right, there's scott to be one judge
out there in the eight hundred federal judges in our
country who will strike this down, who just like the
judges struck down the travel Then I think they're going

to be judges who misread the law just because they
want to stop Trump in any of these initiatives. But
then what the actual law says is that courts aren't
supposed to second guess the president in determining national emergency.
The Supreme Court has never substituted its judgment for the

presidents about whether a national emergency exists. The only question
is how much power can the president exercise if there
isn't once he declares an emergency. And there is a
case from the nineteen fifties called Youngstown Sheet and Stealing Tube,
where President Truman declared a national emergency occur over the
Korean War, but then he tried to nationalize the steal

industry basically run a large sector of our economy. And this,
I think is very different from that. This is a
case not where President Trump is claiming, oh, I can
run the economy because of the border. But it's what
he said, congress Or Ray said, I can move money
from one account to another to build military facilities. Is
much narrower power, not even really involving any claim of

constitutional authority by President Trump. But that said, and I
expect the Supreme Court would uphold the president. That said,
I can't discount the possibility there's some trial judge in
San Francisco or Honolulu or Seattle who be willing to
try to throw the way to the courts against the
president and spark a constitutional confrontation. Yeah, it strikes me

actually since you raisetown steel, which all of those who
are critics of this policy ray, is that Youngstown is
actually probably the right response to those who say President
Trump is creating a precedent that will allow some future
Democratic president to impose the New Green Deal by decree,
that Youngstown is actually probably a better analog for that
than this case. Do you see that as well? I mean,

I understand the worries of my conservative friends who say,
aren't you creating a precedent for you know, President Warren
or President Kamala Harris declaring a national emergency and then
eliminating fossil fuel imports and forcing electrification of all and
the slaughter of all cowns Exactly? Well, I believe it

was certain kinds of cows keep it in, as it were.
So you know the problem is that, you know, one
it does say emergency. An emergency does imply an event
or something happening. So you couldn't declare national emergency about
the weather or crime levels or you know, poverty. You know,

it's not a consistent social condition. It would have to
be something happening, and you're responding to something happening otherwise
than you're just you're not talking about an emergency. And
then second, as you say, this is more like Youngstown,
because again the question is what powers are you allowed
to exercise? Here? You're just talking about transferring money from
one military construction account to another. It's kind of boring

federal budget accounting in a way. You know, these people
were about a green New Deal and might let me
add I can't see President Harris or President Warrenson. Oh,
because President Trump did not declare national emergency over the wall.
I'm going to restrain myself now. You know, I don't
think anything President Trump does is going to act as
some kind of restraint on what a future Warrant or

Harris presidency will do. But you know, there's a big
difference because they don't have any delegated power from Congress
to force electrification of all of our energy and the
end of use of fossil fuels and all the other
wild dreams they have in the screen New Deal project
and the way I see it, and this is as
a layman talking here, you know, the delegation question is

really what this all kind of comes down to in
the final analysis, So is you've described it as sort
of transferring funds from one account to another that had
already been earmarked for the executive branch. Effectively, is there
an argument that certain provisions of the National Emergency Act
are unconstitutional because Congress is delegating powers It has no

right to delegate. Ie. Congress exists to make laws and
appropriate funds, and it isn't the president's job to basically
be able to have that power handed to him. Again,
I think this is a people like I've read commentary
some you know, people who are conservatives, you know, like
a Rampaul for example. I'm sorry, rand Pall, not a Rompall,

a Rampaul for example. I think they're completely misreading this.
You know, they're making this claim, Oh, the president is
seizing authority to use the power of the purse. It's anything.
But you know, if it had been like Lincoln, who
actually at the start of the Civil War went into
the treasuring took money out without any congressional act, then

you would have that argument. But this is a case
where Congress already put money in the pot and it
said spend it on military construction, billions of dollars, and
then the president said, and then Congress says, under certain conditions,
you can move it from one project to the next.
The money's already been appropriated by Congress, the purse has

already been opened, and in fact then Congress already recognized
the authority of a president to move it around. So
I think you know, these claims that the president is
evading the power of the purse taking away congress urs
this is anything, But this is an area where Congress
wanted the president to have this power and gave it
away willingly. One of the attacks on the president's power,

and we'll have to leave it at this question, but
I'd love to hear your take on it. One of
the biggest assaults on his power during this presidency has
been the use of universal or nationwide injunctions, where effectively
one in six hundred judges in federal courts across the
country can say, my judgment overrules the president's judgment, and

thus a decision some kind of executive action will be
vacated or stalled put on hold for everyone in the country.
So one judge who has jurisdiction in one particular area,
their ruling applies to everyone nationwide. And this has of
course happened with the travel ban and in series of
other instances as well. In response to that travel band case,

