×

Clay and Buck

For a better experience,
download and use our app!

Mark Morgan on How to Secure Our Border

21 Dec 2022

CLAY: We bring in now Mark Morgan, appreciate him joining us to talk about this situation on the border. And I want to start with this, Mark. When you see that we are spending billions of dollars to protect the Ukrainian border, including a total now of $100 billion for Ukraine. What would it cost, in your mind, for the United States southern border to be as secure as possible? How much would our government have to commit in order to make that possible?

MORGAN: Less than that, Clay, I can tell you. Right now, what’s also frustrating to me, right now in the current version of the omnibus spending bill that the Senate is trying to push forward, there’s actually language in there that actually gives funding, United States gives funding to other countries to, quote, secure their borders, yet Representative Bishop, he did a line-item search and he found out that in this current bill that billions of dollars that they’re giving to DHS specifically in the bill, says they’re forbidden to use it, quote, for border security. They can only use the money for processing.

They finally said out loud and put in black and white what we’ve been saying for over two years. They don’t care about border security. They don’t care about the downstream negative effects to America. All they care about is getting money down there to be able to get better at processing and releasing illegal aliens into the country, because at the end of the day, Clay, they see perceived political benefit from what they’re doing. They don’t care that they’re unsecure on the border.

CLAY: Okay. So, a lot of people out there, there’s so many different moving parts of ineptitude in the Biden administration right now. Frankly, it’s kind of hard to keep up with all of it. So, you are an expert on this. Title 42 is currently held up at the United States Supreme Court. It’s unclear whether it is going to be repealed, cease to exist effectively. What is Title 42 for our audience out there that may not be able to keep on top of all these details? And what would the immediate impact be of Title 42 effectively ceasing to exist at our border?

MORGAN: Yeah. So, those are two very important questions. So, what is Title 42? Real quick. This was a law that was enacted in the forties and it’s a public health order. It’s not an immigration tool. And that’s very clear. Under the Trump administration, we resurrected that 1940 law that was in place during a global pandemic called covid-19. And what that allowed immigration law enforcement officials to do is rather than apprehend and release individuals into the country to further reduce and introduce the spread of covid-19 into our country from outside our borders, we used that to actually not allow illegal aliens to come in and remove them back to Mexico. And in my opinion, by doing so, it saved countless American lives.

This administration, from day one, it’s funny that they actually accused us of using it as an immigration tool, which the facts just simply deny that and here’s why. Because we applied it to everybody. If you say there’s a public health crisis, then you should apply it across the board. From day one, this administration started doing what I call political carve out. They stopped applying it to unaccompanied minors. They stopped applying it to families, even though all those individuals can still carry covid-19 and they are the ones that really use this as an immigration tool. Here’s what’s going to happen is… real quick, I know I’m going long here, but this is very important. I’ll try to wrap it up.

It is that people are saying, “Oh, once Title 42 ends, oh, it’s a crisis.” “Oh, once Title 42 ends we’re going to see a tsunami of illegal aliens.” No, that’s a lie. That’s false. We’re already in the tsunami. We’re already in the middle of the crisis. We are right now navigating — we have been for the past two years — the worst unmitigated, self-inflicted crisis along our border in our lifetime. And that’s been with Title 42 in place for the past two years. Once Title 42 ends, it’s just going to take the catastrophic crisis and, believe it or not, it’s just going to make it worse.

CLAY: The number of people that are crossing right now, compared to what you’ve seen in your life of knowledge dealing with the border, how would you classify it now?

MORGAN: It is another critically important question for comparison, and I’ll give you an example. So, Secretary Jeh Johnson, remember he was the secretary of DHS under then President Obama and Vice President Biden. And I know this because I was chief of the Border Patrol when he was the secretary. He said that a thousand a day is a crisis, that a thousand a day is a bad day. When I was the commissioner under President Trump, we had that below a thousand a day. Now, look, that’s still not good. But just as a comparison, we had it below a thousand a day. Right now, it’s at over 8,000 per day. That’s what we have right now. It’s unmitigated. It’s unsustainable.

