Sanctuary City Smack Down 3/28.17

Buck sounds off on sanctuary cities harboring criminal illegal immigrants.

Learn more about your ad-choices at https://www.iheartpodcastnetwork.com

See omnystudio.com/listener for privacy information.

Episode Transcript

Speaker 1 (00:07):
Welcome to America's, Mr garbutsch Off. Tear down this wall.
Either you're with us or you were with the terrorists.
If you've got health care already, then you can keep
your plan. If you're satisfied with it is not in
the President of the United States. Take a kid band together.
We will make America great again. We'll never sharender. It's

(00:32):
what you've been waiting for all day. Buck Sexton with
America now joined the conversation called buck toll free at
eight four four nine hundred Buck. That's eight four four
nine hundred two, eight to five, sharp mind, strong voice,
Buck Sexton, Buck Sexton, here, we have a ton of

(00:54):
show today. Topics are going to include sanctuary cities. Representative
Junas under siege in his role as chairman of the
House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence. Media wants him to
go and recuse himself. UH Canada, anti speech protesters. We
might get into that if we have time. Oh, climate

(01:15):
change executive orders Trump undoing some of Obama's climate change
environmentalist legacy, and maybe we'll talk about Chuck Schumer being
mean and yelling at people in a fancy restaurant here
in New York City because they voted for Trump. If
we have time. Fantastic guests coming throughout the show as well.
So let me get right into it now so I

(01:35):
don't leave too much on the cutting room floor here
in the Freedom Hut. Sanctuary cities, Okay, we knew this
was gonna be a fight. I've been telling you for
a while. Sanctuary showdown here we are. I want to
break this down into a couple of different pathways, two
different levels. There's the very basic level and then there's

(01:58):
the complicated legally ease of what's really going on here
in the courts and everything. We'll do that too, But first,
what do we really need to know? What is a
sanctuary city policy all about? You have heard about this
for quite some time, and conservatives, certainly during the Trump

(02:22):
run for the presidency, we're spending a lot of their
time talking about what's true with immigration and what is not.
Here's what a sanctuary city more or less is, and
it depends on the local jurisdiction we are talking about.
It is a city that will more will decide that

(02:43):
it will serve all individuals. This is Washington Post definition. Here,
you go serve all individuals without regard to immigration status,
protect the privacy of community members by keeping their immigration
status confidential, or direct law enforcement officers not to investigate, arrest,
or hold people solely on the basis of im gradition status. Now,
those are not points that are really an issue here,

(03:07):
although it is fascinating to read that there are cities,
there are places across the country where they want there
to be access to what they call basic benefits. I
wunder what they mean by that for people not untopibly
be in the country in the first place, which means
they're not supposed to get these basic benefits in many cases,
but perhaps that's too much specificity for this talk. So

(03:31):
they have jurisdictions across the country, hundreds of them, although
it's really local there. The locusts of this is primarily
in major cities. There are a lot of other places
that don't want to get sued by activist groups and
so they won't engage in well, what is supposed to

(03:53):
be mandated by law here, which is a level of
cooperation with immigrations and customs enforcement. So at the very
basic level, what you have the problem here is that
there are cities that decide that when they have an
illegal immigrant in custody they will not respect a request

(04:16):
from Immigrations and Customs and Enforcement called the detainer request
to hold them until the federal officials can come pick
the person up because they've been marked for deportation, because
they're in the country illegally. Now, under law, they are
supposed to relay the immigration status to the federal government
of anybody who's in custody, irrespective of guilt or innocence

(04:38):
of the crime at issue, meaning the not there crime
of illegal status. But why are they in custody? That
doesn't matter for the purposes of federal law. Federal government says,
and I can give you the actual statute here is
eight U s Ct. Seventy three. Notwithstanding any other provisions

(04:59):
of federal, state, or local law, a federal, state or
local government entity or official may not prohibit or in
any way restrict any government entity or official from sending
to or receiving from the Immigration and Naturalization Service information
regarding the citizenship or immigration status, lawful or unlawful, of

(05:19):
any individual. This is a law passed by Congress back
and I believe nineties says you have to tell the
FED someone's immigration status if you have them in custody.
So what we have here are some places and they're
now publishing this information. Some places that say, well, we're

(05:41):
not going to that. They either don't do it, or
they won't give details about how often they do it,
or they are pushing back on that. But the place
that it really breaks down is on these detainer requests.
So they are unwilling to assist the federal government in
its lawful, congressionally mandated mission in of enforcing immigration laws.

(06:03):
They're unwilling, unwilling to do so, and that's going to
go into the courts. But before I get into the
legal arguments on the various sides of this issue, let
me first just say that what happens here is that
you have illegal aliens who are in Notice how no
one uses that term anymore. It's the it's the term
used in federal law and statute. You have illegal aliens

(06:27):
who are in the country and who are now in
custody for some reason. And these jurisdictions we can talk,
there's a lot of them, but the main one San Francisco,
Los Angeles, Chicago, New York. These jurisdictions decide that they
would rather release the individual in their custody, knowing that

(06:51):
they are illegal, then hold them and wait for Immigrations
and Customs Enforcement authorities to come pick that person up
for lawful deportation proceedings. Now, when they make that decision,
sometimes that means that that person who is in custody,
who is under federal law. And we all know because
I'll get into some of the details on this too. Uh,

(07:12):
the federal government has said and said this under the
Obama administration, they and they alone get to determine immigration laws.
But we know that the person in custody is supposed
to be in ice custody and deported in Immigrations and
Customs enforcement custody. And they release these people. This is

(07:32):
at the very basic level, this is what happens. They
released them for purely political reasons because the Democrat Party,
and you go down to the city level, the municipal level,
it is all or nothing politically for the left to
have illegal immigrants treated in this fashion, meaning that they
are given a pass. Here. When the federal government says,

(07:54):
can you give this individual over to us, these cities
say no, because you can't be the mayor. You're gonna
get thrown out as chief of police. You can't you know,
you can't be a d a anything that anyone in
these cities who stands up and says we will assist
the federal government in its lawful mission here knows that
their career is over. But the other side of that
is that those individuals who are legal aliens who are

(08:14):
in custody, who are let out of custody despite a
request from the federal government, and remember I just read
you from the federal statute, they have to tell the
federal government about the status of the person in custody.
So they tell them, and then I will check and say, okay,
uh we we do or do not want to. Remember,
it's up to their discretion. Not everybody's gonna get deported.

(08:36):
But if it's a gang member, or if it's somebody
that's been caught up in legal issues in the past
as well, maybe they will be somebody at the front
of the line for deportation. But some of those people
are released and then commit crimes, including violent and heinous crimes.
So you have authorities who are supposed to be protecting
us not assisting other authorities who are supposed to be

(08:58):
protecting us. And in that gap you have hundreds of
cases just that have come to light recently of those
who have been released under the general public and have
UH serious criminal records and in some cases commit crimes
once they have been released. This should be a scandal,

(09:20):
that should be an obvious case of well, hold on
a second, these municipal authorities. If let me say, let
me put it this way, if someone that I knew,
you know, if it was my wife or my child
who was harmed by an illegal limity, who was let's say,
even killed by legal limit who was in custody, the
federal government said hold them. We want to take this

(09:41):
person into deportation proceedings and send them back to their
country of origin. I would want to hold that city
authority accountable for that. And now we get into will
can you or can't you? But you should be able
to because they are making a decision that puts people
at risk. UM. And you should also note that there's

(10:02):
a lot of anger that comes to the Democrats on
this issue, just from publishing facts I have in front
of me enforcement and removal operations from Immigrations and Customs
Enforcement published by our own government for the UH week
of January February seventeen weekly. This is at the top

(10:24):
of the report Weekly detained Weekly declined Detainer Outcome Report,
and they go through all of the different cases across
the country that they're aware of. There's even more that
I'm sure they're not and they list here the person's
citizenship and there notable criminal activity, and they point out

(10:46):
all these different individuals, hundreds of them, just for this
one week that we're in custody that ICE asked for
a detainer request, meaning ICE was like, we should get
this person out of the country. And whether we're talking
about New York or Texas or Pennsylvania or I go
down the list a lot in Texas. By the way,
there's one. I believe Travis County, Texas gets the award

(11:10):
for the most denied detainer requests in here by far.
But there are people with allegations, if not conviction, oh no,
they have conviction, by the way. On here too, there
are there's convictions, and then there's just charges. But people
charge with cruelty toward wife, domestic violence, domestic violence, assault, assault,

(11:33):
driving under the influence, domestic violence, assault, amphetamine possession, you know,
selling heroin. I go down the list, carrying a prohibited weapon,
you go down. These are people who are here not
even supposed to be in the country, and they are
in custody and there being and the federal government knows

(11:54):
that this person is in custody who's not supposed to
be in the country anymore. And these different municipalities, for
sins of pure politics, say we're letting this, We're letting
this individual back out into the general population. You know,
if something happens nb D, no big deal, not our fault,
who cares. We take no responsibility for it. That's what
they're telling you. It's just wrong. And they get upset

(12:19):
when you publish the info. Now they're saying, I've even
read I've read analysis people comparing this. Oh well, look,
this is like what Hitler. This is from places you'll
read Internet sites that have real credibility on the left
at least, they'll say, well, you know, this is what
Hitler did, or this is fascism just by publishing the statistics.
Their hostility to facts and figures when it comes to

(12:41):
illegal immigrants. And by the way, we have to keep
specifying because whether it's rama Manuel or Kaiser Wilhelm de
Blasio here in New York City. His name was originally
Warren Wilhelm and he changed it to build a Blasio
side notes, so we called him as the Kaisa with
him the Blasio or you name it, whichever politician we're

(13:03):
talking about that's spoken out on this issue. Uh, they
don't want the information out there. They don't want to
be a part of this at all. They don't care
what the federal law says. They don't care what the
federal government wants. There are so many other instances by
the way of local and many of you who are police,
are law enforcement yourselves or have them in your family.
I'm sure already know this. Uh do you think that

(13:24):
usually when the U. S. Attorney's Office says they want
local law enforcement to go along with them with FBI,
or do you think the usually local enforcement goes no, no, no,
that dangerous criminal, We want no part of that. No.
They they're in the law enforcement business and they are
certainly within their power to help. Now we can get
into So that's that's the baseline of what's going on here.
People in many cases, accused of serious crimes, are convictive

(13:46):
serious crimes, are in custody, are not supposed to be
in the country at all, And these different jurisdictions are
releasing them for reasons of pure politics, saying sorry, not
our problem. That's where are the real sanctuary city debate
happens right now. I'll get into the legality of this
as well, because that's you're going to see a lot

(14:08):
of talking now about, uh, the rights of states, rights,
the rights of states. You have democrats making states rights
arguments here. It's fascinating to see them do it. We'll
get into that and much more eight four to five.
Any of you, by the way, who live in major
sanctuary jurisdictions that have thoughts on this one would be
great to hear what you think. Welcome back to the

(14:30):
freedom hud on an island of liberty where you're the
party and it's full of fellow patriots. Buck Sexton kicks
it off. So what can the federal government do here?
What are they going to do in response to this decision,
this decision that's been going on. It's an ongoing problem
for years that they're not going to help federal immigration

(14:52):
authorities when asked, despite the fact there's a law they
have to share the information, the specifics of detainers that
should be spelled out. Even more, there should be congressional action.
In my opinion to say that they have to compel them,
and they're going to fight this. By they're already going
to fight this right now. The federal government says they're
not even going to that length. You have the administration,

(15:15):
with Attorney General Sessions leading the charge here, saying that
they're gonna withhold funds federal funds specifically for law enforcement
from sanctuary jurisdictions if they do not prove that they
are complying at a minimum with the information sharing which
is mandated under federal law. I read to you from
the statute itself, and the response, as you can imagine,

(15:38):
it's quite predictable in these sanctuary cities. Build a Blasio
here in New York City saying the following, We're not
going to turn our police officers and immigration enforcers. It
would make us less safe. And in the end, we're
not why why what? What are we gonna say, Well,
take federal money so we can be less safe. No,
we're not gonna fall for nothing, he said, there was you,

(16:00):
By the way, this is not about making There's no
federal program or initiative to force local police to go
try to round up people they think are here illegally,
and and you know you're reading this, I'm sure in
different places because it's popping up all the time. Oh,
there's part of the mass deportation. That's not their job.
It's not true at all. All that they are doing

(16:22):
is holding somebody that the federal government has complete legitimate
right to want in their custody. This is just about
a transfer from local custody federal custody. If somebody was
in prison, I know, this is a more serious offense,
although there are murderers and kidnappers and rapists that sometimes
fall through the cracks of this process too. By the way,
but if if there was a terrorist in local custody

(16:43):
and the federal government said, oh my gosh, we're looking
at that guy, he's a terrorist, can you hand him
over to us, and the local police were like, as, sorry,
we don't have a we don't have a local statute
about this. We're gonna let him go, everybody would lose
their minds, right, So let's not pretend that they're not
making a very clear choice here. Of Blasio says about
making them into immigrated that's not true. This whole would
make us less safe. This is just based on conjecture

(17:05):
and nothing because cities that have sanctuary policies have gotten
safer in recent decades. They say it's well their sanctuary cities.
Would they be even safer if they weren't sanctuary cities.
They give no baseline, no proof. There's been massive drop
in uh, violent crime for a few decades now in
this country. So is it because these cities have sanctuary
policies or no that that's just there's no causation established whatsoever. Um.

