Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt America. Let's open up.
Speaker 1: Plus Wisconsin cops will put you on the naughty list.
Speaker 1: The plot against General Flynn is Biden ever going to
Speaker 1: personally speak out on these sexual assault claims against him.
Speaker 1: We've hit thirty million unemployment claims and should exercise outdoors
Speaker 1: include a mask bucks Sexton mission decoding the news and
Speaker 1: disseminating information with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake American great,
Speaker 1: You're a great American again. This is the Buck Sexton Show.
Speaker 1: Puma Cia analysts. I can speak to three hours without
Speaker 1: a phone call. Try doing that sometime. No, this came
Speaker 1: from us mind. We never know. We had the greatest
Speaker 1: economy ever in the world and the history of the world.
Speaker 1: We had the best economy. I say it openly. Nobody
Speaker 1: even challenges it, and they would if they thought it
Speaker 1: was wrong. We had the best economy ever and we're
Speaker 1: gonna have it again. Welcome to the Buck sex and show.
Speaker 1: Everybody there. You have the President talking about what was
Speaker 1: and what he says will be again. We will get
Speaker 1: to that place where we have a rock and economy.
Speaker 1: Things going very well for business, for individuals. Some optimism,
Speaker 1: we need optimism. These days. It's grinding us down, isn't it.
Speaker 1: It's getting a little tough out there on these lockdowns.
Speaker 1: It's a question that we're going to keep revisiting. When
Speaker 1: are we going to reopen? How fast can we reopen?
Speaker 1: And was all of this really worth? It? Was all
Speaker 1: of this something that we should have put ourselves through,
Speaker 1: And if so, I want to see the data, because
Speaker 1: so far over the data that I'm seeing suggest that
Speaker 1: it was not. Now, look, there's some tough new information.
Speaker 1: There's some tough new data, specifically about jobs. You've got
Speaker 1: an additional three point eight million more people sought jobless benefits,
Speaker 1: and I'll talk to you a bit about that. We've
Speaker 1: also got some bombshell stuff last night that I wanted
Speaker 1: to begin with today, where General Flynn, I mean, the
Speaker 1: move against General Flynn is beyond any reasonable doubt, something
Speaker 1: that you could refer to now as a deep state
Speaker 1: ambush of the Trump administration National Security advisor that used
Speaker 1: the worst kinds of behind the scenes FBI abuse of
Speaker 1: the system of their discretion, that relied on dishonorable, disreputable
Speaker 1: tactics from people that are partisans. And now this new
Speaker 1: information is just confirming what many of us have thought
Speaker 1: all along, and I think that's really important for us here.
Speaker 1: I think we need to take stock on this issue
Speaker 1: of General Flynn of who was right, who was wrong,
Speaker 1: and why did they get it so wrong. Those who
Speaker 1: have been skeptical of the case against General Flynn from
Speaker 1: day one and been calling it an evil politically motivated
Speaker 1: injustice were right. Meanwhile, the multi billion dollar media apparatus
Speaker 1: that defamed and tried to ruin Flynn out of partisan spite,
Speaker 1: we're wrong. Never forget that, Never forget that. Those of
Speaker 1: you who have been listening to me talk about General
Speaker 1: Flynn for the last three years, about his case, about
Speaker 1: what was done to him, I've been right at every stage. CNN,
Speaker 1: The New York Times, MSNBC, the New York Post, and
Speaker 1: all the assorted liberal outlets out there. They were wrong.
Speaker 1: They've been lying to their audiences, They've been misrepresenting what happened.
Speaker 1: They've been putting stupid analysts on TV and running their columns,
Speaker 1: running their analysis in various platforms. That now is just
Speaker 1: completely indefensible. I mean, it was always wrong, but at
Speaker 1: this point they should be offering up apologies and that
Speaker 1: will not that will not happen. The unbelievable corruption and
Speaker 1: underhanded partisan tactics that the FBI and DJ engaged in
Speaker 1: against Flynn and Trump's campaign, it should be noted happened
Speaker 1: on Obama's watch and our ultimately Obama's responsibility. Libs can
Speaker 1: try to obfuscate this all day, but it's a fact
Speaker 1: it was Obama's team on his watch taking this action
Speaker 1: against the presidential transition. What a bunch of petty, spiteful,
Speaker 1: insidious garbage. This was your team loses, and so you
Speaker 1: make sure that the team that gets to take the
Speaker 1: field is not able to have the full benefit of
Speaker 1: their victory. You do this on the way out the door. Disgusting,
Speaker 1: Absolutely disgusting, And there's no way at this point, there's
Speaker 1: no way for anyone to explain this as an act
Speaker 1: of a mistake or as as good faith gone awry. No,
Speaker 1: we see, and I will, I will take you through
Speaker 1: the latest information here on this. We see what really happened.
Speaker 1: The Justice Department has had to turn over documents. And
Speaker 1: this is all because Sidney Powell, this this lawyer who
Speaker 1: has taken up General Flynn's cause. She saw what she
Speaker 1: saw what happened here, and She's like, I'm not allowing this,
Speaker 1: you know. Flynn and originally went to Covington and Burling.
Speaker 1: That was the firm that he went to represent him.
Speaker 1: And it's funny, actually used to live like across the
Speaker 1: street from their office, and he did this thinking that
Speaker 1: they were going to represent his best interest. Now it
Speaker 1: looks like they had a massive conflict of interest and
Speaker 1: they were not acting on his behalf in ways that
Speaker 1: they should have. Here's the quick review of what happened here.
Speaker 1: General Flynn, the National Security Advisor, former DA director, and
Speaker 1: thirty plus year military veteran. He had a couple of
Speaker 1: FBI guys sent to talk to him after there was
Speaker 1: a news story about a conversation that he had. Someone
Speaker 1: leaked a conversation that he had with the ambassador. The
Speaker 1: criminal league by the way, and this person whoever league,
Speaker 1: they should go to prison. They should sit in a cell.
Speaker 1: They should go to prison for this. You're not allowed
Speaker 1: to do this, not going to play games with secret
Speaker 1: information in this way, someone in the government betrayed their
Speaker 1: oath and broke the law. They should go to prison.
Speaker 1: It's not General Flynn. So this league happened to ignacious
Speaker 1: The Washington post, and then the FBI guys decided that
Speaker 1: they were because you know, initially Flynn was denying, and look,
Speaker 1: maybe Flynn kind of forgot what he said to the
Speaker 1: you know, he didn't have the transcript of the conversation,
Speaker 1: but he said no, you know, he denied it. And
Speaker 1: then they figured that they were going to go and
Speaker 1: get him. That was some of you will recall from
Speaker 1: from Ghostbusters when they see the first ghost in the
Speaker 1: New York Public Library, and you know, they go, stay close,
Speaker 1: stay close, get her, and that's their whole plan, you know,
Speaker 1: And afterwards Bill Murray's kind of laughing, that was your
Speaker 1: whole plan, get her, get Flynn was the plan. That
Speaker 1: was all this was. There was no reason, there was
Speaker 1: no real crime, there was no investigation. And we remember
Speaker 1: from James Coomey that they were taking advantage of an
Speaker 1: administration in change in flux. You know, the transition is underway,
Speaker 1: and they were taking advantage of that for partisan purposes.
Speaker 1: So you have a new presidential team coming in with
Speaker 1: obviously tremendous responsibility, a lot of authority, a lot of power,
Speaker 1: representing the interest of the American people. Duly elected in
Speaker 1: twenty sixteen, despite all the whining and crying from Libs.
Speaker 1: Who should cry more? Cry more, Libs? Please? You know
Speaker 1: you're gonna be Oh, man, I certainly the party that
Speaker 1: I'm gonna throw. I don't care if it's a party
Speaker 1: for one, but the party that I'm going to have
Speaker 1: if Trump wins reelection this fall, Man, we are going
Speaker 1: to go. We are going to go jet skiing in
Speaker 1: a lake of liberal tiers if Trump wins, and I
Speaker 1: still think there's a very good chance he will. But anyway,
Speaker 1: I don't want to get ahead of myself. So they
Speaker 1: send in, They send in these two FBI agents, and
Speaker 1: now we have notes about the thought processes, thought processes
Speaker 1: around this. Here's what Fox News breaks it down. Handwritten
Speaker 1: notes by the FBI's former head of counterintelligence, Bill Prestapp
Speaker 1: after a meeting with then FBI Director James Comey and
Speaker 1: then FBI Director Andrew McCabe, suggested the agents planned to
Speaker 1: get Flynn to admit to breaking the Logan Act in
Speaker 1: the alternative when he spoke to then Russian Ambassador Sergei
Speaker 1: Kiseljak during the presidential transition period. What is our goal,
Speaker 1: one of the notes read truth admission or get him
Speaker 1: to lie so we can prosecute him or get him
Speaker 1: fired if we get him to admit to breaking the
Speaker 1: Logan Act. Give facts a DOJ and have them decide.
Speaker 1: Another note read Constitutional law professor Jonathan Turley called the
Speaker 1: documents implications chilling folks. This is exactly what I have
Speaker 1: been telling you all along. They did here. They created
Speaker 1: a completely absurd pretext, an absurd pretext to bring a
Speaker 1: ridiculous charge or to create a ridiculous criminal predicate that
Speaker 1: no one really thinks this is a crime. This is
Speaker 1: kafka ask I mean, this is Soviet style abuse of
Speaker 1: the law by pretending that there's nothing in the law
Speaker 1: that has to make any sense whatsoever, by misinterpreting it
Speaker 1: and misapplying it for political purposes. This is a disgrace.
Speaker 1: James Comey should be in prison. Andrew McCabe should be
Speaker 1: in prison. McCabe should definitely be in prison for lying
Speaker 1: under oath that they just gave him a pass on
Speaker 1: this because they didn't want to hurt morale inside these institutions.
Speaker 1: Let me tell you something, the FBI is not gonna
Speaker 1: be able to live this down for a long time.
Speaker 1: Anytime there's a political political edge to an investigation that's
Speaker 1: going on with the DGEN the FBI. Now, people are
Speaker 1: rightly going to ask a whole lot of questions. Is
Speaker 1: this on the up and up? Is this a bunch
Speaker 1: of deep state libs taking out their aggression on somebody
Speaker 1: that they don't like politically. That's what Peter Struck did,
Speaker 1: That's what Lisa Page did. And Comey and McCabe they
Speaker 1: were every bit as bad as we said. They were
Speaker 1: every bit. And if you're wondering what was Comey's role
Speaker 1: in the Comy thinks he's a hero for this. I
Speaker 1: mean he is truly a sociopath. I mean, Comy's got
Speaker 1: real problems. This guy's a loon. He was the FBI director, folks.
Speaker 1: He was a US attorney sending people to prison for
Speaker 1: a long time, making the determinations about who gets charged
Speaker 1: and who doesn't. This guy is a sanctimonious, self righteous loon.
Speaker 1: And he was at the very top of the United
Speaker 1: States law enforcement apparatus after the Attorney General, arguably the
Speaker 1: most powerful law enforcement figure in the country. And we
Speaker 1: think this is okay, of course not. But he's gonna
Speaker 1: he's gonna skate. He's got a seven figure book deal
Speaker 1: and he's gone around giving speeches and here's what he
Speaker 1: said about his role in all of this play seventeen.
Speaker 1: I sent them something we I probably wouldn't have done
Speaker 1: or maybe gotten away with in a more organized investigation
Speaker 1: and more organized administration in the George W. Bush administration,
Speaker 1: for example, or the Obama administration. The protocol two men
Speaker 1: that all of us have perhaps increased appreciation for over
Speaker 1: the last two years. And in both of those administrations,
Speaker 1: there was process. And so if the FBI wanted to
Speaker 1: send agents into the White House itself to interview a
Speaker 1: senior official, you would work through the White House Council
Speaker 1: and they be discussions and approvals and who would be there.
Speaker 1: And I thought it's early enough, let's just send a
Speaker 1: couple of guys over. And so we placed a call
Speaker 1: to Flynn, said, Hey, we're sending a couple of guys over.
Speaker 1: I hope you'll talk to them. He said, sure. Nobody
Speaker 1: else was there. They interviewed him in a conference room
Speaker 1: at the White House Situation Room, and he lied to them.
Speaker 1: And that's what he's now played guilty too. It's pleaded guilty,
Speaker 1: which you would think the FBI director would know the
Speaker 1: proper terminology and beyond that, he used, he exploited the
Speaker 1: disarray and the frenzied nature of a presidential transition for
Speaker 1: a political hit. That's what this was. It was a
Speaker 1: political hit. And notice you look, Look, the FBI has
Speaker 1: got big problems here, folks. This is not going to
Speaker 1: just go away. Current FBI Director Chris Ray doesn't look
Speaker 1: like he is willing to wash the dirty laundry properly
Speaker 1: within his own institution. You know, the CIA rightfully got
Speaker 1: pounded pounded in the public's eye for nine to eleven
Speaker 1: and then for the Iraq WMD debacle. Okay, my old
Speaker 1: agency got absolutely crushed in the in the public's mind
Speaker 1: for those two. Now, the CIA, I mean the nine
Speaker 1: to eleventh thing was intelligence community wide, so that was
Speaker 1: more diffuse anger, but it was certainly a failure at
Speaker 1: the CIA was actually really in a lot of ways
Speaker 1: a bigger failure at the FBI. But conversation for another time.
Speaker 1: And then the Iroq WMD thing, which really was blamed
Speaker 1: on Bush. But the CIA should have done better, that's
Speaker 1: just the truth. Now we have the FBI, which is
Speaker 1: much more concerning to us than the CIA, because CI
Speaker 1: doesn't have law enforcement powers here. CIA can't show up,
Speaker 1: take you out of the shower in front of your
Speaker 1: family at gunpoint and lock you in a cell. CI
Speaker 1: actually can't do that in this country. They won't do
Speaker 1: that in this country. FBI can just ask Roger Stone.
Speaker 1: They'll send thirty guys with long guns and tack gear
Speaker 1: on while you're having tea with your wife and your
Speaker 1: silk pajamas watching reruns of The Price Is Right, and
Speaker 1: they'll make sure that they come at five o'clock in
Speaker 1: the morning and that CNN is there. Oh yeah, because
Speaker 1: they got lucky. Remember that whole thing. CNN is a
Speaker 1: bunch of liars. These people have lost it, my friends.
Speaker 1: They can't go back and reclaim their honor because they
Speaker 1: don't have any and they don't care. We'll get into
Speaker 1: the media angle of this in a second. But this
Speaker 1: is the deep state. This is real. We have proof,
Speaker 1: We've had a proof for a long time. But this
Speaker 1: is even more. This is smoking gun the Logan Act.