Justice Clarence Thomas, one of your former bosses, challenge the
notion that universal injunctions are necessarily constitutional, that there wasn't
really a historical precedent for them. They're sort of a
new creation, and frankly, he thinks that a president or
some other party may have to challenge them to the
Supreme Court. I agree with him. Frankly, my question would be,

is there a way do you believe that universal injunctions
can be killed? Well, first, I agree with Justice Thomas,
who has I have to say, excellent taste in his hires.
But I have to say, Josice Thomas, I think is
right on this, and I think it's fairly straightforward. A court,
like a district court like the ones here, have power

only over the people who appear before in its territory.
Sole San Francisco's territory of its courts is only the
northern part of California. They don't have, I think, the
authority to tell the entire federal government. God, I'm sorry,
We're gonna have to cut it right there. We will
have you back, and we will finish this conversation. And
I appreciate it. This was John Yu and this is
Ben Weingarten in four Buck Sexon on the Buck Sex

and Show eight four four nine zero zero two eight
two five will be right back. This is the Buck
Sexon Show and this is Ben Weingarten in four Buck
Sexton ones. Open it for four nine zero zero to
eight to five. You can follow me on Twitter at
bh Winegarden. Let's go to the phone here, Let's go
to Charlie in Ocean City, Maryland. Charlie, you're on the

Buck Sex and Show. Thanks for taking my call, Arabn.
I just I'm a little older senior citizen, but I
followed politics pretty well and I'm a conservative, and I'm
not ashamed of that. I think a lot of our
supposed conservative Republicans don't really vote that way. And my

question to you is, since you guys had such a
big voice, why can't we public they're voting, whether it
be in the Senate or into Congress and make it public.
Because all politicians, once they get into office, they're most

prioritize vision is reelection and if we start publishing how
they vote, then they will be more aware of their voters,
which is me. Charlie thanks for the cause. So I
think the idea here is sort of name and shame.
Pull out the ten most vital votes and let's get

everyone on record, and let's put it out there. And
you know what I would suggest to you, Charlie, is,
like you said, the first role of politics is win.
The second role politics is win reelection. And for folks
in the House, they continue to sort of hoodwink voters.
And part of this is that who do they really
answer to? Ultimately they ultimately answer to their donors. And

you have every once in a blue moon, you know,
someone like a Dave of Brad who comes out and
wins on principles and ideology. The best thing that we
can do long term isn't any one particular election. We
have to take back the real institutions, the institutions that
build civil society. Our full sure, our schools are media
that should be our hundred year project. Just like the

Progressives had their long March, this has been Winartan in
for Buck Sex and on the Buck Sex and Show
eight four four nine zero zero two eight two five
eight four four nine zero zero two eight two five
Morning Coffee is an American institution. That's why when it
comes to starting my day, I reach for the most
American coffee on the market, Black Rifle Coffee. I like

to load up on Black Raffle Coffee for extra ammunition
two times per day. It's got a great flavor, it
packs a punch, and it reflects my conservative values. Black
Rifle Coffee gives a portion of their sales to veteran
and first responder causes. Black Rifle Coffee is rose to order,
guaranteeing you fresh, delicious coffee with every order. Black Rifle's
Coffee Club makes things easy. Just pick your plan in
the amount you want, and Black Raffles ships your coffee

right to your door every month. Hassle free, wake up
with America's coffee, Black Rifle Coffee. Visit Black Rifle Coffee
dot com slash buck and receive fifteen percent off your order.
That's Black Rifle Coffee dot com slash buck for fifteen
percent off Black Rifle Coffee dot Com slash buck. Welcome
back to the Buck Sexton Show. This is ben Wine

Garden in four Buck Sexon here at the top of
our three dialing numbers eight four four nine zero zero
two eight to five, and you can follow me on
Twitter at bh wine Garden right in the past couple hours,
we talked a lot about sovereignty citizenship, and I mentioned
that this census citizenship question is really intrinsic to the
entire broader argument, and it's being challenged in mitigation right now,

which we found out today is headed up to the
Supreme Court. Jay Chrishan Adams serve from two thousand and
five to twenty ten and the Voting Section at the
United States Department of Justice, so he knows a little
thing or two about the Voting Rights Act and why
the census citizenship question is relevant to it. Today he's
President in General Council of the Public Interest Legal Foundation
known as PILF, which has filed amicus curi briefs alongside

the Commerce Department, both in the New York federal case
and now at the Supreme Court is where that New
York case has been punted to. Christian Adams joins us. Now, Christian,
how are you, sir? I'm great glad to be here. Well,
it's my pleasure and thanks for all the great work
that PILF does. Let's get right to it. I think
that this case of census citizenship is a perfect microcosm

for how the left uses lawfare to pursue its policy objectives.
And let's start with a very basic question about this
New York federal case, which is who filed the case
against the Trump administration and did they have a right
to be heard? That is, did they have standing? Oh,
my gracious, who filed? Well, remember, there's a whole bunch

of cases happening at one time. You have you have
you have a tax going on in California, in Maryland.
These obviously came out of New York. You have groups
like the Legal Women Voters, you have you have other
organizations who all want to stop all want to stop

the the census, stop the Census from actually getting real
scientific data about the number of non citizens who live
in the United States. It's it's just an astonishing You know,
we hear all the time about science and how one

party is the party of science. Well, here's an example
where somebody doesn't want the truth about what's happening out there.
So let's go to the substance of the case. You know,
the argument is made that by having this question essentially
are you a citizen or not? And the only box
if you're in the not category is no, not a citizen.

