Speaker 1: You are entering the freedom hunt. A case study in
Speaker 1: elite Panic San Francisco and the nineteen eighteen flu. Do
Speaker 1: full lockdowns actually save lives? The New York City antibody tests.
Speaker 1: We've got updates for you on that, plus a sting
Speaker 1: operation in Texas for painting nails. General Flynn was set up?
Speaker 1: And why are there no Sunday questions about Biden's sexual
Speaker 1: assault allegation? That and more coming up. This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show, where the mission or mission is to
Speaker 1: decode what really matters with actionable intelligence. Make no mistake,
Speaker 1: you're a great American. Again, the Buck Sexton Show begins,
Speaker 1: He's a great guy. Now. I want to review that
Speaker 1: timetable because when I heard Mitchell on the floor the
Speaker 1: other day, he was saying, we have all these things
Speaker 1: in here that we ask for. No you rejected, No,
Speaker 1: you rejected. And speaking of Mitch, what's gotten into him?
Speaker 1: While it's an indication the President is asking people to
Speaker 1: inject lysol into their lungs and Mitch is saying that
Speaker 1: states should go bankrupt, it's a clear visible within twenty
Speaker 1: four hours of how the Republicans reject science and reject governance.
Speaker 1: If you don't believe in science. They don't believe in governance.
Speaker 1: That's their approach, and we do not. We don't want
Speaker 1: more government that we need, but we know that governance
Speaker 1: has a role, and we know that science has a role,
Speaker 1: and without science in our decision making, we are not
Speaker 1: going to be on a very successful path. Nancy Pelosi
Speaker 1: is a stupid person's idea of what an intelligent politician
Speaker 1: and sounds like welcome to the buck Sex and Show. Everybody.
Speaker 1: Thank you very much for joining. I trust you had
Speaker 1: a relaxing and rejuvenating weekend. At least I hope you did.
Speaker 1: Some of you, I'm sure on the work line doing things,
Speaker 1: making sure that you were on the front lines and
Speaker 1: making sure the food is delivered, making sure that people
Speaker 1: are getting taken care of in hospitals, doing all the
Speaker 1: things that we need to have happening to keep this
Speaker 1: country going. But for the rest of you, I will
Speaker 1: have my thoughts for you on Netflix and some of
Speaker 1: the latest there. But first I want to get into
Speaker 1: where we are right now and this whole process, because
Speaker 1: you know, Pelosi there telling us about how there's no science,
Speaker 1: there's no governance, or the Republicans, how can someone say
Speaker 1: something that is so devoid of underlying facts that it's
Speaker 1: just so bizarrely disconnected from reality, and no one seems
Speaker 1: to bat an eyelash about it. It's certainly no Democrats do.
Speaker 1: They have no problem with us whatsoever. They view the
Speaker 1: whole thing is entire entirely justified. There's no governance, there's
Speaker 1: no science with Republicans. The president is standing up for
Speaker 1: two hours a day. He actually might not be doing
Speaker 1: it quite so much and for so long pretty soon,
Speaker 1: because I think people are feeling like he might be
Speaker 1: a little bit overexposed with all this. But the president
Speaker 1: is doing these things, he's having these press conferences, and
Speaker 1: they're claiming that he does not give he does not have,
Speaker 1: you know, a governance going on. He doesn't listen to science.
Speaker 1: He's got scientists that are basically running the briefings. Okay,
Speaker 1: it's the scientists. They're the ones that are actually doing
Speaker 1: the briefings for the most part. And he just gets
Speaker 1: up there and tries to bring it all together. But
Speaker 1: this is the kind of stupidity that we expect from
Speaker 1: the Democrat left, the same Democrat Left that is put
Speaker 1: now credibly accused sexual assaulter Joe Biden and man who
Speaker 1: is perpetually confused and deeply unimpressive. He's the answer. Sure,
Speaker 1: these people are unserious, the Democrats. They've always been unserious.
Speaker 1: They never learn and they will never change. So we
Speaker 1: need to understand that they haven't gotten better because we'ren't
Speaker 1: a crisis. They haven't gotten more honest. This is just
Speaker 1: who they are, so we will have to accept that.
Speaker 1: I suppose as much as one can while trying to
Speaker 1: defeat them and do everything we can to make sure
Speaker 1: they do not once again wield power. I had a
Speaker 1: fascinating read for you over the weekend that I picked
Speaker 1: up by James Meigs. I believe I've never heard of
Speaker 1: or read anything by him, and I had to ben dominant.
Speaker 1: You was sharing this from the Federalist. This was in
Speaker 1: commentary magazine though, and it's elite panic versus the resilient
Speaker 1: Populace is the title of piece by James. James Meg's
Speaker 1: here and it's fascinating. It's absolutely fascinating. I highly recommend it.
Speaker 1: We'll share it on some of our social platforms so
Speaker 1: you can see this piece. He talks about how in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty four North America had its strongest recorded earthquake
Speaker 1: just off the coast of Alaska on March twenty seventh,
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty four, so a month ago today, back in
Speaker 1: nineteen sixty four the shaking from the magnet, or a
Speaker 1: month earlier in the year. The shaking from this quake
Speaker 1: was nine point two on the Richter scale, and it
Speaker 1: shook for four and a half minutes. He writes that
Speaker 1: the tectonic forces reshaped Alaska's coastline and triggered tsunamis that
Speaker 1: wiped out villages and claimed lives as far south as California. Anchorage,
Speaker 1: which was the main city, the closest city to the
Speaker 1: epicenter of the earthquake, was home to one hundred thousand people,
Speaker 1: and buildings were just completely destroyed all of our Anchorage,
Speaker 1: I mean just collapsed, caved in. Buildings were rumbling down
Speaker 1: the sides of embankments after there was just earth moving,
Speaker 1: the soil moving beneath them. There was brand new J. C.
Speaker 1: Penny department store that was collapsing in parts of it.
Speaker 1: We're just completely falling apart. I've been to Anchorage and
Speaker 1: it's a it's a it's a nice town. I actually
Speaker 1: liked it there and I know we're on KNI, which
Speaker 1: is our wonderful affiliate up and Anchorage that actually comes
Speaker 1: up in this story, so being high five to k
Speaker 1: e N. I are our Anchorage, Alaska affiliate for the
Speaker 1: Bucks X and show. Because back in nineteen sixty four,
Speaker 1: that was the station that people were turning to for information.
Speaker 1: That was the first line for folks in the Anchorage
Speaker 1: area to find out, Hey, what's going on, Who's who's missing?
Speaker 1: Where do they need help? But officials immediately, and this
Speaker 1: is what this piece and commentary magazine talks about. Officials
Speaker 1: began worrying about the response from people. They thought to themselves,
Speaker 1: wait a second, there's going to be looting, There's going
Speaker 1: to be rioting. This is terrible. What can we do?
Speaker 1: And so they deputized a number of people on the spot,
Speaker 1: including giving some of them firearms, to say, hey, prevent
Speaker 1: all this looting in the post disaster environment that we
Speaker 1: think is going to happen. So this is where were
Speaker 1: there were concerns that people would quote behave like frightened
Speaker 1: and unsatisfied children, and that there could be a mass
Speaker 1: outbreak of hysterical neurosis among the civilian population. That was
Speaker 1: what the police and some of the authorities that some
Speaker 1: of the authorities in the city assumed would happen. And
Speaker 1: the author here points out that there are plenty of
Speaker 1: counterexamples in history, the British response during the Blitz in
Speaker 1: World War Two, the Japanese response after the Fukushima nuclear
Speaker 1: reactor disaster, which was initially thought to perhaps be much
Speaker 1: much it was believing much much worse than it ended
Speaker 1: up being in terms of the amount of radiation that
Speaker 1: was let loose, but most the author of this piece
Speaker 1: cites a book. The book is called This is Chance,
Speaker 1: the shaking of an all American city, a voice that
Speaker 1: held it all together. And this is in Anchorage. This
Speaker 1: is about what happened in Anchorage during this period. And Chance,
Speaker 1: I believe, was a radio, TV and radio announcer, Genie Chance,
Speaker 1: a minor celebrity in Alaska. The earthquake caught her in
Speaker 1: her car quote running down a downtown running a downtown
Speaker 1: aaron with her sons. She saw the mangled body in
Speaker 1: the rubble. Cars were buried in debris. One station wagon
Speaker 1: had been crushed almost flat by a concrete slab. Chance
Speaker 1: could hear a woman's voice coming from inside a crowd
Speaker 1: of people was trying to save her, clawing at the slab.
Speaker 1: Then a man stepped forward to organize the effort. Somehow
Speaker 1: two chow trucks were located. They were able to split
Speaker 1: the slab partially into another man climbed into the breach
Speaker 1: with a cunning torch and carved a hole in the
Speaker 1: vehicle's roof. The woman was pulled free, great injured, but alive.
Speaker 1: She would survive. Chance later marveled that all the people
Speaker 1: involved in the operation were mere passers by impromptu volunteers,
Speaker 1: and yet they functioned as a team. Though she didn't
Speaker 1: know it at the time, this dynamic was being replicated
Speaker 1: all over the city. Chance made her first broadcast as
Speaker 1: soon as her radio station k E and I came
Speaker 1: back on air. End quote. That's right, Kae and I,
Speaker 1: the same station that folks up in Alaska are listening
Speaker 1: to us on right now up in Anchorage. But that
Speaker 1: was the station that she was able to use to
Speaker 1: get the word out to people about rescue efforts. Now, remember,
Speaker 1: there was the official rescue effort and there was the
Speaker 1: civilian rescue effort that was going on people all over
Speaker 1: Anchorage back in nineteen sixty four doing everything that they
Speaker 1: could to try to save lives, try to pick people
Speaker 1: out of the rubble. And it was impromptu. It was
Speaker 1: on the spot. Chance Quote set up a broadcast desk
Speaker 1: at the Anchorage Public Safety Building, home to the city's
Speaker 1: police and fire department. City employees hurried in and out,
Speaker 1: and civilian volunteers as well. Everyone, it seemed, had a
Speaker 1: message they need a chance to read on the air.
Speaker 1: A high voltage power line is down on Northern Lights Boulevard.
Speaker 1: There's a large crevice on Seward Highway. Both highways out
Speaker 1: of Anchorage or closed. There wasn't much comfort of the
Speaker 1: news Chance and or fellow broadcasts were conveying. But Anchorage
Speaker 1: residents remember those voices as a lifeline. Information one would
Speaker 1: later say, is a form of comfort. Another called k
Speaker 1: E and I our only beacon of light in a
Speaker 1: night of terror end quote. Fascinating, isn't it so? The
Speaker 1: official of response from the authorities was what people would
Speaker 1: call in the disaster study area elite panic. The elites
Speaker 1: right off the bat generally assume, not always, but will
Speaker 1: generally assume that people will react terribly the moment that
Speaker 1: their sense of normalcy is shattered. Otherwise, good, decent, law
Speaker 1: abiding people will either be terrified or will act out
Speaker 1: badly and will not be You cannot count on them
Speaker 1: to do helpful things, and it's up to the authorities
Speaker 1: to make all the decisions for them. I think you're
Speaker 1: starting to see a little bit of a little bit
Speaker 1: of a comparison here, aren't you. Elite. Panic is when
Speaker 1: the authorities believe that citizens will become dangerous so quote,
Speaker 1: they begin to focus on controlling the public rather than
Speaker 1: on addressing the disaster itself. They clamp down on information,
Speaker 1: restrict freedom of movement, and devote unnecessary energy to enforcing
Speaker 1: laws they assume are about to be broken. These strategies
Speaker 1: don't just waste resources, they also undermine the public's capacity
Speaker 1: for resilient behaviors. In other words, nervous officials can actively
Speaker 1: impede the ordinary people trying to help themselves and their neighbors.
Speaker 1: End quote. Yeah you don't say so. Here, the city
Speaker 1: of Alaska, Vanchorage in Alaska, with a hundred thousand residents
Speaker 1: gets hit with an over nine point oh earthquake, which
Speaker 1: is and absolutely stunningly devastating her Keep pointing to stay earthquake,
Speaker 1: hurricane earthquake. It's stunningly devastating, and yet they were able
Speaker 1: to band together the people of Anchorage with a little
Speaker 1: help of coordination at the top, courtesy of our affiliate
Speaker 1: Ke and I, they were able to direct people. And
Speaker 1: do you know how many ended up actually dying in
Speaker 1: that earthquake? Five? That's obviously a tragedy for those five
Speaker 1: people in their families, but from what could have happened
Speaker 1: given all the people that were picked out of rubble,
Speaker 1: it's really astonishing. But human beings, especially in good, healthy societies,
Speaker 1: which ours is. Despite all the criticisms that we can
Speaker 1: have for America, despite all of our shortcomings here and there, overall,
Speaker 1: we are a good country filled with good people. When
Speaker 1: we're given the opportunity, we will more often than not
Speaker 1: do good things. But the government doesn't always seem to
Speaker 1: think so. And this is how you have sting operations
Speaker 1: against nail salons. This is how people can be chased
Speaker 1: down on the beach for being completely alone and going
Speaker 1: for a jog. This is how you have some of
Speaker 1: the absolutely absurd enforcement of regulations that they say are
Speaker 1: meant to keep us safe, meant to keep us healthy,
Speaker 1: But no serious person could ever think that they would
Speaker 1: have that effect. Why are they doing these things? Why
Speaker 1: are they putting us through this? These are questions that
Speaker 1: we should demand answers too, because right now we're being
Speaker 1: told something that's very troubling. It was a few weeks
Speaker 1: ago that the data, the data dictated that we had
Speaker 1: to do whatever the government told us, and that we
Speaker 1: could not be counted on, We could not be counted
Speaker 1: on to be responsible citizens who would take mitigation measures ourselves,
Speaker 1: allow businesses to adapt and create safer environments, but still
Speaker 1: able to still be able to continue in business. No
Speaker 1: mandates lockdowns across the board, across the country. Well, now
Speaker 1: we have data about those lockdowns, and it does not
Speaker 1: look good for the across the board lockdown chorus. There
Speaker 1: are some places, New York being the most notable one,
Speaker 1: where it might have been justified because of the extreme
Speaker 1: nature of the infection, but even then only justified for
Speaker 1: a short period of time. But in other places the
Speaker 1: lockdown has been, if anything, counterproductive. And if you look
Speaker 1: at Europe where they've had essentially a control group with
Speaker 1: Sweden versus other countries in Europe, Sweden is in the
Speaker 1: middle of the pack. Sweden is not worse off. In fact,
Speaker 1: it's better off on a per capita basis than Italy,
Speaker 1: than Spain, than the UK. It's slightly worse off than
Speaker 1: Finland or Denmark. But they didn't shut down their society.
Speaker 1: And everyone's pointing out of the economic impact of it
Speaker 1: there and saying, well, their economy still got hurt. And
Speaker 1: you hear this now, Well, the economy won't come back
Speaker 1: online because people are too scared. Well, you know, would
Speaker 1: make people less scared if they started to see other
Speaker 1: people go to stores and be okay, and other businesses
Speaker 1: start to operate and life start to return to normal.
