Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. American needs its freedom
Speaker 1: time to reopen. Plus YouTube is censoring those doctors from
Speaker 1: California who broke with the consensus over the lockdown. From
Speaker 1: a right to be believed to a right to be heard,
Speaker 1: Democrats changing the rules over the allegations against Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Plus should businesses be liable for COVID risks to employees?
Speaker 1: Are we heading for a meat shortage? And Pence mask gates?
Speaker 1: That are more coming up. This is the bus Sexon Show,
Speaker 1: where the mission or mission is to decode what really
Speaker 1: matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake your great American
Speaker 1: Again the Buck Sex and Show begins. Analysts remember the animal,
Speaker 1: he's a great guy. As our nation battles against this
Speaker 1: terrible scorch, we continue to pray for the victims as
Speaker 1: well as for those Americans who are grieving. They're lost
Speaker 1: ones and they loved ones. There's never been anything like this.
Speaker 1: We suffer with one heart, but we will prevail. We're
Speaker 1: coming back, and we're coming back strong. We built the
Speaker 1: greatest economy anywhere in the world two months ago, and
Speaker 1: we're gonna build it again. We're going to build it fast.
Speaker 1: It's going to go very quickly. And Larry, thank you
Speaker 1: for being here very much. It's you see what's going
Speaker 1: to happen. I think you have the same fielding as
Speaker 1: I do. It's going to come back very fast. I
Speaker 1: certainly hope the President's right. Welcome to the buck Sexton Show, everybody,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much for joining. Oh man, it is time.
Speaker 1: It is time for us to finally say it. We
Speaker 1: need to reopen this country and this needs to be
Speaker 1: happening faster than it currently is. I know that there's
Speaker 1: all this guidance. I know that there is a desire
Speaker 1: to make this go slowly and safely, and the time
Speaker 1: is now different paces for different places. New York should
Speaker 1: be a little bit slower, should be quite a bit
Speaker 1: slower than some states, and somewhat slower than others. But
Speaker 1: we can't continue doing this. This has been a bit
Speaker 1: absurd now for a while. In my opinion, there are
Speaker 1: states where you have like Texas has thirty million people,
Speaker 1: about twenty nine million people and six hundred deaths. The
Speaker 1: state's been shut down for going on two months. Now,
Speaker 1: what are we doing? What the heck is this? Now?
Speaker 1: I know Texas is starting to open up in other
Speaker 1: states are beginning this process. You have a partial reopening
Speaker 1: already in Montana, Minnesota, Colorado, Oklahoma, Colorado ninety three seven
Speaker 1: FM Denver, what's up? But Colorado opening up partially, Tennessee, Oklahoma, Georgia,
Speaker 1: which got a lot of attention from the media trying
Speaker 1: to scared Georgia's governor Kemp away from a reopening. South Carolina, Mississippi,
Speaker 1: They're all opening up or have already begun that process.
Speaker 1: A lot of states, a lot of other states have
Speaker 1: orders expiring tomorrow April thirtieth. With that, you've got Idaho, Nevada, Arizona, Texas, Alabama, Florida,
Speaker 1: and they are in the process. Then I'm also opening.
Speaker 1: But then you get into what are at Maine also
Speaker 1: by the way, we'll be opening up. And then you
Speaker 1: get into a whole bunch of other states that are
Speaker 1: shut down or restricted with no immediate end in sight.
Speaker 1: All of the Northeast, all the really what we consider
Speaker 1: the East coast before you get down to South Carolina.
Speaker 1: So from North Carolina all the way up to New Hampshire,
Speaker 1: lockdown our entire west coast, California, Oregon, Washington, lockdown, the Dakotas, Nebraska, Kansas, Iowa, Missouri, Illinois,
Speaker 1: the Midwest, the industrial Midwest, Ohio, Michigan lockdown. How long
Speaker 1: are they going to continue to do this? Nobody really
Speaker 1: knows at this point, because they're also putting in place
Speaker 1: rules and regulations that are going to make it very
Speaker 1: difficult for them to have real progress without setbacks. And
Speaker 1: this is what I think everyone needs to know beforehand.
Speaker 1: This needs to be established early in this process. If
Speaker 1: we start opening states and then go back to full
Speaker 1: on lockdown in those states, it's going to be disastrous.
Speaker 1: How do you prepare an economy for that? How do
Speaker 1: you prepare people psychologically for that? No, we've done the
Speaker 1: lockdown thing. We get it, we know the mitigation measures.
Speaker 1: We understand that there's not a cure for this disease
Speaker 1: and that the treatments for it are substandard. Right now,
Speaker 1: they're not sufficient, they're not good enough. Although I did
Speaker 1: see we'll talk about the good data to day for
Speaker 1: rimdsevere from Gilead Gilead Pharmaceuticals. Hopefully, all we have to
Speaker 1: do is have something that would make the mortality rate
Speaker 1: for those who are hospitalized, which is a small percentage
Speaker 1: of people who overall even get the disease. If we
Speaker 1: bring that mortality rate for the hospitalized down by fifty
Speaker 1: sixty seventy percent, then this becomes an entirely manageable health problem.
Speaker 1: Right now, it's more of a challenge and much more
Speaker 1: of a threat because of the mortality of those who
Speaker 1: are over seventy you go to the hospital. Imagine if
Speaker 1: we can get to the place where you're over seventy five,
Speaker 1: you're in the hospital of COVID, they have something that means,
Speaker 1: you know, you got a nine out of ten shot
Speaker 1: of making it out of that hospital. It would be
Speaker 1: a game changer. Right. I don't want to get our
Speaker 1: hopes up because who knows how far away this will be.
Speaker 1: But some good data from Gile out of Pharmaceuticals on
Speaker 1: ramdessevere culture scene is also going to have some data
Speaker 1: coming out soon. This is I've been hearing about this
Speaker 1: from doctor friends in New York for a few weeks now.
Speaker 1: There's a big study out of Montreal and they're hoping
Speaker 1: the cultures scene will prevent a will prevent the inflammatory
Speaker 1: response in the lungs that's what ends up killing people
Speaker 1: ards which is part of it, or which comes during
Speaker 1: this site, or is tied in with the sight of
Speaker 1: ken Storm Gosh reading about all this health stuff. I
Speaker 1: gotta tell you, who would have thought it's It's like
Speaker 1: we're all living in one long web MD article these days.
Speaker 1: But we got to open the states. We have to
Speaker 1: do this. It needs to be a mentality that we share.
Speaker 1: The data is not supportive of the lockdowns anymore. If
Speaker 1: you really look at it, it's not supportive of the lockdowns.
Speaker 1: There are mitigation measures that should be kept in place,
Speaker 1: there are certain things that we're going to have to
Speaker 1: be doing for a while, but the overall lockdown approach
Speaker 1: is just not what we should be doing. And that's
Speaker 1: why I understand states are reopening and we're moving into it,
Speaker 1: But I'm saying we need to move this faster. This
Speaker 1: needs to go faster than it has so far. People
Speaker 1: need to go. We keep saying, go back to work.
Speaker 1: We need to get back to living our lives. We
Speaker 1: need to get back to having the basic freedom in
Speaker 1: our day to day of where we're going to go
Speaker 1: and who we're going to see. That's a part of
Speaker 1: life too. You know, we're all in what is effectively
Speaker 1: this this true mass mass incarceration. You often hear liberals
Speaker 1: talk about mass incarceration as a political issue, but we
Speaker 1: have been in a mass incarceration. Yeah. Sure, you can
Speaker 1: go out for essentials. But you know, if you're under
Speaker 1: house arrest under some circumstances, I mean official criminal house arrest,
Speaker 1: you can still go to the hospital. You still have
Speaker 1: some you can go to doctor's appointments. There are things
Speaker 1: they let you do. So yeah, okay, we can maybe
Speaker 1: go out for a walk if you wear a mask.
Speaker 1: It's gotten, it's gotten to the point where we just
Speaker 1: have to say enough is enough, and we're there. I
Speaker 1: think you've all been there for a while. I'm here
Speaker 1: in New York. I've been building to this point. But
Speaker 1: none of this like, oh, maybe this is going to
Speaker 1: drag on for eighteen months. Maybe we're gonna have to
Speaker 1: lock down again in a month, or we're gonna lock
Speaker 1: down again in September. No, that's wrong. We shouldn't do that.
Speaker 1: The data doesn't support it. It's not saving lives the
Speaker 1: way they claimed it would when you line it up
Speaker 1: against places that did not do lockdowns. This is looking
Speaker 1: increasingly like an overreaction, a panic move that the administration
Speaker 1: and states were pushed into for a combination of the
Speaker 1: media frenzy around this issue after being completely wrong and
Speaker 1: downplaying it when when the media's panic would have been
Speaker 1: perhaps helpful. They were telling us it was no big deal,
Speaker 1: that this wasn't go this wasn't gonna hit us that hard.
Speaker 1: And then when we all realize that it was going
Speaker 1: to actually hit this country very hard and cause a
Speaker 1: lot of a lot of mass death and casualties, then
Speaker 1: the media's response was lockdown for as long as it
Speaker 1: takes everywhere. And if you're a post that you're a
Speaker 1: bad person, you want to sacrifice old people to die,
Speaker 1: that's what they say. It's nonsense, it's it's just wrong.
Speaker 1: But this is now a major, a major fight we
Speaker 1: have on our hands because there are places that want
Speaker 1: to do whatever they can to drag this out as
Speaker 1: long as they can, and the politicians who are in charge.
Speaker 1: You must remember this. Politicians will always disappoint you. They're
Speaker 1: not as good as they pretend to be, and they're
Speaker 1: not as good as a lot of people want to
Speaker 1: believe they are. Government is inapt by its nature. That's
Speaker 1: why our founders wanted a very limited and clearly delineated
Speaker 1: series of authorities and powers for the government. That's why
Speaker 1: the focus wasn't on how do we have super geniuses
Speaker 1: in charge that can make all of our decisions for us?
Speaker 1: That socialism that state is. Another focus was here are
Speaker 1: the things you're allowed to do, and here the rights
Speaker 1: that individuals have that the state cannot trespass upon. Oh
Speaker 1: there's been a lot of trespassing on those rights though,
Speaker 1: hasn't there. There's been a lot of that going on
Speaker 1: and not nearly enough pushback on it. Elon Musk, who,
Speaker 1: whether you love Tesla or not, is certainly a dynamic
Speaker 1: and brilliant fellow. He tweeted out earlier. Well, it was
Speaker 1: I guess late last night, free America now in all caps.
Speaker 1: I share the sentiment. It's time to free up this country.
Speaker 1: We can figure this out as we go along. We
Speaker 1: can take necessary steps to protect people in high risk
Speaker 1: groups and in high risk areas without shutting down the
Speaker 1: whole country. This was a mistake. The across the board
Speaker 1: lockdown was the wrong decision. I understand why Trump felt
Speaker 1: tremendous pressure. I understand why different states and governors even
Speaker 1: felt a pressure to do this lockdown some states maybe,
Speaker 1: and really it's just new York, New Jersey, Michigan, some states.
Speaker 1: You could have justified this for two to four weeks,
Speaker 1: but we've gone We've gone past it. It has reached
Speaker 1: its expiration date, and all of this focus on oh,
Speaker 1: we need the testing, and the testing will be in place,
Speaker 1: and without that note, we have to start living life again.
Speaker 1: We have to accept this. I'm going to be somebody
Speaker 1: who's out in the red zone in New York City.
Speaker 1: I will be I'm already going to stores and outside
Speaker 1: interacting with people. But I'm somebody who's going to be
Speaker 1: living in the highest risk part of the country. But
Speaker 1: I'm a relatively low risk by age individual, and I'm
Speaker 1: willing to take the risk. And I know that that
Speaker 1: means there's going to have to be some other procedures
Speaker 1: in place for those of us who do have people
Speaker 1: in our lives who are at higher risk. And I
Speaker 1: understand that this might mean that some people have to
Speaker 1: continue on a regiment of extraordinary caution for the weeks
Speaker 1: and months ahead. But we're more likely to have an
Speaker 1: economy that can beat the virus, who are more likely
Speaker 1: to be able to sustain frontline medical personnel, pay them,
Speaker 1: keep them in status at the hospital where they're actually
Speaker 1: doing things to help people, and help people who don't
Speaker 1: have COVID nineteen. By the way, if those of us
Speaker 1: who are at lower risk are productive and engaged, you know,
Speaker 1: we have to remember it, some one, What exactly are
Speaker 1: we fighting for. I'm not fighting for the I'm not
Speaker 1: fighting for a future of being safe at home and
Speaker 1: having a fridge full of food and we'll talk about
Speaker 1: the possible meat shortage later. No, we want we want
Speaker 1: the liberty to pick what our future will be, and
Speaker 1: that means the right to make individual decisions that entail
Speaker 1: some degree of risk. There's been a fundamental shift away
Speaker 1: from this that's happened in our society where you have
Speaker 1: this this panic ism or safety ism, as Heather McDonald
Speaker 1: called it in her article this week. And we do
Speaker 1: not live lives of safety ism. We live lives of
Speaker 1: balanced and assessed risk of all different kinds and of
Speaker 1: many different ways. Free American. Now Elon says, I'm with him.
Speaker 1: It's time you're in the freedom. This is the Buck
Speaker 1: Sex and Show podcast. Now. I can understand that there's
Speaker 1: a tendency to think others, especially those who are in charge,
Speaker 1: especially those who do not share a similar philosophical foundation
Speaker 1: about government, the state, individual rights as you and I do.
Speaker 1: You would think that they are also seeing the situation
Speaker 1: with clear eyes, full hearts, can't lose, so that they're
Speaker 1: seeing this in a way that all of us can
Speaker 1: start from a premise that we hold some things in
Speaker 1: common about what's going on and what should be done
Speaker 1: in this country. Unfortunately, we are now in for quite
Speaker 1: a struggle because there are number of different factors coming together.
Speaker 1: There's a mass panic, a massister area over this where
Speaker 1: it's very hard to penetrate this with facts and data.
