×

Clay and Buck

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

Questioning Elections a Threat to Democracy? Not When Dems Do it.

20 Jul 2021

BUCK: Misinformation is something we’ve been talking about here the last few days in particular, ’cause the White House wants social media to police it. And they also want to make sure you can’t say certain things about not only covid, but elections. That’s been a big part of this all along. So on the one hand Democrats are saying that we’re in the era of Jim Crow 2.0.

They’ll say the most outrageous things imaginable about election integrity, security measures from Republicans, and they’ll claim that this is all some racist plot or conspiracy to prevent minorities from voting. They’ll say whatever they want.

That’s never somehow considered misinformation. In fact, you have none other than Stacey Abrams — who is a national-level figure now in Democrat circles — going around saying that democracy is under attack. This is a favorite phrase of the left today: “Democracy is under attack!”

ABRAMS: Now is the urgent time for action. What happened in Texas, what’s happening right now — what will happen in Ohio, what will happen in North Carolina, what will happen in Pennsylvania — is not endemic to the South. It is endemic to authoritarians who doesn’t want to see inconvenient voters cast their ballots and speak their minds, and that has to be the call to arms.

This is not simply about one moment. This is about the foundations of our democracy. And they are in peril, and it’s time now for every single member of the U.S. Senate, Democrats and Republicans and independents, to declare their allegiance to our democracy as opposed to their party.

BUCK: The foundations, Clay, of our democracy are in peril because Republicans want voter ID for mail-in ballots, want mail-in ballots not to be sent to people who don’t request them, don’t want people going around collecting ballots with no chain of custody whatsoever (known as “ballot harvesting”) and dumping hundreds at a time of ballots in a box.

If that’s destroying the foundations of our democracy, I need to know what Stacey Abrams was doing, in a New York Times Magazine piece on April 28, 2019, the title is, “Why Stacey Abrams Is Still Saying She Won.” So why is…? She’s the big… She gives us lectures about the threat to our democracy. Meanwhile, she is an election denier.

CLAY: She’s never conceded! She lost in 2018 to Brian Kemp of Georgia by 50,000 votes, Buck. That is more than Donald Trump, under current numbers, lost the entire United States presidential election. Trump lost, based on the existing numbers right now, by 40,000 votes: Roughly 10,000 in Georgia, 10,000 in Arizona, and 20,000 in Wisconsin.

That’s on the current numbers that are out there right now. If you flip, as a result, 20,001-ish votes, Trump would have been reelected as president. So Trump fighting against that result undermines the very foundation of our Democracy. But Stacey Abrams losing by 50,000 votes in the state of Georgia alone somehow makes her a darling of the Democratic Party, such that people talk about her as a vice presidential candidate, as a presidential candidate. That goes to the very foundational hypocrisy of (chuckling) questioning the results in a close race.

BUCK: Can I just say that we all know there is what you would call “a compelling state interest” in elections being valid, fair, and open. We all should agree. I mean, I don’t think the left does, but we should agree on that, and they say things like there is no voter fraud or it doesn’t really matter and they’re hoping that people don’t pay attention to things like the Al Franken. Remember Senator Franken, before he got canceled for the photos?

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: Senator Gillibrand of New York threw him right under the bus on that one.

CLAY: Totally under the bus.

BUCK: He won a 312-vote victory in 2008. So just that was a Senate seat. And, as we know, one Senate seat mean the difference between legislation that has a huge impact on the country going through or not. And I would add right now, Clay, there is a very serious effort — and I have to hat tip to Margot Cleveland who’s a lawyer and writes for The Federalist — to look at Georgia ballots, and here’s what they have found.

It is almost certain that thousands… They don’t know how many, but thousands of people in Georgia voted outside the county of their residence. Wherever you live, whatever your actual residence county is, that’s the only place you’re allowed to vote, for obvious reasons. Now, people may have moved, they moved to other counties, and now they’ve actually checked to see the registrations have shifted. So they did vote in the wrong county.

And you know what Georgia found? I think Raffensperger is the guy. He’s actually Republican. They’re saying, “Yeah, but, you know, they tried to vote in the right place.” That’s not the law!

CLAY: (chuckling)

BUCK: These are illegal voters, and TheFederalist.com has been pushing this and try to get people to pay attention. But we’re at a point now where even when we find illegal votes, they’re saying, “Well, but I mean, it was like an accident.” Doesn’t matter!

CLAY: Well, and I think what’s really spurring what is, I believe, an unconstitutional attempt to federalize elections… We just had a major elections ruling from the Supreme Court from Arizona, 6-3 decision, that essentially gave massive authority to states. There should be deference paid to them under federal law.

And so this idea of having a federal law passed I don’t believe is constitutional. But what’s motivating it, Buck, is all of the precepts of normal elections were thrown out the window because of covid, and that led to ballot harvesting. It led to mail ballots that were in no way legitimate.

It led to an incredible onrush of votes that would not have counted in 2016 and probably will not count in 2024, and what happened? The Democrats barely dragged Joe Biden across the finish line. They looked at the poll results, they looked at the results, and they said, “Oh, my God. We’re gonna get crushed in ’22 and ’24 without covid,” and they’re trying to change the rules.