Speaker 1: Normal right away, but normal in phases. That has to happen.
Speaker 1: That's where we are, and we need to start having
Speaker 1: authorities give the American people greater latitude to make good decisions,
Speaker 1: to be helpful to each other in our day to
Speaker 1: day lives, and stop this insanity of everything that they
Speaker 1: say must be done and not be questioned because they
Speaker 1: have the answers. They've already shown us they don't have
Speaker 1: the answers. They absolutely do not. The data was used
Speaker 1: to tell us stay inside or else weeks ago. Now
Speaker 1: the data shows that in many places and in many
Speaker 1: cases that was not necessary and perhaps counterproductive. Where's the
Speaker 1: focus on that? Now we're all of our so called
Speaker 1: firefighter journos running toward, running toward the flames for the
Speaker 1: betterment of our republic. They got no answers for this,
Speaker 1: do they? We're heading into a different phase, my friends.
Speaker 1: We had we had demands for government action because people
Speaker 1: were scared and the government saw an opportunity to use
Speaker 1: its power. And now we have overreach, ineptitude, and a
Speaker 1: complete lack of accountability for bad decisions that government is making.
Speaker 1: Enough is enough. Let's actually start making some good decisions,
Speaker 1: and let's allow the American people to be a bigger
Speaker 1: part of that process. You're in the freedom Hunt. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show podcast again on this
Speaker 1: wonderful piece in Commentary magazine by James Meigs. It's really
Speaker 1: a fascinating story and I love it. It's at the
Speaker 1: center of it all. I mean, there's the everyday heroes
Speaker 1: who are using blow torches and pickup trucks impromptu. Just oh,
Speaker 1: I happen to have my blow torch in the back.
Speaker 1: I happen to have, you know, earth moving equipment that
Speaker 1: I can use to save somebody from the rubble all
Speaker 1: over Anchorage back in nineteen sixty four. And also, it's
Speaker 1: kind of cool that the coordination and operations center for
Speaker 1: this whole thing was our affiliate for the Buck, Sex
Speaker 1: and Stone show an Anchorage, Kae and I, So they
Speaker 1: must feel pretty pretty darn good about that. But but
Speaker 1: there's other other more recent examples to the piece goes
Speaker 1: into the situation in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. There
Speaker 1: there were all these stories about, oh, the horrific violence
Speaker 1: and looting, and there were some bad things that happened there,
Speaker 1: but you know, there was also a lot of coming together,
Speaker 1: a lot of community in the Cajun Navy was just amazing.
Speaker 1: Hundreds of boats. Private citizens are saying, I'm there, man,
Speaker 1: I'm I'm I'm showing up and I'm helping everybody I
Speaker 1: can help. Hundreds of boats getting people out of floodwaters
Speaker 1: and saving lives and coordinating with And this is not
Speaker 1: to say that first responders are not essentially doing incredible work.
Speaker 1: Of course they are. But while the first responders are
Speaker 1: doing things, there are also a lot of citizens, a
Speaker 1: lot of civilians who step up and do important things.
Speaker 1: They often work together and the impulse of authority though,
Speaker 1: and this is this brings us back to elite panic, is, Oh,
Speaker 1: the people cannot be trusted. You must have a very
Speaker 1: firm hand with them. And this is particularly the impulse
Speaker 1: of unaccountable bureaucracies and regulatory boards and bodies, things like
Speaker 1: the FDA, which in the early days of this coronavirus pandemic,
Speaker 1: the FDA slowed down testing because they couldn't figure out
Speaker 1: that the regulations they had were not were not necessary
Speaker 1: given the scope and the problems that we're facing right
Speaker 1: now with coronavirus. They couldn't They couldn't figure it out
Speaker 1: in times, and they slowed down the whole testing process. Again,
Speaker 1: the elites panic, while the people actually try to do
Speaker 1: something to help each other. Remember that thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to the bus sets and show podcasts. Remember to subscribe
Speaker 1: on Apple podcasts, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. No, and it's outrageous for Senator m
Speaker 1: Accountel to even suggest that the facts of the matter
Speaker 1: is our general fun budget, when adjusted for inflation, is
Speaker 1: the same size it was or an when Richard Nixon
Speaker 1: was our president. We have been incredibly smart stewards. We
Speaker 1: have not made some of the investments I think we
Speaker 1: should have as a state because of you know this,
Speaker 1: you know, artificially low number that we've been working with.
Speaker 1: But the fact of the matter is that for Senator
Speaker 1: McConnell to suggest that is incredibly dangerous, and I don't
Speaker 1: think that the vast majority of governors in this country,
Speaker 1: Republican and Democratic, would agree with him. He's wrong, and
Speaker 1: we need Congress to step up and help states because
Speaker 1: this pandemic. It's because of this global pandemic that we
Speaker 1: are all having to make tough decisions. We need the
Speaker 1: federal government to have our backs. Governor Whitmer of Michigan
Speaker 1: has become among the best known of the of the
Speaker 1: overreach folks in all of this. I think that's fair
Speaker 1: to say she is somebody who has come to our
Speaker 1: attention for being willing to have the most the most
Speaker 1: petty tyranny in the most obvious ways. As as being
Speaker 1: a governor, you didn't have that interview that Tucker Carlson
Speaker 1: did some weeks ago with the Governor Murphy of New
Speaker 1: Jersey in which he's like, well, that's above my pay grade.
Speaker 1: Why did you suspend the Bill of Rights? Governor Murphy well,
Speaker 1: that's above my pay grade. That was the conversation with Tucker,
Speaker 1: And to that one would say, well, no, it's not,
Speaker 1: because you're the governor and you have responsibility to protect
Speaker 1: the Bill of Rights and you cannot override it as
Speaker 1: a state official. But we've seen a lot of that,
Speaker 1: and I want to remind you all now that we
Speaker 1: were told certain things about why we had to just
Speaker 1: accept this. We were told this as a country, we're
Speaker 1: told this for really all fifty states. They're only a
Speaker 1: handful that did not go with statewide lockdowns. And now
Speaker 1: we have more dated, more information, and we're supposed to
Speaker 1: forget that we were told things that weren't true, to
Speaker 1: take actions that did not protect us, that did not
Speaker 1: help us or save us. And you would think that
Speaker 1: this would be a point for the jury knows to
Speaker 1: stand up and say, well, hold on a minute, maybe
Speaker 1: we need to rethink some of this, But nope, because
Speaker 1: the lockdown consensus has also become very much melded in
Speaker 1: with the anti Trump left and the critics of the
Speaker 1: Trump administration. So lockdown has become political in a way
Speaker 1: that you can't you can't avoid this. You can't pretend
Speaker 1: that it's not happening, because this is in fact a
Speaker 1: p a primary goal for a lot of the people
Speaker 1: who are pushing for lockdowns across the country to make
Speaker 1: sure that the Trump administration suffers, because what they're able
Speaker 1: to do here is they're able to put all the
Speaker 1: blame on Trump, feel like they're saving lives in the process,
Speaker 1: and ensure that there is catastrophic economic damage. Now, people
Speaker 1: could say, well, book, why do they do this, Why
Speaker 1: do they do this in Europe? And I say, yeah,
Speaker 1: why why do they do this in Europe? Considering that
Speaker 1: European countries are opening up right now, So the lockdown
Speaker 1: forever folks are just wrong. I mean, they're they're not
Speaker 1: doing this in Europe much longer. They are opening up schools,
Speaker 1: they are opening up businesses. And I keep pointing to Sweden,
Speaker 1: not because I have some obsession with Stockholm, but you know,
Speaker 1: I don't have Stockholm syndrome, But no, because the Swedes
Speaker 1: were the only ones who were able to be a
Speaker 1: control group for all the measures that we were told
Speaker 1: needed to happen. They didn't do it, and they basically
Speaker 1: went through what the countries that did do it, meaning
Speaker 1: the lockdown. They had the very similar outcome, in fact,
Speaker 1: a better outcome than the countries with the most severe restrictions,
Speaker 1: like Italy and Spain. What we really see is, if
Speaker 1: nothing else, by the time the authorities recognize that a
Speaker 1: lockdown is needed, it's too late. And now what we're
Speaker 1: seeing is, by the time it's clear or a tribute
Speaker 1: clear to everybody, the lockdown has gone on too long.
Speaker 1: The authorities don't want to lift it. That is where
Speaker 1: we are right now. So this brings me to a
Speaker 1: fascinating piece the Wall Street Journal. Do lockdown save many
Speaker 1: lives in most places? The data say no. The speed
Speaker 1: with which officials shutter the economy appears not to be
Speaker 1: a factor in COVID debts. This is a piece by
Speaker 1: Joe Joe malchow Yannon Weiss, and T. J. Rogers, And
Speaker 1: here's what they say. Here's the basics of it. Sweden.
Speaker 1: Sweden is fighting coronavirus with common sense guidelines that are
Speaker 1: much less economically destructive than the lockdowns in most US states.
Speaker 1: Since people over sixty five account for about eighty percent
Speaker 1: of COVID nineteen debts, Sweden asked only seniors to shelter
Speaker 1: in place, rather than shutting down the rest of the country,
Speaker 1: and Sweden had no pediatric debts. It didn't shut down
Speaker 1: elementary middle schools. Sweden's containment measures are less onerous than Americas,
Speaker 1: so it can keep them in place longer to prevent
Speaker 1: COVID nineteen from recurring. Sweden did not shut down stores, restaurants,
Speaker 1: and most businesses, but it did shut down the Volvo
Speaker 1: automotive plant, which has since reopened, while the Tesla plant
Speaker 1: in Fremont, California, were shuttered by police and remains closed.
Speaker 1: How did the Swedes do They suffered eighty deaths per
Speaker 1: million twenty one days after crossing the one per million
Speaker 1: threshold level with ten million people. Sweden's death rate without
Speaker 1: a shutdown and massive unemployment is lower than that of
Speaker 1: the seven hardest hit US states Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Louisiana,
Speaker 1: connect At, Michigan, New York, and New Jersey, all of
Speaker 1: which except Louisiana shut down in three days or less.
Speaker 1: Despite stories about high death rates, Sweden is in the
Speaker 1: middle of the pack, comparable to France, better than Italy,
Speaker 1: Spain and the UK, worse than Finland, Denmark and Norway,
Speaker 1: and older people in care homes accounted for half of
Speaker 1: Sweden's debts. We should cheer for Sweden to succeed, not
Speaker 1: ghoulishly bash them. They may prove that many aspects of
Speaker 1: the US shutdown were mistakes, ineffective, but ech comically devastating,
Speaker 1: and point the way to correcting them. What do I
Speaker 1: have been telling you all along? How many times have
Speaker 1: you heard me talk about Sweden on this show and
Speaker 1: that there was a rooting against it from people in
Speaker 1: the media. Oh, the Swedes are heading to disaster. Oh,
Speaker 1: the Swedes are going to learn the most painful, lesson
Speaker 1: reckless what they're doing there. We were pressuring them, meaning
Speaker 1: that the US media, the international news media organizations, they
Speaker 1: were pressuring the Swedes to do what all these other
Speaker 1: countries were doing with the lockdowns. And now we're now
Speaker 1: we're far enough in this and have enough data to
Speaker 1: know that was wrong. There was no bed, there would
Speaker 1: be no benefit for the Swedes to do the lockdown.
Speaker 1: And now people are telling me, well, the economy and
Speaker 1: Sweden has been hit. First of all, Okay, it's been hit.
Speaker 1: Does anyone think that it's Is it a better thing
Speaker 1: or a worse thing for some businesses to be open
Speaker 1: and some businesses to have revenue in economy, better to
Speaker 1: have no businesses open, no revenue. So clearly just applied
Speaker 1: basic sense and logic to this. Clearly it would be
Speaker 1: worse for the economy if they had done with all
Speaker 1: these other places had done, and there is no evidence
Speaker 1: to suggest that it is markedly worse off from a
Speaker 1: health and safety and mortality rate. Is now we have
Speaker 1: we have our control group, and we have our answer.
Speaker 1: We did not need to shut down all fifty states
Speaker 1: in this country. Are close to all fifty states in
Speaker 1: this country with lockdowns. New York probably needed to be
Speaker 1: locked down, perhaps the tri state area in New York,
Speaker 1: New Jersey, Connecticut, and they're needed to be precautions put
Speaker 1: in place. House where this is not This is not
Speaker 1: a oh, we don't need mitigation or we don't need
Speaker 1: to take this seriously. Of course not. That's absurd. That's
Speaker 1: a straw man. No one really thinks that. No one's
Speaker 1: arguing for that. But tell people that they can operate businesses.
Speaker 1: Tell people they can't go to parks, they can't go
Speaker 1: into public places where they're able to maintain distance and
Speaker 1: they're an open air. It's absurd. We're shutting down parks
Speaker 1: at a time when fresh air and open space are
Speaker 1: essential for men till and physical health. There's been so
Speaker 1: much wrong here, and only some people have been willing
Speaker 1: to ask questions along the way. And I'll tell you
Speaker 1: even I tired after a few days of being told
Speaker 1: that I don't care about all the death, but I
Speaker 1: don't care about you know, a stupid, vicious, just utterly
Speaker 1: moronic position that people were taking about anyone who would
Speaker 1: ask questions by looking at the data. Because we make
Speaker 1: we make decisions as a society all the time about
Speaker 1: what is acceptable risk. There's a different thing too than
Speaker 1: risk versus the certainty of something happening right, we take
Speaker 1: We let people drive cars, and everyone hates this example.
Speaker 1: Oh it's not a bad example. We let people drive cars,
Speaker 1: not not not saying okay, well we're going to have
Speaker 1: you know, we know that the following people are going
Speaker 1: to die from this, But we let people drive cars
Speaker 1: knowing that it is possible that people will die from this.
Speaker 1: You know, it is possible that there will be additional
Speaker 1: cases and casualties from COVID nineteen once we begin reopening.
Speaker 1: It's also possible that there really aren't, but we're willing
Speaker 1: to take that risk because of all the factors involved.
Speaker 1: This is life, this is how this is how adults
Speaker 1: make decisions. And we know that you can't have a
Speaker 1: lockdown forever. So why do we keep hearing people say,
Speaker 1: oh no, keep it going as long as you have to.
Speaker 1: There was a transition, they tried to transition the lockdown
Speaker 1: consensus makers out there at the major news organizations, and
Speaker 1: you know that there was there was this culture of
Speaker 1: the lockdown that you were seeing from celebrities. You know,
Speaker 1: here I am in my Malibu mansion and I'm telling
Speaker 1: everybody you must stay lockdown. That's your civic duty. There
Speaker 1: was a culture of this that was that was pervasive.
Speaker 1: But initially it was don't allow the hospitals to be overwhelmed.
Speaker 1: You know, there are hospitals now in New York. Another
Speaker 1: piece in the Wall Street Journal about this Syracuse for example,
Speaker 1: of you know, a good size city in New York State.