Speaker 1: There is a enormous political motive which we're not supposed
Speaker 1: to talk about. And the political motive, of course is
Speaker 1: to make sure that the economy, the economy can suffer
Speaker 1: and suffer and suffer, which is going to hurt Trump's
Speaker 1: reelection chances. We all know that. And the people that
Speaker 1: are pushing for a more suffering economy are going to
Speaker 1: say we were saving lives, so they get to feel
Speaker 1: self righteous about it too. And then you have the States,
Speaker 1: and people forgot this, but states, once they have a
Speaker 1: taste of certain powers, the people in charge think that
Speaker 1: they should continue to wield those powers. They do not
Speaker 1: want to give them back. They do not say, yeah,
Speaker 1: that was fun, but or that was necessary, but we're
Speaker 1: going to move on to something else. And that's what
Speaker 1: we're facing now. We're facing that recognition and realization and
Speaker 1: also that there are private sector businesses that are willing
Speaker 1: to go along with efforts to suppress dissent, to shut
Speaker 1: down the discussion that all of us should be having
Speaker 1: about what's an intelligent response given where we are right now.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's the focus on what has happened, and
Speaker 1: we do some of that here, but I'm most concerned
Speaker 1: on how quickly can we get things back up and running. Remember,
Speaker 1: the economic damage here is time delayed. We're not going
Speaker 1: to really understand how many businesses are not going to reopen,
Speaker 1: how much the debt that we're accruing is going to
Speaker 1: drag on our economy and future growth, and also the
Speaker 1: changes in daily life and the way that they're going
Speaker 1: to affect even once we start to reopen, how they're
Speaker 1: going to affect different industries and businesses they're out there,
Speaker 1: and what that means for people. There's going to be
Speaker 1: an enormous shift of workers, of wealth, of time, allocation
Speaker 1: of careers and that can be a painful process. In
Speaker 1: the end, maybe you get to a better place through
Speaker 1: that kind of economic evolution, But in the short term,
Speaker 1: it means a lot of people without a check. It
Speaker 1: means a lot of people who are going to be
Speaker 1: going through a painful time. And we're just starting to
Speaker 1: really get a sense of how broad that is and
Speaker 1: what that's really going to look like for months, if
Speaker 1: not perhaps a year or two ahead of us. You know,
Speaker 1: if this were so easy, if it were possible to
Speaker 1: just have the government right checks to keep an economy going,
Speaker 1: why shouldn't we just give ourselves an eight week paid
Speaker 1: vacation every year courtesy of Uncle Sam. There would be
Speaker 1: no good reason unless there were negative consequences to that
Speaker 1: for all of us, and we understand that there are
Speaker 1: negative consequences, but no one has been focused on that.
Speaker 1: Now we've been told stay home, you'll get money, you'll
Speaker 1: get paid, and we'll send you cash. Just make sure
Speaker 1: you've got plenty of mac and cheese and soda in
Speaker 1: the fridge and whatever else, and everything's going to be fine.
Speaker 1: People want to go back to work. People are tired
Speaker 1: of this, and the data does not support this. Continued
Speaker 1: across the board shutdown. I have to keep repeating that
Speaker 1: just because we have to get this through into people's heads. Yes,
Speaker 1: this disease is dangerous, particularly dangerous to a certain percentage
Speaker 1: of the population. Yes, it has been a horrible death
Speaker 1: pull so far. We were not prepared for this, and
Speaker 1: it's a stunning it's a stunning failure of government to
Speaker 1: have been able to handle this better. Fine, all true,
Speaker 1: But now now I want to see more and more
Speaker 1: states adopting the policies of individual freedom and economic choice
Speaker 1: that we should all have as part of our day
Speaker 1: to day lives. I mean, New York they're talking about this.
Speaker 1: Might you know, we got a twelve step program and
Speaker 1: we got to have this amount of tracing for this
Speaker 1: amount of individual They're never going to be able to
Speaker 1: test and trace. Give me a break, They're never gonna
Speaker 1: be able to do this. They've never been able to
Speaker 1: do this for a disease at this scale and this
Speaker 1: speed of spread. And we think that now we're going
Speaker 1: to figure this out, and you're going to New York
Speaker 1: is doing this. We're gonna pin our hopes for returning
Speaker 1: to some degree of not just normalcy, some degree of
Speaker 1: a life that we get up and look forward to
Speaker 1: with things to do, with the ability to go out
Speaker 1: there and make a difference and make choices. We're going
Speaker 1: to pin that on government setting up a test and
Speaker 1: trace program that is well beyond not just their capabilities now,
Speaker 1: but no one really thinks they're gonna be able to
Speaker 1: do this, think of the resources involved and for what
Speaker 1: So that we have a better idea of where there
Speaker 1: are infections in the country than we would based on
Speaker 1: people who currently know that they're infected based on the symptoms,
Speaker 1: and then go and get a test. We're going to
Speaker 1: try to track all asymptomatic carriers. I keep hearing that
Speaker 1: that's the plan, and then I look around and I say,
Speaker 1: that can really be the plan? Is it? But no,
Speaker 1: it is for them, it is. And it's very political too,
Speaker 1: because if you go against test and trace, if you
Speaker 1: go too fast, guess what, it's all Trump's fault. That's
Speaker 1: what they're going to say, because the federal government should
Speaker 1: be doing it. Thanks for listening to The Bust. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. This is a time when
Speaker 1: it's particularly important that we have open and free dialogue, debate,
Speaker 1: discussion about what's happening in the country, because it affects
Speaker 1: all of us. Nobody is immune from this, no one
Speaker 1: is unaffected by It is something that we are all
Speaker 1: very much dragged into in the middle of and has
Speaker 1: a really negative impact on us. The shutdown across the nation,
Speaker 1: the shutdown of our states, of our businesses, of the economy.
Speaker 1: This has affected everyone that I know. This has affected
Speaker 1: me and my business too. This is not a good time,
Speaker 1: a fun time to be in particular media that doesn't have,
Speaker 1: you know, a legacy corporate entity that owns it, right,
Speaker 1: I mean, you know where I'm not doing a radio
Speaker 1: show for a company that is, you know, owned by
Speaker 1: Disney or you know, it's it's not one of these
Speaker 1: massive conglomerates along the lines of what you have at
Speaker 1: the cable at some of the big cable news network.
Speaker 1: So everyone's affected by this. I mean everyone is being
Speaker 1: just because of ad revenue, the lack of demand and everything.
Speaker 1: And that's just on the economic side, on the psychological side,
Speaker 1: on the health side. And I might have a chance
Speaker 1: to talk to you about what we're seeing early stage
Speaker 1: of this, what we're seeing based on the data in Oregon,
Speaker 1: mortality data in Oregon, and what that is telling us.
Speaker 1: It's not what you would think right now based on
Speaker 1: a lot of the narrative around COVID nineteen, but we
Speaker 1: should be hearing from experts. And one thing that has
Speaker 1: been consistent is that we were told for weeks, do
Speaker 1: your part to help the frontline medical workers. Stay home,
Speaker 1: shut up, wear a mask. We don't want to hear it.
Speaker 1: Do your part. That's what that was really the message.
Speaker 1: I mean maybe they were a little more gentle with
Speaker 1: it than that, but that's more or less what it
Speaker 1: boiled down to. If you want to help us, if
Speaker 1: you want to help the medical workers, you absolutely have
Speaker 1: to not be out and trying to be living other
Speaker 1: parts of your life. You have to stay home. Okay, Well,
Speaker 1: now we've got doctors who are coming forward to We're
Speaker 1: saying increasingly, no, I don't want to do that. This
Speaker 1: doctor at St. Barnabas Hospital in the Bronx, which has
Speaker 1: been hit very badly. Those of you are familiar with
Speaker 1: in New York City don't know the Bronx pretty well.
Speaker 1: It's an area that has had a really high for hospitalizations,
Speaker 1: a large number of hospitalizations, but also, the mortality rate
Speaker 1: has been high and minority, the minority community in the Bronx.
Speaker 1: The Bronx is a very large minority community in general,
Speaker 1: they've been hit particularly badly by this, and it's just
Speaker 1: it's been brutal, it's been terrible. A doctor who's a
Speaker 1: frontline er doc in Barnabas hospitals like, look, here's what's
Speaker 1: really going on. He wrote this in the New York
Speaker 1: Post over the weekend. He says, there's there's some terrible
Speaker 1: stuff happening here, but it is only really affecting the
Speaker 1: population that we had thought all along was at highest risk,
Speaker 1: and we're doing the best we can for that population.
Speaker 1: But the disease had already spread wide before, broadly, before
Speaker 1: we had this lockdown in place. And this doctor who
Speaker 1: is he's dealing with COVID patients all day long, trying
Speaker 1: to save lives, trying to protect people, and he's saying
Speaker 1: that to most of the population, the risk is very
Speaker 1: low and the economic and health impacts health impacts of
Speaker 1: the lockdown are disastrous, and with each day get worse
Speaker 1: and worse and worse. There is no antibody to a
Speaker 1: bad economy. There is no okay We're just going to
Speaker 1: wait this out for a bad economy, right, That's not possible.
Speaker 1: So that's where you start to have these doctors who
Speaker 1: are coming out, and they're very brave because they're really
Speaker 1: speaking against a medical community consensus. Look, I'm just gonna
Speaker 1: say it. Most doctors in certain fields are they tend
Speaker 1: to be Democrats. Surgeons tend to lean Republican, which I
Speaker 1: think is very interesting. There are some fields where you
Speaker 1: have a higher percentage surgeons, heart surgeons, brain surgeons tend
Speaker 1: to be Republican. Psychiatrists mostly Libs, huge majority of psychiaterest
Speaker 1: or liberals. But there is a hashtag science consensus that
Speaker 1: it's settled in. Now. When I say it's a consensus,
Speaker 1: that's a perception, it's not a reality. Doesn't mean that
Speaker 1: every doc agrees with this. And certainly some of the
Speaker 1: docks that I've been talking to, probably because some of
Speaker 1: them are social acquaintances of mine as well. But here
Speaker 1: in New York we're dealing with COVID, they haven't agreed
Speaker 1: with the across the board lockdown policy. I mean some
Speaker 1: of them were, like I've said, there are like two weeks,
Speaker 1: maybe because we could have shut down for two weeks.
Speaker 1: It would have been okay, it would have been painful
Speaker 1: for businesses, but that we could have bounced back from that.
Speaker 1: That would have been very manageable. A month, six weeks,
Speaker 1: eight weeks, ten weeks. It's not manageable. It's not something
Speaker 1: that's worth the cost. But you have this case. So
Speaker 1: there are doctors that are coming out and they're saying
Speaker 1: that they're the ones that are seeing the worst of
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen every day. They're the ones that are seeing
Speaker 1: the Wuhan coronavirus destroying, you know, certain communities here in
Speaker 1: New York, not really doing very much to a lot
Speaker 1: of states with much less population density, but destroying people
Speaker 1: here in New York City and destroying families. And then
Speaker 1: the loss of life is terrible, and they're saying, we
Speaker 1: still have to go on, and we still have to
Speaker 1: go forward with life. We can't continue to lockdown. You're
Speaker 1: hearing doctors saying this, Now, that's a big change, that's
Speaker 1: the big switch. And then you have this situation with
Speaker 1: doctors from Accelerated Urgent Care out in Bakersfield, California, doctors
Speaker 1: Dan Ericson and artin Massihi, and they just did a
Speaker 1: sit down a conference really with twenty three ABC. So
Speaker 1: credit to twenty three ABC for putting this together. And
Speaker 1: the video went megaviral and the millions and millions and
Speaker 1: millions of views, and they and he's here's why the
Speaker 1: video went megaviral in that way because they said things
Speaker 1: like this, cases that we already know about. So if
Speaker 1: we look at California, these numbers are from yesterday, we
Speaker 1: have thirty three thousand, eight hundred and sixty five COVID
Speaker 1: cases out of a total of two hundred and eighty thousand,
Speaker 1: nine hundred total testing. That's twelve percent of Californians we're
Speaker 1: positive for COVID. So we don't the initial as you
Speaker 1: guys know, the initial models were we're willfully inaccurate. They
Speaker 1: predicted millions of cases of death, not of not of
Speaker 1: prevalence or incidents, but death that is not materializing. WHOA
Speaker 1: hold on a second, you're you're you're not allowed to
Speaker 1: say that it's true. But doctor doctor whatever his name
Speaker 1: is here for God, for a second, I think it
Speaker 1: is doctor Ericson. Is that right? Yeah? Yeah, doctor Ericson.
Speaker 1: Not allowed to say that, not allowed to point out
Speaker 1: what we already know to be the case, which is
Speaker 1: the models we're way off. Oh, but he goes further
Speaker 1: than that. What is materializing in the state of California
Speaker 1: is twelve percent positives. Well, if we thirty nine point
Speaker 1: five million people, if we just take a basic calculation
Speaker 1: and extrapolate that out, that equates to about four point
Speaker 1: seven million cases throughout the state of California, which means
Speaker 1: this thing is widespread. That's the good news. We've seen
Speaker 1: one thousand, two hundred and twenty seven deaths in the
Speaker 1: state of California with a possible incidence or prevalence of
Speaker 1: four point seven million. That means you have a zero
Speaker 1: point zero three chance of dying from COVID nineteen the
Speaker 1: state of California. Zero point zero three chance of dying
Speaker 1: from COVID in the state of California. Is that? Does
Speaker 1: that necessitate sheltering in place? Does that necessitate shutting down
Speaker 1: medical systems? Does that necessitate people being out of work?
Speaker 1: Does it? Does anybody want to try to answer that?
Speaker 1: Does anybody have any interest in what these doctors are saying? Well,
Speaker 1: the answer we know is that of course millions of people,
Speaker 1: millions of people wanted to hear what these doctors had
Speaker 1: to say, and they're they're treating this is the data
Speaker 1: that they have collected, and they are frontline medical docs
Speaker 1: doing everything that they can, everything possible to save lives
Speaker 1: and to help people. And this one doc, doctor Ericson,
Speaker 1: is saying, look, you have a very instate of California.
Speaker 1: You have a very very very small chance of dying
Speaker 1: from this. This date of California is on lockdown like
Speaker 1: it's New York. Why it shouldn't be. This doesn't make
Speaker 1: any sense. It's not a good idea that data doesn't
Speaker 1: support it. Now, you'd think that this would be very
Speaker 1: important for people to be able to hear to see
Speaker 1: for themselves. You should watch this whole video. It's about
Speaker 1: about forty five fifty minutes long. Or it just goes
Speaker 1: through all the data, tells you what he thinks you
Speaker 1: should be in a position where you can make your
Speaker 1: own terminations about what their recommendations are and what they're
Speaker 1: thinking about all of this. But you know what happened.
Speaker 1: It got pulled down. YouTube decided that this was a
Speaker 1: violation of its terms of service. I think I mentioned
Speaker 1: this in the show yesterday, and I know Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: talked about this a bit last night on his show.
Speaker 1: Why would YouTube pull this down? These are two medical
Speaker 1: doctors talking about data and talking about what they are seeing,
Speaker 1: what they're up to, you meaning that what they're seeing
Speaker 1: from the actual process of trying to save patients lives
Speaker 1: and do everything they end for them, and YouTube pulls
Speaker 1: it down. How could that be? It seems so completely bizarre.
Speaker 1: And here's what YouTube said, quote, we quickly remove flagged
Speaker 1: content that violate our community guidelines, including content that explicitly
Speaker 1: disputes the fic see of local healthy authority recommended guidance
Speaker 1: or health authority. It says healthy health authority recommended guidance
Speaker 1: on social distancing that may lead others to act against
Speaker 1: that guidance. So, now science, which is all about testing
Speaker 1: and retesting hypotheses and assumptions and data, this is remembered
Speaker 1: the global warming consensus. I mean, this is how the left,
Speaker 1: the Libs like to think about these issues. There's a
Speaker 1: way that you're allowed to talk about there's a way
Speaker 1: you're allowed to think about it, and then if you
Speaker 1: deviate from that, if you even ask questions about it,
Speaker 1: you're a problem. Do as you're told. Peasant not allowed
Speaker 1: to ask any questions. YouTube is going along with this?