So in other words, you don't out yourself as an
illegal alien potentially, but more broadly, why is it imperative
that the government have accurate accounts of citizens and non citizens? Right?
The reason that the Trump administration offered is that it
helps enforce the voting right Tack the Voting Right Attact,

of course, prevents discrimination in voting. And I can tell
you from very first hand experience that that is the
truth that when you have citizenship data and you're preparing
a voting rights at case, you have a better case.
How do I know this because I do it repeatedly.
I won a case in federal court very recently as

a matter of fact, in the United States District Court
for Guam. I'm actually in representing an Air Force retire
Air Force major in Guam who was denied the right
to vote because he was not a native tomorrow. And
we were able to prove that this law was racially
discriminatory in its intent because of the senses data from

nineteen fifty and I won't trouble you with all the
ins and outs of that was very important that year
because that's when Guam became a territory with the people
they're getting rights as citizenship. So we were able to
figure out how many people were citizens and not citizens
in nineteen fifty because the census asked that question. But

that's only one example. When I was at the Justice
Department and I was bringing voting rights at cases, one
of the things you would put in your initial complaint
was the citizen population. Now, the problem is that in
most places in the country that's an estimate because you
don't have the real data. Because remember that's what those
fights all about, and so we would have to make

guesses sometimes, and getting citizenship data in the next senses
will help him enforce the Voting Rights Act. YEA. So
this judge who Obama appointed judge in the Southern District
of New York, he says in his opinion that the
census citizenship question is quote unquote not inconsistent with the Constitution. Ie,

there's not really a constitutional argument against asking something as
basic as are you a citizen or not? His beef,
if I'm reading the opinion correctly, is with how Commerce
Secretary Wilber came to his decision, and then basically questioning
his judgment altogether. How is it possible that a judge
can substitute his wisdom for the person to whom the

power is delegated here in this case, the Commerce Secretary. Right,
the Congress has specifically delegated this power to do the
citizenship to do all the senses questions to Commerce Secretary
Wilbur Ross. But you know what, the New York Immigration Coalition,
who's the plaintiff in that case, doesn't like that. So
what they had to do was form shop go to

Manhattan to find a judge who who apparently thinks that
the President can be second guest on this no matter
what Congress said to the contrary. And so what the
plaintiffs are saying is, hey, you didn't listen to the bureaucrats.

You know, this is just a pretext. You're supposed to
listen to the bureaucrats. You're supposed to basically do whatever
the New York Immigration Coalition once, or they're going to
take you to court. And thank goodness, we have a
Supreme Court now that is almost certainly likely to uphold
the citizenship question. Yeah, this judge in New York essentially

struck down the citizenship question on the basis of the
administrative Procedures Act. In other words, the way that the
Commerce Secretary came to his decision and what that decision
ultimately was. Do you think that case holds up at
all when it gets to the Supreme Court. No. I
think what will happen is the Supreme Court justices who
are very familiar with the exercises, simply reading what the

laws says. Right. The law says that the Commerce Secretary
has the authority to write the census questions, full stop. Okay,
that's all you need to decide this case is to
look at the law and see who has the power
to write the census questions under a law passed by
the Congress and signed by the President. That's the kind

of basic stuff we learned in Schoolhouse Rock. When the
laws passed, it is a law and we have to
follow it. But these days up is down and in
is out. And this judge sided with the New York
Immigration Coalition. Last question on this, and I think this
really gets to the core of a much bigger argument

which hasn't been made yet, but I believe should be made.
And I'm going to argue in a piece coming out
soon at the Federalists that it must be made. The
reality here is that non citizens essentially empower certain citizens
politically and disempower other citizens politically, because, as I've discussed
earlier in this episode tonight, apportionment is determined based upon

total population count ie citizens and non citizens, as well
as the allocation of hundreds of billions of federal dollars
are dictated based upon total population count. And it goes
to this question of the definition of people the enumeration
both in the Constitution and then in the fourteenth Amendment.
In your view, is there a legal case to be

made for defining people as citizens, period, full stop, and
is it being made? Well, Okay, now we're talking about
a number of different things. Just to be clear, Apportionment
is how many congressional seats each state gets, Okay, and
so far they've used total population. It does say people

in the Constitution, So the question is is that citizens
non citizens are both. What I think is also very
fascinating is when it comes to redistricting, you talk about
political impacts all over the country. There are people elected
to office who are elected solely because because they're counting

non citizens for drawing the district lines for things like
school board, county council, state legislatures. Who's getting screwed by this?
For example, African Americans in Los Angeles. African Americans in
Los Angeles have been losing political power and political seats
on council over the last twenty years because of the