(17:32):
And then you've got a Democrat here in New York,
Adriano Adrianat saying that defunding sanctuary cities is well, i'll
let him say it himself. Well, this is a serious
threat to the security of Americans throughout the country, and
particularly in New York City, which is the largest safest

(17:53):
city in America. By Yankee funding away and clawing back
funding away from law enforcement, it putting average Americans at risk.
In fact, it's almost like putting a gun in the
head of Americans and playing Russian roulette. This is egregious
and this is something that shouldn't happen. So, now, if
you are the federal government and you are giving money

(18:15):
specifically to have local police jurisdictions enforced the law to
help them in law enforcement missions, and you're told, well,
if you don't help us on this, and there there
is some of some of those funds are specified for
this issue of you know, detainers and the transfer of information,
although it is a small portion of the overall funds.

(18:37):
But they're giving this money for law enforcement purposes from
the federal government. It's a grant, it's an award. You'll
see that language used. Now. They're saying, well, we may
not give those awards to some places and oh, terrible
things like putting a gun to the head of the
American people. You've got this guy saying, um, it's it's outrageous.
But this is just all about politics. Um. Of course,

(18:58):
the way that this is all going now, you're going
to see this in the courts, the courts that have
been stacked with progressive leftists for quite a while, but
the courts are going to be looking at weather the
federal government can request reasonably that these local jurisdictions that
local police and law enforcement have to hold and hand

(19:20):
over someone that is wanted by the federal government. They're saying, oh, no,
tenth tenth Amendment States Rights you don't have to. You
can't make us do this. That's fascinating because you know
Title nine says that unless you do stuff that the
federal government wants you to do with regard to discrimination
over issues of gender, you're not getting that federal money.
And I don't hear them talking about the tenth Amendment. There.

(19:42):
We've got a lot more. We are joined team by
Congressman Moe Brooks of Alabama. Congressman, thank you very much
for giving us some time my pleasure. Can we let's
talk first about immigration. Then obviously I want to I

(20:02):
want your take on what happened with healthcare and what
is going to happen on healthcare. But first the sanctuary
city showdown. You've got these various jurisdictions vowing their mayors
and others vowing to fight any effort to crack down.
That seems to me there are two, you know, cracked
down on on the sanctuary policies. Two questions I wanted
to post you. First, is is it constitutional? Because they're

(20:24):
saying it's not in your mind, is it constitutional? And
why for the federal government to say, sorry, you're not
getting some of the federal law enforce and funds if
you don't play ball with us. I have not examined
any of the federal court opinions that may have dealt
with this issue, so I'm hesitant to say. But on
the surface, I have great confidence and faith and Attorney

(20:45):
General Jeff Sessions. He does his homework, and I do
not believe that he would take the position he took
absent a compelling legal basis for his having done so.
And do you think that already under law past D six?
I believe it was. There was a law passed I
read from it on the show that says that local jurisdictions,

(21:06):
local police have to share information about immigration status with
federal authorities. You are there are there jurisdictions that are
not doing that? And do you think they should be penalized?
There are jurisdictions around the country that are not properly
coordinating with or cooperating with our border security and ICE agents.
And yes, I do believe they should be penalized. And

(21:29):
as far as I'm concerned, the greater the punishment the better.
What about the detainer requests? That's where this that's where
they're now. I mean, obviously, I mean I asked you
about whether they're not coordinating. They say they do, but
they won't provide the numbers. But on the detainer requests
specifically about holding people for an additional forty eight hours
so ICE can pick them up. We know a lot
of jurisdictions are not doing that, but they say that

(21:51):
they don't have to. Do you do you have an
opinion on that? No? Not at this point, I do not.
I'd have to research the law and uh, the interpretation
and law by appellate courts. All right, well, let's move
on to Obamacare. So I know you've got opinions on
this because you file the one sentence build to Repeal Obamacare.
Tell us about that, Well, that's what we promise the

(22:11):
American people are going to do. Repeal Obamacare. It's not
a hundred something page bill that says, on the one hand,
we're repealing Obamacare, but on the other hand, we are
going to reincorporate into our replacement all of the provisions
of Obamacare that drive up the cost so much. You know,
when you see a Congressional Budget Office and Joint Committee
on Taxation set of reports, both of which say that

(22:34):
under the Republican Welfare Plan, insurance premium costs are going
to go up fift over the next couple of years.
You know that we're not in a substantive way dealing
with the cost drivers behind Obamacare. Yet the Republican Welfare
Plan did exactly that. And that's before you get to

(22:54):
what I call the largest Republican welfare program in the
history of the Republican Party. And that's where the federal
government is either going to be cutting checks, are allowing
tax credit offsets or um, why are depositing or cutting
checks to insurance companies chosen by American taxpayers. It all

(23:17):
sounds good, all that giveaway, but at some point someone
has to pay for it. And that's where the working
folks in America a unit hammered with the bill that
comes forth from having to pay for not only their
own insurance, but also all those others out there that
are not carrying their weight in America. And so uh,

(23:37):
that's just mind boggling to me. And if you look
at the political ramifications long term, the Republican Welfare Plan,
by giving away anywhere from to nine thousand dollars per
person depending on a lot of variable factors, that's how
many people are in that household with a maximum of
fourteen thousand. When you're giving away all that money to

(24:00):
all these voters who vote Republican, who have done it
the right way, who are self sufficient, all of a sudden,
you're turning them into people who are welfare dependents. That
means every future election is going to be about how
much more welfare can you give me to help off
set my health insurance premiums? Never mind the cost side.
We're on the one hand, we're giving it to you,

(24:21):
but on the other hand, we're taking the same amount
back plus more because you've now got a federal bureaucracy
to pay. So there's a you know, there's a portion
of the money that's taken away in taxes that never
gets back but in future elections. In effect, this legislation
just turns the United States of America over to the
Bernie Sanders socialist wing of American society. And as you

(24:41):
know from what's happening in Venezuela right now, you put
socialism in place of a of a country's economy for
some number of years, and the thing's going to collapse.
And in and in Venezuela, those people are suffering tremendous
hardship from having foolishly allowed their government to experiment with
social realism, and now they're paying the price. We already

(25:02):
see Bernie Sanders, Nancy Pelosi, and others speaking openly about
single payer I the government paying for everyone's health care
all over the country. So that's a hard left turn
from all right now. But Republican welfare bill is in
essence single payer, just not paying all of it. It's
just a stepping stone towards ultimately single payer and the

(25:25):
federal government socializing the healthcare uh system as it is
done in the United Kingdom and other countries. And some
people may not be aware of what happens with socialized medicine,
but this is what happens. The quality of healthcare goes
down substantially, particularly with respect to life saving measures that
are expensive. That's where the independent payment advisory panels come

(25:47):
into play. They make life and death decisions over who
gets care and who does not, and that's why it's
often referred to as the death panel. What happened, Congressman,
We've been hearing about the repeal of Obamacare from Republicans
for years. They have taken dozens and dozens of votes
to repeal Obamacare, in the past. Now here, we we
all are ready for this, they show up. They've been

(26:09):
talking about this for years, and the excuses I was hearing, Oh, well,
there'll be a second in a third phase and reconciliation,
and it just seemed like there was a lot of uh,
lawyering in a bad way, a bit of dishonesty from
some of the Republicans, and what was really going on.
I mean, why start out with a wishy, washy bill.
Why not at least you're out with a really conservative

(26:30):
bill and then try to fight through it. That would
make sense to me. Two years ago, we passed legislation
the Republicans did in the House and the Republicans did
in the Senate that gutted Obamacare. Not a total repeal,
but it did so much damage that Obamacare would be
just be a mere shadow of its then current self.
It went to the President's desk and he vetoed it,

(26:52):
and for the life of me, I do not understand
why the House leadership does not let us vote on
that legislation. If it fails, okay, then you can start
worrying about trying to pass a bill that's not quite
as bad as Obamacare, still bad but not as bad
as Obamacare. But if we were to pass a total repeal,
that would put us in an excellent position in two

(27:13):
different respects. One, if we did nothing else, then America
reverts back to the healthcare laws of two thousand nine,
which happened to be the very same laws that produced
the best healthcare on the planet, and at lower costs
in terms of premiums and with respect to insurance, at
lower deductible so that when you actually had insurance, you

(27:34):
could use it. I just it's I'm disheartened, um dismayed.
I'm baffled. I just don't get why we don't go
to that kind of legislation that we passed fifty or
sixty times over the preceding six years. And then I'm
further baffled by those that want to create a surrender caucus,
who say, all right, this is the one vote you get.

(27:55):
There won't be anymore. If you're averaging about ten votes
a year. I want to ask you one more here
at what do you think is going to happen now
with your Republican colleagues and the House and the Senate.
Uh there, I've heard Paul Ryan says this isn't over
others are saying, well, we're just gonna go to taxes.
Do you have confidence that the lesson learned here is

(28:16):
that you've got to actually repeal Obamacare. Do you think
there's gonna be a return to We'll find some centrist
way in the middle. If the Tea Party movement of
that culminated with the election of President Donald Trump, we'll
get to work and get to work hard like they
were in two thousand nine, and contact their congressmen and

(28:38):
senators and demand a repeal of Obamacare, not replacement with
another socialized medicine program, okay, but just a repeal of
Obamacare and nothing else. Then it will get done. But
if the American people do not rise up and contact
their House members and senators, then the Republican senators and

(28:59):
the Republican House members who represented to the American people
in order to get elected in order to win primaries
that they're going to repeal Obamacare, Well, they becomes some
what we need. And I'm very much concerned that you
will see us reverting to just a different form of
socialized medicine and inflammation. That is why the Republican Leadership

(29:22):
plan in the House has been referred to quite accurately,
I believe as Obamacare two point oh or Obamacare light.
That's how much of Obamacare has been reincorporated. And quite frankly,
it's been reincorporated in large part because of the Indivisible
and Resist movements. Those folks are contacting congressional offices and

(29:43):
senatorial offices on a regular basis, and it's affecting the
willingness of congressmen and senators to keep their promises to
the American people in order to get elected. Congressman Moe
Brooks of Alabama, thank you so much for joining us.
To appreciate you coming on the show. My pleasure. Have
a good one. We've got Mimi and San Francisco on

(30:10):
the I Heart app. What's on, Mimi, Harry Shields, Hi Buck.
I wanted to talk about um sanctuary cities in San
Francisco in particular, and two things I wanted to comment on.
In two thousand and eight, there was a family that
was killed. Half of the family was killed by a

(30:31):
guy named Edwin Ramos who was an illegal immigrant and
an MS thirteen gang member, and the family tried to
sue the city because they said the sanctuary policies led
to the fatal shooting, and and they actually had this
guy in custody a couple of times, and they kept
letting him go and letting him go, and Uh. The

(30:54):
family tried to sue and the lawsuit was dismissed. They
were told they couldn't sue the city. So that's one thing.
The other comment I wanted to make is that a
I think Congress should pass a law changing that, by
the way, but go ahead, I agree. A group of
us out here joined an organization called the Minuteman Organization,
and we were average citizens who wanted to stop illegal immigration.