Speaker 1: How can anyone think that this violates community guidlance? You
Speaker 1: don't violence community guidelines. State governors acting like petty tyrants
Speaker 1: telling you that you have to stay inside, police using
Speaker 1: sting operations to determine whether or not someone is offering
Speaker 1: their services as a nail salon person to people behind
Speaker 1: closed doors to paint their nails and whatever people do
Speaker 1: it in Nelson. I don't even know, but that to
Speaker 1: me is a violation. Isn't it Arresting somebody in front
Speaker 1: of his or her children before being in a public
Speaker 1: playground when there's basically no risk. We're starting to say this,
Speaker 1: there's basically no risk from being in public in the
Speaker 1: open air if you maintain even a basic normal human
Speaker 1: distance from people you know. Usually you don't walk out,
Speaker 1: go to the park and start nuzzling strangers. So as
Speaker 1: long as you just maintain some personal boundaries, your risk
Speaker 1: is effectively zero. That's what the science says. Meanwhile, we
Speaker 1: got idiots running all over the place telling us you've
Speaker 1: got to be masked in public all the time. No,
Speaker 1: that doesn't make sense. This is now superstition. This has
Speaker 1: turned into some kind of public sanctimony, competition about who
Speaker 1: gets to be who is the most dedicated to fighting
Speaker 1: against COVID nineteen by wearing the mask the most. This
Speaker 1: is absurd, it's stupid, but we're not allowed to talk
Speaker 1: about it. We're supposed to the largest video sharing platform
Speaker 1: in the world, YouTube is going to shut that down now.
Speaker 1: Fortunately it's up in a whole lot of other places,
Speaker 1: and it's just made the video. As so often happens
Speaker 1: with censorship, it makes the video even more enticing. People
Speaker 1: want to see it even more now they realize that
Speaker 1: it was at least temporarily forbidden to them. But I
Speaker 1: sit here and I just can't help but think about
Speaker 1: how this is playing out and everything that we thought
Speaker 1: about the status, everything that we've thought about the left,
Speaker 1: we're being reminded of it now. They want power, they
Speaker 1: like to wield power. They don't care about your individual rights.
Speaker 1: And there is this mentality among the establishment political and
Speaker 1: media class that science is something that you just say,
Speaker 1: and it's a slogan, and you can bludgeon other people
Speaker 1: into submission by saying science, you know, even if you're
Speaker 1: completely ignorant of even the most basic tenets of science.
Speaker 1: And that's what's happening right now. They have no explanations
Speaker 1: for while the models were so off. Remember the models
Speaker 1: were used to tell us all to shelter in place,
Speaker 1: go home, be on lockdown, and that's what this is.
Speaker 1: This is a shelter in place order from states across
Speaker 1: the country. The models were the main justification for that.
Speaker 1: We were not told, look, we might lose sixty thousand
Speaker 1: to seventy thousand people over the next six or seven months,
Speaker 1: but we might also be able to bring that number
Speaker 1: down a bit if we just do the following things. No, no,
Speaker 1: we were told today home, you're going to lose one hundred,
Speaker 1: two hundred fifty thousand people even if you do everything
Speaker 1: we say. So you better do everything we say because
Speaker 1: it could be much much worse than that. My friends
Speaker 1: that were wrong and bending the curve has now turned
Speaker 1: into or flattening the curve has now turned into well,
Speaker 1: we're going to kind of just keep trying to do
Speaker 1: this for as long as possible, because really what ends
Speaker 1: up opening as you just spread the spread of the
Speaker 1: disease out over a longer period of time, which means
Speaker 1: that you're going toward what is a de facto herd
Speaker 1: immunity strategy with mitigation to slow the spread, but not
Speaker 1: to stop it. That's what we're heading for. They won't
Speaker 1: be honest about it, though, so instead what they say
Speaker 1: as well, we might do. And there are some who
Speaker 1: are claiming that we're really just going to have to
Speaker 1: do a series of lockdowns, additional lockdowns. It's time to
Speaker 1: free America. It's time for all of us to be free.
Speaker 1: People want to stay home, they can stay home. You
Speaker 1: don't want to open your business, don't open your business
Speaker 1: you think you're at a high risk. Take whatever precautions you.
Speaker 1: Any American needs to know that you, the American people,
Speaker 1: as individuals, are responsible for your own health. No one
Speaker 1: else cares about it as much as you do. You
Speaker 1: might have loved ones who care a whole huck of
Speaker 1: a lot, but no one cares about your health as
Speaker 1: much as you do as an individual. As a person,
Speaker 1: you need to be empowered to make decisions for it.
Speaker 1: You need to have the best data, the best information possible,
Speaker 1: which is hard, hard when you've got suppression efforts from
Speaker 1: YouTube and others. But it's time to restore the balance
Speaker 1: of freedom in this country, including the risks that come
Speaker 1: from allowing people to make their own decisions about their lives.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom huh. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. In my mind, it's inevitable that we will
Speaker 1: have a return of the virus, or maybe it it
Speaker 1: never even went away. When it does, how we handle it,
Speaker 1: we'll determine our fate. It's coming back, he says. We're
Speaker 1: flattening the curve. Right, We're flattening the curve. Okay, it's
Speaker 1: been flattened. Now what now? We either start to try
Speaker 1: to live life again, or we just hide until a
Speaker 1: hide and prey for a vaccine or a cure while
Speaker 1: the economy and our society crumbles around us. Those are
Speaker 1: the options. Some of us knew this in the beginning,
Speaker 1: and try to tell everybody. I tried, and I will
Speaker 1: tell you even I one. Once I saw those models,
Speaker 1: What am I gonna do? I'm gonna say, Okay, don't
Speaker 1: listen to the authorities. Two million people will die unless
Speaker 1: we do what they say. I didn't know that the
Speaker 1: models were going to be as far off as they were.
Speaker 1: I thought I always bake into my analysis, or building
Speaker 1: into my analysis. I don't know what baking is on
Speaker 1: my mind. I always building my analysis the possibility of
Speaker 1: government inaptitude and stupidity. I didn't think it would be
Speaker 1: off by so much. But initially I said, look, we
Speaker 1: got to go back to work. I understand that there
Speaker 1: are a risk, I understand that there could be additional
Speaker 1: spread of the virus, but we've got to go back
Speaker 1: to work week. We can't do this doesn't make sense.
Speaker 1: And now everyone's saying, wait a second, maybe maybe protecting
Speaker 1: vulnerable populations, taking basic mitigation measures, engaging in some social distancing.
Speaker 1: I also want to see how much the social distancing
Speaker 1: really makes a difference versus the natural spread of the
Speaker 1: virus over the progression of this Remember, it's been in
Speaker 1: the country, and it's been in the country since January February,
Speaker 1: and it was in March when we had this huge
Speaker 1: spike in deaths and mortality, or sorry, it was in
Speaker 1: March when we all realized rather that we were going
Speaker 1: to have that huge spike in deaths and mortality. And
Speaker 1: then the worst of the virus hit late March early April.
Speaker 1: I mean, it was spreading very rapidly. It spread, it
Speaker 1: had spread to millions of people in this country already,
Speaker 1: and then they're telling US. Oh, but because of these
Speaker 1: mitigation measures. I'm sure the mitigation measures help. I'm sure
Speaker 1: the common sense aspects of it do have an impact.
Speaker 1: How much? How much of it is just don't be
Speaker 1: around sick people, self quarantine if you can, and wash
Speaker 1: your hands a lot. That's what I want to know.
Speaker 1: I want to know what the answers are here. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to the bus sets and show podcasts. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or
Speaker 1: wherever you get your podcasts. Democrats, they don't want to
Speaker 1: come back. They don't want to come back. I think
Speaker 1: they should be back here, but they don't. They're enjoying
Speaker 1: their vacation and they shouldn't be there at different and yeah,
Speaker 1: I think they are. I think they are. If you
Speaker 1: look at Nancy Pelosi eating ice cream on late night television, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think they probably are. They having a good time.
Speaker 1: I think they should be back. I think they should
Speaker 1: all come back and we should work on this together.
Speaker 1: President calling out Congress for being amia during this whole situation.
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi certainly has no sense of urgency to help
Speaker 1: the American people. We're now seeing that the early warnings
Speaker 1: about how they'll be there'll be a lack of incentive
Speaker 1: for workers who have been a furloughed or lost their job.
Speaker 1: Well lost their jobs, they've been fired at their furloughed
Speaker 1: I don't think they qualify for this, but there's a
Speaker 1: lack of incentive for them to go back to work
Speaker 1: because they prefer to get the state benefits plus six
Speaker 1: hundred dollars of federal sweetener that was added into it
Speaker 1: for the paycheck protection program. Now, look, I'm I'm not
Speaker 1: about to sit here and say that workers who need
Speaker 1: this money, you know, oh there, they're a bunch of
Speaker 1: fat cats now or anything like that. That's crazy. But
Speaker 1: they did structure this in such a way that Congress
Speaker 1: did make this paycheck Protection program function so that it
Speaker 1: is it is just people acting in their interests, saying
Speaker 1: I'd rather stay and have no exposure to the virus,
Speaker 1: stay home, not go back to work and make more money.
Speaker 1: People are getting paid right now. I mean workers who
Speaker 1: were used to making about fifteen dollars an hour. When
Speaker 1: they look at the full scale of their salary now,
Speaker 1: or rather their full take home pay, they're making a
Speaker 1: thousand dollars a week to not work. Producer Mark. I
Speaker 1: know a lot of people who if they could do
Speaker 1: literally nothing and just do whatever they want, and we're
Speaker 1: going to get a thousand dollars a week, and then
Speaker 1: they knew that there would be jobs probably waiting for
Speaker 1: them when that money ran out, because everyone's gonna be
Speaker 1: looking for jobs. I think a lot of people would
Speaker 1: stay home. I don't think that would be hard to find. Yeah,
Speaker 1: well I wouldn't. They get paid to do nothing. Has
Speaker 1: more money than I was making my first few years
Speaker 1: at the CIA. I wasn't making a thousand dollars a week,
Speaker 1: so even not even close. Really, well, I mean, I
Speaker 1: guess WHOA Sorry, I just smacked the microphone. I guess
Speaker 1: it's I was having a little bit of a flashback
Speaker 1: to being a federal federal bureaucrat and it was getting
Speaker 1: me a little upset. But yeah, I know it's it's
Speaker 1: this is the bill is functioning the way that it's
Speaker 1: supposed to. And guess what, it's functioning in such a
Speaker 1: way that people don't want to go back and do
Speaker 1: their jobs, which is making the slowdown in the economy
Speaker 1: even worse. Remember, there's there's the there's all these different
Speaker 1: components that are not getting any focus right now. The
Speaker 1: businesses that are going to go bankrupt, the industries that
Speaker 1: are going to have a really hard time coming back
Speaker 1: even when they're technically allowed to when the lockdowns end.
Speaker 1: You know, restaurants operating at twenty five percent capacity means
Speaker 1: you're gonna have a whole lot fewer restaurants opening, especially
Speaker 1: in places like New York, which means, you know, tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of jobs are dependent on that. I mean,
Speaker 1: the service industry I think is about one in ten
Speaker 1: jobs in general in this country, and even be I
Speaker 1: think retail might be one in ten. Service industry is
Speaker 1: also something like one intent producer, Mark, take a look
Speaker 1: and tell me what the service industry breakdown is and
Speaker 1: what the retail industry is, because also retail, I think
Speaker 1: a lot of folks are going to say, Okay, well
Speaker 1: do I really want to go to a store if
Speaker 1: I can just have things delivered to my house at
Speaker 1: this point, which had already been happening for a long time,
Speaker 1: But are you going to go to a store if
Speaker 1: you have to wear a mask. Don't have to wear
Speaker 1: a mask. Sitting around with Amazon on your lap or
Speaker 1: with your laptop open to Amazon, don't have to don't
Speaker 1: have to wear a mask for that, at least not
Speaker 1: yet until the crazy Libs get ahold of it. Oh man,
Speaker 1: And that brings me to the Oh, there's so much
Speaker 1: more here. That brings me to the latest, which is
Speaker 1: that Mike Pence was at the Mayo clinic and was
Speaker 1: not wearing a mask, and now we have Pence mask Gate.
Speaker 1: Mike Pence is terrible. What has he done? You know?
Speaker 1: Was Pence? Was he nuzzling anybody? Was he coughing in
Speaker 1: anybody's face? You know? The mask thing is a precaution
Speaker 1: and it's not you know, you would think that they
Speaker 1: could understand that. The Vice president when he's making a
Speaker 1: public appearance. Here you go retail Wow, Brucer Mark on
Speaker 1: the spot here. Retail and service workers make up about
Speaker 1: thirty two percent of the workforce. So I was saying
Speaker 1: about ten percent and about ten percent I was right,
Speaker 1: but a little low on the low end. It's more
Speaker 1: like thirty percent. Retail and service. That's where the jobs are, folks,
Speaker 1: That's where a lot of the jobs across the country
Speaker 1: come from. And those businesses are they are they ever
Speaker 1: really coming back? What are we going to do? The
Speaker 1: Democrats are also going to say, with any bailout for airlines,
Speaker 1: with any bailout, I mean, the cruise ship industry is
Speaker 1: getting a bailout. Like, I'm not a cruise ship guy,
Speaker 1: so I can't say i'm but I understand a lot
Speaker 1: of people work very hard in it, and you know
Speaker 1: that they need to feed their families and everything else.
Speaker 1: But I don't know if that's a business that's gonna work.
Speaker 1: I've thought, you know, I had read enough of these
Speaker 1: stories about you know, neurovirus outbreaks and these other things,
Speaker 1: and I think, I don't know if Coxsacki virus was
Speaker 1: one of but they'd have these these outbreaks of like
Speaker 1: a stomach illness effectively a stomach you call it a
Speaker 1: stomach flu, even though I don't think it's a flu,
Speaker 1: and they'd have these on these ships and it would
Speaker 1: just turn into a giant floating peatree dish. And that
Speaker 1: was before COVID nineteen. So I'm not a cruise guy.
Speaker 1: Producer Mark has actually done a cruise. You liked it, right,
Speaker 1: You said it was good. Yeah, I enjoyed it. I
Speaker 1: don't know, well, you know, I have one scheduled for December.
Speaker 1: I don't know if I'm going on it right now.