influx of illegal aliens into Los Angeles and the fact
that they're being counted for the purpose of drawing district
lines for school board and council seats, and so what's
happened is African Americans have been squeezed out. Here's how
that works. Let's say you need one hundred thousand people
in each district. Okay, it's probably more than that, but

we'll just take it. For an example, if you need
one hundred thousand people in a Hispanic district in Los Angeles,
there might be seventy thousand citizen Hispanics and thirty thousand
non citizens. But in that African American district, where they're
almost all citizens, it's going to take a hundred thousand citizens.
So Hispanic seat gets created under the Voting Rights Act

because there's seventy thousand Hispanic citizens, and a African American
seat gets created only after there's one hundred thousand see
see what happens. It's a political subsidy to areas with
high alien populations. Last question, real quick before I let
you go, because you've been doing great work on this
HR one, the first bill put forth in the new

Democratic House. Tell our listeners what they need to know
about HR one. This is Nancy Pelosi's top priority. It
takes every bad idea about elections and makes it a
federal mandate. Takes all of the nonsense from California, just everything.
It stripped states of their powers to run their own elections.
It federalizes all state elections into one centralized control. It's

their top priority. It is their number one priority. It's
a disaster Christian On that sunny note, we'll leave it
right there. Thanks so much for coming on. Appreciate all
your great work. This has Ben Wangaran in for Buck
Sexon on the Buck Sexon Show eight four four nine
zero zero two eight two five will be right back.
By now. You've probably heard Buck talk about snippy dot

com new social media website. If you looked at snippy
dot com and left book again, thousands of Buck Sex
and show listeners like you of joint snippy dot com
expressing their opinions and stirring up lively conversations. Snippy is
an unbiased social media platform that's all about conversation and community.
Snippy not only encourages freedom of expression, but guarantees its
users the ability to discuss topics freely without suppression from administrators.

Snippy is a place where everyone is free to express
their thoughts and share their opinions. It's a real safe space.
Snippy is totally free to join, open to everyone. Join
us at snippy dot com and let your opinion matter.
There's no shadow banning and no suppression of conservative thought ever.
Now with an updated user interface and exciting new features,
also available in the Apple App Store and now available

for Android, Snippy your new alternative social media. This is
the Bucksex and Show, and this is Ben Wangarten in
four bucksex in lines are open eight four four nine
zero zero Buck. That's eight four four nine zero zero
to eight two five. All right, we're gonna go to
the phone lines real quick, and I understand we have

a one Robert Francis O'Rourke from El Paso, Texas joining us.
Robert Francis, You're on the Buck Sexton Show. Hello, Benn,
how are you I'm well, I'm well, mister a roork
how are you, sir? I'm okay then, But I just
like I just don't understand, like like why don't you
open your heart the way that we should open the borders?

Like I just I just want to know, like do
you do you just not want like your heart to
be full of love and immigrants. There's room in your
honor for immigrants, So representative of ROURK, I want to
ask you about that. If you were elected president, would
your first act be to tear down every wall? Absolutely?
I want to tear down walls the same way then

I want to tear down the barriers between people when
like it's just time to give out hugs at a
rally that like maybe has thirty or forty people down
the street from a Trump rally with like fifteen or
twenty thousand people. And I just also, I don't know
if you know this, man, because I know you're a
conservative and you think you know things, but perhaps like

when you build walls and you're skateboarding, you can run
into those walls. That's about that is a valid point
that now it is valid that actually it is no, no, no,
Can I ask you to the extent to which you're
not living on the streets of Brooklyn these days. Do
you have walls surrounding you when you're abode right now,

then let me explain something, okay, because when I'm the
next president, I just don't want to have to go
over the same ground because I'm very busy. That's why
I have to do social media while people see my
root canal happening. And I just feel like it's time
for people to understand that, yes, I'm maybe a mare
into a family that is worth like a cool four

or five hundred million dollars, but I'm totally normal. And
the compound in which I live, like when we go
see like Papa and Mama and like say, are flying
us in with helicopters? Of course there's walls, ben because
like we're really important. Now, let me ask you something,
because you went through many trials and tribuations in your life,

what was the toughest thing about being a nanny on
the Upper West Side of New York following your ivlegue education. Well,
it's hard because like when you're a left wing sex
symbol like I am, like you know, the people like
ladies just come over and they're like, oh my god, Pato,
you're going to stop climate change? And also I need

to see your washboard apps. I'd be like, excuse me, first,
are we going to bring down the climate one degree
centigrade or not? And if they said yes, then obviously
they could see my abdominal bless you may be the
cause of global warming yourself. Actually, I think that's a
fair point. And I just also want to say, band man, congratulations,

I'll do it a great show, my friend, thank you
so much for hope. The team is loving it, and
I'm let you get back to it, all right. I
appreciate it. But I was going to ask you, you know,
do you think that the claim that Beato is cultural
appropriation holds any water. I'm curious to see your thoughts
on that. Uh is the cultural appropriation for millennials or
is a cultural creation for a guy that uses a