Speaker 1: The hospitals are mostly empty, empty, No one can get care,
Speaker 1: no one is able was able to do elective surgeries
Speaker 1: of any kind or do preventative preventive visits to the hospital.
Speaker 1: You know, I mean, I sit here and I wonder,
Speaker 1: you know, at what point, are we going to be
Speaker 1: able to assess all the people who have teeth rotting
Speaker 1: out of their head? You know? But you might say, oh,
Speaker 1: who cares about that? Actually, a really bad tooth infection
Speaker 1: can become very dangerous. People don't necessarily realize this, but
Speaker 1: dental health can turn into like whole body health real fast.
Speaker 1: How many people haven't had preventative cancer screenings. How many
Speaker 1: people haven't had surgeries, you know, earlier interventions that might
Speaker 1: have led to better outcomes as a result of this,
Speaker 1: there's so many consequences to the shutdown, which was really
Speaker 1: just a policy of panic. Isn't it fascinating? We started
Speaker 1: out this hour talking about the elites panicking because they
Speaker 1: say we're going to panic, right, That's what elite panic is,
Speaker 1: Oh my gosh, the hoi polloi will be raging in
Speaker 1: the streets. What will we ever do? And then their
Speaker 1: response is what the panic actually comes from? That that
Speaker 1: is the panic telling us all to stay home indefinitely
Speaker 1: and not really knowing how they're going to reintegrate us
Speaker 1: back into our normal lives. How could you have a
Speaker 1: response more steep and panic than that. It's crazy, isn't it?
Speaker 1: And we now see this, We see the numbers, we
Speaker 1: have the data, and the data does not support what
Speaker 1: we've been told all along we should be doing across
Speaker 1: the board, maybe in New York because we got hit
Speaker 1: so badly, because this place where I'm coming to you now,
Speaker 1: I mean, I'm here, I'm living it, I'm around it
Speaker 1: all the time. You know. I tried to go into
Speaker 1: a store last night and my mask wasn't covering my nose,
Speaker 1: it was only covering my mouth, and a guy gave
Speaker 1: me the whole hey, fix your mask thing before I
Speaker 1: could walk into the store. Now, look, it's a private business,
Speaker 1: I understand, and I'm willing to comply because that's what
Speaker 1: the business has been told to do and they're they're
Speaker 1: able to set their own regulations. Is a little bit
Speaker 1: like no shoot, pardon me, A little bit like no shirt,
Speaker 1: no shoes, not no to shoot, no shirt, no shoes,
Speaker 1: no service. Well, in New York it's you know, no mask,
Speaker 1: no gloves, no service, or at least no mask, no service,
Speaker 1: gloves or optional. Still, but I don't know how long
Speaker 1: that will last either. So there's this whole movement in
Speaker 1: this city toward making this feel more normal for people
Speaker 1: you're seeing a lot more of these designer masks and
Speaker 1: a lot of efforts to make it seem like this
Speaker 1: is just the way it's going to be for a
Speaker 1: very long time, like we're going into the summer, and
Speaker 1: I think people will eventually get very tired of having
Speaker 1: these things on their faces, especially when they realize that
Speaker 1: your risk. All I do is read the data and
Speaker 1: in the studies all day long. Your risk from outdoor
Speaker 1: from outdoor transmission of this unless somebody is basically in
Speaker 1: physical contact with you or speaking right into your face
Speaker 1: where you can feel like the heat of their breadth,
Speaker 1: your risk of physical transmission from this from all the
Speaker 1: studies they have so far outdoors is insignificant. I mean,
Speaker 1: you have risk from everything, right. You have risk of
Speaker 1: getting terrible staff infection every time you shave and you
Speaker 1: cut yourself and you know you could die from a
Speaker 1: staff infection, But do you stop shaving? And this is
Speaker 1: this is where we have to remind ourselves that there's
Speaker 1: no there's no perfect safety. And this reminds me of
Speaker 1: the conversation we were having as a country after nine
Speaker 1: eleven and with terrorism. People are saying, well, what do
Speaker 1: we have to do to make sure this never happens again. Yeah,
Speaker 1: you can prevent catastrophe with the right measures, or at
Speaker 1: least you can make it harder for catastrophe like that
Speaker 1: to occur because of those evil psychopaths of al Qaeda.
Speaker 1: But there's no eliminating all terrorist at acts. We saw
Speaker 1: this with the rise of the Islamic State and all
Speaker 1: the lone wolf attacks. Here there is no perfect safety.
Speaker 1: And if you if you try for perfect safety through
Speaker 1: state mandates, what you get is the elimination of freedom.
Speaker 1: And you still have risk. You have risk from whatever
Speaker 1: it is the state says they're protecting you from, but
Speaker 1: you also have the risk of a state that has
Speaker 1: become almost all powerful, which should terrify people a lot
Speaker 1: more than pretty much anything else we face out there
Speaker 1: in the real world. I mean, a state going tyrannical.
Speaker 1: If you look at history, you know what, really what
Speaker 1: really gets the body count very high, tyrannical states. That's
Speaker 1: that's worse than worse than pretty much anything we've ever seen.
Speaker 1: I mean, the only exception of that might be the
Speaker 1: Spanish flu pandemic of nineteen eighteen, and that is something
Speaker 1: that's also coming up now in these discussions about mask,
Speaker 1: which I want to I want to transition to for
Speaker 1: a second. You're in the Freedom Hunt. This is the
Speaker 1: Buck Sexton Show podcast. You're seeing a lot of this
Speaker 1: pop up now analysis of the pandemic of nineteen eighteen
Speaker 1: and how San Francisco they say had had this under
Speaker 1: control and then they started to ease, and then it
Speaker 1: all came back and then things got so much worse.
Speaker 1: Notice how the NBC News has a piece on this.
Speaker 1: I'm seeing it all over the place, though. Notice how
Speaker 1: the the goal here and shifted. Now it's lockdowns indefinitely
Speaker 1: to prevent the second wave. Wait, I thought it was
Speaker 1: lockdowns to prevent overcrowding of the hospital, and then it
Speaker 1: was just ben the curve. So we have more time
Speaker 1: to figure out more about the disease and allow our
Speaker 1: public health, our public health and doctors and so on
Speaker 1: and so forth to get in a better position to
Speaker 1: deal with this. And now it's well, no, we have
Speaker 1: to lock down until we figure out how to prevent
Speaker 1: a second wave through test and trace. But the test
Speaker 1: and trace is never going to be anywhere near what
Speaker 1: it needs to be for us to be able to
Speaker 1: do what they say we need to be able to do,
Speaker 1: which is find out when someone has this and everyone
Speaker 1: they've talked to you right away, and then contain it
Speaker 1: with a three twenty million people in this country. Do
Speaker 1: you think the government's going to be Do you think
Speaker 1: there's any way they would have enough effectiveness in test
Speaker 1: and trace that that really is that's a that's a
Speaker 1: realistic option for us. This is all just people changing,
Speaker 1: constantly changing where the goalposts are on this and now
Speaker 1: preventing a second wave. Here's what happened in San Francisco.
Speaker 1: They talk about the Anti Mask League. You people didn't
Speaker 1: want to wear masks anymore, and there was all this
Speaker 1: propaganda out there. Quote the man or a woman or
Speaker 1: child who will not wear a mask now is a
Speaker 1: dangerous slacker. A public service announcement from the American Red
Speaker 1: Cross out at the time. This is all in this
Speaker 1: NBC piece. And then there was the Anti Mask League
Speaker 1: and the other other people were saying that, you know
Speaker 1: that masks were not necessary. But here's the problem. They're
Speaker 1: saying that they were flattening the curve, and then it
Speaker 1: came back. Flattening the curve indefinitely is called indefinite lockdown.
Speaker 1: Under the rules that were being set forward for us
Speaker 1: and that destroyed society. We can't do that. So they
Speaker 1: need to stop pretending that indefinite lockdown flattens the curve
Speaker 1: and that means that that's what we're going to do,
Speaker 1: because that's impossible. We're not going to do that. It
Speaker 1: would be not advisable to do that. But there was
Speaker 1: a second outbreak here. Look, the states and states and
Speaker 1: cities right now are playing a lot of games with us.
Speaker 1: They're saying they're reopening, but they're really not. They're saying
Speaker 1: that they have a roadmap, but there are afraid to
Speaker 1: enact it. This is why states that live in reality
Speaker 1: and are willing to have leadership that are willing to
Speaker 1: take appropriate risks and show a little courage here we'll
Speaker 1: be what saves us because other states are just going
Speaker 1: to sit on this and sit on this and refuse
Speaker 1: to move until states that have taken action are okay,
Speaker 1: which is going to happen. Thanks for listening to the
Speaker 1: Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on Apple podcast,
Speaker 1: the iHeartRadio app, or wherever you get your podcasts. It
Speaker 1: bothers me that this is still in the news cycle
Speaker 1: because I think we're missing the bigger pieces of what
Speaker 1: we need to be doing as an American people to
Speaker 1: continue to protect one another. And we should be having
Speaker 1: that dialogue about asymptomatics. We should be having that dialogue
Speaker 1: about this unique clotting that we're seeing. And you know,
Speaker 1: we're the first country that really had young people to
Speaker 1: this degree. Italy and Europe is about eight years older
Speaker 1: than us as a median age. So this is the
Speaker 1: first experience of this virus in an open society anywhere
Speaker 1: we really can understand what's happening to every different age groups.
Speaker 1: These are the things that we should be talking about
Speaker 1: and focusing on. So I think as a scientist and
Speaker 1: a public health official and a researcher, sometimes I worry
Speaker 1: that we don't get the information to the American people
Speaker 1: that they need when we continue to bring up something
Speaker 1: that was from Thursday night. Oh you mean the media
Speaker 1: is a bunch of irresponsible hacks. Here's doctor Burke's, who
Speaker 1: I'm sure is going to all of a sudden, you're
Speaker 1: going to see a bit of a change in tone
Speaker 1: from Saint Fauci and Saint Burk's to oh well, why
Speaker 1: is Burkes doing Trump's bidding? You already started to see
Speaker 1: someone over the weekend. She's a hack just doing what
Speaker 1: Trump says. This woman has worked in public health at
Speaker 1: the highest levels for decades, who's been working on saving
Speaker 1: people from HIV, particularly in Africa, where millions and millions
Speaker 1: of lives have been saved by HIV prevention efforts. And
Speaker 1: yet now because she calls out, the media has gotchi games, bullcrap,
Speaker 1: the stuff that we know they're doing. We know they're
Speaker 1: doing it, but they're starting to turn on her. They're
Speaker 1: starting to feel like she's not the super genius that
Speaker 1: we had all been led to believe when she was
Speaker 1: telling us, you know, dealing with what we're effectively worst
Speaker 1: case scenarios on this. They don't. They don't feel quite
Speaker 1: the same way about her right now. That's just it's
Speaker 1: just the reminder, folks that the news media, even right now,
Speaker 1: in a crisis, you know, America's house is on fire,
Speaker 1: and the news media wants to run stories on how
Speaker 1: they don't like, you know, they don't like the house owner,
Speaker 1: and it's like, well, what are you guys doing? What
Speaker 1: is going on here? They just really can't help it.
Speaker 1: I suppose this is who they are. I mean, they
Speaker 1: can't help it. But they they're not going to change.
Speaker 1: This is the reality of the news media that we
Speaker 1: are dealing with, and unfortunately this is the media we're
Speaker 1: stuck with. But I want to note that, you know,
Speaker 1: some states are beginning to open Tennessee, Missouri, Montana. They're
Speaker 1: the last ones, according to Fox News here that have
Speaker 1: that have taken steps toward opening. And you're going to
Speaker 1: see these states are they're going. I mean, I really
Speaker 1: believe they're gonna be okay. Not say it's gonna be perfect,
Speaker 1: but they're gonna be okay. And then you're going to
Speaker 1: have more pressure on the blue states. But Red states
Speaker 1: are not perfect here either. This is where you get
Speaker 1: the When I say not perfect, I mean that there
Speaker 1: have been things that have happened in some Red states
Speaker 1: that are very concerning. This is where you have this story.
Speaker 1: Was it on the on the blaze of a a
Speaker 1: sting operation against women who were trying to women who
Speaker 1: were trying to give nail salon services at home? You know,
Speaker 1: a sting operation? Well, you don't say that's really a
Speaker 1: good usage of police resources, isn't it. That's really something
Speaker 1: that's worth worth people doing trying to trying to paint
Speaker 1: people's nails for them, So the police set up people
Speaker 1: undercover to make sure they get the get the women
Speaker 1: who we're trying to make a living by painting people's
Speaker 1: nails at their homes. This is so stupid, it's so absurd,
Speaker 1: But we see this happening. We see this happening in
Speaker 1: state after state, time after time, and it's because that
Speaker 1: there's a there's a mentality here. There are there are
Speaker 1: people who are in positions of authority. There are people
Speaker 1: who believe that they are the ones that have to
Speaker 1: tell us how we deal with this and what they're real,
Speaker 1: what acceptable risks are and what are not. And they
Speaker 1: do not like challenges to their authority. They do not
Speaker 1: want to hear about how Sweden is doing well. They
Speaker 1: don't want to hear even about other states that are
Speaker 1: reopening that have not had anywhere near the cases we
Speaker 1: have in the US. You know what, I also think
Speaker 1: a part of this is that everyone recognizes that our
Speaker 1: experts in the scientific community so far we've had mixed
Speaker 1: results at best with the therapeutics that we have available
Speaker 1: to us right now. Who knows if a vaccine is
Speaker 1: going to be particularly effective and how soon it will
Speaker 1: be effective how soon we'll actually have one, So waiting
Speaker 1: for medicine to save is I do think that there
Speaker 1: was and look, I'm guilty of this in my own
Speaker 1: my own head. I just the idea that we might
Speaker 1: be able to go back to living normal lives sooner
Speaker 1: because of some huge breakthrough on what could be sweeter,
Speaker 1: what could be greater than that? Right? But no, No,
Speaker 1: the same same medical community that can't cure the common
Speaker 1: cold is going to have a challenging time with this.
Speaker 1: I can tell you that right now, medical researchers around
Speaker 1: the world that look, I don't know the first thing
Speaker 1: about any of this, and this is not my area,
Speaker 1: but I'm just telling you, if we're waiting for the
Speaker 1: experts in this realm to just give us the silver bullet,
Speaker 1: we're gonna be waiting a very long time, and our
Speaker 1: whole society, our whole way of life, will deteriorate around
Speaker 1: us while we're playing that waiting game. We can't do that.