BUCK: And the great gaslighting in all of this that’s happening every day is that what they told us a year ago — whatever it is now, nine months ago. What they told us was temporary and for an emergency is now the expectation. What they told us we couldn’t talk about after the election, they were talking about before the election. And this is a great one. This is a bunch of Democrats — and hat tip Jack Posobiec on this one. This is a bunch of Democrats in 2018 talking about voting machines, Clay, which I’m pretty sure —

CLAY: It’s amazing.

BUCK: When you say, “Voting machines,” it’s like Voldemort for Harry Potter. Here you go.

ADAM SCHIFF: I continue to think that our voting machines are too vulnerable.

SHEILA JACKSON LEE: Her research has repeatedly demonstrated that ballot-recording machines and other voting systems are susceptible to tampering.

VAL DEMINGS: Even hackers with limited prior knowledge, tools, and resources are able to breach voting machines in a matter of minutes!

JENNIFER WEXTON: In 2018, electronic voting machines in Georgia and Texas deleted votes for certain candidates or switched votes from one candidate to another.

RON WYDEN: The biggest seller of voting machines is doing something that violates Cyber Security 101: Directing that you install remote access software, which would make a machine like that, you know, a magnet for fraudsters and hackers.

TED LIEU: These voting machines can be hacked quite easily.

AMY KLOBUCHAR: You could easily hack into them. It makes it seem like all these states are doing different things, but in fact three companies are controlling that.

KAMALA HARRIS: There are a lot of states that are dealing with antiquated machines! Right? Which are vulnerable to being hacked.

TED LIEU: In a close presidential election, they just need to — to hack one swing state, one or two — or maybe just a few counties in one swing state.

BUCK: Oh, my gosh, Clay. I am literally shaking right now from the threat to our democracy!

CLAY: (laughing)

BUCK: You heard Kamala Harris’ voice now. Now I’m telling you — everyone knows this — if you say stuff about the election on Facebook, they will shut down your account.

CLAY: That’s right. That’s right. And that’s exactly why so much of this hypocrisy is complete and total BS when you actually break it down because every single thing those Democrats said in the wake of the 2016 election, Republicans are now saying, and it’s unacceptable.

BREAK TRANSCRIPT

BUCK: Clay and I are about to break down for you this story. It’s up on BuckSexton.com. “‘Texas Dems Virus’: Pelosi’s Fully Vaccinated Staff Test Positive for Covid” is the headline. Here’s what we got, Clay. “Spokesperson to the House Speaker Nancy Pelosi confirmed on Tuesday that a staff member of speaker’s team has tested positive for Covid-19 despite being fully vaccinated.

“‘This individual has had no contact with the speaker since exposure,'” et cetera, et cetera. Okay. We got two things here. One, these Texas Democrats, I think we’re up to five or six of them who are, after their unmasked photo — not that masks work, but I’m just saying — they’re getting covid. They were all vaccinated. They’ve gotten positive tests anyway. So are these guys…? Is this like an aerial super-spreader event in the making? ‘Cause if it were Republicans, you know that’s what they’d call it.

CLAY: Oh, there’s no doubt, and let me just be crystal clear here. If you are vaccinated and/or you’ve already had covid, I don’t understand why we’re still testing people, Buck. This has gotten a lot of attention. For instance, Boris Johnson right now is quarantining in Britain. He already had covid and he’s been vaccinated, and we’ve seen it happen in the world of sports.

They had to postpone the Yankees and the Red Sox game. Chris Paul had to sit out of a bunch of games. They had to just move a big fight between Tyson Fury and Deontay Wilder. Why are we still…? The NC State baseball team wasn’t able to compete for a championship.

This is just an easy question because I think it’s gonna impact a lot of kids out there, particularly as they return to school and college and high school and elementary school. Why are we testing all these people still, Buck? I understand if you are unvaccinated and you are incredibly ill, you should go see a doctor. That needs to be the treatment.

But why are we still testing all of these athletes and why are we still testing all of these double-vaccinated people such that they are having to quarantine all over again? It doesn’t make sense to me. It just prolongs the covid hysteria when the data doesn’t reflect that this is necessary.

Again, I understand people can have different opinions. But to me, they have to be rooted in some form or fashion in fact. And what you I try to do, Buck — and I think, uniquely frankly, oftentimes in the world of media — is actually let our opinions be driven in some form or fashion by what the facts on the ground say. This is all madness.

BUCK: Yeah. I mean, look. The easiest thing to do when it comes to the media is to just figure out what the apparatus of the Democrat elites wants and just ride that wave. You could call it pulling The Full Stelter. You know?

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: Whatever they want to hear, you feed it to them, you’ll get more opportunities, more exposure, more of everything. But, you know, the thing is, Clay — and this might sound a little trite or a little corny. It’s more gratifying — you sleep better at night, and you walk around feeling better about the world you’re in — when you actually decide you’re gonna speak the truth to people, whether it’s been voting rights or about covid or anything else.