Every aspect of our resources are overwhelmed. You have many areas on the southwest border where 90% (nine zero) Border Patrol agents are pulled off the foot line, off the national security mission, and they’re back in facilities to process the millions of illegal aliens coming through. That literally has operational control over the cartels. And what’s happening? They’re pushing drugs across to criminal aliens and potential national security threats every day, all day long. That’s where we’re at. That’s where we’re at right now. And we have been for the past 23 months with Title 42. So, the crisis, isn’t going to begin when it ends. It’s just going to make it worse.

CLAY: Mark Morgan, former acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection, you mentioned the cartel. We know that there’s tons of fentanyl coming across the border that’s killing over 100,000 Americans every single year right now. I read and I believe this is the New York Times, so credit to them for actually managing to cover this, that the cartel is making 13 billion. That’s billion with a B. $13 billion a year smuggling people illegally across the border. And to put that into context, that’s more than any American pro sports league makes the NFL, the NBA, Major League Baseball. How powerful is the cartel right now and how much, in your experience, have they taken over not just drug smuggling, but also person smuggling, people into this country?

MORGAN: Look, I’ll come back and talk to you in time because you’re very well versed in that. So, first of all, you’re exactly right. 13 billion in some cases, that’s a greater GDP than some countries. And, I think, to put that 13 billion to even more greater context. So, that’s from 2018. That’s just the smuggling, not drugs, as you said, just the smuggling. It went from a $500 million business in 2018 to 13 billion right now.

CLAY: So, just yeah, it’s crazy.

MORGAN: You’re right. And most of that has happened in the past two years. And we haven’t talked about the billions they get from their drugs. And here’s the issue. It’s that the cartels, they do it all, right? So, they’re a multi-layered, multifaceted, criminal organization. I keep saying the cartels are the most powerful criminal organization in the world. So, it’s not just smuggling, but smuggling drugs. It’s anything that they can do to make a profit. They don’t care about the devastation that causes the individuals involved or this country. In the past two years, their bank accounts have grown, but not just their bank accounts.

So, has their power, influence and reach. A lot of people think they are just in Mexico. That’s just not true. They’re in every state in this country, their reach goes to, as well as other countries in the Western Hemisphere and beyond. They are a dangerous, ruthless entity that is 100% behind this. And that’s why Governor Abbott, I’m 100% behind him when he declared that his state is being invaded because what he’s done by that through the constitutional clause, he’s declared war on the cartels, which is exactly what we should be doing.

CLAY: Which is why for people out there listening who don’t live near the border, so many people who do live near the border, even if they were born in Mexico, even if they were born in Latin America, they want border enforcement as well because they are terrified of the cartels. And they know better than most the amount of power and violent power that these guys are bringing to bear on the border. We’re talking to Mark Morgan, former acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection. Okay. So, the other thing that I think many people are missing is traditionally when we’ve talked about illegal immigration, it’s been people relatively close to our southern border.

Now, all over the world, you can correct me if I’m wrong, but it basically has become well known that the United States is essentially letting anybody walk across the border that can get there. And so now we have people from all over the world that are coming to Latin America and trying to cross into the United States. That has accelerated probably to a degree we’ve never seen before. Again, these aren’t just people in geographic proximity necessarily who are coming to our southern border. They’re coming from everywhere to walk across our southern border.

MORGAN: Clay, you’re 100% right. And this is another very important element, because sometimes people like to do comparison back in the late nineties and 2000 with respect to the numbers. And you can’t do that because back in the late nineties and 2000, almost 100% of the illegal aliens we’re saying is what you described early on. Right. But there’s been a change.

CLAY: And those guys, by the way, sorry to cut you off, but what’s significant about that is, those guys might travel to the United States to work, but they still kind of thought of themselves as primarily living in Mexico. They might go back and forth across the border as opposed to trying to make their permanent homes. If you’re coming from somewhere far around the world, you’re not coming here for seasonal work and you’re certainly not returning back across the southern border. That’s a seismic change in terms of border security in general, right?