Speaker 1: You absolutely cannot allow that to be the way that
Speaker 1: this goes forward. So then we also have the left
Speaker 1: and their complaints about all of this, which are I
Speaker 1: have to just say, are are stunning, absolutely stunning. Here's
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi. And this is a great Pelosi moment in
Speaker 1: that it really distills the esthens of Nancy Pelosi. She's
Speaker 1: so shameless, and if we had a real press that
Speaker 1: was oppositional and was that was interested in truth, Pelosi
Speaker 1: would be scared to go on any of these shows
Speaker 1: because she would just get constantly blasted for all of
Speaker 1: the misdirection, all the lies, all of the just most
Speaker 1: blatant political crap that she pulls. But instead, she knows
Speaker 1: that she's going into friendly territory all the time, with
Speaker 1: the exception of when when she's on Fox News. And
Speaker 1: I can't remember the last time Pelosi was on a
Speaker 1: Fox News show. Maybe she does the Sunday shows because
Speaker 1: Chris Wallace is a very kind of, you know, neutral
Speaker 1: centrist interviewer, but I don't I don't know that she's
Speaker 1: done any of the other Fox News shows recently, because
Speaker 1: she's obviously not going to subject herself to having anyone
Speaker 1: ask a question about what a huge fraud she is
Speaker 1: and all of this. But here's Pelosi on the Remember
Speaker 1: you have to remember, you have to remember the timeline here.
Speaker 1: Pelosi was opposed initially to Trump's China travel restriction, said
Speaker 1: that it wasn't it was you know, racist, wasn't good.
Speaker 1: We're gonna you know, it's not gonna, it's not worth it.
Speaker 1: We shouldn't be doing this. She was a terrible idea.
Speaker 1: And now her criticism is effectively, well, it wasn't enough,
Speaker 1: you know, it wasn't enough. That that's the shift that
Speaker 1: Nancy Pelosi has made here play clip three. Actually tens
Speaker 1: of thousands of people were still allowed in from China,
Speaker 1: so it wasn't as it is described as this great moment.
Speaker 1: There were Americans coming back or Green cardholders coming back,
Speaker 1: but there were tens of thousand. So if you're going
Speaker 1: to shut the door because you have an evaluation of
Speaker 1: an epidemic, then shut the door. Oh oh, so it
Speaker 1: wasn't strong enough is her complaint. Now, and here's the
Speaker 1: problem that Nancy Pelosi has in making this case. Do
Speaker 1: you know what we call those tens of thousands of
Speaker 1: Americans who are coming back from China? Americans? So she
Speaker 1: doesn't understand these are citizens and Green card holders. You're
Speaker 1: gonna tell them they can't come back to their home country. Now,
Speaker 1: maybe we should have put them into quarantine right away.
Speaker 1: But hindsight is twenty twenty. But could you imagine the
Speaker 1: outrage from Nancy Pelosi. I don't just mean in general,
Speaker 1: imagine the outrage from Nancy Pelosi if when all this
Speaker 1: was going on, the President had said, well, if you
Speaker 1: are coming back from China, obviously we're gonna have a
Speaker 1: fair number of people who are Chinese Americans who are
Speaker 1: coming back from travel there, who are citizens or green
Speaker 1: card holders. And if you come back and you know,
Speaker 1: you're not allowed to come back, never mind even putting
Speaker 1: into quarantine right away, you're not allowed to come back.
Speaker 1: Find somewhere else to live while we figured this out.
Speaker 1: First of all, it's not I don't even know how
Speaker 1: you'd deal with the constitutionality of that. I mean, you
Speaker 1: get a lot of problems, you'd have a lot of issues.
Speaker 1: But that's now Pelosi's claim what was unnecessary and severe
Speaker 1: is now not severe enough. And she acts like she
Speaker 1: knew this all along and she has all the answers.
Speaker 1: Just appalling. I mean, she is a truly appalling and
Speaker 1: really deranged by politics at this point, but she manages
Speaker 1: to still say this stuff. She manages to continue to
Speaker 1: just make these claims and does not get any of
Speaker 1: the pushback that you would expect does not get anyone,
Speaker 1: you know, asking her real question. I shouldn't say that
Speaker 1: you would expect that you would hope for if we
Speaker 1: had a serious press corps, but we simply don't. But
Speaker 1: then again, Adam Schiff could also run around saying stuff
Speaker 1: like this. You remember, this guy is in the House
Speaker 1: Intelligence Committee. He tried to he was the point man
Speaker 1: on the pre on the impeachment of the President, which
Speaker 1: was just a disgusting exercise. Here's shift place sixteen. I
Speaker 1: don't think we had any idea how much damage she
Speaker 1: would go on to do in the months ahead. There
Speaker 1: are fifty thousand Americans now who are dead, in significant
Speaker 1: part because of his incompetence, because of his inability to
Speaker 1: think beyond himself and put the country first. I don't
Speaker 1: think we would have ever anticipated that his brand of
Speaker 1: narcissism and his brand of incompetence, sometimes his brand of
Speaker 1: malevolence would be so fatal to the American people. But probably,
Speaker 1: you know, the strongest echo of what we were talking
Speaker 1: about during the trial was when he was earlier talking
Speaker 1: about how he didn't want to return the calls from governers.
Speaker 1: He didn't want his vice president to return calls from
Speaker 1: governors that weren't saying nice things about him, that really
Speaker 1: weren't saying things about him that he could then turn
Speaker 1: into campaign commercials, as indeed he has. That was such
Speaker 1: a profound and disturbing echo of what he tried to
Speaker 1: do with Ukraine. So sadly, you know, as we pointed
Speaker 1: out during the trial, a man with no moral compass
Speaker 1: will never find his way, and this president certainly hasn't.
Speaker 1: Does anyone think that Adam Schiff has a moral compass?
Speaker 1: Adam Schiff might be to slimy, most dishonest person in
Speaker 1: the entire United States Congress, which is a remarkable feat.
Speaker 1: And now that's a truly stunning accomplishment for somebody to have,
Speaker 1: given how many liars and how many disgraces are in
Speaker 1: the Congress. But he's also he sounds like a crazy
Speaker 1: person here. Yeah, Trump is a responsi for fifty thousand deaths.
Speaker 1: Notice the problem they they will have as they continue
Speaker 1: this line of really just gutter attack, I mean just
Speaker 1: the grossest, most underhanded, most despicable politics. Are all of
Speaker 1: the European countries, are all their prime ministers guilty of
Speaker 1: murder too. Do they all have blood on their hands?
Speaker 1: In fact, find me a major country does. Does any
Speaker 1: government not have blood on its hands? And at what
Speaker 1: point if every government has blood on its hands, what
Speaker 1: does that even really mean other than governments can't protect you.
Speaker 1: Governments are incompetent by their nature. They are going to
Speaker 1: disappoint you. If you think that a government is there
Speaker 1: to be your friend and keep you safe, you're wrong.
Speaker 1: Doesn't matter who the leader is, that's not the function
Speaker 1: of government. They do. It does what it can in
Speaker 1: this case to try to protect this but it's always
Speaker 1: going to disappoint you. It's never going to be enough.
Speaker 1: But you won't hear that from the Democrats. You won't
Speaker 1: hear that. Instead, you'll hear the usual attacks about how
Speaker 1: Trump is completely and utterly bereft of any moral compass,
Speaker 1: and he's a terrible person, and he's responsible for all this. Meanwhile,
Speaker 1: they offer up none other than Joe Biden as the
Speaker 1: answer here, as if Joe Biden would do such a
Speaker 1: better job figuring all this out. Oh oh, and in
Speaker 1: case you're wondering now, Pelosi has in fact endorsed Joe Biden. Oh,
Speaker 1: this is a this is a big one, folks. Ooh,
Speaker 1: this is really going to move the needle play at
Speaker 1: Mark today. I am proud to endorse Joe Biden for
Speaker 1: President of the United States because he will be an
Speaker 1: extraordinary president. He knows how to get the job done. Yeah,
Speaker 1: that's right, Joe Biden. That's who they say, we do
Speaker 1: a better. We're dealing with an enormously complicated issue, really
Speaker 1: a once in a century pandemic. And if only the
Speaker 1: guy who talks about the weird blonde hairs on his
Speaker 1: legs and sniffs women's heads, by his own admission and
Speaker 1: by photographic evidence, and now has a completely credible and
Speaker 1: I really mean credible sexual assault allegation against him from
Speaker 1: when he was a United States senator. That's the person
Speaker 1: the Democrats are telling you, if only he were in charge,
Speaker 1: this would all be so much better. They can't really
Speaker 1: believe this, but we know that it doesn't matter whether
Speaker 1: they believe it or not. It's useful to them right now.
Speaker 1: What is the only principle the Democratic Party holds firm
Speaker 1: to the pursuit of power, which is not really a principle.
Speaker 1: That's the only thing they really care about. Everything else
Speaker 1: is pushed aside at a moment's notice, anything else is
Speaker 1: completely disposable. I mean Nancy Pelosi and morality. That's that's funny, right,
Speaker 1: that's a joke. But I want to talk about how
Speaker 1: the media is trying to handle the fact that now
Speaker 1: the word is out and after all this stuff against Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: And we will talk a little bit more about the
Speaker 1: general Flint situation too, because we're getting more answers about this.
Speaker 1: Oh you you're humble conservative hosts like yours truly and
Speaker 1: among others. Somehow, we've been right on Russia collusion, We've
Speaker 1: been right on General Flynn, we were right on Kavanna,
Speaker 1: right on these things all along, and the facts, additional
Speaker 1: facts after those fights were had in public, proved that
Speaker 1: to be the case. But do you see any any
Speaker 1: penance from the media whatsoever about their efforts to destroy
Speaker 1: these people. Do you see anyone caring about how wrong
Speaker 1: they've been all along on the the mainstream media. No,
Speaker 1: of course not, because they knew that they were serving
Speaker 1: a purpose at the time. That was what mattered. But
Speaker 1: let's let's take a look at the Joe Biden situation.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom hunt. This is the buck sex
Speaker 1: and show podcast. You will recall during the Kavanaugh destruction
Speaker 1: effort by the media, you will recall that there was
Speaker 1: no evidence whatsoever of contemporaneous corroboration. In fact, the effort
Speaker 1: to destroy Kavanaugh revolved entirely around women who had increasingly
Speaker 1: implausible claims of sexual assault, starting with the least obviously
Speaker 1: false that you called that with Christine Blasiford, and then
Speaker 1: going over to Deborah Ramirez and I can say this,
Speaker 1: if you were in college and somebody put their their
Speaker 1: genitalia in your face, I don't think you would need,
Speaker 1: as she claimed she did a week of coaching by
Speaker 1: lawyers to help you figure out if, in fact that
Speaker 1: thing happened to you. That strikes me as highly implausible.
Speaker 1: But that was what we were told, and also other
Speaker 1: people that were there at Yale University at the time
Speaker 1: remembered no such incident, did not believe that it happened,
Speaker 1: no corroboration whatsoever. And then you got to the Julie
Speaker 1: Sweatne case, where the media was willing to with no
Speaker 1: again evidence of any kind other than a clearly delusional
Speaker 1: person seeking attention. And there were others. As I've told you,
Speaker 1: there were women who came forward who said that Brett
Speaker 1: kavanol raped them on a boat in a state he
Speaker 1: had never been to. So there were people who came forward.
Speaker 1: You know, we were being told in this instance that
Speaker 1: women have a right to be believed, and there were
Speaker 1: women who lied as a matter of record, because that's
Speaker 1: why the Senate Democrats didn't even produce those allegations. There
Speaker 1: were people who this was an all hands on deck
Speaker 1: effort to destroy a person who was viewed as a
Speaker 1: threat to Roe v. Wade, as a threat to the
Speaker 1: liberals preferred composition of the Supreme Court. So it wasn't
Speaker 1: anything goes situation. It wasn't anything goes moment. But even
Speaker 1: blasi Ford was never even able to prove that she
Speaker 1: had met met Brett Kavanaugh. Never no record of anyone
Speaker 1: saying that they ever hung out, knew each other, were
Speaker 1: even in the same room. She claims that she went
Speaker 1: to a party, that she did not know how she
Speaker 1: got there, who invited her, where the house was, what
Speaker 1: house it was, and that he attacked her, and that
Speaker 1: she doesn't know how she got home or who picked
Speaker 1: her up or anything else, and she thought it was
Speaker 1: the wrong year also, which is left out of all
Speaker 1: of that too. Oh okay, so pretty much every fact
Speaker 1: she had was either not a fact or was wrong.
Speaker 1: But she knew it was Brett Kavanaugh. Couldn't have been
Speaker 1: someone else, couldn't have been some other guy that was,
Speaker 1: you know, grabbing at her when he was drunk at
Speaker 1: this party, which the thing that know happens all too often.
Speaker 1: I mean, this is part of the problem is that
Speaker 1: this is that there are far too many people who
Speaker 1: are victims of this kind of conduct, and when someone
Speaker 1: comes forward with a politically charged allegation that does not
Speaker 1: have any facts behind it, it does affect perception of
Speaker 1: how often people are telling the truth with this. It
Speaker 1: just does. So it's wrong. It hurts real survivors when
Speaker 1: this happens, when people say things that are clearly untrue.
Speaker 1: For reasons that we all understand. Right, this was a
Speaker 1: Supreme Court seat, and this was considered a sacred duty
Speaker 1: of women on the left to try and destroy Kavanaugh.
Speaker 1: Here's the problem now with the Joe Biden situation as
Speaker 1: we know it. The problem is that there is now
Speaker 1: not only an allegation that is credible that relies on
Speaker 1: already established contact between the two of them, there's what
Speaker 1: we believe is video and audio evidence of contemporaneous corroboration.
Speaker 1: And not only that, but CNN had it in its archives.
Speaker 1: I'll bring you up to speed on this at a moment.
Speaker 1: Thanks for listening to the Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember
Speaker 1: to subscribe on Apple Podcasts, the iHeartRadio app, or wherever
Speaker 1: you get your podcasts. So here's where we are with
Speaker 1: with the Democrat nominee for the presidency, Joe Biden. As
Speaker 1: I've already told you, the way that the media, the
Speaker 1: national press treated the Kavanaugh situation was that any allegation
Speaker 1: against him was to be believed, no matter how flimsy
Speaker 1: it was in terms of evidence, or even how not
Speaker 1: credible it would seem at first at first look. And
Speaker 1: that was a situation where there were there were a
Speaker 1: lot of people that said that they didn't believe it
Speaker 1: had happened, or that they couldn't give corroboration for it,
Speaker 1: there was no evidence that could be presented. But the
Speaker 1: standard was not only should a woman a woman have
Speaker 1: a right to be believe. The standard was that if
Speaker 1: there's even a doubt that is created about this person's ability,
Speaker 1: if there is any doubt whatsoever, then ability to do
Speaker 1: this job you credibly and in the eyes of the public,
Speaker 1: then we deserve something better, so that person should step down.
Speaker 1: That was the standard for Kavanaugh, that the media is
Speaker 1: set up and that we were told we should all
Speaker 1: adhere to. How can that now not be the standard
Speaker 1: if it's for a Supreme Court justice, how can it
Speaker 1: not be the standard for a president? Now? We all
Speaker 1: know that they covered up stuff with Bill Clinton for
Speaker 1: a long time too, that Bill Clinton was credibly accused,
Speaker 1: credibly accused of rape. We know that right that that
Speaker 1: is on the record, that has been long established. Media
Speaker 1: didn't care. But now in they Post me too era,
Speaker 1: when they were so clear, so definite, and what the
Speaker 1: standards were for gate for gauging this kind of conduct,
Speaker 1: for deciding what should happen and what's beliefable and what's not.