And I just find that these Democrats, there’s so much here with the, “We’re saving democracy by basically cheating the system, bringing the statehouse in Texas, grinding it to a halt because we’re being babies.” This is Alinsky. You know, Saul Alinsky had this thing about just block the entrances or even block the bedrooms to a business to bring it to its knees. These are the kind of tactics you would expect from toddlers. Although, unfortunately, it’s effective, in this case, the toddlers with spreading covid, too.

Recent Stories

Get Password Hint

Enter your email to receive your password hint.

Need help? Contact customer service.

Forgot password

Enter your e-mail to receive your account information via e-mail.

Need help? Contact customer service.

C&B Tear Up Media Bias: Stelter, Space Jam 2, Joy Reid

20 Jul 2021

We have some clips for you that tie in with a larger theme, which is distrust in media.

As Clay said, “I’m not sure in either of our lives, Buck, there has ever been less trust in people of authority, in large institutions.”

In fact, Gallup does a survey of the most-trusted sources out there and the two least trusted in all of America were Congress and the news media.

One of the biggest and most consistent liars in media is CNN’s Brian Stelter. Clay asked, “How’s this guy even on television?”

Stelter was recently dressed down on his own show by author Michael Wolff.

NBA ratings for Game 5 of the NBA Finals were down 50%, proving the C&B thesis: Get woke, go broke. To add insult to injury for lib NBA icons, LeBron’s Space Jam 2 is getting dunked on all over the place. 

Another Hollywood movie nobody wants to go see.

And finally, we have MSNBC’s Joy Reid. She claims everyone who appears on Fox News is vaccinated (and somehow encouraging their audience not to get vaccinated), but of course, Clay and Buck are both Fox contributors, appear on Fox shows regularly and neither of them are vaccinated.

As Buck summed it up: “Stupid, baseless smears of the worst kind.”

Another lie. What a shock.

Listen to Clay & Buck roll the clips and break down distrust in media:

Recent Stories

Jen Psaki Is the Best Evidence for Trump’s Lawsuit

20 Jul 2021

BUCK: Here is Jen Psaki, who’s out there to just remind you: Oh, don’t worry. They’re not going after individual Facebook users from the White House level — yet. That’s what she’s saying.

PSAKI: First of all, we’ve not asked Facebook to block, uh, any individual posts. Uhhh, the way this works is that there is trending… There are trends that are out there on social media platforms. Uhhh, you’re aware of them. Uh, we’re aware of them. Anyone in the public can be aware of them. There’s also, um, uhh, data that we uhhh, umm… We look at that many media platforms like many of you also look at data in terms of trends, and you report on it.

Which is not (sic) to be expected, given the number of people who get their information from social media. It’s up to social media platforms to determine, uhhh, what their application, uh, is of their own rules and regulations. Uhhh, and so we just certainly raise, uh, where we have concerns about information that’s inaccurate, that is traveling out there, uhhh, in whatever platform it’s traveling on.

BUCK: Oh, yeah, the White House, Clay, says, “Nice free speech you got there. Be a shame if something happened to it.”

CLAY: Well, this is, to me, the best thing that could happen for Donald Trump’s lawsuit. Because I don’t know if Jen Psaki is so drunk on her own power that she didn’t even realize what she’s been saying, which is crazy, because the job of a spokesperson is to be completely on top of what she is saying on a day-to-day basis.

But, Buck, she said that the White House, even by that attempted cleanup, is monitoring what is being said on Facebook and telling them what can, in their opinion, and should not be said on Facebook. And, frankly, Biden took it even a step further when he said, “They’re murdering people,” which is a stupid, kind of old man, buffoonish thing to say. Which we’re getting used to with Joe Biden in the White House.

But then Jen Psaki also said, “Hey, if you’re banned on one tech platform, you should have to be banned on other tech platforms as well,” which effectively encourages — directly from the White House — all of these Big Tech companies to collude in banning people. And why does that matter? Some of you out there say, “Well, it doesn’t sound right, but why does it matter?”

Well, the First Amendment argument as it pertains to the collusion that I believe is going on between Big Tech and the Democratic Party in terms of restricting content, you need to show a form of state action. And if Facebook is afraid of consequences from the White House and if other tech companies are as well, what we’re having is a default — a default — First Amendment violation occurring because of the state action of Big Tech companies.

And I think we’re getting closer and closer to the right judge examining all this evidence — and I say the right judge ’cause different judges have different opinions. You need someone who values the First Amendment in this country and is an absolutist. If that happens, we may get some ruling, Buck, which would be wild. I’d love to see the reaction on the blue checks, where suddenly there is a ruling that we need to have Trump having access to these platforms once more.

BUCK: Right, ’cause that would be a decision. A part of the problem with all these conservative efforts to fight back against Big Tech is, “Okay, what’s the remedy? What do we want?” And some people say, “Break them up. Say they’re a monopoly.” Others say other we need to treat them like a public utility. Others say we just need to remove Section 240.