(31:17):
And we used to go into San Francisco every year
and when when the illegals were demanding, uh, that they
be allowed to stay in the country, we would stand
up to them and say, you know, we're for legal immigration,
but we're not for illegal immigration. These people were vicious,
they were nasty. They especially the next because they kept

(31:38):
telling us we were Europeans and we should go home
back to Europe. We didn't belong here. So this whole
thing creates this this mentality in these people that we're
the bad guys and they're the good guys and they
deserve to be here. It's really, Uh, it creates this
whole sense of lawlessness that we have. I would just

(32:00):
want to ask any especially when they do these profiles
as they often do in the media, of the illegal
immigrant valedictorian or the illegal immigrant who I don't know,
you know, saves uh puppies from a burning house or something.
We see those stories. I would just want to ask
the illegal immigrant, Uh, does does everyone get to come here?
Is there is there nobody that is uh, you know,

(32:21):
nobody that's gonna be told the way in line? Because
if the policy is illegal immigration is fine, then we're
in we're an open borders country, so you can you know,
it can't be both ways. It can't be well, some
illegals can, millions of illegals can stay, millions more can come,
but we can't say that we're open borders because then
we know we don't have a country anymore. I just
want to know where they where the line is drawn.

(32:42):
And I would ask the advocates of illegal immigration, which
really now is the Democratic Party, and the Democrat Party
advocates openly for illegal immigrants all the time, where do
they draw the line? You had a half a million
visa overstays last year. So are we going to kick
out the half a million people? Yes? Or no? Well
that was just last here. What about this year? I mean,
you keep going down this pathway and they never have

(33:03):
any answers. Maybe yeah. And as a citizen, I would
say the police were protecting us from the illegal in
San Francisco. They had to protect us. So here we
are US citizens, taxpayers paying the bill for all this stuff,
and then we're the ones being made to feel that
we don't belong here. It's not right. Herry, Maybe, thank

(33:26):
you very much for calling it from San Francisco and
Shields High. Kenneth in Mississippi w BUV. What's up Kenneth?
Hey uh uh buck And I totally agree with your
car caller and I sympathize with her and also agree
with your guests. The representative from Alabamas Mo Mo Brooks.

(33:52):
Mo Brooks, Yes, we are fake. We have to recognize
that we are in a war, and we're going to
have to mobilize us, and we're gonna have to stand together.
And I'm asking a political war, right, Poltico war. Some
of you talk radio hosts need to organize yourself so
and so that y'all start calling out people to to

(34:16):
organize and to get together and make these calls and
start demand it, because we're gonna lose this country if
we if this continues, we're gonna lose this country. They
got the deck tech against us, with the courts and
everything else, and we we you know, it's it's a war.
It literally as a war. Well it's a political war.

(34:36):
It's not literally a war. But I know what you mean,
Kenneth um are thinking. I think I know what you mean.
Thank you for calling in on w b V. Appreciate
it from Mississippi. One one note. And I was going
to write about this, and I think somebody beat me
to it in the Wall Street Journal. But I just
have to note this is fascinating for for the day,
well all through the election, and then after he won,

(34:56):
of course, these these calls got much louder. That Trump
was a fascist, that he was going to that he
was hit larian, that he was hitler like, that he
would destroy democracy and run rough shot over all the
institutions of democracy, and he was such a threat. And
people that want us to think of their analysis as serious,
we're saying this. They were writing this and they were

(35:19):
taken seriously by other people who think that their opinions
are serious and well informed and scholarly. So far, what
have we seen a lot of Trump just saying, Okay,
well we gotta go to court that you know that
the court stopped us, so now let's go through the
legal process. You know Congress was we didn't have the votes. Okay,

(35:41):
we'll do something else. Does he I'm just wondering if
for all the people that we're sitting around saying that
Trump would be a dictator, If he's a dictator, he's
a pretty bad one because so far, every time, even
in my opinion, improperly the federal government has stopped him
from doing something, or there's the courts have stopped him

(36:02):
from doing something. I should say, although the courts are
part of the federal government. Really um, but every time
there's been a a hold up in his agenda, every
time there's been some problem, he's gone through the completely
legitimate recourse and in fact has been willing to say, okay,
well we'll move on to the next thing. Does he
get credit for not being a dictator? Now? I just

(36:22):
now we're told these ineffective White House and disarray, his
agenda is in trouble well, if he's a dictator, his
agenda wouldn't be in trouble, would it. It can't be
both ways. You can't be telling me for months that
Trump is just going to seize power and crush all
of his enemies, and then you know, one federal judge
in Hawaii like shuts down his executive order just just

(36:43):
because he says, so Trump is not a very good dictator,
is he? Because he's not a dictator. And everyone who
was saying that, including some very prominent mainstream media personalities, pundits, analysts, anchors,
they should be repudiated for that. I mean, people should

(37:04):
really hold them accountable for creating this atmosphere of hyperbolic fear.
That's what we've all been living in for months. Oh Trump,
it's so terrible. He's gonna destroy America. Well, apparently he's
not gonna destroy America at all, because he can't even
do things that he should be able to do as president.

(37:25):
Executive orders are being overturned obviously with the Congress. This
is on the Republicans. I'm not saying it's on the Democrats,
but you know it's not like he just says, yeah, well,
Obamacare is repealed by by Dick Tott. I'm just gonna
say it's repealed. Nope, that's not what's happened either. So
just keep in mind that we were told for we
were told for the first couple of months of the

(37:46):
presidency that he was a dictator, and now we're being
told these ineffective, ineffectual can't get his agenda done. It's
it's just there, there's no intellectual integrity for a lot
of the leftist Trump haid or it's just what can
I do to create a perception of failure and to
damage administration today? And that that's what they'll do. That's

(38:08):
what they'll do it. So, like I said, if he
was a dictator, he's a really bad one. But he's
not a dictator, is he? He spreads freedom because freedom
is not gonna spread itself. Buck Sexton his back. Welcome back, team, Buck.
We are joined by our friend Vince Colonies. He is
the Daily Callers editor in chief. Got a lot of

(38:31):
headlines to run through with him. Vince, great to have you, Vince.
I do not hear Vince. I'm I'm the only one
that does not hear Vince. Because if not, all right,
we'll get Vince back later. Sorry, Um, so hold on
one second. In your team, Uh, let's talk about Devin Unius. Um,

(38:54):
let's talk about Devin Junius here for a second. So
we have people that are calling for the recusal of
Devin Nunyez. We have people that are saying that he
needs to give it up, can't be the chairman of
the House permanclec Committee on Intelligence anymore. And I keep
asking because of what exactly? And I'm not saying there's

(39:18):
no I am convincible on this issue. I don't have
some dog in the fight. I don't really care all
that much. I just notice a pattern, a pattern the
Democrats have played out now already a couple of times
they demand recusal, and then they demand further investigation, and
some even whisper about resignation, and then some even whisper

(39:39):
about prosecution. Happened with Attorney General Sessions. And now as
we look at what's happening with nun Yez, I just
would say to myself, okay, um, hold on a second,
what is the problem here? And he's asked this question himself,
like when he said this not going to talk about

(40:00):
the investigation, intellegen questions, I'll brief you proper appropriate time
when we have new information, just like I always have
been decided, which you've almost given at this time, you
are not considering. I'm asking, well, look, I'd like to
answer your question, but I'd like to know first what
what the purpose of that would be? Why that would be?

(40:22):
Because someone asks, I mean, that's not how that that's
not how the conflicts I just left. What would that be?
Help me understand? They're saying, they're at their criticism is
that you're too close to the White House. He shouldn't
have great the president last week, and you can't predibly
run the investigation. That's what they're saying. So do you

(40:43):
that's what the media know? The truth to that you
were told? What you guys know exactly what we said.
I have brief called you last week? Any times? Can
you pause one second? A second? That's going So he's
being he's been ambushed by all these reporters, which I
know that happens. He's got a reporter aggle. He's in
like the bowels of Capitol Hill, and they're all saying,

(41:04):
what are you gonna recuse yourself? You're gonna recuse yourself
if at some level the question becomes an allegation at
some level. The repetition of are you going to recuse yourself?
Is the story? Forget about trying to get a story
or get an answer. Just these reporters all taking audio
and video of each other saying you're gonna recuse yourself,
You're gonna recuse yourself. Then that gets blasted ever that

(41:27):
becomes the story. It's very effective, isn't it as a
as a tool of propaganda? It's it's pretty good. And
they keep asking him the same questions over and over
and he gets a little flustered, and we can play
a little more of that audio if we have a
go on this investigation. So I would just say, go
talk to them and ask them one But are you
going to stay it's chairman and run this investigation? Well,

(41:48):
why would I not? Do? You guys need to go
ask them why they're you know, why these things are
being said. So can this investigation continue as you as chairman?
Why would it not? Because there are not briefing you
guys tenuously, but they're keeping up space. But they're saying
that it cannot run as you. You got to go
talk to them. That sounds like their problem. I don't

(42:09):
have you know, my colleagues are perfectly fine. I mean,
there's they know we're doing an investigation and that will continue.
This plant will not be affected by all of this,
that will it change and quality or how it runs,
because no, I mean, we're doing a very thorough drob
on this investigation. As you know, this this Russia issue,
we have been on it for many, many years. Alright,

(42:29):
So let's let's let's keep it. Let's keep it real here.
Let's let's get into this for a moment. So you've
got all these reporters saying, you know, asking unions, and
they're really making a statement in the form of a question, right,
are you gonna recuse yourself? You're gonna recuse yourself? Um,
And I do feel they need to point out remember
when the Attorney General of the United States, who was
presiding over a highly sensitive and contentious investigation into Espionage

(42:53):
Act violations by alleged Espionage Act violations by Hillary Clinton.
Although the allegation turned out to be real, they just
didn't charge her because she didn't have a it was unintentional.
But there were violations of the Spionage Act, just unintentional violations.
But I digress. Remember Loretta Lynch sat with Bill Clinton
right before the announcement was made by the FBI, which
was also strange. If we're gonna talk about how these

(43:15):
things happened, why wouldn't the Attorney general make the announcement.
Why make coney Comey make the announcement. Do you remember
when she recused herself? Oh, that's right, she didn't, did she?
The Attorney General did not in an obvious case of
she sat down with the husband of the person under
investigation who was running for president of the United States
right before the end. There was no recusal. There was

(43:38):
no nothing, you know. That's that's it. You know. She
didn't say, oh well, because we as we know, the
investigation then got a little more coverage later on and
it could have come back up and people said, well, buck,
it was only a few days. But she could have
just recused herself and said that I'll have nothing to do.
I have nothing to do with this. You're right, I
shouldn't have talked to him. There was no recusal. This

(43:58):
is very politicized. Let's say, understand, when you have members
of Congress who have an R or a D next
to their name, Republican or Democrat, it's already being put
through a certain lens. At least it's out in the open,
and you see it. You know, does anyone think they're
not when when Chuck Schumer is asking ridiculous questions of

(44:18):
Neil Gorsitch, and when Chuck Schumer doesn't even care what
he's saying, he just wants to grandstand and talking about
women's right and I loved this, And Matt, you know,
when Chuck Schumer's doing all that, do you do you
think that what is that not politicized? Is that is
that really about? And now you said, well, Buck, those
aren't hearings, that's not an investigation, Okay, But the members
of the House have done that too. We all know