MORGAN: Absolutely. Seismic change, and that’s the right adjective. So again, late nineties, 2000, it was almost 100% Mexican single adults, as you describe. You’re spot on. Now, I’ll give you an example just to put stop everything you said. The last two years, CBP has encountered illegal aliens or otherwise inadmissible aliens from 160 different countries, 160. There’s only 195 recognized countries in the world. Just think about that. Let that soak in for a second. Look, it’s not just the Western Hemisphere, you know, it’s not just Mexico, the Northern Triangle countries or the entire Western Hemisphere. Clay, as you said, it’s the entire world.

In fact, there are many, what we call special interest countries. There are many illegal aliens coming from these special interest countries that we’re concerned about because we have intelligence that these countries are either connected to or helping finance terrorist or terrorist activities. It’s happening every single day. We know that last fiscal year alone that CBP encountered 98 illegal aliens on the FBI’s terror screening database. 98 in a 12-month period. That’s more than the past five, six, seven years combined. And why should it matter to us? Well, “Mark, look, they’re doing a great job in countering.”

No, no. Because they’re pulled off the line because of this administration’s open border policies. There’s been over 1.2 million gotaways, over a million gotaways, Clary. So, look, it’s not hyperbolic to say, for example, that we could have the next terrorist sleeper cell in the United States planning the next terrorist attack and we would have no idea. Look, the worst terrorist attack in our lifetime, 9/11, took about a dozen people. The bombing in Boston Marathon took two people. I mean, this is a real national security threat.

CLAY: All right. So, this is all incredibly negative. And we know things are just getting worse with everything that Joe Biden touches. If we were actually committed to border security, how much would it cost? How quickly could this be reversed?

MORGAN: So, look, this is very important because we have to differentiate between resources and policy. Right? This is not a sole resource issue. Now, don’t get me wrong. A lot of people “Oh, so, you know, foreign commission said we don’t need more resources.” I’m not saying that. Now, we need a tried, true a multilayer strategy of infrastructure, technology and personnel wherever we have that right lay down, every single measure of success goes up. So, we need to build more wall. We need to make sure we have increased technology in between at the ports, and we need to have the right level of personnel. But look, you can have all of that.

But as long as you still have the open-border policies, illegal aliens are still going to come. Resources are going to be pulled off the line. No matter how much you put on there, our borders are going to be open. So, what we need to focus on are policy issues which cost us zero, Clay, zero. For Congress to step up and finally do what they should do to protect this America, to protect this country. They should pass meaningful legislation to secure our border. We provided them what they need to do and what the legislation they need to pass that will cost American taxpayers zero. Reinstate the Remain-in-Mexico program. Reinstate those safe third country agreements. Reinstate ICE’s ability to actually do their job to remove criminal illegal aliens that are here. We could go on forever. That’s just the tip of the iceberg.

CLAY: Good stuff. Mark Morgan. Hopefully you’ll be working with people to actually do all those things at some point in the near future. Although when you see Republicans rushing to spend $1.7 trillion, you do wonder whether they’ll actually do what they promised to do even if we vote for them. Appreciate the time, my man.

MORGAN: You bet. Thanks, Clay. Merry Christmas.

CLAY: Merry Christmas to you as well. That’s Mark Morgan, former acting commissioner of Customs and Border Protection.

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.

KJP: January 6th Was the Worst Thing Since the Civil War

21 Dec 2022

The dumbest person in a particularly dumb administration — from which we cannot think of a single person to draft who’s competent — declared January 6th something on par with the Civil War. Yes, forget presidential assassinations, Pearl Harbor, and 9/11. They’re blowing this riot out of proportion, while ignoring the Summer of Riots by BLM and other Democrat pals.

If you’re a Clay & Buck 24/7 VIP, send us an email with your take on the latest attempt to politicize the riot on January 6th rather than just punish those responsible.