I mean, there’s all these different things that people bring up as how we get Big Tech — which controls the public square, effectively, now — to stop being so partisan. But with the Trump situation, just him having his account, should he run again, is going to be quite a thing. ‘Cause remember, in Citizens United, the Democrats pretend like this is not the case.

The Obama administration’s lawyers argued in Citizens United — and of course they lost, and now they act like it’s endless foreign money in elections. (It’s not true.” They argue that banning of books, Clay, before an election should be allowable because of the unfair campaign activity of publishing a book within 90 days or 60 days of an election. That was the position of the Democrats in the Obama administration in Citizens United, which they lost.

CLAY: Remember the positions of Democrats when it came to whether Donald Trump should be able to block people from his Twitter account. They argued that was impermissible. Now, it ended up becoming a moot point because he doesn’t have the accounts anymore. But that precedent and that argument could come back to bite them because if you don’t believe that a president should be able to block someone on Twitter, how should you will be able to believe that Big Tech should be able to block a president?

BUCK: But also, isn’t it just so creepy just how comfortable Psaki Bomb and the rest of the handlers around Bide nare with shutting down free speech?

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: They are not in favor of it.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: This White House does not support free speech, period. I mean, it’s obvious.

CLAY: Yes.

BUCK: Those kind particular people off not just one, but all platforms for violations. They want the social media censors to step in on matters of tremendous public importance — like the lab leak theory, like vaccine efficacy or whatever — and say, “There’s only one allowable position.” These people are authoritarians. The Democrat Party has embraced authoritarianism when it comes to speech.

CLAY: Yeah. And it would be different, I think, Buck, if there were certainty here in some way. It would certainly be inappropriate for the government to be involved. But we’re talking about robust debate surrounding issues that have not yet been resolved. They’re blocking the truth as often as they are blocking fiction.

And, as we always say, one important lesson here is: You always have to remember, when there is a fact-checker, who is checking the fact checker? Because when you are attempting to determine truth, the biases of the fact-checkers come in in a massive way, and I think that’s significant.

Recent Stories

Wow! Rand Paul Roasts Fauci Again

20 Jul 2021

BUCK: We are telling everybody to stick to the reality, stick to the facts when it comes to covid. No more panic pandemic, and let’s remember that this thing has been going on for 18 months. We’re in a much, much better place than we were, a lot of it through natural immunity. What’s up, Clay?

CLAY: Yeah.

BUCK: A lot of it through those of you who have had covid.

CLAY: We don’t get talked about at all. We don’t exist.

BUCK: You know, I feel like we should get a little bit of credit for our herd immunity contribution. But, no, we do not. Instead, they want us to pile on with the vaccine and maybe boosters beyond that. And I’ve gotta say, “There are very few people…” I mean, Clay, at very beginning you were questioning that.

You used to come on my other radio show from your show and we would talk about masks in the very beginning of the pandemic and how dumb this whole thing was. But there’s been one person, I think, above all others in politics, and he’s joining us tomorrow, correct?

CLAY: Yeah, Rand Paul, third hour of the show.

BUCK: Dr. Rand Paul has been willing to go at the ultimate sacred cow, if you will — the ultimate person who is beyond reproach — Dr. Fauci, and try to hold this little lab coat tyrant, this little health policy Stalinist to account. And we have in this time on the issue specifically of the Wuhan lab leak. Which, let’s remember, if this was true, if it did leak from the lab — which, Clay, I’m 90% on it. Where are you?

CLAY: If I were betting man, it’s a great question. I’m probably… To me, it’s like Occam’s Razor. You look at all the evidence and whatever the most likely outcome is the most likely outcome. To me it’s a 90%-ish theory as well. I just think it’s far more probable than not, based on all the evidence.

BUCK: Right. Like, for example, Jussie Smollett I said, “I’m 99.99% sure he’s lying.”

CLAY: Yeah. It didn’t happen.

BUCK: Just because, like maybe the craziest thing in the universe could have happened, but on this one I’d say I’m 90%, meaning I’m pretty damn sure but I’m not a hundred percent sure on the lab leak theory.

CLAY: And I don’t think, by the way, we’ll ever know unfortunately a hundred percent ’cause I don’t think we’re gonna find the proverbial smoking gun in covid ’cause China has covered it up, which makes it even more likely to me that it did come out of a lab. Because if it was truly something that moved from an animal to a man, which is what they’ve been trying to argue, then you would think they would want that to be uncoverable.

BUCK: Yeah, of course. And that would be something they could show us definitively. But I do believe that we’ll get to a point based on the research they’re doing, which is where you actually get into true expertise that I don’t understand, but into the amino acid chains that make up the virus that you can tell almost like a virus fingerprint.

CLAY: Right.

BUCK: You can tell if it’s been manipulated in some way or the basic structure of it. So that may be. But to the Chinese Communist Party, it doesn’t matter. We could have every scientist in the world say, “It came from China;” the CCP is gonna say, “Actually, no — and, hey, Taiwan, we’ve got eyes on you.” There’s gonna be Chinese Communist Party stuff that we’re not gonna be able to change no matter what. And I would just say right now, though, Rand Paul, Dr. Rand Paul, is the one guy who tries to hold Fauci to account, and this is a fiery one.