Speaker 1: You're going to have a conversation with the incoming National
Speaker 1: Security Advisor about the Logan Act. The guys allowed to
Speaker 1: talk to people. First of all, the Logan Act is unconstitutional.
Speaker 1: Start with that. How could you even apply this. It's
Speaker 1: unconstitutionally vague and unconstitutionally broad, and no one ever charges it.
Speaker 1: So that's why it hasn't gotten overturned. But they decided
Speaker 1: they were going to just try to dust this one off.
Speaker 1: You show me the man, I'll show you the crime.
Speaker 1: That was Laventi barrier of the Soviet secret police. That's
Speaker 1: what they're doing here. That's the approach. And now there's
Speaker 1: no question about it. Flynn should not only be pardoned.
Speaker 1: People that were a part of this should be run
Speaker 1: out of the public square and should serve prison time.
Speaker 1: And you don't hear me, So I'm not somebody says, oh,
Speaker 1: people should go to jail for this or that, you know,
Speaker 1: some of the Benghazi stuff, for example, from the Obama administration,
Speaker 1: that was in competence. It was indifference, it was stupidity.
Speaker 1: But you're not. You can't send people to jail for
Speaker 1: being morons. There are else a lot more politicians would
Speaker 1: be in jail this though. This is malice, this is
Speaker 1: abuse of power, This is ruining lives. There needs to
Speaker 1: be justice for this. We cannot allow this to stand.
Speaker 1: They went after one of the top White House officials
Speaker 1: of an incoming administration to settle a pro Hillary vendetta.
Speaker 1: That's what this was. And also because all these people
Speaker 1: in DC that have been working there for decades and
Speaker 1: have reached the highest levels of the bureaucracy, they think
Speaker 1: they're so much more clever and important than they are.
Speaker 1: And let me tell you, they're overwhelmingly, deeply unimpressive. The
Speaker 1: people who work there to day in these places, some
Speaker 1: of them are fantastic. Some of them are bumps on
Speaker 1: a log, they're workless, but some of them are fantastic.
Speaker 1: I've known both the people that rise to the top, though,
Speaker 1: especially in a Democrat administration. Remember Obama pointed Toomey, the
Speaker 1: people that rise to the top bureaucracy is like this
Speaker 1: in Komi McCabe. They're just all pretending and they hope
Speaker 1: that people don't find out that they're really just frauds.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. I mentioned before. The media's role in
Speaker 1: all this, as they were celebrating the destruction of General Flynn,
Speaker 1: after all the time that he had served his country,
Speaker 1: after all the good that he had done for this nation.
Speaker 1: I just want to remind everyone that whether it's General Flynn,
Speaker 1: Justice Kavanaugh. Nicholas Sandman of the Commington High School. Liberal
Speaker 1: journals are willing to set these people up with lies
Speaker 1: and then pounce on them like hyenas, with no regard
Speaker 1: for the lives and families that they ruin. And do
Speaker 1: you ever see the journals apologize? Do you ever see
Speaker 1: these journalists who run with these stories and then put
Speaker 1: analysts on to amplify the stories by felling in what
Speaker 1: they don't have facts on so far, even if the
Speaker 1: facts are initially wrong with their own supposition. Do you
Speaker 1: ever see the journals go on TV and say we
Speaker 1: were wrong about this one. General Flynn was set up.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry, America. Do you ever see that? No, you don't.
Speaker 1: And yet do you ever see on the other side
Speaker 1: people that are destroyed by conservatives and then it turns
Speaker 1: out they were entirely innocent. No, what names come to mind?
Speaker 1: Jesse's small att Oh, that's right, he wasn't innocent at all.
Speaker 1: He's a total fraud. Journalists in America overwhelmingly have neither
Speaker 1: introspection nor honor. Thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson
Speaker 1: Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcasts. The iHeartRadio
Speaker 1: app or wherever you get your podcasts team. You know
Speaker 1: that I've been warning about the overreach that is inevitable here,
Speaker 1: that we would go from a period of a perceived consensus.
Speaker 1: Now that's not the same thing is a real consensus,
Speaker 1: but people use the term so that they'll say, everyone
Speaker 1: agrees that we should do this thing that I want
Speaker 1: to do. There's a consensus, right, They pretend, for example,
Speaker 1: that they have one on climate change and how we
Speaker 1: have to tackle the problem of climate change. But there
Speaker 1: are these there are these these signposts that you can
Speaker 1: look for, these transition points that will always happen where
Speaker 1: at first it's there's consensus that the government has to
Speaker 1: take a certain action, and then it's when the government
Speaker 1: begins to fail, we're told, well, we had no choice
Speaker 1: because everyone agreed that we had to do this. And
Speaker 1: then when you realize, wait, but we did have a choice,
Speaker 1: they say, shut up, peasant, stay indoors. We have power.
Speaker 1: Now this is the way it's going to be. That's
Speaker 1: the natural progression when you're dealing with the state, and
Speaker 1: when you're dealing with the trajectory of unchecked government power,
Speaker 1: which is what we've been seeing in this country, when
Speaker 1: the government can show up and tell you your business
Speaker 1: shut down no reason other than we say so. Yeah,
Speaker 1: they can claim that it's for a virus and all
Speaker 1: this other stuff. Fine, But there are states where there
Speaker 1: are a few hundred people who died from this, which
Speaker 1: means there are far more people over the same period
Speaker 1: of time who have been dying from a whole bunch
Speaker 1: of ailments and sicknesses out there. We're not shutting down
Speaker 1: for those. Now. New York is different. I understand the
Speaker 1: same way that if Louisiana is hit by a hurricane,
Speaker 1: God forbid, but that's happened the past. Louisiana is a disaster.
Speaker 1: You've got to do a lot of stuff for Louisiana.
Speaker 1: You don't do that for Michigan, though, you don't do
Speaker 1: that for Montana, right, I mean, so, we took this
Speaker 1: approach of a nationwide lockdown without really thinking this through.
Speaker 1: And we also recognize that giving once the national consensus
Speaker 1: again there's that word it creeps in. You started using it.
Speaker 1: Once the national perception was that we all had to
Speaker 1: do this, then state governors and law enforcement that respond
Speaker 1: to state governors, they will do whatever they can to
Speaker 1: increase their authority in their power, because they at first
Speaker 1: think that they've got a responsibility, and then the frustration
Speaker 1: sets in that they're not they're not changing things the
Speaker 1: way that they might have thought, and so they want
Speaker 1: more power, they want more responsibility. I gotta tell you
Speaker 1: this is just a side note, but I I was
Speaker 1: walking a little Telou the frenchie, who is quite adorable,
Speaker 1: and I liked we like to wrap her up. I
Speaker 1: like to wrap her up these days like a little burrito,
Speaker 1: and I call it a Toledo because she's like a
Speaker 1: Tolou burrito. I know this is what happens when you
Speaker 1: spend like twenty four hours a day with a dog
Speaker 1: and it's really your only companion. So anyway, but I
Speaker 1: was walking her outside your face mask on, of course,
Speaker 1: just kidding. I don't wear a face mask when I
Speaker 1: walk the dog. That's stupid. But as someone came, I
Speaker 1: saw someone was double parked and they had their hazards on.
Speaker 1: And keep in mind, there's very few cars on the street,
Speaker 1: and there's no traffic to speak of. There's very few
Speaker 1: people on the street. Producer Mark, how long do you
Speaker 1: think it took the NYPD tow truck to throw that
Speaker 1: BMW on the back and take it off to the
Speaker 1: to the the impound half hour, Oh, my friend, three minutes,
Speaker 1: three minutes the guy, the guy leaves double Park. He's
Speaker 1: got he's got his hazards on. There's no cars, there's nothing,
Speaker 1: and roof right, you know, he goes off. I felt
Speaker 1: so bad, as where is the guy? We gotta get him.
Speaker 1: We can't let him get his car, Toad. That's one thing.
Speaker 1: I feel like everybody always has sympathy unless you're being
Speaker 1: a real jerk and blocking traffic or something. But if
Speaker 1: you know, when when you leave the car and the
Speaker 1: fire lane or something and there's no fire and you
Speaker 1: get that, you get Toad. It was a nice car too.
Speaker 1: There's a there's a new Beamer. You know. Beamer drivers
Speaker 1: tend to think they can do whatever they want, so
Speaker 1: I don't really feel bad for them. But this guy.
Speaker 1: It was just it was so interesting because, um, when
Speaker 1: you know, when I used to work for the NYPD,
Speaker 1: there was a government. The the the example of government
Speaker 1: efficiency that even the cops and point two is ticket
Speaker 1: writing in tow trucks. And it's very obvious why that is, right, Well,
Speaker 1: why is the city so good at writing tickets for
Speaker 1: traffic violations and you know, for for parking, and why
Speaker 1: are they so good at at deploying toe trucks. It's
Speaker 1: just money in the bank. It's just revenue. But you know,
Speaker 1: even even now when you would think that, you know,
Speaker 1: maybe if somebody might get a little bit of a
Speaker 1: break or whatever. Man it was this guy was like
Speaker 1: a toe truck ninja. I mean, it was just boop
Speaker 1: boop poop, car in the back and it was gone.
Speaker 1: I was like, oh, rough, it's rough, but it's money.
Speaker 1: They want money. I mean, the city is desperate for
Speaker 1: cash right now. And that's going to be true of
Speaker 1: a lot of cities in a lot of places. And
Speaker 1: you're going to start to see, you know, people talking
Speaker 1: about cutbacks and essential services. That puts additional pressure on
Speaker 1: cops in law enforcement across the board, and then they
Speaker 1: feel additionally stressed because they're pulling longer shifts and ot
Speaker 1: is cut bag. I mean just telling you, I know,
Speaker 1: this stuff all starts to spiral. It gets bad fast.
Speaker 1: So while I did have a moment of a moment
Speaker 1: of just got a feel for the guy who's car,
Speaker 1: you know, you got to spend like an hour at
Speaker 1: the impound. Now it's going to cost you about five
Speaker 1: hundred bucks to get your car back. Oh man, it's rough.
Speaker 1: It's rough. You also see what's going to happen in
Speaker 1: these cities, and they're the bureaucracies. They're once their funding
Speaker 1: gets cut off, the bureaucracies getty pretty aggressive and they
Speaker 1: start taking going after the citizens with things like well
Speaker 1: and any way they can drive up Revene anyway. So
Speaker 1: I've been warning you about how this is going to happen,
Speaker 1: and you know now that it is happening in different places.
Speaker 1: Parents are being arrested in playgrounds for taking their children
Speaker 1: out of open air. Who has the science on their side?
Speaker 1: The parent who with their kid member, The kids and
Speaker 1: the parents all live in the same home and they're
Speaker 1: constantly interacting. So trying I mean social distancing, but among
Speaker 1: immediate family members is not something that's really happening. I mean,
Speaker 1: maybe if you're somebody who's at high risk. Kids are
Speaker 1: at almost no risk, I mean basically zero risk. So
Speaker 1: maybe if you're social distancing to keep grandma or grandpa safe,
Speaker 1: you know, that might work. It's very unlikely to be
Speaker 1: an easy thing to do. Maybe it'll work. But for families,
Speaker 1: you know, a husband and wife and their young children,
Speaker 1: there's the science is absolutely on their side, not on
Speaker 1: the side of the cop. Who. I do admit I
Speaker 1: feel bad when cops are being told you got to
Speaker 1: clear the park and that's the city ordinance, you know,
Speaker 1: that's the rule. You know, what are they what are
Speaker 1: they going to do? I mean now, I think that
Speaker 1: they can use discretion. And I know a lot of
Speaker 1: law enforcement listens to the show, and you guys know,
Speaker 1: you know, it always comes down to people, right. I mean,
Speaker 1: you can see this in some of these videos. I'm
Speaker 1: about to play a video that that things. It sends
Speaker 1: a chill up your spine. It's not not a good
Speaker 1: video about a law enforce interaction with people. But I'm
Speaker 1: very sensitive to it. You know, if you're if you're
Speaker 1: being respectful. You know, I gave a I mentioned a
Speaker 1: few weeks ago, maybe a week or two ago, that
Speaker 1: I and a sometimes Secret Service can be a little imperious.
Speaker 1: It's because I had a an interaction with one of
Speaker 1: the with one of the family members, not not for
Speaker 1: Trump himself, but with the Secret Service member. And I
Speaker 1: was completely right and being respectful, and the guy was
Speaker 1: being a jerk. And I know the difference because I've
Speaker 1: been on different sides of that equation. And he was out,
Speaker 1: he was out of line, and maybe he was having
Speaker 1: a bad day. Maybe you know, maybe his wife is
Speaker 1: you know, angried and for something. Who knows right and
Speaker 1: not get that? People are people. When you're dealing with
Speaker 1: law enforcement, and I know all the cops and former
Speaker 1: cops listening to this, no first thing is how how
Speaker 1: are you responding to the law law enforcement request? Are
Speaker 1: you showing that you are being reasonable and cooperative? That's
Speaker 1: always step one. I actually think that they should I
Speaker 1: don't know if they do, I will say that, but
Speaker 1: I think that they should teach this in school. You know,
Speaker 1: I'm going to tell you this right now. I remember
Speaker 1: being when I was a freshman in high school to
Speaker 1: take you know, they took a banana and a prophylactic
Speaker 1: device and they you know, they actually they actually do that,
Speaker 1: like they taught us how to do that, you know,
Speaker 1: in health class. We had a health class, you know,
Speaker 1: And I feel like it would be important for people
Speaker 1: to learn first of all, basic finance and accounting so
Speaker 1: you can manage your own your own economic and financial
Speaker 1: future better. That would have been helpful. But beyond that,
Speaker 1: they should have people. They should do it like a
Speaker 1: role play where you're dealing with cops. I think it's
Speaker 1: a smart thing and all it shows you is just
Speaker 1: be respectful and don't you know, don't antagonize them. Don't
Speaker 1: antagonize them. A lot of people do that and then
Speaker 1: they start doing the wire. You're putting your hands on
Speaker 1: me and you're not allowed to arrest me, and you
Speaker 1: can't do that. Actually they can in that You can
Speaker 1: always adjudicate it later. You can sue, you can bring
Speaker 1: a court action, but in that moment, I'm not getting arrested.
Speaker 1: Today is not an option. So you know, you get
Speaker 1: into this difficult, this tension. That's one side of it.