Speaker 1: They're willing to toss this all out because of politics.
Speaker 1: We know this. Here's the problem that they currently have
Speaker 1: to deal with. And they're going to go through a
Speaker 1: lot of supposed soul searching and processing, and they're gonna
Speaker 1: use a lot of fancy words that mean one thing
Speaker 1: and one thing only. They're not gonna do squat about
Speaker 1: this they're not gonna do anything about it. They're just
Speaker 1: gonna say, oh, yeah, we talked about it, we covered it.
Speaker 1: We covered it in the back of the newspaper. We
Speaker 1: didn't mention it on air on TV. But sure, yeah, no,
Speaker 1: we covered it. We're still looking, We're still researching. They're
Speaker 1: going to be researching Joe Biden's sexual assault allegations in
Speaker 1: twenty years, meaning they're never going to really research it.
Speaker 1: They're just gonna keep saying that, oh no, we're still
Speaker 1: looking at it, still trying to figure stuff out. Here's
Speaker 1: a problem though, you know, we were also told a
Speaker 1: contemporary corroboration is meaningful, right because at least that establishes
Speaker 1: that the person did not, as I believe the kavanauc
Speaker 1: users did, come up out of nowhere with I'm going
Speaker 1: to be a hero to women, to the women's movement
Speaker 1: to the left by destroying this guy before he can
Speaker 1: be on the Supreme Court. And so they just made
Speaker 1: up stories. People that knew him from his life, but
Speaker 1: they just made it up. The problem that Biden has
Speaker 1: is that this isn't somebody who just made it up.
Speaker 1: Now because she doesn't want Biden to be president, this
Speaker 1: is somebody who according to what we now have as
Speaker 1: at least circumstantial evidence. According to circumstantial evidence, she was
Speaker 1: telling people about this at the time, and all the
Speaker 1: timeline all matches up for when she left the job
Speaker 1: and what she did next. Here is audio of terror
Speaker 1: Reid's mother back in nineteen ninety three allegedly calling into
Speaker 1: CNN to discuss how her daughter was something bad happened
Speaker 1: to her and it was from a prominent politician. Here
Speaker 1: this is what the audio of it sounds like. Playcliff
Speaker 1: two back a couple more phone calls on this very
Speaker 1: important topic. Our guests are former United States Senator Howard Baker,
Speaker 1: Richard Allen, former National Security advisor, and Lois Romano of
Speaker 1: The Washington Post, San Luis Obispo, California. Hello, Yeah, Hello,
Speaker 1: I'm wondering what a staffer would to do besides go
Speaker 1: to the press in Washington. My daughter has just left
Speaker 1: there after working for a prominent senator and could not
Speaker 1: get through with her problems at all. And the only
Speaker 1: thing she could have done was go to the press,
Speaker 1: and she chose not to do it out of respect
Speaker 1: for you, or she had a story to tell, but
Speaker 1: out of respect for the person she worked for. She
Speaker 1: didn't tell them, that's true. But these are the people
Speaker 1: who do come to the lowest romanos, right the staff
Speaker 1: worker who says, I want to let you know about
Speaker 1: what's going on down the hall. And a lot of
Speaker 1: these people had a sense of applegate. They feel that
Speaker 1: this public officials should be accountable if it's something blowers
Speaker 1: to the president. Guess where Tara Reid's mother was living
Speaker 1: in nineteen ninety three when that phone call was made
Speaker 1: to the Larry King Show, San Luis Obispo, California. Guess
Speaker 1: when Tara Reid had just left her job right around then.
Speaker 1: People who have heard, including Tara Reid have heard the audio, said, yep,
Speaker 1: that's Tara Reid's mother. So what are we to make
Speaker 1: of this? She clearly had a problem with Biden back then.
Speaker 1: It made her leave her job, and it was so
Speaker 1: troubling that even her mother was calling into Larry King
Speaker 1: Show to say, I'm more. You know, this is the situation.
Speaker 1: So she didn't just come up with this story now
Speaker 1: because she doesn't want Biden to be president and she
Speaker 1: likes Trump. In fact, I'll understand she's a Democrat, but
Speaker 1: I'm sure that won't get that won't get much play.
Speaker 1: So what do the Democrats do about this? You know
Speaker 1: what's funny is we all know what they're going to do,
Speaker 1: which is nothing. This will just this will just be
Speaker 1: treated like it. It's a thing that we all know
Speaker 1: but cannot be spoken of, can't talk about. This doesn't
Speaker 1: have any residents, doesn't have any impact or power. Joe
Speaker 1: Biden has to beat Donald Trump. That's all that matters.
Speaker 1: Nothing else matters. I really believe that that the Democrat
Speaker 1: Party could find out that Joe Biden had a long
Speaker 1: history of this. And I would note that bosses who
Speaker 1: tend to grab women and penetrate them against their will,
Speaker 1: which is what the allegation is here, tends tend not
Speaker 1: to be a one off thing. There are bosses who
Speaker 1: do this, and they tend to be predators. And that's
Speaker 1: that's usually what you find out in there and when
Speaker 1: you do a deep dive into their background and how
Speaker 1: they've really been. So is this woman even the only
Speaker 1: one with Biden? But I'll tell you this, if five
Speaker 1: women came forward and said that Biden did this, you know,
Speaker 1: you know what the response would be from the media,
Speaker 1: from the press. Well, women accused Trump too, so can't
Speaker 1: do anything about this? What aboutism, the double standards? It's
Speaker 1: going to be jaw dropping. All the people in the
Speaker 1: media who were claiming that Kavanaugh should step down coming
Speaker 1: they believe Kavanaugh there and their politics were quite obvious
Speaker 1: in that whole process. They're the same people now who
Speaker 1: are not saying anything about what the allegations against Joe
Speaker 1: Biden are. And I would note so I also think
Speaker 1: that this is important. I think this is something that
Speaker 1: we need to keep in mind. There's no accountability whatsoever
Speaker 1: for the press doing what they did, the lies that
Speaker 1: they told, the willingness to cast aside any effort at impartiality,
Speaker 1: at being nonpartisan and being wrong. They were wrong. They're
Speaker 1: wrong about Kavanaugh, and they're going to feign ignorance and
Speaker 1: stupidity about Biden because what else are they going to do.
Speaker 1: There's nothing about this allegation that rings false. And if
Speaker 1: five women came forward and said that Joe Biden had
Speaker 1: done this to them, they would still say the same thing. Nope,
Speaker 1: none of them have a right to be believed. Too
Speaker 1: much at stake here for the left, too much power.
Speaker 1: They hate Trump that much. How how can anybody who's
Speaker 1: a journalist be taken seriously with this. I mean, you
Speaker 1: go back and look at what people were saying on
Speaker 1: the left, what the Democrat media was saying about cabin
Speaker 1: at the time. Those who believed all this, they've set
Speaker 1: a standard here that they just simply are going to
Speaker 1: forget that they set. They're going to just pretend it
Speaker 1: never happened. Because these people, I really tell you this,
Speaker 1: among the worst human beings in America in professional life
Speaker 1: who are treated generally well and think that they're important
Speaker 1: are mainstream journalists. They're among the worst people in the
Speaker 1: country in any profession. Yeah, there's, like, you know, cartel
Speaker 1: hitmen who are worse, But I'm saying for a profession
Speaker 1: that thinks of itself as being elite and worthwhile and
Speaker 1: really important to the functioning of our republic, journalism is
Speaker 1: rotten in America. Not all journalists are rotten, but journalism
Speaker 1: in general is rotten. There's no other explanation for how
Speaker 1: this Joe Biden allegation is being handled versus the way
Speaker 1: that the cabin All situation was handled. Do you think
Speaker 1: it's CNN found this in its archives? I would note Noope,
Speaker 1: someone else had to go and find this in CNN's archives. Wow.
Speaker 1: You mean that the same media that was able to
Speaker 1: find a ten year old, you know, off off stage
Speaker 1: Mike moment with Billy Bush and President Trump to try
Speaker 1: to destroy him, a classic October surprise as dirty as
Speaker 1: against right before the election. You mean that same mainstream
Speaker 1: media couldn't figure out this. It had to be brought
Speaker 1: to CNN's attention. Oh wow. I don't think anybody's even
Speaker 1: a little bit surprised by that. I'm a CNN is
Speaker 1: on an anti Trump jihad. We all know that they've
Speaker 1: been on it for years. They're not going to change,
Speaker 1: but we don't have to show them respect as a
Speaker 1: media organization, as a journalistic enterprise, because they don't deserve
Speaker 1: respect for either of those things. They don't deserve respect
Speaker 1: in general. And to all the women out there that
Speaker 1: I know who wanted to believe the press was being
Speaker 1: fair and what it was saying about Kavanaugh, I would
Speaker 1: want to know, how could anyone try to claim that
Speaker 1: what's going on right now where you have a Democrat
Speaker 1: nominee for the presidency who has been incredibly accused of
Speaker 1: sexual assault by a woman who can who did know
Speaker 1: him who was alone with him and who does have
Speaker 1: now contemporary's corroboration or having told other people about the
Speaker 1: story back in nineteen ninety three. Is it okay if
Speaker 1: Joe Biden does it? What is the standard? What is
Speaker 1: the standard that they are operating under now? They need
Speaker 1: to establish this? Do they excuse Joe Biden because he's
Speaker 1: too important to Democrats? I mean, that is what they're doing.
Speaker 1: But I just want I want them to verbalize it.
Speaker 1: I want them to have to say it. Why is
Speaker 1: this okay? You know, CNN, I don't think has done
Speaker 1: a single story on this. What a trash heap of
Speaker 1: an organization that place is. It's really appalling. You're in
Speaker 1: the Freedom Hud. This is the Buck Sexton Show podcast.
Speaker 1: Would it be a mistake if Joe Biden didn't pick
Speaker 1: a woman of caller to be his running mate a president?
Speaker 1: Biden will do what he has always on, which is
Speaker 1: respect and value communities of color. I think he understands
Speaker 1: that black communities and people of color are vital to
Speaker 1: the success of the Democratic Party, and I think he's
Speaker 1: going to pick the right person. I of course think
Speaker 1: that a woman of color can bring certain attributes we
Speaker 1: have to lift up marginalized communities, communities that do not
Speaker 1: trust that they will be served because they have been
Speaker 1: the hardest hit by this pandemic. In the state of
Speaker 1: Georgia alone. While we're only thirty two percent of the population,
Speaker 1: African Americans comprise fifty four percent of the deaths. And
Speaker 1: so yes, having a woman of color on the ticket
Speaker 1: will help promote not only diversity but trust. But I
Speaker 1: trust Joe Biden to pick the person he thinks is
Speaker 1: the right running mate for him. Man, the media is
Speaker 1: really helping out with the Stacey Abrams for VP campaign,
Speaker 1: aren't they keep on giving her as much of a
Speaker 1: platform as I can. Remember, this is a woman who
Speaker 1: lost the Georgia governor's race and then went around saying
Speaker 1: that she wanted so you know, she's got great judgment.
Speaker 1: But they're really doing everything they can to try to help,
Speaker 1: in part because, you know, Chuck Todd putting an African
Speaker 1: American female on his show that he's elevating as a
Speaker 1: likely Joe Biden or possible Joe Biden pick makes, you know,
Speaker 1: makes Chuck Todd feel like he's doing his part for
Speaker 1: diversity and wokeness and doing what the left would want
Speaker 1: him to do you see this in a lot of
Speaker 1: these other Sunday shows as well. I bring this up
Speaker 1: because you had I think a handful of different possible,
Speaker 1: possible vice presidential picks for Biden that we're showing up
Speaker 1: on the Sunday shows, which I don't really I mean,
Speaker 1: I think the Sunday shows are overwhelmingly garbage. I think
Speaker 1: they're trash. I think they're not very good. You know,
Speaker 1: there's this old sort of inside DC we need to have,
Speaker 1: you know, the old Tim Russert model of things. It's
Speaker 1: all gone now. I mean, Chuck Todd is an intense
Speaker 1: mediocrity and everyone knows it, and so are these other
Speaker 1: people that have these Sunday Jake Tapper, he's the most
Speaker 1: boring man on television. But you know, whatever, they they
Speaker 1: do this, they have these Sunday shows. And how many
Speaker 1: of them do you think asked Biden's vice presidential candidates,
Speaker 1: especially in the case of Stacey Abrams, a female, what
Speaker 1: do you think about the credible sexual assault allegation against
Speaker 1: Joe Biden? Do you think any of them got to
Speaker 1: ask that question? Nope, escape right past that one. Why
Speaker 1: is that? How can you be a journalist when you
Speaker 1: have a president a presidential contender. You only have two
Speaker 1: men left in this race now it's Biden and Trump.
Speaker 1: One of them has and it's just come to light
Speaker 1: that there's contemporaneous corroboration of the sexual assault allegation against Biden.
Speaker 1: How can you not ask that question? See, this goes
Speaker 1: to everything that we talk about here all the time,
Speaker 1: which is the bias that's going on, that people are
Speaker 1: pursuing an ideological agenda. And it's why you shouldn't watch
Speaker 1: ABC News tonight, even though I think like twelve million
Speaker 1: people do. You should listen to people that actually tell
Speaker 1: you what's true and who share your values and your
Speaker 1: view because the information is already out there. We all
Speaker 1: have access to more information than ever before. It's what values,
Speaker 1: what principles do you apply to it? What analysis do
Speaker 1: you do with it? What do you think the takeaways are?
Speaker 1: How do you use judgment and how do you tell
Speaker 1: people to go forward once they have that information? Right?
Speaker 1: That that's what differentiates not having someone who looks and
Speaker 1: sounds fancy and who has really cool intro music and
Speaker 1: is on ABC News or you know, any of these
Speaker 1: other platforms, or you can watch CNN and have the
Speaker 1: likes of Jim Acosta still present himself as just just
Speaker 1: an honest, objective journal man Play fifteen. I mean, I
Speaker 1: know why the President didn't take questions this evening. It's
Speaker 1: interesting me that Kaylee Mckininny, you know, the new spokesperson
Speaker 1: who you know is over the top in her you know,
Speaker 1: Soviet like praise of or rewriting of history on things,
Speaker 1: would say one thing, and then the president. They clearly
Speaker 1: didn't even coordinate their lives. They didn't Anderson, and I
Speaker 1: think we found out today that the President's words have meeting,
Speaker 1: but they're also at times hazardous to your health. And
Speaker 1: I think that was part of what we learned today
Speaker 1: and go into your point in orson there just isn't
Speaker 1: enough disinfectant at the White House to wash away what
Speaker 1: the President did and the lies that were told to
Speaker 1: try to cover it up. I will tell you, Anderson,
Speaker 1: one of the reasons why he cut short that briefing
Speaker 1: earlier this evening, my sources tell me, is because the
Speaker 1: President was upset about the flak he was taking over
Speaker 1: his comments that people could use disinfectants to kill the
Speaker 1: coronavirus inside their bodies. Yeah, objective journals. There. You got
Speaker 1: one guy who's a news anchor, Anderson Cooper quote news anchor.