(44:39):
where they stand on politics. Unless there is a procedural
issue here, unless there is something they can point to
that is wrong in a way that requires redress, not
wrong in a way that requires Yeah. Sorry, I should
have told you guys first before I went out with
these allegations from reporting that I've seen. Then I need

(45:01):
to know where the lines are here. I need to
know recusal happens when what a Republican is part of
an investigation that Democrats are also part of a recusal. Happy,
Remember a G. Sessions stepped down because they got him.
Oh he said he didn't have connections with the Russia.
One of those Russia connections we had on this show,
Jim Carrafano from the Heritage Foundation to tell you that

(45:22):
he arranged this second meeting they're talking about. And it
was the equivalent of like, you know, did you have
an in person meeting with someone? I don't know. They
were at a book signing. They were one of a
thousand people there, and yeah, I think I shook their
head and said hello, oh yeah, that's a meeting. You
should have reported that. I mean not really. But Sessions
recused himself because there was all the pressure and they said, okay, fine,

(45:44):
he recused himself. Now we have noon years. Oh he's
gonna recuse him. Do we think this is a coincidence
that yet yet another Republican involved in the investigation, Another
Republican who can at least give his version of what
he thinks is going on here based on the facts,
supposed to step down. Now I know there. I know
that conservatives have principles and that leftists and progressives really

(46:06):
really don't, right, meaning that for a progressive the ends
justify the means. The same with Marxist, the same with communists,
the same with the whole bunch of other status state
before all types. Okay, fun Conservatives actually have principles, and
so they don't like it when they see this kind
of political food fight playing out where they think that
maybe one maybe someone on our side is being a

(46:27):
little unfair to the process. That is a completely valid
point of view, and I understand how some people feel
that way. I just also want to give you another
point of view, which is that the Democrats view this
as a street fight and one that if they win,
they can take down the whole administration. They do not
care what the facts are, They do not care what

(46:47):
comes out of this investigation. It is every bit as
politicized by Adam Schiff as it could ever be by
Devin Juniez. Let's not kid ourselves. Let's not be naive
about this. And I said this when Attorney General Sessions
recused himself, and I said this after General Flynn stepped down.

(47:09):
I said, don't think that this act of contrition, or
this act of goodwill and fair play will be in
any way, uh met with some goodwill on their side.
That's just foolishness. No, this is just feeding the beast
and it gets bigger and it wants more. The Democrats
want more, and this is how they're trying to stop

(47:30):
his administration. They're holding up nominees for things. They may
even hold up course it's in the Supreme Court or
in the Senate. We'll see about that though. But Nunez
is supposed to step down. Why he was on Fox
last night with Bill O'Reilly explaining why he was at
the quote White House which means the White House grounds,

(47:50):
which is a large place where lots of different people
work and have access or can access classified information in
certain secure areas. Here's what he said on o Riley
Play four. We go to the Executive Branch at least
once or twice a week. This is not unusual because
there are intelligence products that we don't have access to
UH in the House of Representatives, but we do have

(48:13):
the clearances to see them. So we've known about this
long before Trump actually sent his famous tweet out about
the wire tapping at Trump Tower. We've known that there
was additional unmasking of Americans names. We had sources that
had provided us to UH that information, and so what
I had to do, is I needed a place that
I could actually go and find this information, uh and

(48:34):
review it and see it. And so we just facilitated.
You went to the old Executive Office building. My guess,
I know you're not saying okay, and you looked at it,
but they didn't give it to you. You saw it,
and then you went over to the president told him
what you saw. Yeah, the next the next the next day,
so you know, there was no there was no sneaking around.
I walked in, I walked onto the ground, said high

(48:55):
to people. Uh, you know, I did not go to
the West wing, did not talk to the president. And
then what I dude, And when I found out that
it had nothing to do with Russia, what's the bigger story?
By the way, that Nunez was on the White House grounds,
nothing improper, nothing. You leave quite a leap from on
the White House grounds to doing the bidding of Donald

(49:16):
Trump in the Oval Office to go out there and
what lie about classified information that he saw. He must
have quite a bit of sway over Nunyez to possibly
sacrifice his entire career and integrity on this issue. Does
he work for Donald Trump? I'm under the impression it's
a coequal branch of government. Why would Devin Junias do

(49:37):
that if the information were false. If the information is true,
isn't It also worth pointing out that it doesn't matter
who in the government as long as they have legal
access to it. Doesn't matter who in the government wanted
Nunez to see it or let him see it, as
long as it goes through proper channels in terms of
handling the classified information. Nunias has a clearance. What's but

(50:02):
how is the big story that Nunis is on the
White House grounds and not that the House Intelligence Oversight
Chairman is saying that there was foul play inside the
intelligence collection system to hurt a political candidate in this country.
And this is this should be hair on fire, shocking, terrifying,

(50:26):
deaf con to politically kind of stuff. But instead of oh,
where was he? Well, what was he doing? Who's his source?
That's the other game that I'm so astounded to see
members of the media playing who's your source? Yeah, let's
just think about this for a second. If someone's a
civil servant and they work for an agency, maybe an
agency where a lot of their colleagues completely hate Trump,

(50:48):
I'm just I'm just putting this out there. I don't know,
and they're coming forward to share information with the Oversight
the Congressional Oversight chairman. This is proper channels, everybody, This
is how it's supposed to go. But they don't want
to become part of the circus. They don't want to
become part of the Democrats. Fire him, lock him up,

(51:08):
ruin his life game that they constantly play. And Republicans,
we are terrible at taking care of our own. Democrats
are much better at it, and they destroy ours and
we let it happen. Okay, So they're they're trying to
convince everybody that nun Yez needs to step down and
recuse him. So you've got Democratic House Intelligence Committee member

(51:32):
Jackie Spire saying publicly that she just doesn't trust him.
Do you trust Newness? I don't trust him. I mean,
I think he's a very nice man. I think he
is frankly over his head. I think he used very
poor judgment, and I think he has tainted the committee.
I actually think that there is an effort underway to

(51:52):
uh to shut this committee down by the President. He
does not want this committee's investigation to move forward and
if he cannot gust off, then he's only got to
find a way to knock off the Senate investigate. So
this is what we're being told now, that that the
White House is trying to shut this down and so
Nunez has to step down. But does that who's going

(52:13):
to be in Oh, should we just have a Democrat
that in charge? Well, now that doesn't that's not gonna
work as it. Do you think that the like the
next Republican unless the next Republican on the House uh
Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence is Lindsey Grammer, John McCain,
they're going to be unhappy. I can promise you that.
And I know they're senators. That's not going to happen,
but I'm just saying they're not going to be happy.

(52:34):
You only got another story that's getting a lot of
lift from the media that acting a former acting Attorney General,
Sally Yates, who just decided that she was going to
be a she was going to be part of the
nullification with the nullification of executive order and chain of

(52:54):
command within the d o J. Yeah, just just don't
do what the president says. We're the d o J.
Just just don't do it. And then she got fired.
She's now we're we're being told that she was supposed
to testify and then the White House prevented her from testifying.
This is a story that I'm sure when we get
clarification of it and it's nothing, it will already have

(53:15):
been for for a few days been reported that there's
all these evil machinations behind the scenes going on with
the White House and Trump and oh it's also nefarious,
and Spicer during one of his trademark press conferences, had
to deal with this one. I want to make a
comment on a false report regarding former Acting Attorney General

(53:36):
Sally Yates. As a matter of fact, I'd like to
walk you through the sequence of events, just to make
sure that everyone's abundantly clear on what happened. On March fourteenth,
Chairman Juniaz and ranking member Ship invited Sally Ates to
testify on March. On marche saliates attorney sent a letter
to the Department of Justice asking for their consent to
testify without constraints on March. The Department of Justice responded

(54:00):
the President owns those privileges to discuss the communications they
were requesting to talk about, and referred them to the
White House. Also in the four miss yates attorney sent
a letter to the White House Council requesting that consent,
specifically saying that if they did not receive a response
by March at ten am, they would quote conclude that
the White House does not assert executive privilege over these matters.

(54:23):
The White House did not respond and took no action
that prevented Miss Yates from testifying. So I don't know,
I mean, I guess they're saying the White House is
a bunch of liars, that Spicer's well, I know they
say Trump's a liar all the time, but Spicers lying
at everybody's lying. Or maybe they just didn't do what
the press is saying they did here. This is from
Washington Post. Trump administration sought to block Sallyates from testifying

(54:46):
to Congress on Russia. Yates is an obvious partisan, a
leftist leave behind of the Obama administration who decided that
she would get all kinds of attention. And I'm sure
she has got a great book deal coming her way,
and she'll be on the speaking circuit soon and all
kinds of wonderful things because the left, as I always

(55:07):
tell you, takes care of its people. We do not.
Republicans do not take care of those who stand up
and fight for our side. But like, yeah, you know,
you take your lumps, your Republican Okay, But Yates testifying
to Congress would have involved, perhaps because she was acting
attorney general, some communications that the executive branch would say

(55:30):
that she's not supposed to be you know, she's there
as counsel. This should be like saying, okay, uh, your
former lawyer that you had attorney client privilege with, we
want to call your lawyer and to testify about something,
and they're just the lawyers just gonna wave privilege. Well, no,
lawyer can't. Lawyer can't do that. It's problem. So there
are some community that's where the issue is. But it's
being reported as oh, another scheme, another effort to block

(55:53):
the truth from coming out. What is the truth? By
the way, And I I'm starting I'm getting a little
tired of the heat from some Republicans on this one too.
So my fellow conservatives, not just in media but in general, well,
what are we going to find out? That Trump was like, yeah,
I know, what's the key to victory in Pennsylvania, Missigan,

(56:14):
in Wisconsin, let's have the Russians get into Podesta's email
account and release some emails about what exactly I I
don't even I'm being complete there. I barely even remember
what they were. And I was paying very close attention,
and I did not care. It was reasonably interesting reading.
But who cares? And yet here we are. If you

(56:38):
don't believe the conspiracy, the conspiracy for which there is
no evidence, You're a bad person. You're a dumb person,
You're an evil person. That's what the left says here,
That's what the Democrat Party wants you to believe. It
kind of reminds me of climate change. If you don't
believe the massive consensus on this conspiracy, you're a bad person.
It's not just you're wrong, you're a bad person. I

(57:00):
would not be okay with the trader in the White
House if I had any reason to believe that were
the case, I would be shouting it from the rooftops.
I still have. Yet, I just kind of get one
piece of actual evidence instead of the insinuations that there's
a cover up, the allegations that there are backroom deals happening,
that Trump is orchestrating all by the way, which is

(57:21):
it is Trump a bumbling buffoon who can't get anything done?
Or is he a highly skilled, manipulative liar that can
make people bend to his will and Devin Unions and
others blow up their integrity in their careers all to
protect Trump Again, it can't be both ken it so
is Trump you know, and and incapable? Uh? You know? Buffoon?