Recent Stories

McConnell: GOP Won By Giving Democrats Everything They Wanted

21 Dec 2022

Senate Minority Leader Mitch McConnell, Republican of Kentucky, decided to cave to Democrats on a full year of spending only weeks before the new Republican House would get a say. Plus, he calls this a victory, claiming the top priority of Republicans is to defeat Russia in Ukraine. Sure. Not inflation, not the wide-open border, not drugs, not crime, but Russia.

Can you imagine this level of idiocy? This bill actually prohibits spending money on border security!

Thanks to Congressman Dan Bishop for the stunning numbers hidden in this 4,000-page bill.

Senator Rick Scott of Florida, who Clay interviewed on today’s show, is a no vote on this garbage, set to pass in the dead of night.

Do you feel utterly betrayed by McConnell, or agree with him that so long as we support Ukraine, nothing else really matters? If you’re a Clay & Buck 24/7 VIP, send us an email with your take.

Recent Stories

VIP Video: No Joke! Biden’s Border Disaster Poised to Get Worse

20 Dec 2022

With the end of Title 42’s pandemic-era limits on non-Americans entering the country illegally, Biden’s border disaster is about to turn into a catastrophe. Buck breaks down the latest facts.

Only 24/7 VIPs can view this exclusive commercial-free video. If you’re not a member, sign up now. You can also use the special VIP email pipeline to Clay & Buck to share what’s on your mind.

Watch It!

Recent Stories

Andy McCarthy on the Legal Jeopardy of Title 42 at the Border

20 Dec 2022

BUCK: We are joined by our friend Andy McCarthy of National Review. He’s a Fox News contributor, former federal prosecutor at the Southern District of New York — spent over 20 years there — also, he wrote a book, Ball of Collusion: The Plot to Rig an Election and Destroy a Presidency, obviously about Donald Trump. I feel like, Andy, you might need to write Ball of Collusion, part two. There’s a lot of stuff going on right now between Twitter-FBI collusion, the efforts to get Donald Trump legally.

Can we start with that? I know you’re on Fox yesterday as I could see as I was doing the show, right as the four charges came down. It seems to be something of a consensus that the DOJ, well, actually, no, I don’t I don’t want to get ahead of anything. Tell everybody what you think about the four charges and what happens now.

MCCARTHY: Well, I think the charges are really weak, Buck. The headline, I guess, that I would highlight to encapsulate this is they want to recommend that Trump violated a law that prevents people — or makes it a crime to incite an insurrection or to assist an insurrection or to aid and abet it, etc. And they say they’ve developed evidence of that. And, you know, first of all, they have not… Despite what they promised they were going to be able to prove, they have not proved there was an actionable criminal nexus between Donald Trump and the violence. More to the point, besides the fact that they haven’t proved it, the Justice Department has prosecuted over 800 people for various crimes arising out of the Capitol riot.

In two years of looking at this closely with a lot more resources to investigate it than the congressional committee has, they haven’t indicted a single person for the federal crime of insurrection. So, one wonders, how could Trump have aided and abetted something the Justice Department has looked at and hasn’t charged anybody with? But the other thing is, they’ve indicted a number of cases involving violence, like assaults on police officers and damage to the Capitol. There was a seditious conspiracy case in which some people got convicted. In none of those cases has the Justice Department suggested or cited Donald Trump for being an unindicted coconspirator.

And in fact, the Justice Department took the position that Trump was not the driving force of this. He was basically the pretext that people who were looking to commit violence anyway used as a rationalization for doing it. And the Justice Department has aggressively fought efforts by these defendants to shift blame to Trump. So, it’s pretty clear that they’ve decided… This doesn’t take Trump out of the woods. They’ve decided he wasn’t involved in the violence. That doesn’t mean that he may not have committed the crime of obstructing Congress. But it’s a harder proof if you don’t have the violence. So, my only point is, how is the committee referring a crime to the Justice Department — the theory of which has to be that Trump is, like, the driving force of the violence — when it’s become very clear over two years that that’s the opposite of what the Justice Department thinks happened?