Speaker 1: The other side of it is cops are people to
Speaker 1: have got a cop of my immediate family? Cops are people, well, yeah,
Speaker 1: I think it is. You know aunt's uncles, those are
Speaker 1: those are considered immediate or no, well in my family, sorry,
Speaker 1: in my family. I don't want you guys to do
Speaker 1: a deep dive and say, wait a second, Buck's dad
Speaker 1: is a cop. No, No, one of my one of
Speaker 1: my one of my uncles is law enforcement. But you
Speaker 1: look at this and you say to yourself, Okay, everyone
Speaker 1: understands that there's some pretty wacky rules out there, some
Speaker 1: pretty bad regulations that are being enforced on US Governor
Speaker 1: Gavin Newsom. This just happened last night. I should have
Speaker 1: mentioned at the top of the show. He is closing
Speaker 1: beaches in California to punish people because too many people
Speaker 1: weren't social distancing enough. Collective punishment is the calling card
Speaker 1: of authoritarianism. I mean, collective punishment is like a baseline
Speaker 1: reality in authoritarian societies. And that's what Governor Newsom's doing. Oh,
Speaker 1: you guys don't social distance enough, I'm gonna take I'm
Speaker 1: gonna take away your beach access. Well, everyone gets their
Speaker 1: beach access taken away because some people aren't. And the
Speaker 1: beach is all one of the safest places you can be.
Speaker 1: It's that's the whole thing. Is so stupid where surround
Speaker 1: with so much stupidity, But it isn't coming up on
Speaker 1: law enforcement to make good decisions about this stuff. And
Speaker 1: they they also you know, so I said before, you
Speaker 1: got to be respectful law enforcement. But there's it's a
Speaker 1: two way street. Law enforcement has to use its discretion appropriately.
Speaker 1: You know, law enforcement has to be willing to uh,
Speaker 1: you know, they've got a lot of authority. They can
Speaker 1: let you go with the warning, or they can just
Speaker 1: say hey, as a head's up, you know, or they
Speaker 1: can make a big thing of it. And everyone knows this, right,
Speaker 1: Sometimes they're going a little too far. This is what
Speaker 1: happened in where this was in Wisconsin, and here's how
Speaker 1: the exchange went. Producer Mark play it. So are you
Speaker 1: aware that we're in a stadth Hoole order right now? Yeah? Obvious? Kay,
Speaker 1: you're aware of that. I am aware. I don't need
Speaker 1: to explain that to you. No, you don't need to
Speaker 1: explain to you. Can you can because your officer was
Speaker 1: just here two weeks ago, could you, And he explained
Speaker 1: it to me that you guys weren't enforcing that order. Okay,
Speaker 1: you understand it though, Okay, So why are you here?
Speaker 1: Because your daughter is going to play at other people's
Speaker 1: home and you're allowing it to happen. They were over
Speaker 1: here as well, So are you here? Okay? So now
Speaker 1: I understand okay, And so either you can acknowledge it
Speaker 1: or you can argue I'm I'm acknowledging it. Okay, stop
Speaker 1: having your kid go by other people's home. Stop having
Speaker 1: your kid go by other people's homes. This woman got
Speaker 1: a got a visit from two sheriff's deputies to tell
Speaker 1: her that her child, who I guess we could assume
Speaker 1: is probably you know, usually if you're arranging played eights
Speaker 1: kids like six or seven or eight or something, a
Speaker 1: young kid going over to play with other kids. No, no,
Speaker 1: stay locked at home. Because they say so. Children are
Speaker 1: at almost zero risk from I mean to say that,
Speaker 1: you can't technically say they're at zero risk. But also,
Speaker 1: you know, you can't say at zero risk for someone
Speaker 1: to drink water because the water could be contaminated. You know,
Speaker 1: the water could have bacteria, could have you know, salmonella
Speaker 1: in it, or a garda or something, and you could die.
Speaker 1: You could die from that glass of water that you're
Speaker 1: drinking right now. I can't I can guarantee you you're
Speaker 1: not going to die from it. That's crazy, though, right.
Speaker 1: We don't think that way. That's not how we approach life.
Speaker 1: We always build into our actions and to our assumptions.
Speaker 1: Some assessment of the real risk. The real risk to
Speaker 1: children from this virus is zero, and the risk of
Speaker 1: transmission increasingly we're seeing from children to adults. I can't
Speaker 1: explain why this is, but we're seeing study after study
Speaker 1: that suggests the risk of transmission from children to adults
Speaker 1: is also very very low. So here you have a
Speaker 1: woman who doesn't want her daughter to not have not
Speaker 1: be able to see any friends. We're going on now
Speaker 1: six weeks. This is going to be week seven of lockdown.
Speaker 1: And you know, kids are out of school, they're locked
Speaker 1: at home all day, they're not developing, they don't have
Speaker 1: the normal growth and the normal mechanisms in place to
Speaker 1: foster a healthy environment for them. And sheriff's deputies are
Speaker 1: showing up and telling her, you know, you're you're gonna
Speaker 1: either you're what exactly. Also, that's the other thing that
Speaker 1: they're gonna arrest her. I mean, like the way to
Speaker 1: do this would have been a sheriff's deputy come knocked
Speaker 1: door and be like, look, you know, we understand this sucks,
Speaker 1: we understand this doesn't really make much sense. But ken
Speaker 1: yet now maybe now, maybe I think there's a suggestion
Speaker 1: that this is her second time. Maybe they did that
Speaker 1: the first time. So I try to be fair, we're
Speaker 1: only seeing slice of this situation. But you know, they assuming,
Speaker 1: you know, if I'm that cop and I'm going over there,
Speaker 1: I'm gonna say, look, this is kind of it's kind
Speaker 1: of crazy, I know, but let's just, uh, let's assume
Speaker 1: going forward that we're gonna be a little more and
Speaker 1: a little more willing to respect this rule. It's as
Speaker 1: dumb as it is. You know, try something like that first.
Speaker 1: But instead, do we have mark with them saying put
Speaker 1: her on the list? Or do I just stry just
Speaker 1: verbalize that one. Okay, Well, they go on in the
Speaker 1: clip and it's fine, you don't need to hear all this,
Speaker 1: but they go on in. The female sheriff's deputy who's
Speaker 1: there is asking her name, and she's like, why do
Speaker 1: I have to the woman who who is the mother
Speaker 1: of this daughter who, heaven forbid when and played with
Speaker 1: some other kids. They're asking her name. She says, why
Speaker 1: don't have to give you my name? And you know,
Speaker 1: this is where you start to get into that cops
Speaker 1: going to escalate. It's getting a little more antagonistic, and
Speaker 1: it says because they want to put her on a list,
Speaker 1: a list of people who are being uncooperative with the
Speaker 1: stupid regulations. This is a dumb regulation. This is this
Speaker 1: does not make sense, that not allowing kids to see
Speaker 1: other kids, it's it's the science doesn't back this up.
Speaker 1: We're told listen to the science. A science does not
Speaker 1: support the Wisconsin state order here that these law enforcement
Speaker 1: officers are being told that they must they must enforce.
Speaker 1: So then you're putting people on list though, and you're
Speaker 1: marking them was uncooperative. Well, what kind of list is this?
Speaker 1: Is it a criminal charge? It is this going into
Speaker 1: some kind of report for what? This is not? This
Speaker 1: is not good. This is not the role of police,
Speaker 1: This is not the role of the state at all.
Speaker 1: It shouldn't be done this way. And I know that
Speaker 1: they are starting to be some challenges to the constitutionality
Speaker 1: of all this, but we shouldn't get to that point
Speaker 1: because stupid policies like not letting kids see other kids
Speaker 1: right now do not have any do not have any
Speaker 1: scientific basis for them. And we have people that don't
Speaker 1: know enough to pass a sixth grade basic science class
Speaker 1: telling us what we can do with our day to
Speaker 1: day lives because of the science. These people are these people,
Speaker 1: the politicians that are making these determinations, they're morons. They
Speaker 1: don't know anything. They're deeply ignorant. I mean, if nothing else,
Speaker 1: this is a reminder of how feckless and worthless most
Speaker 1: of our political class really is. That's what we see
Speaker 1: happening here. But the overreach is just going to get worse.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. The data shows that ramdesivia has a
Speaker 1: clear cut, significant positive effect in diminishing the time to recovery.
Speaker 1: This is really quite important for a number of reasons,
Speaker 1: and I'll give you the data. It's highly significant. If
Speaker 1: you look at the time to recovery being shorter in
Speaker 1: the remdest of your arm, it was eleven days compared
Speaker 1: to fifteen days. And that's a p value for the
Speaker 1: scientists who are listening of zero point zero zero one.
Speaker 1: So that's something that although a thirty one percent improvement
Speaker 1: doesn't seem like a knockout one hundred percent, it is
Speaker 1: a very important proof of concept because what it is
Speaker 1: proven is that a drug can block this virus. Some
Speaker 1: good news, folks, at a time when we could really
Speaker 1: use it. From des of your is not a silver bullet,
Speaker 1: but it's something and it shows that we can have
Speaker 1: better things soon. Hopefully, but it is good news. Thanks
Speaker 1: for listening to The bus Stson Show podcast. Remember to
Speaker 1: subscribe on Apple podcast, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. Senator Mitch McConnell, you are bailing out
Speaker 1: in New York when every year you take out more
Speaker 1: from the kitty, the federal pot, thirty seven billion dollars
Speaker 1: more than you put in. Who is bailing out whom?
Speaker 1: Senator to Scott Florida, You're gonna bail us out. You
Speaker 1: take out thirty billion dollars more every year than you
Speaker 1: pay in. How dare they? How dare they win? Those
Speaker 1: are the facts? How long are you going to play
Speaker 1: the American people and assume they're stupid? They are not,
Speaker 1: and they can add and they know facts. And I
Speaker 1: don't care what the news media tries to do to
Speaker 1: distort these facts. They are numbers and they are facts,
Speaker 1: and they can't be distorted. And this is every year.
Speaker 1: So the fight among the states is also a financial one.
Speaker 1: As we see, you have the pressure to reopen red
Speaker 1: states blue states. Blue states are going to move more
Speaker 1: slowly on this. Hopefully the red states like Texas will
Speaker 1: do very well, though Texas is opening is going on.
Speaker 1: Are pretty They're they're moving cautiously. They're not jumping into
Speaker 1: the deep end of the pool here. They're they're moving
Speaker 1: at a relatively slow pace, but they are opening up.
Speaker 1: Twenty five percent of businesses will be able to operate.
Speaker 1: So I hope things are going well, especially down in Austin.
Speaker 1: Are wonderful affiliate their KLBJ Austin. I hope you folks
Speaker 1: are doing all right. I was planning. I've been planning
Speaker 1: for a long time to get to Austin, although I
Speaker 1: think that it's gonna have to wait until I'm allowed
Speaker 1: to fly on planes. But I know Texas is moving
Speaker 1: along and that will hopefully put additional pressure on these
Speaker 1: blue states to it up and running. Two. But there's
Speaker 1: also the financial obligations component of this, and this is
Speaker 1: going to be a very interesting discussion. It should be easy,
Speaker 1: it should be straightforward. A state might be able to
Speaker 1: make the case, I think, especially in New York, State's
Speaker 1: going to make this case that virus specific budget shortfalls
Speaker 1: deserve federal assistance. And that's the same way that if
Speaker 1: a state was decimated by a hurricane or an earthquake,
Speaker 1: there would be federal funding. There would be federal assistance.
Speaker 1: I think that that's that's a fair case to make,
Speaker 1: and there's there's merit in that. The problem comes up
Speaker 1: when all of a sudden people are saying, well, why
Speaker 1: don't we just and we got we're spending trillions, why
Speaker 1: don't we get an extra you know, ten billion here,
Speaker 1: twenty billion there, to take the debt off the state's
Speaker 1: books for stuff that has nothing to do with the
Speaker 1: actual virus shutdown. That's where you get in this fight
Speaker 1: with miss mcconaughs and Miss McConnell had said maybe some
Speaker 1: states should be allowed to go bankrupt. New York State,
Speaker 1: for understand, I think has has a hundred and thirty
Speaker 1: billion dollar debt. It's a lot of money. New York
Speaker 1: is very very deep in the red. There are other
Speaker 1: states Illinois, producer, Mark, would you tell me what the
Speaker 1: Illinois state debt is? I don't want to look at
Speaker 1: it right now. I can't try to look it up
Speaker 1: while we're on air. But let me know what the
Speaker 1: Illinois state debt is. Some of these states have run
Speaker 1: up enormous tabs, and right now there's a very clear
Speaker 1: political incentive for them. While the piggy bank of the
Speaker 1: treasury has been shattered, and everyone's just grabbing, grabbing for
Speaker 1: whatever they can get, and it's gross. There's a lot
Speaker 1: of that's going on. We all know what's happening. But
Speaker 1: while that's going on, these states are seeing this as
Speaker 1: an opportunity themselves to get some of their debts taken away.
Speaker 1: Remember the debts that states are running up are overwhelmingly
Speaker 1: from one thing. Say with me, folks, public sector pensions.
Speaker 1: That's what that's what they huge issue is here when
Speaker 1: you look at some of the some of the contracts
Speaker 1: and remember that you got one party rule at the
Speaker 1: state level in a place like in a place like
Speaker 1: New York, in a place like California. Wow, Illinois had
Speaker 1: to producer mark Illinois two hundred and three billion dollars
Speaker 1: in the red, two hundred three billion dollars debt for
Speaker 1: a state. That's that's remarkable. So that's why we see
Speaker 1: this in states are saying, hey, you know, maybe they
Speaker 1: won't get the whole thing wiped away, but can you
Speaker 1: imagine if you're a state you get to have your
Speaker 1: your public debt cut in half or even cut it
Speaker 1: down by twenty or thirty percent. Oh, what a windfall
Speaker 1: that would be for public sector unions, which are the
Speaker 1: ones that are the most egregious. I don't know, and
Speaker 1: again people get mad at me for this one, but
Speaker 1: the most egregious public sector union with this stuff is
Speaker 1: the teachers union. It's the teachers unions and the EDGE
Speaker 1: and the edge ucation departments for these different states. That's
Speaker 1: where a huge portion of this budget shortfall comes from
Speaker 1: yearning year AT's why property taxes keep going up in
Speaker 1: these places. That's why the state taxes are as high
Speaker 1: as they are. And there's there's an unholy alliance between
Speaker 1: the Democrat left and these public sector particularly the public
Speaker 1: sector unions, and it's a huge source of political donations
Speaker 1: and political muscle to make sure Democrats stay in charge
Speaker 1: in these places. The reason the pension benefits are so big,
Speaker 1: and this is not that complicated to understand it. To
Speaker 1: find out the pension benefits are big because that's something
Speaker 1: that's back ended and so that they can do a calculation,
Speaker 1: they'll promise the unions, hey, you know, you guys, we
Speaker 1: can't pay you all one hundred and fifty grand, right,
Speaker 1: we can't pay a public school teachers on Well, they'll
Speaker 1: pay administrators money like that sometimes depends on the school district.