Speaker 1: I see that. You're a perfect example. What I mean,
Speaker 1: even if they say, oh no, Mark, it's fine, You're
Speaker 1: allowed to go on your cruise. You're gonna get your
Speaker 1: money back. You're gonna go on that cruise as of
Speaker 1: right now, this second, I'm getting my money back. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's what I figured. Yeah, And I like, I can't
Speaker 1: can't argue with that. I mean, I would do the
Speaker 1: same thing if I were if I were in that out.
Speaker 1: I had actually put down a deposit to go to
Speaker 1: a beach um in December for my birthday, and I'm
Speaker 1: hoping I might still be able to go, but who knows.
Speaker 1: I mean, the world is crazy right now and everyone's
Speaker 1: we're all just being fed such a such an overwhelming
Speaker 1: diet of fear. But oh no, don't worry that the
Speaker 1: Democrats have got all this covered. And that's why they're
Speaker 1: yelling about Pence and about about how Trump is a
Speaker 1: conspiracy theorist. Pence isn't wearing a mask playing here's fake
Speaker 1: Republican Nicole Wallace. These people I just want to note,
Speaker 1: and I just let me say this before I get
Speaker 1: as I've always told you, and I'm honest with you
Speaker 1: about whatever mine, whatever my rules are for this show.
Speaker 1: I don't trash friends of mine and so people that
Speaker 1: I am friends with and have known for years, even
Speaker 1: when they have gone to the dark side, even when
Speaker 1: they have betrayed the team so to speak, or at
Speaker 1: least Republican team. I don't mean team Buck. That's different.
Speaker 1: You know, someone cross the swords of the publicly, then
Speaker 1: it's fair game. But if someone decides that they're going
Speaker 1: to be, you know, an ideological turncoat, I will not
Speaker 1: trash them if they're my friend the show. Just so
Speaker 1: you know that, because some of you always reach out
Speaker 1: to me, what about so and so, and I'm like, uh,
Speaker 1: you know, look back into my past. You can generally
Speaker 1: tell who in the media business I'm pretty cozy with
Speaker 1: and and I. But I'm but see, I'm honest with
Speaker 1: you about that. The same way that I tell you
Speaker 1: that I'm not doing neutral reports here that I have
Speaker 1: an opinion. I also do not trash. I will not
Speaker 1: ever lie about any of my friends or or promote
Speaker 1: people that I think don't deserve it or anything like that.
Speaker 1: But I will not attack them unless they attack me,
Speaker 1: and which unfortunately does occasionally happen too. But some of
Speaker 1: these former Nicole Wallace is not I've never met her,
Speaker 1: don't know her, and you know, she seems like a horrible, smug,
Speaker 1: nasty person who's not really good at anything. And there's
Speaker 1: a lot of that in the Bush administration. You look back,
Speaker 1: the Bush administration had a lot of really really impressive,
Speaker 1: unimpressive folks. Um and you know, there's the early early
Speaker 1: stage Trump administration. Anyone want to argue with me about
Speaker 1: the bad choices made there because Michael Cohen called and
Speaker 1: he wants a charge you, Oh, oh, he can't charge
Speaker 1: you eight hundred dollars an hour, and he works. I
Speaker 1: think he lost his law license. There's some very bad
Speaker 1: choices made there too. Just because someone who works from
Speaker 1: an administration doesn't mean they have anything worthwhile to offer
Speaker 1: or worthwhile to say. And I think it's important that
Speaker 1: all of us remember that. But here is Nicole Wallace
Speaker 1: over at MSNBC just doing what she expects she's supposed
Speaker 1: to do, which is just feed the MSNBC audience of
Speaker 1: poorly informed, ideologically brainwashed lives a steady diet of Trump
Speaker 1: Pence hatred. And so she serves that up with Glee
Speaker 1: play nine, the second most powerful man in the world,
Speaker 1: revealing himself in this video as a coronavirus truther, or
Speaker 1: at least a mask truther. He's also much closer than
Speaker 1: six feet. I mean, to touch an elbow, you have
Speaker 1: to touch something, So he's closer than six feet. And
Speaker 1: forget that he's the vice president. This is the kind
Speaker 1: of hu human being that repels me in the grocery
Speaker 1: store of the Walmart. I mean, I don't want to
Speaker 1: be that close to anybody while we're still at this
Speaker 1: phase of the pandemic. So the president and vice President
Speaker 1: have really revealed themselves as this wacky combination of conspiracy theorists,
Speaker 1: quack medical proponents, and truthers. He either doesn't believe that
Speaker 1: the mask is keeping people safe or he doesn't think
Speaker 1: that rule applies to him. And the danger here isn't
Speaker 1: that people like your meal see that and not wear
Speaker 1: our masks. There's so much wrong and so much stupid
Speaker 1: there that I don't even really have time to go
Speaker 1: over it. I would just say a few things. One is,
Speaker 1: the vice president has been tested already numerous times for
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen. He is negative, so it's not a lot
Speaker 1: of us could be walking around. I could be an
Speaker 1: asymptomatic carrier right now, and I would have no way
Speaker 1: of knowing percentage wise. And this is all about risk,
Speaker 1: It's all about percentages, it's all about likelihood. The percentage
Speaker 1: chance that somebody who in the last couple of weeks
Speaker 1: has been tested in is negative for COVID nineteen now
Speaker 1: to have COVID nineteen and is really and is asymptomatic
Speaker 1: is very very low. You know that the vice president
Speaker 1: would have picked this up after being negative until whatever
Speaker 1: it was a week or two ago when he had
Speaker 1: his last test strikes me as highly implausible. And no
Speaker 1: one's wearing masks all the time in all circumstances. There's
Speaker 1: no such thing as perfect security. There's no such thing
Speaker 1: as perfect protection from the virus. So what the heck
Speaker 1: is in Nicole the idiot wallast talking about here? They're truthers.
Speaker 1: What does that mean they don't believe the virus is real? MSNBC.
Speaker 1: You can make a really fun montage and it's really
Speaker 1: in retrospect tragic. But you can make a montage as
Speaker 1: I'm saying, the virus is fine, it's no big deal,
Speaker 1: you know, And then when we all found out it
Speaker 1: was going to be much worse than anticipated. Now it's
Speaker 1: all Trump's fault, which is the single most important thing
Speaker 1: that the media can focus on now, Not stories about
Speaker 1: therapeutics that maybe you're going to save a lot of lives,
Speaker 1: not getting everyone ready for the psychological burden of having
Speaker 1: to accept the risk of being out there and going
Speaker 1: back to work, being involved in day to day life
Speaker 1: in a way that is not continuous, endless shutdown. Instead
Speaker 1: of the press rising to this occasion, they've gotten worse,
Speaker 1: worse than they've ever been. And then you have the
Speaker 1: Democrats who no surprise that they are still disgraceful, I
Speaker 1: mean completely disgraceful on this topic, and that's not going
Speaker 1: to change anytime soon. You're in the freedom hunt. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. The Washington Post
Speaker 1: who have reported that the PDB, the President's Daily Brief,
Speaker 1: was sounding the alarms over the spread of COVID in
Speaker 1: China and the lethal danger that it posed to Americans
Speaker 1: as early as January. Were you aware of that at
Speaker 1: the time. No, But I'll tell you this as an
Speaker 1: intelligence person, I've over twenty five years experienced in the
Speaker 1: intelligence community. The President daily briefing is just so very
Speaker 1: important decision making and the rest. So what you've just
Speaker 1: heard begs the question, what did the president know and
Speaker 1: when did he know it? In addition to which the
Speaker 1: scientists tell him and when did he tell them? Because actually,
Speaker 1: as a matter of fact, this president has presided over
Speaker 1: the worst disaster in our country's history, an assault on
Speaker 1: the lives and the livelihood of livelihoods of the American people,
Speaker 1: and they did so by neglect of information, also denial
Speaker 1: and delay in accepting the facts. That's going to be
Speaker 1: the pitch for why the American people should vote for
Speaker 1: unimpressive buffoon Biden and credibly accused of sexual assault buffoon
Speaker 1: Biden in the fall, that Trump has presided over the
Speaker 1: worst disaster in the history of this country, and it's
Speaker 1: all his fault, and it's his fault because he didn't
Speaker 1: listen to the experts, even though we have video of
Speaker 1: the experts, including doctor Fauci, Saint Faucci himself, who was
Speaker 1: telling us that this was not anything to be concerned
Speaker 1: about in January and into February. So why would the
Speaker 1: president have known? Differently, how would it be possible unless
Speaker 1: Fauci was out lying to the American people, which would
Speaker 1: be a whole separate problem. But this is just the
Speaker 1: rewriting of history that will occur. They will lie about this,
Speaker 1: they will scheme, they will omit, and they will have
Speaker 1: the media doing their bidding all along. And that's the
Speaker 1: Democrat plan to defeat Trump in the reelection. And they
Speaker 1: are rooting for failure here with the reopening of the economy.
Speaker 1: They are they would like to see real economic pain.
Speaker 1: There were liberals you will recall, who were admitting that
Speaker 1: they wanted a recession before all this happened, because it
Speaker 1: would mean that Trump wouldn't win. In fact, and I
Speaker 1: think that she would. She would back me up on
Speaker 1: saying this. In the first weeks that I was doing
Speaker 1: that show Rising at the Hill dot com, I told
Speaker 1: my then co host Crystal Ball several times, I said, look,
Speaker 1: you don't have to agree with me, and I'm just
Speaker 1: saying she would back up that. I said this to
Speaker 1: her many times. This is the only way Trump doesn't
Speaker 1: win reelection is if we have a major recession that
Speaker 1: hits a cyclical recession that has nothing to do with Trump,
Speaker 1: which is really what this is in a sense, it's
Speaker 1: not an economic recession or a cyclical economic recession. It's
Speaker 1: a recession that has been caused by a you know,
Speaker 1: the cycle of pandemics. Really, it's just a much longer
Speaker 1: cycle than other things that we see with ten year
Speaker 1: about every ten years you have some kind of a
Speaker 1: correction in the market. Well, it looks like about every
Speaker 1: hundred years we get hit with a really bad pandemic.
Speaker 1: Although we had been hit with some bad ones in
Speaker 1: the last ten years, that we should have last twenty years,
Speaker 1: we should have paid closer attention to I think that's
Speaker 1: clear at this point. But the Democrats don't have any
Speaker 1: answers about how to make any of this stuff really better.
Speaker 1: I thought this was interesting. Here's here's AOC the most
Speaker 1: famous and most ignorant Democrat congress person I think right now.
Speaker 1: Certainly if you add those two together, points for ignorance
Speaker 1: and points for famousness she is. She's both shockingly ignorant
Speaker 1: and very very prominent in left wing media. Here's what
Speaker 1: she says. Played nineteen, mass unemployment in the United States
Speaker 1: was a choice. We had policy options in front of us,
Speaker 1: and we could have guaranteed payrolls in the United States
Speaker 1: of America to prevent any person from losing their job
Speaker 1: due to coronavirus, And what did elected officials do? What
Speaker 1: did Mitch McConnell do, What did Donald Trump do? They
Speaker 1: chose not to do that. So these are not things
Speaker 1: that happened by accident. Unemployment is not happening by accident.
Speaker 1: I just would want to know what her response would
Speaker 1: have been. Then. It seems that I think we'll get
Speaker 1: to if somebody does drilled down on this with AOC
Speaker 1: if she's even thought this through, is that the government
Speaker 1: just should have started paying people directly instead of trying
Speaker 1: to pay people through their employer. But that would have
Speaker 1: been even more complicated, wouldn't We saw them run out
Speaker 1: of money, We saw that there were log jams that happened.
Speaker 1: But also we don't want the government to be paying
Speaker 1: people with money that is being debased in real time,
Speaker 1: being devalued in real time because there is no productivity
Speaker 1: behind it. We're now all just running this massive experiment
Speaker 1: on does money have value? What is the value of
Speaker 1: money if there is nothing other than the full faith
Speaker 1: and credit of the United States Government to back that up? Well,
Speaker 1: the full faith and credit of the United States Government
Speaker 1: is worth what it is because of what all of
Speaker 1: us do day to day. It's not just value because
Speaker 1: the government says its value. There is something behind that promise.
Speaker 1: There is the creation of products and the provision of
Speaker 1: goods and services. There's intellectual property there. You know, there
Speaker 1: are holdings of real estate and factories, and you know
Speaker 1: there is an economy behind the currency. And right now
Speaker 1: we're testing out how far can we stretch the a
Speaker 1: currency without the currency without having an underlying economy to
Speaker 1: back up what we're doing with the currency. This is
Speaker 1: if you told somebody before this all happened that this
Speaker 1: was the government's plan for all, but I think they
Speaker 1: would be terrified because we are playing with fire, dancing
Speaker 1: around a whole bunch of gasoline canisters. That's what we're
Speaker 1: doing with the economy right now. It is a terrible,
Speaker 1: terrible risk we are taking. By the time, Look, did
Speaker 1: any you know people didn't see the financial meltdown in
Speaker 1: two thousand and eight, which they told us could have
Speaker 1: could have destroyed the global economy, and all the experts
Speaker 1: and all the FED chair and they didn't see that.
Speaker 1: You're gonna tell me that they've got this whole thing
Speaker 1: worked out right now and they have to listen to
Speaker 1: people like Pelosi and AOC and Pelosi is just the worst,
Speaker 1: the worst, blaming Trump, pretending intelligence. Pelosi is an imbecile. Oh,
Speaker 1: I know, she's powerful and she's rich. They're a lot
Speaker 1: of dumb, powerful, rich people. A lot of them work
Speaker 1: in media. Actually, in fact, I think some of the
Speaker 1: dumbest are also some of the rich, the most powerful.
Speaker 1: It's true at Congress too. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bus Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast, the
Speaker 1: iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. Well,
Speaker 1: look at this. We've got Justin Amash, congressman who's now
Speaker 1: going to be running as a third party candidate or
Speaker 1: has has has been toying with this idea and now
Speaker 1: looks like what he's launched a He's launched the Exploratory
Speaker 1: Committee right the step right before one runs for president
Speaker 1: as a Libertarian Party candidate. The Washington Post headline here
Speaker 1: tells you a lot about what they're thinking. Justin Amash
Speaker 1: could have a big impact on the twenty twenty presidential race.
Speaker 1: But how well. Justin Amash is a on the issue
Speaker 1: of civil liberties and surveillance, and the deep state has
Speaker 1: shown himself to be a fraud. He was all in
Speaker 1: on the Russia collusion hoak stuff. He couldn't see through
Speaker 1: that at all and had no problem with what was
Speaker 1: going on, had no problem with the FI acting as
Speaker 1: a weapon as an instrument of Democratic Party political control.
Speaker 1: In fact, he was a cheerleader for it. He was
Speaker 1: fine with it. Completely utterly wrong on Russian coclusion, as
Speaker 1: we see now also from not just the additional information
Speaker 1: that's come out from the Inspector General report, but also
Speaker 1: what we now know from additional disclosure in the case
Speaker 1: against General Michael Flynn, where he was set up, which
Speaker 1: I've been telling you for years, it was very obvious.