(57:47):
Or is Trump the most savvy political operator behind the
scenes anyone's ever seen. I don't know. He's an x
C I a officer who knows how to outsmart the
enemies of liberty. But I do have a very particular
set of skills. Buck Sexton with America Now Team your mission,

(58:11):
should you choose to accept it, call the Freedom Hunt
Operations Center nine hundred Buck make contact the pleasure under
hostile Surveillance to eight to five. All right, this time,
I think we're for real. We got Vince Colonies on
the phone. Daily Caller Editor in Chief, Vince, great of

(58:31):
you to join. Thank you for the effort to make
sure that I can appear. I really appreciate that. Of course, Mann,
thank you for making the time for so we got
There's a there's a lot to talk about. Uh. First,
let's I'm I'm picking this. This is great fun. It's
ala carte political stories here. Um, let's do uh the
Gorseitch filibuster possibility, Dick Durban twenty seven, please go. So

(58:56):
I have it right that you've voted I and the
voice vote in two thousand six to win course, which
was up for the Federal Appeals Court. Good, good question, Willie.
And I just don't remember, to be honest with you,
on voice votes. You don't make much of it. A
note on it, and it's possible. I don't believe there
was a lot of controversy surrounding it. But let me
tell you, he's moving from Triple A ball to the
big leagues here, and he's going to be the deciding

(59:17):
vote on the future of the court for a long time. Appears,
so this is an important decision. The congressional record shows
you did vote in favor. It was a unanimous vote,
but he had something changed in your view. Of course,
it's since two thousand six when you did vote I
for him. No, but you know, just take a look
at what has happened in the past. When someone moves
up to the Supreme Court level, different important questions are

(59:39):
asked okay, and wait before you respond. We got then
Senator Mike Lee with the other side of his saying, oh,
course it's gonna get confirmed or else play that. Look,
we're going to get judge, course it's confirmed. This is
a good judge. This is a judge who interprets the
law based on what it says rather than what he
might wish it might say. And we intend to get

(01:00:01):
him confirmed. We will get him confirmed one way or another.
One way or another means yes on the nuclear option.
If you have to go that way, it means we're
going to get him confirmed. Nuclear means we're gonna get
him confirmed. Sounds I actually think Burman has a point there.
Sounds like I know why Mike Lee wouldn't want to
say that, But as far as I'm concerned, Vince, they

(01:00:22):
better go nuclear option if they try to filibuster gorste
because I mean, you heard Derby. He's just like, well,
you know stuff, yeah, And it's amazing by the way,
It's like, you know, I don't realize that some some
positions are important, other positions are unimportant when you're confirming
them in the Senate. Apparently there's some some standard that
you know. Of course, you didn't have to meet before.

(01:00:44):
That was just like that whatever, just robber stamp um. Yeah.
I think it's important for us to sort of examine
what is possible in the Senate. Of course, the nuclear
option is possible. And when it comes to what Democrats want, uh,
they don't really ultimately one two things. One, they probably
don't want Trump to have another go at picking a nominee.
Gorsas is about as agreeable of a pick as anybody

(01:01:07):
could hope for if you're in the Democratic Party, and
and it doesn't like President Trump doesn't even go any
further to the left, uh in this case. And the
other thing is like, remember this is president setting. If
you force the Republicans to pick nuclear option, that's the
way it's going to be from now one. And that
with that runs a lot of risk, including potential retirements
on the Supreme Court and even depths. I mean, there's

(01:01:29):
no a lot made of the fact that Democrats are
like practically trying to like keep Ruth Bader Ginsburg alive
at all costs. I mean, there's like very serious concern
about the future of the Court and four to eight
years of Trump could change it for a long long time. Yeah,
I just can't imagine, you know, the arguments there is
that there's a little story. I guess we could get
it in now where Chuck Schumer was that. I believe

(01:01:50):
it was set a mezzo on the Upper East Side,
which is like the most expensive cash only Italian restaurant
that I know of in New York. Uh And and
he got an argument somebody there that he yelled out
in front of all the other diners. You know, you
voted for Trump. Uh, you know, Chuck Schumer leading the
charge against course. It's so unconvincing. I mean, they they've

(01:02:10):
got it's amazing. Really, they've got nothing. Again, they've got
nothing on this guy other than he is a constitutional
originalist and that bothers them. But that's not enough for
them to stop the confirmation. So they're just watching them.
They voted unanimously for him in the Federal bench before.
To say, by the way that you know, it's you're
good enough for the Federal bench lifetime appointment, but you're

(01:02:31):
not good enough for the Supreme Court. What are they
making that distinction based on the guy has been in
the majority and with decisions a vast majority of the time.
It's just it's completely the weak sauce. I have to
say that's it is the weak sauce fins right, And
I like, I love to think of Chuck Schumer like
he's screaming at people at restaurants that's who they voted for,

(01:02:51):
as if he's like a liberal activist who has no
other power but to yell at people like the guys,
like he's like the most powerful person Democrat and he
is supposedly screaming at restaurant patrons about their vote. Pretty funny.
But the Gorser's thing, Yeah, I think Democrats. You know,
ultimately everyone's playing politics here. Um. You know, any signal
like to relate it to another issue, Any signal where

(01:03:12):
the White House is now saying that they'd like to
work with Democrats and legislation, there's not going to get it.
Democrats stand to benefit financially from stone Wall opposition to
President Trump at all costs, even when the President or
his nominees happened to fall in line with some of
the things that they're thinking. All right, now, tell me
about this piece going back to immigration, which we spent

(01:03:32):
the beginning of the show on as a topic. Here
telling you this piece a mass state rap was caught
tipping off illegal immigrants to imminent ICE raids. Is up
on the Daily car dot com. What's going on here, Vince? Yes, Well,
the last time I got ducked into this story. It's
pretty amazing. This Massachusetts state representative Mischelga boys. Uh. She

(01:03:53):
started posting on her own Facebook page warning people in
her community that on ice raid, immigrations and customs enforcement
would be coming today to the Brockton area of Massachusetts.
And she's like basically trying to help people avoid federal
law enforcement by urging them to know that just rate

(01:04:15):
these raids are coming. So she was giving people advice
on how to handle it. Don't answered her door if
you don't know, and essentially, you know, again asking people
to avoid law enforcement and tipping them off that they're coming. Well,
once it became once it was brought to the attention
of places like the Daily Caller, she since released a
statement and it's pretty hilarious. She basically has decided to

(01:04:38):
walk this back. She's received a lot of criticism inside
of her own state. Um, she's kind of walked this
back a bit. No, you know, she's sticking by the advice,
but what she's saying is This wasn't inside or info
that I had. This was a roofer that was getting
around my community, and I just helped propagate it because
I figured, if everyone's already talking about this album, I
might as well talk about this. And in fact, she
claims somewhat befuddowingly that by clearing that ICE intended to

(01:05:01):
make raids in her community and see and seek out
undocumented or illegal immigrants, that she was actually trying to
help ICE out that by alerting them to the fact
that this rumor was well known, that they might actually
reschedule the day that they see the day that they'd
be doing the race. I must admit that I'm not
an expert on this area of law, or technically any
any area laws, and not a lawyer, but I think

(01:05:22):
that well, I did work for in law enforce in
for a little while, so I guess there's that. But
I think that obstruction is a charge that people might
start to at least talk about when you have somebody
who's an official representative of the state who's perhaps using
knowledge of an impending federal law enforcement raid. Uh, they
do not take that very well. And under other circumstances,

(01:05:42):
I know that would be a big problem. But the
politics of has anyone raised that, by the way, that
maybe she actually transgressed the law or am I just
am I the first one that you've heard that from. Well,
somebody must have, because for her to begin pushing the
fact that this was based on nothing but just hearing
rumors suggest that somebody with a law of tree actually
talked to her like, Hey, you need to be a
little more careful about these decks about that's what you're

(01:06:05):
saying on your Facebook page as a public official and
elected official, literally telling telling people that they need to
be hiding from federal law enforcement officers. That's not a
good luck. So she ended up saying because if she had,
if she had knowledge of this because of her official position,
then at least theoretically she could be brought up on
official misconduct charges, which I know at the m YPD
for example, or used to work official misconduct can have

(01:06:26):
criminal sanctions. Uh, and also obstruction might But anyway, I'm
now I'm putting on now I'm pretending like I'm a
guy on law and order and I am not. So
who knows. Uh, let's talk. Let's talk about Nunez for
a second here, Um, I like the Spicer comment earlier today,
by the way, about Russian dressing. I just want to
play that for everybody. Sean Spicer at the press conference
on Russian salad dressing. Please, you've got Russia. If the

(01:06:50):
President puts Russian salad dressing on his salad tonight, somehow
that's a Russian connection. At some point, report the facts.
The facts are that every single person who has been
briefed on this subject, he's come away with the same conclusion.
Republican Democrat and every single person who has been briefed
on the situation with respect to the situation with Russia,
Republican Democrat, Obama appointee career, have all come to the

(01:07:14):
same conclusion. At some point, April, You're gonna have to
take no for an answer with respect whether or not
there was conclusion. Okay. By the way, you can just
imagine Melissa McCarthy on SNL with like giant things of
Russian dressing. Now, I mean, you know this is clearly
this is going to become a thing. I would think.
I like to think of Sean Spicer as President Trump's
food ring. Like whatever mood he's in, Sean is like

(01:07:36):
directly reflecting it in the press briefing. Yeah, yeah, he's
he's certainly, he's certainly an interesting character, that Spicer. But
on the Russia stuff, I've even I've seen some conservative
saying that nun Yez should recuse himself. I don't understand why.
I mean, I've heard some of the explanations, but I

(01:07:57):
don't buy them. He won't reveal his source. Kay, Well,
he's not required to reveal his source. And if I guess,
they're insinuating to think he just completely made all that
stuff up in is a liar? Why would he do
that for Trump? I don't know. Help me out here
a little bit. Well, what's the case as you see it,
for recuse or to recuse or not to recuse? Well,
I think republic the few that have actually joined any

(01:08:19):
kind of call for recusal. I think Walter Jones in
North Carolina is among them. Now, Um, you know, I
think are doing it on the basis of you know,
and Walter Jones, as far as I know, is not
one typically be pressured by conventional wisdom. But it's kind
of seems like anybody who is jumping on board on
that on that notion is being pressured by conventional wisdom. Yes,
he broke some of the decorum of the way that
you handle things in the House. Um. And he seemed

(01:08:42):
regretful a little bit the following day when he when
he sort of openly admitted that he should have handled
things in different order instead of just rushing to the
White House with information that he seemed to have obtained. Um.
And but just the fact that the Chairman of the
House and Intelligence Committee was secured intelligence uh and then
disseminated it to the public, and the way that he

(01:09:03):
chose to do doesn't seem like it's enough ultimately to
say that he's tipping the scales of the instication. And
let's let's like rip the let's rip all of the
garbage off of all of these conversations every person who's
under investigation by the House or Senate. The parties always
play politics. Yeah, this is what I'm saying. Before they
literally have an r D next to their name on TV.

(01:09:25):
We all know what's going on. Yes, And they always
they always lean more heavily into the opposition party, and
they always put the punches on people within the same party.
It's just a fact of the House and the Senate.
And everyone starts running around with their heads cut off
when anyone shows like, you know, something that they think
is uh, you know, reprehensible. The reality is they're always

(01:09:46):
doing this, and I think Nina has just sort of
got over his skis a bit too much and he
regrets some of his actions. But I don't think that
that's grounds yet for refusal. But you know, well, I'm
just here to observe it and tell you to tell
you what happened. But so far, to me, it doesn't
seem like he needs to bow to the press. What
can you tell me about your the the Sally Yates
uh act former acting a g before she was fired,

(01:10:07):
Sally Yates saying that or the the reports that she
was supposed to testify and not testifying, and Nunia has
moved to hearing and do we have it? Can we
get to the bottom of this your folks? The Daily Caller?
What can you tell me? I'll see what the that
the White House is basically claiming, which is that this
is there's they're claiming that the report on this to
Washington Post reporters false um that they were not trying

(01:10:32):
to stop Sally Yates at all from testifying on what
she knew The only thing that seems to have been
their hold up is that anything that they considered to
be privileged communications within the White House. This they they
would they needed Sally Yates to seek approval to share
specifics about conversations in the White House because they considered
to have the consider those conversations to be subject to

(01:10:52):
executive privilege. Um So again, the White House, she was,
she was the attorney general, she was like the White
Houses lawyer. The White House's position is there's some privilege
that attaches to us talking to you as our lawyer, right,
and that that we were not going to stop her
at all from test to sign uh And instead we
just wanted a little bit oversight about the specifics of

(01:11:12):
what she was going to share. But I assume that
they could, they could figure this out really quickly. Let's
just get Sally Yates on TV and get her on
the record officially and see if if she really, you know,
if she's going to stand up to that claim, you know,
and see what I think happens here, Vince, And it
happens time and again is a report comes out makes
administration look as bad as it can put it in