Speaker 1: But we're not gonna be able to pay teachers that,
Speaker 1: but we will be able to give you, you know,
Speaker 1: full benefits, full healthcare and retirement for you know, for
Speaker 1: the rest of your life. And with twenty years of service.
Speaker 1: I mean, you know, you have to look at what
Speaker 1: the specific contracts are for different places. But after twenty
Speaker 1: years of service, regardless of how old you are, and
Speaker 1: you can go get another job, you're gonna have full
Speaker 1: benefits the rest of your life. Really sweet back end
Speaker 1: deals that are very expensive, very expensive. I remember when
Speaker 1: I was I was not actually a uniformed officer, so
Speaker 1: I was a contract civilian effectively brought in as an
Speaker 1: outside expert to work with the NYPD as as a civilian,
Speaker 1: but I knew what some of the deals were in
Speaker 1: place and what the union had negotiated. If you're NYPD,
Speaker 1: you know, you get to retire. At least when I
Speaker 1: was in when I was working there, you could retire
Speaker 1: after twenty it doesn't matter how old you were, so
Speaker 1: you could retire in your forties with full pension and
Speaker 1: benefits for you and your family, which was which was
Speaker 1: a pretty amazing deal. When you think about it, and
Speaker 1: the healthcare that they have is effectively they don't really
Speaker 1: pay anything for it, and it's good healthcare. I had
Speaker 1: terrible healthcare as a contracts civilian, and Hypd's healthcare for
Speaker 1: me was total garbage. So anyway, that's where the big
Speaker 1: budget shortfall comes in. And this is long term spending.
Speaker 1: These are bad habits that states have that they don't
Speaker 1: want to be held to account for. That's why Trump
Speaker 1: comes along and he's like, Okay, well, you know we're
Speaker 1: gonna have a conversation about this. That there's going to
Speaker 1: be bailouts for these states. It's not going to be
Speaker 1: as easy as just you know, we want money, give
Speaker 1: us money. The federal government doesn't have to do that.
Speaker 1: There's no obligation of the federal government to come along
Speaker 1: and financially make these states whole or solve it. Even so,
Speaker 1: this is what the President said, play clip twelve. I
Speaker 1: don't think you should have sanctuary cities if they get
Speaker 1: that kind of aid. You know, if you're going to
Speaker 1: get aid to the cities and states, if for the
Speaker 1: kind of numbers you're talking about billions of dollars, I
Speaker 1: don't think you should have sanctuary cities. And by the way,
Speaker 1: the people that have sanctuary cities, they don't like it.
Speaker 1: I think politicians like it a lot more. I go
Speaker 1: to California, I go to lots of different places. Sanctuary
Speaker 1: cities are going to be a part of this fight.
Speaker 1: The Department of Justice has already been taking this on
Speaker 1: the Department of Justice does not want this to be
Speaker 1: something that continues. So we'll see. We'll see if the
Speaker 1: President holds to this, but there might be some negotiating
Speaker 1: over what states get, what they can do, and how far,
Speaker 1: how far this bailout is really going to stretch the
Speaker 1: red states and blue states. We are seeing we're seeing
Speaker 1: federalism at work, but as we know, that can be
Speaker 1: a messy and loud process. It's not a seamless, not
Speaker 1: a seamless situation. You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sex and Show podcast. We're now on average
Speaker 1: about thirty thousand tests per day, which is a dramatic
Speaker 1: increase now where we need to be, but a dramatic increase.
Speaker 1: Where we are now. You should know is New York
Speaker 1: State is doing more than most countries are doing. So
Speaker 1: we have been very aggressive and testing and we have
Speaker 1: made great progress, and New Yorkers should feel good about that,
Speaker 1: but we have more to do. You know that I've
Speaker 1: been skeptical of how successful will be in the biggest
Speaker 1: single point that you'll hear from the shutdown, lockdown forever
Speaker 1: chorus or the lockdown until it's safe, which is not
Speaker 1: a thing. There's not going to be until it's there's
Speaker 1: not going to be a safe unless a miracle happens.
Speaker 1: And we don't wait for miracles. We don't shut down
Speaker 1: our economy hoping for a miracle. But test in trace
Speaker 1: has been the refrain, right, Oh, we're just going to
Speaker 1: test in trace. That's what we're That's how we handle this,
Speaker 1: that's what we'll do. And I've been saying, well, on
Speaker 1: the one end, there's just the civil liberties issue of
Speaker 1: having people. Now that we're hiring these tracers, people are
Speaker 1: gonna talk to you about everyone you've talked to you
Speaker 1: and been around a little creepy from a big those
Speaker 1: of us that worry about big government, that should be
Speaker 1: an issue. I would think it's an issue. But then
Speaker 1: you'll also add into this the competency or lack thereof,
Speaker 1: if the government to even do this proct now now
Speaker 1: testing fun. We're going to test at a high level.
Speaker 1: But remember we're being told that if we test enough,
Speaker 1: that'll be that will allow us to suppress the virus,
Speaker 1: which would mean we'd have to be testing large numbers
Speaker 1: of asymptomatic people. We'd have to be able to the
Speaker 1: system would have to sustain that. And then we have
Speaker 1: this tracing capacity where anyone who has the virus, they're
Speaker 1: going to track down all their contacts and find out
Speaker 1: who and make sure they get tested right away so
Speaker 1: that they know if they have it before they infect
Speaker 1: other people. I does this sound plausible to you, because
Speaker 1: let me just say this, the unemployment numbers that came
Speaker 1: out today, which we all know are are just jaw dropping,
Speaker 1: but we kind of expect it, right, there's no surprise.
Speaker 1: You're three point eight million more of sought jobless benefits.
Speaker 1: But we're also seeing that the states that are supposed
Speaker 1: to be dolling out money here, including the six hundred
Speaker 1: dollars a week of additional benefit from the federal government,
Speaker 1: which is why now you have so many employees who
Speaker 1: don't want to go back, don't want to work when
Speaker 1: they could just stay home and keep getting paid more money.
Speaker 1: You know, I love this job, but I don't want
Speaker 1: to know if I double producer mark salary and said,
Speaker 1: producer Mark, you can stay home for double the salary,
Speaker 1: or you can come in and work. You know, I
Speaker 1: might have to ask him at least pretty pleased to
Speaker 1: actually come back in and work, right, And that would
Speaker 1: be true of anybody if you're making more money, considerably
Speaker 1: more money in a lot of cases, for folks staying
Speaker 1: home than you are working, the incentive to work goes down.
Speaker 1: But the states not only that they have to deal
Speaker 1: with this problem where people don't want to go back
Speaker 1: and work, there's also an inability for these states to
Speaker 1: dole out the money properly and to process the unemployment applications.
Speaker 1: They're not really able to do that. You say, well,
Speaker 1: how is that possible? Well? Wall Street Journal has a
Speaker 1: really good piece on it today about the surge in
Speaker 1: jobless benefits testing state systems. Here's what they tell you.
Speaker 1: Many states unemployment benefits systems quote are hamstrung by archaic,
Speaker 1: decades old technology, coping with relief legislation that provides an
Speaker 1: additional six hundred dollars a week in benefits and making
Speaker 1: independent contractors such as Uber and drivers Uber Drivers Eligible
Speaker 1: has created additional strains. The administrative problems means the official
Speaker 1: tally of twenty six million initial claims is almost certainly
Speaker 1: an undercount. About six hundred thousand people tried to apply
Speaker 1: for benefits in the week end at April twenty third,
Speaker 1: but we're unable to file due to long waits or
Speaker 1: other reasons. Then then they do. So the system is
Speaker 1: decades old technology. I've told you before about my experience
Speaker 1: the NYPD using a and this was in two thousand
Speaker 1: and eleven, so almost ten years ago. But they were
Speaker 1: using a system I'm not kidding. It ran on DOSS.
Speaker 1: So it was like you know, the little, the little
Speaker 1: I don't even know how to describe, how to describe it,
Speaker 1: but this is I think almost before producer Mark was alive.
Speaker 1: But you know, C colon, dash, dash tab, semi colon.
Speaker 1: That's and we were It was always this big joke
Speaker 1: and frustration in the office that we're using a DOSS system.
Speaker 1: This thing is quite literally from I think then maybe
Speaker 1: the early nineties, and that was what we had to
Speaker 1: do to pull up files for things was absurd, absurd.
Speaker 1: But states have a lot of stuff like that where
Speaker 1: they don't want to. They don't want to invest. You
Speaker 1: don't get votes. You know you don't. You don't consolidate
Speaker 1: your power as a state government by making sure that
Speaker 1: people are more efficient at their jobs. No, remember this,
Speaker 1: the government always has an incenti of state governments in particular. Well,
Speaker 1: all governments really have an incentive to be inefficient because
Speaker 1: their inefficiency becomes the justification for a greater demand for resources.
Speaker 1: So they need more people, they need more stuff, they
Speaker 1: need more money, they need more money. Well, why make
Speaker 1: someone better at their job when you could hire three
Speaker 1: people to do one job. So you have to keep
Speaker 1: that in mind. That's how the government functions as a
Speaker 1: general rule. Than The Wall Street Journal brings his home
Speaker 1: by explaining what this means for people that states, Remember
Speaker 1: the states, they're going to do the test and trade system.
Speaker 1: They're gonna do test and trace, but they can't handle
Speaker 1: the jobless applications out there. But they're going to handle
Speaker 1: test and trace really well, does anybody believe this? Journal?
Speaker 1: Here reports that a resident of New Jersey, amber Montserrat,
Speaker 1: said she had a pass to electricity bill and rent
Speaker 1: to pay, but still doesn't know when she'll receive on
Speaker 1: employment benefits. She's a mother of four boys and her
Speaker 1: family's main breadwinner. She started applying for unemployed I mean
Speaker 1: in mid March. She was laid off from her job
Speaker 1: as a waitress because of the pandemic. She now works
Speaker 1: one day a week delivering meals to families in the
Speaker 1: school district. She calls the New Jersey Department of Labor
Speaker 1: and Workforce every day to find out what the hold
Speaker 1: up is, but has not been able to get through.
Speaker 1: So people have no money, they have no job. We've
Speaker 1: just been told the governments at trying to just shovel
Speaker 1: money to them as fast as they can, and they're
Speaker 1: not even able to do that. But we're going to
Speaker 1: have a massive program of finding all cases, finding all
Speaker 1: positives and everyone that they've come into contact with once
Speaker 1: they're positib we're gonna set that up real fast. Does
Speaker 1: anyone want to place bets and whether the buckster is
Speaker 1: going to end up looking right on this one or not.
Speaker 1: Quote I'm reading that the system is over forty years old.
Speaker 1: It's pen and pencil type stuff. She said. That's not
Speaker 1: really acceptable now when you have people that are relying
Speaker 1: on these services, it is not acceptable, is it? This
Speaker 1: is why you don't want state governments in charge of things.
Speaker 1: This is why you don't want the government running your
Speaker 1: whole economy. There are reasons for the beliefs that we
Speaker 1: have has conservative. There are reasons why we want limited government.
Speaker 1: It's not because we're mean, it's not because we're all
Speaker 1: Ebenezer Scrooge. It's because we understand the limitations and the
Speaker 1: built in lack of incentive for efficiency, for getting things
Speaker 1: done well. And then the Wall Street Journal article then
Speaker 1: gives you then this is a this is a classic.
Speaker 1: This is what's going on in Connecticut. Remember, these are
Speaker 1: unemployment systems that have been substandard for a long time,
Speaker 1: and now they've just had the biggest deluge of claims
Speaker 1: in history, and they're just breaking under the strain of
Speaker 1: a New York system had to come down. I'll come
Speaker 1: offline because it couldn't handle all the applications. Here's how
Speaker 1: it is in Connecticut. The extra six hundred dollars this
Speaker 1: is from the federal government pushes the highest eligible payout
Speaker 1: to one two hundred and forty nine dollars. But Connecticut's
Speaker 1: computer system was designed to handle only up to three
Speaker 1: digit payments, pushing up the maximum to four digits would
Speaker 1: require reviewing and modifying well over one hundred main frames.
Speaker 1: That's right. Connecticut can't even give people the money that
Speaker 1: they are legally due from the government because the Connecticut
Speaker 1: system is so crappy that it only can process three
Speaker 1: digit claims. So if they want to give you nine
Speaker 1: hundred ninety nine dollars, you're good. But if your unemployment
Speaker 1: check is going to be a thousand dollars, wow, wow,
Speaker 1: too bad. But remember, folks, a massive campaign of consistent,
Speaker 1: accurate testing across the populace that is mandatory. I suppose
Speaker 1: how they're going to get people to do this. Maybe
Speaker 1: people aren't gonna want to take all these tests all
Speaker 1: the time, but put that aside for a moment, and
Speaker 1: then finding finding these people once they're positive, and finding
Speaker 1: the people they've come into contact with, test and trace.
Speaker 1: That's the answer. New York State, state that can't give
Speaker 1: you money that's due you, is going to make sure
Speaker 1: that you know whether or not you've been infected and
Speaker 1: everyone you come into contact with, and do so in
Speaker 1: such a timely fashion that it prevents future outbreaks. I hope,
Speaker 1: I'm I hope I'm wrong on this one. But I
Speaker 1: don't think so. Thanks for listening to The Bus Sesson
Speaker 1: Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast, the iHeartRadio app,
Speaker 1: or wherever you get your podcasts. I believe her. It's
Speaker 1: obvious not okay. Her story is credible. If I believe
Speaker 1: the women believe her, she is credible, she should be
Speaker 1: heard and send it to treat her with respect and
Speaker 1: dignity that she deserves the honesty, her integrity, her truth.