Speaker 1: You don't send in the FBI to talk to the
Speaker 1: National Security Advisor about the Logan Act unless you're desperate
Speaker 1: to concoct some scheme to come up with a criminal
Speaker 1: charge against him, which is which is exactly what they did.
Speaker 1: And it was the Obama administration on the way out,
Speaker 1: lashing out at Trump and his people for beating Hillary
Speaker 1: and taking power out of the hands of the Democrats
Speaker 1: and people that ideologically and psychologically and emotionally identify with
Speaker 1: the Democratic Party, irrespective of whether they say they're nonpartisan,
Speaker 1: but who work at the FBI and the DOJ. Never
Speaker 1: mind the appointees who are clearly partisans that Obama put
Speaker 1: in place. They took it upon themselves to abuse their power,
Speaker 1: to abuse the law, and to try and undo the
Speaker 1: election results of the twenty sixteen presidential That's what they did.
Speaker 1: And where was Amash, the civil libertarian and all that?
Speaker 1: Who knows? He was horrible on this issue. And I
Speaker 1: think that the number of people who care about this
Speaker 1: guy running is tiny. And this is where you start
Speaker 1: to hear from libertarians who you know, I like some
Speaker 1: libertarians on a personal level, but after a while, the
Speaker 1: he cares so much about liberty, the whole libertarian thing
Speaker 1: with the third party candidates can get a little bit tiresome.
Speaker 1: It can what are they really hoping to accomplish by
Speaker 1: doing this that one day they're going to win the
Speaker 1: election with somebody like this justin and mind, Look, this
Speaker 1: is this is an employ for attention. It's like that
Speaker 1: guy who used to be a concern, used to be
Speaker 1: a big Trump supporter and a conservative, and then he
Speaker 1: became a never Trumper and it's just just like desperate
Speaker 1: for attention. He's like one of these guys who ends
Speaker 1: up on you know, Big Brother seventeen or something, one
Speaker 1: of those reality shows where they have some guy who
Speaker 1: played some other guy in a sitcom in the nineties
Speaker 1: and then all of a sudden, he's, you know, wrestling
Speaker 1: people in jello on TV. Just you know, anything to
Speaker 1: get back in the public eye. Well, yeah, I don't know.
Speaker 1: Justin Amash is running. Whoo, that's gonna really be exciting
Speaker 1: for some people. I saw some editorials today about how
Speaker 1: this is really gonna matter. I think people are just
Speaker 1: desperate for political news of any kind because there's been
Speaker 1: so little of actual campaign politics to speak of, because
Speaker 1: the Democrat candidate is locked away in a bunker. You am,
Speaker 1: I'm running, running further. I'm running for the chief dog
Speaker 1: Catcher of Wichita. And my name is Joe Biden. And
Speaker 1: I don't know why I talk like this, but I
Speaker 1: get confused about where I am. And you know, my
Speaker 1: leg hairs are blonde and corn pop And I took
Speaker 1: out the rusty razor blade and I said, hold on
Speaker 1: a second, Hold on a second, man, I got this.
Speaker 1: I got these blonde leg hairs. I got a shave first.
Speaker 1: I mean, it's just so weird. The whole thing is
Speaker 1: so weird. But we don't have a lot of focus
Speaker 1: on politics. So anytime there's a political story, I think
Speaker 1: people that make a living doing that they seize on them.
Speaker 1: They say, oh wow, look at this. You know, now
Speaker 1: we have an opportunity finally to talk about something that
Speaker 1: is not that is not about COVID nineteen. But that's
Speaker 1: where we are, justin amash exploratory. Who cares, you know,
Speaker 1: I never I never liked this guy. I don't know.
Speaker 1: Always struck me. It's just kind of surly and self important.
Speaker 1: Not a fan, not a fan, never interviewed him, never
Speaker 1: wanted to. Let's see we have Oh oh, this is good,
Speaker 1: this is good. First off, wait before I get to that,
Speaker 1: we have a Jared Kushner, who we don't hear from
Speaker 1: very often, but who's very much involved in the most
Speaker 1: inner workings of the White House and wields considerable authority
Speaker 1: within this White House. Here's what he said about the
Speaker 1: eternal lockdown crowd, which I think we should perhaps start
Speaker 1: referring to them that way, because they are setting this
Speaker 1: up as eternal lockdown would be a better option than
Speaker 1: those of us who want to open up the country
Speaker 1: play clip six and again, the goal here is to
Speaker 1: get people back to work. The eternal lockdown crowd can
Speaker 1: make jokes on the late night television, but the reality
Speaker 1: is is that the data is on our side, and
Speaker 1: President Trump has created a pathway to safely open up
Speaker 1: our country and make sure that we get our economy
Speaker 1: going and get America back to a place where it
Speaker 1: will be even stronger than it was before. He's right
Speaker 1: about the data being on our side. We should note
Speaker 1: that the data is on the side of those who
Speaker 1: want to reopen Oh, the study I mentioned to you before.
Speaker 1: I was going to get into the terror read allegations
Speaker 1: against Biden and the hypocrisy there, and we will in
Speaker 1: just a moment. But I did think it would be
Speaker 1: worth pointing this out to you because we often hear
Speaker 1: about the other costs out there, the other costs. And
Speaker 1: here's what we assume, because we can understand, we can
Speaker 1: reason through this that by preventing people from getting basic
Speaker 1: medical care and hospitals, by saying that surgeries are non
Speaker 1: essential and therefore will be delayed, all kinds of screening
Speaker 1: and testing and chemo and all these things have been
Speaker 1: put on hold. I mean I'm really worried. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: tell you something. I'm concerned that I'm just gonna wake
Speaker 1: up and one of my teeth is gonna be rotting
Speaker 1: out of my head and I'm gonna have to deal
Speaker 1: with Okay, how do I get emergency dental work done?
Speaker 1: Because I haven't able to get a cleaning in months
Speaker 1: and I was due right when this whole thing happened.
Speaker 1: And you got to think, Okay, I mean, I know
Speaker 1: that's not a big deal, but imagine that same basic
Speaker 1: idea for people that have really serious health problems, which
Speaker 1: there are a lot of folks out there who do, right,
Speaker 1: I'm just thinking about what happens up a tooth rots
Speaker 1: out of my head. You look, getting a root Count album,
Speaker 1: that whole thing can be very painful. What happens with that, Well,
Speaker 1: imagine if I had a hard condition, or if I
Speaker 1: had diabetes, or if I had any if I had
Speaker 1: to really see if I needed to do dialogy assists
Speaker 1: and these things that you know, Okay, some you know procedures,
Speaker 1: they're they're continuing as suppose because others people would die,
Speaker 1: but they've cut back so much on them. Are our
Speaker 1: buddy Alex Barrenson, who's out there always raising the alarms
Speaker 1: about what the data really says versus what the lockdown
Speaker 1: consensus is telling you. He points this out. He sent this.
Speaker 1: He sent this to me today and I had tip
Speaker 1: him for that. Oregonians have died at a rate well
Speaker 1: above the average since mid March, but the tide at
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen is unclear. According to state data. Here's here's
Speaker 1: what it says. More Oregonians have died the past month
Speaker 1: that is typical in mid March and early April, but
Speaker 1: fewer than half the excess deaths were officially connected to coronavirus.
Speaker 1: Two hundred and forty five Oregonians, and all died during
Speaker 1: the five weeks between March sixteenth and March and April
Speaker 1: nineteenth than those who died the same five weeks in
Speaker 1: twenty seventeen, twenty eighteen, and twenty nineteen. On average, you've
Speaker 1: got about a two hundred and fifty person death rate
Speaker 1: increase compared to the average for the three years before.
Speaker 1: During those five weeks, seventy eight Oregonians. Did I say Oregonians?
Speaker 1: Is it's Oregon, So it's Oregon. No, it must be Oregonians.
Speaker 1: I think it's Oregonians, right, Oregon Oregonians, come on. But anyway,
Speaker 1: during those five weeks, seventy eight Oregonians died from COVID nineteen,
Speaker 1: according to the the state Health authorities official count. So why
Speaker 1: why do we have that's less than half of the
Speaker 1: excess deaths? What caused all the what caused the spike
Speaker 1: in other deaths? Now we don't know this yet, but
Speaker 1: we might know relatively soon. What if the excess deaths,
Speaker 1: meaning a whole lot of people in Oregon, you know,
Speaker 1: this would be over over one hundred excess deaths, which
Speaker 1: now you start to look at that across the country,
Speaker 1: because the situation in Oregon would be no different from
Speaker 1: other places state by state around the country. You know,
Speaker 1: if you had a hundred one hundred people per state
Speaker 1: and fifties states die of that five week here, that's
Speaker 1: five thousand people. It's a lot of people. And remember
Speaker 1: Oregon is not, by population a very large states. Start
Speaker 1: looking at California, start looking at Texas, start looking at
Speaker 1: places where they have tens of millions of residents. The
Speaker 1: theory here and this is where I think, this is
Speaker 1: why Alex has flagged this story from Alex Barrinson. But
Speaker 1: the theory behind it clearly is, well, are these people
Speaker 1: that are dying from heart attacks or dying from other
Speaker 1: medical issues that come up, who just don't want to
Speaker 1: go to the hospital. They're frightened of going to the hospital,
Speaker 1: so they don't go, and then they don't get emergency
Speaker 1: medical care or early interventions necessary to save their lives.
Speaker 1: I e. The lockdown is directly causing loss of life.
Speaker 1: That has to be factored into what this whole process
Speaker 1: has been about. And the wisdom are lack thereof of
Speaker 1: taking this approach, certainly, get this data, we should continue
Speaker 1: to look at it. All right, we do need to
Speaker 1: talk about this absence of principle that we're seeing, and
Speaker 1: it's the Left should be made to really just just
Speaker 1: sit and stew in their lives, just they should have
Speaker 1: to marinate in their lack of principle over me too
Speaker 1: allegations against Kavanaugh and against Trump, but more more specifically
Speaker 1: or more clearly, the ones against Kavanaugh were really outrageous
Speaker 1: and wrong and became the focus of the country for
Speaker 1: about a month long period. So we'll talk about where
Speaker 1: a is the me too stuff when it comes to Biden. Oh,
Speaker 1: that's right. It disappears you're in the freedom hunt. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Do you believe the
Speaker 1: allegation that's been put out there by terror read against Biden?
Speaker 1: So when we say bled women, it's for this explicit
Speaker 1: intention of making show their space for all women to
Speaker 1: come forward to speak their truth to be heard. And
Speaker 1: in this allegation, that is what Tara Reid has done.
Speaker 1: She has come forward, she's spoken, and they've done an
Speaker 1: investigation in several outlets, those investigations, Vice President Biden has
Speaker 1: called for himself. Vice President Biden has vehemently denied these allegations,
Speaker 1: and I support Vice President Biden. Do you think some
Speaker 1: of the Democrats who supported Blasi Forward's allegations against Cabinol,
Speaker 1: who've been silent on this Biden allegation, do you see
Speaker 1: that as a contradiction that they're not speaking out more
Speaker 1: and addressing Tara Reid's allegation. No, and I stand by
Speaker 1: Vice President Biden. He's devoted his life to supporting women
Speaker 1: and he has vehemently denied this allegation. What else do
Speaker 1: you need to hear, folks? I mean, how much more
Speaker 1: clear could it be? There? You have Senator from New
Speaker 1: York yours and Jila Brand, who has completely abandoned what
Speaker 1: she used to say on this issue, who has decided
Speaker 1: that women do not have a right to be believed,
Speaker 1: but rather they have a right to be heard. That's
Speaker 1: an enormous change from what it was during the Kavanaugh hearing.
Speaker 1: Huge change. And isn't that so convenient that it happens
Speaker 1: to coincide with a necessary campaign of silence and or
Speaker 1: complacency in order to continue to allow the campaign, the
Speaker 1: ridiculous campaign of Joe Biden, to be pushed forward by
Speaker 1: these powermad Democrats. Everything that she said there was just
Speaker 1: just dishonest. It's a lie. It's disgusting. She's a fraud.
Speaker 1: She's a person of no ethics, no character, not willing
Speaker 1: to show any decency in the face of adversity, does
Speaker 1: whatever she has to do to get wherever she wants
Speaker 1: to go. I've also been told credibly, and I cannot
Speaker 1: repeat the story, but I was told credibly by somebody
Speaker 1: who is a Democrat, just what a horrible, what a
Speaker 1: horrible person Jilla Brand isn't what a fraud she is
Speaker 1: From very a very personal anecdote from someone that I
Speaker 1: trust a lot. So I've I've got I'm basically this
Speaker 1: more than just the what's out there of the public.
Speaker 1: I've just heard. She's a very bad person. You know.
Speaker 1: She does the whole like, Oh, I'm just a mom
Speaker 1: and I just oh, I'm just a mom who happened
Speaker 1: to be a senator, and I'm just you know, I'm
Speaker 1: just helping everybody, and it's all a front. She's not
Speaker 1: a nice person, just remember that. And she's not a
Speaker 1: principled person. That's clear. I mean, that's beyond any real doubt.
Speaker 1: The alley, why does she believe Joe Biden? What she
Speaker 1: should have to give a read under what oh? And
Speaker 1: calling for the New York Times and other liberal newspapers
Speaker 1: to do an investigation. Where what about the FBI investigation
Speaker 1: they called for of Kamada? They wanted an FBI investigation
Speaker 1: of somebody who's going to be elevated to the Supreme Court.
Speaker 1: They don't want an FBI investigation of somebody who's going
Speaker 1: to become president and be elevated to being commander in chief.
Speaker 1: Have the nuclear codes have tremendous power? No, no FBI
Speaker 1: investigation or those alligant Oh you know, what would happen?
Speaker 1: If they call for a background investigation. This is Oh,
Speaker 1: they were all so clever, weren't they. It's not a
Speaker 1: criminal investigation, it's a background investigation. Well, how can you
Speaker 1: prove yourself? You know, how can you prove the negative here?
Speaker 1: If you're Kavanaugh. Problem with calling for a background investigation
Speaker 1: of Biden on this would be the FBI could go around.
Speaker 1: They already have names of people to talk to, they
Speaker 1: already have some contemporaneous corroboration. It's gonna look bad for Biden.
Speaker 1: And remember, he's also a guy who snips women's heads,
Speaker 1: grabs them, gropes them, and it's just weird. Doesn't understand boundaries.
Speaker 1: I've said this before, it has been written in it
Speaker 1: was written in a book about Biden, and and I
Speaker 1: was told that personally by someone in the Secret Service
Speaker 1: that it was true that Biden used to love to
Speaker 1: you know, strip completely old, gross, you know, wrinkly. Biden
Speaker 1: would strip down out of his clothing naked and go
Speaker 1: swimming in front of female Secret Service detailies. Is that
Speaker 1: anybody think if that were your wife or your daughter,
Speaker 1: would you be okay with that? You know? Who was
Speaker 1: assigned to protect this buffoon? A total buffoon, and really,
Speaker 1: if he hadn't just been in the game forever gotten
Speaker 1: very lucky. Guy's a loser. I know he was vice president.