Hispanic nickname because he thinks it makes him sound cool.
I don't know, man, when he's running against the Cuban.
I leave this stuff to you. I have a great rest.
I'm flying up the lines. You got people in the
team calling in. Let me, let me let you get
back to you with my friend thank you so much
for all your great work. Brother. I'll talk to you soon. Well,
thank you for letting me fill your big shoes, Buck
and I appreciate it. And that's a hell of a

Beato impression, folks. He may be more likable than the
actual Robert Francis O. Rourke. All Right, we're gonna go
take one quick call and then we're gonna have to
hit a break. Let's go to Don in Mobile, Alabama.
Don you want to talk about the new Green Deal something.
Beata L. Rourke surely is a fan of you. Are
on the buck sex and show. Yeah, absolutely, Ben and
uh let buck No, we need to start saying shields higher.

I think, um, yeah, I've got a little, a little
quick thing. I want to run by everybody. Magnetic propulsion
train system from San Diego to probably somewhere around Brownsville,
Texas runs along the border of the US Mexican border.
The Democrats can start their pilot project for the Green
New Deal. Let Trump have his money to build his

steel magnetic propulsion system. They can put their bullet train
on top of it and they can travel from San
Diego to Brownsville, and then they could start their oversea
probably I don't know, maybe Costa Rica. You know, the
train system they're talking about. They must have some kind

of technology that we just don't know about yet, about
doing away with aircraft and automobiles, and you know, I
just thought that might be something we could, you know,
ask Buck about what do you think? Well, yeah, and
you know, probably for less than seventy seven billion dollars
as well, which, oh, by the way, in California they
failed to build a train from La to San Francisco.

You know what, though, your your idea though, Yeah, I'm sorry,
go ahead, don there, Yeah, you know your your idea though.
There's definitely merit to because you see all the people
fleeing in droves from California to Texas. So I think
you might have a business plan there. You should probably
talk to Elon Musk about that. Yes, sir, might make

me a millionaire. Huh exactly. We sall know how to vote, brother,
Shields high, Shields higher. I appreciate the call of Don.
We're gonna talk a little bit in the last little
remaining time that we have a bit about economics and
the New Green Deal, so called Green New Deal rather
and what that's all about. You know, part of the
argument that has not been leveled. But and maybe it's

because people aren't taking it seriously, but they really should
given how many members we're talking at least around seventy
members of Congress that the Senate and the House, including
a number of announced presidential contenders on the Democratic side,
Given how many folks are actually supporting this thing, it's
probably worth taking a closer look at. And I think
what you really see is that the Democrats are scared

because all the energy in their party is really with
the Okazio Cortez Rashida twayib ilhan Omar caucus. That is
where the power is. You saw it with Bernie Sanders,
and this is just the young generation version of Bernie Sanders,
because the progressives have dominated at our institutions for the
last forty or fifty years. So Bernie is old, but
his ideas are new. They're blooming right now, except that

they've been tried repeatedly throughout history and failed and left
people in poverty, misery, starvation. And we'll talk a little
bit about that in our last half hour. But I
also want to talk about the fact that what is
the Green New Deal, Well, was the first New Deal
itself such a smashing success. Did it actually lead us
to prosper Did it get us out of the Great Depression?

Words matter when we talk about the success of the
New Deal. So a green new deal is going to
be even better? Why challenge that assertion? And anyone who
loves liberty, and anyone who's honest should challenge that too.
This has ben Winegarden in for Buck sexon on the
Buck Sex and Show eight four four nine zero zero
two eight two five eight four four nine zero zero
two eight two five. Medicare for All would save the

American people a very large amount of money. Why aren't
we incorporating the cost of all the funeral expenses of
those who die because they can't afford access to healthcare.
We look at these figures and we say, oh, unemployment
is low. Everything is fine, right, Well, unemployment is low
because everyone has two jobs. I need to occupy every airport,
We need to occupy every border, we need to occupy

every ice office. If we work our butts off to
make sure that we take back all three chambers of Congress,
rather all three chambers of government, the Presidency, the Senate,
the House. You use the term the occupation of Palestine.
What did you mean by that? Oh? Um? I think
what I meant is like the settlement. Just last year,

we gave the military a seven hundred billion dollars tack
a budget increase which they didn't even ask for, and
we're like, the world is going to end in twelve
years if we don't address climate change. And your biggest
issue is your biggest issue is how are we going

to pay for it? No, I think it is a
green dream, and I think that it is it is.
This is ben Winegarden and this is the Buck Sexton
show that was Alexandrocazio Cortez. I'm just speechless listening to
that montage. Follow me on Twitter at b h Wine
Garden and we started with that little montage because I

wanted to talk a little bit about the Green New
Deal and what it's all about. And Occazio Cortez as
a freshman congresswoman from New York. Her counterpart in New York,
the Governor Cuomo, recently made some remarks and I think
that this all sort of fits together here. Now. Acasio
Quartez recently in New York helped kill Amazon coming to