Speaker 1: It's obvious you should be going to jail if he
Speaker 1: was allowed to be prosecuted today, it's not okay. Do
Speaker 1: you believe the allegation that's been put out there by
Speaker 1: terror read against Biden? Vice President Biden has vehemently denied
Speaker 1: these allegations, and I support Vice President Biden. Do you
Speaker 1: think some of the Democrats who sup Blasi Forward's allegations
Speaker 1: against Kavanaugh, who've been silent on this Biden allegation, do
Speaker 1: you see that as a contradiction that they're not speaking
Speaker 1: out more and addressing terror Reid's allegation. 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. Kirsen Jillibrand, Senator
Speaker 1: from New York, telling everybody there back during the Kavanaugh error,
Speaker 1: she totally believed Blasi for totally credible. It's great, Oh yeah,
Speaker 1: we believe her. And then when I asked about the
Speaker 1: Joe Biden accuser, it's I believe Joe Biden. Wait. I
Speaker 1: thought women had a right to be believed. Now it's
Speaker 1: Joe Biden has a right to be believed. I want
Speaker 1: to bring in Saraje Hashmi from the Washington Examined or
Speaker 1: Two weigh in on this one. Sarage, thanks man, first
Speaker 1: time having you on. Appreciate you having me on. Buck. So,
Speaker 1: I think that this is going to just get worse
Speaker 1: and worse because the New York Times really set set
Speaker 1: the initial tone of this by waiting two weeks and
Speaker 1: then saying, yeah, well, we didn't think that Biden was
Speaker 1: as much a public figure as Kavanaugh, which is just
Speaker 1: a flatly absurd and kind of crazy thing to say.
Speaker 1: And I've seen some efforts to try and claim that
Speaker 1: the double standard here is not as bad as it
Speaker 1: really is. Chris Hayes last night on MSNBC, to his credit,
Speaker 1: brought up the allegations against Joe Biden and now fire
Speaker 1: Chris Hayes is trending on Twitter. What is going on here?
Speaker 1: It's actually incredible to see the double standard at play here.
Speaker 1: Usually when you see things like this, usually you're running
Speaker 1: the mill type of political story. This has to do
Speaker 1: with sexual assault accusations against the presumptive Democratic nominee Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: And Kate Kelly, who was the one of the writers
Speaker 1: of the book about Brett Cavanaugh's accusations, works with The
Speaker 1: New York Times. She wrote in a tweet about a
Speaker 1: couple of weeks ago, how there was just a different
Speaker 1: news ugment when they came to Bret Cavanaugh versus Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: And that's why they didn't cover Joe Biden as aggressively
Speaker 1: that they cover Bret Cavanaugh is the presumptive nominee. I mean,
Speaker 1: how how different is that news judgment. It's all become
Speaker 1: a point where it's if your side does it, we
Speaker 1: should just give it an automatic pass. But if the
Speaker 1: other side does, ah, shame on you, naughty boy. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I just would wonder how any journalist who who was
Speaker 1: taking the approach and it's in writing and you can,
Speaker 1: you know, you find the clips online of them going
Speaker 1: on cable news that women have I mean, the phrase
Speaker 1: was women have a right to be believed, and they
Speaker 1: completely believed Blasi Ford. And the standard that they set
Speaker 1: up was that if there's even a doubt about Kavanaugh,
Speaker 1: we should not put him in power. Right, That was
Speaker 1: actually what was being said at the time, and I
Speaker 1: remember I was very involved in that fight. So then
Speaker 1: I want to know why is now the standard that
Speaker 1: we just believe Joe Biden, because when the allegation against him,
Speaker 1: there's nothing about it that is not credible. I mean,
Speaker 1: I challenge somebody to find where the contradiction is or
Speaker 1: where the absence of essential facts would be. Politics, in short,
Speaker 1: has poisoned the well here and the well being the
Speaker 1: Me too movement. It cannot be escaped. Rose McGowan, who
Speaker 1: actually has been very consistent about her stance on sexual
Speaker 1: assault accusations or any you know, any allegations of the
Speaker 1: sexual misconduct nature, she is actually in a tweet last
Speaker 1: night posted about her kind of dismail and how discourage
Speaker 1: he was to see how she's been a lifelong Democrat
Speaker 1: and all the Democrats are just rallying behind Joe Biden
Speaker 1: in spite of these very well, could be very credible
Speaker 1: accusations of sexual misconduct by Tara Reid against Joe Biden.
Speaker 1: And what we're seeing right now is that you're just
Speaker 1: gonna see the whole METO movement unravel to the point
Speaker 1: where all the good will that was built up will
Speaker 1: be to enough. We're speaking of Saraje Hashmi. He's a
Speaker 1: commentary video expert at the Washington Examiner. Joe Biden hasn't
Speaker 1: responded to this yet. Journalists, it seems, haven't been willing
Speaker 1: to ask him about this yet. Nancy Pelosi has been
Speaker 1: saying that she stands with him, of course, because you know,
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi wants power. You had. Stacy Abrams claimed the
Speaker 1: New York Times effectively exonerated Biden, which is not true.
Speaker 1: Even the Times has said, well, we didn't do that,
Speaker 1: or you know that that was found not credible. They
Speaker 1: did not do that because there's no way to make
Speaker 1: it not credible. So far, when does Biden have to
Speaker 1: get asked about this or do you think it's possible
Speaker 1: that that journalists are just going to try to, you know,
Speaker 1: push this thing aside and ride it out until people
Speaker 1: don't care anymore, which I don't know when that's going
Speaker 1: to be. From what I'm hearing that terror Read is
Speaker 1: strategically making sure that her story is being heard through
Speaker 1: the media. You're yetting get heard by Chris Hayes on MSNBC.
Speaker 1: Eventually you're starting to hear You're actually starting to see
Speaker 1: Brian Selter tweet about it. Albeit Brian Felter hasn't really
Speaker 1: been sort of the best arbiter on what the media
Speaker 1: should be covering and should not be covering. I'm hearing
Speaker 1: from Ben Smith the New York Times, who's a media
Speaker 1: reporter who's previously with bugs feeds that Tara Rita is
Speaker 1: in discussions with Foxes to join Chris Wallace's show on Sunday.
Speaker 1: We'll see what happens with that, because there's a good
Speaker 1: chance that if she ends up becoming sort of a
Speaker 1: staple within conservative media, then there's almost the immediate the
Speaker 1: immediate backlash to that would be, Look, she's a she's
Speaker 1: a plot of the conservative media's plot with the Republican
Speaker 1: Party to try to destroy Joe Biden. Therefore her accusations
Speaker 1: the sexual misconduct should be thrown out. So there's a
Speaker 1: very there's a balancing actually has to play right now,
Speaker 1: and it all it really depends on who she speaks
Speaker 1: with and what she says. But the corroboration from Lynda
Speaker 1: Lecass earlier this week, certainly there's a lot more than
Speaker 1: what we've seen from Christine Blogge accord against Brett Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: And do you think that the pressure on some of
Speaker 1: the journalists out there to push Biden on this will
Speaker 1: become too much? Because right now I mean meaning that
Speaker 1: that he has to actually answer for this. I would
Speaker 1: also just say, and this is an aside, this is
Speaker 1: my opinions as a guy. If someone saying this about you,
Speaker 1: I don't care what the circumstances are. If it's not true.
Speaker 1: I think you say this is not true, this did
Speaker 1: not happen. I don't think you allow your campaign to
Speaker 1: do that for you. I think that's weird. But that's
Speaker 1: my opinion. But what do you think about the journalists
Speaker 1: out there who have access to Biden who have yet
Speaker 1: to ask him about this. That's the thing I think
Speaker 1: it's a good question to ask, is when it comes
Speaker 1: to journalists having access to Joe Biden is asking the
Speaker 1: question about Tara Reid's accusation going to jeopardize their access
Speaker 1: to the Democratic nominee. And I think for a lot
Speaker 1: of reporters that's always been a fine line that they've
Speaker 1: had to try to balance. Here. I think what we've
Speaker 1: seen in the last week, in the last few days,
Speaker 1: is that the amount of evidence or an amount of
Speaker 1: people talking about Tara Reid is going to become so
Speaker 1: great that the mainstream media, that the main outlets, you know, CBS, NBC, MSNBC,
Speaker 1: ABC and Fox News and CNN, they have to cover it.
Speaker 1: It's too big of a story to ignore, and that
Speaker 1: that's what you got to just keep talking about it,
Speaker 1: and Tara Reid has to continue to tell her story
Speaker 1: and try to tell it as much as he possibly can,
Speaker 1: but at the same time not get lost in the
Speaker 1: woods of being trying to become herself a media start
Speaker 1: because sometimes victims use Unfortunately, there's some victims out there
Speaker 1: who use their story to sort of launch a career
Speaker 1: in and of themselves, and I don't think Tarah Reid
Speaker 1: is one of those types of Saraj Hashman of The
Speaker 1: Washington Examiner, Saras, thanks so much for your time and
Speaker 1: we'll talk to you soon. Thank you so much. Buck,
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast. And finally, we need to ensure that women
Speaker 1: have access to all health services during this crisis. Abortion
Speaker 1: is the essential healthcare service. It's being used as a
Speaker 1: political wedge right now, and it shouldn't be. The American
Speaker 1: College of Obstetricians and kind Ecologists in the American Medical
Speaker 1: Association degree that it shouldn't be categorized as a procedure
Speaker 1: that can be delayed. It can't. I know that there's
Speaker 1: the huge political double standard that we often talk about
Speaker 1: when it comes to me too, but let's also remember
Speaker 1: that there's always when it comes to any issues involving
Speaker 1: women and how the left will treat people. If you
Speaker 1: are pro life, they will try to destroy you and
Speaker 1: you get no benefit of the doubt. You get no,
Speaker 1: no second chance, nothing. If you are pro choice, you're
Speaker 1: always going to be in a better category. I'm not
Speaker 1: saying that it's a get out of jail free card,
Speaker 1: but it's it's always going to be a better category
Speaker 1: for you. And obviously, if you're a Democrat in your
Speaker 1: pro choice and you're important to the movement, well then
Speaker 1: you're Joe Biden. And then you know, look, he's going
Speaker 1: to get a pass on this. There's no chance in
Speaker 1: my mind that Joe Biden is going to be held
Speaker 1: to account on this. What is perhaps perhaps still lingering
Speaker 1: in the back of some people's minds, maybe it's just
Speaker 1: my mind, is that a certain someone doesn't think that
Speaker 1: this whole thing is totally over yet in terms of
Speaker 1: the nomination and who the Democrat nominee is going to be.
Speaker 1: There's someone out there who never says that it's all over,
Speaker 1: you know, never says it, never says that it's time
Speaker 1: to pack it in. There's you know, the unexpected can happen.
Speaker 1: You know, things can just all of a sudden change
Speaker 1: in your favor. You know, Epstein could no longer be
Speaker 1: a problem in How did that happen? Right? I mean,
Speaker 1: you know, things all of a sudden just change. You
Speaker 1: have a crazy circumstance that breaks in your in your direction,
Speaker 1: and you get to be the nominee who's thinking in
Speaker 1: those terms, who's thinking about you know, maybe Biden is
Speaker 1: a you know, has a health issue, a real health issue,
Speaker 1: which I think we all see happening in real time anyway,
Speaker 1: But you never know what's gonna happen when the Clintons
Speaker 1: are in the background. You never know how things are
Speaker 1: going to go. Here's Hillary talking about what she thinks
Speaker 1: is going on here play one. This is a high
Speaker 1: stakes time because of the pandemic, but this is also
Speaker 1: a really high stakes election. And every form of healthcare
Speaker 1: should continue to be available in pluting reproductive healthcare for
Speaker 1: every woman in this country, and then it needs to
Speaker 1: be part of a much larger system than eventually and
Speaker 1: quickly I hope gets us to universal healthcare. So I
Speaker 1: can only say amen to everything you're saying, but also
Speaker 1: to again enlist people that this would be a terrible
Speaker 1: crisis to waste. As the old saying goes, we've learned
Speaker 1: a lot about what our absolute frailties are in our
Speaker 1: country when it comes to health justice and economic justice.
Speaker 1: So you know, let's be resolved that we're going to
Speaker 1: solve those once you're elected president. I promise you that's
Speaker 1: gonna be my objective. M Yeah, you better better be
Speaker 1: your objective. Joke, because Hilary doesn't sound like somebody who
Speaker 1: just has some helpful ideas, does she. She's in the
Speaker 1: background of how she's still there, wondering when it will
Speaker 1: be her time round three third time to charm she
Speaker 1: tried twice. Want to give her a third goal. I'm
Speaker 1: not going to give up until there's somebody else on
Speaker 1: election day on the Democrat ballot. I'm not gonna say
Speaker 1: that it's all it's all over. I'm just I'm sorry.
Speaker 1: The Clintons. There is something truly you almost respect the malevolence.
Speaker 1: You know, you almost have to say to yourself, it's
Speaker 1: amazing what they're able to, what they've been able to endure,
Speaker 1: and they just stick and they're so shameless and so
Speaker 1: reckless and oh my gosh, really, you couldn't write better
Speaker 1: political villains in some ways than the Clintons. They're they're
Speaker 1: really in a class by themselves. Oh you know, I
Speaker 1: mentioned climate change the other day, and if you want
Speaker 1: to know how much the science is really driving the
Speaker 1: discussion now, the the climatologist in chief, the world's most
Speaker 1: famous climate change advocate, is now appearing in New York
Speaker 1: City Department of Education videos telling us to listen to
Speaker 1: the science on coronavirus. As if this wasn't politicized enough
Speaker 1: by people who don't know what the heck they're talking about.
Speaker 1: Here she is, you know, I'm talking about Greta Thunberg
Speaker 1: play six. Listened to science and listen to the experts,
Speaker 1: and that of course not only goes for the Corona crisis,
Speaker 1: but also all crises, for example, the climate crisis and
Speaker 1: the ecological crisis, which of course is still ongoing. Yes,
Speaker 1: got to tie those things together. Listen to the scientists.
Speaker 1: Thank you, Gretafortelli's listening to the scientists. What are the
Speaker 1: scientists telling us about how we reopen our society and
Speaker 1: how we go back to life? Oh you mean that's
Speaker 1: not a scientific question, that's a societal question. That's something
Speaker 1: that we have to just. I just it's amazing, isn't it.
Speaker 1: They still they have I think she's sixteen or seventeen.
Speaker 1: Now you can't. You can't make fun of her until
Speaker 1: she's eighteen. Then you're allowed. I think technically you're allowed,
Speaker 1: because then she's an adult. Then I think you're allowed.
Speaker 1: And she's being her opinion is being foisted upon. She's
Speaker 1: not a private citizen, she's not somebody who's just trying
Speaker 1: to live her life. You know, we don't make fun
Speaker 1: of private citizens who are just trying to go about
Speaker 1: their business. But for now, it's Oh, she's a kid,
Speaker 1: but we should all listen to her. It's one of
Speaker 1: the more amazing, one of the more amazing disconnects that
Speaker 1: I've seen among lives, and there's a lot of them.