Speaker 1: I don't care dan Quail was vice president. All the
Speaker 1: Liberals ever did was make fun of him and say
Speaker 1: how terrible he was, right vice president. Look, Cheney was
Speaker 1: like the dark Lord, he was the Sith. He's evil.
Speaker 1: Joe Biden's a deeply unimpressive guy. And he also has
Speaker 1: this history of behaving poorly in and around in front
Speaker 1: of and around women. And Jilla brand just I stand
Speaker 1: with Joe Biden. Just you can just hear just the
Speaker 1: power that she wants. She's just, oh, whatever she has
Speaker 1: to say here. This was the woman who threw her
Speaker 1: senate colleague Al Frankin under the bus because he had
Speaker 1: the you know, the video taking of him groping the woman,
Speaker 1: or not the video, the photo of him groping over
Speaker 1: her body armor. But you know, it wasn't it wasn't
Speaker 1: funny and it was creepy. But you know, she said
Speaker 1: he's and someone else said that he tried to try
Speaker 1: to kiss her or something, and she was the one
Speaker 1: you will remember, who said he's got to go. And
Speaker 1: he had to step down from the Senate. He's gonna go.
Speaker 1: But Bill Clinton could be president for a years, but
Speaker 1: Alfa Rega had to go. And I think Alfa Regan's disgraceful.
Speaker 1: But it's amazing how the principle here shifts depending on
Speaker 1: the needs that any particular Democrat has in the moment.
Speaker 1: The allegation against Joe Biden from Tara Reid is entirely credible,
Speaker 1: and the Libs don't know what to do about it
Speaker 1: because they know what they're going to do in that
Speaker 1: they're gonna make this go away, and they're gonna soft
Speaker 1: pedal it, and they're gonna just they're gonna just make
Speaker 1: sure that Joe Biden is a viable candidate for the presidency.
Speaker 1: Whatever that means, whatever they have to pretend is true
Speaker 1: that isn't true, they'll do it. Where are all the
Speaker 1: women's organizations? Think about that? Where's the National Organization of Women?
Speaker 1: And where's Glorious Steynham Where are all the feminists? Now? Oh,
Speaker 1: you mean that they're really just powermad leftists who pretend
Speaker 1: to care about women but really just care are about
Speaker 1: their own political agenda and use women as a tool
Speaker 1: as a weapon against conservatives and traditionalists and Republicans. That's
Speaker 1: what they do. That's why feminism in the modern context
Speaker 1: now exists. Otherwise, explain to me where the women's organizations
Speaker 1: are right now backing up terror read supporting terror read.
Speaker 1: Oh you mean they're all silent, They're all gone. No
Speaker 1: one's surprised by this. Thanks for listening to The Bus
Speaker 1: Sesson Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts, the
Speaker 1: iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. This
Speaker 1: election in November is going to determine so many things
Speaker 1: about our future. And it's going to be about our
Speaker 1: literally our health and whether we live or die. It's
Speaker 1: going to be about the state of our economy and
Speaker 1: whether we have a job and are treated with dignity
Speaker 1: or not. Where's Kamala Harris on the Joe Biden allegations?
Speaker 1: An you want to ask her about that? Oh? No,
Speaker 1: that's right. She's still trying to get a vice president
Speaker 1: nod and get that slot from Biden, so she's not
Speaker 1: gonna say anything about it other than she believes Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: Are they calling Let's remember all the things that they
Speaker 1: did to people like me and others who were defending Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: who was manifestly innocent. It was it was obvious, didn't
Speaker 1: do anything. You can't even prove. When you can't prove
Speaker 1: that you even knew the year that you say something happened,
Speaker 1: or that you even met the person in question, you're
Speaker 1: somebody who has emotional problems and should not be listened
Speaker 1: to When a highly politicized case like this comes forward,
Speaker 1: as it did against Kavanaugh against Biden, this all adds up.
Speaker 1: What a guy who's a self important, narcissistic, powermad senator
Speaker 1: from the nineties has a you know, a young, attractive
Speaker 1: female staffer that he gets too handsy with. Does that
Speaker 1: sound implausible to anyone? Blasi Ford's thing about Kavanaugh, who
Speaker 1: had lived his life as a super nice guy and
Speaker 1: a never done anything except promote and assist and help women.
Speaker 1: And you look, the story didn't add up. It just
Speaker 1: never added up, and there were no details, no contemporaries.
Speaker 1: And the other two people came forward, as you know,
Speaker 1: I mean, Julie Sweatneck's a liar. She's just a liar,
Speaker 1: crazy person and a liar. And the other woman, I
Speaker 1: think was you know, also a little bit deluded. I
Speaker 1: wasn't in debor Ramirez, you know, but Blasi Ford was
Speaker 1: the one. Oh, and they worked so hard. She was
Speaker 1: the one who also said she couldn't fly. And then
Speaker 1: they found out that because they were trying to delay
Speaker 1: and set the pieces up to make sure that she'd
Speaker 1: have the best testimony possible against Cavina, all that turned
Speaker 1: out that she lied about that. That's a weird thing
Speaker 1: to live up before you're going to testify in front
Speaker 1: of the whole country and trying to ruin a man's life,
Speaker 1: all because you want some psycho lib to be on
Speaker 1: the Supreme Court to pretend that abortion is a constitutional right,
Speaker 1: which it is clearly manifestly not. So here we are
Speaker 1: now with a much more credible set of or much
Speaker 1: more credible allegation against Joe Biden, and there's just nothing.
Speaker 1: And this is the Democratic Party that tells you that
Speaker 1: they're better, they're honorable. These are the same Democrats who
Speaker 1: have been said the Trump lies and lies and lies
Speaker 1: is so terrible, so awful, And then this is what
Speaker 1: they offer up. I mean, there's a part of it
Speaker 1: just wants to look at them and say, you guys
Speaker 1: are not You're not serious, right, you don't really think
Speaker 1: that this is acceptable, that Joe Biden, is this this
Speaker 1: great opportunity for America. You can't really believe that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I refuse to think that that's something they really believe.
Speaker 1: But I guess they are going to pretend. Oh, there's
Speaker 1: another female politician who wants a shot at being Biden's
Speaker 1: vice president, maybe Gillibrand, or Gillibrand rather thinks that she
Speaker 1: should be the vice president. I'm sure that that's crossed
Speaker 1: her mind. But there's Stacy Abrams out there who's openly
Speaker 1: lobbying for this in a way where it's she's like
Speaker 1: telling Joe Biden, nice presidential campaign, you have there be
Speaker 1: a shame if some social justice came after it. You
Speaker 1: know what I'm saying, You know, you better make me
Speaker 1: VP or else. That's really been the attitude that you've
Speaker 1: been seeing. But here's Stacy Abrams when she was asked
Speaker 1: about the Biden allegations, the sexual assault allegations, and here's
Speaker 1: what she said at Play fourteen. Biden's campaign says, untrue,
Speaker 1: never happened. Is this a credible allegation? I believe that
Speaker 1: women deserve to be heard, and I believe that they
Speaker 1: need to be listened to, but I also believe that
Speaker 1: those allegations have to be investigated by credible sources. The
Speaker 1: New York Times did a deep investigation, and they found
Speaker 1: that the accusation was not credible. I believe Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: I believe that he is a person who has demonstrated
Speaker 1: that his love of family, his love of our community
Speaker 1: has been made perfectly clear through his work as a
Speaker 1: congressional leader and as an American leader. I know Joe Biden,
Speaker 1: and I think that he is telling the truth and
Speaker 1: that this did not happen. Lies lies and lies. Near
Speaker 1: Times did not come to the conclusion that the allegation
Speaker 1: was not credible. They just can't tell you definitively whether
Speaker 1: or not that had happened. And even if they did
Speaker 1: say that it was not credible, that's laughable. Of course
Speaker 1: it's credible. There's nothing to disprove it, and everything about
Speaker 1: it lines up. It is entirely plausible, and something that
Speaker 1: is entirely plausible when you have a named accuser, given
Speaker 1: the circumstances of what we know of their working relationship
Speaker 1: at the time, as well as Joe Biden's propensity to
Speaker 1: be handsy and gross with women, in general, that's called credible.
Speaker 1: I don't remember the year, I don't remember where was,
Speaker 1: I don't remember how I got there. Nobody will tell
Speaker 1: that this actually happened. I didn't tell anyone at the time,
Speaker 1: and I put two doors on my house because it
Speaker 1: still freaked me out decades later. Oh and also, I
Speaker 1: can't fly, just kidding, except when I go on vacation,
Speaker 1: I can fly, So I guess I will fly. That
Speaker 1: was Blasi Ford against Capit was that that was credible. Huh. Oh,
Speaker 1: we all see what's going on here. Just remember it.
Speaker 1: You were right. I was right. We were right about
Speaker 1: Kavanaugh and what happened there. And also the recognition that
Speaker 1: meets you would be used as a political weapon against
Speaker 1: the right and abandoned the moment that it could be
Speaker 1: used against the left. We called it because we know,
Speaker 1: we know who these people are. They don't have internal principle,
Speaker 1: they don't have a moral compass. It is all just
Speaker 1: whatever they need for power, whatever they have to do,
Speaker 1: they will do. That's what we're seeing here. Oh, yes,
Speaker 1: women have a right to be heard. Try saying that
Speaker 1: if you're a Republican and shut down allegations of sexual
Speaker 1: assault against you. Women just have a right to be heard,
Speaker 1: not to be believed. You're in the freedom hunt. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show Podcast. Can a joke
Speaker 1: on Twitter get you dragged in front of the administrative State? Well,
Speaker 1: I wouldn't be asking the question if it wasn't obviously yes.
Speaker 1: But let's talk to the person who can tell you
Speaker 1: just what this ordeal is all about. Mister Ben Dominicch
Speaker 1: joins us now. He is the founder and publisher of
Speaker 1: The Federalist. You know, the Federalist dot com is one
Speaker 1: of our favorite sites. Mister Ben, good to have you on, sir.
Speaker 1: It's good to be with you. Buck. How are you
Speaker 1: doing today? Oh man, I'm hanging in there, you know,
Speaker 1: in lockdown an Nycat. It's not exactly a great time
Speaker 1: in the history of the city or the world for
Speaker 1: that matter. But I'm gonna be all right. You're gonna
Speaker 1: be alright, Our audience is gonna be alright. Let's let's
Speaker 1: tell me first about what happened here. Ben, you made it.
Speaker 1: Tell folks the story because I haven't gotten in any details.
Speaker 1: You made a joke on Twitter that upset the Libs
Speaker 1: had to do with unions, and now you had to
Speaker 1: go to court. What happened. So here's what happened, Buck,
Speaker 1: and I'll try to keep this brief. Basically, back last
Speaker 1: year during the during June, there was a walkout happening
Speaker 1: at Vox Media, something that I'm sure some of your
Speaker 1: listeners are familiar with as a left of center website,
Speaker 1: and they were, you know, demanding all sorts of different
Speaker 1: things that they collective bargaining agreement, including, uh, some some
Speaker 1: things that I thought to be pretty pretty crazy. Um.
Speaker 1: But just as a matter of commenting about it on Twitter,
Speaker 1: I made a joke that amounts to FYI to the
Speaker 1: Federalist the organization I run. You know, the next one
Speaker 1: of you tries to unionize, I'll send you back to
Speaker 1: the salt mine. That this is obviously a joke. I
Speaker 1: do not now own a sault mine. I have not
Speaker 1: ruled it out as a future purchase. In fact, you know,
Speaker 1: I think I think that they could be you know,
Speaker 1: pretty productive in terms of in terms of people need salt.
Speaker 1: But it's also one of these things where you know,
Speaker 1: the the left always wants to use any opportunity to
Speaker 1: weaponize the bureaucratic state, the administrative state against people who
Speaker 1: they don't like. And in this instance, leftist writer Matt Brunig,
Speaker 1: who's married to at that time a writer at the
Speaker 1: Washington Post, now a writer at the New York Times,
Speaker 1: took umbrage with it and filed a labor complaint with
Speaker 1: the National Labor Relations Board, one that was also filed
Speaker 1: by another attorney in Massachusetts. Neither of these men have
Speaker 1: ever worked with us, have any relationship with us, have
Speaker 1: ever been an employee or a contractor at the Federalist.
Speaker 1: But under the National Labor Relations Boards perspective on things,
Speaker 1: they believe that anyone anywhere can file any kind of
Speaker 1: complaint along these lines, and they investigate it at taxpayer expense.
Speaker 1: Now what does that mean, Well, I'll tell you what
Speaker 1: it means. It basically means they have the power supoena
Speaker 1: power and other power over you that they can use
Speaker 1: to try to force you to do whatever they want
Speaker 1: you to do. In this instance, they attempted to subpoena
Speaker 1: all email communications between staff on any matters going back
Speaker 1: quite a bit. Looking not just at like, you know,
Speaker 1: it wasn't just a request about benefits or negotiations or
Speaker 1: anything along those lines. It was it was a subpoena
Speaker 1: that applied to all of our reporting, all of our
Speaker 1: editorial conversations and the like, a huge invasion of our
Speaker 1: First Amendment rights as a publication. My own employees, of course,
Speaker 1: thought this all was just a giant joke. They couldn't
Speaker 1: believe it was something that was actually happening. Uh. They
Speaker 1: were joking about, you know, making shirts or selling branded
Speaker 1: federal assault shakers or thinks of that nature, which we
Speaker 1: might still do. They say, yes, yes, well thank you,
Speaker 1: you'll you'll definitely get the first model when we when
Speaker 1: we have them come in and the you know, thankfully,
Speaker 1: at this point, I mean, I kind of looked around
Speaker 1: and was like, wow, this is this is incredible. They
Speaker 1: they can subpoena my employees to come and testify in
Speaker 1: New York, a state that they don't live in and
Speaker 1: that we don't have an office in. Uh, And they
Speaker 1: can they can force them to come, they can make
Speaker 1: them pay the expense, they would have to hire their
Speaker 1: own lawyers, et cetera, et cetera. And thankfully, in this instance,
Speaker 1: I found an organization, a small group of lawyers who
Speaker 1: basically just work on these types of cases, the New
Speaker 1: Civilibrities Alliance, which is an excellent little organization stood up
Speaker 1: by fella named Philip Hamburger, who will be familiar to
Speaker 1: anybody who reads about First Amendment cases and cases involving
Speaker 1: the bureaucratic and administrative state. And they offered to come
Speaker 1: in and really help us fight this battle against these
Speaker 1: bureaucrats who really don't care that none of my employees
Speaker 1: were offended by this, that none of them saw it
Speaker 1: as a threat against their ability to unionize. And that's
Speaker 1: something that the judge and the eventually the administrative law
Speaker 1: judge ruled in the past a couple of weeks that
Speaker 1: in fact, it's their opinions and even their athidavits filed
Speaker 1: saying that they were an offended don't matter. That that's irrelevant,
Speaker 1: and that even in this case, you know, you can't
Speaker 1: say that this was a joke. It has to be
Speaker 1: interpreted as a serious threat. Now, I'll tell you about
Speaker 1: the truth is, I could have settled this for nothing.