PAUL: Dr. Fauci, knowing it is a crime to lie to Congress, do you wish to retract your statement of May 11th where you claimed that the NIH never funded gain-of-function research in Wuhan?

FAUCI: Senator Paul, I have never lied before the Congress, and I do not retract that statement. This paper that you’re referring to was judged by qualified staff up and down the chain as not being gain-of-function. What was —

PAUL: So you take —

FAUCI: Let me finish!

PAUL: So you take an animal virus and you increase the transmissibility to humans?

FAUCI: Right.

PAUL: You’re saying that’s not gain-of-function?

FAUCI: That is correct. And — and Senator Paul, you do not know what you are talking about, quite frankly — and I want to say that officially. You do not know what you are talking about, okay?

PAUL: Let’s read the NIH —

FAUCI: You get one person —

PAUL: Speak to the NIH definition of “gain of function.”

FAUCI: (sputtering) Can I answer the question?

PAUL: This is your definition that you guys wrote. It says that scientific research that increases the transmissionibility among mammals is gain-of-function. They took animal viruses that only occur in animals and they increased their transmissionibility to humans. How you can say that is not gain of function —

FAUCI: It is not.

PAUL: It’s a dance, and you’re dancing around this because you’re trying to obscure responsibility for four million people dying around the world

FAUCI: Okay.

PAUL: — from a pandemic.

CLAY: Wow! That is, again, when you really put… I gotta give Rand Paul credit here, okay? When you really put Dr. Fauci on the witness stand, do you know what he sounded a little bit like there, Buck? He sounded like Bill Clinton saying, “That depends on what the meaning of the word ‘is’ is,” right? There are great…

That sounded to me like a lawyer defense that Anthony Fauci is trying to trot out where he’s trying… Look, the basic essence, which I think most people out there would agree with is, if you are doing what Rand Paul just laid out, that sounds like gain of function to me.

And it sounds like it meets the definition of gain of function that the NIH used. And Fauci is try to argue that is not, based on some subtle, legal technicality. When everybody out there listening, the common sense if you’re talking to a jury, that sounds like Rand Paul just caught Dr. Fauci in a guaranteed, straight-up lie.

BUCK: Think about the incentives here as well as the evidence that we have from the early stages of the covid lab leak, assuming that that thesis is correct. Of course, the international health policy community did not want this to come out as something that was the result of research.

CLAY: Right.

BUCK: The Chinese Communist Party obviously did not want this to come out as the result of research at a lab that has some degree of connection to the military in China. As all major industry, all major scientific research whether you’re talking Cuba or China, government authorities are calling the shots. So everyone needs to remember that.

CLAY: Just think about how much different the story changes for covid if this is a man-made virus that American taxpayer dollars helped to fund that then escaped the lab and has killed four million people.

BUCK: Would everyone listen to the same public health experts, by the way, when they were saying…? So you’ve gotta think about it from the little, Stalinist, lab coat tyrant Fauci mind-set here. You’ve gotta think about in his mind, “Oh, my gosh. We’re getting hit with this pandemic.” The global health community…

There’s international cooperation with this lab. That’s a fact now. The global health community was involved in something that at some level could be seen as reckless and a precursor to this whole thing. And then, in order to get people to do what you, Fauci, think is necessary.

Whatever you have to say at that point, you justify it. If you have to lie… In Fauci’s mind, what I’m trying to say is, if he had to lie in the early stages — even about the level of certainty of the thesis of the lab leak — he could justify it to himself, I can assure you, by (impression), “We’re saving lives.”

CLAY: Not only that, I always say if you’re trying to decide between who is lying, ask, “Who has more incentive to lie?’ What does Rand Paul really gain as a United States Senator by buying in on a lie and helping to propagate it as a physician in the United States Senate?

Virtually nothing. To me Rand Paul would stand to gain virtually nothing. Dr. Fauci, as you just said, stands to gain everything and/or lose everything when you analyze who is likely to be telling the truth. The motive, i.e. what someone gains or loses, often can go towards determining who is telling the truth.

Recent Stories

U.K.: BoJo Orders Vaccine Passports in Pubs and Clubs

20 Jul 2021

Are we at the point in this covid panic movie when the villain, the Freddy Krueger, is thought to be dead — and then he comes back one more time before being vanquished?

The jury is still out, but Clay & Buck hope we’re nearing an ending reminiscent of the classic “Die Hard.”

The news from Europe doesn’t look promising. Boris Johnson, the U.K. prime minister, just announced a version of covid passports will be required at pubs and clubs. This led Clay to ask, “If it is 2 AM. and you’re dancing on the tabletop to techno music in London, I would hope that you’re not in your mid-seventies or early eighties with multiple comorbidities, because it’s not a good way to be spending your time.”