BUCK: So, Andy, if you have to pick…? Well, first, let me let me just get your take on, do you think there is — and I know I always say no one can predict the future; so, I’m asking what you think the probability is. Is it likely or not likely that Trump will be indicted in the next year? And if it is likely, where would it come from? I mean, or even if it’s not, what’s the most likely avenue? Is it from the special counsel Jack Smith probe?

MCCARTHY: Yeah, I think the most likely scenario, Buck, is the Mar-A-Lago documents case. I think they have… You know, unlike the January 6 case — which is complicated and weak when you look at it closely — I think they think — and with good reason — that the documents case is much stronger and that they could probably indict that now if they chose to.

BUCK: Do you think it’s going to happen?

MCCARTHY: I think it depends on whether Trump is a viable candidate or not. I know that the Biden administration and the Justice Department gave this case to Jack Smith as a special counsel to try to create some distance between DOJ and Biden and the investigation. But I don’t think people are going to be convinced by that because the special counsel still answers to the Justice Department and, you know, prosecutorial power in the United States is executive power.

So, if Jack Smith indicts anyone, it’s going to be through the power of President Biden. So, I don’t think they can get out of that box. I think it’s politics, and they like the idea of running against Trump — or at least having Trump in the GOP primaries and in the field — wreaking havoc and causing divisiveness in the Republican base. So, I don’t think… If they indict him, it will make it very difficult for him to run. So, I think as long as he’s a viable candidate, they probably won’t bring any charges. But I think the second he’s not a viable candidate —

BUCK: Wow.

MCCARTHY: The left really wants him charged.

BUCK: I mean, this is what I was thinking yesterday. I was trying to wargame this out a little bit. I think if I align with you on this one, in that they also, I think they may not bring the charge also because they would recognize that that would, I believe, rally the party around Trump in a pretty substantial way. Now, would they try to get jail time for him? (laughing)

MCCARTHY: Yeah.

BUCK: You know, can you really rally around the guy if he’s actually going to prison and, you know, there’s all these other things?

MCCARTHY: Yeah.

BUCK: But I think that I wonder if they would hold back because there’s that uncertainty factor and also what, you know, what the blowback would be. But to your point, if, in fact, let’s say Trump doesn’t become the nominee, then maybe it’s actually even more likely, at that point, he would get indicted just because the left-wing base has been promised this in their minds for six years.

MCCARTHY: Yeah, that’s what I think. I just think that you can’t take the political component out of this because if you could take Trump out of it — which of course, is like… It’s too mind-bending to take Trump out. He’s such a lightning rod. But if you could take Trump out of this, every case that a prosecutor indicts is a twofold question. One is: Do you have enough evidence of a crime to convict? If you do, you move to the second question, which is: Is the prosecution in the public interest? What I mean by that, for example, is, you know, if five people are sitting in a circle and they pass around a marijuana cigarette one to the next and the next, in theory and under the law, every single time they pass that, it’s a felony violation of the federal narcotics laws from which you could be sentenced to 20 years in prison.

Right? So, you would look at that and you’d say, “I have enough evidence, but I would be insane to bring that case because no one would bring that case,” right? So, in every case, you look at, “Do I have enough evidence and is it in the public interest to go forward with this?” And with Trump, I think it’s unavoidable that you have to say, even if you think you have enough evidence, it’s going to be such a divisive thing in the country to indict a former president of the United States who’s actually a current announced candidate for 2024. The prosecutor’s got to be sensitive to the idea that there’s going to be a narrative that the indictment is being driven by politics rather than evidence. And the backdrop for all of this is that we’ve had law enforcement intrusion now in the 2016 presidential cycle and in the 2020 presidential cycle. Do we really want to, you know, watch this movie again? Because I don’t think anybody does.

BUCK: Right. We had it in 2016, in 2020, and now it would be again in 2024.