Speaker 1: First of all, it really doesn't sound particularly articulate there,
Speaker 1: does he? You know, like yeah, you know, I mean yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, like Kiley mcinanny, you know, I mean you
Speaker 1: go back and listen to Its really been that guy
Speaker 1: fifteen million a year something like that, ten fifteen million
Speaker 1: a year for a job that you could replace him
Speaker 1: tomorrow and nobody would care and nobody would notice. But
Speaker 1: you know, Jeff Zucker likes him so and he's the
Speaker 1: brand over there whatever that means, not Jeff Zucker Anderson Cooper.
Speaker 1: And then you have Jim Acosta, who I mean, who
Speaker 1: was clownish in his partisan ship. And we got all
Speaker 1: these things going on this country. You know, why is
Speaker 1: it that I'm here telling you about the data, talking
Speaker 1: about Sweden, about lockdowns, about all this and these other everything.
Speaker 1: It's the nag is about Trump, Trump bad, Orange Man
Speaker 1: bad Trump bad oh an MSNBC. I mean, it's it's
Speaker 1: the same thing over there. It's not like they're any better.
Speaker 1: Here's a crazy Joe Scarborough. Is he still somehow listed
Speaker 1: as a conservative. I just want to know what the
Speaker 1: I mean. Joe Scarborough is the Jennifer Rubin of conservative
Speaker 1: male TV pundits in that all he does is bash
Speaker 1: the right, but still claims to have some affiliation with
Speaker 1: the right. I guess the guy's just a jerk too.
Speaker 1: People and I know they work with them, say he's
Speaker 1: not a nice not a nice guy. I'm really full
Speaker 1: of himself, which I know another guy who's intellectually deeply
Speaker 1: mediocre and has just played the game right, the corporate game,
Speaker 1: and gotten into a good position for himself financially, I mean,
Speaker 1: not ethically, morally, or in terms of his contribution to society.
Speaker 1: Play four. And the President had just said a couple
Speaker 1: of months earlier that it was just one person coming
Speaker 1: in from China was going to be swept away, or
Speaker 1: it was eleven or fifteen people. Finn. Let me just say, then,
Speaker 1: the twenty fifth Amendment is de facto abolished. And I'm not,
Speaker 1: of course, I'm not. We've got an election coming up.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying that this is what Democrats should push for,
Speaker 1: because it would only distract I'm just saying, like my
Speaker 1: con law professor said about the tenth Amendment, that the
Speaker 1: growth of massive growth of government in effect made void
Speaker 1: for all practical purposes, the tenth Amendment. You can add
Speaker 1: the twenty fifth Amendment to that right now, because this
Speaker 1: president is behaving in a way that is so dangerous
Speaker 1: and extraordinarily irrational in the middle of a pandemic that
Speaker 1: is changing history, that is destroying our economy day by day,
Speaker 1: that's killing people, especially seniors, day by day. That if
Speaker 1: it were ever going to be used, it would be used.
Speaker 1: Now it's not going to be used. So why don't
Speaker 1: we just stop, Why don't we just stop pretending that
Speaker 1: we have a twenty fifth Amendment because we really, for
Speaker 1: all purposes, we don't. No, it's not a good point,
Speaker 1: and they're both just not very bright. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to The bus Essen Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple podcast, at the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you
Speaker 1: get your podcasts. North Korea has been in the news
Speaker 1: a lot lately, and I wanted to break down everything
Speaker 1: that's going on, separate fact from fiction. And to help
Speaker 1: us do that, we are joined by a true expert
Speaker 1: in the field, Bruce Klinger. He's a senior research fellow
Speaker 1: at the Heritage Foundation. He spent twenty years at my
Speaker 1: old my old spot, the CIA, but he's spent a
Speaker 1: lot more time there than I did. Mister Klinger, thanks
Speaker 1: so much for joining us. Well, thanks for having me.
Speaker 1: All right, so let's just start with why is North
Speaker 1: Korea getting all this attention? There was maybe Kim Jong
Speaker 1: ung is dead, Maybe he's really sick. Ohaid, No, he's not.
Speaker 1: What happened and where are we now on that? Well,
Speaker 1: as you point out, there are an awful lot of rumors,
Speaker 1: everything from he's dead, he's brain dead, he's incapacitated from
Speaker 1: a heart attack, a failed heart operation, even from a
Speaker 1: failed to launch that he was observing. At the other end, US,
Speaker 1: South Korea and Chinese officials are saying he's fine, either
Speaker 1: because we see nothing unusual in North Korea, or some
Speaker 1: would say they have information that he's fine. The bottom
Speaker 1: line is, we don't know. When I worked in North
Speaker 1: Korea at CIA, it was the hardest of the hard
Speaker 1: targets in retrospect. Before that, I'd worked the Soviet Union,
Speaker 1: which was an open book compared to North Korea. So
Speaker 1: you know, on the one hand, there's nothing unusual that
Speaker 1: we can see. There's no real hard information on Kim's condition,
Speaker 1: There have been many reports, false reports over the years
Speaker 1: of failing health or death of Kim as well as
Speaker 1: the two predecessors, and then they came out re emerged fine.
Speaker 1: So those of us who have been watching for a
Speaker 1: long time, we tend to be fairly conservative in jumping
Speaker 1: to conclusions. We've been through a lot of these rumors,
Speaker 1: so they may be true. He may be toes up
Speaker 1: on a slab, but it could also be yet another
Speaker 1: instance of false rumors and he just re emerges, either
Speaker 1: after recuperating or he was never in sickness at all.
Speaker 1: And what would be the succession plan if such a
Speaker 1: thing really even is known or exists. There was a
Speaker 1: lot of Internet chatter over the weekend about the possibility
Speaker 1: of his sister taking over, who is kind of a
Speaker 1: known quantity because of the Olympics sometime ago. But what
Speaker 1: would happen if Kim Jong un dropped dead of a
Speaker 1: heart attack tomorrow. Well, again, the answer is, we don't know.
Speaker 1: There's no formal succession plan in the North Korean constitution,
Speaker 1: as there wasn't when Kim's father, Kim Jong ill, died
Speaker 1: in twenty eleven. There may be a plan behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: either standing or an ad hoc in case he was
Speaker 1: going in for a heart procedure, So we're all trying
Speaker 1: to assess. I think up until a couple of years ago,
Speaker 1: the view was that a traditional Confucian society like North
Speaker 1: Korea wouldn't have a woman leader. But in the last
Speaker 1: two years, Kim's sister has come out of the shadows.
Speaker 1: She's gained authority, she's gained stature. She really led the
Speaker 1: delegation to South Korea for the Olympics two years ago,
Speaker 1: even though others nominally were higher ranking, she clearly was
Speaker 1: in charge. So I think right now she has the
Speaker 1: inside track because she's a Kim family member. Others will
Speaker 1: point to an uncle of Kim chong un, but he
Speaker 1: was really exiled for thirty years in Eastern Europe and
Speaker 1: he only came back recently. So I think right now
Speaker 1: it would appear to be the sister. But again we
Speaker 1: don't know, and what's the concern if there was a doubt.
Speaker 1: I mean, there were some people obviously who were celebrating
Speaker 1: this a bit prematurely celebrating and as we now know,
Speaker 1: because who knows what even is going on with Kim
Speaker 1: Jong un, But there is there a great. You know,
Speaker 1: what would it be Would it be a good thing
Speaker 1: from the perspect active of geopolitics and international relations if
Speaker 1: Kim Jong undied? Or is there are there too many
Speaker 1: unknowns that you know, maybe it's a devil you know,
Speaker 1: situation versus whoever could come after him. I mean, what
Speaker 1: how how would we assess that right now? Is it
Speaker 1: an opportunity if he dies? Is it a possible collapse?
Speaker 1: Sort of all of the above. You know, no one
Speaker 1: outside of North Korea is going to shed a tear
Speaker 1: if this brutal dictator, who according to the UN is
Speaker 1: a purveyor of crimes against humanity if he passes away,
Speaker 1: But there will be concerned by the United States as
Speaker 1: well as South Korea and Japan are critical allies about
Speaker 1: uncertainty in succession. There's the fear of an explosion in
Speaker 1: that North Korea may lash out at its neighbors, either
Speaker 1: because of a perceived threat from outside or to create
Speaker 1: a rally round the flag effect for succession, or an
Speaker 1: implosion of regime collapse, regime instability, a power struggles, civil war,
Speaker 1: who's got control of the nuclear weapons? So all of
Speaker 1: those are very real concerns. There's going to be a
Speaker 1: lot of visibility by US and its allies, the military
Speaker 1: and intelligence communities on what's going on. You know that
Speaker 1: said we had the same concerns when the two previous
Speaker 1: leaders passed away and the system worked, and that the
Speaker 1: regime maintained itself and they anointed successor did succeed, even
Speaker 1: though many had predicted they would fail. What do we
Speaker 1: know about And by the way, we're speaking to Bruce Klingner,
Speaker 1: he is a senior research fell at the Heritage Foundation
Speaker 1: twenty years spent before that at the Central Intelligence Agency. Bruce,
Speaker 1: what do we know about how North Korea is handling
Speaker 1: the coronavirus situation? Considering that they're right next door to China.
Speaker 1: China had this terrible outbreak. One of the only countries
Speaker 1: really that has consistent commerce with North Korea is China.
Speaker 1: So do we know? Again, we know it's a black
Speaker 1: box of some degree, But have we seen any indicators
Speaker 1: that they've had this disease spread within their borders? North
Speaker 1: Korea still officially says they've had no cases whatsoever. None
Speaker 1: of us believe that because all of the neighboring countries
Speaker 1: had it. But right after the outbreak in China, they
Speaker 1: imposed some pretty strong containment measures. They cut off really
Speaker 1: contact with the outside world. They canceled flights from Beijing
Speaker 1: and Moscow, they closed the border with China, and they
Speaker 1: even cracked down on state runs smuggling, which had been
Speaker 1: a way of gaining money for the regime to try
Speaker 1: to circumvent UN sanctions. So the border with China is
Speaker 1: still a bit porous, but it has really been cracked
Speaker 1: down on. So there are sources inside North Korea that
Speaker 1: says there have been deaths, There have been cases, but
Speaker 1: we're not seeing real indications of widespread death or disease
Speaker 1: as one might have expected. So perhaps they were able
Speaker 1: to dodge a bullet on COVID and their indications at
Speaker 1: some schools in Pyongyang are starting to reopen. So being
Speaker 1: the hermit kingdom, as it's called in this case might
Speaker 1: have actually been something of an advantage being such an
Speaker 1: isolated place. The isolation may have paid off for them
Speaker 1: in that regard. How is the Trump administration overall at
Speaker 1: this point? How would you assess how they've done in
Speaker 1: dealing with North Korea? Just sort of taking a step back,
Speaker 1: We're going to be heading an election this fall. Trump
Speaker 1: had all this outreach to Kim Jong un. Now he's
Speaker 1: back in the headlines because of what may have been
Speaker 1: some health issues. Again, we don't know, as you've established,
Speaker 1: but has Trump had the right approach which we have
Speaker 1: anything to show for now going at a year four
Speaker 1: of a new tactic or new tactics when it comes
Speaker 1: to North Korea, we really we've made absolutely no progress
Speaker 1: on denucrozation or getting any kind of change in North
Speaker 1: Korean behavior. Recently, North Korea has said they are not
Speaker 1: interested in any working level or even summit level meetings
Speaker 1: with President Trump unless we basically capitulate on our denucrozation policy.
Speaker 1: So you know, I wasn't a supporter of the idea
Speaker 1: of the summit diplomacy. I'm more of a traditionalist and
Speaker 1: the idea of you actually make progress at the working
Speaker 1: level and work up to a summit where you sign
Speaker 1: an agreement. But at least it did put to the
Speaker 1: test the idea that many people had of if only
Speaker 1: the leaders from the two countries could get together, only
Speaker 1: the North Korean leader can make a decision, so therefore
Speaker 1: we'd have a breakthrough. Well, we've tested that hypothesis and
Speaker 1: found it false. So you know. I think there's a
Speaker 1: lot that I have been critical of the Trump administration
Speaker 1: on North Korea, but no administration or president has a
Speaker 1: monopoly on good or bad ideas when it comes to
Speaker 1: North Korea. So what we have to do is have
Speaker 1: a truly maximum pressure policy that we have not had
Speaker 1: that despite the moniker, we've been holding back on unforcing
Speaker 1: our own laws as well as un sanctions. We've been
Speaker 1: curtailing military exercises for two years on the Korean peninsula,
Speaker 1: and right now we're engaged in some very tortuous negotiations
Speaker 1: with South Korea over their compensation for US forces. I
Speaker 1: don't think the US should be demanding exorbit in increases
Speaker 1: a fivefold increase, as the administration is. I think we
Speaker 1: should accept an incremental increase because right now we need
Speaker 1: to be shoulder to shoulder with our allies, not bickering
Speaker 1: over nichols and dimes when we face common threats not
Speaker 1: only from North Korea but also China. Bruce Klingner of
Speaker 1: the Heritage Foundation and formerly of the CIA, Bruce, thank
Speaker 1: you so much for your expertise, sir. We appreciate it. Well.
Speaker 1: Thanks for having me. You're in the freedom hunt. This
Speaker 1: is the Buck Sex and Show podcast. Big tweet out
Speaker 1: from Maria Barto Romo over the weekend, breaking news sources
Speaker 1: tell me General Flynn will be completely exonerated this week.
Speaker 1: It was a total fraud, a setup. More tomorrow. I
Speaker 1: guess that was Yester round Sunday. Oh wow, you mean
Speaker 1: that the primary other than manaport, the primary justification in
Speaker 1: terms of a criminal prosecution that was successful for so
Speaker 1: much of the Russia collusion. Nonsense, right, this is what
Speaker 1: they would point to. Oh, look at General Flynn, convicted
Speaker 1: felon General Flynn. Look at all the criminality that we
Speaker 1: found here. No, you mean you manufactured. It was disgusting
Speaker 1: what they did to General Flynn. Let's just review for
Speaker 1: a moment. Shelby. He's the incoming national security advisor, former
Speaker 1: chief of the Defense Intelligence Agency, had spent thirty years
Speaker 1: working as part of the United States military, serving in uniform.
Speaker 1: He was a decorated veteran, and he was one of
Speaker 1: the early national security allies of the Trump administration, which
Speaker 1: made him hated by the deep state national security establishment
Speaker 1: as we know. And he's coming in during the transition.
Speaker 1: He's the incoming national security advisor, and what do what
Speaker 1: do Sally Yates at DOJ and Comby over at FBI
Speaker 1: and this this whole cabal that we know, what do
Speaker 1: they decided to do? They take leaked criminally leaked information
Speaker 1: by by ignacious over the Washington Post, and they're now
Speaker 1: looking into and I oh, well, I hope Durham. I
Speaker 1: hope the Durham investigation finds who leaked that stuff and
Speaker 1: sends them to prison for a good four or five years.