Speaker 1: Right we're talking about their disconnect with justice over the
Speaker 1: general Flint case. They're disconnected over the double standard that
Speaker 1: so slap you in the face obvious about this Joe
Speaker 1: Biden situation versus Kavanaugh, and even some of what they
Speaker 1: said about Trump, although to this day, what was what's
Speaker 1: the credible People have always said that Trump sexually assaults people?
Speaker 1: Liberals will say this, what's the credible sexual assault allegation?
Speaker 1: Again from whom and in what circumstance? Oh, he said
Speaker 1: that they let you grab. Okay, well, he's just talking
Speaker 1: about being a celebrity who can be aggressive sexually with
Speaker 1: women who let him do that. That's not sexual assault.
Speaker 1: What exactly is the you know you hear this? It's
Speaker 1: thrown around all there's you know all I've heard numbers,
Speaker 1: two large numbers they say of women that say, oh, well,
Speaker 1: it turns out that there isn't one, is there? But
Speaker 1: the media reported on it. Oh there was that. The
Speaker 1: one woman who wrote the book and then went on TV,
Speaker 1: and everyone realized that she's emotionally unwell, and then they
Speaker 1: dropped that right then, they dropped that situation pretty quickly.
Speaker 1: But we keep seeing this the the double standards that
Speaker 1: are really a necessity for liberalism in the current context
Speaker 1: because it's so desperate for power all the time, Because
Speaker 1: that really is the psychology and the magne collective emotion
Speaker 1: and emotional and psychological state of contemporary liberalism is a
Speaker 1: constant relativism in search of power and authority over others.
Speaker 1: That's that's really what it is. That's if you if
Speaker 1: you boil it down, if you take it at its core,
Speaker 1: and that means that there's going to be a lot
Speaker 1: of double standard there's going to be a lot of
Speaker 1: shifting goal posts, and we see a lot we see
Speaker 1: that happening right now. Oh, we got my friend and
Speaker 1: Porter Stansbury in the house. He's going to be joining
Speaker 1: us here in just a moment to talk about what's
Speaker 1: going to happen with the economy. Basically, Porter's gonna answer
Speaker 1: the question for us. This is all he does is
Speaker 1: look at this and try to make good investment ideas
Speaker 1: for his for his subscribers. Where is the economy head
Speaker 1: from here. Porter Stansbury will answer that one for us
Speaker 1: in just a moment. 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. Okay, team,
Speaker 1: we know the economy is in tough shape right now.
Speaker 1: Let's putting it mildly, So I want to bring somebody
Speaker 1: on who just looks at the economy and markets all
Speaker 1: the time, has been doing so for decades, and actually
Speaker 1: really knows what the heck he's talking about. We've got
Speaker 1: mister Porter Stansbury with us, the founder of Stansbury Research,
Speaker 1: which I write for. I've done a podcast with Porter
Speaker 1: in the past. They've also sponsored some of our radio
Speaker 1: radio spots. So Porter, great to have you on. Great
Speaker 1: with you as always, Budd. All right, let's just start.
Speaker 1: Were this thirty million roughly unemployed officially unemployed at this point,
Speaker 1: that's that's pretty much where the number is. What is
Speaker 1: going on right now at the US economy? And how
Speaker 1: concerned are you about what's happening? I'm I think I'm
Speaker 1: probably among the least concerned people who look at the
Speaker 1: numbers and things, because you know, if you just look
Speaker 1: at the numbers. I think you're really going to be
Speaker 1: led astray. If we had had thirty million people unemployed
Speaker 1: because there was a real estate bubble, or because there
Speaker 1: was a collapse of industrial demand, or you know, a
Speaker 1: trade war with China that had really spun out of control.
Speaker 1: I think that's a far different circumstance than saying, hey,
Speaker 1: guess what when nobody can go out to eat, When
Speaker 1: nobody can go shopping, every single person who's employed in restaurants,
Speaker 1: food service, or retail is going to lose their jobs.
Speaker 1: And that's what's happened. So I think the more important question,
Speaker 1: and the unknown question, is what will happen in six
Speaker 1: months from now with that number. And if the answer
Speaker 1: is that number drops from thirty million to ten million,
Speaker 1: I think our economy is going to be just fine.
Speaker 1: If the answer is the FED keeps spending tons and
Speaker 1: tons and tons of borrowed money and makes unemployment checks
Speaker 1: very attractive and people don't want to go back to work,
Speaker 1: then welcome to permanent socialism in America. And I think
Speaker 1: the bigger risk is that the bigger risk to me
Speaker 1: is not economic. The bigger risk is political. What happens
Speaker 1: in the future because of how much power the government
Speaker 1: is exercising now and the role that it has taken
Speaker 1: to play in the lives of millions and millions of citizens.
Speaker 1: What about some of the major industries, and some industries
Speaker 1: really people think of as just either one company or
Speaker 1: a handful of companies, or the airline industry, for example,
Speaker 1: the aerospason defense sector with Boeing. What's going to happen
Speaker 1: to those to those different sectors of the econom me
Speaker 1: for which tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands of jobs
Speaker 1: are dependent. How do you see that playing out, certainly
Speaker 1: over the next six months. You know, I'm in the
Speaker 1: camp buck that that really sees the economy coming roaring back.
Speaker 1: The steps that the government has taken in terms of
Speaker 1: the amount of money they're pushing into the economy is
Speaker 1: really incredible. I mean, there's this is a this is
Speaker 1: going to end up being a multi trillion dollars stimulus package,
Speaker 1: and I know that that there will be enormous amounts
Speaker 1: of pent up demand as a result. I mean, people
Speaker 1: haven't been able to leave their homes now and more
Speaker 1: than thirty days in my case, it's been about sixty days.
Speaker 1: And you know, everyone's booking travel, everyone's making plans for
Speaker 1: the summer in the fall. Everyone wants to get back
Speaker 1: to life. And so I think that you're you know again,
Speaker 1: I really do believe that the economy will come back
Speaker 1: very very quickly. I'm very bullish on the second half
Speaker 1: of this year. And I think this is just an opinion.
Speaker 1: I'm I'm obviously not a medical doctor, but I think
Speaker 1: that the response to the virus has been what's caused
Speaker 1: the bigger problem. Um, you know, it's not unusual for
Speaker 1: sixty to eighty thousand people a year to die of
Speaker 1: flu and pneumonia, So so you think this was I
Speaker 1: think you think this was an overreaction for her. That's
Speaker 1: I mean, from a policy standpoint, I think that's the
Speaker 1: bigger story here. Frankly, I honestly believe, but that the
Speaker 1: economy will be just fine. Uh. You know, when you
Speaker 1: there's a I see there's a giant different tree and
Speaker 1: hitting a pause button and seeing things like a real
Speaker 1: decline in consumer demand or seeing a rise in bankruptcy
Speaker 1: that was organic, you know, this is a very very
Speaker 1: very different kind of recession that we're having. It's it's
Speaker 1: not organic, it's not it's not basing economics. It's completely
Speaker 1: a political problem. And I truly believe that when you
Speaker 1: allow the politicians to run over the constitution and to
Speaker 1: decide for every individual how much risk they should take
Speaker 1: with their own health, you've lost something that's way more
Speaker 1: important than money. You've lost liberty. You've lost freedom. And
Speaker 1: again that's my concern. The government's going to print up
Speaker 1: a ton of money. We're going to get through this
Speaker 1: bump in the road. The economy is going to curboring back,
Speaker 1: employment's going to surge in the third quarter of this year.
Speaker 1: Those things are very obvious to me. What isn't obvious
Speaker 1: is how long the government's going to going to accligate
Speaker 1: dictatorship and when will, if ever, will the government admit
Speaker 1: that a lot of the strategies that they have used
Speaker 1: over the past two months were enormously expensive and completely
Speaker 1: medically unnecessary. You know, there's been some great work that's
Speaker 1: come out that shows how much more widespread the virus
Speaker 1: has become, how many people didn't have any symptoms, and
Speaker 1: what role obesity and other health problems have played, and
Speaker 1: the fact that this virus is fatal in some cases.
Speaker 1: But I bet you by the time I'm the data
Speaker 1: comes in that we will discover that this coronavirus is
Speaker 1: no different or more dangerous than any other coronavirus that
Speaker 1: typically circulates among human beings. What was bad about it
Speaker 1: was that nobody had any native immunity, and so a
Speaker 1: whole lot of people got sick at the same time.
Speaker 1: And yeah, that's a big problem. It is, But it
Speaker 1: doesn't mean that I'm going to die if I leave
Speaker 1: my house and catch this virus. If you're under the
Speaker 1: age of fifty, if you're in reasonably good at health,
Speaker 1: you really don't have any to worry about. So why
Speaker 1: should the government tell me I can't leave my home?
Speaker 1: It makes no sense. And who is a better Who
Speaker 1: is a better judge of that, Me and my doctor
Speaker 1: or the governor of my state. I mean, I think
Speaker 1: the answer to so obvious that this is such an
Speaker 1: unbelievable overreaction that I think is the bigger issue. Can
Speaker 1: our government ever really look back at these measures and
Speaker 1: do a better job next time, Because my big concern
Speaker 1: is is not that the economy can't come back. My
Speaker 1: big concern is that there will be a change in
Speaker 1: the political dynamics. There will be winners and losers from
Speaker 1: these measures, and the people who are winners from these
Speaker 1: measures are going to insist on taking them again. We've
Speaker 1: already started to see, you've already started to see some
Speaker 1: of the prominent Democrat politicians are letting it out that
Speaker 1: they view this as an opportunity to change things dramatically
Speaker 1: in this country, not just while the virus is out
Speaker 1: there and to get us back on our feet, but
Speaker 1: to change things for the foreseeable, to alter the course
Speaker 1: of America economically and politically. I'm assuming you've you've seen
Speaker 1: some of those early indicators too. Yeah, of course, And listen,
Speaker 1: there's plenty of real world examples. There are plenty of
Speaker 1: places that didn't shut down their economy. You know, there's Japan,
Speaker 1: there's Singapore, there's Sweden, there's Iceland. There's plenty of places
Speaker 1: that handle this in a different way. And we're not
Speaker 1: going to see any additional mortality in those other places.
Speaker 1: We are not going to see that because this virus
Speaker 1: is not fatal to one who's in relatively good health.
Speaker 1: And if you look at the numbers of people who
Speaker 1: have died, what percentage of them we're already in nursing homes.
Speaker 1: It's like twenty five and you know, I'm sorry, but
Speaker 1: those people were out the door anyways. They weren't going
Speaker 1: to stay with us no matter what. They would have
Speaker 1: died from a regular virus, they would have died from pneumonia.
Speaker 1: They would have died because they're old and sick. And
Speaker 1: that's tragic. But it doesn't it doesn't mean that we
Speaker 1: should all give up our liberties and our businesses and
Speaker 1: our and our our freedom. It makes no sense. Have
Speaker 1: you been. And if they can do if they can
Speaker 1: do this for a for a blue virus, then what
Speaker 1: are they gonna What is going to trigger them to
Speaker 1: do this next time? You know? Oh my gosh, there's
Speaker 1: a risk of an earthquake. The scientists say an earthquake
Speaker 1: is coming, No one leave their homes or whatever whatever
Speaker 1: the next pretext will be. And one more thing about
Speaker 1: about this. Think about the Battle of Britain. You know,
Speaker 1: back in the spring of forty one and the fall
Speaker 1: of nineteen forty, when you had Germans killing thousands of
Speaker 1: people every week with bombs. Right, this is a real
Speaker 1: threat to a country. Did the government of Great Britain
Speaker 1: mandate that everyone live in their basements all day long
Speaker 1: and not leaving the house because there was a real
Speaker 1: risk if you're walking around in the street, you're gonna die.
Speaker 1: In fact, it's happening to thousands of people every day,
Speaker 1: and it's not from a virus, it's from bombs. But
Speaker 1: what do they what did they do? How did they
Speaker 1: what happened in that situation? Everyone went to work, everyone
Speaker 1: went out to dinner. Everyone ignored it because there was
Speaker 1: nothing they could do about it except live their regular lives.
Speaker 1: And that's what we should have done from the start.
Speaker 1: And you know, if we had, then there would already
Speaker 1: be her immunity. There's probably something between fifteen and thirty
Speaker 1: percent of people in urban areas that have already gotten
Speaker 1: as virus. You know, they're not gonna We're not gonnall die.
Speaker 1: Let us go back to work. It's the biggest overreaction.
Speaker 1: And so then the real question is why who was
Speaker 1: winning politically by locking everyone in their homes? This is
Speaker 1: what I was going to ask you, So take that away.
Speaker 1: Why do you think this has happened? I really can't fathom.
Speaker 1: I just I think there are probably plenty of politicians
Speaker 1: who were scared and we're afraid that if they didn't
Speaker 1: do quote something, then if there was a bunch of
Speaker 1: mortality associated with this pandemic, that they would be seen
Speaker 1: in history as you know, uncaring fools. So I think
Speaker 1: there's always the preset tendency is the government has to
Speaker 1: do something to justify, you know, its existence, and so
Speaker 1: they're probably going to error always on doing quote unquote something.
Speaker 1: But how crazy is it that they would that they
Speaker 1: would mandate this extreme reaction when they didn't even have data, like,
Speaker 1: at the very least take a random sample of population,
Speaker 1: understand what the viral impact has already been. And the
Speaker 1: models were wrong, as we know now. But they tell
Speaker 1: us that the models that were used to justify the shutdown,
Speaker 1: it doesn't matter that they were wrong. That's that's the
Speaker 1: latest theory that we're all supposed to live under. Porter,
Speaker 1: I need, I need to take a quick pause here,
Speaker 1: will come right back with you. I want to ask
Speaker 1: about what should folks that are being hit economically right
Speaker 1: now by this, what should they be thinking about? What
Speaker 1: should they be doing? Founder of Stansbury Research, Porter Stansbury.
Speaker 1: More with him when we come back in a second.
Speaker 1: You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the Buck Sexton
Speaker 1: Show podcast Okay, we've got the founder of Stansbury Research,
Speaker 1: the one and only mister Porter Stansbury with us. So, Porter,
Speaker 1: you're you're bullish for the long term here for America.