MCCARTHY: Right.

BUCK: Could we have one presidential election that does not like determine one way or the other by the deep state and its intrusions? That would be a good thing. Andy, also we were just talking about — and we’re speaking to Andy McCarthy. He’s a Fox News contributor, National Review. Go read NationalReview.com for his latest. Andy, the Title 42, the stay… My understanding — and, you know, I’m catching this in real time because it’s obviously still evolving — is that there’s a stay but we don’t know the full explanation behind the stay for the ending of Title 42. And it’s an administrative stay. But this thing has got to go pretty soon, right? What do you see happening here?

MCCARTHY: Well, it’s complicated, Buck, because there’s two different cases involved. But, you know, the bottom line for today is that Chief Justice Roberts has told the Biden administration that they have to respond to the states which have made this emergency application to freeze everything in place until they finish litigating one of the cases that’s pending. And Roberts has told the Biden administration they have till 5:00 Eastern Time today to respond. And in a nutshell what’s going on is, there’s two different cases, one of which arises out of Louisiana where the states are saying that when Biden took away Title 42 — or when they wanted to take away Title 42 — they didn’t comply with the Administrative —

BUCK: Administrative Procedure Act. Yeah, sure.

MCCARTHY: Right. So while that’s being litigated, this other case came up in Washington. And what happened is the Biden administration and the plaintiffs who are — in that case, they are — you know, people who want to come into the country illegally, they put their little heads together and basically the Biden administration admitted that it was in violation of the law and that Title 42 couldn’t be sustained. And the judge in Washington then just said, “No more Title 42,” and what the DAs or the state attorneys general of these 19 states are saying is, “Look what they did here. They colluded in this litigation, effectively, to undermine Title 42.

“When in the other litigation, there’s a stay in place where they’ve basically been told to hold Title 42 in place until the case could be litigated.” So it’s like a collusive lawsuit which allows them to get rid of Title 42 without complying with the Administrative Procedures Act and the notice and comment and all that. So that’s the… You know, in a nutshell, that’s what it is. And I think the thing is, the Supreme Court doesn’t like these collusive lawsuits because it’s a really sneaky, kind of insidious thing to do. At the same time, the court can’t protect the border. You know? (chuckles) Even if the court says, “This is ridiculous. You have to comply with the Administrative Procedures Act. But it’s also true that, like as far as Title 42 is concerned, we no longer have a covid emergency, and the fact of the matter is, it’s the political branch’s responsibility to protect the border,” and the court can’t make them do it, right?

BUCK: So basically, if they decided… Let’s just say theoretically, if the Biden administration — and I think they’re pretty close to this. If they just said, “Yeah, we’re just not enforcing border laws anymore,” I mean, the courts could say, “You’re not allowed to do that,” but what are they going to do about it?

MCCARTHY: Right. “Who’s going to make me?” You remember back in the Obama years we had that Arizona immigration case, and the court ruled against the Obama administration on one aspect of it. And the administration’s response basically was, “Yeah, who’s going to make us?”

BUCK: Yeah.

MCCARTHY: This goes back to the framers, right? The idea was the courts were the least dangerous branch because they only had judgment. Right. They don’t have the purse. They don’t have the sword. And this is the reality of it. And as far as the court is concerned, you don’t want to issue an order that isn’t going to be enforced. Right? Because that undermines the rule and legitimacy.

BUCK: The rule of law and the legitimacy of the court.

MCCARTHY: Yeah. So, you know, I think what happens in a lot of these cases is that, if the court knows that there’s a good chance the executive is not going to carry out its orders anyway, why does it want to get involved in that?

BUCK: So do you think Title 42 does go away soon?

MCCARTHY: I think eventually. Whether it’s next Wednesday or within the next year… You know, look, we’re living a lie here, right? There is no covid emergency, right? (laughing)

BUCK: Right.