(01:11:32):
the most negative light possible. Whether it's the Washington Post
or one of these other papers. And then when we
get clarity and it's actually not a big deal, it's
just not a story anymore, nobody cares and the Trump
administration is really under the impression. I believe that a
lot of the Obama holdrovers that continue to stay within
the system are responsible for the very construction that you're
talking about, that there are people who are like being

(01:11:55):
held over in these positions throughout the government, who are
literally leaking uh to press outlets in various things to
sort of construct their own version of what's going on,
even going so far the Free Speacon Report is having
a hand in trying to manipulate the language inside of
Trump executive orders before they were released, and the White House,

(01:12:15):
having talked furiously, go back and edit them to say
things like radical Islamic terroorism instead of things like countering
violent extremism. Um, it's it's just it's wild that there's
this much dysfunction going on. But again, the White House
blames Obama holdovers for the problems. Countering violent extremism is
one of the most Orwellian euphemisms that I mean, it's

(01:12:35):
incredible that that anybody says that that's the thing that
we that that that's really the issue, that's the mission.
Let's counter violent extremism, right, it's those Christian terrorists that
are driving everybody crazy. Yeah, well that's like I remember
they were thinking about ways to come up with, you know,
overseas contingency operations against violent individuals with an ideology that
may conflict with our own. It's like, well, that doesn't
make a good acronym. Guys, you gotta do better than that,

(01:12:56):
all right. Vince Vince colonies everybody Daily Colored or in Chief.
He is the d C Vince on Twitter and check
out his latest on all of his wonderful writers at
Daily Carr dot com. Vince, thank you for calling, Thanks
so much. But now they're reporting on the possibility of

(01:13:22):
a government shutdown battle. Okay, so what at the end
of next month, they're gonna need to extend the raise
the debt ceiling. And here's what Fox Do is reporting.
We should not take things for granted, especially what happened
last week. Um that's representative gop reped Tom Cole. The

(01:13:43):
last thing we need is a self inflicted crisis there. Frankly,
isn't much time Uh, look, I I just I don't
think this is gonna happen if you what what we've
seen so far is that there are, if anything, there
are Republicans who understand that it's in their interests sometimes
to pretend to be sober, sober minded, limited government, small

(01:14:09):
government conservatives, and then when it comes time to vote
on stuff, they're like, well, I mean, you know, it's
important stuff for my district. I can't you know, I
can't vote for this, never get reelected. So I think
what you'll see is a lot of bluster around this,
and you'll see speeches about the the impending financial doom

(01:14:33):
that will come if we keep spending ourselves into oblivion.
And there's gonna be all this talk, and they're going
to raise the gentlemen just the same way that we've
decided recently, or not shouldn't have decided, but it's it's
been a reality that you have not been hearing the
Republican Party talk about dealing with entitlement, spending, Medicare, Medicaid,
social Security, any of that. That's off the table now.

(01:14:56):
And for a little while I could understand it, meaning
that to beat hill Or in the election, I think
even a lot of conservatives figured that a tactical silence
on that for a while. Though you could argue that's
not a good thing, and it's not a particularly forthright
way to go, but a tactical silence on entitlements in
order to get in power and then make the case

(01:15:17):
from a position of power that we must deal with
the debt, we must handle these long term problems in
a serious fashion. Okay, maybe, but look what happened with Obamacare.
The real story of the Obamacare repeal and replace fiasco
that we've seen so far is that there have been
Republicans who there were Republicans are still are Republicans who

(01:15:40):
want to keep some parts of Obamacare in place, in essence,
the parts of Obamacare that are either welfare or subsidy,
meaning Medicaid expansion, welfare or subsidy, the tax credits, tax credits,
the fancy we of saying taxpayers are gonna give people money.
So this is this is the fundamental problem. And with

(01:16:04):
healthcare it shattered because of that, because people don't want
to really enact the responsible but sometimes painful policies they
say they do. The members of the House that and
said it that say they do aren't really being honest.
So the debts of the death ceiling, they're they're not
They're not gonna have a government shutdown over this. No,
they might talk about it, and we'll all talk about it, sure,

(01:16:27):
but I don't see it happening, not one bit. Buck
Sexton with America. Now the Freedom Hut is fired up
as Team Buck assembles shoulder to shoulder, shields high call
in eight four four Bucks. That's eight four four d

(01:16:48):
to eight to five. Climate change, Oh my climate change
executive orders that were the only legacy of President Obama's
environmentalist approach during his time in office. The only thing
that remains really on the climate change ledger from the

(01:17:14):
Obama administration where the executive orders executive actions, and today
Donald Trump signed a well and unwinding and undoing of
the Obama climate change policies. Now, a few things to
know here. First of all, the the outrage that this

(01:17:37):
generates is almost it should be comical. Accept that these people,
I think, really do believe this. They don't have any
facts to back it up, they don't have any knowledge
they're based on this on but they're they're commentary is
so unhinged from reality that one would have to think

(01:18:01):
that they at least believe part of it. They believe
some of this is not just a rhetorical a rhetorical
device where they overstate dramatically what's happening so that they
can change hearts and minds. A couple of examples of
this from today. You have Michael Moore, I know a
lot of your like boom, Yeah, I know, I know

(01:18:24):
Michael Moore, who, granted is a filmmaker who has made
I don't know a fortune tens of millions, maybe hundreds
of millions at this point, who knows of dollars, certainly
tens of millions of dollars making very left wing documentaries,
which are just a documentary is supposed to show you
the truth of something. That's what we thought documentaries were. Documentaries.

(01:18:44):
Because of the progressive left in this country, have become
long form video editorials. That's all they are. You know,
it's if Slate dot Com made a movie, it would
be this documentary. Or you know, if if Talking Points,
Memo or The huff Than Post collaborated on a film script,
it would be and they call it a documentary. That's

(01:19:05):
overwhelmingly what you see in the documentary space. But I digress.
Michael Moore was invited. I think he had a place
of honor at either a Democrats State of the Union
address under Obama. Right, He's certainly been seated literally seated
in places of prominence among Democrats elected Democrats in the past,
and has quite a following and all the rest of it.

(01:19:26):
I will at least say this for him. He does
put himself occasionally in a position where he goes into
hostile territory on TV to defend his positions, unlike a
lot of even I mean he I think Michael Moore's wild.
His ideology is destructive, and he's dishonest and a lot
of what he does, but a lot of Democrats won't
even will never face the heat. I mean Michael Moore
went on O'Reilly show some years ago. Um, anyway, he

(01:19:50):
tweeted out today, Uh, and you're like, Buck, why are
you talking about this guy? Because people believe him, because
he's gonna He got four thousand retweets when I just
saw this now of this is the quote Michael Moore
on the climate change. Remember these are executive orders that
President Obama put in place, I think in the second
part and and it's certainly in the second term and

(01:20:11):
even the second half of the second term of his presidency.
And if you take these leftist democrats at their word,
the the Obama saved Obama saved the world with his
executive orders, because without those executive orders, this is not
an exaggeration, we are all going to die. Well, keep
in mind, we are all going to die. Not to

(01:20:33):
be morbid and weird and existential here on the show,
but I mean, you know, the planet, meaning even future
generations will cease to exist at some point because the
planet is going to be so overheated and global warming,
climate change, climate disruption, all the different stuff they say.
Here's I keep getting distracted from more's tweet. Here's the tweet.

(01:20:54):
Historians in the near future will mark today, March Vantine
as the day the extinction of human life on Earth
began thanks to Donald Trump. Ah, so here we have
a return to Trump is at least hitler esque in

(01:21:15):
that he is involved in the mass extermination of the planet.
According to Michael Moore, here he is killing all life
on them, not just human being, not just human life, really,
I mean all life. I guess there'll be something that
can exist in this future world but uh, this is
this is something that should be laughed at. This is

(01:21:35):
something that should be preposterous to any normal rational person.
And yet he this is being retweeted, I promise you
not by people that are retweeting it. Ironically, they think
that Michael Moore's commentary here that historians will mark this
as the day extinction began thanks to Trump, that Trump
is responsible for the extinction of the human race because

(01:21:57):
of this executive order that, by the way, deals with
like some cold power plants, some federal management or federal
regulation of wetlands that are a part of a part
of a tributary, that's a part of a river. I mean,
you know, a pond in your backyard is now a wetland.
Wetlands a fancy word for a swamp. I mean, this

(01:22:19):
stuff is just you go around in circles on this
and you think, how does anybody take this seriously? Well,
of course, there there are serious effects of it, serious effects,
effects for people who lose their job, serious effects on
the economy. This is not just something that um, we
can take lightly in that sense. But you know Michael
Moore saying this and as if that's not enough, and

(01:22:41):
this is just a quick scan of the issue before
I came on here. Van Jones a former CNN colleague
of mine. I'm former. He's still there, to be sure.
There they like him very much at CNN. Uh that
real Donald Trump. This was his tweet from his official account,
also retweeted a few thousand times. Real on Trump just
signed a death warrant for planet Earth, erased climate protections

(01:23:05):
that were already too weak support green for all. A
Trump is when I when I say things like like,
the left and the Democrats believe that Trump is destroying
the planet. Here, I am not exaggerating. That is just
that is a direct in some cases quotation, but that
is a direct relay of their analysis. They believe that

(01:23:31):
by signing some executive orders. Keep in mind these were
only put into place by Obama. But they create this
sense of false urgency by suggesting that we are on
this pathway to complete climate annihilation until Obama stepped in
and saved us. All couldn't get the Congress to go

(01:23:51):
along on this, and of course, because then there there
might be individual consequences for certain people, for elect did
officials in different states, whether senators or congressman or all
the rest of it. Trump was at the This is
what the New York Times right up of this, flanked
by coal miners. At a ceremony at the Environmental Protection Agency,

(01:24:13):
Mr Trump signed a short document titled the Energy Independence
Executive Order, directing the agency to start the legal process
of withdrawing and rewriting the Clean Power Plan, the centerpiece
of Mr Obama's policies to fight global warming. So they
also say that the order takes aim at a suite

(01:24:34):
of narrower but significant Obama air climate environmental policies, including
lifting a short term ban on new coal mining on
public lands. When you read what these executive orders are
and you go into the specifics of them, uh, you
look at this, you say to yourself, how can this see?

(01:24:55):
How can this be frightening to anyone? How can any
person see this and think to himself for herself, oh
my gosh, what has Donald Trump done. But that's not
just that's not a fringe belief. That is the belief
of the Democrat Party. It's the belief of the Obama administration.
I'm sure it's the belief of a lot of officials
at the e p A. And I look at this,

(01:25:18):
and all I can think to myself is what are
the Democrats thinking. They are just losing it. I mean,
this is going off into some crazy land. And then
you get to the bottom of the times right up
and you see, oh, that's where this also all ties in.
You see the climate the Paris Agreement. The Climate Agreement

(01:25:42):
in Paris, referred to as the Paris Agreement, means that
the US has to do things that are even more
onerous and go at even to even greater length than
what Obama put in place via executive order. And by
the way, this executive order was as a power grab
by the executive brand the the courts have decided, in

(01:26:03):
my opinion, wrongly that the e p A can regulate
c O two as a pollutant that moves from one
state to another. I The analysis and decisions that have
been made by the courts on this issue that gives
the e p A so much more authority than it
should have are just maddening, they really are. But the
Paris Agreement, which is what really gets a lot of

(01:26:25):
the climate change crowd all all fired up. Uh, it
would require more from US than even Obama's executive orders
would have put in place. And so now we look
at this and we say, okay, so we're gonna fall
short of this Paris Climate Agreement. Who cares? I don't care.
And I suppose the answer to that, and I don't

(01:26:47):
think you care. I suppose the answer to this is
that we must want the extinction of human life, because
that's what the other side is claiming that we just
we don't that. I don't care. I'm so in the pocket.
By the way. You know, some big oil money sounds great,
you know big oil. Hey, I'm here, but no, I
mean it's crazy. I'm so in the pocket of big
oil even though I don't get any big oil money

(01:27:08):
or anything like that. Where I'm so brainwashed by by
water by whom that I don't care about the future
generations of humanity that will, as they say here, be extinct.
This is crazy. It's and by the way, they they
haven't read the people that are pushing this haven't read
the Paris Climate Agreement. They don't know what they're talking about.