New York, and she didn't make the arguments on chrony
capitalism grounds, which might have been a legitimate argument. You know,
should a city like New York or a state provide
all sorts of incentives several hundred million dollars in essentially
giveaways and then taxes that would not have to be
paid down the road. Well, regardless, twenty five thousand jobs
went up in smoke, and I think that's a pretty

good start to where the Green New Deal is. Actually
they would rather their impose their dream quote unquote green dream,
then actually see prosperity. She made the comment about, oh, well,
everyone has two jobs and that's why unemployment is solo,
which is not how unemployment is calculated. Of course. I know,
by the way, during the Obama years, when they tried,
you know, a fraction, just a mere the smallest percentage

possible relative to what the Green New Deal is talking about,
we had declining unemployment rates only because millions of people
were falling out of the workforce. There is now a
much higher percentage of people in the workforce and actively
looking for jobs. It's completely different scenario because the policies
have completely flipped. In any event, Acasio Cortez against Amazon,

Cuomo and others for Amazon, and why was Cuomo for
Amazon being here? Well, he complained recently that essentially all
of the wealthy taxpayers are fleeing New York and going
to Florida. Gee, can you imagine that A guy who
said conservatives are not welcome in this city, A guy
who believes in infanticide and celebrates it, a guy who

believes in taxing and spending ad infinitum. Why would people
want to leave a place where your tax rate could
be over fifty percent all in and go to a
place where there's no state income tax and better weather
for that matter. Well, the numbers are actually in, and
the big winners you'll be shocked in net domestic migration
in the past year include Florida plus one hundred and

thirty two thousand, six hundred and two, Arizona plus eighty
three thousand, two hundred and forty, and Texas eighty two thousand,
five hundred and sixty nine. What states are losing New
York negative one hundred and eighty thousand, three hundred and six,
California negative one hundred and fifty six thousand and sixty eight,
Illinois negative one hundred and fourteen thousand and one fifty four,
and what do all these states have in common. It

answers itself. It really answers itself. Okay, So then you
have people like aoc Alexandriacazio Cortez. You know, she's celebrating,
she tweeted anything as possible. Today was the day a
group of dedicated every day in New Yorkers and their
neighbors defeated Amazon's corporate greed. It's worker exploitation and the
power of the richest man in the world. Good good

luck getting the Washington Post indorsement anytime soon, by the way,
when you're attacking Jeff Bezos's company. But beyond that, yeay,
down with jobs twenty five thousand jobs gone for a
New Yorker, it's an amazing argument. But there's something that
links both Acasio Quartez and Cuomo, and that is Cuomo
doesn't want to see people fleeing his state because he's

afraid there's actually competition. There's federalism in this country. There's
still a concept of states being laboratories of experiment. And
if my state has a much more favorable business climate,
tax climate, other areas, you know, more freedom and education,
educational choice than the like politicians to represent their values.
People can still get up and walk, and the federal government,

no matter how much power it has taken, there is
still a difference between these states. What AOC wants to
do is help solve Andrew Cuomo's problem by federalizing everything
so that there is no difference and there is no
state to escape too. Just like America is the last
fashion of freedom in the world, there's no other country
to escape to when things get bad here. What the
left wants to do is say, all of our states

are struggling New York, Illinois, California, these progressive as the
places where everything should be wonderful all the time, and
they want to federalize the very policies that are at
those states, so you can't go anywhere. And oh, by
the way, the productive states have to subsidize the unproductive states.

There is another element of this, and that ultimately comes
down to the fact that the New Green Deal Green
New Deal quote unquote, what it is really all about
is socialism with a smiley face of environmentalism on it.
It creates a facade of legitimacy based upon the fact that,

according to Alexandriocazio, Cortez, the world is going to end
in twelve years unless we massively redistribute wealth and power
to Washington, DC. And oh, by the way, Washington DC
is going to be the one creating all the jobs
by imposing the same policies that let's say, let's see
seventy seven billion dollars wasted in California to do a
high speed train that they can't get between Los Angeles

and San Francisco. But Accazio Cortez wants to do it intercontinental. Vermont,
that's another progressive bastion. It's very small. You would think
that if you were going to be able to have
socialism anywhere, it would be in Bernie Sanders's home state.
Guess what. Vermont ha to ditch single payer healthcare several
years ago because it just didn't work. The costs were
rising too high. That's in little Vermont. Now, people on

the left, they'll tell you, well, look at the Scandinavian countries. See, yeah,
they're not Venezuela. We don't believe in that sort of socialism.
We believe in the Scandinavian kind. We'll look at the
statistics and what you'll see is that besides the fact
that the Scandinavian countries are small and they have relatively
homogeneous populations that get along well. It's very cohesive culturally
in the like, so you don't have any issues there.

They actually have very free market economies and based upon
some ratings, actually are more liberalized than the US is.
So yes, they have generous welfare states, but they have
societies that can deal with the downsides of them, first
of all, and second, second of all, they're very restrictive
in terms of their immigration. They want productive people coming,
people who believe in the ethoses that animate those nations.