Speaker 1: I mean, there's no threat to my threat to my livelihood.
Speaker 1: You know, they don't have in a case like this,
Speaker 1: for something as small as this. They would just compel
Speaker 1: with my speech, they would force me to they propose
Speaker 1: deleting the tweet and then and then posting information about
Speaker 1: the ability of my employees to unionize, which has informed
Speaker 1: people they're well aware of. And that was something that,
Speaker 1: of course I could easily do to make this go away.
Speaker 1: But the reason that I decided not to is to
Speaker 1: prove a point, which is that I don't think that
Speaker 1: most people who are out there in this day and
Speaker 1: age of social media realize that if they if someone
Speaker 1: posted something like this, who let's just say, owned a
Speaker 1: series of gas stations, or owned a deli or had
Speaker 1: a small business, and that their neighbor who doesn't like
Speaker 1: them is offended by it, or their neighbor online, someone
Speaker 1: who they don't even know, you know, just some random
Speaker 1: American can file this type of legally forceful action against
Speaker 1: them in such a way that it goes after them
Speaker 1: at texa expense and can frankly, you know, put them
Speaker 1: out of business just through the expense of having to
Speaker 1: fight this type of case. And you know, the bureaucrats
Speaker 1: in this case, they always assume that you're just going
Speaker 1: to bend. They were shocked that they didn't take the
Speaker 1: deal and instead, you know, proceed to fight. And here's
Speaker 1: the thing, you know, this will go and work its
Speaker 1: way through the administrative law process, but then we'll get
Speaker 1: to the real courts where the Constitution actually matters. And
Speaker 1: I think, well, then we'll have a conversation about whether
Speaker 1: this is something that Congress intended under their creation of
Speaker 1: the NLRB, whether it's something that ought to continue in
Speaker 1: terms of the ability of people who have no connection
Speaker 1: to any organization to file wherever they want and to
Speaker 1: compel speech on the part of those whose opinions they
Speaker 1: just happened to not like we're speaking of Ben Dominic,
Speaker 1: founder of the Federalist. You can go to the Federalist
Speaker 1: dot com. It's one of my favorite sites. His piece
Speaker 1: in the Wall Street Journal is how my joke on
Speaker 1: Twitter became a federal case. He's telling us about it. Now. Now, Ben,
Speaker 1: you're saying that you wanted you you're fighting this on principle,
Speaker 1: which I can totally appreciate and understand, and you're going
Speaker 1: to take this into real court. Got to ask you, though,
Speaker 1: do you have any concerns that somehow, you know, we
Speaker 1: just saw, in my opinion, a horrible decision from the
Speaker 1: Supreme Court on New York City gun law, which you
Speaker 1: know it's a conversation we could have another time. But
Speaker 1: to me, it's just inexcusable what John Roberts did and
Speaker 1: it clearly wouldn't stand for say, abortion rights or something
Speaker 1: else something like that. But you seem pretty confident going
Speaker 1: into court that you'll be okay on this. Any concern
Speaker 1: that you might get the wrong judge, Oh, I think
Speaker 1: that that's absolutely a possibility. I mean, you could, you
Speaker 1: could end up on the wrong side of this and
Speaker 1: certainly have to you know, see the ramifications of that.
Speaker 1: But in from my perspective, that's worth the risk in
Speaker 1: this scenario where the deck is so stacked in the
Speaker 1: favor of the bureaucrats currently that I'd like to see
Speaker 1: this question resolved. And while these courts behave in their
Speaker 1: own little area of law where the administrative law judge
Speaker 1: one day as the person making the argument for the
Speaker 1: bureaucracy on the other day. Uh, And that's the whole
Speaker 1: world in which the rules effectively don't apply the way
Speaker 1: that they apply within the traditional court system as we
Speaker 1: understand it. I think that that's a bad thing, and
Speaker 1: I think that it's something that ought to be curtailed.
Speaker 1: And I don't believe that this I don't think that
Speaker 1: the people who brought this case really thought it through
Speaker 1: in terms of the fact pattern of such a clear
Speaker 1: misuse of a kind of troll on, a trollish capacity
Speaker 1: of the type of bureaucracy that's supposed to look out
Speaker 1: for workers as opposed to engaging in something that could
Speaker 1: you know, frankly lead to the you know, the organization
Speaker 1: if they if they didn't have the resources that we
Speaker 1: do and the connections that we do, you know, being
Speaker 1: bankrupted or or you know, putting those workers out of
Speaker 1: the street without their jobs. And you know what, Buck,
Speaker 1: I think that this is also an indication of something
Speaker 1: looking towards, looking forward to the future, the ability that
Speaker 1: we have in this day and age to have people
Speaker 1: drill down and attack small businesses as we've seen it
Speaker 1: within primarily the religious freedom aspects of things across the
Speaker 1: country via these uh, these courts that are essentially you know,
Speaker 1: carved out and unresponsive to citizens and individuals. I think
Speaker 1: that's a real danger and it's something that we need
Speaker 1: to start looking at in terms of Curtailian for the future,
Speaker 1: where we're going to have you know, a nation of
Speaker 1: Karen's who are going out there and uh and using
Speaker 1: the power of these agencies to enlist taxpayer funds and
Speaker 1: and put bureaucrats after people they just happen to not
Speaker 1: like just one quick one for you beat before we
Speaker 1: let you go back to fighting fighting the man or
Speaker 1: the NLRV man, did anybody from this administrative agency when
Speaker 1: you're sitting there and I suppose you have legal representation,
Speaker 1: but here you're like when you say, it's a joke,
Speaker 1: which it clearly is. Right, Like, I've joked around before
Speaker 1: and said, you know when when I was worrying the
Speaker 1: CI be like, all right, like I'm gonna I'm gonna
Speaker 1: send somebody. I'm gonna send this person to Gitmo or something.
Speaker 1: Right Like you just get angry and you know I
Speaker 1: don't have that authority. I can't do that. It's not
Speaker 1: gonna happen. You know, you don't, as you pointed out
Speaker 1: own assault mind, you can't send anyone there. And it's
Speaker 1: clearly a joke when you say that, though, What is
Speaker 1: their response, Well, what I'd say, if they're two things.
Speaker 1: One is a legal matter. They say, well, that doesn't
Speaker 1: matter because someone will someone could reasonably take it literally,
Speaker 1: which is to me just a complete misunderstanding of that
Speaker 1: standard historically and the way the courts have used it
Speaker 1: in the past. In other words, it eliminates any context
Speaker 1: for the fact, you know, maybe he does own assault
Speaker 1: mine or something along that line. But the other thing is,
Speaker 1: and this is something I think we need to understand
Speaker 1: about the folks who are involved in this. These are
Speaker 1: bureaucrats who take everything literally. They are humorless. They have
Speaker 1: no concept that this is a joke. And it makes me,
Speaker 1: it makes me really wonder, you know, how familiar they
Speaker 1: are with just what Twitter is. Twitter is just a
Speaker 1: place for snark and humor and all types of comments
Speaker 1: within this area. And you know, to your point, I mean,
Speaker 1: imagine if someone were to come after you for saying,
Speaker 1: you know, this ex government employee saying he wants to
Speaker 1: send me to Gitmo, I'm scared, you know, right exactly.
Speaker 1: So I think that's very much. I mean, you know,
Speaker 1: I was saying I was saying it to my little
Speaker 1: sister's boyfriends for years. I hope I can't get sued
Speaker 1: for it. You know, it's crazy, But you know, look,
Speaker 1: here's what I'll here's what I'll say this is. I
Speaker 1: think this is a fight worth happening because it's so
Speaker 1: clear cut, and because we have the resources and the
Speaker 1: friendships in order to make this fight where other people couldn't.
Speaker 1: And I hope that ultimately this leads to, you know,
Speaker 1: some some real questions that people ask about the appropriateness
Speaker 1: of empowering bureaucrats with this type of unrestricted ability to
Speaker 1: invade the lives of people across the country based just
Speaker 1: on the fact that they have differences in politics. I
Speaker 1: think that's very dangerous. Ben dominant, everybody found to the
Speaker 1: federalist Ben, stay in the fight, man, let us know
Speaker 1: how it goes. Thank you, Buck, I will Thanks for
Speaker 1: listening to the bus Essen Show podcast. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. Oh, before we get to roll, call a
Speaker 1: story here out of New York that's gotten a lot
Speaker 1: of attention is trending on Twitter on social media. Deblasio
Speaker 1: breaks up rabbi's funeral and lashes out over virus distancing.
Speaker 1: After overseeing the dispersal of hundreds of Hasidic mourners in Brooklyn.
Speaker 1: Mayor Bill de Blasio called the gathering absolutely unacceptable, and
Speaker 1: he warned, quote the Jewish community in all communities, that
Speaker 1: any violation of social distance and guidelines can lead to
Speaker 1: a summons or arrest. Quote. Something absolutely unacceptable happened in
Speaker 1: Williamsburg tonight, a large funeral gathering in the middle of
Speaker 1: this pandemic. This is from them, This is Mayor to Blasio.
Speaker 1: When I heard, I went there myself to ensure the
Speaker 1: crowd was dispersed. And what I saw will not be
Speaker 1: tolerated so long as we are fighting the coronavirus. End
Speaker 1: quote Producer Mark, I would like you to weigh in
Speaker 1: on this as a fellow American, and as a fellow
Speaker 1: New Yorker, and as a Jewish New Yorker. What say you, producer, Well,
Speaker 1: in New Jersey, in but it's New York. Come on,
Speaker 1: I grew up in New York, right, You're from New York.
Speaker 1: What say you about this situation? And why is it
Speaker 1: trending on social media? Well? I think because Deblasio tweeted
Speaker 1: something basically targeting naming Jews. So that's why everyone's mad
Speaker 1: at him right now. And I mean, first of all,
Speaker 1: I want to point out that de Blasio does one
Speaker 1: thing great, uniting everyone and hating him, and I hate
Speaker 1: him too. I think what he was trying to say
Speaker 1: is the Hasidic Jews, the ultra Orthodox Jews, they don't
Speaker 1: listen to anybody, So why would you tweet that They don't.
Speaker 1: They're not on Twitter, they don't use social media, they
Speaker 1: don't use technology. So he's even dumber than we think.
Speaker 1: I don't think you're going to reach the Hasidic community
Speaker 1: well on Twitter. I think that's probably true. I know
Speaker 1: enough to know that that's the case. Yes, So if
Speaker 1: you're trying to reach out to them, doing it on
Speaker 1: Twitter is a bad job and basically just angered all
Speaker 1: the all Jewish people by tweeting that, because he targeted
Speaker 1: just Jewish people, as if there weren't Christians meeting on
Speaker 1: Easter in New York, as if Muslims don't unite, aren't
Speaker 1: doing it. Every religion is doing this right now to
Speaker 1: kind of push back on the social distancing stuff. So
Speaker 1: why are you targeting just the Jewish people? All? Right,
Speaker 1: there you have it, Producer Mark weighing in, let's get
Speaker 1: to a row call. Oh remember, folks, Bucksexton dot com
Speaker 1: a fantastic website and if you have not already, YouTube
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck Sexton we have a YouTube channel,
Speaker 1: so if you have not yet seen some of our
Speaker 1: long form interviews that we've done. We have a great
Speaker 1: one with James Altucher. We had the MotorCity Madmen on
Speaker 1: recently Ted Nugent, We've had who else have we done
Speaker 1: long Jack Carr. We've done these long form interviews. You
Speaker 1: got to check them out, So please subscribe to our
Speaker 1: YouTube channel. It's YouTube dot com slash buck Sexton and
Speaker 1: also bucksexon dot com. Put that on your bookmarks. If
Speaker 1: enough of you start bookmarking it, I will just start writing,
Speaker 1: if not bi weekly weekly for the website. That's right, baby,
Speaker 1: We're gonna start using bucksax and dot com for exclusive
Speaker 1: written content. And I've even talked to the snow Princess
Speaker 1: about doing some cooking videos with me because she's a
Speaker 1: fantastic cook. I'm like decent, Like producer Mark would eat
Speaker 1: my food and be like, I cannot complain about this
Speaker 1: because it's good her food. The two of us would
Speaker 1: sit there and be like this is amazing. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I would just ask you why you have married her yet? Yeah,
Speaker 1: those jokes. I'm working on it. I know I'm working
Speaker 1: on She made she made a caccio a peppe last night.
Speaker 1: You like Italian, right, Yeah, what in the world is
Speaker 1: that you don't know? Cacchioi peppe. Oh, it's like a
Speaker 1: spaghetti in like a in the Peccarino Romano cheese sauce
Speaker 1: with pepper. I'm sold. Yeah, yeah, it's it's it's like fancy.
Speaker 1: She's explained to me. It's fancy Italian macaroni basically like
Speaker 1: it's a fancy Italian macaroni and cheese, but it's with
Speaker 1: with spaghetti instead of you know, whatever you call the
Speaker 1: mac macaroni. But yeah, it's really really good. So yeah,
Speaker 1: I know. I'm We'll make it happen. You and missus
Speaker 1: Producer Mark, well have you guys? Oh, when when we're
Speaker 1: not under threat of Deblasio arresting us for socializing, then
Speaker 1: we can we can make you guys, Am I under
Speaker 1: extra threat. Now I don't I don't understand. Oh you
Speaker 1: mean that's de Blasio's Uh, he's going after certain people
Speaker 1: a little more than others. It seems, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I leave that to the mayor's office. He's not doing
Speaker 1: himself any favors. You're right, by the way, as as
Speaker 1: a personality, contest thing or as as a popularity contest,
Speaker 1: rather Deblasio. It's it's remarkable that this guy is the
Speaker 1: mayor of New York City. I will tell you this.
Speaker 1: I know crazy libs of all kinds. I know them
Speaker 1: from work, I know them personally. I have never heard
Speaker 1: a person make a case for Bill de Blasio being
Speaker 1: anything other than terrible. Never. I've never met a human
Speaker 1: being who's like, I think Bill de Blasio does a
Speaker 1: really good job. And that's not I know. I know
Speaker 1: libs who love Pelosi, you know, yes, Queen, and I
Speaker 1: think she's amazing. I know libs who you know, name
Speaker 1: you're They love Adam Schiff, they you know, name your
Speaker 1: odious Democrat. And I can think of people that think
Speaker 1: that they're wonderful, wonderful, and I know them. I've never
Speaker 1: and just it's an anecdote, I know. But I mean,
Speaker 1: do you know anybody. No, I've never met one human
Speaker 1: being who likes built to Blasio. And yet he's the
Speaker 1: mayor and he wanted to run for president. How is
Speaker 1: it even possible? And he ran for president He really
Speaker 1: legitimately thought he was going to win the president. Oh
Speaker 1: my gosh, it's just stunning anyway, All right, roll call
Speaker 1: remember Bucksexton dot com and also YouTube dot com slash
Speaker 1: buck Sexton want to get as much digital Team buck
Speaker 1: action going as we possibly can. Just more ways for
Speaker 1: us all to keep in touch, more content, and more
Speaker 1: ways to keep you safe and warm at night. And
Speaker 1: with that in mind, Mark writes in hey Buck producer, Mark,
Speaker 1: you and Tulula keep me safe and warm at night.