Speaker 1: You were saying before you think that we will be
Speaker 1: able to bounce back, which I think is honestly really
Speaker 1: encouraging to the people all across the country who are
Speaker 1: listening to this. But I want to ask you though,
Speaker 1: in the in the short term, for folks who are
Speaker 1: either hurting badly economically or who want to get prepared, Well,
Speaker 1: let's start with the folks who were hurting. What would
Speaker 1: you do or how would you advise someone who's operating
Speaker 1: a small business right now? Would you tell them I'm
Speaker 1: trying to open as soon as possible, you know, how
Speaker 1: can they try to prepare their finances and their economic
Speaker 1: future given the uncertainty we're facing. Well, you know, I've
Speaker 1: seen a lot of small business owners doing a lot
Speaker 1: of very smart things. There are some folks, um you know,
Speaker 1: I'm here today at my farm in Baltimore County, but
Speaker 1: I also have a penthouse apartment downtown and walking around
Speaker 1: downtown Baltimore, I was I was so happy to see
Speaker 1: how many small bars and restaurants have basically set set
Speaker 1: up outdoor gardens where people are congregating and enjoying food
Speaker 1: and booze and socializing. Now they're you know, they might
Speaker 1: be standing a little bit more further apart than they
Speaker 1: ordinarily would. But there are a lot of business owners
Speaker 1: have found ways to flow out the wall and the regulations.
Speaker 1: And I'm, i'm, i'm, I think that's great. I'm I'm.
Speaker 1: You know, my business, I wouldn't describe it as small,
Speaker 1: but I think there's lots of entrepreneurial things that we
Speaker 1: can do. For example, I'm making a T shirt that
Speaker 1: says your mask and as an American flag on the back.
Speaker 1: You know, the consumer demand is going to change relative
Speaker 1: to where we are in this pandemic process. But anything
Speaker 1: you can do to serve your customers, anything you can
Speaker 1: do to find ways around the regulations, and then you
Speaker 1: have to do And I think that the good business
Speaker 1: owners have already done that. They've already they're way ahead
Speaker 1: of us. But a guy I know in town who
Speaker 1: makes custom clothing, nobody's ordering custom clothing right now because
Speaker 1: no one's even going into the office. So he went
Speaker 1: through his contacts in China and began making designer masks,
Speaker 1: you know, and he's selling them like hot cakes. So
Speaker 1: there's lots of there's lots of ways to stay in
Speaker 1: business if you will be creative and if you will
Speaker 1: meet the market demand where it is today. And what
Speaker 1: do you say to our listeners right now who are
Speaker 1: seeing where they're well, they're seeing where they're four oh
Speaker 1: one k is and it's it's obviously for a lot
Speaker 1: of folks down a bid from where it was a
Speaker 1: few months ago. But this does bring up an interesting thing.
Speaker 1: People are scared about what the market will do, but
Speaker 1: port in the market hasn't really crashed the way that
Speaker 1: if you had told somebody we had a pandemic or
Speaker 1: everyone's locked at home, they would have guessed. I think.
Speaker 1: I mean, it seems almost like the market is frozen
Speaker 1: in place in some ways right now. What should people
Speaker 1: be concerned or should they just ride it out? Well,
Speaker 1: I don't know if you'll remember or not, but on
Speaker 1: March twenty fourth, we had a conference, an online conference
Speaker 1: for ours, for our clients, for our subscribers at Stansbury Research,
Speaker 1: and I got with our analytical team and we put
Speaker 1: together I believe it's forty different stocks to forty large
Speaker 1: businesses that we said at that time, this is the
Speaker 1: greatest opportunity in your lifetime. You'll have to buy these businesses,
Speaker 1: and we recommend that you began buying them, even though
Speaker 1: the market hasn't shown any sign of bottoming. Right at
Speaker 1: that point that I was down almost forty percent, and
Speaker 1: so that was a really dire time. Meanwhile, what I
Speaker 1: saw was you can buy American Express at seven times earnings.
Speaker 1: I saw you could buy Coola Cole with a four
Speaker 1: percent dividend. Are these are opportunities that I had never
Speaker 1: seen in my entire lifetime as a financial analyst. The
Speaker 1: ability to buy the world's best brands, the world's best
Speaker 1: business models, the world's best products at forty percent off.
Speaker 1: And you know, I'm not saying that the market wasn't
Speaker 1: a little bit overvalued at the start of this crisis,
Speaker 1: but it wasn't It wasn't, in my mind, m so
Speaker 1: overvalued that you had to, you know, you should be
Speaker 1: in cash. U So a forty percent decline from something
Speaker 1: that's very likely to be a two or three quarter
Speaker 1: impairment to earnings, that doesn't make any sense to me, Buck,
Speaker 1: And so that's why I was telling people to buy,
Speaker 1: and I think I think to a lesser extent, of course,
Speaker 1: because now the market is rallied twenty five or thirty
Speaker 1: percent from that from that point, but there are still
Speaker 1: great opportunities for long term investors. Now. Look, I can't
Speaker 1: tell you what the stock market's going to be a
Speaker 1: month from now. I can't tell you what stock market
Speaker 1: is going to be six months from now. But I
Speaker 1: can tell you that this pandemic is not going to
Speaker 1: wreck our economy. The risk is that it will wreck.
Speaker 1: The risk to our economy is political, not financial. The
Speaker 1: amount of liquidity and loans and money that's being pumped
Speaker 1: into our economy is going to cause us to have
Speaker 1: a very very strong recovery. And I would be willing
Speaker 1: to bet you that twelve months from now there is
Speaker 1: no impairment whatsoever to the earnings of any major, high
Speaker 1: quality blueshift American company. That's very positive stuff. So that's
Speaker 1: that's good to hear. How are you doing? Pour it
Speaker 1: down there? Brother? How are you riding out this whole situation?
Speaker 1: You said you've been in almost sixty days of quarantine.
Speaker 1: How are you keeping busy? Well, you know, luckily there's
Speaker 1: lots to do for my company. We all it's not
Speaker 1: hard for us to work from home. We all have laptops.
Speaker 1: We issue laptops to all of our employees in early
Speaker 1: March February and anticipation that something like this might occur.
Speaker 1: So we've been serving our clients just like we always do,
Speaker 1: producing research, making recommendations following the results of the different
Speaker 1: recommended businesses that we track and endorse. We've put out
Speaker 1: a new portfolio to help investors, the Forever Portfolio that
Speaker 1: I mentioned, forty stocks, and really the opportunity to buy
Speaker 1: these businesses is very exciting for us. Obviously, this isn't
Speaker 1: the way that we hoped that we'd be able to
Speaker 1: serve our customers. We would have much rather the bollmarket
Speaker 1: simply continue and for everyone to keep going to work.
Speaker 1: But we met the market where it was, and so
Speaker 1: luckily things for me have been very good. And I
Speaker 1: have young children. I've got a twelve year old or
Speaker 1: nine year old, and I've gotten to spend a lot
Speaker 1: more time with them, which has actually been very enjoyable.
Speaker 1: We bought a couple extra dirt bikes here for the farm,
Speaker 1: so we've we've been teaching them how to write motorcycles.
Speaker 1: And we've been doing a lot of hunting. I've killed
Speaker 1: I don't know, maybe a dozen foxes. I gotta get it.
Speaker 1: I gotta get you. And Ted Nugin we had him
Speaker 1: on last week. He loves to talk about thinking, I
Speaker 1: gotta get you guys out at the same time. But
Speaker 1: ever you go, choke. I saw that fox that my
Speaker 1: my son traveler guy. Did you see how big it was?
Speaker 1: It looked like it looked like a like a like
Speaker 1: a tiger or something. It was huge. It was a
Speaker 1: big fox. It was the fox. It was over twenty pounds.
Speaker 1: It looked like a coyote. Was Yeah, I've never seen
Speaker 1: a so yeah, we've been actually having you know, we've
Speaker 1: been having a lot of fun here on the farm
Speaker 1: and business is going very well for us. And again
Speaker 1: this is not the way we would like to succeed um,
Speaker 1: but it's when people when we have crisises, people definitely
Speaker 1: need help with their finances. They need help to know
Speaker 1: what to do with their money, and we've been able
Speaker 1: to provide the information for them, fortunately very successful. Stansbury
Speaker 1: Research dot Com is the site folks go check out
Speaker 1: the Forever portfolio. You got the founder here, the big
Speaker 1: man himself, mister Porter Stansbury, the guy who began at all.
Speaker 1: Porter always great to talk to you. You stay safe
Speaker 1: and I will be in touch. Okay, well, thank you
Speaker 1: very much for having me. Thanks for listening to The
Speaker 1: bus Set Show podcasts. Remember to subscribe on Apple Podcasts,
Speaker 1: the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get your podcasts
Speaker 1: roll Call time. But first I want to tell I
Speaker 1: want to tell you guys all something. You know what
Speaker 1: I watched last night. I actually watched it with the
Speaker 1: Snow Princess because she was in the movie. She's like,
Speaker 1: can we watch? And I said, let's go for it.
Speaker 1: We watched the original Jaws movie, which I kinda say,
Speaker 1: it's just such a classic. It's great when you really
Speaker 1: sit down and watch it. It's so well done. It
Speaker 1: holds up, it moves really well. Because they used the
Speaker 1: I think his name is Hank is what they called him,
Speaker 1: the you know, animatronic shark instead of an have CGI,
Speaker 1: so instead of a CGI shark. It just yeah, it
Speaker 1: doesn't look that real, but it looks real enough. And
Speaker 1: it's just much better the way they did it than
Speaker 1: if they had tried some kind of graphic imposition of
Speaker 1: a shark. So I as a producer, Mark, you've obviously
Speaker 1: seen it, right, Yes, of course. I think it's one
Speaker 1: of the great like cinematic classics of all time for
Speaker 1: enjoyment purposes. I'm not saying that it should have won
Speaker 1: all the Oscars or anything like that, but who cares
Speaker 1: about that. But if you're just looking for a great
Speaker 1: popcorn movie, I think it's fantastic. Yeah, And I'm very
Speaker 1: upset at Universal for getting rid of the ride at
Speaker 1: Universal Islands of Adventure, one of the one of the
Speaker 1: parks down in Orlando. It's gone one of the best rides.
Speaker 1: Had you Did you actually do that ride? Yeah? I did.
Speaker 1: When I was a kid. I lived in Florida for
Speaker 1: a period of time and we would go on school
Speaker 1: trips up there. So that was really fun. And I
Speaker 1: love the Jaws ride. It's really fun. Yeah, And you
Speaker 1: know they do some there's some great stuff um that
Speaker 1: they that they work into that script when they talk
Speaker 1: about the Matawan Creek shark attacks of nineteen sixteen, I
Speaker 1: think it is um. You know, there's a series of
Speaker 1: shore was actually the Jerseys. Do you know about this?
Speaker 1: Producer Mark? On the Jersey Shore and like I've heard
Speaker 1: of it. Yeah, Well they talk about it in They
Speaker 1: allude to it briefly in um in Jaws, and people
Speaker 1: say that it's really the inspiration Mobe Dick. Obviously there's
Speaker 1: a lot of parallels. People say with Moby Dick, katain
Speaker 1: Ahab is actually that guy Quinn. But the idea of
Speaker 1: a series of shark attacks shutting down a seaside community.
Speaker 1: It happened in Loose nineteen sixteen or nineteen eighteen in
Speaker 1: Manawan Creek, New Jersey. They had four people I think
Speaker 1: it was, who were attacked, and I think they all
Speaker 1: died in a period of a couple of days from
Speaker 1: shark attacks, and like right near each other. So there
Speaker 1: was a shark that was running wild, just eating people
Speaker 1: all over the place. They still to this day they
Speaker 1: think it might have been a bullshark because of the
Speaker 1: brackish water, you know, the mixture of salt, salt water
Speaker 1: and freshwater in this creek. And when you look at
Speaker 1: the photos of the creek where people were attacked, it's
Speaker 1: like a little river through a town. You would never
Speaker 1: think that there was a man eating shark that could
Speaker 1: in a million years be in there. So yeah, it's
Speaker 1: pretty cool. Fun talk, yes, very fun talk. Good story yeah,
Speaker 1: fun talk all right, roll call this Marks? Like Buck,
Speaker 1: you talk enough? Why don't you let the people who
Speaker 1: write in the kind people who take their time from
Speaker 1: Team Buck to write in. Usually it's just uh Poosi.
Speaker 1: Mark's great and he's so funny and yeah yeah yeah,
Speaker 1: where do we go? Here we all? Here we go,
Speaker 1: here we go. We have starting us off Terrence, Hey, Buck,
Speaker 1: wishing the best from here in South Korea where you
Speaker 1: are a morning show. Oh uh, I'm young Asia. I
Speaker 1: think that's close to saying I think that's hello. So
Speaker 1: I was pretty close. I remade a daily listen from
Speaker 1: back on the Saturday Blaze days. I know there are
Speaker 1: a lot of factors determining success in the COVID battle.
Speaker 1: Not sure what the specific thing is that Korea is
Speaker 1: doing right, but the results speak for themselves today shields
Speaker 1: high Well, Terrence. First of all, it's great man to
Speaker 1: have some oss here, and you're listening to me in
Speaker 1: South Korea, so this is truly a global show, which
Speaker 1: I appreciate, so thank you very much for that. And yeah,
Speaker 1: as to what South Korea is doing right, I don't know.
Speaker 1: I mean we're hearing that they are very high rates
Speaker 1: of testing, but I just also think that they have
Speaker 1: a tremendous amount of individual compliance in the society for
Speaker 1: the mitigation measures that we can all take. We all
Speaker 1: know this from cold season and flu season already. There
Speaker 1: are things you can do to make respiratory diseases less
Speaker 1: likely to spread. And if everybody does those things, it
Speaker 1: really devotes themselves to those things. I think that the
Speaker 1: government's actions become far less necessary, and it's also much
Speaker 1: more likely that you be in a position to continue
Speaker 1: to have your economy open. But that's just how that's
Speaker 1: how I view it. That's my take on it. Terrence, Oh,
Speaker 1: I'm sorry that was Terrence. Greg Hey Buck sounds like
Speaker 1: you cook a lot of steak life hack. Melt some
Speaker 1: butter with garlic and grated parmerjan into a sort of
Speaker 1: sauce and pour it over your steak. You won't ever
Speaker 1: regret it. Best thing ever, Well, Greg, that does sound amazing.