And how does this mesh with England’s bragging about “Freedom Day” just hours ago where all restrictions were dropped despite highest covid numbers in months, and where the world was treated to news footage of frenzied maskless drinkers and dancers in packed clubs? It doesn’t! In France, President Macron’s figurative attempt at club bouncing should be a warning to BoJo. He’s being protested for a similar crackdown.

Meanwhile. here at home. Fauci, Buck said today, is perceived comfortingly (and erroneously) by libs as “America’s kindly old doctor” and Biden (correctly) as “America’s doddering Grandpa” so it’s not surprising they stopped short of trying to be “enforcers” — and yesterday so-far nixed the idea of U.S. vaccine passports.

Problem is, Fauci really only needs his mouth to be a faux tough guy. And that brings up one of Buck’s “biggest concerns” when it comes to restrictions, that, per Fauci’s trash talk, “We can’t wait for a surge. We have to get ahead of the surge.”

Listen here to Clay and Buck tackle BoJo’s hard-to-follow “logic” on pubs and covid passports:

Recent Stories

EIB 24/7: Clay & Buck’s Stack of Stuff

20 Jul 2021

Recent Stories

Rush Predicted What Fauci Said

20 Jul 2021

Be sure to listen daily to Rush’s Timeless Wisdom podcast here or on iHeartRadio. It’s absolutely essential information from America’s Forever Anchorman.

Recent Stories

1619 Project Founder Caught on Tape Sympathizing with Cuba Commies

19 Jul 2021

Buck posed the following question: “Is it fair to say that there are Democrats who are communist sympathizers?” It’s increasingly self-evident why that accusation seems to sting for many Democrats, and now we have another piece of evidence.

Nikole Hannah-Jones is a celebrated author on the left. She’s the person most credited with the 1619 Project, a grossly inaccurate rewriting of American history, that still managed to win the Pulitzer Prize. She is also a patron saint of critical race theory.

In a 2019 podcast, she said the following, which you can hear in the audio below:

“Cuba has the least inequality between black and white people of any place really in the hemisphere. I mean the Caribbean – most of the Caribbean it’s hard to count because the white population in a lot of those countries is very, very small. They’re countries run by black folks, but in places that are truly at least biracial countries, Cuba actually has the least inequality, and that’s largely due to socialism, which I’m sure no one wants to hear.”

Buck nailed it with: “Oh, there’s equality in Cuba all right, just not the kind that people want.”

In Clay’s words: “I don’t think there are a lot of people in America, at least not reasonable people, saying, in order to eliminate inequality, we all have to stop living in homes and everybody has to live in the streets and be equally homeless. This is part and parcel, unfortunately, of this love affair that exists between the left and Cuba and this romanticized notion that Fidel Castro has in some way created a perfect world.”

All you have to do is look to Cuba and Venezuela in our own hemisphere to see that socialism and communism don’t work. But the left continues to look to their utopian fantasies instead.

Listen to Clay and Buck Analyze the Comment of Nikole Hannah-Jones:

Recent Stories

Black Rifle Coffee CEO Battles NYT Hit-Piece

19 Jul 2021

BUCK: We are gonna have someone joining us here in a moment to talk about what it means to be targeted by the left and then have some people on the right come after you as well because of a profile piece, in this case by the New York Times that involved a company that I’ve known and worked with for years as a sponsor in the past. The founders are friends, they’re patriots, they’re great guys. And so I want you to know that before we talk to them about this, because I know there are a lot of people right now that, based on this New York Times profile, are asking questions. And Clay’s gonna be weighing in too to make sure that we get answers to all of that.

But the piece was, “Can the Black Rifle Coffee Company Become the Starbucks of the Right? The company doubled its sales last year by leaning into America’s culture war. It’s also trying to distance itself from some of its new customers”

Now, there were some quotes in the piece that got a lot of people on the right over the weekend at least, judging by social media, upset. We wanted to offer the CEO of Black Rifle Coffee — he’s a veteran the United States Special Forces. Tours in Iraq and Afghanistan. We wanted to offer him this opportunity on this platform to just clarify exactly what his company’s mission statement is, what they do, what they really believe, joined by Evan Hafer, the CEO of Black Rifle now. Evan, good to have you on.

HAFER: Buck, thank you so much for having me on. I always love the show, love being on it. I can’t wait to dive in.

BUCK: Yeah, man, tell us just what happened here? Why are you guys getting pushback? ‘Cause you know the left comes after you because you very openly stand for patriotism, the flag, the Second Amendment, the First Amendment, right? There’s a lot that the left hates about what the brand represents, but people on the right are upset, too, some of them are. Why?

HAFER: Right. You know, I think it’s to be expected from a portion of the country on the left, which is everything, just our way of life, what we stand for, you know, we want to build a great company, we roast coffee, but what we stand for is the American service members, law enforcement, military, the people that go out put their lives on the line every day for this country. We want to serve them a great cup of coffee and continue to reward those people that protect and serve our communities every day whether it’s in the United States or overseas.