(01:27:29):
They're not scientists, although they'll talk to you about all scientists,
all scientists, all say scientists. The scientists that I respect
and the scientists that I want to hear from don't
spend a lot of time going on cable TV shouting
about how they're scientists. Real scientists usually have specific areas
they are researching that are full of data that can

(01:27:54):
be replicated, data that can be shared, experiments that you
can see the outcome of, and they're trying to do
things to benefit mankind and to add to our body
of knowledge, not to just constantly find ways to look
at the data once again to justify climate change hysteria.
Which why why do I not believe in this all?

(01:28:14):
Because I I don't know. I I just know that
when people are lying to me, there's a problem, and
people lie on climate change all the time. It reminds
me of memoir written by a member the Italian here's
a little history diversion for a second. Remember the Italian
Communist Party, which was under fascism. Under under the rise

(01:28:36):
of fascism in Italy was often looking to the Communist International,
the Common Turn for short in Moscow and the Soviet
Union for advice and guidance. The International Communist Movement would meet,
and one of the Italian Communists wrote in a memoir
um that he remembered going there at one point to

(01:28:58):
the Common Turn and they were all supposed to denounce,
and Stalin was there, and a lot of the figures
from Soviet history that would be familiar to you. Um,
that's that they all had to denounce a Trotskyite paper
that had to do with communism in China. Uh, and

(01:29:21):
they had to denounce this. And the Italian Communists said
because Trotsky of course was a um a a faction,
a splinter faction of of Marxism, and and of course
ended up you know, killed by the Communists by Stalin. Um.
But they said that they had to all decry this

(01:29:44):
paper on written by a Trotskyite on communist I think
might even Trotsky himself on China and communism in China.
And the Italian Communist had the temerity to say, have
any of you seen this paper? And that howls of indignation?

(01:30:04):
How dare you? Don't you understand what's at stake here?
Global communism is at stake. Don't you understand that this
is about the workers paradise that we're going to create,
and that we will all be slaves and we will
all be subject subject to the horrible, rapacious capitalist swine

(01:30:24):
and there you know, forced servitude on all of us
if we don't win. This worker's revolute. But can I
just see the paper that I'm supposed to denounce, that
I'm supposed to raise my hand and officially denounced, Can
I see it? Well, no, you cannot have have any
of you, have any of you that are denouncing this
paper written written by a splinter faction of the Communist party,

(01:30:51):
that you're now No. The answer was no, that they
only the Soviets were allowed to see it, and only
really the tops sovi It's Stalin and a few of
his see and your most officials. But you see, for
those who are true believers, it's not about the fact,
it's not about the argument. It's about you throwing in

(01:31:13):
your lot with them, You lending your voice to their cause,
without knowledge, without reason, without questioning. Just do it. I
know we're talking about communism then, but you look at
the global environmentalist movement. It has the same approach to dissenters.
It has the same approach to those who are deviationists,

(01:31:35):
those who deviate from the official party line on this
notice how they don't want to explain, They don't want
to convert you. They want to hunt down heretics. They
want to find people that disagree and punish them as
an example to the others not to bring them along
to punish them, just like communism in the Soviet Union,

(01:31:56):
which eventually turned on itself and then you had the
purges and all the rest of it. But that's there.
I remember reading this that, this memoir and thinking to myself, Okay,
so you you're turned announced to be a good communist
and good standing. You are to denounce a paper on
communism written by a fellow communists that you were not
allowed to see, and you are to be shouted down

(01:32:17):
for even bringing it up. Same thing with climate change data.
You you better sign off for the Paris Climate Accord
without knowing any of the data that the scientists are
relying on, and without being able to ask any questions.
Arouse the world's gonna go extinct? Yeah right, Okay, a

(01:32:46):
few more thoughts on the because this is I know
to some of you are like climate change, Come on, buck,
we all know, right who cares? But for one thing,
this matters a lot to the left. In fact, I
think this is one of these issues where you see,
it matters much more to them, or at least there's
much more of an emotional attachment on the left and
there is on the right on climate change issues. To

(01:33:08):
be sure, we look at this in a very dollars
and cents straightforward way. What's the cost, what's the benefit,
what's the science, what's the rationale, what's the evidence? What's
the evidence? And people say, book, you're not a scientist. Well,
the fact that they changed the name of the movement
from global warming to climate change tells me something, because

(01:33:30):
if they can't tell you that it's warming, they can't
tell you much of anything, can they. And the models
they use for this to project climate in the future
have been wrong time and again. You go back into
the seventies and there's on the cover of Time magazine
the coming Ice Age. All the scientists say, the coming
ice age. The ice age did not come, as you

(01:33:51):
are so, as you are all quite aware, I am sure.
Uh so here we are. But now, with the removal
of the Obama climate legacy, which well, I mean, it
wasn't only much have a legacy, was it. A real
legacy would be convincing the Congress as representatives of the
American people to take action on the issue. But this

(01:34:12):
is just Obama. Really, it was presidential grandstanding and I'm
gonna do this. Well if I shouldn't say that, because
in fairness of Hillary had one, and then they'd be
further and further down this pathway. And some of this
is going to be difficult to unravel that it's stuck.
It's stuck in the courts, so it's not as simple
as just snap the fingers and this is this is
over with. But now you're seeing on this reporting about

(01:34:34):
how well you know coal even because this is a
lot of this is to get coal workers, coal miners
back to work. And Trump had coal miners with him
at the e p A when he signed this. So
now you're seeing all these news outlets that are coal
is only, Um, what's the jobs number? I was trying
to find this right in the break it's not. Look,
it's tens of thousands of coal jobs in this kind

(01:34:56):
of Yeah, coal companies employed sixty five thousand, nine hundred
seventy one miners and okay, so this might have some
effect on that industry. Remember Obama, there was a war
on Cole. Obama and the Democrats wanted to shut down
the coal industry as fast as possible. And now we're
being told, well, Cole isn't really that important. There's other
technologies and these aren't that. It's not that many jobs

(01:35:18):
this will help. Okay, Well, once again, it can't be
both ways, liberal media, ken it if Cole was going
out the door anyway, why do we need these executive
orders to shut it down even faster? We're really gonna
believe it's dad imminent. It's been around for what We've
been using coal for a hundred and fifty years or so,
a hundred and fifty plus years in this manner and
in part as part of the industry revolution and beyond,

(01:35:41):
and now I have to shut it down really quickly. Please. Also,
I think it matters a lot to the people who hundreds,
maybe in the low thousands, I don't know, but who
have their jobs saved by this. It just shows how
disconnected the Obama administration, and of course much of the
mainstream media is from the very average Americans, the day
to day Americans that they pretend to care so much

(01:36:04):
about helping. But you know, only a few thousand of
the mighty lost their jobs, so who cares? They say, well,
we care. Welcome back to the freedom Hut, on an
island of liberty where you're the party, and it's full
of fellow patriots. Buck Sexton kicks it off. You got
a fellow patriot on the line right now. Emily's Nay,

(01:36:25):
the political editor at heat Street. She is in fuego.
What's going on? Emily? Who is? What's going on with you?
Not much? Give us the hotness from a heat Street?
What is going on here? Let's talk first about Democrats
don't have a sense of humor subtext uh Minuchin is

(01:36:45):
asked about what movie he would take his kids to.
He makes so I'll let you walk us through this one.
But Democrats don't have a sense of humor. Just remember that, everybody,
go ahead, Emily. Yeah, that's kind of like an evergreen thing,
like they don't they don't have a sense of humor.
And this is a prime example of that. They've been
less out of the loop all week on everything. And
so Steve Manuchin, who is the Treasury Secretary, decided to

(01:37:08):
make a joke about the Lego Batman movie. He used
to be a big time Hollywood producer and he fronted
the money for the Lego movie and the Lego Batman movie,
and he decided to make a joke in an interview saying,
please take your kids to see the Lego Batman movie. Well,
it turns out that tunder Ron Wyden heard that, decided
it wasn't a joke, and filed a complaint with the

(01:37:29):
Office of Government Ethics to have Steve Manuchin investigated for
a conflict of interest because Ron Wyden said that he
was unfairly promoting the Lego Batman movie. I've heard Lego
Batman is good. Have you seen it? I have not
seen it. I've heard it is actually the best Batman
movie to come out in the last couple of years.

(01:37:50):
I definitely believe that. I saw the Batman Versus Superman thing,
which first of all had Ben Affleck, which is really
strikes one, two, and three, but it was also just
a horrible pile of unwatchable. I can't even see those movies.
I just I see the trailer and I'm like, I
can't even you know, I I actually liked I like.
I like the first Iron Man movie. The second one

(01:38:12):
was kind of headache and doising, but I like the
first one. I mean, so I'm I'm I'm down with
the superhero stuff. I like it when it's good, but
when it's just this ponderous mess of cliches and c
G I I I just I don't like it. Okay,
but let's I am not a movie critic, I just
play one on radio. Let's move on to uh. Oh,
tell me about because I'm probably gonna talk about a

(01:38:33):
Canadian protest having to do do with a transgender band tomorrow
or the transgender pronoun band. Oh yeah, that's the thing. Everybody,
keep a put a pin in that for tomorrow. But
tell me first about or instead about the Canadian university
that is setting up booths where men can confess sins
of masculinity. A. Yes, So the University of Regina has

(01:38:53):
decided that they're going to have a masculinity Elimination week.
So no more being a you can no longer be
a guy. They don't want you to be out there
telling people that you're strong and masculine. So they've set
these boots up across the campus and starting next week,
you can go to the booth, just like you would

(01:39:15):
if you are going to confession in church. You can
go to the booth and confess to somebody inside the
booth all of the sins of masculinity, all of the
things you've done to promote being a dude. And it's
not just men who can do this. Women can go
to these booze and confess to say, like, made a
sandwich for a guy or something. But it's just like

(01:39:36):
made gender normative stereotypes happen. Can I can I confess?
I want to confess a little cineamascular a couple of
sins of masculinity right now. Well, my girlfriend's on around Emily.
I wear sweatpants like all the time, and I'll wear
the same sweatpants for like five days in a row.
I drink milk out of the carton, not by accident,
not not because I'm lazy, because I think it tastes

(01:39:58):
better that way. Oh, also, chicken nuggets three times a day,
No problem with that microwave. They are delicious. And also
I don't care how many times I've seen Daredevil on Netflix.
If I want to watch it for the fifth time,
I'm gonna watch it for the the fifth fifth time. Hashtag
man splain, hashtag buck splain, hashtag patriarchy. That sounds great. Actually,

(01:40:21):
I've made dinner like the last three nights in a row.
I do things around the house. I'm definitely a domestic person,
so I feel like I have definitely contributed to the
patriarchy this weekend. Aren't you You're you're a married sister,
gender conservative female. That's like you're almost as bad as me.
I always total trader to my gender. It's I'm probably

(01:40:41):
worse than you are because I am reinforcing all of
these gender normative stereotypes and therefore just betraying my gender
at every turn. Are you? Are you good at baking?
By the way, I'm excellent at breakfast. I'll just say
that I make I make fantastic scrambled eggs. Everybody listening
at home should know that. In fact, one day I
may even do a scrap of tutorial on Facebook Live.