Speaker 1: I will tell you something that I often do as
Speaker 1: a finish when I'm cooking a good steak is I
Speaker 1: will just you know, once you've seared and you've gotten
Speaker 1: them meet the right temperature, put it in the pan,
Speaker 1: preferably a cast iron obviously, because we're civilized here. We
Speaker 1: use cast iron when we can on our meats. And
Speaker 1: you use that cast iron pan and you you have
Speaker 1: built in heat in the pan. Put it on really
Speaker 1: low medium heat because there's already gonna be a lot
Speaker 1: of heat in the pan, and you throw in some
Speaker 1: herb that you have a time is a great option,
Speaker 1: you know, a little time, maybe a little Parsley sage.
Speaker 1: I love sage. I've been kind of a sage kick lately.
Speaker 1: And then you throw in those herbs and then you
Speaker 1: throw in a big pat of butter with it, and
Speaker 1: it will effectively fry the herbs right there in real time.
Speaker 1: And then you spoon that over the steak. So you
Speaker 1: have an herbed butter that's melted in real time and
Speaker 1: you just throw it over the steak and woo menu fique.
Speaker 1: I would throw some grated parmesan into it. But for me,
Speaker 1: I'm just gonna say it. I like where your head's at, Greg,
Speaker 1: and I respect the game. That for me would be
Speaker 1: if I were working with maybe a less excited cut
Speaker 1: of meat, because I feel like the cheese would be
Speaker 1: a little strong for me, and some people are gonna disagree.
Speaker 1: They're gonna love that cheese on all their producer producer, Mark,
Speaker 1: are you are you a melted parmesan on your steak? Guy?
Speaker 1: There's no wrong answer here. It's not something I regularly do,
Speaker 1: but I would definitely try it. It sounds delicious. I mean,
Speaker 1: I'm sure it would taste good. But butter on the
Speaker 1: steak is definitely the way go. Oh one hundred percent
Speaker 1: the way to go. Yeah, you gotta I mean, if
Speaker 1: you're already eating red meat, you you gotta go bigger,
Speaker 1: go home. And that's when you got to use that.
Speaker 1: And the herbed butters are very nice, and if you
Speaker 1: have the time, there's a there's a there's a way
Speaker 1: to take the butter. You know. You dice up your
Speaker 1: herbs very very not not dice mince them, I think
Speaker 1: it's the proper term. Or you cut them very finely,
Speaker 1: and then you roll them in with some cold butter
Speaker 1: and you put it in the fridge and you make
Speaker 1: your herbed butter beforehand. That's a very nice way to
Speaker 1: go to because then you take out that butter pat
Speaker 1: and you put it on top of the steak when
Speaker 1: it's still really hot. And which just melts into it.
Speaker 1: It's wonderful. Um, I'm getting hungry. Peter Buck still listening
Speaker 1: to work while protecting the grid and cat skill. Thank you, Peter,
Speaker 1: frontline worker shields. I hope you, improucer Mark are doing well.
Speaker 1: You ask when will the testing be enough to fully
Speaker 1: open the country? November fifth, Well played, Peter. When they
Speaker 1: hope Donald Trump is no longer the president, then the
Speaker 1: cry will become we must open now because Trump held
Speaker 1: up the economy and it's up to us, the Libs.
Speaker 1: He didn't write that, but I'm saying it to save
Speaker 1: the American people. Stay healthy and safe. Well, thank you,
Speaker 1: Thank you so much, Peter. And yeah, I think you're
Speaker 1: largely correct here. I share your analysis on this one.
Speaker 1: So well done, Craig. I'm a podcast and occasional AM
Speaker 1: one thousand KSOO listener. Wonderful. Thank you so much, Craig.
Speaker 1: I hate the fact that the federal government human resources
Speaker 1: terms of essential and non essential have now been forced
Speaker 1: into our daily lexicon. I hated these terms while managing
Speaker 1: Department of Army civilians during my career. If during an emergency,
Speaker 1: a government employee is not needed for the functioning of
Speaker 1: the organization, then why do they have a job? If
Speaker 1: only essential work occurs during emergency situations, then what work
Speaker 1: is being accomplished by the majority of them most of
Speaker 1: the time. Now, the state is using these unfair and
Speaker 1: illogical terms to divide the public sector. All jobs and
Speaker 1: businesses in the economy are essential and needed for this
Speaker 1: great nation to work. If we want to get these
Speaker 1: shut down over quicker shutdowns over quicker, furlough all non
Speaker 1: essential government workers and not allow them to work from
Speaker 1: home and earn a paycheck, as is happening for many
Speaker 1: in the economy. Since the majority of federal civilian workforce
Speaker 1: is classified as non essential, the outcry within the federal
Speaker 1: government would be deafening and one that politicians could not ignore.
Speaker 1: Keep up the good fight, Craig, excellent, excellent note. And
Speaker 1: I think you're right if you had people who work
Speaker 1: for the government who were no longer drawing a paycheck
Speaker 1: and we're not able to work from home, if they
Speaker 1: were furloughed, any non essential government employees instead of getting
Speaker 1: paid because right now, my understanding is they're paid to
Speaker 1: be home and work from home. But if you're non essential,
Speaker 1: why are you getting paid to work? From home as
Speaker 1: a govern employee. Craig is asking, it's an interesting point,
Speaker 1: isn't it. And it would put so much pressure, especially
Speaker 1: for state and municipal employees. Think about how annoyed they
Speaker 1: would get with this circumstance very quickly. It would change, folks.
Speaker 1: This is really a lot of this is about pressure
Speaker 1: points in the separation of those who are still getting
Speaker 1: paid and those who are not. And it is a
Speaker 1: very meaningful difference whether or not you are getting paid
Speaker 1: right now. There's just no way around it. It does
Speaker 1: matter to people's perceptions of how serious this is, how
Speaker 1: severe this is. And there are way too many people
Speaker 1: out there, I think, who are allowed voices on this issue,
Speaker 1: who just think that there's not really a massive cost
Speaker 1: or consequence to continuing as we are because it hasn't
Speaker 1: been that consequential for them yet, although eventually it will
Speaker 1: be consequential for everybody, especially in the private sector and
Speaker 1: the public sector. It takes longer because they just rely
Speaker 1: on the government to pay them with the printed money.
Speaker 1: But for people that have to actually be reductive. We
Speaker 1: will see sooner than later what the real consequences of
Speaker 1: this can be. Uh and a lot of us are
Speaker 1: already feeling it. Um. You know we we are feeling
Speaker 1: it in media. I can tell you that at least
Speaker 1: some of us are. It's this is not fun um
Speaker 1: financially speaking. I mean, I can't get into details, but
Speaker 1: this is not a not a good time for for
Speaker 1: media in general, but more specifically, you know, conservative media,
Speaker 1: because we run so much on on ads and on
Speaker 1: economic activity. You know, this show only works because you
Speaker 1: guys all try out our sponsors. Well, people are buying
Speaker 1: less stuff. Uh that that hurts the economic model of
Speaker 1: of all talk radio, of all the different platforms out there.
Speaker 1: So you know, yeah, I'm still working, but it's it's
Speaker 1: tough out there, folks. It's tough for us too. Don't
Speaker 1: think it's not. You're in the freedom hud. This is
Speaker 1: the Buck Sexton Show podcast. All right, more roll call here,
Speaker 1: Tim rites Buck Penn should a mask at all times.
Speaker 1: He is our only buffer between us and insanity. If
Speaker 1: something were to happen to Trump, President Pelosi makes me
Speaker 1: ill to even type it. Well, Tim, I appreciate that
Speaker 1: you want to keep are very esteemed and really really
Speaker 1: an exceptional person. Our vice president's a good guy. I
Speaker 1: appreciate that you want to keep him, you know, keep
Speaker 1: him as healthy as possible. I certainly agree with that.
Speaker 1: I think I think the Vice president, given who he's
Speaker 1: around and what he's dealing with every day, probably has
Speaker 1: a pretty darn good sense of what is necessary for
Speaker 1: keeping him healthy and safe into the game. But I
Speaker 1: hear you on that we need Pence staying strong, stay
Speaker 1: and healthy. And the same thing with our president, man Trump,
Speaker 1: is this guy is going through hell right now as president.
Speaker 1: I mean you can only imagine when from things that
Speaker 1: were in his control, we're going so well, you know,
Speaker 1: the economy was so strong. You gotta understand, this is
Speaker 1: his life work, right, This is his the crowning achievement
Speaker 1: of this guy's entire career, which has been a pretty
Speaker 1: remarkable one at that. And he's doing such a good
Speaker 1: job and then this happens. I mean, this is like,
Speaker 1: you know, you're you're showing up to you're showing up
Speaker 1: to sign the deal of a lifetime and you get
Speaker 1: struck by lightning on the way and he's just like,
Speaker 1: how does this happen? Man? This is terrible. So he's
Speaker 1: obviously very tired, and I think he's particularly grumpy during
Speaker 1: some of those press conferences, which I I can't understand.
Speaker 1: I can't understand that. But he's particularly tired and grumpy
Speaker 1: during the press conferences, and I get it, you know,
Speaker 1: I can only imagine how challenging that is. But Trump's
Speaker 1: staying healthy during all this is so important too, obviously
Speaker 1: keeping him free of COVID nineteen, but just also not
Speaker 1: getting run down with other health issues. I mean, the
Speaker 1: guy's going through It's it's tough right now. Think of
Speaker 1: the weight that he carries on his shoulders every day,
Speaker 1: and all the all the libs like a bunch of
Speaker 1: hyenas lurking in the background, just waiting to pounce on
Speaker 1: a mistake that he makes. Michael right, Daily listener, love
Speaker 1: your insight, keep up the good work. We are listening
Speaker 1: in texarcanat Texas. Oh Michael, thank you so much and
Speaker 1: great to have some texts Arcana support and we appreciate it.
Speaker 1: And like I said, guys, please do check out buck
Speaker 1: Sexton dot com. That's our website. We've got stories posting
Speaker 1: every day. Things from this show go up there, extras,
Speaker 1: all kinds of fun stuff. Buck Sexton dot com. That's
Speaker 1: where you go, and please do continue to stop in
Speaker 1: bookmark it and tell people about the podcast for the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show. Oh, if you haven't subscribed to our
Speaker 1: YouTube channel as well, start watching us on YouTube YouTube
Speaker 1: dot com slash buck Sexton. So that's another thing we
Speaker 1: want to keep going and growing. Gyle. Hey, Buck, last day,
Speaker 1: I work for my crew. We build aircraft parts, and
Speaker 1: the future is bleak. You and Mark stay safe there
Speaker 1: at ground zero and keep your shield high. We'll be
Speaker 1: listening and keeping my powder dry. You stay safe well, Gyle.
Speaker 1: I'm sorry to hear about the slowdown in your work,
Speaker 1: but man, aircraft parts, this will will come back. It's
Speaker 1: gonna come back. It's just gonna take some time. But
Speaker 1: I know that right now, right now, that's not really
Speaker 1: a whole lot of comfort. Given then you got bills
Speaker 1: to pay and a family to take care of. And
Speaker 1: I know it's tough. I mean, Boeing is looking at
Speaker 1: huge layoffs from what I understand, I mean, the airline industry.
Speaker 1: How's that going to come back? It's gonna come. You
Speaker 1: know how it comes back. And be honest with you,
Speaker 1: it's when people feel like, you know what, I gotta
Speaker 1: fly and I'm gonna go. Maybe I wear a surgical
Speaker 1: mask on the plane. But I'm gonna fly, and I'm
Speaker 1: gonna take that risk, and I think it's important, and
Speaker 1: I'm healthy enough that I can handle this. And then
Speaker 1: once that mentality becomes widespread, then I think you'll start
Speaker 1: to see the airline industry maker will come back. Jake, right,
Speaker 1: it's good, Hey, Buckman, at your recommendation. I recently read
Speaker 1: The Guns of August, which led me to read a
Speaker 1: few other books about World War One. The scale and
Speaker 1: misery and loss of life from that war is just staggering,
Speaker 1: But compared to our societal expectations today, it is clear
Speaker 1: that the acceptance of necessary risk in those days was
Speaker 1: orders of magnitude higher. Too high, one could argue, I
Speaker 1: could go on, but to sum it up, I think
Speaker 1: our society and government are showing themselves to be excessively
Speaker 1: risk averse. Perhaps paradoxically, we have become fatally risk averse. Well, Jake,
Speaker 1: first of all, I'm glad you're enjoying The Guns of August.
Speaker 1: It's a great read, and it's a sort of a
Speaker 1: timeless overview of the or the opening i should say,
Speaker 1: of the First World War, the opening month of the
Speaker 1: First World War, in particular, of the actual conflict. And
Speaker 1: as for your fatally risk averse comment, it reminds me
Speaker 1: of Professor Unitis from the University of Stour Stanford University,
Speaker 1: who was saying that we're becoming like an elephant that
Speaker 1: trying to escape a mouse falls off a cliff. That's
Speaker 1: a similar idea to what you're talking about here. And
Speaker 1: he's an epidemiologist and esteemed one who's saying that we're
Speaker 1: acting like this is a bigger threat for us than
Speaker 1: it really is. So there you have it, my cool Buck,
Speaker 1: I usually jump at the vote, A jump at the
Speaker 1: chance to vote for a libertarian. So will I vote
Speaker 1: for Justin Amash? No, absolutely not. After how he's been
Speaker 1: acting in the past couple of years, I wouldn't vote
Speaker 1: for him to be my congressman either. Shields High. Yeah.
Speaker 1: I don't know what happened to Himash, but he went
Speaker 1: over to the he went over to the bad guy team,
Speaker 1: and it's a shame to see that happen. But I
Speaker 1: think it's I think it's where we are, my friend,
Speaker 1: I'm not impressed, as putting him mildly, that's my impression
Speaker 1: of how he's doing. Terry writes, Hey, Buck, why don't
Speaker 1: the Libs call the President's daily COVID nineteen briefing stupid
Speaker 1: but not Governor Cuomos, I think I know the answer. Well, Terry,
Speaker 1: you do know the answer. It's politics. There's nothing behind
Speaker 1: it other than that. It's a shame that the Libs
Speaker 1: will not put aside their political gripes during this very
Speaker 1: difficult time where we all really should be banning together
Speaker 1: and counting on each other to make decisions that are
Speaker 1: best for the country. But liberalism is a question in
Speaker 1: the era of Trump is a disorder. That's it for today, Folks,
Speaker 1: bucksexon dot COM's the website, make sure you tell somebody
Speaker 1: this week. Please do me a favorite. Tell somebody to
Speaker 1: download the Buck Sexton Show podcast. Wherever you listen to podcasts,
Speaker 1: you can listen to it and we'll be back tomorrow,
Speaker 1: same time and place. She'll die