Speaker 1: Thank you so much. I live in the foothills of Colorado.
Speaker 1: My wife and I own a small, one chair hair salon.
Speaker 1: Our governor laid out a reopening plan set to start
Speaker 1: today April twenty seventh. My wife started booking clients and
Speaker 1: we were very optimistic about getting back to normal. Then
Speaker 1: on Friday, Denver County announced the stay at home order
Speaker 1: was to remain in effect till May eighth. Then our
Speaker 1: county quickly followed suit on Friday. As a former sheriff's deputy,
Speaker 1: I constantly question the constitutionality of all this. How can
Speaker 1: a county health official tell us our legal small business
Speaker 1: is now illegal to operate without any subsidy and without
Speaker 1: suspending rent and mortgages. Keep up the good work, boys,
Speaker 1: You're the highlight insanity of my daily routine. Well, Mark,
Speaker 1: that's really high praise and we appreciate that. It's very
Speaker 1: kind of you, and that's why we keep doing what
Speaker 1: we do here every day. So thank you so much
Speaker 1: for that. Yeah. Absolutely absolutely. As for the constitutionality of
Speaker 1: this and the capricious nature of the state authorities that
Speaker 1: are pushing these shutdowns, look, I can't tell you that
Speaker 1: this is anything other than what it is, which is
Speaker 1: bad and it's overreach and it's a problem. So but
Speaker 1: thank you for listening out in the foothills of Colorado.
Speaker 1: We appreciate it. Andrew. Oh On one more note, guys,
Speaker 1: when you write in if you listen on one of
Speaker 1: our affiliate stations, if you don't mind, please do right in.
Speaker 1: You know, if you listen on you know WHOA Whoa
Speaker 1: and Fort Wayne, Indiana, or KLBJ in Austin, or Freedom
Speaker 1: ninety three seven in Denver, or or our wonderful new
Speaker 1: affiliate in uh San Diego or our affiliate up in
Speaker 1: you name it. I mean, wherever we are and you're listening, um,
Speaker 1: please please do uh you know WCBM Baltimore. Kind I
Speaker 1: give Baltimore shout out. We do by the way, I
Speaker 1: want to say thank you to all the people who
Speaker 1: listen on WCBM Baltimore, because we've been fantastic with the
Speaker 1: numbers there. A lot of you are still listening, a
Speaker 1: lot of you are tuning in, and it means a lot.
Speaker 1: That's a top fifty market for us, and I just
Speaker 1: we Mark and I extend you our thanks for making
Speaker 1: sure that we are resonating with the with the great
Speaker 1: people of Baltimore and the surrounding area. So yeah, please
Speaker 1: do let us know what station you listen on. If
Speaker 1: you listen on a state, that's a helpful thing for us.
Speaker 1: Andrew Buck readings from Minnesota yesterday in roll Call, you
Speaker 1: question the idea of people voluntarily not working affecting more
Speaker 1: than the restaurant industry, did I I can tell you
Speaker 1: that I don't remember doing that. I can tell you
Speaker 1: that my immediate neighbors are two contractors and a husband
Speaker 1: wife daughter team who run an eye care clinic. The
Speaker 1: contractors have projects scheduled and our work restrictions are now lifted,
Speaker 1: but their workers make more by claiming unemployment. The eye
Speaker 1: care people have complained of their employees getting coached by
Speaker 1: liberal employees on how to make the most of the
Speaker 1: benefit system, and it's hanging the clinic out to dry.
Speaker 1: One of their employees told them to take Pennsylvania Governor
Speaker 1: Tom Wolfe's advice and just pay your employees more if
Speaker 1: management wants them to come back to work. When Minnesota's
Speaker 1: are being that rude to each other, you know, things
Speaker 1: are getting weird out there. Yeah, Andrew, thank you for
Speaker 1: the heads up on this. Makes sense to me that
Speaker 1: there will be other businesses too, because the paycheck protection
Speaker 1: program is not just for restaurants, So there must be
Speaker 1: other businesses where the financial incentive is now stronger to
Speaker 1: stay at home than it is to work, and that's
Speaker 1: clearly counterproductive for those of us who want to get
Speaker 1: the economy up and running again. So thank you for
Speaker 1: bringing me that, you know, that sense of what's going
Speaker 1: on Minnesota. It's true, Minnesotas are so nice. There's such
Speaker 1: nice people. Minnesotas are so nice. They're a bunch of
Speaker 1: I wonder, what have they ever done a study of
Speaker 1: what the how would you engage this? But I'm curious
Speaker 1: what the nicest state is like. If I ask you,
Speaker 1: producer Mark, what state is the friend When I say
Speaker 1: the nicest, the friendliest, Like strangers are the friendliest to
Speaker 1: you in what state? What would you say? It's definitely
Speaker 1: not New York. In New Jersey we know that. I mean,
Speaker 1: I will say about New Yorkers, they are kind to
Speaker 1: each other sometimes, like when we come together. I was
Speaker 1: going to say, we come through for each other when
Speaker 1: it counts, right, Like New Yorkers, Well, we do our thing,
Speaker 1: we do our thing, but you know, we'll see something
Speaker 1: wrong going down, or we'll see somebody who's in need,
Speaker 1: and New Yorkers will go to the mat for each
Speaker 1: other when it counts, but we're not like, oh, hey,
Speaker 1: how's your day? Oh my days for you though, That's
Speaker 1: that's not our way. So where do you find And
Speaker 1: by the way, I think that's in a stude observation
Speaker 1: you have and I totally agree with you about that
Speaker 1: that we you know, New Yorkers will surprise people by
Speaker 1: what they're willing. I mean, I can't tell you how
Speaker 1: many times I've seen stuff go on in this city
Speaker 1: and I'm just like, that's that's how, that's how we
Speaker 1: do it here, like when someone is in an accent
Speaker 1: or something. Now, you could say this is true everywhere,
Speaker 1: but New Yorkers really go to extreme lengths. I can't
Speaker 1: tell you how many people I've seen help mothers carry
Speaker 1: very heavy strollers down narrow, slippery subway stairs, which sounds
Speaker 1: like it's not a big deal, But let me tell
Speaker 1: you something, as somebody who has humble brag, carried a
Speaker 1: few strollers for strangers with the kid in the stroller
Speaker 1: because there's a baby. So you've got someone else's baby
Speaker 1: that you're kind of now responsible for the safety of.
Speaker 1: You're trying not to fall down the stairs and crack
Speaker 1: your skull open, and you're hoping you don't throw your
Speaker 1: back out, you know what I mean. Yeah, I've seen
Speaker 1: that happen as well. I don't really help because I
Speaker 1: would fall with the stroller, so that caused two problems.
Speaker 1: But there is a website called Big seven Travel and
Speaker 1: it's as Minnesota as the friendliest state, followed by Tennessee.
Speaker 1: I was gonna say, people would usually think it's Minnesota.
Speaker 1: Would you like to know where New York is? Everyone's
Speaker 1: real friendly. Where's New York? Yeah? People were very when
Speaker 1: I was in Nashville, people were very nice in Tennessee.
Speaker 1: It is true people are friendlier in the South. I
Speaker 1: mean when I go down, when I go down to
Speaker 1: the Carolinas or to Georgia, everyone's so nice. Texas people
Speaker 1: are like, hey, how you doing it. I'm like, you
Speaker 1: actually cared, don't you. You're like, hey, I hope the
Speaker 1: stranger is having a good day. I think why New
Speaker 1: York gets a bad rap. If you see a tourist,
Speaker 1: and I'm sure you're guilty of as I am. If
Speaker 1: they stop in the middle of a sidewalk to take
Speaker 1: a picture or something stupid, you shove them a little.
Speaker 1: We have rules here, yeah, and you gotta know the rule.
Speaker 1: The rules are you walk fast, or you get out
Speaker 1: of the way. You don't take too much time when
Speaker 1: you're ordered food because you look at the menu before
Speaker 1: you get to the front of the line. You know,
Speaker 1: we have rules. That's the thing, you know. Where we're
Speaker 1: on the New Yorkers are all a time crunch, so
Speaker 1: it seems like we're rude when really we're just trying
Speaker 1: to move fast, which sometimes makes us rude. Yeah, and
Speaker 1: when chorus getting our way, we don't like it. I
Speaker 1: also feel like there's a there's a there's a sort
Speaker 1: of understood language, like sometimes if someone accelerates toward you
Speaker 1: in New York and you're in the crosswalk. This is
Speaker 1: when life was normal and there were cars driving around.
Speaker 1: You know, you flip it, you know, you flip them
Speaker 1: the bird and they honk at you, and it's like yeah,
Speaker 1: and you're not even really mad at them. But that's
Speaker 1: just the way we communicate here. Oh. I used to
Speaker 1: get into the right by our old building before we
Speaker 1: move downtown. There was like a stop sign in the
Speaker 1: middle of the street for pedestrians to go by. So
Speaker 1: many taxis wouldn't stop and almost hit me. I swear
Speaker 1: I almost came to blows with a couple of taxi drivers.
Speaker 1: So that's yeah. But this is this is like, you know,
Speaker 1: you throw them the one finger salute, they honk at you,
Speaker 1: You go about your married day, and you know, you
Speaker 1: kind of get a little stress out. I don't know,
Speaker 1: it's just it's just the way it is here. It's
Speaker 1: kind of a it's called a New York alone. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's how we do it. It's different in other places.
Speaker 1: In Minnesota, you know what they call a hello Hello,
Speaker 1: that's right, not anymore, but they used to hug you.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hut. This is the buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast are more more roll Call here, Willis writes
Speaker 1: in good Call on the Waco series. Just started it
Speaker 1: last night. Keep the suggestions coming, all right, man, Willis.
Speaker 1: First of all, I'm glad you enjoy the Waco series.
Speaker 1: I think it's excellent. My suggestions for you right now
Speaker 1: for things to watch that are out there, watch The
Speaker 1: Michael And this one's from producer Mark, The Last Dance,
Speaker 1: The Michael Jordan documentary ESPN fantastic, The Last Kingdom season four.
Speaker 1: If you have seen the other seasons, you need to
Speaker 1: watch this one. If you haven't seen The Last Kingdom
Speaker 1: on Netflix, highly recommend it. It's like Vikings, but I
Speaker 1: think even a little better than the show Vikings. So
Speaker 1: The Last Kingdom Waco, as I've mentioned to you, is
Speaker 1: just it's ripping. It's so well done, and it's an
Speaker 1: excellent producer. Mark gave us the Last Dance. Do you
Speaker 1: have another break, producer, Mark, other than the Creek that
Speaker 1: we the Creek that shall not be named because we
Speaker 1: can't say it on air. Yes, so I'll say Silicon Valley.
Speaker 1: I'm only three seasons in, but I love it so far.
Speaker 1: Very good show. I knew that would one one would
Speaker 1: be right up your alley. I mean, I think Silicon
Speaker 1: Valley's excellent. So you got a bunch of recks there.
Speaker 1: Oh and if you want something to watch with the misses,
Speaker 1: The Crown is a show that the dudes and the
Speaker 1: ladies can watch together and I think equally enjoy. It's
Speaker 1: a very good show for what a day. A little
Speaker 1: a little understated, a little bit. It can be a
Speaker 1: little slow, but it's the acting and the writing is excellent.
Speaker 1: The costuming and sets our cinematic quality. You'll you'll see
Speaker 1: what I mean. And you watch it with the wife,
Speaker 1: you'd be like, oh, look at he's kind of a
Speaker 1: sensitive sophistic He's a sophisticated fellow, isn't He likes to
Speaker 1: watch the crowd and drink tea, eat crumpets. All right,
Speaker 1: John Buck. I'm a political science major. Just finished a
Speaker 1: class called research and Writing and poly saw. We learned
Speaker 1: a lot about polling and how to account for influences
Speaker 1: in a sample group. That got me thinking about the
Speaker 1: odds of liberal COVID patients who are prescribed hydroxy chloroquin
Speaker 1: and not taking it. Since the drug has been politicized, However,
Speaker 1: I doubt that if that were happening, it would be
Speaker 1: a high enough number of patients to impact the results.
Speaker 1: What do you think, John, I don't think that anybody
Speaker 1: who is advised by their doctor when their life is
Speaker 1: really on the line to take a drug like hydroxy
Speaker 1: chloroquin would say no because of the politics. But then again,
Speaker 1: people are nuts, so I can't I don't have a
Speaker 1: good read on this. I'm not seeing the matrix on
Speaker 1: this one. I don't have a good read on this one.
Speaker 1: As for hydroxy chloroquin, so far, the belief has really
Speaker 1: switched now based on what doctors have seen. This is
Speaker 1: not a belief that comes out of nowhere that it
Speaker 1: might be best as a either early intervention to prevent
Speaker 1: the virus from replicating or as a just a straight
Speaker 1: up prophylactic against virus, against the virus, establishing and effect.
Speaker 1: William Greetings, bucking Mark. It seems clear that the only
Speaker 1: metrics the Democrat of the media, that the only metric
Speaker 1: when it comes to open the country is after the election,
Speaker 1: or at least to wait until they think they have
Speaker 1: sunken Trump's chances or sunk Trump's chances they want the
Speaker 1: economic recovery to come under their guidance so they can
Speaker 1: claim credit for saving the country. Open the country, shields high. Yeah,
Speaker 1: so you're correct about a lot of a lot of
Speaker 1: politics at play here and the slow nature of reopening
Speaker 1: the country. That has to do with those politics for
Speaker 1: the left. So we'll have to see how this continues.
Speaker 1: This fight is ongoing, and we will need our our
Speaker 1: shields high because this is not This is gonna get ugly.
Speaker 1: It's gonna get very ugly. I'm already seeing some guy
Speaker 1: got arrested in North Carolina. This just broke today because
Speaker 1: he opened his tattoo parlor. Get ready for more of that,
Speaker 1: more non compliance, it's gonna happen. Mark writes a lot
Speaker 1: of Mark's write again. Producer Mark reboard Last Night Buck
Speaker 1: producer Mark Trader sells crumpets same section as English muffins. Okay,
Speaker 1: good to know, but are they gluten free? That's gonna
Speaker 1: be the show for today. Everybody back tomorrow, same time
Speaker 1: and place shields high.