(01:41:02):
That would be amazing. I'm actually terrible at breakfast, but
I'm pretty good at baking. Okay, Well, see, we just
had our We just confessed our sins of well, I
guess not necessarily masculinity, but but our gender normative sins.
Maybe or the matriarchy, the patriarchy. I don't know. You
tell me all right. More on Donald Trump. He has
inspired a run on underground doomsday shelters. This is a

(01:41:25):
piece up on Hate Street. Tell me about it. Yeah, so,
just you know about a year ago, Democrats were like,
we need to ban all guns. We don't understand this
doomsday prepper movement. It doesn't make any sense to us.
But now it turns out that since Donald Trump's inauguration,
less leaning people across the country have been investing in

(01:41:46):
all sorts of post apocalyptic preparation items, so everything from
guns and ammunition to sustainable food that can stick around
for a couple of years underground. And they're also buying
these amazing underground bunkers just in case Donald Trump gets
us into a nuclear war and they're meant to sustain

(01:42:07):
basically anything. You put them underground and you can live
in there for a couple of decades and then come
up and see if the zombies are still around. And
they're definitely selling like hotcakes. I mean, these things are
probably I assume pretty cozy, but in New York City
that square footage is gonna run you like five or
six k probably, so hey, you know it all it
all depends on even if it's underground, It all depends

(01:42:29):
on where you are. What would be in the Jannati
dooms Day shelter? If I may ask what what what are?
What are some key items other than food. You can
tell me what kind of food. Yeah, I was. I
would definitely have to have a supply of lasagna. Definitely
some lip gloss. I'm not sure. I'm gonna have to
think about this. Actually, what would I put in my

(01:42:49):
dooms day shelter? Yeah, I would just need dark chocolate,
a lot of milk. Uh. And I'm trying to think
of other things that are old, old books, books written
books written about obscure historical battles that you can't usually
find anywhere unless you are at one of those bookstores
that has the things that they're giving out on the
street for like a dollar. I think things I need

(01:43:10):
a lot of those, you know, the older and dusty
are the jacket cover. The more into it I get
with the book, you know, the more excited I am.
So I'd have to have some of those, and don't
I'm not gonna lie. I mean, if Netflix goes down,
I don't even know if I want to survive the
the apocalyptic event. You know, if Netflix is gone and
I can't just tune into whatever digital shows I want,
is it really worth going on at that point? Emily,

(01:43:30):
I don't know. I feel like if the Internet has gone.
The zombies may as well just bite me first, because
I don't want to live. Yeah, it's it's gonna's gonna
be rough stuff. So anyway, doomsday shelter, that would be
an that's an interesting I'll have to look and see
what some of these look like. I have a feeling
that there's given that this is now a leftist situation,
there must be people that have I don't know, lots

(01:43:51):
of uh ironic facial hair care products, you know, for
like your for the twirling mustaches and yeah, super super
tight jeans. You something. You gotta have a machine to
make machiatos, lattes, Cortado's flat whites. I know too much
about overpriced coffee. Let's move on, shall we. Um we
have study about more Donald Trump studies. We've talked about masculinity.

(01:44:16):
Now let's talking about sexism study Donald Trump's win made
men more aggressive and sexist. Also on heat street dot Com,
Emily explained, Yeah, so the University of Pennsylvania Wharton School,
which is where Donald Trump actually graduated from, did this
study that extended over the election. So they started it
back in August and they did it up until December,
and they say that as a Donald Trump's election. Men

(01:44:39):
had a latent sexism before Donald Trump's election and then
after his election moved into an aggressive sexism. So now
men are meaner or something because Donald Trump is president. Well,
what's the what's the focus group here? How do they
do this? Exactly? I'm confused. They actually talked to University

(01:45:00):
of Pennsylvania Wharton alumni. They gave them each twenty dollars
and paired them up, and the two had to split
the twenty some way. They had to negotiate between them
on who would get more of the bus, and so
before Donald Trump selection people were very nice and split
it evenly. After Donald Trump selection, the men were just

(01:45:23):
taking the money and running. M hm. Do see this
doesn't seem like the most scientific experiment ever. No, no, no,
it's not really. Yeah, it doesn't seem it doesn't seem
like this would withstand a rigorous application of the scientific method.
But you know, hashtag climate change, hashtag science. It is
whatever we say, it is okay cool the Party of Yeah, yeah, exactly,

(01:45:44):
good talk on that. So latest version of popular ap
style book makes accommodations for genderless people. Oh what are
these accommodations like so now, as a journalist, the Associated
Press is the style book that tells me exactly what
I should be writing and how I should be writing it.
And now they're saying that I can use the terms

(01:46:05):
day and them, which typically would be used to plural
plural yes, can be used to refer to people who
do not fit in the gender binary, So if they
want to be referred to as some sort of genderless pronoun.
As a journalist, I can now use day and them
to mean a singular person that that is obviously that

(01:46:29):
it's obviously a yet again and another concession to this agenda,
and that does have very real political remplications. But I
think I may blow some minds right now when I
say that it really should be amanti instead of R
and T. I someone explained that one to me. I
don't know that we're going to have to ask. They

(01:46:50):
had this big copy editors meeting last week, but we
can send them an email. And here, I mean, I
know that this is wrong. I don't need people send
me buck amant I isn't a thing. I know that,
But I'm saying, shouldn't am and T I be a thing?
I am? Buck Sexton? Am I not Amanti instead it's
I am buck Sexton. R N't I very weird? Makes
no sense. I'm a logical kind of guy in the

(01:47:12):
freedom Hunt. We're all we keep it on the straight
and narrow. You you do you admit that there is
no argument against my position right now, is it not?
He just conceived the point. I feel like I have
one for you. I'm sure like we'll put it out
on social media and somebody will have a very detailed
explanation or yeah, that's probably tru I'm gonna get. I'm
gonna get smacked down by Grammarian on Facebook tonight, like

(01:47:34):
you can't believe I'm gonna get, you know, somebody who
really actually knows you know, you know, past plu perfect
and and uh all all the dangling participles and all
all that stuff. I don't. I went to a Catholic school.
We did like two days on that. Please make it stop.
Let's go back to anything other than this. Uh, and
we had there was one more. Oh yeah, Devin Junie
is getting down to some of the news of the day.

(01:47:55):
Here for a moment, if I may um Devin Nunez
canceled this uh Intelligence Committee hearing people are saying that, oh, well,
it's because you know Russia, you know hashtag Russia. Why
did do we know why he canceled this meeting? Have
you been have you heard anything about this? What are
the folks at heat streets saying? So we have two

(01:48:16):
theories and why he canceled a meeting. One is that
it's just become too much. The Democrats have decided to
go all over television, say that they can't control the meeting,
that they've been left out of briefings, that they have
no idea where the source material is coming from, and
so Nunyas has closed off the briefings until they can
get everything back together and start to organize stuff and

(01:48:37):
get people testifying. The other theory is that the White
House has asked that Sally Yates, the former acting Attorney
General who got fired by Trump just a couple of
weeks ago, that she not be allowed to testify. She
was the one that was involved with Mike Flynn who
may have caught him in some sort of dragnet. So

(01:48:58):
the White House has been a bit iffy on Sally
Yates just testifying on public television on c SPAN. So
we might be waiting until there can be a better
organization or closed door meeting so that Sally Yates can
testify openly in front of the committee. Mhmm. Do you
think there's Are you concerned about the propriety of Nunyaz

(01:49:21):
continuing as House Uh, let's just say we say, hipsy
h house permit, blah blah, hipsy as hitch chairman. You know,
I have a little concerned. He has had a couple
of weird things that he said over the last couple
of days about meeting at the White House after hours
with security officials and intelligence officials. He's not able to

(01:49:41):
produce a lot of paperwork for this, so I think
he needs to have a meeting with the House leadership
and figure it out there rather than outside in the media.
I will say this, and she eves and I want,
I want the I want honest Emily Zanai always, and
and everyone in the Freedom how To appreciates that and
expects that too. I will say that if I were
noon yas I would be, I would be moving heaven

(01:50:04):
and earth to at least get somebody else on the
House Permanent LEC Committee on Intelligence to be able to
see the documents that he was referencing because then I
think that puts a lot of this to rest. And why,
as somebody who used to have a top secret clearance,
I'm sitting around thinking, why isn't he or hasn't he
done that? Maybe he is, I don't know, but if
that doesn't happen soon, I think there are some fair

(01:50:25):
questions to raise, like what the heck is going on?
He has actually been very weird about this whole thing
this week. He won't speak to media, he won't say
anything about it, he won't prove that he has this
information in hand, and so it's really hard for us
to make a determination on whether he should stay or
go because we don't have a lot of information. And

(01:50:45):
I would hope that he would be able to produce
that here in the next couple of days and put
this to rest, but I'm not really sure he's going
to be able to It sounds like he's backing off
a lot of his claims right now. We will keep
an eye. I've got some conservatives, even some conservatives that
I like a lot, who are saying he should recuse himself,
and I'm like, no, makes me so sad because now
we have to fight. Emily is a naughty political editor

(01:51:07):
at Haat Street. The one and only Emily is a
NAUGHTI thank you so much for joining. Talk to you soon,
so team Buck, if you would please download the show
today on iTunes. Actually subscribe. Even better, go on iTunes

(01:51:29):
type in Buck sex in with America now. Uh, you
click search and then it'll pop up, and then you
just click subscribe and then the whole show will pop
into your inbox. Are your are your podcast list? Every
day we do a show which is money through Friday.
So if you missed any part of the show, if
you want to share some of the show, it's a
great way to do it. Also, on the I Heart
Radio app, you can always listen. I'll always listen live

(01:51:52):
and I hope you do so um and you can
listen on demand on I Heart Radio. So sometimes I
like to give you a little glimpse of what is
like being a right wing dude here in NYC. I
was reading this. I wanted to talk to you about
this before it happened, maybe about a week ago, but

(01:52:12):
I suppose it as an ongoing legal issue. I see
this story in the New York Post that a guy
is wearing a or a guy claimed that he was
wearing a Trump hat and sued a is suing a
bar for a few refusing to serve him because he
was wearing a make America Great Again hat. And it
was kind of funny because that when that story came

(01:52:34):
out about a week ago, the last bar, in fact,
the last drink that I had had was at that
bar a few days before the incident in question. Uh
here in the Village in the Village neighborhood of New
York City. Uh. And it's just kind of funny that.
And I'm not somebody who goes to bars very often,
but this was the bar that I was in, and
then this guy goes in there's gonna make America Great

(01:52:55):
Again hat on, And I suppose it's just a reminder
for me that you really couldn't walk around this. You know,
I was in there with my girlfriend, and I'm not
about to get into a political political debate with anybody
at a bar, anyone I don't know, but EI know
you where you wear a make America Great Again hat
in this city, unfortunately, uh, shockingly, at your own risk.

(01:53:20):
It's I think I should try to track this down.
I'm sure there's been some people who have done those
hidden camera walk around on the street situations where they
show what it would be like. I can tell you
that now, maybe I'm getting myself into a position where
I'm gonna have to do this, but I'm pretty confident
that if I walked around the city with a bright
red Make America grading. This is the largest city in

(01:53:41):
the country, Okay, President Trump is president for everybody here,
just like everyone else the rest of the country. If
I walked around with a Make America grade again hat on, uh,
that there would be there would be trouble. And I
know maybe because I'm bucks exident who does a radio show,
although if they figure that out, I'd really probably be
in trouble. Conservative radio show. I mean, I'm like I am,
you know, evil, I'm like the Sith Lord or or

(01:54:04):
Voldemort or something. I know I'm sounding a little nerdy
right now, but that's okay. I don't think I could
walk around the city with a Making American greeting a
hat on. That should tell you that I'm doing the
show from New York City right now, as I as
I always do, and it's my hometown. I grew up here,
and I couldn't even wear a hat with the slogan
of the sitting president, and think that I would be

(01:54:24):
safe from possibly getting into a fist fight. So that's
what it's like here, So wherever you are, if you're
not in New York City, at least you don't have
to worry about that as much, although I'm pretty sure
it's bad in l A and other places too. Alright, teen,
thank you so much for being here. Got a lot
in mind already for tomorrow's show in the Freedom Hut.
Download today' show go to Facebook dot com, slash buck
Sexton and hill Top