And third, they have relatively free market economies that are
able to underscore and overwhelm the largest that's doled out
by the government. My question to all the green New
dealers is how many experiences with central planning do we
have to have before we realize the disastrous consequences everywhere
they're tried, And how many times are people going to
be duped by the fact that, except for the truest

of true believers, what these policies are really about is
more power in Washington, DC over your life. All you
have to do to look at how this works out.
You can look at Venezuela. For starters, you can go
back to the founding of the United States, Flymouth Governor
William Bradford back in Plymouth, we're talking in the sixteen
twenties year prior to Thanksgiving, they essentially had communism, in

his own words in his diaries, communism, and they almost
literally died off when they implemented private property rights. Suddenly
there was bounty and that led to the Thanksgiving that's
been depicted. There are many other examples in real time
in the real world recent years. East Germany versus West Germany.
That was a real example of the exact same nation,

essentially the same people, the same starting point, the same infrastructure.
One was governor under the iron curtain of communism, the
other was free. How did that turnout? North Korea versus
South Korea today? Again, we can't get a high speed
rail line in progressive California. You can't do socialized medicine
in Vermont. What the Left wants to do that was

make sure that these policies are imposed everywhere. They want
to take these failures and put them on steroids. The
size and scope of the Green New Deal would cover
every aspect of your life. It wasn't just in the
fact sheet that came out that they then had to
pull back and claim it was a gaff or a
doctor document created as some kind of right wing conspiracy. No,

the size and scope says that the aims are what
was in FDR's sort of square deal in effect or
his second Bill of Rights rather, and those weren't rights,
we're services. You have the right to great healthcare and
affordable cost. You have the right to a job. You
have the right to all manner of things that are
created in a free world that government cannot decree. They

cannot buy Fiat rain down from the heavens. Here are jobs,
here is wealth, and the New Deal itself is a
great example of that. And when we come back, we'll
do a little history lesson to show that the New
Deal was terrible. The Green New Deal will be ten
times as disastrous. This is Ben Winegarden in for Buck
Sexon on the Buck Sex and Show. Eight four four

nine zero zero two eight two five eight four four
nine zero zero two eight two five. This is the
Buck Sexon Show. And this is Ben Weingarten in for
Buck Sexon All right, before we close up shop tonight,
As I was mentioning when I hear green New Deal
raised words matter what was the New Deal? And the

fact that we have to go through this history lesson
every time socialism is brought forth really gets tiring, frankly,
But it cannot be said enough. The New Deal was
not some panacea that did not get us out of
the Great Depression. It's a myth. A couple of economists
proved this pretty well. Harold Cole of the University of
Pennsylvania and Leohnian of UCLA wrote back in two thousand

and nine, and this was during the financial crisis, when
there were all sorts of arguments for we need essentially
a second New Deal, and we got part of the
way there. They did an article and they showed that
actually the New Deal impeded the recovery. Why did it
impede economic recovery? Because it implemented all sorts of collectivists
measures that hampered the free market's ability to adjust after

the dislocation of the economic crash. If it didn't work,
then after a crash, when your recovery is supposed to
be quite strong because you're getting back to normal, why
would it work now? Why would we take a booming
economy and destroy it. Here's what they said in an
article in the Wall Street Journal about their research. Quote here,
there was even less work on average during the New
Deal than before FDR took office. Total hours worked per

adult including government employees, were eighteen percent below their nineteen
twenty nine level between nineteen thirty and nineteen thirty two,
but we're twenty three percent lower on average during the
New Deal in nineteen thirty three to nineteen thirty nine.
Private hours worked. We're even lower after FDR took office,
averaging twenty seven percent below their nineteen twenty nine level

compared to eighteen percent lower between nineteen thirty and nineteen
thirty two. Total hours worked per adult in nineteen thirty
nine remained about twenty one percent below their nineteen twenty
nine level, So hours worked twenty one percent lower. Ten
years after we actually had the crash. Per capita consumption
did not recover at all. It remained twenty five percent

below its trend level throughout the New Deal. So why
did this all happen? They write in this paper about
the fact that it was the new Deal that hampered
any recovery. The new Deal is the answer, and I'll
quote here, anti market policies choked off powerful recover reforces
that would have plausibly returned the economy back to trend
by the mid nineteen thirties. Most damaging were those at

the heart of the recovery plan, including the National Industrial
Recovery Act, which tossed aside the nation's antitrust acts and
permitted industries to collusively raise prices provided they shared their
newfound monopoly rents with workers. By substantially raising wages well
above underlying productivity growth, that is collusion, government incentivized collusion
in the economy. The NIRA, that's the National Industrial Recovery Act,

covered over five hundred industries, ranging from autos and steel
to ladies, hosiery, and poultry production. Each industry created a
code of fair competition quote unquote, which spelled out what
producers could and could not do, and which were designed
to eliminate quote excessive competition that FDR believed to be
the source of the depression. These codes distorted the economy
by artificially raising wages and prices, restricting output, and reducing