Speaker 1: That's because that's really that's probably what you get for that.
Speaker 1: Maybe you get three four years in a deal, but
Speaker 1: I mean you're gonna get real prison time for leaking
Speaker 1: ts information to the press like that. And some of
Speaker 1: you would say, well, no, no, no, buck, you should
Speaker 1: get ten Look look at you know, look at you
Speaker 1: know Reality Winner or whatever name you know, you got
Speaker 1: ten years, right, I mean, so you can get some
Speaker 1: real time for leaking uh top secret intercept like that
Speaker 1: to the press. For partisan purpose, they gotta make they
Speaker 1: gotta make a really strong example of that person. Guess
Speaker 1: what's going to be Somebody who liked Obama a lot,
Speaker 1: probably would vote for Biden now or definitely would vote
Speaker 1: for Biden now, and hates Trump. So they might be
Speaker 1: able to find out who this is. I certainly hope
Speaker 1: they do find out who it is, and that would
Speaker 1: that would be a big missing piece of all this.
Speaker 1: But also remember that they used the Logan Act to
Speaker 1: have a sit down conversation with General Flynn and then
Speaker 1: pretended that it wasn't really a friendly conversation to the
Speaker 1: National Security Visor and the FBI and people were telling
Speaker 1: us all the experts you told you, Oh, but he
Speaker 1: should know better that these people were morons. Okay, this
Speaker 1: was as clear as set up as anything could ever be.
Speaker 1: I've told you that all along, those who end listed
Speaker 1: me for years here on the show know that I
Speaker 1: knew exactly what game they were playing with this. They
Speaker 1: got him on a one zero zero one violation. Now
Speaker 1: it turns out there was a side deal that they
Speaker 1: would not disclose where they would withhold charges or that
Speaker 1: they would refrain from charges against his son if he
Speaker 1: pleaded guilty. So what they did is they jammed him up,
Speaker 1: and they made sure that you know, he had no
Speaker 1: chance to take this to trial. If he took it
Speaker 1: the trial, they were going to annihilate him and his
Speaker 1: family members, and for what he'd say, for lying about what.
Speaker 1: He didn't even do anything illegal. So they're gonna get
Speaker 1: him for not lying about criminal conduct, but just misremembering
Speaker 1: a conversation that he has with two FBI guys. Remember
Speaker 1: Andy McCabe lied very much so under oath. But he's
Speaker 1: FBI and he's connected to the deep state folks, and
Speaker 1: so he didn't get charged, no criminal charges. How is
Speaker 1: that possible they got lied under oath, Well, it doesn't count.
Speaker 1: So we see the double standards, just like the double
Speaker 1: standard with cabal. I mean, this is this is the
Speaker 1: way that the left, the deep state, dishonest people always
Speaker 1: have to have malleable standards because that's the only way
Speaker 1: they'll be able to get what they want. Because if
Speaker 1: a standard is applied consistently and universally, then it's it's
Speaker 1: clear that they're going to run on the wrong side
Speaker 1: of it at some point because they're bad people. So
Speaker 1: what do they do. They use standard, They use rules
Speaker 1: against us, and then they have no rules for themselves.
Speaker 1: There's a piece from Sean Davis and the Federalist just
Speaker 1: from a couple days ago. New court documents filed under
Speaker 1: SEAL include significant exculpatory information about Michael Flynn. The new documents,
Speaker 1: which were filed under seal by the Just Department on Friday,
Speaker 1: allegedly include exonerating evidence about Flynn, who pleaded guilty to
Speaker 1: line to federal investigators about conversations with foreign diplomats as
Speaker 1: Trump's top incoming foreign policy advisor and is currently attempting
Speaker 1: to withdraw his plea, as well as evidence of malfeasance
Speaker 1: by the FBI during its investigation of Flynn. According to
Speaker 1: the FBI official who spoke to the Federalist, FBI General
Speaker 1: Counsel Dan Bonte led the charge internally against DJ's disclosure
Speaker 1: of new materials. Bonte, who briefly served as acting Attorney
Speaker 1: General after Trump became president, personally signed off on one
Speaker 1: of the federal spy warrants against former Trump campaign affiliate
Speaker 1: Carter Page. The new documents, which were filed under a
Speaker 1: protective order by DJ on Friday, will reflect poorly on
Speaker 1: the FBI, the official told the Federalist. It is not
Speaker 1: clear when or even if those documents will be unsealed
Speaker 1: and made to the public. Because the documents were foiled
Speaker 1: under sealed, the Federalist has not been able to review
Speaker 1: them independently. Multiple investigative reports issued by the DOJ Inspector
Speaker 1: General revealed myriad instances of corruption by FBI officials throughout
Speaker 1: the multi year investigation of Trump in his former campaign,
Speaker 1: former campaign. My friends, the fix was in from the beginning.
Speaker 1: This was a disgusting, a disgusting miscarriage of justice. They
Speaker 1: knew that Flynn didn't lie, as we know from the
Speaker 1: initial report, the FBI didn't believe that Flynn lied, But
Speaker 1: then they were pushed to amend that for some reason
Speaker 1: to get leverage. Oh, now they got him on this.
Speaker 1: This is the classic FBI maneuver. Just you know, when
Speaker 1: they want to get you on something, they always look
Speaker 1: to get you on a one zero zero one violation,
Speaker 1: and then that becomes the lever they use to get
Speaker 1: everything else they want. So so you think you're in
Speaker 1: a position to fight against something. You think that they've
Speaker 1: got the wrong guy. But guess what, they don't. They
Speaker 1: don't have to prove that their initial suspicion of you
Speaker 1: for criminal conduct was correct. All they have to do
Speaker 1: is get you in a one zero zero one lying
Speaker 1: to FBI and now you're facing five years. Now you'll
Speaker 1: do whatever they say, You'll please, You'll you'll rat on
Speaker 1: other people. You know, you'll you won't just to borrow
Speaker 1: from Who was it that was saying this all the time,
Speaker 1: Alan Dershowitz up at Harvard about all this stuff. He
Speaker 1: said that they won't just sing, they'll compose, meaning they
Speaker 1: won't just tell tales. They'll make them up as they
Speaker 1: go along about what, you know, whatever they think that
Speaker 1: the officials want to hear. So, you know, here we go,
Speaker 1: and the Federalists, just an hour ago published Robert Muller's
Speaker 1: case against Michael Flynn is about to implode. New facts
Speaker 1: in the Michael Flinn investigation, calling a question the voluntariness
Speaker 1: of Flynn's plea Judge Sullivan should dismiss the charges to
Speaker 1: send a clear message outrageous prosecutorial coercion will not be tolerated.
Speaker 1: My friends, this needs, this needs to happen. We need
Speaker 1: justice here. I've been saying all along that General Flynn
Speaker 1: should be I've said it on Twitter. I've been very
Speaker 1: open that he should be pardoned, that presidents should pardon him.
Speaker 1: In a sense. I guess now I might end up
Speaker 1: being happy I did not get my request because he
Speaker 1: may be not just pardoned, but he may be exonerated,
Speaker 1: meaning that they vacate his plea, and the judge vacates
Speaker 1: his plea and says, you know, we are sorry and
Speaker 1: sends him on his way because this is appalling his team.
Speaker 1: The legal team is trying to withdraw the guilty plea
Speaker 1: right now. The more they find out about this, I mean,
Speaker 1: they keep trying to hide the information. The more information
Speaker 1: that comes out, the more clear it is that they
Speaker 1: railroaded this guy. They basically made a a crime, made
Speaker 1: him plead to it, or also going to destroy him
Speaker 1: and his son, and now they're trying to hide what
Speaker 1: they did. You know why they did all this because
Speaker 1: he was tied to Trump? I mean because the deep
Speaker 1: state didn't like that somebody else came along and was
Speaker 1: in power who wasn't one of theirs. Thanks for listening
Speaker 1: to The Bus Sesson Show podcast. Remember to subscribe on
Speaker 1: Apple Podcast, the iHeart Radio app, or wherever you get
Speaker 1: your podcasts. I'm gonna get you some roll call. I
Speaker 1: want to check in with producer Mark Over in the
Speaker 1: Penalty Box. My friend, how was your weekend great? How
Speaker 1: was yours? It was all right? Would you watch We
Speaker 1: started a new show called Silicon Valley Valley on HBO.
Speaker 1: I don't know if you've ever watched it. Amazing show. Yeah,
Speaker 1: great show, great show. Yeah, I've had a feeling you
Speaker 1: guys would both like that one. That's a great one. Yeah,
Speaker 1: we're really enjoying it when like season three, I think
Speaker 1: it's a quick show, only twenty five minutes or so
Speaker 1: an episode. Yes, you can burn through episodes real fast.
Speaker 1: But it's good. And you know, people that I know
Speaker 1: who are in that that Silicon Valley world, I mean
Speaker 1: the real thing, say that there's a lot of a
Speaker 1: lot of truth in that show, that a lot of
Speaker 1: the silly stuff is really based on real stuff, and
Speaker 1: it's it's pretty amazing. Yeah, it's very clever. Well, I'm glad, man,
Speaker 1: I'm glad you enjoyed that. I saw a show called,
Speaker 1: I mean a movie called Extraction. I also watched a
Speaker 1: bit of The Crown with the Snow Princess. We had
Speaker 1: a very nice time. The Crown is great, by the way.
Speaker 1: I didn't think I would like it, a fantastic show.
Speaker 1: But I saw this movie Extraction. I watched this one
Speaker 1: solo while the Snow Princess was doing other things. The
Speaker 1: movie Extraction is I've never seen a movie with so
Speaker 1: little plot and so little dialogue and so many people
Speaker 1: getting shot, it's like nothing else. I mean, it's at
Speaker 1: least the movie Commando. All the violence kind of comes
Speaker 1: at the end. But Schwarzenegger's Commando, which if you haven't seen,
Speaker 1: is a great old action flick. It's all building to
Speaker 1: just one long, continuous shootout at the end where he
Speaker 1: just keeps switching weapons and it's ridiculous and it's amazing,
Speaker 1: and it's a great, great movie. They'dolf some steam, Bennett.
Speaker 1: It's a great movie. This movie. There's just a lot
Speaker 1: of shooting pretty much the whole time, and it's just
Speaker 1: one guy who kills so many people that he makes
Speaker 1: John Wick look like a pacifist. It's the guy who
Speaker 1: plays Thor in the Avengers movies. Yeah, Chris Hemsworth. Yeah,
Speaker 1: he's just running around lighting up dudes all over the place.
Speaker 1: I've never seen so many people get shot in a movie,
Speaker 1: I think by one person. It's just I've never seen
Speaker 1: anything like it. It's pretty astonishing. Was it entertaining? Yes?
Speaker 1: Could I write a better script in ten minutes? Probably?
Speaker 1: So there's that anyway, That was Yeah, I know, I'm
Speaker 1: just telling I look it's a it's a review, not
Speaker 1: a recommendation. I'm sure you know. This week, I'm very
Speaker 1: excited because I have I have the Last Kingdom to
Speaker 1: get to. I'm Utred's son of Ughtred. It's gonna be amazing.
Speaker 1: I'm very pleased about that. So the Last Kingdom is
Speaker 1: a great show. And I'm gonna be watching the Last Kingdom,
Speaker 1: which will be a lot of fun. All Right, here
Speaker 1: we go, t J. It's buck. Today here in Iowa,
Speaker 1: Governor Kim Reynolds is announcing her plan to reopen the state.
Speaker 1: We never had a shelter in place amongst those plans.
Speaker 1: It's already even stated that farmers markets will be allowed
Speaker 1: to reopen, but food vendors only, and people are being
Speaker 1: encouraged to mask up and only send one family member
Speaker 1: with no kids. I can't help but notice some of
Speaker 1: my more left leaning colleague acquaintances are taking issue at this. However,
Speaker 1: I'm sure these same people go to an indoor boxtore
Speaker 1: grocer to get their groceries weekly or bi weekly. But
Speaker 1: god forbid, we have an open air market. We can
Speaker 1: get our food from our small business neighbors without being
Speaker 1: confined to the eight foot wide grocery store aisles. I
Speaker 1: can't decide if those people just haven't thought this through
Speaker 1: or if they just would rather not see a GOP
Speaker 1: governor be successful in reopening the state. Yeah, I think.
Speaker 1: I think that first of all, outdoor markets are probably
Speaker 1: safer than indoor markets. We all know that, and I
Speaker 1: do believe that there was a surge. I know they
Speaker 1: were outdoor hospitals set up during the Spanish flu pandemic,
Speaker 1: but I think they also started to move a lot
Speaker 1: of things outdoors as much as possible because just fresh air, sunlight,
Speaker 1: as we know, these are good things. These things kill
Speaker 1: the virus. As for people who don't want there to
Speaker 1: be success on this, yeah, we're going to see some
Speaker 1: of that. I wish it was not the case, but
Speaker 1: there are people that would rather be right than have
Speaker 1: us return to a greater degree of normalcy. There are
Speaker 1: people that would prefer to be correct than to have
Speaker 1: things go better for all of us. Eric, Hey Buck,
Speaker 1: I've been listening to your podcast It's back when you
Speaker 1: were on the Blaze. Well, thank you, Eric. You've been
Speaker 1: a part of my routine daily at work. I work
Speaker 1: as a lead custody and so luckily I'm still working.
Speaker 1: It seems to me that people are happy to stay
Speaker 1: home and collect money from the government, especially since most
Speaker 1: people are making more on unemployment. Why can't people work
Speaker 1: with masks like I'm forced to every day? I'm starting
Speaker 1: to feel like there's something going on behind the scenes.
Speaker 1: I'm not a big conspiracy theory kind of guy. People
Speaker 1: really hate Trump though, and I'm starting to think deep
Speaker 1: state democrats and the media might be up something. Eric. Eric,
Speaker 1: first of all, thank you for continuing to do what
Speaker 1: you do and making sure that you know if places
Speaker 1: are wherever it is you're working as a custodian, that
Speaker 1: it's clean and sanitary, and that really is these days
Speaker 1: more important than ever. And just that you're showing up
Speaker 1: and continue to be productive. You deserve aig a big
Speaker 1: high five for that. And as for why can't other
Speaker 1: folks work with masks on, I think that's what we're
Speaker 1: heading for. I think there will be more people that
Speaker 1: are working with masks, so that's going to become more normal.
Speaker 1: That's going to become an expectation that we all have
Speaker 1: in our offices and our jobs. I think you might
Speaker 1: have an increase in social distancing in the office too,
Speaker 1: meaning that desks will have to be further apart. And
Speaker 1: I remember when I worked in the CIA, we were
Speaker 1: in a like a shared cubical situation and it just
Speaker 1: felt like we were all on top of each other.
Speaker 1: I mean we were so it was just so tight
Speaker 1: in there. And that was I'm not talking about overseas,
Speaker 1: where you expect if you're in a war zone, you're
Speaker 1: going to be in tight quarters. I mean here Stateside.