And I built my entire company on roasting great coffee, started roasting coffee one pound at a time over 15 years to take with me to Iraq. We started this company in 2014, or I did, quite literally just to start roasting coffee and giving back to veteran community. And my way of life is directly derogatory towards a portion of the left, which they don’t like freedom, they don’t like fun, they don’t like firearms, they don’t like God, they don’t like the First or the Second Amendment. They don’t like just what we do every day. So I fully intend and expect to get flak from the left just by being me.

I think with the Times article the proposal to us — and wasn’t proposal — they called us back in March, and I was actually fishing, bass fishing with Mat Best in Florida before a NASCAR race, and we debated whether or not we would participate even with the Times. And we ultimately came to the conclusion which is we can give somebody an opportunity to give an objective look at the company. Whether they use that opportunity to really talk about veterans-related issues and things like that that we presented, that’s up to them. But we fully figured that there would be some type of spin on this, that would be trying to be derogatory or reflect negatively on the company.

CLAY: Evan, appreciate you coming on. Clay here. So I know the feeling when you have a hit-piece coming. I’m sure, Buck, does too.

HAFER: Right.

CLAY: But whether it’s Politico, whether it’s The Daily Beast, whether it’s the Washington Post, I mean, you know when you talk to someone that isn’t necessarily aligned with your values that, even if they talk a good game, you are potentially not going to be represented in a way that reflects everything that you talked about. So, first question for you, when did you read the article for the first time, and what was your reaction when you read it? How representative did it feel to you of your interaction with the New York Times?

HAFER: Well, I think you kind of have to go back before I read it, because I think my first feeling on this was when they do their fact-checking, right, and they send over their lists of things like questions, whether or not they got information right. And there was a lot of information that they just weren’t really getting right. So, that gave me a perspective as to exactly where the reporting was.

I had no idea as to what type of position they were going to take. But they had a laundry list of questions. A lot of people were just incorrect or factually incorrect. Some of them were taken out of context. So I knew all of these things were going to happen. I just wanted to make sure the facts are correct. So, when did we start the company? Who started the company? When did we start roasting coffee? All of those things were correct, meaning my years in service, where did I serve overseas — get the facts right. So, we tried to get them to at least get the facts right.

When I first read it, I had to read it kind of a couple times because at times I was more emotional than I should be because, obviously, this is contextual to my life. And the first thing was there are just blatant things that were taken out of context or wove in to create a narrative as if I were somehow saying misrepresentative statements or slanderous statements toward conservatives. That was like blatant obvious.

BUCK: Evan, just so we’re clear here, they quoted you guys as saying in this article, “It’s just a repugnant group of people. It’s like the worst of American society. Some of the people that hijacked portions of the brand.” And so that’s a quote that’s all over social media. That’s what has some of your people, my people, right, people on the right who share our values, upset. They saw that headline. They’re upset. Address for us now both what was left out there from the New York Times, but also how do you really feel about the people who are upset about this? Because they feel like they’ve been slapped in the face. What do you say to them?

HAFER: Well, I think first — I’m a conservative. And there’s absolutely no way that I in any context was saying any negative things towards conservatives because I’m not self-loathing. I love being conservative in this country. I love the country.

I think this is where this has to be corrected — the journalists and I were discussing racism and anti-Semitism. And what was happening to the company last year was there was an attack, an electronic attack that was organized by anti-Semitics, and they were charging the company based on my last name. And they were making death threats, they were posting memes. We’ve seen this dark underbelly of the internet. Whether they were left or right, I was not differentiating.

I was saying these people that are blatantly racist and anti-Semitic, they are the worst of our society. And they showed it on the internet and they showed us who they were in the attack. Now, the way that was woven together was directly misrepresentative to the statements, and the context of the conversation was only around anti-Semitism and racism. And there was zero connection between conservatives and those two elements of our society. I think it’s a very important distinction that conservatives have to make all the time, and so do the left. Whether you’re left or right, you can’t really put those groups in that bucket.

BUCK: So, Evan, it sounds like what you’re telling us is that, you know, if someone asks me, they said, “What do you think of, you know, the Tiki torch mob in Charlottesville?” I’d say those guys are idiots they don’t represent anything that I share and then if I said that, New York Times says, “Well, conservative host says that a bunch of other conservatives are, you know, idiots who don’t represent his values.” It sounds to me like that’s what you’re saying happened here. Is that a fair version of events?

HAFER: That is a hundred percent accurate. The only time that I discussed this was — like this is repugnant, those elements of our society, anti-Semites and racists. And they have no place in conservative politics or the conservative portion of America. And I stand by that today. So there’s a complete disconnection between what we’re referring to in our customer base and those elements of our society. And that’s where there was a direct misrepresentation of what I was speaking of.

CLAY: Evan, one of the things that I think is certainly getting misrepresented in mainstream media is something that any of us are somewhat familiar with. One of the challenges that you have as well is your brand at Black Rifle has become so powerful and so reflective and so attractive to people that you get judged when someone does something inappropriate in your gear in a way that doesn’t happen with Nike, right, or other big brands. That seems to me transparently unfair.