MCCARTHY: And what’s going on here is the president and the Congress have the authority and the responsibility to protect the border and the law of the United States. I know that this is like a trivial thing, but I thought people might want to hear this. The law of the United States explicitly says: If you come into the United States illegally, you shall be detained until they work out whether you have a viable claim to stay here for some legal reason or not. So they’re just ignoring the law, and what they say is, “There’s too many people; we can’t detain everyone,” and I think most people think, “Well, if you only have 30,000 detention spaces, you can’t let 2.2 million people into the country! So close the border once you fill up the detention center.”

BUCK: Yep.

MCCARTHY: And instead, what they say is, “We can’t detain everybody who wants to come, so, therefore, we’re not going to follow the law of the United States.”

BUCK: And they’re basically going to detain nobody, which is what they’re doing right now. I mean, there it’s like catch and release, superfast processing, letting people out on the streets of El Paso and McAllen and wherever.

MCCARTHY: Yes!

BUCK: It’s a mess. Andy, thank you so much for the excellent legal analysis, as always, and Merry Christmas, sir. Good to talk to you.

MCCARTHY: Merry Christmas, Buck.

Recent Stories

Buck Opens Up About Overcoming Childhood Speech Impediment

20 Dec 2022

Buck got a little nostalgic in his last show of the year, thanking his parents for standing by him as he struggled with a childhood speech impediment that left him introducing himself as “Butt” to other kids.

Did you struggle with a speech impediment or do you have a child that could use Buck’s triumph as inspiration? Tweet us your take @ClayAndBuck — or, if you’re a 24/7 VIP, send us an email.

Recent Stories

Stanford University Imposes Speech Controls

20 Dec 2022

The current craze to control, ban, or change speech started in academia, and so it’s no surprise of the absurdity of Stanford University’s new list of forbidden terms, which they’ll be expunging from all communications.

What do you think of the leftists getting down to words like “master bedroom” in their effort to control language as a means to controlling us? Tweet us your take @ClayAndBuck — or, if you’re a 24/7 VIP, send us an email.

Recent Stories

The Biden Regime Blames Republicans for the Border Crisis

20 Dec 2022

Yesterday, Democratic hacks masquerading as journalists in the form of ABC’s Martha Raddatz debuted a new ridiculous explanation for the wide-open border welcoming a flood of gangs, drugs, criminals and even terrorists — it’s the GOP’s fault for pointing out the problem!

Now, the White House has picked up this counter-factual angle.

All this is unfolding as Title 42 is on the chopping block.

The governor of Virginia, Glenn Youngkin, is still joining ihs fellow GOP governors to call out the problem — and note that the Old Dominion is a thousand miles from the border, but Joe Biden has made every state a border state by spreading the damage nationwide.

What do you think of the Biden administration's attempt to pin turning our border into nothing more than a line on the map on the GOP? Tweet us your take @ClayAndBuck — or, if you’re a 24/7 VIP, send us an email.

Recent Stories

Avatar 2’s Blue People Criticized for “White Saviors”

20 Dec 2022

Buck discusses the attacks from leftists on Avatar 2, the sequel to the box office smash of 2009 that was a rehash of the Pocahontas plot and has returned to a very different world this year. Here’s the trailer:

Seems like harmless, if predictable, sci-fi fun, but not to humorless libs.

Have you seen Avatar 2? Tweet us your take @ClayAndBuck — or, if you’re a 24/7 VIP, send us an email.

Recent Stories

The FBI Paid Twitter to Censor Conservative Free Speech

20 Dec 2022

Buck broke down the latest from the Twitter files, where it’s being revealed that some elements of the FBI paid Twitter to crack down on conservative speech.

We need to get to the truth, not go along to get along — and we will be holding Congressman McCarthy’s feet to the fire on this should he be elected the next speaker.

What do you think of Elon Musk’s latest Twitter Files drop, and whether he’ll really be able to make good on his promises to reform the platform? Tweet us your take @ClayAndBuck — or, if you’re a 24/7 VIP, send us an email.

Recent Stories