Speaker 1: So I think they're gonna have a shift away from
Speaker 1: all of that. And yeah, mask wearing is going to
Speaker 1: become very m on the office, which I mean a
Speaker 1: lot of masks are not comfortable. I think people forget this.
Speaker 1: If you put on one of those N ninety five
Speaker 1: respirator masks, for example, you find that they're really tight
Speaker 1: on your face. They're not very not fun to have on.
Speaker 1: So yeah, man, I think that's where we're heading. And Eric,
Speaker 1: thank you so much for writing in and thank you
Speaker 1: for listening. Since I was on the Blaze, man, remember
Speaker 1: that's going back now. I haven't been on the Blaze
Speaker 1: in four years. Robert Buck, I listen you on podcast.
Speaker 1: This is Rob from VA. Wanted to ask why Iraq
Speaker 1: was such a bad foreign policy decision looking back at
Speaker 1: nine to eleven and not knowing what was going to
Speaker 1: happen next, since Saddam was a bad guy and Iram
Speaker 1: was even worse. We go into Afghanistan, we liberated Rock
Speaker 1: and wow, looks like Iran is in the middle. Do
Speaker 1: you think this could have been a factor in going
Speaker 1: into a rock It didn't work out that we wanted.
Speaker 1: In the media and the Democrats are at fault. I'm
Speaker 1: still in uniform. And you stay on the radio. First
Speaker 1: heard you on the Rush Show. Stay safe, well, Robert.
Speaker 1: I appreciate you listening to me, feeling for the great
Speaker 1: man himself, mister Rush Limbaugh, the greatest living radio host.
Speaker 1: And as for why Iraq is a bad decision, I
Speaker 1: think you just look at the consequences of this and
Speaker 1: we what we gained versus what we lost in that
Speaker 1: whole process. So I think the moment you do that,
Speaker 1: you start to see that there was a there was
Speaker 1: a cost benefit analysis that would go in a very
Speaker 1: different direction. Now that we actually have the inputs, the factors,
Speaker 1: the numbers, we would we would have a very different
Speaker 1: approach to it. Yeah, I think that they believed at
Speaker 1: the time, and I remember this and I remember I
Speaker 1: worked in the Iraq Office of the CIA, so I
Speaker 1: could also go back and look at a lot of
Speaker 1: the historical documents from that office as I did, and
Speaker 1: I had access to pretty much every piece of classified
Speaker 1: information that the CIA is a rock office, had, So
Speaker 1: with that, I mean, I can just tell you that
Speaker 1: the expectations for what we're going to happen there in
Speaker 1: that country were very different from the outcome. There really
Speaker 1: was a belief and this is this is well known,
Speaker 1: this is all across the media as well, and people
Speaker 1: understand this, but there really was a belief throughout government,
Speaker 1: or at least in a lot of places within the government,
Speaker 1: that we're making decisions that we would come along and
Speaker 1: the Iraqis would be happy that he was gone, and
Speaker 1: then which this would serve as a model. This was
Speaker 1: the pitch that would serve as a model for other
Speaker 1: Middle Eastern states, and it just turned out to not
Speaker 1: be the case that they would take to this the
Speaker 1: way that we thought that they perhaps would. It was
Speaker 1: not the case that this led to a series of
Speaker 1: flowering democracies throughout the Middle East. And when you look
Speaker 1: at it in that context, and we also to keep
Speaker 1: fighting the war on terror and Afghanistan is still ongoing
Speaker 1: now and we still have troops in Iraq. You look
Speaker 1: at these decisions, I just think it's very hard in
Speaker 1: retrospect to think that these were the thing that that decision,
Speaker 1: in particular to go into Iraq, knowing what we know now,
Speaker 1: I think it's clear it was a bad idea. If
Speaker 1: we were in the same circumstances and you're asked using
Speaker 1: the same data as you were at that point in time,
Speaker 1: would you would you end up with the same result.
Speaker 1: That's a more complicated question. That's a more difficult thing
Speaker 1: for us to figure out. So I leave the two.
Speaker 1: Thank you for your service, Robert, and thanks so much
Speaker 1: for listening to the show. Kelly, I just heard part
Speaker 1: of the conversation about parents homeschooling. I may have misunderstood,
Speaker 1: but my opinion about parents homeschooling, and I see it
Speaker 1: with a lot of my stressed out friends with their homeschooling.
Speaker 1: They don't have the education to help with math, especially
Speaker 1: among other subjects. Students aren't getting the benefits of actually teachers.
Speaker 1: It's not the same and kids need to be back
Speaker 1: to school eventually when it's safe. Hey, Kelly, I'm not
Speaker 1: opposed to kids going back to school. I just think
Speaker 1: that the effort to malign homeschooling. And my friend Enis Felcher,
Speaker 1: who joined us last week, made this pretty clear, I
Speaker 1: think when she said, look, this is not homeschooling. This
Speaker 1: is shelter in place with your kids and try to
Speaker 1: teach them some stuff. Actual homeschoolers, of which there are
Speaker 1: a couple of million in the country that the teachers
Speaker 1: set up before I mean sorry, the parents set up
Speaker 1: beforehand to be better teachers, to make sure they know
Speaker 1: what the curriculum is, that make sure they understand what
Speaker 1: they're going to be teaching ahead of time, and they're
Speaker 1: also setting up activities all kinds of other things. So
Speaker 1: this is ad hoc. This is, you know, impromptu homeschooling,
Speaker 1: which is not the way it's normally done. And as
Speaker 1: for kids going back to school, sure, and look, there
Speaker 1: are a lot there are a lot of very good
Speaker 1: public schools in the country. We all know that, but
Speaker 1: there are a lot of bad ones. And people should
Speaker 1: have choices about what they what their children learn and
Speaker 1: where they go to school. And the one size fits all,
Speaker 1: do what we say or else attitude from the state
Speaker 1: about public schools is troubling, especially when you see what
Speaker 1: a massive fiscal burden the teachers. It's really the teachers unions,
Speaker 1: but you know the education budgets, which is largely a
Speaker 1: slush fund to pay adults in a lot of these places.
Speaker 1: I'm not saying the teachers make a lot of money,
Speaker 1: but there are a lot of administrators and union officials
Speaker 1: and people like that that are also making money that
Speaker 1: have nothing to do with teachers. I think if you
Speaker 1: if you check the statistics, you'd see that over the
Speaker 1: last of twenty years, there has been a seven x
Speaker 1: increase in our public school system of non teaching staff,
Speaker 1: so all kinds of administrators and special assistants and you know,
Speaker 1: all this other stuff. So that's why it's become a
Speaker 1: huge jobs program. A lot of people have these jobs
Speaker 1: that they really can't get fired from. They've got very
Speaker 1: cushy benefits, not a huge salary, but some salaries for
Speaker 1: teaching bureaucrats, not for teachers. It's actually quite high. You know,
Speaker 1: if you're the superintendent of schools and some districts, you're
Speaker 1: you're making a lot of money. Actually you're doing very well.
Speaker 1: You're in the freedom hunt. This is the Buck Sex
Speaker 1: and Show podcast. Okay more roll call here, Chris writes
Speaker 1: in Buck Love your podcast. We listen to it here
Speaker 1: at the Detective's office every morning to become a morning
Speaker 1: staple with our standard black Rifle coffee, even if it
Speaker 1: is a little bit behind because I listened it from
Speaker 1: the day before. Help us out here. We have a
Speaker 1: running bet regarding Producer Mark. Is he for real or
Speaker 1: is he just doing a stick? There's no way a
Speaker 1: twenty seven year old millennial could really be as as
Speaker 1: stuffy and weary of the world as this guy. A
Speaker 1: week's worth of lunches is on the line, and these
Speaker 1: guys don't order off the kid's menu. She'll tie Producer Mark.
Speaker 1: I will let you answer this one. I read this email.
Speaker 1: What do you mean I'm stuffy and out of touch
Speaker 1: with the world. I don't get it or weary of
Speaker 1: the world. I think they're just asking is this the son?
Speaker 1: I guess I have to give the real answer here.
Speaker 1: I wanted to give you a first crack. If you
Speaker 1: guys are asking if Producer Mark that you hear is
Speaker 1: like the way, is actually Producer Mark or if he's
Speaker 1: doing some the answers Yes, that's you're hearing Producer Mark.
Speaker 1: And this is how he is. Right, My life is
Speaker 1: a stick book. They're getting pure, unadulterated producer Mark is
Speaker 1: all we're trying to get to. Here. You're getting the
Speaker 1: real deal, folks. No additives, no preservatives, right Mark. Yes,
Speaker 1: I'm organic all the way, Organic Mark all the way.
Speaker 1: It's all you need, folks. So there you go. So
Speaker 1: I guess someone's buying somebody some lunches. Here, Producer Mark,
Speaker 1: you're getting the real deal every day. I hope you're
Speaker 1: all team Producer Mark, and half of you are mocking me.
Speaker 1: I'm not really sure how this is working. Well, No,
Speaker 1: I think I think they're all t Mark. They just
Speaker 1: want to know if if Mark is a character or
Speaker 1: if Mark is really Mark. And I'm here to say no,
Speaker 1: Mark is really Mark. Guys, this is this is producer Mark.
Speaker 1: You're getting him the real deal. Uh. And and just
Speaker 1: you know, when I show up, you know, after doing
Speaker 1: five hours or radio many days a week, you know,
Speaker 1: the first thing I off and here from producer Mark
Speaker 1: is like, oh, you showed up for work today, Because
Speaker 1: I'm usually a little bit late. So I kind of
Speaker 1: learned it. But none nonetheless, Nonetheless, that's where we are.
Speaker 1: As I've said before, Buck is the only human being
Speaker 1: who can be late to his own living room. It's
Speaker 1: pretty there's there's like twenty steps between there on the couch,
Speaker 1: so twenty David, Hey Buck, I've noticed nobody's talking about
Speaker 1: cryptocurrency anymore. I saw Bitcoin is trading at seventy five hundred.
Speaker 1: The dio is bobbing up and down, but pretty healthy
Speaker 1: considering the circumstances. I'm curious about your thoughts on why
Speaker 1: cry crypto isn't moving higher with all the uncertainty that exists.
Speaker 1: Keep up the great work. Don't want producer Mark beat
Speaker 1: you up too much. David. I think that's a very
Speaker 1: good question about crypto, because you would think that given
Speaker 1: all the money printing going on, as we know, it's
Speaker 1: digits on a screen, it's not really printing printing money.
Speaker 1: But as we as that's happening, and you have all
Speaker 1: of this sense of you know, where are you gonna
Speaker 1: where you're gonna have a store of value that's worthwhile,
Speaker 1: you have not seen if crypto doesn't have a spike.
Speaker 1: Now it feels like when is it ever gonna have
Speaker 1: a spike? Which makes me feel like it really was
Speaker 1: all Look, they were creating all these different cryptos, there
Speaker 1: was a scammy nature to some of it. For sure,
Speaker 1: blockchain technology is certainly worthwhile and interesting. It might have
Speaker 1: some very very important uses as a technology in the future.
Speaker 1: But crypto, as you know, I had friends are saying, Oh,
Speaker 1: crypto's gonna go to one hundred thousand, you know a bitcoin.
Speaker 1: Each bitcoin were worth one hundred thousand dollars. I'm gonna
Speaker 1: be super rich. I'm gonna retire on this. I don't.
Speaker 1: I don't. I mean, look, I'm not giving you advice
Speaker 1: one or the other. That's not what I do. But
Speaker 1: it seems pretty dubious to me right now. Producer Mark,
Speaker 1: did you ever buy any crypto? No, I didn't have
Speaker 1: money back then. Yeah, I mean yeah, you know that's
Speaker 1: the crypto thing really felt a little bit like people
Speaker 1: were trying to just play in a craps game or something,
Speaker 1: or you know, it's just gambling for a lot of
Speaker 1: folks because no one really understands it, and they just
Speaker 1: saw it going up and they figured I want to
Speaker 1: get in on this. But David, it's a great question.
Speaker 1: I have not read a single good answer as to
Speaker 1: why if cryptos not having a big move up now,
Speaker 1: when is it ever going to have a big move
Speaker 1: up other than what we saw, which was just a bubble,
Speaker 1: just like the tulip craze in the Netherlands. It just
Speaker 1: was a bubble where people were buying crypto. It's going
Speaker 1: up some more people buy it because they want to
Speaker 1: get in on it, you know, classic Herd bubble mentality.
Speaker 1: Mark writes in Buck on Friday's podcast. You mention you
Speaker 1: thought the debates would be better without an audience, but
Speaker 1: I disagree. You just know Trump will pull tera read
Speaker 1: front and center in the audience just to rattle Joe,
Speaker 1: and it will be fantastic shields high well, Mark, you know,
Speaker 1: to each his own on this one. You can certainly
Speaker 1: prefer having an audience. I think Trump is going to
Speaker 1: bring up the allegations against Joe Biden, and Biden's gonna
Speaker 1: bring up allegations against Trump, So that's that's something else
Speaker 1: that we can expect. But yeah, I just don't like
Speaker 1: the audience making all that noise and kind of getting
Speaker 1: in the way and being annoying. So I prefer without.
Speaker 1: But you if you prefer with, then that's fine. You know,
Speaker 1: tomato tomato. Some people like chocolate ice cream like me.
Speaker 1: Some people like strawberry. You know who love strawberry ice
Speaker 1: cream by their producer mark? My parents? Yeah, yeah, I
Speaker 1: can't believe it now. I go over there and they're like, yeah,
Speaker 1: you know, we've got some ice cream in the fridge.
Speaker 1: I'm like, what do you have. They're like, well, there's
Speaker 1: the coin you don't like, and then there's a bunch
Speaker 1: of other things, but we gotta check. Makes me sad.
Speaker 1: Haven't you been buying their groceries? Do you like revolt
Speaker 1: and refuse to buy them strawberry? No, I'll get them
Speaker 1: whatever ice cream they want. I'm a good son. Is
Speaker 1: nice of you even though they're wrong. I'm good like that. Yeah, No,
Speaker 1: strawberries gross. We all know it. But it's all righty
Speaker 1: to each his on them. My mom and dad likes
Speaker 1: strawberry ice cream. They're allowed to like strawberry ice cream.
Speaker 1: But they're still wrong. But I love them, chad Buck.
Speaker 1: The people are claiming to believe the president really meant
Speaker 1: to cure COVID. We need to inject the disinfect and
Speaker 1: are the same people that require the warning of hot
Speaker 1: liquid on the side of their coffee cups. The old
Speaker 1: adage there is no dumb question goes out the window.
Speaker 1: With today's media, they prove that wrong every day. Keep
Speaker 1: up the good workshields high. Chad agreed. By the way,
Speaker 1: everyone check out bucksexton dot com. We've got stories going
Speaker 1: up today, we have YouTube clips going up. We've got
Speaker 1: all kinds of fun stuff. Make sure you bookmarket bucksexton
Speaker 1: dot com and that's that's where the one stop shop
Speaker 1: for all things bucktastic. And we'll be back tomorrow, same time,
Speaker 1: same place. Shield tie