Let me give you an example. When we had all the protests going on for the whole summer and somebody gets arrested, and they are wearing a Nike T-shirt, people aren’t like. “Oh, my God. Look at Nike. They support looting and rioting and all those different things.” Yet when someone in a Black Rifle shirt gets arrested, it immediately gets lumped in with you. Is that just a form of unfair media? How would you assess the fact that somebody might be wearing your gear when you guys are selling millions and millions of dollars’ worth of gear. Basically you have the entire scope in some direction, I would imagine, of American life with people wearing your gear?

HAFER: Yeah. And I think, well, one, it’s an unrealistic expectation that, after a consumer purchases a hat or a shirt, you have knowledge as to what they’re going to do wearing that hat or shirt. It’s a completely unrealistic expectation.

Two, I absolutely know that there is a double standard, specifically with I think mainstream media to villainize small American companies that really believe in this country and uphold American values and specifically have identified themselves as conservative. They take that as an opportunity to highlight specific companies. And they’ve done it to multiple companies that I know of.

Kryptek, our company, Grunt Style. We weren’t just the only ones. So, this is a very specific and targeted attack to I think inflame certain portions of the country and then make small business, because we are relatively small business, look bad. There’s no way that I can think of it any other way. I’m not a conspiracy theorist in any regard, but I do think that they use this as an opportunity to paint or villainize.

BUCK: We’ve only got time for one more quick thing, but I just want to let everyone know, if you were to estimate how many — and just for full disclosure, my show stretching back now for five years when I was doing my own syndicated show, Black Rifle was a sponsor at various times — how many conservative media entities, content creators, podcasts has Black Rifle been involved with?

HAFER: Hundreds, over the course of seven years. I would say the bigger ones for seven-plus years now. But we consider ourselves a partner in really, you know, shoulder-to-shoulder, I think, in the information that’s being put out. So, we love supporting you guys.

BUCK: Hundreds of conservatives. Thank you. I think that’s why there’s a whole strategy here, Evan, to try to divide and conquer the right and especially go after those brands and those shows that support content creators out there on the right. But Evan Hafer, CEO of Black Rifle Coffee, Evan, first of all, thank you for your service and tell Mat and all the guys — Mat Best — I send my best, but I had Black Rifle Coffee this morning in my cup and I’ll have it again tomorrow. So, we’ll be talking to you guys soon.

HAFER: Thank you. Thank you, guys, I really appreciate it.

Recent Stories

Capitol Rioter Sentenced to 8 Months Based on False Narrative

19 Jul 2021

BUCK: The first Capitol Hill rioter — and it’s amazing. I mean, they use the term insurrection so much now, it’s in so many news stories and headlines that I worry that I’m gonna start to say it just from habit of reading it, not that I would ever declare this an insurrection. I was in the CIA. I know something about coups. This was not a coup.

And if a few people who were emotionally disturbed, who were present that day really believed they were going to overthrow the government, then that’s an issue of their delusion and not describing this in reality. Some guy can push a shopping cart through Times Square saying the end is near tomorrow and that doesn’t mean that everybody should act like the world is ending, right? It doesn’t mean that you forget the rationality that you have to apply to situations like this. But they don’t want it to be rational.

In fact, they want, Clay, to make this a situation if anybody speaks out against this, anybody who says this is severe. Eight months for effectively trespassing on the floor of the Senate during a riot, Democrats have, in 2020 alone, tried to burn down a federal courthouse, tried to burn down a historic church. I mean, did anyone get an eight-month sentence for any of that? I mean the double standard of justice here is mind-blowing.

CLAY: That is, I think, the biggest takeaway here, is we had months of riots all throughout the country. And, in fact, not only were there almost no punishments that came from any of those riots, but many of those people were not even charged with crimes after being arrested. They were let go. There was millions of dollars, probably tens of millions of dollars in what would have been bail to be able to put forward for anybody arrested during the middle of the riots. And in this particular incident, now everything is being prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.

Let me be clear. I said this when things were happening on January 6. I said, “Look. We got punish people who break the law.” That is one of the ultimate lessons of ways to drive crime down is when you collect and catch people who are breaking the law, punish them. But what creates a lack of trust and faith in the system is arbitrary punishment. Not punishment. It’s arbitrary punishment. And I think you can look at many of the results that are now coming down, compare them with the results from riots all through the summer, and this is now looking like politically motivated, completely different standards of punishment for behavior.

BUCK: I want to be very clear that they use — the system itself — uses some of the talking points that you’ll hear constantly on CNN or the New York Times or whatever. The “threat to democracy” claim is part of the enhancement here, is part of the justification for the severe sentence. Remember, this is not somebody who assaulted a police officer. This is not somebody who even destroyed property. This is somebody who was present and trespassed. And therefore was obstructing government administration. I believe the sentence that he could have gotten was — I mean, technically in the statute was 20 years, obstructing an official proceeding — to give you a sense of how insane federal law actually is.

But, Clay, this was in the filing: “He contributed to the collective threat to democracy.” This is Soviet-style propaganda in a courtroom, to throw somebody in a cell for 8 months.

Recent Stories