productive capacity. By placing quotas on industry investment in new
plants and equipment, and on and on. That is basically
what the New Green Deal New Deal Rather would do
on steroids. At the end of the day, what did
Henry Morgan thou Roosevelt's Treasury secretary say in nineteen thirty nine,
after all of these different government interventions were tried, Quote,

we are spending more than we have ever spent before,
and it does not work. I say, after eight years
of this administration, we have just as much unemployment as
when we started, and an enormous debt to Boot New
Deal disaster, Green New Deal disaster on steroids, President Obama
so called stimulus and the other widespread government regulation and

intervention after the financial crisis, including Obamacare. We the weakest
recovery of any from any recession that we've had since
the Great Depression. So why would this time be any different?
Why would Alexandrocazio Cortez somehow have this divine knowledge that
this time central planning is going to work. You know,
the greatest economic stimulus we could ever have is for

every citizen to read Bastiat and Hayek and Milton and
Milton Freedman Rather and the founding Fathers. That would be
the greatest economic stimulus. It would be a heck of
a lot cheaper than a green new deal that's going
to cost fifty times what our federal government budget is
every year. Democrats will resist attempts to challenge this agenda,

of course, because for them, this is all about power.
And while we're on that topic of power, before we
close up tonight, a reminder that this week we celebrated
a sad anniversary, the fourtieth anniversary of the Islamic Revolution
in Iran, which took a relatively dynamic and free, prosperous
country authoritarian, yes in terms of its leadership, but relatively

European and booming and secular, and turned it into what
we have today, which is the world's leading state sponsor
of jihad, with total restrictions on basically every possible liberty
and economic basket case, and full on, truly totalitarian rule.
So also the thirtieth anniversary of Salmon Rushti's book The
Satanic Verses, leading to him having a fatua put on

his head by the Supreme Leader in Iran. Why is
Iran relevant? Well, Iran took a place that was relatively
dynamic at the time, imposed their theocratic creed Islam, dominant
Islam and tried to export it throughout the world and
restricted all manner of freedom, freedom of speech, you can't

criticize or in any way threatened, essentially the ruling creed there.
I would suggest to you that America is free, but
where progressives want to take us is to a state
of anti religious, theocratic totalitarianism, where you can't have dissenting
opinions or you'll get thrown out of social media or
fired from your company, and where you also have control

of government over every aspect of your life. It's not
because you don't subscribe to Islam, it's because you don't
subscribe to the state religion of progressivism. And if you
dissent your livelihood, your freedom, all of it will be
taken away, and those bad corrosive ideas can have an
immediate impact. It's destroyed Venezuela, and the same thing could
happen here faster than ever before in history. This is

Ben Weingarten. I've been filling in for Buck Sexon tonight.
I want to thank Buck Sexton for the opportunity to
fill his big shoes, and I want to thank you
for spending your Friday night with me. Have a great
weekend and look forward to having yon next time. Global
Verification Network is the only dual certified veteran own background

investigations and vetting company. It's useful if you run a
business or are looking to hire for important decisions like these,
you need Global Verification Network. Go to MYGVN dot com
or call them at eight seven seven six nine five
one one seven nine. Global Verification Network is federally certified
as a veteran owned small business. It's independently certified by
the National Veteran Business Development Council, which is the only

minoritady spend certification recognized by the Billion Dollar Roundtable. Global
Verification Network is headquartered in Chicago with offices throughout the nation.
They are the risk mitigation experts and they work with
companies from startups to Fortune one hundreds. And with Global
Verification Network, you can rest ashore that no data or
client information is ever offshored. Plus, all employees are located

throughout the United States. Visit Global Verification Network ATMGVN dot com.
That's MYGVN dot com or call them at eight seven
seven six nine five one one seven nine
Advertise With Us

Popular Podcasts

Casefile Presents: The Easey Street Murders

Casefile Presents: The Easey Street Murders

Forty six years ago, on a warm summer night in Melbourne, Susan Bartlett and Suzanne Armstrong were stabbed to death in their home in Easey Street, Collingwood. Suzanne's 16 month-old son was asleep in the cot at this time. The double homicide remains one of the most confronting cold cases.

Math & Magic: Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing with Bob Pittman

Math & Magic: Stories from the Frontiers of Marketing with Bob Pittman

How do the smartest marketers and business entrepreneurs cut through the noise? And how do they manage to do it again and again? It's a combination of math—the strategy and analytics—and magic, the creative spark. Join iHeartMedia Chairman and CEO Bob Pittman as he analyzes the Math and Magic of marketing—sitting down with today's most gifted disruptors and compelling storytellers.

Dateline NBC

Dateline NBC

Current and classic episodes, featuring compelling true-crime mysteries, powerful documentaries and in-depth investigations.

Music, radio and podcasts, all free. Listen online or download the iHeart App.


© 2024 iHeartMedia, Inc.